And how does Lightning or BT solve that? Please don't tell be due to the shorter path between the DAC and your ear.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Lightning Headphones: Are They Better or Just an Inconvenience?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Tried B&O (via Amazon). While the build quality was very good, noise cancelation was meh and the sound quality was good, not great. Spatially lacking. BT range was mediocre at best (<10 feet consistent) and they would not stay connected to my 6+ consistently. Have to chuckle as you can now buy these in the Apple Store.
To your point, almost all would not spend this kind of money. For this to work, Folks need a nice array (price/quality) of BT that compare favorably with wired sets. Apple needs to step up it's BT tech too.
It's the age of even more lossy compression applied to your music, cut the cords!
I am not sure how you charge your Apple Watch but mine needs a wire between the device and the charger. Not having a port does not make it wireless.
Yes. Wireless charging has some benefits. It also has some serious issues. The only place I have found wireless charging to be of any realistic use is on my desk although a dock actually works better, or my nightstand. Wireless is overpriced in comparison to a cable. I'd rather have quick charge.
Don't get me wrong, wireless charging, it is nice. It's use comes with a price and an inconvenience.
[doublepost=1462899955][/doublepost]
(added the emphasis to the quote) Chuckle. 2.4 and 5 are very prevalent in houses now-a-days.
Lightening headphones? NO. Why? Cause, while there would be 15 million new Apple devices (iPhone 7) without a headphone jack, there would still be 900 Billion other devices, of all kinds, with the INDUSTRY STANDARD headphone jack. Am I ever going to buy a pair of headphones that only work on my iPhone? NO.
Noisy environments are not an issue with custom fitted sleves. People will spend hundreds more on noise cancelling horrors (Bose for example), but for $150 you can get just the sleves custom fitted via an audiologist. (http://acscustom.com/us/index.php/in-ear-monitors/custom-earphone-sleeves). This will give almost any in ear phones monitor quality audio.
[doublepost=1462904098][/doublepost]
But you're missing the point. An already compressed track will likely be recompressed. That's double compression. With a decent lossless track its very easy to hear the difference over BT. To me it's like the difference between FM radio and a CD.
I'm well aware of tandem losses. I maintain that you are unlikely to hear it on 256 kbps AAC, and if you did it would be a very subtle difference. Most people don't even know what compression artifacts sound like, and are simply victims of confirmation bias and placebo effects.
There is really no difference if the throughput is high enough and the buffer is big enough, but hey, audiophiles are a special breed of people.
This. If Apple had to get rid of the 3.5 mm adaptor it is one thing, but I rather them start using USB-C. No more of this stupid proprietary BS. But if it is only to make it 1 mm thinner, then F that. I am so sick of the phone needing to become so anorexic. If the camera lens had to protrude due to thinness, then maybe they should have made the phone little thicker? I rather not suffer and lose battery and have the phone look ridiculous if they make it so thin, it is pretty stupid actually.
I'm sure Apple will figure out the best way to do headphones, bluetooth and no cable? Wifi charging?
Don't get me wrong, I haven't used wired headphones in a long time, I have a nice pair of Bluetooth buds and frankly I'd be all for wireless everything, everyone should. I think there shortcomings of those types of things are finally getting addressed, longer battery life and wireless tech that doesn't drain it (BL 4.0 was big for this). And I primarily listen to music In the car, another reason wireless is so important. I wish they'd had upped the quality on the last BL protocol to shut up audiophiles more, but it's decent enough.
But I think in two to three years, you're right on point, wireless will be everything, and I think Apple has the tech to do it. That article on the 30 ft wireless charging range they could be putting out in the next year or two will seriously make iPhones the top phone again. Also, I would love it when they get this tech into laptops.
Truly looking forward to a brain tumor at 55.
I use my iPhone as a portable recorder for my job, and also get other producers' files to listen through and pre-edit, so Bluetooth quality for listening is right out the window- not good enough. I was able to find a mic that works with Lightning, and thankfully, that has a jack I can use as a line through- but if I'm done recording, why should I have to either have a separate pair of phones to switch to, or have to dig in my bag for an adapter? likewise, charging the phone and listening will require an adapter as well. What a pain.
Bluetooth or lightning, I don't want to have to buy a new iPhone AND a pair of headphones just to listen to my music while I ride my bike. Keep the headphone jack so I can keep using the equipment I already have.
Oh wait...this is Apple we're talking about. They are just going to say "screw you and your already existing equipment. We want MORE of your money!"
Why would they want to make things easy for anyone when they can make a phone 2mm thinner? Something I'm sure no one wants or cares about. How about better battery life? How about not making everything obsolete?
Oh wait...this is Apple we're talking about. They are just going to say "screw you and your already existing equipment. We want MORE of your money!"
Why would they want to make things easy for anyone when they can make a phone 2mm thinner? Something I'm sure no one wants or cares about. How about better battery life? How about not making everything obsolete?
I do understand that. I own Lightning headphones that do that today. The Sony MDR-1adac. And I'm glad they do that because they sound better out of the iPhone's 3.5mm jack.
That said, 2 of the 3 headphones in the video don't do that.
I don't know if it is an issue with supporting multiple standards, but my Lightning headphones cannot draw power from the phone (they must be charged unless using 3.5mm) and cannot have their volume controlled by the phone, instead the volume on the phone stops working and you must use a dial on the headphones themselves. They can take in digital audio from any device with a ton of cable choices, but they don't support all of the features of any device. Maybe this is why the $800 pair doesn't support USB audio like my pair does. Might be hard to draw power and use proprietary features for multiple standards on the same chip.
The cable swapping thing will further raise prices as well. Paying Apple a Lightning license fee (and supplying the cable) for every pair of headphones you sell to an Android isn't very cost effective.
Apple may do it with Beats, but this all seems so strange, especially guaranteeing users that they'll get the same audio quality if they switch to Android. I switched to Android for a year and audio quality was a nightmare and the main reason I came back to Apple. If I'd owned my digital headphones then, audio quality wouldn't have come into play... Except for the fact that they still sound better through 3.5 (though only a very negligible amount). If Apple drops 3.5, forcing me to use my headphones digitally, I will definitely shop around for my next device. They will have given up a huge advantage that they currently have, as most Android phones use a terrible DAC that is built into the Snapdragon system on a chip. The phones with great displays tend to use that DAC, the phones with good DACs tend to use washed out displays.
But in general, you are right that swappable headphones do/will exist... And even though mine are a pain because of charging, I'd definitely suggest that no one buy any that can't be swapped. The $800 ones in the video are the perfect example... Even though they support 3.5mm, they clearly require a high volume output, making them useless for laptops, tablets, non-Apple phones. There's no telling what devices you'll own in 5 years, or even whether Apple will still use the Lightning cable. You don't want to upgrade $800 headphones until they break. I've got 3.5mm studio monitor headphones that I've owned for a decade.
Anyone able to distinguish the difference between FM radio an a CD is able to tell. I'd say that's most people.
[doublepost=1462925129][/doublepost]
HiFi quality > B&O > Bose > Midrange Stuff > Beats > Sub $40 Market (with exceptions)
[doublepost=1462926340][/doublepost]
Maybe. But why does Apple punish us now when there are millions of other products out there only supporting jack sockets? Now is not the time. Apple should focus instead on battery life. Removing the jack gives worse sound quality for most, makes things more expensive for the majority and causes widespread inconvenience for the majority. If you're a pure techie only living on the latest Apple Products with no interest in real music, then you are likely minimally impacted.
It just seems like lunacy that all future headphones for Apple devices will have independent DACs that are likely for the most part to be no better than the inbuilt DAC that Apple have been providing to date. Fine, allow us to buy these external DACs. I for one love my Apogee Duet. But don't force it on us without the industry standard jack.
I will lose so much trust in Apple if this happens. I really hope this is one of those rumours we'll look back on and giggle at.
Show me one article from a respectable audio journalist speaking positively of this move, and I'll perhaps reconsider my opinion.
I guess you don't know the history here. The Audio Industry is littered with many, many higher quality methods of delivery to re-monetise content. Let me recall a few... SACD, HDCD, 24-bit CD, ATRAC/MiniDisc, WMA/DRM (quality arguable), DVD-A, FLAC/ALAC.... All of these are formats that still haven't taken off. The *only* thing that has come close has been the adaptation of MPEG4 in audio... what you know as AAC. It is technically better than MP3 in about every way possible, and only caught on with 10+ years of iPod/iPhone support (it takes more processing power than mp3, by a little).
A few things...
"When has Apple ever just regurgitated the same solution as everybody else, at least without improving it somehow?"
Well, they're regurgitating the 3.5mm in the rMB. They didn't improve audio delivery in any meaningful way (not counting commerce) other than their ALAC/AAC support. Mind you that's a HUGE improvement, but it has very, very little to do with hardware.
Apple commonly includes low quality earbuds, and while their 2015 update is better, it's not something many are willing to pay for on its own.
"And if Apple does all of this as I'm expecting, significantly improving wireless audio as we know it, even if it's proprietary, then why would they offer an adapter in the box to discourage adoption of the new standards?"
If it's proprietary, then it can't be Bluetooth. That's an open standard. That would then take a large swath of their own products and make them useless. If Bluetooth is an option, but they have some "new" way of transmitting wireless audio, it would be the best kept secret in a very, very long time. Consider what you're saying... they are going to add an ENTIRELY NEW set of hardware in the phone - a different transmitter. That theory makes little sense because the point of getting rid of the plug is to save space. They would have a new low-power transmission process that has no product line, and no secondary device interoperability. Consider that for a moment... a publicly-untested solution that uses a new broadcast spectrum the FCC hasn't tipped, transmitting a different way? The only thing even possibly in that realm is to make the headphones connect via wi-fi, and that's just not practical in a hundred ways.
What you're saying could be "better" would require an adaptive device... an LDAC cable. That's probably the direction they're going, given the OEMs that are making Lightning headphones that have powered DACs in them. For all the other stuff, this is going to require a powered cable adapter. Luckily Lightning has that capability to power, but it's coming from the device in a much higher wattage than you currently have with the passive analog 3.5mm.
So even if Apple has a Third Way for getting audio from phone->speaker, it's hard to believe that it will be a net-positive. I'm not suggesting they won't, but removing the 3.5mm seems too early, and adding a technical challenge that will create a barrier to purchase. As an investor, it's hard to see the benefit of removing a fully-compatible plug from a device that works with audio natively, from phone calls, to video and audio recording, microphones and accessories that use the plug, remote controls that use the plug as a trigger, music playback, credit card readers... hell, there's even a wind meter I've seen that goes in the 3.5. Removing that plug makes using ALL of those completely unavailable.
I would rather see every button on the phone removed before a plug gets removed. I could see them removing the Lightning adapter before the 3.5. It is literally the only i/o you can't reasonably replace. You can make the app button become 3d-touch on the back glass, you could take the volume buttons away, you can even make the power button a soft button. You can charge through contactless, and you can transfer data via wifi. You could even just go down to one super-button that is power/app/fingerprint. But any of those design choices... no matter what you do, you have to have a 3.5. Now, can you have an LDAC to do it? Sure. You can. It's going to mean a dongle for the rest of its days. It will mean the slow death of an accessory ecosystem that has been very important for its prosperity for a decade. It will confuse customers more than anticipated. All of this can be "gotten over" in a few years... but let's be clear about this. Samsung listened. They adapted their clone to be waterproof WITHOUT giving up the 3.5. They have a better camera. They have a better screen. They have almost everything better in hardware, with some exceptions. The massive problem for many with SG7 is Android. Worldwide, the SG7 is vastly more popular than iPhone, and iPhone is risking a lot by going away from what made it the difference-maker. It does lots of things easily.
If music becomes annoying on iPhone, as it is creeping towards now, iPhone 7 will be in serious trouble. Removing the 3.5 will accelerate those problems.
Edit, one more thing. If they really thought 3.5 was bad, why are they STILL including them on laptops and iPads?
This. So we can make the item fully disposable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phone_connector_(audio)
I'm honestly not sure if your prior question was answered well. Bluetooth 4.0 cannot transmit higher than about 128kbps. This means that when Bluetooth is used, you have to take whatever audio you have and decode it to a "wave", then reencode it in near-real-time to push it over the low power protocol, Bluetooth. The reason Bluetooth devices aren't great at holding a charge is that they have to decode that 128ish signal, and then also power that decoded signal to the speakers.
So from a quality standpoint, you can have good or terrible audio to start with. Over Bluetooth no matter what it will get encoded a second time. The "double compression" as stated in your quote means it'll be done serially, not twice on top of, not that it matters much. Aced's point about being easy to tell the difference... ABSOLUTELY. If you look at, for example, an MP3 at 128kbps on a spectral analysis, you'll see that ALL sound with a frequency above 14,500Hz is tossed out. As such, it's very easy to listen to things like cymbals and other metallics, and hear missing details. That's just a small example, but it exists.
The other quote about buffering is absolutely not correct. The Bluetooth specification, under 4.0, has a maximum. There are other Bluetooth formats, but the one that would help (A2DP, up to 768kbps) isn't widely used. This is due to more expensive parts and more power drain in speakers/headphones that use them, and the transmitter has to also support it.
So the audiophiles have a point on this one as it relates to Bluetooth 4.0.
Expensive And Proprietary...
That's the Apple Way.
Beneficial? That's personal opinion.
No Thanks Apple.