[Tsukuyomi]

Maybe you should try them in the shop or something.

I should, although im not in any rush to replace my outdoor/public cans any time soon. But we'll see.

 

[maserluv]

Is the H9i the best sounding over ear B&O has released till date?

Regards Wayne

 

[Tsukuyomi]

Is the H9i the best sounding over ear B&O has released till date?

Regards Wayne

thats a hard question to answer, and very subjective.
many people will say the H6(Gen 1) and (Gen 2) are the best headphones B&O have ever made in terms of sound.

others may say the H9i, but it depends what you feel is "the best sounding".
because the H9i is wireless/wired when its wireless its self amped and may have a different sound. adding ANC will also alter the sound even more.
running cabled may alter the sound also because its not being driven off the inboard amp.

 

[FricoRico]

I registered to share my findings about the B&O BeoPlay H9i. Perhaps people already find the following out, but I couldn't find it; I recently purchased this headset, even though I knew it did not support AptX codecs. But I really wished it did...

After using it for a while I decided to open the cans up to see the hardware itself (I know a few things about computers, software development and electronics). To my surprise, the headset had a Qualcomm CSR8670 (CC) inside, alongside two ASM AS3435 (for noice cancelling). This means that the H9i's hardware is very well capable of supporting both AptX and AptX LL and even Bluetooth 5.0!

My beliefs is that B&O did not pay Qualcomm license fee's for supporting AptX, if such thing even exists. Otherwise why would they decide not supporting AptX while the older H9 did? To me it makes no sense, but now there is hope that B&O patches in the support through a firmware update in the future (or some smartypants patches it in the firmware itself)...

 

[norbert.mikolajczyk]

I registered to share my findings about the B&O BeoPlay H9i. Perhaps people already find the following out, but I couldn't find it; I recently purchased this headset, even though I knew it did not support AptX codecs. But I really wished it did...

After using it for a while I decided to open the cans up to see the hardware itself (I know a few things about computers, software development and electronics). To my surprise, the headset had a Qualcomm CSR8670 (CC) inside, alongside two ASM AS3435 (for noice cancelling). This means that the H9i's hardware is very well capable of supporting both AptX and AptX LL and even Bluetooth 5.0!

My beliefs is that B&O did not pay Qualcomm license fee's for supporting AptX, if such thing even exists. Otherwise why would they decide not supporting AptX while the older H9 did? To me it makes no sense, but now there is hope that B&O patches in the support through a firmware update in the future (or some smartypants patches it in the firmware itself)...

Whoa nice one! BT 5.0??? Awesome, we just need to wait for the new firmware but I think we could get this sooner via hacking xD

 

[FricoRico]

Well giving it a further thought, maybe the extra license fees that B&O have to pay is not actually the most likely scenario. I mean, Qualcomm (CSR) sells this chip to companies; Why would they sell it and then ask more fees to actually use it to it's full potential? It could be the case, but as far as I am aware AptX doesn't require an extra fee to use, other than that only Quallcomm's chips support it.

I've thought of some other scenario's as to why B&O has not implemented Bluetooth 5.0 and/or AptX support:

(not likely) It could be that they used different kinds of chips for this headset. Perhaps they still had a large batch of other brand/older chips that do not support Bluetooth 5.0 or AptX but which is compatible with their hardware design. Even though this happens a lot in big companies like Apple, Samsung and Dell in computers and phones; this seems like a big challenge for B&O costing them more in the long run. More often than not, different kinds of SoC's (system on a chip) are not interchangeable in terms of hardware design, which means it requires different kinds of board designs. They are especially not compatible in terms of firmware, forcing them to maintain and support multiple firmware versions. In the end it could also affect audio quality between their batches.

(somewhat likely) CSR, the official creator of this SoC and now Qualcomm are infamous for not giving support for their sold chips. After selling it they give developers next to no support on how to properly develop their firmware. Maybe B&O just didn't have the resources or knowledge to find out how this chip properly works. However, even though B&O is not a huge company they are very renown for their high quality consumer headphones. This SoC is meant for high quality consumer headphones so why wouldn't Qualcomm give some extra support to add flagship headphones to their AptX lineup?

(likely) Another option is that Qualcomm had planned support for Bluetooth 5.0 and AptX for this chip, but launched with only Bluetooth 4.2 support. This also sometimes happens because specific features are not stable enough to be released, promising better functionality in the future. Maybe B&O either didn't receive a the new SoC firmware, or it was not directly compatible with their changes. This could mean that we might see better support in the future or that we will never see it at all.

I hope it's 'easy' to patch in support, but of course nothing is ever as easy as changing some values and ending up with a completely different device.

 

[bedlamite]

If B&O wanted to put aptX into the H9i they would have done this at launch. Why make users wait till who knows how long for something so important? Especially since it was in the H9 in the first place? B&O have a whole range of wireless cans so they aren't exactly new to the game, we shouldn't explain it away by assuming they lack the know-how.

I think they skipped out on license fees, plain and simple.

 

[winslord]

If B&O wanted to put aptX into the H9i they would have done this at launch. Why make users wait till who knows how long for something so important? Especially since it was in the H9 in the first place? B&O have a whole range of wireless cans so they aren't exactly new to the game, we shouldn't explain it away by assuming they lack the know-how.

I think they skipped out on license fees, plain and simple.

They definitely did. When I asked why my Beoplay S3s in stereo mode weren’t working with an AptX LL transmitter, they said “Our products don’t work with AptX anymore.”

This means they tried to disable it through a software update. “Tried to”, I said, because they failed in disabling that on my H9.

 

[norbert.mikolajczyk]

If B&O wanted to put aptX into the H9i they would have done this at launch. Why make users wait till who knows how long for something so important? Especially since it was in the H9 in the first place? B&O have a whole range of wireless cans so they aren't exactly new to the game, we shouldn't explain it away by assuming they lack the know-how.

I think they skipped out on license fees, plain and simple.

Yep, that’s why I think with some clever hacker help it would be definitely faster...

 

[maserluv]

The H9i is a crippled product from B&O then?

If B&O wanted to put aptX into the H9i they would have done this at launch. Why make users wait till who knows how long for something so important? Especially since it was in the H9 in the first place? B&O have a whole range of wireless cans so they aren't exactly new to the game, we shouldn't explain it away by assuming they lack the know-how.

I think they skipped out on license fees, plain and simple.

 

[bedlamite]

They definitely did. When I asked why my Beoplay S3s in stereo mode weren’t working with an AptX LL transmitter, they said “Our products don’t work with AptX anymore.”

This means they tried to disable it through a software update. “Tried to”, I said, because they failed in disabling that on my H9.

That is some BS. That this company who commands premium pricing for their products is skimping on licensing fees. I'm a fan of their products (own the H6, E8, and a H9), but if their next wireless cans don't have aptX/aptX HD, I'm out.

The market segment that the H9i is playing in has growing competition. Companies like B&W and Master & Dynamic are right up there with B&O when it comes to build quality but fall short for various reasons. Point is, they tried, and they also certainly aren't removing tech from their products for whatever reason.

 

[winslord]

The H9i is a crippled product from B&O then?

Not at all. Have the H7, H9, and H9i, but I still love the H9i the most. Plus, who needs AptX? AAC is much superior, and besides, if you’re all for sound quality, you wouldn’t be listening through Androids.

 

[FricoRico]

Not at all. Have the H7, H9, and H9i, but I still love the H9i the most. Plus, who needs AptX? AAC is much superior, and besides, if you’re all for sound quality, you wouldn’t be listening through Androids.

With all respect, that is just the biggest bollocks. Sure, AAC is not a bad codec (not superior nor worse than AptX). However AptX Low Latency is very interesting for many use-cases such as watching movies or playing games. It might not be your cup-of-tea but it's still something many other users are interested it. AptX is also not something that's only supported by Androids, my Windows laptop also supports it. Many dongles support AptX. Furthermore AAC doesn't guarantee high quality audio AND microphone feedback loop on all devices.

So yes, the H9i is very crippled in the sense of connection. Is it a bad headset? No, not at all... But it has hardware that can do far more stuff than what is enabled. The very definition of crippled.

On a positive node, I've managed to get my hands on the firmware tools from Qualcomm, which allowed me to de-compile the B&O firmware. Now the hunt begins.

 

[norbert.mikolajczyk]

With all respect, that is just the biggest bollocks. Sure, AAC is not a bad codec (not superior nor worse than AptX). However AptX Low Latency is very interesting for many use-cases such as watching movies or playing games. It might not be your cup-of-tea but it's still something many other users are interested it. AptX is also not something that's only supported by Androids, my Windows laptop also supports it. Many dongles support AptX. Furthermore AAC doesn't guarantee high quality audio AND microphone feedback loop on all devices.

So yes, the H9i is very crippled in the sense of connection. Is it a bad headset? No, not at all... But it has hardware that can do far more stuff than what is enabled. The very definition of crippled.

On a positive node, I've managed to get my hands on the firmware tools from Qualcomm, which allowed me to de-compile the B&O firmware. Now the hunt begins.

So great, please post your findings! fingers crossed.

 

[garethr]

If B&O wanted to put aptX into the H9i they would have done this at launch. Why make users wait till who knows how long for something so important? Especially since it was in the H9 in the first place? B&O have a whole range of wireless cans so they aren't exactly new to the game, we shouldn't explain it away by assuming they lack the know-how.

I think they skipped out on license fees, plain and simple.

It’s a licensing issue pure and simple. Qualcomm’s business model is based on it. They’ll sell you the chipset but you still need to pay additional license fees for their proprietary codec. B&O made a conscious decision not to capitulate to Qualcomm’s double dipping (just as Apple has done) and I for one applaud this.

AptX in all its forms is a closed proprietary protocol. AAC is an open standard and arguably a better protocol (for example it’s audibly transparent at around 260kps or above and can survive multiple re-encodings). Worth noting that with most Android devices supporting AAC (and more recently LDAC) the use case for AptX just isn’t three any more. If B&O we’re going to support any other protocol I’d argue it should be LDAC which Sony have done the right thing for once and chosen to open up to everyone.