3 ms·

While I do love the 3.5mm jack (along with the 1/4", XLR, and pretty much any other analog audio connector known to man) it seems like it's redundant on modern

While I do love the 3.5mm jack (along with the 1/4", XLR, and pretty much any other analog audio connector known to man) it seems like it's redundant on modern smartphones and in the near future possibly laptops. If everything is already going to have a USB C port, and USB C can handle audio transmission, then I see no reason to keep the 3.5mm around. Sure, there's an argument to be made about keeping the DAC inside the smartphone, but once we are out of the transition period, any pair of headphones you want will either be wireless, come with a dongle, or forgo the 3.5mm entirely and just have a USB C cable. It would be nice if Apple would join the rest of the world (and their own Macbooks) by replacing lightning with USB C, but I think that will happen eventually.

zeveb 9y ago
> … once we are out of the transition period, any pair of headphones you want will either be wireless, come with a dongle, or forgo the 3.5mm entirely and just have a USB C cable. Any pair of headphones I would want will be analogue, because I dislike audio delay & expense and I like audio quality. Adding DACs & dongles is just adding needless complexity. The analogue headphone is basically perfect: it doesn't need improving, and it can't be improved. Wireless headphones add expense, waste, complexity and quality/delay problems.
- wilsonnb 9y ago
  I mean, wireless headphone by definition lack a wire which is a huge improvement to many people. Just because the improvement doesn't favor audio fidelity doesn't mean it isn't an improvement. People have been buying external DAC's for years because they are higher quality than the ones inside phones and computers. Audio professionals don't use the soundcard in their computer - they buy an external one that probably uses USB, firewire, or thunderbolt. The headphone jack and DAC in a smartphone is convenient and often high enough quality for most people, but it is in no way a perfect solution. People who care a lot about audio quality in particular should not be sad to see it go, because they should be using USB or lightning already anyways.
KozmoNau7 9y ago
By going to all-digital connections, we also allow content rights owners to force DRM on us. It will be a matter of time before streaming services will be forced to implement DRM, and only approved headphones or other devices will be able to receive audio. Yes, you can always cut an analog hole later in the chain, but for the average customer, it will only bring annoyance. I like the good old-fashioned analog connections because there's no way to add stupid DRM. You get the analog signal, without the issues associated with technologies such as HDCP/DPCP.
- wilsonnb 9y ago
  I agree that we should be concerned about DRM. I think that the ship has already sailed on that, though. Most people that I know use a streaming service for their music. Spotify, Apple Music, or Google Play Music mostly. They already don't own the music they're listening to, and even when they download it to their phone it's encrypted and can't be easily transferred anywhere else. The experience is convenient and cheap enough that they just don't care. They don't even need to get rid of the headphone jack to only allow specific headphones. Nothing was stopping Apple from only allowing people who own Beats with a lightning cable from listening to Apple music, even when the phones had a headphone jack. I imagine a similar scheme could be cooked up using the microphone input to the phone. Have the headphones transfer some kind of key through that to the phone, and only allow certain analog headphones to listen to music. Sure, it's probably easier to crack than USB C/lightning based DRM but still possible.
  - KozmoNau7 9y ago
    The difference is that the DRM on Spotify and other streaming services isn't intrusive, it's not annoying and it's not something people notice at all. Steam does the same thing. Plenty of DRM, but you don't really notice it in normal use. But I bet that's not good enough for the RIAA/MPAA. They want everything DRMed out the wazoo. Including the output devices. If they can require digital-only connections with heavy DRM and all analog parts potted in epoxy, they will do it.

zeveb 9y ago

> … once we are out of the transition period, any pair of headphones you want will either be wireless, come with a dongle, or forgo the 3.5mm entirely and just have a USB C cable. Any pair of headphones I would want will be analogue, because I dislike audio delay & expense and I like audio quality. Adding DACs & dongles is just adding needless complexity. The analogue headphone is basically perfect: it doesn't need improving, and it can't be improved. Wireless headphones add expense, waste, complexity and quality/delay problems.

wilsonnb 9y ago
I mean, wireless headphone by definition lack a wire which is a huge improvement to many people. Just because the improvement doesn't favor audio fidelity doesn't mean it isn't an improvement. People have been buying external DAC's for years because they are higher quality than the ones inside phones and computers. Audio professionals don't use the soundcard in their computer - they buy an external one that probably uses USB, firewire, or thunderbolt. The headphone jack and DAC in a smartphone is convenient and often high enough quality for most people, but it is in no way a perfect solution. People who care a lot about audio quality in particular should not be sad to see it go, because they should be using USB or lightning already anyways.

KozmoNau7 9y ago

By going to all-digital connections, we also allow content rights owners to force DRM on us. It will be a matter of time before streaming services will be forced to implement DRM, and only approved headphones or other devices will be able to receive audio. Yes, you can always cut an analog hole later in the chain, but for the average customer, it will only bring annoyance. I like the good old-fashioned analog connections because there's no way to add stupid DRM. You get the analog signal, without the issues associated with technologies such as HDCP/DPCP.

wilsonnb 9y ago
I agree that we should be concerned about DRM. I think that the ship has already sailed on that, though. Most people that I know use a streaming service for their music. Spotify, Apple Music, or Google Play Music mostly. They already don't own the music they're listening to, and even when they download it to their phone it's encrypted and can't be easily transferred anywhere else. The experience is convenient and cheap enough that they just don't care. They don't even need to get rid of the headphone jack to only allow specific headphones. Nothing was stopping Apple from only allowing people who own Beats with a lightning cable from listening to Apple music, even when the phones had a headphone jack. I imagine a similar scheme could be cooked up using the microphone input to the phone. Have the headphones transfer some kind of key through that to the phone, and only allow certain analog headphones to listen to music. Sure, it's probably easier to crack than USB C/lightning based DRM but still possible.
- KozmoNau7 9y ago
  The difference is that the DRM on Spotify and other streaming services isn't intrusive, it's not annoying and it's not something people notice at all. Steam does the same thing. Plenty of DRM, but you don't really notice it in normal use. But I bet that's not good enough for the RIAA/MPAA. They want everything DRMed out the wazoo. Including the output devices. If they can require digital-only connections with heavy DRM and all analog parts potted in epoxy, they will do it.