hoakley March 21, 2022 Macs, Technology

Spatial Audio, the Sound pane and Audio MIDI Setup

If your Mac’s sound seems straightforward, you haven’t scratched below its surface. Now, with Monterey and M1 models, we’ve got everything from mono to Spatial Audio, configured in the menu bar, the Sound pane in System Preferences, and a whole app, Audio MIDI Setup. This article points you in the right direction.

Sound in the menu bar

As you’d expect, this provides on-the-fly controls over sound output. Hook up your AirPods Max, for example, and start playing audio with support for Dolby Atmos, as in Apple TV+, and an M1 or recent Intel model now offers you control over the output device, noise control, spatial audio, and output volume.

According to Apple, Spatial Audio is supported by all M1 models, and iMac, MacBook Air and MacBook Pro models from 2018 onwards. Supported output devices include AirPods, internal speakers, and wired headphones.

If your Mac isn’t currently playing audio, or doesn’t support it, then spatial audio control won’t be available, which might appear confusing.

Sound pane

The main addition here for output devices is balance control. In addition, you get basic controls for input devices, and sound effects settings, including a separate alert volume, and a switch for the startup chime.

Audio MIDI Setup

This app is little-used, and hidden away in the /Applications/Utilities folder. If you use additional audio or MIDI devices, it provides primary control over them, in its MIDI Studio window, with another window for AVB devices on your network; those are both accessible from its Window menu.

For each input and output device it provides further controls, of which the most important is the audio format used by that device. This is set in the Format popup menu for each device, and commonly ranges from 44.1 to 96 kHz, with the default normally set at 44.1 or 48 kHz.

There’s long-running controversy over the uppermost frequency you should select here. Conventional opinion is that, even in young adults, the human ear can’t detect audio frequencies above 20 kHz. Thus, industry has standardised on 44.1 kHz as the highest frequency recorded in audio CD and most digital sound files, and 48 kHz if you’re lucky.

Many audiophiles claim that they can distinguish audio at higher frequencies, sometimes up to 96 kHz. If you’re one of them, then Audio MIDI Setup is an essential tool, as it’s here that you can configure audio output at non-standard frequencies, for devices that support them.

AirPods Max default to their maximum of 48 kHz using floating point values.

If you want to experiment to see whether you can hear the difference between output formats, ensure you enlist the help of someone else so that you can audition various tracks using different formats without knowing which they are (‘blind’). You’ll also need a supply of audio tracks mastered and recorded at higher frequencies; as 44.1 or 48 kHz seem almost universal, that isn’t easy.

Audio MIDI Setup also lets you configure the location of speakers, using its Configure Speakers… button.

The final feature of this hidden gem of an app is only for the serious audio nerd: it provides an inspector for all settings in the macOS audio frameworks. To view these, open its Preferences and select the Info tool.

You can get lost in there for days at a time.

Summary

Sound in the menu bar for volume and immediate controls, including Spatial Audio;
Sound pane for balance and system sounds;
Audio MIDI Setup for audio formats, MIDI and AVB devices;
Spatial Audio is available on M1 Macs and some recent Intel models with supported output devices (AirPods, internal speakers and wired headphones) and when playing a suitable source, such as Dolby Atmos.

38Comments

Add yours

1

Michele Galvagno on March 21, 2022 at 9:33 am

From the first paragraph it reads as if the Audio MIDI Setup app were introduced in Monterey or on M1 Macs, yet I found it available on my 2016 MBP (with Monterey) and on a 2018 Mac mini (with Big Sur). Not sure if it was available before, but I think so.
Re audiophiles claiming they can hear frequencies up to 96kHz, that is just physically impossible: we are born with a capacity of 20-20.000 Hz and it deteriorates every day since. Sure, a source which takes care of frequencies up to 96kHz will also have better management of audible frequencies, so that’s probably what they refer to.

LikeLiked by 1 person
- 2
  
  hoakley on March 21, 2022 at 9:36 am
  
  Thank you. I’m sorry, you’re misreading that para. Do you think it says the Sound pane has been introduced in Monterey too?
  Howard
  
  LikeLike
  - 3
    
    Michele Galvagno on March 21, 2022 at 9:39 am
    
    Reading “Now, with Monterey and M1 Macs” is what brought me off track. But I’m no native speaker, so if it reads clearly in English please just leave it!
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
- 4
  
  Javier Gallardo on March 21, 2022 at 12:31 pm
  
  It’s not just “listening” where resolution is important. In music production, hi-res is preferred -logically- to work with, to apply filters and transformations with less possible degradation.
  Of course, when listening, blind tests say 44kHz is enough, but it depends on quality of amp and speakers. Strangely, blind tests omite well known and learned music, and centers on completely “new” music to make the comparative (which is unfair and biased). Being so strong overall economic interests is the only solution to understand why 8K is nice in image, why millions of colors are better, why an original or an indistinguishable picture is preferred… but not in music.
  I admit there’s almost imperceptible difference between 48 and 96kHz… but, hey!: if I put my hands on my wooden desk, vibrations are different! OK, perhaps I’m cheating, sensing music not just by ear…
  But let’s go evidences: difference is in amount of data (measurable) and sound wave produced (measurable). There’s too much nonsense chatting about this, but it’s difficult to not prefer most detailed document if it’s at reach! I think music it’s the only example where industry claims less data is better, or just the same, in reproduced art.
  
  LikeLiked by 2 people
  - 5
    
    Michele Galvagno on March 21, 2022 at 12:45 pm
    
    I agree: working on higher quality data will give you more headroom, in any field!
    Then the receiving ear will do what it can!
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
  - 6
    
    hoakley on March 21, 2022 at 1:08 pm
    
    Thank you.
    This article isn’t intended for those involved in music or audio production, who need to know a great deal more than I could ever hope to cover in such a short article.
    I’m sure you’re well aware of the Nyquist Theorem, and its implications for A to D conversion, and all the considerations sound engineers have to make. Just as movie production involves working at higher resolution than the format that will be generated at the end, so music and audio production also need to work at higher resolutions and with uncompressed audio. To go into all those issues would take a whole series of articles, and as I no longer have all the pro audio hardware that I have used in the past, that’s beyond my capabilities now anyway.
    As far as the listener is concerned, I stand by what I have written above. There are audiophiles who claim these things about 48 v 96 kHz. That’s fine by me, but if you conduct properly blinded auditions, there’s absolutely no evidence to support such claims. It’s their money, and their choice. However, anyone wishing to go for high-resolution options should do so in full knowledge, which is what I aim to do here.
    Howard.
    
    LikeLike
- 7
  
  Javier Gallardo on March 21, 2022 at 7:01 pm
  
  Deaf people (no hearing, you know… Complete deaf) swear they can feel sound (ok, low frequencies, mostly). All this thing about audio quality could (and should) be scientifically revised. The axiom that says “sound is sensed only by ears” is revisable. And “blind tests” are interestedly “too blind”: hearing mama calling you perhaps is more sensible to quality, as a cognitive accumulation is important. And nobody doubts texture and tridimensionality are important in paintings, so everybody should prefer the original. And what about size?…
  And how’s that thing with color-pixel bit resolution, when “perfect” color sensing is unusual in humans also? (Oh, they’re developing new screens for that, of course).
  All this thing keeps being quite complicated. But thinking like a “computer managed data” aficionado, the more data, the better; full point.
  I must thank Apple for serving up to 192kHz files in Apple Music.
  
  LikeLiked by 2 people
  - 8
    
    Michele Galvagno on March 21, 2022 at 7:18 pm
    
    I can confirm this: I’m a professionally trained cellist and once, on the Strad magazine, was an interview with a deaf double bassist who shared his method for being in tune!
    People listening to him confirmed he was more in tune than most other players out there.
    My hearing is … uh… fine, I guess, and I can confirm that my initial intonation has nothing to do with my hearing, rather my “intonation-correction” is. The former is driven by muscle memory, thus making a blind-deaf but well-trained musician potentially equally skilled!
    Sorry, Howard, for the off-topic 😅
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
    - 9
      
      hoakley on March 21, 2022 at 8:08 pm
      
      Thank you. So this is so common that it makes the Strad magazine?
      Whilst we’re off-topic, I have to question “muscle memory”, which is such a popular misconception. Muscles have no memory. The memory is in the motor co-ordination centres in your brain, which is far less dramatic as we expect brains to have memory, on a good day.
      Howard.
      
      LikeLiked by 1 person
    - 10
      
      Michele Galvagno on March 21, 2022 at 8:14 pm
      
      Re the Strad: it was a single article because he’s the only double bassist to have reached international renown and a soloist career as a deaf man. Sorry for not being more specific!
      
      Re muscle memory: sorry again! That’s how I teach it to kids, as it makes much more sense to them rather than talking neural connections and synapses! What we remember is actually the infinitely repeated movement, and the perception of angle and distance in the trip from one note to the other. For string instruments another aspect comes into play: tactile receptors in fingers understand (and remember/recognise) where they are on the string thanks to the variation in thickness of the string itself from nut to bridge. Quite fascinating, almost unbelievable but since we have no frets nor any serious point of reference, it just works!
      
      LikeLiked by 1 person
    - 11
      
      hoakley on March 21, 2022 at 9:41 pm
      
      Thank you: that’s my point, he’s the only one. This isn’t a common phenomenon among those who are profoundly deaf.
      Howard.
      
      LikeLiked by 1 person
  - 12
    
    hoakley on March 21, 2022 at 8:05 pm
    
    Thank you.
    More data isn’t better unless the quality of the data is better, and even then it’s questionable if it’s non-contributory. Measuring ambient temperature every second in an environment where temperatures cycle slowly over 24 hours is a complete waste.
    We all have vibration sensation (although some patients with diabetes lose it relatively easily). We don’t hear through our vibration sensors, and they’re nowhere near as frequency-specific and accurate as the sensors in our ears. You’re correct that they’re most sensitive to lower frequencies, and that some profoundly deaf people can construct a substitute for some hearing sense from them. None of this is new, nor does it need any scientific revision.
    Blinding tests is one of the fundamental requirements for all psychophysics of this kind. If you deny blinded testing, then you can never have any scientific evidence on sensory phenomena like this.
    If you want to draw parallels with colour, then presumably you want all displays to emit both infra-red and ultra-violet, because we can sense those in other ways – infra-red as heat is fairly obvious.
    You’re welcome to 192 kHz audio if you want. Even bats start to struggle towards 200 kHz, so maybe the bats around you will find that better. Assuming that you have an audio output device capable of emitting such high frequencies, which are officially classed as ultrasound.
    Howard.
    
    LikeLike
    - 13
      
      Javier Gallardo on March 21, 2022 at 8:46 pm
      
      – Hearing is made in the mind as a perception. Perception is constructed with sensing. (Our mind can only perceive, it can’t sense).
      – “Blind test” is essential for a kind of investigation (perhaps the most general). And could be done with “the call from your mum” at blind different qualities. Cognitive training, accumulative knowledge of a sound simply has not been studied enough. I bet you’ll get better guesses with your favourite music, not blindly chosen. Doesn’t this deserve research?
      – 192kHz doesn’t apply to the aimed reproduced frequency. It’s important as denoting amplitude and number of samplings, how smaller “steps” can be. 44kHz at 16 bits seems to cover all audible spectrum with enough detail. But tested graphical data shows more detail is possible with higher frequency sampling. In music making/listening, high-pass & low pass filters are used, limiting sound even between known 20Hz-20kHz. (Detail is wanted, and in profesional production, 192kHz is preferred. No ultrasound interest). Forget bats.
      
      LikeLiked by 1 person
    - 14
      
      hoakley on March 21, 2022 at 9:51 pm
      
      Ah. You are confusing blinding of tests with randomisation of stimuli.
      Blinding a test means that the test subject isn’t aware of the type of each test. So, to compare audio A with audio B, you present a series of paired audio samples using A and B. They must be presented in randomised order, not all A first then B, and the test subject can’t know which is A and which is B, they have to work that out from listening to each. In the best testing, not only is the test subject blinded, but the observer who records their responses also doesn’t know which is A and which is B. This ensures that the judgements made by the test subject are purely made on the basis of their perception. You can do this with favourite music, or whatever test samples you wish. But if you fail to blind properly, then your results are trash.
      Are you aware of the Nyquist-Shannon Theorem and its implications for digital audio processing? If so, please explain how that justifies a requirement to process audio at 192 kHz, which is frankly ridiculous when you’re catering for a sensory system which is (literally!) deaf to anything above 20 kHz. The relevance of bats is that no human has ever been able to hear the ultrasound of bats, which is generally between 100-200 kHz, which you seem to feel necessary for processing audio for humans!
      Howard.
      
      LikeLike
15

BenSar on March 21, 2022 at 1:16 pm

Whilst higher frequencies can’t be heard directly, they do interact with overtones in the audible range and this affects the timbre (color) of the sound.

All this depends on the quality of the entire reproduction chain – this is the land of HiFi excess! mp4 doesn’t go there and Atmos and spatial extras complicate the sound field even more.

Welcome to the land of our very complex ears.

LikeLiked by 1 person
- 16
  
  hoakley on March 21, 2022 at 2:23 pm
  
  Thank you. Yes, you’re correct, but not about the use of 96 kHz.
  What I used to know as the Nyquist Theorem, now Nyquist-Shannon, sets the requirement for analogue to digital conversion at twice the maximum frequency. If we take the upper limit of human hearing at 20 kHz, that means sampling at 40 kHz for initial conversion to digital. It’s usual to provide a little headroom for that, which takes us to 44 or 48 kHz. To gild the lily, good sound engineering goes for 96 kHz, to be way over the top of what’s required.
  When you then perform digital to analogue conversion for audio output, that theorem doesn’t hold: so long as you faithfully reproduce the audio frequencies which can be heard, then the listener cannot tell the difference. There’s overwhelming psychophysical evidence to support that.
  So the settings a listener makes here are of essentially no consequence to what they can hear, whether they opt for 44, 48 or 96 kHz, their ears are only able to detect up to 20 kHz, or if they’re extremely lucky, for a few years of their life, maybe 22 or 24 kHz at a push. The common claims about timbre/colour are completely unfounded here. There’s overwhelming evidence that the only sensory organ they’re using to listen to the sound cuts out at about 20 kHz. Generating audio output at above that is biologically undetectable by a human. Bats and other species maybe, but not humans.
  Not only that, but if you measure output devices like headphones and speakers, they can’t output such high frequencies anyway, as they’re not designed to.
  As I say, if you want 96 kHz audio output, you’re welcome. But there’s not a shred of evidence that any human being can detect it.
  Howard.
  
  LikeLike
  - 17
    
    Javier Gallardo on March 21, 2022 at 6:27 pm
    
    I ignore in detail how DAC reads files, or if perhaps things have changed. But in old days, serious technical advice was given (by some device makers) about chosen resolution: one should be careful because using 48 or 96 kHz was the same for both kind of files, as reading/transformation is easy, but 44 (cd quality) “is no good” for mathematical upsampling to 48 or 96. Audio artifacts could appear.
    But that was some years ago… It must be different nowadays, as info is absent, due to becoming irrelevant, I must suppose…
    (Apple is strangely stingy telling about sound, despite being really good and sophisticated when implementing it in devices).
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
    - 18
      
      hoakley on March 21, 2022 at 7:55 pm
      
      Thank you, but you’ve mystified me. Why would you upsample to convert to analogue?
      Howard.
      
      LikeLike
    - 19
      
      Javier Gallardo on March 21, 2022 at 8:54 pm
      
      No, there’s a step in between: you read a cd file, 44kHz-You set your internal DAC to read at 48kHz-DAC converts its reading to analogue.
      Why does the choosing exist? Why do Apple take the effort to implement 44, 48, etc.? Well, fixed maximum could be enough, and not mystifier!
      
      LikeLiked by 1 person
    - 20
      
      hoakley on March 21, 2022 at 9:53 pm
      
      Why should you set a DAC to read 48 kHz for digital audio which is sampled at 44 kHz?
      Howard.
      
      LikeLike
  - 21
    
    Javier Gallardo on March 22, 2022 at 10:06 am
    
    There’s a big mistake here, about “sample rate”. As 20kHz is top, is was decided to SAMPLE the sound 44,100 times per second. But you can take 96,000 samples per second. See? It’s not infrared in paintings, it’s like pixel density. What does it have to do with upper & lower frequencies? Well, they appear, there’s room for describing more sound landscape, but that’s not the aim.
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
    - 22
      
      Javier Gallardo on March 22, 2022 at 4:26 pm
      
      …Oh, and sorry for my poor English:
      “Why would you upsample to convert to analogue?”. “Why should you set a DAC to read 48 kHz for digital audio which is sampled at 44 kHz?”
      That’s the thing: you should set the DAC (in the utility app) at 44, to AVOID UPSAMPLING, which is easy from 48 to 96, but inappropriate if going from 44 to 48. I was trying to explain that unwanted, not carefully chosen setting drives to problematic upsamplings.
      But here appears the basic problem with Audio MIDI…app: in old days, you could leave your setting at cd quality, default standard. But nowadays, we users use more varied quality sound files (common Apple Music…) There isn’t an automatic control of the setting based on file, and it’s a big inconvenience having to manually adjust it. Curiously, some third party music player apps can override this system utility and are able to adapt the setting automatically, as file metadata orders and prefers, to be properly interpreted.
      I think Apple is aware of this, because iOS implementation is totally perfect to the last detail, invisible and automatic, while MacOS is still behind, asking to go down the machine room for each file proper setting (looks like “steampunk” style, it’s out of time).
      
      LikeLiked by 1 person
23

Andrew Berry on March 21, 2022 at 1:23 pm

> According to Apple, Spatial Audio is supported by all M1 models, and iMac, MacBook Air and MacBook Pro models from 2018 onwards.

I think Apple Silicon is required: https://support.apple.com/en-ca/HT211775

At least, on my 2019 16″ MBP, I don’t get a mention of Atmos or Spacial Audio while listening to a promoted Spacial Audio track in Apple Music with either internal speakers or my AirPods Pro.

LikeLiked by 1 person
- 24
  
  hoakley on March 21, 2022 at 2:10 pm
  
  Thank you. Apple is completely confusing and contradictory on this, I’m afraid. That note is itself internally contradictory, as at the top it explicitly states that M1 Macs can use Spatial Audio through their internal speakers, then further down it only refers to them with a limited range of AirPods.
  Even worse, if you refer to the master list of Monterey features, Spatial Audio isn’t limited by model, except when used with FaceTime, in which case it’s only available “on Mac models (2020 or later) with the M1 chip using internal speakers, wired headphones, or AirPods, Intel‑based Mac notebooks (2018 or later) using internal speakers or wired headphones, and Intel‑based iMac (2018 or later) using wired headphones.”
  One thing is sure, Apple doesn’t know. And if Apple doesn’t, what hope have we?
  Howard.
  
  LikeLike
- 25
  
  Javier Gallardo on March 21, 2022 at 5:17 pm
  
  Yes, I thought the same: I can hear DolbyAtmos in my MacBookPro, it doesn’t show in menu bar. The problem is that we can listen to DolbyAtmos, and Spatial audio seems to be “another thing”, only used with devices that react to head movement or orientation.
  
  LikeLiked by 1 person
26

Javier Gallardo on March 21, 2022 at 5:33 pm

Keeping well inside the app (Audio MIDI Setup), there’re at least a couple of important things to tell the normal user
– You can assign system sounds to your preferred speakers, independently from general media sound. So, a useful and quite normal setting is to hear notifications and similar through mac speakers and deliver media sound to audio jack (or other audio way out). This is very special, as one could suppose the audio out jack simply delivers everything. (Quite useful if you’re conferencing with your earphones connected, e.g.)
– You can fiddle with your devices, mix them, make aggregated devices. So you can make sound go to speakers and earphones at same time, if you wish. Also, if you add other(s) sound way(s) out (through usb, e.g.) you can aggregate them, and you’ll have more options arranging speakers, as your mac knows you’re using 4 of them (e.g.)
These two things aren’t for pros, I think, and are usually ignored.

LikeLiked by 1 person
- 27
  
  hoakley on March 21, 2022 at 7:52 pm
  
  Thank you. A long time ago I wrote a tutorial along those lines. I discovered (a) how many different audio setups are in use, and (b) the great majority of users aren’t interested in aggregating devices or anything else, as they don’t have many audio devices. Indeed, almost everyone just uses their Mac’s internal speakers, or these days AirPods or similar. The real nightmare was the number of people who asked tech questions about all manner of specialist devices, which I couldn’t hope to answer. Unless you have a whole lab full of them, it’s well worth staying away.
  However, if you’d like to write a guest article or three, you’re very welcome. The pay is rubbish, but sometimes you get lovely compliments from readers.
  Howard.
  
  LikeLike
  - 28
    
    Javier Gallardo on March 21, 2022 at 9:32 pm
    
    Yes, its a huge and very specialised, almost inabarcable topic.
    It’s a pity no more force is made about wonderful mac abilities with sound. It’s a well known fact, but in the “sound world” only, as it seems.
    This “Audio MIDI setup” app is powerful and treacherously spartan looking! We even have ignored the MIDI part!
    My knowledge is limited, fractured and full of vacuums. I like your articles because you write exactly knowing what you describe (not going further if you don’t know, which is a big merit), and in an admirable pedagogic and entertaining way. “This thing” reaches easily Sound Engineering.
    (Your offer is quite flattering 🙂 I’m an eclectic that ignores more than half of everything; even English language).
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
    - 29
      
      hoakley on March 21, 2022 at 9:54 pm
      
      Thank you. I agree, but it’s so long since I last did serious audio. I’ve still got my Firewire audio hardware, but what good is that now!
      Howard.
      
      LikeLike
30

Adrian B on March 22, 2022 at 12:01 pm

What’s really weird for me is I’m getting no sound at all trying to stream content from the Apple TV app (either Atmos content from my library, or Apple TV+ content), but all other sound is working fine. This is on an M1 Max MBP. I originally thought spatial audio was only supported via AirPods, but after reading your article I thought I’d give it another try, and discovered this! (It worked at one point, this seems to be something that’s happened recently).

LikeLiked by 1 person
- 31
  
  hoakley on March 22, 2022 at 6:05 pm
  
  I’m sorry to hear that. I’m not sure what you could do next!
  Howard.
  
  LikeLike
  - 32
    
    Adrian B on March 23, 2022 at 10:42 am
    
    After a bit of fiddling around I’ve managed to get sound back, but still no spatial audio. I’ll keep fiddling 🙂
    
    LikeLiked by 2 people
33

Nick D. on March 22, 2022 at 3:36 pm

Thank you for this post–I had no idea that the ‘Audio midi’ app could do all this.
If I may try to offer a clarifying note, though, to add to the comments: I think it would be helpful to remember that we should not forget the difference between the frequency measurements used for the *pitch* of a sound (as in 20 kHz as a rough figure for the highest pitch humans can here, or 440 Hz as concert pitch A above middle C), and the frequency measurement (also in Hz of course) used as a measure of sample rate (for CDs, etc). These are two very, very different concepts. One we perceive directly and is a measure of a physical reality about air (and musical instruments) moving, the other is about something happening within electronic circuits, and can not be directly perceived by listeners. There is that relationship, as you say, to do with they origins of the original CD standard sampling rate, but the audiophiles who say that they can hear the difference between music at 44.1 kHz and 96 (or higher) are talking about sample rates, and not pitches. Sample rates are like resolution in images: there must be a limit to how much detail an individual’s ear (or hearing) can perceive, but I don’t see why a person’s maximum audible pitch limit (which varies with age, and from person to person) has anything to do with what that person’s highest audible “resolution” might be in an audio file (which will likely depend on things like “training”, the degree of attention that they are giving to the sound, and of course the quality of the sound signal chain from source to ears).

LikeLiked by 1 person
- 34
  
  Javier Gallardo on March 22, 2022 at 4:01 pm
  
  The trick of the devil in this thing is nature of sound: it happens in and during time, and also timing of vibration has its rule when registering. When sampling is made at higher number per second, too fast vibrations (ultrasonics) start to be taken in count, and written in file (if you wish).
  So there are two important things happening at same time when we take more samples per second: resolution, detail, is bigger, AND, non measurable frequencies start to appear in the registering. Hi-Res audio is designed to take profit of resolution, and ultrasonics are disdained or even suppressed.
  
  LikeLiked by 1 person
- 35
  
  hoakley on March 22, 2022 at 6:06 pm
  
  Thank you. No confusion here, but I see I need to write an article about the basics of digital audio.
  Howard.
  
  LikeLiked by 2 people
36

BenDar on March 23, 2022 at 11:48 pm

Please do – your clarity and balance would be very welcome in this turbid subject!

LikeLiked by 2 people
37

ChuckR on March 24, 2022 at 2:47 pm

Many of us use our Macs for Amateur Radio digital modes. Audio MIDI Setup permits use of an external sound card with our software for data transmission and reception, and prevents system sounds from going out over the air.

LikeLiked by 2 people
- 38
  
  hoakley on March 24, 2022 at 5:33 pm
  
  Thank you. Yes, I too am a ham (M1BWR), although I’ve never used digital modes. However, I have done a lot of live audio processing on my Macs over the years, to record, analyse and improve audio signals. I think that was the last time that I had a complex setup in Audio MIDI Setup.
  Howard.
  
  LikeLiked by 1 person