 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Verizon / September 2008Best Bluetooth Headset Now
The Jabra BT500 used to be the best bluetooth headset although it is ugly. It has been replaced by the 2020 and the 5020. I am not sure of the real differences other that what you can see and am not sure which fits better or if it is a tossup. However the reviews now say that the Jawbone 2 and the Blue Ant are tops and there is not other brand that begins with a C like Cardo or something like that. I would like to hear other opinions of your favorite and what you like and do not like and why. > The Jabra BT500 used to be the best bluetooth headset although it is ugly. > It has been replaced by the 2020 and the 5020. I am not sure of the real [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I would like to hear other opinions of your favorite and what you like and > do not like and why. I recently bought the original jawbone and in terms of reception and voice quality it is the best headset I've ever used. It is also the most comfortable, but headset fit varies from person to person, so I'm just lucky in that regard. My only criticism is it's not easy to adjust the volume. The button is hard to push and the volume only goes one way - in other words it gets louder until it reaches max volume then it drops to the lowest volume and starts up again. This is weird and impractical. Still I would buy it again without hesitation. >> The Jabra BT500 used to be the best bluetooth headset although it is ugly. >> It has been replaced by the 2020 and the 5020. I am not sure of the real [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > volume and starts up again. This is weird and impractical. Still I would > buy it again without hesitation. Both Jaw I and II are great. But they are difficult to fit right and there sometimes is (in my opinion) a bit of difficulty hearing the other person because it just isn't fit into your ear. To make then perfect, there is an answer. Averysound makes custom earpieces. They send you some gunk you stuff into your ear, which takes an impression of your ear - send it back and they send you back an earpiece custom molded to your ear. It fits so well, I completely did away with my earloop. It also fits so well that I now have to run my Jaw II at it's lowest volume setting. Before almost always I ran it at it's highest and still sometimes couldn't hear. My Jar II is now by far the best (with a little help from Averysound. And, no, I don't work for them - but I do highly recommend them. <snip> >Both Jaw I and II are great. But they are difficult to fit right and there >sometimes is (in my opinion) a bit of difficulty hearing the other person [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >And, no, I don't work for them - but I do highly recommend them. I agree 100%. I too had a real problem with JB-I's fit and sound quality. So, at the advise of a colleague, I went and ordered the Averysound kit. The "gunk" wasn't too difficult to set and after about a one week wait following sending my impression to their lab, I received the earpiece. The earpiece is designed to NOT use the over the ear loop (which I find painful and awkward). The fit is so comfortable, it's nearly unnoticeable. And, as you mentioned, the sound quality is *much* better and I too had to reduce the volume by about half. I *highly* recommend the Averysound earpiece for anyone who owns a JB-1 or JB-2. The difference is night and day. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > JB-1 or JB-2. The difference is night and day. > How about a URL for Averysound? >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > How about a URL for Averysound? Just out of curiosity, did you try www.averysound.com ? Works like a champ. and here's a url for the specific ear thing (a subsidiary makes them for pilots, this is the specific ones for cell phones) http://www.averysound.com/as.cell_phone_earpiece.html >>Both Jaw I and II are great. But they are difficult to fit right and there >>sometimes is (in my opinion) a bit of difficulty hearing the other person [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > I *highly* recommend the Averysound earpiece for anyone who owns a > JB-1 or JB-2. The difference is night and day. This is a great option. I wear eyeglasses and it would be much better if I didn't have to use the ear-loop on my jawbone. Unfortunately the custom earpiece cost's more then I paid for the headset. > The Jabra BT500 used to be the best bluetooth headset although it is > ugly. It has been replaced by the 2020 and the 5020. I am not sure of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I would like to hear other opinions of your favorite and what you like > and do not like and why. I have and prefer the Motorola H710. >The Jabra BT500 used to be the best bluetooth headset although it is >ugly. It has been replaced by the 2020 and the 5020. I am not sure of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I would like to hear other opinions of your favorite and what you like >and do not like and why. The Jawbone 2 is unquestionably the best. The noise cancellation is everything the ad on the web site claims. Problem is, they don't appear to make a version for men. A_C > >> The Jabra BT500 used to be the best bluetooth headset although it is [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > A_C > I heard it is somewhat difficult to get it on and off. Are you saying that the design is not becoming on men and really looks feminine? > > The Jawbone 2 is unquestionably the best. The noise cancellation is > > everything the ad on the web site claims. Problem is, they don't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I heard it is somewhat difficult to get it on and off. Difficult to get it off? Then it's definitely not for men. >Are you saying that the design is not becoming on men and really looks >feminine? Absolutely; it looks like a piece of woman's jewelry. A_C ---- Click here for the latest on Clean Coal: http://tinyurl.com/5zmp8x >>Are you saying that the design is not becoming on men and really looks >>feminine? > >Absolutely; it looks like a piece of woman's jewelry. > >A_C wow....I'm not sure how came to THAT conclusion but hey, to each their own. >>Are you saying that the design is not becoming on men and really >>looks feminine? > > Absolutely; it looks like a piece of woman's jewelry. A bluetooth headset is more properly called a "Look Like A Dork" device. Since you're going to look like a dork no matter what bluetooth headset you chose what difference does it make if you look like a male or female dork? The level of dorkiness is unchanged.  SignatureXS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org >>>Are you saying that the design is not becoming on men and really >>>looks feminine? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > bluetooth headset you chose what difference does it make if you look > like a male or female dork? The level of dorkiness is unchanged. Well, the "dorkiness" of wearing BT headsets is a matter of perception, and this is changing in California where hands-free use while driving is the law. I often take mine off when I get out of the car to give my ear a rest, but I don't feel self-conscious wearing it when I go into stores, etc. since many other people have them on too. > Well, the "dorkiness" of wearing BT headsets is a matter of perception Take your kids downtown one afternoon and play the game, "Bluetooth or crazy?" > I often take mine off when I get out of the car to give my ear a rest, > but I don't feel self-conscious wearing it when I go into stores, etc. since > many other people have them on too. Translated: "Everyone else looks like a dork, so my NOT looking like a dork is actually dorky looking." One day we'll look back at this the same way we look back and clothing and hairstyles of the early 70s. >> A bluetooth headset is more properly called a "Look Like A Dork" >> device. Since you're going to look like a dork no matter what [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > perception, and this is changing in California where hands-free > use while driving is the law. A really silly useless law since it's been proved that a hands-free phone is no less distracting than a hand held phone, how typical of politicians to make the public feel they're doing something by passing a meaningless, ineffective law. Just hang up and drive, the life you save may be mine! > I often take mine off when I get out of the car to give my ear a > rest, but I don't feel self-conscious wearing it when I go into > stores, etc. since many other people have them on too. I don't feel self conscious either, not because others are wearing them but because I'm not wearing mine, it's too uncomfortable to wear more than a couple of minutes... SignatureXS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org >I don't feel self conscious either, not because others are wearing >them but because I'm not wearing mine, it's too uncomfortable to >wear more than a couple of minutes... then you need to get a more comfortable fitting earpiece. If you can't stand it for more than a couple of minutes, you're either not wearing it properly or it doesn't fit you. That's why I like the custom fit Avery. It's *literally* made specifically for the owners ear canal. I *do* think that BT headsets don't come anywhere near as dorky as fanny packs. Fanny packs are the crown jewel of dorkdom. > Fanny packs are the crown jewel of dorkdom. yeah, just like those evil pockets. >>I don't feel self conscious either, not because others are wearing >>them but because I'm not wearing mine, it's too uncomfortable to >>wear more than a couple of minutes... > > then you need to get a more comfortable fitting earpiece. I really have no need to wear it so I just leave in in the car where it's there if needed. > I *do* think that BT headsets don't come anywhere near as dorky as > fanny packs. > > Fanny packs are the crown jewel of dorkdom. BT Headsets are almost 7,500 times dorkier than fanny packs. A fanny pack is a useful thing, a BT just says, "Hey, look at me, I'm a DORK!" SignatureXS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org >>>I don't feel self conscious either, not because others are wearing >>>them but because I'm not wearing mine, it's too uncomfortable to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >BT Headsets are almost 7,500 times dorkier than fanny packs. A fanny >pack is a useful thing, a BT just says, "Hey, look at me, I'm a DORK!" your opinion. I personally think that BT headsets are significantly better than smashing a cell phone up to my ear every time it rings. Fanny packs OTOH, are just plain dorky >>BT Headsets are almost 7,500 times dorkier than fanny packs. A >>fanny pack is a useful thing, a BT just says, "Hey, look at me, >>I'm a DORK!" > > your opinion. and everyone else I've talked to about it. SignatureXS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org >>>BT Headsets are almost 7,500 times dorkier than fanny packs. A >>>fanny pack is a useful thing, a BT just says, "Hey, look at me, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >and everyone else I've talked to about it. I find it a functional piece of electronics that neither glamorous nor ugly...merely functional. I don't get all worked up about it either way. > I find it a functional piece of electronics that neither glamorous nor > ugly...merely functional. I'm sure you've skipped many a functional piece of electronics that was butt-ugly. This is no exception. Whatever you do, it's butt-ugly. Only people with long hair that hides the earpiece, can get away with it. Oh--but then they get categorized "crazy" when they talk into thin air. >> I find it a functional piece of electronics that neither >> glamorous nor ugly...merely functional. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Oh--but then they get categorized "crazy" when they talk into thin > air. The BT headset goes from functional to annoying when you're talking to someone and, in the middle of the conversation, he/she starts talking to the person on the phone or, worse, tries to continue both conversations. I've seen it happen most often with store clerks trying to help a customer... SignatureXS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org > The BT headset goes from functional to annoying when you're talking to > someone and, in the middle of the conversation, he/she starts talking > to the person on the phone or, worse, tries to continue both > conversations. I've seen it happen most often with store clerks trying > to help a customer... I was in a tire place one time, right in the middle of getting information and working a deal, and the phone rang. Clerk interrupts what he's doing for me and answers it. No big deal; I figure he'll put the guy on hold, or call someone to take the call. A few seconds into the conversation he starts helping this guy on the phone, and actually clears the screen of what we were doing and focuses on the caller while completely ignoring me. Ten seconds into this I reach over and hang up the phone on him. Man, was he mad--not that I hung up the phone, but that he could get into trouble with his manager. I told him, send the manager out. Now. Sorry, but I don't cotton to that. You're helping me, so help me. Don't suddenly switch off and do something else. Retail clerks of any kind should be required to leave their phones in the back room. They shouldn't be walking the floor with their phones on their person. >> The BT headset goes from functional to annoying when you're >> talking to someone and, in the middle of the conversation, he/she [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > get into trouble with his manager. I told him, send the manager > out. Now. BTDT. In Best Buy, sales guy was talking to girl friend and couldln't wait on me. I asked him to put the phone on "hold" a couple of times, then when a couple of other customers lined up behind me I leaned over the counter and pushed the button on the phone. > Retail clerks of any kind should be required to leave their phones > in the back room. They shouldn't be walking the floor with their > phones on their person. Or answering the phone at all, I always told my people the guy standing in front of you has the money! The guy on the phone is only gathering information and he can't pay you so he's the one who goes on hold, not the guy standing there waving his cash/credit card at you..... SignatureXS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in news:elmop- 0739F2.20005801092008@news.x-privat.org: > This is no exception. Whatever you do, it's butt-ugly. Only people > with long hair that hides the earpiece, can get away with it. Do you also think the Motorola S9 is butt ugly, as you say? > "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in news:elmop- > 0739F2.20005801092008@news.x-privat.org: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Do you also think the Motorola S9 is butt ugly, as you say? Let me guess--not only do you own one, but you wear it proudly. "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in news:elmop- E70D79.05175002092008@news.x-privat.org: >> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in news:elmop- >> 0739F2.20005801092008@news.x-privat.org: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Let me guess--not only do you own one, but you wear it proudly. Best stereo headphone I ever owned. > >> Do you also think the Motorola S9 is butt ugly, as you say? > > > > Let me guess--not only do you own one, but you wear it proudly. > > Best stereo headphone I ever owned. well, that speaks volumes. > I'm sure you've skipped many a functional piece of electronics that was > butt-ugly. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Oh--but then they get categorized "crazy" when they talk into thin air. Better to be though of as crazy than dorky! ;-) >>>> BT Headsets are almost 7,500 times dorkier than fanny packs. A >>>> fanny pack is a useful thing, a BT just says, "Hey, look at me, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ugly...merely functional. I don't get all worked up about it either > way. Reminds me of kmart... "Attention K-Mart Shoppers........ flashing blue light special......... " :) >>> BT Headsets are almost 7,500 times dorkier than fanny packs. A >>> fanny pack is a useful thing, a BT just says, "Hey, look at me, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > and everyone else I've talked to about it. Try talking to people that ride/atv's/cycles/people that work outside etc, they use corded headsets, so don't have to worry about looking dorky, or charging the thing.... They tell me blue tooth wearers are dork's that escaped from kmart when they went out of biz (they used to have flashing blue light specials, like the people with the BT headsets and blue lights.... :) >>> BT Headsets are almost 7,500 times dorkier than fanny packs. A >>> fanny pack is a useful thing, a BT just says, "Hey, look at me, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > and everyone else I've talked to about it. And me too. I always think "I didn't know there was a Star Trek Convention in town". > BT Headsets are almost 7,500 times dorkier than fanny packs. A fanny > pack is a useful thing, a BT just says, "Hey, look at me, I'm a DORK!" One guy I work with calls BT headsets "Borg implants" and wonders how long the user will last until assimilation. SignatureCurtis R. Anderson, Co-creator of "Gleepy the Hen", still Email not munged, SpamAssassin [tm] in effect. http://www.gleepy.net/ mailto:gleepy@intelligencia.com mailto:gleepy@gleepy.net (and others) Yahoo!: gleepythehen >> BT Headsets are almost 7,500 times dorkier than fanny packs. A fanny >> pack is a useful thing, a BT just says, "Hey, look at me, I'm a >> DORK!" > > One guy I work with calls BT headsets "Borg implants" and wonders how > long the user will last until assimilation. Odd, guy I work with swears they show the inferior intelligence of the user, and the borg would just kill em, and not waste time assimilating them..... :) >> Well, the "dorkiness" of wearing BT headsets is a matter of >> perception, and this is changing in California where hands-free [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > passing a meaningless, ineffective law. Just hang up and drive, the > life you save may be mine! Regarding hands-free Vs hands-on cell phone use, I think there's quite a bit more research that needs to be done. It is extremely simplistic to say that there's no difference between the two modes. Talking on the phone requires a certain amount of attention regardless, but handling the gear requires additional attention. There's no doubt (in my experience) that using a headset so calls can be made and answered without touching the phone or taking my eyes off the road is safer then handling the phone. Do you ever see people driving there cars and looking at there cell phone screens at the same time? That's nuts! I know because I've tried it and the sense of distraction and danger increases exponentially. It's also important to understand that the degree of distraction varies depending on the nature of the call. I would never try to talk with someone about something upsetting, etc. while driving. Common sense and discipline can be brought to bear on the situation. The fact that many people don't use common sense is not the cell phone's fault. All IMHO of course. >>> Well, the "dorkiness" of wearing BT headsets is a matter of >>> perception, and this is changing in California where hands-free [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > brought to bear on the situation. The fact that many people don't use > common sense is not the cell phone's fault. All IMHO of course. I agree that the test data is flawed. I use a bluetooth headset with voice activation all the time. I never take my eyes off of the road and never handle my cellphone. It is either in the center console or my pocket. Handling a phone, dialing, and or looking at the screen is a distraction. > I agree that the test data is flawed. It is not. . > I use a bluetooth headset with voice activation all the time. I > never take my eyes off of the road and never handle my cellphone. Yeah, sure, I was run over in a crosswalk by someone who thought like you do. > It is either in the center console or my pocket. Handling a > phone, dialing, and or looking at the screen is a distraction. Correct, so is talking so HANG UP AND DRIVE. Proven fact: Talking on a cell phone makes you more likely to have an accident than does driving drunk. SignatureXS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org >> I agree that the test data is flawed. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Proven fact: Talking on a cell phone makes you more likely to have an > accident than does driving drunk. And what about: Talking with a passenger? Drinking a cup of coffee? Eating a burger? Applying makeup? Disciplining children? Finding a new station on the radio? All of the above require as much, if not more concentration as talking on a headset. Shall we outlaw them all? >>> It is either in the center console or my pocket. Handling a >>> phone, dialing, and or looking at the screen is a distraction. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> Proven fact: Talking on a cell phone makes you more likely to >> have an accident than does driving drunk. > And what about: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > All of the above require as much, if not more concentration as > talking on a headset. No, they do not. Your passenger can warn you of an impending problem and that, as well as the next items all require less concentration and are already illegal in most jurisdictions, they come under the heading of distracted driving or some similar statute. SignatureXS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org >>>> It is either in the center console or my pocket. Handling a >>>> phone, dialing, and or looking at the screen is a distraction. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > No, they do not. It takes less concentration to conduct an in-person conversation or drink a cup of coffee than having a phone conversation? Please elaborate. > Your passenger can warn you of an impending problem Then it is more distractig if you need your passenger to warn you. > and that, as well as the next items all require less concentration and > are already illegal in most jurisdictions, Having a conversation in the car is illegal in most jurisdictions? (Your words, not mine) Finding a new station on the radio is illegal in most jurisdictions? (Your words, not mine) >> No, they do not. > > It takes less concentration to conduct an in-person conversation > or drink a cup of coffee than having a phone conversation? Please > elaborate. Of course, think about it rather than bring up silly objections. >> Your passenger can warn you of an impending problem > > Then it is more distractig if you need your passenger to warn you. No, see above. >> and that, as well as the next items all require less >> concentration and are already illegal in most jurisdictions, > > Having a conversation in the car is illegal in most jurisdictions? > (Your words, not mine) It is if you're distracted from your driving. > Finding a new station on the radio is illegal in most > jurisdictions? (Your words, not mine) See above. If you're so illogical you believe your questions above are relevant you shouldn't be driving at all. If you're so self centered and irresponsible that you'd risk your life and those of others for a phone conversation, you shouldn't be driving at all. Hang up and DRIVE dammit! SignatureXS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org >>> No, they do not. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Of course, think about it rather than bring up silly objections. I did think about it and concluded that I wasn't the one bringing up silly objections in this thread. I've also concluded that you probably weren't the brightest bulb in your high school class. > >>> Your passenger can warn you of an impending problem >> >> Then it is more distractig if you need your passenger to warn you. > > No, see above. See what? Where? Oh- you mean your opinion? Sorry, Skippy- you'll need mre than that. > >>> and that, as well as the next items all require less [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It is if you're distracted from your driving. Try again- something is either legal or illegal. > >> Finding a new station on the radio is illegal in most [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If you're so illogical you believe your questions above are relevant > you shouldn't be driving at all. See above- I'm not the illogical one here. > If you're so self centered and irresponsible that you'd risk your life > and those of others for a phone conversation, you shouldn't be driving > at all. Where did I say that, Mr. Wizard? Only a fool puts words in the mouths of others. > Hang up and DRIVE dammit! Don't worry- you'll learn how in a couple of more years. > >> I agree that the test data is flawed. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > you do. > You do not know what I do and your remarks are really stupid. > >> It is either in the center console or my pocket. Handling a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > accident than does driving drunk. > Then maybe you should drive drunk. Do that in Red China. > Proven fact: Talking on a cell phone makes you more likely to have an > accident than does driving drunk. Proven hysteria. I say we ban passengers in cars, because clearly talking to anyone while driving means you're not putting 100% of your attention to driving. > >>Are you saying that the design is not becoming on men and really > >>looks feminine? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > A bluetooth headset is more properly called a "Look Like A Dork" > device. Take your kids downtown one afternoon and play the game, "Bluetooth or crazy?" > > > Absolutely; it looks like a piece of woman's jewelry. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Take your kids downtown one afternoon and play the game, "Bluetooth or > crazy?" My kids and I spent a week in Midtown Manhattan this summer. The "Bluetooth or Crazy" game takes on a whole new level there! ;-) When I need my BT headset I wear it on a lanyard under my shirt and just get it out when the phone rings, so I contain the dorkiness period to actual conversation time only. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.