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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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!

[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!

[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: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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

[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.

[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."

What next?

[Vinegar Joe]

EU regs on the maximum roughness of toilet paper?

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?

[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.

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...

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.

+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.

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".

Spam

[nten]

that sounds strangely like spam I've seen

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.

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.

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.

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: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

[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

[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

Not a problem

[Trogre]

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