Intel Wants To Eliminate The Headphone Jack And Replace It With USB-C (9to5mac.com) 382
An anonymous reader writes: With rumors circulating about how Apple may do away with the 3.5 mm headphone jack on its upcoming iPhone 7, Intel has shared a similar desire, citing "industry singling a strong desire to move from analog to digital." Intel believes USB-C is the future audio jack. They believe USB-C has more potential than the 3.5mm audio jack as it allows users to add additional smart features to headphones in the future. For instance, a future pair of headphones could monitor one's pulse or inner-ear temperature for fitness tracking, something that could only be possible if the headphones were connected to a smartphone via a USB-C cable. What's also worth mentioning [quoted from 9to5Mac]: USB-C already supports analog audio transfer through sideband pins simplifying the engineering steps necessary to swap 3.5mm with USB-C in device designs. In the second quarter, Intel should have a finalized USB-C standard for digital audio transfer. Intel does note that the transition from analog to digital will be expensive as the headphones have to include amplifiers and DACs, but scale will offset the early costs over time.
"Industry desire" is all good and well (Score:5, Insightful)
How about customer desire? I like my headphone jacks simple and robust, thanks.
I certainly could do without yet another converter and I don't feel like replacing my perfectly serviceable, simple and robust, headphones.
Re:"Industry desire" is all good and well (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason they are doing this is two-fold.
First, the content industry has been complaining about the analogue hole for a while now and Intel - being that friendly sort that brought us HDCP - is more than happy to help them close that hole.
Secondly, with the new digital audio interface standard that will undoubtedly emerge to support the new hardware (which will be proprietary, and thus, under the control of Intel et al), come new opportunities to extract royalties and fees from manufacturers and integrators.
The consumer doesn't even enter the equation here. This is about control. Again.
Re: (Score:3)
Secondly, with the new digital audio interface standard
The question is will this be an extension of class compliant audio which basically everybody other than Microsoft is using, or are they going to try to obsolete a lot of hardware with a new standard?
Re:"Industry desire" is all good and well (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason they are doing this is two-fold.
First, the content industry has been complaining about the analogue hole for a while now and Intel - being that friendly sort that brought us HDCP - is more than happy to help them close that hole.
Secondly, with the new digital audio interface standard that will undoubtedly emerge to support the new hardware (which will be proprietary, and thus, under the control of Intel et al), come new opportunities to extract royalties and fees from manufacturers and integrators.
The consumer doesn't even enter the equation here. This is about control. Again.
Of all the pirating methods I have seen used over the years, the "analog hole" was only done by 12 year olds copying cassette tapes or straight off the radio. Not exactly a high loss area of music pirating.
Everything else, has been cracked and perfect copies are available.
The only place it MIGHT be relevant is Blu-Ray based music (if there is such a thing).
Also, I have likewise never seen any actual articles of these complaints. This is something you are imagining.
In any case, EARS are analog. There is no plugging that hole.
Re:"Industry desire" is all good and well (Score:5, Insightful)
Shhhhhhh! Do not give ideas for them!
Re:"Industry desire" is all good and well (Score:4, Funny)
They are fitting more and more children with cochlear implants - wouldn't be inconceivable to have an Intel digital audio interface layer in those....
Re:"Industry desire" is all good and well (Score:5, Insightful)
First, the content industry has been complaining about the analogue hole for a while now and Intel - being that friendly sort that brought us HDCP - is more than happy to help them close that hole.
Except one of the first things that'll come on the market is a dongle so you can plug your nice expensive Senheiser's or Bose's or whatever into the USB3 port.
Also, most MP3s are now sold without copy protection anyway so there is no analog hole.
The consumer doesn't even enter the equation here. This is about control. Again.
Sort of, except ultimately the consumers have to actually buy this stuff. And there's a problem there. People who like sound and have expensive headphones aren't going to rush out and plunk down another few hundred bucks willy nilly.
Cheapass gits with a tin ear like me (who comprise about 99.5% of the population) aren't going to want to plunk down a tenner on bottom of the range "digital" headphones when we could instead plunk down 10p on bottom of the range analog headphones.
And, even if some manufacturer does go the whole hog and abandon the 3.5mm jack, the proper digital headphones will inevitably compete with some dodgy-ass nasty anonymous dongle direct from Shenzen for 2 quid off ebay (including shipping).
About the only manufacturer who has enough sway to carry it off enough not to get brutalised in the market is Apple, but I don't really see what the motivation is for them. They might be able to shave some thickness off, but there's less than half a millimeter to be gained there. Also, frankly the small high pin count USB-C receptacle is much less robust than a 3.5mm jack and headphones get used in more trying conditions: they're in your pocket being jostled, not on a desk charging, so they'd risk a serious reliability regression too.
Image Constraint Token (Score:2)
Except one of the first things that'll come on the market is a dongle so you can plug your nice expensive Senheiser's or Bose's or whatever into the USB3 port.
And then watch the industry adopt something analogous to AACS's Image Constraint Token [wikipedia.org]. A Blu-ray Disc can require all analog outputs to be downsampled to standard definition. Likewise, something like ICT for audio might require a compliant dongle to convert the analog output to mono and bandpass it to telephone bandwidth (300-3300 Hz).
Re: (Score:2)
And then watch the industry adopt something analogous to AACS's Image Constraint Token. A Blu-ray Disc can require all analog outputs to be downsampled to standard definition. Likewise, something like ICT
Possible, but given that you can currently buy MP3s in much higher quality already, that would seem a somewhat strange move, especially as they only did that after learning the hard way that anything else was a bad idea.
for audio might require a compliant dongle to convert the analog output to mono and ban
Re: (Score:3)
Also, most MP3s are now sold without copy protection anyway so there is no analog hole.
Now... As in currently.
Make no mistake, the content industry would like nothing less than to kill DRM free products, most likely with a new format that not only has DRM baked in, but is entirely based around DRM.
The consumer doesn't even enter the equation here. This is about control. Again.
Sort of, except ultimately the consumers have to actually buy this stuff. And there's a problem there. People who like sound and have expensive headphones aren't going to rush out and plunk down another few hundred bucks willy nilly.
You're placing too much faith in people knowing what the hell they are doing.
I guess you're a software developer, if you were a Sysadmin you'd understand that people are just that stupid. Facebook is case in point. The masses piled onto the platform not caring what would happen to their data..
Re: (Score:3)
Make no mistake, the content industry would like nothing less than to kill DRM free products, most likely with a new format that not only has DRM baked in, but is entirely based around DRM.
They tried with audio and actually ended up moving from horrendously encumbered formats to DRM free MP3s, so they were actually capable of making the switch. Plus, if anything the number of available formats has decreased, not increased over the years and seems to have settled down.
I guess the thing with Audio is that unl
Re:"Industry desire" is all good and well (Score:5, Funny)
Tin ear, eh? Well, you will want some of these nice oxygen free cables so you don't corrode. Can't have that.
Re: (Score:3)
What kind of sound card do you have? There is no such thing as a finely engineered DAC in a sound card unless you plunk down something like $600 for an external sound card (and no Creative or Realtek are not brands you'll see mentioned in the same sentence as good quality). Even so, your DAC doesn't have to be THAT finely engineered, it just has to be a 24 bit DAC with the analog section nicely filtered and the device shielded against interference, the DAC chip will be roughly the same whether it is in a $1
Re: (Score:3)
it just has to be a 24 bit DAC with the analog section nicely filtered and the device shielded against interference
You mean a 1-bit DAC. This implies there is 1 least significant bit of accuracy in the resulting analog output signal. In other words, as accurate as you can get with the given input signal. You will note that the expensive CD players of old all advertised themselves as "1-bit DAC".
But even then it is not as simple as you might think. The digital data is the derivative of the original analog signal. First you have to integrate the digital data to generate the 24 bit signal that is then sent to the D
Re: (Score:3)
In other words, you can replace the finely engineered DAC's in your soundcard today with crappy dimestore DAC's tomorrow
It'll go perfectly with my crappy dimestore headphones then. And the crappy dimestore headphones that most of the world seem happy with.
Telesync movies (Score:2)
Of all the pirating methods I have seen used over the years, the "analog hole" was only done by 12 year olds copying cassette tapes or straight off the radio. Not exactly a high loss area of music pirating.
Movie pirating, on the other hand, has had telesyncs for a long time. A telesync is a bootleg copy of a film recorded in a theater with an adjustable frame rate camcorder and audio from an FM microbroadcast for the hearing impaired.
Re: (Score:3)
"In any case, EARS are analog"
No. They are not. (Or for some people, they will not be)
Ever thought about a hearing aid? How about a hearing aid that records things? handy huh.
Soonish rather than latish, some guy will implant a hearing aid, with large capacity of storage, either connected, or local, and they will have the ABILITY to record their life in autdi, and polayback whenever they want. Possibly mind controlled.
No Sci-fi, possible today, with current technologies.
If you think beating upa disabled per
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, put a USB3 port in there to replace the current USB/iThing one
Local maximums = Global minimums (Score:4, Interesting)
How about customer desire? I like my headphone jacks simple and robust, thanks.
Nothing wrong with that. There is a real beauty in simple. However what might be optimal for you is not necessarily optimal for the majority. There is a saying in manufacturing that local maximums make for global minimums. Basically you can optimize one person's or group's requirements so much that it actually makes the overall system worse. For example for myself I almost never plug headphones into my phone. When I do connect it to an audio system I usually do it via wifi (home) or bluetooth (car). The audio jack really just is a place where dust gets into my phone and provides me no utility at all. So if we cater to your desires we are by extension making the product worse for me. Eventually something has to give.
I manufacture wire harnesses for a living. Believe me when I say that I appreciate the beauty of a simple interface better than most. But at some point keeping things simple starts holding back progress. I think we've just about reached that point with the 3.5mm jack.
I certainly could do without yet another converter and I don't feel like replacing my perfectly serviceable, simple and robust, headphones.
You wouldn't have to replace them. At worst you'd have to get a small adapter for them. I understand you not wanting to but I think the writing is on the wall on this one. The 3.5mm jack forces too many design compromises for it to remain in place forever.
Re:Local maximums = Global minimums (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Your problem with the jack is more easily solved by a rubber plug without inconveniencing the rest of the world.
Those two supplemental conductors probably have a better use that would be incompatible with headphones. It seems wasteful to either have people blowing up hardware or to dedicate them forever more to analog audio just to unsolve a long ago solved problem.
Not worth replacing your car (Score:2)
I almost never plug headphones into my phone. When I do connect it to an audio system I usually do it via wifi (home) or bluetooth (car).
If someone's current car happens to support neither Bluetooth audio nor an ISO 7736 aftermarket head unit, I don't see who's willing to spend thousands of dollars for a new car or a newer used car just for Bluetooth audio. We might end up seeing Bluetooth-to-3.5 mm and Bluetooth-to-tape adapters (and Bluetooth-to-FM adapters in those countries that allow unlicensed micropower operation in the FM band).
Only an idiot would replace their car (Score:3)
If someone's current car happens to support neither Bluetooth audio nor an ISO 7736 aftermarket head unit, I don't see who's willing to spend thousands of dollars for a new car or a newer used car just for Bluetooth audio.
You can buy a bluetooth adapter that plugs into the aux jack of your car for as little as $40. I have done just that and it works great. Even Dewalt makes them [amazon.com]. No need to buy a whole new car just for bluetooth since it is trivial to add it to almost literally any existing car with a stereo.
Think through the argument (Score:3)
There's no shortage of people who make use of audio jacks. Just because you don't use something doesn't mean other people don't.
Never argued otherwise. However you have the argument backwards. I like minimalist devices where you add features you need/want rather than complicated devices that come with features you'll never use. Many people listen to music via the 3.5mm jack but not all users do. As such adding that feature adds cost and complexity while simultaneously being redundant and reducing the reliability of the device. It's like when everyone was still buying PCs with floppy drives because everyone else had them long af
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly what use is a 3.5mm jack to a vision impaired person on a smartphone with no tactile interface.
But it does have a tactile interface. It vibrates. You give it a big-button interface, when the user slides their finger around you vibrate to show them the button edges, and you speak to them through the audio device to let them know what the button does.
A single purpose port on a modern mobile device is an idiotic idea.
To be fair, it's not. It also includes the mic jack, and on some devices, composite video output. You can also install a button there.
Re:"Industry desire" is all good and well (Score:5, Insightful)
I like my headphone jacks simple and robust, thanks.
Exactly. Adding significant wear to the usb port only makes the eventual breakdown more problematic. At least I can charge a phone with a poor connection if I set it down and had the cord in the 'just right' position. Once my headphone connection starts going bad, its a bigger problem.
And then there is all those products out there that will suddenly be incompatible.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Eventual breakdown is a design feature... as long as it lasts past the 90 day warranty, the early edge of the design goal has been met. If the system doesn't suffer a "replacement level" failure within 3 years the design is faulty - damaging to the future of the company.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, USB 3 type C actually support analog audio as well, by using the sideband pins, but as you can imagine, it is not mandatory and will require an USB3.0 to 3.5 adaptor.
Re: "Industry desire" is all good and well (Score:2)
HtC tried it with their early windows mobiles such as the HTC3600i. Audio through the usb port. Either you use their headphones or an adapter.
It sucked. The market judged their idea and it failed.
Re: (Score:2)
Google's first Android phone, the G1 (aka HTC Dream) didn't have a headphone jack either. It required a proprietary "ExtUSB" adapter to use headphones with it. It was one of the first things I lost with the phone when I got mine.
Re: (Score:2)
Your soundcard still use the same 44khz, 16bit rate of the soundblaster 16.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey now, plenty of soundcards have reached the astounding apex of 24 bit.
Re:"Industry desire" is all good and well (Score:5, Informative)
I know this is a sarcasm thread, but 24 bits is actually a lot for an ADC. You're talking 0.2uV/LSB with a 3.3V reference. Even getting close to that requires careful attention to noise sources and PCB layout. 16 bits is pretty hardcore in its own right. 8-, 10-, and 12-bit ADCs are far more common.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a PS/2 keyboard? How Modern! I'm still using an IBM 5-pin AT keyboard, because it's far more reliable than that shitty DIN-4 connector. I mean, how many times can you unplug and replug that PS/2 keyboard before it's destroyed? 10k? 15k? What a joke.
Unicomp makes a USB model M (Score:2)
PCs still come with a PS/2 port [...] so that I can plug my model M in (which works fine on a "modern" i7 and is a superior keyboard to 99.99% of the junk available now).
With the other 0.01 percent being Unicomp's USB keyboards that continue the model M's buckling spring tradition, correct?
DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
"USB-C has more potential ... as it allows users to add additional smart features..."
More to the point, it allows manufacturers to build DRM into the setup, so that this DRM decryption will happen inside headphones, instead of on the computer.
Not that this will stop determined rippers, but will make it easier to stop grandma from making a copy of her albums for use in her car.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
"reusing a port"
So now I can't plug my phone into wall power and listen to music?
I would need some kind of stupid power-injector to deliver power in and get the audio out?
This is a stupid idea and I hope it never takes off.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a stupid idea and I hope it never takes off.
Summarizes my position on this quite well.
Re: (Score:3)
If having only one opening would be a good idea, we would be running around with one big opening in our belly with which we eat, shit, speak and breathe. And although there are people for which the second and third actions are quite similar, we have separate openings for separate things.
What you are doing is a dumb idea, and God/The evolution came to that conclusion, they are smarter than any of you.
Next on: smart-knife: the smartphone with razor blades. Very practical for shaving, food preparation, phone c
Re: (Score:3)
Well a criticism of the latest Macbook is that people had to carry around a USB hub. Seems some prefer minimalist style over substance...
They should just go all the way (Score:2, Interesting)
Two reasonably hefty wires to supply power, and a fibre optic cable, (or maybe two), for data. If they're going to break with the past, they should take the opportunity to make a really good interface. Too costly? FTA:
"Intel says that such a transition may make digital headphones more expensive, as the headsets will have to include amplifiers and DACs, but scale will offset the early costs over time".
I would think the same reasoning applies to fibre optic transceivers and connectors.
Re: (Score:2)
Noting the way headphone cables are used and abused, I would suggest that making them fibre-optic is a truly terrible idea, unless while I wasn't paying attention someone has invented an optic fibre that can stand being kinked, crushed, tangled, treated roughly on a daily basis.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. It's not a problem for me, but now that you mention it I can see lots of situations where it would be problematic.
Re: (Score:3)
So very much this - I can't tell you how many times I've run a headphone cable over with an office chair.
If I had to buy a new $20 cable every time, I'd be pissed.
Also: this is all fine and dandy for people using headphones, but what about people that plug actual audio gear into their PC / Laptop, such as an amplifier? Instead of line out, we're now using some shit adapter that adds noise or ground loop hum due to not being built right in order to get the same connectivity, should the device not have TOSL
One single question (Score:5, Insightful)
Charging while using the headphones. Needs to be possible, or else this is an awful idea. The times when that particular case may arise may be few, but when it does, it's going to be really annoying.
I can't imagine that this wouldn't be considered, but no article I've read about this has mentioned it, unfortunately.
Re:One single question (Score:5, Insightful)
The times are not nearly as few as you think. Anyone who listens to music at their desk at work, will almost always have the phone plugged in to charge at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
The times are not nearly as few as you think. Anyone who listens to music at their desk at work, will almost always have the phone plugged in to charge at the same time.
Charging while using the headphones. Needs to be possible, or else this is an awful idea. The times when that particular case may arise may be few, but when it does, it's going to be really annoying. I can't imagine that this wouldn't be considered, but no article I've read about this has mentioned it, unfortunately.
Huh, corded headphones ... how quaint! I switched to Bluetooth headphones years ago and never looked back. Even if they delete the headphone jack and replace it with USB-C I can listen to music while charging the phone, I don't have to replace the earplugs every few months because the damn cable wore out, the headphones work as a cordless remote for the phone and I don't really mind the audio quality taking a hit because unlike thousands of Amazon reviewers I don't expect to get near live concert quality au
Re: One single question (Score:2)
Re:One single question (Score:4, Informative)
In the noble world of theory, USB-C can actually be used to do some really cool stuff(something like Microsoft's Lumia dock [microsoft.com], while not known to actually be supported on anything except select models of Windows Phones, apparently doesn't require doing anything freaky and nonstandard over the USB-C connector); but the quality varies so widely, and the number of possible combinations is unpredictable enough, that it's hard to make use of the potential without getting burned by crap or sticking exclusively to first-party accessories.
More power to you (Score:2)
So that means batteries, or pulling power from the source device ... yaaaaay(!)
Nice try, NSA... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm going to need a firewall and IDS for my headphone jack. Thanks a goddamn lot, 'progress'.
What about the cost? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can get headphones, not good ones mind you, but still headphones, for $3-10. They're perfectly functional for what I do. They also break or get lost frequently.
I've tried more expensive ones, but they break as well.
What will USB-C and the necessary DSP do except make headphones more expensive? I understand that there may be more options to 'tune' the DSPs to the individual headphone, but my hearing is damaged enough that I don't think it matters.
Re: (Score:2)
What will USB-C headphone jacks do? Allow the phone manufacturers to sell $29 add-on USB-C to headphone jack adapters, naturally. That's good for their profit margins, but not good for consumers.
The third-party accessory suppliers like Belkin will like it as well, since they'll be selling these USB-C to headphone adapters as well at a slightly lower price. I'd imagine that the $9 Chinese knockoff products will soon follow, with all of the quality and reliability problems we've come to expect with third-part
Re: What about the cost? (Score:2)
I just recently bought a pair of Bluetooth (MPow Wolverine) headphones. $24CDN, and they sound very nearly as good as the wired Sennheiser sports headphones I used to have. Like you, I tend to destroy headphones; I'm active and they take a lot of abuse.
Anyway, if I can get wireless headphones with a battery that sound quite good for less than $30, I'm not super worried about the cost of USB-C or Lightning headphones.
Re: (Score:2)
FTFS: USB-C already supports analog audio transfer through sideband pins simplifying the engineering steps necessary to swap 3.5mm with USB-C in device designs. In the second quarter, Intel should have a finalized USB-C standard for digital audio transfer. Intel does note that the transition from analog to digital will be expensive as the headphones have to include amplifiers and DACs, but scale will offset the early costs over time. You won't need an amplifier, or even a DAC, if USB-C actually includes pin
This the stupidest things I have read today! (Score:5, Insightful)
Intel has shared a similar desire, citing "industry singling a strong desire to move from analog to digital."
And by "industry" they mean "intel". I think most makers of headphones or things using headphones would very much prefer to keep their existing processes rather than retool, especially as this likely won't go down well with their customers.
Intel believes USB-C is the future audio jack.
Of course they do because they make and sell (and license?) USB3 chipsets.
They believe USB-C has more potential than the 3.5mm audio jack as it allows users to add additional smart features to headphones in the future.
You can already buy USB headphones and they work perfectly with any computer if you want "smart features". I in fact have precisely one pair: a USB headset with a mic. It has some "smart features" I never use. Mostly I have it because my old headset was dual jack, not 4 pole and I got the USB one for free. There's no advantage of the "smart" one over the old analog one.
For instance, a future pair of headphones could monitor one's pulse or inner-ear temperature for fitness tracking,
That is literally the most pointless thing I have ever heard.
something that could only be possible if the headphones were connected to a smartphone via a USB-C cable.
That's great, but if you instead connected the headphones to a 13A plug (and used ethernet-over-mains to transfer the audio) they could also double as a hairdrier!
What's also worth mentioning [quoted from 9to5Mac]: USB-C already supports analog audio transfer through sideband pins simplifying the engineering steps necessary to swap 3.5mm with USB-C in device designs.
Um that's nice, and kinda strange. So now we'll have perfectly good analog headphones able to work with a cheap adapter, but we'll also have to use up one of the precious and relatively fragile USB-C ports instead of using the dedicated, robust audio one.
In the second quarter, Intel should have a finalized USB-C standard for digital audio transfer.
Well it was nice of them to unfinalize it in the first place given that we've only had an audio over USB spec for nearly two decades.
http://www.usb.org/developers/... [usb.org]
I can buy any random audio device, jack it into my old and busted USB1, 2 or 3 (and presumably type C) port and it will work with no drivers. So what the hell is this new spec meant to be? Do they actually include an inner ear temperature monitor in the spec? What about an atmospheric pressure and humidity monitor? And maybe a seismograph? What about something to measure the level of crap on my desk when I put my headphones down?
Intel does note that the transition from analog to digital will be expensive as the headphones have to include amplifiers and DACs, but scale will offset the early costs over time.
It won't be an expensive transition it will stay expensive since every pair of new headphones will need the digital stuff. They will always be mroe expensive to make than analog headphones because they are identical plus extra crap. Extra crap always costs more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Purchase a little bit better headphones ? I really like the sennheiser hd7 dj (managed to snag one at USD 100); they come with 2 cords and 2 sets of ear padding, and replacement are easy to buy of amazon should you need them. But then, I must be over 4K hours on my set and they are still like new. Sound great; closed back is the only drawback, I usually use open air headphones so that I can easily hear when someone talk to me .. oh well =)
Re: (Score:2)
Intel does note that the transition from analog to digital will be expensive as the headphones have to include amplifiers and DACs, but scale will offset the early costs over time.
It won't be an expensive transition it will stay expensive since every pair of new headphones will need the digital stuff. They will always be mroe expensive to make than analog headphones because they are identical plus extra crap. Extra crap always costs more.
Don't forget proprietary crap, that always costs more. Once the 2.5mm jack is gone, I'm sure Apple will come up with their own proprietary connector to milk more money off of their customer base. They've held on to various lightning connectors over the years instead of going to USB-C, I'm sure they'll find a way to continue avoiding the standard.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you arguing for the headphone making side of industry, or the headphone content supplying side of industry? Very different players, neither of which have the same wants and desires as consumers, though I'd say the headphone makers are a little better aligned with consumers than the content studios and player makers.
Good luck (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Um, I expect that most audiophiles already have tube amps connected to high end DACs, which means that the next DAC they buy (and there is always a next one) will be USB-C capable. The headphones won't change because the conversion and amplification will be handled by dedicated hardware, just like it is now. No audio nut worth his platinum-wrapped, aerogel-dielectric, unidirectional patch cords is going to put his conversion or amplification gear anywhere inside the RFI/EMI hell that is a computer case.
Appa
Re:Good luck (Score:5, Funny)
Reliability and charging (Score:4, Insightful)
In most gadgets the USB plug is the most flimsy part which breaks far too often and now they want us to abuse it even more? Also, tell me, how are we supposed to wear headphones and charge the phone at the same time (wireless charging is often not an option)?
A 3.5mm jack is sturdy as hell, perhaps that's what all this fuss is about. They want us to replace our headphones, gadgets and pay service centers a lot more.
Last but note least this "upgrade" will cost the consumer an arm and a leg, since from now on headphones will have to include their own DAC chip which doesn't come for free.
Re: (Score:2)
The inherent flimsiness of USB ports is entirely due to the presence of an freestanding connector covered plastic post in the center that is easily snapped off. It is usb's main failing, whatever the model as I have seen hundreds of devices rendered unusable due to one of these center posts snapping off, from micro USB all the way to type 1.
Look at HTC for a real success story (Score:2)
Hate... (Score:2)
I absolutely *HATE* this idea. And I predict the consumer reaction will be swift and severe.
Oh that just seems dumb. (Score:5, Interesting)
Phono jacks are a global standard for audio connectivity. They are an old standard, yes. Very old. But there's no reason to try and make it obsolete. It's perfectly suited to it's task, and we are so path dependant now that making such a huge change requires more than the availability of a potential replacement tech. If there isn't a pressing need for a replacement, like a serious engineering or tech limitation, why bother?
I know why Apple would want to 'bother' - shitty behavior. USB-C means they can lock out 3rd party headphones and force everyone to buy their own.
Additional smart features (Score:2)
For instance, a future pair of headphones could monitor one's pulse or inner-ear temperature for fitness tracking,
Guess that can only happen if the bud stays in the ear while doing said fitness activity. The one pair of in-ear earphones (bundled with phone mind you) I have, I struggle to keep in the ear even sitting, and start to hurt after a dozen minutes or so. (Then again, apparently my ear canals are somewhat narrower than normal.)
Good thing then that I didn't pay megabucks for the various over-ear replacements I tried until I found something comfortable and with adequate sound quality. I'm sure a pair that includ
100% BS... (Score:3)
"For instance, a future pair of headphones could monitor one's pulse or inner-ear temperature for fitness tracking, something that could only be possible if the headphones were connected to a smartphone via a USB-C cable."
Complete and utter BS. Bluetooth can do this right now and honestly wireless is the answer not a freaking special DRM encumbered digital connection. the reason everyone sticks to analog is because there is zero need for complex electronics in the headphones making them CHEAP. USB-C will require the DtoA and amp to reside in the headphones making them no different than bluetooth headphones except they have added DRM.
And that is what this is all really about... Intel desperately wants headphone DRM.
Stupid (Score:2)
A cheap but somewhat functional set of headphones can be had for $1. Granted I tend to pay a bit more for mine but at the end of the day they're not expensive.
If all headphones needed a DAC and other fancy circuitry the minimum cost would jump up dramatically - not to mention that at any pricepint the average quality level of what you're getting would go down.
The whole thing is a solution in search of a problem.
Another vector for malware (Score:2)
Oh, joy. What's next? DRM-enabled brain implants? (Score:2)
Awesome. Yet another way they want to screw us. While this might sound smexy-smexy to some, I don't see any upsides for consumers. We'd have to replace massive amounts of existing equipment, worry about the fragility of the new connectors and it's another opportunity for the music industry to lock down an interface with DRM.
I have a significant investment in music production equipment and ham radio equipment (both purchased and home-built). Having to worry about availability of something as simple as a set
I wouldn't worry too much about this (Score:2)
The only practical consequence will be that now you will have to carry a proprietary dongle/adaptor that will convert from USB to the usual analog jack, because being tied to the universally crappy headphones commonly sold with the phones is going to be even less popular than this.
BTW, the USB consortium actually explicitly discourages putting on USB jacks on the headphones themselves in the spec.
I think the consumers will vote with their feet - fragile, expensive proprietary dongles that you need to carry
Re: (Score:2)
Have you tried buying better products?
I have two BT headsets, one has constant drop-outs, the other keeps working for minutes if I forget my phone in another room.
Re: (Score:2)
I've had about 3 of them. All of them pretty much cover my house - phone in bedroom, won't cut out until I'm in the garage on the opposite side. They won't quite make the other side of a 1/4 mile track, so I can't just leave my phone in my bag on one side and have it work all the way around. It might in the middle.
I must know how to pick ones with good radios, less so on physical strength. Or maybe I just need milspec..
Re: (Score:2)
I bought a headset in about 2003. I expect reception quality has improved somewhat.
At the time the Linux bluetooth stack was a complete mess and the headphones would only support some legacy protocol via lots of fiddling with config files. I wonder if that's improved and/or whether interfaces target Android-only so you need to run some libhybris stack just to get it working. Okay, I'm slightly FUDing here but once bitten, twice shy.
Re: (Score:2)
At the time I had to execute a command line btsco command just to pair the damn thing using some deprecated ALSA config. I wonder if they still work in 2016 with PulseAudio and systemd!
Sure was painful...
Re:How about getting wireless cans working first? (Score:5, Interesting)
And laaaaaaaaaag. Regular BT has 300ms lag, and even the very best BT headphones+transmitter have more than 60ms lag in real world applications. That may be cool for lag-aware applications that just do local playback of video, but for anything live and general video review it's simply infuriating.
Re: (Score:2)
And multiple players operating through parallel interfaces will be - problematic, at best.
Re:Are they talking about cellphones (Score:5, Informative)
USB-C supports analog audio through the sideband pins, so a given port might support ordinary passive headphones with nothing more than a mechanical adapter or change in connector. However, on a device with more than one USB-C port, or with USB-C ports that predate this plan, it isn't likely that all the USB-C ports have analog audio, so those passive headphones will only work on certain ports, perhaps none; but 'active' headphones with a USB audio chipset will work on any of them(including USB1.1 or better ports with a mechanical adapter). For extra fun, if USB-C headphones become ubiquitous, even devices without any USB functions will probably want to implement sideband-only USB-C ports, so people can plug headphones into them; but those will only work with passive headphones since they won't actually have a USB host controller.
As with a number of USB-C design decisions, this seems like a pretty good idea if all you care about is bleeding edge cellphones; a troublesome-but-probably-worth-it one if all you care about is cellphones and ultra-skinny laptops; but a morass of confusion and suffering the more broadly you try to make it work. The USB-C port already suffers from the 'might be capable of anything, only actually promises to be capable of almost nothing' and this will only expand that unpleasant aspect.
Re: Are they talking about cellphones (Score:5, Insightful)
The real reason is to close the analog hole and add DRM to even your headphones.
Re: Are they talking about cellphones (Score:5, Interesting)
At least with video, the 'HDMI, yes, VGA, no." rule is pretty simple.
Re: Are they talking about cellphones (Score:5, Interesting)
And also so your new factory sealed headphones can install malware the first time you plug them in. There is no such thing as a secure USB device. No OS handles all USB attack vectors, including Linux.
I will not buy headphones that pose a security risk to my devices. Why can't simple things stay simple. If you want smart headphones, run another cable along with the audio cable and plug it into two ports, or use wireless.
Also, doesn't the USB 3 cables carry a lot of power? How safe will ear buds be if there's a nick in the cable and some wires get crossed?
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong.
USB device poses as a keyboard and starts opening terminals and running commands shit the moment you plug it in.
Re: Are they talking about cellphones (Score:5, Insightful)
More like a corporate obsession with overly complex solutions to problems ... and non-problems. The Red Queen races on.
For those -- probably not numerous -- situations where digital audio is needed, wouldn't it make for sense to put an ADC in the using device?
This "solution" would seem to require DACs (and amplifiers? (and therefore batteries)) in headphones and completely baffle a lot of non-geek users who would have to deal with three incompatible connectors -- 3.5mm audio, usb-C, usb-C with sidepins. And, of course, USB to usb-C adapter cables will turn up for folks who want to use older devices to drive usb-C devices. But they won't have audio on sidepins because regular USB doesn't support that -- yet. And software problems routing audio to the analog and digital hardware in the source device will probably make things worse.
Re: Are they talking about cellphones (Score:4)
They mention "difficulty delivering quality audio" through the analog channels, and I surely have experienced hum, hiss and static interference on analog headphones, but... reseating the connector to get a better ground, re-routing carelessly placed intermediate cables, etc. usually can dramatically improve the situation, even in cheap headphones.
On the other hand, every single pair of sub $100 digital headphones I have ever used have a ton of digital hiss in the background, and there's nothing you can do about it other than adjust your expectations of what signal to noise ratio should be when listening to quiet music.
Re: Are they talking about cellphones (Score:4, Interesting)
That's a red herring, though, as anybody who has ever worked with pro audio equipment will confirm. Intel's audio (or that of your graphics card) hisses, because of their crappy drivers and circuitry, not because there is something wrong with the headphone jack. This stuff is so bad that you even need to disable it in the BIOS/EFI if you don't use it at all in order to get good audio performance.
You can easily test that for yourself by buying a high quality audio interface and plugging in a pair of high quality headphones.
Re: (Score:3)
If you're that serious about audio quality, you shouldn't use any on-board analog audio. Either use S/PDIF or go with an external DAC.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just not seeing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems like a pretty common use case, are all USB-C headphones going to come with a charging port?
Also, as pointed out by every other commenter in this thread, now my headphones can give me malware. It WILL happen, right from the factory.
John McAfee needs to lay off the bathsalts for a while and engineer a bacteriaphage to guard our sensitive USB ports.
Re: (Score:2)
The jacks on my laptop are color coded.
Myriad downsides (Score:5, Insightful)
1) USB connectors -- ALL of them -- are less robust than audio jacks. They're going to fail sooner. Guaranteed.
2) There are a bazillion analog headphone / earbud options. Do you want them obsoleted?
3) DRM. Do you want it? Ever pipe the output of your phone/pad elsewhere? Say goodbye to that.
4) We already have bluetooth if you want digital, plus, no wires, an actual reason to use it.
5) Digital wiring tends to generate RF interference. Analog wiring doesn't. Both can carry RFI from inside the device, but generally don't. Much.
6) Passive analog earbuds are less expensive to manufacture; you'll pay more for digital earbuds, which must be active
7) If anyone thinks an analog option will remain with these connectors, be aware that part of the proffered approach is the ability to "inform the user that analog audio is not supported" based on hardware support choice of the manufacturer; if, knowing that, you still think analog audio will remain an option, I have a bridge to sell you.
The smart thing here is to refuse to purchase anything that uses a USB-C approach to audio headphones. Consumers already let themselves get screwed over hugely by accepting HDMI incorporating HDCP; they're probably about to do it again with this, but there's still an outside chance a similar debacle could be forestalled or prevented.
Re: (Score:2)
For those of us who have experienced the asynchronous effect of wireless Bluetooth headphone currently the norm on my iPad Pro, for instance, exactly how many generations and revisions of this are we going to go through over the next decade before it works at a level even close to analog? Historically, such proposals seem to rarely work as well as what they replace for a very long time, if ever.
Asynchronous audio is not a factor when listening to music which is what I do with my Bluetooth headphones about 95 percent of the time. The rest of the time I'm using the headphones while watching online videos on YouTube or some such site where asynchronous audio is common enough even with chorded analog headphones that I've quite frankly given up being annoyed over it and solved the problem by getting used to it. If I want to watch video in high quality with guaranteed synchronous audio I'm going to do t
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense! By 2025 or so, your Bluetooth headphones will likely deliver flawless audio. .... If you can find any source device that still delivers such a by then ancient and outmoded technology.
Re: (Score:2)
And then I could see headphones that identify themselves as keyboards and do sneaky things.
Mine already does. I've got a "smart" (Intelspeak) USB headset. It comes with headphones, a microphone, and some completely pointless buttons which I never use. Looking at dmesg, the device identifies itself as basically an input device (i.e. a keyboard) and a USB audio device. Pressing the buttons generates keyboard events.
The annoying thing is they apparently think a new standard is needed. USB already supports dig
Re: (Score:2)
"industry singling a strong desire"
I think somebody misspelled "singing" .
More likely "signalling".