Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
another thing that people need to think about is call quality and this is where I am hoping Apple shines with as they do now with the normal airpods. Call quality is **** on XM3, XM4, QC35II... the only one that was fantastic was the Bose NC 700 but as a balding guy they hurt and the NC 700 has been a software nightmare as well for a product out more than 1 year.

This is pretty big for me... I'm hoping for these to be somewhat comparable to my work issued Jabra headset, which is fantastic.

The Airpods Pro are about 50% of the way there... generally they're okay in quiet environment and sometimes okay in a moderately noisy environment, but they don't have quite the crystal clear voice quality.
 
As a crazy mad audiophile, video producer and DJ I can assure you they are not targeted at me. First off the weight. One pound on my head for many hours at a time. No thanks. Audio quality. Hard to say as there are zero specs for this item anywhere. No frequency response. Nothing. More importantly...no info on playback Specs. Lossless? Hi res? If Apple want to be taken even remotely seriously by audiofools, DJ’s and other pros they need to act like it’s a pro or enthusiasts item. ok I have not tried them but from what I have seen these are more Audio fashion than HiFi function. I stand to be corrected.

I can assure you I'm at least as much an audiofool as you - been a member of head-fi since 2003 and asr for the past 4 years, been to several canjams, have hosted local meets, have owned over $50k of headphone equipment throughout the years, currently going back and forth between getting Genelec 8351b vs Dutch and Dutch 8c (~$10k speaker systems w/ DSP/room correction). I have experienced some of the best equipment known to humankind in critical listening situations.

You should know as well as anyone that any posted specs, esp. in the consumer space, are completely, absolutely, useless. For high-end speakers we want spinorama, waterfall plots, and distortion graphs, right? I'm hoping they target the modern Harman curve with the adaptive EQ, that's good enough for me. They claim 1% distortion down to 20 hz, which is fantastic if true.

All that said, these appeal to me greatly. I know Apple's R&D budget is at least an order of magnitude greater than like competitors in this space... I hear that much in my Airpods Pro. And having been down to the hirez road for years, realize it's BS, along with 'advancements' such as MQA, esp. after my time at ASR.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Websnapx2
First of all, there's no wired connection, maybe Apple did some super-duper wireless magic, but it would unlikely to work with any other transmitter than Apple's own devices, rendering it useless for audiophiles.
It does have a wired connection should you opt for it.
 
They look great, I hope they sound great, and I applaud Apple for this innovation. HOWEVER, The price point is completely wrong. Audiophiles know they can get better audio quality for far less. $399 would have been the sweet spot. But at this price, it’s better to wait for the next version and lower price point.
I can't agree with you. While you hope they sound great, in the next phrase you affirm there are better audio quality choices for far less. You can't know that.
It's the same as some positive remarks for HomePod sound, written in here before the item was released, therefore not much reliable.
Btw, we all know here that high price tag means automatically "great quality" for a lot of Apple users, no matter what reality is.
 
I like that the earcups swivel, and that the headband is relatively flat.

I returned my Bose 700 because the round headband kept sliding forward/backward on my head.

I returned my Sony MX 1000 M4's because the earcups were too shallow and rubbed on my ears.

Hopefully Apples new headphones will land in the Goldilocks zone of comfort.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Websnapx2
That's been debunked on so many levels. First, they were proven to be knockoffs in the teardown, second, they were modelled after the pre-Apple design, so even if they were real that was Monster, not apple.

Lastly, they don't need to add metal weights — they are designed WITH metal (the outer cups are aluminum, the arms are Stainless steel). You were wrong three different ways, if you care.
It did turn out that the first tear-down done by Bolt was accidentally performed on knock-off headphones.

But they were very accurate copies, the tear-towns on the actual real brand-name Beats headphones also had the same weights added.


So how is this debunked? Beats was adding weights to their headphones... which is all I said. I didn't comment on whether Beats knockoffs were also adding the weights.

I didn't say that the headphones were designed by Apple, I just said Apple owns beats. So not wrong there.

And you're just getting really weird with the third place I'm "wrong." I didn't say anything about whether the new headphones were made with metal or not. Just that they're really heavy, so I was wondering if there were weights inside.

I'm not even slightly inaccurate in any of the three things you're saying I'm wrong about. I'm right about the weights, the other two things I'm "wrong" about are things I never said.

You're wrong about everything you said in your comment, if you care.
 
It did turn out that the first tear-down done by Bolt was accidentally performed on knock-off headphones.

But they were very accurate copies, the tear-towns on the actual real brand-name Beats headphones also had the same weights added.

The pieces you reference from the article: "the heavy metal sizer (1), the decorative joiners (2), and the metal covered drivers (3)" — the Sizers are metal because that's a part that wears down often from adjusting the sizing of the fit from each listening session. That's not artificial weight, that's a more durable, better quality material for an easily worn part. Same as the joiners, as that is where the hinge lives and should be just as durable and sturdy as they are the only moving parts in a mostly plastic product. The idea that these parts are there only to "add weight" is a naive matter of opinion that ignores the effects of wear and tear in inferior materials. if the only goal of expensive headphones was to be light that would be one thing, but I expect some quality for costly products and reinforcing their weakest points with metal and not plastic is not a nefarious choice as you seem to be making it.

So how is this debunked? Beats was adding weights to their headphones... which is all I said. I didn't comment on whether Beats knockoffs were also adding the weights.
Because they are not weights, they are parts that happen to be made of stronger material than the rest of the plastic in the headset. The Knockoff used Zinc — which is heavier than steel — but those who hopped on the story to take a dig at Beats didn't want to be wrong so they continued the lie that they added weights when that's just not the truth. For the record, weights have no function other than to add weight, they don't function in any other way. If a weight has a function other than being heavy, it's a part. That's is the textbook definition. Full Stop.

I didn't say that the headphones were designed by Apple, I just said Apple owns beats. So not wrong there.
No, you didn't, you specifically said: "Let's not forget that Apple makes Beats, which ADD WEIGHTS to their headphones." That sentence specifically says Apple makes beats, and beats add weights to their headphones — ergo, Beats, which Apple makes, adds weights which is wrong on both counts. They aren't weights they are parts, and Apple had nothing to do (Designed, manufactured or otherwise) with that headset that is the basis to your opinion. So yes, wrong there as well.

And you're just getting really weird with the third place I'm "wrong." I didn't say anything about whether the new headphones were made with metal or not. Just that they're really heavy, so I was wondering if there were weights inside.
I'm not getting weird, I just understand that words mean something and you cannot change the meaning of something to fit your opinions. If the general issue here is that these Airpods Max are already heavy due to the materials used, so why — when they have never added weights before — would you assume they would add weights to an already heavy product? It's dumbfounding. It's like you have a narrative you want to believe so you assume the "facts" to reinforce what you want to believe is the outcome. Apple as a company does plenty of things wrong, so fabricating one they haven't done is silly. I mentioned the metal construction because you obviously chose to omit them in your reasoning of why it weighs as much as they do. It's extremely relevant in the conversation compared to their competition as very few of them use metal parts and the few that do, start approaching the Max's overall weight.

And yes, I am more concerned with having accurate information out rather than being "right". If I was wrong I'd have no issue concerning that — it's just not the case here and I have backed up my claims with reason, not opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Unregistered 4U
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.