Re: Stepping back from ANR

[skym]

B A R R Y wrote:
> ...
> Those of you who say good ANR is a waste of money must already be
> deaf.
>
> For those of you that have made the leap, use your old set again one
> of these days! <G>

One of my cheapo passive headsets that I use for the 3d passenger
recently died (in one ear). I'm toying with the idea of getting an ANR
set to replace it (for me, of course, and the others all get relegated
to passenger use). I've only sampled the effects of ANR in my avionics
shop, when the owner had me try it in the shop one day "just for fun"
(good active selling technique). It's nice, very nice...but my
question is this : I like to hear the engine just a bit since a little
change in the sound or hiccup can signal an upcoming problem of
potentially serious consequence, and gets my attention very fast. How
well do the ANR sets let me hear a little engine sound for peace of
mind? The cost of a decent ANR set is significantly more than a very
good passive set, and I just don't want to give up safety for
comfort/convenience.

[Newps]

Well come and fly with me tomorrow, I'll let you try mine. Bring
whatever you have and you can try my Bose(latest generation) and the
Lightspeed QFR XCc. Meet me at T hangar number 4 at 8:45 am.

skym wrote:

> B A R R Y wrote:
>
>>...
>>Those of you who say good ANR is a waste of money must already be
>>deaf.
>>
>>For those of you that have made the leap, use your old set again one
>>of these days! <G>
>
>
> One of my cheapo passive headsets that I use for the 3d passenger
> recently died (in one ear). I'm toying with the idea of getting an ANR
> set to replace it (for me, of course, and the others all get relegated
> to passenger use). I've only sampled the effects of ANR in my avionics
> shop, when the owner had me try it in the shop one day "just for fun"
> (good active selling technique). It's nice, very nice...but my
> question is this : I like to hear the engine just a bit since a little
> change in the sound or hiccup can signal an upcoming problem of
> potentially serious consequence, and gets my attention very fast. How
> well do the ANR sets let me hear a little engine sound for peace of
> mind? The cost of a decent ANR set is significantly more than a very
> good passive set, and I just don't want to give up safety for
> comfort/convenience.
>

[Morgans[_4_]]

"skym" > wrote

> I like to hear the engine just a bit since a little
> change in the sound or hiccup can signal an upcoming problem of
> potentially serious consequence, and gets my attention very fast. How
> well do the ANR sets let me hear a little engine sound for peace of
> mind? The cost of a decent ANR set is significantly more than a very
> good passive set, and I just don't want to give up safety for
> comfort/convenience.

You: a) don't read the group very much b) don't believe what others have
written on this subject c) don't have good reading comprehension or
retention. <g>

All kidding aside, I can't recall anyone posting on this exact subject
"*ever* saying anything OTHER than the fact that they can hear changes in
the engine much, much better than they ever could before, comparing this
fact with either passive headsets, or to wearing no hearing protection.

Get them. Lost hearing can not ever be replaced, and take it from me -
being half deaf, kinda sucks! Tinitus- the constant ringing in your
ears -which I also have- also does not go away. Mine is *as loud* as a
conversation spoken at normal volumes, perhaps from only across a medium
sized room. Hearing aids don't even help that. All you can do is turn them
up loud enough to drown out the multiple pitched ringing noise in your head.

You are never too young to protect your back, and your hearing. I dearly
wish someone had impressed those facts to me, loudly and often, when I was
young.
--
Jim in NC
--
Jim in NC

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:
> You are never too young to protect your back, and your hearing. I dearly
> wish someone had impressed those facts to me, loudly and often, when I was
> young.


There is zero evidence that ANR does anything to prevent hearing loss
over and above a good passive headset. If you can't cite clinical data
to substantiate such an important claim, it it quite irresponsible to
make such a claim.



JKG

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
B A R R Y > wrote:

> Trust me... You hear EVERYTHING, only better.
>
> The "ANR will hide a problem" is a total fallacy, spread by the
> unknowing.

um, I didn't notice the open door on my cherokee until I was
wondering about the excess breeze.

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

[Morgans[_4_]]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote
>
> There is zero evidence that ANR does anything to prevent hearing loss
> over and above a good passive headset. If you can't cite clinical data
> to substantiate such an important claim, it it quite irresponsible to
> make such a claim.

Simply because ANR has not been around long enough for any long term studies
to have taken place.

If the total decibel reduction ratings are higher for an ANR unit versus a
passive unit, would that not be a pretty darn good reason to believe that
they will result in less hearing loss?

How about the fact that ANR users report being able to hear com traffic much
more clearly? What happens if you can not hear ATC clearly? Most would
turn up the volume, so they can make the conversation out against the
background noise. The loud com blaring in the ears would be another cause
of hearing loss that is not ever even factored into the decibel ratings of
headsets.

I think that it is just as irresponsible or more irresponsible to make
claims or imply that passive is just as good as ANR, when there are no long
term studies to show that they are equal to the protection that ANR
provides.
--
Jim in NC

[Sylvain]

skym wrote:

> question is this : I like to hear the engine just a bit since a little
> change in the sound or hiccup can signal an upcoming problem of
> potentially serious consequence, and gets my attention very fast. How
> well do the ANR sets let me hear a little engine sound for peace of
> mind?

a heck of a lot better than a passive headset; anything which is not
the usual drone can be heard a lot clearer, and you'll be less likely
to miss it; besides, at the end of a long flight, you'll be less
likely to be tired and more likely to deal with the snag correctly (IMHO
and all that)

--Sylvain

[Thomas Borchert]

Skym,

> How
> well do the ANR sets let me hear a little engine sound for peace of
> mind?

Very. It's a total non-issue, a made-up argument by headset companies
back when they didn't have an ANR model in their line-up, and by old
cots not liking any change.

> The cost of a decent ANR set is significantly more than a very
> good passive set,

Not really. In fact, not at all. Let's say a "very good passive set" is
of the DC brand (I couldn't agree less, but...). That will set you
back, what, 400, 500 bucks? For that, you'll be the proud owner of a
Lightspeed 20XLc and have a 100-$-burger left. Go with a QFR XCc (or
one of its pilot shop branded cousins) and you'll have two of those
burgers left.

"ANR is way more expensive" is just as much of a myth as "You can't
hear the engine quitting with ANR".

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
B A R R Y > wrote:

> The last time I flew with a PA-28 with an open door, I was still
> wearing passives, and I think I would have noticed the changes
> regardless of what was strapped to my head. <G>

I've had a door open twice. The first time I had a passive headset.
The second time was a few months after getting the ANR. Believe
me, I was shocked that I couldn't hear that the door was open.

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

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Morgans" >
wrote:

> > There is zero evidence that ANR does anything to prevent hearing loss
> > over and above a good passive headset. If you can't cite clinical data
> > to substantiate such an important claim, it it quite irresponsible to
> > make such a claim.
>
> Simply because ANR has not been around long enough for any long term studies
> to have taken place.
>
> If the total decibel reduction ratings are higher for an ANR unit versus a
> passive unit, would that not be a pretty darn good reason to believe that
> they will result in less hearing loss?

But if a passive unit lowers the decibels sufficiently, then the pilot won't
suffer hearing loss. In that case, the better performance of the ANR won't
help. (don't get me wrong - you can have my ANR headset when you
pry it from my cold dead fingers).

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

[John Galban]

Bob Noel wrote:
>
> I've had a door open twice. The first time I had a passive headset.
> The second time was a few months after getting the ANR. Believe
> me, I was shocked that I couldn't hear that the door was open.
>

I'm surprised. When the door is cracked on my Cherokee, the loud
wind noise activates the mic on my headseat and it's readily apparent.
I have to crank up the squelch on the intercom in order to hear
anything on the radio. I suppose if you didn't have an intercom
(i.e. just a straight connection to the radios), that wouldn't happen.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"John Galban" > wrote:

> > I've had a door open twice. The first time I had a passive headset.
> > The second time was a few months after getting the ANR. Believe
> > me, I was shocked that I couldn't hear that the door was open.
> >
>
> I'm surprised. When the door is cracked on my Cherokee, the loud
> wind noise activates the mic on my headseat and it's readily apparent.
> I have to crank up the squelch on the intercom in order to hear
> anything on the radio. I suppose if you didn't have an intercom
> (i.e. just a straight connection to the radios), that wouldn't happen.

could be... I was solo - no intercom. No one to blame but me for failing to
properly secure the door.

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

[[email protected]]

OK, I'll be there with my trusty DCs. But, how do I get through that
locked gate to your hanger? My passcard expired when I moved down to
the hanger I'm now in by Edwards One.
Newps wrote:
> Well come and fly with me tomorrow, I'll let you try mine. Bring
> whatever you have and you can try my Bose(latest generation) and the
> Lightspeed QFR XCc. Meet me at T hangar number 4 at 8:45 am.
>
> skym wrote:
>
> > B A R R Y wrote:
> >
> >>...
> >>Those of you who say good ANR is a waste of money must already be
> >>deaf.
> >>
> >>For those of you that have made the leap, use your old set again one
> >>of these days! <G>
> >
> >
> > One of my cheapo passive headsets that I use for the 3d passenger
> > recently died (in one ear). I'm toying with the idea of getting an ANR
> > set to replace it (for me, of course, and the others all get relegated
> > to passenger use). I've only sampled the effects of ANR in my avionics
> > shop, when the owner had me try it in the shop one day "just for fun"
> > (good active selling technique). It's nice, very nice...but my
> > question is this : I like to hear the engine just a bit since a little
> > change in the sound or hiccup can signal an upcoming problem of
> > potentially serious consequence, and gets my attention very fast. How
> > well do the ANR sets let me hear a little engine sound for peace of
> > mind? The cost of a decent ANR set is significantly more than a very
> > good passive set, and I just don't want to give up safety for
> > comfort/convenience.
> >

[john smith]

The new DC X11 has a street price of $799.
A friend can get the Bose for the same price through some kind of
professional discount.
So which is better?

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

john smith wrote:
> The new DC X11 has a street price of $799.
> A friend can get the Bose for the same price through some kind of
> professional discount.
> So which is better?


Bose has a 30 day satisfaction guarantee. Does DC (or the dealer) offer
the same? If so, try them both. If not? I dunno, I've never tried
an X11. <G>

[Thomas Borchert]

John,

> So which is better?
>

The Lightspeed at under 600 <gd&r>

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:59:26 -0400, "Morgans" >
wrote:

>
>"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote
>>
>> There is zero evidence that ANR does anything to prevent hearing loss
>> over and above a good passive headset. If you can't cite clinical data
>> to substantiate such an important claim, it it quite irresponsible to
>> make such a claim.
>
>Simply because ANR has not been around long enough for any long term studies
>to have taken place.
>
>If the total decibel reduction ratings are higher for an ANR unit versus a
>passive unit, would that not be a pretty darn good reason to believe that
>they will result in less hearing loss?

Agreed. If I find the noise uncomfortable when I turn the ANR
function off that is a good *indication* in its favor.

>
>How about the fact that ANR users report being able to hear com traffic much
>more clearly? What happens if you can not hear ATC clearly? Most would

This brings up a memory from some years back. We were getting ready
to depart Muskegon (MI) after spending the afternoon wandering around
while they were getting set up for the Muskegon Air Fair.

We were setting at the hold line waiting for departure when some one
called in. The tower had to ask twice for a repeat, yet with the ANRs
I could hear them clearly. With the ANR function off, I could not
hear the other aircraft at all. I was easily able to relay to the
tower. I was able to hear the other plane clearly while the tower
couldn't. We were no more than half a mile from the tower and on the
ground.

>turn up the volume, so they can make the conversation out against the
>background noise. The loud com blaring in the ears would be another cause

That is what happened when I flew right seat in the twin. I had to
turn the gain up so high to hear over the noise that it hurt. At that
point I had to tell the pilot he was on his own and I sure wished I
have brought my own headset along.

>of hearing loss that is not ever even factored into the decibel ratings of
>headsets.
>
>I think that it is just as irresponsible or more irresponsible to make
>claims or imply that passive is just as good as ANR, when there are no long
>term studies to show that they are equal to the protection that ANR
>provides.

When you see the difference is over 10 to 15 db more reduction with
the ANR function turned on I'd think logic would dictate it'd be a no
brainer. OTOH I don't place much faith in advertising figures, but I
do place a lot of faith in what I hear (or rater don't) when I turn
that switch on.

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

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:05:45 -0700, Sylvain > wrote:

>skym wrote:
>
>> question is this : I like to hear the engine just a bit since a little
>> change in the sound or hiccup can signal an upcoming problem of
>> potentially serious consequence, and gets my attention very fast. How
>> well do the ANR sets let me hear a little engine sound for peace of
>> mind?
>
>a heck of a lot better than a passive headset; anything which is not
>the usual drone can be heard a lot clearer, and you'll be less likely
>to miss it; besides, at the end of a long flight, you'll be less
>likely to be tired and more likely to deal with the snag correctly (IMHO
>and all that)

Well, I'll admit my Telex set is one of the very early ANRs. By the
end of a 5 1/4 hour flight I had two handkerchiefs wrapped around that
thick head band, but still had two groves across the top of my head
that were getting pretty tender. They are a wee bit heavier than
today's crop. <:-))

We had been to visit my son in Georgia and stopped at Sporty's on the
way back. They loaded me up with head sets, I took them out to the
Deb and tried them in the plane one-at-a-time with the engine running.
Back then the Telex, which I purchased, seemed to be the most
effective.
>


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

[Roger[_4_]]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:18:09 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Skym,
>
>> How
>> well do the ANR sets let me hear a little engine sound for peace of
>> mind?
>
>Very. It's a total non-issue, a made-up argument by headset companies
>back when they didn't have an ANR model in their line-up, and by old
>cots not liking any change.
>
>> The cost of a decent ANR set is significantly more than a very
>> good passive set,
>
>Not really. In fact, not at all. Let's say a "very good passive set" is
>of the DC brand (I couldn't agree less, but...). That will set you
>back, what, 400, 500 bucks? For that, you'll be the proud owner of a
>Lightspeed 20XLc and have a 100-$-burger left. Go with a QFR XCc (or
>one of its pilot shop branded cousins) and you'll have two of those
>burgers left.
>
>"ANR is way more expensive" is just as much of a myth as "You can't
>hear the engine quitting with ANR".

ANR is one of those areas where you can get a good set for about the
same or less than a top of the line passive set or spend as much or
more than you want. Try, then buy, but don't buy with out trying.

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

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Roger > wrote:
> >I think that it is just as irresponsible or more irresponsible to make
> >claims or imply that passive is just as good as ANR, when there are no long
> >term studies to show that they are equal to the protection that ANR
> >provides.
>
> When you see the difference is over 10 to 15 db more reduction with
> the ANR function turned on I'd think logic would dictate it'd be a no
> brainer. OTOH I don't place much faith in advertising figures, but I
> do place a lot of faith in what I hear (or rater don't) when I turn
> that switch on.

Your logic is flawed. Human hearing is most prone to noise-induced
damage at higher frequencies, where ANR has no effect. In fact, in this
regard many passive sets provide more protection.

There have been long-term studies done on hearing protection afforded by
passive devices, which have been proven to significantly reduce the risk
of hearing loss. While I'm not suggesting that ANR devices are worse,
there is no data to suggest that they're better.



JKG

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

> Your logic is flawed. Human hearing is most prone to noise-induced
> damage at higher frequencies, where ANR has no effect. In fact, in this
> regard many passive sets provide more protection.

You may want to read:

http://www.anrheadsets.com/tutorial101-2.asp

for a primer on the different issues related to frequencies and
damage. Granted, LS has a vested interest in selling ANR headsets,
but the whole ANR tutorial seems to be well balanced and factual.

> There have been long-term studies done on hearing protection afforded by
> passive devices, which have been proven to significantly reduce the risk
> of hearing loss.

Absolutely correct. Almost any hearing protection is better than none.

> .... While I'm not suggesting that ANR devices are worse,
> there is no data to suggest that they're better.

Yes, there is - see the above reference.

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

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 21:19:11 -0400, Roger >
wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:18:09 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:
>
>>Skym,
>>
>>> How
>>> well do the ANR sets let me hear a little engine sound for peace of
>>> mind?
>>
>>Very. It's a total non-issue, a made-up argument by headset companies
>>back when they didn't have an ANR model in their line-up, and by old
>>cots not liking any change.
>>
>>> The cost of a decent ANR set is significantly more than a very
>>> good passive set,
>>
>>Not really. In fact, not at all. Let's say a "very good passive set" is
>>of the DC brand (I couldn't agree less, but...). That will set you
>>back, what, 400, 500 bucks? For that, you'll be the proud owner of a
>>Lightspeed 20XLc and have a 100-$-burger left. Go with a QFR XCc (or
>>one of its pilot shop branded cousins) and you'll have two of those
>>burgers left.
>>
>>"ANR is way more expensive" is just as much of a myth as "You can't
>>hear the engine quitting with ANR".
>
>ANR is one of those areas where you can get a good set for about the
>same or less than a top of the line passive set or spend as much or
>more than you want. Try, then buy, but don't buy with out trying.
>
>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>www.rogerhalstead.com

I've been looking at headsets recently and came to the conclusion that
the QFR XCC clone is a good compromise at $240. Compared to other ANR
headsets it has some of the highest passive attenuation though only
~10db electronic. If the electronics fail it should still be very
good.

By the way Roger you mentioned in a previous post that 3db was
half/double. I think you're still thinking of power not volts.
I assume ANR refers to volts so think 6db = half/double, or am I
getting rusty with all this?

David

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 18:22:41 +0100, wrote:

>On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 21:19:11 -0400, Roger >
>wrote:
>
<snip>
>
>I've been looking at headsets recently and came to the conclusion that
>the QFR XCC clone is a good compromise at $240. Compared to other ANR
>headsets it has some of the highest passive attenuation though only
>~10db electronic. If the electronics fail it should still be very
>good.
>
>By the way Roger you mentioned in a previous post that 3db was
>half/double. I think you're still thinking of power not volts.
>I assume ANR refers to volts so think 6db = half/double, or am I
>getting rusty with all this?

Sound (and our hearing) is logarithmic so I'm pretty sure that the 3
db holds for sound as it does for power.



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

[Thomas Borchert]

Jonathan,

> While I'm not suggesting that ANR devices are worse,
> there is no data to suggest that they're better.
>

My personal experience counts for a lot to me. The difference in
fatigue alone is dramatic.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 14:25:05 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)"
> wrote:

>On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 18:22:41 +0100, wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 21:19:11 -0400, Roger >
>>wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>
>>I've been looking at headsets recently and came to the conclusion that
>>the QFR XCC clone is a good compromise at $240. Compared to other ANR
>>headsets it has some of the highest passive attenuation though only
>>~10db electronic. If the electronics fail it should still be very
>>good.
>>
>>By the way Roger you mentioned in a previous post that 3db was
>>half/double. I think you're still thinking of power not volts.
>>I assume ANR refers to volts so think 6db = half/double, or am I
>>getting rusty with all this?
>
>Sound (and our hearing) is logarithmic so I'm pretty sure that the 3
>db holds for sound as it does for power.
>
>
>
>>
>>David
>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger, now you've got me thinking:-) As you say it's logarithmic but
if I'm not mistaken 10w to 100w =10dbw, 10v to 20v = 20dbv. I don't
know how ANR is measured so I'm guessing dba but it looks like double
= 6db. In an expample I found on the web and you compare say the Rifle
& Threshold of Pain there's 6db difference. That would suggest
headphones with say 26db passive attenuation would reduce the sound
level by a factor of 40. If you use 3db then it would be a factor well
over 500 which I think would be unrealistic.

Source of sound Sound pressure Sound pressure level
pascal dB re 20 µPa
=============================================
Rifle being fired at 1 m: 200 Pa = 140 dB
Threshold of pain: 100 Pa = 134 dB
Hearing damage during short term effect: 20 Pa = approx. 120 dB
Jet, 100 m distant: 6 – 200 Pa = 110 – 140 dB
Jack hammer, 1 m distant / discotheque: 2 Pa approx. 100 dB
Hearing damage during long-term effect: 6×10-1 Pa = approx. 90 dB

David (GM3RFA)

[[email protected]]

>
>Roger, now you've got me thinking:-) As you say it's logarithmic but
>if I'm not mistaken 10w to 100w =10dbw, 10v to 20v = 20dbv. I don't
>know how ANR is measured so I'm guessing dba but it looks like double
>= 6db. In an expample I found on the web and you compare say the Rifle
>& Threshold of Pain there's 6db difference. That would suggest
>headphones with say 26db passive attenuation would reduce the sound
>level by a factor of 40. If you use 3db then it would be a factor well
>over 500 which I think would be unrealistic.

>David (GM3RFA)

Oops!, that should have beeb a factor of 20 not 40

David

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 20:50:46 +0100, wrote:

>On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 14:25:05 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)"
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 18:22:41 +0100, wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 21:19:11 -0400, Roger >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>><snip>
>>>
>>>I've been looking at headsets recently and came to the conclusion that
>>>the QFR XCC clone is a good compromise at $240. Compared to other ANR
>>>headsets it has some of the highest passive attenuation though only
>>>~10db electronic. If the electronics fail it should still be very
>>>good.
>>>
>>>By the way Roger you mentioned in a previous post that 3db was
>>>half/double. I think you're still thinking of power not volts.
>>>I assume ANR refers to volts so think 6db = half/double, or am I
>>>getting rusty with all this?
>>
>>Sound (and our hearing) is logarithmic so I'm pretty sure that the 3
>>db holds for sound as it does for power.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>David
>>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Roger, now you've got me thinking:-) As you say it's logarithmic but
>if I'm not mistaken 10w to 100w =10dbw, 10v to 20v = 20dbv. I don't

That is correct, but sound is analogous to power not volts.


>know how ANR is measured so I'm guessing dba but it looks like double
>= 6db. In an expample I found on the web and you compare say the Rifle
>& Threshold of Pain there's 6db difference. That would suggest
>headphones with say 26db passive attenuation would reduce the sound
>level by a factor of 40. If you use 3db then it would be a factor well
>over 500 which I think would be unrealistic.
>
>Source of sound Sound pressure Sound pressure level
> pascal dB re 20 µPa
>=============================================
>Rifle being fired at 1 m: 200 Pa = 140 dB
>Threshold of pain: 100 Pa = 134 dB
>Hearing damage during short term effect: 20 Pa = approx. 120 dB
>Jet, 100 m distant: 6 – 200 Pa = 110 – 140 dB
>Jack hammer, 1 m distant / discotheque: 2 Pa approx. 100 dB
>Hearing damage during long-term effect: 6×10-1 Pa = approx. 90 dB

When I had a two blade prop on the Deb is was measured at 93 db at a
distance of one city block and full RPM. So you can see why the
neighbors off the end of 18 complained when I'd go over at roughly 300
feet on climb out at full power. <:-))
>
>David (GM3RFA)
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 05:14:25 -0400, Roger >
wrote:

>On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 20:50:46 +0100, wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 14:25:05 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)"
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 18:22:41 +0100, wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 21:19:11 -0400, Roger >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>I've been looking at headsets recently and came to the conclusion that
>>>>the QFR XCC clone is a good compromise at $240. Compared to other ANR
>>>>headsets it has some of the highest passive attenuation though only
>>>>~10db electronic. If the electronics fail it should still be very
>>>>good.
>>>>
>>>>By the way Roger you mentioned in a previous post that 3db was
>>>>half/double. I think you're still thinking of power not volts.
>>>>I assume ANR refers to volts so think 6db = half/double, or am I
>>>>getting rusty with all this?
>>>
>>>Sound (and our hearing) is logarithmic so I'm pretty sure that the 3
>>>db holds for sound as it does for power.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>David
>>>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>>www.rogerhalstead.com
>>
>>Roger, now you've got me thinking:-) As you say it's logarithmic but
>>if I'm not mistaken 10w to 100w =10dbw, 10v to 20v = 20dbv. I don't
>
>That is correct, but sound is analogous to power not volts.
>
>
>>know how ANR is measured so I'm guessing dba but it looks like double
>>= 6db. In an expample I found on the web and you compare say the Rifle
>>& Threshold of Pain there's 6db difference. That would suggest
>>headphones with say 26db passive attenuation would reduce the sound
>>level by a factor of 40. If you use 3db then it would be a factor well
>>over 500 which I think would be unrealistic.
>>
>>Source of sound Sound pressure Sound pressure level
>> pascal dB re 20 µPa
>>=============================================
>>Rifle being fired at 1 m: 200 Pa = 140 dB
>>Threshold of pain: 100 Pa = 134 dB
>>Hearing damage during short term effect: 20 Pa = approx. 120 dB
>>Jet, 100 m distant: 6 – 200 Pa = 110 – 140 dB
>>Jack hammer, 1 m distant / discotheque: 2 Pa approx. 100 dB
>>Hearing damage during long-term effect: 6×10-1 Pa = approx. 90 dB
>
>When I had a two blade prop on the Deb is was measured at 93 db at a
>distance of one city block and full RPM. So you can see why the
>neighbors off the end of 18 complained when I'd go over at roughly 300
>feet on climb out at full power. <:-))
>>
>>David (GM3RFA)
>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>www.rogerhalstead.com

I'm not qualified to comment further on this topic so will let it lie
and await somebody better qualified to chip in.

Ok on the Deb, it sounds much louder than the PA28 I fly. Perhaps you
need some 'Stealth bomber paint' so they don't know who you are?

David

[Roger[_4_]]

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 10:57:37 +0100, wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 05:14:25 -0400, Roger >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 20:50:46 +0100, wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 14:25:05 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 18:22:41 +0100, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 21:19:11 -0400, Roger >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>I've been looking at headsets recently and came to the conclusion that
>>>>>the QFR XCC clone is a good compromise at $240. Compared to other ANR
>>>>>headsets it has some of the highest passive attenuation though only
>>>>>~10db electronic. If the electronics fail it should still be very
>>>>>good.
>>>>>
>>>>>By the way Roger you mentioned in a previous post that 3db was
>>>>>half/double. I think you're still thinking of power not volts.
>>>>>I assume ANR refers to volts so think 6db = half/double, or am I
>>>>>getting rusty with all this?
>>>>
>>>>Sound (and our hearing) is logarithmic so I'm pretty sure that the 3
>>>>db holds for sound as it does for power.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>David
>>>>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>>>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>>>www.rogerhalstead.com
>>>
>>>Roger, now you've got me thinking:-) As you say it's logarithmic but
>>>if I'm not mistaken 10w to 100w =10dbw, 10v to 20v = 20dbv. I don't
>>
>>That is correct, but sound is analogous to power not volts.
>>
>>
>>>know how ANR is measured so I'm guessing dba but it looks like double
>>>= 6db. In an expample I found on the web and you compare say the Rifle
>>>& Threshold of Pain there's 6db difference. That would suggest
>>>headphones with say 26db passive attenuation would reduce the sound
>>>level by a factor of 40. If you use 3db then it would be a factor well
>>>over 500 which I think would be unrealistic.
>>>
>>>Source of sound Sound pressure Sound pressure level
>>> pascal dB re 20 µPa
>>>=============================================
>>>Rifle being fired at 1 m: 200 Pa = 140 dB
>>>Threshold of pain: 100 Pa = 134 dB
>>>Hearing damage during short term effect: 20 Pa = approx. 120 dB
>>>Jet, 100 m distant: 6 – 200 Pa = 110 – 140 dB
>>>Jack hammer, 1 m distant / discotheque: 2 Pa approx. 100 dB
>>>Hearing damage during long-term effect: 6×10-1 Pa = approx. 90 dB
>>
>>When I had a two blade prop on the Deb is was measured at 93 db at a
>>distance of one city block and full RPM. So you can see why the
>>neighbors off the end of 18 complained when I'd go over at roughly 300
>>feet on climb out at full power. <:-))
>>>
>>>David (GM3RFA)
>>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>I'm not qualified to comment further on this topic so will let it lie
>and await somebody better qualified to chip in.
>
>Ok on the Deb, it sounds much louder than the PA28 I fly. Perhaps you
>need some 'Stealth bomber paint' so they don't know who you are?

And unfortunately I have those great big numbers on the side. <sigh>

One *hot* afternoon, the wind was out of the SSE and gusty. That
meant even the high performance stuff was using 18. Unfortunately that
same subdivision fought lengthening 18/36 so *everyone* was going over
their houses at 200 to 300 feet. I made three takes offs and
landings that afternoon. We had a pair of Navions, a 310, two 210s, a
couple of Bonanzas, some 182s and I don't remember what else.

It was a busy day at the airport and I have no doubt they were telling
the truth when they said they couldn't even carry on a conversation
when one of us went over. To the non flying we all sound alike and
the one guy wrote down my N number. He said I went over every five
minutes. I can't take off, fly the pattern, land, taxi back and take
off again in less than twice that. Fortunately he lost sympathy and
credibility when accusing one plane of doing all that when the pattern
was full most of the afternoon.

I wasn't one of those paint jobs that changes color depending on your
angle to the viewer and sun. That way no two people will give the same
story. <:-))

When we took off, loaded to gross for the day and I could see the
grass under the picnic table through the gaps in the top I told my
passengers "I'll bet we hear about this one!"<:-))

Which reminds me. That subdivision just popped up. One day I was on
final for 36 and some guys were putting up a tall TV antenna. I
noticed it was gone the next day. I had the gear down and full flaps
with lots of power when I went directly over the top of it. I'll
bet it was a bit drafty on top of that tower. Apparently they didn't
know they are not allowed to go above the tree line around there.
Actually I think it may be less than that.

If you ever visit 3BS and land using the VASIs on 36 you'll know what
I mean. Take a look just south of the expressway.


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

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 03:39:17 -0400, Roger >
wrote:

- snip -

>>I'm not qualified to comment further on this topic so will let it lie
>>and await somebody better qualified to chip in.
>>
>>Ok on the Deb, it sounds much louder than the PA28 I fly. Perhaps you
>>need some 'Stealth bomber paint' so they don't know who you are?
>
>And unfortunately I have those great big numbers on the side. <sigh>
>
Foiled!

>One *hot* afternoon, the wind was out of the SSE and gusty. That
>meant even the high performance stuff was using 18. Unfortunately that
>same subdivision fought lengthening 18/36 so *everyone* was going over
>their houses at 200 to 300 feet. I made three takes offs and
>landings that afternoon. We had a pair of Navions, a 310, two 210s, a
>couple of Bonanzas, some 182s and I don't remember what else.
>

Don't tell me the airfield was built first, then they built houses,
then they complained of the noise :-(

Would you believe in the UK a new resident in a farming area
complained of early morning noise from a farmer's cockerels. What's
more he went to court and won despite the farm having animals for many
many years. Perhaps they should have supplied ANR headsets?

>It was a busy day at the airport and I have no doubt they were telling
>the truth when they said they couldn't even carry on a conversation
>when one of us went over. To the non flying we all sound alike and
>the one guy wrote down my N number. He said I went over every five
>minutes. I can't take off, fly the pattern, land, taxi back and take
>off again in less than twice that. Fortunately he lost sympathy and
>credibility when accusing one plane of doing all that when the pattern
>was full most of the afternoon.
>
>I wasn't one of those paint jobs that changes color depending on your
>angle to the viewer and sun. That way no two people will give the same
>story. <:-))
>

Never heard of that but it sounds good. We have the lower half of the
aircraft dark red and the half upper white. Hopefull so it looks dark
against the sky and light against the ground. Doubt it makes as much
difference as the strobes.

>When we took off, loaded to gross for the day and I could see the
>grass under the picnic table through the gaps in the top I told my
>passengers "I'll bet we hear about this one!"<:-))
>

Oops!

>Which reminds me. That subdivision just popped up. One day I was on
>final for 36 and some guys were putting up a tall TV antenna. I
>noticed it was gone the next day. I had the gear down and full flaps
>with lots of power when I went directly over the top of it. I'll
>bet it was a bit drafty on top of that tower. Apparently they didn't
>know they are not allowed to go above the tree line around there.
>Actually I think it may be less than that.
>

Last time I read my amateur licence I think it said antenna maximum of
50 ft within about half or 1 mile of an aerodrome in UK. I think
anything else like kites are 200ft??? With low flying Military
aircraft authorised to 200ft and some 50ft that could be a problem.

>If you ever visit 3BS and land using the VASIs on 36 you'll know what
>I mean. Take a look just south of the expressway.
>

Doesn't look too bad using Google Earth but I guess flying gives a
different perspective.

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

David

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 15:13:45 +0100, wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 03:39:17 -0400, Roger >
>wrote:
>
>- snip -
>
>>>I'm not qualified to comment further on this topic so will let it lie
>>>and await somebody better qualified to chip in.
>>>
>>>Ok on the Deb, it sounds much louder than the PA28 I fly. Perhaps you
>>>need some 'Stealth bomber paint' so they don't know who you are?
>>
>>And unfortunately I have those great big numbers on the side. <sigh>
>>
>Foiled!
>
>>One *hot* afternoon, the wind was out of the SSE and gusty. That
>>meant even the high performance stuff was using 18. Unfortunately that
>>same subdivision fought lengthening 18/36 so *everyone* was going over
>>their houses at 200 to 300 feet. I made three takes offs and
>>landings that afternoon. We had a pair of Navions, a 310, two 210s, a
>>couple of Bonanzas, some 182s and I don't remember what else.
>>
>
>Don't tell me the airfield was built first, then they built houses,
>then they complained of the noise :-(

You've been here?

>
>Would you believe in the UK a new resident in a farming area
>complained of early morning noise from a farmer's cockerels. What's
>more he went to court and won despite the farm having animals for many
>many years. Perhaps they should have supplied ANR headsets?

At least here in the states the answer to that is usually *to bad* or
something a big more pointed. He should be happy the farmer doesn't
take up pig farming. I was raised on a farm, but that was in the days
before the honey wagons made it from Europe to the States. I never
knew that stuff could spoil until the advent of the honey wagon. There
is a large pig farm about a half mile to the SE of us. It seems like
the wind is *always* out of the SE when he empties the tank. OTOH he
is required to work it into the ground within two days.

>
>>It was a busy day at the airport and I have no doubt they were telling
>>the truth when they said they couldn't even carry on a conversation
>>when one of us went over. To the non flying we all sound alike and
>>the one guy wrote down my N number. He said I went over every five
>>minutes. I can't take off, fly the pattern, land, taxi back and take
>>off again in less than twice that. Fortunately he lost sympathy and
>>credibility when accusing one plane of doing all that when the pattern
>>was full most of the afternoon.
>>
>>I wasn't one of those paint jobs that changes color depending on your
>>angle to the viewer and sun. That way no two people will give the same
>>story. <:-))
>>
>
>Never heard of that but it sounds good. We have the lower half of the
>aircraft dark red and the half upper white. Hopefull so it looks dark
>against the sky and light against the ground. Doubt it makes as much
>difference as the strobes.

I've never seen it on a plane, but there was a custom truck over at
the neighbors a while back. I was one color coming toward me and a
different one going away. It went through the spectrum as he went by.
Really pretty, really expensive, and probably impossible to touch up.
>
>>When we took off, loaded to gross for the day and I could see the
>>grass under the picnic table through the gaps in the top I told my
>>passengers "I'll bet we hear about this one!"<:-))
>>
>
>Oops!
>
>>Which reminds me. That subdivision just popped up. One day I was on
>>final for 36 and some guys were putting up a tall TV antenna. I
>>noticed it was gone the next day. I had the gear down and full flaps
>>with lots of power when I went directly over the top of it. I'll
>>bet it was a bit drafty on top of that tower. Apparently they didn't
>>know they are not allowed to go above the tree line around there.
>>Actually I think it may be less than that.
>>
>
>Last time I read my amateur licence I think it said antenna maximum of
>50 ft within about half or 1 mile of an aerodrome in UK. I think
>anything else like kites are 200ft??? With low flying Military
>aircraft authorised to 200ft and some 50ft that could be a problem.

I'm 4 1/2 miles directly off the end of 06 and on the centerline. My
tower is 97' with the top UHF/VHF array at 130 feet. I think I could
have gone to about 190 feet without permission, except my lot isn't
large enough to go that high.

>
>>If you ever visit 3BS and land using the VASIs on 36 you'll know what
>>I mean. Take a look just south of the expressway.
>>
>
>Doesn't look too bad using Google Earth but I guess flying gives a
>different perspective.
We seldom see any one dragging it in over the express way and those
trees like they do on final for 24. OTOH I don't know of any
one..yet...that has pranged one on 36, but we've had several dragging
it in on 24 get too low, apply too much power, over correct and turn
it into a lawn dart. So far all have survived and one guy even did it
*twice*. We did have a guy force a 172 down on 18, porpoise and put
shoulders in the wings.

Try the same city and 521 North Clyde road. They have me on the
corner which is in the wrong place, but mine is the second drive on
the west side with the black satellite dish in back and the white car
just in front of the garage. My shop where I'm working on the G-III is
just north of the house. You can only go another half mile west before
they go into very low resolution on the map.

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

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 23:15:36 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)"

>>Don't tell me the airfield was built first, then they built houses,
>>then they complained of the noise :-(
>
>You've been here?
>
Sadly, haven't we all?

>I've never seen it on a plane, but there was a custom truck over at
>the neighbors a while back. I was one color coming toward me and a
>different one going away. It went through the spectrum as he went by.
>Really pretty, really expensive, and probably impossible to touch up.
>>
Interesting

>I'm 4 1/2 miles directly off the end of 06 and on the centerline. My
>tower is 97' with the top UHF/VHF array at 130 feet. I think I could
>have gone to about 190 feet without permission, except my lot isn't
>large enough to go that high.
>

What you need is a site like the amateur may tens of years ago.
His entire installation was up a mountain and remote controlled with a
10GHz link.
>
>Try the same city and 521 North Clyde road. They have me on the
>corner which is in the wrong place, but mine is the second drive on
>the west side with the black satellite dish in back and the white car
>just in front of the garage. My shop where I'm working on the G-III is
>just north of the house. You can only go another half mile west before
>they go into very low resolution on the map.

Are you sure your white car is still in the drive or was that somebody
driving it away :-)

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

david

[Roger[_4_]]

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 11:55:46 +0100, wrote:

<snip>
>What you need is a site like the amateur may tens of years ago.
>His entire installation was up a mountain and remote controlled with a
>10GHz link.

There's one down in Tennessee who purchased a mountain top that was
once a military/government communications installation. He got it
towers and all and is still active.

What I need is the mountain top, towers and an airstrip.

>>
>>Try the same city and 521 North Clyde road. They have me on the
>>corner which is in the wrong place, but mine is the second drive on
>>the west side with the black satellite dish in back and the white car
>>just in front of the garage. My shop where I'm working on the G-III is
>>just north of the house. You can only go another half mile west before
>>they go into very low resolution on the map.
>
>Are you sure your white car is still in the drive or was that somebody
>driving it away :-)

Try the first place north of where they say I am. The car is right in
front of the garage. However the resolution isn't all that great.
There area few spots including one in the Sahara desert where you can
tell what color shoes a guy has on. One area in NJ has 2"
resolution.

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