I don't particularly like this idea. Here are some the problems I see:
1) Your adding a lot of complexity, hardware and software wise (points of failure), to a rather simple device that works well. 2) Your headphones/earbuds are now going to be a fair amount more expensive. 3) Your new headphones are incompatible with your existing stereo/tv/computer equipment so you'll still have to keep the old set around. 4) Every pair of USB headphones I've purchased have only lasted a few years, yet the old school AKG K240's headphones I bought in the 80's are still working great. 5) Do you really think the cell phone manufacturers are going to put 2 USB-C connectors on you new cell phone? If not, you'll not be listening to music from you phone while it's recharging on your desk.
I agree that there are problems, and USB-C headphones/earbuds (though the latter has no interest for me) is not something I want - but these chips include a DAC so it's not likely that the price of the headphones will be higher, at least from a manufacturing standpoint. Who knows what they'll actually sell for, though.
1) an IC usually works or it doesn't, I don't think it's something that will kill headphones faster than the usual problems (connectors not holding up the test of time) that kill earbuds after a few years. 2) that's to be seen, but how many popular brands of headphones are really sold at cutthroat margins? People are even paying for the brand only (e.g. beats and apple). And many people use the earbuds that came with their phone. I think the price difference will be negligibly small in the long term. 3) I'm sure analog headphones will keep getting sold, especially in the enthusiast and professional range of products, and in the ultra low end too at least for several years, assuming the manufacturers all adopt this and start dropping the jack port on smartphones of course. If the jack doesn't get dropped because it's not worth it, nothing happens. 4) The mobile mass market of cheapish headphones is the important objective. Audiophile market is another story and I'm sure everything analog will stay available, especally since including analog ports on desktop towers, AVRs, stereo sets, etc. is absolutely not a problem. The whole point of headphone DACs is having a decent DAC instead of your computer's. That's not going away because of cheap DACs put inside mass market headphones. 5) A pretty rare use case I think, and a company like Apple could put another USB-C port on the charger to satisfy this use case, their accessories are already outrageously expensive anyway.
Basically I see no reason to panic.
The usefulness of this thing is debatable but I have no idea how much of a limitation having to include a jack port is for portable devices, if it's significant this thing will probably take off.
Eh, I'm not panicking. I don't listen to music on my cell phone anyway.
It really just appears to be a way to add complexity and cost to a device that's been work perfectly fine for decades. I only see benefit here for the manufactures and not for the consumer.
They are pushing this because there's plenty of capability/feature that can be had with USB type interface for a headphone/headset. The one I liked is an earphone that also functions as a microphone through the ear so phone calls are dead quiet without noise cancellation.
Yet for audio applications, this is nothing but probably a bit of inconvenience.
One thing I would worry about is them replacing a decades old audio jack with USB type-C thats going to be around for how long? The USB connectors have been iterated upon rather quickly inthe grand scheme of things. It seems the only answers I'm seeing to many questions are adapters... How many people want to have to carry around an adapter? Of course this is perfect for the headphone companies, especially ones like Beats, they can sell you a new pair when USB type-D comes around because people like convenience, not having to carry around adapters...
And what about the mechanical integrity of the type-C connector? I feel like the 3.5mm audio jack might be more durable. I don't think the designers of type-C accounted for people having it plugged in while in their pockets, etc.
Neither did the 3.5mm guys, for the most part. Really, if you think about it, it's really easy to break a 3.5mm jack (I've broken my share over the years), arguably easier than USB-C (the shorter connector length means that it should in theory be easier to unplug the whole way out when stressed), but that remains to be seen.
On the sucject of cost, you can flip that argument right round: one the vendors ditch 3.5mm jack, there's a lot of saved space and components - both in terms of the physical DAC and being able to slice the entire analog section clean off, including engineering signal isolation and such.
Overall, I think it'll be more positive than negative in the long run, but we shall see.
As for iteration on the port itself, I don't think we'll see anything there for a long time: USB-C already runs off a 4-lane setup, which is the norm for various high-bandwidth, external connectors right now. The PHYs and devices will upgrade, but I don't think the connector itself will for a long time. Oh and an example of longevity, about the only connectors that have been around for a comparable amount of time to USB-A in computing would be IEC power for PSUs and chargers, 15-pin D-SUB video, 3.5mm audio jacks and 8P8C ethernet for the majority, with RS-232 still used in certain niches (but increasingly replaced by embedded UART->USB serial bridges and various networked protocols like telnet and SSH). Just about everything else has been replaced over the years by something better, USB for the most part.
The USB-C Connector was designed as a mobile connector from its conception; it's significantly mechanically stronger than the USB Micro-B connector, rated for 10,000 insertion/removal cycles which greatly exceeds most 3.5mm jacks, and in an extreme case, the USB-C plug is designed to fail before the receptacle.
USB Type-C connections and the USB Audio standard support analog audio on separate pins, so it'll be very easy to create an adapter to convert between 3.5 mm audio jacks and USB connectors. Your old headphones will still work on new devices, and your new USB headphones will work on your old devices.
You don't need two separate USB Type-C plugs in order to support charging and audio-out. You just need a USB splitter/hub. Apple makes several that allow power passthrough and digital connections. Pretty sure there'll be all kinds of inexpensive ones in various formfactors soon enough. There will probably even be phone-specific ones that just slip onto the bottom of the phone and provide two USB Type-C ports; or they'll be built into cases like extra batteries are. It's not an either-or situation.
AFAIK Intel said the standard could support analog out on spare pins, I dunno that it's ultimately gonna be part of the spec or that OEM will support it... I'd guess chips like these definitely would despite the touted Type C support tho, because the typical Type C headset would move most of the functionality of these chips into the headset itself...
It's getting pretty confusing tbh, and that's film an enthusiast's pov who understands the technical aspects, this has a very high potential for flopping if the mass market can't figure it out (or simply shrugs and opts for Bluetooth). I doubt there's a lot of phone OEM clamoring for discrete audio IC when the main SoC can usually handle it too...
1) it does not add complexity.. it's just moving the D/A/Amp closer to the speakers, which is always welcome... especially removing connector transmitting analog is a huge benefit.
2) anything new has a price premium, but eventually the phone will get cheaper as it doesn't need a D/A/Amp, and the speaker/headphones will get a bit more pricey.
3)ok
4)ok
5), good question, will there be usb-c passthrough's on the charger somehow? I've never listened to music on my phone while charging, do you think that's a significant application? I do listen to music from my phone while charging, via chromecast then to speakers with a digital input.
Maybe the lower end version is an earlier design, with all the important features, but no refinement (e.g. fine-tuned power gating and stuff like that)? This may be related to the higher-end regulators included in it as well.
The high-end variant is already in-production whereas the lower-end version is expected to go into production in July, 2016.
My guess is that Anton Shilov made a tiny mistake, but Conexants own press release doesn't mention the current drawn, so who knows where those numbers actually come from.
"While the CX20985 should be fine for mainstream headsets, Conexant does not expect it to be used for higher-end digital headsets. The chip does not support sampling rates higher than 48 kHz, something that their Hi-Fi audio partners and customers expect."
Why would one need >48kHz sampling rates? It's greater than the Nyquist frequency for human hearing so it should easily be sufficient for accurately sampling audio up to 20kHz.
The lowpass filter doesn't need to be as perfect. The filter ends up affecting the audio spectrum less if it has a 20 kHz passband and 100 kHz before the cutoff as opposed to 2 kHz.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
31 Comments
Back to Article
damianrobertjones - Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - link
Gosh! I'm glad that they made that fast enough... anyone would think that these oems have known about it for a looooonnnggg time /sdamianrobertjones - Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - link
"Going forward, Conexant intends to introduce more sophisticated USB-C Digital Audio-compliant chips"They could do this NOW but that wouldn't MILK customers from their $$$$
willis936 - Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - link
"What should we do now that transistors are so cheap?""Let's replace existing solutions with less convenient ones."
Murloc - Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - link
having literally everything on USB-C is arguably convenient.sadsteve - Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - link
I don't particularly like this idea. Here are some the problems I see:1) Your adding a lot of complexity, hardware and software wise (points of failure), to a rather simple device that works well.
2) Your headphones/earbuds are now going to be a fair amount more expensive.
3) Your new headphones are incompatible with your existing stereo/tv/computer equipment so you'll still have to keep the old set around.
4) Every pair of USB headphones I've purchased have only lasted a few years, yet the old school AKG K240's headphones I bought in the 80's are still working great.
5) Do you really think the cell phone manufacturers are going to put 2 USB-C connectors on you new cell phone? If not, you'll not be listening to music from you phone while it's recharging on your desk.
debdrup - Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - link
I agree that there are problems, and USB-C headphones/earbuds (though the latter has no interest for me) is not something I want - but these chips include a DAC so it's not likely that the price of the headphones will be higher, at least from a manufacturing standpoint. Who knows what they'll actually sell for, though.Murloc - Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - link
1) an IC usually works or it doesn't, I don't think it's something that will kill headphones faster than the usual problems (connectors not holding up the test of time) that kill earbuds after a few years.2) that's to be seen, but how many popular brands of headphones are really sold at cutthroat margins? People are even paying for the brand only (e.g. beats and apple). And many people use the earbuds that came with their phone. I think the price difference will be negligibly small in the long term.
3) I'm sure analog headphones will keep getting sold, especially in the enthusiast and professional range of products, and in the ultra low end too at least for several years, assuming the manufacturers all adopt this and start dropping the jack port on smartphones of course. If the jack doesn't get dropped because it's not worth it, nothing happens.
4) The mobile mass market of cheapish headphones is the important objective.
Audiophile market is another story and I'm sure everything analog will stay available, especally since including analog ports on desktop towers, AVRs, stereo sets, etc. is absolutely not a problem.
The whole point of headphone DACs is having a decent DAC instead of your computer's. That's not going away because of cheap DACs put inside mass market headphones.
5) A pretty rare use case I think, and a company like Apple could put another USB-C port on the charger to satisfy this use case, their accessories are already outrageously expensive anyway.
Basically I see no reason to panic.
The usefulness of this thing is debatable but I have no idea how much of a limitation having to include a jack port is for portable devices, if it's significant this thing will probably take off.
sadsteve - Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - link
Eh, I'm not panicking. I don't listen to music on my cell phone anyway.It really just appears to be a way to add complexity and cost to a device that's been work perfectly fine for decades. I only see benefit here for the manufactures and not for the consumer.
zodiacfml - Friday, May 13, 2016 - link
They are pushing this because there's plenty of capability/feature that can be had with USB type interface for a headphone/headset. The one I liked is an earphone that also functions as a microphone through the ear so phone calls are dead quiet without noise cancellation.Yet for audio applications, this is nothing but probably a bit of inconvenience.
SunnyNW - Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - link
One thing I would worry about is them replacing a decades old audio jack with USB type-C thats going to be around for how long? The USB connectors have been iterated upon rather quickly inthe grand scheme of things. It seems the only answers I'm seeing to many questions are adapters... How many people want to have to carry around an adapter? Of course this is perfect for the headphone companies, especially ones like Beats, they can sell you a new pair when USB type-D comes around because people like convenience, not having to carry around adapters...SunnyNW - Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - link
And what about the mechanical integrity of the type-C connector? I feel like the 3.5mm audio jack might be more durable. I don't think the designers of type-C accounted for people having it plugged in while in their pockets, etc.ZeDestructor - Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - link
Neither did the 3.5mm guys, for the most part. Really, if you think about it, it's really easy to break a 3.5mm jack (I've broken my share over the years), arguably easier than USB-C (the shorter connector length means that it should in theory be easier to unplug the whole way out when stressed), but that remains to be seen.On the sucject of cost, you can flip that argument right round: one the vendors ditch 3.5mm jack, there's a lot of saved space and components - both in terms of the physical DAC and being able to slice the entire analog section clean off, including engineering signal isolation and such.
Overall, I think it'll be more positive than negative in the long run, but we shall see.
As for iteration on the port itself, I don't think we'll see anything there for a long time: USB-C already runs off a 4-lane setup, which is the norm for various high-bandwidth, external connectors right now. The PHYs and devices will upgrade, but I don't think the connector itself will for a long time. Oh and an example of longevity, about the only connectors that have been around for a comparable amount of time to USB-A in computing would be IEC power for PSUs and chargers, 15-pin D-SUB video, 3.5mm audio jacks and 8P8C ethernet for the majority, with RS-232 still used in certain niches (but increasingly replaced by embedded UART->USB serial bridges and various networked protocols like telnet and SSH). Just about everything else has been replaced over the years by something better, USB for the most part.
Impulses - Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - link
Can't slice the analog section out unless you're gonna build laptops and phones without speakers...PlasticMouse - Friday, May 20, 2016 - link
The USB-C Connector was designed as a mobile connector from its conception; it's significantly mechanically stronger than the USB Micro-B connector, rated for 10,000 insertion/removal cycles which greatly exceeds most 3.5mm jacks, and in an extreme case, the USB-C plug is designed to fail before the receptacle.phoenix_rizzen - Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - link
USB Type-C connections and the USB Audio standard support analog audio on separate pins, so it'll be very easy to create an adapter to convert between 3.5 mm audio jacks and USB connectors. Your old headphones will still work on new devices, and your new USB headphones will work on your old devices.You don't need two separate USB Type-C plugs in order to support charging and audio-out. You just need a USB splitter/hub. Apple makes several that allow power passthrough and digital connections. Pretty sure there'll be all kinds of inexpensive ones in various formfactors soon enough. There will probably even be phone-specific ones that just slip onto the bottom of the phone and provide two USB Type-C ports; or they'll be built into cases like extra batteries are. It's not an either-or situation.
Impulses - Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - link
AFAIK Intel said the standard could support analog out on spare pins, I dunno that it's ultimately gonna be part of the spec or that OEM will support it... I'd guess chips like these definitely would despite the touted Type C support tho, because the typical Type C headset would move most of the functionality of these chips into the headset itself...It's getting pretty confusing tbh, and that's film an enthusiast's pov who understands the technical aspects, this has a very high potential for flopping if the mass market can't figure it out (or simply shrugs and opts for Bluetooth). I doubt there's a lot of phone OEM clamoring for discrete audio IC when the main SoC can usually handle it too...
8steve8 - Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - link
1) it does not add complexity.. it's just moving the D/A/Amp closer to the speakers, which is always welcome... especially removing connector transmitting analog is a huge benefit.2) anything new has a price premium, but eventually the phone will get cheaper as it doesn't need a D/A/Amp, and the speaker/headphones will get a bit more pricey.
3)ok
4)ok
5), good question, will there be usb-c passthrough's on the charger somehow?
I've never listened to music on my phone while charging, do you think that's a significant application?
I do listen to music from my phone while charging, via chromecast then to speakers with a digital input.
JoeyJoJo123 - Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - link
upboatDaniel Egger - Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - link
Odd, the higher end version has a magnitude less idle current?nightbringer57 - Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - link
Maybe the lower end version is an earlier design, with all the important features, but no refinement (e.g. fine-tuned power gating and stuff like that)? This may be related to the higher-end regulators included in it as well.debdrup - Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - link
The high-end variant is already in-production whereas the lower-end version is expected to go into production in July, 2016.My guess is that Anton Shilov made a tiny mistake, but Conexants own press release doesn't mention the current drawn, so who knows where those numbers actually come from.
extide - Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - link
Yeah, that seemed really weird to me as well. Would like to see some clarification there.Impulses - Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - link
Or it could just be intentional... If a headphone maker wants to make a headset with better battery life he'd want the higher end part.r3loaded - Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - link
"While the CX20985 should be fine for mainstream headsets, Conexant does not expect it to be used for higher-end digital headsets. The chip does not support sampling rates higher than 48 kHz, something that their Hi-Fi audio partners and customers expect."Why would one need >48kHz sampling rates? It's greater than the Nyquist frequency for human hearing so it should easily be sufficient for accurately sampling audio up to 20kHz.
willis936 - Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - link
Digital upsampling and interpolating is a classic DSP trick to decrease THD for a given DAC.willis936 - Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - link
The lowpass filter doesn't need to be as perfect. The filter ends up affecting the audio spectrum less if it has a 20 kHz passband and 100 kHz before the cutoff as opposed to 2 kHz.StrangerGuy - Saturday, May 14, 2016 - link
"I like uselessly high sampling rates so I can hear more IMD pushed into the audible range for purer sound" -audiophilesThe_Assimilator - Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - link
"By comparison, the CX20899 has improved DAC and power supply circuitries, which will effect the quality of analog audio."Affect.
nagi603 - Thursday, May 12, 2016 - link
So... when can I exchange my 5.1 optical connection for USB-C?ZeDestructor - Sunday, May 15, 2016 - link
You use USB audio output with a 5.1 DAC, HDMI or DP (over USB-C even!) for that.gulzar - Friday, June 3, 2016 - link
USB-C digital Audio studio is one of the best <a href="http://www.zeepedia.com/answers/question-category/... which has unique features of audio. I like this idea and appreciate it.