Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2016 MBP (TB) does not support 96 kHz audio output

eklkrl

eklkrl

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Apr 19, 2010
11
0
I've discovered this the hard way, i.e. after purchasing one. Setting aside the issue of whether 96 kHz is useful as a delivery format, for those of us doing audio production who mix in 96 kHz, it's always been great to be able to work on sessions with just the Macbook Pro and a pair of headphones. With this new machine that's impossible. If you look at Audio MIDI Setup, you'll see that 96 kHz is supported for the built-in speakers (strangely), but as soon as you plug in headphones or a direct line out, that option disappears. This makes it impossible to run a session in any audio program (Pro Tools, Nuendo, whatever) that's in 96 kHz, without also having to pack an external audio interface. Obviously I use an interface in the studio, but the whole idea of a laptop is that you can be portable. So with the new Macbook Pro, it seems that in addition to the dongles, I also need to carry an external interface/DAC.

Could there possibly be a software fix to this or, as seems more likely, is this a cost-saving hardware issue made without the needs of pros in mind?
 
Unfortunately it would seem that you are correct, that is too bad, but there are some inexpensive AMP/DAC solutions out there.
 
They gimped the 3.5mm port from the TOSLINK/analogue combo in/out jack to just analogue to save cost. There is absolutely no benefit to the customer as this likely isn't making internal space or saving battery, it is purely lost functionality.

My guess on the 96kHz issue is that the speaker and jack are taking signal from different places on the main board. Normally the internal DAC should feed the same abalogue line to the respective amps.

The simplest solution for now is a small USB DAC + headphone amp unit. For light monitoring purpose the dongle sized ones should suffice. I am also curious if the W1 enabled Airpods could pass if it has better latency than typical wireless earphones, but for high sampling frequency it probably won't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: foliovision
to be honest, i am happy that it does not have the optical out, because on my old computer the optical switched borked, and it gets stuck
 
I found that out the hard way too ... it's extremely annoying to me ... I'm often traveling and with my previous MBPs I always could finalize my recordings I made in the studio with 96 kHz . Now I can't do that anymore.

I contacted apple by phone and writing with the support on twitter. No one is aware of this issue. By the answers they give I can see they're just googling around in their knowledge database and find no proper answer. They can't even tell me that this is not supported anymore.

Did anyone find a solution? Maybe this can be hacked somewhere in an plistfile or something like this
 
No way.
The DAC of headphone / Line out begun from 2016 MacBook pro change from CS4208 (Class AB headphone out) to
CS8409(HDA+Digital in/out)+CS42L83A(Low power DAC+Class H headphone out)
which only support 44khz/48khz output.
However, the sound quality of headphone output is improved as it better detail that previous 96khz output.
(As i opinion is 48khz lineout is better that previous 96khz analog output, so i suggest just use 48khz)
If you require better sound quality, better to get professional sound interface.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: foliovision
evec said:
No way.
The DAC of headphone / Line out begun from 2016 MacBook pro change from CS4208 (Class AB headphone out) to
CS8409(HDA+Digital in/out)+CS42L83A(Low power DAC+Class H headphone out)
which only support 44khz/48khz output.
However, the sound quality of headphone output is improved as it better detail that previous 96khz output.
(As i opinion is 48khz lineout is better that previous 96khz analog output, so i suggest just use 48khz)
If you require better sound quality, better to get professional sound interface.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tech-details. How do you know that - why can't the Apple Support give me such an answer?
Why is 96 kHz available to the internal speakers?

But for your understanding: I have a professional Sound Interface in my studio. I'm recording and editing at 96 kHz.
As I'm often traveling for my job I'm used to finish editing my music on my laptop in the train. Wich requires the availability of 96 kHz. Otherwise the Music-app downsamples all material in realtime to 48 kHz - wich is not a great quality.
What pisses me off - is that I would now need to buy another interface just for traveling. I don't mind much as such interface are not necessarily pricey - but it's not comfortable having to carry another thingy with me (plus usb-c adapter)and the space in trains is usually little. I bought a laptop for 5k and I expect that it is able to do such a basic thing (wich the previous model was able of). And Apple nowhere communicates that. It's so secret that not even the Apple-Support knows about it.
 
verstaerker said:
Thanks for the tech-details. How do you know that - why can't the Apple Support give me such an answer?
Why is 96 kHz available to the internal speakers?

What pisses me off - is that I would now need to buy another interface just for traveling. I don't mind much as such interface are not necessarily pricey - but it's not comfortable having to carry another thingy with me (plus usb-c adapter)and the space in trains is usually little. I bought a laptop for 5k and I expect that it is able to do such a basic thing (wich the previous model was able of). And Apple nowhere communicates that. It's so secret that not even the Apple-Support knows about it.
Click to expand...

Apple's Genius will not give you true answer as Apple don't want tell customer.

I get the schematic of MacBook / Pro from my friend which working on Apple relative supplier , and i am software and electronic engineer, so i know that the design have been changed. I also working on amateur music creative so i know the technical of music reproduced.

Internal speakers in MacBook Pro use of SSM3515B for each speaker, so totally 4 SSM3515B, and this IC support up to 192khz digital input directly drive of speaker, so why the internal speaker support 96khz and headphone out only support 48khz.

As headphone out is a analog output, new MacBook pro require convert 96khz to 48khz when play 96khz material,
my opinion is not affect of most users especially non-professional usage as my listen experiment new design with better sound control especially for bass though headphone, however it may not enough for professional line-out.
 
evec said:
As headphone out is a analog output, new MacBook pro require convert 96khz to 48khz when play 96khz material,
my opinion is not affect of most users especially non-professional usage
Click to expand...

Well, nobody really needs more than 48khz going to the speakers/headphones: anybody who thinks they can tell the difference just has a good imagination. The point of using higher rates is that if you're creating/mixing/mastering audio then you need the extra headroom to put the audio through multiple processes that could amplify/aggregate the otherwise inaudible artefacts in 48k.

Still, if you're working at 96k then it makes sense to have the whole chain running at the same rate...
 
  • Like
Reactions: verstaerker
I have no experience doing this myself, but would it be possible to use a compact, USB bus powered USB-to-analog/digital audio adapter and still have 96k available ??

You could then connect this small adapter, and connect your phones to the adapter (instead of the analog headphone port).

Again, never tried it myself (my audio stuff is done at 44.1khz).
But it might serve as a "workaround" without having to carry a full interface.
"What works.... works."
 
theluggage said:
Well, nobody really needs more than 48khz going to the speakers/headphones: anybody who thinks they can tell the difference just has a good imagination. The point of using higher rates is that if you're creating/mixing/mastering audio then you need the extra headroom to put the audio through multiple processes that could amplify/aggregate the otherwise inaudible artefacts in 48k.

Still, if you're working at 96k then it makes sense to have the whole chain running at the same rate...
Click to expand...

No whole chain when you need transfer Digital to Analog and later transfer back from Analog to Digital, so that it better working on all sound process inside digital area and working on just one DAC transfer.

Yes, 24bit 48khz is more that enough for audiophile, however, some DAC require feed upsampling 96khz for best operating, so that why somebody thing 96khz sound better that 48khz, however some old age expensive 44.1khz DAC sound better that some DAC require feed 96khz with very high spec THD.

The DAC of MacBook Pro is actually rebrand CS42L42 (may with higher headphone power) which also use in Lighting to 3.5mm adaptor, budget sound interface / usb sound card is highly possible Sound WORST that the headphone out because
Apple use low noise LDO and special filter for analog power, and external sound interface may introduced additional noise especially the sound interfaces require external power supply.
 
Fishrrman said:
I have no experience doing this myself, but would it be possible to use a compact, USB bus powered USB-to-analog/digital audio adapter and still have 96k available ??
Click to expand...

that would work .. anyone knows such really tiny interface?
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Fishrrman said:
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=usb+sound+adapter&rh=i:aps,k:usb+sound+adapter
Click to expand...

believe it or not, I can use the amazon search ... I was more asking for recommendations ... preferably with usb-c

so far I couldn't find anything

the ones with usb-c seem to be for Android Devices
[doublepost=1511993399][/doublepost]I found a solution ... if I create a new combined device , use soundflower as clocksource I can set the combined device to 96 kHz

it's clear the sound quality won't get any better but I can at least finalize and render my mixes in 96 kHz
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Hi there, a bit of an old thread, but I recently ran into the same problem and found a solution if you are running ProTools (no idea how other hosts behave though).

If you want to edit something in a 96kHz ProTools session using the internal analog headphone output on a MBP 2016 you can do this:
- open Audio MIDI setup
- set the Sample rate of the built-in microphone to 96 kHz
- set the clock source of "ProTools aggregate I/O" to built-in microphone (it will automatically switch to 96 kHz now)

That's it!
ProTools will now run normally in 96 kHz. If I understand this correctly it will downsample its output in real time to 44.1 or 48 kHz (if you plug in a headphone jack), but at least you have the option of using the internal headphone output! The quality of what you hear might be lower because of the downsampling but if all you want to do is some editing that's not a big problem compared to the hassle of needing an external audio interface to even open a session.

Addition: I'm running Sierra.
Also: This 'no 96kHz on headphone out' issue seems to be fixed I saw 96kHz work on newer MacBookPro models in HighSierra. Did anyone find this to be a software issue? Just update to High Sierra or Mojave and 96 works?
 
Last edited:
I don’t have an answer about the headphone out, but I think the argument that no one can hear the difference with higher sample/bit rates is a bit oversimplified. I use an old SoundDevices audio recorder with professional mics for documentary production, and I monitor with an AKG240m set of cans. The difference between the SoundDevices at 192/24 vs any other recorder I’ve used: Tascam, camera audio, zoom, etc, is night and day. My interviews are with Arabic speakers, and I have to translate them to English. The nuance that the SoundDevices machine picks up, even with the same mics, makes the translation clearer and a little easier (but not easy!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back