Seriously, this product needs a name change. GameChanger Products this week announced its Audio Bone Headphones, which use the concept of bone conduction to deliver music to listeners instead of having the music go through the ear canal.
The idea is similar to the Outi headphones that I reviewed earlier this year. The Audio Bone headphones convert sound waves into vibrations that are "heard directly by the inner ear." The headphones are worn outside the listener's ears, so they can still hear ambient noises like traffic and conversations. The company claims that "university and scientific studies on Bone Conduction … indicate this form of listening is safer because it does not put stress on the ear drum."
The $189 headphones are aimed at runners, cyclists, office and construction workers – basically, anyone who wants to hear things around them but still listen to music. The headphones are waterproof, also, but that would likely mean you'd need a waterproof MP3 player case, too.
Having tried the Outi headphones, two things bothered me – first, the vibrations on my ear were really distracting (not sure if the Audio Bone vibrations on my skull would be more or less distracting), and I never felt I could get the volume loud enough to enjoy the music I was listening to.
Seriously, though, change the name of the product. "Audio Bone" is creepy.
Network World's product test editor and one cool dude.
Contact him.
Cool Tools archive.
Cool Tools: The column
Cool Tools: The video
The opinions expressed in this Weblog are those of the writer and may not represent the opinions of Network World.
|
|
Maybe for some, but I'll keep my $30 intra-aurals
I disagree with those who generalize that earbuds cause more damage than other types of earphones/headphones. The issue is a combination of factors, including proximity, loudness, and maybe some other things as well.
Sure, when you see people on the train with cheap ear-buds (not the intra-aural ones, but ones like you showed in the video), and you can hear them from the other end of the car, yeah -- these people are damaging their ears.
You would think that intra-aural buds -- buds that enter the ear canal -- would be more dangerous because they are so close to the ear drum. And there is potential danger. But there are two other things to consider. 1) They produce much less volume. If you blast music through intra-aurals which are not in your ear, you can hear that the sound emitted is much less than regular earbuds. 2) Because intra-aurals require a tight seal to achieve good sound (if you hear no bass, there is leakage), they provide a significant reduction in ambient sound. This means that you don't have to turn the volume up to compete with outside noise as much. You may actually be doing your ears a favor. Subways can be extremely loud. Intra-aurals can cut that noise by at least 20 db, I'd imagine. If you don't turn the volume up too loud to compete, you're probably in better shape than you would be just listening to the subway.
In your article, and in the video, you don't even mention the sound quality. If you're paying $100 plus for a pair of headphones, they'd better sound pretty good. It's hard for me to believe that you can get much detail (high frequencies) using these headphones.
As far as hearing what's going on around me -- I'm fine with taking one or both buds out when there's something I need to hear. To me the advantage that intra-aurals have other other types of headphones is precisely the fact that they DO cut down on outside noise so I can listen to the music.
Finally, I have a pair of Sony MDR-EX71s. They were less than $30. With the right size silicon pads, they sound quite excellent. The bass is great. Maybe a little too much treble, but I use eq to roll it off a bit. It's always better to have to cut frequencies than to boost them. I think I'll keep'em.
Post new comment