>there are still people who resist wireless headphones
I thought Sup Forums was full of audiophiles? Why are you retards so obsessed with older, obsolete technologies? Vinyl was killed by the CD for a reason, just like wireless audio is the future. Apple seems to be the only technology company still on their game.
tl;dr: why is Sup Forums so retarded?
Other urls found in this thread:
audeze.com
twitter.com
>Apple earbuds
>objectively and globally recognized as the most uncomfortable pieces of garbage ever created for listening to music with
And now being wireless is supposed to change our minds?
We like playing records because there's texture/analog ect. Wireless is terrible for fidelity also.
This has to be bait.
Just in case it isn't, wireless headphones have notoriously shit sound quality, even the most expensive ones. It'll be years before they reach the standard and personally I don't want to have to carry around some stupid adapter just to listen to my music.
tldr somewhere else you fucking ravioli
Yeah, just like CDs are "terrible" for fidelity, right?
Get real retard. Analog is shit and digital is the future.
If samsung or google pulled this shit all the GNUfags here would be creaming their pants. Since it's apple of course it's "le fuck apple!!!!"
Poorfags just can't handle a premium device actually being innovative instead of retarded gimmick shit like curved screens.
I didn't say analog was better, just mentioned one of the subjective reasons some prefer it.
You're quite the angst-lord for someone suggesting to "get real" btw
Motorola did do it as well and everyone gave them shit for it.
It's a stupid as shit move and there's no getting around it.
When wireless give the same quality as wired i'll be all for it. Until them i'm ok with my wired headphones. The people that love wirewless headphones are spotify fags.
Shouldn't the new version of bluetooth coming in the next year or 2 help?
It's merely a sales strategy to make their product seem slightly more advanced
I give OPs bait post a 2/10
>ipods
>for audiophiles
pick one lol
>audiophiles
>new technology = best
pic one plz
>Using Earbuds
>ever
i mean, why the fuck even bother with earbuds when SUPERIOR IEM MASTERRACE exists. Or nigga buy some On-ear closed headphones. IT aint that hard
>implying we'd waste over $100 on shitty earbuds
>implying vinyl is still dead
off yourself
Then maybe apple should wait a year or two?
The second golden age of Apple ended when Steve Jobs died. I like Tim Cook but he's no Steve Jobs. They seemed to have lost their desire to dominate. As for this particular phone, I'll just wait until they release a version with an implant that beams hq audio directly into your melon. Now that'll be innovative, essential tech.
I will never use wireless headphones, the inconvenience of charging them and the lesser sound quality are far greater cons than an occasional tangled cable.
audeze.com
These seem to take advantage of the possibilities of Lightning audio, and hey they even have a 3.5mm cable too, but they're $800
If Audio-Technica comes out with a model for this I might be on board.
At any rate the adapter comes in the box and a lot of the things they were able to gain by sacrificing the jack (actually good battery life, water-resistance, much better speakers, image processor) do kind of make the move make sense. Sure, I wouldn't have had a problem with having a slightly thicker phone in exchange for keeping all the features, but I am far past being surprised by Apple's design autism.
It's an inconvenience but an easily manageable one. Even if your adapter breaks a new official one is $9
Listen & charge is a concern but I'm positive there will be aftermarket cables to alleviate that if you need one - and with the better battery life many people may not
It still gets converted to analog retard
Just with a shitter DAC
Also, speakers get better with time. So older headphones will sound better too.
>steve jobs
can someone please tell me what the fuck this chucklefuck did?
yeah okay fag, so when you listen to an mp3 it's actually analog like a vinyl?
jesus christ mu is retarded. no wonder its full of pretentious hipsters listening to vinyls
i have 10 years using wireless headphones... iphone 7 is irrelevant, the 7s is the one that's going to be somewhat relevant
I don't think you understand the concept of 'analog' the way that user was referring to it.
it's pretty pathetic what easy bait this stuff is for some people
also you guys know these cost 160 bucks right?
He showed everyone that even the richest men in the world can die like sick dogs. Although that might change in the future
oh no it's retarded
Data transfer rates. Bluetooth technology is in its infancy, and as a result, sound quality (and latency for that matter... ick) will be very noticeably worse for many years until the data transfer gets fast enough.
Most wireless earbuds are $150-$350 so I that's not really the problem with them
It does
Which is weird, because wi-fi can definitely transfer data fast enough. I stream giant ass FLAC albums and hi-rez movies over the network all the time.
Surely someone can do it, and it's looking like it will probably be Apple. And proprietary...
...
wifi and bluetooth are not the same thing though. if it were "that easy," you'd have blazing fast transfer rates. that's about as retarded as comparing wifi to fibre optic and going "hey, surely it's possible! why isn't that a thing!"
no actually they're the most comfortable earbuds out there. no other ear buds have their shape. way better design in that regard compared to everything else out there
They do not work for everyone's ears, and for many people they are extremely prone to falling out
off yourself
No CD's are superior to vinyl.
I personally prefer them amd collect them in a higher quality.
However, understand that we cannot hear true digital, we aren't computers, numbers don't make a sound to our ears, we can only hear an analog sound.
Now, the medium that our analog audio is traveling from and the method by which it reaches our ears matter.
Basically, a 3.5mm cable made of a decent metal, made thick as possible, traveling from a high quality DAC, from CD quality sources, to high quality headphones will provide you with an exceptional and clean listening experience because we've fucking nailed the 3.5mm TRS cable by now.
However, shit and overpriced apple "airpods" (which will probably have the same shrill, easily distorted drivers as their pack in earpods), using probably bluetooth, which need to charge, and have no cables to prevent them from being permanently separated from one another, converted in-headphone on a very very cheap, low profile DAC, coming from what's probably meant to be an iTunes quality (256kbps mp4 or something like that iirc) is going to be MUCH WORSE.
Look, Apple fucked everyone over when it comes to audio on the new iPhone.
Tbh it probably ought to be dead, its a particularly poor format for more reasons than just sounding worse scientifically than CD.
I've discovered during the last two years, since I can take CD-Rs home from the mastering plant, that there's an astonishing variation in quality between different CD plants. If you think digital is perfect, I have news for you. Many of us have been fooled by this myth that it's just 0s and 1s and therefore copies perfectly. It doesn't. The variations in quality are pretty wild, and random. Just the way you hook up a cable can make a difference. And there's no quality control in these CD plants, other than someone checking whether there's any level being transferred.
Most of us take it for granted that a CD is a CD, and we almost never discuss about varying standards of manufacture. I can't say too much about current US manufacturer's because I have few US made CDs. I have still detected a general shrillness to many US CDs ("let's tweek the high end to make them sound sharp to delude the general public that our CDs sound better than vinyl and tape"). Tweeking the high end also accentuated the hiss. After so many disappointments and revelations having heard import versions after getting US discs I have concentrated on acquiring import pressings.
As for maunfacturers themselves: on the import side I like the clarity of Nimbus UK but they can be hissier and lighter on low end than MPO France which produces well rounded sounding CDs. PDO have been fine except for the recent PDO UK disc rot problem. Sonopress in Germany are adequate. I used to shy away from DADC in Austria (Sony Europe uses them) but have realised that was a personal bias. Nimbus USA (Virginia) vary. Their reissues of the OMD catalogue were shoddy. DADC in Indiana (Sony/Columbia) are so so.
Is... is this pasta?
BNP: Best New Pasta
The deviation in 0s and 1s is accounted for via dither iirc, and generally, the adjusted sonics are due to the choices made by whomever masters the CD release. That's not the format's fault.
The shrillness you refer to (when compared to vinyl, and that's only if you aren't detecting a placebo effects) might be the result of a wider frequency response.
Analog is far less accurate for reproduction, assuming there are not complete morons affecting the process.
(off topic for a moment)
CD audio is in fact of a higher quality, objectively. Some may subjectively disagree, but that's not how this works, things like the poor stereo separation of the lower end of the frequency band that vinyl records make use of are a factor, as are minor blemishes on pressing equipment which will directly alter the sound in odd ways not possible on a CD.
All that can happen in digital as far as errors go is data being damaged, this will manifest as a skip, unplayable track, or constant noise artifacting across a track. Also, a proper CD plant is design to provide a damned clean room environment for disc master production, so that this does not occur.
Digital is in fact exact duplication. Your WAV files sound identical to mine provided we had the same source. This is also fact, unless your file has errors, which would mean it is not a proper copy.
Yes, however, some foreign discs sound different. But there are always reasons. My friend is blessed to own a Target CD of Kraftwerk's Computerworld mastered and pressed in Germany, which in the mid 80's, was where a lot of great digital studios and equipment were located. At the time, American companies lacked that technology/skill, and as a result many of our discs were not transferred well.
Tl:dr, i think you're confusing the mastering amd tape to digital transfer processes with the notion that digital audio can differ between copies.
you guys got baited hard, holu shit
>there's no quality control in these CD plants
it's that damn Debbie Brown again
Hearing the difference now isn't the reason to encode to FLAC. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is 'lossy'. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.
I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange…well don’t get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren’t stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you’ll be glad you did.
You didn't try on this one, everyone's seen it before. You had me for a second on the last one.
We should get her a card for when she gets fired
>for a second
you typed an essay response my man
You live in narnia btw it only took me one second in real time to type that.
They're notorious for feeling shitty, falling out and having shit sound quality.
i like records for the same reason I liked baseball cards as a kid