Friday 28 February 2014

Tech We’d Like To See: The Dead Actor’s Studio

Imagine a young Marlon Brando starring alongside Johnny Depp, or Audrey Hepburn playing rival to Sandra Bullock as Marilyn Monroe stops by for a catty cameo.


Depending on how you look at it, this is either tantalizing ‘fantasy film making’ or else an utterly horrible, cash-in exercise in Hollywood excess. Whatever your viewpoint, it does seem likely that someone, somewhere will try this in the near future.


About three years ago, the news broke that George Lucas, the genius behind the ‘Star Wars’ merchandise (and a couple of related movies), was buying up the likeness rights to a plethora of iconic, yet deceased, leading men and famous actresses from Hollywood’s golden age. His plan? To use a concoction of existing footage, CGI and motion capture to create reasonable facsimiles of classic Hollywood stars and have them appear in future films, despite the notable handicap of being, well, dead.


Initially, it was just for one project, but it raised the prospect of other films being made, as well as a number of interesting philosophical issues. 


The majority of critics reacted negatively to the notion of these ‘Franken-films’, some saying that the magic of an individual acting performance would be notably absent in the films, others upset that the actors themselves could potentially ‘star’ in projects that they may not have supported in life.


It really must be said, however, that blockbuster movies like 2009’s ‘Avatar’ and 2011’s ‘Rise of the Planet of the Apes’ already received plaudits for their use of motion capture techniques and CGI ‘acting’. It is an accepted part of modern cinema, like it or not.


Lest we forget, George Lucas’ own ‘Star Wars’ films also featured a number of purely CG characters. In our era, we are becoming very used to CG characters; even CG versions of real actors are commonplace. It really isn’t a huge leap of imagination (or available technology) to foresee deceased stars headlining blockbusters once again.


We are also living in a world that specializes in the glorification of deceased idols and recycled imagery (take a look at this month’s music magazines and count how many times you see Jimi Hendrix, Kurt Cobain or other dead stars on the covers). Look at the movie magazines as they feature young DeNiro as Travis Bickle, or Ray Liotta as Henry Hill. We, as consumers, are being conditioned to expect our stars to be able to do anything we can imagine, including coming back from the dead.


Why we want it:


 


The question here, to at least some degree, is ‘do we want it?’ but for now, I’m going to be positive and assume that we do…


Bringing classic actors back to ‘life’ would be a daring and controversial decision and would inspire all kinds of debates. It would also, no doubt, stimulate the film industry by providing literally hundreds of thousands of new prospects, pairings and casting choices.


On the downside, it would probably create an updated version of the old Hollywood studio system that would likely prove to be a legal nightmare involving no small amount of heartache for the families of the stars being featured. It could also have the negative effect of holding down upcoming talent.


However, many Hollywood actors do what they do for a shot at immortality and this is, frankly, the closest that they are likely to get to that goal. It would not surprise me at all if ‘likeness rights’ contracts started containing an ‘after death’ clause that specified use of the actor’s image in posthumous film projects. 


Culturally speaking, in a world where dead musicians like Hendrix and 2Pac routinely release albums and where popular music is dominated by the ‘sampling’ (and in some cases, outright theft) of other works, or where film texts constantly, almost obsessive-compulsively, reference each other (in what has become the intertextual equivalent of an M.C Escher drawing), rehashing the stars of the past seems like an obvious choice.


Dead icons could spice up Hollywood by adding controversy, class and bankability to the summer’s contrived blockbuster selection. Plus, all their skeletons, secrets and shameful actions are already a matter of public record, so there’s no ill-timed revelatory ‘gossip’ that’s going to rear up and threaten the production.


Even those who oppose the making of such movies will still have to watch them in order to write the requisite bad reviews, this simply proves the old adage that controversy generates cash. 


When can we expect it?


Oh snap, it already happened. In the year 2000, actor Oliver Reed sadly died during the filming of Ridley Scott’s ‘Gladiator’. In order for him to finish what would become his final role, the VFX team created a CG ‘mask’ of Reed’s face and used a body double to complete their film.


Remember that car advert with Steve McQueen? It has already begun.


Real, workable CGI stars are already a reality, but the technology does not yet exist to create a completely CG James Dean for a sequel to ‘Rebel Without a Cause’. I’d give it maybe 10-20 years before we start seeing the stars in respectful, tasteful cameo roles, or else old actors performing alongside their younger selves. After that, it’ll be 3-5 years before we see the screen idols like Errol Flynn, Clark Gable and Grace Kelly headlining movies again.


Cool factor 3/5 – It really depends on how these ‘stars’ are handled. The results could, potentially, be beautiful codas to a star’s career (which is how they could be sold to the audience), but they could also be horribly insulting, denigrating the work of great actors and actresses. Time is going to tell, as usual…



Tech We’d Like To See: The Dead Actor’s Studio

Wednesday 26 February 2014

What’s the difference between UHF and VHF (and which one is better)?

Asked by Wendy from Stoke-On-Trent


Hi Wendy,


 


I’ll start by supplying a bit of background to anybody reading this and wondering what on earth you’re talking about.


 


UHF (Ultra-High Frequency) is any radio frequency range between 300 MHz and 3GHz.


 


VHF (Very High Frequency) is any radio frequency range between 30 MHz and 300MHz.



 


If you buy a two-way radio, it will operate on either one or the other. This cannot be changed and the two frequencies are thoroughly incompatible, so it really pays to know what you’re buying.


 


So, as for which one is better, it basically depends greatly on what you want the radio for. Since you didn’t specify this in the email, I’ll make my answer quite general (however, if this doesn’t answer your question, then you can always pop another email my way and I’ll reply to that one).


 


If you’re working in an indoor or urban environment, then a UHF radio will work best. I say this because UHF penetrates buildings and large objects better than VHF, (generally speaking).


 


Conversely, if you’re working outside, then VHF is likely to be the better choice. It handles open spaces better and passes through organic matter better than UHF signals do. Essentially, the less inorganic material there is between the VHF sender and the receiver, the better.


 


Overall, the UHF radio slightly outperforms the VHF version. Both have their advantages/drawbacks, but UHF has a stronger signal and deals much better with obstacles. However, as I told Maria from Spain a couple of months back, mountains represent real problems for radios of either kind. In fact, they are mostly useless for skiing and anything else mountain-related. Not that there are very many mountains in Stoke-On-Trent, to the best of my knowledge.


 


Just remember when making your choice, that the final decision is an important one. Very often, I learn that somebody has bought a radio to replace a damaged model, only to find that the network they plan on using it with is the opposite frequency.


 


Very few companies will do anything about it, so it really does pay to make sure you know exactly what you want before you spend your hard-earned wonga.


 


I hope that helps you. Drop me a line if you’re still not sure and we’ll take it from there. 


 



What’s the difference between UHF and VHF (and which one is better)?

Saturday 22 February 2014

What’s the difference between UHF and VHF (and which one is better)?

Asked by Wendy from Stoke-On-Trent


Hi Wendy,


 


I’ll start by supplying a bit of background to anybody reading this and wondering what on earth you’re talking about.


 


UHF (Ultra-High Frequency) is any radio frequency range between 300 MHz and 3GHz.


 


VHF (Very High Frequency) is any radio frequency range between 30 MHz and 300MHz.



 


If you buy a two-way radio, it will operate on either one or the other. This cannot be changed and the two frequencies are thoroughly incompatible, so it really pays to know what you’re buying.


 


So, as for which one is better, it basically depends greatly on what you want the radio for. Since you didn’t specify this in the email, I’ll make my answer quite general (however, if this doesn’t answer your question, then you can always pop another email my way and I’ll reply to that one).


 


If you’re working in an indoor or urban environment, then a UHF radio will work best. I say this because UHF penetrates buildings and large objects better than VHF, (generally speaking).


 


Conversely, if you’re working outside, then VHF is likely to be the better choice. It handles open spaces better and passes through organic matter better than UHF signals do. Essentially, the less inorganic material there is between the VHF sender and the receiver, the better.


 


Overall, the UHF radio slightly outperforms the VHF version. Both have their advantages/drawbacks, but UHF has a stronger signal and deals much better with obstacles. However, as I told Maria from Spain a couple of months back, mountains represent real problems for radios of either kind. In fact, they are mostly useless for skiing and anything else mountain-related. Not that there are very many mountains in Stoke-On-Trent, to the best of my knowledge.


 


Just remember when making your choice, that the final decision is an important one. Very often, I learn that somebody has bought a radio to replace a damaged model, only to find that the network they plan on using it with is the opposite frequency.


 


Very few companies will do anything about it, so it really does pay to make sure you know exactly what you want before you spend your hard-earned wonga.


 


I hope that helps you. Drop me a line if you’re still not sure and we’ll take it from there. 


 



What’s the difference between UHF and VHF (and which one is better)?

Where to buy waterproof headphones?

Asked by Betty from Hammersmith


I take it you’re a newer reader and you therefore aren’t aware of my dislike for recommending specific sets of headphones. In a usual case, (like when one reader asked me to recommend sweat-proof headphones) I have to answer with “it depends on a multitude of factors, such as how often you use them, how important sound quality is to you or even (in that one case) how much you tend to sweat. However, I’m not going to let you down, Betty, because waterproof headphones are actually a bit different…


 


There are several companies that specialize in designing totally waterproof headphones, some of which I’ll be glad to recommend to you. However, at this point, I really must stress that I have never owned, borrowed, or even reviewed a pair of waterproof headphones, so although I am happy to point you in the right direction, I (metaphorically, of course) wash my hands of responsibility if they don’t quite work. My advice to you is to try Headsetonline.co.uk first and read the customer reviews (especially the negative ones), before making your purchase.


 


Anyway, now that’s over and done with…


 


A company called ‘Swimmer LTD’ specialize in all things swimming related, with special emphasis on watertight cases for iPods, smartphones and even iPads. They also sell headphones, of course and their site features customer reviews for most of their products.


 


Another company called ‘H20 Audio’ also makes waterproof headphones and FINIS have a set called the ‘SwimP3’ which, dopey name aside, seems to be rather well-regarded by swimmers. The ‘SwimP3’ utilizes bone conduction technology, which is probably the best way to go if you’re planning on listening to music whilst swimming.


 


Bone conduction, in case you don’t know, simply bypasses the outer ear and stimulates the tiny inner ear bones (called ‘ossicles’), just as an organic sound would, your brain then interprets this sound exactly the same way as it would if you’d heard it in your ear, only, because your outer ear is not directly being used, you are free to wear earplugs (which some swimmers like to do).


 


These suggestions are by no means your only options though; there are a veritable ton of companies out there all manufacturing products exactly like the ones you want. So, whilst I can’t give any of them a personal seal of approval (sorry about that), I can at least offer a helping hand. Is that enough, Betty?


 



Where to buy waterproof headphones?

Friday 21 February 2014

Where to buy waterproof headphones?

Asked by Betty from Hammersmith


I take it you’re a newer reader and you therefore aren’t aware of my dislike for recommending specific sets of headphones. In a usual case, (like when one reader asked me to recommend sweat-proof headphones) I have to answer with “it depends on a multitude of factors, such as how often you use them, how important sound quality is to you or even (in that one case) how much you tend to sweat. However, I’m not going to let you down, Betty, because waterproof headphones are actually a bit different…


 


There are several companies that specialize in designing totally waterproof headphones, some of which I’ll be glad to recommend to you. However, at this point, I really must stress that I have never owned, borrowed, or even reviewed a pair of waterproof headphones, so although I am happy to point you in the right direction, I (metaphorically, of course) wash my hands of responsibility if they don’t quite work. My advice to you is to try Headsetonline.co.uk first and read the customer reviews (especially the negative ones), before making your purchase.


 


Anyway, now that’s over and done with…


 


A company called ‘Swimmer LTD’ specialize in all things swimming related, with special emphasis on watertight cases for iPods, smartphones and even iPads. They also sell headphones, of course and their site features customer reviews for most of their products.


 


Another company called ‘H20 Audio’ also makes waterproof headphones and FINIS have a set called the ‘SwimP3’ which, dopey name aside, seems to be rather well-regarded by swimmers. The ‘SwimP3’ utilizes bone conduction technology, which is probably the best way to go if you’re planning on listening to music whilst swimming.


 


Bone conduction, in case you don’t know, simply bypasses the outer ear and stimulates the tiny inner ear bones (called ‘ossicles’), just as an organic sound would, your brain then interprets this sound exactly the same way as it would if you’d heard it in your ear, only, because your outer ear is not directly being used, you are free to wear earplugs (which some swimmers like to do).


 


These suggestions are by no means your only options though; there are a veritable ton of companies out there all manufacturing products exactly like the ones you want. So, whilst I can’t give any of them a personal seal of approval (sorry about that), I can at least offer a helping hand. Is that enough, Betty?


 



Where to buy waterproof headphones?

Thursday 20 February 2014

I need a headset, is it worth buying a bluetooth one?

OK, To get the ‘flaking’ part of my response out of the way good and first, I’ve to say that it is dependent totally on what you would like from the headset. There isn’t much point spending out on an all-singing, all-dancing super-headphones if all you want is a basic model, but, by the same token, great quality doesn’t come cheap in the planet of electronics.


Though, that’s not what you wanted to hear, is it?


OK, so, listed below are some of the best Bluetooth headphones that I have looked at so far…


The Jawbone Era is one of those best mono gadgets that I have in my opinion seen. Using state of the art audio tech, the Era is a great sounding headset, however the exaggerated price tag could be some bit off-putting for some potential buyers. Being honest (though please do not read ‘honest’ as ‘flaking out’), that is gonna be the model for many of those following examples, people who sound great, cost more.


Considerably cheaper is the Plantronics M55, an outstanding little worker as well as a bargain at lower than half the price of the Era. Of course, it is not nearly as good as the aforementioned Jawbone headset, but this device definitely won’t disappoint. Also from Plantronics is a Marque 2 M165, a sleek, dependable little number that also offers great value for money.


If its stereo you are after, Mike, then a Jabra Clipper is a nice little doohickey, that includes an modern design that’ll either impress or enrage you, according to how you plan on using it. The Sony Stereo Bluetooth Headphones is also an excellent little runner and only costs about £30 (which makes it the cheapest one featured on this list).


As I initially said, it is completely up to you what sort of headphones you want, but I can say that the models listed here are well reviewed by other technology internet sites online, as well as myself. Do a web search before you decide which of them to buy though, that way you can ensure you’re paying out for what you want.


 



I need a headset, is it worth buying a bluetooth one?

I need a headset, is it worth buying a bluetooth one?

OK, To get the ‘flaking’ part of my response out of the way good and first, I’ve to say that it is dependent totally on what you would like from the headset. There isn’t much point spending out on an all-singing, all-dancing super-headphones if all you want is a basic model, but, by the same token, great quality doesn’t come cheap in the planet of electronics.


Though, that’s not what you wanted to hear, is it?


OK, so, listed below are some of the best Bluetooth headphones that I have looked at so far…


The Jawbone Era is one of those best mono gadgets that I have in my opinion seen. Using state of the art audio tech, the Era is a great sounding headset, however the exaggerated price tag could be some bit off-putting for some potential buyers. Being honest (though please do not read ‘honest’ as ‘flaking out’), that is gonna be the model for many of those following examples, people who sound great, cost more.


Considerably cheaper is the Plantronics M55, an outstanding little worker as well as a bargain at lower than half the price of the Era. Of course, it is not nearly as good as the aforementioned Jawbone headset, but this device definitely won’t disappoint. Also from Plantronics is a Marque 2 M165, a sleek, dependable little number that also offers great value for money.


If its stereo you are after, Mike, then a Jabra Clipper is a nice little doohickey, that includes an modern design that’ll either impress or enrage you, according to how you plan on using it. The Sony Stereo Bluetooth Headphones is also an excellent little runner and only costs about £30 (which makes it the cheapest one featured on this list).


As I initially said, it is completely up to you what sort of headphones you want, but I can say that the models listed here are well reviewed by other technology internet sites online, as well as myself. Do a web search before you decide which of them to buy though, that way you can ensure you’re paying out for what you want.


 



I need a headset, is it worth buying a bluetooth one?

Wednesday 19 February 2014

Say I’m in a high-speed car chase, what’s the best way to escape the police?

(Asked by Nick from Kent)


In my experience, the weapons cheat usually works a treat. I find that a roadblock is considerably less of an issue if you’re armed with a rocket launcher and twin uzis…


As for the real world, one wonders just why you’re asking me, Nick? (I really don’t want this article popping up as evidence at your trial while I go down for aiding an abetting you). Still, I must answer the questions my editor selects for me, so I’ll give this one a go (but don’t come crying to me if you end up serving several consecutive life sentences, OK?)


These days, law enforcement agencies tend to avoid car chases of any sort. The risks to police, bystanders, motorists and even to the criminal him/herself are simply considered to be too great. There are also the issues of lawsuits and collateral damage to consider.


If the vehicle represents a danger to others on the road, however, then all bets are off and police will act as swiftly as they can to rectify the dangerous situation. The first rule, then, would be don’t drive your getaway car whilst drunk (this rules out committing violent crimes on New Year’s Eve, St. Paddy’s Day, or your birthday).


OK, so let’s assume you’ve actually committed the initial crime and you’re emailing me from the getaway car. What then? 


The police’s general tactic, in most cases, will be to outnumber and outmanoeuvre you. They’ll communicate with each other and co-ordinate their efforts, herding you towards an area full of their colleagues. Also, the longer the chase goes on for, the more units will be dispatched to join in. They’ll simply keep sending cars after you; it’s just a process of wearing you down, really.


In addition, the rozzers are trained for this sort of thing, whereas you likely aren’t (playing GTA IV until 5AM the night before simply doesn’t count). This means that they will have an easier time driving at high speeds and making split second decisions, while you will probably find the process of driving at high speeds mentally and physically exhausting.


If the cops figure out where you’re headed, they’ll close down all possible routes. If you have no destination in mind, they’ll eventually be able to head you off at every conceivable pass anyway. Once the helicopter is dispatched (assuming you last that long), they can track you with thermal imaging technology, even if you leave the car.


They’ll also use a device called the stinger, which lays flat across the road and, quite simply, bursts your tires, making driving impossible. By the time the stingers are laid down, police with dogs are already on their way…


Essentially, once you get in that car, you are on a time limit. The longer you are in the car, the less likely your escape will be. The best thing to do, then, would be to use the car only for a very short period of time, just to get you from one designated place to another. Where possible, changing cars would likely help. If you are going to commit a crime, meticulous planning (together with an awareness of modern police methods), is going to be much more useful to you than a souped-up speed machine that is far more likely to forcibly insert you into a lamp post than it would be to allow you to retire to the Fiji islands and live like a king.


In truth, the vast majority of car chases end spectacularly badly (did you ever see anyone get away cleanly on ‘Police, Camera Action’?) and they endanger innocent lives. Being a paraplegic prisoner for the rest of your life isn’t really a fun thing to think about, neither is ending the day of your first big score as dog food.


I must say though, this is still preferable to living in America, because over there they just shoot you, weapons cheat or no weapons cheat. My advice? Stick to GTA and working for a living, it may not be glamorous, but there’s far less chance of being forcibly sodomized in prison and then ending up as a guest on ‘The Jeremy Kyle Show’ saying something like “I’ve made mistakes, I admit that, innit” as if it exonerates you from all culpability. 



Say I’m in a high-speed car chase, what’s the best way to escape the police?

Say I’m in a high-speed car chase, what’s the best way to escape the police?

(Asked by Nick from Kent)


In my experience, the weapons cheat usually works a treat. I find that a roadblock is considerably less of an issue if you’re armed with a rocket launcher and twin uzis…


As for the real world, one wonders just why you’re asking me, Nick? (I really don’t want this article popping up as evidence at your trial while I go down for aiding an abetting you). Still, I must answer the questions my editor selects for me, so I’ll give this one a go (but don’t come crying to me if you end up serving several consecutive life sentences, OK?)


These days, law enforcement agencies tend to avoid car chases of any sort. The risks to police, bystanders, motorists and even to the criminal him/herself are simply considered to be too great. There are also the issues of lawsuits and collateral damage to consider.


If the vehicle represents a danger to others on the road, however, then all bets are off and police will act as swiftly as they can to rectify the dangerous situation. The first rule, then, would be don’t drive your getaway car whilst drunk (this rules out committing violent crimes on New Year’s Eve, St. Paddy’s Day, or your birthday).


OK, so let’s assume you’ve actually committed the initial crime and you’re emailing me from the getaway car. What then? 


The police’s general tactic, in most cases, will be to outnumber and outmanoeuvre you. They’ll communicate with each other and co-ordinate their efforts, herding you towards an area full of their colleagues. Also, the longer the chase goes on for, the more units will be dispatched to join in. They’ll simply keep sending cars after you; it’s just a process of wearing you down, really.


In addition, the rozzers are trained for this sort of thing, whereas you likely aren’t (playing GTA IV until 5AM the night before simply doesn’t count). This means that they will have an easier time driving at high speeds and making split second decisions, while you will probably find the process of driving at high speeds mentally and physically exhausting.


If the cops figure out where you’re headed, they’ll close down all possible routes. If you have no destination in mind, they’ll eventually be able to head you off at every conceivable pass anyway. Once the helicopter is dispatched (assuming you last that long), they can track you with thermal imaging technology, even if you leave the car.


They’ll also use a device called the stinger, which lays flat across the road and, quite simply, bursts your tires, making driving impossible. By the time the stingers are laid down, police with dogs are already on their way…


Essentially, once you get in that car, you are on a time limit. The longer you are in the car, the less likely your escape will be. The best thing to do, then, would be to use the car only for a very short period of time, just to get you from one designated place to another. Where possible, changing cars would likely help. If you are going to commit a crime, meticulous planning (together with an awareness of modern police methods), is going to be much more useful to you than a souped-up speed machine that is far more likely to forcibly insert you into a lamp post than it would be to allow you to retire to the Fiji islands and live like a king.


In truth, the vast majority of car chases end spectacularly badly (did you ever see anyone get away cleanly on ‘Police, Camera Action’?) and they endanger innocent lives. Being a paraplegic prisoner for the rest of your life isn’t really a fun thing to think about, neither is ending the day of your first big score as dog food.


I must say though, this is still preferable to living in America, because over there they just shoot you, weapons cheat or no weapons cheat. My advice? Stick to GTA and working for a living, it may not be glamorous, but there’s far less chance of being forcibly sodomized in prison and then ending up as a guest on ‘The Jeremy Kyle Show’ saying something like “I’ve made mistakes, I admit that, innit” as if it exonerates you from all culpability. 



Say I’m in a high-speed car chase, what’s the best way to escape the police?

Sunday 16 February 2014

The headphones revolution: bright colours, street styling spark new craze

Anyone considering buying headphones for a young relative this Christmas, take care before splashing out the £150 or more that the most fashionable – the Beats, or Skullcandy, or Urbanears models – can cost.


Each brand marks them out as one of a “tribe”, regardless of sound quality. Whereas 20 years ago the most important thing for a teenager was the brand of trainer on their feet – Nike, Reebok or Adidas – now it’s the brand covering their ears that matters.


Beats headphones, with their red cord and large “b” on the earpieces, began appearing in music videos in late 2008, largely through the efforts of the company’s co-founders, the rapper Dr Dre and the music entrepreneur Jimmy Iovine. That sparked rocketing sales to a teenage demographic looking for a new way to distinguish themselves out from their peers.


In doing so, Beats’ emergence showed that high-priced headphones would sell, becoming as much a fashion accessory as a gadget, commanding prices over £200 – a bracket previously reserved for the audiophile niche.


A decade ago, the white tendrils of an iPod’s headphones might have marked the wearer out as trendy; nowadays it makes them just one of the crowd, and Apple’s in-ear headphones are too common to bother with. A teenager wanting to stand out needs something big – and bold.


“Companies like Beats and Skullcandy have realised that kids today want something that looks better, over questions of sound quality,” says Sam Ruffe, who works at The Kinc, a marketing agency whose clients include Skullcandy.


And those kids (or their parents) will pay: worldwide, the market for headphones will be worth over £5bn ($8bn) this year, with 284m units shipped, according to the consumer consultancy Futuresource; over-ear headphones grabbed half of sales. And Beats alone will grab around £1.25bn – while the total market is forecast to grow by 5% annually for the next five years.


Skullcandy was originally designed for skiers and snowboarders, by Rick Alden, who got the idea on a chairlift in Park City, Utah. Starting in 2003, he managed to persuade skating and skiing shops to stock the product, which became known as an “extreme sports” brand.


Urbanears, meanwhile, brought Scandinavian design and a flourish of colour to the burgeoning headphone market, releasing two “collections” of headphones a year in limited-edition colours.


The continued success of Beats brought competition as these other brands began chasing the new demographic of people willing to spend money to wear their branding choice on their ears. Skullcandy moved off the slopes and into the high street. Now, they are more likely to be seen on the bus than on the piste.


Audiophiles aren’t impressed by the brigade of bolshy Beats products, which often pride bass and look over acoustic refinement. “I just bought a set of the Beats Solo HD headphones – it’s a Christmas gift for my 13-year-old daughter,” Chris Miller, a software engineer, told the Guardian, adding: “I think they are overpriced and you are paying a premium for the brand name. They aren’t bad, but I have headphones that sound better for half the price that I paid for the Beats.”


Sound quality, though, isn’t necessarily the point – which may have been missed by more traditional “audiophile” brands such as Germany’s Sennheiser, the Dutch brand Philips and the American Bose, who were caught unaware that colouring the earpiece and cord green or red could affect sales as much as their sound quality.


Andy Watson of Futuresource says you might struggle to tell some headphones apart at the factory. “With everyone owning the same generic-looking personal audio player or mobile phone, it’s the headphones that do the differentiating. There is certainly cachet and brand equity attached to many of the brands, beyond their intrinsic value. Much of it is about positioning a lifestyle rather than a product.”


Yet the growing tribalism of headphone ownership has led to derision in some quarters – such as the blog “Long Way From Compton”, which features pictures of people wearing Beats headphones, and measuring the distance from there to the notorious gang-ridden Los Angeles district from which Dr Dre emerged.


It’s in the can


Beats Studio


Arguably one of the headphones that kicked off the large and colourful trend, the original Beats by Dre headphones drove appeal through product placement in music videos. Pushed by the music marketing powerhouse of Dr Dre (pictured above) and Jimmy Iovine, Beats brought big, aggressive bass-y sound at a big price and made it fashionable.


Bowers & Wilkins P5


Proving that expensive, fashionable headphones could sound good, the Bowers & Wilkins P5 ooze luxury and sound great, with excellent noise isolation and good range, which makes the equally pricey Beats sound downright mediocre.


Bose QuietComfort


The commuter’s favourite, Bose took noise-cancelling technology – which silences the outside world by blasting sound waves to cancel out the noise leaving only the music audible – and made it popular. On their third revision, the Bose QuietComforts are still the active noise-cancelling headphones to beat for many.


Sennheiser Momentum


Long-standing quality audio company Sennheiser was late to the stylish headphone game, but its Momentum series combines a sophisticated look with top-notch acoustics.


Starck


A collaboration between the French designer Philippe Starck and the Bluetooth specialists Parrot, Zik headphones are some of the best wireless headphones around, with intuitive touch controls, active noise-cancelling, and sound profiles and acoustics that can be modified with iPhone and Android apps.


Skullcandy Crusher


Battery-powered bass means that the Crusher gives real wallop to what otherwise might just be loud music. Cavernous earpieces (made of “soft touch” leather) also come with a powered mini-amplifier, foldable hinge (for storage) and a microphone and remote on the detachable headphone cable. CA and SG


Source – http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/dec/06/headphones-market-beats-by-dre



The headphones revolution: bright colours, street styling spark new craze

The headphones revolution: bright colours, street styling spark new craze

Anyone considering buying headphones for a young relative this Christmas, take care before splashing out the £150 or more that the most fashionable – the Beats, or Skullcandy, or Urbanears models – can cost.


Each brand marks them out as one of a “tribe”, regardless of sound quality. Whereas 20 years ago the most important thing for a teenager was the brand of trainer on their feet – Nike, Reebok or Adidas – now it’s the brand covering their ears that matters.


Beats headphones, with their red cord and large “b” on the earpieces, began appearing in music videos in late 2008, largely through the efforts of the company’s co-founders, the rapper Dr Dre and the music entrepreneur Jimmy Iovine. That sparked rocketing sales to a teenage demographic looking for a new way to distinguish themselves out from their peers.


In doing so, Beats’ emergence showed that high-priced headphones would sell, becoming as much a fashion accessory as a gadget, commanding prices over £200 – a bracket previously reserved for the audiophile niche.


A decade ago, the white tendrils of an iPod’s headphones might have marked the wearer out as trendy; nowadays it makes them just one of the crowd, and Apple’s in-ear headphones are too common to bother with. A teenager wanting to stand out needs something big – and bold.


“Companies like Beats and Skullcandy have realised that kids today want something that looks better, over questions of sound quality,” says Sam Ruffe, who works at The Kinc, a marketing agency whose clients include Skullcandy.


And those kids (or their parents) will pay: worldwide, the market for headphones will be worth over £5bn ($8bn) this year, with 284m units shipped, according to the consumer consultancy Futuresource; over-ear headphones grabbed half of sales. And Beats alone will grab around £1.25bn – while the total market is forecast to grow by 5% annually for the next five years.


Skullcandy was originally designed for skiers and snowboarders, by Rick Alden, who got the idea on a chairlift in Park City, Utah. Starting in 2003, he managed to persuade skating and skiing shops to stock the product, which became known as an “extreme sports” brand.


Urbanears, meanwhile, brought Scandinavian design and a flourish of colour to the burgeoning headphone market, releasing two “collections” of headphones a year in limited-edition colours.


The continued success of Beats brought competition as these other brands began chasing the new demographic of people willing to spend money to wear their branding choice on their ears. Skullcandy moved off the slopes and into the high street. Now, they are more likely to be seen on the bus than on the piste.


Audiophiles aren’t impressed by the brigade of bolshy Beats products, which often pride bass and look over acoustic refinement. “I just bought a set of the Beats Solo HD headphones – it’s a Christmas gift for my 13-year-old daughter,” Chris Miller, a software engineer, told the Guardian, adding: “I think they are overpriced and you are paying a premium for the brand name. They aren’t bad, but I have headphones that sound better for half the price that I paid for the Beats.”


Sound quality, though, isn’t necessarily the point – which may have been missed by more traditional “audiophile” brands such as Germany’s Sennheiser, the Dutch brand Philips and the American Bose, who were caught unaware that colouring the earpiece and cord green or red could affect sales as much as their sound quality.


Andy Watson of Futuresource says you might struggle to tell some headphones apart at the factory. “With everyone owning the same generic-looking personal audio player or mobile phone, it’s the headphones that do the differentiating. There is certainly cachet and brand equity attached to many of the brands, beyond their intrinsic value. Much of it is about positioning a lifestyle rather than a product.”


Yet the growing tribalism of headphone ownership has led to derision in some quarters – such as the blog “Long Way From Compton”, which features pictures of people wearing Beats headphones, and measuring the distance from there to the notorious gang-ridden Los Angeles district from which Dr Dre emerged.


It’s in the can


Beats Studio


Arguably one of the headphones that kicked off the large and colourful trend, the original Beats by Dre headphones drove appeal through product placement in music videos. Pushed by the music marketing powerhouse of Dr Dre (pictured above) and Jimmy Iovine, Beats brought big, aggressive bass-y sound at a big price and made it fashionable.


Bowers & Wilkins P5


Proving that expensive, fashionable headphones could sound good, the Bowers & Wilkins P5 ooze luxury and sound great, with excellent noise isolation and good range, which makes the equally pricey Beats sound downright mediocre.


Bose QuietComfort


The commuter’s favourite, Bose took noise-cancelling technology – which silences the outside world by blasting sound waves to cancel out the noise leaving only the music audible – and made it popular. On their third revision, the Bose QuietComforts are still the active noise-cancelling headphones to beat for many.


Sennheiser Momentum


Long-standing quality audio company Sennheiser was late to the stylish headphone game, but its Momentum series combines a sophisticated look with top-notch acoustics.


Starck


A collaboration between the French designer Philippe Starck and the Bluetooth specialists Parrot, Zik headphones are some of the best wireless headphones around, with intuitive touch controls, active noise-cancelling, and sound profiles and acoustics that can be modified with iPhone and Android apps.


Skullcandy Crusher


Battery-powered bass means that the Crusher gives real wallop to what otherwise might just be loud music. Cavernous earpieces (made of “soft touch” leather) also come with a powered mini-amplifier, foldable hinge (for storage) and a microphone and remote on the detachable headphone cable. CA and SG


Source – http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/dec/06/headphones-market-beats-by-dre



The headphones revolution: bright colours, street styling spark new craze