Which DC Headphone is best choice?

[[email protected]]

I'm going to update my 15 yr old SoftComm mono headphones and would
appreciate opinions and reasons on choice of replacement.

I don't fly many hours a year or particularly long distances (3hr max)
so I'm leaning towards the David Clark H10-60 or H10-13.4.

The only difference appears to be weight and choice of boom. Since my
old headset uses the wire type boom and works fine what's the
practical differences. Any other options appreciated.

David

[Emily]

wrote:
> I'm going to update my 15 yr old SoftComm mono headphones and would
> appreciate opinions and reasons on choice of replacement.
>
> I don't fly many hours a year or particularly long distances (3hr max)
> so I'm leaning towards the David Clark H10-60 or H10-13.4.
>
> The only difference appears to be weight and choice of boom. Since my
> old headset uses the wire type boom and works fine what's the
> practical differences. Any other options appreciated.
>
> David

I use the 10-13.4, because it was billed as the lightest. I'm big on
light things. I don't want to cart around a heavy ANR plus batteries.

[john smith]

In article >,
wrote:

> I'm going to update my 15 yr old SoftComm mono headphones and would
> appreciate opinions and reasons on choice of replacement.
>
> I don't fly many hours a year or particularly long distances (3hr max)
> so I'm leaning towards the David Clark H10-60 or H10-13.4.
>
> The only difference appears to be weight and choice of boom. Since my
> old headset uses the wire type boom and works fine what's the
> practical differences. Any other options appreciated.

The DC H10-40 (wire boom with M7 electret element) is still available.
They do not advertise it, however.
I prefer the wire boom to the flex boom.
The wire boom can be moved closer to ones mouth and will remain in
position better than the flex boom of the the -13.4.

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:07:39 GMT, john smith > wrote:

>In article >,
> wrote:
>
>> I'm going to update my 15 yr old SoftComm mono headphones and would
>> appreciate opinions and reasons on choice of replacement.
>>
>> I don't fly many hours a year or particularly long distances (3hr max)
>> so I'm leaning towards the David Clark H10-60 or H10-13.4.
>>
>> The only difference appears to be weight and choice of boom. Since my
>> old headset uses the wire type boom and works fine what's the
>> practical differences. Any other options appreciated.
>
>The DC H10-40 (wire boom with M7 electret element) is still available.
>They do not advertise it, however.
>I prefer the wire boom to the flex boom.
>The wire boom can be moved closer to ones mouth and will remain in
>position better than the flex boom of the the -13.4.

Interesting, two opposing replies, so far.....!

I too prefer the lighter weight but also like the wire boom. That was
my dilemma when I requested help.

David

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

john smith wrote:
> The DC H10-40 (wire boom with M7 electret element) is still available.
> They do not advertise it, however.
> I prefer the wire boom to the flex boom.
> The wire boom can be moved closer to ones mouth and will remain in
> position better than the flex boom of the the -13.4.


My first (and primary) headset is a DC H10-80 which is no longer made. It has
the flex mike and although the headphone part of the headset is all I could ask
for, the flex mike isn't. Like you said, it has a bad habit of easing away from
your mouth.

I have since added a H10-40 clone from Marv Golden to my flightbag for friends
to use. I happened to try it out not too long ago and found its wire boom mike
worked much better than the mike on my much more expensive David Clark headset.
A very well spent $80.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Thomas Borchert]

Well, let me ask the obvious: Why DC? IMHO, they haven't kept up with
modern ergnomics (read comfort) nor is their ANR very good. Also, they
are comparatively expensive.

Oh, whatever you do, get ANR.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:25:45 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Well, let me ask the obvious: Why DC? IMHO, they haven't kept up with
>modern ergnomics (read comfort) nor is their ANR very good. Also, they
>are comparatively expensive.
>
>Oh, whatever you do, get ANR.

That's starting to cross my mind. Many people say how good the DC's
are with repairs but since my last headset lasted 15 years maybe I
should get the same or simialr again?

The SoftComm C-10 Red Baron looks interesting but the colour is a bit
bright :-)

David

[Dave Anderer]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 20:16:03 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> wrote:

>My first (and primary) headset is a DC H10-80 which is no longer made. It has
>the flex mike and although the headphone part of the headset is all I could ask
>for, the flex mike isn't. Like you said, it has a bad habit of easing away from
>your mouth.

My set is 17 years old and doesn't have this problem. But I bet if
you contact DC they'll fix it for you.

As an aside, I converted mine to ANR about 10 years ago. They just
keep on chugging.

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:02:06 -0400, Dave Anderer >
wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 20:16:03 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> wrote:
>
>>My first (and primary) headset is a DC H10-80 which is no longer made. It has
>>the flex mike and although the headphone part of the headset is all I could ask
>>for, the flex mike isn't. Like you said, it has a bad habit of easing away from
>>your mouth.
>
>My set is 17 years old and doesn't have this problem. But I bet if
>you contact DC they'll fix it for you.
>
>As an aside, I converted mine to ANR about 10 years ago. They just
>keep on chugging.


Interesting comments on the flex mike. I've only used one on a DC once
and thought it was more difficult to position and keep in place.

I don't think I can justify ANR for the low hours I fly. I can't say I
have a problem with a standard headset.

I'm still looking at options but I see some have an option for
cellphone which I presume will work with an audio checklist which
would be useful? The SoftComm C-80 BNE has this option but it appears
to be a flex boom. Looks slightly different to DC but is it any
better/worse?

David

[Emily]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Well, let me ask the obvious: Why DC? IMHO, they haven't kept up with
> modern ergnomics (read comfort) nor is their ANR very good. Also, they
> are comparatively expensive.

But you can't beat the warranty. I've had students slam my cord in the
door twice, and it was replaced within a week.

> Oh, whatever you do, get ANR.

I disagree. ANR is great if like it, but it's hardly necessary.

[Thomas Borchert]

Emily,

> But you can't beat the warranty.

Well, most "new" headset manufacturers think they can. And they do.

> > Oh, whatever you do, get ANR.
>
> I disagree. ANR is great if like it, but it's hardly necessary.

About as necessary as seat cushions, if you want my opinion. And I do
consider it a safety issue on longer flights.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Emily]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Emily,
>
>> But you can't beat the warranty.
>
> Well, most "new" headset manufacturers think they can. And they do.
>
>>> Oh, whatever you do, get ANR.
>> I disagree. ANR is great if like it, but it's hardly necessary.
>
> About as necessary as seat cushions, if you want my opinion. And I do
> consider it a safety issue on longer flights.

How so? Yes, I consider NOT having a headset a safety issue, but ANR
isn't necessary. Personally, I like being able to hear the engine.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Emily > wrote:
> How so? Yes, I consider NOT having a headset a safety issue, but ANR
> isn't necessary. Personally, I like being able to hear the engine.

ANR doesn't affect your ability to hear the engine, but the claims that
ANR protects your hearing better than passive attenuation have no proven
scientific support. ANR is little more than a comfort/convenience item,
and certainly not a safety item.


JKG

[real_name]

In article >,
Jonathan Goodish > wrote:

> ANR doesn't affect your ability to hear the engine, but the claims that
> ANR protects your hearing better than passive attenuation have no proven
> scientific support. ANR is little more than a comfort/convenience item,
> and certainly not a safety item.

When ANR allows me to hear the radio better, it most certainly
contributes to safety. It's not flight-critical, but still...

[Thomas Borchert]

Emily,

> Yes, I consider NOT having a headset a safety issue, but ANR
> isn't necessary.

Being fatigued is a risk. Noise causes fatigue. ANR works against it.
In a dramatically effective way.

Also, ANR enables you to hear ATC much more clearly.

> Personally, I like being able to hear the engine.

Ah, so you have never worn ANR. Because if you had, you knew that
statement has nothing to do with ANR. If anything, you can hear the
engine better.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jonathan,

> ANR is little more than a comfort/convenience item,
> and certainly not a safety item.
>

Take a guess: Does a pilot that's comfortable fly better or worse than
one that isn't?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Real_name,

> it most certainly
> contributes to safety. It's not flight-critical, but still...
>

Perzactly.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jonathan,

> the claims that
> ANR protects your hearing better than passive attenuation
>

Who exactly claims that? All claims I've seen relate to total noise
reduction. And we can probably all agree that less overall noise is
better both for your hearing (where higher frequencies are more
dangerous) and your comfort (where lower frequencies play a big part).
ANR headsets (most, that is) offer dramatically lower total noise.

What's not to like about them?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Emily]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Emily,
>
<snip>
>
> Ah, so you have never worn ANR. Because if you had, you knew that
> statement has nothing to do with ANR. If anything, you can hear the
> engine better.

Yes, I have worn ANR. Don't make assumptions.

[Emily]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Jonathan,
>
<snip>
>
> What's not to like about them?

They're expensive, heavy, and require batteries.

[john smith]

> Also, ANR enables you to hear ATC much more clearly.

In my 25 years of flying with my DC H10-40's, I have never had any
difficulty hear ATC due to ambiant noise.

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 22:46:16 GMT, john smith > wrote:

>> Also, ANR enables you to hear ATC much more clearly.
>
>In my 25 years of flying with my DC H10-40's, I have never had any
>difficulty hear ATC due to ambiant noise.

Now guys don't get too hung up on ANR please :-)

I'm sure it's very successful but like Emily said they're expensive
and use batteries which adds another weak point in the system. I've
been flying for 15 years and don't find a problem with passive
headsets, except for the discomfort due to pressure on the side of my
head sometimes and the fact I wear glasses. Understanding ATC is not a
problem unless they have a problem. Usually talking too quiet, to loud
and causing overload or UK military who at times are readability 2-3
(and I've told them they are!).

Most of my UK flights are only up to 3 hours and my longest flight was
from Stella Maris in the Bahamas to Fort Pierce in Florida. With
strong headwinds that was 4.75 hours and I don't remember a problem
with the headset. Not sure my Wife would agree but she uses a
Sigtronics headset.

Going back to my initial request I'm looking for a reasonable cost
headset and would appreciate helpful good and bad points as were
originally made.

I think I prefer Gel earseals but I see 'Pilot, PA-1171T' say
leatherette soft seals - what is that and how do they compare?

Thanks,
David
Scotland UK

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Emily > wrote:

> > What's not to like about them?
>
> They're expensive, heavy, and require batteries.

expensive? - yes.
Heavy? no. at least not too heavy for my comfort
batteries? - no. I put the power module in my cherokee.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Emily]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >,
> Emily > wrote:
>
>>> What's not to like about them?
>> They're expensive, heavy, and require batteries.
>
> expensive? - yes.
> Heavy? no. at least not too heavy for my comfort
> batteries? - no. I put the power module in my cherokee.

Not an option for renters or instructors.

[john smith]

In article >,
wrote:

> I think I prefer Gel earseals but I see 'Pilot, PA-1171T' say
> leatherette soft seals - what is that and how do they compare?

Check out the Marv Golden's, also.

[john smith]

This from rec.aviation.piloting...

http://www.sportys.com/acb/showdetl.cfm?&did=19&product_id=10370

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 03:43:29 GMT, john smith > wrote:

>This from rec.aviation.piloting...
>
>http://www.sportys.com/acb/showdetl.cfm?&did=19&product_id=10370

Very nice but $799 is a lot to justify!

I was thinking nearer $200 or $300 if pushed.

From comments so far I think the follwoing are becoming my main
requirements:

Not too heavy
Electret Mike
Soft Gel ear seals
Wire mike boom, or partial wire, not fully flexible
External audio for checklist looks useful
Reasonable cost

In other words all singing-all dancing but cost nothing!!!!

David

[Kingfish]

wrote:
>
> From comments so far I think the follwoing are becoming my main
> requirements:
>
> Not too heavy
> Electret Mike
> Soft Gel ear seals
> Wire mike boom, or partial wire, not fully flexible
> External audio for checklist looks useful
> Reasonable cost
>
> In other words all singing-all dancing but cost nothing!!!!
>

That sounds like the Sig S-40. I bought one as a student in '95 then
picked up a DC H10 13.4 about 3 years ago (I like the flex boom). My
only squawk about the DC is that I get a bit of a headache at the 2hr
mark.
After flying in the Pilatus with the Bose X I'm now spoiled, but
there's no freakin' way I'm spending $995 for a headset. Sennheiser's
HMEC 25 is as good as the Bose for $300 less, but it's still not a
cheap buy. ANR is less of an issue in a turboprop I suppose but for
pistons I think a good passive headset would be sufficient for most
folks' purposes.

[GeorgeC]

You have to go try on the headsets. It's the only way to tell the right one for
you. Ideally go fly with one, to see how it works for real. To me, buying a
headset is personal, like clothes or stereo's. I wear jeans or shorts almost all
of the time, but I know people who don't own either.

I had a sergeant (who is an audiophile) tell my once you can't go by the spec's.
You have to go listen to them (stereo's). If you can't tell the different
between a $200 stereo and $1000 stereo, save yourself 800 bucks.

Go try the headset on and fly them. If the dealer won't let you, try borrowing
some from friends.




On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 00:08:13 +0100, wrote:


>Going back to my initial request I'm looking for a reasonable cost
>headset and would appreciate helpful good and bad points as were
>originally made.
>
>I think I prefer Gel earseals but I see 'Pilot, PA-1171T' say
>leatherette soft seals - what is that and how do they compare?
>
>Thanks,
>David
>Scotland UK

GeorgeC

[Thomas Borchert]

Emily,

> They're expensive, heavy, and require batteries.
>

Look again - at all of the factors you mention.

Expensive? You can get excellent ANR at a price below the passive DCs.
Heavy? Pure BS. The top-end Lightspeed is lighter than the passive DC,
not to mention the featherlight Bose.
Batteries? well, tere is one model powered of the mic power, there are
on-board powered variants, and the battery models run 20 to 50 hours on
2 AAs. Who cares?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

> like Emily said they're expensive
> and use batteries which adds another weak point in the system.
>

No, they're not. and how are batteries a "weak point"?

I don't get hung up on ANR, I just hate it when people judge things
with no basis in facts. ;-)

My advice: Get a Marv Golden or Avshop branded version of the
Lightspeed QFR XCc for 250 $ or so. ANR, lightweight, cheap. If you're
in the UK, you can get them in Europe, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 21:45:21 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>> like Emily said they're expensive
>> and use batteries which adds another weak point in the system.
>>
>
>No, they're not. and how are batteries a "weak point"?
>

I was thinking of extra wiring being vulnerable and possible flat
battery. However I now see some include auto-shut-off.

>I don't get hung up on ANR, I just hate it when people judge things
>with no basis in facts. ;-)
>

Sorry if you misundertood me, I wasn't getting at you personally, I
just wanted to stay on topic and not have a battle of passive/ANR.

>My advice: Get a Marv Golden or Avshop branded version of the
>Lightspeed QFR XCc for 250 $ or so. ANR, lightweight, cheap. If you're
>in the UK, you can get them in Europe, too.

That's interesting. I haven't really looked at 'cheap' ANR but these
two are looking good. Now you've got me thinking again. My only
remaining reservation is reliability.

The reviews of the 'AvShop Design A450 ANR' seem favourable but some
problem with slipping and not gel seals also a comment about a problem
with the sliding volume controls.

The Marv Golden MG-ANR seems to have the edge but I would still like
to know more about the 'Leatherette Ear Seals'. It appears not ot have
auto-shut-off?

At $250 I'm much more interested as long as I'm not getting poor
quality at the expense of performance.

As for trying headsets I'd love to but I'm a long way from anywhere in
the UK that has a pilot shop. The only slight chance of trying
anything will be next year when I'm in Honolulu, but I don't hold out
much hope of a wide choice!

David

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:
> > the claims that
> > ANR protects your hearing better than passive attenuation
> >
>
> Who exactly claims that? All claims I've seen relate to total noise
> reduction. And we can probably all agree that less overall noise is
> better both for your hearing (where higher frequencies are more
> dangerous) and your comfort (where lower frequencies play a big part).
> ANR headsets (most, that is) offer dramatically lower total noise.
>
> What's not to like about them?


ANR has no effect on higher frequencies, where noise-induced hearing
loss is most likely. Worse yet, some ANR headsets provide almost no
passive attenuation.

I will agree that ANR does provide for a more comfortable ride.


JKG

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> Emily,
>
> > They're expensive, heavy, and require batteries.
> >
>
> Look again - at all of the factors you mention.
>
> Expensive? You can get excellent ANR at a price below the passive DCs.
> Heavy? Pure BS. The top-end Lightspeed is lighter than the passive DC,
> not to mention the featherlight Bose.
> Batteries? well, tere is one model powered of the mic power, there are
> on-board powered variants, and the battery models run 20 to 50 hours on
> 2 AAs. Who cares?


The top-end Lightspeed, the 30-3G, is around 16 ounces, with some of the
middle-grade Lightspeeds weighing in at around 20 ounces. Quite a bit
more than the DC 10-13.4, at around 13.4 ounces.

Batteries are an inconvenience, but the battery life on most ANR sets
these days seems to be decent. There's always the panel-power option,
though that removes the flexibility to move the headset into another
aircraft.



JKG

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
real_name > wrote:
> > ANR doesn't affect your ability to hear the engine, but the claims that
> > ANR protects your hearing better than passive attenuation have no proven
> > scientific support. ANR is little more than a comfort/convenience item,
> > and certainly not a safety item.
>
> When ANR allows me to hear the radio better, it most certainly
> contributes to safety. It's not flight-critical, but still...

I don't know, I've flown quite a few different aircraft--include
twins--and never had a problem hearing the radio using my passive DC
10-20 headset. I also don't consider the radio to be a safety item.


JKG

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Jonathan Goodish > wrote:

> I also don't consider the radio to be a safety item.

N12345 traffic 12 o'clock, opposite direction, same altitude


While it's aviate, navigate, and THEN communicate, there are
most definitely hazards mitigated by the radio.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Jonathan Goodish > wrote:

> There's always the panel-power option,
> though that removes the flexibility to move the headset into another
> aircraft.

Not always. My DC ANR set has a battery pack as well as the ability to plug into
the panel-mounted power module.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Emily]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >,
> Jonathan Goodish > wrote:
>
>> I also don't consider the radio to be a safety item.
>
> N12345 traffic 12 o'clock, opposite direction, same altitude

You must be using a pretty ****ty passive headset if you can't make that
out.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Emily > wrote:

> >> I also don't consider the radio to be a safety item.
> >
> > N12345 traffic 12 o'clock, opposite direction, same altitude
>
> You must be using a pretty ****ty passive headset if you can't make that
> out.

I only claimed that I can hear the radio *better* with ANR. Not once
did I claim I couldn't hear. YMMV.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Thomas Borchert]

> The reviews of the 'AvShop Design A450 ANR' seem favourable but some
> problem with slipping and not gel seals also a comment about a problem
> with the sliding volume controls.
>
> The Marv Golden MG-ANR seems to have the edge but I would still like
> to know more about the 'Leatherette Ear Seals'. It appears not ot have
> auto-shut-off?
>


They should be the exact same headsets. The seals are made of ConFor
Foam which gets soft with body temperature. Seals quite well, IMHO. They
should have auto-shutoff, too.

As for trying: How about money-back guarantees?

If you like, send me an e-mail and I could send you some further
information pertaining to this.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 09:40:54 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>> The reviews of the 'AvShop Design A450 ANR' seem favourable but some
>> problem with slipping and not gel seals also a comment about a problem
>> with the sliding volume controls.
>>
>> The Marv Golden MG-ANR seems to have the edge but I would still like
>> to know more about the 'Leatherette Ear Seals'. It appears not ot have
>> auto-shut-off?
>>
>
>
>They should be the exact same headsets. The seals are made of ConFor
>Foam which gets soft with body temperature. Seals quite well, IMHO. They
>should have auto-shutoff, too.
>
>As for trying: How about money-back guarantees?
>
>If you like, send me an e-mail and I could send you some further
>information pertaining to this.

Thanks, e-mail on its way.

David

[KevinBlack]

Price really isn't an issue any more (the gap between ANR and Passive is
almost negligable). Whilst I have the LS 30-3G, I would have considered the
Made in USA DRE 60000 (look like black DC13.4s) at $279 from Avionics West
if I knew they existed. Good reviews, but no personal experience. Avionics
West have a review on their website.

Personally (note and emphasise personal opinion) ANR leaves passive for
dead. I really liked my DCH20-10, but they do not come close to the
LS25XL/LS 30-3G as far as audio and comfort. I wouldn't go back to passive
unless there were no ANR sets available. Money well spent (and cheap
really) IMHO.

YMMV,



> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 21:45:21 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> > wrote:
>
>>> like Emily said they're expensive
>>> and use batteries which adds another weak point in the system.
>>>
>>
>>No, they're not. and how are batteries a "weak point"?
>>
>
> I was thinking of extra wiring being vulnerable and possible flat
> battery. However I now see some include auto-shut-off.
>
>>I don't get hung up on ANR, I just hate it when people judge things
>>with no basis in facts. ;-)
>>
>
> Sorry if you misundertood me, I wasn't getting at you personally, I
> just wanted to stay on topic and not have a battle of passive/ANR.
>
>>My advice: Get a Marv Golden or Avshop branded version of the
>>Lightspeed QFR XCc for 250 $ or so. ANR, lightweight, cheap. If you're
>>in the UK, you can get them in Europe, too.
>
> That's interesting. I haven't really looked at 'cheap' ANR but these
> two are looking good. Now you've got me thinking again. My only
> remaining reservation is reliability.
>
> The reviews of the 'AvShop Design A450 ANR' seem favourable but some
> problem with slipping and not gel seals also a comment about a problem
> with the sliding volume controls.
>
> The Marv Golden MG-ANR seems to have the edge but I would still like
> to know more about the 'Leatherette Ear Seals'. It appears not ot have
> auto-shut-off?
>
> At $250 I'm much more interested as long as I'm not getting poor
> quality at the expense of performance.
>
> As for trying headsets I'd love to but I'm a long way from anywhere in
> the UK that has a pilot shop. The only slight chance of trying
> anything will be next year when I'm in Honolulu, but I don't hold out
> much hope of a wide choice!
>
> David

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

KevinBlack wrote:
> Personally (note and emphasise personal opinion) ANR leaves passive for
> dead. I really liked my DCH20-10, but they do not come close to the
> LS25XL/LS 30-3G as far as audio and comfort. I wouldn't go back to passive
> unless there were no ANR sets available. Money well spent (and cheap
> really) IMHO.


http://www.marvgolden.com/headsets/mg40.htm (Scroll down to the general
aviation headset)
If you want bang for the buck, try the $79 Marv Golden David Clark 10-40
clones. I was very favorably impressed with them; particularly when I think of
what I paid for my DC 10-80 headset. Nice and clear sounding and it doesn't
squash my fat head (which the real DC 10-40 did).

What kills me is I could have had 4 of them for what I paid for the DC. Water
under the bridge.... I can't justify ANR until the DC dies though.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "KevinBlack" > said:
>Personally (note and emphasise personal opinion) ANR leaves passive for
>dead. I really liked my DCH20-10, but they do not come close to the
>LS25XL/LS 30-3G as far as audio and comfort. I wouldn't go back to passive
>unless there were no ANR sets available. Money well spent (and cheap
>really) IMHO.

Man, that's true. I got the Headsets Inc conversion for my DC10-13.4s,
and I'm pretty happy with them. I was on an instrument training flight
soon after I got them, and my instructor noticed I was having problems
hearing the radio and him - then I noticed I'd forgotten to turn on the
ANR. Once it was on, problem solved.

That's when I was flying a four cylinder Archer. Now that I'm flying a
six cylinder Lance, I never forget to turn on the ANR because it's just
not fun flying behind that much noise.

I once saw an article from Flying Magazine in the 70s when people were
debating whether headsets were a good thing or not. Many of the same
arguments being made against ANR now were being made against headsets back
then. Especially the one about "not being able to hear the engine and
wind noise as well".

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
....if you squeeze a MS product into a small enough memory footprint there may
not be sufficient space for it to fall over, thus giving the impression it's
reliable. -- Geoff Lane

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Bob Noel > wrote:

> In article >,
> Jonathan Goodish > wrote:
>
> > I also don't consider the radio to be a safety item.
>
> N12345 traffic 12 o'clock, opposite direction, same altitude
>
>
> While it's aviate, navigate, and THEN communicate, there are
> most definitely hazards mitigated by the radio.

Not really. Radio position reports are often missing, or they are
simply incorrect as pilots don't give accurate position reports. I
NEVER rely on radio position reports for anything. Nothing provides the
level safety of two (or more) eyeballs. At most, all radio position
reports do is remind you to do what you should be doing anyway--looking
for traffic.


JKG

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Bob Noel > wrote:

> In article >,
> Jonathan Goodish > wrote:
>
> > There's always the panel-power option,
> > though that removes the flexibility to move the headset into another
> > aircraft.
>
> Not always. My DC ANR set has a battery pack as well as the ability to plug
> into
> the panel-mounted power module.

As does the Headsets, Inc. upgrade kit for the DCs. However, most sets
with panel power don't seem to have this flexibility.



JKG

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Bob Noel > wrote:
> > > N12345 traffic 12 o'clock, opposite direction, same altitude
> >
> > You must be using a pretty ****ty passive headset if you can't make that
> > out.
>
> I only claimed that I can hear the radio *better* with ANR. Not once
> did I claim I couldn't hear. YMMV.


Your implication seems to be that hearing the radio "better" somehow
makes you "safer" over just being able to hear the radio. That's
nonsense.

Some of you folks should have marketing jobs with the ANR headset
manufacturers. I'm not saying that ANR is a bad thing, but it's
certainly way, way, way over-hyped and the benefits are greatly
exaggerated.



JKG

[Allen]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> I'm not saying that ANR is a bad thing, but it's
> certainly way, way, way over-hyped and the benefits are greatly
> exaggerated.
>
>
>
> JKG

In your opinion. That is not the case in my experience.

allen

[Thomas Borchert]

Paul,

> hen I noticed I'd forgotten to turn on the
> ANR. Once it was on, problem solved.
>

Ah, score another point against ANR <gd&r>.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jonathan,

> Some of you folks should have marketing jobs with the ANR headset
> manufacturers. I'm not saying that ANR is a bad thing, but it's
> certainly way, way, way over-hyped and the benefits are greatly
> exaggerated.
>

Maybe we just disagree with your view/experience. No reason to throw
out personal insults (being accused of being a marketing type certainly
counts ;-)). And no reason to use words like "certainly" where it
certainly ain't certain.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:06:56 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Paul,
>
>> hen I noticed I'd forgotten to turn on the
>> ANR. Once it was on, problem solved.
>>
>
>Ah, score another point against ANR <gd&r>.

Since I'm getting swayed towards ANR do any of the cheaper sets have a
problem when wearing glasses or do the ear seals accommodate?

I'm now looking at:

Marv Golden MG-ANR
Marv Golden Golden Eagle
Lightspeed QFRXCC
Avshop A450 ANR

Further usefull comments appreciated.

David

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:
> > Some of you folks should have marketing jobs with the ANR headset
> > manufacturers. I'm not saying that ANR is a bad thing, but it's
> > certainly way, way, way over-hyped and the benefits are greatly
> > exaggerated.
> >
>
> Maybe we just disagree with your view/experience. No reason to throw
> out personal insults (being accused of being a marketing type certainly
> counts ;-)). And no reason to use words like "certainly" where it
> certainly ain't certain.

Until I see documented proof that there are "safety" or medical
benefits, the over-hype in those regards surely is certain.


JKG

[B A R R Y]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

>
> Not really. Radio position reports are often missing, or they are
> simply incorrect as pilots don't give accurate position reports. I
> NEVER rely on radio position reports for anything.

I really like when you call someone who just gave a position report for
more detail or clarification, and they never answer. <G>

Just recently, I heard someone give MY exact position, including
altitude! Three unanswered requests later, I finally visually picked
them out on the opposite side of the airport. They meant 4 miles EAST,
instead of 4 miles WEST. Boy, did I sit up and take notice when I heard
their call.

[Thomas Borchert]

Jonathan,

> Until I see documented proof that there are "safety" or medical
> benefits,
>

Well, in my view, a documented reduction in overall noise (including
higher frequencies) compared to only passive headsets is plenty enough.
And that proof exists in abundance. What would you be satisfied with?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

> Since I'm getting swayed towards ANR do any of the cheaper sets have a
> problem when wearing glasses or do the ear seals accommodate?
>

I'm wearing glasses with relatively thin wire frames - no problem with
that. Don't know about thicker frames.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[john smith]

> >> hen I noticed I'd forgotten to turn on the
> >> ANR. Once it was on, problem solved.

> >Ah, score another point against ANR <gd&r>.

> Since I'm getting swayed towards ANR do any of the cheaper sets have a
> problem when wearing glasses or do the ear seals accommodate?
> Further usefull comments appreciated.

Keep in mind that with ANR, if you do not get a good seal with the
earcups, the ANR will produce unusual results.

[KevinBlack]

I wear glasses with thin wire frame, LS 30-3G/LS25XL no problems. If you
turn your head at an unusual angle (with or without glasses) you will get
some noise, but you need to contort your head to break the seal.

I'd still look at the DRE60000 on a price performance basis. The headsets
inc people have built their own EM-1 for about $399, but this is getting up
in price.

Cheers,
kevin


> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:06:56 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> > wrote:
>
>>Paul,
>>
>>> hen I noticed I'd forgotten to turn on the
>>> ANR. Once it was on, problem solved.
>>>
>>
>>Ah, score another point against ANR <gd&r>.
>
> Since I'm getting swayed towards ANR do any of the cheaper sets have a
> problem when wearing glasses or do the ear seals accommodate?
>
> I'm now looking at:
>
> Marv Golden MG-ANR
> Marv Golden Golden Eagle
> Lightspeed QFRXCC
> Avshop A450 ANR
>
> Further usefull comments appreciated.
>
> David

[Morgans]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote

> Batteries are an inconvenience,

So are you, with your continued arguing about nothing.

Plonk! Again!
--
Jim in NC

[john smith]

Read the ANR specs carefully for the frequencies/range that is
attenuated and by how much.
eg... Headsets Inc says 18-21 dB at 250 Hz.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> "Jonathan Goodish" > wrote
>
> > Batteries are an inconvenience,
>
> So are you, with your continued arguing about nothing.
>
> Plonk! Again!


I'm so glad that you were able to step in and provide some constructive
information for everyone.



JKG

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 16:19:14 +1000, "KevinBlack" >
wrote:

>I wear glasses with thin wire frame, LS 30-3G/LS25XL no problems. If you
>turn your head at an unusual angle (with or without glasses) you will get
>some noise, but you need to contort your head to break the seal.
>

My glasses have quite thin frames so hopefully not a problem, I also
sometimes use the gap seals which may also help.

>I'd still look at the DRE60000 on a price performance basis. The headsets
>inc people have built their own EM-1 for about $399, but this is getting up
>in price.
>
>Cheers,
>kevin

I think you mean the DR6000, looks good but does not appear to have
auto shut off or auxiliary/cellphone input.

I really prefer not to have the fully flexible mike boom which seems
to rule out the SoftComm C-200 ANR, it also doesn't have auto battery
off. Does claim -19db ANR.

Further thoughts so far:

>> Marv Golden MG-ANR
Not auto battery off but -19db ANR

>> Marv Golden Golden Eagle
Appears same as below
>> Lightspeed QFRXCC
Flexible mike boom & only claim -10 to -12db ANR

>> Avshop A450 ANR
Flexible mike boom & only claim -10 to -12db ANR


David

[Newps]

Morgans wrote:

> "Jonathan Goodish" > wrote
>
>
>>Batteries are an inconvenience,
>
>
> So are you, with your continued arguing about nothing.
>
> Plonk! Again!

So Plonk doesn't really mean anything if you're doing it again. What a
moron.

[Morgans]

"Newps" > wrote
>
> So Plonk doesn't really mean anything if you're doing it again. What a
> moron.

Every year or so, I give everyone in the "plonk file" a new chance, to see
if they have changed.

I see you haven't.
--
Jim in NC

[KevinBlack]

David,

> I think you mean the DR6000, looks good but does not appear to have
> auto shut off or auxiliary/cellphone input.

Correct, but then at US$279 you get a pretty robust headset. The cell phone
adapters are phone specific, cannot get one for my phone. And the music
connection isn't a biggie for me, YMMV.

Cheers,
Kevin

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 19:52:01 +1000, "KevinBlack" >
wrote:

>David,
>
>> I think you mean the DR6000, looks good but does not appear to have
>> auto shut off or auxiliary/cellphone input.
>
>Correct, but then at US$279 you get a pretty robust headset. The cell phone
>adapters are phone specific, cannot get one for my phone. And the music
>connection isn't a biggie for me, YMMV.
>
>Cheers,
>Kevin
>

Thanks Kevin.

I'm looking for robust, although I am very careful!

I don't actually need a specific cellphone connection but the input
will allow an audio checklist (I hope). At the moment I'm leaning
towards the Marv Golden MG-ANR which seems to have good active
attenuation. What I can't tell over the internet is build quality. If
anybody has any useful comments on the MG-ANR they would be
appreciated.

David

[Chris Ehlbeck]

>
> Thanks Kevin.
>
> I'm looking for robust, although I am very careful!
>
> I don't actually need a specific cellphone connection but the input
> will allow an audio checklist (I hope). At the moment I'm leaning
> towards the Marv Golden MG-ANR which seems to have good active
> attenuation. What I can't tell over the internet is build quality. If
> anybody has any useful comments on the MG-ANR they would be
> appreciated.
>
> David

David,

The MG-ANR Golden Eagle Series appear to be Lightspeed headsets. Quite a
few retailers are selling the same sets, branded for their store. I've seen
them at Avshop and Aircraft Spruce also.

The "classic" MG-ANR looks to be Flightcom or Softcom.
--
Chris Ehlbeck, PP-ASEL
"It's a license to learn, have fun and buy really expensive hamburgers."