Apple will charge $20 for their legacy headphone compatibility system.
If it's an analog breakout cable then eBay will charge $3
It cannot be an analog cable because Apples proprietary Lightning connector is digital-only.
Apple could just stick a new connector on the bottom with more pins.
It's not like they've never released an iPhone that was incompatible with previous-gen peripherals.
How has this thread gone from a valve amplifier to an Apple thread?
How has this thread gone from a valve amplifier to an Apple thread?
Discussion of the future of headphone interface (connector, impedance, etc.) is threatened by Apple's rumored decision to drop the industry-standard analog headphone interface (3.5mm or 6.35mm=1/4 inch) presumably in favor of digital and likely wireless interface. Rendering the valve headphone amps, already arcane, to the category of downright obsolete as well.
Much of the reaction is predictable - but one post made me smile.
This is probably the most honest attitude I have come across:
"My take is, even if there are no variables - all cables sound the same, all amps sound the same, all CD players and turntables sound the same (which of course I don't think is the case) the Fact that we Perceive improvements and gain increased enjoyment from them (even if in fact they aren't there) it's WORTH it. Perception is reality; not fact."
I have to agree that perception is the key factor in the appreciation of anything. If someone feels happier about something that isn't real, then I can just shake my head and walk by quietly.
But have someone try to convince another that the extra $$$s are worth it - and I have a real problem.
Then there was this:
"His parents should have put the lid back on the red cordial."
Yeah - sometimes you can wonder about that... but, in the end, it's an honest opinion that's as entertaining as hell.
Even if, for example, the signal from a reel to reel tape deck is inferior to the signal from a CD player (most likely with my tape decks and tapes, definitely for some recordings I have), it is still more enjoyable to me to listen to music while watching the big reels spin.
Tubes usually do alter the signal (SE amplifiers, for example, usually have a lot of 2nd order harmonics), so it's a matter of preference. I, for example, prefer the sound of my (lo-fi) tube tape recorder for some music even though other music on it sounds bad.
The Wikipedia page posted above says that Apple sell a Lightning to 30pin (previous Ipod/IPhone connector) adapter and that it supports analog audio.
And it actually contains a small DAC!
Google brings up lots of knockoffs of this adapter, so maybe the work is already done?
The cheap ones I've seen in stores all say "Does not support Audio/Video" on the box, e.g. this one on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/DP-30-Pin-Adapter-Apple-Lightning/dp/B00D48Q4OG
The Wikipedia page posted above says that Apple sell a Lightning to 30pin (previous Ipod/IPhone connector) adapter and that it supports analog audio.
And it actually contains a small DAC!
I don't trust it, it will have jitter.
Bring back the true analog output!
The Wikipedia page posted above says that Apple sell a Lightning to 30pin (previous Ipod/IPhone connector) adapter and that it supports analog audio.
And it actually contains a small DAC!
I don't trust it, it will have jitter.
Bring back the true analog output!
You don't trust the DAC in a cable, but a DAC inside the phone is OK?
You don't trust the DAC in a cable, but a DAC inside the phone is OK?
Clock directly driven by oscillator or SoC has much better jitter performance.
Clock recovered from USB is not, unless you go the async path and have a local oscillator, and discipline your data source to your local clock.
If it is mainly going to used to listen to music recovered from .mp3s I think that is a purely academic concern. Even I can often hear gross compression artifacts, and I'm not musical.
I don't trust it, it will have jitter.
Bring back the true analog output!
You don't trust the DAC in a cable, but a DAC inside the phone is OK?
I thought the "true analog" would have given it away, but nooooo....
The truth be known, Fungus wants his brick mobile phone back...
The truth be known, Fungus wants his brick mobile phone back...
Could a person even make* an all analogue GSM phone?
*That fits in the bed of a Medium Pickup and runs off no more than a Honda Handy generator of 700W.
I start to feel less and less sorry for them. I feel they should pay as much as possible for their arrogance
Drawing an analogy to a J-FET is simply wrong.
A more apt analogy would be a MOS-FET since there is an insulator between the elements like in a vacuum tube.
Sorry Dave Ya got it wrong.
Sorry for the late reply, but comparison to a jfet is pretty much right.
Both the tube's grid and jfet's gate behave the same way. Small capacitance for negative voltages, a diode for positive voltages (with respect to cathode / source).
Drawing an analogy to a J-FET is simply wrong.
A more apt analogy would be a MOS-FET since there is an insulator between the elements like in a vacuum tube.
Sorry Dave Ya got it wrong.
Sorry for the late reply, but comparison to a jfet is pretty much right.
Both the tube's grid and jfet's gate behave the same way. Small capacitance for negative voltages, a diode for positive voltages (with respect to cathode / source).
J-FETs have a lower impedance there is physical contact between elements, and a J-FET cannot operate with current flowing on the gate, a vacuum tube can.
I hate to put too sharp of a point on it but;
Drawing that analogy dumbs down the whole discussion. Vacuum tubes are unique as an active device, even though they share some commonalities with solid state field effect devices.
Drawing an analogy to a J-FET is simply wrong.
A more apt analogy would be a MOS-FET since there is an insulator between the elements like in a vacuum tube.
Sorry Dave Ya got it wrong.
Sorry for the late reply, but comparison to a jfet is pretty much right.
Both the tube's grid and jfet's gate behave the same way. Small capacitance for negative voltages, a diode for positive voltages (with respect to cathode / source).
J-FETs have a lower impedance there is physical contact between elements, and a J-FET cannot operate with current flowing on the gate, a vacuum tube can.
I hate to put too sharp of a point on it but;
Drawing that analogy dumbs down the whole discussion. Vacuum tubes are unique as an active device, even though they share some commonalities with solid state field effect devices.
A J-FET can be operated with a current flowing into the gate. If the junction gets forward biased, current will flow. And this will decrease the drain-source resistance further.
The operating principle may be different, but electrically their behaviour is similar (Id/Ug curve), except J-FETs work on a much lower voltage than tubes and drain and source are interchangeable.
At the end of the tube era some tubes were substituted with a J-FET input stage driving a larger transistor.
Drawing that analogy dumbs down the whole discussion.
A simplification it may be - but that comment was still more intelligent than the product.
I don't feel offended when talking about the JFET analogy for tubes.
It is an analogy, not a direct replacement having same operation voltage and same high impedances...
I am not offended; I feel the analogy dumbs down the subject.
You seem to have a better analogy, don't you?