Heavy is the Head that wears the AirPods Max(daringfireball.net)
daringfireball.net
Heavy is the Head that wears the AirPods Max
https://daringfireball.net/2020/12/heavy_is_the_head_that_wears_the_airpods_max
708 comments
My question is how someone can justify paying $550 dollars for headphones from Apple. I can get mid-range studio quality headphones for that price, from a company that is actually focused on producing the best headphones.
Apple has a huge R&D budget and I'm sure that they could make some very nice headphones if they wanted to, but up against a company that's been making really good stuff for 40+ years, I'm skeptical. If it were an innovation thing, I'd be down to get the hot new headphone experience, but these are just wireless can headphones with some noise cancelling, a product that's been around for quite a while now.
(I've had Bose QCs for ~8 years now (the same set, mind you), I'm pretty happy with them. I'm also pretty happy with the earbuds that came with my phone. so it's not like I'm allergic to spending money on stuff I think will be worth it or I'm some audio snob).
Apple has a huge R&D budget and I'm sure that they could make some very nice headphones if they wanted to, but up against a company that's been making really good stuff for 40+ years, I'm skeptical. If it were an innovation thing, I'd be down to get the hot new headphone experience, but these are just wireless can headphones with some noise cancelling, a product that's been around for quite a while now.
(I've had Bose QCs for ~8 years now (the same set, mind you), I'm pretty happy with them. I'm also pretty happy with the earbuds that came with my phone. so it's not like I'm allergic to spending money on stuff I think will be worth it or I'm some audio snob).
Mid range studio quality with active noise cancelation, great build quality, good BL codecs (aptx HD+ || LDAC)? Name that pair please. Those 8y Bose QCs are not even close to being a mid-range studio quality and are worst than a sony xm2 or xm3 in terms of ANC, built entirely of plastic also.
You people are so quick to bash on this company for no reason.
The only headset that I consider on par with this one is the recently released (at 800 euro) bang and Olufsen n95. The price is not always the sum of parts.
You people are so quick to bash on this company for no reason.
The only headset that I consider on par with this one is the recently released (at 800 euro) bang and Olufsen n95. The price is not always the sum of parts.
That’s not even true. Bose QC35 ii measure objectively very well for headphones. They, like other high quality ANC headphones, use the ANC mic to EQ themselves to a good reference target.
Also no one uses closed back headphones for studio work. What does “mid range studio quality” even mean.
The vast majority of professionals use speakers in a sound treated room for mixing. Those that use headphones do so very carefully, using EQ to get them to sound right (or getting used to the sound profile of the headphones). The most commonly used are Sennheiser open backs in this area - a pair of HD650 is probably most common. In general it’s fairly challenging to mix with headphones accurately though.
Also no one uses closed back headphones for studio work. What does “mid range studio quality” even mean.
The vast majority of professionals use speakers in a sound treated room for mixing. Those that use headphones do so very carefully, using EQ to get them to sound right (or getting used to the sound profile of the headphones). The most commonly used are Sennheiser open backs in this area - a pair of HD650 is probably most common. In general it’s fairly challenging to mix with headphones accurately though.
I’m curious to hear the Apple headphones. There aren’t many studio quality headphones with ANC because studio headphones are usually open back, and it makes little sense to put ANC in open back headphones. I reserve judgement but don’t think the Apple headphones will compete with headphones used for mixing and mastering.
There has been relatively little innovation in headphones (and speakers) the last decade or so aside from DSP correction. The last really innovative (from an audio engineering point of view) headphone in my book is the HEDDphone with Air Motion Transfer drivers previously unseen outside some exotic speakers. But it’s $2000, weighs 700g and requires an amp to drive it.
I look forward to hearing the Apple headphones but am sceptical you can get as much of a boost with “computational audio” as you can with computational photography, compared to “dumb” headphones with similar drivers and tuning.
I think the spatial audio stuff is interesting and possibly better than previous attempts on headphones. I think well off people will buy these headphones for the convenience factor (works and sounds marginally better than the next best competitor), and Apple will probably release a less expensive version down the line.
There has been relatively little innovation in headphones (and speakers) the last decade or so aside from DSP correction. The last really innovative (from an audio engineering point of view) headphone in my book is the HEDDphone with Air Motion Transfer drivers previously unseen outside some exotic speakers. But it’s $2000, weighs 700g and requires an amp to drive it.
I look forward to hearing the Apple headphones but am sceptical you can get as much of a boost with “computational audio” as you can with computational photography, compared to “dumb” headphones with similar drivers and tuning.
I think the spatial audio stuff is interesting and possibly better than previous attempts on headphones. I think well off people will buy these headphones for the convenience factor (works and sounds marginally better than the next best competitor), and Apple will probably release a less expensive version down the line.
Not to mention the smart digital signal processing these will leverage to deliver better sound quality, which is a potential innovation to headphone design at large that Apple is uniquely positioned to create via their existing expertise. As a happy XM3 owner, I think if these are feature by feature identical to the XM3 they will be quite overpriced. I also think that itself is very unlikely, and that they will have additional qualities justifying the price premium.
There's lots of room to improve, for example, the quality of your voice as picked up by the mic, especially in windy environments. Speaking of that, walking outside on a windy day can be really intrusive with the XM3s because the ANC tries to 'cancel' the wind and you get weird sounds in your ears. Those seem like cases where Apple is well suited to make dramatic improvements via DSP. Tech like the noise canceling the HoloLens 2 applies to its mic (to cut out noise from around the speaker) seems well within their capability. I don't make much use of the XM3's "smart" features because they're pretty compromised. Their 'transparency' mode/partial noise canceling mode is really more intrusive than useful. It doesn't sound like I am partly-canceling background noise, it sounds like microphones are selectively filtering some of what they pick up into my music while I walk outside.
So I think there's definitely enough space for Apple to innovate on sound quality and other aspects of the wireless headset experience to justify the margin.
Edit: Also, multi-device pairing and handoff is super janky with the XM3s. Worth mentioning, I had the XM2s beforehand and the mic was literally unusable on conference calls no matter where I used it - people would complain and ask me what was wrong with my phone every time. Wireless headphones are not a solved problem.
There's lots of room to improve, for example, the quality of your voice as picked up by the mic, especially in windy environments. Speaking of that, walking outside on a windy day can be really intrusive with the XM3s because the ANC tries to 'cancel' the wind and you get weird sounds in your ears. Those seem like cases where Apple is well suited to make dramatic improvements via DSP. Tech like the noise canceling the HoloLens 2 applies to its mic (to cut out noise from around the speaker) seems well within their capability. I don't make much use of the XM3's "smart" features because they're pretty compromised. Their 'transparency' mode/partial noise canceling mode is really more intrusive than useful. It doesn't sound like I am partly-canceling background noise, it sounds like microphones are selectively filtering some of what they pick up into my music while I walk outside.
So I think there's definitely enough space for Apple to innovate on sound quality and other aspects of the wireless headset experience to justify the margin.
Edit: Also, multi-device pairing and handoff is super janky with the XM3s. Worth mentioning, I had the XM2s beforehand and the mic was literally unusable on conference calls no matter where I used it - people would complain and ask me what was wrong with my phone every time. Wireless headphones are not a solved problem.
I’ve got a pair of XM3s that I’ve used daily for a bit over 2 years now. And I don’t plan on buying the Airpods Max yet.
XM3s hardware build quality is excellent. The biggest problem with XM3s is the crappy software. The iOS app that demands always on background location access. Although I’d learnt soon enough that it’s perfectly usable without the app.
This is where Apple really shines, in the integrated hardware and software experience. The multi device pairing support on Bose headsets is slightly better than on Sony headsets, although both done even come close to how well AirPods do it on Apple devices.
XM3s hardware build quality is excellent. The biggest problem with XM3s is the crappy software. The iOS app that demands always on background location access. Although I’d learnt soon enough that it’s perfectly usable without the app.
This is where Apple really shines, in the integrated hardware and software experience. The multi device pairing support on Bose headsets is slightly better than on Sony headsets, although both done even come close to how well AirPods do it on Apple devices.
I'd actually agree with that, they're probably pretty great in the ways that you've mentioned.
Which is why I'm sad that they'll become obsolete after a while. I'm sure they'd still make great studio headphones for listening at home in 15 years when the battery is long dead (if they worked passively).
Which is why I'm sad that they'll become obsolete after a while. I'm sure they'd still make great studio headphones for listening at home in 15 years when the battery is long dead (if they worked passively).
Why do folks believe that Apple won't replace the batteries for a reasonable price like they do everything else?
So I have an iPad Pro that has a degraded battery life after 4 years. Really, that's the only issue with it and we've determined that it's not software. It just lasts much, much less than it did a year ago. So I tried to get the battery replaced as I was willing to pay Apple for it. An Apple tech hooked it up and got a battery health report and basically came back and said, the battery wasn't degraded enough to qualify for the battery replacement service ($99). So my only option is, full device replacement ($375-ish).
I was told that the battery has to qualify for battery replacement on some devices. That's because they don't replace batteries on an iPad Pro - they always replace the entire device so unless you quality for the battery program, your only option is device replacement. Which they will do if I want but at a much greater cost. That's almost 1/2 the cost of what I originally paid for it.
I was told this directly by an Apple store employee this week. He said he literally can't select the battery replacement option unless he can prove that it is the battery and without the health report saying so, he doesn't know any way he could.
I was told that the battery has to qualify for battery replacement on some devices. That's because they don't replace batteries on an iPad Pro - they always replace the entire device so unless you quality for the battery program, your only option is device replacement. Which they will do if I want but at a much greater cost. That's almost 1/2 the cost of what I originally paid for it.
I was told this directly by an Apple store employee this week. He said he literally can't select the battery replacement option unless he can prove that it is the battery and without the health report saying so, he doesn't know any way he could.
Try mail-in AppleCare. In my experience the retail "Genius Bar" and AppleCare policies and processes (or at least their implementation) have subtle differences. I had good luck with it with an old 1st gen iPad Pro. Just did it last week and expected to get a battery replacement but got a whole device replacement, which was interesting since I did not think they still make such devices in 2020--the serial number indicates they do and the device was made in the latter half of 2020. End-to-end it took probably 3-4 days.
If that doesn't work out, easiest thing is probably to sell on Craigslist with some disclosure and buying a new one.
If that doesn't work out, easiest thing is probably to sell on Craigslist with some disclosure and buying a new one.
Because they charge pretty high prices for battery swaps. For my two year old Airpods they would charge 55€ per pod + another 55€ for the battery in the case, which means that getting new batteries costs as much as the Airpods cost in the first place. (Prices in Austria) I hope my second pair lasts longer.
For the Airpods Max they currently list a price of 87€, but as far as I understand there's only one battery to swap. But 87€ every few years is still a high maintenance price, hoping they don't increase that price.
Also, Apple only offers service for a few years. I have a few bloated Macs that would need a new battery but Apple just doesn't service them anymore.
For many devices you can get replacement batteries from 3rd party sellers, but quality is hit or miss -- there's no guarantee the replacement battery is going to last (but in my experience Apple's replacement batteries are also unreliable sometimes).
Most of my Hifi gear is more than 15 years old. I doubt any of Apple's new audio products will last that long.
For the Airpods Max they currently list a price of 87€, but as far as I understand there's only one battery to swap. But 87€ every few years is still a high maintenance price, hoping they don't increase that price.
Also, Apple only offers service for a few years. I have a few bloated Macs that would need a new battery but Apple just doesn't service them anymore.
For many devices you can get replacement batteries from 3rd party sellers, but quality is hit or miss -- there's no guarantee the replacement battery is going to last (but in my experience Apple's replacement batteries are also unreliable sometimes).
Most of my Hifi gear is more than 15 years old. I doubt any of Apple's new audio products will last that long.
Of course they'll replace the batteries, for $79. Free if under warranty or AppleCare+. It's right there on the support page:
https://support.apple.com/airpods/repair/service#battery
https://support.apple.com/airpods/repair/service#battery
For how long depends how long till the designate the model "Vintage/Obsolete".
Typically 5 years if their computers/iphones/Beats headphones are anything to go by.
You can always try your luck on the third party market after that.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624
That's surprisingly reasonable for a $550 product with what's probably a custom high-energy-density battery.
[deleted]
$0 to plug in a cord is hard to beat
WH1000XM4 is still much cheaper than the apple headphones. I doubt it's studio quality but I also doubt that of apple's offering (or the need for such quality).
So you’re stating the obvious, that there’s a cheaper product out there that’s inferior to what Apple claims of their new headphones, and also opining that Apple is probably overstating the sound quality of their new headphones ... and that even if they aren’t overstating it, nobody could possibly want or need that kind of quality? Despite the fact that some people are out there paying tens of thousands of dollars for headphones?
I don’t know if these will find the market Apple is hoping for, but seriously what is the point of this comment? Just to be negative for negativity’s sake? I’m not trying to be confrontational or dickish—I just don’t get it. Every time Apple launches some new expensive product it’s the same old story, people saying it’s going to be crappy and anyway who would buy it at that ridiculous price? and then it turns out that it’s actually not crappy, and some people buy it and like it a lot. I don’t see why we should expect anything different here.
I don’t know if these will find the market Apple is hoping for, but seriously what is the point of this comment? Just to be negative for negativity’s sake? I’m not trying to be confrontational or dickish—I just don’t get it. Every time Apple launches some new expensive product it’s the same old story, people saying it’s going to be crappy and anyway who would buy it at that ridiculous price? and then it turns out that it’s actually not crappy, and some people buy it and like it a lot. I don’t see why we should expect anything different here.
Well, Apple has had obvious flops over the years, specifically because the price didn't match the features. The HomePod, for instance.
> there’s a cheaper product out there that’s inferior to what Apple claims of their new headphones
If your claim is that Apple made a product using expensive and tough materials, more expensive than, say, Sony's counterpart, and thus that is better, you may be half-right.
But if you claim that Apple made a product that sounds better than Bose or Sony's counterparts, and has better ANC, that is not verifiable, at least not until there are in-depth reviews out there confirming it.
What we know now is that Apple did not include support for high quality audio codecs. That itself is quite a red flag.
> there’s a cheaper product out there that’s inferior to what Apple claims of their new headphones
If your claim is that Apple made a product using expensive and tough materials, more expensive than, say, Sony's counterpart, and thus that is better, you may be half-right.
But if you claim that Apple made a product that sounds better than Bose or Sony's counterparts, and has better ANC, that is not verifiable, at least not until there are in-depth reviews out there confirming it.
What we know now is that Apple did not include support for high quality audio codecs. That itself is quite a red flag.
> Well, Apple has had obvious flops over the years, specifically because the price didn't match the features. The HomePod, for instance.
I would not argue with this and in fact I specifically addressed the does-the-market-actually-exist concern in my comment.
> But if you claim that Apple made a product that sounds better than Bose or Sony's counterparts, and has better ANC, that is not verifiable, at least not until there are in-depth reviews out there confirming it.
I don’t claim any such thing. The point of my comment is that the parent comment implied that there is no real difference, then said that even if there is a difference who cares because does anybody really need better sound anyway?
So my point is, what is the point of that comment? What is it bringing to this discussion, suggesting that Apple’s new headphones may be overpriced wrt. their sound quality, and if not then they’re overpriced anyway? Good sound is something some people care about and will pay for.
I would not argue with this and in fact I specifically addressed the does-the-market-actually-exist concern in my comment.
> But if you claim that Apple made a product that sounds better than Bose or Sony's counterparts, and has better ANC, that is not verifiable, at least not until there are in-depth reviews out there confirming it.
I don’t claim any such thing. The point of my comment is that the parent comment implied that there is no real difference, then said that even if there is a difference who cares because does anybody really need better sound anyway?
So my point is, what is the point of that comment? What is it bringing to this discussion, suggesting that Apple’s new headphones may be overpriced wrt. their sound quality, and if not then they’re overpriced anyway? Good sound is something some people care about and will pay for.
> So my point is, what is the point of that comment?
I'm going to take a guess and say that, given the facts, there are reasonable doubts about Apple's offering, compared to other products. Mainly two: noise cancelling is not on par with Bose and Sony, as stated by early reviewers, and the lack of high quality codecs.
Functionality-wise then, they may be overpriced.
And I would be the first to admit that I like the overall design. I'm an Apple user myself. But I'm skeptical that Apple has achieved the technical proficiency to make some reasonably good sounding, wireless, ANC cans, that compete with either Bose or Sony.
I see this more as a luxury product or a status symbol, like Bang & Olufsen.
> Good sound is something some people care about and will pay for.
The people willing to pay +$500 for a pair of headphones would be even more skeptical than me, I presume.
I'm going to take a guess and say that, given the facts, there are reasonable doubts about Apple's offering, compared to other products. Mainly two: noise cancelling is not on par with Bose and Sony, as stated by early reviewers, and the lack of high quality codecs.
Functionality-wise then, they may be overpriced.
And I would be the first to admit that I like the overall design. I'm an Apple user myself. But I'm skeptical that Apple has achieved the technical proficiency to make some reasonably good sounding, wireless, ANC cans, that compete with either Bose or Sony.
I see this more as a luxury product or a status symbol, like Bang & Olufsen.
> Good sound is something some people care about and will pay for.
The people willing to pay +$500 for a pair of headphones would be even more skeptical than me, I presume.
Well, if the comment wanted to make some insightful points about Apple’s speculative ability to compete with the incumbents in the market, it should have done that. It didn’t, though, and that’s why I responded to it with the words I did. If it had been more explicitly speculative and less vaguely negative, I probably would have ignored it completely, because I don’t think that’s a very interesting discussion. Most of the points I’ve heard so far are fairly obvious, and the proof will be in the product pudding.
Since we’re talking about it now, though ... Apple has a decent record building products that meet a reasonable quality bar, even in markets they’re relatively new to. So I think there is a good chance these will end up being regarded as pretty good headphones, worth the asking price for a certain class of consumer. There is also some chance that they will be regarded as overpriced Beats by Dre trash, though I think that window is closing as more positive impressions come in. Outcomes in between those extremes are, obviously, also possible.
Apple’s hardware design and engineering are first rate, and the things they build with speakers in them don’t sound half bad. Personally, I’d be surprised if these weren’t competitive on features alone, and I’ve paid up to around $1000 for (wired) headphones.
Since we’re talking about it now, though ... Apple has a decent record building products that meet a reasonable quality bar, even in markets they’re relatively new to. So I think there is a good chance these will end up being regarded as pretty good headphones, worth the asking price for a certain class of consumer. There is also some chance that they will be regarded as overpriced Beats by Dre trash, though I think that window is closing as more positive impressions come in. Outcomes in between those extremes are, obviously, also possible.
Apple’s hardware design and engineering are first rate, and the things they build with speakers in them don’t sound half bad. Personally, I’d be surprised if these weren’t competitive on features alone, and I’ve paid up to around $1000 for (wired) headphones.
I feel like none of you have taken into account that every single color way is sold out and won’t be available for at least 12 weeks.
So, without a doubt, people will pay for these. And I don’t know what sources that other guy has, but all the early impressions I’ve seen mention much better ANC than the competition
So, without a doubt, people will pay for these. And I don’t know what sources that other guy has, but all the early impressions I’ve seen mention much better ANC than the competition
I don’t frequent car forums but I always wonder if it’s the same over there. Every time a new Mercedes comes out do a bunch of people start complaining about how a Ford is cheaper or something? It’s like people struggle to grasp the idea of a luxury brand.
People struggle with the idea of any luxury brand that also makes mid-range or mass-market products in addition to their unaffordable luxury items.
Anecdote: I drive a newer BMW 328i. I live in the northern US where it snows, and it's a rear-wheel drive car so it sat on the lot because no one around here wants to buy an expensive car they have to park half of the year. I bought it certified pre-owned for under $30k, but the MSRP brand new was more like $50k with the package/options mine has. And yet I get so many comments about how it's an impractical car (It's a four door with a full size trunk and gets 30mpg...) and I must be rich for driving a BMW. Oftentimes I get this comment from people who drive pickup trucks that cost $60k-$70k, but that's apparently okay because Ford isn't a "luxury brand".
I got my "luxury car" for less than the average purchase price of a new car in the US, and I still get comments about how it's so expensive and I must be rich and I've had family tell me not to drive it to family events because it makes people feel like I'm showing off. Because when they think BMW, they think "fuck that's an expensive car" but it's not. BMW makes expensive cars, yes, but mine was not. Heck I was looking at replacing my SUV and the base-model Chevy Blazer costs more than my BMW.
But also yes, I've frequented some Toyota forums for my SUV and I've seen a lot of comments when someone wants to discuss their Lexus because "it's just a Toyota that costs $10k more!".
Anecdote: I drive a newer BMW 328i. I live in the northern US where it snows, and it's a rear-wheel drive car so it sat on the lot because no one around here wants to buy an expensive car they have to park half of the year. I bought it certified pre-owned for under $30k, but the MSRP brand new was more like $50k with the package/options mine has. And yet I get so many comments about how it's an impractical car (It's a four door with a full size trunk and gets 30mpg...) and I must be rich for driving a BMW. Oftentimes I get this comment from people who drive pickup trucks that cost $60k-$70k, but that's apparently okay because Ford isn't a "luxury brand".
I got my "luxury car" for less than the average purchase price of a new car in the US, and I still get comments about how it's so expensive and I must be rich and I've had family tell me not to drive it to family events because it makes people feel like I'm showing off. Because when they think BMW, they think "fuck that's an expensive car" but it's not. BMW makes expensive cars, yes, but mine was not. Heck I was looking at replacing my SUV and the base-model Chevy Blazer costs more than my BMW.
But also yes, I've frequented some Toyota forums for my SUV and I've seen a lot of comments when someone wants to discuss their Lexus because "it's just a Toyota that costs $10k more!".
BMW used price drop like rock, 2015 328i are about 18k.
The way I read their comment, they meant that even though Sony doesn't use the term studio headphones, they probably might be as good as whatever Apple is claiming the sound quality to be. The doubt was on the marketing term and the worth of the actual quality on the price.
Airpods don't have the best sound, several rival wireless earphones beat them to that.
Airpods don't have the best sound, several rival wireless earphones beat them to that.
The comment said this:
> I doubt it's studio quality but I also doubt that of apple's offering (or the need for such quality).
Seems to me that the doubt is on charging $550 for mediocre sound or on whether better sound actually matters, depending on whether the sound turns out to be mediocre or not. That way we can be negative about Apple’s pricey new doodad regardless of whether it’s actually good or not—how convenient!
> Airpods don't have the best sound, several rival wireless earphones beat them to that.
I have not claimed otherwise and probably never will.
> I doubt it's studio quality but I also doubt that of apple's offering (or the need for such quality).
Seems to me that the doubt is on charging $550 for mediocre sound or on whether better sound actually matters, depending on whether the sound turns out to be mediocre or not. That way we can be negative about Apple’s pricey new doodad regardless of whether it’s actually good or not—how convenient!
> Airpods don't have the best sound, several rival wireless earphones beat them to that.
I have not claimed otherwise and probably never will.
Yes. For most people buying studio quality is not a good value proposition. I doubt they will get that quality and in general most people don't notice the difference.
Why is being skeptical of a product announcement problematic? Is stone-faced indifference the only acceptable response? Can I also not speculate on a film's quality from its trailer?
Why is being skeptical of a product announcement problematic? Is stone-faced indifference the only acceptable response? Can I also not speculate on a film's quality from its trailer?
You can write whatever you want. Face velvet church daisy red. Person man woman camera television. Look mom, no hands!
Your comment was just pointless, unfair criticism. You start by pointing out that there exists a cheaper product that is broadly similar to Apple's new competitor. Then you claim that the latter probably won't exceed the quality of the cheaper product, and that even if it does, nobody could possibly want or need to pay the premium attached to that exceedance. So in the end you've put Apple in a box where their new product sucks no matter what, because it's not exactly the same as a product that already exists.
That's just obviously not valid, as previously noted—people pay a lot more than $550 for headphones that offer a lot less in the feature department than modern BT over-ear noise-cancellers. If you want to speculate on whether Apple will succeed in pushing the market higher in a way that makes sense for their business, that might actually be interesting, but you haven't offered anything nearly that substantive. It's just vague negativity of the kind that seeps out of the internet's pores whenever Apple releases something new, and it's usually wrong.
Your comment was just pointless, unfair criticism. You start by pointing out that there exists a cheaper product that is broadly similar to Apple's new competitor. Then you claim that the latter probably won't exceed the quality of the cheaper product, and that even if it does, nobody could possibly want or need to pay the premium attached to that exceedance. So in the end you've put Apple in a box where their new product sucks no matter what, because it's not exactly the same as a product that already exists.
That's just obviously not valid, as previously noted—people pay a lot more than $550 for headphones that offer a lot less in the feature department than modern BT over-ear noise-cancellers. If you want to speculate on whether Apple will succeed in pushing the market higher in a way that makes sense for their business, that might actually be interesting, but you haven't offered anything nearly that substantive. It's just vague negativity of the kind that seeps out of the internet's pores whenever Apple releases something new, and it's usually wrong.
I have XM2's and they are still running perfect. Coming from Bose, I love both sound and ANC. As long as this series exist, I am not sure I can even look at these.
I have the WH1000XM4. It's like a Renault near a Mercedes when comapred with these ones (buld quality) or near BO n95. Depends what you want. My right earcup (right where it pivots) broke 2 weeks in. 100% plastic. ANC is good though I give them that. Also, "much cheaper" is only a feature when all other aspects match.
well anecdotes are anecdotes. I've had one in this line for years with no issues. I also had a parrot zik 2 which was all metal and way more expensive and it was generally worse.
Another anecdote - I have been using my Bose QC 25 for 5 years without any issues. Yes, the plastic ones. Worn almost every day.
WH1000XM4 should be cheaper.
- Controls are annoying i.e. you have to swipe 20 times on the earcup and then waiting for a deafening beep to set the maximum volume.
- Loses track of current volume on different devices.
- Pairing with multiple devices rarely works.
- Audio quality is average.
The only reason people rave about is its noise cancelling.
- Controls are annoying i.e. you have to swipe 20 times on the earcup and then waiting for a deafening beep to set the maximum volume.
- Loses track of current volume on different devices.
- Pairing with multiple devices rarely works.
- Audio quality is average.
The only reason people rave about is its noise cancelling.
> Controls are annoying i.e. you have to swipe 20 times on the earcup and then waiting for a deafening beep to set the maximum volume.
IIRC you can swipe and keep holding to keep increasing/decreasing volume until you let go.
> Loses track of current volume on different devices.
That might be somewhat intentional, Android remembers volume per-device (or in case of wired headphones, one separate volume for all wired headphones). When you connect/plug in a device you plugged in before, the volume automatically changes. Sony could be offloading this logic to the device on purpose.
IIRC you can swipe and keep holding to keep increasing/decreasing volume until you let go.
> Loses track of current volume on different devices.
That might be somewhat intentional, Android remembers volume per-device (or in case of wired headphones, one separate volume for all wired headphones). When you connect/plug in a device you plugged in before, the volume automatically changes. Sony could be offloading this logic to the device on purpose.
https://www.bang-olufsen.com/en/comparison/products/headphon...
I have the B&O H9 3rd gen and I love them. I have no idea whether they stack up to what your write on the tech stack side of things, but the sound is phenomenal I think and that’s what matters to me. The mic is useless, but I don’t ever use them for anything but music anyhow.
I have the B&O H9 3rd gen and I love them. I have no idea whether they stack up to what your write on the tech stack side of things, but the sound is phenomenal I think and that’s what matters to me. The mic is useless, but I don’t ever use them for anything but music anyhow.
[deleted]
> but up against a company that's been making really good stuff for 40+ years, I'm skeptical.
IPhone was up against some groups with decades of making phones. Tesla is up against companies with literally a century of experience. SpaceX is up against companies that have made rockets for decades. Etc etc etc. I am surprised anyone on HN would be skeptical that a company with billions of dollars of cash at its disposal and world class engineering talent could do a passable job here all because an incumbent has experience. Also, are you suggesting that experience of one set of engineers with mastery of obsolete technologies 40 years ago is somehow a gate that a current company needs to pass through and excel at before they can compete with that company’s current engineers on current technology?
IPhone was up against some groups with decades of making phones. Tesla is up against companies with literally a century of experience. SpaceX is up against companies that have made rockets for decades. Etc etc etc. I am surprised anyone on HN would be skeptical that a company with billions of dollars of cash at its disposal and world class engineering talent could do a passable job here all because an incumbent has experience. Also, are you suggesting that experience of one set of engineers with mastery of obsolete technologies 40 years ago is somehow a gate that a current company needs to pass through and excel at before they can compete with that company’s current engineers on current technology?
Most of those examples are not great. Tesla isn't making cars... they're making electric cars.
The iPhone wasn't the first phone, or even mobile phone. It was the first mass market SmartPhone.
Those products each have a differentiator. "Cool Wireless Headphones" isn't something new or novel.
The iPhone wasn't the first phone, or even mobile phone. It was the first mass market SmartPhone.
Those products each have a differentiator. "Cool Wireless Headphones" isn't something new or novel.
> "Cool Wireless Headphones" isn't something new or novel.
That might well be, but the original AirPods were the first bluetooth headset I got that Actually Worked. BT earbuds quality was shockingly low before. It might well have been the classic Apple Timing phenomenon, when they release a product at the exact right time a technology is mature enough to work (e.g. large modern touchscreens etc), but they undeniably scored with what where, otherwise, pretty mediocre earbuds. They generally know what they are doing.
This said, $500+ for earbuds of any kind is too much, for my values, particularly this year when people and countries are literally starving. It's bad taste.
That might well be, but the original AirPods were the first bluetooth headset I got that Actually Worked. BT earbuds quality was shockingly low before. It might well have been the classic Apple Timing phenomenon, when they release a product at the exact right time a technology is mature enough to work (e.g. large modern touchscreens etc), but they undeniably scored with what where, otherwise, pretty mediocre earbuds. They generally know what they are doing.
This said, $500+ for earbuds of any kind is too much, for my values, particularly this year when people and countries are literally starving. It's bad taste.
Hrmn. There are an awful lot of luxury products out there. When folks are driving around on $50k+ cars, I’m not sure what’s wrong with $500+ headphones. (Not that I’m about to buy either.)
Well, the reason AirPods are great is the same reason why an M1 outclasses all intel competitors: they are optimized for a platform that is developed by one company.
It's pretty curious then that Airpod Max aren't: that movie watching experience is quite perplexing.
I don't even want to imagine what people will get with non-Apple audio sources.
I don't even want to imagine what people will get with non-Apple audio sources.
All of the examples. SpaceX is up against companies that made single-use rockets for decades.
But the AirPods Max may have a technical differentiator (not even just an Apple logo!) — AFAIK they’re the first wireless headphones without an on/off switch! (perhaps some of the earlier ones that don’t work once Apple stops replacing the batteries, as well?)
But the AirPods Max may have a technical differentiator (not even just an Apple logo!) — AFAIK they’re the first wireless headphones without an on/off switch! (perhaps some of the earlier ones that don’t work once Apple stops replacing the batteries, as well?)
The first mass market smartphone was probably like.. the Nokia 3650? :P
The iPhone was the first capacitive touch, finger friendly UI phone. The first OS release wasn't even that "smart" in that native apps could only be installed with a jailbreak.
The iPhone was the first capacitive touch, finger friendly UI phone. The first OS release wasn't even that "smart" in that native apps could only be installed with a jailbreak.
> first mass market SmartPhone.
Remember Blackberry?
Remember Blackberry?
> are you suggesting that experience of one set of engineers with mastery of obsolete technologies 40 years ago is somehow a gate that a current company needs to pass through and excel at before they can compete
Yes. Not a gate, but a bar they need to clear. Audio is not easy, and I disagree that most of the skills in question are obsolete. The electronics, sure. But the NC algorithms and driver are old yet still unsolved fields.
Of course, as you say, billions of dollars and poaching those employees will help them do it in less time.
> Tesla is up against companies with literally a century of experience.
And Tesla sucks at stuff that years of experience helps you get right. Like doors that close evenly, and windows seals that don't leak. The simple, little things.
Yes. Not a gate, but a bar they need to clear. Audio is not easy, and I disagree that most of the skills in question are obsolete. The electronics, sure. But the NC algorithms and driver are old yet still unsolved fields.
Of course, as you say, billions of dollars and poaching those employees will help them do it in less time.
> Tesla is up against companies with literally a century of experience.
And Tesla sucks at stuff that years of experience helps you get right. Like doors that close evenly, and windows seals that don't leak. The simple, little things.
Ohyes is clearly trying to differentiate between innovation products and evolutionary ones, so the comparisons with innovative companies isn’t apt.
My question is how someone can justify paying $550 dollars for headphones from Apple.
Like most luxury goods, it's a status symbol, and thus the price justifies itself.
Like most luxury goods, it's a status symbol, and thus the price justifies itself.
that's the thing that people don't generally bring up with apple: they area a luxury company, they price things in the same way any other luxury good company does in the vein of supreme or gucci or whatever. it's all about making the product exclusive, or at least feel exclusive, while making the design something that can be considered fashion. the fact they happen to put computers in their fancy cases is hardly the point to the archetypal consumer.
They're in the premium market segment, not the luxury segment. They're analogous to BMW or Audi, whereas the luxury segment of the auto world (for example) is more the Bentleys and Rolls Royces. It's an important distinction because premium markets are very different from luxury markets.
Premium products are more expensive than mass market products, typically with higher margins, but at the same time they tend to have greater value for the price than mass market products, provided the price isn't out of reach. Luxury products are much more exotic than premium, with much lower sales numbers, and their price is often almost entirely based on things like scarcity, manually intensive assembly, use of precious metals, etc.
A well-designed premium product should be as good or better than the equivalent mass market product in terms of getting what you pay for, but in the luxury world there's really no concept of value. It's expensive because it has to be and because the vendor wants it to be, but the value proposition is often nonexistent.
Premium products are more expensive than mass market products, typically with higher margins, but at the same time they tend to have greater value for the price than mass market products, provided the price isn't out of reach. Luxury products are much more exotic than premium, with much lower sales numbers, and their price is often almost entirely based on things like scarcity, manually intensive assembly, use of precious metals, etc.
A well-designed premium product should be as good or better than the equivalent mass market product in terms of getting what you pay for, but in the luxury world there's really no concept of value. It's expensive because it has to be and because the vendor wants it to be, but the value proposition is often nonexistent.
Apple wants to _feel_ like a luxury company. It's just a good bit of marketing.
Rolls Royce is a luxury company. Rolex is a luxury company. Apple sells a product that's in the pocket of every other snot-nosed preteen.
However, they charge a larger-than-normal markup, so people feel like it's luxurious.
EDIT: There seems to be some misunderstandings of what a "luxury" good is. Something isn't luxurious just because it is subjectively a little bit better than the competition. Bosch makes the best dishwashers but they are not a luxury brand. Similarly, the Golf GTI is an absolutely incredible $30K car, but that does not make it luxurious.
A Rolls Royce is a luxury car because it is full of extravagance and opulence. There is absolutely no concern with keeping costs down, and there is no expense spared to make the car as comfortable and luxurious as possible. It also fits the economic definition[1] where spending on luxury cars increases with income. The richer you are, the more money you spend on luxury cars. This isn't true of Apple products because it is a mass produced, mass market good. A billionaire can't buy a better iPhone. That's the opposite of what it means to be a luxury, exclusive brand.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_goods
Rolls Royce is a luxury company. Rolex is a luxury company. Apple sells a product that's in the pocket of every other snot-nosed preteen.
However, they charge a larger-than-normal markup, so people feel like it's luxurious.
EDIT: There seems to be some misunderstandings of what a "luxury" good is. Something isn't luxurious just because it is subjectively a little bit better than the competition. Bosch makes the best dishwashers but they are not a luxury brand. Similarly, the Golf GTI is an absolutely incredible $30K car, but that does not make it luxurious.
A Rolls Royce is a luxury car because it is full of extravagance and opulence. There is absolutely no concern with keeping costs down, and there is no expense spared to make the car as comfortable and luxurious as possible. It also fits the economic definition[1] where spending on luxury cars increases with income. The richer you are, the more money you spend on luxury cars. This isn't true of Apple products because it is a mass produced, mass market good. A billionaire can't buy a better iPhone. That's the opposite of what it means to be a luxury, exclusive brand.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_goods
I think the fact that a billionaire can't buy a better iPhone is partly what supports the (now perhaps only slightly) higher price of iPhones versus other non-cheap phones. The same might be said of these headphones (if they turn out to be good) — other than those "billionaires" who happen to be audiophiles wielding headphone amps, it's likely these will be seen as an achievable luxury for people who like well-made objects and want to have (approximately) "the best and best-designed" good.
> wants to _feel_ like a luxury company. It's just a good bit of marketing.
This is fundamentally true of all luxury goods, so this distinction is not meaningful. Which is why it is commonly used as a marketing tool, you can create this distinction at any level you want, to make your customers feel exclusive.
Sure, apple plays at the lower-price-broader-market end of this than say, McClaren automotive, but it's the same game.
This is fundamentally true of all luxury goods, so this distinction is not meaningful. Which is why it is commonly used as a marketing tool, you can create this distinction at any level you want, to make your customers feel exclusive.
Sure, apple plays at the lower-price-broader-market end of this than say, McClaren automotive, but it's the same game.
For the bourgeoisie, feeling like luxury is the same as true luxury. And there are a lot more bourgeoisie than people who know the difference. So Apple mass-produces them some products like the AirPods Max.
Yet in most of their categories, they _are_ the top of the line. There often aren't better choices (across some reasonable definition of 'better') available for those who want to pay more. I can't think of a Macbook alternative whose manufacturer is primarily competing on quality.
Speaking personally, I have zero interest in brand except as a marque of quality. But for those who are optimizing for quality over price, Apple is a choice that rarely leads to disappointment.
That's a different proposition to most luxury brands, which primarily target aspiration. A Louis Vuitton handbag may not be a higher-quality handbag, but as I understand it, their consumers are buying it for the logo more than the craftsmanship.
Speaking personally, I have zero interest in brand except as a marque of quality. But for those who are optimizing for quality over price, Apple is a choice that rarely leads to disappointment.
That's a different proposition to most luxury brands, which primarily target aspiration. A Louis Vuitton handbag may not be a higher-quality handbag, but as I understand it, their consumers are buying it for the logo more than the craftsmanship.
> Apple sells a product that's in the pocket of every other snot-nosed preteen.
> However, they charge a larger-than-normal markup, so people feel like it's luxurious.
This doesn't seem to me to be a complicated "dichotomy" to square/understand where with phone hardware, at least, any markup is sometimes "larger-than-normal". It's very easy to be a phone "luxury" brand when so many phones are sold with thin to no margins. Apple certainly props up their "luxury status"/"luxury image" with much higher margin products in the margins outside of phones, but it is easy to see why the bar for "luxury phone" itself is so low that it can also be a mass produced/mass consumed object.
> However, they charge a larger-than-normal markup, so people feel like it's luxurious.
This doesn't seem to me to be a complicated "dichotomy" to square/understand where with phone hardware, at least, any markup is sometimes "larger-than-normal". It's very easy to be a phone "luxury" brand when so many phones are sold with thin to no margins. Apple certainly props up their "luxury status"/"luxury image" with much higher margin products in the margins outside of phones, but it is easy to see why the bar for "luxury phone" itself is so low that it can also be a mass produced/mass consumed object.
I consider Apple to be a luxury company for electronics... even if quite a lot of people who are not millionaires can afford buying Apple anyway. My reason is simple: they sell the best quality laptops and phones you can buy (not sure about headphones, but I bet this one is near the top-range for consumer headphones). Do you know of a better phone I could buy than the top-level iPhone?
What makes best for you? Case in point, I have a decent amount of sunk cost in the android ecosystem, my nexus 5x had sufficient performance for me, and I use the headphone jack extensively and am unwilling to give it up. Consequently, for my requirements, most midrange android phones are "better" (high end androids on the other hand have mostly expunged the headphone jack in iPhone envy).
Interestingly enough for your example, Rolex is closer to Apple than you think : Mass-markey Luxury. Like LV bags or Apple
I don't know what you're talking about. A new Rolex is over $5000 for the cheapest model, which is well outside the mass market price range. Never mind the fact that you can't even buy a new Rolex unless you are on a preferred buyers list. That's the opposite of Mass Market.
Of course, unlike Apple, Rolex makes products that last decades. So older, less collectible models become affordable to people. But the fact that the "mass market" is willing to fight over the heavily used, least desirable of all Rolexes proves its exclusivity and "luxury".
Of course, unlike Apple, Rolex makes products that last decades. So older, less collectible models become affordable to people. But the fact that the "mass market" is willing to fight over the heavily used, least desirable of all Rolexes proves its exclusivity and "luxury".
Apple is a premium brand, not a luxury brand. That's what people are missing in the "Rolls Royce vs Honda" analogy.
> the thing that people don't generally bring up with apple
Seriously? This comes up within the first few comments in just about every single internet thread about Apple I've ever seen.
Seriously? This comes up within the first few comments in just about every single internet thread about Apple I've ever seen.
People who are into conspicuous consumption don't show off by buying Apple. $550 is on the low-end of luxury pricing. Think Givenchy, Cartier, Theory etc.
You're going too high. Apple doesn't sell $300 phones for $1000 to people who buy $20,000 bags. Well they do but they don't make hundreds of billions in profit by targeting the 0.01% of consumers. They do it by making lower class folk feel like the 0.01% when they spend $500 on headphones.
The people Apple will make their money on selling $550 headphones to probably make a lot less per year than the readers of this comment do.
The people Apple will make their money on selling $550 headphones to probably make a lot less per year than the readers of this comment do.
> My question is how someone can justify paying $550 dollars for headphones from Apple. I can get mid-range studio quality headphones for that price, from a company that is actually focused on producing the best headphones.
The exact same people that buy Beats headphones instead of AKG or Beyerdynamic prior to Beats getting acquired by Apple. In other words people who buy them as a status symbol, not for their function, because they themselves are not informed consumers.
The exact same people that buy Beats headphones instead of AKG or Beyerdynamic prior to Beats getting acquired by Apple. In other words people who buy them as a status symbol, not for their function, because they themselves are not informed consumers.
I find it funny that you mention beyerdynamic. Isn’t that brand like the apple of audiophile/studio headphones?
I wouldn't describe it that way. Beyerdynamic has some models which are generally reasonably performant for their price range and widely recommended when people are starting out. If I were to think of a brand that's like the "Apple" of studio headphones, it'd probably be Sennheiser, although they also make some very high quality products.
For the $500 a pair of Airpods Max is going to cost, though, you can get some /serious/ headphones, that gets you straight out of dynamic transducers and into the entry grade planar magnetic and even entry electrostatic earphones.
There's simply no reason to spend that much on Airpods Max compared to the available market if you actually care about performance and sound quality.
For the $500 a pair of Airpods Max is going to cost, though, you can get some /serious/ headphones, that gets you straight out of dynamic transducers and into the entry grade planar magnetic and even entry electrostatic earphones.
There's simply no reason to spend that much on Airpods Max compared to the available market if you actually care about performance and sound quality.
Yes you are right Sennheiser does have a very wide budget offering. However, beyerdynamic also sells 150$ headphones. What I meant was this weird cult following they have and this determination to do something very different from the rest of the industry and what is generally being considered as an upset to the established rules. I am of course talking about the unnatural bright sound profile for studio headphones, where the goal usually is to have them as flat as possible.
Also they do seem to care more about nice materials and Style than other brands, which is reflected in their commercials as well.
Also they do seem to care more about nice materials and Style than other brands, which is reflected in their commercials as well.
I've never seen a commercial for Beyerdynamic, so I'm quite curious what that looks like. Since both are German companies, perhaps their advertising is heavier in that market.
If you happen to have a link handy, I'd love to see what you're referring to specifically?
If you happen to have a link handy, I'd love to see what you're referring to specifically?
Their target market has never heard of Grado, this comes up every post. Gruber makes a good comparison to the Macbook, incredibly expensive but the nicest industrial design on the market at the time.
Counter-example: Anker's bluetooth speakers are widely viewed to sound better than those from JBL, Sony & Bose and they have fewer years in the audio industry.
There are a many technologies present in products like this that a company that is purely "focused on producing the best headphones" wouldn't normally concern themselves with such as a DAC, amp, DSP, microphone & wireless protocols. When these components are tightly designed together, Apple can disrupt much in the same way they're doing with their M1 line.
There are a many technologies present in products like this that a company that is purely "focused on producing the best headphones" wouldn't normally concern themselves with such as a DAC, amp, DSP, microphone & wireless protocols. When these components are tightly designed together, Apple can disrupt much in the same way they're doing with their M1 line.
What's the DAC, amp, DSP, microphone & wireless protocols tech that JBL, Sony & Bose don't concern?
These headphones are meant to be used in noisy environments where the benefit of studio quality headphones is minimal, and where a cord is annoying.
This luxury product looks cool. Paying a lot extra for that is not new. The price premium over competing products is just not that much for many Apple customers.
In case the noise cancellation when on a plane turns out to be head and shoulders above Bose and Sony...that extra 200 USD now does not seem so bad.
This luxury product looks cool. Paying a lot extra for that is not new. The price premium over competing products is just not that much for many Apple customers.
In case the noise cancellation when on a plane turns out to be head and shoulders above Bose and Sony...that extra 200 USD now does not seem so bad.
Planes... I remember those...
I can't imagine someone saying a wireless headphone with noise cancelling is "studio" anything. From the delay to the processing to everything, if I want to use a headphone for studio work, I'll want the flattest wiredest analogest of headphones because I don't want them to changing whatever comes in at all.
I can't imagine someone saying a wireless headphone with noise cancelling is "studio" anything. From the delay to the processing to everything, if I want to use a headphone for studio work, I'll want the flattest wiredest analogest of headphones because I don't want them to changing whatever comes in at all.
> My question is how someone can justify paying $550 dollars for headphones from Apple.
I think Apple may also be finding out the same thing. These are clearly awesome headphones, but it remains to be seen for whom these are not just cool, but indispensable.
Finding that out will help them continue to target the right customers when (I assume) they lower the price in the future and improve its capabilities.
I think Apple may also be finding out the same thing. These are clearly awesome headphones, but it remains to be seen for whom these are not just cool, but indispensable.
Finding that out will help them continue to target the right customers when (I assume) they lower the price in the future and improve its capabilities.
I expect they'll be indispensable for me. Their first commercial explicitly calls out my segment and it was so nice to see that — Apple is perhaps the only tech retailer who considers my segment to exist at all. I'm really glad that Apple realized that I'm a market worth targeting with these. I can't wait for them to arrive.
(It's too easy to take apart and contradict and argue someone's specific personal circumstances as invalid/wrong/unjustified. That would only worsen my life, as I'm living those circumstances, so with apologies I'm not going to share the specifics of my segment for inspection and debate.)
(It's too easy to take apart and contradict and argue someone's specific personal circumstances as invalid/wrong/unjustified. That would only worsen my life, as I'm living those circumstances, so with apologies I'm not going to share the specifics of my segment for inspection and debate.)
Instead of sharing your segment, can you share the features that set these apart from other products on the market today?
Sure, happy to! It's the total set of these five things that makes me take for granted that I'll have a stellar experience with the new Max headphones. This is not a complete explanation of why they'll be indispensable, but it should help convey why competing products aren't, in my case.
1. Apple's Bluetooth hardware implementation has been top tier for me in multi-device use, in a mixed Apple and non-Apple environment, with predictable steps to resolve any issue I encounter, across the Beats and Apple headphones products that I've used since 2017.
2. Apple's minimal-choice approach to their headphones provides the bare minimum necessary to operate them in on-device functionality, which removes all opportunities for hidden settings, unusual interactions, and other "am I at fault?" interactions with my devices.
3. Apple's noise canceling implementation is strong enough to cancel out general background noise without preventing me from hearing someone speak to me, and weak enough that I can forget that I'm wearing headphones with noise canceling enabled, and doesn't induce nausea in me the way that new (but not old) Bose QuietComfort headphones do.
4. Apple's frequency prioritization for their products is more natural and less modified and bass-heavy to my ears than Beats and other popular products in the market, which aligns with the customizations I requested for my modified DT770s when having them recabled to balanced XLR.
5. Apple's surround virtualization algorithm has been better to my perception than that of Astro A50 headphones (the previous contender for best in class), while causing neither confusion nor nausea when used for extended periods of time.
EDIT: And to save time on replies, here's a per-item FAQ for each of the above, so that I might save folks some time on back-and-forth.
1. Yes, I have experienced significant Bluetooth frustration issues when combined with Apple beta operating system releases, and at one point was able to diagnose a 5GHz wireless interference issue that was fixed before general release to the public. Yes, the original AirPods v1 had sporadic issues, that were resolved by firmware and hardware updates. No, those issues didn't cause me to give up on Apple. Yes, I'm aware that other people have issues with Apple products. No, I'm generally able to resolve any issues within a few seconds. Yes, once in a while the audio blips out, as do my non-Bluetooth wireless headphones as well.
2. Yes, I know they don't use aptX with Android. No, I don't care what codec they use to communicate with my devices, even the Android devices. Yes, I'm aware that aptX is higher quality than Bluetooth AAC. Yes, I have a 192/32-int lossless DAC stack for my wired headphones. No, I'm not trying to simultaneously multi-pair my wireless headphones, or share them between multiple iCloud users or etc. Yes, I know that competing headphones can do all sorts of complicated things that I don't desire them to do for me. No, I don't want to be able to modify any settings on my wireless headphones.
3. Yes, I can still hear people talking. No, I don't get perfect silence on airplanes, even with -27dB custom-molded in-ear earplugs underneath them. Yes, the first time I tested the new QCs, I nearly barfed. No, I don't have that problem with the old QC-15s. Yes, there are settings for the 'level' of noise canceling on the new QCs, see also #2.
4. Yes, I know that Apple owns Beats. Actually, I have 'Beats Pro Studio Wireless 3', the one entry in the lineup that doesn't amplify bass like the rest of the Beats line is prone to doing. Yes, I prefer balanced sound in my listening experiences, both with wireless and wired headphones and in my car.
5. Yes, I know that the Astro A50 when combined with a modern Xbox and Dolby Atmos for Headphones no longer uses the A50 algorithm but instead uses a version of Atmos specifically tuned for my exact headphones. Yes, I know that Apple is using Atmos somehow as part of their virtualization experience. No, I don't expect Atmos to upgrade the notes in my music to sound higher fidelity. No, I don't expect that I'll get the full Spatial Audio experience on most of my devices. Yes, I know that it's possible to tune virtualization algorithms to create a better headspace, see also #2.
1. Apple's Bluetooth hardware implementation has been top tier for me in multi-device use, in a mixed Apple and non-Apple environment, with predictable steps to resolve any issue I encounter, across the Beats and Apple headphones products that I've used since 2017.
2. Apple's minimal-choice approach to their headphones provides the bare minimum necessary to operate them in on-device functionality, which removes all opportunities for hidden settings, unusual interactions, and other "am I at fault?" interactions with my devices.
3. Apple's noise canceling implementation is strong enough to cancel out general background noise without preventing me from hearing someone speak to me, and weak enough that I can forget that I'm wearing headphones with noise canceling enabled, and doesn't induce nausea in me the way that new (but not old) Bose QuietComfort headphones do.
4. Apple's frequency prioritization for their products is more natural and less modified and bass-heavy to my ears than Beats and other popular products in the market, which aligns with the customizations I requested for my modified DT770s when having them recabled to balanced XLR.
5. Apple's surround virtualization algorithm has been better to my perception than that of Astro A50 headphones (the previous contender for best in class), while causing neither confusion nor nausea when used for extended periods of time.
EDIT: And to save time on replies, here's a per-item FAQ for each of the above, so that I might save folks some time on back-and-forth.
1. Yes, I have experienced significant Bluetooth frustration issues when combined with Apple beta operating system releases, and at one point was able to diagnose a 5GHz wireless interference issue that was fixed before general release to the public. Yes, the original AirPods v1 had sporadic issues, that were resolved by firmware and hardware updates. No, those issues didn't cause me to give up on Apple. Yes, I'm aware that other people have issues with Apple products. No, I'm generally able to resolve any issues within a few seconds. Yes, once in a while the audio blips out, as do my non-Bluetooth wireless headphones as well.
2. Yes, I know they don't use aptX with Android. No, I don't care what codec they use to communicate with my devices, even the Android devices. Yes, I'm aware that aptX is higher quality than Bluetooth AAC. Yes, I have a 192/32-int lossless DAC stack for my wired headphones. No, I'm not trying to simultaneously multi-pair my wireless headphones, or share them between multiple iCloud users or etc. Yes, I know that competing headphones can do all sorts of complicated things that I don't desire them to do for me. No, I don't want to be able to modify any settings on my wireless headphones.
3. Yes, I can still hear people talking. No, I don't get perfect silence on airplanes, even with -27dB custom-molded in-ear earplugs underneath them. Yes, the first time I tested the new QCs, I nearly barfed. No, I don't have that problem with the old QC-15s. Yes, there are settings for the 'level' of noise canceling on the new QCs, see also #2.
4. Yes, I know that Apple owns Beats. Actually, I have 'Beats Pro Studio Wireless 3', the one entry in the lineup that doesn't amplify bass like the rest of the Beats line is prone to doing. Yes, I prefer balanced sound in my listening experiences, both with wireless and wired headphones and in my car.
5. Yes, I know that the Astro A50 when combined with a modern Xbox and Dolby Atmos for Headphones no longer uses the A50 algorithm but instead uses a version of Atmos specifically tuned for my exact headphones. Yes, I know that Apple is using Atmos somehow as part of their virtualization experience. No, I don't expect Atmos to upgrade the notes in my music to sound higher fidelity. No, I don't expect that I'll get the full Spatial Audio experience on most of my devices. Yes, I know that it's possible to tune virtualization algorithms to create a better headspace, see also #2.
Great, thanks, I like that you have depth.
Interesting mention on the Astro A50s, I used to have a pair and I thought they were brilliantly comfortable and sounded superb in a gaming context. Unfortunately I destroyed the microphone.
Interesting mention on the Astro A50s, I used to have a pair and I thought they were brilliantly comfortable and sounded superb in a gaming context. Unfortunately I destroyed the microphone.
Sure thing. I have a lot of headphones :) Re: the A50, I had to remove the centerpiece foam because it caused headaches pressing into the top of my skull, and so now there's a towel wrapped around them to provide less-but-some padding. If it weren't for that, they'd be perfect for their use case. The Beats Studio3 fit perfectly at maximum extension, as do the DT770s and the old Sony Gold headsets. I had to return the Sony Platinum headset for being too small, because they chose to shrink it slightly for wider compatibility and I no longer fit their line.
The most likely (90%) cause of having to give up and return AirPods Pro Max will be if they can't fit over my annoying skull. Second most likely (10%), they end up weighing too much. We'll see!
The most likely (90%) cause of having to give up and return AirPods Pro Max will be if they can't fit over my annoying skull. Second most likely (10%), they end up weighing too much. We'll see!
> can get mid-range studio quality headphones for that price
Where are you seeing reviews that show that they're not of this quality?
Where are you seeing reviews that show that they're not of this quality?
According to Gruber's article, you can use these as wired headphones by plugging in a "Lightning to 3.5mm headphone jack cable," but otherwise I agree with you. "Built to last" means more than the material choices (metal vs plastic), but also whether or not you can swap out the batteries.
> Lightning to 3.5mm headphone jack cable
...without power?
...without power?
You need the batteries (that is what is meant by "not working passively"). A passive headphone works without the need for batteries, at all. It may not have active noise cancellation or some other features, but it should work as a headphone.
They work via cable, but only actively (with power).
Source: https://www.slashgear.com/apple-airpods-max-water-resistance...
Source: https://www.slashgear.com/apple-airpods-max-water-resistance...
What does it mean to use wireless headphones passively? Without power wireless headphones aren't going to make any sound, no?
I meant with a cable. Sorry if it wasn't clear, I updated my post.
A lot of wireless headphones have a small wired jack you can use in the event of no power.
> Yet another throw-away product from a self-proclaimed environmentally friendly company.
$79 for airpods max battery service [0]. user-replaceable battery certainly would be nicer. but to describe as "throw-away" seems extreme.
[0] https://support.apple.com/airpods/repair/service#battery
$79 for airpods max battery service [0]. user-replaceable battery certainly would be nicer. but to describe as "throw-away" seems extreme.
[0] https://support.apple.com/airpods/repair/service#battery
$69 to replace the earpads, which is the most consumable part for me on cans.
I have a pair of Audio Technica A700s, about $150 new that are now 12 years old; I'm on my 3rd set of earpads. AT gave me a new set free the first time I asked, and it cost me $10 with shipping to get new ones out of warranty. The current ones are 3rd party that are much better than the OEM pads and cost me ~$20.
I have a pair of Audio Technica A700s, about $150 new that are now 12 years old; I'm on my 3rd set of earpads. AT gave me a new set free the first time I asked, and it cost me $10 with shipping to get new ones out of warranty. The current ones are 3rd party that are much better than the OEM pads and cost me ~$20.
Same - my Audio Technicas are over 10 years old and when the earpads started to wear, they dug up some new earpads from the archives and it was definitely under $30 total.
Same but with my Sennheiser HD280s. I can still buy brand new earpads and a band pad online.
I'm sure there will be 3rd party knockoff pads. Just look at the "fancy" Apple Watch wristbands with clasps that are IMO way more expensive than they have any business being. A plethora of 3rd party replacements exist, many much cheaper than Apple.
> I have a pair of Audio Technica A700s, about $150 new that are now 12 years old; I'm on my 3rd set of earpads.
So you buy a new set of earpads on those every 4 years. But we can also compare with the same-market-segment-as-AirPod-Max (wireless+ANC+mic) Bose QC35, where many people have to replace their earpads _every_ _year_⁰ at $35 a pair (or $20 for third party ones that might last longer but definitely feel worse). So the question I think will be how long the pads last on these. Do you have to replace them every year like with the Bose ones or only every 4 years?
⁰ - QC35 ear pad extreme comfort but lack of durability is basically a meme among owners now.
So you buy a new set of earpads on those every 4 years. But we can also compare with the same-market-segment-as-AirPod-Max (wireless+ANC+mic) Bose QC35, where many people have to replace their earpads _every_ _year_⁰ at $35 a pair (or $20 for third party ones that might last longer but definitely feel worse). So the question I think will be how long the pads last on these. Do you have to replace them every year like with the Bose ones or only every 4 years?
⁰ - QC35 ear pad extreme comfort but lack of durability is basically a meme among owners now.
Could you share the link to these 3rd party earpads please? Maybe they have earpads for my K702's as well, I couldn't find anything with good reviews on Amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/Brainwavz-Hybrid-Memory-Earpads-Headp...
Price went up I see, but I've had them for 2+ years now, no complaints. The velour is comfy.
Price went up I see, but I've had them for 2+ years now, no complaints. The velour is comfy.
Pretty sure 3rd party will step in here.
I'd bet that Apple will stop servicing them after a few years though, as they do with all their products.
And regular AirPods are definitely a throw-away product, since the 'battery service' is really just a full replacement. You'd have to physically destroy them to remove the battery.
And regular AirPods are definitely a throw-away product, since the 'battery service' is really just a full replacement. You'd have to physically destroy them to remove the battery.
> I'd bet that Apple will stop servicing them after a few years though, as they do with all their products.
Apple's "few years" is "seven years after Apple stops selling them", for most countries: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624
Apple's "few years" is "seven years after Apple stops selling them", for most countries: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624
So you're fine throwing perfectly working 600€ headphones into the trash just because 7 years passed? Corporatism at it's finest. It's not ever about the use you get out of the product but how brushed the ego feels when swiping the credit card for Apple.
This isn't a phone.
This isn't a phone.
I am also bashing these headphones here but...
How many headphones do you have that are still usable after 7 years?
How many headphones do you have that are still usable after 7 years?
I own several (wired) headphones which are either approaching or older than 7 years and are in perfect condition. Sure, some had the ear pads or a cable replaced, but just like stereo speakers, there's really not much you can do to really break them.
I'm still rocking the same pair of Sony mdr-v6 studio headphones that I bought nearly 20 years ago. The rubberized foam on the cups has completely worn away but if anything it actually makes them even more comfortable.
What's the point of shoving all the aluminum there and making it so heavy if you are not planning to support them long enough? My plastic Bose QC 25 have been fine after 5 years of almost every day usage.
Same here, the only thing hate is the ear cushion. I had to replace it 2 times already
A few years? They still repair the iPhone 6, a phone thats 6 years old now. If that gives you another 2 years of use, thats a total of 8 years.
That's fair if the device we're talking about is a phone. Those will of course become obsolete much sooner. But headphones don't get worse just by the passage of time. I'd love to still use them in 15+ years. Do you think Apple will still service them then?
Also, why not make it so that they can be used passively? What's the downside?
Also, why not make it so that they can be used passively? What's the downside?
Same reason they put the charging port for their mouse on the underside. It's a wireless device, and for some reason, they think that if it supports a wired mode, it won't be as special (or whatever their idiotic reasoning is).
And, why use the lightning port?! Aside from the price, choosing to not use USB-C for a charging port killed it for me. I like being able to charge all my devices off one power brick, and I'm not spending $600 on headphones if I need a stupid lightning port for the next 6+ years.
And, why use the lightning port?! Aside from the price, choosing to not use USB-C for a charging port killed it for me. I like being able to charge all my devices off one power brick, and I'm not spending $600 on headphones if I need a stupid lightning port for the next 6+ years.
You know that it's only lightning on the headset side, right? That it's USB-C on the other side, though you're free to include any adapter cable you'd like.
This misses the point. EVERY device I carry with me charges via USB-C right now.
My laptop, my work laptop, my headphones, my phone, my tablet/e-reader (remarkable).
It's insanely liberating to know that I can pretty much always find a charger for everything, and I only ever need to pack a single wall-wart.
Flying? One charger. Road trip? One charger. Biking to work? One charger.
Better yet - Leave a charger at work, keep a charger at home, don't need to carry 5lbs back and forth every day.
Forgot my charger? Every person I hang out with has a usb-c charger floating around somewhere.
----
You know what I really don't want to have to carry around anymore? Fucking cable adapters. You know what no one will have if I forget my charger? Fucking cable adapters.
Honestly - I probably wouldn't have bought these headphones yet because I'm quite happy with my current headphones.
But I'm very, very close to no longer even considering devices that ship without a USB-C port. And that's a shame, because I otherwise really like the Max, and probably would have slotted it in when my current cans die.
Getting over the hump to convert to USB-C initially was fairly expensive, but my job is good and I can splurge. I don't want to go back.
My laptop, my work laptop, my headphones, my phone, my tablet/e-reader (remarkable).
It's insanely liberating to know that I can pretty much always find a charger for everything, and I only ever need to pack a single wall-wart.
Flying? One charger. Road trip? One charger. Biking to work? One charger.
Better yet - Leave a charger at work, keep a charger at home, don't need to carry 5lbs back and forth every day.
Forgot my charger? Every person I hang out with has a usb-c charger floating around somewhere.
----
You know what I really don't want to have to carry around anymore? Fucking cable adapters. You know what no one will have if I forget my charger? Fucking cable adapters.
Honestly - I probably wouldn't have bought these headphones yet because I'm quite happy with my current headphones.
But I'm very, very close to no longer even considering devices that ship without a USB-C port. And that's a shame, because I otherwise really like the Max, and probably would have slotted it in when my current cans die.
Getting over the hump to convert to USB-C initially was fairly expensive, but my job is good and I can splurge. I don't want to go back.
If your complaint is carrying a USB to lightning cable -- though you keep jumping to wall warts/chargers and not a 17 gram cable -- yeah, I guess that's a big burden.
But your comment seems like it might be contrived to begin with. This headset only really makes sense for iPhone users. That is the target. Those people are already carrying using lightning cables in their life. Pretty much anyone in the Apple ecosystem has to charge a multitude of things with lightning still.
But your comment seems like it might be contrived to begin with. This headset only really makes sense for iPhone users. That is the target. Those people are already carrying using lightning cables in their life. Pretty much anyone in the Apple ecosystem has to charge a multitude of things with lightning still.
They make plenty of sense for users of newer MacBooks and iPad Pros, too. Those people will be carrying USB-C to USB-C cables because that's what their MacBook and/or iPad Pro uses.
I'm not really what's contrived about the other poster's comment. If these headphones look good and sound good and have good noise cancelling, why would I only want to use them with my iPhone? I'm sure they'll sound great whether I use them with my MacBook, or iPhone, or my Dell XPS, or my Windows desktop, or my smart TV.
The lightning port isn't a deal breaker, but it can be an ergonomic annoyance. I've recently been favoring on Galaxy S9 over my newer iPhone because all of my other devices charge via USB-C and the iPhone is the odd duck that requires extra work. I have a USB-C to lighting cable so it's not that bad, but it's still extra annoyance I would rather not deal with.
I'm not really what's contrived about the other poster's comment. If these headphones look good and sound good and have good noise cancelling, why would I only want to use them with my iPhone? I'm sure they'll sound great whether I use them with my MacBook, or iPhone, or my Dell XPS, or my Windows desktop, or my smart TV.
The lightning port isn't a deal breaker, but it can be an ergonomic annoyance. I've recently been favoring on Galaxy S9 over my newer iPhone because all of my other devices charge via USB-C and the iPhone is the odd duck that requires extra work. I have a USB-C to lighting cable so it's not that bad, but it's still extra annoyance I would rather not deal with.
"I'm not really what's contrived about the other poster's comment."
The guy I replied to 20 days ago here on HN, talking about Apple: "Don't buy their shit. Period."
No, they were never going to buy this headset. They are not the target market. What they demand would actually be detrimental to the target market.
Of the actual target market, the majority will have no problem with it needing a lightning cable. Their iPhones use lightning. Any iPad but the newest use lightning. The AppleTV remote uses lightning. The Magic Keyboard and the Magic Mouse use lightning. It just seems to be something that a person who would have no interest in this device would see as a problem (in the same way that people who don't use the Magic Mouse are absolute certain that the charger port on the bottom is an egregious deadly fault, while actual users just enjoy a fantastic mouse and it's an utter non-issue. It's why Apple should never listen to these people).
The guy I replied to 20 days ago here on HN, talking about Apple: "Don't buy their shit. Period."
No, they were never going to buy this headset. They are not the target market. What they demand would actually be detrimental to the target market.
Of the actual target market, the majority will have no problem with it needing a lightning cable. Their iPhones use lightning. Any iPad but the newest use lightning. The AppleTV remote uses lightning. The Magic Keyboard and the Magic Mouse use lightning. It just seems to be something that a person who would have no interest in this device would see as a problem (in the same way that people who don't use the Magic Mouse are absolute certain that the charger port on the bottom is an egregious deadly fault, while actual users just enjoy a fantastic mouse and it's an utter non-issue. It's why Apple should never listen to these people).
I have a work macbook. I have a personal XPS. I have an Android phone (because I can flash my own roms).
The chargers that ship with modern devices tend to be USB-C to USB-C (including Apple's own macbook charger).
I have absolutely no desire to fit a lightning cable into my life, and I'm hardly the only person I know who has a macbook and an android phone (about half of my company of 300 falls into the exact same bucket).
I don't typically buy Apple devices because I think they're oppressively locked down, but that's not really something I care that much about for headphones.
Plus, given the whole market for decent bluetooth headphones is ridiculously price inflated anyways, Apple's price here doesn't dissuade me nearly as much as normal.
Basically - I would absolutely consider picking up a Max, but lightning is a serious knock against the product.
The chargers that ship with modern devices tend to be USB-C to USB-C (including Apple's own macbook charger).
I have absolutely no desire to fit a lightning cable into my life, and I'm hardly the only person I know who has a macbook and an android phone (about half of my company of 300 falls into the exact same bucket).
I don't typically buy Apple devices because I think they're oppressively locked down, but that's not really something I care that much about for headphones.
Plus, given the whole market for decent bluetooth headphones is ridiculously price inflated anyways, Apple's price here doesn't dissuade me nearly as much as normal.
Basically - I would absolutely consider picking up a Max, but lightning is a serious knock against the product.
IPads pro and the new iPads all charge with usb-c. And for the last two years my iPhones shipped with a usb-c to lightning cable.
I just yesterday picked up a few more usb-c wall adapters and some 6 feet usb-c to lightning cables to get most of my day to day charging off of usb-a
I just yesterday picked up a few more usb-c wall adapters and some 6 feet usb-c to lightning cables to get most of my day to day charging off of usb-a
A Lightning to USB-C cable is included in the box, not USB-A.
My mistake. I guess they have even less of a complaint then.
No, it's still stupid that you have to use a different cable.
I have a C cable on my desk, the charger is hidden under it, I don't want to replace the cable ever. This one cable can charge my phone, laptop, power bank, earbuds, gaming headset, Nintendo Switch, heck, it powers my soldering iron – of course I don't ever want to buy anything with a different port!
I have a C cable on my desk, the charger is hidden under it, I don't want to replace the cable ever. This one cable can charge my phone, laptop, power bank, earbuds, gaming headset, Nintendo Switch, heck, it powers my soldering iron – of course I don't ever want to buy anything with a different port!
Again, the iPhones have lightning ports. Almost everyone who buys this is going to be an iPhone users.
This is like complaining that the microwave at Best Buy doesn't have a Europlug because you're in Italy and that's what you use. Great, but not important to the actual buyer of the microwave in Milwaukee.
This is like complaining that the microwave at Best Buy doesn't have a Europlug because you're in Italy and that's what you use. Great, but not important to the actual buyer of the microwave in Milwaukee.
They may have a usb-c charger they want to use eg for a laptop. By making it lightning on the headset side they just reinvented a corded headset.
How does not having one specific standard of charging port (you know -- the one that came when everyone was rolling with the junkpile that was micro-USB) "reinvent a corded headset"?
Regardless, this complaint is pretty spurious. The device is clearly marketed to iPhone/iPad users, who carry a USB to Lightning cable with them as a matter of normative standards.
People just like bitching sometimes.
Regardless, this complaint is pretty spurious. The device is clearly marketed to iPhone/iPad users, who carry a USB to Lightning cable with them as a matter of normative standards.
People just like bitching sometimes.
I have an iPad that doesn't have a lightning port.
I have a battery pack that doesn't charge with a lightning port, and can charge my phone without a lighting port (wireless).
When I'm traveling light, I don't need a lightning port for anything.
When I'm at my office, I can top off my headphones/iPad/etc off with the same cable I use to connect my laptop to my screen. I never have to worry about bringing an extra cable with me to work.
---
It's just too bad, that's all. Apple seemed like they were ready to phase out the lightning port in favor of USB-C and wireless charging. They've done such a great job with all their other audio accessories that a lot of tech-minded people like myself were looking forward to these.
I have a battery pack that doesn't charge with a lightning port, and can charge my phone without a lighting port (wireless).
When I'm traveling light, I don't need a lightning port for anything.
When I'm at my office, I can top off my headphones/iPad/etc off with the same cable I use to connect my laptop to my screen. I never have to worry about bringing an extra cable with me to work.
---
It's just too bad, that's all. Apple seemed like they were ready to phase out the lightning port in favor of USB-C and wireless charging. They've done such a great job with all their other audio accessories that a lot of tech-minded people like myself were looking forward to these.
Many people charge their iPhone wirelessly these days. I’m not among them, but I can see why they’d be frustrated by this.
I personally think it’s pretty silly that it has neither usb-c nor wireless charging, given the price point and when it’s being launched.
I personally think it’s pretty silly that it has neither usb-c nor wireless charging, given the price point and when it’s being launched.
Well, as someone who doesn't own a lightening cable, it means that I would need a specific cable for these ones. Which kind of negates the point of a wireless headset if I need a specific cable to charge it.
I get I'm not the target market but that doesn't make my point valid. Please don't negate it as bitching.
I get I'm not the target market but that doesn't make my point valid. Please don't negate it as bitching.
Noise canceling heaphones used passively often sound a lot worse, because they can’t soundshape their way out of a suboptimal earshell and speaker design. Apple probably felt that either they had to compromise too much on the shape, or on the way they sounded passively, so they chose to just not allow for it entirely. I expect other manufacturers to follow suit because it creates more freedom in design.
Also, why not make it so that they can be used passively? What's the downside?
If by passively you mean plugged into a headphone port, the answer is that they can’t because they need power. Their big selling point is supposed to be computational audio. That obviously doesn’t work without the compute part, which in turn requires power.
If by passively you mean plugged into a headphone port, the answer is that they can’t because they need power. Their big selling point is supposed to be computational audio. That obviously doesn’t work without the compute part, which in turn requires power.
Key features like the spatial effects only work with an iPad or mac. So now you have a dependency on Apple keeping that part going for years as well, if you want to keep using them as you would have expected to at launch.
> Key features like the spatial effects only work with an iPad or mac
iPad or iPhone only, apparently. Not with a Mac or Apple TV, or, of course, anything else.
(source: article)
iPad or iPhone only, apparently. Not with a Mac or Apple TV, or, of course, anything else.
(source: article)
Stainless and aluminum headphones that weigh a pound are made to last a century, not a couple of years. I have a closet full of incredibly durable, beautiful Apple products that will show up in an archeological dig of our sad epoch but were only supported by Apple for five years max.
From Apple's point of view you are their ideal customer (not even selling your stuff to the secondary market when you upgrade) and proof that their strategy works.
It doesn’t matter how old it is, it matters when it was last sold. The iPhone 6 was last sold in 2017.
September 2018 actually
Thanks. That makes all the praise Apple gets for supporting “ancient phones like the iPhone 6” all the more laughable.
I've used and deeply enjoyed 25+ year old headphones. It's a different class of products.
Was going to say I just had a family member get a battery replaced for their iPhone 6 last month. With that said, I still wish their stuff was more user friendly for self repairs.
The battery is actually really easy to replace as it and the screen are the most common replacement(s). Remove the screws at the bottom, break the glue down, and unfold. Access to the screen and battery connectors are right there on top of the logic board. It’s so the service techs at the store can do it quicker. Anything else, they just give you a new device and ship the old one back to Apple.
Previously (think iPhone 4S and prior), the phone opened from the back. So a screen replacement necessitated deconstructing the entire device.
Could it be more accessible? Most likely. They could put in removable batteries (like older phones had), but they’ve chosen not to (presumably for space reasons (internal batteries take up less space)), and it seems the entire industry followed. But just because they’re not easily replaceable, doesn’t mean they’re not easily serviceable. It takes a bit, but an experienced person can do it about 30 minutes or even less. iFixIt’s guides help a lot here.
Previously (think iPhone 4S and prior), the phone opened from the back. So a screen replacement necessitated deconstructing the entire device.
Could it be more accessible? Most likely. They could put in removable batteries (like older phones had), but they’ve chosen not to (presumably for space reasons (internal batteries take up less space)), and it seems the entire industry followed. But just because they’re not easily replaceable, doesn’t mean they’re not easily serviceable. It takes a bit, but an experienced person can do it about 30 minutes or even less. iFixIt’s guides help a lot here.
The iphone 6 has a certificate store from Dec 2018 with no updates in site to the root store.
Sites/Apps were already breaking on my parent's iphone 6.
Sites/Apps were already breaking on my parent's iphone 6.
[deleted]
I've still got Sony monitor headphones that I've had for 20 odd years
What are you talking about?
Apple supports devices longer than any other manufacturer. Case in point is iOS 14, which came out a few months ago and still supports the iPhone 6s, which came out in 2015.
Apple supports devices longer than any other manufacturer. Case in point is iOS 14, which came out a few months ago and still supports the iPhone 6s, which came out in 2015.
> Case in point is iOS 14, which came out a few months ago and still supports the iPhone 6s, which came out in 2015.
When did five years become a massive time for support in general? For phones it is, but there are plenty of things with longer than 5 year support.
When did five years become a massive time for support in general? For phones it is, but there are plenty of things with longer than 5 year support.
> but there are plenty of things with longer than 5 year support.
Not really in consumer electronics.
Not really in consumer electronics.
Devices with CPUs? Which would those be?
> … still supports the iPhone 6s, which came out in 2015.
And was sold until September 2018. Two years' support for a newly purchased phone shouldn't be considered particularly impressive.
And was sold until September 2018. Two years' support for a newly purchased phone shouldn't be considered particularly impressive.
Sort of. They still ship (or shipped until recently) iPhone 6 in some geographies.
Apple is very aggressive about transitioning stuff when a decision is made. In 1999, your new, pre-iMac laserwriter became a legacy product when iMac was released. MagSafe 1 laptops were orphaned for power adapters pretty quickly. Many HP and Lenovo devices utilize common power supplies that have been around for 10-15 years.
Other products, like AirPods are engineered with planned obsolescence. It's not a dig on Apple, it's part of their process and part of why they are so good at what they do -- Apple builds for a specific customer persona, which may or may not be you. Similarly, the need for commercial customers to have a common power supply is something that makes HP or Lenovo a good choice.
In the more open market, interfaces live a long time. My dad uses an Epson FX-80 dot matrix printer (which was purchased used when I was like 6 years old in the 80s) to print invoices, on a newish computer he found that still supports parallel interface.
Apple is very aggressive about transitioning stuff when a decision is made. In 1999, your new, pre-iMac laserwriter became a legacy product when iMac was released. MagSafe 1 laptops were orphaned for power adapters pretty quickly. Many HP and Lenovo devices utilize common power supplies that have been around for 10-15 years.
Other products, like AirPods are engineered with planned obsolescence. It's not a dig on Apple, it's part of their process and part of why they are so good at what they do -- Apple builds for a specific customer persona, which may or may not be you. Similarly, the need for commercial customers to have a common power supply is something that makes HP or Lenovo a good choice.
In the more open market, interfaces live a long time. My dad uses an Epson FX-80 dot matrix printer (which was purchased used when I was like 6 years old in the 80s) to print invoices, on a newish computer he found that still supports parallel interface.
Copying my other comment in this thread:
That's fair if the device we're talking about is a phone. Those will of course become obsolete much sooner. But headphones don't get worse just by the passage of time. I'd love to still use them in 15+ years. Do you think Apple will still service them then?
Also, why not make it so that they can be used passively? What's the downside?
That's fair if the device we're talking about is a phone. Those will of course become obsolete much sooner. But headphones don't get worse just by the passage of time. I'd love to still use them in 15+ years. Do you think Apple will still service them then?
Also, why not make it so that they can be used passively? What's the downside?
> But headphones don't get worse just by the passage of time.
They didn't when they were just speakers on a strap, but that is a bad mental model for thinking about modern wireless headphones. Remember that a lot of these headphones now have CPUs in them, and they're integrating into a moving spec. The iPhone 6 mentioned here only supported Bluetooth 4, while the iPhone 12 supports Bluetooth 5.0, plus some other addons like LE and A2DP. And that's before we consider any protocols that manufacturers add on top of that, like Airplay.
Even Airpods aren't "fire and forget" devices nowadays. Apple is still shipping firmware updates for Airpods. It's fair to say that long term support for these will be much less costly than an old iPhone, but it's not free.
> Also, why not make it so that they can be used passively? What's the downside?
The simplest answer is probably "Apple customers don't want it". If you really care about using your headphones passively with a wire 20 years from now when the battery is dead and Apple won't service it, you were pretty unlikely to be buying Apple anyways. There are tons of available headphones on the market to serve that set of requirements. And since Apple really values clean lines, removing a jack that they don't think many of their customers will use is a no-brainer for them.
They didn't when they were just speakers on a strap, but that is a bad mental model for thinking about modern wireless headphones. Remember that a lot of these headphones now have CPUs in them, and they're integrating into a moving spec. The iPhone 6 mentioned here only supported Bluetooth 4, while the iPhone 12 supports Bluetooth 5.0, plus some other addons like LE and A2DP. And that's before we consider any protocols that manufacturers add on top of that, like Airplay.
Even Airpods aren't "fire and forget" devices nowadays. Apple is still shipping firmware updates for Airpods. It's fair to say that long term support for these will be much less costly than an old iPhone, but it's not free.
> Also, why not make it so that they can be used passively? What's the downside?
The simplest answer is probably "Apple customers don't want it". If you really care about using your headphones passively with a wire 20 years from now when the battery is dead and Apple won't service it, you were pretty unlikely to be buying Apple anyways. There are tons of available headphones on the market to serve that set of requirements. And since Apple really values clean lines, removing a jack that they don't think many of their customers will use is a no-brainer for them.
That sums up to:
"Your wired headphones are reliable mechanical-electrical devices. Apple is making a computer that you wear on your head, and it just can't compete in areas like reliability, repairability, and Apple's profitability."
"Your wired headphones are reliable mechanical-electrical devices. Apple is making a computer that you wear on your head, and it just can't compete in areas like reliability, repairability, and Apple's profitability."
The most honest answer is: we don't know if Apple will still service them then, because they've never made a product like this for comparison. We also don't know whether non-Apple service centers will be able to service them later, which might even be a more important question. (Once your device is out of warranty and AppleCare coverage, Apple's repairs are going to be pretty pricey even if they're still available.) But I don't think saying "well, they only support phones and computers for a few years after they stop making them" is necessarily a guidepost here.
> Also, why not make it so they can be used passively? What's the downside?
My quasi-educated guess is part marketing, and part technology. The marketing part: Apple considers these AirPods Pros that cover your ears, and insist that they have all the AirPods Pro features. The technology part: from what I can tell, these headphones are DSP-ed up the wazoo, more like HomePods than AirPods, so there's a good chance that passive mode will sound like crap.
I know a practical counter-argument is "so what, there are other active noise-cancelling headphones that let you switch them to passive mood and they sound like crap when you do that and everybody's just okay with it," but, that is not Apple.
(For the record, the AirPods Max are not on my shopping list.)
> Also, why not make it so they can be used passively? What's the downside?
My quasi-educated guess is part marketing, and part technology. The marketing part: Apple considers these AirPods Pros that cover your ears, and insist that they have all the AirPods Pro features. The technology part: from what I can tell, these headphones are DSP-ed up the wazoo, more like HomePods than AirPods, so there's a good chance that passive mode will sound like crap.
I know a practical counter-argument is "so what, there are other active noise-cancelling headphones that let you switch them to passive mood and they sound like crap when you do that and everybody's just okay with it," but, that is not Apple.
(For the record, the AirPods Max are not on my shopping list.)
I'm fairly sure the downside is "they'd sound worse". Headphones like this are doing a lot of signal processing -- just hooking up an input directly to the driver is going to sound notably less good.
We can argue that it's a trade-off that you should be free to make for yourself... but it's very in-character for Apple to just take a strong stance on that kind of thing.
With a 20 hour battery life I'm personally okay with it. If it was more like 4-5 hours then the need for a passive mode would be more pressing.
We can argue that it's a trade-off that you should be free to make for yourself... but it's very in-character for Apple to just take a strong stance on that kind of thing.
With a 20 hour battery life I'm personally okay with it. If it was more like 4-5 hours then the need for a passive mode would be more pressing.
Worse in this case is a complicated comparison. The computational stuff is cool and that will definitely stop working when drivers eventually rot out of support but for general audio quality these won’t be in any way comparable to a cheaper 3+ decade old set of headphones. A huge amount of the extra complexity is making up for using Bluetooth – that has advantages but it means that you have to support a protocol stack, codecs, etc. just to approach the quality that you’d get from wired headphones for $50 in the 1990s. If you really value not needing a cable or the computational features that may be worthwhile to you but it’s important to remember that a lot of the extra cost and reduced reliability and service lifetime is required by non-core functions.
Fair, but if Apple can replace the battery that means that so can anyone else, so yes, I expect you'll be able to replace the battery in 15 years, assuming anyone still makes the battery you need (which would apply to an easily replaceable battery as well).
Re: passive listening, I don't know why they didn't. But I think it is fair to assume there was a real trade-off. Do you really think a smart business like Apple would make their excessively expensive headphones less functional for absolutely no reason?
Re: passive listening, I don't know why they didn't. But I think it is fair to assume there was a real trade-off. Do you really think a smart business like Apple would make their excessively expensive headphones less functional for absolutely no reason?
> And regular AirPods are definitely a throw-away product…
Please don't — they're recyclable[1]. Recyclers wouldn't normally make money from recovering recyclable materials, but Apple pays[2] to make up the difference.
[1] https://www.apple.com/shop/trade-in
[2] https://onezero.medium.com/what-really-happens-to-airpods-wh...
Please don't — they're recyclable[1]. Recyclers wouldn't normally make money from recovering recyclable materials, but Apple pays[2] to make up the difference.
[1] https://www.apple.com/shop/trade-in
[2] https://onezero.medium.com/what-really-happens-to-airpods-wh...
Recycling was a lie to sell more plastic, recycling industry veteran says
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24714880
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24714880
Yeah the plastic isn't recyclable, but e-waste is full of precious metals and structural metals like aluminum that can easily be recycled.
To be fair, I wouldn't be surprised if there's less things if value in an airpod than it's worth. At the point where recycling in and of itself might be more polluting than mining the 0.02g of precious metals and the gram or two of other metals. The structure in airpods is mostly plastic and glue.
they don't replace the battery when they perform battery service, they just replace the airpod entirely.
It is simply not true that Apple products with sealed batteries have zero value, and therefore can only be thrown out, when they expire. The market for Apple devices with dying batteries is quite strong: just browse eBay if you need proof. There’s an industry of buyers who refurbish these devices at a profit, and the purchase price for these used devices remains impressively high.
Heck, I just sold a three-year-old iPhone X with a “service battery” warning for nearly $400.
Heck, I just sold a three-year-old iPhone X with a “service battery” warning for nearly $400.
As a repair shop owner, I can shed some light on this. The iPhone X battery is relatively simple to replace as a third party. The only negative is that the phone won’t be as water-resistant as before; though we do replace seals, it won’t be sealed like the factory did. (I just had one of our stores replace the battery on my iPhone XS with an extended capacity battery, which was well worth the tradeoffs since my phone lasts an additional 3 hours now.) So your iPhone that just needs a new battery will sell for a lot.
AirPods batteries, on the other hand, are completely unreplaceable, and believe me when I say we’d love to repair them. They’re small and Apple has filled the cavity around them with glue, meaning even if we had a replacement battery they’d be impossible to replace without damaging the AirPod itself. This is extremely upsetting to me, as someone who invests in and runs third-party repair shops at least in part for environmental reasons. Apple needs to do better on their smaller devices, AirPods included.
AirPods batteries, on the other hand, are completely unreplaceable, and believe me when I say we’d love to repair them. They’re small and Apple has filled the cavity around them with glue, meaning even if we had a replacement battery they’d be impossible to replace without damaging the AirPod itself. This is extremely upsetting to me, as someone who invests in and runs third-party repair shops at least in part for environmental reasons. Apple needs to do better on their smaller devices, AirPods included.
Considering that Apple's battery service fee is $49 per AirPod, that tells me that the residual value of a failed AirPod (a single one, not both) is $99.50 - (depreciation) - $49, so $50.50 in the best case, and almost certainly nonzero in the worst case.
It's probably safe to assume that in light of how they're constructed, Apple does not repair a unit when received and send the original repaired unit back. The customer likely receives a refurbished unit. But we do not know what Apple subsequently does with the failed units, so it's unfair to assume without evidence that they incinerate them or bury them in a landfill. They may well possess some trade secret that allows them to be able to repair them in a factory and ship them out later as refurbished units. There are technologies that are much more economical at scale (especially achievable with Apple's resources) that are probably infeasible for a mom-and-pop shop. And possibly more environmentally friendly, too (cf. trains vs. trucks).
It's probably safe to assume that in light of how they're constructed, Apple does not repair a unit when received and send the original repaired unit back. The customer likely receives a refurbished unit. But we do not know what Apple subsequently does with the failed units, so it's unfair to assume without evidence that they incinerate them or bury them in a landfill. They may well possess some trade secret that allows them to be able to repair them in a factory and ship them out later as refurbished units. There are technologies that are much more economical at scale (especially achievable with Apple's resources) that are probably infeasible for a mom-and-pop shop. And possibly more environmentally friendly, too (cf. trains vs. trucks).
> so it's unfair to assume without evidence that they incinerate them or bury them in a landfill.
It isn't an assumption without evidence. It is an assessment based on a detailed breakdown of the product, a knowledge of the generally understood state of the technologies involved in reclamation. This isn't the random opinion of a shop owner. iFixit has a detailed breakdown and assessment, and they are generally considered experts in the field. What is unfair to assume without evidence is that Apple has some sort of super secret tech no one else knows about to repair them. That is simply a claim without evidence.
>Considering that Apple's battery service fee is $49 per AirPod, that tells me that the residual value of a failed AirPod (a single one, not both) is $99.50 - (depreciation) - $49, so $50.50 in the best case, and almost certainly nonzero in the worst case.
Airpods with Wireless charging case: $159 Retail. Wireless Charging case: $79 Retail. Assessed retail value of Airpods: $80 ($40 each).
Apple replacement of damaged Wireless charging case: $69 ($10 discount off retail). Airpods: $69 each ($30 more than they cost new retail).
Apple “battery repair” of Wireless charging case: $49 ($40 less than retail). Airpods: $49 each (again, $10 more than new retail value).
Given this, there is absolutely no evidence that the Airpods have any reclamation value to Apple and they are just selling you a new ear pod for more than you paid as part of the original product. Apple makes more money per unit on “battery repair” and damage replacement than off the original purchase.
It isn't an assumption without evidence. It is an assessment based on a detailed breakdown of the product, a knowledge of the generally understood state of the technologies involved in reclamation. This isn't the random opinion of a shop owner. iFixit has a detailed breakdown and assessment, and they are generally considered experts in the field. What is unfair to assume without evidence is that Apple has some sort of super secret tech no one else knows about to repair them. That is simply a claim without evidence.
>Considering that Apple's battery service fee is $49 per AirPod, that tells me that the residual value of a failed AirPod (a single one, not both) is $99.50 - (depreciation) - $49, so $50.50 in the best case, and almost certainly nonzero in the worst case.
Airpods with Wireless charging case: $159 Retail. Wireless Charging case: $79 Retail. Assessed retail value of Airpods: $80 ($40 each).
Apple replacement of damaged Wireless charging case: $69 ($10 discount off retail). Airpods: $69 each ($30 more than they cost new retail).
Apple “battery repair” of Wireless charging case: $49 ($40 less than retail). Airpods: $49 each (again, $10 more than new retail value).
Given this, there is absolutely no evidence that the Airpods have any reclamation value to Apple and they are just selling you a new ear pod for more than you paid as part of the original product. Apple makes more money per unit on “battery repair” and damage replacement than off the original purchase.
> What is unfair to assume without evidence is that Apple has some sort of super secret tech no one else knows about to repair them. That is simply a claim without evidence.
Apple knows how to do all sorts of things in the manufacturing process that even competing companies having resources similar to Apple's scale (Samsung, LG, et al.) can't seem to accomplish. iFixit certainly doesn't have resources anywhere near Apple's. So I wouldn't put recycling/repair tech past them. It's certainly plausible.
The rest of your math is largely fictional because you can't buy a pair of new AirPods without the charging case. There's a market for them (most likely in the black market because they're almost certainly stolen), but they're certainly going to be less than the cost of the combination less the price of a new charger.
Apple knows how to do all sorts of things in the manufacturing process that even competing companies having resources similar to Apple's scale (Samsung, LG, et al.) can't seem to accomplish. iFixit certainly doesn't have resources anywhere near Apple's. So I wouldn't put recycling/repair tech past them. It's certainly plausible.
The rest of your math is largely fictional because you can't buy a pair of new AirPods without the charging case. There's a market for them (most likely in the black market because they're almost certainly stolen), but they're certainly going to be less than the cost of the combination less the price of a new charger.
> It's certainly plausible.
Something being plausible is not evidence and doesn't support a claim. You are basically saying "you can't prove it isn't true", which isn't an argument at all. What is evidence is actual assessments and an understanding of the underlying technologies, something we do have and speaks against reclamation.
> The rest of your math is largely fictional because you can't buy a pair of new AirPods without the charging case.
This makes it pretty clear you aren’t even arguing in good faith. We have a device with 3 components (two of which are identical). We know the price of the combined 3, and we know the price of the 1 unique unit, that gives us a very accurate idea of the retail price of the 2 matching units. It is basic math, not some pie in the sky made up numbers. This is what Apple is selling them for, that is the retail value. What is fictional math is your asserting that if Apple is charging $50 for a replacement, the original must be worth about $50 back to Apple. Since their replacement cost is pretty much the same as their initial price point, you are just buying a replacement. This is pretty basic.
If I am charging $6 for a bag with an orange and two apples, and $3 for a single orange, we can be pretty sure the Apples are about $1.50 each. If you get a rotted apple and I say I’ll take it back and give you a fresh one for $1.40, I’m just selling you another apple. I can just throw the rotted one in the garbage.
Something being plausible is not evidence and doesn't support a claim. You are basically saying "you can't prove it isn't true", which isn't an argument at all. What is evidence is actual assessments and an understanding of the underlying technologies, something we do have and speaks against reclamation.
> The rest of your math is largely fictional because you can't buy a pair of new AirPods without the charging case.
This makes it pretty clear you aren’t even arguing in good faith. We have a device with 3 components (two of which are identical). We know the price of the combined 3, and we know the price of the 1 unique unit, that gives us a very accurate idea of the retail price of the 2 matching units. It is basic math, not some pie in the sky made up numbers. This is what Apple is selling them for, that is the retail value. What is fictional math is your asserting that if Apple is charging $50 for a replacement, the original must be worth about $50 back to Apple. Since their replacement cost is pretty much the same as their initial price point, you are just buying a replacement. This is pretty basic.
If I am charging $6 for a bag with an orange and two apples, and $3 for a single orange, we can be pretty sure the Apples are about $1.50 each. If you get a rotted apple and I say I’ll take it back and give you a fresh one for $1.40, I’m just selling you another apple. I can just throw the rotted one in the garbage.
> We know the price of the combined 3, and we know the price of the 1 unique unit, that gives us a very accurate idea of the retail price of the 2 matching units.
There is no retail price because you can't buy them retail new. That's the only point I'm trying to make here. I don't contend your math is incorrect in the abstract, but in the real world, it's irrelevant. That's all.
Case in point: A quick eBay search shows that a used working AirPod is about $45. If you are correct, and only the abstract math matters, why would anyone pay $45 for a used working AirPod when, as you claim, it is only worth $40 new? Is the market that irrational? I kind of doubt it.
I also don't contend that the original is worth $50 to Apple (this was a best-case high water mark). It's almost certainly worth less because their incremental cost is less.
I'm strictly speaking in terms of real markets as they are observable today. Heck, even a non-working AirPod is still worth about $10 on the open market. Exchange it with Apple for $49 (assuming the battery is the only problem) and that makes the market value of a new (-ish?) unit $59. (This makes Apple's goodwill worth about $15 per unit.)
There is no retail price because you can't buy them retail new. That's the only point I'm trying to make here. I don't contend your math is incorrect in the abstract, but in the real world, it's irrelevant. That's all.
Case in point: A quick eBay search shows that a used working AirPod is about $45. If you are correct, and only the abstract math matters, why would anyone pay $45 for a used working AirPod when, as you claim, it is only worth $40 new? Is the market that irrational? I kind of doubt it.
I also don't contend that the original is worth $50 to Apple (this was a best-case high water mark). It's almost certainly worth less because their incremental cost is less.
I'm strictly speaking in terms of real markets as they are observable today. Heck, even a non-working AirPod is still worth about $10 on the open market. Exchange it with Apple for $49 (assuming the battery is the only problem) and that makes the market value of a new (-ish?) unit $59. (This makes Apple's goodwill worth about $15 per unit.)
[deleted]
Not sure if your argument is strong in the context of their headphone products - which this thread is about.
You are absolutely right in the iPhone & Mac space, but AirPods are famously unrepairable [0].
iFixit's verdict:
- AirPods are not designed to be serviced. No hardware components can be accessed without damage to the device.
- Sealed-in batteries limit the AirPods' lifespan, making them a consumable/disposable item.
[0]: https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/AirPods+2+Teardown/121471
You are absolutely right in the iPhone & Mac space, but AirPods are famously unrepairable [0].
iFixit's verdict:
- AirPods are not designed to be serviced. No hardware components can be accessed without damage to the device.
- Sealed-in batteries limit the AirPods' lifespan, making them a consumable/disposable item.
[0]: https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/AirPods+2+Teardown/121471
They’re different devices altogether. They serve the same purpose, perhaps, but one is nearly two orders of magnitude larger than the other. It’s like comparing a matchbox car to an actual car.
Also, someone else mentioned a $79 battery replacement for AirPods Max which suggests it is in fact serviceable.
Also, someone else mentioned a $79 battery replacement for AirPods Max which suggests it is in fact serviceable.
We don’t know yet if the batteries in the Max are serviceable or not... I suspect they will be, but could be wrong.
We do know they're serviceable given that Apple has already published a battery service for it. For that matter, Apple has a battery service program for normal AirPods as well. It isn't a service that economically doesn't make much sense for the cheaper airpods, but it's entirely reasonable for the Max monsters.
The service program is one that throws away the old AirPods, though…
Counterpoint: My iPhone that was out of warranty and had the screen cracked after taking it in for third-party battery replacement. The official battery replacement was more than the resale value of the phone. Unlike a phone, high-end headphones are not inherently disposable. They can last many decades of regular use. This is a disposable product in a product category that is not usually disposable.
$79 to replace the battery on an AirPod Max isn’t that bad if you just have to do it every few years. I’m sort of tired of my churn through AAA’s on my Bose QuietComforts.
Assuming they last 10 years (Apple stops selling them after 3 years and stops supporting 7 after that), you replace the battery ($79) and ear pads ($69) at the 5 year mark, that's (550+79+69)/120 months = ~$5.80/month or about $.20 per day.
How much would you pay for replaceable AAA batteries? How long will they last?
$79 is pretty bad.
$79 is pretty bad.
AAA aren't cheap. More importantly, they are annoying to replace all the time.
$79 every few years on a $500 set of headphones sounds plausible, the battery alone would probably be $40-$50 retail anyways; I'm just getting someone at an Apple store to replace it for me.
More concerning is that a set of new ear muffs costs $69. I've already replaced the ones on my QuietComforts two times ($20 using clones on Amazon), so that is going to add up a bit.
$79 every few years on a $500 set of headphones sounds plausible, the battery alone would probably be $40-$50 retail anyways; I'm just getting someone at an Apple store to replace it for me.
More concerning is that a set of new ear muffs costs $69. I've already replaced the ones on my QuietComforts two times ($20 using clones on Amazon), so that is going to add up a bit.
I said replaceable AAA batteries. I should've said rechargeable.
You can buy a pack of 12 rechargeable AAA for less than $10. A charger is $5.
You can buy a pack of 12 rechargeable AAA for less than $10. A charger is $5.
Ya, I tried going this route for toys. Frankly i gave up after a few months because they didn’t last as long as the real pain is battery replacement (which requires a screw driver these days because....rules).
Alkaline AAA batteries in Bose QCs old enough to have them have a claimed life of up to 35 hours. (Newer Bose QCs have glued-in rechargeable batteries just like the AirPods Max, because very few people actually prefer replacing batteries every “up to 35” hours to needing to plug in to recharge every “up to 20” hours)
You could use rechargable AAAs with an integrated charger, and when those wear out, swap them. I had some wireless headphones like that, and the charger was a nice stand to rest them on.
You're implicitly assuming that the AirPods Max could also run on one or two AAA batteries -- an assumption that may well be false depending on the energy consumption and voltage required.
You can run laptop cpus today on 1.2V, I doubt that would have too much of an issue powering over-ear headphones with 2.4V-3V of two AAAs in series.
Plus, it doesn't really matter the type of battery. You can find pretty much any of rechargeable battery (3.7V, 7.4V, nickel, Li-ion) for less than $15, retail. It's mind boggling to think that people on Hacker News (of all places) think that is sensible to subject yourself to something as anti-consumer and as environment-unfriendly as what Apple offers.
Plus, it doesn't really matter the type of battery. You can find pretty much any of rechargeable battery (3.7V, 7.4V, nickel, Li-ion) for less than $15, retail. It's mind boggling to think that people on Hacker News (of all places) think that is sensible to subject yourself to something as anti-consumer and as environment-unfriendly as what Apple offers.
We will have to wait to see if they are really servicing ( replacing battery ) or just give you a new pair for $79.
Ok, that is a good counter example, but what about the example I gave in my original post? These very expensive headphones I bought (AirPods 1) only two years ago are now basically worthless.
Apple does offer "battery service" for AirPods:
https://support.apple.com/airpods/repair/service#battery
I strongly suspect the the "service" is giving you refurbished AirPods with new batteries in them, but it's still cheaper than buying new AirPods. (Although somewhat marginally in the case of the non-Pro model.)
https://support.apple.com/airpods/repair/service#battery
I strongly suspect the the "service" is giving you refurbished AirPods with new batteries in them, but it's still cheaper than buying new AirPods. (Although somewhat marginally in the case of the non-Pro model.)
They’re different devices altogether. They serve the same purpose, perhaps, but one is nearly two orders of magnitude larger than the other. It’s like comparing a matchbox car to an actual car.
Also, someone else mentioned a $79 battery replacement for AirPods Max which suggests it is in fact serviceable.
Also, someone else mentioned a $79 battery replacement for AirPods Max which suggests it is in fact serviceable.
Do you really believe this so strongly that you write this strongly-worded comment?
Plenty of reasons why people would convince themselves to buy them:
- I can easily return it if I don't like it (most never do)
- the OS X/iOS integration will be way better than my current headphones (my poison)
- I love Apple
- 2020 sucked, if I can't even go to Thailand this year, I'll at least treat myself to these. I deserve it.
Plenty of reasons why people would convince themselves to buy them:
- I can easily return it if I don't like it (most never do)
- the OS X/iOS integration will be way better than my current headphones (my poison)
- I love Apple
- 2020 sucked, if I can't even go to Thailand this year, I'll at least treat myself to these. I deserve it.
So other than your second point (which is in part a side effect of Apple locking down their platform so much) none of those have to do with the quality of the product. And none of them address the underlying issue that you'll be paying $550 for something that will be non-functional in a few years, while headphones with comparable sound quality and capabilities can be had for cheaper.
> something that will be non-functional in a few years
If they're the pro-Apple lemming, how aren't you just the anti-Apple lemming with a statement like that?
How is this good tech discussion if, to talk about this gadget with you, someone has to work out how you were mislead to believe these things are paperweights in a few years and can't be serviced?
These topics always remind me of the Xbox vs PS2 debates my friends and I engaged on the internet at age 16. Just ridiculous claims in both directions. Funny how times never change.
If they're the pro-Apple lemming, how aren't you just the anti-Apple lemming with a statement like that?
How is this good tech discussion if, to talk about this gadget with you, someone has to work out how you were mislead to believe these things are paperweights in a few years and can't be serviced?
These topics always remind me of the Xbox vs PS2 debates my friends and I engaged on the internet at age 16. Just ridiculous claims in both directions. Funny how times never change.
I'm aware how people on this site think about products like this. Can you tell me why, despite the strong sentiment here, the product is still so popular?
While there's truth to the claim that using Apple products is a kind of signaling, strongly clapping back against all things Apple is also a kind of signaling: "yes, the easily-led masses like Apple products, but I am smarter than they are."
As someone who's been using Apple products for over two decades at this point, I obviously have my own biases, but I would argue that Apple products have historically been popular because they've historically been pretty good. Historically at premium (and sometimes outrageous) prices, not universally the best for all needs, not even universally good, and as a company Apple and their decisions are certainly not above criticism, but in general their products are good.
As someone who's been using Apple products for over two decades at this point, I obviously have my own biases, but I would argue that Apple products have historically been popular because they've historically been pretty good. Historically at premium (and sometimes outrageous) prices, not universally the best for all needs, not even universally good, and as a company Apple and their decisions are certainly not above criticism, but in general their products are good.
I'm old enough to remember when Apple was marketed as different. Because they were niche - to choose Apple was to signal that you're different from the masses.
That's still somewhat true - they do not yet dominate laptop or desktop markets, and outside the U.S. they are not (as) dominant in smartphones.
But they do dominate some of the newer product categories, just as they dominated portable music players - tablets, smartwatches.
I'm unsure how much of the headphone market they harvest.
My point of all this is that many got the pleasure of feeling unique and "smarter than the rest" by getting the novelty Apple items that most people were too ignorant to value. But it evolved over time and now maybe it's something else?
That's still somewhat true - they do not yet dominate laptop or desktop markets, and outside the U.S. they are not (as) dominant in smartphones.
But they do dominate some of the newer product categories, just as they dominated portable music players - tablets, smartwatches.
I'm unsure how much of the headphone market they harvest.
My point of all this is that many got the pleasure of feeling unique and "smarter than the rest" by getting the novelty Apple items that most people were too ignorant to value. But it evolved over time and now maybe it's something else?
I'm in the same boat as you, although not quite 2 decades. I have even tried various Android phones for a year here and there, and always ended up back with an iPhone. So, I'm not completely blind on what's happening outside the Apple world, but their products mostly work for me and I don't really have to think about it.
Because a significant part of a product's success is marketing and the psychology underlying it. Apple are masters at marketing, and for many consumers owning Apple products is seen as a way to signal status.
A big part of Apple's brand is that things generally work. I don't need to do a ton of research on the exact pros and cons of other products, I don't have to make sure that a particular brand's model wasn't silently replaced with a cheaper version with the same SKU, that service options do exist (though expensive), and that there's a robust secondary market of Apple devices.
[deleted]
> - 2020 sucked, if I can't even go to Thailand this year, I'll at least treat myself to these. I deserve it.
You deserve better than this
You deserve better than this
>I don't understand how anyone could buy these, when the battery is not user-replaceable and they don't work passively without power. After ~5 years max, these will be unusable.
First, why would it have to be "user-replacable"? You could take it to Apple, and they'd replace it. Or you could take it to any third-party repair shop (after 5 years you wouldn't have a warranty to care about invalidating this way anyway).
Second, so? People buy all kinds of perishable products... Especially in technology, when after 5 years there will be better wireless headphones out there.
>Yet another throw-away product from a self-proclaimed environmentally friendly company.
Youn don't really believe company's sociatal/enviromental concerns, right? This is empty talk. If a company was "environmentally friendly" they would just close.
Nobody really needs AirPods or whatever Apple and others sell else over the environment, even if they were user replacable. Even more so when the first imperative of any company is "sell ever more stuff to ever more people"...
First, why would it have to be "user-replacable"? You could take it to Apple, and they'd replace it. Or you could take it to any third-party repair shop (after 5 years you wouldn't have a warranty to care about invalidating this way anyway).
Second, so? People buy all kinds of perishable products... Especially in technology, when after 5 years there will be better wireless headphones out there.
>Yet another throw-away product from a self-proclaimed environmentally friendly company.
Youn don't really believe company's sociatal/enviromental concerns, right? This is empty talk. If a company was "environmentally friendly" they would just close.
Nobody really needs AirPods or whatever Apple and others sell else over the environment, even if they were user replacable. Even more so when the first imperative of any company is "sell ever more stuff to ever more people"...
Even if we accepted the first imperative for a company, there is no imperative for people to keep buying. Much less so when people have choices that are cheaper and more sustainable at the same time.
So aside from irrational consumerism, I am also in the camp of people that don't understand why one would buy this. It is not portable like earpads, it is made to last like a "normal" headphone and all of the software (ahem, computational audio) stuff can be achieved with any normal computer or smartphone where most people already have and use it as the audio source.
So aside from irrational consumerism, I am also in the camp of people that don't understand why one would buy this. It is not portable like earpads, it is made to last like a "normal" headphone and all of the software (ahem, computational audio) stuff can be achieved with any normal computer or smartphone where most people already have and use it as the audio source.
>Even if we accepted the first imperative for a company, there is no imperative for people to keep buying.
News flash: people don't care about the environment either. If they did they wouldn't be satisfied with token gestures, but do radical changes to the society/workplace/lifestyle (some of that kind, like reduced flights, WFH, etc., came as a result of COVID, but would have been met with huge uproar by the general population on environmental grounds).
>it is made to last like a "normal" headphone and all of the software (ahem, computational audio) stuff can be achieved with any normal computer or smartphone where most people already have and use it as the audio source.
Technically, not really, as it depends on embedded microphones, movement sensors, and such.
It's not just the "3d sound" experience of yore, which was solely processed and encoded as a regular audio stream.
News flash: people don't care about the environment either. If they did they wouldn't be satisfied with token gestures, but do radical changes to the society/workplace/lifestyle (some of that kind, like reduced flights, WFH, etc., came as a result of COVID, but would have been met with huge uproar by the general population on environmental grounds).
>it is made to last like a "normal" headphone and all of the software (ahem, computational audio) stuff can be achieved with any normal computer or smartphone where most people already have and use it as the audio source.
Technically, not really, as it depends on embedded microphones, movement sensors, and such.
It's not just the "3d sound" experience of yore, which was solely processed and encoded as a regular audio stream.
We share the cynicism. I completely agree that there is a huge difference between what people say they want and what they actually end up choosing. That doesn't make it any more defensible, though.
I still reserve judgement for the people that will buy it and the companies that produce this.
I still reserve judgement for the people that will buy it and the companies that produce this.
>Second, so? People buy all kinds of perishable products...
That is exactly what I'm criticising.
That is exactly what I'm criticising.
[deleted]
Can you respond to me by clearly stating your point?
My point is that in my original post I was criticising the buying behavior of people who would purchase this product.
If I understood correctly, you were arguing that people don't value longevity as much as other things, and I agree. But I believe that's worth criticising. I think people should value longevity more, for the sake of the environment, and their own wallet.
If I understood correctly, you were arguing that people don't value longevity as much as other things, and I agree. But I believe that's worth criticising. I think people should value longevity more, for the sake of the environment, and their own wallet.
I wear headphones for about 5 hours every work day. If these are more comfortable than the alternative, I’m very ok with amortizing the added ~$300 over the ~1000 hours of extra comfort just in year one.
This is a fancy way of saying "I'll pay more for nicer headphones because I use them a lot". Sadly the point above is that you'll be forced to pay more again and again thanks to the fact they are wireless only so you'll need to replace the batteries.
Who cares, $600 every 5-10yrs seems fine to me. These are computers on your head. I don't mind replacing the whole unit. But you don't even have to replace them entirely...Apple will replace the battery for $79. So if after 5-10yrs, you wanted to get the battery replaced, you can.
It's almost like people on HN have never bought noise canceling headphones - none of the top models have user-replaceable batteries.
It's almost like people on HN have never bought noise canceling headphones - none of the top models have user-replaceable batteries.
They probably will be service EOL (“vintage”) after like 5 years. Even earlier if the sales aren’t good in the first place.
> I don't understand how anyone could buy these
Because Apple offers luxury products. People who buy luxury products are willing to pay a premium for it. Not understanding that different people value different things from you is a very weird stance to take. I personally wouldn't pay the premium price to lease a luxury automobile, but I understand why other people do it.
> I purchased the regular AirPods and this point was reached even sooner, after ~2 years of heavy usage they don't work longer than 15 minutes.
That's not been my experience, mine have a few hours of lifespan after two years, but for earbuds that's not too bad. I regularly killed wired earbuds faster than that due to wear and tear.
Everything else on this design seems to me like they'll be longer lived than their competitors. Steel headbands and magnet attached earcups sound much more durable than plastic and plastic. I'd be willing to bet that more headphones meet an early demise due to worn out earcups and broken headbands than batteries reaching EOL, so this might not be a bad trade-off for users willing to pay $500 for headphones anyways.
Because Apple offers luxury products. People who buy luxury products are willing to pay a premium for it. Not understanding that different people value different things from you is a very weird stance to take. I personally wouldn't pay the premium price to lease a luxury automobile, but I understand why other people do it.
> I purchased the regular AirPods and this point was reached even sooner, after ~2 years of heavy usage they don't work longer than 15 minutes.
That's not been my experience, mine have a few hours of lifespan after two years, but for earbuds that's not too bad. I regularly killed wired earbuds faster than that due to wear and tear.
Everything else on this design seems to me like they'll be longer lived than their competitors. Steel headbands and magnet attached earcups sound much more durable than plastic and plastic. I'd be willing to bet that more headphones meet an early demise due to worn out earcups and broken headbands than batteries reaching EOL, so this might not be a bad trade-off for users willing to pay $500 for headphones anyways.
> Because Apple offers luxury products. People who buy luxury products are willing to pay a premium for it. Not understanding that different people value different things from you is a very weird stance to take. I personally wouldn't pay the premium price to lease a luxury automobile, but I understand why other people do it.
But understanding it doesn’t mean you cannot criticize it?
But understanding it doesn’t mean you cannot criticize it?
[deleted]
[deleted]
It's a veblen good. Quality is secondary to cost.
The entire point is to be impractical.
The entire point is to be impractical.
I assume, barring some kind of cataclysm and reversion to barbarism (admittedly looking increasingly plausible of late), that there is no chance whatsoever that I am going to want to be using the same audio headphones in 2026 that I will be using in 2021.
Not because the old ones will SOUND horribly worse than the five year newer ones, but because tech is tech — the new ones will work with all my 2026 devices, connect using the 2026 wireless standard, work with the 2026 cable (if any, besides the 3.5mm analog).
The 2026 models will hopefully be able to download my voice profile and predefined commands and maybe will even unlock my front door when I approach, plus _____________ ????¿¿¿¿
Don't get me wrong — I love shit that will last a long time with finality, and I buy lots of things for that reason: knives and cookware and even furniture that I will hand down to my sons.
But headphones? Not in that category any more than smartphones or computers.
Not because the old ones will SOUND horribly worse than the five year newer ones, but because tech is tech — the new ones will work with all my 2026 devices, connect using the 2026 wireless standard, work with the 2026 cable (if any, besides the 3.5mm analog).
The 2026 models will hopefully be able to download my voice profile and predefined commands and maybe will even unlock my front door when I approach, plus _____________ ????¿¿¿¿
Don't get me wrong — I love shit that will last a long time with finality, and I buy lots of things for that reason: knives and cookware and even furniture that I will hand down to my sons.
But headphones? Not in that category any more than smartphones or computers.
How much of that is natural evolution of technology vs planned obsolescence?
When it comes to wireless audio, there's always something better in five years. For the same reason these headphones are probably better than whatever you're using right now.
Though, in five years, a $60-80 battery replacement doesn't sound like a problem to me. This thread seems like roleplaying that it's a major life event.
Though, in five years, a $60-80 battery replacement doesn't sound like a problem to me. This thread seems like roleplaying that it's a major life event.
When it comes to expensive audio equipment I'm a buy once and use it for a long long while type of person. Sure "better" comes out every so often but I see audio as an investment and I want to get my money's worth.
These airpods aren't an investment, they are expensive and disposable as I doubt these will be usable in 10 years time. To me, that is a bad investment.
These airpods aren't an investment, they are expensive and disposable as I doubt these will be usable in 10 years time. To me, that is a bad investment.
I don't feel like the audio quality is actually any better than my headphones from years ago, it's just the bonus extra features.
I don't dispute the concept of planned obsolescence — or even fraudulent sabotage. (Looking at you, Logitech, with the 7 mouse devices we bought which (while otherwise excellent) lasted between 14 and 17 months with a 12 month warranty!)
But my point is that it's not relevant to computer/smartphone oriented wireless headphones. Most of us are gonna want new ones within 3-4 years regardless of what Apple plans. (Wired headphones, different story.)
But my point is that it's not relevant to computer/smartphone oriented wireless headphones. Most of us are gonna want new ones within 3-4 years regardless of what Apple plans. (Wired headphones, different story.)
My AirPods are going on 2 years, get used a lot and they still last for a typical 2 hour+ ride.
I'm doubt you could get replaceable batteries into something the size of the AirPods and have them light enough to stay in my ears as well as they do.
These beasts are obviously different.
I'm doubt you could get replaceable batteries into something the size of the AirPods and have them light enough to stay in my ears as well as they do.
These beasts are obviously different.
> I don't understand how anyone could buy these, when the battery is not user-replaceable
Well, the battery is replaceable in a straight-forward way.
The exact process isn't really that important a buying factor considering you'll do it once in every 1000 days (or something on that order).
Well, the battery is replaceable in a straight-forward way.
The exact process isn't really that important a buying factor considering you'll do it once in every 1000 days (or something on that order).
My Bose QC35 are now seven years old or so, and they still charge up fast and hold it for a good long while. I don't know if they're as good as new, but they're close enough that I can't tell the difference. I don't see why the airpods max should be notably worse.
That's great to hear! I got a pair a year and a half ago and consider them one of the best purchases I've made for productivity at work. They fit over my behind-the-ear hearing aids, they are great for concentration when the kids are being kids, and the mic is fantastic for zoom calls. It's also the first time I've seriously used a bluetooth device and the novelty of being able to seamlessly switch between music on my phone, youtube on the computer, and work calls still hasn't worn off.
The Max marketing launch really made me think of the opportunity benefits associated with integrated voice commands, taking calls, Siri messages.
I would try these on the premise that my remote workflow might be improved.
I would try these on the premise that my remote workflow might be improved.
It is a shame. My living room speakers, which I use for my hi-fi and home cinema setup, were manufactured in 1972. My amplifier was manufactured some time in the 90s. Things break eventually and some won't last as long as my speakers. That's fine. But we should reject things intentionally designed to break after only a few years. Reject convenience. Aim to reduce your footprint. This is especially important if you plan to reproduce.
Same! I love my 70's bookshelf speakers and the amp is perfection. My sub is newer, but only early 2000's new (and I lucked into it)
Apple's just trying to convince headphone buyers to pay more for less. Even if they can't compete on quality with existing headphone makers, they'll undoubtedly make more money.
Some people are going to buy a new pair of AirPods Max every year for $550. It hurts me deep down to know this fact, and it offends me on a level that's hard to describe with words.
But as long as other headphone manufacturers continue to sell quality and serviceable products, I won't be directly affected by it. I just hope Sony, Sennheiser, etc. don't follow Apple's lead. If they do, maybe I'll have to start looking at cheap Chinese brands.
Some people are going to buy a new pair of AirPods Max every year for $550. It hurts me deep down to know this fact, and it offends me on a level that's hard to describe with words.
But as long as other headphone manufacturers continue to sell quality and serviceable products, I won't be directly affected by it. I just hope Sony, Sennheiser, etc. don't follow Apple's lead. If they do, maybe I'll have to start looking at cheap Chinese brands.
> I just hope Sony, Sennheiser, etc. don't follow Apple's lead.
I don't see this happening because those brands undoubtedly have a much larger share of the high-end headphones market, whereas Apple seems to focus more on a smaller niche with even more disposable income. The fact that AirPods max can only be turned off by placing them in the case is such a weird design decision beyond the other absurdities of the product design. Hopefully Sony and others adopt the good ideas (like replaceable ear cups) while staying true to their customers.
I don't see this happening because those brands undoubtedly have a much larger share of the high-end headphones market, whereas Apple seems to focus more on a smaller niche with even more disposable income. The fact that AirPods max can only be turned off by placing them in the case is such a weird design decision beyond the other absurdities of the product design. Hopefully Sony and others adopt the good ideas (like replaceable ear cups) while staying true to their customers.
> I don't see this happening because those brands undoubtedly have a much larger share of the high-end headphones market, whereas Apple seems to focus more on a smaller niche with even more disposable income.
You do know that these headphones will probably outsell the ones you mention 100:1 or more, right? :-)
You do know that these headphones will probably outsell the ones you mention 100:1 or more, right? :-)
What the heck are you talking about? The most popular noise canceling headphones are the Bose QC35 and Sony WH1000XM4.
Neither of those have user-replaceable batteries. They haven't for years.
And if you wanted to replace the batteries on the AirPods Max, it's only $79. If you can't afford it, don't buy them.
Neither of those have user-replaceable batteries. They haven't for years.
And if you wanted to replace the batteries on the AirPods Max, it's only $79. If you can't afford it, don't buy them.
> Some people are going to buy a new pair of AirPods Max every year for $550. It hurts me deep down to know this fact, and it offends me on a level that's hard to describe with words.
Is this a reflection on Apple's product strategy or that there are inequalities in the world?
Is this a reflection on Apple's product strategy or that there are inequalities in the world?
The former. People being able to afford more expensive things than I doesn't bother me. Irresponsible/uninformed/ignorant/wasteful consumption bother me, no matter the price bracket.
Especially in a situation as ridiculous as this one, where the alternatives are better in nearly every aspect that matters (except the logo).
Especially in a situation as ridiculous as this one, where the alternatives are better in nearly every aspect that matters (except the logo).
This is what really offends you?
Not the $10,000 Louis Vuitton handbag or the $80,000 bottle of wine or the other myriad of consumables and products that are clearly priced by what people can pay, rather than purely for their utility value?
You're going to be offended by a lot in this timeline my friend.
Not the $10,000 Louis Vuitton handbag or the $80,000 bottle of wine or the other myriad of consumables and products that are clearly priced by what people can pay, rather than purely for their utility value?
You're going to be offended by a lot in this timeline my friend.
> Not the $10,000 Louis Vuitton handbag or the $80,000 bottle of wine or the other myriad of consumables and products that are clearly priced by what people can pay, rather than purely for their utility value?
You're not going to have too much difficulty finding people with a strong distaste for those markets as well.
You're not going to have too much difficulty finding people with a strong distaste for those markets as well.
Sony smartphones still have a headphone jack, so this should be less of a concern for them, I think.
The color and composition of these headphones makes me think that after one year of use the headband will look yellow and grimey and the fabric will get snags and runs in it. The build quality looks sturdy, but not meant to last.
People would buy a bag of poop if Apple made it and Samsung would copy it when they see the sales numbers.
Just watch as others copy these overpriced headphones.
Just watch as others copy these overpriced headphones.
This viewpoint doesn't hold true far outside of forums like this one and certain subreddits. People just don't care about any of the things you noted, and if they see everyone wearing Airpods Maxes, they'll want Airpods Maxes. They'll see AKG as inferior, even though that's objectively untrue.
> "I don't understand how anyone could buy these, when the battery is not user-replaceable"
How many wireless headphones have "user replaceable" batteries? Certainly not any I have bought in recent years. If these last long enough to need a $79 professional battery replacement[1] in 5 years, then I'd say they're money well spent!
[1] https://support.apple.com/airpods/repair/service#battery
How many wireless headphones have "user replaceable" batteries? Certainly not any I have bought in recent years. If these last long enough to need a $79 professional battery replacement[1] in 5 years, then I'd say they're money well spent!
[1] https://support.apple.com/airpods/repair/service#battery
Why buy wireless headphones to begin with? I've had a pair of wired Audio Technica headphones for the past 5 years and have had no issues at all. Ear pads are user replaceable, headphone cable is detachable and standard, and I can use whatever DAC/amp I want (or just plug it straight into a device). Wireless just seems like a downgrade in every way
You surely must understand why some people like the convenience of wireless headphones?
But not musicians (the latency makes it unusable), so the target market for extreme audio quality will be elsewhere, buying conventional analogue wired Audio-Technicas or Sennheisers; and not people exercising (they'll fall off your head), so the target market for that will be buying smaller earbuds.
I have a pair of AT's that happens to have Bluetooth and the only time I've used it is when mowing the lawn as a sort of ear protection with podcasts as a side benefit. Shitty audio quality would have been fine for this situation!
The market for this is the same thing as the market for a Gucci purse, basically, and that's fine, who cares; let it be for those people.
I have a pair of AT's that happens to have Bluetooth and the only time I've used it is when mowing the lawn as a sort of ear protection with podcasts as a side benefit. Shitty audio quality would have been fine for this situation!
The market for this is the same thing as the market for a Gucci purse, basically, and that's fine, who cares; let it be for those people.
Get wired headphones, attach a $10 bluetooth to wired adapter, bundle up the wires onto the head strap.
It's in some ways lesser than AirPods Max, but it's hundreds of dollars cheaper, you can choose the ear shape and quality that you want, and it lasts forever.
It's in some ways lesser than AirPods Max, but it's hundreds of dollars cheaper, you can choose the ear shape and quality that you want, and it lasts forever.
What about ANC?
I have a nice akgs wired headphones, but every time I stand up or move i pull on the cable or have to remove them. with my Bluetooth headphones I can go to kitchen grab something and go back quickly.
I had for around 5 years a pair of in-ear wireless PowerBeats headphones... the battery life slowly degraded until I had to recharge it every couple of days listening to them for just an hour each day... and one day, just out of nowhere, the battery started lasting only 15 minutes, making them unusable.
I thought it was ridiculous that an expensive headphone needs to be thrown away after only 5 years of light usage, but there you go... if you only had your AirPods for 2 years, sounds like I had a decent run myself :)
I still bought the newer Powerbeats model because they're quite nice and I couldn't find anything similar with as good quality. The newer model's battery lasts forever (well, a couple of weeks of light usage took them to around 25%) but I know that, in a few years, it'll get to a couple of days maximum between recharges again... hopefully a bit more than the previous one with better and newer technology.
I thought it was ridiculous that an expensive headphone needs to be thrown away after only 5 years of light usage, but there you go... if you only had your AirPods for 2 years, sounds like I had a decent run myself :)
I still bought the newer Powerbeats model because they're quite nice and I couldn't find anything similar with as good quality. The newer model's battery lasts forever (well, a couple of weeks of light usage took them to around 25%) but I know that, in a few years, it'll get to a couple of days maximum between recharges again... hopefully a bit more than the previous one with better and newer technology.
I wonder what you define as heavy usage for AirPods. I have 2 pairs, one of which is the first generation and I use only for running. I run almost every day for around an hour. I've had them for around 2 years, probably a bit longer. They still last more than 3 hours per charge. Maybe even 4. Are you using them for 4+ hours a day? Also, is there a way to interrogate them to see how many hours of usage they have or what the remaining battery life is?
Edit: I've had a much tougher time with the Apple Watch I pair with the AirPods while I run. My first one only lasted about 1.5 years before its battery became unusable for running.
Edit: I've had a much tougher time with the Apple Watch I pair with the AirPods while I run. My first one only lasted about 1.5 years before its battery became unusable for running.
I used my AirPods for roughly 8 hours a day, probably half of it on the phone. They were done after less than a year. Battery empty after 45min and one side running on like 35% volume only.
if you take headphone jack away from the earphones then you can take the jack away from the player device, [viceversa] then you can lockout any non apple earphones and perhaps blacklist nonvetted media
People buy the dream. They know it's overpriced or premium. They don't care about a value proposition it's an opportunity to be on the leading front of the dream. When the product dies, the loss of functionality is less important than being dropped from the dream.
Apple gives people a dreamscape where they can transform their homes and workplaces into a creative paradise and share in a world without material tech problems. 'It just works'.
Replacing the current iphone with the next one is always attractive for the customer as long as it keeps everybody dreaming.
Apple gives people a dreamscape where they can transform their homes and workplaces into a creative paradise and share in a world without material tech problems. 'It just works'.
Replacing the current iphone with the next one is always attractive for the customer as long as it keeps everybody dreaming.
> when the battery is not user-replaceable and they don't work passively without power
Sony’s XM3 is arguably the most successful noise cancelling headphone in the market and doesn’t do either (it does play unpowered but sound quality is significantly worse).
Sony’s XM3 is arguably the most successful noise cancelling headphone in the market and doesn’t do either (it does play unpowered but sound quality is significantly worse).
> I’m tempted to preface everything with “Look, I’m not an audiophile…”, but screw that. I’m not an audio expert, but I do know what I like, and I love the way these headphones sound. They make music sound rich and make movies sound very real.
It is almost impossible to wear a $550 device on your ears and not become immediately biased about how "real" the sounds are.
The better way would be with a double blind test. Would require some sort of device to conceal both the brand and the weight of the damn thing hah.
I wouldn't be surprised if the headphones end up being in line with the rest of the existing offer from other brands.
It is almost impossible to wear a $550 device on your ears and not become immediately biased about how "real" the sounds are.
The better way would be with a double blind test. Would require some sort of device to conceal both the brand and the weight of the damn thing hah.
I wouldn't be surprised if the headphones end up being in line with the rest of the existing offer from other brands.
> It is almost impossible to wear a $550 device on your ears and not become immediately biased
Not saying I disagree about confirmation bias at play - especially given that TFA states at the beginning that they received a pair for review purposes - however I've personally become upset by dropping large amounts of cash on lackluster products before. Not everyone is necessarily susceptible. Some might ask for their money back. In this case, the author didn't even pay the $550 though.
Not saying I disagree about confirmation bias at play - especially given that TFA states at the beginning that they received a pair for review purposes - however I've personally become upset by dropping large amounts of cash on lackluster products before. Not everyone is necessarily susceptible. Some might ask for their money back. In this case, the author didn't even pay the $550 though.
> Not saying I disagree about confirmation bias at play - especially given that TFA states at the beginning that they received a pair for review purposes
You will find it quite difficult to locate any instances of John Gruber saying anything negative about Apple on Daring Fireball.
He's basically like an unofficial arm of Apple PR, and he seems to know that his access is likely dependent upon his continued service in furtherance of Apple's marketing agenda.
You will find it quite difficult to locate any instances of John Gruber saying anything negative about Apple on Daring Fireball.
He's basically like an unofficial arm of Apple PR, and he seems to know that his access is likely dependent upon his continued service in furtherance of Apple's marketing agenda.
But do they get to keep the $550 headphones? That's still a strong motivator. "I just got this really expensive thing - it must be good!"
If they have to send them back then I'd say it is fair, but I doubt that is the case.
If they have to send them back then I'd say it is fair, but I doubt that is the case.
I believe Apple does require their review units back.
Every single review called out the fact that these are very expensive. Gruber even made light of it commenting about whether the button quality was worth the price. I suspect the price (rightly so) would give the reviewers extremely high expectations coming into this and they would be looking for the smallest flaws.
That is literally their job, indiscriminate reviewers aren't worth a damn. Gruber isn't a reviewer primarily, but other reviewers have said these sound great too.
That is literally their job, indiscriminate reviewers aren't worth a damn. Gruber isn't a reviewer primarily, but other reviewers have said these sound great too.
I have a fairly nice headphone setup at my desk (HD650+Schiit Magni/Modi2). I am willing to admit I am biased against other headphones, especially ones that are cheaper than my setup. I am interested to try out Apple's new cans and see how they hold up. They probably won't survive my own biases.
Well if it makes everyone who wears them think it sounds better than the alternatives, that's really just as well. There's not any utility to better sounding headphones other than enjoyment, and you'll enjoy it the same whether it actually sounds amazing or you just think it does.
That's why we use metrology to measure its capabilities. Not human opinions.
Sound can be analyzed extremely objectively.
Sound can be analyzed extremely objectively.
I'll stick to my wired Sennheisers. They sound absolutely excellent, cost less than half the price, look sexy, and will work essentially forever.
Are they noise canceling? If they're not, then it's not an apt comparison. These compete with Bose QC35 and Sony WH1000XM4.
I am somewhat disappointed that we associate weight with quality. I assume this came from early plastics that were brittle and started to replace metal parts. But the science of plastics have come so far, we have plastics that are incredibly durable while still being lightweight. However many manufacturers are sticking to metal and glass for that "premium look and feed" even if it is heavier and less durable.
Another issue might be the variety of plastic qualities that are hard to tell apart from a quick impression. Something that our launch followed by rush to quick reviews society can't adequately test. Glass and especially metals tend to have more predictable durability profiles.
I think the main problem that we haven't solved in plastics is hardness, so glass screens are here to stay, but I wish we could move away from this plastic == low quality perception. I think it would result in better products at then end of the day.
Another issue might be the variety of plastic qualities that are hard to tell apart from a quick impression. Something that our launch followed by rush to quick reviews society can't adequately test. Glass and especially metals tend to have more predictable durability profiles.
I think the main problem that we haven't solved in plastics is hardness, so glass screens are here to stay, but I wish we could move away from this plastic == low quality perception. I think it would result in better products at then end of the day.
Reminds me of the crazy lightweight Richard Mille watches that are absurdly expensive but undeniably high-quality.
Plastics do not have good heat conductivity. I can't stand plastic over-year headphones because my ears get too warm. Apple seems to have solved this problem with fabrics and metal construction.
How about open over-ear headphones such as the Sennheiser HD 558?
The ski boot industry has been focused on reducing plastic weight / thickness while remaining sturdy. People very much appreciate the innovations there.
Camping and backpacking, too. I think everyone in the outdoorsing space has been hard at working shaving weight. My back appreciates it.
This was a fairly hot topic when SLR cameras started switching over to incorporating more and more plastic. This was quite a while ago but there was definitely a class of buyer who associated metal with solidity.
My issue with plastic for construction of bodies for higher-end products (be it synths, headphones, computers, etc.) is that they are... Soft, they get scratched easily (most of them at least, I know a few types that are scratch-resistant), they show wear and tear in a much more unpleasant way than metal, glass or wood.
It's a hugely important material but I can't imagine ever perceiving plastics, even the higher grade and durable ones, to a premium feeling. I don't associate that with brittleness but more with aesthetics and touch feel.
It's a hugely important material but I can't imagine ever perceiving plastics, even the higher grade and durable ones, to a premium feeling. I don't associate that with brittleness but more with aesthetics and touch feel.
> My issue with plastic for construction of bodies for higher-end products (be it synths, headphones, computers, etc.) is that they are... Soft, they get scratched easily (most of them at least, I know a few types that are scratch-resistant), they show wear and tear in a much more unpleasant way than metal, glass or wood.
Most of the visible metal bits in any consumer electronic will be aluminum, which is notoriously soft (softer than gold) and scratches easily. Likewise, most any product made of wood (moving beyond electronics now) will be made of a wood that's soft enough to scratch easily. I'm not convinced that scratch-resistance is the metric for instinctively classifying the cheapness of a material.
Most of the visible metal bits in any consumer electronic will be aluminum, which is notoriously soft (softer than gold) and scratches easily. Likewise, most any product made of wood (moving beyond electronics now) will be made of a wood that's soft enough to scratch easily. I'm not convinced that scratch-resistance is the metric for instinctively classifying the cheapness of a material.
Aluminum is not used in elementary form though, and the common alloys are decently scratch resistant. Source: seems so from having used a few things made from aluminum alloys.
I have to say that I am very happy with my pixel 4a. It is plastic, but looks and feels very nice.
The same mentality is widespread in photography, heavier metal construction (even though often just exterior shell and interior is polycarbonate) and weight are associated with quality and longevity. But it's starting to change as more lenses are exclusively made from "engineered plastics" - a marketing term to make these new lenses sound better.
OTOH, those robust lenses from the 50s to early 80s survived until today and are often still used and adapted on modern mirrorless cameras.
OTOH, those robust lenses from the 50s to early 80s survived until today and are often still used and adapted on modern mirrorless cameras.
Another simple example. I bought a zojirushi water bottle 5 years ago, it is still going strong, still keeps water cold for a hours and hours. I bought another bottle 3 months ago, which is much heavier/sturdier than zojirushi. It sucks (it is so strong that it can be used as a weapon though).
Oddly, for a camera, I prefer some weight. Not so much I will get fatigued, but it is easier to hold steady if it is not feather weight. And having it balance away from the lens is nice.
Overall, agreed, though.
Overall, agreed, though.
I'm not a photography expert, but won't plastics subtly deform over time (especially when exposed to sunlight)?
The plastics chosen for lenses are incredibly resistant to UV light due to many additives and often powder coatings, and in general incredibly dimensionally stable. This is actually when even very expensive lenses often use plastics inside, because those plastics don't expand/contract/deform as much because of heat as metals, leading to more precise optical alignments and higher image quality.
Ironically, since these lenses often need much smaller adjustments and don't need as much to be readjusted after taking them apart, I find it easier to repair them than some complex metal lenses.
Ironically, since these lenses often need much smaller adjustments and don't need as much to be readjusted after taking them apart, I find it easier to repair them than some complex metal lenses.
The oldest lenses I have that I still sometimes use are from the late 1940s, though they are both large-format lenses in shutters (that have been serviced). The main issue with those is that parts are scarce.
I wouldn't expect any gear made today to have that much of a lifetime.
I wouldn't expect any gear made today to have that much of a lifetime.
Eh, I would. I recently repaired an old Tamron 28-75 2.8 for Canon EF, as well as a more modern Sony SEL2870, and both were pretty simple. In one, the autofocus and aperture were done by bog standard 4 wire 8 ohm stepper motors, with standard four wires rotational encoders, and in the other it was another standard three phase brushless motor, four wires for the IS electromagnets, and optical encoders for the rest.
That is to say, the electronics are fairly standard. You could easily make a single board that can drive the electronics of pretty much every lens. Projects exist going in that direction.
As for the construction, it's pretty damn solid. It's not fully metal, by very high glass fiber percentage nylon and polycarbonate. Very, very durable materials, in some cases even more than metal.
And because of advances in manufacturing tech and the fact these are made of multiple simple plastic parts, you can fabricate replacement parts fairly easily.
Given the fact that the Tamron lens lasted 15 years with the only issue being the aperture cable getting damaged and two pins getting bent out of shape, and that even the cheapest modern lens was fabricated similarly, I think it's not unreasonable to think they could last 40+ years given sufficient effort. Certainly for the most worthwhile lenses.
Of course, when parts need to be made out of metal for mechanical reasons, they often still are. For example, mounts, threaded rings, and so on.
That is to say, the electronics are fairly standard. You could easily make a single board that can drive the electronics of pretty much every lens. Projects exist going in that direction.
As for the construction, it's pretty damn solid. It's not fully metal, by very high glass fiber percentage nylon and polycarbonate. Very, very durable materials, in some cases even more than metal.
And because of advances in manufacturing tech and the fact these are made of multiple simple plastic parts, you can fabricate replacement parts fairly easily.
Given the fact that the Tamron lens lasted 15 years with the only issue being the aperture cable getting damaged and two pins getting bent out of shape, and that even the cheapest modern lens was fabricated similarly, I think it's not unreasonable to think they could last 40+ years given sufficient effort. Certainly for the most worthwhile lenses.
Of course, when parts need to be made out of metal for mechanical reasons, they often still are. For example, mounts, threaded rings, and so on.
At least this mentality is rooted in reality, as we now have a pretty good data on longevity of plastic cameras from the 80s and 90s that routinely outlast their metal+leather counterparts from the 60s. Here's a very typical "plastic in cameras" horror story:
http://jaredlichtenbergerphoto.com/blog/mamiya-645-pro-mirro...
http://jaredlichtenbergerphoto.com/blog/mamiya-645-pro-mirro...
> I am somewhat disappointed that we associate weight with quality.
To the point that Beats headphones seemed to have random bits of decorative metal added to it simply to increase the weight and make it feel more "premium":
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/we-took-apart-some-beats-head...
https://medium.com/@BenEinstein/how-it-s-made-series-yup-our...
To the point that Beats headphones seemed to have random bits of decorative metal added to it simply to increase the weight and make it feel more "premium":
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/we-took-apart-some-beats-head...
https://medium.com/@BenEinstein/how-it-s-made-series-yup-our...
I often wonder this about my Bose Soundlink Mini II. That thing is a shocking little brick when you pick it up. Like, it's roughly the size of a hotdog bun, and you could probably kill someone with it. Great sound though.
The blue microphone is guilty of this. They are needlessly bulky and the stands they come with are unnecessarily heavy.
It's consumer theatrics
It's consumer theatrics
I still tip mine over though, so maybe it isn't heavy enough?
But I think I agree that it's overkill, as the weak spot is definitely going to be the usb port.
But I think I agree that it's overkill, as the weak spot is definitely going to be the usb port.
Which Blue microphone? The Yeti? Or do you just mean Blue microphones tend to do this in general?
While certainly some high quality expensive products focus on weight reduction (e.g. carbon fiber in camera tripods or hiking gear), many customers still have a subconscious association between weight an quality. After you’ve removed all the unnecessary parts or features and really optimized high volume manufacturing, at some point product cost is highly associated with part weight. More material costs more money. If a designer or manufacturer goes too far optimizing for cost by removing material, the product is more likely to be damaged under normal use or misuse.
Even if many consumers can’t tell you directly that something feels cheap to them or why, they are subconsciously aware of it. There’s a classic story from the history of industrial design where in the development of a desk clock, the designer, Henry Dreyfus observed consumers in a store evaluating competitive models of clocks. They picked them up and sensed the weight. By adding mass the product became much more successful. [1]
In the course of my work as a product engineer, I’ve designed many docks and stands for devices, and torn down competitive products. These kinds of things often have added weight in the form of stamped steel plates or die cast zinc. The weight helps keep the dock stable so it doesn’t tip when the user puts in the device, and it also adds to the feeling of quality and security.
[1] “In 1939, he designed the Big Ben Alarm clock for Westclock. After a year of development, it was ready to market. The first customer was the John Wanamaker department store in New York City. Henry Dreyfus, in what is considered to be the first live ‘user testing,’ observed potential customers pick up the clock, examine it and put it down without buying it or asking any questions. Eventually, he questioned customers. Why were they putting it down after examining it? What was wrong?
Their response: it felt too light. Something so light couldn’t be substantive. Whether they were right or wrong, Dreyfus realized that people were associating weight with value even though he knew there was no connection. In a radical departure from the notion that ‘less is more,’ he added a 3 oz. weight, serving no function whatsoever, but to create the perception of greater substance. In this case, more weight equated to more value. He said, ‘people want the experience of knowing that their alarm clock had something inside.’ Weight was an attribute that had meaning and relevance… it created a cue that led to a perception of value and substance.”
From https://drozmarketing.com/designers-role/
Even if many consumers can’t tell you directly that something feels cheap to them or why, they are subconsciously aware of it. There’s a classic story from the history of industrial design where in the development of a desk clock, the designer, Henry Dreyfus observed consumers in a store evaluating competitive models of clocks. They picked them up and sensed the weight. By adding mass the product became much more successful. [1]
In the course of my work as a product engineer, I’ve designed many docks and stands for devices, and torn down competitive products. These kinds of things often have added weight in the form of stamped steel plates or die cast zinc. The weight helps keep the dock stable so it doesn’t tip when the user puts in the device, and it also adds to the feeling of quality and security.
[1] “In 1939, he designed the Big Ben Alarm clock for Westclock. After a year of development, it was ready to market. The first customer was the John Wanamaker department store in New York City. Henry Dreyfus, in what is considered to be the first live ‘user testing,’ observed potential customers pick up the clock, examine it and put it down without buying it or asking any questions. Eventually, he questioned customers. Why were they putting it down after examining it? What was wrong?
Their response: it felt too light. Something so light couldn’t be substantive. Whether they were right or wrong, Dreyfus realized that people were associating weight with value even though he knew there was no connection. In a radical departure from the notion that ‘less is more,’ he added a 3 oz. weight, serving no function whatsoever, but to create the perception of greater substance. In this case, more weight equated to more value. He said, ‘people want the experience of knowing that their alarm clock had something inside.’ Weight was an attribute that had meaning and relevance… it created a cue that led to a perception of value and substance.”
From https://drozmarketing.com/designers-role/
You seem to be saying both "weight made them more stable and less likely to tip" and "people were associating weight with value even though there's no connection".
I have an internet router, I don't routinely lift it, its weight is immaterial, except ... it has a power lead, internet lead, and some RJ45 leads connected to it, and if they move slightly, it falls over. I approximately never go near it or think about it, but the only times I do when I have to check something or connect/disconnect something, I'm annoyed by how it's designed to stand up precariously, and does so poorly because it's too flimsy cheap and plasticky.
This reminds me of the "I'm clever because I see the lottery is a tax on fools" sayings. Well, gambling is fun and mass is useful and stable clocks don't get knocked over when you dust the bedside table in their vicinity.
I have an internet router, I don't routinely lift it, its weight is immaterial, except ... it has a power lead, internet lead, and some RJ45 leads connected to it, and if they move slightly, it falls over. I approximately never go near it or think about it, but the only times I do when I have to check something or connect/disconnect something, I'm annoyed by how it's designed to stand up precariously, and does so poorly because it's too flimsy cheap and plasticky.
This reminds me of the "I'm clever because I see the lottery is a tax on fools" sayings. Well, gambling is fun and mass is useful and stable clocks don't get knocked over when you dust the bedside table in their vicinity.
I think this is part of the problem why we subconsciously think of weight == quality. In many cases these things are correlated. In fact this use case may be a reasonable time for aluminum and steel.
However the metric is too simple, and easy to game, and it seems that this simplistic weight == quality is emphasized by many reviewers.
However the metric is too simple, and easy to game, and it seems that this simplistic weight == quality is emphasized by many reviewers.
[deleted]
I think another aspect of heavy > light is it's (perceived) as a gauge of how much "stuff" is in a product.
If I picked up some very light electronic, I may suspect that it's simply not very dense, and it was made bigger to (try) and fool another "quality signal", size. You know, knock-off products made to look like something bigger/higher quality but containing mostly air.
It is a shame though, since light can be very strong and high value. I personally wouldn't want almost half a kilo of headphones on my noggin, and this article's emphasis on weight is ... disappointing.
If I picked up some very light electronic, I may suspect that it's simply not very dense, and it was made bigger to (try) and fool another "quality signal", size. You know, knock-off products made to look like something bigger/higher quality but containing mostly air.
It is a shame though, since light can be very strong and high value. I personally wouldn't want almost half a kilo of headphones on my noggin, and this article's emphasis on weight is ... disappointing.
I'm definitely guilty of using metal and weight as signals for quality. And heavier metal objects do feel nicer but that's not really my reasoning. If a manufacturer is willing to self-flagellate by making their products out a mode expensive material, using a more expensive manufacturing process, and pony up the shipping costs to transport the heavier goods then I can be reasonably sure that they're not obsessively cost-cutting.
If you care about waste and renewability, this is kind of a good thing. I can't buy anything made of plastic without feeling shitty about the fact that it's almost certainly going to end up in a landfill within my lifetime, if not within 2-5 years.
The weight equals quality thing is probably related to the use of dense metals as money since the dawn of history. Maybe it's a quirk of human psychology that caused us to choose dense metals or maybe it's the choice of dense metals that persists as the weight/quality association.
With plastics, I think there are subtle differences in flex & texture that can clue you in you quality.
With plastics, I think there are subtle differences in flex & texture that can clue you in you quality.
I think some of this mentality is partially an effect of the flood of cheap black glossy plastic electronics that came in the 00s and 10s. I'm not an expert on plastic formulations, but the variety used for these products is not pleasant to touch, shows fingerprints like crazy, scratches easily, and breaks easily on top of sounding hollow.
The plastics used for electronics in the 90s didn't exhibit these problems as much, generally being thicker with a nice matte textured finish. Perhaps the key to winning the public mind back over to plastic would be to mimic those 90s plastics.
The plastics used for electronics in the 90s didn't exhibit these problems as much, generally being thicker with a nice matte textured finish. Perhaps the key to winning the public mind back over to plastic would be to mimic those 90s plastics.
> In some ways, AirPods Max feel quite a bit like a premium Aeron-style modern desk chair — the mesh canopy atop the headband, the telescoping steel stems, the general sturdiness.
In some ways, possibly.
Here's what's nice about Aeron chairs: they last essentially forever. I got a second hand one for cheap. It's easily a decade old, possibly more, judging by the armrest mechanism (which had a redesign, mine is old). Using it every day for two years, on top of what it already had. Still looks brand spanking new.
In case something breaks, I can easily replace any component. There is a healthy replacement parts market. In fact, the person that sold it to me was essentially living off "flipping" Aerons - they would get them wholesale from companies, and then refurbish them.
If you are buying them new, they are covered by a 12 YEAR WARRANTY. Parts and labor.
The AirPods price would be totally justified if they were even remotely like this. Make the battery user-replaceable (even better if they are swappable, for more run-time) and provide user-replaceable parts, plus a healthy warranty, and this could be potentially the Aeron of the headset world.
It isn't, though. The battery is the most egregious issue. Sure, we can understand why Airpods don't have replaceable batteries. Not that it's impossible, but at least it's understandable - they are tiny. It's also possible to understand why Macbook batteries are not easily replaceable - they occupy most of the internal space and are rather fragile.
I don't know what Apple's excuse is, this time.
In some ways, possibly.
Here's what's nice about Aeron chairs: they last essentially forever. I got a second hand one for cheap. It's easily a decade old, possibly more, judging by the armrest mechanism (which had a redesign, mine is old). Using it every day for two years, on top of what it already had. Still looks brand spanking new.
In case something breaks, I can easily replace any component. There is a healthy replacement parts market. In fact, the person that sold it to me was essentially living off "flipping" Aerons - they would get them wholesale from companies, and then refurbish them.
If you are buying them new, they are covered by a 12 YEAR WARRANTY. Parts and labor.
The AirPods price would be totally justified if they were even remotely like this. Make the battery user-replaceable (even better if they are swappable, for more run-time) and provide user-replaceable parts, plus a healthy warranty, and this could be potentially the Aeron of the headset world.
It isn't, though. The battery is the most egregious issue. Sure, we can understand why Airpods don't have replaceable batteries. Not that it's impossible, but at least it's understandable - they are tiny. It's also possible to understand why Macbook batteries are not easily replaceable - they occupy most of the internal space and are rather fragile.
I don't know what Apple's excuse is, this time.
Batteries inside a laptop have no reason to be glued in. Look at the sleek laptops from Dell or Lenovo. Somehow they managed to put an easily replaceable battery into all of them - even tablets - without sacrificing weight or thickness.
Glued-in batteries are not a necessity contrary to what Apple wants you to believe.
Similarly, Samsung somehow managed to make their Galaxy Buds Live (small airpods pro competitor) very user-serviceable with standard replaceable battery without making them much bigger.
Glued-in batteries are not a necessity contrary to what Apple wants you to believe.
Similarly, Samsung somehow managed to make their Galaxy Buds Live (small airpods pro competitor) very user-serviceable with standard replaceable battery without making them much bigger.
> It's also possible to understand why Macbook batteries are not easily replaceable - they occupy most of the internal space and are rather fragile.
I would guess that the batteries on the AirPods Max are not user-replaceable for the same reason. We'll know more once the iFixit teardown is out.
But stepping back: it seems that the parts most susceptible to long-term wear are replaceable. That is the ear cups (user-replaceable) and batteries. Hopefully the headstrap is more durable than it looks.
I would guess that the batteries on the AirPods Max are not user-replaceable for the same reason. We'll know more once the iFixit teardown is out.
But stepping back: it seems that the parts most susceptible to long-term wear are replaceable. That is the ear cups (user-replaceable) and batteries. Hopefully the headstrap is more durable than it looks.
Indeed. I bought a secondhand Aeron - with the old armrest design, like yours - and it needed new wheels. I called Herman Miller attempting to buy replacement wheels, and they just sent them to me for free. Other than the wheels, it is in perfect mechanical condition.
Aereon chairs last forever?
The arm rests got janky in mine after 2 years. Maybe they are replaceable...?
The arm rests got janky in mine after 2 years. Maybe they are replaceable...?
I'm a bit spoiled since most of jobs use the Aeron chairs, but I definitely used and sat in Aeron chairs that were at least 6 years old with no issues. I had a coworker that had one he bought for like a $100 during the dotcom bust and he still used it 12 years later with no issues (he ran his own business/contractor and WFH for a long time).
You mean the pads? Those definitely are - that's one of the items you can get from Herman Miller themselves in their online store (vinyl or leather), and there are third party options too.
Even if you mean the arm rest mechanism, that's replaceable as well. As are cables, the seat, lumbar support, gas cylinder, you name it.
Even if you mean the arm rest mechanism, that's replaceable as well. As are cables, the seat, lumbar support, gas cylinder, you name it.
I meant the pads. And it looks like you are right. Mine were vinyl, and started to crack after 2 years. I'll prob get the leather pad replacements. I love my Aereon, it is such a pleasant seat.
> Every other pair of over-the-ear headphones I’ve ever used feel a bit cheap in comparison
This has always surprised my as someone who's owned a couple of pairs of B&W P-series headphones (P5 then PX). Portable headphones should be built to last, not just flimsy plastic. B&W got it right with metal construction (and with the newest PX models forged carbon fibre), no surprises Apple is building robust headphones too.
What B&W provide though, is a really solid benchmark (of many) (with the exception of spatial audio - which from Gruber sounds like it still has some shortcomings to overcome). They're £200 cheaper, really substantial and solid construction (with a proper hard carrying case - although similar limited folding), the newest carbon models will be noticeably lighter (if still a substantial 310g).
Obviously the Sony XM4s and Bose 700s are well in view too (although plastic construction can make them seem a less premium alternative).
I expect these will sell relatively well, but I can't see them flying off the shelves like their in-ear namesakes in such a crowded and competitive market, even with Apple's software bonuses.
This has always surprised my as someone who's owned a couple of pairs of B&W P-series headphones (P5 then PX). Portable headphones should be built to last, not just flimsy plastic. B&W got it right with metal construction (and with the newest PX models forged carbon fibre), no surprises Apple is building robust headphones too.
What B&W provide though, is a really solid benchmark (of many) (with the exception of spatial audio - which from Gruber sounds like it still has some shortcomings to overcome). They're £200 cheaper, really substantial and solid construction (with a proper hard carrying case - although similar limited folding), the newest carbon models will be noticeably lighter (if still a substantial 310g).
Obviously the Sony XM4s and Bose 700s are well in view too (although plastic construction can make them seem a less premium alternative).
I expect these will sell relatively well, but I can't see them flying off the shelves like their in-ear namesakes in such a crowded and competitive market, even with Apple's software bonuses.
> Portable headphones should be built to last, not just flimsy plastic.
Good plastic is not flimsy.
Polycarbonate, an almost commodity plastic, is really strong and light. The next step: composites are way better than any metal if you want a good strength-to-weight ratio. The best, most expensive bikes are made out of carbon fiber composite for a reason.
Plastic is commonly used as casing material for stuff designed for rough environments. Portable power tools, PA speakers, even guns. So if something designed to be used on the battlefield can be made of plastic, there is no problem for headphones worn, at worst, in the subway.
The only problem with plastic is that it suffers from being cheap, as in, not expensive enough. People want expensive products to be made of expensive materials. Also, subconsciously we associate weight with quality, so much that cheap manufacturers sometimes add metal inserts to their otherwise low quality products to trick people into thinking they are better than they really are.
That it to say, unless you put a premium on look and feel (nothing wrong with that), don't hesitate to buy plastic headphones, they can last you a lifetime as long as the right plastic is used at the right place.
Good plastic is not flimsy.
Polycarbonate, an almost commodity plastic, is really strong and light. The next step: composites are way better than any metal if you want a good strength-to-weight ratio. The best, most expensive bikes are made out of carbon fiber composite for a reason.
Plastic is commonly used as casing material for stuff designed for rough environments. Portable power tools, PA speakers, even guns. So if something designed to be used on the battlefield can be made of plastic, there is no problem for headphones worn, at worst, in the subway.
The only problem with plastic is that it suffers from being cheap, as in, not expensive enough. People want expensive products to be made of expensive materials. Also, subconsciously we associate weight with quality, so much that cheap manufacturers sometimes add metal inserts to their otherwise low quality products to trick people into thinking they are better than they really are.
That it to say, unless you put a premium on look and feel (nothing wrong with that), don't hesitate to buy plastic headphones, they can last you a lifetime as long as the right plastic is used at the right place.
I wish that someone made headphones built with BPA-free plastic like my Aeropress (https://prima-coffee.com/equipment/aeropress/aeropress) or even my Lido 3 coffee grinder (https://prima-coffee.com/equipment/orphan-espresso/lido-3), which also uses stainless steel and aluminum. Considering how durable both of these tools are (and how good they feel in hand) I wonder why they haven't caught on in the tech industry.
I don't know if being BPA-free has anything to do with durability. I thought it was something that only mattered for food-related products (to avoid BPA getting into your food).
Good point. I suppose I'm just talking about the feel of the Aeropress and, say, Nalgene bottles. That plastic feels somehow less "cheap" to me than most plastic electronic devices. I wonder why?
[deleted]
"BPA-free" doesn't mean much. The industry has been moving on from BPA due to (very reasonable) fears about human consumption, but it appears manufacturers simply moved onto other BPA-like alternatives such as BPS and BPF that have not been as extensively studied, and which may have the same health hazards.
You can also have long-term durability issues. But this is long-term as in probably decades which isn't really generally relevant for consumer electronics. I have a few older kitchen appliances that have started spontaneously developing cracks. I've patched things up and bought a couple of (ill-fitting) replacement parts. But I'll probably end up having to replace them even though they're otherwise functional. (Of course, the materials may well have improved by now.)
Exactly, plastic lasts 10000s years. I'm a believer now - I've rebuilt a lego set from my childhood and all the bricks fit and look pretty much exactly the same, 30 years later
Polycarbonate stops bullets, but it's also notoriously soft, scratches easily, it's a thermoplastic (so it melts with heat), and it's soluble in ammonia or acetone (so it's vulnerable to nail polish remover). Other than all that, polycarbonate is a perfect plastic.
They seem to be selling pretty well depending on how many Apple manufactured. If you want them you are going to have to wait until March already.
https://www.macrumors.com/2020/12/08/airpods-max-shipping-es...
https://www.macrumors.com/2020/12/08/airpods-max-shipping-es...
In terms of build quality, I've always thought Bang & Olufsen made the best headphones. The H9 series is made with aluminum and leather, and costs just slightly less than AirPods Max.
Seconding the PX series high build quality. After losing my beloved a Sennheiser PXC 550s, I got the PX7 and it's very nicely made. The buttons and the embossed logos on the cups are the only at all cheap-feeling parts.
That said, the B&W v-shaped sound is not my favorite. Not unlistenable, but maybe not what I'd choose again.
That said, the B&W v-shaped sound is not my favorite. Not unlistenable, but maybe not what I'd choose again.
The most durable headphones I've ever owned are Sennheiser HD 25 and made from plastic and super light. It was ~£100, sounds amazing and lasted me 15 years of being dragged to clubs, house parties and getting a fair beating. Only this year have I replaced them and that was only because I lost my old pair in a recent house move and figured "it's been 15 years, there's no shame in buying a new pair even though the old pair might turn up in a random box later".
However those cans don't have bluetooth, noise cancelling, a microphone nor adaptive EQing. They're literally just a high quality speaker, headband and copper wiring.
However those cans don't have bluetooth, noise cancelling, a microphone nor adaptive EQing. They're literally just a high quality speaker, headband and copper wiring.
serious question, why would you take headphones to clubs and house parties?
To DJ at them.
He was probably the DJ.
To listen to music. Duh
Sounds like OP might be a DJ -- they usually wear headphones while mixing so they can actually hear the music over the noise of a party or club.
... and to hear different music than what is playing (cueing the next track, or effects).
Because clubs and house parties are loud and play awful music? (Yeah, I know he was the DJ)
HD 25s are amazing, especially because every part is replaceable and can be easily ordered.
Reading this I immediately thought of the B&W PX. Really nicely made headphones which felt like they would last a long time. The battery would probably be the first thing to go. I really wanted to like them, but alas I just couldn't wear them comfortably for very long. They were too heavy for me.
By contrast, the Bose and Sony headphones, which feel more flimsy in comparison, I can wear for hours without issue.
By contrast, the Bose and Sony headphones, which feel more flimsy in comparison, I can wear for hours without issue.
I have the Sony WH1000 XM3. I disagree they feel more flimsy. The most critique I can come up with is that the clickiness of the buttons isn’t up to Apple standards. And they lack multipoint.
Also to consider, AirPods Max can be extremely well built but you still cannot pack them in a suitcase like you can the Sony or Bose, due to the shitty pouch that’s included...
Also to consider, AirPods Max can be extremely well built but you still cannot pack them in a suitcase like you can the Sony or Bose, due to the shitty pouch that’s included...
Third party cases will be available in about a second from when they launch.
It's a non-issue.
It's a non-issue.
Yes. So instead of spending €300 at a perfectly fine WH1000XM4 including a case and cable (and airplane adapter), I get to spend €630 on AirPods Max, €40 on a cable and probably €100 on a case.
Indeed a non issue (assuming you also own a money printer).
Indeed a non issue (assuming you also own a money printer).
I'm surprised he didn't mention anything about bluetooth pairing and general ease of use.
I have a Sony MDR-100 which is a great middle of the road (price/quality) wireless headset. The biggest gripe I have with it is pairing/connecting to my web of devices and music quality. This is one area that Apple routinely gets right. Bluetooth just works better on Apple devices.
I can connect the headset to my windows laptop, play some music, and it will come through muddled. I then switch over to my Macbook Pro and the same music will come through noticeably better. I'm not sure if the Apple Bluetooth drivers are just that much better or if the built in Windows ones are that much worse?
> This is one area that Apple routinely gets right. Bluetooth just works better on Apple devices.
that really is not accurate. macbooks are notoriously terrible with bluetooth. with my macbook pro, it is impossible to play music on a bluetooth speaker, as it starts stuttering within seconds of use. this is a common problem over many years, and there's a litany of solutions on the forums, most of which don't work. another common problem is iTunes automatically opening and even playing when bluetooth headphones connect. in many cases, there's no way to prevent it. in my case, the only thing that stopped it was renaming iTunes, which required a lot of ceremony to even do. it seems in zoom meetings, it's always the people with airpods that are having audio trouble. i thought it was well known that apple has terrible bluetooth, at least on their macbooks.
that really is not accurate. macbooks are notoriously terrible with bluetooth. with my macbook pro, it is impossible to play music on a bluetooth speaker, as it starts stuttering within seconds of use. this is a common problem over many years, and there's a litany of solutions on the forums, most of which don't work. another common problem is iTunes automatically opening and even playing when bluetooth headphones connect. in many cases, there's no way to prevent it. in my case, the only thing that stopped it was renaming iTunes, which required a lot of ceremony to even do. it seems in zoom meetings, it's always the people with airpods that are having audio trouble. i thought it was well known that apple has terrible bluetooth, at least on their macbooks.
> Bluetooth just works better on Apple devices
My experience with Bluetooth headphones are Airpods 1, 2, and my Senneheiser Momentums.
I think I can count on one hand how many times the Sennheisers needed a re-pairing, and that's using them pretty much every work day. The Airpods are far from reliable. I use them for running 3x a week, and I probably have to re-pair them once a month. This has been consistent with the 1 and 2.
However, this is due to what Apple is trying to do. The Sennheisers just pairs and plays music. The AirPods are detecting what ear they're in, connecting when in the ear, tapping, Siri, etc. There are much more opportunities for failure with the AirPods.
My experience with Bluetooth headphones are Airpods 1, 2, and my Senneheiser Momentums.
I think I can count on one hand how many times the Sennheisers needed a re-pairing, and that's using them pretty much every work day. The Airpods are far from reliable. I use them for running 3x a week, and I probably have to re-pair them once a month. This has been consistent with the 1 and 2.
However, this is due to what Apple is trying to do. The Sennheisers just pairs and plays music. The AirPods are detecting what ear they're in, connecting when in the ear, tapping, Siri, etc. There are much more opportunities for failure with the AirPods.
I've had this problem on Mac. In my case a pair of AirPods sounded really muddy and low quality. macOS was setting them up as the output AND input audio device. The two-way Bluetooth communication eats more bandwidth, hence the lower quality. The solution was to set the audio input to something other than the AirPods.
Try setting your audio input to something other than the headset on the Windows machine.
Try setting your audio input to something other than the headset on the Windows machine.
I honestly don’t understand how this is still an issue with Bluetooth devices in 2020. Why is there no lossless duplex audio profile / codec available at this point?
Because transmitting and processing that data takes too much energy, pretty much. We have the tech to stream lossless equality audio with latencies in the milliseconds, but it takes too much power.
Thanks for the hint. I have tried everything else I could think of the improve the audio quality but not this one. I'll give it a go this afternoon!
I'm totally uninformed when it comes to Bluetooth audio. Is BT transmitting full "resolution" audio, or is undesireable compression being done? Does Apple have better control over that? Is it generally just better to use a wired connection?
Bluetooth is transmitting crudely compressed audio. There is a proprietary aptX codec which aims to make Bluetooth compression suck less, which Apple devices do not support: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AptX
Apple devices support AAC over Bluetooth. AAC is license free, aptX is a Qualcomm codec.
There is lossy compression. There is a rather old codec (SBC) at a few different bit-rates, and a couple newer better codecs from the last 10 years (aptX, AAC, ?). Apple does have the control to make sure better codecs are supported and used. It can be pretty hard to determine and control what codecs are supported and which one is used, this is almost always hidden and never mentioned anywhere.
Not entirely true.
Most audio you listen to on a mobile device is compressed already is not extracted and compressed a second time.
> Apple does have the control to make sure better codecs are supported and used. It can be pretty hard to determine and control what codecs are supported and which one is used, this is almost always hidden and never mentioned anywhere.
Nonsense. Few developers want to add the complexity of shipping and supporting their own audio decompression inside their app so they just use the ones Apple supports.
There are exceptions, FLAC for example isn't supported by Apple, but I believe FLAC takes too much bandwidth to work over BT regardless.
Most audio you listen to on a mobile device is compressed already is not extracted and compressed a second time.
> Apple does have the control to make sure better codecs are supported and used. It can be pretty hard to determine and control what codecs are supported and which one is used, this is almost always hidden and never mentioned anywhere.
Nonsense. Few developers want to add the complexity of shipping and supporting their own audio decompression inside their app so they just use the ones Apple supports.
There are exceptions, FLAC for example isn't supported by Apple, but I believe FLAC takes too much bandwidth to work over BT regardless.
Lossy compression, lots of different codecs with differing qualities and compatibilities. However, Shure Aonic 50 BT sound quality for me was phenomenally good (though they were uncomfortable to wear)... most other headphones I've tried have been mildly tolerable to terrible.
Apple's BT does not apply any additional compression to compressed audio. If you are listening to an MP3 or AAC, it sends the already compressed audio over the channel so there is no quality loss. If you are listening to uncompressed audio source, I believe it's compressed before it's sent because of limits to Bluetooth bandwidth.
Yea honestly to me the only reason to get these is seamless bluetooth integration Apple gives.
As long as sound quality is top of class (which they appear to be) then to some extent the thing comes out to "is better pairing experience worth a $200-300 premium over something like Sony MX4s?" For now, I will stick to my MX4s ($280) until maybe Max's come down in price.
As long as sound quality is top of class (which they appear to be) then to some extent the thing comes out to "is better pairing experience worth a $200-300 premium over something like Sony MX4s?" For now, I will stick to my MX4s ($280) until maybe Max's come down in price.
> I'm surprised he didn't mention anything about bluetooth pairing and general ease of use.
Gruber is writing primarily for people who are familiar with Apple's products. That they pair easily with multiple Apple devices is assumed based on the original AirPods. I suspect if there was any regression he'd have mentioned it.
Gruber is writing primarily for people who are familiar with Apple's products. That they pair easily with multiple Apple devices is assumed based on the original AirPods. I suspect if there was any regression he'd have mentioned it.
This is probably a result of the headphones being connected in headset mode, meaning the microphone is enabled. On Windows when you pair headphones which have a built in microphone you'll usually see two devices connected in the audio switcher, one for the headphones in headset mode and another for the headphones in listening mode only. Headset mode switches to the highly compressed SBC codec so it can transmit both input and output, but listening mode will usually switch to a less compressed codec like AptX, depending on your Windows device. Try pairing again and clicking on the volume button in the systray and see if you have another option for the headphones to switch to.
I just tried this out after getting off a call and it totally worked. Thank you!
I honestly thought the Headphones vs Headset was just a bluetooth/audio bug and now I feel like a dunce for installing new audio codecs to fix this issue when it was right in front of me the whole time. Sigh.
I honestly thought the Headphones vs Headset was just a bluetooth/audio bug and now I feel like a dunce for installing new audio codecs to fix this issue when it was right in front of me the whole time. Sigh.
Oof they're not water resistant? But they're headphones.. on your head.. outside!
I missed that one. I'll revisit them when they release the S/Pro/Max version.
Just saved future me a cool 500 quid, cheers John!
I missed that one. I'll revisit them when they release the S/Pro/Max version.
Just saved future me a cool 500 quid, cheers John!
I'd care more about sweat resistant to be honest.
Sweat corrodes stuff.
Sweat corrodes stuff.
I may be getting old but over-ear headphones still look weird to me outside. Besides the look I do not like not be be aware about the world around me.
One of the more unexpected things on a good pair of noise canceling headphones was hearing conversations on airplanes that folks thought were private. Eliminating some of the background hum almost feels like a super power at times. (And occasionally an unwanted one)
>I do not like not be be aware about the world around me
I don't even like wearing earbuds on a forest path. I really can't imagine over the ear headphones around a city, even sitting in public transit.
I don't even like wearing earbuds on a forest path. I really can't imagine over the ear headphones around a city, even sitting in public transit.
For those even remotely hard of hearing, the “transparency” mode on the Airpod Pro model _improves_ awareness of surroundings.
I admit I just got a pair but haven't really tried them out yet. I imagine it would take a lot of habit breaking for me to get comfortable with them walking around. If you're actually listening to music etc.--i.e. actually have a reason to have them in your ear--I think I'd still find it isolating.
Mythbuster Adam Savage has spoken about the improvement to his quality of life that hearing aids brought him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-Ptuq85R8Y
Not Airpods, but I wouldn't be surprised if Airpods offered similar qualities.
Not Airpods, but I wouldn't be surprised if Airpods offered similar qualities.
AirPods which have transparency mode can work as low end hearing aids. Not a suitable replacement for people who require hearing aids, but for people who have light to moderate hearing loss they help.
https://hearinghealthmatters.org/hearingnewswatch/2020/airpo...
https://hearinghealthmatters.org/hearingnewswatch/2020/airpo...
Similar to the Bose QC20. I have both, and am starting to prefer the APP, but batteries don't last as long. I keep using the QC20 wired some each week too.
In both cases those 'transparency modes' do filter out a bit of useless noise, and I do feel a bit more 'aware' of things/people outside me with that mode on. I've often thought that's also at least partially because I intentionally switch to that mode for a reason (then switch back to full noise cancelling when done).
In both cases those 'transparency modes' do filter out a bit of useless noise, and I do feel a bit more 'aware' of things/people outside me with that mode on. I've often thought that's also at least partially because I intentionally switch to that mode for a reason (then switch back to full noise cancelling when done).
To each their own, but over the ear headphones with noise cancellation make public transit much more enjoyable for me.
Same. The cacophony of NYC's subway system was starting to feel painful to me before I started wearing my QC35 IIs on the train every day. It's also healthy for your ears, since active noise cancellation literally blocks those loud noises from ever hitting your eardrums.
There are many consumer headphones with an “open air” design that let street noise in.
I live in a busy hipster neighborhood that’s also a major traffic hub... and I like it. I’m a city rat. The music is supposed to come with the roar of cars at a green light and the dozens of half heard conversations on busy sidewalks.
I have the-cheapest-model Sennheiser open airs and a with-mic-for-Zoom-calls JBL. The JBL absolutely isolates the environment mechanically. This is good for a meeting (except for the fact that you hear your voice from your skull, but heck.)
I live in a busy hipster neighborhood that’s also a major traffic hub... and I like it. I’m a city rat. The music is supposed to come with the roar of cars at a green light and the dozens of half heard conversations on busy sidewalks.
I have the-cheapest-model Sennheiser open airs and a with-mic-for-Zoom-calls JBL. The JBL absolutely isolates the environment mechanically. This is good for a meeting (except for the fact that you hear your voice from your skull, but heck.)
I'm not bothered by seeing people just out and about wearing big, probably expensive headphones, but seeing folks exercising even remotely strenuously in them is what I don't understand. I just can't deal with the thought of all that sweat soaking into the various soft parts of a nice pair of headphones.
"Over-the-ear" does not necessarily mean lack of awareness.
Basically you have two axis:
Size/Fit: Earbuds and myriad variations; Supra-aural (on ear), circumaural (over the ear)
Isolation: Circumaural/over-the-ear can be open-back or closed-back; and they can have various degrees of noise isolation and cancellation.
As for the look and age, it's really a subjective perspective - I personally feel I'm old enough not to care about wearing over-the-ear outside :D
Basically you have two axis:
Size/Fit: Earbuds and myriad variations; Supra-aural (on ear), circumaural (over the ear)
Isolation: Circumaural/over-the-ear can be open-back or closed-back; and they can have various degrees of noise isolation and cancellation.
As for the look and age, it's really a subjective perspective - I personally feel I'm old enough not to care about wearing over-the-ear outside :D
Over-ear headphones are older than earbuds, how do you relate this preference with getting old?
on-ear != over-ear
People have worn on-ear headphones since the early days of Sony Walkmans. Y'know, this kind: https://retrospekt.com/products/retro-orange-headphones
Wearing over-ear headphones in public wasn't really a thing until Beats and such came into fashion in the last 15 years or so.
People have worn on-ear headphones since the early days of Sony Walkmans. Y'know, this kind: https://retrospekt.com/products/retro-orange-headphones
Wearing over-ear headphones in public wasn't really a thing until Beats and such came into fashion in the last 15 years or so.
oh, I'm certain Over ear headphones were popular long before beats came along. as an example from the top of my mind I'd like to point to the 1999 music video "Freestyler" and I myself a teenager then was sporting them in the late 90ies early 00s
The wearing of them isn't, though. People were not hauling around their 70s hi-fi systems on roller carts to listen to music in their large headphones.
The original Walkman came with headphones [1], but they were light and fluffy. For a long time after, the trend was toward lighter, smaller. People wearing large headphones out and about are definitely a later wave.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2014/7/1/5861062/sony-walkman-at-35
The original Walkman came with headphones [1], but they were light and fluffy. For a long time after, the trend was toward lighter, smaller. People wearing large headphones out and about are definitely a later wave.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2014/7/1/5861062/sony-walkman-at-35
I was just about to write the same thing. Big headphones were of course the way most headphones were made initially. And it didn't matter until Sony released the Walkman allowing to have good audio in a mobile environment. For years though, they tried to make the headphones smaller, though being far away from todays in-ear phones.
I really think it was Beats what made people wear large headphones in the public.
If you’re old enough (and of the right subculture), you may have been hauling your 70s hi-fi system around, but not on roller-carts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boombox#/media/File%3AChicago_... (also stops any complaints about these being too large :-) )
There was a trend for a while in the 90s of people using Walkmans with big DJ style over-ear headphones. Maybe that's what they're talking about?
Bone conductive headphones are great if you want awareness. They don’t go in your ears, so no ear canal irritation either. Conversely, they are horrible at filtering out surrounding noises.
Yes, I'm still very "get off my lawn!" about it myself. Though I've gotten used to the sight of earbuds and myself wear (non Apple) earbuds.
Airpods looked daft when they first came out too. Apple makes fashion products
If I pay 500 quid for a pair of headphones I don't plan on removing them haha
Very true. I would never wear these things outside given that their overpriced and, currently, many young people in a year like this are unemployed. It's like begging to get robbed.
I know it’s popular in a lot of Japanese animes, but I’ve never seen anyone walking around with over ear headphones in real life. I see them mostly in open offices worn by developers trying to get some quiet while they are coding.
Might be a location thing. I see people (mostly high school and university students) wearing them pretty frequently.
That's really interesting, I see it all the time in NYC. Where are you located? Perhaps it has something to do with urban v suburban v rural? Or a cultural thing?
Close to downtown Seattle (Ballard). Even on the bus it isn't a thing (maybe its our climate?).
That's weird cause here in Texas I see them a lot and the only places I'm going right now are grocery stores, walmart/target, and home improvement stores.
If you took public transportation or go any place young people hang out you would see them too. (Malls or coffee shops)
If you took public transportation or go any place young people hang out you would see them too. (Malls or coffee shops)
I'd never seen anyone wearing AirPods (or indeed any wireless buds) until Apple told everyone to do it
All the wireless buds used to be those ones that were strung together at max wirelessness
All the wireless buds used to be those ones that were strung together at max wirelessness
To be fair all Apple products do come with the handy caption "Designed by Apple [for] California"
California is so diverse, though.
We've got the ocean, got the babes
Got the sun, we've got the waves
The mountains and the rain
And high-speed train
Why would you live anywhere else
We've got the ocean, got the babes
Got the sun, we've got the waves
The mountains and the rain
And high-speed train
Why would you live anywhere else
New Hampshire has all of that. As a bonus, you can actually buy a house and people don't defecate on the sidewalk
CA != SF && LA. New Hampshire is pretty far north, so good luck if you have seasonal effective disorder.
They also have poop on the sidewalk and typhus. The one place where you can work for the likes of Google and Facebook, make near six figures and still have to live in your car.
[deleted]
You had me until the high-speed train. I remember my time in SF fondly but it's got some real warts.
I have a pair of Parrot Zik Noise Canceling Bluetooth headphones. At 326g they are undeniably and uncomfortably heavy. It's not about the headband or earcups, it's the mass it gives your head when turning, leaning, moving. I don't use them because of the weight. At 384g, the Airpod max is about 15% heavier. I currently have a pulled neck as a result of too many hours sitting at my desk. I cannot fathom wearing such a heavy headphone for long stretches. It would be injurious. That Apple would release such a heavy headphone for mass consumption is truly bonkers to me, much crazier than the price.
My motorcycle helmet weighs 1.6kg and I can wear it all day in gale force winds without experiencing painful neck strain. Not to try to be yours or any one else's doctor, but I think there might be other things at play here than weight -- maybe posture, movement (or lack thereof), or something else entirely should be given more consideration.
I can wear a ski helmet all day, but that is in an athletic stance. I think the risk is in static posture with too much weight on my head. But that is exactly the scenario I would buy these for, so lighter weight is absolutely a selling point. I have other headphones under 300g that are fine all day.
Don't helmets have a completely different pattern of support? I think they're distributed over the entire head.
I'm curious if you have a multimonitor setup? The times I've dabbled with it I got neck/eye strain pretty quick from not only moving from left to right screens, but also just never being able to look straight ahead.
You should sit directly in front of a "main" monitor, and then have a secondary monitor alongside. Don't sit directly between two monitors!
> I currently have a pulled neck as a result of too many hours sitting at my desk.
I've found doing face pulls at the gym significantly helped build up all the supporting back/neck musculature that I was beating up sitting at a desk all day. Rows also were pretty helpful for my lower back.
I've found doing face pulls at the gym significantly helped build up all the supporting back/neck musculature that I was beating up sitting at a desk all day. Rows also were pretty helpful for my lower back.
If you're a desk jockey with bad posture you might not want to jump right in to face pulls. I'm a big fan of Athlean-X and all that, but I think a lot of folks aren't ready for even that level of workout. Some of us are so screwed up that the first thing we need is a couple months of foam rolling, scapular activation, awareness training, etc. If you go into face pulls without knowing what a face pull should feel like, you risk ending up with a shoulder issue.
I had shoulder surgery after blowing out my AC joint weightlifting. I went to one PT place that, while good in some areas, focused on strength of my rotators and neglected my mobility. My shoulders got worse after initially getting better and I thought I would need a second surgery. Fortunately I screwed up my lower back so I sought out a new PT place(Catherine at Fields in Motion, Campbell, CA) which not only fixed my back, but identified what was wrong with my shoulder and helped me fix it. It's only now, after months of flexibility and lower-trap strengthening that I know what a face pull is supposed to feel like.
Keep those sternums out, shoulders rolled back, and always keep your core activated(squeeze your cheeks and tighten abs) when you do anything physical. It seems so obvious now, but I went 45 years without figuring it out.
I had shoulder surgery after blowing out my AC joint weightlifting. I went to one PT place that, while good in some areas, focused on strength of my rotators and neglected my mobility. My shoulders got worse after initially getting better and I thought I would need a second surgery. Fortunately I screwed up my lower back so I sought out a new PT place(Catherine at Fields in Motion, Campbell, CA) which not only fixed my back, but identified what was wrong with my shoulder and helped me fix it. It's only now, after months of flexibility and lower-trap strengthening that I know what a face pull is supposed to feel like.
Keep those sternums out, shoulders rolled back, and always keep your core activated(squeeze your cheeks and tighten abs) when you do anything physical. It seems so obvious now, but I went 45 years without figuring it out.
Thanks so much! I will keep this all in mind.
I had to finally learn about face pulls when I was doing hundreds of pushups per day and a bodybuilder friend pointed out how my front/top delt was massive and my rear delt was soft and flat. And sure enough, looking at myself sideways in the mirror, it was pretty comical.
Though there are other ways to work the rear delt. I prefer some rings at home.
Though there are other ways to work the rear delt. I prefer some rings at home.
Never heard of a "face pull." Is this something you can do without gym equipment?
A face pull involves setting up a cable machine so you can pull a weight horizontally towards your face, until the handles you're pulling with wind up on either side of your head.
It'd be sort of difficult to do without equipment since it's a cable exercise. If you didn't mind buying some resistance bands, and have a reasonably stable point somewhere at head-height to loop them through as an anchor, you could do that at home. (It's an exercise that you're supposed to do with reasonably light weight, so it wouldn't need to be too sturdy.)
EDIT TO ADD: this article has some explicit advice on how to adjust it to do at home on resistance bands: https://athleanx.com/articles/shoulders-for-men/stop-doing-f...
It'd be sort of difficult to do without equipment since it's a cable exercise. If you didn't mind buying some resistance bands, and have a reasonably stable point somewhere at head-height to loop them through as an anchor, you could do that at home. (It's an exercise that you're supposed to do with reasonably light weight, so it wouldn't need to be too sturdy.)
EDIT TO ADD: this article has some explicit advice on how to adjust it to do at home on resistance bands: https://athleanx.com/articles/shoulders-for-men/stop-doing-f...
As a personal trainer, yes there are several movements that have the same effect as a Facepull without gym equipment. I would recommend "YTWL" movements in a prone (face down) position. Search YouTube for "YTWL"
It's actually better to start without equipment because those muscles are typically very weak for people who haven't specifically exercised those muscles
It's actually better to start without equipment because those muscles are typically very weak for people who haven't specifically exercised those muscles
Thanks so much for the recommendation!
I'd also like to know what a "face pull" is. My first thought was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurn
Doing the motion without weight should be therapeutic, or you could do it with very light dumbbells.
What a bunch of bad takes.
He complains it's too heavy, but then puts down other, lighter products made out of plastic.
He also puts down using it wired, even though it seems like a product to use at your desk (since it's heavy and doesn't have water resistance). Keep in mind, an audio cable is not included in the box, so maybe Apple is sending a signal to use it wirelessly.
Also, he doesn't think this device needs an off switch. This means you get to carry around the case just to put your device in standby. The case is an elaborate off button since it doesn't offer much protection.
He complains it's too heavy, but then puts down other, lighter products made out of plastic.
He also puts down using it wired, even though it seems like a product to use at your desk (since it's heavy and doesn't have water resistance). Keep in mind, an audio cable is not included in the box, so maybe Apple is sending a signal to use it wirelessly.
Also, he doesn't think this device needs an off switch. This means you get to carry around the case just to put your device in standby. The case is an elaborate off button since it doesn't offer much protection.
> He complains it's too heavy, but then puts down other, lighter products made out of plastic.
it's almost like he's describing various pros and cons so that the reader can decide which of those things matter to them.
it's almost like he's describing various pros and cons so that the reader can decide which of those things matter to them.
You can say something is heavier than something else, and feels more premium without contradicting yourself.
He says they are not meant for use as wired headphones primarily, so recommends against them if thats what you want. Seems reasonable.
Regarding the Switch he says: "I’m not saying they should, but it’s very Apple-like that they don’t." To me it seems like he is staying neutral on the need for an off Switch right now - just commenting that he's not surprised.
I don't think they are bad takes. They are tepid takes at worst!
He says they are not meant for use as wired headphones primarily, so recommends against them if thats what you want. Seems reasonable.
Regarding the Switch he says: "I’m not saying they should, but it’s very Apple-like that they don’t." To me it seems like he is staying neutral on the need for an off Switch right now - just commenting that he's not surprised.
I don't think they are bad takes. They are tepid takes at worst!
At this point I'm quite convinced that Apple includes controversial design decisions just to stand out and cause controversy, which is free marketing.
And it's working.
And it's working.
> He complains it's too heavy, but then puts down other, lighter products made out of plastic.
Well, yeah? That makes perfect sense, doesn't it? Metal ones are going to feel more solid and reliable than plastic, but will be heavier.
Well, yeah? That makes perfect sense, doesn't it? Metal ones are going to feel more solid and reliable than plastic, but will be heavier.
Complaining about both sides isn't really a take, is it? "I don't like any available option" isn't really worthwhile writing, is it?
It's neither "complaining" nor a "take". It is stating what the various pros and cons of different options are.
> "I don't like any available option" isn't really worthwhile writing, is it?
It is, because it tells product designers that there is a gap in the market that no one is serving, and that they could release a product to fill that void.
It is, because it tells product designers that there is a gap in the market that no one is serving, and that they could release a product to fill that void.
If he didn't write about it then Apple wouldn't keep sending him free shit.
>He complains it's too heavy, but then puts down other, lighter products made out of plastic.
It's in fact possible to list the pros and cons of something so the reader can decide for themselves which matter to them without forcing a specific opinion onto the reader.
It's in fact possible to list the pros and cons of something so the reader can decide for themselves which matter to them without forcing a specific opinion onto the reader.
I wonder if it is genuine weight, or just non-functional weight packed into the headphones to give the appearance of quality like that which was found on a Dr Dre Beats teardown. Be interesting to see a teardown of these.
I'm going to point something out that MKBHD mentioned in his first impressions I don't see anyone talking about: the "smart case" is the only way to turn the headphones off If you walk away from your desk or whatever without putting them into the case, they'll die after a few hours. There's no of button, they don't turn off when you disconnect from bluetooth, they don't turn off after a certain amount of inactivity.
This'd be an instant killer for me.
This'd be an instant killer for me.
> If you walk away from your desk or whatever without putting them into the case, they'll die after a few hours.
No, that's not what he said. They do enter "deep sleep" mode after a while, even without the case. Source in his video: https://youtu.be/UdfSrJvqY_E?t=458
No, that's not what he said. They do enter "deep sleep" mode after a while, even without the case. Source in his video: https://youtu.be/UdfSrJvqY_E?t=458
That's a good point that I misunderstood.
I'd still find it somewhat problematic that they'd wait 2 hours before going to sleep, but not the "my god how did they not think of this" issue I thought it was
I'd still find it somewhat problematic that they'd wait 2 hours before going to sleep, but not the "my god how did they not think of this" issue I thought it was
It seems to me that it's a bit more nuanced than that and likely that Apple has more smarts in there than you describe.
They have on-head/off-head detection and pause playback when you take them off, so that immediately reduces power draw. Presumably they also have an accelerometer and can go to sleep when they don't move for a few minutes.
The case induces a deeper sleep mode that preserves more power, turning off bluetooth, and the processor that's monitoring movement detection.
They have on-head/off-head detection and pause playback when you take them off, so that immediately reduces power draw. Presumably they also have an accelerometer and can go to sleep when they don't move for a few minutes.
The case induces a deeper sleep mode that preserves more power, turning off bluetooth, and the processor that's monitoring movement detection.
[deleted]
So my takeaway from this article is more or less these are expensive, heavy, great quality, and have great sound. We already know Apple's noise cancellation and transparency mode are pretty damned good from the AirPods Pro.
If these were about $200 less, I'd probably have pulled the trigger on these already. At $550, it's a pretty tough pill to swallow when fundamentally there are some damned good ANC headphones for quite a bit less.
For the moment anyhow, I don't watch TV on my iPad or phone enough for spatial audio to matter. So the only big features which make it stand above much more affordable competitors is: transparency mode, easy source switching, and overall niceness. Worth $200?? I kind of think no. Maybe I'll revisit this when more reviews are in and the wait time is less than 3 months to order them.
Edit: Gruber also mentioned this, but worth noting. They would be a lot more appealing if the Apple TV supported spatial audio.
If these were about $200 less, I'd probably have pulled the trigger on these already. At $550, it's a pretty tough pill to swallow when fundamentally there are some damned good ANC headphones for quite a bit less.
For the moment anyhow, I don't watch TV on my iPad or phone enough for spatial audio to matter. So the only big features which make it stand above much more affordable competitors is: transparency mode, easy source switching, and overall niceness. Worth $200?? I kind of think no. Maybe I'll revisit this when more reviews are in and the wait time is less than 3 months to order them.
Edit: Gruber also mentioned this, but worth noting. They would be a lot more appealing if the Apple TV supported spatial audio.
I imagine transparency mode could be really nice in an office setting, or at an airport or something. Not particularly relevant these days, but I can see that changing over the lifespan of the product.
My father in law has terribly bad hearing. He often watches TV with headphones on. I could see him wearing these with the volume cranked and transparency on so he can hear when other people talk to him.
IMO transparency mode is perhaps the most interesting thing about these and the AirPods Pro.
IMO transparency mode is perhaps the most interesting thing about these and the AirPods Pro.
> But: spatial audio only works (for now at least) when the video source is an iPhone or iPad. The AirPods (Pro or Max) know when your head is moving, but the source device needs to be location-aware too... it’s natural to want to use AirPods Max to watch a movie with the full spatial audio experience, as loud as you want, on the biggest screen in your house... But you can’t. You can only get this big room-sized audio experience with the small visual experience of an iPad or iPhone screen.
Even with the AirPods Pro, I'm so baffled by this.
Why does the source device need to be location-aware?
Wouldn't it be enough to just orient the spatial audio to something like your "median" head orientation? Obviously, the vast majority of the time you're watching something, you're looking at the screen.
Or for something fixed (like a TV), just click a button during setup while wearing your headphones saying "I'm looking directly at the center of the screen now."
I'm curious what I might be missing that makes it so critical for the source device to have an accelerometer and gyroscope.
(As a side note, I guess I also don't actually understand how your AirPods know how to orient themselves towards the direction of your device in the first place -- I don't believe they have an internal compass component.)
Even with the AirPods Pro, I'm so baffled by this.
Why does the source device need to be location-aware?
Wouldn't it be enough to just orient the spatial audio to something like your "median" head orientation? Obviously, the vast majority of the time you're watching something, you're looking at the screen.
Or for something fixed (like a TV), just click a button during setup while wearing your headphones saying "I'm looking directly at the center of the screen now."
I'm curious what I might be missing that makes it so critical for the source device to have an accelerometer and gyroscope.
(As a side note, I guess I also don't actually understand how your AirPods know how to orient themselves towards the direction of your device in the first place -- I don't believe they have an internal compass component.)
Accelerometer drift is a hard problem. You can experience it with VR headsets that have no base station, like Playstation VR. They require re-calibration every 10-30 minutes or so.
I assume that the iPhone/iPad is constantly re-calibrating user orientation using the camera and depth mapper.
I imagine two ways that Apple could make AirPods Max work with Apple TV:
1. Add a camera to the Apple TV. Some people would be uncomfortable with this.
2. Add an orientation base station to the Apple TV and add receivers to the headphones. This will increase weight, cost, and power consumption (battery weight).
It's possible that Apple already added the sensors. Has anyone done a teardown to look for orientation signal receiver chips?
I assume that the iPhone/iPad is constantly re-calibrating user orientation using the camera and depth mapper.
I imagine two ways that Apple could make AirPods Max work with Apple TV:
1. Add a camera to the Apple TV. Some people would be uncomfortable with this.
2. Add an orientation base station to the Apple TV and add receivers to the headphones. This will increase weight, cost, and power consumption (battery weight).
It's possible that Apple already added the sensors. Has anyone done a teardown to look for orientation signal receiver chips?
I don't think it's essential. The Audeze Mobius is able to do this without the source being location-aware. (In fact, IIRC it appears as a 7.1 speaker in your audio settings.)
Do the AirPods actually orient themselves towards your device, or just assume you're looking at it most of the time? I've noticed that the sound stage seems to recenter if I look away from the device for long enough when listening to some show on my iPad, and doing something else on a computer.
What you need is the location of both, at the same time, in 3D space relative to each other. Just a direction doesn't really work without distance.
What would could do, I suppose, is put the headphones on top of wherever "home" is and use that...
What would could do, I suppose, is put the headphones on top of wherever "home" is and use that...
>Once you get used to noise-canceling headphones on an airplane, there’s no going back
I tend to disagree. Most people underestimate good passive isolation and have never tried good closed back headphones.
Just spend $99 on Sennheiser HD280PRO, try them on a flight trip and make your own decision.
I tend to disagree. Most people underestimate good passive isolation and have never tried good closed back headphones.
Just spend $99 on Sennheiser HD280PRO, try them on a flight trip and make your own decision.
I disagree with your disagreement!
I've had good closed headphones before, and they're... okay... but nothing like a good active noise cancelling headphones.
For example, the Sony WH-1000XM3 is already a relatively good closed headphone! If you put one on with the noise cancelling disabled, it still provides a quite decent amount of isolation. But then instant you press that little switch... near total silence.
I used to tell people that first class tickets on planes are a waste of money because: You're still on a plane, it's still noisy, you just get better food.
But now with my Sony headphones, cattle class feels like first class. It's bliss: I can sleep. I can watch movies and actually understand what people are saying. I can read a book without feeling like there's a running hair dryer behind my head the whole time. The cries of babies are completely inaudible.
I've had good closed headphones before, and they're... okay... but nothing like a good active noise cancelling headphones.
For example, the Sony WH-1000XM3 is already a relatively good closed headphone! If you put one on with the noise cancelling disabled, it still provides a quite decent amount of isolation. But then instant you press that little switch... near total silence.
I used to tell people that first class tickets on planes are a waste of money because: You're still on a plane, it's still noisy, you just get better food.
But now with my Sony headphones, cattle class feels like first class. It's bliss: I can sleep. I can watch movies and actually understand what people are saying. I can read a book without feeling like there's a running hair dryer behind my head the whole time. The cries of babies are completely inaudible.
> I used to tell people that first class tickets on planes are a waste of money because: You're still on a plane, it's still noisy, you just get better food.
You also get more legroom and a less cramped seat.
If you're flying "only" five hours this may not be a big deal. If you're flying >10 hours (e.g., across the Pacific), then it can make a huge difference to comfort.
You also get more legroom and a less cramped seat.
If you're flying "only" five hours this may not be a big deal. If you're flying >10 hours (e.g., across the Pacific), then it can make a huge difference to comfort.
Depends how much you value the extra money.
First is nice when I get upgraded, but I'd rather take say Qatar Business than BA first.
That said, the headphones I has on a US Airways Business from Manchester to Philidelphia were amazing - far better than the BA ones, so much that I bought a pair (QC25s) while I was in the States.
What with 2020 I haven't been on a plane for over a year now, and I've been on 3 trips on a train, so I've basically forgotten what "out and about" headphones are like. I do wear one on my ear if I'm watching something in bed (hook over ear). Never seen any wireless ones, fortunately I haven't downgraded from my iphone SE so can still use them.
First is nice when I get upgraded, but I'd rather take say Qatar Business than BA first.
That said, the headphones I has on a US Airways Business from Manchester to Philidelphia were amazing - far better than the BA ones, so much that I bought a pair (QC25s) while I was in the States.
What with 2020 I haven't been on a plane for over a year now, and I've been on 3 trips on a train, so I've basically forgotten what "out and about" headphones are like. I do wear one on my ear if I'm watching something in bed (hook over ear). Never seen any wireless ones, fortunately I haven't downgraded from my iphone SE so can still use them.
> First is nice when I get upgraded, but I'd rather take say Qatar Business than BA first.
Yes: for some reason I missed "first".
The upgrade to at least business is probably worth it (budget permitting) for flights ≥8 hours, but going to first is probably diminishing returns.
Yes: for some reason I missed "first".
The upgrade to at least business is probably worth it (budget permitting) for flights ≥8 hours, but going to first is probably diminishing returns.
>I used to tell people that first class tickets on planes are a waste of money because: You're still on a plane, it's still noisy, you just get better food.
You get much more leg room. You are getting much more space than an economy.
You get much more leg room. You are getting much more space than an economy.
If you aren't tall and you stretch your legs from time to time, it's not a big thing.
Now, business class or whatever they call the thing where you can recline your seat almost horizontally, that's something. I can't really sleep sitting.
Now, business class or whatever they call the thing where you can recline your seat almost horizontally, that's something. I can't really sleep sitting.
Good business class configurations allow you to lie completely flat.
Depending on the configuration you may have a real (narrow) bed feeling, or you may be lying in a sort of tube with not much space to move, but definitely completely flat.
If the price is not outrageous I always go for a business flight on long haul.
Depending on the configuration you may have a real (narrow) bed feeling, or you may be lying in a sort of tube with not much space to move, but definitely completely flat.
If the price is not outrageous I always go for a business flight on long haul.
The price delta is usually in the thousands of dollars though. That said, especially for trans-Pacific I'll often try to get an upgrade using a combination of miles and dollars.
I know, often the prices are absurd.
Absurd means in the 6000$ range from Europe to Asia and I agree that's over the top compared to, say, 700$ economy with a reasonable airline.
Then again upgrading is an option and sometimes really great bargains can be found.
I flew Zurich Bangkok return with Oman Air in business for less than 2'000 in February. In my opinion a very reasonable price for a great product.
Absurd means in the 6000$ range from Europe to Asia and I agree that's over the top compared to, say, 700$ economy with a reasonable airline.
Then again upgrading is an option and sometimes really great bargains can be found.
I flew Zurich Bangkok return with Oman Air in business for less than 2'000 in February. In my opinion a very reasonable price for a great product.
It amuses me that there are people think "nah I won't spend the extra $3k to make my trip livable" while working an industry where 30 year olds are paid $500k a year for writing a bit of javascript.
Why would the amount other people in my industry make have an impact on what I can afford? Much less whether I'd put up with a little discomfort for an extra $3k in my pocket.
Also funny how you yourself come up with the ridiculous salary of $500k, something ~nobody here will ever make, as the amount that finally makes $3k sound trivial to you. I agree with that much. That's the salary that would make me finally consider paying $3k for leg room.
Also funny how you yourself come up with the ridiculous salary of $500k, something ~nobody here will ever make, as the amount that finally makes $3k sound trivial to you. I agree with that much. That's the salary that would make me finally consider paying $3k for leg room.
Most people in tech are not making $500K to write Javascript or anything else. And, even if you make a fair bit of money, $3K isn't a trivial sum to make even 12-16 hours of air travel a bit more comfortable. (It still isn't exactly fun even up front.) I do sometimes use miles and a co-pay to upgrade when I can but, generally speaking, I can get a lot more bang out of that money on other things whether meals or other experiences.
That's limited to the US West Coast, almost exclusively.
You need to be level 7+ in a FAANG anywhere else in the world to make anything near that. And you definitely won't be there with "a bit of Javascript".
You need to be level 7+ in a FAANG anywhere else in the world to make anything near that. And you definitely won't be there with "a bit of Javascript".
>the Sony WH-1000XM3 is already a relatively good closed headphone
It is not. It is a great Bluetooth/NC headphone but certainly not a good closed one compared to other closed back phones specifically built for passive isolation. It is also targeted at consumers.
Have you actually tried the HD280PRO I specifically talked about? It is a professional headphone that is very popular with drummers for a reason.
It is not. It is a great Bluetooth/NC headphone but certainly not a good closed one compared to other closed back phones specifically built for passive isolation. It is also targeted at consumers.
Have you actually tried the HD280PRO I specifically talked about? It is a professional headphone that is very popular with drummers for a reason.
> It is also targeted at consumers
i smell audiophile
I own the xm3, i own the Beyerdynamic DT770 which is way more popular with studios and drummers; passive isolation vs ANC is not even a discussion
I own the xm3, i own the Beyerdynamic DT770 which is way more popular with studios and drummers; passive isolation vs ANC is not even a discussion
I own xm3, DT770 and HD280 (and several other headphones). The difference in passive isolation between DT770 and HD280 is night and day.
But maybe this is just me :-)
But maybe this is just me :-)
You're arguing with someone who said the Sony headphones are relatively good, and saying they are not because there are better headphones out there? Also, you're arguing with someone who claims they are satisfied with the Sony headphones? Should they not be satisfied?
All I am saying is that NC should not be seen as the holy grail. If you look at my original comment I just said
1. Buy a good pair of closed back headphones 2. Take them on a flight 3. Make your choice
If AFTER you have done this, you still prefer NC (and are willing to pay it) then fine by me.
1. Buy a good pair of closed back headphones 2. Take them on a flight 3. Make your choice
If AFTER you have done this, you still prefer NC (and are willing to pay it) then fine by me.
I noticed their website mentions up to 32 dB attenuation. What does this mean in practice? A set of 3M Peltor X5 earmuffs have only 31 dB NRR, and NRR is a standard metric for ear protection. The Sennheisers don’t look anywhere near as isolating as the 3M muffs. Personally I use the construction earmuffs for drumming.
Perhaps a bit off topic, but I am truly unable to use active noise-cancelling headphones. I'm not sure if it's just me being sensitive or if this is common:
Whenever I tried using noise cancelling headphones, I always felt what I can only describe as a high air pressure in my ears. The best I can describe it is the feeling of needing to pop my ears but popping them providing zero relief.
Is this common at all? Does everyone feel this but somehow are able to ignore it?
Anyway fully agree that good passive isolation goes a long way!
Whenever I tried using noise cancelling headphones, I always felt what I can only describe as a high air pressure in my ears. The best I can describe it is the feeling of needing to pop my ears but popping them providing zero relief.
Is this common at all? Does everyone feel this but somehow are able to ignore it?
Anyway fully agree that good passive isolation goes a long way!
I had this feeling aswell, but the noice reduction was worth it for me. After a week or two of much usage at the office the feeling went away. So, atleast for me, getting used to them helped.
This is a pretty common complaint, I've seen numbers as high as 18-20% feel some sort of pressure, and upwards of 50-60% of those people feel enough discomfort that they don't use ANC.
I feel pressure almost immediately but it doesn't the level of even mild discomfort until 7-8 hours of continuous use (my employer provides a pair that have an ANC option). Even then I can deal with it for longer if I'm watching a movie or something after work.
I feel pressure almost immediately but it doesn't the level of even mild discomfort until 7-8 hours of continuous use (my employer provides a pair that have an ANC option). Even then I can deal with it for longer if I'm watching a movie or something after work.
For a long time I thought that this was the case for me too and stuck with passive noise cancelling headphones. Then I tried the Sony 1000MX3s and didn't experience that issue, and I realized I had only really ever tried the Bose QuietComforts before. If you haven't already, it could be worth trying different brands to see if the issue persists across different noise cancelling systems!
But if the issue is only a technology or firmware issue what exactly causes it? Is it like a standing wave of pressure below or above hearing range? The mistery bothers me as much as experiencing it.
I did some reading on this before I bought my last headphones and AFAIR , the cause seems to be that not all frequencies can be canceled to the same extent. It’s not actual pressure on your eardrums, but the effect triggers that feeling. Different headphones have different characteristics, so it’s worthwhile trying different models.
Yes it happens to a lot of people (but not all).
If you fall into this camp, then passive isolation is the only viable choice for you.
If you fall into this camp, then passive isolation is the only viable choice for you.
The following article goes into the technical details of this phenomenon. TLDR: it's harmless, caused by an unnatural increase in volume as you move across the frequency spectrum (from great noise cancellation at low frequencies to nearly none at mid-frequencies).
https://www.soundstagesolo.com/index.php/features/178-eardru...
Earbuds don't tend to exhibit it nearly as much as headphones.
https://www.soundstagesolo.com/index.php/features/178-eardru...
Earbuds don't tend to exhibit it nearly as much as headphones.
Thanks for putting an end to the mistery! Great write up!
yeah, I find active noise cancellation bothers my ears too. Back when going to offices was a thing, I would keep multiple sets of headphones at my desk: an open-back headphone for really clear sound quality that lets sound through so that I could hear people if they tried talking to me (I like the AKG K240 MKII's for this but beware you need a headphone amp for these), and closed-back headphones when I'm finding the external noise distracting. For passive isolation I use Vic Firth's isolation headphones, they're designed for drummers to use for monitoring while recording drum tracks. https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/IsoHdphV2--vic-firth...
also if you already have earbuds that you like but they don't give you enough isolation, you can always wear earbuds under construction earmuffs, which is what I was doing before getting the Vic Firth isolation headphones.
also if you already have earbuds that you like but they don't give you enough isolation, you can always wear earbuds under construction earmuffs, which is what I was doing before getting the Vic Firth isolation headphones.
[deleted]
I have the same issue. I pretty much only use the noise cancellation on planes where it doesn't have that effect for me.
That’s a common experience. I could only wear Bose QC on a plane, where the trade of was worth it.
Interestingly the AirPods Pro are explicitly engineered to avoid this, and I don’t have this problem with them.
I wonder what the deal is with the Airpods Max?
Interestingly the AirPods Pro are explicitly engineered to avoid this, and I don’t have this problem with them.
I wonder what the deal is with the Airpods Max?
I get the same feeling with Bose QC IIs, but on planes it's worth the quiet. That being said IEMs and actual earmuffs work pretty well too if you don't mind looking a bit silly.
I've literally never heard anyone make this argument before. It's wild.
Nice Sennheiser over-ear cans are okay on a plane, but honestly aren't as good as solid in-ear options (e.g., Etymotic).
Sennheisers (or others) with ANC that are also over ear are FAR AND AWAY superior. It's astonishing how nice it is for the drone of the plane to just VANISH vs. being merely muffled.
Nice Sennheiser over-ear cans are okay on a plane, but honestly aren't as good as solid in-ear options (e.g., Etymotic).
Sennheisers (or others) with ANC that are also over ear are FAR AND AWAY superior. It's astonishing how nice it is for the drone of the plane to just VANISH vs. being merely muffled.
I'm not sure what you're aiming for here.
Is your claim that Sennheiser HD280PRO headphones do a better job than these? Because I've got a pair, and I agree 100% with the author: the first time I tried some noise-canceling headphones was the last time I took my HD280PROs on a flight.
If that's not your claim, then it doesn't seem like your statement makes any sense.
Sure, HD280PROs are better than not wearing anything over your ears. But the flying experience is dramatically different once you have active noise-cancelling headphones, so different that, euphemistically speaking, there's no going back.
Is your claim that Sennheiser HD280PRO headphones do a better job than these? Because I've got a pair, and I agree 100% with the author: the first time I tried some noise-canceling headphones was the last time I took my HD280PROs on a flight.
If that's not your claim, then it doesn't seem like your statement makes any sense.
Sure, HD280PROs are better than not wearing anything over your ears. But the flying experience is dramatically different once you have active noise-cancelling headphones, so different that, euphemistically speaking, there's no going back.
I honestly have to assume you've never used ANC headphones on a plane if you're making this claim. As someone who does own the HD280PRO and several ANC headphones, there's no comparison at all for environments with a repetitive droning noise like an airplane.
Seconded; I'd also recommend Etymotic Research's line of earbuds, which combine earbuds and earplugs, including replaceable foam inserts.
Passive isolation most noticeably outperforms noise-cancelling for transient noises.
Passive isolation most noticeably outperforms noise-cancelling for transient noises.
Yep, Etymotics are absolutely the gold standard in my opinion if you want a high quality sound experience while traveling (train, plane, etc.) I've had a crying baby directly in the seat in front of me for most of a 10 hour flight and didn't hear it with music on at a reasonable volume.
And the sound quality is really excellent for the price.
And the sound quality is really excellent for the price.
To provide a view from the opposite end of this spectrum, I use noise-canceling headphones over passive custom-fit earplugs on flights.
That is enormously different than my experience and I felt the need to respond because this is not healthy advice for your hearing. I have good closed back headphones and IEMs that isolate very well. My experience is that the airplane noise forces me to turn up the volume to unsafe levels and the audio quality is destroyed as well. Active Noise Canceling is a bit of absolute magic on the plane. The jet noise is almost eliminated and you can listen at safe levels with high fidelity. Plus, sustained loud noise can exacerbate jet lag. Having a quiet environment reduces post-flight fatigue. You're really doing yourself a disservice if you fly regularly without ANC.
For me at least, good noise canceling headphones make flying even quieter than the maximum rated earplugs I could find (because low frequency hum goes through almost any material)
I have a pair of in-ear headphones that isolate sound better than any Bose I've ever tried. It's just a matter of finding the right tip size to create a seal. My tips actually make a popping noise when I pull them out.
I have owned multiple pairs of that exact model. For $99 it's a great deal (they can take a beating... but not several beatings). But come on, the isolation is not even close, even to noise cancelling ear buds.
I own both the Sennheiser HD 280 Pro and the Bose QC35 II. The active noise cancelling Bose headphones are vastly better on a plane trip. The HD 280 Pros are just not very good at reducing ambient noise.
But passive isolation will allways struggle with low-frequency-sounds. Motor-sounds, like the engine on an airplane, is easy for active NC - while passive struggles with it.
I agree that good closed back over the ear headphones work well. The issue for me is that I travel light and never take something that big and heavy to use when flying.
Agreed. But the original article is about Airpods Max which are not small either. And he specifically talks about how heavy they are.
True. And I'd never buy a pair for that reason. (I wouldn't want them for travel and I don't need wireless or noise canceling for home.) For travel, I have in-ear Bose and (now) Airpod Pros. I wasn't interested in the original Bose over-ear for the same reason.
> “Oh, that’s a nice button. It has a good click.”
> “Is it a $550 click?” I asked.
> He clicked it a few more times.
> “It’s not not a $550 click.”
This is the most Gruber line ever. I can just imagine John thinking, 'My work here is done'.
> “Is it a $550 click?” I asked.
> He clicked it a few more times.
> “It’s not not a $550 click.”
This is the most Gruber line ever. I can just imagine John thinking, 'My work here is done'.
This is another odd product from Apple.
The verbiage makes it sound high end, but they're decidedly not talking to people who already spend a lot of money on headphones. There are some audiophiles using wireless these days, but always lossless. Apple has, to that market's dismay, been using lossy bluetooth. The silence here suggests they still are.
It's too expensive for the 'anything that works' crowd but is definitely not an audiophile product. Noise cancellation? Crowded market. Not sure where else this could fit in.
It's similar to the Apple watch. On the low end it really doesn't have any competition. Other smart watches look awful in comparison and you get a lot for $400 or whatever they cost.
But the high end of their range? I know zero watch people who have swapped their mechanical watch for a high end Apple watch. They might wear a low end one occasionally, but an expensive watch that has to be plugged in daily -- well, that's electronic at all -- is the antithesis of high end watches.
More succinctly: An audiophile AirPods is like an Hermes Apple Watch. Cringey, expensive, but will probably find an audience somewhere in the gap between low income and high taste.
The verbiage makes it sound high end, but they're decidedly not talking to people who already spend a lot of money on headphones. There are some audiophiles using wireless these days, but always lossless. Apple has, to that market's dismay, been using lossy bluetooth. The silence here suggests they still are.
It's too expensive for the 'anything that works' crowd but is definitely not an audiophile product. Noise cancellation? Crowded market. Not sure where else this could fit in.
It's similar to the Apple watch. On the low end it really doesn't have any competition. Other smart watches look awful in comparison and you get a lot for $400 or whatever they cost.
But the high end of their range? I know zero watch people who have swapped their mechanical watch for a high end Apple watch. They might wear a low end one occasionally, but an expensive watch that has to be plugged in daily -- well, that's electronic at all -- is the antithesis of high end watches.
More succinctly: An audiophile AirPods is like an Hermes Apple Watch. Cringey, expensive, but will probably find an audience somewhere in the gap between low income and high taste.
This isn't an audiophile product. It's a status symbol marketed at the same people who own an iPhone and beats. People who have money and would like everyone else to know it.
Put it this way, the weight of these headphones is between that of an iPad Mini and iPad Air
As a motorcyclist the weight of a helmet is a real concern usually rivaling the safety rating but always higher than airflow which itself is high on the list.
I really do not see myself wearing any set of headphones that weigh this much, the XM4s by Sony are noticeable so weighing half again more has to really stand out. That he emphasized their inertia pretty much eliminates them completely.
I still really feel that the team involved here reached a ship it or shelve deadline after four years of development. Even the case looks like a last minute tie in which reveals two other sore points, they don't fold and they don't have a means to turn them off outside the case.
As a motorcyclist the weight of a helmet is a real concern usually rivaling the safety rating but always higher than airflow which itself is high on the list.
I really do not see myself wearing any set of headphones that weigh this much, the XM4s by Sony are noticeable so weighing half again more has to really stand out. That he emphasized their inertia pretty much eliminates them completely.
I still really feel that the team involved here reached a ship it or shelve deadline after four years of development. Even the case looks like a last minute tie in which reveals two other sore points, they don't fold and they don't have a means to turn them off outside the case.
There is something "obscene" about +500 USD headphones. I assume they are very nice, but seeing this kind of news and seeing the heavy suffering in the world right now leaves me with a bad after-taste. Like reading Glamour magazine in a public kitchen.
I don't get this reaction.
You and the average HNer have all sorts of spending excesses in your life from rent to UberEats to your phone to your vehicle to your grocery lists to your hobbies to the things you buy your children to all the crap in your house that dwarf the price of some nice headphones.
Scraping together $500 is not a lot for something you will use daily for years. I think it's a better investment than a TV. The only difference is that you apparently don't want them.
For some reason people will scrutinize the price of something they don't want while being blind to how much they spend on all the things they do want.
e.g. we don't have to go very far back in time to have tallied up $500 you've spent in your life on unneeded food that gave you seconds of pleasure only to be shat out hours later, yet you're disgusted how someone else might choose to spend their $500, and on something like a tech gadget. It's a very weird judgemental reflex and quite a bit obnoxious to see.
You and the average HNer have all sorts of spending excesses in your life from rent to UberEats to your phone to your vehicle to your grocery lists to your hobbies to the things you buy your children to all the crap in your house that dwarf the price of some nice headphones.
Scraping together $500 is not a lot for something you will use daily for years. I think it's a better investment than a TV. The only difference is that you apparently don't want them.
For some reason people will scrutinize the price of something they don't want while being blind to how much they spend on all the things they do want.
e.g. we don't have to go very far back in time to have tallied up $500 you've spent in your life on unneeded food that gave you seconds of pleasure only to be shat out hours later, yet you're disgusted how someone else might choose to spend their $500, and on something like a tech gadget. It's a very weird judgemental reflex and quite a bit obnoxious to see.
I think it's natural and healthy to have a revulsion towards unnecessary excess.
It's not that they're $550, it's that they don't need to be $550. Choosing higher quality groceries, ordering delivery instead of going out during a pandemic, or even just buying things that will bring you and your children joy is on a different level than "I will get these $500 headphones instead of the $300 ones that do the same thing just because I can afford them".
Even if you're not explicitly trying to be as moral as possible with every purchase, there is a tangible difference between buying things that will improve your life or the lives of those around you, and buying things that are expensive just because you can.
It's not that they're $550, it's that they don't need to be $550. Choosing higher quality groceries, ordering delivery instead of going out during a pandemic, or even just buying things that will bring you and your children joy is on a different level than "I will get these $500 headphones instead of the $300 ones that do the same thing just because I can afford them".
Even if you're not explicitly trying to be as moral as possible with every purchase, there is a tangible difference between buying things that will improve your life or the lives of those around you, and buying things that are expensive just because you can.
> that will bring you and your children joy is in a different level
This oddly assumes in this example that somehow the Airpods Max don't bring a person joy because of the price tag
It's no different comparing cars or any other items. Option A can do what Option B does but is cheaper. People buy B because they want to. Why would this be any different here.
Anyone who doesn't want to spend $550 on headphones don't have to.
> "I will get these $500 headphones instead of the $300 ones that can do the same thing just because I can afford them"
But that isn't entirely true. If you want over ear headphones that support Spatial Audio, these are the only option.
I'm not saying Airpods Max being this expensive makes sense. I'm not saying they are definitively better. But there are differences and regardless, not a good reason to be repulsed about pricing. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
This oddly assumes in this example that somehow the Airpods Max don't bring a person joy because of the price tag
It's no different comparing cars or any other items. Option A can do what Option B does but is cheaper. People buy B because they want to. Why would this be any different here.
Anyone who doesn't want to spend $550 on headphones don't have to.
> "I will get these $500 headphones instead of the $300 ones that can do the same thing just because I can afford them"
But that isn't entirely true. If you want over ear headphones that support Spatial Audio, these are the only option.
I'm not saying Airpods Max being this expensive makes sense. I'm not saying they are definitively better. But there are differences and regardless, not a good reason to be repulsed about pricing. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
It's on a different level for you.
Be careful who you talk to. The average salary in my country is 1 USD/month. I am currently below that average.
Would you be so kind and say what kind of country that is? Looking through many reports online i see the lowest in the world being reported as $520 anually in central african countries. I don't mean to accuse you just genuinely curious.
Also interesting because in a comment some time ago you mentioned. [0]
> I worked for a top-20 Fortune company
So I assume you might be trying to be sarcastic with this 1 USD
Yeah I agree parent is making a lot of assumptions about the average commenter of HN but they might not be far off seeing many of us are connected somehow to the Tech Sector which well paid around the world.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25172551
Also interesting because in a comment some time ago you mentioned. [0]
> I worked for a top-20 Fortune company
So I assume you might be trying to be sarcastic with this 1 USD
Yeah I agree parent is making a lot of assumptions about the average commenter of HN but they might not be far off seeing many of us are connected somehow to the Tech Sector which well paid around the world.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25172551
Sorry, I made a mistake, it's 0.92 USD/month
https://www.dw.com/es/salario-m%C3%ADnimo-en-venezuela-092-d...
> Also interesting because in a comment some time ago you mentioned.
Nice work there Sherlock. I assume your sharp mind realized that I used the past tense.Life is complicated, not everybody is a 20 something yo working for a FAANG.
Anything else that I can be useful to you sir?
https://www.dw.com/es/salario-m%C3%ADnimo-en-venezuela-092-d...
> Also interesting because in a comment some time ago you mentioned.
Nice work there Sherlock. I assume your sharp mind realized that I used the past tense.Life is complicated, not everybody is a 20 something yo working for a FAANG.
Anything else that I can be useful to you sir?
For a consumer oriented product? Maybe. But if you ever look into high-end headphones you'll find that there's a stupidly large amount of models in the $1000-5000 range. $500 is a midrange price bracket.
Yes, but without a wire you can't achieve ultra-high sample rates or do studio mastering, so these are pointless for the high-end. Source: currently own six pairs of professional headphones.
I'm not questioning that these headphones are a pretty bad deal, just mentioning that $500 is nothing special for headphones.
Also the high end is a lot more than just pro headphones, in fact I'll go ahead and claim that most mastering-oriented headphones (not that many, I'll give you that) I heard tend to have a tonality that I dislike.
Also the high end is a lot more than just pro headphones, in fact I'll go ahead and claim that most mastering-oriented headphones (not that many, I'll give you that) I heard tend to have a tonality that I dislike.
Interesting point! Tech has traditionally had the wonderful property of empowering the rich and the poor similarly - the president of the USA uses the same (technologically) TV, phone etc. as most others in the country. The gap in non tech aspects are widely different between the ultra rich and commoners. Apple's obscenely expensive tech adds a weird wedge in tech between the haves and have nots.
I expect the rest of the industry to copy Apple to make affordable versions of this product as has been the case with other products, so it should be a net positive for humanity.
I expect the rest of the industry to copy Apple to make affordable versions of this product as has been the case with other products, so it should be a net positive for humanity.
Is it obscene to buy a thousand dollar laptop when 500 dollar laptops are fine for most users? $500 for headphones seems like a very arbitrary standard for what is excessive. A billion people live on a dollar a day. They would consider spending $50 -- or even $15 -- on a restaurant meal to be obscene. It's all relative.
> Is it obscene to buy a thousand dollar laptop when 500 dollar laptops are fine for most users?
It probably is.
> $500 for headphones seems like a very arbitrary standard for what is excessive.
You could say that about any number. "Raise the minimum wage to 100 USD/h" "That's excessive" "100 for an hourly minimum wage seems like a very arbitrary standard for what is excessive" There is 0 insight there.
> They would consider spending $50 -- or even $15 -- on a restaurant meal to be obscene.
Yes those dumb poor people cannot see the difference between a 15 USD meal satisfying a human unavoidable necessity and a +500 luxury item.
> It's all relative.
So Einstenian of you.
It probably is.
> $500 for headphones seems like a very arbitrary standard for what is excessive.
You could say that about any number. "Raise the minimum wage to 100 USD/h" "That's excessive" "100 for an hourly minimum wage seems like a very arbitrary standard for what is excessive" There is 0 insight there.
> They would consider spending $50 -- or even $15 -- on a restaurant meal to be obscene.
Yes those dumb poor people cannot see the difference between a 15 USD meal satisfying a human unavoidable necessity and a +500 luxury item.
> It's all relative.
So Einstenian of you.
Not that I think that the price is right for these Apple headphones, but at $550 they are not on the high end. Just a quick search turns up these Sennheisers that are $1400 on Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/Sennheiser-HD-800-Reference-Headphone...
I think if a device is a professional tool, as in a studio monitoring headphone one would wear while doing music production or mastering, it's not obscene. That said, these have no such use case, the lack of a wire means: a) latency that isn't acceptable, and b) inability to master with high sample rates.
These definitely are in the "gadget" rather than "tool" category, and while there may be worse things to spend money on, or better ways to distribute wealth, I won't disagree that these headphones belong in the same category as Gucci handbags.
These definitely are in the "gadget" rather than "tool" category, and while there may be worse things to spend money on, or better ways to distribute wealth, I won't disagree that these headphones belong in the same category as Gucci handbags.
My read with these is that their real purpose is to serve as a compact spatial-audio surround-sound studio monitor setup — i.e. something you buy to use at a DAW, instead of having to outfit an editing booth with a real 7.1 setup.
Making headphones out of metal with magnetically-adhered foam ear-cups makes a lot more sense when several people are going to be sharing them — i.e. a rotation of producers working in the same editing booth, where the headphones belong to the booth, not to the user. Metal is a lot easier to disinfect than plastic, and each user could have their own personal set of earcups, swapped often, without that wearing down any latching hardware. And the weight isn’t a problem if you’re just using them at a desk. High-impedance studio monitors are always heavy!
No current Mac can actually work with these headphones, but I don’t think the idea is that everyone is supposed to DAW on their iPads; rather, I presume that these headphones are meant to presage that the next Apple Silicon pro-level Macs will have the right features to support working in regular desktop DAW software with these headphones. (It's curious, though, that they released them well ahead of announcing those new Macs. They could have just put the announcements together.)
Making headphones out of metal with magnetically-adhered foam ear-cups makes a lot more sense when several people are going to be sharing them — i.e. a rotation of producers working in the same editing booth, where the headphones belong to the booth, not to the user. Metal is a lot easier to disinfect than plastic, and each user could have their own personal set of earcups, swapped often, without that wearing down any latching hardware. And the weight isn’t a problem if you’re just using them at a desk. High-impedance studio monitors are always heavy!
No current Mac can actually work with these headphones, but I don’t think the idea is that everyone is supposed to DAW on their iPads; rather, I presume that these headphones are meant to presage that the next Apple Silicon pro-level Macs will have the right features to support working in regular desktop DAW software with these headphones. (It's curious, though, that they released them well ahead of announcing those new Macs. They could have just put the announcements together.)
Likewise perhaps the next generation Apple TV.
I've switched out a heavy set of over-ear headphones specifically because they were too heavy for me, and would make my neck feel uncomfortable after some time.
Also, don't knock earbuds as being innately less noise-cancelling than over-ear headphones - in-ear monitors (IEMs) that enter your ear canal and produce a good seal can passively filter a great deal of sound, musicians use them all the time and I used to wear my pair (without any active noise cancellation) on airplanes—they work at least 75% as well as Airpods Pro active cancellation does, while sounding really great.
But after a long period of listening like on a long-haul flight, the physical pressure of those get tiring on my ears... and active noise cancellation also makes my ears tired after a while too... so seems there's no silver bullet. Honestly I've just gone to not using headphones of any kind for extended periods of time and listening with speakers whenever practical.
Also, don't knock earbuds as being innately less noise-cancelling than over-ear headphones - in-ear monitors (IEMs) that enter your ear canal and produce a good seal can passively filter a great deal of sound, musicians use them all the time and I used to wear my pair (without any active noise cancellation) on airplanes—they work at least 75% as well as Airpods Pro active cancellation does, while sounding really great.
But after a long period of listening like on a long-haul flight, the physical pressure of those get tiring on my ears... and active noise cancellation also makes my ears tired after a while too... so seems there's no silver bullet. Honestly I've just gone to not using headphones of any kind for extended periods of time and listening with speakers whenever practical.
I think they only feel heavy because the reviewer was wearing them wrong.
I can't tell if you are joking or not : https://www.wired.com/2010/06/iphone-4-holding-it-wrong/
Beats has been accused of adding weight to their headphones in the past that serves no obvious function other than to give them a premium feel.
It will be interesting to see the teardown video.
It will be interesting to see the teardown video.
I get what you're saying, but I'd be very surprised if they added extra weight in these ones. They're made of solid metal and have magnets to hold the ear pads in. I imagine that's enough to account for their weight.
I don't get why Apple haven't added source independent spatial audio. Like Audeze did with Mobius. The headphones use accelerometer and gyroscope (which AirPods have too I presume), and position the center of the audio to where you are looking. You can re-center it with a button press. And it works pretty well!
So, the hardware is all there. Apple could have done the same, bringing spatial audio to whatever place you want.
So, the hardware is all there. Apple could have done the same, bringing spatial audio to whatever place you want.
I also have the Audeze Mobius headset and I pair it with my Apple TV to watch movies, and it's a really great experience..
I've had these for 2+ years and I tell people "you forget that you're wearing headphones" and that's exactly how Gruber describes it too..
So I'm also really surprised to hear that the spatial/positional stuff on Apple's headphones only works when paired with a compatible device, and it's just phones and tablets.
That's... lame.
I've had these for 2+ years and I tell people "you forget that you're wearing headphones" and that's exactly how Gruber describes it too..
So I'm also really surprised to hear that the spatial/positional stuff on Apple's headphones only works when paired with a compatible device, and it's just phones and tablets.
That's... lame.
> You can re-center it with a button press.
Like it or not, there's your answer.
When was the last time you calibrated something from Apple? They don't do that, it either 'just works' or it doesn't.
It's a consistent design philosophy with some stark tradeoffs.
Like it or not, there's your answer.
When was the last time you calibrated something from Apple? They don't do that, it either 'just works' or it doesn't.
It's a consistent design philosophy with some stark tradeoffs.
To be fair, there’s also an auto-centering mode, which will move sound source to be in front after your head has been still for a few seconds. But I get it, sometimes you want to just put sound somewhere and want it to stay there, and you’ll need button for that in Mobius or additional hardware in AirPods
I'm very much the target market for the APMs, so I read this with interest. Well, I mean, I would be, if I still got on planes.
I own a nice pair of Sennheisers with active noise cancellation. They're AMAZING on planes, or other noisy environments, but like any full-sized set of headphones they're not something I'd wear moving around. Since COVID happened, mine have been on a shelf -- if I want headphones in the house, I just use my AirPods or the older set of wired Sennheisers semi-permanently set up next to the couch.
But yeah, I'm interested in these for the post-COVID world. One thing gave me a little pause, though, prior to Gruber's piece, and that was my assumption that Apple wouldn't make it possible to use these in a wired mode at all. My Senns CAN be used that way, and it makes a big difference on a long-haul flight. If you can use your own nice headphones with the seatback system, you'll have a much nicer time, and I just assumed Apple wouldn't do that.
I'm VERY pleased to see they allowed for that: "You can use AirPods Max as wired headphones with a Lightning to 3.5 mm headphone jack cable".
There's lots of stuff I like about my wireless ANC-equipped Sennheisers, but they don't sound as good as the wired set by my couch. (I mean, no surprise; the older wired set is like $300, and the wireless ones were half that.) Additionally, the wireless ones have all the sorts of goofy interface bullshit and dodgy Bluetooth things going on that I associated with basically all non-Apple Bluetooth things.
I'd absolutely pay a premium to have wireless headphones that rival my fancy wired Sennheisers, include ANC, and operate seamlessly. That'd be a no-brainer.
But, as I said, only if travel actually becomes a thing again. ;)
I own a nice pair of Sennheisers with active noise cancellation. They're AMAZING on planes, or other noisy environments, but like any full-sized set of headphones they're not something I'd wear moving around. Since COVID happened, mine have been on a shelf -- if I want headphones in the house, I just use my AirPods or the older set of wired Sennheisers semi-permanently set up next to the couch.
But yeah, I'm interested in these for the post-COVID world. One thing gave me a little pause, though, prior to Gruber's piece, and that was my assumption that Apple wouldn't make it possible to use these in a wired mode at all. My Senns CAN be used that way, and it makes a big difference on a long-haul flight. If you can use your own nice headphones with the seatback system, you'll have a much nicer time, and I just assumed Apple wouldn't do that.
I'm VERY pleased to see they allowed for that: "You can use AirPods Max as wired headphones with a Lightning to 3.5 mm headphone jack cable".
There's lots of stuff I like about my wireless ANC-equipped Sennheisers, but they don't sound as good as the wired set by my couch. (I mean, no surprise; the older wired set is like $300, and the wireless ones were half that.) Additionally, the wireless ones have all the sorts of goofy interface bullshit and dodgy Bluetooth things going on that I associated with basically all non-Apple Bluetooth things.
I'd absolutely pay a premium to have wireless headphones that rival my fancy wired Sennheisers, include ANC, and operate seamlessly. That'd be a no-brainer.
But, as I said, only if travel actually becomes a thing again. ;)
I am traveling (I’m the kind of person you expect to travel in a pandemic, wear a mask!). And I have Gruber’s comparator: the Bose QC35 II. I carry mine in their case hooked to a carabiner hooked to my briefcase, so the APM’s highly exposed wrapper of a case is not my cup of tea. I can also see the utility for movies at home so I appreciate the MacBook/Apple TV problem. Those are 2 of my 3 main use cases (The other of course being VTCs like everybody else). I don’t think that I will be running out to replace my current headphones but when they get long in the tooth I might consider the second generation of this APM design. It’s not a retina MacBook where I would buy it pre-order as soon as the announcement is out. It’s a 2008 unibody MacBook. It has a compelling future but I want to see what version two is.
I think that's a fair assessment.
I also think it is super super likely that Apple is about to hit Bose and other higher-end headphones makers by surprise with how good these sound. We'll have to wait for some real world usage tests and whatnot, but most $500 headphone makers are pretty hidebound / kinda into the woo-woo world of audio. These could be pretty disruptive -- especially if, in year or two, they introduce a lower-end model (AirPods MaxSE?).
I also think it is super super likely that Apple is about to hit Bose and other higher-end headphones makers by surprise with how good these sound. We'll have to wait for some real world usage tests and whatnot, but most $500 headphone makers are pretty hidebound / kinda into the woo-woo world of audio. These could be pretty disruptive -- especially if, in year or two, they introduce a lower-end model (AirPods MaxSE?).
Rumors indicate an AirPods (Max?) Sport in the coming months. I'd guess that those will be a lot more competitive with the XM4s/QC35s/etc., and likely will cost $299-399. I'm interested in how they'll differ from the AirPods Max, though -- a crappier speaker? More plastic and less aluminum? I think the trouble is that the AirPods Max (to me) seem more like $350 headphones than $550 headphones, so it's difficult to imagine what they'll do to hit the price point I actually have in mind.
> Every other pair of over-the-ear headphones I’ve ever used feel a bit cheap in comparison, because my over-the-ear headphones have all been constructed mostly of plastic.
His comment here surprises me, because I'd have assumed Gruber knows the headphone space really well. He should check out a pair of Sennheiser HD800s or Audeze LCD series. At the high end, headphones definitely don't feel cheap. There are also plenty of models in the $500 range that don't feel cheap. In particular: headphones intended for the same use as the AirPods Max apparently are (stationary, high fidelity) usually don't feel cheap, and are also usually heavy!
The rest of the review seems fine. The AirPods Max look nice and probably sound nice; if I didn't already have a pair of LCD-2s I might buy them. But I don't need another pair of headphones unless they're designed for portability. Based on what Gruber's saying here, they are not.
His comment here surprises me, because I'd have assumed Gruber knows the headphone space really well. He should check out a pair of Sennheiser HD800s or Audeze LCD series. At the high end, headphones definitely don't feel cheap. There are also plenty of models in the $500 range that don't feel cheap. In particular: headphones intended for the same use as the AirPods Max apparently are (stationary, high fidelity) usually don't feel cheap, and are also usually heavy!
The rest of the review seems fine. The AirPods Max look nice and probably sound nice; if I didn't already have a pair of LCD-2s I might buy them. But I don't need another pair of headphones unless they're designed for portability. Based on what Gruber's saying here, they are not.
As I understand it, his priorities for headphones are comfort, noise cancellation and good sound, not necessarily in that order, but comfort is a big factor, so I can see why he focused in on the weight.
If you’re looking for a solid AirPods Max review as headphones, not just as an Apple product and where it fits and yadda yadda yadda, this is not the review you want. I haven’t seen the review you want yet, but it should show up somewhere soon.
If you’re looking for a solid AirPods Max review as headphones, not just as an Apple product and where it fits and yadda yadda yadda, this is not the review you want. I haven’t seen the review you want yet, but it should show up somewhere soon.
Eh I don't need that review. I'm actually interested in the portability over anything else, because I'd consider wearing these over the AirPods Pro if they were light enough. I've already "invested" too much in hifi headphones and the whole setup as it is :)
Oh fair enough, I misread you! Still, hope my comment helps someone out there.
Weight isn't too much of an issue if it's made up for with lots of padding. I had a corsair void pro and "upgraded" to the corsair virtuoso. The virtuoso is aluminum construction, looks far more professional, sounds a bit better, and has better battery life, but it's much heavier AND has LESS padding. It feels like it's trying to dig into my skull in no time. They would be much better if they sacrificed a little bit of sleekness to pack much more foam in the headband.
> ... definitely feels like they’re intended for stationary use. Their lack of water resistance aside...
> It’d be nice if [spatial audio] worked with MacBooks... But the device that’s just begging for spatial audio support is Apple TV... It’s crazy that Apple sells a premium movie-watching set-top box and very premium movie-listening wireless headphones and they don’t work together for a premium spatial audio movie-listening experience.
So, AirPods Max are not water resistant and are heavy enough to feel intended for stationary use. Yet the two unique selling propositions of these headphones are: seamless transitions between Apple devices and spacial audio.
Seems to me, if you're not going to be using these on-the-go for comfort reasons, you also won't be benefiting from the only two unique features they offer.
> It’d be nice if [spatial audio] worked with MacBooks... But the device that’s just begging for spatial audio support is Apple TV... It’s crazy that Apple sells a premium movie-watching set-top box and very premium movie-listening wireless headphones and they don’t work together for a premium spatial audio movie-listening experience.
So, AirPods Max are not water resistant and are heavy enough to feel intended for stationary use. Yet the two unique selling propositions of these headphones are: seamless transitions between Apple devices and spacial audio.
Seems to me, if you're not going to be using these on-the-go for comfort reasons, you also won't be benefiting from the only two unique features they offer.
Not the most positive review ever. The lack of Apple TV seems like a thing, but presumably an update is in the works.
The weight thing seems like a design decision that gives insight into the job to be don’t by these headphones, which is very much not the job(s) handled by AirPods and AirPods Pro.
The weight thing seems like a design decision that gives insight into the job to be don’t by these headphones, which is very much not the job(s) handled by AirPods and AirPods Pro.
Gruber is an “embedded journalist” all the way. I kind of expect him to give random bad reviews to lower priority items to build credibility for when he gushes over the M1 processor.
I’m not saying he takes orders from Cupertino but there’s no need for that. Heck, I was once a fanboy and I didn’t get freebies.
I’m not saying he takes orders from Cupertino but there’s no need for that. Heck, I was once a fanboy and I didn’t get freebies.
Sure. But what about the M1 is not to gush about?
[deleted]
I have no idea what the build is like, but if I were dropping $550 on some headphones, I would want them to not feel loose, rattley, or like they have plastic hinges/joints that are probably going to gradually accumulate "play" or break after a year. I would want shiny stainless steel joints that feel "buttery" yet reasonably tight. A feeling that if you accidentally sat on them or tossed them in a bag and got crushed, something might bend, rather than crack and break.
Btw, I wonder how they will let people try them in the stores. Seems like putting something on your head/ears that others have tried before you feels a little icky.
Btw, I wonder how they will let people try them in the stores. Seems like putting something on your head/ears that others have tried before you feels a little icky.
I don't know about that. My HD25's are 17 years old and it's plastic on plastic on them and they are as good as new.
I mostly use bottom end Airpods though because they are more convenient and sound just as good!
I mostly use bottom end Airpods though because they are more convenient and sound just as good!
I've had Bose QC headphones in some form or other since the 90's, and the plastic has never seemed degraded. For my previous non-Bluetooth pair, the earpads eventually wore out and sort of disintegrated (after something like 8-10 years), but I bought a pair of replacement pads online and everything was back to new again. Haven't had that issue with my QC35II's yet.
All that to say -- I'd think all things being equal, good-quality plastic & lighter would be the way to go.
All that to say -- I'd think all things being equal, good-quality plastic & lighter would be the way to go.
Maybe someone has already pointed it out, but Beats pro over ears are $400, are metal construction, weigh 405 grams (heavier than the AirPods Max), aren’t wireless, and I don’t believe they do any of the clever noise cancelling or contain as much hardware as the AirPods Max.
Sure, the beats pro are aimed at a different type of user but when comparing the two products is $550 really that much of a surprise?
I thought they’d come in cheaper, but on reflection pricing them lower competes with Beats (other than the aforementioned pro model, the Beats Studio3 Wireless Over‑Ears are $350)
Sure, the beats pro are aimed at a different type of user but when comparing the two products is $550 really that much of a surprise?
I thought they’d come in cheaper, but on reflection pricing them lower competes with Beats (other than the aforementioned pro model, the Beats Studio3 Wireless Over‑Ears are $350)
[deleted]
Unless I'm missing something, aluminum ear cups seems to be a bad idea for colder weather. I wouldn't want to put cold metal on my ear every time I want to hear music?
From what i gathered from the article they're an indoor proposition, too heavy for outdoor activities according to the author.
It's never going to touch your ears anyway, but your fingers might stay glued to them if it's freezing.
It's never going to touch your ears anyway, but your fingers might stay glued to them if it's freezing.
The aluminium part of the ear cups doesn't come into contact with your body while wearing the headphones. There are thick cushions which are in between. Also, their main usage probably isn't for outdoor use, but more towards indoor.
I've got the Beoplay H7 (which are mostly aluminium) and I can report that this is not an issue. Your ears never touch those bits.
> Just how much difference that makes, battery-life wise, compared to just leaving them, unused, out of the case, I can’t say. I’ve only had them a day and I’ve spent a lot of that time wearing them.
I realize that this is going to get buried in the 633+ other comments, but you can not adequately review a product like this in one day/24 hours. Give it a week or two, at least to see if they're really better, or just different/new.
I realize that this is going to get buried in the 633+ other comments, but you can not adequately review a product like this in one day/24 hours. Give it a week or two, at least to see if they're really better, or just different/new.
A question I haven’t seen answered anywhere so far is whether it’s possible to connect these to a computer via a Lightning to USB-C cable to transfer the audio signal in addition to charging. If so, how does the audio quality compare to the wireless Bluetooth operation.
Or is that not an option, and the only wired audio support is via the Lightning to 3.5 mm cable, which adds an additional analog conversion into the chain.
Or is that not an option, and the only wired audio support is via the Lightning to 3.5 mm cable, which adds an additional analog conversion into the chain.
I've tested this myself, and unfortunately it doesn't seem to be possible. I tested with macOS 11.1.
I’ve done some binaural recording in the past, hand built stereo speakers, (as well as experienced various surround sound systems), but I am not a serious or dedicated audiophile by any means.
That said, while spatial audio does sound different than stereo, the purported ‘surround sound’ effect is mostly lost on me (even testing just now with G’s recommendation of The Mandalorian).
Am I missing something here?
That said, while spatial audio does sound different than stereo, the purported ‘surround sound’ effect is mostly lost on me (even testing just now with G’s recommendation of The Mandalorian).
Am I missing something here?
You can get some really really good headphones for 500 dollars... even some basic custom IEMs for that price.
Somehow I feel like the audio quality and build quality is not going to be as good as the companies that actually make headphones for a living.
Edit: Also, the fact that these don't fold, and that they're supposedly for using in public, make these even less attractive.
Somehow I feel like the audio quality and build quality is not going to be as good as the companies that actually make headphones for a living.
Edit: Also, the fact that these don't fold, and that they're supposedly for using in public, make these even less attractive.
I won’t make a claim about this product (might not even if I had heard them), but Apple does make headphones for a living.
https://macdailynews.com/2018/11/05/apple-is-the-worlds-lead... (2018): “When its three headphone brand categories are combined (EarPods, AirPods, Beats – an Apple company) Apple has the leading market share in headphone ownership with 24%. Sony is second with 22%, followed by fellow traditional CE stalwarts Panasonic and Bose”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-27/apple-ced...: “The AirPods have come to define the true wireless (TWS) earphones category, with Apple accounting for nearly half of all sales in 2019 and expected to grow to 82 million units this year, according to Counterpoint Research data. More affordable alternatives from Chinese rivals, however, have eroded Apple’s lead and the Silicon Valley company now finds itself with just over a third of the market, at 35%”
https://macdailynews.com/2018/11/05/apple-is-the-worlds-lead... (2018): “When its three headphone brand categories are combined (EarPods, AirPods, Beats – an Apple company) Apple has the leading market share in headphone ownership with 24%. Sony is second with 22%, followed by fellow traditional CE stalwarts Panasonic and Bose”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-27/apple-ced...: “The AirPods have come to define the true wireless (TWS) earphones category, with Apple accounting for nearly half of all sales in 2019 and expected to grow to 82 million units this year, according to Counterpoint Research data. More affordable alternatives from Chinese rivals, however, have eroded Apple’s lead and the Silicon Valley company now finds itself with just over a third of the market, at 35%”
Somehow I feel like the audio quality and build quality is not going to be as good as the companies that actually make headphones for a living
Audio quality? Maybe not. Although it probably depends on how you precisely define audio quality. I’m not aware of any competing headphones that have a feature equivalent to the directional audio that these AirPods have.
But build quality? Apple will give any remotely comparable product a run for its money. Very few companies can match Apple’s expertise when it comes to mass producing hardware products with high-end materials and matching build quality. I think it’s close to a certainty that any headphones that are undeniably nicer than these ones, will also be significantly more expensive.
Audio quality? Maybe not. Although it probably depends on how you precisely define audio quality. I’m not aware of any competing headphones that have a feature equivalent to the directional audio that these AirPods have.
But build quality? Apple will give any remotely comparable product a run for its money. Very few companies can match Apple’s expertise when it comes to mass producing hardware products with high-end materials and matching build quality. I think it’s close to a certainty that any headphones that are undeniably nicer than these ones, will also be significantly more expensive.
I honestly think that audio quality is consistently poor on Apple stuff and they try to patch over it with EQ boosts and marketing.
AirPods are better than EarPods, but they're still in $25 earphone range.
AirPods Pro are nice, but you can get wired IEMs for <$100 that sound just as good. In that price range you can get Pinnacle P1 ($200) or ER4XR ($250) which dump all over them. I use AirPods Pro daily, not for quality, but for convenience.
HomePod is probably the biggest disappointment I've ever heard. $300 and it sounds like a plastic box, despite "computational audio".
At $550, you're solidly in headphone big leagues. Beyer DT770 or DT990 are close to perfect and they're <$200. Beyond that point you're hitting diminishing returns in audio quality; double price is going to get tiny marginal improvements in quality.
I'm eager to hear them but I can't imagine them outperforming DT990s, despite costing twice as much.
(Yes, none of these options have bluetooth or ANC. Get an ES100 for BT. If noise is a problem, get IEMs or AirPods Pro.)
AirPods are better than EarPods, but they're still in $25 earphone range.
AirPods Pro are nice, but you can get wired IEMs for <$100 that sound just as good. In that price range you can get Pinnacle P1 ($200) or ER4XR ($250) which dump all over them. I use AirPods Pro daily, not for quality, but for convenience.
HomePod is probably the biggest disappointment I've ever heard. $300 and it sounds like a plastic box, despite "computational audio".
At $550, you're solidly in headphone big leagues. Beyer DT770 or DT990 are close to perfect and they're <$200. Beyond that point you're hitting diminishing returns in audio quality; double price is going to get tiny marginal improvements in quality.
I'm eager to hear them but I can't imagine them outperforming DT990s, despite costing twice as much.
(Yes, none of these options have bluetooth or ANC. Get an ES100 for BT. If noise is a problem, get IEMs or AirPods Pro.)
When it comes to audio quality and red wine I am completely unable to appreciate the quality differences over a certain minimum threshold, which is quite low (at least as measured by price). Maybe I would be able tell the medium level stuff from the very high end if I was allowed to compare them to each other in an undisturbed environment, but if I then had to guess which was the more expensive, I would likely get it wrong a good chunk of the times. I usually tell people that my senses are just not acute enough, but secretly I suspect that most people who claim to be able to appreciate the differences that I am unable to, really aren't either and are at best just experiencing the placebo effect. The fact that you report to be disappointed by the audio quality of the HomePod, a product that a lot of reviewers praised first and foremost for its audio quality, does nothing to relieve me of this suspicion.
Who knows whether or not I am right or not? What I am quite certain of, is that I'm not likely unique when it comes to not being able to appreciate the small differences in quality that cost the most. Which is to say that for me and a lot of other people, it seems pointless to get hung up on whether one pair of very good headphones sound marginally better than another pair of very good headphones. Unless you're working in a studio as a sound producer, at a certain point the audio quality simply ceases to be the most important attribute of a pair of headphones. I don't know if it's true that you can get a pair of wired IEMs that sound better than the AirPods Pro, but even if it is, it's irrelevant, because the AirPods Pro sound fine to most people who buy them.
Through the years I've owned several different brands of headphones in the price range $100–$150 that I bought because reviewers claimed they were extraordinarily good value for the money when it came to sound quality. And maybe they were, but I've hated most of them for getting mostly everything else wrong: Wrong length of wire, wrong placement of microphone and buttons, and just horrible build quality.
Who knows whether or not I am right or not? What I am quite certain of, is that I'm not likely unique when it comes to not being able to appreciate the small differences in quality that cost the most. Which is to say that for me and a lot of other people, it seems pointless to get hung up on whether one pair of very good headphones sound marginally better than another pair of very good headphones. Unless you're working in a studio as a sound producer, at a certain point the audio quality simply ceases to be the most important attribute of a pair of headphones. I don't know if it's true that you can get a pair of wired IEMs that sound better than the AirPods Pro, but even if it is, it's irrelevant, because the AirPods Pro sound fine to most people who buy them.
Through the years I've owned several different brands of headphones in the price range $100–$150 that I bought because reviewers claimed they were extraordinarily good value for the money when it came to sound quality. And maybe they were, but I've hated most of them for getting mostly everything else wrong: Wrong length of wire, wrong placement of microphone and buttons, and just horrible build quality.
I think we're in vigorous agreement.
I use the AirPods Pro not because they sound the best, but because they sound good enough and the convenience factors make them worthwhile.
I dump on the HomePod because it lacks any convenience factors that are meaningful to me [1] and it doesn't even serve the "speaker that sounds good" purpose [2].
So I really want to know what the value prop for AirPods Max is. They're not convenient or useful for travel because they're too big. They're not "best audio quality", because that's been done at lower price points. Spatial audio and ANC? Already solved, better, by AirPods Pro, at half the price. They're not even usable for critical listening or gaming because of Bluetooth.
So what are they for? Fashion? (Nothing wrong with that, but I'm sure as hell not going to spend $550 for it.)
[1] Siri can't understand me and it false triggers constantly.
[2] It wasn't even like, "hey its good but there are better speakers". They sounded like a cheap plastic box. They were better than my $100 Google Home. They're worse than the $120 soundbar I put on a TV. It's a low bar.
I use the AirPods Pro not because they sound the best, but because they sound good enough and the convenience factors make them worthwhile.
I dump on the HomePod because it lacks any convenience factors that are meaningful to me [1] and it doesn't even serve the "speaker that sounds good" purpose [2].
So I really want to know what the value prop for AirPods Max is. They're not convenient or useful for travel because they're too big. They're not "best audio quality", because that's been done at lower price points. Spatial audio and ANC? Already solved, better, by AirPods Pro, at half the price. They're not even usable for critical listening or gaming because of Bluetooth.
So what are they for? Fashion? (Nothing wrong with that, but I'm sure as hell not going to spend $550 for it.)
[1] Siri can't understand me and it false triggers constantly.
[2] It wasn't even like, "hey its good but there are better speakers". They sounded like a cheap plastic box. They were better than my $100 Google Home. They're worse than the $120 soundbar I put on a TV. It's a low bar.
Have you tried the Homepod in a stereo pair? To me it makes a huge difference to the point that I assume that they have completely different profiles for them when running in stereo mode. Assuming a different audience than a single Homepod.
You're going to continually misunderstand the market if you think $200 wired headphones with a line running from your head into a $100 ES100 Bluetooth receiver clipped to your belt is an analogue for the wireless cans people want.
I do misunderstand. Please educate me! What makes these better than other headphones or the AirPods Pro, which are looking downright good value right now?
I don't think Apple is even going try to claim that they can compete with other $500 headphones in pure audio quality. Their pitch is entirely going to focus on design, easy pairing that just works every time, and clever audio processing 'magic' like spatial audio.
Can you expand on build quality? Do you mean that apple does not know how to build quality hardware? Or materials are cheap?
Or do you mean something entirely different by the build quality?
Take a look at the headband. It’s going to fall apart in a year with constant use.
Almost every other pair of headphones in this price range offers replaceable headbands, and many of them can be customized with off the shelf products.
Almost every other pair of headphones in this price range offers replaceable headbands, and many of them can be customized with off the shelf products.
When these were announced I was interested to see if Apple solved by biggest qualm about bluetooth headphones: low audio quality when using them in duplex mode for calls. This is a limitation of bandwidth in the bluetooth standard AFAIK. Whenever I jump on a Zoom call with my QC35's, they immediately switch to mono audio, at low quality, because the mic is in use. I am not sure this can really be solved at the hardware level, but if anyone could do it, it would definitely be Apple for a $550 price tag, possibly by including two bluetooth radios (one for talk and one for audio). But I haven't seen any mention of this use case, so it seems like I will just have to wait for a new standard and new generation of BT devices.
So what about Beats? Is that all just chopped liver?
As soon as Apple realizes they can incorporate batteries into the design, and sell different colored batteries so people can have their own custom "look", they'll suddenly be replaceable and marked up 70%.
I can't wait for the $250 AirPod Max hard travel cases to start showing up (with built in charging). But what about expensive charging stands so you don't have to put them in the purse/pouch to turn them off?
On the other hand, at least Apple has figured out how to turn commodity computing into an aspirational luxury good instead of an inevitable race to the bottom and low margins. Their recent moves are all intended to give them more control of their experience and extend that strategy out for as long as possible.
As soon as Apple realizes they can incorporate batteries into the design, and sell different colored batteries so people can have their own custom "look", they'll suddenly be replaceable and marked up 70%.
I can't wait for the $250 AirPod Max hard travel cases to start showing up (with built in charging). But what about expensive charging stands so you don't have to put them in the purse/pouch to turn them off?
On the other hand, at least Apple has figured out how to turn commodity computing into an aspirational luxury good instead of an inevitable race to the bottom and low margins. Their recent moves are all intended to give them more control of their experience and extend that strategy out for as long as possible.
Maybe as an Android user, this is a thing I take for granted that just isn't really in the Apple ecosystem, but I'm used to a Chromecast and seamlessly streaming all my phone content to my TV.
So when I was reading the section about the content having to be played on an iPhone or iPad, and how he can't use it with his Apple TV... I got really confused. Can you really not just stream your mobile content to the Apple TV? Then you'd have the big screen, but you could use your phone or iPad for keeping track of your head's orientation. Or can you stream it, but not, like, configure the location of your TV or something, for the purposes of the spatial audio?
So when I was reading the section about the content having to be played on an iPhone or iPad, and how he can't use it with his Apple TV... I got really confused. Can you really not just stream your mobile content to the Apple TV? Then you'd have the big screen, but you could use your phone or iPad for keeping track of your head's orientation. Or can you stream it, but not, like, configure the location of your TV or something, for the purposes of the spatial audio?
You can airplay almost all content, but I guess it doesn’t have Bluetooth 5.0 or other hardware it needs to work with the Max (there’s also no U1 chip[0], in case that could have been used to have the iphone work as a proxy or something).
0: https://9to5mac.com/2020/12/08/apple-didnt-include-its-u1-ch...
0: https://9to5mac.com/2020/12/08/apple-didnt-include-its-u1-ch...
It's the latter, you can hook the AirPods up to the AppleTV and hear the audio of whatever's playing, but you don't get the spatial audio experience.
I find it interesting that he refuses to wear wireless headphones while podcasting because he can't tolerate the latency. But he's perfectly fine with it when watching a movie? Lip synch latency drives me crazy once I notice it.
I thought modern devices delay the video, so it syncs up with the audio? When I'm using Bluetooth headphones on iOS, pressing play doesn't start the video immediately, but it does when I'm not using headphones. The audio stops after the video if I pause it when using Bluetooth headphones.
Yes, iOS devices will tend to delay the video when playing audio over BT. They also recently issued an update to the HomePod that allows it to do low-latency audio (so you can use it with an AppleTV playing/streaming games), but I think that's using their own proprietary streaming (AirPlay 2) over WiFi, not BT (details on the feature have been scarce and it's relatively new).
Interestingly, the low-latency audio breaks apps that provide their own video player (Twitch & YouTube), since they aren't aware of the low latency features and they try to compensate for a system feature on their own.
Interestingly, the low-latency audio breaks apps that provide their own video player (Twitch & YouTube), since they aren't aware of the low latency features and they try to compensate for a system feature on their own.
Yep. I was an early adopter of wireless audio and in the beginning audio-video sync was a real issue.
Since a few years ago, this is a solved problem.
Since a few years ago, this is a solved problem.
I haven't experienced lip-sync latency with bluetooth watching video in years. Appletv, iPhone, iPad, MacBook - all sync video and BT audio up properly to account for latency.
$549 is expensive. £549 is madness
£91.50 in the UK price is VAT. You get expensive vat on expensive products :)
They're $899 AUD, an iPad Air is $899 AUD. Bose 700 is around $470 and I though they were a crazy price when released.
[deleted]
> AirPods Pro noise cancellation is very good, for earbuds, but it’s nowhere near as effective as with over-the-ear headphones — if only for the obvious reason that over-the-ear headphones help block noise even when they’re powered off, because they double as physical ear muffs in addition to the active noise cancellation.
Is this actually true? I’ve always intuitively thought it was the other way around since the Airpods plug your ears (they’re not actually earbuds).
I also subjectively tested both in an Apple store and the AirPods blocked out sounds better.
Is this actually true? I’ve always intuitively thought it was the other way around since the Airpods plug your ears (they’re not actually earbuds).
I also subjectively tested both in an Apple store and the AirPods blocked out sounds better.
I can't help but feel that this is an explicit strategic design decision for Apple. It lets them position the AirPods Max as having (sound and build) Quality over (quiet) Comfort. It creates a market position for them without having to try very hard, and allows them years of incremental (yet revolutionary) weight saving improvements for future generations of the product.
(note that I'm not implying the QCs have poor build quality, just that a heavier product implies better BQ. I am implying that the QCs aren't difficult to beat on sound quality though)
(note that I'm not implying the QCs have poor build quality, just that a heavier product implies better BQ. I am implying that the QCs aren't difficult to beat on sound quality though)
where does the heaviness come from?
They're largely made of aluminium and steel, not plastic.
The fact they don't have spatial audio with the latest Apple TV highlights the problem Apple has without Steve: product consistency.
This is not the only example: bought a 2020 Macbook Pro, an external Magic keyboard and trackpad and couldn't even connect them because they came with USB-A cables. We had to wait until iPhone 12 (correct me if wrong) to get a phone that charges on the same manufacturer's laptop. It is a mess.
This is not the only example: bought a 2020 Macbook Pro, an external Magic keyboard and trackpad and couldn't even connect them because they came with USB-A cables. We had to wait until iPhone 12 (correct me if wrong) to get a phone that charges on the same manufacturer's laptop. It is a mess.
> I get it. If spatial audio needs hardware support on the playback
Does it? If you assume that 99% of the time I am looking at the screen and just do that doesn't it provide basically perfect audio? Until very wide-FOV screens become common place it doesn't seem like you need to know where I am looking, it is within a couple of degrees from the center of the screen.
Does it? If you assume that 99% of the time I am looking at the screen and just do that doesn't it provide basically perfect audio? Until very wide-FOV screens become common place it doesn't seem like you need to know where I am looking, it is within a couple of degrees from the center of the screen.
The point is to make it sound like you're in a 5.1 home theater so if you turn your head you should hear different things.
My point is that this seems like a very very small loss.
Might be bigger than you think. Apparently people who use Realiser A16 have experienced the very same effect: once you fool the brains that speakers are stationary, you get a much more convincing effect about actually being in a studio.
But that device also has other tricks in its sleeve.
But that device also has other tricks in its sleeve.
I'm not sure entirely, but IIRC it uses a chip to position the headphones spatially. Without the chip, the headphones wouldn't know which direction to set as "north" even with a gyroscope. Found link: https://locatify.com/blog/what-is-the-new-apple-u1-chip-and-...
It is a funny thing with these headphones. For a long time, I had planned to buy another set of headphones - ironically because Apple refuses to exchange the worn-out earpads of my older beats. It is quite bad for the environment, if you have to dispose a product because a part like earpads, which has a very obvious wear limiting its lifespan, cannot be exchanged. Same of course applies for the battery, but that is still ok.
Hearing about the rumors of Apple headphones I postponed any purchase, as I was curious to see first what these headphones would be like and quite willing to buy them, even if more expensive than what I had before. So why arent the AirPods Max not an instant buy for me now?
First of all, the release 2 weeks before Christmas is odd timing, but that probably was beyond the control by Apple, they were not ready for production early enough, also this means limited stock. Basically the question was already decided as there was no chance to get them with the initial run and now are out of stock till spring.
A rather big gripe of mine are the colors. It is great to have different colors, buy why are they all so toned down? For the same reason I don't like the identical colors of the iPad Air. For some things I really like the colors to be ff0000 or 0000ff, alternatively at least 000000. I would like to see whether the "space gray" is dark enough, in the video by iJustine they looked nice, would like to check that out in a store before ordering.
The other one would be the rather weird case. Not only is it odd and I really don't need a case for my headphones in the first place, it is also mandatory to use to be able to switch them off. Which is probably the reason I won't get them. I don't want to have to put my headphones in a case every time I put them off for more than a very short while. Especially not in a goofy one. There needs to be an off switch on the device. Shouldn't be difficult to reprogram one of the two switches to work that way.
The other one is of course the issue with the device compatibility. As Gruber points it out: the spatial audio is great, but there seems no way to actually use this. I am not going to watch movies on my iPhone (I actually did this once to test my Homepods as a movie sound stage, which worked great. But I did it exactly once for satisfying the curiosity, watching a movie on the iPhone is no experience I want to replicate). This is a huge stinker and I don't know what Apple is thinking. It is already more than aggravating, that you cannot (reasonably) use Homepods as your Mac speakers. I just set up a new MacBook Pro, and indeed, my Homepods appear als sound output devices in the audio control, but as separate devices. How is it possible, that they don't communicate their pairing to Macs? Again, what is Apple thinking?
As a consequence, I am quite undecided yet. They do tick quite a few boxes, good build quality, probably great sound, Apple certainly has used all their vast acoustic skills on those. Battery and earpads are exchangeable, they should have a good life time. The price certainly gave me a short pause, this is not impulse by territory. I would be willing to pay it though for a product I am convinced about.
Hearing about the rumors of Apple headphones I postponed any purchase, as I was curious to see first what these headphones would be like and quite willing to buy them, even if more expensive than what I had before. So why arent the AirPods Max not an instant buy for me now?
First of all, the release 2 weeks before Christmas is odd timing, but that probably was beyond the control by Apple, they were not ready for production early enough, also this means limited stock. Basically the question was already decided as there was no chance to get them with the initial run and now are out of stock till spring.
A rather big gripe of mine are the colors. It is great to have different colors, buy why are they all so toned down? For the same reason I don't like the identical colors of the iPad Air. For some things I really like the colors to be ff0000 or 0000ff, alternatively at least 000000. I would like to see whether the "space gray" is dark enough, in the video by iJustine they looked nice, would like to check that out in a store before ordering.
The other one would be the rather weird case. Not only is it odd and I really don't need a case for my headphones in the first place, it is also mandatory to use to be able to switch them off. Which is probably the reason I won't get them. I don't want to have to put my headphones in a case every time I put them off for more than a very short while. Especially not in a goofy one. There needs to be an off switch on the device. Shouldn't be difficult to reprogram one of the two switches to work that way.
The other one is of course the issue with the device compatibility. As Gruber points it out: the spatial audio is great, but there seems no way to actually use this. I am not going to watch movies on my iPhone (I actually did this once to test my Homepods as a movie sound stage, which worked great. But I did it exactly once for satisfying the curiosity, watching a movie on the iPhone is no experience I want to replicate). This is a huge stinker and I don't know what Apple is thinking. It is already more than aggravating, that you cannot (reasonably) use Homepods as your Mac speakers. I just set up a new MacBook Pro, and indeed, my Homepods appear als sound output devices in the audio control, but as separate devices. How is it possible, that they don't communicate their pairing to Macs? Again, what is Apple thinking?
As a consequence, I am quite undecided yet. They do tick quite a few boxes, good build quality, probably great sound, Apple certainly has used all their vast acoustic skills on those. Battery and earpads are exchangeable, they should have a good life time. The price certainly gave me a short pause, this is not impulse by territory. I would be willing to pay it though for a product I am convinced about.
Ear buds are an area where some products are incredibly cheap to produce and can be treated like products that wear out (like underwear). They are insubstantial and easy to throw out. But there is a cycle where more premium products are made which then get copied and lose value. There will always be some people who want the best, but in a few years time the cheaper alternatives will probably sell more and be treated as disposable. They are fundamentally different products.
I was talking about the ear pads of my Beats Solo. These really should be exchangeable.
How can you get a spatial audio effect from a screen the size of an iPhone?
Is it that objects off screen and to the left can be heard before they enter the viewing area?
I wish these had the Ultra Wideband antenna for spatial location applications. That would have been a fun API to mess with. That, and like the reviewer said, this has to happen with the next Apple TV.
Is it that objects off screen and to the left can be heard before they enter the viewing area?
I wish these had the Ultra Wideband antenna for spatial location applications. That would have been a fun API to mess with. That, and like the reviewer said, this has to happen with the next Apple TV.
Spatial audio comes from 5.1 surround sound and I am guessing that the sound source aware orientation comes from Ultra Wideband.
I don’t know if Bluetooth has a profile that supports surround sound. Maybe the spatial audio only works on devices with the U1 chip.
I don’t know if Bluetooth has a profile that supports surround sound. Maybe the spatial audio only works on devices with the U1 chip.
> How can you get a spatial audio effect from a screen the size of an iPhone?
The idea is that if you move your head with 5.1 surround sound the headphones will 'maintain the position' of the 5 speakers relative to the screen, which is supposed to stop breaking the immersion and makes your brain think the audio is more 3d than it is.
The idea is that if you move your head with 5.1 surround sound the headphones will 'maintain the position' of the 5 speakers relative to the screen, which is supposed to stop breaking the immersion and makes your brain think the audio is more 3d than it is.
LSTN makes headphones and gives hearing aids to people when you buy some of their cans. Pretty cool. Would like more ethical action paired with luxury products. https://lstnsound.com/
Does anyone else have a problem with the headband breaking or cracking after a year or two? That's my major concern about buying this style of headphones now. The old-school Walkman headphones were pretty great in comparison - flex all day and they wouldn't break.
>>> I almost never wear headphones while working at my desk, and for recording podcasts, I want wired headphones, to eliminate all latency.
This actually had me dying. That bluetooth latency is just a killer.
This actually had me dying. That bluetooth latency is just a killer.
Aluminum is not better than plastic. Neither is plastic better than Aluminum. What matters quality and usage.
Planes[1] without aluminum? Ouch.
Cars[2] without plastic? Ouch.
I prefer ThinkPads because the use high quality plastic chassis and keyboards. Polycarbonate, ABS or whatever doesn't matter to me. Inside the use also magnesium and aluminum. High quality plastics are better when used with skin contact, especially regarding the keyboard and mouse. I regret that phones made with polycarbonate are gone, removable back cover, Qi without glass at back and they don't shatter when you drop them like the 800 $/€ stuff from Apple or Samsung. What I don't want on my lap is a MacBook. When it get hot, that not comfortable.
TLDR What looks good in first sight isn't good to use or in long term durability.
[1] Actually they use a lot composite material within modern planes like the B747-8, B787, A350 and so on :)
[2] Excepting the original Audi A2, a great piece of aluminum :)
PS: I've seen people buying keyboards and mice made of aluminium. I cannot imagine something more uncomfortable.
Planes[1] without aluminum? Ouch.
Cars[2] without plastic? Ouch.
I prefer ThinkPads because the use high quality plastic chassis and keyboards. Polycarbonate, ABS or whatever doesn't matter to me. Inside the use also magnesium and aluminum. High quality plastics are better when used with skin contact, especially regarding the keyboard and mouse. I regret that phones made with polycarbonate are gone, removable back cover, Qi without glass at back and they don't shatter when you drop them like the 800 $/€ stuff from Apple or Samsung. What I don't want on my lap is a MacBook. When it get hot, that not comfortable.
TLDR What looks good in first sight isn't good to use or in long term durability.
[1] Actually they use a lot composite material within modern planes like the B747-8, B787, A350 and so on :)
[2] Excepting the original Audi A2, a great piece of aluminum :)
PS: I've seen people buying keyboards and mice made of aluminium. I cannot imagine something more uncomfortable.
Plastic does have issues though - my wife's ThinkPad had a small piece of plastic holding the battery break. If the battery moved a little too much, the computer would shut down.
So she sent it in for service. When she got the computer back, they had replaced the entire bottom of the computer, plus replaced the battery. Great, right? Except now the bottom of the computer is a different color than the top of the computer, and the battery is a 3rd color!
It's ridiculous, but that's the thing you get with plastic. UV light changes the color over time.
So she sent it in for service. When she got the computer back, they had replaced the entire bottom of the computer, plus replaced the battery. Great, right? Except now the bottom of the computer is a different color than the top of the computer, and the battery is a 3rd color!
It's ridiculous, but that's the thing you get with plastic. UV light changes the color over time.
I bet everyone who will get Airpods Max for free is going to say - oh sure, they are worth 550 and are so nice... But it wont be 100% case when person would pay for them.
I really do not understand buying these when you can get a similarly priced pair of Sennheisers that will be much better quality.
Hmm, anyone worried about the analog gap closing?
Wait... you can't use these with anything other than an iOS device?!
edit: only the spatial audio feature works only on iOS
edit: only the spatial audio feature works only on iOS
I believe you can use them as regular Bluetooth headphones, but you can't enjoy the spatial audio. That's my understanding. As with standard AirPods, the philosophy is "better together" with Apple products but, they are not exclusive.
I never expected them to be that heavy. Is this meant for the Pro content creator market? Seems so.
And light is the wallet.
Let's go see what Head-Fi thinks of them.
A bit off topic, but if you wear those around Stockholm, Sweden where I live, you will probably be robbed.
I never really understood the combination of noise cancellation and home use only. I think noise cancellation really shines when out and about in public, like the subway. But I can't imagine anyone using those things on the go, at least not where I live.
I never really understood the combination of noise cancellation and home use only. I think noise cancellation really shines when out and about in public, like the subway. But I can't imagine anyone using those things on the go, at least not where I live.
> I never really understood the combination of noise cancellation and home use only. I think noise cancellation really shines when out and about in public, like the subway. But I can't imagine anyone using those things on the go, at least not where I live.
FYI here are some examples of why I swear by my noise cancellation headphones while working from home during a pandemic in a densely populated city:
- Washing machine and dishwasher running cycles during the day - The fridge vibrating at higher frequencies (don't know much about fridge mechanics but this soemthing fridges to do maintain a certain temperature) - Other people in the household talking, cooking, making coffee, fetching cutlery and plates etc. - The high decible hum of delivery scooters/mopeds usually accelerating much faster than they should in what is supposed to be a quiet road - Road noise from delivery vehicles which are heavier than your typical car
(ps admittedly the last two points are only a problem when I have the windows open but occassionaly someone revs an engine which can be heard through the windows)
- During summer months with the windows open, passers' by can be heard from my desk. I live on just off a "quiet road" in my city, my desk is on the first floor and is on the other side of the room from the road. Yet people's conversations are loud enough to make a noise.
Individually there is little wrong with these sounds (except maybe mopeds which I wish were quieter) but collectively they cause noises during working hours for which I am grateful to have noise cancelling headphones at home.
PS I guess Apple are also targeting people who will take these to the office eventually.
FYI here are some examples of why I swear by my noise cancellation headphones while working from home during a pandemic in a densely populated city:
- Washing machine and dishwasher running cycles during the day - The fridge vibrating at higher frequencies (don't know much about fridge mechanics but this soemthing fridges to do maintain a certain temperature) - Other people in the household talking, cooking, making coffee, fetching cutlery and plates etc. - The high decible hum of delivery scooters/mopeds usually accelerating much faster than they should in what is supposed to be a quiet road - Road noise from delivery vehicles which are heavier than your typical car
(ps admittedly the last two points are only a problem when I have the windows open but occassionaly someone revs an engine which can be heard through the windows)
- During summer months with the windows open, passers' by can be heard from my desk. I live on just off a "quiet road" in my city, my desk is on the first floor and is on the other side of the room from the road. Yet people's conversations are loud enough to make a noise.
Individually there is little wrong with these sounds (except maybe mopeds which I wish were quieter) but collectively they cause noises during working hours for which I am grateful to have noise cancelling headphones at home.
PS I guess Apple are also targeting people who will take these to the office eventually.
Don't forget the city soundscape's public enemy number one: leafblowers.
I'm totally with you on needing quiet when working from home. My much more economical solution is a pair of industrial earmuffs with earbuds inside if I want sound. In particular mine are the 3M Peltor X5A: https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/company-us/all-3m-products/~/3M-...
I've had mine 7 years and swear by them.
I've had mine 7 years and swear by them.
Where in Stockholm do you live? IMO, you're giving an unfair and exaggerated view of Stockholm as a whole. Yes, there are some areas that are more affected by criminal gangs than other areas. But I wouldn't go as far as saying that there's a high risk of getting robbed "around Stockholm".
I've lived in the inner city parts of Stockholm most of the time (Östermalm/Norrmalm, Södermalm, Kungsholmen).
I would definitely not wear 500-600 USD headphones in any of those areas.
But I think crime in Stockholm is a bit off topic. However I don't think the inherent risk of being robbed - wherever you are in the world - is off topic for the discussion.
People rob kids of Airpods all the time, because it's a status item. These new Airpods will be a status item too. This will increase the risk of robbery - be it in Europe or the US or elsewhere.
I'm sure there are larger cities in the world where the likelihood of getting robbed is low (Tokyo?), but that'd be the exception rather than the norm.
I would definitely not wear 500-600 USD headphones in any of those areas.
But I think crime in Stockholm is a bit off topic. However I don't think the inherent risk of being robbed - wherever you are in the world - is off topic for the discussion.
People rob kids of Airpods all the time, because it's a status item. These new Airpods will be a status item too. This will increase the risk of robbery - be it in Europe or the US or elsewhere.
I'm sure there are larger cities in the world where the likelihood of getting robbed is low (Tokyo?), but that'd be the exception rather than the norm.
> I would definitely not wear 500-600 USD headphones in any of those areas.
I would say that the risk of being robbed in any of the mentioned areas is very low, even during night-time (if you don't actively are looking for trouble)
I would say that the risk of being robbed in any of the mentioned areas is very low, even during night-time (if you don't actively are looking for trouble)
Whether you are targeted for a mugging is dependant on whether the criminal thinks you are an easy target. Most muggings will be crimes of opportunity.
I used to live in a very dodgy part of Spain near Gibraltar. I was never mugged or beaten up. I've been told by people "You look like you can handle yourself". Some of work collegues which were skinner, more fresh faced got robbed, beaten and in one case had what they believe to be a gun pulled on them. I never had any problems. I don't look like an easy target due to my appearence and size, those guys unfortunately do due to their size and appearence.
I used to live in a very dodgy part of Spain near Gibraltar. I was never mugged or beaten up. I've been told by people "You look like you can handle yourself". Some of work collegues which were skinner, more fresh faced got robbed, beaten and in one case had what they believe to be a gun pulled on them. I never had any problems. I don't look like an easy target due to my appearence and size, those guys unfortunately do due to their size and appearence.
I'm afraid I have to disagree. Every time I had to pass through some of those places at night it was a scary experience. Got robbed twice, I can't remember how many times I had to leg it. And I only lived in Sweden for 2 years.
There might be a risk for a kid getting robbed of expensive gear - but adults not wearing headphones for the robbery risk? Never heard of it as a fellow Stockholmer.
Not yet. But considering there have been 136 robberies for expensive watches in Stockholm in six months, it is just a matter of time.
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/y3G4Pg/polisen-varnar-k...
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/y3G4Pg/polisen-varnar-k...
> But considering there have been 136 robberies for expensive watches in Stockholm in six months, it is just a matter of time.
136 robberies of expensive watches in an area with 2.3 million people. Of them 64 happened in the city proper (1 million people).
Yeah, "it's just a matter of time".
136 robberies of expensive watches in an area with 2.3 million people. Of them 64 happened in the city proper (1 million people).
Yeah, "it's just a matter of time".
You probably need to rob about 136 AirPods Max in order to get the same amount of value from a single expensive watch.
On top of that, tech doesn't have nearly the same resell value as high-end watches.
On top of that, tech doesn't have nearly the same resell value as high-end watches.
I have to imagine it's easier to steal wireless headphones though. You'd just hook them and pull as you leg it past
Is this because of pandemic where economy are not as good and crime rate are higher? Or is that a norm?
I have always thought Stockholm as somewhat safer than ( Greater) London in my book.
I have always thought Stockholm as somewhat safer than ( Greater) London in my book.
Lol this dude reminds me of my parents who wouldn't let me walk ten blocks home at night in my tiny ass Canadian home town because of how "dangerous" it gets after dark. Never mind the crime rate is literally an order of magnitude below any of the various American metros in which I've lived (and walked home after dark in, never experiencing any issues).
Some peoples' perception is entirely driven by watching too much local news, and yet they somehow convince themselves they or their friends have personally have experienced all of this. Hook them up to a lie detector and it would draw a perfectly flat line as they spin their tales.
Some peoples' perception is entirely driven by watching too much local news, and yet they somehow convince themselves they or their friends have personally have experienced all of this. Hook them up to a lie detector and it would draw a perfectly flat line as they spin their tales.
> Hook them up to a lie detector and it would draw a perfectly flat line as they spin their tales.
I don’t follow.
A flat line on a polygraph (whose accuracy is a debate for another time) would indicate they are telling the truth, or rather that they believe to be doing so.
I get that you’re claiming their perception of reality is skewed, but deriding people for saying what they genuinely believe to be true is odd.
I don’t follow.
A flat line on a polygraph (whose accuracy is a debate for another time) would indicate they are telling the truth, or rather that they believe to be doing so.
I get that you’re claiming their perception of reality is skewed, but deriding people for saying what they genuinely believe to be true is odd.
It's just a weird feature of the human psyche you notice as you get older. People convince themselves that things they heard about from the news or other people actually happened to them or their friends. Maybe it starts out as a simple story told at a gathering, exaggerating for entertainment & abridging context for simplicity - "one time my friend..." - but after repetition and several years becomes a thing they believe literally happened as they told it. You often see this manifesting as tales of local criminal acts or encounters with homeless people. This sincere fabricational tendency, while humorous, does ultimately amplify a very skewed & harmful perspective in local politics.
It's the reason why boomers swear they were present at every major event during their lifetimes, as though we're surrounded by Forrest Gumps.
It's the reason why boomers swear they were present at every major event during their lifetimes, as though we're surrounded by Forrest Gumps.
Yes, I understood your larger point. What I don’t get is the relevance of the polygraph line, which essentially amounts to “but they think they’re telling the truth”. Well, yes, I sure hope they do and are arguing in good faith rather than deliberately lying.
That sentence appears to argue that you think them passing the polygraph is a bad thing—why make the comment otherwise—which doesn’t make sense to me. It doesn’t affect your larger argument, but it doesn’t support it either and thus stood out. It’s as if you had ended your post with “bananas are radioactive”—true, but I’d be left wondering why you had felt the need to mention it.
That sentence appears to argue that you think them passing the polygraph is a bad thing—why make the comment otherwise—which doesn’t make sense to me. It doesn’t affect your larger argument, but it doesn’t support it either and thus stood out. It’s as if you had ended your post with “bananas are radioactive”—true, but I’d be left wondering why you had felt the need to mention it.
I don't think it can reasonably be called good faith - it arises from a sort of carelessness with the truth, wanting to be embalmed in justification of the worst cruelties of our society at ground level so as not to critically engage with them. Much more preferable to deal with cynical political operators who don't believe what they say. Those are quite rare, and usually more transparent, so would not explain why this sort of thing pops up so much online.
If that answer doesn't satisfy you then call it observational humor regarding urban & suburban neuroses. Not really sure what you're driving at otherwise.
If that answer doesn't satisfy you then call it observational humor regarding urban & suburban neuroses. Not really sure what you're driving at otherwise.
> Never mind the crime rate is literally an order of magnitude below any of the various American metros in which I've lived
A discussion about Sweden and you couldn't help yourself huh.
A discussion about Sweden and you couldn't help yourself huh.
No, it is because of a demographic shift due to oversized non-workforce immigration. Due to this, there are more and more areas characterized as "special vulnerable" (my translation of a Swedish police term). This is partly explained in English on this wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulnerable_area
The page shows how they have evolved since 2015 but if you go back to 2000 or so, they were just a handful.
Basically, the immigration has been larger than the society can "organically" integrate, and the result are new structures in society which did not exist before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulnerable_area
The page shows how they have evolved since 2015 but if you go back to 2000 or so, they were just a handful.
Basically, the immigration has been larger than the society can "organically" integrate, and the result are new structures in society which did not exist before.
It is because of huge immigration and extremely poor integration which has lead to lots of segregation which is now manifesting in violence and crime.
You made quite a few big leaps there. Care to expand how all those are linked and immigration is therefore the cause of violence and crime?
Well, for obvious reasons no one in Sweden wants to maintain clear crime statistics that would capture perpetrators' backgrounds, but there's this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45269764
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50339977
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden#Birthplace_of_p...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45269764
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50339977
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden#Birthplace_of_p...
Sweden has taken in way more immigrants than our systems can swallow, this means the system as a whole is leaking.
This has lead to lots of segregated areas where there is no future, just people living on welfare getting nowhere in life, as much as 60% of kids fail to even finish High School in these areas, even thou they get 3x-4x of the funding compared to other schools in "good areas". And you get NOWHERE in Sweden without education.
The vast majority of the immigrants is also men which has skewed the male/female ratio in certain age groups.
The violence we see now is mainly from second-generation immigrants because they have no real connection with their home country and they have no real connection with Sweden either since they have grown up in areas where there are no Swedes.
These aimless young men + a system that have failed them + a fast growing gangster culture that promises money and respect + no real consequences for young criminals (4years max for murder, rape is a couple of months maybe if anything at all) leads to a very fast growing criminal networks / gangs.
The gangs now also have an endless supply of young men willing to do whatever it takes since we a constantly taking in more people even thou the system is showing no signs of being better at integration people.
I wanna be very clear thou, this is not due to race/skin-color or other racist bullshit, it is simply input vs output, ANY system in the known universe that gets overburden crashes or starts behaving in unfavourable ways and that is where we are now.
The vast majority of the immigrants is also men which has skewed the male/female ratio in certain age groups.
The violence we see now is mainly from second-generation immigrants because they have no real connection with their home country and they have no real connection with Sweden either since they have grown up in areas where there are no Swedes.
These aimless young men + a system that have failed them + a fast growing gangster culture that promises money and respect + no real consequences for young criminals (4years max for murder, rape is a couple of months maybe if anything at all) leads to a very fast growing criminal networks / gangs.
The gangs now also have an endless supply of young men willing to do whatever it takes since we a constantly taking in more people even thou the system is showing no signs of being better at integration people.
I wanna be very clear thou, this is not due to race/skin-color or other racist bullshit, it is simply input vs output, ANY system in the known universe that gets overburden crashes or starts behaving in unfavourable ways and that is where we are now.
How do you think this situation could best be remedied?
By pulling the break, give the system time to adjust and come up with efficient ways of integrating the people already in the country and when we start to see positive numbers then we can start taking in more people again.
Not parent but I think there is no efficient remedy. The shift in Swedish demographics are so significant that we are basically in a new era.
I just checked sweden's sentence lengths. The penalty for rape is 4-10 years and murder is often 10+ years.
Atleast that part of your claims is wrong.
Atleast that part of your claims is wrong.
I wrote "young criminals" I should be more clear, the gangs often use people below the age of 18 to commit murders since you then you get 4 years juvenil but are usually out before that due to 2/3 rule. There is even a saying in these circles: "Att brösta en 4:a för att bli en 100-gubbe" meaning Do the 4 years and become a 100-man, in other words commit a murder and you get respect and will be taken care of when you get out.
Ah, so this is just anticipatory fear-mongering, that thing some people who get off on fantasizing about bad things happening do.
Got it.
Got it.
[deleted]
There’s a personality type that enjoys complaining that their city is just the worst and they would leave if they weren’t just so accommodated etc. I’m not saying that’s you; I don’t think it is.
But when it happens in Sweden, do they call it “Stockholm syndrome”?
But when it happens in Sweden, do they call it “Stockholm syndrome”?
Ahah good effort!
It is not the fear of being robbed, but more a general feeling of personal safety, e.g. hearing cars, bicycles or any people around you, is why I don't like to wear any kind of headphones while walking around. I feel deprived of an important sense. This of course would be worse with any kind of noise-cancellation. Only when sitting town in a train I feel reasonably comfortable, but also a bit nerveous about missing an important announcement.
> I never really understood the combination of noise cancellation and home use only.
Open plan office spaces and public transport, including airplanes ;-)
Outside, that's a different story.
Open plan office spaces and public transport, including airplanes ;-)
Outside, that's a different story.
I thought Stockholm was ridiculously safe? (I've never been to Sweden)
It's safer than say London, Birmingham, Paris or Rome.
Less safe than say Oslo, Amsterdam, Edinburgh or Copenhagen.
Basically in the middle among major European cities.
Compared to the US it is much safer than Chicago, Detroit or Atlanta and less safe than for example Denver or Boston.
Less safe than say Oslo, Amsterdam, Edinburgh or Copenhagen.
Basically in the middle among major European cities.
Compared to the US it is much safer than Chicago, Detroit or Atlanta and less safe than for example Denver or Boston.
Comparatively it's one of the safest cities in the world, as in, its less safe then maybe 4-5 cities in your list?
Sure it has a couple of dodgy areas, but I lived in Sodermalm and Kungsholmen and never felt unsafe around those, I moved from Brazil and my hometown gets as many robberies reports in a day as Stockholm gets a year.
I can understand some people might be targeted for these status items but I never had any issues moving around even with an expensive laptop, phone, headphones with me, taking the public transport every day.
Sure it has a couple of dodgy areas, but I lived in Sodermalm and Kungsholmen and never felt unsafe around those, I moved from Brazil and my hometown gets as many robberies reports in a day as Stockholm gets a year.
I can understand some people might be targeted for these status items but I never had any issues moving around even with an expensive laptop, phone, headphones with me, taking the public transport every day.
It’s hard to say a city is safe/not safe as they are so big, and it varies wildly across areas
When it comes to Stockholm, I can have an image. I've been there on vacation for a total of 2 months. I've made friends in Tensta, Södermalm and in Östermalm and slept in all places.
If someone tells me that Östermalm is now a place where people rob you more easily than 10 years ago, then I have enough of a feeling how the social landscape changed. In Stockholm, I've experienced a couple of crime-ish situations in those 2 months that I didn't experience to such a frequent or great extent in Amsterdam (where I live).
In short: it might be that things in Stockholm have gotten a bit more sour.
If someone tells me that Östermalm is now a place where people rob you more easily than 10 years ago, then I have enough of a feeling how the social landscape changed. In Stockholm, I've experienced a couple of crime-ish situations in those 2 months that I didn't experience to such a frequent or great extent in Amsterdam (where I live).
In short: it might be that things in Stockholm have gotten a bit more sour.
Honestly, what is the point of this comment ?
It’s an isolated anecdote of which there are tens of millions of others just like it in the cities you mentioned. Crime stats should be based on up to the minute evidence not anecdotes.
It’s an isolated anecdote of which there are tens of millions of others just like it in the cities you mentioned. Crime stats should be based on up to the minute evidence not anecdotes.
Thanks for the feedback.
I dislike reading anecdotes as evidence as well. However, sometimes I personally simply feel free enough to express myself on HN and don't think any further than that. In most cases, this is fine, but in some cases I become part of the problem (posting anecdotes that are interpreted as "evidence").
So I'm happy you posted your reaction as I feel it's the reason why I've been downvoted a couple of times as well. Upon rereading my comment, I agree with your comment. I'll try to finetune my behavior accordingly.
I dislike reading anecdotes as evidence as well. However, sometimes I personally simply feel free enough to express myself on HN and don't think any further than that. In most cases, this is fine, but in some cases I become part of the problem (posting anecdotes that are interpreted as "evidence").
So I'm happy you posted your reaction as I feel it's the reason why I've been downvoted a couple of times as well. Upon rereading my comment, I agree with your comment. I'll try to finetune my behavior accordingly.
They have great statistics, but then you read something like this
https://www.economist.com/europe/2020/11/28/why-sweden-strug...
https://www.thelocal.se/20200923/the-situation-right-now-is-...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50339977
and realize Police simply lets criminals walk free without charges.
Remember Gizmondo? Failed mobile device startup from around 2005 that turned out to be a big scam? You might remember famous Ferrari Enzo crash in LA https://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-ferrari28feb28-story.htm... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gizmondo That was part of Swedish mafia.
https://www.economist.com/europe/2020/11/28/why-sweden-strug...
https://www.thelocal.se/20200923/the-situation-right-now-is-...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50339977
and realize Police simply lets criminals walk free without charges.
Remember Gizmondo? Failed mobile device startup from around 2005 that turned out to be a big scam? You might remember famous Ferrari Enzo crash in LA https://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-ferrari28feb28-story.htm... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gizmondo That was part of Swedish mafia.
It is. All these other kids saying otherwise are just spouting poppycock, and some of it frankly seems like thinly veiled racism. (It's the immigrants, you see!)
Look, if there are people there's gonna be crime. That's just the way it goes. But as far as moderately large cities go, Stockholm is far from dangerous. Like anywhere else some areas will be worse than others, but the parts being discussed in these comments – the inner city – are not the favelas these people seem to claim. Stockholm is a perfectly fine city, but haters gonna hate and all that I guess.
Thugs getting off too easy though, now that's a real thing.
Look, if there are people there's gonna be crime. That's just the way it goes. But as far as moderately large cities go, Stockholm is far from dangerous. Like anywhere else some areas will be worse than others, but the parts being discussed in these comments – the inner city – are not the favelas these people seem to claim. Stockholm is a perfectly fine city, but haters gonna hate and all that I guess.
Thugs getting off too easy though, now that's a real thing.
Not any more. Stockholm (and Sweden in general) has problem with rape:
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Rape-r...
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Rape-r...
I'm generally the person to be very critical of Sweden, but this is somewhat unfair as the definition of "Rape" in Sweden is incredibly broad, and includes people who can't give consent such as those experiencing fear.
Heck in 2018 they passed a law that says "Any sex act which does not have explicit consent is rape"[0] including those where there are no threats, coercion or violence of any kind.
I mockingly considered creating a "consent" app which could be signed with BankID.
Sweden is also unique in that it counts every offence as an occurrence of rape- meaning that if you're "raped by your husband 12 times a year" those are 12 separate cases of rape and not 1 (like it would be in the UK).
There is also speculation that in Sweden they take rape reports very seriously, which leads to more people coming forward with cases of rape.
This line of thinking has been discussed before, sadly by the extreme far right.[1]
[0]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44230786
[1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39056786
Heck in 2018 they passed a law that says "Any sex act which does not have explicit consent is rape"[0] including those where there are no threats, coercion or violence of any kind.
I mockingly considered creating a "consent" app which could be signed with BankID.
Sweden is also unique in that it counts every offence as an occurrence of rape- meaning that if you're "raped by your husband 12 times a year" those are 12 separate cases of rape and not 1 (like it would be in the UK).
There is also speculation that in Sweden they take rape reports very seriously, which leads to more people coming forward with cases of rape.
This line of thinking has been discussed before, sadly by the extreme far right.[1]
[0]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44230786
[1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39056786
> I'm generally the person to be very critical of Sweden, but this is somewhat unfair as the definition of "Rape" in Sweden is incredibly broad, and includes people who can't give consent such as those experiencing fear.
I'm unsure if I'm reading the way you worded this incorrectly or not.
Are you saying people who are too scared to say no are only included because the definition is "incredibly broad"?! Do you think people too scared to say no shouldn't be included?
If so, I'd argue you must have a very narrow personal definition, which worries me.
I'm unsure if I'm reading the way you worded this incorrectly or not.
Are you saying people who are too scared to say no are only included because the definition is "incredibly broad"?! Do you think people too scared to say no shouldn't be included?
If so, I'd argue you must have a very narrow personal definition, which worries me.
The point I imagine is that few other countries count rape statistically that way.
I'm critical of Sweden in that the people have blind trust of authority and are failing to integrate people (this includes me, as a British migrant), and will go to great lengths to avoid any mention of demographics when talking about crime. Talking about it _at all_ will get you branded a racist.
However I'm saying that the definition of rape in Sweden is broader than other countries and encompasses more things, so the same action in the UK could be classified as domestic violence or sexual harassment (thus, not rape) but in Sweden it would be rape.
For one (of many) example(s), in the UK it's impossible for a woman to rape a man, because legally the perpetrator needs to penetrate the victim. This is not the case in Sweden.
However I'm saying that the definition of rape in Sweden is broader than other countries and encompasses more things, so the same action in the UK could be classified as domestic violence or sexual harassment (thus, not rape) but in Sweden it would be rape.
For one (of many) example(s), in the UK it's impossible for a woman to rape a man, because legally the perpetrator needs to penetrate the victim. This is not the case in Sweden.
Statistics from between 10-16 years ago.
Not sure how it is remotely relevant to life today.
Not sure how it is remotely relevant to life today.
This section of Wikipedia article refers to data from 2018.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden#Birthplace_of_p...
Is this recent enough?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden#Birthplace_of_p...
Is this recent enough?
'Rape' is a very grey crime, and it depends entirely on so many factors.
So 'rape' is the crime that's really not worthy of easy comparison between nations.
Like if you were a grad student, literally doing a thesis on it - ok, but otherwise, it's just a chunky one.
So 'rape' is the crime that's really not worthy of easy comparison between nations.
Like if you were a grad student, literally doing a thesis on it - ok, but otherwise, it's just a chunky one.
Depends on where you are and the time of day.
Used to be. Those days are past us.
Why is that? Any pointers for further reading?
It looks like it has gotten much worse in recent years. There was a 60-minutes block from Australian TV on the topic. I couldn't find the whole video, but here's a fragment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kpRVk9KOmo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kpRVk9KOmo
Just to pick one reputable source in English
https://www.economist.com/europe/2020/11/28/why-sweden-strug...
https://www.economist.com/europe/2020/11/28/why-sweden-strug...
Sweden has taken in around 1-1.2 million people in the last 10 years or so, roughly 10% of the population. Mainly from countries that have vastly different values than swedes.
These huge numbers in combination with really poor integration has lead to a very segregated society. You now read about gang shootings, rapes, humiliation robberies (they rob the victims then piss them in the mouth or cut off an ear or so, just for fun). These things are happening daily now, it used to be maybe once a year you read about a shooting or particular nasty rape/robbery.
These huge numbers in combination with really poor integration has lead to a very segregated society. You now read about gang shootings, rapes, humiliation robberies (they rob the victims then piss them in the mouth or cut off an ear or so, just for fun). These things are happening daily now, it used to be maybe once a year you read about a shooting or particular nasty rape/robbery.
>You now read about gang shootings, rapes, humiliation robberies...
Oh my god.... And then I realise last time I was there it was before GFC. This is very sad to hear / read.
Oh my god.... And then I realise last time I was there it was before GFC. This is very sad to hear / read.
Maybe not so off-topic if you think about it.
If you recall, the early iPhones were stolen the lot until Apple tied the devices to the Apple ID. This allowed you to lock the device and make it a worthless piece of hardware when the owner wanted it to be.
In principle, with all the electronics on the AirPods, one could imagine a situation where they are locked to an Apple ID and if they are stolen they could be locked down. This would dramatically lower the resale value and prevent future thefts if Apple were to implement this.
If you recall, the early iPhones were stolen the lot until Apple tied the devices to the Apple ID. This allowed you to lock the device and make it a worthless piece of hardware when the owner wanted it to be.
In principle, with all the electronics on the AirPods, one could imagine a situation where they are locked to an Apple ID and if they are stolen they could be locked down. This would dramatically lower the resale value and prevent future thefts if Apple were to implement this.
Really? I live in Malmo, Sweden (affectionately called "Crime City" by the locals) and I don't get the impression I'd be robbed.
Mostly because criminals know that the resale of apple goods is entirely on the parts, which is not worth much.
Mostly because criminals know that the resale of apple goods is entirely on the parts, which is not worth much.
>Mostly because criminals know that the resale of apple goods is entirely on the parts, which is not worth much.
Isn't that mostly due to activation lock? Is there any kind of similar mechanism for the AirPods Max?
Isn't that mostly due to activation lock? Is there any kind of similar mechanism for the AirPods Max?
hmm. my reading suggests you need to go a little south to Ystad for crime.
I remember people used to say the same thing in early days of Apple mobile devices that shipped with (then) unusual white in-ear headphones. White headphones -> high probability of an expensive gadget in a pocket.
> I never really understood the combination of noise cancellation and home use only.
I never wear headphones when walking/biking etc, but I’ve worn mine pretty much non-srop at home for the past year. The computer fan, neighborhood noices, fridge, all is quieter and the music is better. I focus better.
Where they really have shown themselves to be indispensible though is on my 2h30 roundtrip daily commute by train[1], complete bliss.
[1] On hold since March..
I never wear headphones when walking/biking etc, but I’ve worn mine pretty much non-srop at home for the past year. The computer fan, neighborhood noices, fridge, all is quieter and the music is better. I focus better.
Where they really have shown themselves to be indispensible though is on my 2h30 roundtrip daily commute by train[1], complete bliss.
[1] On hold since March..
> I never really understood the combination of noise cancellation and home use only.
WFH kids, dogs etc. AirPods pro help a lot with that situation for me.
WFH kids, dogs etc. AirPods pro help a lot with that situation for me.
Exactly. My desk is next to my dryer, which is currently running, and my furnace is in a closet behind me. ANC helps block those noises, which would be inescapable otherwise unless I wanted to play my music way too loud.
Yeah, same with three kids here (although it does mean people on video calls hear them, or in one case a fire alarm, before I do). I have to admit I will sometimes wear them either way though, I feel it helps me focus.
I was ambivalent about noise-cancellation until two things happened at home this year…
- With the assistance of a friend, I rebuilt my kitchen. He swore by his AirPod Pros, I dealt with hours of tablesaws and sanding with foam in my ears.
- Then my building owners jackhammered apart the rooftop overhead in an asbestos removal project.
Now I’m thanking my AirPod Pro every time my neighbor’s baby wakes up at night.
- With the assistance of a friend, I rebuilt my kitchen. He swore by his AirPod Pros, I dealt with hours of tablesaws and sanding with foam in my ears.
- Then my building owners jackhammered apart the rooftop overhead in an asbestos removal project.
Now I’m thanking my AirPod Pro every time my neighbor’s baby wakes up at night.
I don't think noise cancelling headphones protect you from hearing damage though so you made the right choice
I usually refer to my headphones as neighbor cancelling headphones. I live in an apartment and while my neighbors are nice people, inevitably you get some noise from televisions, people moving around, etc. Noise cancellation gets rid of most of that. Also, I like being able to walk around in my place without having to worry about wires.
> I never really understood the combination of noise cancellation and home use only.
Some of us have kids banging around the house all day.
Some of us have kids banging around the house all day.
Hmmm, sounds like Stockholm is way more dangerous than NYC? Or is just your neighborhood really dangerous.
[deleted]
> I never really understood the combination of noise cancellation and home use only.
Sadly, you can't (realistically) wear them in bed while you sleep.
Sadly, you can't (realistically) wear them in bed while you sleep.
Bose makes a product specifically for sleeping. I don’t have any experience with them myself.
https://www.bose.com/en_us/products/wellness/noise_masking_s...
https://www.bose.com/en_us/products/wellness/noise_masking_s...
Keep in mind the Bose Sleepbuds aren’t for music, just sleep sounds. My girlfriend got some, but they gave her headaches.
“Unlike headphones, Sleepbuds™ don't stream music or podcasts. They play content only from the Bose Sleep app.”
“Unlike headphones, Sleepbuds™ don't stream music or podcasts. They play content only from the Bose Sleep app.”
Not these new ones, no. I have worn AirPods Pro while falling asleep, both for music and for noise canceling, and in my ears, they're comfortable.
The original AirPods weren't, but the Pro are, at least for me.
The original AirPods weren't, but the Pro are, at least for me.
I've actually used AirPods Pro (and my girlfriend used her Bose QC35 IIs) to fall asleep in a hotel room with a very thin wall and a loud conversation in the next room over. If you toss and turn or insist on sleeping on your side, they might not work, but if you just sleep on your back or front there shouldn't be much of an issue.
I'm central UK and had the exact same thought when I saw these announced — it would be a brave soul who wears these where I grew up!
Try living in a commie block in some Central European city. The walls are incredibly thin.
These are limited to 256kbps low bandwidth Bluetooth. Leave it to Apple to change prices of hifi headphones, but make what amounts to laughable input quality. Expensive toys for rich people that really don’t know any better. Just like the XDR display, which was presented as “competing with industry titans at lower price”, but that ended up as complete bullshit claim by Apple.
Sony’s competitors, however badly named, cost 350$ (before the usual discounts on Amazon and retailers), and have audio in, and support higher audio input fidelity. They still use low quality amp+dac, but still the end result is much better than this.
Sony’s competitors, however badly named, cost 350$ (before the usual discounts on Amazon and retailers), and have audio in, and support higher audio input fidelity. They still use low quality amp+dac, but still the end result is much better than this.
Just a reminder that 256kbit is A LOT when using modern codecs. http://soundexpert.org/encoders-256-kbps
Where is this info form, btw? I'd love to read more specs. BT5 has a 2Mbit throughput for LE.
Where is this info form, btw? I'd love to read more specs. BT5 has a 2Mbit throughput for LE.
> Just a reminder that 256kbit is A LOT when using modern codecs.
Seriously. Opus is close to transparent already at 128kbps.
Seriously. Opus is close to transparent already at 128kbps.
I know it’s tempting to believe only the audio specs matter, but would you buy a receiver with great output and only one jack?
There’s more to it, perhaps.
The ecosystem integration, materials are apparently above the plastic-y norm, the just works without fiddling with EQ...
Oh and buying them is not compulsory. Really very little reason to even login to post this, given reality on the whole.
Thanks for sharing I guess. Not sure how salty hot takes make HN “better” than Reddit. The rules mean nothing.
There’s more to it, perhaps.
The ecosystem integration, materials are apparently above the plastic-y norm, the just works without fiddling with EQ...
Oh and buying them is not compulsory. Really very little reason to even login to post this, given reality on the whole.
Thanks for sharing I guess. Not sure how salty hot takes make HN “better” than Reddit. The rules mean nothing.
You're probably putting another DAC in the signal path with this, but you can plug in a 3.5mm audio source to the AirPods Max: https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MR2C2AM/A/lightning-to-35...
Looks to me that the only market for these headphones are people who travel a lot (flights/trains) and/or want to show a status symbol. For all other use case the design has some significant flaws. E.g. a higher end headphone such as the Hifiman Sundara has the same weight, better sound (bluetooth is anyway questionable for good sound unless you use something like LDAC), much cheaper (350) and is therefore probably better suited for stationary usage. You can also get similarly priced headphones with bluetooth for stationary use. For mobile use (walking, or even running) something with this weight is definitely too heavy.
How come everyone's "how is this any better than $model?" example is a wired pair of headphones? If you're going to name drop a direct competitor, at least make sure it's wireless.
I purchased the regular AirPods and this point was reached even sooner, after ~2 years of heavy usage they don't work longer than 15 minutes.
With almost all other wireless over-ear headphones you can at least keep using them passively with a headphone jack when the battery inevitably degrades. Some even have user-replaceable batteries. I have been using old AKG headphones for > 15 years.
Yet another throw-away product from a self-proclaimed environmentally friendly company.