In a recent paper, Fidell et al. [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 84, 2109–2113 (1988)] have introduced a theoretical interpretation of the prevalence rate of noise‐induced annoyance in residential populations exposed to common environments consisting of sources such as aircraft, motor vehicles, etc. Their model assumes a compressive transformation of DNL, and they assert that ‘‘the quantity that engenders annoyance must be strongly related to the apparent magnitude of noise exposure.’’ Thus they use the well‐known finding that apparent loudness is proportional to the 0.3 root of acoustic energy. High‐amplitude impulse noise has been shown to be different from typical community noise, in part because it induces vibrations and rattles in structures. So the annoyance response is due both to the audible sound and to the induced vibrations and rattles; the latter should be proportional to the 0.5 power of DNL. In this letter, a compressive transformation coefficient of 0.4 (midway between 0.3 and 0.5) is used for high‐amplitude impulse sound. The results show excellent fit between theory and results. On the one hand, this fit supports the view of the Committee on Hearing Bioacoustics and Biomechanics (CHABA), a view that induced vibrations and rattles (and not only loudness) determine annoyance to high‐amplitude impulse noise, and, on the other hand, this close fit lends further credence to the Fidell model.