How do I connect six monitors to Studio Max?

If you're not worried about keeping any ports open on your Mac now, you don't need any of these hubs or docks.

Back to your likely setup:

• One USB-C to single-link DVI cable attached to each of your back-panel USB-C ports. Four cables total, to drive four monitors.
• One { HDMI monitor or DVI monitor + HDMI-to-DVI adapter } attached to your back-panel HDMI port.
• One DisplayLink-equipped hub/dock/adapter attached to one of your front-panel USB-C (USB) ports. One monitor attached to it, using an adapter, if necessary. This monitor will receive a second-class video signal, and its mere existence might cause DRM-infested programs to refuse to play DRMed video on any monitor. You would need a driver on your computer, and that would raise a possibility that future versions of macOS might break the driver.

The Sonnett DisplayLink adapter is $89.99 and the OWC one is $119.00.

Sonnett Technologies – DisplayLink Dual HDMI Adapter for M1/M2 Macs

Other World Computing – USB-C Dual HDMI 4K Display Adapter with DisplayLink

There are cheaper ones on Amazon – some of which use DisplayLink, others of which use competing technologies. For instance, here's one for $74.99 with two HDMI outputs (one limited to roughly single-link DVI resolution).

Amazon Marketplace – j5create USB-C to Dual HDMI Multi-Monitor Adapter with USB Type-A convertor | 4K + 2K |

Another that's $39.95 but that only has one video output, that tops out at 1920x1080 @ 60 Hz.

https://www.amazon.com/Plugable-Adapter-Universal-Graphics-Windows/dp/B09R45WGHY

You're not going to get a sixth hardware video output out of the Max version of the Studio.

Its GPU can push enough pixels to simultaneously drive four 6016 x 3384 pixel Pro Display XDRs, plus a 3840 x 2160 pixel HDMI monitor. That's 89,726,976 pixels – the equivalent of just over forty-three 1920x1080 monitors or ten Ultra HD 4K ones. But that doesn't mean that the hardware is set up to be able to drive any possible 89.7 million pixel or less setup.

You may be able to attach more monitors with the aid of something like DisplayLink, where you install a driver on the Mac which creates virtual screens, and sends compressed updates to those screens out to hubs or adapters equipped with DisplayLInk cecoder chip sets. But there's not the same refresh rate "guarantee" that you would get with real hardware video output. There may be other, DRM-related, drawbacks, too.

https://www.synaptics.com/products/displaylink-graphics

Something else that might work along similar lines is to connect one of your six 1920x1080 monitors to an Apple TV set-top box, using HDMI or a HDMI-to-DVI adapter. You could then do AirPlay from the Mac to the Apple TV set-top box. AirPlay is not as good as a direct hardware video output, so that monitor's refresh rate might not be as good as the others. (Also, unless the monitor was able to play sound from a HDMI input, like a TV set would, you wouldn't be able to use the Apple TV box + that one monitor alone as a small desktop streaming "TV".)

Apple TV 4K - Apple

Here are a couple of DisplayLink adapters that plug into a USB-C port and give you two "fake" HDMI outputs.

Sonnett Technologies – DisplayLink Dual HDMI Adapter for M1/M2 Macs

Other World Computing – USB-C Dual HDMI 4K Display Adapter with DisplayLink

Here are some hubs and docks that can pull a neat trick.

Other World Computing – Thunderbolt Docks

The ones whose descriptions say "Add 3 x Thunderbolt (USB-C) Ports" can plug into one of your Mac Studio's four Thunderbolt ports, and break a single Thunderbolt chain (of up to 6 devices) into three chains (which have up to 5 devices total; the dock itself counts as 1).

I browsed the manual of the "OWC Thunderbolt Hub" when trying to answer someone else's question, and it is my impression that it might let you hang two USB-C (DisplayPort) displays off a single Mac Thunderbolt port. My understanding is that Macs support Thunderbolt monitor daisy-chaining (up to two monitors with resolutions of 4K or less) but not USB-C (DisplayPort) daisy-chaining. So if my impression of what this hub does is correct, it is performing a neat trick. You could plug it into the Mac, plug two USB-C to DVI adapters into its downstream Thunderbolt ports, and still have that third downstream Thunderbolt port open for non-display peripherals.

Note that this would not increase the Mac Studio's limit of five first-class hardware displays. It would just make it easier for you to plug in four USB-C to DVI adapters (and a HDMI monitor) without occupying all the valuable USB-C (Thunderbolt) expansion ports on the Mac with said adapters.

As far as I know, none of the OWC hubs and docks with the "Add 3x Thunderbolt (USB-C) Ports" feature have DisplayLink built in. When their descriptions refer to "Dual display support up to 4K" those descriptions are referring to consuming two of the Mac's hardware video outputs, and making those available to downstream Thunderbolt or USB-C devices. Plugging one of those hubs or docks into a M1 / M2 MacBook Air (which only supports one hardware video output) would not let it drive a second display (whether "fake" or real).

KidVid wrote:

Im sorry for my cont. confusion but I think im getting very close to understanding and ordering. 

5 of my monitors only have DVI as an option.  Just one has HDMI as an option.  Naturally I will go out HDMI port on Studio to that HDMI monitor.

My question is now about the other 5 DVI cables to my 1920 monitors.  I don’t need sound.  Instead of 17.99 Amazon “display port” adapters, are you saying I could just find similar (non-display port) single link USB-C to DVI adapters for between $7-$10 and receive the same 1920 60 hz without to much performance drag?

Just about any of the regular USB-C to DVI adapters, and adapter cables, that you find on Amazon, are going to consume a first-class USB-C( DisplayPort ) video signal and use it to provide DVI output. The only place they're going to get that output is from one of your Studio's four back-panel USB-C ports – or a dock designed to pass the signal through. (Many USB-C docks consume the signal and offer it up in HDMI form.)

None of these adapters that are specified to work at the desired resolution and refresh rate (check that) will put much strain on the Mac Studio. None of the ones that are consuming hardware-accelerated video, that is.

If you're talking about some adapter, hub, or dock that uses DisplayLink or similar technologies to give you fake video outputs, the performance of any displays connected in that way may suffer.

6th monitor- I understand Im not going to find any USB-C to (2) DVI type adapters.

Do you think I can save the 249.99 (OWC) and somehow find something more affordable that has USB-C to 2 HDMI and maybe a few additional ports for future?  Then I can buy a separate HDMI to DVI to connect to my existing DVI cables to monitor?

As I tried to explain earlier, the $249.99 dock that has the "Add 3 x Thunderbolt (USB-C) Ports" ("OWC 11-port Thunderbolt Dock") will not give you extra first-class hardware video outputs. It also will not give you second-class DisplayLink-style video outputs. It will do nothing to increase the number of monitors that you can attach to the Mac Studio.

What it might do is to let you attach two USB-C (DisplayPort) adapters to it – using up two of the Mac Studio's first-class hardware display outputs, via the dock's Thunderbolt connection to the Studio. Using it would have the advantage of supplying / freeing up ports, NOT of enabling the connection of more displays.

You could get a 46" Ultra HD TV with 3840x2160 resolution, connect it via HDMI, and run it at full native resolution (no Retina scaling, such as you would use on a much smaller 3840x2160 monitor). Such a setup would provide the same workspace and text/object sizes as a 2x2 stack of 23" 1920x1080 monitors.

Then set two of your 1920x1080 monitors off to either side. (One stacked over the other? You must have a really, really big desk.) Total: 5 monitors as far as the Mac is concerned, though you now have as much screen space as if you had been using 8 of the old ones.

Caveats:

• You'll still be using a lot of ports to connect all of these monitors
• You'll need a big desk
• An Ultra HD TV might not be quite as sharp as a monitor designed for computer use
• This might not work for you if your applications are such that they demand separate 1920x1080 monitors rather than being able in windows in separate areas of the 46" monitor

Or take it further – connect two 46" Ultra HD TVs in this way, set them side by side, forget about hooking up any of the old 23" monitors, and be done with it.

KidVid wrote:

As a layman old school Apple user, I gather that the 6th fake screen that I have been currently running and look to run on this new system when it arrives should act how I have been used to on all my previous systems with a 6th screen.

You talked about using your screens with an "old cheese grader no prob."

I'm guessing that you had multiple video cards installed in that machine, and that combined, they gave you at least six hardware-accelerated video outputs. The hardware may have been on the cards, instead of the Mac's motherboard, but it still would have involved dedicated rasterizer/display-generators. E.g.,

Mac Pro (2019) - Technical Specifications

These had eight PCIe slots total, four of which supported two MPX bays. The MPX modules could support from four to eight 4K displays each.

Mac Pro (Mid 2012) - Technical Specifications

Mac Pro (Mid 2010) - Technical Specifications

These supported up to six displays (with the installation of two ATI Radeon HD 5770 graphics cards).

So you probably weren't running your sixth display as a "fake" display on your old systems.

The M2 Ultra Mac Studio and M2 Ultra Mac Pro support up to eight monitors – although with the Studio, that might assume that some monitors are daisy-chained Thunderbolt monitors with <= 4K resolution. (There are only 6 Thunderbolt 4 ports + 1 HDMI port on a M2 Ultra Studio. The Pro has 8 Thunderbolt 4 ports + 2 HDMI ports, enough for each of the eight monitors to have a port to itself.)

Mac Studio (2023) - Technical Specifications

Mac Pro (2023) - Technical Specifications

Note that the M2 Ultra Mac Pro does not support PCIe graphics cards or MPX modules.

PCIe cards you can install in your Mac Pro (2023) - Apple Support

DisplayLink technology creates a "fake" display buffer in RAM, sends the data out over a slower interface to a stunt box with DisplayLink custom chips that put that data back onto a "legacy" interface. It is not a true "accelerated" display, and it can suffer from lagging. Just adding the DisplayLink Driver is not adequate to get a picture -- you need a DisplayLink "stunt-box" or a Dock that includes DisplayLink chips.

————

It may be acceptable for a second display showing slow-to-change data such as computer program listings, stock quotes, or spreadsheets, but NOT for full motion Video, not for Video editing, and absolutely not for gaming. Mouse-tracking on that display can lag, and can make you feel queasy.

In a pinch, it may even play Internet videos (as one user put it) “without too many dropped frames".

The Apple standard for its built-in hardware-accelerated displays, makes them suitable for full-motion video for production/display of cinema-quality video with NO dropped frames, and NO dropouts or partial-blank scan lines due to memory under-runs or other issues. This requires a hardware rasterizer/display-generator for each fully-accelerated display.

If you are only doing program listing and stock quotes and other slow to change data, DisplayLink can work for you, but requires you to make some strong compromises.

--------

It is really nice to know that you can use a DisplayLink display if you MUST have an additional display for some of the types of data I mentioned. But that is NOT the same as the computer supporting a second, built-in, Hardware-accelerated display.

These displays depend on DisplayLink software, and are at the whim of Apple when they make MacOS changes. There have been cases where MacOS changes completely disabled DisplayLink software, and it took some time for them to recover.

--------

I think the Big Surprise for a lot of Hub/Dock buyers is that they thought they were getting a "real" display, but actually got a DisplayLink "fake" Display. If you got what you expected in every case, I would not use such pejorative terms to describe DisplayLink.

KidVid wrote:

Thank you for the Amazon link to those (U444-06N-DVI-AM) connectors.  They should provide the connection between my 6 monitors to this incoming Studio max. I believe they can be used for either TB or USB-c ports.  Im happy to see these adapters will give my 1080P monitors 60 Hz.

I would expect them to work with the Thunderbolt 4 ports on your Mac Studio because those ports are also USB-C (DisplayPort Alt Mode) ports, and those appear to be USB-C (DisplayPort Alt Mode) adapters.

As far as I know, the front-panel ports on the M1/M2 Max versions of the Studio do not carry DIsplayPort Alt Mode signals. My assumption would be that if you got 4 of these adapters (plugging one into each of your USB-C (USB, DisplayPort At Mode, Thunderbolt At Mode) rear-panel ports, and hooked up another monitor using the HDMI port, you could drive five screens. Any monitors plugged in via the front-panel USB-C ports would show no signal.

I was disappointed not to find any TB to DVI active disployPort adapters on the Sonnettech site or OWC links.  I only have one monitor that has the HDMI option.  

If you're not concerned about transmitting sound, it's trivial to go from HDMI to single-link DVI (or vice versa). There must be a million (slight exaggeration) such adapters and cables on Amazon, with many plug adapters costing about $7 and many adapter cables costing about $10. Just do a search there, and you'll see.

Presumably you could plug HDMI-to-DVI cables into the HDMI ports on either of those dual-HDMI DisplayLink products.

As for why you don't see DVI versions of those adapters – DVI is a legacy interface. It's been dying out in favor of (Mini) DisplayPort and HDMI for a long, long time. If you still want to use DVI gear in this day and age, it's up to you to seek out adapters. Yes, a few manufacturers still include DVI inputs on their monitors alongside the newer ones, but that practice is dying out, too. These days, if a monitor doesn't require Thunderbolt, the best mixture of monitor ports is USB-C (DisplayPort, USB, USB Power Delivery) + (Mini) DisplayPort + HDMI. For laptop owners, monitors that can act as single-cable docking stations have a certain appeal …

Would you agree to get that 6th monitor and free up some Studio Max ports I should flip a coin and decide between those (2) OWC 249.99 Thunderbolt Docks? 

Those OWC docks and hubs will not give you a sixth first-class hardware video output. Or "fake" video outputs either. As I explained before, I think they might allow you to hang two USB-C (DisplayPort) monitors or adapters off of one of your Mac's four Thunderbolt 4 ports. But that would consume two of your Mac's hardware video outputs.

The idea would be to leave Thunderbolt ports open in case you later wanted to attach a high-speed accessory such as a Thunderbolt 3 / PCIe NVME SSD whose enclosure might not support Thunderbolt daisy-chaining.

It might work for that (check with OWC). It would not give you a sixth monitor (if that's what you are thinking.)

You have been told several times that any display that you add via DisplayLink or similar adapters is not guaranteed to have the same performance as one connected to a real hardware-accelerated video output.

As for the possibility of a new version of macOS breaking your “extra” display, that could happen with a DisplayLink adapter like one of the three I mentioned. Any DisplayLink solution depends on installing software on the computer as well as having a DisplayLink decoder chip set in an external box. If the external box is in the shape of a single or dual HDMI adapter, that does not spare it from the same potential for macOS upgrades breaking the necessary software that would also exist with a DisplayLink-enabled hub.

Use a sixth monitor with the aid of DisplayLink, or not, but don’t expect us to bless this as being the equivalent of staying within the five monitor limit one way (e.g., with five of your current monitors) or another (e.g., by using fewer, larger monitors with higher individual resolution).

it’s your choice, but the outcome is also your responsibility.

KidVid wrote:

I have not seen any TB to DVI adapters. There are plenty of USB-C to DVI ones.

I think they are the same thing. In other words, I think those more common USB-C to DVI will also double as TB to DVI adapters.

I don't think so. I think they're sometimes advertised as "Thunderbolt-compatible" because any Thunderbolt 3 or 4 port, by definition, has a USB-C connector … and because all Thunderbolt 3 and 4 host ports on Macs also have USB-C (DisplayPort) output.

Implementing both USB-C (DisplayPort) and USB-C (Thunderbolt-encapsulated DisplayPort) would likely make them more expensive, while not making a visible difference for monitors with resolutions of Ultra HD 4K or less.

The best one I see on eBay is made by Tripp Lite.

You can paste (u444-06n-dvibam) and it comes up

Its going to cost $38.95 (times) 6

You can find a lot of cheaper adapters on Amazon and Amazon Marketplace, including this one:

https://www.amazon.com/Tripp-Lite-Thunderbolt-Compatible-U444-06N-DVI-AM/dp/B0145NTKBC

My guess is no matter how much I juggle ports, adapters and cables-- only 5 monitors will come on.

Is that your guess also?

Any hub sugestions?

I think I will want an "active" hub

Unless the hub has DisplayLink or something like that built in, it's not going to give you any extra video outputs. And with DisplayLink or something like that, they will be "fake" video outputs.

I'm not sure what you mean by an "active" hub. Are you referring to whether a hub or a dock has its own power supply source, or leeches off power from the computer?

<< By using a hub w display link to enable a monitor #6, would the risk of compromise be only with that monitor?  The only current concern would be potential lag in that particular monitor? >>

yes, essentially correct.

Rasterizer/DisplayGenerator hardware automates the detailed fetching of screen data from memory, so no lag on those that are inherently supported. There will be some lag and reduced frame rates on un-accelerated displays, but you may be able to deal with that just fine.

Without hardware acceleration, drawing of complex 3D or shaded or textured objects on those display might be slowed, but if you know there is no acceleration there, just don't use that un-accelerated display for those purposes.

Also, mousing around on that display can cause the mouse to be shown slightly late. The disconnect between moving the mouse and seeing the results can induce nausea in susceptible people.

<< using Activity Monitor to check for any stress.  >>

Refreshing displays is not stressful, because it is done by a hardware automaton. Fetching a screenful of data every 1/60th second (16 milliseconds per screenful, with a typical 12,000 bytes pre screen for a 4K display, or 1.39 microseconds per byte, per display) is way too fast for the processor to do 'by hand'. The fetching of data for each hardware-accelerated display is done by a rasterizer/display-generator automaton. There is one of these hardware automatons pre screen. The processor intervenes only once per screenful, to set it up again for the next refresh.

Additional displays that you implement with DisplayLink software, set up a "fake" display in memory. Sending screenfuls of data out to the stunt-box to be painted on the last screen is not especially stressful either. What will break first is the refresh-rate on that "fake" display.

KidVid wrote:

The monitor I am using as my 6th could “break” because its having to refresh so many times.

I'm not expecting the monitor to burn out. By "break" I mean if the driver proves to be incompatible with future versions of macOS, you won't be getting a picture on that monitor. You will be the mercy of whomever supplies the driver (probably Synaptics) to fix the issue on their timetable, and until they do, you will only have the use of the monitors attached to real hardware video outputs.

I won't completely rule out the possibility that a computer could destroy a monitor by driving it in the wrong way, but if memory serves me, that was a danger for CRT monitors. They operate in a different way than LCD ones do and the way that they fried themselves would not apply to LCD monitors.

https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/6614/can-the-wrong-sync-frequency-really-destroy-a-crt-monitor

The Apple standard for its built-in hardware-accelerated displays, makes them suitable for full-motion video for production/display of cinema-quality video with NO dropped frames, and NO dropouts or partial-blank scan lines due to memory under-runs or other issues.

This requires a hardware rasterizer/display-generator for each fully-accelerated display. 

If you are only doing program listing or stock quotes and other slow to change data, there are some other solutions that can work for you,  but requires you to make some strong compromises. These will NOT support full-motion video.