That was also one of the things I couldn't get over when I went from AP Gen. 1 to APP -They upgraded essentially everything but the microphones were downgraded? On the "Pro" model?
Really noticeable and really cheap of Apple.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AirPods Pro 2: Five New Features and Improvements to Expect
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Really noticeable and really cheap of Apple.
The purpose of new iterations is simple:
Third parties won’t be selling them on discount anymore for a while. Making more people buy them at (or near) MSRP again 😜
Third parties won’t be selling them on discount anymore for a while. Making more people buy them at (or near) MSRP again 😜
1. You do realize this test is pointless and flawed, right? There is no way to get bit-accurate (lossless) audio out of a web browser, at least not on Windows. There are better ways to conduct a double blind test using real audio hardware.1. Excellent, let me know when you're ready to prove you can't hear the difference.
For now you can take these tests and post your results
2. A Sony discman couldn't supply audio to whatever headphones you wanted, the amp only drove low impedence headphones and back then the quality of all low impendence headphones were terrible. It wasn't until the 2000's that high quality in ear monitors were normal and available to buy (for about twice the price of a Sony Discman) - those IEM's would sound better listening to a 128kbps MP3 than any 80's headphones with a CD would.Is your audio system really ready for lossless?
Do an ABX test in your browser, and see if you can tell the difference between lossless and lossy audioabx.digitalfeed.net
I have nothing to prove to you anyway. You are free to enjoy your 128kbps MP3s. I have my standards and I’m content to stick to them.
2. You are entirely missing the point about the discman. The underpowered amp’s inability to drive high impedance headphones has nothing to do with the fact that it does not pass a lossy compressed signal, it’s output is inherently higher fidelity than anything using 128kbps mp3 or any other lossy compressed format. You can easily replace the discman in that example with a full sized component CD player with line out into any amplifier of your choice. The point remains. Why is 40 year old digital hardware able to perform better than the latest and greatest the 2020’s has to offer?
If you put that same energy into demanding better of the tech companies instead of being argumentative and content with wireless headphones that can’t even meet digital standards from 1982, maybe we’d have better wireless headphones by now.
If ANY other piece of modern tech in your life was being outperformed by something from 40 years ago, you’d probably be pretty upset about it. But when it comes to audio you seem to very strongly feel that what’s good enough for you must be good enough for everybody else.
Apples being a slave to shareholder growth expectations is one main reason.
I feel very strong about people who are wrong and then double down on being wrong because they haven't got a clue what they're on about.
1. Absolute nonsense, Chrome has been able to play back Flac files since 2017 - you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
2. "The latest and greatest" whatever that means, in this case means wireless audio - which you couldn't do at all 40 years ago. To suggest that the Discmans headphones were better 40 years ago because the wired cable could carry a signal from a really poor quality DAC is ridiculous. For the record every single player in the 2020's, including the iPhone is able to output digital audio many times higher bitrate than the Discman or anything 40 years ago ever could - just because the wireless audio standard is only just getting there is with wireless headphones is very disingenuous to say it's "got worse".
It doesn't matter how much you shouted at tech companies, it was simply not possible to carry the (pointless) bandwidth required to such a tiny device to play back loss audio. Now we're getting but the point still stands YOU won't be able to hear it.
I'm also passionate about people talking nonsense about audio and what they can't hear - and annoyed by the audiophile community and their snake oil nonsense because i've spent 20 years working in the audio industry as a mix engineer and producer. I know a thing or two about audio quality, audio formats, very high end systems and what you can cannot hear.
I haven’t once been able to find my AirPods Pro with Find My. The most I get out of Find My is “your AirPods Pro were at X location seven months ago.
What am I missing?
What am I missing?
How is it irrelevant? It's the most important part of the conversation. You're saying that even if no perceptible difference exists, it still has a material difference to anything?
Simply being able to play back a FLAC file in a web browser does not mean what’s in that the decoded PCM samples are actually making it to the DAC unmolested. I will admit I don’t know nearly enough about how this works on Mac computers, but on Windows there are all kinds of hoops to jump through in order to record or play back audio without it getting mangled by the Windows audio subsystem. If you aren’t using specialized software that can interface directly with the audio device - definitely not any web browser I’m familiar with - you aren’t getting an accurate/bit-perfect signal out of your computer.
I will not fault you for not knowing this, but as an audio professional this should be simple enough for you to test.
By the way, I would not call the Discman’s DAC poor quality. The 80’s models are from a time before oversampling/delta-sigma chips became popular in the mid-90’s for their cost savings. They probably sound better being fed standard 16/44.1 content than most things out there today. And again, as I mentioned before, they do not push everything they output through a lossy encoder, so regardless of how little that matters to you, that is an automatic win.
Since you are a longtime professional in this industry, I can also only assume you have a current membership with the AES. There is an AES publication from 2002 titled “Perceptual Audio Coders: What To Listen For” (it may be 20 years old though it is still very applicable today for the purposes of our discussion re: wireless/lossy audio) and if you are not already familiar with it, I highly recommend that you take the time to order it and go through the disc and accompanying reading materials.
The perceptible difference exists for many, not for all. Not everyone has tin ears, so yes it matters
Thank you for you honest feedback.
Ive never tried either in my eyes so saying that i have no clue now which would fit better?
The only Apple headphones ive ever used was the ones including with the iPhones in the past and i do recall they woudl fall out of my ears at random especially if id got to sit down on lay down etc.
An unpopular opinion:
o) The sound quality for music of the AirPods isn't the best in first place (although, I always accepted that as a compromise on NoiseCancellation devices, which often had the majority of their "budget" allocated towards that).
o) In our meetings those using AirPods Pro always sound worse than those using built in laptop mics... either the noise cancellation is too aggressive or otherwise flawed. But that's 99% software...
o) The fact that you can't "standby" AirPods is a joke... Not being able to actually turn them off depletes the case and if stored outside the case the depletes the AirPods, making it even worse as that will kill the battery even quicker.
o) Find My is completely useless on AirPods Pro
If those are fixed a new purchase may be justified, but till then the reason to upgrade isn't really there...
o) The sound quality for music of the AirPods isn't the best in first place (although, I always accepted that as a compromise on NoiseCancellation devices, which often had the majority of their "budget" allocated towards that).
o) In our meetings those using AirPods Pro always sound worse than those using built in laptop mics... either the noise cancellation is too aggressive or otherwise flawed. But that's 99% software...
o) The fact that you can't "standby" AirPods is a joke... Not being able to actually turn them off depletes the case and if stored outside the case the depletes the AirPods, making it even worse as that will kill the battery even quicker.
o) Find My is completely useless on AirPods Pro
If those are fixed a new purchase may be justified, but till then the reason to upgrade isn't really there...
I am quite confident that I buy nothing close to Apple's AirPods WRT cost and level of manufacturing with a product life of less than three years (realistically). Every family member still uses (and has no problem with) wires, much older phones, shops at thrift stores, etc. We do our best. No one would think of buying AirPods... just such a silly waste. Obviously we are a tiny minority.
You may want to research the environmental impact of products like AirPods. Yeah they are tiny, but weigh in very heavy WRT environmental cost to mfg. E.g.
Perspective | Electronics are built with death dates. Let’s not keep them a secret.
Our analysis of 14 popular consumer devices found most could stop working in 3 to 4 years because of irreplaceable batteries. Here’s how we get the tech industry to design products that last longer — and do less damage to the environment.
www.washingtonpost.com
I would say the ones that were included with the iPhone in the past (the newer ones without the foam cover) is a good reference for the normal AirPods, I couldn't use those either and I've seen a correlation with my friends between using those and being able to use the regular AirPods. For my AirPods Pro I have to wear different sizes silicone tips for each ear to get a proper fit which also helps keeping them in place.
1. Excellent, let me know when you're ready to prove you can't hear the difference.
For now you can take these tests and post your results
2. A Sony discman couldn't supply audio to whatever headphones you wanted, the amp only drove low impedence headphones and back then the quality of all low impendence headphones were terrible. It wasn't until the 2000's that high quality in ear monitors were normal and available to buy (for about twice the price of a Sony Discman) - those IEM's would sound better listening to a 128kbps MP3 than any 80's headphones with a CD would.Is your audio system really ready for lossless?
Do an ABX test in your browser, and see if you can tell the difference between lossless and lossy audio
I am wondering if a lot of the comparisons comes from Spotify being worse in their quality than Tidal in general? I have done quite a few AB tests for other people with Tidal HiFi vs Spotify Premium and although AB tests aren't as good of a determinator as ABX everyone has said they preferred the Tidal. I doubt that has to do with lossy vs lossless though.
I started doing the comparisons for others because I thought that Tidal HiFi sounded better than the Spotify I was listening to and wondered if it was all placebo, not enough that I'd switch though as I prefer the discovery parts of Spotify more.
That's the opposite of what I quoted you saying. You said it's irrelevant whether or not anyone can tell a difference!
They better have better SQ than the G1s. I still don't get the hype. I have a pair which I won through work and I feel like for the money you'd pay there are FAR better alternatives for the price or even cheaper.
I lost once my AirPods Pro, which I was constantly complaining about because of this or that issue (mostly because the Bluetooth codec would make talking and listening at the same time make everything sound like garbage). So I decided to buy the Sony wh-1000xm4. And boy, I can't await to replace them again with AirPods Pro.
Everyone keeps raving about those headphones, but they are just utter garbage. The sound profile is heavily biased towards bass and takes tweaking which I'm not competent in, and thankfully I found someone else's amp settings to bring them to a more neutral state.
Other than that, the noise cancellation is less reliable, everytime you get spikes in the environment the cancellation fails, the APP seem to take temporal incoherency better into account. The transparency mode is garbage, sounds muffled and absolutely unnatural. But the worst is just all the software issues. The headphones constantly keep resetting to speak to chat, which makes your headphones mute on every cough, making a trip into the app necessary, which would crash about every time. The stupid tap controls are unreliable and the pairing between two devices is absolutely mind boggling. To say something positive, they are really sturdy, since I smashed them multiple times against a wall and they don't bother at all, work as usual.
All in all I wanna say, yes, there is a lot to complain about the APP, but they are still the most convenient thing that works out of the box really really well all around. It's easy to forget about that once you get used to it....
Everyone keeps raving about those headphones, but they are just utter garbage. The sound profile is heavily biased towards bass and takes tweaking which I'm not competent in, and thankfully I found someone else's amp settings to bring them to a more neutral state.
Other than that, the noise cancellation is less reliable, everytime you get spikes in the environment the cancellation fails, the APP seem to take temporal incoherency better into account. The transparency mode is garbage, sounds muffled and absolutely unnatural. But the worst is just all the software issues. The headphones constantly keep resetting to speak to chat, which makes your headphones mute on every cough, making a trip into the app necessary, which would crash about every time. The stupid tap controls are unreliable and the pairing between two devices is absolutely mind boggling. To say something positive, they are really sturdy, since I smashed them multiple times against a wall and they don't bother at all, work as usual.
All in all I wanna say, yes, there is a lot to complain about the APP, but they are still the most convenient thing that works out of the box really really well all around. It's easy to forget about that once you get used to it....
Apple's second-generation AirPods Pro are finally nearing launch, with a release expected later this year. If you are considering upgrading to the new AirPods Pro once they are released, keep reading for a list of five new features to expect.
In addition to all-new features, the second-generation AirPods Pro will likely adopt some features added to the standard AirPods last year.
H2 Chip
The new AirPods Pro will feature a "significantly upgraded" wireless chip compared to the H1 chip in the original AirPods Pro, according to Apple analyst Ming-Chi Kuo. The new chip could be branded as an "H2 chip" given the improvements.
Kuo did not elaborate on what benefits the new chip would provide, but given that the H1 chip powers audio-related functions, the upgraded chip in the second-generation AirPods Pro could result in improvements to sound quality, latency, active noise cancellation, Transparency mode, features powered by Siri, and more.
The upgraded chip could also enable Apple Lossless audio support.
Longer Battery Life
While there haven't been any firm rumors about the new AirPods Pro featuring longer battery life, it's reasonable to expect improvements in this area given that nearly three years have passed since the original AirPods Pro launched.
Apple's standard third-generation AirPods released last year provide up to six hours of listening time per charge, compared to up to 4.5 hours for the current AirPods Pro. Even with active noise cancellation and Transparency mode turned off, the AirPods Pro last up to five hours per charge, which is still less than the third-generation AirPods.
Charging Case Enhancements
The charging case for the new AirPods Pro will be able to emit a sound, making it easier to locate the case when it is lost, according to Kuo. AirPods Pro can already be tracked via the Find My app on an iPhone, but the charging case cannot play a sound.
It's also likely the new AirPods Pro charging case will have IPX4-rated water and sweat resistance like the charging case for the third-generation AirPods. Currently, only the AirPods Pro earbuds have water resistance and not the case.
The charging case is expected to stick with Lightning before switching to USB-C in 2023.
Improved In-Ear Detection
Yet another feature that the next AirPods Pro will likely adopt from the third-generation AirPods is a skin-detect sensor for more accurate in-ear detection compared to the dual optical sensors in the original AirPods Pro.
Apple says the skin-detect sensor "accurately discerns if AirPods are in the ear — versus in a pocket or on a table — and pauses playback when removed."
Fitness Tracking
In May 2021, Bloomberg's Mark Gurman and Debby Wu reported that the second-generation AirPods Pro would include "updated motion sensors with a focus on fitness tracking," but the report did not provide any further details about the feature.
AirPods Pro are already equipped with a motion-detecting accelerometer, and it's possible that improvements to this sensor would allow for some fitness tracking capabilities, but Apple's exact plans remain to be seen. On a potentially related note, iOS 16 allows the Fitness app to be used on an iPhone without an Apple Watch.
Design and Release Date
Back in 2020, Gurman and Wu reported that Apple had tested a more compact design for the new AirPods Pro that would eliminate the stems below the earbuds, similar to Beats Studio Buds. However, more recent rumors suggest that the second-generation AirPods Pro will not have any significant outward-facing design changes.
AirPods Pro were introduced with an Apple Newsroom press release on October 28, 2019 and launched two days later. The new AirPods Pro are expected to launch by the end of 2022, with September or October the two most likely months for the headphones to be released. AirPods Pro are currently priced at $249 in the United States, although they are frequently discounted by resellers like Amazon and Best Buy.
Article Link: AirPods Pro 2: Five New Features and Improvements to Expect
Seems like a wasted article - helping Apple users on the forum to remember to think Apple (brand name marketing in full effect). Also wasted paragraph about the "H2" chip - like it's the end all and be all without even mentioning
Hi-Res AUDIO!!
Samsung just beat Apple to this game - but did so using a proprietary solution, like Apple's H chip, only Samsung devices benefit from Hi-Res Audio, at least Sony licenses out their LDAC Hi-Res audio solution (900kbps also) over Bluetooth.
EDIT: Now both Samsung and Xiaomi have beaten Apple ... Xiaomi using the Hi-Res BT codec standard: LHDC 4.0 = LHDC supports bitrates of 400/560/900 kbit/s, bit-depth of up to 24 bit and sample rate of up to 96 kHz.
Don't bother come at me with Qualcomm's AptX/AptX-HD/AptX Adaptive all junk all not Hi-Res.
Last edited:
Thanks for the feedback.
Sounds like then maybe the Pro's could be more ideal for me then??
Might just wait to see with this event if a new gen is announced or not and then make my choice from there.
Couldn’t agree with this more. I got the Sony wf-1000xm3 and had nothing but issues. Even had them replaced and the new pair had different issues. Got the Beats Fit Pro now and they are miles better. Can’t wait to also get the Airpods Pro 2.
Yeah it’s anbsolutely insane that apple touted the lossless feature on Apple Music without actually selling any headphones that can take advantage.
