Solid point. Some people can tell, but a lot of people can't.
Though it reminds me of nits with displays and how there are some people hyper-focused on seeing the biggest number possible even if it isn't necessary or noticeable to them at all.
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.
New iMac Supports High-Impedance Headphones
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Though it reminds me of nits with displays and how there are some people hyper-focused on seeing the biggest number possible even if it isn't necessary or noticeable to them at all.
The very first Mac in 1984 had a built-in DAC, which allowed it to generate the introductory "Hello, I'm Macintosh" speech in hardware.
Last edited:
”These Mac computers have a built-in hardware digital-to-analog converter”
What does this mean exactly? They only list new computers as having a DAC, like it’s some special new technology. Every device that has an analog audio output has a DAC by definition. Is this an Apple spin machine trick to sell more new macs or have they somehow done this with software in the past? How would that even work?
What is the actual advantage over 96 kHz for listening? I get 24-bit, that’s adding dynamic range, but 192 kHz seems well beyond any acoustic device’s resolving power in terms of resolution and way overkill if it’s about high range sounds as most middle-aged people tend to cap out around 13–15 kHz. 192 is very useful for sound design but why is it good for listening?
Last edited:
It's nice that Apple implemented this feature, but it doesn't work the best on my 14" Pro and it definitely won't replace a dedicated headphone amp.
If I plug in 300ohm HD600s, it detects them as high-impedance and adjusts gain accordingly. However if I plug in 32ohm HiFiMan HE1000s, it remains in low-impedance mode and doesn't deliver enough power, even though they're power hungry planars.
They need a way to manually turn the high-impedance mode on and off. Or maybe this exists and I just don't know where to find it? Either way, a toggle in control center would be nice.
If I plug in 300ohm HD600s, it detects them as high-impedance and adjusts gain accordingly. However if I plug in 32ohm HiFiMan HE1000s, it remains in low-impedance mode and doesn't deliver enough power, even though they're power hungry planars.
They need a way to manually turn the high-impedance mode on and off. Or maybe this exists and I just don't know where to find it? Either way, a toggle in control center would be nice.
I think you're mixing up bit rate (bits per second) and frequency rate (Hz). Those are two different things.
The article is about high impedance, values over 600 ohms (although I've seen some consider 250 as high). The headphones you linked to are 56 ohms. Curious how these sound though!
"Introducing the all-new high impedance jack on the iPhone 16 Pro Max, with sound that will blow you away." $99 add-on. Will sell out 🤣
The factory where they make them received, in error, several thousand shipping containers containing white UPVC window plastic. Their star employee told apple if they cut these windows carefully, they can be the bezel for the iMac. He gave a presentation showing them that, essentially, they were converting one window, into another. A window into MacOS.
Everyone stood up and applauded. And so it is.
Another factory down the road wanted these shipping containers too.. as they make windows laptops :/
Finders keepers, I guess.
The audio that Apple Music offers at *any* resolution does not take up any space on your phone. It’s all streamed.
96kHz is perfectly fine, when that was the original sampling rate of a particular digital mastering.
Converting 192kHz audio to 96kHz is not a lossless process and does result in distortion within the audible band.
The goal should always be to leave the audio unmolested at its original sample rate.
Tim Cook has one, and he’s running a trillion dollar company. So I guess we can say that the iMac is versatile?
"...sample rates of up to 96 kHz, allowing for users to listen to high-fidelity, full-resolution audio..."
I tire of this silliness.
The only 'full resolution' sound you can get is analog. any time you digitize audio you're throwing data away.
so you sample 96,0000 times a second, you're either averaging the data for each sample or not accounting for the data between the samples.
I'm no audiophile and I'm not suggesting that we need higher bit rates, sample widths or anything of the sort. Most people in most listening environments cannot tell 128Kbps AAC from live audio.
Just about every double-blind test I've read about related to "lossless audio" is that almost no-one can tell the difference.
But arbitrarily calling 96kHz "full resolution" is just ignorant.
I tire of this silliness.
The only 'full resolution' sound you can get is analog. any time you digitize audio you're throwing data away.
so you sample 96,0000 times a second, you're either averaging the data for each sample or not accounting for the data between the samples.
I'm no audiophile and I'm not suggesting that we need higher bit rates, sample widths or anything of the sort. Most people in most listening environments cannot tell 128Kbps AAC from live audio.
Just about every double-blind test I've read about related to "lossless audio" is that almost no-one can tell the difference.
But arbitrarily calling 96kHz "full resolution" is just ignorant.
I wonder how many people without machines with this support are currently suffering a nasty case of FOMO, regardless of whether or not they own, or will ever own, headphones that would make use of this....
This is how Apple gets you to speeeeend.
This is how Apple gets you to speeeeend.
People who like pastel colours tend to suck much more than the fun out of lifeDon't worry, the people who hate a little color will suck it right out of any iMac that isn't silver just like they suck the fun from life in general.
Maybe it's because 192 kHz makes sense for archival mastering purposes, whereas for normal mastering, 96 kHz makes sense, and for actual listening at high fidelity, 48 kHz covers more than the entire human hearing spectrum.
If you can actually hear the difference between 96 kHz and 192 kHz, then your 96 kHz copy is already corrupted, and your listening hardware is not the problem.
There are plenty in the sub $200 range that could benefit, including the great Sennheiser HD 6XX.
As others have mentioned the future arrives with the Vision Pro lossless. My hope is that whatever it is they will eventually roll it out to other devices.
Have you ever run any listening tests using different compression settings from the same source? I have and 128 kbps is awful. Probably not worth bringing it up as best resolution is an argument that will never be resolved.
Last edited:
