Slashdot Mirror


Man With World's Deepest Voice Can Hit Infrasonic Notes

An anonymous reader writes "The man who holds the Guinness record for the world's lowest voice can hit notes so low that only animals as big as elephants are able to hear them. American singer Tim Storms, who also has the world's widest vocal range, can reach notes as low as G-7 (0.189Hz), an incredible eight octaves below the lowest G on the piano."

173 comments

  1. World's Worst Superpowerr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "You can break glasses with your voice?"

    "No, that's at the other end of the scale."

    "But you can communication with elephants? Call them to rescue you and fight battles?"

    "No, but they can hear me."

    1. Re:World's Worst Superpowerr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      His superpower is the ability to make you shit your pants with the brown note.

      Yeah, yeah, I know... Mythbusters, bla bla bla...

    2. Re:World's Worst Superpowerr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You can break glasses with your voice?"

      "No, that's at the other end of the scale."

      His answer should have been - if they can design a glass with minute flaws, and with a resonant frequency of 0.187Hz, then yes.

    3. Re:World's Worst Superpowerr by mythosaz · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm not willing to rule out his ability to call elephants to battle.

      He's badass until proven otherwise.

    4. Re:World's Worst Superpowerr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      I'm not willing to rule out his ability to call elephants to battle.

      He's badass until proven otherwise.

      (Score:4, Insightful)

    5. Re:World's Worst Superpowerr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck yes son!

      Say I'm an elephant, I'm going to go FIGHT
      for some human with a squeaky voice?

      Fucking ridiculous.

    6. Re:World's Worst Superpowerr by captainpanic · · Score: 1

      I can still hear his lowest notes, you insensitive clod!

    7. Re:World's Worst Superpowerr by KillaBeave · · Score: 1

      His superpower is the ability to make you shit your pants with the brown note.

      Yeah, yeah, I know... Mythbusters, bla bla bla...

      Only if he sings "Chocolate Rain" ... *ducks

    8. Re:World's Worst Superpowerr by dywolf · · Score: 0

      Relax Barry, there's no elephants in Texas. Now get his walle....

      *rumble rumble rumble*

      SHI--, RUN FOR IT!

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  2. But can he sing? by Wrexs0ul · · Score: 3

    With all the innuendo around Barry White's voice, if this man can sing he'd be a real crowd pleaser!

    -Matt

    --
    --- Need web hosting?
    1. Re:But can he sing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not sure he'd want to even try. He might end up on the business end of some elephant wood!

    2. Re:But can he sing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the it's really quite a scene in the church auditorium when he starts singing "Amazing Grace", and all the little old church ladies start dropping their granny panties. (he's a Christian singer)

      captcha hint:unclean

    3. Re:But can he sing? by c0lo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Apparently he can (use good headphones or sub-woofer - otherwise is futile).

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    4. Re:But can he sing? by mister_playboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Thanks. TFS's link had nothing more than some British woman's voice to offer.

      He's got something special going on there, but saying he can go 2 octaves below a normal bass voice is a probably pushing it, let alone 8 octaves below the end of a piano's range.

      0.187Hz? Consider it takes a 64 foot pipe and a lot of blower horsepower to produce 8Hz in an organ. There are only two such organs in the world so equipped, most big organs "settle" for 32 foot stops and 16Hz. I think his voice is plenty impressive without indulging in wild hyperbole.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    5. Re:But can he sing? by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Thanks. TFS's link had nothing more than some British woman's voice to offer.

      He's got something special going on there, but saying he can go 2 octaves below a normal bass voice is a probably pushing it, let alone 8 octaves below the end of a piano's range.

      Based on what my ear was able to hear (highly unreliable, I know), I say he can do at least as low as 24-30 Hz (one octave lower that the power network hum). One of these days and just from curiosity, I'll try to rip the sound from the YouTube videos, pass it through a FFT and see what it'll show.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    6. Re:But can he sing? by rve · · Score: 4, Informative

      One of these days and just from curiosity, I'll try to rip the sound from the YouTube videos, pass it through a FFT and see what it'll show.

      Probably futile, due to lossy compression algorithms filtering out frequencies that statistically most people can't hear

    7. Re:But can he sing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      0.187Hz? Consider it takes a 64 foot pipe and a lot of blower horsepower to produce 8Hz in an organ. There are only two such organs in the world so equipped, most big organs "settle" for 32 foot stops and 16Hz. I think his voice is plenty impressive without indulging in wild hyperbole.

      0.178Hz is about 5.35 seconds. Anyone capable of emitting a sound every 5.35 seconds can manage that. Now if that is a pure sinus then it is mighty impressive.

    8. Re:But can he sing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      0.187Hz is one oscillation every 5.35 seconds. the wave length would be 1819m I think that is a ludicrous claim, it is physically impossible.

      Unless you actual count him inhaling and exhaling as "sound"

      hey f**k it i can hold my breath for a minuet, that means I now have the lowest voice in the world, as I can output a harmonic at 0.016 Hz

    9. Re:But can he sing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      0.187Hz? Consider it takes a 64 foot pipe and a lot of blower horsepower to produce 8Hz in an organ.

      I *love* Slashdot! See? Who the hell knew we had an organ expert on staff!

      There are only two such organs in the world so equipped, most big organs "settle" for 32 foot stops and 16Hz.

      You're making me feel inferior.

    10. Re:But can he sing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know it isn't fashionable to read the articles, but this is from the FRIGGIN' SUMMARY.

      American singer Tim Storms, who also has the world's widest vocal range, can reach notes as low as G-7 (0.189Hz),

    11. Re:But can he sing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, one of the big compression 'wins' was the complete removal of certain frequencies that were a set distance above or below a frequency of bigger amplitude that they determined no one could hear (it was 'drowned out' by the other tone). The compression algorithms do it all automagically (I remember using a compression algorithm that showed the fft output spatially (like on a spectrum analyser). The difference between cdda files and mp3 files of basically the same quality is about 9:1 (320kb/s mp3). Of course, more 'lossy' mp3 files can shrink files further, but aural artifacts are more prominent, and the fidelity starts to suck.

    12. Re:But can he sing? by cusco · · Score: 1

      Maybe the world's widest vocal range TODAY, but Peruvian singer Ima Sumac's voice could range from mezzo soprano to bass. Composers in the 1950s and '60s wrote music just for her.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    13. Re:But can he sing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you understand what frequency means. Having a 5 second period DOES NOT mean he only makes a sound once per period.

  3. Shipping Forecast by Dripdry · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is it so wrong for a man to do the shipping report?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Emh75AYxnzk

    --
    -
  4. No longer vocalizations by Bovius · · Score: 3, Informative

    For reference, 0.189 Hz is roughly once cycle per five seconds. Take a finger and raise it for 2.5 seconds, then lower it for 2.5 seconds.

    This doesn't count as anything more than discrete pulses. I understand that the muscles controlling his vocal folds are performing similar activities to singing, but this is not sound anymore.

    1. Re:No longer vocalizations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to post the same thing if I hadn't seen yours first. Heck, I can make a "sound" at 0.00001 Hz if I want - even lower than this guy! But that can hardly be called a sound.

    2. Re:No longer vocalizations by OneAhead · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe they mistook his breathing for infrasonic sound?

    3. Re:No longer vocalizations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      For reference, 0.189 Hz is roughly once cycle per five seconds. Take a finger and raise it for 2.5 seconds, then lower it for 2.5 seconds.

      This doesn't count as anything more than discrete pulses. I understand that the muscles controlling his vocal folds are performing similar activities to singing, but this is not sound anymore.

      sound 1 (sound) n.
      1.
      a. Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing.
      b. Transmitted vibrations of any frequency.
      c. The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium.
      d. Such sensations considered as a group.

    4. Re:No longer vocalizations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to post the same thing if I hadn't seen yours first. Heck, I can make a "sound" at 0.00001 Hz if I want - even lower than this guy! But that can hardly be called a sound.

      That's why it's not called a sound. It's an infrasound!

    5. Re:No longer vocalizations by shokk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "this is not sound anymore"

      Tell that to the elephants.

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
    6. Re:No longer vocalizations by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      The guy can make infrasounds... maybe he's related to Inframan!

    7. Re:No longer vocalizations by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your 'sound' wouldnt travel far in air, as it would not be loud enough (does not have a good enough amplitude). His sound would.

    8. Re:No longer vocalizations by PostPhil · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People claiming that they can make "a sound every 2.5 seconds" don't get it. It's is not the same as a single continuous waveform oscillating at 0.189 Hz. There is a big difference between a continuous waveform at that frequency versus some joe blow making a click at 3 kHz for 250 ms duration every 2.5 seconds. No, it is not a set of pulses.

    9. Re:No longer vocalizations by pclminion · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For reference, 0.189 Hz is roughly once cycle per five seconds. Take a finger and raise it for 2.5 seconds, then lower it for 2.5 seconds.

      I am having a hard time imagining how, physiologically, the human voice mechanism could be capable of producing a vibration at such a frequency. Frankly it sounds like bullshit to me.

    10. Re:No longer vocalizations by Yakasha · · Score: 1

      For reference, 0.189 Hz is roughly once cycle per five seconds. Take a finger and raise it for 2.5 seconds, then lower it for 2.5 seconds.

      This doesn't count as anything more than discrete pulses. I understand that the muscles controlling his vocal folds are performing similar activities to singing, but this is not sound anymore.

      You sound like an 80 year old nerd doing the equivalent of yelling at the neighbor's kids, "Darn rock & roll! That ain't music! Its noise!"

      In my day, musicians sang. They didn't just fluctuate their vocal chords in 5 second intervals to produce vibrations in the air!

    11. Re:No longer vocalizations by ClioCJS · · Score: 2

      Can you point to an accepted reference that states that sound stops at a specific frequency?

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    12. Re:No longer vocalizations by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

      "Frankly it sounds like bullshit to me."

      I knew pciminion was an elephant!

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    13. Re:No longer vocalizations by sjames · · Score: 1

      Actually, no. Discreet pulses resolve to a fairly broad series of sine waves. That is quite distinmct from the spectrum of a human voice with the fundamental in the infrasonic range.

    14. Re:No longer vocalizations by Nursie · · Score: 2

      At this point were really just dealing with inaudible audio frequency radio waves so it's all rather arbitrary.

      Back to school, now, seriously.

    15. Re:No longer vocalizations by Xero · · Score: 2

      Radio waves? There is nothing electromagnetic about mechanical sound waves

    16. Re:No longer vocalizations by spazdor · · Score: 2

      If you agree that AM radio waves are "light" then I'll agree that sub-1Hz vibrations are "sound".

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    17. Re:No longer vocalizations by spazdor · · Score: 1

      Yes, I sincerely doubt this man's vocal apparatus can actually move enough air back and forth to create a 0.2Hz fundamental tone which is actually separable from background noise by any instrumentation. At the very best he is creating harmonics which mathematically 'imply' such a fundamental.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    18. Re:No longer vocalizations by spazdor · · Score: 1

      actually, breathing constitutes an infrasonic sound, in every sense of that term

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    19. Re:No longer vocalizations by marcansoft · · Score: 1

      Actually, we can all produce something resembling a pure "sound" at 0.189Hz. All you have to do is compress and uncompress air in your mouth (or lungs, or a bottle) at that rate. The small air volume variation (translating to a variation in the volume of your body) should be enough to produce a sound pressure level of a few decibels at that frequency, particularly if you're in a small airtight room.

      I doubt Tim's voice, in practice, produces more energy at frequencies that low than the above method. More likely, the sound that he produces is pretty much entirely composed of harmonics (i.e. "clicks" at that rate, not a fundamental tone). The human voice just isn't capable of producing sinusoidal tones that low. Just listen to him (or anyone else with a deep voice) talk. His voice doesn't sound like a deep pure tone, it sounds like a deep growl (i.e. a series of higher frequency noises repeated at that rate).

    20. Re:No longer vocalizations by ClioCJS · · Score: 2

      Are AM radio waves comprised of photons?

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    21. Re:No longer vocalizations by spazdor · · Score: 2

      Well, yes and no.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    22. Re:No longer vocalizations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The human voice mechanism includes the lungs and diaphragm, which are quite good at creating 0.2Hz pressure waves.

    23. Re:No longer vocalizations by ClioCJS · · Score: 1
      Oh interesting!

      So... sounds like AM waves are as much light as visible light is. Our sensory organs don't define the true nature of something, which is true regardless of whether us humans observe or comprehend it.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    24. Re:No longer vocalizations by mark-t · · Score: 2

      The human voice is analog, not digital. This cannot be approximated by a discrete pulse once every 5 seconds, because it is a continuous wave that peaks every 5 seconds.

      There is a *HUGE* difference.

      If you were to meaningfully digitize it, then you must still sample it at thresholds above human hearing, and it would appear as discrete pulses whose peaks would appear to form a sine wave... one which has a frequency below that which we can hear ourselves.

    25. Re:No longer vocalizations by mark-t · · Score: 4, Funny

      0 Hz?

    26. Re:No longer vocalizations by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      hehehehehehheheh :) Nice.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    27. Re:No longer vocalizations by mark-t · · Score: 2

      Actually, you can approximate an infrasonic sound with pulses... you just have to do it very fast (at least twice human hearing speed), and vary the pulse's amplitude continuously up and down, repeating every 5 seconds. The result is a 0.2hz audio wave... synthesized with clicks.

    28. Re:No longer vocalizations by spazdor · · Score: 1

      If "made of photons" == "light" then that makes perfect sense.

      But as it turns out both "light" and "sound" are defined in colloquial English as perceptual phenomena, and not as categories in physics:

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/light
      1 a : something that makes vision possible
            b : the sensation aroused by stimulation of the visual receptors
            c : electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength that travels in a vacuum with a speed of about 186,281 miles (300,000 kilometers) per second; specifically : such radiation that is visible to the human eye

      http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sound

      1 a : a particular auditory impression : tone
            b : the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing
            c : mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing

      In both cases the definition goes out of its way to specify only that subset of the physical phenomena which produces the perceptual phenomena.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    29. Re:No longer vocalizations by ClioCJS · · Score: 1
      Now of course this is all in my own subjective opinion, but:

      specifically such radiation, but generally not. Definitions are fuzzy. And I think that specificity is based on the tradition of the archaic meaning of it as an observable phenomenon. Science considers visible light a subset of all light. ...And Merriam-Webster -- although it is my favorite of the dictionaries -- doesn't define science. Probably a good thing. .... Supersonic sounds that only cats hear: I guess it's not sound because we don't hear it? Too arbitrary. I consider these words to be labels for physical phenomenon, not labels for conscious observations. Before science these words had a scientified basis, they were just labels for experiences. But after science, we learned the phenomenon that causes them, and that became the truer definition. NASA puts up space sounds to hear. ;) In sound's case, I believe 1c superceded 1b. In light's case, 1a superceded 1b, first specifically, then later more generally (as we discovered the wavelengths we can see are completely arbitrary, and a subset). An alien (or another earth species) comes along with eyes that see a different range: Does this change what light is? Is light just what human's see? If an animal sees a wavelength of light that we don't, is it no longer light? Just electromagnetic radiation. ...

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    30. Re:No longer vocalizations by Zorpheus · · Score: 1

      No, just breathing in and out is the highest "sound" amplitude that someone can generate at 0.189Hz. That does not require a special voice.

    31. Re:No longer vocalizations by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 4, Informative

      At the very best he is creating harmonics which mathematically 'imply' such a fundamental.

      Actually, that would be more impressive. You would have to sing two (or more) discrete pitches, without much in the way of harmonics for either one.

      If an ear/nose/throat doctor says he has vocal cords twice as long as normal, and muscles that work differently, I'm more inclined to believe that he can produce a note that low, more than I would believe what you suggest.

      In fact, what exactly do you think the Guinness Book of World people are measuring?

      http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records-1/lowest-vocal-note-by-a-male/

      The lowest vocal note produced by a male is G -7 (0.189 Hz) and was achieved by Tim Storms (USA) at Citywalk Studios in Branson, Missouri, USA, on 30 March 2012.

      Timothy is the bass singer for the vocal group 'Pierce Arrow'. The attempt was witnessed by two college music professors and an acoustician. The frequency output of Timothy's voice was measured using Bruel & Kjaer equipment (low frequency microphone, precision sound analyser and laptop for post analysis).

      I can read it for you, but I can't understand it for you.

    32. Re:No longer vocalizations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Supersonic sounds", etymologically, are a bit of an oxymoron. Literally, "sound higher than sound." This phrase simultaneously affirms and denies the 'sound-ness' of supersonic vibrations! Which is exactly the kind of shit i'd expect from physicists. :)

    33. Re:No longer vocalizations by iiii · · Score: 1

      Our vocal chords make clicks. In very low tones I can hear the individual clicks. I can see it being possible to for a person to gain the control over their voice to be able to make a single click, then do that at whatever interval they want. That doesn't really seem like a "tone" to me, but this must be what they are doing here.

      --
      Light cup, beer drink, thin so chain, neck turtle fat, man I won't say it again
    34. Re:No longer vocalizations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hook a spectrum analyser up to the output of a pulse-width modulated function generator, or if you prefer, do a Fourier transform on an equivalent algebraic function.

      As the PWM duty cycle approaches 0%, the sound energy present in the fundamental frequency also approaches zero. But the pitch of that note remains intelligible long after the fundamental itself has become inaudibly quiet. Dig?

    35. Re:No longer vocalizations by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      Every person's voice breaks up as they reach their lowest possible note. When he sings in his deeper pure tone range, I can sing right along with him. As he gets lower, he retains the pure tone, but I start breaking up. Does the fact that my voice is breaking up mean a person can't sing that low?

      No, it means that I am bottoming out my range, and I have probably relaxed my muscles enough they are just flopping about. With extra long vocal cords, he can go a lot lower before getting floppy. At his lowest, he does sound floppy. But he also has a larger range of floppy than I have ever heard.

      If I go straight down a scale, I can get a good tone down to a low F, then it loses stability. It sounds floppy, but according to a tuner it is just unstable. I can get about half a second of clarity before it loses coherence. Does that mean I can't sing a low F? No, it means I can't sustain it. And if I go for something like steaming up a mirror with my breath, I can get it down to a quiet E. One arrangement requires me to go from low A down to an E. I can't nail an E, but if I relax on the A and then think about a mirror, I can breathlessly get out the E. In tune, sliding down quickly.

      If you wish to view my previous reply, it should be available by clicking my username.

      Actually, we can all produce something resembling a pure "sound" at 0.189Hz

      I'm not entirely sure why I bothered to reply after reading that. Key phrases like "all you have to do" and "I doubt" are probably a large part of the answer, though.

    36. Re:No longer vocalizations by pla · · Score: 1

      People claiming that they can make "a sound every 2.5 seconds" don't get it. It's is not the same as a single continuous waveform oscillating at 0.189 Hz.

      Not quite true. No, you can't just make a click every few seconds and call it "sound" at the corresponding frequency.

      You can, however, simply breathe at that frequency, which follows a not-too-shabby sine wave.

      For comparison, one of the "loudest" subwoofers made (though damned if I can find a link to it ATM) uses a fan with blades that pivot in phase with the sound... Effectively "breathing" in and out based on whether it has a positive or negative pitch to the blades at any given point in time.

    37. Re:No longer vocalizations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And a wavelength of 1800m??? Over 1 mile????

    38. Re:No longer vocalizations by sjames · · Score: 1

      But the fundamental never ACTUALLY disappears except in the degenerate case where there is no signal at all.

    39. Re:No longer vocalizations by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      At that frequency can you really call it sound anymore? I can make my hand move back and forth at roughly 0.189Hz which will move the air and thus could potentially be detected. Young adult humans can hear down to 20Hz, elephants possibly 1Hz. But remember that even at 20Hz for humans that sound is almost inaudible, so presumably 1Hz for an elephant is at the edge of their senses. Plus what elephants hear as infrasonic sound is transmitted through the ground and not the air. Ie, I could set up a 1Hz wave in a pool of water with just a small paddle but doing this in the air would be difficult as it would dissipate over a short distance.

      Then, what's the difference between "singing" that low and just exhaling air while modulating your mouth at 0.189Hz instead of using vocal cords?

    40. Re:No longer vocalizations by Vreejack · · Score: 2

      If the speed of sound is 340 m/s, then the wavelength of A4 (middle A, 400 Hz) is about 0.85m, on the order of the size of the human vocal tract.

      The wavelength of a note at 0.2 Hz would be 680 m. Not to say that a human could not make such a sound--you can do it by slowly waving your hand--but it would be so poorly coupled as to be lost in the background noise. This would be like trying to broadcast AM radio with a cell phone antenna instead of a longwire or mast. To effectively pump out a sound at that frequency you would need a speaker diaphragm one hundred meters in diameter. You might get away with ten meters if you were standing inside it.

      --
      "Will future ages believe that such stupid bigotry ever existed!" -- Ivanhoe
    41. Re:No longer vocalizations by dj245 · · Score: 1

      For comparison, one of the "loudest" subwoofers made (though damned if I can find a link to it ATM) uses a fan with blades that pivot in phase with the sound... Effectively "breathing" in and out based on whether it has a positive or negative pitch to the blades at any given point in time.

      I'd love to see the link on that. I have some experience with variable pitch propellers (althought I am not claiming to be an expert). It seems like you wouldn't be able to vary the blade rotation fast enough unless the blades were quite lightweight or small. And if they were small, there wouldn't be a point- you could just use a normal subwoofer.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    42. Re:No longer vocalizations by marcansoft · · Score: 1

      I actually did the math for the pressure variations in a small airtight room (3x3x3 meters), and came up with 5 microliters - that's the RMS delta volume of air that would be required to produce a sound pressure of 0dB for large wavelengths. At 40dB, that becomes half a mililiter, which should be achievable for a human, perhaps with the aid of a glass bottle. By blowing, though. Not with your vocal folds.

      The ability to produce sound without a rigid airtight compartment depends on the inertia of air - this is why a speaker is able to compress air in front of it even though it is not connected to an airtight compartment (and also why speaker cabinets help; they effectively increase the apparent inertia of the air behind the speaker, making it harder for it to escape, thus increasing the amplitude of the pressure waves created). To produce a measurable SPL at 0.189Hz, a bare speaker cone would have to be very large and move a very large distance, because there is a very poor impedance match with the air at a frequency that low. In an airtight room, you could do with a smaller speaker placed between it and the outside, or equivalently, between it and an airtight compartment. The same concept applies to the human body: to produce a measurable SPL at that frequency without the aid of a rigid compartment (i.e. using your vocal folds), they'd have to move huge distances and be much larger. With an airtight compartment (blowing into a bottle or just compressing air in your lungs with your mouth closed) you can get away with a smaller system, but that's no longer using your vocal chords, and it requires an airtight room for efficient coupling. This is how rotary subwoofer works, which is probably the only currently practical way to reproduce audio in the 0Hz-10Hz range.

      Put another way: what makes you think that his vocal folds can produce a higher SPL at 0.189Hz than simply waving your hand or breathing at that same frequency? The latter, although not particularly efficient, are certainly going to be more effective at creating very low frequency air pressure differences than the world's largest larynx.

      I'm certainly not claiming that this man cannot produce fundamental tones (significantly) lower than most people, but when you go 8 octaves lower you need more than your voicebox, no matter how large or special, to produce pressure variations at a frequency that low.

    43. Re:No longer vocalizations by nbauman · · Score: 1

      And the whales.

    44. Re:No longer vocalizations by mister_playboy · · Score: 2

      I find it exceeding improbable these animals use sounds at 1.87Hz, let alone 0.187Hz.

      Wikipedia list 10Hz as the bottom range for whales. Note that is a vibration more than 50 times faster than this guy is supposedly producing.

      There is infrasound, and then there is earthquake sound...

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    45. Re:No longer vocalizations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even better, this sound (0.18Hz) could never be produced by human vocal cords.
      They just won't resonate.
      As bovius mentions above it will be a series of clicks because the lowest frequencies will never get produced, nevermind travel through the air.

    46. Re:No longer vocalizations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And where did you see evidence of a continuous oscillating waveform?

      For an air cavity to resonate at this frequency (0.189Hz) it would take about 1700 meters.
      If there is nothing to resonate against vocal cords simply do not work.
      It is physically impossible for a human to produce such a low frequency sound by using the vocal cords.
      If his vocal cords are 2x longer than average humans then his lowest note would be about 2x as low as an average human.
      That would make for some 50Hz or so, still 250x higher than the claimed 0.189Hz...

    47. Re:No longer vocalizations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems like you wouldn't be able to vary the blade rotation fast enough unless the blades were quite lightweight or small. And if they were small, there wouldn't be a point- you could just use a normal subwoofer.

      This subwoofer is incredibly cool. There is a limit to how fast you can vary the blades, that is why the woofer's upper limit is 30Hz. In an airtight room, there is no lower limit though. It can go all the way down to 0 Hz (that is, maintain a pressure difference). 0.1HZ is no problem - blowing one way fo 10s, then the other way for 10s . . .

      So, use a normal subwoofer down to 30 Hz, and let this thing handle the bottom below that. Great for movie effects, explosions and such with low-frequency content.

    48. Re:No longer vocalizations by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Breath in - wait 10 seconds - breath out - repeat..

      Congratulations you have now broken the record with a sound at 0.1Hz!!!

      Btw, everything can be broken down to a fairly broad series of sine waves, it is called a fourier transformation and works on any function.

    49. Re:No longer vocalizations by fatphil · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're mostly right. In your lowest frequencies, it's not your vocal cords that are clicking, it's another set of membranes right next to the vocal cords. Those clicks are obviously harsher and full of harmonics, as they're generating square waves. (This gives Metallica vocals their distinctive sound, for example.)

      If you don't go quite as low, and try to keep your voice as pure as possible, and then *at the same frequency* go all Hetfield-like and back to pure again you'll hear, and feel, the difference. With a bit of practice you'll be able to precisely pick the balance between the use of two membranes at will.

      With infinitely more practice, you'll be able to get those other membranes vibrating at half the frequency of your vocal chords, at which point you'll be well on the way to mastering one of the Tuvan harmonic singing techniques.

      It's clear from some of the youtube links that have been posted that this guy is effectively just using the same kind of technique, and whilst it's very impressive for what it is, his parps are way less musical than say Paul Pena's harmonic singing, which was reaching an octive below normal ranges. (And which caused the Tuvans to nickname him "Earthquake".) If you've not seen the film /Ghengis Blues/, and anything I've mentioned sounds interesting, I highly recommend watching it. It's a very touching movie as well as a very interesting one.

      As for the "infrasonic" claims in TFA, they're mostly bullcrap. He may be able to modulate sound pressure waves at those frequencies, but so can I - by breathing normally.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    50. Re:No longer vocalizations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But...doesn't light move as a particle AND a wave?

    51. Re:No longer vocalizations by Tastecicles · · Score: 2

      Hetfield's toprange (without going falsetto or non modal screaming) is upper fourth, and recently he's managed as a low note, a B1 ("All Nightmare Long") but his earlier stuff only went as low as C2 ("Bad Seed", "Enter Sandman").

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    52. Re:No longer vocalizations by sjames · · Score: 1

      And some of those spectra resemble a voice and some do not. Your example will not. As for the rest, isn't it pretty damned obvious that I already know that?

    53. Re:No longer vocalizations by OneAhead · · Score: 1

      That's why it was a joke, as the mods successfully recognized. But in all seriousness, I'm not sure how they measured that 0.189 Hz figure, but any pulsation in the body in that frequency range would actually be breathing. It's extremely worrisome to see this appearing on, of all things, a medical news site, on any other day than April 1st. If someone is really serious about this guy being able to vocalize 0.189 Hz, then that someone just doesn't understand the concepts "frequency" and "measurement" (as in: your measurement equipment might be picking up something different than what you think you're measuring, which would qualify as "noise" in that context).

    54. Re:No longer vocalizations by spazdor · · Score: 1

      That's why I used the carefully-chosen qualifier "which is actually separable from background noise by any instrumentation."

      If this guy is producing 0.2Hz oscillations with his actual vocal cords, they are of such a low amplitude as to be quieter than the noise floor of any sound transducer ever devised, or else he is somehow displacing large fractions of a liter of air per cycle, which is not really possible unless his larynx is many times bigger than an average human's

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    55. Re:No longer vocalizations by sjames · · Score: 1

      The human voice also includes the entire chest cavity as a resonator. The vocal cords are just how we inject sound energy into the resonator.

  5. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Mua'dib!" My name is a killing word.

    1. Re:Obligatory by pla · · Score: 1

      "Read a book!"

    2. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's, like, weirding me out, man.

  6. Film trailers by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

    Storm's incredible voice also made him a hot commodity in the Hollywood voice over business, where industry executives eagerly track down people with low voices to add drama to film trailers.

    Add drama, or sound stupid?

  7. Like a G7! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Good. Sign him up. We need somebody on Earth who can scare the shit out of Thanos in the deeper-is-more-badass category.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  8. Perfect match by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 4, Funny

    Between him and Mariah Carey, they should both be able to summon every animal in the vicinity.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
    1. Re:Perfect match by azalin · · Score: 1

      Or scare it beyond the horizon...

  9. G-7 is a chord not a note by s1d3track3D · · Score: 0

    can reach notes as low as G-7 (0.189Hz),

    G-7 is a chord comprised of 4 notes, G, Bb, D, F It doesn't mention that he can sing 4 simultaneous notes, I assume they mean a G note.

    1. Re:G-7 is a chord not a note by Tyler+Eaves · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, it's G *negative* 7. Not a G7 chord. As in a G 11 octaves below middle C.

      --
      TODO: Something witty here...
    2. Re:G-7 is a chord not a note by larry+bagina · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's scientific pitch notation. C4 is Middle C is (the 4th C on an 88-key piano). G-7 is 8 octaves below the lowest G (G1) on a standard piano.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    3. Re:G-7 is a chord not a note by ToThoseOfUs · · Score: 2
      No the note G -7, (that is g negative 7) Middle C is C4 the G note below middle C is G3, so this is 10 octaves below that note.

      But you are also correct that the G7 (should be G superscript 7) chord, which is the G minor 7 chord has thee notes G, Bb, D, F

    4. Re:G-7 is a chord not a note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      G7 is not Gmin7, G7 is the dominant seventh, which is the major chord with the 7th added. G B D F

    5. Re:G-7 is a chord not a note by larry+bagina · · Score: 1
      Or he may have been thinking of Gdim7 (G degree-symbol-that-slashdot-won't-display 7) -- G - Bb - Db - Fb.

      Either way, he's a total failfuck.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    6. Re:G-7 is a chord not a note by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 4, Informative

      Beyond being schooled by AC here, let me add this.

      G superscript 7 is the standard jazz (fake book) notation for a major chord with a minor seventh added. G7 without the superscript is also acceptable, but you will generally see this in music where the presentation is less important than the information conveyed. Discussion forums, as an example, or lead sheets. The superscript is mandatory only in formal music theory, and assists quick reading while improvising so it is effectively mandatory, though variable, there.

      "G minor 7 chord has thee notes G, Bb, D, F" would be written as "Gm7", traditionally without the superscript, or "G-7" (again without the superscript) in a jazz setting. It is a minor chord with the minor seventh added.

      Traditional music theory (Helmholtz) would write C4 as c' with C3 as regular c (with nothing following it). Lower octaves are indicated with capital letters, the next lower being C (again with nothing following). Then commas indicate lower octaves starting with C, as the next example.

      It is only a logical extension for the subsubcontra range to use a negative number, since C0 was really quite low and anything below it was pretty much unheard of. Helmholtz allowed for an infinite range, but as you can see the scientific notation system really did not count on notes below C0. C-1 is the lowest I have seen, which is why it is very unnatural to refer to a note as G-7.

      So you are correct that G-7 is much more likely to be understood, outside any context, as a chord. But for the wrong reasons. And of course if we are talking about a note, then how would you confuse it for a chord? Unless you wanted to demonstrate a tiny bit of trivia you picked up accidentally?

    7. Re:G-7 is a chord not a note by ToThoseOfUs · · Score: 1
      Sorry my mistake, It's been a while since I have done much music theory. In my head I was thinking G with the minor 7th note added as opposed to the major 7th chord which has the major 7th added (in this case F#).

      I have no excuse for putting the Bb in there other than I copied from the GP without reading properly.

      My apologies for being slightly misleading.

    8. Re:G-7 is a chord not a note by ToThoseOfUs · · Score: 1
      Yep, realised my mistake, replied to the AC as such.

      This is infrasonic so referring to it by note name is a bit silly anyway other than referencing it as having a frequency of G * 1/2^n

      I think at this frequency, Hz or just as the summary says 8 octaves below the lowest G on a piano is more meaningful.

      btw. it is not trivia I picked up accidentally, I did study music theory, I just haven't made any use of it for 15 years or so, understandably it's getting a bit rusty.

    9. Re:G-7 is a chord not a note by ffflala · · Score: 1

      Unless I'm counting incorrectly, rather than G-7, I believe the Helmholtz notation here would actually be G,,,,,,,

      To indicate these lower notes, Helmholz notation uses subscript markings, not negative numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_pitch_notation

    10. Re:G-7 is a chord not a note by Taibhsear · · Score: 1

      No, I'm pretty sure C4 on a piano is more like this.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue_X_1wZTEM

    11. Re:G-7 is a chord not a note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. You have no idea what you are talking about.

  10. infrasonic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only elephants? Those of us with subsonic hearing beg to differ... and we'd like him to stop singing that low because to us it's painful. (Diesel engines, planes taking off, ELF's and now this ... mutant christian singer! Enough already!)

  11. Thurl by macraig · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Where's Thurl Ravenscroft when ya need him? I'm felling really Grinchy.

    1. Re:Thurl by macraig · · Score: 1

      Why the fuck did some idiot mod my post "Offtopic"? Is he such a child that he's never heard the Grinch song and doesn't know who Thurl Ravenscroft is AND couldn't be bothered to Google the name and discover that his deep booming voice was quite famous?

      This is one of those times when I really wish there was some accountability in the Slashdot moderation system. People should be held responsible for irresponsible use of the moderation system.

    2. Re:Thurl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you are implying that nothing is offtopic when the whole thread is senseless bullshit.

  12. Nobody knows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The trouble I have seen. Nobody knows but elephants...

  13. Was on 2gb recently... by johnsnails · · Score: 1

    Tim was a guest on Alan Jones talk back radio station in Australia a few days ago. Here is a link to the interview where you can here some of his stuff. http://podcasts.mrn.com.au.s3.amazonaws.com/alanjones/20120824-storms.mp3

    1. Re:Was on 2gb recently... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also on NPR in the US last week. It think it was All Things Considered.

  14. My next car Sound System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want to put Tim in my trunk and let that shit bang

  15. Brown Note by Rui+Lopes · · Score: 4, Funny

    We're gonna shit our pants once we hear him reaching the brown note.

    --
    var sig = function() { sig(); }
    1. Re:Brown Note by divisionbyzero · · Score: 1

      We're gonna shit our pants once we hear him reaching the brown note.

      Damn. I wish I still had mod points.

    2. Re:Brown Note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I once took a media class where a student brought up the brown note and the instructor (not professor - this was a community college) acted very surprised that a student would know about it. The instructor said that the brown note was supposed to be top secret, and that it had been tested on him when he was in the airforce. Either he was lying, which is a very real possibility, or there really is a brown note and he was not a very good person to trust with such a bowel-wrenching secret.

    3. Re:Brown Note by twotailakitsune · · Score: 1

      think it is number 2 (ha ha). The US Government has tested a lot of crazy things, just in case (ex. ESP). I would not be surprised if they tried to find it... and failed.... I hope.

    4. Re:Brown Note by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 0

      Or he saw that episode of South Park and was just messing with him.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  16. Re:And the rockets red glare (occult & war) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most of you are all so asleep it's time you woke up!

    Whenever anyone says "wake up" to someone who isn't literally asleep, what they really mean is "change all your opinions to match my own, and don't you ever dare contradict me or disagree with me".

    You are not an exception.

  17. Cool! by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is there an MP3 of him singing?

    Oh... uh... damn...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is an interview with him on the bbc world news podcast. i think 8-23

    2. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there an MP3 of him singing?

      Oh... uh... damn...

      No, but I can make one

  18. Oh yeah... by used2win32 · · Score: 1

    "Oh yeah, my Dad can go an octave lower than that..."

    --
    Procrastination; I'll think of a sig tomorrow.
    1. Re:Oh yeah... by azalin · · Score: 1

      That would be a good case of a "your mom is so big, that whales date her" joke. Well and elephants. ;)

  19. 0.189Hz is (surprisingly) not an typo by Broofa · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I actually thought the claimed frequency was a typo in the article. But in the interview, Mr. Storm says he can sing 8 octaves below the lowest note on a piano. If you work backwords and double 0.189Hz eight times (for each octave), you get 48Hz, making his lowest [claimed] note 8 octaves below the lowest G on a piano.

    As for whether this qualifies as singing, I would argue that to be considered real singing he should be using the same vocal cords and musculature required to produce human-audible sounds. I.e. he should be able to produce a continuous sound that starts at a normal note and drops down to the claimed note, without any fundamental change in the way in which he's producing the sound. My $.02.

    1. Re:0.189Hz is (surprisingly) not an typo by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      Everyone has a slightly different vocal cord length, and certainly different musculature based on their singing/practice experience. If everyone had the same physical attributes, they would have the same range.

      Yes you can start out with exactly the same attributes and develop different ranges, but your musculature changes in response to training, and you can develop nodules and other problems which change the quality and/or range of your voice on top of what you mentioned.

      Your argument is absurd, and he can produce a continuous sound and drop down to the claimed note. If you listen, most of his lower range is sung with a lot of glissando, also known as sliding into the note. The definition of a continuous sound that drops down.

      You can also look him up on some random ass website like, I don't know, the guinness book of world records. You can see how they verified his claim, and see if you agree. Or you can just post random words on slashdot I suppose, that's my two hundreths of a dollar.

    2. Re:0.189Hz is (surprisingly) not an typo by Darinbob · · Score: 0

      He says he can, but has it been measured? What sort of instruments do you use to measure vibrations in the air at that slow a speed?

    3. Re:0.189Hz is (surprisingly) not an typo by azalin · · Score: 2

      As he holds the Guinness world record I would say, yes it has been measured.

    4. Re:0.189Hz is (surprisingly) not an typo by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      By that standard, falsetto isn't signing either.

  20. I can do that too. by slinches · · Score: 0

    In fact, we all should be able to make infrasounds. The difference is that the rest of us just call it breathing at a regular pace.

    Seriously though, a sound that low would require moving a huge volume of air to create a pressure wave of any significance.

    --
    Knowledge Brings Fear
    1. Re:I can do that too. by Falconhell · · Score: 2

      Yeh given that every reduction of 1 octave requires double the power to have the same volume, it couldnt be that loud.

    2. Re:I can do that too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that it's below the range of human hearing, it couldn't be "that loud" regardless of pressure.

    3. Re:I can do that too. by ne0n · · Score: 1

      You should probably see the videos of this guy before making silly comments. Breathing ain't the only thing going on there. There's a good youtube of one of his low notes and its effect on a glass of water.

      --
      $ :(){ :|:& };:
    4. Re:I can do that too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) At no point in this video i heared (clicks of) a sound lower than, say, 10Hz.
      2) Pulses can disturb water.
      3) The cup doesn't show anything superhuman. I would estimate that the cup of water would have to be several yards wide to contain a wave of 0.189Hz. Since it isn't it can only show much higher frequencies.

      So if there is anything to prove, this video doesn't prove it.

  21. Come at me bro by paiute · · Score: 1

    Bitch is going to get owned by the original elephant call:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwHWbsvgQUE

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  22. Well no wonder by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

    He has vocal chords, I only have vocal cords.

    --
    Mostly random stuff.
  23. Subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Comment

  24. Uncertainty Principle by dwillmore · · Score: 1

    Can someone explain to me how they are sure he sang a G-7? The Uncertainty Principle seems to imply he would need to hold it for quite a long time to be sure it was G-7 and not A-6 or F-7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

    1. Re:Uncertainty Principle by bipbop · · Score: 2

      I can attempt to explain two things. First, you can beat the time-frequency uncertainty principle if you're willing to be wrong sometimes. The ear does this, functioning foremost as a wavefront detector.(*) Second, most sounds including the human voice follow an approximation of the harmonic series. (Always an approximation; sometimes, it's not a very good model at all.) So you can detect the upper partials and reconstruct the fundamental if the audio in question fits the model well enough and the harmonics are present and measurable. Again, this works by being wrong some of the time.

      I found an article detailing how the Guinness record was measured here. It was only measured for nine seconds; this gives us a (minimum) bandwidth of .1Hz, which at .0189Hz would be within error around 10 semitones up or 30 semitones down (though I had to clobber the numbers pretty hard with the error bar), keeping in mind semitones are separated by a factor of 2^(1/12). The transform to frequency domain was further inaccurate due to the window size, and the 2270 is only specced down to 3Hz in any case, so the measured numbers probably contained a generous helping of error.

      So while I'm no expert, it looks like the the bandwidth of the measured sound definitely exceeds half a semitone in either direction, probably by at least one order of magnitude.

      (*) Hartmann, W. H. (1995). "The physical description of signals," in "Hearing," Edited by B. C. J. Moore, San Diego, Academic Press, 1-40.

    2. Re:Uncertainty Principle by fatphil · · Score: 1

      1/(.189Hz) is 5.3s
      Doesn't the sampling theorem mean you need at least 10.6s of sample to reconstruct suhch a frequency? That makes me think you'd need that length of sample to measure such a frequency too. (Dunno, I lost all my DSP smarts many years back.)

      Moreover, having a component at a particular frequency doesn't make it a note at a particular frequency. Modulate a 5s 'wah-wah-wah' with your mouth over a normal tone, and you'll measure a 0.2Hz component using FFT analysis. (Which is why single-bit very-high-frequency PWM works for transmitting normal-frequency audio - simply damp to reconstruct.)

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
  25. Hollywood are already onto it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Robert Redford is lined up to play him in "The Elephant Whisperer"

  26. Worlds Deepest Voides -- Worlds Biggest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Penis?

  27. Favorite Comment.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My favorite comment on one of his videos: "He didn't hit puberty, he beat the shit out of it".

  28. I wonder what would happen if he said.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FUS, RO DAH!

  29. Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no way he or anyone can vocalize at 0.189 Hz. Even if his vocal cords could flap at the rate of only 11 times per minute, no significant amount of acoustical energy would be emitted at 0.189 Hz without resonance. The wavelength (in air at sea level and room temperature) would be over a mile. Even if we suppose that an effective resonator could be constructed at a fourth of that size, it wouldn't fit inside a human, an elephant, or even a whale. Without resonance, the flapping vocal cords might still generate acoustical energy, but only in the form of intermittent impulses of much higher frequencies.

    Wave your hand back and forth eleven times per minute. Hear (or feel) it? I didn't think so. Sure, the guy has a deep voice, but this story is utter nonsense.

    1. Re:Nonsense by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Wave your hand back and forth eleven times per minute. Hear it? I didn't think so.

      How many elephants do you think read slashdot?

    2. Re:Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Three.

  30. If a tree falls on a bear shitting in the woods. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

  31. MOD PARENT UP by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 1

    I am having a hard time imagining how, physiologically, the human voice mechanism could be capable of producing a vibration at such a frequency. Frankly it sounds like bullshit to me.

    This looks absurd to me too. I know nothing of anatomy, but I think the vocal chords work like strings.

    Can you imagine a string vibrating at 0.189Hz? That is 5.3 seconds per period! Until Guinness verifies it, and be open about how they verified it, I am skeptical.

  32. Re:Well, of course he can go very low! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're just jealous because you don't have any imaginary friends.

  33. Re:And the rockets red glare (occult & war) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    are you trying to wake us up to the real meaning of waking us up ???

  34. BITCH talks over his fucking VOICE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what an ass! to interrupt that which we clicked to listen TO.

    dammit

  35. If that man's voice gets any lower, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It'll come out the other end of him.

  36. Sorry, I do not believe this! by Kaz+Kylheku · · Score: 1

    A human simply does not have the resonant cavity to produce such notes.

    Anyone can make glottal clicks at 0.18 Hz (about 5 clicks per second).

    A train of such clicks does have a fundamental frequency 0.18 Hz, but most of the energy will be in the higher harmonics.

    A genuine 0.18 Hz note has a 0.18 Hz fundamental as the loudest component.

    1. Re:Sorry, I do not believe this! by laejoh · · Score: 1

      A human simply does not have the resonant cavity to produce such notes.

      What about goatse?

    2. Re:Sorry, I do not believe this! by srjh · · Score: 1

      A human simply does not have the resonant cavity to produce such notes.

      Anyone can make glottal clicks at 0.18 Hz (about 5 clicks per second).

      Also known as about five seconds per click.

  37. (almost) anyone alive can do .187 Hz by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sound with a frequency .187 Hz is moving air at a rate of 11.22 times per minute. For most humans, that is about the frequency of their breath. Unless you are on a respirator, you yourself are perfectly capable of doing this. Also, "throat singing" can be used to generate frequencies that can not be produced by just your vocal chords. That technique, however, is not nearly as common as breathing.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
    1. Re:(almost) anyone alive can do .187 Hz by highphilosopher · · Score: 1

      For more information on this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvan_throat_singing [wikipedia]

    2. Re:(almost) anyone alive can do .187 Hz by harlequinn · · Score: 1

      Yes. Or you could wave your hand in the air and create that frequency.

      I want to know where we stop considering it as sound and start calling it incidental kinetic energy. A significant amount of our movements (eg. breathing as you suggested) would be under the 10Hz range and constantly creating sound frequencies that we don't naturally consider as sound.

  38. Well-Validated, by SOPA by Penurious+Penguin · · Score: 1

    Bob Parsons has subdued many elephants by having this guy sing Justin Bieber.

    Note on image: The rifle is for non-believers.

    --
    Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
  39. yeah. I call bullshit. by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

    If Homo sapiens were so equipped to *detect* such frequencies with auditory sensors (we are not), we would also be equipped to produce them. For that we would require a neck a mile long.

    --
    Operation Guillotine is in effect.
  40. Re:World's Worst Superpower by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077192/

    ok, still not a great power but it's something...

  41. Chocolate rain by mcneely.mike · · Score: 0

    But can he look nerdy and sing chocolate rain?

    --
    soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
  42. 5 sec per wavelength? by DTemp · · Score: 1

    That's approximately how I breathe. Inhale, 2.5 sec later exhale, 2.5 sec later repeat. So am I making longitudinal compression waves like this guy? What's the difference between him and me?

  43. OT - your sig by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    You're a fan of Aleister Crowley? Have you read his hagiography? The man was batshit insane, but the book was fascinating.

  44. infrared vision by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

    Wouldnt it be cool if some people had eyes that could see into infrared or ultraviolet?

  45. Here you can listen to Tim's low E (approx. 41Hz) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A clip from the recording that started this fuss
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs91h4nE5FE

  46. .189 hz by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    you mean, one cycle every 5 seconds? I can do that too. It's called breathing.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  47. Re:And the rockets red glare (occult & war) by cusco · · Score: 1

    In 'The Siberians' author Farley Mowat quoted a Soviet politician as saying, "The only difference between American and Soviet propaganda is that we don't believe ours."

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  48. Re:And the rockets red glare (occult & war) by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

    you can be immune to most forms of suggestion if you're aware of them. this works for nlp techniques too. if you understand at the same level as a marketer why this color red, on this shelf, in this store, etc., then the suggestive power of those things have no effect on you. if you know that milk is at the back of the store so you'll be susceptible to impulse shopping on your way to get it, you are much less susceptible to that impulse shopping. if you understand that governments induce jingoism in times of crisis to prevent panic and chaos and keep people cohered, you're less likely to need comfort from a flag sticker on your bumper. if you don't understand that, then "the constraint of the organization will no longer be felt by" you. ignorance is bliss, but then you're basically a marionnette. i still respond to lots of marketing ploys, but usually consciously. sometimes propagandists are trying to get you to do something you want to do anyway.

    --
    insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT