10 * bLog (p²)

Great plug-in...but don't forget the room acoustics!

2010-03-26T10:21:00.004-05:00

Came across an announcement about a new plug-in that's supposed to "shift" the "sweet spot" (if you believe in such a thing) relative to listener position. Seems like a great idea...until users realize it doesn't work quite right in a bare-wall / -ceiling room. ;)

Inconvenient Coincidences in Utah

2010-02-17T16:57:00.002-06:00

Totally off-topic today: I came across two news items, both courtesy of slashdot. First, I read that a Utah legislator wants to make the 12th grade optional. Then, I read that the Utah assembly has passed a resolution that officially denies global climate change. I cannot help but speculate that the two issues might have a lot in common with each other...

BTW, in case you're wondering (doubtful, I know) where Savant stands on climate change, I suggest David Brin's blog to get a good idea. Particularly, this entry and its follow-up.

Where are the Noise Police?

2009-11-19T10:24:00.003-06:00

This from Tucson, AZ, about "hump honkers." You have got to be kidding me. Well, Tucson residents (and police) might need to review their noise ordinance; Section 16.31(f) states: "No person may use any automobile, motorcycle or other vehicle, engine or motor of whatever size, stationary or moving, instrument, device or thing, in such a manner as to create loud and unnecessary grating, grinding, rattling or other noise." Surely this nonsense qualifies as "unnecessary...noise." If so, the risk of a $100 to $2,500 fine should be deterrant enough for these "hump honkers." <<>>

Back east in Baltimore... Um, the Baltimore Health Code (PDF) covers this (see Section 9-206), folks. It's probably not unreasonable to speculate that the sound level from the generator is over the 50 dBA nighttime limit at the property boundary, i.e., at the edge of the right-of-way. Of course, since the noise is arguably within the public interest (maintaining cell phone coverage), it's probably exempt...but the exemption must be granted by the Commissioner of Health. (Which, giving the benefit of the doubt, Sprint may have done...) Regardless, the proposal to use "bales of hay" as noise mitigation is another matter entirely!!! <<>>

When More Noise is Better

2009-08-31T14:13:00.001-05:00

Came across this little piece at the Scientific American blog site (via LinkedIn).

Go BOILERS!!!

ProAV Jul/Aug 2009

2009-08-06T13:38:00.002-05:00

In case you haven't gotten your copy yet, ProAV Magazine has a good, short piece on acoustics entitled "Collective Wisdom," which provides acoustical perspectives on four types of commercial venues from four industry experts. For the online version, it seems you'll have to tolerate some annoying Sony pop-ups. Worth it, tho'. :)

Careful Where You Put That Probe, Officer...

2009-06-10T18:16:00.004-05:00

Dateline, Mansfield, OH:

"(Sgt. Todd) Newberry probed 20 inches into the idling Ford's tailpipe, and took a reading of 103 decibels -- 13 past the legal limit of 90."

With my curiosity sufficiently piqued by this measurement procedure, I looked up the Mansfield (OH) city code, which states the following regarding vehicular noise emissions:

"Ninety db(A) when measured twenty inches from the rear of the exhaust pipe at a forty-five degree angle to the center of the pipe at a minimum height of eight inches from a hard surface."

Hmmm... Assuming this was reported accurately, it would seem that Sgt. Newberry went 40 inches the wrong way with his, er, probe. Advice: Avoid body cavity searches in Mansfield, OH!

Acoustical Miscellany

2009-04-24T09:29:00.002-05:00

Some bits and bobs for this week / month:

Those amongst you with a penchant for sci-fi may be familiar with the steampunk subgenre. I'm not a huge fan of steampunk, but I have to admit that I hold a special place in my heart for The Wild Wild West TV show from the '60s. How does this relate to acoustics? Well, a new online steampunk publication, Steampunk Magazine, provides issues for free download. The first issue (PDF) had a couple of articles that will be interesting to the musical acoustics enthusiasts among you; check out "The Pyrophone" on page 9 and "Glass Armonica" on page 10.

*~*~*~*~*

Colleague Jeffrey Fullerton, of Acentech, writes for The Journal of New England Technology about considering acoustics during the meeting planning process. Excellent advice.

*~*~*~*~*

This is an interesting article on some work being undertaken at Youngstown State University on using laser scanning of large performance venues to help analyze acoustics. The article doesn't go into much detail on the how, but I think it shows promise: I can envision a future where a consultant can perform a few scans if an existing space that import the results directly into a acoustical modeling program (such as one of these). This would save considerable time poring over drawings and inputting data points by hand.

*~*~*~*~*

Finally, don't forget next Wednesday (29 April 2009) is International Noise Awareness Day. Do your part to help spread the quiet! 8^)

Best Public Service Announcements...Ever.

2009-04-13T20:39:00.001-05:00

http://www.turnitdown.ca/

HIL.AR.I.OUS.

Today, I love the Canadians. :)

Today's Forecast: Partly Sunny, Calm, 48°F...and 53 dBA???

2009-02-23T09:51:00.003-06:00

I couldn't help but moan when I came across this column in the (Chicago) Daily Herald. All in all, pretty decent advice. But what is particularly irksome is this statement:

Acoustics certainly qualifies as a science, as does meteorology. Both are often accurate in their projected outcomes - but not always. Some concert halls, for example, have spent millions of dollars to enhance sound quality a few years after the buildings opened with supposedly superb acoustics.

So, acoustic physics "qualifies" as a science??? I don't think I'd be off-base by observing that Ms. St. Clair's comparison of acoustics to meteorology gives readers exactly the wrong image that we acoustics professionals wish to convey. Like many other scientists, acousticians can predict outcomes quite accurately. Certainly more accurately than meteorologists. Put simply, the more information an acoustician has about a situation, the more accurate the prediction. Contrast that with meteorology where, despite the accuracy and thoroughness of the input data, the slightest change in one of many, many variables can mean the difference between a beautiful day at the beach and blowing gales with driving rains.

Of course, when a concert hall is designed, there are many variables at play that can have an effect on the acoustics. However, they are all controllable variables; budget, mechanical design, interior finish details, seating design, stage design, et al. The predictive tools we use have been proven to be provide accurate results and desirable outcomes. A meteorologist with millions of dollar's worth of state-of-the-art prediction tools, reams of good input data, and decades of experience can go over a forecast dozens of times and still get it "wrong"; it's just the nature of that particular science. The slightest shift in wind direction can mean the predicted 4-8 inches of snow is actually only a light rain. A calm forecast with a high of 80°F can be replaced with the reality of gusty winds and 57°F. Missing the mark by such orders of magnitude is simply not something that happens in acoustics, unless there are extenuating circumstances beyond the acoustician's control or, indeed, completely beyond their awareness. If we're given all the information about a noise source, its path, and the receiver, we can typically predict the outcome with a high degree of accuracy. Certainly within industry-accepted tolerances. If we were subjected to the chaotic situations meteorologists face on a daily basis, we could hardly (for example) convince government agencies to spend millions of dollars on highway noise barriers.

As usual, I'm probably overreacting. But I find that these kinds of statements keep our science entrenched in the "voodoo" category, which is both unfortunate and unnecessary. IMHO. :)

President Jack Hammer

2009-01-29T12:48:00.002-06:00

A colleague forwarded this piece to me courtesy of The Onion. Very creative. Exaggerated claims aside, the possibility of something like this actually happening is all too real these days. Perhaps the BHO administration will bring some change to noise control regulations in the U.S. You never know...

Forensic AUDIO

2009-01-27T09:33:00.004-06:00

Shows of the CSI: variety often feature forensic audio as one item in their bag of crime-solving tricks. More often than not (and not surprisingly), Creative License is invoked and "better-than-reality" results are often achieved. Audio recordings completely inundated with noise are made into crystal-clear confessions of a perp's guilt at the click of the "Remove the Noise" button. Impressive. (And I've blogged about it before, albeit indirectly.)

The most recent portrayal was a modicum better than some (and was on a show I enjoy quite a bit). In case you missed it, the "Trouble in Chinatown" episode of CBS' Numb3rs that aired on Friday (1/23/09) found the FBI's resident math whizzes creating their own audio filters to remove noise from a garbled recording of an abduction. At least this gave the viewer some idea of the method behind the magic of the ubiquitous "Remove the Noise" button. A little disappointingly, the final result was (again) a crystal-clear recording of the victim describing the abductor's vehicle, complete with license plate number. Nice.

While this portrayal was, as I mentioned, better than some, it was referred to in the dialog (several times) as "forensic audiology." Ack! Where in the consultant-producer-writer chain is the communication breaking down? Audiology is the science of hearing. The only image that is conjured up with the phrase "forensic audiology" is perhaps the verification of an ear-witness' hearing acuity. The practice in question is forensic audio. (I realize this probably seems petty. But still.)

I cannot knock the show in general; as I mentioned, I do enjoy it quite a bit. It's a small, rookie mistake in an otherwise consistently entertaining show. 8^D

An Interesting Contrast

2009-01-17T09:57:00.002-06:00

I've been trying out Google's "Alerts" features to help keep myself abreast of acoustics- and noise-related news. A couple of articles that I thought made for an interesting comparison:

Lake Havasu City is considering a new noise ordinance that would limit nighttime noise in residential areas to 55 dBA.

Perhaps the Lake Havasu City folks should consider talking to residents in the Dongjak District of Seoul, South Korea. Apparently, they claim they cannot open their windows at night because of 55 dBA sound levels outside.

I'm not sayin'...I'm just sayin'...

:^?

Barry & Napalm | Sheldon & the Sweet Spot

2008-11-26T09:51:00.004-06:00

Two nuggets today:

A creative judge in Colorado sentences noise ordinance violators to listen to "The Copacabana" and other smash hits. This cracks me up. If Judge Sacco is taking requests, I think he'd have good results exposing certain violators to some Napalm Death. I know I'd learn my lesson! Of course, if I were ever sentenced, I could plead "time already served" since I had a roommate in college that listened to nothing but Samantha Fox. (Watch out for the volume on that link. Apparently Samantha is LOOKING FOR A MIDNIGHT LOVER and, of course, there is no mute button.)

************

One of my favorite TV shows, The Big Bang Theory, provided some great acoustical geek humor on Monday night. The "White Asparagus Triangulation" episode had a scene with Sheldon in a movie theater moving from seat to seat making obnoxious vocal noises in an attempt to find the "acoustics sweet spot." Hilarious. Of course, Mrs. Savant turned to me and said, "If you ever do that, I will leave." I'm assuming she means the movie theater and not my life, but I don't think I'll try to find out. 8^D

Sonar, Musical Instruments, and Color Schemes (oh my?)

2008-11-13T16:44:00.003-06:00

Some stuff for (almost) the end of the week:

• Wired magazine blog about futuristic musical instruments. Didn't Jean Michel Jarre play lasers - or columns of light, at least - back in the '80s?

• U.S. Supreme Court rules for Navy re sonar use. This is one of those issues that I can't help but be on the fence about...

• Finally, Sound and Vibration magazine is, IMO, one of the better periodicals in my world. The thing I got to thinking about today was the color schemes for their covers. For each issue, S&V uses a different two-color scheme for the title and background. This got me to wondering if they've ever repeated a color scheme. (I know; don't I have better things to do?) Math quickly told me that they would never have to for a very long time. Assuming they are picking from a 256-color palette:

256² give you the number of possible schemes.
Less 256 to remove the schemes that would result in the same color for the title and background.
Answer: 65,280 possible color schemes.

At 12 issues per year, we are guaranteed a unique color scheme on every new issue of S&V until the year 7407 A.D. (They've been publishing since 1967.) I can't wait until the 5,000th anniversary issue comes out!!! 8^D

Common Denominator

2008-09-30T08:27:00.003-05:00

Got forwarded this article today. It seemed to me that I'd read a similar article before somewhere. So, The Boss seems to leave a wake of complaints about arena acoustics behind every tour. Yikes. Let's hope he gets a new crew of "sound engineers" before the Super Bowl!

How do you like your entertainment?

2008-09-19T13:47:00.007-05:00

Loud, quiet, still, or subliminal / creepy / in-your-ears/head?

Whatever your preference, did you know that you can now measure it with your iPhone?

Amorous Aural Arousal

2008-09-08T09:08:00.004-05:00

One of my favorite bloggers is Scott Adams, the Dilbert cartoonist. His blog today crosses over into the world of audio, tongue planted firmly in cheek. Check it out; I have no doubt that this presents a potentially lucrative business opportunity for some savvy studio / foley guru! 8^D

ThinkGeek Plug

2008-08-13T17:18:00.002-05:00

I just reviewed my blog posts from the last few months and I realized that I have been extremely remiss in not passing along a link to my new favorite e-store, ThinkGeek.com. The miniSavants were oh-so-very good to DaddySavant this year for Father's Day: The binary clock has earned a feature spot on one of my cubicle shelves, squarely between my Bob Uecker bobblehead and my rack of Noise News International back issues.

I would strongly encourage those among you who have zeroes and ones in your blood and every episode of Dr. Who on your DVR to pass along the link to ThinkGeek.com to friends and family right around holiday shopping season. My email to Savant family members will read something like, "If you're thinking about buying anything for me this year, everything for sale at ThinkGeek.com is on my wish list." (Except the binary clock...but I could always use another one for my home office!!! 8^D )

Sad but Probably True

2008-08-07T15:56:00.002-05:00

Got this link today from a colleague. A bit morbid and over-the-top (I hope), but the message (sadly) rings true.

Enjoy. :)

Conference Cost Blues

2008-08-01T16:57:00.003-05:00

So, I attended a conference earlier this week. I go to these sorts of things about once a year. (Used to be even more often, but I've been cutting back. :) Usually, these things involve a coming-together of colleagues, lengthy discussions about the goings-on in the industry, the making of new friends, and the catching up with old ones. Unfortunately, they also involve ridiculous wastes of money.

To their credit, the conference organizers will arrange to hold their annual (or semi-annual) events in a large hotel with ample conference meeting space and amenities so as to miminize the attendees' headaches when it comes to travel. There are often one or more restaurants right there in the hotel, a gift shop to purchase the shaving cream you forgot to bring, and even (but not always) a shuttle from the airport. (At the very least, a relatively inexpensive cab ride.) But all of this costs money. Bottled water in the gift shop will cost just a hair less than the $5.00 per half-liter that's "conveniently" in your room. Meals in the restaurant will not exactly be "affordable." But, people are often traveling on business and these are necessary (but not always welcomed or justified) expenditures to keep the business wheels a-turning.

But where is the line drawn? I attended a conference once at a hotel that was walking distance from several low- to medium-budget chain hotels. I stayed in one of these and paid roughly 50-60% of what I would have paid per night at the high-dollar conference hotel next door. My breakfast was free. Parking, should I have had a rental, would have been free. Internet access? Free. Next door, where room costs are markedly higher, Internet access was an additional $10 per day. Breakfast was only available in the restaurants - not free. Parking was valet for $20 per day or u-park-it for $15.

Is the added cost of parking due to real estate prices? Not likely since the medium-budget place I stayed in seemed to be managing just fine.

Is the added Internet access charge because they have lightning-fast connections? Not likely. (If you've ever paid for this "luxury" you know what I'm talking about.)

Most importantly, the rooms were not any better or worse at my medium-budget hotel than they were next door.

Of course, I guess the high-dollar place couldn't exactly be high-dollar if it weren't for all the extra nickel-and-diming...

The Alchemist

2008-07-08T17:36:00.002-05:00

If you're an iTunes junkie -- closet or otherwise -- it may interest you to know that the audio version of one of my favorite books, The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho, is available for free download. Coelho is one of those "love him or hate him" type of authors. I am the former and I would recommend him to anyone. It think it's way cool that iTunes and Coelho are offering this as a freebie. Unabridged. And read by Jeremy Irons.

Sometimes the Internet is a happy place... 8^D

The Big Moan

2008-06-06T12:59:00.002-05:00

As you may or may not be aware, I am an avid sci-fi fan. I have been reading sci-fi since grade school, where I first discovered Verne's 20,000 Leagues. A double-feature on TV one Saturday afternoon in those same formative years - War of the Worlds and The Day the Earth Stood Still - introduced me to the wonder of sci-fi on the big screen. Television also has steadily improved its sci-fi offerings with the likes of Firefly and BSG.

It is thanks to my passion for good sci-fi that I came across a couple of interesting - some might say dichotomous - articles on sound and space. At first glance, you might think - not incorrectly - that sound and space have little in common. This is indeed the gist of the Benford article I came across. However, having recently read (skeptically, at first) about the importance of speed of sound measurements in the study of inflation and the Big Bang, I thought I'd do some googling. Not surprisingly, a man by the name of John Cramer has provided this article, complete with a link to a WAV file of what the Big Bang - or perhaps the "Big Moan" may now be more apropos - might sound like if you were able to listen to it over the course of, say, a few hundred thousand years.

Enjoy! 8^D

WHAT?

2008-05-23T09:36:00.008-05:00

I came across this article today - don't ask me how - that opines on rock / pop / etc. concerts and hearing damage. As an individual that relies on good hearing to feed my family, it goes without saying that I go to great lengths to protect my hearing. And, certainly, concerts can be one of the most dangerous places for a guy like me to visit. If I can help it, I am never without my custom-molded earplugs, especially when attending concerts. (Which, admittedly, is something I do not do very often these days.)

Nonetheless, I found one of the opinions in the article interesting:

"Here is an interesting anomaly: How can musicians put earplugs in their own ears to protect themselves from the decibel damage, yet don’t give a crap about the audience they are assaulting. Perhaps, if they turned down the volume, they wouldn’t need the ear plugs. Or, why not buy up a couple gross of them and hand them out to the audience at the door. Free of charge."

How, indeed? I think it's because "louder" is, still, "better" in the ears of many a musician. They believe that louder is what their fans want. And they are not necessarily wrong. The reason the average teen / young adult won't turn it down has been shown to be directly related to the adrenaline rush one gets from listening to loud music. Turn the amps down and there's no more adrenaline rush and most youths will think it just doesn't sound as good. Ridiculous? Perhaps. But that's reality.

A story I like to tell folks along these lines is about to two drastically different concert-going experiences of mine. On the eve of the almost-millennium (12/31/99 - don't get me started on that whole business), I attended the John Mellencamp concert at Conseco Fieldhouse in Indy. Loud does not even begin to describe it. The concert itself was very enjoyable. I grew up on Mellencamp and he managed to pack in all his hits (= my favs) into about 2 hours - right through midnight, in fact. But, my word, I have experienced very few concerts that were that loud in my life. Were it not for my earplugs, I would have departed before the end of the first song.

Contrastingly, I got to see Tori Amos play at The Palace down in Louisville, KY. When the lights went down, I donned my plugs in anticipation of the aural assault. Much to my delight, Tori started singing and I couldn't hear the vocals. Removing my plugs, I estimated the sound level of the concert to be about 75 dBA or so. (And I was sitting in the 11th or 12th row, slightly stage-left.) Needless to say, it was one of the most enjoyable concerts I have ever attended.

Getting back to the point, I wonder, what are the musicians' or venue's responsibilities when it comes to protecting the hearing of fans / concert-goers? Most rock concerts are going to be around 100 dBA on average. Most fans are going to be there for, say, 2-3 hours. From an OSHA perspective, that's marginal in terms of potential hearing damage. (OSHA suggests 2 hours or less at 100 dBA.) But OSHA's role is to protect workers for hearing damage. By OSHA standards, the musician must wear hearing protection because he/she is working. Same for roadies, FOH staff, ushers, security, vending personnel, etc.

But fans make a conscious decision to be there. They pay for tickets and attend at their own volition. Thus, I would argue that it is neither the responsibility of the musicians, nor of the concert venue to supply hearing protection. If they did, that would certainly be a considerate thing to do. But they are not obligated.

Earplugs are cheap. If the concert-goer is truly concerned about their hearing, BYOE should be their standard M.O. It is for me. If musicians and / or concert venues wish to go the extra mile to protect their patrons, all the better.

But going to the concert in the first place is a personal choice. I think it would be far better to focus on educating the public on how they can inadvertently damage their hearing. In reality, if earplugs were handed out at the entrance to a concert, an overwhelming majority of the polyurethane nuggets would wind up in the nearest trash can. People just don't understand. Earplugs have a stigma attached to them. A couple, in fact:

If I wear earplugs I won't be hearing the show, so I won't be getting my money's worth.
Earplugs are for wussies who can't handle a little loud music.

Neither of these are true. But most people are simply ignorant about it. If we can help people understand that:

Just because it doesn't hurt doesn't mean there isn't damage - quite probably permanent and irreversible damage - being done,
The ringing in your ears that is still there at lunchtime the next day is not a good thing (certainly not a badge of pride, by any stretch),
Wearing earplugs when you're 22 is a whole lot cooler than wearing hearing aids when you're 40,

and, perhaps most importantly to some,

You can actually hear the concert better when you're wearing earplugs,

then I think handing earplugs out at the door would make a lot more sense.

Of course, another approach would be for musicians to embrace the entire concept of handing out free earplugs...and printing their logo and website address on each one. It would certainly give some artists the necessary incentive.

Now, there's a million-dollar idea... 8^D

Architects and Sound - Part the Third

2008-05-14T15:25:00.009-05:00

Continuing on a previous theme, here's another little piece from ProAV that is delving into the "us vs. them" of acousticians and architects.

We've been seeing quite a bit of this recently. Perhaps we'll all start to get along with each other in the near future? 8^D

Obsolescence in Acoustics

2008-04-16T11:43:00.004-05:00

Read about this site in today's paper. Got me to thinking about skills in my profession that are now becoming, or have become, obsolete. Among them:

Using sound level meters with analog (needle) displays (though Radio Shack still sells one).
Using special protractors and level recorder chart strips to determine reverberation time from impulse response recordings.
Using a starter's pistol, a large balloon, or two 2x4s to generate the aforementioned impulse responses.
Printing drawings on vellum to create bona fide blue blueprints. (I do miss the smell of ammonia around the office...)
Changing pens in a pen plotter.
Editing reel-to-reel tapes with a razor blade and some Scotch tape.
Attaching filter sets to sound level meters to measure octave-band sound levels.
Writing acoustical "modeling" and analysis programs in BASIC or Fortran.
Amassing hard copies of JASA.
Measuring relative humidity with a sling psychrometer.

I'm sure I'll think of more! 8^D

Local Bookstore Plug - The Book Bank

2008-04-11T11:45:00.007-05:00

When I travel - for business or pleasure - I try to find "the local bookstore." I'm not talking about the Borders or B&Ns. Not even the "half price" chains. I'm talking about the little hole-in-the-wall places that have books stacked to the ceiling; boxes of books that in any other store would be tripping hazards; books stacked two or three deep on a shelf.

I'm talking about the bookstores where the proprietors are behind the counter reading Faulkner or Joyce while their 17-year-old tabby sits on a stool in the Biography section.

I'm talking about the bookstores where, when you approach the counter with a rare (but not valuable) paperback copy of Asimov's The Gods Themselves priced at $1.50, the same proprietor compliments you on a fantastic find.

These bookstores have a personality. The smell of old paper. The coziness of 14-inch wide aisles. The low hum of traffic outside the only reminder that you haven't died and gone to book nerd heaven.

My latest find was on a recent trip out east. If you're ever in Alexandria, Virginia, I recommend you look up the Book Bank on King Street (just down the street from the national headquarters of the NSPE). Great selection of titles and wonderful prices. Not to mention the "local bookstore" atmosphere that is becoming increasingly difficult to track down in the Information Age.

Happy reading... 8^D

Happy April 1

2008-04-01T17:38:00.002-05:00

My favorite has to be #7.

If anyone has any good audio or acoustics related April Fool's Day pranks, let me know!!!

Just in time for Easter, Studiotips rises...

2008-03-20T18:32:00.003-05:00

Fortunately - this time - a misunderstanding. Disaster averted. Savant is glad to have his e-home back. And very relieved... 8^D

Happy Birthday, Pa Bell!

2008-03-03T12:48:00.002-06:00

Alexander Graham Bell, b. March 3, 1847.

From one of my favorite Family Guy episodes:

Alexander Graham Bell: Well, we did it Watson. What an afternoon. We finally perfected the first telephone.

Thomas Watson: Yeah, uh, hey listen, somebody called me today. Uh, whoever it was, said some very sexual things, very angry, sexual things.

Alexander Graham Bell: Oh, really? Probably just some teenagers somewhere... damn them.

Thomas Watson: Well, well that's, that's the thing. I mean, there's, there's only two phones, in the, well, in the world and one of them is in my office and the other one is in your office and those two didn't even exist until a few hours ago.

Alexander Graham Bell: Yikes, I could use a distraction right now.

Maybe a less-than-tasteful tribute, but humurous nonetheless (IMO)... :D

Douglas Coupland

2008-02-23T08:00:00.002-06:00

I believe Douglas Coupland is probably the greatest author of my generation - certainly my favorite born in the last 50 years. My wife and I just got through reading his latest book, The Gum Thief, and it's absolutely brilliant. His two best books, in my estimation, are All Families are Psychotic and jPod. The latter is now a TV series in Canada. If you're lucky enough to be a Canadian resident, you can watch the first few episodes here.

Noteworthy aside: When my wife and I figured out that only Canadians can watch Canadian TV shows on the Internet - duh! - we soon figured out that we're closer (driving distance) to Winnipeg than we are to New Orleans. Who says Kansas is in the middle of nowhere? Thus, it looks like we'll be doing a road trip when jPod comes out on DVD!!! 8^D

Anyway, if you are a bonafide Gen-Xer, I am willing to bet you will thoroughly enjoy Coupland's work. Happy reading!

Architects and Sound - Part Deux

2008-02-04T09:29:00.000-06:00

Sort of continuing the theme from Friday is this article I came across in Pro A/V. ...Sigh...

In case any non-acoustical types are reading my bLog, there is a very easy way to avoid acoustical and audio pitfalls on these types of projects. HIRE AN EXPERT...BEFORE the project is finished! Here are some links:

In the US, there's the NCAC.
In the UK, there's the ANC.
And there's always Google and the yellow pages, as well as the other acoustical groups, such as ASA and INCE, linked on the sidebar to the right.

Great places to start...and, in case I didn't mention: BEFORE the project is finished.

Architects and Sound

2008-02-01T16:53:00.000-06:00

Today's Cross•Spectrum blog entry is another good one. The coverage of the Livesound article was nice. And it reminded me of a couple of gems:

"Eighty-seven percent of sensory input is visual." - Architect to me after I introduced myself as the Acoustical Consultant on the project. Needless to say, it was all downhill from there. Of course, I did have a witty comeback: "Yes. And 75% of statistics are made up on the spot."

"No one has ever been saved by crown molding." - Worship audio guru Kent Morris in reference to allotting money towards decorative finishes verus acoustical finishes during a presentation for a NAMM acoustics for worship workshop several years ago. In other words: To hear The Word, one needs to hear The Word.

Acoustics & Climate Change

2008-01-29T13:55:00.000-06:00

I have to admit that I'm somewhat reluctant to jump on any bandwagon, let alone the most recent one related to global climate change. Of course, I am trying to be a responsible citizen of Earth. I am not a "climate change denier." But neither am I an avid Algore-ite. It's actually quite simple: My mental gag-reflex kicks in when anything scientific becomes overly politicized. But that's just me...and I am NOT going to bLog about my opinions on the quagmire of issues.

Nonetheless, here is a bLog for you with some blurbs about how the whole climate change thing has overlapped with the acosutics world:

For an entertaining exchange amongst acoustics folk (Savant included) on the issue, you can visit at least one (there are too many, lol!) hijacked Studiotips thread. :)
If you're in the green building biz - LEED and all that (not to be confused with LEDE, of course 8^) ) - then check out Michael Noble's piece in the Summer 2005 ASA newsletter, Echoes.
Finally, a favorite acoustical foam manufacturer of mine has now incorporated, of all things, soy components into their products to reduce carbon emissions, etc. (You still can't eat it, though.) Check out Studiofoam-eco at the Auralex site!

Elucidation Request

2008-01-24T16:28:00.000-06:00

Today's Cross•Spectrum blog post left me wanting, if have to say. And since I cannot figure out a way to comment there, I do so here. :)

First, I would like to know what's not to like about Cloverfield? Unless you suffer from motion sickness, I thought it was a very clever movie built around a tired old theme ("bad-thing-destroys-Manhattan"). My thought for the sequel: Another video is found that documents the same event from a different person's perspective. IMO, the whole thing wouldn't get old for at least 2 or 3 more movies.

Second, I have to concur, at least partly, about the B&K 2250. I say partly because I do like the sound recording to compact flash option. If you get a compact flash card with, say, 64 GB capacity, you can record (according to B&K's specs) over 185 hours of audio as 16-bit, 48 kHz WAV file(s). If all you need is a few hours - or even a full 24 - that leaves plenty of extra space for data. However, the major drawback to this (IMO) is that a 44.1 kHz sample rate does not appear to be an option. Guess the folks at B&K don't like to burn audio CDs...

(Of course, if someone would simply develop a way to attach a Type 1 mic and preamp to an somehow-record-enabled portable music player... But that's another bLog for another time...)

Another reason I concur is that there is HUGE feature that has been left out of the 2250: GPS capability. IMO, this needs to be a standard feature on all new SLMs from this point forward. At least on SLMs of B&K caliber. If they had included GPS and a way to access the meter remotely (Bluetooth, anyone?), it would deserve the hype.

Of course, over the years, a colleague and I have gone back and forth adding all sorts of bells and whistles to imaginary SLMs, only to conclude that what we really want is an acoustical automaton that replaces not only our bulky field survey equipment cases, but also replaces the operators (us), thus removing the need for us to have to travel with our bulky field survey equipment cases and go poking around cornfields, deserts, and well-to-do suburbs at 3 a.m.

But back to the real issue: What's not to like about Cloverfield???!!! :):):)

Dressed for (Acoustical) Success

2008-01-23T16:46:00.001-06:00

A little too late for Christmas, but I recently came across this garment, something all noise geeks will want to have in their closets.

Of course, if they develop matching pants, where do you think the microphone will go?

And, now that I think about it, wouldn't a hat make more sense? I mean, who listens with their chest hairs?

And speaking of chests (uh-oh), if a woman should don the Noise T, shouldn't there be some way to account for, um, "shielding" effects?

OK, I'm going to stop now.

Happy Asimov Day!

2008-01-02T10:34:00.000-06:00

On this day in 1920*, in that sleepy little burg we all know as Petrovichi, Russia, a sci-fi legend was born. If you've never read any Isaac Asimov - and even if you're not a fan of sci-fi - you owe it to yourself to at least add one (or seven) of his great works to your "to-read" pile. If you prefer galactic sagas, I suggest the Foundation novels. If you're a closet R2-D2 or Data fan, you can't go wrong with any of the Robot books.

Asimov was one of the genres most prolific writers. Even his non-fiction is simply oustanding.

So, I declare this Asimov Day - I hope yours is a good one!!!

*At least, this the the day that Mr. Asimov himself celebrated - his exact DOB is not known with any certainty. See Asimov's Wiki entry for more.

2007 in Review - Audio-style

2007-12-31T10:28:00.000-06:00

It's 31 December and I thought I'd bLog a quick review of some (IMO) notable happenin's in the world of music, audio, and acoustics in 2007:

I may add more later if I think of them. Happy New Year! <<8^)

Sunshine State Song

2007-12-28T13:47:00.000-06:00

I read today that Florida wants residents to vote for a new state song. The three finalists are "Florida - Where the Sawgrass Meets the Sky," "Florida, My Home," and "My Florida Home." I started thinking about what songs may have been runners-up:

"I Can't Drive 55"

"Air on a G-string"

"Blowin' in the Wind"

"Rock You Like a Hurricane"

"When I'm 64"

"The Heat is On"

...

Also today - and eerily related - a friend sent me a link to the dumblaws website. Here's an entry from the list of dumb laws in Florida:

"It is illegal to sing in a public place while attired in a swimsuit."

Ma Gray?

2007-12-27T08:57:00.000-06:00

The late 19th and early 20th century years were rife with innovation. The automobile replacing horse-drawn carriages; the phonograph putting Puccini in the parlor; Einstein telling us speed is in the eye of the observer; the list goes on and on.

As most history books, encyclopedias, and almanacs tell, it was during these years that Bell gave us the telephone and Marconi gave us the radio. Besides audio, these two life-changing inventions now apparently share something else: Controversy.

In the case of radio, it has been known for quite a while that Marconi most probably, um, "borrowed" the idea from Tesla. PBS has a nice little page on this.

Well, it would now seem that Marconi may have just been following Bell's lead. Personally, I can't wait for the book to come out; I'm a sucker for a good Whodunnit...Geek Style! Of course, I hope this doesn't mean a new sound level unit...the dG?

Airport? What airport?

2007-12-12T16:53:00.001-06:00

Got this Popular Science article emailed to me from a colleague. For those of you who like percentages when considering sound (I don't), this new jet would be roughly 99.999998% "quieter" - in terms of sound pressure - than most of the existing jets out there. Just think of how serene our surroundings would be if similar sound sources were equally reduced - in terms of sound pressure.

I could stand 50 feet from a garbage truck and never hear it.
I could get my leaf blower out, blow the leaves around my yard, and look like Luke Skywalker out there clearing a path using nothing but the Force.
There'd be nothing but the sounds of people walking and talking (screaming) into their cell phones along our cities' busy streets.
"Stealth" technology would take on a whole new meaning.

Interesting stuff to consider, to say the least... ;^)

Fresh Take on an Old Question

2007-12-11T10:54:00.000-06:00

I just finished reading David Brin's monumental tome, Earth. It's a near-future book, written in the late '80s with the action taking place in the year 2038. Brin's view of a future that is now 30 years hence is, in spots, far-fetched, but (IMO) he exonerates himself in the end by explaining that he did, indeed, take quite a few liberties with some elements. (It's simply hard to believe Miami will be underwater in the next 30 years. But hey, it could happen...)

Anyway, I just had to share one little gem with the 10*bLog(p²) faithful. A character in the novel having a pensive moment considering quantum theories, Heisenberg, and philosophy had this to share:

"Without observers, not only is a falling tree without sound...it's a concept without meaning."

Anyone in the acoustics biz has no doubt had to face the, "Well, what's your take on the falling tree?" question from inquisitive strangers / friends / family. Next time I get hit with that one, I have a new answer! :^)

Sound Objectivity

2007-12-04T09:54:00.001-06:00

My good friend over at Cross•Spectrum commented on yesterday's blog, and also opined on his own blog today.

The points that herb makes are excellent. (I wish I'd made some of them myself, particularly the one about the ANSI S12.18 standard...)

In repsonse, I'd first like to point out that my Baby/Bathwater blog should not be interpreted as my being in opposition of "nuisance"-style noise ordinances. Indeed, I believe that both objective and subjective ordinances are necessary. If the neighbor's loud party is keeping you awake at 1 a.m., I agree that there should be no need for the officer to have to dig out his sound level meter in order to issue a citation to the offender(s). Common sense should prevail.

But there are myriad instances where lack of an objective ordinance can hurt more than help, just like eliminating speed limits would hurt more than help.

My main point is that objective sound level limits should not be thrown aside simply because motorcycle noise is difficult for a law enforcement officer to measure. This is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Also, most people these days can operate a digital camera. IMO, the best way to support a noise citation for a loud motorcycle is simply to photograph the offender's exhaust when the citation is being issued. Since straight pipes or modified exhausts are illegal, it should be an easy enough thing to prove without any sound level measurement whatsoever! "It was excessively loud, and here's a picture of the offender's exhaust with the manufacturer's noise control measures having been removed."

If the offender really wants to fight the citation, a standard "pass-by" test can prove violation beyond a reasonable doubt. I would gladly offer up my services to conduct this test for my local law enforcement agency for a modest and reasonable fee. (Certainly less than the amount of the fine that would be incurred.) Further, I could probably be convinced to volunteer to train one or more law enforcement officers as to the proper methods to conduct the test, thereby saving them future costs. Measuring sound is difficult, no question. But a simplified version of the "pass-by" test - one that can prove violation without having to prepare a 20-page report (or follow an 18-page standard to the letter) - doesn't require an advanced degree in physics to conduct.

And once the word got out that the local police are able to perform a test that proves violation beyond a reasonable doubt, the loud pipes would begin to go the way of leaded gasoline.

At least, IMHO...but maybe I'm just too idealistic...

;^)

Baby? Check. Bathwater? Check.

2007-12-03T12:36:00.000-06:00

It seems several communities in Colorado just don't get it. To me, this clears the way for some smart aleck to propose that the objective speed limits should also be done away with on the roads in their communities. Since equipment and training for measuring vehicle speed is expensive and imperfect, it should be left to the law enforcer's judgment as to whether someone was driving excessively fast. Right?

************

Let the rant ensue...

Along the lines of the specific noise source in question, I must admit that I am having trouble understanding why motorcycle noise, of all things, is making an unwelcome comeback. It certainly seems to be in my neighborhood. But, the USEPA took care of this years ago. Putting aside the fact that excessive noise from motorcycles and modifications to a motorcycle's exhaust system are often prohibited by state and/or local laws, it's a violation of federal law to modify manufacturer-equipped noise control measures on motorcycles. IMO, that our country is seeing a resurgence of excessive motorcycle noise is a simple case of what happens when laws are not enforced.

Nonetheless:

If your motorcycle is excessively noisy, you are probably breaking the law. At the very least, it is your responsibility to make sure you aren't.
If you modify or replace your motorcycle's exhaust with anything, other than to replace the manufacturer's original equipment with its equivalent, you're breaking the law.
Straight pipes are illegal.
"Mufflers" designed to amplify exhaust noise are illegal. (And - btw - they are not "mufflers"; they're "amplifiers.")

I'm not one to impose my personal preferences on people. If you like to ride a motorcycle, be it for pleasure or otherwise, I think that's just fine. But you are not allowed to break the law while you're doing it. It's that simple.

If I have to wear a seatbelt, keep my vehicle maintained to a condition of roadworthiness, observe the posted speed limits, wear the proper corrective lenses, signal when turning, and generally obey the law when I drive my car, so should it be for you when you ride your motorcycle.

I was taught that driving is a privilege, not a right. IMO, this goes for motorcycles as well.

Random things for Today

2007-11-18T21:21:00.000-06:00

Random sound link for Today: http://www.sound101.org/index.php.

Random inquiry for Today (No. 1): Remember when Southwest had seats that faced backwards? Do they still have those?

Random thought for Today: If I were to create a Second Life, my propensity for all things Geek would most likely lead to it becoming my First Life.

Random musical suggestion for Today: Mary J. Blige - Growing Pains (in stores in December).

Random inquiry for Today (No. 2): Of all the possible catchy-songs-I-don't-want-stuck-in-my-head-all-weekend, why oh why oh why did Jeep have to pick Andy Kim's Rock Me Gently? It's bonehead moves like that that make me swear off a product...

Random acoustics-article-you-should-read Today.

Finally, Random advice for Today: In your life, strive to get at least one person to call you a sesquipedalian.

decialexanders re 20 microblaises

2007-11-11T11:07:00.000-06:00

Been catching up on some periodical reading lately. To that end:

If you're a Syn-Aud-Con member, check out Jim Sorensen's column ("Sorensen Sez...") in the Fall 2007 newsletter. It was right in line with all the bloviating I've been doing about the names of things. (The title of this blog was developed using Jim's concepts.)
If you subscribe to Sound & Vibration Magazine, you should check out the, IMHO, excellent S&V Observer piece from the September 2007 issue. If you don't get it, you can still read it online (PDF), albeit with a few typos.
Finally, I noticed some nice pictures of the post-production facility at Lakewood Church in (and on the cover of) the September 2007 issue of Church Production magazine. I happen to know that the live room acoustical treatments (visible through the control room window in the cover photo - which, sadly, I could not find a good view of on their site*) were installed back in 2005 by a really cool dude and a few of his equally really cool colleagues at Auralex and RBDG, Inc. A nice article - "Pillar to Post" by Dan Daley - about post-production in houses of worship accompanies the photos. Looks like you'll have to find/buy a back issue to appreciate it, though.

*See also a 2006 press release for a reasonably similar photo.

Tags of Steel...or nickel-plated zinc alloy, at least...

2007-11-05T19:46:00.001-06:00

In case I never said, I'm a complete Superman freak.*

To that end, I can hardly contain my excitement; I received my shipment of Superman dog tags today. Oh yes. I haven't been this excited since I bought my wife a Napoleon Dynamite pen that says "Sweet" or "Lucky" or "Whatever I feel like I wanna do; GOSH!" (et al) when you click it. Now, I can be a complete Kryptonian-übergeek and feel good about it, too. Superman dog tags are available at the WB store, they look like this:

and 100% of the profits go to the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation, which I've also added to my list of links to the right.

If you know any Superman fans, these would make a GREAT stocking-stuffer.

Go Forward.

*Home of Clark Kent (and Savant) is No. 5 on the list of reasons why Kansas is the coolest place to live. Sandwiched right between No. 4, Tsunami-Free for at Least 6 Million Years, and No. 6, I Have Fossils in My Backyard, Do You?

DST is BS

2007-11-04T08:20:00.000-06:00

Well, it's that time of year again. And since I have a blog this year, I get to share with you, the innocent reader, my loathing of the biannual tradition that is Daylight Savings Time (DST). There are so many things to despise here, I hardly know where to begin my rant.

Should I start by pointing out that a great number of people in the U.S. believe that we are actually "saving" daylight, thus magically increasing or decreasing the amount of daylight simply by adjusting our clocks? Ah, the power of the clock dial. If we truly had this much power with our clocks, none of us would ever be late to work again: "What? I'm not late; I set my clock back 10 minutes, so I'm actually early. Didn't you get my e-mail? I sent it to you later this afternoon."

Or perhaps I should start by pointing out that hardly a soul knows the exact origin of DST. Everyone from Ben Franklin (wrong) to farmers (wrong) to retailers (wrong) and so on has been attributed with giving us the "gift" of DST. (For the truth, see the Wiki entry on DST, or Michael Downing's book.)

There is no evidence that suggests DST is good for anything. It certainly has been proven to be bad for certain things, like international travel. It is unnatural. It has been blamed for an increase in traffic accidents. Computers, or, more likely, the humans programming them, are notoriously bad at keeping track of it. Case in point: Watching game 4 of World Series last weekend, I noticed that the scoreboard clock at Coors Field had already "fallen back."

Of course, studying its benefits is even more ridiculous than the concept itself. We're like a bunch of lab rats. Make the humans go from 24 to 23 hours every Spring and measure the effects. Gosh, it could lead to more traffic deaths. Let's do it anyway.

For a good portion of my life, I studied and worked in Indiana. Indiana used to be one of three states that did not observe DST, which suited me just fine, as you might imagine. I used to get a chuckle from out-of-state people who made a big deal about not understanding what time it was in Indiana. Like we were the backwards ones because we didn't observe the protocols for clock-changing that had been mandated by the government for reasons no one truly understands. But, alas, Indiana managed to take a big step backwards a couple years ago when, instead of leading the charge to abolish the practice of DST in the other 47 states, they conformed, jumped on the bandwagon, and joined the eastern time zone for good. Makes me sad, but I can't complain because I don't live there anymore.

I could go on about this for quite some time as I have given it entirely too much thought. (But, what the heck? I've got an "extra" hour today, right?) What it all comes down to for me is the measuring stick I often use when trying to ascertain the relative idiocy of a certain action. I call it, "What Would a Visiting Interstellar Traveler Say?"

Interstellar Traveler: What are you doing?
Savant: Setting the clocks in my house back one hour.
IST: Why?
Savant: Because it's Daylight Savings Time.
IST: That is silly. You cannot save daylight.
Savant: We do it twice a year.
IST: That is ridiculous.
Savant: So's electing anyone named Bush or Clinton to the White House, but we
keep doing that, too.
IST: That explains a little, but not enough. Humans are not intelligent. We will now annihilate the Earth.
Savant: Cool. Hey, nice tentacles, by the way. Would you mind getting that clock
in the den for me?

We don't need DST. If we want "more" daylight, we need to get out of bed earlier. Newsflash: Time is arbitrary. If the perceived amount of daylight (i.e., how much we see because we're awake) is really that important to us, I propose we split the difference between winter and summer, adjust the clocks ahead a half hour come next spring, abolish DST once and for all, and never have to deal with this clock-changing business ever again. (If I just lost you, then there should be a new law that takes away your legal right to own a clock.)

Of course, we do need something to remind us to change the batteries in our smoke detectors. After all, what better way to remind someone to change the battery in something that could save their life than to have them fiddle with all the clocks before they go to bed?

Resistance is futile.

It's Hallowe'en; Get Your (Acoustical) Geek On!

2007-10-30T10:28:00.000-05:00

If you’re not already watching it, I recommend CBS’ new comedy, The Big Bang Theory. I especially recommend it to anyone who falls, or has friends/family who fall, into the Geek/Nerd category.

This week’s episode was particularly hilarious as it had a Hallowe’en theme. One of the main characters, Sheldon, dressed up as the Doppler Effect. His costume was a centrally located circle representing a light source, with stripes representing waves of light at decreasing (or increasing, depending on the relative motion of the observer, of course) frequency eminating from the source. As an acoustician, I found this hilarious, especially when Sheldon was trying to explain his costume to other Hallowe’en party-goers: “You know;” [imitates a passing vehicle] “Nnyowm.” Fellow acousticians: How many times have you done that in your life?

This got me to thinking about other great acoustical Hallowe’en costumes:

• You could stand in place and bob up and down: You’re a Standing Wave. (To make it more obvious, you could simply stand in place and wave.)

• You could continually travel in a straight line from one side of the room to the other: You’re an Axial Room Mode. (You could get really creative if you wanted to be an Oblique Room Mode, but be careful not to break anything.) To enhance this costume, alternately raise and lower your voice to correspond to the appropriate sound pressure distribution.

• You could repeatedly repeat everything people say, lowering your voice with each repetition. You guessed it; you’re an Echo. This would be particularly effective if you only did it to the last syllable or three of any given sentence. Of course, with enough practice, you can simply repeat everything people say in a slightly lower voice.

• You could paint yourself and your clothes starting with red-orange around your mouth and moving through the ROYGBIV colors moving away from your mouth until your feet are violet/black: You’re a Spectrograph.

• You could get one of these for your head:

And one of these to wear around your neck:

And be a Sound Level Meter.

• Finally, not strictly acoustical, but you could get this printed on a T-shirt:

Then put a small loudspeaker in your pocket hooked up to a signal generator. Play a 1 kHz square wave through the loudspeaker and you can go around saying, “This is Only a Test.” People will love you.

Here are some more conceptual costumes you can ponder:

Fast Fourier Transform (FFT)
Helmholtz Resonator (Coke bottle, slat absorber, etc.)
Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR)
Sonar
Ultrasound or a Sonogram
Active Noise Control

Happy Hallowe’en!

Dynamics Dirge...in C-major?

2007-10-30T09:23:00.001-05:00

Cross•Spectrum has featured my blog a couple of times, so I thought it time to return the favor:

http://www.cross-spectrum.com/weblog/2007/10/29/

This post reminded me of another website recently linked in a Studiotips thread:

http://www.turnmeup.org/

I'm 100% in favor of stopping the madness when it comes to the burgeoning boom-boom and rising ruckus that currently plagues popular music. All signs point to dynamics dying a slow death, which is not good news. Music theory 101: Dynamics are right up there with timbre, key, tempo, etc. - basic properties of music. If we lose dynamics, what's next? "Gosh, we really like this record, Ms. Popstar, but can you re-record it in the key of F# at 132 bpm? Otherwise, it won't sell a single unit on iTunes."

It might seem outrageous, but:

"Most slot machines sounds are in C-major to avoid sounding dark or sinister."

Hopefully, this is a case of something happening in Vegas that most assuredly stays there.

Shark Stakeout?

2007-10-29T10:32:00.000-05:00

Richard Dreyfuss turns 60 today! Coincidentally, I was talking to someone just the other day about one of my favorite film moments, which included Mr. Dreyfuss. I don't know why I get such a kick out of this, but Richard Dreyfuss was in a film back in 1987 called Stakeout, which some of you may remember. One of the recurring comedic elements in this movie was the trivia game that Dreyfuss' character (Chris Lecce) and Emilio Estevez' character (Bill Reimers) played to pass the time during their stakeouts. I pulled the exact exchange that sticks in my mind from IMDB:

Chris Lecce (Richard Dreyfuss): [Chris and Bill are whiling away the time playing trivia questions] Okay, I got one, name the 16th President.
Bill Reimers (Emilio Estevez): I don't know.
Chris Lecce: Here's a hint...
Bill Reimers: Abraham Lincoln.
Bill Reimers: [His questions are identifying quotes] Okay, "This was no boating accident!"
Chris Lecce: No idea.
Bill Reimers: Man, you suck at this.

Astute members of the audience attending a screening of Stakeout back in 1987 remembered this quote from the most popular movie of 1975 (also taken from IMDB):

[Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss) is examining the remains of the first victim - describes the post-mortem into his tape recorder]
Hooper: The height and weight of the victim can only be estimated from the partial remains. The torso has been severed in mid-thorax; there are no major organs remaining...
Hooper: Right arm has been severed above the elbow with massive tissue loss in the upper musculature... partially denuded bone remaining...
Hooper: [to the m.e. and Brody] This was no boat(ing) accident!

Pure scripting genius, IMHO!

Noise in Hollywood

2007-10-26T11:10:00.001-05:00

I felt this movie-in-the-making just had to be blogged about if for no other reason than to bring it to the attention of any noise savvy readers. :)

I can assure you I will see this film the day it opens (currently slated for limited US distribution in Feb. 2008). Why? A number of reasons:

With the possible exception of submarine movies (U-571 comes to mind, among others), Hollywood's portrayal of acoustic physics is notoriously less than mediocre. There was ample debunking required by acoustics professionals in the wake of the 1996 film, Chain Reaction, mostly concerning what sonoluminescence is really all about. George Lucas, et al, have an annoying habit of putting air in space. Detailed audio forensic analysis of abysmal recordings that takes days (or, more likely, weeks) in real life takes an average of about 12 seconds on any given CSI: episode. (Further, The "Not What It Looks Like" episode of CSI:NY still sticks in my mind as laughable and was discussed in detail here.) And so on.
My friends will, undoubtedly, want to "get my take" on this piece of fiction. They will expect nothing less than my usual loquaciously dry cynicism mixed with humorless rant.
It will be interesting to see whether the noise control profession (consultants, engineers, etc.) is faithfully represented, if it is represented at all.
There hasn't been a good movie, IMO, about noise / audio / acoustics for over 20 years. I think John Travolta's portrayal of a "soundman" in the 1981 film Blow Out was probably the last time audio got a relatively fair shake in Hollywood. (Of course, real audio engineers are much better looking.)
I thoroughly enjoy Tim Robbins' film work. (E.g., his Harlan Ogilvy was the only character in Spielberg's War of the Worlds that I felt jived with H.G. Wells' intentions...unless you count the Martians.)
Lastly, I have a feeling it will provide heaps of fodder for this little blog!

What Does 30% Sound Like?

2007-10-24T15:29:00.000-05:00

I came across an(other) unfortunate attempt at marketing "quiet." The company is an unquestioned leader in their industry. However, it would appear from this link that they should stick to what they know, which is sight and not sound. For those of you not versed in sound, a "30% reduction in sound," if correctly applied, results in about a 3 dB drop in relative sound pressure level. (Just put 0.7 into the equation that is the title of this blog, i.e., 10*log(.7²) = -3.1.)

As I see it, there are three possible ways this statement found its way into the release:

1. They came up with the percentage reduction by figuring the difference in decibels, which is wrong wrong wrong.

2. They came up with the percentage the right way, in which case Marketing might have said that 30% "looks better" than 3 dB. But, as any good acoustician will tell you, 3 dB is hardly worth marketing at all when you're talking about motor noise. As an example, most people wouldn't be able to tell much difference between a 36 dBA motor and a 33 dBA motor. (Not to mention that 3 dB lower is not even subjectively 30% quieter.)

3. They were simply given this number by someone (a motor supplier or ???) and Marketing ran with it. In which case, shame on all of them.

There is a fourth way, which would involve the subjective loudness scale (those oh-so-fun sones and noys). But I would be shocked if they "went there."

The motor in question is undoubtedly quieter than comparable or previous models - the company is reputable. My main point is that the statement of "30% reduction in sound" is ambiguous at best. So if anyone ever wants to know the reasons why I abhor using percentages when talking about sound, this blog post is a good place to start! :)

Octave Bands Turn 50!

2007-10-24T10:16:00.000-05:00

I'm always curious about the origin of things, especially in acoustics. Sometimes, I research things until I find the "zero point." Sometimes, I just happen across things...

Fifty years ago this month, in the October 1957 issue of the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (JASA, Vol. 29, No. 10), a letter from Robert W. Young, an noted acoustician* working for the US Navy, was published. The letter was entitled "Preferred Frequencies for Acoustics." In it, Young made his case for standardizing the set of frequencies used for acoustical analyses. Illustrating his signature prescience, he wrote:

"Before our data-taking equipment becomes so automatic that we are irretrievably committed to a certain series of test frequencies, however inconvenient, we should look ahead by selecting standard test frequencies that will continue to be useful over a wide range of acoustical endeavor ."

Young concluded the letter with:

"...it is here suggested for general use in acoustics, where discrete test frequencies in a geometric series are required, that they be...100, 125, 160, 200, 250, 315, 400, 500, 630, 800, 1000 cps, etc., and that when octave intervals are adequate the frequencies printed in boldface type be chosen."

This letter, combined with Young's dedicated involvement in what would ultimately become the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), set the standard for acoustical analyzers and other equipment utilizing the now ubiquitous one-third-octave and octave bands.

If it weren't for Young's dedication to this, we'd be discussing reverberation time in the 125 Hz band and, in the same report, discussing background noise in the 106 Hz band (or the 140 Hz band if you're a consultant in Europe). Whether you believe the standard bands are a good thing or a bad thing, we can thank Robert Young for the fact that they are standard.

*The late Robert Young was honored with a special paper session at the 148th Meeting of the ASA in November 2004, which I was fortunate enough to have attended. Over the course of his life-long career in acoustics, Robert Young made many significant contributions to acoustical standards, our understanding of sonic booms, and community noise. The ASA offers an award in his name for Undergraduate Student Research in Acoustics.

The Dude with the Head at The Pig

2007-10-22T12:41:00.000-05:00

The Tribe choked. Best of luck to the BO Sox and the CO Rocks. 'Nuff said.

******

I would be remiss if I didn't blog about my Saturday afternoon at The Pig. (Long live The Pig!) One of the highlights of the afternoon - besides the great weather, great drinks, great conversation, and great company - was the Dude with the Head. Sometime between talking about awarding the Nobel Prize for War to W. and fending off the numerous attacks by the paparazzi (we were sitting with someone who, it turns out, is quite the celebrity in Ghana, or some other obscure country), a guy pusing a stroller walked by. In the stroller was not what one would expect to find in a stroller. Strollers, I've observed, traditionally have small children in them. Apparently, the bald dude in coveralls walking up 9th street didn't get that memo. In his stroller, was nothing more than the head of a mannequin.

Assuming this is not the result of some mental defect (which would be sad, no doubt), how should we interpret this?

Bored with life in the mansion, Bob, millionaire owner of several successful clothing stores, dons the coveralls of his youth and pushes "Betty" through the streets to pass the time on a Saturday afternoon.
"I swear, I was at this garage sale, bought this cool stroller for my baby girl, and this head fell out of the sky and landed in it on the way home."
Mannequin Parts Wholesale Direct - Custom heads delivered to your door; same day service.
"The head represents, like, the angst of today's youth, man. I mean, yeah, like, we're all just heads in a stroller, like, being pushed around by the government. Peace, bro."
"Well, we'll give you $5 for the torso and $2 each for the limbs. We've already got plenty of heads, though."
Today only: Buy a stroller and take 50% off all mannequin heads! (While supplies last.)

Chances are, however, it was just some sort of frat hazing thing. (Right?)

Careful or I'll Puncture You with My Slide Rule

2007-10-17T12:54:00.000-05:00

In case you haven't noticed, I've found myself questioning the meanings of terms quite bit lately...

I am an engineer. A fellow engineer friend of mine recently made the observation that, for the most part, engineers are pricks. He did this less as an attempt at self-deprication and more to objectively explain the tactless behavior of many engineers, particularly in social situations.

The definition of an engineer from one source I have is, "A person who uses scientific knowledge to solve practical problems." From the same source, the definition of a prick is, "term of address for people who are stupid or irritating or ridiculous." Another prick definition (same source) is, "The act of puncturing with a small point."

Hmmm...

I am thinking of a new definition for engineer in light of this recent discussion:

engineer, n, a person who uses scientific knowledge to solve the practical problems of others by making small points to puncture their flawed logic.

Another alternative is:

engineer, n, an irritating* person who makes small points to puncture the ideas of others; often involving (over)use of scientific knowledge.

*Because real engineers are rarely "stupid" or "ridiculous," of course.

Then again, there is a third definition of prick which could be melded with that of engineer: "Obscene term for penis."

I'd rather stick with my definitions, though, thank you very much.

Clandestine Book Sales

2007-10-15T09:29:00.000-05:00

Ever come across what you believe to be a "best kept secret"? Something you avoid telling other people about for fear word will get out? Well, here's mine:

http://www.booksalefinder.com/

Why am I letting this one out? Two reasons:

1. My fear of too many people finding out about this is ridiculous, largely because,
2. Many of you will probably find it way to too geeky/boring to care anyway!

So, now that the feline has exited its flexible container, let me tell you why I think the above site is awesome:

Reason the First: Finding some of these sales is half the fun. Bookstores going out of business in Podunk aren't exactly well-marked in a Rand McNally road atlas. Even if you don't wind up spending a penny at the sale, you now know where Podunk is...and while you're there, you can try a sandwich at that place on Main Street with "Café" literally written over the door. It'll probably be the best food you've had all week. At the very least, good conversation is a virtual slam dunk guarantee.

Reason the Second: The "bag sale" might be the best idea ever concocted by a librarian. "Buy" a plastic bag for, say $5, and you keep as much as you can put in it.

Reason the Third: Most often, the books are not obscure titles, nor are they always beat up, thousand-times read library copies. (Though there are typically ample quantities of both.) If you're patient and thorough, you can discover some fantastic deals.

Reason the Fourth: I'm convinced very few people go to these sales in the right frame of mind. If you go to, e.g., a library sale looking for a good 1st ed. copy of Moby Dick, you might as well stay home. However, if you're an avid reader, like me, these sales are goldmines. This is especially true if you're fond of non-fiction.

Reason the Last (but not the Least): You should be able to find a few book sales at libraries near you. Even if you don't read that much, you cannot beat the deals at these sales. Even without "bag sales" most books are < $2-3; more often in the $0.50-1.00 range. And the best part is that you're supporting your local library. If you haven't been there is a while (or ever), one of these sales might give you the perfect excuse.

Happy Reading!

NFL + CSI + ED = I Heart My DVR

2007-10-12T17:21:00.001-05:00

I'm an NFL fan. I've been watching football more or less since I was five. Some of my most fond memories as a child were watching Browns games with my dad and brother. After watching Brian Sipe throw numerous interceptions in yet another loss to the Steelers, we would console ourselves by having a good ol' game of Tackle in the backyard. Living in Europe in the late '80s, we would stay up until midnight to watch the Browns live in the playoffs. (Long Live Bernie Kosar!)

My wife, thankfully, is also an avid football fan. So, like we did when we were kids, we sit down with our own family now every Sunday and watch the games. [With the exception of the Cowboys. I will not subject myself to three and a half hours of T.O.-this and T.O.-that. Spare me. The Cowboys are banned in my house until that prima donna gets retired, sidelined (though I do not wish him any harm), or traded.]

The problem we're finding, though, is that TV is no longer rated G during football games. Not even PG. The games themselves are fine. I realize it's arguable whether 22 men knocking each other around for the sake of moving an oblong projectile 30 feet is G-rated material, but it is a sport. A contact sport, but a sport nonetheless. Young kids play tackle football - I did - and I'm fine with that. AFAIC, it's rated G. (Unless the announcers start talking about certain players' questionable extracurricular activities. Then they get muted.)

So why does my family, and other families like mine, have to watch Viagra ads during a Sunday afternoon football game? Why the ads for R-rated movies? Why the ads for CSI: depicting the dismembered body of next week's victim? Can we not have some respite from this on Sunday afternoons? It is Sunday, after all. And I live in the Midwest fer cryin' out loud. I can walk out my door, throw a rock in any direction, and hit four churches. Why the need to air ads for the latest gorgy slasher shoot-em-up sex film? Seriously.

The latest in technology - our DVR - now lets us pause live TV. Which is exactly what we do everytime the Sunday game goes to a commercial break. I think that (a) more parents should start doing this during afternoon football games and (b) said parents should spread the word that they do so. Eventually, it might get back to the advertisers and they can realize how much money they're wasting on that post-kickoff spot on Fox or CBS.

Don't get me wrong; I love a good horror movie, CSI: episode, or sex drug as much as the next guy. (OK, maybe not so much on that last one. And CSI:Miami needs to get a clue. What forensic scientist shows up to a crime scene wearing pumps?) And I'm certainly not in the "don't expose your kids to anything even remotely salacious" camp. But the line has to be drawn somewhere. If they're going to run these types of ads during the games, the NFL should go strictly primetime. At the very least, they need a "Viewer Discretion Advised" message right before they cut to commercial break. How sad is that?

Sonic Cascade

2007-10-11T10:11:00.000-05:00

I read through this NYT article as a result of this Dilbert blog. It's an interesting concept, that of the "cascade" of poor (or wrong) information. I don't think it would be difficult to find numerous examples of this effect in audio and acoustics. One example would be something I feel I may have had a hand in starting myself. In the various acoustics forums I frequent, I have seen repetitions of a concept I (mistakenly? blindly?) endorsed until recently: You cannot have too much "bass trapping" in your studio. If you really think about it, it's a ludicrous statement.

"So, Mr. Savant, I can fill my room floor-to-ceiling and wall-to-wall with bass traps and it still won't be enough?"

Well, er, no. That's not...

"So then, Mr. Savant, I can put 1 meter thick wedges on the walls and ceiling and still not have an environment that allows my mixes to translate to other systems?"

OK, that's really not...

"Mr. Savant. Where does it end? If I cannot have "too much" of something, where do I put it all?"

I think you can see the point. I don't know if this fits the "cascade" definition, but I can honestly say that I cringe every time I see that statement pop up on the Internet now.

Mea culpa.

Now, when I was a proponent for this approach to small room treatments, I was - admittedly - in the employ of a company that manufactured and sold, you guessed it, "bass traps." Of course, some might say, my mantra is going to be that you need a boatload of them.

But, perhaps to continue in my blog-inspired efforts to clear the air on certain things (ahem), I wish to state officially that my motives were not (entirely) driven by sales.

My original point with the "you-can't-have-too-much" statement was that even if you used a generous amount of "bass traps" in your small home studio, it would not eliminate each and every bass problem in the room. This was more CYA than anything else. "Bass traps" - or more accurately, low frequency or broadband acoustical treatments - are wonderful devices. When placed properly in the room, they can turn an acoustical turd into something that sounds incredibly (some would say, suprisingly) accurate. But, there will still be problems. Even the best "bass traps" on the market don't solve all the problems. And the devices that are needed to, for example, fix a 27 Hz axial mode problem in a small studio room are so large and heavy that they are WAY beyond practical for any home studio owner.

But, perhaps I digress. The main point is that acoustics is most definitely not immune to the cascading of poor (or dead wrong) information.

If you don't believe me, ask yourself why so many people are convinced that the sound of Bose® systems is superior to anything else, even when presented evidence to the contrary. Is this good marketing, or an acoustical cascade in full motion?

(Please note that I have nothing against Bose®. If you wish to throw sound evenly around a reverberant space in your home, such as your kitchen, the Wave Radio might be the thing for you!)

Acoustics or Golf?

2007-10-10T13:15:00.000-05:00

So, earlier today, an engineer for an equipment company told a client of mine, "The higher the number, the quieter the equipment."

The "number" to which the engineer was referring was a sound level in A-weighted decibels.

I hope their "noisier" equipment is rated at, say, 10 dBA. Sign me up!

A room mode by any other name...

2007-10-09T16:29:00.000-05:00

A certain percentage of my life has been and still is devoted to small room acoustics. I consider myself somewhat of an expert on this subject, though others may disagree. (Don't worry—I'm well aware of who you are.) In recent years, confusion has arisen over the exact definitions of certain small room acoustics technical terms that have long been taken for granted.

Specifically, I am talking about standing waves, room resonances, room modes, normal modes, eigentones, et al. In the long history of architectural acoustics and its subset of small room acoustics, these terms have been widely accepted as synonymous. In the context of small room acoustics, a standing wave is a resonance is a (room or normal) mode is an eigentone is a(n)...

This assumption of synonymity was largely without question for a long time. Recently, however, it has been called into question and, after several years, it would appear that the issue is still unresolved. Specifically, the correctness of grouping standing wave in with the other terms describing what is, to avoid confusion throughout the rest of this blog, a room mode has been hotly debated on numerous acoustics forums.

For those of you not familiar, a room mode is defined by the Rayleigh solution to the wave equation for rooms with infintely rigid boundaries. In the case of rectangular rooms, this solution is conveniently simplified to this equation:

For small rectangular rooms, this equation is incredibly useful for figuring out ahead of time what will happen when a sound source, such as a loudspeaker, is placed in the room. In the cases of existing rooms with a fixed sound source already in place, the equation can be used to determine what type of problems (i.e., which room modes) are being experienced, thus dictating where in the room acoustical treatments might be placed to counter the unwanted effects. Convenient online calculators are available, like this one.

The confusion about the term standing wave arises when one considers the exact definition. According to the American National Standard for Acoustical Terminology, ANSI S1.1-1994 (reaffirmed in 2004):

"6.20 standing wave. Periodic wave having a fixed distribution in space which is the result of interference of progressive waves of the same frequency and kind. Such waves are characterized by the existence of nodes or partial nodes and antinodes that are fixed in space."

Resonance is not implicit when one uses the term "standing wave." There are wave interferences that can occur in small rooms that do not come about as a result of resonant behavior.

Room modes are fixed and defined by the properties of a room. In the case of a small rectangular room, the length, width, and height of the room are all that are needed to solve the above equation. A sound source placed in the room will excite the room modes to greater or lesser degrees depending on its exact position. But, regardless of source position, the frequencies of the room modes are fixed and cannot be changed unless the room is changed. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Standing waves that do not correspond to room modes can occur in small rooms if circumstances are just right. This is sometimes the case when a low frequency wave from a loudspeaker at one end of a room bounces off the opposite wall and interferes with the wave coming from the loudspeaker. No resonance need be present for wave interference to take place, thus creating a standing wave pattern in the room. Or is this a standing wave? That is the question!

Philip Newell, in his magnificent text, Recording Studio Design, is careful to differentiate resonant standing waves (room modes) from the more broadly defined standing waves. The following is excerpted from the definition of Standing waves and resonances in Newell's Glossary of terms:

"It should be stressed that standing waves always exist when like waves interfere, whether a resonance situation occurs or not, and that the common usage of the term 'standing wave' to describe only resonant conditions is both erroneous and misleading."

This perspective is debatable. Some respected thinkers in the field of acoustics would argue that the sort of non-resonant behavior being described does not conform to the definition of a standing wave. I cannot say I agree. I cannot say I disagree. What would be best, IMHO, is if those of us who consider ourselves "experts" could better delineate the exact type of behavior they are referring to when using the term standing wave.

As a parting thought, a fair amount of heated discussion has taken place on the Internet concerning this (seemingly minor) subject. I grow increasingly convinced that it may never be resolved. (It certainly would be nice to resolve the whole thing right here and now...but I am not unrealistic.) What is unfortunate is that some of the discussions, I feel, have irritated people in the myriad acoustics forums; people who are mostly novices, who only seek simple advice for making their room(s) sound better, and who do not wish to bear witness to what amounts to a debate of semantics between a few members of the acoustical literati. IMHO, acoustics forums are not the best place for this debate. I feel the issue can be resolved easily and then left alone. I hope the above will help us "experts" work towards that goal.

Indians Win, Indians Win!

2007-10-09T09:12:00.000-05:00

YANKEES OUT. BRING ON THE RED SOX!

GO TRIBE!!!

Noise Stories

2007-10-08T10:35:00.000-05:00

I was turned onto Garret Keizer's work-in-progress by a post on the Cross•Spectrum blog several weeks ago. (A link to the Cross•Spectrum blog is provided to the right under "Links.")

Mr. Keizer is working on a book and would like input from folks with experience—any kind of experience—in noise. Here's the URL to his page:

http://www.noisestories.com/

If any of my readers (do I have any readers?) have such experience—and I know you who you are—drop Mr. Keizer a line!

I'm considering drafting some prose describing the many experiences I've had with people who, once they find out I deal with noise on an almost daily basis, inquire whether active noise control will eliminate the sound of their neighbor's barking dog. Thus far, I have refrained from answering in the affirmative and getting them to hire me to design a huge wall of loudspeakers along their property line. (Mwah-hah-hah-hah!!!)

I Don't Need Another "Heroes"

2007-10-06T09:40:00.000-05:00

(WARNING: Heroes spoilers. If you haven't watched the show, but plan to, you might should probably skip this post.)

One of my favorite TV shows last season (2006-07) was NBC's Heroes. I thought the premise of the show was fresh and that it could actually go somewhere. (Unlike, say, this season's reimagining of The Bionic Woman. I mean, Lindsay Wagner should be cringing. But, then again, it wouldn't surprise me if she cameoed...) There was a decent (dare I say Campbellian?) story arc that culminated in the heroes more or less triumphing over the evil dude. IMO, that should have been it. Evil dude dead; a few heroes gone for the cause in the process; a few heroes left to live happily ever after. Throughout season one, the characters more or less embodied the definition of heroes, regardless of whether their ability was flight, invisibility, super-hearing (which would make my job, like, way easier), or a psychotic alter-ego with abnormal strength. (Is that last one really a "superpower," though?) They could have stopped right there and I certainly would have been a satisfied viewer.

And here's what I thought would have been cool for season two: Start with an identical story line as season one. No kidding. Retain the same character names, but give them different jobs and powers. (The astute among you will see that I have blatantly stolen this idea from the Stephen King / Richard Bachman Desperation / Regulators books.) Give Claire's dad the superpower instead of her. Maybe her mom's the one involved with "The Company," complete with Haitian sidekick. (Incidentally, how does everyone automatically know he's Haitian when he barely says a word?) Instead of "Save the Cheerleader..." they could have somthing like, "Save the Lifeguard..." (A new role for Milo Ventimiglia, perhaps?)

But maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. Season two has begun and thus far the evil dude seems (apparently and not surprisingly) impossible to kill; there are mysterious reappearances of characters thought dead; there are good guys on the lam (from what, again?); there are predictably troubled "whose-side-am-I-on" characters; and so on ad nauseum. (Can anyone say, "Lost?")

AFAIC, I don't think a season premier has ever disappointed me as much as Heroes did on 24 September, 2007. I mean, what's this whole Back to the Future business starring Masi Oka instead of Michael J. Fox??? And I watched the second episode last night (in lieu of suffering through Purdue going down in flames against an admittedly butt-kicking Buckeye defense—thank the stars for DVRs). I found myself at about the same place I was during the third-ish season of 24. When I start to giggle at otherwise serious moments in a show, it's time for me to give up. I can get good comedy from The Office and 30 Rock. I don't need another Heroes.

Apples and Toasters

2007-10-05T13:10:00.000-05:00

Recently, a coworker and I got into a debate about, of all things: Rush versus Justin Timberlake. Yes, you read that right. It might seem like an apples-to-toasters comparison. However, people generally have strong love or hate feelings towards either of them. Both are generally considered by their fans to be exceptional entertainers. I would even go so far as to say that each of them may be disliked equally by many people, albeit for different reasons.

I have seen many people make judgments about a thing on the basis of how they feel about the people they know with strong feelings about the thing. So, to address the Rush vs. JT debate, we could consider comparing the fans (or how people feel about the fans) of each. Rush fans generally possess jobs in the engineering or tech sectors, and are (in)famous for their poor social skills and superiority complexes. As for JT fans, I would venture to guess many of them possess two x-chromosomes, will soon be receiving—or have just received—their first driving permits, and probably will live their entire lives without ever hearing (or hearing of) Tom Waits, The Allman Brothers Band, or Derek and the Dominoes. What do the two have in common? In general, neither stereotypical fan is going to be someone fun to sit next to on a plane (IMO).

Aside: I am a Rush fan (duh) that (hopefully) doesn't fall into the geeky-know-all category (though I have my moments).

So, who would win a performance duel between the two? Can such a thing even be judged fairly? Rush has oodles of (consecutive) gold and platinum albums—way more than JT. But that could simply be the result of Rush having formed in the early 1970s; JT was born the very month the world was introduced to "Tom Sawyer," "Limelight," and "YYZ." And it's generally difficult to compare "intelligent" rock music with catchy pop-dance tunes. Can Yes be compared to Rick Astley? Can Dream Theater be compared to Kylie Minogue?

Can JT play the synthesizer with his feet?

Can Geddy Lee do a standing back flip? (Keep in mind he's 54.)

Can JT keep an audience enthralled with a 5+ minute drum solo?

Can Neil Peart write song lyrics that include repetitive use of the words (?) "unh" and "baby" and "yeah"?

I think it's completely possible we are dealing with an unanswerable question. While the two certainly (and suprisingly) share some common traits, "Who is better, Rush or Justin Timberlake?" could be roughly equivalent to asking, "Who would win a water polo match between the 1927 New York Yankees and the 1992 U.S. men's national basketball team?"