

The Photoshop of Sound - sergeant3
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/23/wizards-sound

======
telekid
John Meyer was one of the first people to analyze contemporary problems in
large-scale sound reinforcement from a purely scientific standpoint. For
example, Meyer and and his friend and colleague Bob McCarthy created the SIM
[1] audio analyzer, which allows sound designers to optimize systems using
tools other than their ears.

[1]:
[http://www.meyersound.com/product/sim/sim3/](http://www.meyersound.com/product/sim/sim3/)

EDIT: if anyone has any interest in the topic of sound system optimization, I
can elaborate a bit. These days, system tuning can be an incredibly cool and
very scientific process.

~~~
Sone7
What can be achieved in a home set up with a DAW, a mic, and free tools? Is
there any point?

~~~
telekid
Getting into the physical meat of it is tough, since most of the tools we use
(measurement microphones, high-quality AD/DAs, software, etc.) are expensive.
The theory can be a bit more accessible – though like most things, it often
doesn't click for people until they get a chance to do it themselves.

The industry standard textbook, were something like that to exist, would be
Bob McCarthy's "Sound Systems: Design and Optimization: Modern Techniques and
Tools for Sound System Design and Alignment." [1] It's dense, but a great
read, and should be accessible for people with a decent knowledge of the
concepts behind FFT and basic signal analysis.

If you're just looking to play around a bit, you could try downloading a demo
of SMAART 7 [2] from Rational Acoustics. It's basically a soft dual-channel
FFT analyzer. We use it to compare a generated signal (usually in the form of
pink noise [3]) with a returned signal (a copy of that signal sent to a
speaker and returned to the analyzer through a reference microphone.) By
comparing these two signals, we learn basically all we need to about how sound
is acting in a given space: we know it's latency; it's frequency response due
to signal processing, the physical nature of the speaker cabinet, and air
loss; and it's phase response due to the same. The difficult part of the
process is interpreting that data and using it to make informed decisions
about how and where to modify signals and speaker positions.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Sound-Systems-Optimization-
Techniques-...](http://www.amazon.com/Sound-Systems-Optimization-Techniques-
Alignment/dp/0240521560)

[2]
[http://www.rationalacoustics.com/store/smaart.html](http://www.rationalacoustics.com/store/smaart.html)

[3]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_noise](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_noise)

~~~
jozzas
Is this somewhat similar to how Audyssey's MultEQ (which my surround receiver
has) works? What is your opinion of that product? I can't imagine it uses a
very expensive microphone. The receiver was only about $500.

------
l33tbro
Great article, but I wonder if Meyer signed off on the title's clumsy
metaphor. Sampling a noise signature and feeding the profile back into a room
is nothing like any Photoshop application process I know of. Besides, if we're
talking about retouching, then isn't it pretty common knowledge that
professionals now use Lightroom?

~~~
sjwright
The metaphor is fine. An aspiring musician could take a photograph of them
performing at the local town hall and _Photoshop_ it to make it look like
they're playing Carnegie Hall. This sort of image manipulation is still done
in Photoshop. It's not possible in Lightroom.

(By the way, the full product name is _Photoshop Lightroom._ Just sayin'.)

~~~
code_duck
I think the main point of the comment about the metaphor it was not about
lightroom versus Photoshop, but rather that real-time acoustical processing
has very little to do with retouching an image, conceptually.

The true "Photoshop of sound" would be something like Logic. Something
comparable to what this guy creates, for video, would be more like a real time
signal processor, whatever programs are popular for that. But I suppose it
wouldn't make a good headline as few would understand a reference to a popular
program for real-time video processing.

~~~
sjwright
Fair call, however I'd argue in that case your objection is to the word
_sound,_ not _Photoshop._

How about "The Photoshop of acoustic spaces"?

~~~
code_duck
That's suggestion has made me rethink my interpretation. I was rejecting
'photoshop' applied to sound because sound is a medium that necessarily
involves time, like video, whereas a single frame 2d image has no notion or
possibility of time being involved.

However, in rethinking this, one could make an valid analogy of a 'photoshop
filter' applied to the acoustic design of a restaurant. Given that the
restaurant's layout is static, it's more like a filter on a 2-d single frame
image than a filter applied to dynamic sound or video.

------
anotherevan
Many people have sensory perception issues where loud, noisy environments can
be difficult to cope with. I personally can feel quite stressed and burnt out
after a couple of hours in a noisy restaurant, trying to hold a conversation.
I even try and avoid shopping centres at busy times, or cubicle farms for that
matter for similar reasons.

------
dredmorbius
How much of this can't be accomplished simply through use of materials -- a
modest amount of sound-absorbing material and avoiding hard surfaces goes a
long way.

To say nothing of avoiding the practice of many restaurants and "social
spaces" of piping _additional_ noise into the space.

Acoustical tile (or wall hangings) represent a far lesser surveillance threat.

~~~
iolothebard
Having worked in many restaurants in college I noticed how much louder some
were than others simply by using carpet. I pay attention just for fun and
having carpet and breaks between areas (either high backed booths, plants or
complete walls) makes a huge difference. Also the height of the ceiling and
whether it's dampened or not.

We used to do the whisper trick at a mexican restaurant I worked in. You could
eavesdrop on conversations if you mapped it out properly. Sadly a customer
could also hear you talking inappropriately as well.

~~~
dredmorbius
The epiphany for me came from a place -- all hard surfaces -- which installed
canvas hangings from the ceiling. The width of the dining room (6-7 meters),
at about 1.2 meter intervals, and about 0.5 meter wide.

With no other changes, the drop in reflected sound was stunning.

The owners removed them a year or two later, and the place became a constant
din.

------
Joeboy
[http://photosounder.com/](http://photosounder.com/) is another "Photoshop of
Sound".
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVuX1POU6Dw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVuX1POU6Dw)

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
Metasynth has been doing this stuff for a lot longer.

[http://www.uisoftware.com/MetaSynth/index.php](http://www.uisoftware.com/MetaSynth/index.php)

I saw/heard a demo of a Yamaha active concert hall system back in the late
80s, so the Meyer system isn't unique - although I'm not sure if Yamaha ever
worked out how to commercialise it outside Japan, or inside restaurants
instead of concert halls.

------
JamesBaxter
Will we soon seek out restaurants where there's not one of these systems to
possibly record your every word?

~~~
std_throwaway
People are already carrying their personal mobile surveillance devices
everywhere they go.

------
k-mcgrady
It's nice to block out the odd loud jackass but wouldn't this kill the
'atmosphere' of a place?

~~~
KeytarHero
From TFA:

“Each table is in its own sonic zone,” John explained. “But it’s not
isolated.” He mentioned a colleague’s earlier attempt to address restaurant
noise, which succeeded in suppressing chatter but led to a muffled, sterile
environment: “Everyone hated it—the room ended up being completely dead.”
Instead, Constellation undertakes a process akin to the Photoshopping of an
image, with undesirable elements removed. John explained that there are two
components to a sound as it resonates: the early reflections, which contain
most of the intelligible information; and the later reverberation, which is
blurrier. “Right now, with those loud people right behind me, we’re hearing
only their reverb energy—it’s not enough for intelligibility. Early
reflections have been cut out: you can hear voices but not what they’re
saying.” The effect is conviviality without chaos.

~~~
k-mcgrady
I read TFA. I still think that might ruin the atmosphere.

~~~
quadrangle
You're flat out wrong. This type of system can be responsive to so many
elements that it can literally be tweaked to just cut back the most
distracting consonant sounds or whatever and only to the degree that is
desirable. In other words, it can be tweaked to get whatever balance people
feel is best, including reinforcing the cacophony. So, no, it doesn't
necessarily ruin anything — it's just a matter of who controls the settings
and what they choose to do with it.

