It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WOW! M.I.T. Researchers can recreate sound from objects in the room

page: 8
33
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   
I'm still waiting to see where these researchers talked about unwanted vibrations and what are these unwanted vibrations as opposed to the vibrations used to recreate the sound.

Please put a source to things you post that come from the Researchers from M.I.T.




posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: peck420


You really should have read the actual report MIT released...not just the hyped up blog about it...

It wouldn't have mattered. Just wait. It most likely will get worse. The MIT report will support everything he said and we don't understand it, yada, yada.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
I'm still waiting to see where these researchers talked about unwanted vibrations and what are these unwanted vibrations as opposed to the vibrations used to recreate the sound.

See ZetaRediculian's post on page 7. The researches went through great pains to minimize unwanted vibrations...per their own words.


Please put a source to things you post that come from the Researchers from M.I.T.

Why?

Since you are so knowledgeable on this subject, I'm sure you have actually found and read the report yourself, no?


edit on 8-8-2014 by peck420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: peck420


Zetas post has nothing to do with the video or the article. I suspect this is why he didn't source the image.

Where in the video is the optical plate used to minimize undesired vibrations?

Where in the article did they talk about an optical plate to minimize undesired vibrations?

What are you going to say? Mr. Criminal, can you put an optical plate underneath the briefcase so we can eliminate undesired vibrations LOL?

Again, this has nothing to do with the vibrations used to recreate the sound from the room.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

You're kidding, right?

By this point you're either trolling or suffering from a terminal case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Wow...troll fail.

originally posted by: peck420
If you don't understand how harmonics work and interact, should you be involved in this conversation?

^This a million times.

The premise of this tech is pretty simple. In the example being argued here, the bag of chips would represent your eardrum (for simplicity's sake). If you are in a quiet room, you have no problem hearing someone speaking, even at low volumes like a whisper. This is because of the signal to noise ratio, and the only thing making your eardrum (the bag of chips) vibrate are the pressure waves created by the voice, whether it is a whisper or a scream makes no difference.

Now try the same thing in a room with moderate noise pollution, such as a stereo, appliances, more than one voice...now your eardrums (the bag of chips) are being effected by the pressure waves being created from multiple sources. Sure, you can still hear the intended voice, but you also hear all the other noises. Now the 'algorithm' comes into play. Your brain (representing the computer decoding the visual signal of the bag of chips [your eardrums]) is tasked with separating the sounds and essentially dismissing the 'background noise'. This becomes more difficult as the amount of noise pollution increases, as does the importance of whisper vs scream in terms of being able to hear clearly.

Ever been in a vehicle designed for sound competitions such as Spring Break Nationals in Daytona Beach, FL? When they go through the test cycles, there are frequencies that completely negate any sound the human body can produce. You can scream at the top of your lungs, and you cannot hear your own voice.

What the logical posters here are saying is that the tests conducted were in highly controlled environments, with little to no background noise/noise pollution. The obvious next step for development of this tech is to evolve the algorithm to do as your brain does in noisy situations. As it stands this tech will not be successful in discerning a conversation taking place within even a moderate noise pollution environment.

I will leave you with this example of why this tech will fail when presented with noise pollution.


And when you come back out from under your bridge saying "No one is going to have a 40,000 watt sound system in their house to counteract the tech", everyone will know with 100% certainty that you either do not understand the nature of SPL and the effects on the surrounding environment, and/or you are truly just a troll who needs practice.
edit on 8/8/2014 by ChaosComplex because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

What???

Show me the optical plate used in the video. Again, it has nothing to do with unwanted vibrations when it comes to recreating sound.

Show me the the optical plate used under the plant, the potato chips or ear plugs used to recreate sound.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


Zetas post has nothing to do with the video or the article. I suspect this is why he didn't source the image.

I didn't source the image because I suspected you would say something stupid like this. Its on Abe's website under research. Go to the link for THIS project and click PDF. This is their project paper. I highly recommend his rap videos though.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic




Dude, give up already.

"In order to minimise unwanted vibrations, the object was placed on a heavy optical plate".

This is decoupling the object from the table to stop the inevitable vibrations from the table (excited by the speaker and structural vibrations) affecting the object.

The speaker was placed on an acoustic isolator to dampen vibrations transmitting through the speaker stand.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: EvillerBob

I answered your question and you should realize that I have been debating on ATS for awhile and the people making these posts are the same people I have debated before and in most cases they don't understand what they're talking about.


You haven't attempted to answer any of the questions, and to quote from an old song, "If you've been married 9 times - maybe it's you".

I've also taken a few moments to skim through your posting history. I think the old song might have a point.


originally posted by: neoholographic
It's harder to mask the audio because the sound is being recreated through images that are captured in frame. You have to move fast enough to distort the visual that's used to recreate the sound.


Being the eternal optimist that I am, I'll have one more crack at this.

There are (to my mind) two or three fundamental errors indicated in your quote. If you want to quote each point and address it - not by just quoting something from the article, but actually addressing the specific point using your own words and your own understanding of the matter - this might help us work out why we've come to such very different opinions.

When something in the room makes a sound, it causes the bag to vibrate. I think we both agree on that. The camera is able to detect those vibrations and convert them into audio. Again, that doesn't seem to be in dispute. So why do I think your statements indicate an error?

First, let's look at one of the tests done. They played a piece of music. Music is made up of notes, which are basically vibrations at different frequencies. Exactly the same principle applies to vocals, but let's just look at the music for now.

Here is a list of frequencies for different notes: www.phy.mtu.edu...

Middle C is 261.63 Hz. When the note "C" is played, the bag vibrates at 261.63 Hz. Very very fast - in fact it's 261.63 cycles per second, which is roughly 1 full cycle or "vibration" every 4 thousandths of a second - but the video can detect the movement, calculate the speed of the vibration, and identify that the bag is vibrating at the speed of 261.63Hz. When the computer outputs this frequency thorough the speaker, we hear it as middle C.

The experiment has shown that audio can be turned into movement (the bag vibrating in response to the noise) which can be turned into visual data (the video recording of the bag moving) which we can use to turn back into audio (the computer speaker playing the frequency identified from watching the bag vibrate, which should be the same as the sound that caused the bag to vibrate in the first place).

As the tune plays, the frequency changes depending on which note is played. You can work out the note by measuring the frequency at which the bag is vibrating - that's the entire basis of the experiment.

So, if a second instrument was also in the room and was playing G (which is 392 Hz), what speed would the bag vibrate at? The bag would be affected by both sounds, they can't synchronise because they are different speeds, so you would have a bag that has a two different waves trying to affect it. I believe that it would probably try to match the faster of the two, but regardless, it would end up distorting the measurements.

The camera will see a bag that is being affected by two different sound waves. The camera has no way of knowing which one is caused by the tune used for the experiment, or which one is caused by me with my extra instrument. In fact, it may be possible to approximate based on the differing speeds of the edges if the instruments were on different sides of the room, but let's put both instruments side by side.

You say that the bag would need to be moved fast enough to distort the visual. We don't need to stop the camera seeing what the bag is doing - in other words, we don't need to wave the bag around to make it look blurry to the camera or anything like that. We just need to change the way that the bag vibrates, so that even if the camera has a perfect view and records every tiny bit of information correctly, the information it is recording is already useless.

We are not trying to change what the camera sees, we are trying to change what the bag is showing. We are making these changes when the information is still "audio data", before it becomes "visual data". We do it simply by making extra noises that are going to offset, or clash with, or overwhelm the tune played for the experiment.

I notice that you seem to have difficulties with analogies so I have been trying to avoid them. I appreciate that English may not be your first language, or you may suffer from something like Autism that can make non-literal ideas difficult to comprehend, or you may simply have the intellectual capacity of a baboon's arse - I'm simply not in a position to say and I wouldn't want to offer an opinion. However, I will offer the following final analogy, just in case it is useful.

Think of sheet of written music. If you know how to play, you can look at the notes written on the sheet and play the tune on a piano. You don't need to hear the tune first, the sheet of music has all the visual data that you need in order to play the tune. You are converting visual information into sound.

But.. what if someone spills a cup of coffee or bottle of ink over the sheet of music? Even if you can work out some of the notes, enough of the information will be ruined to stop you playing the tune properly. You simply won't know what notes need to be played and when.

The bag is like the sheet of music. As long as it is clearly written, you can see the notes and you can work out how to play the tune. Someone else in the room making noise is like a cup of coffee being spilled over the sheet. It makes the music impossible to read. It doesn't matter how good the camera is, the damage is done before it gets the chance to record the visual, so it has no choice but to record the damaged version.

edit on 8-8-2014 by EvillerBob because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Again, this has nothing to do with the video or the article.

There isn't any unwanted vibrations when it comes to the vibrations that are less than 100th of a pixel. I suspect this is why you didn't quote what he said in the paper.


The setup for these experiments consisted of an object, a loudspeaker, and the camera, arranged as shown in Figure 4. The loudspeaker was always placed on its own stand separate from the surface holding the object in order to avoid contact vibrations.


It never says these vibrations have anything to do with what's recorded in the video or any of the Research he put out.

This was one controlled experiment where he wanted to avoid CONTACT VIBRATIONS between the speaker and the chips on an optical plate.

Again, there's no optical plates or talk of contact vibrations in the video or the recent article that shows how this can be used by law enforcement.

Show me where he says these contact vibrations have anything to do with the vibrations that are less than 100th of a pixel that's used to recreate sound.

Show me the optical plate under the plants, the chips or the ear plugs. This is him talking about one controlled experiment and it has nothing to do with the vibrations used to recreate sound.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 04:50 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 04:55 PM
link   
"But why male models?"



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: peck420







posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

You said:


The bag is like the sheet of music. As long as it is clearly written, you can see the notes and you can work out how to play the tune. Someone else in the room making noise is like a cup of coffee being spilled over the sheet. It makes the music impossible to read. It doesn't matter how good the camera is, the damage is done before it gets the chance to record the visual, so it has no choice but to record the damaged version.


Not when the noise is being recreated by visual data.

Why is it impossible to read when you're recreating sound from the room based on vibrations that are less than 100th of a pixel?

Tell me why it would be impossible to read based on the algorithm and this technology. That's all I ask. Tell me why by using the actual technology that's being used not you're long winded explanations that have nothing to do with the technology.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob






posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

You've had 7 people repeat to you variations of the same explanation for over 6 pages now. I think it's safe to say that if you haven't got it by now, you're not going to get it.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: EvillerBob

You said:


The bag is like the sheet of music. As long as it is clearly written, you can see the notes and you can work out how to play the tune. Someone else in the room making noise is like a cup of coffee being spilled over the sheet. It makes the music impossible to read. It doesn't matter how good the camera is, the damage is done before it gets the chance to record the visual, so it has no choice but to record the damaged version.


Not when the noise is being recreated by visual data.

Why is it impossible to read when you're recreating sound from the room based on vibrations that are less than 100th of a pixel?

Tell me why it would be impossible to read based on the algorithm and this technology. That's all I ask. Tell me why by using the actual technology that's being used not you're long winded explanations that have nothing to do with the technology.


Playing the piano is exactly the process of recreating noise (music) from visual data (notes written on the sheet). However, if the notes written on the sheet are wrong then the music you play will be wrong as well.

We are not saying that it is impossible to read the vibrations of the bag caused by sound in the room. We are saying that you will end up reading ALL the vibrations of the bag, which will be caused by a combination of all other sounds and sources of vibration in the room. If it is a perfectly quiet room with only one person talking, the process will work. The experiment proves that. If you have lots of noise, or lots of people talking, all of those will be causing the bag to vibrate.

The software cannot say "that vibration was caused by talking, we'll keep that, this other vibration was caused by a radio playing in the background so we'll ignore it." The technology sees the vibration, it is completely blind to what causes the vibration. It only knows that the bag is vibrating, and how fast it is vibrating.

Whether the technique can detect movements of 100th of a pixel or 100000th of a pixel does not affect this. Everyone accepts that the technique can measure the vibration in the bag in ideal conditions. We are saying that the technique cannot be guaranteed to work in less than ideal conditions.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
There isn't any unwanted vibrations when it comes to the vibrations that are less than 100th of a pixel.

This is the part that you aren't understanding.

When your threshold (resolution, whatever) is less than 100th of a pixel, unwanted interference is almost unavoidable. This only supports the fact that outside of a controlled environment, this tech has a long way to go before it has practical applications in the espionage realm.

My bucket of troll food has been depleted.

Back to the real topic...

I wonder if this could benefit from the addition of the tech presented in a past thread about processing videos in such a way as to allow heart beats and extremely subtle movements to be accentuated...

I'm sure that is the natural direction, as the research also came from MIT.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: neoholographic

You've had 7 people repeat to you variations of the same explanation for over 6 pages now. I think it's safe to say that if you haven't got it by now, you're not going to get it.


At this stage I'm still replying for my own amusement rather than any belief that the poster will ever "get it" or ever intends to "get it" - because if he genuinely finds it this difficult then there is no way he would be capable of using a computer or accessing the internet.

Regardless, it's quite enjoyable sometimes to reduce ideas down in several different ways. It's a good way to test one's own understanding of the matter.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join