In-Ear Headphones:

Abstract
This paper presents an inquiry into the history, technological merits and social consequences of in-ear
headphones. Through a multifaceted examination into in-ear headphones, this paper synthesizes the
research findings in regards to the preceding three areas of focus, as well as discusses the supplemental
media components that help communicate the project to both an academic and a general audience. The
primary findings of the project indicate that in-ear headphones display a non-linear history, innovation in
the efficiency of its design and technology continue in industry, and that two main, negative social
consequences arisethe potential for hearing loss and social isolation or loneliness.
Keywords: in-ear headphones, technology, stereo sound, hearing loss, social isolation
Introduction
Headphones are a small pair of loudspeakers meant for individual use. They are designed to be used close
to ones ears and to connect to a single source of audio. They are also known as stereophones, headsets,
cans, or earphones, which is a special type that is designed for in-ear use (Headphones). In-ear
headphones are the most modern type of headphones, an evolution on design that celebrates compactness
and high sound quality. In-ear headphones are highly personal technological objects, which we constantly
pair and un-pair with our digital devices on a daily basis. They have become a standard accessory that
accompanies the purchase of many personal digital technologies, such as digital music players, mobile
phones and tablet computers. As of late, they have even become a fashion statement, personalizing and
accessorizing yet another part of ones identity. In-ear headphones have the ability to transport one into
another place and time, or can simply block out the current place and time altogether. There is ritual in
their use, and appeal in their aesthetic. Most importantly, in-ear headphones are consequential as a
technology whose penetration into modern day life is impressive and robust.
This paper explores in-ear headphones from both historic and technological contexts in order to better
understand the social consequences that may arise from their personal/individual use and presence in
society. This paper also attempts to unpack the technology in order to understand how it is or is not
linear, efficient, apolitical and grandtenets of the study of the fundamentals of technology.This paper
begins with research focused on the historical and technical aspects of in-ear headphones in order to
better understand the potential social consequences that may arise. In an attempt to study the technology
as consequential, many questions emerge. How do in-ear headphones affect inter-personal relationships?
What are their effects on industry as it pertains to consuming content, especially regarding
television/film/media? Has their design been locked in, with more efficient alternatives perhaps
available? One of the reasons we are studying in-ear headphones is because their design is a seeming
evolution based on efficiency and compactness. Is their value related to actual audio quality, or the
freedom and individual liberty associated with its use? Are in-ear headphones branded by aesthetic, akin
to Apples iconic white ear buds? Answering many of these questions will aid in a better understanding of

the technologys place in society, both historically and temporally, allowing for a proper unpacking of the
black box. In-ear headphones: liberating personal technology or social provocateur?
Context and Content
History

Like many technologies the history of in-ear headphones is

nonlinear in its development, and an investigation into its past
offers a sometimes surprising look into its origination. Its
beginnings trace back to the early twentieth century with
roots in the telephone. At the time, telephone users would
hold a single, mobile earpiece up to their ear to hear the
person on the other line while simultaneously speaking into a
stationary receiver. What developed out of this telephonic
earpiece was the desire to have dual earpieces as a way to
make telephone calling a more comfortable experience
(Listen Closely, 2008).
Interestingly, no one has been able to credit a single individual
or organization for inventing headphones, alluding to its nonlinear development. Some credit Nathaniel Baldwin for
inventing headphones in 1910, perhaps because his company,
The Baldwin Radio Company, subsequently generated $2
million in annual sales (Bagley, 2001). However, headphones
development was also politicized with the involvement of the
United States Navy prior to World War I when its Radio Division
contracted out the custom design of headphones for use by its
personnel. In fact, continued requests by the Navys Bureau of
Steam Engineering for cheaper and more comfortable radio
headsets acted as a catalyst in the continued innovation of the
design of headphones at the time (Howeth, 1963). Moreover, a
company called Beyerdynamic began marketing some of the
worlds first headphones to consumers in the 1930s, furthering
the perception of decentralized invention and introduction of
headphones to the world (Listen Closely, 2008).
It was not until the 1950s, however, that headphones truly hit the mainstream. In 1958, jazz musician
John C. Koss invented stereo headphones, which finally provided full amplitude of sound. His
headphones and his company were a commercial success with musicians and consumers alike buying his

portable headphones. They were successful because audio playback hardware at the time was
exceptionally heavy and not portable (Holmes, 2006 p. 162). Koss rather large design was the industry
standard until the introduction of Sonys Walkman in 1979, which established smaller, lighter headphones
designs well into the 1980s and 1990s (Listen Closely, 2008).
In-ear headphones are a fairly recent innovation in the over one hundred year history of headphones,
largely evolving from the increasing obsession over compactness. Like its many predecessors whose
designs evolved over the years with innovations fueling advancements, its origins remain inexact.
However, most agree that it came into existence during the 1990s as personal music players continued to
be popular (Headphones). Apple, the fashionable computer and electronics company, has also helped
popularize in-ear headphones in the new century by bundling their now-iconic white earbuds with every
iPod and iPhone purchase. As will later be explored, the success of in-ear headphones as a consumer
product as well as its pervasiveness in everyday life poses potential social consequences. What are the
implications of this seemingly banal technology when every individual is seemingly plugged in?
Technological Merits
In The Routledge Guide to Music Technology the authors define headphones as, An audio device
designed to fit over the ears, presenting each with a mini loudspeaker. The purpose is to allow for
individual listening, without disturbance to others nearby, and to focus the listening experience by
eliminating much environmental noise (Holmes, 2006 p. 133). This very rudimentary definition helps
explain the function of in-ear headphones, and in particular points to individual listening and
environmental noise as tenets of the technology, which are both later explored as social consequences.
However, by opening the black box of in-ear headphones technology one is able to better understand the
underlying technical merits and can look to the future for continued innovations.
There are four main types of headphones: circumaural, supra-aural, earbuds/earphones, and in-ear
monitors/canalphones. The first two types are over-the-ear headphones, while the second two are in-ear
headphones. Circumaural headphones, sometimes called full size headphones, have circular pads that
surround the ear and are often large and heavy. Supra-aural headphones have circular pads that sit on top
of the ear and are smaller and more lightweight than circumaural headphones. This type was often
bundled with personal music players in the 1980s and 1990s, demonstrating mass adoption. Earphones or
earbuds are small headphones that are placed directly outside of the ear canal, and are the most popular
type of headphones because they are lightweight, compact and inexpensive. This type continues to be
bundled with digital music players and mobile phones. Finally, in-ear monitors or canalphones, so called
because they are inserted directly into the ear canal, are excellent at blocking outside noise because of
their snug fit, but are often more expensive because of advanced noise-canceling technology
(Headphones).
All headphones utilize transducers to power them, with the majority using the dynamic driver principle.
An electroacoustic transducer is defined as, Any type of device that either converts an electrical signal
into sound waves (as in a loudspeaker) or converts a sound wave into an electrical signal (as in the
microphone) (Electroacoustic transducer). Transducers are the backbone behind all headphones and
most loudspeakers, too. The earliest headphones transducers utilized moving iron drivers, which

physically moved to create soundwaves and produced low sound quality (Headphones). Todays
headphones utilize the dynamic driver principle, which is the most common type of transducer that
powers most all in-ear headphones, headphones and loudspeakers. Dynamic drivers work by feeding an
audio signal through a tiny, lightweight coil of wire that turns the coil into an electromagnet. Sound is
produced when the coil is lowered into a constant and powerful magnetic field, which is located in a
focused area that is usually conical in shape (this is why in-ear headphones are shaped the way they are!)
Finally, this combination of the produced electromagnet with the fixed magnetic field reacts, produces
varying, repelling magnetic fields that produce sound (Dynamic).
While it is transducers that power in-ear headphones, other basic technological elements apply, creating
rich, affordable sound for consumers. Most in-ear headphones exhibit low impedance, while other types
of headphones exhibit high impedance. Acoustic impedance is essentially a mathematical equation that
denotes sound frequency and energy. It is most useful, however, in determining requisite levels of power
or energy to efficiently power in-ear headphones (Acoustic impedance). In-ear headphones and most
other personal types of headphones that are used with personal music devices require low power,
exhibiting low impedance, while more commercial types of headphones that are used in studio settings
require high power, exhibiting high impedance (Headphones). In this instance, this personal technology
is actually very efficient in managing power resources. Additionally, Headphones may transmit monaural
signals, when both ears receive the same signal, or stereo signals, when the left and right ear receive the
same portions of the signal as full size loudspeakers do (Holmes, 2006 p. 162). Most in-ear headphones
today transmit stereo signals because it offers a fuller and richer sound experience.
Noise-isolating and noise-canceling, as well as wireless listening technologies are currently driving the
innovation in the field. Noise-canceling technology began early on in the history of in-ear headphones,
again pointing to the non-linear development of the technologies driving its development. In 1933, a
German patent was issued to Paul Lueg for his concept of active noise cancellation, which proposed the
possibility of attenuating background noise by superimposing a phase flipped wave. It was not until 1978,
however, when research and development of active noise reduction (ANR) headphones began in earnest
under the leadership of Dr. Amar Bose. The patent from the 1930s was finally given momentum during
this time as the invention of integrated circuits and miniature microphones enabled the existence of ANR
headphones (Benoit, p. 1). It is important to differentiate between noise-isolating and noise-canceling.
Noise-isolating technology simply isolates noise by design, exhibiting earbuds or pads that fit tightly in
and against the ear canal, channeling sound into ones ear while naturally blocking outside noise. This
demonstrates that this technology is not in fact grand, but even banal because it is such a simple yet
effective design. Conversely, noise-canceling technology is engineered to isolate ones music by creating
sound that cancels out unwanted, external noise (An introduction). It does this by utilizing tiny
microphones on the outside of each earphone that take in outside noise or sound. Then, an inverse sound
is produced and superimposed over the music, thus canceling out the unwanted external noise (Benoit, p.
5). Many noise-canceling in-ear headphones are high quality, but also much more expensive because of
the advanced technology powering them.
Finally, wireless technologies also continue to advance and make its way to consumers. In particular,
Bluetooth technology has been popularized during the last decade, though its effective use is mostly

limited to mobile telephone earpieces and other small devices like the computer mouse. Like other
technologies behind in-ear headphones, its development is non-linear with the first patent for frequency
hopping for secret communication awarded in 1942. There remain challenges with adopting this wireless
technology, mostly because it greatly reduces sound quality. Additionally, signal loss and interference are
commonplace, so presently wireless in-hear headphones technologies like Bluetooth remain imperfect
(Listen Closely). In addition to continued advances in wireless technology, the future of in-ear
headphones may lie in using human body communication, which uses the body to transmit an electric
signal to headphones, thus eliminating the need for both wires or otherwise (Fox, 2006). In this sense,
ones music becomes part of its body, a biological organ.
Social Consequences
In-ear headphones are verifiably consequential in social contexts, and the focus of this investigation into
the technology. Academic literature into its pervasiveness in society and individual use sheds light on the
implications this technology has on daily life and beyond. Headphones are the norm. The new addiction
replacing smoking, headphones frame the head and the perception of most urbanites today in some form
or other. Whether one is commuting with an iPod, exercising to the radio, talking on a hands-free cell
phone . . . or attentively listening to music, headphones create a mobile and continually changing
architecture that follows the listener, wrapping him or her in a private bubble, says Charles Stankievech
(2007 p. 57).
The primary social consequences that arise from the use of in-ear headphones are twofold: hearing loss
and social isolation. The potential for hearing loss is heightened with the use of in-ear headphones
because, by design, they sit much closer to or inside the ear canal, exposing individuals to potentially
harmful levels of sound. Researchers studied the effects of audiometry levels in individuals who were
plugged in to personal music players. Their results suggest that long-term use of personal listening
devices can, in fact, impair hearing function. The data also indicate that extended high-frequency
audiometry is a sensitive method of early detection of noise-induced hearing loss (Peng, Tao & Huang,
2006). In fact, in 2008 Time published an article citing findings from the Archives of Internal Medicine,
which quantified just how much of the nation is affected by hearing loss. Amazingly, the study found that
16 percent of Americans have an impaired ability to hear speech and that more than 30 percent over the
age of 2555 million Americanshave lost at least some level of high-frequency hearing (Blue, 2008).
What is certain is the risk that in-ear headphones pose to ones hearing, especially because their use is so
pervasive in todays society. Moreover, the potential for hearing loss is categorized as a negative social
consequence because of how it affects individuals and their ability to effectively communicate.
The second social consequence is that of social isolation or loneliness, which is perhaps the more insidious
of the two a again classified as negative. Crane (2005) suggests that the use of headphones may impede
interactions with and feelings of being connected to others. The basic theory employed in this study was
attachment theory, which feature two contradictory elements: (1) proximity seeking, closeness or feeling
connected to a significant other while at the same time (2) using this connection as a safe haven to
separate or become autonomous. Several attachment theorists believe headphones use tends to alienate
those around the user who are often put off from making conversation. In addition, other researchers
have theorized that a portable audio device may serve as a transitional object as one moves between close

relationships (Crane, 2005). Moreover, research into the environmental and spatial existence of in-ear
headphones users offers more credence on the potential for social isolation. Walker (2005) suggests that
headphones can impair the detection and localization of ambient sounds in the environment, placing
the individual at a disadvantage. In-ear headphones become an unintentional isolating device, a
consequence of their very design of transporting users into the music they love.
Research Approach
Our research approach was to consult many works in order to gain a better understanding of the context
of in-ear headphones as well as to determine what literature exists. The literature that focuses on the
historical and temporal aspects of in-ear headphones were the most difficult to find. In fact, part of the
reason this paper concludes that the technologys history is non-linear is the fact that information on its
nascent years comes from disparate sources and often overlaps. Both popular literature and academic
literature were consulted, though academic literature comprises the vast majority of this papers research
and findings. Moreover, simple encyclopedic knowledge of the technologies that power in-ear
headphones, such as transducers or dynamic drivers, were difficult to contextualize because they provided
no context or reference to in-ear headphones, due to the fact they are such rudimentary audio/sound
principles.
Component Summaries
Every major and minor project component matches in design quality and aesthetic, resulting in a project
that holistically presents in-ear headphones in a multifaceted, multimedia manner. Design colors, fonts
and spacing, as well as language, are consistent across all of our platforms, reinforcing our intent to
present our projects information in a visually pleasing, minimalist air. Below are the aspects and
considerations our group actively deliberated on for each of our deliverables.
Online
Our online presence is arguably our most robust project component, designed to be both an academic
showcase as well as an online resource. In designing our website, inearheadphones.wordpress.com,
usability was key in determining what to include on the website and how to organize the information.
It was decided early on that the site should act more like a website, as opposed to a blog. Key design
considerations were made in order to reinforce the attributes of a website. These include: the absence of
comments in order to make posts timeless; downplaying the reverse-chronological blog format by
positioning all posts and a sticky History post above the fold; utilizing social media platforms like
Twitter in order to connect the content with those who seek it and with industry organizations, as well as
including sharing buttons on content pages; writing posts that inform readers of in-ear headphones, from
its history, to its market, to its current consumer offerings (these posts also served as a warm-up for
further academic research); presenting the site as credible by including both the Georgetown University
and the Communication, Culture & Technology seals; including a casual Polls page in order to foment
reader engagement; providing tags to communicate content themes; providing an Updates page so
readers can track the projects status; and formatting the website for iPad optimization.

Moreover, our main navigation bar just below the header is organized into two categories: main project
deliverables (on the left) and ancillary project components (on the right). By doing so, readers know what
is primarily important (the meat and bones of the project), and what is secondary. In order to
differentiate between the two, and working within WordPress limited customizable options, the ancillary
categories feature a / before page titles. We think this design choice works well. Moreover, the below
the fold section has been formatted to reduce the original blog format by reducing the number of posts to
just two as well as featuring hotlinked images on the left that act as resources. We are proud of our
website both for the quality of content it presents and for its depth and breadth of presentation. We intend
for the site to live on at the projects conclusion, fulfilling its purpose as a resource for any casual visitor
looking to learn more about in-ear headphones. We continue to actively make our website findable
through search engine optimization, such as embedding our content on other sites, linking our web
address on related websites, as well as other strategies.
Video
Our video focuses on the social consequences of in-ear headphones and is creatively driven by the
inherent limitations articulated by the video component guidelines. Footage must be original, images and
songs must be licensed, and interview subjects must be at least minimally informed on in-ear
headphones. In order to fulfill these guidelines and still present a video that is compelling, it was
determined that creating a stop animation video would be creatively rich. As such, all animation was
drawn by hand, and hundreds of photographs were painstakingly taken one at a time, each at the slightest
move of the paper animation pieces. The result is a fun, animated video that focuses on the social
consequences of in-ear headphones by featuring two interviews, one with a concerned individual and one
with an informed user. The concerned individual was posed questions focusing on their personal use,
interactions with, and opinions on in-ear headphones. The informed user was posed questions focusing
on the larger societal ramifications and how in-ear headphones users negotiate time and place.
Unfortunately, our biggest challenge was finding interview subjects that are experts in personal stereo
audio, as those we pursued either did not respond or refused to speak on the record and on camera.
Poster
Our poster focuses on the technological merits of in-ear headphones, and greatly supplements our video
that focuses on the social consequences. Synthesized researched findings are presented on the left, while
the abstract and technological diagrams are presented on the right. This design placement was chosen so
casual visitors to the poster can quickly scan the content on the right and understand the project and, if
they remain interested, can then read in detail the content on the left, which includes our research
findings. Whats more, we included some questions and results from our casual polls from our website in
order to provide greater context and as a colloquial nod to our non-academic audience.
Interviews
Our interviews focus on the social consequences of in-ear headphones, providing rich content for our
video. The concerned individual was posed questions focusing on their personal use, interactions with,
and opinions on in-ear headphones. We intended for their interview to provide an approachable, relatable
air to the videoto elicit a Hey, theyre just like me! reaction. The informed user was posed questions
focusing on the larger societal ramifications and how in-ear headphones users negotiate time and place.

This line of questioning was most useful in corroborating the same themes found with existing research in
the field. Surprisingly, the majority of our filmed interviews were dramatically reduced to less than twenty
percent of their original ten-minute length in order to fit within the time limits of the video. Our greatest
challenge proved to be finding interview subjects that are experts in personal stereo audio, as those we
pursued either did not respond or refused to speak on the record and on camera.
Survey
Our survey focuses on the outstanding research questions that result from our investigation into in-ear
headphones. As indicated in the subsequent conclusion of this paper, future research should focus on the
lived experiences of individuals who utilize in-ear headphones technology on a regular basis to better
understand how individuals appropriate the technology in practice. How does daily use of the technology
affect identity? How conscious are users of the social wall they erect when plugging in their in-ear
headphones? As such, our future survey was divided into two sections: one is a multiple-choice survey
based on the Likert scale and the second is open-ended questions for an interview or focus group. The
questions were divided into the two different methodologies in order to provide greater depth into the
subject, rather than simply creating a survey for a convenience sample.
Conclusion and Future Research
The primary findings of this paper indicate that in-ear headphones display a non-linear history,
innovation in the efficiency of its design and technology continue in industry, and that two main negative
social consequences arisethe potential for hearing loss, and social isolation or loneliness.
Research into the history of in-ear headphones indicates that the beginnings of the technology are inexact
and that its development overlaps. For example, no one individual is credited with inventing in-ear
headphones and multiple organizations, such at the U.S. Navy and radio companies, simultaneously
developed headphones technology to serve their respective purposes. Moreover, patents were issued in
different countries and for different technological merits at different times. This non-linear development
corroborates the intent to explore the linearity, politicization, efficiency, and grandeur of the technology at
the onset of this paper.
Innovation in the efficiency of in-ear headphones design and technology continue, with wireless and
noise-canceling technologies leading the industry. In exploring the technological merits of in-ear
headphones, noise-isolating technology is an efficient quality by design, as the earbud pads are designed
to fit snugly in ones ear canal in order to block outside noise. It is not grand in the least, and it is
inexpensive and efficient. Wireless technologies such as Bluetooth, however, remain imperfect, perhaps
due to its attempt at being grand. As it exists, the technology is also not efficient.
Finally, the negative social consequences that arise from the use of in-ear headphones are the potential for
hearing loss and social isolation or loneliness. In-ear headphones sit either close to or inside ones ear
canal by design, exposing individuals to potentially dangerous levels of sound volume. This is
corroborated by Peng, Tao & Huang (2006), as well as in other literature. Moreover, social isolation or
loneliness is a great social consequence that can be considered insidious in nature. Crane (2005) used

attachment theory to explain how individuals negotiate social isolation and loneliness as a result of
headphones use. Walker (2005) suggested users must also negotiate their environment, especially in
relation to space and time, as a consequence of using headphones. Such social consequences provide a
humanistic view of in-ear headphones as a technology as much a part of individuals as it is a part of
society.
Future research should focus on the lived experiences of individuals who utilize in-ear headphones
technology on a regular basis in order to better understand its consequences. How does daily use of the
technology affect identity? How conscious are users of the social wall they erect when plugging in their
in-ear headphones? Further exploring the social consequences of in-ear headphones will help in better
understanding the societal implications of this most-ubiquitous technology, a technology many take for
granted. Moreover, it may elicit some positive social consequences like social comfortability or individual
freedom or liberation for use. It will also help fill in the research gaps in the field, taking a more
ethnographic and grounded research approach in investigating the consequentiality of in-ear headphones.
Finally, future research into the biology behind hearing loss and noise-canceling technologies would
provide greater insight into the potential health effects of in-ear headphones.
Bibliography
Acoustic impedance (n.d.). Wikipedia. Retrieved
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_impedance
An Introduction to Noise Cancelling Earbuds (n.d.). Noisecancellingearbuds.net. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.noisecancellingearbuds.net/
Bagley, W. (2001, July 8). Ruin Followed Riches for a Utah Genius. The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved
fromhttp://historytogo.utah.gov/salt_lake_tribune/history_matters/ 070801.html
Benoit, M. et al. (n.d.). Engineering Silence: Active Noise Cancellation. Retrieved
fromhttp://www4.ncsu.edu/~rsmith/MA574_S10/silence.pdf
Blue, L. (2008). How Bad Are iPods for Your Hearing? Time. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1827159,00.html
Crane, R. (2005). Social Distance and Loneliness as they Relate to Headphones Used with Portable Audio
Technology. California State University Humboldt.
Dynamic (n.d.). Wikiphonia. Retrieved from http://wiki.faust3d.com/wiki/index.php?title=Dynamic
Electroacoustic transducer (n.d.). Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/182978/electroacoustic-transducer
Fox, B. (2006). Invention: Body-Wired Headphones. New Scientist Tech.

Headphones (n.d.). Wikipedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headphones

Holmes, Thom, ed. (2006). The Routledge Guide to Music Technology. New York, NY: Routledge.
Howeth, L. S. (1963). The Early Radio Industry and the United States Navy. History of CommunicationsElectronics in the United States Navy. Chapter XI, p. 133-152. Retrieved
from http://earlyradiohistory.us/1963hw11.htm
Listen Closely: A History of Headphones (2008). Random History. Retrieved
fromhttps://www.randomhistory.com/2008/08/20_headphones.html
Peng, J., Tao, Z. & Huang, Z. (2006). Risk of Damage to Hearing from Personal Listening Devices in
Young Adults. The Journal of Otolaryngology. 36(3), 2007.
Stankievech, C. (2007). From Stethoscopes to Headphones: An Acoustic Spatialization of Subjectivity.
Leonardo Music Journal, 17(1), 55-59.
Walker, B.N. (2005). Evaluation of Bone-Conduction Headsets for Use in Multitalker Communication
Environments. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 49th Annual Meeting.