[Westing1992] Gene Hackman

An archive of solved lateral thinking puzzles.

Moderators: peter365, Balin, kalira, JenBurdoo, Tiger

[Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby Westing1992 » Mon May 21, 2018 11:22 pm

(I've been away for a while... but I'm back, at least for now.)

I would prefer it if they were louder... but I would really prefer it if I couldn't hear them at all.
Last edited by Westing1992 on Mon Jul 16, 2018 7:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Westing1992
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:34 pm
Location: United States

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby KayleeArafinwiel » Tue May 22, 2018 1:17 am

welcome back, then, Westing :)

I = you, Westing? Does I 1 = I 2 = I 3?

They = H? A? M? They = Them?
KayleeArafinwiel
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:11 pm

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby GalFisk » Tue May 22, 2018 5:21 am

Louder: noisier? More colorful/contrasting? Going up to 11 instead of 10?
They: people? Devices? Machines? Instruments? Animals? Weather phenomena?
If noise, does it come from: voices? Speakers? Instruments? Machines? Traffic? Is the noise intentional? A byproduct?
Would not hearing them mean: they are silent? They are distant? They are idle or dormant? They are defective? Disabled? Gone? You are deaf? You hear something that drowns them out? You wear hearing protection?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 7955
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby Westing1992 » Tue May 22, 2018 1:39 pm

welcome back, then, Westing Thanks!

I = you, Westing? Yes. Does I 1 = I 2 = I 3? Yes.

They = H? Yes. A? Typically, but not necessarily. M? Not necessarily. They = Them? Yes.

Louder: noisier? This, though "noisier" has some misleading connotations. More colorful/contrasting? Going up to 11 instead of 10?
They: people? This. Devices? Machines? Instruments? Animals? Weather phenomena?
If noise, does it come from: voices? This. Speakers? Instruments? Machines? Traffic? Is the noise intentional? A byproduct?
Would not hearing them mean: they are silent? They are distant? This, more than likely. Silent and gone could also work. They are idle or dormant? They are defective? Disabled? Gone? You are deaf? You hear something that drowns them out? You wear hearing protection?
User avatar
Westing1992
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:34 pm
Location: United States

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby Earnest » Wed May 23, 2018 6:13 am

Welcome back!

" if I couldn't hear them at all" = if it was completely silent? If the source of noise was not their voice (but something else is allowed)?

"I would prefer it if they were louder" = do you prefer "it" to itself in the case they talk softly? Or do you prefer "it" to something else? Louder = to speak up? To have a normal tone? To have a tone lauder than the one used in libraries? Had they had the tone used in libraries, would you like "it"? Had they screamed would you have preferred it? Would you dislike/like it less, had they whispered? Had you preferred more thet: a) they begin to talk laud and then suddenly stop;
b) they don't even start to talk; c) they start talking softly than lauder and lauder?
Btw, did they talk to each other? With you also? With someone not present?(e.g. they were at the phone)


WAG --> Is something like they were talking about you/your actions in a bad way so that when you noticed that they looked at you whispering you'd like that they talked lauder so that you could hear what they said, but at the same time of course you'd really had preferred they did not even start to talk?

Relevant where you were? Library? Cinema? Theatre? Public mean of transport? At home watching tv?
"It" = a device? An object? A tangible one? A movie? A situation? A commedy? A video?
Earnest
 
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby Westing1992 » Wed May 23, 2018 1:36 pm

"I would prefer it if they were louder" = do you prefer "it" to itself in the case they talk softly? This, if I understand you correctly. Or do you prefer "it" to something else? Louder = to speak up? Yes. To have a normal tone? To have a tone lauder than the one used in libraries? Both of these. Had they had the tone used in libraries, would you like "it"? Depends. Had they screamed would you have preferred it? Yes, though not as much. Would you dislike/like it less, had they whispered? Probably. Had you preferred more that: a) they begin to talk laud and then suddenly stop; Sure. b) they don't even start to talk; Sure. c) they start talking softly than lauder and lauder? Better than the current situation, but not ideal.

Btw, did they talk to each other? With you also? With someone not present? (e.g. they were at the phone) I may have misled; they're not physically present to me. It's also a more general "they" than specific people.

WAG --> Is something like they were talking about you/your actions in a bad way so that when you noticed that they looked at you whispering you'd like that they talked lauder so that you could hear what they said, but at the same time of course you'd really had preferred they did not even start to talk? No.

Relevant where you were? Library? Cinema? Theatre? Public mean of transport? At home watching tv? They were not physically present.
"It" = a device? An object? A tangible one? A movie? A situation? This, in a general sense. "It" is a dummy pronoun here. A commedy? A video?
User avatar
Westing1992
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:34 pm
Location: United States

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby GalFisk » Wed May 23, 2018 2:54 pm

Do they sing? Speak? Yell? Whisper? Mumble? Do they annoy you because you can hear their voices but not the words? Do you hear them at home? Work? Travel? In public?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 7955
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby Westing1992 » Wed May 23, 2018 11:22 pm

Do they sing? No. Speak? Yell? Whisper? Mumble? All could work, depending on the distance/circumstances. Do they annoy you because you can hear their voices but not the words? Yes! Do you hear them at home? Work? I work from home, so both of these. Travel? In public?
User avatar
Westing1992
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:34 pm
Location: United States

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby invisiblemimsy » Thu May 24, 2018 6:41 pm

Tinnitus, deafness or other hearing problems relevant? "Hearing voices" due to psychiatric or psychic reasons?
Are you fed up with people's speech/chatter in general, or what they are saying?
Would you rather they be distant/gone so that their noise was lower in volume, or their speech indistinct? Or would you rather they were distant/gone for another reason, e.g. you were fed up with their company, wanted to be alone, didn't like them, other?
Is this on the radio, TV etc, on the internet?
Is this your family or animals who are disturbing you?
User avatar
invisiblemimsy
 
Posts: 1278
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:16 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby Westing1992 » Fri May 25, 2018 6:27 pm

Tinnitus, deafness or other hearing problems relevant? "Hearing voices" due to psychiatric or psychic reasons? Neither.
Are you fed up with people's speech/chatter in general, or what they are saying? Neither, FA.
Would you rather they be distant/gone so that their noise was lower in volume, or their speech indistinct? Or would you rather they were distant/gone for another reason, e.g. you were fed up with their company, wanted to be alone, didn't like them, other? I'd rather them be distant/gone so that I couldn't hear them at all... or for them to be closer so I could hear them better.
Is this on the radio, TV etc, on the internet? It's a recording.
Is this your family or animals who are disturbing you? No.
User avatar
Westing1992
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:34 pm
Location: United States

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby Westing1992 » Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:36 pm

Recap: There's a recording of people's voices that I listen to at my house. Due to the distance from the recording device, some of these voices are hard to hear. I'd prefer if I could hear them better... but I'd really prefer if they were so far away they were silent!
User avatar
Westing1992
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:34 pm
Location: United States

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby GalFisk » Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:15 pm

For hearing better, would you prefer the device to be: louder? Closer? Somewhere within sight?
For not hearing, would you prefer it to: have headphones for the intended audience? Be more silent? Farther away? Blocked off (by walls, doors, sound-dampening materials etc)? Turned off? Destroyed?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 7955
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby wolfier » Mon Jun 04, 2018 4:16 pm

Are you sleeping or taking a rest? Does this recording function as an alarm? To remind you of something you need to do? Voices of adult? Children? Someone in your family? Coworkers in a meeting? Doorbell?

WAG: you're busy (resting/working), and someone speaks into the intercomm from outside of your frontdoor. If it were louder, you'd know who exactly they're looking for, so you can ignore it if it isn't for you. However, you'd rather not hear it at all so you can totally ignore it.
wolfier
 
Posts: 969
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 4:42 am

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby Westing1992 » Mon Jun 04, 2018 6:55 pm

For hearing better, would you prefer the device to be: louder? Closer? Somewhere within sight?
For not hearing, would you prefer it to: have headphones for the intended audience? Be more silent? Farther away? Blocked off (by walls, doors, sound-dampening materials etc)? Turned off? Destroyed? Clarification: the people being recorded are the ones far away from the recording device, not me.

Are you sleeping or taking a rest? Does this recording function as an alarm? To remind you of something you need to do? None of these. Voices of adult? Children? Usually adult, but could be children. Someone in your family? Coworkers in a meeting? Doorbell? None of these.

WAG: you're busy (resting/working), and someone speaks into the intercomm from outside of your frontdoor. If it were louder, you'd know who exactly they're looking for, so you can ignore it if it isn't for you. However, you'd rather not hear it at all so you can totally ignore it. No.
User avatar
Westing1992
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:34 pm
Location: United States

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby wolfier » Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:15 pm

Do you want to hear the contents better because:
- you suspect they're talking about you?
- you know the details would be actionable to you?
- you know in general what they're talking about, but missed some tiny yet crucial specifics?
- you benefit from the details financially? psychologically? results in less work to do? less confusion? less wasted time?

Is it relevant how often this happens? It sounds like it is a frequent or even routine occurrence.
wolfier
 
Posts: 969
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 4:42 am

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby Westing1992 » Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:06 am

Do you want to hear the contents better because:
- you suspect they're talking about you? I know they're not.
- you know the details would be actionable to you? No.
- you know in general what they're talking about, but missed some tiny yet crucial specifics? You could describe it like this, though it may be misleading.
- you benefit from the details financially? psychologically? results in less work to do? less confusion? This. less wasted time? And possibly this.

Is it relevant how often this happens? It sounds like it is a frequent or even routine occurrence. It happens fairly often, but the frequency isn't directly relevant. It might help you find out what the situation is, though.
User avatar
Westing1992
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:34 pm
Location: United States

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby wolfier » Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:57 am

If you "turn off" or otherwise disable the device, would it make a difference to you? After all you would not be able to hear it then. How does this situation compare to being able to hear more details or hearing silence from the device?
wolfier
 
Posts: 969
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 4:42 am

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby Westing1992 » Thu Jun 07, 2018 2:52 am

If you "turn off" or otherwise disable the device, would it make a difference to you? After all you would not be able to hear it then. How does this situation compare to being able to hear more details or hearing silence from the device? I WANT to hear the device... I just don't want to hear these particular voices.
User avatar
Westing1992
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:34 pm
Location: United States

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby GalFisk » Thu Jun 07, 2018 9:33 am

Is it a baby monitor? Other surveillance equipment?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 7955
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby wolfier » Thu Jun 07, 2018 1:23 pm

is the recording device and the playback device one and the same, or are they physically separate? if latter, are they apart by metres? kilometres? in the same city? country? are there one or multiple recording devices, and are they fixed or moving? how old are these recordings when you listen to them - minutes? hours? days or longer?
wolfier
 
Posts: 969
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 4:42 am

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby Westing1992 » Fri Jun 08, 2018 1:28 am

Is it a baby monitor? Other surveillance equipment? Neither.

is the recording device and the playback device one and the same, or are they physically separate? Separate. if latter, are they apart by metres? kilometres? in the same city? country? They're typically recorded far away. Where they're recorded is largely irrelevant, though. are there one or multiple recording devices, Multiple. and are they fixed or moving? Not entirely sure what you mean by this; I guess fixed? how old are these recordings when you listen to them - minutes? hours? days or longer? At least a few days; mostly irrelevant.
User avatar
Westing1992
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:34 pm
Location: United States

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby wolfier » Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:01 am

Are you using an answering machine?
wolfier
 
Posts: 969
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 4:42 am

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby GalFisk » Fri Jun 08, 2018 10:53 am

Are they recorded: for you? By you? Did you pay for the recordings? Are they made outside? Are they made in order to capture the soundscape of a place? Are the voices supposed to be unintelligible?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 7955
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby Westing1992 » Sat Jun 09, 2018 1:26 am

Are you using an answering machine? No.

Are they recorded: for you? By you? Did you pay for the recordings? No to all. Are they made outside? Some were. Are they made in order to capture the soundscape of a place?No. Are the voices supposed to be unintelligible? No.
User avatar
Westing1992
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:34 pm
Location: United States

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby wolfier » Sat Jun 09, 2018 1:27 pm

radio and interference relevant?
wolfier
 
Posts: 969
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 4:42 am

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby Westing1992 » Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:03 am

radio and interference relevant? No. (Though interference WOULD be a problem!)
User avatar
Westing1992
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:34 pm
Location: United States

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby Earnest » Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:58 am

Did you know where the device was? Could you reach it? If not, relevant the reason why(e.g. you were doing a shower? You were sleeping?...) Raise up the volume? Or were voices recorded in a way that you can hear voicec but not words? Had you been able to hear the words, would you relax yourself? Not be worried anymore? Turn the device off? What's app recording relevant? Is it something like you were ill and not able to go to a party and some of your friends send you a vocal message after having drunk?

Recording = just a vocal device? A video? Have you recorded it? Had someone else? If so relevant how you got the recording? Did someone send it to you?

To be sure...was the device in your house right?
Earnest
 
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby GalFisk » Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:39 am

Was a mistake made when recording? Did others hear the recording? Did someone pay for the recording? Was the recording broadcast?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 7955
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby Westing1992 » Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:32 am

Did you know where the device was? There are two devices: a recording one and a playback one. Could you reach it? I could reach the playback device. If not, relevant the reason why (e.g. you were doing a shower? You were sleeping?...) Raise up the volume? Or were voices recorded in a way that you can hear voices but not words? This. Had you been able to hear the words, would you relax yourself? Not be worried anymore? I wasn't worried; I was more annoyed. Turn the device off? No. WhatsApp recording relevant? No. Is it something like you were ill and not able to go to a party and some of your friends send you a vocal message after having drunk? No.

Recording = just a vocal device? A video? Have you recorded it? Had someone else? This. If so relevant how you got the recording? Yes. Did someone send it to you? Yes.

To be sure...was the device in your house right? The playback device, yes.

Was a mistake made when recording? DOYD of "mistake". Did others hear the recording? Yes. Did someone pay for the recording? No, but explore. Was the recording broadcast? No.
User avatar
Westing1992
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:34 pm
Location: United States

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby wolfier » Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:42 am

is it an analogue or a digital recording?
wolfier
 
Posts: 969
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 4:42 am

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby Earnest » Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:53 am

I'd prefer if I could hear them better... but I'd really prefer if they were so far away they were silent! --> did you come up to this conclusion after having heard all the recording? Or have you stopped it before the end?

Playback device = you could have stopped/rewinded/speeded up/slowed the recording whenever you wanted through the playback device? Were you hearing the recording through the playback device? Could the playback device have been a PC? An App on the phone? A TV? A professional playback device (like the ones present in recording studios for music bands for instance)?

Did someone try to record a band at a concert? Have you asked someone to record something for you? Btw...was it just an audio track?

WAG ---> did someone else's voice cover what you wanted to hear? E.g. someone was at a concert and recorded the band playing but he/she was singing along with the singer so that you could just hear her/his voice?
Earnest
 
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby Westing1992 » Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:44 pm

is it an analogue or a digital recording? Digital, I believe.

I'd prefer if I could hear them better... but I'd really prefer if they were so far away they were silent! --> did you come up to this conclusion after having heard all the recording? Or have you stopped it before the end? I can usually tell once I get the part of the recording in question.

Playback device = you could have stopped/rewinded/speeded up/slowed the recording whenever you wanted through the playback device? Stop and rewind, yes. Slow down and speed up, no, but irrelevant anyway. Were you hearing the recording through the playback device? Yes. Could the playback device have been a PC? It's this. An App on the phone? A TV? A professional playback device (like the ones present in recording studios for music bands for instance)?

Did someone try to record a band at a concert? Have you asked someone to record something for you? Btw...was it just an audio track? You mean, as opposed to a video with audio? Yes, it's just audio.

WAG ---> did someone else's voice cover what you wanted to hear? No. E.g. someone was at a concert and recorded the band playing but he/she was singing along with the singer so that you could just hear her/his voice? No.
User avatar
Westing1992
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:34 pm
Location: United States

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby Earnest » Sat Jun 16, 2018 7:22 am

Were you wearing headphones? Relevant? Was there some kind of distyrbance that allowed you not to her them proerly? Was the disturb from outside? Or from the PC? Was there just the sound of the recording playing? Is the reason why you could hear their voice but not the words the quality of the audio track? Something due to your PC? The circumstances in which "they" recorded the audio (e.g. while skydiving so that all the wind was covering what they said and making a loud noise?) Did the audio last a lot? More than a minute? More than 30 minutes? Relevant? Did you hear it all? Relevant what they were saying? Was the audio for you specifically? When telling the words were them excited? Neutral? Tired? Out of breath? Afraid? Amused? Entertained? Joyful? Others? Had they recorded in your house would the puzzle work as well?

To be sure...relevant the recording device used? A phone? Were you unable to hear the total audio? Just a part of it? Audio books relevant?
Earnest
 
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby Westing1992 » Sun Jun 17, 2018 11:29 pm

Were you wearing headphones? Yes. Relevant? Not really. Was there some kind of distyrbance that allowed you not to her them proerly? No.Was the disturb from outside? Or from the PC? So no to both. Was there just the sound of the recording playing? Yes. Is the reason why you could hear their voice but not the words the quality of the audio track? DOYD of "quality". Something due to your PC? No. The circumstances in which "they" recorded the audio (e.g. while skydiving so that all the wind was covering what they said and making a loud noise?) Similar, but mainly they're just far away. Did the audio last a lot? More than a minute? More than 30 minutes? Relevant? Did you hear it all? I listened to the full audio. Relevant what they were saying? No. Was the audio for you specifically? No. When telling the words were them excited? Neutral? Tired? Out of breath? Afraid? Amused? Entertained? Joyful? Others? Irr. Had they recorded in your house would the puzzle work as well? They would not be recording in my house.

To be sure...relevant the recording device used? A phone? It was this, but not entirely relevant. Were you unable to hear the total audio? Just a part of it? Part of it. Audio books relevant? No.
User avatar
Westing1992
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:34 pm
Location: United States

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby wolfier » Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:03 am

relevant why you are listening to the whole audio? do you have to? is it because you are searching for something in the audio by hearing? is it a artistic piece that feels incomplete unless you listen in entirety? meditation relevant? is gaming relevant? if so, online multiplayer? is someone cheating? did you initiate the recordings, and are you in control of when the playback happens?
wolfier
 
Posts: 969
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 4:42 am

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby Earnest » Mon Jun 18, 2018 9:07 am

Was the audio recorded in the past? Did you need to hear something else a part from the recording relevantly? Did you prefer not to hear them at all because of the annoying sound they were doing? Was the audio disturbed by interferences? Sound of interferences relevant?
Was youtube opened? Pop ups relevant? Did you need not to lose time?
Earnest
 
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby Westing1992 » Thu Jun 21, 2018 9:20 pm

relevant why you are listening to the whole audio? do you have to? Yes. is it because you are searching for something in the audio by hearing? Not specifically. is it a artistic piece that feels incomplete unless you listen in entirety? meditation relevant? is gaming relevant? if so, online multiplayer? is someone cheating? None of these. did you initiate the recordings, No. and are you in control of when the playback happens? I am.

Was the audio recorded in the past? Yes. Did you need to hear something else a part from the recording relevantly? No. Did you prefer not to hear them at all because of the annoying sound they were doing? No. Was the audio disturbed by interferences? Sound of interferences relevant? Neither. Was youtube opened? Pop ups relevant? No and no. Did you need not to lose time? I'd have saved time if I didn't hear them.
User avatar
Westing1992
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:34 pm
Location: United States

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby Earnest » Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:54 am

Did you know "them"? Were them your friends? Relevant? Were them outside? In inside? Relevant? Were they talking to each other in the audio? Were them talkong in sequence one after the other? Singing? Laughing? Did they have a microphone? Did they have some specific charachteristic in common? Were they suspected in a trial? Were they witnessing something?
Before hearing the audio, did you expect to hear something specific from it? Did you expect someone would have send it to you? Did you ask for it? Is the audio related to a conversation? Of so, did you notice in a video that someone was talking but could not understand the words so that you requested the audio track? Or you requested the audio of an old video document? Relevant your job? Do you work with audio tracks? Is your job to repair audio tracks?

Did you have to listen to it for your job? To understand the reason why it did not sound well? To prove that you heard the audio entirely (like in what's app where if you hear entirely the audio then the bar colours differently)?
Earnest
 
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby Westing1992 » Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:53 am

Did you know "them"? Were them your friends? Neither. Relevant? Were them outside? In inside? Relevant? Irr.Were they talking to each other in the audio? Yes. Were them talkong in sequence one after the other? Mostly. Singing? No. Laughing? Irr. Did they have a microphone? No. Did they have some specific charachteristic in common? No. Were they suspected in a trial? No. Were they witnessing something? Usually, but irrelevant.
Before hearing the audio, did you expect to hear something specific from it? No. Did you expect someone would have send it to you? Yes. Did you ask for it? Not specifically. Is the audio related to a conversation? It is a conversation... Of so, did you notice in a video that someone was talking but could not understand the words so that you requested the audio track? Or you requested the audio of an old video document? No to both. Relevant your job? Yes! Do you work with audio tracks? Yes! Is your job to repair audio tracks? No.

Did you have to listen to it for your job? Yes! To understand the reason why it did not sound well? To prove that you heard the audio entirely (like in what's app where if you hear entirely the audio then the bar colours differently)? But neither of these.
User avatar
Westing1992
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:34 pm
Location: United States

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby Earnest » Wed Jun 27, 2018 6:41 am

Is the audio part of a series of tracks (e.g. a CD)? Do you work as an english teacher (I remember my english teacher listening to audio tracks with me)? Does your job mainly consist in interpreting what is said in the conversation? Convert the audio track? Better its quality? Understand what is said in audio tracks? Do you mainly hear recorded conversations as a part of your job? Can we define the subjects talking as "your patients"? Was it an experiment? Were they all aware of being recorded? That the recording would have been send to you? Had the recording been made long time before it was send to you? (years? Months? Days? Minutes? Hours?)
Are the words told by them relevant for your job?

Your job = technology relevant? Movie maker? Is acustic/sound the main focus of your job? (E.g. producing specific sounds for movies/radio) radio involved?
Are e-books relevant? (The conversation was a part of the book)
Earnest
 
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby Westing1992 » Fri Jun 29, 2018 12:03 am

Is the audio part of a series of tracks (e.g. a CD)? No. Do you work as an english teacher (I remember my english teacher listening to audio tracks with me)? No. Does your job mainly consist in interpreting what is said in the conversation? DOYD of "interpreting"; I'd say no. Convert the audio track? Better its quality? No and no. Understand what is said in audio tracks? This. Do you mainly hear recorded conversations as a part of your job? Yes. Can we define the subjects talking as "your patients"? No. Was it an experiment? No. Were they all aware of being recorded? Some might not have been; irr. That the recording would have been send to you? They would not have been aware. Had the recording been made long time before it was send to you? (years? Months? Days? Minutes? Hours?) At least a few days, most irr.
Are the words told by them relevant for your job? Not really.

Your job = technology relevant? Yes. Movie maker? No. Is acustic/sound the main focus of your job? Sound is the main focus... (E.g. producing specific sounds for movies/radio) radio involved? Are e-books relevant? (The conversation was a part of the book) ...but none of these.

Also, to clarify: There are multiple recordings, with different people. The situation is a recurring problem, but doesn't happen all the time.
User avatar
Westing1992
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:34 pm
Location: United States

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby Earnest » Fri Jun 29, 2018 7:05 am

Once you have understood what is said in audio tracks, do you report it on a paper? Do you write it down? Do your costumers send to you the audio tracks? Are you each time interested in what is the specific contenent of the audio track or are you mainly interested in the fact that it makes sense what it is said? Was the sound coming from that specific audio track the one that you expected? Are different "chamber parts" relevant? Bass/ background noises...? Did you want to delete background noises?

Do you repair chambers/broken technological parts of devices connected to sounds?
Earnest
 
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby Westing1992 » Fri Jun 29, 2018 7:56 pm

Once you have understood what is said in audio tracks, do you report it on a paper? No. Do you write it down? YES, DYOD of "write". Do your costumers send to you the audio tracks? Not directly; the company I work for acts as a middleman. Are you each time interested in what is the specific contenent of the audio track or are you mainly interested in the fact that it makes sense what it is said? The latter. Was the sound coming from that specific audio track the one that you expected? I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are different "chamber parts" relevant? Do you repair chambers/broken technological parts of devices connected to sounds? No. Bass/ background noises...? Did you want to delete background noises? Not really. A lack of background noise would make my job easier, though.
User avatar
Westing1992
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:34 pm
Location: United States

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby wolfier » Fri Jun 29, 2018 9:36 pm

is your job to separate audio streams into different tracks? so knowing when those conversations begin and end will save you time re-listening?
wolfier
 
Posts: 969
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 4:42 am

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby Earnest » Sat Jun 30, 2018 7:35 am

write = by hand? On the pc? Do you develop applications that write down authomatically what is said in the audio tracks? Or do you use such applications? Is something like the youtube authomatic subtitles involved relevantly?
Earnest
 
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 7:52 am

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby Westing1992 » Wed Jul 04, 2018 6:00 pm

is your job to separate audio streams into different tracks? so knowing when those conversations begin and end will save you time re-listening? No.

write = by hand? On the pc? This. Do you develop applications that write down authomatically what is said in the audio tracks? Or do you use such applications? No. Is something like the youtube authomatic subtitles involved relevantly? No.
User avatar
Westing1992
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:34 pm
Location: United States

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby GalFisk » Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:23 am

Are you making subtitles? Text for the hearing impaired? Transcripts of recordings? Translations?
GalFisk
 
Posts: 7955
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 8:03 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby Westing1992 » Thu Jul 12, 2018 2:45 am

Are you making subtitles? Text for the hearing impaired? Transcripts of recordings? THIS! Translations?
User avatar
Westing1992
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:34 pm
Location: United States

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby biograd » Fri Jul 13, 2018 2:56 am

Are the voices you wish you couldn't hear the entirety of the recordings? or just certain snippets that are extraneous to the rest of what is spoken? Is there some sort of rule that any spoken speech that is audible must be transcribed? so you wish that certain extraneous comments were not even audible (and therefore you wouldn't have to add confusion to the transcript by including them at all), but barring that, you wish they were intelligible enough to transcribe easily?
biograd
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:25 am

Re: [Westing1992] Gene Hackman

Postby Westing1992 » Mon Jul 16, 2018 7:37 pm

Are the voices you wish you couldn't hear the entirety of the recordings? YES. or just certain snippets that are extraneous to the rest of what is spoken? Is there some sort of rule that any spoken speech that is audible must be transcribed? YES. so you wish that certain extraneous comments were not even audible (and therefore you wouldn't have to add confusion to the transcript by including them at all), but barring that, you wish they were intelligible enough to transcribe easily? Exactly!

***SPOILER***
The transcription job style guide requires us to transcribe all relevant speech. Sometimes a person in the background briefly interacts with the main speakers of the recording, far enough away from the microphone that I have to strain to hear it. I'd prefer if they were easier to understand, but I'd like it better (as has happened a few times) if they were far enough away to be silent.

The title, by the way, is a reference to the Hackman movie "The Conversation", which my job reminds me of sometimes.
User avatar
Westing1992
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:34 pm
Location: United States


Return to Solved Lateral Thinking Puzzles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests