Hearing Protectors

[Ron Nossaman]

>
>Newton;
> As calmly as I can I must insist that it is.  The devices we are speaking of
>are noise 'cancelling' devices and not a form of hearing 'protection'. What
>these jewels do is remove a perceptible noise and  keep the noise, i.e. sound
>waves, from 'perceptibly' reaching the eardrum. They work by creating a
>reverse, or mirror image, of the sound frequency (ies) you want to attenuate
>as perceived or audible sound. They do nothing about keeping these sound
>waves, both of them, from reaching your eardrum.
> If these dillys worked for 'protection' as well as they work for
>'cancellation' they would be mass marketed with a zeal and perspicacity the
>likes of which have yet to be seen.
>Jim Bryant (FL)
>

I'd have to give this decision to Newton. Cancellation of a wave is a
nothing isn't it? Not a twice the power, undetectable killer wave. This
isn't like masking the noise of a table saw with Twisted Sister. If the
noise isn't perceptable, it isn't noise, no matter who doesn't happen to be
walking through the forest when the tree didn't fall because another tree
leaned against it and stopped it. Noise cancellation is just that...
cancellation. However, depending on where you stand in relation to the noise
source, and cancellation source, you could get a thoroughly detectable
double dose of the original noise while someone else standing somewhere else
would hear nothing. Now if there was just a reliable way to cancel Twisted
Sister.

 
 Ron