Bragi Unveils Wireless 'Headphone' Earbuds Ahead of Apple Event

[MaloCS]

Any source that is quick to claim that the other side is manipulating is one you shouldn't take seriously. I'm not saying it isn't possible. I'm just saying we need to do more research on the matter.

Goff Translation:
Move along. Nothing to see here. Stay calm and Bluetooth on.

All sarcasm aside. I agree with you 100%, we NEED more research (However, to be completely transparent, I believe that there has been sufficient evidence to support not using the tech at all). Unfortunately, this tech has been released into the wild and we are dealing with the very real health effects that it causes. Especially the effects it has on children.

I'll say it again, you and I should be partners in this quest. We all should stand in solidarity and demand that these corporations perform the necessary studies to ensure that this tech is safe. I'm not willing to use your family's health as collateral on my techno convenience. Do you share the same feelings about the health of my family?

 

[6836838]

This is just so wrong on every level! People are really going to believe that 'digital headphones' are better. An it couldn't be further from the truth. Just an excuse to charge more for something that already works perfectly fine.

Yet another device to charge.... No thank you.

Also, useless when running.

 

[Avenged110]

"Bluetooth radiation" is 2.4GHz radiation. Just the same as WiFi (and cordless phones and baby monitors and all sorts of other devices). Do you have any WiFi access points in your home? Do your neighbors have any? Do you ever visit any buildings that have WiFi? Better stop that immediately, if you're really concerned about 2.4GHz radiation.
...

Completely valid points. I would, however, like to think there is at least a little cause for concern when you take these devices and push them up against your head for hours on end, though. While not any more or less concerning than being on a call for hours, proximity does matter. Doubling or tripling your head's daily exposure to close sources of (albeit lower power) electromagnetic radiation may not be harmful, but it's at least worth looking at.

 

[Michael Goff]

Completely valid points. I would, however, like to think there is at least a little cause for concern when you take these devices and push them up against your head for hours on end, though. While not any more or less concerning than being on a call for hours, proximity does matter. Doubling or tripling your head's daily exposure to close sources of (albeit lower power) electromagnetic radiation may not be harmful, but it's at least worth looking at.

Agreed. It should be studied and studied and studied some more.

 

[BSben]

Do the research, it's all on Google. There are hundreds of reports, articles and studies that prove that Bluetooth, microwave radiation is harmful. With the amount of harm directly related to exposure time. I don't know about you but I don't listen to headphones in quick 2 minute bursts. I listen to headphones for 8-12 hours a day so my exposure time is very large. I think it's safe to assume that other peoples usage patterns are similar to mine which means similar exposure times. Don't believe me, do your own research and educate yourself! Good grief!

Additionally, YouTube has a plethora of videos that test and document the severity of Bluetooth radiation. Again, since the evidence is so readily available I have to believe that people like you are just trolling.

I am impressed that someone has time to listen to headphones 12 hours a day, even a lot of unemployed, or ill people would struggle to achieve that. Listening for that amount of time could harm your ears though. To the more serious part, it is very easy to find 'proof' for any claim that people come up with, may the claim be true or false. Fairly recently a TV channel made the (fake) claim that you can eat chocolate as a slimming aid. They got the approval by scientists etc, despite the fact that the whole thing was a fake claim( http://www.albatrossworldsales.com/catalog/politics/the-chocolate-diet ). As Bluetooth is almost everywhere (phones, PDQ terminals, store internal systems....) you will find it hard to avoid it whenever you are near other people. And even if the claim turns out to be true, it would be a blessing in disguise as the world population could do with shrinking, rather than expanding.

 

[amirite]

Well to be fair, brain cancer rates have skyrocketed since the 90s. Oh wait no they haven't.

 

[MaloCS]

Well to be fair, brain cancer rates have skyrocketed since the 90s. Oh wait no they haven't.

https://www.rfsafe.com/reported-health-effects-non-ionizing-rf-radiation/#cit

Take the time and read the studies. I have.
[doublepost=1473190943][/doublepost]

And even if the claim turns out to be true, it would be a blessing in disguise as the world population could do with shrinking, rather than expanding.

WOW! I guess you would have no problem using my family as collateral for your techno convenience.

 

[s1m]

This is just so wrong on every level! People are really going to believe that 'digital headphones' are better. An it couldn't be further from the truth. Just an excuse to charge more for something that already works perfectly fine.

Yet another device to charge.... No thank you.

Also, useless when running.

How is a wireless set of headphones that securely stay in your ears with no wire to connect you to your phone less useful than a wired set of headphones that can easily get tangled in your arms?

 

[4419626]

Keep calm on Bluetooth on, you can put your head back in the sand now.

Rest assured that people like me, regardless of people like you, will continue to fight for the rights and health of all human beings. Yes, that includes you as well.
[doublepost=1473178729][/doublepost]

Not the hero we need... and also not the hero we deserve. Wow, just how sad is your life that you need to feel this self-important? I honestly just feel sorry for you. I'll leave you to your bloviating now. Have a nice day.

 

[BSben]

https://www.rfsafe.com/reported-health-effects-non-ionizing-rf-radiation/#cit

Take the time and read the studies. I have.
[doublepost=1473190943][/doublepost]

WOW! I guess you would have no problem using my family as collateral for your techno convenience.

I was not pointing at you ,with your headphones on for 12 hours a day, but in general the planet will be better off with fewer people. Just in case, I will pop all my phones in my front pockets from now on with Bluetooth switched on.

 

[MaloCS]

Not the hero we need... and also not the hero we deserve. Wow, just how sad is your life that you need to feel this self-important? I honestly just feel sorry for you. I'll leave you to your bloviating now. Have a nice day.

I feel sorry for you. Your head is so far in the sand that even I'm uncomfortable.

Put your tin foil hat on and read the studies. I did.
https://www.rfsafe.com/reported-health-effects-non-ionizing-rf-radiation/#cit
[doublepost=1473192101][/doublepost]

Just in case, I will pop all my phones in my front pockets from now on with Bluetooth switched on.

Awesome!
[doublepost=1473192993][/doublepost]Here's a page that lists measures proposed by various European governments concerning RF emissions.
http://wiredchild.org/government-alias.html#Germany

 

[Hmm]

Here's more recent information,

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/02/24/no-cell-phones-are-not-cooking-mens-sperm/

 

[CarlJ]

https://www.rfsafe.com/reported-health-effects-non-ionizing-rf-radiation/#cit

Take the time and read the studies. I have.

Linking to a site whose sole purpose is to get you to buy the devices that they sell to protect you from the supposed harm that they describe, does little to support your argument.

 

[MaloCS]

Linking to a site whose sole purpose is to get you to buy the devices that they sell to protect you from the supposed harm that they describe, does little to support your argument.

Okay, how's this?

Is this good enough?

 

[CarlJ]

Completely valid points. I would, however, like to think there is at least a little cause for concern when you take these devices and push them up against your head for hours on end, though. While not any more or less concerning than being on a call for hours, proximity does matter. Doubling or tripling your head's daily exposure to close sources of (albeit lower power) electromagnetic radiation may not be harmful, but it's at least worth looking at.

Sure, it is worth looking at. What kinds of studies did you find (and what kinds of results did they find) when you searched on arXiv, or any of the other search engines that deal specifically with peer-reviewed scientific studies? Just because a study isn't picked up (and usually horribly misinterpreted) by major news outlets doesn't mean they haven't been done.

 

[MaloCS]

Sure, it is worth looking at. What kinds of studies did you find (and what kinds of results did they find) when you searched on arXiv, or any of the other search engines that deal specifically with peer-reviewed scientific studies? Just because a study isn't picked up (and usually horribly misinterpreted) by major news outlets doesn't mean they haven't been done.

world health org, cnn, the list is growing.

 

[Michael Goff]

Okay, how's this?

Is this good enough?

Have you actually watched the video you just posted? They reference a WHO study that they never link to anywhere. You really want to keep pushing the FUD with sources that merely mention other sources without actually giving them. Nobody should trust your posts.

 

[CarlJ]

Do the research, it's all on Google. There are hundreds of reports, articles and studies that prove that Bluetooth, microwave radiation is harmful. With the amount of harm directly related to exposure time. ... Don't believe me, do your own research and educate yourself! Good grief!

Additionally, YouTube has a plethora of videos that test and document the severity of Bluetooth radiation. Again, since the evidence is so readily available I have to believe that people like you are just trolling.

Google? YouTube? Using only those sources, I can readily prove to you that the earth is only 6000 years old, vaccines cause autism*, man lived in harmony with dinosaurs, and space aliens walk among us. Reading random webpages found by Google is not research - don't kid yourself that it is - it's just looking for ways to scare yourself. You don't seem to really know what "research" means.

Find some scientific studies that support your beliefs in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and then perhaps we can talk rationally. Instead of google, try arXiv, or any of the other search engines that deal specifically with peer-reviewed scientific studies (a single study may or may not have been done correctly - it's when multiple studies have been able to reproduce the same results described in the original study, that a new idea begins to have merit). Just because a study isn't picked up (and usually horribly misinterpreted) by major news outlets doesn't mean they don't exist. Conversely, just because something is on Google or YouTube doesn't mean it's true.

*: (they don't - the lack of vaccines cause measles, polio, and lots of other fun diseases - and dangerously misinformed idiots who refuse to vaccinate their kids wipe out the herd immunity, endangering everyone else's kids, all because of "something they read on the Internet".)
[doublepost=1473196635][/doublepost]

Have you actually watched the video you just posted? They reference a WHO study that they never link to anywhere. You really want to keep pushing the FUD with sources that merely mention other sources without actually giving them. Nobody should trust your posts.

Oh didn't you know, if you find it on the Internet, it must be true.

 

[MaloCS]

Google? YouTube? Using only those sources, I can readily prove to you that the earth is only 6000 years old, vaccines cause autism*, man lived in harmony with dinosaurs, and space aliens walk among us. Reading random webpages found by Google is not research - don't kid yourself that it is - it's just looking for ways to scare yourself.

Find some scientific studies that support your beliefs in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and then perhaps we can talk rationally. Instead of google, try arXiv, or any of the other search engines that deal specifically with peer-reviewed scientific studies (a single study may or may not have been done correctly - it's when multiple studies have been able to reproduce the same results described in the original study, that an idea begins to have merit). Just because a study isn't picked up (and usually horribly misinterpreted) by major news outlets doesn't mean they don't exist. Conversely, just because something is on Google or YouTube doesn't mean it's true.

*: (they don't - the lack of vaccines cause measles, polio, and lots of other fun diseases - and dangerously misinformed idiots who refuse to vaccinate their kids wipe out the herd immunity, endangering everyone else's kids, all because of "something they read on the Internet".)
[doublepost=1473196635][/doublepost]
Oh didn't you know, if you find it on the Internet, it must be true.

Lol

 

[Michael Goff]

Google? YouTube? Using only those sources, I can readily prove to you that the earth is only 6000 years old, vaccines cause autism*, man lived in harmony with dinosaurs, and space aliens walk among us. Reading random webpages found by Google is not research - don't kid yourself that it is - it's just looking for ways to scare yourself.

Find some scientific studies that support your beliefs in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and then perhaps we can talk rationally. Instead of google, try arXiv, or any of the other search engines that deal specifically with peer-reviewed scientific studies (a single study may or may not have been done correctly - it's when multiple studies have been able to reproduce the same results described in the original study, that a new idea begins to have merit). Just because a study isn't picked up (and usually horribly misinterpreted) by major news outlets doesn't mean they don't exist. Conversely, just because something is on Google or YouTube doesn't mean it's true.

*: (they don't - the lack of vaccines cause measles, polio, and lots of other fun diseases - and dangerously misinformed idiots who refuse to vaccinate their kids wipe out the herd immunity, endangering everyone else's kids, all because of "something they read on the Internet".)
[doublepost=1473196635][/doublepost]
Oh didn't you know, if you find it on the Internet, it must be true.

Considering the response you just got, I don't think the person is going to be doing any research or try to find any peer reviewed studies.

 

[CarlJ]

world health org, cnn, the list is growing.

youtube.com/watch?v=hqafAzugooY

And, again, you are posting a video published to youtube by a company, "PhoneDefense", that breathlessly advertises, right below the video:

PROTECT YOURSELF and your family!
Cell phone radiation has been linked to cancer. Go to PhoneDefense.com and get the protection you need​

You are doing "research" by reading and watching advertisements from people who want to sell you something. It is in their best interests to scare you, to get you to buy the things they are selling. Again, I don't think you really know what "research" means.

By the way, actually visiting phonedefense.com results in a redirect to a rather shady looking page insisting that I need to "update my video player", which proceeds to throw up a dialog asking me if "I'm sure I really want to leave the page" when I close it.. That sure seems trustworthy.

 

[MaloCS]

Here is CNN's full report from the video I posted earlier. There is some very interesting information in this piece that I never knew about. I would urge everyone to watch this CNN video.

 

[4419626]

Oh didn't you know, if you find it on the Internet, it must be true.

 

[Eorlas]

Mind sharing what you bought?

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01ARRB32O/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 

[alexgowers]

I think we're jumping the gun to think that Apple aren't doing something about sound quality. I agree from what we know so far this is bad news from an audio quality perspective, but presumably the lightning option will at least accommodate audiophile tastes.

I find it hard to believe they'd offer a wireless option that sounds significantly worse than their already horrible earbuds.

Lighting audio will use built in DAC (same quality) or a battery powered DAC in the headphones which adds cost and duplicates an internal DAC and means you need to keep it charged. If you have lighting headphones you can't use them with anything else without an adapter. If you have headphones already you need to use an adapter.

Why would you then ever use lighting headphones. It's so pointless.