Live data from Hacker News

Noise-canceling headphones without the headphone

spectrum.ieee.org

101–110 of 122 posts

Re: Noise-canceling headphones without the headphone

#101

Edit: they cheated, this isn't ANC and will never work as ANC. See below. This sounds pretty fundamentally different from normal ANC. A common misconception is that ANC headphones "predict" the incoming noise and cancel it (and thus "they're good with constant noise but not sudden changes"). In reality they're just hybrid open-loop/closed-loop feedback systems. Specifically, the mic inside the cavity works with the s…

This comment is technically incorrect.

Noise-cancelling headphones work the way OP described, and are limited to working in a cavity which is smaller than the wavelength.

There are predictive noise cancelling systems too. These are commonly built into industrial equipment. You might, for example, have a fan or motor which spins at 5000 RPMs, and what do you know, it has a consistent noise profile on each of those rounds. If you cancel that noise profile, you do pretty well. These systems both reduce noise and extend equipment life by reducing vibration. They also work to higher frequencies (in part because speed-of-sound in metals is > 10x that in air, and what matters is wavelength more than frequency).

There are ones which are open-loop used in HVAC systems. If I have a pipe, I can record sound on one end, and play a cancelling waveform on the other end, with an appropriate delay. I haven't followed the field, and when I looked, these were mostly expensive prototype systems (I'm not sure if they ever made it into mainstream use), but they did work. They needed to be calibrated for each HVAC, which made them impractical for most real-world applications.

There are all sorts of ways to do active noise cancellation. Many of these could be implemented on airplanes. Most of these techniques were implemented decades ago, when computation was a lot more expensive. A simple feedback loop is a few opamps, capacitors, and inductors, so pretty cheap to toss into headphones with 1990's-era technology. One could do a lot more with teraflops....

Re: Noise-canceling headphones without the headphone

#102
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The actual study is here [0] and the abstract and introduction do a much better job of describing what the study is actually about. I encourage you to read at least those before you dismiss the research and its real-world applications. TL;DR: The purpose of the research is to try out a new way of figuring out which sound is going into the user's ears, so that it can be cancelled out. Current methods work for lower fr…

They "cheated" because they did the easy part, and the "other component" has no known solution. What they're handwaving away is the real problem. The reason why current methods work for lower frequencies and not for higher frequencies is that your microphone, emitter, and ear all need to be enclosed within a volume Once you put the ears in open air and the emitters away from them, the problem isn't figuring out the s…

No, the missing part is not time travel. Sound comes from the skin and engines of the plane, where microphones could be located, and could potentially predict sound throughout the plane well in advance with an appropriate microphone array. You'd need a fair number of microphones, but I suspect the noise profile isn't too chaotic, which helps. You're talking about things like jet engines (which are repetitive), turbulence (which seems chaotic, but in practice, you shed vertices at a known rate), and a known cabin configuration (modulo people moving about). I suspect while the general solutions suffers from the curse of dimensionality, the specific one probably doesn't. A reasonable number of microphones, combined with decent models, could characterize the whole sound field.

Speakers, located in the seats, if they knew where ears were, could play sound to cancel that.

Decent microphones are $2, and what was expensive were things like microphone preamps, ADC, and the whole data pipeline. From there, we need a shit-ton of computation which really wasn't practical until... big-ass computation systems came out for the rise of ML.

The problem is hard today, but definitely not impossible. I don't think I would have given that same answer a decade ago. An NVidia Titan V brings over 100 teraflops. That's a lot of cycles one can throw at trying to predict sound by my ear from sound at the skin of the airplane in real-time.

Re: Noise-canceling headphones without the headphone

#103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Active noise canceling earbuds already exist, and probably perform about as well as one can hope modulo small incremental improvements. I mean, the AirPods Pro are already damn impressive here. You could probably do better by cramming more and more technology closer to the actual ear /at the tip of the earbuds, perhaps? These things do cancel the low-mid end of voice frequencies quite well. I imagine with enough mini…

I'm more of a lazy pragmatist than a passionate hacker. So, I guess I should invest my energy, time and money into just finding a less noisy place to live. I'm not suffering from misophony - I just hate hearing my neighbours or loud vehicles with a vengeance :D

See, this is why when I shop for apartments to rent, concrete walls are a requirement. Not just so I don't hear my neighbors, but also so they don't hear me, since I make music ;)

At my current place I've pretty much concluded that anything but deep bass just doesn't transfer. Even at 5 in the morning, I can listen to stuff at a reasonable listening volume without disturbing my neighbor, as long as I'm not pumping out bass below 80Hz or so. And the neighbor recently got a dog and I haven't heard her bark even once when she's home :)

Re: Noise-canceling headphones without the headphone

#104
post #101

Edit: they cheated, this isn't ANC and will never work as ANC. See below. This sounds pretty fundamentally different from normal ANC. A common misconception is that ANC headphones "predict" the incoming noise and cancel it (and thus "they're good with constant noise but not sudden changes"). In reality they're just hybrid open-loop/closed-loop feedback systems. Specifically, the mic inside the cavity works with the s…

This comment is technically incorrect. Noise-cancelling headphones work the way OP described, and are limited to working in a cavity which is smaller than the wavelength. There are predictive noise cancelling systems too. These are commonly built into industrial equipment. You might, for example, have a fan or motor which spins at 5000 RPMs, and what do you know, it has a consistent noise profile on each of those rou…

Yes, as I said, this doesn't work in the general case when your noise source is uncorrelated and not predictable. If you have a predictable noise source then you've solved the time travel problem and you can cancel it any way you want as long as you can obtain feedback from the location of the user's ears.

We're talking headrest ANC here (for use cases like consumer ANC headphones), not built-in noise reduction for industrial systems.

Re: Noise-canceling headphones without the headphone

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, in your opinion there's no hope for active voice cancelling? Maybe with earbuds? I'm a silence junkie living in world getting noisier with every day it seems - so this subject is of high personal importance to me. That's why I'm interested in getting an idea about where to place your assessment.

Active noise canceling earbuds already exist, and probably perform about as well as one can hope modulo small incremental improvements. I mean, the AirPods Pro are already damn impressive here. You could probably do better by cramming more and more technology closer to the actual ear /at the tip of the earbuds, perhaps? These things do cancel the low-mid end of voice frequencies quite well. I imagine with enough mini…

> But if you're going to draw a boundary and wrap it in a massive array of microphones... Aren't you better off just adding insulation material? :-)

Well, let's do the math here. I can't find the data sheet for the weight of an electret microphone cartridge, but let's assume 4 grams. A thousand microphones -- assuming we want 100 the length of the airplane and 10 around -- is around 4 kilos. Add another 2 kilos for computation, and a few more for wiring, and you've added the weight of a piece of luggage.

Now, let's say you want to add 2 inches of mineral wool sound insulation. I'm assuming 100 meters x 10 meter circumference (I have no idea, but the numbers scale the same). You've added (quite literally) half a metric ton to your airplane. And made it 2" thicker, either reducing cabin space or increasing drag.

Plus, sound insulation does very little for low frequencies, which is the majority of airplane noise.

Re: Noise-canceling headphones without the headphone

#106
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The actual study is here [0] and the abstract and introduction do a much better job of describing what the study is actually about. I encourage you to read at least those before you dismiss the research and its real-world applications. TL;DR: The purpose of the research is to try out a new way of figuring out which sound is going into the user's ears, so that it can be cancelled out. Current methods work for lower fr…

They "cheated" because they did the easy part, and the "other component" has no known solution. What they're handwaving away is the real problem. The reason why current methods work for lower frequencies and not for higher frequencies is that your microphone, emitter, and ear all need to be enclosed within a volume Once you put the ears in open air and the emitters away from them, the problem isn't figuring out the s…

Research is an incremental process and even if their proposal has no practical application right at this very second, it's still a new idea that hadn't been tried before they did it.

Instead of focusing on the fact that these researchers didn't singlehandly revolutionise ANC in a single study, how about we focus on what they did do?

Re: Noise-canceling headphones without the headphone

#107
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They "cheated" because they did the easy part, and the "other component" has no known solution. What they're handwaving away is the real problem. The reason why current methods work for lower frequencies and not for higher frequencies is that your microphone, emitter, and ear all need to be enclosed within a volume Once you put the ears in open air and the emitters away from them, the problem isn't figuring out the s…

No, the missing part is not time travel. Sound comes from the skin and engines of the plane, where microphones could be located, and could potentially predict sound throughout the plane well in advance with an appropriate microphone array. You'd need a fair number of microphones, but I suspect the noise profile isn't too chaotic, which helps. You're talking about things like jet engines (which are repetitive), turbul…

If you've ever been in an airplane, you'll know that airplane cabin noise is largely uncorrelated rumble, not fixed-pitch components from the jet engines and such. Good luck solving for the response at a user's position for that, no matter how many microphones you throw at the problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te3pyLk_wBs

Spectrogram sample: https://mrcn.st/t/flight_noise.png

I get that this is HN, but no, ML and AI do not magically solve all problems.

Thankfully, most of the energy is in the low frequencies, which existing noise cancellation systems can already do a god job of dealing with in the near field.

Re: Noise-canceling headphones without the headphone

#108
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They "cheated" because they did the easy part, and the "other component" has no known solution. What they're handwaving away is the real problem. The reason why current methods work for lower frequencies and not for higher frequencies is that your microphone, emitter, and ear all need to be enclosed within a volume Once you put the ears in open air and the emitters away from them, the problem isn't figuring out the s…

Research is an incremental process and even if their proposal has no practical application right at this very second, it's still a new idea that hadn't been tried before they did it. Instead of focusing on the fact that these researchers didn't singlehandly revolutionise ANC in a single study, how about we focus on what they did do?

That's why I'm confused as to why they're selling this as being relevant for ANC (optimizing for the news cycle?), when it would be a lot more useful to talk about things like optimizing free space speaker systems for a user's position, say, for VR.

Like, the idea of remotely sensing where a user's ears are and what they're picking up is useful. Just not for far field ANC.

Re: Noise-canceling headphones without the headphone

#109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recently I started a job that has me using a headset with ANC (active noise cancellation). It was OK for the first week or two but then I noticed my head hurt. My ears felt full and I had ringing in my ears that was quite loud. I have mild (self-diagnosed) tinnitus but this was beyond that by a significant amount. I'm aware of how noise cancelling technology works it's by creating an opposing sound wave of equivalent…

Try IEM's.

WARNING:

IEM seal the ear canal causing a build up of moisture and ear wax that can lead to infection in some people.

Re: Noise-canceling headphones without the headphone

#110
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to people outside your truck though..

Common rail diesels are very quiet compared to older style diesel engines. Some are so quiet you wouldn't even know it was a diesel. And with DEF you won't even smell the classic diesel exhaust smell. The loud smelling ones are due to modifications and probably also from "deleting" the DEF (which is illegal).

A large majority of these trucks get a delete installed. Numerous folks roll coal. In states without emissions control it’s a giant cluster.
Post reply on HN