Good noise cancellation headphones?

[tm37]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: jonnyGURU

Originally posted by: LegendKiller


With my old job I'd go to Vegas from Orlando every 2mo or so.

Did we work together??!?!

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

People say canalphones are better, IMHO they aren't I tried shure, but I am a bit picky about my canals and couldn't take them.

I agree. But have you tried noise cancelling canals? People that think good canals substitute for noise cancelling just don't know any better. But noise cancelling ear canal phones.... that's good shiznit.

Yes, I did. I just don't like canal phones. I don't find them as comfortable, thats just me. They were about equal in noise reduction, the canals might have cut out a bit more uppers, but not enough to justify their uncomfortable nature (again, just my preference).

Besides, most docs would wholeheartedly agree that canal phones are bad for you.

Hmm.. You have spoken to most doctors have you?

The best canal phones were developed by http://www.etymotic.com/ and the owner of Etymotic is one of leading people in PRESERVING hearing.

Canals phone sound LOUDER than they are but any LOUD sound can be damaging. People using canal phones tend to experence the occulsion effect which cause an amplification within the earcanal, and if you blast a high level of sound into you ear I assure you that after time you will have a hearing loss and that is dependant on the levels of sound pressure level that you expose your ear to and not so much where the sound is generated (in the ear) or our of the ear. bottom line is that 100dB is 100 dB.

Yes, I have actually talked to 3 ear doctors, thank you very much. Both showed me studies that highlighted that in-ear aren't as good for you.

100db from where? 100db from source is much different than 100db at destination. Furthermore, 100db can perform differently in different types of atmospheres. Closed sub boxes are different than ported.

Lastly, just putting something in your ear isn't the best for you. Most ear docs will agree with that.

by ear doctor I am guessing you mean otolaryngologists?

Ok in order to recieve the same perception of sound from an insert phone you actually deliver LEss sound to the tympanic membrame and that creates less stress on the Cochlia.

This is due to the occlusion effect.

How far are you ramming these into you head? They allow you to listen at a lower lever due to the removal of ambeint noise. lower = better.

I am have spoken to over 100 doctors and never has the delivery mechanism (insert or superaural) been what is condisered just the level used to achieve the comfortible listening level.

when I speak of sound level I am speaking of at the tympanic membrane, obviously 100dB far away is lower than right on top of it. It is called the rule of 6 So if you take a measurement in the ear using a probe microphone you can achieve the same listening level with a lower dB at the ear, I have checked

 

[iliopsoas]

I need some good noise-cancelling headphones for air-travel too. You found any yet?

 

[mugs]

I have a set of Altec Lansings that I got from Buy.com for $30 (marked down from $150). They do a pretty good job, but they're not as well-built as the Bose noise cancelling headphones. Sometimes when I jiggle the cord on my Altec Lansings it makes noise in the headphones.

Just make sure you have the right expectations for noise cancelling headphones... they'll greatly reduce the noise from the plane's engines, but they won't help much with people's voices and annoying crying babies.

 

[moskey71]

You have my vote for Senneheiser HD-280 Pro.

 

[SLCentral]

Originally posted by: mrSHEiK124

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: mrSHEiK124

Originally posted by: swtethan

Originally posted by: mrSHEiK124
OP, ignore anyone recommending Bose, Phillips, or Sony headphones and earbuds. The bottom line is, they don't compare when you put them up against awesome IEMs like Shures, Etymotics, or UEs. Simply put, they suck, and they aren't worth it if you pay $10 or $100 for them.

Since you've never really used IEMs before, go for Shure's E2C model. They're ridiculously durable, and they sound great. If you're fine with the sound, keep them, and be happy . If you're the kind of person that always wants something better, give them away or sell them a year or two down the line and either get more expensive Shures, or jump ship and get Etys or UEs. I wouldn't get any Ety model as a first pair because they're a lot more fragile than the E2Cs, the UEs are quite durable though, so check those out too.

EDIT: If you want headphones, and not in ear monitors, it's Grado, Sennheiser, or BUST. There are a couple of other decent headphone brands, but you won't find Bose or Sony anywhere on the list.

Sony is in ear, and has good sound that wont break the bank.

If you're referring to their Fontopia in-ears, yeah, they sound OK. Sony's most expensive pair is $49.99, and my Shure E2Cs were $64.99. Guess which pair was worth the money and which wasn't? The Sonys were very muddy and had very bad separation on the high end, the Shures blew them out of the water in sound quality, and $15 sure didn't bother my wallet as much as the Sonys bothered my ears

we get it, you are a shure fanboy. still, thats no reason to tell the op, must less anyone, to totally ignore what other people have to say based on your own opinions. not that the op will, but still, its kind of silly.

I'm not a Shure fanboy, I'm a crap hater. If you'd even read my post you'd see I recommended MUCH more than Shures. Last time I checked Shure didn't manufacture Ety, UE, Grado, Sennheiser's products. The only thing Sony is good for is a pair of $10 throwaway buds. You get what you pay for with sound equipment, the sole exception being Bose, where you get about 1/10th of what you payed for.

100% correct. I started out with the Shure e2c's about a year and a half ago, and six months later, I bumped up to the Ultimate Ears Super.Fi 5 Pro. They're much more expensive, but blow the Shure's out of the water. The soundstyle of the UE's are a bit different then the Shures, so it's hard to say which company is better, but from what I've heard, I prefer UE. I've never heard the Shure high-end products before, however, just the e2c.

I finally upgraded to the custom-fit UE-5c Ultimate Ears inear phones, and haven't looked back since. By far, these are the best in-ear phones I've EVER used, bar none. Yeah, they were pricey, cost about $650 after impressions, shipping, etc., but fully worth it, IMO. They do offer a higher end custom IEM for $900 (UE-10), but from what I've heard, regular listening is actually better with the UE-5c, since the UE-10 gives a more accurate sound, while the UE-5c is a little more fun.

Either way, I suggest getting the e2c, or even the e3c, and see how you like them. You'll def. be impressed.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
People (including me) love crapping on Bose products. I can't stand their marketing, poor build quality, and general BS. I never advocate buying anything bose.

Except the Quietcomfort 2 or 3.

With my old job I'd go to Vegas from Orlando every 2mo or so. I'd also make frequent trips to MN and other places, so I was flying about once a month, if not more. Since I was able to get some Sharper Image gift certs through Discover, I used those and a sale to drop the price of the QC2 to 80 bucks.

I have *never* regretted that decision. These things are perfect for long flights, they cut out a good 80% of all engine noise (remaining 20% is higher frequency stuff that is harder to cancel). My ears are not sweaty, and they are not sore from the droning of the engine.

People say canalphones are better, IMHO they aren't I tried shure, but I am a bit picky about my canals and couldn't take them.

The older QC2 had headband problems, the plastic cracked after a while. I took them into a Bose store and they swapped them out within 2 min, which I really appreciated.

People shouldn't rag on a product unless they have knowledge of that product. The QC2 are awesome, if a bit pricey, at eliminating noise and making air travel easier on the ears (and mind).

Are they big? Not really. The QC3 is much smaller. Personally, I'll take an over-ear headphone that cuts out more noise and are a bit bigger than over ear that don't cut out as much. Besides, they don't look retro because everybody knows what they are. No chicks are going to knock you for having 300 headphones.

Sounds like the Bose phones are your only experience with active noise cancelling. The technology is great, certainly, but considering you can get the same thing for 10-20% of the price, which is the better choice? Most canalphones aren't active noice cancelling btw, thought I'd clarify since you seemed to get mixed up in subsequent posts...

To further clarify: Passive noise cancelling works by creating a seal between the sound drivers and your eardrums. IEMs create this seal in your ear, supraaural headphones do it around the outside of your ear, but the general idea is the same, and is the idea behind earplugs. Active noice cancelling, on the other hand, has a small chip which detects outside noise and sends the equal and opposite sound waves to the sound drivers, cancelling out the outside noise and leaving you with just the music, in theory. In practice it's not perfect, but it's a good deal better than passive noise cancelling and a great idea to protect your hearing when exposed to loud noises for along time, such as mowing the lawn or taking a plane trip.

Everyone recommending IEMs or closed phones, your input is appreciated but you can only attenuate the sound of jet engines, lawnmowers, etc. so much, you'll still need high volume to hear your music, which negates the whole point and can be damaging to your hearing. Active noise cancelling is the way to go with loud, droning noise.

The guy who recommended the Sony v700s might be interested to know they're pretty much universally hated by those who've heard a lot of headphones. Have a look at Head-Fi, as always, for detailed and personal headphone information.

OP, if you haven't decided yet, I'd suggest the Philips in-ears a few other posters have mentioned.