Apple's first high-end headphones

[KeithPhantom]

For what it's worth, I like the sound of my AirPod Pros more than my HD600

I actually find the opposite, my HD 600 sound so natural to my ears and my AirPods Pro just don't get close. It is interesting how two people can have completely different experiences.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I actually find the opposite, my HD 600 sound so natural to my ears and my AirPods Pro just don't get close. It is interesting how two people can have completely different experiences.

Completely different pinna and ear canal dimensions?
Particularly the pinna in the HD 600, ear buds eliminate this variance.

 

[MDAguy]

Okay, so not high end.

I don't think anyone on ASR thinks Bose is high end, just because the masses think it is.

the fact that they are bluetooth only (unless I missed it), makes them not-high end in my people's view... in theory at least, if not in practical execution. How much their EQ technology affects the SQ and how good they sound... well, let's hope Amir grabs a pair to put to a test.

 

[KeithPhantom]

the fact that they are bluetooth only (unless I missed it), makes them not-high end

For me, i see bluetooth as the future, but the FR of the available bluetooth headphones is way more messed up than wired ones. I would love to have a bluetooth HD 600.

 

[MayaTlab]

I got these headphones a few years ago, which were highly rated and apparently support AAC over Bluetooth for Apple devices and I followed the steps in the manual to make sure it's in high quality mode or whatever and the blinking lights on the headphones seem to blink in agreement. (I forget the exact details)

https://www.sony.com/electronics/headband-headphones/wh-h900n#utility_links_pdp_default

I've used them with various iPhones and iPads. The wireless audio quality is nasty. I would compare it to a 64kbps mp3 or something. They're fine when using the wired connection. I am no golden ears, but their BT audio quality is just egregious.

Perhaps something's not working properly and they're not using the right codec, or they're not using a high enough bitrate. I sure hope something's wrong and modern BT audio quality is a lot better than I think it is.

For the record, I don't typically mind lossily compressed audio! I go for >= 256kbps or lossless whenever possible, but even properly encoded 128kbps mp3s aren't too terrible these days, as opposed to the 128kbps mp3s back in the Napster days 20 years ago.

Quite simple : we have some evidence that at least for the emitting device, AAC at the same bitrate can vary tremendously in quality from dog sh...t to possibly the best bitrate / measurement “ratio” we have at the moment : https://www.soundguys.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-bluetooth-headphones-aac-20296/

I don’t see why it would be any different for the receiving device... particularly since I’ve nearly always managed to find signals that make headphones produce audible artefacts regardless of codec... the exceptions so far being my pair of APPs and the AKG K371BT.

So what you heard isn’t AAC at 256kbps, it’s Sony’s implementation of AAC (an BT in general) at 256kbps on a specific model.

 

[Frank Dernie]

the fact that they are bluetooth only (unless I missed it), makes them not-high end in my people's view... in theory at least, if not in practical execution. How much their EQ technology affects the SQ and how good they sound... well, let's hope Amir grabs a pair to put to a test.

If they are doing effective DSP correction so they sound "right" on anybody's head then any shortcoming due to them being bluetooth will be minuscule compared to how much better this will potentially make them to pretty well any other 'phone at any price.

 

[Haint]

If they are doing effective DSP correction so they sound "right" on anybody's head then any shortcoming due to them being bluetooth will be minuscule compared to how much better this will potentially make them to pretty well any other 'phone at any price.

The Airpod Pro's have the computational power and vertically integrated ecosystem to be the best sounding IEMs in the world, but they're middling at best. I suspect these are just going to measure bass response deviations (i.e. the fit and seal quality) from whatever Apple's target curve is, which may not be that great based on the Airpod Pro's. Now if they were making a sonar map of your specific ear/canal and tuning accordingly, they would be something to write home about, but I don't think they're at that level yet.

 

[KeithPhantom]

Completely different pinna and ear canal dimensions?
Particularly the pinna in the HD 600, ear buds eliminate this variance.

I completely agree. It also shows how headphone measurements still in their infancy.

 

[KeithPhantom]

If they are doing effective DSP correction so they sound "right" on anybody's head then any shortcoming due to them being bluetooth will be minuscule compared to how much better this will potentially make them to pretty well any other 'phone at any price.

I hope they figure this out since it would be a revolution in the headphone design and engineering process. There are a lot of people against wireless, but this comes from the current implementations that are not optimal. If we can get Bluetooth to use purely lossless codecs or some kind of WiFi audio implementation, you'll see a lot of detractors changing their ideas.

 

[Frank Dernie]

The Airpod Pro's have the computational power and vertically integrated ecosystem to be the best sounding IEMs in the world, but they're middling at best. I suspect these are just going to measure bass response deviations (i.e. the fit and seal quality) from whatever Apple's target curve is, which may not be that great based on the Airpod Pro's. Now if they were making a sonar map of your specific ear/canal and tuning accordingly, they would be something to write home about, but I don't think they're at that level yet.

Strange, whilst I am not a frequent user of headphones or ear buds I have been using them for 50 years, (Koss ESP 7 bought in 1970 when on my first visit to the USA). For 30 years of travelling I used Etymotic ER4s on 'planes. I retired 10 years ago so don't have any real need for them but I bought the airpod pros on impulse and they sound great to me on dog walks with the sort of music I listen to, mainly orchestral.

Maybe I am not a discerning headphone listener, I certainly rarely listen seriously in a quiet space using headphones even though I have 8 pairs, I have speakers.
I have ordered some of these new ones.

 

[Tks]

I hope they figure this out since it would be a revolution in the headphone design and engineering process. There are a lot of people against wireless, but this comes from the current implementations that are not optimal. If we can get Bluetooth to use purely lossless codecs or some kind of WiFi audio implementation, you'll see a lot of detractors changing their ideas.

The people against wireless are either ignorant, or just zealots. Likewise with holdouts for "lossless wireless Bluetooth". There's a reason Apple still only provides 256kbps AAC files. For those simply concerned with listening, it's evident you don't need more than this. The issues more sensible people have (I speak as someone who likes wireless and is convinced of it's technical capability) is the quality control/longevity of products. There is goldmine that's being exploited here like nowhere else. Many devices being forced to run non-replacable battery power is a disaster that some folks really detest, and warranty consist of tossing out a perfectly working product, for a new one.

Now granted this is a minority of people (environmentally, economically, and politically conscious of ramifications concerning Right to Repair initiatives, and general consumer protection).

Aside from those three types of people, there really shouldn't be any impediment to adopting Bluetooth enabled devices wholesale right now. The audio quality if there. And companies with big pockets are running circles around dedicated audio companies by innovating with new features people actually care about. (And fixing longstanding stupidity like the Airpods Pros do, with oval shapped tips and IEM bores, instead of the idiotic and uncomfortable circle shape that's been constant since inception for some stupid reason).

 

[JohnBooty]

@hyperplanar FWIW, I spied on these Sony WH-H900N's with the handy Bluetooth Explorer on macOS. This was while listening to a pink noise test track. I would expect pink be a worst-case scenario for a codec. At the very least, I'd expect a steady transmission rate in the ballpark of 256kbps. But it looks like it was fluctuating. Additionally 11% of packets were retransmitted. (Caveat: I don't have any other BT headphones with which to compare them so I'm not sure if that's normal) But as you suggested, perhaps these headphones are not working perfectly.

Yeah... I dunno. I think this type of hand-wringing is overblown - I do get it in the sense of $10k+ speakers though. I don't fret so much over my 3.5 year old Kef LS50W - it's annoying that I had to pay $400 to get the controller boards replaced mid-cycle, but I feel on the whole I've gotten good value out of them. And that's how I like to think of things, from a value perspective.

If you can get lifetime value out of something that isn't exorbitantly expensive, that is fantastic, the nominal cost approaches zero. It's almost as if you got it for free. This describes a vanishingly small number of items a person may own as R&D advancements march on.

Then I look at something like my '58 Omega Constellation. It could potentially outlive me. But it still costs about $250 to be serviced every 4 years... it's actually rather pricey to own for something that does nothing else but tells time in an archaic fashion - it's jewelry that has some basic utility.

So at the end of the day I do that simple calc... what does it cost per hour of usage over its expected lifetime, and what value does it bring to my life. It's really clarifying as a consumer choosing where and how to spend my money. Nothing lasts forever, including us.

I like this approach and follow it as well. It particularly applies to things I use for work. I work 2,000+ hours a year and a lot of this stuff (including the things I use for music while I work) will see 10,000+ hours of use.

That said, one thing I like about audio gear is that for the most part it lasts decades. Eventually capacitors need to be replaced sometimes and things like that. In a world of disposable crap, audio is a refuge from that for me.

 

[617]

Headphones are, to me, at a very primitive stage of development. The fact that apple is investing this kind of resource into development of next generation audio should excite anyone. Subjectively, this appears to be a beautifully designed product, as well. I love the headband design.

 

[JohnBooty]

There's a reason Apple still only provides 256kbps AAC files. For those simply concerned with listening, it's evident you don't need more than this.

I would wholeheartedly agree that 256kbps AAC is quite transparent to me. It's true in tests and true in my experience.

But I would "sensibly" mention that the audio stream is recompressed when sent over Bluetooth. So if the track on your hard drive is already compressed, what you hear over your BT headphones has been through a minimum of two rounds of lossy compression.

Things get non-transparent pretty fast once we start re-compressing things. Whether a 256kbps AAC that has been re-compressed in 256kbps AAC is still transparent, I do not know. I've not casually tested that myself and I don't know of any controlled listening tests that have looked at that.

 

[KeithPhantom]

I would wholeheartedly agree that 256kbps AAC

The problem comes when there is a re-encoding of lossy material to Bluetooth lossy codecs such as AAC. Even with my "pristine and young" ears, I am completely unable to tell between 320 kbps MP3, 256/320 kbps AAC (even using FAAC) and lossless. Even now, I am using MP3 -V0 for my mobile needs, and I haven't heard any difference. But when you stream over Bluetooth, the majority of people are using lossy-to-lossy transcoding, and this is something that personally I do not think should be happening. Not many people even stream at 256k AAC always, Apple Music (and Spotify for that matter) have variable bitrates for different network conditions, and having a bad network will mean that you will receive a lower bitrate, combine this with the lossy Bluetooth transmission of audio, and now you have an objection.

 

[stevenswall]

Headphones are, to me, at a very primitive stage of development. The fact that apple is investing this kind of resource into development of next generation audio should excite anyone. Subjectively, this appears to be a beautifully designed product, as well. I love the headband design.

Primitive? We can measure ear canal resonances and adapt to a users personal frequency response curve, block out tons of noise, get bass flat to 10hz, and headphones with binaural recordings do surround sound well enough that you'd need an ∞ .∞ .∞ system with version ∞ of dolby atmos.

And that would cost octillions^trillion-trillion power of dollars, and you would literally have to be god, because to do that with speakers you need them to all teleport back in time to the correct position to play sound that hits the user's ear perfectly as they walk room to room, inside and outside, drive in their car, put a hood on, etc. and the speakers couldn't take up any more volume than an earphone and would need to constantly calibrate to the ever changing acoustic environment, while demolishing sections of buildings and instantly recreating them tp get the placement right, all without interfering with other people or letting noises come through to the user.

...and literally all you need for this is a binaural recording head to make the recordings, DSP, and earphones or headphones that make use of already existing technologies for playback.

 

[Haint]

Strange, whilst I am not a frequent user of headphones or ear buds I have been using them for 50 years, (Koss ESP 7 bought in 1970 when on my first visit to the USA). For 30 years of travelling I used Etymotic ER4s on 'planes. I retired 10 years ago so don't have any real need for them but I bought the airpod pros on impulse and they sound great to me on dog walks with the sort of music I listen to, mainly orchestral.

Maybe I am not a discerning headphone listener, I certainly rarely listen seriously in a quiet space using headphones even though I have 8 pairs, I have speakers.
I have ordered some of these new ones.

I'm not particularly well versed in headphones either, but if I'm not mistaken they score a 59 on the Harman curve preference scale (which can exceed 100), and are pretty far off from all the other accepted target curves as well. They're not terrible by any means and I expect most people would qualify them as sounding "good", but they're miles away from being the IEM equivalent of the D&D 8C (which they have the technology to be).

 

[ElNino]

But I would "sensibly" mention that the audio stream is recompressed when sent over Bluetooth. So if the track on your hard drive is already compressed, what you hear over your BT headphones has been through a minimum of two rounds of lossy compression.

The double encoding problem depends to some extent on the OS. The iOS Bluetooth stack allows for passthrough of 256kbps AAC streams, so Apple Music streams don't get recompressed unless you're applying EQ. On MacOS though you do get the double compression problem.

 

[KeithPhantom]

The iOS Bluetooth stack allows for passthrough of 256kbps AAC

Assuming your app uses AAC.

 

[16/44]

Assuming your app uses AAC.

Does Spotify use OGG on iOS as well?