The volume is too damn high on flights | Hacker News Reader

The volume is too damn high on flights

blog.42floors.com

234 pointsjaf12duke173 comments

Few thoughts:

> and opened the decibel meter on my iPhone

These are notoriously inaccurate. To get accurate decibel readings, the mic must be calibrated to absolute known levels (something your App can't do). The App's are basically just comparing relative sounds (this sound is more prominent than this other one, and therefore must be louder... after establishing some relative baseline). Real decibel measuring equipment is very expensive and requires re-calibration routinely. So, measuring 80db could easily be in a swing of +/- 10db's (or more).

> 150dB: Jet take-off at 25 meters (eardrum rupture)

That's not quite accurate. Long term exposure could lead to damage over time, but for comparison a shotgun is typically measured at 165db when it's up against your shoulder and face. Yes, you wear hearing protection (nick-named "ears" if you are a frequent shooter) but your eardrumps aren't rupturing immediately if you take them off.

> What shocked me was the volume of the PA system

Yes, it's loud -- by design. The PA system is not there just to provide something to listen to in case you are bored. In a best case scenario, it's there for the usual "buckle-up" talk and for the pilot to give a greeting. In the worst case scenario, it's there for emergency instructions (a time when panic and passenger noises are likely to get quite loud on their own).

definitely true on the inaccuracy.

however, in the absence of anything else it is an indication.

The only thing it's an indication of is the App feels the PA is louder than the other ambient noise in the cabin... which in order to be an effective PA, it must be.

The number it assigns it might as well of been made up... or put on some App-specific scale like 1-10, 10 being "we think this is really loud".

I often take issue with the "pilot greeting". Many pilots just ramble on and on. Often on and off throughout the entire flight. I really don't care nor do I want that blaring in my ears. I don't understand why airlines think this is a good idea.

I would assume that a large amount of the public actually feels comforted knowing that there's a real human up in the room with all the buttons making sure the airplane stays in the air. Given, I'd doubt very many of those people are engineers, so I'd assume the HN crowd would mostly consist of people that just want to put on headphones and only be contacted if there's some sort of "exception" thrown at some point in the flight.

My biggest question is how much training airlines give pilots about exactly what to say on these updates - on a recent flight, the pilot said that a critical system in the plane went from "too broken to take off" to "yep, that looks fine" with a couple of restarts just before we left the gate. I'm sure he did everything per spec, but I'm not sure how helpful it is to tell everyone that they are riding on equipment that's only legal because the turn-it-off-and-on-again principle isn't just for IT.

I was delayed for 6 hours once because a part was broken and they were searching for a new one. They couldn't find a new one and 'cleaned' the old one and said we'll see how it works. Just what I wanted to hear. That we were going to see how it works over the Atlantic.

Different strokes, I suppose. If the pilot is saying something interesting I'd otherwise miss ("look out your left for a cool view of xxx), I'm happy to hear it. I also prefer to hear status updates during the flight.

Probably worth noting that shooting without "ears" can still leave you basically unable to hear anything for a good while depending on the firearm, shooting environment, etc. It's not an instant ear-bleeding rupture but it's still VERY loud and will cause significant hearing loss with little repetition.

Side note: I'm always curious how soldiers/SWAT/HRT/etc. are able to hold normal volume conversations. If they're wearing ear-protection, how do they listen for potential threats and assailants? If not, how do they not shout all day long every day?

I would guess that they use more expensive hearing protection systems with an active electronic system to pass through sounds at a comfortable level, attenuate louder and potentially damaging noises, and possibly even amplify quiet sounds.

The technology would be similar to that used in hearing aids and noise-cancelling headphones. But it is also probably an order of magnitude or two more expensive just because the primary customers are tax-funded.

Without electronics, I could also conceive of an earplug with a winding channel bored through it, past flaps that can block the channel by moving too far in either direction and forming a seal with the outer wall of the channel. Sound energy above a certain level would push the flaps closed as the air vibrated, and would thus attenuate louder sounds to a greater extent than quieter ones. If the flaps were tuned to different sound energies, the loudest sounds would push closed the most flaps.

That would require some precise machining to fit inside the outer ear canal. The electronic filter might actually be cheaper.

You can get a basic set of electronic ear pro for ~$70 (http://amzn.com/B007BGSI5U), there are even cheaper options with a lower NRR.

Those look a bit bulky for use by police or military in the field. You would need to miniaturize down to an in-ear version. Then you need to add very generous padding in your procurement contract.

If an over-the-ear tech is available for civilians for $70, I would guess that an in-ear police/military version is $850, with an upsell option to integrate with your existing radio communications system for only $1150 per pair. I'd also call it "active hearing protection system" and never, ever refer to them as "earplugs".

That's comparable with a good hearing aid, only because the health insurance payments system is superficially similar to government procurement contracting with respect to profiteering middlemen.

Again, this is only a guess, made without supporting data by someone who owns a foil hat.

These seem to be more along the lines of what is issued:

http://archive.armytimes.com/article/20090908/NEWS/909080313...

> Soldiers can adjust the rocker with a quick "click" depending on the amount of protection they need. When it's in the open or "weapons fire" position, sound can travel through the sound channel filter into the ear.

> For noisy environments that don't require an acute listening capability, such as around helicopters, troop carriers or generators, the rocker can be switched to the closed or "constant protection" position.

There's also larger over-ear kinds that are integrated with comms:

http://www.bosssafety.com/p-10356-peltor-comtac-iii-a-c-h-he...

This style has both active and passive configurations.

For those hitting the paywall on the the first link, the in-ear protection resembles 3M Ultrafit earplugs, with a hole bored through the center. The rocker switch may be lengthening or diverting the pass-through channel, like the rotary valves on a tuba or French horn. A longer or narrower channel would provide more attenuation of all sounds. It may also simply be closing and opening the channel.

They don't seem to have variable attenuation based on the acoustic energy, though. If the soldiers find them to be acceptable everyday gear at all, there would certainly be funding available to engineer improved internals.

The over-ear comms-integrated rig is priced at double my estimate for what an in-ear version might sell for, which tells me that I was probably underestimating.

Usually the ear protection used just has a simple narrow channel. This is effective in attenuating loud sounds without impacting quieter sounds as much. The name brand I'm most familiar with are the SureFire Sonic Defenders. They're in-ear, not very visible without the retention cord attached unless you're specifically looking for them.

With most ear plugs you can hear normal conversation without any problems. Certain sounds are blocked out more and things like music sound distorted.

Most of the hearing protection I've used when shooting seemed designed to disrupt the sound wave move than actually reduce it.

You can achieve reasonable short-term protection by holding your hands flat over your ears. It doesn't reduce the subjective volume, but it does [anecdotally] prevent subsequent symptoms that indicate temporary or long-term damage has occurred.

> You can achieve reasonable short-term protection by holding your hands flat over your ears.

Not flat... that won't do much. They must be cupped... basically you make a letter "C" with your hands then old that up to your ear with your side of your palm (pinky side) resting on your temple.

This will deflect the sound wave around your ear. Old-school artillery trick.

This is how the Brits do it http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01394/20030330-R...

Thanks - I was thinking in comparison to "sticking fingers into ears", could've phrased it better.

> These are notoriously inaccurate.

Actually, if you pick the correct app they are surprisingly accurate: http://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/jasa/135/4/10.1...

From the referenced study: "The measurements were conducted in a diffuse sound field at a reverberant noise chamber at the NIOSH acoustic testing laboratory. The diffuse sound field ensured that the location and size of the smartphones did not influence the results of the study. "

Having done sound testing extensively, you can be sure in an airplane positioning and sound source and sound type can drastically impact your measurements. Multiple reflections can re-enforce, or reduce the measured level. The type of sound measured is very important as well.

He's not measuring pink noise on the airplane, what the measured level of a particular sound is, needs to be normalized to really understand what effects it will have on you.

I'm sure in a good test setup the smartphone can get you pretty darned close. I'm more concerned with this guy's test setup than the equipment used.

165 db LCpk is a good estimate for the muzzle blast 1 m in front of the barrel of a shotgun. However, outdoors, it's going to be closer to 140-150 measured at the shooter's head. There is a significant asymmetry in how the muzzle blast propagates.

1m in front of the barrel of a shotgun, I'd hearing loss is the least of your worries!

Is a db meter on an iPhone really inaccurate? This recent article from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health suggests otherwise:

> for A-weighted sound level measurements three apps had mean differences within ± 2dBA of the reference measurements. For un-weighted sound level measurements three apps had mean differences within the ± 2 dB of the reference measurement. Since national standards and occupational guidelines specify that type 2 sound measurement instruments have an accuracy of ± 2dBA, some of the above-mentioned apps could potentially be used in the occupational setting

http://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2014/04/09/sound-app...

±2dBA would already be much more precise than what you'd need to assess if a certain sound pressure level can be endured for an extended period of time safely, or not.

To put it in numbers: ±3dB is doubling/halving of Power, but humans typically perceive a change of ±10dB as doubling/halving of "Volume". Also the damaging effects of noise typically scale as double-the-power, half-the time.

And personally I'd rather not be in the situation where I'd ponder if the damage to my hearing is double or half what it should be if my iPhone app were accurate: I'd rather have it show numbers that are 20dB below this level, so that I can be assured of no significant damage at all!

The PA system is not there just to provide something to listen to in case you are bored.

Yeah, but there's no reason for the people operating the PA to blast our ears for mundane drivel. I was on a flight last weekend where, because I was right next to a speaker, I had to cover my ears for 5 minutes while the flight attendant droned on about non-emergency stuff. It was so loud it hurt my ears. I already have tinnitus, so I don't need any more hearing loss.

The PA system is used to announce to the cabin non-trivial details: emergency exits, how the safety features of the airplane work, what is expected of passengers during the flight, flight times, expected turbulence, late arrivals, etc. These are not "mundane" details.

It's mundane when everyone is keenly aware of the details.

You cannot assume everyone does. You certainly did not when it was your first time on a plane.

Also if you get on a new model plane, things might be different.

I thought the point of the high volume was to get thru to the people who were ignoring it because they already know the message.

The point isn't to not do the presentation, the point is to acknowledge that most people ignoring it don't need it and hence there isn't a need to YELL IT SO LOUD OVER THE PA THAT EVERYONE IS AT RISK OF HEARING DAMAGE.

As well as stuff like how much drinks cost, what you might see out the left side of the plane, where to find a catalog of ridiculous items you would never buy, etc.

90% wasn't related to non-trivial details. I was there, ahduhl. Credit card offers, menu options, etc.

The safety talk was at the beginning of the flight and it was much lower in volume than what I'm talking about.

My guess is that the attendant's mouth was too close to the mic and they were just talking way too loud.

The PA when heard over the headphones (when watching a movie, etc.) is even worse - I wouldn't be surprised if it was over 100dB. Sometimes a movie has quiet audio, or quiet moments requiring you to turn up the volume a lot. More than once I have been painfully ear-raped by the flight attendant PA system in my earphones for this reason.

Just another instance of outrageously bad customer service in the airline industry. I'm convinced at this point that they simply despise their entire customer base.

Every time I'm on a flight this happens. I would love an in-line filter for audio above a certain volume level.

Not surprisingly, things like this already exist[1]. Has anyone ever tried one of these?

[1]: http://www.amazon.com/Kidz-Gear-Volume-Limit-Cable/dp/B005UH...

The trick is to use an inline volume control, like this: http://mobile.walmart.com/ip/Koss-In-Line-Headphone-Volume-C...

Then turn the airplane's volume to max and adjust your inline volume to a comfortable level. In my experience, the announcements will then also be at a comfortable level.

In my experience, the announcements are always in the top 95% of the channel's dynamic range. Setting the volume such that the announcements are at a reasonable level renders everything else way too quiet.

But, in my experience, the way that's implemented is that when there's an announcement, everyone's volume is temporarily overridden to 100%.

Hence my solution: Set things up so your volume is always at 100%, and the inline volume control device is throttling that down to a comfortable level.

Mine too. I believe you're exactly right here. Volume seems to be attenuated from 100% at the armrest by the digital control, and overridden back to 100% when the PA is keyed. I've done exactly what you described and I stopped getting audibly assaulted on flights where I opted to listen to channel 9, or to watch a censored movie.

This is why some headphones (notably the Bose QC15) have a little hi/lo switch on the connector. When using the in-flight entertainment, set it to "lo" which attenuates all incoming sound. Then you compensate by turning up the entertainment volume.

This works because most aircraft systems deliver PA announcements at a pre-set volume and isn't affected by the entertainment volume.

(The other thing I tend to do is simply disconnect my QC15 during announcements and listen (or not) to the announcement broadcast in the cabin, attenuated by the headphone's noise cancellation.)

Disconnecting numerous times throughout a long flight (e.g., LAX–LHR) is not only massively inconvenient and also repeatedly ineffective. By the time I've yanked the cord out, I've already been deafened (and scared shitless) by the beginning of the announcement.

I do like the headphone-level filtering idea, though, and might look into this for my traveling needs.

I've stopped using the in-flight systems because of this. I use in-ear earphones on flights, as the design of them (basically ear plugs with speakers in the middle) blocks out sound and as a result I can have the volume lower, with the idea of preserving what's left of my hearing. Because of that design I not only _can_ have the volume low, but _have_ to have the volume low - and when the PA announcements override the volume to max, it's very loud indeed. On Virgin Atlantic flights, it hits the physical pain threshold, so I've stopped plugging in to these systems entirely and use my phone/iPad/whatever instead.

I'm sorta curious why anyone is using in in flight systems in the first place. Doesn't nearly everyone own personal devices capable of playing hours of music or videos? Even with 32 GB of storage, total, I'm able to hold more video than I can watch in a day.

DRM?

I never tried watching movies in an airplane, and if I wanted to, I know I'd do it easily. But most people do not get video in a format that they know how to watch in an environment without an internet connection.

Not all seats come equipped with power sockets. Watching movies on long-haul (transatlantic) flights, after using your device while waiting to board, had a good chance of running the battery flat before the trip is complete.

Economy seats sometimes have a pitch so narrow that it's difficult to get a tablet sitting at a comfortable viewing angle.

Additionally, it's sometimes convenient to use the in-flight entertainment systems when travelling with someone else. My girlfriend and I can watch the same movie, at the same time, without awkwardly balancing a tablet between us and having to use a headphone splitter.

You have to prepare for it - have a full battery (most of the planes don't have USB or the plug doesn't supply enough current), have the movies/music already on the phone/tablet. Not everyone is using the phone for this kind of entertainment, so they have to prepare before, and because most of the entertainment is now "in the cloud" and consumed on the fly, you have to know how to copy them for offline use.

Also, the in-flight entertainment system is better positioned than a normal phone or tablet - you need a special case or something to hold a tablet/phone in a kind of vertical position on the little table (also needs preparing for), and you have to look down to it all the time - which is bad for your back, especially in the crammed plane seats.

In flight systems typically have fairly recent movies, that sometimes haven't even come out on consumer media yet.

“Ah, for the days when aviation was a gentlemen’s pursuit. Back before every Joe Sweatsock could wedge himself behind a lunch tray and jet off to Raleigh-Durham.”

– Sideshow Bob

Having seen the airline industry change over the course of 30 years, I simply despise the customer base as well, and fly as infrequently as possible.

I flew several years ago on American Airlines around the time they were promoting the feature-length airline advertisement Up in the Air. [1]

I dozed off with my headphones plugged in, listening to something relaxing on a low volume. Several times I was awakened without warning when they showed the film trailer at full volume. Boy did that piss me off.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/business/media/21adco.html

Noise-Cancelling headphones with external inputs, by their principle of operation, already have to funnel everything through a DSP. So it would be easy to implement a compressor/limiter for the external input signal. Is this feature available on any of the commercially available headphones?

As an explanation: A compressor/limiter is a device in audio processing used for leveling (compressing) the dynamic range, by making quiet things louder, and making louder things quieter. In the extreme case, one can configure a threshold of (power, loudness, amplitude, depending on the operation of the devices) which cannot be exceeded. [All you sound engineers, please excuse the simplification...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range_compression

I've always wondered why bars crank up the music so high to the extent you're yelling to convey conversation to the person next to you. One of my friends hypothesized that it was done to focus patrons on drinking and not chatter, but socializing is a big part of the bar scene...

Anyone know?

It's the same reason most bars are set up to be cramped spaces, it forces people to be closer together which makes people uncomfortable which makes them drink more.

They are cramped because a lot of people want to be there. If people were uncomfortable they would stop going.

I agree it's not intuitive and obviously bars taking advantage of this trick need to actually have the foot traffic. Volume (as in volume of business) based bars are specifically designed to get more people closer together. Next time you are at one ask yourself if they are being the most efficient with the space.

They do it on purpose. The less patrons talk to each other the more alcohol they drink. That's why the music volume is increased as the night progresses. They get them into the establishment, customers start drinking, eventually it gets to a point where they can't hear each other so they just focus on drinking. Not all places do this, just the places that are strongly focused on the profits.

Why would such a bar have any repeat customers? The music is loud at a bar because the people are loud because the bar is crowded.

If bars wanted to sell more drinks, they would have more bartenders to reduce the wait times.

There you go: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/jul/19/medicalresear...

It mainly happens in busy city bars/pubs, where repeat customers aren't so important.

Relatedly, does anyone know why so many bars with live acts crank the volume up so high that it becomes extremely loud white noise with thumping bass under it? It really sucks if you want to hear the music, and the point at which it's ears-ringing-the-next-day and clothes-vibrating loud but you can still at least tell when a key change happens is usually well under where they set it.

I love small venues, but I hate how bad the music sounds at so many of them. Does anyone actually prefer this?

At small venues it's often just because the band is playing loudly. Some drummers play pretty loudly, some guitarists play amps that sound better with the volume cranked, and then singers are going to want the vocals louder in the monitors so they can actually hear themselves over the loud drums & guitar.

If stage volume is loud, the sound guy is likely going to push the volume even louder, both so that he has some level of control over it, and because sound coming off the mains is going to sound a lot clearer than if you're hearing everything off the stage monitors and then reflected off the back wall (yes, even if that means things are louder, they can still be clearer).

Interesting. I find it hard to imagine that the reflected sound from the wall could be worse than the ear-against-tv-speaker-volume-at-full-tuned-to-static effect that ~2/3 of small venues I've been to end up with, but that does explain the motivation for it, at least.

Well, in most cases the stage volume is already in so-loud-you-lose-clarity territory, so the clarity you gain from the sound guy turning up the mains a bit is worth the clarity you lose due to the extra volume. We're not talking massive increases in volume here.

I have a few theories:

- The people deciding already have significant hearing loss and don't realize

- People who are into venue sound stuff tend to like music very very loud

- The majority of customers are actually relieved not to have the burden of needing to carry on a conversation (b/c doing so is impossible).

Not sure which of the above it is. A similar mystery is why it's considered OK for motorcycles to be extremely loud, even with modified mufflers designed to make them louder. I don't buy the safety argument, since the same could apply to any motor vehicle or pedestrian.

>does anyone know why so many bars with live acts crank the volume up //

I'm going to go with the roadie who did the sound check is hard of hearing through standing next to big speakers and using loud music on in-ear phones; they set the level and then boost it to allow for the crowd.

Some people don't like to listen to music they like to feel it - if it's not giving you the disturbing feeling you're having palpitations then it's not loud enough! Discos for the deaf are like this apparently.

Have you ever been in a bar at closing, when they turn the music off and the lights back on? It's a stark moment: Oh, right. This is reality.

I can't say that the sibling comments are wrong, but I don't think that's the real reason. Bars (clubs, really) do it because it fosters a feeling of unreality. It makes being at the bar different, and you feel different, and it's (supposed) to be special - it's a party. People show up because it does not feel like normal life.

Personally, the practice drives me crazy. As I intimated above, bars that do this are really clubs at night. I prefer places where a group of people can sit around a table and actually talk over some drinks.

A different perspective from some of the siblings: it keeps conversations fairly localized and thus a bit private. Beyond a few feet, and even with shouting it will distort and muffle the actual contents of speech in my experience.

My personal theory is privacy. With a crashing din of music, your voice carries about 1-2 feet, which makes it easy to ensure only the right person or people hear you talking.

It allows you to be in a social setting while keeping your conversation private.

A very good private party DJ(He plays for artist and actors) told me that if you want people to dance, the volume must be very high.

As it was my party I told him to do it as he saw fit and indeed almost all the people (200) danced.

Then one neighbour complained and he lowered the volume (just for a while ;) ) and most people stopped dancing almost immediately. When he boosted the volume again, they all jumped to dance.

It was amazing.

Edit: Typo.

Reply to the comment below: I understand your comment, but the party was in a former s.XIX coastal battery fortress,(now an environmental Hotel). This fortress is excavated on the stone , below the ground level (You don´t see it till you are literally falling in the ditch). The place where the Party took place was 10 meters below the ground level, behind a fortress wall, a 6m high ditch and 1.5 km away from the nearest buildings, separated by rolling hills and Mediterranean woods.

No, sorry but I certainly was not that worried of the volume and the neighbours.

Glad you didn't let consideration for the rights and comfort of the people who live around you interfere with your need to party as you saw fit.

You had me up until "rights". Consideration (or lack thereof) for their comfort - and just for them as individuals- yes definitely.

For their rights? that's a lot less clear.

Well, in my country people do have the right to sleep unimpeded (between 10pm and 6am). One that is regularly enforced, actually, so it’s not just on the books.

Is that such an outlandish concept?

Interesting. Here in the States, that's usually a regulation at the municipal level if it exists at all. Even in that context, it's not defined as a right - just a law to be completed with.

> former s.XIX coastal battery fortress

For a second there I thought that was one hell of a typo but I found out that "s. XIX" is the Spanish way to write "19th century". "Siglo" is another word for century. Now I'm wondering... why? And why use Roman numerals? Was this originally a Catholic thing?

Orthotypography has a lot of differeces between languages. In Spanish we don't capitalize all words in titles, use romans for centuries, different rules for quotation marks, and a long etc. Nothing to do with catholicism that I'm aware of.

former s.XIX coastal battery fortress

Please could you tell the place? Menorca by chance?

Cap Rocat (https://www.caprocat.com), Mallorca. I was lucky and the hotel was still being build, so the party was relatively cheap. I knew the place from when it was still military and abandoned with empty ammunition cases lying around.

Now it's quite expensive as you have to rent all the rooms in the hotel to have a party. Even then is worth to visit it and have a coffee and see the arquitecture and views!

I recently saw this pop by in the news: http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/news/20080718/l... -- the bottom line is either what you suggest, or that loud music intrinsically motivates drinking. The authors don't know.

Thanks. I get the feeling that loud music + yelling = increase in adrenaline = drinking more. I also like the privacy angle and perhaps stressed out vocal cords = more soothing drink. I figured it had to be "sales" related since socially, it made no sense (also bias the fact that I am old :-)

In England this is part of the "Vertical Drinking Establishment".

You reduce the numbers of chairs and tables. That means that you fit more people in and they have to hold their drinks. Holding a drink means you drink it quicker. They turn up the volume so you chat less, which also means you drink faster.

OSHA probably wouldn't have much to say… The peak he measured would only be outside of their guidelines if the attendants screamed for the entire LAS-SFO flight and then he hopped on a plane and immediately flew back with the same treatment.

Table G-16 - Permissible Noise Exposures

https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_tab...

I agree, there are actually very few government agencies that can be bothered to give even half a fart about anything they are essentially charged with. Between Congressional undermining and bureaucratic incompetence, they are essentially toothless.

I see a lawsuit or a public shame campaign as far more effective. How does "United caused my child to have brain damage due to the loud PA system ... oh, and now he's autistic too"? That should work.

NIOSH says 15 minutes at 100dB, which is still far longer than the combined duration of all announcements on a flight.

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/PermissibleExposureTime.htm

I think the 99dB value the author of the article measured is not arbitrary - and was chosen specifically to meet some regulations.

That depends on the flight. I've timed the announcements on some medium-length flights totaling upwards of 30 minutes.

My comment from another thread on this subject:

---

Earplugs! I bought a box of foam earplugs that has supplied me for years now. I cut them in half; half an earplug is the perfect length for unobtrusive everyday wear.

I have quantities of half-earplugs stashed in all my pants pockets, in my car, my work bag, and in a little container on my keychain. I wear them in the car, on planes, at the shooting range, when grinding coffee, and especially when putting away dishes. Fucking clanging-together dishes are the loudest things I encounter in my regular routine.

For my kids I bought silicone putty plugs. They work perfectly for little ears, and I keep them with the foam plugs. My kids know where the big orange jar of earplugs is, and they've acquired some of my discipline.

> I wear them in the car

Hopefully not while driving though :)

Deaf people would disagree

Deaf people may be able to drive, but wearing earplugs while driving is still illegal (in California, anyway).

Why not? Attenuating all sound doesn't have a huge impact on what you're able to hear.

Indeed; to the contrary, I find myself hyper-aware of sounds when wearing attenuative hearing protection.

It's illegal, at least in California.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcm:path:/dmv_...

"A person operating a motor vehicle or bicycle may not wear a headset covering, or earplugs in, both ears."

I have a set of Surefire EP4 silicone ear plugs I use on my motorcycle and at concerts. The nice thing about them is that they have a center plug you can add or remove. Without the center plug they significantly reduce SPLs to safe levels but you can still hear everything. You can put the plug back in when needed.

I also recommend earphones (in ear headphones). They're much like earbuds with foam earplugs. They block out sound about as well as foam earplugs but with the bonus of being able to listen to audio.

I can second the author's conclusion. I fly regularly and have noticed in the last 6 months, PA systems have become much louder than usual on most flights. It's especially bad if you have headphones plugged in to the XM radio -- they don't seem to have separate volume controls for the PA speakers and hardwired headphones.

Funny coincidence, I am writing this from the airport where I'm in transit. Turkish Airlines does have separate volume for PA and other in-flight purposes.

I've noticed it, too. Also, PA announcements, when heard over headphones, seem to be super-loud regardless of whether you adjust the volume on the headphones. It's as if there is some mandatory minimum volume for the announcements.

I'll hazard a guess--and I might be completely wrong--that there is some sort of legal reason for this. Maybe there have been lawsuits in which people claimed not to have heard the in-flight announcements, and therefore, did not feel not bound to them. I dunno. It just seems as if there's a reason for this. Not necessarily a good reason, but a reason.

Anyhow, this is 100% armchair speculation. It just seems like the sort of thing that could have happened.

legal reasons, or, they just don't give a fuck and will continue to physically hurt their customers with ultra-loud headphone announcements until it becomes so widely hated it turns into an internet meme.

I've had the opposite experience - PA systems so quiet they're drowned out by the plane's noise. Perhaps he was sitting very close to one of the speakers. Given that the announcements are usually important, not continuous but made in short bursts, and that volume level (99dB) is discomforting but only harmful with prolonged exposure, I don't think it's too loud. The whole idea of an announcement is to get the attention of the passengers - including those who may be asleep. Missing an important announcement may have safety implications.

If the announcements were safety related they would he repeated several times and FAs would single out individuals who needed to react.

>> "FAs would single out individuals who needed to react"

Yes, because in a real emergency (plane going down) we need the FAs spending the precious few seconds we have going up and down the cabin telling prats to take their headphones off and listen up...

No, the FAs will go to the emergency escape rows and make sure that the passengers are ready to facilitate egress, as they agree to do when they sit in those rows.

I can't remember the last time I heard an in-flight announcement that I actually needed to hear. They're far from "usually important." 99% of flights could happily go from start to finish without a single use of the PA, if it were legal to do so, and if the airline could exercise self-control.

The PA system should be reserved for actual important safety-related announcements. It's outrageous that the same system that would be used to tell you to brace for a crash is also used to repeatedly flog credit cards, duty-free sales, and other such nonsense, training everybody to ignore it.

There is a specific legal requirement for the passenger briefing. You'll notice that the briefing pretty much follows the script required by the law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.519

That would be why I said "if it were legal to do so...."

> The oral briefing required by paragraph (a) of this section shall be given by the pilot in command or a member of the crew, but need not be given when the pilot in command determines that the passengers are familiar with the contents of the briefing.

Maybe the airlines could make you take a quiz on the ground to get early boarding, and if everyone passes, no briefing!

I also use earplugs and over ear noise cancelling headphones during flights. They work very well. I rarely fly United but I've noticed that some airlines are definitely worse than others when it comes to PA.

I haven't used it on flights yet but did some research and splurged on the Faber Acoustical SoundMeter (https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/soundmeter/id287615105?mt=8&...). I bought it since I live on a busy road and lots of sirens go by, adding to the general traffic whooshing. Sirens are in the high range and go over 100. Its a good app to have to check whether I'm going crazy or if it is really loud in place where I'm feeling overwhelmed with sound.

I will be sure to try it out next time I fly and provide some data. Maybe we can crowdsource samples of airline loudness.

In SF, waking around, the sirens seem so ridiculously loud. I have a hard time believing that loudness level was derived by research versus just going as high as possible without causing immediate physical damage.

So when are we all starting to measure sounds around us (including cafes, vehicles, cities) and create a map of quietest things and places?

There is work being done on crowdsourcing ambient sound: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/520606/noise-pollution-...

It's a neat problem. You can turn on smartphone microphones and listen for noise levels to measure for noise pollution and law violations, etc. However, you have to develop algorithms that filter our human conversations (for this application linked above), and the privacy implications are astronomical.

Edit: http://www.citylab.com/tech/2013/05/crowdsourcing-citys-quie...

we've also developed an early version of this. Still very early stages and we aren't making use of all the data yet:

http://noise.1self.co

disclosure: I'm a founder

Sort of off-topic, but maybe somebody commenting on audio acoustics and decibels will know -- When you call a business and they pipe their automated music into the call while you're on-hold, why is the audio quality of that music frequently horrible? You'll get fuzzy music, or drop-outs of the music track - but when a human picks up the phone, it tends to sound just like most other phone calls. It seems like such a basic solvable problem, but I don't know where to attribute the blame.

I'm not an expert, but I believe the reason comes down to cost: call center lines can be configured either to have a few high quality calls, or more lower quality calls (think of how many more audio files you could stream simultaneously at a lower bitrate). Of course, having lower quality calls lets them handle the same number of calls at the lowest cost, and most businesses consider customer service to be a huge cost center, so they go for the cheapest thing.

Music is basically never going to sound good over a POTS because it's a low-bandwidth channel optimised for human voice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceband

It may also be a legacy system using old worn-out looping casette tapes for the music.

It's even worse if the sound is going through a digital (VOIP / cell phone) system. Most modern codecs for voice are using some form of Linear Predictive Coding[1] (e.g. ACELPC) which is basically modeling sound as a resonator at the bottom of a tube with a filter bank (sortof like your voice box). With voice, this is a reasonably good approximation, and the codecs are aggressively tuned to be efficient at that. But if full-band music gets piped through it will sound roughly like that music is being produced by a flapping plosive at the bottom of a long tube.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_predictive_coding

"Flapping plosive at the bottom of a long tube."

What an exceptionally colorful description of the effects of that type of codec! Well done.

I wonder if there are applications for psychoacoustic modeling approaches for safety/compulsory announcements. Can they be encoded in a different way before broadcast on the PA to take advantage of our perception of human speech? And possible a different codec still for users of headphones?

Or perhaps a quick, sharp attention tone before urgent broadcasts, but for non safety/compulsory announcements, a lower volume setting...

I think the author answered their own question with this statement: "I’ve been on flights where the sound of the flight attendants over the PA system was loud enough to sound like the attendant was shouting directly into my ear despite having two layers of sound protection."

The PA system in the airplane is part of the safety equipment, the crew uses it to inform the passengers during an emergency what they should do to prepare. Everyone knows that during a flight people will have noise cancelling earphones on and possibly dual layers of protection. Also the ambient noise in an aircraft with its nose pitched down at a steep angle or in an uncontrolled spin is likely to be quite high. The PA has to cut through all of that in order to communicate with you.

I agree it would be nice if they didn't use full emergency power during non-essential communication, but the FAA considers the safety briefing to be essential communication so you are out of luck there.

Preferably, limit announcements to the bare minimum and use pre-recordings. There is too much variability in voice intensity. A pre-warning chime before an announcement would reduce stress and allow time to cover our ears. It would also spare me from apologizing to passengers since I scream when I am awoken abruptly. Thanks for the data Darren.

This is exacerbated by the absolutely intrusive use of the PA system--rather than just for safety announcements we now have the pleasure of enduring credit card and frequent flier program ads.

I've noticed this too. On my last few flights it has been so loud it caused physical discomfort (to me) and made my toddler cry.

It's been my assertion, as both a solo passenger and one traveling with a child, that crying babies and toddlers are the result of one of two things:

1) Kids need to be chewing something, or sucking on a nipple/bottle/straw to help facilitate inner-ear pressure changes. Most aren't, and those that can't say "my ears hurt" simply scream.

2) Kids who are tired (because they're kids or because their parents figured "I'll tire him out so he sleeps on the flight") and get startled by a scary loud voice saying things they don't understand. Like yours - probably a tuckered out toddler desperate to rest, no?

(Edited to avoid sounding like I was disagreeing with parent comment)

Great tips for flying with kids in general. I'm pretty confident that these particular instances were due to the announcements as things instantly went from happy to crying "it hurts! loud!" with hands over ears, then back to (relatively) happy once it was over.

I could believe it. I just flew Spirit (never again, for reasons in addition to this) a couple of weeks ago, and they spent the last 20 minutes or so of the flight hawking some kind of credit card deal. Even wearing earplugs barely put a dent in the volume.

ah, that sounds like Ryanair.

I've not experienced this at all, but I routinely fly American or United (or their international "alliance" partners). My next flight is on Southwest. I wonder how different that'll be - boarding procedures don't generally bug me (we're all going to the same place in a giant airborne metal tube), but crew behavior has the power to wreck the experience for me.

I haven't seen it on any other airline either. I think it's only on the "discount" airlines, where you can get a slightly cheaper flight... as long as you buy your baggage check and check in in the right way and don't expect to actually eat or drink anything on board.

They probably do it because no one pays attention to the announcements anymore. It's the same reason they (used to) turn up the volume on TV commercials.

Has the author tried asking the flight attendants to turn the volume down?

The volume is not "turned up" on TV commercials. The perceived increase in volume is due to dynamic range compression: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range_compression#Broad...

Which means the commercial is playing at maximum volume. Of course it's not physically changing the volume control on your television, but the source is as loud as it can possibly be.

I use a pair of sony extra-bass earbuds that are thicker and have a bit of extra foam around the earbud to reduce noise. The work great in the airplane, knocking off about 50% of the outside volume. I leave them in the whole flight as they cut out most of the engine vibration as well. Also wear them in a crowded office, at home with kids, or coffee shop etc when I need to focus.

Most of the time I'm not even playing music, but people assume so and will interrupt you a bit less often. Also helpful when making calls, etc.

I recently flew Delta (I generally stick with American/USAir) and noticed this. On several occasions I noticed folks physically cringing and plugging their ears during PA announcements.

I've experienced airline PA announcements to exceed the pain threshold many times. It's utterly ridiculous how loud they are.

In my opinion, the less that is broadcast over the PA the better.

This is a pet peeve of mine that I developed while doing video production in the live event industry. Unfortunately almost nobody cares about protecting their hearing.

Pretty much everyone in food service in the US exposes themselves to dangerous audio levels throughout their work shifts. My coworkers with SPL meters routinely measured sound pressure levels above 105 dB for hours at a time. But try wearing earplugs as a waiter or bartender... you will be treated like a lunatic.

You say "in the US." Does that mean you've found other countries to be significantly quieter? I don't think I have, but I'm genuinely curious about this. Have there been any studies on the average sound levels in public places (or workplaces) in different countries?

As a father and fan of live music:

I get cranky when I see kids without ear protection, especially toddlers and younger, who have no control or way to escape.

I make a point of praising the parents who put ear muffs on their infants.

Why make the music so loud as to require hearing protection? That seems inefficient.

Because you don't have control over how loud a band is playing at a live festival. So you can either complain about something you can't change, decide to not attend an event you want to attend, or do what you can to fix the problem.

Because the experience of being physically vibrated by the compression waves in the air is amazingly sublime. There's a reason people don't start dancing until you hit a certain volume level.

I wear musician-quality earplugs.

I used to work for a major jet engine manufacturer. Noise reduction is right up there with fuel consumption in consideration with new model development. Not because of complaining passengers though.. A lot of the push comes from certain airports that aren't far enough outside of major cities (I can't remember which ones exactly, I think it was mostly a few major asian cities). They actually restrict certain models from using their airport.

London City, and even Heathrow have major issues with neighbours.

I have for a long time used unobtrusive IEMs with Comply tips (MEElectronics, small, black, with a memory wire that guides the headphone wires over and behind the ears). They shut out the world very effectively, and are cheap enough that it's not a tragedy to lose them. I have never had a flight attendant bug me about them.

United is particularly bad about cranking their PA system up into distortion screeching range. It's pure sadism.

To take the edge off the sound (but only slightly... still able to carry on a conversation) and to prevent my ear drum from exploding I wear Ear Planes[1]. They aren't perfect, but I do find they help, say, maybe 40% of the pressure issue.

1] http://www.cirrushealthcare.com/EarPlanes-Adult-P49.aspx

Recently spent over 48 hours in the wonderful company of Cathay Pacific. Their announcements (and especially their English announcements) are always a quiet high-speed mumble. 10/10 would (try to) listen to them again.

Everything else was terrible.

I think the correct response when the PA system is used at excessive volume is to scream loudly asking that it be turned down. When this becomes a socially acceptable (or simply common) response, airlines will have to stop.

I've always wanted to buy some good earplugs to protect my hearing from noisy environments (es. near public transport in the city). Does anyone have a product they recommend?

I always use earplugs when I fly, and honestly cheap foam earplugs work great.

Get a case that you can put on your keyring. The best earplugs are the ones you have with you.

This is the best advice in the thread. $5 will get you 20 pairs (they're required to put the noise reduction on the package, so check that to be sure you're getting good ones) and just take them with you everywhere.

I own the "Etymotic Research ER20 ETY-Plugs", about $13 on Amazon Prime. They're much more comfortable than the cheap foam ones you can buy, they actually stay in your hear, and the tube means that you can still hear high frequencies. They reduce the surrounding volume rather than attempt to mute it. This makes them great for concerts.

There are also much more expensive concert earplugs for musicians, which do an even better job at preserving the spectrum, but I'm not that picky.

These are great for concerts (assuming your ear canals are long enough - these are far too long for mine) but not so great for a flight situation like in the article. For blocking out as much noise as possible, foam plugs are much better than these.

I have the same ones. They are great, although I find them getting uncomfortable if wearing them for an extended period of time. Then again, I haven't found a set of earplugs for which that is not the case, so take that with a grain of salt.

I use Down Beats[1] while riding a motorcycle, they work very well at eliminiating the wind noise while still letting me converse with others.

The one thing I like about them over the similar Etymotics is they don't stick out of your ear quite as much.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00A3Z44R2/

The bit that goes in your ear is also shorter than the Etymotics, which is good for me as my ear canal seems to be too short for the ER20s to fit. I tried about ten different ear plugs and the DownBeats were the only decent-quality ones that I could comfortably wear for hours.

I get the beige "Hearos" off Amazon and they seem rather comfortable while providing a fair amount of volume reduction. They won't completely block out people being rude on flights, but they did well enough that I was able to sleep nicely for a few hours on a recent flight.

They're cheap and come in packs of 20. So I stash a handful in various places so I always have some accessible. In particular I keep a few in my essential medicine bottles since I'll have those while traveling. I find I can reuse them a few times, but if they feel off or dirty the cheapness means I don't hesitate grabbing a new pair.

a pet peeve of mine is when they do this in restaurants when calling out order numbers. they CRANK the fucking volume and then YELL into the microphone to call out order numbers when everyone is standing right at the counter!

there's a big difference between Peak and RMS measurements.

Hacker News on Friday is always the worst.

Having many, many years of travel experience leads me to one Occam's Razor type observation:

If people would actually pay attention to a safety briefing instead of playing with their gadgets / not taking off their headphones, then the flight crew wouldn't be trying so hard to get the attention of the passengers.

With this unpopular opinion, I'll see myself out the nearest exit, which is actually located behind me.

Except the safety briefings are a useless bureaucratic formality. We don't need to hear them.

They're very useful for infrequent (or first-time) travelers, but pointless for frequent travelers.

They may save your life.

But yeah, fligh companies do not think they are important enough to bother their customers over them. They do the bare minimum required, and if you don't want to pay attention, they don't care.

...apparently more people do need to hear them and pay attention, particularly to the part of "Always keep your safety belt fastened when seated" because I've seen plenty of news lately of violent turbulence and passengers being thrown around because they didn't pay attention and follow the instructions they are legally obligated to follow...which is why no personal injury lawsuit regarding unintended turbulence for an un-buckled in passenger will ever win, near as I can tell.

Occam's (and Halon's) razor says that volume is set to an arbitrary default ("loud " == "audible") and no one cares to change it. It boggles that any other option is in consideration. In airline has done actual measurements of attention vs volume.

Is there any indication the safety announcements are effective? The fact they dedicate so much time to taking about smoking makes me doubt they are evidence based. United's 787s have a no smoking sign built in to every single seat, at eye level.

I suppose it's possible that they fly places that have such a strong smoking culture that this is an important and useful reminder, but that seems doubtful.

Which makes me call into question the rest of the announcements.

Though, I've found United's new safety video to be so well done, I watch it every time despite having seen it dozens of times already.

Some people are better at noticing visual signs, some react only to what they are being told. Smoking on board is really dangerous, so why to take risks?

Because there's a cost in attention. What's the rate of people just lighting up to smoke on a flight? What about the rate of people tampering with or disabling smoke detectors? Is there reason to believe that in the last, say, 5 years, there's been any case of that warning preventing someone from disabling a smoke detector?

I'm also not convinced that accidental smoking on board is that dangerous. Because if it were, then we'd be far more interested in stopping people from boarding with such equipment. I'm hoping aircraft today are capable of handling a small fire, the kind that might happen anyways, like from batteries exploding.

Same reasoning for using electronics - if they had been that dangerous, any bad person could just ship a box of phones with a wake up alarm set and watch planes crash.

Hard to believe but it was done heavily on flights until the 70's or 80's or so. Though disgusting, it is unlikely to be that dangerous.

Have you noticed a change to include "no vaping" as well? The briefings do change with the times. Before lobbying / tantrum throwing gadget junkies allowed devices to be on non-stop, there were times when they were permitted to be on or off, and that was part of the briefing. As you might be able to tell, I tend to pay attention in spite of having heard them time and again, because thankfully I'm an infrequent flyer these days.

No, and FAs seemed to be of uncertain opinion if vaping was covered, although I only asked on one flight. Probably from a don't-be-rude perspective, it'd not be a good idea. Certainly the risk of fire isn't there.

There's still a fair amount of time dedicated to talking about "airplane mode". Which can simply not be a safety issue, as it'd be a trivial attack vector for malicious passengers to use. Or, if it is a safety factor, it just further illustrates the security theater.

I make a point of tuning in for the actual safety part then switching to my personal music again when they start waffling on about the company slogan and wishing a good flight a dozen times.

They are effective in complying with the relevant law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.519 which specifically requires an oral briefing on "when, where, and under what circumstances smoking is prohibited".

Don't fault the airlines for complying with the law.

I'm faulting the actual presentation and behavior, regardless of who is ultimately to blame. If the law requires wasting everyone's time and attention with so much no smoking signs, then it's probable it wastes effort on other things, too.

Dude, I'm only 29 and I've flown in about 50 or 60 flights. I don't need to hear that I should put on my own oxygen mask before helping a toddler yet again. I get why they do it every flight, but I certainly don't need to pay attention.

Yeah, but do you pull out the airplane schematic to familiarize yourself with the layout of the airplane you're riding in? Serious question: Without looking it up on your travel itenerary, can you honestly tell me what make/model airplane you last flew on? I can, because I read the pamphlet, which gives me knowledge that could save my life, but if you don't want to live to see 30, that's your perogative...but it's the law you have to listen to flight crew, even if you don't want to interrupt your Instagram surfing.

Yeah, but do you pull out the airplane flight control manual to familiarize yourself with the flight controls of the airplane you're riding in? Serious question: Without looking it up on your travel itenerary, can you honestly tell me how to fly the make/model airplane you last flew on? I can, because I read the manual, which gives me knowledge that could save my life, but if you don't want to live to see 30, that's your perogative...but it's the law you have to listen to flight crew, even if you don't want to interrupt your aircraft identifying.

It's the law they have to talk. It's not the law you have to listen.

Not to argue with your point as a whole - that apathy that leads to risk to others is a bad thing - but...

Yeah, I've looked at the pamphlets on the hundreds and hundreds of flights I've been on. I've sat in the emergency row, first class, back galley, you name it on dozens of models of aircraft.

Within a few moments of taking my seat, I know where my nearest exit is, and I know how to open it in an emergency because nearly all commercial aircraft doors open the same way. I know from a quick reach-under that the vest is still there, and that they're designed to be of obvious function with their large handle for self-inflation and the tubes for manual inflation.

I don't need to be told to grab for an oxygen mask before it falls - I would posit that it's instinctual, even as a parent, so that I am better equipped to help my fellow passengers (or my kids if they're with me) and so that my action can set an example for those that don't know what to do. All the seats of all the planes I've been on in the past ten years or so have been able to be used as flotation devices.

I'm not saying that these things are common knowledge. "Noobs" should listen. But "veterans" shouldn't be assaulted with high volume, or assumed to be shirking their duties as fellow passengers if they respectfully mind their own business during the safety announcement.

Talk during the announcement? Shut the hell up, you're messing with the learning of someone else, and you're going to cause others to talk over it. Quietly play Bejeweled while wearing headphones during the announcement? I'll assume you've "been there" and "done that" often enough to not be a liability to the rest of us if something goes wrong.

Incidentally, when told about the exits by the flight attendant, do NOT ask "in the event of an unexpected landing event, am I authorized to escape via the twisted, burning, gaping hole in the aircraft?" They don't find that amusing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com