... when you slow his music down by 800%
Makes me feel like I'm at the ocean. On another planet. While very, very high.
Makes me feel like I'm at the ocean. On another planet. While very, very high.
Hey, Justin Bieber is actually pretty good...
- Thread starter Canadave
- Start date
How do you make something slower by increasing it 8 times?
EDIT:
Ok, it's actualy pretty good!
I don't have 35 minutes to listen to the whole thing but from what I heard it was pretty good. It was like, almost like music! Then I had to listen to the "real" version of it to know what I was listening to. Oh... My... GOD! Utter crap.
How do you make something slower by increasing it 8 times?
You increase its slowness! Duh.
How do you make something slower by increasing it 8 times?
You increase its slowness! Duh.
Reversing the polarity also helps.
Ok let me put it this way.
Say we're talking about film. Why film? Because I know how to translate this better.
Standard film you watch at the theater moves at a rate of something like 26 frames per second.
How many frames persecond would it be going if you were to decrease this rate by 100%? Seems to me it'd be going 0 frames per second. So what would 800% be? It's somehow not showing you 208 frames every second?
Say we're talking about film. Why film? Because I know how to translate this better.
Standard film you watch at the theater moves at a rate of something like 26 frames per second.
How many frames persecond would it be going if you were to decrease this rate by 100%? Seems to me it'd be going 0 frames per second. So what would 800% be? It's somehow not showing you 208 frames every second?
^ That analogy doesn't really work for sound, though, since there's no equivalent to "frames," it's just a continuous wave of sound (even when digitized). So when you slow something by 100%, you're listening to half as much of the original soundwave in a second as you were in the first place.
And that's basically all he's done, slow it down, and extrapolate the data to smooth out the curves.
And that's basically all he's done, slow it down, and extrapolate the data to smooth out the curves.
There is an equivalent to frames with audio but only when audio is digitized. It's called the sample rate. On CDs you get 44,100 of them per second. On DVDs the audio gives you 48,000 samples per second.
No, that wold be slowing it by 50%.
Slowing it 100% would be 'no sound.'
Trekker is right. If you slow something down more than 100% you're just playing it backwards. (And fast!)
Here's proof. I took a sound file in my editing program. It's at 100%. I changed it to -700% and this is the result:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1589713/slow_down.mp3
(Normal audio plays first, then it plays the altered sound.)
So...uhm...we're pretty far off topic now, I think. I'd comment on the music but I can never get those stupid SoundCloud files to play. I think that site just hates me 'cause it doesn't matter which OS or browser I use.
So doing some math, and I may have fouled up here, it's been slowed down to about 9%. I'm not sure where the guy got "800%" from. As the result I got in the math (dividing the original song's run time (3:17) by the "new" song's run time (35:39) is "0.089", which translating this to percentages works out to about 9%. I guess if you really didn't know how to turn decimals into percentages you could get to "800%"...
(FWIW. This is nothing against the OP as, I assume, he did not create this nor make the original math faux pas.)
(FWIW. This is nothing against the OP as, I assume, he did not create this nor make the original math faux pas.)
So you're not going to catch his guest role on CSI I take it?
We so don't need Beiber in the world
Similar threads
