Tom's Views

I’m heavily into music listening, manipulating the music files for better sound, DJing for friends, and so on.  So very often, the issue of   music piracy   comes up, when people ask that I copy some of the songs in my music collection for them.  The following are my responses and reasoning for why I do not copy music for anyone, period. 

• The record industry could sell music cheaper if not for all the music piracy and having to recover the losses from that stealing.
• Barring the differences between how music piracy and other forms of theft are physically carried out, music piracy is identical to shoplifting.
• The fact that music piracy is easier to perpetrate than other forms of shoplifting may make it even more wrong to execute, not less wrong. 
• It seems that it’s more wrong to take advantage of a person or an industry that cannot adequately defend itself against such theft.  Put another way: It would certainly be more offensive to steal from a blind man than to steal from someone that is fully aware of what you’re doing; though stealing in both cases is equally wrong. 
• One estimate that store prices for CDs is are ten to twenty percent higher than they’d be without shoplifters.
• We all pay for music piracy.  But some pay far less than others.  This implies a major travesty.  The honest people (those who are unwilling to cheat by making illegal copies of music) pay the most therefore, for music.  But unfortunately the music robbers pay the least because through the very act of stealing the music, they circumvent all the measures the music industry could take to fully collect on the music they sell.
• Some justify giving copies of the music on the CDs they own to others by citing how rich some artists have become, and how making copies of their music would not hurt them significantly.  But the most popular artists tend to be pirated the most, as their music is in the highest demand. 
• Besides, how rich or poor the victim of theft is does not affect the rightness or wrongness of the theft.  Stealing is always wrong whether you steal from a king, or a janitor. 
• Would it be any more right to steal a mink coat from a well-to-do store such as Macey’s, than to steal a candy bar from that mom and pop establishment down the street?  
• The music industry appears to be in rapid decline due in large part to the rampant music piracy that plagues it.  This is sad, because I’m a big fan of recorded music, and I fear that this decline in revenue share will eventually trigger a decline in availability and overall quality of the music that is produced. 
•  In 1999 through 2002, the music industry saw a 25% recession in its legal sales and distribution of recorded music  (details here).  With poor economic growth prospects so ubiquitous these days across most industries, and since music is fast becoming perceived as one of those luxury items that people can do without if their finances say that they must, the music industry continues to suffer recession today in 2011. 
• Music piracy is dishonest because those who obtain the music in this way do not have to work as hard to get it as those who actually pay for legal copies. 
• The music pirates get the music for nothing essentially, and where’s the fairness in that? 

As is hopefully quite obvious by now, I’m strongly opposed to music piracy for the reasons given, and many others besides. 

Tom Hesley

Related Posts

• Giving Away Copied Music Is Stealing!

References

• History of Music Piracy   on Wikipedia
• Music Piracy   definition on Wikipedia
• Music Piracy Stats   from the RIAA  

Even if you make no money from   giving away copies of your music,   you’re still   stealing the music   because you’re costing the industry money by giving people music who then, need not buy it themselves.  The fact that you’re making no profit from this musical giveaway is no defense.  Even though you do not benefit from this musical theft, make no mistake that you’re nonetheless just as culpable for stealing music. 

Giving away copies of your purchased music thus, translates into lost revenue for the music industry.  Indeed since digital music has become so widely available, and so easily copied, the music industry has significantly shrunk in terms of how much sales revenue it generates.  A record company executive on CNN a while back talked of all the lay-offs that have occurred because of this sort of widespread music piracy. 

Also, you can’t be altruistic with something that’s not yours to give away in the first place.  When you buy a CD (compact disc), you’re not buying distribution rights to that music; only the right to retain, back up, and listen to it yourself.  The actual music is not yours to pass around, even though you bought a copy of it.  This “kindness” to one group (our friends) is hurting another group (the people who produce and sell the music).  Admittedly, few music industry lawyers would come after you for giving copies of music to a few friends.  But this giving-is-still-stealing principle still applies. Ironically, though your act of giving away music may be well-intentioned, this giveaway is stealing nonetheless.  In short: You should not give away something that’s not yours because any kindness contained in this giving act is more than offset by the wrongness of the implied theft. 

Now with all that said, I believe that Apple went too far with its DRM (digital rights management) schemes.  DRM as it was prevented us from playing our music on more than a few computers at a time, it supplied audio and video file formats that could only be played on iPods, and it barred us from easily converting the DRM-encoded music into other formats.  But I’m certain that Apple had to devise DRM to get the music industry to agree to allow them to sell the music in the iTunes music store.  So, Apple was not the only party responsible for the overly restrictive implements of digital rights management of media / music files. 

Further, this whole business about having to buy a ringtone from the industry just so you can get a song onto your cell phone is crazy.  If I already own the music, why should I have to pay for it again just to get it in ring-tone format? 

IMHO, people abused the free availability of “copyable” music, and the industry over-reacted by making it too hard for honest people to manage their music libraries as they wish.  I’m glad that the trend is away from DRM.  But that won’t last if people keep making illegal copies of music and distributing them to friends.  Copying an iTunes library (or any other music repository) is illegal if you don’t own the copyrights to the music in it.   You’re not allowed to copy music from someone else, even for a short time.

Tom Hesley

Related Posts

• How To Copy Songs From Multiple iPods Into iTunes Library
• Music Piracy Thoughts

There are ways to   copy songs   from one or more   iPods   into your   iTunes library, even if you do not have the original copies of the music in your iTunes library.  WARNING: You’d be breaking copyright laws by duplicating music that you do not own; particularly if you distribute said music to others by syncing it to their iPods.  Advice: If you didn’t pay for it or create it yourself, then do not copy it.  Even if you paid for it, still, do not distribute the music.

But if you still wish to proceed, then one way to copy the music goes as follows and involves two basic steps:

1. First, copy the music from each iPod to your computer and import it into your iTunes library.
2.  Then, copy or sync the desired music from your computer to whatever iPod(s) you wish.

Step 1 is tricky, because for one, you won’t be able to play any DRM (digital rights management) protected music from the iPod it originally came from on the destination iPod.  For those songs, you’d have to get the original owner to burn them onto a standard CD and give it to you to import into your iTunes library.  Or, you could pay extra money to iTunes to remove the DRM.  Then you could copy them as described below.  But, if we’re only talking about a few total songs, copying them to CD and then importing that CD into your iTuens library is probably the easiest.  I’ve done this many times.

Now with that said, and you decide that there are too many recordings to copy by burning to CD, you can follow the steps below.  I’ve tested this procedure myself and it seems to work well:

1. We’ll call one iPod the source iPod, because it’s the one that has the music you want to copy.  We’ll call your iPod the destination iPod, since this is where the music you desire will ultimately end up.
2. First, make sure that the source iPod is set to manually manage music and videos.  Do this by plugging this iPod into the computer that originally initialized this iPod (the computer from which the music on the source iPod came) and checking the “Manually manage music and videos” check box.
3. Check the “Enable disk management” box in the same screen.
4. Eject and disconnect the source iPod.
5. Take the source iPod to your computer and plug it into that computer.
6.  Then, on your computer, find the source iPod’s drive in Windows Explorer.
7. Copy the folder called ‘iPod_Control’ to your local hard drive.
8. Once that copy operation finishes, select the ‘iPod_Control’ folder in Windows Explorer and pull up its Properties window.
9. Eject and disconnect the source iPod, as you’ll have no further need of it.
10. In the Attributes section of the resulting Properties window, uncheck the Hidden checkbox and click the Apply button.
11. Bring up iTunes on your computer if it’s not running already.
12. Now you’ll have to decide if you want to copy the files from the iPod_Control directory you just created into your iTunes library or not.  Set this option as you desire by going to EditàPreferences.  In the Advanced tab, the checkbox for this is called “Copy Files to iTunes Music folder when adding to library”.  If you don’t copy them, then you must retain the iPod_Control folder you just created.  If you do check this box, then iTunes copies all music files into its internal library.  Done this way, you can delete the itunes_control folder after the importation completes.
13. To start that importation, in iTunes, go to the FileàAdd Folder To Library… menu item.
14.  In the resulting Browse For Folder dialog box, locate the iPod_Control folder you just copied to your hard drive in step 7 above and select it.
15.  Then press OK.  iTunes then begins importing the files in the iPod_Control directory into your iTunes library.
16. Note that this will not copy the play lists on the iPod; only the music files.  You’ll have to organize the music into play lists in iTunes later if you so desire.
17. Once the importation is done, plug in the destination iPod to your computer that now holds the desired music, and copy or sync whatever you want from your iTunes library to it.  Since your iTunes library now contains the music you want to copy, you’ll be able to copy or sync It from there to the destination iPod.

WARNING: You’d be breaking copyright laws by duplicating music that neither you nor your brother-in-law own.  Advice: If you didn’t pay for it or create it yourselves, then don’t copy it.

Tom Hesley

Related Posts

• Giving Away Copied Music Is Stealing!

References

• http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/ontherun/how-to-copy-music-from-your-ipod-to-your-itunes-library-5615
• http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/250743

Sound Check in iTunes and   iPods   is the same as Winamp’s   Replay Gain   feature. It attempts to ensure that all songs in your   iTunes library   play at roughly the same volume level. While the algorithm is not perfect, I do find when I use sound check, that I mustadjust the volume far less when the next song plays. Sound check raises the volume on very quiet songs when listening in either iTunes or on your iPod, and lowers it on very loud songs so that they all play at approximately the same loudness.

Sound check however, is NOT   audio compression   or automatic volume. Sound check determines the overall volume of the song before it is actually played; not during play as is done in audio compression. Then Sounc Check sets the volume level accordingly, just once; unlike compression, which makes constant readjustments of the volume or audio gain during play.

Sound Check does not readjust the volume in response to loud or soft peaks in the song; meaning that even with sound check turned on, you’ll still have very loud and very soft parts in the song. But the average volume level of all your music, when using sound check, should be more constant than it is with Sound Check turned off, and loud passages won’t blast you as much as they would without Sound Check.

I think the Sound Check feature works throughout the iTunes library. In fact, when you import new music and you have Sound Check enabled, iTunes figures out at import time what the appropriate volume for the song should be, and then records that value in its database.   You can observe these Sound Check calculations being done, immediately after importing a large bunch of songs, as messages appear in the iTunes status window; something about analyzing volume levels or other text to that effect.

Sound Check is not just for when you’re burning CDs. In fact, I doubt that it has any affect on burned tracks from your library. Articles I’ve read suggest that Sound Check adjustments are not applied to the actual track data. But I haven’t played much with this part of Sound Check to know for sure.

Also as noted earlier, Sound Check differs from audio compression. However, Sound Check DOES employ a limiter component that prevents the loudest peaks in your music from distorting. Limiters are like compression except that they function only on the loudest parts of the music (those parts that would trigger clipping), where compressors work on most all of it, including the softer parts – how much of the music compressors affect is determined by adjustments on the compressor.  However, any internal adjustments to Sound Check in iTunes are preset and cannot be changed by the user.

For more information on Sound Check, see the following URLs:

• http://www.macworld.com/article/44344/2005/04/soundcheckyou.html
• http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2425
• http://ipod.about.com/od/itunes/g/soundcheck_def.htm
• http://ask.metafilter.com/33334/iTunes-Sound-Levels-for-Burning-a-CD

Tom Hesley

Posts You May Also Enjoy

• iWorld iPhone iPod Wall Charger Review

Yes, generally speaking, I oppose the overly mandated, self-sufficiency philosophy of the   National Federation for the Blind  (NFB).  I’ve read of NFB fighting the installation of textured edging along subway platforms that alerts anyone walking there that they’re walking dangerously close to the tracks.   Why would NFB oppose such a safety-conscious and beneficial aid to anyone blind who uses those platforms when boarding trains?  Talk about cutting the throats of the very folks they’re supposed to be serving.

I feel that any advocacy organization, such as the NAACP, the ACLU, the AFLCIO, OSHA, and the NFB among others, were created and took hold because large populations were being oppressed, excluded, or discriminated against.  If these injustices had not been happening for such long periods and to the degrees that they were, these groups would not have formed because there would have been no need for them.  It’s hard to rally people without a cause that they believe strongly in.  The groups formed to campaign for greater rights and freedoms for their constituents.  If those rights had been present all along, then again, the groups would not be here today.  In short, if more of the blind had been happy with their lives and how society was treating them, then the NFB would never have formed.

As I read about the NFB, it appears to me that they don’t want extra help.  Why is that?  Why would people be so against being helped?  I’d say that it’s because in our culture under normal circumstances, a person’s not supposed to need extra help, and the NFB, as I have seen them,  would have the public believe that the blind need no extra help and that they don’t want it in fact.  In this way, the NFB believes that it is bringing about more acceptance of the blind in mainstream society; the philosophy being that if the blind need less from the main stream, then the more likely it is that the main stream will accept them.

Indeed, some NFB members are quite insistent about this.  I knew some of them once.  These were the kinds of people who cussed out a pedestrian who offered to help them get across a busy street, or who yelled at bus drivers for calling out the next stop for them.  But after seeing how those offering the help thereafter cowered away in the presence of any blind person they’d spot, it’s clear to me that these militant people aren’t doing anything good for the blind cause by behaving with such hostile fervor.  Thus, the NFB certainly does not represent the ideals that I as a vision-impaired man espouse.  In fact, I want more help from the sighted community; not less, thank you.

I don’t mean to suggest that all NFB members are radicals like the ones I’ve known.  But I’ve experienced first hand and read about so many of them, that it appears that extremism dominate the NFB agenda, and I want no parts of it.  Why?  Because as a legally blind man, I know that I cannot do everything that my fully-sighted colleagues can.  I also realize that my life is tougher every day because of that.  I don’t like that extra toughness and I’m looking for any ways I can find to ease it.  To that end, it would be foolish of me to associate myself with organizations who refuse to acknowledge this extra dose of hardship that all of us face as handicapped citizens.  It is tougher for us.  I’ve lived the life.  I know this, and I think that as citizens of this society, much more of the infrastructure needs to be improved to accommodate the needs of vision-impaired folks.  Honestly, I’m tired of always trying so hard to fit into the main stream.  Well, maybe we need to bend the main stream a little and make it flow closer to our lives.  Thus, I’m against the NFB’s overly-stated, self-sufficiency philosophy because how it overly downplays and dismisses the   real   needs of the blind.

Tom Hesley

Related Posts

• Accepting Limitations
• Asking For Help
• Blind Hardships
• Book Of Job Lesson: Accept Your Plight
• If You Think You Can
• More Help for the Blind, Please
• There Is A Place For Pity Love
• To A Blind And Sad Job Seeker
• We Cannot Achieve Just ANYTHING We Want

How is it that we’ve come to live in such a tit-for-tat or quid pro quoculture these days? Are people just so worried about losing something that they’ve become reluctant to truly give of themselves unconditionally?

In fact, we need not   get everything back   we   give in kind  in order to secure lasting happiness; money being the possible exception to this. So why are people so intent on keeping such detailed scores of who does what and when?  Why do they insist on getting everything back that they give in such precise measures?  That doesn’t sound very compassionate of them to me.

It’s true that getting something back for our efforts feels nice, because it shows that our beneficiaries appreciate us.  But refusing kindness to those who really need it because we estimate that they cannot give us something equally valuable back, is crazy.  Why?  Because by passing up opportunities to   give of ourselves   without reservation, we’re also skipping over chances to raise our levels of   contentment in life.  Since lacking contentment in life seems to trouble people more than ever these days, I’d say that society in general really needs to practice more   unconditional love   giving, and be far less concerned with over-giving.

Loving unconditionally (something that the selfish person might deem as over-giving) is a joyous thing and is thus, probably the most effective anti-depressant available.  Yet so many folks fail to give in the most therapeutic ways possible (E.g. unconditional giving), because they’re so concerned that they’ll be taken or that they’ll waste their lives giving without getting the happiness they seek in return.  Indeed, they have their own agendas for reaching happiness and believe that they must stay focused on only those paths to reach it, else they’ll never be happy.  So they refuse to take the time to give in ways that others need them to do so.

Consider the dispositions of those who do not give much, and I think you’ll find them to be chronically sad, depressed, mean, and discontented with their lives.  I’m sure most of us have observed that grumpy old man or woman neighbor; the person who sees no one, and will not allow little kids into his or her yard to fetch a ball that they kicked there by accident.  Nor will this ironically lonely individual retrieve their ball for them. He’d rather deny himself their company even though it would only be for a few minutes. This sad person paces the halls in his house, all by herself, angry, frustrated, snappy, and worst of all, unfulfilled.  If only they’d try reaching out a capable hand to help others less capable now and then, they’d probably find opportunities for lasting happiness in places where they never expected to find it.  Giving is such a loving thing; at least as much so for the giver as the receiver.

My lady friend enjoys giving me long back massages, but I don’t return them because I just don’t enjoy doing them. Instead, I reimburse her favor in other ways: I help her shop. I buy her things she needs for her apartment. Plus, I bail her out when she accidentally messes up her computer.  Indeed, I devote much energy to making her day better, although it’s not the same energy that she devotes to improving my day.  So, while I’m confident that I return the general pleasure to her that she gives to me, I realize that I do not give her back precisely what she gives to me.  But there’s nothing wrong with that arrangement, as long as both people are getting things they wish to receive in the relationship.

Thus, there’s no hard and fast rule that says that if I accept anything at all, that I must give that same thing back in return.  Who made that up?  We need less quid pro quo and more   unconditional love   both given and received, to lessen society’s need for therapists, anger management, and other expensive yet stopgap remedies for unhappiness.  Next time you feel angry, sad, or depressed, just try giving unconditionally of yourself to someone that really needs your kindness.  See if then, you don’t feel better about your life.

Tom Hesley

[Emmy] and I bought the   Radio Shack Composite AB Selector Switch 15-312 (15312)   for her television, to enable switching between her Comcast cable box and DVD player as viewing video and audio sources.  So I got to install and examine this two-input video switch extensively over the past weekend.  The following thoughts occurred:

Benefits Of the Radio Shack Composite AB Selector Switch 15-312 (15312)

• This Radio Shack composite video and audio A/B switch cost only $20 roughly.
• It’s highly uncomplicated; containing two push-button style switches on the top, and nine RCA-style ports on the back.
• Each input on this composite video switch includes one video jack and two audio jacks (for stereo left and right channels).  The single output includes the same jack compliment.
• This switch is fashioned from black plastic and sports light gray labeling of the jacks and buttons.
• This is definitely a no-frills A/B video switch that is thus, a king of simplicity to learn and use effectively.
• The case appears quite thick and the unit feels rather heavy for all the more that’s inside of it, which gives the impression of a durable, rugged piece of electronics, and I definitely like that.

What I Dislike about the Radio Shack Composite AB Selector Switch 15-312 (15312)

• This switch supports neither component video nor s-video sources; just the traditional composite video ones (yellow RCA plug).
• Thus, no high definition HD video; only standard definition (SD) source signals can be switched.
• Must press the buttons harder than seems normal to select the correct video source.
• Plus, if you press the input selection buttons too weakly, this leaves this switch in a neither-A-nor-B (no video) state.  This means that neither the A input nor the B input is connected to the output.  This can cause confusion and concern, as the desired video source does not display when the switch is in this state, and the user may be left wondering why his VCR or DVD player is not working.
• I found it strange that the sales person offered me a two-year extended warranty for this low-priced switch box, for $3.49 (I think).  I just shook my head and grinned.

This video and audio switch is simple to connect up and operate, and can cheaply be replaced in the event of problems.  So I’d highly recommend the   Radio Shack Two Input Composite AB Selector Switch 15-312 (15312)   to people who only have two A/V sources in their home entertainment systems to toggle between.  However before you buy, make sure that your television does not have the additional inputs you need.

Tom Hesley

Posts You May Also Enjoy

• Utilitech Surge Tap Surge Protector 0090996 Review

I bought one of these   Radio Shack NOAA Weather Radio 12-500 (12500) Cubes   for [Emmy] for her birthday this year, and had a chance to play with it a little before she took it home.  Here are my thoughts:

Benefits Of The Radio Shack NOAA Weather Radio Cube 12-500 (12500)

• The bright red, silver, dark black coloring create a definite yet not overbearing color contrast on this weather radio from Radio Shack.
• This weather radio produces a surprisingly full and clear sound for all the bigger its speaker is; approximately two inches in diameter.
• The required four AA batteries are easy to find for cheap, as AA batteries are so ubiquitous.
• The six-section whip antenna is very effective at pulling in those weak weather stations in rural areas in spite of its notable shortness.
• This weather radio costs a minuscule $20.
• It’s reasonably sensitive and selective.  The sales person said that it can pick up NOAA weather stations from as far away as $25 miles.  I’ve verified this in my local area.
• The Radio Shack NOAA Weather Radio Cube comes with anti-skid rubber feet that really grab the table upon which you place this device.  The seem to work very well, even on very smooth glass surfaces.

What I Dislike about the Radio Shack NOAA Weather Radio Cube 12-500 (12500)

• This weather radio has a bright blue LED pilot light that glows while listening to it.  This may shorten battery life somewhat.
• There’s no place on this NOAA cube to connect an AC adapter.  You’re stuck using battery power thus.
• The volume and tuning controls are located on the bottom of the cube.  Thus, you must pick the radio up to make adjustments.  I’d rather have the controls on either the sides, or at least, the back.
• No built-in alert feature.  Some weather radios can automatically turn on and warn you when the emergency weather alert tones are received.  However, this radio is not equipped with that functionality.
• The tuning adjustment appears to be a variable resistor instead of a capacitor, and these types of controls can become dirty and worn more quickly than variable capacitors typically do.  So I’m concerned that over time, tuning this radio to the desired weather station may become more difficult.  But for as little as this weather receiver costs, buying a new one in that event would probably be best.

On the whole, this weather radio seems to be a sturdy, good-sounding, and simple-to-operate receiver for the novice and intermediate listener.  The price is good, and this makes it easy to replace in the event of loss or damage.  While it lacks a couple features that I’d like to have seen incorporated, I’d recommend this weather radio to anyone looking for a basically good and cheap unit.

Tom Hesley

Often sighted people wonder how blind men can find women attractive given that he cannot see them. Well, in short, the allure of women reaches way beyond any visual boundaries created by blindness. So while her visual appearance can indeed be a compelling reason to pursue a relationship with her, there are many other non-visual trappings about attractive women as well, that enable a blind man to still know and enjoy her beauty. Consider that:

• Without vision, a blind man relies more on his remaining senses (hearing, smell, touch, and eventually, taste) to assess just how sexy a woman truly is to him.
• While he may not be able to view her beauty from afar, a blind man can hear her voice (a prime indicator of attractiveness), listen to how she walks, hear her clothes rustling about and thus, get an idea of how she dresses, how she sings, whispers, sighs, hums, and so on.
• He can hear what other men are saying about her as well (particularly, the sighted men), and thus, get an idea of how attractive his sighted peers believe her to be.
• The blind man can appreciate how she speaks; her choice of words, her temperament, and gain valuable insights into how she thinks in general by how she addresses him and others.
• The sense of smell can provide valuable clues about the woman’s attractiveness as well. It can answer questions like: Is she clean? Is she healthy? What does she enjoy eating? How often does she brush her teeth and take a bath? Does she take a lot of meds? Does she smoke or drink, and how much?
• As he gets to know a lady, the blind man can employ his sense of touch. She may guide him to a seat by offering him her arm to hold while she leads. Or she may give him a friendly hug of greeting. From this, he can gather how thin or heavy she is, how tall, her body type, and her overall level of physical fitness. Indeed, at worst, blindness only delays attraction; it does not prevent it in most of the blind males I’ve known.
• If the relationship progress to intimate levels, the blind man, like anyone else, can use his sense of taste (kissing, caressing, an so on) to learn more about her that helps him determine whether she’s to his liking or not.
• Finally, one does not require sight to know how well or poorly someone treats them. Blind men are likely just as sensitive to this as any sighted man, and perhaps more so because a blind man must trust the woman more not to betray him in a love relationship. More on this in future posts. But here, suffice it to say that blind men are highly capable of recognizing what they want with their skills of evaluation and inference, without literally seeing it first

Again, while full vision would enable the blind man to more quickly gather this information earlier on in a new relationship, his sightlessness does not prevent him from accurately assessing her candidacy for true love. One does not need good sight to gather this critical information and thus, determine if he’s attracted to the woman. Indeed, blind men are just at “turned on” by women as are sighted men; in fact at times, more so, since there are no visual distractions or deterrents for him to be “turned off” by. While it’s true that he may have to wait a bit, until she moves close to him, to know just how attractive she is, her magnetism is still easily deduced without seeing.

Tom Hesley

Related Posts

• Blind Hardships
• Help From Sighted Women
• Power Imbalance: Blind Men Dating Sighted Women

I’ve been an avid green tea drinker, on and off, for well over fifteen years, and so have often kept electric kettles like the   Chef’s Choice Cordless Electric Kettle 677-2 (6772)   on my kitchen counter for quick and efficient heating of the water.  This appliance is not really cordless.  In fact, there is a cord that you must plug into a fifteen amp outlet attached to the accompanying stand, that supplies power to the heating elements built into the pot.  But the fact that the pot itself has no permanently attached power cord makes for much easier filling and less dangerous hot water pouring into teacups. This is a substantial appliance that exudes an air of durability and dependability that you’d probably like owning.  Nothing looks cheap about this cordless electric teapot.

Benefits Of The  Chef’s Choice Cordless Electric Kettle 677-2 (6772)

• This Chef’ Choice cordless electric kettle heats 1.7 liters of water in approximately eight minutes here in Pittsburgh, PA. It may heat more quickly at higher altitudes.
• This cordless kettle operates quietly, even when the water is boiling.
• The stand that supplies power to the kettle itself comes equipped with substantial anti-skid feet that definitely prevent sliding of the whole unit even when full.  These also provide acoustic isolation from the counter, and this likely helps keep the kettle quiet.
• This cordless electric kettle has an attached black plastic lid that latches open and latches closed.
• The large-diameter mouth on this cordless kettle makes for quick and easy filling and cleaning with little slop and spill.
• A clear, neon-lit lever makes starting and stopping the kettle a snap; literally.
• This heated kettle automatically shuts off soon after the water inside begins to boil.
• The supporting stand remains cool to the touch.
• The kettle has the ”in” look of a stainless steel finish on all its metal parts, with black plastic for the handle, stand, and lid that compliments the metal with a subtle yet definite contrasting appearance.
• With the handle being plastic, there is little chance of electric shock from this appliance.
• The positioning of the handle provides great balance and thus, ease of carrying this kettle from its stand to your teacup.  Pouring is a breeze.  I’ve used this kettle to brew many a cup of green tea.  Perfect every time.

What I Dislike About The  Chef’s Choice Cordless Electric Kettle 677-2 (6772)

• At nearly $60, I thought this price was a bit expensive, particularly since competing brands of similar electric kettles cost less than half of this.
• Occasionally, this cordless kettle clicks and snaps, even hours after last use.  This is likely the mechanical shut-off mechanism inside cooling down, and could be remedied by incorporating a fully electronic thermostat system in future models.
• I wish that this cordless electric kettle held a full two liters of fluid instead of the 1.7 liters that it’s designed for.
• It would be nice if the power light in the actuation lever was significantly brighter; sometimes in a brightly-lit kitchen, I can’t tell if the pot is still in-cycle just by looking.

In total, I’m quite pleased with the Chef’s Choice International cordless electric kettle, model 677-2. So too, is the person I gave this pot to for Christmas last year.  We would both recommend this cordless kettle to anyone in routine need of quickly-heated hot water.

Tom Hesley

Posts You May Also Like

• Green Tea Reviews