Whole Interval Recording: Fill & Download for Free

Technically no. Because you have to have the whole time series in memory before you can do the transform to the frequency domain, you have to wait at least until the entire time domain interval record is done and then do a significant amount of transform math (thousands of multiply-adds) before you get a result.However with fast sample rates and modest records and DSPs doing many megaflops its possible to get answers within milliseconds which for most applications would be considered near real time.

I'm not totally sure what you mean by whole intervals and half intervals. How many "intervals" make up an octave (or doubling of frequency)?Conventional western music breaks up an octave into 12 named parts. I bet though that with practice you could easily break it up into 24 parts. Or possibly 36.So I think this is more about training than perfect pitch.This reminds me of an exercise oboists regularly did and was considered part of the Tabeteau school of playing. You would play the same note crescendoing and decrescendoing. First with 3 divisions of volume: soft, medium, loud, medium, soft. Or in numbers, 1,2,3,2,1. I think most people could do that easily. Try it singing. Now after you have that down to your satisfaction of equal gradations, try going to 5 levels. In music notation this would be pp, p, mp, mf, f, mf, mp, p, pp. But again I like 1,2,3,4,5,4,3,2,1. With at most a little effort, I think you could get that too. Now try with 7 discrete volumes say ppp - ff - ppp as noted in scores. Oboists regularly could work up 13 different levels. I've heard it said that some people could do 21 different levels.I think the same thing is true with octave divisions. Here, though I'd use some mechanical devices to assist in getting the notes in between the semitone or 12th division of an octave.Folks with perfect pitch might have an easier time of it though, because they could just memorize the pitches.That said, real music is much more difficult. Every good jazz musician knows that the dominant 7th sounds a little better if you play it just a little flat than where equal temperament would put it. On jazz instruments like, saxophone, clarinet, trumpet, trombone, and voice this is easily and instinctively done. (On pianos, xylophone, accordions, guitars, and flutes it is harder although to some extent it can sometimes be done).And a good classical string player like a violinist might know that a major third is a little sharp of where equal temperament would put it, while a minor third is a little flat of where equal temperament would put it. And adjusting this is often easily done on those instruments.Such gradations then become instinctive. Even people with perfect pitch generally don't think well, this is exactly 5 cents flat of what it equal temperament would have it. Same as when you might read the word "the" you don't think of it as being made up of 3 letters: "t", "h" and "e". But if pressed, sure you know it.Spoken language (as opposed to written language) is analogous too. Suppose you move from one town to another and the dialect changes a little. You might adapt to it so that after a while the sound is natural so you don't think this "ah" sound has become a shwa or "uh". Or vice versa. Sure, you may be able to tell the difference if pressed, but it is no longer a conscious thing.And the same thing can be true with musicians with perfect pitch. And divisions of the octave for anyone perfect pitch or not.Again, practice dividing the octave up into more than 12 parts using some recorded sounds and see if you can do it yourself!

The graph, and a few variations of it , is one of the most misrepresented graphs ever to be recycled by the climate Denial for profit movement and their tribe of amateur deniers.Here are 2 other versions of it with the mandatory childish denier blog drawings and arrows added:So whats wrong?For a start,the graph have been altered. The real graph (below) says YEARS BEFORE PRESENT (1950 AD)Thats the first lie .But, there is more.It’s not updated and it’s NOT global!!Thus climate deniers are misrepresenting it. The professional Denial for profit movement helped creating the myth behind this, mostly by the climate crank Don Easterbrook. The echo chamber of amateur deniers are recycling it all the time. It’s sad how they lack any critical thinking.For a start.GISP2 is one (1) specific place on Greenland. It’s not global.Greenland Ice Sheet Project - Wikipedia“Unfortunately, GISP2 is concerned with local temperatures on Greenland which do not accurately represent the average global temperature – nor even the Northern Hemisphere. Drawing conclusions on the global climate based on GISP2 amounts to pretending that the whole world is affected by heavy rainfalls based on the precipitations in Bergen [a Norwegian city known for plentifull rainfall].”This is GISP2’s location on Greenland, hardly global ay?Secondly.The graph stops in 1855, long before the GW we have seen over the last 164 years. The GISP2 “present” follows a common paleoclimate convention and is actually 1950. The first data point in the file is at 95 years BP. This would make 95 years BP 1855 — a full 164 years ago, long before any other global temperature record shows any modern warming.The man behind the graph is debunking the deniers misrepresenting his work:Lets bring in Dr Richard Alley:“no single temperature record from anywhere can prove or disprove global warming, because the temperature is a local record, and one site is not the whole world.”[…] An isotopic record from one site is not purely a temperature record at that site, so care is required to interpret the signal and not the noise. An extensive scientific literature exists on this topic, and I believe we are pretty good in the community at properly qualifying our statements to accord with the underlying scientific literature; the blogospheric misuses of the GISP2 isotopic data that I have seen are not doing so, and are making errors of interpretation as a result.” (Dr. Richard Alley).Reality Check on Old Ice, Climate and CO2What has happened to temperatures at the top of Greenland ice sheet since 1855?“Jason Box is one of the most prominent scientists working on Greenland and he has a recent paper reconstructing Greenland temperatures for the period 1840-2007. He was kind enough to supply with a temperature reconstruction for the GRIP drilling site — 28 km from GISP2.”Confusing Greenland warming vs global warmingThis is what the annual average temperature record looks like:Updated graph:If we update the denier version:Which brings us 100% in tune with NASA GISS data ,and ALL other modern temperature data from oceans and satellites.https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Two long-term ocean-only temp series (with 95% conf. intervals) shows the same trend as weather stations and satellite data:http://www.realclimate.org/index...Isolated satellite data shows same trend as weather stations and ocean data:RSS: This is from their home page:http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_...It’s A Match: Satellite and Ground Measurements Agree on Warminghttps://www.scientificamerican.c...Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Have climate change deniers finally accepted that the 'pause' never happened? One never hears them mention it these days.Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to What are the causes of climate change?