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."

Comments

No longer vocalizations

[Bovius]

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.

Re:No longer vocalizations

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:No longer vocalizations

[b4dc0d3r]

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.

Re:No longer vocalizations

[JDevers]

http://www.sonicflare.com/archives/eminent-tech-trw-17-the-most-powerful-subwoofer-in-the-world.php

Re:No longer vocalizations

[fatphil]

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.

Re:G-7 is a chord not a note

[Tyler Eaves]

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

Re:G-7 is a chord not a note

[larry bagina]

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.

Re:G-7 is a chord not a note

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:G-7 is a chord not a note

[b4dc0d3r]

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?

Re:But can he sing?

[rve]

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

(almost) anyone alive can do .187 Hz

[dutchwhizzman]

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.