The acoustics, silly.

The signal-to-noise ratio is close to a value of "1" in such an environment. The formula consists of the source level, the amount of background noise, and the receiver's ability to interpret or decode the sound.

The source level is irrelevant in the shower because the distance from the source (Derek) is less than 1 yard from each side of the stage perimeter (shower). Thus the full cycle of transmission is immediate; the voice propagates atop itself. However, it should be noted that if Derek was the mousy type, even in his own shower, he would run the risk of the water dominating the voice, even as the two sources reside in separate bandwidths. This takes us to background noise.

The background noise in this case is not culprit at all, because even though we have pressurized water 1) rushing through pipes, and 2) exiting the shower head and landing upon surfaces, the voice is the dominant noise source and exceeds the lowest measure of separation in the decibel power-summing logarithm. Even still, were it not for the natural reverb, the voice would be heard in perfect clarity over the sound of the water in its various stages.

Sound travels through air approximately 1200 feet per second. Consider now that sound travels 4 times that speed in water. The presence of "airborne" water creates a natural reverb effect that at once distorts and tidies up the signal, much in the same way a vocalist will trill the voice at a sustained rate to achieve a vibrato effect. Combine this with hard, wet surfaces (tile, sheetrock) with which sound can reflect - not just once, but mutiple times with respect to the distance of each reflection - and you can imagine the effects on the sentient receiver. There is a strikingly similarity here with the way Britney Spears' voice is treated post-production.

That multiple criteria are now met with respect to modulation, Derek is much better able to emulate Bob Goulet in the shower than he would on stage, even with the enhancements provided by a tube amp with analog reverb.

Sing on, bro. You are your audience.

Brilliant, man... brilliant. Bill Nye the Science Guy, couldn’t have explained it better. I was going to go with ‘acoustics’ as the #1 survey answer (Richard Dawson would be proud) and your eloquent & informative analysis confirms it beyond a doubt. Unfortunately my singing deficiencies are strong enough to preclude vocal success in even the most acoustically-accomodating shower stall. Bob Goulet? I can only dream. My pipes are more on par with Tiny Tim.

From a submariner's perspective, such as yours, how does fathom depth affect the reverb phenomenom you mention?

Of course I'd have to kill you if I went too deep, so I'll offer this:

An increase in depth == an increase in pressure, which = an increase in sound speed. In the ocean, sound velocity increases approximately 1.7 feet/sec every 100 feet. So, if SV is 4800 ft/sec at the surface, then it would be 4801.7 feet/sec at 100 feet. But temperature also has an effect of +6 feet/sec per every +1 degree F. So if the temperature was 70 at the surface and 65 at 100 feet, then you would subtract 30 feet/sec. Then figure in for salinity. And so on. So sound speed decreases due to temperature to a certain point where temperature no longer decreases, stablizes, and then pressure takes over causing SV to increase.

Now imagine the effects of the water and air in th shower on your voice. The sound is travelling at two different rates depending on where it is in your environment.

Assignment 1.1:

Play the AEC's PHASE ONE through a hydrophone submerged in a bathtub full of 96 deg F water. Play it simultaneously through a boom box suspended in air from the ceiling, spinning.

1) At T 16:03, whose horn arrives first? Bowie's or Jarman's?

2) Applying "doppler", what is the frequency in kHz of Mitchell's soprano playing a natural F#, first register? HINT: it is not a natural F#

3) Assuming you have added 34 oz. of OceanSystems sea salt to the bathtub (65 gallons), how much more or less quickly will the AEC escape the bathwater?

Spoken like a dyed-in-the-wool Sonar Systems Specialist.

Easy peasy, pudding n' pie:

1) Um, that would be Bowie.

2) 44.7 kHz, of course.

3) that's elementary: rounding up, .032 times less quickly.

How'd I do?

"Assuming you have added 34 oz. of OceanSystems sea salt to the bathtub (65 gallons), how much more or less quickly will the AEC escape the bathwater?"

There's only one thing that escapes MY bathwater, baby!

Alan Jones, the Phil Spector of Sonar Systems Specialists!

Man, I'd prefer Pfister or even Albini before Spector. So would the whales. But thanks for the sentiment.

Derek: 1 out of 3. Report to my office for remediation. Oh, and I forwarded this dicussion to Roscoe Mitchell, who quickly informed me that your responses were "jive".

Dude, Albini’s wack. Pfister’s solid, but Spector had that classic analog sound that straight to digital just can’t touch.

One out of three?!?!? I demand a retabulation! My fluency in jive has admittedly diminished over the years, but I’s ain’t muggin’ & can still beat up the chops like some righteous mezz. How’s Roscoe doing on his Wisconsin homestead? Time to go pay my water bill, if you know what I mean.