Hacker News Reader

Comment by chimen | Hacker News Reader

Mid range studio quality with active noise cancelation, great build quality, good BL codecs (aptx HD+ || LDAC)? Name that pair please. Those 8y Bose QCs are not even close to being a mid-range studio quality and are worst than a sony xm2 or xm3 in terms of ANC, built entirely of plastic also.

You people are so quick to bash on this company for no reason.

The only headset that I consider on par with this one is the recently released (at 800 euro) bang and Olufsen n95. The price is not always the sum of parts.

View on HN

That’s not even true. Bose QC35 ii measure objectively very well for headphones. They, like other high quality ANC headphones, use the ANC mic to EQ themselves to a good reference target.

Also no one uses closed back headphones for studio work. What does “mid range studio quality” even mean.

The vast majority of professionals use speakers in a sound treated room for mixing. Those that use headphones do so very carefully, using EQ to get them to sound right (or getting used to the sound profile of the headphones). The most commonly used are Sennheiser open backs in this area - a pair of HD650 is probably most common. In general it’s fairly challenging to mix with headphones accurately though.

I’m curious to hear the Apple headphones. There aren’t many studio quality headphones with ANC because studio headphones are usually open back, and it makes little sense to put ANC in open back headphones. I reserve judgement but don’t think the Apple headphones will compete with headphones used for mixing and mastering.

There has been relatively little innovation in headphones (and speakers) the last decade or so aside from DSP correction. The last really innovative (from an audio engineering point of view) headphone in my book is the HEDDphone with Air Motion Transfer drivers previously unseen outside some exotic speakers. But it’s $2000, weighs 700g and requires an amp to drive it.

I look forward to hearing the Apple headphones but am sceptical you can get as much of a boost with “computational audio” as you can with computational photography, compared to “dumb” headphones with similar drivers and tuning.

I think the spatial audio stuff is interesting and possibly better than previous attempts on headphones. I think well off people will buy these headphones for the convenience factor (works and sounds marginally better than the next best competitor), and Apple will probably release a less expensive version down the line.

Not to mention the smart digital signal processing these will leverage to deliver better sound quality, which is a potential innovation to headphone design at large that Apple is uniquely positioned to create via their existing expertise. As a happy XM3 owner, I think if these are feature by feature identical to the XM3 they will be quite overpriced. I also think that itself is very unlikely, and that they will have additional qualities justifying the price premium.

There's lots of room to improve, for example, the quality of your voice as picked up by the mic, especially in windy environments. Speaking of that, walking outside on a windy day can be really intrusive with the XM3s because the ANC tries to 'cancel' the wind and you get weird sounds in your ears. Those seem like cases where Apple is well suited to make dramatic improvements via DSP. Tech like the noise canceling the HoloLens 2 applies to its mic (to cut out noise from around the speaker) seems well within their capability. I don't make much use of the XM3's "smart" features because they're pretty compromised. Their 'transparency' mode/partial noise canceling mode is really more intrusive than useful. It doesn't sound like I am partly-canceling background noise, it sounds like microphones are selectively filtering some of what they pick up into my music while I walk outside.

So I think there's definitely enough space for Apple to innovate on sound quality and other aspects of the wireless headset experience to justify the margin.

Edit: Also, multi-device pairing and handoff is super janky with the XM3s. Worth mentioning, I had the XM2s beforehand and the mic was literally unusable on conference calls no matter where I used it - people would complain and ask me what was wrong with my phone every time. Wireless headphones are not a solved problem.

I’ve got a pair of XM3s that I’ve used daily for a bit over 2 years now. And I don’t plan on buying the Airpods Max yet.

XM3s hardware build quality is excellent. The biggest problem with XM3s is the crappy software. The iOS app that demands always on background location access. Although I’d learnt soon enough that it’s perfectly usable without the app.

This is where Apple really shines, in the integrated hardware and software experience. The multi device pairing support on Bose headsets is slightly better than on Sony headsets, although both done even come close to how well AirPods do it on Apple devices.

I'd actually agree with that, they're probably pretty great in the ways that you've mentioned.

Which is why I'm sad that they'll become obsolete after a while. I'm sure they'd still make great studio headphones for listening at home in 15 years when the battery is long dead (if they worked passively).

Why do folks believe that Apple won't replace the batteries for a reasonable price like they do everything else?

So I have an iPad Pro that has a degraded battery life after 4 years. Really, that's the only issue with it and we've determined that it's not software. It just lasts much, much less than it did a year ago. So I tried to get the battery replaced as I was willing to pay Apple for it. An Apple tech hooked it up and got a battery health report and basically came back and said, the battery wasn't degraded enough to qualify for the battery replacement service ($99). So my only option is, full device replacement ($375-ish).

I was told that the battery has to qualify for battery replacement on some devices. That's because they don't replace batteries on an iPad Pro - they always replace the entire device so unless you quality for the battery program, your only option is device replacement. Which they will do if I want but at a much greater cost. That's almost 1/2 the cost of what I originally paid for it.

I was told this directly by an Apple store employee this week. He said he literally can't select the battery replacement option unless he can prove that it is the battery and without the health report saying so, he doesn't know any way he could.

Try mail-in AppleCare. In my experience the retail "Genius Bar" and AppleCare policies and processes (or at least their implementation) have subtle differences. I had good luck with it with an old 1st gen iPad Pro. Just did it last week and expected to get a battery replacement but got a whole device replacement, which was interesting since I did not think they still make such devices in 2020--the serial number indicates they do and the device was made in the latter half of 2020. End-to-end it took probably 3-4 days.

If that doesn't work out, easiest thing is probably to sell on Craigslist with some disclosure and buying a new one.

Because they charge pretty high prices for battery swaps. For my two year old Airpods they would charge 55€ per pod + another 55€ for the battery in the case, which means that getting new batteries costs as much as the Airpods cost in the first place. (Prices in Austria) I hope my second pair lasts longer.

For the Airpods Max they currently list a price of 87€, but as far as I understand there's only one battery to swap. But 87€ every few years is still a high maintenance price, hoping they don't increase that price.

Also, Apple only offers service for a few years. I have a few bloated Macs that would need a new battery but Apple just doesn't service them anymore.

For many devices you can get replacement batteries from 3rd party sellers, but quality is hit or miss -- there's no guarantee the replacement battery is going to last (but in my experience Apple's replacement batteries are also unreliable sometimes).

Most of my Hifi gear is more than 15 years old. I doubt any of Apple's new audio products will last that long.

Of course they'll replace the batteries, for $79. Free if under warranty or AppleCare+. It's right there on the support page:

https://support.apple.com/airpods/repair/service#battery

For how long depends how long till the designate the model "Vintage/Obsolete". Typically 5 years if their computers/iphones/Beats headphones are anything to go by. You can always try your luck on the third party market after that.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624

That's surprisingly reasonable for a $550 product with what's probably a custom high-energy-density battery.

$0 to plug in a cord is hard to beat

WH1000XM4 is still much cheaper than the apple headphones. I doubt it's studio quality but I also doubt that of apple's offering (or the need for such quality).

So you’re stating the obvious, that there’s a cheaper product out there that’s inferior to what Apple claims of their new headphones, and also opining that Apple is probably overstating the sound quality of their new headphones ... and that even if they aren’t overstating it, nobody could possibly want or need that kind of quality? Despite the fact that some people are out there paying tens of thousands of dollars for headphones?

I don’t know if these will find the market Apple is hoping for, but seriously what is the point of this comment? Just to be negative for negativity’s sake? I’m not trying to be confrontational or dickish—I just don’t get it. Every time Apple launches some new expensive product it’s the same old story, people saying it’s going to be crappy and anyway who would buy it at that ridiculous price? and then it turns out that it’s actually not crappy, and some people buy it and like it a lot. I don’t see why we should expect anything different here.

Well, Apple has had obvious flops over the years, specifically because the price didn't match the features. The HomePod, for instance.

> there’s a cheaper product out there that’s inferior to what Apple claims of their new headphones

If your claim is that Apple made a product using expensive and tough materials, more expensive than, say, Sony's counterpart, and thus that is better, you may be half-right.

But if you claim that Apple made a product that sounds better than Bose or Sony's counterparts, and has better ANC, that is not verifiable, at least not until there are in-depth reviews out there confirming it.

What we know now is that Apple did not include support for high quality audio codecs. That itself is quite a red flag.

> Well, Apple has had obvious flops over the years, specifically because the price didn't match the features. The HomePod, for instance.

I would not argue with this and in fact I specifically addressed the does-the-market-actually-exist concern in my comment.

> But if you claim that Apple made a product that sounds better than Bose or Sony's counterparts, and has better ANC, that is not verifiable, at least not until there are in-depth reviews out there confirming it.

I don’t claim any such thing. The point of my comment is that the parent comment implied that there is no real difference, then said that even if there is a difference who cares because does anybody really need better sound anyway?

So my point is, what is the point of that comment? What is it bringing to this discussion, suggesting that Apple’s new headphones may be overpriced wrt. their sound quality, and if not then they’re overpriced anyway? Good sound is something some people care about and will pay for.

> So my point is, what is the point of that comment?

I'm going to take a guess and say that, given the facts, there are reasonable doubts about Apple's offering, compared to other products. Mainly two: noise cancelling is not on par with Bose and Sony, as stated by early reviewers, and the lack of high quality codecs.

Functionality-wise then, they may be overpriced.

And I would be the first to admit that I like the overall design. I'm an Apple user myself. But I'm skeptical that Apple has achieved the technical proficiency to make some reasonably good sounding, wireless, ANC cans, that compete with either Bose or Sony.

I see this more as a luxury product or a status symbol, like Bang & Olufsen.

> Good sound is something some people care about and will pay for.

The people willing to pay +$500 for a pair of headphones would be even more skeptical than me, I presume.

Well, if the comment wanted to make some insightful points about Apple’s speculative ability to compete with the incumbents in the market, it should have done that. It didn’t, though, and that’s why I responded to it with the words I did. If it had been more explicitly speculative and less vaguely negative, I probably would have ignored it completely, because I don’t think that’s a very interesting discussion. Most of the points I’ve heard so far are fairly obvious, and the proof will be in the product pudding.

Since we’re talking about it now, though ... Apple has a decent record building products that meet a reasonable quality bar, even in markets they’re relatively new to. So I think there is a good chance these will end up being regarded as pretty good headphones, worth the asking price for a certain class of consumer. There is also some chance that they will be regarded as overpriced Beats by Dre trash, though I think that window is closing as more positive impressions come in. Outcomes in between those extremes are, obviously, also possible.

Apple’s hardware design and engineering are first rate, and the things they build with speakers in them don’t sound half bad. Personally, I’d be surprised if these weren’t competitive on features alone, and I’ve paid up to around $1000 for (wired) headphones.

I feel like none of you have taken into account that every single color way is sold out and won’t be available for at least 12 weeks.

So, without a doubt, people will pay for these. And I don’t know what sources that other guy has, but all the early impressions I’ve seen mention much better ANC than the competition

I don’t frequent car forums but I always wonder if it’s the same over there. Every time a new Mercedes comes out do a bunch of people start complaining about how a Ford is cheaper or something? It’s like people struggle to grasp the idea of a luxury brand.

People struggle with the idea of any luxury brand that also makes mid-range or mass-market products in addition to their unaffordable luxury items.

Anecdote: I drive a newer BMW 328i. I live in the northern US where it snows, and it's a rear-wheel drive car so it sat on the lot because no one around here wants to buy an expensive car they have to park half of the year. I bought it certified pre-owned for under $30k, but the MSRP brand new was more like $50k with the package/options mine has. And yet I get so many comments about how it's an impractical car (It's a four door with a full size trunk and gets 30mpg...) and I must be rich for driving a BMW. Oftentimes I get this comment from people who drive pickup trucks that cost $60k-$70k, but that's apparently okay because Ford isn't a "luxury brand".

I got my "luxury car" for less than the average purchase price of a new car in the US, and I still get comments about how it's so expensive and I must be rich and I've had family tell me not to drive it to family events because it makes people feel like I'm showing off. Because when they think BMW, they think "fuck that's an expensive car" but it's not. BMW makes expensive cars, yes, but mine was not. Heck I was looking at replacing my SUV and the base-model Chevy Blazer costs more than my BMW.

But also yes, I've frequented some Toyota forums for my SUV and I've seen a lot of comments when someone wants to discuss their Lexus because "it's just a Toyota that costs $10k more!".

BMW used price drop like rock, 2015 328i are about 18k.

The way I read their comment, they meant that even though Sony doesn't use the term studio headphones, they probably might be as good as whatever Apple is claiming the sound quality to be. The doubt was on the marketing term and the worth of the actual quality on the price.

Airpods don't have the best sound, several rival wireless earphones beat them to that.

The comment said this:

> I doubt it's studio quality but I also doubt that of apple's offering (or the need for such quality).

Seems to me that the doubt is on charging $550 for mediocre sound or on whether better sound actually matters, depending on whether the sound turns out to be mediocre or not. That way we can be negative about Apple’s pricey new doodad regardless of whether it’s actually good or not—how convenient!

> Airpods don't have the best sound, several rival wireless earphones beat them to that.

I have not claimed otherwise and probably never will.

Yes. For most people buying studio quality is not a good value proposition. I doubt they will get that quality and in general most people don't notice the difference.

Why is being skeptical of a product announcement problematic? Is stone-faced indifference the only acceptable response? Can I also not speculate on a film's quality from its trailer?

You can write whatever you want. Face velvet church daisy red. Person man woman camera television. Look mom, no hands!

Your comment was just pointless, unfair criticism. You start by pointing out that there exists a cheaper product that is broadly similar to Apple's new competitor. Then you claim that the latter probably won't exceed the quality of the cheaper product, and that even if it does, nobody could possibly want or need to pay the premium attached to that exceedance. So in the end you've put Apple in a box where their new product sucks no matter what, because it's not exactly the same as a product that already exists.

That's just obviously not valid, as previously noted—people pay a lot more than $550 for headphones that offer a lot less in the feature department than modern BT over-ear noise-cancellers. If you want to speculate on whether Apple will succeed in pushing the market higher in a way that makes sense for their business, that might actually be interesting, but you haven't offered anything nearly that substantive. It's just vague negativity of the kind that seeps out of the internet's pores whenever Apple releases something new, and it's usually wrong.

I have XM2's and they are still running perfect. Coming from Bose, I love both sound and ANC. As long as this series exist, I am not sure I can even look at these.

I have the WH1000XM4. It's like a Renault near a Mercedes when comapred with these ones (buld quality) or near BO n95. Depends what you want. My right earcup (right where it pivots) broke 2 weeks in. 100% plastic. ANC is good though I give them that. Also, "much cheaper" is only a feature when all other aspects match.

well anecdotes are anecdotes. I've had one in this line for years with no issues. I also had a parrot zik 2 which was all metal and way more expensive and it was generally worse.

Another anecdote - I have been using my Bose QC 25 for 5 years without any issues. Yes, the plastic ones. Worn almost every day.

WH1000XM4 should be cheaper.

- Controls are annoying i.e. you have to swipe 20 times on the earcup and then waiting for a deafening beep to set the maximum volume.

- Loses track of current volume on different devices.

- Pairing with multiple devices rarely works.

- Audio quality is average.

The only reason people rave about is its noise cancelling.

> Controls are annoying i.e. you have to swipe 20 times on the earcup and then waiting for a deafening beep to set the maximum volume.

IIRC you can swipe and keep holding to keep increasing/decreasing volume until you let go.

> Loses track of current volume on different devices.

That might be somewhat intentional, Android remembers volume per-device (or in case of wired headphones, one separate volume for all wired headphones). When you connect/plug in a device you plugged in before, the volume automatically changes. Sony could be offloading this logic to the device on purpose.

https://www.bang-olufsen.com/en/comparison/products/headphon...

I have the B&O H9 3rd gen and I love them. I have no idea whether they stack up to what your write on the tech stack side of things, but the sound is phenomenal I think and that’s what matters to me. The mic is useless, but I don’t ever use them for anything but music anyhow.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com