- 1,130
- Mexico City
- ppmike921
- MikeB0ssMan
Maybe to get an idea of how aftermarket exhausts change the sound, ok then, at least there are more than the usual 3 guys listed working on it.
Amuse Powerhouse responsible for Engine Sounds
- Thread starter Normalaatsra
- 42 comments
- 6,454 views
Maybe to get an idea of how aftermarket exhausts change the sound, ok then, at least there are more than the usual 3 guys listed working on it.
- 8,723
Maybe, something like that. However, there has never been "just three guys". I didn't think you'd read the whole thread, somehow.
(I know, it's in English, and you are genuinely forgiven
)EDIT: it appears that Powerhouse Amuse founder Hideki Tanabe passed away in 2008 (may he rest in peace).
Yet he is still credited in GT6 (albeit in a break of formatting, appearing on the same line as Chizuko Tanabe), but not for GT5 or its prologue (that I remember / saw).
It seems PD's having worked on the sounds for "a few years" was more of an understatement than I thought. Unless it's just a sort of tribute, which is nice, and certainly deserving.
Last edited:
- 2,974
- Curitiba
Let me get this straight: so is ok to outsource sounds, but isn't outsource 3D modeling?
Only PD.
Only PD.
- 8,723
I don't think that's happened; Amuse look to have been consulted, probably for their catalogue of and experience with real-world engine sounds (they design exhaust systems, there's a lot to know about that particular art if you're starting with sounds generated at the engine).
The other team is technically in-house, the one that makes the tools (they did work for Killzone in the same capacity: tools and tech), as they're a part of Sony.
I own an '02 WRX with a 'rumbling' exhaust & if it didn't sound like that at least half the fun of the car would be gone. That boxer rumble is the defining feature of a tuned WRX, it's awesome. I never get sick of it, never will.
Also, the 2.5L engine is the better engine for countries like ours & America because we are used to bigger cars with torque. The 2.0L is probably fractionally lighter & might well rev a bit higher, but (& Im speaking from experience ) it is one of the most laggy engines in the world. If you just drive them normally off a set of lights a family car will leave you for dead because you have no torque down low, & positively no power until you hit boost. Now this is something that gets old real quick!
The "boxer rumble" is not the signature of a tuned WRX, it is the signature of a stock WRX. The rumble comes from an asymmetrical exhaust header. That makes the exhaust pulses reach the collector in an uneven pulse. This causes the typical staccato that you get from a boxer engine, similar to the single crank pin on a Harley Davidson V-Twin. When you put on a properly tuned, equal length header, as comes standard on the Spec-C's posted above, that staccato is gone. As each of the exhaust pulses reach the collector in the same interval, just like any standard inline 4 with an equal length header would produce.
The 2.5L engine is a clever way to get around emissions restrictions here in the US. The added benefit, is that it does benefit from better spooling (as a result of more exhaust volume), and slightly more torque when pulling a vacuum (i.e. not on boost). But making a comparison of the 2.5L USDM EJ25 STi motor, to the JDM and EDM spec EJ20 STi motor, to the USDM WRX motor, is really apples to oranges.
The USDM/JDM EJ20 base (non STi) WRX motor is really a lazy piece of kit. It has an open deck, mostly cast internals, no special concessions made for additional oil or coolant flow, and isnt running much boost from the factory, really only enough to make it feel fun. It is, for all intents and purposes, an economy engine.
The JDM/EDM EJ20 STi motor, is an all together different beast. Fully closed deck, forged and billet internals, improved oil and water cooling, beefier crank and rods, running a higher boost producing, higher CFM turbo. It is, at its core, an engine developed purely for production based Group-N racing. And further refined in homologation specials like the Spec-C. It is every bit as powerful, and every bit as fast spooling as the USDM EJ25. And in some cases, can even make more power.
Now the USDM EJ25 is still a great motor. But it only has a partially closed deck. It still has some cast internals to keep costs down. But at least does utilize some special water and oil cooling provisions. And because of its larger displacement, it can accept some more boost and CFM over a base WRX motor, but still not quite as much as the Closed Deck EJ20 can.
The primary reason for the increase in displacement to 2.5L in the USDM STi, wasnt so that it could be a more fun to drive, or better performing car, that was a happy accident as a result. The real reason was to bypass some EPA laws on engine CO2 output. Smaller displacement turbo engines put out a lot of CO2, and if they put out over a certain amount, they may have to qualify for gas guzzlers tax in some states, and may not qualify as 50 state legal (im looking at you California). This was a problem that the EVO-VIII ran into when it was first introduced in the US. By moving up to 2.4L, or above, the amount of CO2 allowed increases. And becomes high enough to easily pass 50 states emissions, and make the EPA happy. The same is true of a car like the Dodge Neon SRT-4, at 2.4L. It too moves into the higher emission bracket because of its displacement, making it EPA approved, and 50 state legal.
The 2.5L STi we get is a great motor, but the reality is, its still not as good as the 2.0L STi motor the rest of the world gets. Either in terms of power output, or reliability.
Hopefully you have learned something along the way. Cheers.
- 258
I can't speak from experience wether they are realistic or not, but I like GT6's sounds a lot because of the sheer variety and difference between cars.
I think it just needs some more punch, some more sparkle here and there. Perhaps some intended distortion, like Shift 2 did, but a little less than that...
I think it just needs some more punch, some more sparkle here and there. Perhaps some intended distortion, like Shift 2 did, but a little less than that...
- 68
- Grand Valley
- BJhartopp
^^ I agree to a point that there is a variety to the sounds. Im not going to say this is sound right or wrong for a particular car becasue i simply dont know, i just know what sounds good. I would be interestd to know if Amuse made the sounds for when you 'Get In' a car. It was the same in GT5, the engine start and tickover sound was always sooo much better than the sound that you got when you were on track.
As has been mentioned before, the Redbull X car on the Goodwood trial has the most fantastic engine sound i have ever heard in GT. This is what i think everyone wants.... some grit and distortion, an almost hollow sound to the exhaust. I can jkust imagine that sound put against an old group C racer..
As has been mentioned before, the Redbull X car on the Goodwood trial has the most fantastic engine sound i have ever heard in GT. This is what i think everyone wants.... some grit and distortion, an almost hollow sound to the exhaust. I can jkust imagine that sound put against an old group C racer..
- 8,723
^^ I agree to a point that there is a variety to the sounds. Im not going to say this is sound right or wrong for a particular car becasue i simply dont know, i just know what sounds good. I would be interestd to know if Amuse made the sounds for when you 'Get In' a car. It was the same in GT5, the engine start and tickover sound was always sooo much better than the sound that you got when you were on track.
As has been mentioned before, the Redbull X car on the Goodwood trial has the most fantastic engine sound i have ever heard in GT. This is what i think everyone wants.... some grit and distortion, an almost hollow sound to the exhaust. I can jkust imagine that sound put against an old group C racer..
The startup sounds are recorded in the same sessions as the samples are taken from. There is quite a bit of work involved in making samples, and GT's are short and too few in number through the rev range, making it all a bit thin and lifeless. The X-cars, in my opinion, don't use samples, which is why they sound so good, despite the excessive distortion. Again, in my opinion.
- 8,723
I don't know what format the sound samples are in, so couldn't comment on whether there is a quality issue due to sampling rate or bit depth. Some people think there is, but I believe in a different explanation.
What I meant, though, is that the number of looping sound files played back at different pitches to re-create the sound of the engine is too few. There's one for idle, one for low rpm and one for high rpm (something like that). Technically, you need an infinite number across all engine speeds, and for all throttle positions, but in practice you can get away with only a few (although it'll still sound like a sound sampler).
If you pitch bend a loop "too far" from the speed it was recorded at, the quality drops because the level of detail is reduced; either by filtering out high frequencies at higher-than-recorded engine speeds, or by reducing the total bandwidth from scaling all the frequencies downward at lower-than-recorded engine speeds.
The shorter you make a loop, the more audible small variations in timbre are as being repeating. So short loops have to be of lower detail, by finding a flat and uninteresting part of the recording, in order that it not be an obvious loop (unless that periodicity is present in the real sound, e.g. the 787B's idle). Longer sound samples can have much more variation, and so sound more interesting and detailed, because the variations typically occur over smaller time frames than the whole loop.
- 4,383
Nicely done. They love their metal in Europe, don't they? 👍
I think some of you should be on PD's sound production team. (@Griffith500 )
Similar threads
