I make several long haul flights a year and decided it was about time I treated myself.
My 'in ear' Sennheiser's are far better than those supplied by the airline, as one would expect, but i think the future lies in the 'over ear' jobbies. Any recommendations please...i have no set budget and over a period of years the payback would be considerable.
|
I use Sennheiser noise cancelling headphones on planes and find they work very well indeed. I believe they have a set with Bluetooth built in so you don't need any wires or dangling battery packs.
Make sure you try the Bose ones, as the sound is not to everyone's taste - although I suspect the noise cancellation is ever so slightly better.
Last edited by: Fursty Ferret on Mon 28 Jan 13 at 21:54
|
>> I use Sennheiser noise cancelling headphones on planes and find they work very well indeed.
Dont you need to hear the whoop whoop "PULL UP", whoop whoop "PULL UP"
|
I've heard that voice in my head with plenty of birds:
'whoop whoop "PULL OUT", whoop whoop "PULL OUT"
|
>> I've heard that voice in my head with plenty of birds:
>>
>> 'whoop whoop "PULL OUT", whoop whoop "PULL OUT"
OOPS - too late :-(
Last edited by: Roger on Mon 28 Jan 13 at 22:32
|
>> I've heard that voice in my head with plenty of birds:
>>
>> 'whoop whoop "PULL OUT", whoop whoop "PULL OUT"
The Lad told me a similar one:
Q. What do do if you find a woman choking?
A. Pull back a couple of inches
|
>> >> I use Sennheiser noise cancelling headphones on planes and find they work very well
>> indeed.
>>
>> Dont you need to hear the whoop whoop "PULL UP", whoop whoop "PULL UP"
>>
As long as someone hears it...
Last edited by: Fursty Ferret on Tue 29 Jan 13 at 09:30
|
>> I believe they have a set with Bluetooth built in
Bluetooth no use on a plane though. Don't you have to turn off Bluetooth on devices?
I know a cabled connection will also be available.
|
I use Senhesier HD25s. They are not noise cancelling but they are known to have about the best blockage of external noise of any of the none cancelling ones. They are closed back but sound pretty amazing.
They are the defo facto head phones used by out door film camera crews. They are amazingly comfortable to but not cheap with an RRP of £200, but you can get them cheaper. I paid £160 for mine off amazon.
What I like about them is very part is replaceable by the user. I got sick paying £100 for a pair of Grados which would need a new cable soldered after a year.
Soundwise the soundstage is not the best for a £160, but most closed back headphones suffer from that issue, but they are very lively, pretty excellent for rock type music. I listen to mostly classic rock, punk,ska, metal and indie with the odd bit of folk and country.
Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Mon 28 Jan 13 at 23:29
|
This house, although well heat-insulated, has very poor soundproofing between the two floors. The thunder of tiny hooves running about upstairs often wakes me too early in the morning when nippers are here as they often are.
Naturally no one gives a damn about that. What they do mind is me watching schlock movies on the TVs in the small hours - bawled obscenities, machine gun fire, roaring engines, squealing tyres and loud explosions. Even with the sound turned well down some of the sharper noises seem to get through to thirty-something and upwards careerists who need their kip. So I have been given a pair of radio earphones with a sender that plugs into the TV earphone socket, which doubles as a charger for the headphones.
They are absolutely terrific, fairly comfortable to wear and what I would call hi-fi.
|
>>closed back headphones
Sorry, "closed back"?
|
Refers to the construction of the earpieces, FM. Most are vented to the outside at the back, which makes acoustic performance easier to achieve but lets sound out and ambient noise in. A closed back seals the drivers (speakers) against the ears, so you get a quieter background to your music at the expense of some loss of 'space'. There's also a size and weight penalty, which would put me off using mine for travel.
I've not tried active noise cancellers. To me, a more elegant solution is the ear canal type that seals out the ambient noise. No batteries to expire at the beginning of a long flight, and very low listening levels, which is good for hearing in the long term and creates much less noise for neighbours to hear. Mine are Shure SE210, now obsolete but giving good service after five years, and they travel in a case that fits in the palm of my hand.
|
tinyurl.com/bh6flt8 these look quite good for the money.
Or these - www.johnlewis.com/231638311/Product.aspx if budget not an issue (not checked prices anywhere else)
with headphones, I like to actually try them on first.
EDIT: Shure may be worth a look too.
Last edited by: ToMoCo on Tue 29 Jan 13 at 09:17
|
>> Don't you have to turn off Bluetooth on
>> devices?
>>
I dunno. Do you?
|
I prefer the sound of open backs, but the HD25 do sound amazing for a closed back, it doesn't have the closed in headphone like sound most closed backs suffer from.
Of course sensisity if another thing to consider if these are going to be used as portable headphones.
|
>> >> Don't you have to turn off Bluetooth on
>> >> devices?
>> >>
>>
>> I dunno. Do you?
One of the many illogicalities of the rules of air travel. I'm sure they make 'em up to keep the passengers suitably cowed. Probably not a bad idea given the way people behave generally.
I try to comply with it all because because I pick my battles, and getting shirty about silly rules benefits me not at all.
But if it was so important to have wireless devices turned off then they wouldn't be trusting the passengers to do it would they? Even I have forgotten to turn my phone off on at least one occasion.
And when the laptops come out I'd be surprised if more than 50% have the wifi or bluetooth turned off because many of them don't even know how.
I'm not surprised FF has ducked the question.
Last edited by: Manatee on Tue 29 Jan 13 at 11:02
|
Looked this up for you (it's the American version but is basically identical to the OEB published in Europe):
------------------------------
FCOM 809/1 - Electronic Interference from Portable Equipment Carried On by Passengers
Airlines often wonder whether they should allow passengers to operate electronic devices in the cabin without any limit.
Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) section 91.19 allows passengers to operate :
* Portable voice recorders
* Hearing aids
* Heart pacemakers
* Electric shavers
* Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
It is obvious that the myriad portable devices that now exists or that may be available in the future cannot be tested.
As far as aircraft specific electrical flight controls and engine control computers on Airbus aircraft are concerned, there is no chance of their operation being affected by passenger-operated electronic devices, due to the high level of protection applied to these systems.
Nevertheless, this question arises for navigation and communication receivers and is applicable to any aircraft.
A study has been conducted by an RTCA (Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics) special committee.
The conclusion is that the probability of a passenger-operated device interfering with the ILS localizer during a typical flight is about one in a million.
Airbus Industrie recommendations is that no portable device should be used during take-off and landing.
Concerning radio phones Airbus Industrie recommends to prohibit the use of those devices.
----------------------------------
So there you have it. From the horse's mouth, so to speak. My take on this statement is that you can do whatever the hell you want in the cruise, just switch the stuff off for landing. Your mileage may vary.
Last edited by: Fursty Ferret on Tue 29 Jan 13 at 19:59
|
Thanks FF. What we all surmised I expect, or aircraft would be raining down on us.
I'd still like them to test fly a A380 with 800 cellphones switched on, searching for a signal, just to check nothing happens, with the person who wrote that on board :-)
|
>> I'd still like them to test fly a A380 with 800 cellphones switched on
Cellphones are only broadcasting at the same frequencies as base stations. Base stations are still doing that when your phone is off. Other phones nearby are still doing this too. Must be hundreds in an airport.
The critical point for flight is take off and landing - when the plane will be near enough mobile phone base stations. I don't think mobile phones are an issue to planes. And some now have their own base stations so they can charge a lot for your roaming calls.
More of a problem with mobiles and planes might be phones confusing base stations.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 29 Jan 13 at 22:21
|
It wasn't an entirely serious idea.
Nevertheless it's unsatisfactory. It's either a risk to avionics/navi or it isn't, so the voluntary compliance approach is inappropriate, given that there are so many gits who make a point of not complying with any instructions.
Howsomever.
In populated areas with coverage, I guess the base stations and the phones could get a bit confused - the speed might make managing the hand offs tricky. But miles from any base stations the phones must ramp up the broadcast power. It's then that 800 handsets at full blast will affect the FADECs or flight controls if they are ever going to.
More importantly they will probably ruin the picture and sound on the film and make ipods buzz.
Actually it must all be a bit of a frustration for operators like Ryanair who would probably like to put a base station on the aircraft to generate some revenue. The myth would be bust then. But at least the phones won't be radiating at maximum.
|
|
But some aircraft already have mobile phone cell stations on them. So no reason for Ryanair not to get this tested and into service on their 737s. Or maybe the 737 is too old a design?
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 29 Jan 13 at 23:06
|
Do they really? I recall handsets on planes though I haven't seen one for a while. Don't remember how they worked, if I ever knew. I don't think they were used much anyway, but it would be different now with all the social networking carp if they got some proper bandwidth going.
It'll come for sure. With the demand driven by witless entertainment, sport, gambling, shopping and facetweeting rather than tycoonery.
Last edited by: Manatee on Tue 29 Jan 13 at 23:18
|
>> Do they really? I recall handsets on planes though I haven't seen one for a while.
I think it was a novelty factor, but I tried a phone on a plane in 1993 I think. Air Canada. You had to swipe a credit card to use it.
But today you can use your own phone. e.g.
www.emirates.com/english/flying/staying_connected/staying_connected.aspx
You're going to have to have it off at take off and landing. Like almost all electronic equipment.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Wed 30 Jan 13 at 00:18
|
>> You're going to have to have it off at take off and landing.
BBD Air welcomes you aboard...
|
But miles
>> from any base stations the phones must ramp up the broadcast power. It's then that
>> 800 handsets at full blast will affect the FADECs or flight controls if they are
>> ever going to.
The Full output ERP of a mobile is 4 watts, 800 phones at 4 watts is still 4 watts ERP in total
That AM HF radio used for ATC is far more filthy, not to mention the on board RADAR
An aircraft is a mobile interference machine
|
>> The Full output ERP of a mobile is 4 watts, 800 phones at 4 watts
>> is still 4 watts ERP in total
>>
>> That AM HF radio used for ATC is far more filthy, not to mention the
>> on board RADAR
>>
>> An aircraft is a mobile interference machine
But a large number of them in differerent locations and on different frequencies with possibilty of combinations producing further spurii isn't a chance I'd want to take.
Weather radar is in the nose outwith the pressure hull. HF radio is not, IIRC universal although a surprising number of European flights venture into oceanic airspace (Biscay). The installation is a/c specific, shielded and transmits via a long wire outside the pressure hull.
|
Bought some Bose QC 15s. $262.
The 2 pin adapter was a bonus for use in the elderly KLM 747, and I managed 5 hours sleep despite the young screamers sat behind.
It was the first time in several years that 'loud' children were in close proximity, so it was a good test. And the sound quality watching the inflight movies (Argo, Lincoln and Up) was fantastic.
|
Noise cancelling headphones - Zero
