From: GT on
"DavidR" <curedham(a)4bidden.org.uk> wrote in message
news:8689e7Fl3aU1(a)mid.individual.net...
> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote
>>
>> PS: I don't often drive by 'smell'. Anyone else tried that?
>
> I had an argument about the pollen filter on a forum a while ago. I was
> told
> I should replace it regularly because the carbon wears out and lets smells
> in. They couldn't accept I don't care if I can smell the outside world.
> Perhaps I'm unwittingly onto something.

Another reason for replacing the pollen filter is that they get damp after a
while and bacteria will start to build, so you will get nasty smells after a
while. If you don't care for filtering pollen, the best thing to do in order
to avoid replacement is to just remove it.


From: Brimstone on
"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
news:4bff9876$0$10330$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...
> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1uqdnR-suoyRPWPWnZ2dnUVZ7oydnZ2d(a)bt.com...
>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
>> news:4bfe95d4$0$10334$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...
>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:3fCdnY5Pq7q-D2PWnZ2dnUVZ8hGdnZ2d(a)bt.com...
>>>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
>>>> news:4bfe7464$0$10292$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...

>>> Wind noise at the start, until he closes his window, then the tyres
>>> screeching can be best heard between 9 and 11 seconds through that clip
>>> (through the glass as we previously established).
>> If what you say is correct, why can't we hear the car tyres screeching
>> with the window open?
> You answered that already the mic picks up nothing but wind noise.
So your earlier comment about hearing the screeching tyres in the video clip
was an untruth?


From: Albert T Cone on
boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote:
> On Fri, 28 May 2010 10:02:40 +0100
> Albert T Cone <a.k.kirby(a)durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>> In other words, it's very likely that the microphone will be more
>> sensitive to the tyre noise than to the engine noise.
>
> As will the human ear.

Indeed, but the human ear is also being used to listen to the recording,
so that is normalised out when we are comparing what WE hear in the
recording, to what HE might have heard.
From: Man at B&Q on
On May 28, 10:02 am, Albert T Cone <a.k.ki...(a)durham.ac.uk> wrote:
> GT failed to quote properly:
>
> > "
> > So what's the frequency response of that "low quality, low
> > sensitivity" microphone? How does it corrspond to the frequencies
> > being emitted from (a) the scraping of the car (b) the engine noise?
> > "
>
> > The frequency response of mobile phone mics are typically between 300 hertz
> > and 3,400 hertz, which is somewhere between the high pitched squeel of tyres
> > on tarmac and the low gritty noise of a large diesel engine. Despite the
> > noises being outwith the phone's sensitive response range, the phone would
> > picked up both noises with equal sensitivity.
>
> A lorry engine at motorway speeds will be running at what, 1000rpm?  so
> that's about 16Hz.  Assuming that it's an 8 cyl engine, that gives a
> power stroke freq of 32Hz.  The majority of the sound produced by an
> engine is contained within the first four harmonics of the fundamental,
> so there won't be much over 150Hz, and less above 300Hz.
>
> The noise of tyres being pushed along a wet road is quite broad-band;
> something akin to pink noise, and there is certainly a significant
> component within the range used by human speech.
>
> In other words, it's very likely that the microphone will be more
> sensitive to the tyre noise than to the engine noise.
> Futhermore, the drivers cab is attached to the same frame as the engine,
> so engine noise and vibration will be conducted into the cabin -
> listening externally doesn't tell you anything quantifiable about the
> relative noise levels inside the cabin.

Please, don't bring cold hard facts in to the discussion, LOL!

MBQ
From: GT on
"Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:B5qdnVetLoK7AWLWnZ2dnUVZ7tGdnZ2d(a)bt.com...
> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
> news:4bff9876$0$10330$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...
>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1uqdnR-suoyRPWPWnZ2dnUVZ7oydnZ2d(a)bt.com...
>>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
>>> news:4bfe95d4$0$10334$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...
>>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:3fCdnY5Pq7q-D2PWnZ2dnUVZ8hGdnZ2d(a)bt.com...
>>>>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4bfe7464$0$10292$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...
>
>>>> Wind noise at the start, until he closes his window, then the tyres
>>>> screeching can be best heard between 9 and 11 seconds through that clip
>>>> (through the glass as we previously established).
>>> If what you say is correct, why can't we hear the car tyres screeching
>>> with the window open?
>> You answered that already the mic picks up nothing but wind noise.
> So your earlier comment about hearing the screeching tyres in the video
> clip was an untruth?
Now you are twisting words. Lets summarise the last few posts:
The car window is open for the first few seconds and all we can hear is wind
noise. After the window closed the sound becomes clearer and we can then
hear the truck noise and the tyre screeching noise - best sound part is
between 9 and 11 seconds. As the engine noise and tyre noise are both
outwith the 'sensitive' range for the cheap phone mic, they are both picked
up equally. I hear the sound of the tyres as louder than the truck engine
noise and therefore so would the truck driver. This does not require any
theories. It doesn't even require any science to explain. Its simple fact
presented in the video clip. The only element of doubt was introduced when
someone suggested that the tyre noise was added in after the event to add
drama. We have no way of knowing, but must come to our own conclusions on
this. I personally think the sound track is all original, but you will
probably want to believe that oposite.

We will never agree on this, so how about we do the adult thing and agree to
disagree, then we can just give up and do something else. Shake?