Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It's almost as if any company that wanted to make wireless, lossy music playback work with the highest possible fidelity would need to control the whole stack... encode its own audio files, control its own streaming infrastructure and design and manufacture its own playback devices. Microprocessor design is obviously critical here, so it would be extra useful if that company also designed its own custom silicon and it would be extra extra useful if that silicon was widely considered to be class-leading.

If only such a company existed, right? Imagine what they could do by applying software to things like audio, photography, videography... and they'd be able to keep improving things with software updates too, wouldn't that be awesome? ;)

Plus, if that company existed, fewer people would need to spend upwards of 2000 whatevers (credits? rupees? pull tabs?) on headphones that carry lossless audio. More of us might realise that to a certain degree lossless audio is just one way of getting around the fact that very few companies can control the audio file *and* the playback device.

Sarcasm aside, though, if you're reading this thread and on the fence about these new cans, remember that there's loads of research out there to support the subjectivity of human perception and next to nothing to support most claims made by audiophiles and high-fidelity audio purveyors (Apple is not above making these claims itself). I have no doubt that some people have sensitive enough ears to justify spending 2000 bottle tops on headphones, but that absolutely does not hold true for everyone. And there are other things to factor in - design, materials, connectivity, call quality - make your decision based on what matters to you. If you're in the market for these cans and are on the fence don't let people who *haven't even held* the device sway you - doesn't matter if they're willing to spend 2000 banana peels, the science of human perception renders their views as good as meaningless. They're just intent on criticising other people's purchasing decisions for some reason, it's almost as though they lack confidence in their own choices or something ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What a strange post.
I think you know full well I was referring to dollars, which is the currency in which it has been announced. Enjoy your sarcasm though if it makes you happy.
Actually you miss my entire point, clearly not having not bothered to read my previous posts.
I'm not talking about reverse engineering the audio file...I'm talking about what happens at the point of playback and transmission.
I know all about 'human perception' (I assume you're referring to lossy dynamic frequency masking...) and all that transcoding + bluetooth transmission stuff works absolutely fine on cheap cans where the drivers don't produce the kind of detail to show up the shortcomings.
At 600 euros for all the same technology being pumped into - presumably - high quality drivers is just...silly.

I love 2 or 3 Apple devices I have - unique and reasonable value, but I'm still perfectly happy to call out over priced garbage when I see it.
I've no doubt there will be plenty of mugs who'll suck this up but to anyone else who actually understands what kind of smoke and mirror nonsense is going on, they'll appreciate what a joke these are.

Anyway these kind of viewpoints never get anywhere where Fanboy-ism is concerned, or indeed up against whatever kind of agenda you have - so good luck with that - Over and Out.
 
I've no doubt there will be plenty of mugs who'll suck this up but to anyone else who actually understands what kind of smoke and mirror nonsense is going on, they'll appreciate what a joke these are.
I think when compared to comparable BT headphones they will be found to be as good / better in the audio department, better built and easier to use if you are already in the ecosystem. With downsides being heavy, horrible case and no cable in-the-box for the couple % who want to plug in analogue devices.

At the end of the day there are no BT wireless headphones that are lossless and the only fair audio comparisons can be for lossy to lossy anyhow.

How they sound with the 3.5mm cable is going to be the more interesting debate as it will be a straight A/D conversion via their own ADC - who knows they may blow all competition out of the water, perform as well as a 2k set of cans or be complete and utter tripe - That's all going to depend on how Apple have EQ'd them on-device.

Right now we simply do not know though. Calling them overpriced garbage before actually testing a product in person is honestly sounds quite childish. They may well be a steaming pile, but jeeze, you don't even have any proper second hand reviews to go by yet, nevermind first hand experience.
 
Last edited:
I think when compared to comparable BT headphones they will be found to be as good / better in the audio department, better built and easier to use if you are already in the ecosystem. With downsides being heavy, horrible case and no cable in-the-box for the couple % who want to plug in analogue devices.

You should bold “if you are in the ecosystem”

It feels very niched for the most part, particularly to either folks who are blind customers or people like me who are in the market to fill a void for over the ear BT with GOOD non-boom mic. The Bose 700 has the best boomless mic I’ve heard so far in noisy environments. Sonys are awful.
 
So you can use them tethered with a Lightning to 3.5mm cable which has an inbuilt ADC/DAC like the beats studio 3.

Also anyone using them is going to need an Apple device* for best performance and all the features, so you'd most likely have a lightning cable handy anyhow.

*If they are planning on using an android or windows device dropping $550 on these cans is insanely stupid.
I see. So they already made a lightning to 3.5 cable for the Beats and wanted to be able to use the same cable for these. Makes sense...at least for their bottom line (one less cable product to design/stock).
 
I see. So they already made a lightning to 3.5 cable for the Beats and wanted to be able to use the same cable for these. Makes sense...at least for their bottom line (one less cable product to design/stock).
The cable is actually a pretty impressive piece of tech on its own with a tiny sound card built into the lightning plug.

It's alot more than just a piece of wire with a connector at each end, and actually pretty reasonably priced at $35. Only $5 more than stock analogue Sennheser cable.

But IMHO no good reason why it could not have been included with a $550 pair of cans.
 
You should bold “if you are in the ecosystem”

It feels very niched for the most part, particularly to either folks who are blind customers or people like me who are in the market to fill a void for over the ear BT with GOOD non-boom mic. The Bose 700 has the best boomless mic I’ve heard so far in noisy environments. Sonys are awful.
Good point - It literally makes no sense to buy these unless you are using Apple hardware as the primary playback source. You simply just aren't going to be able to use the technology to its fullest.
 
The cable is actually a pretty impressive piece of tech on its own with a tiny sound card built into the lightning plug.

It's alot more than just a piece of wire with a connector at each end, and actually pretty reasonably priced at $35. Only $5 more than stock analogue Sennheser cable.

But IMHO no good reason why it could not have been included with a $550 pair of cans.
What would have been acceptable -- from an audio quality standpoint -- was if they had a separate analog jack that would route the analog audio input directly to the built-in amp and then to the drivers. Or even completely bypass the amp. The only reason someone would want to connect these headphones to an analog source directly would be to bypass the DSP.

What they did instead was build a USB sound card into a custom $35 cable that converts the analog signal to digital, which then goes to their DSP, then to the amp, and then to the drivers.

From an audio quality standpoint this is just incredibly INCREDIBLY stupid. NOT impressive. It is probably the best example of form over function I have ever heard of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eric Idle
You should bold “if you are in the ecosystem”

It feels very niched for the most part, particularly to either folks who are blind customers or people like me who are in the market to fill a void for over the ear BT with GOOD non-boom mic. The Bose 700 has the best boomless mic I’ve heard so far in noisy environments. Sonys are awful.
Why would these headphones be better for customers who have lost their sight?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeepIn2U
blind customers, not as in visually impaired.
Oooohhh...it's a meme. I guess there are people who spend on products (Apple and non-Apple) sight unseen because these products are hip, chick, statusy, etc. But the phrase "blind customers" can apply to 1, 10,1000, 1 million, or 50 million people.

I would think potential customers do their due diligence and determines if the ratio of the value of form/function or price/value meets their expectations.

They are seemingly pricey for the market they target, maybe considered expensive, and based on ones' viewpoint, overpriced.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: DeepIn2U and ct2k7
My Airpods cost me 120$ on a sale. This is the absolute max Im willing to pay for headphone and it is not because I cant afford the Airpods Max. Apple is not going to sell very much of these, not with Sony Mx4 at half that price.

Sold out until March. Your post didnt age too well.
 
What would have been acceptable -- from an audio quality standpoint -- was if they had a separate analog jack that would route the analog audio input directly to the built-in amp and then to the drivers. Or even completely bypass the amp. The only reason someone would want to connect these headphones to an analog source directly would be to bypass the DSP.

What they did instead was build a USB sound card into a custom $35 cable that converts the analog signal to digital, which then goes to their DSP, then to the amp, and then to the drivers.

From an audio quality standpoint this is just incredibly INCREDIBLY stupid. NOT impressive. It is probably the best example of form over function I have ever heard of.

No, there is actually two more valid reasons for someone to connect these to an analogue source.

1. Low latency which is required for realtime high FPS gaming and Audio Monitoring.
2. Lossless Audio Playback.

From an audio quality standpoint its extremely SMART as it allows for the use of ALC, volume controls as well as the H1 to use the same adaptive EQ technology with the benefits that only an analogue source can provide. Think of it like the fly-by-wire systems on a modern jet.

Bypassing the technology and wiring straight to the cans you would basically be left with a very expensive set of analogue cans that would probably sound like crap as they require the processor for best performance. These are not designed to be analogue cans.
 
Last edited:
1. Low latency which is required for realtime high FPS gaming and Audio Monitoring.
How much latency is created in the A to D converter in the cable? How much additional latency is created by the D to A converter in the headphones? If you want the absolute lowest latency; you sure wouldn't go through two encoders!

2. Lossless Audio Playback.

So you have an analog source. Then a less than $35 A to D converter chip converts it to digital in the cable. Loss. Then it goes through the DSP built into the AirPods. Then it goes through a D to A converter before being amplified to move the drivers. Loss again.

So I count at least two points of loss between the analog source and the drivers. NOT lossless. Lossless would be the analog source driving the drivers. Low loss would be a very high quality amp in the middle.

Neither of these examples make any sense for using an analog connection.
 
How much latency is created in the A to D converter in the cable? How much additional latency is created by the D to A converter in the headphones? If you want the absolute lowest latency; you sure wouldn't go through two encoders!

So you have an analog source. Then a less than $35 A to D converter chip converts it to digital in the cable. Loss. Then it goes through the DSP built into the AirPods. Then it goes through a D to A converter before being amplified to move the drivers. Loss again.

So I count at least two points of loss between the analog source and the drivers. NOT lossless. Lossless would be the analog source driving the drivers. Low loss would be a very high quality amp in the middle.

Neither of these examples make any sense for using an analog connection.
The Apple lightning "dongle" has proved itself to be very capable when compared to other headphone DAC's.

The DSP MAY add a small amount of latency. But massively less than bluetooth which averages around 200ms when gaming.

Many "audiophile" rigs also run though a number of colouring processes e.g. EQ's amps, pre-amps etc.

CD player > headphone amp > headphones would be the cleanest path. But there is always going to be coloring to some degree.
 
I don't see that apple have "cheaped out" on any of the features, if anything it appears they have excelled and surpassed the competition on most everything except price.

The worthiness of that price to be determined when some decent reviewers do some proper testing. But based on build quality, proven ANC tech and transparency mode, coupled with spacial audio and pretty seamless device integration.. probably worth the $200 difference for anyone who is typically streaming a lot of "high" quality audio from most popular apps.

I reckon Apple has already won the crown for most popular/best value over-ear wireless headphone of 2021 while still sitting on the starting block, much like they did with the Apple Watch (which also seemed to be an insane price at the time).

Honestly I don't think there is going to be any competition or trouble when it comes to selling these if you are already in the Ecosystem .. the integration is what's going to sell it and the price will be accepted by most everyone except people who don't have a pair yet.

They have the beats lineup with very very similar feature set with prices more compatible. Likely these are little better on some areas. Surely those are "better value" at $200 less.
 
They have the beats lineup with very very similar feature set with prices more compatible. Likely these are little better on some areas. Surely those are "better value" at $200 less.
Depends on what you consider better value. The Apple cans certainly look as though the build quality has been ramped up to 11 I'd guess the ANC is improved, they have transparency mode, Spacial Audio, and I'd take a wild guess they will have an entirely different sound signature.

Just the fact that these are NOT Beats will be a $200 decider for many.

I guess we'll find out how similar they are during the inevitable teardown in the next couple of weeks.
 
Sold out until March. Your post didnt age too well.
Without numbers, it could be sold out because there were just a few dozens of pairs available in each store. It does not mean anything and it is Christmas season, demand is always high while the production is limited. There are many factors involved. Given that Apple does not disclose units sold numbers the only way you cant tell if the product is successful is if you start seeing many people on the street wearing these headphones, just like it happened with the original AirPods or the Apple Watch. The bottom line is that I dont see many people wiling to spent 500$ for a pair of headphone, even if they are best ones. The general public, outside the professional realm, does not spent 500$ for audio accessories.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Realityck
Without numbers, it could be sold out because there were just a few dozens of pairs available in each store. It does not mean anything and it is Christmas season, demand is always high while the production is limited. There are many factors involved. Given that Apple does not disclose units sold numbers the only way you cant tell if the product is successful is if you start seeing many people on the street wearing these headphones, just like it happened with the original AirPods or the Apple Watch. The bottom line is that I dont see many people wiling to spent 500$ for a pair of headphone, even if they are best ones. The general public, outside the professional realm, does not spent 500$ for audio accessories.
While all could be technically true, substitute the Max with the regular AirPods and it’s the exact kind of post that was happening when they were first unveiled.

These are going to be popular.
 
They have the beats lineup with very very similar feature set with prices more compatible. Likely these are little better on some areas. Surely those are "better value" at $200 less.

Well, if Apple have managed to make an ANC headphone that actually sounds decent (by that I mean neutral and balanced, enjoyable with all genres), the better value will be just there.

Just purchased the Sony´s WH 1000 XM4. They sound... mediocre. Better than Beats, sure, but still too much bass, recessed mids and muddy soundstage. Somewhat fixable via EQ, but still merely passable sound.

Noise cancelling and confort are top notch, though... but not worth the 300-380 price tag (322 euros via Amazon in my case).

I don´t understand how virtually all the major reviews say that they sound great, when very clearly they do not.

The Bose 700 NC do sound a little more balanced, but still are bass heavy and a have a slightly congested soundstage.

The Beats solo pro sounds atrocious.

Not a single top tier ANC bluetooth headphone to date have good sound quality. If Apple have managed to achieve that AND industry leading noise cancelling and comfort at the same time, then maybe the Airpods Max are worth their price tag.

Excuse my English.
 
Last edited:
Sold out until March. Your post didnt age too well.
Your post as well.

1608059336741.png
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.