MI ULTRA! Mac Studio

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by kurth

simple....ransomware...state sanctioned. that's why i advised to take workstations offline.

Always good to have your studio system off line (if possible) and one of the reasons iLok did and does have a USB dongle juss sayin'

Of corse ransomeware could be a possibility BUT agin I don't see what the logical motivation is to even bother ,,, to target iLok users (go to the trouble hack a software designed to stop hacks) to get access a tiny portion of the music audio industry ,,, which itself is a very small market numbers wise , for a limited possible monetary return , compared to literally hundreds if not thousands of much more lucrative markets to hack an try ransomware ...Just don't see any realistic motivation there....YMMV

[kurth]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Humm where to start ? Lets try to simplify the above

First the Headphone output on the new Mac Studio as far as I can tell is an analog output, (not digital)... So what it actually "does" is output line level analog signal , and there is no "does 96kHZ " or any sample rate (96k or otherwise ) involved in its output..
I am guessing what you actually meant is the sound card that feeds it, can support up to 96k ? Here is a hint,,, if your going to try to call out someone for correct terminology (review -preview ) you might want to try using it first...just a suggestion ....

Second Not only is your notion of "sufficient" totally subjective
But the all the rest of your unrelated examples have nothing to with the quality of the computers A/D or D/A conversion or the quality of its analog ins and outs and preamp .... otherwise known as .....its sound card (like I said ) And the sample rate it supports is also meaningless as to the quality (or not) of it's conversion or analog circuitry

So my "reasoning" is real simple The conversion and analog circuitry on my interface is far far superior to any computer sound card (even this new one) not to mention the quality of it's mic pre's. Because if the Mac Studio did have as good of conversion and analog section as my interface,, the base price would start a $6000... not $2000.. So why wouldn't I listen to Sound Cloud or YouTube thru my interface ?

And heck yes I like buying equipment, if I didn't I would not be interested music or home audio recording ... I would play canasta and eat Bon Bon's YMMV.

first....where to start....

"As well as this impedance detection and adaptive voltage output, the new 3.5mm headphone jack features "a built-in digital-to-analog converter." Apple says this supports up to 96kHz, and means users "can enjoy high-fidelity, full-resolution audio."

Second ...macs don't have soundcards. Audio is on the motherboard. And it's better than when macs had soundcards. Talking about the new specs...

"MacBook Pro (14-inch, 2021) and MacBook Pro (16-inch, 2021) feature a high-quality built-in hardware DAC that can convert up to 96 kHz digital audio to analog audio. Connect an analog device like headphones or speakers directly to the headphone jack on your Mac and monitor your audio at full resolution without needing an external DAC."

.....so that should easily serve 99% of video editors.....like the previewer discussed, and for listening to soundcloud or youtube ....for any except the most hypercritical user.

....and I don't like buying equipment. Equipment is just a means to an end. I'd prefer to spend the week in Venice, or give my sons a week in Puerto Escondido. Life is far too short to waste my resources on 'things'. That's the reason I don't deplete the life of my equipment.

And ilok won't be intentionally targeted. US ip addresses will be however. Luckily it's not my concern.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by kurth

first....where to start....

"As well as this impedance detection and adaptive voltage output, the new 3.5mm headphone jack features "a built-in digital-to-analog converter." Apple says this supports up to 96kHz, and means users "can enjoy high-fidelity, full-resolution audio."

Oh dear ! where to start over "again"..... Since you were the one insisting on the correct terminology.

Your statement

Apple's new headphone output does 96kHZ...which should be sufficient for any monitors...or any video audio...or audio in general.

is incorrect,,, once again the output of the Headphone jack, is analog NOT DIGITAL period.. It is irrelevant if the Dac is built into the HP jack, a chip on the motherboard, or a separate sound card the output is analog,, that is what DAC (Digital to Analog Converter)means
Had you said the DAC that feeds the Headphone jack "supports " 96k, I would not have mentioned it. And we would not be having this discussion

But unfortunately that is not the real problem with your statements , ambiguous subjective statements like "should be sufficient " don't clarify much,,,, "sufficient" can mean "adequate to produce a result" then Ok sure but that addresses only function, not quality of sound output----- "sufficient" as in will be of high enough quality to satisfy ?.... Well that is your totally subjective opinion , not fact, and you cannot determine what the criteria for quality of sound might be for anybody else. Or what is "sufficient" for their needs....

Second ...macs don't have soundcards. Audio is on the motherboard. And it's better than when macs had soundcards. Talking about the new specs...

True, my bad ,, technically not a separate card . I was using the term "sound card" loosely, generically, simply meaning the computers handling of DAC and analog output functions .

"MacBook Pro (14-inch, 2021) and MacBook Pro (16-inch, 2021) feature a high-quality built-in hardware DAC that can convert up to 96 kHz digital audio to analog audio. Connect an analog device like headphones or speakers directly to the headphone jack on your Mac and monitor your audio at full resolution without needing an external DAC."

Yes I know .. I have a 2021 Mac Book Pro and my hands on personal experience is that, while it is better sound than any laptop I have owned ,, it still does not produce the same quality analog output as my interface. But hey what do I know I only have both of them to directly compare I realize you may not want to hear it but others may be interested ,,,,my new M1 Pro MBP HP output (while fairly good) ultimately lacks the overall depth, space, clarity, definition and balance, and is a bit harsh in the upper mid's and highs compared to my interface HP output. I would guess it is maybe 70 -80 % there

.....so that should easily serve 99% of video editors.....like the previewer discussed, and for listening to soundcloud or youtube ....for any

"serve" ? well yes of course it will function to "serve" up the audio, as will any old sound card from any old laptop Again "serve" as in will "satisfy" sorry that is just more subjective personal opinion (like the "previewer') . Both you and she have absolutely no way knowing what will or won't satisfy the "quality of sound" requirements of others, your declarations of what will "serve" or be "sufficient" or "serve" anybody but yourself , are NA non applicable to anybody but you.

" except the most hypercritical user"

You do realize when mixing audio the job pro or amateur is to listen critically ????
Certainly you can think it might satisfy your personal tastes which if fine, but again you can't make that determination for any other person let alone most other people

....and I don't like buying equipment. Equipment is just a means to an end. I'd prefer to spend the week in Venice, or give my sons a week in Puerto Escondido. Life is far too short to waste my resources on 'things'. That's the reason I don't deplete the life of my equipment.

Ok that's your personal perspective and opinion, certainly valid for you, but again only for yourself ,,, "(waste) your resources on things", is simply your personal perspective and has no bering on the validity of the perspective of others spending money on equipment ...

Unfortunately declaring what is "sufficient" for home audio or will "serve" 99% of video editors , are just unsubstantiated universal declarations and are just like someone proclaiming "This $500 guitar is sufficient for 90 % of players " Opinion not fact..

And ilok won't be intentionally targeted. US ip addresses will be however. Luckily it's not my concern.

Will they ? Time will tell

[martingitdave]

The new Apple hardware is pretty incredible. As a Windows user it makes me jealous. None of my professional applications are available for Mac.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by martingitdave

The new Apple hardware is pretty incredible. As a Windows user it makes me jealous. None of my professional applications are available for Mac.

Interesting, must be some fairly specialized applications ??

[martingitdave]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Interesting, must be some fairly specialized applications ??

Yes, building design and construction. Mac is a minute part of the market for us. All of the specialized stuff is Windows only.

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Yes I know .. I have a 2021 Mac Book Pro and my hands on personal experience is that, while it is better sound than any laptop I have owned ,, it still does not produce the same quality analog output as my interface. But hey what do I know I only have both of them to directly compare

Agreed. Too many people believe they can tell how something will sound based on numbers upon paper (or pixels upon screen since we've striving for the most accurate words possible). I've seen it mostly within discussions about interfaces and microphones. With microphones, it often revolves around frequency response charts, and with interfaces, the output spec numbers (full disclosure: I've been guilty of both in the past when I had less hands on experience). While both can provide useful information, neither can tell us how anything will actually sound to any degree of usefulness.

For example, on paper the the Apollo X16 has better specs than the Avid Carbon due to the higher numbers in dynamic range. That will be enough (and I've seen this argument made) to convince some that the X16 will sound better than the Carbon. Having owned both, I know that's not the case by a long stretch. We should always take the numbers with a grain of salt as their usefulness is quite limited.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by jim1960

Agreed. Too many people believe they can tell how something will sound based on numbers upon paper (or pixels upon screen since we've striving for the most accurate words possible). I've seen it mostly within discussions about interfaces and microphones. With microphones, it often revolves around frequency response charts, and with interfaces, the output spec numbers (full disclosure: I've been guilty of both in the past when I had less hands on experience). While both can provide useful information, neither can tell us how anything will actually sound to any degree of usefulness.

For example, on paper the the Apollo X16 has better specs than the Avid Carbon due to the higher numbers in dynamic range. That will be enough (and I've seen this argument made) to convince some that the X16 will sound better than the Carbon. Having owned both, I know that's not the case by a long stretch. We should always take the numbers with a grain of salt as their usefulness is quite limited.

Quite true and the only thing "full resolution 96kHz" means is, it won't be downsampled before being converted to analog, it tells you nothing about the quality of the conversion itself or the quality of the analog circuits involved in the output.

For example I just added this to my post #63 for anybody interested I will repeat it::

"my new M1 Pro MBP HP output (while fairly good) ultimately lacks the overall depth, space, clarity, definition and balance, and is a bit harsh in the upper mid's and highs compared to my interface HP output. I would guess it is maybe 70 % - 80 % there." While I would agree objectively it is certainly useable and serviceable for both video and audio editing. But to say it is "sufficient" for most, is injecting an unsubstantiated personal opinion

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by KevWind

For example I just added this to my post #63 for anybody interested I will repeat it::

"my new M1 Pro MBP HP output (while fairly good) ultimately lacks the overall depth, space, clarity, definition and balance, and is a bit harsh in the upper mid's and highs compared to my interface HP output. I would guess it is maybe 70 % - 80 % there." While I would agree objectively it is certainly useable and serviceable for both video and audio editing. But to say it is "sufficient" for most, is injecting an unsubstantiated personal opinion

And that should surprise no one. I'm pretty sure Apple isn't building these computers with the intent that they be stand alone solutions. What I mean by that is I believe Apple is expecting audio and visual creators to be using additional hardware (i.e. interfaces) with these machines in the creation process. The Mac Studio isn't built to be an entry level computer into either the audio or visual world. The woman who made that review I posted seems to be peeved about that.

[kurth]

KevWind...the fact that the headphone jack is analog should be obvious....just like the fact that (all) interface users would be using analog to monitor as well. Looks like your just picking an argument on semantics. I'm not aware of any audio monitors that take digital signals. You ? Maybe there are but I'd guess even if you used digital signals from your interface, you'd need to amp them and still convert them to analog for the monitors. And looking at your equipment list, you're gig is obviously in another universe from 99% of audio interface users. Yes another subjective statement. So it appears you're comparing your macbook output to a $4000 audio interface. Is that correct? Just so readers know exactly what your opinions consist. And it looks to me....that so far....you've offered up nothing but subjective opinion as well. I'd suggest you pull out that oscilloscope from the closet and do some measurements to back up your claims....and as well inform that you're comparing that mackbook's audio to an audio interface that costs considerably more than the macbook itself. Don't accuse people of being subjective, when you're doing more of the same. And I take your 'modified' post as proof you 'subjectively' believe video editors could use the headphone output, which was all the video 'review' stated, which you originally took issue. So to sum up.....you subjectively believe your $4grand Avid Carbon interface analog output outperforms your $2 to $3grand macbook's headphone jack...by 20%. Does that sum it up correctly? So in your subjective opinion, if someone wants a better audio output than a mac studio headphone jack, or any mac that has the new headphone specs, they need to buy a $4grand audio interface and run it all the time while they're watching youtube videos. How's those apples for oranges? Or am I being too subjective?

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by jim1960

And that should surprise no one. I'm pretty sure Apple isn't building these computers with the intent that they be stand alone solutions. What I mean by that is I believe Apple is expecting audio and visual creators to be using additional hardware (i.e. interfaces) with these machines in the creation process. The Mac Studio isn't built to be an entry level computer into either the audio or visual world. The woman who made that review I posted seems to be peeved about that.

I think we are going to see quite a number of these machines showing up in mid size pro to home studios both audio and video studios . Even more audio when AVID gets their ducks in a row with all its plugins compliant and running natively.

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by kurth

Looks like your just picking an argument on semantics.

Glass houses, my friend, glass houses...

Originally Posted by kurth

first...it's not a 'review'...it's a 'preview. She doesn't have the device so how can it be a review?

[FrankHudson]

A couple of follow-ups to this forking thread.

K&G: I understand your desire to make the best choice, to break it down to details, and to study up and ask all the questions and then strive to understand the answers before purchase. Why? I lived a lot of my life that way, in my case often with the penalty that a wrong answer could have severe financial repercussions.

In my old age, I've realized some limitations of that however.

Kurth: You seem in my estimate to have come in kind of hot into this discussion. I may be like you in that my recording budget is more limited and my personal level of "good enough" or "I can't tell" may be less exacting that some others here. Despite that, I listen to what others in this subforum have to say and find value in it for which I'm grateful.

On my main mastering and editing system I use a modest second-hand Focusrite USB interface. I think I paid something like $100 t0 $140 for it. Does it sound better than the "sound card"* on my motherboard. Probably, but frankly I use it all the time for general audio output because it's much more convenient to plug directly into a box on top of my desk -- with XLR, line and instrument inputs too -- but also a set of 1/4" outs to my monitors and a separate headphone out, both with their own distinct level adjustments and adequate gain.

Since I'm using it for many hours some days for a variety of things, these kinds of conveniences were worth the outlay, even with my budget. YMMV.

I have no experience with the brand-new Apple Studio models, or even recent laptops. One issue I used to encounter when working for a radio broadcast network when content creators were using regular "sound cards" on then current laptops wasn't just some subjective judgement on the quality of A/D conversion or the like, but external sounds leaking into the audio. Some of this was from the other electronics inside the computer, and sometimes there was some element of ground hum too as they connected to various things. This was a definite problem, and it was eventually determined that using the built in sound wasn't sufficient. But again, YMMV.

*I'm not tweaking you by using the inexact term "sound cards" again. I could have said the sound IC likely on the motherboard and the routing to the 1/8th inch jacks on the outside of the computer, but other than pedant coupons I'm not sure what that gains. Somewhere in here I've likely made some other error inadvertently, but I still hope this helps.

[sdelsolray]

Give it a rest, guys.

[kurth]

Originally Posted by jim1960

Glass houses, my friend, glass houses...

....don't think so Jim. My position was that video editors didn't need to run their audio thru audio interfaces. That was what the 'reviewer' was insinuating....that the headphone jack is sufficient. Simple position. My opinion is based on over two decades of editing video...mostly with macs, but then later with windows machines as well. Apparently Kev later agreed because he changed his post to reflect it. I said I run two sets of monitors , one out from my compu, and another from my interface....for just this reason. As well....I don't see any reason whatsoever to stream audio from the internet from 'any' source thru my interface. And I don't even have the newest apple headphone specs. Actually my present audio i5 windows machine has a cheap sound card as well. While you guys said you run 'all' audio thru your interfaces all the time. Well...my position is simple. Listening to soundcloud thru an interface offers no added benefit....other than wasting the life usage of your interface. Kinda of silly esp when you're using a 4grand interface.... imh subjective opinion. So where are the glass houses my friend?