Donate Your Noise To Xiph/Mozilla's Deep-Learning Noise Suppression Project (xiph.org)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Donate Your Noise To Xiph/Mozilla's Deep-Learning Noise Suppression Project (xiph.org)

Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday October 1, 2017 @08:34AM from the can-you-not-hear-me-now? dept.

Mozilla-backed researchers are working on a real-time noise suppression algorithm using a neural network -- and they want your noise! Long-time Slashdot reader jmv writes: The Mozilla Research RRNoise project combines classic signal processing with deep learning, but it's small and fast. No expensive GPUs required -- it runs easily on a Raspberry Pi. The result is easier to tune and sounds better than traditional noise suppression systems (been there!). And you can help!
From the site: Click on this link to let us record one minute of noise from where you are... We're interested in noise from any environment where you might communicate using voice. That can be your office, your car, on the street, or anywhere you might use your phone or computer.
They claim it already sounds better than traditional noise suppression systems, and even though the code isn't optmized yet, "it already runs about 60x faster than real-time on an x86 CPU."

119 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

EditorDave by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 08:36 · Score: 0

Your name is a joke, right?
1. Re:EditorDave by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 08:37 · Score: 0
  
  You is right.
2. Re:EditorDave by CanEHdian · 2017-10-01 08:57 · Score: 2
  
  Perhaps the poster is suffering from multiple personality disorder, so he can be Edit or Dave. When the Edit personality is dominant, everything is checked for spelling, style, punctuation and grammar. When Dave is dominant, less so.
  
  --
  When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
3. Re:EditorDave by jfdavis668 · 2017-10-01 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe he is like Schroedinger's Cat. He is in quantum superposition and only becomes Editor or Dave when observed.
4. Re: EditorDave by Brockmire · 2017-10-01 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  I get the impression Slashdot works like the postal office where the shitty workers force the odd good worker to do shitty work or else they all look bad. Because for the rest of us, we have to proofread and not fuck up every single fucking time to keep our jobs. Seriously, if you're a volunteer and fucking up, I wouldn't care. But you're getting paid, right? Do you give two fucks about the shit you put out?
5. Re:EditorDave by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  Dave's not here, man...
6. Re:EditorDave by hackwrench · 2017-10-01 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  Aren't we all. This comment just collapsed. The writer less so.
7. Re: EditorDave by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 09:37 · Score: 0
  
  EditorDavid is the samzenpus of NuSlashdot.
8. Re: EditorDave by LordNightwalker · 2017-10-01 19:36 · Score: 1
  
  It's even worse for those of us who consume their news through the RSS feed. Every time a typo in a title or body gets corrected, that's a new entry in the feed. And they don't just update the article once, oh no no no! Every typo needs to be discovered independently of the others and warrants its own separate update. I see some articles fly by at least 5 times before the so-called "editors" decide it's finally good enough not to bother anymore, or too old for their readership to still give a fuck.
  I can understand the occasional typo slipping through the cracks, but for fuck's sake, would it kill you to at least proofread it once before you hit "publish"?
  
  --
  Install windows on my workstation? You crazy? Got any idea how much I paid for the damn thing?
9. Re: EditorDave by omnichad · 2017-10-02 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  Do they not know how GUIDs work? That article shouldn't come through more than once - it should update your original local copy with the updated version.
10. Re: EditorDave by omnichad · 2017-10-02 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  And PS, if you use the URL as a GUID, then it had better never ever change - not change every time the headline gets fixed.
11. Re: EditorDave by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-06 00:59 · Score: 0
  
  I actually read that as "Donate your NOSE" ... LOL
All out of you noise by jfdavis668 · 2017-10-01 08:42 · Score: 1

I may have some extra my noise, I'll have to check.
1. Re: All out of you noise by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 09:11 · Score: 0
  
  jfdavis668 wrote:
  
  All out of you noise:
  I may have some extra my noise, I'll have to check.
  Dude, lay off whatever you are taking. Or just volunteer to speak into a Xiph/Mozilla microphone.
2. Re:All out of you noise by rudy_wayne · 2017-10-01 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  Punctuation is missing.
  It should be "Donate, you noise."
Dotard Record by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 08:42 · Score: 0

I sent in a recording of our fearless leader.
Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 08:44 · Score: 0

All you noise are belong to us.
You noise by Hognoxious · 2017-10-01 08:45 · Score: 1

You noise? Me Tarzan!

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Forget the neural network by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 08:46 · Score: 0

I want to know where they're finding noise that can move 60x faster than real-time.
Sounds useful if by Presence+Eternal · 2017-10-01 08:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

It says it can remove car noises, but can it remove the audience laughter from the Red Green Show? This is a problem someone needs to solve!
1. Re:Sounds useful if by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 09:52 · Score: 0
  
  > Red Green Show
  There's your problem right there.
2. Re:Sounds useful if by omnichad · 2017-10-02 04:47 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Have you tried duct tape?
3. Re:Sounds useful if by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-02 04:53 · Score: 0
  
  Slap some duct tape on that noise and call it a day. Problem elegantly solved tyvm.
4. Re:Sounds useful if by Presence+Eternal · 2017-10-02 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  Genius!
Remember by ArchieBunker · 2017-10-01 08:55 · Score: 4, Funny

Remember when Mozilla made a web browser? Pepperidge Farm remembers...

--
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
1. Re:Remember by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 09:22 · Score: 0
  
  But you can't put that you just worked on a browser on your resume. It needs to be something new and fantastic.
2. Re: Remember by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 09:30 · Score: 0
  
  Remember when Mozilla made a web browser? Pepperidge Farm remembers...
  I think you mean Netscape.
  Mozilla was created for political activism.. and had done a stellar job at that.
3. Re:Remember by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 09:32 · Score: 0
  
  My browser is entirely machine learning driven and as such it has no URL bar. Using AI it figures out where you want to go even before you do. Oh and it’s written in Rust, Node.js and all the other hipster language de jours you can think of.
4. Re: Remember by Desler · 2017-10-01 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  Yes a stellar job at failing on multiple product fronts and making itself increasingly irrelevant.
5. Re:Remember by hackwrench · 2017-10-01 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  QuickBASIC! Oh please be written in QuickBASIC. It's due man!
6. Re:Remember by jmv · 2017-10-01 09:41 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  (I'm the author of the article)
  You may not be aware, but around 10 years ago, browsers started including audio technology. This now includes WebRTC which lets you do videoconferencing in the browser (without Flash). As surprising as it may sound, some people like doing VoIP/videoconference. And those who use WebRTC tend to prefer when their audio doesn't have too much noise. And that is why RNNoise is useful.
  
  --
  Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
7. Re:Remember by ArchieBunker · 2017-10-01 10:27 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Nobody wants video conferencing in their browser and no one fucking uses it either.
  
  --
  Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
8. Re:Remember by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 10:29 · Score: 0
  
  Cool story, gramps. Need me to tie the onions back on your belt?
9. Re:Remember by Wycliffe · 2017-10-01 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  QuickBASIC! Oh please be written in QuickBASIC. It's due man!
  I wrote a company website in Qbasic on NT4 back in 1997. It was later converted to C++/linux then to Perl/linux. 20 years later, the company is still in business and although none of the Qbasic is still there, some characteristics of the existing system can be traced back to how it was originally implemented in Qbasic.
10. Re:Remember by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 10:47 · Score: 0
  
  I wrote a company website in Qbasic
  You...wrote...html...in Qbasic. Right.
11. Re: Remember by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 11:24 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe we could get some use out of them by feeding all the talks and presentations about rust to the noise suppression learning set.
  On another note, "60x faster than real time on an x86 CPU" means what? Or rather, which x86 processor is that? A 8088? I didn't think so. Probably not even 32bit anything, and how many cores?
12. Re: Remember by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 11:33 · Score: 0
  
  and how many cores?
  Over 9000?
13. Re:Remember by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 12:15 · Score: 0
  
  Could be backend stuff, could be spitting out html on the fly, could be any number of things. Qbasic is certainly an "interesting" choice, but I could imagine worse (*cought* javascript *cough*).
14. Re:Remember by ArchieBunker · 2017-10-01 14:12 · Score: 1
  
  The dwindling user numbers speak for themselves, down to 6% now.
  
  --
  Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
15. Re:Remember by Wycliffe · 2017-10-01 14:16 · Score: 1
  
  You...wrote...html...in Qbasic. Right.
  Yes. Remember, this was 1997. php was still in beta and only used by a small handful of people. Java v1 had just been released. The most popular language for writing web scripts in 1997 was probably shell scripts followed by C++. Libraries for web scripting didn't really exist yet. Everything was done by echoing html to the screen. Also at that time, compilers weren't free and I happened to have a Qbasic compiler and had grown up coding apple basic so basic was the language I was most comfortable with.
16. Re:Remember by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 15:49 · Score: 0
  
  And if Mozilla didn't support the web audio, people would be complaining about that. They can't win, especially with the tech crowd who thinks they know better and apparently just wants tech from the 1970s.
17. Re:Remember by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 16:44 · Score: 0
  
  The technology is really cool, so kudos on that.
  Don't like the approach of turning the browser into an inner operating system though. The part I especially don't like is that browser makers are the only ones able to create libraries running at native speed. Like if I wanted to ues a 3rd party noise suppression algo, I'd be shit out of luck.
18. Re:Remember by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 17:00 · Score: 0
  
  protip: the other browsers support WebRTC. Firefox's user count has no effect on the popular usage of web video conferencing.
19. Re:Remember by thegarbz · 2017-10-01 19:42 · Score: 1
  
  Quite the opposite. No one wants video conferencing in proprietary apps using a proprietary protocols complete with the wonders of all modern technologies : data mining and ads.
  No one uses WebRTC because it is in its infancy. In the mean time many of us are cheering this on from the sidelines.
20. Re:Remember by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 21:55 · Score: 0
  
  > some people like doing VoIP/videoconference
  No one's denying that. But why the fuck would a browser be used for that?
21. Re:Remember by goose-incarnated · 2017-10-01 22:17 · Score: 2
  
  No one uses WebRTC because it is in its infancy.
  Every time I've tried to use it from behind a NAT I've had issues. It turned out to be the same issues that I had with SIP - not being able to get to the client due to a multi-layered NAT (two NAT layers or more). Most cell providers do double-NAT because for normal browsing and downloading it works just fine.
  If you're doing SIP (or something like it, like WebRTC) you need an external proxy (STUN, TURN or ICE) server which all participants talk to, but which still won't work to get through the double-NAT.
  WebRTC can't take off until everyone is on IPv6 and is not NATted. Or until they change the specification a little so that a connection-oriented (non-RTP) is specified. WebRTC peers can't talk to each other behind a NAT properly (only one party gets sound, for example), they have to talk to servers only. This needs to change or we need to move to IPv6.
  
  --
  I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
22. Re:Remember by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-02 03:43 · Score: 0
  
  1997? That's not that long ag... oo... Aw. I need a lawn.
23. Re: Remember by omnichad · 2017-10-02 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  Probably the fastest CPU they could get their hands on, to get the best numbers possible
Do the needful by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2017-10-01 08:58 · Score: 1

Donate you noise
Data Set Publicly Available? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 09:00 · Score: 0

If yes, please provide the link.
If no, please explain why we should help you (for free)?
1. Re:Data Set Publicly Available? by fyngyrz · 2017-10-01 09:44 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The entire project is on github.
  I found this by going to the link in TFS.
  
  --
  I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
2. Re:Data Set Publicly Available? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 09:50 · Score: 0
  
  I found this by going to the link in TFS.
  LOL look at this newfag
3. Re:Data Set Publicly Available? by pthisis · 2017-10-01 10:28 · Score: 2
  
  That link has only the source code. It does not include the training data set.
  The submission link requires CC-0 attribution, which makes me hopeful that they plan to release the data freely. But I hunted all over the site and couldn't find either a link to the data or any comment about their plans for it going forward.
  
  --
  rage, rage against the dying of the light
4. Re:Data Set Publicly Available? by jmv · 2017-10-01 10:42 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It's the first time we try this. We'll look at the quality of the data we get (yes, noise quality!) and if it's sufficiently good/useful, then we'll also make it available. It might take some time to sort out the useful samples from the ones that aren't since some already have noise suppression applied by the OS or browser.
  
  --
  Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
5. Re:Data Set Publicly Available? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 10:44 · Score: 0
  
  Accept not the data:
  
  Now, training is a little trickier because I cannot share the data.
  https://github.com/xiph/rnnois...
  So we’re supposed to just give jmv a bunch of data with no way to know how he is using it? This is a joke, right?
6. Re:Data Set Publicly Available? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 10:48 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, gotta make sure not to let people know about the ones being forwarded to the NSA. What a joker this guy is.
7. Re:Data Set Publicly Available? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 10:54 · Score: 0
  
  We'll look at the quality of the data we get (yes, noise quality!) and if it's sufficiently good/useful, then we'll also make it available.
  Before or after the NSLs start rolling in?
8. Re:Data Set Publicly Available? by jmv · 2017-10-01 11:06 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Now, training is a little trickier because I cannot share the data.
  I cannot share the current data I'm using because it's copyrighted. Hence asking for people for help getting data that I can redistribute.
  
  So weâ(TM)re supposed to just give jmv a bunch of data with no way to know how he is using it?
  Yes, because I have such a track record for keeping things private.
  
  --
  Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
9. Re:Data Set Publicly Available? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 11:10 · Score: 0
  
  Cool story, brah. You can shove your NSA surveillance honeypot up your little whiteboy ass.
10. Re:Data Set Publicly Available? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 11:12 · Score: 0
  
  Yet you say below that you’ll only conditionally release what you are collecting now. Might want to work a little harder keeping your stories straight.
11. Re:Data Set Publicly Available? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 11:52 · Score: 0
  
  Don't be an ass to people who make the things you use.
12. Re:Data Set Publicly Available? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 11:54 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, gotta make sure not to let people know about the ones being forwarded to the NSA.
  Step away from the keyboard and take your meds.
13. Re:Data Set Publicly Available? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 11:55 · Score: 0
  
  No thanks. NSA whores like jmv can choke on a bucket of dicks.
14. Re:Data Set Publicly Available? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 15:47 · Score: 0
  
  Sure thing, Mr. NSA agent.
curl slashdot.org noise.txt by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 09:07 · Score: 1

curl slashdot.org > noise.txt
Shouldn't take more than a day or so to have all the info they will ever need.
Too much money by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 09:22 · Score: 0

Apparently Mozilla still has too much money.
x86 CPU? by p.g.king · 2017-10-01 09:23 · Score: 1

"it already runs about 60x faster than real-time on an x86 CPU."
I'll get my 8086 based XT out of storage, should be perfect.
1. Re:x86 CPU? by aliquis · 2017-10-01 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe it has excellent scaling?
2. Re:x86 CPU? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  On an x86 CPU, not all x86 CPUs. There exists an x86 CPU on which it runs 60x faster than real-time.
3. Re:x86 CPU? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 10:22 · Score: 0
  
  Hurr hurr.
4. Re:x86 CPU? by Desler · 2017-10-01 10:30 · Score: 2
  
  Since when is ‘an’ equivalent to ‘all?’
5. Re:x86 CPU? by p.g.king · 2017-10-01 18:31 · Score: 1
  
  Well that's more or less my point - though it was a vague attempt at humour also - the original is a statement which gives us no real information. If the x86 was in fact an 8086 we'd be thinking that on modern hardware it'd be virtually unnoticeable as a workload, if on the other hand it was a i9 using all threads, then perhaps most peoples experience wouldn't be so great.
Parent has microsized dick by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 09:24 · Score: 0

Micropeened white boy spotted.
1. Re:Parent has microsized dick by aliquis · 2017-10-01 09:52 · Score: 0
  
  Micropeened white boy spotted.
  In any situation I'm white & male so under all circumstances I'm superior to anyone who aren't.
  Thanks for playing.
2. Re:Parent has microsized dick by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 09:59 · Score: 0
  
  That isn’t what women think. When they laugh after you take off your pants it’s not because they think you’re a comedian.
3. Re:Parent has microsized dick by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 20:27 · Score: 0
  
  Size doesn't matter!
4. Re:Parent has microsized dick by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-02 10:47 · Score: 0
  
  That isnâ(TM)t what women think. When they laugh after you take off your pants itâ(TM)s not because they think youâ(TM)re a comedian.
  What make you think I ever get to the point of taking off my pants for women whatsoever?
  I'm "racist" after all.
  Posting AC not because I care about hiding my identity of opinions but because this is off-topic and I don't want to want to continue it into infinity.
What is your favorite noise? by sheramil · 2017-10-01 09:25 · Score: 2

I suggest piping in a few tracks by SPK, in particular "Emanation Machine R.Gie 1916", the first track from their 1981 release "Information Overload Unit".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9b89PFYZ5g
When my wife first heard it, she said it was like having your head stuck inside a running vacuum cleaner. Follow it up with some Throbbing Gristle, perhaps.
1. Re:What is your favorite noise? by i.r.id10t · 2017-10-02 00:17 · Score: 1
  
  Nice opportunity passed by this weekend - the Knob Creek Machine Gun shoot. Plenty of noise.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
Supercomputing Mass Stupidity by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 09:26 · Score: 1

You would need a supercomputing cluster to filter out what I would consider "noise" these days, which would include 95% of the pointless shit that makes up social media.
Guess I'm too old to help.
(CAPTCHA: supports)
1. Re: Supercomputing Mass Stupidity by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-10-01 10:37 · Score: 0
  
  They could just grab the comments from Slashdot circa 2017 if they want low SNR samples, and any recordings of Trump talking in any venue at any time under any circumstance if they need 100% noise.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
2. Re: Supercomputing Mass Stupidity by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 12:01 · Score: 0
  
  They could just record all the Python monkeys screeching when someone dares to use tabs instead of spaces.
3. Re: Supercomputing Mass Stupidity by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 21:34 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, we already know you are far too stupid to write software.
Can we submit (C)rap songs? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 09:29 · Score: 0

Or anything related to the kardasians?
1. Re:Can we submit (C)rap songs? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 09:54 · Score: 0
  
  I’ll submit a pic of your penis. It’s so tiny and useless that it might as well be noise.
2. Re:Can we submit (C)rap songs? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 11:11 · Score: 0
  
  That's not what yer mom said when I was trampolining her.
3. Re:Can we submit (C)rap songs? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 11:13 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, she was too busy gasping for air after the multiple laughing fits upon you dropping your drawers.
Grab a mic and pull my finger by TheOuterLinux · 2017-10-01 09:32 · Score: 1

Hah!mmmmm....one second...
Iffy by fyngyrz · 2017-10-01 09:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

I tried to donate noise; using a mac under 10.12.6. Mic is working fine. Safari asks if it can use the mic. The record button stays in for 60 seconds. The playback produces nothing.
I have great noise sources, and would not mind contributing.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
1. Re:Iffy by jmv · 2017-10-01 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  Some browsers/OS, already have some noise suppression running. That may be why you're not hearing anything on playback?
  
  --
  Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
2. Re:Iffy by fyngyrz · 2017-10-01 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  Well, it's not the OS, I can hear the noise fine in headphones through the system.
  I suppose it could be Safari, which is a black box.
  
  --
  I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
3. Re:Iffy by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-02 03:58 · Score: 0
  
  System Preferences > Sound > Input, uncheck Use Ambient Noise Reduction
  Or maybe submit a sample with and without. Macs have pretty good noise reduction built in.
4. Re:Iffy by Sir+Holo · 2017-10-02 13:59 · Score: 1
  
  I tried to donate noise; using a mac under 10.12.6. Mic is working fine. Safari asks if it can use the mic. The record button stays in for 60 seconds. The playback produces nothing.
  I have great noise sources, and would not mind contributing.
  Go to System Preferences | Sound. Select the 'Input' Tab, and de-select the button at the bottom, next to where it says, "Use ambient noise reduction."
  Otherwise, you get two seconds of noise recorded, before the MacOS noise reduction on the Mic kicks in. It happened on my first recording.
5. Re:Iffy by fyngyrz · 2017-10-03 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  There is no such "Use Ambient Noise Reduction" check. OS X 10.12.6.
  Here's the prefs panel
  
  --
  I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
6. Re:Iffy by fyngyrz · 2017-10-03 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  No, there is no such "Use Ambient Noise Reduction" check. This is under OS X 10.12.6.
  Here's the prefs panel
  
  --
  I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
7. Re:Iffy by Sir+Holo · 2017-10-05 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  No, there is no such "Use Ambient Noise Reduction" check. This is under OS X 10.12.6.
  Here's the prefs panel
  MacOS 10.10 has the checkbox.
  My 10.12 machine was stolen, so I couldn't check it. But I'll bet it's still in there, even if only as a 'hidden' preference, like so many other OS X tweaks. Headphone-less FaceTime/video chat/ voice chat works fine -- with no feedback or hums -- and iPhones on speaker-phone exclude ambient noises very effectively. Either is good enough to serve as an 8-person video conference with no yelling required. Plugging in a quality microphone, say a $150 pro-(con)sumer mic and the difference on a laptop is astounding, especially if you separate the speakers from the mic by a couple of feet.
  Other brands of laptop and cell phone undoubtedly employ similar technologies.
  Ever notice that, about 12-14 years ago, cell phone providers in the US started having the phones play a light hiss when there was silence? That was, to save bandwidth on the upstream side, the cell phone would noise-filter before compression and broadcast to a cell tower. People kept thinking that the line was dropped when it was actually just silent, causing complaints because consumers "just stopped hearing anything and would hang up or ask, "Are you still there?"
  Recording studios prefer to reduce ambient noise physically, for a cleaner original signal, of course. But, every DAW or audio manipulation tool has some kind of de-noiser effect in it, even if only a moving box-car average of neighboring points---this works if you have a cheap mic but high sampling depth and rate (32-bit or better, and probably at least 98 kHz if you don't want to lose your high end. (Fourier-based filters are far better than the algebraic box-car method, and these days are more commonly used.)
  Sound signal noise-reduction is especially important at music concerts. With any recorded music, really. Anyone who has ever picked up an electric guitar will be familiar with the ground-loop 120 Hz hum, tweaking the settings on their noise gate, and basically learning to only touch a string that you are using at any given point (mostly).
  Public speeches, maybe radio communications. . . any audio signal that is going to be amplified 10's of times could benefit from this.
  Last, this approach could be applicable to other signal recording, processing, and transmission. Non-voice radio communications? Images -- as a form of compression by de-noising -- or just to clean up low-light (low signal) digitals with color noise and such. (There are many implementations w/images.) How about video, which has heavily optimized compression in most CODECS, especially if they are 'talkies' (video + sound).
Can we get some new editors? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 09:58 · Score: 0

Please?
60 streams on an x86 CPU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 10:04 · Score: 0

60 streams on an x86 CPU? Wow, we'd just need a 100 times increase in telephone exchanges and then we could all enjoy this 'technology'.
1. Re:60 streams on an x86 CPU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 10:17 · Score: 0
  
  Look who's sponsoring. This is obviously meant to eliminate noise on the transmitter side of a VoIP connection. You know, like all high-end phones do for regular calls, but Xiph want to develop an algorithm that does a better job of it. Also, telephone exchanges? Are you a time traveler from the past?
2. Re:60 streams on an x86 CPU by Desler · 2017-10-01 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  Did you go off your meds again, grandpa?
3. Re: 60 streams on an x86 CPU by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 11:21 · Score: 0
  
  Did you go off your meds again, grandpa?
  Right Desler... You believe your cell phone calls travel from tower to tower just like the commercials say?
  Fuck off. The GP was spot on.
  This is not a technology and not a solution.
4. Re: 60 streams on an x86 CPU by Desler · 2017-10-01 11:31 · Score: 1
  
  Cool story.
The Best Noise Suppression... by lobiusmoop · 2017-10-01 10:42 · Score: 1

Is to have enough signal in the first place to boost the SNR to the point where the noise becomes irrelevant. Good quality worn microphones close to the mouth, dual mic setups for simple background suppression. Sound engineers have known this forever.

--
"I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
1. Re:The Best Noise Suppression... by Desler · 2017-10-01 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah because everyone is going to buy two mics to make VoIP calls... *rolls eyes*
2. Re:The Best Noise Suppression... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 20:36 · Score: 0
  
  I'm a communist dictator : I never speak behind less than five identical fat mics.
  Well, in more seriousness it's not much of a problem at all to have two mics on a smartphone or laptop. There's even a possibility you own one such of these - I believe that's a somewhat high end feature that already exists and the microphones are rather invisible.
  For example how many microphones are there in an iPhone? you pretty much have to web search it to know.
  Perhaps many smartphones have two mics : one for calls and such, and one for shooting video clips (on the rear side).
  Apparently iPhone 5 has three mics already, one of them next to the rear camera. Even if the rear mic doesn't count there are many people running around doing at least dual mic VoIP (or 2G calls) with the mic inputs going into hardware/software to do noise reduction or something, without the user knowing or caring about it.
3. Re:The Best Noise Suppression... by coofercat · 2017-10-02 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  That's a great idea - I'll get a lectern and some mics setup in the corner of my home office. Does Elbonia or Durkadurkastahn have a flag? I could put one of those behind me. My morning standups are never going to be the same again, dotards!
Harleys by emaname · 2017-10-01 11:02 · Score: 1

Can it remove the noise from a Harley-Davidson running straight pipes?

--
An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.
Millions of Husbands... by Captain+Ramage · 2017-10-01 12:18 · Score: 3, Funny

Millions of husbands just submitted the sound of their wife's voice.
Unnecessary sarcasm sunk to his level by raymorris · 2017-10-01 14:04 · Score: 0

Had you just posted the links, you'd have secured the moral high ground and made GP look like a fool and a jerk.
By packaging your reply in sarcasm, you gave up the high ground.
1. Re:Unnecessary sarcasm sunk to his level by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 16:49 · Score: 0
  
  And Roy Morris knows all about being a jerk.
2. Re:Unnecessary sarcasm sunk to his level by thegarbz · 2017-10-01 21:57 · Score: 1
  
  He did no such thing, and judging someone based on their level of sarcasm when dealing with a troll rather than their actions just shows everyone what you consider more important.
  THAT's a good way of giving up any moral standing.
3. Re:Unnecessary sarcasm sunk to his level by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 22:12 · Score: 0
  
  Only amongst small-minded pedants.
Missing step by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 17:23 · Score: 0

Before crowdsourcing training content for your deep learning dataset, it would probably be a good idea to come up with AI that can reliably detect trolls deliberately submitting bad training data to your crowdsourced AI project. Probably you don't want to try crowdsourcing that bit.
On the plus side, this software will probably be the best software available for removing fart sounds from audio content.
Justin Bieber by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 18:44 · Score: 0

I suggest piping in a few tracks by SPK, in particular "Emanation Machine R.Gie 1916", the first track from their 1981 release "Information Overload Unit".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9b89PFYZ5g
When my wife first heard it, she said it was like having your head stuck inside a running vacuum cleaner. Follow it up with some Throbbing Gristle, perhaps.
Feed it Justin Bieber albums, all of them.
Nice try, NSA! by ctrl-alt-canc · 2017-10-01 18:50 · Score: 1

You need to find more clever methods to grab the noise of my PC fan, however.
Microphone by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 19:46 · Score: 0

Just put a microphone in front of APK. He makes a lot of noises, the best noises!
I recorded my bedroom by kaizendojo · 2017-10-02 02:59 · Score: 1

Nothing going on in there....