Harrycooke
macrumors 6502
I’ve been holding out hoping a new model will come! So I’m really hoping he’s wrong about it being 2024! Tomorrow would be stellar.
Gurman: USB-C AirPods Max Not Coming Until 'Late 2024'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
sw1tcher
macrumors 604
Well, he did add this to the report just in case he is wrong so he wouldn't be wrong.
That said, Gurman adds that Apple's plans could "possibly" change between now and when the AirPods Max are released.
bumblebritches5
macrumors 6502
Gurman is so obviously out of the loop yet he’s trying to stay relevent, he’s done.
newyorksole
macrumors 603
the fact that he’s saying it’s coming out next year means that it’s 100% coming this year.
can’t wait.
can’t wait.
bumblebritches5
macrumors 6502
Stop posting Gurman’s nonsense, he’s a irrelevent has been.
thatguywill
macrumors regular
This and they lack hi-res audio is a huge drawback for me. Even with the lightning to 3.5mm cable apple sell it even states true lossless isn't achievable. But yet their audio services offer hi-res playback, so much disparity between their audio range and music streaming
dampfnudel
macrumors 603
They could make them a little lighter. They could also give them a proper case. That’s in addition to USB-C, the H2 or H3 chip, maybe a minor, but noticeable visual change that will give current AirPods Max owners even more of a incentive to upgrade.
Aside from the obvious additions such as a H2 (or its successor), USB-C and lossless (preferably Hi-Res lossless) and as earlier mentioned lighter, the big thing I'd want is the ability to brick them in the event of theft (same goes for the AirPods).
Apple obviously have the ability to do this. Mine never leave the house purely for this reason.
I can't believe some folk that I see out & about with them on as they're by far the easiest target for theft with no barrier to stop folk doing it.
Hi-Res lossless would be a standard headphone killer as all the building blocks such as the Music store, Apple TV etc, would support it out the box.
I can only surmise that with a late update to market there's some crossover tech not being mentioned with the Vision Pro that will make it to the Max / HomePods.
Apple obviously have the ability to do this. Mine never leave the house purely for this reason.
I can't believe some folk that I see out & about with them on as they're by far the easiest target for theft with no barrier to stop folk doing it.
Hi-Res lossless would be a standard headphone killer as all the building blocks such as the Music store, Apple TV etc, would support it out the box.
I can only surmise that with a late update to market there's some crossover tech not being mentioned with the Vision Pro that will make it to the Max / HomePods.
Last edited:
austothemax
macrumors newbie
this is precisely what i am waiting for
bumblebritches5
macrumors 6502
Dude, October 16th he said no fall event.
October 23rd Apple announced the halloween themed night time event, their first ever.
Mark Gurman has ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT HE’S TALKING ABOUT.
- rob -
macrumors 65816
The focus on APP to bolster VP makes sense but it doesn’t preclude a relatively minor update adding USB-C.
Presumably there’s already massively greater resources dedicated to APP due to the sales volume. They don’t even need VP to sell.
I don’t think Apple has the weight to play with.
IIRC, there are reports about weight and weight distribution w VP as is. But more importantly Apple is easing people into this wear a computer on your head idea.
APMs are good for completely stationary work or light movement. But not a lot more than that.
APP are a far better fit for the stage of product design and interaction model VP will be at for launch.
All that said, I have had APM since just after launch and they are great for their use case. Absolutely worth the money.
However, if APMs are about to become the only non-magsafe and / or USB c product in the market that’s a pretty big diss on this customer segment.
That said, Apple is known to make segments wait knowing switching out of ecosystem is unlikely for existing customers. And the company seems okay with disjointed product lineups as per iPad for a while now.
So, while I hope it isn’t true, without lossless audio becoming immediately available plus other perks, I could see the company waiting a while on this.
Finally, I echo others that the site’s editorial has shifted too far into covering the rumormongering of a select few.
It was (is?) particularly bad with some YouTube jokers, to the point where it seemed like some disclosures were in order.
This site should do less coverage of the forecasts of analysts and instead be authoring more unique original content providing analysis that these others aren’t seeing.
Like, why hasn’t a detailed look at what and when would come next w APM been a blog entry here?
I heard one of the last podcasts, neither host identified the APMs as the sole remaining lighting holdout after the input accessories.
Not to put them on blast but this was kind of a tip off that not enough thought is really going on about what’s next.
Last edited:
JustAnExpat
macrumors 65816
Can someone tell me the point of this product and why Apple hasn't pulled it from the shelves? The Beat Studio Pro is much better:
- Lower price
- Longer battery life
- Lighter
- They fold nicely
www.macworld.com
- Lower price
- Longer battery life
- Lighter
- They fold nicely
Beats Studio Pro review: Better than AirPods Max and a lot more affordable
Apple's Beats brand delivers a better overall experience at a fraction of the price.
www.macworld.com
risenphoenixkai
macrumors 6502
Can someone tell me the point of this product and why Apple hasn't pulled it from the shelves? The Beat Studio Pro is much better:
- Lower price
- Longer battery life
- Lighter
- They fold nicely
Beats Studio Pro review: Better than AirPods Max and a lot more affordable
Apple's Beats brand delivers a better overall experience at a fraction of the price.
- No ear detection
- No H-series chip
- "They’re not uncomfortable per se, but the ear cushions don’t have that same soft velvety feel of AirPods Max, and the headband is much stiffer."
- "the headband and ear cushions could use a little improvement."
- "Noise cancelling is not supported in USB-C wired mode."
- "I think the transparency mode lags behind the 2nd-gen AirPods Pro a little bit."
- "I’m not sure if the Beats Studio Pro sound better and have more compelling features than the Sony WH-1000XM5, for example"
RamGuy
macrumors 65816
I fully understand why people might find the AirPods Max not compelling considering it's price, lack of analogue inputs, no way to use them without batteries etc.
What I don't understand is the need to even consider how someone might look with the headphones on their head. Why do we have this need to care, and even judge people based on what pair of headphones they might have on their head? People went out of their way to claim everyone using AirPods looked stupid with the stem. Why? Why do people feel this strange need for looking down on people solely based on they having some white stems coming out of their ears, or what headphones they might have on their head?
This is just such stupid behaviour. If I see someone with clothing I don't find compelling, I'm not going to walk around and have some kind of negative bias towards this person as a result of them not sharing the same clothing preferences as myself.
As far as over-ear headphones goes, the AirPods Max are rather neutral in their appearance. Such strange headphones to be reacting to. But even if someone walks around with over-the-top Skullcandy headphones, I don't see any reason why anyone should care about it. Let people use whatever they enjoy and stop acting like it's anything wrong with it.
RamGuy
macrumors 65816
People hoping for high-ress lossless are setting themselves up for disappointment. There is just nothing with the Bluetooth spec optimising for live playback of 192kHz@24-bits at lossless levels. That would require a variable bitrate of about ~6444 kbps, or ~6.2 mbps. That is just not going to happen.
The cloest thing we currently have is Sonys LDAC. But LDAC isn't remotely close to offering 6444 kbps with it's peak of 990 kbps. And 990 kbps isn't stable at all. Pretty much all in-depth testing of LDAC has shown that it drops down from 990 kbps pretty much all the time. On some top-of-the-line devices it won't even do 990 kbps unless forced, the best effort setting will often never go beyond 660 kbps. You can't really move away from your device at all if you want to stay at 990 kbps either. You are very likely to drop down into 330 kbps, and as LDAC, when compared to AAC, will require live transcoding of all media as you aren't going to have any source material on your phone encoded as LDAC, you will often end up with worse audio quality as a result of needing the live transcoding, compared to simply opt for AAC at 128 kbps and 256 kbps to begin with.
Only way for Apple to achieve high-ress lossless over wireless would be to opt for something other than bluetooth. The problem with going with something like WiFi Direct is how it draws far more power cutting into battery life. You also end up with issues such as WiFi being half-duplex and most people are going to have their phones connected to WiFi for data usage already, so unless Apple starts to have another dedicated WiFi SoC in all their devices dedicated for audio, you are going to start lowering your device WiFi throughput by half by simply having your wireless headphones tapping into the same WiFi SoC you are already using for data via your wireless router.
This is most likely the reason why the AirPods Pro 2 USB-C model isn't being marked with lossless support. The support for 5.0GHz on the AirPods Pro 2 USB-C model is going to be isolated for use with the Vision Pro only. The reason for this is most likely linked to the fact that the only way for Apple to achieve lossless (not high-res lossless, mind you) is by enforcing 5.0GHz with extremely limited range. But this makes sense as your AirPods Pro 2 and your Vision Pro will never be separated. This is a isolated usage scenario where having a properatirey solution that does not offer any range and stability makes sense, as you know that when both the AirPods Pro 2 and the Vision Pro are in use and combined, the AirPods Pro 2 will be right next to the Vision Pro. Once you remove the Vision Pro from your face, there is no need for the AirPods Pro 2 to playback any audio from the Vision Pro, so there is no need for range.
The new AirPods Max will most likely get something similar. But it won't be anything that will be useful for anything other than the Vision Pro as just moving a few feet from your phone and that 5.0GHz lossless link will start getting into trouble.
At best the AirPods Max will get a new Cirrus Logic DAC which supports 192kHz@24-bits so you in theory can utilise USB-C to USB-C to get full support for high-res lossless using a cable. Won't really matter in terms of preceiveable audio quality as pretty much every double-blind test av confirmed over and over that ~192 kbps LAME MP3 is transaparent when compared to 44.1kHz@16-bits and 192kHz@24-bits lossless. And considering Apples AAC encoder is considered superior when compared to the LAME encoder in pretty much every aspect, both 128 kbps, and 256 kbps AAC is going to sound the exact same as even 192kHz@24-bits 6444 kbps lossless in pretty much every scenario, regardless of the equipment being used and whoever person might be listening. This is pushing so far into placebo land it's not even funny.
There was some fuzz about high-res when Tidal started pushing for it. But the improvement in audio quality didn't come from the high-res format itself, it came from the fact that the high-res version was encoded using new source files which sounded better. Once the lossy and non high-res lossless versions got new re-encoded versions using the same source as the high-res ones they also gained the same improvements to them. Didn't have anything to do with the fact that the files are utilising 192kHz@24-bits which goes way beyond the frequency range of human hearing. 44.1kHz@16-bit already goes beyond the dynamic range precieveable by human hearing, going even further beyond doesn't provide anything meaningful.
It's like taking your 80 mph car and putting it on a road allowing for 180 mph. Your 80 mph car isn't going to get any faster just because you put it on a track that allows for higher speed.
The cloest thing we currently have is Sonys LDAC. But LDAC isn't remotely close to offering 6444 kbps with it's peak of 990 kbps. And 990 kbps isn't stable at all. Pretty much all in-depth testing of LDAC has shown that it drops down from 990 kbps pretty much all the time. On some top-of-the-line devices it won't even do 990 kbps unless forced, the best effort setting will often never go beyond 660 kbps. You can't really move away from your device at all if you want to stay at 990 kbps either. You are very likely to drop down into 330 kbps, and as LDAC, when compared to AAC, will require live transcoding of all media as you aren't going to have any source material on your phone encoded as LDAC, you will often end up with worse audio quality as a result of needing the live transcoding, compared to simply opt for AAC at 128 kbps and 256 kbps to begin with.
Only way for Apple to achieve high-ress lossless over wireless would be to opt for something other than bluetooth. The problem with going with something like WiFi Direct is how it draws far more power cutting into battery life. You also end up with issues such as WiFi being half-duplex and most people are going to have their phones connected to WiFi for data usage already, so unless Apple starts to have another dedicated WiFi SoC in all their devices dedicated for audio, you are going to start lowering your device WiFi throughput by half by simply having your wireless headphones tapping into the same WiFi SoC you are already using for data via your wireless router.
This is most likely the reason why the AirPods Pro 2 USB-C model isn't being marked with lossless support. The support for 5.0GHz on the AirPods Pro 2 USB-C model is going to be isolated for use with the Vision Pro only. The reason for this is most likely linked to the fact that the only way for Apple to achieve lossless (not high-res lossless, mind you) is by enforcing 5.0GHz with extremely limited range. But this makes sense as your AirPods Pro 2 and your Vision Pro will never be separated. This is a isolated usage scenario where having a properatirey solution that does not offer any range and stability makes sense, as you know that when both the AirPods Pro 2 and the Vision Pro are in use and combined, the AirPods Pro 2 will be right next to the Vision Pro. Once you remove the Vision Pro from your face, there is no need for the AirPods Pro 2 to playback any audio from the Vision Pro, so there is no need for range.
The new AirPods Max will most likely get something similar. But it won't be anything that will be useful for anything other than the Vision Pro as just moving a few feet from your phone and that 5.0GHz lossless link will start getting into trouble.
At best the AirPods Max will get a new Cirrus Logic DAC which supports 192kHz@24-bits so you in theory can utilise USB-C to USB-C to get full support for high-res lossless using a cable. Won't really matter in terms of preceiveable audio quality as pretty much every double-blind test av confirmed over and over that ~192 kbps LAME MP3 is transaparent when compared to 44.1kHz@16-bits and 192kHz@24-bits lossless. And considering Apples AAC encoder is considered superior when compared to the LAME encoder in pretty much every aspect, both 128 kbps, and 256 kbps AAC is going to sound the exact same as even 192kHz@24-bits 6444 kbps lossless in pretty much every scenario, regardless of the equipment being used and whoever person might be listening. This is pushing so far into placebo land it's not even funny.
There was some fuzz about high-res when Tidal started pushing for it. But the improvement in audio quality didn't come from the high-res format itself, it came from the fact that the high-res version was encoded using new source files which sounded better. Once the lossy and non high-res lossless versions got new re-encoded versions using the same source as the high-res ones they also gained the same improvements to them. Didn't have anything to do with the fact that the files are utilising 192kHz@24-bits which goes way beyond the frequency range of human hearing. 44.1kHz@16-bit already goes beyond the dynamic range precieveable by human hearing, going even further beyond doesn't provide anything meaningful.
It's like taking your 80 mph car and putting it on a road allowing for 180 mph. Your 80 mph car isn't going to get any faster just because you put it on a track that allows for higher speed.
RamGuy
macrumors 65816
I haven't tested the latest version of the Beats Studio Pro, but I had the previous ones, the Beats Studio 3. Unless the Studio Pro has changed a whole lot more than what it looks like in pictures, they aren't really comparable to the AirPods Max in my opinion.
They are far less comfortable. At least for me and my wife. The ear cushions are smaller and denser. This makes them more difficult to combine with glasses, and they are just less comfortable and less breathable overall. Their clamping force has to be higher when compared to the AirPods Max as well.
Build quality is far worse. The plastic of the Studio, at least Studio 3 was squeaking all over the place.
Can't comment on the ANC or transparency modes as the Studio 3 only had ANC, and I'd bet one thing that has improved with the Studio Pro is things such as ANC and transparency.
Sound quality wise the Beats Studio and AirPods Max isn't trying to achieve the same thing. Beats Studio is pushing heavy into V-shaped audio profile. Whether you enjoy V-shaped and "in your head" sound profile or not is a personal preference. Most people listening to modern music often tend to prefer this sound profile, it's a reason why it's so popular with mid-range headphones. This makes the audio sound like it originates from within your head. It feels very dense and impactful. Whereas the AirPods Max tries to be more like high-end headphones where there is a lot more emphasis on space and separation. It's not trying to be V-shaped at all, it tries to offer a wider soundstage, making the audio sound like it's around you, not inside of your head. This is far more difficult to achieve, especially with closed-back, ANC headphones, but the AirPods Max is doing a rather decent job at it.
AirPods Max is my personal favourite among closed-back ANC headphones. It doesn't come close to open-back headphones like my Sennheiser HD800, as open-back headphones will be much better at providing that wider soundstage utilising the fact that they are open-back. But of course, open-back is useless for the applications where I opt for the AirPods Max, like when I'm cleaning the apartment, doing commutes etc.
wanha
macrumors 68020
Damn son, you came to this conversation with a truckload of facts