Talk:Beamship Spectrogram Comparison: Difference between revisions
Comment provided by Zameen - via ArticleComments extension |
Radarsweep47 (talk | contribs) Comment provided by Radarsweep47 - via ArticleComments extension |
||
Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
--[[User:Zameen|Zameen]] 05:24, 30 August 2011 (BST) | --[[User:Zameen|Zameen]] 05:24, 30 August 2011 (BST) | ||
</div> | |||
== Radarsweep47 said ... == | |||
<div class='commentBlock'> | |||
If we could download the entire 48 min original recorded tapes of the sound and then digitize them directly into this or any other computer and then subject it to analysis with a program like Oscillometer (from Russia), or Spectrumview (written by a U.S. ham), we might be able to learn quite a bit. I believe that an excellent program to use would be Oscillometer but it runs $500. Out of reach for us here at Spectronix right now but it is being worked on. | |||
--[[User:Radarsweep47|Radarsweep47]] 03:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
</div> | </div> |
Revision as of 03:12, 23 February 2012
Comments on Beamship Spectrogram Comparison <comments />
Alive said ...
Hawaiian said ...
Silly people trying to duplicate the sounds of a beamship which is very complex, yet distinctly unique that "rotates" with other equally unique frequencies, besides Billy recorded it MORE than 35 years ago!
Such electronic equipment did not exist and still cannot produce the exact sound frequencies. Phil Langdon should be commended in his vain attempt; however the resonant frequency of a nylon fishing line is not compatible to a metal beamship model. Just the sheer length of the line will not produce the high frequencies of a guitar string, which is under severe tension, if applied to his long fishing line will certainly snap it off! He also FAILS to mention that the reason why a guitar string resonates is because the nylon string is SURROUNDED by brass wound wire!
Maybe he should put better use of that fishing line and floss his teeth more often!
--Hawaiian 18:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Kyle1212 said ...
Thanks for doing this, James. I have recently been exchanging messages with Phil pointing out his flaws with his supposed debunking, which never acknowledges with both his photos and sounds.
Salome
--Kyle1212 01:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Zameen said ...
Agreed on all points
--Zameen 03:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Jamesm said ...
Kyle, you're welcome. Feel free to blog it or post an article here and link it from the Articles by others page.
--Jamesm 13:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Kyle1212 said ...
I will be doing both, James. I just realized an error in my previous posting. I meant to say "which he never acknowledges. :)
--Kyle1212 04:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Zameen said ...
By trade I am a sound engineer. And I have to measure frequencies through sound system's as a general daily practice. Many of us have looked at a stereo system with an equalizer. equalizers show up on different system models with 3 eq's, some come with 5eq's and even 7. they represent frequency ranges. in the sound world its expanded a bit to 31 discreet separate frequencies. which I am willing to bet that this is what the original sound engineer were also analyzing. in the original beamship recording, you can clearly here all of the outside ambient environmental noise. this in it's self represents a credible foundation for calculating a decibel range of over 110db or more. I have looked at both of these videos in the past and came to similar conclusions. In a way it could be looked at like the crepuscular rays of semjase's ship that can only be viewed from a specific distance.
--Zameen 05:24, 30 August 2011 (BST)
Radarsweep47 said ...
If we could download the entire 48 min original recorded tapes of the sound and then digitize them directly into this or any other computer and then subject it to analysis with a program like Oscillometer (from Russia), or Spectrumview (written by a U.S. ham), we might be able to learn quite a bit. I believe that an excellent program to use would be Oscillometer but it runs $500. Out of reach for us here at Spectronix right now but it is being worked on.
--Radarsweep47 03:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Duplicating something does not make the genuine thing loses its charm. Duplication is a flattery.
---- M -- 17:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)