Comments Locked

93 Comments

Back to Article

  • sprockkets - Friday, September 30, 2016 - link

    Lol, less power hungry? Yeah, right, bs. Who's going to power the internal audio speakers and earpiece?
    All this does is move what was in the phone to a stupid dongle. Screw apple and moto for doing this.
  • DanNeely - Friday, September 30, 2016 - link

    What you're forgetting is that since your phone maker is the one who will be blamed for the battery not lasting long enough is that outside of extreme budget models they're likely to spend the extra $0.50 on the BoM for a high power efficiency DAC. The tiny company in China who manufactured the cheap no-name dongle you bought on Amazon. Not so much.
  • ImSpartacus - Friday, September 30, 2016 - link

    Oh god. I didn't think about this. Fuck. This is not good.
  • __Miguel_ - Monday, October 3, 2016 - link

    Of course it's not. USB-C audio is nice, and all, but it's just a cash grab. The only people who would benefit from it, i.e. audiophiles (because normal headphones will not benefit an iota from being USB-C in the first place, they're too small and/or made with parts not able to capture the extra clarity the dedicated DAC would allow), have been using external USB DACs for years, now. They'll probably have a little bit less latency, but that's about it.

    Everyone else will either A) buy USB-C headphones, thus having to spend more money for something they already had, especially because since USB-C can handle analog audio, you might just be getting some "premium" USB-C headphones that are basically analog headphones with a USB-C plug; or B) have to fumble with fragile USB-C to 3.5mm adapters, again having to spend more money, potentially multiple times, with zero gains.

    AND, while this is happening, you'll either have to choose if you want to charge your phone or listen to music, or lug around a USB-C hub (because let's face it, the odds of at least 2 fully-functional - i.e., with all services offered by the phone over USB-C on both - USB-C ports on a phone are slim to none), which is utterly ridiculous, not to mention expensive.
  • dsumanik - Monday, October 3, 2016 - link

    Hey smartphone makers, there is a very real and lucrative business opportunity for you here... simply hang on to the audio jack and refuse to buy into this scam, customers will reward you with sales.
  • damianrobertjones - Friday, October 7, 2016 - link

    "outside of extreme budget models they're likely to spend the extra $0.50 on the BoM for a high power efficiency DAC"

    Do you mean,

    "outside of extreme budget models they're likely to NOT spend the extra $0.50 on the BoM for a high power efficiency DAC"

    These companies don't care. When making a million phones 0.50 is a LOT of cash.
  • MobiusStrip - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    This is an offensive and anti-customer scam to be sure. So now we have redundant DACs in EVERYTHING. The phones have to have DACs in them to provide sound to their own speakers... so Apple hasn't offloaded the work at all; it simply blocked access to it.

    And now many manufacturers will repeat Apple's blunder of blocking access to the sole power port with this asinine audio dongle? Want to listen to music on your road trip? NOPE. You can listen OR charge... but not both.

    Craven stupidity. And apologists will gobble this shit up.
  • Azethoth - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    I don't get it. Why are you blaming Apple for some other company doing stuff? USB C is not an Apple standard, it is just USB copying what Apple does.
  • Morawka - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    Audio over USB C was announced over a year ago, and as mentioned, motorola was the first to do the headphone jack thing. in the technology sector, no-one copy's apple, because apple is never the first to do anything. apple copies everyone else and puts their spin on it. now copying apple on aesthetic design is valid argument.
  • melgross - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    Oh for crying out lout, nothing is being blocked. Stop the hysteria. Every time something new replaces something old we get people who can't understand why, and think it's some plot and will destroy everything.

    This has been a long time coming.
  • sprockkets - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    Says the apple moderator from appleinsider.

    Face it, dropping a standard plug that's worked for decades with something proprietary is NEVER an improvement.
  • CrimsonKnight - Monday, October 3, 2016 - link

    Why are you mentioning Apple at all? The only time the article mentions Apple is to say that they have released a phone with no 3.5mm jack. The spec detailed in the article is from the USB-IF, a nonprofit on whose board sits not one person from Apple.

    Also, the USB Type C is not proprietary, it's a standard. Are you confusing this with Apple's lightning port?

    Finally, technology moves forward. The 3.5mm jack has had its run, deal with it.
  • Impulses - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    I don't necessarily blame Apple, but I do think this is utterly pointless on a ton of devices where internal components will remain exactly the same...

    Yes digital audio out COULD be better (specially if you're hardcore and wanna use your own external amp etc) and yes a digital interface COULD lead to interesting smart headphones, but none of that SHOULD come at the cost of compatibility and the ubiquitous 3.5mm jack.

    Making slimmer devices might be a valid excuse in some cases, but in a lot of cases it's just an easy way to milk people on accessories or pure trend chasing.

    Android and iOS already featured digital audio out for a long time and neither was setting the market ablaze with high end headphones with built in DACs and DSP (tho there were some, Audeze Sine etc). Similarly, smart wearables remain a bit of a novelty (I own/wear a Moto 360 btw).
  • JeffFlanagan - Monday, October 3, 2016 - link

    Of course it's been a long time coming, but for the last few years, geeks have loved to whine whenever anything changes, and have been falling for reactionary politics. Too many people cannot handle change.
  • brucethemoose - Friday, October 7, 2016 - link

    Uh huh.

    Did you say that about video interfaces a few years back, right? Well, I've got some bad news for you...
  • happyhappythomas - Tuesday, April 9, 2019 - link

    I agree people are willing to use Bluetooth headphones, but get all het up about the lack of a headphone jack on their phones. By making USB-C headphones it gives you the opportunity to have better audio due to a better DAC built into the headphones. Heck, that's whats used in Bluetooth headphones anyway.
  • Wardrop - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    Phones with two USB ports are inevitable I think. I wouldn't fret too much. Computers use to only have one or two USB ports when they were first introduced. Now you'd be hard pressed to find even a mini PC with less than 6 ports. Apple doesn't count as they have a history of reducing everything to one; single button mouse, single port iPhone for audio, data and power, Macbook with single USB port. Apple's way doesn't make any sense. It's idealist rather than realist.
  • Flunk - Sunday, October 2, 2016 - link

    That would defeat the purpose, you've still got two jacks then.
  • __Miguel_ - Monday, October 3, 2016 - link

    IMO, that will just result in consumer confusion.

    Because either A) only one of the ports is USB-C Audio enabled, and the consumer will either have to remember which one it is every time (and we all know how much consumer love to do that), thinking it's stupid to switch a port for no apparent reason, and making it more complicated for them to understand how to work the device, not to mention the throng of returns derived from "the USB-C Audio thingy" not working, because of course they'll end up plugging it in the wrong port, and it will not work as advertised; or B) both of the ports are USB-C Audio enabled, and the consumer will still go "so, which one is the Audio port? And where do I plug my 3.5mm headphones again?". Not to mention 2 USB-C Audio enabled ports are more expensive than just one, making the phone cost more...

    So, yeah, two USB-C ports would be nice, but I'm just not seeing it being the case.
  • happyhappythomas - Tuesday, April 9, 2019 - link

    I disagree with you on the Macbook argument. I would say that now on the toutchbar MacBooks you actually have more usable ports than the older Retina ones. On the retina MacBooks, you only got 2 USB A ports which are what most people would have used most. I don't think that the majority of users ever used the Thunderbolt ports on them.
  • yankeeDDL - Monday, October 3, 2016 - link

    Totally. Creating problems where they don't exist. Instead of focusing on making ergonomic phones, with reasonable thickness and grip, using this space to house a large battery that can give me 2~3 days of use, they go thinner, and take out the jack.
    So on 10hrs flights what do I do? I use my headset with the adapter, and charge the phone every now and then? Or I buy wireless headsets and use then only 4~5 hours? Or I buy a new adapter to plug in both? I really don't understand how people can actually buy phones without a 3.5mm jack.
  • Shiitaki - Sunday, October 9, 2016 - link

    Everyone is making a big deal out of headphone jack, the reality is the big news should be about the W1 chip! Apple did it again to the technology sector, solving a f'n obvious and glaring failure of the industry.

    I am looking forward to buy a set of headphone that with a single pairing will work across all of my devices, offer a completely digital connection to a high quality DAC in the headphones themselves. The remote control will be better than the current analog scheme.

    Yes, they got rid of a useful jack, but they did it at the same time they addressed the biggest reason that headphone jack still exists!

    What is the response of the too slow, and too late industry? Analog audio over a digital connection? Seriously? There are issues with USB, and audio is not one of them. How about the consistently substandard bandwidth of USB devices? The waste of cpu utilization of using usb devices? The lack of Microsoft to implement standard usb profiles, unlike unix.linux, and os x?

    The large market for usb is largely cheapskates, and they don't care about audio. This whole thing is a waste of time. In a couple of years people will view headphones with cords like they view boob tube televisions. The move to wireless audio is going to happen fast, very fast.

    Android phones have wireless charging, we expect wireless internet connectivity, wireless video transmission. Of all of the connections to go wireless, the audio is the easiest since it is the lowest bandwidth by far.

    Apple makes up 90 percent of market by profit, and what is profitable happens. So big deal, you have to buy a new aux cable for your old car stereo for 10 bucks of Amazon, get over it. Wish I had a manufacturing plant in China making cables, there is a tremendous opportunity for making replacement headphone cables for high end corded headphones right now.

    Wired? No one cares! These engineers should stop wasting time solving no one's problem. Go do something about PC bluetooth's problems.
  • Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer - Friday, September 30, 2016 - link

    Oh goodie, another way for manufacturers to shave off a few cents and fractions of a millimeter. If only there was some way to capitalize on slightly thicker devices, like, I don't know, bigger batteries?
  • Scabies - Friday, September 30, 2016 - link

    No, you will take your tiny battery and monster screen and you will like it.
  • rms141 - Friday, September 30, 2016 - link

    Congratulations, the thinner phone means your battery case will now take less room in your pocket.
  • Flunk - Sunday, October 2, 2016 - link

    There are a couple of devices like that on the market like the Moto X Play/Droid Maxx 2. I know because I looked for one when I bought my last phone.
  • Zak - Friday, September 30, 2016 - link

    Yeah, no kidding. There was no technical reason to remove the headphone jack. And I bet this standard will not come with iPhones. Apple will have their own "standard". You know, "for the customer benefit".
  • gsilver - Friday, September 30, 2016 - link

    I believe that the word that you are looking for is "courage"
  • baka_toroi - Friday, September 30, 2016 - link

    Well, Apple devices use a different connector than USB Type-C, so of course this won't come with iPhones.
  • cygnus1 - Friday, September 30, 2016 - link

    The Apple Lightning connector has had similar capability for several years. The only difference to my knowledge, is that it doesn't support analog output.
  • MobiusStrip - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    Yes, but the ancient 30-pin connector did. That band-aided and patched-together connector also provided better VIDEO than the pathetic Lightning connector, despite never being intended to provide video at all. This is revealing: https://panic.com/blog/the-lightning-digital-av-ad...
  • SeleniumGlow - Monday, October 3, 2016 - link

    That link was an interesting read. Thanks for sharing mate.
  • cygnus1 - Thursday, October 6, 2016 - link

    Agreed, good read. Especially the anonymous comment that's pointed out at the end. It makes since that there's not that much going on over the lightning port though as it's not much more than just a custom form factor for USB2 port.
  • Azethoth - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    On the one hand you are right, they could keep the jack, on the other hand it lets them miniaturize more, on the third hand it leads to a completely wireless phone setup. As someone that plays Pokemon Go (and hopefully soon a quality Blizzard game instead of that crap), I feel and look stupid with headphone wires and charge wires dangling all over the place, and its dumb when I forget and everything goes flying around, including the phone and delicate ear buds.
  • Impulses - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    You could already use Bluetooth... This doesn't enable any new form of wireless connectivity.
  • melgross - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    In theory at least, Apple electrical standard for this works with Intel's. the different physical plug can be accommodated with a small, cheap adapter.
  • thCRITICALThinker - Friday, September 30, 2016 - link

    I'm sure carrying two or three pairs of headphones will be great fun depending on what standard I want to use, the ever present 3.5mm, usb-c or lightning, and heaven forbid I try and listen to my phone while charging.

    I will boycott any company that doesn't offer a headphone jack on their devices.
  • cygnus1 - Friday, September 30, 2016 - link

    What if they offer dual USB-C ports? Not out of the realm of reason.
  • MobiusStrip - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    That is out of the realm of reason, since now they haven't eliminated a port at all. They'd just be replacing the universally usable audio jack with another jack... which doesn't provide audio.
  • __Miguel_ - Monday, October 3, 2016 - link

    I've talked about this before. Two ports will be a mess. And potentially more expensive than 1 port plus a 3.5mm jack. Not to mention that, while slimmer, the USB-C port still takes up a larger footprint than the 3.5mm one, so that alone would make the transition a wash. AND, to make things even funnier, you'll still need to have an internal DAC, to handle analog audio over USB-C, so you'll be increasing prices, not decreasing them...

    Also, USB-C requires each port to be wired in accordance to the services provided by the port. So, either you'll wire all available ports to provide video out, plus USB audio, plus whatever USB alt-modes you're implementing (and good luck trying to route all those traces all over the phone, or multiplying the extra hardware to provide the services on far-away ports), or the consumer will be baffled by why he can't use port A for audio, since USB-C is supposed to be universal, or return the headphones or phone as broken because he can't use one of the ports for audio output.

    Seriously, dropping the 3.5mm jack is a colossal mistake. The only advantage here is for headphone manufacturers, USB-C to 3.5mm adapter manufacturers, and phone manufacturers, who will jack prices up even more, because "shiny new thing".

    In the meanwhile, consumers will get shorter battery times, pay more for stuff, risk having their USB-C ports shot to hell by shady 3rd-party USB-C headphones, potentially have crappier sound than even before, because it's more complicated to build active headphones than passive ones, and benefit exactly zero from the supposed "digital" sound: normal headphones are too small for people to notice any difference, and really high-end users don't rely on internal DACs anyway, they've been using USB external DACs for years...

    So, yeah... I'm not bashing USB-C audio just because. As flawed as the 3.5mm jack might be, after weighing the pros and the cons, it's still miles ahead from USB-C. At least not right now, and not in the next half a decade, either.
  • OnKillingTree - Tuesday, October 4, 2016 - link

    It's like saying that person who came from 1 USB port computer to 2 UBS ports computer, doesn't know where to plug his mouse. You just connect to either of them and it works!
  • melgross - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    Well then, in three of four years you won't be buying anything new. Too bad for you.
  • StrangerGuy - Friday, September 30, 2016 - link

    I find it doubly ironic about this forced obsolescence nonsense when said industry that promotes it can't even cheap and reliable USB-Type C cables to save their lives.
  • MobiusStrip - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    Have you tried to find a USB 3 hub that's worth a rat's ass? They don't exist. They are all defective garbage. Read the negative reviews on any of them, and you'll find that they all die in a matter of weeks or months. I've experienced this at least three times. Now I simply have an extension cable on my desk, and I have to unplug and re-plug any USB device I need to use.

    Which is another reason that USB is NOT a substitute for Thunderbolt; Thunderbolt (in addition to being far superior for video and high-speed data I/O) can be daisy-chained.
  • BedfordTim - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    My Anker 8 port USB3 hub has been working for years but you are right in that there is a lot of stuff that doesn't work even from big names.
  • MattMe - Monday, October 3, 2016 - link

    I second Anker USB3 hubs being of good waulity. I use mine for music production purposes where the difference between shoddy and good is instantly noticeable with multiple devices connected to one PC port.
    Anker is the only one I've had so far that has worked as I'd expect any hub to work. Expensive, for sure, but worth it.
  • Mythbinder - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    USB has always had the ability to be daisy chained, 1 USB port can support upto 7 chained devices. its in the spec, but no one ever used it so devices and cables are not built to do it.
  • Wardrop - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    Yeah that's because daily chaining sucks. Always has, always will. Thing wiring. Star configuration always trumps ring configuration.
  • BiggerInside - Friday, September 30, 2016 - link


    The main motives for replacement were:
    *necessity to simplify internal architecture of devices by removing analog and some audio processing components

    This is smoke and mirrors. If there's a speaker on the device, you've already got DAC going on. If you're supporting analog audio over the usb type-c connector, youǘe already got all the DAC in place that you'd need to connect an analog headphone jack. cf: iPhone 7, with the same three audio chips that the iphone 6 had.
    *minimize the number of external connectors

    This is, obviously, the only one of these features that actually requires the change, and probably the one we want the least (I need to charge and use headphones at the same time, which requires either two ports or a hub. Iĺl take two ports. If the alternative was dual USB ports... maaaaybe...)
    *improve power management

    I haven seen any demonstration of parasitic drain from the headphone jack. Detecting whether headphones are plugged in is trivial--and I sincerely doubt the analog-headphone-detection algorithm works any differently in the USB world than it has with the old port.
    *add smart features to headsets and other audio equipment

    Here's the one point that actually aims at providing anything substantive, and it sounds like a compelling argument. If you actually think about whatś being said, though, it falls apart.

    "we want to remove the headphone jack so our headphones can connect over USB and have new digital features!"

    LOL.
    Nothing about the headphone jack prevents anyone from making a USB headset.
    The only thing this move does is force people to buy adapters for existing headphones, and pushes new headphones to use DAC chips they didn't need. Seriously. These chips are 100% redundant for headphone audio.
    Conexant has introduced three USB-C Audio MPUs (1, 2) for headsets, docking stations and other equipment. Assuming that these chips are compliant with the USB ADC 3.0 specs from a hardware standpoint, and the software is ready, actual devices featuring USB-C Audio could arrive in the coming months. Pricing of the first USB ADC 3.0-compliant MPUs is unknown, but in general MPU ICs do not cost too much. Moreover, as developers adopt smaller process technologies and a larger number of such chips hit the market, their prices are going to depreciate.

    Laughing all the way to the bank.
  • sanf780 - Friday, September 30, 2016 - link

    The thing is the number of DACs and the quality of those. There are tricks you can use on the DACs for the phone speakers because the speakers are of a known tight specification, that is generally poor (it is hard to make small nice sounding loudspeakers). It is an engineer's work to not overdo things, to match a so and so loudspeaker with a so and so DAC.
    Headphone amps are not trivial to design - I know, I have been there. The headphones have very different characteristics, with impedances as low as a few ohms up to hundreds of them. THD becomes important as there is a chance of need to deliver audio to a great sounding headphone (you know, the ones that pinpoint how harsh MP3 sound). I probably can go on and on. *sigh* It is so much easier to get something done in the digital domain these days. And lower power to boot.

    The big problem I see with the removal of the jack is the incovenience. We are used to have passive headphones and do not care about the DACs. After all, DACs tend to be expensive if they are not built into an appliance.
  • sonicmerlin - Friday, September 30, 2016 - link

    Why do you assume the layman reading your post knows what "THD" stands for?
  • MobiusStrip - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    Give us a break. The "savings" from downgrading the DAC so it's "just good enough" for the phone speakers must be vanishingly small, considering that such a product probably doesn't even exist in the correct form right now.
  • BedfordTim - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    The point was to get the best quality the headphone amp must be tailored to the headphones which is valid. Clearly this only applies to high end kit and while nice to have is not related to removing the headphone jack for the remaining 99% or users.
  • BiggerInside - Monday, October 3, 2016 - link

    This is a valid point for removing the headphone jack if the choice is binary. It isn't. We've had both options on the majority of phones, now they're taking away the port most of us use and using the preference of a small minority of people to justify it. It's comparable to taking away the option to pay with cards at the grocery store (replacing card readers with Android/Apple/Samsung/Paypass readers) and saying "well, RFID payment is more secure, and you can use cash if you don't have a smartphone/RFID card." The *option* of a new system is great, but taking away the system used by most people is stupid.
  • BiggerInside - Monday, October 3, 2016 - link

    This. DACs and headphone circuits became good enough for 99% of us a decade ago. The rest of you could already use USB DACs or battery powered amps.
  • melgross - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    A major concept of this for those who obviously are having problems understanding it, is that no internal DAC is needed, as the connector provides digital output. The DAC is in the headphone, or other device. So the chip that will be used internally in the phone, tablet or whatever will replace the DEAC. For those who still use analog devices, a DAC is in the cable, as Apple does it. That cable is just $9.

    But this is, if anything, a short term solution, because already, more wireless Bluetooth earbuds and headphones were sold, in total dollars, in 2015, than analog earbuds and headphones. That trend will continue.
  • Impulses - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    You still need an internal DAC for speaker and phone functionality tho. At best you can downgrade from a $1 part to a 0.75¢ part, and that's if it's not already built into the SoC you're using.
  • BiggerInside - Monday, October 3, 2016 - link

    Mel, if that's the motivation, why did Apple put so many redundant, expensive, obsolete DAC circuits in the iPhone7? (Cf. teardowns)
    Moreover, why does it make so much sense to put the same DAC in every cheap pair of headphones in the world when we could have one half-decent DAC in the phone?
  • haukionkannel - Friday, September 30, 2016 - link

    If the Hi-Fi forums proves that audio quality is superior related to 3.5 plug... maybe... But hard to see how it could be. Maybe superior quality dac's in the headphones, but still there is really hard way to go... so Many devices support 3.5 blug. And I don't love adaptors.
  • BiggerInside - Friday, September 30, 2016 - link

    The drivers in the headphones are all still analog, because, alas, intel has yet to design an interface that will plug into the auditory processing centres of our brains.
    This means we can buy headphones with built-in USB DACs, but if you recall, those have actually been possible for a long time... and nothing about that development requires the elimination of the 3.5mm jack.
  • melgross - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    Jeeze. Your post is an example of what I'm saying. Analog audio from the 3.5mm jack is using a DAC. You do realize that? A DAC isn't needed in the audio chain in the phone, or other equipment, because that a digital stream. So the DAC and amp is in the headphones. There's a better chance of having a better DAC and amp in the headphone because of room, and the fact that it's on its own battery, if the manufacturer decides to to that for audio quality. This isn't really possible to do correctly otherwise.
  • Impulses - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    Actually, there isn't, it's already astonishingly hard to make decent sounding headphones (even full sized ones, compared to speakers); and cramming a DAC and batteries in there doesn't help SQ at all... External DAC/amp solutions for audioohiles can and have netted an improvement, but the mass market isn't gonna carry an extra device for audio (just like they stopped caring about iPods). This is a side grade, at best. You're sorely misinformed about the technical aspects and what's currently possible.
  • mr_tawan - Monday, October 3, 2016 - link

    I think, making use of superior DAC in phone is kinda waste. Phones always suffer from all kind of surrounding noise. Portable players are way to go for those audiophiles.
  • Impulses - Monday, October 3, 2016 - link

    The point is this isn't being done in the name of sound quality, having a DAC crammed in a headphone cup along with moving parts, coils, magnets, batteries, and/or wires going to batteries in another cup is just as hostile and cramped an environment as the insides of a phone.
  • melgross - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    As someone with an $80 thousand plus A/V system, I can tell you that the Hi-Fi forums are full of it. Most of the people there don't even know what this issue is all about (like some here, apparently).

    There are a lot of "high end" audio people who shun anything digital. Don't rely on what they say.
  • Impulses - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    And there are lots of high end audio people who are totally on top of the subject and while they do see the potential of this they also don't see the point of killing 3.5mm just yet. One of the most reputable headphone review sites out there (Inner Fidelity) has long held one of the most balanced stances on things like objectivism vs subjectivism and whatnot, and Tyll's reviews and headphone tear downs (which accompany almost every review) have long made it clear how hard it is to design an effective headphone cavity and resonance... So if you've never read any of that, as evidenced by your previous post, you're sorely ill informed on the subject despite the $80 grand epeen you're touting. Try again...
  • Cinnabuns - Friday, September 30, 2016 - link

    So...will existing USB-C devices be compatible these new USB-C headphones?
  • BrokenCrayons - Friday, September 30, 2016 - link

    "Developers of the standard hope that elimination of mini-jacks will help to make devices slimmer, smarter and less power hungry."

    I don't understand how a change in the audio connector will made a device smarter.
  • Impulses - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    That's the only nugget of this whole move that does have some truth behind it... A digital interface means they can put things like motion sensors on headphones and better communicate with them... 'Course that's all being done over Bluetooth with most wearables anyway, so even the biggest selling point rings kinda hollow.
  • Communism - Friday, September 30, 2016 - link

    It's going to be hilarious when you have to pay a monthly fee for the license to "lease" access to your USB-C headphone jack.

    And the license to verify that your USB-C headphone is "Certified."

    And you better be sure your USB-C headphone is end to end "HDCP [insert arbitrary version number here]" compliant, or you won't be able to play that song you just purchased from [walled garden].
  • Communism - Friday, September 30, 2016 - link

    Enjoy buying new headphones every year once your old ones are obsolete :D

    Have the "courage" to embrace progress :D
  • Xanavi - Friday, September 30, 2016 - link

    You can pry my 3.5mm from my cold, dead hands!
  • zeeBomb - Friday, September 30, 2016 - link

    (looks at OnePlus)
  • HomeworldFound - Friday, September 30, 2016 - link

    It would be nice to have a standard like this. Since optical has gone there's been an annoying gulf in PC audio/speaker setups. I've not seen a single set of 5.1 or 7.1 PC speakers supporting HDMI input/output.
  • MobiusStrip - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    Why would the SPEAKERS support this? You're going to string big-ass HDMI cables all around your room to every speaker?
  • melgross - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    Again guys, the long term is wireless. That going to be the end. It's happening already.

    The whole concept is streaming the music from your phone in digital to you headphones where the conversion will be done with a higher quality DAC and amp, if you buy a better quality headphone.

    Right now, you're at the mercy of the 25 cent DAC and 25 cent amp chip in your phone. Neither will be required for digital output.
  • mathew7 - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    "[....] if you buy a better quality headphone."

    "Right now, you're at the mercy of the 25 cent DAC and 25 cent amp chip in your phone. Neither will be required for digital output."

    So, now you will need a DAC and AMP for EACH headphone and external speakers you use, if you want wired. And the price of those devices will be low (cause maybe 1% will pay for expensive devices)......so instead of most listeners using just crap speakers/headphones, they will now add crap DACs also.
    There was also mentioned in the article about sync issues....so if your headphones have a cheap DAC with a wrong clock compared to the phone panel, you will start getting desyncronization with your youtube video. Effects can go to clicks and pops and even one of them too fast (like the early japanese dubbed movies). 1% clock difference means 100ms drift /10s. I can spot 20-30ms drift watching guitar playing and 40-50ms with voice. I know about this problem a long time ago with video capture cards that used the sound card for audio. SW had to take care of sync....I ended up using a video camera with IEEE1394 output to record from VHS.

    As for power....those external DACs still need power and wireless consumes even more. The only difference is the detection, which any benchmarks will see the difference as test enviroment tolerance.

    So the only reasons I can still see are:
    - removal of analog ports (which I saw a post about HDCP-like protections)
    - space (which I will happily take a +.2mm, even 1mm thicker phone with the port)
    - waterproofing (I DID NOT decide to buy the Z1 compact and Z5 compact because of their waterproofing)
    which none are customer-advantageous with the port removed.
  • MattMe - Monday, October 3, 2016 - link

    I'm pretty sure the 3.5mm TRS is one of the easiest ports to make waterproof, so citing that as a reason to remove it doesn't make any sense.
  • Mythbinder - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    Wireless is unreliable by nature and more wireless devices will just make the situation worse.
  • Impulses - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    Headphones won't feature significantly better DAC/amp solutions anytime soon, you're terribly mis informed about the intricacies of headphone design and what's really possible...

    Never mind the duplication of components like batteries, and the fact that sealed batteries will lead to disposable designs when otherwise a really solid pair of headphones can last a decade or two...

    Or the fact that everything begins ten times a hard to implement on in ear headphones or buds. You really think something the size of an eraser head has more room for high end audio componentes than a phone?

    Get real, dyed in the wool audiophiles would just use an external amp/DAC box (which was already possible without Type C btw, and many did); though it's not really worth the effort if you're truly mobile and either at the mercy of background noise or simply not concentrated on the music.

    For everyone else shifting and duplicating components around from one space constrained device to another even more space constrained device is a side grade at best... A money grab at worst.

    It might enable some extra functionality, tho nothing that wasn't already possible via BLE which you yourself admitted is where we were heading... So why take away the wired option from people that don't wanna waste battery on wireless or why replace it with another wired standard?
  • Zoomer - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    Plenty of receivers that take HDMI in and have good amps. Your point?
  • Nexing - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    Amazing how nobody has yet put out the obviously hidden argument behind this move...
    I seem to recall it was said on the first discussion. It is the Audio Content Industry that is behind this.
    They want to insert a final control key to the music/audio that is delivered from the new gear.
    Simply as that.
    This is part of a long going struggle and they are now influencing crucial hardware manufacturers (Apple, Intel) in order to set the landscape for their future control actions.
    In terms of BiggerInside's above recount of the mentioned arguments, I agree it is the last one that somehow stands: "we want to remove the headphone jack so our headphones can connect over USB and have new digital features!".
    Part of those digital features is controlling that the content is copyrighted by future schemes to be implemented... This way they may limit play of certain files right on your own device, no matter its source.
    Such is the holy grail big labels are trying to attain.
  • Zoomer - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    Rest assured no one copies music through the headphone jack. Their DRM solution was already full of holes that moving to selling unencrypted MP3s or even FLACs made no difference in piracy rates.
  • iranterres - Saturday, October 1, 2016 - link

    Brace yourselves for an era of crappy audio output!!! LOL
  • sharath.naik - Sunday, October 2, 2016 - link

    This move is going to fail for one simple reason. USB C is not sturdy enough to hold a wired headphone. Headphone jack needs to stay in place when it is plugged in even when moving with all the tug and pull . USB C simply does not provide that.
    If the technology is unfriendly compared to what it is replacing it simply fails. This will too. Apple just wants to make more money nothing more.
  • lagittaja - Sunday, October 2, 2016 - link

    The USB specification text is a little bit heavy so excuse me if this is said in the specifications but..
    What does this mean for existing USB Type C devices?
    Can the USB ADC 3.0 be "enabled" on a device with a "simple" firmware update or will it need new hardware so old devices wouldn't be able to use it?
  • Icehawk - Sunday, October 2, 2016 - link

    Staring at my phone I don't see much space saved externally by going just lightning - how much of a difference is there from the board side?

    If Apple went USB-C, which they will never do, it would suck slightly less.

    Not that my phone is for serious listening but I own a fair amount of headphones, some fairly high-end, and there is no way I am going digital with them for a long time - somehow I doubt we will see this on AVRs anytime soon. I also seriously doubt in the near term that good quality headphones (HD600, Grado 325, etc) will be going USB or lightning as well. I could care less what Beats or Bose does.

    External DACs and amps for headphones suck IMO, removing portability isn't the goal of mobile audio.
  • lagittaja - Sunday, October 2, 2016 - link

    How much of a space saving is it?
    You should take a look at the teardowns. It's not much.
    https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone+7+Teardown/...
    https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone+6s+Teardown...
    Now there's a "barometric vent" in the headphone jack's place. Basically a plastic doohickey which allows to equalize the internal pressure to that of the atmosphere: accurate altimeter with the watertight seals.
  • Impulses - Sunday, October 2, 2016 - link

    At the high end I imagine people will just go down one of two paths... Either they actually want those external components in an additional device because they're hardcore about their audio and/or they're highly mobile (if I traveled for work I'd probably own a Leckerton DAC/amp since it features optical AND USB in)...

    OR they just keep on keeping on with an active adapter like what Apple is shipping (semi active? not sure what the consensus on it is yet), or go wireless. Active dongles with their own little DAC/amp inside are probably no better than a Bluetooth receiver dongle tbh, and the latter frees up the phone even it doesn't completely eliminate wires.

    I've been doing the latter to an extent for a while now (Sony MW600), tho I'm not walking around outside with high end open cans on my head (my HD600 are strictly for my desk/Ikea lounger)... I don't feel like it's holding back my OPPO PM3 or V-Moda XS when I'm on the go. I do switch back to wired to conserve battery tho.

    The mass market is just going wireless regardless, nobody spending any kind of decent money on Beats or anything better will care in a couple years... Cheapskates and people that don't need anything more than a $5 headset are ironically the most impacted.

    I think whether laptops and tablets adopt this quickly might determine whether the backlash wins out over market interests... If it remains something only phones are forcing people are gonna be suitably PO'd.
  • SeleniumGlow - Monday, October 3, 2016 - link

    I was under the impression that wired headsets consume as much battery as Bluetooth v4. I was also trying to search for battery life benchmarks between wired and wireless headsets, but couldn't find anything convincing.
  • Impulses - Monday, October 3, 2016 - link

    Yeah it's iffy, probably varies a good bit from device to device and depending on what headphones you're using and how efficient they are...

    Using my BT receiver when I don't need it means having to also charge that later in addition to phone/watch/tablet/USB-battery tho. :p Although the BT receiver's battery is easily good for 10+ hours, and tiny so it recharges decently quick.

    It'd be an interesting thing to test but you'd need a couple phones and a couple different class of headphones to reach any useful (for anyone else) conclusion.

    Shoot sometimes I don't even play music from my phone if I'm traveling, I'll hook up the Bluetooth thingie to my tablet in my bag instead, thankfully it displays MP3 tags (tho my watch does so as well now).

    Having that wired fallback option is always nice tho, as is being able to actually charge a phone from a battery pack (or the wall) while listening to music.
  • zodiacfml - Thursday, October 6, 2016 - link

    Until now, I still don't see any benefit except for these companies saving themselves putting the 3.5mm port on all smartphones. See, not all people with smartphones use it for music or wired headset. The 3.5mm port will become a feature
  • kawmic - Tuesday, November 7, 2017 - link

    So I can use the phone's DAC, but through the usb-c 3,5 adapter, with absolutely no loss in quality?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now