Should a Bluetooth adapter be included with phones?

[GoodBytes]

22 minutes ago, tjcater said:

Call me weird but I guess another one of the other reasons I don't listen to music in public is that I can not stand the fell of earbuds and on the ear headphones, leaving the last option of over the ear headphones as what I use. For the time being, I have no need to upgrade my headphones for the time being but later on, I may get some Sennheisers

You usually get quickly used to it. I mean, most do. It is however, important to take time to try different size of attachment for earphone caps (picture bellow of what I am talking about), as those plays a big role for comfort, and the driver expects a good seal else, the sound reproduction will be off (too bassy or ear pearsing). The size and even type (some are rubber as the picture bellow shows, some are foam based, or other shapes). Normally earphones includes a few popular sizes, but some might need to get something specific. This is where you buy a set of different sizes. You just need to make sure they fit your earphones drive size (they are like a few sizes with noticeable difference).

 

 

 

 

[Indus Monk]

11 minutes ago, tjcater said:

Call me weird but I guess another one of the other reasons I don't listen to music in public is that I can not stand the feel of earbuds and on the ear headphones, leaving the last option of over the ear headphones as what I use. For the time being, I have no need to upgrade my headphones for the time being but later on, I may get some Sennheisers

There's nothing weird about that. functionality is important, but so is comfort if there's any need for long periods of use

[Sniperfox47]

1 hour ago, GoodBytes said:

Oh and how much are your hearphones. My earphone are ~$45 Canadian, ~$30 US, and they sounds pretty good, definitely competes against 50-70$ ones.

They were $80, but it was also by a little team on Indiegogo with very limited scale using older USB Audio Class 2 controllers combined with an entirely seperate mobile DAC, not the cheaper integrated solution that Audio Class 3 allows. Zorloo's Aero USB-C if you want to check them out.

 

1 hour ago, GoodBytes said:

And how do you fix the issues that the 3.5mm headphone jack provides (see my posts above)

Posts as in plural? I only see one with regards to type-C and one other about Bluetooth.

1 hour ago, GoodBytes said:

You need: lossless digital wireless signal with encryption (for privacy, else someone else near by can tune in your signal and hear your conversation, or listen to your music). The main problem with this are:

• Cost (need a dedicated hardware)
• Power consuming
• Like Bluetooth, headphones need a receiver
• Headphones need battery

And I don't think they are any open standards of it.. so it needs to be developed to have a standard.

Yeah, Bluetooth adds quite a bit of cost. Bluetooth radio, processor, DAC, Battery, etc. Not arguing that. If this wasn't one of the posts you meant I'm not sure what the second one was, would you mind pointing it out?

 

2 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

There is no reason to remove the audio jack, beside making money on adapters.

Here is why the audio 3.5mm jack is great, and they are things that USB Type-C or Lightning connector doesn't offer. I find it funny that NO large media outlet talk about them, but rather how the lightning connector or USB Type-C is "oh so much better", with very very weak points.

• 3 or 4 pin large contacts, allows a solid and reliable connection to be made.
• Supports countless numbers of plugs-in and out
• Resistant to impact (if your phone gets hit where the headphones plugged in, in most cases, the headphone plug will break, not the connector on the phone)
• Allows the connector to spin on where it is. This allows to reduce cable stress as you move around as the plug can turn on itself a bit or full 360 degrees reducing the cables inside the wire to twist and break
• Easy and cheap to repair. 3 or 4 large'ish pins that any standard soldering iron can handle with virtually low skill needed. The other connectors have many pins, close together, requiring specialized tool or high skills with the correct soldering iron and associated thin tip.
• Reduces cost of headphones by not having a DAC (sound card/chip) which, there is no way you can make 100$ headphones with a good DAC inside and sounding like 100$ headphones.
• Headphones doesn't need a battery.

On top of things:

• You still have Bluetooth
• You still have Apple wireless thing, if that is what you are looking for
• You still have USB Type-C / lightning connector.
• Phone thinnest is still achievable

If one can tell me why USB Type-C or Lightning connector is better, I would gladly hear you out.

First of all, I just want to say that there *is* a reason. Whether or not you agree with that reason is another issue.

 

Removing the jack gives the engineers a little more room for the main hardware, and massively reduces design complexity for the audio engineers working on these devices.

 

It's not just the space for the jack keep in mind. It's the space for the traces, and room to isolate the traces, and the complexity of avoiding running the traces around USB or CSI or other high bandwidth busses that could cause interference and noise on these analogue audio traces.

 

There's a reason why Google advises in the Android CDD for Android 8.0 that if you're keeping analogue audio (and all the complexity that comes with it), that you should just keep the 3.5mm jack instead of switching to Audio Adapter Accessory Mode over Type-C like the MotoZ.

 

Now onto your points:

• The pin contacts for USB-C are designed to align and connect stably even without support from the port's shell, but the spec also allows the port to have springs to ensure a more stable connection. It requires continuity of connection at 20 newtons (about 4.5lbf) in any right angle direction, with no shorts or disconnects for longer than 1 microsecond, to be certified as acceptable.
• 3.5mm mini ports are rated for 5000 cycles vs 10000 cycles for USB-C so I'm not sure your point here.
• USB-C also requires that both plugs and ports are capable of resisting a minimum wrenching force of 50N (~11.25lbf) minimum before damage that causes a discontinuity or short when the force is released, so unless your phone weighs 5.1kg you should be fine. And like Micro-B USB, Type-C is also designed to break off without damaging the port, or getting stuck inside like 3.5mm can. [Edit: just to be clear, the 5.1kg phone comment is me being facetiously snarky. I understand that if dropped, the impulse of the impact force would be higher, and that 5.1kg would be for a constant force at rest.]
• Twisting the connector is a good point, but one that's pretty much negated as soon as you toss your phone in your pocket and the cable is fighting to turn with friction, especially in the case of flat cables. For desk applications, it does certainly apply, but any damage can be mitigated with proper construction of the plug and cable.
• Since most devices come with reinforced plugs, this isn't really an issue unless you mangle your plug. If you *have* mangled your plug, then yeah, it's a pain to solder a new one on. To be frank though, the *VAST* majority of consumers would not be repairing it themselves anyways.
• That depends entirely what you're using with the $100 headphones. If you're comparing it to $100 headphones hooked up to a $1000 DAC? No, of course not. If you're comparing it to $100 headphones hooked up to a $0 free barely functional Chinese flip phone? You could probably make $20 digital headphones that would sound better than that. And just for the record, the Sabre 9018k2m DAC/AMP chip only costs $15-20, is orders better than most phone DACs/AMPs, and can drive pretty much any headphones on the market.
• USB-C headphones don't need a battery either >.> They get 5V over vbus and use that for power.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

so unless your phone weighs 5.1kg

That would be one horrifying phone. That would be 57.8cm^3 of lead , a pixel 2 xl would have to be 60.4% lead to weight that (If you exclude the weight from the other 40% of space for components and screen)

[Sniperfox47]

Just now, tjcater said:

That would be one horrifying phone. That would be 57.8cm^3 of lead , a pixel 2 xl would have to be 60.4% lead to weight that (If you exclude the weight from the other 40% of space for components and screen)

Hehe yeah, I was mostly teasing with that comment though. Edited my post to clarify. Your phone wouldn't actually have to be that heavy, since the force that matters is the much greater force the floor exerts on it, not the force the phone does.

[GoodBytes]

1 hour ago, Sniperfox47 said:

They were $80, but it was also by a little team on Indiegogo with very limited scale using older USB Audio Class 2 controllers combined with an entirely seperate mobile DAC, not the cheaper integrated solution that Audio Class 3 allows. Zorloo's Aero USB-C if you want to check them out.

Yea, and you can get better headphones for $80, with the logic that more money goes through the drivers of the headphones.

 

1 hour ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Posts as in plural? I only see one with regards to type-C and one other about Bluetooth.

Post. Sorry.

 

1 hour ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Removing the jack gives the engineers a little more room for the main hardware, and massively reduces design complexity for the audio engineers working on these devices.

Like the guy on youtube who added, actually, a headphone jack to his iPhone 7. The DAC/sound chip is also in the SoC. So it doesn't consume space. That is why the USB to 3.5mm jack is just an adapter. There is no audio chip anywhere.

 

1 hour ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Now onto your points:

• The pin contacts for USB-C are designed to align and connect stably even without support from the port's shell, but the spec also allows the port to have springs to ensure a more stable connection. It requires continuity of connection at 20 newtons (about 4.5lbf) in any right angle direction, with no shorts or disconnects for longer than 1 microsecond, to be certified as acceptable.

Yup, it is great compared to micro USB. But it does get loose after hundred of plug in and out by humans.

 

1 hour ago, Sniperfox47 said:

• 3.5mm mini ports are rated for 5000 cycles vs 10000 cycles for USB-C so I'm not sure your point here.

Source?

 

 

1 hour ago, Sniperfox47 said:

• Twisting the connector is a good point, but one that's pretty much negated as soon as you toss your phone in your pocket and the cable is fighting to turn with friction, especially in the case of flat cables. For desk applications, it does certainly apply, but any damage can be mitigated with proper construction of the plug and cable.

Nha still turns and moved, and assuming you manage to prevent it, the tension is released whithout having your earbuds turning instead.

 

 

1 hour ago, Sniperfox47 said:

• Since most devices come with reinforced plugs, this isn't really an issue unless you mangle your plug. If you *have* mangled your plug, then yeah, it's a pain to solder a new one on. To be frank though, the *VAST* majority of consumers would not be repairing it themselves anyways.

Yes, but cost of repair increases.

 

1 hour ago, Sniperfox47 said:

• That depends entirely what you're using with the $100 headphones. If you're comparing it to $100 headphones hooked up to a $1000 DAC? No, of course not. If you're comparing it to $100 headphones hooked up to a $0 free barely functional Chinese flip phone? You could probably make $20 digital headphones that would sound better than that. And just for the record, the Sabre 9018k2m DAC/AMP chip only costs $15-20, is orders better than most phone DACs/AMPs, and can drive pretty much any headphones on the market.

Follow the context.

 

1 hour ago, Sniperfox47 said:

• USB-C headphones don't need a battery either >.> They get 5V over vbus and use that for power.

Yes you do. You need power to not only drive the headphones, but the DAC as well.. where as those are separate battery or eating the phone battery, it consumes more battery than without. Maybe you are the type of person that have phones that needs to be charges 6 times a day, but ideally you get minimum 1 days of battery life, while still being thin and light.

[Sniperfox47]

57 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Yea, and you can get better headphones for $80, with the logic that more money goes through the drivers of the headphones.

So you'd rather buy a $80 pair of headphones that sound good on devices with a good DAC/AMP and crap on devices with a crap DAC/AMP, than a $90 pair of headphones that sound good on devices with a good DAC/AMP (because they support analogue passthrough) but still sound okay on a device with a crap DAC/AMP (because they have a better DAC/AMP/Controller combo chip with a $5 cost)?

 

Okay. You saved $10 only to have to use a $50+ external device with them to get decent quality on any devices that aren't audio centric, congratulations.

 

57 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Like the guy on youtube who added, actually, a headphone jack to his iPhone 7. The DAC/sound chip is also in the SoC. So it doesn't consume space. That is why the USB to 3.5mm jack is just an adapter. There is no audio chip anywhere.

Umm no... He used the Apple lightning to 3.5mm adapter in his mod, with a custom circuit board to switch the USB connection from the lightning jack. Apple's adapter has an integrated DAC...: 

 

57 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Source?

3.5mm jack: http://www.amphenol-icc.com/product-series/miniature-jack.html

Quote

Enables up to 5,000 mating cycles

USB Type-C: http://www.usb.org/developers/docs/

Quote

3.8.1.3 Durability or Insertion/Extraction Cycles (EIA 364-09)
The durability rating shall be 10,000 cycles minimum for the USB Type-C connector family.
The durability test shall be done at a rate of 500 ± 50 cycles per hour and no physical
damage to any part of the connector and cable assembly shall occur .

 

57 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Yes you do. You need power to not only drive the headphones, but the DAC as well.. where as those are separate battery or eating the phone battery, it consumes more battery than without. Maybe you are the type of person that have phones that needs to be charges 6 times a day, but ideally you get minimum 1 days of battery life, while still being thin and light.

First of all, you said they don't need a battery, not that they don't need power. If you're talking phone battery, than analogue headsets need power too, since their drivers convert that electricity into mechanical force...

 

Second of all, at absolutely full maxed out volume, the Drivers, USB controller, DAC, AMP, and all the other circuitry of my Aeros draws 0.06 Amps at the 4.95V my Pixel outputs. At a level where you can wear them without going deaf, they draw 0.03 Amps at 4.95v. At a volume I would reasonably listen to in a noisy room? 0.02 Amps. So does it draw power? Yeah. But not any significant amount, just over 1% battery capacity of my phone per hour ([30mA*5V]/[3450mAh*3.7V]).

[Edit: Voltages and Currents measured with Pluggable's Type-C Voltage/Amperage Meter]

 

 

Would a higher quality DAC draw more power? Of course, but at that point you're in no different situation from using a mobile DAC with your phone since it needs power too.

[GoodBytes]

31 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

So you'd rather buy a $80 pair of headphones that sound good on devices with a good DAC/AMP and crap on devices with a crap DAC/AMP, than a $90 pair of headphones that sound good on devices with a good DAC/AMP (because they support analogue passthrough) but still sound okay on a device with a crap DAC/AMP (because they have a better DAC/AMP/Controller combo chip with a $5 cost)?

Yes 'cause they sound even better on my other places that have better DAC.

 

 

Quote

Umm no... He used the Apple lightning to 3.5mm adapter in his mod, with a custom circuit board to switch the USB connection from the lightning jack. Apple's adapter has an integrated DAC...:

Not my problem if Apple decided to include it in their latest SoC chip. Snadragon and MediaTek 2 of the largest ARM based SoC in smartphones have the DACs inside. Regardless, proves my point that there is indeed plenty of space.

 

 

Quote

3.5mm jack: http://www.amphenol-icc.com/product-series/miniature-jack.html

USB Type-C: http://www.usb.org/developers/docs/

You are looking at a specific manufacture of a headphone plug versus the standard of USB Type-C.

 

Quote

First of all, you said they don't need a battery, not that they don't need power. If you're talking phone battery, than analogue headsets need power too, since their drivers convert that electricity into mechanical force...

DAC needs additional power., whether you want to design it with a dedicated battery, or use the phone, that is your call as a product designer. It needs battery regardless.

 

 

Quote

Second of all, at absolutely full maxed out volume, the Drivers, USB controller, DAC, AMP, and all the other circuitry of my Aeros draws 0.06 Amps at the 4.95V my Pixel outputs. At a level where you can wear them without going deaf, they draw 0.03 Amps at 4.95v. At a volume I would reasonably listen to in a noisy room? 0.02 Amps. So does it draw power? Yeah. But not any significant amount, just over 1% battery capacity of my phone per hour ([30mA*5V]/[3450mAh*3.7V]).

[Edit: Voltages and Currents measured with Pluggable's Type-C Voltage/Amperage Meter]

Ok. So I never want you to complain the rest of your life, about smartphone battery life. If you think it is very little, that is your call.

 

The question is why do you think that having a headphone jack blocks you from having a USB Type-C or wireless headphones?

 

[Sniperfox47]

23 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Yes 'cause they sound even better on my other places that have better DAC.

No they don't, because in those places you just use the analogue passthrough and use the line out provided by that DAC. >.> You literally ignored my whole point there... That yeah, they're more expensive, and if you don't want to pay more that's fine, but that they ensure a minimum level of performance without capping the maximum...

 

[Edit: P.S. Pretty sure it violates the USB spec, but you can also technically have analogue only headphones that just connect the Sideband Pins in Audio Adapter Accessory mode if you really wanna shave that $10 off. In which case they'll perform exactly the same as your your 3.5mm mini headphones for a BOM cost that differs in cents (for the cost of the Type-C plug vs 3.5 mini plug).]

 

23 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Not my problem if Apple decided to include it in their latest SoC chip. Snadragon and MediaTek 2 of the largest ARM based SoC in smartphones have the DACs inside.

You're the one who argued that it's the case because of Apple, but okay.

I also never said anything about the DAC taking up space in the phone. You need it anyways for the speakers. I said the port takes up space, the traces take up space, the isolation of the audio traces (since they're analogue and susceptible to noise from high speed busses) takes up space, and that isolation adds complexity to the design...

 

23 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

You are looking at a specific manufacture of a headphone plug versus the standard of USB Type-C.

You're absolutely right. But you were making the argument that they're able to endure more mating cycles. I said that the Type-C Spec requires a minimum of a higher number of of mating cycles than the 3.5mm Mini gets. You asked for evidence. There it is. If you wanna give me some non-anecdotal evidence that 3.5mm Mini lasts more mating cycles, I'm all ears.

 

23 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

DAC needs additional power., whether you want to design it with a dedicated battery, or use the phone, that is your call as a product designer. It needs battery regardless.

*facepalm* Audio drivers in headsets need additional power. Whether you want to design them with a dedicated battery or use the phone, that is your call as a product designer. It needs a battery regardless.

 

23 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Ok. So I never want you to complain the rest of your life, about smartphone battery life. If you think it is very little, that is your call.

With a USB device all you're doing is trading off the power draw of the DAC/AMP in the phone's SoC for that of the DAC/AMP/USBcontroller in the headphones since you're not running both DACs at once either way, and the USB controller in the phone is running either way... >.> The power use is *infinitismally* larger.

[Guest]

I love how this thread has derailed from Bluetooth adapter bundled with phones to USB vs 3.5 based headphones and how they are set up in regards to DACs, sound quality, and power delivery  

[Sniperfox47]

15 minutes ago, tjcater said:

I love how this thread has derailed from Bluetooth adapter bundled with phones to USB vs 3.5 based headphones and how they are set up in regards to DACs, sound quality, and power delivery  

Sorry, I'll drop it. That's kind of my fault.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Sorry, I'll drop it. That's kind of my fault.

I contributed to some derailing too, but the point of the post was just to joke about it. So feel free to continue discussing it (Not that I am the OP or have any authority over this)

[GoodBytes]

Yup. derailed too very much guilty of that. Should I have refocused it.

But, at least, educational. (just trying to see the positive on things)

 

Ok back to topic.

I think manufactures including an adapter is the way to go, and well, are going. It minimizes the increased cost of the phone, maximizing the company profits, and returns satisfactory results for the user. A "we all win" type of situation.