There won't be a cost advantage to this for some time. Until everyone's old analog equipment is phased out, smartphones with digital-only USB output would be crippled.
So replace a 20 cent versatile and widely spread connector with an tremendously more expensive one, which is complete overkill for audio and makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Come one, this is getting pathetic, has nothing to do with innovation and is all about desperately looking for ways to milk more money out of consumers.
And seeing how most devices come and will continue to come with just one C port, what do I connect first? Sure, it supports daisy chaining, but I highly doubt many devices will come with a path-through, that will only add to the cost. So you have to carry around external adapters.
Headphones do not require going digital, this will only add to the cost and environmental impact at no tangible benefit other than increased profits. Cable goes bad due to twisting - you can't fix it, you have to throw it away together with a chip, and who knows, potentially a perfectly good headphone set as well. I am sure the industry will be thrilled about this, and it goes for engineering a weak point so that cables fail shortly after their warranty period runs out, forcing people to make a new purchase. Good old planned obsolescence - it should be criminalized.
The only way this ends up something more than a greed driven d1ck move is they scrap the usb C and go for a connector that is backward compatible with 3.5 mm jacks and add another wire for data, a single wire will suffice, providing enough bandwidth for sensors and such, while keeping it a dedicated connector.
ddriver, can you contact me at [email protected]? MAX Solutions offers plugs and jacks with one more line, backwards compatible. Check out www.maxsolutionsllc.com
I'd rather the 3.5mm jack go, I have so many cables die on me (only 1 channel with sound) even with expensive cables, and some headphone have cabples that are non--replaceable. USB can potentially solve that.
You'd rather pay like 30$ every time a cable dies on you? And on the headphone side, it will be even harder to replace than a regular stereo analog audio cable, that means throw away the headphones as well.
I am curious of the level of electronics knowledge and skill set of an average AT reader. Most of the comments boil down to "woot, new tech, usb-c, must be great, can't wait, pesky old 3.5mm jacks must go". Practically speaking, replacing the 3.5mm jack with usb-c ranks amongst the dumbest things one could possibly do. But it makes a lot of sense commercially. The motivation is one - more profit, and it will come at the expense of consumers.
You'd think with their billions of dollars, intel could come up with less ridiculous bullet points to justify this, but looking at the way people accept it, they might simply not be that interested in convincing the few people out there who haven't yet been reduced to braindead victims of consumerism. The industry has its sweet time telling people what to want, gradually making them better and better at getting milked.
Actually, reading through the comments it seems this scam is not accepted nearly as well as I feared. This is good, there is still hope for the human kind :D
"The USB-C has sideband use pins (SBU1 and SBU2) which can be used for analog audio in audio adapter accessory mode. Use of the sideband pins should not impact data transfers and other vital functionality of USB-C cables, which should make them relatively simple from the engineering point of view."
Any device could maintain their analog audio hardware and just eliminate the port, instead connecting it up to be yet another feature riding on the USB-C port. Adapters from such devices to a standard 3.5mm or other electrically compatible analog audio connections would be as cheap, simple, and dumb as DVI-I to VGA adapters. It's just changing the physical connector.
I'd imagine the transition would go pretty much the same as the various display connector changes have gone. New port shows up, some thin devices drop the old one and require adapters for use with most existing infrastructure. Eventually more native devices hit the market and the new port becomes relatively standard. At some point mainstream devices not crunched for space or cost start dropping the old port due to lack of use.
Look how long it's taken to kill VGA, and that's a port that should have been completely irrelevant after LCDs took over from CRTs.
(VGA->DVI connector comparison is valid, but unlike LCD screens which require a specific controller for each panel, we are all still using stereo analog speakers that are trivial to drive off an integrated DAC/amplifier. Where DVI allowed higher resolutions without distortion and noise, the change to digital audio gets us... Nothing.)
Sort of... DVI-I carries a VGA analog signal over the same port as the digital signals. DVI-D only the digital signals.
It's still a decent analogy. DVI should have replaced VGA a long time ago but the standard refuses to die. I think this is a good thing. They should be able to make a simple passive adapter for type C to analog 3.5mm jack and if need be pass the rest of the type-c signals and/or power as well. It would ease the transition and pave the way for some fantastic headphones with built-in DACs/amps tuned for the speakers, etc...
They can be had for a cheap price http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B000KW2YEI But for it to look decent one which isn't too big the price can go up quite a bit, http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01A73XG9Q The analogy is wrong, imagine VGA vs HDMI for a 1080p monitor, without the VGA having data loss over distance, that's what is being discussed. The difference here is that while monitors are large enough to contain a DAC or don't even need one sometimes, it is impossible to not have a DAC in an audio ecosystem. The fact is this just craps on the reason to get earphones and raises the price of headphones by a significant margin, the Audeze EL8s have a version with the lighting connector for $100 more than the normal EL8s, the fact is there isn't much imporvement in DACs is there is no need for that. But the reason why integrated DACs exist is to drive down the cost of those peripherals while also making the system less bulky
Just like with this, where analog audio can optionally be carried on extra pins in the USB-C connector, DVI-I is literally just VGA signaling running on extra pins in the DVI connector, thus why the adapters to VGA are so cheap. They're nothing more than two connectors and a bit of wire or PCB.
DisplayPort to DVI/HDMI adapters are kind of the same thing, except reusing the same pins in a different way rather than having some extras. If you're using a passive DP->DVI or HDMI plug you're not actually using DisplayPort other than the physical connector, it's pure DVI/HDMI signaling flowing over it.
The market will, unfortunately, end up there anyway... Apple has been angling to have audio out the Lighting port (only) for years, and said adapters (or DAC/amps in a cable really) already exist.
From the Audeze Cipher cable to the USB cables for hundreds of low cost headsets, it's already something that exists. Could it benefit from refinement? Sure, but I doubt in the long run it'd be much worse than having the same circuitry inside a phone.
The biggest issue is the fragmentation it'll create in the audio world, with at least two different target connectors and a ton of gear that doesn't really benefit from this, at all.
The problem that I have is that USB connectors always seem to wear out at some point mini 3.5 jacks never wear out. New standards kie these usually are introduce by companies like intel because they will get license royalties to would be users increasing profit...
The problem that I have is that USB connectors always seem to wear out at some point mini 3.5 jacks never wear out. New standards like these usually are introduce by companies like Intel because they will get license royalties to would be users increasing profit...
USB phone connections always seem to wear out for me where as my 3.5 connector never ever wears out.
Such a move would require Microsoft to step up their game. They haven't even implemented native support for USB Audio 2.0 yet - not even on Windows 10 and it's an old standard by now.
Not sure how I feel about moving to a single connector and what it would do to headphones. There's also the problem of charging and connecting headphones on a phone over a single port. How will they solve that?
Forgot to mention that it seems to solve the current market fragmentation in the wiring, where you either buy the Apple-compliant version or the industry standard compliant version. That's one good thing at least.
Apple has always created its own market fragmentation to differentiate itself from the competition. From Firewire instead of standard USB, to iPod Sync cables instead of Micro/Mini USB, to Lightning instead of Micro/Mini USB 3.0, mag-charge power adapters instead of standard DC barrel plugs, etc.
There's nothing good here because as long as Apple exists it will seek to create differentiation from the competition, even if the competition decides to use the same standard. At best this only delays the inevitable of them moving to an even smaller/thinner/more proprietary connector to screw over users who want to use standard devices to trap customers in the Apple ecosystem.
Firewire was an industry standard and more than Apple used it. For example, the original Playstation 2 had a 4 pin Firewire port.
Out of that list, the only two Apple really created for Apple's own differentiation were the 30 pin Dock connector and the Lightning connector. Recall that the dock connector came out with the original iPod which was a hair too small to use a standard USB Type B receptacle and predated micro-USB-B. In fact, the Dock connector originally didn't support USB but rather FireWire.
Lightning on the other hand, there is really no excuse for Apple creating this when the market had moved over to micro-USB.
The mag-safe connector exists in the era of proprietary power connectors. Every manufacturer has a slightly different barrel size (if they use barrels) which isn't a bad thing as they like to use different voltages. Proprietary here is the standard and Apple is no different. Thankfully USB Type-C is making everyone migrated to a real interoperable standard.
I wish that every notebook came with a power connector similar to Apple's MagSafe connector. It would save a lot of notebooks having to go to the repair shop just because the baby/child, cat, dog, or even yourself tripped over the power wire either sending the notebook crashing to the floor or the cable getting ripped out the side of the notebook while destroying the port in the process.
And yet the entire MS Surface lineup has magnetic power connectors that work just as well. The problem isn't Apple's patent, it's that the OEMs want to shave off a few pennies from their costs.
Incorrect. The patent is the problem and Apple has threatened others with it. The only reason why MS gets away with it is because they have a patent agreement with apple.
Intel is just now talking about putting digital audio over the USB port. The 30-pin dock connector that Apple once had and the current Lightning port is currently the only port for modern smartphones that allows you to pipe pure digital audio into a car's stereo system. I know there's Bluetooth but again, up until recently Bluetooth audio sounded like shit after being amplified by your car's stereo system. Remember, garbage in-garbage out.
Exactly. The end result will be worse for the consumer because there will only be 1 port and you won't be able to charge and attached headphones at same time (unless wireless charging or bluetooth audio). Headphones will cost more and phone manufactures will just be grinning all the way to the bank will the take the same money from you but save on cost due to removal of 3.5mm jack.
If you remove 3.5 mm jack it's just better to go with Bluetooth anyway.
You could use small USB hubs or instead of "USB-C + Audio" they could offer "2 x USB-C" for about the same space (a bit slimmer), which could be handy in many other cases not including audio.
Anything to ripoff the consumer. Move the digital to analog conversion into the headphone to push prices way up. It's easier to differentiate and instead of paying 200$ for a 20$ headset, people will pay 400$ for a 25$ headphones.. It's rather Machiavellian and you expect this from someone like Apple but wasn't expecting Intel to go this low. Can't they just go rob a bank instead, it would be more honest than this.
This. Also, small, embedded DACs tend to be awful (both in quality and in terms of adding unnecessary bulk) on things such as USB headsets. Everyone thinking straight will know that Occam's Razor applies here, and the simplest solution (analog headphone connections) are still the best solution for high quality audio.
And what the heck is the point if you'd need an analog USB-C to 3.5mm adaptor to use standard analog headphones? The adaptor itself would create more bulk than just keeping the device thick enough for a 3.5mm jack (which no device should ever get smaller than, due to the fact that battery life is a heavily unappreciated feature of devices.)
I feel like the adapter that you speak of would not be bulky enough to be a deal breaker, at least for me.
Also, I tend to buy headphones with replaceable cables. Yes, I'd prefer to not have to buy a USB-C to Aux cable, but I would still do it if analog headphone ports were phased out.
it's not the wires which fail, it's the connection to the socket, where the wires sever, with USB-c cables, since people don't like their phones being upside down they will always be bent and unless it's a braided cable it will tear and dmg, although 3.5mm jacks are harder to dmg, also you can easily resolder a better quality jack on the wire for cheap if it ever does get damaged
I'm not in favor of replacing 3.5mm... But if you really care about high quality audio you're probably not using the phone's internal DAC & analog stage anyway. Lots of people use external DAC/amp devices with their phones, frankly I think it's a useless hassle but I can see the appeal if you're always in the go and don't have a home setup.
The mass market is going Bluetooth/wireless anyway, they (Apple/Intel/Google) could probably get away with killing the 3.5mm jack faster than we think. Sure there'll bet a brouhaha initially from cheapskates (with a point) that don't need more than a $5 headset, but it'll fade.
You have pierced the inner working of the conspiracy!
Now quick -- you stand to make a fortune if you market those $200 headphones for $375. You'll undercut the market while the conspirators, all 1000+ of them, artificially keep prices high.
Except D-Sub's actually useful, just like PS/2 connections for keyboard and mouse.
People who don't work IT don't understand this, but PS/2 keyboard and mice in a PS/2 port always work (unless the PS/2 port or peripherals are dead) and this is a godsend because you don't know how often real-world PCs don't like to play nice with USB devices, where drivers fail to install as you plug in the USB device, USB 3.0 to 2.0 compatibility errors (see installing Windows 7 on a Z170 chipset using USB mouse and keyboard, when Intel dropped EHCI compatibility for USB), etc.
D-Sub is an analog port and just like 3.5mm audio, you plug it in and it just works. No drivers needed. This is a godsend when troubleshooting servers and you literally need video output to see what you're dealing with.
This is a horrible idea. I do plenty of digital audio today, it's wireless. Why would I want a cable to do something I can already do wirelessly? Why would I ever want to lose the ability to do analog audio; which works with everything; for a port that will only work if I buy the special version of a song that comes with digital listening rights. If you are a consumer and not tied to the music industry or one of the businesses involved with this you are about to get screwed.
Digital audio isn't wireless. In fact, most (if not all) common wireless technology is inherently analog at one point. The only potential exception is using morse-code-like light signals to relay information from one point to another, as controlling the light in time would be on-off-on-off.
If you're talking bluetooth transmission, that is inherently analog because radio waves aren't digital, just as much as sound waves aren't digital. You can modulate digital information to be transferred through an analog medium (radio waves, WiFi, etc) but the fact of the matter is that your digital music goes through an analog conversion to be sent over bluetooth radios, captured lossy by the receiving bluetooth radio, reconverted to digital audio information, then reconverted into analog sound which is played through the headphone drivers.
Actually I'm talking about WiFi audio streaming. My phone, audio receivers all support this. It is lossless and stays from source to amplifier where it is converted to analogue. I suspect the cost for a wifi speaker will be similar to the cost of the USB digital audio given the same level of commitment and it has less risk of the audio vendors locking down the ecosystem to overcharge customers.
Accepting loss in conversion to and from analog is a choice not a requirement. WiFi is net lossless transmission of data. I don't miss half the web page because someone stepped between my laptop and the antenna it just takes a bit longer. Since music is generally buffered there is a buffer to limit this sort of potential delay.
Bluetooth consists of an analog carrier modulated by digital data. If you want to be pedantic, then yes, *all* real-world signals are technically analog, whether they're propagating down a wire or over the air. But most people wouldn't argue with the statement of "bluetooth is digital". Also, there's no reason why a bluetooth signal would necessarily be "captured lossy". In the event that there's enough noise to cause an error, bluetooth's forward error correction should detect and correct it.
Are you seriously arguing that since radio waves are analogue, that Bluetooth is not digital, while simultaneously arguing that Morse encoded messages with light waves doesn't have an analogue transmission? The only difference between light and radio is the frequency.
I don't see the need of that. Well I see the needs for the update of Audio Class, but getting rid of 3.5mm and just rely on usb does not ring me. Probably they want laptops or mobile with only USB ports on that, but different USB ports with different capability (thunderbolt, charging, audio, whatever) can be even more confusing.
If there's way to route whatever signal to the proper devices then it would make USB a holy grail...
I don't see the point in removing a analog audio port from phones. Sure the 3.5mm connector is pretty bad from a technical standpoint but ultimately the phone still needs the dac to even use the internal speaker and the interference caused by the rest of the phone is pretty low already.
Sure old or PC headphones could work with a usb c dac as well but I really don't see the point.
What would be much better in my opinion is to develop a analog standard to Cary audio over usb. Requiring only a passive adapter to 3.5mm. Assuming this is viable to make.
"In fact, USB-C can be used to transfer analog audio in accordance with the specification of the connector. It all comes down as to how that audio is transmitted. The USB-C has sideband use pins (SBU1 and SBU2) which can be used for analog audio in audio adapter accessory mode. Use of the sideband pins should not impact data transfers and other vital functionality of USB-C cables, which should make them relatively simple from the engineering point of view. In this case, the USB-C connector will just replace the 3.5 mm mini jack."
<blockquote>The MPUs will also support HDCP</blockquote> They just had to sneak this one in. I suppose there won't be any USB-C -> SPDIF adapters then, and many other such accessories. It's the same crippling BS that makes the HDMI spec so infuriatingly finicky. I say we nip this in the bud.
The change in standard has 3 preferred outcomes for manufacturers and the music industry: 1. slimmer products (not limited by the diameter of the 3.5) 2. cable standardization (cheaper to make) and 3. HDCP (to prevent copying). Sit back, grab some popcorn and watch the industry spin to get popular support for it.
Analog doesn't disappear if you want to listen to music. Why move it off the device decoding the music archives if not to make it more unnecessarily complex, expensive, inconvenient, lower performance, and expensive? Did I mention it would increase cost?
Does anyone else think the reality of this isn't going to be a $1 bump in headphone prices, or even a $20 price jump for $1 worth of extra parts in you headset, but rather a breakout cable with USBC on one end and USBC + a 3.5mm jack on the other combined with continued erosion of wired audio on the high end via bluetooth..
Power usage is likely to take a hit. Your phone vendor has every reason to optimize power usage to make its batter numbers look good. You cheap dongle/usb-headphones maker won't have the expertise to do as good a job even if they cared (they won't); so we'll end up with another power vampire on our devices.
It could take any number of shapes, I think the mass market is going wireless (Bluetooth) either way so it might all be moot. If they wait another five years the mass market won't even care whether 3.5mm is dropped, and audio enthusiasts would either welcome outboard solutions (which they already use anyway) or settle for wireless "when it's good enough" (which for mobile use it already is).
mass market are cheap earphone buyers, they don't go wireless they go cheap, the more bulk you add or the more "additional" costs you add the more they back away
I still have yet to see a GOOD argument for why this move makes sense - either for Lightning or for USB-C. The 'added value' that is played up - whether active noise canceling, temperature sensing, etc. seems pretty trivial when put up against the inability to charge a device while listening to headphones, the fact that instead of one high quality, well implemented DAC and amp in my phone or other device, now every single headset you buy has to have all that stuff included, which costs money, increases bulk of a device that should be as light as possible since you literally wear it, and in all likelihood, will be made as cheap as possible and implemented poorly in the vast majority of headsets produced.
How about doing an article addressing these issues guys?
Well, the DAC/amp could reside on the cable instead and you don't need one in every device anymore... The mass market is going wireless regardless and the specialist/high end market never cared all those much for the built in solutions... I'm not saying i welcome a future of devices fragmented by Type C and Lighting, but it's looking inevitable.
Like I posted before you still do, be it a less potent one. You still need to drive the phone's speaker and to do that you also need a dac. Its that simple so ultimately moving to digital only makes you require both a dac in the phone and one in the cable / headphone.
DACs are bulky, you can't put a DAC on earphone cables, it's heavier than the earphones themselves, no more morning jogs without your earphones falling out
- How about doing an article addressing these issues guys? -
with this : "In fact, USB-C can be used to transfer analog audio in accordance with the specification of the connector. It all comes down as to how that audio is transmitted."
It's a standard, which would then require a cheap adapter. still means you cannot use while charging, still means you are pushed to buy new headphones. Again it means there are no benefits only downsides if that is the case. It also means only one port can be for audio.
USB-C is really turning into a mess. This is yet another thing that may or may not work on any given port. I understand the appeal of the single cable docking station for a laptop with the cable providing power to the laptop and video/usb/data to the docking station and the use for alt modes but the whole thing is a mess. No amount of logo's is going to solve the issue and your average people are going to just be stuck plugging something in and hoping it works and when it doesn't probably not knowing why.
Completely agreed. I don't see how everyone has missed this point in the rush to 'standardize' on one physical connector. While there are benefits to that road, at least the current way you can be pretty confident that if the cable fits the port, it's going to work. We've already seen this in practice in the few usb-c devices we have now. A new Dell Precision laptop with Thunderbolt that doesn't support charging, and Thunderbolt docks that don't work when plugged in to the retina MacBook.
Well, making a reversible connector was a clear indication the level of retardation in the general population is scheduled for an increase. We aren't talking convenience here, we are talking "retard proof", or "retard friendly". And it is way more expressive - it is a win win for the industry and just yet another in a long series of lose lose for the consumer.
3.5mm jack is a lot more robust than any type of USB, and yet headphones still go flaky all the time. At least with analog when it goes flaky you know what is happening. With digital it is just going to not work at all and you are not going to have the slightest clue why. So you're going to end up spending even more money replacing even more pricey equipment. Nope, not gonna happen to me.
"A good thing about USB Type-C headsets with MPUs is that they are going to be software upgradeable and could gain functionality over their lifespan"
Oh Intel, still clueless after so many years. How EXACTLY do you expect this to play out? In particular, what is the mechanism by which the software update gets from its initial location (on some server somewhere) into the ROM of the headset? Because the way this has ALWAYS worked in the past is that you were supposed to run some random.exe (yeah, that sounds like a good idea idea --- I just trust some random .exe I find on a web site that looks like it was designed in 1998, presumably with security practices to match) on my Windows PC, while the headset is plugged into the PC. This mechanism left Mac users screwed, but that was considered acceptable because, tough.
But it's a new world these days. If your game plan is that you expect everyone to own a Windows PC, good luck with. And if your game plan admits to reality, then what? You expect every hardware vendor to write an Android app and an iOS app as the updater? And what about that (not quite negligible) fraction of the population that still have only PCs and Macs? What's going to happen when Microsoft complains that there isn't a Win Phone updater? What about those people who bought their headset to plug into their TV and could not care less about the world of phones and PCs?
The arrogance, ignorance, and sheer idiocy behind this bland sentence is truly remarkable...
In the past decade, Intel started building in spyware and DRM into their processors. For many customers, there is no such thing as security on much of the PC platform due to this. Now with USB-C DRM Audio Intel is expanding their spyware/DRM push to peripherals.
Considering that every spyware/DRM addition to a platform decreases its overall value to customers. It's no wonder that the PC market is in death spiral and Intel is laying off so many employees.
Most important thing is, who is going to support older headsets. Even now, we have huge problems with older phones as they past 1 or 2 year mark, manufacturer stops software updates. Now I don't see why headsets would be better.
I hope EU or USA pass laws to bind manufactures to support their product with at least security updates as long as more than 5% of total devices sold is in use. Because when we start connecting those washing machines and fridges to internet (of things) there will be abundance of security holes up to 20 years old machines. Then few coders in cave can bring whole nations electricity grid down simply by commanding starting and stopping these machines in apt order.
Could Android devices finally get their equivalent to the Apple Dock connector? One plug, that allows you to connect to a dock and play audio (analog or digital) and/or video, and charge the device, and transfer data, and and and? Could we, finally, start to see a phone-agnostic accessories market start to develop?
This could be the start of something wonderful ... if everyone plays ball together!
This already exists, there's two issues tho. There's several different implementations (from USB audio over 2.0/OTG to MHL & Displayport), and the mass market wants to go full wireless anyway so nothing truly universal will gain traction...
There are lots of alternatives for Android devices, but nothing standard across even multiple phones from a single OEM. And there's nothing as nice and neat and easy-to-connect-to like the Dock Connector.
Do you use MicroHDMI + MicroUSB + headphone jack?
Do you use MHL-over-MicroUSB + headphone jack?
Do you use Slimport + headphone jack?
Can you pipe digital audio over the USB port? On some phones, yes, on others no.
Not every phone has the ports in the same location or the same distance apart, so you can't make a universal mount on any devices. Not every phone even has the connectors all on the same side of the phone.
USB Type-C connector could eliminate all this by allowing power, digital audio, digital video, and data over the same connector, which would be in the middle of the bottom edge of just about every phone. Now 3rd-party accessory makers have a single connector to add to their devices and it will work with any Android device with a USB Type-C port.
The reason wireless is "taking off" on Android devices is the lack of standardised ports, so they just eliminate the port. It's not a better solution, just a different one, with it's own set of issues.
you can, apple docks have a DAC integrated into them lighting connector devices have DACs integrated into them, which is why they can sell overpriced gimmick hardware. You can transfer digital audio over these connections to a DAC via micro USB, phones can use an OTG cable/connection to do so. Older phones which don't have OTG support and only terminal connectors suffer from this. . The USB-C cable doesn't eliminate any of the problems you've stated, to have a dock which fits and supports every phone, of all sizes, of different weights is impossible, you can only go as far as having a cable which supports all of them. which again means this change doesn't bring anything, as every phone has a 3.5mm audio jack already and all you are doing is changing the connection. Besides you cannot have power and analogue signal going down the same cable at the same time. The fact that a current produces a magnetic field means you can't have an analogue signal in the same cable
As for switching to digital connections for consumer audio, it's always seemed to me that it's just going to result in one cheap DAC being replaced with a pile of even cheaper DACs which is just going to make everything more expensive and sound worse, for the dubious benefit of the technology being "cooler" or something.
Surely a lossless wireless transmission standard makes more sense for headphones - usb type c just needs to supply the power when the headphone batteries are low. To charge phone/device and headphones at same time you just need two usb type c connectors on a power adapter.
For a multi-channel bit stream it's just a data transfer anyway, so standard type c should already work.
I can see most consumers opting not to buy a laptop that doesn't also include analog audio ports. For the same reason that built-in blue-tooth hasn't already eliminated them.
Like they stopped buying laptops without optical drives or full size ports? (Or replaceable batteries, storage, RAM, etc) No. Most consumers, in the long run if not largely in the short term, will flock to wireless solutions because it'll be the most natural solution.
I'm not saying i agree or welcome this, but it's what's gonna happen. The midrange market is already all about wireless and the high end market is either not large enough to matter or they actually prefer and outboard solution anyway.
A bunch of cheapskates that want to cling to dollar store headsets are unfortunately not gonna stop this. The market WILL get fragmented by Type C and Lighting, and some devices will get unnecessarily more complex.
It'll be better in the long run, maybe, but it sure is gonna be messy in the interim.
Some people like to carry a headphone the size of two half watermelons. I do not. I like the tiny, in ear headphones that I can forget in my pocket. You are telling me these tiny things not only will have to be much bigger to contain blutooth, but will also need a battery I will need to babysit? I doubt I am alone of this opinion. An iphone that requires me to carry a watermelon in my bag is a non starter.
the funny part is the tiny earphones suddenly having to accommodate all of this. Like there wasn't a reason why they were tiny and have their heaviest points at the driver
I would genuinely like to see this work in the PC market because for me onboard sound has never been good enough. I sigh whenever I see or hear a Realtek solution. The transition through Optical to HDMI audio has been very annoying, for me it became a limitation rather than any kind of benefit.
I would welcome one major standard across all devices with an emphasis on quality rather than low budget. The problems will come from the Sony factor, would they want this standard to happen or would they prefer to push more propriety audio technologies and formats?
oh god a voodoo believer, listen if they haven't implemented good DACs on expensive PCs (even though they have on desktop and some notebooks, only cheaper one's need to catch up, it's mainly the fact they are weakly amped) why would you think headphone manufacturers would care??? 3.5mm jacks are already a major standard
Anybody remember the USB headset on the Palm Treo 800? Probably not, because it was a dead end, it didn't sell, and the technology went nowhere. The audio was bad, the headsets were expensive, cumbersome, and not-compatible with better alternatives already on the market. In short, it had lots of disadvantages and no really compelling advantages. So, if a USB headset was a bad idea then, what's made it so much better of an idea today? I certainly can;t think of anything.
Bluetooth headphones already have a built in DAC and are similarly priced as analogue counterparts. I see this being more of a problem for in-ear headphones, because of the size.
Mechanical loads will be an issue. When my phone is in my pocket, the analog headphone plug is subjected to forces from various directions. I doubt a USB-C connector, which is relatively short can have the kind of mechanical robustness the analog TRRS connector offers.
Good point... What I am concerned is the audio quality. Can I use why very hard to drive HiFi quality headphones aka 1000$, piece of craftsmanship with this new usb port and get enough power to use them?
If audiophiles will be ok, with this, well maybe. But if it is worse than old, or only as good as the old... Why buy new headphones? By headphones will last next 15-25 years and stil be good quality. My phone will be old junk in few years. The usb port will chance to new version if every 2-4 years. The next usb version could be based on light. How it will be compatible with usb-c headphones? I doubt very much!
There are some potential benefits to this approach, which most of the skeptical commenters here have apparently failed to appreciate.
First, a wired connection provides power to the headset - and thus such headsets are inherently lighter, more compact, and cheaper than wireless ones, because they don't have to incorporate a battery, a radio, charger and power management circuits. If your phone is plugged in while you are listening (assuming USB Daisy chaining or two ports - e.g. on on top and one on bottom of phone), you can listen forever whereas a Bluetooth headset will run out of juice. A powered headset can also opt for more power consumption (e.g. higher volume, better DSP) without worrying about draining the tiny internal battery of a wireless headset.
As far as digital signalling goes, it means you can use a high-quality headset on a cheap/crappy phone and still achieve high-quality sound. You are also not limited by length or shielding quality of cable when it comes to distortion/noise. Onboard DAC also means the headset can do its own equalization to match the specific parameters of its driver and acoustic chamber design - thus allowing a more nearly 'perfect' (e.g. spectrally flat) performance from less 'perfect' (e.g. cheaper!) designs. It also means potential for tunable EQ on the headset, that travels with the headset (independently of what you plug it into.)
And as mentioned in the write-up, there is additional potential for extra data to/from the headset - which is a nice bonus.
One other thing. Current analog headphone audio is by design limited to stereo-only. But imagine a digital 5.1+ channel signal being sent to headphones. They could do their own design-specific conversions to simulate surround sound as accurately as possible. Or they could even incorporate multiple drivers (e.g. one bass/midrange/subwoofer driver surrounded by a ring of tweeters) and use delay/beamforming algorithms to actually reproduce more or less the exact sound wavefront you'd get at your ear from actual surround-sound speakers. Imagine carrying a surround-sound system on your head everywhere you go. Something utterly impossible with analog headphones, but entirely possible with digital ones - and will mesh nicely with VR as well...
You only have 2 ears. You only need 2 ear cups. You only need two channels. The human doesn't have multiple ears, only 2, and the human perceives "surround" sound because of how sound changes as it travels around the head. This can be achieved 100% in software without requiring additional channels.
To put it in an analogy, multi channel surround for headphones is like instead of screwing in a lightbulb with your hand, you are standing on a chair and 4 guys are rotating the chain with you so the bulk can get screwed in.
No it can't be easily done with just software. The way sound bounces and refracts around the head and the pinna (the ear ridges/cavities) is unique to each individual because those geometries are individually unique like fingerprints, and each individual's brain has learned how to interpret those individually unique distortions to infer the 3D soundscape.
So no software-driven stereo emulation of 3D sound will ever actually match the real 3D sound experience. It could crudely approximate it, sure - but will never be nearly as good.
And to be honest not very useful. I think if you ask people what the prefer between having to replace their headphone to have a thinner device and 5.1 audio vs keeping their stereo headphone, same thickness but better battery life, battery life will beat 5.1 by a huge margin
As far as charge while listening, either two ports on the phone or some kind of a Y-splitter adapter/hub would do the trick (and USB has always been all about hubs, after all...)
As long as they will put 2 Type-C's in the phone, It's okay... only one !! not another MacBook stupid thing please...
And If we ask ( How can we charge and use the headphone in the same time ? ) The answer will be ( You can buy an adapter that can do this for only 39.99 ). And we add ( We don't want to carry an adapter !! ) The answer will be ( You can buy a bluetooth headset then ).
Another cost, it's either in-the-box without changing the price or just put another type-C connector, or just keep the 3.5 there...
Or make the in-the-box Type-C cable already has the adapter built-in
And then how do you charge the blutooth headset and listen to music at the same time. I already have way too many batteries to babysit in my life already.
"A good thing about USB Type-C headsets with MPUs is that they are going to be software upgradeable and could gain functionality over their lifespan." Yeah, like when I bought first 4M DigCam, I was okay with the fact that it needed a firmware upgrade. Then, I found that the telephoto lens ALSO needed a FW upgrade that I realized I had enough of having to continually upgrade electronics. Why can't software designers can't figure out software that requires no 'upgrades'? If they could only make it right the first time like hardware designers. And you are now telling me that I gotta firmware upgrade my headphones?????
1. It means I will have to choose between either having an external storage attached to my device, or an ethernet connection, or a headset, but none simultaneously
2. It means that if I have my current laptop, a tablet, an iphone 7, I will need not two but THREE different headsets, one for the laptop's audio jack, one for the iPhone's lighting port, and one for the tablet's USB-C port.
There is just no reason to switch headphones away from analogue jacks. They are analogue devices. Sure, have digital/USB connected headphones for such purposes but headphones used purely to listen to the output of a device had no need to be anything more just as there is no need to make connections to speakers digital.
I have an external DAC/AMP that I plug headphones into, I neither want nor have any need to replace that with some standard DAC/Amp combo in the headphone itself - it's utterly pointless. The drivers in the headphone are still analogue and would still be connected to such an internal DAC/Amp in exactly the same way electrically as they are now
Starting with the iphone 7. I have been buying iphones pretty much from the first model and have like 4 generations of ipad in my home. But I am not going to follow Apple on this one.
This is what happens when a existing standard is too well engineered and cost effective that companies have to make a poorer and much more expensive solution to milk us like cable TV subscriptions.
This is great for high quality audio, and also for high quality microphone. In the standard little smartphone jack connector, you just get a mono mic, not good for recording. With USB-C you could get stereo headphones+stereo mic all on 1 port, and the mics would be powered (equivalent of phantom power). Really this is great news for HD audio and especially recording! With this technology you could record the highest quality audio right from your smartphone (no need for XLR microphone or anything)!
really how much more do you want to save up on phone production? all the phones are sold at a 400% profit margin already. if intel wants to do this, a series of generation of phones need to placed with both 3.5mm jack as well as the usb port. there is an inherent advantage of analogue headphones that they usually work even if they are banged up, usb data cables are one of the most replaced items on the electronics market, there is no comparing them to hdmi cables, which is kept safe behind the tv screens, and its not like we suddenly developed new abilities to hear stuff over these phones that only a usb can transfer. finally this can be ok for big cans, but what about those minuscule in ear earphones? imagine the billions that can be made from such a transition
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
148 Comments
Back to Article
brucethemoose - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
There won't be a cost advantage to this for some time. Until everyone's old analog equipment is phased out, smartphones with digital-only USB output would be crippled.brucethemoose - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
*any devices, not just smartphones.ddriver - Wednesday, April 27, 2016 - link
So replace a 20 cent versatile and widely spread connector with an tremendously more expensive one, which is complete overkill for audio and makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.Come one, this is getting pathetic, has nothing to do with innovation and is all about desperately looking for ways to milk more money out of consumers.
ddriver - Wednesday, April 27, 2016 - link
And seeing how most devices come and will continue to come with just one C port, what do I connect first? Sure, it supports daisy chaining, but I highly doubt many devices will come with a path-through, that will only add to the cost. So you have to carry around external adapters.Headphones do not require going digital, this will only add to the cost and environmental impact at no tangible benefit other than increased profits. Cable goes bad due to twisting - you can't fix it, you have to throw it away together with a chip, and who knows, potentially a perfectly good headphone set as well. I am sure the industry will be thrilled about this, and it goes for engineering a weak point so that cables fail shortly after their warranty period runs out, forcing people to make a new purchase. Good old planned obsolescence - it should be criminalized.
ddriver - Wednesday, April 27, 2016 - link
The only way this ends up something more than a greed driven d1ck move is they scrap the usb C and go for a connector that is backward compatible with 3.5 mm jacks and add another wire for data, a single wire will suffice, providing enough bandwidth for sensors and such, while keeping it a dedicated connector.oloos8787 - Monday, September 12, 2016 - link
ddriver, can you contact me at [email protected]? MAX Solutions offers plugs and jacks with one more line, backwards compatible. Check out www.maxsolutionsllc.comMobiusPizza - Thursday, April 28, 2016 - link
I'd rather the 3.5mm jack go, I have so many cables die on me (only 1 channel with sound) even with expensive cables, and some headphone have cabples that are non--replaceable. USB can potentially solve that.ddriver - Thursday, April 28, 2016 - link
You'd rather pay like 30$ every time a cable dies on you? And on the headphone side, it will be even harder to replace than a regular stereo analog audio cable, that means throw away the headphones as well.I am curious of the level of electronics knowledge and skill set of an average AT reader. Most of the comments boil down to "woot, new tech, usb-c, must be great, can't wait, pesky old 3.5mm jacks must go". Practically speaking, replacing the 3.5mm jack with usb-c ranks amongst the dumbest things one could possibly do. But it makes a lot of sense commercially. The motivation is one - more profit, and it will come at the expense of consumers.
You'd think with their billions of dollars, intel could come up with less ridiculous bullet points to justify this, but looking at the way people accept it, they might simply not be that interested in convincing the few people out there who haven't yet been reduced to braindead victims of consumerism. The industry has its sweet time telling people what to want, gradually making them better and better at getting milked.
ddriver - Thursday, April 28, 2016 - link
Actually, reading through the comments it seems this scam is not accepted nearly as well as I feared. This is good, there is still hope for the human kind :DImSpartacus - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
Yeah, so it would be a while before this could be useful, right?BrooksT - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
Yep -- it's a shame that 3.5mm audio gear was crippled for its entire life because some of us hung on to 1/4" devices. Sorry, everyone!ImSpartacus - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
A passive adapter for 3.5mm and 1/4" is pretty simple & compact, right?But is it that easy to go from digital to analog (or vice versa)? Do you need an active adapter?
I'm not really an audio connoisseur, so I don't have an educated opinion on this stuff.
wolrah - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
Quoting the article:"The USB-C has sideband use pins (SBU1 and SBU2) which can be used for analog audio in audio adapter accessory mode. Use of the sideband pins should not impact data transfers and other vital functionality of USB-C cables, which should make them relatively simple from the engineering point of view."
Any device could maintain their analog audio hardware and just eliminate the port, instead connecting it up to be yet another feature riding on the USB-C port. Adapters from such devices to a standard 3.5mm or other electrically compatible analog audio connections would be as cheap, simple, and dumb as DVI-I to VGA adapters. It's just changing the physical connector.
I'd imagine the transition would go pretty much the same as the various display connector changes have gone. New port shows up, some thin devices drop the old one and require adapters for use with most existing infrastructure. Eventually more native devices hit the market and the new port becomes relatively standard. At some point mainstream devices not crunched for space or cost start dropping the old port due to lack of use.
Look how long it's taken to kill VGA, and that's a port that should have been completely irrelevant after LCDs took over from CRTs.
brucethemoose - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
Doesn't DVI have analog and digital variants?If so, that's the perfect comparison. VGA = 3.5mm, DVI-A = USB-C analog, DVI-D = USB-C digital.
Fergy - Wednesday, April 27, 2016 - link
@brucethemoose DVI is the perfect comparison: even though it can fully replace vga, vga is still provided just as much as DVI.Why do they want to eliminate 3.5mm so much? Would they give me 2 usb-c ports on the phone to compensate? How would that help them?
Murloc - Wednesday, April 27, 2016 - link
no DAC in the phone? Thinner port?ChuckDriver - Wednesday, April 27, 2016 - link
There has to be a DAC for the ear piece of the handset.brucethemoose - Thursday, April 28, 2016 - link
That's true... They could potentially use cheaper DACs if they skip USB analog output, but that's just shaving pennies off a device's BOM at best.BiggerInside - Friday, September 30, 2016 - link
(VGA->DVI connector comparison is valid, but unlike LCD screens which require a specific controller for each panel, we are all still using stereo analog speakers that are trivial to drive off an integrated DAC/amplifier. Where DVI allowed higher resolutions without distortion and noise, the change to digital audio gets us... Nothing.)Einy0 - Wednesday, April 27, 2016 - link
"Doesn't DVI have analog and digital variants?"Sort of... DVI-I carries a VGA analog signal over the same port as the digital signals. DVI-D only the digital signals.
It's still a decent analogy. DVI should have replaced VGA a long time ago but the standard refuses to die. I think this is a good thing. They should be able to make a simple passive adapter for type C to analog 3.5mm jack and if need be pass the rest of the type-c signals and/or power as well. It would ease the transition and pave the way for some fantastic headphones with built-in DACs/amps tuned for the speakers, etc...
taisserroots - Saturday, April 30, 2016 - link
They can be had for a cheap price http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B000KW2YEIBut for it to look decent one which isn't too big the price can go up quite a bit, http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01A73XG9Q
The analogy is wrong, imagine VGA vs HDMI for a 1080p monitor, without the VGA having data loss over distance, that's what is being discussed.
The difference here is that while monitors are large enough to contain a DAC or don't even need one sometimes, it is impossible to not have a DAC in an audio ecosystem.
The fact is this just craps on the reason to get earphones and raises the price of headphones by a significant margin, the Audeze EL8s have a version with the lighting connector for $100 more than the normal EL8s, the fact is there isn't much imporvement in DACs is there is no need for that. But the reason why integrated DACs exist is to drive down the cost of those peripherals while also making the system less bulky
wolrah - Wednesday, April 27, 2016 - link
Just like with this, where analog audio can optionally be carried on extra pins in the USB-C connector, DVI-I is literally just VGA signaling running on extra pins in the DVI connector, thus why the adapters to VGA are so cheap. They're nothing more than two connectors and a bit of wire or PCB.DisplayPort to DVI/HDMI adapters are kind of the same thing, except reusing the same pins in a different way rather than having some extras. If you're using a passive DP->DVI or HDMI plug you're not actually using DisplayPort other than the physical connector, it's pure DVI/HDMI signaling flowing over it.
brucethemoose - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
Digital = (basically) sending music files over the cable.Analog = sending the actual, amplified soundwave over the cable.
You need a full blow DAC to go from digital to analog. Calling that an active adapter is an understatement, and the quality varies wildly.
Impulses - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
The market will, unfortunately, end up there anyway... Apple has been angling to have audio out the Lighting port (only) for years, and said adapters (or DAC/amps in a cable really) already exist.From the Audeze Cipher cable to the USB cables for hundreds of low cost headsets, it's already something that exists. Could it benefit from refinement? Sure, but I doubt in the long run it'd be much worse than having the same circuitry inside a phone.
The biggest issue is the fragmentation it'll create in the audio world, with at least two different target connectors and a ton of gear that doesn't really benefit from this, at all.
taisserroots - Saturday, April 30, 2016 - link
The fact it also makes causal earphone listeners who don't want loads of cables pissed off is anotherQWIKSTRIKE - Sunday, May 1, 2016 - link
The problem that I have is that USB connectors always seem to wear out at some point mini 3.5 jacks never wear out. New standards kie these usually are introduce by companies like intel because they will get license royalties to would be users increasing profit...QWIKSTRIKE - Sunday, May 1, 2016 - link
The problem that I have is that USB connectors always seem to wear out at some point mini 3.5 jacks never wear out. New standards like these usually are introduce by companies like Intel because they will get license royalties to would be users increasing profit...USB phone connections always seem to wear out for me where as my 3.5 connector never ever wears out.
Trixanity - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
Such a move would require Microsoft to step up their game. They haven't even implemented native support for USB Audio 2.0 yet - not even on Windows 10 and it's an old standard by now.Not sure how I feel about moving to a single connector and what it would do to headphones. There's also the problem of charging and connecting headphones on a phone over a single port. How will they solve that?
Trixanity - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
Forgot to mention that it seems to solve the current market fragmentation in the wiring, where you either buy the Apple-compliant version or the industry standard compliant version. That's one good thing at least.JoeyJoJo123 - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
Apple has always created its own market fragmentation to differentiate itself from the competition. From Firewire instead of standard USB, to iPod Sync cables instead of Micro/Mini USB, to Lightning instead of Micro/Mini USB 3.0, mag-charge power adapters instead of standard DC barrel plugs, etc.There's nothing good here because as long as Apple exists it will seek to create differentiation from the competition, even if the competition decides to use the same standard. At best this only delays the inevitable of them moving to an even smaller/thinner/more proprietary connector to screw over users who want to use standard devices to trap customers in the Apple ecosystem.
Kevin G - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
Firewire was an industry standard and more than Apple used it. For example, the original Playstation 2 had a 4 pin Firewire port.Out of that list, the only two Apple really created for Apple's own differentiation were the 30 pin Dock connector and the Lightning connector. Recall that the dock connector came out with the original iPod which was a hair too small to use a standard USB Type B receptacle and predated micro-USB-B. In fact, the Dock connector originally didn't support USB but rather FireWire.
Lightning on the other hand, there is really no excuse for Apple creating this when the market had moved over to micro-USB.
The mag-safe connector exists in the era of proprietary power connectors. Every manufacturer has a slightly different barrel size (if they use barrels) which isn't a bad thing as they like to use different voltages. Proprietary here is the standard and Apple is no different. Thankfully USB Type-C is making everyone migrated to a real interoperable standard.
hlmcompany - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
Yes. The IEEE standard for 1394a (1394 being the original) was known as FireWire 400 by Apple, i.LINK by Sony and Lynx by Texas Instruments.trparky - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
I wish that every notebook came with a power connector similar to Apple's MagSafe connector. It would save a lot of notebooks having to go to the repair shop just because the baby/child, cat, dog, or even yourself tripped over the power wire either sending the notebook crashing to the floor or the cable getting ripped out the side of the notebook while destroying the port in the process.Bonee - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
Apple has patented magsafe in 2007, and does not license it so expect to see it only after 2027...inighthawki - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
And yet the entire MS Surface lineup has magnetic power connectors that work just as well. The problem isn't Apple's patent, it's that the OEMs want to shave off a few pennies from their costs.sprockkets - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
Incorrect. The patent is the problem and Apple has threatened others with it. The only reason why MS gets away with it is because they have a patent agreement with apple.ingwe - Wednesday, April 27, 2016 - link
I have a Surface Pro 4 and a Macbook Pro. The Surface connector does not work as well as the Macbook.amb9800 - Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - link
Unlike MagSafe, the Surface connector also handles a lot more than just power, hence its being larger (and inherently a bit more unwieldy).trparky - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
Intel is just now talking about putting digital audio over the USB port. The 30-pin dock connector that Apple once had and the current Lightning port is currently the only port for modern smartphones that allows you to pipe pure digital audio into a car's stereo system. I know there's Bluetooth but again, up until recently Bluetooth audio sounded like shit after being amplified by your car's stereo system. Remember, garbage in-garbage out.BedfordTim - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
Most Dell and HP laptops use the same barrel connector.beginner99 - Wednesday, April 27, 2016 - link
Exactly. The end result will be worse for the consumer because there will only be 1 port and you won't be able to charge and attached headphones at same time (unless wireless charging or bluetooth audio). Headphones will cost more and phone manufactures will just be grinning all the way to the bank will the take the same money from you but save on cost due to removal of 3.5mm jack.If you remove 3.5 mm jack it's just better to go with Bluetooth anyway.
taisserroots - Saturday, April 30, 2016 - link
Or just keep older devicesjmunjr - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
Is it mentioned anywhere if users will be able to charge their devices and use a headset simultaneously? That's kind of a big deal..brucethemoose - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
You'd need more than 1 USB port or some kind of adapter.MrSpadge - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
You could use small USB hubs or instead of "USB-C + Audio" they could offer "2 x USB-C" for about the same space (a bit slimmer), which could be handy in many other cases not including audio.taisserroots - Saturday, April 30, 2016 - link
if you use the analogue function of the same cable you can'tjjj - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
Anything to ripoff the consumer. Move the digital to analog conversion into the headphone to push prices way up. It's easier to differentiate and instead of paying 200$ for a 20$ headset, people will pay 400$ for a 25$ headphones.. It's rather Machiavellian and you expect this from someone like Apple but wasn't expecting Intel to go this low. Can't they just go rob a bank instead, it would be more honest than this.JoeyJoJo123 - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
This. Also, small, embedded DACs tend to be awful (both in quality and in terms of adding unnecessary bulk) on things such as USB headsets. Everyone thinking straight will know that Occam's Razor applies here, and the simplest solution (analog headphone connections) are still the best solution for high quality audio.rxzlmn - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
it's mentioned in the article that USB-C itself is able to be used as an analog audio port...JoeyJoJo123 - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
And what the heck is the point if you'd need an analog USB-C to 3.5mm adaptor to use standard analog headphones? The adaptor itself would create more bulk than just keeping the device thick enough for a 3.5mm jack (which no device should ever get smaller than, due to the fact that battery life is a heavily unappreciated feature of devices.)lazarpandar - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
I feel like the adapter that you speak of would not be bulky enough to be a deal breaker, at least for me.Also, I tend to buy headphones with replaceable cables. Yes, I'd prefer to not have to buy a USB-C to Aux cable, but I would still do it if analog headphone ports were phased out.
stephenbrooks - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
I wonder if USB-C headphone cables would be any more or less susceptible to failing over time than current 3.5mm wire pairs?taisserroots - Saturday, April 30, 2016 - link
it's not the wires which fail, it's the connection to the socket, where the wires sever, with USB-c cables, since people don't like their phones being upside down they will always be bent and unless it's a braided cable it will tear and dmg, although 3.5mm jacks are harder to dmg, also you can easily resolder a better quality jack on the wire for cheap if it ever does get damagedImpulses - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
I'm not in favor of replacing 3.5mm... But if you really care about high quality audio you're probably not using the phone's internal DAC & analog stage anyway. Lots of people use external DAC/amp devices with their phones, frankly I think it's a useless hassle but I can see the appeal if you're always in the go and don't have a home setup.The mass market is going Bluetooth/wireless anyway, they (Apple/Intel/Google) could probably get away with killing the 3.5mm jack faster than we think. Sure there'll bet a brouhaha initially from cheapskates (with a point) that don't need more than a $5 headset, but it'll fade.
taisserroots - Saturday, April 30, 2016 - link
It kills of the really popular earphone market if the OEMs switchBrooksT - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
You have pierced the inner working of the conspiracy!Now quick -- you stand to make a fortune if you market those $200 headphones for $375. You'll undercut the market while the conspirators, all 1000+ of them, artificially keep prices high.
devione - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
Doesn't this solidify rumours the next major iPhone release will do away with 3.5mm completely?Gigaplex - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
Only if you expect Apple to use USB-C instead of their own proprietary connector.TesseractOrion - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
Re: D-SUB. It is the cockroach of computing LOL, it'll NEVER die ;-)JoeyJoJo123 - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
Except D-Sub's actually useful, just like PS/2 connections for keyboard and mouse.People who don't work IT don't understand this, but PS/2 keyboard and mice in a PS/2 port always work (unless the PS/2 port or peripherals are dead) and this is a godsend because you don't know how often real-world PCs don't like to play nice with USB devices, where drivers fail to install as you plug in the USB device, USB 3.0 to 2.0 compatibility errors (see installing Windows 7 on a Z170 chipset using USB mouse and keyboard, when Intel dropped EHCI compatibility for USB), etc.
D-Sub is an analog port and just like 3.5mm audio, you plug it in and it just works. No drivers needed. This is a godsend when troubleshooting servers and you literally need video output to see what you're dealing with.
TesseractOrion - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
I agree with you JoeyJoJo, that's why I said it'll never die! Those ports will be with us indefinitely for exactly those reasons you stated... :-)aakash_sin - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
+1Murloc - Wednesday, April 27, 2016 - link
PS/2 master race reporting intaisserroots - Saturday, April 30, 2016 - link
the thing is for audio especially digital to analogue is bulky, and quality stuff is expensivedeeceefar2 - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
This is a horrible idea. I do plenty of digital audio today, it's wireless. Why would I want a cable to do something I can already do wirelessly? Why would I ever want to lose the ability to do analog audio; which works with everything; for a port that will only work if I buy the special version of a song that comes with digital listening rights. If you are a consumer and not tied to the music industry or one of the businesses involved with this you are about to get screwed.JoeyJoJo123 - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
Digital audio isn't wireless. In fact, most (if not all) common wireless technology is inherently analog at one point. The only potential exception is using morse-code-like light signals to relay information from one point to another, as controlling the light in time would be on-off-on-off.If you're talking bluetooth transmission, that is inherently analog because radio waves aren't digital, just as much as sound waves aren't digital. You can modulate digital information to be transferred through an analog medium (radio waves, WiFi, etc) but the fact of the matter is that your digital music goes through an analog conversion to be sent over bluetooth radios, captured lossy by the receiving bluetooth radio, reconverted to digital audio information, then reconverted into analog sound which is played through the headphone drivers.
deeceefar2 - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
Actually I'm talking about WiFi audio streaming. My phone, audio receivers all support this. It is lossless and stays from source to amplifier where it is converted to analogue. I suspect the cost for a wifi speaker will be similar to the cost of the USB digital audio given the same level of commitment and it has less risk of the audio vendors locking down the ecosystem to overcharge customers.deeceefar2 - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
Accepting loss in conversion to and from analog is a choice not a requirement. WiFi is net lossless transmission of data. I don't miss half the web page because someone stepped between my laptop and the antenna it just takes a bit longer. Since music is generally buffered there is a buffer to limit this sort of potential delay.dueckadam - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
Bluetooth consists of an analog carrier modulated by digital data. If you want to be pedantic, then yes, *all* real-world signals are technically analog, whether they're propagating down a wire or over the air. But most people wouldn't argue with the statement of "bluetooth is digital". Also, there's no reason why a bluetooth signal would necessarily be "captured lossy". In the event that there's enough noise to cause an error, bluetooth's forward error correction should detect and correct it.ingwe - Wednesday, April 27, 2016 - link
This was my thought. All digital comes down to analog at some point. But saying that is pedantic.Gigaplex - Wednesday, April 27, 2016 - link
Are you seriously arguing that since radio waves are analogue, that Bluetooth is not digital, while simultaneously arguing that Morse encoded messages with light waves doesn't have an analogue transmission? The only difference between light and radio is the frequency.taisserroots - Saturday, April 30, 2016 - link
yepmr_tawan - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
I don't see the need of that. Well I see the needs for the update of Audio Class, but getting rid of 3.5mm and just rely on usb does not ring me. Probably they want laptops or mobile with only USB ports on that, but different USB ports with different capability (thunderbolt, charging, audio, whatever) can be even more confusing.If there's way to route whatever signal to the proper devices then it would make USB a holy grail...
qlum - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
I don't see the point in removing a analog audio port from phones. Sure the 3.5mm connector is pretty bad from a technical standpoint but ultimately the phone still needs the dac to even use the internal speaker and the interference caused by the rest of the phone is pretty low already.Sure old or PC headphones could work with a usb c dac as well but I really don't see the point.
What would be much better in my opinion is to develop a analog standard to Cary audio over usb. Requiring only a passive adapter to 3.5mm. Assuming this is viable to make.
smilingcrow - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
From the article:"In fact, USB-C can be used to transfer analog audio in accordance with the specification of the connector. It all comes down as to how that audio is transmitted.
The USB-C has sideband use pins (SBU1 and SBU2) which can be used for analog audio in audio adapter accessory mode. Use of the sideband pins should not impact data transfers and other vital functionality of USB-C cables, which should make them relatively simple from the engineering point of view. In this case, the USB-C connector will just replace the 3.5 mm mini jack."
qlum - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
That would be a great solution to just replace the jack by a more versatile port and since a passive adapter will do the price hike would be minimal.usb-c is a much better connection as generally after prolonged use 3.5mm jacks tend to wear down.
taisserroots - Saturday, April 30, 2016 - link
the actual jacks don't wear down, with cables the damage comes at the point the wire and the connection device meet. This is the same for all wirestaisserroots - Saturday, April 30, 2016 - link
USB DACs exist, but make the system more bulky and add to cost about £36 for a cheap fiio k1andy o - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
<blockquote>The MPUs will also support HDCP</blockquote>They just had to sneak this one in. I suppose there won't be any USB-C -> SPDIF adapters then, and many other such accessories. It's the same crippling BS that makes the HDMI spec so infuriatingly finicky. I say we nip this in the bud.
vicbee - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
The change in standard has 3 preferred outcomes for manufacturers and the music industry: 1. slimmer products (not limited by the diameter of the 3.5) 2. cable standardization (cheaper to make) and 3. HDCP (to prevent copying). Sit back, grab some popcorn and watch the industry spin to get popular support for it.willis936 - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
Analog doesn't disappear if you want to listen to music. Why move it off the device decoding the music archives if not to make it more unnecessarily complex, expensive, inconvenient, lower performance, and expensive? Did I mention it would increase cost?YukaKun - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
No, Intel. No thanks.We already have too many Audio transport mediums. Plus, I don't want the USB cable lock you want to push forward with this.
Cheers!
DanNeely - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
Does anyone else think the reality of this isn't going to be a $1 bump in headphone prices, or even a $20 price jump for $1 worth of extra parts in you headset, but rather a breakout cable with USBC on one end and USBC + a 3.5mm jack on the other combined with continued erosion of wired audio on the high end via bluetooth..DanNeely - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
Power usage is likely to take a hit. Your phone vendor has every reason to optimize power usage to make its batter numbers look good. You cheap dongle/usb-headphones maker won't have the expertise to do as good a job even if they cared (they won't); so we'll end up with another power vampire on our devices.Impulses - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
It could take any number of shapes, I think the mass market is going wireless (Bluetooth) either way so it might all be moot. If they wait another five years the mass market won't even care whether 3.5mm is dropped, and audio enthusiasts would either welcome outboard solutions (which they already use anyway) or settle for wireless "when it's good enough" (which for mobile use it already is).taisserroots - Saturday, April 30, 2016 - link
mass market are cheap earphone buyers, they don't go wireless they go cheap, the more bulk you add or the more "additional" costs you add the more they back awayzhenya00 - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
I still have yet to see a GOOD argument for why this move makes sense - either for Lightning or for USB-C. The 'added value' that is played up - whether active noise canceling, temperature sensing, etc. seems pretty trivial when put up against the inability to charge a device while listening to headphones, the fact that instead of one high quality, well implemented DAC and amp in my phone or other device, now every single headset you buy has to have all that stuff included, which costs money, increases bulk of a device that should be as light as possible since you literally wear it, and in all likelihood, will be made as cheap as possible and implemented poorly in the vast majority of headsets produced.How about doing an article addressing these issues guys?
Impulses - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
Well, the DAC/amp could reside on the cable instead and you don't need one in every device anymore... The mass market is going wireless regardless and the specialist/high end market never cared all those much for the built in solutions... I'm not saying i welcome a future of devices fragmented by Type C and Lighting, but it's looking inevitable.qlum - Wednesday, April 27, 2016 - link
Like I posted before you still do, be it a less potent one. You still need to drive the phone's speaker and to do that you also need a dac. Its that simple so ultimately moving to digital only makes you require both a dac in the phone and one in the cable / headphone.Impulses - Wednesday, April 27, 2016 - link
This is true, it only ends up eliminating the port... Whether that's worthwhile or not is up for debate. It seems kinda trivial on a laptop tho...taisserroots - Saturday, April 30, 2016 - link
DACs are bulky, you can't put a DAC on earphone cables, it's heavier than the earphones themselves, no more morning jogs without your earphones falling outjlabelle - Thursday, April 28, 2016 - link
- How about doing an article addressing these issues guys? -with this : "In fact, USB-C can be used to transfer analog audio in accordance with the specification of the connector. It all comes down as to how that audio is transmitted."
taisserroots - Saturday, April 30, 2016 - link
It's a standard, which would then require a cheap adapter.still means you cannot use while charging, still means you are pushed to buy new headphones.
Again it means there are no benefits only downsides if that is the case.
It also means only one port can be for audio.
kpb321 - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
USB-C is really turning into a mess. This is yet another thing that may or may not work on any given port. I understand the appeal of the single cable docking station for a laptop with the cable providing power to the laptop and video/usb/data to the docking station and the use for alt modes but the whole thing is a mess. No amount of logo's is going to solve the issue and your average people are going to just be stuck plugging something in and hoping it works and when it doesn't probably not knowing why.zhenya00 - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
Completely agreed. I don't see how everyone has missed this point in the rush to 'standardize' on one physical connector. While there are benefits to that road, at least the current way you can be pretty confident that if the cable fits the port, it's going to work. We've already seen this in practice in the few usb-c devices we have now. A new Dell Precision laptop with Thunderbolt that doesn't support charging, and Thunderbolt docks that don't work when plugged in to the retina MacBook.ddriver - Thursday, April 28, 2016 - link
Well, making a reversible connector was a clear indication the level of retardation in the general population is scheduled for an increase. We aren't talking convenience here, we are talking "retard proof", or "retard friendly". And it is way more expressive - it is a win win for the industry and just yet another in a long series of lose lose for the consumer.chaos215bar2 - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
Really, HDCP? Because _anyone_ pirates music by recording the stream off of a USB audio device.On the up side, now I can get a blast of 32 bit, 384 kHz static in my ears to match the 4k, HDR snow on my TV when the HDCP handshake fails.
Shadowmaster625 - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
3.5mm jack is a lot more robust than any type of USB, and yet headphones still go flaky all the time. At least with analog when it goes flaky you know what is happening. With digital it is just going to not work at all and you are not going to have the slightest clue why. So you're going to end up spending even more money replacing even more pricey equipment. Nope, not gonna happen to me.taisserroots - Saturday, April 30, 2016 - link
You cna even connect those to an amp with a quater inch adapter, which is even more durable, emaning you cna use your headphones in more placesname99 - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
"A good thing about USB Type-C headsets with MPUs is that they are going to be software upgradeable and could gain functionality over their lifespan"Oh Intel, still clueless after so many years. How EXACTLY do you expect this to play out? In particular, what is the mechanism by which the software update gets from its initial location (on some server somewhere) into the ROM of the headset?
Because the way this has ALWAYS worked in the past is that you were supposed to run some random.exe (yeah, that sounds like a good idea idea --- I just trust some random .exe I find on a web site that looks like it was designed in 1998, presumably with security practices to match) on my Windows PC, while the headset is plugged into the PC. This mechanism left Mac users screwed, but that was considered acceptable because, tough.
But it's a new world these days. If your game plan is that you expect everyone to own a Windows PC, good luck with. And if your game plan admits to reality, then what? You expect every hardware vendor to write an Android app and an iOS app as the updater? And what about that (not quite negligible) fraction of the population that still have only PCs and Macs? What's going to happen when Microsoft complains that there isn't a Win Phone updater? What about those people who bought their headset to plug into their TV and could not care less about the world of phones and PCs?
The arrogance, ignorance, and sheer idiocy behind this bland sentence is truly remarkable...
stephenbrooks - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
Intel want to sell you a wireless NIC on your headset too, so you can download patches from your wi-fi :-p10101010 - Wednesday, April 27, 2016 - link
In the past decade, Intel started building in spyware and DRM into their processors. For many customers, there is no such thing as security on much of the PC platform due to this. Now with USB-C DRM Audio Intel is expanding their spyware/DRM push to peripherals.Considering that every spyware/DRM addition to a platform decreases its overall value to customers. It's no wonder that the PC market is in death spiral and Intel is laying off so many employees.
Anato - Wednesday, April 27, 2016 - link
Most important thing is, who is going to support older headsets. Even now, we have huge problems with older phones as they past 1 or 2 year mark, manufacturer stops software updates. Now I don't see why headsets would be better.I hope EU or USA pass laws to bind manufactures to support their product with at least security updates as long as more than 5% of total devices sold is in use. Because when we start connecting those washing machines and fridges to internet (of things) there will be abundance of security holes up to 20 years old machines. Then few coders in cave can bring whole nations electricity grid down simply by commanding starting and stopping these machines in apt order.
phoenix_rizzen - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
Could Android devices finally get their equivalent to the Apple Dock connector? One plug, that allows you to connect to a dock and play audio (analog or digital) and/or video, and charge the device, and transfer data, and and and? Could we, finally, start to see a phone-agnostic accessories market start to develop?This could be the start of something wonderful ... if everyone plays ball together!
Impulses - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
This already exists, there's two issues tho. There's several different implementations (from USB audio over 2.0/OTG to MHL & Displayport), and the mass market wants to go full wireless anyway so nothing truly universal will gain traction...phoenix_rizzen - Wednesday, April 27, 2016 - link
There are lots of alternatives for Android devices, but nothing standard across even multiple phones from a single OEM. And there's nothing as nice and neat and easy-to-connect-to like the Dock Connector.Do you use MicroHDMI + MicroUSB + headphone jack?
Do you use MHL-over-MicroUSB + headphone jack?
Do you use Slimport + headphone jack?
Can you pipe digital audio over the USB port? On some phones, yes, on others no.
Not every phone has the ports in the same location or the same distance apart, so you can't make a universal mount on any devices. Not every phone even has the connectors all on the same side of the phone.
USB Type-C connector could eliminate all this by allowing power, digital audio, digital video, and data over the same connector, which would be in the middle of the bottom edge of just about every phone. Now 3rd-party accessory makers have a single connector to add to their devices and it will work with any Android device with a USB Type-C port.
The reason wireless is "taking off" on Android devices is the lack of standardised ports, so they just eliminate the port. It's not a better solution, just a different one, with it's own set of issues.
phoenix_rizzen - Wednesday, April 27, 2016 - link
You can also pipe analog audio over the USB Type-C connector, so it really is an everything-connector, like the Dock Connector or Lightning.taisserroots - Saturday, April 30, 2016 - link
you can, apple docks have a DAC integrated into them lighting connector devices have DACs integrated into them, which is why they can sell overpriced gimmick hardware.You can transfer digital audio over these connections to a DAC via micro USB, phones can use an OTG cable/connection to do so. Older phones which don't have OTG support and only terminal connectors suffer from this.
.
The USB-C cable doesn't eliminate any of the problems you've stated, to have a dock which fits and supports every phone, of all sizes, of different weights is impossible, you can only go as far as having a cable which supports all of them.
which again means this change doesn't bring anything, as every phone has a 3.5mm audio jack already and all you are doing is changing the connection.
Besides you cannot have power and analogue signal going down the same cable at the same time. The fact that a current produces a magnetic field means you can't have an analogue signal in the same cable
benzosaurus - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
As for switching to digital connections for consumer audio, it's always seemed to me that it's just going to result in one cheap DAC being replaced with a pile of even cheaper DACs which is just going to make everything more expensive and sound worse, for the dubious benefit of the technology being "cooler" or something.onewingedangel - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
Surely a lossless wireless transmission standard makes more sense for headphones - usb type c just needs to supply the power when the headphone batteries are low. To charge phone/device and headphones at same time you just need two usb type c connectors on a power adapter.For a multi-channel bit stream it's just a data transfer anyway, so standard type c should already work.
taisserroots - Saturday, April 30, 2016 - link
you missed the whole point of "cheaper"most prefer wired signal and many prefer earphones which do not have the space to accommodate this
pixelstuff - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
I can see most consumers opting not to buy a laptop that doesn't also include analog audio ports. For the same reason that built-in blue-tooth hasn't already eliminated them.Impulses - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
Like they stopped buying laptops without optical drives or full size ports? (Or replaceable batteries, storage, RAM, etc) No. Most consumers, in the long run if not largely in the short term, will flock to wireless solutions because it'll be the most natural solution.I'm not saying i agree or welcome this, but it's what's gonna happen. The midrange market is already all about wireless and the high end market is either not large enough to matter or they actually prefer and outboard solution anyway.
A bunch of cheapskates that want to cling to dollar store headsets are unfortunately not gonna stop this. The market WILL get fragmented by Type C and Lighting, and some devices will get unnecessarily more complex.
It'll be better in the long run, maybe, but it sure is gonna be messy in the interim.
cm2187 - Saturday, April 30, 2016 - link
Some people like to carry a headphone the size of two half watermelons. I do not. I like the tiny, in ear headphones that I can forget in my pocket. You are telling me these tiny things not only will have to be much bigger to contain blutooth, but will also need a battery I will need to babysit? I doubt I am alone of this opinion. An iphone that requires me to carry a watermelon in my bag is a non starter.taisserroots - Saturday, April 30, 2016 - link
the funny part is the tiny earphones suddenly having to accommodate all of this.Like there wasn't a reason why they were tiny and have their heaviest points at the driver
HomeworldFound - Tuesday, April 26, 2016 - link
I would genuinely like to see this work in the PC market because for me onboard sound has never been good enough. I sigh whenever I see or hear a Realtek solution. The transition through Optical to HDMI audio has been very annoying, for me it became a limitation rather than any kind of benefit.I would welcome one major standard across all devices with an emphasis on quality rather than low budget. The problems will come from the Sony factor, would they want this standard to happen or would they prefer to push more propriety audio technologies and formats?
taisserroots - Saturday, April 30, 2016 - link
oh god a voodoo believer, listen if they haven't implemented good DACs on expensive PCs (even though they have on desktop and some notebooks, only cheaper one's need to catch up, it's mainly the fact they are weakly amped) why would you think headphone manufacturers would care???3.5mm jacks are already a major standard
JoeThursday - Wednesday, April 27, 2016 - link
Anybody remember the USB headset on the Palm Treo 800? Probably not, because it was a dead end, it didn't sell, and the technology went nowhere. The audio was bad, the headsets were expensive, cumbersome, and not-compatible with better alternatives already on the market. In short, it had lots of disadvantages and no really compelling advantages. So, if a USB headset was a bad idea then, what's made it so much better of an idea today? I certainly can;t think of anything.adriangb - Wednesday, April 27, 2016 - link
Bluetooth headphones already have a built in DAC and are similarly priced as analogue counterparts. I see this being more of a problem for in-ear headphones, because of the size.damianrobertjones - Wednesday, April 27, 2016 - link
What I would like... Is for ALL Windows USB c devices to pass audio through the cable into any USB enabled car stereos.rbanffy - Wednesday, April 27, 2016 - link
Mechanical loads will be an issue. When my phone is in my pocket, the analog headphone plug is subjected to forces from various directions. I doubt a USB-C connector, which is relatively short can have the kind of mechanical robustness the analog TRRS connector offers.ingwe - Wednesday, April 27, 2016 - link
This is a very good point. I didn't consider this, but it is huge. If consumers are constantly breaking their new headphones, this will be DOA.haukionkannel - Wednesday, April 27, 2016 - link
Good point...What I am concerned is the audio quality. Can I use why very hard to drive HiFi quality headphones aka 1000$, piece of craftsmanship with this new usb port and get enough power to use them?
If audiophiles will be ok, with this, well maybe. But if it is worse than old, or only as good as the old... Why buy new headphones? By headphones will last next 15-25 years and stil be good quality. My phone will be old junk in few years. The usb port will chance to new version if every 2-4 years. The next usb version could be based on light. How it will be compatible with usb-c headphones? I doubt very much!
WaitingForNehalem - Wednesday, April 27, 2016 - link
What a pointless and desperate attempt to make more money...alexandru512 - Wednesday, April 27, 2016 - link
Another problem will be when USB will be replaced with another standard. Then WHAT? Do you think USB-C will last more that a few years?boeush - Wednesday, April 27, 2016 - link
The answer is as it always has been in the past: adaptors.boeush - Wednesday, April 27, 2016 - link
There are some potential benefits to this approach, which most of the skeptical commenters here have apparently failed to appreciate.First, a wired connection provides power to the headset - and thus such headsets are inherently lighter, more compact, and cheaper than wireless ones, because they don't have to incorporate a battery, a radio, charger and power management circuits. If your phone is plugged in while you are listening (assuming USB Daisy chaining or two ports - e.g. on on top and one on bottom of phone), you can listen forever whereas a Bluetooth headset will run out of juice. A powered headset can also opt for more power consumption (e.g. higher volume, better DSP) without worrying about draining the tiny internal battery of a wireless headset.
As far as digital signalling goes, it means you can use a high-quality headset on a cheap/crappy phone and still achieve high-quality sound. You are also not limited by length or shielding quality of cable when it comes to distortion/noise. Onboard DAC also means the headset can do its own equalization to match the specific parameters of its driver and acoustic chamber design - thus allowing a more nearly 'perfect' (e.g. spectrally flat) performance from less 'perfect' (e.g. cheaper!) designs. It also means potential for tunable EQ on the headset, that travels with the headset (independently of what you plug it into.)
And as mentioned in the write-up, there is additional potential for extra data to/from the headset - which is a nice bonus.
boeush - Wednesday, April 27, 2016 - link
One other thing. Current analog headphone audio is by design limited to stereo-only. But imagine a digital 5.1+ channel signal being sent to headphones. They could do their own design-specific conversions to simulate surround sound as accurately as possible. Or they could even incorporate multiple drivers (e.g. one bass/midrange/subwoofer driver surrounded by a ring of tweeters) and use delay/beamforming algorithms to actually reproduce more or less the exact sound wavefront you'd get at your ear from actual surround-sound speakers. Imagine carrying a surround-sound system on your head everywhere you go. Something utterly impossible with analog headphones, but entirely possible with digital ones - and will mesh nicely with VR as well...ddriver - Thursday, April 28, 2016 - link
You only have 2 ears. You only need 2 ear cups. You only need two channels. The human doesn't have multiple ears, only 2, and the human perceives "surround" sound because of how sound changes as it travels around the head. This can be achieved 100% in software without requiring additional channels.To put it in an analogy, multi channel surround for headphones is like instead of screwing in a lightbulb with your hand, you are standing on a chair and 4 guys are rotating the chain with you so the bulk can get screwed in.
Daggoth - Thursday, April 28, 2016 - link
Not to mention that what he is describing already exist on PC, and surely isn't the choice of someone searching for high quality audioboeush - Thursday, April 28, 2016 - link
No it can't be easily done with just software. The way sound bounces and refracts around the head and the pinna (the ear ridges/cavities) is unique to each individual because those geometries are individually unique like fingerprints, and each individual's brain has learned how to interpret those individually unique distortions to infer the 3D soundscape.So no software-driven stereo emulation of 3D sound will ever actually match the real 3D sound experience. It could crudely approximate it, sure - but will never be nearly as good.
cm2187 - Saturday, April 30, 2016 - link
And to be honest not very useful. I think if you ask people what the prefer between having to replace their headphone to have a thinner device and 5.1 audio vs keeping their stereo headphone, same thickness but better battery life, battery life will beat 5.1 by a huge margindarkfalz - Wednesday, April 27, 2016 - link
So, headphones would need to contain their own DAC and amplifier? Good luck with that. Also no ability to charge and listen at the same time?boeush - Wednesday, April 27, 2016 - link
Bluetooth headphones already do the same.As far as charge while listening, either two ports on the phone or some kind of a Y-splitter adapter/hub would do the trick (and USB has always been all about hubs, after all...)
Xajel - Thursday, April 28, 2016 - link
As long as they will put 2 Type-C's in the phone, It's okay... only one !! not another MacBook stupid thing please...And If we ask ( How can we charge and use the headphone in the same time ? )
The answer will be ( You can buy an adapter that can do this for only 39.99 ).
And we add ( We don't want to carry an adapter !! )
The answer will be ( You can buy a bluetooth headset then ).
Another cost, it's either in-the-box without changing the price or just put another type-C connector, or just keep the 3.5 there...
Or make the in-the-box Type-C cable already has the adapter built-in
cm2187 - Saturday, April 30, 2016 - link
And then how do you charge the blutooth headset and listen to music at the same time. I already have way too many batteries to babysit in my life already.theMediaman - Thursday, April 28, 2016 - link
Awesome article. There are a lot of fluffy pieces out there about Intel's announcement, but yours is technical and well explained. Bookmarking this.pseudoid - Thursday, April 28, 2016 - link
"A good thing about USB Type-C headsets with MPUs is that they are going to be software upgradeable and could gain functionality over their lifespan."Yeah, like when I bought first 4M DigCam, I was okay with the fact that it needed a firmware upgrade. Then, I found that the telephoto lens ALSO needed a FW upgrade that I realized I had enough of having to continually upgrade electronics. Why can't software designers can't figure out software that requires no 'upgrades'? If they could only make it right the first time like hardware designers.
And you are now telling me that I gotta firmware upgrade my headphones?????
cm2187 - Friday, April 29, 2016 - link
This is absolutely ridiculous.1. It means I will have to choose between either having an external storage attached to my device, or an ethernet connection, or a headset, but none simultaneously
2. It means that if I have my current laptop, a tablet, an iphone 7, I will need not two but THREE different headsets, one for the laptop's audio jack, one for the iPhone's lighting port, and one for the tablet's USB-C port.
This is R-I-D-I-C-U-L-O-U-S!
Magic Man - Friday, April 29, 2016 - link
There is just no reason to switch headphones away from analogue jacks. They are analogue devices. Sure, have digital/USB connected headphones for such purposes but headphones used purely to listen to the output of a device had no need to be anything more just as there is no need to make connections to speakers digital.I have an external DAC/AMP that I plug headphones into, I neither want nor have any need to replace that with some standard DAC/Amp combo in the headphone itself - it's utterly pointless. The drivers in the headphone are still analogue and would still be connected to such an internal DAC/Amp in exactly the same way electrically as they are now
Magic Man - Friday, April 29, 2016 - link
...and no phone/tablet really needs to be so thin that a standard 3.5mm jack socket is too large.ClockHound - Friday, April 29, 2016 - link
+1000Any product that dares implement this silly solution-looking-for-a-problem, will be ridiculed, not purchased.
cm2187 - Saturday, April 30, 2016 - link
Starting with the iphone 7. I have been buying iphones pretty much from the first model and have like 4 generations of ipad in my home. But I am not going to follow Apple on this one.StrangerGuy - Monday, May 2, 2016 - link
This is what happens when a existing standard is too well engineered and cost effective that companies have to make a poorer and much more expensive solution to milk us like cable TV subscriptions.doubrown - Tuesday, May 10, 2016 - link
So instead of a DAC and amplifier in the phone, each headset will need a DAC and amplifier....seems wastefulcipnrkorvo - Tuesday, May 10, 2016 - link
This is great for high quality audio, and also for high quality microphone. In the standard little smartphone jack connector, you just get a mono mic, not good for recording. With USB-C you could get stereo headphones+stereo mic all on 1 port, and the mics would be powered (equivalent of phantom power). Really this is great news for HD audio and especially recording! With this technology you could record the highest quality audio right from your smartphone (no need for XLR microphone or anything)!cipnrkorvo - Tuesday, May 10, 2016 - link
of course for this to work devices need at least 2 USB-C ports, if not 3.vivekvs1992 - Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - link
really how much more do you want to save up on phone production? all the phones are sold at a 400% profit margin already. if intel wants to do this, a series of generation of phones need to placed with both 3.5mm jack as well as the usb port. there is an inherent advantage of analogue headphones that they usually work even if they are banged up, usb data cables are one of the most replaced items on the electronics market, there is no comparing them to hdmi cables, which is kept safe behind the tv screens, and its not like we suddenly developed new abilities to hear stuff over these phones that only a usb can transfer. finally this can be ok for big cans, but what about those minuscule in ear earphones? imagine the billions that can be made from such a transition