Apple Releases New Firmware for AirPods Max

[nsklaus]

there is an adapter for lightning to headphones jack.

yes, but i think you cannot use it if battery is drained. which is yet another bad design, poorly thought feature from apple. it seems they can't do anything correct lately.

 

[Arran]

yes, but i think you cannot use it if battery is drained. which is yet another bad design, poorly thought feature from apple. it seems they can't do anything correct lately.

Yeah, I have one of those adapter cables (the Apple version) and it’s disappointing it needs battery. Even with plain old audio pass-thru it would still be miles ahead of those “free” headsets they hand out on planes.

In other news… Just did the update and nothing to report. No new features. Everything works just as before - which was pretty good.

 

[pamon]

Hoping maybe call quality improvements on the mic. Taking any calls on the max are never 100 clear

 

[kugino]

still waiting for the release of the second gen airpods max.

I sold my max last year thinking v.2 was imminent...sigh...

 

[Kach_one]

I use my airpods max for gaming on windows 11. It's suprising how amazing they sound for that and latency is very low with 5.3 bluetooth dongle i have. I'm so happy with that.

 

[aknabi]

I have both. Airpods Pro 2 when I'm outside, walking, running, etc. But if I want sound quality, Pro 2 doesn't even compare to Max. There's no way you can get this sound from in-ear buds.

Indeed so do I... and for planes and other super high noise cases with both you can pull the ultimate noise reduction flex... put your AirPod Pros then layer the Max on top... BOOM 💥💪 (which you won't hear)

 

[aknabi]

unfortunately my APM stopped connecting to my devices a couple of weeks ago, and the Genius Bar said the 3 flashes of orange when I attempted to reset were the sign of death, basically. $300 for a "repair". (likely getting a refurb in place of mine). Since it happened to my son's APM as well, I am reluctant to part with $300 more for a faulty product after owning it for only 2 years. Used only in my home, and not abused. from what i have read, it is the bluetooth chip that is the likely culprit.

Curious as to the sources saying it's the Bluetooth chip as BT is integrated in to the SoCs Apple works with vs a discreet BT solution (can't find anywhere that says it is discreet)...

 

[Sertrand Berlet]

I treated myself to the L3 from Philips a long time ago. Never regretted it. And ouch, if it is unleashed via AptxHD... I listen to the good albums with VLC, because the program has no volume limit. That's where 24Bit is really fun.

I don't want to spoil your party, but there's absolutely zero chance you can hear the difference between 16 and 24 bits audio. With dithering a 16 bit file already delivers a dynamic range of 120dB. That's enough to resolve a moquito next to a space rocket. Fun fact: at those sound levels you're dead. The people who benefit of the added dynamic range of a 24 bit file are sound engineers, it creates more headroom in production environments.

 

[DarthDon]

I don't want to spoil your party, but there's absolutely zero chance you can hear the difference between 16 and 24 bits audio. With dithering a 16 bit file already delivers a dynamic range of 120dB. That's enough to resolve a moquito next to a space rocket. Fun fact: at those sound levels you're dead. The people who benefit of the added dynamic range of a 24 bit file are sound engineers, it creates more headroom in production environments.

Can be heard if the ears are trained. Especially with classical music you can hear the depth. I know the subject; Feel free to contact me if you can hear the differences in concert grand pianos - live or by recording. But you're really right about one thing - most people don't even hear the difference between high-res mp3 and 16/44. But once you've listened to a master (digital or analogue), you'll understand (When Your Ears Are Trained).

 

[dampfnudel]

Curious if they work with Vision Pro. Yes, it is a lot to put on your head.

That sounds like a person who’s itching to suffer.

 

[whiteashsaturday]

• ANC is considerably more silent. Some of the day-to-day tasks that I do are noticeably more quiet.
• Keyboard clicks from the TouchID keyboard are no longer audible.
• No hiss or wine in the ANC.
• Accessibly for "tone" sound level has now been made independent, you must set it on all your devices, macOS and iOS are different. This was done on 63xxx but was never identified.

Condensation tip — I read that "If you have issues with condensation, try holding your AirPods Max in front of a heater fan, until the Metal of the AirPods Max has warmed closer to your bodies temperature, 88º should do it, this will help reduce the ambient air temperature and thus reduce condensation buildup."

Even with any the trouble I've had, I would buy them again. AppleCare+ has replaced any defective units I've had. Looking forward to the 2nd version.

 

[tbone7467]

yes, but i think you cannot use it if battery is drained. which is yet another bad design, poorly thought feature from apple. it seems they can't do anything correct lately.

But you cant use a power regular headphones on a headphone jack either. Im not sure what you want then. Ive plugged my Headphones to charge and still used them plugged in.

 

[tbone7467]

• ANC is considerably more silent. Some of the day-to-day tasks that I do are noticeably more quiet.

I noticed this also it was amazing.

 

[bobscape]

Ahh new firmware after a long while. So I guess it is time to turn down ANC performance to get ready for next generation AirPod Max?

Yeah, last update was all the way back in September. So long ago.

 

[tenordrum]

Curious as to the sources saying it's the Bluetooth chip as BT is integrated in to the SoCs Apple works with vs a discreet BT solution (can't find anywhere that says it is discreet)...

The BT chip in the APM can be replaced separately. Unfortunately the best source for that replacement part costs $140 for the part itself. I am comfortable about doing the surgery on it myself, but at that cost, it makes more sense to get a different pair of headphones, hopefully one that is better made. https://www.joesge.com/collections/...max-headphones-spare-replacement-repair-parts

 

[dfwiddoc]

Can be heard if the ears are trained. Especially with classical music you can hear the depth. I know the subject; Feel free to contact me if you can hear the differences in concert grand pianos - live or by recording. But you're really right about one thing - most people don't even hear the difference between high-res mp3 and 16/44. But once you've listened to a master (digital or analogue), you'll understand (When Your Ears Are Trained).

I am conversant in the science as well, and I’m afraid the OP is correct. We’ve empirically proven that the maximum dynamic range the human ear (even at the youngest ages) can detect is 96db, which is the very same dynamic range a red book CD at 44.1khz/16 bit achieves (by design). Most of us by age 30 can’t detect frequencies above 16,000 hz either, and the upper range deteriorates year by year after that. There are innumerable factors that influence how favorably we experience listening to recorded music, and far and away the most significant contributor is the quality of the master itself, which is oft omitted from consideration when comparing these differing compression formats and containers.

The Nyquist theorem and equation were designed specifically to achieve the limits of the human ear, and to drive quanitization noise above 20,000 hz where it cannot be detected. Despite the limitations of digital recording at the time, the original designers of the red book CD format weren’t fools. However, the bizarre choice to release masters sampled at factors of 48khz (96 and 192 instead of 88.2 and 176.4) was a massive and inscrutable misfire that makes quanitization error and resultant noise even worse. One would arguably be better off to listen to 24 bit/44.1 masters than any factor of 48Khz, which is a format that was only designed to make video synchronization easier to achieve. For pure audio listening, it was the absolutely wrong choice and still is.

This doesn’t mean that I haven’t invested in gear that will handle 768khz and DSD512, and haven’t favored a library of masters that will support these high sampling rates—although I do try to locate 88.2 or 176.4 masters whenever possible. I’m as susceptible to cognitive bias as much as anyone, but fundamentally the quality of the masters released at these sampling rates is most often the best available—which is the only scientific explanation for why some of us with “trained ears” can hear improvements.

Say what you want about Apple, but they always seem to know what time it is. They stated blatantly that although they chose to replace their catalog with lossless hi res formats to be “competitive”, their focus has always been on Spatial Audio technology, and that’s just plain smart and prescient. Their innovation and dominance of the Spatial Audio revolution is proving to be the most game-changing evolution in the music listening experience since the introduction of stereo, and anyone who has dismissed it as “gimmicky” simply hasn’t heard it implemented properly, either due to lacking the requisite gear or selecting poorly-mixed and mastered content. We are closer to achieving the experience of listening to recorded music live than we ever have in the history of the art.

Also, Apple’s decision to allow users to create their own audiograms through software innovations and to tune their AirPods Max or Pro to adjust to that frequency response profile is another game-changer that is far more impactful than lossless audio or hi res formats. That is the future—to design headphones capable of being tuned to our preferences and limitations, instead of stockpiling a collection of highly-priced headphones tuned all over the place. That’s what the Harman experiment was for, although few headphone manufacturers have adopted it—and I don’t think that’s accidental. I believe the lack of a tuning standard in the industry is designed to keep us off balance, to interminably entice us to buy more and more headphones trying to achieve our definition of “end game”. Cognitive bias is also what the industry depends on to convince us to shell out exorbitant prices on gear that is indistinguishable from lower priced options.

Apple employed the most eminent scientists in Harman tuning when designing the AirPods Max, and the published frequency response curves show that they nail the Harman curve almost perfectly when measured properly using Apple’s ecosystem; also, the AirPods Max boast some of the lowest distortion of any flagship offering in the so-called “audiophile”, wired headphone industry. For a prototype, they’re extraordinarily well-done, forgiving the bizarre design of the case.

There’s always a lot of Apple-bashing on this forum, and in many cases I think it’s justified. But never discount them when it comes to being ahead of the current fads and thinking far ahead into the future about what will become the new standard. They’ve anticipated, and created, the lifestyle products that become indispensable in our everyday lives, and although they may have made a few obvious blunders with the design of the AirPods Max, those who have reviewed it unfavorably have simply not paid attention to what’s going on under the hood, and to the subtle innovations that anticipate what barriers can be broken in the service of bringing us into the future before anyone else.

The AirPods Max and the software ecosystem has that supports it is an extraordinary achievement, and I expect the AirPods Max 2 to bring us even further towards a music listening experience unlike anything else we’ve heard or imagined before. Bookmark this page and come back to it in five years—see if Apple wasn’t onto something. I’d wager you’ll see everything very differently if you do. Peace…

 

[DarthDon]

I am conversant in the science as well, and I’m afraid the OP is correct. We’ve empirically proven that the maximum dynamic range the human ear (even at the youngest ages) can detect is 96db, which is the very same dynamic range a red book CD at 44.1khz/16 bit achieves (by design). Most of us by age 30 can’t detect frequencies above 16,000 hz either, and the upper range deteriorates year by year after that. There are innumerable factors that influence how favorably we experience listening to recorded music, and far and away the most significant contributor is the quality of the master itself, which is oft omitted from consideration when comparing these differing compression formats and containers.

The Nyquist theorem and equation were designed specifically to achieve the limits of the human ear, and to drive quanitization noise above 20,000 hz where it cannot be detected. Despite the limitations of digital recording at the time, the original designers of the red book CD format weren’t fools. However, the bizarre choice to release masters sampled at factors of 48khz (96 and 192 instead of 88.2 and 176.4) was a massive and inscrutable misfire that makes quanitization error and resultant noise even worse. One would arguably be better off to listen to 24 bit/44.1 masters than any factor of 48Khz, which is a format that was only designed to make video synchronization easier to achieve. For pure audio listening, it was the absolutely wrong choice and still is.

This doesn’t mean that I haven’t invested in gear that will handle 768khz and DSD512, and haven’t favored a library of masters that will support these high sampling rates—although I do try to locate 88.2 or 176.4 masters whenever possible. I’m as susceptible to cognitive bias as much as anyone, but fundamentally the quality of the masters released at these sampling rates is most often the best available—which is the only scientific explanation for why some of us with “trained ears” can hear improvements.

Say what you want about Apple, but they always seem to know what time it is. They stated blatantly that although they chose to replace their catalog with lossless hi res formats to be “competitive”, their focus has always been on Spatial Audio technology, and that’s just plain smart and prescient. Their innovation and dominance of the Spatial Audio revolution is proving to be the most game-changing evolution in the music listening experience since the introduction of stereo, and anyone who has dismissed it as “gimmicky” simply hasn’t heard it implemented properly, either due to lacking the requisite gear or selecting poorly-mixed and mastered content. We are closer to achieving the experience of listening to recorded music live than we ever have in the history of the art.

Also, Apple’s decision to allow users to create their own audiograms through software innovations and to tune their AirPods Max or Pro to adjust to that frequency response profile is another game-changer that is far more impactful than lossless audio or hi res formats. That is the future—to design headphones capable of being tuned to our preferences and limitations, instead of stockpiling a collection of highly-priced headphones tuned all over the place. That’s what the Harman experiment was for, although few headphone manufacturers have adopted it—and I don’t think that’s accidental. I believe the lack of a tuning standard in the industry is designed to keep us off balance, to interminably entice us to buy more and more headphones trying to achieve our definition of “end game”. Cognitive bias is also what the industry depends on to convince us to shell out exorbitant prices on gear that is indistinguishable from lower priced options.

Apple employed the most eminent scientists in Harman tuning when designing the AirPods Max, and the published frequency response curves show that they nail the Harman curve almost perfectly when measured properly using Apple’s ecosystem; also, the AirPods Max boast some of the lowest distortion of any flagship offering in the so-called “audiophile”, wired headphone industry. For a prototype, they’re extraordinarily well-done, forgiving the bizarre design of the case.

There’s always a lot of Apple-bashing on this forum, and in many cases I think it’s justified. But never discount them when it comes to being ahead of the current fads and thinking far ahead into the future about what will become the new standard. They’ve anticipated, and created, the lifestyle products that become indispensable in our everyday lives, and although they may have made a few obvious blunders with the design of the AirPods Max, those who have reviewed it unfavorably have simply not paid attention to what’s going on under the hood, and to the subtle innovations that anticipate what barriers can be broken in the service of bringing us into the future before anyone else.

The AirPods Max and the software ecosystem has that supports it is an extraordinary achievement, and I expect the AirPods Max 2 to bring us even further towards a music listening experience unlike anything else we’ve heard or imagined before. Bookmark this page and come back to it in five years—see if Apple wasn’t onto something. I’d wager you’ll see everything very differently if you do. Peace…

I couldn't agree more. The only thing - I'm not with the Spacial Audio. I've never heard that myself, but I can imagine it. There are multi-channel recordings in the hi-fi area - they try to break it down to the headphones. Whether you need it is another question. It's already innovative; but I believe that the future lies in high-res, no matter what format is used. Our hard drives are big enough today, 5G & co will do the rest. Audio has always been a big topic. I'm more on the side of the studio technology, because everything is recorded and edited there. The closer it gets, the better it is.

Find me a reliable tape manufacturer and I'll go right back to the 80s. Studer...

As for apple, I agree with you. Especially since they really are the best across all systems. One can criticize here and there, which I do extensively. But you should really know your way around something like this and be able to admit mistakes if necessary. But a lot of it really on marketing and making money...

One can work really well with apple on audio's. But I'll use something else to reproduce them ;-).

 

[dfwiddoc]

I couldn't agree more. The only thing - I'm not with the Spacial Audio. I've never heard that myself, but I can imagine it. There are multi-channel recordings in the hi-fi area - they try to break it down to the headphones. Whether you need it is another question. It's already innovative; but I believe that the future lies in high-res, no matter what format is used. Our hard drives are big enough today, 5G & co will do the rest. Audio has always been a big topic. I'm more on the side of the studio technology, because everything is recorded and edited there. The closer it gets, the better it is.

Find me a reliable tape manufacturer and I'll go right back to the 80s. Studer...

As for apple, I agree with you. Especially since they really are the best across all systems. One can criticize here and there, which I do extensively. But you should really know your way around something like this and be able to admit mistakes if necessary. But a lot of it really on marketing and making money...

One can work really well with apple on audio's. But I'll use something else to reproduce them ;-).

Thanks for the thoughtful reply! I think we’re already in the hi res era; at least most studios are moving to hi res digital recording for both original mixes/masters and archival purposes, and hi res masters are becoming far more common with each passing year. I still wish they would move to 44.1 multiples such as 88.2 or 176.4 instead of 96 or 192, but the availability of hi res masters is considerable.

Some high end studios have even moved to multibit DSD formats for original recordings, since space has become less and less a concern. This bodes well for preserving masters for future generations; I think (hope) everyone has learned a lesson from the Universal Studios fire.

But Spatial Audio really is the future, I think—I’m totally on board that historical attempts to achieve this (such as quadrophonic recordings in the seventies and even the multichannel 5.1 mix/masters that were released during the SACD, laserdisc and DVD audio period until recently) have been gimmicky and artificial sounding. But Atmos and other object-based surround formats are truly extraordinary, if you listen to well-made masters on the correct equipment.

The number of albums being released in Atmos of late is really astonishing. I think it’s here to stay, and it will likely be the standard way people listen to music in the coming decades, just as mono was replaced by stereo as the standard for listening audiences since the 1960’s. Stereo was every bit as arbitrary as multichannel is when it launched; it was just the best format achievable due to the limitations of vinyl and tape-based equipment prior to the digital era.

I have a Sonos home theater system, which until recently consisted of an Arc soundbar (to handle the right, left, center, side right and left, and front ceiling right and left channels), a sub, and two Play 3’s to handle the rear right and left. I listened to Atmos releases on this system, and I was always thrown out of the experience because I could hear specific instruments jarring me in my left ear because the Play 3 was only three feet away. It sounded gimmicky and unnatural—nifty maybe for certain stunt tracks (such as “On the Run” by Pink Floyd). But certainly nothing I wanted to listen to routinely.

But then a few months ago I decided to go full on 7.1.4 by investing in two ERA 300s to replace the Play 3’s, so that my whole system would be Atmos-capable. The Play 3’s only fired in one direction, and even after I had calibrated the system using Trueplay to get all the speakers properly configured, things still sounded disembodied coming from those surrounds.

The ERA 300s are true Atmos speakers, in that they have multidirectional drivers, including upfiring, left, right, forward and rear directionality. I placed them according to the manual and then recalibrated with Trueplay. Now all the speakers were truly compatible, and Trueplay made full use of calibrating my entire system to Atmos specs.

Suddenly listening to Atmos mixes was a whole new experience entirely. Instead of being able to place instruments in space based on the speaker they were assigned to (as in 5.1 mixes), suddenly all the speakers disappeared and I was simply sitting in the midst of the music. Similar to Spatial Audio, I now got the sense of sitting amidst a live performance; no elements of the mix stood out and called attention to themselves, and the listening experience sounded exactly as it did in the stereo format I was accustomed to, but with a soundstage that was infinitely more vast and enveloping. I didn’t notice that I was listening to something designed to create an amusement park ride experience; the music was simply right there. It truly was transformative.

At present the quality of this experience is still highly dependent on how well the Atmos mix is implemented, and the technology is certainly not perfected across the board by any means. But for the Atmos releases of the Beatles mixed by Giles Martin, or the innumerable Steven Wilson Atmos masters (XTC, Yes, ABC) the experience is thrilling, and I can totally see myself adjusting to this being the new standard in the coming years, once they have it down right.

I also think the audiogram tech Apple offers now to adjust the AirPods Max to compensate for my hearing limitations is extraordinary. If you haven’t tried this, you must, it makes all the difference!

 

[DarthDon]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply! I think we’re already in the hi res era; at least most studios are moving to hi res digital recording for both original mixes/masters and archival purposes, and hi res masters are becoming far more common with each passing year. I still wish they would move to 44.1 multiples such as 88.2 or 176.4 instead of 96 or 192, but the availability of hi res masters is considerable.

Some high end studios have even moved to multibit DSD formats for original recordings, since space has become less and less a concern. This bodes well for preserving masters for future generations; I think (hope) everyone has learned a lesson from the Universal Studios fire.

But Spatial Audio really is the future, I think—I’m totally on board that historical attempts to achieve this (such as quadrophonic recordings in the seventies and even the multichannel 5.1 mix/masters that were released during the SACD, laserdisc and DVD audio period until recently) have been gimmicky and artificial sounding. But Atmos and other object-based surround formats are truly extraordinary, if you listen to well-made masters on the correct equipment.

The number of albums being released in Atmos of late is really astonishing. I think it’s here to stay, and it will likely be the standard way people listen to music in the coming decades, just as mono was replaced by stereo as the standard for listening audiences since the 1960’s. Stereo was every bit as arbitrary as multichannel is when it launched; it was just the best format achievable due to the limitations of vinyl and tape-based equipment prior to the digital era.

I have a Sonos home theater system, which until recently consisted of an Arc soundbar (to handle the right, left, center, side right and left, and front ceiling right and left channels), a sub, and two Play 3’s to handle the rear right and left. I listened to Atmos releases on this system, and I was always thrown out of the experience because I could hear specific instruments jarring me in my left ear because the Play 3 was only three feet away. It sounded gimmicky and unnatural—nifty maybe for certain stunt tracks (such as “On the Run” by Pink Floyd). But certainly nothing I wanted to listen to routinely.

But then a few months ago I decided to go full on 7.1.4 by investing in two ERA 300s to replace the Play 3’s, so that my whole system would be Atmos-capable. The Play 3’s only fired in one direction, and even after I had calibrated the system using Trueplay to get all the speakers properly configured, things still sounded disembodied coming from those surrounds.

The ERA 300s are true Atmos speakers, in that they have multidirectional drivers, including upfiring, left, right, forward and rear directionality. I placed them according to the manual and then recalibrated with Trueplay. Now all the speakers were truly compatible, and Trueplay made full use of calibrating my entire system to Atmos specs.

Suddenly listening to Atmos mixes was a whole new experience entirely. Instead of being able to place instruments in space based on the speaker they were assigned to (as in 5.1 mixes), suddenly all the speakers disappeared and I was simply sitting in the midst of the music. Similar to Spatial Audio, I now got the sense of sitting amidst a live performance; no elements of the mix stood out and called attention to themselves, and the listening experience sounded exactly as it did in the stereo format I was accustomed to, but with a soundstage that was infinitely more vast and enveloping. I didn’t notice that I was listening to something designed to create an amusement park ride experience; the music was simply right there. It truly was transformative.

At present the quality of this experience is still highly dependent on how well the Atmos mix is implemented, and the technology is certainly not perfected across the board by any means. But for the Atmos releases of the Beatles mixed by Giles Martin, or the innumerable Steven Wilson Atmos masters (XTC, Yes, ABC) the experience is thrilling, and I can totally see myself adjusting to this being the new standard in the coming years, once they have it down right.

I also think the audiogram tech Apple offers now to adjust the AirPods Max to compensate for my hearing limitations is extraordinary. If you haven’t tried this, you must, it makes all the difference!

You're very welcome.

Multichannel audio isn't really my thing - more stereo. I had a great Technics Receiver with connected speakers from a cinema (RCL, RCA?). 2x100 watts of sine wave were probably too much for them in the long run; at one of my parties, they smoked heavily through the bass rexlexe. It was funny, but no longer usefully repairable. It's a pity - because they sounded unbelievable after the right line-up. They died at Eminem's Marshal matters... I then sold the Technics and after a lot of research and searching, I bought 2 small active speakers from Nubert. It's unbelievable what they deliver despite 2x50W. Connected really simplel analog to the MBP. Whether Krall, Jackson, Burke, Motorhead - wow factor guaranteed. Knobs almost fully open, balanced on the speakers, volume on the MBP.

For the evening hours, there is the Philips Fidelio on the Thinkpad, as MacOS and ApTX do not run on the 2019 MBP.

I'm moving back to my hometown next year. Let's see what neighbors I'll have. Technics R1 would be something. Canton Speakers. But the neighbors... For your setup you need a commercial property or deaf neighbors. Otherwise; Absolutely top. A measured multi-channel system with a perfect speaker setup. Compliment. This is what thousands of people have been searching for all their lives. It's always the question of whether you need gold cables on the 5 watt tube amplifier or whether you are familiar with acoustics...

Luckily, I didn't give up my vinyl collection. She sleeps until I feel like it again. Actually, the only thing missing is the turntable and a preamp for it. The speakers are perfect. Now I'm also at an age where you can really enjoy a record. I'm looking forward to it ;-).

As far as multichannel on DVD and SACD is concerned, they will probably disappear at some point, just like the laser disc. Or you just have a device for every format.

In the end, however, we will definitely have everything on the hard drive (me), or use a great high-res service online. Time will tell. And maybe - just maybe - i'm going to look for a multichannel audio system. But really only when the market is there, a provider can offer me my complete list and the problem with the neighbors is solved. I'm sure you know about the volume that is sometimes needed for live concerts or (my homie) wagner 😎.