My Sennheiser HD25 have been with me for 10 years and I stepped on them, dropped them used them outside in the rain, in sub zero degrees and three times a week while jogging.

10 years of that is a heavy thing to survive. In fact I know hardly any object that would have survived this long.

My Sennheiser RS180 died a few month ago after about 8 years or so. They had normal rechargeable batteries, but it seems it was something else that broke down (the batteries got replaced a few times).

For my Sennheiser MB 660 I just replaced the ear cushions after about 3 years, but I am still 'worried' that some day the built-in battery will give up. Not because I can't afford new ones, but because I hate if a product dies due to an old battery.

I own a few wired headphones/headsets, but there is none I used as much as my RS180 and when I think about it, I doubt that the cable would have survived the usage. Actually, I had to repair one of the wired headset once. The MB 660 can be used with a (removable) cable, but I use it only on airplanes or when the device I want to use has neither USB (dongle) nor Bluetooth.

While I am privacy savvy person, my bigger concern is about health. Having an active unit all day in such proximity to my brain, makes me wonder if they are actually that safe to use.

I wonder if wireless ones can be hijacked and requested to produce and ultra loud pulse to damage hearing. I suppose that's possible with wired ones buy I guess you'd need to broadcast plenty of energy for them to pick up, which makes it impractical, whereas with wireless ones you just need to get control of the signal. I'm guessing though.

Depends on the type of wireless headphone. I can envision that as possible if you can break Bluetooth encryption and crank up the volume, but there are RF wireless headphones where the digital signal doesn't contain volume level, which is entirely on-device and only controllable with physical buttons.

I bought $100 wired 'gaming' headphones 8 years ago and they still sound amazing and are as comfortable as when I bought them. I didn't give a shit about handling them well, since they were only $100 and seemed to have a very durable construction. The earpads are starting to get torn up from use, but those cost $10 to replace. The headband cushion is nonreplaceable but is only just starting to show any wear now.

Well-built wireless headphones have a lifespan of a few years; well-built wired headphones have a lifespan of ∞, as long as they are designed so that the wear parts can be replaced (earcups, headband cushion, cable).

Yes I had some 555’s for almost 18 years of DAILY use and abuse and the band up top eventually broke. I could replace it if parts weren’t more than a new pair.

The problem is that your wired headphones might break if you're not careful, but if you don't then they will work essentially forever. Your wireless headphones on the other hand will break at some point because the tiny lithium battery inside them will eventually stop holding charge. It's not a question of if but when.

As an addition to you post: my wired headphones do break, but I can solder things at maybe a .1 mm scale. With wireless headphones repairability is beyond my ability in many cases.

I am aware that most wireless headphones use built-in batteries nowadays, but strictly speaking, your argument doesn't relate to wireless headphones, but to products with non-replaceable batteries.

The Sennheiser RS180, for example, had rechargeable and replaceable batteries inside. Ironically, mine died a few months ago, but I am still not sure what the cause was.

Sadly the RS 185 was recently discontinued, and it doesn't look like it will be getting a replacement.

I actually bought a couple spare HDR 185 headsets a few weeks ago, which I'm hoping last me for several decades.

Well duh. Obviously if you buy cheap headphones and constantly replace them that's bad for the environment. The grandparents point was that if you buy good wired headphones and use them for the same amount of time you'd use wireless ones it's far better for the environment.

Of course it's not a universal rule. But apples-to-apples, with a wired vs. wireless set of similar construction, cost, and intended use, the wired will outlast the wireless, solely due to the battery (not to mention the other complexities inherent to a wireless set).

> apples-to-apples, with a wired vs. wireless set of similar construction, cost, and intended use

These aren’t independent variables. Most consumers I know will pay more for wireless headphones. They’re more convenient, and they’re anchored at a higher price point.

As such, I’ve watched lots of friends go from buying cheap earbuds monthly to having a pair of AirPods for years.

There is a lot of moralising around wired versus wireless. I’m pushing back against that fad.

Airpods for years and then throw away seems on point. Those are notorious for being completely unrepairable even among true wireless earbuds.

Seems to me that the baseline assumption should be if you spend more, net, on the wireless (or wired) headphones, the environmental impact is probably greater. A million reasons can be given why the cost isn't exactly proportional to the environmental impact, but any time someone starts by assuming it's unrelated, I think they are probably not making good decisions.