I have been using the 3M Peltor LEP-100s for range sessions and stalking since December 2017 and they have been great. If and when they pack up I would go for the EEP-100s because I have never used the mobile re-charging facility of the LEP's carry case. 3M claim 16 hours between charges which proved accurate with mine.
The advantage of the rechargeable Li-ion over fiddly air batteries which flatten whether they are used or not, is ideal for our occasional purposes, where unlike hearing aids we are not wearing them all day every day. Though I have had an experience of wearing the LEPs for 8 days at 12 hours on the trot and they charged up over night with no problem.
Miniaturisation has been the order of the day for a good while I think
It is not just their looks, they are actually neater. Try wearing a brimmed hat with muffs! I really notice the difference in cumbersomeness(?) hitting the stock when I had to double up with muffs if somebody turned up at the tunnel range with a Muzzle Brake...but I am curious as to what you consider are the number of downsides?
I have been using passive foam and flanged plugs in the forge for 40 years because of their comfort, convenience and effectiveness..."looking neater" didn't come into it at all. They simply have a higher SNR protection rating than even the double-depth over-ear muffs.
The downsides of over ear muffs apart from their reduced protection, are their bulk, weight, and clamminess if using for any length of time...the only advantage of them I find are as ear warmers on a cold day.
As
@caorach says this is a supposition not based on fact. Even the CENS fitted type manage SNR 25dB which is on a par with the Howard Leight style of active over ear muffs. Their foam plug tipped CENS Minos do better (double the protection) at SNR 31dB
The LEP and EEP-100s are even better than the CENS Minos and achieve SNR 32dB - 38dB depending on the tips used, 35dB with the foam tips I favour.
Sound pressure doubles every 6dB and perceived volume doubles at 10dB.
I have posted these articles/ links before...the gist being that the bone and soft tissue transmission which bypasses the hearing protection device has been found to be reduced better by deep fitting foam plugs than muffs.
In order to damage the hearing I gather the bone and tissue transmit the vibration to the ear canal walls which in turn pass it on to the cochlea.
The foam plugs dampen those ear canal wall vibrations...the muffs do not.
The only way to prevent skull bone transmission would be to enclose your head in a Space or Divers helmet! I think that is one of the reasons tank and helicopter crews wear them.
Alan
Has to do with shooting guns but still applies: Hearing Loss Through Bone Conduction Elliott H. Berger Hearing Conservation/NIHL 522
If a patient wears earmuffs in combination with custom made earplugs, can you still get hearing loss through bone conduction (through the skull) when shooting a variety of guns? What is the rate of attenuation from external noise to the cochlea through bone conduction?
Answer
The limits to the attenuation for a perfectly attenuating hearing protector, that are imposed by the flanking bone-conduction pathways, vary from about 40 - 60 dB across frequency. This means that even if a hearing protector could block all of the sound entering the earcanal, that sound attenuated by 40 to 60 dB would still get though to the cochlea, and like the sound transmitted via the air-conduction pathway, this energy can cause hearing loss. However, in all but the most extreme environments, this will be sufficient protection. For all but the most susceptible ears and all but the most extreme amounts of gunfire, noise reduction that equals the attenuation imposed by the bone-conduction limits should be quite sufficient. The much larger issue is making sure that the shooter is properly wearing the single or double hearing protection devices to get the maximum protection they can provide
Soft Tissue Conduction as a Possible Contributor to the Limited Attenuation Provided by Hearing Protection Devices
Results do not support the notion that skull vibrations (BC) contributed to the limited attenuation provided by traditional HPDs. An alternative explanation, supported by experimental evidence, suggests transmission of sound to inner ear via non-osseous pathways such as skin, soft tissues, and...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Abstract
CONTEXT:
Damage to the auditory system by loud sounds can be avoided by hearing protection devices (HPDs) such as earmuffs, earplugs, or both for maximum attenuation. However, the attenuation can be limited by air conduction (AC) leakage around the earplugs and earmuffs by the occlusion effect (OE) and by skull vibrations initiating bone conduction (BC).
AIMS:
To assess maximum attenuation by HPDs and possible flanking pathways to the inner ear.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS:
AC attenuation and resulting thresholds were assessed using the real ear attenuation at threshold (REAT) procedure on 15 normal-hearing participants in four free-field conditions: (a) unprotected ears, (b) ears covered with earmuffs, (c) ears blocked with deeply inserted customized earplugs, and (d) ears blocked with both earplugs and earmuffs. BC thresholds were assessed with and without earplugs to assess the OE.
RESULTS:
Addition of earmuffs to earplugs did not cause significantly greater attenuation than earplugs alone, confirming minimal AC leakage through the external meatus and the absence of the OE. Maximum REATs ranged between 40 and 46 dB, leading to thresholds of 46-54 dB HL. Furthermore, calculation of the acoustic impedance mismatch between air and bone predicted at least 60 dB attenuation of BC.
CONCLUSION:
Results do not support the notion that skull vibrations (BC) contributed to the limited attenuation provided by traditional HPDs. An alternative explanation, supported by experimental evidence, suggests transmission of sound to inner ear via non-osseous pathways such as skin, soft tissues, and fluid. Because the acoustic impedance mismatch between air and soft tissues is smaller than that between air and bone, air-borne sounds would be transmitted to soft tissues more effectively than to bone, and therefore less attenuation is expected through soft tissue sound conduction. This can contribute to the limited attenuation provided by traditional HPDs. The present study has practical implications for hearing conservation protocols.
PDF | High-intensity impulse sounds are generally considered to be more damaging than continuous sounds, so understanding the attenuation performance of... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate
www.researchgate.net
PDF | Objective: This research assessed the reduction of peak levels, equivalent energy and sound power of firearm suppressors. Design: The first... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate
www.researchgate.net
