Apple introduces AirPods Max 2(apple.com)
apple.com
Apple introduces AirPods Max 2
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/03/apple-introduces-airpods-max-2-powered-by-h2/
25 comments
[deleted]
Any indication of the AirPods Max 2 battery life time compared to the original?
Two questions not answered by their press release:
1. Will it have sleep detection like all other H2 based Airpods? 2. Did they make any changes to the goofy sleep case, where the only turn off the Airpods max is their weird case?
These are the two things that I'm looking for in an upgrade to my current Max's.
1. Will it have sleep detection like all other H2 based Airpods? 2. Did they make any changes to the goofy sleep case, where the only turn off the Airpods max is their weird case?
These are the two things that I'm looking for in an upgrade to my current Max's.
It doesn’t look like it. The AirPods Max “bra” case used to feel like it was the bane of my existence when I would always return to my dead AirPods outside the case, after I hurriedly took the headphones off.
But now, thanks to makerworld and 3D printers, I have a stand with integrated neodymium magnets for home that puts them to sleep on my desk and nightstand.
I’m equally surprised I had to print something Apple doesn’t sell and Apple hasn’t improved the design for what feels like a decade (other than USB-C and lossless and now old H2)
But now, thanks to makerworld and 3D printers, I have a stand with integrated neodymium magnets for home that puts them to sleep on my desk and nightstand.
I’m equally surprised I had to print something Apple doesn’t sell and Apple hasn’t improved the design for what feels like a decade (other than USB-C and lossless and now old H2)
Why, who is gonna be sleeping with those?
Or do you mean while sitted, on an airplane ride?
Or do you mean while sitted, on an airplane ride?
> where the only turn off the Airpods max is their weird case
Trying to parse this...I don't have these, so I don't have context for what this could mean.
Trying to parse this...I don't have these, so I don't have context for what this could mean.
The original Airpods Max (and presumably these) had a 'case' that only covered the earmuffs and not the band. Some people called it a 'diaper' due to its appearance. By default, at least the earlier firmware revisions (don't know if this got changed), the headphones would stay on unless they were put into their case and it would kill the battery.
Essentially, you cannot ever turn off the Airpods unless you put them in this fabric thing that wraps around the cups. It's really dumb and they really should have went with an on off button that just senses when you aren't wearing them and just turns them off.
not sure how one can even sleep in those, unless only on the back
I just fall asleep in front of the TV with them on. I like to wear them in front of the TV, because I often fall asleep there and when I used to do this with regular Airpods, they would always fall off and get lost in the cushions. The Airpods Max don't have that problem.
I think OP means sleep as in, the headphones go to sleep when not on your head. Regular AirPods do this if you just put them on a table or something.
I always feel that Max is very hot and heavy.
> "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?
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?
> 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".
I think it means "we're including the cable in the box" and "high-res only works when it's wired, not wireless".
>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).
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).
> "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.
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.
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.
Nope. Nobody is physically capable of noticing the difference. That doesn't stop people from claiming they can, though!
192kHz is no better than 48kHz for playback. https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/05/192khz-worse-44-1khz-mo...
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?
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?
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.
I am surprised it got updated without redesign because AirPod Max was perhaps one of the worst Apple product in recent history. Big, Bulky, Heavy and not comfortable.
Surprisingly people say consumer will blindly follow Apple but instead you see far more Sony XM series headphone around.
Surprisingly people say consumer will blindly follow Apple but instead you see far more Sony XM series headphone around.
Pretty disappointing update. AirPods Pro can do wireless lossless audio streaming with the Vision Pro. Really expected them to add that to these for streaming music from your phone. That would have justified the price for me.
[deleted]
> Studio-quality audio recording may not be available in all regions, and availability may vary due to local laws and regulations.
Wonder what this is about. Higher power radio transmission? I know most BT mic used to happen with AMR-WB on HFP1.6... newer BT LE ones use mSBC which is better... What codec/transport-protocol do Airpods use?
Wonder what this is about. Higher power radio transmission? I know most BT mic used to happen with AMR-WB on HFP1.6... newer BT LE ones use mSBC which is better... What codec/transport-protocol do Airpods use?