Talk:Apple headphones

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Apple headphones article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Apple Inc. C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article really needs some information on the connector and compatibility. Tiorbinist (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's true. How long are the cables? Is the jack a standard 3.5- mm stereo headphone jack? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.177.127.231 (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fostex

I can believe that Fostex makes the Apple earbuds, because anyone can make them. However, it needs to be made clear in the article that unlike Fostex's high quality studio equipment, the Apple earbuds are junky and a ripoff. At £26 they don't even make a musical sound, just a tinny noise that is impossible to correct with EQ (unlike even a £5 pair of Sony earbuds), and they are not comfortable, well fitting or well built (again, unlike the Sony's except the latter because cheap earphones are badly built which is why you get conventional headphones). --194.83.82.3 (talk) 11:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no longer any mention of Fostex in the article. Why? --81.132.208.157 (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My edit (Sep 21), Apple claims about EarPods "designed to match ear geometry"

About the edit - I split the long History paragraph into three, bolded the term "EarPod", and made the product name references seem a bit more "formal" (".. shipped with the second generation iPod Shuffle" instead of ".. shipped with second generation Shuffles..") Take that for what you will - I'm not sure how "stodgy" Wikipedia is like this.. (I grew up with a printed set of Britannia's in the hallway.. I won't take offense if someone changes it for being too snobbish)

I added (nonexistent) templates for places I think need citation and/or revision. Apple claims that they are designed by analyzing the ear/canal geometry. I do believe this - but it remains that the only "real" source for this is Apple ad literature.. (I'd love to see a scholarly article in EARSHA(r)Pe: The International Aural Society of Ear Shape Research People or something. But I seriously doubt such a journal exists - perhaps I'll start a joke Facebook page..) Likewise, Apple's claim that the Earpods are more comfortable, sit in the ear better, sound better - are just that, claims - and the best a "source" could do is provide some researcher asking a bunch of people "do these feel better" - not very useful to anyone really).

Maybe more "importantly" is the claim about the "pointing" of the various sound ports on the EarPos (low, high, mid). And whether the different ports indeed do put out the respective frequency ranges, and the claim in the ad video about "airflow through the Earpod itself" aiding the movement of the speaker diaphragm(s), maybe some effect on the frequency response, etc. That would be stuff for those hypothetical EARSHA(r)Pe people.

What think others? (and please replace those nonexistent templates with whatever the proper WML (?) syntactic sugar is) Jimw338 (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]