[Tech Issue] The Sound Of The V6 Turbo PU..

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

It sounds like they've added a fair bit of reverb, to enhance the effect.

I have not been to Spa, but I have experienced that level of natural "reverb" before (Indy in V10 era). I think the key to something that nice is when it is a single car or two and not a swarm. You get a lot of juicy sounds paths as the engine note bouncing off lots of stuff as it comes and goes. Also binaural recordings are a different beast with respect to accuracy and "being there". I don't think they would have to tweak that recording to make it sound like that. Its more about, right place, right time, right equipment, right technique type of thing.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I have not been to Spa, but I have experienced that level of natural "reverb" before (Indy in V10 era). I think the key to something that nice is when it is a single car or two and not a swarm. You get a lot of juicy sounds paths as the engine note bouncing off lots of stuff as it comes and goes. Also binaural recordings are a different beast with respect to accuracy and "being there". I don't think they would have to tweak that recording to make it sound like that. Its more about, right place, right time, right equipment, right technique type of thing.

Richard

A typical binaural recording unit has two high-fidelity microphones mounted in a dummy head, inset in ear-shaped molds but there are a few complications with the playback of binaural recordings through normal headphones.

The sound that is picked up by a microphone placed in or at the entrance of the dummy head's ear canal, has a frequency spectrum that is a lot different from the one that would be picked up by a free-standing microphone.

For binaural listening, headphones need to have a flat response to the ear-canal entrance (not the eardrum) since it is at the ear-canal entrance of the dummy's head, that the recording microphones are placed. If headphones were designed to have a flat response, then they would sound much too 'bright' when listening to stereo recordings and for this reason, most headphones are designed to have a notch around 5 kHz. I therefore wouldn't be surprised if some reverb is added, to compensate for the 5 kHz notch.

[davyboy]

Due to the natural topography of, and foliage around, Spa, the old F1 cars used to sound incredible there. Whether or not they've added reverb to this, it sounds eerily realistic.

[Born Racer]

It is growing on me. Superficially, at times it reminds me of the 1970s, while at others it sounds positively 1990s video game interpretation of the future-esque. I am still in two minds. The fact it isn't shrill is good. But also bad because I love orchestral music but don't want to hear it at a nightclub. Did that loose, lazy metaphor at all work? I want to hear something more intense. On second thoughts, orchestral music at a nightclub could be amazing in the right moment, but that IS another debate.

Spa-Francorchamps creates an incredible sound. Maybe not what one user was referring to previously, but I remember arriving during FP1 and the V10-powered cars being on the circuit. They reminded me of an ambulance in a distance. The shrillness was evil but fantastic and haunting. In fact, having a wazzle in the woods is always a pleasure when you need it, but urinating to the sound of V10s more special. Those Belgian ladies with their 50 centimes facilities just weren't as appealing as weeing near the Kemmel Straight.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

It sounds like they've added a fair bit of reverb, to enhance the effect.

Its just proximity....

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

Its just proximity....

Having listened to it a few more times, I think you may be right.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

A typical binaural recording unit has two high-fidelity microphones mounted in a dummy head, inset in ear-shaped molds but there are a few complications with the playback of binaural recordings through normal headphones.

The sound that is picked up by a microphone placed in or at the entrance of the dummy head's ear canal, has a frequency spectrum that is a lot different from the one that would be picked up by a free-standing microphone.

For binaural listening, headphones need to have a flat response to the ear-canal entrance (not the eardrum) since it is at the ear-canal entrance of the dummy's head, that the recording microphones are placed. If headphones were designed to have a flat response, then they would sound much too 'bright' when listening to stereo recordings and for this reason, most headphones are designed to have a notch around 5 kHz. I therefore wouldn't be surprised if some reverb is added, to compensate for the 5 kHz notch.

My apologies in advance for the off topic content.

So I am not a scientist who studies Audiology, but I am an Electrical Engineer by training, used to dabble in DIY audio construction a long time ago and am a recovering audiophile! Your comments about the 5khz dip in headphones and impact on binaural recordings seems to be straight out of the Binaural Recording Wikipedia article. As much as I personally love Wikipedia and rely upon it on a regular basis, some articles are suspect and that one is marked as such (see link at the top of the Wiki page). There are no cited references for any of that information in the article. In fact if you Google to find mention of there being a common 5khz dip engineered into headphones you either find nothing, or a reference to that Wikipedia article (some circular logic going on). So I take that info with a grain of salt. IMHO, in general designers are likely looking for flat response, but of course designers may tweak to the ear vs. trusting the measurements 100%. Of course this (objective vs. subjective design) is the age old battle in audio design, but I digress. I think it is not uncommon to see response curves for headphones to start having issues (less smooth) around 5k and above. Sometimes that is a dip at 5k sometimes not. But in general the curve (if not artificially smoothed to commercial reasons) is generally not very smooth in the higher frequencies. I do wonder if those who are designing in ear “bud” style headphones might be making adjustments (5k dip?) given the ear canal does impact the frequency response. So they may be trying to EQ in the impacts of the ear canal given the buds bypass some of it. But again, I expect that they are trying to achieve a flat response as perceived by the listener.

My understanding that binaural recording is a bit of an art. Especially when you are trying to replicate what the human ear hears. Clearly compromises exist as you firstly are using a synthetic analog for the human head and ear! But it can be done in a way that is quite good given the limitations of technology (microphones and dummy heads). For the really good ones you can even position sound front and rear (in addition to the obvious left and right), and the psycho acoustic nature of how that works (transfer functions for the head and ear) is well enough understood that this type of “3d sound “can be synthetically generated as well. I do have to wonder if there is another common item that can impact quality of binaural recordings and that is lossy compression (MP3 for example). While something like MP3 is quite good, I wonder if the psycho acoustic research that went into it (i.e. what data can we toss away and not impact perceived sound quality) included the auditory cues that helps binaural recording work (particularly those that have a good 3d component to them). I know there is research on this, but I don’t know what the conclusions are. I suspect the answer is that it can impact quality of binaural sound.

Back to the recording in question... I listened to it (as I do most everything sourced online) using a set of Grado headphones (which are higher end over the ear style and not ear buds) via a dedicated DAC and headphone amp. Given the curves I have seen, I don’t think there is a purposeful 5khz dip in the Grado design. It seemed plausible to me it was unmolested, but who knows. The engineer who created that may or may not have manipulated the sound post recording. Only he knows. But from my experience (including a tiny bit of DIY binaural recording a few decades ago) you don’t have to mess with it to get that type of natural reverberation (recording thunder storms is my personal experience). Especially in a complex environment in which there are plenty of reflection paths. And as I mentioned above I have heard F1 cars sound like that in person.

Richard

(Not so patiently waiting for the summer break to be over so we can actually talk about F1)

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

My apologies in advance for the off topic content.

But from my experience (including a tiny bit of DIY binaural recording a few decades ago) you don’t have to mess with it to get that type of natural reverberation (recording thunder storms is my personal experience). Especially in a complex environment in which there are plenty of reflection paths. And as I mentioned above I have heard F1 cars sound like that in person.

Richard

(Not so patiently waiting for the summer break to be over so we can actually talk about F1)

"And as I mentioned above I have heard F1 cars sound like that in person."

Me too, when the cars are able to run at full throttle for an extended period it pretty well always seems to happen! Just takes time for the reverberation to build up?

The bit I don't quite understand is why it doesn't happen for an engine that say can rev to 19 000 rpm running at 10 000 rpm. But it will happen for an engine that will rev to 8 000 rpm running at 8000 rpm for an extended period in the same place. The more cylinders the better it works too, but the engine has to be running flat out!

This is just observation, and I don't understand why it works this way.
Something to do with induction and exhaust resonance perhaps?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

My apologies in advance for the off topic content.

So I am not a scientist who studies Audiology, but I am an Electrical Engineer by training, used to dabble in DIY audio construction a long time ago and am a recovering audiophile! Your comments about the 5khz dip in headphones and impact on binaural recordings seems to be straight out of the Binaural Recording Wikipedia article. As much as I personally love Wikipedia and rely upon it on a regular basis, some articles are suspect and that one is marked as such (see link at the top of the Wiki page). There are no cited references for any of that information in the article. In fact if you Google to find mention of there being a common 5khz dip engineered into headphones you either find nothing, or a reference to that Wikipedia article (some circular logic going on). So I take that info with a grain of salt. IMHO, in general designers are likely looking for flat response, but of course designers may tweak to the ear vs. trusting the measurements 100%. Of course this (objective vs. subjective design) is the age old battle in audio design, but I digress. I think it is not uncommon to see response curves for headphones to start having issues (less smooth) around 5k and above. Sometimes that is a dip at 5k sometimes not. But in general the curve (if not artificially smoothed to commercial reasons) is generally not very smooth in the higher frequencies. I do wonder if those who are designing in ear “bud” style headphones might be making adjustments (5k dip?) given the ear canal does impact the frequency response. So they may be trying to EQ in the impacts of the ear canal given the buds bypass some of it. But again, I expect that they are trying to achieve a flat response as perceived by the listener.

My understanding that binaural recording is a bit of an art. Especially when you are trying to replicate what the human ear hears. Clearly compromises exist as you firstly are using a synthetic analog for the human head and ear! But it can be done in a way that is quite good given the limitations of technology (microphones and dummy heads). For the really good ones you can even position sound front and rear (in addition to the obvious left and right), and the psycho acoustic nature of how that works (transfer functions for the head and ear) is well enough understood that this type of “3d sound “can be synthetically generated as well. I do have to wonder if there is another common item that can impact quality of binaural recordings and that is lossy compression (MP3 for example). While something like MP3 is quite good, I wonder if the psycho acoustic research that went into it (i.e. what data can we toss away and not impact perceived sound quality) included the auditory cues that helps binaural recording work (particularly those that have a good 3d component to them). I know there is research on this, but I don’t know what the conclusions are. I suspect the answer is that it can impact quality of binaural sound.

Back to the recording in question... I listened to it (as I do most everything sourced online) using a set of Grado headphones (which are higher end over the ear style and not ear buds) via a dedicated DAC and headphone amp. Given the curves I have seen, I don’t think there is a purposeful 5khz dip in the Grado design. It seemed plausible to me it was unmolested, but who knows. The engineer who created that may or may not have manipulated the sound post recording. Only he knows. But from my experience (including a tiny bit of DIY binaural recording a few decades ago) you don’t have to mess with it to get that type of natural reverberation (recording thunder storms is my personal experience). Especially in a complex environment in which there are plenty of reflection paths. And as I mentioned above I have heard F1 cars sound like that in person.

Richard

(Not so patiently waiting for the summer break to be over so we can actually talk about F1)

I work in IT and one of the things that got me into IT was music. I'm also a musician and wanted to learn what went on behind the mixing desk, so over the years I've done a number of sound engineering courses and have seen how it has changed. Obviously one of the things that was covered was mic placement and that's basically what binaural recording is about, placing two mics so they immitate, the position of human ears and how they pic up sound.

I didn't find anything wrong with the Wkipedia article and I thought it was a good reference point regarding binaureal recording if someone doesn't know anything about the technique.

As for the 5Khz dip I found a fair bit on it when I Googled it, from product reviews, posts on forums and even graphs.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?clie...35.GkB0dissGYA

I've heard F1 engines in the flesh too but I don't remember them having that amount of reverberation. It would be interesting to know where at Eau Rouge the recording took place because looking at this photo, the topography looks very open and there doesn't seem to be much in the way of reflective surfaces.



Regarding the actual recording it would be interesting to know what the engineer, or whoever recorded it, did post recording.

[wnut]

Mazda at Le Mans

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxXtpMngivM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1v6HBWZd2I

Mazda at Spa

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSOuqB6dDOI

Track is lined with a wall, lots of crash barriers and grand stands.

Mazda 787B, Le Mans 2011. Premiere partie de la ligne droite des hunaudieres.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtUEPwHnxmU



Beautiful!

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

As for the 5Khz dip I found a fair bit on it when I Googled it, from product reviews, posts on forums and even graphs.

I did similar searches. You find lots of results, but IMHO, not any that talk to engineered dips. Or if they do (I think just one result), they reference that Wikipedia article which has no backing references. You can do similar searches on 6k, 7k, 8k, 9k, etc. and find plenty of results talking about dips in headphones at each of those frequencies. So, IMHO, 5k doesn't stand out as being unique. But we can agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

It would be interesting to know where at Eau Rouge the recording took place because looking at this photo, the topography looks very open and there doesn't seem to be much in the way of reflective surfaces.

My best guess is that at the very start of that recording we might be hearing the faint run uphill and downshifts at Bus Stop and then a bit of acceleration toward start finish. I think we don't hear a lot at La Source, but do pickup going through the gears on approach to Raidillon and then eventually the long run down Kemmel and then off throttle and faint downshift for Les Combes. Direction of travel (i.e. direction of exhaust exit) impacts volume level and amount of reflected sound as well. My guess is that they were setup to record inside the circuit just before Raidillon with binaural "head" pointed at track. Left ear toward La Source and right ear toward Les Combes.

I have not been lucky enough to have visited Spa Francorchamps yet, but wider aerial track photos show it mostly surrounded by hills (some on the steeper side). I suspect that is a large factor in the reflections of sounds??? I also suspect to get a good reverberation sound like that with longer decays the paths need to be long?? I suspect my experience at Indy was due to the bowl shape of that environment and reflections off the grandstands and pit/garage structures (I was near turn 1 listening to cars travel down the main straight). At other tracks such as Mid-Ohio, VIR and Road Atlanta that is more "open" it is not as pronounced (even then those are from big displacement throaty american V8 making the loud noise and not F1 cars).

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Regarding the actual recording it would be interesting to know what the engineer, or whoever recorded it, did post recording.

Agreed.

I think I am talked out on this topic.

Richard

[JeremySmith]

Well after attending the race I far prefer the way these Power Units sound over the old V8's, I thought on Friday that they could have been a little louder... BUT I am now of the opinion that they are perfect.. Coming up the hill to turn one they sounded like aircraft so interesting...

[Born Racer]

I was always in two minds - they don't stir the soul like the V8s or V10s (wasn't a fan of the V8s, but they had a similar force), but these engines are more interesting.

Have they grown on anyone else here too like they have me and Jeremy?

[Sodemo]

Nope, still not a fan. They just sound like any other race car. The v10 and to a lesser extent the v8s had a unique signature that you KNEW was F1.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Nope, still not a fan. They just sound like any other race car. The v10 and to a lesser extent the v8s had a unique signature that you KNEW was F1.

Well with all due respect they don't.. I watched two other races and all three types of cars sounded completely different...

Even the sound of the V6 Turbo's sounded different depending on the team. The Toro Rosso Had the most shrill sound of all of them..

The Ferrari had this great throaty low end. 2014 is without a doubt a different sounding F1 car for sure, but I am not disappointed..
I asked many visitors at COTA about the sound, the large majority of them gave it a thumbs up....

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

Well with all due respect they don't.. I watched two other races and all three types of cars sounded completely different...

Even the sound of the V6 Turbo's sounded different depending on the team. The Toro Rosso Had the most shrill sound of all of them..

The Ferrari had this great throaty low end. 2014 is without a doubt a different sounding F1 car for sure, but I am not disappointed..
I asked many visitors at COTA about the sound, the large majority of them gave it a thumbs up....

Interesting to read a first hand account of what the engines sound like and a positive one.

[mikuni]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

Well with all due respect they don't.. I watched two other races and all three types of cars sounded completely different...

That's all well and good, for the handful of people that can make it to a race each year, but for television viewers it doesn't quite cut it.

There was one particular camera angle where it was fixed and the cars flew by, similar to the tunnel at Monaco, and you literally couldn't hear the cars. I thought to myself, this isn't F1.

I appreciate that the cars sound interesting, that they are dynamic, I will even accept that they sound unique.. but something that they do not do, is make the hair on the back of your neck stand on end. They don't give you goose bumps, and no one will even say "That's the sound of F1" with a smile.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

Well with all due respect they don't.. I watched two other races and all three types of cars sounded completely different...

Even the sound of the V6 Turbo's sounded different depending on the team. The Toro Rosso Had the most shrill sound of all of them..

The Ferrari had this great throaty low end. 2014 is without a doubt a different sounding F1 car for sure, but I am not disappointed..
I asked many visitors at COTA about the sound, the large majority of them gave it a thumbs up....

Oh I can tell the difference, just. However F1 has lost that signature sound. If you played a V10 sound to a person on the street, I bet that most of them would say it was a racing car and again, some of them might even say it were an F1 car, it was instantly recognisable. You play one of the V6 sounds to them, some people might not even say it were a racing car, I would bet some might even say it was a road car.

Its all conjecture of course without doing any kind of tests, but you see what I am saying.

A modern F1 sound just sounds like a lower formula car, it would sound very at home in a field of F3 or Formula Renault 3.5 type races, it just doesn't sound "high end" for me.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by mikuni

That's all well and good, for the handful of people that can make it to a race each year, but for television viewers it doesn't quite cut it.

There was one particular camera angle where it was fixed and the cars flew by, similar to the tunnel at Monaco, and you literally couldn't hear the cars. I thought to myself, this isn't F1.

I appreciate that the cars sound interesting, that they are dynamic, I will even accept that they sound unique.. but something that they do not do, is make the hair on the back of your neck stand on end. They don't give you goose bumps, and no one will even say "That's the sound of F1" with a smile.

I agree its a big change, If Bernie has anything to do with it the engines will be changed.. I can not see this happening myself after all the huge amounts of money that has been invested in RD..I believe if they turn up the revs on these machines the sound will be louder....They will never sound anything like the V8's of course, volume being wasted energy...

Originally Posted by Sodemo

Oh I can tell the difference, just. However F1 has lost that signature sound. If you played a V10 sound to a person on the street, I bet that most of them would say it was a racing car and again, some of them might even say it were an F1 car, it was instantly recognisable. You play one of the V6 sounds to them, some people might not even say it were a racing car, I would bet some might even say it was a road car.

Its all conjecture of course without doing any kind of tests, but you see what I am saying.

A modern F1 sound just sounds like a lower formula car, it would sound very at home in a field of F3 or Formula Renault 3.5 type races, it just doesn't sound "high end" for me.

Yes I understand completely what you are saying F1 did have sound that was was very unique with the *banshee* scream, and very different from any other race car..I doubt people would think the V6 Formula 1 PU was a road car, but I could be wrong of course..

[davyboy]

They're still just as awful as the first time I heard them. I'm just thankful that I got to experience the thrill of F1 as it should sound... future generations will be deprived of that. All in the name of progress eh ?

[Pingguest]

Times have changed and times will continue to change, davyboy. I never experienced the sound of the Cosworth DFV or the 3.500 cc V12 Ferrari.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

Times have changed and times will continue to change, davyboy. I never experienced the sound of the Cosworth DFV or the 3.500 cc V12 Ferrari.

Ya I know. F1 is drifting away from me for other reasons anyway, so it's not really a big deal for me. Unfortunately there are too many people feeling the same way as me so it's a bigger deal for F1 than for us, but that's another story covered extensively in other threads.

The 3.0 V12 of the mid 1990s was just unbelievable. I was lucky enough to experience that - in the flesh, at a Grand Prix around the parkland of Monza too.... like this And if somebody comes on here and tells me that the 2014 engine sounds are nicer than this, then I know they'll be lying

[Paradise City]

I don't mind the sound too much myself as long as there is a sound. I basically know this sport through the TV and the sound is never mediated that well through the TV.

But the cars from the 80's and 90's did look absolutely fantastic and sounded great. I took all that stuff for granted.

Today we're in a space were we've got a collection of half indecent ant-eaters and platitiuses and we've had serious discussions about putting trombones up their backsides to give them a sound that has a bit of kick to it. How on earth did we get here?

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by davyboy

They're still just as awful as the first time I heard them. I'm just thankful that I got to experience the thrill of F1 as it should sound... future generations will be deprived of that. All in the name of progress eh ?

How do they compare with a Hybrid LMP car I wonder, not having heard one in person ?

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

I don't mind the sound too much myself as long as there is a sound. I basically know this sport through the TV and the sound is never mediated that well through the TV.

But the cars from the 80's and 90's did look absolutely fantastic and sounded great. I took all that stuff for granted.

Today we're in a space were we've got a collection of half indecent ant-eaters and platitiuses and we've had serious discussions about putting trombones up their backsides to give them a sound that has a bit of kick to it. How on earth did we get here?

I still think the FOM sound guys could try a little harder to make them sound better on TV...