Hands On: Able Planet's Clear Harmony Headphones

My mother always told me I'd regret procrastinatng. For months I've had Able Planet's $349 Clear Harmony headphones sitting on my desk, waiting for me to get around to trying them out. Last month, I finally opened the package. I wish I'd done it sooner.

The headphones use Able Planet's Linx Audio technology, which was originally designed for the hard of hearing; it not only reduces outside noise, it amplifies higher frequencies in the audio. Applied to headphones, the result is something that's useful for people with normal hearing as well.

Think of it as preventive aural maintenace. When the ambient noise is so drastically diminished and the audio you're listening to is selectively boosted, you don't have to turn the volume up as high to hear clearly. In a few random tests where I switched between fairly good Sony earbuds and the Clear Harmony headphones, I was surprised to discover how much I'd turned up my iPod to hear music clearly on the earbuds. Keeping things at a lower volume with the headphones meant I was subjecting my ears to less stress, and incidentally reducing power demands on the iPod.

I've been using the headphones in a variety of environments, such as mowing the lawn (the reason I finally put them on) and riding on trains, buses and planes. The large cans seal my ears in nicely, shutting out a lot of the ambient noise on their own; turning on the noise-cancelling circuitry -- the headphones are powered by two AA batteries -- takes care of almost everything else.

I'd recommend the Clear Harmony headphones for anyone who regularly listens to music out of the house, needs a little peace and quiet in noisy environments (even without music playing, the headphones form a nice little audio cocoon), or just values their hearing. There are, however, two caveats, aside from the high price: one is that after a few hours, they can get a little uncomfortable; the second is that they do too good a job of blocking outside sound -- wearing them while walking down the street would conceivably be a safety hazard.

The Charger That's as Green as You Want to Be

How's this for versatle? The HYmini from miniWIZ lets you store energy in its 1200-mAh internal lithium-ion battery so you can charge your other myriad portable devices -- only it can get its juice from the sun and wind. Hang the $49 HYmini from your bike or mount it outside your car window to use the wind generator; attach optional solar panels (they're $24 each) to put the sun's rays to work; or just plug the thing into a wall socket or USB port.

In any case, the result's the same: Connect the HYmini into, say, your MP3 player, and it delivers the power your hungry gadget needs. The only flaw: the HYmini's battery isn't removable, so when it finally gives out (the company estimates it has 500 complete discharges in its life) you have to replace the whole thing. That makes the HYmini almost, but not quite green enough.

Splish Splash, MP3s in the Bath

Sometimes you just want to unwind with a nice, long hot bath, am I right? Fancy oils, a glass of wine, and some soothing tunes -- oh, wait, that's right. "Soothing tunes" means cranking the stereo or wrangling your iPod and external speakers or something.

Or you might consider BainUltra's Euphonia wireless (and, fortunately, waterproof) headset, which promises to help you shut out the noises of the outside world and let you listen to your New-Agey relaxation music in peace. The music itself is stored in a wall-mounted MP3 player.

The headset's due in early December, but BainUltra is currently mum on the price; you'll have to keep tabs on their website for updates.

Carrying Bags for Eco-Conscious Gadget Freaks

Here's a way for the on-to-go gadget freak to stay powered up: As part of their line of green products, Office Depot is offering the Voltaic series of bags. Like the Voltaic Converter pictured here, the knapsacks and messenger bags (with prices ranging from $179 to $219) sport waterproof solar panels that generate up to 4 watts of power for whatever gadgets you happen to be toting around. There's also a lithium-ion battery pack for storing any extra juice, so you can charge your devices even on cloudy days. If you're looking for a little extra eco-karma, the bags are largely made of recycled soda bottles.

Passers-by might do a double take when they notice the shiny panels on the bags, but don't let it concern you -- you're walking away from them, anyway.

J.Lo's Album Goes Digital

Here's another way for musicians to go digital: Jennifer Lopez has teamed up with luxury tech purveyors Gresso to release her latest album on a USB flash drive. It's similar to what the French pop group Bubblies did last year, except the flash drive is made of African mahogany, and I somehow doubt the tracks are DRM-free MP3s. The whole deal costs $70.

The Radiohead Experiment, One Month Later

Internet research group Comscore caused a stir yesterday when they published the results of a study that showed that in the first 29 days of October, 38% of the people who downloaded In Rainbows didn't pay a dime. It seems to be universally agreed that, given the choice, most people will opt for free stuff. Quelle surprise.

But the real question is, did the band make money? Probably. According to the study, 1.2 million people visited the Radiohead site during the study's time frame, and "a significant percentage" downloaded the album. For the sake of rounding, let's say that 1 million people downloaded it; were this a CD release, Radiohead would have made something like $2 million (only their lawyers know for sure, but I've read estimates that say that bands make anywhere from $1 to $3 per CD sale). If only 380,000 people paid for their downloads, then each buyer would have had to pay $5.26, on average, for the band to make the same money.

According to the study, the average price paid was $6. I'd say Radiohead didn't do too badly.

Granted, there are a number of other potential factors at play here, including the fact that this is only the first month of what is, for most of the buyers, a first-time experience. If this practice becomes more commonplace, how will that affect long-term buyer behavior?

Finally, I'm curious about something that no one seems to have asked: had the album been released traditionally, how many people would have gotten it for free (via P2P, or good old-fashioned duping) anyway? It's unknowable, really, but a reminder that the 62% figure for freeloaders may not be that remarkable.

I Guess You Can Hear Me Now

One of the reasons I love this time of year is because the blustery winds give me a great excuse not to use my cell phone when I'm out of the office. Now Motorola has gone and ruined a good thing with their new Motopure H12 Bluetooth 2.0 headset, which promises noise cancellation via their CrystalTalk technology (a pair of microphones tracks background noise and cancels it), a 5.5-hour talk time, and an improved, supposedly much more comfortable ear hook design. So there go all three of my excuses. Thanks a lot, Motorola.

Decoding Cell Phone Etiquette

Ask almost anyone, and they'll tell you that cell phone etiquette -- or lack thereof -- is a problem. For that matter, telephone etiquette hasn't been entirely sorted out yet, as encounters with sales clerks and receptionists constantly remind me. It's just that it's harder to escape cell phone users. I'm constantly irritated by some of the inane conversations I hear on the bus or train, or just walking down the street, and sometimes astonished at how some people broadcast some pretty personal details because they forget they're in public.

The only thing that appalls me more than obnoxious cell phone callers are those who think they should determine if a call is a waste of time. "If anything characterizes the 21st century, it's our inability to restrain ourselves for the benefit of other people," says James Katz, director of the Center for Mobile Communication Studies at Rutgers University. "The cellphone talker thinks his rights go above that of people around him, and the jammer thinks his are the more important rights." [The emphasis is mine.] That quote is from a New York Times article that ran yesterday on the use of cell phone jammers, which are illegal in the U.S. -- but so small it's near-impossible to enforce the prohibition against them.

Why do I emphasize the jammer, and not the obnoxious talker? Because many people who blab loudly on their cell phones don't realize they're doing it. The person using the jammer, on the other hand, makes a conscious decision that the other person's conversation isn't important when they press that button. Or they decide the other person isn't important. Read the article through and you'll notice an interesting bent to the quotes from people jamming: "She was using the word 'like' all the time. She sounded like a Valley Girl." "Just watching those dumb teens at the mall get their calls dropped is worth it. Can you hear me now? NO! Good." And perhaps the most telling: "At this point, just knowing I have the power to cut somebody off is satisfaction enough."

The same thing happened when I posted about a cheap cell phone jammer last January. I got a flurry of e-mail from people who said they'd love to have one because of -- I'm paraphrasing here -- all the idiots out there. Clearly, these folks don't realize that with or without cell phones, most overheard conversation fragments are inane.

But this is hardly a new phenomenon. When cell phone use was more expensive, people were quick to deride mobile talkers as self-important jerks. (Though I once had the pleasure of watching one person trying to act cool with his cell phone get hilariously taken down by the girls he was trying to impress...) Now that cell phones are commonplace, substitute "Bluetooth headset" for "cell phone" and you get the modern complaint. Also see: white earphones (iPod owners), and before that, any hint that you had a Walkman. There's almost always a mix of classism, ageism, and occasionally a tinge of racism in these comments as well.

People just need to re-learn the art of being polite. Cell phone users have to realize that not all conversations are appropriate at all times (you know, you can call someone back if you were in the middle of something else), and would-be jammers have to realize that public spaces are just that -- public (would you tell someone to shut up if they were talking to someone sitting next to them, rather than on the phone?). And sometimes a carefully timed tap on the shoulder and a polite reminder can get the job done as well as any $50 jammer.

Radiohead Effect Extends to Magazines

Sometimes it's not who's first, but who's most influential. Even though others have done it before, Radiohead's pay-what-you-want scheme has captured people's imaginations. I wasn't too surprised when Saul Williams gave it a shot (with a little help from Trent Reznor, who has also loudly proclaimed his dissatisfaction with the current state of the music industry), but my eyebrows did go up when a magazine -- you know, an actual physical medium -- decided to go the same route. Paste magazine is now offering a one-year subscription -- 11 issues, including 11 music CDs -- for whatever price you name, with a minimum of $1. Anyone who pays more than the regular subscription price of $19.95 gets a mention in the magazine. A nice touch: regular subscribers can also renew at this extremely flexible rate.

I should mention that this move isn't quite as hardcore as it sounds. First, Paste is only doing this for a limited time. Second, magazines make most of their money from advertisers, not subscriptions, so they can better afford a stunt like this. Third, the offer's only open to U.S. subscribers. Dudes, my credit card was in my hand. Now it'll have to go back into my wallet, unfulfilled.

Watching the YouTube Watchmen

Ever since the idea of automated scanning of YouTube content for infringing material first came up, I've wondered about its viability. Would safeguards exist for people who posted other people's copyrighted works legitimately?

A number of organizations have banded together to address that very problem. Using the media companies' earlier "Principles for User Generated Content Services" document as a springboard, six groups (Electronic Frontier Foundation, American University’s Center for Social Media and the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, Public Knowledge, the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School and the ACLU of Northern California) have issued their own manifesto: "Fair Use Principles for User Generated Video Content." This second document strikes a balance between the twin principles behind copyright: protection for the individual rights holder and the public good. In a nutshell, they seek to keep overzealous filters from taking down legitimate material, by building some human oversight and appeal procedures.

This is all well and good, and I certainly hope that the media companies, YouTube and other emerging players in this field see the win-win aspects of looking out for both the big and little guys. But I hope that all this poking around the finer aspects of copyright law will also provoke a discussion about how to deal with the Internet's international nature and the fact that copyright laws vary from country to country. Here's one of the simplest questions: what happens if I post a music video on YouTube that uses a song that's public domain in Canada, but not in the US? Does it get yanked, or does a a bit get flipped somewhere so that only Canucks can watch it?

Right problems like that are addressed elsewhere rather ham-handedly; just once, I'd like to see people try to sort this out before it becomes a real issue, rather than after.