Listening for Quiet

Quite a good article in the Nov/Dec AARP magazine titled "Listening
for Quiet".
It talks about a silent sanctuary in Washington's Olympic National
park. The article
concluded by someone complaining about the silence broken by a small
plane.

The article said "The small plane flying north more than doubles the
ambient sound,
and we react to the intruder as a threat, drawing in, tracking the
source, hunching for
cover until the last traces of engine noise finally die away."

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:57:17 -0700, daffy
wrote in . com:

Quite a good article in the Nov/Dec AARP magazine titled "Listening
for Quiet".
It talks about a silent sanctuary in Washington's Olympic National
park. The article
concluded by someone complaining about the silence broken by a small
plane.

The article said "The small plane flying north more than doubles the
ambient sound,
and we react to the intruder as a threat, drawing in, tracking the
source, hunching for
cover until the last traces of engine noise finally die away."


Did the article happen to mention the duration (in seconds) that the
noise from this "intruder" was detectable? There is little question
that small airplanes are noisy, but they are usually only audible for
about 20 seconds. In the area in question, it may be longer, but the
sonic impact of the occasional lone aircraft is nothing compared
living adjacent to a busy street. Perhaps we should consider closing
all the roads in residential neighborhoods. :-)

Larry Dighera writes:

Perhaps we should consider closing
all the roads in residential neighborhoods.

It'll never happen. People are always eager to restrict the liberties of
others, but never of themselves. Since most people drive, they'll resist any
restrictions on driving, but since almost nobody flies, piloting is always
fair game for restrictions.

On Oct 11, 7:46 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:57:17 -0700, daffy
wrote in . com:

Quite a good article in the Nov/Dec AARP magazine titled "Listening
for Quiet".
It talks about a silent sanctuary in Washington's Olympic National
park. The article
concluded by someone complaining about the silence broken by a small
plane.

The article said "The small plane flying north more than doubles the
ambient sound,
and we react to the intruder as a threat, drawing in, tracking the
source, hunching for
cover until the last traces of engine noise finally die away."

Did the article happen to mention the duration (in seconds) that the
noise from this "intruder" was detectable? There is little question
that small airplanes are noisy, but they are usually only audible for
about 20 seconds. In the area in question, it may be longer, but the
sonic impact of the occasional lone aircraft is nothing compared
living adjacent to a busy street. Perhaps we should consider closing
all the roads in residential neighborhoods. :-)

I live directly below the traffic pattern of a busy GA airport in
Dayton, and there are four airports closeby. I am sensitive to noise,
and I go to great lengths to keep my environment noise-free. I have
noticed that the airplane noise is nowhere close to the noise from all
the lawnmowers that seem to constantly run from April to October.
Airplane noise lasts about 30 seconds. A lawn mower runs for an hour
or two. Sometime the noise never ceases as each neighbor fires up
their lawnmower in turns. It would be interesting to do a measurement
and identify the average contribution from all the noise souces. With
a digital recorder and some signal processing software this ought to
be doable. One also has to consider the impact of noise on the human
ear. Widely varying pitch is worse than a constant dull hum. A
chainsaw noise is worse because of all the "vroom vroom" accelerations
and decelerations.

Widely varying pitch is worse than a constant dull hum. A
chainsaw noise is worse because of all the "vroom vroom" accelerations
and decelerations.

By extension, the "least bad" noise is a leaf blower - a constant drone
of a single tone. It is the sound that I personally find =most=
annoying; even very far away and at a low volume it is extremely
aggravating. I much prefer noise that varies in pitch, timbre, volume,
and other qualities.

Is your statement that "...varying pitch is worse..." a personal
preference, or something that you can quantify and substantiate?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Oct 15, 3:33 pm, Jose wrote:
Widely varying pitch is worse than a constant dull hum. A
chainsaw noise is worse because of all the "vroom vroom" accelerations
and decelerations.

By extension, the "least bad" noise is a leaf blower - a constant drone
of a single tone. It is the sound that I personally find =most=
annoying; even very far away and at a low volume it is extremely
aggravating. I much prefer noise that varies in pitch, timbre, volume,
and other qualities.

Is your statement that "...varying pitch is worse..." a personal
preference, or something that you can quantify and substantiate?


I guess it is a personal preference, but I had assumed it might be
true for most people. May be that is not the case. When we go up to
the summer cottage by the lake, it is a shame that the peace and quite
is frequently disturbed by chain saws. On most summer days I can
constantly hear someone running a chain saw. On open water the sounds
carries well, so the noise source could be more than a mile away. Once
you account for all the people on the lake, it doesn't take much to at
least someone to be running a chainsaw at any given time.

daffy writes:

The article said "The small plane flying north more than doubles the
ambient sound,
and we react to the intruder as a threat, drawing in, tracking the
source, hunching for
cover until the last traces of engine noise finally die away."

I guess having the land criss-crossed with highways filled with cars, trucks,
and SUVs doesn't count.

Where I live in the city, I can barely hear the occasional jet or prop
airplane over the constant din of vehicular traffic. And even in the days
when I lived directly beneath a standard arrival for the local (very large)
airport, I never noticed the aircraft--and there wasn't much other noise where
I lived, it's just that modern aircraft are often pretty quiet unless you're
standing right next to them.

In article ,
says...


daffy writes:

The article said "The small plane flying north more than doubles the
ambient sound,
and we react to the intruder as a threat, drawing in, tracking the
source, hunching for
cover until the last traces of engine noise finally die away."

I guess having the land criss-crossed with highways filled with cars, trucks,
and SUVs doesn't count.

Where I live in the city, I can barely hear the occasional jet or prop
airplane over the constant din of vehicular traffic.



Well that's handy - If you're talking about Paris, France the arrival and
departure procedures are designed to circumnavigate the city . . .

Airbus writes:

Well that's handy - If you're talking about Paris, France the arrival and
departure procedures are designed to circumnavigate the city . . .

Yes, but as I said, even when I lived in another city beneath an arrival path
for one of the world's largest airports, I still didn't hear much.

It used to be entirely forbidden to overfly Paris without special permission,
but now I do see aircraft occasionally flying over the city. I understand
that rules were relaxed some years ago (ironically not long after 9/11), but
at the same time I still see Paris marked as a prohibited area on the charts,
so I'm not sure what the status is exactly.

In article ,
says...


Airbus writes:

Well that's handy - If you're talking about Paris, France the arrival and
departure procedures are designed to circumnavigate the city . . .

Yes, but as I said, even when I lived in another city beneath an arrival path
for one of the world's largest airports, I still didn't hear much.

It used to be entirely forbidden to overfly Paris without special permission,

No, it was never forbidden to overfly Paris - moreover, the rules are stricter
now than ever ...

but now I do see aircraft occasionally flying over the city. I understand
that rules were relaxed some years ago (ironically not long after 9/11), but
at the same time I still see Paris marked as a prohibited area on the charts,
so I'm not sure what the status is exactly.

Not surprising that you are not sure, because you are not a pilot. To pilots,
the rules and procedures are clear, and vector departures and arrivals may
route planes over the city. These are limited for political reasons, and remain
exceptional. . .