I haven’t listened to the full podcast yet, but I wanted to comment about “noise-cancelling” headphones.

IMO, consumers should be buying noise-blocking headphones, not “noise-cancelling” headphones. Noise-blocking headphones include in-ear monitors (the small earphones that look like earbuds, except that they actually fit snugly deep into the ear canal so that they block outside noise and place the speaker very close to the listeners’ eardrums), and sealed, over-the-ear headphones (these are what most people instantly picture when you say “headphones”. These are the “cans” that DJs, recording professionals or anyone who wants to block outside noise while wearing full-sized headphones uses).

“Noise-cancelling” headphones have their own microphone and a little, built-in amp that is powered by a battery. The idea is that the microphone captures outside noise, that noise is “inverted” to create a perfectly opposite sound wave, and then the little built-in amp plays that “negative image” wave into your ears so that, theoretically, it cancels out the outside noise due to destructive interference.

This method works pretty well for constant, droning noises – like the sound of an engine – and that is the reason why people often look to “noise-cancelling” headphones for things like plane travel, or boat travel or train travel. That constant, droning engine noise gets cancelled out by the “noise-cancelling” system.

But “noise-cancelling” headphones do next to nothing for other noises. A baby crying? You’ll hear it loud and clear. People talking? You’ll catch what they’re saying just fine. It’s only the constant, droning type of sound that the “noise-cancelling” headphones are good at…well…cancelling.

So what is the result? People wearing “noise-cancelling” headphones often end up turning up their music really loud in order to block out all those other noises – just as people with non-noise-blocking headphones do. The little built-in amp also produces its own distortion. If you want fidelity along with your noise-cancellation, forget it! What you get instead is a constant, low-level hiss from the crappy, little, battery-powered amp. You also get distortion as the noise-cancelling system attempts to adjust to incidental noises, but inevitably fails.

On the other hand, noise-blocking headphones work just like ear-plugs (in the case of in-ear monitors) or ear protection (in the case of sealed, full-sized “cans”) – like what construction workers wear. And just think about that for a second; on a construction site, what are the workers wearing in order to protect their hearing? Are they wearing “noise-cancelling” headphones? No! They are wearing ear-plugs or those full-sized, sealed-back ear protectors. People who require hearing protection get it with noise-blocking devices, not “noise-cancelling” snake-oil that doesn’t actually work!

So skip the crappy “noise-cancelling” headphones. It says something that the most popular “noise-cancelling” headphones also come from Bose and Monster! We all know what to think of those two companies, don’t we? lol

IMO, every person with those crappy, little earbuds (the ones that either come with iPods, or cost about $15 and suck just as bad as those iPod buds) ought to pony up and get some proper in-ear monitors! For one thing, in-ear monitors save your hearing. By blocking outside noise, you naturally turn down the volume rather than trying to overcome outside noise by deafening yourself with crazy loud music! For another thing, you get WAY better sound quality! Good in-ear monitors deliver excellent fidelity and extremely low distortion.

And, last but not least, I can’t stand having to hear other people’s music. You know what I mean; where some guy or girl is on the same bus or train and you can easily hear their crappy music as it spills from their crappy, little earbuds that they’ve had to turn up to deafening levels just so they can overcome the outside noise? In-ear monitors keep your music private! No one else has to hear your taste in music. You can sit right next to someone who is wearing in-ear monitors and you won’t hear a thing!

And if you can’t stand the feel of ear-plugs; having something pushed down snug into your ear canal, then opt for full-sized, sealed-back headphones. Open-back headphones can sound more “natural” and less “in your head”, but sealed-back is the way to go when you want to block outside noise, protect your hearing, and avoid bothering other people.

I tried one of the Bose headphones, though it was a few years ago. My impressions were that it did a great job at canceling noise, but the resulting sound was lacking in any midrange and severely colored.

I compared IEM (in-ear monitors) Shure SE530 with noise canceling Audio Technicas and there is no contest. IEMs are much better at maintaining accuracy while reducing noise.

I use the SE530s. You can get them for $250 near-new if you shop around. I don’t think brand new is necessary for this kind of thing. Just buy some new foam tips for yourself and wipe down the earbuds if you’re worried about hygiene.

HIGHLY recommended.

You might also look at the Klipsch Image X10 IEMs or something similar.

As for closed-back cans, the Sony MDR-7509s are hard to beat for the price.

For open-back, I’m using the Beyerdynamic DT-880 (250ohm). Very accurate and airy, bass is fast and punchy, but doesn’t extend as far as some other cans. This set is better for monitoring than enjoyment, but very enjoyable if you’re into accuracy and you don’t care about very low bass.

Regarding “cutting the cable”, here’s how I think a proper content subscription service should operate:

1) No advertising. None. I think it’s total BS that we pay for cable or satellite AND have to watch ads. What’s up with that? I can remember when cable was first rolled out, the big selling feature was “no commercials!” I do not buy the argument that ads subsidize the cost of providing the content, i.e. that we would be paying even more if we didn’t have ads.

2) If there MUST be advertising, we should be paid to watch it by getting a per-minute credit off your monthly bill, up to the full amount of the bill.

3) Content providers should be paid according to the total of minutes their content is viewed.

4) The most popular content would generate the most revenue. Less popular, more obscure content would also generate revenue…just not as much.

5) Content providers would be motivated to deliver more interesting and compelling entertainment, because they would be in competition with every other content proovider to attract viewership for their products.

6) Owners of existing content would be motivated to put it up on the subscription service to start generating revenue immeidately.

7) If necessary, there could be two tiers of service. One for old TV/old movies and step-up tier for for this season’s premium TV and recently released movies.

Okay, I have heard alot of “ranting”(no pun intended) about “cutting the cord(cable)” and was wondering, How do you really cut the cord(cable)? I’m all for streaming anything and everything and getting as many HD channels as you can over the air, but even when your streaming, your using cable!!! I pay $70 a month to Comcast for my broadband connection just so I can stream anything I want, but I still have to pay that $70+ a month to have that ability to watch what I want when I want. So how is this really “cutting the cord(cable)”? I need hep understanding this kind of concept? Also, AV Rant is AWESOME!!! Love the show Tom. . . . .except I miss hearing the Lovely Dina Clarke. . . .oh well!!