The rise of fake engine noise • Hacker News Board

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#231

Post by LLWM » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 3:37 PM UTC

gambiting wrote: post #107

baddox wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps it's because I have no interest whatsoever in cars, but I have trouble seeing the distinction. If the idea is that certain sounds are merely the side effect of attributes which are themselves desired for reasons other than their sound, like a powerful engine, then it seems like any intentional design to produce or amplify those sounds are completely useless. What the driver wants is the actual attributes whic…

It's the same as hearing a recording of someone playing the violin vs. the real thing. Even with the best audio system you can still tell it's just a recording. And I don't treat the sound the engine makes as a side effect of other attributes - it's just as important as acceleration or fuel consumption.

The real thing is also a recording, it's the memory of the music and the playing skill recorded in the violinist's mind, with the musician and his violin as the playback device rather than a speaker. You prefer the acoustic qualities of one type of playback device over the other, but that doesn't make it any more or less "real" for any commonly accepted definition of "real".

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#232

Post by mikeash » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 3:39 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #64

bri3d wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of this noise is pumped into the car (to make the consumer happy), not out of the car. The two most common systems in use today are the car stereo (either amplifying the real engine's sound or by simply synchronizing a synthesis mechanism to the engine's load conditions) or a "sound pipe" which runs from the engine's air intake into the cabin ventilation system. This article strangely managed to conflate the two…

If my car would make less noise I'd be happy. It totally baffles me why someone would want more useless noise in their lives rather than less if that's an option. Music is beautiful, artificial engine noise is just that: noise.

Some music is beautiful. I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who would classify the music you enjoy as "useless noise" and can't understand why you'd willingly subject yourself to it.

A lot of people out there enjoy engine noise. People like different things, that's just how the world is.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#233

Post by JohnTHaller » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 3:42 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #72

This may be a transient problem as people get used to new technology. It's like using Filmlook to put scratches and grain on HD video. The 2013 Lotus Evora, a series hybrid vehicle with an electric motor and a fixed gearbox, took this to the point of silliness. Not only did they provide fake engine sounds, they provided shift paddles and required the driver to shift software-simulated gears . They even provided a mom…

I still want one that makes the sounds of the vehicles in The Jetsons. Why aren't loadable and customizable sounds a thing?

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#234

Post by mikeash » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 3:43 PM UTC

seanp2k2 wrote: post #139

cm2187 wrote: post #134

Electric cars do not pollute. We should force electric cars to emit some thick black smoke to ensure people do not get surprised! I don't know in what world these regulators live in, but in my world 80% of pedestrians are walking listening to an ipod/iphone/iwhatever. We already live in a society where pedestrians do not hear cars. But let's make sure cars remain a nuisance to anyone trying to sleep in a city!

The cars don't pollute, but odds are that the electricity they run on came from burning coal, and lithium batteries aren't exactly environmentally friendly to manufacture or recycle. The rare elements required for the electric motors and batteries aren't earth-friendly to mine or refine, either. But the car itself doesn't obviously emit any of this, so the public image it presents is great, hence their popularity. Fo…

Is that true? Tesla, for example, claims that their cars contain no rare earth elements. Lithium batteries are fairly benign in terms of the materials they use, and AC induction motors are not much more than clever arrangements of copper.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#235

Post by mikeash » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 3:47 PM UTC

peterwwillis wrote: post #215

Confession: I am a Luxury Ricer. When I bought my now 11-year-old Lexus, I was amazed by two aspects: how sporty and well controlled it was [for a luxury car], and how silent it was. It was literally more quiet than a Prius and it had an inline six. And I hated it. After a few months of hitting the gas and hearing nothing , I opened up the hood and ripped the tiny ram-air front inlet off the air intake. I also took a…

Priuses aren't really very quiet (at least on the inside) unless you're cruising at Noise is actually one of the big reasons I'm looking forward to switching from a Prius to a pure electric.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#236

Post by unreal37 » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 3:49 PM UTC

michaelcampbell wrote: post #185

ourmandave wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Options include simulated straight-6, American V-8, and V-12 engines, plus some turbine-like sounds. This is like changing ringtones on your phone. Can I download a twin turbo?

There have been aftermarket speaker setups to emit the "choosh" sound of the wastegate opening marketed to the ricer crowd for years.

Surely you are not using the term "ricer crowd" to refer to Asians?

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#237

Post by freehunter » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 3:50 PM UTC

CalRobert wrote: post #224

freehunter wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but maybe I should just try not to hit them instead There's one situation where drivers don't face penalties if they hit and injure/kill a pedestrian: if that pedestrian caused the accident and the driver had no way of preventing it. For example, if a pedestrian assumes there is no traffic and steps into the road without looking, just feet from an oncoming-but-silent car.

Source please. I don't believe this is the case. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/30/opinion/why-drivers-get-aw...

You don't believe what? You don't believe that pedestrians can step into traffic? Or you don't believe that drivers can get away with no punishment if pedestrians step in front of them without giving them time to stop? I'm not looking up a source because it's so ridiculous that I'm not even sure there's a law on the books about it, but if you walk into the side of my (moving) car and get hurt, that's your fault, not mine.

You know those tire commercials where a kid goes running out into traffic between cars in a residential neighborhood and the driver is happy they had Michelin tires because they were able to stop in time? Imagine the kid ran out half a second later. Should the driver be charged?

Again, I'm not sure what's unbelievable about anything I said.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#238

Post by kbenson » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 3:54 PM UTC

mikepalmer wrote: post #79

Recently drove a Tesla Model S P85D... best thing about it is that the torque is immediate and silent. Not only can you blow other cars away at lights, you can do it casually, with no noise or fuss. Car is here; put car over there. It's like piloting a UFO.

I wouldn't mind some auditory feedback on engine performance, it can be very useful. I definitely don't want it to be simulated noise that's meant to approximate some fictional engine. Making it specific to what it is for and embedding more useful audio clues within it would be good (along with the ability to easily disable).

As someone who's owned a few older cars, the sound is one of the most useful early diagnostic tools. It tells you immediately how the engine is running. Often you can tell the difference between a cold engine and a hot engine running. Losing this entirely isn't necessarily a good thing, but neither is faking it, which is the worst of both worlds, no useful information conveyed (beyond possibly RPMs, depending on implementation) but noise nonetheless.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#239

Post by grey-area » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 3:55 PM UTC

eCa wrote: post #123

na85 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars come equipped with horns for that exact purpose (alerting pedestrians, etc.), though they are often used as displeasure-signalling devices.

As a cyclist, it is much preferred to hear engine noice rather than honking horns.

I hope you've also fitted a noise-generator to your bike instead of the bell.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#240

Post by unreal37 » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 3:55 PM UTC

CalRobert wrote: post #193

masklinn wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They contribute to being heard by walkers and cyclist relying on their ears to know whether a car is coming, which is the legal point of adding these things (and why they can be disabled at high speed)

I am a former Los Angeles bike commuter, and a current walking-commuter (can't think of an elegant word for that). I very much appreciate knowing when a car is coming, but the constant roar on the every street means that conversations have to stop when a truck drives by, you can't hear people talking even when they're only 6 or 7 feet from you, and any sound quieter than an internal combustion engine is diminished. I…

I think the counter-argument is "This is guaranteed to save a few lives over the years". It may not be great for every condition, particularly mid-town Manhattan or Los Angeles, but in other cities, having a car engine sound does alert people walking that something is coming.