All good. I know less about Boom's technology, but yeah from what I understand they took a different approach: redirect the sonic boom up and out so that it it

All good. I know less about Boom's technology, but yeah from what I understand they took a different approach: redirect the sonic boom up and out so that it it spends more time traveling through the atmosphere and isn't so loud once it hits the ground. The X-59 solution is to not make a sonic boom in the first place. You can't eliminate the noise entirely, but with the X-59 they talk about a "sonic thump" that is qualitatively of a different order. It's a bit like stealth tech: early "low observable" fighter planes did things like switch to unibody cockpits so there were fewer reflective interfaces and therefore a smaller radar cross section. Then the F-117 and B-2 went with "be fucking invisible to radar" (or approximately so). Totally changes the game. A "sonic thump" will be noisier than normal operating engine noise. You will hear it and it will be noticeable in the sense that unlike regular airplane takeoff and landing, it will be a distinct transitory sound. But in terms of absolute noise levels and mechanical properties, the "sonic thump" of a commercial airline would probably be considerably quieter than, for example, the regular takeoff/landing noise of a military jet. It needs to be characterized and understood to see what the effect would be on communities living near supersonic airports, but not a real engineering concern. Your question is valid with respect to Boom though, and that is part of their challenge to getting regulatory approval for supersonic transition over land.