Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Lighting audio will use built in DAC (same quality) or a battery powered DAC in the headphones which adds cost and duplicates an internal DAC and means you need to keep it charged. If you have lighting headphones you can't use them with anything else without an adapter. If you have headphones already you need to use an adapter.

Why would you then ever use lighting headphones. It's so pointless.

Bluetooth audio equipment has a duplicate DAC too. Are you against BT?

What if someone doesn't use their headphones with anything else but he iPhone?

What if they have a pair of headphones with large drivers the iPhone amp can't adequately power?

What if they buy a pair of noise cancelling headphones and don't want a bulky battery pack hanging off of their headphone cable to power them?

Etc.
 
Much appreciated. Was hoping for something withought the cable, but the price is hard to argue with lol.

Any experience in the gym?

Yeah, been using it between weight machines, elliptical, and rowing machine. Stays in, no issues, feels good after working out 1-2 hrs. Did a couple of 2+hr workouts and it's nice in the ears. A lil stiff at first, but I think it was just a different feel than I was adjusted to, and feels nice now. Comes with backup covers, whatever you call the plastic top to the speaker that prevents them from getting waxy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lordofthereef
Yeah, been using it between weight machines, elliptical, and rowing machine. Stays in, no issues, feels good after working out 1-2 hrs. Did a couple of 2+hr workouts and it's nice in the ears. A lil stiff at first, but I think it was just a different feel than I was adjusted to, and feels nice now. Comes with backup covers, whatever you call the plastic top to the speaker that prevents them from getting waxy.
Going to give them a try. Amazin has an awesome return policy anyway. Thank you again.
 
I just received a set of $20 bluetooth headphones I got off Amazon. They sound magnificent and took less than a minute to figure out how to pair once I had done the initial charge. The quality for a phone call is excellent as well.

They're black and don't have a mess of cable, won't coil awkwardly like the headphones that come with the device, and have a better build quality. If I had known about these before, wired headphones would not have been a thing for me any more.
[doublepost=1473549106][/doublepost]
I just received a set of $20 bluetooth headphones I got off Amazon. They sound magnificent and took less than a minute to figure out how to pair once I had done the initial charge. The quality for a phone call is excellent as well.

They're black and don't have a mess of cable, won't coil awkwardly like the headphones that come with the device, and have a better build quality. If I had known about these before, wired headphones would not have been a thing for me any more.


Please pass on the link to those Bluetooth earbuds. I am still using the 6 plus but would like to get a decent pairs of Bluetooth earbuds that have good sound and volume. Thx in advance.
 
I don't care where the article was written, the content is what I care about.
If you think this isn't a health issue you're not paying attention
 
Sorry for such a delayed response...

The point is that you don't understand that some things can kill sperm and not be dangerous otherwise.

Umm... if it's killing sperm cells, it's obviously impacting them in some way. Do we know what that impact is on brain cells, then? Nope. (I'd kinda like to know before I do something stupid...)

I think you intentionally missed my point - people complain that the BT range isnt enough for them to be able to move around separated from their phone - an act which is impossible with a wired connection - but continue to try and score petty points if you want.

Maybe I did (though I don't think intentionally)... I'd have to go back and look. If you're simply saying there are some usability benefits with wireless over wired, no argument from me there. There are also downsides (just in terms of usability, let alone possibly, health).

Are you concerned at all by music in your ears all day and possible damage to hearing?

Yes, I'm concerned about that too. I generally don't play it too loud (as I'm in a quite environment usually), but don't probably take enough breaks.

You should still be able to use wired headphones via the lightning port. Do you need to listen and charge phone at the same time often?

I usually don't, though that's a valid concern. I'm more worried about the structural integrity of a Lightening vs 3.5mm when it's in a pocket.

Will it be a good explanation? I don't know. But I'd bet money that they have a solid explanation worked out, because they usually do.

Sorry about the 20/20 hindsight... but nope, their excuses were kind of lame, especially the 'old' and 'legacy' type baloney. If they'd just said space, and left it at that, they might have retained some credibility.

Of course it was still being used. But you're right that getting rid of the floppy drive drove the development of superior technologies. So it's a great parallel. Ask anyone, eighteen years from now, and they'll tell you the same. The 3.5mm audio jack was on its last legs already in 2016, though not everyone could see that.

On it's last legs? What's the superior tech it's being replaced with, Lightening??? D/A -> amp -> wire -> speaker -> ear. There's no way of getting around it. They just moved the components a bit. There's nothing superior or new about it.

What health concerns? The only thing I can think of is ear infections from putting something in your ear, but you can get that from regular ear buds.

We don't know yet, because the studies haven't been done. But, we know there is an impact on the cells, even in older studies that didn't take epigenetic impact into account. And, so far, *most* people just use these things from time to time... not sit with them in their ears for many hours each day!

If you're concerned about electromagnetic radiation, you'll have to move off the face of the Earth — actually, out of the Solar System to be more exact — to escape it.

There's a massive difference between what you pick up just living on earth (unless your house is under some intense power lines) and sticking something right in your ear. Distance is insanely relevant to strength.

But you see, that's not exactly what people thought before or when these things where removed. But now that all is to damn obvious people seem to agree that there was a good reason. So maybe, just maybe some people get too attached to the old stuff and refuse to move on and except the changes!

Hmm, I don't recall much outcry when the floppies went... aside from other computer manufacturers and 'industry experts' maybe. I think most Apple users (myself included) were really happy to see them go. Kind of like when they dropped the CD/DVD drive.

It's really liberating to have freedom to leave my phone alone ( whilst it's charging ) or to look at it without the cord being in the way.

Hey, I love that aspect too (though there are also downside cases). It's the health issues I'm concerned with. I'll probably buy a pair and use them once in a while. But, I won't use them for hours on end.

I think you need to reevaluate your definition of the word "evidence". Your general attitude doesn't elicit any sense of trustworthiness in your position either, by the way.

Even the highest powered bluetooth device is still much, much lower than even the lowest powered cell phone.

Absolutely, you're better off using a BT headset when taking a phone call than holding the phone to your ear. But, hopefully the time of either is relatively limited. The problem here is that people are going to be using these things for hours on end... listening to music and podcasts.

And, evidence... heard of epigenetics? Maybe google that and get back to me.

You might as well give up, he's not going to change his mind. The types of "evidence" he has equates to the same level as anti-vaxxers.

While there are certainly some kooky anti-vax ideas out there, I've got empirical evidence right here in my home. They can take their Science™ and shove it. Science™ has been, and is wrong about a LOT of things. (And, when you start to understand why... it quickly becomes quite clear.)


Well, I don't care much about my sperm anymore, but 1) I don't wear my headset down there, and 2) my brain IS still important to me. But, the problem with the above link, is that it's operating on like 1940s understanding of cell biology and cancer. As I mentioned above... google epigenetics.
 
Sorry for such a delayed response...



Umm... if it's killing sperm cells, it's obviously impacting them in some way. Do we know what that impact is on brain cells, then? Nope. (I'd kinda like to know before I do something stupid...)



Maybe I did (though I don't think intentionally)... I'd have to go back and look. If you're simply saying there are some usability benefits with wireless over wired, no argument from me there. There are also downsides (just in terms of usability, let alone possibly, health).



Yes, I'm concerned about that too. I generally don't play it too loud (as I'm in a quite environment usually), but don't probably take enough breaks.



I usually don't, though that's a valid concern. I'm more worried about the structural integrity of a Lightening vs 3.5mm when it's in a pocket.



Sorry about the 20/20 hindsight... but nope, their excuses were kind of lame, especially the 'old' and 'legacy' type baloney. If they'd just said space, and left it at that, they might have retained some credibility.



On it's last legs? What's the superior tech it's being replaced with, Lightening??? D/A -> amp -> wire -> speaker -> ear. There's no way of getting around it. They just moved the components a bit. There's nothing superior or new about it.



We don't know yet, because the studies haven't been done. But, we know there is an impact on the cells, even in older studies that didn't take epigenetic impact into account. And, so far, *most* people just use these things from time to time... not sit with them in their ears for many hours each day!



There's a massive difference between what you pick up just living on earth (unless your house is under some intense power lines) and sticking something right in your ear. Distance is insanely relevant to strength.



Hmm, I don't recall much outcry when the floppies went... aside from other computer manufacturers and 'industry experts' maybe. I think most Apple users (myself included) were really happy to see them go. Kind of like when they dropped the CD/DVD drive.



Hey, I love that aspect too (though there are also downside cases). It's the health issues I'm concerned with. I'll probably buy a pair and use them once in a while. But, I won't use them for hours on end.



Absolutely, you're better off using a BT headset when taking a phone call than holding the phone to your ear. But, hopefully the time of either is relatively limited. The problem here is that people are going to be using these things for hours on end... listening to music and podcasts.

And, evidence... heard of epigenetics? Maybe google that and get back to me.



While there are certainly some kooky anti-vax ideas out there, I've got empirical evidence right here in my home. They can take their Science™ and shove it. Science™ has been, and is wrong about a LOT of things. (And, when you start to understand why... it quickly becomes quite clear.)



Well, I don't care much about my sperm anymore, but 1) I don't wear my headset down there, and 2) my brain IS still important to me. But, the problem with the above link, is that it's operating on like 1940s understanding of cell biology and cancer. As I mentioned above... google epigenetics.

There are no health concerns with em freq. that low. It's orders of magnitude lower than ionizing radiation.
 
Yes, and there simply isn't any mechanism for em waves to hurt your sperm at those freq. Temperature on the other hand can, but that can come from anything.

As I said... I'm more worried about my brain cells, or the possibility to cause cells to malfunction (e.g. cancer). Do you understand anything about epigenetics? You don't have to have direct damage taking place to alter cellular processes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: steve333
As I said... I'm more worried about my brain cells, or the possibility to cause cells to malfunction (e.g. cancer). Do you understand anything about epigenetics? You don't have to have direct damage taking place to alter cellular processes.
Again, no evidence and no mechanism. You have a higher chance of getting cancer from background radiation then from wireless headphones. You have a higher chance of getting cancer from being in an airplane at altitude than using wireless headphones. You have a higher chance of getting cancer by scratching you ear than from wireless headphones. It. Is. Not. An. Issue.
 
Again, no evidence and no mechanism. You have a higher chance of getting cancer from background radiation then from wireless headphones. You have a higher chance of getting cancer from being in an airplane at altitude than using wireless headphones. You have a higher chance of getting cancer by scratching you ear than from wireless headphones. It. Is. Not. An. Issue.

Well, that kind of shows me you've seen some charts or something on the 'Net and don't really understand the issue (nor, how RF strength/distance works). You're kind of operating off of mid-1900's science there.
 
When someone says wireless headphones are not in issue, I guarantee it is an issue.
Cellphones are safe, smart meters are safe, GMOs are safe, Glyphosate is safe, BPA is safe, etc etc
None of them are safe
 
When someone says wireless headphones are not in issue, I guarantee it is an issue.
Cellphones are safe, smart meters are safe, GMOs are safe, Glyphosate is safe, BPA is safe, etc etc
None of them are safe

No doubt. While I wouldn't say it's a one-to-one (i.e.: doesn't always apply), when you see a push to say something safe, that your common sense, or a bit of research, might indicate otherwise... caveat emptor.

With lobbying and the level of gov't corruption these days, it's pretty hard to trust much of what the organizations say who are in place to keep us safe. It's not hard to run across treatments being pulled because they compete with a pharmaceutical, or things which are clearly unsafe (and banned in many countries) that the FDA just passes through (due to lobbying). And, it's not getting better. For example, Congress just snuck some anti-labeling stuff into some bill about funding police, fire, etc. (if memory serves). Or, USA people won't know what country their meat is coming from now, because Canada sued the USA in an international trade tribunal. In other words, this stuff is moving the wrong direction, in terms of consumer interests.

But, given modern science, caution around GMOs, plastics (and food), pesticides, antibiotic abuse, close-proximity RF, etc. should be a no-brainer. People like Treq seem to be just parroting industry reports, blind acceptance for the sake of 'progress', or they just aren't current on their understanding of modern biology.
 
  • Like
Reactions: steve333
Our government is the most corrupt in the developed world. They don't even attempt to make it look like they care about us.
If it weren't for organizations like Millions Against Monsanto things would be even worse. These grass level groups are making companies change their ways (such as labels stating None GMO Verified) while the government does nothing.
 
Well, that kind of shows me you've seen some charts or something on the 'Net and don't really understand the issue (nor, how RF strength/distance works). You're kind of operating off of mid-1900's science there.
I know exactly how RF strength works. It is reduced at the inverse square of the distance. In other words, double the distance, 1/4 the strength. I also know that the power levels of the headphones are so low that you could swallow them and there would no effect on you due to the em radiation. Especially because the freq is in a safe range that is orders of magnitude lower than anything that can hurt you. That freq starts around UV and goes up through x-ray and gamma ray range. The freq of bluetooth is 2.4ghz ish A freq that is specifically an unregulated freq because it is safe. That particular freq resonates with water molecules dissipating all of the energy into heat, but there is nowhere near enough power in 1000 of those headphones to raise the temp of your ear even 1º. Once again, They. Are. SAFE. If you still aren't convinced by the mountains of data out there then take some echinacea, apple cider vinegar, coconut oil and turmeric. Throw in some snake oil and you'll be fine...
[doublepost=1480006635][/doublepost]
When someone says wireless headphones are not in issue, I guarantee it is an issue.
Cellphones are safe, smart meters are safe, GMOs are safe, Glyphosate is safe, BPA is safe, etc etc
None of them are safe
GMO's are safe. How do you people go around life without a basic understanding of science amazes me.
[doublepost=1480006817][/doublepost]
No doubt. While I wouldn't say it's a one-to-one (i.e.: doesn't always apply), when you see a push to say something safe, that your common sense, or a bit of research, might indicate otherwise... caveat emptor.

With lobbying and the level of gov't corruption these days, it's pretty hard to trust much of what the organizations say who are in place to keep us safe. It's not hard to run across treatments being pulled because they compete with a pharmaceutical, or things which are clearly unsafe (and banned in many countries) that the FDA just passes through (due to lobbying). And, it's not getting better. For example, Congress just snuck some anti-labeling stuff into some bill about funding police, fire, etc. (if memory serves). Or, USA people won't know what country their meat is coming from now, because Canada sued the USA in an international trade tribunal. In other words, this stuff is moving the wrong direction, in terms of consumer interests.

But, given modern science, caution around GMOs, plastics (and food), pesticides, antibiotic abuse, close-proximity RF, etc. should be a no-brainer. People like Treq seem to be just parroting industry reports, blind acceptance for the sake of 'progress', or they just aren't current on their understanding of modern biology.
Again, the misinformation out there is staggering. It's no wonder Trump won. People will believe anything if you scare them. The worst thing is it is effecting peoples' understanding of simple middle school science. I weep for the future.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ericwn
GMOs are not safe, don't give me this science nonsense. I can trot out as many scientists who say GMOs are inherently not safe as you can paid by Monsanto to say they are
 
GMOs are not safe, don't give me this science nonsense. I can trot out as many scientists who say GMOs are inherently not safe as you can paid by Monsanto to say they are
No, you can't trot out as many scientists that will say GMOs are inherently bad as scientists that will say they are out of their mind. I would wager that you couldn't trot out any legitimate scientists at all that would say that. Seriously. You sound like the climate change deniers, or the anti-vaxxers. Really, GMOs are just a more precise way of doing what we have been doing for centuries. Literally any scientist doing research in that field would laugh at your statement. Unless your definition of scientist includes people like naturopaths and Homeopathic pharmacists. There is nothing inherently dangerous about GMOs. Just like there is nothing inherently dangerous about a hammer. Now how those tools are used might be dangerous, such as hitting someone with the hammer or creating a combustable lemon...
 
Last edited:
Inserting a pesticide directly inside of a seed has never been done or attempted before. It is an entirely new species and was approved even though many FDA scientists complained that we shouldn't be guinea pigs for something that wasn't proven safe.
Other GMOs carry other traits, the main one being able to withstand as much glyphosate (itself toxic and a Monsanto product) as possible without destroying the plant. This has led to more glyphosate used and a recent testing of products such as cheerios, raisin bran, and other consumer goods with glyphosate levels much higher than legally allowed. It is also used a dessicant for products which would normally not be sprayed with it. Super weeds are being created because of it's over use and we are being poisoned.
The FDA was itself testing products and recently stopped testing because how would they explain them allowing clearly toxic products to be sold and not removed from stores?
Our government is in bed with Monsanto and all chemical companies, therefore most studies and tests are being done independently and they are finding truly scary results.
If you want to believe Monsanto and the Feds, go ahead and stuff yourself with GMOs and Glyphosate.
Those of us who know better will avoid them as much as we can and fight for the Feds to do something about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveW928
Inserting a pesticide directly inside of a seed has never been done or attempted before. It is an entirely new species and was approved even though many FDA scientists complained that we shouldn't be guinea pigs for something that wasn't proven safe.
Other GMOs carry other traits, the main one being able to withstand as much glyphosate (itself toxic and a Monsanto product) as possible without destroying the plant. This has led to more glyphosate used and a recent testing of products such as cheerios, raisin bran, and other consumer goods with glyphosate levels much higher than legally allowed. It is also used a dessicant for products which would normally not be sprayed with it. Super weeds are being created because of it's over use and we are being poisoned.
The FDA was itself testing products and recently stopped testing because how would they explain them allowing clearly toxic products to be sold and not removed from stores?
Our government is in bed with Monsanto and all chemical companies, therefore most studies and tests are being done independently and they are finding truly scary results.
If you want to believe Monsanto and the Feds, go ahead and stuff yourself with GMOs and Glyphosate.
Those of us who know better will avoid them as much as we can and fight for the Feds to do something about it.
First of all, I never mentioned Monsanto, positively or negatively. Second, it seems you are against how the hammer is used and not the hammer itself. Lastly, you certainly do not know better. You have been fooled by the naturalistic myth. Anyway, the earphones are safe, GMOs are safe, and you should stop worrying about the things that aren't going to hurt you.
 
First of all, I never mentioned Monsanto, positively or negatively. Second, it seems you are against how the hammer is used and not the hammer itself. Lastly, you certainly do not know better. You have been fooled by the naturalistic myth. Anyway, the earphones are safe, GMOs are safe, and you should stop worrying about the things that aren't going to hurt you.
You're wrong, but don't let that stop you
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.