Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 4 votes

A poll - quite simply: loud or soft; part of F1 or not?


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

Poll: Loud or soft?; important or not?; F1 getting better or worse? (134 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you prefer the present sound of F1, or last year's sound?

  1. This year (38 votes [28.36%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 28.36%

  2. Last year (58 votes [43.28%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 43.28%

  3. Don't care (38 votes [28.36%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 28.36%

Is impressive sound in your opinion part of the experience of F1?

  1. Yes (79 votes [58.96%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 58.96%

  2. No (28 votes [20.90%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 20.90%

  3. Don't care (27 votes [20.15%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 20.15%

Are you pleased or displeased, with the regulatory nature of F1 this year?

  1. Pleased (65 votes [48.51%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 48.51%

  2. Displeased (50 votes [37.31%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 37.31%

  3. Don't care (19 votes [14.18%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 14.18%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 chipmcdonald

chipmcdonald
  • Member

  • 860 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 18 April 2014 - 07:10

Simply: should the cars be loud or soft?  Is the sound part of what F1 is?  Are F1 regulations headed in the right direction?


Edited by chipmcdonald, 18 April 2014 - 07:11.


Advertisement

#2 Zoetrope

Zoetrope
  • Member

  • 1,199 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 18 April 2014 - 07:23

I like it loud. It's important. But it's not the most important. Therefore, I am pleased with 2014.



#3 Brother Fox

Brother Fox
  • Member

  • 5,312 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 18 April 2014 - 07:27

Finally, somewhere where i cant vent my displeasure at F1's curent state



#4 SpartanChas

SpartanChas
  • Member

  • 778 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 18 April 2014 - 07:37

Another one? It's changed, it's not going to change back, accept it and move on.

#5 Jon83

Jon83
  • Member

  • 1,941 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 18 April 2014 - 08:14

Last year

Yes

Displeased



#6 muramasa

muramasa
  • Member

  • 3,262 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 18 April 2014 - 08:21

With the poll like that, my vote combination would be exactly the same as those hating and moaning about V6T, but actual opinion is quite or completely different to theirs.



#7 Tourgott

Tourgott
  • Member

  • 433 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 18 April 2014 - 08:46

 it's not going to change back.

 

We will see.



#8 KingTiger

KingTiger
  • Member

  • 524 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 18 April 2014 - 08:53

I want old useless V8's that bounce off the limiter in slipstream and make so much noise that everyone just wears ear muffs. Also so Red Bull can go back to their rightful place as the supreme overlords of F1. 



#9 Jon83

Jon83
  • Member

  • 1,941 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 18 April 2014 - 10:29

I want old useless V8's that bounce off the limiter in slipstream and make so much noise that everyone just wears ear muffs. Also so Red Bull can go back to their rightful place as the supreme overlords of F1. 

 

Why are the V8s any more useless than the V6T?



#10 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 9,828 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 18 April 2014 - 11:13

With the poll like that, my vote combination would be exactly the same as those hating and moaning about V6T, but actual opinion is quite or completely different to theirs.

 

Pretty much same.

 

I don't think the current sound is right, but I don't think the problem is loudness or even the fact it's a turbo. It's this specific kind of turbo that's doing a weird whispy thing. Turbos usually sound good (see old F1s or current Indycars) and they don't need to be stupid loud to sound good.

 

Do I think impressive sound should be a part of F1? Yes. Do I think it's a major detracting issue that severely limits my enjoyment of the series? No.



#11 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 18 April 2014 - 12:19

So much of the problem is the strange way the FOM transmission processes the sound.  You go to youtube and watch someone's footage from their phone and it's a million times better  :confused:

 

And they just ignore the ERS usage, all that tactical interest is wasted.



#12 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,612 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 18 April 2014 - 14:40

Simply: should the cars be loud or soft?

It's a stupid question, the cars sound what they sound like when the engineers have finished with them.

 

Engines should be designed to push the car forward, not to make a certain noise. You've got it all backwards.



#13 skid solo

skid solo
  • Member

  • 2,214 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 18 April 2014 - 18:53

Why are the V8s any more useless than the V6T?


Err Duh!!

#14 MikeV1987

MikeV1987
  • Member

  • 1,686 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 18 April 2014 - 18:56

I prefer the high pitch sound of the engines, but I will get used to these.


Edited by MikeV1987, 18 April 2014 - 19:04.


#15 chipmcdonald

chipmcdonald
  • Member

  • 860 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 21 April 2014 - 09:47

It's a stupid question, the cars sound what they sound like when the engineers have finished with them.

 

Engines should be designed to push the car forward, not to make a certain noise. You've got it all backwards.

 

 

:rolleyes:

You and your Anonymous Pretense Posse has made it your apparent goal in life to try to let everyone know how your thought is the only thing "not stupid" or some other childish, passive aggressive slant.   The thing is, the only thing "stupid" here is continuing to "bitch and moan" when reality includes people that have a different perspective than you.  Or did I miss the part where you are Pope Lazy I, King of the Autosport Message Board?

 

So far, at least 40 people here think last year's formula sounded better, and 56 think impressive sound is part of F1 - whether you agree or not.  We're not making childish remarks about how "stupid" your take on it is, or that you're "bitching and moaning" about us "bitching and moaning", or whatever else your cohorts feel "we" are doing.   

 

:well:



#16 Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast
  • Paddock Club Host

  • 4,529 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 21 April 2014 - 10:09

:rolleyes:
You and your Anonymous Pretense Posse has made it your apparent goal in life to try to let everyone know how your thought is the only thing "not stupid" or some other childish, passive aggressive slant. The thing is, the only thing "stupid" here is continuing to "bitch and moan" when reality includes people that have a different perspective than you. Or did I miss the part where you are Pope Lazy I, King of the Autosport Message Board?

So far, at least 40 people here think last year's formula sounded better, and 56 think impressive sound is part of F1 - whether you agree or not. We're not making childish remarks about how "stupid" your take on it is, or that you're "bitching and moaning" about us "bitching and moaning", or whatever else your cohorts feel "we" are doing.

:well:

Continuing to "bitch and moan" is indeed "stupid". So why do you continue to do so, in multiple threads, even?
Several posters have pointed out that your poll is flawed. Even if you think otherwise, take a look at the poll about double points. I think that will show you what F1 fans think is bad about F1 this year.

"Impressive" is not a synonym for "deafening" or even "loud", so claiming that the majority agree with one means that they agree with the other is false. I like the idea of impressive sounding engines, but I don't like the sound of last year's engines, or even the V10s before them. When a jet fighter does a low pass, you don't hear it coming until it's on you. That's impressive, but it isn't loud until it's passed you. It also gives the impression of speed.

Finally, you claim not to be making childish remarks while abusing others. I beg to differ, you are. Not everyone agrees with your view. Repeating your view endlessly will not change that.

#17 LeMans86

LeMans86
  • Member

  • 213 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 21 April 2014 - 10:23

So much of the problem is the strange way the FOM transmission processes the sound.  You go to youtube and watch someone's footage from their phone and it's a million times better  :confused:
 
And they just ignore the ERS usage, all that tactical interest is wasted.

This. Last race, you saw six cars coming towards the camera and you couldn't hear a single thing. It was completely quite apart from the commentary.
If I remeber correctly, the sound on TV in Malaysia wasn't too bad.

Has it to do with the huge amount of run off and the camera's being quite far away, or what?

#18 chipmcdonald

chipmcdonald
  • Member

  • 860 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 24 April 2014 - 12:09

Continuing to "bitch and moan" is indeed "stupid". So why do you continue to do so, in multiple threads, even?


So what do you call what you're doing? Glorious pontificating from a magical throne in your personal internet kingdom? You don't like my opinion, I get that. Yes, I am campaigning for my opinion, and so far it seems I'm not alone. You don't like that. Fine. But at least my opinions are ON TOPIC as opposed to personal affronts to other people on this message board.

 

Several posters have pointed out that your poll is flawed.



Guess what Slarti? This is "the internet". This isn't your personal laboratory of Slartibartfast's Personal Wisdom. I would have called up Neil Tyson to check the empiricism of my all-encompassing and homolagatory poll, in order to be vetted by the scienfific community for "Slartibartfast Acceptability", but Neil had better things to do. "Scientists unanimously conclude anthropogenic climate change is real, and approximately 14.7 feel Chip's poll about F1 engine sound is subjective and non-scientific".
 

Even if you think otherwise, take a look at the poll about double points. I think that will show you what F1 fans think is bad about F1 this year.


I think given your reaction, the poll is most likely quite effective in showing what the average, reasonable internet punter here would consider it to mean.
 

"Impressive" is not a synonym for "deafening" or even "loud", so claiming that the majority agree with one means that they agree with the other is


"Does the McLaren look shiny this year?", "you didn't say "mirror-like" or "reflective", your poll is invalid! , blah blah blah...

You wish to impose your own take on my poll. You also feel that by arguing about syntax that somehow you are gaining the upper ground in the Internet Battle Point Scoring System or some such. In reality, most people understand the scope of "impressive sound" in the context of this poll and the context of this message board.



like the idea of impressive sounding engines, but I don't like the sound of last year's engines, or even the V10s before them.


That's fine, but that doesn't have any bearing on the validity of my poll.
 

When a jet fighter does a low pass, you don't hear it coming until it's on you. That's impressive, but it isn't loud until it's passed you. It also gives the impression of speed.


I agree, that's a cool thing. But it's also not F1. And it's also a COMPLETELY different thing, it's orders of magnitude louder, as well as literally faster... not to mention it's FLYING IN THE AIR. Other than that... sure, valid comparison. :well:
 

 

Finally, you claim not to be making childish remarks while abusing others. I beg to differ, you are. Not everyone agrees with your view. Repeating your view endlessly will not change that.

 

Ok, I am making "childish" remarks abusing others.  And you are not. Ok.  Got it, Mr. Slartibartfast.  :rolleyes:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



#19 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 8,637 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 24 April 2014 - 12:15

So much of the problem is the strange way the FOM transmission processes the sound.  You go to youtube and watch someone's footage from their phone and it's a million times better  :confused:

 

And they just ignore the ERS usage, all that tactical interest is wasted.

 

Yep, FOM do a fairly atrocious job at replecating the sound as it is live.  People wistfully harking back to the V8s of last year is a strange one as every onboard was a smoothed out high pitched whine which gave no impression of the speed or violence involved.  I've just been reading Autosport's latest headlines with all the barmy ideas to spice up the 'show' and they miss the most glaring obvious which is for FOM to have a rethink on how they present and produce their coverage. 



Advertisement

#20 chipmcdonald

chipmcdonald
  • Member

  • 860 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 24 April 2014 - 12:22

This. Last race, you saw six cars coming towards the camera and you couldn't hear a single thing. It was completely quite apart from the commentary.
If I remeber correctly, the sound on TV in Malaysia wasn't too bad.

Has it to do with the huge amount of run off and the camera's being quite far away, or what?

 

 

One of the reasons phone camera footage sounds impressive is because there is an inherent limitiation in the microphone quality - it is not the same quality as what FOM uses.  It will distort fairly easily, and that distortion adds harmonics which increases the sounds apparent complexity. 

 

Additionally, the input electronics for the mic on a phone are very limited, with the same effect: distortion. 

 

The addition of harmonics once the sound level gets to a certain threshold yields an impression of "excitement" - it is effectively akin to why a "rock guitar" sound is more aggressive sounding than an acoustic guitar sound.  Harmonic information is being added that isn't actually there.

 

Another aspect is that spectator shots tend to be much longer than FOM's.  You get to hear the crowd ambience before the car gets there, and that gives you a sense of proportion.

 

Yet another aspect is that the FOM feed usually has many mics mixed together, AND it's "ducked" - electronically manipulated so that when the announcer is talking the track sound is automatically reduced in volume.

 

I don't want added distortion to make the cars seem louder.  I would love camera shots *combined with location mics* that were not zoomed a mile away, allowing the sound to build as it would trackside.

 

Regardless of all of that - the energy difference is the sound will never sound as impressive as before, because as the car is in the distance the nature of the proportion of direct sound versus ambient sound will not be anything like what it was before.  It's simply impossible. They can make the cars sound *better*, remove the fuel flow limit and let them rev higher.  Not as good as before IMO, but it would be better. 

 

They can not, however, make the cars "louder".  In turn, in the distance, they will never sound as impressive as before.  That shrieking in the distance was exciting to me, and I think others, but more importantly I think that was Formula 1's biggest calling card from a visceral, spectators standpoint. 

 

 

 

/ (this is where the hoi polloi insert their non-childish, non-stupid, non-bitching and moaning off-topic quip...)



#21 Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast
  • Paddock Club Host

  • 4,529 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 24 April 2014 - 12:34

So what do you call what you're doing? Glorious pontificating from a magical throne in your personal internet kingdom? You don't like my opinion, I get that. Yes, I am campaigning for my opinion, and so far it seems I'm not alone. You don't like that. Fine. But at least my opinions are ON TOPIC as opposed to personal affronts to other people on this message board.

 



Guess what Slarti? This is "the internet". This isn't your personal laboratory of Slartibartfast's Personal Wisdom. I would have called up Neil Tyson to check the empiricism of my all-encompassing and homolagatory poll, in order to be vetted by the scienfific community for "Slartibartfast Acceptability", but Neil had better things to do. "Scientists unanimously conclude anthropogenic climate change is real, and approximately 14.7 feel Chip's poll about F1 engine sound is subjective and non-scientific".
 


I think given your reaction, the poll is most likely quite effective in showing what the average, reasonable internet punter here would consider it to mean.
 


"Does the McLaren look shiny this year?", "you didn't say "mirror-like" or "reflective", your poll is invalid! , blah blah blah...

You wish to impose your own take on my poll. You also feel that by arguing about syntax that somehow you are gaining the upper ground in the Internet Battle Point Scoring System or some such. In reality, most people understand the scope of "impressive sound" in the context of this poll and the context of this message board.




That's fine, but that doesn't have any bearing on the validity of my poll.
 


I agree, that's a cool thing. But it's also not F1. And it's also a COMPLETELY different thing, it's orders of magnitude louder, as well as literally faster... not to mention it's FLYING IN THE AIR. Other than that... sure, valid comparison. :well:
 

 

 

 

 

Ok, I am making "childish" remarks abusing others.  And you are not. Ok.  Got it, Mr. Slartibartfast.  :rolleyes:

 

You appear to believe that abuse is a substitute for reason. 

 

It isn't my fault you have created a flawed poll, it's yours.



#22 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,612 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 24 April 2014 - 14:06

  I've just been reading Autosport's latest headlines with all the barmy ideas to spice up the 'show' and they miss the most glaring obvious which is for FOM to have a rethink on how they present and produce their coverage. 

Exactly.

 

Scary article. I hope they are just making the right noises to appease certain elements.