On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 00:46:50 GMT, "Marc J. Zeitlin"
wrote:

RK Henry wrote:

I am curious about what Bose brings to the product that makes it
worth the extra money. Or David Clark for that matter. I've
fantasized about a ANR headset but am deterred by the money. I'll
just have to make do with the old-fashioned foam-stuffed noise
attenuating headset. If someone can give a good reason to put up
the money, I'd like to hear it.

When I started riding motorcycles in 1976, Bell Helmets started
selling $60 helmets, which were 6X the price of the standard helmets
on the market. Their marketing campaign basically was "If you have a
$10 head, get a $10 helmet".

I'll say the same thing about ANR headsets - if being able to hear as
you get older isn't worth anything to you, then get a set of passive
headsets and save the $200 - $500 difference in cost. However, if you
value your hearing, both now and in the future, you should invest in a
set of headsets that protects your hearing as well as you can, and ANR
does that far better than passive.

The question is, does ANR do any better at attenuating the
ear-damaging frequencies than ordinary noise attenuating headsets? Has
anyone done scientific peer-reviewed studies? Some articles I've read,
admittedly some years ago when these things first appeared, suggested
that ANR mostly cancelled low frequencies. The foam stuffing in
ordinary passive noise attenuating headsets does very well at
attenuating the high-energy high-frequencies that seem to be
particularly hazardous to the ear and ANR might not offer much extra
help there.

OTOH, an ordinary noise attenuating headset loses effectiveness when
you stick eyeglass (or sunglass) temple pieces between your head and
the ear cushion. The bump around the temple pieces allows noise to
leak in. Years ago, David Clark sold little foam wedges that slipped
on your eyeglasses to smooth over that gap. They worked well, but
apparently they're no longer available. Does ANR eliminate the need
for such accessories?

RK Henry