Apple AirPods Pro 2 noise-canceling, wireless, in-ear headphones On Bluetooth

Sidebar 1: On Bluetooth

One reason I green-lighted Rogier van Bakel's review of the Apple AirPod Pro 2 is that, while Bluetooth audio has a somewhat dubious past, its future seems promising (footnote 1). Bluetooth is a protocol that enables wireless audio and much else. Operating within the Bluetooth standard, or riding on top of it, are codecs for coding audio including SBC (the basic, default Bluetooth audio codec), AAC (preferred by Apple and used by YouTube), LDAC (from Sony), and several varieties of aptX (standard, HD, Adaptive, Lossless, and so on).

Sony and Qualcomm have led the push for better Bluetooth audio quality, with LDAC and aptX, respectively; both have versions capable of lossless audio or something very close. But LDAC and aptX are proprietary codecs, and Apple is unlikely to embrace them—ever. Apple, with AAC, has long seemed to settle for a rather low audio-encoding standard.

So why review an Apple product? Because they're the market leader at both ends of the chain, with iPhones and AirPods, respectively. If Stereophile is going to investigate a mass-market technology, we might as well focus on the "mass" part.

Perhaps it's promising that with the AirPods Pro 2, Apple chose to implement Bluetooth 5.3, an advanced Bluetooth codec that incorporates something called LE Audio, adopted in 2020 as part of Bluetooth 5.2. LE stands for "low energy," from its roots in improving hearing aids, where energy efficiency is imperative. Energy-saving technologies are also useful for true-wireless headphones? like the Apple AirPods Pro 2—but for our purposes the most important thing about?LE Audio is LC3, short for "low-complexity communications codec." LC3 is said to be?a big improvement on so-called Bluetooth Classic audio.

Is this, then, the magic bullet for Apple's Bluetooth products, the key to better sound? I could be wrong about this, but I'm thinking: probably not. LC3 is a huge improvement in some ways—latency, energy efficiency—and tests show that it sounds far better than SBC, the basic, built-in Bluetooth codec. Yet, it may not even equal AAC in audio quality at a given bit rate. If Apple implements LC3, you should see better battery life and experience less annoying latency when watching movies with headphones, but there doesn't seem to be much in it for audio quality.

Perhaps it's worth remembering that Apple was once reviled for the lack of accessibility in its products—until all the sudden, one day, they were the best. Apple could, at one of its big annual events, announce a new version of AAC that supports lossless audio. One way or another, I'd be shocked if Apple didn't have a plan for bringing its audio hardware up to the standard of its software, specifically Apple Music's lossless streams. Fingers crossed.—Jim Austin


Footnote 1: The other reason: Audiophiles fly on airplanes and, in cities, take subways, and when they do, they like music.

COMMENTS
Glotz's picture

Apple AirPods Pro 2 appears to be disposable and lacking build quality, which was echoed in the piece. With after 2 years of heavy, daily usage, 1000XM4's are nigh-indestructible, demonstrate benchmark sound for the price, supremely easy to use and master and sport an incredible app that continues to grow in functionality.

Owners just received a new update supporting multi-point last week. The price is also the same, though started at $30 more when released in 2021.

For units to be dead already should be a non-starter for many audiophiles who rarely accept such poor longevity. I also haven't experienced the Max's, but for a company to offer a premium product at $500+ and an easy-to-break product at half as much is a non-starter as a brand, for me (and many). This product is clearly not up to the level of other Apple products that are meant to exude quality.

I have not heard the Apple AirPods Pro 2, so I don't have a formed opinion about the sound. Kudos to Roger for an honest and candid review!

Glotz's picture

The Sony earbuds for $250 are ridiculously good sound for the money. Separation, depth, bass response (with the proper EQ- Clear Bass +5, 16k +7), focus and detail are all fantastic- for the money. Without proper EQ, I think many listeners would be disappointed.

FR is really on point vs. similar on-ear headphones like Grado or HiFi Man. Their popularity and the overwhelming positive reviews over the past 2 years speak for themselves. Noise-cancelling is as good as any Bose offering or Apple, etc. Not sure how anyone could go wrong with these.

They last despite constant drops and fumbles, and they function really well. The app tracks usage - at well over 500 hours they still roll confidently.

I'm not sure who wouldn't be glad to not have sound while at work, for private, noisy-environment phone calls or for traveling, working out, etc.). As long as they fire up selections that are fitting for work, I also think music almost all of the time is just fine.

It's about our focus levels adjusting for the selection of music or the situation. Would I choose Viagra Boys for work at full volume? No.. I would go for some ambient or jazz or classical or whatever suits the moment best. Would I listen intently the same way I do when listening to my rig at home? No... but then it depends on the situation. Having freedom to do what I want and how I want is the point.

ejlif's picture

You should try them before you bag on them. I had the Sony XM4 and they AirPod 2 sound better to my ear and also the XM4 broke and are basically junk now after only using for a year or so. AirPod 2 longevity remains to be seen but they sound better and just plain work better with an iPhone than the Sony.

Glotz's picture

The review directly talks about dubious build quality. Glad they work on the iPhone.

You didn't explain how your WF's 'broke' after a year. Your claim there sounds a bit questionable.

The WF's overwhelmingly positive reviews all over the internet validate my position.

ejlif's picture

One side developed a scratchy distortion. I contacted Sony and it was a known issue and basically cost as much as a new pair to fix it so into the landfill they go. I'm just saying personally I hate apple sound and never heard an AirPod I liked until this one. I got these just to use transparency mode at work and listen to podcasts and still be able to talk to co workers. I am really surprised that they sound good enough to listen to music on. I have had a lot of gear and some really expensive stuff so it's really surprising to find something that I can tolerate music on. I would far prefer to hear it on better gear but that gear is not as convenient so these have a place in my collection and they do work. I'm not so sure about the cheap build quality. Apple makes really nice stuff and it's usually build quality wise better than anything else out there. If you really care about sound you will never use bluetooth but it's convenient and I guess sometimes that overrides quality.

Glotz's picture

I like your insights here regarding the sound quality and thanks for being transparent. I'd like to hear 'em now out of curiosity... but sorry to hear about that unit dying.

I wish consistency was better for all of overseas manufacture, not just China. There are a lot of valid reasons for it, but it still sucks when we are the recipient.

CG's picture

Real serious philosophical question...

Does playing music constantly diminish the experience? To me it's a bit like eating rich food for every meal, however you define rich. It can become not so special after a while.

I'm sure other people have different ideas about this, but I know musicians and music educators who have no interest attending concerts any longer, unless they are performing themselves or are going to see friends perform.

Anton's picture

I get what you mean.

Back in the day, hearing Beethoven's Sixth might very well be a once in lifetime experience.

Back then, who could get sick of Haydn's surprise symphony when nobody had heard a twinkle twinkle little star record a million times?

Beethoven's Fifth had not been used in countless commercials yet.

How many times do we need to hear Stairway to Freaking Heaven?

We have the luxury of hearing things enough times to become sick of them. (I am kind of done with The Beatles for this reason: reissue that stuff again, I no longer care.)

If you think on it for a bit, just how large do we think families' repertoires were for playing together at home in the pre-recording era. I don't know, did people burn out on playing the same group of songs every night by the fire?

Your point is well taken.

On the other hand, hearing music everyday is great. We have infinite choice now...we can hear new music every day!

I don't find it loses its impact, but I get your drift.

Cheers, fellow audiophile!

PeterG's picture

I pondered a similar issue the other day when wondering if I should buy the ultra version of Rumours in 45rpm. After a million listens on car radio it becomes Muzak, schlock... But wait! It's an incredibly great album! I bought it, arriving soon, I wonder how much I'll play it?...

Anton's picture

Interesting to me: people who might feel no issue with tossing Ear Buds after 2 years look at me like I am a nut when I mention tube life or stylus wear! They expect electronics to live forever, just not phones or ear buds. ;-D

We could change your paragraph for tubes or 'needles:'
"The tube/stylusindustry's dirty secret is that these products are just about disposable. If you use your Hi Fi or play records every day day (as audiophiles might), the tubes or stylus may be on their last legs after 18 months, two years at best."

Same vibe!

We recently saw Zesto opine about testing amplifier tubes at only 500 hours.

500 charges on a pair of ear buds might make a stylus or power amp tube look like a Mayfly, by comparison. (The price of tubes and styli is not insubstantial, either!)

I will lay this all down to different life expectancies (strokes) for different folks.

I am also a bit bullish on the future of recycling this stuff, it will come.

Thanks again for an honestly thought provoking review. I am not an ear budder but, conceptually, I would have nothing against the price vs. life expectancy angle.

PeterG's picture

We can rationalize all day, but these are not an audiophile product. A sad waste of Stereophile resources

funambulistic's picture

Pretty much sums it up: "The other reason: Audiophiles fly on airplanes and, in cities, take subways, and when they do, they like music."

cognoscente's picture

I think all wireless headphones fall short of audiophile requirements. The brand doesn't matter, but the principle.

For people who mainly want ease of use and in-ears, these are a good quality candidate (perhaps even the best in this price range).

For people who want ease of use and over-ears, the AirPods Max is a good quality candidate (and again perhaps even the best in this price range), even for audiophiles if used wired, which is possible.

An Apple product may not "sound" in terms of feel (elitist or distinctive) audiophile enough, soberly "listened" they are.

Anton's picture

She wears them when she taking the mutts for a hike and uses them while she's working in the barn, pasture, etc.

She likes the quality.

She can't really carry the living room system around with her, so these are a fine alternative.

They might not be prissy enough to be considered 'audiophile,' but for audiophiles on the go who want minimal fuss music or books going along for the ride, these are perfect.

About 30 cents per day for a two year 'investment' is great.

I suppose if they only lasted 500-1000 hours, were very fussy, cost 20 times as much, and sounded exactly the same, then they'd be audiophile?

PeterG's picture

Audiophile is not about money, it's about a focus on sound quality. I enjoy my Apple buds a lot, but I'm paying for style, Bluetooth, integration with my phone and laptop. All of these things come at the cost of money or sound quality. Etymotic makes audiophile earbuds starting at $100 or so

ejlif's picture

I had the version before this new version and I could not stand to listen to music on them, they seemed dull and bloated and I was just distracted. I have and have had a lot of much nicer gear so not surprising. What does surprise me is this new version I can stand to listen to music on and while not as good as some others they are pretty good and something you can say play music and run the leaf blower at the same time. The noise cancelling is good, they don't hurt your ears, they have transparency mode which would let you have background music playing and still hear and talk to others in the room. And above all they work with no BS like most Apple stuff. I'm a die hard spend all my money on gear audiophile for years and years and these really surprise me. If you have an iPhone it's certainly worth keeping a pair handy.

Dj57's picture

Hi,
After many reader's comments and audio specialists,I went to my local Apple Store and tried the Airpods Pro 2 with my fave music tester,So what by Miles Davis and Lonely woman by Pat Metheny.I was really surprised by the quality I felt in my ears through Qobuz app even if it's not Hi Res that was coming in my ears..I finally got a pair and tried them this week with diffrent kinds of music and playlists and finally agrees that it fills yours ears with a delicate and balanced sound that I can experience with my Sennheiser HD 560s and FIIO Q1 Mark II dac.
Apple did a good job with these IEM and with my iPhone 12 and iPad air 5th,I can listen to some good music without worrying about cables and DAC while I walk or stare at he sky..

X