TR Forums

End User wrote:

My headphone budget was chump change to that of an audiophiles.

Yeah, but for those of us who live on the other side of the divide where one or two good pairs of 'phones are all we can justify and ought to work with anything, it's kind of jarring. And it's only going to get worse as manufacturers compete to solve problems that were only created when a standard device was targeted for destruction by a company with a known penchant for corralling its users into using needlessly proprietary hardware.

ludi wrote:

End User wrote:

My headphone budget was chump change to that of an audiophiles.

Yeah, but for those of us who live on the other side of the divide where one or two good pairs of 'phones are all we can justify and ought to work with anything, it's kind of jarring. And it's only going to get worse as manufacturers compete to solve problems that were only created when a standard device was targeted for destruction by a company with a known penchant for corralling its users into using needlessly proprietary hardware.

I fell in love with Bluetooth headphones well before Apple killed the headphone port. I absolutely hate cabled headsets. Now I just laugh at the jarring state of wired headsets.

Sennheiser H6XX is $199 semi-regularly on Massdrop. Plenty of used HD600 and HD650 units out there too or good deals as the new but not really improved but slightly different models have come out. That is absolutely audiophile grade. Buy $100 to $400 worth of DAC and amp from say a company like Schiit and boom; we're audiophiles now boys.

End User wrote:

ludi wrote:

End User wrote:

My headphone budget was chump change to that of an audiophiles.

Yeah, but for those of us who live on the other side of the divide where one or two good pairs of 'phones are all we can justify and ought to work with anything, it's kind of jarring. And it's only going to get worse as manufacturers compete to solve problems that were only created when a standard device was targeted for destruction by a company with a known penchant for corralling its users into using needlessly proprietary hardware.

I fell in love with Bluetooth headphones well before Apple killed the headphone port. I absolutely hate cabled headsets. Now I just laugh at the jarring state of wired headsets.

There are some good ones out there. As you noted, it was possible to enjoy them before the latest round of crazy set it.

Related: Every time I read some ode to the space savings achieved by eliminating the 3.5mm jack, I pick up my Apple iPod Nano 7th-gen (or the memories of a busted 6-th gen product that I disassembled for kicks, once) and marvel at how little space a well-engineered port actually requires. And if that were still too much, there is a 3/32" (2.5mm) port standard available that can connect 3.5mm headphones with an adapater that would cost all of a lousy dollar or two on Monoprice. How far we have fallen from standardization.

I'll just stick to 3.5mm even if it needs an adapter. Charging and using a wireless headset is more work IMO, and since I only use IEMs that's also one less easily lost gadget to me.

ludi wrote:

Related: Every time I read some ode to the space savings achieved by eliminating the 3.5mm jack, I pick up my Apple iPod Nano 7th-gen (or the memories of a busted 6-th gen product that I disassembled for kicks, once) and marvel at how little space a well-engineered port actually requires. And if that were still too much, there is a 3/32" (2.5mm) port standard available that can connect 3.5mm headphones with an adapater that would cost all of a lousy dollar or two on Monoprice. How far we have fallen from standardization.

My opinion is that it was always about water-reistance and not about space.

Usacomp2k3 wrote:

ludi wrote:

Related: Every time I read some ode to the space savings achieved by eliminating the 3.5mm jack, I pick up my Apple iPod Nano 7th-gen (or the memories of a busted 6-th gen product that I disassembled for kicks, once) and marvel at how little space a well-engineered port actually requires. And if that were still too much, there is a 3/32" (2.5mm) port standard available that can connect 3.5mm headphones with an adapater that would cost all of a lousy dollar or two on Monoprice. How far we have fallen from standardization.

My opinion is that it was always about water-reistance and not about space.

If that were the case you'd think they would be lauding their own decision to bring you waterproofing. By saying it's space they just piss people off who want to actually use a 3.5mm with all of their existing earbuds (some expensive as hell). I think the most likely issue is that they could push for Bluetooth, sell more expensive headphones and cut needing to include wired ones eventually when it catches on... and they probably have a lot less returned or repairs during warranty because fault 3.5mm. Before bluetooth, those 3.5mm jacks got a LOT of abuse.

Usacomp2k3 wrote:

ludi wrote:

Related: Every time I read some ode to the space savings achieved by eliminating the 3.5mm jack, I pick up my Apple iPod Nano 7th-gen (or the memories of a busted 6-th gen product that I disassembled for kicks, once) and marvel at how little space a well-engineered port actually requires. And if that were still too much, there is a 3/32" (2.5mm) port standard available that can connect 3.5mm headphones with an adapater that would cost all of a lousy dollar or two on Monoprice. How far we have fallen from standardization.

My opinion is that it was always about water-reistance and not about space.

But waterproof 3.5mm jacks exist. The whole "they had to remove the 3.5mm jack to make the phone waterproof" thing is a red herring; rubber o-rings are not rocket science.*

They could've made the jack waterproof if they'd wanted too.

*Unless you're dealing with the o-rings that seal the joints in the Space Shuttle solid rocket booster.

Yeah, it's just slavishly following Apple's quest for an ever-thinner ever-"cooler" phone.

bthylafh wrote:

Yeah, it's just slavishly following Apple's quest for an ever-thinner ever-"cooler" phone.

You listen to lossy audio with HD 820's? Shine on you crazy diamond.

mudcore wrote:

Sennheiser H6XX is $199 semi-regularly on Massdrop. Plenty of used HD600 and HD650 units out there too or good deals as the new but not really improved but slightly different models have come out. That is absolutely audiophile grade. Buy $100 to $400 worth of DAC and amp from say a company like Schiit and boom; we're audiophiles now boys.

I agree completely. I have a HD 650 I got on a sale and I am happy to admit that I'm Fulla (2) Schitt as well.

Vhalidictes wrote:

You listen to lossy audio with HD 820's? Shine on you crazy diamond.

Are you talking to me?

I don't.

I merely pointed out that HD 820's are an example of high end audiophile headphones.

Vhalidictes wrote:

mudcore wrote:

Sennheiser H6XX is $199 semi-regularly on Massdrop. Plenty of used HD600 and HD650 units out there too or good deals as the new but not really improved but slightly different models have come out. That is absolutely audiophile grade. Buy $100 to $400 worth of DAC and amp from say a company like Schiit and boom; we're audiophiles now boys.

I agree completely. I have a HD 650 I got on a sale and I am happy to admit that I'm Fulla (2) Schitt as well.

Where do you use them? Can you move your setup around?

I think we're all just going to have to get used to Bluetooth headphones, even if we don't like them, to listen to music from our phones. It wasn't Apple's fault, but the smartphone industry at large. It's easy to forget because nobody buys non-Samsung Android devices, but Lenovo/Motorola jumped the gun a full two months before the iPhone 7 was announced. And the wired dongle that came with my Pixel 2 is just not a good solution.

So anyway, I'm in the market for some bluetooth headphones. I think I can live with this Sennheiser headset for $100. I love my HD280 and I've got this mental block of spending more than $100 on a pair of ding dang headphones.

Bluetooth is just how it's going to be. I'm using it with a soundbar in my house, with the sound system in both my cars, and soon the headphones. It's fine, IMHO, because Bluetooth 4.0 has 25mbit of bandwidth. 256kbit AAC is far lower than that.

End User wrote:

Vhalidictes wrote:

I agree completely. I have a HD 650 I got on a sale and I am happy to admit that I'm Fulla (2) Schitt as well.

Where do you use them? Can you move your setup around?

I keep them both with my work laptop, use it for my sound card everywhere I go. Although sometimes I don't wear the HD 650 at work because it's pretty open, I have a few sets of Monoprice 9927's that I use instead. The Fulla 2 is completely portable, although using it on a walk would be a challenge that might not be worth it. I guess I could use a cellphone powerbank?

It's pretty sad to note that that $7 earphones sound 75% as good as the Sennheiser, although I'm aware that it's the last few percent that really costs. And (mostly) lossy sources don't help distinguish between the two.

derFunkenstein wrote:

So anyway, I'm in the market for some bluetooth headphones. I think I can live with this Sennheiser headset for $100. I love my HD280 and I've got this mental block of spending more than $100 on a pair of ding dang headphones.

It would be a bit ghetto, but you could Velcro something like this to your HD280. The thing sticking out the side is an adapter for plugging it into your car's Aux input; for use with headphones it comes off leaving a standard 3.5mm jack. Fidelity seems good enough for most purposes (I used one to turn an old set of 2.1 computer speakers into Bluetooth speakers), and it's cheap so if you end up not liking it you're only out $13.

derFunkenstein wrote:

Bluetooth is just how it's going to be. I'm using it with a soundbar in my house, with the sound system in both my cars, and soon the headphones. It's fine, IMHO, because Bluetooth 4.0 has 25mbit of bandwidth. 256kbit AAC is far lower than that.

Bluetooth audio doesn't use anywhere near all of that though, and you're still transcoding from one lossy format to another for transmission. But like I said above, Bluetooth audio quality is generally "good enough". Biggest issue I have with it is that the Bluetooth audio on my LG G4 glitches under load; if Android decides to update a large application while I'm streaming Bluetooth the audio stutters.

just brew it! wrote:

Bluetooth audio doesn't use anywhere near all of that though, and you're still transcoding from one lossy format to another for transmission. But like I said above, Bluetooth audio quality is generally "good enough". Biggest issue I have with it is that the Bluetooth audio on my LG G4 glitches under load; if Android decides to update a large application while I'm streaming Bluetooth the audio stutters.

I used to believe that too, but the difference between using BT-audio and the Aux port in my Sonata is pretty stark - the Aux 3.5' jack sounds noticeably better. And I'm not saying that the stock-upgrade audio system in that car is particularly great, either.

Might be a side effect of the phone I'm using (iPhone 6+) though.

Vhalidictes wrote:

just brew it! wrote:

Bluetooth audio doesn't use anywhere near all of that though, and you're still transcoding from one lossy format to another for transmission. But like I said above, Bluetooth audio quality is generally "good enough". Biggest issue I have with it is that the Bluetooth audio on my LG G4 glitches under load; if Android decides to update a large application while I'm streaming Bluetooth the audio stutters.

I used to believe that too, but the difference between using BT-audio and the Aux port in my Sonata is pretty stark - the Aux 3.5' jack sounds noticeably better. And I'm not saying that the stock-upgrade audio system in that car is particularly great, either.

Might be a side effect of the phone I'm using (iPhone 6+) though.

Or the BT implementation in the car. Stuttering aside, quality of BT through my headphones using an adapter similar to the one I linked above was nearly as good as wired. Nearly indistinguishable. And BT audio is improving. Eventually we'll get there.

In the meantime, yeah... gimme my 3.5mm jack.

Yeah, I'll be holding off on Bluetooth a bit longer. Choppy audio playback due to wireless issues aren't something I'm really interested in, and sacrificing quality in the audio chain for the sake of convenience that I don't really need, yet.

Stuff that would make me care: well, probably just a VR headset. Dunno when I'll be up for that, but it'll probably be wireless too.

Is there a way to make sure the ear phones fit your ears before you make the purchase (as in mail order?)
One set of very good looking adidas earphones I had was too small and hurt my (large?) ears.

derFunkenstein wrote:

I think we're all just going to have to get used to Bluetooth headphones, even if we don't like them, to listen to music from our phones.

The problem is that there are far too many competing "standards" for codecs. If you're plugging into an iPhone, you probably want AAC since that is all that Apple supports, but that isn't the option that works best with non-Apple devices.

Vhalidictes wrote:

just brew it! wrote:

Bluetooth audio doesn't use anywhere near all of that though, and you're still transcoding from one lossy format to another for transmission. But like I said above, Bluetooth audio quality is generally "good enough". Biggest issue I have with it is that the Bluetooth audio on my LG G4 glitches under load; if Android decides to update a large application while I'm streaming Bluetooth the audio stutters.

I used to believe that too, but the difference between using BT-audio and the Aux port in my Sonata is pretty stark - the Aux 3.5' jack sounds noticeably better. And I'm not saying that the stock-upgrade audio system in that car is particularly great, either.

Might be a side effect of the phone I'm using (iPhone 6+) though.

It is the reverse for me. I was using an iPod Touch connected via Lightning but I found that audio from my iPhone via BT was way more powerful. It is as if the wired connection was wrongly set at a lower sound level.

End User wrote:

It is the reverse for me. I was using an iPod Touch connected via Lightning but I found that audio from my iPhone via BT was way more powerful. It is as if the wired connection was wrongly set at a lower sound level.

There's this thing called a volume control. Maybe you've heard of it?

That's not the fault of wired per se, it's a signal level matching issue. Either the source or destination got it wrong. Can happen with any connection method.

just brew it! wrote:

There's this thing called a volume control. Maybe you've heard of it?

HEARD of it...

Sorry, I'm a child.

The removal of headphone jacks from phones is unnecessarily hostile and idiotic. Apple, Google, Motorolenovo, and whoever else deserve the blame. I have a SUPER hard time believing that having that 3.5mm jack would cause Apple to vastly change the design of their precious iPhone X by a margin that made people hate it. (that's why they said they had to remove it. they were moving to all screen devices in the future and had to start somewhere) The ecosystem is just complete ****. There was no reason to do it this early. Beyond this, USB-C/Lightning headphones are few and far between, expensive, and generally aren't as good as 3.5mm counterparts that people have been making for years. A lot of you guys blame Apple, but they're not the only company to blame by any means.

It doesn't help that the Android BT stack is....a mess, at best. It's gonna be a long while before things get to a point where we don't complain about it. Would you like AAC? AptX? AptX HD? SBC? LDAC? HAVE FUN NERDS!!!!!!!!!!!! (oh btw Apple ONLY uses AAC) Such a joke.

Having said all the above, this is the way the world is now. Here's to hoping we can get some decent headphones over the next few years to replace stalwarts.

I'm pretty sure the company (ies) behind Bluetooth is behind the loss of 3.5mm jacks.

Darthutos wrote:

I'm pretty sure the company (ies) behind Bluetooth is behind the loss of 35mm jacks.

I don't think you are right but i'm willing to listen, so please explain.

Now all of your IEM and usual suspects are useless.
You now
1. Buy the dongle so that you can use the 3.5 mm IEM and wired supra and circumalural headphones, but then you can't charge.
2. Buy a brand new Bluetooth IEM and Bluetooth Wired supra and circumaural headphones and you can charge.

It's not rocket science that BT stuff is gonna sell.
Every which way Bluetooth wins.

edit: And it's not even a question of able to charge, it's a question of having an extra clunky item. If you are exercising and want to hear music, you got a huge bump in your pocket?!

I mean, to refute my statement, you would have to tell me how Bluetooth loses.

Darthutos wrote:

Now all of your IEM and usual suspects are useless.
You now
1. Buy the dongle so that you can use the 3.5 mm IEM and wired supra and circumalural headphones, but then you can't charge.
2. Buy a brand new Bluetooth IEM and Bluetooth Wired supra and circumaural headphones and you can charge.

It's not rocket science that BT stuff is gonna sell.
Every which way Bluetooth wins.

edit: And it's not even a question of able to charge, it's a question of having an extra clunky item. If you are exercising and want to hear music, you got a huge bump in your pocket?!

I mean, to refute my statement, you would have to tell me how Bluetooth loses.

I guess if you want to ignore a seperate thing to charge, quality of sound (most probably wouldnt notice), stability of connection, range of connection, in some cases you can't even have your phone in your pocket with your arm over it (not kidding), difficulty of setting up for the extremely technically incapable, cost over an analog 3.5mm.

Yeah, if you just ignore those things I guess you are right, it's just a no brainer ...