You do realise that this is a consumer technology related discussion forum, right?
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
this is obviously another walled garden that apple is looking to create. Forget about the fact that I use my headphones not just for my iDevices, but also at home when listening to vinyl, or with my amp when playing guitar but not trying to wake up the entire neighborhood.
Also, i've got 3 pairs of really good headphones (Bowers and Wilkins, Audio Technica, and Shure...just say no to Beats) that cost me upwards of $300, $200, and $100, all of which have their own specific use cases, and all sound great as intended, so no need for me to upgrade to lightning.
This is apple creating problems that they are then solving for, as opposed to solving real problems with their products. Not that their products don't solve real problems too..I find great convenience in having an ipad and an iphone with me when I'm on the go..but call me a luddite or whatever else would be used to describe someone who doesnt follow every path apple tries to lead us down..i'll stick with my regular headphones.
Also, i've got 3 pairs of really good headphones (Bowers and Wilkins, Audio Technica, and Shure...just say no to Beats) that cost me upwards of $300, $200, and $100, all of which have their own specific use cases, and all sound great as intended, so no need for me to upgrade to lightning.
This is apple creating problems that they are then solving for, as opposed to solving real problems with their products. Not that their products don't solve real problems too..I find great convenience in having an ipad and an iphone with me when I'm on the go..but call me a luddite or whatever else would be used to describe someone who doesnt follow every path apple tries to lead us down..i'll stick with my regular headphones.
Last edited:
Maybe some will, but they will almost certainly not migrate to a proprietary connector that doesn't work with anything else.
I'll be happy with the change only if Apple replace EarPods with a lightning version and don't expect us to pay extra for ones that take advantage of lightning, or be stuck with none of the benefits and all the downsides of the existing headphones but with a lightning cable
I'm glad this test was done but still many posts in the comments point to a majority of folks not caring about quality and caring more about convenience. On the other hand, we currently have the option to use the lightning port as done in this test for improved quality.
The 3.5 is very convenient since at that point we don't have to choose a DAC or amp and for most uses (especially with cheap headphones while mowing a lawn or something like that) it's super simple to plug in and go. On the other hand, if I'm doing some detailed listening, I'd prefer the higher end DAC/amp.
I believe it's only necessary for any pocket device to have a single physical I/O port for audio. If given the choice of which one to remove, I'd also remove the analog port, give the user more control over their sound quality, and take my lumps for removing a convenience that will likely be overcome in short order.
Those bringing up Bluetooth, you obviously care about sound quality even less, then again if you're just mowing the lawn I don't think fidelity is a huge concern. I'd be all over any audio system that does a good job converting hi-res digital audio to analog. That fidelity can't be transmitted over Bluetooth so until then I'm liking wires.
The 3.5 is very convenient since at that point we don't have to choose a DAC or amp and for most uses (especially with cheap headphones while mowing a lawn or something like that) it's super simple to plug in and go. On the other hand, if I'm doing some detailed listening, I'd prefer the higher end DAC/amp.
I believe it's only necessary for any pocket device to have a single physical I/O port for audio. If given the choice of which one to remove, I'd also remove the analog port, give the user more control over their sound quality, and take my lumps for removing a convenience that will likely be overcome in short order.
Those bringing up Bluetooth, you obviously care about sound quality even less, then again if you're just mowing the lawn I don't think fidelity is a huge concern. I'd be all over any audio system that does a good job converting hi-res digital audio to analog. That fidelity can't be transmitted over Bluetooth so until then I'm liking wires.
For their listening test did they figure out a way to do ABX blind comparison between the one set plugged in the two different ways?
Sounds like they also didn't match levels between the two which invalidates the listening test, people will prefer the louder one even if they are otherwise identical.
Sounds like they also didn't match levels between the two which invalidates the listening test, people will prefer the louder one even if they are otherwise identical.
How can Wifi be faster than the Ethernet that the router is connected to.
You do realize there are Bluetooth in-ear headphones right?
[doublepost=1462818929][/doublepost]
It can be for local network related things that have nothing to do with the Internet.
Evidences suggests that BT is not strong enough to penetrate cells. Indeed, it's perhaps the weakest of all the electromagnetic waves bombarding your head. That's why it only has a range of a few feet or meters. Still, no one can say with 100% certainty that it's completely harmless...
[doublepost=1462819078][/doublepost]
Is it really faster than a wired local network or just faster than internet speeds? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm sincerely asking.
Depends what specs your comparing. Wireless ac is comparable to gigabit ethernet. Of course they have even faster ethernet now so…
Ironically, many people would argue just the opposite: sound quality is an issue as long as people buy Beats or Bluetooth headphones.
As long as the transmission is digital (so one's and zero's) and the dac and amplifier are in the head phone there should not really be a difference, right?
DOT Stereo aptX Or EarIn bluetooth headsets, just two that are far and away smaller then any earbuds on the market and they are similar to hearing aids in that they are just individual ear pieces. No wires connecting them or running to phone. How having a wire attached to your headphones AND then running to your phone is somehow MORE comfortable is crazy. Rolling over in bed or moving around, you get all tangled in wires. Bluetooth has come along way, they arent bulky anymore and havent been for 3 years now and with the removal of any wires at all, that just clinches it.
While I agree that it is nothing more than an exercise at this point, there are several specific drawbacks to this scenario *IFF* it actually occurs.
1. I don't have any reason to spend $45 or more on headphones, when a $10 pair currently works for me.
2. As a frequent traveler, headphones are prone to getting snagged in my backpack or otherwise broken necessitating replacement... and the idea of spending a lot of money on something that is not used frequently is frustrating.
3. I *do* work from hotels, so being able to have my phone plugged in while listening to music is a good thing!
Thought #1, #2 and #3 could be easily remedied with a bluetooth headset, there are more issues:
4. While on a plane, bluetooth is prohibited (yes, even if wireless is available) so technically we are required by law to use connected earphones
5. When in rental cars - or even vehicles with older infotainment systems - sometimes the only option to playing music is via a headphone jack.
Ultimately Apple with either remove (or not) the headphone jacks and push us in other directions... that simply cost more money. I will wait to see what options are available when the time comes.
Square already has one: https://squareup.com/help/us/en/article/5639-set-up-the-square-contactless-chip-card-reader
If you're really a business then it shouldn't be a big deal to spend a little bit of money on a bluetooth card reader...
Many Bluetooth earbuds for $10-$20 on Amazon. I have a pair at $25 that are great for working out.
Exactly why I only use Bluetooth.
Yep: Bluetooth
1000% wrong:
https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?cid=TW189&newsId=15254
Relevant bit: "You can also continue to use short-range Bluetooth accessories, like wireless keyboards." i.e. They were actually NEVER prohibited... and definitely aren't now.
Every rental car I've had for the last 3 years or so has had Bluetooth. Just had a great Chrysler 300 rental last week that was awesome with my iPhone.
If you're really worried about it there are TONS of Bluetooth->Aux options.
Anything else?
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.
I still have not heard a rational explanation how the removal of the headphone benefits consumers. Doing so only reduces consumer choice while increasing inconvenience and expense for those who own a nice pair of buds or phones. (Note: I only said removal of the headphone jack. My argument goes know further that point).
If audio via the Lightning port is a vast improvement, fantastic, but it should be the marketplace that makes that decision, not Apple. Apple could easily allow both analog (headphone jack) and digital (Lightning port) audio output from iPhones, in addition to BT, thereby affording consumers the choice of keeping what they have, moving to a pair of Lightning or BT based buds or phones worth the cost of switching and when the switch is right.
Instead, Apple is attempting to push iPhone fans to conform to its wishes. This is not the "1984 won't be like 1984" Apple I've known. This is more like the totalitarian "we are embedding MS Explorer in Windows so customers have to use it" Microsoft I despised.
There is a % of users that won't care either because they just use the supplied buds, BT, only listen via internal speaker, or are willing to let Apple make choices for them. But, as we, and Apple, discovered with the change from 4" to 5"+ screens, there will also be a significant number of consumers that are interested in upgrading but not at the expensive of leaving behind what they view as an important feature, be it screen size or headphone input port. It makes no sense to me that Apple would make the mistake of pushing away customers at the time they need them the most.
A lot of people have expensive h'phones and buds they like, don't feel the need to abandon, want the expense of replacing, or feel it's not practical to buy phones for just the iPhone since the Lightning port is proprietary. To this group the decision becomes iPhone 7 or keep my high-ish end headphones. That poses a big challenge to Apple at a time they can't really afford to test consumers will. This isn't 2009 when people would line up no matter what Apple offered in the new iPhone. We know from SE demand that consumers now want what they want, not what Apple decided to dole out. The new rule to sales is consumer choice.
If audio via the Lightning port is a vast improvement, fantastic, but it should be the marketplace that makes that decision, not Apple. Apple could easily allow both analog (headphone jack) and digital (Lightning port) audio output from iPhones, in addition to BT, thereby affording consumers the choice of keeping what they have, moving to a pair of Lightning or BT based buds or phones worth the cost of switching and when the switch is right.
Instead, Apple is attempting to push iPhone fans to conform to its wishes. This is not the "1984 won't be like 1984" Apple I've known. This is more like the totalitarian "we are embedding MS Explorer in Windows so customers have to use it" Microsoft I despised.
There is a % of users that won't care either because they just use the supplied buds, BT, only listen via internal speaker, or are willing to let Apple make choices for them. But, as we, and Apple, discovered with the change from 4" to 5"+ screens, there will also be a significant number of consumers that are interested in upgrading but not at the expensive of leaving behind what they view as an important feature, be it screen size or headphone input port. It makes no sense to me that Apple would make the mistake of pushing away customers at the time they need them the most.
A lot of people have expensive h'phones and buds they like, don't feel the need to abandon, want the expense of replacing, or feel it's not practical to buy phones for just the iPhone since the Lightning port is proprietary. To this group the decision becomes iPhone 7 or keep my high-ish end headphones. That poses a big challenge to Apple at a time they can't really afford to test consumers will. This isn't 2009 when people would line up no matter what Apple offered in the new iPhone. We know from SE demand that consumers now want what they want, not what Apple decided to dole out. The new rule to sales is consumer choice.