Apple and Beats introduce 'Pills' characters to Siri in first official ad

123457

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 147
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,675member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    [^ post

    1. Damn! I should've wiki'd it. Next time I'll do that...or simply await your search findings as they are always better than mine.

    2. How come I can almost shed a tear when reminiscing that January 9th, 2007 day? It's either Steve's passing or the iPhone. I remember the day we had a garage sale at the office, selling all our old Macs to the employees. There was one developer who bid, and own, his old desktop. When showing it was still in working order he almost had to shed a tear as well after seeing his old desktop. Such a thing is so understandable; seeing your desktop years later that you've been accustomed to for many years before.

    3. Thanks for that Verge article, great find!
  • Reply 122 of 147
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,675member
    philboogie wrote: »
    C5 are good? They look great; I will be trying these out tomorrow!

    Lemme know what you think. I'd be interested in knowing your opinion.

    My preferred audio store didn't have them. Since it's a small shop they're being reluctant to order them without knowing if I'm going to buy them. I told them I understand their point, recession and all, and would look around some more.
    mr o wrote: »
    That is because Apple hasn't really designed proper headphones.

    However, they do have the resources, engineers and design team in place to do so. Somehow it is not their priority.

    Huh? They've spend 3 years designing the Ear Pods:

    Video link fixed by TS in below post; tnx
  • Reply 123 of 147
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post



    C5 are good? They look great; I will be trying these out tomorrow!




    Lemme know what you think. I'd be interested in knowing your opinion.




    My preferred audio store didn't have them. Since it's a small shop they're being reluctant to order them without knowing if I'm going to buy them. I told them I understand their point, recession and all, and would look around some more.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mr O View Post



    That is because Apple hasn't really designed proper headphones.



    However, they do have the resources, engineers and design team in place to do so. Somehow it is not their priority.




    Huh? They've spend 3 years designing the Ear Pods:



    Fruck, why doesn't that 'at current time' thingy work? Perhaps this will?




     

    Regardless of how long they spent designing them, they sound terrible. The $10 JVC Gumy with mic headphones I use for my car sound better. Apple has strengths and weaknesses. We can just be grateful they are trying to strengthen a weakness and did it with the stylish company that produced good enough sound quality while hitting the price points and profit margin percentages that Apple requires.

  • Reply 124 of 147
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,675member
    trumptman wrote: »
    Regardless of how long they spent designing them, they sound terrible. The $10 JVC Gumy with mic headphones I use for my car sound better. Apple has strengths and weaknesses. We can just be grateful they are trying to strengthen a weakness and did it with the stylish company that produced good enough sound quality while hitting the price points and profit margin percentages that Apple requires.

    I don't even know how they sound as they fall out of my ear! Never actually plugged it into my iPhone.

    But yes, let them explore all facets of their products. Keep on innovating, and don't try new endeavours where they don't have any knowledge of, like Google does.
  • Reply 125 of 147
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

    Fruck, why doesn't that 'at current time' thingy work? Perhaps this will?

     

    Your link doesn’t have it. You (Tube) must have messed something up. 

     

    Here we go.

    image

  • Reply 126 of 147
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Your link doesn’t have it. You (Tube) must have messed something up. 

    Here we go.
    [embeded video]

    Note you're using HTML:
    <iframe width="640" height="385" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/h7Qtp6Iv7a0?start=5526" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
    

    …and I assume [@]PhilBoogie[/@] was using the forum's video tag markup, which is what I've always tried to use with the below format for time which doesn't use clumped seconds but hours, minutes and seconds.

    Is there an easy way to make that code or do I need to save the basic HTML as a TextExpander shortcut?


    edit: Both time formats can be used in either URL types.
  • Reply 127 of 147
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

    …and I assume @PhilBoogie was using the forum's video tag markup, which is what I've always tried to use with the below format for time which doesn't use clumped seconds but hours, minutes and seconds.



     

    That’s exactly what I did. It must rewrite the link itself. I copied and pasted the above in the field that pops up when you hit the video button and it worked for me.

  • Reply 128 of 147
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,675member
    Ah, I see. Actually not. I simply hit pause, right-click on the video window and select the 2nd option: "Get video URL at current time" It gives me a little box with the URL in it; I Cmd-C and paste the link in the [ VIDEO ] tag



    I'm using the BB code editor. But it might be due to the overwhelming amount of ad blockers and Out-Google-Out stuff I have installed. Also, no Flash on my machine.
  • Reply 129 of 147
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    That’s exactly what I did. It must rewrite the link itself. I copied and pasted the above in the field that pops up when you hit the video button and it worked for me.

    These are my results…



    Embedded, seconds only :: www.youtube.com/embed/h7Qtp6Iv7a0?start=5526

    [VIDEO]www.youtube.com/embed/h7Qtp6Iv7a0?start=5526[/VIDEO]



    Embedded, readable time :: www.youtube.com/embed/h7Qtp6Iv7a0?start=1h31m39s

    [VIDEO]www.youtube.com/embed/h7Qtp6Iv7a0?start=1h31m39s[/VIDEO]



    Not embedded, seconds only :: www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7Qtp6Iv7a0&t=5525

    [VIDEO]www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7Qtp6Iv7a0&t=5526[/VIDEO]



    Not embedded, readable time :: www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7Qtp6Iv7a0&t=1h31m39s

    [VIDEO]www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7Qtp6Iv7a0&t=1h31m39s[/VIDEO]


    In conclusion, you can use either time format so long as you use the youtube.com/embed/ format, not the youtube.com/watch format with the forum's markup tag for video.
  • Reply 130 of 147
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member

    1st works, 2nd starts at 0:00, 3 and 4 don’t work at all.

     

    But MINE works, despite being your 2nd.

     

    Must be Yosemite. Not sure why. Not sure how. Screw YouTube, Screw their use of Flash, and screw Google.

  • Reply 131 of 147
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    1st works, 2nd starts at 0:00, 3 and 4 don’t work at all.

    But MINE works, despite being your 2nd.

    Must be Yosemite. Not sure why. Not sure how. Screw YouTube, Screw their use of Flash, and screw Google.

    The 2nd video doesn't show the video's red progress bar being moved to the correct location but like in the 1st one but when I hit play it starts near where it should, at 1h:31m:20s, which is odd.

    At least we now you need the embed format and should use the seconds only time format for best results.

    This has been informative.
  • Reply 132 of 147
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,675member
    1st works, 2nd starts at 0:00, 3 and 4 don’t work at all.

    Same here at my end, 10.9, Safari Version 7.0.5 (9537.77.4) as well.
    But MINE works, despite being your 2nd.

    Same here
    Screw YouTube, Screw their use of Flash, and screw Google.

    ????
    solipsismx wrote: »
    The 2nd video doesn't show the video's red progress bar being moved to the correct location but like in the 1st one but when I hit play it starts near where it should, at 1h:31m:20s, which is odd.

    Very odd; mine starts at the beginning. And 1*60*60 + 31*60 + 20 = 5480, not 5530, which was my 'copy at current time'.
    At least we now you need the embed format and should use the seconds only time format for best results.

    This has been informative.

    Very!
  • Reply 133 of 147
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    philboogie wrote: »
    I don't even know how they sound as they fall out of my ear! Never actually plugged it into my iPhone.

    But yes, let them explore all facets of their products. Keep on innovating, and don't try new endeavours where they don't have any knowledge of, like Google does.

    I never really like the Apple earphones either, kind of cheap sounding. However there is a way to improve not only the sound but keep them in your ear.

    Griffin make these, worth buying for those who don't want to invest in a decent pair of ear buds or earphones.

    31HDeI5UAaL._SY300_.jpg

    There is also a company called EarSound that do custom earbud attachments, I had a pair made for my Shure monitors, great investment.
  • Reply 134 of 147
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Relic View Post



    There is also a company called EarSound that do custom earbud attachments, I had a pair made for my Shure monitors, great investment.

     

    I've been thinking about getting earmolds and Shure in-ear monitors, but I want to retain the Apple inline remote-with-mic. I haven't checked if that's possible or how much it would cost because I don't even know where to begin looking. I tried searching for the company you mention but came up empty. Do you have a link?

     

    Thanks!

  • Reply 135 of 147
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    [QUOTE name="Lorin Schultz" url="/t/181666/apple-and-beats-introduce-pills-characters-to-siri-in-first-official-ad/120#post_2576288"]
     

    I've been thinking about getting earmolds and Shure in-ear monitors, but I want to retain the Apple inline remote-with-mic. I haven't checked if that's possible or how much it would cost because I don't even know where to begin looking. I tried searching for the company you mention but came up empty. Do you have a link?

    Thanks!
    [/QUOTE]
    Oh gosh, I forgot the [URL=http://www.earsound.com/]link[/URL], I always provide a link, ddduuuhhh, Agent 99; "sorry about that chief". I specifically use my Shure E535's for music creation so I don't want to carry them around to often in fear that I might loose or break them, especially when they cost 600 bucks with the custom ear fitting . I use a less expensive but still very impressive sounding Bowers & Wilkins C5's for walking around, which has a remote and microphone that not only works very well with the iPhone but is just as good as Apples offering, here is a great [URL=http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/reviews/entry/bowers-wilkins-c5-in-ear-headphones/]review[/URL] of them.
  • Reply 136 of 147
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Relic View Post

     

    Oh gosh, I forgot the link,


     

    I guess I should have been able to figure out that one on my own... duh. Surprised that stupid Google didn't seem to know anything about that site. Weird.

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Relic View Post

     

    I specifically use my Shure E535's for music creation so I don't want to carry them around to often in fear that I might loose or break them, especially when they cost 600 bucks with the custom ear fitting 


     

    I want something "monitor quality" that I can really trust to be as close to accurate as an in-ear speaker is gonna get for when I'm doing serious work that can double as my everyday iPhone cans. I'm having trouble deciding what to do, though. I have a hard time believing that a set of earbuds -- ANY earbuds -- are worth $500-1000. There's obviously a point of diminishing returns, where improvements in quality are equivalent to the increase in price up to a point, after which one starts paying way more for tiny improvements. The "audio professional" in me says I owe it to my craft to use the best tools available, but the pragmatist in me wonders if the expensive Shures et al will really sound THAT much better than a $200 pair of Etymotics? Especially when the Shure starts getting into nonsense like three-way drivers. In an EARBUD? C'mon...

     



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Relic View Post

     

    I use a less expensive but still very impressive sounding Bowers & Wilkins C5's for walking around, which has a remote and microphone that not only works very well the iPhone but is just as good as Apples offering, here is a great review of them.


     

    I know the C5 and really like them, but I haven't found a place that makes custom ear molds for them (though I suppose any of the places that do the Shure and Ety could probably do the B&W).

     

    Speaking of that, I'm not crazy about the custom-fits Sensaphonics makes for Shure. They're kinda like a silicone "pocket" into which you insert half the earbud housing. Seems inelegant. I like the kind that "plug" onto the end of the housing. Unfortunately the Earsound site doesn't show a very good picture of how theirs attach so it's hard to compare.

  • Reply 137 of 147
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    I guess I should have been able to figure out that one on my own... duh. Surprised that stupid Google didn't seem to know anything about that site. Weird.


    I want something "monitor quality" that I can really trust to be as close to accurate as an in-ear speaker is gonna get for when I'm doing serious work that can double as my everyday iPhone cans. I'm having trouble deciding what to do, though. I have a hard time believing that a set of earbuds -- ANY earbuds -- are worth $500-1000. There's obviously a point of diminishing returns, where improvements in quality are equivalent to the increase in price up to a point, after which one starts paying way more for tiny improvements. The "audio professional" in me says I owe it to my craft to use the best tools available, but the pragmatist in me wonders if the expensive Shures et al will really sound THAT much better than a $200 pair of Etymotics? Especially when the Shure starts getting into nonsense like three-way drivers. In an EARBUD? C'mon...
     



    I know the C5 and really like them, but I haven't found a place that makes custom ear molds for them (though I suppose any of the places that do the Shure and Ety could probably do the B&W).

    Speaking of that, I'm not crazy about the custom-fits Sensaphonics makes for Shure. They're kinda like a silicone "pocket" into which you insert half the earbud housing. Seems inelegant. I like the kind that "plug" onto the end of the housing. Unfortunately the Earsound site doesn't show a very good picture of how theirs attach so it's hard to compare.

    I'm sure any service that makes these custom ear fittings would be more then happy to accommodate the C5's. You will probably have to send them in along with the mold of your ears (which I recommend your doctor do) so they can use the right drummel bit to make them fit on top of the C5's. They have a larger then average output canal.

    sm.View_6.600.JPG

    If your feeling handy you could always make your own.

    I play the Violin semiprofessional so I need a decent in ear monitor not only for when I'm in my little studio recording but also live performances. I could probably get a way with using a less expensive system but I make a decent living and it's something that's important to me, plus the Shure's sound is unmatched for strings and vocals.
  • Reply 138 of 147
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,675member
    philboogie wrote: »
    C5 are good? They look great; I will be trying these out tomorrow!

    Lemme know what you think. I'd be interested in knowing your opinion.

    Listened to them; they’re great. I can’t put the ‘listening experience’ into words without making it read like ‘fluffy’ or ‘over the top’, but the sound is great, rich, you can feel the bass et cetera. But the fitting isn’t for my ears; it uses the cable itself which you can loop into your ear, but it’s not a proper fit for my, rather large, ears. Very good review here though, and rightfully so: they sound very good:
    http://theproaudiowebblog.com/bowers-wilkins-c5-review.html

    1000


    That was, of course, after having used the Apple in-ear earphones for the past couple of years. On my 3rd pair now, but the remote doesn’t work anymore, so I want new ones, but different brand. These B&W are great, but I didn’t want to limit to just one pair and was asked if I had listened to the H3 from B&O. I haven’t, so I popped into a dealer (fortunately the city is filled with them).

    I didn’t like the H3, too ‘flat’, not enough bass, drums. Some review agrees with me, but I have no idea if these reviews are any ‘good’. Apostrophised, as I think one needs to listen to headphones themselves and not take someone else’s word for it. Though it does help to see if your opinion is shared by others.
    http://theproaudiowebblog.com/bang-olufsen-beoplay-h3-review.html

    1000



    I’m also curious to the “Bose QuietComfort 20i Acoustic Noise Cancelling® Headphones” probably because of its price tag $329

    So I'll pop into the just opened Apple Store, right here in my hometown, to try those out. I presume one is allowed to do that in an Apple Store.
  • Reply 139 of 147
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post



    I’m also curious to the “Bose QuietComfort 20i Acoustic Noise Cancelling® Headphones” probably because of its price tag $329

     

    I avoid noise-cancelling cans on principle. I'm really sensitive to the sound of phasing/comb filtering, and the acoustics of the noise-cancellation have to be tuned VERY finely to avoid affecting the "wanted" sound. People whose hearing I trust have told me they have found noise-cancelling cans that work just fine, but I don't trust 'em. Might be irrational bias, might be a working program. I'd suggest making sure you can try them in a noisy environment before committing to something you can't return.

     

    I also avoid Bose products on principle. Saying so is likely to ignite the same kind of holy war you'll get over Mac-vs.-PC, but the marketing bullshit Bose pulls pisses me off. It leaves those with untrained ears thinking that boom-sizzle is what speakers are supposed to sound like. I also make my living doing sound, and being seen in possession of a Bose product would result in my being ostracized by the pro audio community!

     

    I haven't listened to the Bose or any other recent noise-cancelling phones, so take my comments with the appropriate grain of salt. YMMV.

     

    The alternative to noise cancelling is good isolation. Think Shure and Etymotic for brands that are well respected in that regard. Both even provide the option of getting custom ear molds for perfect fit and excellent isolation.

     

  • Reply 140 of 147
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,675member
    ^ post


    I knew I was talking to the right person!. Thanks for the quick reply.

    Hadn't considered the implications of noise-cancellation. That's a Top Tip; I'll be sure to first check out isolating phones first, this was my preference before I had heard of noise-cancellation anyway.

    Had no idea on 'Bose branding' and user opinions. Of course my MMV, but you not only seem to make a good point, you're also easy to take your word for with posts like this one since you're an engineer.

    So, Shure. These are now on my TTD list.
Sign In or Register to comment.