I have mixed feelings about this... yeah, it's not like they are discovering boiling water (Sony probably got its ass sued a lot of times for the same reason, and they came with a volume limiter switch on the Walkman to appease the raging masses). But on the other hand, we're having reports on children (yes, children) unable to hear frequencies below, say, 50 hz before they ever hit their teens due to unconscious blasting of their music players. Not to get all preachy and stuff, but what's the point of all this hobby if we just get our ears shot by some cheapo earbuds and constant insane volume levels? At least Sony's switch was a factor of choice - either you used or you didn't. It's anyone's guess whether we may have a similar choice with the iPod, should a demand like this come to fruition.

This case against Apple is just like the McDonalds coffee lawsuit -- it's hot coffee so don't spill it on yourself. It's music, don't crank it up too loud. It's the sun, don't stare at it. The issue of children losing their hearing is terrible but, really, it's not government's place to regulate such things, it's the parents. And, naturally, Apple isn't the only one making audio devices. The hearing issue is a big problem for everyone but it's something only the individual can solve. This reminds me of a funny movie I saw in production starring Luke Wilson. The premise is he has been cryogenically frozen only to wake up many years later to find himself in a world so dumbed-down and regulated exactly like we're talking about that he is, in fact, the most intelligent person in the world. I can't wait to see it.

Josh, Beto, I believe that there is merit to this case. Earbuds are inherently harmful to hearing because one always tends to increase sound volume to compensate for ambient noise. Earphones (or large headphones) allow safer volume levels by sealing off ambient noise, but they are more cumbersome to wear to an average user and so Apple did not make it standard Ipod equipment, but they may have to at some point if this lawsuit is successful.

Is that true? Earbuds and any other in-ear style devices seal of noise better than, say, the open Grado, AKG or Sennheiser cans. Custom molded jobs from Ultimate Ears or Shure advertise 26dB of ambient reduction. The last time I remember this issue coming up with Apple was exactly because of the isolation effect of the in-ear models. Because they are so deep in the canal, damage is much more likely to occur, or so the theory goes. Regardless, if this is a valid issue, then it should go through political channels, not brought against Apple since they didn't invent bud-style phones nor are they the only people selling them. Plus, Apple includes a "don't listen loudly" warning with their iPods to cover their legal butts. It'll be interesting to see what happens considering Apple's legal department makes the hordes of Mordor look tame. Though, I would really like to see some public message to help protect the children. Maybe something like: "put down the earbuds and pick up some high-end loudspeakers." Hmm, maybe that should be SonicFlare's new angle. There's probably government funding for that sort of thing...

Haven't you ever used an ipod Josh? You can still hear people talk from a distance if you use it at a reasonable volume, so yes they do let in ambient noise and you have to crank it to hear your music properly.

I think you're referring to Apple's buds, not the iPod itself. In that case, you're right, I've never used Apple's buds to any great extent. I gave them up for Ultimate Ears. And are you saying Apple's buds and other in-ears let in more sound than open cans? That's not the case at all. Then again, good closed headphones and in-ears with soft surrounds are probably similar in noise reduction though I don't have any info to back that up. That said, custom molded canal phones are unparalleled. In any case, I'm not the one bringing these lawsuits or publishing these studies. If you want the dirt behind the damage, I posted an article a while back on the very subject. Check out the links for discussion why in-ears are inherently more damaging though, really, it does make logical sense that phones with marginal seals would cause the listener to crank the volume and, thus, cause more damage. But if you check out Slashdot's comments section, there is some discussion about the science behind the damaging effects of isolation.

"put down the earbuds and pick up some high-end loudspeakers." That's a very good idea, Josh. Imagine if a lot more children started to buy the Swedish Statement speakers for their Ipods, then that would surely drive the price of those speakers down to something more affordable.

Henry, my man, truer words were never spoken. I'm sending an e-mail right this moment to the Swedish guys and suggesting an iPod-colored Special Edition. Believe you me, the suckers will be flying off the shelves. And, yes, higher volume brings lower prices so don't be surprised if we see a stunning 5 to 10 percent drop. Naturally, a price of $405k instead of $450k will open up all kinds of new markets previously closed to the glorious world of hi-fi. Brave new world, my friends.

I'm reminded that all of Sony's portable minidisc players had volume limiting that could be switched on to keep them from being sued. M.