New iPad announced - A10 Fusion SoC, Apple Pencil support, $299 for students

[DrMacintosh]

10 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

The headphone adapter one is lower quality. The iphone 7's internal dac isn't even good by phone standards in the first place, and the headphone adapter is worse. Which is fine. It's a 9 dollar adapter. It's going to be cheap.

If you would have watched those videos you would have found out the the quality differences are only scientific, in practice there is no audible difference. It is for all intents and purposes, the same DAC and AMP. 

 

10 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

You know what also takes up space... the literally pointless and worthless barometric vent that took it's spot. In fact, it uses more internal volume.

Do you see that giant black rectangle that says "Taptic Engine" on it? Yeah, that is what took up the space. The component that makes the phone vibrate, the home button "click", the scroll menus feel alive, give the display depth with 3D Touch, make the dynamic ringtones possible, and that gives the iPhone the best feeling actuations on the market. 

 

But I'm sure that doesn't count. 

[D13H4RD]

3 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

If you would have watched those videos you would have found out the the quality differences are only scientific, in practice there is no audible difference. 

To the average ear and headphones, there won't be any audible difference.

 

Plug in Sennheiser HD600s though and you will start to notice some differences, particularly if you know audio and understand how to make out any differences in fidelity.

 

It depends on the headphones. The DAC inside the iPhone is fine for casual listening and most consumer headphones. Start plugging in higher end units and the difference between it and something like a V30 can be made out. Which is funny because the iPhone 6s has a great DAC and amp combo. 

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Like realistically... the only thing holding back wireless headphones at the moment is DAC quality. Lossless audio transmission is far lower bandwidth than even bluetooth 4.0 is capable of. 

 

And battery longevity.  Not talking about how long it runs on a single charge, but how many years you get before the battery needs replacing or the charge adapter (assuming USB) lasts.   Also many people still use the 3.5 to drive other things like P.A's as phones have now replaced portable audio players/recorders.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Just now, DrMacintosh said:

If you would have watched those videos you would have found out the the quality differences are only scientific, in practice there is no audible difference. 

 

Do you see that giant black rectangle that says "Taptic Engine" on it? Yeah, that is what took up the space. The competent that makes the phone vibrate, the home button "click", the scroll menus feel alive, the dynamic ringtones, and the give the iPhone the best feeling actuations on the market. 

 

But I'm sure that doesn't count. 

"In practice, there is no audible difference." Show me response curves with that statement heh. Plus I seem to remember hearing the person in the second video literally come out and say, "and now it makes sense why the audio on the iPhone 7 sounded worse". Because I'm pretty sure he said that (paraphrased).

 

The tapic engine is far enough recessed into the phone where the headphone jack would still fit actually. I've measured. The barometric vent on the other hand takes up approximately 3x the volume of the headphone jack., while being essentially the same depth.

[DrMacintosh]

2 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

To the average ear and headphones, there won't be any audible difference.

 

Plug in Sennheiser HD600s though and you will start to notice some differences, particularly if you know audio and understand how to make out any differences in fidelity.

That was covered by PocketNow. The difference is almost not there wearing any set of headphones. 

 

The best thing is that even if I'm wrong, you can use a better quality DAC. You are not stuck with the one in the phone or in the Apple supplied adapter. 

[DrMacintosh]

Just now, Curufinwe_wins said:

Show me response curves with that statement heh.

The curves are in the video. The first one I believe. 

[Curufinwe_wins]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

 

And battery longevity.  Not talking about how long it runs on a single charge, but how many years you get before the battery needs replacing or the charge adapter (assuming USB) lasts.   Also many people still use the 3.5 to drive other things like P.A's as phones have now replaced portable audio players/recorders.

Well yes... but in theory there isn't any reason you can't make a bigger battery to get good sounding headphones that last longer. Oversize the battery, under-rate the capacity and you can expand the usable lifetime dramatically.

[D13H4RD]

2 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

That was covered by PocketNow. The difference is almost not there wearing any set of headphones. 

I know Juan quite well. He and I had several conversations over the past year and we sometimes take it to Twitter. The difference between the iPhone 6s and 7 isn't much but the 7 is ever so slightly weaker compared to the 6s. It's not a noticeable difference.

 

He still hates dongles

[mr moose]

Just now, Curufinwe_wins said:

Well yes... but in theory there isn't any reason you can't make a bigger battery to get good sounding headphones that last longer. Oversize the battery, under-rate the capacity and you can expand the usable lifetime dramatically.

 

And pay for it.   We have now added extra weight, complexity and higher price onto a device that doesn't need it (unless you specifically want wireless).

[DrMacintosh]

4 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

I know Juan quite well. The difference between the iPhone 6s and 7 isn't much but the 7 is ever so slightly weaker compared to the 6s. It's not a noticeable difference.

 

He still hates dongles

Everyone hates Dongles. But you have the ability to upgrade your audio much more easily now. There are far more lighting DACs on the market then there were before this whole no headphone jack business started. Further you don't actually need a dongle. Lighting headphones are included with your purchase. 

 

And you can still always use those dedicated DAC and AMPs if you care about audio that much on a mobile device. I personally only like using my ATH-M50Xs at home and usually hook them up to my MacBook Pro now since that has superior audio capabilities in all categories. 

 

When I'm out I use the standard 3.5mm EarPods with my 6s Plus. When I upgrade to an 8 Plus or a X I'll just use the lighting headphones. Not really a big deal to me. 

[Curufinwe_wins]

1 minute ago, DrMacintosh said:

The curves are in the video. The first one I believe. 

2:19 or so in the second is the quote. Note [since you were the one being pedantic earlier, I don't feel very bad about this] I said it would never be better, and simply said it was worse (which it is). 

 

It is a regression. If you want to say, "it's basically the same", I'll argue over what "basically" means, but we aren't disagreeing that it is a regression and not progress for now.

 

My prediction statement about it not going to be better at any point moving forward is more grounded again in the simple principle that a phone, being a much larger, much more expensive, much higher power device than the dongle/headphones will allowed to be will in all likelihood have better internal dacs (and certainly will always have the option to have better DACs). I have yet to be convinced why I should toss a better option for a lesser one when the future tradeoff looks exactly the same.

 

But I guess we will never convince each other on that problem.

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

I have yet to be convinced why I should toss a better option for a lesser one when the future tradeoff looks exactly the same.

This is not the goal. Including an adapter in the box is a stop gap measure to satisfy the type of people you are likely to encounter on this forum that want to resist losing the headphone jack. Lighting audio is not the future, it is the current alternative to the audio jack. 

 

Apples solution to the headphone jack is the W series of audio processors. 

 

Apple does not care about the people who say "wireless will never be as good as wired" because at the end of the day the sales just don't reflect the idea that anyone actually gives a damn. 

[D13H4RD]

7 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

When I'm out I use the standard 3.5mm EarPods with my 6s Plus. When I upgrade to an 8 Plus or a X I'll just use the lighting headphones. Not really a big deal to me. 

Bruh

 

Why not just go wireless?

 

We've been discussing over it and you seem supportive on it. Why not just do it? I hate this trend and even I myself went ahead and got them. (They were on discount)

[DrMacintosh]

Just now, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

Bruh

 

Why not just go wireless?

 

For a few reasons. 

 

AirPods, while great I have to pay for them. If I have the money at the time I gladly will, but not before my included lighting headphones die, get lost, or I no longer want to use. 

 

also the EarPod form factor itself. Overears like that are a no go for my portable audio experience. Big cans like that are not safe to use outside and imo they make you look like a loon wearing them in public. 

 

EarPods let in enough outside noise that I can enjoy my music and be aware of my surroundings, be that people trying to talk to me, or a car approaching me as I'm walking somewhere. That's also part of the reason I hate In-Ears. Also because In-Ears are uncomfortable af. 

[Curufinwe_wins]

4 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

Bruh

 

Why not just go wireless?

 

We've been discussing over it and you seem supportive on it. Why not just do it? I hate this trend and even I myself went ahead and got them. (They were on discount)

Because its still not as good as wired? But actually the ability to run them wired was the only reason I was ok buying these for my main phone usage. 30 hour battery life is great, and ANC is worth the loss of audio quality for my lab work, but I have had a few times where I used the wired capabilities when I hadn't had access to charging heh.

 

[D13H4RD]

5 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

EarPods let in enough outside noise that I can enjoy my music and be aware of my surroundings, be that people trying to talk to me, or a car approaching me as I'm walking somewhere. That's also part of the reason I hate In-Ears. Also because In-Ears are uncomfortable af. 

The 1000XM2 I showed actually has a feature where it pipes in all outside noise.

 

It's come in very handy in some situations such as when a flight attendant comes and I want to hear without taking the headphones off. Of course, I sometimes take them off when walking in traffic and when someone is 1:1 talking to me but for quick interactions, I either turn on "Ambient Sound" or cup my hand on the right earpad.

 

5 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Because its still not as good as wired? But actually the ability to run them wired was the only reason I was ok buying these for my main phone usage. 30 hour battery life is great, and ANC is worth the loss of audio quality for my lab work, but I have had a few times where I used the wired capabilities when I hadn't had access to charging heh.

I've come to rely on the wired feature quite a bit, and the included amp inside the headphones does help.

 

It's not my first choice for serious audio but for casual listening, it's awesome.

 

LDAC support is great icing, but until my Note gets Oreo, can't enjoy it yet

[Curufinwe_wins]

14 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

This is not the goal. Including an adapter in the box is a stop gap measure to satisfy the type of people you are likely to encounter on this forum that want to resist losing the headphone jack. Lighting audio is not the future, it is the current alternative to the audio jack. 

 

Apples solution to the headphone jack is the W series of audio processors. 

 

Apple does not care about the people who say "wireless will never be as good as wired" because at the end of the day the sales just don't reflect the idea that anyone actually gives a damn. 

Sure. But that isnt your previous argument of driving progress. Progress is never and was never the goal for Apple. 

 

Sales reflect that people didn't give a damn about Intel pumping out 7 generations of quad cores. But that's not progress either.

 

I dont really like the whole issue with Face ID supplanting fingerprints (I'd be very happy to have both together). It's more finicky, slower, and inferior security-wise, and again, limiting choice is fundamentally anti-consumer.

 

Businesses dont exist to be pro-consumer though. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

[Curufinwe_wins]

tangential statement, but I am one of those people for whom earpods simply don't fit my ears. In ears are also very discomforting, and on-ears collapse my aural canal (known issue). So over ears or weird loop mixes like these are my only options:

 

Actually went through a lot of these exact model back in the day. Cheap and sounded like crap (relative to what I know today at the least), but they were by far the most comfortable earphones I have used that are not over-ears.

[D13H4RD]

6 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Sure. But that isnt your previous argument of driving progress. Progress is never and was never the goal for Apple. 

 

Businesses dont exist to be pro-consumer though. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

TBH, if Apple wanted to drive progress, the W-chip would be open-source.

 

Of course, Apple is a business, so they have to decide if they should make it open-source and eliminate the one competitive advantage their have or make it proprietary and have an additional bullet point to make their product attractive.

 

Business is never always about being pro-consumer. It's always been about profit and any businessperson should know that. Of course, one has to balance consumerism and satisfying profit margins. When consumers feel that it is anti-consumer, forget about profits but if it's too pro-consumer, other companies will take advantage and there goes your advantage.

 

That doesn't mean a rival will come and make a version that is open-source, but it's a competitive advantage that Apple would rather hold on to for as long as they can.

[DrMacintosh]

7 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

I dont really like the whole issue with Face ID supplanting fingerprints (I'd be very happy to have both together). It's stupid and inferior, and again, limiting choice is fundamentally anti-consumer.

You can believe that, and I would disagree fundamentally and argue that what little security you lose (irl not much at all) is more than made up for in the implementation which is industry leading at this point in time. 

 

Using both FaceID and TouchID would show a lack of confidence in the technology. For example, if you take a look at Samsung they have Finger Print scanning, Iris scanning, and Facial recognition. What that translates into is each of those things alone suck and you get a user experience that is well, shit. 

 

This concept is detailed in this video:

 

Now neither TouchID or FaceID suck but putting both wastes space and PCB that could be used to make the phone better in other ways. FaceID was simply the best way to go. 

[D13H4RD]

7 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

You can believe that, and I would disagree fundamentally and argue that what little security you lose (irl not much at all) is more than made up for in the implementation which is industry leading at this point in time. 

I still prefer the fingerprint sensor on the S9 Tbh. 

 

For the one reason that I don't have to be looking at it to unlock it and I can do so without turning on the screen first. 

 

FaceID is not bad at all and it is a great implementation of facial recognition. Just that I prefer a finger scanner. 

 

Remember my point about Apple being a business and competitive advantages. FaceID is one of their competitive advantages and they'd rather remove TouchID and have people use FaceID to show the industry "this is how we do facial scanning". It's good PR and gives Apple more recognition. 

 

It doesn't really matter if it's less practical. It's a good marketing and sales tactic and the fact that it actually works helps too.

 

With all that said, I don't really have too much of an issue with the iris scanner on my Note. Works much better than it did on the 7. I still prefer the finger scanner, which I'm glad they kept. 

[Curufinwe_wins]

Just now, DrMacintosh said:

You can believe that, and I would disagree fundamentally and argue that what little security you lose (irl not much at all) is more than made up for in the implementation which is industry leading at this point in time. 

 

Using both FaceID and TouchID would show a lack of confidence in the technology. For example, if you take a look at Samsung they have Finger Print scanning, Iris scanning, and Facial recognition. What that translates into is each of those things alone suck and you get a user experience that is well, shit. 

 

This concept is detailed in this video:

 

Sigh. Showing a lack of confidence in things that don't deserve confidence in them is appropriate. FaceID is industry leading. Without a shadow of a doubt.

 

It still isn't good enough for my taste, and I can't believe Apple was arrogant enough to push "the perception of confidence" above actual functionality/usability/security. No, I can believe it. It is just very frustrating.

 

Guess what, I'm using all three together right now on my S9. I never have times like face ID where I can't use one of the instant unlock options. If I'm picking my phone off my night stand next to me or whatever, I can use my fingerprint so I don't have to look directly at the device. etc etc. And yes... as someone that has done those options (I am not ashamed to admit I'm enough of a tech nerd that I bought an iphone X to try... ended up returning it out of ios frustration, not so much the interface stuff), those situations actually come up quite a bit. Since you are such a fan of the video statement/proofs, Lew talked a decent bit about the finagling he found he had to do with FaceID.

 

FaceID by itself isn't ready. It's notably slower (for someone like me that uses their phone a lot) to unlock (I mean look... arrange your face... and then swipe is dumb). By the time my phone leaves my pocket, the phone can be unlocked if I want it to.

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

I still prefer the fingerprint sensor on the S9 Tbh. 

 

For the one reason that I don't have to be looking at it to unlock it and I can do so without turning on the screen first. 

 

FaceID is not bad at all and it is a great implementation of facial recognition. Just that I prefer a finger scanner. 

Perfectly normal. TouchID is faster, period, but the trade off of getting a better design that remains ergonomic (placing the finger print reader on the back is just the wrong thing to do imo. Its too close to the camera, and you can't unlock it if the phone is on a table.) is in my view worth losing TouchID. 

 

I won't miss it if I do decide to go for the iPhone X. 

[D13H4RD]

2 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Perfectly normal. TouchID is faster, period, but the trade off of getting a better design that remains ergonomic (placing the finger print reader on the back is just the wrong thing to do imo. Its too close to the camera, and you can't unlock it if the phone is on a table.) is in my view worth losing TouchID. 

 

I won't miss it if I do decide to go for the iPhone X. 

I'm just waiting for the ultrasonic sensor. 

 

Maybe that combined with 3D facial recognition would be great. Fingerprint for unlocking the phone and using my face for unlocking some of my apps. 

 

Best of both worlds for me at least 

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

By the time my phone leaves my pocket, the phone can be unlocked if I want it to.

True, but the amount of people that that split second is going to matter to is not that big. 

 

Is it the best it ever will be? No, but it is the best that it could be at the time and Apple produced a technology that was reliable and fast enough to be deployed on a flagship device and sell well. 

 

In the end that is all it boils down to. FaceID was good enough to make the X a success despite its flaws. Now that the initial "meta" change of using the iPhone has been achieved its all improvement R&D now as the market phases out TouchID iPhones and replaces them with FaceID. 

 

TouchID made a good show, but FaceID is the new love child that is going to replace it.