Brandy

From the NY Times website today, partial extract:

""Need a reason to tear yourself from that sleek new MP3 player you can't put down? While most people covet the hours of nonstop music and the snug earpieces, those features, and others, are also the reasons the players may hurt your hearing.

The component that can have the greatest impact is the headphone. In a study published last year in the "Journal Ear and Hearing", Dr. Brian Fligor of Harvard Medical School looked at a variety of headphones and found that, on average, the smaller they were the higher their output levels at any given volume control setting.

Compared with larger headphones that cover the entire ear, some insertable headphones, like the white ones sold with iPods, increased sound levels by up to nine decibels. That may not seem like much, but because decibels are measured in logarithmic units, it can mean the difference between the noise output of an alarm clock (about 80 decibels) and that of a lawnmower (about 90 decibels).

The other problem, a second study found, is that insertable headphones are not as efficient at blocking background noise as some larger ones that cover the ear, so there is more incentive to turn up the volume.

To be sure, no one is certain what levels of noise the average MP3 listener is experiencing. But a large study of iPod users between 18 and 54 in Australia last month might provide some insight. The study, by the National Acoustic Laboratory in Sydney, found that about a quarter of the people surveyed kept their iPods at volumes that could cause long-term hearing damage.""

tismfu

Often I have worried/wondered about this when I use my iPod on a plane. At home in a quiet setting I notice that my volume might be at half or even under, but on a plane it's close to full. I would use my QC2s but when I'm awake I wear my glasses and I find the Bose headset uncomfortable with my specs on.

I wish I knew if hearing damage was in my future.

SPN Lifer

UA, CO, DL, and NW don't use buds.

But some of the those others do go very loud. Sometimes when you change channels.

aaupgrade

Oh, its a valid topic, but for the Travel technology forum as there are extensive threads on noise cancelling headphones of which the Shure and Etymotic varieties are of these type and I am sure many people on that forum/thread would be interested/benefit from this information.

s80dude

Well I am working the 737 this month (must change my userid I guess) now that they are on the DFW bid sheet and people are just LOVING the ear buds. When I hand them out in first class they don't know what to think. At first, I don't think they get it, because they are so small and the packaging throws them off, but last trip alone, several passengers commented on how much they liked them and appreciated the upgrade to the ear bud.

Now if we could just do something about "The Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants"....

brp

People may like them, but that doesn't reduce the possible negative side effects of using these types of earphones. Hell, lots of people like cigarettes, but that doesn't make them any less harmful.

Cheers.

FlyAO2

Don't worry - it's not

maisany

This is a load of horse dung.

I use Shure e3's and before them, the e2's. I have also tried the over-the-ears noise-cancellation headphones, including the Bose, which I actually did a side-by-side comparison with my Shures when they gave them out for free on a flight I was on.

First of all, earbuds are different from in-ear phones like the Shures or the Etys. I hate the earbuds because they do not fit particularly well, hence they don't block out noise at all and in a noisy environment, it's nearly impossible to hear the music without bumping up the volume.

What I find totally misleading in the above quote though, is the phrase "at any given volume control setting". This is like saying "a 60W bulb gives off significantly more light in the any given lamp than a 40W bulb, in the on position". All they're saying is that earbuds or in-ear phones are more efficient than over-the-ear headphones. So what should anyone with any common sense do? Turn down the volume control. They make it sound as though people are running around, listening to their iPods with the volume setting at 50%, then switching to earbuds and totally ignoring what they're hearing, leaving it at 50% because that's what they think it should be at.

This is one of the reasons why I love my Shures. I no longer have to up the volume in noisy environments like an airplane, in a vain attempt to hear the music. I can leave my iPod at a reasonable level and hear perfectly fine, and most of the ambient noise is shut out completely.

What a load of dung. Who paid for this illuminating study anyway???

Plato90s

AA moderator note

moved from AA forum due to lack of relevance to AAdvantage program.

iCorpRoadie

it really comes down to your own personal preference of volume. If you ALWAYS use a vol from 80-100% you are going to loose your hearing much more fast than someone who used a 30-60% setting. For me, I know my hearing will be gone sometime as I do ALOT of work with concerts and loud enviroments, but for now, enjoy! to each his own. Its like those that smoke, you know its bad for you, but you still do it.

kanebear

More junk science and utter BS. Different headphones react differently to a given input. The iPod 'phones may be very efficient and not seal well, but I can guarantee you a power hungry headphone such as the Etymotic ER-4S will NOT be as loud as most 'phones. They just aren't as efficient. As for in-ear phones not blocking noise as well... *ROFLMAO*.. again, it's all about the design. The Etymotics, my Shures, and the Sonys I have all have soft pliable earpieces (custom molded on the Etys) that mold to the ear and seal against the ear. They block noise better than any external phone ever could. Finally, as for the 9 dB increase in sound... you hear what you hear. If an earphone is 9 dB hotter than another, you're simply not going to turn the volume up as loud as you did before.

tismfu

Aww, thanks.

Mikey likes it

Eh? What's that you say?

jwalkabout

Someone correct me here but I think there is a distinct difference between ear buds and canal phones like Ety or shure. The buds you just place in the ear and they provide no type of sealing or sound isolation; the canals provide a seal or sound isolation. The buds you do have to crank up to get any significant sound whereas the canals you don't because outer sound is blocked out.

CPRich

I'll need to read the entire report but, from the extract/abstract posted here, it sounds like a piece of junk.

What the heck does "at any given volume setting" mean?? My car accelerates faster at half throttle than my lawnmower does? OK, and that proves what? Turning my outside spotlight to "On", it is brighter than my 15W desk lap set to "On". So? The fact that setting my MP3 player volume to 6 is louder on my Shures than it is with Sennheiser HD-600's simply means I turn it down with the Shures or up with the Sennys

Insertable headphones "increased sound levels by up to 9 decibels". How many people have an MP3 player with a fixed output? That's the only scenario where I see this sentence having any relevance. Yes, putting a fixed amount of sound closer to your ear will increase the SPL. That's why they have volume controls.

"To be sure, no one is certain what levels of noise the average MP3 listener is experiencing. " - why not? Is it that hard to survey a person's volume setting and reproduce it in a dummy head? Actually, I know it isn't. My wife used to be global product manager for hearing protection with the world's largest safety company - they do it all the time.

In fact, it seems the folks down under seem able to do it, as stated at the end of the article in the initial post. I wonder if they broke down the survey by in-ear and circumaural listening devices. I'd put a decent wager on the percentages being pretty much independant of the type of headphone. People who listen too loud will do it with any device. And they're pretty much all capable of damaging SPL levels.

I can't imagine a study published by Harvard Medical is this bad (I do believe the NYT could make it this bad. And why are they just know reporting a study from 2004?) I'm going to try to dig up a copy to see what it really says.

And I'll keep listening to my Shures and Sennys at the volumes I do today.