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

[Unregistered 4U]

It may be entirely psychological.

For this particular instance, almost certainly psychological. What you hear in a recording is what the orchestra (and their audio engineers) felt was suitable for a release. What you hear in any orchestra hall is “what you have to put up with.” The reflections, the people coughing, your seat, your companion… all of these things add up to an experience that could be described as audibly suboptimal, but emotionally fulfilling. Even if you were to purchase one of the seats to have at home, and capture a multi-channel surround recording FROM that seat such that all the ambience can be captured just as it was heard, all those other sensory inputs would no longer be there and it wouldn’t “sound” the same (even though it would sound the same… well, minus the coughing

 

[citysnaps]

I love my AirPods but rarely listen to music with them. If I want to listen to music I use my wired Sennheiser cans with Dragonfly DAC. AirPods are great for podcasts though.

They're also great for long phone conversations. Which is what I used them for.

 

[ntlman]

I love my AirPods but rarely listen to music with them. If I want to listen to music I use my wired Sennheiser cans with Dragonfly DAC. AirPods are great for podcasts though.

Black/Blue/Red Dragonfly?

 

[mikethemartian]

There are many more people who want the features that removal of the headphone jack provided (improved water and dust resistance, bigger battery, etc.)

I doubt it is that difficult to design and manufacture a headphone jack to high enough tolerance so that it is waterproof.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I love my AirPods but rarely listen to music with them. If I want to listen to music I use my wired Sennheiser cans with Dragonfly DAC. AirPods are great for podcasts though.

See folks, dongles have been a part of a high quality listening experience for awhile!

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I doubt it is that difficult to design and manufacturer a headphone jack to high enough tolerance so that it is waterproof.

There are some out there.

Waterproof Audio Jacks | Same Sky

Conforming to the 2.5 mm or 3.5 mm audio standard, Same Sky's waterproof audio jack connectors carry Ingress Protection (IP) ratings of IPX7 or IP67 to deal with the harsh conditions found in industrial and outdoor applications. Browse models now!

www.cuidevices.com

And I’d guess it doesn’t take up a TON of extra space over non-waterproof ones, but it does take up more space than zero.

 

[ntlman]

I'm reading all these smug responses to suggestions that the headphone jack be restored, and wondering if these are the same people who over-zealously defended Apple's removal of the HDMI port, MagSafe and SD card slot for years... right up to the point when Apple pulled the rug out from under them and admitted their mistake. Whoops.

If Apple was smart enough to realize that removing these ports from their flagship computer did more to hurt sales than improve them, you can be assured that they will make the same consideration again should their cash cow (iPhone) experience a similar downturn.

 

[mikethemartian]

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.

This is an early 20th century physics problem that is answered by Albert Einstein’s paper on the photoelectric effect for which he was awarded the Nobel prize. To ionize (meaning to completely remove it) an electron from an atom or molecule requires the electron to absorb an electromagnetic photon with sufficient energy to overcome the binding energy (think of it as a deficit) of the electron. The energy of a photon is given (in unit Joules) by E=hf where h is Planck’s constant and f is the frequency of the absorbed photon in Hertz. The frequency of a radio/microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum is on the order of GHz or 10^9 Hz. The visible spectrum of light such which is emitted by a candle is on the order of 10^14 Hz so a photon emitted by a candle has about 100,000 times more energy than a microwave photon. The low frequency end of the UVB band where you start to get skin cancers is 10^15 Hz. So if you look up the binding energies of electrons in DNA molecules you will see that they align with this UVB range.

So a radio/microwave photon cannot do damage to a DNA molecule by ionization process. The only way it can do damage is how a microwave oven does. It can’t ionize electrons but it can cause whole molecules to vibrate back and forth and generate heat by friction. But that takes a lot of total energy (not energy per photon like for ionization). If a cellphone or wireless earbud was generating this much energy you would know it immediately because it would be getting hot and burning your ear or side of your face.

 

[CarAnalogy]

Ruh roh, here comes iTooth.

Yeah it does seem pretty clear he was trying not to give away what they are planning to do about this. They are going to have to have some sort of high bandwidth personal area network for the AR glasses. Wouldn’t be surprised if they introduce it with the AirPods.

 

[ericwn]

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

Destroyed the audiophile market? Was that on Earth 2? In the real world the iTunes Store shipped 256 kbps soon after plus of course lossless and the choice to set your own bitrate when ripping CDs. Not that the mainstream had much effect on anything audiophile in the first place.

 

[darngooddesign]

Probably because $550 Apple headphones which can't play Apple Lossless is laughable.

 

[ericwn]

Bye bye Android compatibility.

Maybe they can run two wireless technologies in them. Or give that market to Beats.

 

[darngooddesign]

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

Well...the first iPod played everything from low-res MP3s to high-res CD rips so it was really up to each person to decide which sound quality they wanted. Kind of like choosing between a Type 2 cassette or CD.

 

[npmacuser5]

Why we like our inexpensive Beats Flex EarPods. No problems with loosing the EarPods, long life battery, can stay around neck all day. Work great for everything other than music. Need great music, quality listening, plug in my Bose Headset. Sometimes two remotes just work better than one. ?

 

[jazz1]

Well this was considered "wireless" back in the day.

I actually do hope that a new technology gets wireless sound closer to wired. But, I would want it to be available across brands. As we all know it is just not one element that makes great sound. Wireless transmission is only one (important) piece of it for mobile use. So I don't want to be stuck with one brand

I do love my AirPods Max headphones. But, my wired (over the ear) headphones still have better sound in my music listening world. I say this as I listen to my mid-fi Schiit Asgard 3 and Sennheiser HD-650 headphones.

I do understand mobility is also important for many people, including me. That is why I enjoy the freedom BT gives. So in the meantime enjoy the music!

 

[Apleeseed84]

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

I have been looking into PMP’s as of late and recent iPod touch’s, all this lossless music has made me go back to wired?

 

[nt5672]

It may be entirely psychological. In one experiment, researchers served people the same wine, but labeled one as being a $100 bottle. Without a miss, people said they enjoyed the $100 bottle more, despite being the exact same wine as the $20 bottle. Not only that, but when examined with an fMRI the region on the brain associated with enjoyment lit up brighter. So they not only believed they enjoyed it more, they may have actually enjoyed it more, despite being no different.

The same thing happens with music and music quality. One study looked at professors within the field. When they were told the person playing was a world-class musician, they rated them far higher, despite the fact they weren't. The opposite was true too, when told the musician was an amateur, they rated them lower, despite the fact they were actually world-class musicians.

You're told you can hear the difference or that one type of music format is better and even if there is no difference your brain believes there is. We're great at lying to ourselves, even if we don't realize it.

Well, you really turned off your critical thinking here, or have not explained the studies well.

In the first case you said "People", of course just people are biased to justifying themselves. However, wine makers employ professionals that can definitely taste the differences. The fact that one wine is more expense or tastes better is subjective preference.

Again the second paragraph is rating subjective preference in the music, not the quality of the reproduction. And again, of course preference is, well, just a preference. A trained professional, or seasoned listener can hear the differences. For example, you ever hear of "perfect pitch".

I don't disagree with what you are trying to say, but it has nothing to do with recognizing the difference in quality of audio reproduction. What I am saying is that if you learn to recognize the differences you can. If you don't care to, then you won't. But you're wrong if you say that no one can. If you want to point to a study that you think backs your view then feel free and I'll show how the study is flawed.

Just the same way I can watch 4k video and see compression artifacts. I once spent a month (as part of my job) watching selected clips from a video with different compression algorithms to determine which compression we wanted to use for a specific product. Can I detect the compression algorithm from the video, no. But I can see the differences between the different algorithms. The same applies with music.

If you spend time with a piece of audio and learn to hear all of the idiosyncrasies you will then be able to hear the differences. To take some random person off the street and listen to some random piece of music and expect them to hear the differences is not a valid test to determine if there are differences.

 

[CTHarrryH]

I wonder if other countries and the EUC would allow Apple to use proprietary interfaces or force them to use standard stuff available on all types of devices as they are doing with USB-C?

 

[needsomecoffee]

For anyone that wants to make sure THEIR devices don’t end up in a landfill, they can do what millions of others do and take them/send them back to Apple (or any of the other electronics recycling sites) for recycling. OR, if they still want to use them after the battery is dead, Apple will offer them a refurbished pair between 50-80 dollars, depending on the device… and STILL take them off their hands and recycle them responsibly.

Anything that ends up in a landfill is specifically because the user desires them to end up in a landfill. Unfortunately, that’s a lot of people.

Sadly you have bought into Apple's environmental PR. Perhaps "landfill" is not the exact end-of-life destination. Whatever it is, it is NOT a reuse purpose. Airpods become waste once the batteries die. There is no way to commercially recycle even the rare earth elements in them. Refurbished most likely 99% of the time means Apple providing you returned products that have passed a quick QA test. BTW: Did you know that Apple for a long time required recyclers to shred Apple devices rather than recycle components within them ?? (Not sure of the current status.) Why do that --> minimize amount of grey-market replacment parts because "...repair margins...". All the while Tim and Lisa were parading around with PR halos about Apple's environmental concern. Apple could very easily properly say to consumers and competitors that they want to give consumers who really desire to help Mother Earth a proper line of products designed like the FairPhone (couple of engineers were the resource for that pretty decent phone... What might Apple have accomplished??). But hey there is always PR, and profits, and people who refuse to properly research company claims.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I keep seeing videos on how extremely dangerous the Bluetooth signal of the AirPods (scale of 15) , compared to what's allowed (scale of 0.5). can anyone debunk this information? I'd love to start using mine again.

This is one of those situations where you just have to go with your gut. If you already come to the point where you believe they’re dangerous, there’s not much information anyone can provide that will 100% debunk this belief in your mind. Because, there’s lots of quite readily available data that will reinforce that everything you read to the contrary (that says they’re safe) is being provided via the machinations of secret groups determined to maintain the profits of the bluetooth wireless industry.

Add to that, the mind is a POWERFUL thing. If you use them believing all the while that they’re going to eventually make you ill, you could make the illness happen, JUST as you had expected!

 

[aztekk]

Apple should just bring back the 3.5 headphone jack back. This will eliminate all the problems with the bandwidth. There is only so much technology you can fit in the Air Pods.

There are many people out there who would still prefer the 3.5 headphone jack in today's world.

I agree, especially given that the focus is no longer on making thinner phones every year. As much as I dislike headphone wires, what I hate even more is expensive equipment that sounds worse and is subject to quickly becoming an expensive paperweight (not a very good one) once the lithium battery runs out. At least wires can be repaired if they break, which has not yet happened on my two year old EarPods (they appear to be stronger than most other headphones).

Of course we have to take into consideration the economic aspect of why they are pushing for these kinds of things, ie. the attachment rate of Airpods (presumably a fairly high margin product) to iPhone owners and then it starts to make more sense from that perspective. But I still think it would make sense to at least include the 3.5mm jack on the lower end of the stack such as the iPhone SE and the Mini, as I don't imagine there being too many people who pair ~$180 headphones with their sub $400 phones... but I could be wrong I guess.

They're still including it on the iPod Touch 7th Gen (the current one) so it's clear that Apple not only sees the value in a physical port for some market segments but is also actively purchasing the necessary components like the DAC chip and the port itself, so it shouldn't take too long to ramp production if they wanted to.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Sadly you have bought into Apple's environmental PR.

And iFixit’s and pretty much anyone that has a real concern over their environmental impact. Recycling captures some of the materials, landfills recoup zero of them. An internet search quickly brought up how Apple says they handle recycling currently.

a proper line of products designed like the FairPhone

The FairPhone, which drives the creation of thousands of interchangeable modules (some of which may never be used and just sit in a warehouse), each swappable and as disposable as anything currently in an iPhone. The FairPhone effectively increases a person’s environmental impact for every module they buy and dispose of over time (and actually, even on first purchase as those mounting contacts are additional material that iPhones don’t have to have). When people finally dispose of the phone, the total impact would be the phone’s frame + EVERY module they ever bought for it. Oh, PLUS the individual packaging for each of those parts and the delivery… Or did you not research FairPhone company claims? (which, by the way, their PR ALSO says you should return the devices to them rather than throw them in the trash. Is it a good idea now that FairPhone has said it?)

 

[DailySlow]

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

I bet the person who lost a pod pro on the sidewalk last week - that I found - doesn't feel excited about the fit.

 

[SpringKid]

I bet the person who lost a pod pro on the sidewalk last week - that I found - doesn't feel excited about the fit.

If it fell out from someone's ear, you don't think they would have noticed and picked it up?

 

[liberte1776]

So did Apple secretly implement a proprietary non-BT standard for lossless to AirPods 3?