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.
Teardown Confirms Digital-to-Analog Converter in Lightning EarPods and 3.5mm Adapter
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A manufacturer of quality audio devices can now embed a better DAC in their device than was previously inside the phone. They couldn't do that before. THAT's the argument. It is unrelated to the throw-in adapter.
These are not amplifiers. These are digital-to-analog converters. Differing digital streams may be enough to warrant another DAC. Two speakers, but one of those has two uses. ( telephone earpiece , 2nd of stereo speaker). May want different performance and transformations in those two modes. One DAC is optimized for one (encoded voice) and the other is optimized for the other.
A more general purpose DAC could span both, but maybe can get smaller, lower power DAC that is just good at narrow range of conversion.
1) one of the benefits of going to a digital connection is that the headphone manufacture can choose a better DAC to power the headphones.
2) It wasn't the chip that they removed for more room, it was the port its-self, this allowed them to move down the Taptic engine and increase battery size.
Of course they could do it before, Lightning headphones have been on the market for over 18 months.
Philips Unveils Lightning-Based Fidelio NC1L Noise Canceling Headphones With No Need for Batteries
They can just buy pretty much the same parts from the same vendor.
http://www.cirrus.com/en/applications/app/detail/APP111.html
Some people were speculating that they hacked the Lightning port and were somehow using some of the pins to pass analog audio.
Uhm, what? Of course you could. There have been external DACs and headphones with Lightning connectors long before the iPhone 7. Dropping the 3.5mm jack didn't add anything, it just removed functionality.
Since it is hardwired directly to one pair of earphone speakers, it only has to be "good enough" for that specific pair. If it was better what would it buy you? It is likely a "good enough" to be close to result of old analog ear pods and also enable the $9 price point.
There is no sense in a $20 DAC chip to drive a $20 worth of earphones. ( not that the old internal was $20, but the range of output devices drive the utility of a DAC. )
iTunes purchased music isn't DRM protected so how would that work?
Aren't some songs protected while others aren't? For example songs that are $1.29 are DRM-free whereas $.99 songs are protected?
Not sure on that at all, I just thought that was the case from years ago.
I only listen to it through iTunes or the phone, so I don't mind the DRM if it's there.
They dealt with it because there was the superior CD to replace it. What is superior to the 3.5mm jack???????????
I'm not sure I understand your comment? I was saying the reason for removing the audio port wasn't to make more room by also removing the DAC. The room is created by removing a large empty hole used for a port.
Distinguishing between modern day converters is extremely difficult; in other words, they all sound very much alike. Further more, for even the few individuals who can reliably hear a difference (when tested blindfolded), it's not always obvious which one is "better". Another wrinkle is that speakers/earphones/monitors (and most other links in the chain) contribute far more variability to the sound produced than do DAC converters.
Some things that matter a lot: quality of sound to be recorded; distance from and orientation to microphone; what kind of mic is used; acoustics of recording environment; pre- and postproduction audio processing; what speakers are used;...
Some things that matter much less: what brand or model microphone is used; what brand or model of preamplifier is used; whether analog tape was used as a recording medium; digital compression to reduce file size;...
Things that matter very little or not at all: what cables are used; what DAW was used; what ADC is used; what DAC is used;...
It's a shame that people who bought $500+ high-end high quality headphones and have all of their music in FLAC will have to use a dongle with a piece of **** DAC in it.
In fact they are both. In order to drive headphones or speakers, you need an amp after the D/A conversion. The amp stage often has a bigger impact on audio quality than the actual DAC.
this is the golden question.
Apple puts pretty good dac's in their ipods, iphone, ipads. better than you'd expect perhaps - and those who appropriate good music quality really appreciate their effort there.
However, now, the existing DAC ( it's still in phone from speakers) isn't used - and each thing connected to the lightening port will need a dac. Are they putting any quality into that little adapter thing?
Valid point. However, by moving the DAC to the headphones, people can choose which one they prefer. If they want an el cheapo, $10 model, fine. If they want the uber-good, $1000 model, fine. This way, they're not stuck with whatever one Apple chooses to stick in it.
If it had a headphone jack and digital output through Lightning, people would not be stuck either.
That should have read 'a growing selection of battery limited, low sound quality, expensive, and easily lost wireless bluetooth headphones, or to have a massive ugly dongle hanging off their phone to charge and listen to audio at the same time'