Actually after some thought and with what you said if all cars made less sound but a similar type of sound then the adjustment would come for both hearing and sightless people. The problem now is for sure that if there is a mix of different types of cars (electric and gas) and that we are use to a certain volume within our environment, buses and gas driven cars. If this volume was lowered for only electric cars then we won't hear them if however the urban volume is lowered through out then there would be no hazard, lowering the volume of an urban environment obviously is not top of the list of most urban developers. But standardizing a sound for all cars.. maybe just sample a gas driven car and mimimic its acceleration and pitch at different speeds. Seems a shame to have opportunity to lower volumes in urban settings and not work out some solution that involves decreasing sound levels instead of increasing them. Could also see the situation as a transition period and that in fifty years the need for added sound will be gone as people adjust to the newer levels of hybrid and electric cars. Only time until the oil runs out. Though bio diesel buses are pretty loud, veggie oil is clean but noisy but Of topic if algae is used which can be grown from sewage it is a better choice, environmentally than big batteries. Of topic. Flying cars would create a hellish world. They I'm sure can be made but the complexities of 3 dimensional traffic rules is more than likely the reason they aren't been developed. I'm sure we envision flying cars as the chance of flying from A to B in a straight line. The mess that would be created with everyone flying from A to B in a straight line would be chaos to say the least.
ede
On 2010-07-11, at 5:49 AM, Andy Farnell wrote:
Yes, there's already a lot of thought that goes into road safety for blind people, such as the localisation/directionality of audio beeps at junction crossings. Fast, totally silent cars would be a nightmare for blind people.
And for fully sighted people too.
But without some standardised sound it's now worse than no sound if every car makes a different weird noise that you cannot identify or locate, so every urban street becomes (more of) a cacophony of signals that confuse and disorient.
Past a certain threshold people just shut off, pop in their headphones, crank up the music and choose oblivion over awareness. These people are as good as deaf and as much at risk as blind people even if cars do make a noise. But that is by choice of course.
And what I noticed in my work with companies making mobile audio tech, is that for many urban dwellers their headphones are a last vestige of personal space in an intrusive world of competing sounds.
In many places, by analogy to radio waves, the audio spectrum is already full.
My suggestion is to discourage behaviour that ups the stakes with more competitive use of sound.
At the risk of going off topic, the real problem is that vehicles travel way too fast in built up areas.
And while we're on this futuristic topic, wtf happened to our flying cars, I'm still waiting!
a.
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 19:03:37 -0400 ede cameron ecameron@videotron.ca wrote:
From my understanding having quiet cars (electric) make noise (our some sound similar to a gas driven car) is due to pressure primarily from the blind who rely on the sound cars make to navigate in urban environments.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21112810/
ede
On 2010-07-10, at 7:43 AM, Andy Farnell wrote:
The translation was so bad you might even get completely reversed scores for some of these questions.
An interesting topic though.
I've discussed this with two groups of undergrad and masters students recently.
It is likely that legislation will quickly be needed to deal with customised car sounds, because human nature won't permit some people to have ordinary, quiet, functional ones. It will quickly become a race to have the most disturbing sound once there is a market for this technology.
As an environmental issue, noise pollution is the boisterous elephant in the street. Nobody wants to tackle it. Because sound is a secondary faculty it gets pushed under the carpet in discussions. For example new London buses with gas turbo engines cut CO2, but they also reduce the quality of life by keeping people awake at night with their much louder screaming engines.
Helath and safety measures have increased the power output (and perceived loudness by adding more noise and inharmonics) of sirens, so now the vehicles can speed even faster. While they may get there 20 seconds earlier and save a life, 10,000 other people along the route have their peace and concentration shattered. Cumulatively the adverse health issues (hearing damage, stress, sleeplessness) plus the loss of productivity may outweigh any benefits of louder sirens. Yes this is Schopenhauer for the 21st Century, but nothing has changed. You can pump 120 dB of doofcar noise into the street and nobody looks twice, but if you started pumping poisonous gas into the street you'll be thrown in jail. Only one kind of pollution is trendy to decry.
Meanwhile, car manufacturers build ever quieter interiors that are impervious to external noise. So there is a 'war' going on. Drivers want to be cocooned in a private world, while inflicting their 'personality' on the outside. This is a pathological stance.
New technologies might be optical, or radio, that allow emergency vehicles to signal ahead to roadside beacons or dasboard indicators in cars. Satnavs could be modified to prominently indicate nearby emergency vehicles.
Directional demodulation sound could be employed for sirens as only those in front of the vehicle need to hear it is coming.
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 22:35:34 +0200 András Murányi muranyia@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 9:17 PM, hghoyer mail@hghoyer.de wrote:
Hi,
I would be glad if you participate in my brief survey. It is about sounds in computer games and electric cars ... http://research.hghoyer.de/index.php?sid=71581&lang=en
Sorry, my question has to do only indirectly related to PD. I am happy you are interested, include evaluation of the survey!
Thanks Hans
Interesting stuff. Please let me just drop my 2 cents in: (SPOILER ALERT!)
- Some of the (english language) questions were really hard for to
understand (maybe because i'm not native english either)
- Lot of talk about sound with no sounds! I would have been happy to listen
to different sounds and express my preferences, but deciding on _loose descriptions_ of sounds is much harder for me.
Andras
-- Andy Farnell padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-- Andy Farnell padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010, ede cameron wrote:
rules is more than likely the reason they aren't been developed. I'm sure we envision flying cars as the chance of flying from A to B in a straight line. The mess that would be created with everyone flying from A to B in a straight line would be chaos to say the least.
Individually-flying people is a waste of fuel that doesn't make any sense considering the post-1960's economics of energy. Therefore, to make it worthwhile for the masses, it has to be in the form of large-scale public transportation with specially-trained drivers. That way you could establish, for example, a bus line driving diagonally from Ahuntsic to Hochelaga that could save up to 29,7% on distance, and up to 100% on traffic lights, using a specially-crafted fleet of these :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MSTGyFHUuk
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard, Montréal, Québec. téléphone: +1.514.383.3801
On 2010-07-11, at 12:16 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010, ede cameron wrote:
rules is more than likely the reason they aren't been developed. I'm sure we envision flying cars as the chance of flying from A to B in a straight line. The mess that would be created with everyone flying from A to B in a straight line would be chaos to say the least.
Individually-flying people is a waste of fuel that doesn't make any sense considering the post-1960's economics of energy. Therefore, to make it worthwhile for the masses, it has to be in the form of large-scale public transportation with specially-trained drivers. That way you could establish, for example, a bus line driving diagonally from Ahuntsic to Hochelaga that could save up to 29,7% on distance, and up to 100% on traffic lights, using a specially-crafted fleet of these :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MSTGyFHUuk
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard, Montréal, Québec. téléphone: +1.514.383.3801
Okay but this guy wouldn't pass the eye exam. LOL
ede
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 6:49 PM, ede cameron ecameron@videotron.ca wrote:
On 2010-07-11, at 12:16 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010, ede cameron wrote:
rules is more than likely the reason they aren't been developed. I'm
sure we envision flying cars as the chance of flying from A to B in a straight line. The mess that would be created with everyone flying from A to B in a straight line would be chaos to say the least.
Individually-flying people is a waste of fuel that doesn't make any sense
considering the post-1960's economics of energy. Therefore, to make it worthwhile for the masses, it has to be in the form of large-scale public transportation with specially-trained drivers. That way you could establish, for example, a bus line driving diagonally from Ahuntsic to Hochelaga that could save up to 29,7% on distance, and up to 100% on traffic lights, using a specially-crafted fleet of these :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MSTGyFHUuk
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard, Montréal, Québec. téléphone: +1.514.383.3801
Okay but this guy wouldn't pass the eye exam. LOLede
interesting topic, interesting thoughts. I just hope HG is subscribed to the list and actually reads these. (If not, nothing is lost: http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/2010-07/thread.html) So, a minimum sound level, and a maximum level is regulation is desirable, and if we're talking about sound branding, i would add the sounds shall be easy to identify with a car, most like they shall "sound like an engine". They shall express speed and acceleration, and shall be easy for the ear the estimate the direction where they are coming from (no idea what this implies... harmonics?), and i guess, they shall "react well to doppler effect" (again, i have a serious lack of knowledge in audio theory). They might also need to avoid the resonance frequencies of some typical things (the skull, and average size home windows for example), and they need to be free of sounds that have a known negative mental effect. (And cannot broadcast subconsciously audible advertisements :) Within these regulations, companies shall be free to brand their car sounds.
Andras
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 11:01:46 -0400 ede cameron ecameron@videotron.ca wrote:
The problem now is for sure that if there is a mix of different types of cars (electric and gas) and that we are use to a certain volume within our environment, buses and gas driven cars. If this volume was lowered for only electric cars then we won't hear them if however the urban volume is lowered through out then there would be no hazard,
An excellent point Ede, it's the relative, contextual volume that really counts.
lowering the volume of an urban environment obviously is not top of the list of most urban developers.
Indirectly maybe. The UK is looking at a 20mph residential urban speed limit, and I think this would also lead to quieter roads.
But standardizing a sound for all cars.. maybe just sample a gas driven car and mimimic its acceleration and pitch at different speeds.
Pretty much what we're doing in games right now. But of course I'm betting on a procedural/modelling approach :)
Seems a shame to have opportunity to lower volumes in urban settings and not work out some solution that involves decreasing sound levels instead of increasing them.
And an opportunity to increase road safety. There's nothing in particular about a car engine sound that makes it easy to localise or estimate the speed of the vehicle, other than as an aquired/learned skill. Perhaps that familiar sound can be accented, augmented to channel better information, definitely a job for rational sound design.
cheers,
Andy
-
András Murányi -
Andy Farnell -
ede cameron -
Mathieu Bouchard