Bose Headsets

Jon,

My main complaint with the Bose is the price. Everytime I see the ad I feel
like I need to put on a chastity belt to protect my bung hole.

I've compared them to my Lightspeed 30-3G's and they are the same in noise
reduction, but the Bose are far superior in comfort and size. My second
complaint is that, for the money, you would think they would have music and
cell phone input. If you want that you have to go with a third party plug
for 90 to 100 bucks (assuming you don't own the PS Engineering PMA 8000B
also on my wish list).

I've just been waiting for that one feature to be added and that will be the
excuse I need to pardon Bose for financial sodomy.

Kobra



"Jon Kraus" wrote in message
.. .
I just broke down and ordered a Bose Aviation Headset X. I have been
wanting one for several years but 1 AMU is a lot of cash for a headset...
Then I remembered how deaf I am becomming adnd thought that this would be
the best protection for my non-renewable hearing.

I already have a set of David Clarks H20 10XL's and they work great so if
the Bose work better than I'll be tickled pink.

How many of you good folks fly with the Bose or have used them and give me
a PIREP. Thanks!!

Jon Kraus

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:02:51 -0400, "Kobra"
wrote:

My main complaint with the Bose is the price.

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.

RK Henry

In article ,
RK Henry wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:02:51 -0400, "Kobra"
wrote:

My main complaint with the Bose is the price.

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.


For David Clark, it's easy--they're virtually indestructible, and the
company stands behind them like no other.

As for the Bose, I've flown with the Series II and the X. There is no
headset on the market that even comes close to the audio quality of the
Bose sets--not even remotely close. Bose's ANR is impressive, but not
$500+ more impressive than Lightspeed. Bose does, however, put
outstanding ANR and sound quality into a featherweight, rather slim
headset in the Bose X, and that makes pretty good package.

Unfortunately, Lightspeed seems to think that comfort means 3" of foam
all around your head, which I think is ridiculous. The headsets are
just way, way, way too big and bulky. Their QFR sets seem to be a much
more reasonable size, and the ANR version of their QFR series has
received some positive reviews (and it's relatively inexpensive.)
Lightspeed sets don't have the greatest track record for durability,
though I'm not sure how the QFR sets might hold up.



JKG

RK Henry wrote:

My main complaint with the Bose is the price.

You and everyone else :-).

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.

Now, WHICH ANR headset to get is far less critical than getting a good
pair, and there are many good pair. Comfort, sound quality, and cost
will all play into the equation. Personally, I got my Bose at a huge
discount, so for me the determination was easy. I purchased a set of
Lightspeed 15XL's a few years ago, because that was MY $350 :-), and
my passenger wears that.

Many people want the best sound quality, light weight, and low
clamping force, and are willing to pay $1K to get it. Others just
want the protection, and you can get that for $300-$500, but the
headsets will be bulky, less comfortable, heavier, and have crappier
sound quality. You pays your money, and takes your choice.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2006

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

RK Henry wrote:

The question is, does ANR do any better at attenuating the
ear-damaging frequencies than ordinary noise attenuating headsets?

Yes.

Has anyone done scientific peer-reviewed studies?

Yes. See:

http://www.lightspeedaviation.com/tutorial101.asp

for a very good, fair tutorial on the basics of ANR. I used to point
folks to this to read about ANR even when I worked at Bose on headsets
back in 1999 on the Bose X.

I don't believe that pointers to relevant studies are on the Bose
website, but I do remember seeing a few good studies (some military)
on ANR protection when I was at Bose. I'm sure a search on line or in
the library would turn them up.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2006

RK,

The question is, does ANR do any better at attenuating the
ear-damaging frequencies than ordinary noise attenuating headsets?


I suggest you read the ANR tutorial at Lightspeed's website.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 09:32:23 +0200, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

RK,

The question is, does ANR do any better at attenuating the
ear-damaging frequencies than ordinary noise attenuating headsets?


I suggest you read the ANR tutorial at Lightspeed's website.

I did read that article, as suggested by Marc J. Zeitlin in a previous
message in this thread, thank you both. While an interesting article,
it doesn't really tell me too much that I didn't already know, or
suspect, and it doesn't constitute the scientific evidence that I'm
looking for.

I did a search in Google Scholar for papers on the subject and hit a
paper that appeared in "Journal of Occupational Health" reporting a
study on an ANR (or ANC) for industrial workers. That article
presented evidence that workers showed less TTS (Temporary Threshold
Shift), as measured with an audiometer, when using ANC hearing
protection. TTS is apparently that "dullness" in your ears that you
feel after a bare-eared flight. While the study doesn't cover aviation
headsets, it does suggest that ANR might be more effective at
preventing hearing loss than conventional noise-attenuating headsets,
which in turn are better than nothing at all. The article reports
p0.045 using the Wilcoxon sign rank test. Now that's the kind of
statistical evidence that I can get my teeth into. Give me some reason
to accept or reject h0. Does anyone know of scientific papers or
journal articles on Aviation ANRs? Preferably a paper that I can
download as a PDF for free instead of having to pay a fortune to buy a
copy from one of those scientific paper publishers.

Of course I've always been concerned about hearing loss as I already
have a hearing loss in one ear (mumps when I was 5) that kept me from
pursuing a commercial license (though recent rule changes could change
that). Consequently, I've always been interested in keeping what I
already have and was rather excited when I first heard that Bose was
introducing an ANR headset--until I found out that I couldn't afford
it. I do fly a somewhat quieter airplane, a Cherokee, so it's not as
bad as with some airplanes. I once used a sound level meter and found
that the noise in the Cherokee was only a few db higher than my car (a
Vega at the time) though with the logarithmic db scale, only a few
points still means an awful lot of noise.

I may be ready for a new headset since I've been noticing that my
current headset, a cheap DC knock off, has lately been exhibiting
audio dropouts. I suspect a broken wire in the plug. Now if I could
only come up with the cash. After the disastrous annual inspection
this year and the recent slide in the stock market, I'm not prepared
for a headset. Maybe if I bought a lottery ticket every day...

RK Henry

In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:

RK,

The question is, does ANR do any better at attenuating the
ear-damaging frequencies than ordinary noise attenuating headsets?


I suggest you read the ANR tutorial at Lightspeed's website.

Which provides no proof that using an ANR headset will protect your
hearing any more than a good passive.

The reality is that noise-induced and age-related hearing loss most
frequently occurs in the higher frequencies. The human ear is
significantly more susceptible to noise-induced hearing loss at high
frequencies, where ANR has no effect.

ANR headsets would be an improvement over no headset, but I have yet to
find any clinical studies or scientific documentation from qualified
professionals (a group which doesn't include Lightspeed's marketing or
engineering departments) that concludes that ANR has any benefit to
protecting against hearing loss.

In my experience, what ANR does do is provide for a less fatiguing, more
enjoyable flight.



JKG

Yes, around the frequencies of the human female's speech. What more proof
do you need that there is a merciful God.

" The reality is that noise-induced and age-related hearing loss most
frequently occurs in the higher frequencies. The human ear is
significantly more susceptible to noise-induced hearing loss at high
frequencies, where ANR has no effect.