At 04:03 PM 4/18/01 +0100, Roger wrote:
>O.K., but didn't he mention molecules rubbing together (sorry - I haven't got
>the original mail)? I don't think that any sound pickup device can detect
>that.


True enough.  Just proposing an alternative mechanism to explain an
empirical reality.




>On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 08:05:46 -0600 James <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > At 10:32 AM 4/18/01 +0100, Roger wrote:
> >
> > But John's statement could apply to the shot noise and other kinds of
> > electronic noise, although I don't know what the limits are.  Also, the
> > average auditorium has a lot of low level ambient noise that sounds kind of
> > random.
> >
> > As I noted earlier, the acoustics measuring rig that I cobbled together was
> > designed to have very good signal to noise ratio, which at the moment is
> > still being overwhelmed by the noise of the fan in the computer, which is
> > almost inaudible unless you pay attention.  I would think that sort of
> > thing would limit how far back you can put the mic's in recording the
> > clavichord.
> >
> > >No. This all averages out, otherwise we wouldn't be able to hear anything
> > >ourselves above the 'molecular background'.
> > >RJC,
> > >Edinburgh.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:18:19 -0500 John Howell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >
> > >since the ambient noise of air
> > > > molecules rubbing together would become very pronounced if the mics
> were
> > > > moved back to audience distance and turned up!
> > >--
> > >Roger Clarke
> > >Computing & Electrical Eng.
> > >Heriot-Watt University
> > >[log in to unmask]
>
>--
>Roger Clarke
>Computing & Electrical Eng.
>Heriot-Watt University
>[log in to unmask]