Slashdot Mirror

I think they were about $499 when I got mine, so, prices are fairly consistent.

They give about as good a sound as you can get from a mp3 player while riding a bike or in the gym.

I really like them, but won't be as easy to use on next phone unless Apple stops being "brave" and reconsiders the jack removal from new products.

I think in some areas, you *do* get what you pay for...and I like to get as good a sound reproduction as I can when out and about exercising, and the way they seal your ears off, makes them great for flying on a plane and shutting out the noise (plane, babies, etc).

My dog chewed up a pair I first had, and I found that the company was great and for $100 would replace them with a new pair which worked out great for me.

Good thing God makes puppies cute.

I"ve yet to find BT headphones that come even close to what's offered with a cord for earphones.

Well, I don't trade in phones that often, and my iPod mini and iPod classic work just fine for the gym and have the jack, so not like this will hit me that soon, I hope.

Maybe by then, they'll have quality BT headsets I'd be interested in....

Microphones: actually haven't changed their shape, but only the really nice and expensive ones still look like that.
Microphone Examples

Magnifying Glasses: Still quite widely in use, but apparently not so well-known among the Jersey Shore iPhone OMGLolcats crowd as they are among the Bill Nye vs Niel DeGrasse Tyson awesomeness level debaters.
Mag Glass Example

Binoculars: Really? People don't know what these are? They are still the best way to get a stereo 3D view of something at huge distances in a compact device. I have several pair on my shelf right now. People have them at sporting events every time I go.
Binocular Example

Television: My television still has an antenna. After the recent switch from analog to digital, however, it is no longer the rabbit ear dual collapsible one in the icon. It now looks vaguely like some sort of alien ship or horrible instrument of torture with alternating flat fins(and sharp edges...). Not sure it's worth changing the icon, though.
Antenna Example

Wrenches and Gears: Because what happens under the hood of your car is pure magic, and nobody can explain it. Even if young folks don't know what gears actually do, they recognize them from the steampunk jewelry and stuff.
Gears Example

Most wireless microphones operate in the "white space" frequency ranges. The FCC pushed wireless users out of the 698-806 MHz a couple years ago and caused havoc in the theater and concert industries - the small theater I worked for spent over thirty thousand dollars replacing their wireless mics, because it is now illegal to buy, sell, or use a 700 MHz microphone. I can't imagine what it will be like if they take away all the spectrum. It's hard enough as is to do frequency coordination for twenty or thirty mics that are used in larger productions. More info here: http://www.shure.com/americas/news-events/spectrum-issues/white-spaces/index.htm

Yes, as soon as that cheesy bedroom toy is supported by some GPL'd software that'll compile for linux... why it'll be a revolution. Guitarists will suddenly sell their valve amps and analog pedals, there'll be rejoicing in the streets as professional players rush to aquire the shitty digital sound beloved by 1000s of bedroom guitarists.

Here's a cheaply priced valve amp for recording and here's a microphone. There's a few low to mid end firewire converters with mic-pres built in. All this gear will be servicable long after line6's current product line has been replaced and you might actually learn something worthwhile about recording in the process.

HTH.

Oh, hey! And you're in luck!

http://store.shure.com/store/shure/en_US/DisplayProductDetailsPage/productID.105498400

Shure will sell you a mic that has a button on it for your headphones. Problem solved.

Well, for those of us who use wireless microphones (like you see at concerts, conventions, sports stadiums, or churches), we are the ones who might get screwed. They FCC says they are putting measures in place to prevent this, but we'll have to see what happens. There will be another ruling to finalize all this. Here's a decent summary from Shure[PDF] (they make wireless mics).

limit the output.

Yes, but some of us like to share, I would love to put a splitter on my laptop so 2 or 3 of us could listen to my laptop on the plane. However it's output is so limited that only sound isolating headphones were are loud enough, after a splitter to work on a noisy plane.
What I wanted to do were place ear muffs over ear plugs, but no joy. So $250 later I now have a solution for 2 of us, instead of just another 1/2 watt of power in the laptop. (And BTW, I can now blow out my eardrums with 1 of these, same power that is barely audible in a standard headset.

I think of my earphones much in the way I think of my home stereo speakers, they are often the weak link in the sound system. You don't wanna go cheap on your home speakers...so, why try to be cheap on earphones?

I personally LOVE my SE530's. They sound GREAT...and I like how they fit snug in ear, and are sound isolating. You hear great music through them, good bass for small earbuds...and even on an airplane, you don't have to turn the volume up much. I know this from recently, when my dog (or the dogs where I was staying during Hurricane Gustav) chewed the ends on both phones right at the nozzle. I've sent them back into Shure, who said they'd replace them for about $145. Expensive? Yes...but, oh man..if you like good sound it is worth it. And they are great for the gym. I found that the battery time on my shuffle is MUCH longer with the shures than with the original earbuds I've had to temporarily switch back to...and I think it is due to not having to turn the volume up as much on the good cans.

You can get these at a better price...call into this place, and they'll give you a code to type in that usually knocks about $100 or more off the best price I've found anywhere....I think you can get the SE530's for like $360 there.

It takes only a moment to see that it was a rigged test because the wireless Internet device did NOT interfere with the microphone, because it did successfully detect the local television station that was broadcasting on that frequency and therefore did not try to use it. Analog TV stations are some seriously high power broad spectrum noise. Any frequency-hopping wireless Internet device would be useless attempting to use the same frequency and would obviously move on to another part of the spectrum, thereby avoiding interfering with the TV station and any other device being masked by it. That part will be conveniently left out of the headlines. The fact that the wireless microphone itself may have been useless while attempting to use that frequency, due to interference from the television station, will also be left out.

So you are saying that in fact it didn't fail at all? So what exactly where they testing?

I really think most people have no idea how these systems work. Their very definition is that they use the same frequencies as TV stations. Provided that they produce a strong enough S/N at their receiver, they could be used on the exact same frequency as a nearby TV station.

For a good overview of how these things work, go check out Shure's Wireless Frequency Finder. For example, put in Los Angeles California, and the UHF-R series (there latest, top of the line), and 50 mile radius. Now imagine you're an RF guy on a show that requires ~40 microphones, plus wireless monitor systems, and intercomm. Try to figure out what combination of frequency groups will get you the best performance with the least interference, and leave the most possible open frequencies remaining. It's not easy.

Now try to do all that, with the possibility that the available frequencies could all be wiped out because someone wanted to fire up their SkyNet^H^H^H^H^H^H GoogleMax wireless and look at pr0n.

That's basically the only thing the industry has going for it now, is that the RF environment in most places is fairly stable. Incredibly crowded, but still stable.

I think I've lost all remaining respect for Larry Page. Congratulations on opening your mouth and describing a device's normal operations as a "rigged" test. You just made yourself look like an idiot to anyone that actually understands the issue at hand, sadly that doesn't matter anymore in America.

The Cowon iAudio 7 is compact, rugged, has superb audio quality and outstanding battery life. It has excellent tone controls and supports Ogg and FLAC encoding as well as MP3 and WMA. It has an FM radio and can record. You should get better earphones to go with it and for travel, you can't beat a noise isolating type. The Shure SLC2 is a good match for it. These have near audiophile sound quality and sound isolation as good as the big, expensive noise canceling types. This combination is vastly superior to any iPod model and you can get much more substantial discounts. http://www.cowonamerica.com/products/iaudio/7/ http://www.shure.com/ProAudio/Products/PersonalMonitorSystems/us_pro_earphones_content Happy Landings, Mike

Hopefully I'm not drifting too far off topic here, and forgive me if this comes off like a big advertisement. Maybe not what the poster was asking for, but maybe it's helpful for somebody.

I think the first rule of recording outside of a studio (speaking as an audio engineer who works in a studio) is to accept that your recordings will not sound like they were made in a studio. I think the second rule is there's nothing wrong with that. Though the majority of great recordings thus far have been made in a studio environment, I am periodically surprised by recordings made in less than stellar conditions that sound fantastic. This is a subjective art. You probably won't be making Steely Dan or Alan Parsons records, but Jason Falkner, Jack White and even Bruce Springsteen have made some great sounding stuff under less than ideal recording conditions and environments.

Here's some starter ideas.

Software: REAPER = $50 (Free until you can afford to pay for it, basically)
Interface: M-Audio FastTrack USB = about $100
Microphone: Shure SM58 = about $100. If you don't have any room treatment (loosely "soundproofing") then this mic will be your friend. It sounds pretty good on most things from voice to instruments, too.
Subscription: TapeOp - Free one year subscription (trust me...you'll want this)

Don't forget a couple cables for your mic and instrument if necessary. Plug in your instrument of choice and have fun. Experiment with where you put the mic until you like the sound of it (and DON'T LET YOUR METERS GO INTO THE RED!) Pay close attention to how your choice affects the sound of the overall mix as you add tracks. Don't be afraid to experiment with software, sound or equipment. Remember, though there are good techniques, the only right techniques are the ones that sound good to you.

Also get onboard a good site like Gearslutz and read, ask and engage.

Most importantly, use your ears, pay attention, try to mimic things you like from other people's recordings and LEARN from doing it. We're all geeks, damnit. Isn't that how we learn to do everything?

That'll be 5 cents, please.

They are there, no one but the dog can hear them but they are there and the mic picks them up not well but it picks up 33Khz.

Not all mic's. Most vocal microphones do not go that high. Check the spec.

The old industry band vocal mic, the Sure SM58 response is here;
http://www.shure.com/stellent/groups/public/@gms_gmi_web_us/documents/web_resource/site_img_us_rc_sm58_large.gif

Sure SM57;
http://cachepe.zzounds.com/media/sm57-0e448d5589fdc8d6658bd863b801f637.pdf

The newer Sure vocal mics are here;
Sure PG58 http://cachepe.samedaymusic.com/media/pg58-d7a8418e0d8d830ff025d91f4eef8a58.pdf
Sure PG48 http://www.shure.com/stellent/groups/public/@gms_gmi_web_us/documents/web_resource/site_img_us_rc_PG48_large.gif

Even ditching a dynamic for the better condensor mic gives this response;
http://www.americanmusical.com/manuals/shure/shusm86_userguide.pdf

Some instermentation microphones may extend into the ultrasonic range, but most are flat through 20HZ-20KHZ with a rapid roll-off above 20KHZ.

They are there, no one but the dog can hear them but they are there and the mic picks them up not well but it picks up 33Khz.

Not all mic's. Most vocal microphones do not go that high. Check the spec.

The old industry band vocal mic, the Sure SM58 response is here;
http://www.shure.com/stellent/groups/public/@gms_gmi_web_us/documents/web_resource/site_img_us_rc_sm58_large.gif

Sure SM57;
http://cachepe.zzounds.com/media/sm57-0e448d5589fdc8d6658bd863b801f637.pdf

The newer Sure vocal mics are here;
Sure PG58 http://cachepe.samedaymusic.com/media/pg58-d7a8418e0d8d830ff025d91f4eef8a58.pdf
Sure PG48 http://www.shure.com/stellent/groups/public/@gms_gmi_web_us/documents/web_resource/site_img_us_rc_PG48_large.gif

Even ditching a dynamic for the better condensor mic gives this response;
http://www.americanmusical.com/manuals/shure/shusm86_userguide.pdf

Some instermentation microphones may extend into the ultrasonic range, but most are flat through 20HZ-20KHZ with a rapid roll-off above 20KHZ.

Choose your cure

> annoy the hell out of fellow passengers...

Yeah, because either :

1) it's only just loud enough that you can't quite make it out but it's 'oh so familiar' that it keeps you guessing the song all day. I hate that!

2) it's loud enough that you *can* make it out, but it's something crap, but catchy, and you embarrass yourself by singing it all day at inappropriate times. I *really* hate that!

Closed back headphones should be mandatory on public transport. These are my favourites :

http://www.sennheiser.com/sennheiser/icm_eng.nsf/root/502188

and these aren't half bad either :

http://www.sennheiserusa.com/newsite/productdetail.asp?transid=502103 ..but for sound isolation, I haven't found better than these :

http://www.shure.com/ProAudio/Products/PersonalMonitorSystems/us_pro_SCL3_content

fitted with these :

http://www.shure.com/ProAudio/Products/Accessories/us_pro_PA750_content

I find them very comfortable too.

> annoy the hell out of fellow passengers...

Yeah, because either :

1) it's only just loud enough that you can't quite make it out but it's 'oh so familiar' that it keeps you guessing the song all day. I hate that!

2) it's loud enough that you *can* make it out, but it's something crap, but catchy, and you embarrass yourself by singing it all day at inappropriate times. I *really* hate that!

Closed back headphones should be mandatory on public transport. These are my favourites :

http://www.sennheiser.com/sennheiser/icm_eng.nsf/root/502188

and these aren't half bad either :

http://www.sennheiserusa.com/newsite/productdetail.asp?transid=502103 ..but for sound isolation, I haven't found better than these :

http://www.shure.com/ProAudio/Products/PersonalMonitorSystems/us_pro_SCL3_content

fitted with these :

http://www.shure.com/ProAudio/Products/Accessories/us_pro_PA750_content

I find them very comfortable too.

> Well, right now unused TV channels in the US are just that -- unused.

False (this is in the United States and Canada - not sure how it works elsewhere). Unused TV channels are used for low-power local broadcast equipment such as wireless microphones and in-ear monitors (the ear plugs with wires that you see musicians wearing). You may see some total crap wireless mic from Radio Shack that runs in the 900MHz band, but all the good ones (ie, from Shure, Sennheiser, AKG, etc...) run in unused TV channels. I have a bunch of Shure ULX channels and the receiver displays the TV channel I'm on. If you want a demonstration, go here. The older products run on VHF channels, the new ones on UHF.

Before you say "Well, Aerosmith and NBC can afford to upgrade", remember that these things are owned by thousands of schools, community theaters, indie rock bands, small coffee shops, etc. These people (myself being in the community theater sound category) can't afford to have a $15,000 investment in gear, which was fully licensed by the FCC and legal, sudenly become worthless.

Obviously, progress happens, and maybe if there's a 10 year phase-in people can upgrade, but the current state of the art technology in this area is on these frequencies and there is currently *no* alternative on the market that I could upgrade to even if I could afford it.

I have a pair of Shure's too (EC3), but I hate the Gray Soft Flex Sleeves they came fitted with and instead fitted the alternative Universal Fit Foam Sleeves that were shipped with them. The latter are just like ear plugs and the sound isolation is incredible - and I think they improve both the bass and treble (probably due to the perpendicular shape.

They do get dirty pretty quickly though (but they clean up reasonably well), and using them means that it's not a good thing to share them with people.

I wish they did a mono pair, which combines the two channels into one ear...I'm deaf in one ear, and so have to put up with listening to a single channel, which is a problem for some tracks (Bohemian Rhapsody, for example).

I have a pair of Shure's too (EC3), but I hate the Gray Soft Flex Sleeves they came fitted with and instead fitted the alternative Universal Fit Foam Sleeves that were shipped with them. The latter are just like ear plugs and the sound isolation is incredible - and I think they improve both the bass and treble (probably due to the perpendicular shape.

They do get dirty pretty quickly though (but they clean up reasonably well), and using them means that it's not a good thing to share them with people.

I wish they did a mono pair, which combines the two channels into one ear...I'm deaf in one ear, and so have to put up with listening to a single channel, which is a problem for some tracks (Bohemian Rhapsody, for example).

I have a pair of Shure's too (EC3), but I hate the Gray Soft Flex Sleeves they came fitted with and instead fitted the alternative Universal Fit Foam Sleeves that were shipped with them. The latter are just like ear plugs and the sound isolation is incredible - and I think they improve both the bass and treble (probably due to the perpendicular shape.

They do get dirty pretty quickly though (but they clean up reasonably well), and using them means that it's not a good thing to share them with people.

I wish they did a mono pair, which combines the two channels into one ear...I'm deaf in one ear, and so have to put up with listening to a single channel, which is a problem for some tracks (Bohemian Rhapsody, for example).

Even better - get a pair of Shure E2cs (or higher). They have plugs that are basically the foam earplugs used by airline ramp agents, with a tube in them for sound. Don't "cancel" the noise - absorb it. As a nice bonus, because of the absorbtion, you can listen at a much lower volume, if you are into that thing.

Personally, I have the E4c - better sound and more comfortable than the (arguably very comfortable) Bose headphones. Not that the Bose are the pinnacle of sound quality - you can get a good pair of Sony headphones that sound better, for cheaper. It's kind of like owning an iPod - it's not as good as the competition (Zune excluded), nor as cheap, nor as reliable, but some people value form over function.

It's the best $200 (US) that I've ever spent on work equipment.

These are the best portable headphones i've ever used. They're not active noise cancelling, because they're so damn good they dont need to be. Put them in and be amazed. I used them extensively in a large (and very loud) server room and was very VERY impressed with their noise cancelling abilities.

http://www.shure.com/PersonalAudio/Products/Earpho nes/ESeries/us_pa_E2c_content

I have worked in server rooms and also ride a motorcycle. The noise in a server room is very similar to the wind noise when riding a motorcycle on the freeway. I wear earplugs from Howard Leight, the green disposables. They are very comfortable and very cheap, 200 pair for less than $25, which usually lasts me 2-3 years. I've used them in server rooms and on airplanes. They are very effective and you can hear people talk if they speak loudly. Here's a setup that I've been considering that you may find agreeable. It's a set of in-ear phones from Shure that have twin plugs, one for your music player and one for your cell phone. That way you can take phone calls without removing them.

http://www.shure.com/PersonalAudio/Products/Earpho nes/ISeries/us_pa_i2c_content

To make talking to others easier they have this nifty little PTT device that plugs inline:

http://www.shure.com/PersonalAudio/Products/Access ories/CasesAdapters/us_pa_PTH_push_to_hear

Both will cost you less than $200. The fit of the earphones will take some trial and error, but it's a great solution.

I have worked in server rooms and also ride a motorcycle. The noise in a server room is very similar to the wind noise when riding a motorcycle on the freeway. I wear earplugs from Howard Leight, the green disposables. They are very comfortable and very cheap, 200 pair for less than $25, which usually lasts me 2-3 years. I've used them in server rooms and on airplanes. They are very effective and you can hear people talk if they speak loudly. Here's a setup that I've been considering that you may find agreeable. It's a set of in-ear phones from Shure that have twin plugs, one for your music player and one for your cell phone. That way you can take phone calls without removing them.

http://www.shure.com/PersonalAudio/Products/Earpho nes/ISeries/us_pa_i2c_content

To make talking to others easier they have this nifty little PTT device that plugs inline:

http://www.shure.com/PersonalAudio/Products/Access ories/CasesAdapters/us_pa_PTH_push_to_hear

Both will cost you less than $200. The fit of the earphones will take some trial and error, but it's a great solution.

Please don't start this bullshit again. This argument is based on an entirely specious argument, that vinyl is supposedly "analog" while CDs are "digital". Well, repeat after me: "THE UNIVERSE IS QUANTIZED".

Vinyl records are made of individual molecules, the pick-up stylus is made of individual carbon atoms, electric current is carried by individual electrons. The final consequence of this is noise. Any good electrical or electronics engineering curriculum will have a course on probabilistic modelling where you learn how to calculate the noise resulting from the discretization of electric charge.

When the CD standard was created, one simple question was made: which level of quantization noise in the encoding will be low enough to be irrelevant, considering other sources of noise and distortion?

I have a Shure V15 type 4 cartridge, which was near to the top of the line in vinyl reproduction technology when I bought it. I don't remember the exact specs for it, but the distortion value was something around 1%, excellent compared to other models, but just terrible if compared to digital technology. If you take a look at the specs for the newest cartriges from Shure you'll see the don't even mention specs for things like distortion or noise. Try to google for distortion specs on audio cartridges, can you find any that comes close to CD quality in fidelity? It's hard to find anyone that actually gives measured specs for noise and distortion, they just say it's "amazingly low" or similar marketese.

If there is any objection to CD quality, perhaps it's that it's too good. Most people are satisfied by the inferior specs of mp3. However only ignorant people, based on faulty reasoning, would believe that something is better just because it's labeled "analog" instead of "digital".

OTOH, I agree with you on what you say about lossy video encoding. But that's not a result of being digital, it's a result of compression. In the analog world, 8 mm film has lower quality than 35 mm film, is that so surprising? Put enough lines in the video, use a better encoding, and the artifacts will disappear.

Differently from CD audio, digital video today doesn't have standards that comply with the best possible quality, because the needed data volume is too big for current technology. Color depth of 8 bits per channel are insufficient, the human eye can see much more than 256 levels of any color. The eye has a variable resolution, but the video cannot count on that. Since you can look at any detail with the best part of your eye, a perfect video encoding should have each part of the scene encoded at the best resolution of the human eye.

A digital video standard designed like CD audio was specified, to comply with the full sensitivity of human eyes, would be something like 16 bits resolution for each primary color, 30 frames per second, 4800x2400 pixels. Without compression, that's 2 Gigabytes / second.

Just get a set of these Shure headphones.
They act as real earplugs, which keeps sound out. So...without the outside distractions, I don't need to turn up the volume.
With my iPod volume at 20-25%, I've had people at my desk talking to me, and I didn't even know they were there

s/shure/sure - shure is an audio equipment company.

Sorry for seeming like an asshole, I'm just sensitive to that word as I recently bought some kick ass canalphones by them: http://shure.com/personaltech/default.asp?id=mains ub1.

I have two pair of these (the E3c and E2C) and find them to be stellar at drowning out noise. I use them at the gym where I am moving around a lot (And where big air plane sized ear muffs are unsightly) and they work really well at almost completely drowning out the surrounding gym-blather. I have used the other style before and I have found my ears getting hot, and thus uncomfortable over long uses.

Check out the Comparison Chart of the different models. Yeah, they are pricey, and I wouldnt' spring for the most expensive ones unless you are a hyper audiophile. The only complaint (and I mean only) is that the base response is somewhat lacking but this can be compensated from the device side of things.

In conclusion:
* size / weight
* noise blocking versus noise canceling
* multi-fit
make them ideal for me and I strongly suggest that anyone looking for the same net results check them out.

You will see many people trying to sell you on in-ear phones such as the Shure E3 or the Etymotic ER6

Trust me - these are mostly overkill. I have a set of Shure E3s that I bought to cope with our extremely loud drummer - however, unless your coworkers are using jackhammers, a good quality set of closed-back headphones (AKG 270, Sennheiser HD580, Sony MDR-7506) will sound better and be more comfortable.

Everything was going fine until you decided to get gross. Keep that in mind next time.

Is sex dirty?

Only if it's done right.

--Woody Allen

And anyway, okay, maybe one dongle is required. if it's just an XLR->RCA mini issue then you can use something like the A96F wire to handle the impedance. If all you can get is AES/EBU over XLR then you're going to need a convertor box. But so would a (current) iPod, as well as the dock. And by now you're carrying round a small backpack of gear. All things considered, I prefer optical.

They don't work as well as sound isolating headphones such as those that Shure and Etymotic make. Noise cancelling headphones also don't sound as nice as the noise isolating ones, are larger, heavier, take more (battery) power to drive, and have external power requirements.

But you do pay for good portable audio that is usuable in any loud environment. Prices start at 100 and go up to 500+.

No no no. You want to get either the Shure e3cs or the Shure e5cs. Both are great. I use the e3cs on my iPod. Can't afford the e5cs at the moment.

No no no. You want to get either the Shure e3cs or the Shure e5cs. Both are great. I use the e3cs on my iPod. Can't afford the e5cs at the moment.

I dunno, using a pair of Etymotic or Shure isolating ear-plug style headphones (if you don't mind, or can get past, the feeling of having something in your ear canal) with something that supports .wav or FLAC can get you pretty decent sound quality in normal outdoor environments.

I borrowed a friend's set of Shure E3cs and used it with my Rio Karma and was impressed by the difference good headphones can make.

I have E2s and love them. I'm curious to see how their accuracy compares.

You should try a pair of Shure E2C's.

I use them to sleep and they don't have "active" cancellation. They work quite well for me on airplane, mowing the grass, snorning girlfriends, etc... They are low profile, comfortable and sound GREAT!

True, but I shelled out $170 for the E3c headphones. Wow, what a difference. That with a high quality AAC (160 bit rate or above) and I'm set with my iPod.

$500 Shure E5? Heh, what, are you crazy? No, I only have the $99 Shure E2c. $500 for inner ear phones? Crazy...

AAC works great for me, and I have thousands of MP3 and AAC files.

Shure makes some excellent wireless products for the music end of it. I'm sure there are other products out there that would work well. You could even be really geeky and get those Nextel radio/cellphones for the crew. I've played a venue recently that the stage guys used that.

Shure makes some incredible earphones, and they are $500. Work as earplugs too.

They are even better if you get custom made inserts.

I've been happy with my similar (but $50) Fontopia MDR-EX71SL headphones from Sony, but have been eyeing these others for a while.

Alot cheaper than the Etymotics ($150-700 price range depending on model?). Probably not as good as the Etymotics, but they sound pretty darned good to me. Slightly less bass but much better midrange and treble response and much cleaner than the Sony Fontopia MDR-EX71SL Headphones.

The advantages of the in-ear designs: increased bass response, more precise sound reproduction, greater driver efficiency, and greater sound isolation from ambient noise (ie. great for airplane use) that results in your not needing to turn your music up nearly as much thus preserving your hearing. The downside is that you shouldn't really use them in situations where you would need to be able to hear some of what is going on around you (ie. jogging outdoors, cycling, driving, skiing, etc). The rattling of the very stout cables does transmit some noise to your ears if you're doing something very active (like running/jogging) so I like these less for when I'm doing cardio, but they are just fine for other less impact/jarring activities at the gym.

Review at Extreme Tech.

DaveC

Well, ignoring cost, maybe you should look at pro audio in-ear wireless monitor systems. They typically operate over VHF or even UHF frequencies, are channel selectable, and the receiver consists of a walkman-sized beltpack. Too bad they run $400-$1000 new from Nady, Samson or Shure but who knows what you can drum up on Ebay! Yes, this is professional audio gear, and it LOOKS expensive. As long as you take care of it, it should last you the rest of your life, or 2 road tours, whichever comes first.

several others have written back regarding that a noise gate would be effective, and I agree; but there is another solution involving slaving several noise gates together that might help in the conference setting. I belelive they were developed for press conference type events for television (being in television myself, you'd think I'd know). It's an automatic mic mixer (one example) that basically opens the mic that best picks up a source. I'm not sure how it would handle several people talking at once, I think it's smart enough to tell the difference but I've never used them myself (in most cases a person can do such a thing so much better than a machine can). Anyway, this is probably way too expensive, suggests using special mics, and is not a software solution; but it's something to consider. ~ibennetch

My brother is the real expert (eg. actually qualified in these things) but here's my best shot:

• Sound card with audio in, soundblasters are ok - if you get a good one I know about 10 people with an SB live, some are great, some are noisy as hell. If you get a noisy one I suggest you take it back and get a swap - $40
• Small mixer, something like a Sprit notepad is just fine for small applications, it has a few mic channels and a stereo in.. Ideal for small time recording - $200
• A good general purpose microphone, I agree with a shure, probably a SM58 is a good starting point - $90
• A mic cable, most of these will be pretty standard - $12
• A mic stand, essential - $30
• Audio samplign software, cool edit pro is very good, and you can try it shareware first - $400
• Misc connection cables - $50

Total: $822

This should give you a good start.. however you will also need some decent speakers - monitor speakers not just your hi-fi ones - and an appropriate amp for them. You could start with your hi-fi stuff but you need to something better pretty soon. I don't know if you were looking for something more than this for $1000 but this would be a good starting point. All I can say is that this is an expensive game, but very fun ;)

• Obviously you'll need a good sound card, Creative's Sound Blaster Live! is comparitvely cheap for the value you get.
• You'll need good microphones, also (it's amazing the difference quality makes). Nice mikes will let you record any instrument, electric or not. I would suggest the company Shure.
• Next on your list would be a mixer, I would highly suggest Mackie boards, and for slightly cheaper tastes the Behringer line.
• Another key component is good cabling. It's tempting to just run over to Radio Shack and buy what you need... but I've found those cables to have crappy shielding, almost no jacket, and die after about 2 years. I would suggest Hosa cables, or, if you have extra cash, Monster cables.
• Lastly you might think of getting a headphone matrix. This is mainly useful if you want to record a band/mutiple people at once. It allows you to amplify the sound a person is making back to them.Also it will allow you to have 6+ headphones w/o splitting the signal.