As a mid-50 year old who discovered two years ago that he has moderate hearing loss (50-55 dB HL), I will be forever grateful to Apple for doing this.
If anybody from the accessibility teams is reading this, please know that it is difficult for me to overstate my gratitude and my appreciation for the amount of work this must've taken.
Music sounds unbelievably better through my AirPod pros, and I didn't even know what I had lost until I heard it again.
I'm willing to bet that a lot of my middle aged compatriots don't even know how much their hearing has degraded… Get your hearing test tested, folks, while you still have it!
> I wear musician's earplugs when playing in bands.
As a musician, you possibly have custom ones, but for anyone else who’s not an audiophile, you can get decent ones that mostly preserve the sound while lowering the volume for around $15-20. A godsend for concerts.
Everybody has vastly different sensitivities to sound exposure.
Even identical twins with identical sound exposures can have drastically different hearing profiles especially as they age.
I actually have always been very careful with my hearing; there is some evidence that I may have a very very mild congenital birth defect that makes me prone to hearing loss, but that's largely speculation.
My wife is actually older than me and has a spectacularly sensitive hearing - as does her mother! - and she's the drummer! (The wife, not her mother :-) I just do keys and vocals...)
That's why it's so important that everyone protect their hearing because even though it's not too loud for the people around you, it might be too loud for you - and you won't know until it's too late.
Hearing being a "logarithmic" sense and decibels make this a bit weird to me. Like losing 6 dB of hearing in a car crash is considered negligible and insignificant, but that actually means the ears lost half their sensitivity in a flash (and it's never coming back, just like teeth). Likewise your 50 dB hearing loss is considered moderate, but actually represents a 300-fold reduction in acuity.
Not directly related to your case, but I thought I had some age-related hearing loss when listening to Spotify Premium only for a decade. I appreciate their recommendations (found me a whole bunch of new interesting bands, even new favourite ones), but didn't know how awful Spotify's quality is even in comparison to Apple's standard codec.
I didn't make the switch yet since for lossless since I don't have enough space on my phone, but am considering it, even for just showing support for the current music quality efforts over at Apple.
Spotify high quality is usually 320kbps. If not, it's because only worse qualities are recorded/available. I have sincere doubts you're able to hear a difference to lossless qualities, especially if you're listening on the go or in non-hifi setups.
I can easily hear the difference between Lossless and AAC on my two IEMs (Blessing 2 Dusk + IE600) as well as my open-back Focal Clear. And even with Bluetooth via AptX HD.
With the quality of audio improving so much in recent years I would take a guess that almost anyone can appreciate the significant difference in sound quality for < $50.
I've heard this argument so many times - but personally I can trivially easily here the difference between Tidal / Apple Music and Spotify's 'high quality' setting - even on wireless headphones. Music on spotify sounds flat and drained. No idea if this has something to do with their compression technique, some kind of EQing, or a flaw in some other part of the pipeline, but I've blind tested it many times and its night and day.
I can't speak to Apple Music or Tidal, but I did a test between the Spotify and CD versions of Xtal from Selected Ambient Works 85-92 by Aphex Twin and the difference would be clear to absolutely anyone - the Spotify version is very tinny.
People often trot out the "most people can't tell the difference" argument, but I wonder how many of those people have actually tried a variety of tests? My hunch is very few.
Generally the problem with this type of argument is that the two sources are not volume-matched. Try out an ABX test here, of lossless vs various lossy codecs: https://abx.digitalfeed.net/
Spotify does some loudness normalization that you could disable in the settings. (Don't know anymore as don't use Spotify for years). Maybe worth checking.
It feels like mainstream technology is slowly replacing most if not all accessibility devices, and I think that's a really good thing for those who need them!
This already happened to blind people. We used to have color testers, specialized audiobook / ebook players, GPS devices, text scanning / OCR machines, devices for banknote recognition, barcode readers, talking scales, thermometers, blood pressure meters and so on, all as separate devices, all extremely expensive. Nobody really had or carried all of these at once, though most people had at least some, it was just too expensive and impractical.
Nowadays, while those devices still exist, all you really need is any smartphone (even a low-end Android will do, though iOS is much better for this use case IMO), a free screen reader, which both OSes include by default, and a couple of free / cheap apps. Things like talking scales can be replaced with accessories connected over Bluetooth that don't technically talk, but that expose the measurements to your smartphone screen reader.
It feels like mainstream technology is slowly replacing most if not all accessibility devices, and I think that's a really good thing for those who need them!
Pretty much everyone eventually suffers from some sort of "disability". Hearing, eyesight, motor control, strength, etc. etc. So, I like to think of accessibility features as being made for everyone. Some people just need them earlier or with deeper functionality than others.
Interesting perspective. I never thought about this properly. But it seems things like Google Lens and other machine vision apps paired with a good screen reader can help blind people to "see".
I did some recent experiments with the openai api recently to see if I could make sense of photos by classifying and describing things. That worked surprisingly well for the absolute minimal effort I put in (<30 minutes) and I've been meaning to follow up on that to properly turn that in a product feature in our app.
Anyway, something simple hooked up to a camera shouldn't take that long to code. There might be good enough locally running models for machine vision as well. Reading signs, menus, describing what's in front of you, etc. I bet that there is some low hanging fruit there for visually impaired people that are a bit handy with programming in terms of really useful apps that they could develop with this.
Another aspect of using consumer tech like this is that it's normal. People wearing airpods don't stand out as hearing impaired or special. Most hearing aids on the other hand are clearly recognizable as such. I imagine some people don't like wearing them for that reason. They are kind of ugly, generally. Unlike e.g. glasses, there's no such thing as designer hearing aids. They are kind of a necessary evil for people. Apple is being clever here by tapping into a market of aging but wealthy people with a taste for good stuff.
> And the main tradeoff with the AirPods Pro 2 is battery life: they can last for around six hours with the hearing aid engaged, which doesn’t match what you’ll get from many OTC and prescription hearing aids.
Since they are comparing to devices $1K and up, maybe getting two pairs makes sense.
Always been sensitive to sounds and have taken effort over my life to protect my hearing. It may look silly, but I still plug my ears when a large truck/train passes by.
Result is, even at my age, I can still hear those annoying high frequency teenage repellents (ubiquitous in Tokyo). Can also hear some of my electric devices charging.
I'm glad to see such steps being taken by Apple. I always bring my noise canceling buds (Sony, Apple) with me when I go see movies. It's literally painful to watch movies in modern theaters without them. Just too damned loud!
Apple's on the right track. Personalized health and more daily monitoring of said health is gonna be a sea change event.
Wait, those high frequency sounds in Tokyo are teenage repellents? I thought they are bird/insect repellants. I could hear the sounds and was literally getting mini headaches walking around.
They're extremely annoying, aren't they? I was the only one that could hear them out of 5 people in my group, all aged about 35, and they definitely caused me to avoid walking by that shop. Hell, I would have avoided ever buying anything there if I were a local.
Yes you can even adjust the frequency based on which demographics you want to keep from loitering. There is a predictable hearing loss curve for the highest frequencies. You could set it to 20kHz to keep little kids away, or even go as low as 16kHz if you want to keep everyone younger than about college age away. This also happens to be an easy way to test the degree of your own hearing loss compared to your age group.
Same here, right down to the experience in Tokyo. Both grandfathers had hearing loss and the impact it had on them socially was sad to see. Even with hearing aids. I hope to avoid that fate.
Went to see an artist (DJ) I liked and forgot my filters. Remembered that I had my AirPods Pro and used them in transparency mode and after only 10 minutes completely forgot I had them even in. I was surprised how good they worked as hearing protection!
Now when I’m at festivals and I have friends without earplugs, I usually recommend them to just use their AirPods Pro (if they have some) instead of buying cheap plugs
I've done that. At some point I felt like they weren't doing anything and pulled them out only to discover what a good job they had been doing. They lower the volume while keeping the sound pretty much the same. It's incredible.
This comment confuses me, but makes sense. Concerts are for consuming sound, people wear ear plugs??? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose? Like a blindfold in a theater?
The music at many concerts and nightclubs is unfortunately loud enough to cause permanent hearing loss.
Ear plugs reduce the volume to a level where you can still hear the music, but the risk of long term damage is reduced. (You can get "musician's ear plugs" which attenuate all frequencies equally, so they don't make the music sound weird.)
The main reason is that it's tough to have a uniform sound pressure distribution on a stage. That means the people at the front usually have very high sound levels, while those at the back have way lower. Technicians then make the tradeoff of having too high pressures at the front (where you must have earplugs) to afford to have medium levels at the back.
Weirdly, earplugs can make it easier to hear certain detail, despite the reduction in volume. I wear earplugs at concerts and I can hear all the instruments, despite them somehow reducing the intensity of crowd noises. It’s also a lot easier to hear people talking to you, as long as they’re speaking in the direction of your ears.
> there’ll be detailed comparisons between the AirPods Pro 2 and existing OTC devices in the near future once iOS 18.1 is widely available.
As someone with a diagnosed, severe hearing loss, I wonder how these compare to prescription hearing aids. I currently wear a pair of Phonak hearing aids and am looking to replace them, but I wonder if spending 5-6k on another pair is worth it versus the OTC or Apple AirPod options that exist today.
My experience is that they serve different purposes.
I have a very nice and expensive set of ReSound hearing aids and they're fabulous at what they do, which is focus on speech and kind of on music if I set them for that.
They're also unobtrusive and easily last 18-20 hours on a charge. I forget I'm wearing them, and nobody notices that I have them.
My AirPods I use primarily for running and listening to music because they just sound unbelievably better, and they're probably fine for a concert although I haven't done that with them. But I think for long-term use every day all day it wouldn't be that comfortable or unobtrusive.
Would love to hear the experience of somebody who's trying it, though!
I don't have hearing loss, but I wear 2 pairs of AirPods Pro 2 over the course of a 10 hour day. The reason I have 2 pairs is because 1 pair only gets 5-6 hours of battery life, and I need to swap them while they recharge in the case.
Comfort? To me, very comfortable. I just leave them in there with Active Noise Canceling on all the time.
I may be showing my age, but if you remember "Get Smart", AirPods Pro 2 are like a Cone of Silence -- except they actually work.
In my experience, the rubbery Apple ear tips in the AirPods have better sound isolation and audio quality, but foam aftermarket tips better keep the AirPods from falling out.
Looking at the web, they’re also over $4500. I think the people who will most appreciate the AirPods are the ones that can now afford to put something in their ear to help their hearing.
If you have severe and above hearing loss, these won’t help much. This is what I have gotten to know from lot of forums. They do work well for my moderate-to-severe hearing loss. Been using for around 7 months now.
Yes the problem with severe hearing loss is that hearing aids simply cannot compensate for what is no longer there.
Hearing aids are actually a a lot more complicated than just boosting frequencies. At the very simplest, these days they are wide/multi band compressors that try to balance discomfort with natural hearing, generally focusing on speech intelligibility since that is by far the most important target.
If you have severe hearing loss I would strongly recommend putting yourself in the care of a professional. Costco is a great source of probably the lowest cost versus highest quality hearing aids these days... but the reason I say "professional" is because there are so many kinds of hearing loss and they all affect your perception markedly differently.
It's a lot more than just "missing some sensitivity at some frequencies".
I know what you mean. I am in India. Hearing aids are exorbitantly priced here and there is no Costco. I will definitely go for more professional ones once I can afford them, and not just buying them, but losing them too.
Imagine being student taking an exam... Normaly you would be disallowed to have bluetooth earpiece, but you would be allowed to have hearing aid. I'll let you think of the possible outcomes...
I've watched a couple of members of my parents generation struggle to admit they need hearing aids, and prefer not to wear them a lot of the time, even when they miss things people say. I doubt the current generations are going to have that problem!
You can say a lot of things about Apple, but which other consumer-facing tech company adds features meant to accompany people throughout every phase of their lives? People are growing with their smartphones, and the need for some functionalities only starts to become obvious later in life.
It’s just marketing. A plus point in differentiation matrix from gazillion competitors. And a justification for a higher price tag. The products are nice though.
I understand your point and in someway do agree that it is marketing and it is a way of differentiating themselves.
But inly to justify a higher price tag? Yes it is true they are premium products, but I don't think it's true that they're that much more expensive than similar items occupying the same marketing niche from other manufacturers.
And they are far more than an order of magnitude cheaper than even a low end set of hearing aids.
But all of that is despite the point.
Samsung, Sony, Bose,… The list goes on. I have bought high-end headphones from them all, some with some without noise cancellation. In ear, over the ear, wired and Bluetooth... the list goes on.
NOBODY has a headphone that accommodates my hearing loss except Apple.
And they started doing it years ago as a feature buried in the accessibility settings.
But they kept improving it to the point where it is now FDA approved.
"A plus point in a differentiation matrix…?"
This is the kind of action that buys customer loyalty for life. I hope you never get to experience the depth of hearing loss that many of us have and how utterly transformative this kind of technology not just can be, but IS.
If all marketing had actual consumer benefit we'd be much better off.
I can understand the cynicism, but I think Apple's investment into accessibility and health (I'm talking heart attack detection, not gamified activity tracking fwiw) as a differentiator is one of these rare win-win situations.
I do love my AirPods Pro and use them in all modes except for spatial audio. I have a bug that I cannot fix for almost a year: reversed channels when connected to MacBook Pro M1. Especially the spatial audio is totally wrong. I have tried everything, resetting AirPods, Mac, Bluetooth, reinstalling drivers. It is fine with my iphone. But just totally wrong with my particular MBP. Any ideas?
> Transparency mode in many of today’s earbuds sounds totally natural and lifelike, yet I still constantly remove my buds to show someone they’ve got my undivided attention. That way of thinking has to change when popular earbuds start pulling double duty as hearing aids. It’s a powerful way to reduce the stigma that’s all too common with hearing aids, but this shift will take time.
This will never be not true. You're fighting human nature. The vast majority of people don't need hearing aids and those who do you'll likely know they need a hearing aid if you're having regular or more personal conversations.
If you're getting your order taken at Starbucks, you can totally have ears in even today.
When was the last time you heard someone get called “four eyes” for wearing glasses? Mockery used to be common but society can improve and it seems like accepting people with disabilities as fully human has been improving even if we still have room to go.
I have a feeling that mostly went away not because society got any more considerate, but rather because glasses became much more commonplace, due to the explosion in prevalence of nearsightedness.
we're saying the same thing - if you have a disability it's totally fine.
You know who in your life has the hearing impairment, but the vast majority do not have this disability thusly "taking your ears out" is respectable.
The glasses analogy only works if general society has hearing impairments, but that's not the direction we're going as the human race, so we won't see this.
One of the problems is that, currently, having earbuds in is a social signal of "please leave me alone and don't try to strike up a conversation with me", such as e.g. you might see someone on a train with earbuds in, and you know that means they don't want to be bothered.
> If you're getting your order taken at Starbucks, you can totally have ears in even today.
Prior to hearing aid features, I’d say this is actually quite rude even if you “can.” I don’t think the service workers taking your order appreciate this very much.
Societal views change. Moving from the Jabra Jawbone to AirPods it seems like it went from “that asshole business guy” to “literally everyone” in no time. When I was young, talking on a Bluetooth headset while walking down the street was worthy of derision. Things have changed a lot since then.
To go back way further, wasn’t Sony worried about the Walkman initially because the only people who wore headphones at the time out and about tended to use them for hearing aids at the time?
That’s what I remember hearing.
Obviously that changed when they got super popular. Your AirPods comparison is fantastic I had totally forgotten the phenomenon of “blue tools”.
I'd like to see Apple run some opt-in scientific trials.
For example: Does active noise cancellation result in more or less hearing loss?
Or Alcohol consumption: Apple Health could ask each day how many drinks you had and many people want to track it anyway. Correlate that to health metrics at a wide scale. It'd be much more powerful than any currently existing study given the userbase likely to opt-in.
Let people see exactly the data that will be uploaded prior to consenting to alleviate any privacy concerns. They already have stronger data-protection and anonymity mechanisms than those used by most studies built directly into the phone.
Cool, I didn't realize this was a thing. Kind of disappointing to see only 2-3 studies available through the Apple Research app though, I wonder why it isn't more widely used.
Do most research teams have to build their own app?
I was disappointed that Apple had to downgrade the ANC in Airpods back then because of copyright problems, but they went full in and created a much stronger product out of it!
I have a feeling that it might be difficult for Apple to obtain FDA authorization for a system consisting in part of a device that Apple didn't manufacture (i.e. an Android phone). Getting the iPhone + Airpods system authorized was unusual enough already.
Based on the graph it looks like the hearing test only tests out to 8 kHz. That's disappointing. That's also the limit at most audiologists offices. It would be nice to have a good test that goes farther.
Of course, the "important sounds" are mostly below 8 kHz, but I think they're missing out by not looking at higher-frequency sound sensitivity, since that's the first thing you lose.
Unless I'm misunderstanding, the news here is Apple is adding a hearing test app, and "officially" stating that you can use your Airpods Pro like hearing aids.
I mention this as you can use these today as hearing aids, you just need to use a third party app to create your audiogram. I have fairly bad hearing loss and use Airpods instead of hearing aids.
* Air Pods 2 were approved by the FDA in September
* iOS (and iPadOS) 18.1, for which the release candidate was released earlier today, comes with the ability to enable hearing aid mode and with a hearing test
* based on the hearing test, the AirPods can automatically compensate how things sound to you
* Apple has announced that iOS 18.1 will be released next week
I suspect the answer is "yes", and probably with an FSA now too. There is a similar situation with the Natural Cycles app, which is cleared by the FDA as a medical device, so you can buy it with an FSA or HSA, or have insurance pay for it - which is mandatory, since it is legally a birth control device, which they have to cover. (It is also a steal for the insurance company since it costs roughly $10 a month.)
I expect that insurance plans that cover hearing aids are going to cover this eventually, as a set of AirPods Pro 2 is $249, which is substantially cheaper than other hearing aids on the market. An open question is if any other manufacturer will be able to get a device that works this well at this price point - the amount of software and chip design engineering that went into H2 and the bridgeOS or RTKitOS that the AirPods run is just not something smaller manufacturers will be able to easily copy.
Now, I wish I could find a better eartips fit for my ears... XS doesn't pass in the app as having a good enough seal, and S is just a little bit uncomfortable for me for all day use.
> An open question is if any other manufacturer will be able to get a device that works this well at this price point - the amount of software and chip design engineering that went into H2 and the bridgeOS or RTKitOS that the AirPods run is just not something smaller manufacturers will be able to easily copy.
Well, "classic" hearing aids have two features that I don't see Apple replicating any time soon: longer battery life (AirPods roughly last around 4-6 hours depending on battery degradation and usage, whereas hearing aids run for days) and most especially, support for audio induction loops [1] - basically PA systems for the impaired, you'll find these in churches, conference/meeting rooms, concert halls/stadiums and in the UK also in taxicabs.
Classic hearing aids will have their place for quite the time to come.
Well kinda in my second point but yes correct. I mentioned as I kept assuming you couldn't use these as such yet, but have been using happily for months now after I realized the functionality was all there.
Yep. I still haven't been able to determine if this "new" feature is any different from what already exists.
I hope so because when you enable your audiogram for transparency it sounds like you're in an ASMR video. There's no way to make it sound natural but louder, which is what I would expect from a hearing aid.
The audio gram stuff existed, but wasn’t well known and as mentioned required a third party app.
The hearing aid stuff was only recently certified by the FDA as an OTC hearing aid. Apple has had a mode for a many years where AirPods + iPhone could act like a hearing aid. But it didn’t meat the medical classifications.
Without the new software, there is no boost to external sound in transparency mode, so they are not useful as hearing aids. I’m looking forward to testing the new release.
Actually you can set up a good approximation using iPhoneOS>Settings>Accessibility>Audio & Visual>Headphone Accommodations. Under Custom Audio Setup, you can select a audiogram, such as produced by an app like Mimi, or scanned in from your audiologist.
Yep, the path for this official recognition was cleared by the executive order two years ago that allowed for hearing aids to be sold over the counter!
Either way it's just a label. You've already been able to do the same thing for years. Just use the free Mimi hearing test app, save the audiogram to Health, then apply it in headphone accommodations.
It’s interesting that I perceive my hearing is still pretty stellar albeit during a surprise attack in my military service, a guy started firing his assault rifle right next to my unprotected ear…
A large part of the article focuses on using airpods at concerts and how loud the environment can be.
- Can airpods tell me how loud a room is?
- Which settings should I use for a concert to preserve fidelity? How do they compare to "concert" branded consumer earplugs, like Loop/Etymotic/SoundProtex ?
Fragile and too expensive to replace often. The software updates that apple pushes on to them screws them up. Happened to my first set of airpods and swore off of them since then. The batteries are awful too.
My go to since then has been the one plus z2 headsets, brilliant call quality, great form factor, decent ANC, and fantastic battery.
Just adding to this, for the general audience, hearing aids are thousands of dollars, and virtually all users describe the industry as a "racket." Features that improve their functionality, such as adapters for Bluetooth etc., are dedicated hardware modules with proprietary interfaces, and expensive too.
Also, everybody I know who has hearing aids eventually ends up getting them at Costco.
That’s what I’ve heard too. And they didn’t like the ones they had to get in the end, they didn’t work well but that was all insurance would cover.
But if they’re $4000 a pair, that’s _sixteen_ pairs of AirPods 2 Pro. Assuming you don’t get them on sale.
So if you lose/break ‘em every 6 months, which seems quite excessive, that’s still 8 years to break even with “real” hearing aids.
And that’s not to mention the fact that you can buy replacement individual AirPods or cases cheaper than a full set. Or just get AppleCare so replacements are even cheaper if you tend to lose/damage them a lot.
Even if you buy them and they convince you hearing aids would be useful but you want more traditional hearing aids, it still seems like it might be a good value. Compared to risking $4000 on something you might not even feel is that useful to you.
Next comes translation on the fly and boom - Apple suddenly listens to the world. But of course is nothing recorded, sure that.
Although the undisputed value in all this, won’t we still find it weird everything is always being (recorded and) processed. Or perhaps is weird when it’s not if you are born this way.
A new post-modernism of yet unknown proportions is going to be in a dare need.
Can’t stop thinking of Aldous Huxley with this and Adderall and all.
As a mid-50 year old who discovered two years ago that he has moderate hearing loss (50-55 dB HL), I will be forever grateful to Apple for doing this.
If anybody from the accessibility teams is reading this, please know that it is difficult for me to overstate my gratitude and my appreciation for the amount of work this must've taken.
Music sounds unbelievably better through my AirPod pros, and I didn't even know what I had lost until I heard it again.
I'm willing to bet that a lot of my middle aged compatriots don't even know how much their hearing has degraded… Get your hearing test tested, folks, while you still have it!
Yes, and protect your hearing while you can. Turn down your tunes.
Disclosure: Working musician. I wear musician's earplugs when playing in bands.
> I wear musician's earplugs when playing in bands.
As a musician, you possibly have custom ones, but for anyone else who’s not an audiophile, you can get decent ones that mostly preserve the sound while lowering the volume for around $15-20. A godsend for concerts.
I actually just use the Etymotic ER20's. I'd rather have cheaper ones that I can afford to lose, and also have a pair in each instrument case.
Yes, +1 for etymotic. I’ve used them for years.
Totally agree but there's a small caveat...
Everybody has vastly different sensitivities to sound exposure.
Even identical twins with identical sound exposures can have drastically different hearing profiles especially as they age.
I actually have always been very careful with my hearing; there is some evidence that I may have a very very mild congenital birth defect that makes me prone to hearing loss, but that's largely speculation.
My wife is actually older than me and has a spectacularly sensitive hearing - as does her mother! - and she's the drummer! (The wife, not her mother :-) I just do keys and vocals...)
That's why it's so important that everyone protect their hearing because even though it's not too loud for the people around you, it might be too loud for you - and you won't know until it's too late.
Hearing being a "logarithmic" sense and decibels make this a bit weird to me. Like losing 6 dB of hearing in a car crash is considered negligible and insignificant, but that actually means the ears lost half their sensitivity in a flash (and it's never coming back, just like teeth). Likewise your 50 dB hearing loss is considered moderate, but actually represents a 300-fold reduction in acuity.
I shoot live concerts as a hobby and it blows my mind that I’m the only one in the media pit with hearing protection.
My Apple Watch is screaming at me that its damaging levels of audio, and I can’t imagine listening to the show without protection.
Did you try AppleMusic?
Not directly related to your case, but I thought I had some age-related hearing loss when listening to Spotify Premium only for a decade. I appreciate their recommendations (found me a whole bunch of new interesting bands, even new favourite ones), but didn't know how awful Spotify's quality is even in comparison to Apple's standard codec.
I didn't make the switch yet since for lossless since I don't have enough space on my phone, but am considering it, even for just showing support for the current music quality efforts over at Apple.
Spotify high quality is usually 320kbps. If not, it's because only worse qualities are recorded/available. I have sincere doubts you're able to hear a difference to lossless qualities, especially if you're listening on the go or in non-hifi setups.
The Apple RDF seems strong here.
I can easily hear the difference between Lossless and AAC on my two IEMs (Blessing 2 Dusk + IE600) as well as my open-back Focal Clear. And even with Bluetooth via AptX HD.
With the quality of audio improving so much in recent years I would take a guess that almost anyone can appreciate the significant difference in sound quality for < $50.
Have you done any blind listening tests? I'm having a hard time believing this, though it depends on the bitrate of the AAC.
I do blind tests multiple times a day.
On cellular on my iPad/iPhone I stream at AAC and then high-res lossless on WiFi.
When the stream switches the improvement in clarity and sound stage is very apparent.
I've heard this argument so many times - but personally I can trivially easily here the difference between Tidal / Apple Music and Spotify's 'high quality' setting - even on wireless headphones. Music on spotify sounds flat and drained. No idea if this has something to do with their compression technique, some kind of EQing, or a flaw in some other part of the pipeline, but I've blind tested it many times and its night and day.
I can't speak to Apple Music or Tidal, but I did a test between the Spotify and CD versions of Xtal from Selected Ambient Works 85-92 by Aphex Twin and the difference would be clear to absolutely anyone - the Spotify version is very tinny.
People often trot out the "most people can't tell the difference" argument, but I wonder how many of those people have actually tried a variety of tests? My hunch is very few.
Generally the problem with this type of argument is that the two sources are not volume-matched. Try out an ABX test here, of lossless vs various lossy codecs: https://abx.digitalfeed.net/
So that test doesn't mention how the FLAC was encoded back in 2014.
Because most of the benefits of Apple/Tidal lossless come from the fact they are encoding in 24-bit, 192 kHz direct from the original masters.
Which is effectively a remaster and so invalidates every single claim that detecting a difference is due to superior fidelity.
Not all of the library is encoded this way and you can still easily hear the difference.
Spotify does some loudness normalization that you could disable in the settings. (Don't know anymore as don't use Spotify for years). Maybe worth checking.
It feels like mainstream technology is slowly replacing most if not all accessibility devices, and I think that's a really good thing for those who need them!
This already happened to blind people. We used to have color testers, specialized audiobook / ebook players, GPS devices, text scanning / OCR machines, devices for banknote recognition, barcode readers, talking scales, thermometers, blood pressure meters and so on, all as separate devices, all extremely expensive. Nobody really had or carried all of these at once, though most people had at least some, it was just too expensive and impractical.
Nowadays, while those devices still exist, all you really need is any smartphone (even a low-end Android will do, though iOS is much better for this use case IMO), a free screen reader, which both OSes include by default, and a couple of free / cheap apps. Things like talking scales can be replaced with accessories connected over Bluetooth that don't technically talk, but that expose the measurements to your smartphone screen reader.
It feels like mainstream technology is slowly replacing most if not all accessibility devices, and I think that's a really good thing for those who need them!
Pretty much everyone eventually suffers from some sort of "disability". Hearing, eyesight, motor control, strength, etc. etc. So, I like to think of accessibility features as being made for everyone. Some people just need them earlier or with deeper functionality than others.
Interesting perspective. I never thought about this properly. But it seems things like Google Lens and other machine vision apps paired with a good screen reader can help blind people to "see".
I did some recent experiments with the openai api recently to see if I could make sense of photos by classifying and describing things. That worked surprisingly well for the absolute minimal effort I put in (<30 minutes) and I've been meaning to follow up on that to properly turn that in a product feature in our app.
Anyway, something simple hooked up to a camera shouldn't take that long to code. There might be good enough locally running models for machine vision as well. Reading signs, menus, describing what's in front of you, etc. I bet that there is some low hanging fruit there for visually impaired people that are a bit handy with programming in terms of really useful apps that they could develop with this.
Another aspect of using consumer tech like this is that it's normal. People wearing airpods don't stand out as hearing impaired or special. Most hearing aids on the other hand are clearly recognizable as such. I imagine some people don't like wearing them for that reason. They are kind of ugly, generally. Unlike e.g. glasses, there's no such thing as designer hearing aids. They are kind of a necessary evil for people. Apple is being clever here by tapping into a market of aging but wealthy people with a taste for good stuff.
> And the main tradeoff with the AirPods Pro 2 is battery life: they can last for around six hours with the hearing aid engaged, which doesn’t match what you’ll get from many OTC and prescription hearing aids.
Since they are comparing to devices $1K and up, maybe getting two pairs makes sense.
Always been sensitive to sounds and have taken effort over my life to protect my hearing. It may look silly, but I still plug my ears when a large truck/train passes by.
Result is, even at my age, I can still hear those annoying high frequency teenage repellents (ubiquitous in Tokyo). Can also hear some of my electric devices charging.
I'm glad to see such steps being taken by Apple. I always bring my noise canceling buds (Sony, Apple) with me when I go see movies. It's literally painful to watch movies in modern theaters without them. Just too damned loud!
Apple's on the right track. Personalized health and more daily monitoring of said health is gonna be a sea change event.
Wait, those high frequency sounds in Tokyo are teenage repellents? I thought they are bird/insect repellants. I could hear the sounds and was literally getting mini headaches walking around.
They're extremely annoying, aren't they? I was the only one that could hear them out of 5 people in my group, all aged about 35, and they definitely caused me to avoid walking by that shop. Hell, I would have avoided ever buying anything there if I were a local.
Yes you can even adjust the frequency based on which demographics you want to keep from loitering. There is a predictable hearing loss curve for the highest frequencies. You could set it to 20kHz to keep little kids away, or even go as low as 16kHz if you want to keep everyone younger than about college age away. This also happens to be an easy way to test the degree of your own hearing loss compared to your age group.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mosquito
Same here, right down to the experience in Tokyo. Both grandfathers had hearing loss and the impact it had on them socially was sad to see. Even with hearing aids. I hope to avoid that fate.
The technology that destroyed my hearing is now here to save it!
That's modern capitalism for you.
Went to see an artist (DJ) I liked and forgot my filters. Remembered that I had my AirPods Pro and used them in transparency mode and after only 10 minutes completely forgot I had them even in. I was surprised how good they worked as hearing protection!
Now when I’m at festivals and I have friends without earplugs, I usually recommend them to just use their AirPods Pro (if they have some) instead of buying cheap plugs
I've done that. At some point I felt like they weren't doing anything and pulled them out only to discover what a good job they had been doing. They lower the volume while keeping the sound pretty much the same. It's incredible.
This comment confuses me, but makes sense. Concerts are for consuming sound, people wear ear plugs??? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose? Like a blindfold in a theater?
The music at many concerts and nightclubs is unfortunately loud enough to cause permanent hearing loss.
Ear plugs reduce the volume to a level where you can still hear the music, but the risk of long term damage is reduced. (You can get "musician's ear plugs" which attenuate all frequencies equally, so they don't make the music sound weird.)
The main reason is that it's tough to have a uniform sound pressure distribution on a stage. That means the people at the front usually have very high sound levels, while those at the back have way lower. Technicians then make the tradeoff of having too high pressures at the front (where you must have earplugs) to afford to have medium levels at the back.
Weirdly, earplugs can make it easier to hear certain detail, despite the reduction in volume. I wear earplugs at concerts and I can hear all the instruments, despite them somehow reducing the intensity of crowd noises. It’s also a lot easier to hear people talking to you, as long as they’re speaking in the direction of your ears.
Earplugs lower the volume, they do not cut the sound completely.
Good earplugs (I use Etymotics myself) can do this without affecting the sound quality, making concerts enjoyable and safe.
> there’ll be detailed comparisons between the AirPods Pro 2 and existing OTC devices in the near future once iOS 18.1 is widely available.
As someone with a diagnosed, severe hearing loss, I wonder how these compare to prescription hearing aids. I currently wear a pair of Phonak hearing aids and am looking to replace them, but I wonder if spending 5-6k on another pair is worth it versus the OTC or Apple AirPod options that exist today.
My experience is that they serve different purposes.
I have a very nice and expensive set of ReSound hearing aids and they're fabulous at what they do, which is focus on speech and kind of on music if I set them for that.
They're also unobtrusive and easily last 18-20 hours on a charge. I forget I'm wearing them, and nobody notices that I have them.
My AirPods I use primarily for running and listening to music because they just sound unbelievably better, and they're probably fine for a concert although I haven't done that with them. But I think for long-term use every day all day it wouldn't be that comfortable or unobtrusive.
Would love to hear the experience of somebody who's trying it, though!
I don't have hearing loss, but I wear 2 pairs of AirPods Pro 2 over the course of a 10 hour day. The reason I have 2 pairs is because 1 pair only gets 5-6 hours of battery life, and I need to swap them while they recharge in the case.
Comfort? To me, very comfortable. I just leave them in there with Active Noise Canceling on all the time.
I may be showing my age, but if you remember "Get Smart", AirPods Pro 2 are like a Cone of Silence -- except they actually work.
In my experience, the rubbery Apple ear tips in the AirPods have better sound isolation and audio quality, but foam aftermarket tips better keep the AirPods from falling out.
Looking at the web, they’re also over $4500. I think the people who will most appreciate the AirPods are the ones that can now afford to put something in their ear to help their hearing.
If you have severe and above hearing loss, these won’t help much. This is what I have gotten to know from lot of forums. They do work well for my moderate-to-severe hearing loss. Been using for around 7 months now.
Yes the problem with severe hearing loss is that hearing aids simply cannot compensate for what is no longer there.
Hearing aids are actually a a lot more complicated than just boosting frequencies. At the very simplest, these days they are wide/multi band compressors that try to balance discomfort with natural hearing, generally focusing on speech intelligibility since that is by far the most important target.
If you have severe hearing loss I would strongly recommend putting yourself in the care of a professional. Costco is a great source of probably the lowest cost versus highest quality hearing aids these days... but the reason I say "professional" is because there are so many kinds of hearing loss and they all affect your perception markedly differently.
It's a lot more than just "missing some sensitivity at some frequencies".
I know what you mean. I am in India. Hearing aids are exorbitantly priced here and there is no Costco. I will definitely go for more professional ones once I can afford them, and not just buying them, but losing them too.
Oof! How unintentionally North-American-centric of me - apologies!
But regardless of where you or anyone else is, hearing aids are eye-wateringly expensive :-( and often for rather understandable reasons.
Imagine being student taking an exam... Normaly you would be disallowed to have bluetooth earpiece, but you would be allowed to have hearing aid. I'll let you think of the possible outcomes...
Hearing aids with Bluetooth are hardly new, they've been around for years at this point.
I've watched a couple of members of my parents generation struggle to admit they need hearing aids, and prefer not to wear them a lot of the time, even when they miss things people say. I doubt the current generations are going to have that problem!
You can say a lot of things about Apple, but which other consumer-facing tech company adds features meant to accompany people throughout every phase of their lives? People are growing with their smartphones, and the need for some functionalities only starts to become obvious later in life.
It’s just marketing. A plus point in differentiation matrix from gazillion competitors. And a justification for a higher price tag. The products are nice though.
I understand your point and in someway do agree that it is marketing and it is a way of differentiating themselves.
But inly to justify a higher price tag? Yes it is true they are premium products, but I don't think it's true that they're that much more expensive than similar items occupying the same marketing niche from other manufacturers.
And they are far more than an order of magnitude cheaper than even a low end set of hearing aids.
But all of that is despite the point.
Samsung, Sony, Bose,… The list goes on. I have bought high-end headphones from them all, some with some without noise cancellation. In ear, over the ear, wired and Bluetooth... the list goes on.
NOBODY has a headphone that accommodates my hearing loss except Apple.
And they started doing it years ago as a feature buried in the accessibility settings.
But they kept improving it to the point where it is now FDA approved.
"A plus point in a differentiation matrix…?"
This is the kind of action that buys customer loyalty for life. I hope you never get to experience the depth of hearing loss that many of us have and how utterly transformative this kind of technology not just can be, but IS.
If all marketing had actual consumer benefit we'd be much better off.
I can understand the cynicism, but I think Apple's investment into accessibility and health (I'm talking heart attack detection, not gamified activity tracking fwiw) as a differentiator is one of these rare win-win situations.
How is are win-wins rare? They're literally what capitalism is based on.
Yeah fair shout. I guess my perception of their frequency’s been beaten down by HN cynicism over the years
Using AirPods as ear protection for concerts was new to me!
I use them for movie theaters and other loud places. Works a charm!
Do they manage to cut out the sound of people eating and messing with their candy packaging? Drives me nuts.
I do love my AirPods Pro and use them in all modes except for spatial audio. I have a bug that I cannot fix for almost a year: reversed channels when connected to MacBook Pro M1. Especially the spatial audio is totally wrong. I have tried everything, resetting AirPods, Mac, Bluetooth, reinstalling drivers. It is fine with my iphone. But just totally wrong with my particular MBP. Any ideas?
Use Spotlight to open the “Audio MIDI Setup” app, select your AirPods Pro in the sidebar and check if channels are correctly configured there.
> Transparency mode in many of today’s earbuds sounds totally natural and lifelike, yet I still constantly remove my buds to show someone they’ve got my undivided attention. That way of thinking has to change when popular earbuds start pulling double duty as hearing aids. It’s a powerful way to reduce the stigma that’s all too common with hearing aids, but this shift will take time.
This will never be not true. You're fighting human nature. The vast majority of people don't need hearing aids and those who do you'll likely know they need a hearing aid if you're having regular or more personal conversations.
If you're getting your order taken at Starbucks, you can totally have ears in even today.
When was the last time you heard someone get called “four eyes” for wearing glasses? Mockery used to be common but society can improve and it seems like accepting people with disabilities as fully human has been improving even if we still have room to go.
I have a feeling that mostly went away not because society got any more considerate, but rather because glasses became much more commonplace, due to the explosion in prevalence of nearsightedness.
Isn't the proposed mechanism the same here?
The stigma will/should go away, because more people will keep their earbuds in; because they will use them as hearing aids.
> because they will use them as hearing aids.
But we're saying most people don't require hearing aids and thus will never reach mass market and thus the stigma won't disappear.
we're saying the same thing - if you have a disability it's totally fine.
You know who in your life has the hearing impairment, but the vast majority do not have this disability thusly "taking your ears out" is respectable.
The glasses analogy only works if general society has hearing impairments, but that's not the direction we're going as the human race, so we won't see this.
>Mockery used to be quite common...
Happily, 'banter' still is. And - watch out world - the Ami's are getting used to it. A very, very, tiny little bit.
“Ami’s”?
Americans?
One of the problems is that, currently, having earbuds in is a social signal of "please leave me alone and don't try to strike up a conversation with me", such as e.g. you might see someone on a train with earbuds in, and you know that means they don't want to be bothered.
> If you're getting your order taken at Starbucks, you can totally have ears in even today.
Prior to hearing aid features, I’d say this is actually quite rude even if you “can.” I don’t think the service workers taking your order appreciate this very much.
Societal views change. Moving from the Jabra Jawbone to AirPods it seems like it went from “that asshole business guy” to “literally everyone” in no time. When I was young, talking on a Bluetooth headset while walking down the street was worthy of derision. Things have changed a lot since then.
To go back way further, wasn’t Sony worried about the Walkman initially because the only people who wore headphones at the time out and about tended to use them for hearing aids at the time?
That’s what I remember hearing.
Obviously that changed when they got super popular. Your AirPods comparison is fantastic I had totally forgotten the phenomenon of “blue tools”.
Yeah. There was a period when the Borg look was widely seen as representing “At any moment someone more important than you could call me.”
I'd like to see Apple run some opt-in scientific trials.
For example: Does active noise cancellation result in more or less hearing loss?
Or Alcohol consumption: Apple Health could ask each day how many drinks you had and many people want to track it anyway. Correlate that to health metrics at a wide scale. It'd be much more powerful than any currently existing study given the userbase likely to opt-in.
Let people see exactly the data that will be uploaded prior to consenting to alleviate any privacy concerns. They already have stronger data-protection and anonymity mechanisms than those used by most studies built directly into the phone.
> I'd like to see Apple run some opt-in scientific trials.
Several organizations have used ResearchKit to conduct studies:
https://www.apple.com/lae/researchkit/
Cool, I didn't realize this was a thing. Kind of disappointing to see only 2-3 studies available through the Apple Research app though, I wonder why it isn't more widely used.
Do most research teams have to build their own app?
> Correlate that to health metrics at a wide scale. It'd be much more powerful than any currently existing study given the userbase likely to opt-in.
Apple did run something like this in their heart research study. But not specifically counting drinks, just more survey like questions.
I was disappointed that Apple had to downgrade the ANC in Airpods back then because of copyright problems, but they went full in and created a much stronger product out of it!
So if you use Android you won't be able to use this feature?
Not currently, no.
I have a feeling that it might be difficult for Apple to obtain FDA authorization for a system consisting in part of a device that Apple didn't manufacture (i.e. an Android phone). Getting the iPhone + Airpods system authorized was unusual enough already.
Based on the graph it looks like the hearing test only tests out to 8 kHz. That's disappointing. That's also the limit at most audiologists offices. It would be nice to have a good test that goes farther.
Audiologists don't seem to care about your high-frequency hearing.
They’re mostly focused on where speech and everyday important sounds (car that’s about to run you over, fire alarm, doorbell, etc) are right?
Of course, the "important sounds" are mostly below 8 kHz, but I think they're missing out by not looking at higher-frequency sound sensitivity, since that's the first thing you lose.
Having access to this data would only crush the souls of most audiophiles out there.
Unless I'm misunderstanding, the news here is Apple is adding a hearing test app, and "officially" stating that you can use your Airpods Pro like hearing aids.
I mention this as you can use these today as hearing aids, you just need to use a third party app to create your audiogram. I have fairly bad hearing loss and use Airpods instead of hearing aids.
Here's what's new:
* Air Pods 2 were approved by the FDA in September
* iOS (and iPadOS) 18.1, for which the release candidate was released earlier today, comes with the ability to enable hearing aid mode and with a hearing test
* based on the hearing test, the AirPods can automatically compensate how things sound to you
* Apple has announced that iOS 18.1 will be released next week
Details: https://www.apple.com/accessibility/hearing/
You are missing that these are now cleared as hearing aids by the government.
As an approved medical device I wonder if you can buy airpods with a HSA now?
I suspect the answer is "yes", and probably with an FSA now too. There is a similar situation with the Natural Cycles app, which is cleared by the FDA as a medical device, so you can buy it with an FSA or HSA, or have insurance pay for it - which is mandatory, since it is legally a birth control device, which they have to cover. (It is also a steal for the insurance company since it costs roughly $10 a month.)
I expect that insurance plans that cover hearing aids are going to cover this eventually, as a set of AirPods Pro 2 is $249, which is substantially cheaper than other hearing aids on the market. An open question is if any other manufacturer will be able to get a device that works this well at this price point - the amount of software and chip design engineering that went into H2 and the bridgeOS or RTKitOS that the AirPods run is just not something smaller manufacturers will be able to easily copy.
Now, I wish I could find a better eartips fit for my ears... XS doesn't pass in the app as having a good enough seal, and S is just a little bit uncomfortable for me for all day use.
> An open question is if any other manufacturer will be able to get a device that works this well at this price point - the amount of software and chip design engineering that went into H2 and the bridgeOS or RTKitOS that the AirPods run is just not something smaller manufacturers will be able to easily copy.
Well, "classic" hearing aids have two features that I don't see Apple replicating any time soon: longer battery life (AirPods roughly last around 4-6 hours depending on battery degradation and usage, whereas hearing aids run for days) and most especially, support for audio induction loops [1] - basically PA systems for the impaired, you'll find these in churches, conference/meeting rooms, concert halls/stadiums and in the UK also in taxicabs.
Classic hearing aids will have their place for quite the time to come.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_induction_loop
Well kinda in my second point but yes correct. I mentioned as I kept assuming you couldn't use these as such yet, but have been using happily for months now after I realized the functionality was all there.
Yep. I still haven't been able to determine if this "new" feature is any different from what already exists.
I hope so because when you enable your audiogram for transparency it sounds like you're in an ASMR video. There's no way to make it sound natural but louder, which is what I would expect from a hearing aid.
The audio gram stuff existed, but wasn’t well known and as mentioned required a third party app.
The hearing aid stuff was only recently certified by the FDA as an OTC hearing aid. Apple has had a mode for a many years where AirPods + iPhone could act like a hearing aid. But it didn’t meat the medical classifications.
Actually you have been able to import your audiogram for at least the last two versions of iOS (16+), no third-party app required.
But it was simply called "an accommodation". Can't call it a hearing aid until you were approved by the FDA!
Without the new software, there is no boost to external sound in transparency mode, so they are not useful as hearing aids. I’m looking forward to testing the new release.
Actually you can set up a good approximation using iPhoneOS>Settings>Accessibility>Audio & Visual>Headphone Accommodations. Under Custom Audio Setup, you can select a audiogram, such as produced by an app like Mimi, or scanned in from your audiologist.
That’s incorrect. I have been using Airpods Pro for 7 months now for my hearing loss. They do boost sounds in transparency mode if you choose to.
Yep, the path for this official recognition was cleared by the executive order two years ago that allowed for hearing aids to be sold over the counter!
FDA approval means you can call them hearing aids, not just some marketing term.
Either way it's just a label. You've already been able to do the same thing for years. Just use the free Mimi hearing test app, save the audiogram to Health, then apply it in headphone accommodations.
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/hearing-aids/otc-hearing...
Seems like they are regulated for safety, and there are lots of (decent) requirements.
It’s interesting that I perceive my hearing is still pretty stellar albeit during a surprise attack in my military service, a guy started firing his assault rifle right next to my unprotected ear…
Yikes! Did it also have a blast suppressor? Those things make gunshots MUCH louder to folks beside you.
A large part of the article focuses on using airpods at concerts and how loud the environment can be.
- Can airpods tell me how loud a room is?
- Which settings should I use for a concert to preserve fidelity? How do they compare to "concert" branded consumer earplugs, like Loop/Etymotic/SoundProtex ?
Fragile and too expensive to replace often. The software updates that apple pushes on to them screws them up. Happened to my first set of airpods and swore off of them since then. The batteries are awful too.
My go to since then has been the one plus z2 headsets, brilliant call quality, great form factor, decent ANC, and fantastic battery.
Because everything I've ever heard about acquiring dedicated hearing aids has been about what a joy they are to purchase, maintain, and operate.
Just adding to this, for the general audience, hearing aids are thousands of dollars, and virtually all users describe the industry as a "racket." Features that improve their functionality, such as adapters for Bluetooth etc., are dedicated hardware modules with proprietary interfaces, and expensive too.
Also, everybody I know who has hearing aids eventually ends up getting them at Costco.
That’s what I’ve heard too. And they didn’t like the ones they had to get in the end, they didn’t work well but that was all insurance would cover.
But if they’re $4000 a pair, that’s _sixteen_ pairs of AirPods 2 Pro. Assuming you don’t get them on sale.
So if you lose/break ‘em every 6 months, which seems quite excessive, that’s still 8 years to break even with “real” hearing aids.
And that’s not to mention the fact that you can buy replacement individual AirPods or cases cheaper than a full set. Or just get AppleCare so replacements are even cheaper if you tend to lose/damage them a lot.
Even if you buy them and they convince you hearing aids would be useful but you want more traditional hearing aids, it still seems like it might be a good value. Compared to risking $4000 on something you might not even feel is that useful to you.
Are One Plus z2 hearing aids with a hearing test app? Because that's the notable thing under discussion here...
Next comes translation on the fly and boom - Apple suddenly listens to the world. But of course is nothing recorded, sure that.
Although the undisputed value in all this, won’t we still find it weird everything is always being (recorded and) processed. Or perhaps is weird when it’s not if you are born this way.
A new post-modernism of yet unknown proportions is going to be in a dare need.
Can’t stop thinking of Aldous Huxley with this and Adderall and all.