Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CT scans of AirPods evolution

scanofthemonth.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 343 posts

Re: CT scans of AirPods evolution

#31

Post by tinus_hn »

gruez wrote: post #14
roody15 wrote: post #9

But somehow they cannot figure out how to make a replaceable battery. hmm

They can, it's just that the trade-off isn't worth appeasing a few HN readers. >The reason earbud companies use non-replaceable rechargeable batteries is simple: It makes the earbuds smaller. Earbud buyers generally prefer more compact devices, but that means the earbuds have less room inside for all the necessary components. Designers need to cram a Bluetooth chip and processor, an antenna, a battery, drivers, contr…

Also, good enough is good enough. If the battery lasts about 2 years people want the next model anyway.

Re: CT scans of AirPods evolution

#33

Post by smeyer »

elliottinvent wrote: post #12

Wow, it’s the first time I’ve seen this site and format but what a great way to explain electronics and design.

>it's the first time I've seen this site

I think this might only be its second month so don't be hard on yourself for first seeing it now. https://web.archive.org/web/*/scanofthemonth.com

Re: CT scans of AirPods evolution

#34

Post by twobitshifter »

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #7

Not an audio expert, but I really wonder why they need a microphone for their adaptive EQ. I understand home speakers/theatre systems need to compensate for a room's shape and contents, but do human ear canals vary that much to need a mic? I think it's pretty neat how sophisticated this adaptive EQ system is, but tbh, I haven't noticed much difference between this mic system and the "dumb" adaptive EQ that companies…

I worked on a product that used an in ear microphone to adjust the model used in noise cancellation on the fly. In a control theory sense, the system varies a lot so your poles can move around and need a different controller, even on the same head depending on fit. The product produced white noise to tune the model which greatly improved the noise cancellation accuracy.

It’s also not just the ear canals but the rest of your skull that effects how you hear. There are apps that use machine learning to fit a model/eq to the shape of your head from a photo. I would think that actually measuring in the ear would give a more accurate representation of this.

Re: CT scans of AirPods evolution

#35

Post by spicybright »

guidedlight wrote: post #11
roody15 wrote: post #9

But somehow they cannot figure out how to make a replaceable battery. hmm

PodSwap seem to have worked it out. https://www.thepodswap.com/

How? This seems only for people with good batteries that want to upgrade. There's no new pods with good batteries being added if it's just swapping.

Re: CT scans of AirPods evolution

#36

Post by filoleg »

baybal2 wrote: post #30
gruez wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can, it's just that the trade-off isn't worth appeasing a few HN readers. >The reason earbud companies use non-replaceable rechargeable batteries is simple: It makes the earbuds smaller. Earbud buyers generally prefer more compact devices, but that means the earbuds have less room inside for all the necessary components. Designers need to cram a Bluetooth chip and processor, an antenna, a battery, drivers, contr…

The reason is simpler than that. Battery will inevitably wear out, and it is a very deliberate planned obsolescence move.

I don't know about that. I still have my original AirPods, and they had no noticeable battery loss, and it's been over 3 years by now. They might have lost some battery if I tried to measure it empirically, but I have no way of knowing without measuring it explicitly, as I cannot really catch a battery loss of less than 5-10% with normal use over the course of 3+ years. But I use them all the time interchangeably with Airpods Pro, and both deliver on battery so far. Airpods Pro have already hit the 2-year mark for me as well, no issues either.

I had to replace one of the OG airpods because I lost it (around 2 years ago), but replacing a single airpod was only like $50.

Re: CT scans of AirPods evolution

#37

Post by MrBuddyCasino »

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #7

Not an audio expert, but I really wonder why they need a microphone for their adaptive EQ. I understand home speakers/theatre systems need to compensate for a room's shape and contents, but do human ear canals vary that much to need a mic? I think it's pretty neat how sophisticated this adaptive EQ system is, but tbh, I haven't noticed much difference between this mic system and the "dumb" adaptive EQ that companies…

> do human ear canals vary that much to need a mic?

Surprisingly, they do! It doesn't need a lot of change to have a different ear canal resonance, changing the frequency curve somewhere between 5000-7000Hz. Oluv is currently tuning Earfun IEMs to different earl canal lengths which you can then try out, and he has written some articles [0] on exactly this topic, but unfortunately its paywalled: https://www.patreon.com/oluvsgadgets/

[0] https://www.patreon.com/posts/trust-your-ear-58601998

Re: CT scans of AirPods evolution

#38

Post by newaccount74 »

tinus_hn wrote: post #31
gruez wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can, it's just that the trade-off isn't worth appeasing a few HN readers. >The reason earbud companies use non-replaceable rechargeable batteries is simple: It makes the earbuds smaller. Earbud buyers generally prefer more compact devices, but that means the earbuds have less room inside for all the necessary components. Designers need to cram a Bluetooth chip and processor, an antenna, a battery, drivers, contr…

Also, good enough is good enough. If the battery lasts about 2 years people want the next model anyway.

I'm not sure I would have bought AirPods if I knew ahead of time that the battery would die in less than two years and replacing them costs as much as getting new Airpods.

Re: CT scans of AirPods evolution

#40

Post by trevyn »

rootusrootus wrote: post #10

I'm curious how the newest airpods compare to the pros when it comes to bass. I had first gen airpods, then I bought a set of pros, but the bass was so weak I thought they had to be broken. Turns out it's just an artifact of how they were designed. Some people are okay, but a lot of people feel the same way I do. I ended up returning them and now I'd like to know if the g3 airpods are comparable to the pros, or compa…

If you like bass, the new Beats Fit Pros are fantastic. They’re basically AirPod Pros with a different physical design and bass-heavy EQ. I find they keep a seal much better than the AirPod Pros as well.
Post reply on HN