Arbitation in an argument

[Lepton87]

I'm having an argument with my friend about a veracity of a argument.


Person A argument is very simple.

A smartphone does not have a decibelometer.



Person B claims that this argument is false.

We have been arguing about this silly thing for the past two hours and neither of us can convince the other.

Person A point of view:

A smartphone does not have a decibelometer it can do the same thing using its microphone and an app but it doesn't prove that the statement is false. Doing the same function is not the same thing calling a microphone a decibelometer seems like too rough of an approximation.

Person B point of view
Each smartfon can fulfil many different acctivities dependent on icnstalled applications; One of those applications will be a decibelometer application which measures sounds that reach the microphone and gives us approximated noise level in decibels.

If a device

 

[mindless1]

A smart phone is a poor replacement for a purpose built device. How poor does it have to be before you disqualify it as a replacement? It can play music, but it is not a piano.

An app cannot make a smart phone accurately measure sound level unless it is calibrated for that specific phone and used in a very controlled way. It could better tell you relative differences in sound it measures rather than an absolute value, and the mic would become saturated with high decibels because the sensitivity is chosen for human vocal sound level.

SO, sure you can put an app on and call it a poor man's sonometer, keeping in mind that it's probably not very accurate, that it's better than nothing but beyond that it's just semantics, arbitrary labeling rather than purpose driven application.

 

[Mr Evil]

A real sound level meter consists of a microphone, some circuitry to measure the output from the microphone, and a display to show that level.

A phone with an appropriate app has all those parts and can use them to meter sound levels, so yes, it is a sound level meter (or "decibelometer" if you want to call it that).

 

[Z15CAM]

Interesting Topic but I suggest you rename it as "Dynamic Audio Volume Control".

A computer or Cell Phone does not have a decibel range limiter (sound level meter) for recording audio unless you use a software Sound Recorder app such as Audition or I-Sound ... etc.

Recording metered sound in Video you pretty well have to use a Screen-Capture app such as Camtasia.

Such apps are considered contrary to Copy-Write laws and Microsoft makes it almost impossible to employ within Windows today.

Sure wish these modern movie makers would moderate audio decibels with their mechanical devices.

I would love an app that would moderate Audio output Decibels when watching movies rather then tending the volume control especially when one has a 1000W audio system with tweeters, horns, 4 to 10' midrange and 4 12" woofers.

Being a Nerd that I am, I tend to end the day falling asleep after a few beer watching a string of movies on my Desk Top and suddenly waking up in the middle of the night with a big K-Boom and the neighbors on the phone telling me my TV is too loud. I don't own a TV or have signed up for TV Cable, Satellite or whatever since 1998 ;o)

It seems there is not an option in Widows or 3rd Party App available that dynamically controls the volume output of your PC, Lap Top or Cell Phone.

Not saying you can't plugin your PC, Lap Top or Cell Phone into a sound system where the Decibel Volume is not all over all piece of CRAP.

Wowa - I endangering myself for being banned from Anand Tech Forums for another 10 days " Arbitation in an argument" ;o)

----------------------

PS: If you know of a Windows Audio Option, Tweak or 3rd Party app that Dynamically Moderates Decibel Volume Output - Let me know.

 

[sm625]

Isnt a decibelometer simply a microphone?

 

[Mr Evil]

...It seems there is not an option in Widows or 3rd Party App available that dynamically controls the volume output of your PC, Lap Top or Cell Phone...

Windows has built-in dynamic range compression, which you can find in the audio output device's properties. It has been there since Windows 7.

 

[uclabachelor]

You guys are arguing over which one is more of an apple: a granny smith or a honeycrisp.

 

[Z15CAM]

Thanks Mr Evil:

I had that Speaker Property Enhancement disabled as I'm somewhat of sound purist. However under your advice I enabled it and checked "Loudness Equalization".

Will see how it works out but I can't see it working from one media to another as about every Video and Audio file has been recorded with a different audio level.

Thanks again.

 

[Lepton87]

You guys are arguing over which one is more of an apple: a granny smith or a honeycrisp.

It seems I missed the crucial point of my argument. I also slighlty misspresented my argument. What I was arguing was that you should not try to argue with a point expressed in a negative sentense because you are taking a position that is IMHO indefensible.
The argument was about logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_(logic)



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negation

In logic, negation, also called logical complement, is an operation that takes a proposition p to another proposition "not p", written ¬p, which is interpreted intuitively as being true when p is false and false when p is true. Negation is thus a unary (single-argument) logical connective. It may be applied as an operation on propositions, truth values, or semantic values more generally. In classical logic, negation is normally identified with the truth function that takes truth to falsity and vice versa. In intuitionistic logic, according to the Brouwer–Heyting–Kolmogorov interpretation, the negation of a proposition p is the proposition whose proofs are the refutations of p.

In a nutshell that was what I had on my mind but I coudn't at first clearly express it.

I pasted a description from the net because my proof didn't have any names. Somehow it seemed obvious. While it's not defenite that it's the correct interpretation it guess I was neither right nor wrong.

 

[Lepton87]

It seems I missed the crucial point of my argument. I also slighlty misspresented my argument. What I was arguing was that you should not try to argue with a point expressed in a negative sentense because you are taking a position that is IMHO indefensible.
The argument was about logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_(logic)



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negation

In logic, negation, also called logical complement, is an operation that takes a proposition p to another proposition "not p", written ¬p, which is interpreted intuitively as being true when p is false and false when p is true. Negation is thus a unary (single-argument) logical connective. It may be applied as an operation on propositions, truth values, or semantic values more generally. In classical logic, negation is normally identified with the truth function that takes truth to falsity and vice versa. In intuitionistic logic, according to the Brouwer–Heyting–Kolmogorov interpretation, the negation of a proposition p is the proposition whose proofs are the refutations of p.

In a nutshell that was what I had on my mind but I coudn't at first clearly express it.

I pasted a description from the net because my proof didn't have any names. Somehow it seemed obvious. While it's not defenite that it's the correct interpretation it guess I was neither right nor wrong.

UPDATE:

An easier explanation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_a_white_horse_is_not_a_horse