While they were happy with what the fairphone 4 brought to the table, they seem to like what was changed for the fairphone 5.
What are you guys’ opinions on this? A welcome change? would you get one if your phone died within the next year?
While they were happy with what the fairphone 4 brought to the table, they seem to like what was changed for the fairphone 5.
What are you guys’ opinions on this? A welcome change? would you get one if your phone died within the next year?
Yes, the 3.5mm jack is more durable than USB-C (since it is rotationally symmetric twisting doesn’t apply force to the connector), it maintains compatibility with billions of audio devices and doesn’t block your charging port if you use it.
Begs the question why aren’t charging jacks designed like audio jacks?
If you wanted them just for charging it would be fine. Barrel jacks are still pretty ubiquitous.
If you want them to also be data they get less great. They make 3.5mm/etc jacks with 3 “pins” and I assume more. But every time you’re inserting/removing the cable it’s rubbing past the insulators separating the contacts. Their failure per plug/unplug is higher than something like USB-C where the 24 contacts are being pushed together instead of brushing past each other. It would suck if you put in your USB-barrel and one of the contacts broke/bent.
It’s actually a bit crazy - and very impressive - that the cable I use to tickle-charge my phone at 15W could also be used to connect four 4K screens, an external GPU, multiple 10GBe network adapters all while providing well over 200W of power… if my phone supported and of that, that is.
That’s just the USB-C standard, to get 200W and 4k video you need the fancy shielded high-gauge cables.
Well for only 4k, a relatively normal USB-C cable is enough, the fancy cables are for 20 and 40 Gbit/s which is only needed if you gl crazy with your FPS | Hz (more than 60Hz | FPS
Typical stereo headphones have 3 pins. Left, right, common ground. Tip, ring, and sleeve (not sure if the conductor order).
4-conductors used to be common for portable camcorders and early digital cameras. They’d put our composite a/v (extra conductor for video/yellow, still a shared ground). Tip, R1, R2, sleeve.
I’ve seen USB 2.0 (or perhaps 1.x) done over a 4-pin 3.5. And I’ve seen RS232 over 3.5 a number of times too (used to be common in ham radio in the 90s/early naughts).
The video ones are what I was thinking of. Fair enough that I forgot to count ground.
There are plenty of products out there that use TS style audio plugs (more 2.5mm in my experience than 3.5mm) for DC power for portable devices. When you get to data transfer requirements, the higher pin counts of current connectors wouldn’t be space efficient.
They could just make magnetic connectors with a shallow socket. But those would last longer and you wouldn’t need to keep buying new stuff.
CC: @Petter1@lemm.ee
I love the CC. Makes this conversation feel more formal.
Yes, it does impart a sense of gravity to otherwise mundane chatter. The only thing missing is letterhead with a monogram.
For some reason I don’t yet understand, my fediverse server inserts the CC in some replies and I forgot to catch it. I haven’t had time to analyze the rooster’s guts yet.
too many bits of magnetic gunk collect on those for my liking. Not as much of an issue on laptops, but with a phone carried in a pocket all day it quickly became an issue for me
Idk of any phone that had them built in, I just used one of those magnetic usb adapters you find on amazon
See, you just described a thing and made a statement, but I don’t buy that one bit. I’ve broken several 3.5mm plugs but never once a USB-C.
I’m on the side of 3.5mm in phones, but there’s a reason XLR and 1/4" are the industry standards for audio.
I’m the opposite. I’ve broken several USB-C connectors, and not one 3.5mm
XLRs on phones? I can get behind that.
I’m sorry what? The 3.5mm is better because it’s rotational symmetrical?
Thats a minor win. You rarely really need that rotation capability, and what little you need can be made up with thinner cables (which is easier with a digital signal and DACs in the headphone, which can’t be done compatibly with 3.5mm and people are dumb) The you also have to sacrifice connection friction to gain rotation, and that has tradeoffs, especially when that friction is caused by a spring-loaded conductor (which also means more friction likely means fewer insertion cycles before friction starts dropping off).
It also really sucks at strain relief without massive dookie springs or rubber butts…and the bigger the strain relief, the more subjective it is to perpendicular force, which is really easy to do on a 3.5mm diameter cylinder of gold-plated iron/tin alloy with the fulcrum also being at the base of the cylinder.
Other cool thing about what could be done with USB-C headphones. A lot of companies put lead weights full-sized headphones for balance or comfort (more weight makes it feel more secure). Good Modern drivers don’t need to be as heavy as they used to be. How bout instead of weights, they use lipos? Now your headphones can charge your phone (when in wired mode, hell, I’m talking about fictional mid/high-end cans, they could have Bluetooth and ANC while we’re at it since they have power), and your charger port point is essentially moot.
3.5 jack port is definitely not more durable than USB-C. If you have good headphones, the change that the 3.5 plug is gigantic in length and the cable thicc AF which causes a lot of stress in the plug due to very large leverage. Additionally, I prefer to use the DAC integrated in my headphones rather than using the low quality tiny DAC in my phone. And in digital, the cable thickness does not matter really.
Very few people are plugging their large headphones into their phones though. For a more reasonable pair of portable headphones or IEMs the size of the plug isn’t a problem.
But congratulations, you have hit on my biggest audio pet peeve! DACs matter very little these days. Anything talking about DACs and not the DAC/Amp stages is marketing BS. Even dirt cheap DAC chips will acoustically transparently convert the digital signal to analog in audio frequencies because it is so basic to do. DACs on their own are useless for audio anyway, what really matters in your audio signal is the amp circuitry after the DAC that applies gain to the signal to useful levels as the choices there do make an acoustic difference if the design is poor.
What makes you think the DAC/Amp in your headphones is going to be better than the one that is built into the SoC of your phone? I don’t think I’ve ever seen any measurements of headphone DAC/Amps.
I learned that from my father, who mostly listen to music from his phone using external headphone amp for his bayer dynamics studio headphones, or uses digital out (via Bluetooth) and let his other Bayern dynamics active headphones do the DAC. He is sure that he hears the difference, but of course that could all be in his head alone. I myself am not a hiFi enthusiast, I only find the tech behind it very interesting. (I listen to music using airPods and in my car using CarPlay, sorry iPhone user here, but thinking to migrate as soon as my iPhone X becomes unusable) But given my interest in tech, I appreciate the explanation, that cheap DAC chips are very good as well, these days.