In the recent past, the tactical law enforcement and military arenas have been inundated with a myriad of headsets and earpiece devices designed to ‘protect’ an operator’s hearing. Some companies have chosen to re-package ‘in-the-ear’ pieces originally designed for hunting and competitive shooting markets that generally do not include the ability to receive or transmit radio communications, while others offer ‘cover-the-ear’ headsets (cup-style) – most featuring a boom microphone, speakers and some form of push-to-talk button – all interfaced to an operator’s make and model of portable radio system. While there are numerous styles on the market, providing varying degrees of hearing protection, most provide the capability to protect the user’s hearing from loud sources of noise (examples: gun-fire, flash bangs, IEDs) while providing amplification of the ambient environment during ‘normal’ levels of noise being present.

With the advent of these products being introduced into the markets we serve, rather than ‘jump into it head first’ - like so many companies tend to do in today’s competitive marketplace - we chose to investigate the impact of these types of devices on an operator’s ability to effectively carry out his mission. After careful study of companies marketing approaches, claims and confusing ‘buzzwords’, we purchased many of the various devices being marketed toward tactical operators and set out to perform our own tests with currently employed and enlisted tactical operators.

In initial field interviews, with operators currently utilizing bone conduction headsets, we learned the most important reason they chose our technology over others was ‘situational awareness’ – the ability to have both ears completely unobstructed - enabling them to hear danger in their ambient environment and recognize the direction of the sounds. The majority of all other types of communication devices available to them included something placed in, on or over one or both ears – severely restricting or eliminating their ability to hear their surroundings. Bone conduction/vibration headsets, by the very nature of their design (receiving radio transmissions through the facial bones), eliminate the operator’s concerns regarding impeded or blocked hearing. We asked our operators to assist us in evaluating several manufacturer’s and representative’s ‘tactical hearing protection’ devices.


Test #1: Small devices, incorporating miniaturized electronics, designed to fit directly into the wearer’s ear canals or the more commonly available ‘over-the-ear’ devices, which appear very similar to older style hearing aids (circuitry encased in a housing that fits behind the ear, incorporating a hook that goes over the top of the ear, connected to a sound tube that runs perpendicular to the front of the ear, terminating with a one-size-fits-all or an assortment of varying sizes of ear plug). The majority of the devices evaluated did not include communication (RX and TX) capabilities.

Findings: General discomfort over time, even with the more costly devices requiring a custom ear mold. An initial, increased awareness by the operator that his ability to hear his ambient environment was negatively impacted or lessened. Once the frequency tuning was activated (amplification of the wearer’s ambient surroundings) it was generally found to be acceptable, over time, as the volume was adjusted upward or downward based upon personal preference BUT this was in a quiet environment with only the wearer present. The level of acceptance dropped dramatically when the wearer became part of a team of operators engaged in a dynamic entry. Suddenly, the operator became easily confused due to the amplification of every sound present in his ambient environment; including the sounds of footsteps, the movement of his team mate’s clothing and load bearing vests, a door being rammed, the continuous shouts of warning by the officers to those in the enclosed building and the concussion of a flash bang(s) going off – which suddenly shut the amplification feature down entirely, attenuating the loud sound caused by the flash bang. It was reported that the flood of sounds being amplified limited situational awareness to the point of “sight only” for many of the operators. ‘Sensory overload’ was a description commonly used among those participating in the tests. Other complaints or concerns raised included irritation, inflammation and/or pain associated with the various devices when placed in the ear canal which was exacerbated further when a balaclava was utilized. The other, broad-based, concern was the inability of the devices, especially those that hooked over the ear, to stay in place during rigorous tactical activities.

Prices ranged from $470 to $1995 per pair

Test #2: Headsets that utilized dual ‘cover-the-ear’ cups (similar in appearance to those used by Navy or Air Force flight deck operators), with noise reduction capabilities, ambient environment amplification, boom microphone for transmitting and speakers for receiving radio communications. Several companies offering this style, for tactical operators, must have assumed the user would not being wearing a helmet of any type as the over the head bands or frames were definitely not designed for this type of equipment integration. There were a couple of manufacturer’s whose headsets included a low-profile band that allowed its use with various models and designs of ballistic and Kevlar helmets.

Findings: Much like the initial perception of the ‘in-the-ear’ devices, operators reported an initial decline in the overall volume of the sounds in their ambient environment. This was due mostly to the two cups surrounding the user’s ears. Unlike the ‘in-the-ear’ devices, these units were interfaced for and connected to the operator’s two-way radios – thus the introduction of a third element in the test and evaluation – radio communications (along with the noise reduction and ambient environment amplification features).

As in Test #1, we first asked each operator to experiment with the headsets in a quiet, unoccupied area. Once they became accustomed to having their ears covered and adjusted the ambient environment amplification feature to a level of personal comfort, we again introduced them to a typical operation scenario – a group performing a dynamic entry into a building utilizing a door ram. The operators again experienced a loss of situational awareness with regard to their sense of hearing. Environmental sounds, most likely ones they were not normally cognizant of during this type of operation, came to the forefront, overloading their sense of hearing, forcing them to attempt to become more focused and reliant upon their sense of sight. Flash bangs were employed and the noise attenuation feature sufficiently dampened the sound.

There were preferences to these types of headsets in comparison to the ‘in-the-ear’ pieces -- most notably the perception of stability. The operators were not concerned about a device becoming dislodged from one or both ear canals or falling off their ear as was the case with several of the devices that hooked and looped over the outer ear. The operators were much more confident with the ‘cover-the-ear’ designs and the added solidity of having the cups mounted to a frame or band that, in effect, held the headset securely in place when positioned under a helmet.

The overwhelming complaint associated with the ‘ear cup’ style communication systems was the fact that an operator was forced to have both ears completely covered at all times to maintain radio communications. One scenario raised and agreed upon by our evaluators was a hostage situation. A tactical team could be forced to wear these types of headsets for many hours due to their being integrated with their radio systems. The operators did not like the idea that their peripheral hearing, during long periods of time, would be blocked or annoyingly amplified by the headset cups, in addition to how hot and uncomfortable it could become to have these types of headsets on for extended periods of time. Several of our evaluators complained, after little more than 15 minutes of wear, of sweat forming under the cups and ultimately running down into their ear canals. Eventually they were forced to stop, take off their helmet and headset and either tip their head from side to side or utilize a cloth in an attempt to remove the perspiration that had collected inside of their ears.

Prices ranged from $530 to $770 per headset

We are certainly not in favor of an operator losing his hearing but many issues with these types of technologies were raised during our tests and evaluations – discomfort, lack of stability, poor fit, sensory overload and cost among them.

We were now challenged to find a ‘happy medium’ for tactical operators. While we have been designing, manufacturing and providing tactical headset systems for nearly two decades, we do not purport to be experts in the field of tactical hearing protection thus we decided to search the communication’s landscape for a product or products that provided our clients the choice of when and where to incorporate hearing protection while maintaining constant radio communications. During our search we were contacted by an international representative of our company who has supplied our headsets to all branches of the military within his particular NATO country for several years. This country, in general, had been concerned about the potential adverse effects of loud noises on their soldiers for quite some time. For several years, the soldiers used the simple ‘hunter style’ foam earplugs during training while utilizing our headsets, enabling them to remain in constant radio contact while simultaneously protecting their hearing. The Special Forces contingent of this country realized ear plugs were not a viable solution for real life operations, yet wanted to maintain the operative advantages associated with our headsets. They tasked their communication officers with finding a solution that maintained ‘options flexibility’ (the ability to employ hearing protection when a mission required it yet not be forced to cover their ears when not needed).

Following several months of test and evaluation in the field, a solution was found. A manufacturer, in a neighboring country, had developed -- for tactical police and military use -- a noise reduction headset featuring ambient environment amplification coupled with a specially designed low-profile, over-the-head, band for use with ballistic and Kevlar helmets. Additionally, the entire headset could easily be folded up and stored in a gear bag when not needed. The headset did NOT include RX and TX capabilities, thus lending itself perfectly for use with our bone conduction headsets. Due to the noise reduction headset’s unique design, the soldier could wear both headsets at once, with a protective helmet. Our headset provided continuous radio contact capabilities (RX and TX) while permitting the soldier to simultaneously use the other headset to protect his hearing -- amplifying sounds in his environment, even though both ears were covered. The combination of our headset system and the hearing protection headsets have since become this NATO country’s standard for military communications and is currently being considered by the tactical law enforcement community as well. Army Special Forces, from this country, were deployed in late 2004 to Iraq to provide military assistance to Allied Forces.

Building raids were one of many missions carried out by this group. Among the equipment utilized, the unit carried Diemaco C7 assault rifles, C9 light submachine guns and various diversionary devices – all of which could potentially do harm to the soldier’s hearing – especially in enclosed buildings. When gearing up for raids, the group would integrate both headsets. Upon completion of each raid, the unit was tasked to carry out evidence gathering duties within the structures. Rather than being forced to wear communication headsets, with large cups over their ears, they were able to simply remove the hearing protection headsets, fold them up and store them in a Molle System pouch. Since many of the buildings were multi-floored, the soldiers needed the ability to remain in radio contact with one another and this was easily accomplished by wearing our bone conduction headsets. At all times the soldiers could remain in radio contact yet were able to keep their ears free to maintain unobstructed, situational awareness. Some buildings took several hours to complete evidence gathering and the elemental conditions in the buildings could be extremely hot. The soldiers were highly appreciative of the fact they did not have to wear ear cups over their ears during these activities.

Test #3: We reconvened, with our operators, and supplied hearing protection systems identical to what was used in Iraq by the Special Forces group referenced above. While once again, the operators had to get used to the amplification of their ambient environment, the benefits associated with protecting their hearing while maintaining radio communications, coupled with the capability to remove the hearing protection, following threat elimination, were considered to be of far greater value.

Pictured: PANTHER Used As a Stand Alone Device Providing Hearing Protection and Ambient Environment Amplification
Pictured Above and Below: PANTHER Used in Conjunction With MH180 Series Tactical Headset System – Providing Operator with Combination of Hearing Protection, Ambient Environment Amplification and Radio Communications
Pictured Above and Below: Depicts Use of PANTHER and MH180 Series Headset System Worn with PASGT/Kevlar Helmet
Benefits Reported by Evaluators Following Tests of Atlantic Signal MH180 Series Tactical Headset Systems and PANTHER Hearing Protection Headset A) Headsets could be coupled together for ultimate radio communication/hearing protection system B) Bone conduction headsets could be worn as a stand alone device when hearing protection was not required or preferred C) Hearing protection headset could be worn as a stand alone device for training and range practice D) In tactical law enforcement use, entry team members could employ both headsets while perimeter officers and/or snipers would only have to wear bone conduction headsets, as hearing protection was not necessary E) Cost effective – the combination of our tactical bone conduction headset and the hearing protection headset was highly competitive, in price, with the full communication/noise reduction/ambient amplification headset systems evaluated in Test #2. Additional cost savings could be realized, in tactical law enforcement applications, by the requirement of a smaller number of hearing protection headsets for entry team members only whereas other team members could opt out F) Comfort and Stability – while the hearing protection headset could be ‘trapped’ under an operator’s helmet, providing assured stability, the comfort experienced by having no type of ear coil, plug or other form of ‘in the ear canal’ device present, was the overwhelming benefit voiced by the professionals involved in our tests. There was an overall dislike of any of the ‘in-the-ear’ devices during the tests – whether due to lack of comfort, stability, situational awareness or problems associated with one or both ear canals filling with perspiration. We learned a great deal from these tests and subsequent findings. As described in the previous report titled ‘Auditory Exclusion’, most of the operators, from the tactical law enforcement profession – involved in these tests – routinely experienced ‘tunnel hearing’ during dynamic entries. They reported that yearly mandated tests revealed no hearing loss associated with their line of work. Several of the officers, who were part of an active entry team, had been using multiple flash bangs during raids for years. Military personnel, from our tests, recently involved in combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan, viewed the potential for periodically constant volumes of loud noise in their environment differently and perceived a need, in some cases, for hearing protection but – like their counterparts mentioned earlier in this report – highly preferred the options flexibility of choosing when and when not to employ hearing protection. As previously stated, we certainly agree that one of the ‘job’ hazards of tactical law enforcement and military operations is the potential for hearing loss but we believe it is important to take a step back and evaluate your personal and team preferences and needs. You should view some company’s claims and marketing tactics with a ‘grain of salt’. There are many options and solutions available to you and we believe each should be evaluated in the field – not as the result of an advertisement in a law enforcement magazine or military journal. There are certainly times when there may be benefits associated with hearing protection but we believe the results of these tests and evaluations also accurately and succinctly point out an equal relevance associated with an operator having complete situational awareness with regard to his ability to hear danger in his ambient environment – without the potential confusion associated with over – amplification of his surroundings. As a result of our field test and evaluations and the previously detailed NATO Army Special Operations purchase (combination of our MH180 tactical headset and the manufacturer’s hearing protection headset), our two companies now work together to provide tactical operators what many perceive to be the ultimate tactical communications system.