Mariana Trench Noises
Mariana Trench Noises
If you put a microphone 36,000 feet down into the water, what would you expect to hear? Apparently a lot more than you can imagine. There are scientists out there exploring places on earth that have never been explored before and it's as exciting as anything we can do with a space ship. http://gizmodo.com/first-audio-recordin ... 1762480466
-
Icey
Re: Mariana Trench Noises
It's brilliant Yogi! Considering that it's over 6.5 miles down, the recording's really good, especially when the hydrophone picked up the typhoon way above it! Loved listening to the whales as well. : )
Re: Mariana Trench Noises
Hmmm, I tried several times to hear the audio, but could not find audio anywhere on the site the link takes me too.
I also tried clicking a few other links to no avail.
On a different note. I've never had hearing in the range where little girls scream, I don't hear them, nor do I hear piazo crystal sounds, like the beeps from computers and other appliances.
I consider this a blessing more so than a problem. Even so, when I was younger, I was fitted with a hearing aid that reduced the frequency of sounds within my lost hearing range down to where I could hear them.
There was an unwanted side affect of wearing these things, as I could now hear a few sounds which were higher than our normal range of hearing, and some of them could drive you bonkers.
This was back in the days when people wore pagers on their belt. Those things, every one of them made a loud squealing noise. Some were even audible to normal people. No wonder dogs went crazy when around those things until they learned to ignore them.
One of my Ham Radio HF gear receivers had the ability to shift the audio up and down in frequency, but was mostly limited to only about a thousand Hz. Most speakers cannot produce audio above our hearing range, but a lot of high-end earphone can.
We made several tape recordings outside, like of birds, babbling brooks, etc. and by playing them back through my HF receivers audio section, I could adjust higher frequencies down a tad. I was amazed at all the sounds out there which are above our hearing range, and this was only a range just above our hearing, which is all my equipment could handle.
I'll bet with today's equipment, they could probably convert light waves down to audio so we could actually hear colors, hi hi...
I also tried clicking a few other links to no avail.
On a different note. I've never had hearing in the range where little girls scream, I don't hear them, nor do I hear piazo crystal sounds, like the beeps from computers and other appliances.
I consider this a blessing more so than a problem. Even so, when I was younger, I was fitted with a hearing aid that reduced the frequency of sounds within my lost hearing range down to where I could hear them.
There was an unwanted side affect of wearing these things, as I could now hear a few sounds which were higher than our normal range of hearing, and some of them could drive you bonkers.
This was back in the days when people wore pagers on their belt. Those things, every one of them made a loud squealing noise. Some were even audible to normal people. No wonder dogs went crazy when around those things until they learned to ignore them.
One of my Ham Radio HF gear receivers had the ability to shift the audio up and down in frequency, but was mostly limited to only about a thousand Hz. Most speakers cannot produce audio above our hearing range, but a lot of high-end earphone can.
We made several tape recordings outside, like of birds, babbling brooks, etc. and by playing them back through my HF receivers audio section, I could adjust higher frequencies down a tad. I was amazed at all the sounds out there which are above our hearing range, and this was only a range just above our hearing, which is all my equipment could handle.
I'll bet with today's equipment, they could probably convert light waves down to audio so we could actually hear colors, hi hi...
-
Icey
Re: Mariana Trench Noises
Well Gary, you probably haven't missed much, with some of the irritating sounds we hear - like chalk being "squeaked" down a board, or fingernails making similar sounds - shudder! I know someone who had a cochlear implant. He found that better than previous hearing aids, as there was no whistle or feedback, and he didn't have to adjust the volume, but he DID have to get used to the new sounds which he was hearing.
Re: Mariana Trench Noises
I have one of those little dog whistles which are above our hearing range.
And learned a couple of things about it by playing with it with a db and tuning meter.
A slow steady blow into the whistle produces a louder tone than blowing hard into it.
If you blow too hard, it actually produces no sound at all, the same happens with most normal whistles too.
By watching the db meter, I learned just how hard to blow for it to produce the loudest sound, which is above our hearing range.
Since you can adjust the dog whistles pitch by turning it from audible up to above our hearing range by giving it a twist.
I also used the tuning meter in conjunction with the db meter to see which tone setting produced the highest reading.
On my db meter, the tone just above our hearing range produced the loudest tone, but this could have been due to limitations of the db meter itself. However, if I tuned even higher, the db meter once again showed a high volume tone. I had no idea how high I was because my tuning meter was limited to only a short ways above audio frequencies.
Sound travels a long way under water. I put a microphone inside a large pill bottle once and sealed it up with silicone so water wouldn't get inside. This came a few weeks after we put a speaker inside a plastic box to see if it would attract or repel fish. I wanted to hear what the speaker sounded like under water. Horrible would be putting it mildly. But we did learn that a low pitched sound, or a super high pitch sound did attract fish, and everything in between scared them away.
Every type of boat motor, or probably the boat motors gearbox, made a distinctively different sound, and sometimes even the noisiest of boat motors, made the least amount of sound under water. Almost every electric trolling motor was far noisier under water than the gasoline motors, which surprised us. Tapping your foot in a boat would be 100 times louder than the loudest motor too. As was a boat moving to stop at a sandbar. They made quite a racket under the water which carried a long ways too.
Back to the dog whistle for a moment. They may get the dogs attention, but they do not necessarily cause a dog to come toward the sound of the whistle. They have to be trained to do so.
However, if you take two pieces of rubber, or one piece folded over itself, like a small piece of inner tube, wet it, and rub the two pieces of rubber together lightly, almost all dogs will come to investigate the sound.
Also, if you take a wooden stick and burn the end of it to black, then rub it on a piece of slate gently, just enough to make a small barely perceptible squeak sound, this too will cause dogs to come check out the noise.
Maybe it sounds like a small critter? But they do come running, hi hi...
And learned a couple of things about it by playing with it with a db and tuning meter.
A slow steady blow into the whistle produces a louder tone than blowing hard into it.
If you blow too hard, it actually produces no sound at all, the same happens with most normal whistles too.
By watching the db meter, I learned just how hard to blow for it to produce the loudest sound, which is above our hearing range.
Since you can adjust the dog whistles pitch by turning it from audible up to above our hearing range by giving it a twist.
I also used the tuning meter in conjunction with the db meter to see which tone setting produced the highest reading.
On my db meter, the tone just above our hearing range produced the loudest tone, but this could have been due to limitations of the db meter itself. However, if I tuned even higher, the db meter once again showed a high volume tone. I had no idea how high I was because my tuning meter was limited to only a short ways above audio frequencies.
Sound travels a long way under water. I put a microphone inside a large pill bottle once and sealed it up with silicone so water wouldn't get inside. This came a few weeks after we put a speaker inside a plastic box to see if it would attract or repel fish. I wanted to hear what the speaker sounded like under water. Horrible would be putting it mildly. But we did learn that a low pitched sound, or a super high pitch sound did attract fish, and everything in between scared them away.
Every type of boat motor, or probably the boat motors gearbox, made a distinctively different sound, and sometimes even the noisiest of boat motors, made the least amount of sound under water. Almost every electric trolling motor was far noisier under water than the gasoline motors, which surprised us. Tapping your foot in a boat would be 100 times louder than the loudest motor too. As was a boat moving to stop at a sandbar. They made quite a racket under the water which carried a long ways too.
Back to the dog whistle for a moment. They may get the dogs attention, but they do not necessarily cause a dog to come toward the sound of the whistle. They have to be trained to do so.
However, if you take two pieces of rubber, or one piece folded over itself, like a small piece of inner tube, wet it, and rub the two pieces of rubber together lightly, almost all dogs will come to investigate the sound.
Also, if you take a wooden stick and burn the end of it to black, then rub it on a piece of slate gently, just enough to make a small barely perceptible squeak sound, this too will cause dogs to come check out the noise.
Maybe it sounds like a small critter? But they do come running, hi hi...
-
Icey
Re: Mariana Trench Noises
LOl - well I have to say that to get my dogs running to me, all I have to do is to call their names! They each know their own one, so unless the other's feeling like a nosey-bum, only the one reqired'll respond to it. We have gundogs trained to whistles, but apart from that, just a shout brings results, as they aren't out of earshot unless on a long walk.
The thing that amazed me about the noises heard from the bottom of the Mariana Trench, is that the microphone was such a long distance away from the source of the sounds. Six and a half miles is a long way down, and you'd expect the density of the water to make such noises impossible to record. It's not like a sonic boom or hearing a bomb explode a few miles away on land. You not only have the depth to contend with, with the sounds from waves breaking, and yet you can hear whales - and typhoon's brewing.
The thing that amazed me about the noises heard from the bottom of the Mariana Trench, is that the microphone was such a long distance away from the source of the sounds. Six and a half miles is a long way down, and you'd expect the density of the water to make such noises impossible to record. It's not like a sonic boom or hearing a bomb explode a few miles away on land. You not only have the depth to contend with, with the sounds from waves breaking, and yet you can hear whales - and typhoon's brewing.
Re: Mariana Trench Noises
I wish I could have heard the sound clip, sounds interesting.
-
Icey
Re: Mariana Trench Noises
It is. Is this any better for you Gary? Scroll down if the link opens .....
http://gizmodo.com/first-audio-recordin ... 1762480466
It's the same as Yogi's I think, but sent from a different place - you might get it! : )
http://gizmodo.com/first-audio-recordin ... 1762480466
It's the same as Yogi's I think, but sent from a different place - you might get it! : )
Re: Mariana Trench Noises
It is the same website Icey.
I think I see where there should be an audio clip, due to the space and italicized text, but it is just blank, not even a frame there.
I also checked all the options I have blocked automatically, unblocking them one at a time to see if that was causing the issue.
Are you SUBSCRIBED to that website? Maybe it is only viewable to subscribers.
I think I see where there should be an audio clip, due to the space and italicized text, but it is just blank, not even a frame there.
I also checked all the options I have blocked automatically, unblocking them one at a time to see if that was causing the issue.
Are you SUBSCRIBED to that website? Maybe it is only viewable to subscribers.
-
Icey
Re: Mariana Trench Noises
No, I'm not, Gary. I just opened up Yogi's link, read and listened to what was there, and then forwarded the same URL to you, in the mistaken idea that it might work! You know I don't understand these processes, so it sounds pretty lame - but my mind works in mysterious ways - LOL!
Here's another one, of a Baleen whale, just before an earthquake.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... uakes.html
Here's another one, of a Baleen whale, just before an earthquake.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... uakes.html
Re: Mariana Trench Noises
Hi Gary ~ there are several audio tracks embedded in the article. The first is after the third paragraph. Click on the familiar "triangle" to hear the sound track. I fired up Ubuntu to see if I could hear it there and I can, but the audio level is much reduced compared to Windows 10 - different drivers I presume. I'm not sure why you cannot see or hear the audio, but it might have something to do with that Flash problem you have. FWW Ubuntu updated the Flash plugin along with a few other things. This surprised me because I figured Adobe gave up on Linux a long time ago.
Re: Mariana Trench Noises
Hi Yogi
All I see is a blank area where your image above is showing the gray box with the red arrow.
On this computer I'm using the latest Flash Player, not the 2015 one I use on the other computer.
I thought I had every codex installed on this computer, but apparently I don't.
Normally, I would get a notice that something on the page requires blah de blah to work, and do I want to install it.
Since you can see it, and it plays, can you right click on it and see what player they are using, or what format?
I normally don't have trouble at any website seeing what they have to offer, but this one has me stumped.
I'll try viewing it using another computer with Mint and see what happens there.
Thanks
EDITED, I GOT IT FIXED!
I tried IceWeasel and it played just fine without installing anything, or unblocking the tracking cookie.
On Chrome I had to add Mopidity, the Soundcloud Player App, and also allow the Soundcloud tracking cookie.
Just jumped back to add more info. On the link Icey provided, after adding Mopidity for Soundcloud, it works just fine with the Soundcloud tracking cookie turned off, but not on the website you provided. Seems strange it would work on one website but not another. Also FWIW: Before I added Mopidity, Soundcloud was not listed in my list of blocked tracking cookies. Also strange.
All I see is a blank area where your image above is showing the gray box with the red arrow.
On this computer I'm using the latest Flash Player, not the 2015 one I use on the other computer.
I thought I had every codex installed on this computer, but apparently I don't.
Normally, I would get a notice that something on the page requires blah de blah to work, and do I want to install it.
Since you can see it, and it plays, can you right click on it and see what player they are using, or what format?
I normally don't have trouble at any website seeing what they have to offer, but this one has me stumped.
I'll try viewing it using another computer with Mint and see what happens there.
Thanks
EDITED, I GOT IT FIXED!
I tried IceWeasel and it played just fine without installing anything, or unblocking the tracking cookie.
On Chrome I had to add Mopidity, the Soundcloud Player App, and also allow the Soundcloud tracking cookie.
Just jumped back to add more info. On the link Icey provided, after adding Mopidity for Soundcloud, it works just fine with the Soundcloud tracking cookie turned off, but not on the website you provided. Seems strange it would work on one website but not another. Also FWIW: Before I added Mopidity, Soundcloud was not listed in my list of blocked tracking cookies. Also strange.
Re: Mariana Trench Noises
One of the groups I belong to gives a rather long list of all the things Google messes up when they update their Chrome Browser, so then they have to come along with another update to fix some of the things that were working just fine previously. Trouble is, they never seem to fix everything they mess up. Even so, it has a lot of great features none of the other browsers have, and is much faster than most. I have several browsers installed and will sometimes use a browser other than Chrome for certain tasks. However, even Opera which I was using for a couple of tasks, I've had to move back to Chrome because of something they changed which really slowed their browser down on what I was using it for.
I don't know how it works on other OSs, but if you opened a dozen tabs in the background on Opera, it would load each tab sequentially. Almost all other browsers tried to open all the background tabs at once. This made Opera faster at opening tabs and why I used to use it for multi-tab projects. Why they changed it, I don't know.
Google made a change which has a lot of people POed big time, although it appeased a few others.
Google no longer opens background tabs at all until you bring them in focus.
Although this makes Google itself faster, the time it takes to open all the tabs is painstakingly much slower than ever before.
Mainly because of opening background tabs sequentially like it used to, only slower than Opera, what it causes those of us using Google Chrome to do is treat the background tabs like sequential turn signal on a car. We move the mouse to the tab bar and scroll back and forth with the thumbwheel to force Chrome to open all the tabs, but it does so all at once, which bogs Chrome down to SLOWER than it was before their change to NO LOADING of Background Tabs.
So, many of us are back to using Opera for multiple tabs.
In the browser world, it seems the developers are on a Monkey See Monkey Do bandwagon. They forget WHY people chose their browser in the first place and BREAK or DISABLE the very features that garnered them a corner in the market.
I don't know how it works on other OSs, but if you opened a dozen tabs in the background on Opera, it would load each tab sequentially. Almost all other browsers tried to open all the background tabs at once. This made Opera faster at opening tabs and why I used to use it for multi-tab projects. Why they changed it, I don't know.
Google made a change which has a lot of people POed big time, although it appeased a few others.
Google no longer opens background tabs at all until you bring them in focus.
Although this makes Google itself faster, the time it takes to open all the tabs is painstakingly much slower than ever before.
Mainly because of opening background tabs sequentially like it used to, only slower than Opera, what it causes those of us using Google Chrome to do is treat the background tabs like sequential turn signal on a car. We move the mouse to the tab bar and scroll back and forth with the thumbwheel to force Chrome to open all the tabs, but it does so all at once, which bogs Chrome down to SLOWER than it was before their change to NO LOADING of Background Tabs.
So, many of us are back to using Opera for multiple tabs.
In the browser world, it seems the developers are on a Monkey See Monkey Do bandwagon. They forget WHY people chose their browser in the first place and BREAK or DISABLE the very features that garnered them a corner in the market.
Re: Mariana Trench Noises
I don't either for most things. If I need the same program to open different things, I normally just use an extra workspace or two. Linux allows you to have as many workspaces as your computer can handle, so is not limited by a browsers capability.
I think some of the features found in Linux computers are finally filtering over to Windows computers.
Nevertheless, for some of the things I do, I need to use tabs, sometimes close to 25 of them open at once.
Speaking of which, with the changes made to most web browsers, I'm finding I have to scroll through all the tabs, else the output from each is not carried to the intended destination. Grrrr... Just means extra work for me, and more time to do something which used to work in only a few seconds without my intervention.
Here is a simple example, using a game scenario. Let's say you have 80 neighbors in your game, each requesting a specific gift, and they give the link so all you have to do is click on the link to send them the gift.
You open a page in a tab that gives the list of requests for gifts.
You can go through and click each one, one at a time, wait for the gift screen to open telling you the gift was sent.
OR, you can hold down your CTRL key (which automatically opens a new tab) and just go down the list of names, clicking about 20 to 25 of them at once.
A tab would open in the background, and the gift would be sent, and you could close all tabs at once, and move on to the next 20 to 25 neighbors requests.
Now that Google has turned OFF background loading of tabs. You still do the same thing, use CTRL to open 20 to 25 at once, but now you have to physically open each tab for the gift to be sent.
This can be done by placing your cursor on the tab bar and using the scroll wheel to zoom back and forth opening each tab long enough for it to gain focus. Even so, this extra step is time consuming, because you have to pause at each tab to make sure it opens and does its thing.
What used to take a couple of seconds, now takes upwards of three to five minutes.
This is what I meant when I said, although Google itself is faster, trying to get your work done takes much longer now.
I used game gifts as an example because you may have played games that used gifts for neighbors.
But my main use in tabs is for opening several versions of book covers to compare them. Or for forwarding authors book links to a publishers link sharing program.
Like the gifts, before Google messed up Chrome, it only took running through the new links list and opening each one using a forwarding program. Now you have to manually go to each tab and open it for the forwarding program to function.
Some web browsers still work, but they are as slow as molasses in the dead of winter, because they try opening all tabs at once, instead of opening them sequentially as they should.
And I'm probably in over your head already so will get off my soap box, hi hi...
I think some of the features found in Linux computers are finally filtering over to Windows computers.
Nevertheless, for some of the things I do, I need to use tabs, sometimes close to 25 of them open at once.
Speaking of which, with the changes made to most web browsers, I'm finding I have to scroll through all the tabs, else the output from each is not carried to the intended destination. Grrrr... Just means extra work for me, and more time to do something which used to work in only a few seconds without my intervention.
Here is a simple example, using a game scenario. Let's say you have 80 neighbors in your game, each requesting a specific gift, and they give the link so all you have to do is click on the link to send them the gift.
You open a page in a tab that gives the list of requests for gifts.
You can go through and click each one, one at a time, wait for the gift screen to open telling you the gift was sent.
OR, you can hold down your CTRL key (which automatically opens a new tab) and just go down the list of names, clicking about 20 to 25 of them at once.
A tab would open in the background, and the gift would be sent, and you could close all tabs at once, and move on to the next 20 to 25 neighbors requests.
Now that Google has turned OFF background loading of tabs. You still do the same thing, use CTRL to open 20 to 25 at once, but now you have to physically open each tab for the gift to be sent.
This can be done by placing your cursor on the tab bar and using the scroll wheel to zoom back and forth opening each tab long enough for it to gain focus. Even so, this extra step is time consuming, because you have to pause at each tab to make sure it opens and does its thing.
What used to take a couple of seconds, now takes upwards of three to five minutes.
This is what I meant when I said, although Google itself is faster, trying to get your work done takes much longer now.
I used game gifts as an example because you may have played games that used gifts for neighbors.
But my main use in tabs is for opening several versions of book covers to compare them. Or for forwarding authors book links to a publishers link sharing program.
Like the gifts, before Google messed up Chrome, it only took running through the new links list and opening each one using a forwarding program. Now you have to manually go to each tab and open it for the forwarding program to function.
Some web browsers still work, but they are as slow as molasses in the dead of winter, because they try opening all tabs at once, instead of opening them sequentially as they should.
And I'm probably in over your head already so will get off my soap box, hi hi...
-
Icey
Re: Mariana Trench Noises
Duh. 
I don't understand at all Gary - sorry. I don't play computer games or anything remotely similar. I've never been interested in this form of entertainment - but thanks for trying to explain, anyway.
I don't understand at all Gary - sorry. I don't play computer games or anything remotely similar. I've never been interested in this form of entertainment - but thanks for trying to explain, anyway.
Re: Mariana Trench Noises
I probably shouldn't have used a game for the example. But after rereading what I wrote, I can simplify what I said to something much simpler.
Most web browsers, when you open a tab, it opens the website you visited on that tab.
If you had four or five websites you visited every single day, you could have them batch load for you, all four or five locations open automatically when you open your browser.
Some web browsers try to open all the tabs at once in the background, which slows down your computer until they are all loaded.
An improvement to this method was to have the tabs open sequentially, so only one website opens at a time, and once open, the next tab will open. This was the best method, and did not put such a load on your computer or internet connection.
Google recently changed Chrome so that although the tabs appear at the top in the tab bar, none of them open in the background, until you click on the tab to bring it in focus.
The two good things about this is, there is no additional load on your computer, and if a tab opens a website playing music, you don't hear it because it is not loaded yet. This was great for those who listened to different music sites.
Trouble is, even though it made Google run faster, and your computer not bog down, nothing was accomplished, and no tabs were ready when you go to them.
If it takes lets say 30 seconds for a website to fully open, and if background tabs opened sequentially, there was almost no load on your computer to cause pauses, not like when they all tried to open at once and bogged everything down until all had loaded.
When you finished at one website and opened the tab for the next website it was ready to go, already loaded. Others down the line may still be loading, but will be loaded by the time you get to them.
The way Google works now, none of them are loaded, so as you move on to each tab, you have to wait 30 seconds for it to load. This can easily waste a half hour of your time, waiting for tabs to load.
To get around this new nuisance Google created, after we open all the tabs we need, we move our mouse over the tab bar and scroll back and forth to bring each in focus to force them to load.
This of course causes all of them to load at once, and as such causes the very problem sequential background loading eliminated.
Way too many people are trying to use the Internet on their tiny low powered, SLOW, cell phones, and the web browsers are trying to address that issue, while all of us who use REAL Computers have to suffer their nonsense changes.
If you are on a cell phone, you shouldn't be trying to pen several tabs at once anyhow.
And like you, you rarely use tabs at all, so who are these changes really to appease?
Google claims their browser is now much faster, even if your work now takes a half hour longer to do than it did before they made Google faster, hi hi...
Most web browsers, when you open a tab, it opens the website you visited on that tab.
If you had four or five websites you visited every single day, you could have them batch load for you, all four or five locations open automatically when you open your browser.
Some web browsers try to open all the tabs at once in the background, which slows down your computer until they are all loaded.
An improvement to this method was to have the tabs open sequentially, so only one website opens at a time, and once open, the next tab will open. This was the best method, and did not put such a load on your computer or internet connection.
Google recently changed Chrome so that although the tabs appear at the top in the tab bar, none of them open in the background, until you click on the tab to bring it in focus.
The two good things about this is, there is no additional load on your computer, and if a tab opens a website playing music, you don't hear it because it is not loaded yet. This was great for those who listened to different music sites.
Trouble is, even though it made Google run faster, and your computer not bog down, nothing was accomplished, and no tabs were ready when you go to them.
If it takes lets say 30 seconds for a website to fully open, and if background tabs opened sequentially, there was almost no load on your computer to cause pauses, not like when they all tried to open at once and bogged everything down until all had loaded.
When you finished at one website and opened the tab for the next website it was ready to go, already loaded. Others down the line may still be loading, but will be loaded by the time you get to them.
The way Google works now, none of them are loaded, so as you move on to each tab, you have to wait 30 seconds for it to load. This can easily waste a half hour of your time, waiting for tabs to load.
To get around this new nuisance Google created, after we open all the tabs we need, we move our mouse over the tab bar and scroll back and forth to bring each in focus to force them to load.
This of course causes all of them to load at once, and as such causes the very problem sequential background loading eliminated.
Way too many people are trying to use the Internet on their tiny low powered, SLOW, cell phones, and the web browsers are trying to address that issue, while all of us who use REAL Computers have to suffer their nonsense changes.
If you are on a cell phone, you shouldn't be trying to pen several tabs at once anyhow.
And like you, you rarely use tabs at all, so who are these changes really to appease?
Google claims their browser is now much faster, even if your work now takes a half hour longer to do than it did before they made Google faster, hi hi...
-
Icey
Re: Mariana Trench Noises
Woah .... slow down Gary, because despite your explanation, I still can't quite grasp what you're saying.
To give you an example of what I mean, when I said I hardly use the tab system, that's true, because in the usual way, I don't need to keep flicking from one site or page to another. However, let's take if I'm on this site for an hour or two.
I may have tabs ready to click onto to take me elsewhere while I'm between posts, for example. I can only say that it's instant, so I don't know what you mean about scrolling and bringing things into focus? I have Chrome, but don't use it. I stick to Firefox because I prefer it, and I don't have any trouble when clicking between one thing and another.
To give you an example of what I mean, when I said I hardly use the tab system, that's true, because in the usual way, I don't need to keep flicking from one site or page to another. However, let's take if I'm on this site for an hour or two.
I may have tabs ready to click onto to take me elsewhere while I'm between posts, for example. I can only say that it's instant, so I don't know what you mean about scrolling and bringing things into focus? I have Chrome, but don't use it. I stick to Firefox because I prefer it, and I don't have any trouble when clicking between one thing and another.
Re: Mariana Trench Noises
Firefox still opens tabs in the background. You probably don't know there is a lag time if you only open one or two tabs.
I'm often working with groups of a dozen tabs at a time, and although Firefox still opens background tabs, it almost totally halts the tab I have in focus while opening the tabs.
So if I have to scroll down a list where the links are lets say 3 inches apart, I have to scroll through four pages of links to click them all before doing my job. On Firefox, I cannot scroll down to click the next page of links until after the three links I already clicked have loaded.
Most web pages load almost instantly, but the pages I'm loading for my work often take 20 to 40 seconds to load, sometimes longer. So, if I have to wait 1-1/2 minutes after clicking on three links, then scroll to the next page and wait another 1-1/2 minutes before moving to the next page. It makes Firefox unusable for me. I don't have that much time to waste.
I do a lot of things on my computers that most people would never have to do.
Heck, even while I'm writing, I have three screens open, and I do so on different computers so I have no lag times, or have to switch between screens on the same computer. In other words, I'm spoiled by having more than one computer to work from, even though one computer could do it all, it would require extra steps.
As a simple example: The upper computer screen in front of me is what I'm transcribing from. The upper computer screen to it's right is the edit notes and directions for changes to be made. And the computer screen inside my desk is where I'm typing the new changed draft, and I'm normally also formatting at the same time. It is much easier and faster to retype, especially when you are formatting, than to try and fix the previous draft, add in what needs added, take out what needs removed, and then try to get the page to format correctly. Too many hidden formatting codes on existing work to get them all cleared out so they don't cause problems for the publisher.
To do this on a single computer, even a computer like mine with several work spaces, I could only see one screen at a time, have to remember what I'm transcribing and keep moving back and forth.
An alternative is to have a computer with multiple screens, and have everything open on the same screen, with one part moved to one monitor, another part moved to another monitor, etc. But even doing it this way, you still have set up and move each program to the monitor you want to view it on. The way I do it, I just leave everything on the computers open and running 24/7.
Although this latter stuff has nothing to do with tabs, it gives you an idea of what I'm looking at in front of me all day.
I'm often working with groups of a dozen tabs at a time, and although Firefox still opens background tabs, it almost totally halts the tab I have in focus while opening the tabs.
So if I have to scroll down a list where the links are lets say 3 inches apart, I have to scroll through four pages of links to click them all before doing my job. On Firefox, I cannot scroll down to click the next page of links until after the three links I already clicked have loaded.
Most web pages load almost instantly, but the pages I'm loading for my work often take 20 to 40 seconds to load, sometimes longer. So, if I have to wait 1-1/2 minutes after clicking on three links, then scroll to the next page and wait another 1-1/2 minutes before moving to the next page. It makes Firefox unusable for me. I don't have that much time to waste.
I do a lot of things on my computers that most people would never have to do.
Heck, even while I'm writing, I have three screens open, and I do so on different computers so I have no lag times, or have to switch between screens on the same computer. In other words, I'm spoiled by having more than one computer to work from, even though one computer could do it all, it would require extra steps.
As a simple example: The upper computer screen in front of me is what I'm transcribing from. The upper computer screen to it's right is the edit notes and directions for changes to be made. And the computer screen inside my desk is where I'm typing the new changed draft, and I'm normally also formatting at the same time. It is much easier and faster to retype, especially when you are formatting, than to try and fix the previous draft, add in what needs added, take out what needs removed, and then try to get the page to format correctly. Too many hidden formatting codes on existing work to get them all cleared out so they don't cause problems for the publisher.
To do this on a single computer, even a computer like mine with several work spaces, I could only see one screen at a time, have to remember what I'm transcribing and keep moving back and forth.
An alternative is to have a computer with multiple screens, and have everything open on the same screen, with one part moved to one monitor, another part moved to another monitor, etc. But even doing it this way, you still have set up and move each program to the monitor you want to view it on. The way I do it, I just leave everything on the computers open and running 24/7.
Although this latter stuff has nothing to do with tabs, it gives you an idea of what I'm looking at in front of me all day.