it depends
if you have data points translated to pitch. which is the normal, mindless way of doing it, then what you're listening too is some kind or parabola jumbled up with statistical noise, and the scale is arbitrary. utter shit. the astronomy sounds, like the sound of Jupiter etc are all bullshit transpositions. Up 50 octaves so that you hear something. bullshit again. arbitrary again. OK with the actual space 'sounds' at least you have relative ratios. and at least there is less for the 'artist' to fuck up. I like your blind person answer. that is really the only practical use for this crap. if you can see, you're better off with a graph.
(, Mon 12 Apr 2021, 20:09, Share, Reply)
How you represent visual data can be entirely arbitrary too.
Our ranges of audio and visual perception are themselves arbitrary. That's just a biological limitation that we need to work around in order to gain understanding.
Audio is a good way of representing phenomena with frequency*amplitude data. Visual representations of such things are counter-intuitive for most, and depending on your sample rate probably lose\destroy/misrepresent data. Most people could not tell a Beatles tune from a Bob Marley tune if you ask them to compare graphs of the sonic data, but could instantly tell one from the other if you played them.
Lots of astronomical audio isn't even transposed and we can hear it just fine. E.g. gravitational waves exist within the frequency range of human hearing, various radio sources are wide spectrum and can be accurately represented with bursts of filtered white noise.
(
brb homonecrobatrachophile, Mon 12 Apr 2021, 21:33,
Share,
Reply)
We can’t hear gravitational waves ‘just fine,’ fool
They have minuscule amplitudes less than the width of a proton, and took hyperprecise lasers and billions of dollars to directly detect in a single instance. Next you’ll be saying you see higgs bosons on your way to poundland
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Wed 14 Apr 2021, 11:21,
Share,
Reply)