Talk:Tim Storms

message: WHat is Tim doing now?
:: I wish I had that information so I could post it.  I don't know if he is still an entertainer or if he has left the public light. Beisnj 18:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine he makes a good living as a Wedding Singer grunting fake low notes into his microphone...or maybe he is an elephant whisperer... Demobbed Teen (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now? 

message: Storms still holds the record for vocal range. But Roger Menees broke his record for lowest vocal note.
Source: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/Search/Details/Lowest-vocal-note-by-a-male/120480.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.188.253.242 (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lowest vocal note Guinness record 

message: A "Hz" is a measure of cycle per second.  That means, if you could move your hand 80 times per second in normal atmospheric conditions you would produce an audible tone.  If you move your hand at 1 hz, that is, one cycle per second, no matter how hard you move it, you wont produce an audible tone...by anything that perceives sound.  You wouldnt be able to produce a wave, it would dissipate in air very quickly.
0.189 hz is 11 cycles PER MINUTE.  If a person could literally move their entire body at that rate,  It does NOT produce a tone in air, perhaps in water.  Air isnt viscous enough to carry that pattern.  No matter how big of a thing you wobbled, at 11 times per MINUTE you would never produce a tone in air.  So this article is either bogus, unscientific, or the number is wrong.  The lowest tone that can be produced in air is probably higher than 2 or 4 Hz before it could even be considered a "sound" by any stretch of the definition, otherwise its just something wobbling at a fixed rate. Mrrealtime (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree. This record is bogus and 0.189hz is not sound. I can make my vocal folds make a single flap. If I do that once every two hours, do I beat the record? If the Guinness people want to acknowledge such nonsense, fine, but it really shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. Fndeboer (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

text: Here is the news. ,   Chicken Wing (talk) 05:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

text: And here are the records. , )  Chicken Wing (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like BS to me too. If you look at that record on Guinness's website, nearly every commenter has the same objection - that it's scientifically imposssible/meaningless/or just an error in knowing how to calculate Hz. Ufwuct (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A reasonable objection. If I stuck my head through a hole in the wall and breathed really hard, my diaphragm would do a similar job to a subwoofer cone, and the sound frequency would be determined by the rate of my breathing. Vocal cords may be able to vibrate at those frequencies, by that motion would not make any sound, for any practical purposes. See Rotary woofer for perspective; In order to reproduce sound frequencies down to 1 Hz and below, at appreciable pressure levels, it is necessary to move significant amounts of air in and out of the listening room, usually by means of a variable-pitch propeller. A one Hertz sound has a wavelength of around 343 meters in air, this man allegedly produces wavelengths of almost two kilometers. That does not compute. - Soulkeeper (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. It is nonsense to suggest that vocal chords could be controlled to "vibrate" at 1/5 cycle per second. That would not be a vibration (in something the scale and elasticity of the human vocal chords), it would just be a controlled "motion" of some kind.  If that motion (in the throat) could be something approximating a sine wave that would be very impressive (I'd have to see it to believe it), but more likely they're just measuring some kind of varied sound pressure that that in one of their samples just happened had enough pressure at 1/5hz intervals (among many many other random frequencies) that their Fourier analysis seemed to show a "note" there.  (What was their claimed signal to noise ratio?)  But of course that also means there were undertones at 1/10s and 1/20s.. so are they going to count those as "notes" also?  For this to be stated as a "fact" rather than just as a title awarded by people who didn't understand what they were doing it would need to be *independently* reproduced. It sounds like what they actually detected there was his *breathing*!  DKEdwards (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: How to fix this? With a Guinness World record it is hard to prove the obvious points made above. The thing that galls me about Stroms and his cohort of fake Basso Profundo/Oktavists (Youtube if full of 'em), is that they detract from the real vocal talent out there. Demobbed Teen (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  0.189 hz? How is that even considered "sound" ? 

message: If someone can find a reference for exactly what his vocal range is, i will gladly create the category for it, but for now, im placing him in the highest existing category. there was one higher than 6, but it was deleted, presumably after the names in it were removed for lack of evidence. (full disclosure: i created the categories)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, and thanks for the ref. i decided to make the category "or greater", as the other names are all at most 6 octaves.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Vocal range

message: :0.  is the current phrase.
Assuming our article G is right, G10 = 25087.708 Hz; G−7 = 25087.708 * 2−17 = 0.19140402 Hz. So, if 0.189 Hz is correct, he was a bit flat of G−7. How about:
:1. 
In the unlikely event he instead "moved" his chords and then moved them back 5.2244898 seconds later, creating a 0.19140625 Hz "sound" (G−7) and the timing or frequency was calculated or recorded wrong, I suppose it should be:
:2. 
Not that any of it should be considered "sound" . So, option 1 for now? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, it says  Huh? Seems like there's something missing, like maybe , though I propose we just drop that last clause entirely. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not exactly G-7 

message: Man with big deep voice. 2601:587:4300:600:C8B4:823A:F09F:BC34 (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the lead paragraph covers that.-gadfium 01:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020