ITVV Video In Reference to Sounds

[kmanning 12]

Hi,I'm not trying to keep this topic going but I'm going to make this one simple fact about the audio in the ITVV Platinum Virgin Atlantic Video. The audio was not recored using some cheap muffled microphone. These were recorded using the latest digital audio and digital video recording equipment. I've worked with these digital equipment and they are very accurate at reproducing the exact level of all sounds at all frequencies. I've heard these recordings and the real world sounds and one cannot tell the difference. Ken.

[michal 44]

Ken,There must be something very subjective about sounds. I do have the same ITVV video and have no doubt about high fidelity microphones in this case. When PMDG 744 was originally released some here were in uproar that the engine cocpkit sounds were way too loud. Considering how quiet they are on the video (per me ears) I even fired an email to Cpt. Alan Carter and he confirmed that 744's flight deck is relatively quiet (much more than 744-100/200's) and no noise cancelling headsets are required. Again, when I listen to this DVD I get impression of a practically noise-free cocpkit, you clearly do hear something else. So here you go .. too loud, not loud enough, matter of opinion. ;)Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gifhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

[Guest srikanth12]

hmm interestingg topic i too thought that the cockpit would be quiet, i have been inside a 747 cockpit and it was very quiet too. i think il just lower the volume of the internal cockpit.Srikanth.P

[rsrandazzo 6,353]

Ken-You have inferred "cheap" and "low quality" to my earlier comments regarding the sounds on the DVD. Neither of which was related to my point.(As an aside- how do you know what level of quality devices were used? I know the developers.... So I have a pretty sound idea what they used.... Can we compare notes? ;-) )Microphones- even those used at the highest end of sound reproduction, have a tendency to accentuate noises that are normally lost in the mix of sounds that enter the human ear. Microphones are highly mechanical devices that transmit sound electrically to a recording device- and even with a complex array of muffs/baffling and pre-and-post processing, they tend to be very unbiased about the sounds that they collect.Your ear on the other hand, is dramatically different based on the construct of evolution for it's particular tasks. As sound passes into the External Auditor Meatus of your ear there is a blending of sound frequencies that tends to bias toward less powerful lower frequencies as a result of the frequency of sound waves. Sound dampens slightly as it pases through the Tympanic Membrane which responds the the complete set of sound frequencies it experiences, rather than to individual sound waves (like a microphone.) Before sound reaches the nerve that carries it to your brain, it passes through small bones in the inner ear known as the Auditory Ossicles- (Stapes, Incus and Malleus, if my memory serves me correctly...) and these three bones by their imperfect nature tend to blend the combination of sound energy into a stimulus that is transmitted to the brain by the Eigth Nerve.(And here you were thinking that I'm just a dumb airline pilot...LOL)So- when comparing the results of both instruments- you have an imperfect system that blends all sounds into a common electronic impulse down a nerve ending, and you have a highly precise and very unbiased electronic "listening device" that is capable of allowing precise seperation of sound frequencies....In other words- the sound that is recorded by the electronic device is going to have higher amplitudinal differences and frequency separations than the signal transmitted to your brain by your ear. As such- when replayed- it is going to accentuate parts of the frequency spectrum that your ear normally blends together- and sounds not normally easily distinguished by normal hearing will become quite clear.(This is why people with hearing aides tend to respond more painfully to certain sound frequencies than those of us without them...)So the conclusion is that after spending a significant part of my adult life in flight decks- I find the sound quality on those DVDs to be nice- but not necessarily representative of what I hear while I am sitting there.When preparing recordings for the NG product line, we conducted a series of recordings on a 737NG. When attempting to process the sounds after recording we were amazed at how many artifacts appear in the recordings that you do not hear while sitting on the airplane. Creaking panels, loose vibrating parts, switch movements, and slipstream noise that is normally not noticable in flight becomes very accentuated in the recordings.Further example from another user that I thought was well stated was the sound recordings taken by the popular TV show: "Cops." You hear things on the recordings that were taken inside the car that you normally do not hear if you are sitting there.Another good example- if you watch video that is taken of a presentation made during a meal- you will be amazed at how loud the audience was with their clinking/clacking and tinkling of china. If you were present for the same presentation- you likely wouldn't have heard that sound at all, as it was lost in the natural balance of sound entering your ear.But in this mix- lets not lose sight of why I locked that previous thread: Your comments included language that appeared to represent your opinion as a statement of fact. I felt that this was not appropriate given the highly subjective nature of the topic.Had your comments been made in such a way that it was clear your opinion was your opinion, or had your comments been made relative to areas that we have publicly stated we don't feel are quite right- or areas that know need improvement (volume mixing, for example) then I would not have a problem with them.The thread was locked not for WHAT was said- but for HOW. Since many users read this forum, we have to be careful about ensuring that information here is presented factually- and in a tone that is balanced and reasonable. We can't have statements of opinion that attempt to render themselves as facts....

[Tabs 2,790]

Microphones will NEVER capture sound the same way the human ears hear it. Trust me, I'm a professional musician by day and I've done more than enough recording of guitar amplifier cabinets with VERY expensive microphones in professional studios to know that what you hear with your ears isn't what ends up on tape.Your ears are doing so many interpolative things with the two different signals coming into your brain that it's almost imposible to duplicate, not least of which is the fact that the actual sound is coming at you from a continuous 360 degree continuum, not out of a few speakers. Mics don't pick up all frequencies in all directions, they color the sound differently depending on whether it's a condeser, dynamic, unidirectional, omnidirectional, etc...It's not as simple as throwing up some nice mics and saying "this is the sound."

[Guest D17S]

My description of cockpit sounds would be that there is a significant impression of "pressure." Not cabin pressure, but the pressure I feel from the sound. It's more than 3D wrap around at a high volume. Not only does it come from everywhere are once, but it has this quality of pressure. There is not a chance, whatsoever, that a consumer speaker system could capture this overall impression of noise that IS a modern cockpit at 275 kts IAS. Maybe a sound chamber at NASA, with a 500 speaker, 1,000,000 watt, anechoic chamber type enclosure . . . But this is just not going to happen in my den! Switch noises: If they will let you, next time you are in a modern cockpit ask them if you can throw a switch or two. They all have a very soft feel. I am completely spoiled by the quality of a modern cockpit. I can barely deal with even a GA airplane now. In flight, one would never hear a switch movement. On the ground with just external power on, you would be hard pressed to hear a switch movement. The exception is the AP disco bar. That thing is very stiff and really pops when you use it. Otherwise, nada. However, I LIKE the compromise that PMDG has allowed to let us hear switch movements. Somehow the sound helps substitute for the soft detent that one's fingers sense as one moves a switch. I like it. Please don't change that. Engine noise in cruise flight? Please! But again, I as a simmer, I like hearing a bit of engine background noise. I like the positive feedback I get with a throttle movement . . . especially when I'm maneuvering. This is a video game. My throttle is not a real throttle and I need to know if thrust is actually responding without having to sneak a peak. It's not real, but this is an important and appropriate compromise to allow this to work as a video game. Good job guys. You are striking a good balance between the simulated environment and the real environment . . . a computer monitor on a desk in my den. Recognize that in the real world, sound is NOT an operator's main cue. (Hey, it's not just pilots that operate these things either.) Did you notice the switches are all different shapes, sizes and have different textures? A cockpit is a relatively deafening environment. Tactile feel is a bigger factor than hearing. I use to fly around in C-130s where shouting was the name of the game. The flight interphone was completely out one flight. It was almost comical. Under normal circumstances, the only possible way I could get in the loop was to put on my headset. I managed to escape with (well, most of) my facilities still intact. However, if you spend your career in one of those things, you WILL come out hard-of-hearing It's gotten better, but wearing hearing protection is still a VERY good idea in even a modern cockpit. A lot of the pilots I work with are looking ahead at a 20-30 year career . . . and they wear hearing protection. There is never going to be a real cockpits sound environment duplicated for a home video game. You would not only have to duplicate sound accurately, but sound pressure levels as well. Even if some misguided developer tried and succeeded (with that NASA sound chamber hardware add-on), there would be even more complaints. Sound-wise, a real cockpit is not a very comfortable place to spend day after day in. It might be tolerable to a mass audience for a while, but it wouldn't be long before the roar from that very real cockpit would be "give us our old sounds back!"

[kmanning 12]

"There must be something very subjective about sounds. I do have the same ITVV video and have no doubt about high fidelity microphones in this case. When PMDG 744 was originally released some here were in uproar that the engine cocpkit sounds were way too loud. Considering how quiet they are on the video (per me ears) I even fired an email to Cpt. Alan Carter and he confirmed that 744's flight deck is relatively quiet (much more than 744-100/200's) and no noise cancelling headsets are required. Again, when I listen to this DVD I get impression of a practically noise-free cocpkit, you clearly do hear something else. So here you go .. too loud, not loud enough, matter of opinion."I get the same impression that the cockpit is basically noise free. What I was really referring to was the level of the engines in referrence to the cockpit environment when the throttles are first advanced, but I really didn't make that clear. I remember some saying that the engines sounds were too loud. But I never thought they were too loud, according to what we hear in the video. This level is most noticable when Alan first advances the throttles and the engines start spooling up. I can hear the engines spool up in the PMDG 747 but the level is much more attenuated in referrence to the cockpit environment. "As an aside- how do you know what level of quality devices were used? I know the developers.... So I have a pretty sound idea what they used.... Can we compare notes?"It is stated on their website. "Microphones are highly mechanical devices that transmit sound electrically to a recording device- and even with a complex array of muffs/baffling and pre-and-post processing, they tend to be very unbiased about the sounds that they collect."That depends on the mics frequency response and if they have a near flat response in all directions. "Your ear on the other hand, is dramatically different based on the construct of evolution for it's particular tasks."Yes, that's true. That also applies rather you're in the actual cockpit or listening to it from a sound system. The human ear does not have a flat response as do electronic devices such as a microphone. "It's not as simple as throwing up some nice mics and saying "this is the sound."Yes, I already know it because I've studied acoustics, done studio work with audio and video equipment. Ken.

[macpac22 0]

Gents,Using a rather expensive sound program i have extracted a small segment of the takeoff sounds from ITVVs DVD and also the Polar DVD. Yes i know one is the 400F and the other is PAX but it illustrates what ITVV have done with the sound on takeoffITVV : http://www.geocities.com/paulmcmahonie/747PAX.mp3Polar : http://www.geocities.com/paulmcmahonie/747F.mp3If you listen to the ITVV sounds..ITVV have enchanced the voice of the pilots rather than the sound of the engines. If you listen, just after the TOGA switches are pressed the sound decreases and the pilot calls of V1 etc are enhanced.The Polar DVD i presume was shot with a lot less quality as the pilots you hear are not as crystal clear as the ITVV. Also im aware that the 2 aircraft may have different engine noises but this was just to illustrate that ITVV decreases its engine noise for pilot voice clarity.

[michal 44]

>Using a rather expensive sound program i have extracted a>you listen, just after the TOGA switches are pressed the sound>decreases and the pilot calls of V1 etc are enhanced.Unless you are watching the video you don't know what the sound is for. Right after TOGA switches are pressed the view changes to exterior so you have exterior sounds for a few seconds. Hence wrong conclusion about sound "decreasing". You really have no basis to declare the sounds being "enhanced" or manipulated in any way unless you sit in this cockpit a few times a week in real life. Like Rob said, we should let real life pilots with thousands of hours of experience to be the ultimate arbiter, I agree this is the only right way to handle it.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gifhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

[macpac22 0]

Michael you completely missed my point anyways leave it at that i dont really care the sounds on the PMDG model are great. end of