Slashdot Mirror
Ultra-Low Power Radio Transceiver Enables Truly Wireless Earbuds
First time accepted submitter irl_4795 writes At Mobile World Congress in Barcelona NXP Semiconductors will demonstrate Near Field Magnetic Induction technology in a truly wireless earbud including wireless audio streaming from ear to ear. From the article: "The wireless technology being used to enable truly wireless earbuds is based on Near Field Magnetic Induction (NFMI). NFMI features important properties such as ultra-low power consumption and the ability to create a very reliable network in and around the human body, with both high-quality audio and data streaming supported over small distances. An additional integration advantage is also that it requires few external components. NFMI is a short range technology and as such also creates a private network, making it is much less susceptible to interference than 2.4 GHz transceivers.
I'll have to bend down and look for my earbud 'cause the cable's gone....
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
Care to show any credible studies that show this to be a problem?
A lot of people? Is this a "who has a TV, anyway" kind of question meant to sound superior or a serious question?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Earbuds, and their users could be terrorists! There is probably encryption over RF and indicates the true enemy; (privacy), might be hard at work here. They need to contact the NSA for top level review before marketing this product to have a back door installed. Might be a better idea to go back to the '70's "Boombox" and propeller based fly by wire aircraft too.
Yet another form of near-field radiation being transmitted across the brain.
Not to seem paranoid.
I'm afraid you failed.
This isn't really the right website to start talking about 'harmful' rf radiation without any sort of proof.
How about every female bus rider who doesn't want to be spoken to and doesn't want to mess up their hair...
Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
Apparently it uses 1.5mW at 1V.
You can get batteryless radios. Crystal radios (which don't necessarily contain a crystal) get all their power from the radio signal, and they're scarily simple. During the second world war foxhole radios were built out of a razor blade, a pencil, some wire and a set of headphones (instructions: http://www.bizarrelabs.com/fox...) Prisoner of war radios used coal
AFAIK, however, the much lower energy VHF signals for FM isn't capable of running an FM decoder, and probably not an earpiece either.
I wonder if a modern crystal earpiece could usefully pick up low-power AM transmissions from a cellphone in your pocket without spamming everyone around you with radio waves?
I'm happy that this exists, but since my earphones fall out relatively often (ie more than never) I think this might be doomed just because it's not OK to easily lose your very expensive electronic device. Wire to carry signal might be old fashioned, but it also has a job as a tether.
while i'm beside you on the bus, 'cause my body broadcasts better than yours.
These may be ultra low power but they still require a power source either wireless or need to be charged. Aside of the power needed to transmit stereo audio data surely the power of moving the tiny speaker diaphragms is significant enough. Especially if you like some music loud or bass heavy.
I would be a fan of the ear bud type design although it's hard enough to get ones these days that sound well. The ones available in the mid 1990s seemed better to me.
Wireless charging would concern me a little if beamed to my ears. I don't worry excessively about such things normally but doesn't that data rate seem high for that proximity to your brain too?
If they're battery powered, it's just another device to be charged daily along with the phone, the tablet, the smart watch watch etc. I'd think I'd prefer the old fashioned wires until batter technology improves improves.
One more thought, something similar was done for a tiny fm radio also in ear based by Sinclair Research in the 1990s. That didn't catch on either.
So unless proof that something is specifically harmful is supplied, everything is assumed perfectly safe?
In the face of decades of evidence of perfect safety, yes.
Male bus riders on the other hand love being spoken to and messing up their hair.
People who don't care about music quality. Or those of us that need a set that packs up easily in the work bag and does not take up space.
I have listened to $300 earbuds and they suck compared to even a $40.00 set of real cans, It's why the junky "beats" headphones became popular, a lot of people tried them and said "wow these are amazing" compared to earbuds.
One advantage of earbuds is that they do not do any real noise isolation so you can hear when a bus is about to squish you. Good headphones will keep the sound of that bus out of your ears even after it hits you...
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
earplug eye microphone projectors.... No wait! :(
NSA has them allready
No. There have been plenty of studies on the effects of non-ionizing radiation on health, and none of the realistic, unbiased ones have yielded any evidence of harm, so it remains a purely theoretical possibility. Furthermore, radiation power densities are going down (TFA is a shining example).
This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
I've heard that earbuds are also responsible for global warming.
I've auditioned some pretty amazing earbuds. Admittedly, they don't stand up to something like Sony Professional headphones, but there are some good ones, superior to numerous trashy and even mid-range headphones.
With proper fit (referring generally to tip size) earbuds will give a LOT of acoustic isolation, enough to make them really dangerous if walking or jogging in any kind of traffic. I've never gotten headphones to isolate as close to 100% as properly fit, well-designed earbuds.
Of course, earbuds have issues. Sound stage can be one; you don't get the openness you get with headphones or of course speakers. Hearing damage can be another if you don't use them sensibly. Sanitation, too, if you don't wipe the tips with a little alcohol after use.
Or you're being paid by the annoying-headphone-wire-lobby to keep sales from dropping. Or the deleterious health effects caused by headphone wires are still being suppressed for their huge impending class action suit. Wow, this is easy...
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
I've auditioned some pretty amazing earbuds.
As opposed to "tried"?
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Stick to the physics: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...
If you have a specific concern, tell us.
Otherwise I think the radio stations that have been pumping out megawatts for over a century kinda trump a couple of milliwatts over less than half a meter.
"Auditioned" implies he also had sex with the candidates.
I do. Are you one of those mongoloids who'd wear studio style headphones to the gym?
The wireless is even better -- finding a set of bluetooth headphones that are a) comfortable b) water proof/resistant is a monumental challenge. Something like this negates the need for a bulky(ish) battery, decreasing the weight -- thus making them more comfortable and smaller.
No, "auditioned". You can "try" a pair of earbuds by sticking them in your ear. You "Audition" earbuds by ensuring they fit properly, then using them to listen to several pieces of music you are familiar with, and generating a (personal, subjective) rating for them.
It's the difference between sitting in a car and going for a test-drive.
Care to show any credible studies that show this to be a problem?
By "this" I assume we are both referring to near-field RF radiation. According to credible sources, there is insufficient evidence currently to state that it either is or is not a problem, but one consensus of experts agree that mobile phone radiation is worthy of further exploration as a possible risk:
"The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a global authority on cancer, recently concluded that radiation from mobile phones is a ‘possible’ head cancer risk. However, scientific opinion is split on the issue – many different studies have reached different conclusions based on the same evidence." -- http://www.eea.europa.eu/highl...
In Europe they have proposed regulations to reduce exposure of children to mobile phone and wifi radiation: http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...
So, yes, there are credible experts who don't share your complacent surety. Personally, I am neither convinced one way or the other and adopt a wait-and-see attitude.
But if we grant that it is a possible issue, then we must consider that these earbud things are "ultra low power," but seeing as electromagnetic field strength increases in an inverse proportion to the square of a decrease in the separation distance, putting a transmitter INSIDE your skull makes an orders of magnitude strength difference over even the few millimeters of additional separation present by holding a phone against your ear.
As I said, I avoid paranoia, but I've lived long enough to see lots of "safe" things turn out to be absolutely not safe (like BPA) or at least called into question (like saccharin).
So I raise it as a possible consideration here, but I am absolutely not saying it is a problem; run for the hills!
They only cause hearing damage at high volume levels. A lot of earbuds have good bass reproduction. It's true, though, that they aren't sanitary and that they can irritate the ear and cause earwax buildup/blockage (the reason I don't use them).
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
This isn't really the right website to start talking about 'harmful' rf radiation without any sort of proof.
Proof exists only in mathematics. Science relies on evidence.
The limited evidence so far produced has left experts divided:
http://www.eea.europa.eu/highl...
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...
"One reason scientists disagree is because the mechanisms by which the radiations from mobile phones could cause cancer are not yet understood. However, waiting for that knowledge could take decades: the biological mechanisms connecting tobacco smoke and cancer are still not fully understood, some 60 years after the first published studies linked smoking and lung cancer."
I would no more support your apparent complacency than [my alleged] paranoia. But to clarify the record, raising discussion about a point on which experts are divided does not strike me as remotely paranoid.
I think the radio stations that have been pumping out megawatts for over a century kinda trump a couple of milliwatts over less than half a meter.
To play devil's advocate, not saying either is harmful, but your comparison is flawed.
Familiar with the inverse square law? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"The density of flux lines is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source because the surface area of a sphere increases with the square of the radius. Thus the strength of the field is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source."
Regarding an electromagnetic field, its strength is affected linearly by source power and squarely by distance. So weaker but closer sources of power create much stronger fields.
"Ultra low power" but also ultra short distances.
I agree with you that power lines are a non-issue, but those would create a less powerful field on your brain than a tiny transmitter inside your ear/skull. See inverse square law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I could not conclude these earbuds are harmful, but since the health effects of mobile phones continue to be researched by experts, I wouldn't dismiss the possibility. I guess bluetooth is probably much stronger though.
This kind of tech has existed for a while; it's primarily used in surveillance gear, so that the earphones being worn by someone working in the field can't be seen. The downside of the current state-of-the-art, however, is that the wearer needs to have the induction coil under their clothing, around their neck. I'm really curious how this would work in stereo, personally, as all the solutions I've seen are only mono by requirement; there's no easy way to partition the field into two segments, to separate left from right.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
The experts are absolutely NOT divided, and your own post illustrates the case nicely.
When health studies were done on Smoking and Cancer, the adverse relationship quickly became evident.
But studies of the relationship between RF Exposure and Cancer has consistently gone the other way.
In spite of hundreds of detailed tests over many decades, no adverse relationship has ever been detected.
There have been once-off results, but each time they were independently re-tested, the effect vanished.
There is now a vast amount of data across different Frequencies, Power Levels, Modulation, etc.
If there were a relationship (as there clearly is with smoking) it would be easy to demonstrate.
including wireless audio streaming from ear to ear
So I can hear what my left ear sounds like with my right ear?
That might get confusing...
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Beep beep.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
It's still orders of magnitude, both in received power and amount of time the big transmitters have been around for.
And yes frequency plays a part too, but this article doesn't specify any frequency so even if some frequencies were bad, you can't say this one is bad.
Plus this one is induction not RF so it's different again.
This one does, but it's been a while.
What a load of pretentious horse shit.
Me. I love earbuds. I even love the old fashioned kind that sit outside the ear canal. I've found some that have remarkable sound and they're a little expensive but man are they good.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I had to take a bus a few weeks ago because of the weather and there are a whole lot of mutants out there. A couple of them even looked like they could have been Slashdot readers.
RF radiation and high-fructose corn syrup are as good an explanation as any.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Yes! Global warming is directly responsible for eco terrorists!
Well, you don't seem like the original poster, but I think you answered my question.
Earbuds:
1. Fit in a pocket
2. Are more than adequate for most pop music produced in the last 75 years.
3. Are more than adequate for most mobile listening environments.
4. Are more than adequate for podcasts.
5. Can passively cancel ambient noise without looking like Princess Leia.
6. Might, depending on personal preference, be more comfortable.
7. More amenable to wearing during physical activity.
8. Starting cost is around $1.
But yes, they completely suck for all purposes.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
This is how audiophiles talk. If you have one as a friend, it is best for everyone if you simply never talk about music.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
The next step is direct cochlear implantation, bypassing the mechanical subsystems for truly dynamic fidelity. A fortunate byproduct would be hearing implants for the deaf.
I have a pair of the Plantronics Backbeat Go 2. For a $70 bluetooth set, they are more than adequate. I have used them daily for nearly a year with no major problems.
Battery life is approximately 4-5 hours for phone conversations; slightly less with louder and/or bass-heavy music. Recharge time is slower than I'd like (about 0.5x discharge time), but they're not bulky, are fully flexible (no hard parts between the buds), and very comfortable in my ears. I wear them around my neck constantly so there's no risk of damaging them in pockets. I also run 5-10k with them at a stretch with no discomfort or real risk of falling out.
My only complaint is there's no way to disable the 'play' button functionality on android devices over bluetooth (only with wired headsets, argh), but overall they're as close to the holy grail of bluetooth talking/running phone/music buds as I've ever found.
From your own quote:
Long-term exposure to high-levels of microwaves [...]
So don't picnic every Sunday in front of any radars and you'll be fine.
This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
not sanitary
They are as sanitary as the wearer. If yours are filthy, perhaps you should pay more attention to your personal hygiene.
crappy sound
Mine sound better than most people's studio style headsets.
fall out of ear
There is a reason they come with multiple sized tips.
no bass
Again, mine have more bass than most people's studio style headsets.
no soundstage
Running out of excuses? You're repeating yourself. This is exactly the same thing as your whine about sound quality and/or lack of bass. Yet again, my earbuds sound better than most people's studio style headsets.
SOOO easy to cause to hearing damage
No more easy than any other type of headset.
By the way, my earbuds aren't some super expensive Sennheiser or Bose models, they're a pair of $30 JVC HAFX1X which have served me well almost daily for the past six years and show no signs of wearing out.
i had a pair of those as well, the sound was good, battery good, water proof status - excellent. But man, they were uncomfortable. I tried all 3 of the included ear buds, and they'd either fall out on a whim, or make my ears so sore I couldn't wear them again for a week. Finally gave up on them and went back to my non-water proof Motorola 'Buds' (with predictable, shorted out results.)
Gave the plantronics to my sister, who has no such issues with the fit; so perhaps I was just unlucky.
Because that's the way that GSM phones operate.
In order to achieve Full Duplex operation, it receives for half the time, then transmissions for half the time.
These transmit data bursts result in a deeply Amplitude modulated RF envelope.
This is why you hear Brrrp, Brrrp when you put your GSM phone near a pair of cheap loudspeakers.
I shouldn't need to expand upon point 6, but you seem to need it:
6. Might, depending on personal preference, be more comfortable. Or, might not.
I hope that was helpful. This message brought to you by the letter "A".
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Maybe you think so. But my remarks were pretty straightforward. Especially compared to true audiophile nonsense, the kind where the listener thinks he can hear the purported acoustic qualities of Monster Cable.
I said that fit is important for isolation. I said that headphones sound more open. I said that some earbuds are decent.
Is that pretentious? Or is it that I used the word "audition" --- which is the right word, but whatever?
5. Can passively cancel ambient noise without looking like Princess Leia.
Aaaand, that's where you lost my attention.
What I'm worried about is if it can pick up low enough magnetic fields that someone using them next to me could pick up my thoughts! Then they would hear my inner monologue. Whoaaa man! That IS scary.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Headphones are not earbuds. :)
Oh, and sorry 'bout ur mum.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
For audiophiles there is a special spray can with gold dust, that makes the wifi signals sound much better. Just spray it around your head, when you are using the earbuds.
-- Make America hate again!
Proof? Can you show an example of such old Slashdot article?
Didn't you mean "Wednesday was when Willy Waterloo was wetly washing Warren Wiggins who WAS washing Waldo Woo while wildebeests wandered widely"?
rgb
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
It's a direct rip from Dr. Seuss's "The ABC Book", so I'm not authorized to change it :)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
But I had three more points! Oh, drat.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
This is where image support would make this place so awesome:
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/dZqAEV0...
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I "try" a new bread by ingesting a loaf of it. It doesn't get any more intimate than that!
Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
Ah, but you "audition" a brand new loaf of bread by tenderly squeezing it, then smelling its subtle aromas, then becoming physically intimate with it.
Sam
It's the difference between sitting in a car and going for a test-drive.
Don't you mean going for an "audition" in the car?
You really don't see why this sounds pretentious? Probably everyone here has test-driven a car. Even a crappy car costs more than the most expensive headphones. Headphones - little speakers that go on your head. You test them. They can only do one thing, so when you say you tested them, it is unambiguous. "Audition" is some marketer's invention, and your use of it can sound either pretentious or it can make you sound gullible. It's definitely not the appropriate word to use if you aren't looking for odd reactions from people uninfluenced by audiophile marketing.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.