9 ms·

My question is how someone can justify paying $550 dollars for headphones from Apple. I can get mid-range studio quality headphones for that price, from a compa

• chimen 6y ago
  Mid range studio quality with active noise cancelation, great build quality, good BL codecs (aptx HD+ || LDAC)? Name that pair please. Those 8y Bose QCs are not even close to being a mid-range studio quality and are worst than a sony xm2 or xm3 in terms of ANC, built entirely of plastic also. You people are so quick to bash on this company for no reason. The only headset that I consider on par with this one is the recently released (at 800 euro) bang and Olufsen n95. The price is not always the sum of parts.
  • brokensegue 6y ago
    WH1000XM4 is still much cheaper than the apple headphones. I doubt it's studio quality but I also doubt that of apple's offering (or the need for such quality).
    • chimen 6y ago
      I have the WH1000XM4. It's like a Renault near a Mercedes when comapred with these ones (buld quality) or near BO n95. Depends what you want. My right earcup (right where it pivots) broke 2 weeks in. 100% plastic. ANC is good though I give them that. Also, "much cheaper" is only a feature when all other aspects match.
      • brokensegue 6y ago
        well anecdotes are anecdotes. I've had one in this line for years with no issues. I also had a parrot zik 2 which was all metal and way more expensive and it was generally worse.
      • what_ever 6y ago
        Another anecdote - I have been using my Bose QC 25 for 5 years without any issues. Yes, the plastic ones. Worn almost every day.
    • threeseed 6y ago
      WH1000XM4 should be cheaper. - Controls are annoying i.e. you have to swipe 20 times on the earcup and then waiting for a deafening beep to set the maximum volume. - Loses track of current volume on different devices. - Pairing with multiple devices rarely works. - Audio quality is average. The only reason people rave about is its noise cancelling.
      • smileybarry 6y ago
        > Controls are annoying i.e. you have to swipe 20 times on the earcup and then waiting for a deafening beep to set the maximum volume. IIRC you can swipe and keep holding to keep increasing/decreasing volume until you let go. > Loses track of current volume on different devices. That might be somewhat intentional, Android remembers volume per-device (or in case of wired headphones, one separate volume for all wired headphones). When you connect/plug in a device you plugged in before, the volume automatically changes. Sony could be offloading this logic to the device on purpose.
    • caconym_ 6y ago
      So you’re stating the obvious, that there’s a cheaper product out there that’s inferior to what Apple claims of their new headphones, and also opining that Apple is probably overstating the sound quality of their new headphones ... and that even if they aren’t overstating it, nobody could possibly want or need that kind of quality? Despite the fact that some people are out there paying tens of thousands of dollars for headphones? I don’t know if these will find the market Apple is hoping for, but seriously what is the point of this comment? Just to be negative for negativity’s sake? I’m not trying to be confrontational or dickish—I just don’t get it. Every time Apple launches some new expensive product it’s the same old story, people saying it’s going to be crappy and anyway who would buy it at that ridiculous price? and then it turns out that it’s actually not crappy, and some people buy it and like it a lot. I don’t see why we should expect anything different here.
      • actuator 6y ago
        The way I read their comment, they meant that even though Sony doesn't use the term studio headphones, they probably might be as good as whatever Apple is claiming the sound quality to be. The doubt was on the marketing term and the worth of the actual quality on the price. Airpods don't have the best sound, several rival wireless earphones beat them to that.
        • caconym_ 6y ago
          The comment said this: > I doubt it's studio quality but I also doubt that of apple's offering (or the need for such quality). Seems to me that the doubt is on charging $550 for mediocre sound or on whether better sound actually matters, depending on whether the sound turns out to be mediocre or not. That way we can be negative about Apple’s pricey new doodad regardless of whether it’s actually good or not—how convenient! > Airpods don't have the best sound, several rival wireless earphones beat them to that. I have not claimed otherwise and probably never will.
          • brokensegue 6y ago
            Yes. For most people buying studio quality is not a good value proposition. I doubt they will get that quality and in general most people don't notice the difference. Why is being skeptical of a product announcement problematic? Is stone-faced indifference the only acceptable response? Can I also not speculate on a film's quality from its trailer?
    • actuator 6y ago
      I have XM2's and they are still running perfect. Coming from Bose, I love both sound and ANC. As long as this series exist, I am not sure I can even look at these.
  • cloogshicer 6y ago
    I'd actually agree with that, they're probably pretty great in the ways that you've mentioned. Which is why I'm sad that they'll become obsolete after a while. I'm sure they'd still make great studio headphones for listening at home in 15 years when the battery is long dead (if they worked passively).
    • spullara 6y ago
      Why do folks believe that Apple won't replace the batteries for a reasonable price like they do everything else?
      • Reason077 6y ago
        Of course they'll replace the batteries, for $79. Free if under warranty or AppleCare+. It's right there on the support page: https://support.apple.com/airpods/repair/service#battery https://support.apple.com/airpods/repair/service#battery
        • redler 6y ago
          That's surprisingly reasonable for a $550 product with what's probably a custom high-energy-density battery.
        • acomjean 6y ago
          For how long depends how long till the designate the model "Vintage/Obsolete". Typically 5 years if their computers/iphones/Beats headphones are anything to go by. You can always try your luck on the third party market after that. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624
      • yarcob 6y ago
        Because they charge pretty high prices for battery swaps. For my two year old Airpods they would charge 55€ per pod + another 55€ for the battery in the case, which means that getting new batteries costs as much as the Airpods cost in the first place. (Prices in Austria) I hope my second pair lasts longer. For the Airpods Max they currently list a price of 87€, but as far as I understand there's only one battery to swap. But 87€ every few years is still a high maintenance price, hoping they don't increase that price. Also, Apple only offers service for a few years. I have a few bloated Macs that would need a new battery but Apple just doesn't service them anymore. For many devices you can get replacement batteries from 3rd party sellers, but quality is hit or miss -- there's no guarantee the replacement battery is going to last (but in my experience Apple's replacement batteries are also unreliable sometimes). Most of my Hifi gear is more than 15 years old. I doubt any of Apple's new audio products will last that long.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • mustacheemperor 6y ago
    Not to mention the smart digital signal processing these will leverage to deliver better sound quality, which is a potential innovation to headphone design at large that Apple is uniquely positioned to create via their existing expertise. As a happy XM3 owner, I think if these are feature by feature identical to the XM3 they will be quite overpriced. I also think that itself is very unlikely, and that they will have additional qualities justifying the price premium. There's lots of room to improve, for example, the quality of your voice as picked up by the mic, especially in windy environments. Speaking of that, walking outside on a windy day can be really intrusive with the XM3s because the ANC tries to 'cancel' the wind and you get weird sounds in your ears. Those seem like cases where Apple is well suited to make dramatic improvements via DSP. Tech like the noise canceling the HoloLens 2 applies to its mic (to cut out noise from around the speaker) seems well within their capability. I don't make much use of the XM3's "smart" features because they're pretty compromised. Their 'transparency' mode/partial noise canceling mode is really more intrusive than useful. It doesn't sound like I am partly-canceling background noise, it sounds like microphones are selectively filtering some of what they pick up into my music while I walk outside. So I think there's definitely enough space for Apple to innovate on sound quality and other aspects of the wireless headset experience to justify the margin. Edit: Also, multi-device pairing and handoff is super janky with the XM3s. Worth mentioning, I had the XM2s beforehand and the mic was literally unusable on conference calls no matter where I used it - people would complain and ask me what was wrong with my phone every time. Wireless headphones are not a solved problem.
    • woadwarrior01 6y ago
      I’ve got a pair of XM3s that I’ve used daily for a bit over 2 years now. And I don’t plan on buying the Airpods Max yet. XM3s hardware build quality is excellent. The biggest problem with XM3s is the crappy software. The iOS app that demands always on background location access. Although I’d learnt soon enough that it’s perfectly usable without the app. This is where Apple really shines, in the integrated hardware and software experience. The multi device pairing support on Bose headsets is slightly better than on Sony headsets, although both done even come close to how well AirPods do it on Apple devices.
  • mstade 6y ago
    https://www.bang-olufsen.com/en/comparison/products/headphones/beoplay-h9/beoplay-h95/beoplay-h4 https://www.bang-olufsen.com/en/comparison/products/headphon... I have the B&O H9 3rd gen and I love them. I have no idea whether they stack up to what your write on the tech stack side of things, but the sound is phenomenal I think and that’s what matters to me. The mic is useless, but I don’t ever use them for anything but music anyhow.
  • dharma1 6y ago
    I’m curious to hear the Apple headphones. There aren’t many studio quality headphones with ANC because studio headphones are usually open back, and it makes little sense to put ANC in open back headphones. I reserve judgement but don’t think the Apple headphones will compete with headphones used for mixing and mastering. There has been relatively little innovation in headphones (and speakers) the last decade or so aside from DSP correction. The last really innovative (from an audio engineering point of view) headphone in my book is the HEDDphone with Air Motion Transfer drivers previously unseen outside some exotic speakers. But it’s $2000, weighs 700g and requires an amp to drive it. I look forward to hearing the Apple headphones but am sceptical you can get as much of a boost with “computational audio” as you can with computational photography, compared to “dumb” headphones with similar drivers and tuning. I think the spatial audio stuff is interesting and possibly better than previous attempts on headphones. I think well off people will buy these headphones for the convenience factor (works and sounds marginally better than the next best competitor), and Apple will probably release a less expensive version down the line.
  • nvarsj 6y ago
    That’s not even true. Bose QC35 ii measure objectively very well for headphones. They, like other high quality ANC headphones, use the ANC mic to EQ themselves to a good reference target. Also no one uses closed back headphones for studio work. What does “mid range studio quality” even mean. The vast majority of professionals use speakers in a sound treated room for mixing. Those that use headphones do so very carefully, using EQ to get them to sound right (or getting used to the sound profile of the headphones). The most commonly used are Sennheiser open backs in this area - a pair of HD650 is probably most common. In general it’s fairly challenging to mix with headphones accurately though.
• TimTheTinker 6y ago
  > My question is how someone can justify paying $550 dollars for headphones from Apple. I think Apple may also be finding out the same thing. These are clearly awesome headphones, but it remains to be seen for whom these are not just cool, but indispensable. Finding that out will help them continue to target the right customers when (I assume) they lower the price in the future and improve its capabilities.
  • floatingatoll 6y ago
    I expect they'll be indispensable for me. Their first commercial explicitly calls out my segment and it was so nice to see that — Apple is perhaps the only tech retailer who considers my segment to exist at all. I'm really glad that Apple realized that I'm a market worth targeting with these. I can't wait for them to arrive. (It's too easy to take apart and contradict and argue someone's specific personal circumstances as invalid/wrong/unjustified. That would only worsen my life, as I'm living those circumstances, so with apologies I'm not going to share the specifics of my segment for inspection and debate.)
    • nawgz 6y ago
      Instead of sharing your segment, can you share the features that set these apart from other products on the market today?
      • floatingatoll 6y ago
        Sure, happy to! It's the total set of these five things that makes me take for granted that I'll have a stellar experience with the new Max headphones. This is not a complete explanation of why they'll be indispensable, but it should help convey why competing products aren't, in my case. 1. Apple's Bluetooth hardware implementation has been top tier for me in multi-device use, in a mixed Apple and non-Apple environment, with predictable steps to resolve any issue I encounter, across the Beats and Apple headphones products that I've used since 2017. 2. Apple's minimal-choice approach to their headphones provides the bare minimum necessary to operate them in on-device functionality, which removes all opportunities for hidden settings, unusual interactions, and other "am I at fault?" interactions with my devices. 3. Apple's noise canceling implementation is strong enough to cancel out general background noise without preventing me from hearing someone speak to me, and weak enough that I can forget that I'm wearing headphones with noise canceling enabled, and doesn't induce nausea in me the way that new (but not old) Bose QuietComfort headphones do. 4. Apple's frequency prioritization for their products is more natural and less modified and bass-heavy to my ears than Beats and other popular products in the market, which aligns with the customizations I requested for my modified DT770s when having them recabled to balanced XLR. 5. Apple's surround virtualization algorithm has been better to my perception than that of Astro A50 headphones (the previous contender for best in class), while causing neither confusion nor nausea when used for extended periods of time. EDIT: And to save time on replies, here's a per-item FAQ for each of the above, so that I might save folks some time on back-and-forth. 1. Yes, I have experienced significant Bluetooth frustration issues when combined with Apple beta operating system releases, and at one point was able to diagnose a 5GHz wireless interference issue that was fixed before general release to the public. Yes, the original AirPods v1 had sporadic issues, that were resolved by firmware and hardware updates. No, those issues didn't cause me to give up on Apple. Yes, I'm aware that other people have issues with Apple products. No, I'm generally able to resolve any issues within a few seconds. Yes, once in a while the audio blips out, as do my non-Bluetooth wireless headphones as well. 2. Yes, I know they don't use aptX with Android. No, I don't care what codec they use to communicate with my devices, even the Android devices. Yes, I'm aware that aptX is higher quality than Bluetooth AAC. Yes, I have a 192/32-int lossless DAC stack for my wired headphones. No, I'm not trying to simultaneously multi-pair my wireless headphones, or share them between multiple iCloud users or etc. Yes, I know that competing headphones can do all sorts of complicated things that I don't desire them to do for me. No, I don't want to be able to modify any settings on my wireless headphones. 3. Yes, I can still hear people talking. No, I don't get perfect silence on airplanes, even with -27dB custom-molded in-ear earplugs underneath them. Yes, the first time I tested the new QCs, I nearly barfed. No, I don't have that problem with the old QC-15s. Yes, there are settings for the 'level' of noise canceling on the new QCs, see also #2. 4. Yes, I know that Apple owns Beats. Actually, I have 'Beats Pro Studio Wireless 3', the one entry in the lineup that doesn't amplify bass like the rest of the Beats line is prone to doing. Yes, I prefer balanced sound in my listening experiences, both with wireless and wired headphones and in my car. 5. Yes, I know that the Astro A50 when combined with a modern Xbox and Dolby Atmos for Headphones no longer uses the A50 algorithm but instead uses a version of Atmos specifically tuned for my exact headphones. Yes, I know that Apple is using Atmos somehow as part of their virtualization experience. No, I don't expect Atmos to upgrade the notes in my music to sound higher fidelity. No, I don't expect that I'll get the full Spatial Audio experience on most of my devices. Yes, I know that it's possible to tune virtualization algorithms to create a better headspace, see also #2.
• dfxm12 6y ago
  My question is how someone can justify paying $550 dollars for headphones from Apple. Like most luxury goods, it's a status symbol, and thus the price justifies itself.
  • user_0x 6y ago
    that's the thing that people don't generally bring up with apple: they area a luxury company, they price things in the same way any other luxury good company does in the vein of supreme or gucci or whatever. it's all about making the product exclusive, or at least feel exclusive, while making the design something that can be considered fashion. the fact they happen to put computers in their fancy cases is hardly the point to the archetypal consumer.
    • dahfizz 6y ago
      Apple wants to _feel_ like a luxury company. It's just a good bit of marketing. Rolls Royce is a luxury company. Rolex is a luxury company. Apple sells a product that's in the pocket of every other snot-nosed preteen. However, they charge a larger-than-normal markup, so people feel like it's luxurious. EDIT: There seems to be some misunderstandings of what a "luxury" good is. Something isn't luxurious just because it is subjectively a little bit better than the competition. Bosch makes the best dishwashers but they are not a luxury brand. Similarly, the Golf GTI is an absolutely incredible $30K car, but that does not make it luxurious. A Rolls Royce is a luxury car because it is full of extravagance and opulence. There is absolutely no concern with keeping costs down, and there is no expense spared to make the car as comfortable and luxurious as possible. It also fits the economic definition[1] where spending on luxury cars increases with income. The richer you are, the more money you spend on luxury cars. This isn't true of Apple products because it is a mass produced, mass market good. A billionaire can't buy a better iPhone. That's the opposite of what it means to be a luxury, exclusive brand. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_goods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_goods
      • labster 6y ago
        For the bourgeoisie, feeling like luxury is the same as true luxury. And there are a lot more bourgeoisie than people who know the difference. So Apple mass-produces them some products like the AirPods Max.
• idiot900 6y ago
  These headphones are meant to be used in noisy environments where the benefit of studio quality headphones is minimal, and where a cord is annoying. This luxury product looks cool. Paying a lot extra for that is not new. The price premium over competing products is just not that much for many Apple customers. In case the noise cancellation when on a plane turns out to be head and shoulders above Bose and Sony...that extra 200 USD now does not seem so bad.
  • rbanffy 6y ago
    Planes... I remember those... I can't imagine someone saying a wireless headphone with noise cancelling is "studio" anything. From the delay to the processing to everything, if I want to use a headphone for studio work, I'll want the flattest wiredest analogest of headphones because I don't want them to changing whatever comes in at all.
• voisin 6y ago
  > but up against a company that's been making really good stuff for 40+ years, I'm skeptical. IPhone was up against some groups with decades of making phones. Tesla is up against companies with literally a century of experience. SpaceX is up against companies that have made rockets for decades. Etc etc etc. I am surprised anyone on HN would be skeptical that a company with billions of dollars of cash at its disposal and world class engineering talent could do a passable job here all because an incumbent has experience. Also, are you suggesting that experience of one set of engineers with mastery of obsolete technologies 40 years ago is somehow a gate that a current company needs to pass through and excel at before they can compete with that company’s current engineers on current technology?
  • woofcat 6y ago
    Most of those examples are not great. Tesla isn't making cars... they're making electric cars. The iPhone wasn't the first phone, or even mobile phone. It was the first mass market SmartPhone. Those products each have a differentiator. "Cool Wireless Headphones" isn't something new or novel.
    • boogies 6y ago
      All of the examples. SpaceX is up against companies that made single-use rockets for decades. But the AirPods Max may have a technical differentiator (not even just an Apple logo!) — AFAIK they’re the first wireless headphones without an on/off switch! (perhaps some of the earlier ones that don’t work once Apple stops replacing the batteries, as well?)
    • toyg 6y ago
      > "Cool Wireless Headphones" isn't something new or novel. That might well be, but the original AirPods were the first bluetooth headset I got that Actually Worked. BT earbuds quality was shockingly low before. It might well have been the classic Apple Timing phenomenon, when they release a product at the exact right time a technology is mature enough to work (e.g. large modern touchscreens etc), but they undeniably scored with what where, otherwise, pretty mediocre earbuds. They generally know what they are doing. This said, $500+ for earbuds of any kind is too much, for my values, particularly this year when people and countries are literally starving. It's bad taste.
• JxLS-cpgbe0 6y ago
  Their target market has never heard of Grado, this comes up every post. Gruber makes a good comparison to the Macbook, incredibly expensive but the nicest industrial design on the market at the time.
• tristor 6y ago
  > My question is how someone can justify paying $550 dollars for headphones from Apple. I can get mid-range studio quality headphones for that price, from a company that is actually focused on producing the best headphones. The exact same people that buy Beats headphones instead of AKG or Beyerdynamic prior to Beats getting acquired by Apple. In other words people who buy them as a status symbol, not for their function, because they themselves are not informed consumers.
  • 0x008 6y ago
    I find it funny that you mention beyerdynamic. Isn’t that brand like the apple of audiophile/studio headphones?
    • tristor 6y ago
      I wouldn't describe it that way. Beyerdynamic has some models which are generally reasonably performant for their price range and widely recommended when people are starting out. If I were to think of a brand that's like the "Apple" of studio headphones, it'd probably be Sennheiser, although they also make some very high quality products. For the $500 a pair of Airpods Max is going to cost, though, you can get some /serious/ headphones, that gets you straight out of dynamic transducers and into the entry grade planar magnetic and even entry electrostatic earphones. There's simply no reason to spend that much on Airpods Max compared to the available market if you actually care about performance and sound quality.
      • 0x008 6y ago
        Yes you are right Sennheiser does have a very wide budget offering. However, beyerdynamic also sells 150$ headphones. What I meant was this weird cult following they have and this determination to do something very different from the rest of the industry and what is generally being considered as an upset to the established rules. I am of course talking about the unnatural bright sound profile for studio headphones, where the goal usually is to have them as flat as possible. Also they do seem to care more about nice materials and Style than other brands, which is reflected in their commercials as well.
• clolege 6y ago
  Counter-example: Anker's bluetooth speakers are widely viewed to sound better than those from JBL, Sony & Bose and they have fewer years in the audio industry. There are a many technologies present in products like this that a company that is purely "focused on producing the best headphones" wouldn't normally concern themselves with such as a DAC, amp, DSP, microphone & wireless protocols. When these components are tightly designed together, Apple can disrupt much in the same way they're doing with their M1 line.
  • fomine3 6y ago
    What's the DAC, amp, DSP, microphone & wireless protocols tech that JBL, Sony & Bose don't concern?
• nomel 6y ago
  > can get mid-range studio quality headphones for that price Where are you seeing reviews that show that they're not of this quality?