bose-x is obsolete ...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bose-x is obsolete ...
I mean the headset of course. It seems the original was not the ultimate in ear protection after all:
Making The Cockpit A Quieter Place
Making The Cockpit A Quieter Place
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how good the bluetooth feature is. I did a quick test of a Zulu and it was terrible, but it could have been the phone...
Not that this is useful in Europe. ISTM that in the USA one can indeed just phone up the tower to collect clearances etc. But not here... the numbers are mostly unpublished.
Not that this is useful in Europe. ISTM that in the USA one can indeed just phone up the tower to collect clearances etc. But not here... the numbers are mostly unpublished.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've always struggled to get any sort of phone connection when in the air, even at low level. But I understand others have.
It would be useful though none the less for making a quick call to someone that you're meeting at the far end to say that you've above to take off.
Also, with people who use their smart phones as a gps, it may be possible for the sound (warnings etc) to be routed direct to their headset via the bluetooth.
It might also be useful for listening to music which I know some people like to do. I'm pretty sure you can get bluetooth headphones now four your mp3 player, so it could be used in a similar way I suppose.
dp
It would be useful though none the less for making a quick call to someone that you're meeting at the far end to say that you've above to take off.
Also, with people who use their smart phones as a gps, it may be possible for the sound (warnings etc) to be routed direct to their headset via the bluetooth.
It might also be useful for listening to music which I know some people like to do. I'm pretty sure you can get bluetooth headphones now four your mp3 player, so it could be used in a similar way I suppose.
dp
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the main selling point of the BT feature is to do ground calls, to save using the radio/battery. But, in Europe, most of the useful numbers are confidential and anyway I doubt the controller would take the call - even for a departure clearance call.
I have done such calls where I know the number, to check if e.g. they had received a slot.
But given one is on the ground, one doesn't need a BT headset; one can just use the phone
Unless the engine is running.
The other use is airborne, with a BT equipped satphone, like the Thuraya model(s). The call quality is really crap though.
I have done such calls where I know the number, to check if e.g. they had received a slot.
But given one is on the ground, one doesn't need a BT headset; one can just use the phone
Unless the engine is running.The other use is airborne, with a BT equipped satphone, like the Thuraya model(s). The call quality is really crap though.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cambridgeshire
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have tried a couple of these ANR type headsets and whilst I agree that the noise attenuation is to a certain extent useful when trying to make out radio instructions in a high noise level cockpit or even open cockpit, I haven't found them that fantastic. But to pay the rather ridiculous price of $1095 for this slight improvement is just throwing good money after bad. Added to this the regular requirement to change the batteries or fiddle with the volume control and bulky electronics unit ruins any perceived advantage in my view.
Years ago, I bought a pair of Harry Mendelssohn HM10 cans which were clearly modelled on David Clarke, albeit they were black. They cost somewhere around a hundred quid or so if I remember rightly and their cockpit noise attenuation due to efficient ear seals was excellent. I still have them today after many years of faithful service and they are still as good as the day I bought them.
Lastly, I have no time for mobile phones in the cockpit. Whilst flying an aeroplane is very enjoyable we have a responsibility to carry this out in a safe and businesslike manner without the distraction of fiddling around with mobile phones.
I have been directly involved with communications for some 40 years and some amazing advances have been made in this science, but I have never been able to understand why some people these days are unable to feel that they can live their lives without a mobile phone virtually growing from their ears. If a pilot needs to get a quick update on the weather, then what is wrong with using the radio and if he wants to phone someone on the ground, then how about doing so after the aircraft has landed?
Years ago, I bought a pair of Harry Mendelssohn HM10 cans which were clearly modelled on David Clarke, albeit they were black. They cost somewhere around a hundred quid or so if I remember rightly and their cockpit noise attenuation due to efficient ear seals was excellent. I still have them today after many years of faithful service and they are still as good as the day I bought them.
Lastly, I have no time for mobile phones in the cockpit. Whilst flying an aeroplane is very enjoyable we have a responsibility to carry this out in a safe and businesslike manner without the distraction of fiddling around with mobile phones.
I have been directly involved with communications for some 40 years and some amazing advances have been made in this science, but I have never been able to understand why some people these days are unable to feel that they can live their lives without a mobile phone virtually growing from their ears. If a pilot needs to get a quick update on the weather, then what is wrong with using the radio and if he wants to phone someone on the ground, then how about doing so after the aircraft has landed?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you will find a bose-x is way way way ahead in quality and comfort of any £100 headset.
Try it.
Sure the prices are obscenely high but how much value do you put on your hearing long-term, and on your ability to hear marginal ATC transmissions?
For local flying between the creases in the map, a cheap headset might be OK but I have tried a number of them and all were basically crap. Even a £500 D-C one was very uncomfortable compared to the bose, due to the clamp pressure.
Personally I would not pay money for a bluetooth feature.
Try it.
Sure the prices are obscenely high but how much value do you put on your hearing long-term, and on your ability to hear marginal ATC transmissions?
For local flying between the creases in the map, a cheap headset might be OK but I have tried a number of them and all were basically crap. Even a £500 D-C one was very uncomfortable compared to the bose, due to the clamp pressure.
Personally I would not pay money for a bluetooth feature.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cambridgeshire
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll give it a try IO, but it will have to be very very good to justify the huge price tag on it.
With a headset, the protection to ones hearing is actually the attenuation of the loud noise environment within the cockpit or anywhere else for that matter, by good quality ear seals on the cups of the headset. Ear defenders worn in industry work this way too. The ANR headsets work by sampling the background noise and then inverting the main waveform and playing it back into the ear cup to cancel it out, so as far as protecting the hearing is concerned my old HM10s probably do as good a job. But of course if one removes, or partially removes the background cockpit noise, then one can hear Air Traffic, or whoever it is that much clearer and this is where these headsets score over the rest. But let's not forget that Air Traffic are no "Classic FM" and none of them transmit in a digitally clear HD radio quality, so if the controller is using a scratchy old radio set and a lousy microphone with plenty of background noise in the tower, the posh and expensive headsets are going to be of little use. As the old saying goes.... "You can't polish a turd"
With a headset, the protection to ones hearing is actually the attenuation of the loud noise environment within the cockpit or anywhere else for that matter, by good quality ear seals on the cups of the headset. Ear defenders worn in industry work this way too. The ANR headsets work by sampling the background noise and then inverting the main waveform and playing it back into the ear cup to cancel it out, so as far as protecting the hearing is concerned my old HM10s probably do as good a job. But of course if one removes, or partially removes the background cockpit noise, then one can hear Air Traffic, or whoever it is that much clearer and this is where these headsets score over the rest. But let's not forget that Air Traffic are no "Classic FM" and none of them transmit in a digitally clear HD radio quality, so if the controller is using a scratchy old radio set and a lousy microphone with plenty of background noise in the tower, the posh and expensive headsets are going to be of little use. As the old saying goes.... "You can't polish a turd"
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Londonish
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I confess, that apart from being tight, one of the reasons I'm not sporting an ANR headset is that I worry about hearing protection - there are plenty of frequencies outside the ANR coverage, and the passive attenuation of the X at least wasn't great.
The 'traditional' DC's, plus in noisy aircraft earplugs and turning the radio volume up work for me - though not as pretty and probably less comfy. I've alos pondered that my rather nice inner-ear-monitors I use with the ipod might go nicely under the regular headset, and they're about 40db isolation in their own right..
The 'traditional' DC's, plus in noisy aircraft earplugs and turning the radio volume up work for me - though not as pretty and probably less comfy. I've alos pondered that my rather nice inner-ear-monitors I use with the ipod might go nicely under the regular headset, and they're about 40db isolation in their own right..
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 40db figure is certainly bogus. There is a lot of bogus db figures going around this business. No non-ANR headset can possibly achieve 40db - except at several kHz or higher. 20db is much more likely. I collected some evidence for this practice years ago (from the manufacturers themselves) and wrote to some pilot shops; I think they just ignored it.
You can make a non-ANR headset work arbitrarily well by using a lot of pressure to create a good seal. ANR headsets deliver a given level of attenuation without needing the high earcup pressure, and the bose-x and the zulu deliver higher levels of attenuation than any non-ANR headset, while using lower levels of pressure than most of them.
BTW an ANR headset doesn't inject anti-phase noise into the earcup, as such. They way it works is that there is a mike inside the earcup which senses the instantaneous acoustic pressure, and the earcup speaker is driven (by an amplifier) to null out this pressure. Due to the finite size of the chamber relative to the wavelengths involved, the nulling process works only over a limited frequency range (low frequencies) but the improvement is still vast.
Cheap ANR headsets, such as the crappy £80 ones sold for airliner passengers etc, often do a bad job and you get whistling/hissing. The aviation bose-x doesn't do that, but the £300 consumer version sure does (we bought one and sent it back right away).
True, so if you are talking to RAF Benson and they are on their crappy mike, they will be hard to make out, but with a decent headset you have a better chance.
I fly a fair bit out of the UK and a lot of the ATC out there is only just hanging in there on their "ICAO Level 1 English"
Of all the junk in pilot shops (and 99% of it is junk), a top end headset (bose or zulu) is the one thing worth buying.
You can make a non-ANR headset work arbitrarily well by using a lot of pressure to create a good seal. ANR headsets deliver a given level of attenuation without needing the high earcup pressure, and the bose-x and the zulu deliver higher levels of attenuation than any non-ANR headset, while using lower levels of pressure than most of them.
BTW an ANR headset doesn't inject anti-phase noise into the earcup, as such. They way it works is that there is a mike inside the earcup which senses the instantaneous acoustic pressure, and the earcup speaker is driven (by an amplifier) to null out this pressure. Due to the finite size of the chamber relative to the wavelengths involved, the nulling process works only over a limited frequency range (low frequencies) but the improvement is still vast.
Cheap ANR headsets, such as the crappy £80 ones sold for airliner passengers etc, often do a bad job and you get whistling/hissing. The aviation bose-x doesn't do that, but the £300 consumer version sure does (we bought one and sent it back right away).
"You can't polish a turd"
I fly a fair bit out of the UK and a lot of the ATC out there is only just hanging in there on their "ICAO Level 1 English"
Of all the junk in pilot shops (and 99% of it is junk), a top end headset (bose or zulu) is the one thing worth buying.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
. . . True, so if you are talking to RAF Benson and they are on their crappy mike, they will be hard to make out, but with a decent headset you have a better chance. . .
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mark1234
My concerns too and the Bose X has been analysed by my employer and was found wanting (albeit in an extremely high noise environment). I too have tried earplugs and turning the volume up, but that increases the noise energy in the earcups - a bit counter productive. I also suspect that it causes hearing damage in the band of frequencies associated with the human voice. CEP-USA (no connection) do a foam earplug with a tiny speaker inside which you plug into you existing headset (after a bit of DIY fitting) -a bit like the in ear monitors you get for mp3 players. They claim a minimum of 30dB at the lower frequencies, increasing at higher frequencies. The result is much clearer coms (due to the quality of the speaker), a fantastic noise attenuation of around 50dB total, comfortable for long periods, reduced fatigue all for around US$100. They are so good, the US military issue them to all their helicopter pilots.
I confess, that apart from being tight, one of the reasons I'm not sporting an ANR headset is that I worry about hearing protection - there are plenty of frequencies outside the ANR coverage, and the passive attenuation of the X at least wasn't great.
The 'traditional' DC's, plus in noisy aircraft earplugs and turning the radio volume up work for me - though not as pretty and probably less comfy. I've alos pondered that my rather nice inner-ear-monitors I use with the ipod might go nicely under the regular headset, and they're about 40db isolation in their own right..
The 'traditional' DC's, plus in noisy aircraft earplugs and turning the radio volume up work for me - though not as pretty and probably less comfy. I've alos pondered that my rather nice inner-ear-monitors I use with the ipod might go nicely under the regular headset, and they're about 40db isolation in their own right..
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In-ear headsets are always going to be better, even without ANR.
The catch is that one needs custom-moulded earplugs, and the usage needs to eliminate tugging on the cable(s) otherwise the plug gets pulled out a little and suddenly a lot of noise gets in. I bought the Mach 1 in-ear headset (not cheap) and while it worked very well, it was very sensitive to cable movement, and after I while I went back to the Bose and flogged the M1 on U.S. Ebay.
For extreme applications, one can use a headset together with earplugs, and turn the headset power way up to compensate. This is OK with cheap headsets but not so good with the Bose whose max volume is limited.
I've done flights over 7hrs with the Bose and had no discomfort whatsoever.
The catch is that one needs custom-moulded earplugs, and the usage needs to eliminate tugging on the cable(s) otherwise the plug gets pulled out a little and suddenly a lot of noise gets in. I bought the Mach 1 in-ear headset (not cheap) and while it worked very well, it was very sensitive to cable movement, and after I while I went back to the Bose and flogged the M1 on U.S. Ebay.
For extreme applications, one can use a headset together with earplugs, and turn the headset power way up to compensate. This is OK with cheap headsets but not so good with the Bose whose max volume is limited.
I've done flights over 7hrs with the Bose and had no discomfort whatsoever.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say that I have a set of custom made earplugs and they are ok but take a lot of getting used to. The CEP system uses foam earplugs, which are far more comfortable than custom fitted and of course fit perfectly. I have never had an issue with them pulling out, despite jumping in and out on every leg.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems the original was not the ultimate in ear protection after all:
Simply because background noise isn't as perceptible to the user, doesn't mean the user is being protected from that noise.
Whether the bose headsets are "the ultimate" or not isn't meaningful, in that they are comfortable to wear for extended periods, provide excellent communication capability, and reduce user fatigue substantially.
I've done flights over 7hrs with the Bose and had no discomfort whatsoever.
I've taken to using the Bose QC-15 with the uflymic most of the time, however, because it's more compact and even quieter, less expensive, fits in the flight bag better, lighter in weight, and has music input or earbud redundancy.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SNS3Guppy
The bose headsets are excellent for improving communications. Not protecting one's ears.
Simply because background noise isn't as perceptible to the user, doesn't mean the user is being protected from that noise.
Simply because background noise isn't as perceptible to the user, doesn't mean the user is being protected from that noise.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Likewise, I use them regularly on 10+ hour flights; they're comfortable, improve communications, and reduce fatigue. I've worn them up to 26 hours on long flights, without any difficulty at all.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Age: 51
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must say I am very pleased with my Clarity Alfot as well was wondering on whether to buy a pair of normal bose quiet maybe 2nd hand and trying them on top of the clarity's