My first objective is SQ, but that is not to discount SQL. What
would be better, one 12 inch sub or two 10 inch subs? The make is
Boston Acoustics ProSeries.

Sam

--
See my links engine for a collection of sites that
might be of interest to you. Your additions will
make this engine more powerful global resource.
http://www.miltonstreet.com/scarleton/links/

hahaha What is SQL? sound quality... Loud/Level? Im kidding :~)

My friend has a single 10 in a small sealed enclosure in his SQ system,
accord wagon. IMHO it sounds incredible. Tight, low and resonant
without sounding flabby. I would recommend these to anyone. Two would
be even better IMHO if you wanted more dbs, but still retaining SQ (+3db
Louder).

No first hand experience with the 12s.

Garrett

Sam Carleton wrote:

My first objective is SQ, but that is not to discount SQL. What
would be better, one 12 inch sub or two 10 inch subs? The make is
Boston Acoustics ProSeries.

Sam

--
See my links engine for a collection of sites that
might be of interest to you. Your additions will
make this engine more powerful global resource.
http://www.miltonstreet.com/scarleton/links/

Lizard, you ROCK!!! I love facts like that....completely useless, but
wonderfully interesting nonetheless.

Cheers,
Rick
"The Lizard" wrote in message
...
Sam Carleton wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 at 23:06 GMT, Sanitarium wrote:


Yeah, I hit about 130 db in the late 80s with a pair of gold logo
C12s in a sealed box. That was a lot back in those days.


Lets put some perspective on db. If I am not mistaken, the Space
Shuttle rumble off the launch pad at around 130 db?


I LOVE Shuttle Science. That bird maybe three decades old, but it still
kicks ass.

The shuttle produces a whopping 188 db of SPL at the launch pad. At the
pads perimeter, it produces 160 db of SPL. 25 miles away at Cocoa Beach,
you'll get 75 to 95 db of SPL.

Trivia: When the shuttle launches, engineers turn on the spicket
spraying the area under the launch pad with several thousand gallons of
water per minute. Many people erroneously believe that this is done to
cool the launch pad. It actually lowers the SPL at the pad. Without this
spray, it would actually be greater than 220 db of SPL. The exhaust from
the space shuttle isn't actually all that hot (relatively speaking), and
the concrete is several meters thick, so it can handle a few seconds of
heat.


--
------------------------------------------------------------------
| Lizard | thelizman1221.yahoo@com |
------------------------------------------------------------------
| teamROCS #007 / Technical Director / Founding Member |
------------------------------------------------------------------
| The TeamROCS Forum http://www.teamrocs.net/forum/ |
| |
| The Hoam Paige http://www.geocities.com/thelizman1221/ |
|
------------------------------------------------------------------

188 dB at liftoff

The shuttle produces acoustic levels of about 188 dB on the launch platform,
160 dB at the pad perimeter, and 120 dB at the VAB. At landing, the sonic
booms can easily reach 110 dB. In Cocoa Beach, 40 km (25 miles) south of the
pads, the sound level during launch can vary from 77 to 95 dB.

http://www.ghg.net/pss/www/cd/facts.html

Christian



"Eddie Runner" wrote in message
...
Sam Carleton wrote:

Lets put some perspective on db. If I am not mistaken, the Space
Shuttle rumble off the launch pad at around 130 db?

You are mistaken!

The space shuttle is SO LOUD, they have a giant pool of water below it
so that the rocket engines can turn it into a large cloud of sound
absorbing
STEAM when it lifts off... The Steam absorbs some of the massive sounds

and prevents the giant sounds from bouncing off the earth and cracking
the
tiles off the shuttle during liftoff...

the shuttle may be 130dB at a 10 mile distance, but up close it is REAL
LOUD!

Awesome... Pountless trivia. :~)
You mean water is better for vibration damping than (big marketing scam)
Dynamat?

hahaha

Garrett

The Lizard wrote:

Sam Carleton wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 at 23:06 GMT, Sanitarium wrote:


Yeah, I hit about 130 db in the late 80s with a pair of gold logo
C12s in a sealed box. That was a lot back in those days.


Lets put some perspective on db. If I am not mistaken, the Space
Shuttle rumble off the launch pad at around 130 db?


I LOVE Shuttle Science. That bird maybe three decades old, but it still
kicks ass.

The shuttle produces a whopping 188 db of SPL at the launch pad. At the
pads perimeter, it produces 160 db of SPL. 25 miles away at Cocoa Beach,
you'll get 75 to 95 db of SPL.

Trivia: When the shuttle launches, engineers turn on the spicket
spraying the area under the launch pad with several thousand gallons of
water per minute. Many people erroneously believe that this is done to
cool the launch pad. It actually lowers the SPL at the pad. Without this
spray, it would actually be greater than 220 db of SPL. The exhaust from
the space shuttle isn't actually all that hot (relatively speaking), and
the concrete is several meters thick, so it can handle a few seconds of
heat.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
| Lizard | thelizman1221.yahoo@com |
------------------------------------------------------------------
| teamROCS #007 / Technical Director / Founding Member |
------------------------------------------------------------------
| The TeamROCS Forum http://www.teamrocs.net/forum/ |
| |
| The Hoam Paige http://www.geocities.com/thelizman1221/ |
|
------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark Zarella wrote:

My first objective is SQ, but that is not to discount SQL.

Contrary to what you'll hear from a lot of the people in here, you cannot
have SQ without the SPL. That is, a major component of having a good SQ
system is being able to listen to it at the volume level you like without
distortion. Listening at rather loud levels is very common.

huh????? what did you says? huh?

"Mark Zarella" seesigfile wrote:



Contrary to what you'll hear from a lot of the people in here, you
cannot
have SQ without the SPL. That is, a major component of having a good SQ
system is being able to listen to it at the volume level you like
without
distortion. Listening at rather loud levels is very common.

huh????? what did you says? huh?

Hehe, and contrary to popular belief, it's actually quite difficult to
permanently damage your hearing.

Great topic. So let us talk about that. What dosage are you referencing?

Hehe, and contrary to popular belief, it's actually quite difficult to
permanently damage your hearing.

Great topic. So let us talk about that. What dosage are you referencing?

Dosage eh? That's a new one. Unless you're suggesting that I'm off my
anti-psycho pills. I swear I've been taking them.

Who says it's difficult to permanently damage your hearing? I've permanently
damaged mine! I have tinnitus, and I have limited hearing in one ear (mostly
can't hear certain higher frequencies that I used to be able to hear) so
it's sometimes very hard to hear what people are saying to me, or what is
being said on television or radio. This is from shooting firearms for most
of my life, quite often without hearing protection, and some of it is from
childhood and having many many ear infections and having tubes put in my
ears, as well as one time when someone smacked my ear with a flat palm and
damaged one of my eardrums.

It happens, and it isn't all that difficult. SOME hearing damage tends to
repair itself, at least partially, over time, but not ALL damage is repaired
regardless of what you do.

"Mark Zarella" seesigfile wrote in message
...
Contrary to what you'll hear from a lot of the people in here, you
cannot
have SQ without the SPL. That is, a major component of having a good
SQ
system is being able to listen to it at the volume level you like
without
distortion. Listening at rather loud levels is very common.

huh????? what did you says? huh?

Hehe, and contrary to popular belief, it's actually quite difficult to
permanently damage your hearing.

"Sanitarium" wrote in message
...
Awesome... Pountless trivia. :~)
You mean water is better for vibration damping than (big marketing scam)
Dynamat?


Probably not, but the dynamat would catch fire rather easily under the
exhaust of the engines.

Who says it's difficult to permanently damage your hearing?

I do.

I have tinnitus
snip
This is from shooting firearms for most
of my life, quite often without hearing protection,

As I said, quite difficult.

SOME hearing damage tends to
repair itself, at least partially, over time,

Most in fact...

2 10's. You'll have more cone area so the subs will have to move less for a
given output level.

Paul Vina


"Sam Carleton" wrote in message
...
My first objective is SQ, but that is not to discount SQL. What
would be better, one 12 inch sub or two 10 inch subs? The make is
Boston Acoustics ProSeries.

Sam

--
See my links engine for a collection of sites that
might be of interest to you. Your additions will
make this engine more powerful global resource.
http://www.miltonstreet.com/scarleton/links/

"scott johnson" skrev i melding
...

"Sanitarium" wrote in message
...
Awesome... Pountless trivia. :~)
You mean water is better for vibration damping than (big marketing scam)
Dynamat?


Probably not, but the dynamat would catch fire rather easily under the
exhaust of the engines.



And there's always a price.. Water isn't too expencive.. ;-)

Mark Zarella wrote:

Contrary to what you'll hear from a lot of the people in here, you
cannot
have SQ without the SPL. That is, a major component of having a good SQ
system is being able to listen to it at the volume level you like
without
distortion. Listening at rather loud levels is very common.

huh????? what did you says? huh?

Hehe, and contrary to popular belief, it's actually quite difficult to
permanently damage your hearing.

bull****, saying this as I sit hear with ears ringing (tinnitus) from listening to music
much too loud all my life. I have had to quit doing a bird survey because of my loss of
hearing. And it has gotten worse just recently as I was "tuning" the two 15 inch Elemental
Designs I just bought. Maybe you have iron ears but it is not hard to have hearing loss.
Ever see the OSHA regs? Hearing loss can occur much too easily. Don't fool yourself.

bull****, saying this as I sit hear with ears ringing (tinnitus) from
listening to music
much too loud all my life.

My point exactly. I don't consider normal use as comprising of "listening
to music much too loud all one's life".

I have had to quit doing a bird survey because of my loss of
hearing. And it has gotten worse just recently as I was "tuning" the two
15 inch Elemental
Designs I just bought. Maybe you have iron ears but it is not hard to have
hearing loss.
Ever see the OSHA regs? Hearing loss can occur much too easily. Don't fool
yourself.

No, it doesn't occur "easily" one bit. It's very very difficult to do,
short of *prolonged* (and that word is a bit of an understatement) exposure
at near untolerable levels.

Hi,
Hearing loss(damage) is gradual.
Ever done complete hearing test done?
Unless you have one done, you won't see the gradual loss occuring.
(because you don't have reference point)
My next door at work is hearing center. I am really alarmed at the way
my hearing ability is degrading(mainly due to aging). My hearing
is frequnecy sensitive now. I served in the field artillery unit in the
army, been playing in a band for almost half a century, as a ham
operator always wear headphones when I am working on radio, etc.
Also cleaned out your ears? Lots of dirt build up in there. Ear candling
wax is very good for sucking up all the dirt.

Mark Zarella wrote:

Who says it's difficult to permanently damage your hearing?


I do.


I have tinnitus

snip

This is from shooting firearms for most
of my life, quite often without hearing protection,


As I said, quite difficult.


SOME hearing damage tends to
repair itself, at least partially, over time,


Most in fact...

Mark Zarella wrote:

bull****, saying this as I sit hear with ears ringing (tinnitus) from
listening to music
much too loud all my life.

My point exactly. I don't consider normal use as comprising of "listening
to music much too loud all one's life".


Then why the hell do all the people on this newsgroup talk of 1000 watt amps, 150 watts to
their fronts etc. You either are a fool or a troll. I guess from your posts that the fool
part is appropriate.

http://www.oshanoise.com/osha_standard.html

U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration - OSHA - Standards

As of August 1981, OSHA noise exposure standards consist of a two-stage program where
hearing
conservation measures become mandatory at 85 dBA for an 8-hour day but feasible
engineering or
administrative noise controls are required when exposures exceed 90 dBA.

Hearing Conservation Programs - include annual audiometric testing and provision of
hearing
protectors.

Engineering Controls - include reducing machinery noise through redesign, replacement
with quieter
equipment or by reducing the transmission of noise along the path from source to
receiver.

Administrative Controls - include reducing noise exposure by limiting the time an
employee is exposed to
given noise levels.

1. Criteria for Engineering or Administrative Controls

Feasible administrative or engineering controls shall be utilized if noise dose D is
greater than 1.0 in
accordance with the following equation:

D = C1/T1 + C2/T2 + CN/TN

whe
D = Daily noise dose (must not exceed unity)
C = Actual exposure time at given noise level.
T = Permissible exposure time at that level in accordance with the table below.

Duration Per Day, Hr
Permissible Exposure
"Slow" Response, dBA
8
90
6
92
4
95
3
97
2
100
1.5
102
1
105
0.5
110
0.25 or less
115



Exposure to impulsive or impact noise should not exceed 140 dB peak sound pressure level.

Examples:

1. For an 8 hour day at constant noise levels, 90 dBA is the maximum allowable level.
2. Assure exposure of:

100 dBA for 2 hours, 90 dBA for 6 hours

D = 2/2 + 6/8 = 1.75

Engineering or administrative controls are necessary to reduce noise dose to unity.

3. Assume exposure of:

100 dBA for 1 hour
90 dBA for 4 hours
85 dBA for 3 hours

Exposure below 90 dBA does not contribute of OSHA noise "dose" for administrative or
engineering
controls to be employed. Therefo

D = ½ + 4/8 = 1.00
(Acceptable)

2. OSHA Criteria for Hearing Conservation Programs

Employers shall administer continuing, effective hearing conservation programs wherever
employee noise
exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour time weighted average of 85 dBA or, equivalently, a
dose or 50%
measured according to the following equation:

D = 100 (C1/T1 + C2/T2 + C3/T3 + CN/TN)

whe

D = Workday dose in percent
1,2,3 = Period of exposure to different dBA levels
C = Actual exposure time at different levels
T = Permissible exposure time at that level in accordance with the following table.

A-weighted Sound
Level, L (dB)
Reference Duration, T
(hr)
80
32.0
81
27.9
82
24.3
83
21.1
84
18.4
85
16.0
86
13.9
87
12.1
88
10.6
89
9.2
90
8.0
91
7.0
92
6.2
93
5.3
94
4.6
95
4.0
96
3.5
97
3.0
98
2.6
99
2.3
100
2.0
101
1.7
102
1.5
103
1.4


Examples:

1. Assume exposure of:

85 dBA for 5 hours
87 dBA for 2 hours
80 dBA for ½ hour

D = 100 (5/16 + 2/12.1 + 0.5/32) = 49.34%
(Acceptable, since D is less than 50%)

2. Assume exposure of:

100 dBA for 1 hour
90 dBA for 4 hours
85 dBA for 3 hours

D = 100 (1/2 + 4/8 + 3/16) = 118.75%
(Unacceptable, since D exceeds 50%)



I have had to quit doing a bird survey because of my loss of
hearing. And it has gotten worse just recently as I was "tuning" the two
15 inch Elemental
Designs I just bought. Maybe you have iron ears but it is not hard to have
hearing loss.
Ever see the OSHA regs? Hearing loss can occur much too easily. Don't fool
yourself.

No, it doesn't occur "easily" one bit. It's very very difficult to do,
short of *prolonged* (and that word is a bit of an understatement) exposure
at near untolerable levels.

Bull****. 110 dB isn't untollearble and that is what we do when listening to our stereo.
Nothing unusual about that if my personal experience and what I hear driving around town
is typical.

I just checked. My normal listening level is about 105 db, check what OSHA says about
prolonged exposure to 105 dBs. Listening at the max, my meter peaked at about 123 dbs
with the sub crossed at 78 hz (I usually have it crossed at 62 hz). How many people
normally listen to their music at high levels and how long does it take to damage your
hearing at those levels. What are normal listening levels? 90 dBs? What level do you
normally listen too? How is your hearing? What are the levels at a concert? What levels do
you find around a table saw. How long does it take to permanently damage your ears at 100
dBs, at 105, at 110 at 120, at 125? What do you do, only listen to Rush Limbaugh at 90
dBs. Road noise isn't too far from that.

You are twisting words, you are a fool.

Hi,
Hearing loss(damage) is gradual.
Ever done complete hearing test done?

Do you mean administered?

Unless you have one done, you won't see the gradual loss occuring.
(because you don't have reference point)

I agree.

My next door at work is hearing center. I am really alarmed at the way
my hearing ability is degrading(mainly due to aging).

Man, you should tell them to turn it down then!

My hearing
is frequnecy sensitive now.

Whose isn't?

bull****, saying this as I sit hear with ears ringing (tinnitus) from
listening to music
much too loud all my life.

My point exactly. I don't consider normal use as comprising of
"listening
to music much too loud all one's life".


Then why the hell do all the people on this newsgroup talk of 1000 watt
amps, 150 watts to
their fronts etc.

1000 watts does not necessarily translate to ear-damaging sound levels. But
if you knew anything about audio, you'd probably realize that.

You either are a fool or a troll.

Or someone who's "fluent" in both audio engineering and neurophysiology.
Thanks for the kind words though.

I guess from your posts that the fool
part is appropriate.

http://www.oshanoise.com/osha_standard.html

U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration - OSHA - Standards

US Beaurocrats are not scientists, nor is anything below scientific.
Lawyers make laws.

snip
No, it doesn't occur "easily" one bit. It's very very difficult to do,
short of *prolonged* (and that word is a bit of an understatement)
exposure
at near untolerable levels.

Bull****. 110 dB isn't untollearble

It sure can be.

and that is what we do when listening to our stereo.

My ears are perfectly fine and I listen to my stereo several hours per day
at what I thought was a relatively loud level. Perhaps you shouldn't be
using the word "we" there, hmmm?

Nothing unusual about that if my personal experience and what I hear
driving around town
is typical.

I just checked. My normal listening level is about 105 db,

By what method did you check? (this ought to be good)

check what OSHA says about
prolonged exposure to 105 dBs.

Ok, now what do scientists say about it? (cite peer-reviewed literature
please)

Listening at the max, my meter peaked at about 123 dbs
with the sub crossed at 78 hz (I usually have it crossed at 62 hz). How
many people
normally listen to their music at high levels and how long does it take to
damage your
hearing at those levels. What are normal listening levels? 90 dBs? What
level do you
normally listen too? How is your hearing?

Answered above.

What are the levels at a concert?

The levels at the concert I went to a couple weeks ago were insane. That
may also be because it was at a small club with a lot of empty space -- and
I was standing in front of the speakers. Tinnitus for 3 days... my hearing
is perfectly within spec now.

What levels do
you find around a table saw.

Very loud. If it was prolonged, it'd be likely to cause permanent damage.
How many people is that the case for? If you believe that it's common to
permanently damage your hearing when exposed to a relatively brief duration
of table saw, then you are naive.

How long does it take to permanently damage your ears at 100
dBs, at 105, at 110 at 120, at 125?

Very good question. Care to take a stab at it?

What do you do, only listen to Rush Limbaugh at 90
dBs. Road noise isn't too far from that.

I don't listen to right-wingnuts. I do, however, listen to my 1000 watt
stereo system very loudly on a daily basis.


You are twisting words, you are a fool.

Are you done trolling yet? I haven't seen you contribute one worthwhile
thing in this newsgroup, unless you call unwarranted ad hominems a
worthwhile contribution. Go away, dunce.

"Mark Zarella" seesigfile wrote:



Hi,
Hearing loss(damage) is gradual.
Ever done complete hearing test done?

Do you mean administered?

Unless you have one done, you won't see the gradual loss occuring.
(because you don't have reference point)

I agree.

My next door at work is hearing center. I am really alarmed at the way
my hearing ability is degrading(mainly due to aging).

Man, you should tell them to turn it down then!

My hearing
is frequnecy sensitive now.

Whose isn't?

Humans, and particularly men, tend to lose high frequency hearing with age.
Some of this may be due to higher-noise exposure with males. Carpenters seem to
lose hearing fastest of all experience groups according to a professor of
audiology I know, seemingly because of electrical saw-or-other tool noise
exposure.

Ear Plugs are the obvious protection 'tool.' But the 'foamies' have the
disadvantages of intelligibility impairment and occlusal effect (with foamy
plugs your footsteps sound like T-Rex sneaking up on you.)

One very good way to protect yourself is to spend $100 for Musicians Ear-Plugs
which have balanced attenuation; its more like just turning the volume down.
You can only get them from an audiologist who will make custom ear-molds for
you.

You can then buy diaphrams with 9, 15 or 25 dB of attenuation. Because the
attenuation is frequency balanced you can still understand conversation and
hear all the music just at a lower level.

Because I make my living by "listening" I use Musician's Ear Plugs at EVERY
venue where there's a PA system. I have very type of attenuator as well.

So when I'm testing subwoofer maximum SPL or attending an IASCA Event I use the
ER-25 dB attenuators. For the Mamma Mia at the Oriental Theater in Chicago last
weekend and the Lovin' Spoonful outdoor concert the weekend prior I used the
ER-9 diaphrams. For Charlie Love at Blue Chicago on Clark the ER-15s were
perfect.

IMO anyone who is interested in maintaining his/her natural hearing ability for
as long as possible should investigate hearing protection as soon as possible.

Nousaine wrote:

"Mark Zarella" seesigfile wrote:



Hi,
Hearing loss(damage) is gradual.
Ever done complete hearing test done?

Do you mean administered?

Unless you have one done, you won't see the gradual loss occuring.
(because you don't have reference point)

I agree.

My next door at work is hearing center. I am really alarmed at the way
my hearing ability is degrading(mainly due to aging).

Man, you should tell them to turn it down then!

My hearing
is frequnecy sensitive now.

Whose isn't?

Humans, and particularly men, tend to lose high frequency hearing with age.
Some of this may be due to higher-noise exposure with males. Carpenters seem to
lose hearing fastest of all experience groups according to a professor of
audiology I know, seemingly because of electrical saw-or-other tool noise
exposure.

Ear Plugs are the obvious protection 'tool.' But the 'foamies' have the
disadvantages of intelligibility impairment and occlusal effect (with foamy
plugs your footsteps sound like T-Rex sneaking up on you.)

One very good way to protect yourself is to spend $100 for Musicians Ear-Plugs
which have balanced attenuation; its more like just turning the volume down.
You can only get them from an audiologist who will make custom ear-molds for
you.

You can then buy diaphrams with 9, 15 or 25 dB of attenuation. Because the
attenuation is frequency balanced you can still understand conversation and
hear all the music just at a lower level.

Because I make my living by "listening" I use Musician's Ear Plugs at EVERY
venue where there's a PA system. I have very type of attenuator as well.

So when I'm testing subwoofer maximum SPL or attending an IASCA Event I use the
ER-25 dB attenuators. For the Mamma Mia at the Oriental Theater in Chicago last
weekend and the Lovin' Spoonful outdoor concert the weekend prior I used the
ER-9 diaphrams. For Charlie Love at Blue Chicago on Clark the ER-15s were
perfect.

IMO anyone who is interested in maintaining his/her natural hearing ability for
as long as possible should investigate hearing protection as soon as possible.

But according to Mark, we don't lose our hearing.

Mark Zarella wrote:

bull****, saying this as I sit hear with ears ringing (tinnitus) from
listening to music
much too loud all my life.

My point exactly. I don't consider normal use as comprising of
"listening
to music much too loud all one's life".


Then why the hell do all the people on this newsgroup talk of 1000 watt
amps, 150 watts to
their fronts etc.

1000 watts does not necessarily translate to ear-damaging sound levels. But
if you knew anything about audio, you'd probably realize that.

You either are a fool or a troll.

Or someone who's "fluent" in both audio engineering and neurophysiology.
Thanks for the kind words though.

I guess from your posts that the fool
part is appropriate.

http://www.oshanoise.com/osha_standard.html

U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration - OSHA - Standards

US Beaurocrats are not scientists, nor is anything below scientific.
Lawyers make laws.

snip
No, it doesn't occur "easily" one bit. It's very very difficult to do,
short of *prolonged* (and that word is a bit of an understatement)
exposure
at near untolerable levels.

Bull****. 110 dB isn't untollearble

It sure can be.

and that is what we do when listening to our stereo.

My ears are perfectly fine and I listen to my stereo several hours per day
at what I thought was a relatively loud level. Perhaps you shouldn't be
using the word "we" there, hmmm?

Nothing unusual about that if my personal experience and what I hear
driving around town
is typical.

I just checked. My normal listening level is about 105 db,

By what method did you check? (this ought to be good)

check what OSHA says about
prolonged exposure to 105 dBs.

Ok, now what do scientists say about it? (cite peer-reviewed literature
please)

Listening at the max, my meter peaked at about 123 dbs
with the sub crossed at 78 hz (I usually have it crossed at 62 hz). How
many people
normally listen to their music at high levels and how long does it take to
damage your
hearing at those levels. What are normal listening levels? 90 dBs? What
level do you
normally listen too? How is your hearing?

Answered above.

What are the levels at a concert?

The levels at the concert I went to a couple weeks ago were insane. That
may also be because it was at a small club with a lot of empty space -- and
I was standing in front of the speakers. Tinnitus for 3 days... my hearing
is perfectly within spec now.

What levels do
you find around a table saw.

Very loud. If it was prolonged, it'd be likely to cause permanent damage.
How many people is that the case for? If you believe that it's common to
permanently damage your hearing when exposed to a relatively brief duration
of table saw, then you are naive.

How long does it take to permanently damage your ears at 100
dBs, at 105, at 110 at 120, at 125?

Very good question. Care to take a stab at it?

What do you do, only listen to Rush Limbaugh at 90
dBs. Road noise isn't too far from that.

I don't listen to right-wingnuts. I do, however, listen to my 1000 watt
stereo system very loudly on a daily basis.


You are twisting words, you are a fool.

Are you done trolling yet? I haven't seen you contribute one worthwhile
thing in this newsgroup, unless you call unwarranted ad hominems a
worthwhile contribution. Go away, dunce.

I guess you didn't read what you sniped you dumb mother****er.

But according to Mark, we don't lose our hearing.

Show me where I said that. I said it's not as easy as you think. But then
again, people like you that think that shooting your entire life with no
hearing protection (what kind of moron are you anyway?) or sitting at a
table saw on a daily basis is "easy". I guess we'll agree to disagree on
what we label easy.

..
Then why the hell do all the people on this newsgroup talk of 1000 watt
amps, 150 watts to
their fronts etc.

Most of those numbers are LIES. And that is usually the peak numbers anyway,
very Short bursts at that. So unless were talking extreme Dbs it wont damage
your hearing.

U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration - OSHA - Standards

Who cares? Really they have no idea what they are talking about on most things.
The things are written by Lawyers not people who actually work in the field.

Bull****. 110 dB isn't untollearble

110dB is Loud. I try not to exceed that at Mix position at the concerts I mix.
Why? Because it is freakin loud!!

I just checked. My normal listening level is about 105 db,

Well I dont think 105 is damaging unless you listen for SEVERAL hours a day
with no "rest"

check what OSHA says about
prolonged exposure to 105 dBs.


Like I said earlier, They dont know. They play with a safety factor in place,
meaning its really not but if we say it is then people may listen. Similar to
aircraft cable, Its working load is 800 pounds but its breaking strength is
6400 pounds.

How
many people
normally listen to their music at high levels and how long does it take
to
damage your
hearing at those levels.

I dont know, but thats prolonged daily exposure.
See thats the key Daily Prolonged exposure. I routinly mix concerts and do not
have hearing loss, At times I am exposed to very loud levels, but its for short
times.

I guess you didn't read what you sniped you dumb mother****er.


Calm down. Contribute to the group, prove you know some things, then maybe you
can get away with that. BUT never contributing, well people are just going to
think your a little punk kid who doesnt know what he is talking about so
resorts to name calling. Just advice do what you will with it.

Les