DMacri wrote:

Ok, that makes a huge difference. Who would want to buy one that you cannot replace the batteries? I would think the useful life of the headphones would exceed the life of the batteries. The question now is will the batteries still be available when needed in several years? 

The same applies to the original H7/H9/H9i with a user replaceable battery? It is only useful as a feature whilst the supply of batteries are readily available.

tmgp wrote:

Thanks for this precious information. Together with the review on YouTube from the Manchester store (https://youtu.be/My9fYbOZsho) there are now two sources that confirm ANC and audio improvement although it isn't mentioned on any official communications. Only battery, comfort, controls and voice assistant buttons.

 

One question though, besides having less impact one sound quality, is the efficiency of ANC improved? It was pointed was a weak point comparing to the competition and if it it's really improved those are great news that I don't understand why isn't the brand also advertising as improvement.

I suspect the reason for this probably has more to do with what I suspect has happened here - it isn't so much of an out and out improvement as they've finally been able to fix the known flaws with the H9i (sibilance with ANC, and the odd missing portion of the frequency range) via a hardware update. Like I said earlier, I feel the Gen 3 is really what the H9i should have been in the first place.

moxxey wrote:

Jon wrote:

I was thinking that earlier. Why are these the H9 (3rd gen) (same as H6 (2nd gen)), but the H9i were called the H9i, and the new E8 aren't E8 (2nd gen)??

This is funny. I noticed B&O promoted the new H9 MK3 on Facebook and there were comments from people asking how they tell the difference between a H9 and H9 MK3 - it's a very valid point.

I pointed them to this forum discussion!

I don't have so much of an issue with the naming convention - although the H9i was clearly a misstep. It seems they're now more closely following  the Apple model here where typically (mostly Mac) product revisions retain the same core product name, but have the version or year appended.

That said it is pretty confusing when they're still continuing to market the H9i special editions - the real mistake though was probably even bothering with those special editions when the Gen 3 was so close to launch. If I'd recently bought a pair of these I'd be more than a little annoyed.

Maybe it has to do with garethr mentioned earlier. Since the ANC was not leveled with the competition, they propably don't want to upset current H9i owners, or to have the H9 model associated to a "not so good launch".

Because it's also strange that one of the key selling points, the ANC, isn't mentioned has an improvement, and those that compared H9i and H9 3rd gen have proven that the ANC was in fact improved.

garethr wrote:

I don't have so much of an issue with the naming convention - although the H9i was clearly a misstep. It seems they're now more closely following  the Apple model here where typically (mostly Mac) product revisions retain the same core product name, but have the version or year appended.

That said it is pretty confusing when they're still continuing to market the H9i special editions - the real mistake though was probably even bothering with those special editions when the Gen 3 was so close to launch. If I'd recently bought a pair of these I'd be more than a little annoyed.

That's not even the case though, generational names for current Beoplay products released in the last few months alone are a mess:

3rd generation H9 branded as: "H9 (3rd gen)"

3rd and 4th generation A9 branded as: "A9 MK3" + "A9 MK4"

2nd generation E8 branded as: "E8 2.0"

I've no issue with any of the conventions, but at least be consistent and pick one. We might not be confused by it because we're actively interested in the brand and its products, but the average consumer who doesn't give a crap and just wants headphones might be confused by it all.

...agree, I guess it shows these 3 products are e2e developed and marketed by 3 different teams of people. Otherwise it is really hard to explain that naming.

Jon wrote:

garethr wrote:

I don't have so much of an issue with the naming convention - although the H9i was clearly a misstep. It seems they're now more closely following  the Apple model here where typically (mostly Mac) product revisions retain the same core product name, but have the version or year appended.

That said it is pretty confusing when they're still continuing to market the H9i special editions - the real mistake though was probably even bothering with those special editions when the Gen 3 was so close to launch. If I'd recently bought a pair of these I'd be more than a little annoyed.

That's not even the case though, generational names for current Beoplay products released in the last few months alone are a mess:

3rd generation H9 branded as: "H9 (3rd gen)"

3rd and 4th generation A9 branded as: "A9 MK3" + "A9 MK4"

2nd generation E8 branded as: "E8 2.0"

I've no issue with any of the conventions, but at least be consistent and pick one. We might not be confused by it because we're actively interested in the brand and its products, but the average consumer who doesn't give a crap and just wants headphones might be confused by it all.

I'm confused and i am heavily interested in the brand. I came here to confirm what i suspected was right, but its not clear enough. KISS principle should apply. Keep it simple stupid!

This is going to be a nightmare for stores and the customers they are dealing with! Plenty of stores cant move the original H9!

New firmware out for the H9 Gen 3. 5.0.1 - changes listed as just fixes.

I had the H9i for a while and I use it for a lot of podcasts and audiobooks, as well as music, but I got really distracted by the hiss from the ANC. Is the hiss reduced when ANC is active in the H9 Mk3 or is it like the H9i´s?

I’d say the hiss is reduced. The 3rd Gen feels like a genuine upgrade.