Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Jervasio

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jun 11, 2016
100
38
WTF did apple released Beats studio wireless with W1 chip when, one week later, they would release the W2 chip, which is better in every single way in the new apple watch series 3? :mad:

It's pathetic how Apple sells old tech in new products and get away with it..

350$ in a new product which doesn't have W2 chip. It doesn't make sense and I'm definitely not gonna buy it. If I'm paying premium, I want to have the latest and greatest, period.

Do you guys share the same opinion?

Cheers! ;)
 
They are built for purpose chips and do different things. W2 handles wireless, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. W1 handles wireless (Bluetooth) *and* audio.

So your saying that the W1 continues to be the best one in terms of audio/bluetooth?

Because from what I've seen the W2 handles better wireless and is more efficient with bluetooth, so if it does what W1 chip does, but better and with the addition of wi-fi (no use for the headphones), why isn't the W2 on the latest headphones??
 
So your saying that the W1 continues to be the best one in terms of audio/bluetooth?

Because from what I've seen the W2 handles better wireless and is more efficient with bluetooth, so if it does what W1 chip does, but better and with the addition of wi-fi (no use for the headphones), why isn't the W2 on the latest headphones??

Like I said, they're built for different purpose. W just mean wireless. W2 is wireless no. 2, doesn't mean it is built for AirPods so Apple couldn't just put it in AirPods and be done with it.
These are not off the shelves, all purpose chips.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mr.C
So your saying that the W1 continues to be the best one in terms of audio/bluetooth?

Because from what I've seen the W2 handles better wireless and is more efficient with bluetooth, so if it does what W1 chip does, but better and with the addition of wi-fi (no use for the headphones), why isn't the W2 on the latest headphones??


And where have you "seen this"? Considering there are no devices available in the market actually using the Apple W2-chip and Apple has not given any details in regard to power draw or anything surrounding the Apple W2 other than it handling bluetooth and wireless versus Apple W1 which only handles bluetooth.

You are misinterpreting the use cases here. Wireless headphones don't feature WiFi, so there is no point of having the Apple W2-chip in wireless headphones. The Apple W2 is purposely built for the Apple Watch as it needs to handle both bluetooth and WiFi compared to the headphones that only use bluetooth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr.C
It's pathetic how Apple sells old tech in new products and get away with it..

Nah whats pathetic is spitting your dummy out because you have seen an extra number and making lots of random, uneducated assumptions.

First of all, W1 is new tech and very good tech. It's been available in devices for like a year... it does its job very well in headphones. We may have gained a small amount of power efficiency from W2 but its mainly beneficial for the watch as it handles Bluetooth and WIFI - No need in headphones.

W1 was a big deal, not to be passed off as old tech. it's cool af.
 
Nah whats pathetic is spitting your dummy out because you have seen an extra number and making lots of random, uneducated assumptions.

First of all, W1 is new tech and very good tech. It's been available in devices for like a year... it does its job very well in headphones. We may have gained a small amount of power efficiency from W2 but its mainly beneficial for the watch as it handles Bluetooth and WIFI - No need in headphones.

W1 was a big deal, not to be passed off as old tech. it's cool af.

The thing is, no one really knows for sure who's right... It can be you, or me. The W2 can only handle Bluetooth and they have a different chip inside the watch for wifi, or W2 can do both Bluetooth and wifi.
I guess we'll have to wait for a teardown from iFix and see if Apple released a new chip 1 week after presenting their headphones with the previous version, or not..
 
The thing is, no one really knows for sure who's right... It can be you, or me. The W2 can only handle Bluetooth and they have a different chip inside the watch for wifi, or W2 can do both Bluetooth and wifi.
I guess we'll have to wait for a teardown from iFix and see if Apple released a new chip 1 week after presenting their headphones with the previous version, or not..

My point is, adding W2 would have very little benefits if any at all... the W1 is all that is needed. You would gain literally nothing so it's not healthy getting angry about such a none issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crazynewf7 and Mr.C
My point is, adding W2 would have very little benefits if any at all... the W1 is all that is needed. You would gain literally nothing so it's not healthy getting angry about such a none issue.

I'm not angry mate ahah
I'll just save my $$ instead, if I pay premium I want to have the latest and greatest.. I guess I'll go with Sony 1000X-M2 :rolleyes:
 
If you search a few years ago I was a big advocate for beats studio when many here were hating on them.

Today I'd never but beats again. The build quality is just not there. With that in mind. W whatever still wouldn't buy.
 
Perhaps it's time to put old bias behind you? Early reviews of the Beats Studio3 Wireless are looking really good. ANC on par with MDR1000X and QC35, only with better audio quality, better bluetooth range and all the benefits of the Apple W1-chip. The Beats Solo3 Wireless are also seeing good reviews, but personally I hate on-ear headphones.

You have to go back to the original Beats products, back when they had a partnership with Monster to find those really lousy Beats products. Ever since they ended their partnership with Monster and started doing their own productions their headphones haven't been all that bad. And the two latest generations with Beats Solo2 and Beats Studio2 did really well according to a lot of tests and the latest generation Beats Solo3 and Studio3 seems to be doing great.

Why do people insists on keeping old grudge towards entirely new products that don't really bare any resembles to the old ones you hated? It doesn't make any sense.
 
Perhaps it's time to put old bias behind you? Early reviews of the Beats Studio3 Wireless are looking really good. ANC on par with MDR1000X and QC35, only with better audio quality, better bluetooth range and all the benefits of the Apple W1-chip. The Beats Solo3 Wireless are also seeing good reviews, but personally I hate on-ear headphones.

You have to go back to the original Beats products, back when they had a partnership with Monster to find those really lousy Beats products. Ever since they ended their partnership with Monster and started doing their own productions their headphones haven't been all that bad. And the two latest generations with Beats Solo2 and Beats Studio2 did really well according to a lot of tests and the latest generation Beats Solo3 and Studio3 seems to be doing great.

Why do people insists on keeping old grudge towards entirely new products that don't really bare any resembles to the old ones you hated? It doesn't make any sense.

This.

I appreciate the brand is tainted, but things are different now and the new Beats stuff is really good quality, well built, amazing sound quality and seamless functionality with the W1 chips.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crazynewf7
Perhaps it's time to put old bias behind you? Early reviews of the Beats Studio3 Wireless are looking really good. ANC on par with MDR1000X and QC35, only with better audio quality, better bluetooth range and all the benefits of the Apple W1-chip. The Beats Solo3 Wireless are also seeing good reviews, but personally I hate on-ear headphones.

You have to go back to the original Beats products, back when they had a partnership with Monster to find those really lousy Beats products. Ever since they ended their partnership with Monster and started doing their own productions their headphones haven't been all that bad. And the two latest generations with Beats Solo2 and Beats Studio2 did really well according to a lot of tests and the latest generation Beats Solo3 and Studio3 seems to be doing great.

Why do people insists on keeping old grudge towards entirely new products that don't really bare any resembles to the old ones you hated? It doesn't make any sense.


I’ve mad multiple beats by Dre

Just saying they aren’t worth anywhere near the retail then, they aren’t worth the retail now
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jervasio
I’ve mad multiple beats by Dre

Just saying they aren’t worth anywhere near the retail then, they aren’t worth the retail now

Have you had any of the recent NEW products? They have changed. I've owned several over the years, and while I was never unhappy with them, I do agree they weren't worth the price... Like anything, a product worth is subjective and unique to an individual.. however, these new beats really do hold up to the competition, personal preference a side of course.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crazynewf7
I’ve listened to them, and yes they have def gotten better. But I also thought the old products were good too lol

I’m just saying none of the beats are worth retail

For the price I’d rather find a nice deal on the Bose qc 35
 
Perhaps it's time to put old bias behind you? Early reviews of the Beats Studio3 Wireless are looking really good. ANC on par with MDR1000X and QC35, only with better audio quality, better bluetooth range and all the benefits of the Apple W1-chip. The Beats Solo3 Wireless are also seeing good reviews, but personally I hate on-ear headphones.

You have to go back to the original Beats products, back when they had a partnership with Monster to find those really lousy Beats products. Ever since they ended their partnership with Monster and started doing their own productions their headphones haven't been all that bad. And the two latest generations with Beats Solo2 and Beats Studio2 did really well according to a lot of tests and the latest generation Beats Solo3 and Studio3 seems to be doing great.

Why do people insists on keeping old grudge towards entirely new products that don't really bare any resembles to the old ones you hated? It doesn't make any sense.

That's cute, they definitely do NOT have the same audio quality of the other two, specially the 1000X-M2. Yes, they improved a lot and they had come a long way (specially in the noise cancellation), but IMO they are still not worthy.. I was considering them when I heard about the W2 chip, but I guess they will save it for the next upgrade ‍♂️‍♂️
 
And when exactly did you listen to the not yet released Beats Studio3 Wireless?
[doublepost=1506453172][/doublepost]
I’ve listened to them, and yes they have def gotten better. But I also thought the old products were good too lol

I’m just saying none of the beats are worth retail

For the price I’d rather find a nice deal on the Bose qc 35


When did you listen to the not yet released Beats Studio3 Wireless?

I find it funny how you mention the Bose QC35. Early-reviews claims the ANC is on-par with the Bose QC35 and to be frank they shouldn't have a hard time matching its sound quality.

I own a lot of headphones. Everything from Sennheiser HD800 + Hegel HD12 DAC on my computer, to a pair of Sennheiser HD650 that I used before I got the HD800 which my girlfriend is currently using. I also have a lot of wireless headphones. I have the B&O BeoPlay H7, H8 and H9, I also have the Bose QC35, I previously had the Beats Studio2 Wireless (sold them) and I have a few in-ears like Westone UM3X, Westone 4R and Shure SE846 as well as the Apple AirPods.

Call me crazy, but I love me some good audio and I have a really hard time settling for something over time. I do love the Sennheiser HD800 though, they are darn perfect in pretty much every single way and they are really, really comfortable. But they are useless outside my home as they are open-back, having this really long and thick braided cable and they really picky in terms of DAC and they need amplification.

When it comes to wireless headphones and in-ears I do really enjoy the BeoPlay H7 and H9, I don't really like the H8 and they are on-ear so they aren't very comfortable to use over time. I sold the Beats Studio2 Wireless because it had subpar ANC and I found the audio signature to be a tad bit too warm and bassy for my liking. I love the spacious and crystal clear audio from the Westone UM3X and Shure SE846 and I sadly lost my Westone 4R at work.

The AirPods are also really impressive and they are perfect to use in the open landscape office at work as I can still hear when people are talking to me while using them, something neither in-ears of headphones are capable of providing me with. And the audio of the AirPods are surprisingly good but they don't seal for **** so they are useless while commuting due to this. And the microphones on them are also great so they are my preferred solution for hands-free calling. This is one thing pretty much everyone seems to be skimping on, the microphone on pretty much all the other wireless headphones are really lacklustre....

This leaves only the Bose QC35. And they are great in many ways, don't get me wrong. They are really lightweight, they are really comfortable, sadly they don't really look all that good and they have a somewhat weak and plasticy / fake feeling to them but the Bluetooth is rock solid and they have the very best multipoint / multi-device and seamless handling of multiple sources out of any wireless headphones currently on the market. They also come with a decent app and Bose is really great at consistently maintaining and update them with new firmware releases.

There is just one problem. They don't sound very good.. Especially the mid-range has a really awkward EQ to them that you can't tune yourself. You really notice this while listening to vocal heavy songs and things like podcasts and audio-books. Voices just doesn't sound right on them. And as one who really appreciates vocals and listens to tons of podcasts and audio-books this becomes a big problem. Comparing them to every other headphone and in-ear I own (and I own a lot) they all have pretty much the same sounding vocals. Sure some like the BeoPlay H9 have a very warm sound signature so vocals don't pop as much and doesn't have the same focus and spark to them as they have on Westone UM3X, Shure SE846, HD800 etc but the vocals and spoken words still have pretty much the same tone to them. But on the Bose QC35 on the other hand vocals sound quirky and unnatural.

This is the sole reason why I tend to never use my Bose QC35, they are only used on plane rides because of the ANC and that's pretty much it. And we own to pairs, one for me and one for my girlfriend and it's the same issue on both and we have complained to Bose and got a two pairs of new Bose QC35 and they have the exact same audio.



But then again, each to their own and audio is a very, very personal thing. I just find it really funny how you try to tell us that the Beats Studio3 Wireless really isn't worth the price and telling us to get the Bose QC35 instead when I couldn't disagree more. I haven't heard the Studio3 Wireless so I can't comment on ANC and audio, but if the early-reviews are indeed correct and the ANC is on-par with Bose QC35 I have a really, really hard time believing the audio will be inferior as I don't consider the audio on the Bose QC35 to be all that good to begin with and you also have to take into consideration all the added benefits of the Apple W1-chip Apple users will get as well.
 
And when exactly did you listen to the not yet released Beats Studio3 Wireless?
[doublepost=1506453172][/doublepost]


When did you listen to the not yet released Beats Studio3 Wireless?

I find it funny how you mention the Bose QC35. Early-reviews claims the ANC is on-par with the Bose QC35 and to be frank they shouldn't have a hard time matching its sound quality.

I own a lot of headphones. Everything from Sennheiser HD800 + Hegel HD12 DAC on my computer, to a pair of Sennheiser HD650 that I used before I got the HD800 which my girlfriend is currently using. I also have a lot of wireless headphones. I have the B&O BeoPlay H7, H8 and H9, I also have the Bose QC35, I previously had the Beats Studio2 Wireless (sold them) and I have a few in-ears like Westone UM3X, Westone 4R and Shure SE846 as well as the Apple AirPods.

Call me crazy, but I love me some good audio and I have a really hard time settling for something over time. I do love the Sennheiser HD800 though, they are darn perfect in pretty much every single way and they are really, really comfortable. But they are useless outside my home as they are open-back, having this really long and thick braided cable and they really picky in terms of DAC and they need amplification.

When it comes to wireless headphones and in-ears I do really enjoy the BeoPlay H7 and H9, I don't really like the H8 and they are on-ear so they aren't very comfortable to use over time. I sold the Beats Studio2 Wireless because it had subpar ANC and I found the audio signature to be a tad bit too warm and bassy for my liking. I love the spacious and crystal clear audio from the Westone UM3X and Shure SE846 and I sadly lost my Westone 4R at work.

The AirPods are also really impressive and they are perfect to use in the open landscape office at work as I can still hear when people are talking to me while using them, something neither in-ears of headphones are capable of providing me with. And the audio of the AirPods are surprisingly good but they don't seal for **** so they are useless while commuting due to this. And the microphones on them are also great so they are my preferred solution for hands-free calling. This is one thing pretty much everyone seems to be skimping on, the microphone on pretty much all the other wireless headphones are really lacklustre....

This leaves only the Bose QC35. And they are great in many ways, don't get me wrong. They are really lightweight, they are really comfortable, sadly they don't really look all that good and they have a somewhat weak and plasticy / fake feeling to them but the Bluetooth is rock solid and they have the very best multipoint / multi-device and seamless handling of multiple sources out of any wireless headphones currently on the market. They also come with a decent app and Bose is really great at consistently maintaining and update them with new firmware releases.

There is just one problem. They don't sound very good.. Especially the mid-range has a really awkward EQ to them that you can't tune yourself. You really notice this while listening to vocal heavy songs and things like podcasts and audio-books. Voices just doesn't sound right on them. And as one who really appreciates vocals and listens to tons of podcasts and audio-books this becomes a big problem. Comparing them to every other headphone and in-ear I own (and I own a lot) they all have pretty much the same sounding vocals. Sure some like the BeoPlay H9 have a very warm sound signature so vocals don't pop as much and doesn't have the same focus and spark to them as they have on Westone UM3X, Shure SE846, HD800 etc but the vocals and spoken words still have pretty much the same tone to them. But on the Bose QC35 on the other hand vocals sound quirky and unnatural.

This is the sole reason why I tend to never use my Bose QC35, they are only used on plane rides because of the ANC and that's pretty much it. And we own to pairs, one for me and one for my girlfriend and it's the same issue on both and we have complained to Bose and got a two pairs of new Bose QC35 and they have the exact same audio.



But then again, each to their own and audio is a very, very personal thing. I just find it really funny how you try to tell us that the Beats Studio3 Wireless really isn't worth the price and telling us to get the Bose QC35 instead when I couldn't disagree more. I haven't heard the Studio3 Wireless so I can't comment on ANC and audio, but if the early-reviews are indeed correct and the ANC is on-par with Bose QC35 I have a really, really hard time believing the audio will be inferior as I don't consider the audio on the Bose QC35 to be all that good to begin with and you also have to take into consideration all the added benefits of the Apple W1-chip Apple users will get as well.

I’m saying th current headphones lol

How are you praising unreleased headphones and of course bashing Bose

Listen I love Apple as much as the next guy on here but relax. Just because beats is an Apple brand now doesn’t mean crap to me.

Still overpriced crap to me. There’s a reason they give them out for free like candy every year...
 
I like how I at least try to give you some actual arguments, while you just claim something to be "crap". And where did i bash Bose? I said the product was GREAT in pretty much every way besides the overall audio quality, especially mid's / vocals.

This has nothing to do with Beats being acquired by Apple. Why do you even bring that into the discussion? The only relevance that has here is the Apple W1-chip which undoubtedly comes with some benefits.

If you compare the Beats Studio2 Wireless with the Bose QC35 I agree. The ANC on the older Studio's where more or less non-existent and the audio was decent but not something worth the high retails price considering the lacklustre ANC. But still you have to remember that when the Beats Studio2 Wireless hit the market we didn't really have many wireless headphones, at the time the Bose QC35 didn't exist and they didn't arrive on the market until like over a year later.


But this is still about the Beats Studio3 Wireless and not Beats Studio2 Wireless and you keep claiming Beats not being worth it and now you even use the terminology "crap" even though we are talking about a brand new product you have never listened to. Don't you see how that might be somewhat silly?
 
  • Like
Reactions: crazynewf7
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.