Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Releases Studio Display Firmware Update to Fix Speaker Issue
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, but those cannot guarantee that the data isn't actually getting bigger for some signals. And DSC must guarantee that when it's trying to squeeze a 36Gb/s signal through a DP stream that's only 20Gb/s when the GPU can't address the full Thunderbolt bandwidth.
Under those circumstances there will be a loss of image fidelity and you only get an unreliable approximation of the actual content, not a precise display.
And why would you buy an XDR or an ASD for that?
That is why both are normally run with a full, uncompressed data stream whenever possible and DSC is only present for a degraded emergency mode.
Basically specifically for the smallest AMD graphics cards for the Mac Pro, as all other Mac video outputs can provide full, uncompromised video signals
Such lossy encodings are very much detectable given certain kinds of signals where the compression is overwhelmed by the complexity of the raw signal. You only need to know what to look or listen for.
And as I said: They make the output unreliable, which makes them completely useless to a professional workflow.
The ASD is actually 5120x2880, and Retina to non-Retina resolution is such a massive difference in quality that I never want to go back to the low, pixelated standard resolution. With two ASDs I have both the area of your wide screen and Retina resolution at 10240x2880 in total.
The ASD makes that possible for the first time (while not wanting to resort to the cruddy LG Ultrafine).
Yeah, there's a one-time cost, but that's just once while I'll be happy to see the excellent quality every time I look at the screens.
Last edited:
Yes, and the Mac itself would also lose its window arrangement in a multi-monitor setup and would cram all windows into the first default monitor when some of the monitors were absent for a significant period of time.
When doing that during an update all window positions should remain preserved. (And they were in my case.)
It is, but I labeled the row screen estate, not resolution. macOS gives you 2560x1440 points of space.
Yes, which is why I labeled the next row pixel density, and gave it a plus on the ASD side.
You've also spent at least $3200 instead of $800, and even fewer Macs will be compatible with this setup. No current M2 Mac, for example.
Nobody is denying that the higher resolution is nice.
Is it four times the money nice, though?
The iPhone 4 with Retina Display was $600 (without subsidies), just like its preceding 3G and 3GS. Imagine if Apple had instead decided "well, this has a premium display, so really, the iPhone 4 should be $2,400". Good luck with that.
macOS restores window positions when a display re-appears.
Why on earth do we have to reboot the Mac in order to update the screen firmware?
Edit: I see it's been suggested that it would be "weird" for the screen to be unavailable. Does Apple really think we're that stupid? And if it was really that important, why not just go into a sleep-like state?
Edit: I see it's been suggested that it would be "weird" for the screen to be unavailable. Does Apple really think we're that stupid? And if it was really that important, why not just go into a sleep-like state?
Last edited:
Only the UI by default scales to ‘look like’ 2560x1400. Screen resolution always remains the same 5120 x 2880 and some other elements of the UI can be adjusted independently like Finder thumbnail size, text sizes, document zoom, etc.
It's still a misrepresentation the way you set it up, together with the otherwise clearly biased selection of features.
Yes, once. And the displays will now serve me for many years to come, most likely across multiple Mac generations.
Driving multiple high-resolution displays requires a sufficiently powerful GPU, that is simply it. There is no weird "compatibility" issue.
The M1 and M2 MacBook Airs actually support even the 6k XDR!
Yes, it most certainly is!
I'm working with text primarily and the text display quality is so much better that it makes a massive difference especially when working for hours on end and with complex documents (including source code and system logs).
For a long time I had a standard-resolution secondary display connected to my iMac 5k, so I'm intimately familiar with the difference and right now I have another 4k display next to the 5k ones. Even the resolution on that is very noticeably worse than on the 5k ones (all 27"), but for its secondary use (no primary editing or reading) it's acceptable.
That is a crude and weird comparison which is in no way relevant here. Going from a 320 x 200 to a 640 x 400 display was relatively easy to do in terms of cost relative to total device cost, required GPU performance and everything else.
A 27" 5k display is a completely different matter and in no way comparable!
At some point in the future it will not be a significant challenge any more, but as the current dearth of high-resolution displays demonstrates, we're still far from that.
No, it does not: If the application is open while the display is missing the windows are forced onto a still present display and the positions are lost and remain lost even if that display is reconnected later.
This is circumvented by the installation reboot because all applications (including the Finder) are quit and so will save their window positions, then the displays are updated and are temporarily absent, then on reboot the applications simply re-open their windows in the saved positions.
That only works because of the reboot for the update!
I don't see how.
The whole point of Retina is that you get much higher pixel density, but do not get higher screen estate. That's why I split those into two separate rows. The Dell wins in one respect; the Apple wins in the other.
Such as?
An HDMI display probably would've lasted longer. Apple used Thunderbolt 1 in 2011, so in just 11 years, we've gone through four generations, and two different connectors.
On top of that, this display comes with a lot of software integration. Will Center Stage still work ten years from now?
$3200 worth of displays better last me a very long time, and… honestly, I'm not that optimistic.
Apple disagrees — you need relatively recent hardware and software.
And yes, there are reasons for that. But at the end of the day, the fact remains: the much pricier display is also much less compatible, potentially requiring you to buy additional hardware just to drive it.
And that's not even starting with the cables, which start at $129…
Yes, but they don't support connecting two displays.
I'm a big fan of Retina.
I'm not a fan of the absurd pricing.
It's exactly the same thing. The way the iPhone increased its resolution is exactly they path they ultimately took on the Mac, dropping their older efforts to support arbitrary higher resolutions. Instead, we got 1x and 2x.
The iPhone got it in 2010, the Mac first got it in 2012, and as of 2022, the market for external high-resolution displays is till a wasteland.
Yes, bandwidth and GPU are concerns there. But the main concern is cost.
The onus to drive the price down is on companies like Apple. Instead, they've decided the opposite: they've made Retina a luxury. (And in the meantime, they've made text rendering on non-Retina displays worse, by killing subpixel antialiasing support.)
Yes.
No. If you reconnect the display later, the windows get moved back to that display. I've just tried this multiple times.
No, it would work regardless.
Dang. Sorry. This entire update process is, has, and will always be sadly an unneeded pain, drain, and confusion on SD customers.
This display was not ready.
No wonder there is no iMac 27"
If anything, the architecture of an iMac 27" would probably be far simpler than this. You'd be updating the OS on the device itself, rather than remotely from a different device.
I use mine every day. And enjoy every moment using it. Every time I power up my computer, or wake from sleep, the ASD has certainly been ready.
It's not for everyone.
I have had the Display for a few weeks. seemed ok did the updates and all seems fine. now, the display just reboots itself and the audio recording with the built-in mic has a loud hum.
Apple today released an updated version of the 15.5 firmware for the Studio Display, with the update coming more than two months after the Studio Display firmware was last updated. The prior version of the 15.5 firmware had a build number of 19F77, while the new version is 19F80.
Apple's release notes for the update confirm that it addresses an issue with the Studio Display speakers. Since the launch of the Studio Display, there have been complaints about the speaker quality. Apple last week sent out a memo to authorized service providers, acknowledging that some customers have had issues with the Studio Display speakers cutting out or offering distorted playback.
Apple said in the memo that a future update would fix the issue, hence today's firmware update.
The Studio Display firmware can be updated by connecting it to a Mac. Studio Display owners can go to System Preferences > Software Update to install the firmware.
Article Link: Apple Releases Studio Display Firmware Update to Fix Speaker Issue
My ASD came with a TB 4 cable. You should contact Apple if your cable was not in the box with the display.
Six more months of hardware and software development would have made a world of difference.
At this point, I may not buy an updated 6K or 7K this fall or winter until weeks after launch and some other beta testers have posted their experience.
At this point, I may not buy an updated 6K or 7K this fall or winter until weeks after launch and some other beta testers have posted their experience.
Good thing I won't be in the market for a new desktop until closer to Christmas. But Apple has kind of blown it with the first generation of the Studio Display. I was planning on picking this up along with a Studio computer. But I may just wait for an updated Mac Mini and toss in an ASUS ProArt 4K display. I've been an all-Mac guy for 30 years. But for the prices Apple is demanding, these issues are unacceptable.
For a person who has had eye surgery in my left eye twice and suffer from relatively poor vision with problems in both eyes, having a Retina display is a godsend. My eyes start hurting if I read for too long with blurry text, so it is very much worth the money to have an ASD. 120Hz means nothing to me since I cannot see the difference between 60Hz and 120Hz. Having such a display reduces the pain I get when reading. I’ve had a book in my hands since I was a young child and being limited in my ability to read hits hard. When something helps me to read by making the text incredibly clear, that is a tool well worth the expense. I simply cannot go back to non-retina displays. The brighter the display, the better, too for my bad eyes. The 600 nits on the Studio Display is a wonderful thing. The up-to 1000 nits using the Vivid app on a MacBook Pro is even better.
I am quite grateful that all of Apple’s displays, whether it’s on an iMac, a MacBook, an iPhone, an iPad, or a Studio Display, are retina quality. I’d give a lot to have healthy eyes again, but we have to live with our limitations. It’s a major reason why I have mostly Apple gear. You can find them in the PC world, too, but it’s harder. 4K laptop monitors are great, but 4K desktop monitors are below retina quality for the most part and are too painful to deal with.
Various remarks in the table are really immature and childish and above all misleading.
There is zero reason to expect that.
Even an old 2.5k Thunderbolt Display will still work with a top-of-the-line Mac Studio today with a simple adapter. And there is no realistic reason to expect that USB-C will be ditched as the connector for Thunderbolt any time soon.
Apple is pretty good at keeping their own peripherals (or even third-party ones) operational with newer Macs.
The whole point of the firmware in the ASD is that the computer doesn't have to do any heavy lifting for those features – it only needs to be aware of them and allow the display to activate them. the actual work is happening in the display, which is why compatibility of such features is way better than it would be with a "dumb" display where only some computers would be able to offer such extra features, and they would need to spend valuable CPU power on them, too.
Those prices are cheap for high-grade workplace tools with a significant impact on productivity.
Normally their primary lifetime would be about 3-5 years until they can be written off and everything else is just bonus.
New peripherals need somewhat recent Macs to use them and all future Macs will continue to support them as usual. That is all. Not any weird compatibility issues the way you're imagining them.
Hello? Small GPU, as I said!
There is absolutely nothing "absurd" about the price. I've paid multiple that for relatively quaint 1k CRT monitors in inflation-adjusted money.
The only thing they are not is dirt-cheap like the 4k monitor I've added as a third screen. They are simply priced normally for high-quality professional monitors, just not like bargain-basement gaming crud.
Sorry, but you simply have no clue about these kinds of technology and base your conclusions on assumptions which are simply wrong.
You're moaning and whining that Apple somehow owed you bargain-basement prices for absolutely everything. You can do that, but you won't get any sympathy from me for it.
The ASD is using relatively pricey components (not just the panel but also the speakers, the special low-profile but high-power PSU, the high-powered backlight, the all-metal enclosure, the dual-fan cooling and so on) and the development needs to be amortized over a relatively small number of sales.
In your imagination that must all be for free or close to it, but there are reasons why plastic-clad, dim, low-resolution monitors are so cheap: All the corners being cut all show up in the actual product, and I've got the comparison here right before me: I can very clearly see why one of these monitors cost only a fraction of the other two, but also why that one won't ever be my primary reading and editing display.
Even at 400nits that 4k monitor can barely keep up during daytime, and it's not even hit directly. 300nits as in your widescreen monitor would force me to dim my whole room in order to not damage my eyes by working on such a dim display.
Nope. Only a few applications do that. Safari and others don't. It's not a general mechanism.
Only a reboot during update will ensure that all windows will really re-open in their correct positions.
Last edited:
Simply find a display that meets your needs, with an included cable of suitable length for your requirements, and at a price that makes sense. And find happiness.
As I said earlier, the ASD is not for everyone. For me, considering the superb image quality, it was an outstanding purchase. And value.
Good to know. I'm still running Monterey. No Ventura for me until after the public release.
If your profile picture is actually you, I take it you are young and have good corrected eyesight. For those of us with declining vision due to age or other factors, the ASD is very much worth the double cost compared to dual 4K monitors. I have a setup similar to yours at the office, and the difference is immediately noticeable, especially toward the end of my workday.
The other points in your table are, pardon the pun, nit picking (though the Apple monitor is brighter).
- Camera: I do virtual meetings every day, and the camera is more than adequate. I actually like the way Center Stage adjusts its field-of-view when someone sits down next to me.
- The attached power cable? I've had to unplug my ASD once in a few months.
- Sound problems? I did experience dropped sound once, which is when I unplugged the monitor. Otherwise, the quality is excellent.
- S/W updates? Both took around five minutes or less. I'm glad Apple will be able to address some issues this way.
Provocative, sure. Misleading? Which one? Do you disagree that:
- being able to quickly connect a USB device on the side of the screen is more convenient than having to go to the back
- Thunderbolt 4 cables are an order of magnitude more expensive than HDMI ones
- a $400 surcharge for height adjustment on an already $1,600 display is quite an ask
- putting an entire iOS in there has made its firmware more prone to bugs
- not having a software solution reboot it, a hardware power button, or a hardware power cord you can unplug from the back is inconvenient, especially when there is a firmware bug where the speaker stops working
I think there's plenty of reason that a 2022 HDMI display will work, without adapter, in a 2032 Mac, whereas a 2022 Thunderbolt 4 display will require at the very least an adapter.
Why do I think that? By extrapolating how long HDMI has already lasted us, vs. how long Thunderbolt ports have lasted. The latter is simply far more niche. The former will be with us for a long time, because it does its job well. Thunderbolt is very interesting and powerful, but introduces lots of complexity, which not only makes the cables absurdly prices but also introduces bugs.
Funny you would mention that. That display comes with a firmware updater, which is an Intel-only app. So it's already obsolete.
Yes, for the most part, it will continue to work with an adapter. But sooner or later, some features will stop working. By 2032, will Center Stage will work on a then-current Mac? I wouldn't count on it.
Essentially, the ASD acts as a "server". It does the calculations for Center Stage, but it needs a "client" to actually ask for them. That's why it doesn't work on anything older then macOS 12.3 (which is fairly recent), nor does it work in Windows.
Also, you have to reboot a Mac in order to install the ASD's firmware.
So yes, there's heavy lifting on the display itself. But it hasn't really made the display autonomous at all, so I find it puzzling of you to say that "compatibility is way better". It… really isn't.
Which this isn't. This isn't the Pro Display XDR. It's purely a regular 27-inch display that happens to support Retina. The only "high-grade workplace tool" here are the reference modes.
Now you're both arguing that it lasts very long and also that it doesn't need to last long.
I can connect a ca-2008 HDMI display to my 2021 MBP, and I can connect a 2022 HDMI HDMI display to my 2010 MBP.
Apple could've made this display much simpler, much more compatible, much cheaper. Not doing so was a choice, and criticizing that choice is valid.
A "dirt-cheap" monitor is about $120. That's what almost all people pay for a monitor. A 4k monitor is about $300. $1600 is a whole other level.
I… what? Did you even skim that link? I assure you I know plenty about HiDpi.
Ah yes, lower than $1600 for a display is "bargain-basement".
Most people just want a monitor. Most people who buy the ASD didn't ask for a "low-profile but high-power PSU". They bought the ASD because it is one of the few choices with >200 ppi. That's it.
Nobody is asking for that.
Dude, it's an office monitor. If it needs to "keep up during daytime", you have much higher ergonomic issues at your desk than the maximum monitor brightness, and you need to fix those because they'll hurt your eyes.
Yes, an office room shouldn't be bright.
I literally did that with a Safari window. It worked great. Maybe it doesn't with your $3200 monitor setup.
Yes it is. macOS does this for you.
I'm glad you enjoy your monitor, and I'm not taking away from that at all.