maitaitom

I took Amtrak from L.A to San Diego not too long ago, and the passengers in my car had the misfortune to hear (very loudly) all about the upcoming high school graduation of this cell-phone lady's daughter. By the time I reached Oceandise, the first movie that came to my mind was , "Throw Mama From The Train!"

rkkwan

Try some good noise-isolating headphones, like the Shure E series. Not only does it block people's conversation, they also cut ambient (engine) noise. I don't travel without mine.

blackduff

Maybe wonder why the underground in the UK want to keep phones jammed underground. In Madrid it was cell phones which detonated the bombs-jamming some of these phones might have saved some people. Also, didn't the cell phone be involved with the London bombs?

A positive use of the cell phones on-board on airplanes if you remember 9/11 and the people who used these telephones telling people what is happening. That day it would have been better if everyone had telephones.

Like it says in England, there are turns and roundabouts.

Blackduff

Heimdall

Many people seem to be missing the point here. Would you seriously want another passenger on your flight to be operating a jamming device? What if it interferes with inflight systems or communications with air traffic control?

I sympathize with those of you who don't like listening to half a cellphone conversation (would it be better if you heard the other half as well?). My answer to inflight noise is Bose QuietComfort2 noise cancelling headphones.

lobo_mau

Heimdal, you hit the point. In fact I find strange to see so many simpathizing with somebody with a behaviour comparable to a terrorist.

Robespierre

I don't even like the idea of picocells in airplanes. I know they <i>think</i> they're safe. But no one can know what interactions between RF devices and onboard systems were left out of their test protocol.

But I agree with Heimdall: if you want quiet, bring your own. I think my Sennheisers (good German engineering) are better than the overpriced Bose in any event. Bose seems to spend more than should be necessary on advertising, and not enough on development.

tomboy

Getting back on topic:
ASSUMING it would not interfere with aircraft electronics in any way (one would certainly want to verify this first), would its use over the ocean be subject to US, European, maritime, or other law, or none?
The noise-cancelling earphones sound like a viable option: Not being an audiophile, my primary interest would be anti-sound, rather than sound quality. There seems a surfeit of models available. Could you recommend one noise-blocking/cancelling model number that would fit my needs?

rkkwan

tomboy - I agree with Robespierre here (which is a rare occassion! ) that Bose is overpriced. If you want a regular over-the-ear headphones, go with the Sennheisers' noise cancellation models.

I like in-ear buds myself, and Shure makes some nice ones. They are noise-isolating, not cancelling, but work just as fine. The E2c model goes for under $100. There are also E3c, E4c and E5c. My E4cs are the smallest of all, and I found a good deal for about $170. Shure makes professional ear-pieces for musicians - they don't have the strongest bass, but overall sound quality is very good. They also come with a variety of sleeves of different sizes, so one should be able to find one that fit well.

Heimdall

I agree the Bose are expensive, but in addition to their noise cancelling ability provide hifi quality sound when used with an MP3, DVD player, and even many inflight entertainment systems. I didn't want their first version (QuietComfort) because it was too bulky to carry, but jumped at the QuietComfort2 as soon as it came on the market.

Bose was the market leader, but as with many products, other companies followed with cheaper, and in some cases, perhaps, better imitations. Robespierre's Sennheisers may indeed be a better buy - only a side-by-side comparison would tell.

Traviata

Robespierre,

Which Sennheisers do you use and recommend??? Thanks.

Robespierre

The model I have isn't made any more, but what matters more than my opinion is your ears. Try some different brands in a hi-fi store, and compare specifications.

(Oh, except on the Bose, because they don't publish specifications. This is the equivalent of a hair dryer manufacturer not revealing how many watts his device consumes.)

Traviata

Robespierre,

Thanks...that makes sense.

tomboy

RKKWAN:
What's the difference between noise
-cancelling and -isolating?

AnthonyGA

Technically, if cellphones are safe on the aircraft, so are cellphone jammers. They necessarily both transmit at the same frequencies.

In any case, cellphones are not hugely dangerous, despite folk mythology to the contrary. They are, however, transmitters, and are thus potentially more of a hazard to avionics than passive receivers (such as GPS) and non-transmitters (such as wristwatches), which are harmless.

What worries me is not people jamming cellphones, but the violent impulses of people who are ready to kill someone for doing so without even bothering to learn if their own beliefs have any basis in fact.

I'm also surprised that so many people seem to have difficulty ignoring others around them. Perhaps they all live in the countryside where there is no one else to ignore; but in big cities, there are always people around, and they are always talking, so anyone bothered by that must be going crazy from the stress after a fairly short time.

tomboy

I guess that explains these episodes I've been having!!

Robespierre

&quot;Technically, if cellphones are safe on the aircraft, so are cellphone jammers. They necessarily both transmit at the same frequencies.&quot;

Not exactly. Phones use spread-spectrum signaling that uses a whole band of frequencies. For jamming to be effective, it would have to be broadband noise that covered that band. Now you get into sum-and-difference frequencies aliasing into navigational and/or digital signaling channels within the airplane. This is not a Good Thing.

rkkwan

tomboy - Noise cancelling headphones have tiny microphones on the outside that detects noise in the environment. It then creates an opposite soundwave that cancels out that noise. So, there's a circuitry involved and it uses a small battery for power, which lasts for a while. Most designs only cancel out the lower frequencies - which are very effective against engine noise, but you can still hear others if they're calling you.

Noise isolating ear-buds have no extra circuitry. It simply works by forming a tight seal in your ear canal. It isolates all frequencies.

I used to have the Sony MDR-NC10 ear buds that are both noise cancelling and isolating. They sound great, but look hideous (especially for men, as I look like wearing ugly ear rings). The newer version MDR-NC11 look better, but the sound quality is totally crap. I do not recommend them.

Heimdall

The Sennheisers are cheaper than Bose, but are they really better? I don't know, but CNET did a review, and to find their results go to http://reviews.cnet.com/Headphones/4...5120625-3.html.

GSteed

Have some fun! Use a recorder to copy the conversation. Suggest you are either writing a book or doing sociology research. Play the conversation back, take notes.

Robespierre

Yes, I think Sennheisers are vastly superior. I don't know what criteria the CNET reviewer(s) applied, but <u>my</u> review would use terms like <i>definition</i> and <i>transparency</i>. Sennheisers have both in abundance; Bose have none of either. I think most consumers (and 20-something reviewers) are fooled into thinking that deep bass is the end-all of high fidelity (it has ever been thus: Magnavox made a reputation in the '30s with over-accentuated low frequency response), when actually the flatter the response curve, the better.

Speaking of terminology used in the reviews, the only significant word I see in the Bose review is &quot;ante,&quot; while &quot;featherweight&quot; and &quot;supercomfy&quot; are applied to Sennheiser. Translation: wow, are those Bose things <i>heavy</i>, or what?