Apple Launches AirPods Max 2 With Better ANC, Live Translation (theverge.com)
- Reference: 0181010352
- News link: https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/26/03/16/1751207/apple-launches-airpods-max-2-with-better-anc-live-translation
- Source link: https://www.theverge.com/tech/895155/apple-airpods-max-2-pricing-availability
> As noted by Apple, the AirPods Max 2 offer active noise-cancellation that's 1.5 times more effective when compared to its predecessor. Transparency mode, which allows you to hear your surroundings while wearing the headphones, also sounds "more natural" with the AirPods Max 2, according to Apple.
>
> The AirPods Max 2 support 24-bit, 48kHz lossless audio when connected with a USB-C cable, as well as offer up to 20 hours of listening time on a single charge. Other capabilities include loud sound reduction, a camera remote feature that works by pressing the digital crown to take a photo or start a recording, as well as a personalized volume feature that "automatically fine-tunes the listening experience" based on your preferences over time.
[1] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/03/apple-introduces-airpods-max-2-powered-by-h2/
[2] https://www.theverge.com/tech/895155/apple-airpods-max-2-pricing-availability
[3] https://apple.slashdot.org/story/20/12/08/143253/apple-launches-549-airpods-max-over-ear-headphones
Only 48kHz? (Score:1)
1997 wants it's sample rate back.
At least it's lossless... just not wireless.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's been proven that 48kHz really whips the llama's ass
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless you can hear above 24Khz this isn't a problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Higher sample rates and bit depths don't really do much outside of the recording, mixing, and mastering context other than making your file sizes larger than they need to be.
Re: (Score:3)
My ears function worse than they did in 1997, so I'm good with 48kHz.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically all music you listen to starts out as 48kHz. Even the "192kHz" tracks are just upscaled.
When an artist records an album they generally record in 48kHz - and basically anything you listen to will have a 48kHz master.
Now, some artists do record in 96kHz usually in very specialized recording studios set up for it (most aren't). Generally you're not going to be listening to a 96khz originated recording because almost no studios have equipment to do so. AIX Studios and Skywalker Ranch are two examples
Re: (Score:2)
> Basically all music you listen to starts out as 48kHz. Even the "192kHz" tracks are just upscaled.
> When an artist records an album they generally record in 48kHz - and basically anything you listen to will have a 48kHz master.
> Now, some artists do record in 96kHz usually in very specialized recording studios set up for it (most aren't). Generally you're not going to be listening to a 96khz originated recording because almost no studios have equipment to do so. AIX Studios and Skywalker Ranch are two examples that can do 96kHz and have tuned pipelines to work at 96kHz. But AIX generally only does their own concert recordings of public domain works (e.g., classical pieces) and people who use Skywalker Ranch at 96kHz are very, very rare.
> 99.9% of common music you can buy will be recorded at 48kHz, and the whole "high res" thing is to be able to sell you upscaled music at a higher price even though there's no added content.
In an age when a lot of home studios record at 96k and up, I find a lot of this post to seem out of touch. Commodity recording equipment has been capable of 192k and up for about twenty years now. I don't see how its possible that professional studios wouldn't have this capability, even if they don't typically use it. I've been recording at home at 96k for about ten years or more. I'm sure you can argue it's pointless to do so, because a lot of people do, but disk space has been cheap enough and system perf
Re: (Score:2)
You need that on the studio side because you're manipulating the sound through all those shitty plugins. But if you think you can hear the sound difference, I have a $175,000 ethernet cable to sell you.
Re: (Score:2)
> You need that on the studio side because you're manipulating the sound through all those shitty plugins. But if you think you can hear the sound difference, I have a $175,000 ethernet cable to sell you.
Yeah, I doubt I do. My ears are shit since I've been in thrash and death metal bands since the 80s. But the argument that studios aren't capable of more than 48k? That sounded like somebody talking about a subject they were completely unfamiliar with.
Come on (Score:1)
Why aren't they just called EarPods, to go with your EyePods
Better ANC, (Score:2)
I think the A frican N ational C ongress went downhill after the death of Nelson Mandela, so no doubt the Apple fans in South Africa will appreciate that.
"when connected with a USB-C cable" (Score:2)
That sounds like a tacit admission that Bluetooth bandwidth sucks. I guess putting WiFi in ear buds would draw too much power? (I'm only getting about 300,000 bits/second out of the BLE I'm currently working on, which isn't enough for true lossless hi-fi audio... or any decent video.)
Re:My biggest problem with the AirPods Max 1... (Score:4, Funny)
Modding you down for ignoring your cats.
Re: (Score:3)
Who the hell modded you down? That was funny. Would have also accepted "Because it's not noise you insensitive clod!"
Re: (Score:2)
Dude... your cats are obviously using Bluetooth mics!