EU Recommends Noise Limits On MP3 Players

A story at the BBC notes increasing pressure from the European Commission to set standards that would limit the maximum volume on portable MP3 players. Their reasoning is that it would protect users from damaging their hearing after listening to loud music for extended periods. Quoting: "This follows a report last year warning that up to 10m people in the EU face permanent hearing loss from listening to loud music for prolonged periods. EU experts want the default maximum setting to be 85 decibels, according to BBC One's Politics Show. Users would be able to override this setting to reach a top limit of 100 decibels. ... Some personal players examined in testing facilities have been found to reach 120 decibels, the equivalent of a jet taking off, and no safety default level currently applies, although manufacturers are obliged to print information about risks in the instruction manuals. Modern personal players are seen as more dangerous than stationary players or old-fashioned cassette or disk players because they can store hours of music and are often listened to while in traffic with the volume very high to drown out outside noise."

Comments

But how to do that?

[Anonymous Coward]

But how to do that?
The effect used to play at 85db is not the same across all headphones.
The small tiny ones that comes with the player normaly need less effect to reach 85db then if you get some nice big headphones with better sound.

Re:But how to do that?

[coastwalker]

They can do what they like so long as we can overide it. As well as headphone sensitivity there is the irritation of lack of drive for docking bases and the obligatory regulation industry that will be their choice implementation strategy. Its a pity they couldnt regulate the finance industry that has put so many people out of work. Still at least these useless bureaucrats are guarnteed a lifetime of employment followed by fat pensions payed for by my taxes.

Re:But how to do that?

[biryokumaru]

The obvious method to override.

Re:But how to do that?

[erroneus]

That's an interesting point/question. The output of one set of headphones will be different from another set of earbuds. There would have to be some sort of end-user calibration process to get it right. And given how many people still have electronic devices that blink "12:00" I think any such requirement would result in a failure and a lot of wasted money for the added functionality.

Re:But how to do that?

[Random5]

Strangely enough while reading this article I've just bumped into the problem of this work PC's soundcard being unable to push my headphones past around 80dB while just last week a volume setting
Actually my roughly 4 or so year old Creative Zen Vision M (which still works perfectly) came with a limiter option called safesound or softsound or something which scaled the maximum volume setting down to a fairly harmless level.

Re:But how to do that?

[Random5]

Gah, stupid comment system somehow mangled my post. First paragraph should have been this Strangely enough while reading this article I've just bumped into the problem of this work PC's soundcard being unable to push my headphones past around 80dB while just last week a volume setting 75% of max delivered an almost painful burst of sound from my canal-phones which will always be an option on these devices if they start coming out with hard limits of 100dB on shipped crappy bud phones due to EU nannyism.

Re:But how to do that?

[SpooForBrains]

No, what would happen is that the levels would be calibrated either arbitrarily, or with whatever standard earbuds come with the device.

Those of us that go out and buy decent earphones will then just have to deal with them being too quiet, and no one important enough will give a shit.

Re:But how to do that?

[BrokenHalo]

While all our governments are in a nanny-state frame of mind, they might turn their attention more usefully to the kind of amplification given to bands in pubs and clubs, where the dimensions of the places are often small enough to hear the sound of a mouse fart from one side of the room to another, but the bands turn up the volume as high as they can anyway. Or at least in a mathematically inverse ratio to their musical ability.

It's common to see musicians playing with plugs stuck in their ears so they don't drive themselves stone deaf, while they obviously consider it perfectly OK for them to obliterate the hearing of customers frequenting the place.

I realise I'm probably a tedious old fart, but I've long been forced to recognise that my hearing is far from what it was when I was a teenager or even in my twenties, and I hold many of these crappy bands to blame.

Re:But how to do that?

[areusche]

All in all that doesn't matter. This is just another example of ignorant politicians. As a sound designer these dB SPL levels are USELESS with a reference point. 85 dB SPL at 10 meters from a source is a busy room, while 60-65 dB is general room noise. Also 120 dB SPL is the threshold of pain. At or above that our body starts to respond by desensitizing and tinnitius. In incremental doses our body adapts to loud sounds. Limiting headphone output is a farce and manufactures should focus on limiting outside interference. Never use ear buds.

Re:But how to do that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if it worked exactly as advertised... 85 dB? My fire alarm generates about 60 dB and that fucking hurts. How about instead of some invisible limiter, simply force every earplug manufacturer to attach a little lcd display that shows the actual volume currently playing in dB? If you combine that with some proper documentation about what levels of sound are usually harmful, or annoying to bystanders, and an easy way for people to test their own hearing so they know if they have been excessing in the past that is probably a lot more useful.

Re:But how to do that?

[John Hasler]

> While all our governments are in a nanny-state frame of mind...
> ...
> ...[the bands] obviously consider it perfectly OK for them to obliterate
> the hearing of customers frequenting the place.

Customers who were abducted from the streets outside, dragged into the club, and chained down so that they couldn't escape.

> ...
> ...I hold many of these crappy bands to blame.

Because you couldn't possibly be responsible for your own behavior.

Re:But how to do that?

[Grimbleton]

So you want all earphones to cost ~$30+? Even those shitty little Koss brand ones at WalMart in blister packs for $3?

Re:But how to do that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you couldn't possibly be responsible for your own behavior.

Funny how telling someone to take responsibility for his own behavior has now become the best way to avoid taking responsibility for one's own actions.

Re:But how to do that?

[FlyMysticalDJ]

By that logic, this regulation of mp3 player volume level shouldn't exist either because the owners of the players should be responsible for their own actions and turn down the volume. I'm not saying I support that decision, I'm just saying it is a good point that if you're going to regulate headphone volume level, then you might as well also regulate volume level of bands.

Re:But how to do that?

[yankpop]

It's common to see musicians playing with plugs stuck in their ears so they don't drive themselves stone deaf, while they obviously consider it perfectly OK for them to obliterate the hearing of customers frequenting the place.

To be fair, the musicians are essentially standing on top of the speakers, while the audience members can choose how close they are to the stage. And the musicians have to deal with the noise almost daily, while most of the people in the audience are there once a week or less. And the audience members that are regulars tend to have ear plugs too. So it's not fair to point at ear plugs as a sign of the band's lack of concern for their fans. All of which assumes what look like ear plugs are not actually ear bud monitors that allow the musicians to hear more, not less, of the music.

yp.

Re:But how to do that?

[mpe]

The small tiny ones that comes with the player normaly need less effect to reach 85db then if you get some nice big headphones with better sound.

Or are simply more comfortable to wear than having something stuffed right in your ear :)

Re:But how to do that?

[Findeton]

It's common to see musicians playing with plugs stuck in their ears so they don't drive themselves stone deaf, while they obviously consider it perfectly OK for them to obliterate the hearing of customers frequenting the place.

I realise I'm probably a tedious old fart, but I've long been forced to recognise that my hearing is far from what it was when I was a teenager or even in my twenties, and I hold many of these crappy bands to blame.

I'm sorry to tell you, but rock's always meant to be loud. If it's not LOUD, it's not rock n roll. Jimi Hendrix, for example, said once that he wasn't the best, he just played louder.

Re:But how to do that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever consider that the bands wear ear plugs because they rock out loudly on a regular basis? And that ear plugs are readily available at any pharmacy? If you think it's so loud, buy some ear plugs for yourself you tedious old fart!

Re:But how to do that?

[Jay L]

It's common to see musicians playing with plugs stuck in their ears so they don't drive themselves stone deaf

Keep in mind that they're standing right next to the drummer. Anyone within spitting range of a drum set ought to be wearing plugs. Also, electric guitarists often need to overdrive their amps AND feed back the amp signal into the guitar pickup; that requires standing in front of a loud amp. Also too, many musicians wear in-ear monitors these days, so those "plugs" may well be the monitor mix.

Re:But how to do that?

[rdnetto]

Never use ear buds.

Actually, I use ear buds specifically because of that. Most *decent* earbuds will block out external noise, which lets you use a much lower volume. The downside is that it makes you pretty oblivious to your surroundings.

Re:But how to do that?

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not that far off, actually. A couple of years ago we had a Christmas party at work. After the band began to play, there was something like 8 people (out of 60 something) at most in the big room, which were the ones dancing. Half of the rest was crowding the next room where the bar was, and the bar was only in a corner, so they weren't really standing at the bar. The other half, including me, was outside in the freezing cold.

I like dancing, and actually tried a few times to get onto the dance floor. The pain in my ears made me forget that idea every time. The sound in the next room was bearable, at least for a short while. But outside, the sound level was almost perfect.

Seems the band would have to be pretty dense, to avoid noticing that there were only a few people in the room, and the music was so loud that the rest left.

Re:But how to do that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, how about if we just get a nanny-state insistence that clubs specify at their door what the ambient noise inside is like? That'd make it easier to find the one or two clubs in an unfamiliar town where it's possible to have a conversation inside.

Re:But how to do that?

[John Hasler]

> By that logic, this regulation of mp3 player volume level shouldn't exist
> either because the owners of the players should be responsible for their
> own actions and turn down the volume.

You're very quick.

Re:But how to do that?

[Snaller]

"I realise I'm probably a tedious old fart, but I've long been forced to recognise that my hearing is far from what it was when I was a teenager or even in my twenties, and I hold many of these crappy bands to blame."

Just proving that they have to be a nanny state, because most people fucking idiots.

Re:But how to do that?

[Anonymous Coward]

All of which assumes what look like ear plugs are not actually ear bud monitors that allow the musicians to hear more, not less, of the music.

yp.

Exactly. Most who use amplifiers (and also drummers) generally have one ear plugged, and the other have a earbud which goes to their monitor, instead of having a stand-alone monitor speaker. That way they can hear exactly what they are playing/singing, isolated from the other band members, and the noise of the crowd, etc.

As for bands who are turned up too loud in a small space, it's a hard call. There is a minimum volume level the drummer can play at, and the other instruments have to be amped to a proper relative volume in order for it to sound like anything more than a drum solo. Combine it with small venues who don't know jack shit about acoustics or soundproofing, and there you have the problem. Don't blame the band, I'm sure they would be more than happy to leave those small places in favor of larger and more lucrative joints, but they probably are lucky to get a gig in the first place and will set up in a bathroom if someone pays them.

Re:But how to do that?

[EvilErik]

What? Never been to a Motörhead gig? Sorry, can't hear you. What was that you said?

Re:But how to do that?

[Rene S. Hollan]

The dilemma is that one might actually want to hear the band in question, or patronize the particular establishment, but the entertainment is just TOO DAMN LOUD.

I like loud music... in moderation, when I'm in the mood.

Yet, at the ripe old-farty age of 48 I find my hearing far more sensitive than that of my peers, and even my 16 year old daughter (who I'm forever admonishing to turn down the TV, music, etc. because it is TOO LOUD. She, OTOH complains she can't hear it, and risks a vicious circle of ever-louder music and hearing loss).

It's so bad that sometimes the sound in movie theaters is too loud for me.

Re:But how to do that?

[TarPitt]

There is the option of earplugs

Unfortunately, earplugs affect the mix of frequencies that one may hear, with the result that music I would otherwise enjoy is reduced to a throbbing bass with earplugs

Re:But how to do that?

[torkus]

And add the cost of "standardization" to all mp3 players? They'll all have to be certified? Just to have everyone who wants loud music immediately turn off the protection?

Or they could ... I don't know ... let people make their own decisions OR let parents educate their kids OR leave all the retarded "you might hurt your ears" literature that every audio device already includes...

Really, this is just all nanny state crap. Utterly unnecessary and a waste of time and effort that could be better spent on things that actually MATTER.

Re:But how to do that?

[BrokenHalo]

All of which assumes what look like ear plugs are not actually ear bud monitors that allow the musicians to hear more, not less, of the music.

I won't deny that the latter must in all likelihood occur from time to time, but what I have observed is the common-or-garden variety you get from industrial safety stores. And, indeed, a musician friend who is staying with me at the moment makes a point of taking plugs to every gig she plays...

Re:But how to do that?

[andreyvul]

Seconded.
Cymbals are as loud as dremel tools at max rpm.
Not as loud as bench grinders, though...

Re:But how to do that?

[Meski]

Yeah, my oven does that, I just don't see the need for timed cooking, and the clock isn't in a position that I can refer to it easily. So it can damned well blink

Re:But how to do that?

[Anonymous Coward]

In incremental doses our body adapts to loud sounds.

Hearing adapts to loud sounds only by destroying itself, so really, it doesn't adapt.

Re:But how to do that?

[rtega]

That might be true, but most young people have not the slightest idea of what they are doing to their hearing. If we continue the way we are heading right now we might have a complete deaf generation. I'm teaching music and I once warned my pupils of the age of 10 they shouldn't put their music too loud as I lost quite a big part of my hearing in the same way. I was shocked to learn that all (not most but ALL) already had tinnitus. Which they also blamed on the frequent children parties (which are organized by schools and youth organizations) they are already attending. I really wonder how much they will be hearing in a few years.

It's about time somebody does something and protects this generation. The problem is both in mp3-players and the likes which everybody seems to listen to all of the time and in noisy environments, so they have to put up all the way to the maximum volume and never turn down, and in the live concerts, I remember reading that a live concert can reach 140 dB, and clubs. This is a case where government really should do something and all arguments that people should be free to damage their hearing is really nonsense if you ask me. They simply don't know until it's really too late.

Sadly, hearing loss never means that you don't hear anything, on the contrary. There was a case of a man of 30 here in Belgium this summer who committed suicide because even if he whispered something it hurt his hearing (you can read his story here: http://mog.com/Jo/blog/1401025). Look here for how damaging hearing loss can be to once life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Townshend

Re:But how to do that?

[rtega]

Your statement seems to suggest that you can only get hearing loss above 120 dB. That is not correct. You can get hearing loss beginning from 85 dB. If you are exposed to 8 hours+ a day to 85 dB you can get permanent hearing loss. This lowers dramatically as dB increases. 100dB can give you hearing loss after 15 minutes. 110 dB after 1 minute. 120dB can give hearing loss immediately.

Re:But how to do that?

[darthflo]

The free earplugs they hand out at concerts suck, get something a bit better instead, you might like it. Midrange plugs start at $30 to $50 per set, individually fit ones run $200 to $350 or so. Multi-use and intended for DJs, technicians or orchestra members. If you can't find a store near you, Jrenum and Elacin are two brands that might get you started.
Good luck.

Re:But how to do that?

[TheRaven64]

It's also a question of whether there is any competition. I enjoy dancing salsa, but there are few places that play salsa music and have a dance floor. The one that I used to go to played music sufficiently loudly that it would be likely to cause hearing damage (one of my friends is an audiologist, and she measured it). I got some earplugs and wore them, but it's far from an ideal solution - you lose some of the frequencies and you still have to shout to talk to people, so I still ended up with a sore throat at the end of the evening.

Now I go to a place that plays the music a little less loudly. It's still easy to hear while dancing and isn't drowned out by people talking, but I can listen to it without earphones and not go deaf.

The problem with limiting the audio volume of personal players is that it needs to be tied to a set of headphones. Whenever I fly, I use my own headphones, which are noise-cancelling and more comfortable than the ones they provide on flights. At the same volume setting, my headphones produce a lot more sound than the provided ones. The scale goes from 1 to 10 and with my headphones 3 is loud, while with the cheap ones 7-8 is needed to be able to hear what's going on. When there is an announcement, on a lot of flights, they override the volume control and send it to everyone's headset at the same (very loud volume).

My iPod broke a few years ago, and I've not replaced it, but when I did have one I used it with the supplied headphones and another set. The volume of these was very different at the same volume setting. I also used it with a small set of unpowered speakers. These didn't go right next to my ears, so I wanted to be able to turn up the power as much as possible.

It would be nice to be able to limit the maximum volume for headphones, because sometimes I listen to a quiet piece, turn up the volume, and then have it followed immediately by something much louder and have to scrabble to turn the volume down. Limiting the volume for all output devices plugged into a portable music player, however, would not be idea.

Re:But how to do that?

[TheRaven64]

Not idiots, just not sufficiently educated. How many twenty-year-olds know that quite short-term exposure to loud sounds can permanently damage your hearing? I only know because I have a friend who is an audiologist: it was not covered in school and most older people that you ask won't know and be able to give you the correct answer.

Re:But how to do that?

[TheRaven64]

People creating these laws are often ignorant. For example, my local council places noise limits for outside events in the middle of the city. Unfortunately, they used the dBA scale (which is explicitly stated as not being designed for this kind of use), which is intended to be close to human perception and so is weighted towards the midrange and strongly away from the lower frequencies. When the noise monitors detect that the level is too high, the DJs just drop the midrange and amp up the base. For people living a few hundred metres away, the total energy received increases (and causes windows and doors to shake).

Re:But how to do that?

[daem0n1x]

There's regulation for SPL levels for live music and discos for decades. If it's being enforced enough, that's another issue.

From my years of experience playing in bars, it's only a problem if someone calls the police. Otherwise nobody gives a shit. At least here in Portugal.

Re:But how to do that?

[OrangeCatholic]

>Customers who were abducted from the streets outside, dragged into the club, and chained down so that they couldn't escape.

Right. Because one individual 16-year-old is supposed to stand up in a crowd of 20,000 and say, "Jesus Christ people, we should be wearing earplugs!"

Asshole.

Re:But how to do that?

[OrangeCatholic]

>I got some earplugs and wore them, but it's far from an ideal solution - you lose some of the frequencies and you still have to shout to talk to people

But that's the genius of earplugs: People *don't* have to shout to talk to you!

I'm thrilled when I'm having a conversation at a club wearing earplugs and I know I'm going to catch every word they say even if they mumble it. Earplugs affect the frequencies in a rather positive way.

It's definitely better than screaming WHAT'S YOUR NAME in a girl's ear so loudly that it hurts and you're still not sure you heard the response. Shout that in her ear two or three times and you'll be thinking, "Geez, what's the point of paying $20 to get in here and I can't even have a two sentence conversation with a hot girl?"

It takes at least three or four sentences to hook up, at minimum, in most cases.

Re:But how to do that?

[OrangeCatholic]

And there's a good reason for that. The louder it is, the more detail there can be.

But you have to be able to pick your distance from the stage (and thus, your personal volume). Being trapped in a concrete box while someone bounces rock music off the flat, hard walls is really not much better than being in Abu Ghraib.

I like the sun at 10,000 degrees fahrenheit. I also like to sit under a tree sometimes.

Re:But how to do that?

[OrangeCatholic]

Yep. There's no way to regulate the volume coming out of a device. Only the voltage. So people will buy 2-ohm speakers and their ipods will be just as loud again, but sound like shit in the process.

Meanwhile, people who try to plug in their ipod at their friends house to throw a party will be disappointed when it's not loud enough to fill the room. A 1/8" jack and tiny lithium battery were garbage to begin with. Now they're making it worse.

Enjoy your ipod governor as you drive to 7-11 to buy a $10 pack of cigarettes that the government MANDATES that it contain disgusting additives along with your gasoline that's been 10% watered down with ethanol piss. Fucking nanny state is right.

Re:But how to do that?

[OrangeCatholic]

Yeah but I personally find bass more tolerable pain-wise than a lot of excess high frequency. They may have gotten it right from a safety perspective (although maybe not from a nuisance perspective).

Re:But how to do that?

[TheRaven64]

Except that the entire point of the law proposed in this article is that pain and damage are only very loosely related. People damage their hearing with portable music players for exactly this reason: that they can turn it up sufficiently loudly for it to cause damage, but not pain. The lower frequencies carry more energy and are more likely to cause damage.

Re:But how to do that?

[imakemusic]

Don't blame the band, I'm sure they would be more than happy to leave those small places in favor of larger and more lucrative joints

No, do blame the band. If they want to play at bigger/better venues then they will need to learn how to play at appropriate levels - this includes listening to the musicians around you and adapting as necessary. The bands that hurt your ears are the ones that play at a constant excessive level. They're the ones who laugh at their guitarists saying "yeah, he likes to turn it up!!" and the drummers that say " yeah, I can't play quietly! lol!" They're the ones that turn their guitars and amps down during the sound check and then up when the gig starts so that everything distorts, as if it's some kind of battle between the band and the sound engineer.

Sure, you've got a point: small venues with bad acoustics just make things worse, but if you can't play well quietly then the chances are you're not a very good musician.
 
/rant

Re:But how to do that?

[ikefox]

I just don't see the need for timed cooking

And that is why you, sir, are no chef.

Re:But how to do that?

[yurtinus]

A number of audio players (iTunes comes to mind) have a sound-check feature that measures the effective 'volume' of your songs and puts them all at a similar baseline-- so you don't have a quite song finish and a loud song blast your brains. Caveat-- I've never actually used it ;)

Re:But how to do that?

[yurtinus]

Not exactly a technical response, but it is exactly why this won't work. Different speakers have different sensitivities-- x watts electrical energy input to result in x sound pressure output. I'm sure there are audio guys on here who can fill in the details that I'm missing (which I know are many!).

Yet more nanny state legislation that will be be largely unenforceable and easily bypassed. People have known for a long time that loud noise damages ears, we simply don't care.

Re:But how to do that?

[Meski]

Clocks on ovens are for when you aren't there, and want to turn the oven on and off? I've never heard of chefs doing this.

Re:But how to do that?

[badkarmadayaccount]

That's a downside?

Re:But how to do that?

[rdnetto]

It is if you're in public - missing a siren or the sound of a car/train can be pretty dangerous.

say what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I take it the EU "experts" have never heard of driver sensitivity, I'm not really seeing how this is going to work considering I could just go out and buy some half decent in ear headphones which blow the stock ones out the water.

Re:say what?

[eqisow]

On the flip side, there are also a lot of headphones with high impedance? Portable players can't even push many headphones without an external amp as it is. Given the vast array of headphones available, it's impossible to determine what 100dB really is. If they limit it to 100db from the stock earbuds, for example, I'll barely be able to hear my full size 300 Ohm impedance Sennheisers.

Re:say what?

[Jay L]

Similarly... If the output level is limited by law, doesn't that just create a market for lower-impedance headphones?

Re:say what?

[GIL_Dude]

You are right of course. But the simple answer is that the test is done with a reference set of headphones. If it produces 85db or less with the reference set, it is fine.

Re:say what?

[Ironsides]

On the flip side, there are also a lot of headphones with high impedance?

Low impedance. Most ear buds are 32 ohms. A pair of good over-the-ear studio style headphones are 24 with some as low as 16. You still need to have a driver that can supply the current.

Do what we say, not what we do

[Anonymous Coward]

Hearing loss is bad if it is caused by MP3 players, but it's okay when it's caused by police using crowd control devices against innocent civilians.

Re:Do what we say, not what we do

[fbjon]

Hearing loss is bad if it is caused by MP3 players, but it's okay when it's caused by police using crowd control devices against innocent civilians.

How does hearing loss result from that?

Re:Do what we say, not what we do

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

http://www.atcsd.com/site/content/view/15/32/

Known to have been used at the G20, probably other events as well.

Re:Do what we say, not what we do

[fbjon]

And this device consistently causes hearing loss to recipients? Not only that, but isn't it equally "hypocritical" that people get fined for speeding, while police cars drive as fast as they need during a chase?

No, it's not hypocritical, those are two entirely different things.

Re:Do what we say, not what we do

[zach_the_lizard]

Not only that, but isn't it equally "hypocritical" that people get fined for speeding, while police cars drive as fast as they need during a chase?

No, but it is very hypocritical for them to pull you over after they have been speeding for no reason whatsoever. I routinely see these Anointed Ones drive very fast without any flashing lights that signal, "We have an emergency here." I have also had these guys tailgate me in an attempt to get me to drive faster than the speed limit.

Re:Do what we say, not what we do

[poofmeisterp]

I have also had these guys tailgate me in an attempt to get me to drive faster than the speed limit.

Speaking freely here, but it takes a narrow following distance to observe the expiration date tags and individual's suspicious movement/behavior. Can't really do that from a distance.

Sure, there are some cops out there compensating for their own insecurity, but keep in mind that there are a lot of people in a lot of positions in life that do the same OR the opposite.

Re:Do what we say, not what we do

[EsbenMoseHansen]

I have also had these guys tailgate me in an attempt to get me to drive faster than the speed limit.

Speaking freely here, but it takes a narrow following distance to observe the expiration date tags and individual's suspicious movement/behavior. Can't really do that from a distance.

Sure, there are some cops out there compensating for their own insecurity, but keep in mind that there are a lot of people in a lot of positions in life that do the same OR the opposite.

Give the poor cops a pair of binoculars already, then!

Re:Do what we say, not what we do

[Duradin]

They should really stop printing the expiration dates in braille only so the cops don't have to try to trade paint to read them or at least give the cops a refresher course so it doesn't take them ten miles of constant contact to figure the tags out.

Re:Do what we say, not what we do

[poofmeisterp]

No kidding!

I guess the concern is the cost of material to increase the size. I'm just reachin' on this one. lol

Re:Do what we say, not what we do

[geekmux]

http://www.atcsd.com/site/content/view/15/32/ Known to have been used at the G20, probably other events as well.

Uh, according to TFA, the device produces warning tones at the loudest level of 151db, at one meter distance.. Since they're designed for crowd control at a considerable distance, it's VERY unlikely that you're going to get anywhere near those levels at 50 meters away.

Since people far too stupid or ignorant manage to put almost those maximum noise levels millimeters away from their ears using MP3 players, yeah, I'd say this is one case where some form of regulation is necessary, which is pretty damn pathetic, since I am against all forms of regulation when, if common sense would prevail, would not be necessary.

Re:Do what we say, not what we do

[Reverberant]

Uh, according to TFA, the device produces warning tones at the loudest level of 151db, at one meter distance.. Since they're designed for crowd control at a considerable distance, it's VERY unlikely that you're going to get anywhere near those levels at 50 meters away.

Using a source reference level of 151 dB at 1 meter, the spl at 50 meters will be 117 dB. That's hearing damage territory.

Re:Do what we say, not what we do

[John Hasler]

> That's hearing damage territory.

That's chronic exposure hearing damage territory: a real problem for professional demonstrators. In the USA their employers would be required by OSHA to provide them with hearing protection.

Re:Do what we say, not what we do

[Reverberant]

That's chronic exposure hearing damage territory: a real problem for professional demonstrators. In the USA their employers would be required by OSHA to provide them with hearing protection.

The "chronic" part comes from OSHA and NIOSH guidelines that seek to limit hearing damage to "acceptable" levels, not eliminate hearing damage. You're correct insofar as OSHA/NIOSH would only have a problem with those levels for repeated exposure, but even limited exposure is going to cause threshold shifts. As far as OSHA/NIOSH are concerned, those problems are acceptable, but if you're someone who values your hearing, you may not.

Re:Do what we say, not what we do

[westlake]

Hearing loss is bad if it is caused by MP3 players, but it's okay when it's caused by police using crowd control devices against innocent civilians.

It is better than being shot or bludgeoned.

The mob must be broken and dispersed before it becomes a greater danger to itself or others.

The geek knows that as well as anyone.

He also knows that the exposure of any single individual to the sirens is likely to be a once-in-a-lifetime experience.

While the adolescent will be routinely exposed to the mp3 player for several hours daily.

It is not the same problem and to pretend otherwise is fraudulent.

Re:Do what we say, not what we do

[OrangeCatholic]

>I routinely see these Anointed Ones drive very fast without any flashing lights...I have also had these guys tailgate me in an attempt to get me to drive faster than the speed limit.

Of course. You don't understand what they're doing. On highways, cops sweep the road at 90mph. They don't want you to drive faster, they want you to get out of the way. There's no sense in a cop car "joining the herd" at 60mph. It accomplishes nothing.

On local streets they seem to go pretty damn slow and will usually let you in front if they can.

Wrong approach entirely

[BadAnalogyGuy]

A technical problem requires a technical solution.

Instead of forcing media player manufacturers to implement a volume limiter, just force them to include a jamming frequency and allow third parties to sell jammers. When a person feels that someone's music is intruding on their personal space (in a bus, on a train, or anywhere that people are in close contact), a single button press could send a piercing squeal right through whatever audio the earbud guy had playing.

This has two benefits. First, if there are multiple people around and it is difficult to determine who is listening loudly, this gets all of them in one shot. Second, if a person's earbuds are so loud that the sound is invading someone else's personal space, the brief tone should be enough to put their eardrums out permanently.

Re:Wrong approach entirely

[iris-n]

I'm having trouble deciding if this is a bad joke or you are just raving mad.

Re:Wrong approach entirely

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm having trouble deciding if you're post is a bad joke or if you lack a sense of humor.

Re:Wrong approach entirely

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides the obvious craziness/joke aspect, you're talking about a completely separate problem from TFA. It's not about stopping people from annoying others, it's about limiting the ability of media players to damage the wearers' ears on max. volume because, rightly or wrongly, people assume that if a device *can* do something (ie. play music at Xdb) then it is safe to do so.

Re:Wrong approach entirely

[LtCol Burrito]

Sorry BadAnalogyGuy - you need to RTFA. The issue here is not the ambient noise produced by the earphones, but the damage to the listener. (...trying to think of a bad analogy...). Imagine you're a car, and you want to put the wrong kind of gas in your tank... (never mind)

The EU govenment is trying to protect us from ourselves. Hmmm....which makes me wonder why they don't try to impose any limits on rock concerts. I'll bet they're over 85db, and it affects 10s of thousands of people at a time.

Re:Wrong approach entirely

[BadAnalogyGuy]

If there was a possibility that you could go deaf because some jackass with a jamming device could blow out your eardrums, do you think you'd be anxious to listen to your iPod at the maximum volume?

This image describes the general concept:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/saltation/249941924/

Re:Wrong approach entirely

[Farmer Tim]

Second, if a person's earbuds are so loud that the sound is invading someone else's personal space, the brief tone should be enough to put their eardrums out permanently.

Bad idea: they'll just push the volume higher to compensate.

A better idea would be to fit MP3 players with HT circuitry with the earbuds as terminals. Pavlovian behavioural training and electroshock therapy in one!

Re:Wrong approach entirely

[Yvan256]

The issue here is not the ambient noise produced by the earphones, but the damage to the listener.

You're not making any sense!

Imagine you're a car, and you want to put the wrong kind of gas in your tank.

That's a much better explanation, thanks!

Re:Wrong approach entirely

[macraig]

A technical problem requires a technical solution.

I wholeheartedly agree that it's the "wrong approach entirely", but you've misunderstood the nature of the problem and the solution. It's not a technical problem. Did you even read the summary much less RTFA? Your solution is focused on something else entirely, not within the scope of what was being addressed. This proposed authoritarian restriction isn't intended to keep music from being so loud that it bothers other people: it's intended to "protect" people from their own poor judgement concerning their own bodies and eardrums.

Thus the problem here is social and informational: lack of education.

The obvious solution is not more technology, it's the addition of education (or eliminating the lack of education).

What you suggest is the Technocrat equivalent of Democrats throwing money at a problem... and it's not even the same problem at issue here.

Re:Wrong approach entirely

[macraig]

It's a Bad Analogy, perhaps?

Re:Wrong approach entirely

[BadAnalogyGuy]

What you suggest is the Technocrat equivalent of Democrats throwing money at a problem.

Quite the opposite. I am pushing a solution which requires greater personal responsibility on the listener and encouraging a community standards-based policing effort rather than a heavy-handed regulatory action. This is a very Republican solution, actually.

Re:Wrong approach entirely

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm having trouble not pointing out that you're obviously not literate enough to know where to put your apostrophes.

Re:Wrong approach entirely

[hedwards]

If they're really concerned about deafness, they'd ban companies like Apple from including those crappy ear buds that everybody seems to have to wear. The poor fit and low quality virtually assure that the volume gets bumped up way higher than it needs to be.

Personally, I like my shure e2c, sure they're expensive, but you don't need to spend a lot of money, just get a earbud that provides for a proper seal in the ear. I can have my volume turned down pretty much all the way on the bus, and I can still barely hear the noise from the rest of the bus.

Re:Wrong approach entirely

[RESPAWN]

Remember, you're talking about the average user who goes out and buys a cheap RCA surround sound system for their house or who thinks that the stereo in their car is actually good. To most people out there LOUD == good. Try convincing them that the Shure's sound better.

Re:Wrong approach entirely

[macraig]

Even if that were true - and I'm not conceding that it is - it's not the solution to the problem being discussed here.

Can ya at least be on-topic enough to agree that yet another Big-Mother-ish law isn't the solution to either problem?

Re:Wrong approach entirely

[oldhack]

Don't listen to this guy - the troll's got the patent on tinfoil "hat" for mp3 players.

Re:Wrong approach entirely

[BadAnalogyGuy]

There are plenty of other threads that discuss the technical reasons why the proposed government solution can or can't work. If you feel the need to discuss low pass filters and amplifiers, go ahead and participate over in those "on-topic" threads.

I, for one, refuse to accept that this EU recommendation is anything less than unwanted government intrusion into the personal lives of citizens. Discussion of that and other fanciful (and not so fanciful) solutions to the problem of headphone loudness is what this thread is for.

You know what they say. Don't bring a dog to a catfight.

Re:Wrong approach entirely

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about that but I would love something similar for car receivers (which I guess technically includes iPods and the like playing through systems in vehicles).

It would be great to create a silent zone of about 1000 ft around my house so the little rich white gansta wannabes can stop blasting their shit as they drive by at all hours of the night.

Re:Wrong approach entirely

[tomhudson]

It would be great to create a silent zone of about 1000 ft around my house so the little rich white gansta wannabes can stop blasting their shit as they drive by at all hours of the night.

Let's add all the idiots who think it's okay to run a circular saw first thing Sunday morning because they don't know that Sunday most of us like to sleep in. And while we're at it, muzzle those stupid church bells. And a force field that crushes Jehovahs Witnesses into little blobs of degenerate matter when they ring your doorbell would be a nice addition.

Re:Wrong approach entirely

[Anonymous Coward]

You're still completely missing the point here. Have you ever used the ear canal style earphones? They cannot be heard unless you insert them in your ear, even with the volume turned up pretty far. And with them inserted in someone else's ear, you definitely won't be able to hear them at all. This rule is intended to prevent the player from being turned up so loud that the listener's hearing is inadvertently damaged.

You're talking about "jammers" that allow the person sitting next to you to turn down your volume for you, but that solution isn't even applicable to this problem. That is why your post is off-topic.

Re:Wrong approach entirely

[Anonymous Coward]

I have an old water heater in my garage that leaks carbon monoxide like crazy. It really builds up if I don't open the garage door to air it out.

When the JW's come over, I just have them come around to the garage entrance and have them wait inside until "I'm dressed". Watching them run away, gasping for breath is the highlight of my week.

It's like Satan is my personal protector, but it's really just Science. It works, biatches.

Re:Wrong approach entirely

[poofmeisterp]

I commend the humor!

I'll add. You know, because I have a good sense of humor, as well.

Alright, why not leave the situation alone? Let people play too loudly, irritate others, and/or cause hearing loss. Once it has been done (whichever angle you want to look at it from), form a startup company or government regulation (pick your poison) to "fix" the problems that have been created. Have the audio device company executives paid for their "services" by the "fixer" reps/company officials. You know, to help the company thrive and continue to create devices that people find enjoyable? The "fixer" entity (or entities) are just out there to help solve problems. I mean, come on.

Wait, why is this reminding me of another country and other instances? Oh. OH..... Ohhhh.

LOL :>

Re:Wrong approach entirely

[poofmeisterp]

To most people out there LOUD == good. Try convincing them that the Shure's sound better.

People always learn from their mistakes. I jest, of course. :>

Re:Wrong approach entirely

[poofmeisterp]

Hear, hear! :>

Re:Wrong approach entirely

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Mods!! How come this one is marked redundant?? Check the time stamp - it was written before the other one!!!

Re:Wrong approach entirely

[Farmer Tim]

To most people out there LOUD == good.

Actually there's some truth to that. The ear is less sensitive to low and high frequencies at low levels, so cheap headphones, speakers, earbuds, etc, that sound boxy at low levels sound not quite as bad at high levels.

Re:Wrong approach entirely

[FlyMysticalDJ]

People don't always learn from their mistakes, but maybe society will. It's all a matter of natural selection. Person deafens himself with loud music. Person crosses street and is promptly hit by speeding bus he did not hear. Person is denied the chance to reproduce. Over time, only the people smart enough not to deafen themselves will prevail.

Re:Wrong approach entirely

[Anonymous Coward]

The really sad part is that I generally get irritated by that, but I reformulated the sentence and missed the apostrophe and the e.

Re:Wrong approach entirely

[poofmeisterp]

'Zactly. That's what I'm saying. :)

Re:Wrong approach entirely

[rdnetto]

A little of column A and a little of column B.

Re:Wrong approach entirely

[compro01]

You presume that he did not reproduce in the 20-30 years it took for the hearing loss to manifest in a significant manner.

Re:Wrong approach entirely

[TheRaven64]

One of my former housemates actually did complain to the council about the church bells[1]. I wasn't surprised that the council rejected his complaint, but I was amazed at their logic. They claimed that the church bells are no louder than someone practicing an instrument in their own living room. I strongly suspect that my neighbours would complain if I practiced an instrument loudly enough for everyone in the neighbourhood to hear in their own houses (especially if I did it as incompetently as the local bell ringers), so I can only assume that my local councillors live next to a Disaster Area tribute band.

[1] I don't mind them in theory, but they've been practicing two or three times a week for several years and still can't get it right. I've only tried bell ringing once, and I did a better job after half an hour...

Re:Wrong approach entirely

[Anonymous Coward]

So true. People think that beating your kids is illegal, but if that's the case, how come nobody's ever been arrested?

Aha. Whack away. They're defenseless anyhow. And they have nowhere to go.

Better Headphones

[secondsun]

Since we are going the consumer protect route, wouldn't it be better for headphones/ear buds to require noise cancelling technologies so the music doesn't have to be turned up as high?

That would make it harder to hear things while driving, but you shouldn't have headphones in while driving.

Re:Better Headphones

[jabithew]

I wear headphones all the time while walking through the streets of London* and I hate the thought of wearing noise cancelling headphones. I'd much rather hear the truck pulling up to the junction behind me than my music. Noise cancelling would leave me totally unaware of my surroundings, except what's in my line of sight, which is a fairly small part of the picture.

* I'll show you something etc. etc.

Re:Better Headphones

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not quite how noise cancelling headphones work. They just lower the environmental noise by a certain amount, say 10db and allow you to listen to your music at 10db less than usual while keeping the same signal to (environmental) noise ratio.

Re:Better Headphones

[Hurricane78]

Wow, you really bought into their fake argument about protecting us, did you? ^^

The real reason may be the listening in traffic. But who would profit from this?

Because there always is one profiting. (Not necessarily money. Can also be power, etc.) Because that is what the motivation comes from in the first place.

Re:Better Headphones

[SBrach]

They aren't magic. You can still hear. Besides, if hearing is your main truck avoidance mechanism, you've got other problems.

Re:Better Headphones

[Jesus_666]

Read up on headphone technology. In-ear headphones (the ones that you shove into your ear canal) are available in "open" and "closed" configurations. Closed in-ears block virtually all noise around you while open ones merely reduce the amplitude a bit, typically by about 3 dB. If you listen to your music at a sane volume that means you can still hear much of what's going on around you.

Re:Better Headphones

[xaxa]

I wear headphones all the time while walking through the streets of London

But do you wear them on the Underground? That can get quite noisy, and there's little to no reason for hearing what's going on around you, so plenty of people turn the volume up to drown out the noise of the train.

I used to use a station with a lift regularly. I'd be on the train, and unable to hear anyone's personal music over the noise. Off the train and in the lift, I could easily identify songs played by others; they'd probably turned the volume up dangerously high without realising it.

Don't Lose the Music.

Re:Better Headphones

[tomhudson]

Besides, if hearing is your main truck avoidance mechanism, you've got other problems.

People have been killed by trains because their walkmans (yes - it was happening even back then) were too loud. That's why some places have banned the use of ANY earphone-equipped music player when driving a car or riding a bicycle. And when you're driving, hearing is an important part of your awareness - not only for that "slightly odd mechanical noise" that might signal trouble down the road, but also such things as the noise-generating grooves along the right shoulder to warn people that they're straying off the road (or to wake them up if they're drowsing off), and the sound of the motorcycle or car that just pulled into your blind spot.

Re:Better Headphones

[Anne Thwacks]

People have been killed by trains because their walkmans

A lot of people die from stupidness. However, laws against stupidness are in short supply (partly because politicians tent to oppose anything that would significantly affect themselves).

Banning stupidness might save the world, or might just be another pointless nanny-state piece of stupidness. (In your reponse, please state whether or not you are a troll).

Re:Better Headphones

[Anonymous Coward]

And since the European governments are so keen on protecting people why not have a collar locked to their necks that shocks them if they fail to brush and use floss three times daily. After all people must be protected from gum disease, mountain climbing, scuba diving and motorcycles at all costs.

Re:Better Headphones

[tomhudson]

The reason I mentioned the ban on headphones while driving or riding a bike was because of the aforementioned incident where someone was killed by a train because they didn't hear it is because it happened 5 minutes from where I live.

Banning (and then fining) stupidity works as a form of user education, because stupid people get caught, then bitch and moan to everyone about how it's so *unfair" - while everyone else goes "don't you think it's pretty stupid what you did?" It also gives parents a fallback, instead of just having to say "because I told you to!" for things like "wear your bicycle helmet" and "put on your seatbelt."

It's the same for drunken driving. Here it's a criminal offense and can get you up to 10 years in jail; we heavily advertise this fact during holiday periods, so people at parties feel they have more support when they demand that a drunk guest hand over their keys.

Laws against stupidity aren't there toi help the stupid - they're too stupid - they're there for the rest of us. A ban on "too loud headsets" will help reduce the second-hand noise everyone else hears while some idiot is blasting their brains out.

Re:Better Headphones

[Anonymous Coward]

Noise canceling involves putting out more noise to cancel the other noise, actually it's technically louder. Maybe sound isolating is what you were thinking of?

Re:Better Headphones

[nightfire-unique]

Man, wow.

Presumably I'm one of those stupid people you're referring to, because I don't think I've read a single post on /. as nauseating as this.

This is about the worst justification for the nanny state I have ever heard.

I cannot believe that you can, with a straight face, justify a TEN YEAR prison sentence for no-other-harm-caused driving with a BAC over some arbitrary and low percentage (0.05% presumably). Honestly I cannot believe it.

Do you have any concept ... any perception ... of what TEN YEARS is? You think it is morally acceptable to take 10 years from someone for the mistake of driving > 0.05% BAC?

Reflect on life for a moment. Because if everyone thought like you, this world would be unlivable.

Re:Better Headphones

[tomhudson]

The law says *maximum* - not mandatory. If you plow into a crowd of people at a bus-stop and kill a bunch of them (not hypothetical - it HAS happened here), you really should face more than a fine and token jail time.

The courts consider how many people you've harmed/killed, the level of intoxication, and the number of repeat offenses.

If you repeatedly drive drunk, you should have your license suspended for life since you've shown you're not capable of behaving like an adult and you can't learn from past mistakes.

Also, just because someone else didn't get hurt or killed is no reason to be all that lenient. Look at Cheetah Woods - driving while stoned on prescription drugs, ended up SNORING on the street. What would be so bad about a minimum one month mandatory sentence in cases like that? Or do you wait until an impaired driver actually maims someone to act?

Do you let people drive drunk after you host a party? Or do you take their keys away from them - as required by law in most jurisdictions because the host is legally liable .

37 states have adopted some form of "social host" law or set a legal precedent that allows you to be found liable if a guest injures himself or someone else as a result of alcohol consumption at your party (see list). Some social-host laws have conditions. For example, in South Carolina and Nevada, liability applies only if your guests are under age 21.

Why should I pay for your stupidity?

Re:Better Headphones

[petermgreen]

Unfortunately most people don't know that and/or don't want to pay the cost of headphones that actually specify that and/or don't want to carry arround two sets.

Afaict the standard issue headphones are open designs so when people want to listen to thier music and nothing else they turn the volume up way too loud.

Re:Better Headphones

[Saerrek]

People have been killed by trains because their walkmans (yes - it was happening even back then) were too loud.

Don't forget helicopters!

Re:Better Headphones

[Beardo the Bearded]

I use hearing to place vehicles around me when I'm biking. It's a critical portion of, as you put it, truck avoidance. It's not the only mechanism but it's vital to survival.

Eyes only point forward and mirrors only cover so much.

Re:Better Headphones

[Anonymous Coward]

Still, I would make a distinction between laws that aim to protect people from the stupidity/ignorance of others and laws that aim to simply protect people from their own stupidity/ignorance. The later it is more likely to anoy non-stupid/ignorant people than benefit them, while also standing in the way of natural selection that would, hopefully, eventually solve the problem on it's roots (by causing stupidity to become extinct).

In this particular case, I don't think the occasional and temporal anoyance of ambient noise produced by some nearby listener's headphones every now and then would justify the anoyance of having to hack your player or your headphones in the occasion that you, the inteligent and informed person that is able to decide on his own, want to be able to overcome some enforced maximum levels that are simply unreasonably overconservative for some particular occasions.

Re:Better Headphones

[SBrach]

Yeah, that's why we should ban deaf people from leaving their houses. Making a law to set an output level on a mp3 player to protect people who are too stupid to look both ways while crossing the street makes about as much sense.

Re:Better Headphones

[imakemusic]

There's a woman who works near me who I regularly see walking along whilst wearing headphones and reading a book. I figure the problem will take care of itself eventually.

Re:Better Headphones

[Beardo the Bearded]

On that we agree -- the majority of people that I've seen have critical situational awareness deficits.

"Oh hey, it's a crosswalk so I can just walk out without looking. The paint on the road acts as a forcefield that keeps the cars from hitting me."

At least, that's what the thought process would be if there was anything up there. Given the behaviour, it would sound more like:

"grunt? grunt. grunt!"

I had one guy step right in front of my bike; I was able to avoid him, but barely. I called out, "if I was a car, you'd be waiting for an ambulance." Odds are he walked onto the next crosswalk without looking.

Rock On, Dudes!

[LtCol Burrito]

Interesting. On the one hand, I think this is a good idea. Folks tend to (illegally) listen with the earphones while driving. Also, it seems that at least half of the people you pass on busy streets are listening as well - I wonder how many pedestrian accidents are related to missing auditory cues from the environment?

On the other hand, I'm one of those people that tend to listen at full volume while walking. I had a friend one time tell me that he heard my earbuds from all the way across the street (seriously). My chronic tinnitus aside, if you limit my decibelage, I will find a way to crank it. Besides, what is the use of limiting the decibels if you can just override it anyway?

Re:Rock On, Dudes!

[fbjon]

You seriously need better earbuds that block out sound.

Re:Rock On, Dudes!

[LtCol Burrito]

Ah yes - that was before I bought my SkullCandies. Those things are so soundproof that I put them in without music to block out sound. Now I really have to crank it to annoy my friends across the street ;^)

Re:Rock On, Dudes!

[David Gerard]

+1 to SkullCandy headphones. Damn fine sound isolation, and (unlike the Creative 'phones I had before) the cups don't come off and get lost at the drop of a 'phone.

The only minus point is that there is no identification whatsoever of left and right. WHY DO MANUFACTURERS DO THIS.

Re:Rock On, Dudes!

[LtCol Burrito]

Not to mention the exceptional sound quality, even for the cheapo ones. I've actually listened to them side by side with recording studio speakers, and the sound quality is amazingly close, IMHO.

Re:Rock On, Dudes!

[Alef]

My chronic tinnitus aside, if you limit my decibelage, I will find a way to crank it.

And that's just fine. People are and still will be allowed to damage their hearing if they like. The idea isn't to "control" people, even if some reflexively seem to think that every time a government tries to protect it's citizens. The idea is to prevent that the market is filled with devices that injure people without them realizing it (typically teenagers). It is a pragmatic trade-off, reducing hearing loss at large while making it somewhat more cumbersome to produce an arbitrary sound volume.

Personally, I wouldn't mind having an MP3 player that warn me with a "please override" message before I accidentally expose myself to unhealthy sound levels. When the ambient noise is loud, it's often very hard to notice how high you've cranked the volume.

On the other hand, I can see practical problems with this, as it is quite common to replace the stock earbuds.

Re:Rock On, Dudes!

[value_added]

My chronic tinnitus aside, if you limit my decibelage, I will find a way to crank it.

Kids today. ;-)

You may want to consider that as you get older, your hearing will start to go (you're obviously one of those who are on an accelerated path). Just as importantly, the music you're cranking up today will be forgotten. And if it is remembered, the memories will cause a sudden flush of embarrassment when realise what you regularly listened to was crap, and it was way too loud.

Now get off my lawn.

Re:Rock On, Dudes!

[LtCol Burrito]

Sorry to disappoint value_added: My playlist includes Miles Davis, Tony Williams and Jaco. Those cats never go out of style.

Re:Rock On, Dudes!

[Ironsides]

Personally, I wouldn't mind having an MP3 player that warn me with a "please override" message before I accidentally expose myself to unhealthy sound levels. When the ambient noise is loud, it's often very hard to notice how high you've cranked the volume.

The iPod comes with a default sound limiter that you can arbitrarily change/set/overide at will and never be asked about again. Would something like that work for you?

Re:Rock On, Dudes!

[John Hasler]

> I'm one of those people that tend to listen at full volume while walking.
> I had a friend one time tell me that he heard my earbuds from all the way
> across the street (seriously).
> ...
> My chronic tinnitus aside...

ROFL.

Re:Rock On, Dudes!

[Draek]

I had a friend one time tell me that he heard my earbuds from all the way across the street (seriously). My chronic tinnitus aside, if you limit my decibelage, I will find a way to crank it.

Not if my way of limiting your decibelage includes smashing your MP3 player (and potentially you as well) against the ground.

My rule 'o thumb concerning headphones: if somebody else other than you can listen to it, it's too loud.

Re:Rock On, Dudes!

[Alef]

Sure, if it's rated in dB. Of course, it isn't the only aspect I'd be looking at, so I wouldn't buy an iPod for this reason alone.

Re:Rock On, Dudes!

[couchslug]

"Just as importantly, the music you're cranking up today will be forgotten."

Depends on what you listen to...

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

Re:Rock On, Dudes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Occasionally I enjoy blasting The 1812 Overture. It's the only song that I really play loudly.

Re:Rock On, Dudes!

[Ironsides]

Not DB, no. It's based on the volume indicator which is probably related to voltage only. In other words, it would still depend on which headphones you use.

Re:Rock On, Dudes!

[Lunzo]

The recording I've got of the 1812 is really soft at the start and in some of the middle section. I find I really need to crank it up just to hear anything in these passages. Which means by the cannons going off are deafening - which I guess is appropriate :).

Re:Rock On, Dudes!

[Trinn]

Trance, Happy Hardcore, Psytrance, etc...EDM is *designed* to be listened to at levels you can *feel*, if you can't, there's no real point in the end, you're missing 99% of the experience if you turn it down. (Well ok the music itself is only a small fraction of the experience, don't let anyone kid you, its about leaving this plane of consciousness far behind)

Re:Rock On, Dudes!

[Pyroja]

Wow. This is the funniest thing I've heard all day.

iPod has had this for years

[Threni]

But there's no way of getting hold of US firmware for it (I'm talking of the iPod classic, 6th gen) if you're in the UK, for example.

Headsets have varying efficiency

[Anonymous Coward]

Some headsets needs more watts than others to produce the same dB of sound. How do they expect the mp3 player to compensate for this?

Re:Headsets have varying efficiency

[Nerdfest]

You can't. Open air vs. sealed headphones also require a vastly different volume level to block ambient noise (as mentioned in TFA). I switched to physical noise blocking headphones years ago when I found my ears ringing after I got off the bus. They work well enough at blocking noise that I now use them in my woodworking shop as well. I can listen to music at a relatively low volume even with power tools running.

What about the headphones

[Nicolas MONNET]

The power delivered to the ears depends on the headphones. I don't know how they plan to do anything meaningful here, they would have to set the limit based on the most "powerful" headphones, which means that the lesser ones will be inaudible. I already had that kind of problem on Nokia phones, you can't hear for shit with them, the max volume is ridiculously low, esp. with their utterly failtastic brand headphones with their annoying 2.5mm jacks. I'm certain nobody will harm their eardrums with that, but I'm equally certain that I'm not buying a Nokia ever again to listen to podcasts.

And BTW, it's not noise moronmitter, it's power. You can have lots of noise in very low power.

Re:What about the headphones

[Cillian]

Funny, I get the opposite problem with my N95 - with my pretty sensitive sennheiser rippoff in ears, the minimum volume without being muted (10%) is too loud for me sometimes. I get a similar problem with my ipod (running rockbox) - the minimum volume is still pretty loud and it just mutes if I try to go lower.

Re:What about the headphones

[mobby_6kl]

My Creative Zen Xtra with the default EU firmware already limited output power years ago. Needless to say, I couldn't hear shit with my Etymotic in-ear monitors even at close to maximum volume (no, I'm not deaf). The regular shitty earbuds would probably be loud enough, except that in noisy environments such as public transport where the IEMs normally shine. Thankfully, reflashing the player with some other version of firmware removed this retarded limitation.

Another situation where unlimited output was useful is when I connected the player to inputs for other systems, like my 5.1 PC sound setup, or the car stereo. With other less powerful players (and I assume this one as well, prior to reflashing) the resulting volume is usually very low. Of course this also depends on the other amplifier as well, but still, the result is that with limited output I simply wouldn't be able to listen to my music in the car.

Unfortunately, it seems that the EU has ran out of farmers to subsidize a long time ago, and now they have too much time to waste on useless bullshit like this.

Re:What about the headphones

[Hurricane78]

Uuum, must have been back in 2000. I got the 5800, and Nokia phones have had a normal jack for a loooong time. (2001 or so.)

But about the volume. Yes, it’s not that loud. But the highest setting is definitely loud enough. I nearly never use it.
Maybe it’s because I use $150 headphones... The first thing I do with every new device, is throw away the “headphones”.

Re:What about the headphones

[Sirusjr]

Or you could always buy a headphone amp to increase the output volume from the device when it is not enough to give you a decent volume out of your headphones. Are they going to ban headphone amps as well? I used to use one when my earlier player didn't have enough juice to power my Sennheiser EH350s but thankfully the Zune has a more powerful output that is sufficient. Still if my player was too quiet I would just boost the volume with an amp and go back to my usual volume. Of course I don't play my music at crazy loud levels.

Re:What about the headphones

[xaxa]

Unfortunately, it seems that the EU has ran out of farmers to subsidize a long time ago, and now they have too much time to waste on useless bullshit like this.

It seems you are under the mistaken impression that the national governments didn't have similar regulations anyway.

Re:What about the headphones

[richlv]

$150 is about 1/4 of the official average wage here - or maybe 1/3, given the current economical situation. cheapest plugs start at equivalent of $1, or maybe less.
try walking around and showing off your earplugs, good luck.

Re:What about the headphones

[Anonymous Coward]

The power delivered to the ears depends on the headphones. I don't know how they plan to do anything meaningful here, they would have to set the limit based on the most "powerful" headphones, which means that the lesser ones will be inaudible.

Good point. Let's take a look to see if the proposed bill is being backed by high-end headphone manufacturers.

Seriously tho, people need to just take responsibility for their own stupidity at some point. I listen to my mp3 player for long hours at work, and much of the time I have the volume simply set to 1. I can hear the music just fine at that level and I can hear everything going on around me and it's just fine.

Just because you have your headphones on doesn't mean you're no longer liable for not paying attention to your surroundings. If where you are is too noisy to listen to the music, then perhaps you should put the music away or GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. The only place where it would be safe to drown out the surroundings is in the comfort of your own home.

Re:What about the headphones

[canajin56]

Yeah, if you're ever on Air Canada (God have mercy on you), and you use their complementary headphones (that they now charge you for), you'll notice that even at 100% volume, you can barely hear the movie over the engine noise. However, I brought my non-noise canceling, $40 Koss headphones, and I had to turn it down to 10% (the min)! Mind you, those airline headphones are amazingly poor. I tried using them in an MP3 player on the ground, no background noise, couldn't hear anything at any volume...

Re:What about the headphones

[izomiac]

I've got a pair of ER-6i canalphones and have the same problem with my cell phone's music player. At volume "1" it's literally louder than a helicopter taking off about 15-20 feet away (I walk past a helipad on my way to class). It's kinda ridiculous how loud most people must listen to music. It's also fairly pointless since hearing loss and acclimation will ensure that the perception of it being loud won't last for long.

Re:What about the headphones

[TheRaven64]

Nokia phones have had a normal jack for a loooong time. (2001 or so.)

Depends on the phone. My last phone, an N70 (introduced in 2005), and my current phone, an N80 (introduced in 2006), don't have a normal headphone port, they have a click-port (audio, USB, and a few other things, with a horrible connector design). The N70 came with some horrible white earbuds with sharp corners that hurt my ears. The N80 came with some better ones and with an adaptor that let you connect anything with a 3.5mm jack, but neither had a headphone port on the device.

Forget disabled users...

[Manip]

I have very bad hearing, have done since I was a kid (even had surgery to correct it). I listen to music roughly 10-15% louder than most of my peers. In a noisy room louder still. If they limit volume on my MP3 player will I have to hack it in order to listen to it at a reasonable volume for me?

Re:Forget disabled users...

[vvaduva]

Another example of government thinking they know better than you and I. We are stupid, they are smart, thus they need to make decisions on our behalf.

Re:Forget disabled users...

[Anonymous Coward]

will I have to hack it in order to listen to it at a reasonable volume for me?

No, sir, not at all; just paint the number "11" on the dial and turn it up to that. Not loud enough? Just put a "12" on it.

In all seriousness, have your tried a "jabberjaw" style device to use your mandible as a transducer to bypass the 8th cranial nerve? Ever electrocuted your own genitals for pleasure? Try it!

Re:Forget disabled users...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, many of us are stupid or don't care.
The same applies to some people in governments. Furthermore, they can also be corrupt, incompetent and so on...

Re:Forget disabled users...

[TropicalCoder]

I don't use an iPod when I am out and about. I like to maintain my full awareness of my surroundings. There is only one situation in which I use a portable music player, and that is for a visit to the dentist to get a filling or a root canal. In that case, I want a noise cancelling headset pumping hard rock at 120 dBs to drown out the sound of the drill. The rest of the time, my portable music player sits forgotten in the bottom of my desk drawer.

Re:Forget disabled users...

[Hurricane78]

And what about reality? Do you have to hack reality too, to get back to a reasonable volume? :P

I would say: “Fix your ears!”. But unfortunately, medicine does not care or want to fix things, and only sells you symptom treatments. So I have to say: If you need a hearing aid, get one.
Because reality ain’t gonna adapt itself to you. Sorry, man.

Re:Forget disabled users...

[gbarules2999]

He's not talking about reality, he's talking about MP3 Players. Considering he didn't say anything about regular everyday noise, I have no idea why you brought it up, or even considered lecturing him based on the complete lack of information you possess.

Re:Forget disabled users...

[Manip]

Apart from that comment being extremely offensive, how would you suggest I use a hearing aid with a headset? The feedback would make it impossible.

Re:Forget disabled users...

[mrmeval]

So you wish to listen to your music louder than legally allowed?

1) Have form X32184-11y filled out by your authorized health care provider under penalty of perjury or death.
2) Fill out form X32184-12x under penalty of perjury or death that you are handicapped under EU law
3) Have three money orders or certified cheques, one filled out to the Auditory Regulatory Commission for 50EU, one filled out to the Office of Handicapped Waivers for 25 EU, one to the Wavier Administration Office for 100EU and send copies of the forms with and money order or cheque to each separate agency.
4) Wait patiently and if approved your license to listen to music louder than legally approved will arrive in six to eight months. Should you be denied the fees are not refundable but you may submit an appeal on form X32185-ou812 with a money order or cheque to Appeals Division for EU200.

Thank you for your love and understanding.

Re:Forget disabled users...

[Anonymous Coward]

Try sealed headphones.

Re:Forget disabled users...

[Anonymous Coward]

Was it too much to finish reading the summary? You won't have to hack it, you'll just have to disable the volume limiter.

EU recommends nose limits on MPs?

[Norsefire]

Did the EU say members of parliament have big noses?

I must have heard wrong, you'll have to speak up -- I've been getting a bit deaf lately.

How about limits on boom cars?

[walterbyrd]

If a boom car is loud from three blocks away, imagine how loud it is in the car.

A few days ago, I observed one of these insanely loud boom cars with a 3 year child strapped into the back. Too bad for that kid's hearing.

Re:How about limits on boom cars?

[maxume]

There are limits in most places, there just isn't much interest in enforcing them (in the sense that the cops don't care all that much, I imagine they would eventually respond to consistent complaints).

Re:How about limits on boom cars?

[Reverberant]

There are limits in most places, there just isn't much interest in enforcing them (in the sense that the cops don't care all that much, I imagine they would eventually respond to consistent complaints).

This. In fact, I wrote up a case study (PDF) on this issue for a technical conference. Noise just ain't as sexy as busting drug dealers.

Re:How about limits on boom cars?

[Joce640k]

If you have boom-car owners as parents then hearing is the least of your problems.

Re:How about limits on boom cars?

[Anonymous Coward]

If a boom car is loud from three blocks away, imagine how loud it is in the car.

A few days ago, I observed one of these insanely loud boom cars with a 3 year child strapped into the back. Too bad for that kid's hearing.

It depends on the orientation of the speakers and the acoustics in the car. Often the bass is louder outside than inside depending on how it was constructed. Oh, and the treble is more damaging than the bass (at least generally speaking).

Re:How about limits on boom cars?

[walterbyrd]

Noise just ain't as sexy as busting drug dealers.

I'll bet there's a crack-pipe, or something, in about a third of those cars.

Remember when Giuliani started cracking down on subway turnstile jumpers? Lots of people said "why bother." Then it turned it out that a lot of those scofflaws had arrest warrants out on them.

Re:How about limits on boom cars?

[iris-n]

No way. I've never fought Treble directly, but I'm sure that Bass does way more damage. AFAIK it doesn't even have a weapon! If you don't count S-ADAPT.

Wish they would regulate TV channels first.

[rolfwind]

My music usually doesn't surprise me with sudden shifts of maximum volume. But every time a program switches to commercial on TV, the max volume is a shit load louder and with more commercials than ever before that means fiddling with the remote every other minute. It wasn't always this way and is way annoying.

Re:Wish they would regulate TV channels first.

[Hurricane78]

So why do you still watch TV in the first place? Go to eztv.it, or btjunkie.org, and let the stuff download on your home server. Fire-and-forget style. I even download whole shows. All series.

It’s like a Tivo. Only that it’s free, and people manually removed the ads for you. :)

I still use a remote and a big screen. Just that they are attached to my PC. (And that the screen is 9 feet wide and the sound is 5.1 :)

Re:Wish they would regulate TV channels first.

[icebraining]

http://www.cnycentral.com/entertainment/story.aspx?id=314118

Re:Wish they would regulate TV channels first.

[RESPAWN]

Actually, the Sleuth channel seems to be even worse at this than many others. They were recently showing a lot of James Bond movies, so I recorded several on my DVR. The volume during the movie actually seems lower than normal (I have to crank up the volume a couple of notches higher than most channels), but the volume during the commercials is insanely loud.

I guess I can look at the silver lining here. More than once these ear splitting commercials have woken me up when I fell asleep watching a movie. At least I got up and went to bed then instead of sleeping on the couch and winding up with a crick in my neck.

If anything, though, I catch even less of the commercials than I normally would as each commercial break is met with a frantic search for the remote so I can fast forward through them.

Re:Wish they would regulate TV channels first.

[gbarules2999]

It's a pity that "just pirate it" isn't a typical reposnce for most issues people have with content they consume, isn't it?

Re:Wish they would regulate TV channels first.

[xaxa]

ITV told to turn down the volume on adverts

I usually hit "mute" as soon as the adverts start.

Re:Wish they would regulate TV channels first.

[vivaelamor]

It's a pity that "just pirate it" isn't a typical reposnce for most issues people have with content they consume, isn't it?

Isn't it a pity that it isn't a pity that you'd like it to be a pity for what isn't a typical response?

Re:Wish they would regulate TV channels first.

[rizole]

It's a pity that conventional broadcast media make content consumption so much less convienient, accessible and satisfying than "just pirate it."

Re:Wish they would regulate TV channels first.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

you mean, being able to purchase content from the iTunes or Zune store, or to watch it ad supported at any time on Hulu isn't convenient?

Re:Wish they would regulate TV channels first.

[ShakaUVM]

My music usually doesn't surprise me with sudden shifts of maximum volume. But every time a program switches to commercial on TV, the max volume is a shit load louder and with more commercials than ever before that means fiddling with the remote every other minute. It wasn't always this way and is way annoying.
Fortunately the nanny state has heard your plea, and there's legislation in congress to ban loud commericals.

(Don't mod this +funny, it's true.)

Re:Wish they would regulate TV channels first.

[Joce640k]

It's called audio compression and technically it's not a change in volume.

Instead of fiddling with the levl, just hit mute.

Or even better, stop watching it. BitTorrent has it all without adverts.

Re:Wish they would regulate TV channels first.

[Anonymous Coward]

You *know* that content producers got it wrong when pirating content is easier(click and forget), cleaner(no ads), and less annoying(no shifts in volume) than actually paying for things.

Don't get me wrong, I willingly pay for lots of stuff: a DVD quality is still better than those 700MB rips you find on torrent sites, also you get menus, subtitles... I like having those things.

But when I cannot fast forward through some shit I will never read(seriously, why do they even put it there?!) then I'm pissed and I'll rip my own clean version of the DVD I legally payed for!

Re:Wish they would regulate TV channels first.

[TheRaven64]

Yes, it is a shame that people who pirate the content get a better product than those who acquire it legally.

Re:Wish they would regulate TV channels first.

[Hurricane78]

Yeah, because having the “right” to watch it, streamed either from them or out of a encrypted container, as long as they show their “great benevolence” really is the same thing than actually owning something, and having it on your own hard disk forever.

And by the way: Hulu is not accessible outside the US, you insensitive clod!
Also most shows that I watch are not even available at all in my country. And if there is a streaming website, it just tells me that access is not allowed from my country, for no reason other than them being too stupid to finance the data transfer with a tiny PayPal payment (or find an advertiser for my target group, wich is worse but still...)

Re:Wish they would regulate TV channels first.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a pity that "just pirate it" isn't a typical reposnce for most issues people have with content they consume, isn't it?

Isn't it a pity that it isn't a pity that you'd like it to be a pity for what isn't a typical response?

say that ten times in a row!!

Re:Wish they would regulate TV channels first.

[Anonymous Coward]

you mean, being able to purchase content from the iTunes or Zune store, or to watch it ad supported at any time on Hulu isn't convenient?

Correct. The "pirated" version is better. As long as that remains the case, the "legal" version isn't convenient enough. Supply a better product at a low-enough price (not necessarily zero, mind you!) and that's the one I'll get. Explicitly make a product worse and I won't get it, at any price.

Simple.

What next?

[Vinegar Joe]

EU regs on the maximum roughness of toilet paper?

Re:What next?

[Helmholtz]

Reduction of fork tine length and ten fold increase in fork shaft weight to combat obesity.

Re:What next?

[Anonymous Coward]

There isn't one the law states uses an American politician as they are allways seeking to grease their palm with some crap

Re:What next?

[TheCowSaysMooNotBoo]

As long as they don't touch my bananas. waait a minute!

Re:What next?

[Anonymous Coward]

EU regs on the maximum roughness of toilet paper?

we're working on that.
meanwhile, Italian parliament has just discussed how long a dog's tail should be.
no, obviously they couldn't make up their minds. (minds??)
(no, not a joke)

Re:What next?

[apoc.famine]

http://www.knifeandforklift.com/product.php

Re:What next?

[Anonymous Coward]

There used to be a directive controlling the curviness of cucumbers. It basically only allowed straight cucumbers to be sold.

And how will this work?

[Sycraft-fu]

The volume that you get out of phones depends on the voltage sent to the phones, which the volume dial regulates, but also the impedance and sensitivity of the phones, which it can't. So whatever limit you set won't work in all cases. If you limit it to 85dB for ultra efficient phones like the Ultimate Ears UE5s (21 ohms, 119dB/mw) it will be extremely silent on Sennheiser 580s (300 ohms, 97dB/mw). Likewise set the limit on the Sennheisers, and the UEs would still be able to go to extremely excessive volumes.

This just can't be done. Unless you force players to accept only a certain headphone, you can't limit the output in this manner. The range of headphone is extremely wide. With speakers this is mildly feasible since most speakers are 8 ohms (though there are plenty of 4 ohm ones, and some 12 or higher) and generally in the range of 85-90dB/watt (though there are speakers over 100dB/watt). However with headphones the variation is too much.

This will do nothing useful.

Re:And how will this work?

[bcmm]

I worry that they'll just have to add the cost of a built-in ohmmeter to all MP3 players from now on.

Re:And how will this work?

[Sycraft-fu]

Well even if they do that, and then have it process for output levels, that doesn't solve the other half, the efficiency part. Different designs produce more or less sound given the same amount of power. Depends on the kind of drivers, the enclosure, how close to your ear, etc. As I said 580s have an efficiency of 95dB/mw meaning for one milliwatt of power (which in their case requires 0.5 volts) they produce 95dBSPL of sound at your ear. The UE 5 Pros have a 119dB/mw efficiency, meaning with the same one milliwatt of power (in their case needing only .14 volts) they produce 119dBSPL at your ear. So, even if you control it such that power is what is capped, you accomplish nothing. Set the 85dB cap for the UE's and the Sennheisers are going to be 61dB, which is about normal conversation level which would be hard to hear since they are open back. Set the 85dB for the Sennheisers, and the UE's will still go to 109dB, plenty to cause problem over long times.

This also doesn't even get in to the problem of the level of the music itself. While popular music tends to be extremely compressed and limited such that it maintains 0dBFS most of the time, that isn't the case for all music. If you have music that is -20dBFS average, you need to turn the volume dial up 20dB to get the same volume.

So all you'll end up doing is screwing over people who have quiet headphones and like ot listen to classical or jazz, and create a market for extremely loud, efficient headphones.

Re:And how will this work?

[Anonymous Coward]

The impedance/resistance of the headphones correlates only weakly with the sensitivity.

Re:And how will this work?

[Hurricane78]

Then it will become illegal to sell headphones outside of a specific efficiency range. Yay. :/

But hey, the point of this was not to limit the volume. The point was for someone to gain power or money. Find the one and you have found the answers.

Re:And how will this work?

[AdamPee]

Though if you're using UEs on your iPod, you clearly have more money than sense.

Re:And how will this work?

[John Hasler]

Most likely the regulation will apply only to the headphones sold with the player. If you are lucky the manufacturers will ship the things will low-efficiency phones.

Re:And how will this work?

[Reziac]

Nope, it'll do ONE useful thing (if not for consumers) -- it will protect the manufacturers from lawsuits over damaged hearing, since they'll be able to point at the imposed volume limit and say "It's not OUR fault".

Re:And how will this work?

[dkf]

Most likely the regulation will apply only to the headphones sold with the player.

More likely to also apply to any after-market headphones that are specifically advertised as being made for or compatible with a particular player. After all, what's the point of an accessory that cannot be used in the manner for which it is intended, and used safely at that.

MP3 players cannot control volume...

[Manip]

MP3 players cannot control volume since they have no way of knowing how loud a headset/earphones will convert the output into. For example small earbud in-ear output extremely high volumes with very low powers, while "cup" headsets would output a much lower volume with the volume indicator set at the same point.

If MP3 players for example limit volume to 80% you might wind up requiring batteries for several high end headsets that are currently on sale (even while the volume is extremely low).

It can't just be MP3 players

[cntThnkofAname]

While I have no doubt that mp3 players and unregulated volume can cause hearing damage, one things these studies fail to look at is other developing technologies that can also play a part. People in my opinion, are very quick to blame one thing and one thing only. It's no doubt of anyones that we live in a louder time. I hear peoples car speakers when they drive by from my house, I'm constantly listening to loud music (not from head phones but from normal speakers), there's more traffic causing more ambient nose and to compensate music volume, speaking volume all get louder... not to mention the "necessity" for bigger and louder home theaters (the list can go on). These generally aren't problems grand-dad had to deal with. My point is, you can't just blame one thing and expect a problem as big and general as hearing loss to go away. If you limit head phones loudness then people may just decide to get better speakers to ruin their ears. Not to mention population growth... Even ten years ago 10 million people suffering from hearing loss would be a much higher percentage than today. I have seen warning labels that say prolonged exposure can cause hearing damage, and for all we know this is lowering the percent with hearing loss ... but instead of actually finding out what we can do to better prevent it they're just going to shove some money to someone and they'll make quieter head phones and the government will claim they care about peoples health. Really I think they are wasting their time on this one.

traffic noise

[kanweg]

"... are often listened to while in traffic with the volume very high to drown out outside noise."

So, it would be nice if they imposed some regulations on traffic noise (and inside car noise) as well.

Bert

Easy bypass

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll just turn my player up to 11. Problem solved.

Re:Easy bypass

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll just turn my player up to 11. Problem solved.

Why don't you just make one that's louder and make that volume 10?

The problem COULD be elsewhere..

[MindPrison]

many of my peers are listening to VERY loud music at the clubs, in their home, in their cars - with ridiculous oversized stereos etc. I'm pretty sure that the MP3 players alone won't make a difference at all.

I'm in my 40's now, and I've been listening to MP3 players (including the first Walkmans/MiniDisc Players) since the beginning of my childhood, more than others...because I wasn't allowed to play loud music, and I found a great personal "peace" in listening to these - as loud as I wanted - wherever I wanted, any time.

This never damaged my hearing in any way, I've had my hearing checked regularly, and guess what - despite always using headphones - yes - even today...to avoid problems with my neighbors - I still hear like a 20 year old. Responsive at 18 khz or better, while my peers - can't even detect a 15 khz tone, and they always play loud music on their speakers...which I don't even have.

Go figure...

Re:The problem COULD be elsewhere..

[Sirusjr]

I agree, and loud is relative. The people who spend every night at clubs or concerts without hearing protection are going to have many more hearing problems than people who listen to moderately loud music on headphones frequently. Although I think the biggest problem is the majority of the population is listening to those terribly cheap ear buds that come with players and think they should be able to cancel out all the sound around them. They ARE NOT noise canceling headphones and were not developed for that purpose.

Re:The problem COULD be elsewhere..

[qwertyatwork]

Do I need to get off of your lawn, or do you need to get off of mine? Damned kids.

Re:The problem COULD be elsewhere..

[Anonymous Coward]

head phones don't need to be turned as loud to hear the whole sound. With speakers, unless they are positioned right you need to turn it up much more.

Re:The problem COULD be elsewhere..

[MindPrison]

How correct you are. I've noticed this too.

Eg. when I turn on my 50" inch TV, that comes with pretty strong speakers, I have to turn it up quite a bit in order to hear anything "intelligible" at all, while on headphones, I hear absolutely everything.

I guess that was a part of the reason why I wore headphones all my life too. Nice observation!

Re:The problem COULD be elsewhere..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in my 40's now, and I've been listening to MP3 players (including the first Walkmans/MiniDisc Players) since the beginning of my childhood, more than others...because I wasn't allowed to play loud music, and I found a great personal "peace" in listening to these - as loud as I wanted - wherever I wanted, any time.

This never damaged my hearing in any way, I've had my hearing checked regularly, and guess what - despite always using headphones - yes - even today...to avoid problems with my neighbors - I still hear like a 20 year old. Responsive at 18 khz or better, while my peers - can't even detect a 15 khz tone, and they always play loud music on their speakers...which I don't even have.

Go figure...

Maybe you're just lucky.

I'm in my early forties. From childhood I listened to loud music, and from my teens up I used fireworks, power tools, was exposed to poorly muffled engines, and shot large caliber firearms without hearing protection much of the time.

I suffer from tinnitus in the left and right ears, have for the past 20ish years. That's a persistent ringing in the ears. Right ear is considerably worse than left.

It can be quite annoying. During the day it isn't so bad, but at night when I'm trying to sleep it can be horrible. In the quiet it sounds extremely loud and is near impossible to ignore.

Re:The problem COULD be elsewhere..

[John Hasler]

What genre of music? It matters.

Re:The problem COULD be elsewhere..

[Anonymous Coward]

You know bolts of lightening do hit people from time to time. Just because it has not (yet) happened to you, does not mean that this phenomenon is nonexistant.

What I'm trying to say is, extensive studies have been done and they did find harmful effects of listening to loud music for prolonged time.
I'm just getting sick of people extrapolating their personal experiences to general rules.
Consider yourself lucky and be done with it.

I travel on the Tube to work

[David Gerard]

It's a pity the EU doesn't apply noise limits to public transport. The Victoria Line of the London Underground regularly hits 100dB. Travel on it to work every day for five years and your hearing will be permanently fucked up by it. Like mine.

Re:I travel on the Tube to work

[Hatta]

If only there were some sort of device you could place in your ears to dampen loud noises.

Re:I travel on the Tube to work

[David Gerard]

And I do indeed use the headphones for just that. However, the Underground is not going to admit what they've been doing to people's hearing without a strong push.

Re:I travel on the Tube to work

[RESPAWN]

You may already be using them, but have you considered a set of noise canceling earphones? I bought a pair for wearing while mowing the lawn and was extremely impressed. Unfortunately, the plug doesn't fit properly in the jack of my iPod, so I stopped using them when my old Creative MP3 player died and I joined the iRevolution. Back to ear plugs I went.

Re:I travel on the Tube to work

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, did you say something? My hearing was fscked up by travelling on the Victoria Line.

Re:I travel on the Tube to work

[David Gerard]

I've considered them. Everyone I know I've asked has advised me to get Etymotic earplug-phones - frequency-neutral Etymotic earplugs, as favoured by professionals, with speakers in them - rather than active noise cancellers. Any brand advice on active noise cancellers?

The real problem is that the EU is planning rules against headphones, but ignoring the far greater daily damage caused just by going to work. A time at which a lot of people are using headphones.

Re:I travel on the Tube to work

[David Gerard]

WHAT? YES. THAT'S BRILLIANT! A QUARTER PAST THREE.









[filter fodder filter fodder filter fodder filter fodder filter fodder filter fodder]

Re:I travel on the Tube to work

[orzetto]

I think they do. 60 dB is the level that should be kept. There is a directive on rail traffic and a research initiative on noise reduction.

Re:I travel on the Tube to work

[David Gerard]

Excellent! Here's hoping they actually do metric fuck-all about it before I'm forced to being rude to fellow passengers in sign language ...

Re:I travel on the Tube to work

[TheRaven64]

Ugh, another set of incompetent regulations. The limit from your first link is in dBA, which is a weighted scale designed for measuring human perception, not for noise. It is weighted towards the ranges which humans perceive the best (midrange). If you have very loud low frequencies, which can cause hearing damage but don't sound as loud, you get a lower dBA rating than if you have a higher midrange component and a lower bass component in the sound. The amount of damage is related to the amount of energy in the sound, which can be much greater in the low frequencies.

Sony Noise Canceling Kicks Ass

[knapper_tech]

The older players used to have some weak/annoying DRM, but the newer ones give you the freedom you want when uploading tracks. I had a little 2GB older model that had an unbelievable battery life of like 50hrs.

One day I was walking by train tracks as a train was approaching. Just as I pressed play (~2s delay to start up on that model) the train's horn starts up. BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah..... That's the correctly capitalized onomatopoeia for a train against noise canceling earbuds. They're awesome.

EU "experts", my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, that's just as I expected. Another show of cluelessness by "think of the children!" bureaucrats.

Since what is important is the acoustic pressure at the input to your own transducer (at the eardrum), you'd need to put a tiny litte pressure transducer right there to measure it. That would be the only way of protecting your hearing independently of exterior noise and the type of headphones being used.

There is no way to limit the acoustic pressure without having a way of measuring it, and closing the feedback loop. Even if they'd standardize (read: force on everyone) a standard headphone *electrical* impedance, there's still acoustic impedance between the headphone's transducer and your eardrum. Heck, your own transducer may not be as sensitive as whatever they take to be "standard" (say if you have some hearing loss). Unfortunately all those important details are completely lost on our bureaucrat screamers.

I wrote a script to play randomized tones at various frequencies through the headphones, just like an audiometer would. Things radically change depending on how far in did I push the headphones, and what headphones I use. By "radically" I mean 30dB of difference between hearing thresholds, easy. I retried that in downtown, and -- as expected -- the results were farther off, still. What that means is that any silly limiting based on *electrical power* delivered to the heardphones will make the music player useless in all but the quietest environments. The idiot who had this clever idea never actually did any experiments/measurements before speaking crap in the public. Dear EU bureaucrat, ahem, expert, sir/madam, you are an idiot. You deserve to be called nothing less.

There's a better solution....

[zen-o-matic]

This problem can be solved much more easily: get a pair of good noise cancelling / in-ear headphones (Sony, Sennheiser et al.) and there's no need for high levels of volume anymore. For example, I listen to music for hours every day and I've never had to crank up the volume more than 50% on my Creative Zen because I have good headphones. (If you stood behind me and screamed or fired a gun and I wouldn't hear a thing.) Perhaps some consumer education is in place?

Already like that in France

[Anonymous Coward]

For the record, such a law already exists in France since ... well years, maybe a decade; it limits audio output of portable audio players to 100 decibels and the ipod was withdraw from saled a few years ago because it could reach 130. Since then (~2003-2004) every ipod sold in europe has been limited to 100 decibels and everyone doesn't seem to have a problem with it.
Now I know a lot of people dislike it when the governement thinks it knows what's best for us more than ourselves (and I usually agree), but before blaming them remember that 1 - 85/100 decibels is pretty loud given a decent set of plugs and 2 - this limit pretty much already exists, they're just trying to set an EU-wide law to uniform it.

Re:Already like that in France

[dargaud]

Yeah, this law came out when I was a teen, over, hmmm, 3 decades ago at the time of the democratization of Walkmen. I have one thing to say about this: I often share my music / phone videos with my wife with a jack splitter. But then the volume drops by half and is hardly enough even in a quiet place. I wish I could raise it.

How?

[nameer]

The number of decibels reaching the ear depends on a number of factors. The RMS voltage of the signal, the efficiency of the drivers, the style of the headphones, etc. Is the EU planning to limit the amplifier to a particular gain? If so, will my pre-loudness war recordings suffer as I won't be able to apply enough gain to get them up to even 70 dB? Won't this incentivise the recording studios to make the loudness war even worse (it sounds "good" at maximum gain!) Or will they monitor the RMS voltage after the amplifier, and limit it to some value? In that case, consumers will likely choose low impedance, high sensitivity headphones to get higher volumes.

My point is that simply legislating MP3 players to produce no more than 85 dB is a rather odd request, as the MP3 player can't know what dB it's producing. I see what they are trying to accomplish, but I think it is futile and will probably result in worse players. I guess as long as they restrict it to the headphone amp and leave the line-out alone, one can always build/buy their own amplifier.

Oh, and I love the analogy of 120 dB = jet taking off. From how far away? I'm constantly within ear shot of jets taking off, and I would put it at 60 dB. Of course, that is probably on the order of 1 mile away. I would guess if you were standing on the runway directly below the jet as it was taking off it could even exceed 120 dB.

Re:How?

[Sycraft-fu]

Ya very bad choice with the jet thing. Right next to a jet engine? More like 140dB. 120dB is out in the open probably 200-300m away. 120dB is notable not in relation to a jet but in that it is generally the threshold that produces immediate pain and is unsafe, even for extremely short periods of time. However jets are much louder than that, hence the massive ear protection ground crews wear.

That costs more

[Sycraft-fu]

There is no shortage of headphones that will deal with noise. Good IEMs (in ear monitors) do a great job. They are passive, they create a tight seal on your ear and thus attenuate noise in the same way earplugs do, and to about the same degree. There are also active systems for over the ear phones. However, in both cases, you aren't getting it for $10. Have to shell out a reasonable bit of cash. Well, that is hard with cheap electronics. Nobody wants to double the cost of a cheap MP3 player just for the phones.

Thus they take the bonehead route that doesn't really accomplish anything.

Re:That costs more

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually that's exactly the right route: Forbid what causes damage. Then the customers can choose to simply listen at a lower volume or, if they want the SNR to stay the same, listen at a lower volume with noise canceling headphones. Choice is preserved, hearing damage prevented. (People will circumvent the restrictions, but that is their own damn fault.)

Re:That costs more

[tomhudson]

You don't want to completely seal the ear canal. You create an area of much higher humidity and can get a nasty wax buildup ("what, I can't hear you - I've got this nasty wax build-up in my ear").

This has worked for year

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember the walkman ? They were also limited. just make sure you limit every parameter so that even the worst case come as 85 dB of noise, and you are OK.

Dear government

[selven]

If we want to retain our hearing we can turn our volume below the maximum. If we want our children to retain their hearing many music players, like the iPod touch, have a parental control feature that limits volume.

Please stop trying to protect people from themselves.

Re:Dear government

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

...except here's a case where people don't actually know what's good or bad for them because the threshold for pain is higher than the threshold for damage, and it's not the Government coming out ad hoc on this issue, it was ear doctors who specialize in this field who have come out and said this needs to be done.

What makes me really hopeful about this case is there's a place on earth where science holds sway with politics, not the other way around

Re:Dear government

[selven]

People don't know what's good for them so we should, instead of a campaign of education, use a legal bludgeon to get our way? Last time I checked that argument stops at age 19.

Re:Dear government

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

or stop shipping MP3 players that go to 11 because that can hurt your god damned hearing. 85db is enough, if you want more, you can build an inline headphone amp, or buy one. Volume creeps up when you're trying to block out external noise and focus, you can listen to noises that don't cause pain, but are causing damage.

Governments mandate product safety guidelines all the the time anyway. It's not like the Government's not saying you can't listen to loud music, it's just saying that music player vendors can't ship out music players that harm ear drums

Re:Dear government

[selven]

When you buy your music player, is the volume preset to maximum? No, chances are it's around half. You have to go out of your way to listen to maximum volume, so people who listen to maximum volume WANT to listen to maximum volume. It's not like being accidentally hurt by a product without the right warning labels. All this would do is inconvenience them.

Re:Dear government

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

They are being hurt by products that are unsafe and improperly labeled. There's warnings deep inside the documentation of the thing, but that doesn't change the fact that when you're listening to loud music, the line between "loud and fun" and "loud and damaging" is pretty razor thin.

Re:Dear government

[selven]

Given that music players are so pervasive, I'll go back to my point that a campaign of education will be much more effective.

Re:Dear government

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Except no one know keeps a DB meter around them at all times. I love loud music. I'd love to know that cranking my music player to the max isn't killing my ear drums.

85db sounds pretty reasonably loud AND yet still safe

Re:Dear government

[selven]

If we can compromise on putting a warning label in the software (as in "Increasing the volume above 85 DB may be harmful to your health. Change anyway / Cancel volume change / Set volume to 85 DB?"), that would be an adequate solution.

Yeah right...

[Hurricane78]

Modern personal players are seen as more dangerous than stationary players or old-fashioned cassette or disk players because they can store hours of music [...]

Because my Walkman with a dozen cassettes in the backpack, and my MP3 CD player couldn’t do that...

[...] and are often listened to while in traffic with the volume very high to drown out outside.

And here is the real reason.

Re:Yeah right...

[Ant P.]

Funny thing that... my cassette Walkman already has a volume limiter on it. With it, maximum volume is barely audible and without it maximum volume will probably make you go deaf in 2 minutes. Since it's an electronic model, it helpfully forgets the "on" setting if you change the batteries.

+1, funny?

[Anonymous Coward]

SkullCandy? Really guys? Do yourself a favor and go pick up a pair of Sennheiser CX-300 II's. They will blow what you have away and only cost ~$35. SkullCandy is overpriced trash.

Re:+1, funny?

[moonbender]

I've never had SkullCandy headphones, and they don't look very convincing, and the brand kind of shouts style over substance. I did have CX-300s, though, and while they're decent headphones with good SQ, the isolation was barely worth mentioning. The AKG K324P is another in-ear by a well-known brand that has basically the same design and the same flaws. The cheapest in-ears with decent isolation I would recommend are Shure SE110s for 60 bucks (though personally I've only had SE210s and SE310s).

Re:+1, funny?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear they go all the way to 11

Re:+1, funny?

[SpooForBrains]

Yeah, seriously, SkullCandy?!

I bought a pair of SkullCandy LowRider headphones once in what turned out to be a very bad impulse purchase. I listen to drum 'n bass music a lot, and like my headphones to have a decent level of bass. I was lead to believe that SkullCandy headphones fit the bill in this regard.

I have rarely been so disappointed with a product in my life.

Re:+1, funny?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or a pair of Creative EP630's, which are, so far as I can tell, exactly the same as the CX300's, and cheaper still.

Re:+1, funny?

[jockeys]

I must be the only guy in the world who doesn't hate the brand. my wife got me some of the SC Hesh 'phones for my birthday and they actually sound pretty good. I would say the sound is almost as good as my Sennheiser hd201 'phones plus they are more comfy...

but hey, whatever floats your boat.

What about other devices?

[AusIV]

I hardly ever use my iPod with headphones. Usually it's plugged into speakers or my car stereo. In those cases the signal quality seems to correlate to the volume set on the player, but the volume itself is set by the amplifier. Admittedly, kicking the volume up to the player's 100% tends to distort the signal, but setting the player to a level that would be "safe" in headphones is short of the best signal.

Re:What about other devices?

[eqisow]

You need to use the line out instead of the headphone jack to get live level output that completely bypasses the internal amp circuity. Unfortunately, for the iPod this means getting a line out device that attaches to the port on the bottom.

At any rate, use the line out for what it's intended and this won't be a problem for you. :)

Nanny state

[Dunbal]

Since when is a government in charge of proper parenting? Have we now delegated "common sense" to bureaucrats?

I certainly remember my parents warning me of the dangers of listening to loud music. I have warned my children. Because children rarely listen, I often have to reinforce this warning, and even take their iPods away when I catch them. This is called parenting. It's not 100% successful. My children are not drilled soldiers and so they don't always listen to me. That's normal. I didn't always listen to my parents, either. However it's my job to keep trying.

      The possibilities for one human to harm himself or others are limitless. Are we going to have to legislate each one? Every single law a government makes takes away something from the people. Yes it's stupid to deafen yourself by listening to loud music. However PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO BE STUPID. Laws normally help prevent or settle dispute between citizens. It's not right that you play your music on your stereo at full volume in your crowded downtown neighborhood at 3am. Not everyone out of your 400 neighbors is in a partying mood. It's not right that you drive drunk and plow your car into another because of your intoxication. It's not right that everyone in the airplane has to put up with your stench if you haven't quit smoking yet. However who is harmed, apart from yourself, if you wear headphones and crank up the volume?

      The real danger here, I believe, is that sort of legislation that is trying to accomplish one thing - perhaps some legislator is tired of listening to the tinny sounds of people's MP3 players cranked at full volume in public - under the guise of something else - "oh we're doing it to save people from themselves".

Re:Nanny state

[jonaskoelker]

It's not right that everyone in the airplane has to put up with your stench^W health risks if you haven't quit smoking yet.

FTFY. Or do you think farting in tight spaces should be illegal too?

However PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO BE STUPID.

And people are allowed to be inconsiderate asshats.

(as long as they're not systematically being an asshat towards the same person(s) so as for it to be considered harassment.)

Re:Nanny state

[u38cg]

One justification for it is public health. Yes, people should be free to cause harm to themselves if they wish to, but frequently the state is left fixing the consequences (for example, criminal damage caused through drug abuse, health costs of alcoholics, etc). Leaving aside the argument that the state shouldn't be dealing with that either (which is a valid argument but politically infeasible), it seems reasonable to discourage such behaviours now in order to save the state money later.

Re:Nanny state

[Nonillion]

Next we'll see cops with sound pressure meters and issuing tickets (read: REVENUE GENERATION) to save us from ourselves.

Re:Nanny state

[Anonymous Coward]

You must have never had to sit NEXT to some douchebag on the bus or train who insists that listening to Jay Z at 300dB is the shit and he's cool for doing so, right?

But then, I'm guessing you're a pretentious enough asshole that you've never ridden public transit in your life.

Re:Nanny state

[nightfire-unique]

It's not right that everyone in the airplane has to put up with your stench if you haven't quit smoking yet. However who is harmed, apart from yourself, if you wear headphones and crank up the volume?

Was with you right up until this point. Then ya blew it.

I happen to find the sound of someone else's loud headphones far more annoying than the smell of smoke. No, I am not a smoker, but I hang around people who do.

So I'll tell ya what.

I'll tolerate your loud headphone music if you tolerate the smell of other peoples' smoke.

That way, we all win.

The danger comes in precisely when people's annoyances develop into calls for law, which is what you've just done for smoking.

Re:Nanny state

[huha]

I do have to agree there. I don't see anything wrong in particular when it comes to limiting volume to non-dangerously high levels, especially as this will benefit everyone. If you're stupid enough to ruin your hearing in the US, well, tough luck. In the EU with mostly easily available, cheap healthcare, this will get incredibly expensive for the general populace as incident numbers start soaring. I don't see why you should cry "nanny state" here; they're not outlawing listening to loud music, they're just imposing limits on output power of MP3 players.

That said, I think the problem is the craptastic headphones that come with all players. They have to be cheap, so their frequency response will be absolutely horrible. In order to hear anything at all, you have to crank them up immensely, which is not the best thing to do in regards to your hearing. Decent phones, however, don't need to be loud, as they're clear even without being driven at extreme volume.

Re:Nanny state

[Anonymous Coward]

see the problem with all the arguments here is that there is some assumption of perfect knowledge... that one who listens to these loud levels or smokes KNOWS wtf these things do to them in a long term sense. Great for us here, who finished highschool, went to some post secondary, and probly spent several hours or even days over our learning careers thinking about these issues... sure, for YOU it might be an informed (fully) decision... but not for everybody, so just saying, ahh, 'the'r just stupid, so eff em'... this is bs argumentation. Not true, and ignorant.

Re:Nanny state

[u38cg]

Exactly. In practice, this law will just be a stimulus plan for decent headphone manufacturers.

Re:Nanny state

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting. I've never thought of it that way. If I am a classhole to random people, I can be a classhole all my life without getting arrested. I think I'll stop tormenting Jonny.

Re:Nanny state

[dkf]

I'll tolerate your loud headphone music if you tolerate the smell of other peoples' smoke.

That way, we all win.

Alternatively we can just taser the most egregious assholes before garroting them with their own headphone cables. That way, we all win.

Seriously, the enormous majority of people on the train that I see every day when commuting manage to keep volumes low enough that they're just entertaining themselves. That's great! Only a very few feel the need to impose their sucky tastes in music on the rest of us.

Re:Nanny state

[Anonymous Coward]

If the same nanny state has to provide welfare for people because they can't get a job due to permanent hearing loss, then it also has a right to enforce some sane limits. It's not like it's the end of the world to reduce the volume a little bit.

I'm all for allowing people to be stupid, but not when I'll have to pick up the tab at the end.

Price doesn't matter

[Sycraft-fu]

Design does. You can get high end headphones that are very loud, because they are high efficiency and low impedance, and ones that are very soft, because they are low efficiency and high impedance. All depends on what they are going for in design. Little IEMs tend to be real loud at a given setting, big open phones tend to be real quiet.

Yes, if the opamp can drive them

[Lonewolf666]

A typical op-amp can provide an output current of some 10 mA. Which is fine for driving a 32 Ohm headphone at low voltages. If you switch to lower impedances (4 or 8 ohm?), the music player will need a more beefy opamp.

Re:Yes, if the opamp can drive them

[Ironsides]

I think you're off by a bit. Even cheap op-amps can output 100ma. A 10ma limit on 32 ohms would give you a max volume of only 3.2mw. Max voltage output over headphones is typically +/-1v, so max current output should be ~33ma at a minimum.

While they're at it...

[papapurinii]

Why don't they ban tobacco, alcohol and Amsterdam's prostitution? Oh wait. That would be CONSISTENT. Sorry.

Re:While they're at it...

[TheRaven64]

Not sure what prostitution has in common with the other three, but there's a bit difference between alcohol and tobacco and noise: there is a lot of education provided at school level about the dangers of the first two. If people choose to drink and smoke then they can be reasonably expected to be making an informed decision about the consequences. This is not the case for noise, where levels that feel quite comfortable can cause permanent hearing damage and there is very little education about the risks.

I don't object to people choosing to harm themselves, but I also think that vendors have a responsibility to make sure that the default use for their product is safe.

volume control

[loshwomp]

I've not yet heard of a portable music player that doesn't already have a volume control.

Re:volume control

[Anonymous Coward]

I put my iAudio7 through the wash, it survived intact except for the volume down button, so now I keep the buttons locked so I don't accidentially hit volume up.

Re:volume control

[u38cg]

I'm sure Steve Jobs is on the case.

Don't forget distance

[Shawn Parr]

In addition to all of that (which is totally correct), distance causes drop in sound pressure level at the eardrum as well. While it may not seem like there is that much of a difference change between old school over the ear headphones versus much newer inside the ear canal type headphones, the entire length of speaker-to-eardrum is short enough it can make a difference of a few dB.

And with 3dB being half the power, 6 - 10 dB being half the apparent loudness, levels can drop quickly. The change between headphone styles may only be between 2 - 5 dB due to distance, but added to the effect of impedance and efficiency of the drivers it certainly is a consideration.

Trying to regulate this at the player level is a joke. And it would be nearly impossible to try to get every headphone manufacturer in the world to make more consistent efficiency/impedance headphones.

Re:Don't forget distance

[Sycraft-fu]

That is actually normally factored in with headphones. That's one of the reasons IEMs are so much more efficient is that they are in the ear canal. Generally the sensitivity expressed means "at the ear" for headphones. Of course people can always wear them wrong and change the distance.

stupid people

[angelwolf71885]

if people do stupid things to themselves its not our place to criticize or do anything about

Re:stupid people

[Anonymous Coward]

people do stupid things to themselves, stupid politicians do stupid things to try to protect them, stupid politicians screws everyone else.

Spam

[nten]

that sounds strangely like spam I've seen

Smoking?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about smoking? Much more hazardous, and also hazardous to the people around the smoker. Do something about that first!

Second, it would be nice if any loudness is limited, that there should also be a lower minimum loudness, because most of the players that I tried are way too loud when you are in a quiet room.

Meh... it should be limited to 65dB...

[mark-t]

65dB is only slightly above a normal conversation. If they *really* want louder than that, plug an amplifier into it.

If there's too much other noise to hear it easily at 65dB, then they need to wear something other than ear buds that will actively block out outside noises.

Yes, here will be built-in override

[sznupi]

At least that's the story in the news.

They're talking about "80 dB limit, with some setting that goes to 100 (vs. 120 that they measured in some players on the market)". I guess the power output at the latter number should be OK for some bigger/better headphones? (besides, isn't that some more complex deal with Ohms, etc.?)

PS. I see great possibility to mandate as standard feature "go to 11!"...

Re:Yes, here will be built-in override

[Yetihehe]

Pff, my player goes all the way to 42.

That's not a bad thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the objective is to regulate what industrials can do with mp3 players, not regulate what the consumer choose. I believe the mp3 player has a test to pass and if it go below 85dB with it's included headphones it's good to go. If the consumer choose to change the headphone or add an amplifier or something he is absolutly free to do so.

It's important to protect the "dumb" consumer as he will be confident in what is sold to him. If there was no regulation industrials would start to add cocaïne in your meals and actualy I don't think I exagerate this much.

alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

rather than putting a limit on how loud an mp3 player can be, why not simply have mp3 players have a default notification system that warns that you may be damaging you ears when you have the volume level above a certain level. That way when you are using it with high end headphones or portable speakers or something you aren't hindered. But if you are using the stock earbuds and blowing your eardrums out the only person you have to blame is yourself.

Thanks.

[Anonymous Coward]

EU Recommends Noise Limits On MP3 Players

Thanks nanny.. I mean EU.

Re:That costs more//But does it have to?

[sznupi]

I was wondering - with current digital audio players wouldn't it be quite cheap to pick up sounds with some basic microphone in the player, shift it in phase, accordingly, on CPU/DSP...and that's it, without much in the way of specialized hardware?

Yes, the effect wouldn't be ideal because of ear-player separation, but in such usage scenario it's mostly about "good enough"...

(though regarding ear-player separation - would it be possible to use normal headphones as poor microphones (just for "good enough" noise canceling), at the same time as playing through them music and half-shifted in phase sounds picked up moments before? A bit too much, I guess...)

No change, please.

[mr_lizard13]

although manufacturers are obliged to print information about risks in the instruction manuals

Then that will do.

Smoking is estimated to kill thousands of people, yet cigarette makers don't face restrictions on how many cigarettes they can put in the box, or how much tobacco goes into the product. They get away with being able to put a warning sticker on the box.

Re:No change, please.

[John Hasler]

> ...cigarette makers don't face restrictions on how many cigarettes they can
> put in the box, or how much tobacco goes into the product.

Yet. The FDA standard cigarette is coming. "Flavored" cigarettes are already banned.

non engineers describing things again

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean signal limits, not noise limits.

Car audo should have limits ... not MP3

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't care if MP3 users go deaf, as it only affects the user. I would rather see limits on car audio. If you've ever lived in an apartment complex, you know what it is like to be disturbed by others around you. MP3 users should just sue the manufacturers, or there should be warnings like with tabaco products ... use at your own risk.

Noise-cancelling noise

[Jay L]

require noise cancelling technologies

Gah, I hope not. Noise-cancelling headphones make me feel like I'm in some pressure chamber. I've seen it mentioned by others, but I've never found out if it's because they really do increase absolute pressure when they play the cancelling waveform, or if it's just a psychoacoustic thing from comb-filtering. Either way, it hurts, and things that hurt your ears tend to harm your ears.

Re:Noise-cancelling noise

[Reziac]

So do I understand this right -- they produce an equal but opposite noise (waveform) so in fact you're being subjected to double the noise level, but can't hear any of it??

Re:Noise-cancelling noise

[Jay L]

they produce an equal but opposite noise (waveform)

Yep. A naive noise-cancelling earphone design would be a mic, mic preamp, phase inverter and a summing amp to mix it with the input signal. Nowadays I'm sure they have some DSP as well, though latency would make it difficult to do anything fancy. IIRC, the hard part of noise cancelling is getting the mic as close to the ear driver as possible so it hears the noise at the same time as your ear; otherwise the distance puts some sounds out of phase and you end up boosting instead of cancelling.

so in fact you're being subjected to double the noise level, but can't hear any of it?

Not sure; that's where I remember I'm a software guy. But that's certainly what it feels like, and maybe someone who actually knows physics can enlighten us here.

Cancel, don't overload

[Animats]

The way out of this is noise cancellation. That's available, and not all that expensive, but not standard. If players were required to have hardware support for noise-canceling earbuds, then the temptation to raise the output level would decline. You can get noise-canceling earbuds now, but they need an external unit with another battery and electronics to do the noise cancellation. If the cancellation electronics is moved to the player, where it should be, the overall cost will decline. Also, you get rid of the need for a second battery.

re: 85 dB limit

[Fuji Kitakyusho]

85 dB (C) is approximately the noise floor in many locations where I would wear my player. I use both noise canceling headphones and an external headphone amp, so it wouldn't matter so much to me, but I can see this limit rendering a player all but useless unless a customer invests in the additional equipment. Maybe this decision is a result of the electronics lobby?

What can't I f**king decide for myself?

[Raisey-raison]

Hearing loss is bad if it is caused by MP3 players, but it's okay when it's caused by police using crowd control devices against innocent civilians.

Yeah the cops get free reign. They also don't seem to care about the ill effects of being beaten up by a cop - really nasty health consequences there.

Why can't the government get out of my business??? If I choose turn the volume too high - its MY problem. Leave ME alone!!!

It's just like religion, opposition to abortion and stem cells on the political right - if you don't want to have an overly loud mp3 player, then turn down the volume (for yourself). Leave everyone else alone.

Another example of the destruction of personal liberty.

Re:What can't I f**king decide for myself?

[Itninja]

The issues comes in a few decades from now. When YOUR problem destroys your hearing and you go on the government dole. Then it becomes MY problem. Why should I have to pay for your disability welfare?

Re:What can't I f**king decide for myself?

[el3mentary]

Yeah but you piss me off on the bus/train/tram you inconsiderate dick. I don't want to hear your music and neither does the rest of the carriage.

I would support this if only to limit the amount of inconsiderate jerkasses on public transport from imposing their music onto my ears.

Re:What can't I f**king decide for myself?

[Reziac]

Itninja wants to know, "The issues comes in a few decades from now. When YOUR problem destroys your hearing and you go on the government dole. Then it becomes MY problem. Why should I have to pay for your disability welfare?"

A better question is, "If your disability is self-inflicted, why should you be eligible for the dole at all??"

Re:What can't I f**king decide for myself?

[Anonymous Coward]

They aren't doing this to invade your right to go to notch 11; they're doing this because idiots who don't know about it hurt themselves by playing it at the loudest setting.

A pair of consumer grade headphones has no reason whatsoever to include a setting that can inflict permanent hearing damage. What if it were hairdryer max setting that could set your pride on fire? Would you be fine with them objecting and putting a safety limiter on that or would you still want one of those because everybody in your monkeysphere is a responsible adult who'd never turn it up?

Re:What can't I f**king decide for myself?

[PRMan]

It's just like religion, opposition to abortion and stem cells on the political right

Yeah, and they're always stopping you from killing adults, too. What a bunch of killjoys! They should just let you gun people down if you want to. Born, unborn, who cares? Kill them all.

Re:What can't I f**king decide for myself?

[compro01]

A better question is, "If your disability is self-inflicted, why should you be eligible for the dole at all??"

And your sure-fire method for determining whether hearing loss is self-inflected is what precisely?

Re:What can't I f**king decide for myself?

[Reziac]

Since you asked, my surefire method is to do away with the dole entirely, but I was responding to the previous post's specific case.

Re:What can't I f**king decide for myself?

[n0m]

I completely agree with your need to be free of government intervention. If you choose to willfully and against all advice destroy your hearing then you should be allowed to do so.

Now, can you please agree to prevent your interventionist government from taking my income to provide you with medical aid to repair this damage? Because I fail to see why I should be taxed to provide medical care to morons?

Why is it that everyone is against government intervention except when that intervention is on their behalf?

Oh yeah, I'm also fed up with hearing the garbage sounds leaking out of your headphones on public transport. Yes, I'm old and I'm grumpy so get off my lawn.

Re:What can't I f**king decide for myself?

[JesseMcDonald]

Why should I have to pay for your disability welfare?

That's a very good question. Why should you have to pay for others' disability welfare, particularly when that disability is the result of voluntary action on their part? I certainly can't think of any good reason. Why don't you take that up with those who are actually forcing you to pay—the politicians and the voters who empower them. The GP hasn't imposed any burden on you as of yet, and quite possibly never will.

Re:What can't I f**king decide for myself?

[TheRaven64]

A better question is, "If your disability is self-inflicted, why should you be eligible for the dole at all??"

Because it's cheaper for society overall. If you have a group of people who have no employment prospects, it's cheaper for the rest of society to pay them to do nothing than for them to become criminals. It's even cheaper if you can prevent people from joining this group in the first place.

Re:What can't I f**king decide for myself?

[Sir_Lewk]

Thankfully that will never happen, because I have health insurance.

Oh damn, this just became political didn't it? ;)

Re:What can't I f**king decide for myself?

[OrangeCatholic]

Actually if you put everybody on the dole, you can cheaply and efficiently solve everyone's medical problems at once. Assuming you find a treatment that works, you can keep handing it out.

My point is that "we're all in this together" is probably a better deal. Since we currently have private health care, as far as I'm concerned anyone with diabetes can go FUCK themselves. Is that cool?

Because someday I'm going to end up with something and then I'll want help. Medical care is equal in the sense that everybody ends up with something that needs to be fixed. You want to play dollars and cents with whose disease is more affordable? That's a risky game.

You could end up being the guy with diabetes. That's $100,000/year. How does that dole sound now?

Re:What can't I f**king decide for myself?

[Reziac]

I know that's the theory, but observationally, methinks that's probably a form of the Broken Window fallacy. Exponential growth of gov't and taxes (which wind up costing the citizens a lot more overall than do crime or beggars) historically begins when a gov't initiates the institution of the dole, and this has been true all the way back to the Roman Empire.

Conversely, beggars cost society no more than it wishes to give. (And per the surveys of professional beggars, they make a good living at it, considerably better than they would on the dole.) And the cost of criminals tends to be a function mainly of whether citizens are armed and willing to defend themselves.

Re:What can't I f**king decide for myself?

[Reziac]

Contrary to natural selection, that's how it sounds. And "We're all in this together" becomes untenable once a significant proportion become leeches.

I'm not a big fan of saving everybody, as you might have noticed.

Re:What can't I f**king decide for myself?

[Reziac]

By coincidence, this just came into my emailbox:

"This life of phony compassion is a life of transferred costs. Liberals who wax lyrical on the sufferings of the poor do not, on the whole, give their time and money to helping those less fortunate than themselves. On the contrary, they campaign for the state to assume the burden. The inevitable result of their sentimental approach to suffering is the expansion of the state and the increase in its power both to tax us and to control our lives. As the state takes charge of our needs, and relieves people of the burdens that should rightly be theirs -- the burdens that come from charity and neighborliness -- serious feeling retreats. In place of it comes an aggressive sentimentality that seeks to dominate the public square. I call this sentimentality 'totalitarian' since -- like totalitarian government -- it seeks out opposition and carefully extinguishes it, in all the places where opposition might form. Its goal is to 'solve' our social problems, by imposing burdens on responsible citizens, and lifting burdens from the 'victims,' who have a 'right' to state support. The result is to replace old social problems, which might have been relieved by private charity, with the new and intransigent problems fostered by the state...." --columnist Roger Scruton

My point exactly.

Re:What can't I f**king decide for myself?

[Anonymous Coward]

>"We're all in this together" becomes untenable once a significant proportion become leeches.

Well if you want to talk mortgage-backed securities and the Bernie Madoff bandwagon, I'm with you. There's more to natural selection than health. There's also economics. -oc

Re:What can't I f**king decide for myself?

[Reziac]

An AC says, "Well if you want to talk mortgage-backed securities and the Bernie Madoff bandwagon, I'm with you. There's more to natural selection than health. There's also economics. -oc"

I can't argue with that. Businesses (and buying a home is a sort of business venture) start, grow, reproduce, fail, and die, just like living organisms. Supporting nonviable specimens is generally not good for the ecosystem as a whole, whatever that may be.

Re:What can't I f**king decide for myself?

[Anonymous Coward]

A well crafted right-wing viewpoint.

It makes a good point that charity belongs in the neighborhood. If you're poor and your neighbor is rich and he ignores you, there's not a whole lot that government compassion is going to do. Unless you just need money, in which case wealth distribution works pretty well ;)

I dunno. I been hanging out with some low-rent types lately and it's hard to tell if it's a chicken or an egg problem. I think you need money and support to survive. Government does the first pretty well and the other pretty awkwardly. Public school system is a good example of how the government treated us like cattle for the first 18 years of our lives.

Re:What can't I f**king decide for myself?

[dcroxton]

I agree completely about MP3 players, but your anger is directed at the wrong side politically. The stem cell debate is not about legality, it is about public funding. And no one is trying to tell you what religion to have. It is the left who wants to tell us what size toilets we can have, what kind of light bulbs we can use, and what kind of safety devices need to be on our cars.

Re:What can't I f**king decide for myself?

[Explodicle]

(Disclaimer: I can't speak on behalf of everyone who opposes headphone regulation yet supports socialized health care, this is just my own $0.02.)

Now, can you please agree to prevent your interventionist government from taking my income to provide you with medical aid to repair this damage? Because I fail to see why I should be taxed to provide medical care to morons?

It's cheaper to socialize health care than to privatize it, but a complex denial policy would introduce too many loopholes to effectively discourage moronic behavior. Basically, I'm willing to tolerate morons getting free care on my dime if it means I will save money overall.

Why is it that everyone is against government intervention except when that intervention is on their behalf?

Because people will rationalize any position that benefits them personally. Thus, over the long term, democratic governments tend towards economic efficiency over any particular set of ethics.

DMCA!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah until DMCA hits you like back in 2003. I lost my Adelphia cable modem Internet service for downloading Stargate Atlantis.

maybe a pity, maybe not yet

[Onymous Coward]

Huh.

Ain't it sad folks don't find it unfortunate that he bemoans the atypicality of the copying solution?

Well, perhaps. It would be great if people understood that copying isn't theft and that media fatcats are cultural parasites, but at the same we need to be cognizant of the system we're stuck in. Things are changing, though. The fat's on its way to getting trimmed. You can smell the rancidity already in the form of *AA/"intellectual property" trade group lawsuits and cruftily constraining DRM. Hopefully we'll get to a system that supports the natural flexibility of data (copying is easy and harmless) while at the same time encouraging artists. Then, yes, it'd be a pity for "just download it" not to be the norm.

Wait- Unless you mean that folks don't find it unfortunate he bemoans the atypicality of the copying solution because it's already the norm? But surely you don't mean that.

Re:maybe a pity, maybe not yet

[vivaelamor]

Actually I was just trying to highlight the pointlessness of Gbarules' statement by making one that was even more pointless that contradicted theirs. The fact that you have managed to read so much into it furthers my point; Without an explanation of why Gbarules believes it is a pity you can only really guess as to what their point is.

Note from Gbarules' post that they say 'content they consume' when referring to content someone might pirate. That would be a strange assumption for someone who is pro piracy as one of the key reasons to pirate might be because you could not access the content to consume it in the first place otherwise.

I don't believe there is even an issue about whether to pirate, I am hopeful that people copying will help facilitate change by allowing participation in current culture while allowing more resources to go towards new ways of doing things. I'm a firm believer that if you can copy the cake then you can both have it and eat it.

As to whether it is the norm, I am not sure quantifying piracy is a useful exercise. Anti piracy rhetoric is probably right in one thing, most people who pirate are unlikely to have put much thought into the choice. Of course what they neglect to point out is that the same might be said about people who choose not to pirate.

mp3 player / jet engine

[gTsiros]

if anyone has come across a portable media player that can reach the volume of a jet engine, even for the duration of a short song

please name it

i'm still searching...

Traffic Noise

[PPH]

...often listened to while in traffic with the volume very high to drown out outside noise.

I know exactly what they mean. In particular, those guys that always follow me around with their sirens blaring really bug me.

You can limit the watts

[Joce640k]

Then the impedences will sort themselves out (headphone manufacturers will all have to hit the sweet spot if they want any customers).

You want teenagers to listen?

[Joce640k]

Good luck with that.....

What about the music?

[sribe]

The title says they're talking about limiting noise, which would imply something about the quality of sound reproduction. You know, signal/noise ratio and all that. But the article seems to about limiting music volume. Thus I infer that the submitter doesn't know the difference between noise and music ;-)

Noise limits

[Khyber]

Sure, the player might be capable of going that high - are the headphones capable of handling that?

Most of my earbuds clip the fuck out around 75dB. My studio headphones, OTOH, can handle 120dB without a problem.

Don't music players already come with this?

[BillX]

Granted, I haven't felt need to buy a new personal music gadget in the last few years, but the last one I did buy - a Creative Nomad - had a builtin decibel limit feature, enabled at 85db out of the box (it can be adjusted or disabled if needed; see many previous comments for why this might be important). With music players doing everything but wipe your butt for you these days, don't most if not all these days come with this feature already? (Or is the nanny state's beef with the fact that the feature can be turned off?...)

Re:Don't music players already come with this?

[wiredlogic]

iRiver had (has?) different firmware for the EU that would limit the maximum volume compared to the rest of the globe.

Prejudice against the hard of hearing.

[cjsm]

I agree, this bill is prejudice against the hard of hearing. And if these clueless lawmakers don't know, most MP3 player users are hard of hearing.

*poof* one year later...

[Anonymous Coward]

Something I can't figure out about my new MP3 player, if you dial the volume past "EU-Max" there's a setting marked 11.

What's up with that?

If

[Anonymous Coward]

If we outlaw the loud mp3 players, only outlaws will have loud mp3 players.

Not a problem

[Trogre]

I trust my Ogg player will be exempt from this :)

What do people who are hard of hearing do?

[Skapare]

Many people are hard of hearing for many reasons, including that's what they had at birth. They often require hearing aids to hear. I can only imagine that hearing aids must be boosting the audio (I've never tried any). They need to be able to boost the audio. And some audio sources are way too low as it is. This is really an impractical solution to a stupid nanny problem. They should put their effort into real problems like fluorescent lights that give me a headache.

The important question

[Ashe Tyrael]

If they do this, are they also going to place legal limits on the volume with which Ethel, sitting on the tram across from me, is going to talk about whichever soap or celebirty show has her attention this week? If I can't drown out their pathetic and often obnoxious ramblings, what the heck is a sane, rational person supposed to do?

please help me!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank god the government is here to save me from myself! Yay government!

Whoosh!!!!

[TarPitt]

the sound of the original post's intent going right over your head.

Did you hear it?

Or are you deaf from indignant outrage?

and yet the police are using 139 db?

[1800maxim]

And yet the police can use a sound wave amplifier that generates 139 db (IIRC) to disperse demonstrators? Why isn't that legislated?

could it be from more mass of air using speakers?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean more mv from the more m == more damage.The *perception* of a given 'loudness' may be quite different between using headsets as opposed to free listening with speakers. Nowhere near as much m needed to vibrate in just the ear canal with a headset as opposed to a whole room or area. Woomp!

car analogy

[StripedCow]

as someone who listened to a lot of loud music, i like this idea

as an extension, i propose to do the same with cars. limit their speed.

deja vu

[cbope]

I have a 3rd gen iPod which I just happened to buy in a duty free shop at the Paris airport several years ago. Unfortunately, France had a similar law regarding the output volume of mobile devices and my iPod was limited (great, thanks). It really sucked when I tried to use high quality full size Sennheiser headphones with this iPod, it just would not drive them enough to get decent volume levels. I'm not talking deafening levels, but decent music listening levels. I had to resort to a firmware hack on the iPod that disabled the volume limit and I vowed never to buy any mobile electronics in France ever again, thanks to this ridiculous law.

Now, I wonder if this is yet again another French law being forced onto the rest of the EU by France. They seem to be getting good at this lately (three strikes anyone...?)

Dumb

[sega01]

This is just dumb. Obviously, different headphones have different impedance levels and different dB to power ratio, so your tinny and tiny Ipod junkphones may be around 90dB when your cans are around 70dB.

The thing is, why can't governments let people think for themselves anymore? At most, make a public disclaimer, just always let people do what they want since it isn't their responsibility.

In general most regulations are fail.

My personal experience...

[Dorkmaster Flek]

My personal experience is that people turn up their headphones loud because they have shitty headphones and you need to turn it up loud in order to hear everything in the music and drown out the background noise. This was always the case when I was a kid, and my parents would be able to hear the sound leaking out and tell me to turn it down, and actually went so far as to put the headphones on themselves to check the volume level. (Because, you know, they actually cared about what I was doing to myself. That seems to be a lost art these days...) Years later, I discovered the solution: buy a decent pair of headphones! After spending $100 on a nice pair of earbuds that actually block out the background noise really well (to the point where my wife doesn't want me to wear them if I'm playing my DS at home and she wants to call me for help occasionally), I'm surprised if I have to ever hit half the maximum volume on my MP3 player/DS because the music/game is mixed so quietly. The majority of the time, I'm at more like 1/3 the max volume. This also has the nice side effect of increasing the quality of the sound itself, because you can hear all the nuances of your music without having to turn it up so loud that it's practically distorted because of the surrounding noise, even on the subway going to and from work. You might scoff at spending $100 on a pair of earbuds when you can get them for under $20, but your ears will thank you later. One of the best investments I've ever made, by far. Just make sure you take proper care of them. :P

Un Born

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought a car the other day and they said OK you can go home now. And I said, "Where's my car?" And they said, "It's still in the factory." What? "It's unborn."

Then I went to the supermarket and I ask the guy, "Where are the apples?" He hands me a packet of seeds and a bucket of water. $2.49/lb for a bucket of water. The whole bucket ended up being like $20. I was like, "Are you scamming me?" He goes, "No, we switched to selling the unborn ones. Same quality though."

Then I went to church and the pastor was just standing there. After 10 minutes I was like, "Are you gonna say something?" He goes, "What do you mean?" I say, "I've been standing here for a while now and you haven't said a word. I thought I came here to hear you talk." He goes, "You are hearing me talk. My sermon is unborn. I haven't actually spoken yet and it exists only in my head. I may make changes. Nobody knows what it is. But I assure you the good Lord considers it every bit as real as an actual sermon."

So now I run a business called Unborn Enterprises. People pay money and I make empty promises. The cops keep showing up. They usually take my computer and my financial records.

For the life of me I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong.

Re: 85 dB limit

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea is that you can override the 85db limit, with 100db being the absolute limit.

Not really true

[formfeed]

Has anyone read the proposal?

Harhar, that was a rhetorical question. I know I'm on /.

Just for you non-readers though: the proposal is just to have mp3 players shipped with a maximum loudness enabled, it's not suggesting that you can't change that later.

Re:It's raining cops!

[Anonymous Coward]

In my reign, I intend to rein in the free-range cops. That will be my raison-d-etre.

And not to mention...

[Anonymous Coward]

64 dB should be enough for anybody...?

Re: 85 dB limit

[Chirs]

If 85dB is the noise floor, everyone should be using either noise cancelling or noise blocking equipment anyway.

Anyone that boosts the volume so they can hear clearly above an 85dB floor is going to get hearing damage in fairly short order.