Other Gadgets (general gadgets)

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by NotFromHere
They only make money if it stays in your house. The 2 worst ideas in the last 10 years have been wireless headphones and wireless speakers. It's easy to disparage something that is so so susceptible to any kind of RF in your house at all. Especially when you spend 20 minutes trying to explain how they work, only to have them come back 2 days later because they buzz when your refrigerator comes on, or the cut out when you turn your head, or they buzz when your cell phone is on, or they buzz when your computer's on, or they buzz when your dog walks in the room. There are very few environments where these things work at all. And even when they do, they sound like crap for the price because they're transmitting on a radio frequency.

Actually, in the case of Sony at least, its using IR and not RF. They tout it like its a great advantage, but it causes the line-of-sight problem and aggravates the synchronization problem. The line of sight problem occurs even if its your hair (or your dog's shedded hair) on the emitters etc.... Or a couch, chair, wall, etc. etc. etc. I agree with Mmm or Coltrane or whoever just said to have someone come out and wire your house. Run the wires through the ceiling and out to upper corners and mount the speakers in upper corners (with location optimized, of course, by the technicians).

Hello

Hello

[Alex_de_Large]

Originally posted by Alex_de_Large
I just ordered a pair of Shure e3c's. I haven't received them yet but wil report back once I've listened to them for a while. FYI, I found them for significantly less that the $179 MSRP, and from an authorized dealer. PM me if you are interested.

On a related note, if you really want to geek out on headphone audiophile nonesense, check out headfi.org.

I've has my e3c's for close to a week now. The difference is night and day, compared to the pack-ins. Isolation is terrific, and SQ is pretty great. These are my first audiophile-quality earphones, so I don't have much to compare them to, but I am very, very happy. Unlike NFH, I think the included sleeves are great. I use the large grey soft flex sleeves, and get a good seal. Isolation is better with the foam, but I think that the sound becomes a bit distant with the foamies. Foamies will likely work best in a high noise environment, though. I'm flying next week, and I'll give them a try.

Overall, great product and worth the $$ as an upgrade from the pack-ins.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Actually, in the case of Sony at least, its using IR and not RF. They tout it like its a great advantage, but it causes the line-of-sight problem and aggravates the synchronization problem. The line of sight problem occurs even if its your hair (or your dog's shedded hair) on the emitters etc.... Or a couch, chair, wall, etc. etc. etc. I agree with Mmm or Coltrane or whoever just said to have someone come out and wire your house. Run the wires through the ceiling and out to upper corners and mount the speakers in upper corners (with location optimized, of course, by the technicians).

Hello

Hello

Thanks for the input and saving me from a bad experiment.

The benefit of wireless in this case was going to be consolidating systems and running them off the network; right now, we've got multiple systems of varying quality around the house, and cd cases everywhere that our youngest child loves to open up and strew about. The idea of moving to an all digital computer based system and cleaning up the mess (maybe preserving the best separate system in an "adult" room) was one I was playing with as we're probably about to spring for the home theatre system and add yet another audio system to the mix. It's too bad the wireless speakers all seem to suck since they'd be a great solution.

But I should have thought of this while we were in construction mode, cause I'm probably not going to go to the trouble to clean up the mess now. I may have the ability to easily strech wires behind one wall and take care of two rooms that way, but we're trying to keep workers out of the house for a while.

Lesson: got to plan for all the electronic shit as integral to a construction process, and not just the furniture you stick in the space when it's done.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Lesson: got to plan for all the electronic shit as integral to a construction process, and not just the furniture you stick in the space when it's done.

Ain't that the truth. My older sister and her husband just tore down the parents house and built a rather large replacement. Bought an Apple for the kids and then got em Comcast broadband (payed for a year in advance). Turns out, they didn't get Cable jacks in every room. Eventually, Comcast (in Chicago) was nice enough to come out and drill through the floor from the basement to add a cable connection to a first-floor study (where the Apple was placed).

Still, I'm a bit embarrased that nobody thought to ensure this was done 18-24 months ago when it was on the drawing boards. Particularly the #&^%$&^ builder.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me

Still, I'm a bit embarrased that nobody thought to ensure this was done 18-24 months ago when it was on the drawing boards. Particularly the #&^%$&^ builder.

It's pretty inexcusable. Besides, I thought builders these days looked at "structured wiring" as a great profit center, because they put in about $200 of wire, and mark the price way up, even though they don't do it right (didn't someone here post a while back about ethernet wiring that was connected like phones--in series, rather than hub/spoke?)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It's pretty inexcusable. Besides, I thought builders these days looked at "structured wiring" as a great profit center, because they put in about $200 of wire, and mark the price way up, even though they don't do it right (didn't someone here post a while back about ethernet wiring that was connected like phones--in series, rather than hub/spoke?)

The recent build-out has lots of cabling in it - but not a separate audio cabling.

For our network we still did a cable/wireless mix. Even with jacks in most rooms, they weren't always where we wanted them, especially in the part of the house that was wired 15 years ago.

So I wouldn't count on a builder's one-size fits all wiring system to cover you forever more.

Now, the fact that we didn't cable for a home theatre system when doing the build out was pretty silly of us, but, hey, that's what rugs are for. Until we were built out, we really didn't think we'd go for the big system (since we generally prefer Kayaking to TV). But there's just the perfect place for it...

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy


So I wouldn't count on a builder's one-size fits all wiring system to cover you forever more.

Fair enough--most coax wiring is a single cable, though DirectTV takes two cables.

That said, if I were building new, I'd request plastic conduit from a central point to boxes in each room, so that it was easy to pull new wires as they get put in place.

[mmm3587]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Fair enough--most coax wiring is a single cable, though DirectTV takes two cables.

That's only if you have two tuners. If you just have one tuner in your receiver (which I think that that all do) or TiVo (or only use one of the tuners), you only need one coax drop.

[NotFromHere]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Fair enough--most coax wiring is a single cable, though DirectTV takes two cables.

That said, if I were building new, I'd request plastic conduit from a central point to boxes in each room, so that it was easy to pull new wires as they get put in place.

Every house in my neighborhood was prewired with dual coax cable taps in the family room and all bedrooms, each bedroom has 2 phone jacks (1 by the cable tap and one where you would normally put a phone, and CAT 5. The family rooms had speaker wires pre-run.
It costs them nothing to do while the walls are open and yes, they charge up the ass. Mostly the problem here is that there are no crawl spaces in earthquake country, so once the walls are up it becomes damn near impossible (for a price less than a car) to run speaker wires.

[pony_trekker]

Yes, Verizon can design a telephone system but man does a phone company suck at designing a web site. I have been trying to view my bill for 20 minutes now.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by pony_trekker
Yes, Verizon can design a telephone system but man does a phone company suck at designing a web site. I have been trying to view my bill for 20 minutes now.

Whoa! I just did that last night when I got my phone bill. You can ask for your information if you forgot it by providing your telephone number, last 4 of your SSN, and billing zip code.

They send you a new "PIN" as a text message.

No matter. Once I was able to "view" my bill, I still never was able to view it on a call-by-call basis the way it used to be before they cut back on the information in the paper bills.

[NotFromHere]

If I didn't have an IPOD already, I would totally consider this.
That is, if the colors are cool.



There are two THUMPs. The 128 MB version costs $395. The 256MB version, which comes with polarized lenses, costs $495. The glasses themselves come in seven frame/lens color combinations including a special Red Camo/Black Polarized which sells for $545.

Oakley has done a pretty amazing job getting the MP3 player and rechargeable batteries onto a pair of eyeglass frames -- and of making it look really cool. Everything, including the MP3 controls and even the mini-USB 2.0 jack looks like it belongs on a pair of sunglasses.

THUMP weighs only 1.8 ounces. The lithium-ion batteries last up to 6 hours of playing time. Charging is via the USB connection to your computer or via an optional external charger.

THUMP handles MP3 (up to 256K), WMA (up to 192K), plus WMA with DRM, WAV -- although I’m not sure why anyone would choose to store huge, uncompressed WAV files on such a small storage system. Oakley’s claim of up to 4 hours of music (256MB version) or 2 hours (128MB version) is based on songs ripped at an unmusical 128KB.
The eyeglass portion of THUMP deserves some mention too. Oakley’s patented XYZ Optics is known for quality: Their Plutonite lens material blocks 100% of all UVA, UVB, UVC and harmful blue light, plus the lenses exceed ANSI impact resistance requirements.

the rest of the story

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by NotFromHere
If I didn't have an IPOD already, I would totally consider this.
That is, if the colors are cool.

If you did, you would become the only chick ever to wear them. That is, if you're a chick.

[Alex_de_Large]

Originally posted by NotFromHere
If I didn't have an IPOD already, I would totally consider this.
That is, if the colors are cool.



There are two THUMPs. The 128 MB version costs $395. The 256MB version, which comes with polarized lenses, costs $495. The glasses themselves come in seven frame/lens color combinations including a special Red Camo/Black Polarized which sells for $545.

Oakley has done a pretty amazing job getting the MP3 player and rechargeable batteries onto a pair of eyeglass frames -- and of making it look really cool. Everything, including the MP3 controls and even the mini-USB 2.0 jack looks like it belongs on a pair of sunglasses.

THUMP weighs only 1.8 ounces. The lithium-ion batteries last up to 6 hours of playing time. Charging is via the USB connection to your computer or via an optional external charger.

THUMP handles MP3 (up to 256K), WMA (up to 192K), plus WMA with DRM, WAV -- although I’m not sure why anyone would choose to store huge, uncompressed WAV files on such a small storage system. Oakley’s claim of up to 4 hours of music (256MB version) or 2 hours (128MB version) is based on songs ripped at an unmusical 128KB.
The eyeglass portion of THUMP deserves some mention too. Oakley’s patented XYZ Optics is known for quality: Their Plutonite lens material blocks 100% of all UVA, UVB, UVC and harmful blue light, plus the lenses exceed ANSI impact resistance requirements.

the rest of the story

Two things: 1) every review I've seen says they sound like shit; 2) it says right here that they look like shit.

[NotFromHere]

Originally posted by Alex_de_Large
Two things: 1) every review I've seen says they sound like shit; 2) it says right here that they look like shit.

FYI, my IPOD already sounds like shit. Could it be much worse?
Someday, I'm going to invent an MP3 that sounds like a CD and I'll make millions.

Actually, they look better in person than they do in this ugly color in the pic. I saw them in the Oakley store. They're a little clunky, but if you're skiing or have a hat on, you don't really notice.