Lightspeed Recommendations Wanted

[Lakeview Bill]

In examining the Lightspeed lineup, it seems to be a classic case of "for
only $30 more you get this"; pretty soon you're up to some serious money.

So, which of their ANR units provides the most bang for the buck?

Which models would you recommend for flights of less than two hours behind a
two-stroke engine?

Thanks...

[Victor J. Osborne, Jr.]

I have 2 30's (bought for $350) and have had 20's. Good headset. See -Wow
thread for more. For the money, I feel the 30's are superior. OTOH, you
may get a great deal from LS for some who wanted to upgrade to 40+'s. AOPA
is coming up. Can you pole the vendors for show specials and ask someone to
pick them up for you?

FWIW I also have to Bode 10x's in the front. Great product but at One AMU
per, pricey. For your extra $650, you don't have to worry about the battery
but they also have to stay w/ the plane.

YOM, {|;-)

Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.

"Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
.. .
> In examining the Lightspeed lineup, it seems to be a classic case of "for
> only $30 more you get this"; pretty soon you're up to some serious money.
>
> So, which of their ANR units provides the most bang for the buck?
>
> Which models would you recommend for flights of less than two hours behind
> a
> two-stroke engine?
>
> Thanks...
>
>

[Jim Burns]

> Which models would you recommend for flights of less than two hours behind
a
> two-stroke engine?

Your wife let's you fly with models??!!! dang... mine doesn't... so I had to
settle for the 20XL's.
Jim

[Morgans]

"Lakeview Bill" > wrote

> Which models would you recommend for flights of less than two hours behind
a
> two-stroke engine?

The model securely in it's box, back in the house, with it's owner.

Sorry, I couldn't help it.
--
Jim in NC

Friends don't let friends fly 2 strokes. Only kind'a kidding, of course.

[[email protected]]

I have four of the 20-3 g's. I love them !!!!!!!!

What does the 30's do that the 20's don't ??

[john smith]

> > Which models would you recommend for flights of less than two hours behind
> a two-stroke engine?

> Your wife let's you fly with models??!!! dang... mine doesn't... so I had to
> settle for the 20XL's.

My wife would probably let me fly with models, she would probably object
if I wanted to play with them, though.

[Victor J. Osborne, Jr.]

A noticeable improvement on the ANR. I think the battery seems to last
longer.
Get some to try in the cockpit of your aircraft. I did and the 30's sound
better.

Thx, {|;-)

Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.

> wrote in message

>I have four of the 20-3 g's. I love them !!!!!!!!
>
> What does the 30's do that the 20's don't ??
>

[Thomas Borchert]

Lakeview,

> Which models would you recommend for flights of less than two hours behind a
> two-stroke engine?
>

Ah, two-stroke. Good that you mention it. You tend to have less of the really
low-frequency "rumble" that is typical for bigger engines and more of a higher
frequency bias in the noise spectrum. Since ANR is excellent at low
frequencies and passive reduction good at higher frequencies, the QFR XCc
might actuall be a good option for you. It has not-stellar ANR, but still a
quite high passive reduction.

OTOH, the XL and 3G series offer those super-comfortable cushions.

If at all possible, try them in your plane.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Denny]

I have the 20 3G currently... Upgraded from the 20XL... Perfectly happy
and don't feel that spending more will get me more that is
meaningful...

denny

[Kevin Kubiak]

I seriously considered the Bose headsets. In fact at OSH
this year I did a side by side comparison of the Bose, Lightspeeds,
and I think the Flight Coms. The vendor I purchased them from (Gulf Coast
Avionics) had all ANR headsets on a rack and had a plug in where they had a
noise generator.

I found that the Bose and Lightspeeds 30-3Gs were pretty close in sound and
fit for my liking. The Bose were lighter and did not have the cell phone
interface or the MPS/CD player interface as did the LightSpeeds. I wanted the
cell phone interface so I could have the ability to call from on the ground.
The Bose did not offer such capability, and I couldn't justify the cost. Also,
the Lightspeeds were discounted by about 5% so I went with the Lightspeeds.

I have had a few problems with my Lightspeeds since purchased new, which kind
of bothers me, but other than that I am completely satisfied with the way the
fit and perform.

Kevin Kubiak - PP-ASEL

Victor J. Osborne, Jr. wrote:

>
> FWIW I also have to Bode 10x's in the front. Great product but at One AMU
> per, pricey. For your extra $650, you don't have to worry about the battery
> but they also have to stay w/ the plane.
>
> YOM, {|;-)
>

[Jay Honeck]

> I found that the Bose and Lightspeeds 30-3Gs were pretty close in sound
> and
> fit for my liking. The Bose were lighter and did not have the cell phone
> interface or the MPS/CD player interface as did the LightSpeeds. I
> wanted the cell phone interface so I could have the ability to call from
> on the ground.

This is a rarely mentioned asset of the Lightspeed headsets. When I bought
Twenty 3Gs, I thought "Pah! What will I ever use *that* for?"

Well, it turns out that I use it a lot. The ability to plug your cell phone
into your headset, giving you crystal-clear sound even with the engine roar,
is really nice.

Now if only it worked in the air...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jim Burns]

Denny,
How do you feel about the difference between the 20XL and the 20 3G's? Do
you feel that you received adequate value for the difference? The reason I
ask is that I'm always tempted to upgrade, but I never feel it's worth it
when I try my friends 20 3G's. What do you think?
Jim

"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I have the 20 3G currently... Upgraded from the 20XL... Perfectly happy
> and don't feel that spending more will get me more that is
> meaningful...
>
> denny
>

[Chris G.]

When I was ait Pacific Coast Avionics buying my headsets
(http://www.pca.aero), I asked about what difference I could expect
between the Twenty-3G and the Thirty-3G. For a C-152/172, they couldn't
give me any info. I called lightspeed and talked to one of their
techies. He was straight up with my and saved me about $100-120 by
telling me that the Thirty-3G would be better if you are flying a
noisier airplane (like a C-210 Centurion, etc) and that the smaller
planes, like the 150/152/172/182 would be fine with just a Twenty-3G.
That was his personal opinion. Having now used the Twenty-3G, I am
thinking it would have been nice to bought the more expensive one, just
because. ;) Note, I have NO complaints about my Twenty-3G and, as
others have said, I LOVE the Lightspeed customer service. It's nice
that I drive by their corp HQ every day. <grin> Btw, Pacific Coast
Avionics was pretty good to me as well and their prices are decent. I
drive by them, too. :) Ahh, thank God for living in Oregon (even if
our legislators are cracked up on meth and we have nutzoids trying to
cripple our state government).

Chris G.

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>I found that the Bose and Lightspeeds 30-3Gs were pretty close in sound
>>and
>>fit for my liking. The Bose were lighter and did not have the cell phone
>>interface or the MPS/CD player interface as did the LightSpeeds. I
>>wanted the cell phone interface so I could have the ability to call from
>>on the ground.
>
>
> This is a rarely mentioned asset of the Lightspeed headsets. When I bought
> Twenty 3Gs, I thought "Pah! What will I ever use *that* for?"
>
> Well, it turns out that I use it a lot. The ability to plug your cell phone
> into your headset, giving you crystal-clear sound even with the engine roar,
> is really nice.
>
> Now if only it worked in the air...

[Morgans]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> This is a rarely mentioned asset of the Lightspeed headsets. When I
bought
> Twenty 3Gs, I thought "Pah! What will I ever use *that* for?"
>
> Well, it turns out that I use it a lot. The ability to plug your cell
phone
> into your headset, giving you crystal-clear sound even with the engine
roar,
> is really nice.
>
> Now if only it worked in the air...

I haven't figured out why some cell phone companies have not set aside a few
of their frequencies, (PCS, of course aren't regulated) aim a few widely
spaced antennae upwards, and market it as a airphone uplink.
--
Jim in NC

[George Patterson]

Morgans wrote:

> I haven't figured out why some cell phone companies have not set aside a few
> of their frequencies, (PCS, of course aren't regulated) aim a few widely
> spaced antennae upwards, and market it as a airphone uplink.

First off, PCS *is* regulated. They'd have to get a license to transmit over
those frequencies from ground to air.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[George Patterson]

Morgans wrote:

> I have no doubt that there would be some regulations and red tape to cut
> through, but it seems like there is a market to be served, the extra
> bandwidth is there, and that it should be possible.

Oh, it's certainly possible. Aircell did that with the cell frequencies.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Morgans]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:P4Z3f.630$da1.511@trndny04...
> Morgans wrote:
>
> > I haven't figured out why some cell phone companies have not set aside a
few
> > of their frequencies, (PCS, of course aren't regulated) aim a few widely
> > spaced antennae upwards, and market it as a airphone uplink.
>
> First off, PCS *is* regulated. They'd have to get a license to transmit
over
> those frequencies from ground to air.

I understand that is actually up for debate, since PCS operates on a
different band than the rest of cellular, and the regs were written
regulating those cellular bands. I really didn't want to bring up that
whole debate, again.

I have no doubt that there would be some regulations and red tape to cut
through, but it seems like there is a market to be served, the extra
bandwidth is there, and that it should be possible.
--
Jim in NC