AirPods Max - How Much?!!

[Dos_Box]

Wow, just wow! I'd love to see what the profit margin is on these! - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-55230656

[VeryPC_Nicole]

The carry case is a very interesting design!

[Dos_Box]

The carry case is a very interesting design!

 

It does look like you'd be carrying a bra around! I'd be willing to bet there will be a thriving after market case business for them. That's if they sell any that is!

[jthompson]

Maybe they feature turbo encabulators on a chip? That might explain the high price tag, especially if they're down-inducing in a cross-weave parallactic.

[DJ-1701]

To be fair, there are many high end headphone companies. Apple usually does go for quality, unfortunately the price tag does suffer more than I think it should though.

[synaesthesia]

"Quality".

aka "Here's something half as good for twice the price".

Sorry, but anyone walking round with those in that case, as the article says, is inviting robbery. And they probably deserve it.

One of the features made me laugh. "Lifting one of the cans pauses playback..." I mean why - you generally lift one can to hear something else and continue to listen!

[Norphy]

IT will be interesting to see what's inside them once someone performs the inevitable teardown. I hope someone does a direct comparison with a Beats Studio headset (Beats are owned by Apple these days), just to see what's different.

[dhicks]

I'd love to see what the profit margin is on these!

 

What is it you're getting for your money? The linked BBC article points out that Sony or Sennheiser headphones cost around £350. I have a pair of £50 Cowin headphones that, as far as I can tell, do the kinds of things I'd expect from headphones - the sound coming out of them seems to be okay, they work over Bluetooth, they hold a charge for a couple of days work at a time. I can, actually, imagine some people wanting to pay an additional £200 for the Apple-ness bits (integrates simply and easily with your existing Apple hardware, nice user interface, etc), but I don't get what the additional £300 gets you in terms of headphone hardware.

[Dos_Box]

What is it you're getting for your money? The linked BBC article points out that Sony or Sennheiser headphones cost around £350. I have a pair of £50 Cowin headphones that, as far as I can tell, do the kinds of things I'd expect from headphones - the sound coming out of them seems to be okay, they work over Bluetooth, they hold a charge for a couple of days work at a time. I can, actually, imagine some people wanting to pay an additional £200 for the Apple-ness bits (integrates simply and easily with your existing Apple hardware, nice user interface, etc), but I don't get what the additional £300 gets you in terms of headphone hardware.

 

I think one of my main priorities when buying head/ear phones is 'Will I cry if I lose/break them?'. Price, sound quality etc. come after that.

[hardtailstar]

I think one of my main priorities when buying head/ear phones is 'Will I cry if I lose/break them?'. Price, sound quality etc. come after that.

That's why I have a pair of £300 Bose that stay at home and I buy cheap Bluetooth ones that I take outside. I also have the free wired headphones that came with my phone I carry too incase I lose the Bluetooth ones.

 

I would be devastated if I lost/broke the Bose ones outside.

[dhicks]

That's why I have a pair of £300 Bose that stay at home and I buy cheap Bluetooth ones that I take outside.

 

What difference is there with the Bose headphones - can you hear the difference between the sound produced by those and the cheap Bluetooth ones? I have a reasonably nice mic setup, an Audio-Technica 2035 connected to a 3rd generation Focusrite Scarlett Solo, and I'm starting to wonder if I'm hearing all I should with my £50 headphones. As far as I can tell they work fine - I can plug them in with a standard 3.5mm stereo cable for direct monitoring straight from the Focusrite box, I seem to get a good sound from them. Is there a noticable difference with a £300 set of headphones?

[ICTDirect_Dave]

What difference is there with the Bose headphones - can you hear the difference between the sound produced by those and the cheap Bluetooth ones? I have a reasonably nice mic setup, an Audio-Technica 2035 connected to a 3rd generation Focusrite Scarlett Solo, and I'm starting to wonder if I'm hearing all I should with my £50 headphones. As far as I can tell they work fine - I can plug them in with a standard 3.5mm stereo cable for direct monitoring straight from the Focusrite box, I seem to get a good sound from them. Is there a noticable difference with a £300 set of headphones?

Usually the difference between high end headphones and cheaper ones will be both the quality of the components and how they're configured.

 

Pro audio headphones are designed to give a flat response, reproducing the sound as accurately as possible. The last thing you want when you're mixing a track is headphones with an enhanced bottom-end, it'll make everything you mix sound tinny on other systems.

A lot of branded consumer headphones will be tailored to make the whole spectrum sound brighter or maybe to give enhanced bass.

 

Your cheaper headphones will likely attempt to enhance the audio, but will not likely do it so well as the more expensive ones.

 

Having said that, My pair of AKG Y55's (originally a £95 product) are perfect for everyday listening and they're at the lower end of the spectrum. As you step up in price brackets it seems the benefits get smaller and the cost/performance ratio increases substantially.

[jmak]

I've used a pair of the £300 Bose headphones with active noise cancelling and they're transformational when there's background noise. But in a back to back comparison with my £85 Sennheiser (wired) cans in a quiet room, they sounded really over processed. As a rule, it would be surprising if a sound signal that's been compressed (Bluetooth) and then uses whatever digital/analogue convertor they put in the headphones could match the analogue signal coming from a decent source.

 

Last week I bought an Apple USB C to 3.5mm adaptor to use with my phone. It cost £9 and has a built in DAC. How?!

[bald_pig]

Usually the difference between high end headphones and cheaper ones will be both the quality of the components and how they're configured.

 

Pro audio headphones are designed to give a flat response, reproducing the sound as accurately as possible. The last thing you want when you're mixing a track is headphones with an enhanced bottom-end, it'll make everything you mix sound tinny on other systems.

A lot of branded consumer headphones will be tailored to make the whole spectrum sound brighter or maybe to give enhanced bass.

 

Your cheaper headphones will likely attempt to enhance the audio, but will not likely do it so well as the more expensive ones.

 

Having said that, My pair of AKG Y55's (originally a £95 product) are perfect for everyday listening and they're at the lower end of the spectrum. As you step up in price brackets it seems the benefits get smaller and the cost/performance ratio increases substantially.

 

I'm going to build upon this, and add that the DAC/amplifier will also have a massive impact on the quality of the audio as well. On a basic level, higher quality headphones are higher impedance, so will be quieter on a more basic system, and can affect the overall sound. In short, don't expect the same output from your £50 phone as your £3000 hifi.

 

You can also go into the rabbithole of balanced vs unbalanced headphones, but that's getting a little too nitpicky!

[hardtailstar]

What difference is there with the Bose headphones - can you hear the difference between the sound produced by those and the cheap Bluetooth ones? I have a reasonably nice mic setup, an Audio-Technica 2035 connected to a 3rd generation Focusrite Scarlett Solo, and I'm starting to wonder if I'm hearing all I should with my £50 headphones. As far as I can tell they work fine - I can plug them in with a standard 3.5mm stereo cable for direct monitoring straight from the Focusrite box, I seem to get a good sound from them. Is there a noticable difference with a £300 set of headphones?

 

They sound far better then my cheap ones.

 

As for the tech reasons I couldn't tell you as I wouldn't know.

[Norphy]

What difference is there with the Bose headphones - can you hear the difference between the sound produced by those and the cheap Bluetooth ones? I have a reasonably nice mic setup, an Audio-Technica 2035 connected to a 3rd generation Focusrite Scarlett Solo, and I'm starting to wonder if I'm hearing all I should with my £50 headphones. As far as I can tell they work fine - I can plug them in with a standard 3.5mm stereo cable for direct monitoring straight from the Focusrite box, I seem to get a good sound from them. Is there a noticable difference with a £300 set of headphones?

 

This is the thing, in my experience a cheap pair of headphones tend to sound ok, but when you directly compare them with a more expensive pair, you can notice the difference.

 

I have a few different pairs of headphones which I use for different purposes:

 

A Sony Bluetooth headset worth about £50

A pair of closed Sennheiser over-ear headphones, I forget the model number but relatively cheap, worth about £40

A pair of Sennheiser HD555 over-ear headphones, worth about £160 when I bought them long ago.

Some Aftershokz bone conducting headphones

 

Used individually, they sound fine to me but when I use one set after another, there is a noticeable difference in terms of sound reproduction, clarity, base response, even comfort. The HD555s are by far the best sounding set of cans I’ve got but are utterly impracticable away from the hifi. The Sony’s don’t sound fantastic but they’re light and being wireless makes them good for walking. The cheaper Sennheiser cans are generally what I use at the computer and the Aftershokz are for when my ears are blocked.

[paulkerton]

Why are people nitpicking on £350 headphones that are top spec wireless bluetooth noise cancelling devices with high end DAC chips compared to £95 sets of phones, and ignoring the original point

 

Apple think they can charge £549 for their rival headsets?!?!

 

No matter what the Bose and Sony headphones cost, at £200 more and with the audio gamut reputation of Beats, then if I was in the market for high end headphones, I'd go Bose and Sony every single time. I mean, just the "netted headband" on it's own is a huge issue for me. Just looks absolutely awful.

[2ilent8cho]

Considering the shipping dates for these are slipping to March now I think Apple know their target audience for these. If they had over priced them nobody would be buying them which would not seem to be the case.

[mikes]

Well I was shocked by those £200 earbuds or whatever they were. A pupil lost her pair, and said they cost £200 - for these tiny little earbud things. I spent hours on CCTV trying to trace where she'd been but they are so small (even the little case they came in) I had no chance. If I had £200 earbuds I don't think I'd want to bring them into school! either that or I'd have a massive chain glued to them both!

[Arthur]

[Roberto]

Why are people nitpicking on £350 headphones that are top spec wireless bluetooth noise cancelling devices with high end DAC chips compared to £95 sets of phones, and ignoring the original point

 

Apple think they can charge £549 for their rival headsets?!?!

 

No matter what the Bose and Sony headphones cost, at £200 more and with the audio gamut reputation of Beats, then if I was in the market for high end headphones, I'd go Bose and Sony every single time. I mean, just the "netted headband" on it's own is a huge issue for me. Just looks absolutely awful.

 

The question I guess is where Apple see their competitors in this market. For example, their Pro display HDR monitor feels hugely overpriced compared to what most of us typically pay for a monitor, and was widely derided on release... but compared to other colour-critical professional displays, it’s competitive on price, if not slightly ahead of the pack.

 

So to the headphones then. Putting aside the design aesthetics for the moment (but I agree with the comments about the netting and especially the dreadful case), most of the reviews I’ve read or listened to suggest that the AirPod max headphones (stupid name imo) compete well with others in the same price class. Apple’s £500 headphones sound like other people’s £500 headphones. That doesn’t mean I’d want a pair myself mind you... but then I’m not part of the £500 to £1000 headphones market. But this market exists.

Edited December 23, 2020 by Roberto