Reducing the Noise
Headphones have been around for over 100 years but until John Kloss came up with the idea of stereo headphones in 1958 that were designed to actually listen to music most users were limited to headphones used in radio communication systems, and when the Sony (SNE) Walkman came out in 1979, the concept of earbuds became a worldwide phenomenon. Over the last few years wireless headphones of all types have become the norm and the even more recent focus on ‘noise-cancelling’ headphones has given the headphone industry a needed shot in the arm, with the noise reduction on-line market growing by over 100% in 1Q of 2020, a particularly bad quarter for the entire industry.
Early Headphones - Source: Lstnsound.com
TWS (true wireless stereo), at least at the high end, are usually equipped with noise-cancelling or noise-reduction systems, and that option is rapidly becoming a selling point for wireless headphones generally, with much of the promotion citing the lower volumes needed with noise-cancelling headphones, leading to less ear damage. However the State Administration for Market Regulation in China conducted risk monitoring specifically for ‘active noise reduction headphones, including 60 models from 47 companies.
The results of the tests were a bit surprising in that 50% of the products checked were ‘insufficient in noise reduction’, which may cause consumers to increase the volume in noisy locations, which would increase the sound pressure level and result in hearing damage. However that was less important than the fact that the etsts also concluded that 40% of the products that claimed to have noise reduction abilities, did not have support for any of those functions, with some having rudimentary technology and others none at all, despite the advertisements.
Since there is no uniform standard for what defines noise-reduction, on-line product promotion includes "active noise reduction", "hybrid noise reduction", "AI noise reduction", "deep noise reduction", "intelligent dynamic noise reduction", "hybrid digital noise reduction", "multi-dimensional noise reduction" and other equally nebulous wording and concepts that serve only to confuse consumers, and the inability of the technology in many of the tested products to perform even rudimentary noise reduction functions, such as balancing each ear.
Noise-reduction in such headphones is generated by external microphones (there should be one on each side) that sample the surrounding noise environment and generate an inverse audio image of the external noise, while leaving the music untouched. This obviously entails a higher cost, not only of hardware, but also embedded R&D, either by chip manufacturers such as Mediatek (2454.TT), Qualcomm (QCOM), and Realtek (2379.TT), or in-house, and the cost of same can be enough that lower-cost TWS systems use generic chips rather than the company developed noise reduction processors, as Apple (AAPL) did with the Beats Studio BUD TWS.
The problem with noise reduction is that in many cases it eliminates things that are necessary for staying safe, such as the sound of a car approaching or the sound of a signal, and many of the algorithms have at least some effect on the overall quality of the music, but you can’t have it both ways, so while a good noise cancelling system might protect your ears in a noisy environment, they tend to give users a false sense of security as that crosstown bus bares down on your as you cross against the light.
The final outcome of the tests prompted the SAMR to issue a statement saying, “A large proportion of products have insufficient noise reduction control, and the accuracy of identifying external noise is also insufficient. At the same time, although the maximum sound pressure level index is relatively stable, consumers still need to pay attention to control the use time to avoid hearing damage,” which is a nice way of saying ‘buyer beware’.
The results of the tests were a bit surprising in that 50% of the products checked were ‘insufficient in noise reduction’, which may cause consumers to increase the volume in noisy locations, which would increase the sound pressure level and result in hearing damage. However that was less important than the fact that the etsts also concluded that 40% of the products that claimed to have noise reduction abilities, did not have support for any of those functions, with some having rudimentary technology and others none at all, despite the advertisements.
Since there is no uniform standard for what defines noise-reduction, on-line product promotion includes "active noise reduction", "hybrid noise reduction", "AI noise reduction", "deep noise reduction", "intelligent dynamic noise reduction", "hybrid digital noise reduction", "multi-dimensional noise reduction" and other equally nebulous wording and concepts that serve only to confuse consumers, and the inability of the technology in many of the tested products to perform even rudimentary noise reduction functions, such as balancing each ear.
Noise-reduction in such headphones is generated by external microphones (there should be one on each side) that sample the surrounding noise environment and generate an inverse audio image of the external noise, while leaving the music untouched. This obviously entails a higher cost, not only of hardware, but also embedded R&D, either by chip manufacturers such as Mediatek (2454.TT), Qualcomm (QCOM), and Realtek (2379.TT), or in-house, and the cost of same can be enough that lower-cost TWS systems use generic chips rather than the company developed noise reduction processors, as Apple (AAPL) did with the Beats Studio BUD TWS.
The problem with noise reduction is that in many cases it eliminates things that are necessary for staying safe, such as the sound of a car approaching or the sound of a signal, and many of the algorithms have at least some effect on the overall quality of the music, but you can’t have it both ways, so while a good noise cancelling system might protect your ears in a noisy environment, they tend to give users a false sense of security as that crosstown bus bares down on your as you cross against the light.
The final outcome of the tests prompted the SAMR to issue a statement saying, “A large proportion of products have insufficient noise reduction control, and the accuracy of identifying external noise is also insufficient. At the same time, although the maximum sound pressure level index is relatively stable, consumers still need to pay attention to control the use time to avoid hearing damage,” which is a nice way of saying ‘buyer beware’.
RSS Feed