iPhone DAC

>>56483078
In other words, what was Apple's endgame here for changing audio control? What innovating factor were they thinking?

Serious replies only, no meme levels of hating of everything Apple does.

File: Dragonfly_v2-14.jpg (434KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

434KB, 2048x1536px

>>56483078
There was no 'external DAC' hype. It was always going to be a wireless push although I am surprised at no apple music alac mode.

If you own an iphone and care about listening to flacs etc you already got something like pic related a long time ago.

>>56483078

>Or was the goal to just get rid of the 3.5mm standard and have analog audio come out of the lightning or USB-C area?

This.
Apple doesn't include standard earpods in with the iPhone 7/7+ because they want you to use the LIGHTNING EARPODS and EXPERIENCE LIGHTNING-ENHANCED AUDIO or some dumb marketing shit. Basically they want to lock you into their system further. Otherwise, once again, they'd include the standard earpods since they pack in the adaptor, offer the lightning ones as an option, and airpods as another option.

>>56483127
I hope you know iPhones integrated DACs are probably 90% as good as that external.
Literally what is the point.

>>56483106
>What innovating factor were they thinking?

|
|>
|
|3
|

>>56483106
>what was Apple's endgame
sell you wireless earphones

>>56483140
the lightning earpods are just there to avoid a massive backlash. They literally said when talking about audio that they see a wireless future.

Give it a couple of years for the price of airpods to come down and they'll be standard. They're already being pushed as the 'real' way to listen to music on the new iphone.

>>56483159
You should do some research m8

>>56483127
Thanks for the info. Do you think the general trend of smartphones will switch to the external DAC stuff? I can only imagine the next generation of Androids will have audio come out of USB-C, whether that's analog or digital

>>56483140
You're probably right. Apple does do a lot for marketing and to be cool, but they used to innovate a lot too. I can't tell if this is a marketing move or an innovating move

>>56483159
that 10%, you're listening to flac faggot

>>56483179
Are airpods Bluetooth or apple proprietary? A lot of audiophiles seem to think Bluetooth is absolute dogshit.

>>56483213
>Do you think the general trend of smartphones will switch to the external DAC stuff?

No, it's already only for people who take these things far too seriously. Who wants more cables and blocks hanging out of their phone?

Apple doesn't want that and it's not a byproduct of this decision that people will drive to copy. There'll be renewed interest in pushing bt audio and aptx if anything changes at all.

The reality of the situation is that apple sacrificed function over form and obviously felt ashamed enough to directly address why they had some that in the keynote.

>>56483246
a lot of 'audiophiles' seem to think earbuds are absolute dogshit and yet 95% of people use them. What self proclaimed experts think is pretty irrelevant in regards to a products actual penetration of usage

it's apple proprietary thanks to the custom chip. Quality remains to be seen I guess but it's fucking irrelevant

You can improve a phone's DAC
You can improve headphones
You can't improve on an analog signal connection...
But you can remove it

>>56483345
The point of earbuds is that they are cheap and portable
Now they are not cheap, and they take unecessary power to transmit a digital signal to battery powered headphones
Audiophiles are not listening to music on an iPhone because it's quality, they are doing it because it's convenient

>>56483432
they are still cheap! there are TWO sets of earphones being released with the iphone. lighting earbuds in the box and airbuds which are the wireless expensive ones!

File: image.jpg (88KB, 658x370px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 658x370px

>>56483456
Wait they're actually called air buds?
Slam dunk for apple

>>56483456
But the point is expensive earbuds shouldn't even exist
Apple is bringing back expensive earbuds AND expensive wireless headphones, at normal fucking Apple-earbud quality, AND making it proprietary
There is literally no logical reason for this other than money

>>56483517
what expensive earbuds?! they're $29!

File: image.jpg (26KB, 358x358px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 358x358px

>>56483456
I'm waiting for all the Apple fanboys to claim that lightning>analog

>>56483078
Let's see how retarded that DAC in the picture is.

>two transformers instead of one transfromer with further regulation for various voltages needed
>two cases instead of one case divided in the middle by a metal plate, with the power supply in one side and the trest on the other
>retarded resistors and capacitors bewteen the supply rectification and the transformers. Only purpose seems to be to lower efficiency of the PSU
>gigantic number of tiny shitty capacitors for power supply signal smoothing smoothing instead of one or two big capacitors
>4 (FUCKING FOUR) voltage regulators. What the literal fuck. Not to mention all the associated electronics occupying all the space in the middle
>the DAC part (what's important) occupies the bottom right corner and seems too simplistic

And it costs 350€. For that. Fucking audiophools.

>>56483522
The wireless airbuds are $160.