Author: Matt Johnson

I’m a Windows guy who has always built his own PC desktops. But this tiny $600 M4 Mac Mini is making me question everything I know about budget video editing.

I bought this Mac Mini with my own money. Apple didn’t send it to me. And after buying an M4 MacBook Air earlier in 2025 and being genuinely blown away by it, I really wanted to see how the Mac Mini would perform with the same chip but now with an actual fan.

What Specs Did I Get?

I put together a full Mac Mini buyer’s guide that breaks down the best bang-for-your-buck option, and spoiler: it’s the base model you can pick up for around $600. That’s the sweet spot. Same M4 chip, same 16GB of unified memory.

For my own setup, I spent a little more. I added $200 for a 512GB SSD (up from 256GB) and another $100 for a 10-gigabit ethernet port so I could connect my NAS. But performance-wise, this machine operates at the same speed as the base $600 model. Same chip, same RAM.

Size and Ports

The M4 Mac Mini is downright tiny. I’m used to a mid-ATX tower case. My first desktop was a full-size tower that weighed around 80 pounds and I carried it back and forth to my apartment in college. The fact that the Mac Mini fits in your hand and outperforms a large desktop is still kind of wild to me.

But the small size comes with a tradeoff: the port situation is minimal. My PC has around 8 USB-A ports, USB-C, plus multiple DisplayPort and HDMI connections from my Nvidia 3080. The Mac Mini? You get 3 Thunderbolt ports on the back, 2 USB-C on the front, and one HDMI port. That’s it.

I run a lot of external hard drives. I’ve had up to 3 monitors going at once. I love ports. So yes, this was a noticeable adjustment.

Sleep, Startup, and macOS

One thing that surprised me coming from PC: the Mac Mini’s sleep and wake behavior is fantastic. With my Windows desktops, I always had to do a full shutdown every night because sleep and hibernation were unreliable. Blue screens, unresponsive computers, you name it. And turning it back on meant waiting anywhere from 30 seconds to a couple of minutes.

The Mac Mini just works. It sips power in sleep, wakes up instantly, and I rarely ever have to fully shut it down. It’s a genuinely great quality-of-life improvement.

I’m still learning macOS. Some things work better than I expected, others are still a bit confusing coming from Windows. I still don’t love the backspace behavior or cut-and-paste workflow, but I’m getting there.

Video Editing Performance: Timeline and Playback

If you read my M4 MacBook Air long-term video editing review, you know that laptop completely blew my mind. Things loaded fast, the timeline scrubbed effortlessly, and it handled 4K and 6K footage without breaking a sweat.

I expected the Mac Mini to be a noticeably bigger step up because of the fan. But honestly, the timeline performance is essentially the same. Fast load times, buttery scrubbing, multiple effects applied with no issues. The M4 chip with 16GB of unified memory handles 4K and 6K editing so well that I struggle to think of a typical video editor who would need the M4 Pro version, let alone a Mac Studio.

The Fan: Quieter Than You’d Expect

The MacBook Air is completely fanless, which was already shocking coming from Dell and Asus laptops that sounded like jet engines. My custom PC has six fans and creates a constant background white noise in my room.

The Mac Mini has one fan. And I consistently find myself wondering if it’s even spinning. It runs at around 1,000 RPM most of the time, including during video renders. You can put your ear right next to it and hear almost nothing. It’s remarkable.

Export and Render Speed: Mac Mini vs. MacBook Air

This is where I expected to see a big difference, and honestly, it’s more minimal than I thought.

If you want to go deeper, I’ve also got A Video Editor’s Review of The Zotac Magnus Mini PC (vs Mac Mini).

In DaVinci Resolve, both the Mac Mini and the MacBook Air took almost exactly the same time to export a 10-minute video with a mix of 4K and 6K clips: around 4 minutes and 8 seconds each.

In Premiere Pro, there was a small gap. The MacBook Air took 11 minutes and 50 seconds. The Mac Mini took 11 minutes and 9 seconds. A 41-second difference on an 11-minute export.

Interestingly, even during that Premiere Pro export, the fan stayed at its baseline 1,000 RPM. I even used a fan control app to manually ramp up the fan speed to see if it would help. It didn’t. Same render time either way. The computer just wasn’t getting hot enough to need more cooling.

Bottom line: if you’re expecting the Mac Mini to be a massive leap over the MacBook Air for rendering, the gap is smaller than you’d think. The MacBook Air is that good. And the Mac Mini is essentially half the price of the Air as long as you already have a monitor and keyboard.

So, Is It the Best Budget Video Editing Computer?

Yes, in my opinion, it absolutely is. As a lifelong Windows PC builder, I can say clearly: nothing on the Windows side comes close to this performance at this price. For a long time, Windows was the go-to for budget video editing. That’s no longer the case.

You will not get this kind of editing speed from a Windows machine at $600. It’s not even close right now.

That said, am I ditching my PC? Nope. I still love PC gaming, and my desktop is still extremely fast. I’ll keep using both, just like I switch between DaVinci Resolve and Premiere Pro depending on the project.

Want to Get Better at Video Editing?

If you’re using a Mac Mini or any other computer for video editing and want to level up your skills, check out my free Edit Videos Like a Pro guide. It covers some of the biggest pro tips I’ve learned over years of editing, and it won’t cost you a thing.

The Sigma 200mm F2 is impractical. I love it!

Let me put it a different way: all these camera and lens companies have made all of the standard lenses at this point. We have all seen a 24-70 or 70-200, and most of these lenses are on their 5th or 6th generation. But me? I love a weird lens. Give me a zoom with only 18mm of focal range. Give me a prime with a crazy aperture.

Give me this lens. The Sigma 200mm F2.

The marriage of an ultra-tight focal length with a crazy shallow depth of field. This lens has one purpose: to give you a stupid amount of bokeh. And I am here for it.

I’m reviewing this lens from the perspective of a freelance, commercial, and wedding filmmaker. I’ll tell you what situations I think it works really well for, because while a lens like this is typically associated with sports photography, I think there are plenty of other uses, especially in the world of filmmaking.

Quick note on transparency: this video is not paid or sponsored by Sigma, but they did loan me the lens so I could make this review, and I’ll be sending it back to them soon.

Build Quality and Features

Take the Sigma 200mm F2 out of the box, and the first thing you’ll notice is that for such a tight lens, this thing is pretty wide. It has quite the circumference at the front, and that isn’t super surprising. For a lens to hit this focal length while letting in this much light, it is going to need a lot of glass, and Sigma has definitely delivered.

What Sigma has also given it is incredible build quality. I’ve used a decent amount of Sigma lenses over the past few years, and this one feels like one of the best lenses they’ve ever made. Everything about it screams premium.

It’s definitely large, but none of that size has gone to waste. You get a ton of functionality packed in: three programmable buttons spaced around the lens, a very smooth focus ring, an aperture ring that can be made clickless, and honestly, a lot of switches. Here’s what they all do:

• AF/MF switch for autofocus and manual focus. And let me just say, the autofocus is fast and responsive, even considering how much glass it’s moving. It had no problem locking onto anything I pointed it at.
• Focus distance switch to set whether the lens can focus closer or only on objects in the distance.
• Optical stabilization switch, because yes, this lens has built-in stabilization that works with your camera’s in-body image stabilization. A lot of companies have gotten away from including stabilization in their lenses lately, and I’m glad to see it here.
• Stabilization mode switch with mode 1 for stationary shots (like on a monopod) and mode 2 for panning shots. If you’re using this lens for video, I recommend leaving it on mode 2.

The bottom of the lens also has a larger tripod mount that makes it easier to hold, and it’s compatible with Arca-Swiss plates, which is a nice touch.

One thing to keep in mind on the front of the lens: because of the large diameter, any filters you use will need to be 105mm, so keep that in mind if you’re shopping for an ND filter for this lens. It also comes with a very large hood, which helps cut back on reflections from all that glass up front. In my testing though, reflections weren’t an issue in any of the footage I filmed.

Teleconverter Compatibility

Since this is a fixed 200mm prime with no zoom, you might be wondering about teleconverter compatibility. Good news: if you buy the L-mount version, Sigma says it will work with their 1.4x and 2x teleconverters, turning it into either a 280mm F2.8 or a 400mm F4. Essentially, you could get three lenses in one.

Focus Breathing

Focus breathing on this lens is interesting. It’s noticeable if you look for it, and there’s more of it than on many newer lenses. But here’s the thing: the depth of field is so shallow that the bokeh actually covers up a lot of the focus breathing, making it a non-issue in practice. And honestly, how often are you doing a full rack focus on a 200mm lens compared to, say, a 35mm? Not very often.

Image Quality

Like pretty much every modern Sigma lens I’ve used, this lens is incredibly sharp. The bokeh is pleasing even stopped down, and once you open it all the way to F2, the separation from the background is just ridiculous. Whatever you want in focus will be ultra sharp, and everything else will melt away into nothingness.

And that is exactly the reason you would buy a lens like this. Is it specialized? Yes. Is it large? Yes. Does it have the versatility to get a wide variety of shots in different scenarios? No. And that’s OK. Buy a 70-200mm if you want versatility. That’s not what the Sigma 200mm F2 is about.

This lens is about giving you the most ridiculous, bokeh-filled shots you’ve ever taken. It won’t be the only lens in your bag, but when you need it, you’re going to be really glad you have it.

While you’re here, take a look at ULTIMATE Wedding Ceremony Lens – Sigma 60-600 Lens Review.

Who Is This Lens For?

Obviously this lens is going to be right at home for sports and wildlife photography. If you’re filming football games, basketball courts, or you’re out in the woods trying to get the perfect shot of a Roseate Spoonbill (yes, that’s a real bird, look it up), you already know you’re going to love this lens.

But what about filmmakers outside of those categories? Here’s where it gets interesting:

Wedding filmmakers: imagine you’re filming a ceremony and need a long focal length to reach the front, but the venue has an incredibly distracting background. Why did they put the ceremony in front of the parking lot? I don’t know, but what I do know is this lens can blur anything behind your subject into oblivion, giving you a much cleaner and more beautiful image. If you’re looking for tips on filming ceremonies and receptions, check out my post on how to film a wedding reception.

Concert filmmakers: you’ve got an extra stop of light with an F2 lens over an F2.8, meaning your subject is properly exposed in challenging lighting situations.

Portrait and couple filmmakers: portraits, head-and-shoulders shots, a couple staring into each other’s eyes, the background is going to look like butter. Film a person on a street or in a crowd and everything else will disappear around them.

Now, I hear you: “Matt, I have an 85mm, I can do the same thing!” But can you? An 85mm is still a specialized lens, but it’s dramatically more versatile than a 200mm, and the compression and background rendering between these two focal lengths look very different. If you want to learn more about what makes a great filmmaking lens, I also reviewed the Sony 50mm F1.2 GM and the Sony 100mm F2.8 GM Macro, both of which are worth checking out.

Should You Buy It?

Here’s my recommendation: rent it first.

If you already have the basics covered, a 24-70, a 70-200, etc., and you want something more specialized, spend $100 or $200 to rent this lens for a week and see how the photos and videos you take with it make you feel. It may be too niche for you, or you may absolutely fall in love with it and bring it to every job you have from here on out.

If you’re looking to improve all aspects of your filmmaking and editing, check out my Edit Videos Like a Pro guide for everything you need to take your work to the next level.

I’ve been using this Dell Precision Workstation laptop that I reviewed in 2024, and this Apple M4 MacBook Air that I reviewed in 2025. And with a $6,800 price difference between them, I thought it was finally time to compare them head to head when it comes to the kind of work I do every single day: video editing.

We’re going to look at speed, reliability, and battery life, and I want to help you see how one of the best PC workstation laptops you can buy stacks up against one of Apple’s most affordable, entry-level laptops. The results genuinely surprised me.

And before we dive in, if you edit videos and want to get better at it fast, grab my free Edit Videos Like a Pro guide here. It’s packed with tips that I think you’re going to find really helpful.

The Price Breakdown

You might be wondering: how does a Dell laptop cost $8,000? Just like Apple, Dell is relatively affordable to get your foot in the door, and I say relatively because even the entry point for a Precision Workstation is several thousand dollars. This particular laptop uses a workstation-grade 16GB NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Series GPU, which is more expensive than a consumer gaming card, and it’s also configured with an 8TB internal SSD, which Dell (and Apple) both love to charge a premium for.

On the Mac side, the $1,200 MacBook Air I’m using is not the absolute base model. I put a lot of research into which MacBook Air is the best bang for your buck specifically for video editing, and the $1,200 configuration is the one I keep recommending. (I have a full buyer’s guide on that if you want more detail.)

Specs: David vs. Goliath

The Dell is loaded. It has an Intel i9-13900H with 13 cores and 20 threads, an RTX 5000 Ada Nvidia GPU, and 64GB of RAM. The SSD is 8TB. This was essentially the highest-tier laptop configuration that Dell offered in 2024.

The MacBook Air, by comparison, has a base M4 chip (not the Pro or Max), a 10-core CPU, a 10-core GPU, a 512GB SSD, and just 16GB of unified memory. On paper, this really does look like a David vs. Goliath situation. A thick, powerful PC workstation against a thin, fanless little laptop.

But here’s where things get interesting.

One Important Ground Rule for This Comparison

Before we get into the tests, there’s something you need to know about Windows laptops: they run significantly slower on battery power than when plugged in. Even with all performance settings cranked to max. This is not a Dell-specific issue, it’s a Windows issue, and it’s still frankly shocking to see in this day and age.

With a MacBook, you don’t have to think about this. Unplug it, edit 4K video, export a project, and it performs the same as if it were plugged in. Because of this, all MacBook results in this comparison assume battery power, while the Dell gets two results for most tests: plugged in, and on battery.

Startup Speed

Starting from a complete cold boot, the MacBook came to the login screen in 12.9 seconds. The Dell took 20.6 seconds plugged in and 20.9 seconds on battery. Interestingly, the Dell’s battery vs. plugged-in difference was almost nothing here. It’s a noticeable gap compared to the Mac, but not a dealbreaker.

As a side note on sleep: the MacBook wakes up in under half a second, just like a smartphone. The Dell wakes in about 3 seconds either way, which is fine, but the broader issue is that I’ve never fully trusted putting Windows laptops to sleep. There’s always a chance it doesn’t go to sleep properly, and I’ve arrived at destinations with a completely dead battery or a bag full of hot air because the laptop decided to wake itself up and run full-tilt in my backpack. The Mac? I close the lid and don’t think about it.

SSD Speed

Using the Blackmagic Disk Speed Test, the Dell pushed about 5,400 MB/s read and write when plugged in, compared to the MacBook’s roughly 3,000 MB/s read and 3,400 MB/s write. A meaningful gap.

But on battery, the Dell dropped down to around 4,300 MB/s read and 4,700 MB/s write, a 15 to 20% performance loss. Still faster than the Mac overall, but getting closer. And if you’re copying from an SD card rather than the internal SSD, both laptops perform similarly since neither SSD is being maxed out anyway.

Video Editing Performance (Premiere Pro)

The MacBook opened Premiere Pro in about 3.7 seconds. The Dell took 8 seconds plugged in, and nearly 16 seconds on battery. That battery difference on the PC side is wild.

On the timeline, editing a mix of 4K 60fps and 6K 60fps footage, the MacBook Air was incredibly smooth. It scrubbed through footage like it was nothing, no lag, no hesitation. And remember, this is the base-level, cheapest MacBook Apple makes, running entirely on battery power.

The Dell, when plugged in, was actually very close to the MacBook. It handled the footage well and didn’t struggle. But on battery, it was noticeably slower. It almost felt like the laptop was reluctant to spin up the fans to keep pace, even in high performance mode. Once it warmed up and the fans got going, it improved, but it still fell below the MacBook’s battery performance. That’s something to keep in mind if you frequently edit away from an outlet.

Export Speed

This is where things got both expected and genuinely surprising. I set up the exact same 10-minute DaVinci Resolve project on both machines, same bitrate, same resolution, same hardware encoding settings.

The Dell finished the export in 3 minutes and 40 seconds plugged in. The MacBook took 4 minutes and 9 seconds, 29 seconds slower. The Mac has no fan, so it has to thermally throttle itself during long exports. Not surprising.

But here’s the surprising part: once I unplugged the Dell, that same export ballooned to 5 minutes and 48 seconds. The MacBook? Still exactly 4 minutes and 9 seconds, every time, because its hardware encoders don’t care whether it’s plugged in or not.

Let that sink in. The $1,200 MacBook Air on battery actually exports video faster than the $8,000 Dell workstation on battery. That’s not a knock on the Dell, it’s just the reality of how Windows handles performance when unplugged. If you’re always plugged in, the Dell wins. If you’re ever away from an outlet, the story flips completely.

Fan Noise

Open Chrome on the Dell: fans spin. Open Premiere Pro: fans spin faster. Start an export: it sounds like the laptop is about to take off. It’s not the loudest PC I’ve ever owned (I had an Asus gaming laptop in the mid-2000s that legitimately sounded like it was about to levitate), but it is constant.

The MacBook Air has no fan. Zero. Even during a full video export, it’s completely silent. The gap between these two is, genuinely, infinite.

Battery Life

I’ll tell you a quick story. Back in 2019, I was editing in the car while my wife drove us across Texas. No charger, about a four-hour drive. Three hours in, the laptop hit 20% and I had to stop editing. That’s the PC laptop experience for video editors.

With the MacBook Air, I was on a long international flight editing 4K footage in DaVinci Resolve for hours. When I checked the battery, it had only dropped 12%. The same type of workflow that killed my PC battery in three hours barely made a dent on the MacBook.

For most of my editing career up until 2025, traveling with a laptop meant constantly searching for a power outlet. The MacBook changed that completely. It’s the first time I’ve felt genuinely free to edit wherever I am.

For more on how the MacBook Air holds up long-term, check out my M4 MacBook Air 6-Month Long-Term Review and my MacBook buyer’s guide for video editors.

The Verdict

Yes, the Dell is a year older than the MacBook. And yes, if you’re always plugged in and sitting at a desk, the Dell wins on raw export speed and SSD throughput. But once you unplug it, the story changes dramatically in almost every category. Slower editing, slower exports, shorter battery life, constant fan noise.

The MacBook Air costs $6,800 less, is nearly silent, runs identically on battery as it does plugged in, and honestly unlocked a new level of productivity for me as a video editor. When it’s time to travel, I’m grabbing the MacBook every single time.

I’m still interested in PC laptops, I love that you can tinker with them and upgrade the RAM or SSD, and I’ll keep reviewing them. But right now, for portable video editing, the MacBook Air at $1,200 is just an absurdly good deal.

And if you haven’t yet, don’t forget to grab my free Edit Videos Like a Pro guide. It’s completely free and I think you’ll find the tips inside it really helpful no matter what you’re editing on.

I’ve been editing with a 5K Ultra Wide monitor for a little over a year now, and it has been a fantastic experience. I love the resolution, I love the screen real estate for my timelines, but there’s been one limitation I kept running into, and it all comes down to my camera: the Panasonic S1II.

This camera films in 6K resolution, and I’ve had no way of viewing that footage natively on any monitor I owned. None of them were high enough resolution, so I always had to let the monitor downscale to display it. And while going from 5K to 6K might not sound like a huge leap, that’s actually 75% more pixels this camera can record than my Ultra Wide could show. A pretty gosh darn big difference.

That is, until now. Enter the ASUS ProArt PA32QCV, a 6K monitor that feels purpose-built for video editors. It’s incredibly color accurate, covers a very wide color space, and I’ve been using it to edit my own work. Today I’m reviewing it from the perspective of a video editor who also does some gaming on the side, and I’m going to tell you whether you should buy it.

For the sake of ethics: this review is not sponsored by ASUS and I haven’t been paid by them, but they did send me this monitor so I could make this review.

Also, if you want to level up your video editing while you’re here, go grab my free Edit Videos Like a Pro guide. It’s completely free and packed with some of the best techniques I’ve learned over the years.

Unboxing and Physical Design

Like all monitors, this one comes in a big box inside another big box. The unboxing process is smooth, which is always appreciated when dealing with large equipment.

Once you get it out, you immediately notice just how big this thing is. ASUS calls it 32 inches in the product name (hence the PA32), but the fine print says it’s actually 31.5 inches. Honestly, not a huge deal. This monitor is still massive, they can round up if they want to.

The front has minimal bezel except for a strip along the bottom, and here’s something I genuinely love: buttons on the front of the monitor. Yes, actual physical buttons you can see and press without guessing. Companies have been moving away from this for years in the name of aesthetics, replacing them with buttons on the bottom or the back. And while that looks cleaner, it’s a nightmare in practice. You end up running your fingers along the back of a $1,000+ monitor, blindly pressing things, hoping something works. Some monitors even have joysticks. Joysticks on a monitor!

ASUS said forget aesthetics, here are the buttons you need, plus a little nipple joystick to make things even easier. Every monitor company should do this. Somebody start a petition, I’ll sign it.

The stand is also excellent. You can easily adjust the height and rotate the monitor vertically. You know, in case you want to edit an Instagram Reel in 6K. Some of you just cringed reading that, which is very funny.

Ports and Connectivity

On the back you get: one HDMI 2.1, one DisplayPort 1.4, four USB-C ports (one Thunderbolt 4 at 96W for charging and display input, one 15W USB-C for charging or daisy-chaining, one general USB-C), two USB-A ports, and a headphone jack.

That sounds like a lot, and it is, but here’s my one gripe: there’s only one HDMI and one DisplayPort. For a monitor at $1,300, that’s a bit surprising. My old $300 Dell has two HDMI inputs. If you’re running multiple computers on your desk like I am (a custom Windows PC, a Mac mini, and a MacBook Air), you may find yourself wishing for an extra HDMI. Just something to be aware of going in.

Image Quality: 6K Up Close Is Something Else

Here’s the thing about 6K TVs: they don’t really exist. Manufacturers skipped from 4K straight to 8K. And even if they did exist, you’d be sitting so far away from a TV that you’d never appreciate the extra resolution. But when you’re sitting a few feet from a 6K monitor at your editing desk? You can absolutely tell. This screen has over double the pixels of a 4K display, and it shows.

This thing looks phenomenal. And honestly, are you surprised? The ProArt line has been ASUS’s flagship brand for filmmakers and photographers for years. Color accuracy is exceptional right out of the box, it comes factory calibrated with documentation to prove it.

I still calibrated it myself using my Spyder X2 Ultra, and the screen looked nearly identical before and after. Gamma was at 2.31 initially and settled at 2.22 post-calibration, extremely close to the 2.20 target. The Spyder software confirmed 100% sRGB and 97% P3 coverage. ASUS claims 98%, so that’s about as close as you’re realistically going to get.

In short: this is a very color accurate panel that you can trust for color correction and color grading. If you want to speed up your grading workflow once you’ve got a reliable monitor like this, check out my LUTs as a starting point, and I’ve also got a full tutorial on how to use LUTs to color grade your footage in Premiere Pro.

One note: this is still an IPS panel, so contrast isn’t going to match an OLED. It’s not even an IPS Black variant. But to my eye it still looks very good, and I wouldn’t let contrast be a dealbreaker here. The more important IPS advantage is the 178 degree viewing angle. Even if this is your secondary monitor sitting off to the side, colors won’t shift or wash out unless you’re extremely far off center. That matters a lot when you’re trusting a monitor for color work.

If you want a monitor that handles OLED-level contrast and color accuracy, I also reviewed the Dell U3226Q, which actually calibrates itself. Worth a look if that’s more your speed. And if you’re on a tighter budget, I reviewed the BenQ VideoVue PV3200U, a solid 4K editing monitor around $650 to $800.

Scaling and Pixel Density

At 216 pixels per inch, this display is essentially a Retina display in Apple’s terms. Individual pixels are not distinguishable. But there’s a quirk to be aware of: at native 6K resolution with no scaling applied, everything on your operating system, buttons, menus, text, is going to be extremely tiny. Like, squinting-and-getting-close tiny.

The good news is that both Windows and macOS handle this well. I tested with both, and on Windows, scaling to 200% looks great. On Mac, the default 2x scaling shows the system UI at 3K resolution while playing back video natively in 6K, which is exactly what you want as a video editor. It just works.

The 60Hz Limitation (and Why It Matters for Gaming, Not Editing)

Here’s where things get interesting. This monitor runs at 60Hz. That’s the same as the Apple Pro Display XDR, which makes sense given the resolution demands. But the Pro Display XDR costs five to six times more, so it’s really only going to be purchased by dedicated professionals who aren’t thinking about gaming on it. The ASUS at $1,300 sits in a zone where editors who also game might be tempted by it.

For reference, my 5K Ultra Wide is also 120Hz, and it’s an absolute unicorn because it handles both video editing and gaming beautifully. This ASUS won’t give you that.

That said, for video editing, 60Hz is not a dealbreaker at all. Most of the time you’re editing footage at 24 or 30 FPS, and even high frame rate footage gets slowed down in post. The refresh rate just isn’t a factor in that context.

For gaming, though, if you’re coming from a 120Hz panel, motion will feel like a noticeable downgrade. And for what it’s worth, I’d also recommend not gaming at native 6K. Even the most powerful GPUs are going to struggle. Drop it to 4K or 2.5K and you’ll be much happier.

(This is also why DisplayPort 1.4 is sufficient here. At 60Hz, it can handle 6K without issue. You don’t need DisplayPort 2.1 unless you’re pushing higher refresh rates at this resolution.)

Extra Features Worth Mentioning

ASUS threw in some genuinely useful extras with this monitor:

M Model-P3 Mode is designed to match the colors of this display to your MacBook screen for a consistent look across devices. If you’re frequently moving between your laptop and your desk setup, that’s a real convenience.

DisplayWidget Center is a software app that lets you control all monitor settings from your mouse rather than pressing the physical buttons. Gamma, color temperature, brightness, contrast, saturation, it’s all there. I know I raved about the physical buttons, and I still love that they exist, but for precise adjustments this app is excellent. I’d love to see more monitor companies offer something like this.

Auto KVM lets you connect a keyboard and mouse dongle to the monitor itself and switch control between computers based on which display input you’re using. If you’re running a Mac and a PC at the same desk without smart peripherals, this is a fantastic feature. I personally use Logitech mice and keyboards with their built-in multi-device switching, so I don’t rely on this, but if your setup doesn’t have that, the KVM switch alone is very useful.

LuxPixel anti-glare coating works really well. There are lights behind me when I edit, and this screen handles reflections better than almost any monitor I’ve used. If you’re editing in a brighter room, this is a genuine advantage.

How Does It Compare to the Apple Pro Display XDR?

Both displays run at 6016 x 3384, the same 16:9 aspect ratio and resolution. The key differences:

The Pro Display XDR hits 1,600 nits of peak HDR brightness. The ASUS hits 600 nits. That’s a significant gap if HDR grading is a core part of your workflow. The Pro Display XDR also gets to 100% DCI-P3, while the ASUS lands at 98% (and I measured 97% in my test). In terms of color accuracy for standard dynamic range work? They’re honestly quite close.

Here’s a thought: if you already have a Pro Display XDR and want a secondary monitor that matches its resolution without another $5,000+ investment, this ASUS is a compelling answer. You could buy four of these, stand included, for the price of one Pro Display XDR (before even factoring in Apple’s $1,000 stand). Use the Pro Display XDR for HDR grading, and use the ASUS as your timeline monitor. That’s actually a really solid dual-monitor setup.

Should You Buy It?

If you need a 6K monitor that can play back your 6K footage natively, and you want exceptional color accuracy for color grading, you are going to love this monitor. There really aren’t many 6K displays out there, and none of them feel as purpose-built for video editing as this one does at this price.

If you need both top-tier editing performance and a high-refresh-rate gaming experience from a single monitor, look at the 5K Ultra Wide I reviewed previously (5K at 120Hz is still wild to me). But if editing is your primary focus, or if 60FPS gaming is fine with you, the ASUS ProArt PA32QCV is a stellar monitor that’s going to feel current for a long time.

At $1,300, it isn’t cheap. But considering what 6K resolution, this level of color accuracy, and all the extra features typically cost, ASUS has done something impressive here. And hey, maybe it’ll help push 4K and 5K monitor prices down a little for the rest of us. We can hope.

If you want to make the most of a great monitor like this with an equally dialed-in editing workflow, grab my free Edit Videos Like a Pro guide. It’s completely free and covers some of the best techniques I’ve picked up over the years.

The Hollyland Lark Max 2 sets a new standard for wireless microphones with features I have never seen in any other wireless mic before. Features that I actually think you will use and love. And the Lark A1 gives you a ton of great features at one of the most affordable price points I have ever seen for a wireless microphone system.

In this review, I am going to break down both of these mics and tell you exactly what makes them such game changers in the world of audio recording. And just so you know, all of the audio throughout the companion YouTube video was recorded using these two microphones, so you can judge the quality for yourself as you watch.

Note: This review was done in partnership with Hollyland. As always, all opinions are my own.

Lark Max 2: The Flagship Features You Need To Know About

Let’s start with the essentials. The Lark Max 2 is Hollyland’s flagship wireless microphone system, and it comes packed with the specs you would expect at this level:

• 32-bit float internal recording with 8GB of onboard storage (10 hours of recording time)
• Three levels of AI noise cancellation
• 11 hours of transmitter battery life, 12 hours of receiver battery life
• 54 total hours of battery life with the charging case
• 1,115 feet of wireless range
• Timecode support

And the transmitters are incredibly lightweight. You and your subjects will barely notice they are wearing them.

Full Chain 32-Bit Float Audio Recording (This Is HUGE)

Now here is where things get really interesting. Hollyland is doing something with this microphone system that, as far as I am aware, no other company has done before, and it is called Full Chain 32-Bit Float Audio Recording.

Let me explain why this matters. 32-bit float audio recording is incredible because it gives you a massive amount of control over your audio in post. You can recover peaked audio, bring up quiet levels without introducing noise, and basically have a safety net that protects you from audio disasters. I absolutely love it.

But here is the problem that has existed up until now: if you wanted 32-bit float audio from a wireless mic system, you could only get it recorded internally to the transmitter. There was no way to wirelessly transmit that signal to your recording device. So if you wanted the higher quality 32-bit float file, you had to plug the transmitter into your computer after the shoot, copy the file, and then sync it up manually with the 24-bit audio you recorded wirelessly. It was a real pain.

Full Chain 32-Bit Float changes all of that. With this system, the transmitter not only saves the 32-bit float audio internally as a backup, it also wirelessly transmits that 32-bit float signal to your receiver, which then saves it directly to your device. No syncing. No workarounds. Just pristine 32-bit float audio recorded right alongside your video.

I tested this with my iPhone using the Blackmagic Camera app, and it worked flawlessly. I connected the receiver via USB-C, set the audio quality to IEEE float, and recorded as normal. When I brought that audio into my editing software, it was recognized as 32-bit float and I could adjust levels freely, just like any other 32-bit float file. It is honestly a little crazy that this actually works this well.

Now, there is one important limitation to know: Full Chain 32-Bit Float is currently only compatible with smartphones and computers (like a MacBook or PC). It does not work with cameras yet, which makes sense given that virtually no camera manufacturers other than Panasonic even support 32-bit float recording internally. If I had one wish for this system, it would be for Hollyland to work with Panasonic to enable this via their DMW-XLR2 adapter. That would be extremely cool.

But even as it stands, if you are recording Instagram Reels, YouTube content, or anything with your phone where you need to guarantee high-quality audio, this microphone just unlocked a completely new way of recording wireless audio.

The Wireless Monitoring Solution You Did Not Know You Needed

Here is another major pain point that Hollyland solved in a really clever way.

Monitoring your audio while recording is important. It gives you peace of mind that everything sounds good and there are no transmission issues. The traditional way to do this is to plug wired headphones into the receiver’s headphone output. But let’s be honest, when was the last time you used wired headphones?

A lot of filmmakers have been asking wireless mic companies to add smartphone app monitoring via Bluetooth. But that solution has been flaky, laggy, and generally not ideal in practice.

So what did Hollyland do? They built a pair of wireless earbuds right into the system. When you put them in your ears, they instantly and automatically connect to the receiver so you can hear exactly what is being recorded, in real time, with no setup required.

And they use a 2.4 GHz wireless signal by default, not Bluetooth. That gives you a 100-meter monitoring range, meaning you do not have to be glued to your camera. You can be quite a ways away and still confirm your audio sounds perfect. (They do also have a Bluetooth mode if you want to use them as regular wireless earbuds, which is a nice bonus.)

Want to know what makes this even better for wedding filmmakers? If you are working with a second shooter, you can each wear one earbud and both monitor the audio simultaneously. And because the earbuds are open-ear, you can still hear everything around you while you film. It is such a smart solution, and I honestly cannot believe it took this long for someone to build this.

Four Transmitters, Hot Shoe Support, and a Lav Mic Option

A few more features worth highlighting:

One receiver, four transmitters. Most wireless mic systems cap you at two transmitters per receiver. The Lark Max 2 lets you connect up to four. For wedding filmmakers, this is a big deal. Imagine miking up four people right before a toast session. Instead of scrambling to mic each one individually at the last minute, you can have all four ready to go and recording high-quality 32-bit float audio to each transmitter as a backup. Really reassuring for those high-stakes moments.

Sony Hot Shoe Adapter. Hollyland worked closely with Sony to make it possible to connect the Lark Max 2 directly through the hot shoe of your Sony camera, no separate 3.5mm cable required. It reduces cable clutter and makes setup faster.

Lav mic support via USB-C. There is no 3.5mm mic jack on the transmitter, but you can use a USB-C to 3.5mm adapter to connect a lav mic. This keeps the transmitter super compact when you do not need a lav, but gives you the option when you do. I personally prefer using a lav because of my beard, since I can tuck it further under my shirt and avoid any scratching noise. Either way, the flexibility here is really great.

Timecode Support

Yes, the Lark Max 2 supports timecode. It is audio-based timecode, meaning it will take up an audio channel on your camera. Hollyland gives you options: you can send a timecode signal via the 3.5mm mic jack on top of the receiver, or via the USB-C port. When you combine the USB-C option with Hollyland’s Sony hot shoe adapter, you can run a timecode signal directly into your Sony camera’s right audio channel without a separate cable, while still recording clean audio on the left channel.

I tested it with Deity TC-1 and Atomos Ultrasync devices. Getting it to work required using the hot shoe adapter and temporarily setting the Lark Max 2 to Mode 3 (which sends timecode on both channels) to jam sync, then switching back to normal audio recording mode. It works, it is just a bit of a process. I still dream of a day when all camera and timecode device manufacturers agree on one universal wireless standard, but audio timecode at least works everywhere.

If you want to go deeper, I’ve also got Wedding Filmmaking: DJI Mic 2 Vs Rode Wireless Pro.

AI Noise Cancellation That Is Actually Good

Anytime a company slaps “AI” on a feature, I am naturally skeptical. But the Lark Max 2’s noise cancellation genuinely impressed me.

Hollyland trained an AI model to mimic human hearing, essentially teaching it to separate the sound of a voice from background noise. What makes this implementation unique is what they call stepless noise cancellation. Instead of choosing from a few preset levels (low, medium, high), you can dial in anywhere from 1 to 25 dB of noise reduction. That level of precision is fantastic, and it pairs incredibly well with the wireless earbuds so you can hear exactly what effect you are dialing in as you adjust.

In my testing:

• Around level 5: Noticeably cleans up background sounds without any processed sound. Great for most situations.
• Around level 13: Strong reduction, still sounds clean and natural.
• Level 25: Definitely has a processed quality, but if you are in a truly loud environment and need clean dialogue, it is still very usable.

This is easily some of the best noise cancellation I have heard from a wireless microphone system. If you record in any kind of challenging audio environment, you are going to appreciate having this level of control.

Hollyland Lark A1: Budget-Friendly and Surprisingly Capable

Now let’s talk about the other microphone in this lineup, the Lark A1. This one is primarily designed as a smartphone wireless mic, meaning you plug the receiver into your phone and record audio wirelessly. But the features packed into this thing at its price point are genuinely shocking.

The transmitters are absurdly small. Like, smaller than anything I have seen before. And they weigh only 8 grams, so your clients will forget they are even wearing one.

Here is what you get with the Lark A1:

• 24-bit audio recording (not 32-bit float, but totally understandable at this price)
• Auto Clip Prevention: constantly analyzes volume levels and automatically lowers the recording gain if audio is about to peak. Tested this and it works really well.
• AI noise cancellation with three levels (light, medium, strong)
• 9 hours of transmitter battery life
• 54 total hours with the charging case
• 656 feet of transmission range
• Available in black and white

That last point is one I feel strongly about. I have lost count of the number of times I needed to put a mic on someone wearing a white shirt or a wedding dress and had to hide a black transmitter under their clothing. Having a white option makes a real difference. Every microphone company should offer this.

The noise cancellation on the A1 is similar in character to the Lark Max 2, just with fewer granular controls. In my testing, the light setting works beautifully for most situations, and I would save the medium and strong settings for really loud environments where you absolutely need clean dialogue and cannot move to a quieter spot.

You can also control the A1 via the Larksound app (same app as the Lark Max 2), which lets you adjust gain levels wirelessly. And like the Lark Max 2, you can charge your phone while the receiver is plugged in. Convenient.

Oh, and the starting price? $50. That is not a typo.

Which One Should You Buy?

If you can afford it, the Lark Max 2 is a no-brainer. The Full Chain 32-Bit Float audio recording alone is unlike anything else on the market, and when you combine it with the wireless earbuds for monitoring, the Sony hot shoe support, four-transmitter capability, and the best noise cancellation I have tested from a wireless mic, it is genuinely revolutionary. Especially if you are doing a lot of phone-based recording for social content.

But if budget is a concern, the Lark A1 at $50 is an absolute steal. You still get AI noise cancellation, Auto Clip Prevention to protect your audio, a compact and lightweight design, and solid sound quality. It is the Lark Max 2’s little sibling and it wears that title proudly.

If you want to level up your overall audio game on set, I also recommend checking out my full post on how I record audio for wedding films where I go deep on every recorder, mic, and cable in my kit. And if you want to sharpen your editing skills so your audio sounds as good in post as it does on set, check out my Edit Videos Like a Pro guide.

And if you are into the Panasonic ecosystem and want an incredible on-camera mic option, check out my review of the Panasonic DMW-DMS1, which also features 32-bit float recording.