The future of headphones - any ideas?

[braillediver]

There’s actually a technology where the sound can be “beamed” into a narrow area and not be heard outside of this area.

In a museum specific information would only be audible in front of each picture.

So I think in the future a person will be able to have a private audio space without bothering others without the use of headphones.


Mitch

 

[Cyclone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by braillediver There’s actually a technology where the sound can be “beamed” into a narrow area and not be heard outside of this area. In a museum specific information would only be audible in front of each picture. So I think in the future a person will be able to have a private audio space without bothering others without the use of headphones. Mitch

It doesnt work in mueseums because the sound still reverbs of walls and other objects but yes, its a cool technology. I dont see very much purpose for it other than very specific things like mabey for military use?

 

[bobeau]

Cyclone/braillediver,

As I posted above - http://www.atcsd.com/tl_hss.html.

This is the company which developed this tech.

 

[bobeau]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyclone It doesnt work in mueseums because the sound still reverbs of walls and other objects but yes, its a cool technology. I dont see very much purpose for it other than very specific things like mabey for military use?

Oh? http://forums.museophile.net/story/2003/3/29/211210/163

Do a search on Hypersonic Sound... a company called International Robotics has licensed the patent, Sony has entered a contract with them - these are fairly recent events. Retail applications seem to be right around the corner.

What you say is true (it admits as much on the American Technology Corp. site I linked in the post above), but apparently there are ways to get around it or the reverberation is minimal.

EDIT: swapped US Robotics with International (not quite the same

)

 

[Cyclone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobeau Oh? http://forums.museophile.net/story/2003/3/29/211210/163 Do a search on Hypersonic Sound... US robotics has licensed the patent, Sony has entered a contract with them - these are fairly recent events. Retail applications seem to be right around the corner. What you say is true (it admits as much on the American Technology Corp. site I linked in the post above), but apparently there are ways to get around it or the reverberation is minimal.

Cool, i gladly stand corrected. i really would like to see the kinds of stuff sony,us robotics, etc could do with the technology. im thinking surround sound headphones. but im sure the big companies like US robo and sony can think of other things too.

 

[bobeau]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyclone Cool, i gladly stand corrected. i really would like to see the kinds of stuff sony,us robotics, etc could do with the technology. im thinking surround sound headphones. but im sure the big companies like US robo and sony can think of other things too.

American Tech is only 20 miles from my house... I'm getting a downtown loft next year and have the idea to create ambient music 'zones', like in the kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, balcony - where different feeds of music would be streamed to each zone. Speakers are available now at $500 per, though they don't sell for residential use. I figure I could put something workable together for $5000.

 

[swiego]

In-skull headphones are the future. You'll have a mini-SD slot in your forehead, to submit source material. The magic will be performed by hand-picked Burr Brown DBCs. (Digital-to-Brain Converters.) There will be an "audiophile" version that requires amplification--power is delivered from a 9V battery by licking the terminals with your tongue.

 

[PTheD]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobeau American Tech is only 20 miles from my house... I'm getting a downtown loft next year and have the idea to create ambient music 'zones', like in the kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, balcony - where different feeds of music would be streamed to each zone. Speakers are available now at $500 per, though they don't sell for residential use. I figure I could put something workable together for $5000.

If they don't sell the speakers for residential use then how are you going to get them if you plan on using them in a residence? Maybe you ment that they are not intended for general consumer level retail, but that the company will sell them to consumers that are interested?

I'm not completely sure how technologys will develop in the future. Who is? I suppose it all depends on the consumer & buisness buyers who will demand one thing over another or more than another.

I have had the feeling that canalphones would be widely embraced by many, but there are some problems with them, complications that just don't go away when I think about canalphones taking over the headphone world by storm.

Besides their sealing the user out from the rest of the world, which works quite well when you want privacy, but which can be a major pain quite often, they also require high levels of both technological development & doe/re/me money to produce sonics that are truely impressive. If canalphones are going to be sitting in everyones ears all the time then some things are going to have to change.

This would lead me to the in-ear-implants that have been mentioned. Basicly all a canalphone is, is one of these implants at a very early stage in development. WIth the high tech implant the wirelessness would need to be worked out, the being able to hear other people/not being able to hear people would have to be switchable, cause sometimes you want to hear the real world and sometimes you want 30 dB of isolatoin. There would also have to be a big shift in peoples confert with mechanisation, a bunch of people would see it as too invasive. Shoving Etymotic tips in ones ears turns enough people off, an implant would bring up all kinds of 1984, government control, hidden brain wave manipulation fears that need some time to work themselves out.

With all this in mind I would say in-ear-inserts are a ways off. Canalphones making a big hit, not too far away, but it won't be one then the other. People in New York, L.A. and all kinds of places where there is just too much noise, and people that are interested in having high quality audio in such a portable package are going to love canalphones, heck a bunch of that later group is made up of us here at Head-fi. But that is as far as canalphones are going to go before they high a proverbial wall and peak out in sales & use. They will become standard & well known just like headphones, but they will not imediatly force the revolution of technology that would be needed as well as the psychological transition that would be needed. That will be held of for a while untill everyone is using their eye & voice to open security bariers & are carrying out all monetary transactions by electronic means.

Thats just my intuition about in ear technology.

Surround Sound headphones blow the mind of gamers & movie addicts around the world. Audiophiles take a collective, **** that ****, it ain't **** & won't be for a very long time, stance. I, not knowing any of the intricasys of engenering headphones, think that all it will take is a company coming out with a respectable surround sound headphone for audiophiles to recognise that headphones with multiple drivers & directional sound differences is not neccisarily a bad thing & can be developed to provide an experience that single driver per ear designs can not match, but can rival. Maybe neither of them will be deffinitvely better, but each will have its advantages & will be well respected.

Just like speakers, more than one driver has the potetntial for so much more than just one. However, I would think that by the time that HD650 quality surround sound headphones are being belted out at the rate that the HD650 & simillar headphones are being sold now, that those in-ear-inplants are going to be peaking out at the world from just behind the horizon.

That technology by AT is quite interesting, but would seem to have a different application than headphones, well maybe not completely diffirent, but it seems like a semi-wireless fix for something that everyone is dreaming about a wireless fix for. Does that make sense? What I mean is this. That technology is a very personalosed stereo kind of thing that can be walked in front of or interupted by something physical comeing between you and the source. Good for a livingroom where no one moves around or a person who is single. It can't move with the person. I don't know how high of a quality the sound is, but it probably isn't audiophile quality, just a guess. You cant take it with you on vacation. Would it be specific enough to not distrub a partner sleeping next to you while you listen? Maybe, maybe not. Much more of a personalized stereo than headphones, even though headphones are commonly called personal stereos? Maybe headphones would need to be refered to on-person or on-body personal stereos or maybe local personal steros as compared to remote personal stereos!

So those are my comments on three of the technologys disgused. I have so much more to say, but no more energy to say it & this freaking headache is killing me!

P The D Out! Damn!

 

[boodi]

in fact , other then feeling the implant-as-an-headphone quite scary and too much invasive, I don't see implants are going to be the future of headphones , they are too much invasive to be taken to masses.
So no .. they won't be the future of headphone , at least for the next 50 years.

My father has a cochlear implant .
It's not a completely safe operation to get it and to live with it as there are factor ( and many of them have too much casual variables ) that ar not only ear/audio related when geting an implant, and that one become known only after taking a time with it.

 

[Cthulhu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boodi in fact , other then feeling the implant-as-an-headphone quite scary and too much invasive, I don't see implants are going to be the future of headphones , they are too much invasive to be taken to masses. So no .. they won't be the future of headphone , at least for the next 50 years. My father has a cochlear implant . It's not a completely safe operation to get it and to live with it as there are factor ( and many of them have too much casual variables ) that ar not only ear/audio related when geting an implant, and that one become known only after having the implant for a time.

Implants could be used for all sorts of things though, radio, wireless communication, mobile phones, gps infomation, news feeds, whatever.

 

[boodi]

double , delete.

 

[MartinB]

I think that we have come pretty far already...

But what I think will happen is the following:

- Improved surround and crossfeed simulation
- Better wireless headphones (for real high-end headphones I think that wired headphones will still be the way to go, but there will be high-end wireless headphones for sure)
- More in-ear headphones
- Higher sensitivity

 

[Frisenette]

Multidriver headphones would be a step back. One of the reasons for headphones better sound quality over conventional speakers is the lack of filters and indirection of multiple drivers.
Canal phones I don't like. I don't like to put stuff into my ears unnecessarily and I don't like earwax.

The future of headphones is probably a combination of the following technologies, plus some others yet to be invented:
-Alternative drivers, like DML, electricity to air or some kind of low power electrostatic.
-Digital wireless (both for portable use and stationary). We could have this right now if someone would make them.
-3D calibration for the individual user. The reason for the limited success of surround effects in headphones up until now, is that everybody has different ears and different ways of "processing" the sound they pick up. If headphones could be somehow calibrated for the individual, then we could have better surround sound than any speaker set-up can deliver.

 

[PTheD]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frisenette Multidriver headphones would be a step back. One of the reasons for headphones better sound quality over conventional speakers is the lack of filters and indirection of multiple drivers. Canal phones I don't like. I don't like to put stuff into my ears unnecessarily and I don't like earwax. The future of headphones is probably a combination of the following technologies, plus some others yet to be invented: -Alternative drivers, like DML, electricity to air or some kind of low power electrostatic. -Digital wireless (both for portable use and stationary). We could have this right now if someone would make them. -3D calibration for the individual user. The reason for the limited success of surround effects in headphones up until now, is that everybody has different ears and different ways of "processing" the sound they pick up. If headphones could be somehow calibrated for the individual, then we could have better surround sound than any speaker set-up can deliver.

You say that the reason SS-Cans haven't hit it big is because everbody has different ears. I don't suppose you mean directionality. The left rear is going to be the left rear for everyone. You must mean that my hearing of a sound to the left rear would have different pitch to it than yours or anybody elses? Is that what you mean? I suppose it is possible. Is there documentation about this difference in hearing in individuals when it somes to directional projection of the sound? I know that stright into the ear headphones work pretty well for everybody & straight into the ear is a dirrection to? Do you get what I am getting at?

Surround sound stereos with 5.1; 6.1 & 7.1 channels have done quite well in the last 10 years or so, and they rely on putting sound at a certain angle into everyones ears. Do a lot of people hear SS stereos out-of-wack because they are not tuned to the individual?

 

[Frisenette]

The reason we can tell the direction a sound is coming from, is that our head and ears modulate the sound when it passes around and through it/them. The exact way that modulation sounds differs from individual to individual, because we all have different bodies.
Our brains learn that a certain kind of general modulation for a given sound means that it's coming from a certain direction.
For example a sound that comes from the right goes directly into the right ear and will therefore of course sound louder there, but higher frequency’s "cling" to objects and sort of crawls around the head and into the left ear.
The brain knows that loud sound in the right ear and similar but lower and lighter sound in the left ear, means that the sound is coming from the right.
Similarly the groves in our ears will modulate a sound that is coming from the back and some frequencies will reach the ear faster and fuller than others.
But as already said, the exact modulation that takes place differs quite a lot from person to person.

The obvious solution to the customisations problem would be to have the owner of the headphone sit down in front of a computer with a graphic representation of his/her head on the screen and a transparent sphere surrounding it. Then the user would see a flashing point on the sphere and with the mouse have to position a sound at the same position relative to his/her own head.

Edit: Oh, I didn't see this new thread: http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=109001
It's about the exact thing I'm talking about in the above, exept for the headtracking which I can't really see the point of, unless we have VR goggles too.