It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Aliensun
I've worked with computers, servers, laptops, printers, mobiles and a host of other things since the late 90s. I do know a little bit about tech lol.
The touchscreen material doesn't move enough to decipher sound waves. It's really that simple.
If the op would have said the speakers can be made into microphones, then I would have agreed, but even then it would take someone to physically change the wiring.
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: StargateSG7
So in other words you would need to make sound wave into electoral frequency then have something installed on your device to translate the electrical frequency into sound and something else to transmit it.
You know what that's called on a mobile phone?
A microphone.
ETA: The screen on your 4K isn't made from glass. Sorry.
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: StargateSG7
No you can't. The vibrations are too small. You would need a larger vibration to recognise anything. The best you would pick up would be what sounded like someone mumbling under a pillow. There would be no recognisable words at all.
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: StargateSG7
The things got a microphone in it. Whoever told you about sound frequency changing to electrical frequency was either misinformed about how microphones work or just watched something on YouTube.
As for your $30,000 monitor? You'd actually want to pray it's not made of glass. If it is then you got ripped off.
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: StargateSG7
There would actually be too many variables for pitch and tone. Each person uses a different pitch and tone with each word and sometimes that pitch and tone changes due to varying things (anger, excitement, speaking quickly, tiredness and so on). The algorithm would take a simple sentence and translate it into vastly numerous sentences.
The idea, I guess, is slightly plausible. In reality it's just not possible.
Researchers at MIT, Microsoft, and Adobe have developed an algorithm that can reconstruct an audio signal by analyzing minute vibrations of objects depicted in video. In one set of experiments, they were able to recover intelligible speech from the vibrations of a potato-chip bag photographed from 15 feet away through soundproof glass.
In other experiments, they extracted useful audio signals from videos of aluminum foil, the surface of a glass of water, and even the leaves of a potted plant. The researchers will present their findings in a paper at this year’s Siggraph, the premier computer graphics conference.
“When sound hits an object, it causes the object to vibrate,” says Abe Davis, a graduate student in electrical engineering and computer science at MIT and first author on the new paper. “The motion of this vibration creates a very subtle visual signal that’s usually invisible to the naked eye. People didn’t realize that this information was there.”
Joining Davis on the Siggraph paper are Frédo Durand and Bill Freeman, both MIT professors of computer science and engineering; Neal Wadhwa, a graduate student in Freeman’s group; Michael Rubinstein of Microsoft Research, who did his PhD with Freeman; and Gautham Mysore of Adobe Research.
Reconstructing audio from video requires that the frequency of the video samples — the number of frames of video captured per second — be higher than the frequency of the audio signal. In some of their experiments, the researchers used a high-speed camera that captured 2,000 to 6,000 frames per second. That’s much faster than the 60 frames per second possible with some smartphones, but well below the frame rates of the best commercial high-speed cameras, which can top 100,000 frames per second.
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: StargateSG7
Apart from that being deciphering audio from video and nothing to do with the op.
Also, did you note this from the article?
Reconstructing audio from video requires that the frequency of the video samples — the number of frames of video captured per second — be higher than the frequency of the audio signal. In some of their experiments, the researchers used a high-speed camera that captured 2,000 to 6,000 frames per second. That’s much faster than the 60 frames per second possible with some smartphones, but well below the frame rates of the best commercial high-speed cameras, which can top 100,000 frames per second.
(Highlighted is my emphasis)
You can't create the necessary stable electrical field to make acoustic energy into an electrical signal. The electrical signal would dissipate in the electrical field as the electrical signal would be lower than the electrical field.
originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
a reply to: introvert
I don't know about that. Do you have a Telescreen by any chance?
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: StargateSG7
That topic was discussed to death when it was first posted and (mis)represented on here. You're clutching at straws.
You seem to be starting with a wacky idea and then scrambling to find anything even tangentially related (in your mind, at least) to string together a narrative. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.