"At the moment, you can either use materials that absorb or scatter noise, such as earplugs or foam mattresses. Or you can have active noise cancellation that works by creating a signal that destructively interferes with the one you want to get rid of. The problem with both of those approaches is that they don’t work for all frequencies or only work for steady signals, like the constant or continuous hum of an engine or air-conditioning unit. "
BS. Passive isolation works for all frequencies. Yes the attenuation is frequency dependent, but that ain’t the same as it not working.
The journalist’s phrasing is exaggerated, yes. But they are claiming that their method achieves a more even and effective attenuation than other methods across the frequency range.
The link to the paper is a bit buried in the article, but it’s here:
"At the moment, you can either use materials that absorb or scatter noise, such as earplugs or foam mattresses. Or you can have active noise cancellation that works by creating a signal that destructively interferes with the one you want to get rid of. The problem with both of those approaches is that they don’t work for all frequencies or only work for steady signals, like the constant or continuous hum of an engine or air-conditioning unit. "
BS. Passive isolation works for all frequencies. Yes the attenuation is frequency dependent, but that ain’t the same as it not working.
The journalist’s phrasing is exaggerated, yes. But they are claiming that their method achieves a more even and effective attenuation than other methods across the frequency range.
The link to the paper is a bit buried in the article, but it’s here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-38522-5