Apple Jan. 27 launch event... what will it be?

[falafel]

Can we get a vuvuzela icon for Uncle Ted too?

[swampfrog]

Can we get a vuvuzela icon for Uncle Ted too?

You can't plug a vuvuzela into the lightning port, only works on the audio port(s).

[Jeff Lebowski]

http://bgr.com/2016/09/20/iphone-7-h...ck-sound-test/

Tests show iPhone 7 with adapter sounds worse than iPhone 6s with 3.5mm headphone jack

[swampfrog]

Headphone jacks are dumb...


http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/20.../#6970b70a373b

This is mostly a repeat of previous arguments supplied which have already been answered. Contrary to popular opinion, repeating the same information from another source does not make the argument stronger. Therefore the answer will be repeated again. Microphones and speakers (including headphones) are transducers. They use magnets and wire coils to change air pressure waves into electrical (analog) voltage changes (microphones) or the opposite--convert electrical voltage changes to air pressure waves (speakers). Digital sources require one more step, they must convert the digital signal to its electrical analog. Commonly known as a digital-to-Analog-Converter (DAC).

To hear digital audio, the full chain looks like this:

Digital Source --> Digital-to-Analog-Converter --> Amplifier --> Transducer --> Ears

This is not like the introduction of digital audio where a fundamental change in the storage medium of the source was made. There is absolutely zero change in the technology stack by removing the headphone jack. Previously the phone supplied the first 3 links of the chain, now the iPhone 7 only supplies the 1st. The basic headphone is wires connected to transducers. They are very cheap to make (as long as the user doesn't care too much about the quality of the electrical to acoustic conversion). The iPhone 7 now requires that the second two links in the chain be provided by some other mechanism. The youtube tear down of the provided adapter shows that indeed, Apple has supplied a DAC and amplifier chip inside of the adapter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpMQguv-zN0

Transducer technology has not changed in decades, and there is nothing on the horizon that suggests that it will in the near future. Until it changes, magnets and coils will be used to convert electrical signals to acoustic signals. Manufacturers of transducers should not have to be concerned with how that analog signal is produced, their function is to convert it to acoustic signal with as much fidelity as possible for a given price point.

The only important question that needs answering is given the two main components, a phone and headphones, where does it make most sense to do the conversion to electrical analog signal? Do we put it in the device that is subject to the elements, (not the least of which is salt water in the form of sweat), is commonly lost, has moving parts that will eventually wear out and be replaced, and is subject to abusive wear and tear? Or do we put it in the device with the protective shell, away from the elements? One of these is bad engineering and dumb.

As to the other arguments made. 1. Saves space and 2. Water proofing.

1. Apparently no one else has this problem, and a barometric vent is way more useful http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/16/12...ack-used-to-be

2. A rubber gasket costs too much? (See Samsung Galaxy 7 http://bgr.com/2016/03/07/samsung-ga...ter-resistant/ )

[Uncle Ted]

This is mostly a repeat of previous arguments supplied which have already been answered. Contrary to popular opinion, repeating the same information from another source does not make the argument stronger. Therefore the answer will be repeated again. Microphones and speakers (including headphones) are transducers. They use magnets and wire coils to change air pressure waves into electrical (analog) voltage changes (microphones) or the opposite--convert electrical voltage changes to air pressure waves (speakers). Digital sources require one more step, they must convert the digital signal to its electrical analog. Commonly known as a digital-to-Analog-Converter (DAC).

To hear digital audio, the full chain looks like this:

Digital Source --> Digital-to-Analog-Converter --> Amplifier --> Transducer --> Ears

This is not like the introduction of digital audio where a fundamental change in the storage medium of the source was made. There is absolutely zero change in the technology stack by removing the headphone jack. Previously the phone supplied the first 3 links of the chain, now the iPhone 7 only supplies the 1st. The basic headphone is wires connected to transducers. They are very cheap to make (as long as the user doesn't care too much about the quality of the electrical to acoustic conversion). The iPhone 7 now requires that the second two links in the chain be provided by some other mechanism. The youtube tear down of the provided adapter shows that indeed, Apple has supplied a DAC and amplifier chip inside of the adapter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpMQguv-zN0

Transducer technology has not changed in decades, and there is nothing on the horizon that suggests that it will in the near future. Until it changes, magnets and coils will be used to convert electrical signals to acoustic signals. Manufacturers of transducers should not have to be concerned with how that analog signal is produced, their function is to convert it to acoustic signal with as much fidelity as possible for a given price point.

The only important question that needs answering is given the two main components, a phone and headphones, where does it make most sense to do the conversion to electrical analog signal? Do we put it in the device that is subject to the elements, (not the least of which is salt water in the form of sweat), is commonly lost, has moving parts that will eventually wear out and be replaced, and is subject to abusive wear and tear? Or do we put it in the device with the protective shell, away from the elements? One of these is bad engineering and dumb.

For noise cancelling headphones, for example, the chain looks like this:

Digital Source --> Digital-to-Analog-Converter --> Amplifier --> Analog-to-Digital-Converter --> Digital Signal Processor (DSP) --> Digital-to-Analog-Converter --> Yet another Amplifier --> Transducer --> Ears

Not to mention those last ADC-->DSP-->DAC-->Amp in the chain require their own batteries.

With the lightening port is just:

Digital Source --> DSP --> DAC --> AMP --> Transducer --> Ears

And no need for another set of batteries to worry about!

As to the other arguments made. 1. Saves space and 2. Water proofing.

1. Apparently no one else has this problem, and a barometric vent is way more useful http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/16/12...ack-used-to-be

2. A rubber gasket costs too much? (See Samsung Galaxy 7 http://bgr.com/2016/03/07/samsung-ga...ter-resistant/ )

Apparently so...

Samsung Said To Drop Headphone Jack From Galaxy S8 Like iPhone 7
[...]
It now looks as though Samsung could be looking to follow the path that Apple has laid out by removing the iconic headphone jack from its own devices in favour of yet another proprietary port.
[...]

http://www.redmondpie.com/samsung-sa...because-apple/


If you really want to point out an example of bad engineering then look no further than Cadillac...

IMG_1372.jpg

[falafel]

[SCcoug]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Samsung is going to copy Apple? Mind blown.

[imanihonjin]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Samsung is going to copy Apple? Mind blown.

It's not like this is a one way street.

[Moliere]

#teamdaisychain


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[swampfrog]

For noise cancelling headphones, for example, the chain looks like this:

Digital Source --> Digital-to-Analog-Converter --> Amplifier --> Analog-to-Digital-Converter --> Digital Signal Processor (DSP) --> Digital-to-Analog-Converter --> Yet another Amplifier --> Transducer --> Ears

Not to mention those last ADC-->DSP-->DAC-->Amp in the chain require their own batteries.

With the lightening port is just:

Digital Source --> DSP --> DAC --> AMP --> Transducer --> Ears

And no need for another set of batteries to worry about!

It was previously granted that in the case when digital transmission of the signal is needed/required/wanted, a digital connection (wired or wireless) is a great addition. However, its inclusion does not require omission of the analog signal option, so that doesn't advance the argument for removal of the analog jack. They are not mutually exclusive. The argument needs to be solely in terms as to why the removal of the analog jack is beneficial to the end user.

The vast majority of headphone devices are straight-forward analog devices, this is not going to change. They are cheap to make, and they have to be because they are subject to loss, abuse, wear and tear, etc. You have to replace them eventually, and likely more often than you want to.

The requirement to have an external DAC irks me, but I'll bow out now.

[Jeff Lebowski]

For noise cancelling headphones, for example, the chain looks like this:

Digital Source --> Digital-to-Analog-Converter --> Amplifier --> Analog-to-Digital-Converter --> Digital Signal Processor (DSP) --> Digital-to-Analog-Converter --> Yet another Amplifier --> Transducer --> Ears

Not to mention those last ADC-->DSP-->DAC-->Amp in the chain require their own batteries.

With the lightening port is just:

Digital Source --> DSP --> DAC --> AMP --> Transducer --> Ears

And no need for another set of batteries to worry about!

Can you imagine a phone where you could choose between the lightning port or the audio jack based on your preferences or user needs? Care about noise-cancelling headphones? Get a pair that uses your lightning jack. Just fine with a simple set of analog headphones? Use the audio jack. Now that would be some fine engineering.

[creekster]

Can you imagine a phone where you could choose between the lightning port or the audio jack based on your preferences or user needs? Care about noise-cancelling headphones? Get a pair that uses your lightning jack. Just fine with a simple set of analog headphones? Use the audio jack. Now that would be some fine engineering.

Oh sure, but then you would have to waterproof the jack!

INCONCEIVABLE.jpg

[Color Me Badd Fan]

One other bit of stupidity from Samsung -- they're supposedly not going to have a flat screen alternative on the S8. That means every Galaxy S_ is going to have that damn edge screen. Maybe I'm the only one that likes to have a case with a lip that protrudes slightly out from the screen so the lip hits the ground first as opposed to the screen when the phone is dropped. I've seen more a couple of people with cracked edge screens. Unlike screens on iPhones, they can't be fixed.

The regular S7 was a tremendous phone and with Samsung maybe getting rid of he headphone jack and a flat screen variant, the S7 may represent Samsung's high water mark.

[Pelado]

One other bit of stupidity from Samsung -- they're supposedly not going to have a flat screen alternative on the S8. That means every Galaxy S_ is going to have that damn edge screen. Maybe I'm the only one that likes to have a case with a lip that protrudes slightly out from the screen so the lip hits the ground first as opposed to the screen when the phone is dropped. I've seen more a couple of people with cracked edge screens. Unlike screens on iPhones, they can't be fixed.

The regular S7 was a tremendous phone and with Samsung maybe getting rid of he headphone jack and a flat screen variant, the S7 may represent Samsung's high waterproof mark.

fify

[FMCoug]

My favorite part of all this is the Apple fanboys all saying they never used wired headphones anyway.

Of course these are the same people who prior to this announcement always walked white earbuds in everyone would know that they are iHip. [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk