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.
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.
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.
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.
I have personally contributed to a commercial analysis system (link on my web site) as well.
For noise modification, I'm not aware of anything widely available, but you could start by experimenting with simulating different spaces by adding reverb tuned to remove the frequencies naturally reflected by the room (wild guess).
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?
I agree that the use of "photoshop" was misleading and distracting. I went into the article expecting to learn about the industry standard software application for modifying sound recordings. It wasn't until a few paragraphs in that I realized he meant "photoshop" as a verb.
Even then it doesn't really work, since Photoshop operates on a single static file, while the sound system described operates on a dynamic stream of live sound. The analogy is hurting the article more than helping it.
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'.)
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.
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.
They use Lightroom (when they use Lightroom; Capture One - or Phocus for Hasselblad shooters - is a lot better for client shoots than Lightroom's catalog system even if you discount the raw processing differences) for what they can, which frankly ain't much. You can get an awful lot done, of course, within its limits, but those limits are pretty hard-and-fast. Lightroom will take you a little way beyond the darkroom, but it still can't get you to the retoucher's bench.
Lightroom vs Photoshop really depends on the type of retouching being done. Lightroom is powerful, but also optimized for efficient workflow over being able to do everything.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Adding more sound absorption is a one-way street, it reduces reverb. This could (theoretically) take an overly muffled room and give it the reverb of Carnegie Hall, or a jazz club, or whatever sound profile you have in your computer. And then you can change it back.
Nothing will match a naturally good sounding room but could you use this to benefit an awful sounding room? Maybe. Digital reverb has a bit of an uncanny valley that you have to make it across.
It depends on how and where you add the absorption, and how it combines with reflected sound.
A tremendous number of public places are presently virtually nothing _but_ reflective surfaces: concrete or tile floors, steel and glass fittings and windows, hard walls. Often lacking in even carpets or table linens.
A mix of reflection and absorption can create an ambient background without the roar so often encountered.
I think you missed my point. In room X you only have so many things you can do with the reverb. Period. With an active sound system like the one in the article you would have new options that would be physically impossible otherwise.
There's no reflective/absorptive setup that will make a room with a 10ft ceiling sound like it has a 20ft ceiling. With enough microphones, speakers and computing power you could do exactly that - you could effectively change the sonic shape of the room. If it works...
Look at concert-hall acoustics. Total reverb isn't the only factor at play. You want to balance reflection and absorption. You also need to account for the difference in sound between an empty house and one that's filled. Even the thermal properties of parking a bunch of 100W thermal units along the floor, radiating heat upward (we call those "audience members").
Some reflection of the sound you do want to amplify, along with damping that you don't, and accounting for different reflections, comes into play.
Apparently changes in fashion also make a difference. When ladies stopped wearing full length gowns, their new, more revealing clothing, was much less absorptive.
It would be interesting to quantify the difference, but for what it's worth the restaurant example at the beginning is described as having sound-absorbing walls, so that must not be enough by itself, and all the other examples seem to involve rooms that have adjustable characteristics, something that would be hard to achieve without active systems.
If I understand, they do remove sound using physical absorption panels. But since absorption by itself feels dead or unnatural, they mike the remaining sound, model it in a virtual space and play that back into the restaurant (or whatever) to add a more pleasant ambience.
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.
“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.
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.
[1]: 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.