MacBook Pro - optical out?
Posted by: MontyW on 18 May 2009
Hi,
Can anyone advise me if it is possible to output 192kHz from the optical Toslink out from a MacBook Pro?
Monty
Posted on: 18 May 2009 by spacey
according to an apple techie macbooks only output at 16/44. no matter what the midi setting is
Posted on: 18 May 2009 by QTT
quote:
Originally posted by r-tee:
according to an apple techie macbooks only output at 16/44. no matter what the midi setting is
Surprise, surprise. What source is it?
I currently set 96 kHz/24 bit on my Mac Mini and I see it on my DAC.
MontyW, I think the max output from a Mac is 96 kHz. In fact, the audio output on my MacBook Pro shows 96/32 whereas my Mac Mini shows 96/24.
Posted on: 18 May 2009 by DHT
Firewire will run 24bit 192.
Posted on: 18 May 2009 by spacey
i dont know what setting there are on macs as i dont own one, but a few days ago i went to the apple store in manchester to ask about which is the best way to get hi-res audio from an apple setup. the guy on the genius bar, who i have discussed things with before, is recording engineer. it was this guy who said "trust me, even if you do set you output to be 24/96 it may appear to be but its actually only out-putting 16/44".
i know this flys in the face of popular belief but im only repeating what an apple genius told me
Posted on: 18 May 2009 by MontyW
I just seem to remember reading (I think on the Apple site) that a MacBook optical digital audio out port could handle 24-bit stereo 192kHz rates?
Posted on: 18 May 2009 by QTT
quote:
MacBook audio input/output: Connect your MacBook to a line-level microphone or optical digital audio equipment. The Audio In port accommodates both optical digital audio input and analog audio input.
Analog line and optical digital audio input is accepted through a 3.5mm mini phone jack which does not provide power to a connected device, so you must use self-powered peripherals. The sound input jack accepts line-level stereo signals up to 24-bit stereo 44.1-192kHz sampling rate. It also accepts a stereo miniplug-to-RCA cable adapter for connecting stereo equipment to the computer.
Optical digital audio input is S/PDIF format and uses a standard Toslink cable with a Toslink mini-plug adapter, accepting up to 24-bit stereo and 44.1-96kHz sampling rate.
Connect external speakers, headphones, or optical digital audio equipment. The headphone / line output jack accommodates optical digital audio output, analog audio output with a 24-bit, 44.1-192 kHz D/A converter, digital audio output up to 24-bit stereo and 44.1-192 kHz sampling rate and supporting encoded digital audio output (AC3 and DTS). For analog headphone / line output a standard audio cable with 3.5mm metal plug should be used. For digital audio, a standard toslink cable with a toslink mini-plug adapter can be used.
This must be the latest spec. My MacBook Pro / Mac Mini can only go up to 96 kHz and they are less than 2 years old.
Posted on: 18 May 2009 by pcstockton
Just use a PC. Straight forward.
Posted on: 18 May 2009 by spacey
so thats the inputs covered, what about the outputs?
Posted on: 18 May 2009 by spacey
your very fanny
Posted on: 18 May 2009 by pcstockton
Why does it seem that no one ever questions the analog/digital/input/output, 4-in-1, mini jack on certain Macs?
Would it not be strange to have one DIN connection on the back of a Naim NAC that can handle all duties? Maybe even have it powered for a 5 in 1.
It seem extremely limiting. It also begs the question whether an 1/8" analog AND digital "hole" can sufficiently handle all of those duties as well as individual tailored and designed input/outputs.
How exactly does the interface work on this "port". Typical MAC magic?
Posted on: 18 May 2009 by garyi
The combi port is not a mac centric thing PCS, even naim use them
Not sure wht you mean by interface but the audio/midi application handles what goes where into terms of audio.
Posted on: 18 May 2009 by MontyW
So can the optical out handle 192kHz? Has anyone done this? Nay idea how this can be tested?
May be its the Mac OS that limits the output to 96kHz? Is the Apple genius righ in that no matter what its actually only out-putting 16/44?
Posted on: 18 May 2009 by QTT
When Apple officially say it can handle 192 kHz, it must be able to do it. Otherwise, they will be in big trouble, a lot of people are just waiting to sue Apple if they lie.
Forget the Apple in-genius guy, he must go back to school.
Posted on: 19 May 2009 by MontyW
It would appear that it is the OS that limits the optical out to a max of 96kHz. If you use the MacBook pro with Windows under Boot Camp you can out put to 192kHz.
Posted on: 19 May 2009 by james n
quote:
Is the Apple genius righ in that no matter what its actually only out-putting 16/44?
Er no - unless my Lavry is lying when its 96Khz light comes on. 96Khz file, Audio Midi set correctly and 96Khz comes out.
If Audio midi is set to 44.1 then anything above that will be downsampled and rememember anything coming out of an airport express is limited to 44.1/16.
James
Posted on: 19 May 2009 by spacey
The guy said it appears to be higher but isn't . Why don't you ask apple
Posted on: 19 May 2009 by MontyW
Well after reading Dan Lavry's comments on 192kHz - I'm more than happy to run at 24 bit - 96kHz via optical out
Posted on: 20 May 2009 by js
Better to find a player that will native whatever you play and keep upsampling out of the equation or in the DAC if that's what you prefer. Even firewire doesn't allow this unless it bypasses the OS and the player allows a direct connect sans output config. Better to have the player output the unadulterated stream and let the DAC and/or interface deal with it. 96k seems a very good compomise between size and sound. Can do better dubs than analog on the right equipment. I really don't know if 192 shows benefit other than allowing simple filtering on playback. I'm hesitant to say 96 is good enough because once you hear better, it's hard to go back and I can't comment on what I haven't heard. Just because there are reports of 192 not showing benefit does not mean it wont ever be the case though I'm extremely satisfied with a good 24/96 file.
Posted on: 20 May 2009 by pcstockton
For what its worth, I have a few rips in 24/192, and the same identical rips dithered to 96khz.
I cant differentiate between the two.
16/44 and 16/48 - sound identical to me
24/48 - much better than above
24/96 and 24/192 - sound identical to me but still much better than both of the above.
And I agree with js, 24/96 is good enough for me.
I guess we can start discussing 32/192 at some point (lets not quite yet), as we can also entertain a 14 blade razor.
I really do like my 4 blade Gillette (24/96) though. Much better than the old single blade deals (Redbook).
Posted on: 22 May 2009 by spacey
PC, maybe you need to borrow you better halfs Veet for that ulimate back,crack'n'sack moment..
so has anyone actually been able to measure whats coming out of their mac yet?
Posted on: 22 May 2009 by pcstockton
r-tee,
I believe James N has addressed that above.
-p
Posted on: 22 May 2009 by pcstockton
quote:
Originally posted by garyi:
The combi port is not a mac centric thing PCS, even naim use them
Naim has a "socket" on something that is both input and output, as well as digital and analog? Which bit of kit, and where?
-Patrick
Posted on: 22 May 2009 by pcstockton
quote:
Originally posted by r-tee:
PC, maybe you need to borrow you better halfs Veet for that ulimate back,crack'n'sack moment..
Sounds cool in theory, but I have no clue what you are talking about. veet?
-Dumb 'Merican
Posted on: 22 May 2009 by PMR
Guys, it's important to remember that whether it's 16/44 or not there is no garantee the recording will be of high fidelity. My best and most enjoyable recordings are still 16/44. All this marketing rubbish for 24/96 etc., just means the music is rubbish for the most part.
Posted on: 22 May 2009 by spacey
quote:
Originally posted by pcstockton:
quote:
Originally posted by r-tee:
PC, maybe you need to borrow you better halfs Veet for that ulimate back,crack'n'sack moment..
Sounds cool in theory, but I have no clue what you are talking about. veet?
-Dumb 'Merican
even better - hair removal cream. was called imaac before the euro conversion
