Slashdot Mirror
Intel Wants To Eliminate The Headphone Jack And Replace It With USB-C (9to5mac.com)
An anonymous reader writes: With rumors circulating about how Apple may do away with the 3.5 mm headphone jack on its upcoming iPhone 7, Intel has shared a similar desire, citing "industry singling a strong desire to move from analog to digital." Intel believes USB-C is the future audio jack. They believe USB-C has more potential than the 3.5mm audio jack as it allows users to add additional smart features to headphones in the future. For instance, a future pair of headphones could monitor one's pulse or inner-ear temperature for fitness tracking, something that could only be possible if the headphones were connected to a smartphone via a USB-C cable. What's also worth mentioning [quoted from 9to5Mac]: USB-C already supports analog audio transfer through sideband pins simplifying the engineering steps necessary to swap 3.5mm with USB-C in device designs. In the second quarter, Intel should have a finalized USB-C standard for digital audio transfer. Intel does note that the transition from analog to digital will be expensive as the headphones have to include amplifiers and DACs, but scale will offset the early costs over time.
How about customer desire? I like my headphone jacks simple and robust, thanks.
I certainly could do without yet another converter and I don't feel like replacing my perfectly serviceable, simple and robust, headphones.
"USB-C has more potential ... as it allows users to add additional smart features..."
More to the point, it allows manufacturers to build DRM into the setup, so that this DRM decryption will happen inside headphones, instead of on the computer.
Not that this will stop determined rippers, but will make it easier to stop grandma from making a copy of her albums for use in her car.
Charging while using the headphones. Needs to be possible, or else this is an awful idea. The times when that particular case may arise may be few, but when it does, it's going to be really annoying.
I can't imagine that this wouldn't be considered, but no article I've read about this has mentioned it, unfortunately.
I can get headphones, not good ones mind you, but still headphones, for $3-10. They're perfectly functional for what I do. They also break or get lost frequently.
I've tried more expensive ones, but they break as well.
What will USB-C and the necessary DSP do except make headphones more expensive? I understand that there may be more options to 'tune' the DSPs to the individual headphone, but my hearing is damaged enough that I don't think it matters.
I don't read AC A human right
Intel has shared a similar desire, citing "industry singling a strong desire to move from analog to digital."
And by "industry" they mean "intel". I think most makers of headphones or things using headphones would very much prefer to keep their existing processes rather than retool, especially as this likely won't go down well with their customers.
Intel believes USB-C is the future audio jack.
Of course they do because they make and sell (and license?) USB3 chipsets.
They believe USB-C has more potential than the 3.5mm audio jack as it allows users to add additional smart features to headphones in the future.
You can already buy USB headphones and they work perfectly with any computer if you want "smart features". I in fact have precisely one pair: a USB headset with a mic. It has some "smart features" I never use. Mostly I have it because my old headset was dual jack, not 4 pole and I got the USB one for free. There's no advantage of the "smart" one over the old analog one.
For instance, a future pair of headphones could monitor one's pulse or inner-ear temperature for fitness tracking,
That is literally the most pointless thing I have ever heard.
something that could only be possible if the headphones were connected to a smartphone via a USB-C cable.
That's great, but if you instead connected the headphones to a 13A plug (and used ethernet-over-mains to transfer the audio) they could also double as a hairdrier!
What's also worth mentioning [quoted from 9to5Mac]: USB-C already supports analog audio transfer through sideband pins simplifying the engineering steps necessary to swap 3.5mm with USB-C in device designs.
Um that's nice, and kinda strange. So now we'll have perfectly good analog headphones able to work with a cheap adapter, but we'll also have to use up one of the precious and relatively fragile USB-C ports instead of using the dedicated, robust audio one.
In the second quarter, Intel should have a finalized USB-C standard for digital audio transfer.
Well it was nice of them to unfinalize it in the first place given that we've only had an audio over USB spec for nearly two decades.
http://www.usb.org/developers/...
I can buy any random audio device, jack it into my old and busted USB1, 2 or 3 (and presumably type C) port and it will work with no drivers. So what the hell is this new spec meant to be? Do they actually include an inner ear temperature monitor in the spec? What about an atmospheric pressure and humidity monitor? And maybe a seismograph? What about something to measure the level of crap on my desk when I put my headphones down?
Intel does note that the transition from analog to digital will be expensive as the headphones have to include amplifiers and DACs, but scale will offset the early costs over time.
It won't be an expensive transition it will stay expensive since every pair of new headphones will need the digital stuff. They will always be mroe expensive to make than analog headphones because they are identical plus extra crap. Extra crap always costs more.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
There are reasons to add USB-C connectors to PCs(if nothing else, a baseline USB-C connector is just a USB3 connector that works with USB-C cables; and depending on the situation it can also have additional advantages, as a replacement for various proprietary laptop charge ports, as an alternate-mode video-out, etc.); but what this proposal will do is make it even less predictable(and it's already fairly unpredictable) what a given USB-C port will or will not be capable of.
USB-C supports analog audio through the sideband pins, so a given port might support ordinary passive headphones with nothing more than a mechanical adapter or change in connector. However, on a device with more than one USB-C port, or with USB-C ports that predate this plan, it isn't likely that all the USB-C ports have analog audio, so those passive headphones will only work on certain ports, perhaps none; but 'active' headphones with a USB audio chipset will work on any of them(including USB1.1 or better ports with a mechanical adapter). For extra fun, if USB-C headphones become ubiquitous, even devices without any USB functions will probably want to implement sideband-only USB-C ports, so people can plug headphones into them; but those will only work with passive headphones since they won't actually have a USB host controller.
As with a number of USB-C design decisions, this seems like a pretty good idea if all you care about is bleeding edge cellphones; a troublesome-but-probably-worth-it one if all you care about is cellphones and ultra-skinny laptops; but a morass of confusion and suffering the more broadly you try to make it work. The USB-C port already suffers from the 'might be capable of anything, only actually promises to be capable of almost nothing' and this will only expand that unpleasant aspect.
The real reason is to close the analog hole and add DRM to even your headphones.
And also so your new factory sealed headphones can install malware the first time you plug them in. There is no such thing as a secure USB device. No OS handles all USB attack vectors, including Linux.
I will not buy headphones that pose a security risk to my devices. Why can't simple things stay simple. If you want smart headphones, run another cable along with the audio cable and plug it into two ports, or use wireless.
Also, doesn't the USB 3 cables carry a lot of power? How safe will ear buds be if there's a nick in the cable and some wires get crossed?
1) USB connectors -- ALL of them -- are less robust than audio jacks. They're going to fail sooner. Guaranteed.
2) There are a bazillion analog headphone / earbud options. Do you want them obsoleted?
3) DRM. Do you want it? Ever pipe the output of your phone/pad elsewhere? Say goodbye to that.
4) We already have bluetooth if you want digital, plus, no wires, an actual reason to use it.
5) Digital wiring tends to generate RF interference. Analog wiring doesn't. Both can carry RFI from inside the device, but generally don't. Much.
6) Passive analog earbuds are less expensive to manufacture; you'll pay more for digital earbuds, which must be active
7) If anyone thinks an analog option will remain with these connectors, be aware that part of the proffered approach is the ability to "inform the user that analog audio is not supported" based on hardware support choice of the manufacturer; if, knowing that, you still think analog audio will remain an option, I have a bridge to sell you.
The smart thing here is to refuse to purchase anything that uses a USB-C approach to audio headphones. Consumers already let themselves get screwed over hugely by accepting HDMI incorporating HDCP; they're probably about to do it again with this, but there's still an outside chance a similar debacle could be forestalled or prevented.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.