193 lines
8.8 KiB
Plaintext
193 lines
8.8 KiB
Plaintext
______________________________________________________________________________
|
|
| File Name : PAINTVIB.ASC | Online Date : 05/22/95 |
|
|
| Contributed by : Jerry Decker | Dir Category : UNCLASS |
|
|
| From : KeelyNet BBS | DataLine : (214) 324-3501 |
|
|
| A FREE Alternative Sciences BBS sponsored by Vanguard Sciences |
|
|
| KeelyNet * PO BOX 870716 * Mesquite, Texas * USA * 75187 |
|
|
| Voice/FAX : (214) 324-8741 InterNet - keelynet@ix.netcom.com |
|
|
| WWW sites - http://www.eskimo.com/~billb & http://www.protree.com |
|
|
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|
|
Can sound be captured as vibrations in paint? Some threads from Usenet.
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
From: blairp@iol.ie (Philip Blair)
|
|
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.acoustics
|
|
Subject: fossilized sound
|
|
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 1995 13:40:42 GMT
|
|
Organization: Ireland On-Line
|
|
Lines: 118
|
|
|
|
Here's a copy of the post that I made to sci.archaeology on this subject. The
|
|
thread didn't get a very scientific reception there but maybe it will do
|
|
better here. It was posted on or near April Fools day and that didn't help.
|
|
|
|
Anyone out there with a background in real physics (I'm a broadcast audio
|
|
engineer.) have a good contribution that doesn't require big maths. (i.e.
|
|
numbers over 10 or any letters :-))
|
|
|
|
>In article: <3m0cdd$bec@detroit.freenet.org> al172@detroit.freenet.org (Joe
|
|
>Pastorek) writes:
|
|
>>
|
|
>>
|
|
>> In the Proceedings of the IEEE (Vol. 57(8), August
|
|
>> 1969, p.1465), Dr. Richard Woodbridge writes about
|
|
>> how he was able to successfully play back sound
|
|
>> that had been "recorded" on paintings and pottery.
|
|
>> For example, he was able to hear the word "blue"
|
|
>> when running a stylus along a blue paint stroke
|
|
>> on a canvas painting. Apparently the artist
|
|
>> spoke the word "blue" while applying the stroke,
|
|
>> and the canvas in it's frame acted like a micro-
|
|
>> phone, vibrating as the paint stroke was applied.
|
|
>>
|
|
>> This was the only place I've read about this
|
|
>> topic until recently: The February 1995 issue
|
|
>> of _WIRED_ (page 138) talks about British
|
|
>> journalist David Toop, who "notes the lack
|
|
>> (until very recently) of fossilized sound for
|
|
>> study by audio archaeologists".
|
|
>>
|
|
>> Has anyone heard any more about audio
|
|
>> archaeology?
|
|
>>
|
|
>>
|
|
|
|
nigel@seeley.demon.co.uk ("Nigel J. Seeley") wrote:
|
|
|
|
>I am aware of one paper on this subject:
|
|
|
|
>HECKL, W. M. 'Fossil voices', in KRUMBEIN, W. E., BRIMBLECOMBE, P.,
|
|
>COSGROVE, D. E. and STANIFORTH, S. eds. Durability and change: the
|
|
>science, responsibility, and cost of sustaining cultural heritage.
|
|
>Chichester and New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1994, appendix 3, pp.292-8.
|
|
|
|
I haven't seen any of the papers on this so I'll not condem it outright, I
|
|
would have written an "April Fool" posting if I had not heard some mention of
|
|
this before. Some things puzzle me and IMHO it's not possible, here goes:
|
|
|
|
The first big problem is this "frame vibrating like a microphone". The
|
|
vibration of a picture is never going to be linear in any sense, it would be
|
|
all over the place, and any vibration that would be induced by someone
|
|
speaking is not going to be enough to cause modulation in something like
|
|
canvas. I know that it is possible to use a laser interferometer to de-
|
|
modulate speech from a glass window or mirror, a trick the police/secret
|
|
services etc. are prone to use. However for starters glass is very, very rigid
|
|
and so it is probably quite linear or at least predictable in it's response to
|
|
audio, secondly laser interferometery is accurate enough to measure the growth
|
|
of a plant in any given second. It isn't some stylus being rubbed against a
|
|
bit of paint.
|
|
|
|
The next big problem is with the paint. Pour some paint out and shout at it
|
|
hard as you like, you'll not make a permanent imprint on it. If you blow on it
|
|
you might make a ripple, or a wave or even a bit of a depression but it will
|
|
not hang about for long. Even assuming that the artist in question was putting
|
|
the paint on pretty dry it's not going to hold a shape.
|
|
|
|
Then the artist. What are the chances that as he made the brush stroke he
|
|
maintained a steady speed? Let's assume that he makes a stroke 1 foot long and
|
|
that (despite what I've shown) there is a way to modulate the paint. Then lets
|
|
assume that the paint knows to modulate from left to right (say) as the artist
|
|
makes the stroke, and that he says the word "blue" at exactly the moment he
|
|
starts the stroke. We now have a line of paint which contains modulation which
|
|
is not linear in relation to time. Maybe he was faster at the start, slower in
|
|
the middle and then faster at the end again. So how are we going to decode
|
|
that little lot? This is like the backwards messages on records which are
|
|
supposed to have appeared as a by product of the recording process (i.e. they
|
|
were not placed there by the artist but appeared by accident.) play almost any
|
|
record backwards, at varying speeds enough times while thinking "BLUE" to
|
|
yourself and I'll bet that by a miracle, sure enough, large as life the artist
|
|
has recorded the word "blue" backwards on his record.
|
|
|
|
My last point is that unless the paint dries infinitely quickly then (Even if
|
|
modulation were possible.) it is just going to be modulated by the last wave
|
|
form it 'hears' before it dries, if the artist says:
|
|
|
|
B-L-U-E (and then nothing else until the paint dries.)
|
|
|
|
Then the only sound encoded is going to be the very end of the 'E' as it will
|
|
(Not that this is possible) cause the canvas to vibrate and this will modulate
|
|
the whole paint stroke.
|
|
|
|
Think of a tape machine, it applies record bias to the tape so the audio
|
|
signal is recorded in the linear range of the tape.
|
|
|
|
The physical characteristics of the tape remain constant, the magnetic
|
|
particles don't all slide about and jumble up after the recording is made.
|
|
|
|
The tape moves past the record heads of the tape machine at a constant, fixed
|
|
speed.
|
|
|
|
The machine does not go back and record over material which it has just
|
|
recorded.
|
|
|
|
I'll be interested in what everyone else thinks.
|
|
|
|
Regards,
|
|
|
|
Philip Blair.
|
|
(blairp@iol.ie Voice +44 1232 863964 FAX +44 1232 869445 TZ=GMT)
|
|
*** Nation Shall Peak Six Unto Nation. ***
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
From: spxhaw@thor.cf.ac.uk (Howard Wright \(Hman\))
|
|
Subject: fossilized sound
|
|
Sender: spxhaw@thor.cf.ac.uk (Howard Wright \(Hman\))
|
|
Organization: University of Wales College at Cardiff
|
|
Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 17:25:48 +0100
|
|
X-Mailer: Cardiff Computing Maths PP Mail Open News Gateway
|
|
Lines: 26
|
|
|
|
In article <3na0eu$a2f@detroit.freenet.org> al172@detroit.freenet.org (Joe
|
|
Pastorek) writes:
|
|
|
|
|
|A Dr. Woodbridge published a paper in the Proceedings
|
|
|of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
|
|
|Engineers (Vol. 57(8), August 1969, p. 1465). In it,
|
|
|he describes how he was able to extract sound from
|
|
|a painting by running a stylus along a dried paint
|
|
|stroke. Apparently the stretched canvas acted like
|
|
|a microphone, vibrating as the artist applied the
|
|
|paint in a steady stroke. The paint retained the
|
|
|"modulation" as it dried.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, but I simply cannot believe this.
|
|
|
|
True - the canvas would vibrate as the artist painted, but these vibrations
|
|
are likely to dissapear in a matter of a second or two, whereas the paint
|
|
would take around an hour or two to dry.
|
|
|
|
To imply that the 'sound' of the painting is somehow captured in the dried
|
|
paint is misleading.
|
|
|
|
Howard
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.acoustics
|
|
From: wolfgang@sunspot.nosc.mil (Lewis E. Wolfgang)
|
|
Subject: Re: fossilized sound
|
|
Sender: usenet@sunspot.nosc.mil
|
|
Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 05:21:39 GMT
|
|
Lines: 41
|
|
|
|
In article <12270.9505021625@thor.cf.ac.uk>,
|
|
Howard Wright \(Hman\) <spxhaw@thor.cf.ac.uk> wrote:
|
|
>In article <3na0eu$a2f@detroit.freenet.org> al172@detroit.freenet.org (Joe
|
|
Pastorek) writes:
|
|
>|
|
|
>|A Dr. Woodbridge published a paper in the Proceedings........
|
|
|
|
Hmm, I wonder. The canvas would be "driven" by the ambient sound, much as the
|
|
diaphram of a microphone. If the paint were thick, as a paste, then it would
|
|
tend to retain modulation, as does a wax cylinder phonograph. The paint brush
|
|
strokes are analogous to the phonograph needle. I believe oil paints are
|
|
thick and retain their texture as they dry, this being one of their
|
|
advantages.
|
|
|
|
An interesting subject, it leads one's mind to wander. Imagine being able to
|
|
hear Leonardo Da Vinci burp as he painted the Mona Lisa!
|
|
|
|
And given modern laser technology, I would imagine there are better ways to
|
|
play a painting than dragging a phonograph needle over it.
|
|
|
|
Regards,
|
|
Lew Wolfgang
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|