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."

28 of 173 comments (clear)

  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 mythosaz · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      He's badass until proven otherwise.

  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 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.
    3. 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
    4. 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

  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 OneAhead · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe they mistook his breathing for infrasonic sound?

    2. 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."
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

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

      0 Hz?

    7. 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.

    8. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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...
  7. 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.

  8. 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(); }
  9. 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.

  10. 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.
  11. 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.

  12. 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?

  13. (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?