Xref: utzoo sci.physics:6331 sci.math:6112 sci.electronics:5612
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!oberon!ucla-cs!mahimahi!verma
From: verma@mahimahi.cs.ucla.edu (Rodent of Darkness)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math,sci.electronics
Subject: Re: noise cancellation
Keywords: anti-noise
Message-ID: <22023@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 20 Mar 89 18:54:50 GMT
References: <723@wucs1.wustl.edu> <7260@fluke.COM> <453@corpane.UUCP> <7996@ihlpf.ATT.COM>
Sender: news@CS.UCLA.EDU
Reply-To: verma@mahimahi.cs.ucla.edu (Rodent of Darkness)
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 22

In article <7996@ihlpf.ATT.COM> gmark@ihlpf.ATT.COM (Stewart) writes:

>Which leads me to believe that one might design headphones
>[...] approximating the quality of the human ears [...] But,
>it should minimize noise quite a bit.

Disclaimer: I hacked up the quote quite a bit, so it may not reflect
Stewart's opinion.

I have one question about this noise cancellation.  If you only cancel
the noise that somone can hear, then wont his `ears relax' (analogous
to pupil dialation) allowing the unhearable noise to cause lots of
damage?

Also to cancel very loud noises you need to generate very loud counter
noise.  What happens when your hardware fails resulting in additive
noise?


Last of all what does this have to do with sci.math?

							---TS