Which headphones of Drop's currently available?
I have some rewards points to burn but there's no obviously good options on Drop right now for headphones Contenders Ultrasone - maybe? I don't own any Ultrasones, so curious. Looks like garbage travel headphone which could be useful also. Beyerdynamic DT990 Pro. - Maybe? I have the DT 880 Good price point, really uncomfortable headphones but could be interesting to try the upgraded version. E-MU - strong contender but $400 is a bad price point for what it is. Which of the above would you choose and why? Nothing else on Drop is relevant to my interests, because Already own 6xx 820 800 s Ether cx Garbage / Consumer grade Meze 99 - garbage bass canons, hard pass No gaming headphones obviously Sennheiser wireless - no to wireless/bluetooth Hifiman - I have 2 of drop hifimans and they make really bad cheap shit on Drop, hard pass on HE-R7DX Aeon - I own the closed, Drop refuses to address #padgate so no reason to buy open Beyerdynamic 177x - wireless, nope Too similar 8x / 560s...
Mar 28, 2024
Here's some research on bluetooth/RF if anyone is interested. I am becoming skeptical of the longterm (decades of use) safety of RF devices. http://jeb.biologists.org/content/early/2016/03/24/jeb.132878 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24360572
"Summary statement [:] Antarctic crustaceans use a geomagnetic compass for orientation on the sea-land axis. This ability is lost after exposure to extraordinarily weak radiofrequency magnetic fields (2 nT). " Unless you are a crustacean or a bird of some kind, I wouldn't worry about RF frequencies disrupting human navigation. Humans, amongst other mammals, do not have the ability to sense earth's magnetic field. It's partly why GPS is so useful, when it works.
Unfortunately I am unable to give insight to these earphones, so don't let that dissuade your decision making.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24360572 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/
The first article you posted dealt with how radio frequencies (RF) disrupted krill orientation. Their control showed that this species of krill naturally navigated themselves towards the sea from the beach by aligning their path with the corresponding magnetic field in that direction. RF were shown to disorient them, making them unable to travel as easily.
The two articles you listed dealt with low frequency fields. Bluetooth operates at a much higher frequency than the fields tested in these articles.
From the abstract of Cui Y. et al.- "Extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMF) causes various biological effects through altering intracellular calcium homeostasis. The role of high voltage-gated (HVA) calcium channels in ELF-EMF induced effects has been extensively studied. However, the effect of ELF-EMF on low-voltage-gated (LVA) T-type calcium channels has not been reported. In this study, we test the effect of ELF-EMF (50 Hz) on human T-type calcium channels transfected in HEK293 cells."
And from the abstract of the other article- "The direct targets of extremely low and microwave frequency range electromagnetic fields (EMFs) in producing non-thermal effects have not been clearly established. However, studies in the literature, reviewed here, provide substantial support for such direct targets."
That article is not about low-energy but low-frequency, the test is very specific, and does not show the real impact on health. On top of that, Bluetooth has so low power that it can hardly have any impact on you. If you really want to have a reason to be scared, 50/60Hz is what you have in your power lines (depending on country). Effectively this is the frequency of pretty much all the AC adapters. Think about it when using vacuum cleaner or hair dryer. Yet, I won't bother, as there has been no peer-reviewed research demonstrating destructive effect of such appliances.
I wouldn't scare people if I hadn't got a good reason to. Fear is the enemy of peace and knowledge. Can I say with 100% certainty that electrical stuff has no bad impact on health? Of course not! But at the same time I can point to no data that would make me run around cutting the wires + I have no power over all the radios in my neighborhood. Of course, if you have cardiac pacemaker, contact your doctor. In contrast to humans, they are sensitive to electromagnetic fields.
I went back and edited my original comment so it's less authoritative and more on the side of we don't know. =)
Also the effect mentioned on T channels should not be of concern. T channels in nerves are not truly understood, but Ca efflux is not how neuronal action potentials work. Heart or Smooth muscle sure, but earphones are too far away from your heart or esophagus for the EMF to cause concern.
Lastly I don't think you understood the PubMed article, because there is a glaring mistake and contradiction within the abstract published. I'll try to access it at work tomorrow if I have time. Should be an interesting read.
I'm not knocking you for your choice, but please don't misquote an article claiming your view is backed up by science.
On my side I can add that it's difficult to find an electronic device that's closer to the brain than IEMs and hearing aids :)
Nonetheless these NuForce IEMs look so good and pairing them with a Bluetooth receiver would make them even more versatile.
I am very interested in the article you are referencing. If you want to post it when you have time, I am certainly open to reading it. And if you can prove to me Bluetooth is 100% safe and long-term heavy regular use has absolutely NO effects on my body in the long-term, I'll be super stoked. You are in fact the first person to claim that we know enough to deem it authoritatively safe. I need the evidence you have, because all the evidence I have seen thus far has basically said, "It appears to be safe" or "We couldn't find any issues", which both could mean they are looking for results in the wrong places.
That is all =)