Talk:Long-range acoustic device

Request for Section on Potential for Injury or Permanent Hearing Loss
Perhaps one of the most relevant issues for new weapons technologies called "non-lethal" is that of the potential for injury or lethality; for instance, both rubber/plastic bullets and Tasers are described by their users as "non-lethal," but both have caused multiple deaths. A serious discussion of the potential for injury or permanent hearing loss would be very helpful here, especially as the LRAD is being deployed against U.S. citizens by U.S. government entities. I hope some one who cares about this issue can address this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.12.83 (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I created a "Risks" sub section a few days ago, with information about hearing damage and pain caused by the LRAD. A few lines in this section were changed, omitting the info about hearing risks and contradicting the sources that are being cited in those lines. Also, one of the new edits says that "the LRAD is often incorrectly called a sonic weapon," while my edit said that it is "is often considered to be a sonic weapon." The controversy of whether or not the LRAD is a weapon should be better explained in this section of the article, so that both sides of the issue are presented. --ChromePlated (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Update: another user has reverted this change. --ChromePlated (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Is this an LRAD?
Can anyone confirm that this is an LRAD being used at a protest in Will County IL? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WkcvFc-78w&feature=autoplay&list=UU3hkeAXkYAPiL-9qqlhmlmQ&playnext=3 While this is not certain, looking at the LRAD Corporation website, it appears to be an LRAD 500X-RE (http://www.lradx.com/site/content/view/2054/110/). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.36.162.56 (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, LRAD can be used for projecting an announcement. Since this talk page is only used for discussion about how to improve this article, I would say that we shouldn't use this video as a reference because it is not a reliable source and if anything will be an original research. Z22 (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

What is ATC?
Article says, "American companies have been banned from selling arms to China since the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre, but the LRAD is described by ATC as a “directed-sounds communications system".[7]' -- Perhaps there used to be a description of ATC in previous versions, but in any case it's currently an abbreviation without an explanation and the link it leads to, #7, is a dead link. What is ATC? tharsaile (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Description is Inaccurate
WHO keeps changing the USAGE page regarding Paul Watson and the SSCS? It was the Japanese that used the LRAD in self-defense the why it is worded now makes it look like they were secretly used to attack the activists

The LRAD uses a phased array which via constructive and destructive interference causes the sound to be more directionalized. It is not just a big speaker as the article suggests. Look at a description on How Stuff Works dot com.
 * Actually, read reference #1. Phased array or not, any loudspeaker with the same diameter will have exactly the same (if not more) directivity as this device.  Beranek is a much better reference than howstuffworks.

I have seen a video about one of these devices it is designed to only project in a 90 degree or 180 degree one of these could be taken out by a sniper our somone with a shotgun Dudtz 9/24/05 12:46 PM EST

Made the distances consistent, if they are wrong please change them, but a yard is roughly a metre. There are three feet to both a yard and a metre. (Notice: metre, not meter, tee hee hee). 134.226.1.136 15:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I'm going to leave the measurements as they are primarily, and just clean up the conversions as per the Manual Of Style Zaf 04:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I'm still no happy with it, with conversions removed it reads: .....33 inches in diameter. At maximum volume, it can emit a warning tone that is 151 decibels at 1 metre..... It just seems wrong to have inches in one sentance and metres in another. And I'm really not sure what a Watt per metre means (decibel conversion). -- Zaf 04:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Added a description of the sound. Some early news reports indicated that it emitted an infra-sonic or low frequency sound that knocked people over. That's not the case. A 105 dbSPL signal at low frequencies just isn't enough to do much of anything, other than maybe make somebody want to dance. But 105 dbSPL in the 2k to 5k range is debilitating. Description adapted from The link to the german website describing the company producing a similar product for Jazz and Classical music concerts no longer works, does anyone know the name of the company or an updated link? -- Zaf 04:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Threshold of pain
"At maximum volume, it can emit a warning tone that is 151 dBSPL (1000 W/m²) at 1 metre, a level that is very capable of permanently damaging hearing, and 50 times the normal human threshold for pain."

What threshold of pain figure is being used to arrive at this factor of 50? -- 70.81.118.123 06:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, actually, that should be 150 dBSPL, which I just fixed. Anyway, the threshold of pain is described as being around 120 to 140 dB. Since the threshold of hearing is I0 = 10-12 watts/m2, and IDB = 10 log10( I / I0), the exact figure that would make 150 dB fifty times the threshold of pain would be 133.0 dB.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  09:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Works for me (though maybe someone should mention that in the article). Thanks. -- 70.81.118.123 16:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I added a link to the Absolute threshold of hearing article, which shows a range for threshold of pain. I think I'll stick in a number as well. Thanks&#160;—  The KMan  talk  14:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that 151 dB at 1m is 133 dB at 8m, so unless you are standing right next to it, or at 20-30 feet for a considerable number of minutes then this is just alarmism. Big hint. Stick your fingers in your ears. Greglocock (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 133 dB (-6dB per doubling distance) assumes equal dissipation in all directions so calculation is already wrong simply from LRAD being a beam. 89.36.65.39 (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Sound doesn't work that way. Any dispersion pattern other than a coherent beam (laser) disperses at -6dB per doubling of distance along any given axis in the far field. Despite the hype this is not a laser. Greglocock (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Focus and frequency
Quote: "...can emit sound in a 15 to 30° beam (only at high frequency)..."
 * Does that mean the LRAD is only capable of a 'beam' that focused when projecting high-frequency sound, or that it is totally incapable of projecting low-frequency sound? -Toptomcat 15:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The wave number is NOT defined as 2πf, but rather 2π/λ. I cannot remember the formula used to express speaker directionality but I would like to verify it, given the aforementioned mistake.

The paragraph which mentions a regular loudspeaker and the wave number is extremely confusing. If this is true, what's the difference between LRAD and a big speaker? What does wave number have to do with it? I'm of the opinion this should be removed or cleaned up to make sense and to fit well with the article.

Remove?
The paragraph which mentions a regular loudspeaker and the wave number is extremely confusing. If this is true, what's the difference between LRAD and a big speaker? What does wave number have to do with it? I'm of the opinion this should be removed or cleaned up to make sense and to fit well with the article. anonymous6494 22:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no difference, and that's important to point out. It's been claimed by the manufacturer and press that this is somehow a highly directional speaker. But it isn't - at least any more so than any other speaker of equal size. The wave number discussion illustrates it pretty well I think. JohnDoe4 19:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that section with the numbers comparing it to a loudspeaker should be flagged as weasel words, unless citations can be provided for those numbers, My father is in the military and I experienced one of these things first hand, and while it's not as directional as they advertise, there is a relatively clear and controllable "laser effect" to the sound, definitely less than 30 degrees. If you don't believe me watch the Future Weapons episode on history channel on this thing. It's pretty interesting. The section on it's usefulness is good, but it should be noted that these have been employed in Iraq at security checkpoints since shortly after their release, only issue is, the military hasn't released much info on their use of it. If they have I haven't heard about it. Keep in mind that since this is a government contracted product, and the military never discloses the full capabilities of any of it's equipment, it's probably much louder and long ranged than they say. For example, the Sr-71 blackbird was said to have a top speed of mach 3.5. It completed missions that went from Hawaii to China and back in under an hour. You do the math. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sublimation440 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey all, this is my first Wikipedia edit ever, so sorry if I get this a bit wrong. They're using these at the G20 conference here in Pittsburgh to disrupt the protests, supposedly the first time ever used on civilians in the U.S.  There's plenty of primary sources out on the web, this for example;

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/09/25/louder-than-bombs-lrad-sonic-cannon-debuts-in-u-s-at-g20-pro/

Also, a friend of mine has been taking photos and they're usable under creative commons (with attribution), there are two pictures here;

http://www.flickr.com/photos/iwasaround/3953056814/

and I think he's got some pictures of them in use as well, that he hasn't uploaded yet (he's still out there taking photos.) If the license isn't suitable for use by Wikipedia I can check if he'll change it to something you can use. 128.2.179.248 (talk) 23:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

car alarm comparison paragraph?
I do not mean to be insulting to the idea of a Long-Range Acoustic Device with the comparison, but at least on video it is indistinguishable from a standard car alarm. I understand that it is more directed and louder in relation to distance, but the philosophy seems to be identical. Since car alarms are proven not to embarrass thieves or attract the attention of passers-by, due to their sound being so common, alarm manufacturers seem to be using the same strategy as Long Range Acoustical Devices: making the alarms so loud as to keep the thief from being able to think straight enough to steal the car. Is it inappropriate to include a paragraph in this article? --Zachbe (talk) 07:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Car alarms do not cause permanent hearing damage or pain. I would think that it would be insanely inappropriate to connect the two. 216.47.130.179 (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree. In my opinion car alarms cause both permanent hearing damage and pain, only on a much subtler scale. Your use of the word "insanely" shows your lack of neutral POV on this. Just as you would draw a connection between a one-inch fish and a similar fish that was a hundred inches long, a connection between two items that operate in the same way with only a difference of scale is entirely logical. I'll meet you half-way by not adding a paragraph, but please leave the link at the bottom.--41.232.94.171 (talk) 06:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the car alarm link is not useful at the bottom or in the middle of the article. Connecting car alarm with LRAD without an expert source is synthesis. If an expert compares them, put it in the article. Binksternet (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a phased array?

 * The device does not use ultrasound, nor is it a phased array; it uses an array of conventional acoustic tweeters

Entirely incorrect I think. It is my understanding that the tweeters, acting in phase and thereby addding to each others' magnitude, are a phased array? This is what causes the volume to drop dramatically outside the cone of influence - the tweeters on the outside are of the opposite phase, and therefore cancel out the tweeters on the inside... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.57.131 (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Not ultrasonic?
I saw this device on TV a while ago, according to what they said, it is made of a bunch of very tiny ultrasound speakers that emit sound in the ultrasound range modulating it to produce audible sound, it uses ultrasound because the higher frequency disperses significantly less than frequencies in the audible range. What gives? --TiagoTiago (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Sea Shepherd
THE DEVICES USED IN THE FAROE ISLANDS ARE NOT LRADS THEY WERE DEVICES PLACED IN THE OCEAN THAT EMITTED A TONE THAT THE WHALES HEARD. and stop rewording the portion regarding the Japanese using the LRADs against the SS helicopter. The Heli is breaking aviation laws by flying at the ships, I have already spoken with a Flight Standards Officer regarding this matter, and is used to direct the attacks by the RIBs. He is in no danger as he has noise canceling headphones one. The SSCS did use their "LRAD" when they played Rise of the Valkyrie" when sailing close to one of the Japanese ships.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.218.36 (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please show some published, reliable and verifiable information to back up your assertions. Binksternet (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.icrwhale.org/eng/100209SS.wmv Video of them using their 'LRAD" The Steve Irwin wasn't even in the Fareo Islands. They rented a ship and made claims that they placed devices in the water to scale the dolphins away from the shore http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-100820-1.html THIS DOES NOT REFER TO AN LRAD! Here is a one of the many photo of the helicopter flying "DANGER CLOSE" to the ships http://www.icrwhale.org/gpandsea-img232.htm You need to stop editting the article to make it seem like the Japanese workers are the aggressors —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.218.36 (talk) 06:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You are saying that the act of hunting whales in an area declared a whale sanctuary is not an aggressive act? Of course the Sea Shepherd takes aggressive action against whalers, trying to prevent them from finding and killing whales. Your link to www.icrwhale.org is not a reliable source, it is the false 'research' organization which exists solely to hunt whales as part of a pretense to engage in research about them, presumably by killing them and making them into dog food and lubricants. Fine research, that.
 * Your link to a photograph of a helicopter does not have any relevance to this article about LRAD. The photo could be faked, and it is presented by www.icrwhale.org, not by a news agency or a scholarly source. To be relevant, the helicopter's distance must be commented on by reliable and verifiable sources.
 * Your link to www.seashepherd.org is not reliable either, as it is self-reporting and not a neutral news source, but in any case the underwater loudspeakers they discuss in that article are not LRAD, so I will take that out of the article. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The title against/by whalers NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. The LRAD is being used against the Sea Shepherd Activists. THE PHOTO IS NOT FAKED! Why do all SScS supports say the ICR is faking these photos. The SSCS are the ones that have faked photos in the past. Also the statement that the helicopter had a camera crew on it is not relevant. The SSCS Always has Cameras rolling when they are attacking —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.218.36 (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

There was no 'escalation' by the authorities on-board using the LRAD on the helicopter. please stop saying that it was. And the LRAD use is AGAINST THE SEA SHEPHERD ACTIVISTS! it fits with the rest of the article. They are the ones defending themselves from the attacks by the SSCS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.218.36 (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Also the link provided is not valid as it is from www.seashpherd.org and containing false information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.218.36 (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street resource, Businessweek.com
http://images.businessweek.com/slideshows/20111222/occupiers-and-evicters/slides/13 Evict: New York police say they used Long Range Acoustic Devices, which blast up to 110 decibels of sound, as megaphones and not as “horrible noisemakers”

99.190.86.5 (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Countermeasures/Ineffective Against Simple Ear Plugs
While I don't have authoritative sources that are worthy of being cited in a Wiki article, there exist several informal accounts from word of mouth, and a few on message boards/forums, indicating that simple $2 or less earplugs render LRADs completely ineffective. I'm sure anyone who purchases one of these things or tests it would test it on a subject wearing earplugs versus no earplugs, but have there been any credible and authoritative publications on this matter? 173.3.109.197 (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)j
 * Would doubt that. This video tests some countermeasures. Best countermeasure seems to be rough paper. Which brings me to my next part. Should we maybe add a section on countermeasures? (Is it ok I edited the section title btw? --2003:CC:3706:C388:D115:A483:4E33:8AD6 (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd be cautious on that. Ben's a great guy, and his video is informative, but its not wikipedia grade authorative. At the end of the day LRADs are just sounds, and all the principles that apply to sound apply here. a 2.2K frequency is about 2cm wavelength. (There are apps on the net that would likely to give an accurate number, this is just off my head) The higher end ones 15k would clock in around 1 or 2 mm. Knowing in advance what the frequencies are would let someone construct a sound shield that could block it quite effectively. But as original research that would be outside wikipedias scope. Perhaps there are academic papers on the topic? Duckmonster (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Long Range Acoustic Device. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100103231027/http://www.seashepherd.org/matilda/video.html to http://www.seashepherd.org/matilda/video.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Australia section
The section about Australia, previously removed because the only source was the this article from the Epoch Times which is not a reliable source, has been replaced this time with a reference to an article on World Nation News. The problem is the World Nation News article is an exact duplicate of the Epoch times article by the same author. That author's email address is within the Epoch Times web domain so I am confident that the Epoch Times is the original article. Consequently I am going to remove the Australia section from this article again as failing verification. - Nick Thorne talk 08:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree, . Just about to re-create a section with reliable sources and information. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Rearrangement of sections?
No expert on the techology here, but a quick glance tells me that most of the uses in the Deployments and uses section seem to be for crowd/protest control, and then the following two sections are basically by function... Wondering if the major subheadings should be by function and then (if necessary), sub-subheadings by country? Just a thought. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I've suggested a merge from Acoustic hailing device, an almost completely uncited article, into this one. It seems to contain almost identical information. I'm not 100% sure about the naming, or whether the Genasys product is the only one on the market, but LRAD appears to be the common name these days. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Revise Risk section
Risks section is misquoting OSHA - OSHA indicates that you need hearing protection for 90db or higher for 8 hours a day. To explain how loud 90db is, think of a lawnmower.

Sounds greater than 150db are harmful for any amount of time. It is my understanding that these devices usually do not go over this level as measured at 1 meter. Sounds less than 150db are usually not considered dangerous if they last less than 1 second.

I think it is also worthwhile to bring into this discussion distance as well. Operators of these devices are usually required to use hearing protection even though these devices are directional due to the high volume levels. For somebody in the directional path of a system measuring 150db at 1 meter, it would be 114db at 64 meters (about 210 feet) which is safe under 15 minutes without hearing protection according to OSHA. Not trying to make the argument that a LRAD cannot hurt somebody just trying to get a revision here because the original statement is missing context and if we add the context we might as well add the mitigation methods. 206.251.42.246 (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)