Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It’s not more reliable, but it is much more convenient. No need to plug in a cable with a notoriously fragile physical connection.
Completely agree that WiFi is very convenient. But we are talking about a stationary device here that has a premium price tag and is aimed at "semi-pro", "pro", "serious", etc users. Those users will often value an ethernet connection on a stationary device like a monitor.

Really not having any problem with WiFi at our old office and since the move to the new office. Have had 3 engineers working flat out on WiFi so surprised we a ”literally“ the first to have this experience. But then people always say that.

I am simply disputing your claim that WiFi is a superior connection. It simply is not.
 
Completely agree that WiFi is very convenient. But we are talking about a stationary device here that has a premium price tag and is aimed at "semi-pro", "pro", "serious", etc users. Those users will often value an ethernet connection on a stationary device like a monitor.



I am simply disputing your claim that WiFi is a superior connection. It simply is not.
Simply simply... a WiFi 6 Mesh 6Ghz network with 1 Gbps performance is the same as 1 Gbps wired Ethernet and no dodgy wiring or connectors. Constantly being improved with WiFi 7 recently announced at CES.
 
Yeah they're basically redundant to me for audio production while I'm flanked by a pair of Yamaha HS-8's but I can imagine they're welcome to people buying it for software development, video editing etc.
I've got studio monitors as well and I'm still kind of tickled by the sound system, I imagine I might use the internal speakers for facetime or maybe just to reference on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tevion5
Simply simply... a WiFi 6 Mesh 6Ghz network with 1 Gbps performance is the same as 1 Gbps wired Ethernet and no dodgy wiring or connectors. Constantly being improved with WiFi 7 recently announced at CES.

I'm not expecting much considering the only response you could muster to my last post was a "haha" reaction, and that you are calling a physical electrical connection "dodgy" in comparison to a connection that relies on radio transmission, but I will try one last time.

First of all, it will be years before you can buy an actual WiFi 7 device for your home or office, the final revision of the standard isn't even expected until 2024. For the sake of argument let us assume that it works as advertised, which is far from a reasonable assumption. (On the other hand 10 Gigabit Ethernet is of course a technology that is already mature, possible to buy now and relatively affordable.)

While WiFi 7 very well may support a theoretical top data rate of ~46 Gbps you will never ever see data rates approaching this in any realistic scenario. Judging by implementation of WiFi 6 (Apple hasn't even moved to WiFi 6e yet) where clients are STILL restricted to dual-stream (2x2) my guess is that the 16 spatial streams promised by WiFi 7 will take a decade to materialize in mainstream products, if it ever does. Besides this, the issues of noise, interference, congestion and signal-blocking do not go away with WiFi 7, and these all reduce the practically achievable data rate further, often in inconsistent and unpredictable ways.

WiFi 7 is still half-duplex, whereas Ethernet is full-duplex. For wifi you will only have data moving in one direction at once. This does not change with WiFi 7. Wifi also has huge overhead compared to Ethernet, this will not change with WiFi 7 either.

Also, as far as I can tell, WiFi 7 will still share the top data rate between all the devices on the network, unlike Ethernet where each device connected to the switch can theoretically achieve the top data rate simultaneously. This means that regardless of how well WiFi 7 works in practice offloading devices that frequently use high data rates to the wired network will leave more capacity for the devices on wifi.

And once again, perhaps the most important aspect for me personally, LATENCY. WiFi 7 promises improvements, but it will never be able to beat the consistency and reliability of a wired connection. I can get ping responses hovering around 2 ms from some close Internet destinations (and less than that for my ISP's DNS even when running through a locally wired $25 pi-hole) connected to my router through an Ethernet switch. Reaching anything, even on my local network, is at least double that over wifi, and I have really good wifi.
 
Last edited:
I've got studio monitors as well and I'm still kind of tickled by the sound system, I imagine I might use the internal speakers for facetime or maybe just to reference on.
As a musician, I gotta say … it’s ALWAYS good to have another reference to test mixes. These AirPod Pro’s for example are simply astounding!!! If it wasn’t for the latency with the DAW’s GUI, I’d mix on them. They’re that good!! The speakers on my 16” M1 MacBook Pro are incredible! So with this new monitor, we have yet another reference source that takes up NO space!
 
  • Like
Reactions: tevion5
As a musician, I gotta say … it’s ALWAYS good to have another reference to test mixes. These AirPod Pro’s for example are simply astounding!!! If it wasn’t for the latency with the DAW’s GUI, I’d mix on them. They’re that good!! The speakers on my 16” M1 MacBook Pro are incredible! So with this new monitor, we have yet another reference source that takes up NO space!

Agreed. I don't produce music, but I have something on all the time.

I have an optical interface to a receiver connected to a pair of KEF Q350s and an SVS SB-1000. I didn't realize how often I would just use the speakers on my 2017 iMac 5K instead of fiddling with the output and the remote until I replaced the iMac with a clamshelled MacBook and monitors that don't have speakers.

The iMac speakers just got better and better with each revision. The Studio Display should be a big step up from there, so I am thrilled that the speakers are there even though I technically do not need them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TimothyJohn
I'm not expecting much considering the only response you could muster to my last post was a "haha" reaction, and that you are calling a physical electrical connection "dodgy" in comparison to a connection that relies on radio transmission, but I will try one last time.

First of all, it will be years before you can buy an actual WiFi 7 device for your home or office, the final revision of the standard isn't even expected until 2024. For the sake of argument let us assume that it works as advertised, which is far from a reasonable assumption. (On the other hand 10 Gigabit Ethernet is of course a technology that is already mature, possible to buy now and relatively affordable.)

While WiFi 7 very well may support a theoretical top data rate of ~46 Gbps you will never ever see data rates approaching this in any realistic scenario. Judging by implementation of WiFi 6 (Apple hasn't even moved to WiFi 6e yet) where clients are STILL restricted to dual-stream (2x2) my guess is that the 16 spatial streams promised by WiFi 7 will take a decade to materialize in mainstream products, if it ever does. Besides this, the issues of noise, interference, congestion and signal-blocking do not go away with WiFi 7, and these all reduce the practically achievable data rate further, often in inconsistent and unpredictable ways.

WiFi 7 is still half-duplex, whereas Ethernet is full-duplex. For wifi you will only have data moving in one direction at once. This does not change with WiFi 7. Wifi also has huge overhead compared to Ethernet, this will not change with WiFi 7 either.

Also, as far as I can tell, WiFi 7 will still share the top data rate between all the devices on the network, unlike Ethernet where each device connected to the switch can theoretically achieve the top data rate simultaneously. This means that regardless of how well WiFi 7 works in practice offloading devices that frequently use high data rates to the wired network will leave more capacity for the devices on wifi.

And once again, perhaps the most important aspect for me personally, LATENCY. WiFi 7 promises improvements, but it will never be able to beat the consistency and reliability of a wired connection. I can get ping responses hovering around 2 ms from some close Internet destinations (and less than that for my ISP's DNS even when running through a locally wired $25 pi-hole) connected to my router through an Ethernet switch. Reaching anything, even on my local network, is at least double that over wifi, and I have really good wifi.
You must have a lot of time on your. I don‘t so not read thenfirst chapter of your book.
 
So the Studio Mac with Studio Display is meant to replace the iMac 27"... But what was (Intel 27" iMac) a $3500 purchase (NZD) is now a $6k purchase? Considering that iFixit revealed that the 5K display panel in the Studio Display is the same as has been used in the Intel iMac, then I think Apple has overpriced it... I guess for many people that just want a 27" Mac desktop but don't really need the performance, then it's probably going to end up being a Mac Mini M1 with a third party 27" display from LG, Dell, Philips etc...

Personally, dropping the all-in-one elegance and simplicity of the 27" iMac is a mistake - I hope Apple changes their mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: canonical
So the Studio Mac with Studio Display is meant to replace the iMac 27"... But what was (Intel 27" iMac) a $3500 purchase (NZD) is now a $6k purchase? Considering that iFixit revealed that the 5K display panel in the Studio Display is the same as has been used in the Intel iMac, then I think Apple has overpriced it.

Purchasing the cheapest possible config Mac mini, Studio Display, Magic Mouse and Magic Keyboard comes to (US) $2476.

You can get a VESA stand with a mount for the Mac mini on the back which will provide the all-in-experience as long as you do not look at it from behind, or notice the extra power cable. :)

humancentric-mac-mini-monitor-stand-mount-custom-mount-for-the-mac-mini-vesa-compatible-monitor-mount-wall-mount-under-desk-mount-ebb.jpg


MOASTT4037461__4.webp



Compared to the $1800 5K iMac, you get the same 256 GB of storage, the same RAM (arguably less since it is now shared with graphics, the base iMac had an additional 4 GB on the Radeon Pro 5300) and the lowest-end M1 chip available in a desktop Mac. Even with specs that you'd reasonably expect from an iMac update the 42% price hike would be difficult to stomach.

I'd say pricing the Studio Display $300-400 lower would have been reasonable, especially if there will not be a reintroduction of a larger iMac.
 
Last edited:
Saw the studio display in Best Buy sunday. Lovely screen. It made me miss my 27 inch imac. Great speakers. If they had more than one input for my multiple computers I would probably buy one and love it.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.