Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 09:20:07 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from scanmail2.cableone.net ([24.116.0.122] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.6) with ESMTP id 2054239 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 07:45:53 -0500 Received: from scanmail2.cableone.net ([10.116.0.122]) by scanmail2.cableone.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Sun, 16 Mar 2003 05:42:07 -0700 Received: from scanmail2.cableone.net [24.116.0.122] by scanmail2.cableone.net (SMTPD32-7.04) id A100FC31011C; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 05:41:36 -0700 X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from (24-117-167-254.cpe.cableone.net [24.117.167.254]) by mail.cableone.net with SMTP (MailShield v2.04 - WIN32 Jul 17 2001 17:12:42); Sun, 16 Mar 2003 05:41:36 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: <005c01c2ebb9$f178d420$9865fea9@Wendell> From: "Wendell & Jean Durr" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: Decibels X-Original-Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 06:45:36 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-SMTP-HELO: Wendell X-SMTP-MAIL-FROM: legacy147@cableone.net X-SMTP-PEER-INFO: 24-117-167-254.cpe.cableone.net [24.117.167.254] Isn't the area that we really want to be low in decibels the area right at our ears? That would seem to be best solvable with active noise reduction headsets, avoiding the weight, hassle and cost of cabin sound reduction, and yielding far greater perceived noise reduction. Perhaps the only real reason to be concerned about noise not better addressable by headsets is it suggests air leakage which suggests air-flow disruption which suggests increased drag. Just an unenlightened thought. Wendell Durr