If your dog is afraid of sounds, take it seriously. Alder activity can be debilitating and the clinical, medical condition of sound phobia can be devastating. None of them are “resolved” by buying a product. Proof supports the use of counter -conditioning, relaxation training and behavioral medicine (Riemer, 2020).
Pet Shell Pet House
I do not own a pet shell. I review the claims from their marketing material compared to the acoustic report they published.
A new product for dogs and cats, “Pet Shell”, has hit the market. It is a kickstarter project and promoted as a noise-reducing pet house that “reduces sounds by more than 50%”, which is a problematic statement. The marketing material also implies that the interior of the pet shell is “silent” with multiple statements, such as “the invincible combination of darkness and silence (Highlights their) creates a soothing space for your pet, similar to a cave. “The silhed requirement is also problematic and untrue according to their own test results.
The sounds they have in a promotional video are a thunderstorm, a siren, a jackhammer, a vacuum, traffic, a beep -guard and fireworks. Similarly, the sounds listed in the section “Understanding Dogs’ Sensitivity” on their Kickstarter site, thunderstorms, fireworks and shots, tall vehicles, sirens and alarms, construction and industrial sounds and household sounds. Note how many of these include low -frequency sounds.
This product is marketed aggressively as a solution for dogs that fear thunderstorms and fireworks. Pet Shell’s own published acoustic test report, which is impeccably performed at the Slovenian national building and the Civil Engineering Institute, reveals that the low frequencies of thunder and fireworks are where Pet Shell is least Effective to prevent transmission of sound.
This is in line with the results of basic physics and acoustics.
The acoustic test and report
The acoustic test of the PET shell was performed by a physicist with excellent credentials. The report is exemplary, with methods explained well and with sufficient details and transparency that someone with the right equipment could repeat the test. I am glad that PET Shell engaged an expert who knows test procedures and the current standards to do this work.
The results are well supported in the report itself and they are in line with general knowledge of sound that enters enclosure. I will assume the accuracy of the report results through this blog post.
The problematic marketing requirements
The marketing material contains many statements and claims that are rejected by PET Shell’s own test results. Here are the highlights.
- Problematic claim: The pet shell reduces sounds by more than 50%. The average sound reduction across frequency bands over a range of 1-20,000 Hz turned out to be 13 decibels. As a 10-decibel reduction correlates with a decrease in the perceived sound by half (for humans), this “more than 50%” reduction can be defended. However, this average gives an incomplete picture of what is happening inside the pet shell. The effectiveness of sound reduction with passive agents (barriers, absorption) depends on the frequency. It is much easier to prevent the transmission of high -frequency sound. If you check the collapse with frequency on the audio strand report, you see that the low frequencies from 100 to 250 Hz show far less reduction in the PET shell. The attenuation is 2.6 dB at 100 Hz, 4.2 dB at 125 Hz, 6.6 dB at 160 Hz, 5.3 dB at 200 Hz and 3.4 dB at 250 Hz. These frequencies correlate with the frequencies of thunder and large fireworks, and they are reduced much less than average.
See the report to see this dramatic decrease in efficiency at low frequencies depicted graphically on page 4.
This poor performance is not surprising at all; It is common for all barrier -based solutions. You can see a similarly lowered efficiency in the Sound Spectrum report for Rex Specs Ear Pro, ear protection for dogs. Passive sound barriers are not effective in preventing the transmission of low frequencies; The waves are too massive.
PET-Shell may require a 13-DEKL reduction in general because the sound attenuation is much more effective at higher frequencies. But think what it means. An animal in the interior of the pet shell is in a soundscape with a consideration of low frequencies.
- Extremely problematic claim: “Silence.” The repeated references to silence cannot be defended. On page 4 of the report, they show the actual sound reduction of the PET shell in the presence of the noise source. Test noise watches at 94.2 db (A) outside the PET shell and 81.0 db (A) inside the PET shell. (See technical supplement to notes on DB (A).) Some examples of sounds in the decibel range are a gas-powered lawn, a busy 50-foot motorway, a high overhead person finder (intercom), an electric lawn carrier and the noise inside a plane. Fifty -Fir’s DB is the limit of US workplaces where exposure over time must be monitored and controlled. Referring to the noise reduction inside the pet shell as achieving “silence” is inappropriate.
- Problematic claim: “… minimizing intense sounds-Ice high height that triggers stress …” This statement correctly identifies that the pet shell is more effective in reducing sounds at higher frequency than lower frequency sounds, as is the case any Passive sound barrier. But why do they focus on “loud noises that trigger stress” when most of the sounds they show on their sites and include in their promotional video is low frequency? Fireworks and thunder appear again and again. Of the sounds I have listed from their materials above, only the siren, the alarm clock and some household sounds stand out as higher frequency. And while there are plenty of dogs that fear high -frequency sounds (I had one), a recent study showed that Thunder was the most common fear (Grigg et al., 2021, p. 4).
- Problematic claim: The usual buzzwords for such products as “Soothing, safe, silent, safe,” and implications of relaxation and Falling anxiety. I’m sure some animals enjoy privacy, the ability to hide in a cozy place and the moderate sound reduction at higher frequencies. But dogs inside the pet shell will still hear the fireworks and thunderstorms perfectly well.

Photos showing fireworks and thunderstorms after frequency
The following images show that the weakest performance of the PET shell (per their report) correlates with the highest frequencies of fireworks and thunder.
I analyzed audio recordings of fireworks and thunder in the software maturity, and the images below show the sound spectrum, in other words, how loud the sound is at different frequencies. In the pictures, the horizontal (x) Axis is frequency and the vertical (y) Axis is decibels. The higher there is on y Axis, the higher is. I marked with a black rectangle frequency range, where the PET shell is least effective according to the numbers in their report: The range of 100 to 250 Hz. It correlates with the highest frequencies for both fireworks and thunder.


The red line in each image shows the top, the area with maximum amplitude (rough, volume). In both cases, it is within the area where the pet shell performs the worst.
See my technical supplement at the bottom if you are curious about why the decibels at y Axis is negative.
I bought the trial sound of fireworks and thunderstorms from Pond5.com. You can listen to lower quality previews (turn down your volume first!) Of the sounds I used here (fireworks) and here (Thunder). I chose footage after ear that had lots of low frequencies. Here are sources of information about the typical low frequencies of fireworks (Tanaka et al., 2016) and Thunder (Holmes et al., 1971).
Can a little reduction help my dog?
Do you think, “Well, even a little bit of reduction in the sound of thunder is it probably worth”? If so, ask yourself if your dog responds only to the highest thunderstorms. When they hear the thunder that doesn’t shake the house are they fine? In this case, a slight reduction may help (although they will still feel that the house is shaking inside the pet shell). Or have they generalized to fear most or all thunderstorms? In this case, a small reduction in decibels is immaterial. Dogs often become sensitive to sounds that scare them. When this happens, the sound can scare them at lower intensities than it did. In these cases, a slight reduction in sound intensity would not make a difference.

Conclusion
The pet shell is expensive and does not heal sound fear. It does not block low frequency sound. It’s not silent inside. Giving a hiding place is a kindness, but do we want more than that for our dogs – to tackle the fear itself?
The damage to the pet shell comes from the marketing requirements, including that it can protect dogs significantly from thunderstorms and fireworks. Their own report says it cannot. People can buy this product instead of pursuing evidence -based approaches to help their pet’s sound sensitivity.
I had an exchange with a representative of Pet Shell on social media after I came up with a brief criticism. They were polite and open to suggestions. I asked them to post a message on their website about how serious fears of sounds can be in dogs and to encourage people to seek professional help from their dogs for this problem.
References
- Grigg, EK, Chou, J., Parker, E., Gatesy-Davis, A., Clarkson, St, & Hart, LA (2021). Stress -related behavior of accompanying dogs exposed to ordinary household sounds and owners’ interpretations of the behavior of their dogs. Frontiers in veterinary scienceAt 8760845.
- Holmes, CR, Brook, M., Krehbiel, P., & McCrory, R. (1971). On the spectrum of power and thunder mechanism. Journal of Geophysical Research, 76 (9), 2106-2115.
- Riemer, S. (2020). Efficiency of treatments of fireworks fears in dogs. Journal of Veterinary BehaviorAt 3761-70.
- Tanaka, T., Inaba, R., & Aoyama, A. (2016). Noise and low -frequency sound levels due to air -fireworks and prediction of commercial exposure of pyrotechnics for noise. Journal of Occupational HealthAt 58(6), 593-601.
Copyright 2025 Eileen Anderson
Photos
Photo of dog with chin on the floor with the permission of user Picsbyfran on Pixabay. I cropped it. All other photos Copyright Eileen Anderson 2025.
Technical Supplement: The Negative Decibels and DB (A)
The decibels are negative in my images because they are measured inside a computer and not the real world. Decibel needs a reference point and there are plenty of different ones used. The maximum decibels that the computer can record (so -called “full -scale”) are set to a reference point of zero. So the closer the negative number is zero and the higher it is physically in the picture, the higher the sound of that frequency.
The term db (a) in the PET Shell report refers to a decibutor’s scale that is weighted taking into account the properties of human hearing. This may introduce errors, but it is inevitable at this time. We do not have a scale that is weighted for dogs (which is recognized in the report).