Talk:Tim Storms

Now?

WHat is Tim doing now?

I wish I had that information so I could post it. I don't know if he is still an entertainer or if he has left the public light. Beisnj 18:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I imagine he makes a good living as a Wedding Singer grunting fake low notes into his microphone...or maybe he is an elephant whisperer... Demobbed Teen (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Copy & Paste?

Isn't this whole page a huge copyright violation as it's just a copy and paste from the first external link?

Claims / Dispute?

Adding to the above (that the article is bascially a cut & paste from his website), I think some commentary should be added, that his low register is really (well practiced) vocal fry, and not singing per se, nor is it terribly unusual for someone to reach 8 Hz (or arbitrarily lower) using this type of voicing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.252.93 (talk) 04:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You are right. This claim makes no sense as it stands, and since the supposed reference (to a loudspeaker company page) is dead, I will just remove it. — Sebastian 19:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

At the end of the article it says "He claims his lowest note can only be heard by elephants". This is something he just has made up. Some quick googling reveals that studies show that elephants can hear down to 16 Hz, some studies claim they have found evidence down to 12 Hz and speculate that maybe the low limit could be as low as 5 Hz. If 5 Hz really is the limit (and not only speculations) it is still more than 4 octaves above the lowest note...

Lowest vocal note Guinness record

Storms still holds the record for vocal range. But Roger Menees broke his record for lowest vocal note. Source: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/Search/Details/Lowest-vocal-note-by-a-male/120480.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.188.253.242 (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

0.189 hz? How is that even considered "sound" ?

A "Hz" is a measure of cycle per second. That means, if you could move your hand 80 times per second in normal atmospheric conditions you would produce an audible tone. If you move your hand at 1 hz, that is, one cycle per second, no matter how hard you move it, you wont produce an audible tone...by anything that perceives sound. You wouldnt be able to produce a wave, it would dissipate in air very quickly.

0.189 hz is 11 cycles PER MINUTE. If a person could literally move their entire body at that rate, It does NOT produce a tone in air, perhaps in water. Air isnt viscous enough to carry that pattern. No matter how big of a thing you wobbled, at 11 times per MINUTE you would never produce a tone in air. So this article is either bogus, unscientific, or the number is wrong. The lowest tone that can be produced in air is probably higher than 2 or 4 Hz before it could even be considered a "sound" by any stretch of the definition, otherwise its just something wobbling at a fixed rate. Mrrealtime (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree. This record is bogus and 0.189hz is not sound. I can make my vocal folds make a single flap. If I do that once every two hours, do I beat the record? If the Guinness people want to acknowledge such nonsense, fine, but it really shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. Fndeboer (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is the news. , Chicken Wing (talk) 05:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

And here are the records. , ) Chicken Wing (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like BS to me too. If you look at that record on Guinness's website, nearly every commenter has the same objection - that it's scientifically imposssible/meaningless/or just an error in knowing how to calculate Hz. Ufwuct (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

A reasonable objection. If I stuck my head through a hole in the wall and breathed really hard, my diaphragm would do a similar job to a subwoofer cone, and the sound frequency would be determined by the rate of my breathing. Vocal cords may be able to vibrate at those frequencies, by that motion would not make any sound, for any practical purposes. See Rotary woofer for perspective; In order to reproduce sound frequencies down to 1 Hz and below, at appreciable pressure levels, it is necessary to move significant amounts of air in and out of the listening room, usually by means of a variable-pitch propeller. A one Hertz sound has a wavelength of around 343 meters in air, this man allegedly produces wavelengths of almost two kilometers. That does not compute. - Soulkeeper (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. It is nonsense to suggest that vocal chords could be controlled to "vibrate" at 1/5 cycle per second. That would not be a vibration (in something the scale and elasticity of the human vocal chords), it would just be a controlled "motion" of some kind. If that motion (in the throat) could be something approximating a sine wave that would be very impressive (I'd have to see it to believe it), but more likely they're just measuring some kind of varied sound pressure that that in one of their samples just happened had enough pressure at 1/5hz intervals (among many many other random frequencies) that their Fourier analysis seemed to show a "note" there. (What was their claimed signal to noise ratio?) But of course that also means there were undertones at 1/10s and 1/20s.. so are they going to count those as "notes" also? For this to be stated as a "fact" rather than just as a title awarded by people who didn't understand what they were doing it would need to be *independently* reproduced. It sounds like what they actually detected there was his *breathing*! DKEdwards (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

How to fix this? With a Guinness World record it is hard to prove the obvious points made above. The thing that galls me about Stroms and his cohort of fake Basso Profundo/Oktavists (Youtube if full of 'em), is that they detract from the real vocal talent out there. Demobbed Teen (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Vocal range

If someone can find a reference for exactly what his vocal range is, i will gladly create the category for it, but for now, im placing him in the highest existing category. there was one higher than 6, but it was deleted, presumably after the names in it were removed for lack of evidence. (full disclosure: i created the categories)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for the ref. i decided to make the category "or greater", as the other names are all at most 6 octaves.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly G-7

0. The new record is G₋₇, or 0.189 Hz is the current phrase.

Assuming our article G is right, G₁₀ = 25087.708 Hz; G₋₇ = 25087.708 * 2⁻¹⁷ = 0.19140402 Hz. So, if 0.189 Hz is correct, he was a bit flat of G₋₇. How about:

1. The new record is 0.189 Hz, slightly below the frequency of G₋₇

In the unlikely event he instead "moved" his chords and then moved them back 5.2244898 seconds later, creating a 0.19140625 Hz "sound" (G₋₇) and the timing or frequency was calculated or recorded wrong, I suppose it should be:

2. The new record is 0.1914 Hz, equivalent to the note G₋₇

Not that any of it should be considered "sound" . So, option 1 for now? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

In addition, it says , eight octaves below the lowest G on the piano, or just over seven octaves below the piano. Huh? Seems like there's something missing, like maybe just over seven octaves below the lowest note on a piano., though I propose we just drop that last clause entirely. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020

Man with big deep voice. 2601:587:4300:600:C8B4:823A:F09F:BC34 (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done I think the lead paragraph covers that.-gadfium 01:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

"Non-audibility" context vs "Claims/Dispute"

There's already a heated discussion here, but I believe I have a very "neutral" and non-controversial idea on how to address the glaring issue. Tbh, I think it's Guinness at fault, since the record entry has all helpful technical details but lacks basic context. My proposal - can we add 1-2 sentences that simply explains that "0.189 Hz frequency is by several orders of magnitude below the theoretical audible sensitivity threshold not only for humans but majority of species, besides maybe the largest whales."

Perhaps, it can be wrapped around some of the tech background addressed on the Guinness Book's page: "The frequency output of Timothy's voice was measured using Bruel & Kjaer equipment (low frequency microphone, precision sound analyser and laptop for post analysis)."

Unfortunately, I'm not well-versed in music theory/Wiki-styling enough to lay it out nicely myself, plus there's a "semi-protected" status. But I think this would be very helpful for casual readers and potentially explain/alleviate concerns by more informed readers.

Without any mention that it's utterly unaudible, it naturally provokes professionals to call for "Disputes", etc. LevKantor (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

This seems much more reasonable. Tim and his wife were two of my roommates in 2001-2002 when they moved to Portland. Nice guy, very humble. I saw him in concert several times while he was with Rescue. They had fun with his voice during these concerts, showing it off. He would start audibly and go down octaves. At some point it was no longer audible but you could definitely feel it. So no, it's no longer sound but yes, it is detectable by other means.

I know, I know, I'm just some rando from the internet who could be saying anything. But I just came here to fact check after telling my kids about him.

97.120.200.81 (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Surely the obvious conclusion is a typo somewhere in the Guinness Book of Records. The frequencies should all be kHz: a thousand times more than shown. That makes the upper limit more sensible too ~2025-41864-91 (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Reference 1 broken?

It looks like something is wrong with Reference 1, to an article apparently titled, "How High Can You Go?". Looking at the article's original website, I found a "How Low Can You Go?" with the same publication date but a different URL. The link to the archived copy at archive.org is similarly broken. Gltackett (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I accidentally left out the URL for the "low" article currently available on the original website: https://www.mixonline.com/technology/how-low-can-you-go-378137 Gltackett (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the way that the complicated Reference 1 is presently constructed and am reluctant to edit it myself. Gltackett (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)