Electronic Ear-Pro recs?

[jacob]

I would spend as much as you can afford on this purchase. The electronics in the more expensive models will hold up under use and stress....

[chances R]

Leights makes 2 models of electronic muffs.  The larger model has a NRR of 28.  Both work fine.  If you need more protection you can always add plugs.

[swim615]

I really would like to get a set of these as well. Went shooting with a friend that had them and I had no idea what I had been missing. We were able to talk normally and hear each other just fine and while shooting the sound was greatly reduced.

 

With the replies everyone is giving the prices have a great range, so my question is to those who have tried a set for say $39 ( or a $27 pink set) and a set for $300. Are the more expensive ones really allot better and worth the extra funds? If so what is better about them? Thanks

Edited December 8, 2013 by swim615

[jacob]

Most of time price difference is gonna be electronics and just the quality of construction in general...Some models can be used in conjunction with radios, etc...I have the Peltor Tac Sport....very good for less than $200....

I know some people will say that the $30 Caldwell are ok...and they aren't bad for the price if you have to buy another pair down the road...If you are just going to the indoor range then get them...but I would say if you will be shooting outside in adverse conditions or in a training environment, spring for the little more expensive pair...

[mikegideon]

Most of time price difference is gonna be electronics and just the quality of construction in general...Some models can be used in conjunction with radios, etc...I have the Peltor Tac Sport....very good for less than $200....

I know some people will say that the $30 Caldwell are ok...and they aren't bad for the price if you have to buy another pair down the road...If you are just going to the indoor range then get them...but I would say if you will be shooting outside in adverse conditions or in a training environment, spring for the little more expensive pair...

 

Nothing against Peltor, but the Caldwell cans have held up just fine. Durability is no issue (in my experience), so I would need other reasons to choose. If I was an RSO, or had some other reason to spend regular long hours wearing cans, I probably would pop for the highest durability I could find.

[jacob]

I have 2 pair of Caldwell that we bought when we first started shooting. One pair of them the electronics are fried in them, the others are meh. This has only been for indoor range use.

I am only recommending the Peltor because I have had better luck with them and have options to continue use of them as my shooting advances....I understand everyone's budgets and intended uses are different. I am just of the mind that I will always buy a little better than what I think I need so that as I progress in my skills I will not have to spend more money as quickly. ..I am like that with everything, not just shooting...

[Guest Lester Weevils]

My leights have lasted several years and don't seem much the worse for wear. I use em for loud power tools and such in addition to shooting. Been thinking about getting a second set, so one set can stay with the tools and the other set stay in the range bag, so I can avoid possibly forgetting to take the muffs along shooting if thay were last used in the shop, or maybe were last left in the chainsaw toolbox.

There are "sound valve" plugs from various mfrs, which attenuate maybe 3 or 6 dB, but a little rubber valve in a cylindrical insert closes off for loud impulse sounds, giving much better NRR on occasional impulses. They are not good enough alone for shooting, but are likely plugs to use along with muffs.

And the etymotics musicians earplugs also sold by several companies, which are very comfortable and have about 15 dB NRR. The trick of the etymotics plugs is that the freq response is reasonably flat, so you can better understand speech even if it is attenuated very quiet. Which is near impossible with foam or solid rubber plugs that drastically cut the highs but the bass not so much.

But the etymotics also should be used with muffs for shooting.

[mikegideon]

I have 2 pair of Caldwell that we bought when we first started shooting. One pair of them the electronics are fried in them, the others are meh. This has only been for indoor range use.

I am only recommending the Peltor because I have had better luck with them and have options to continue use of them as my shooting advances....I understand everyone's budgets and intended uses are different. I am just of the mind that I will always buy a little better than what I think I need so that as I progress in my skills I will not have to spend more money as quickly. ..I am like that with everything, not just shooting...

 

I understand. I've just been lucky with my Caldwells, I guess. Budget isn't a problem for me, other than the fact that it's never quite as big as my list :). I'm a rifle guy, so profile is a big deal to me. Anyway, I'm anything but cheap. I'll take another look at the Peltor stuff

[Daniel]

I laughed at the unedited version :)

i thought he might not get it. I didn't want to explain.

[Daniel]

Maybe I'll just double up lol. Certainly don't want my hearing to get worse and if the the slim electronics can amplify talking above my Surefire plugs, then I can live with that...now I just gotta decide between Caldwell or Peltor for the price, or jump up to the MSA Sordins. For those that have tried the Sordins, what is the big difference the Supreme Basic (analog) and Supreme Pro-X (digital)? Am I at a disadvantage for wanting to save $100 to get the basics?

i got mine on eBay from a surplus store outside ft Bragg for much less than retail and they were brand new.

[chances R]

The higher end electronic muffs cut down on the db by compression.  Compression is where all sound is lowered to safer levels with uninterrupted sound.  The lower ends simply cut the sound off during high levels.......that is no sound is transmitted.  As I said previously, I have the HLeights and prefer the larger set indoors and with rifles.  I also use a single compression  electronic plug when shotgunning, outside pistol, and for hunting.  It gives amplification as a plus for range commands as well as hunting.  In the other ear I use a regular foam plug.

[Daniel]

Mine are used rain or shine and predominately outdoors. The more expensive are generally waterproof or very resistant.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

The higher end electronic muffs cut down on the db by compression.  Compression is where all sound is lowered to safer levels with uninterrupted sound.  The lower ends simply cut the sound off during high levels.......that is no sound is transmitted.  As I said previously, I have the HLeights and prefer the larger set indoors and with rifles.  I also use a single compression  electronic plug when shotgunning, outside pistol, and for hunting.  It gives amplification as a plus for range commands as well as hunting.  In the other ear I use a regular foam plug.

 

I tried an expensive set of compression muffs at a gun show some years ago, which worked wonderful enough and had such good fidelity that as best I could tell they would probably also work great playing loud music on stage as well. Was sorely tempted to buy them but chickened out because they were so expensive.

 

They were "lots better audio quality" than needed for shooting, but real neat. I can't recall the brand of those muffs. Whoever made them, did a good job. There is "good compression" and there is "nasty compression", the second kind good for perhaps amateur radio or old-fashioned portable recorders, but not good enough for music. It's a shame all the really good stuff tends to be expensive. :)

[mikegideon]

i thought he might not get it. I didn't want to explain.

 

Figured that

[mikegideon]

I tried an expensive set of compression muffs at a gun show some years ago, which worked wonderful enough and had such good fidelity that as best I could tell they would probably also work great playing loud music on stage as well. Was sorely tempted to buy them but chickened out because they were so expensive.

 

They were "lots better audio quality" than needed for shooting, but real neat. I can't recall the brand of those muffs. Whoever made them, did a good job. There is "good compression" and there is "nasty compression", the second kind good for perhaps amateur radio or old-fashioned portable recorders, but not good enough for music. It's a shame all the really good stuff tends to be expensive. :)

 

Maybe I'll just design my own compressor for the Caldwells. More than one way to skin a cat.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Maybe I'll just design my own compressor for the Caldwells. More than one way to skin a cat.

 

Etymotics used to make (maybe still makes) very expensive "hearing aids for upscale recording engineers and producers" who still want to work but have blown out their ears. Very high audio fidelity, eq, and compression. The syndrome is-- Not only does one become insensitive to certain frequency bands, but one also becomes "pain sensitive" to even moderately loud sound. So one needs boost, EQ, AND compression/limiting to do the job.

 

The high-end etymotics, shure and westlake in-ear monitors seem to have excellent isolation. Especially when mated with a custom ear mold. I've never tested my etymotics ER-4 for shooting (not plugged into anything). I suspect they would have at least as good attenuation as ordinary hearing protection earplugs.

 

For awhile was toying with the feasibility of selling a "pretty good quality" i-pod sized box with good condenser mics, quiet high-dynamic-range electronics (so the preamp, pre-compressor, doesn't distort on loud SPL's), and compression for use with in-ear monitors for stage use. The gig I used to play for years, was on a small stage that was not "real loud" compared to death metal, but loud enough to hurt my ears, and I'd wear the etymotics musicians plugs. However, we had to confer with the singers between songs to discuss what song they wanted to play next and whatever. 15 or 18 dB attenuation was enough to protect my ears on our "moderately loud" stage sound, but that much attenuation made it iffy to hear singers and musicians talking between songs. Something high-fidelity but the same concept as shooting muffs, seemed the most ideal solution, and in-ear monitors don't look as nerdy as muffs or earphones on stage.

 

Maybe nowadays somebody makes such a box, dunno. I was figgering the sweet spot for musician sales would be $100 or at most $200. Thangs as expensive as the etymotics musicians hearing aid, most working musicians would rather spend that kind of money on a new high-end geetar or keyboard.

[mikegideon]

Obviously, stage monitoring is LOTS more complex. I've always worried that shooting muffs just weren't fast enough. I've never dug into a set to see what they're doing. My guess is that it's pretty cheesy. I have all the gear to test stuff like that. I just never have done it.

 

I know the timing on the Caldwells sucks. They may not even be the worst. The starting point would be to record good, undistorted wave files of a good range of center fire rifle shots.

[scoutfsu]

Figured that

 

Mind letting me in on the joke?

[mikegideon]

Mind letting me in on the joke?

 

His original response was "What?". I got it. I figure most folks would too.

[scoutfsu]

His original response was "What?". I got it. I figure most folks would too.

I get it.  Especially after sitting through the VA briefing at Ft Dix today....I think they aggravated my tinnitus. :slap:

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Obviously, stage monitoring is LOTS more complex. I've always worried that shooting muffs just weren't fast enough. I've never dug into a set to see what they're doing. My guess is that it's pretty cheesy. I have all the gear to test stuff like that. I just never have done it.

 

I know the timing on the Caldwells sucks. They may not even be the worst. The starting point would be to record good, undistorted wave files of a good range of center fire rifle shots.

 

Perhaps 1978 when I was obsessively interested in compressors and limiters, the DIY author Craig Anderton published an article about a music-oriented hard limiter based on the signetice NE-something-or-the-other dual compander chip. Actually, it was an article slavishly copying one of the example circuits in the signetics appnotes for the chip, good work if you can get it. :) The company PIAIA also made an inexpensive kit of the thing.

 

It was a truly fast-attack limiter. A comparator would switch on/off driving a current sourcing transistor controlling the transconductance gain cell, with a rather small valued smoothing capacitor. The transistor could source enough current to have microsecond-level attack, with IIRC perhaps 10 or 100 ms decay. I built the thang and it was useless, because every time the limiter would fire, it would put a click in the audio. And for instance, driving two-fisted acoustic piano playing into the limiter at high levels, when you would hold big chords it would randomly click every time all the piano notes would  re-inforce and the instantaneous signal would exceed threshold. But it looked great on an oscilloscope with simple signal generator waves.

 

I debugged the circuit expecting to find DC shifts in the gain cell causing the clicks. However, the DC shift was surprisingly minimal. It turned out that the "near instantaneous" attack, on each "first waveform above threshold"-- However high up the rise of each "first wave above theshold" when it would trigger the hard limiter, it would square off that first wave, but subsequent waves after the gain limiting happened were very clean. The ear was hearing the discontiguity as a click, though it wasn't a spike or DC shift or whatever, merely a sudden single discontiguity in the waveform.

 

Years later I noticed the same thang programming digital limiters-- You can get instant attacks easy with a digital limiter, but the discontiguities cause psycho-acoustic clicks and thumps. A naive hard limiter needs at least 1 ms of attack time to avoid psycho-acoustic clicks, and 10 ms would really be better. But of course in recording, the attack time allows distortion to happen for a few milliseconds if you are driving the recorder hard.

 

In digital, the look-ahead peak limiter is of course the solution. Delay the signal a few milliseconds so you can ramp up the gain reduction and avoid discontiguities in the signal.

 

Hmmm, if one could do it cheap enough for electronic muffs, a lookahead circuit probably wouldn't be a problem. For ordinary walking-around operating power tools, shooting, talking to folks, a few milliseconds of delay probably wouldn't bother anybody, and it would give "perfect" peak limiting without psychoacoustic clicks. In live performance music, even short delays can be a problem.

Edited December 8, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[mikegideon]

Chips got better. Fortunately, I've been paid real money to design compressors. No need for look ahead digital. You can do it with a feed forward analog topology, and some instantaneous limiting. I even have a development board that I designed for the last big project. I can lash up a prototype in about an hour. I just need the wav files. There may be some out there

[PolePosition]

Leaning towards the Peltor Tactical Sports. Just under $100 and also have the optional gel cups, like the MSA Sordins do. 

[Daniel]

Yes to gel cups.

[McAllyn]

Be sure to check how to replace the battery in those Peltors.  My 6's require that you pull the ear cups off (which is not a easy task) and dig into the cans themselves to replace 2 batteries in each ear.  Had I to do it over again, I'd have spent more money on something more efficient.

 

Mac