In comp.dsp, Jerry Avins <[email protected]> wrote:

>I think you're on the right track. First make it work, then make it
>pretty. If I wanted to do that -- and one of these days I might -- I'd
>start with a low-power stereo board and headphones that look like
>gun-range ear protectors (and act like them when unpowered), with
>microphones mounted right on them.

I'd go with the new Shure in-ear phones, starting at $99. These
claim even better isolation than traditional closed-back headphones,
and are a lot smaller and lighter, and you don't look like the monkey
in that Napster logo. For more info, click on the E2c link at
shure.com.

>Once you get it tinkered with enough
>to be worth using, you can power the board from three sealed lead-acid C
>cells at least long enough to enjoy a play or a movie. If you decide
>it's worth doing, you could miniaturize it later. You might want to talk
>to the people at Songbird. They're always looking for new niches for
>their products. If you were one of their guinea pigs, you'd get their
>aids free. If it solved only one of your problems, it could still be
>worth while. http://www.songbirdhearing.com/
>
>Several people who make boards you can use read and post here. I would
>use a 'C33 DSK because I already have one and I don't think it would
>compromise what I could achieve. I like the idea of floating point for
>one-offs and prototypes, even where fixed point might be better in
>production. There are likely to be fewer gotchas for a beginner. If you
>want to break down the design into parts, write about here. You'll get
>plenty of advice,

Definitely...

>and maybe even a degree of consensus.

I dunno, we'll see about that.

>
>Jerry
>--
>"I view the progress of science as ... the slow erosion of the
> tendency to dichotomize." Barbara Smuts, U. Mich.
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley