Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 53

Thread: Which electronic ear protection?

  1. #41
    Site Supporter gringop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Central Texas
    I bought 2 pairs of Peltor Sport Ultimate Hearing Protectors to replace my 20 year old Peltor Ultimate 10s. They mainly get used when I'm running gas yard equipment, or as loaners to others when shooting pistols. They are incredibly quiet but absolutely too bulky for anything but standing pistol shooting. Double them up with plugs and you have now enter the "Quiet Zen Zone".

    I use Howard Lights with Noisefighters for pistol practice and matches where I need to hear the timer and range commands. I also use them for shooting rimfire rifles on 100 yard steel so I can hear the hits and they don't get dislodged by the cheekweld on those downward sloping rifle stocks. They also work with my other lever actions and other rifles that have a good amount of stock drop.

    For ARs and other straight rifle stocks I use old Peltor Shotgunner muffs with the scallop on the lower part and double up with plugs if I'm not shooting suppressed.

    Name:  s-l300.jpg
Views: 199
Size:  8.2 KB

    Even with the scallop, I have to position the cup as high as possible to keep it from getting dislodged. It's just the way my face and cheekbones work with straight stocks.


    To summarize, the Ultimates are quiet as hell but useless for me when rifle shooting. The HLs are comfy for me with Noisefighters on some rifles but would need plugs added if indoors. For ARs I use have to the smallest profile muffs I can find and double up with plugs.
    "The All-Father wove the skein of your life a long time ago. Go and hide in a hole if you wish, but you won't live one instant longer. Your fate is fixed. Fear profits a man nothing."

  2. #42
    Member DMF13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Nomad
    . . .including the impulse (ie, explosive, like gunshot) noise.
    Quote Originally Posted by Default.mp3 View Post
    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.
    I suppose I should have worded that more carefully, and had that sentence read, ". . .including the impulse (ie, explosive, like gunshot) noise frequencies." Because the low profile sets designed for use with helmets, underperform at the specific frequencies "Trevor" is trying to say they perform well.
    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"?
    Because it's generally accepted noise energy above 85dB is where noise is dangerous, and causes hearing loss.

    Gunshot noise is shown to be 150dB, and often much greater. For example, 9mm will be approximately 160dB: https://earinc.com/gunfire-noise-level-reference-chart/

    Meaning you're not getting close to 85dB, or even below 100dB, even when "doubling up," as the effective of muffs and plugs together is not truly additive: https://www.audiologyonline.com/arti...muffs-and-1218
    "Earplugs worn in combination with earmuffs, helmets, or communications headsets, typically provide greater protection than either device alone. However, the attenuation of the combination is not equal to the sum of the individual attenuation values (Berger, 1983), as illustrated in Figure 1. Note for example; at 1000 Hz the combination of a 26-dB plug and a 34-dB muff does not yield 60-dB overall, but rather about 41 dB."

    So, you're taking a huge risk, because none of what's available is "good enough," and therefore we're in a situation where "more is better."

    That's why I use these, when I'm not at a match, or instructing at work: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01BGHVPYK...dDbGljaz10cnVl

    That additional protection over the Peltor 500s is important, because none of them alone are really "good enough," and therefore, "more is better."
    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
    Again, it's generally accepted noise energy above 85dB is dangerous, and causes hearing loss. You aren't getting there with gunshots, with any of the currently available technology, so anytime you trade away a few decibels, you are risking more damage to your hearing.

    So why pay more, for a product designed for a specific purpose, when you can get better protection?

    As someone who is typing this with tinnitus ringing in his ears, and constantly having my family, friends, coworkers repeat themselves, due significant hearing loss, I wish I had been more diligent about this stuff much earlier in life.

    Now, all I can do is try my best to mitigate further damage, and encourage others to do the same.
    _______________
    "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here I am. Send me." - Isaiah 6:8

  3. #43
    Wag more, Bark less RJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Venice Florida
    I don't have a particular dog in this hunt, but: there are some terms being used in this thread, such as "sound pressure", and "sound power" and "dB", that are not, maybe, being used as ah, precisely might be a good word, as they can be. I would encourage anyone to read the online OHSA Tech Manual on Noise for a good informative overview:

    https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/new_noise/

    NRR and gunshot noise etc. would benefit from having a common language for discussing it, and the TM does a good job of summarizing the parameters of noise and it's additive effects on us humans. I'm not trying to come across as a "male member"; but by way of offering "where I am coming from", I got my Masters in Electrical Engineering in 1983 from UVa, specializing in Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing. For the first 11 years of my 33+ year engineering career, I designed simulation systems for passive and active beamformers, as well as modelling post-processing algorithms in time/frequency domains associated with certain underwater acoustic applications for the US Navy.

    For pistol shooting, I am in the camp of:

    1) Select the best fitting, best performing, most reliable, highest NRR ear protection you can afford. If you can spring to gel seals, opt for those. Even better is an an earpro with electronic amplification.

    2) Always double up with properly inserted, good performing ear plugs, especially indoors, and really especially if that guy walking up in the next lane is carrying an SBR case.
    Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught.
    — J. C. Watts

  4. #44
    Member DMF13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Nomad
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaywalker View Post
    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.
    I was a nav too (after washing out of UPT ), but on the RC-135. They had screwed with the electrical systems on the jet so much the comm system had a constant loud squeal, that was known to cause hearing damage. We got issued great DC headsets, but that did nothing to help with the noise coming out of the headsets themselves.
    Now to review for the largest muffs with which I can shoot a rifle...
    Unfortunately, that's dependent on a variety of factors specific to each person. So what works for me, might not work for you. I have no problem with the 500s, and only occasionally have a bit of problem with the larger passive muffs I use.
    _______________
    "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here I am. Send me." - Isaiah 6:8

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by DMF13 View Post
    I suppose I should have worded that more carefully, and had that sentence read, ". . .including the impulse (ie, explosive, like gunshot) noise frequencies." Because the low profile sets designed for use with helmets, underperform at the specific frequencies "Trevor" is trying to say they perform well.
    I'm not interpreting the post the same way as you. To me, the argument is that the frequencies that gunshots mostly comprise of are protected much better than than the 19 dB NRR shows. The argument isn't that the low profile design does just as well, it's that it does much better than the EPA NRR rating would suggest.

    Quote Originally Posted by DMF13 View Post
    Because it's generally accepted noise energy above 85dB is where noise is dangerous, and causes hearing loss.
    That is what OSHA states... when being exposed for over 8 hours at a time. AFAIK, OSHA states that 120 dB is the general threshold in which short term exposure can cause permanent damage, and even then, that's measured in seconds, and not the milliseconds of a gunshot. I challenge you to find me any source that states that 85 dB is enough to cause permanent noise-induced hearing loss when not being done hours at a time.

    Quote Originally Posted by DMF13 View Post
    Meaning you're not getting close to 85dB, or even below 100dB, even when "doubling up," as the effective of muffs and plugs together is not truly additive: https://www.audiologyonline.com/arti...muffs-and-1218
    "Earplugs worn in combination with earmuffs, helmets, or communications headsets, typically provide greater protection than either device alone. However, the attenuation of the combination is not equal to the sum of the individual attenuation values (Berger, 1983), as illustrated in Figure 1. Note for example; at 1000 Hz the combination of a 26-dB plug and a 34-dB muff does not yield 60-dB overall, but rather about 41 dB.

    So, you're taking a huge risk, because none of what's available is "good enough," and therefore we're in a situation where "more is better."
    So this is where we clearly disagree. By my risk assessment, I don't need it to get to 85 dB, and I don't think that's a realistic goal. I'm well aware that doubling up does not increase NRR linearly based off of the separate ear pros' ratings, and nor does the NRR rating equate a direct reduction in dB, e.g., the ear will receive 143 dB when exposed to a 160 dB sound while wearing a 41 dB NRR ear pro.

    I get it, hearing loss is cumulative and permanent, and can cause serious degradation in quality of life, so hearing protection is a big deal to me, too, and that's why I always double up, even when I'm shooting my suppressed .22 LR. But I disagree with your ultra-conservative assessment of what PPE is needed in minimize risks to hearing loss while shooting.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Default.mp3 View Post
    Ironically, now that I look back, it was @TomV that apparently had found that deal in another channel I'm in.
    Got the MSA Sordin's today.
    Thanks again for the heads-up - they are legit with the gel cups.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by bofe954 View Post
    Look like a Sordin knock off to me. Doesn't show the Sordin sticker in the pic.

    Plus this bit:

    Important NOTE:
    Our webshop is closing soon.
    Purchased items cannot be returned or refunded.
    Thank you for your understanding.

    Please place an order only if you agree to the above.

    Scary.
    Quote Originally Posted by RJ View Post
    That looks sketchy as hell.

    And: if these are in fact "gray market" imports, you don't have any standing, if your earpro goes Tango Uniform. You may have to end up dealing with the OEM in Sweden if they croak. When sold in the US, the Pro has a 1 year warranty, vs. 5 year that the Pro-X has. The Pro is not fully waterproof, like the Pro-X.
    FYI - the MSA Sordins from Gaston are good-to-go/legit with all the correct/proper packaging, labels on the unit itself, etc.
    And they do come with the Gel cups and an AUX-Input cable; no batteries included - packaging shows them included, but the wording on the label about the batteries is sharpied/blacked out.

  8. #48

    Lithium versus Eneloop for MSA Sordin's...

    @BillSWPA
    @Jaywalker
    @RJ

    I've always used Lithium batteries for MSA Sordin's.

    Please advise - what's the most best Eneloop's for use with electronic ear pro and your preferred source for a complete rig/set up?

    Thanks in advance...

  9. #49
    Wag more, Bark less RJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Venice Florida
    I would probably ask @JAD about batteries as well...

    At least ‘for me’, I’ve used regular genuine Eneloops from Amazon in both sets of Sordins we have.

    https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JHKSMIG...ing=UTF8&psc=1

    I have a simple AA/AAA quad charger that I bought as well:

    Panasonic BQ-CC75ASBA eneloop Individual Battery Charger with USB Charging Port, White

    https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0777V9SWN...ing=UTF8&psc=1
    Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught.
    — J. C. Watts

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by RJ View Post
    I would probably ask @JAD about batteries as well...

    At least ‘for me’, I’ve used regular genuine Eneloops from Amazon in both sets of Sordins we have. I have a simple AA/AAA quad charger that I bought as well.
    Thank You!

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
  •