3 ms·

That kind of knee-jerk rejection is just as weird as a knee-jerk promise to buy. All we know right now is that Apple has introduced wireless, ANC, over-ear head

That kind of knee-jerk rejection is just as weird as a knee-jerk promise to buy. All we know right now is that Apple has introduced wireless, ANC, over-ear headphones at a premium price. If I were looking to spend that kind of money on headphones -- which, we should be clear, isn't that hard to do if you're serious about it -- I'd absolutely listen to these. Given Apple's general approach to usability and quality, it'd be insanely foolish to dismiss them without trying them. >Honestly, I don't understand why you would buy these when there are a lot of established professional audio companies offering better sound at a cheaper price. This is what I'm talking about. How do you KNOW that $other_headphones sound better? The Apple model isn't even available yet. I mean, it's dead solid clear that Apple's making a big move here. It could fail. But they tend not to fail. If they're pricing these on par with serious high-end over-ear headphones, then they expect them to be able to compete with those high-end headphones on all the points people care about in that market. & about that: Your counterexamples aren't in Apple's target market here at all. None of them are wireless, and none of them include noise cancellation. Moreover, the Audeze are open backed, which (for the non headphone nerds still reading) means those around you can hear what you're listening to. You get great sound that way -- lots of folks would argue that the best sounding phones in the world are all open-backed -- but it means they're terrible choices for most modern headphone applications, like in a public place or open office. I love me some Grados, but they have the same problem. Apple's play here is against the high end wireless, ANC product in the market, not these audiophile-only options you mention. I have a $300 pair of ANC wireless Sennheisers that I typically used on planes (ha, ha; remember travel?) or in other contexts where I really needed isolation. They're clunky to use and have weird idiosyncrasies, but they do sound better than my Airpods Pro, and they work better for long flights. If they broke, would I consider the new Maxes? Absolutely.

ransom_rs 6y ago
> This is what I'm talking about. How do you KNOW that $other_headphones sound better? The Apple model isn't even available yet. I feel this part of the discussion is missing. A lot of people seem to love the HomePod for it's great audio quality at the price, and I have heard similar things for the HomePod Mini. Apple seems to be getting decent at making high quality audio equipment(per $), I feel like the quality of these headphones could be similar to the competition. Apple for sure has a history of overcharging for certain products (remember, you can get a monitor stand for $1k), but the M1 Macbook Air is probably the best $1,000 computer by a long shot.
theincredulousk 6y ago
They're not going to fail, unless you have an insanely high bar for success, and they're not going to sound like shit either. Apple wouldn't just accidentally release a terrible sounding headphone product without having people familiar with headphones listen to it. The arguments floating around here are pointless. Will you be able to get better sounding (particularly wired) headphones for less money? yes. Just like you can get a higher performance laptop for less money than a macbook, and just like you can buy a discrete graphics card that performs better than integrated graphics (analogy to wireless w/integrated DSP and amplifier, vs. discrete) Is the point here to have the best sounding headphones? no. There are for daily/practical use cases and pleasantly usable performance for dedicated listening and entertainment. They are primarily headphones for "routine use"/work, e.g. when your listening to music + doing some task, then taking a phone-call or joining a meeting. The same use cases people currently have noise cancelling headphones with built-in or inline mics. For example, Bose QCs are very popular for that use case, and cost $300+. I use them for daily work and travel, and I'm an "audio person", with completely different setups (plural) for audio quality use cases, well aware that the Bose QCs are not "$300 class" headphones quality wise. The Apples are more expensive than the QCs, but even from pictures and build materials immediately crush the QCs in build quality. My guess is that they will also beat them in sound quality. Yes they're more expensive, but tbh for the target use case, it is not difficult to justify cost for something you use 8h a day. Of course anything expensive is not in everyone's budget, but considering the target market, people talking about $200-less headphones are not priced out of the headphones, they're just trying to save money. So, true to Apple, the increased cost doesn't really hurt their addressable market, and instead positions them a status symbol where it is actually important that they cost more than the competition. Yep.

ransom_rs 6y ago

> This is what I'm talking about. How do you KNOW that $other_headphones sound better? The Apple model isn't even available yet. I feel this part of the discussion is missing. A lot of people seem to love the HomePod for it's great audio quality at the price, and I have heard similar things for the HomePod Mini. Apple seems to be getting decent at making high quality audio equipment(per $), I feel like the quality of these headphones could be similar to the competition. Apple for sure has a history of overcharging for certain products (remember, you can get a monitor stand for $1k), but the M1 Macbook Air is probably the best $1,000 computer by a long shot.

theincredulousk 6y ago

They're not going to fail, unless you have an insanely high bar for success, and they're not going to sound like shit either. Apple wouldn't just accidentally release a terrible sounding headphone product without having people familiar with headphones listen to it. The arguments floating around here are pointless. Will you be able to get better sounding (particularly wired) headphones for less money? yes. Just like you can get a higher performance laptop for less money than a macbook, and just like you can buy a discrete graphics card that performs better than integrated graphics (analogy to wireless w/integrated DSP and amplifier, vs. discrete) Is the point here to have the best sounding headphones? no. There are for daily/practical use cases and pleasantly usable performance for dedicated listening and entertainment. They are primarily headphones for "routine use"/work, e.g. when your listening to music + doing some task, then taking a phone-call or joining a meeting. The same use cases people currently have noise cancelling headphones with built-in or inline mics. For example, Bose QCs are very popular for that use case, and cost $300+. I use them for daily work and travel, and I'm an "audio person", with completely different setups (plural) for audio quality use cases, well aware that the Bose QCs are not "$300 class" headphones quality wise. The Apples are more expensive than the QCs, but even from pictures and build materials immediately crush the QCs in build quality. My guess is that they will also beat them in sound quality. Yes they're more expensive, but tbh for the target use case, it is not difficult to justify cost for something you use 8h a day. Of course anything expensive is not in everyone's budget, but considering the target market, people talking about $200-less headphones are not priced out of the headphones, they're just trying to save money. So, true to Apple, the increased cost doesn't really hurt their addressable market, and instead positions them a status symbol where it is actually important that they cost more than the competition. Yep.