(untitled)

Hoi lainons I want to switch to a bone conduction headphones because I need to hear my environment while biking. Also I have some hearing loss, I've read they would be good. Any starter dudes you can recommend? What would be suitable? >country Germany >budget 100€ >Connection Bluetooth >My sound tastes Death Grips (Exmilitary, No love Deep web etc) Orchestral pieces Animu songs >Previous equipment SONY WF-SP800N

Huh... Never thought of something like that for biking before... I don't use music for biking and if I rarely do it's usually on speaker. Are there any safety risks related to using that technology? (Honestly I doubt there is any if Wikipedia can't list one...)

>>54402 well it's nice when you can bike on the bike roads when it's early morning and you have to travel 15km. >any safety risks No idea to be honest, it skips the mf eardrum

I have tried some AfterShokz Air. The sound quality isn't great for music but for people with hearing problems I've heard some say it actually sounds better than normal headphones for them. It's bluetooth connected and works well for picking up calls with a button on left and i can be head alright even with the little mic and you can redial last dialed number by double pressing it and pause and play music by pressing the button once and volume control is smaller buttons on the right side you have to feel around for and are near the power button but I dont find it hard to distinguish these buttons they made them tactile identified. The speakers dont function entirely through bone conducting though so if you dont want others to hear it will take some adjusting in volume to find balance. I can still hear it even if i hold it over near my ear holes and other people can hear unless I turn the volume low enough. It does work a lot better than ambient headphones for hearing around you and the inside of your ears dont get all sweaty and no worry about melting earwax that will clog your ear which ive had issues with for long time wearing of earbuds and some over ear headphones. Personally tops of my ears get slightly sore wearing these for a long time but it's not a big deal. The sound quality isn't always even because i have long thick hair and that messes with the contact points having uneven pressure sometimes so i need to adjust my hair right. I feel while conftorable enough it doesnt grip hard enough for good bone conducting but too hard would also become sore on the temples. This may be different for you having a different head shape and size. I sometimes put in earplugs and use them while lawn mowing and for some reason having earplugs in improves the acoustics i assume because the vibrations carry easier so this does confirm they are bone conducting. The design they stay in place welll it's unlikely they will fly off your head. Should me noted they stick out a little in the back i assume for people with fat heads or hair sticking out but they probably work better for people with less dense hair back behind their head. Though i find placing it under my hair causes problems with it pulling it into odd position on my ears so it's better over your hair if yours also is long and thick but you can experiment At high volumes you can notice vibrations which almost tickles and also distorts the higher frequencies from distortion of the vibration so dont play this kind of tech too loud and honestly you wont really need to in order to hear it unless you trouble with the contact strength and if your hearing is bad enough. This one charges with a micro USB but im not sure if later models switched to USB C by now or not so dont try to charge with wrong voltage and amps i destroyed a different pair of headphones by accident doing that.

not op but I have a question: can you wear those things with glasses? It is comfortable? Do the glasses reduce the sound quality?

>>54412 Depends on the model and what kind of glasses frame you have. I tested with my glasses with a thin resin frame and the arms just wind up naturally sitting in a different position from the Aftershokz Air just above it so in the position no change in sound and conftorable. When i put on suglasses with a different build to them they wind up sitting over or under depending how i choose or sometimes not touching it again. It would just take some messing around til you get a feel of what's comfortable. If glasses under the sound either wont change or will get weaker. If glasses over sound may stay same, strengthen or weaken depending on the design. Plus your own head shape and ear positioning will be a factor. When everything overlaps it's not as conftorable as when they run parallel because it may push on your ear some.

I got a pair of AfterShokz OpenMove from my boss after he got a newer model (OpenComm I think). They're within your budget, but they do get uncomfortable above your ears after a while. Though if you're like me and have long hair, you can use it to prop up the back part and provide some cushioning where they sit on your ears. Sound quality's not too hot, but apparently that's just how bone conduction is. Can't compare it to other BC headsets because it's the only one I've ever used. I would compare it to a cheap $10-20 pair of earbuds, or an average laptop playing music in the same room, both of which are good enough to keep me sane at work. Battery life's good though, they generally last the whole workday for me and then some, and I play music all throughout it.

>>54400 When regular earphones just don't irradiate enough so you gotta take it to the next step... When wifeless headphonesjust don't irradiate enough so you've got to go up yet another step...

>>54488 What are you even basing that off of? They work basically more or less same as normal wireless headphones just a different electromechanical transducer is used than a speaker and they use same bluetooth as other bluetooth devices. Plus the skull blocks more of the EMF than the fleshy ear holes. If you're bothered by EMF near your head just get yourself some air tube earbuds and leave others be.

>>54488 did you study physics in high school? Such radiation is non ionizing to your cells. That EMF is nothing compared to the energy of the signals around you. Study and come back.

>>54400 Not sure if $100 is going to get you very far, but I know that a lot of hard-of-hearing people like bone-conducting headphones because they bypass what would normally muddle the audio. One thing you should note though is they have remarkably little bass and bleed noise like crazy (if you take these on a bus, for example, the person next to you will hear it just as well as you) so that might be an issue if you're going to be in public.

>>54505 >non ionizing That doesn't mean it's safe. Ever heard of sun burns and skin cancer?

>>54511 sun delivers more energy in comparison to that. You get sun burnt because of UV ray, which has considerable energy in comparison to Microwaves (2.4Ghz the Bluetooth connection)

>>54511 This. Microwaves heat up cells and can cause damage.

>>54511 >>54513 microwaves and sun beams are ionizing radiation. They're also literally millions of times higher frequency than anything used for comms.

>>54516 this is incorrect, microwaves are used in WiFi communication, and they are non-ionizing. Aside from boiling your skin they're not dangerous.

>>54510 I wouldn't say it's just as well. They are more distant from you and there is an air gap so it's always less. This is why I mentioned earlier on lower volumes it's not clearly audible to other people. It just takes experimenting with someone to tell you at what point they can and can't make it out.

>>54516 Tanning booths produce solely UV-A radiation, the non-ionizing spectrum of UV. It can still tan and burn people all the same and increase the risk for skin cancer.

>>54517 Numerous studies show a correlation between various measures of cell damage and long-term exposure to non-boiling intensities of microwave and radiowave radiation. In fact the FCC's own radio frequency exposure limits are based on behavioral changes observed in rats exposed to microwave radiation. Here's an article with tons of citations to peer-reviewed scientific literature for you to engage with: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/

>>54400 Have you considered earbuds with ambient passthrough? I use the Jabra active 75t And they're pretty good. They're $100 usd on (((amazon))) right now, not sure what they are in euroland, but I'd definitely give them a try. Worst case scenario, you return them.

>>54540 Earbuds have to be readjusted to not fall out and are actually pretty bad for your ears because they are bacteria traps.

OP here, I bought them and they are comfy as fuarrrk. Sound quality is not the same as my old ones but fuarrrk this is good too. They weigh almost nothing and I eventually forgot them. This gets a seal of approval from me chiefs >\thread?

>>54505 >muh non-ionizing radiation is harmless do you understand the scientific method? or do youjust regurgitate soykaf you've been indoctrinated with all day?

>>54587 man I aint a biologist, I am a physics guy, I calculate the energy, see the breaking energies of many bonds and molecules, it is literally so diffucult Present your proofs and I will see it for myself, a real scientist has no pre-views to any idea and we help others if they are wrong not your neil degrass tyson nibba ass soyentist. present proof or gtfo

>>54601 >muh "post proof" >he doesn't post proof himself A debate tactic used by mentally disabled. You're a charlatan that claims he is a physicist. Your self-boasting is as much of a proof as his soykafting on you. If you really are a physicist you would know that just because it's not ionizing it can heat up the tissue and with that can damage the tissue, especially on heat sensitive parts such as testicles/ovaries and brain. Everybody knows that, it's not 1980s anymore.

>>54602 why did you post a picture of yourself? if you are not open for discussion, leave. Your testicles are not your fuarrrking skull, that part makes sense, don't put your phone near your dick. No 2.45Ghz signal is going to damage your brain at such low energy at the allowed Bluetooth/Wifi range. Point me towards how it can do damage (even with the heating up) at such low power. If you are willing to change my mind, do it. Stop being a loser who feels superior to others who know/think otherwise. Try to cultivate discussion and persuade others without saying soykaf. This is why we can't have nice discussion between people.

>>54603 so freshman year?

>>54603 They're a 4chan troll. Ignore them

Op just wanted to listen to his tunes... >pic related >>54423 >Sound quality's not too hot, but apparently that's just how bone conduction is. Sounds about right. From what i heard, the frequencies are different when its passed thru your skull. Like how your voice will sound deeper than if you were to record your voice. You could probably tune it to your liking with an EQ. have you tried it?

>>54602 >it's not 1980s anymore. Ironically, the FCC's limitations on radio exposure are based on evidence from studies from the '80s.

>>54601 Well I actually am a biologist, and like any biologist I can tell you that there are many chemical reactions within and between cells that can be triggered by photon interaction. A famous one you might have heard of is photosynthesis. It's incredibly foolish to presume that only ionizing radiation can produce damage from chemistry, and it sounds like the kind of talking point one would expect from a propagandist for the telecommunications industry.

>>54619 Well if you put it like that I suppose it is stupid. Microwaves can change the magnetic moment on molecules or give them energy (may or might not be enough to ionize them or break bonds). Which can be dangerous in biological aspects? Photosynthesis does oxidise/reduce iirc. Idk man this soykaf's complicated. Flesh is weak. btw no I do not work for the tele users.

>>54601 There was one study carried out by the office of naval research (a government, actually even a military agency) where they exposed rats to cellphone-type radiation. I can't find it right now but I'll do some more digging for you. they are interested in this because their radar systems output large amounts of non-ionizing radiation. anyways you could look at this in the meantime, a long list of studies analyzing the various effects on organisms from non-ionizing radiation https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD0750271.pdf

>>54601 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300355 Citation(s)Health Effects Atasoy et al. (2013); Özorak et al. (2013); Aynali et al. (2013); Çiftçi et al. (2015); Tök et al. (2014); Çiğ and Nazıroğlu (2015); Ghazizadeh and Nazıroğlu (2014); Yüksel et al. (2016); Othman et al., 2017a, Othman et al., 2017b; Topsakal et al. (2017)Oxidative stress, in some studies effects lowered by antioxidants Atasoy et al. (2013); Shokri et al. (2015); Dasdag et al. (2015); Avendaño et al. (2012); Yildiring et al. (2015); Özorak et al. (2013); Oni et al. (2011); Akdag et al. (2016)Sperm/testicular damage, male infertility Papageorgiou et al. (2011); Maganioti et al. (2010); Othman et al., 2017a, Othman et al., 2017b; Hassanshahi et al. (2017)Neuropsychiatric changes including EEG; prenatal Wi-Fi leads to post-natal neural development, increased cholinesterase; decreased special learning; Wi-Fi led to greatly lowered ability to distinguish familiar from novel objects, changes in GABA and cholinergic transmission Shokri et al. (2015); Dasdag et al. (2015); Çiğ and Nazıroğlu (2015); Topsakal et al. (2017)Apoptosis (programmed cell death), elevated apoptotic markers Avendaño et al. (2012); Atasoy et al. (2013); Akdag et al. (2016)Cellular DNA damage Saili et al. (2015); Yüksel et al. (2016); Topsakal et al. (2017)Endocrine changes incl.: Catecholamines, pancreatic endocrine dysfunction, prolactin, progesterone and estrogen Çiğ and Nazıroğlu (2015); Ghazizadeh and Nazıroğlu (2014)Calcium overload Aynali et al. (2013)Melatonin lowering; sleep disruption Othman et al. (2017a)MicroRNA expression (brain) Othman et al. (2017a)Abnormal postnatal development Çiftçi et al. (2015)Disrupts development of teeth Saili et al. (2015)Cardiac changes, blood pressure disruption; erythrocyte damage Lee et al. (2014)Growth stimulation of adipose stem cells (role in obesity?) Table 2. Reviews of Non-thermal Effects of Microwave Frequency EMFs Similar to Those Found in Multiple Wi-Fi Studies. Non-thermal effectsCitations Cellular DNA damageGlaser (1971); Yakymenko et al. (1999); Aitken and De Iuliis (2007); Hardell and Sage (2008); Hazout et al. (2008); Phillips et al. (2009); Ruediger (2009); Makker et al. (2009); Yakymenko and Sidorik (2010); Batista Napotnik et al. (2010); Yakymenko et al. (2011); Pall, 2013, Pall, 2015b; Asghari et al. (2016); Pall (2018) Changes in testis structure, lowered sperm count/qualityGlaser (1971); Tolgskaya and Gordon (1973); Aitken and De Iuliis (2007); Hazout et al. (2008); Desai et al. (2009); Gye and Park (2012); Nazıroğlu et al. (2013); Carpenter (2013); Adams et al. (2014); Liu et al. (2014); Houston et al. (2016); La Vignera et al. (2012); Makker et al. (2009) Neurological/neuropsychiatric effectsGlaser (1971); Tolgskaya and Gordon (1973); Raines (1981); Lai (1994); Grigor'ev (1996); Hardell and Sage (2008); Makker et al. (2009); Khurana et al. (2010); Levitt and Lai (2010); Consales et al. (2012); Carpenter (2013); Pall (2016b); Belyaev et al. (2016); Kaplan et al., 2016, Sangün et al., 2016 Apoptosis/cell deathGlaser (1971); Tolgskaya and Gordon (1973); Raines (1981); Yakymenko et al. (1999); Batista Napotnik et al. (2010); Yakymenko and Sidorik (2010); Pall, 2013, Pall, 2016b; Asghari et al. (2016); Sangün et al. (2016) Calcium overloadAdey, 1981, Adey, 1988; Walleczek (1992); Yakymenko et al. (1999); Gye and Park (2012); Pall, 2013, Pall, 2015a, Pall, 2015b, Pall, 2016a, Pall, 2016b); Asghari et al. (2016) Endocrine effectsGlaser (1971); Tolgskaya and Gordon (1973); Raines (1981); Hardell and Sage (2008); Gye and Park (2012); Hardell and Sage (2008); Makker et al. (2009); Pall (2015b); Sangün et al. (2016); Asghari et al. (2016) Oxidative stress, free radical damageRaines (1981); Houston et al. (2016); Hardell and Sage (2008); Hazout et al. (2008); Desai et al. (2009); Yakymenko and Sidorik (2010); Yakymenko et al. (2011); Consales et al. (2012); La Vignera et al. (2012); Nazıroğlu et al. (2013); Yakymenko et al. (2015); Pall, 2013, Pall, 2018; Dasdag and Akdag (2016); Wang and Zhang (2017) 5. How do EMF exposures lead to non-thermal health impacts? The author found the answer to this question in the already published scientific literature (Pall, 2013). That study showed that in 24 different studies [there are now a total of 26 Pall (2015b)], effects of low-intensity EMFs, including microwave frequency and also extremely low frequency EMFs, static electrical fields and static magnetic fields could be blocked by calcium channel blockers, drugs that are specific for blocking voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs). There were 5 different types of calcium channel blockers used in these studies, each thought to be highly specific, each structurally distinct and each binding to a different site on the VGCCs. In studies where multiple effects were studied, all studied effects were blocked or greatly lowered by calcium channel blockers. These studies show that EMFs produce diverse non-thermal effects via VGCC activation Pall, 2013, Pall, 2014, Pall, 2015a, Pall, 2015b, Pall, 2016a, Pall, 2016b) in many human and animal cells. In plant cells, EMFs activate somewhat similar calcium channels and produce somewhat similar effects on oxidative stress, cellular DNA damage and calcium signaling (Pall, 2016a). Furthermore, many different effects shown to be produced in repeated studies by EMF exposures, including the effects discussed above, can be produced by downstream effects of VGCC activation, via increased [Ca2+]i, as discussed in detail below. Before leaving this issue, it is important to discuss why the VGCCs are so sensitive to activation by these low-intensity EMFs. The VGCCs each have a voltage sensor which is made up of 4 alpha helixes in the plasma membrane, with each such helix having 5 positive charges on it, for a total of 20 positive charges (Pall, 2015b). These voltage sensor helixes are each called S4 helixes because each is the fourth helix in a distinct multi-helix domain. Each of these voltage sensor charges is within the lipid bilayer part of the plasma membrane. The electrical forces on the voltage sensor are very high for three distinct reasons (Pall, 2015b, Pall, 2015a, Pall, 2016a). 1. The 20 charges on the voltage sensor make the forces on voltage sensor 20 times higher than the forces on a single charge. 2. Because these charges are within the lipid bilayer section of the membrane where the dielectric constant is about 1/120th of the dielectric constant of the aqueous parts of the cell, the law of physics called Coulomb's law, predicts that the forces on those charges will be approximately 120 times higher than the forces on charges in the aqueous parts of the cell. 3. Because the plasma membrane has a high electrical resistance whereas the aqueous parts of the cell are highly conductive, the electrical gradient across the plasma membrane is estimated to be concentrated about 3000-fold. The combination of these effects means that comparing the forces on the voltage sensor with the forces on singly charged groups in the aqueous parts of the cell, the forces on the voltage sensor are approximately 20 × 120 × 3000 = 7.2 million times higher (Pall, 2015b). The physics predicts, therefore, extraordinarily strong forces activating the VGCCs via the voltage sensor. It follows that the biology tells us that the VGCCs are the main target of the EMFs and the physics tells us why they are the main target. Thus the physics and biology are pointing in the same direction.

>>54601 >>54662 2/2 There are also additional findings pointing to the voltage sensor as the direct target of the EMFs. In addition to the VGCCs, there are also voltage-gated sodium, potassium and chloride channels, with each of these having a voltage sensor similar to those found in the VGCCs. Lu et al. (2015) reported that voltage gated sodium channels, in addition to the VGCCs were activated by EMFs. Tabor et al. (2014) found that Mauthner cells, specialized neurons with special roles in triggering rapid escape mechanisms in fish, were almost instantaneously activated by electrical pulses, which acted via voltage-gated sodium channel activation to subsequently produce large [Ca2+]i increases. Zhang et al. (2016) reported that in addition to the VGCCs, potassium and chloride channels were each activated by EMFs, although these other voltage-gated ion channels had relatively modest roles compared with the VGCCs in producing biological effects. Each of these three studies, the Lu et al. (2015) study, the Tabor et al. (2014) study and the Zhang et al. (2016) study used specific blockers for these other voltage-gated ion channels to determine their roles. The Tabor et al. (2014) study also used genetic probing to determine the role of the voltage-gated sodium channels. Lu et al. (2015) also used whole cell patch vice measurements to measure the rapid influx of both sodium and calcium into the cell via the voltage-gated channels following EMF exposure. Sodium influx, particularly in electrically active cells, act in the normal physiology to depolarize the plasma membrane, leading to VGCC activation such that the voltage-gated sodium channels may act primarily via indirect activation of the VGCCs. In summary then, we have evidence that in animal including human cells, seven distinct classes of voltage-gated ion channels are each activated by EMF exposures: From the Pall (2013) review, four classes of voltage-gated ion channels were shown from calcium channel blocker studies, to be activated by EMFs, L-type, T-type, N-type and P/Q –type VGCCs. In this paragraph we have evidence that three other channels are also activated, voltage-gated sodium channels, voltage-gated potassium channels and voltage-gated chloride channels. Furthermore the plant studies strongly suggest that the so called TPC channels, which contain a similar voltage sensor, are activated in plants allowing calcium influx into plants to produce similar EMF-induced responses (Pall, 2016a). One can put those observations together with the powerful findings from the physics, that the electrical forces on the voltage-sensor are stunningly strong, something like 7.2 million times stronger than the forces on the singly charged groups in the aqueous phases of the cell. Now you have a stunningly powerful argument that the voltage sensor is the predominant direct target of the EMFs. There is one additional finding that should be discussed here. In a study published by Pilla (2012), it was found that pulsed EMFs produced an “instantaneous” increase in calcium/calmodulin-dependent nitric oxide synthesis in cells in culture. What Pilla (2012) showed was that following EMF exposure, the cells in culture, must have produced a large increase in [Ca2 + ]i, this in turn produced a large increase in nitric oxide synthesis, the nitric oxide diffused out of the cells and out of the aqueous medium above the cells into the gas phase, where the nitric oxide was detected by a nitric oxide electrode. This entire sequence occurred in less than 5 s. This eliminates almost any conceivable indirect effect, except possibly via plasma membrane depolarization. Therefore that the pulsed EMFs are acting directly on the voltage sensors of the VGCCs and possibly the voltage-gated sodium channels, to produce the [Ca2 + ]i increase. Why is it that the VGCCs, acting via calcium influx, seem to be much more important in producing EMF effects than are the other voltage-gated ion channels? Probably for three reasons: 1. Ca2+ ions under resting conditions in cells have about a 10,000-fold concentration gradient driving them into the cell, and over a million-fold electrochemical gradient also driving them into the cell. Because of this, one can have huge calcium influxes upon channel activation. 2. [Ca2 + ]i produces many important regulatory effects, such that over activation of those effects can have very large pathophysiological consequences. 3. Sustained elevation of [Ca2+]i produces major cell damage.

>>54517 >Aside from boiling your skin * and other tissue/organs/cells.

Every one on the thread should read Robert O. Becker's books.

>>54510 Not true, I have that exact same model and people around you can't hear soykaf. I use it basically all day, especially useful during boring meetings, I like to have constant music background wherever I go. The audio quality is not super good, and I do bring (high quality) ear plugs with me for public transport and such. Wouldn't advice for focused listening to music because they're not worth it in that case, but for music during daily activities they're great.