Headsets and ANR

[Luke Scharf]

I'm thinking about upgrading my Sigtronics S-20 headset. Right now, I'm
considering the Lightspeed QFR SOLOc and Lightspeed QFR XCc (with ANR).

I like the price of the passive headset and I also like that it has a
pretty high amount of muffling (28.7 db according to the selasfolk).

But, if the ANR headset really is worth the extra expense and hassle,
I'd rather get the right headset the first time.

I have several questions:
1. Has anyone here flown both models?
2. Do the numbers in the sales-literature mean anything in real life?
3. I know that the Decibel scale is logarithmic. Does the ANR noise
reduction reduce noise in such a way that I can compare headsets by
adding the passive and active ratings together -- or is the cumulative
affect that you hear when you turn on the headset require more subtle
math to calculate?

Thanks,
-Luke

[Dave S]

Imagine sitting in a car with a blaring loud stereo.

Putting on headset takes away some of the noise passively, as expected.

Turning on the ANR is like cutting the wire to the stereo's subwoofer..
it takes a LOT of the lower frequency noise out.. and yea.. the effect
is additive.. you can add passive to active dB suppression.

I have not personally used the Lightspeed product so I will withhold
comment on them.

In any event, ANR is worth the money. I have 3 conversion headsets and
one factory Telex ANR. All perform great.

Dave

Luke Scharf wrote:

> I'm thinking about upgrading my Sigtronics S-20 headset. Right now, I'm
> considering the Lightspeed QFR SOLOc and Lightspeed QFR XCc (with ANR).
>
> I like the price of the passive headset and I also like that it has a
> pretty high amount of muffling (28.7 db according to the selasfolk).
>
> But, if the ANR headset really is worth the extra expense and hassle,
> I'd rather get the right headset the first time.
>
> I have several questions:
> 1. Has anyone here flown both models?
> 2. Do the numbers in the sales-literature mean anything in real life?
> 3. I know that the Decibel scale is logarithmic. Does the ANR noise
> reduction reduce noise in such a way that I can compare headsets by
> adding the passive and active ratings together -- or is the cumulative
> affect that you hear when you turn on the headset require more subtle
> math to calculate?
>
> Thanks,
> -Luke

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

Luke Scharf wrote:

> 2. Do the numbers in the sales-literature mean anything in real life?

Dave S responded:

> Turning on the ANR is like cutting the wire to the stereo's
> subwoofer.. it takes a LOT of the lower frequency noise out..

Correct.

>.... and yea.. the effect is additive.. you can add passive to active
>dB suppression.

Only when measured at the same frequency. For a full explanation of
this issue, see my post on "$259 headsets" from March 20th, 2001 to
rec.aviation.homebuilt.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2005

[Mitty]

Are you going to Oshkosh? You could try a few there. From my experience,
though, all the sound demos are pretty good. I couldn't perceive differences
among the products offered.

FWIW, a year ago I switched to the Clarity Aloft headset and am now using my
Softcomm C-90 ANR as a passenger/spare unit. Although the Clarity headset is
very slightly less attenuating at the low frequencies, it has more attenuation
overall. This is apparently due to the design of the ear pieces. Plus, the
thing weighs nothing and the audio quality is spectacular.

I can actually hear the stall horn and the gear warning horn better with my
Softcomm headset than with the Clarity unit. I think this is because these
sounds are in that higher frequency range where the Clarity attenuation is better.

http://clarityaloft.com/index.htm

Truth in posting: The president of Clarity is a friend of mine BUT --- I
enthusiastically paid the $500 for mine after being given an opportunity to
test-fly the product. I am now worried that my wife will figure out how good
they are and make me buy her a set to replace her Softcomm ANR set.




On 6/24/2005 7:18 PM, Luke Scharf wrote the following:
> I'm thinking about upgrading my Sigtronics S-20 headset. Right now, I'm
> considering the Lightspeed QFR SOLOc and Lightspeed QFR XCc (with ANR).
>
> I like the price of the passive headset and I also like that it has a
> pretty high amount of muffling (28.7 db according to the selasfolk).
>
> But, if the ANR headset really is worth the extra expense and hassle,
> I'd rather get the right headset the first time.
>
> I have several questions:
> 1. Has anyone here flown both models?
> 2. Do the numbers in the sales-literature mean anything in real life?
> 3. I know that the Decibel scale is logarithmic. Does the ANR noise
> reduction reduce noise in such a way that I can compare headsets by
> adding the passive and active ratings together -- or is the cumulative
> affect that you hear when you turn on the headset require more subtle
> math to calculate?
>
> Thanks,
> -Luke

[Thomas Borchert]

Luke,

> But, if the ANR headset really is worth the extra expense and hassle,
> I'd rather get the right headset the first time.

If at all possible, do not go without ANR. It is a must-have in a decent
headset. Even if the passive reduction is lower, the overall reduction will
be higher.

>
> I have several questions:
> 1. Has anyone here flown both models?

Yes.

> 2. Do the numbers in the sales-literature mean anything in real life?

Yes. The passive reduction of the XCc is a noticable tad lower than that of
the SSc, but when you switch on the ANR, the overall reduction of noise
with the XCc is well noticably lower. Also, depending on your preferences,
keep in mind that the XCc has a music input.

> 3. I know that the Decibel scale is logarithmic. Does the ANR noise
> reduction reduce noise in such a way that I can compare headsets by
> adding the passive and active ratings together -- or is the cumulative
> affect that you hear when you turn on the headset require more subtle
> math to calculate?

The latter. On Lightspeed's web site, you can find two ANR tutorials (ANR
1o1 and 2o1). The link is on the right side of the home page. Good reading,
which explains a lot more detail about those questions.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[John Clonts]

"Luke Scharf" > wrote in message ...
> I'm thinking about upgrading my Sigtronics S-20 headset. Right now, I'm considering the Lightspeed QFR SOLOc
> and Lightspeed QFR XCc (with ANR).
>
> I like the price of the passive headset and I also like that it has a pretty high amount of muffling (28.7 db
> according to the selasfolk).
>
> But, if the ANR headset really is worth the extra expense and hassle, I'd rather get the right headset the
> first time.
>
> I have several questions:
> 1. Has anyone here flown both models?
> 2. Do the numbers in the sales-literature mean anything in real life?
> 3. I know that the Decibel scale is logarithmic. Does the ANR noise reduction reduce noise in such a way
> that I can compare headsets by adding the passive and active ratings together -- or is the cumulative affect
> that you hear when you turn on the headset require more subtle math to calculate?
>

I've flown with the QFR X-C's for a couple of years. I like them quite a bit. Sometimes I forget to turn them
on, and as such they're about equivalent to my non-ANR Avcomm headsets. After the flight I notice that I
forgot to turn them on and think "so THATS why I felt 'off' this flight!"

The only thing I don't like about them is that they don't play well with glasses' earpieces-- it seems to break
the audio seal around the head and causes humming or squealing noises. I think its because of the stiffness of
the padding. The higher priced Lightspeeds come with softer "gel" earpieces (or at least they used to), so I
think they are less vulnerable to this problem. I have taken to tilting my glasses such that their earpieces
rest up on my head above the headphones' earpieces. Works "ok" for sunglasses and/or my reading half-glasses.
(Yes, I do sometimes wear both at once!)
--
Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[Stephen McNaught]

You may already know this, but you can get the soft "Comfort Seals" for
the Solos and XCs. They're not as thick though. -Steve

"John Clonts" > wrote in message
...

> The only thing I don't like about them is that they don't play well with
glasses' earpieces-- it seems to break
> the audio seal around the head and causes humming or squealing noises. I
think its because of the stiffness of
> the padding. The higher priced Lightspeeds come with softer "gel"
earpieces (or at least they used to), so I
> think they are less vulnerable to this problem. I have taken to tilting
my glasses such that their earpieces
> rest up on my head above the headphones' earpieces. Works "ok" for
sunglasses and/or my reading half-glasses.
> (Yes, I do sometimes wear both at once!)

[Thomas Borchert]

John,

> softer "gel" earpieces (or at least they used to),
>

Actually, it's not gel but ConFo foam which gets softer with body heat.
Conforms very well around glasses.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Victor J. Osborne, Jr.]

I'm in the 'Don't go w/o ANR' club.

I use Bose X's (not really worth the difference) and Lightspeed 30XL's. The
Lightspeed ($350) ANR route is the way to go.

You can goggle the threads where Lightspeed products vs support has been
beat to death.

FWIW, {|;-)

Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.
"Luke Scharf" > wrote in message
...
> I'm thinking about upgrading my Sigtronics S-20 headset. Right now, I'm
> considering the Lightspeed QFR SOLOc and Lightspeed QFR XCc (with ANR).
>
> I like the price of the passive headset and I also like that it has a
> pretty high amount of muffling (28.7 db according to the selasfolk).
>
> But, if the ANR headset really is worth the extra expense and hassle, I'd
> rather get the right headset the first time.
>
> I have several questions:
> 1. Has anyone here flown both models?
> 2. Do the numbers in the sales-literature mean anything in real life?
> 3. I know that the Decibel scale is logarithmic. Does the ANR noise
> reduction reduce noise in such a way that I can compare headsets by adding
> the passive and active ratings together -- or is the cumulative affect
> that you hear when you turn on the headset require more subtle math to
> calculate?
>
> Thanks,
> -Luke

[M]

I got aQFR XCc for my wife as a birthday present. As a result she
likes to ride with me on long trips a lot more. She really likes the
ANR.

I however found ANR annoying and I perfer passive only headsets. I
can't explain why I found ANR annoying. From a hearing protection's
perspective a good passive headset is more than enough to reduce the
noise to a level that's not harmful to hearing. The cabin noise level
in my Grumman Traveler is around 91 db at high power cruise. A 21db
reduction drops it down to 70db and it's a very safe noise level for
100hr a year. I use a Flightcom 4DX, a cheap utilitarian headset.

[Luke Scharf]

Luke Scharf wrote:
> I'm thinking about upgrading my Sigtronics S-20 headset. Right now, I'm
> considering the Lightspeed QFR SOLOc and Lightspeed QFR XCc (with ANR).

Many thanks for your all's input!

I think I'm going to go with the ANR headset -- although the Clarity
Aloft (and similar) headsets are intriguing.

-Luke

[Thomas Borchert]

M,

> From a hearing protection's
> perspective a good passive headset is more than enough to reduce the
> noise to a level that's not harmful to hearing.

Uhm, some people have different opinions.

> The cabin noise level
> in my Grumman Traveler is around 91 db at high power cruise. A 21db
> reduction drops it down to 70db and it's a very safe noise level for
> 100hr a year.

At what frequency?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Luke Scharf]

Luke Scharf wrote:
> I think I'm going to go with the ANR headset -- although the Clarity
> Aloft (and similar) headsets are intriguing.

I've been looking at the Clarity Aloft and also the Lightspeed L1 now.

The Clarity Aloft doesn't seem to have the cellphone interface. Is that
correct?

Also, has anyone flown the L1 in a typical GA aircraft? I fly a Cessna
150 most of the time now, although I also ride around in Cherokees and
plan to fly some high performance aircraft at the first chance. Is it
appropriate for that kind of usage?

Thanks,
-Luke

[Thomas Borchert]

Luke,

> I've been looking at the Clarity Aloft and also the Lightspeed L1 now.
>

Aviation Consumer has, too. Don't know if you have access, but the
bottom line is to wait at least until Osh. New versions coming out with
major improvements, it seems.

--
Thomas

[Mitty]

The mic on The LI is positioned only by the friction of the ear bud and the
overall construction is not impressive. Possibly they will have an improved
model at OSH. If not, I don't think you would prefer it in a side-by-side
comparison.

A cellphone interface is, I think, coming from Clarity. I suggest you email them
to check.

On 7/4/2005 5:00 PM, Luke Scharf wrote the following:
> Luke Scharf wrote:
>
>> I think I'm going to go with the ANR headset -- although the Clarity
>> Aloft (and similar) headsets are intriguing.
>
>
> I've been looking at the Clarity Aloft and also the Lightspeed L1 now.
>
> The Clarity Aloft doesn't seem to have the cellphone interface. Is that
> correct?
>
> Also, has anyone flown the L1 in a typical GA aircraft? I fly a Cessna
> 150 most of the time now, although I also ride around in Cherokees and
> plan to fly some high performance aircraft at the first chance. Is it
> appropriate for that kind of usage?
>
> Thanks,
> -Luke

[Roger]

On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 18:00:53 -0400, Luke Scharf >
wrote:

>Luke Scharf wrote:
>> I think I'm going to go with the ANR headset -- although the Clarity
>> Aloft (and similar) headsets are intriguing.

There is no cmparrison between passive and ANRs. I've been using the
same old Telex headset from the early days.

Flying small prop planes I would not want anything that did not have
full ear coverage like the passive, but with ANR added.

I went along in the right seat of a twin wearing one of those little
headsets. I was supposed to handle the radios and we were going dual
pilot IFR. I basically ended up as a passenger as I could not hear a
thing ATC said.

I had my Telex set in the bag headed for the airplane, but threw them
back in the car when told I wouldn't need them. Big mistake.

I'd like the new Bose stereo capable head set.
>
>I've been looking at the Clarity Aloft and also the Lightspeed L1 now.
>
>The Clarity Aloft doesn't seem to have the cellphone interface. Is that
>correct?
>
I can't imagine wanting a cell phone interface in the head set.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>Also, has anyone flown the L1 in a typical GA aircraft? I fly a Cessna
>150 most of the time now, although I also ride around in Cherokees and
>plan to fly some high performance aircraft at the first chance. Is it
>appropriate for that kind of usage?
>
>Thanks,
>-Luke

[Mitty]

On 7/8/2005 1:46 AM, Roger wrote the following:
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 18:00:53 -0400, Luke Scharf >

> Flying small prop planes I would not want anything that did not have full ear
> coverage like the passive, but with ANR added.
>

You like hot & sweaty ears?

> I went along in the right seat of a twin wearing one of those little
> headsets. I was supposed to handle the radios and we were going dual pilot
> IFR. I basically ended up as a passenger as I could not hear a thing ATC
> said.
>

Roger, you surprise me. You are usually far too logical to leap from one sample
to such abroad conclusion. The "little headset" may have been bad, but my
Clarity set has better attenuation than the ANRs in almost the whole spectrum.
Try one. The audio quality and sound attenuation will amaze you. You may even
lose your fondness for sweaty ears and for placing weights on your head while
flying.
>

> I can't imagine wanting a cell phone interface in the head set.

I can. I have the phone numbers for the ATC centers on my clipboard and having a
cell phone aboard is on my checklist. If the radios go out, I'll just call in to
discuss the situation. I can't legally test this plan, but it seems likely to
work. Cell is also nice for clearances from fss at un-towered airports.

[Stan Gosnell]

Mitty > wrote in
:

> On 7/8/2005 1:46 AM, Roger wrote the following:
>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 18:00:53 -0400, Luke Scharf >
>
>> Flying small prop planes I would not want anything that did not have
>> full ear coverage like the passive, but with ANR added.
>>
>
> You like hot & sweaty ears?

I like having hearing protection, especially for high-frequency stuff
which ANR doesn't protect against, when (not if) the ANR portion fails.
I, too, won't even consider a headset that doesn't have good passive
protection. It's your hearing, though, so use what you want.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

[Mitty]

On 7/8/2005 5:30 PM, Stan Gosnell wrote the following:
> Mitty > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>On 7/8/2005 1:46 AM, Roger wrote the following:
>>
>>>On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 18:00:53 -0400, Luke Scharf >
>>
>>>Flying small prop planes I would not want anything that did not have
>>>full ear coverage like the passive, but with ANR added.
>>>
>>
>>You like hot & sweaty ears?
>
>
> I like having hearing protection, especially for high-frequency stuff
> which ANR doesn't protect against, when (not if) the ANR portion fails.
> I, too, won't even consider a headset that doesn't have good passive
> protection. It's your hearing, though, so use what you want.
>

I'm not quite sure why this has gotten to be such an extended discussion, but
I'm also not sure of your point. The Clarity set has exactly what you want --
high attenuation especially in the higher frequencies. Check page 17 of their
owner manual: http://clarityaloft.com/6_ClarityAloft_OwnersGd.pdf

So if your point is that you need big muffs to get good attenuation, that is
incorrect. (In fact, logic would lead me to conclude that a good seal in the
ear canal is easier to make than a large one encompassing hair, glasses bows,
irregular head shape, etc.)

Whether the LightSpeed set also has high attenuation, I don't know. My friend
who is the president of Clarity tells me that their performance is due to the
unique ear tip design and materials, which are covered by several patents. But
then he's the chief salesman, too. :-) What I do know is that the product
works far better than the Softcomm ANR sets that I have and that I did not
hesitate to write the big check after flying with them on a demo.

[Paul Lynch]

People often forget the old Telex "Professional" models that do not have ear
cups but an earplug that has a tube that conducts the radio/ICS sound. It
normally comes with a single earpiece that makes you think it only works in
quiet cockpits. I ordered the dual ear tips (about 5 dollars). The noise
suppression matches the 3 different ANR headsets I have owned, and the
headset is significantly lighter and more comfortable.

Paul

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 18:00:53 -0400, Luke Scharf >
> wrote:
>
>>Luke Scharf wrote:
>>> I think I'm going to go with the ANR headset -- although the Clarity
>>> Aloft (and similar) headsets are intriguing.
>
> There is no cmparrison between passive and ANRs. I've been using the
> same old Telex headset from the early days.
>
> Flying small prop planes I would not want anything that did not have
> full ear coverage like the passive, but with ANR added.
>
> I went along in the right seat of a twin wearing one of those little
> headsets. I was supposed to handle the radios and we were going dual
> pilot IFR. I basically ended up as a passenger as I could not hear a
> thing ATC said.
>
> I had my Telex set in the bag headed for the airplane, but threw them
> back in the car when told I wouldn't need them. Big mistake.
>
> I'd like the new Bose stereo capable head set.
>>
>>I've been looking at the Clarity Aloft and also the Lightspeed L1 now.
>>
>>The Clarity Aloft doesn't seem to have the cellphone interface. Is that
>>correct?
>>
> I can't imagine wanting a cell phone interface in the head set.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>Also, has anyone flown the L1 in a typical GA aircraft? I fly a Cessna
>>150 most of the time now, although I also ride around in Cherokees and
>>plan to fly some high performance aircraft at the first chance. Is it
>>appropriate for that kind of usage?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>-Luke
>

[Roger]

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 14:25:51 GMT, Mitty > wrote:

>
>
>On 7/8/2005 1:46 AM, Roger wrote the following:
>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 18:00:53 -0400, Luke Scharf >
>
>> Flying small prop planes I would not want anything that did not have full ear
>> coverage like the passive, but with ANR added.
>>
>
>You like hot & sweaty ears?
It sure beats not being able to hear and going deaf. OTOH the old
Telex are "HEAVY"!

>
>> I went along in the right seat of a twin wearing one of those little
>> headsets. I was supposed to handle the radios and we were going dual pilot
>> IFR. I basically ended up as a passenger as I could not hear a thing ATC
>> said.
>>
>
>Roger, you surprise me. You are usually far too logical to leap from one sample
>to such abroad conclusion. The "little headset" may have been bad, but my

They may have been, but they were his spare as an ATP.

>Clarity set has better attenuation than the ANRs in almost the whole spectrum.
>Try one. The audio quality and sound attenuation will amaze you. You may even
>lose your fondness for sweaty ears and for placing weights on your head while
>flying.

I'm not so sure. To really cut the sound you really need to cover the
mastoid bone. (I used to do a lot of trap shooting). Adding ear
muffs over ear plugs was like the difference between night and day.

>>
>
>> I can't imagine wanting a cell phone interface in the head set.
>
>I can. I have the phone numbers for the ATC centers on my clipboard and having a

You don't have the number already in memory? Mine does.

>cell phone aboard is on my checklist. If the radios go out, I'll just call in to
>discuss the situation. I can't legally test this plan, but it seems likely to

Sure you can as you are on the ground the way it's stated. OTOH, I
guess it would be nice in the air if you don't get an "out of
coverage" signal. Mine usually shuts down by 2000 feet if I forget to
turn it off. It has to be turned off to reset if you want to call
anything other than 911.

>work. Cell is also nice for clearances from fss at un-towered airports.

Yah, but that's on the ground and if the radios aren't working I don't
need the head set as I haven't fired up by that time.
I fly out of an uncontrolled airport (3BS) but we have a Remote outlet
on the field. Choose the frequency, follow the directions and it
phones the tower.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger]

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 23:20:01 GMT, Mitty > wrote:

>
>
>On 7/8/2005 5:30 PM, Stan Gosnell wrote the following:
>> Mitty > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>>On 7/8/2005 1:46 AM, Roger wrote the following:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 18:00:53 -0400, Luke Scharf >
>>>
>>>>Flying small prop planes I would not want anything that did not have
>>>>full ear coverage like the passive, but with ANR added.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You like hot & sweaty ears?
>>
>>
>> I like having hearing protection, especially for high-frequency stuff
>> which ANR doesn't protect against, when (not if) the ANR portion fails.
>> I, too, won't even consider a headset that doesn't have good passive
>> protection. It's your hearing, though, so use what you want.
>>
>
>I'm not quite sure why this has gotten to be such an extended discussion, but
>I'm also not sure of your point. The Clarity set has exactly what you want --
>high attenuation especially in the higher frequencies. Check page 17 of their
>owner manual: http://clarityaloft.com/6_ClarityAloft_OwnersGd.pdf
>
>So if your point is that you need big muffs to get good attenuation, that is
>incorrect. (In fact, logic would lead me to conclude that a good seal in the
>ear canal is easier to make than a large one encompassing hair, glasses bows,
>irregular head shape, etc.)
>
Although the seals are a problem the ANR portion should help on that.
The reason for the large coverage is to cover the mastioid bone which
conducts a lot of sound.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>Whether the LightSpeed set also has high attenuation, I don't know. My friend
>who is the president of Clarity tells me that their performance is due to the
>unique ear tip design and materials, which are covered by several patents. But
>then he's the chief salesman, too. :-) What I do know is that the product
>works far better than the Softcomm ANR sets that I have and that I did not
>hesitate to write the big check after flying with them on a demo.