The rise of fake engine noise • Hacker News Board

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#201

Post by evincarofautumn » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 1:45 PM UTC

pluma wrote: post #196

arthurfm wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would love car traffic to be more silent A minor nitpick, but you can't get more silent than silent since silence is the absence of any noise.

Sure, but absolutes are rarely used in their literal meaning. "Silence" doesn't refer to the absence of any noise, it refers to a very low level of noise. The absence of any noise at all is very difficult to achieve (although you can come close: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXVGIb3bzHI ). The same goes for other absolutes like "black" (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vantablack is arguably "blacker" than other "…

On the other hand, logic has little to do with how language works. There are absolute and relative adjectives in English in the same way that there are count and non-count nouns, regardless of whether those semantic categories make any sense.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#202

Post by listic » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 1:47 PM UTC

jarek wrote: post #179

kaybe wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's dangerous if pedestrians and cyclists expect to hear cars and they approach silently.

Maybe they shouldn't expect that then. Lots of cities have trolleybuses, trams, and other electric transport without carnage on the roads.

As a cyclist, I can confirm that, unfortunately, the pedestrians do rely on sound quite a lot in figuring out whether a vehicle is dangerous: if you're silent, they won't try to avoid you that much. Sometimes it becomes ridiculous: a pedestrian looks in your direction and proceeds walking across, in the middle of the street, forcing you to brake to a halt. They don't do that to cars.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#203

Post by aaronetz » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 1:59 PM UTC

yaeger wrote: post #91

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.

Don't you see any problem with the silence in terms of safety? There is a reason bicycles need to have a bell. Because these you also cannot hear when they approach you. Although, it would be funny seeing a Tesla with a nice little bell and the tacked on law that you have to use it to alarm others in front of you that you are approaching. That'll be a sight to behold.

In a hypothetical future where all city vehicles are electric, tire noise would be much more noticeable (whereas now it is drowning in engine noise).

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#204

Post by lmm » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 2:00 PM UTC

anvandare wrote: post #87

cbd1984 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, someone who has a lot of experience with film cameras could legitimately ask the same question. Why the hell would a completely different technology ape the noises of a previous generation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeuomorph I guess in this case (with sound) it would be called skeuophone.

It's also that some countries legally required digital cameras to make noises when taking photos, to make surreptitious photography impossible.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#205

Post by vilhelm_s » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 2:02 PM UTC

yaeger wrote: post #91

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.

Don't you see any problem with the silence in terms of safety? There is a reason bicycles need to have a bell. Because these you also cannot hear when they approach you. Although, it would be funny seeing a Tesla with a nice little bell and the tacked on law that you have to use it to alarm others in front of you that you are approaching. That'll be a sight to behold.

I mean, cyclists are not required by law to continuously ring the bell when traveling at less than 25mph though. Cars have car horns; that seems like a better analogy to bicycle bells than the "external noise generators".

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#206

Post by hvidgaard » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 2:03 PM UTC

firethief wrote: post #164

hvidgaard wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think of it this way. Enhancing the engine sound is like optimizing the acoustics of a concert hall - you're still listening to nothing but the sounds from the orkestra. Artifically playing a prerecorded engine sound, is like sitting in a room full of speakers and amplifiers. You still hear the orkestra, but only a prerecorded version. The result might be the same, but there are subtle differences.

I think that highlights the difference for me: you come to the orchestra to hear the music. People like the sound of a car revving because they associate it with engine power, but the revving itself isn't inherently desirable; can you imagine generations growing up without ever seeing a fuel-burning car, but still associating the loudness and deepness of a car's speaker's rumbling with its power? People like the revv…

> the revving itself isn't inherently desirable

I'm not sure that is quite true. I like a deep rumbeling bass, anything from explosions, thunder, or music - I do however nok like higher frequency sounds, such as jet engines, or a 18k rpm F1 engine. A traditional large reving engine is like that low frequency sound.

> People like the revving noise for the same reason a ringing bell makes a dog drool.

But isn't that true for the vast majority of things we enjoy. People find different things beautiful, based on what they assosiate it with.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#207

Post by iamthepieman » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 2:05 PM UTC

firethief wrote: post #160

CalRobert wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With a sane legal framework surrounding driving, the driver would need to be sure they were not going to hit you, rather than you needing to be sure you wouldn't be hit.

For a pedestrian hit by a car, legal liability is often not the main concern.

You may legally in the right but only your heirs will care.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#208

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 2:06 PM UTC

CalRobert wrote: post #155

Svip wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was once almost hit by a Tesla, because I didn't hear it coming. Fortunately, the driver noticed I wasn't aware of his presence and slowed down.

With a sane legal framework surrounding driving, the driver would need to be sure they were not going to hit you, rather than you needing to be sure you wouldn't be hit.

[deleted]

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#209

Post by cc438 » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 2:08 PM UTC

thedaniel wrote: post #76

revisionzero wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I haven't driven a car that does this, but my guess is that it's noticeably simulated." According to the article, BMW does this, and I can say from first-hand experience in a newer model that it's not noticeably simulated.

And folks are apparently already hacking their in-cabin sounds to sound like higher-performance models! (cf. http://jalopnik.com/someone-hacked-their-bmw-m135i-to-sound-... )

As neat as that sounds, I wonder what will happen when the amplifier and/or speakers start to give up the ghost in 5-10 years. I associate the word "BMW" with "wiring issues" so I'm skeptical of any system that requires unflinching reliability for the life of the car.

The 2015 Mustang with the turbo 4 cylinder has a similar system but the functionality can't be deactivated or tweaked in any way. Can you imagine the frustration of listening to the acoustic meddling through a blown speaker that you can't disable? I had a Lincoln Mark VIII where the stock amplifier fried itself when I was on the highway. It blasted static with wildly varying pitch at full volume for 5 minutes before I could safely pull over and pull the fuse. It was literally maddening.

Re: The rise of fake engine noise

#210

Post by hvidgaard » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 2:12 PM UTC

masklinn wrote: post #159

CalRobert wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"These switch off above 25 MPH or so, so they don't contribute to freeway noise." Ugg. So they only contribute to the destruction of the street-level soundscape to the detriment of walkers, cyclists, sidewalk cafes, and birds.

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 have traveled extensively in the city, both on legs and bike, and I commute on my bike daily. The noise polution is already at a point where you cannot tell if a small efficient cars is approaching. Hell, you can barely hear a Mercerdes AMG with a massive 6L engine. Unless the goal is to make people aware of a car in otherwise reasonably quite environments, it's pointless to require. That said, Teslas do not have to emit any fake noises in Denmark, and I can STILL hear the tire noise when it's driving past me.