Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 53

Thread: Which electronic ear protection?

  1. #31
    Member DMF13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Nomad
    Quote Originally Posted by Default.mp3 View Post
    Eh, it's just the nature of the ear pro itself. The Peltor ComTacs (both the III and VI) have about the same NRR as the Sordins (20 NRR for the ComTacs), just due to how low profile the cups have to be. The Peltor Sport Tactical 500 is a much bulkier muff, so it stands to reason that it has better protection.

    This is why I doubled up with the SureFire plugs when I used Sordins and TCI Liberator HPs, and also partially why I switched over to the NFMI-enabled Ops Core AMPs. The ComTac VIs have the method of having an earplug mode, which appears to be an extra loud mode to compensate for people doubling up.

    Beyond that, NRR in it of itself tells an incomplete story as to the total protection provided: https://trevoronthetrigger.wordpress...rr18db-rating/
    See my posts above, where I showed the data for the all the frequencies. "Trevor" is trying to justify his "cool guy tactical" earpro, and spreading BS. First he's flat out wrong about NRR, as you can't put the EPA NRR label on and cherry pick frequencies. Also, when comparing the data for the individual frequencies the MSA Sordin earpro way underperforms when compared to larger earpro.

    If you need low profile earpro for use with a helmet, then the MSA Sordin gear is a great choice. If you won't be using it with a helmet, then you're sacrificing hearing protection for no reason.
    _______________
    "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here I am. Send me." - Isaiah 6:8

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by DMF13 View Post
    No I have no association with Peltor (or it's parent company 3M).

    However, I am a person that believes in objective facts, not subjective nonsense. Further, due to a misspent youth, and more than 2000 hours of flying time, most of it in old (and very noisy) USAF aircraft, with screwed up comms systems (that were known to cause high frequency hearing damage),, I have both a severe hearing loss, and tinnitus. So, I am very serious about making sure I have good hearing protection, to retain what hearing I have, and to keep the hell that is tinnitus from getting worse. So I research the hell out of the stuff I buy for earpro.
    Thanks. Your story is much like mine. The B-52s and F-4s I flew did a job on my high range hearing, too. Add in gunfire and I'm lucky to have what I have left. I also mostly stay with good passives, but there are times that electronic reductions and their related voice capabilities are necessary. Most sadly, I don't shoot as a much as I like in order to avoid the additional damage.

    Now to review for the largest muffs with which I can shoot a rifle...

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by DMF13 View Post
    See my posts above, where I showed the data for the all the frequencies. "Trevor" is trying to justify his "cool guy tactical" earpro, and spreading BS. First he's flat out wrong about NRR, as you can't put the EPA NRR label on and cherry pick frequencies. Also, when comparing the data for the individual frequencies the MSA Sordin earpro way underperforms when compared to larger earpro.

    If you need low profile earpro for use with a helmet, then the MSA Sordin gear is a great choice. If you won't be using it with a helmet, then you're sacrificing hearing protection for no reason.
    Fair enough on him being wrong on the ability to cherry pick what the EPA NRR label states. That being said, the fundamental argument is sound, AFAIK, in that the EPA NRR ratings in themselves do not provide adequate information about how much of the noise impulse is being protected against. As noted, gunshots cover only a specific frequency of sound, and it's not as simple as saying "the Sordins only reduce noise by 18 dB".

    As for "underperforming", I don't really think that's necessarily a great way to put it; it absolutely does not perform as well, but the question isn't how much sound it can attenuate, but merely does it attenuate enough noise for the given sound impulse. Once you're below the threshold for hearing damage for the length of time of a gunshot, then does it really matter how low the energy impulse is that's reaching your ear? Good enough is good enough, a gunshot attenuated to 130 dB is not going to be any more harmful than one attenuated to 120 dB.

  4. #34
    I was with you down to the last. 130 dB is a lot more energy than 120.
    Code Name: JET STREAM

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Watson View Post
    I was with you down to the last. 130 dB is a lot more energy than 120.
    Oh, it is. But the thing is, 120 dB is harmful to the human ear if exposed for more than 8 seconds (or so the NIOSH guidelines usually say). 132 dB is harmful if exposed for a more than half a second. A gunshot is going to be far less than a half second, so that's my argument that 120 dB and 130 dB are about the same when it comes to gunshot attenuation. Yes, the NIOSH guidelines are for cumulative noise exposure per 8 hour work day, but at the same time, gunshots are in like the high single digit milliseconds, IIRC, so yeah. Hrm. I guess it does play a role in how many gunshots per day is safe depending on the muff you have.

    Man, long story short, just fucking double up. Plugs are a good back-up anyway for if your muffs get knocked loose or something.
    Last edited by Default.mp3; 12-12-2020 at 11:32 PM.

  6. #36
    Right now I expect to buy two Peltor headsets, a passive Peltor Sport Ultimate Hearing Protector (NRR 30 dB) and an active Peltor Sport Tactical 500 Smart Electronic Hearing Protector(NRR 26 dB) for when I need to hear conversation.

    Will both of these be suitable with a rifle stock? I imagine the 500 being thinner would be okay, but what about the bulkier passive set?

    How do the $26 Peltor gel ear pads work compared to the Noise Fighters at $50 - $60? I understand the Noise Fighters have a slot for shooting glasses.

  7. #37
    Depends on the shape of your head and the length of your neck.
    I have not found a muff that a rifle or shotgun does not knock off my ear.
    Other folks do quite well with them.
    Code Name: JET STREAM

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaywalker View Post
    Right now I expect to buy two Peltor headsets, a passive Peltor Sport Ultimate Hearing Protector (NRR 30 dB) and an active Peltor Sport Tactical 500 Smart Electronic Hearing Protector(NRR 26 dB) for when I need to hear conversation.

    Will both of these be suitable with a rifle stock? I imagine the 500 being thinner would be okay, but what about the bulkier passive set?

    How do the $26 Peltor gel ear pads work compared to the Noise Fighters at $50 - $60? I understand the Noise Fighters have a slot for shooting glasses.
    Why not just double up with a lower profile muff instead of having to fuck with two different muffs? Hell, if you go by raw NRR numbers, the cheap 3M yellow foamies are 29 dB. The plugs will help with when you shoulder a rifle in an unorthodox position and it cracks the muffs, too, as noted by Archer1440, or if you have a bulkier set. Plugs by themselves I would be a bit leery, simply because of the bone conduction issue, but I've heard arguments that for shooting it's not really an issue given the frequency involved. Of course, if plugs are uncomfortable for you, it is what it is, but otherwise, I've never seen a convincing reason to use the large muffs with great attenuation instead of simply doubling up (in fact, as I noted earlier, I would double up regardless of the muff used).
    Last edited by Default.mp3; 12-13-2020 at 11:29 AM.

  9. #39
    Member DMF13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Nomad
    Quote Originally Posted by Default.mp3 View Post
    Fair enough on him being wrong on the ability to cherry pick what the EPA NRR label states. That being said, the fundamental argument is sound, AFAIK, in that the EPA NRR ratings in themselves do not provide adequate information about how much of the noise impulse is being protected against. As noted, gunshots cover only a specific frequency of sound, and it's not as simple as saying "the Sordins only reduce noise by 18 dB".
    The problem is the available data doesn't support what "Trevor" claims, as other, larger earpro, provides greater protection across all frequencies, including the impulse (ie, explosive, like gunshot) noise.
    As for "underperforming", I don't really think that's necessarily a great way to put it; it absolutely does not perform as well, but the question isn't how much sound it can attenuate, but merely does it attenuate enough noise for the given sound impulse. Once you're below the threshold for hearing damage for the length of time of a gunshot, then does it really matter how low the energy impulse is that's reaching your ear? Good enough is good enough, a gunshot attenuated to 130 dB is not going to be any more harmful than one attenuated to 120 dB.
    The answer is the "the more the better," when it comes to how much you should attenuate the noise. Further, scientific data has shown impulse noise does more damage than sources of continuous noise.

    https://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-...%20inner%20ear.
    "Considerable research has shown that impulsive noise is more likely to cause noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) than continuous noise of equal energy. Exposure to high-intensity impulses can cause acoustic trauma and instant mechanical damage to the inner ear."

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1009246/
    "Impulse noise seemed to produce permanent threshold shifts at 4000 and 6000 Hz after a shorter duration of exposure than continuous steady state noise."

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16329800/
    "Conclusion: The damage of impulse noise on hearing loss was much more than that of continuous noise according to equal energy rule of dosimeter data."
    _______________
    "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here I am. Send me." - Isaiah 6:8

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by DMF13 View Post
    The problem is the available data doesn't support what "Trevor" claims, as other, larger earpro, provides greater protection across all frequencies, including the impulse (ie, explosive, like gunshot) noise.
    I'm not sure I follow. The impulse and the frequency are both important components of sound, and thus the damage it can generate, but they're not correlated. Again, I'm not stating that the large muffs don't perform better, my argument is that the extra performance doesn't matter once you reach a certain threshold of performance.

    Quote Originally Posted by DMF13 View Post
    The answer is the "the more the better," when it comes to how much you should attenuate the noise. Further, scientific data has shown impulse noise does more damage than sources of continuous noise.

    https://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-...%20inner%20ear.
    "Considerable research has shown that impulsive noise is more likely to cause noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) than continuous noise of equal energy. Exposure to high-intensity impulses can cause acoustic trauma and instant mechanical damage to the inner ear."

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1009246/
    "Impulse noise seemed to produce permanent threshold shifts at 4000 and 6000 Hz after a shorter duration of exposure than continuous steady state noise."

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16329800/
    "Conclusion: The damage of impulse noise on hearing loss was much more than that of continuous noise according to equal energy rule of dosimeter data."
    I'm not sure why "the more is better". Could you please point to where this is stated, compared to my belief of "good enough is good enough"?

    As for impulse versus continuous noise, I'm not sure I see the connection. The studies show that this is the case for when equivalent amounts of energy are being generated, so exposure to 100 dB of noise for 8 hours is less damaging than exposure to 148 dB for a half second; how does this play into how we attenuate against gunshots, where the impulses are all about the same? In fact, it has apparently been shown that hearing protection provides better protection against impulses than steady state (hence TCI making a big deal about their active noise cancellation abilities), according to “hearing protection protects better for impulse noise than for continuous noise” (Johnson et al., 1998, p. 85), though I haven't been able to dig up that particular paper, but it was cited here: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA573840.pdf

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •