There seems to be a lot of misinformation out there about the best way to care for the battery in your cell phone, laptop, tablet, or other electronic device.  It seems that most people have not been given proper instructions on how to best care for their batteries, and they end up wearing them out prematurely.  By taking care of your battery, you can make your device perform optimally for years.

Technology has changed quite a bit over the years, that’s for certain.  And so have the batteries that power our devices, and the chargers that keep them running.  Unfortunately much of society hasn’t been taught how to care for them to get the most out of them.  So let’s set the record straight.

Myth: I should let the battery on my device drain all the way down before charging it again.

Fact: This was true in the days we used NiCd rechargeable batteries in our devices.  Very few devices still use NiCds; they are heavy and hold relatively little energy.  Today, we use Lithium Ion batteries, and draining a Li-ion battery shortens its life dramatically.  In fact, in some cases when a Li-ion battery is drained all of the way it won’t accept a charge at all.  Bad things happen to Li-ion batteries when they are allowed to get too low.

For example, if a Li-ion battery is allowed to fully discharge, it will only accept a few hundred charges before it dies.  If a battery is only allowed to dip to 90% charge each time it is used, it will be good for many thousands of charge cycles.  A properly cared-for battery can last for many, many years.  A battery improperly cared for can become useless in under a year.

Myth: It is bad to leave my device plugged in all of the time.

Fact: For devices with really primitive charging circuitry, this is actually true.  These devices would overcharge a battery, and damage it. 

But those days are behind us.  Any modern cell phone, laptop, or tablet has intelligent charging circuitry that shuts off the charger when the battery is full, eliminating the need to unplug when the battery is charged.  You don’t need to unplug manually.

You may even see evidence of the intelligent charger.  If your device’s battery charge actually drops while plugged in, this is the intelligent circuitry doing its job, turning on and off to prevent unnecessary wear and tear.  Most devices hide this on/off cycle from you, though, so even devices that stay at 100% when plugged in are still managing your battery properly.

Myth: It doesn’t matter when I plug my device in, the battery is going to wear out in a couple years anyway.

Fact: Batteries actually do have a limited number of charge cycles that they can handle.  And each charge cycle holds just a little bit less energy than the previous.  But the loss in total capacity can be minimized by making sure that batteries aren’t drained any more than they need to be.  The way you handle charging your device can extend or shorten its life significantly.  Deep discharges wear out a battery faster than letting the battery drop just a few percent before plugging it back in.  To maximize the life of your battery, just plug in whenever you can.

Myth: It isn’t good for a battery to only let it discharge a little bit before plugging it back in.

Fact: The Lithium Ion batteries that power our devices actually last longer when they aren’t allowed to discharge much.  They last longer when their charge isn’t allowed to drop.  They “like” to be constantly topped off.  The old NiCd batteries we used years ago worked best when discharged fully before charging, but the Lithium Ion batteries we use today wear out faster when allowed to discharge.  So plug in to keep your devices topped off whenever you can.

Myth: Lithium Ion batteries are dangerous, and can explode, especially if overcharged.

Fact: Lithium Ion batteries are potentially dangerous.  If allowed to overheat they can catch fire –violently – and even explode.  Fortunately, reputable manufacturers place multiple failsafes into modern batteries to prevent this from happening.  The number of cases of batteries overheating or exploding has dropped dramatically in recent years.

But because batteries have to be designed and built properly to prevent overheating, fires, and explosions, you should avoid purchasing no-name aftermarket batteries.  You just can’t be sure if they’re built with the same level of protection as batteries from the original device manufacturer.  It just doesn’t pay to buy batteries from brands you don’t know you can trust.

Myth: All Lithium Ion batteries are the same, so it doesn’t matter if I buy a cheap no-name replacement.

Fact: Batteries are most definitely not all created equal.  Aftermarket batteries often hold less of a charge than the originals (even when labeled as if they held more), and very often aren’t built with the same level of protections against fire and explosion.  They also tend to wear out faster.  It generally isn’t worth it to buy batteries from anyone other than the original device manufacturer, or at least a trusted brand. 

Myth: The battery in my device can’t be replaced.  The cover can’t be removed.

Fact: We have certainly seen a trend in recent years for device manufacturers to take away the ability for owners to swap out a battery by removing access covers.  But in most cases, batteries can still be replaced by a qualified service center.  Don’t be tempted to throw away an old phone just because it doesn’t hold a charge very well.  Replace the battery and keep using the device, or donate it to someone else who can enjoy it.  (Reusing is better than recycling, and far better than discarding.)

Myth: It’s okay to use an aftermarket charger.

Fact: It depends on what type of charger you’re talking about.  If you’re talking about a charger that you plug into a phone or tablet, it may not matter what charger you use in terms of the life of your battery.  But if you’re talking about a charger that you insert a loose battery directly into, it can make all of the difference in the world.  Cheap battery chargers don’t often have the intelligence that they need to maintain a battery properly.  Stick to chargers from the original manufacturers, or at least a well-known and well-respected brand.

Myth: If I don't have time to fully charge the battery, I shouldn't plug my device in to charge because short charging cycles harm my battery.

Fact: False. Even short charging cycles are helpful.  Plug in whenever you can.

Myth: Using a charger with a higher milliamp rating than the original will damage a device/battery.

Fact: The milliamp rating on a charger is simply the maximum amount of current that it can potentially put out.  It doesn’t mean that it will force more current into a device than it can handle.  If a device is designed to draw 500mA, and you plug it into a 1000mA charger, the device will still draw just 500mA.  It is generally just fine to use a charger with a higher milliamp rating, so long as the voltage is correct.

Myth: I should never allow my battery to drain fully.

Fact: Okay, well, yes, you should never drain the battery all the way until your device shuts itself off.  That is bad.  But it is a good idea to drain your battery down to 10% or so a couple times per year.  Not because doing so is actually good for the battery, but because it is actually good for the device it is powering.  It is quite difficult for devices to figure out the charge level of Lithium Ion devices (it involves a lot of guesswork), and putting a device through a discharge / recharge cycle gives the device a chance to re-learn how your battery is operating.  You’ll be rewarded with a more accurate gauge of the amount of battery life you have left.

Myth: It isn’t worth it to do anything to improve the battery life of my device.

Fact: Because draining a Li-ion battery is bad for it, you can extend the life of your device’s battery by taking a few steps to reduce the amount of battery charge being used.  Things like changing the amount of time a device sits idle before automatically going to sleep, reducing the brightness of your screen, using Wi-Fi instead of a cellular connection, or closing apps you aren’t using can make a huge difference, and can extend the life of your battery dramatically.

Myth: It is okay to throw away a used battery in the trash.

Fact: Nope. Lithium Ion batteries should always be recycled.  It is easy to do; most electronics and office supply stores will recycle old batteries for you at no charge (pun intended).

Myth: Batteries perform differently based on temperature.

Fact: This one is actually true.  A warm battery doesn't output as much energy as one at room temperature.  Likewise, a cold battery doesn't output as much as one at room temperature.  Batteries operate most ideally at the same temperatures that we as humans do.

Similarly, batteries charge best at room temperature as well.  A cold battery won't charge as fast as one at room temperature.  And trying to charge a hot battery isn't a good idea.  So if your device is too warm or too cold, give it some time to return to room temperature before plugging it in.

Batteries which become too warm are also damaged by the heat.  A battery that overheats because the device is in the sun, or is hot because the electronics inside have gotten warm, can easily be permanently damaged.

Myth: It's okay to use a battery which has swelled up.

Fact: A battery which has been overcharged or overheated can sometimes swell up and become larger than it is intended to be.  These are potentially dangerous to use.  The act of swelling up can damage some of the protection circuitry inside.  Once a battery has swelled it should be properly recycled and replaced.  There is no way to repair a swelled-up battery.

Myth: You have oversimplified how to care for a battery here.

Fact: Okay, yes, I have oversimplified a bit.  I'm aware that my advice isn't 100% accurate.  I'm aware that modern electronics do push batteries harder than they maybe should.  But I feel my advice is still good because actual battery best practices are too complicated and nobody would ever actually attempt to follow those rules exactly.  We aren't NASA using devices that have to survive in space for a decade.  Nobody would be happy with the battery life of their devices if they followed actual best practices, nobody would take the time to monitor their devices that closely to maintain them perfectly, and any potential damage done by following my advice compared to ideal is for all practical purposes insignificant.  Device owners can benefit significantly from the advice here compared to how they are likely handling their devices now.  So I've opted to simplify the rules to make them easier to follow. So please forgive me for not over-complicating the matter.

With the availability of iTunes and other digital video services, I hear a lot of people talk about how they don’t buy DVDs any longer.  I hear things like “I don’t want to take up space with all of those cases” or “my kids destroy DVDs” – which make sense, but at the same time I can’t bring myself to give up my physical media.

For me, though, digital video distribution (DVD?) plays a supporting role rather than the primary role in building my video collection.  I don’t purchase movies digitally – I buy the discs.  Almost always Blu-ray discs, actually, since normally when I watch movies they’re being projected on a 100” screen, and DVD can fall apart at that size.  So do streaming services, to some degree, as well, but this isn’t the reason I choose not to invest in digital.  It’s more basic than that.

The main reason is that I don’t trust that these services are going to be around in ten years.  And I don’t want my investment to be lost.

History already tells us that we can’t rely on these services, no matter who is backing them.  Several big players have already tried and failed, including Wal-Mart and Target.  And when they fail, you lose what you’ve bought.

I know what you’re thinking… that Apple’s iTunes isn’t going to go away.  Maybe not.  At least not now.  But can you actually believe that Apple, if they’re still around in 20 years, is still going to be supporting a service that old?  They don’t support any services more than a few years old now.  There’s just no way that they’ll actually still make your movies available to you that far in the future.  Technology changes too fast.  Twenty years in the technology world is an eternity.  Very few tech companies make it that long. 

Owning the discs ensures that I’ll be able to watch them 10, 15, or more years in the future.  Even if (when) manufacturers stop making Blu-ray players in the future, the players I own today will still play those discs moving forward.  Yes, we’ll see improvements in picture quality with new tech like 4K and HDR moving forward, but Blu-ray is pretty good – it’s virtually the same level of quality currently projected in your local theater – and many movies have actually been shot in HD-like resolution, so in those cases a higher quality version usually doesn’t even exist.  And unless you’re sitting really close to very large screen, newer technologies won’t even provide any additional discernable picture detail. (Though HDR, if it catches on, has the potential to improve things considerably.)

The other big reason I still buy discs is convenience.  I don’t want to be without a way to watch a movie if my Internet goes down, I’m travelling somewhere where I don’t have Internet access, or it isn’t fast enough to stream a movie reliably.  Maybe in 5-10 years our Internet access will be more reliable and high speed will be more ubiquitous, but I just can’t count on it.  And will the streaming service you’ve invested n still be around at that time?  There’s no way to know.

That said, it isn’t like I don’t use digital video services, because I do.  They’re just my backup.  Most movies I buy come with a code to unlock digital versions.  And if they don’t, I’ve really found Vudu’s Disc-to-Digital program to be very handy.  (Tip: If you use the service, do the conversions at home on your own computer, and convert more than 10 discs at a time for a 50% discount.) I can’t convert all of my movies to digital, but I can certainly convert enough of them that I’m generally not left wanting when I want to stream a movie. I’ve got 241 on Vudu right now, so I’ve got plenty to choose from.

In any case, I know that everyone’s situation is different.  But I would encourage you to think about the future when making your video purchases.  Would you care if your selected service shut down in 5 years?  Would it bother you if you lost your investment because they’ve gone belly-up, or choose not to support it any longer?  It’s something to consider.

One funny thing that happens to me a lot is that many people I know outside of work seem to think that I do audio, video, and/or photography for a living.  My job is in software development, but that is apparently less glamorous than multimedia to the general public, so for some reason I'm known better to people in my personal life for the things that I like to do with media rather than creating software.

So one of the questions I often get asked is “which camera should I buy?” Or the same question phrased differently, “should I get a new camera?”

For some reason nearly everyone interested in photography gets stuck on camera technical specifications. For example, the first question people ask me about one of my cameras is “how many megapixels is it?” when in reality that number doesn't really mean much of anything these days, as I'll discuss later.
So in attempt to sort of pacify everyone, here are some general guidelines on what cameras to look at, and whether you should upgrade your existing camera to something newer or more expensive.

Digital SLR

First, advice for people who already have a digital SLR camera and are thinking about upgrading…

You probably don't need to upgrade if…

• Your camera has a resolution of 6-8 megapixels or better, and you do nearly all of your shooting outdoors during the daytime.
• Your camera model was released during or after 2009.

You may want to consider upgrading if…

• Your sensor resolution is less than ten megapixels, you do a lot of cropping on images, and you create large prints.
• You shoot at night or indoors a lot, and for whatever reason don't want to use a flash or a large aperture (f-stop less than 2.0) lens.
• The limitations of your equipment are preventing you from getting the shots you want.

Reasoning…

While most digital SLR cameras released in the last 10 years or so are capable of really good pictures during the daytime, many models released before 2009 struggled to perform well in low-light situations.  Then in 2009 something magical happened, where all of a sudden cameras from all manufacturers were being released with better clarity and low-light sensitivity with much higher usable ISO settings.  If you shoot in low-light (such as indoors or at night) having a 2009-model or newer camera can make a big difference.
If you shoot primarily in daylight, or with a flash, or a large aperture lens, you probably don't need to upgrade.  Even early model cameras going back to 2004-2005 still do really well in these situations, and you wouldn't gain much by moving to a newer camera.

If you really have an itch to buy new camera equipment, lenses are always a much better investment than electronics.  A good quality lens will make a bigger difference in picture quality on an older body than a cheap lens on a newer, more expensive body.  And lenses hold their value really well – oftentimes you can resell a good lens for the same price you originally paid, or take just a minimal loss on it.  The value of anything electronic, especially digital camera bodies, plummets very quickly.

What should I get?

Even the most inexpensive digital SLRs take amazing pictures these days, and most models released since about 2010-2011 shoot pretty spectacular video as well (as long as you are willing to focus manually).  Unless you have a very specific need for a higher-end model, the cheaper (and usually lighter and smaller) bodies make a lot of sense.  I own several SLRs, and when I want to take a camera with me that isn't too big or bulky, I take my 2010-model Canon T2i because it is small, lightweight, and takes fantastic pictures.  I only use my bigger and bulkier SLRs when I need fast control over exposure settings. The bigger, more expensive models really don’t take better pictures than my much cheaper T2i.  They're just faster to navigate and provide professional-level control.  (As for lenses for my T2i, my 10-22mm wide goes with me for indoor shots, 50mm or 85mm for portraits, and the kit 18-55mm, 28-135mm, or 24-105mm for outdoor shots depending on how appropriate a big lens is for the situation.)

I’m primarily a Canon guy, so I really like the Canon T3i, T5i (adds touch screen), 60D (no touch, but adds more buttons for more control; no lens with this link).  All are well under $1000, and are excellent.  Full-frame bodies like the 6D or 5DmkIII are of course amazing, and they give better low-light sensitivity, a wider field of view, and of course much more control, but at much greater cost – $2000 or more, without a lens.  Unless you're shooting professionally it’s hard to justify the price.  The SL1 is also nice because of its tiny size (and it is tiny for an SLR), but it is otherwise essentially the same as the T5i without the flip-out screen at considerably greater expense.

Canon also makes a lower-end model called the T3, which takes good pictures, but difficult to recommend because you can get a lot more camera with a used T2i (sometimes for less), or the T3i for not much more money.  The LCD screen on the T3 is quite poor, and doesn't flip out like the T3i (for easier shooting above or below eye level).  The T2i/T3i is also faster, has a lot more resolution, higher quality video, and much better low-light sensitivity, among other enhancements that to me make it a better buy.  But if the T3 is what you can afford, you're still going to get great pictures.

Nikon also makes great cameras, but I don't follow their lineup closely enough to make specific recommendations.  The one thing to watch out for on Nikon cameras is that the less expensive bodies (< ~$700) don't have the mechanism to autofocus on “AF” series Nikon lenses, and those lenses happen to be the less expensive ones.  So plan on spending considerably more on lenses with Nikon than Canon if you buy a cheap body.  If you get a D90 or more expensive model, the AF lenses will autofocus and the less expensive lenses are fine.

I’d be a little careful about buying other DSLR brands, as the lenses made for those cameras have inconsistent quality and you have to be really careful about what you buy.  If you invest in Canon or Nikon equipment you can be assured that you're always getting something at least very good, if not excellent.  Neither brand makes bad stuff.

If you're just starting out and want to buy your first digital SLR, get the T3i or T5i.  Anything more complicated will be overwhelming because of its complexity, and won't give you better pictures.  The kit lenses included in the box have really good image quality these days, and will be sufficient for new photographers.  Once you begin to understand photography a little better you can step up to a better lens for more control over what you shoot, and you won't have to upgrade your camera.

With that said, everyone with an interest in photography and a digital SLR camera should own a 50mm prime lens.  Canon 50mm f/1.8, Nikon 50mm f/1.8 manual or auto focus (the first link will autofocus on the more expensive Nikon camera bodies, but not on base models).  They have excellent image quality and are very inexpensive. They give you the ability to shoot pictures with a soft, out-of-focus background that you can't get otherwise without spending a lot of money, and as such they make spectacular portrait lenses.  They also allow you to shoot indoors without a flash in moderate lighting.

In the end, though, if you already have a digital SLR and it doesn't have any glaringly horrible problems, you're fine sticking with it rather than upgrading.  Spend the money on a new lens instead.

Point and Shoot

The quality of point-and-shoot cameras is all over the map.  So it is pretty hard to make specific recommendations. 

For the most part you get what you pay for.  If your camera cost you $150 or less and you're thinking about upgrading, I'd just go ahead and do it.  A P&S camera that sells for $250 is always going to be a significant upgrade over anything ever sold for less than $150, and is probably worth the money.

Point-and-shoot cameras have also improved significantly over the years too.  A P&S camera from more than 5 years ago is really going to pale in comparison to something newer. 

So as a general guideline, I’d say that if your camera is more than 3 years old, or cost you less than $150, yeah, you should upgrade if you're considering it. 

What should I get?

Camera manufacturers release new models of their point-and-shoot lines quite often – it isn't unusual for a model to be discontinued and replaced after just 6 months.  So specific models are something that I don't even try to keep up on.  So I won't make specific recommendations.  They'd be out of date rather quickly anyway.

So instead I'll give you one piece of buying advice… ignore the numbers.  Ignore the resolution (megapixels), ISO sensitivity, etc. entirely.  Despite what the difference in numbers might tell you, performance of nearly all cameras in this category are all about the same, given similar lenses. 

The one biggest factor to look at is the size of the lens.  Specifically, the glass in the lens.  The bigger the lens, the more light it collects, which improves image quality.  A small difference in lens size can make a big difference in picture quality.  So I'd recommend buying the camera with the biggest glass within your budget.
The other thing to look at is the optical zoom capability.  Many times manufacturers will try to hide this and give you a digital zoom number.  Digital zoom is useless.  Only look at the optical zoom.  Buy whatever suits your needs.

The other thing I'll mention is Optical Image Stabilization technology.  This compensates for the shake that is inherent in cameras that are being held by hand.  It is especially important in point and shoot cameras because they are tiny (and therefore harder to hold steady) and don't handle low-light as well as SLRs, so they require longer exposures which increases the likelihood of motion blur.  IS technology is very highly recommended unless you shoot on a tripod or only take close pictures in daylight.

As for brands, Canon is the clear winner in this category.  They consistently produce the best images, and are generally quite easy to use, relatively speaking.

Smartphone cameras have gotten much better in the last few years, but they really still pale in comparison to point-and-shoot models.  Not only do P&S produce much better quality pictures, they also have a real zoom capability.  The only smartphone cameras that I've found that does what I would even consider a passable job are the Nokia Lumia 1020, 920, 928, and 925, or the HTC One.  Not even the iPhone 5 or any of the Samsung Galaxy S series are any good unless you're shooting in the noonday sun.

Other Camera Types

There are a few other types of cameras out there, such as mirrorless, and rangefinder, but getting into a discussion about those is well beyond the scope of this blog post.  I'd be happy to answer questions if you're considering one of these other types.

A Final Word about Megapixels

The more megapixels the better, right?  At least that’s what camera manufacturers and salespeople would like you to believe.  But that isn't necessarily the case, especially on small cameras like point and shoot and smartphones.

The trouble with increasing the number of pixels is that in order to add more pixels the pixels themselves have to become smaller.  And smaller pixels means that less light is captured.  Which then in turn creates noisier (less clear) images, and less ability to handle low-light situations like you would find indoors or at night.
Generally speaking, as long as a camera has 6-8 megapixels of resolution, it is sufficient.  In fact, the higher you go above that the more processing has to be done and blurrier your images become to remove the extra noise, especially when shot under conditions other than sunlight in the middle of the day.  An 8-megapixel point and shoot is generally going to be preferable to one with a 13-megapixel sensor, especially on small sensors like those in a cell phone.

Higher resolution pictures also take up more disk space.  Double the number of pixels, double the size of the file.

Always remember that the highest resolution “normal” computer monitors are about 2 megapixels at best.  And 3 megapixels is enough for printing an 8x10.  You only need higher than 3 if you are quite exuberant in your cropping of images (to simulate zoom after-the-fact, for example) or if you are printing at 11x14 or larger.  Any extra resolution is wasted, and taking up extra disk space.  So, with all other things (*cough* lenses *cough*) being equal, choose a camera with the resolution closest to the 6-8 MP range.  Even photography magazines, who are notoriously picky, only require about 5 MP for print.

Wrap-up

Chances are if you already own a digital SLR it is probably fine.  But if you own a point-and-shoot which isn't brand new or didn't cost more than $250 you could benefit from an upgrade.

SLR cameras are more of a long-term investment while point-and-shoot cameras are meant to be more-or-less disposable.  And the lens on a camera makes more difference in picture quality than the camera itself.  And aside from the top-of-the-line models, for the most part you get what you pay for.  Keep those things in mind while shopping and it will be hard to go wrong.

Just a quick assessment of the new iPod Touch, Fifth Generation.  This isn’t by any means a full review… but rather a few thoughts based on initial impressions having used it for a couple hours, as compared to the fourth generation model.

Speed

The 5th Generation iPod Touch (hereafter referred to as the “5G”) has been updated with a dual core processor which is fundamentally faster than the processor in the 4G’s single core processor.  This is roughly the same upgrade Apple made going from the iPhone 4 to the iPhone 4S.  So it feels quite a bit snappier.  Which is great because with iOS 5 and iOS 6, the fourth gen model could get stuck and feel sluggish quite a bit of the time. A very welcome change.

Screen

The 4th Gen model had a screen that was technically a Retina display, but it was a lower quality screen than that of the iPhone 4/4S, which used a more expensive IPS panel.  It had significant color shift issues, and a poor contrast ratio when viewing off-angle, with everything appearing washed out because of the high amount of background light being added to everything.  The 5G fixes this, and it comes with a very good LCD… the same LCD used in the iPhone 5, actually.  Contrast and color accuracy improvements are quite noticeable.  Still not as good as an OLED screen, but definitely a huge upgrade.

The other big change is that the 5G moves to a 16x9 aspect screen instead of the 3x2 screen used on all previous iOS devices.  Aside from the ones provided by Apple with the iPod, few apps have been updated to take advantage of the extra screen space.  Apps which have not been updated look a little strange, as you can clearly see the black bars above and below the app’s user interface.  It’s especially strange because the iPod’s regular status bar (which shows the iPod name, WiFi status, battery charge, etc.) actually shifts downward, leaving an awkward, visible blank space above it.  Many apps will be updated over time to support 16x9, but there are a lot of apps which have been effectively abandoned by the developers that won’t ever get updated.

For me the nicest effect of the aspect ratio change was one I hadn’t anticipated, and that is the ability to have 16 apps in a folder instead of the previous limit of 12.  I had always been frustrated by the previous limitation, and adding an additional 4 slots is actually much more significant than the numeric difference alone would indicate.

With all of that said, I am still finding the physical width of the screen to be a big limitation.  I still hate the on-screen keyboard because the keys are so darn tiny.  iOS’s text prediction does help quite a bit when doing English text entry, but password entry is still difficult and frustrating.  I wish that when Apple made the screen taller that they had made it a little wider as well.  My phone has a 4.3” screen, so it isn’t much larger than the iPod’s, but the tiny difference in width makes a huge difference in the usability of the on-screen keyboard.  Apple is making a big deal of the fact that the screen is still the same width as it was before, but I find it to be more of a hindrance than a help.  I’ve never had any trouble reaching anything on my phone’s screen with my thumb, so in my mind Apple’s argument for maintaining the same screen width is effectively moot.

One complaint I have (and I have this with practically all 16x9 devices—phones, tablets, etc.) is that a 16x9 screen is just too wide an aspect when used in landscape mode.  Any graphical elements fixed at the top/bottom of the screen take up too much of a percentage of the screen’s height in landscape mode.  By the time you have the status bar at the top of the screen, and bring up the on-screen keyboard, there is very little space leftover for any other actual content.  The only devices I’ve seen that even attempt to work around this are Windows Phones, which only display the status bar at the top of the screen when you swipe downward to request it, and leave the bottom on-screen elements at the physical bottom rather than virtual bottom when rotating into landscape mode.  (Rotating a Windows Phone to landscape does rotate buttons at the bottom of the screen 90 degrees, but they stay in-place on the screen, optimizing use of the wide nature of the screen.  It’s a slick way of handling the problem.)  It’s especially frustrating on apps not optimized for 16x9 screens, as 18% of the screen is completely wasted on black bars while the rest of the screen gets very crowded very quickly.

Siri

The 5G touch gets Siri, which the 4th Gen model did not have, even with the iOS 6 upgrade.  Like all speech-control features on all devices, I find it to be of limited use.  It’s fine if you just want to check the weather, or create a reminder for yourself, but because apps can’t interface with Siri you’re limited to the capabilities that Apple has provided to Siri without the option of expansion.  I much prefer the approach that Microsoft is using with their voice features in Windows Phone 8, which allows app developers to add their own commands and responses.  So if the phone doesn’t know how to handle a voice command, you at least have the option of installing an app that does.

While it isn’t really an issue, I have noticed that the Siri voice sounds very metallic and mechanical for the first little while after using a new device or new voice (or device which has recently been upgraded to iOS 6).  It seems to resolve itself within a couple hours, but it is a little weird that the voice quality changes.  Personally, I prefer the Australian voice for Siri over the one used in the United States and Canada.  I don’t think most people realize that you can change the voice that can be used.  Just throwing that out there.

While I’m on the subject, I still find it awkward for people to try to talk to their devices.  The technology is still quite poor in its implementation, as every variation still has a very limited vocabulary, and every one of them has a lot of trouble dealing with any background noise.  Few of the voice control/input implementations actually work very well outside of a quite room at home.  I’ve only found them to be of benefit (and limited benefit at that) for sending texts and emails while driving.  Anything else still requires interaction with the screen, and a great deal of patience. 

Bottom line, Siri is a silly feature to me.  And its best use is entertaining oneself with its often hilarious interpretations of your request.  While generally better, the offerings from Microsoft and Google are still generally laughable.  We’ve still got a LONG way to go. We are a world away from being able to have a conversation with our electronics, and Siri only serves to highlight those limitations.

Earpods

Anybody who has read more than a few posts on my blog knows how much I hate the earbuds that have come with iOS devices.  They are absolutely awful.  I'm really glad that Apple has addressed this by creating the Earpods, because the new earphones are MUCH, MUCH better.  They’re not great, but the sound quality is leagues better than what was offered previously.  They’re also infinitely more comfortable than the older models, but they do still have a tendency to fall out of my ears much too easily.  Just tilting my head to one side virtually guarantees that they’ll fall right out.

The sound quality gets much better if you use your fingers to firmly hold the earpods in the ears, but nobody is going to do that.  A better seal in the ears would not only improve the sound quality, but make them stay in place better.

I won’t ultimately end up using the Earpods for listening to music – I have several pairs of professional in-ear monitors that have infinitely better sound quality, but I’m really glad that Apple isn’t subjecting the public to such terrible earphones any longer.  These are definitely among the better included-in-the-box earphones I’ve ever heard.

Camera

The 5G gets what is essentially the same camera as the iPhone 4 on the back, and a significant improvement in the front-facing camera.  While I probably won’t use either one, it’s nice that the considerable imperfections of the previous model have been addressed.  The replacement cameras are much better.  The HDR and Panorama features even made it into this version.  Nice touch.  No cell phone (or MP3 player) camera is a real replacement for a real point-and-shoot camera, but the improvement is welcome.  The previous versions weren’t so bad that they weren’t even worth consideration of being used.

Physical

The 5G is noticeably lighter than the 4th Gen model.  And it is thinner too.  But my favorite aspect of the 5G is the disappearance of the shiny back.  All previous full-sized iPods had that awful shiny metal back on them that got scratched practically from being exposed to the Earth’s atmosphere.  You couldn’t put the device in a pocket, even by itself, without it being scratched.  It was terrible.  So I’m happy to report that the new, matte aluminum back, is infinitely better in that department.  It’s too early to say just how resilient it is to scratching, but I may be able to get away without putting some sort of protection on it.  Which is a good thing.  I prefer my electronic devices to be naked, as most cases, holders, etc. add much too much bulk for my tastes.  I’ve sort of settled on adding Zagg’s InvibleShields and Skins to most of my Apple devices, which is a compromise I can deal with.  They add almost no bulk to the devices while adding a degree of protection against scratches, at the expense of slightly distorted images and a grippy rubber texture.  In the case of the iPad, adding a bit of grip is welcome because of its weight and slippery-ness, but I don’t love that texture on something as light as the iPod Touch.  To each his/her own, though.

Lightning Connector

Like the iPhone 5, the 5G Touch switches to the Lightning connector instead of the ubiquitous Dock connector.  The new connector is tiny!  Much smaller than it seems in pictures.  And it does seem a lot sturdier than other connectors.  The fact that there is no “correct” orientation of the connector is a bonus, but not really a big deal either way.

As someone who has never really invested into devices that use the Dock connector (just a handful of USB cables), this doesn’t really bother me.  But it could be a big deal for anyone who has.  Other than dumb speakers, it seems that compatibility with old devices using the Apple’s Dock adapter is quite poor, so you could very well find that if you have a dock connector for your car stereo, clock radio, etc., that it just won’t work.  And the adapter does create a certain level of awkwardness.

iOS 6

The 4G Touch does indeed receive the 6th version of iOS, theoretically giving it many of the features of the 5G model.  Because of both hardware limitations and deliberate coding decisions by Apple, though, not some features aren’t available.  None are huge, but it is worth noting.  Most prevalent are the Flyover view in Maps, Siri, and a few features of the camera.  None are a deal breaker, or are necessarily worth buying a new device to gain them.  But if you happen to be in the market for a new player, it is probably worth getting the new model vs. the older one.

Overall

Apple has made a lot of welcome changes to the 5th Generation model of the iPod Touch.  The gap between it and its parallel-generation iPhone is shrinking, and this makes it a definite viable alternative for someone who wants to participate in the Apple ecosystem without signing an expensive cell phone contract.  At this point the only meaningful difference between the iPod Touch and the iPhone is the ability to make phone calls and send text messages, with even that limitation gone if you only interact with people using Apple devices. 

Is the new model good enough that I will switch from my Zune HD to the iPod Touch as my primary music player?  No way.  Apple still hasn’t addressed my complaints with the player software on the device – in some ways they’ve even made it worse by moving the podcast features into an awful new, separate app. The music (and particularly podcast) features of the Zune are still heads and shoulders over anything the Apple has to offer.  And surprisingly, even though the Zune HD is three years old now, its interface is still faster than the iPod’s.  Not to mention that the Zune software is in an entirely different league than iTunes in every way possible.  The Zune’s audio hardware is still superior to Apple’s, with a noticeably mellower, less distorted, and more accurate and pleasing sound… particularly on high quality headphones.  Apple doesn’t seem to care to address this, as the audio hardware in the latest iPods and iPhones remains unchanged from at least the three prior generations.  I guess if it’s good enough for the masses, it’s good enough for Apple.  It’s a real shame that the Zune HD never quite caught on, because it is an awesome product – one of the best that has ever come out of Microsoft.

I don’t expect that others will be quite as picky as me when it comes to audio quality, and that access to the variety of apps in Apple’s App Store will trump at least the audio quality shortcomings, and probably even the horribleness of iTunes.  (Some of this will hopefully be addressed in iTunes 11 (due shortly), but I don’t have any faith in that particular group of programmers at Apple – it has always been bad and for the most part just gotten worse over time.)  And most people probably aren’t even acutely aware of how mediocre the music player on iOS really is, as they’ve never even used anything else.  So in that particular case at least, ignorance is bliss.

But for anyone looking at an iPod Touch, there isn’t really any reason other than price (or maybe Dock connector compatibility) to not get the newest version of the product.  It’s a nice upgrade.

The Amazon Kindle Fire shipped this week as their answer to a need for a color e-reader.  And, if you look at it from a certain perspective, as their answer to the iPad.  But it's really something somewhere in between.

Amazon has set a very aggressive price for this device at $199.  They’ve created a device that is essentially a tablet, but at a price that undercuts their competition by a pretty wide margin.  Why not? The whole point of the Fire is to sell you more Amazon content, so they can more-or-less count on making their profits on the content you buy rather than the hardware itself.  Everything about the Fire is designed to entice you to purchase content from Amazon… not just books, either.  It also plays music, movies, TV shows, lets you purchase apps to run on the device, and it even comes pre-installed with an Amazon shopping app, already linked to your account.  In a way, it’s genius.  You’ve just got to resist the urge to go crazy with content purchases.

Reviews on the Internet have been all over the map.  Some are praising the Fire as an iPad killer (it’s not).  Others are essentially saying it’s the worst piece of electronics to come out in a long time (again, it’s not).  Like so many opinions out on the Internet, the truth lies somewhere in between.

There are a lot of things I like about the Fire.  It’s pretty easy to use.  It’s a nice size and it isn’t too heavy to hold for long reading or video watching sessions.  Amazon’s $79 per year (via Amazon Prime) access to a substantial streaming video library is quite intriguing.  The screen is very good.  It provides a low-cost point-of-entry into the world of Android apps.  But, on the other hand, it also provides a low-cost point-of-entry into the world of Android apps.  Yes, that is a backhanded compliment.  It lets you install Android apps, but I’m not so sure this is a great thing.

Until fairly recently I was open to the possibility of the Android platform being a decent alternative to the iPhone and iPad of the world.  That is, until I used an Android device.  While some who complain about Android do so because they’re purchasing $49 phones, I used two different high-end models to take the hardware out of the equation.  And I was not impressed.  Not in the least.  Every Android device I’ve tried now is clunky, generally sluggish, and incredibly inconsistent in the way it works.  Having apps pause and stutter is just the normal way of doing things on Android devices… you have to expect it.  And because there are no standards for how apps should look, feel, or work, everything is all over the map.  One application might use on-screen touch buttons to get around.  Others rely on the Back button.  Some use an iPhone-like hierarchy of commands, others do everything through flat linking.  Some apps look like the launcher that HTC has created, others like Samsung’s, others like nothing else.  I can’t believe how incredibly fragmented and inconsistent things are under the Android OS.  I am not impressed at all.  Frankly, I am actually stunned that anyone could love their Android phone… I have to chalk it up to lack of knowledge of alternative choices.  I may have gotten spoiled by my Windows Phone, but I really don’t believe how bad Android is, and have a hard time understanding how anyone could get excited by it, let alone put up with it.

With that, back to the Fire.  Even though the Fire uses the Android OS at its core, Amazon has tried to isolate its users from it.  To some degree it has done it fairly well.  If you stick to the Books, Videos, Music, and Docs libraries, everything runs great.  The device is responsive and (mostly) easy to use.  The reader is everything you’d hope for in an e-book reader (aside from the e-Ink paper-like display), and videos play smoothly.  If you’ve been populating Amazon’s music cloud with your own content, the music player is alright (although I will contend that anything larger than a phone is just too big for playing music).  Pretty much everything in those areas of the device is great.

That is, until you get to the Apps library.  The way Amazon has this setup is that don’t use Google’s App Market, but rather they have their own Android app store.  And the Fire can run nearly everything in that store, within the inherent limitations of the device (you won’t be making phone calls, for example).  Shopping for apps is pretty easy (although I would like to see more filtering capabilities to narrow down searches) and purchasing is even easier.  There are, of course, a broad range of apps available for free, but since Amazon is in this to make money they don’t do much to make these super easy to isolate. 

Where things really break down is actually running and installing these apps.  It’s really a mixed bag.  Most of the problems aren’t Amazon’s fault, so we have to give credit where credit is due, but it still doesn’t make for a great experience.  Among my complaints…

• As mentioned, the sluggishness of Android is fully present here.  The majority of apps are affected.  Scrolling and navigation is clunky most of the time.  It isn’t at all uncommon to tap something on the screen and not see any sort of response for as much as a second or longer.  On a modern consumer electronics device, this is unacceptable.
  
• Most of the apps are written for phones, not something the size of the Fire.  Very few apps have been designed to take advantage of a larger screen.  This means that one of two things tends to happen: either everything on-screen is small (sized as if it was being displayed on a screen 1/3 the size) and it shows more content to you, or everything is blown up much larger than normal as if you were using a phone with a 7” screen.  Neither experience is ideal. 
  
• There are many first-rate apps in the store, but there is a lot more junk.  There are a lot of no-good apps to sort through to find the gems.
  
• While Amazon’s Android App Store does have a lot in it, there are still a lot of popular Android apps that aren’t in it.  You can, if you choose to, install other apps if you have access to their .APK files, but there isn’t really a good online repository of them.  Most people who run Android get their apps from Google’s App Market (and as such, there hasn’t been much need for another repository), but that isn’t available here.  I was able to find .APK files for several apps missing from the Amazon store (Skype, Zinio, for example), but only once I was willing to wade into some rather seedy areas of the Internet.  I do not recommend doing this to the faint of heart.  If an app isn’t in Amazon’s store, skip it.

So overall my thoughts on having the ability to install apps are mixed. Yes, you can install third party apps on the device, as if it were a full-fledged Android tablet.  The real question is, are you really sure you want to?

Things are a little more muddy when it comes to the built-in web browser.  The browser seems to do a decent job rendering most web sites.  Better than the iPad in most cases.  And since it supports Adobe Flash you can view many sites that the iPad can’t handle.  But the trouble is, the browser is based on, you guessed it, is the Android WebKit browser.  So it’s slow.  Amazon has tried to speed it up by using their high-power cloud servers to accelerate the experience, but several online tests, and my own experience, show that this actually slows things down, and the feature should be turned off.  Even something as simple as scrolling a page is slow and clunky.  As if you’re the device to do something it doesn’t want to do, like asking a child to leave a toy store.  You can absolutely browse the web.  But not if you’re in a hurry.

I find it a little odd that Amazon is only offering a WiFi version of the Fire.  If any of the Kindles screams “I need 3G” it’s the Fire.  It’s the only model that has a supported (non-“experimental”) web browser, and the only model that can play music and videos from Amazon’s stores.  We can speculate as to why there is no 3G model, but the fact remains that if you want to access Amazon’s stores or the web while away from home or the office, you need to either find or bring your own WiFi hotspot.

I hope Amazon works out some of the little kinks, because I really think the Fire has a lot of potential.  I’m not saying that I dislike it, because it does do what it is supposed to do, it doesn’t crash or lock up, and at $199 it’s a steal for what it is.  I’m just disappointed that Amazon has selected Android and all of its required baggage to run the thing.  They could have done so much better.

My overall rating for the Kindle Fire is “good enough.”  It isn’t a stellar device, but it really isn’t bad either, especially if you aren’t interested in the ability to run Android apps, or browse the web quickly.  As long as you stick to the other libraries (Books, Video, Music, Docs) it’s excellent.  Just don’t have high expectations once you wander outside of the Amazon-created areas of the device.  You don’t have to use Android Apps on the device, and you don’t have to browse the web… as long as you consider those two features to be a bonus you’ll be very happy with the Fire.  But if you buy it specifically for those features, you’re likely to be at least a little bit disappointed.

It is not an iPad, but it isn’t intended to be, and it costs, depending on the model you’re comparing it to, between 24% and 40% of what the iPad does.  For that, you can make some compromises.  A $20,000 Honda isn’t a BMW, either.  If you’re happy with a Honda or Ford, you’ll probably be happy with the Fire.  If you prefer to shop at Target rather than Nordstrom, you’ll be happy with the Fire.  The Fire is a Honda sold at Target.

One of the things I did this week was try to upgrade my netbook computer with an SSD (Solid State Disk) drive to make it faster and more bearable to use (more on what that is in a minute… bear with me). It’s always been kind of slow, and I figured if I could put $100 into it instead of buying a whole new one, that would be a good thing, right?  Well, that didn’t work out so well… performance with the SSD was actually far worse than it was with the hard drive that was in it, and the “fix” to make it work right just ended up not being worth it… so I had an SSD without a home.  After playing around with a couple other ideas, I decided to put it into an old Toshiba laptop I’ve had for a little over 3 years because it has always felt a little slow.  And boy, what a difference it made.

An SSD is a storage device that acts like a hard disk drive, but uses memory chips instead of a spinning platter to store data.  Since there are no moving parts, they are very fast.  They’ve been prohibitively expensive until fairly recently (and it’s still expensive to get something with a lot of storage capacity) but they’re finally in the realm of being affordable for the masses as long as your storage needs aren’t extreme.  The SSD I bought was an OCZ Vertex 2 60GB model which I picked up on sale for just over $100.  Since I don’t store music or movies on that laptop, this was plenty large enough.  Windows 7, Microsoft Office, and Photoshop take up around 20 GB total, which gives me plenty of room to spare for anything else I might need to put on it.  The difference in performance was enormous!

If you can work a screwdriver you can install an SSD drive in your computer.  The physical installation is very easy.  The only part that might get a bit tricky is getting Windows installed onto it.  If your computer came with a Restore DVD, or you have an original Windows installation DVD, setting it up is a piece of cake.  If it didn’t, you may want to invest in a data transfer kit (this one is my favorite).

Prior to installing the SSD, my Toshiba laptop would take about 60-75 seconds to boot.  With the SSD it takes about 13 seconds.  That’s logo screen to usable desktop, folks.  While it previously took about 5-10 seconds to load Microsoft Word on the hard drive, it now loads in less than 1 second on the SSD.  Photoshop loads in 6 seconds instead of 40, and web browsers come up instantly.  Launching most programs occurs almost instantaneously.  As I was installing Windows updates (I started with a fresh copy of Windows), I was amazed to see the majority of them install about one per second instead of watching the minutes tick by.  From start to finish (empty drive to installing Windows to installing all available updates) it only took about 30 minutes to do everything.  And this computer is SO fast now… even though it’s over 3 years old and wasn’t that much to shout about when it was new.

Swapping out a hard drive for an SSD isn’t the only easy and relatively inexpensive thing you can do to speed up an aging computer.  Upgrading the memory is also very easy and doesn’t cost that much (the Crucial web site has a scanner that can tell you what type of memory your computer needs).  I upgraded my Toshiba laptop to 4GB of RAM for $35 a couple months ago, and recently upgraded a different laptop to 8GB of RAM for $85.  The desktop computer I built last month got 8GB of RAM for about $80 as well.  If you’re running a computer with just 1 or 2GB of RAM, it’s time to upgrade.  The performance difference can be pretty dramatic.  Not quite as drastic as replacing a hard drive with an SSD, but still quite noticeable.

So how do you know if your computer can be upgraded with an SSD? If it’s less than about 4 years old, the chances are very high.  The computer requires an SATA interface for the hard disk drive, which most computers made in the last 4 years are likely to have.  If you’re working with a desktop computer, you can probably buy a relatively small SSD for your operating system and programs, and use your existing hard drive as a secondary drive for storing your personal data.  That’s the route I’ve gone with the last two computers I’ve built, and I’ve been thrilled with the results.  As far as which model to get, the drives based on the SandForce controller chips currently yield the best performance (the OCZ Vertex 2 series give the best bang-for-the-buck and is available in 60GB, 120GB, and 240GB sizes.  For better performance at a higher cost, step up to the OCZ Vertex 3 series.)

So, long story short, if you’ve got an old computer that is just slower than you’d like and you don’t want to shell out a pile of money to buy a newer model, chances are you can swap out your hard drive with an SSD, and upgrade the RAM, not have it cost you that much, and you’ll end up with a computer that feels better than it did when you first pulled it out of the box.  It will actually feel much faster than a new computer unless the newer one happens to come with an SSD.

Installation of either the SSD or memory is pretty easy, but if you’ve got a hungry computer-savvy buddy, bake him or her a pie or plate of cookies to install yours for you.  You’ll be SO glad you upgraded.

Tip: SSDs perform best under Windows 7 (or the most recent versions of Linux).  Windows Vista, XP, and Mac OS X will run on SSDs, but they do not fully take advantage of the extra performance that SSDs offer.  These operating systems also suffer from a problem which causes writes to the disk to become incredibly slow after a period of time because they do not support a feature called TRIM.  This happens once the total amount of data written to the drive exceeds the total capacity of the drive.  This doesn’t mean you’ll see performance decrease when the drive is full, but after that much data has been written to the drive in total, whether you’re overwriting or deleting files or not.  Since the operating system itself writes to the disk a lot just as part of its normal operation (especially if you don’t have enough memory), you’ll probably hit this limitation a lot faster than you’d think you might.  Windows 7 knows how to properly communicate with the drive to let it know what parts of the drive are no longer being used, so it does not suffer from this problem.  If you’re running Vista or XP, you should also upgrade to Windows 7 if you’re going to run an SSD for the best results.  Mac users, you’re kind of out of luck... you’ll see amazing performance on your SSD for a while, then it will slow down drastically.  And there isn’t anything that can be done about it; it looks like not even the forthcoming OS X Lion upgrade is going to support TRIM unless you buy the computer with an SSD pre-installed by Apple.

I don’t get upset very often, but every once in a while something pushes me over the edge.  I have blogged about this before, but it has really gotten under my skin again.

Imagine the following completely hypothetical conversation…

Government Official: “It has come to our attention that you are driving a 2008 Honda Civic.”

Me: “Yeah, that’s right.”

GO: “Well, it’s my duty to inform you that in four months it is going to be illegal to drive your car.  You will have to dispose of it before that time.”

Me: "What?  Is this some kind of a joke?”

GO: “No joke.  This is absolutely real.  If you continue driving your car after June 12, you will be breaking the law, and will be arrested and fined.”

Me: “I don’t get it.  My car is still new. It only has 1000 miles on it.  It’s working perfectly. And it is totally safe.  What gives?”

GO: “Well, the rules of the roads have changed.  Your car is now illegal… to drive on the road you have to get a new car.”

Me: “Why? What kind of car can be driven on the roads?  How is it different than what I have now?”

GO: “You’ll have to talk to the car manufacturers about that.  There are 6 models that comply with the new laws.”

Me: “And what am I supposed to do with my old one?  Nobody will buy it if it isn’t legal to drive it!”

GO: “Whoa, there!  You can’t sell it.  Selling your car is against the law because it doesn’t comply with new laws.  If you try to sell it you’re violating the law and you could be fined or arrested.”

Me: “So what the heck am I supposed to do with it?”

GO: “There are many recycling programs available.”

Me: “Okay… let me get this straight… I’m supposed to recycle a car which works perfectly, only has 1000 miles, which I can’t sell, and buy a new car just because the rules of the roads have changed?”

GO: “Yes, sir.  I believe you’re starting to get it.”

Sound unbelievable?  Well, yeah, it does.  And it should.  But this is exactly what is happening with wireless microphones in a few months. 

Starting June 12, 2010 it will be illegal to use any wireless microphone that operates in the 700 MHz radio band.  Unfortunately, this includes nearly every wireless microphone manufactured before about two years ago.  And still a pretty large number of mics sold in the last two years as well.  And very much unfortunately for me, every wireless microphone I own.

I have just over a dozen wireless mics that I have spent literally years acquiring.  Some I purchased brand new, others I found on eBay.  Some are for live audio events, others to use when shooting video, etc.  It took a really long time to find a few models that are reliable and have good sound, and even after I found the right ones, it took about 6 years to get my hands on enough for my needs.  Sure there have been plenty of cheap models available, but they have all sorts of problems.  And lots of extremely expensive ones that actually do work well.  But VERY few models in between that work well and are affordable.  I managed to find a few models in that “in between” range and bought up every one I could find.

And now they’re all being made illegal, even though they work perfectly, and in many cases only have a few hours of use on them.

Worse yet, it’s illegal for me to try to sell them.  A handful of manufacturers are offering rebate programs, but not for the models that will work for my use.  At least not ones that I could possibly ever afford.  Since I can’t sell them the only legal thing to do is to recycle them.

Wireless mics are kind of a funny thing.  If you walk into a musical equipment store there will be a bunch available for sale.  But not a single one you see in a retail store is actually worth owning.  Between dropouts, noise, poor sound quality, and other problems, there isn’t a wireless mic worth owning for less than about $450.  The “good” ones start at about $2,000 each… and go way up from there.  Those mics you see on American Idol and other TV shows, they easily cost over $4,000 apiece.  Maybe big television networks or bands on tour can afford stuff like that.  I can’t.  And neither can a lot of other people that need them.

I sat down and made myself a spreadsheet to figure out replacement costs.  To replace the wireless equipment I use regularly, it’s going to cost just under $10,000 for “barely adequate.”  I don’t think that “barely adequate” wireless microphones are worth owning.  To get something that operates at least as well as what I already own, that figure jumps just north of $20,000.  I’m sorry, but I don’t have $20,000 to blow on microphones.  Especially when I already own a bunch that work perfectly.  And these numbers are just for the stuff I use consistently, not to replace everything I already have.

Some of the ones I have haven’t been used much at all.  In a few cases, purchase price divided by hours used would approach $75-100 per hour.  And in nearly all cases I used them for charity or public events, or other events where I was providing my audio services at no cost.  (The number of events I do where I ask to be paid is very small.)  Some thanks I get, huh.

At the time I bought the ones that I have now I had the advantage that they had been out for a couple of years, so used ones would come up for sale on eBay from time to time at a significant discount.  But because this transition to new models is so recent (many manufacturers have just started offering compliant models within the last year, and in some cases, just the last few months) no used gear is available.  So not only is the newer equipment not going to function as well, it has to be purchased at a full price (which is higher than it was before).  No deals here.  Not for a long while.  And many of the compliant models are out of stock and can’t even be purchased.

I know the number of people that are affected by this is relatively few.  But it does extend farther than you might think.  It isn’t just audio guys like me that are being forced to replace our gear.  This includes theaters, schools, churches, etc.  And most of these operate on shoestring budgets (or no budget whatsoever).  If any of these groups bought their wireless mics more than two years ago, they almost definitely are going to have to buy new ones.  Less than two years ago and the chance goes down, but that chance doesn’t go away entirely unless a mic has been purchased in the last 27 days.  Yep, infringing equipment was still available for sale (and quite common) less than a month ago.

If you go to the FCC web site and read up on the issue they really emphasize the need to stay out of the new radio bands being reserved for public safety agencies.  Fine.  I have no problem with that.  My mics don’t operate in those frequencies anyway.  If that was the only reason this was happening, I wouldn’t be affected.  (Well, one of my mics is in that band, but I can replace one without too much complaint). 

The less emphasized part of the transition is the spectrum that was purchased by Verizon Wireless.  So we’re being forced to buy new wireless mics to make way for laptop data cards.  (Which, incidentally, are supposed to detect interference and work around it.  I’m just sayin’.)  If all in this world was fair, Verizon would be forced to pay at least a portion of the costs of replacing equipment it was invalidating because they’re invading what was our turf.  But, this world isn’t exactly fair, now, is it. 

The radio band that we are being moved into has to coexist with television broadcasts.  Yes, the same frequencies that all TV stations were forced into a year ago.  A part of the radio spectrum that is becoming very busy.  Yes, mics were in TV frequencies before, but there were a whole lot more of them available, and fewer stations to compete against.  Things are going to get really messy.

Get this… the most expensive piece of wireless audio gear I own is my in-ear-monitor system.  (You’ve seen them… the earpieces musicians wear when performing so they can hear themselves.)  Mine is a “barely adequate” model (I couldn’t afford a “good” one) that cost me $1300.  It is included in the devices that have to be retired, as it is also in the 700 MHz band. 

The manufacturer offers a “trade-in” program.  I can trade in for the exact same model with a few tweaks inside to make it legal.  And the cost?  Full price.  No discount.  Nope!  If I want to keep using it I have to buy a brand new one at full price.  And according to their web site it is “illegal” to retrofit the old ones, so I shouldn’t bother asking. 

Everything about this whole situation stinks.  And it’s all pretty crazy when you think about it.  If this affected a larger group of people the American public would be up in arms about it.  But because our group is relatively small nobody else knows a thing.

The Zune HD has dropped in price.  It’s $30-$40 cheaper than it has been.

 

Excellent news.

If you’re anything like me… wait, I’m sure you’re nothing like me, fortunately for you…

Most people have many electronic devices laying around the house that are powered by big rectangular power adapters (affectionately known as “Wall Warts”).  But they tend to look alike, and if a device gets separated from its power adapter it’s hard to know what belongs to what.  So recently I started labeling my power adapter so I know which adapter goes with which device.

In addition to making it easier to mate an adapter with its owner, labeling also makes it easier to know which adapter plugged into a power strip to unplug.  When a power strip has 3 adapters in it, it’s usually impossible to know what device each one goes with if they aren’t labeled.

I use my electronic label maker to print labels.  (You do have a label maker, don’t you?  No?  Get one!) I usually include the manufacturer and name of a device on the label.  “Cell phone” or “Camera” isn’t descriptive enough, as surely someday you’ll wonder what cell phone or camera it was for.

Bonus Tips…

Once Separated, Now Reconciled

If you have separated a device from its power adapter, fret not… there are a few things you can do to match them back up again.  Or to find a suitable adapter that will work instead.

There are 4 things that need to match for a power adapter to work with an electronic gadget.  They are voltage, current, polarity, and connector. 

Most power supplies and devices will have information that looks something like the image above.  If both the adapter and device have all of this information, you’re in luck… you have enough information to know if it will work.

The above power adapter outputs 12 volts, can supply 500 milliamps of current, and has a positive tip (polarity).  To work with a device, the voltage and polarity of the adapter and device must match exactly.  If an adapter supplies too little voltage a device won’t work at all, or will behave erratically.  If the voltage is too high you’ll fry something.  Both the number and type of voltage must match (AC or DC). 

Tip: If a power adapter outputs AC voltage, there is no polarity so you won’t see the above symbol.  Just make sure the device requires AC voltage and that the numbers match up.

While AC adapters don’t have polarity, DC adapters do.  And you absolutely have to have the same polarity, or you’ll fry a device.  So look and make sure the location of the (-) and (+) are the same for the adapter and device.  Positive tips are more common than negative tips, but double check that polarity matches.

While voltage and polarity MUST match, the current rating is a little more forgiving.  If a device requires 300 milliamps (mA) of current, any power adapter that supplies a minimum of 300mA will work as long as the voltage and polarity match.  So if you find one that supplies 500mA and the voltage and polarity are correct, the adapter is a good candidate.

Once you find a power adapter that has the correct voltage, polarity, and can supply sufficient current, it’s time to check to see if the connector fits.  Try to plug it in.  If it fits, the adapter should work. 

Don’t Throw Them Out!

I actually keep the power adapters when I have to dispose of a broken device; they quite often come in handy later on for something else.  Just yesterday I purchased a new radio scanner that didn’t come with any power adapter at all.  Fortunately, I had one from a cordless phone that died a few years ago that matched perfectly.  I saved $25 by not having to buy a new one.

A leaked image of the Apple tablet device, being announced tomorrow…

You saw it here first.

One of the down sides of having lots of electronic gadgets around is trying to keep up with making sure that there are good batteries in them when they are needed.  If I were to use exclusively conventional alkaline batteries I’d go broke keeping up.  So I like to use rechargeable batteries anywhere it makes sense.

There are usually two problems with rechargeable batteries, though.  First, most do not hold a charge very long, so they’ll likely be dead or dying if they have been left in a drawer for a long time before attempting to use them.  Because of this they don’t work well in devices that use very little power, like remote controls, as the batteries naturally drain themselves long before alkalines would in the same device.  Second, the predominant chemistries used for rechargeables, at 1.2 volts instead of 1.5 V, produce less power than alkalines, so many high drain devices don’t even work with conventional rechargeables.

For devices that work well with rechargeable batteries (like digital cameras) I have been using Energizer 2000-2500 mAh NiMH (Nickel Metal Hydride) batteries up until recently.  They are fairly inexpensive for rechargeables, and rapid chargers are available to provide a usable charge on a battery in as little as 15 minutes.  But I have been having problems with those batteries wearing out quickly to the point where they will no longer charge at all, so I started to switch to Duracell, but I have been having really bad problems with those not holding a charge longer than a few days, so I have given those up.  I have been anxious to find something that worked better.

A few weeks ago I heard of a newer technology called NiZn (Nickel Zinc) that provides higher voltage and better shelf life than the more common NiCd and NiMH technologies.  NiZn batteries output 1.6 Volts instead of the more conventional 1.2 Volts provided by other rechargeable batteries.  This makes them usable in a lot of devices where others just won’t work.  I have some 2-way radios, for example, that absolutely refuse to even power on with regular rechargeables, but they work fine with NiZn batteries.  (Sparing a long technical article on why, 1.6V batteries are capable of delivering 78% more power than 1.2V batteries, and this can make a huge difference in a wide variety of devices.)  NiZn batteries also don’t drain themselves as quickly as other types, so if I don’t use them much I can go significantly longer between charges.  And for those looking for eco-friendly products, NiZn can be disposed of safely without harming the environment unlike the others.

So far I am really liking these batteries.  My camera flashes go through batteries faster than anything else I own, and these batteries are working really well there.  Conventional alkalines take around 30 seconds to fully charge my flash, NiMH models do it in about 15 seconds, and the NiZn are capable of going from fully dead to fully charged in about 10 seconds.  I don’t get quite as many shots on the NiZn as I did on the high capacity Energizer NiMH I had been using, but the difference is minimal so I’m happy to make that sacrifice.

I got mine from Amazon [with regular or fast charger], but they’re probably available elsewhere as well.  I still wouldn’t use them for remote controls (rechargeable alkalines are fine for that, but they are difficult to find) or other low drain devices, but they work wonderfully in devices that would otherwise go through batteries quickly.  I’m pretty happy so far.

Just a relatively quick comparison between my Zune HD and the iPod Touch (2nd gen).  More information to follow sometime later.

• The OLED screen on the Zune HD is amazing. It is quite bright, and very vibrant. When I held my ZHD up to my Touch, the display on the Touch looked, well, pathetic. It hadn't ever been so obvious how much backlight seeps through until I compared it to a device without a backlight. And as a result of the backlight, colors on the iPod look very washed out and poorly rendered when compared to to the Zune. One quick photo to compare below… The original is on the left, Zune HD’s rendering in the middle, and iPod Touch on the right.
  
  
  
  I played with the camera settings to get a better image from the Touch, and I couldn’t do it.  Its display just isn’t very good.  I’ll be posting more pictures later.
  
• Brightness on the OLED is NOT a problem. At equivalent brightness levels (the Zune only has Low, Mid, and High to choose from) the Zune's display is at least as bright as the iPod's. The real plus side for the Zune is that picture quality doesn’t deteriorate at lower brightness levels like it does on LCD.  So you can comfortably use the Low setting and it doesn’t detract from the experience.
  
  In direct sunlight the Zune is a bit harder to see.  But the difference wasn’t huge, and who attempts to use their device with sunlight falling right on it?
  
• I have been trying for several days to take a picture that shows a decent comparison shot. But none come out quite right. The white balance of the two displays is quite different (ZHD tracks in at D6500, while the iPod Touch is closer to D5000), so either the iPod's display looks yellow, or the Zune's display looks blue when they are in the same shot. And for some reason the Zune's display shows up a little bit blurry in pictures, which I can't explain. When you see the display IRL it is extremely crisp and sharp.
  
• The Apps on the Zune don't even begin to compare to those on the iPod Touch. iPod wins hands down here.  Microsoft promises more apps later, and they will be free, but they’ll never catch up to where the iPod Touch/iPhone App Store is.
  
• The browser on the Zune is better than expected. It is a hair sluggish while a page is loading, but once the page is loading the Zune zooms and pans a lot faster than the iPod. Page rendering is fine, but it seems like a substantial number of web sites are serving up their mobile version to the Zune where they serve the full version to the iPod, so direct comparisons aren't really possible. On sites that serve the full version, though, the Zune page rendering seems fine. One obvious lacking on the Zune is that only one page can be open at a time. It doesn't attempt to mimic the multi-page capability of the Touch.
  
• The user interface on the Zune is much snappier and responsive than that of the iPod Touch. Where the iPod is rendering page transitions at roughly 10 frames per second, the Zune is easily doing 30 fps or more. Scrolling on the Zune is also at least 30 fps, where the iPod is less. The iPod Touch never really felt at all sluggish to me until I compared it to the Zune's interface.
  
• The experience of listening to music on the Zune is WAY better than the iPod Touch. Between having a more logical and flexible layout of the menu structure for finding music, and the additional features that MS has added to link between artists and provide information (and photos) about the artists in your collection, the Zune provides a much more pleasing experience. And these features are available without the Zune Pass subscription. If you add the Zune Pass subscription, the Zune leaps further ahead because you can not only download but stream any of the music in the Zune catalog in real time. So any track is available at any time so long as you have access to WiFi. And the Zune's Channels feature is a lot cooler than I had eve anticipated. It not only makes music suggestions, but it actually downloads the recommended songs directly to the device automatically so they can play anywhere even without WiFi. Apple ought to be taking notes here.
  
  I’ll be doing a full video or blog post about this.  The Zune HD changes the way you experience music.
  
• Video playback on the Zune is better primarily because of the better screen. It also does a better job of organizing your video collection, because you can manually tag video files as being movies, TV shows, music videos, or other. iTunes doesn't let you do that on your own; the only things tagged this way are the ones you download from the iTunes store. Letting the user catalog their own collection makes it much easier to find your way around.
  
• The Zune's battery capacity is technically lower than that of the iPod, but it seems to be better at managing it. After two hours of watching video my iPod Touch is dead (my unit could be an anomaly, but it doesn't seem to be). I watched more than 4 hours of video on the Zune HD and the battery meter hadn't fallen past half yet.
  
• The HD radio is cool, but I have a hard time picking up the HD feeds in my basement. Then again, I can't pick up stereo in my basement on any radio either. When I take the device upstairs or outside, the HD kicks in, and it is definitely clearer than the analog transmission. The primary benefit here is that all static goes away and you get a clean signal, and higher frequencies are much better reproduced in the digital feed.
  
• One feature on the Zune I find particularly useful is the WiFi syncing. It is very convenient to be able to click three buttons and have the device connect and download updated podcasts, music, and video from anywhere in the house.
  
• Another thing I noticed is that the Zune software automatically picks up on changes in files in the music and video folders, and reflects them in the software automatically and virtually instantly. So as I was moving files in and out of my music folders the tracks would instantly appear and/or disappear. It has always bugged me that iTunes doesn't automatically pick up on music or videos that I add to my folders.
  
• As demonstrated in my last blog post, the iPod Touch seems to have some issues with sound quality.  The Zune did much better in testing.
  
• The Zune desktop software is also significantly snapper than iTunes on Windows. And I think I like the design and interface better. With its polished interface, it is certainly snazzier and more refined. iTunes looks relatively dated at this point.

Complaints

My biggest complaint is mostly with touch-based devices in general, and isn’t specific to the Zune HD.  And honestly it is something that I’m surprised we don’t see talked about.  It’s the lack of physical buttons for navigating through music tracks.

Recently we have had the dangers of text messaging while driving crammed down our throats, and it surprises me that some of this hasn’t spilled over into other areas.  Attempting to operate a touch-screen music player while driving is just as dangerous.  In order to control the device you have to take your eyes off of the road for significant amounts of time.  And many operations on both the Zune HD and the iPod Touch require two hands to perform effectively.  Just adding two buttons for changing tracks would be huge in attempting to fix this problem.  But the current trend is to move away from buttons, and I believe this is a mistake.  I’m not asking for a device with 47 buttons for every possible function, but there really ought to be dedicated buttons for the most basic functions of the device.

I took my Zune HD with me the day I got it when I went out running a few errands.  I found that it was extremely inconvenient and potentially dangerous to do even the most basic of tasks.  This isn’t limited to the Zune, either; it is a problem with every touch-screen based music player, whether it be the Zune, iPod Touch, or iPhone.  It’s enough of a problem that I must publicly shun anybody that operates one of these devices while behind the wheel.  It’s dangerous, and it shouldn’t be done.  Apple and Microsoft both really need to rethink their designs a bit to make these devices a little more friendly to situations where full attention can’t be given to their operation.

As a result of this, I will continue using my previous Zunes in my truck.  The Zune HD will probably become my primary travelling device, but not the PMP that gets used the most.

Wrap-up

So to summarize, when comparing the Zune and iPod Touch, people looking for a device primarily for music and video, the Zune will provide a much richer and more interactive experience. For people looking to take advantage of the App Store, the iPod Touch can't be touched (hardy, har, har). So if you’re buying to listen to music, I recommend the Zune. If you’re buying for the App Store, the Touch is the only way to go.  For web browsing, the iPod has a bit of an edge, but it isn't much.  Both will provide a similar experience there.

If someone already has a significant amount of DRM protected content from the iTunes store that they want to keep, there is probably no reason to consider the Zune (though they need to get out from under the thumb of the music industry). But if someone doesn't care much about the App Store and their main focus is music and video, the Zune HD provides a significantly better experience for both. Since the Zune can play all of the file formats supported by the iPods (plus more), switching from the iPod to Zune isn't too painful, and it’s a switch that I bet a lot of people would be thankful to have made later on.