Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can't you just turn up the volume?

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 158 posts

Re: Can't you just turn up the volume?

#91

Post by Stratoscope »

JshWright wrote: post #82
Stratoscope wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not being pedantic at all. It's a fairly egregious error for an article about hearing . It would be like an article about a camera talking about its fast f/1.4 shutter speed.

While the phrase "fast f/1.4 shutter speed" doesn't make perfect sense, it's not uncommon to call a f/1.4 lens a "fast" lens.

Indeed that is true. Some of my lenses are much faster than others! A fast lens does let me use a fast shutter speed, and as Wikipedia describes, that's where the phrases "fast lens", "slow lens", and "lens speed" came from.

But "fast f/1.4 shutter speed" doesn't just not make perfect sense, it doesn't make any sense. That's why I chose it as an analogy. The phrase doesn't mention lenses at all, it's talking about the shutter. And shutter speeds are measured in seconds or fractions of a second, not f-stops.

Re: Can't you just turn up the volume?

#92

Post by hrjet »

Stratoscope wrote: post #77
bigiain wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curiously, that sort of language is used by camera people. Aperture and shutter speed are not the same thing, but they are inextricably linked to each other (in a way that dynamic range (in the amplitude sense) and frequency response/range are not nearly so linked). In a "camera article", the phrase " ... its fast f/1.4 shutter speed." would probably be in the context of saying something about one or more of the sens…

Sorry to disagree, but a knowledgeable camera person would never talk about a "fast f/1.4 shutter speed". A camera article, review, or blog post that said that would be loudly criticized in the comments. The phrase just doesn't make sense - that's why I chose it as an analogy. It especially doesn't make sense as a figure of speech referring to some characteristic of the sensor. A more sensitive and less noisy sensor…

I think you are missing a characteristic of lenses called the f-ratio, which is sometimes described as fast or slow. This is not specific to cameras; it is a general term used in optics. The f-ratio is the ratio of the aperture to the focal length. Even telescope lenses and mirrors are described similarly. For example, a telescope with an f/4 mirror can be described as a fast telescope.

Not only that, a lot of the terms have been misappropriated in camera lingo. The camera folks express aperture as an f-ratio, which is extremely confusing.

Re: Can't you just turn up the volume?

#93

Post by saalweachter »

zenocon wrote: post #5

"Why can't I just turn up the volume on my iPhone?" is something I ask myself everyday and shake my fist toward Cupertino. Seriously, the gain on the phone is severely limited. Try listening to a voice call on speakerphone in even a moderately quiet environment with just a twee bit of ambient noise. It is maddening that I can't get any more volume out of this device without jailbreaking it.

I actually have the opposite problem: the minimum volume on my iPod is too loud. In some contexts (late at night, listening to something while falling asleep) it's slightly too loud, but they don't give you any more gradations between "off" and "slightly too loud".

I find it especially bothersome because on older, non-digital radios, I was able to lightly tune the volume to somewhere just on the threshold of audible, which is the perfect level for falling asleep to.

Re: Can't you just turn up the volume?

#94

Post by w4 »

pistle wrote: post #73
anigbrowl wrote: post #29

What’s the solution? Multi-Band Compression (MBC), a technique that’s been used by the $6 billion hearing aid industry to solve this specific problem. An MBC uses intelligent design instead of a one-size-fits-all method. With the right data about your hearing pattern, it can mash the full sound into your range so that you get all the information you need. Audio engineer here. That is patently untrue. MBC is a super-u…

I was about to question everything until I read this. Thanks AE. My understanding of MBC is more like a crossover (or mix of low, bandpass, and highpass filters) network followed by compression per band within each section of the frequency range. Now, I want to go test out what it would be like to 'compress' frequencies. Something like a notch filter that shifts nearby frequencies around the target frequency away int…

>I was about to question everything until I read this. Thanks AE. My understanding of MBC is more like a crossover (or mix of low, bandpass, and highpass filters) network followed by compression per band within each section of the frequency range.

This is exactly right. Basically, you separate the audio into arbitrary frequency bands, and then apply compression to each band to control its volume independent of what is going on in the rest of the spectrum.

I was incredibly frustrated by reading the article, since their explanation of multiband compression was incredibly misleading. I get what they're doing and why multiband is helpful (it sounds like they're basically bringing up the volume in the parts of the spectrum where the user's hearing is less sensitive than healthy hearing would be), but that was a poor explanation of how multiband compression works.

Re: Can't you just turn up the volume?

#95

Post by Stratoscope »

hrjet wrote: post #92
Stratoscope wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry to disagree, but a knowledgeable camera person would never talk about a "fast f/1.4 shutter speed". A camera article, review, or blog post that said that would be loudly criticized in the comments. The phrase just doesn't make sense - that's why I chose it as an analogy. It especially doesn't make sense as a figure of speech referring to some characteristic of the sensor. A more sensitive and less noisy sensor…

I think you are missing a characteristic of lenses called the f-ratio, which is sometimes described as fast or slow. This is not specific to cameras; it is a general term used in optics. The f-ratio is the ratio of the aperture to the focal length. Even telescope lenses and mirrors are described similarly. For example, a telescope with an f/4 mirror can be described as a fast telescope. Not only that, a lot of the te…

Thank you, you are absolutely right! I should have said "f-ratio" everywhere I used "aperture".

I'll leave my previous comment in its incorrect state in the hope that people will see yours to correct and clarify it. :-)

> The camera folks express aperture as an f-ratio, which is extremely confusing.

Isn't it the other way around? I think the mistake we self-proclaimed "knowledgeable" camera folks make is using the term "aperture" where we really should say f-ratio.

For example, I have two Olympus Micro Four Thirds lenses that are both f/1.8: a 45mm and a 75mm. Looking at these lenses it's pretty obvious that the f/1.8 is an f-ratio: the front element of the 75mm is much wider than the 45mm, as you'd expect.

So thanks to your comment, I will endeavor to use "f-ratio" where I've been misusing "aperture".

Re: Can't you just turn up the volume?

#96

Post by diydsp »

anigbrowl wrote: post #54
varunsrin wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hey anigbrowl, OP here. You raise some great points - it is indeed impossible to use an MBC to bring sounds back into a user's range of hearing if they have lost all sensibility at that particular frequency. However, the loss of hearing at a particular frequency is not binary - it tends to start with a reduction in dynamic range at that frequency, as the cilia start to get worn out / destroyed. So if you have loss @…

I get what you're aiming at, and I applaud what you're trying to do - I just think that you've over-simplified a complex topic, to the point of creating quite a bit of confusion, going by this thread. To quote Einstein, “Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

There are numerous interstitiated mechanisms in hearing. I don't see why MBC in particular would be valuable, other than amplifying quiet parts automatically, which could in fact have the opposite effect.

However, I think there is potential for many other mechanisms to be developed, such as automatic filtering, to eliminate masking in frequency and time domains.

The question I have is why other companies, such as Apple and Spotify, don't simply add this DSP technology to their software. What can SoundFocus do that can't be copied? Proprietary algorithms?

Re: Can't you just turn up the volume?

#97

Post by Jemaclus »

I'm completely deaf in my left ear, and I wear a hearing aid in my right ear. What's really cool is that my hearing aid has BlueTooth, and starting with the iPhone 5S, Apple supports direct-to-hearing-aid technology. That means when I get a phone call, it streams directly from the phone to my hearing aid -- not out of a speaker, directly to my ear. Very, very cool.

Here's more info: https://www.apple.com/accessibility/ios/hearing-aids/

That said, if I had an older hearing aid or didn't have this one, I'd definitely use this app. They are spot on about hearing loss and how it's more than just a volume thing. In fact, most of hearing loss is really an understanding thing. I can hear your voice just fine -- I just can't hear 100% of it, so the words don't make sense to me right away.

Re: Can't you just turn up the volume?

#98

Post by zenocon »

darklajid wrote: post #8
zenocon wrote: post #5

"Why can't I just turn up the volume on my iPhone?" is something I ask myself everyday and shake my fist toward Cupertino. Seriously, the gain on the phone is severely limited. Try listening to a voice call on speakerphone in even a moderately quiet environment with just a twee bit of ambient noise. It is maddening that I can't get any more volume out of this device without jailbreaking it.

I'm not trying to pull your leg here, but .. why would you try to use the speaker if there's noise around you? I mean, why wouldn't you - like - put it up against your ear instead?

leg pulled. maybe because i'm not the only one on this end of the convo?

Re: Can't you just turn up the volume?

#99

Post by zenocon »

masklinn wrote: post #26
zenocon wrote: post #5

"Why can't I just turn up the volume on my iPhone?" is something I ask myself everyday and shake my fist toward Cupertino. Seriously, the gain on the phone is severely limited. Try listening to a voice call on speakerphone in even a moderately quiet environment with just a twee bit of ambient noise. It is maddening that I can't get any more volume out of this device without jailbreaking it.

> It is maddening that I can't get any more volume out of this device without jailbreaking it. Use a pocket battery-powered amp and a small portable loudpeaker? That'll get you both more gain and better sound than the tinny built-in speaker.

thanks for the suggestion. i still lament the fact that my phone can't do this out of the box. this is a silly limitation, IMO.

Re: Can't you just turn up the volume?

#100

Post by zenocon »

curun1r wrote: post #66
zenocon wrote: post #5

"Why can't I just turn up the volume on my iPhone?" is something I ask myself everyday and shake my fist toward Cupertino. Seriously, the gain on the phone is severely limited. Try listening to a voice call on speakerphone in even a moderately quiet environment with just a twee bit of ambient noise. It is maddening that I can't get any more volume out of this device without jailbreaking it.

If you're looking for someone to blame, I highly recommend the guy that sued Apple because the iPod could be loud enough to cause hearing damage: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/7bf03be0-94de-11da-9f39-00007... Apple eventually won and the case was dismissed, but the lower maximum value followed from that lawsuit.

wow, thanks for the info. lawyers - gah. still, no excuse for apple to limit the speakerphone...no one is at risk of hearing damage from a cell phone's speakerphone...you hear me apple?
Post reply on HN