[HN Gopher] AirPods Max: An Audiophile Review
___________________________________________________________________
AirPods Max: An Audiophile Review
Author : drclau
Score : 247 points
Date : 2021-02-02 13:28 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (mariusmasalar.me)
(TXT) w3m dump (mariusmasalar.me)
| mrkwse wrote:
| I purchased and returned a pair of the AirPods Max, with the
| discomfort being the deciding factor in me not keeping them.
|
| I was mostly impressed with the audio (although the spatial audio
| didn't really resonate with me, pardon the pun), but they were
| not comfortable and after an hour I wasn't able to keep them on
| for longer. This is primarily due to the very narrow focus of
| clamping pressure at the top of the earcups where the headband is
| joined by the ball joint.*
|
| The bluetooth was a little unreliable too, even with me trying
| them exclusively with an up-to-date iPhone/iPad Pro.
|
| I ended up getting a pair of B&W PX7s instead which feel and
| sound about as premium, but for half the price after a Boxing Day
| sale (although many people will perceive the carbon-composite
| construction to feel cheap due to its weight).
|
| I put some of my thoughts along with a diagram showing the
| pressure issue in a blog post when I returned them last month:
| https://mrkw.se/posts/airpods-max
|
| * The pressure may have improved with time as the headphones
| loosened, but with the 14 day return period I wasn't confident
| enough to chance it.
| zekrioca wrote:
| The 'artistic' pictures of the guy wearing the headphones are
| interesting.. They seem like reading the review while walking and
| seeing some photography collection in a museum..
| [deleted]
| ivraatiems wrote:
| Another at least semi-audiophile reviewer said similar things,
| and also had inexplicable quality issues:
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ReuDIYYk3fk
|
| My Hifiman HE-560s, which are non-Bluetooth, open-backed monitors
| with notoriously heavy planar magnetic drivers, weigh 10g less
| than these.
|
| I'm sure they sound really good, but there are plenty of good-
| sounding Bluetooth headsets at much lower costs. Or, for $900
| CAD, there are plenty of truly fantastic audiophile
| headphone/dac/amp combos that'd probably blow these out of the
| water.
| twsted wrote:
| "The reason that other high-end headphone manufacturers lean
| heavily on plastic and even wood in their builds isn't that they
| can't afford metal. It's because they're interested in having
| human beings wear these products on their heads for hours at a
| time."
| batmenace wrote:
| Honestly, I've been absolutely loving the feeling of these on
| my head, they've been ay more comfortable (for me) than e.g.
| the Sonys.
| ejameson wrote:
| I've tried Bose and Sony noise cancelling headphones and
| they've all given me a headache from pressure under my ears.
| After reading some reviews of these, I decided to give them a
| shot to see how they compare. So far they are a lot more
| comfortable for my head shape, and I haven't noticed the
| weight being an issue, yet.
| oblio wrote:
| I imagine this also depends on your build and physical
| condition. I imagine that if you're petite and/or out of
| shape, they might be too heavy.
| yarcob wrote:
| It's very typical for Apple. They make some very nice products,
| but they unfortunately apply a one-size-fits-all approach for
| most of their products and don't give a shit about ergonomics.
|
| They sell products that work for 80% of people. I can't use the
| Apple mouse because it gives me wrist pain. My partner can't
| use Airpods because they hurt her ears. Their products work for
| some people, but if you're unlucky you can only go buy some
| other companies product.
|
| It always struck me as odd, that despite all their focus on
| accessibility in software, they seem to ignore ergonomics for
| the most part. Probably because offering the smallest number of
| hardware models is more important to them than covering the
| whole market.
| henryackerman wrote:
| Using a magic mouse is near-instant wrist pain for me.
| Although I like the idea of gestures on the mouse, it just
| won't work for me. On the other hand, the logitech MX ergo
| has been stellar for me for the past year!
| adwww wrote:
| Same for me - I can use almost any mouse going just fine,
| but any shade of the Mighty Mouse feels instantly painful
| to me.
|
| Also, on the original Mighty Mouse I used to use, I
| frequently found however hard I pressed, I couldn't click
| it - my hand just didn't correctly align with where I was
| supposed to apply pressure.
| ascagnel_ wrote:
| I swear by the MX Ergo, but I splurged on a Ergo M575 late
| last year, and while I don't love that it only supports a
| single device (unlike the MX, which can switch between
| two), having an even flatter trackball is nice.
| ricw wrote:
| I know from people working at Apple that they're acutely
| aware of this, but it's a hard problem to deal with. Turns
| out that the variance of human ears is so big that it's
| nearly impossible to make something fit all. Hence you will
| always exclude a certain percentage of people.
|
| This was particularly bad for the original ear pods and
| normal AirPods (80% if I remember correctly), is much better
| for the AirPod pros with their exchangeable inner ear pieces
| (90%), and even better with the AirPod Max's (95%).
|
| Though if your ears are at the extreme end you're out of
| luck. I guess it's an unfair version of Darwin's law... can't
| really blame Apple for that though. Other headphone
| manufacturers don't act differently in that regard.
| Miraste wrote:
| My Samsung wireless earbuds came with three sizes of earbud
| tip _and_ three sizes /shapes of exterior. Apple could do
| better if they wanted to.
| heisenbergs wrote:
| Airpod Pros do exactly that too.
|
| Never seen over the ear headphones come with alternative
| cups (though easily doable with the Max as they're
| detachable)
| yarcob wrote:
| I think it's only really a hard problem because Apple has
| decided that they will only offer a single model (of most
| products).
|
| Apple makes one mouse. It's going to fit 80% of people and
| they will like it. If you're one of the remaining 20%, go
| buy one from Logitech or Microsoft.
| markonen wrote:
| > Probably because offering the smallest number of hardware
| models is more important to them than covering the whole
| market.
|
| This is in the institutional DNA of Apple because it saved
| the company in the late nineties. Steve Jobs famously came in
| and canned dozens of Mac models, arguing that only four were
| needed: A pro desktop and a consumer desktop, a pro laptop
| and a consumer laptop. And that was that.
|
| Apple is, what, a hundred times bigger today, but I don't
| think the product design side of the company has really
| scaled up as much. I think they could afford to expand a bit.
| SllX wrote:
| > but they unfortunately apply a one-size-fits-all approach
| for most of their products and don't give a shit about
| ergonomics.
|
| Their H1 chipset line includes a fair number of products for
| different uses, ears and preferences.
|
| AirPods Mark II, AirPods Pro w/ 3 separate tip sizes, AirPods
| Max, Powerbeats Pro which IIRC had 4 or 5 tip sizes in the
| box (would have to dig it out to check), the Beats Solo Pro
| and the 2020 Powerbeats.
|
| Not all of these are good fits on me, and I've owned or tried
| most of them. Pretty sure the remainder of the Beats line
| sold today that I haven't listed is still on the W1 which is
| still a decent enough chip, although I've found the H1 to
| have superior wireless performance in crowded downtown San
| Francisco where the W1 would have trouble maintaining a
| connection to my phone.
|
| For all the headphones they sell, I think there are still
| some gaps in Apple's lineup to fill and room for other
| products in the market. I don't know what their plans are,
| but if they intend to remain contenders they probably are
| working on designs that you might like more, unlike say, the
| mouse, where they made Ive's platonic ideal of a mouse and
| seemed to have called it a day, there is no range or
| differentiation: you can have a Magic Trackpad or you can
| have a Magic Mouse. I mean that's fine, I'm happy with my
| Logitech mouse.
| [deleted]
| Tepix wrote:
| > _I put them on and somehow found myself lying on the floor of
| my room, two hours later, having become completely lost in the
| music._
|
| I've had this happen with Stax headphones (they call them
| "electrostatic earpeakers"). They sound sublime. They are also
| super comfortable. Alas, they are not wireless and require a
| special driver unit. But if you have the chance, do check them
| out. It's a wonderful experience.
| Bakary wrote:
| Do self-described audiophiles often perform ABX testing? I think
| if they did, it could lead to some uncomfortable moments for many
| rikkus wrote:
| Not often, no, and for that reason. If you do a web search for
| the terms 'audiophile' and 'ABX' you'll find quite a few
| reports which are quite fun to read.
| ksec wrote:
| >It is, therefore, my sworn duty to be skeptical of consumer
| technology companies encroaching on the territory of high-end
| audio equipment built by companies with decades of experience.
|
| > but their track record with audio hardware is inconsistent.
| Somehow, the company that makes the HomePod--a marvel of mono
| speaker engineering--is also the company that continues to make
| and sell Beats products.
|
| When Beats were acquired by Apple. Especially with Jimmy Iovine
| in charge of Apple Music ( initially ). I was extremely worried
| that any of the _crap_ Beats made infect Apple 's Audio. Turns
| out Apple has Firewalled their department pretty well. I remember
| reading one of the story about HomePod team asking Jimmy Iovine's
| opinion on its audio quality. His reply was his usual " You need
| more Bass".
|
| Apple audio engineering teams consist of many engineers from
| Bowers & Wilkins . One of my favourite brand in Audio Equipment.
| ( I _think_ , I could be wrong, Steve Jobs likes Bowers & Wilkins
| too ) And you should notice their _taste_ of Audio have many
| similar traits.
|
| So Beats continue to make crap, they did improve somewhat since
| Apple's purchased them. And Apple, continues to be Apple.
|
| But that is only with Audio, the AirPods Max Hardware Design is
| very much modern Apple and non-Bowers & Wilkins. The weight and
| comfort issues. Something about Apple's Design Department changed
| ever since Steve Jobs is not there to be the Editor to edit
| things. Things like Keyboard, TrackPad or Headsets. User Comfort
| and usage are no longer the 1st priority. Instead it is
| aesthetics and design goals, that could be material ( the need to
| use Metal ), thinner or colour.
|
| Design is how it works, not how it looks. Hopefully recent Mac
| changes meant they learned a thing or two.
| samizdis wrote:
| If you're not already familiar with Dieter Rams, you might like
| his thoughts on design; see:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieter_Rams
|
| I saw a great documentary about Rams, which was put online as
| free to watch - but for only a month or so. Not sure whether it
| was this one, but I _think_ that it might be. There 's a chance
| you might find it archived somewhere:
|
| https://www.hustwit.com/rams/
|
| Edit for spelling and to add that it's available on Amazon
| Prime (for me in the UK):
|
| https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/video/detail/amzn1.dv.gti.38b698...
| gwd wrote:
| > I remember reading one of the story about HomePod team asking
| Jimmy Iovine's opinion on its audio quality. His reply was his
| usual " You need more Bass".
|
| The fact that the author thinks the HomePods have great sound
| rather makes me doubt his audiophile qualifications. I
| consistently have to listen to music at a much lower volume
| than I want because even at a moderate volume, the bass hurts
| my ears. Listening to classical is even more annoying, as
| everything is fine until some poor instrument wanders in to the
| HomePod's "BOOST THAT BASS" range and suddenly the balance is
| all wrong.
| zachwood wrote:
| I returned a homepod after really wanting to like it. I tried
| several locations, didn't matter, the bass is overpowering.
|
| There's a HUGE bass boost. It's unlistenable to anyone
| familiar with what a relatively neutral frequency response
| should sound like.
|
| I don't know what type of curve they are targeting with all
| of their auto-eq magic but if you're not going to make it
| user-adjustable, I don't know why you would choose a bass
| cannon.
| Anechoic wrote:
| _Apple audio engineering teams consist of many engineers from
| Bowers & Wilkins_
|
| Tom Holman is there as well.
| fossuser wrote:
| Apple's mice have always been form over function (with some
| rationalized nonsense to try and pretend that it's actually
| about function). That was directly from Steve Jobs who
| supposedly mistook an unfinished mock as a mouse with no
| buttons.
|
| I like the weight of the Max headphones and how they feel
| premium rather than plastic, I also use them at my desk and
| don't think they're uncomfortable. The butterfly keyboard, and
| touchbar are post-jobs failures though, but we're almost done
| with them.
|
| I guess my point is that there were mistakes during the Jobs
| era too, people just forget them.
|
| > "Design is how it works, not how it looks."
|
| It's both.
| majormajor wrote:
| > But that is only with Audio, the AirPods Max Hardware Design
| is very much modern Apple and non-Bowers & Wilkins. The weight
| and comfort issues.
|
| My B&W PX headphones suggest that they have plenty of weight
| and comfort issues of their own. ;) Sennheiser Momentums were
| much more comfy, but didn't sound as good :|
| wincy wrote:
| Interesting, I own a pair of Bowers and Wilkins PX headphones
| and they sound great, no complaints aside from the year the
| firmware got stuck in some failure state and they wouldn't
| reboot/function until the battery died.
| runT1ME wrote:
| I have the same issue with my PX, every two months or so I
| have to use the paper clip to hard reboot them. Kind of
| annoying to need to do for a $400 pair of headphones, but
| they sound great, look good, and are very comfortable.
| n_kr wrote:
| The only affordable consumer audio products I have liked are
| from Marshall. They make a good lineup of bluetooth speakers
| for home use. I picked up one of those, and it sounds very good
| for its price. It has very decent bass, and generally good
| response all across the range. And just for fun, I put a
| processed guitar in aux input, not bad at all.
|
| Another one which I like a lot are the range of mini amps from
| Laney. They aren't targeted for normal home use, but they can
| be used with bluetooth and aux-in. For their price and size,
| they sound very good. As a guitar amp...ehhh its OK for the
| price, but its portable.
|
| Its really telling that both are veteran music gear companies.
| buran77 wrote:
| The rumors that Apple purchased Jimmy Iovine and Beats Music,
| and also got a mediocre headphones company in the bundle are
| most likely true. Apple needed to launch their music service,
| not their audio hardware business, so the acquisition worked
| and payed dividends on that front. They're probably squeezing
| Beats for all it's worth now because they can. But I'm sure
| from an engineering perspective Beats still brings nothing of
| value to the table now as it didn't then.
| Tycho wrote:
| I don't think so. Beats headphones were the first thing since
| the iPod that was approaching Apple's cachet with young music
| fans. They were fashionable. That is Apple's turf.
| buran77 wrote:
| > I don't think so. [...] They were fashionable.
|
| I think you do think so. Describing them as "fashionable"
| is just endorsing my remark that _from an engineering
| perspective_ Beats brings nothing of value. I was being
| very charitable when I said "mediocre headphones", the
| _engineering_ behind Beats certainly had no value for
| Apple. And even today the most valuable part of the
| engineering behind a pair of Beats is Apple 's W chip. I
| know I said engineering quite a few times but I want the
| focus of my comment to be clear.
| giuliomagnifico wrote:
| To me doesn't look like an audiophile review. An audiophile can't
| accept a Bluetooth connection, especially with AAC.
| peteretep wrote:
| > They frustrate me because you can tell that these could have
| been disruptively perfect. If Apple had made them lighter, chosen
| better materials, made them fold properly, given them a useable
| case
|
| I suspect v2 will do many of these things
| crazygringo wrote:
| I agree. But it still baffles me why Apple wouldn't get these
| things right on the first try. It's not exactly rocket science.
| I imagine focus group testing would have told them that loud
| and clear.
| spekcular wrote:
| It's a detailed, well-written review, but like most mainstream
| headphone reviews it makes me cringe a little. Though masked
| somewhat by self-deprecating remarks, there's audiophile "woo"
| peaking out from behind the corner (e.g. the comment about
| lossless compression). More importantly, it's missing the most
| important part of a headphone review: a measurement of the
| frequency response curve!
|
| It's fairly well known that above the ~$100 price level,
| headphone sound quality differences mostly disappear once
| equalized properly [0]. The real test is not stock AirPods versus
| H9i (as done in the review), it's AirPods versus H9i once they're
| both equalized to a common frequency target. Otherwise you're
| testing the manufacturer's tuning as much as the actual quality
| of the hardware.
|
| Certainly, there's something to be said for the manufacturer
| getting it right in the first place so you don't have to bother
| with EQ when listening on a mobile device, etc. But I think the
| following two points are likely true:
|
| 1) People will score the AirPods highly in subjective listening
| tests;
|
| 2) The performance in those listening tests has more to do with
| the frequency tuning of the AirPods than anything about its
| hardware, and you could get a virtually identical listening
| experience with a $100 to $200 pair of Sennheisers and an EQ app.
|
| [0] See e.g.
| http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2017/02/twirt-337-predicting-h....
| Sean Olive has a bunch of papers on this.
| k0stas wrote:
| > It's fairly well known that above the ~$100 price level,
| headphone sound quality differences mostly disappear once
| equalized properly [0].
|
| This depends on your definition of "mostly disappear". If you
| mean, ignoring, soundstage, imaging, distortion, and other
| parameters that affect sound, then yes, but even a non-
| audiophile could easily discern the difference between an open-
| back vs. a closed-back headphone with identical magnitude
| response (by your definition, the differences between these two
| headphones should have mostly disappeared).
|
| From linear signal analysis, magnitude adjustments do not
| provide enough degrees of freedom (and thus are not sufficient)
| to transform any response into another response. And this is
| true for practical sound signals not just theoretical
| concoctions.
|
| Take a look at any headphone review at rtings.com where they
| try to capture other parameters in addition to magnitude
| response. They test for phase response (related to imaging),
| PRTF (pinna-related transfer function --- related to
| soundstage), and harmonic distortion. These would not
| automatically match between headphones that were modified by
| gain adjustments to have identical magnitude response.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > the difference between an open-back vs. a closed-back
| headphone with identical magnitude response (by your
| definition, the differences between these two headphones
| should have mostly disappeared).
|
| What an uncharitable reading! They said the _quality_
| differences mostly disappear.
| daxelrod wrote:
| This is fascinating, thank you.
|
| As a counterpoint to your #2, what proportion people using
| $100-$200 headphones equalize them properly?
|
| This strikes me as similar to displays. Most people don't do
| any calibration, and reviewers tend to review both the monitor
| calibrated from factory and after their own custom calibration.
| ihuman wrote:
| > Otherwise you're testing the manufacturer's tuning as much as
| the actual quality of the hardware.
|
| Shouldn't you test the how Apple tuned the Airpods max, since
| you can't change it's EQ?
| spekcular wrote:
| You can modify EQ of the source. If you're playing from a
| computer or mp3 player, there are many apps that do this.
| blantonl wrote:
| Yes, when I saw " _I threw my most demanding tracks at them_ "
| I stifled a yawn but could not help but roll my eyes.
| lostgame wrote:
| I had made a similar comment before reading yours. I am really
| glad I am not alone, here. I was absolutely taken aback by the
| lack of Frequency Response curve graph in a so-called
| audiophile review, and as a pro audio engineer on the side I am
| consistently driven nuts by this.
|
| There is so, so much subjectivity in headphone reviews, and so
| little science these days - if I had any interest in doing so
| whatsoever I would certainly start up my own review site,
| refuse to review headphones that were given to me by the
| companies themselves to assure a lack of bias, and - you know -
| actually do some science.
|
| I, for one - would be interested in doing my own sets of
| frequency response data and comparing them to what these
| companies _should_ be providing to start, and so often do not.
|
| Ugh. Hybrid consumer/pro audio gear is the worst. >.<
| GloriousKoji wrote:
| The problem is all these review sites are pseudo experts
| writing copy of how it fits into a hipster/techster/trending
| life with just substance to pass off as an educated
| conclusion.
|
| But don't worry, there is a place for FFT graphs. rtings.com
| is excellent for reviews on audio and visual gear.
|
| Here's their review on the airpod max:
| https://www.rtings.com/headphones/reviews/apple/airpods-
| max-...
| passivate wrote:
| This is a headphone for listening to music, not for audio
| mixing. I wish you success with your review site idea, but it
| would not be one I would personally seek out (saying this as
| an audio nut myself). There are a few websites that measure
| more than just the sound signature though - e.g. https://www.
| rtings.com/headphones/reviews/sony/wh-1000xm4-wi...
|
| As an aside, applying scientific principles doesn't
| automatically make the review any better. Science works by
| proposing a hypothesis/model and collecting data to see if
| the data matches the model. If your hypothesis/model is just
| average, and not world-class, then the most carefully
| collected data doesn't hold much weight/value.
|
| For e.g. Minor changes in the sound signature/frequency
| response are only audible when you listen to the same music
| across multiple headphones, and that too when you're
| carefully listening. Also the sound signature can vary when
| the fit of the headphone changes as per the individual head
| shape/ear shape/etc. All this is assuming there is enough
| manufacturing tolerance to produce headphones with identical
| sound signatures, etc, etc.
|
| Ultimately you'll have to come up with a hypothesis/model
| that is better than the current one. Which is not to say it
| can't be done, but its a tall order, but I hope you give it a
| shot at-least. If nothing else you'll have a cool blog post
| :)
| kalleboo wrote:
| These headphones have a DSP that continually reconfigures the
| response, I'm not sure that any synthetically generated
| frequency response curve would actually mean anything.
| bigtones wrote:
| This is true, and so do a lot of high end headphones that are
| not studio monitors. Pretty much any of them over $300 have a
| DSP in them configured to a curve.
| jablan wrote:
| So it's intentionally distorting sound? Even so, it could be
| measured and compared, with more complex sound patterns (as
| opposed to sine waves or whatever is normally used for
| frequency response).
| pfortuny wrote:
| That is what the OP says: they sound great but you will not
| be able to reproduce that kind of sound with other
| headphones because it is dynamically modified (it is what
| OP calls "fake").
|
| Not criticizing, just stating OPs argument.
| passivate wrote:
| > it's missing the most important part of a headphone review: a
| measurement of the frequency response curve!
|
| Why is it the most important part? As you said this is a main-
| stream headphone review.
|
| From my experience, most consumers don't enjoy listening to
| music w/ a flat curve - if that is where you're going with
| this. I've sunk several thousand dollars into high-end gear,
| and even I don't want a flat curve. A flat curve is most useful
| if you are an audio engineer working in a studio. I'd much
| rather use different headphones for different kinds of music,
| than compromise and use a flat-curve which sounds incredibly
| boring (to me).
| rokweom wrote:
| Considering he's linking to Sean Olive's (the main guy behind
| Harman's research into headphones and Harman curve) blog,
| he's likely very much aware that flat frequency response
| doesn't sound good.
| threeseed wrote:
| It says in the title that this is an Audiophile review.
|
| I would expect a frequency response graph and sound signature
| e.g. U, V, Harman etc.
| passivate wrote:
| The comment I was responding to accepted that this was a
| mainstream review, but then complained about the lack of a
| frequency response graph - the importance of which I
| personally think is way way overblown even as an audio nut
| myself.
| illvm wrote:
| Why not a flat curve + EQ?
| Green_man wrote:
| A frequency response curve should be included because it
| provides useful information to (some) consumers, not because
| a "flat" curve is necessarily desirable. While the entire
| experiance cannot be discerned from a curve alone, and users
| can eq the signal, it provides a good idea of what the
| headphones will actually sound like, and a set of priorities
| and tradeoffs made in designing the headphones.
| passivate wrote:
| > it provides a good idea of what the headphones will
| actually sound like, and a set of priorities and tradeoffs
| made in designing the headphones.
|
| OK, I'll bite. Two headphones with the same response curve
| can still sound very different (as you also alluded to), so
| what useful information are you hoping to convey to a
| consumer? I'm all for objective measurements provided they
| actually tell the buyer something useful that can influence
| their decision. If we have to fall back to subjective
| impressions of imaging, detail, sound-stage, etc, etc, then
| it becomes moot, and we're back to square one.
| Green_man wrote:
| yes, but the curve is actual numbers, while I haven't
| seen an effective (or standardized) objective measure of
| soundstage or detail. Even though the frequency response
| curve isn't _everything_ that matters, because it's both
| relevant to the sound, and can be measured fairly
| objectively, I think it's an important detail in a
| headphone review. While subjective impressions could say
| that "bass is anemic" or "no mids", I may not know (or
| disagree with) what they consider "normal". A measured
| response curve, combined with subjective impressions, can
| demonstrate the reviewer's preferences within a better
| context. Reviewers who don't show a response curve could
| instead communicate their impressions of other popular
| headphones, but market fragmentation (and the cost of
| nice headphones) makes this less useful imo.
|
| Largely, I agree with your sentiment, in that reviews of
| headphones/audio are less useful than reviews of other
| products. In the absence of objective measurements of
| every important variable, I find myself resorting to
| buying brands I've had good experiences with, rather than
| spec chasing. I wish I had more numbers to use, but in
| the meantime, I try to buy headphones less frequently.
| andybak wrote:
| My first thought was "Is this audiophile as in 'believes in
| magic stones and digital cables that improve the warmth'"?
|
| The term "audiophile" has been permanently tarnished in my mind
| and sits in a corner of my brain next to homeopathy and EM
| sensitivity.
| tgv wrote:
| Or how a felt tip pen applied to the edge of a CD can stop
| the laser from spilling out, and make the sound much more
| focused.
|
| Here's a recent review I encountered while looking for
| something tangentially related: "These QED audio cables
| promote a wide-open soundstage, both vertically and
| horizontally. They help vocals sound full-bodied and weighty,
| but with lots of breathing space above them, too. Put simply,
| if you covet space and detail with sure but nimble footwork
| and heaps of insight, consider your search for an RCA audio
| cable complete."
| VRay wrote:
| That sounds great, but I'm happy with my hand-bent coat
| hanger
| Nition wrote:
| I happen to have a link to _that_ classic post handy:
| https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/speakers-
| when-...
| jrimbault wrote:
| https://www.headphones.com/blogs/news/apple-airpods-max-revi...
| look for the paragraph : "Frequency Response & Tonality", the
| issue is these headphones change their tuning on the fly.
| auggierose wrote:
| I've used them since the day they came out, and they are on my
| head basically 50% of my non-sleeping time. Good buy.
|
| They don't feel heavy at all, I love the physical design, music
| sounds great. I hope spatial sound comes to Apple TV, I find it
| kind of pointless to have spatial sound depending on the position
| of the iPad / iPhone, I'd rather have spatial sound encoded in
| the content I am listening to, for example when watching a movie.
|
| In the beginning I thought that the case is bad, but I actually
| got used to it now. Compared to my Sony-XM3 case, this is a case
| I ACTUALLY USE. The only stupid thing is that the little
| hole/nudge in the case for charging doesn't align properly
| because I've adjusted the AirPods to my head. Oh well. That's
| really the only thing I can complain about, so that should tell
| you how f** great they are.
| soneil wrote:
| I really don't understand why spatial audio has to depend on
| the device having gyro (mems).
|
| I often stick my ipad under my monitor, plug it in, and then
| pop the headphones on. The ipad doesn't move. It doesn't need
| to move - for the next two hours, it's a dongle, a very flat
| appletv.
|
| Spatial audio still works like this. If I pause, look away, and
| unpause - where I was looking when I unpaused is the new
| centre. It's not depending on the ipad's position at all, just
| origin plus delta.
|
| I get that the iphone/ipad need more than this, in-case the
| device is moving too. But it's not a hard requirement. If the
| device doesn't move (eg, my appletv hasn't moved for 3 years),
| then it doesn't need a gyro/mems to tell you it hasn't moved. I
| think you can safely assume my TV hasn't moved, and if it has -
| pause and unpause still fixes it.
|
| And agreed on your main point, if I'm home, and awake, I'm
| probably wearing my Max. I can only speak for my own head, as
| it's the only one I've tried, but I'm digging them. The foam
| pads seem to solve the "burning ears" problem I have with
| extended usage of leather headphones.
| crazygringo wrote:
| The spatial audio processing is done on the mobile device,
| not the headphones.
|
| Which has made me seriously wonder if it's not _actually_
| about a gyro /accelerometer on the device, but did Apple just
| design the code to run specifically on certain A chips?
|
| From the support page [1] for spatial audio, from the list of
| supported mobile devices you can basically deduce that it
| requires an A10 chip or later.
|
| Which would explain why Intel Macs aren't supported. The only
| thing it doesn't explain is why the Apple TV 5th gen (4K)
| doesn't support it, which does have the A10. But I swear I'm
| holding out hope that a software update this year will bring
| spatial audio to the M1 Macs and the Apple TV 5th gen. I just
| for the life of me can't imagine why they wouldn't.
|
| [1] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211775
| _ph_ wrote:
| Indeed, it must be one of the compute units available on
| the newer Apple processors. My iPad Pro 2nd gen also
| doesn't support it. I really hoope that they upgrade the
| Apple TV to support spacial audio soon. It really is a nice
| feature. Also, Mac support would be great. The bigger the
| screen, the more likely you are watching movies on it.
|
| While they are at it, Apple finally should properly support
| homepods on macOS. They still aren't shown as pairs - at
| least on Catalina.
| drclau wrote:
| Can you comment on the clamping force? I just got them, and
| this is by far my biggest complaint.
| auggierose wrote:
| I often forget that I have them on, so actually never noticed
| a clamping force as a negative. But I like that they are
| staying nicely fixed to my head.
|
| If you are not happy with how they feel I would send them
| back. Too much money for headphones you don't like to wear!
| EveYoung wrote:
| I'm using my Airpod Max since late December and the clamping
| force definetly gets better. However, I still have some
| issues wearing them with my reading glasses. But since I wear
| contact lenses most of the time, it's not really a problem.
| bredren wrote:
| This thread suggests a "fix" for the clamping force and
| includes another anecdote take from an "audiophile."
|
| https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/airpods-max-too-
| tight-o...
| kaypro wrote:
| This. I almost returned mine since I couldn't stand the
| pressure for more than about 20 minutes. As a last resort I
| stretched it out overnight between some books and they're
| now perfect. They're on my head 8 hours a day 5 days a
| week. I take them off for lunch for about an hour.
| JoshTko wrote:
| I returned mine since the force was too much to bear for even
| 15 minutes.
| bread90 wrote:
| May I ask what you use them for throughout your day? Music?
| Calls? Games?
| auggierose wrote:
| Undisturbed home office, Music, TV
| msoad wrote:
| I returned my AirPod Max because they were too heavy
| LeoNatan25 wrote:
| > The reason that other high-end headphone manufacturers lean
| heavily on plastic and even wood in their builds isn't that they
| can't afford metal. It's because they're interested in having
| human beings wear these products on their heads for hours at a
| time.
|
| This describes pretty much anything Apple does these days.
| kif wrote:
| I purchased the Sony WH-1000XM4 for $278, and the only thing I
| can complain about is that the name is hard to remember.
|
| The comfort, sound quality, and ANC is just right. The price is a
| bit higher than I would have preferred, but didn't find better
| choices at a cheaper price.
|
| On the other hand I can't see myself ever spending this much on
| headphones. I know there are people who can and will, but to me
| there's nothing in that product to justify the price.
|
| It also feels like any product Apple releases gets bonus review
| points (which I think is just confirmation bias), just because
| Apple made it.
| Fnoord wrote:
| Yep, this, I also got these. They're terrific. The WH-1000XM3
| is almost as good, and on sale quite a lot because of the newer
| XM4.
| xpuente wrote:
| It's so "sad" that our auditory pathway is constantly trying to
| modulate the input from the cortex (especially with information
| from the cortex). I wonder why those audiophiles are able to
| distinguish two headphones with an order of magnitude difference
| in price after 5 minutes of continuous listening... they must
| have some special wiring, I guess.
| drclau wrote:
| I suspect at least some of the audiophiles, if not all, are
| highly sensitive persons [0]. I wonder if anyone bothered to
| study this possibility. Maybe some exaggerate in their search
| for perfection, but I'm inclined to think the search starts
| with their ability to actually perceive details that most
| people don't.
|
| [0]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_processing_sensitivity
| Fnoord wrote:
| My wife is very sensitive to sounds, and its linked to her
| autism. Not all autists suffer from this (my father was an
| "audiophile", yet I don't suffer from high sound
| sensitivity).
| akmarinov wrote:
| TLDR: "So there you have it. I hate these stupid headphones
| because so much of their physical design is flawed...but they
| sound so wonderful that I can't help but smile whenever I listen
| to things through them."
| _ph_ wrote:
| Having gotten mine this week, I love them so far. When wearing
| them, I barely notice their weight, which is substantial of
| course. They feel very comfortable when worn, even my glasses
| create no problems, as the earcups are from a very soft material.
| So the pressure is nicely distributed across the whole
| circumference of the earcup.
|
| What surprises me most, as they are my first noise-cancelling
| headphones, is how much I like the noise-cancelling feature even
| in an environment which is low noise like being alone in a room.
| There are so many small background noises which just vanish
| thanks to the noise cancelling.
| 99_00 wrote:
| I checked bestbuy.ca. Black is sold out, others are sold out in
| stores near me but available for online order.
|
| Sounds like another success!
| neya wrote:
| The problem with these types of "I'm an audiophile, so you should
| listen to me" type reviews are they can go both ways. For
| example, here's one I read recently that was on the other extreme
| of the spectrum. Also, written by an audiophile, supposedly.
|
| https://critically.medium.com/apples-airpods-max-is-an-insul...
| sib301 wrote:
| As the original post acknowledged, judging audio is subjective
| even when done by professionals. He also points out that the
| AirPods Max makes things vary from person to person due to its
| DSP (This seems like buying and enjoying these headphones is an
| even bigger roll of the dice. Why didn't he make a bigger deal
| out of this?)
|
| That said, my understanding was that Bose was a running joke
| among audiophiles, so I was surprised that the author of your
| link recommended them. Makes me think he might not actually
| know what he's talking about. But I'm no audiophile...
| syntaxing wrote:
| It's always so interesting how the weight can change your
| perception on the value of the product. Reminds me how Beats used
| to fill their headphones with metal plates so that you won't
| notice how they're really just a cheap headphone with a plastic
| shell.
| wly_cdgr wrote:
| Thanks Apple but I'm just gonna go ahead and hold on to my $30
| KPH30i, lol.l.l
| gdubs wrote:
| I was gifted a high end pair of Beats many years ago, and my
| reaction was that music sounded "fun". They couldn't replace my
| studio monitor headphones, which were way more _accurate_. But
| they hyped up music in a way that was pleasurable.
|
| If you shoot photos or video, you may be familiar with flat color
| profiles. RAW photos, or Log color profile videos. That flatness
| is important for professional work. But sometimes you want a JPG
| straight out of a Canon camera because their "color science" is
| gorgeous, and the photo doesn't need much correction. Otherwise
| -- fashion trends aside -- an unprocessed RAW is dull.
|
| At this price point, I feel like the Max's are for people who
| want a quality fashion accessory that sounds amazing with little
| work. Kind of like the Bose speakers my dad splurged on when I
| was a kid. I'd later find out they were not considered great
| speakers. Did we care? No. They made movies fun, and brought my
| dad joy as he cleaned the house on Saturday's blasting Led
| Zeppelin or some 80s New Wave cassette.
|
| But for a professional tool, the author's comparison to
| computational photography catches my eye. Because, despite buying
| every high-end iPhone for the camera system, I'm perennially
| frustrated. My DSLR smokes it, consistently. The computational
| stuff is impressive, but it still just doesn't come close to
| _reliably_ capturing quality shots the way my Canon does. But the
| "best camera is the one you have with you" -- and when I'm out
| and about, I still appreciate having the lates-and-greatest
| iPhone camera system.
|
| Anyway, long winded but my point isn't to throw shade at the new
| Max's. I haven't tried them personally. I came close to buying
| them, but considered the back order and price and decided on some
| AirPod Pros - my first wireless ear buds. And I love them!
| They're life changing for me because I can clean, and exercise,
| and turn on noise cancellation and get stuff done.
|
| I think the bottom line is, if you love Apple stuff, don't care
| about the price -- or are excited to splurge on high end
| accessory -- and you don't do professional audio work, I get the
| impression that you'll probably love these headphones. But
| professional audio engineers are probably going to still rely on
| monitors for serious work.
| pfortuny wrote:
| > But professional audio engineers are probably going to still
| rely on monitors for serious work.
|
| Especially due to the dynamic equalization of which OP speaks.
| You cannot have this when you are working with true sound (like
| you say with the photos: no professional camera should distort
| colours without you being able to control that).
| nunez wrote:
| Honestly, my AirPods Max are the only headphones I can wear for
| an entire day without fatigue. I suppose everyone's comfort will
| differ!
| ruph123 wrote:
| It is such a shame that nowadays even these high priced devices
| are contributing to the enormous e-waste we are all piling up.
|
| It used to be like this: You spend A LOT of money for really nice
| headphones and use them (potentially) your lifetime. Or hand it
| down to your kids as your hearing gets worse. Sound doesn't
| change much and the plug has been around for ages.
|
| Nowadays it goes like this: You buy your expensive Apple
| headphones. And even though Apple is probably supporting these
| longer than your average earbuds, after a while the bluetooth
| version will be obsolete and eventually the battery will have
| reached its end or inflate and become a safety risk.
|
| But because this was expensive and Apple supported it longer, it
| will have maybe lasted 10 years and one or two (pricey) battery
| replacements. This is still much worse than audiophile ,,analog"
| headphones and I feel like this change is not adequately
| addressed.
|
| I would really hope to see more approaches like Shure's ,,Aonic
| 215 True Wireless" which is an arguably quite ugly attachment to
| the drivers that have been around for a long while and just adds
| the wireless capabilities and bluetooth. It can also be used for
| any other Shure driver afaik. This way you keep the good old
| sound producing piece while swapping out the stuff that will
| degrade over time.
| my123 wrote:
| Apple's battery replacement fee for AirPods Max is $79.
| (available at https://support.apple.com/airpods/repair/service)
| peachepe wrote:
| Do you think they'll still be selling them in 15 years?
| LeonM wrote:
| It's 'just' a battery. From an engineering standpoint it's
| just a component that Apple also doesn't produce
| themselves.
|
| If apple no longer sells the battery, it will be trivial to
| find a suitable replacement. As long as there is demand,
| there will be loads of shops able to replace the battery
| for you.
|
| The real question is: will people who buy $500 branded
| headphones really have their 5+ year old headphones
| repaired, or will they but the latest-and-greates shiny new
| thing?
| r00fus wrote:
| It's a battery of a popular but specific chemistry in a
| specific shape. Given this is Apple, those may be popular
| chemistry/shape, but if not, then in 10-15 years it's not
| going to be easy to find if Apple doesn't produce them.
| I'd say Apple keeps the supply chain around for maybe
| 5-10 years.
| turtlebits wrote:
| Apple still does battery service on iPods, as early as
| the 2009 iPod classic.
| ruph123 wrote:
| > If apple no longer sells the battery, it will be
| trivial to find a suitable replacement. As long as there
| is demand, there will be loads of shops able to replace
| the battery for you.
|
| Its a niche product. You will bot find replacement
| batteries for it. Heck it is even hard to find
| replacement batteries for 10 year old MacBooks.
|
| > The real question is: will people who buy $500 branded
| headphones really have their 5+ year old headphones
| repaired, or will they but the latest-and-greates shiny
| new thing?
|
| That's my whole point. These things are not build (and
| bought) to last anymore but to be consumed. You used to
| retain some value when buying into expensive headphones.
| turtlebits wrote:
| Not sure if you're trying spread FUD, but NewerTech
| (owned by OWC) batteries are readily available for older
| Macbooks/Pros. Just checked their site and they have
| replacements for the 2008 Macbook.
| my123 wrote:
| Apple stops selling parts for old products 7 years after
| they are discontinued.
| m463 wrote:
| I'm guessing the aftermarket may help with this.
| babypuncher wrote:
| Batteries are pretty simple, you can still get
| replacements for old iPods.
| NDizzle wrote:
| My Sennheiser HD580s from 1999 are still in use!
| jimbokun wrote:
| In my experience, it used to be like this:
|
| Use the crappy headphones that came bundled with the portable
| cassette player, which before too long broke or wore out, and
| buy another crappy pair because that's what you can afford. Or
| buy a new cassette player or portable CD player to replace what
| you had.
|
| Waste from consumer products didn't start with blue tooth
| headphones.
| nrvn wrote:
| There actually exist bluetooth adapters for wired headphones.
| Unfortunately, they haven't tracked as much hype and attention
| as wireless headphones. But we all know that irrational
| customer behavior is the foundation of modern consumerist
| economy.
|
| So, Buy It For Life (and Hand It Down To Your Kids) strategy is
| elitist in the same way having the basic understanding of
| thermodynamics is - only a very small amount of people have and
| appreciate those ideas.
| babypuncher wrote:
| Walking around with wired headphones plugged into a bluetooth
| dongle kind of defeats the purpose, no? People buy wireless
| headphones because they don't want to be encumbered by wires
| while walking around.
|
| An adapter like that is yet another thing I need to put in my
| bag, and lacks at least some of the convenience that comes
| with having headphones that just wirelessly connect to my
| phone natively.
| daxelrod wrote:
| Plenty of Bluetooth adapters are designed for a specific
| headphone model and sit flush against the cup without
| additional wires. When they're attached, it's easy to
| forget that they're not built in. See
| https://thebtunes.com/ for example.
|
| A huge caveat is that if the headphones have ANC, you now
| have two sets of batteries and two power switches to worry
| about, so they're a lot less seamless.
| yomly wrote:
| I bought my cans when I was fresh out of uni and entering the
| workforce. They were only PS125 which in the grand scheme of
| things isn't that expensive but I wanted at least 5 years but
| ideally a lot longer out of them.
|
| My Bose QC1s barely lasted 15 months (thank god for Amazon's
| godtier returns policies at the time).
|
| Swore off Bose and got some Beyerdynamics. I think I did have
| some problems actually but I returned those and my current cans
| are ~6 years old IIRC
|
| I like the Bose sports earbuds, seems like no one else has
| worked out that IEMs are a terrible idea for sports sigh though
| now I just use bone conduction
| RandomWorker wrote:
| I've had my q15's 7 years now. They use aaa batteries and I
| use rechargeable batteries. I used a set of two for 4 years,
| now on the second set. Replaced the cups for 50usd, but now
| the head band is going... I hope to replace them.
| jp555 wrote:
| Um, how many lifetimes have audiophile headphones been
| available?
|
| If there have been people passing headphones down to their
| kids, I bet that would be _a lot_ smaller group than you are
| suggesting. A pastoral fantasy.
| kuschku wrote:
| My parents passed their sennheisers down to me, and my mother
| got hers originally from her mother.
|
| So that's 3 generations of sennheisers. Some of those now
| being decades old, with only cables and leather pads being
| replaced every 5-10 years.
| bogomipz wrote:
| Um, since at least 1970 with arrival of the Koss 4As.[1] And
| these were followed up by similar classics such as the AKG
| K240s from the early 1980s as well as the Grado SR80Es or
| Sony MDR7506s from the early 90s.[2][3][4]. However there are
| many more.
|
| There is quite an active market for these and they are highly
| sought after because of their audiophile and build quality.
| Anyone who was fortunate enough to have inherited them likely
| for those reasons.
|
| [1] https://www.koss.com/history
|
| [2] https://overearmania.com/2019/01/19/akg-k240-monitor/
|
| [3] https://www.headfonia.com/grado-sr80e-evolution/
|
| [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_MDR-V6
| vaduz wrote:
| Given their construction, anyone claiming to have set of
| plastic-fantastic Grados (SR60, SR80) they have actually
| used since that period and that never needed a repair or
| replacement of significant portions of the phone would be
| straining credulity - they have similar issues as Apple
| cables where insufficient or completely lacking strain
| relief eventually causes the non-removable cable to break,
| requiring rewiring - and that is if the pins holding the
| headphone to headband don't break first. Higher models fix
| the latter problem, but not the former one.
|
| In that way they are great comparison with AirPods Max as
| in practice they will end up in a landfill rather than
| being lovingly handed down...
| Tepix wrote:
| The Stax SR-1 was released in 1960. They are still amazing. I
| inherited a SR-Lambda (made since 1979) from by dad.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| >Um, how many lifetimes have audiophile headphones been
| available?
|
| Isn't it more of a question of how many lifetimes does it
| take for a pair of AirPods and their battery case to return
| to the dirt?
| Frondo wrote:
| Another thing here is -- I'm not sure how many people here
| have had to sort through their parents' and older relatives'
| stuff after they're gone, but I'm sure it's more than a few.
|
| How many kids will _want_ Dad 's headphones from the 70s?
| Probably a few, but I would wager that for a lot of us,
| sifting through our parents' old hardware probably means a
| lot of figuring out what has sentimental value, what has
| actual use (e.g. even if I wanted to keep my folks' nice old
| record player, none of my music is on records and I'm not
| about to start buying physical media just because the
| player's there), and what's headed off to Goodwill.
|
| It's nice to imagine a world where your re-padded headphones
| are still in use in 2070 when you're long in the cold ground,
| but that seems like a nostalgic fantasy more than reality for
| the vast majority of people and hardware.
| dont__panic wrote:
| I think there's a big difference in items that are
| nice/durable/long-lived enough that you'll donate them to
| Goodwill and they can be loved and used by someone else for
| years more... compared to that pair of bluetooth headphones
| your kids will find in the closet of a member of our
| generation when they pass away in 50 years, that are
| immediately tossed out into the trash because they don't
| turn on and they're impossible to fix.
| bonaldi wrote:
| My Sony MDR-V6s were purchased by a relative in the 1980s for
| use with a vinyl deck and are connected to a Mac today,
| having worked with cassettes, minidiscs, CDs and iPods along
| the way. With nothing more than replacement earpads they
| still sound great.
|
| Will my children use them? Possibly not. Is it still better
| than a reasonable anticipated lifespan for AirPods Max? Yes.
| ip26 wrote:
| My MDR-7506, a close relative to the V6, didn't last ten
| years before the high tones got so harsh they hurt to
| listen to. Never did open them up to see if a cone failed
| or something, but did listen to them about ten hours a day.
| acomjean wrote:
| I have MDR-V6s too from long ago. Love those (even the
| springy cord). I've had to replace the ear pads, which fall
| apart after 8 years or so, but other than that no problems,
| they sound fantastic.
|
| (I noticed their pro "cousin" headphones on the heads of
| many recording engineers so perhaps one of the reasons they
| sound great is the mix might have been made on them..).
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| The real question needs to be how long good wireless
| headphones have ever lasted.
|
| Airpods Max don't compete with any of these "um, see?"
| headphones people are listing. Very few people these days
| are settling for wired headphones. I know I got the hell
| out of that tech as soon as I could.
| recursive wrote:
| For some applications, people don't settle for wireless
| either. Probably mostly for latency or battery issues. I
| use wireless for listening to podcasts, and wired for
| playing (performing not recorded) music.
| AstralStorm wrote:
| The solution is to sell the transmitter and/or battery
| separately, with the earphones using a standardized
| connector, such as MMCX.
|
| Earphones stay, receiver may get replaced.
| babypuncher wrote:
| That sounds clunky
| Symbiote wrote:
| "...so let's burn some more of the world."
| babypuncher wrote:
| I would understand the sentiment if there weren't
| significantly bigger fish to fry. Disposable electronics
| make up an infinitesimal percentage of non-biodegradable
| waste that leaves my house. Maybe we should first tackle
| the literal pounds of plastic waste from food packaging
| the average person tosses every week before we start
| shaming people for buying a < 1oz pair of earbuds that
| only last a couple years.
| croon wrote:
| My dad had a pair of Sennheisers he'd bought when he was
| younger, and I used those as a kid likely 30 years later.
|
| https://www.cnet.com/news/does-sennheisers-
| iconic-1968-headp...
| snicky wrote:
| Yup, my HD600 are 20 years old too :)
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Well, it's no surprise that a product with a battery is less
| resilient than a product without one. But those products don't
| compete with each other.
|
| Also, cheaply available, standardized batteries don't address
| your e-waste concern either. So your post doesn't seem much
| different than someone being indignant or even sanctimonious
| about the wireless preference of others.
| ruph123 wrote:
| > Well, it's no surprise that a product with a battery is
| less resilient than a product without one. But those products
| don't compete with each other.
|
| But they _are_. By now I have seen many review videos that
| compare them with the typical audiophile/sound production
| headphones. E.g. Marques compared them with the Sennheiser
| HD800S [1].
|
| > Also, cheaply available, standardized batteries don't
| address your e-waste concern either. So your post doesn't
| seem much different than someone being indignant or even
| sanctimonious about the wireless preference of others.
|
| Does it not? If I can reuse the housing, the drivers,
| earpads, headband and just need to replace the battery when
| its dead, does this not reduce e-waste? Also I do not condemn
| wireless headphones in general, I said it is a shame that
| products which could be used for many decades in the past
| become e-waste rather quickly in today's world. And that I
| would prefer the approach Shure is taking to reduce waste and
| only replace the highly degrading components (at least with
| their monitors).
|
| [1]: https://youtu.be/UdfSrJvqY_E?t=609
| cossatot wrote:
| The use cases for many people have changed dramatically as
| well. I think if I was an audiophile, and used headphones
| primarily to lie on the bed smoking hash and listening to
| Steely Dan, I would share your concerns.
|
| But I use headphones for two things: talking on the
| phone/listening to music when I walk my dogs or to pick up my
| kid, and for meetings at work (I'm long-term remote). Having
| cordless technology is nice for the former, where it replaced
| cheap wired earbuds that are always tangled in my pocket and
| never last for more than a year or so. It's critical for the
| second, so that I am not chained to my desk for the 1-2.5 hour
| meetings that I have multiple times a week. And I have to talk
| with my use cases, not just listen.
|
| The heirloom-quality audiophile headphones are simply not
| workable for my use case, and I am sure that I am not alone
| here. And my father, who I am pretty sure _did_ spend lots of
| time lying on the bed smoking hash and listening to Steely Dan,
| did not ever pass his headphones down to me.
| undefined1 wrote:
| the phones are even more of an environmental disaster.
|
| planned obsolescence that leads to phones being upgraded every
| year or two, and barely working after 5 years, is so so
| wasteful.
| AshamedCaptain wrote:
| Bluetooth audio profile has gone unchanged for 20 years.
|
| I still have non-A2DP headsets (the early 2000s ones you see in
| movies) that pair perfectly with a modern laptop, and Bluetooth
| 1.x PDAs (~2003ish) that pairs correctly with a modern BT
| headset (in HSP profile, so audio quality is crap, but then
| again it's the best the PDA could do).
|
| Battery is the much bigger problem.
| ascagnel_ wrote:
| > Battery is the much bigger problem.
|
| It's a big worry on the smaller AirPods, since those are
| almost 100% battery and glued together (and I'm not sure how
| you could build a product like that in a way that's both
| small and has a replaceable battery). For the big cans, you
| can pay $80USD to get the batteries replaced if the
| headphones are out of warranty (and, presumably, the warranty
| will cover the full cost of a battery replacement).
| ModernMech wrote:
| > Bluetooth audio profile has gone unchanged for 20 years.
|
| And yet I can't sync my phone with my car, or my headphones
| with my laptop.
| babypuncher wrote:
| This is not by design, something in your chain is not fully
| compliant with the bluetooth spec.
| teekert wrote:
| It used to be like this: Every 2 years I bought new Sennheiser
| cx300II's (until I somehow got a pair that seemed to lack bass)
| because the cable broke. Now my 16$ qcy's (BT) are 3 years old
| and still fine.
| robotresearcher wrote:
| > It used to be like this...
|
| It still is. Good quality wired headphones are easily available
| and more affordable than ever.
| babypuncher wrote:
| I'm not sure how to reconcile your two "wants" here. A battery
| and a current bluetooth chip are required for any pair of
| headphones to function wirelessly, no matter what. Bluetooth
| has been pretty good about keeping backwards compatibility, so
| I wouldn't worry about these becoming unusable when a new
| version of the BT spec comes out.
|
| If you don't actually "want" a pair of wireless headphones,
| then the AirPods Max aren't targeting you at all. Absolutely
| nobody should buy these if they don't intend to use them in
| wireless mode, there are better wired headphones available for
| less money.
| ruph123 wrote:
| I'm not sure you "want" to understand me. I treat them as
| __headphones__ and simply stated that it was a shame that
| (esp. expensive) headphones which used to hold up for a long
| time are now worthless after a few years. That's it.
| cactus2093 wrote:
| Something made of 380 grams of material that takes up maybe
| half of a cubic foot of space, that you use every day for 2-4
| years really isn't that big of deal in terms of waste. Single-
| use plastics like takeout containers and other food packaging,
| and plastic/foam packaging in shipping boxes seem orders of
| magnitude worse. And we're not running out of landfill space
| anyway.
|
| The only way forward I see is to make significant cuts to some
| of this really low-hanging fruit of single-use plastics (which
| also have other harms like environmental micro-plastics and
| inherently requiring fossil fuel use), maybe come up with
| better ways to recycle the aluminum and stainless steel in a
| product like these headphones, but most of all to move away
| from fossil fuels in the manufacturing chain and in the
| operation of landfills.
|
| The cat is already out of the bag, people enjoy getting new
| toys like these and the fact that hundreds of millions of
| people around the world have the disposable income to afford to
| buy products like this if they want to is amazing. I don't
| think talking up the good old days when disposable income was a
| lot more scarce and consumer goods were relatively much much
| more expensive is going to make much of a difference.
| danieldk wrote:
| _Nowadays it goes like this: You buy your expensive Apple
| headphones. And even though Apple is probably supporting these
| longer than your average earbuds, after a while the bluetooth
| version will be obsolete and eventually the battery will have
| reached its end or inflate and become a safety risk._
|
| I agree, they really are consumables. I had two pairs of
| regular AirPods. All of them barely last through a meeting now.
| It's not like I have used them intensively, some meetings every
| week, and for listening to podcasts when I am cycling.
|
| Not only can a good wired headphone last you for many years, if
| you are not an audiophile, you can buy a reasonable Sennheiser
| for a fraction of the cost of the AirPods Max or even AirPods
| Pro.
|
| The AirPods and AirPods Pro are great if you need something for
| on the go, but you have to factor in that you have to replace
| them every two years or so.
|
| (I love the Pro's transparency mode for cycling. However, they
| are unusable for me when walking due to the 'thumping' sound
| that many others also suffer from.)
| gui_tar_gz wrote:
| The 'thumping' sound on the Pro model is a reason for a
| warranty replacement. Apple has acknowledged the mass
| occurring defect and ships a replacement after contacting the
| support (you have to send the faulty item back).
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| I'm of the impression that Apple implements a recycling program
| for their devices to address the e-waste concern. Provided
| their recycling program is credible, this seems like a
| reasonable solution--better even than analog headphones that
| will still go bad eventually with the user on the hook for
| locating a credible electronics recycling program (and more
| likely, throwing them in the dump).
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > It used to be like this: You spend A LOT of money for really
| nice headphones and use them (potentially) your lifetime. Or
| hand it down to your kids as your hearing gets worse.
|
| I think this is a fantasy. How many decades have there been
| high-quality headphones for this to be a thing that you think
| is supposedly the traditional way to do it? Did your parents
| hand you down their headphones? Surely your grandparents didn't
| hand down theirs? So it maybe happened once? For a few people?
| driverdan wrote:
| When I was a kid in the 80's I had at least one pair of
| headphones from the 40's. I'm pretty sure they're still
| somewhere at my parents' house.
|
| My dad still has the headphones he bought in the 70's. He's
| replaced the pads and the cable.
|
| Good audio equipment is built to be repaired and can last
| indefinitely when maintained.
| MR4D wrote:
| My dad's Sennheisers from the 1980's still work well. They
| have the huge plug, so we have the adapter on it, but
| otherwise works fine. Foam had to be replaced once or twice,
| but otherwise it has surprised me how long they've lasted.
| Hamuko wrote:
| > _They have the huge plug_
|
| That's pretty standard even in newer Sennheisers. I think
| HD 650 and above you get the big plug. Some might come with
| two cables, one with a standard plug and one with the
| bigger.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| I bought new Sennhrisers every few years for the last 10
| years. They randomly stop working. This time I bought
| Sony, no much hope, though. I just got used that
| keyboards, mouses and headphones are to be replaced every
| few months or years if I'm lucky.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| My Senns came with a 3.5mm plug threaded for the 1/4"
| plug adapter. I thought that was standard now.
| Hamuko wrote:
| Not really. I took a look at kind of a cable Sennheiser
| bundles with each headphone from the website:
|
| HD 559: 6.3 mm plug.
|
| HD 560 S: 6.3 mm plug.
|
| HD 569: 6.3 mm plug + 3.5 mm plug.
|
| HD 579: 6.3 mm plug.
|
| HD 599: 6.3 mm plug + 3.5 mm plug.
|
| HD 600: 6.3 mm plug.
|
| HD 650: 6.3 mm plug.
|
| HD 660 S: 6.3 mm plug + 4.4 mm balanced.
|
| HD 800 S: 6.3 mm plug + 4.4 mm balanced.
|
| HD 820: 6.3 mm plug.
|
| So really the 3.5 mm cables are an exception that are
| also bundled with Sennheiser's audiophile-tier headphones
| and absolutely everything has a 6.3 mm plug out of the
| box.
| vaduz wrote:
| That 6.3mm / 1/4" plug is 3.5mm + converter (you just
| pull it apart comes apart into two pieces), at least on
| 5xx and 6xx range. It's not even screwed on, just a tight
| friction fit. Unless, that is, Sennheiser decided to
| cheapen out in the last 10 years and redesigned them...
|
| Never had original 8xx cables to check but I would be
| surprised if they weren't the same.
| Hamuko wrote:
| This is what you get with a HD 599: https://assets.sennhe
| iser.com/img/18231/product_detail_x2_de...
|
| HD 559: https://assets.sennheiser.com/img/18214/product_d
| etail_x2_de...
|
| HD 650: https://images-na.ssl-images-
| amazon.com/images/I/61vm4c%2Bhb...
|
| HD 660 S: https://assets.sennheiser.com/img/25816/x1_desk
| top_sennheise...
|
| HD 800 S: https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/cVSs2jBo28NYK
| PkdGtZhnR.jpg...
|
| I'm not seeing a lot to back up your claims. Especially
| since a lot of those headphones come with a 6.3 mm to 3.5
| mm adapters.
| justincormack wrote:
| I bought the HD600 last year and it came with the 6.3mm
| to 3.5mm removable adaptor. This was in Europe maybe the
| cabling is different, or there are multiple packagings
| for different use cases (likely). The cables are
| removable so its easy for them to have different SKUs.
| [deleted]
| vaduz wrote:
| Which means that they have indeed cheapened out with a
| recent refresh - which is a shame. I have the cable I
| describe on the headphones I am quite literally wearing
| on my head at this very moment (HD 600) and identical
| ones were present in 59x and 650 from the era. Glad to
| know, TIL.
|
| Edit: the 3.5mm male to headphone is Sennheiser 81435 [0]
| the 6.3mm male to 3.5mm female that fits over it is
| Sennheiser 562507 [1].
|
| [0] https://en-us.sennheiser.com/cable-3-m-35-mm [1]
| https://en-us.sennheiser.com/accessories--adapter-
| jack-63s-j...
| [deleted]
| MR4D wrote:
| Other than ancient compatibility purposes, does the big
| plug actually offer any better listening experience?
| Hamuko wrote:
| I don't think it's about ancient compatibility but rather
| just the fact that audiophile stuff tends to have it and
| if you are marketing to audiophiles, might as well design
| it that way. I have a pretty modern stereo receiver
| (Onkyo A-9010) as my computer's headphone amplifier and
| it has the bigger socket only. Same with my home theatre
| receiver (also an Onkyo).
|
| But I believe there's no difference in listening
| experience. The bigger plug is probably a lot sturdier
| though. I've had some 3.5 mm jacks bend on me. Can't
| imagine that on the good ol' 6.3. I have totally busted a
| 6.3 mm to 3.5 mm adaptor though.
| nomoreusernames wrote:
| its standard in audio. all mixers, guitar amps etc
| support them. big plug means stable wide signal, and it
| does not break. never had one break ever. even the shitty
| cables. they are well shielded.
| Green_man wrote:
| As others have stated, it's usually more about
| compatability. Most (nonportable) headphone amps will
| have a 1/4" plug rather than the 3.5mm, and it makes more
| sense from the "female" amp side to convert the larger
| 1/4" --> 3.5mm than the other way around. Many home
| "audiophile" headphones I've used (Audeze or
| Beyerdynamic) actually have the smaller 3.5mm jack, but
| because they are so focused on home use (bulky, open
| backed, expensive, and not very shovable into a
| backpack), users rarely use them connected to a phone or
| laptop.
| jjulius wrote:
| >Other than ancient compatibility purposes...
|
| That's actually not true. That plug is commonplace on a
| lot of music equipment, DJ mixers, etc. that are still
| manufactured and used commonly today.
| MR4D wrote:
| Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I simply meant the standard
| has been around forever, not that it was obsolete.
|
| I figure there has to be some reason for it in an age
| when companies are constantly cutting costs.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| 6.35 mm jacks are quite a lot more robust than their
| smaller 3.5 mm brethren.
| trasz wrote:
| Which can be a problem when you plug them into the phone
| - you probably don't want your plug to be more robust
| than the socket.
| asdf3331 wrote:
| I bought my headphones (Audio Technica ATH-AD700s) when I was
| in school. I still use them now and they sound just as good
| as anything else you could buy.
|
| Not quite generational inheritance but I can't think of
| anything else I bought back then that I still use. It's
| pretty satisfying when I think about it.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Not to mention reliability. I had a $350 pair from
| Beyerdynamic that was really nice, but after 3 years of
| extremely gentle use (I only used them to listen to music in
| bed) the cable developed intermittent noise issues. Could I
| get them fixed? Sure, there's probably a high-end audio store
| that would fix them for some large portion of the purchase
| price. But that's probably true for most expensive wireless
| headphones as well. Instead, they just sat unused in my
| nightstand for a few more years and then got thrown away when
| I moved last year.
| iwintermute wrote:
| my Beyerdynamics comes with ability to switch cables and
| they also sell components for repair. So designed to be
| fixed
| tshaddox wrote:
| Mine was a fixed cable with a standard 3.5mm TRS stereo
| connector. Those are "designed to be fixed" in the sense
| that you can solder on a new connector.
| lm28469 wrote:
| A lifetime is maybe a fantasy but both my shure se215 and
| dt770 are 6 or 7 years old and I expect them to last a while
| given they're in perfect working order after daily use for so
| long.
|
| I highly doubt these new headphones with non user replaceable
| batteries would survive 2 years of daily usage, that would be
| 2+ full cycles per day for the airpods, seeing how tiny the
| batteries are I don't think they'd perform very good after
| even a year
| RootReducer wrote:
| I have been using my DT-770s every single day for hours and
| hours for about 5 years now and they are still in perfect
| condition. I expect them to last an extremely long time.
|
| Meanwhile, I'm on my third replacement airpods (thankfully
| all covered by warranty, but not much longer!)
| mushishi wrote:
| I bought my Sennheiser HD650 about 10 years ago, and was
| pleasantly surprised that I could order new ear cushions
| and new cord to continue using it after the audio started
| disappearing from the other channel and the cushions were a
| bit mushed.
|
| I like the headphones because they don't wear me down on
| long continuous usage and the sound is great to my not-
| golden-ears.
|
| They cost about 350 euros back then and now perhaps paid 50
| euros to get them back into shape, so pretty good for a
| music lover. I have even used them in office space, even
| though they are semi-open. Luckily the sound isn't leak too
| noisily on my usual listening levels.
| why_Mr_Anderson wrote:
| Are you s(h)ure that you wrote correct model? 215s are in-
| ears and while excellent sound-wise, their cables break
| quite easily with frequent use. I'm on my 3rd pair and I'll
| most likely still buy new ones after the inevitable
| destruction of the pair I'm currently using.
| lm28469 wrote:
| > their cables break quite easily with frequent use
|
| I replaced them with cheap knockoff cables and they're
| lasting much longer. I haven't replaced them for years
| now
| so_this_is_me wrote:
| Similarly I love my 215's and even though the cable is a
| bit chunkier than some other brands they don't seem to
| survive my daily use for more than 1-2 years.
|
| That said being able to just buy a new cable and whip the
| old one off is far nicer than having to buy a whole new
| pair of headphones.
| hajile wrote:
| Newer Shure models have replaceable cables. They'll also
| replace the cable for something like $18 which is way
| less than the cost of the earphones.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| The new AirPods headphones are rated at 20 hours play time
| with noise cancellation enabled, how do you figure 2+
| cycles per day? Or are you talking about the earbuds
| AirPods?
|
| I get that earbuds' 5-hour listening time is borderline
| annoying and if it drops to 3 or 4 hours you've got a real
| usefulness problem, but 20 hours has quite a lot of
| headroom for battery degradation unless you don't sleep.
| ruph123 wrote:
| Check out your sister's comment's comments for some examples.
| [deleted]
| rorykoehler wrote:
| I had a pair of sennheiser hd25 for over twenty years before
| I lost them.
| the_jeremy wrote:
| My dad handed down his Sennheisers from the '90s to me, and
| after $8 for replacing the foam inserts they're still working
| perfectly in 2021.
| lmilcin wrote:
| For the past 19 years I have been using same pair of
| Beyerdynamic headphones. I use them most days from morning
| till late evening. When I worked at the office, I would spend
| most of my time in them, too.
|
| Let's calculate -- about 320 days a year * 14 hours a day *
| 19 years = 85k hours.
|
| I think this represents about correctly how much time I spent
| with these.
|
| I change pads, I open it every couple of years to clean dust
| and hair and I have fixed broken cable twice (by shortening
| and giving it new plug).
|
| Other than that they still work perfectly.
| jrockway wrote:
| I've had a pair of HD650s since college. In that time, I've
| replaced the ear cups, the head cushion, and even the cable
| a few times. All the parts are available where the
| headphones are sold, and they pop right in without any
| effort (or even the need for instructions).
|
| They say things aren't designed to last or to be repaired
| anymore, but some things are, and they're great!
| lb1lf wrote:
| ...so, if Theseus wanted a pair of headphones, chances
| are he'd spring for HD650s?
|
| In addition to Sennheisers, I've had good experience with
| AKG spare parts availability, too.
| [deleted]
| adkaplan wrote:
| Also had a pair of headphones for 10 years, Sony MDR
| 7506. I've replaced the pads several times. I think a lot
| of good corded headphones will last forever as long as
| you don't crush them in a backpack.
| trasz wrote:
| The best spare part for AKGs are the pads from
| Bayerdynamics, which fit K240 just fine and make them
| much more comfortable.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Nah, that's like a ship where you only replace the sails
| and rope.
| AlstZam wrote:
| Maybe it's a fantasy on headphone (as for most electronic).
| But I think the idea is more global : buy expensive stuff to
| keep them longer. On headphone, the switch to Bluetooth-only
| with addition of batteries don't help on this scale. But we
| should probably compare similar products (bluetooth headphone
| vs bluetooth headphone).
| staticautomatic wrote:
| Hand me down Dynaco A-25's and A-35's here.
| newsclues wrote:
| I still have headphones I bough as a kid in the 90s
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Ok... but that's not a lifetime let alone two is it?
| napkin wrote:
| I worked as a techie at a radio station for some years. We
| maintained (repaired on site) around ~20 pairs of
| professional headphones for studio usage, used by many
| hundreds of members of the station. Some of these headphones
| lifetime definitely exceeded a decade even with heavy use,
| requiring minor repairs e.g. cables and jacks.
|
| Personally, I used one pair of ath-m50x's for about ten
| years. I just replaced it with some Beyerdynamic's, which I
| expect to also last at least ten years.
|
| All of the Bluetooth headphones and speakers I've bought have
| lasted less than a few years. Half the time the batteries
| fail (and often aren't user-replaceable), the other half it's
| some component I'm unable to diagnose myself.
| hugi wrote:
| Got my headphones from my dad in the late 90s, h probably
| bought them in the 80s. Recently stopped using them, not
| because they didn't work but because I wanted a wireless
| pair.
| Vrondi wrote:
| The headphones my parents purchased in the 1970s still work
| perfectly fine, actually. They haven't handed them down,
| though, as they still have them. This was extremely common in
| the past. There are plenty of people's grandparents now who
| bought nice cans in the 1970s or 1980s, many of which still
| work fine.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| This is a pretty narrow view of things. How many people do
| you think are part of the economic strata that have the
| money to buy heirloom headphones?
|
| The real problem is: For every pair of even $100
| headphones, how many $10 headphones do you think are sold?
| The waste isn't coming from AirPods, it's coming from the
| $10 set that wasn't designed to last longer than an airline
| flight
|
| (and yes I'm sure someone will link some cult favorite
| cheap headphone that's a drop in the bucket compared to how
| many at the price point are practically disposable)
| smoldesu wrote:
| The waste is coming from disposable products, which is
| what Apple specializes in producing these days. Pre-2015,
| Apple had a reputation for creating long-lasting products
| that can be maintenance by the layperson easily. Even if
| their software was a bit long in the tooth and the
| pricing seemed a little insulting, Apple at least had the
| consumer-friendly card in their hands. This is no longer
| the case. I see people literally throwing out 16 inch
| MBPs when they break, simply because the price to repair
| them is far higher than the price of simply buying
| another laptop.
|
| And sure, maybe Apple does make their devices easier to
| recycle, but there are still 2 R's that are more
| important: reusing and reducing. If you can reduce the
| amount of times someone needs to replace their product,
| you are having a much greater environmental impact than
| slightly more recyclable aluminum. That's why my Thinkpad
| x201 is still a more eco-friendly choice than the M1:
| it's carbon footprint is inherently lower.
|
| ---
|
| Also, a quick bit on the economic strata comment: I come
| from a relatively lower-income family, but we still did
| cherish the few nice things we had. My dad passed me down
| his pair of AKG open-backs with a new DAC for my 13th
| birthday, and I never really thought of it as that weird.
| I think your optics are a little out of tune.
| armadsen wrote:
| My main (wired) headphones are 15 years old now, with zero
| degradation. My headphone amp, turntable, and CD player are
| roughly the same age or older. I have no plans to get rid of
| them anytime soon. My parents haven't passed any down to me,
| mostly because they're still alive and using their own stuff,
| but my dad listens to music on speakers he bought in the
| early 70s. (I don't think my grandparents were ever serious
| about HiFi equipment, so nothing really to pass down. Half of
| them are also still alive.)
| LMYahooTFY wrote:
| It's not fantasy, I think that's far too rhetorically strong.
|
| In many other contexts 25 years would be referred to a
| "generation" or a "lifetime", I think this is more pedantic
| than it is a generous interpretation of GPs point, which was
| that It's an enormous increase in e-waste.
| ghgdynb1 wrote:
| I don't want to dismiss your point, but I just inherited a
| pair of really high quality speakers from my dad's days as a
| poor PhD student. He told me they were one of the nicest
| objects he owned, and it's clear he is still proud of them.
|
| The company that makes those speakers has long since gone out
| of business, but they still work and sound out of this world.
| I think this stands in sharp contrast to some of the
| practices we see today, e.g. Sonos intentionally bricking
| their old speakers.
| rodgerd wrote:
| The second bit of hifi I ever bought, a NAD 3225 amp, still
| sees daily use in my house for my daughter, and is almost
| 30 years old. It's been stolen, recovered by the police,
| and still runs fine.
|
| Headphones are perhaps a little more fragile, but NAD isn't
| even particularly expensive.
|
| The grandparent's complaint holds true for home theatre
| equipment as well, with constant standards churn driving
| flipping of high-priced and mostly sub-par components (much
| HT gear, even extremely expensive, big name gear, is very
| sub-par repro-wise: Arcam and Marantz will sell you HT
| processors that struggle to accurately reproduce a CD-
| quality stream; the most recent "8k" recievers from Yamaha,
| Denon, etc, don't even implement 8k correctly); most of
| that is driven by copy protection as much as anything else.
| aseerdbnarng wrote:
| A family friend is a bit of an audiophile and has been using
| his Stax SR electrostatic headphones since 1985. His sony amp
| is also from around the same time. My gran is still using
| household appliances from 30+ years ago, so it could be a
| generational thing or it could be because expensive items
| were better made. Bit of both perhaps
| tschwimmer wrote:
| It's true and false. I had some Grado S60s handed down from
| my dad. While this would seem to support the original
| argument, he kept them in a box for about 20 years and I
| broke them after 6 months by tripping over the cord. As far
| as I can tell, most consumer goods just don't last that long
| (~10-ish years).
| weego wrote:
| grados can be taken apart and each part replaced as needed
| though
| wiredfool wrote:
| I've worn out 2 pairs of Grado SR60's and one pair of
| Sennheisers since ~1992, and I'm currently using a 5yr
| old pair of SR80s.
|
| Each one of them has wound up needing the plug replaced,
| and in the case of the Sennheisers, the connection of the
| wire to the ear cup just got intermittent, even with
| replacing and tweaking. One set of the SR60s also has an
| intermittent connection in one of the wires near the
| split. I was pondering pulling themm apart and grafting
| in another cable, but the ear cups don't seem to come
| apart.
|
| So, yeah, they last a while, there are some replacement
| parts, but at some point they're still e-waste.
|
| On the other hand, making the shift from crappy earbuds
| to good headphones probably saved my hearing, and I wish
| I'd done it sooner.
| vaduz wrote:
| Grados seem to suffer around their strain relief in
| multiple places - not just the plug, but also the
| earpiece. I have a set of 325s where, after the cable has
| failed yet again, I am wondering if it is actually worth
| it to repair them or just bin them - and that is after
| binning SR80s and SR60s over the years. Sunk cost only
| goes so far.
| zhynn wrote:
| I love my Grado SR60s which are just about 20 years old
| now. The left post that the headphone is connected to
| needs replacement (I'm using tape for now), and I sent
| them to Grado to replace the cable ~10 years ago.
| Otherwise they are well worn but working perfectly. They
| are the longest running piece of my daily driving kit.
| The silver embossing on the letters is almost completely
| worn off in places just due to use. I love them so much.
|
| It warms my heart to see youtube reviewers who encounter
| them and are shocked at how good they sound for the
| price.
| Godel_unicode wrote:
| That's true of many high end analog headphones, even
| modern ones. My Sennheiser momentums have had cables and
| pads replaced.
| abstractbarista wrote:
| Been using my wired Sennheisers for 10 years now. Still in
| basically new condition. Sounds amazing, very comfortable.
|
| If I bought airpods today, they'd likely be useless within 5
| years.
| nfriedly wrote:
| I'll second that! I have a nice pair of Sennheisers that's
| probably about 10-15 years old and is still the best pair
| of headphones in the house.
|
| A few years back I replaced the foam ear pads and also
| swapped the cable out with one that has a lightning
| connector on the end so that my wife can plug it into her
| new "courage" iPhone.
|
| In contrast, my bluetooth earbuds died after about 3 years
| of use. (Although, to JLab's credit, they replaced them
| with a new, better pair.)
| Hamuko wrote:
| I've had my HD 598s since 2012 or 2013 I believe. There's
| small cracks near the headband adjustment (common issue I
| believe) but they're still great. Of course, I did have to
| change out the muffs once.
|
| I imagine I won't be replacing them because they break, but
| rather because I want to get something better. However, the
| 598s sound pretty great to my ear so there's not really a
| huge incentive for me to get anything new.
| brummm wrote:
| I have the same ones, I changed the ear pads and the one
| on the top and they are as good as new. The sound is
| amazing and I doubt I'll buy any new ones until they
| break.
| 8ytecoder wrote:
| It's fashionable to diss at the AirPods these days. They
| serve a specific purpose - on the go inconspicuous
| listening. I have a pair of Bose headphones (wireless) for
| about 5 years now. My old model with a family member is
| about 10 years old now. I swear by the Bose. All I had to
| change are the cups. But i use my AirPods Pro more often
| because I don't want to wear a giant pair of headphones
| when I'm walking my dog. When I'm at my desk I wear my
| Bose.
|
| Technology can be made to serve our needs.
| tristor wrote:
| I received from my dad most of his stereo headphone gear he'd
| /made/ from kit or magazine instructions in the 70s, still
| working perfectly fine if a bit archaic. I used it alongside
| new production tube amplifiers with vintage speakers which
| still function perfectly fine and are actually superior to
| similar speakers of new production.
|
| On the headphone side, the technology has gotten massively
| between in the last 30 years, so all my headphones are from
| the 1990s or later, but for speakers, tower/cabinet speakers
| from the 1970s are still functional and good.
|
| My primary set of headphones were purchased new in 2007. It's
| been 13 years, and they still work perfectly fine. The
| amplifier they're plugged into was manufactured in 1976 and
| has had a set of NOS Sylvania Green Hornet tubes swapped in.
| MarkusWandel wrote:
| The best vintage stuff certainly holds up. Decades ago, I
| found some speakers at a garage sale... Dynaco A25
| something. Looked a bit crude. Hooked them up and... holy
| crap these sound good. Only later found out they're
| considered classics. I don't use them any more because
| decades of standing later caused the woofers to develop a
| voice coil rub, but these'll get fixed up by the right
| person some day and probably still used a century after
| they were manufactured.
|
| Almost everything else has gotten better, or at least a lot
| cheaper and less trouble for comparable quality. But
| speakers haven't.
|
| Mind you a lot of that old stuff was crap too.
| that_guy_iain wrote:
| I got Bose QC25 almost 5 years ago, they're still working.
| I've changed the cable and the pads twice but the headphones
| they've just get on ticking.
|
| I've also got the Meze Classic 99 and they're even more
| solid. At 3 years old, I've not had to change the cable nor
| the pads, infact I've also got a backup cable that cable with
| them. I could easily see them lasting decades if looked after
| carefully.
| smcleod wrote:
| I'm at 10 years with my Ultrasone Signature Pros and they
| look and function just like new. Of course they're not
| wireless and don't have a DAC built in so there's very little
| to go wrong, but despite being a person that upgrades my
| phone and laptop frequently - I don't see myself replacing
| them for another 10 years - they're pretty much perfect audio
| quality and comfort wise.
| hartator wrote:
| That's a $1k headphone though.
| smcleod wrote:
| $650USD on sale but point taken.
| smoldesu wrote:
| My dad handed me down a pair of AKG cans he had been using
| since he was 20 (almost 25 years old now). My main headphones
| (AT-M40x) have lasted almost 8 years so far, and I've only
| needed to replace the earpads. The next to go is the cable,
| but I don't really need to worry since it comes with an extra
| cable in the box.
| egypturnash wrote:
| I used to have a pair of really nice headphones my audio
| engineer dad left me. I'd still have them sitting on my desk
| if not for Hurricane Katrina.
| 52-6F-62 wrote:
| Can't say I inherited any audio equipment from my parents.
| Appreciation skipped a generation.
|
| But I've had my AKG K240's for years and they're tireless.
| Not suitable so much for running around town, but they've
| been made since the 70's nearly to the same spec. The cable
| is removable, so are the ear pads and both replaceable.
|
| And they aren't even expensive, relatively speaking. Great
| for mixing and general listening. Can't say enough good about
| them, really. https://www.akg.com/Headphones/Professional%20H
| eadphones/K24...
|
| edit: My opinions are so very different from an article
| another user posted about the same (which strangely runs
| counter to the larger, repeated experience and sentiment).
| They've always been lauded for their very open, lively
| soundstage and even, clear response.
| barkingcat wrote:
| Shure SM58 / SM57 End of Thread.
|
| There are SM58/57 mics being handed down to grandchildren.
| bluedino wrote:
| >> Can't say I inherited any audio equipment from my
| parents.
|
| My parents old Marantz receiver goes for $800 on eBay these
| days. I think we pitched it somewhere around 1994 for a
| setup from one of those Best Buy Sunday flyers.
| mywittyname wrote:
| My father had a pretty impressive hi-fi setup that he gave
| me years ago. It was mostly mid-late 80s-90s Panasonic
| equipment that he didn't have room for in the new house. I
| carried it around for a while, but moving it was a pain and
| in by the late 00s, hi-fi systems were passe, so I sold it
| for peanuts to my cousin.
|
| The speakers were nice when new, but after 20 or so years,
| the rubber around the cones began to deteriorate and the
| cloth covers frayed and developed runs. Even these M-Audio
| studio monitors I picked up in around 2005 are starting to
| have issues with the plug jacks.
|
| I imagine it's worth with headphones ear cushions are
| usually made from synthetic materials that tend not to wear
| well. Plus they get moved around a lot and are at risk of
| getting dropped or crushed. I can't say that I've owned a
| pair of headphones that received frequent use for more than
| 15 years.
| dsr_ wrote:
| Replacing the surrounds on a driver is a thing that an
| amateur can do with the aid of a YouTube video, on the
| order of replacing a dishwasher but not as heavy or
| dangerous. It involves glue and being careful.
|
| Replacing ear cushions is even easier than that: you
| order replacements, pull off the old ones and tug the new
| ones into position. It takes slightly longer than
| changing the batteries in a remote control, but much less
| time.
|
| I have a 60W stereo amplifier from the 1970s that works
| and sounds great. I have an FM tuner from the 1960s of
| excellent quality.
|
| I no longer have cassette tape decks, but I have a reel-
| to-reel machine from 1962.
|
| There are speakers from the 1960s and 70s that are worth
| owning and using; there are lots from the 80s and 90s
| that are not.
| kingnothing wrote:
| If you have a nice set of speakers that are fine other
| than the foam, it's possible to get the foam repaired for
| pretty cheap or DIY if you're handy. I think I paid $100
| / driver five years ago on some 80's JBLs and it was well
| worth it.
| leephillips wrote:
| I spotted a pair of these 40 years ago at a yard sale for
| $2. The owner said they didn't work, but after a few
| minutes with a soldering iron, they were good as new. They
| were my headphones until recently, when I gave them to my
| son. I suppose some of the materials in the drivers have a
| finite lifespan, but I hope he enjoys them for a few
| decades.
| nicpottier wrote:
| I still have a pair of Sennheiser HD 280 Pro's I bought 20
| years ago. That seemed like a lot of money for headphones
| back then. They have followed me to multiple continents, been
| on lots of flights and have had their pads replaced and still
| work great.
|
| I recently moved to Bose NC700s because ya, wireless sure is
| nice, but I'd be surprised if they last 10 years, much less
| 20. Still have the HD's though and use them now and then.
| input_sh wrote:
| Sennheiser's HD 25 are pretty iconic for DJs, and they were
| initially released in 1988.
|
| They're also known as being pretty easy to fix, because you
| can find a replacement for virtually every part of them, and
| they're sold brand new to this day. Plenty of people that own
| this specific model have had them for more than a decade.
|
| Anyway, my parents didn't pass me down a pair of HD 25s, but
| my pair (whose initial release is older than I am) is
| definitely going to be usable for my kids. Whether they'll
| want to use them or not remains to be seen.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| I used to use very old AKG K240s, and the cheap chinese IEMs
| I use right now have replaceable cables, filters that can be
| cleaned, and can be opened to replace connectors and even
| drivers (which are standardized parts). I've been using them
| for three years and I don't see why I would stop.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _I think this is a fantasy. How many decades have there been
| high-quality headphones for this to be a thing that you think
| is supposedly the traditional way to do it?_
|
| I still have the Koss headphones I bought in the early
| 1990's. They still work, though they need a 50C/ phono
| adapter to plug into current gear. Also, I had to send them
| back to Milwaukee twice to be repaired. But Koss did it for
| free both times under the "lifetime warranty" program.
|
| _Did your parents hand you down their headphones?_
|
| Yes.
|
| _Surely your grandparents didn 't hand down theirs?_
|
| No, they didn't. Mostly because headphones weren't invented
| yet.
| mbreese wrote:
| Like most tech, I don't think the thing to think about is the
| lifetime of the device. _Really_ nice headphones that are
| "vintage"(?) exist, as evidenced by the comments here.
| Leaving aside the fact that HN is notorious for having a
| strong segment of nearly any *-phile group...
|
| The question is rarely the lifetime of the device. It's
| usually the lifetime of the interface. Or in this case, a
| headphone jack. 1/8", 1/4", etc... _This_ is what normally
| gets obsoleted rather than the device itself. For headphones,
| the big switch is from wired to wireless. And I think that 's
| where you'll see the shift. Yes, you can get a bluetooth
| adapter for traditional headphones, but they aren't great,
| and if you have audiophile wired headphones, you won't be
| happy with the sound. And so, the device won't be obsoleted
| because they fail, but rather the preferred interface changes
| to something that's incompatible. Maybe audio was lucky that
| there were adapters available for the first shift from 1/4"
| to 1/8"...
|
| In this regard, I think the audio world is just catching up
| to their other brethren in the tech world.
| qmmmur wrote:
| Handing it down maybe once is way better than not.
| fsloth wrote:
| "How many decades have there been high-quality headphones "
|
| I have a quarter of century old Beyerdynamic cans that still
| sound fantastic. I am not seeing their end-of-life any time
| soon, except the pads are probably going to need a change.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > quarter of century old
|
| 'Quarter of a century' sounds dramatic... but it's just two
| and a half decades and less than a third of one lifetime...
| not passing down generations.
| AstralStorm wrote:
| The big problem is the materials used won't last, even
| presuming you will replace the earpads and maybe parts of
| headband.
|
| Closest we've come to this is old pairs of Sennheiser
| HD580. Very high quality plastics, still get scraped and
| loose over time. Full steel or aluminum construction
| holds up much better.
| m463 wrote:
| I still have a pair of these (in need of that exact new
| padding)
| lmilcin wrote:
| I have ones that are 19 years old (Beyerdynamic).
|
| The materials for the main part of headphones would last
| probably indefinitely if kept in dark, dry place,
| undisturbed.
|
| On the other hand the foam that is part of the pads lasts
| months to maybe couple of years depending on use.
|
| If you bought ones with leather it will last for many
| decades _IF_ you know how to take care of leather.
|
| If you avoid throwing, dropping or otherwise banging
| headphones on things, don't come outside in them and
| don't stretch the headband more than is absolutely
| necessary to put on your head I estimate they can be
| maintained practically forever (definitely more than
| user's lifetime).
|
| Maintanence:
|
| - keep them clean with dry cloth,
|
| - use something to clean/protect leather from drying out,
|
| - replace pads maybe every year or two,
|
| - replace pads on headband maybe once every 10 years,
|
| - disassemble completely to remove hair and other
| detritus, probably every 5 years
|
| - fix the cable that tends to break after prolonged use,
| I am gentle so maybe once in 7 years.
|
| This is history of maintenance of my headphones which I
| use every day, entire day.
| fsloth wrote:
| To be honest I've not done _any_ maintenance on my 25y
| oldish Beyerdynamics beyond jury rigging a fix to the
| support of the left earpiece which lost a critical small
| piece of plastic in a minor impact. Yes - the pads
| _could_ use a replacement but it 's not critical. Yes,
| they are a bit grimy. But work well :)
| lmilcin wrote:
| Just to remind you, quarter of century ago most people
| even if heard about the Internet they haven't had a
| chance to use it yet.
|
| From Wikipedia:
|
| January 3 - Motorola introduces the Motorola StarTAC
| Wearable Cellular Telephone, the first clamshell mobile
| phone.
|
| September 26 - Nintendo introduces in American market the
| new game console with the name Nintendo 64.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| A quarter of a century ago is... 1996. Not the 80s or
| whatever you're thinking.
|
| But what's that got to do with headphones?
| lmilcin wrote:
| > A quarter of a century ago is... 1996. Not the 80s or
| whatever you're thinking.
|
| Yes, that is Wikipedia page for 1996, not for "80s or
| whatever".
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996
| chrisseaton wrote:
| I don't get your point then? People knew about the
| internet in 1996! AOL had been mass-market by half a
| decade at that point. I don't know what you think the
| mid-90s were like but people were using the internet.
|
| But what have the internet and clamshell telephones got
| to do with headphones?
| lmilcin wrote:
| I see you are deeply confused about either timeline or
| logic or both.
|
| "In 1996, just 20 million American adults had access to
| the Internet," (https://slate.com/technology/2009/02/the-
| unrecognizable-inte...)
|
| So... again... which of my statements is inaccurate?
|
| I wrote: "quarter of century ago most people even if
| heard about the Internet they haven't had a chance to use
| it yet".
|
| How does that conflict with AOL or the quoted above that
| at that time only 20 million, less than 10%, of Americans
| had access to the Internet (and access isn't the same as
| using it)?
|
| Also, this is for USA. The rest of the world did not have
| anywhere near that much access to the Internet.
| ghaff wrote:
| Many Americans had heard of the Internet by 1996--for
| example, it was on the cover of Time Magazine in 1994--
| but most people who were online were probably just using
| AOL, Compuserve, etc. and, as you say, not the Internet.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > I see you are deeply confused about either timeline or
| logic or both.
|
| Not sure why you've now decided to go for snark and being
| snide?
|
| > 20 million American adults had access to the Internet
|
| That seems like a lot of people to me?
|
| But what has any of this got to do with headphones?! Why
| are you telling me about when models of telephone came
| out or when people had access to the internet? The thread
| is about how long headphones last.
| lmilcin wrote:
| > > 20 million American adults had access to the Internet
|
| > That seems like a lot of people to me?
|
| Yes, that's true. 20 million Americans is a lot of
| people.
|
| But in 1996 the population of US was about 265 million,
| so I was completely right to say that "quarter of century
| ago most people even if heard about the Internet they
| haven't had a chance to use it yet".
|
| > Not sure why you've now decided to go for snark and
| being snide?
|
| Not sure why you have decided to oppose what is clearly
| true and accurate statements with illogical sentences.
| You could have just ignored it or even downvoted if you
| decided it worsens overall quality of HN content.
|
| But you decided to write false, illogical responses and
| you should by now know how it ends on HN.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Sorry I still don't get what you mean - what has the
| internet and mobile phones got to do with headphones? I
| don't get why you brought it up in the first place or why
| you think it's relevant? Seems like unrelated trivia?
| vimacs2 wrote:
| Not the OP but I think their point is that while you
| might not think a quarter of a century is that long of a
| period, relative to most products in tech, it is a
| stupendously long time for a product to be still in use.
| It would be like using a phone from 1996 today.
| fsloth wrote:
| Estimating their life expectancy using Lindy effect they
| will soon reach the age at which it becomes likely they
| will outlast me.
|
| _Are_ headphones Lindy-estimatable? That I don 't know.
| Chyzwar wrote:
| I have two pairs of headphones AKG K550(4 years for personal)
| and Sennheiser HD380(2.5 years, work). I use them daily, they
| should last a few more years for sure.
|
| Companies should be rewarded when producing something that
| last. Externalities and disposal should be included in tax
| rate.
| nr2x wrote:
| I'm not sure what my kid will inherit, but I've replaced the
| ear pads on AGK 240s and Sony 7506s and they'll work for many
| years to come. Whereas the Beat Studio Pro I got for free
| when I bought a Mac are quite nice, when the battery final
| goes they'll be useless as despite having a cable, they only
| work when turned on (idiotic!).
| Jiejeing wrote:
| I like the Fiio BTA10, which is a bluetooth (aptX-compatible)
| add-on for Audio-Technica MSR7 & M50X (two different versions
| of the add-on).
|
| Battery life is not great (a few hours), but it is a small
| addon which fits nicely into the headphones, and can be easily
| replaced when it breaks or dies.
| ruph123 wrote:
| Now that sounds very interesting. Thank you for this!
| Fnoord wrote:
| They appear to have more clever solutions to make a wired
| device (such as a headphone or TV) wireless (with a myriad of
| codecs and Bluetooth 5.x).
| majormajor wrote:
| > It used to be like this: You spend A LOT of money for really
| nice headphones and use them (potentially) your lifetime. Or
| hand it down to your kids as your hearing gets worse. Sound
| doesn't change much and the plug has been around for ages.
|
| That's a pretty tiny market. It was also "you spend ten dollars
| at the grocery store for cheap Sony headphones or earbuds and
| then they break and then you do it again. Sound quality is
| terrible."
|
| They did have fewer batteries, though, at least, in terms of
| the disposability problem.
| heipei wrote:
| For what it's worth, the wireless headphones mentioned by the
| review as the best previous set (the Bang & Olufsen / Beoplay
| H9i) do come with a user-removable battery and do allow
| listening via USB-C as well. Somehow these never get mentioned
| in mainstream reviews, only Bose and Sony, even though they
| have superior fit & finish and, according to this review, sound
| as well.
| theodric wrote:
| While Bluetooth may eventually drop backward compatibility, my
| daily driver headphones are four c.2007 Dell BH200 A2DP sets.
| Highly adequate. All are on their second battery, a commodity
| 500mAh LiPo from eBay. To hell with this overpriced Apple
| trash.
| UShouldBWorking wrote:
| Apple products are for rich idiots or idiots that want to
| appear rich, we don't need to worry about their problems. It's
| like saying revolvers make it too easy to play Russian
| roulette.
| tmpz22 wrote:
| I've had to replace my airpods 2 times in 3 years. Once because
| they slid out of my pocket (the find my airpods app is useless)
| and again because the battery and speaker degraded after less
| then 15 months of use.
|
| Have others had similar experiences with the airpods?
| brandall10 wrote:
| If you use your Airpods enough (ie. all day at work, on phone
| calls, etc) - you can easily wear out the battery in that
| amount of time. 2-3 charges per day in 15 months gets to
| about the 1000 charge area where the battery begins to drop
| quickly.
|
| The Pros also had a design defect that led to a crackle. I
| had both my Pro earpieces replaced a few months back -
| independently, for that issue.
|
| In any case, Airpods are meant to be disposable. Apple does
| not replace the batteries on them for battery service issues,
| you just get new ones.
|
| The Maxes are different, the battery can be serviced, and it
| will last considerably longer - at about 5x the life per
| charge, you will likely exhaust the shelf life of the battery
| before it dies from usage.
| criddell wrote:
| A lot has changed. For better or worse, a lot of headphones are
| chosen for how they look, not how they work. How many fashion
| items do you use for your lifetime and pass them down to your
| kids? People do that with expensive watches but I'm having a
| hard time thinking of other fashion items that are durable
| across generations.
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _It is such a shame that nowadays even these high priced
| devices are contributing to the enormous e-waste we are all
| piling up._
|
| That's an excellent point. No tech product can be a "BIFL" (Buy
| It For Life) product, but it'd be nice if all companies were as
| good as Apple at making their products recyclable, and making
| recycling easy.
|
| [1] https://www.apple.com/environment/ [2]
| https://www.apple.com/shop/trade-in
| Hamuko wrote:
| The AirPods are notorious for being absolutely shitty to
| recycle though. They're tiny, held on with glue and have
| batteries inside that you have to get out in order to recycle
| the rest of them.
| tmoravec wrote:
| These are wireless problems, not specific to Apple
| head/earphones. The attached wireless module like the Shure's
| one (and there's plenty of others, for example FiiO) do not
| address the environmental impact at all. Because what breaks is
| the battery and that's the environmentally unfriendly stuff -
| the drivers are nothing in comparison.
| xadhominemx wrote:
| The typical person generates many tons of waste per year. A
| pair of headphones would not even qualify as a drop in the
| bucket
| babypuncher wrote:
| It was sillier when people were complaining about the
| wastefulness of the original AirPods. The real crime there
| was the fact that you spent $150 on something that only lasts
| a few years. As far as waste goes, I think two 20 oz soda
| bottles contribute more to waste than a pair of tiny wireless
| earbuds, and those only get used for an hour before being
| discarded.
| megablast wrote:
| How are you measuring the impact of waste.
| Symbiote wrote:
| Two large plastic bottles are easily recycled, or even
| washed and refilled (e.g. in Germany).
|
| The earbuds don't even have a replaceable battery. They are
| deliberately designed to fuck the environment. (Or maximise
| profit, if you'd like the corporate phrasing.)
| pseudonamed wrote:
| We try hard to buy things that are not wrapped in plastic
| and yet we still throw away at least a 10l bag of
| unrecyclable thin plastic every two weeks. Even a new
| pair of AirPods once a year would pale in comparison to
| all my other environmental waste.
| lostgame wrote:
| Why do headphone reviews so rarely include a frequency response
| graph?
|
| Heck - why is this information often so difficult to even get to
| start?
|
| I often judge whether my headphones, or especially studio
| monitors, are worth buying or not partially by whether they print
| these on the box, or, usually, in the case of monitors, directly
| on the unit.
|
| Claiming you are a doing an audiophile review and not touching on
| this topic whatsoever makes me wonder whether you are an
| audiophile or just prissy about your hardware.
| CDSlice wrote:
| A lot of people don't have the hardware to make frequency
| response graphs and unless you are doing reviews full time it
| is very hard to justify buying that hardware.
|
| Anyway, for the Airpods Max specifically I don't think the
| frequency response graph is useful because they change their
| tuning dynamically so what you measure is not going to be what
| gets played when you listen to them.
| lostgame wrote:
| >> they change their tuning dynamically
|
| Oh. So I guess that completely rules them out, of course -
| then, for the purpose of audio engineering.
|
| I use Apple products mainly because of Logic Pro - which they
| make, and - to a lesser extent, GarageBand on iOS/iPadOS, as
| these can be later opened on Logic Pro on MacOS for serious
| editing. You would think that GarageBand or Logic Pro
| customers might be very interested in this product!
|
| But, imagine - how the _hell_ am I supposed to use the EQ in
| Logic - or any other DAW, for that matter - or _any_ task any
| user might need to use EQing for - an having the tuning
| dynamically change?!
|
| I would throw them across the room after five minutes of any
| serious _Pro_ audio task.
|
| Incredibly disappointing that there isn't an option, at the
| very least, to turn garbage like that off. That would drive
| me absolutely batshit, no joke, likely a same-day return for
| me. =/
|
| $600 headphones that cant be used for Audio Engineering. Why
| do I go Apple again?
| CDSlice wrote:
| I don't think these headphones are meant to be used for
| Audio Engineering but rather for casual listening at home
| or on the go. Complaining that the Airpods Max aren't
| suitable for audio engineering is like complaining that a
| Porsche 911 can't haul sheets of plywood and other building
| materials around. You would want a truck or van for that
| purpose, not a sports car. It's the same with the Airpods
| Max, if you want to do audio engineering you want studio
| monitors with their flat, static, "boring" sound and not
| more headphones meant for casual, "fun" listening.
| lostgame wrote:
| I can't have "fun" listening to uneven headphones. It
| drives me bat shit. :)
| [deleted]
| NLips wrote:
| https://www.rtings.com/ provide frequency response graphs for
| reviewed headphones + in-ear phones. For headphones they
| measure against a dummy head and against 5 individuals. They
| then show variation between these readings, and show the
| average freq responses.
| radiowave wrote:
| SoundOnSound have a good article covering why this doesn't
| happen. In short, there's no standardized methodology (i.e.
| standard dummy head) for measuring it, and the interactions
| between the headphones and the listener's head vary
| significantly.
|
| You could (relatively) easily measure the free-field response
| of the headphones, but I suspect that would tell you very
| little about how they will sound when you're actually wearing
| them. For example it would likely underrepresent the difference
| between closed-back and open-back designs.
|
| https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/designing-measuring-...
| why_Mr_Anderson wrote:
| Studio monitors are entirely different category, not meant for
| 'mere mortals' :) I bet that less than 0.1% of people buying
| headphones not specifically marked as monitors would have no
| idea what is the purpose of such information or how to
| interpret it.
| prof-dr-ir wrote:
| As much as I appreciate these in-depth reviews of the AirPods
| Max, they always feel like reviews of, say, a Burberry coat.
|
| Although this is pure unproven (and maybe unprovable)
| speculation, I think that people buying such products have
| already decided to do so at some deep emotional level, and any
| half-decent review just provides the necessary rationalization
| for an otherwise excessive purchase.
| bamurphymac1 wrote:
| Absolutely get what you're saying, however I wonder if in the
| audiophile world the opposite is the case: Apple is seen as the
| inferior interloper and this is rationalizing giving them a
| chance?
| otabdeveloper4 wrote:
| I bought a set of regular AirPods to use with an Android phone
| because I have hearing problems and other brands of headphones
| make my ears hurt.
|
| Probably a niche case but Apple seems to cater to the 'hearing
| problems' niche, unlike the other manufacturers.
| bardworx wrote:
| I bought them because of two features: 1. I own a pair of Bose
| 700 and on YouTube they "crackle". It's worse when watching
| something at 1.5x and it's really distracting when you're
| watching a talk or tutorial. 2. Bose switch automatically to
| the first device connected. So let's say I'm in the middle of a
| zoom call waiting for participants to join. If my phone is the
| first device and I browse a site with a voice add or click
| something by accident, the Bose switched to that sound source.
|
| Neither are terrible inconveniences but it's a minor life
| improvement to not deal with those things. Is that worth $550?
| Not sure. But I'm glad I spent the money.
| zimpenfish wrote:
| > switch automatically to the first device connected
|
| I think this is a generic Bluetooth audio chipset problem - I
| know it happens both with my Taotronics dongle and my PLT
| headphones. Bloody annoying when I'm listening to something
| on the phone, I've forgotten the Macbook is also connected,
| and bash beeps, killing the music.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| Bose ain't held in some high regard in hifi community
| neither. They have good active noise cancellation, and
| marketing. But that's about it. Quality of reproduction is
| subpar in the price level.
|
| These days there are many other aspects to using headphones,
| ie as you mention how things work over bluetooth. Or comfort
| (which alone would kill these for me, even if they would be
| properly great in everything else). Or various signalling
| with purchases.
|
| Anyway as long as everybody is happy with what they have all
| is good.
| MrBuddyCasino wrote:
| Oluv's (non-paywall) binaural video on them:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxwMnza6sJ8
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-02 23:01 UTC)