3 ms·

> "For the highest-quality audio across music, movies, and games, the new AirPods Max support 24-bit, 48 kHz lossless audio when connected with the included USB

> "For the highest-quality audio across music, movies, and games, the new AirPods Max support 24-bit, 48 kHz lossless audio when connected with the included USB-C cable." I feel like this should have been 24-bit at 192 kHz. I'm wondering why they couldn't do that, especially since Apple Music supports it and they're talking about a wired connection. Although they write: > "with the included USB-C cable". Does that mean a third-party cable could handle more, or is there some other limitation? The wording seems a bit odd, no?

coldtea 7mo ago
>I feel like this should have been 24-bit at 192 kHz. As if anybody is going to notice the difference? Even the 24-bit vs 16-bit difference is gratious (it makes sense during recording and mixing, when listening it's just a check-mark item).
- danielknng 7mo ago
  > "As if anybody is going to notice the difference?" I don't think so, no. But since 24-bit/192 kHz music is already available in the Apple Music catalogue, I was wondering why they wouldn't just embrace it.
  - Kirby64 7mo ago
    It costs extra money to properly support it, so why would they? For a listening device it shouldn't matter one bit. As an output (i.e. their headphone outputs), I could see some marginal benefit for recording... but not as an input to your ears.
- mlsu 7mo ago
  Nope. Nobody is physically capable of noticing the difference. That doesn't stop people from claiming they can, though!
accrual 7mo ago
> Does that mean a third-party cable could handle more, or is there some other limitation? The wording seems a bit odd, no? I think it means "we're including the cable in the box" and "high-res only works when it's wired, not wireless".
andreareina 7mo ago
192kHz is no better than 48kHz for playback. https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/05/192khz-worse-44-1khz-most-music/ https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/05/192khz-worse-44-1khz-mo...
- danielknng 7mo ago
  I'm aware of that, but Apple has some 192 kHz music in their catalogue. Since this is a headphone clearly intended to be used with Apple Music, I was still wondering why they chose to "just" go with 48 kHz. Like... was there a technical reason?
  - jasomill 7mo ago
    Possibly a legal reason: the product is a headphone that outputs audio, not a DAC that outputs an electrical signal, so unless the drivers have meaningful ultrasonic frequency response, claiming high sample rate support is arguably false advertising regardless of what the internal DAC is capable of.

coldtea 7mo ago

>I feel like this should have been 24-bit at 192 kHz. As if anybody is going to notice the difference? Even the 24-bit vs 16-bit difference is gratious (it makes sense during recording and mixing, when listening it's just a check-mark item).

danielknng 7mo ago
> "As if anybody is going to notice the difference?" I don't think so, no. But since 24-bit/192 kHz music is already available in the Apple Music catalogue, I was wondering why they wouldn't just embrace it.
- Kirby64 7mo ago
  It costs extra money to properly support it, so why would they? For a listening device it shouldn't matter one bit. As an output (i.e. their headphone outputs), I could see some marginal benefit for recording... but not as an input to your ears.
mlsu 7mo ago
Nope. Nobody is physically capable of noticing the difference. That doesn't stop people from claiming they can, though!

accrual 7mo ago

> Does that mean a third-party cable could handle more, or is there some other limitation? The wording seems a bit odd, no? I think it means "we're including the cable in the box" and "high-res only works when it's wired, not wireless".

andreareina 7mo ago

192kHz is no better than 48kHz for playback. https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/05/192khz-worse-44-1khz-most-music/ https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/05/192khz-worse-44-1khz-mo...

danielknng 7mo ago
I'm aware of that, but Apple has some 192 kHz music in their catalogue. Since this is a headphone clearly intended to be used with Apple Music, I was still wondering why they chose to "just" go with 48 kHz. Like... was there a technical reason?
- jasomill 7mo ago
  Possibly a legal reason: the product is a headphone that outputs audio, not a DAC that outputs an electrical signal, so unless the drivers have meaningful ultrasonic frequency response, claiming high sample rate support is arguably false advertising regardless of what the internal DAC is capable of.