Revisiting: sound cancelling headphones for monitoring recording

[Tom Galli]

[Ty Ford] “You have been told how and why your thoughts will get you in trouble.”

You know, I really don’t understand the hostility here. Your response consisted of “Don’t do it.” David’s was “It’s a horrible idea.” Where is the how or the why in either of those?

[Ty Ford] “Even in theory, your idea will not work. “

See, again, you throw out a statement with no support. That’s not discussion, it’s browbeating. Why is the idea so offensive to you? The concept is to reduce ambient sound and allow for critical listening; how is this different from having sound isolation headphones, or working in a quiet environment?

[Ty Ford] “Please test it before the reality of it bites you it the butt and tarnishes your reputation.”

Yes, absolutely! I rely on tried-and-true methodologies. You’ll notice that I ran out and bought the amazing cans David mentioned.

I suspect that sound cancelling technology is immature, but it sure looks promising. If you were to have suggested, 20 years ago, that taking an in-line noise filter to a shoot was a good idea, you’d have been roundly scoffed. Now, it was your go-to response, and one supported by others. Why is it crazy to think that, 20 years from now, sound cancelling monitoring won’t be the norm?

[Ty Ford] “I’m not sure we can be of further assistance.”

I’m interested in discussion. Informed feedback. Maybe even someone who is experimenting with the concept. If all you’re interested in is telling me “no,” mission accomplished. Feel free to ignore my continued curiosity.

[Ty Ford] “That has been asked and answered. Please move on.”

Does it really hurt you so much to allow exploration of a valid question?

The difference between theory and reality is that, in theory, there is no difference between theory and reality.

[Ty Ford]

[Ty Ford] “You have been told how and why your thoughts will get you in trouble.”

You know, I really don’t understand the hostility here. Your response consisted of “Don’t do it.” David’s was “It’s a horrible idea.” Where is the how or the why in either of those?

Dear Tom, There is no hostility on this end.

[Ty Ford] “Even in theory, your idea will not work. ”

See, again, you throw out a statement with no support. That’s not discussion, it’s browbeating. Why is the idea so offensive to you? The concept is to reduce ambient sound and allow for critical listening; how is this different from having sound isolation headphones, or working in a quiet environment?

No, Tom, these are facts. Rail against science if you want, but please keep me out of it.

[Ty Ford] “Please test it before the reality of it bites you it the butt and tarnishes your reputation.”

Yes, absolutely! I rely on tried-and-true methodologies. You’ll notice that I ran out and bought the amazing cans David mentioned.

I suspect that sound cancelling technology is immature, but it sure looks promising. If you were to have suggested, 20 years ago, that taking an in-line noise filter to a shoot was a good idea, you’d have been roundly scoffed. Now, it was your go-to response, and one supported by others. Why is it crazy to think that, 20 years from now, sound cancelling monitoring won’t be the norm?

Dear Tom, I don’t care. I’ll very like be dead.

[Ty Ford] “I’m not sure we can be of further assistance.”

I’m interested in discussion. Informed feedback. Maybe even someone who is experimenting with the concept. If all you’re interested in is telling me “no,” mission accomplished. Feel free to ignore my continued curiosity.

Dear Tom, if you peruse the posts, I don’t think you’ll find a lot of discussion. The main crew who hangs here, myself included, have day jobs and are not paid to hang out.

[Ty Ford] “That has been asked and answered. Please move on.”

Does it really hurt you so much to allow exploration of a valid question?

Tell you what. Report your question and open it up for discussion.

Regards,

Ty Ford
Cow Audio Forum Leader

Want better production audio?: Ty Ford\’s Audio Bootcamp Field Guide
Ty Ford Blog: Ty Ford\’s Blog

[Richard Crowley]

[Tom Galli] “They’re designed to eliminate ambient noise, not noise in the signal.”
Yes, that is true. But remember that WHILE YOU ARE RECORDING:

THE NOISE “IN THE SIGNAL” IS THE SAME AS THE “AMBIENT NOISE”.

That is because noise-cancelling headphones were designed for the purpose of PLAYBACK of PRE-RECORDED audio in the presence of LISTENING-ENVIRONMENT noise. When you use them to monitor WHILE RECORDING, they will LIE to you by removing the background noise so that you are not aware that you are recording it. THAT is the major reason why it is a bad idea.

———————————————————————————
Recording audio without metering and monitoring is exactly like framing and focusing without looking at the viewfinder.

[Tom Galli]

Hey, an actual reason!

You’re right… I was fixated on where and how the cancellation is applied, but not on the content. That makes perfect sense! If the noise was a 440 Hz sine wave, and the cancellation was an out-of-phase 440 Hz sine wave, then any other 440 Hz sine wave entering the acoustic space inside the earcup would clearly be affected.

The signal shouldn’t be affected as much, I wouldn’t think:
–The increased latency of the path through the recorder, not to mention differing distances between your ears-to-noise and the mic-to-noise, would mean that the phases weren’t 180 degrees off.
–And any coloring that the mic imparted to the noise.
–And one would expect the amplitude of the cancellation signal should be calibrated to just enough to equalize the ambient noise, lest it become a source of noise itself.

But, as much or not, clearly it would have an impact. Heck, if distance plus latency were juuuuust right, the phases could align, and the noise cancellation system could actually increase the perceived volume of the offending sound, making you think a problem existed where there actually was none!

Thanks for that thought! I was planning some tests to see how things performed; thinking along this track has given me some ideas about how better to do that.

The difference between theory and reality is that, in theory, there is no difference between theory and reality.