iPhone 7 and the Audiophile Case For Lightning Headphones

[steve62388]

This Engadget article sums up what I feel about changing to a non-standardised headphone connector.

The whole article is predicated on the fact that there might be some difficult choices to make when it comes to wired headphones. I disagree with this premise, wireless will be the future. Currently there are still downsides to the implementation of Bluetooth but the average user lives with it quite happily. If you're an audiophile you are catered for with wired and expensive DACs. Should we wait until Bluetooth, batteries, and charging improve before making the switch? Maybe, but Apple often jumps first.

 

[SvenSvenson]

This Engadget article sums up what I feel about changing to a non-standardised headphone connector.

It states that the DAC inside the phone will be bypassed so you'll need an external DAC of some sort - whether one built into a Lightning-to-3.5mm adapter (hypothesising that a cheap adapter will sound bad) or in some new headphones, which is not good if you already have some decent headphones.

What the article fails to say is that a) the DAC in a cheap adapter (£10?) will probably be as good as the one ih the phone at the moment, so probably no drop in audio quality at the potential to buy a more expensive adapter for an increase in quality and b) a lot (not all, mind) of larger headphones (Bose, Beats etc) have separate cables (3.5mm to 3.5mm) , so the manufacturer could simply sell lightning-to-3.5mm cables to uprade your existing headphones.

 

[OllyW]

b) a lot (not all, mind) of larger headphones (Bose, Beats etc) have separate cables (3.5mm to 3.5mm) , so the manufacturer could simply sell lightning-to-3.5mm cables to uprade your existing headphones.

Some manufacturers may provide an upgrade route with a replacement cable but we know a lot of companies (I'm looking at you Apple) will be sure to drop the older products like a stone and will want you to to buy their new Lightning equipped headphones.

 

[AsherN]

It can't be a simple Lightning to 3.5mm cable. Such a cable will need the DAC built in the cable. Headphones with removable cables are designed to receive an analog signal. So your expensive headphones are dependent on the quality of the external DAC. If it's the same quality as the one in the phone, you have gained nothing except another cable. And lesser battery life, because that external DAC needs to be powered somehow.

Some say the future is wireless. Maybe, but I doubt it. Too many issues still. Some may be possible to overcome, quality and latency. Latency is not an issue when listening to music, but it is when watching a video. Batteries are still and will remain an issue. Phone drains faster. Need to carry yet another charger. And for those of us who travel, I need to either carry 2 sets of headphones, wireless for my iPhone and wired for the plane.

By all means, move towards a new standard that will be better. And Lightning is not it. USB-C may be. But don't just get rid of the existing standard until the new one is ubiquitous.

 

[SvenSvenson]

And for those of us who travel, I need to either carry 2 sets of headphones, wireless for my iPhone and wired for the plane.

why would you need 2 sets of headphones, unless that's what you use today? the only thing extra you'll need is some way to connect your headphones to your new iPhone, be it a Lightning to 3.5mm adapter or a separate cable possibly.

The battery drain argument is a fallacy, as the phone is no longer powering an internal DAC

 

[OllyW]

The battery drain argument is a fallacy, as the phone is no longer powering an internal DAC

It will still need an internal DAC even if they dump the 3.5mm socket.

 

[AsherN]

why would you need 2 sets of headphones, unless that's what you use today? the only thing extra you'll need is some way to connect your headphones to your new iPhone, be it a Lightning to 3.5mm adapter or a separate cable possibly.

The battery drain argument is a fallacy, as the phone is no longer powering an internal DAC

Context. One of the argument in favour of dumping 3.5mm is wireless. wireless don't work so great with plane entertainment system. But even wired. Right now, I carry one set of earbuds. I use them with my iPhone, iPad, laptop and plane. Don't want yet another adapter or set of earbuds. I've forgotten my earbuds on more than one occasion. Get to the airport and at least I can pickup a cheap set for that trip.

Battery drain is not a fallacy. an internal DAC is still required to power the internal speakers. So the external DAC is an additional DAC to power.

 

[Mac 128]

Some manufacturers may provide an upgrade route with a replacement cable but we know a lot of companies (I'm looking at you Apple) will be sure to drop the older products like a stone and will want you to to buy their new Lightning equipped headphones.

So much paranoid cynicism. Apple's headphone arm is Beats. Assuming that's the case, Beats already offers removable cables, and some interesting pass through options. Beats remains autonomous because they have to service all makers of all devices. So an Android user can buy Beats and isn't using an Apple headset with their Droid. It would be in Beats' worst interest to force customers to use a hard-wired cable with Lightning only. Moreover, it would be bad for Apple customers, who will still have to connect their new Beats headphones to their old Apple products. For everyone involved, but particularly for Apple as a manufacturer, a single hybrid output is the easiest thing to produce, which can be customized with optional cables. Since Apple is already the dongle King, such a product is squarely in their wheelhouse.

But let's get to the core of this comment -- that Apple wants its customers to buy new products. Quite a shocker that a for-profit company wants its customers to buy its new product.
[doublepost=1465566161][/doublepost]

It will still need an internal DAC even if they dump the 3.5mm socket.

What is your point? The internal DAC and amp is bypassed. The external DAC & amp do not have to require any more power than the internal DAC & amp was drawing. Apple tightly controls power supply to external devices through Lightning, so the amount of power an external DAC & amp will most definitely be regulated by Apple. A headphone with large drivers requiring more power will likely require its own power supply. Typical headphones won't draw a single drop more power than that the iPhone's built in DAC and amp require. Your Engadget article even mentions this -- it's absolutely neglible and just spreading more FUD to suggest it.

 

[OllyW]

Quite a shocker that a for-profit company wants its customers to buy its new product.

I'm fully aware of that, I was just stating that not all companies encourage upgrades for older products.

I'm still surprised that Beats haven't released any Lightning equipped headphones after all this time.
[doublepost=1465566487][/doublepost]

What is your point?

The member I'd quoted had said the phone no longer have to power a DAC and I was reminding them it was still there.

 

[Mac 128]

I'm fully aware of that, I was just stating that not all companies encourage upgrades for older products.

I'm still surprised that Beats haven't released any Lightning equipped headphones after all this time.
[doublepost=1465566487][/doublepost]
The member I'd quoted had said the phone no longer have to power a DAC and I was reminding them it was still there.

Beats already offers headphones with removable cables. So if you've got one, buying a third party cable with a built in adapter from a third party means it's no less upgradable, just because Beats doesn't offer an OEM one (though I would bet they do). But when new technology comes out, why would Apple keep the old product on the shelves? Why would someone want to buy it, only to upgrade it? My point is, it's not like Apple is going to replace its current offerings with Lightning only technology. And it's not like they're going to lose money on upgrade cables for its previous customers, leaving it entirely to third parties (unless there's so little money to be made its not worth their time). Apple didn't have to offer a 30-pin to Lightning adapter, leaving it solely up to third parties -- but not only did they know there was money to be made, I also suspect they wanted to mitigate the inconvenience to customers from day one, and foster some good will.

Beats hasn't likely released any Lightning equipped headphones, because unlike outside companies, Beats knows what's coming. Apple typically does not produce new technology until they have a complete solution. Even though they published Lightning audio specs 18 months ago, they're keeping the best goodies for themselves. When Apple offers Lightning as an option with its own audio products they want it to be a complete solution. It's not there yet. When Apple offers Lightning headphones, it will be part of a solution that includes lossless audio, integrated handset controls of volume and EQ, and other options and refinements new iPhones will enable that current iPhones don't offer. Lightning audio has to be perfect when Apple offers it, and anything up to now would have been piecemeal.

As for the second point, the previous post you were responding to was debunking the misconception that an external DAC necessarily draws more power than an internal DAC. Yes an internal DAC will still be required for internal speakers, but will be bypassed when headphones are connected, which is the whole point of this thread discussion. Power normally provided to the internal DAC will now be diverted to drive the external DAC. It's not like the iPhone will be powering two DACs and amps at once, doubling power draw.

 

[OllyW]

When Apple offers Lightning headphones, it will be part of a solution that includes lossless audio, integrated handset controls of volume and EQ, and other options and refinements new iPhones will enable that current iPhones don't offer.

Is that just speculation or do you know it for sure?

 

[SvenSvenson]

It will still need an internal DAC even if they dump the 3.5mm socket.

Yes, but it won't need to power it when headphones are in use.

 

[Mac 128]

Is that just speculation or do you know it for sure?

Is that a rhetorical question?

 

[AsherN]

Yes, but it won't need to power it when headphones are in use.

You seriously think they will turn the internal DAC off and on depending on whether there is a headphone connected or not? That will require the Lightning port to have the ability to discern what kind of device is connected to it.

 

[Mac 128]

Yes, but it won't need to power it when headphones are in use.

Absolutely right. Which is what I thought you were stating in the first place.

These people posting FUD have no idea what they are talking about, failing to do even basic research to try and understand what they are saying.

The Lightning port is a smart port, dynamically configured based on what is connected to it, and requiring a companion chip in the attaching device in order to know what is connected and how it should be configured. It's laughable that anyone would propose that Apple would waste power by allowing an external device to be plugged into it and draw power, while continuing to power the redundant internal component. It demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding about Apple products and emphasizes they should simply be ignored as the trolls they are.

 

[OllyW]

Is that a rhetorical question?

You seem very sure about what Apple are going to be doing, I thought you might have some information we don't have.

 

[AsherN]

Absolutely right. Which is what I thought you were stating in the first place.

These people posting FUD have no idea what they are talking about, failing to do even basic research to try and understand what they are saying.

The Lightning port is a smart port, dynamically configured based on what is connected to it, and requiring a companion chip in the attaching device in order to know what is connected and how it should be configured. It's laughable that anyone would propose that Apple would waste power by allowing an external device to be plugged into it and draw power, while continuing to power the redundant internal component. It demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding about Apple products and emphasizes they should simply be ignored as the trolls they are.

Is the internal DAC and ADC separate devices or a single chip. Because you still need to power the ADC for the mic to work.

 

[Mac 128]

You seem very sure about what Apple are going to be doing, I thought you might have some information we don't have.

Nope. Just participating in a rumor site like everybody else. Apple has a long, mostly consistent, history from which to extrapolate their future plans. They've even stated this idea of delivering a complete solution to a problem rather than piecemeal approach other companies then to take to technology. For instance, Apple didn't just slap NFC into their phones when everyone said they should. Instead, they developed Pay and rolled out the technology with a complete solution for its implementation. And it all works perfectly. So it's reasonable to expect Apple will take the same approach to offering Lightning headphones. When you take all the rumors together, they do add up to a complete picture. Lightning takes advantage of higher quality audio files, and the iPhone doesn't yet offer that in any organized way, so why offer it until the infrastructure is there for them to market it effectively? Likewise with control integration. iOS doesn't yet support control of digital headphones globally, so why introduce a product that isn't fully supported?

 

[steve62388]

You seriously think they will turn the internal DAC off and on depending on whether there is a headphone connected or not? That will require the Lightning port to have the ability to discern what kind of device is connected to it.

That's easy. A Lightning port has two way communication, that's why you can control volume, use a microphone and automatically launch apps when a particular device is connected. All Apple needs in the Lightning specification is for a connected device to announce it doesn't need the internal DAC and then disable it.

It might do this already, I don't know. I was looking for the official MFi specs that they hand out to manufacturers. They are probably confidential but I thought they might have leaked onto the internet, I couldn't find them.

EDIT: Actually this article http://9to5mac.com/2014/06/03/apple...phones-support-arriving-in-future-ios-update/ pretty much intimates what I said, because headphones have to at least identify themselves as one of two types. I know it doesn't specifically say the internal DAC gets disabled but such a step would just be a matter for a simple iOS update.

 

[droopy1592]

Then you use an adaptor, it's hardly rocket science.

Adaptor too much effort for you? Then throw away all the reasons you bought an iPhone in the first place over something as simple as an adaptor and migrate to a different brand. But you might want to consider that if this goes ahead and is a relative success other manufacturers could easily follow suit.

That sounds efficient. Let me pay $85 for a quality Dac/amp in a cable that also requires more power just to listen to my headphones on the go. There is a 5.1mm phone with a 3.5 jack. I would rather buy a fiio player.

 

[steve62388]

Bluetooth 5 spec to be released next week! Double the range and four times the speed.
http://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2016/06/bluetooth-5-specs-details/

Since this thread started coincidentally Motorola has also announced phones without a headphone jack. The ground is shifting quickly towards wireless. Wireless proponents say 'get on board or get left behind'.
[doublepost=1465579750][/doublepost]

That sounds efficient. Let me pay $85 for a quality Dac/amp in a cable that also requires more power just to listen to my headphones on the go. There is a 5.1mm phone with a 3.5 jack. I would rather buy a fiio player.

You said 'I have four headphones worth over $500 each'. You own over $2000 worth of headphones and you won't spend $85 on a DAC that would be better than the iPhone's own?!? I think one of those statements is a lie then.

But let's take what you say at face value. Then cripple your over $2000 dollar headphones with a cheap DAC for $10. Problem solved.

 

[Mac 128]

That sounds efficient. Let me pay $85 for a quality Dac/amp in a cable that also requires more power just to listen to my headphones on the go. There is a 5.1mm phone with a 3.5 jack. I would rather buy a fiio player.

You're being obtuse here. Apple pays less than $18 for it's entire I/O chipset package for the iPhone, of which the DAC & amp are but a small part. So logic dictates that an adapter with a DAC & amp equivalent to Apple's internal chipset which you claim to be presently happy with, will be satisfactory for you. Since Apple charges $29 for an adapter which contains a DAC, ADC, data and power passthrough, signal routing breakout and a 30-pin connector, you;re likely to pay less than $20 for a dedicated adapter. I imagine a third party Chinese manufacturer using the identical components could charge even less without having to pay for a MiFi license, so $50 gets you a set of adapters for all your headphones.

You also claim that adapter would use more power than your iPhone currently does, which is patently false. If it's a comparable chipset, then it's going to use the same amount of power. The only difference is the iPhone sends the power externally, instead of powering the internal one.

 

[MaloCS]

I can see why, if anyone is to push for a new standard, it would be Apple, and why it has to be done in this manner.

WOW!

The other day I heard a commercial on the radio. It was a Memorial Day "Buckle Up!" commercial touting the benefits of wearing a seat belt when driving in a car. The commercial featured a "man" explaining to a little girl how her parents love her because they tell her to wear her seat belt. The little girl became very excited at this proclamation and exclaimed with approval. Then the man asks the little girl, "who loves your parents enough to tell them to wear a seat belt?". He went on to say how "the Buckle Up! law" is in place because the government cares about us like her parents care about her.

After hearing this ridiculous commercial I couldn't help but laugh. I couldn't believe that the State of Colorado could be so obvious about how they see the citizens of Colorado, which is as children in need of parenting. I don't need The State of Colorado to be my mommy or daddy. I need the state to stay the **** out of my life.

Today's corporations have no remorse about executing "money grabs" and "forced obsolescence" in an effort to increase their profit margins. User experience; Customer satisfaction; these were once terms that Apple held dear. These were the ideologies that helped Apple invent the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad. Now all we get from Apple is their propaganda aimed at keeping our wallets open.

I guess if I read your statement correctly I can deduce that you approve of Apple's tactics. Conversely, I do not believe Apple is operating in the best interest of their consumers. Apple has reached a point where they simply do not care about their users or the experience they have. I believe Apple's business practices to be unethical just like Adobe's ridiculous pricing structure for Creative Cloud.

 

[AsherN]

Apple has oft been criticized for being form over function. A criticism that was somewhat justified, but overblown. This change make it a valid criticism.

 

[csglinux]

This Engadget article sums up what I feel about changing to a non-standardised headphone connector.

That's a well-written article. Thanks for sharing the link. I wish everybody would read this before blindly assuming that everything Apple does is going to be magical and in the consumer's best interest. Apple's obviously riding a wave given the huge success of the earlier iPhones. I suspect if they released the following in September, they would still sell truckloads:

See how awesome this is? No 3.5 mm headphone socket! But there's even more brilliant, forward-thinking innovation here, because photo image quality will also now be far superior once you strap on your external single-lens reflex camera. Plus the external lead-acid battery you'd carry around separately would last for weeks!

I understand the selfish nature of humans. If you never use the headphone socket, you probably don't give a toss about those that do. And it's probably heaps of fun to throw insults at anybody that cares about a 100 year-old headphone socket. Such people must have mental problems. Sure. But the fact remains that removing the headphone socket would be a net gain to nobody; and would be a net loss to those that regularly make use of it.

There is only one reason for Apple to remove the headphone socket, which is to increase profit margins on iPhones and Beats headphones. I accept Apple has the prerogative to make the iPhone 7 however they like, but I also have the prerogative not to buy it. I will also now view any future Apple purchase which great caution, because I see the blatant, shady, anti-consumer stance that Apple is now taking.