Idea for " Gluing a mix "
Not using The Glue Compressor I don’t have that one[/QUOTE]

Sorry guys I was thinking it was a new vicious Foster sh.t....

 

Some golden sample material, here.

 

...

 

Last edited: Jul 20, 2025 at 11:07 PM

Ah... I see.
Let me quote myself:

Let me make what I mean more tangible with another example. To do this, I'll first pose the following question:

Do trees make sounds when they grow? It's been proven that trees emit ultrasound when under water stress, but can you listen to a tree growing?

One could make continuous recordings under isolated laboratory conditions over many years to check if the tree makes sounds as it grows - that is, if it displaces the air in such a way that it causes periodic vibrations. If we were to record something, we could then pitch it up or down into the human audible range. We would have a sound recording and have processed it so that we can hear it. This would be audification.

Alternatively, we could saw a tree open and look at its annual rings. These annual rings tell us quite precisely how fast a tree grew in its respective life phase. We could then take this data and make derived calculations about how much air the tree probably displaced during its growth in the respective phases and how quickly (or slowly) the air was probably displaced. We can then build a model with which we try to calculate whether it was probably more a case of static displacement or periodic displacement, etc, etc... Eventually, we've built ourselves a really great model. And from this model, we then try to derive the sounds of the respective growth phase and then synthesize them. We never had a sound recording. We still don't actually know for sure if this sound ist right or if there was any sound at all. We created a model based on tree ring data, on the basis of which we synthesized sounds. That would be sonification.

A sonification model is an interpretation. It does not prove that a sound exists. It merely answers the question:
IF we were to represent this growth data as sound, what would it sound like?
Similar applies to what NASA did.

 

Last edited: Jul 21, 2025 at 10:13 AM

I was once sucked into a black hole and it sounded very much like when I make a chia seed, blueberry and yogurt smoothie in my blender.

 

whatever you end up making, i feel like it will be improved by a little bit of valhallafreqecho

 

After create the Sound may give "ReplikaXT" a chance, cause i think what that finally need is what dustractor suggest and generelly "movement", well ReplikaXT has PrimeMover\Jets ets as Preset, a good way to start. As example i made fast something (not really what you want) but you have a idea how it sounds with ReplikaXT (i use it gentle)

Spoiler: AudioReplikaXTexample

http://peeplink.in/c86779cb51ab

 

No sample in the universe is worth having legal teams of Scientology on your ass

 

You're confusing black holes and glory holes again, dad.

 

Sorry, Dear!

 

You can apply that to any sound design for moving pictures.
None of that shit that is heard in those horrible fast'n stupid movies has anything to do with real cars.
And yet it sounds cool. Now that I think about it... maybe it's a bad example. Maybe the sounddesign is as stupid as the movies...

 

There are subtle nuances here, too, and no black-and-white scheme. Of course, you can enhance a film with sensitive, good sound design and high-quality effects, amplifying its impact and thus turning the film experience into an absolute cultural climax.

A black hole needs a sound for tension, which then slowly fades away into absolute silence and darkness after being sucked in. Short pause of 3 seconds, next scene...!

 

You say you can apply to any sound design, yet you give the example of fast'n'furious, a famous gay porn series.

 

"Sound waves in stars are created by convection, where hot gas rises and cool gas sinks. This movement generates waves that bounce around the star's interior. The waves cause the star to expand and contract, similar to how a bell rings. However, these waves cannot be heard by human ears.

While space itself is a vacuum and cannot carry sound, some planets have atmospheres that can transmit sound. For instance, NASA's Perseverance rover on Mars has microphones that captured sounds like Martian winds and the rover's laser firing. These sounds are quieter and more muffled compared to Earth due to Mars' thin atmosphere".

Sonification sounds like BS to me. Not science!

I am interested in real sounds, real relationships. Just because you can "sonify" an image, this does not say anything about its properties, unless there is a relationship or correlation of some sort.

Take, for example, Material Spectroscopy.

"Material spectroscopy is the study of how materials interact with electromagnetic radiation, allowing scientists to analyze their composition and properties. It involves techniques that measure the absorption, emission, or scattering of light to provide information about the material's structure and characteristics".

Or the speed of sound across different materials.

You can "sonify" an image of a loudspeaker, but is it emitting any sound?
What about a sequence of images? Is it sound you are measuring? (Silent Movies)

Audification on the other hand, shifts the pitch (scale), so humans can hear it. That is more like Science to me.
It begs the question, if the human hearing range is a proper scale for measuring cosmic sounds.

Scientists are very careful when they say - the evidence suggests that...
According to my research to date, evidence suggests that there is real pressure waves or sounds in the atmosphere and surroundings around some celestial objects.

And for now, that is true for me.
The reason why I've quoted is because I am not an astrophysicist and the internet does not give anyone a diploma as such...

The fact, that even Einstein was wrong (entanglement), gives Dudes like me great comfort!
Reminds me of, what is true today might not be true tomorrow.

The fact, that even scientists disagree among themselves, reminds me to be open and humble, but also critical and realistic about new possibilities. (I am not always successful if I might add...)

That is all I have to say about this matter.

 

Last edited: Jul 24, 2025 at 3:30 AM

A black hole itself does not emit sound, as sound waves need a medium such as air or water to travel, and space is a vacuum. However, scientists can convert data from black holes, such as gravitational waves or the movement of matter around them, into audible sounds by “sonifying” this data.

For example, NASA has translated data from X-rays emitted by a black hole (such as the one at the center of the galaxy M87 or in the Perseus galaxy cluster) into audible frequencies. These often sound like deep, eerie hums, booms or pulsating noises reminiscent of science fiction sound effects. The frequencies are artificially shifted into the human hearing range (20 Hz to 20 kHz), as the original signals are often far below the human hearing threshold.

A well-known example is the sonification of the Perseus galaxy cluster, where the data sounds like a spooky, deep howl. Would you like me to find you a specific example or a more detailed description, e.g. based on NASA data or a specific black hole?

 

Well, it's a way of analyzing data. Whether it is useful depends on how it is used.
But yes, there is a lot of BS in science.

Yes, of course ... from a physics perspective, any pressure or density wave that propagates through a medium is sound. Sound is a model concept to describe this phenomenon. But that doesn't mean it's sensible to call every phenomenon that fits this description "sound".

In the context of weather (high and low-pressure systems), we don't talk about sound, decibels or hertz, even though it wouldn't be technically wrong. It's a different context, and physical models serve as tools to describe phenomena in a clear and meaningful way. The theory of sound has historically been a part of acoustics (the study of hearing and sound perception). So, in most cases, it makes relatively little sense to explain weather using the concept of sound, especially when dealing with weather phenomena that extend over vast time scales and areas, with wavelengths that can take days or even weeks to complete a single cycle. Exceptions, of course, prove the rule, as in the case of thunder, for example. We can hear and feel it so we talk about sound and decibels.

For scientists, it certainly makes sense in specific contexts to use the linear wave equation or other acoustic formulas to describe solar storms, stellar modes, etc. But that doesn't mean it's in any way sensible to treat it as an acoustic phenomenon. So when an astrophysics paper talks about acoustic modes in the sun, the reference to acoustics serves primarily to communicate that the physical concept of the mode is meant and not a specific procedure. It's kind of funny how trying to avoid confusion can lead to confusion at the same time. That's why normally, the word "sound" would be avoided in such a context, as it causes confusion, especially in external communication.

But hey, anyone who finds it amusing is, of course, still free to imagine that thanks to the Big Bang (assuming the theory is accurate), we're all surfing through the universe on the fattest sub-bass of all time.

For some reason Bill and Ted comes to mind right now...

 

Last edited: Jul 23, 2025 at 2:23 AM

some of the sounds are weird and great, that's enough for me