Apple's AirPods Team Wants 'More Bandwidth' Than Bluetooth Provides

[DeepIn2U]

Apple in October introduced the redesigned third-generation AirPods, which have an updated design, Adaptive EQ support, spatial audio, and other new features. To explain some of the design decisions Apple made with the AirPods 3, Apple's vice president of acoustics Gary Geaves sat down for an interview with What HiFi (via 9to5Mac), providing some interesting insight into the limitations of Bluetooth and the feature set of the AirPods 3.

According to Geaves, AirPods 3 were built entirely with custom-made components, using nothing "off the shelf." Apple is using a "complicated acoustic system," "carefully tuned bass port," and a "brand new, custom amplifier" all in the name of the best possible sound quality. Apple can optimize for sound with hardware components, but as What HiFi points out, Bluetooth is the real limitation.

When asked if Bluetooth is holding back Apple's hardware and "stifling sound quality," Geaves declined to say too much, but he said that Apple "concentrates very hard" on getting the most out of Bluetooth, and that "it's fair to say" that Apple would "like more bandwidth."

When conceptualizing the AirPods 3, Geaves said that the AirPods team "looked very closely" at the strengths of the second-generation AirPods. The "effortless open fit" that doesn't create a seal in the ear is a big draw of the AirPods, but designing around the lack of a seal "creates challenges for the audio team."

Because no two ears are the same, Geaves said that the sound people experience will be "significantly different, especially the bass," which is what led Apple's AirPods team to add Adaptive EQ, an AirPods Pro feature, to the AirPods 3. It's designed to provide a "consistent frequency response regardless of the level of fit that each person gets."

When designing audio hardware, Apple works from a "strong analytic foundation" and has done "extensive measurements" and "deep statistical research" to inform an "internal acoustic analytic response" that's taken into account. Geaves says that Apple also understands that listening to music "is an emotional experience which people connect with on a very deep level," so Apple works with an "expert team of critical listeners and tuners" as well. The team is from the pro audio industry, and refines the sound for each product, including the new AirPods 3.

The full interview with Geaves goes into more detail on the AirPods 3 and it's well worth a read for those interested.

Article Link: Apple's AirPods Team Wants 'More Bandwidth' Than Bluetooth Provides

First of all why the HELL are they interviewing VP of acoustics from Apple talking about Bluetooth bandwidth limitations on the AirPods 3?!!! This is asinine!

All AirPods do NOT have the battery capacity to even think about enjoying WiFi bandwidth for audio and more features. This conversation SHOULD’VE been about the AirPods Max which has the battery capacity and internal space and acoustics to fully enjoy high bandwidth lossless audio.

Also “ amount of latency you get when you move your head, and if that's too long” … I can think of how Android users that are hell bent on 120hz speed for scrolling trying to give themselves whiplash wiggling their heads madly to beat spatial audio with head tracking lol.

 

[DeepIn2U]

Would WiFi fit in AirPods? Would the energy drain be too much? If Apple can't convince the Bluetooth people to improve, they'll make their own radios.

The chip could but what’s the point of less than 1HR audio playback for lossless?!

The AirPods Max SHOULD have had lossless audio using Wi-Fi but no apples teams obviously did NOT talk to each other and the Max is an expensive missed opportunity that the competition still beats in every category but auto switching between Apple devices. This secrecy between teams annoys me about Apple as it’s sometimes detrimental to delivering THE best products.

 

[DeepIn2U]

I agree. I refuse to pay that much for headphones that can’t even do CD quality audio.

And yes, I can hear the difference.

LOL you DO realize a LOT of CDs were produced with absolute crap production quality right? Especially the first 5yrs of CDs.

That said I was super impressed listening to Bon Jovi’s New Jersey album, specifically Ride Cowboy Ride which impeccably reproduced a very dusty record playing on an old record player. THAT was incredible production.

Super CDs or LaserDisc … now THAT is real quality people can really hear and appreciate.

 

[Apleeseed84]

I have multiple expensive "audiophile" headphones, which I love and spend a lot of time with, but there's just no way I'd go back to wired headphones when out and about. I'd rather compromise on audio quality then than on convenience.

Speak for yourself I’m finding out that “wireless” headphones can only handle One audio source at a time meaning that I can’t browse Facebook or the internet for that matter without my music pausing every ten seconds

 

[throAU]

I'd rather compromise on audio quality then than on convenience.

This. I have hifi speakers, etc. at home.

When I am out and about, running, cycling, working, etc. I don't want cables.

 

[eicca]

LOL you DO realize a LOT of CDs were produced with absolute crap production quality right? Especially the first 5yrs of CDs.

That said I was super impressed listening to Bon Jovi’s New Jersey album, specifically Ride Cowboy Ride which impeccably reproduced a very dusty record playing on an old record player. THAT was incredible production.

Super CDs or LaserDisc … now THAT is real quality people can really hear and appreciate.

You do realize production quality has nothing to do with bit rate and the amount of information that the digital stream can convey? Crap production can be found anywhere at any point in history.

 

[_Spinn_]

Something tells me that the industry would probably never pick up a new wireless technology. Even if it did it would be a better part of a decade before there would be widespread support.

 

[ntlman]

LOL you DO realize a LOT of CDs were produced with absolute crap production quality right? Especially the first 5yrs of CDs.

That said I was super impressed listening to Bon Jovi’s New Jersey album, specifically Ride Cowboy Ride which impeccably reproduced a very dusty record playing on an old record player. THAT was incredible production.

Super CDs or LaserDisc … now THAT is real quality people can really hear and appreciate.

This is not entirely true. First issue CDs from Sony, made in Japan, still sound fantastic today. Also, many collectors will point out Japanese-issue CDs have slightly better sound than domestic produced CDs. The crap quality rep with early CD pressings was largely from US pressing plants. (my primary music player is a restored iPod HiFi w/a 1 tb ssd drive/Status Audio CB-1s).

Not surprised by the Bon Jovi CD's great fidelity: BJ were signed to Mercury Records, which was a subsidiary of Phillips Electronics (co developer of the format).

Here are all my japanese 1st pressing CDs of Bruce from his debut thru Tunnel of Love

 

[DeepIn2U]

You do realize production quality has nothing to do with bit rate and the amount of information that the digital stream can convey? Crap production can be found anywhere at any point in history.

Oh I know this ... I wasn't talking about bit rate or amount of information at all for a specific reason - to avoid your post lol. I was talking about quality of CD that someone claims they can hear and used it generally, yet not all CD's exibit the same audio quality people hear that is part of production, not bit rate, yet they can play hand in hand.

 

[DeepIn2U]

This is not entirely true. First issue CDs from Sony, made in Japan, still sound fantastic today. Also, many collectors will point out Japanese-issue CDs have slightly better sound than domestic produced CDs. The crap quality rep with early CD pressings was largely from US pressing plants. (my primary music player is a restored iPod HiFi w/a 1 tb ssd drive/Status Audio CB-1s).

Not surprised by the Bon Jovi CD's great fidelity: BJ were signed to Mercury Records, which was a subsidiary of Phillips Electronics (co developer of the format).

Here are all my japanese 1st pressing CDs of Bruce from his debut thru Tunnel of Love

You're very right.

Noticed I mentioned a US produced band and album, Bon Jovi?! I didn't mention anything from Japan although my first CD player from Sony was imported from Japan in 1989 and I only had access to US produced music.

I've never really listened to Bruce Springsteen though. My very first CD (which came with the CD player) was Money For Nothing by Dire Straits.

PS: that picture is not mine, I think it accidentally got placed into the quote of my earlier post you have.

 

[1rottenapple]

I’m rocking my custom iPod mini and iPod 5th gen both with sd card memory. 3.5mm for the win!

 

[ntlman]

You're very right.

Noticed I mentioned a US produced band and album, Bon Jovi?! I didn't mention anything from Japan although my first CD player from Sony was imported from Japan in 1989 and I only had access to US produced music.

I've never really listened to Bruce Springsteen though. My very first CD (which came with the CD player) was Money For Nothing by Dire Straits.

PS: that picture is not mine, I think it accidentally got placed into the quote of my earlier post you have.

My copy of Born to Run is funny. It was sold as the first domestically produced copy of the CD, noted on the CD outer cover as "Now made in the USA". But that was not the whole story: the CD artwork was printed in the US, but the disc manufactured in Japan (Sony had been distributing CBS/Columbia in Japan for over 10 yrs before Sony bought them outright).

Sony also distributed REM's last 3 albums for IRS in Japan, and they sound so much better than the crappy US plant pressings.

 

[sahni130]

I know very little about audio so here’s a question… Is it basically wasting money to use wireless headphones with high fi Apple music or tidal? I’d be better off with good wired headphones in the mbp?

 

[incoherent_1]

At least for me, there aren’t many use cases for in-ear headphones that provide insanely high quality audio. While it’s a nice idea, in practice most real-world applications make the quality improvement indistinguishable (it’s not often that I’m sitting still in a sealed, quiet room listening to my AirPods). If I’m doing that, why wouldn’t I use over ear headphones or a sound system?

I wonder at what point the audio improvement is more of an advertising bullet point than something only 0.1% of users will ever notice.

 

[Bandaman]

At least for me, there aren’t many use cases for in-ear headphones that provide insanely high quality audio. While it’s a nice idea, in practice most real-world applications make the quality improvement indistinguishable (it’s not often that I’m sitting still in a sealed, quiet room listening to my AirPods). If I’m doing that, why wouldn’t I use over ear headphones or a sound system?

I wonder at what point the audio improvement is more of an advertising bullet point than something only 0.1% of users will ever notice.

Quality aside, bluetooth can be extremely annoying to use at times.

 

[dwaite]

You know what has way more bandwidth than Bluetooth? 10 cents of copper wire and a 3.5mm plug.

Way to show your courage Timmy.

You heard it here first - next iPhone will have two 3.5mm jacks - one for each ear.

 

[dwaite]

Hearing compressed audio is easy: listen for the edges, the edges are fuzzy. It's brutally noticable on The live in hollywood/blue bayou track by Linda Ronstadt. Instead of a smooth edge her voice turns into a hacksaw...and that's with itunes plus. I normally don't care about that stuff, but I just can't listen to that particular track compressed because it's so brutal.

If you can't hear it, great!

Audio is always a tradeoff. I listen to my iphone speaker because it's what i have on me. I used to listen on transistor radios. I listen on my stereo when I can. Music is music, enjoy it however you want!

I've found it depends a lot on the combination of the song and the encoder implementation/settings. I've had more frantic songs where the downloads from everything other than Apple were total trash - flattened soundstage, you couldn't even really make out the lyrics.

That is also why they badging for Apple Digital Master and the like. I don't know if Apple actually has their own encoding algorithms for AAC, or if they have 're-encoded' tracks (based on uploaded lossless) as encoders have improved.

I can't really judge the distortion on a live track (recording vs encoding), so I can't really judge if the encoder messed up on that particular track. The tracks were recorded 40 years ago for cable television, after all.

 

[femike]

Baaah all this 'finely tuned' mumbo jumbo. I bought some (wired) Audio Technica m40x headphones for a fraction on the price and am very happy. Can't say I want/need a pair of $$$ bluetooth ones.

I few months ago I bought the Audio Technica m50x wired only headphones, fantastic sound. Extremely happy with it. They also recently released a new version of the m50x BlueTooth headphones.

 

[String]

I had AirPods 3 for about a week. They are much larger than the 1’s I previously had, kept falling out. They sounded great but I couldn’t use them.

 

[Spindel]

I know very little about audio so here’s a question… Is it basically wasting money to use wireless headphones with high fi Apple music or tidal? I’d be better off with good wired headphones in the mbp?

It’s always a waste of storage space or bandwith to use lossless audioformats. Because no matter the equipment no one can hear the dofference between that and compressed equivalent of mp3 at 256 kbps (sometimes even as low as 128 kbps depending on type of music and master production quality).

It has gotten to the point within the audiophile community that a large part of it says that double blind tests aren’t reliable.

Heck audiophiles claim that vinyl sounds ”better” which is objectivley false, but it must be given that subjective prefrences might lead you to prefer the ”errors” in sound from vinyl.

I know this post will upset audiophiles.

But to answer your question, wireless headphones will never be able to get you the ”best” sound. But in most situations where wireless head phones are most often used, i e not quiet environments and when you move around etc you will not be able to distinguish the differences.

 

[anshuvorty]

The chip could but what’s the point of less than 1HR audio playback for lossless?!

The AirPods Max SHOULD have had lossless audio using Wi-Fi but no apples teams obviously did NOT talk to each other and the Max is an expensive missed opportunity that the competition still beats in every category but auto switching between Apple devices. This secrecy between teams annoys me about Apple as it’s sometimes detrimental to delivering THE best products.

Maybe if the AirPods Max wasn't released during the pandemic, it could've saved itself these elementary mistakes...who knows what the product would've looked like if it wasn't for the pandemic!

 

[cyanite]

Coming from an employee of the company that pretty much single handedly eviscerated the audiophile hi-fi market with the advent of the iPod playing 128kbps MP3s

It plays 256kbps AAC. That’s massively better.

 

[sw1tcher]

I have multiple expensive "audiophile" headphones, which I love and spend a lot of time with, but there's just no way I'd go back to wired headphones when out and about. I'd rather compromise on audio quality then than on convenience.

Speak for yourself I’m finding out that “wireless” headphones can only handle One audio source at a time meaning that I can’t browse Facebook or the internet for that matter without my music pausing every ten seconds

? That's exactly what @SpringKid is doing by saying "I" this and "I" that

 

[cyanite]

It's fairly easy to recognise, the sound of a snare drum for instance is much more distinguished.

With 128kbps MP3, sure.. but that’s not very relevant when we now use 256kbps AAC.

 

[SRLMJ23]

Really, how about https://sites.bu.edu/ombs/2011/03/01/this-is-your-brain-on-rf-emf/

"Although no justified claims can be made between this study’s observed brain activity increase and brain cancer of other pathology, the results show that cell phones do have an observable effect on our brains."

That is just the first study I pulled up. Now here in the US we have a lot of profit motivation to ignore or suppress the science. I'd like to know where you got your information that RF does not fry your brain. We've only had cell phones for what 40 years and it took a while to catch on. Where are the long term studies? Oh they don't exist, but propaganda does.

Do not care what that studies says, it is wrong. I mean no disrespect but spreading this wrong information helps no one, please take no offense. Go back to basic physics class, and the electromagnetic spectrum.

Non-Ionizing Radiation, which is what cell phones, wifi, microwaves etc, use. It cannot do any damage to your cells, it can only "excite" them, which again does zero damage.

Ionizing radiation, has enough energy to damage DNA and cause cancer. Ionizing radiation includes radon, x-rays, gamma rays, and other forms of high-energy radiation.

I mean it has been a long time since I took physics in high school and then advanced in college, so I might have gotten a few things off, it is also 4:30 AM where I am at, and I am tired as hell, haha. So unless the chart I am posting below has changed, we have nothing to worry about.

Here is the chart, anything to the left of UV is safe: