Originally posted by Lythium
Originally posted by tZykaar
No, televisions don't necissarily give off a "hum". There is too much noise in the film to state that it isn't huming as it is. There is noise
throughout the video. There is no question it is taped with the onboard camera microphone. There is no boom mic. If there were it would have sounded
alot less distant and the reverb would not have been as perceivable. There are no "small waves between waves". I'm an audio engineer, you might be
able to slick that by most people, but generally broadcast television is pretty high quality when it comes to recordings. Now it's very obvious that
there is indeed a difference in the quality and intonations of the voice overheard and the mans voice. And you said "A TVs audio does not
reverberate just like an actual voice." That's exactly what I'm talking about. It does *not* sound like it is coming from a man in the room. It
*does* sound like it's coming from a television in the room, broadcasting who knows what. I am not going to speculate on that. But I am absolutely
positive that the sound source is not a living human in the same room as the other men displayed there. You are not likely to get much data from the
video that would allow you to reconstruct what was said from the television. There's far too much noise and quantization on the video to allow for
that. It is far easier to pick out vowel sounds than the constinants. So reconstructing the constinants might be more guess work than anything unless
you can determin exactly what everything else in the room is. The frequencies overlap.
I'm happy for you that your an audio engineer. That aside-my "waves between waves" comment was regarding a waveform annalysis. If someones voice
is recorded then run through a waveform it would appear in waves. If the voice was amplified through an object like a TV then recorded there is a
background humm and if you ran that through a waveform and compared it the first sample you would see "waves within waves". eg where the voice
drops out and the humm is present. In the first clip you would see the waveform drop to the 0 point whereas with the second clip it would remain at
the frequency of the electircal humm given off by the speakers. And while you may not be able to always pick up this humm due to other sounds it is
infact always there and always produced.
No. This sound you describe is not "infact" always there and always produced. I know sound are just waves of air. As for the waveform dropping to
the "0 point" (I assume you are talking about db level), that is likely due to the poor ecoding of the video, which is also why you see the video
breakup. There is no way any recording in that room would *ever* reach 0 db, unless it's digital silence which means there was a cutout of the actual
recording. The best sound studios in existance don't reach 0 db.
Regarding the use of a boom-while they probably didn't use a high quality boom you see in professional broadcast they most certainly did not
use the on camera mics. There are several facts that prove this. First of all there were two cameras used with edited material switching between
both cameras throughout the video and very frequently during the beheading phase. If they had used the on camera mics then-
Yes, they most certainly did use the on camera mics. You can hear the camera movement when it's moved around and the sound is proportionaly distorted
when the camera is moved.
1. there would be a change in loudness and quality of the sound as they switched between cameras- seeing as the cameras are at different
locations in respect to the sources of sound they would have individual characteristics-thats why major productions use one mice and several
That's not true at all. Most "major productions" (I assume you're talking about film productions) use just one mic on set and then they tend to
overdub or retake it in a studio later. And in any other production generally when switching from one video source to another, you don't switch your
audio source, you keep the audio from one camera.
2. The audio clip, when tested properly, would show the splicing and cuts between the two mics as well as the individual characteristics
mentioned above-this audio clip was taken from only one mic.
Then it is entirely possible they are switch from one on camera mic to another, but I don't see any such cuts. Nor do I see the reason why anyone
would ever splice up audio like that for something like this. It would be a silly waste of time. It's fairly obvious that they are just using the
cameras mic and when they switch camera angles they're still using the cameras onboard mic forwhichever shot it is.
3. Anytime video is shot with an on cam mic you can hear the movements of the operator-everything from their hand sliding on the plastic or any
sound made close to the mic-none of this is heard and while during the speach part the camera might have been on a tripod both cameras are moved
around quite a bit during the beheading.
Of course you can hear the movements of the operator, which is why it's very obviously the onboard microphone. It's also very obvious it's on a
tripod for a good portion of the video as well. There *would* have been movement otherwise. Of course, I suppose you could suggest that the terrorists
have imported some steady-cams to raise the production values of their beheading video.
Now while they may not have had a boom stick they deffinitely had a seprate mic-possibly handheld.
No. They most certainly did *not* have a seperate mic. Nor would it have been handheld. Handheld mics simply do not have that kind of range.
You said "I am absolutely positive that the sound source is not a living human in the same room as the other men displayed there." yet you
make no referrence of how you are so sure of that- you only state that you believe it was from a TV. A base spectral analysis tells you that they are
from a human being in the same room as does a waveform. If it was a recording from a TV both waveform and a spectrogram would show that. Hence my
"wave between waves" statement.
I feel safe in saying that because sound analysis is far more an art than a science because of the sheer complexity of the nature of sound
convulution. Which is why the CIA can rarely say 100% for sure if it's bin ladens voice on whichever tape he releases. Now, since you bring up this
whole idea that your supposedly scientific analysis is a superior process. I would like to see you back that up. Tell me exactly how a "base spectral
analysis" tells you that there is a human in the same room. I would *love* to hear this.
You also state that the frequencies overlap. This is true during the beheading as their is a struggle and shouting and several sources of
sound. However, during the segment in question there is only the sound of the voice in question and seein as there is no humm from a TV set then
there are no frequencies to overlap with. There is no noise to interfere other than regular background noise heard on every recording ever
No, again. Frequencies overlap in all sound. It happens throughout the video. It happens everywhere all the time. I can talk and record it then record
four other things. It is impossible for you to seperate my voice (or say, the noise you think comes from every television) from the other 4 things
recorded unless you had an exact copy of the recording used for those other 4 things. And the whole point about the interference noise is that the
"background noise" you hear is likely to include a television set. Now not every television set sounds the same. Not every program produced on
television sounds the same. There are going to be varying degrees of levels on there, but generally speaking if a television is going to make noise
it's going to be a very high frequency, around in the 15k range, which is highly distorted due to the compression.
As far as reconstructing what was said it is not a problem-again the segment in question is quiet and clear, there are no other sounds than the
voice and as i said in my original post the frequency range of the segment in question falls in range with the rest of the voices on the tape again
this is not the case with sounds reproduced from a TV, stereo, megaphone etc. Which I might add was a point you dutifully ignored in your reply.
No it is true with other voices that are reproduced. All voices fall in the same range. There is no special TV range for the human voice. It's all
going to fall in the same way. If anything there is likely to be LESS high frequencies and low frequencies coming from a TV recorded voice due to the
processing that happens at the sound stage. And if it is a news report as it sounds as tho it might be, it's most certainly highly processed.
Also, if it was a TV why didn't we hear it at any of the other "quiet" points in the video? We didn't hear them turn it on. Ever record
the sound of a TV being turned on and run it through a waveform? It leaves a very distinct pattern-not from the pushing of a button but from the
electrical discharge of the power as it kicks on as well as a small high frequency "squeal" as power is sent to the speakers. Nothing was present
in the slience.
I don't know if you've ever heard of a volume knob or if you noticed that there seemed to be a slight time shift and position change from the point
where you can't hear the TV very well to where you can. Now. To get a few things straight here. Sound *is* a waveform. You don't run sound
*through* a waveform. There is not always this "hum" or "squeal". It depends on the TV and it certainly isn't loud enough to compete with the
background noise which is quite high nor the reverberation of the voices, which is also quite high.
1] There was no crappy "boom mic"
2] There was no handheld mic
3] These sounds were clearly taken directly from the cameras onboard mic.
4] There was no US military officer trading jokes or whatever just off camera.
5] You people are hearing what you want to hear in this video not what's really there.
It's a bit like reading your average persons take on lyrics for a song. Generally, most people can't pick out all the words perfectly. And thats
when people are *trying* to make the voice understandable and at the forefront with as much in the mix as possible popping out all recorded with the
highest standards of quality. Now, throw the voice in the back to the side coming out of a speaker on a TV and at several orders of magnitude quieter.
Then stick it in a room with lot's of reverberation and put gun toting idiots spouting quotes out of context from their Koran shuffling around while
at least a couple people are shuffling around in the background as well. All of this produces a very high noise floor. It's not something that a
television is likely to break out of. Who knows what these people were watching. I personally think it's a news cast judging by the pitch of the
voices, but it could just as easily be a fishing show or dr phil. Let's try a diagram.
Your average vocal note looks alot like this:
The higher being the higher frequencies. As you can see at the begining with the constinant it is simply noise. Make the sound "ch" or "v" or
"ssss" or whatever. It's not a tone, it's a noise. This noises hits the whole spectrum like a cymbal hit. Then it tapers off into the tone and
pitch of the note and it's harmonics, which is extremely thin, but very distinct and east to pick out because it peaks up much higher amongst the
other intonations of the voice. So it will be very easy for you to pick up any vowels. It will *not* be easy at all to pick out any constinants,
therefore you are left *guessing* what is being said because the entire meaning becomes corrupted when you are filling in the blanks with what you
want to hear with constinants.