VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Main > Reviews
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:01 AM
Guy Prevost's Avatar
Guy Prevost Guy Prevost is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: albuquerque, nm
Posts: 1,152
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by douglassmt View Post
Wow, how interesting. I've been flying with the QT Halos for several years now having found that they are better at noise suppression (and much, much cheaper) than my Zulus. I've been happy with them with minor issues but overall love them. So talk me into why I should try these? What are the specifics that make them better than the Halos. I seem to recall the Cards used Halos for quite a while also.
Hi Bryan!

Whether you try them or not is certainly up to you! I was just trying to relay a positive experience. I don't have financial interest in the CQ1, but I do consider the Cards friends and am impressed with what they've done.

My wife and I have used QT Halos and been relatively happy with them since 2007. I didn't realize how much the issues bothered me until I tried something better. I completely agree with you about them having better noise suppression than Zulus. Noise suppression between the Halos and the CQ1 is the same from my perspective. I think Scott and Tanya have flown with QT Halos and Clarity Aloft for years. That's why they gave up and designed their own.

Here are the problems I have had with QT Halos that the CQ1 addresses:
  1. The Halos have terrible potentiometers for volume. They need to be cleaned every 6 months or you loose sound in one or both ears unless the volume knob is precisely in that day's sweet spot.
  2. The Halos have a very noise susceptible microphone that breaks squelch if you point an air vent at your face or chest.
  3. The Halos have a short microphone boom that places the microphone to the side of your mouth, further reducing clarity.
  4. The Halo mike is never where you put it or where you want it. The CQ1 mike boom stays exactly where you put it. In front of your mouth, with no spring back.
  5. The CQ1 has a much stiffer frame that stays where you put it.
  6. The CQ1 has durable Kevlar reinforced cables and robust clips to clip them to your shirt/seat-belts.
  7. Intangibles: Everything about the Halo feels weak and cheap. The CQ1 addresses that. The importance of this is hard to quantify, but it matters to me.
__________________
Guy Prevost
Albuquerque, NM
RV-8a Built, Enjoyed, Sold
Two Kids: Built, Enjoying
RV-10, Bought, Rebuilt, Enjoying
Build / First Flight Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f9HXzZT1dE
Build Log: http://websites.expercraft.com/geprevo/

Arguing on the internet is like having a competition to see who can hit a brick wall the hardest. You may win, but you're still an idiot.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:43 AM
DaleB's Avatar
DaleB DaleB is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Omaha, NE (KMLE)
Posts: 2,026
Default

I've been using my Halos for roughly four years, I think. When I bought my RV-12, it came with a Bose A20 -- tried those and kept using the Halos, so that says a lot for them. Just to convey my own experience with them...
  1. Potentiometers - I haven't had any issues at all with mine over the past 4 years. I only need to adjust them occasionally, but they've been trouble-free for me. And trust me, I'd gripe if it was a problem. I'm picky.
  2. Microphone - My Halos seem about the same as the Bose A20 in this respect. I don't have a steerable air vent (RV-12 driver), but adjusting the intercom squelch is an annoyingly frequent task. I'd love to find a better mic.
  3. Microphone boom - This has not seemed to be an issue for me, but it wouldn't hurt to have it an inch longer.
  4. "Spring back" - I haven't noticed this at all. I put the mic in position, it stays there.
  5. The CQ1 has a much stiffer frame - One reason I am glad I picked the Halos over Clarity Aloft is that their frame was uncomfortable as heck. It was way too stiff and dug into the back of my admittedly over-sized noggin. I'm not sure "stiffer" is a good thing in my case.
  6. Kevlar reinforced cables and robust clips - now, THAT would be a big plus. My biggest gripe about the Halos has been the long, thin, floppy cord that gets tangled around shoes and everything else. I stepped on my clip and broke it, and QT has no replacements -- he said just buy some cheap clips on Amazon. Well, I did, and as expected they are cheap clips that I end up replacing every few months.
  7. Everything about the Halo feels weak and cheap - I'm not going to argue with that. A little more robust construction would be good. I have had ZERO problems with my Halos, but they do "feel" a little flimsy. Certainly not enough so to justify replacing them (with more expensive headsets) if they're not broken.

Having said all of that... if I were in the market for new headsets right now, and given the frequent difficulties with lead times in getting the Halos, I'd definitely give the CQ1 a look. Personally I'd want to try them on first. The CA looked great, but I couldn't wear them for more than a few minutes. Fortunately they were also way overpriced.

I also wonder if, due to the hand-built, low volume nature of the Halos, how much "the same" they all are. If the materials very much from batch to batch, it can make a big difference. If you and I have the same model of David Clamps or Lightspeeds bought a couple years apart, I'd bet our headsets are identical. If we have Halos bought a couple years apart -- well, maybe, maybe not. And it wouldn't take much to go from "just right" to "too floppy" on things like the microphone boom.
__________________
Dale

Omaha, NE
RV-12 # 222 N980KM "Screamin' Canary" (bought flying)
Fisher Celebrity (under construction)
Previous RV-7 project (sold)
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-10-2019, 12:39 PM
Raymo's Avatar
Raymo Raymo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Richmond Hill, GA (KLHW)
Posts: 1,968
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy Prevost View Post

Here are the problems I have had with QT Halos that the CQ1 addresses:
  1. The Halos have terrible potentiometers for volume. They need to be cleaned every 6 months or you loose sound in one or both ears unless the volume knob is precisely in that day's sweet spot.
  2. The Halos have a very noise susceptible microphone that breaks squelch if you point an air vent at your face or chest.
  3. The Halos have a short microphone boom that places the microphone to the side of your mouth, further reducing clarity.
  4. The Halo mike is never where you put it or where you want it. The CQ1 mike boom stays exactly where you put it. In front of your mouth, with no spring back.
  5. The CQ1 has a much stiffer frame that stays where you put it.
  6. The CQ1 has durable Kevlar reinforced cables and robust clips to clip them to your shirt/seat-belts.
  7. Intangibles: Everything about the Halo feels weak and cheap. The CQ1 addresses that. The importance of this is hard to quantify, but it matters to me.
I concur with all these comments, except that I haven't yet tried the CQ1. I liked the comfort of the QT but always had to put the mic to my mouth when talking or transmitting and tower always complained about clarity (I assume due to the mic not filtering noise very well). If your plane has mufflers, the QTs may work fine. No complaints since I went to the A20.
__________________
Ray
RV-7A - Slider - N495KL - First flt 27 Jan 17
O-360-A4M w/ AFP FM-150 FI, Dual PMags, Vetterman Trombone Exh, SkyTech starter, BandC Alt (PP failed after 226 hrs)
Catto 3 blade NLE, FlightLines Interior, James cowl, plenum & intake, Anti-Splat -14 seat mod and nose gear support
All lines by TSFlightLines

"The object of the game, gentlemen, is not to cheat death: the object is not to let him play."
Patrick Poteen, Sgt. U.S. Army

Last edited by Raymo : 01-10-2019 at 12:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-10-2019, 01:10 PM
scard's Avatar
scard scard is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cedar Park, TX
Posts: 2,887
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by douglassmt View Post
Wow, how interesting. I've been flying with the QT Halos for several years now having found that they are better at noise suppression (and much, much cheaper) than my Zulus. I've been happy with them with minor issues but overall love them. So talk me into why I should try these? What are the specifics that make them better than the Halos. I seem to recall the Cards used Halos for quite a while also.
Well, it looks like Guy beat me to the punch while I was out at lunch.

Bryan,
You are correct that we had been using various in-the-ear headsets for quite a long time. That experience is the reason for the CQ1. We've been wishing for and working on something much better in many ways that we're finally able to share. A headset is an incredibly personal thing. One kind or detail will never please everybody. If you are happy with your halo that is great and I really wouldn't want to sell you something else. If you find yourself in search of something better, we try to make it very low risk for you to give a CQ1 a try. I'll make no claim that we're a David Clark or Bose stamping out tens of thousands of headsets at a time, but we have every intent of being "IN STOCK" and responsive to customers.

The CQ1 is a fresh start with a keen eye on quality and resolution of shortcomings in the existing market. From airframe connector cables that are TPU jacketed and kevlar cored, a clean circuit design, a high quality volume pot that just feels right compared to a finicky ten cent disk pot, to headset wire that is also TPU jacketed and kevlar cored with the right memory retention properties that we want (doesn't get waded up in a twisted ball and look like junk), to a stiff but flexible frame that we believe is superior without being too rigid, to very high quality balanced armature receivers (speakers) that we've painstakingly selected specifically for our application, to a refined packaging and assembly process for these critical components, and finally, an expensive boom mic that we believe is far superior, both mechanically and in it's noise reduction properties in our high noise environments, compared to anything else that might look similar. Oh, and yes, we even have a cable clip with positive cable retention that isn't $.02c out of a gumball machine .

The CQ1 was not conceived of for the purpose of huge sales. We all know the aviation axiom about that. But rather to be precisely what Tanya and I wanted to fly with, with superior components and construction. It isn't intended to be every person's headset, but we're happy to be able to share if you think it might be for you.

Bryan, I have your private contact and am happy to continue to chat there.
Cheers,
Scott
__________________
Scott Card
CQ Headset by Card Machine Works
RV-9A N4822C flying 2000+hrs. / Cedar Park, TX
RV8 Building - fuselage / showplanes canopy (Done!)

Last edited by scard : 01-10-2019 at 01:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-10-2019, 01:16 PM
scard's Avatar
scard scard is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cedar Park, TX
Posts: 2,887
Default

DaleB,
It sounds like you too have identified many of the compromises that we've sought to resolve. To be clear, we also have over a decade of active experience with the clarity aloft product and the things we didn't like about it, including it's solid frame. The CQ1 is NOT anything like that.
__________________
Scott Card
CQ Headset by Card Machine Works
RV-9A N4822C flying 2000+hrs. / Cedar Park, TX
RV8 Building - fuselage / showplanes canopy (Done!)
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-10-2019, 05:32 PM
Tom Martin Tom Martin is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,460
Default

I was an early adopter of the Halo headsets. Over the years I have purchased four of them, and for my airplane, a F1 rocket, they are almost a necessity. There really is not much headroom with the way I have my seat positioned.
Although I have been a fan of the halo they are not built that well and I have sent each of them back for repairs at one time or another.
I am looking forward to the new CQ1 that I have just ordered! I may have some halos for sale.....
__________________
Tom Martin RV1 pilot 4.6hours!
CPL & IFR rated
EVO F1 Rocket 1000 hours,
2010 SARL Rocket 100 race, average speed of 238.6 knots/274.6mph
RV4, RV7, RV10, two HRIIs and five F1 Rockets
RV14 Tail dragger

Fairlea Field
St.Thomas, Ontario Canada, CYQS
fairleafield@gmail.com
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:36 PM
qtrmiledan qtrmiledan is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baton Rouge,La.
Posts: 149
Default CQ1

I have the same question as BillL any help for high frequency loss? Been using Halos for 6 yrs or so, same observations as noted. Thanks!
__________________
Danny B
Baker,La.
RV9A #91137 Flying!!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-14-2019, 10:38 AM
atxpilot atxpilot is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 14
Default Excellent Product

I had the opportunity to fly in an RV9A this weekend for the first time (and first time in an RV!). One of the first things I noticed during the Run Up was how quiet the 160HP engine was compared to similar engine 172ís Iíve flown in the past. Then it was pointed out that the engine wasnít quite at all, it was the headset!

Being a tall pilot in an RV, it was very unobtrusive and the engine noise cancelling was incredible! I was sold immediately
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-14-2019, 03:15 PM
DGlaeser DGlaeser is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Rochester Hills, MI
Posts: 857
Default

I've used Halos and currently using the Clarity aloft for over 10 years.
I have had problems with the Halo volume controls. The mic is OK but the CA seems a bit better.

However on all of the in-ear headsets, the ear plugs are my biggest complaint. Those yellow ones just don't cut it for me! The CA plugs are just plain hard! Totally uncomfortable.

I found these: http://www.howardleight.com/earplugs/max.
I find them much softer and far (noticeably so) quieter than anything the current manufacturers provide.

I literally make my own earplugs from these. I heat up a small wire (cheap hangers from the cleaners work great), poke a hole, and insert the tubes I pull out of the Halo headsets.
For the short CA screw-in plugs, I literally insert a Halo tube into the CA plug, and cut it to the correct length for the earplugs.

I suggest the Cards (and Halo and CA) take a close look at these as a possible option. You won't be disappointed.
__________________
Dennis Glaeser CFII
Rochester Hills, MI
RV-7A - Eggenfellner H6, GRT Sport & EIS4000, 300XL, SL30, ADI Pilot II, PMA6000, AK950L, GT320,
uAvionixEcho ADSB in/out with GRT Safe Fly GPS
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-14-2019, 03:24 PM
scard's Avatar
scard scard is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cedar Park, TX
Posts: 2,887
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DGlaeser View Post
I've used Halos and currently using the Clarity aloft for over 10 years.
I have had problems with the Halo volume controls. The mic is OK but the CA seems a bit better.

However on all of the in-ear headsets, the ear plugs are my biggest complaint. Those yellow ones just don't cut it for me! The CA plugs are just plain hard! Totally uncomfortable.

I found these: http://www.howardleight.com/earplugs/max.
I find them much softer and far (noticeably so) quieter than anything the current manufacturers provide.

I literally make my own earplugs from these. I heat up a small wire (cheap hangers from the cleaners work great), poke a hole, and insert the tubes I pull out of the Halo headsets.
For the short CA screw-in plugs, I literally insert a Halo tube into the CA plug, and cut it to the correct length for the earplugs.

I suggest the Cards (and Halo and CA) take a close look at these as a possible option. You won't be disappointed.
You are so correct that ear tip opinions are incredibly individual and we intend to talk a LOT more about ear tips. We have all kinds of "diy" suggestions and critical parts in the works to augment the info that is already widely available. Equally, the leight max plugs that you like, others will find are quite a bit too big and uncomfortable in their ears. Some like a firmer tubing attach "handle", others want it completely soft. We have been, and continue, to spend a lot of time and money evaluating different materials in the neighborhood of ear tips...
__________________
Scott Card
CQ Headset by Card Machine Works
RV-9A N4822C flying 2000+hrs. / Cedar Park, TX
RV8 Building - fuselage / showplanes canopy (Done!)

Last edited by scard : 01-14-2019 at 03:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:24 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.