|
|
|
|
|
by leetcrew
2254 days ago
|
|
> Isn’t ANC effectively twice the sound waves? ideally no, just the opposite. the idea of ANC is that you detect the frequency and amplitude of incoming waves, then generate a second wave with the same amplitude, but 180 degrees out of phase (so that the trough of the second wave aligns with the peak of the first). a perfect implementation would totally "cancel" the original sound with destructive interference. I'm not very familiar with consumer ANC headphones (I prefer passive attenuation), but I would expect the cancellation effect does not increase when you turn up the volume, as this would just be perceived as noise if it exceeds the amplitude of the ambient sounds. I guess ANC might encourage people to expose themselves to very loud noises that the device can't compensate for, but that's more user error than an inherent flaw in the technology. people routinely listen to music way too loud in quiet settings anyway. |
|
* A "live" ANC process has no control over the environment from which it receives the audio signals that it acts adversarially against.
* When transmitting audio waves from one medium to another, there will be latency. Perhaps not much, but it will be there.
If you accept these two positions, then consider this:
* What happens when a sound wave that is being combatted (via phase inversion) suddenly stops, or inverts it's own phase? That's right, ANC could potentially double the amplitude of the frequency being combatted.
* I imagine that ANC technology takes advantage of latency to ensure that they don't damage people's hearing, but the nature of ANC requires low latency in general, otherwise you can't be sure that you are combatting the correct frequency (at which point you risk doubling the amplitude due to abrupt changes) - if someone more familiar with the actual algorithms could chime and correct me I will happily stand corrected :)