Naphtali
Member
From observing a friend who wears behind-the-ear hearing aids that also incorporate noise attenuation, I've concluded that shooting protection of this kind is the best that I might be able to afford for wearing when hunting.
***
Here's what I understand from studying specifications sheets.
1. Electronic muff protectors can be among the least expensive protective devices to buy. But their NRR ratings (18-27) - the rating that quantifies noise attenuation for all protective devices - tend to be among the lowest, least protective of all.
2. Custom fitted in-ear devices are the most expensive, least intrusive, and tend to be the place where new technology enters the market first. NRR ratings (29-33) tend to be the highest of all devices, possibly because of sealing the ear canal better than occurs with non-fitted devices, possibly because of better noise attenuation technology. These also tend to be more temperamental to fit and wear.
3. The better behind-the-ear devices have NRR ratings (27-30) nearly as high as custom fitted in-ear devices at a fraction of the cost.
I've decided to buy a pair of behind-the-ear devices. Examining specifications does not inform me which brand or which specific behind-the-ear shooting protection is the most reliable. And that's what I need to know.
***
Here's what I don't know.
1. How much better, if at all, are behind-the-ear devices incorporating digital technology compared with those using analog?
2. Assuming digital technology is in fact superior to analog, how much technology is "enough?" How many digital channels is adequate? How much sound enhancement is adequate? Which devices retain sound clarity effectively while enhancing?
3. My experience with warranties when judging electronic devices is that they are not reliable indicators of quality. Which behind-the-ear devices have demonstrated reliability and durability - that is, which devices work properly, and work for a long time?
***
Here's what I understand from studying specifications sheets.
1. Electronic muff protectors can be among the least expensive protective devices to buy. But their NRR ratings (18-27) - the rating that quantifies noise attenuation for all protective devices - tend to be among the lowest, least protective of all.
2. Custom fitted in-ear devices are the most expensive, least intrusive, and tend to be the place where new technology enters the market first. NRR ratings (29-33) tend to be the highest of all devices, possibly because of sealing the ear canal better than occurs with non-fitted devices, possibly because of better noise attenuation technology. These also tend to be more temperamental to fit and wear.
3. The better behind-the-ear devices have NRR ratings (27-30) nearly as high as custom fitted in-ear devices at a fraction of the cost.
I've decided to buy a pair of behind-the-ear devices. Examining specifications does not inform me which brand or which specific behind-the-ear shooting protection is the most reliable. And that's what I need to know.
***
Here's what I don't know.
1. How much better, if at all, are behind-the-ear devices incorporating digital technology compared with those using analog?
2. Assuming digital technology is in fact superior to analog, how much technology is "enough?" How many digital channels is adequate? How much sound enhancement is adequate? Which devices retain sound clarity effectively while enhancing?
3. My experience with warranties when judging electronic devices is that they are not reliable indicators of quality. Which behind-the-ear devices have demonstrated reliability and durability - that is, which devices work properly, and work for a long time?
