Monday, June 23, 2014

Earbuds vs Headphones

Which listening device is best for you? 
Source: http://i.imgur.com/iliib5K.jpg

I’ll dispel your worries right now: there is no catch all answer as to which is better. Each style of headphone is best suited for different circumstances and different people.

Within each of the two categories, there are further classifications that help to make this process further convoluted.

Earbuds come in in-ear and in-canal varieties. I will use the former to refer to earbuds that sit inside the outer-ear, but do not go into the ear canal. The later, then, refers to the variety that have a silicone nub that sits in the ear canal. Apple’s famous earbuds would be classified as in-ear models in this case. Beats urbeats would be referred to as in-canal devices.

Headphones come in on-ear and over-ear models which can be either open back or closed back. On ear headphones sit on top of the ear lobes, but don’t completely surround them. Think Beats Solo’s. Over-ear models, on the other hand, surround the ear completely, like the Beats Studio’s. Most headphones are closed back, meaning that they have enclosed drivers, only allowing sound out directed towards your ears.

Now that we have some background, we can evaluate each design option in terms of a couple important criteria. The elements I think are most important to consider in earbud/headphone choice are comfort, sound, and listening environment.

Comfort: You’re wearing these devices on your head, and might even be doing so for hours at a time. It should go without saying that headphone and/or earbuds should be comfortable. Comfort is something that will be different for everyone. With that being said, there are some general guidelines, in my opinion. If you are going to be putting in extensive listening sessions (greater than half an hour at a time), I would avoid on-ear headphones. The clamp force that they apply to your ears to stay on generally gets uncomfortable quickly. Over-ear and in-ear are most comfortable for me, and many swear by in-canal, though I dislike them.

Sound: These devices are meant to allow you to experience music; they should sound good. Generally, the best sound that you can get will be out of over-ear, open back headphones. They will leak sound, but this gives you an incredible soundstage, letting you hear the music as if it were all around you. For a more private session, in-canal and over-ear headphones will provide the best sound, generally.

Listening Environment: This is perhaps the most important consideration that actually differentiates earbuds from headphones, and the different styles within each category. Someone who uses their ‘phones on the bus to work will want something vastly different than someone who listens in their quiet home office. For noisy environments, or environments with lots of ambient noise like a bus, a train, a car, an airplane, etc, you really want to chose a design with noise isolation. Generally, then, you will want to chose a closed back, over-ear headphone. This will give you the best seal against outside noise. In-canal headphones, if fitted properly, can do this as well, if not better, but again, it requires a near-custom proper fit. Earbuds take up far less space than over-ear headphones, so it might be a better choice for the traveler with limited room in their bag. For quiet environments, I recommend open-back over-ear headphones, as long as you can afford the sound leakage.

So, headphones versus earbuds? I guess the answer is generally headphones for me. That being said, there are definitely advantage to earbuds. Just do yourself a favor and replace the earbuds that came with your phone with some halfway decent sounding “real” earbuds/headphones.

via Medium

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Best two out of three?

Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/
6/67/Rock-paper-scissors.svg
According to a study described in an article on arstechnica, Scientists have found a strategy for winning at rock paper scissors.

No, this isn't a strategy of playing slightly slower than your opponent in order to read their choice first or an algorithm or anything. This study simply shows a collective, built in probability system that humans share.

Essentially, if you win a round, you are likely to use the same choice again in the next round. If you lose, you are more likely to switch. Chances are, your switch will be to whatever beats what your opponent just played. This means that if you win, you should actually switch to what beats the thing that beats what you just played, so as to counter the loser's second play. Read the linked-to article; they describe it much better.

I think it's a really cool insight into the human psyche, honestly, and I thought I'd share it with you.

Also, I'm going to actually win some ro-sham-bo now.

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

The problem with bundling

Megan Geuss on arstechnica reports on a study that found "On average, Americans get 189 cable TV channels and only watch 17." 

To many, this may seem surprising, especially considering another finding of the study, which is that while the available channels to consumers has increased steadily since 2008, the average number of channels actually watched has remained relatively constant around 17 (source: linked article above).

So what does this mean? To me, this means that it's time that cable change format for delivery. I'm not calling for their change to pay-per-show model like many popular downloading stores like Amazon or iTunes. Rather, I am calling for a change in model to a pay-per-channel model.

Here's the justification: I am a huge football (soccer for Americans) fan. I would gladly be paying for Fox Soccer Channel right now, if it weren't for the fact that said channel comes bundled with a bunch of other channels I just don't care about. Yes, I want Fox Soccer, but I don't also want to be getting NFL Network, CBS Sports, and ESPN U, because I just don't care about the content that they air. I would be willing to pay more for a per-channel basis to only get what I want than to pay less for a bundle of crap.

This is where cord cutters are stepping in. This is where the cable industry is starting to falter and look to other means of keeping their ridiculous profit margins.

The content producers themselves would prefer this model, I would think, because they'd be serving their content only to a dedicated user-base who actually watches it, and would be paying directly for it. There would be far less of fighting to get into a bundle in hopes of being watched, and then being excluded from the magic 17 channels.

Just my two-cents on the subject, though. Let me know what you think in the comments. Do you like having more channels than you watch? Is that value to you?


Saturday, June 7, 2014

Is this the year of the Mac Mini?

The year of the Mac Mini?
Check out my latest post on Medium. I tackle the question of whether there will be a Mac Mini refresh this year or not. Let me know what you think in the comments.

Thursday, June 5, 2014

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Are Apple's connected notifications the best indication yet of a future wearable?

Are Apple’s connected notifications the best indication yet of a future wearable?

I just threw up on Medium a quick and dirty (and not so elegantly written, unfortunately) post on one of my reactions to WWDC announcements made yesterday. Check it out and let me know if you agree.