There've been other posts from time to time at BCP regarding the expensive aviation noise-cancelling headsets, including Bose, Lightspeed, and others, all in the $800-$1,000 per copy price range. I'm pretty reluctant to spend several thousand on headsets right now.

So I did a little investigating, and frankly, I don't understand the rationale for spending a grand each on headsets when my $200 headsets work just fine ... and I'll tell you why:

OK, the headset serves three functions:

1) 2- way communications via the intercom and comm radios

2) hearing protection

3) comfort

Just about any aviation headset, no matter how cheap, serves function nos. 1 and 2, although there is a difference between the passive hearing protection of the typical over-the-ear headset and in the ear types, and between purely passive protection (over the ear types only) and active noise-cancelling models. And of course, function no. 3 - comfort (both physical and aural) - varies considerably within and between all the available products and product types.

Let me address no. 2 - hearing protection, which seems to be the main justification for spending four or five times as much on an active noise-cancelling headset vs. the typical passive over the ear type of headset.

I measured the sound level in the cabin of my aircraft (a 1968 Cherokee PA-28-180, with the standard Lycoming O360-A4A engine with 76-in Sensenich all purpose prop) at the approximate location of my ears, and also measured the noise level in my car (I have other vehicles, but I usually drive a 2005 Ford Mustang convertable with the 4.6L 6-cyl engine, which is the one in which I took the noise level measurements) at the approximate location of my ears. I measured the sound levels with my iPhone app - SPLnFFT Sound Meter - a $1.99 download). I realize this is not a highly calibrated scientific testing scheme, but it's reasonably representative. I also realize that other aircraft, with bigger engines spinning larger diameter props can make more noise than my Cherokee, but a Cherokee is fairly representative of a typical GA aircraft, being one of the most sold types, and also reasonably similar to its main competition, the Cessna Skyhawk and similar types.

OK, here's what I got:

Noise level in my Cherokee at 70% power cruise, 10,500 ft MSL - 98-99 db
Noise level Cherokee idling stopped on the ramp - 82 db
Noise level 2005 Ford Mustang convertible cruising 75 mph (with my sound system running at a comfortable volume) - 85-86 db
Noise level 2005 Ford Mustang idling stopped on the street, with my sound system also running at a bit lower volume - 74-75 db

Per MSHA (the agency that measures performance on commercial safety products) the noise reduction rating for my Lightspeed QFR passive aviation headset is 24-26 db (which rating appears to be pretty typical for most of the commercial passive aviation headsets for which MSHA reported noise reduction performance)

This means that my "cheap" headset reduces the ambient sound to my ears in the cockpit at 70% cruise power from 98-99 db to about 72-75 db - about the sound level of my Ford Mustang when idling and stopped on the street.

The OSHA hearing protection standard for occupational exposure to noise is 90 db for an 8-hour/day, 40-hr/week exposure. Meaning that absent hearing protection, hearing damage is likely to occur if you exceed this level of noise for the timeframes specified in the standard (hearing damage is a function of both noise level and exposure time). Meaning there is little to no hazard of incurring hearing damage for lesser noise levels and/or for lesser timeframes.

Meaning, my cheapie passive headset protects me from any hearing damage from cabin noise in my Cherokee, period.

Even a noiser bird, say a P-ponk with an 88-in prop, and wearing the typical passive aviation headset, is still likely to produce ambient noise levels at the ear somewhere in the 70s to maybe low 80s db - well below the OSHA standard for occupational (all day) hearing protection.

(It'd be interesting to see the cabin noise level measurements in some of the noiser aircraft - if someone is flying one of those birds and owns an iPhone - just download the SPLnFFT Sound Meter app and check it out)

So, the "protection from hearing damage" rationale (function #2 above) for the thousand dollar headsets simply does not exist for most pilots in most GA aircraft.

Are the expensive headsets more comfortable (function #3) than the cheap headsets - possibly, but not necessarily. Not more comfortable from an aural perspective ... since when does anybody find the noise level put out by a typical production automobile when idling and stopped (i.e., no road or wind noise) to be "uncomfortable"?

But possibly there might be a comfort benefit from the expensive headsets from an ergonomics perspective (i.e., clamping pressure, ear pad design, overall weight of the unit) - but I know that I find my cheap QFRs to be quite comfortable for me on my typical 2-3 hour flights.

So, there you have it. What's the rationale for spending so many of our hard earned dollars on a product that provides little to no marginal benefit? Are we being successfully marketed, like the proverbial eskimos being sold refrigerators in the Arctic?

OK, now I'm ready to be skewered by the true believers in thousand dollar headsets ... have at me!

Interesting study. I bought my Dave Clark on Ebay and converted it to ANR using a kit from Headsets Inc. I'm into the whole thing for about $350. I wear a BOSE for my day job and it's not unusual to fly 10-12 hour legs acrosss the ocean to Europe. On a day like that the ANR makes a HUGE difference in your fatigue level at the end of the day. Flying an hour for a $100 hamburger probably not so much.

Are you trying to convince the audience here or yourself? If your budget or your sensibilities don't allow for a spendy headset then don't buy one.

I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that you are either an engineer, or a hobby mathematician / physicist. I say this because you are trying to apply logic and rules to a question with so many subjective and personal affects.

How much is 'a little' more protection, or 'a little more comfort', worth? And how much money is 'a lot' ?....

Never the less, your scientific research is incomplete. I have hearing loss and Tinnitus as a result of working CH53's in the Marine Corps, where ear hearing protection was mandatory, but less than stellar. During my time of service to work in the airwing you had to sign a hearing loss waiver, because they knew going in that most would suffer some extent of hearing loss. The only people I knew that didn't suffer were the ones that wore foamies inside their helmets / headsets.

I am by no means a wealthy person, in fact I work a bazillion hours a month (or so it seems) and have had a couple failed relationships / marriages / whatever... (and we all know what that means). Having said that,if there were a headset that cost twice that of a Bose but truly offered twice the protection and comfort, I'd probably pony up... There are better places within my life to skimp, than heath and comfort. When I am not in a work plane, I am flying for FUN, and the longer I can enjoy that fun, the better. YMMV....

Take care, Rob

Your logic and argument seem quite valid.
Let's compare a new BMW and a Kia spectra.
Both have four tires.
Both will easily travel at the speed limit
The Kia will use less gas in a given trip.
Both have doors that open and automatic transmissions.
The Kia is far far less to buy and insure.
Therefore only a moron would drive a BMW and all the smartest most rational people travel by Kia..... I guess

AvidFlyer wrote:Interesting study. I bought my Dave Clark on Ebay and converted it to ANR using a kit from Headsets Inc. I'm into the whole thing for about $350. I wear a BOSE for my day job and it's not unusual to fly 10-12 hour legs acrosss the ocean to Europe. On a day like that the ANR makes a HUGE difference in your fatigue level at the end of the day. Flying an hour for a $100 hamburger probably not so much.

What did that conversion kit cost and how hard was it to install? Thanks

Fisherman wrote:What did that conversion kit cost and how hard was it to install? Thanks

The kit is $169 and it's just a couple of simple solder connections to install with great instructions.

www.headsetsinc.com

Vick - I'm just sharing what I learned ... if you don't want to read it, don't read the post - this is a discussion board, by the way. If you have something relevant to contribute, pony up.

Rob -yes, you guessed correctly, I'm an engineer ... "comfort" is certainly a subjective measure ... but the numbers are the numbers, and that is what I reported. As they say on FoxNews - "we report, you decide".

And while spending decisions are always a personal weighing of cost vs benefit, remember it's all a zero sum game. Every dollar you spend on a headset is a dollar you can't save, or spend on something else (like, av gas, or avionics, or a gazillion other things).

And Blu - the Kia Spectra-Beamer comparision sounds like something Barack Obama would say - i.e., it's a "false choice" ... ya gotta compare two products that serve the same functions. If you believe a Kia Spectra serves the same function as a BMW 3 series, well, any idiot on the street knows they're not in the same class or comparable in intended function.

On the other hand, if you want to compare say, an Infiniti G-35 sedan to a BMW 3 series sedan, then that would be a valid comparison ... both serve the same function (luxury sport sedan), but one costs about 50% more than the other. If you want to enjoy having people watch you drive by in your Beamer, and that makes it worth $15K more to you personally, then you're getting your money's worth. If you just want a nice handling powerful luxury sport sedan, then the Beamer is probably not a good investment of that extra $15K. You could take that $15K and buy Bose headsets for your Bonanza or Maule or whatever and still have money left over!

But I don't believe that buying a "luxury marque" is why pilots buy Bose or Lighspeed headsets. It's justified either on expectations of greater comfort or better hearing protection - and much of the talk I've heard on this subject seems to center on hearing protection, which appears to be bogus.

Total suppression can be similar for both passive and ANR. But some things to consider first: every 6 dB is a factor of two in sound pressure. In addition, these measurements are an average across a spectrum. An iPod measurement or whatever could be a factor of 2x,4x, or more in any particular band. Higher frequencies are more easily suppressed, and passive units work fine. Lower frequencies are harder to suppress, and ear cup pressures and headset masses often have to increase in general to improve attenuation for lower frequencies. ANR helps in this area by improving comfort while attenuating these frequencies. They are also "tuned" to respond to anticipated frequency bands- trying to spend more of the limited ANR energy where it might do the best job. More expensive headsets often address more bands, have more power without unstable oscillations (bad juju noises heard on malfunctioning/lower quality ANR headsets). Lower frequencies are really fatiguing as well. So effective suppression with lower mass and less c-clamping on the ear cups makes me a lot happier for a 2-4 hour stretch.

The DSP's available for the task have become very good and very cheap. I have tried some really expensive ones ($1100) and found them to be more comfortable, lighter, and slightly more effective than my cheapie QFR's (exact copies for $250 and up) like yours, but only slightly more effective. I basically cannot hear the exhaust warble at all in the pricey ones, and I can hear the rumble with the QFR's. Overall noise levels are equally acceptable- the expensive ones are simply not distinguishable in this area. The lightness is a nice feature, and they have less pressure on my ears. It isn't worth the extra price in my mind. I like the stereo sound, and added a bluetooth box to avoid the cockpit spaghetti battle, and that's about it.

I have to use a passive set every once in a while, and while they aren't terrible, I do get noticeably fatigued with them after a couple of hours. The noise adds to motion discomfort by passengers, and I lend my ANR's if there is any question.

Nmflyguy,

I'll side with you.
I completed a trip up to Alaska and back in my 185 in the Spring that had a couple days of ten hours or more flying.
I have an AvComm PNR headset (they have a built in push to talk switch which is a good backup to the one on the yoke).
During that trip I never thought about the headset being uncomfortable or noisy (what I really want is an A/P).
Prior to the trip I sent the headset in to Headset Inc and had them install their ANR modules.
On that trip I turned it on a few times, but prefer to hear what's going on so I turned it back off.
They might be nice if you listen to music or talk on the phone, but I do neither.
Maybe the high dollar models are better (?), but I still prefer to hear what's going on around me.

PNR headsets don't require batteries either (or ships power).

My $0.02....

SkyTruck

OK, now I'm ready to be skewered by the true believers in thousand dollar headsets ... have at me!

Vick - I'm just sharing what I learned ... if you don't want to read it, don't read the post - this is a discussion board, by the way. If you have something relevant to contribute, pony up.

What's the deal with that..you left the door wide open. Sounds to me like your trying to convince yourself you don't need one while you really want one.

I learned early on that in the world of Aviation dollars are just numbers and I fly a $10,000 chainsaw as Rob calls it that I built primarily in my garage.

nmflyguy wrote:
And Blu - the Kia-Beamer comparision sounds like something Barack Obama would say - i.e., it's a "false choice" ... ya gotta compare two products that serve the same functions. If you believe a Kia Spectra serves the same function as a BMW 3 series, well, any idiot on the street knows they're not in the same class or comparable in intended function.
On the other hand, if you want to compare say, an Infinity G-35 sedan to a BMW 3 series sedan, then that would be a valid comparison ... both serve the same function (luxury sport sedan), but one costs about 50% more than the other. If you want to enjoy having people watch you drive by in your Beamer, and that makes it worth $15K more to you personally, then you're getting your money's worth. If you just want a nice handling powerful luxury sport sedan, then the Beamer is probably not a good investment of that extra $15K.

Ouch.... Barack Obama
That hurts
Still I think my comparison is valid.
I would argue that the Bose is a Luxury head set just as the BMW is a luxury car. Your head set is a basic head set just as the Kia is a basic car. The Bose cost 5 times as much as your light speed just as a BMW cost 5 times what the Kia costs.

AvidFlyer wrote:

OK, now I'm ready to be skewered by the true believers in thousand dollar headsets ... have at me!

Vick - I'm just sharing what I learned ... if you don't want to read it, don't read the post - this is a discussion board, by the way. If you have something relevant to contribute, pony up.

What's the deal with that..you left the door wide open. Sounds to me like your trying to convince yourself you don't need one while you really want one.

I learned early on that in the world of Aviation dollars are just numbers and I fly a $10,000 chainsaw as Rob calls it that I built primarily in my garage.

Actually, Avid, unlike Vick, you did respond in your first comment with something relevant on the subject, with your suggestion on the ANR retrofit kits, rather than grousing that I dared to post what I posted. I wasn't aware of the retrofit kits, and that certainly sounds like a potentially cost-effective approach if ANR is what you want.

Yes - I did "leave the door open" to other opinions and discussion and (preferably) facts on the subject as posted. It's a discussion board ... I wouldn't criticize others for discussing anything that's relevant to backcountry aviation, or general aviation. But Vick's post - questioning whether what I posted is even worth discussing, or suggesting as you just did with your second comment, that I must have "envy issues" to post this kind of discussion, is really just another form of ad hominem attack.

And no - I'm not trying to convince myself of anything, and no, I don't want the thousand dollar headsets. I'd much rather spend my hard earned dollars on other stuff. And no, dollars aren't "just numbers" to me - I work very hard, thank you, for the dollars that I spend on aviation.

Now back to the subject of the rationale for expensive headsets ....

Passive headsets require a better seal around the ear to work properly. The reason they get a bad rap is that the clamping pressure is higher on passive headsets for that reason. One solution to the clamping pressure issue is ANR, which counteracts the noise that gets past the seal. Another solution is simply better ear seals that conform better to your head, sunglasses, etc.

I couldn't be happier with my David Clark headset that I upgraded with the Oregon Aero hush kit and ear seals. You get great passive noise reduction, and a really sturdy headset that doesn't look like it'll break just laying on the seat. It's very close to being as comfortable to wear for 3-plus hours as the Zulu.

I upgraded my wife's headset to a Zulu this spring using their trade-up deal, and the response has been surprisingly luke warm. My daughter prefers her old Lightspeed QFR solo passive to the Zulu, and my wife didn't like how the ANR cut out on her when she turned her head. Might be a fit issue. I know most people love the Zulus.

I might check into adding an ANR kit to the DC. That seems like the best of both worlds to me.

nmflyguy wrote:Vick - I'm just sharing what I learned ... if you don't want to read it, don't read the post - this is a discussion board, by the way. If you have something relevant to contribute, pony up.

You said your $200 headsets work fine for you so what could I/why would I or anyone else tell you anything to persuade you to change? If I were selling them that would be a different story.

For what it's worth I love my Lightspeed 30-3Gs. And as irrational as it might be I'm about to upgrade to new Zulu 2s. My only rationale is that I like the company and their products and I personally think they're worth it.

Go take a flight with a Lightspeed Zulu and you'll realize you need to put that big brain to use on other problems. Anyone who's flown with one would never have posted this. But that's ok.

nmflyguy wrote:Actually, Avid, unlike Vick, you did respond in your first comment with something relevant on the subject, with your suggestion on the ANR retrofit kits, rather than grousing that I dared to post what I posted. I wasn't aware of the retrofit kits, and that certainly sounds like a potentially cost-effective approach if ANR is what you want.

Yes - I did "leave the door open" to other opinions and discussion and (preferably) facts on the subject as posted. It's a discussion board ... I wouldn't criticize others for discussing anything that's relevant to backcountry aviation, or general aviation. But Vick's post - questioning whether what I posted is even worth discussing, or suggesting as you just did with your second comment, that I must have "envy issues" to post this kind of discussion, is really just another form of ad hominem attack.

And no - I'm not trying to convince myself of anything, and no, I don't want the thousand dollar headsets. I'd much rather spend my hard earned dollars on other stuff. And no, dollars aren't "just numbers" to me - I work very hard, thank you, for the dollars that I spend on aviation.

Easy there cowboy - it wasn't a criticism or question of relevance. But it wasn't clear either that you were actually asking a question. Not sure what facts there are that would support an argument to switch from $200 to $1000 headsets. You stated again above that the headsets you have work for the flying you do and that you prioritize your spending on other things - what am I missing?

nmflyguy wrote:So, there you have it. What's the rationale for spending so many of our hard earned dollars on a product that provides little to no marginal benefit?

AvidFlyer wrote:I learned early on that in the world of Aviation dollars are just numbers and I fly a $10,000 chainsaw as Rob calls it

Soo there you have it.... The rationale is all about smiles per mile

For some folks (me included) uncontested better hearing protection (no matter how little better it is) and more comfort = more smiles per mile.

For others its all about setting sail in that chainsaw powered wizz wonder they built in their garage (get it right Joey )...

And for those number crunching types... it's all about trying to figure out why

OK, here's what I got:

Noise level in my Cherokee at 70% power cruise, 10,500 ft MSL - 98-99 db
Noise level Cherokee idling stopped on the ramp - 82 db
Noise level 2005 Ford Mustang convertible cruising 75 mph (with my sound system running at a comfortable volume) - 85-86 db
Noise level 2005 Ford Mustang idling stopped on the street, with my sound system also running at a bit lower volume - 74-75 db

Per MSHA (the agency that measures performance on commercial safety products) the noise reduction rating for my Lightspeed QFR passive aviation headset is 24-26 db (which rating appears to be pretty typical for most of the commercial passive aviation headsets for which MSHA reported noise reduction performance)

The difference between your Mustang and your Cherokee is a bit over 10 db. which is 10x more power at whatever frequency is measured. Like light, the higher the frequency (shorter the wavelength) the more damaging.

I have lived with noise damaged hearing for over 4 decades and I can tell you when those little hair cells in your cochlea get blown away by noise they do not come back. The difference between having hearing loss and not depends on a combination of frequency, power (db), and interestingly enough genetics.

We who have already lost hearing due to noise damage can probably attest that it is something you want to avoid. I don't know how old you are, but when you cost hearing preservation over the rest of your life the cost of a good set of ANR's looks pretty good.

Add to the medical benefits, the fact that lower background noise allows the pilot to hear radio traffic better. And as your hearing goes the ability to pull words out of background gets way worse.

TD

How much did the iPhone (used to measure sound pressure) cost?
I can get an LG cell phone for about $40.