Lightning Headphones: Are They Better or Just an Inconvenience?

[nikhsub1]

What about those of us who have all our music in lossless format?

I doubt you would notice a difference between the lightning or 3.5 jack but if your ears were trained - perhaps. Lossless is still compressed, in theory it should sound like the original file it was created from but in reality it doesn't. Again a trained ear could possibly tell the difference. We are splitting hairs here anyway, and I would gather that most people will go with whatever is more convenient anyway. I'm sure there will be a $29 lightning to 3.5 audio adapter from Apple too

 

[falainber]

Someone with more knowledge than me please confirm, but the assumption that the DAC in the iPhone would be external is wrong. Wouldn't the iPhone still need a DAC to handle the sound on the iPhone?

Of course it is a wrong assumption (unless human ears figure out how to understand digital audio).

 

[bluespark]

It depends - didn't WiFi overtake Ethernet speeds? Because WiFi was more convenient so developed more, where as Ethernet was left behind. I can see a similar thing happening with audio.

How, exactly? The limited bandwidth of Bluetooth requires compression. That compression is what harms the sound quality.

 

[cmichaelb]

I doubt you would notice a difference between the lightning or 3.5 jack but if your ears were trained - perhaps. Lossless is still compressed, in theory it should sound like the original file it was created from but in reality it doesn't. Again a trained ear could possibly tell the difference. We are splitting hairs here anyway, and I would gather that most people will go with whatever is more convenient anyway. I'm sure there will be a $29 lightning to 3.5 audio adapter from Apple too

There's huge difference between lossless and an mp3. I think a lot of people complaining about loudness on bluetooth, which I'm not a fan of for audio, would like the loudness better lossless.

 

[falainber]

Which of course is not a problem for the thousand, or even millions of people who only have an iPhone...at least for personal music consumption.

So, today you have an iPhone and tomorrow it breaks and you decide to buy a different phone... I'd say it is a problem (at least a potential one) for everyone.

 

[Larry-Bloom]

View attachment 630647
Most of us probably have one or more of these unopened in a desk drawer.

The interim solution for Apple if they are convinced of the higher fidelity of lightning audio, is to keep the 3.5mm port, but package lightning earbuds with iPhone 7.

Agreed... if it takes off then they can think about removal..

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Which of course is not a problem for the thousand, or even millions of people who only have an iPhone...at least for personal music consumption.

That's not true though. I might be one of those "millions" and just took a trip and took along my 3.5mm headphones. Take that trip with me again AFTER you adopt this "the future"...

On the plane, they're showing the big game or a movie or TV show we want to watch & hear. What jack will the plane most likely have for audio even 5 or 10 years from now? I plugged right in. Yes, you could buy those cheap, almost throwaway headphones from the flight attendant for $5 or $10 but really? Do you want to buy those? Or just do without?

At the meeting, the corporation wanted us to view the latest demos. Plug in. My headphones plugged right in. There weren't enough spares laying around. Are you going to miss the demo because you can't plug in? Are they wrong for NOT being all Apple and all in on Apple proprietary?

Email: you just must see this on your Mac! Can you just plug in? No. No Macs have Lightning ports. Better dig up that adapter. Else, you just won't be watching "this". Or lay out the cash to buy new Macs that presumably will allocate some precious port space to Lightning. Why? So we can use that much bigger port to use headphones with our future Macs. Personally, I'd rather have another port that can do a lot of other things, but, of course, Apple always knows best.

A spot of togetherness. Let's share a movie. Your iPhone screen is too small, so lets use your Mac screen. Oh you can't plug in because you lost your adapter? And your honey can't plug into your iPhone because their headphones terminate in 3.5mm or USB3C. Maybe you two should break up? Who wants a honey that doesn't comply with Apple proprietary anyway? What did you ever see in them?

Ubiquity without a pile of proprietary licensing fees is a thing to treasure, especially when there is really nothing wrong with it (our ears can only hear analog). Even if one can live most of their time inside the most walled of walled gardens, life will inevitably roll out situations where opportunities to just plug in present themselves. Miss those opportunities because some corporation wants to push proprietary? Carry adapters always with you to be ready for such opportunities wherever they may pop up? Or wish the corporation would focus their big, BIG brains in OTHER areas begging for "innovation" that doesn't come with a string of licensing fee profits but seemingly next to nothing to gain for the buyer of that product?

 

[puckhead193]

Can you find me a pair of bluetooth earbuds that sound better or just as good as corded ?

Jaybird's (on the consumer level) but for high end audiophile....maybe B&O

 

[falainber]

"allowing manufacturers to control sound quality". Well, manufacturers are allowed to do it today already (just use existing lightening connector). This is a very week (and misleading) spin on the part of MR.

 

[Larry-Bloom]

I sure as heck hope so, because ........

I agree this was a bad design

 

[dwaltwhit]

I think this is a situation where you have one enormous population and a fairly niche one. The vast majority of people will pick up a pair of BT headphones while those audiophile types will use a lightning connected pair of headphones. Those willing to sacrifice some of the convenience will get the superior sound quality they want while the rest of us just use the "good enough" BT options

 

[xitongzou]

I don't understand what's wrong with the wireless/Bluetooth headphone option? There are great ones to use starting at $20 on Amazon and up depending on your purchase preference. No reason to stay wired any more practically and even those wireless headphones come with a wiring option.

There are several reasons... Bluetooth headphones only offer one advantage over wired: not having any wires. And even that is a minor inconvenience. I get having bluetooth speakers because we usually use our speakers far away from the listener. But headphones? those aren't used that far away from the audio output device anyways! And the disadvantages:
One more thing to charge, reduced battery life from the playing device, inferior sound quality at the same price point, connection issues, etc... and honestly, I find wired things to be less of a hassle than bluetooth. I would rather use a wired mouse/keyboard/headphones than to go to my computer or device, turn on bluetooth, add the device, pair it, and then when it gets disconnected inevitably, have to go through the same process again. Wired? just plug it in and it just works. So much faster.

oh and the guy who said that Wifi is faster than Ethernet... what are you smoking? do you see any professional gamers playing over Wifi?

 

[groovyd]

And... if there is a smart connector, the phone could charge that way if the lightning bolt port is being used.

i will assume they plan to launch wireless charging at the same time.

 

[jdiamond]

It depends - didn't WiFi overtake Ethernet speeds? Because WiFi was more convenient so developed more, where as Ethernet was left behind. I can see a similar thing happening with audio.

BaHaHaHaHa.... The lowest end Ethernet in common use has been gigabit Ethernet for about a decade. I did use WiFi for awhile, but recently, I got Google Fiber in my house, and now everything's back to wired, since the Wi-Fi maxes out at 150 megabits. But the thing is, the wired Ethernet is actually more convenient, because I have the physical wires at all the places I need them, and a simple plug in assures me a quality connection.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

This would also make more sense if Apple moved from lightning to USB type C, as Android devices are moving to USB C and this would help boost USB C adoption, not to mention make it so your expensive headphones can be used on anything other than an iPhone.

...including Apple's own Macs.

 

[jdiamond]

I don't understand what's wrong with the wireless/Bluetooth headphone option? There are great ones to use starting at $20 on Amazon and up depending on your purchase preference. No reason to stay wired any more practically and even those wireless headphones come with a wiring option.

Apple has always tried to portray themselves as a company who associates with the music crowd. A lot of us who like music have good quality audio components that last for decades. Even if there were Bluetooth headphones that have all the qualities as the ones I currently own and love, do I really want to go out and replace thousands of dollars of perfectly good audio equipment just so I can continue to use my iPhone as my main audio listening device?

Honestly, I'd be more likely to ditch the iPhone than the headphones.

But for those that have never used anything but the included earbuds, it's completely a non-issue of course.

 

[Ankou_Sabat]

Right and I'm sure Apple will support any old DAC off the street that isn't "Made For Apple Certified". They tried this before with the USB camera kit which was supposed to allow third party DACs to bypass the built in Apple DAC and process the sound output, but it has been an exercise in frustration between DACs that are "not support" or falsely reported as "this device uses too much power". If Apple truly allows you to bypass their DAC and use any third party dac by connecting to standard USB/mini usb then I'll give them props, but I totally don't see that happening at least without some proprietary or Apple licensed adapter.

 

[baryon]

If the DAC in the iPhone sucks, then so will the DAC in many cheap headphones. Most headphones will sound worse than current ones, and they'll be more expensive, and they'll be incompatible with anything but your iPhone. Sounds like fun. Unless of course Apple figures out a passive Lightning-to-Jack adapter by adding analog audio to the next iPhone's Lightning port.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Apple are not doing this to give us better quality sound. They are doing it for three reasons:

1) Keeping hardware costs down (especially since a waterproof jack would be more expensive, although possible)
2) DRM. With no analogue Audio-Out, they can actively control what's going out on the digital channel.
3) Making people think that 'Digital-Headphones' are actually better and forcing believers to 'upgrade'. The reality here is that the DAC just moves a few centimetres closer to the ears, which makes no noticeable difference at all.

4) Lightning licensing is very profitable. I don't think Apple gets a cent off of 3.5mm implementations.
5) Investments in proprietary Lightning supports "lock in" for walled garden.
6) Beats cost $3B and maybe Apple wants to accelerate the ROI by first only granting Lightning licenses at the lower-priced zone to itself (as Beats)... then drag out the approval process for those who directly compete with Beats.

And I just can't grasp the waterproof idea by getting rid of a little hole next to be a much larger rectangular hole. Water has no respect for proprietary or non-proprietary.

 

[MH01]

I don't think it will be ready... there is a limited on the data transfer speeds of Bluetooth which is why corded always sounds better..

In the future ....

Sony has LDAC http://www.sony.net/Products/LDAC/

Though as per usual Sony BS , only works on thier products. Hopefully in the near future we will get a true hires audio Bluetooth standard.

Anyway, it's worth people reading the LDAC blurb to understand why Bluetooth today sucks , and as you stated, transfer speeds.

While high end wired gear is hitting DSD, you are getting less than CD quality with Bluetooth.

Welcome to the wireless age, where wireless audio sounds worse than CD quality. While wired, you can achieve amazing results playing DSD.

 

[Rigby]

But for those that have never used anything but the included earbuds, it's completely a non-issue of course.

Actually I use the included earbuds quite often (not so much for music, but rather for calls, Lync sessions and audiobooks), and this would absolutely be an issue for me, because I use them not only with my phone, but also with various computers and other devices I use. Lightning earphones wouldn't work with anything but the iPhone, including my MBP (and no, I don't believe Apple will build Macs with a Lightning port). If at least it was an industry standard like USB-C it wouldn't be quite that bad.

PS: Why do I use the Apple earbuds? Because they have the thinnest and least obtrusive cable with integrated microphone/remote control that I have seen. They also feel quite comfortable to my ears. Of course, a $25 set of earphones are not the right product for high-quality music reproduction, but that's not what I'm after in the circumstances I use them.

 

[saudade]

I don't understand what's wrong with the wireless/Bluetooth headphone option? There are great ones to use starting at $20 on Amazon and up depending on your purchase preference. No reason to stay wired any more practically and even those wireless headphones come with a wiring option.

Glad u dont note the difference but Bluetooth sounds horrible

 

[Kiwikat88]

6) Beats cost $3B and maybe Apple wants to accelerate the ROI by first only granting Lightning licenses at the lower-priced zone to itself (as Beats)... then drag out the approval process for those who directly compete with Beats.

They've obviously not dragged it out too much as Audeze is producing lightning connector-terminated cables with a DAC and amp built in. Though I guess you could argue that they aren't directly competing with Beats as they're far superior (and more expensive). EDIT: the highest end beats are only a hundred dollars less than the Sine, so I'm not so sure I'd put them in different categories.

As an owner of the Audeze Sine, it has been annoying not being able to charge my iPP and listen through the lightning connector at the same time. The in-line DAC and amp really improve the sound quality of the Sine vs using the 3.5mm jack in the iPP though.

 

[DTphonehome]

Slippery, slippery, slippery slope. Riddle me this: what else currently INSIDE an iDevice could be better if it too was evicted to outside accessory devices?

Answer: pretty much EVERYTHING.

Once we allow marketing spin to rationalize ejecting utility but leaving the price the same, we practically beg for that again and again. Why leave the iDevice battery in there when longer-life batteries can easily be hooked up OUTSIDE the device? Why leave the camera in there when far better cameras can be hooked up OUTSIDE the device. And on and on. Eventually, we are paying about $1000 for an empty box or maybe just a single Lightning 4 connector to which you assemble your whole iPhone with accessories (sold separately of course) so that it can do all the things the iPhone 6 "used to do" right out of the box and without adapters.

While it is certainly true that a better quality DAC can yield better-sounding audio, the alternative option would be to build a better quality DAC INSIDE the next iPhone. It has to have a DAC anyway so that it can work as a phone. Our ears can't hear digital audio whether it's music or someone's voice in a call. Since it MUST have a DAC inside anyway and if audio quality is actually an issue to address, address it where it will improve the quality of both music and phone calls.

You don't need a great DAC for phone calls. Even HD audio calls can have a dinky DAC. But you are very limited by how great a DAC you can build into a phone. Size and cost constraints are huge. If you externalize it, the user basically can choose how good a DAC they want by choosing higher-end headphones.

 

[mantan]

4) Lightning licensing is very profitable. I don't think Apple gets a cent off of 3.5mm implementations.
5) Investments in proprietary Lightning supports "lock in" for walled garden.
6) Beats cost $3B and maybe Apple wants to accelerate the ROI by first only granting Lightning licenses at the lower-priced zone to itself (as Beats)... then drag out the approval process for those who directly compete with Beats.

And I just can't grasp the waterproof idea by getting rid of a little hole next to be a much larger rectangular hole. Water has no respect for proprietary or non-proprietary.

Yeah, this is a money grab. Plain and simple. Anybody who's trying to spin it as anything else is a fool.

Don't blame Apple...their job is to make money. So they are assessing the cost benefit of doing this. But consumers are going to pay more and have more inconvenience. (multiple headsets, charging headphones, adapters). Consumers have a choice now. You want wireless, go for it. You want wired, go for it.

If you are going to take one option away, then you better replace add features that make it worthwhile.