4 ms·

Always great to see development in this domain. IWAENC and Silentium come to mind as the forefront. I hope one day the researchers will realize that they are tr

by ngneer 6y ago

Always great to see development in this domain. IWAENC and Silentium come to mind as the forefront. I hope one day the researchers will realize that they are trying to cancel the wrong source. Instead of cancelling noise external to the human, the real breakthrough will be to cancel the human voice. This will confer privacy and other benefits in areas of increased population density. I would prefer a smartphone to have a feature like that than an incrementally snazzy camera, for example.

bawolff 6y ago
> I hope one day the researchers will realize that they are trying to cancel the wrong source I dont think its due to intentionality just that low pitch is easier to cancel than high pitch things like voices.
PurpleFoxy 6y ago
I don’t think this is even possible. Noise canceling works by creating reverse waves that hit your ears at the same time. You have to be able to calculate how long it will take for those waves to hit each set of ears and be able to direct sound at them.
- chii 6y ago
  That's the simple, signal-processing oriented way to noise cancellation. But what if the software/ai is advanced enough to reproduce a sound, but erase a certain aspect of it? Like how photo editing can edit out an object or background? Then the headphones can use a seal to completely block out all noise, and play only the sounds the user selects!
  - tux3 6y ago
    If we could make a seal that blocks out all noise small (and confortable) enough to fit around a headset, we wouldn't need the whole NC setup. Earplugs below my bose headset work wonder to block out anything short of cataclysmic, but it's hardly practical. And I can't exactly play music with those on...
    - r00fus 6y ago
      Your ears do breathe. So that’s problematic for long term hermetic ear seals.
    - bryan0 6y ago
      It's funny because the best passive noise canceling IEMs are basically ear plugs with drivers in them. Blocks background noise as well as ANC but only weigh a few grams.
  - PurpleFoxy 6y ago
    I think you have misunderstood the parent comment. The suggestion isn’t to create configurable anc headphones but instead to create a device that is able to cancel out the sound of your voice from the ears of other people around you so you can speak in public privately. The problem is you can’t possibly work out exactly how and when the sound will hit each set of ears around you to be able to direct a beam of sound to their ears (assuming it’s even possible to have such directional sound) The problem is significantly easier with headphones. You have a headphone and speaker in between your ears and the sound. The distance between the microphone and your ears is constant so you can perfectly time the negative sounds.
    - ngneer 6y ago
      I never said it would be easy, but you make a good point. Compensating based on other sets of ears would be tough, because their locations are unknown and change fast. Directional sound is possible to an extent, Woody Norris gave a TED talk about it a long while back, it is called hypersonic sound. I think it uses ultrasound to generate compressions and rarefactions far away. I realize it sounds like science fiction, but you could perhaps transduce sound to electricity and again to sound, sending the signal of your voice away from you faster than the speed of sound, in time for a cancellation wave to be generated and have an effect. I suppose the analogy would be quiescing a ripple in a pond.
    - mortenjorck 6y ago
      There was a product announced a few years back called Hushme that proposed to accomplish this goal. It attempted to create an acoustic seal around the wearer's mouth, and somewhat predictably, it looked ridiculous: https://www.news.com.au/technology/gadgets/wearables/this-cant-be-the-price-to-pay-for-phone-privacy-in-public/news-story/a54e49eb556eb7bf3a58d669aec9c1eb https://www.news.com.au/technology/gadgets/wearables/this-ca...
      - ngneer 6y ago
        Neat, but weird. Muzzleme is more like it.
  - r00fus 6y ago
    The implications for a dystopian society abound! Minority Report billboards or 1984 actual silencing of unwanted voices...
  - slavak 6y ago
    This already exists: https://www.geekwrapped.com/guides/best-electronic-ear-muffs https://www.geekwrapped.com/guides/best-electronic-ear-muffs The utility is limited by the limitations of passive noise attenuation devices. These things are great for the shooting range, because bringing gunfire down to a level that won't damage your hearing is pretty easy. There's no kind of earphones that can just completely block out all sound, though.
- sliken 6y ago
  Right, but the speed of sounds is slow. So things like placing a microphone 6 feet closer to the source allows for much more effective noise cancellation. Current tech in earphones skips that by using past noise as a prediction of future noise, and as a result only works on near constant noise of airplanes and other near constant sources of noise.
  - avian 6y ago
    > only works on near constant noise of airplanes and other near constant sources of noise. That is simply not true - at least in my experience with an old model of Sony headphones. It's possible that prediction plays some role, but I bought mine with specific purpose of silencing neighbor's kids. They work really well with this kind of sporadic, random noise and the difference between turning on active cancellation and just passive attenuation due to ear muffs is very noticeable. I'm talking about low-frequency noises that are mostly transmitted through the vibrations in the walls and floors - feet hitting the floor while running, ball bouncing of the walls and so on.
coldtea 6y ago
>I hope one day the researchers will realize that they are trying to cancel the wrong source. Instead of cancelling noise external to the human, the real breakthrough will be to cancel the human voice. Only few care for the latter and millions/billions care for cancellation of external sources. Besides, "cancelling the human voice" would just provide a false sense of security, as said voice would still need to be received by others -- and like any message it could be intercepted.
- ngneer 6y ago
  That is what encryption is for. You only need to secure the voice until it can be encrypted. Worth noting that the feeling of privacy is a lot about perception. People feel better if they know those they see around them cannot hear their private convo. That is why they speak softly and put their hands to their mouth talking in public places (the other part was to boost the signal, before the advent of differential microphones). Don't get me wrong, I most definitely agree external cancellation is terrific, be it active or passive. In the passive realm people use traditional dampening materials, as well as MPPs (micro-perforated plates) in certain industrial applications.
js8 6y ago
> the real breakthrough will be to cancel the human voice If you want to cancel another human, just build a wall.

by ngneer 6y ago

bawolff 6y ago

> I hope one day the researchers will realize that they are trying to cancel the wrong source I dont think its due to intentionality just that low pitch is easier to cancel than high pitch things like voices.

PurpleFoxy 6y ago

I don’t think this is even possible. Noise canceling works by creating reverse waves that hit your ears at the same time. You have to be able to calculate how long it will take for those waves to hit each set of ears and be able to direct sound at them.

chii 6y ago
That's the simple, signal-processing oriented way to noise cancellation. But what if the software/ai is advanced enough to reproduce a sound, but erase a certain aspect of it? Like how photo editing can edit out an object or background? Then the headphones can use a seal to completely block out all noise, and play only the sounds the user selects!
- tux3 6y ago
  If we could make a seal that blocks out all noise small (and confortable) enough to fit around a headset, we wouldn't need the whole NC setup. Earplugs below my bose headset work wonder to block out anything short of cataclysmic, but it's hardly practical. And I can't exactly play music with those on...
  - r00fus 6y ago
    Your ears do breathe. So that’s problematic for long term hermetic ear seals.
  - bryan0 6y ago
    It's funny because the best passive noise canceling IEMs are basically ear plugs with drivers in them. Blocks background noise as well as ANC but only weigh a few grams.
- PurpleFoxy 6y ago
  I think you have misunderstood the parent comment. The suggestion isn’t to create configurable anc headphones but instead to create a device that is able to cancel out the sound of your voice from the ears of other people around you so you can speak in public privately. The problem is you can’t possibly work out exactly how and when the sound will hit each set of ears around you to be able to direct a beam of sound to their ears (assuming it’s even possible to have such directional sound) The problem is significantly easier with headphones. You have a headphone and speaker in between your ears and the sound. The distance between the microphone and your ears is constant so you can perfectly time the negative sounds.
  - ngneer 6y ago
    I never said it would be easy, but you make a good point. Compensating based on other sets of ears would be tough, because their locations are unknown and change fast. Directional sound is possible to an extent, Woody Norris gave a TED talk about it a long while back, it is called hypersonic sound. I think it uses ultrasound to generate compressions and rarefactions far away. I realize it sounds like science fiction, but you could perhaps transduce sound to electricity and again to sound, sending the signal of your voice away from you faster than the speed of sound, in time for a cancellation wave to be generated and have an effect. I suppose the analogy would be quiescing a ripple in a pond.
  - mortenjorck 6y ago
    There was a product announced a few years back called Hushme that proposed to accomplish this goal. It attempted to create an acoustic seal around the wearer's mouth, and somewhat predictably, it looked ridiculous: https://www.news.com.au/technology/gadgets/wearables/this-cant-be-the-price-to-pay-for-phone-privacy-in-public/news-story/a54e49eb556eb7bf3a58d669aec9c1eb https://www.news.com.au/technology/gadgets/wearables/this-ca...
    - ngneer 6y ago
      Neat, but weird. Muzzleme is more like it.
- r00fus 6y ago
  The implications for a dystopian society abound! Minority Report billboards or 1984 actual silencing of unwanted voices...
- slavak 6y ago
  This already exists: https://www.geekwrapped.com/guides/best-electronic-ear-muffs https://www.geekwrapped.com/guides/best-electronic-ear-muffs The utility is limited by the limitations of passive noise attenuation devices. These things are great for the shooting range, because bringing gunfire down to a level that won't damage your hearing is pretty easy. There's no kind of earphones that can just completely block out all sound, though.
sliken 6y ago
Right, but the speed of sounds is slow. So things like placing a microphone 6 feet closer to the source allows for much more effective noise cancellation. Current tech in earphones skips that by using past noise as a prediction of future noise, and as a result only works on near constant noise of airplanes and other near constant sources of noise.
- avian 6y ago
  > only works on near constant noise of airplanes and other near constant sources of noise. That is simply not true - at least in my experience with an old model of Sony headphones. It's possible that prediction plays some role, but I bought mine with specific purpose of silencing neighbor's kids. They work really well with this kind of sporadic, random noise and the difference between turning on active cancellation and just passive attenuation due to ear muffs is very noticeable. I'm talking about low-frequency noises that are mostly transmitted through the vibrations in the walls and floors - feet hitting the floor while running, ball bouncing of the walls and so on.

coldtea 6y ago

>I hope one day the researchers will realize that they are trying to cancel the wrong source. Instead of cancelling noise external to the human, the real breakthrough will be to cancel the human voice. Only few care for the latter and millions/billions care for cancellation of external sources. Besides, "cancelling the human voice" would just provide a false sense of security, as said voice would still need to be received by others -- and like any message it could be intercepted.

ngneer 6y ago
That is what encryption is for. You only need to secure the voice until it can be encrypted. Worth noting that the feeling of privacy is a lot about perception. People feel better if they know those they see around them cannot hear their private convo. That is why they speak softly and put their hands to their mouth talking in public places (the other part was to boost the signal, before the advent of differential microphones). Don't get me wrong, I most definitely agree external cancellation is terrific, be it active or passive. In the passive realm people use traditional dampening materials, as well as MPPs (micro-perforated plates) in certain industrial applications.

js8 6y ago

> the real breakthrough will be to cancel the human voice If you want to cancel another human, just build a wall.