Hi, this post is being sent, un-cross-posed, to 3 different groups;

To uk.rec.gardening because some there might need the information.

To uk . media . tv . misc in case some one there has some experience
with sound engineering

And to alt.usage.english because the problem I've encountered might
well simple concern ones use of English.

I recently made what is sometimes termed as a bad buy; Silverline ear
defenders (via Amazon UK)
The product description (Electronically deadens sound above 85Dbs) is,
IMHO, to put it bluntly, false.
I thought I was buying ear defenders that would electronically deaden
the sound above 85Dbs.

They are ear-defenders with a microphone and mini speakers which allow
you to hear sounds that the physical sound barrier of a standard ear-
defender would otherwise have deadened.
All that happens seems to be that the sound speakers cut out above a
certain level of noise and so it is the physical structure of the unit
that one has to rely on to deaden the sound... not the stated
electronics.

I removed the batteries to check and the noise of the machine I was
using was exactly the same as when it was supposed to be
electronically deadening the sound.

1) I wonder do they understand the meaning of "electronically" Or is
it me?

2) If I remove the batteries by hand am I doing so "electronically" I
wouldn't have thought so.

3) If I build a device using substandard parts that are unable to
transmit or reproduce certain sounds, have I succeeded in building a
device that "electronically" deadens sound above that level?

4) If I build such a device with a dependency on battery-springs with
barely more strength than that of tinsel as the sole means of keeping
the batteries in place and subsequently the batteries constantly fall
out thereby disabling the unit, can I say I have disabled the unit
electronically?

"Electronically deadens sound above 85Dbs"

I feel the claims it makes might cause a buyer to expect things to go
a certain way, when in fact they go the opposite.
The implication that I understood is that above 85Db the electronics
switch on to somehow do the job.
In reality:
The electronics assist you (remarkably) to hear things up to a
particular level of noise exposure. After that, the electronics seems
to switch off and what you're left with is the capacity of the
physical structure of the ear-defenders to do the work.

So using a hedge trimmers: With volume 'on'; First you hear a noise
like a train passing near by and then when you rave it up the noise
disappears and your left with a normal earmuff sound, albeit slightly
higher than usual.

I noticed the switch-off occurred at unexpected times. Using a lawn-
leaf-rake, racking leaves of a concrete surface trips it of each time.
As did opening a can of cola.

I thought I was buying a product that would "electronically deaden
sound". Instead, what I've got is a product with electronics that
assist in accentuating lower level sounds.

The box claims you can hear normally up to 85Db. No, you get super-
hearing instead.
This is the first time I've used a noise-reducer that has turned out
to do better as a listening devise.
Not that it does so in a discernible manner, e.g. at one stage I was
hearing what sounded like an entire flock of demented roosters, along
with a very angry dog and church bells. The hens I could see, but
evidentially not all the roosters. The dog I discovered later in the
day was in the opposite direction and as for the church... no idea. I
could half-hear a conversation between a mother and child at least
two properties away and I was made aware to what extent I tend to
slide my hands as I go up or down a ladder and just how loud the
rustle of my clothing was.
The sound of leaves underfoot were just like those produced by a radio
soap opera. And yet some sounds it couldn't pick up, such as when I
back pedalled on a bike.
With such 'super-hearing' I tried to see if I could listen to the
telly on normal sound whilst someone was having a phone conversation
in an adjoining room in an relatively open-plan space. (Rooms divided
by two portions of wall and an arch) Alas, I found that I could hear
the telly better with out them.

I wanted something to deaden sound, that's what I thought I was
ordering. But what I got is something that is not only unable to
compare with my usual ear defenders at deadening lower level sounds,
but it's actually made to accentuate if not amplify such sounds.

I don't need that. I didn't ask for that.

And having removed the batteries to double check, I can see no
evidence that it electronically deadens loud noises.

If anything, regardless of at what volume the speakers on the unit are
set, according as lower level sounds increase in volume, so too does
the sound coming through the speakers. It is as if the product
designers want to make sure that the noise (up to a certain level)
that would ordinarily be able to come through the structure of the
unit can not exceed the noise from the speakers. And they call that
ear defending!

Further more, after less than a total of 7 hours of use, broken up as
3 times at 2 hours plus 1 hour of several little short term
experiments, the performance of the electronic assisted accentuated
sounds has deteriorated to a ridiculous level and it's now mostly
delivering a lot of radio-crackling noises which, even with the set
turned down to its lowest, the sounds of tearing radio frequencies are
so loud that they can be heard at even more than 2 metres away. Ear
defenders?

I've experimented with two other ear-defenders, the Peltor 2 (green
coloured) & 3.
I sat in a diesel powered van and turned up the volume of the radio to
see at what level the electronics switch-off would kick in. Level 44
was it, but the electronics didn't switch back in 'on' until I lowered
the volume to 33. Levels 15-18 are ordinarily plenty loud enough for
driving with, even doing 120km/h

The problem for me is one of tiredness at the end of the day. With
lower level sounds deadened, I'm less tired. So I wouldn't recommend
the Silverline one to say, gardeners etc.

Two days later, after not being used for any good length of time, the
switch-off occurred between levels 32 to 39, suggesting that it's
ability to gauge sound levels are connected to hours of use, i.e. the
longer the use, the louder it allows the noise to become before
"deadening" it. Ear defenders?

At level 40 it was hard to tell the difference between the Peltor 2
and this "electronic" devise except that the green Peltor seemed to
distance the sound ever so slightly.
The other way around, with these I could just about hear the radio at
level 1, but had to go to level 3 with the Peltor 2 before reaching
the same level of hearing.
With the Peltor 3, this time with a telly, I had to go to level 6
before being able to hear a murmur, but could hear more clearly with
these at only level 1

Another difference is the sheer weight of the silverline item; With
rechargeable batteries, it's 350 grms. the Green peltors weigh in at
less than 220grms; even the heavier, Peltor 3 didn't quite reach
350grms when I placed the batteries inside; I used an ordinary kitchen
scales which weights displayed in increments of 25 grms

I had read a Clarkson article about soundproofing cars by using one
type of sound to block out others and I wondered if that was how these
might work. It isn't, as far as I can tell.

Along with that, on another occasion moisture from my own perspiration
was enough to cause the unit to fail.

They are basically a cheap pair of hearing defenders/protectors with
added coolness by way of an interesting bit of electronics complete
with see-through parts and a small little red light that becomes more
visible in poor light conditions.


It's probable that many of you don't bother with 'earmuffs' because
you are only exposed to short term loudness whilst, say, mowing your
lawn.
Nevertheless for those with a general interest in the subject of
hearing protection there's quite a lot of information on the internet
to have to shift through I even found one site that suggests that
disposable earplugs provide better protection:

http://www.iosh.org/index.cfm?go=dis...47386& page=1

But for general information:

http://www.safetyequipment.org/hearingguide.htm

On Oct 4, 2:33*pm, aquachimp
wrote:

It's probable that many of you don't bother with 'earmuffs' *because
you are only exposed to short term loudness whilst, say, mowing your
lawn.
Nevertheless for those with a general interest in the subject of
hearing protection there's quite a lot of information on the internet
to have to shift through I even found one site that suggests that
disposable earplugs provide better protection:

http://www.iosh.org/index.cfm?go=dis...1&thread=47386...

But for general information:

http://www.safetyequipment.org/hearingguide.htm

OK, so what do some of you use for hearing protection?

"aquachimp" wrote in message
...
On Oct 4, 2:33 pm, aquachimp
wrote:

It's probable that many of you don't bother with 'earmuffs' because
you are only exposed to short term loudness whilst, say, mowing your
lawn.
Nevertheless for those with a general interest in the subject of
hearing protection there's quite a lot of information on the internet
to have to shift through I even found one site that suggests that
disposable earplugs provide better protection:

http://www.iosh.org/index.cfm?go=dis...1&thread=47386...

But for general information:

http://www.safetyequipment.org/hearingguide.htm

OK, so what do some of you use for hearing protection?

Two hearing aids which I switch off when there is a lot of noise!