its so when you're in the car with 3 other people we can all hear our own stuff, and not a wireless broadcast of the iPod from the guy in the next seat.

geez, mahmoud . . . are you a loner without friends or something?

Yeah BA, but you can always channelize the audio to different frequencies so that each person could still do the same wirelessly. I've done it with "Bluetooth tools" to customize the bluetooth stacks and segregate the audio streams. Wires are just messy with three kids.

It depresses me to no end that someone with my hometown in his handle can't make a criticism without denigrating someone's name and culture. I know the Baltimore school system is the pits, but can you not read the man's name?

Sign me,

Chagrined From Baltimore

I rip my music at 320kBps or higher (I would go up to 1440kBps if I remembered how; I would use uncompressed audio if my iPod/iTunes supported an open standard). I use sound isolating headphones that cost me something like $250 (for earbuds, no less; couldn't afford the Shure SE-530's). I use wires simply because the sound fidelity is better. I listen to a lot of electronica (mostly industrial and related genres); hearing the entire audible spectrum of sound in the highest possible fidelity is important to me. (Okay, live concerts have probably destroyed a lot of my high-end aural capabilities, but I still try.) Honestly, you still can't rationally transmit this wirelessly without some loss in sound quality. Streaming music at high bitrates currently uses too much bandwidth; dropped data seems to be common, in my experience. Sure, I don't like always being tethered to headphones, since I keep getting the damn cord caught on things, but I'm not willing to sacrifice audio quality.

Hey Demos - hopefully the reasons you've been less active posting are all about the goodness of Real Life.

and yess you can channelize the audio for each person, but there are other reasons for having wired earbuds - not the least of which is that the wires act as a tether for finding them, and it reduces the amount toxic battery waste that goes into landfills.

Yes similar applies to HandsFree headsets - but part of the diff. there is the form factor of the device being connected to. Cell phones tend to be heavier and clunkier and also require being periodically extracted from the pocket to dial/see who is calling/look up calendars etc. As a result the wiring gets in the way as it twists and tangles. MP3 players OTOH tend to get put in the pocket where they belong and left there until its time to change the playlist or whatever it is that you are doing is done with.

Furthermore, unlike HFH's, MP3 players run continuously for hours on end. So the battery requirements in the earbuds are much higher than for HFHs...

All adds up

Hi Degsme…

Well, I suppose that’s true but wires drive me nuts and I tend to use the HTC touch Pro 2 Touch flo as the MP3 interface, which I means I initiate play, stop, start, play lists, artists, etc., (and other operations on the PDA as well—contacts, dialing, opening applications,) all through voice command.

For me, the tricky part is giving up the headset for headset mic combo (tethered) so I customized a Bluetooth stereo headset with a mic so I can use it when a call interrupts the talking heads burning down the house in my head.

It works—and I do dig A2DP streaming and customizing the channelization (the little kids won’t keep the headsets on and I want to listen to the game or NPR in the car.

modern technology is supposed to make life easier, not more complex.

what do you think is easier?

a - plugging yoiur earbuds into the iPod 20 inches away in your pocket, or . . .

b - coordinating an "open frequency" with the people in your car, the library, as you walk through the mall . . .

i'm sure farhad is a perfectly fine guy, even if he is a friendless geek. i have nothing against people from india, in fact, . . .

but i am losing patience with farhad, big time

this is like the 4th slate article in a row where he blows it big time.

it started with the feature length article he did lauding the geeks at a state department press conference who interrupted hillary clinton's Q&A to hector her about why they couldn't have additional browsers beyond microsoft.

during a fricking press conference, on camera, which was supposed to be devoted to actual matters of national security and international relations, they did this.

and farhad gave them like 30 column inches of "high fives" and "attaboys" in slate.

he's a disaster.

baltimore aureole:

modern technology is supposed to make life easier, not more complex.

what do you think is easier?

a - plugging yoiur earbuds into the iPod 20 inches away in your pocket, or . . .

b - coordinating an "open frequency" with the people in your car, the library, as you walk through the mall . . .

Hence why I've been a digital curmudgeon despite having had a hand in the fruition of that revolution.

In particular on this new form of WiFi- authentication, encryption and even namespace resolution are all things outside the spec...left to the vendor....

Sadly Majoo's footprint has expanded to include NPR <link>

It’s not rocket science to define the codec and pair the channelized freq. It takes an hour or so but thereafter you don’t need to be bothered by wires (which really is a hassle for me—the device is infrequently readily available). More importantly—I get to access the control interface by voice initiation via the wifi microphone and voice commands. If I want to switch songs, or initiate a call in the middle of a song I can simply press a button on my ear and do so without fishing through trench coat, pocket and accessing the front panel.

Technology is to make life easier. The small act of a little customization makes my life much easier (and less expensive sine it reduces the number of accessory bundles I need.

which page of the users manual will that be on.

i used to think my fellow americans were dumb because more than half the VHS recorders were flashing "1200" months (or years) after purchase. safe to say that THOSE people won't be "defining the code" even if its in the "quick setup tips) which is only 5 pages long, as opposed to the full users manual (42 pages)

the VHS problem was solved by having the device automatically ask the PBS station on the cable or satellite signal what time it was. just press "setup" and does the time and finds all the valid channels for you.

something similar will come along for "defining codecs"

but until it does, don't hold your breath that the average american will flip through endless pages to find out how to do it.

Hell even I won't. For all the reasons of technology supposedly making life "easier" that you articulated earlier

I don’t expect everyone to be able to do it, but hell it’s just not that hard if anyone is willing to do even a little research. If you can’t unlock an iphone (I gave mine to my wife and slipped in a T-mobile SIM) and jailbreak for the apps you shouldn’t have one. If you can’t install a cab file (which is the equivalent of being able to connect to a wifi router) you shouldn’t be relying on mobile devices.

I mean seriously—I presume you can program your DVR (as nobody has VCRs anymore except people like me with 3 kids under four for whom you still need some legacy VCR tapes).

Basic tech literacy—and that would include the ability to synch up audio streaming channels and isolate them—is pretty much the price of admission to convenience.

I know you—an hour on google, BA, and you’d be able to do those things. You’re smart. You don’t have to but there’s a significant benefit to understanding the technology we use on a daily basis just like it’s a good idea to know how to change a flat tire or prime a carburetor or jump start a battery if you’re going to drive. Just the basics—I’m not suggesting tune ups or even oil changes [too messy].

When the technology becomes too difficult to handle or ‘magic’ then it’s time to up your game and hit the books. It’s never been easier to do so. (And I always regarded those who had their VCR clocks flashing midnight as idiots. Programming a VCR was about as hard as setting a digital watch).

Seriously—I dig your postings. But don’t let Danni be the one to set up your phone and handle the tech because you won’t be able to guide her in that digital universe that is ultimately our world now (and pretty dangerous now for those who want to protect those who are more competent at it than us). It pays to be able to control it rather than have it control you or provide a vulnerability to what we do online. I know you get that. You’ve had too much real life experience to know otherwise (and I respect that).

I’ve gone off track but I still think it’s valid and you’ll get it. If we’re going to depend on any technology (from electricity to the internal combustion engine to the web) we need to be well versed enough in it to do the basics. I don’t expect my 75 year old mother to get the web. But you… well… I know you’re smart as a whip in both the real world and digital danger and so, I admit, I expect more from you than a snappy retort.

Hope you’re well. Time to make sure Charley, Kate & Abigail are all snoring. Go kiss Danni.

Demos I can do all those things. But the hassle factor is too high. I've even stopped installing most new apps on my smart phone (the ones that don't autoinstall when I click on a link ont he web) simply because I end up replacing the device about every 6 mos (damage, loss) and the hassle factor of remembering this stuff is too high.

I'd rather forego the convenience of channelized audio than go through the hassle of setting it up...and setting it up...and setting it up.

I know I'm a bit of a curmudgeon, but if its harder to use than my lawnmower, I think two or three times to see if it is actually usefull to me