Intel wants USB-C to replace the headphone jack

[dmegatool]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

Honestly sounds like faulty or cheap equipment?

Yeah I guess it's not EVERY equiment that does it but it's far too frequent for me. My biggesst annoyance are my Sennheiser Momentum on my Macbook... I would hardly call that cheap piece of hardware. Same thing happenned with my HD515 and at my job for 3 different ports (front/back of PC + monitor). 

 

I solved it by using an old iMic (2006) I had lying around. When I plug my Momentum in there, it's tighter and kinda secured, I gotta admit. But it's really not what I usally get from all devices. I've yet to encounter a loose Type C or even a mini USB. 

 

Gotta say that I'm the unluckiest person on earth when it  comes to electronic so... So maybe it's just that I'm on a roll with 3.5mm jacks . 

 

 

 

 

[Okjoek]

I'll always keep an open mind. in what ways is the alternative more/less efficient/convenient?

[Stuff_]

21 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

Why did we need smartphones? Plain old dumb phones worked great when they were the standard too. 

That is a terrible example. The point is, the technology doesn't change anything. Your headphones will still be headphones. You haven't really added any additional functionality that will justify the cons.

 

A smartphone is a computer. A dumb phone is not. USB Type-C headphones are headphones. 3.5mm headphones are headphones.

 

And to be clear, I never disagreed with the change. But to shove it all into ONE single connector is a bad design. So often I charge and listen simultaneously. This removes that features without an additional adapter, which is just bullshit.

[LAwLz]

6 hours ago, dmegatool said:

I always need to make sure it's all the way in.

You will need to do the same with any connector...

 

6 hours ago, dmegatool said:

If I move, sound is distorted as the connector spin or get pulled a little bit.

Sounds like a broken cable or port. I can spin my connector all day without any distortion. As for it getting distorted if you pull it a little (assuming you mean enough for the connector to not make proper contact anymore), would you rather the audio cut out entirely? Because that's what will happen in the exact same scenario with USB-C.

 

6 hours ago, dmegatool said:

Controls are defined on the plug itself and can't be made to work with iPhone and Android. 

Can you please clarify what you mean by this? Do you mean we won't have the current issues where iPhone earphones uses different signaling for things like volume controls? Because that issue will not only still exist, but it will most likely become 10 times worse with USB-C. Instead of just having a passive cable and earphones you will now have earphones which requires drivers, and know how to talk to the specific phone you use.

 

6 hours ago, dmegatool said:

That 3.5mm jack needs to die. 

Why does it need to die?

 

5 hours ago, dmegatool said:

No. But it either works or not. There's no ambiguity about it. When I plug my phone to charge it, I don't need to check if it works. With 3.5mm, I often need to push again on the plug if I ever move/touch it. 

Yeah... I am 99% sure that's a broken/worn out connector. I can dangle my phone in my earphone cable without anything happening.

 

2 hours ago, Okjoek said:

I'll always keep an open mind. in what ways is the alternative more/less efficient/convenient?

I made a list of benefits/drawbacks here if you're interested.

[Godlygamer23]

57 minutes ago, Stuff_ said:

A smartphone is a computer. A dumb phone is not. 

A normal cellphone is most definitely a computer, using the dictionary definition. 

[Stuff_]

Just now, Godlygamer23 said:

A normal cellphone is most definitely a computer, using the dictionary definition. 

The difference is obvious. One can perform powerful computations, and the other cannot. 

[dalekphalm]

7 minutes ago, Stuff_ said:

The difference is obvious. One can perform powerful computations, and the other cannot. 

@Godlygamer23 knows that there are stark differences to a Smartphone and a "Feature" phone. He was simply saying that the original statement was incorrect. A "dumb" phone is still a computer - despite being a shitty one with limited functionality.

[Godlygamer23]

28 minutes ago, Stuff_ said:

The difference is obvious. One can perform powerful computations, and the other cannot. 

It's defined as a computer, just like displays are also computers. They all perform calculations. 

[79wjd]

1 hour ago, Stuff_ said:

That is a terrible example. The point is, the technology doesn't change anything. Your headphones will still be headphones. You haven't really added any additional functionality that will justify the cons.

 

A smartphone is a computer. A dumb phone is not. USB Type-C headphones are headphones. 3.5mm headphones are headphones.

 

And to be clear, I never disagreed with the change. But to shove it all into ONE single connector is a bad design. So often I charge and listen simultaneously. This removes that features without an additional adapter, which is just bullshit.

My point was that just because YOU don't see a place for advancement doesn't mean one doesn't exist. Go back fifteen years and ask the average person if they think cell phones will ever have any additional functionality, and the answer will almost undoubtedly be no.

 

USB-C would allow for additional functionality that 3.5mm doesn't allow -- extra functionality, which wouldn't tinkered with unless the already implemented standard would make it feasible. 

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

My point was that just because YOU don't see a place for advancement doesn't mean one doesn't exist. Go back fifteen years and ask the average person if they think cell phones will ever have any additional functionality, and the answer will almost undoubtedly be no.

 

USB-C would allow for additional functionality that 3.5mm doesn't allow -- extra functionality, which wouldn't tinkered with unless the already implemented standard would make it feasible. 

But you're basing that off a pipe dream. 15 years ago, the technology didn't exist to give phones additional functionality.

 

We need to know what additional functionality we're getting, before it makes sense to ditch the 3.5mm jack.

 

Sure, some day, you might be right. But right now? Look at @LAwLz Pro/Con comparison. The Pro's of 3.5mm far outweigh the Pro's of USB-C - at the current state of technology.

 

We're taking something that has to exist anyway on the phone (The DAC) and duplicating it onto the headphones too, unnecessarily. We'd be saving a tiny amount of space, and for what? The promise of USB-C Audio simply doesn't deliver enough of a benefit over the existing, very robust, 3.5mm jack.

[79wjd]

6 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

But you're basing that off a pipe dream. 15 years ago, the technology didn't exist to give phones additional functionality.

 

We need to know what additional functionality we're getting, before it makes sense to ditch the 3.5mm jack.

 

Sure, some day, you might be right. But right now? Look at @LAwLz Pro/Con comparison. The Pro's of 3.5mm far outweigh the Pro's of USB-C - at the current state of technology.

 

We're taking something that has to exist anyway on the phone (The DAC) and duplicating it onto the headphones too, unnecessarily. We'd be saving a tiny amount of space, and for what? The promise of USB-C Audio simply doesn't deliver enough of a benefit over the existing, very robust, 3.5mm jack.

Any half-way decent implemntation of USB-C for audio should also include an analog pin out (which is already possible), meaning that the only drawback is that you would need a USB-C to 3.5mm adapter, which at the end of the day isn't the biggest deal IF you get something for it (like additional headphone functionality, additional port functionality, and/or the option to have a digital audio out). 

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Any half-way decent implemntation of USB-C for audio should also include an analog pin out (which is already possible), meaning that the only drawback is that you would need a USB-C to 3.5mm adapter, which at the end of the day isn't the biggest deal IF you get something for it (like additional headphone functionality, additional port functionality, and/or the option to have a digital audio out). 

Well hold on - the fact that USB-C was digital was something you were touting as an advantage earlier in the thread. And if all we are doing is simply changing the port from 3.5mm to USB-C while remaining analog (Because, whatever future functionality is simply guesswork or vaporware at the moment), then what's the point? The 3.5mm jack itself offers more versatility as an audio connector, since you can swivel/rotate the jack without twisting up the cable really bad.

 

A USB-C cable for something like charging or connecting to a computer is fine, since it's relatively static. But as you're out and about, your headphones could easily get tangled.

 

Having the digital connection is certainly a bonus for users who want to use headphones with a built-in DAC, but you could just as easily get a USB-A to USB-C adapter. And Wireless headphones will use Bluetooth, which has nothing to do with USB-C.

 

Having USB-C as a secondary option for connecting audio devices is totally fine. Replacing the 3.5mm jack with it though? The benefits do not outweigh the downsides.

[79wjd]

3 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Well hold on - the fact that USB-C was digital was something you were touting as an advantage earlier in the thread. And if all we are doing is simply changing the port from 3.5mm to USB-C while remaining analog (Because, whatever future functionality is simply guesswork or vaporware at the moment), then what's the point? The 3.5mm jack itself offers more versatility as an audio connector, since you can swivel/rotate the jack without twisting up the cable really bad.

 

A USB-C cable for something like charging or connecting to a computer is fine, since it's relatively static. But as you're out and about, your headphones could easily get tangled.

 

Having the digital connection is certainly a bonus for users who want to use headphones with a built-in DAC, but you could just as easily get a USB-A to USB-C adapter. And Wireless headphones will use Bluetooth, which has nothing to do with USB-C.

 

Having USB-C as a secondary option for connecting audio devices is totally fine. Replacing the 3.5mm jack with it though? The benefits do not outweigh the downsides.

For me, as someone who would buy a high end headphone with a high end DAC, digital is a good thing. But I also made the point that a digital out wouldn't be best for everyone as a lot of people also use the headphones that come with the device/buy the cheapest crap they can find. So having the option for an analog or digital protects those who buy cheap shit while benefiting those who buy high end gear. 

 

Switching to a USB-C connector would free up a bit of space internally, and give the port more than a single function. Right now, a 3.5mm port is good for one thing and one thing only -- listening to music. However, a USB-C port could be used for numerous other things (peripherals, storage, etc...). In my mind, having a port with extra use and potential extra headphone functionality is worth sacrificing the ability to swivel the connector. 

[LAwLz]

48 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Any half-way decent implemntation of USB-C for audio should also include an analog pin out (which is already possible), meaning that the only drawback is that you would need a USB-C to 3.5mm adapter, which at the end of the day isn't the biggest deal IF you get something for it (like additional headphone functionality, additional port functionality, and/or the option to have a digital audio out). 

Analog audio is not (as far as I know) a USB type C standard though (breaking standards like that is a very bad idea), and you would need special shielding and circuitry inside the phone to avoid interference (since you will be sending power and data over the same cable).

 

 

Just realized that there is another MASSIVE drawback. You will either have to transcode the original audio into some universal headphone format (which all headphones will support), or you will send the original audio data (such as AAC, FLAC, MP3, Opus, etc) and have the headphones decode that.

The problem with the former is that it wastes power.

 

The problem with the latter is that if we get a new audio format (Opus came out 2012), or you download a format that might not be that common (for example monkey's audio) then your headphones might not be able to play it, and there is nothing you can do about it. I am sure companies like Dolby will love this as well, since now you will need a license on your headphones to play things like AC-3. Want to watch that movie you just bought with your new headphones? Sorry, but your headphones are not Dolby Digital licensed, so you won't be able to get any sound. Better buy a new pair!

"I'll just buy a pair that supports AC-3 then!"

Okay do that... but you will still need to replace your headphones when Dolby AC-4 comes out.

 

Adding support for a new format is easy on a phone or computer where the video player handles it. It's a lot harder to add it to firmware in headphones which relies on fixed-function hardware.

 

 

So no, it would not benefit the people with high end audio either because they would have to replace their 1000 dollar headphones to support new audio formats. It is also horrible for the people buying lower end stuff because you can bet your ass that they don't want to pay all the licensing fees to companies like Dolby.

 

 

Edit: Or maybe I am missing some crucial detail in how it would work and formats wouldn't be an issue.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

For me, as someone who would buy a high end headphone with a high end DAC, digital is a good thing. But I also made the point that a digital out wouldn't be best for everyone as a lot of people also use the headphones that come with the device/buy the cheapest crap they can find. So having the option for an analog or digital protects those who buy cheap shit while benefiting those who buy high end gear. 

 

Switching to a USB-C connector would free up a bit of space internally, and give the port more than a single function. Right now, a 3.5mm port is good for one thing and one thing only -- listening to music. However, a USB-C port could be used for numerous other things (peripherals, storage, etc...). In my mind, having a port with extra use and potential extra headphone functionality is worth sacrificing the ability to swivel the connector. 

I just don't see enough benefit. We're already getting a USB-C port in most new phones. In most cases, whatever additional functionality you would get out of that port, you're getting anyway. By having a 3.5mm jack, you're not LOSING the existing USB-C port.

 

Also, I would say that most high end headphones do not come with a DAC of any description, high end or not. Unless you bought yourself a portable DAC/Amp that plugs into your headphones 3.5mm jack. If that was the case, I'd probably rather that DAC/Amp be a separate attachment that you plug into anyway, since otherwise it's either:

1. Making the headphones heavier/bulkier/bigger

2. Making the internal drivers smaller, or less efficient, to make space for a DAC/Amp that would otherwise go towards larger drivers or better acoustic airflow design.

3. Or both of the above

 

Sure DAC's and Amps (Especially DAC's) are getting pretty small, but it's additional cost that is unnecessary to have built into the headphones, since the phone will inevitably have a DAC anyway. If you're unsatisfied with the internal performance of your phone's DAC, you should either look for a better DAC as part of the features of your next phone, or purchase a portable one that plugs into the existing USB-C port that is already there (and therefore being no need whatsoever to remove the 3.5mm jack, aside from saving a minute amount of space).

 

I don't know if you can buy portable DAC's that can plug into USB-C, but if you can't yet, I'm sure they're coming.

[79wjd]

9 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Analog audio is not (as far as I know) a USB type C standard though (breaking standards like that is a very bad idea), and you would need special shielding and circuitry inside the phone to avoid interference (since you will be sending power and data over the same cable).

 

 

Just realized that there is another MASSIVE drawback. You will either have to transcode the original audio into some universal headphone format (which all headphones will support), or you will send the original audio data (such as AAC, FLAC, MP3, Opus, etc) and have the headphones decode that.

The problem with the former is that it wastes power.

 

The problem with the latter is that if we get a new audio format (Opus came out 2012), or you download a format that might not be that common (for example monkey's audio) then your headphones might not be able to play it, and there is nothing you can do about it. I am sure companies like Dolby will love this as well, since now you will need a license on your headphones to play things like AC-3. Want to watch that movie you just bought with your new headphones? Sorry, but your headphones are not Dolby Digital licensed, so you won't be able to get any sound. Better buy a new pair!

"I'll just buy a pair that supports AC-3 then!"

Okay do that... but you will still need to replace your headphones when Dolby AC-4 comes out.

 

Adding support for a new format is easy on a phone or computer where the video player handles it. It's a lot harder to add it to firmware in headphones which relies on fixed-function hardware.

 

 

So no, it would not benefit the people with high end audio either because they would have to replace their 1000 dollar headphones to support new audio formats. It is also horrible for the people buying lower end stuff because you can bet your ass that they don't want to pay all the licensing fees to companies like Dolby.

"In fact, USB-C can be used to transfer analog audio in accordance with the specification of the connector. It all comes down as to how that audio is transmitted."

-http://www.anandtech.com/show/10273/intel-proposes-to-use-usb-typec-cables-to-connect-headsets-to-mobile-devices

 

Would that same issue not apply to any bluetooth headphones today too? 

11 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I just don't see enough benefit. We're already getting a USB-C port in most new phones. In most cases, whatever additional functionality you would get out of that port, you're getting anyway. By having a 3.5mm jack, you're not LOSING the existing USB-C port.

 

Also, I would say that most high end headphones do not come with a DAC of any description, high end or not. Unless you bought yourself a portable DAC/Amp that plugs into your headphones 3.5mm jack. If that was the case, I'd probably rather that DAC/Amp be a separate attachment that you plug into anyway, since otherwise it's either:

1. Making the headphones heavier/bulkier/bigger

2. Making the internal drivers smaller, or less efficient, to make space for a DAC/Amp that would otherwise go towards larger drivers or better acoustic airflow design.

3. Or both of the above

 

Sure DAC's and Amps (Especially DAC's) are getting pretty small, but it's additional cost that is unnecessary to have built into the headphones, since the phone will inevitably have a DAC anyway. If you're unsatisfied with the internal performance of your phone's DAC, you should either look for a better DAC as part of the features of your next phone, or purchase a portable one that plugs into the existing USB-C port that is already there (and therefore being no need whatsoever to remove the 3.5mm jack, aside from saving a minute amount of space).

 

I don't know if you can buy portable DAC's that can plug into USB-C, but if you can't yet, I'm sure they're coming.

To each their own, but I'd rather have a second USB-C port than a 3.5mm port as one will be completely useless to be as I plan on switching entirely to bluetooth shortly anyway, while the other can still be used for something else. 

 

I can't see myself travelling with an independent DAC/AMP, but I can see myself paying more for a pair of headphones with a higher end DAC/AMP (/sound). A good DAC/AMP really isn't that large -- sure it has a higher power consumption, but I don't think size will be the big problem with them (especially since there are bluetooth headphones that sound very good even today and that aren't monstrous).

 

 

[LAwLz]

8 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Would that same issue not apply to any bluetooth headphones today too? 

Bluetooth will transcode audio into SBC

 

I don't have any Bluetooth headphones I can try with, but to my knowledge Bluetooth (if it supports the A2DP profile) will transcode the audio file into SBC (which is partially based on MP2, and is not intended for high quality audio usage although at the maximum bit rate it is decent but very wasteful). If both devices support the optional parts of the A2DP profile then they can also send high quality formats without any transcoding needed. Those formats are optional and the list is pretty short though (basically just MP3, AAC and ATRAC).

 

So Bluetooth does a bit of both. It tries to use the original format and if that doesn't work it transcodes it. It's not really a pretty solution when we already have something that effectively supports all current and future formats.

[handymanshandle]

On 4/28/2016 at 2:51 PM, djdwosk97 said:

Cost: I don't think that's all that much of an issue tbh. Most people fall into one of two categories: those who use the headphones included with the device and/or buy the cheapest crap they can find (and don't care much about the quality), and those who are willing to pay for a good pair of headphones.

Well I have a pair of skullcandy Ink'd 2s and they sound about the same as my Urbeats that costed like $100 when the Skullcandies that I have costed like $16, and a whole ton more durable.

I care about audio quality, Skullcandy generally has good audio quality for a lower price in terms of IEMs, I might be interested in eventually finding an IEM from Sennheiser with a removable cable. Though I suspect that by it being removable, it's possible that if 3,5mm jacks become the audio version of Firewire. Sennheiser would just sell a replacement cable to make the IEMs work with USB-C.
I still think it's a terrible idea to drop 3,5mm jacks. As others have said (and possibly myself included) that 3,5mm jacks are generally more durable and are generally more ideal than using just one port. I think I'd be quite disappointed if that happens. USB-C is a nice standard and all but this one port for everything is a terrible idea. People complain about the MacBook only having one port besides the headphone jack but then want phones to go down to only one port with out a headphone jack.

Actually I suspect that because Apple didn't remove the headphone jack from the MacBook that they might not do that with the upcoming iPhone. 
Though I hope Apple doesn't try to replicate the LG G5 in terms of having two cameras on the back, though it seems very possible that they might do that.

 

As I had said though, phones absolutely must not get much thinner than they are right now so that durability, performance, and longevity of the battery can be improved. I'd rather that phones get maybe a couple millimetres thicker to make them stronger and possibly have slightly bigger batteries and hardware that's even more power efficient. 

Possibly going from Li-Ion to Li-Po batteries. Though if I recall correctly Li-Po is only lighter than Li-Ion but possibly the same in terms of being able to handle the same amount of recharge cycles and discharge cycles and storing that energy. Though I don't think it's likely that a new cost effective and practical battery technology for mobile devices that lasts longer and is more durable than current battery technologies will be a thing any time soon. Though making more power efficient hardware and making stronger phones is possible in the near(ish) future. Though I do think that Silicon might be stuck at 14nm or 10nm. Though maybe the future lies in Silicon Germanium (SiGe) for future processes. Though Samsung was able to get down to 10nm though that was on a mobile SoC, though I suspect they're still using Silicon.

 

Wow, I apologize for going off topic, and maybe having somethings that might get some people more or less...

[MikrySoft]

All of you are assuming that USB-C audio means digital audio with an external DAC in headphones - this is not the case. If you read hackaday.com/2016/04/22/hackaday-dictionary-usb-type-c/ (or official USB C specs, available here[zip], page 194 of USB Type-C Specification Release 1.2.pdf) you will learn that USB C socket has an Audio Adapter mode, where analog audio is routed through D+/D- pair, normally used for USB 2.0 mode. 

Specs clearly state that headsets should retain classic 3.5mm jacks and be connected through an adapter (which can provide power passthrough)

While this does mean loosing data connection and keeping track of an adapter, the headphone market will likely remain unchanged.
 

[Stagea]

I wonder if this can pave the way for more devices like the Audio Technica ATH-DN1000USB. This uses digital drive on the drivers (Trigence Dnote technology), similar to what Clarion uses on their Full Digital Sound car system. Intel is one of Trigence's investors.

 

Full Digital Sound

 

Intel investment on Trigence

 

[dalekphalm]

3 hours ago, Stagea said:

I wonder if this can pave the way for more devices like the Audio Technica ATH-DN1000USB. This uses digital drive on the drivers (Trigence Dnote technology), similar to what Clarion uses on their Full Digital Sound car system. Intel is one of Trigence's investors.

 

Full Digital Sound

 

Intel investment on Trigence

 

You realize that all AT and Clarion are doing is putting a DAC right inside the speaker/driver module, which still converts the audio to analog before being played by the speaker?

 

It's the same thing, they're just moving the position of the DAC.