Basically, a lot of people here don't seem to have a clue. The reason all those speaker/receive companies are consolidating is because people are tired of their really crappy sound no matter how much you pay for them. Why? Because the speaker and receiver part alone is not the issue. It's putting them in a particular environment that's unsuited for them, and not being able to adapt to the music or listener location that's the issue.
Apple is offering an adaptive to room, music, etc, minimum setup speaker.
None of those bozos producing traditional speakers or sound systems have the processing chops to do anything about this; they're as doomed long term as the traditional watch makers.
This post is a lot of nonsense. Seriously, what are you talking about?
Maybe learn English or stop posting then.
The room acoustics and ambient sound, setup and placement is crucial to the sound you get..
The number of people who buy speakers/sound systems and then put them in their room and it sucks ass and they are not satisfied is beyond measure.
That's why the whole industry is slowly being decimated and consolidated; people prefer portable sounds to the actual sounds these systems produce.
The only place where those systems still make some sense is in home theater installations were the shear number of speakers overwhelms whatever deficiency there is and high fidelity is less important.
That you ding someone for not speaking English well and then make a grammatical mistake in your first sentence is hilarious. Honestly, better etiquette would do wonders for getting your points across.
Anyway, part of what you are saying is true: Yes, acoustics and speaker placement can make a big difference in the quality of sound reproduction.
But to blame that for why people are turning away from better audio components is completely off-base. The real reason is that many people look at the price of what they're buying and the functionality that comes with that purchase and go for cheap(er) and easy. The majority of people have decided that portable solutions using Bluetooth and/or music streaming services that play lossy (AAC, Ogg Vorbis, etc.) files are good enough. For them, the balance of quality and price is fine. To be honest, some of these wireless/portable systems can actually sound decent, even if they can't really compete with what you can get from a system built to produce high fidelity.
There is still a place in our modern lives for better quality systems in the living room or wherever people listen to music, some of which don't actually cost an arm and a leg (although most do, which is the real reason why the industry is suffering -- there aren't enough people willing to pay several hundred or thousands of dollars to get better sound). But for many, many people, that is a secondary consideration to convenience and cost. And that is real reason why the audio industry is suffering.
There is a common mistake in conversations about trends in the quality of consumer audio. People want to compare the the current sound from iPhones, iPods, mp3s played through various earbuds to high-end home audio from days of yore, with the tube amps, and the boutique vinyl pressings, and the magnaplaner speakers, etc., and lament that trends in consumer audio are going down the tubes. The opposite is actually true. If the high-end audio business is suffering, it's because the low-end gear is vastly improved. Coming up through the decades, most home audio consumers were listening through handheld transistor am radios, cardboard box turntables with record stackers and two-inch speakers, 8-track tapes, cassette tapes, mass produced vinyl gobbed up with dust and fingerprints, off-brand walkmans, boom boxes, and stereo component racks from K-mart.
Compared to all that, the sound you get from streaming Apple Music on an iPhone through some stock earbuds or via Bluetooth and a beer-can speaker is orders of magnitude better. So is audio from a TV sound bar, coming from an AppleTV box. For a while in the 80s, people with component systems could get a graphic EQ with a white noise generator to try to manually compensate for speaker and room deficiencies. This fall, you'll be able to get a HomePod that does all that not just for EQ, but for room acoustics. The truth is, that thing playing Apple Music files will likely produce sound that's orders of magnitude better than even decent, moderately priced home component systems from back in the day. Yes, current audiophile stuff is still going to be better, but the average consumer probably isn't going to feel the need to make the investment, when they can spend less and get HomePod audio networked throughout the house.
You make some good points. One thing I would add to your list of reasons people think music sound quality is deteriorating -- more and more compression of recordings/loudness. That is something that no playback equipment can overcome if the original recording is less than great.
I guess I look at it as a situation in which Apple could do a lot to further improve reproduction quality to further build on the advancements you mention. I have a middling system quality-wise at home, but at work and in traffic I listen to my iPhone and a pair of B&W cans. I think the sound quality is very good and better than what I got years back. But I can really tell most times when I'm listening to a file in AAC or Ogg Vorbis as opposed to ALAC or CD-quality (or better) file. It's often a question of getting just a bit more bloom and less harshness instead of it being a question of whether the music is listenable or not. And that's the extra bit of quality that I think Apple and other companies could strive for given today's technology and one that I think many could appreciate without changing their gear.
I'm really interested in hearing what the HomePod is going to do, especially in stereo/sets of two. It might even make me believe that AAC is an acceptable baseline...
One thing that may also contribute to the perception that "music sound quality is deteriorating" is what I'd call "audio fatigue" or desensitization. Many current forms of audio-visual media, e.g., network news on television, just about all current television shows, and movies (to a greater extent than ever before) that used to be predominantly visual with human dialog and speech providing most if not all of the audio track. Now these shows have not-so-subtle background music and audio overtones overlaid on top of the human speech. It's like producers of this audio-visual media feel compelled to turn everything into a poor quality music video. The net result is a whole lot more audio distraction with disjointed combinations of music and speech (not music + lyrics) competing for your attention. The constant presence of "music noise" added for effect and just to grab your attention may result in a desensitization of your overall audio perception, reduced appreciation, and diminished emotional response to music presented purely for music's sake. To add insult to injury, hearing music that you truly love used as part of a tasteless television commercial takes things down another notch. That may not be as bad as hearing one of your favorite tunes turned into muzak elevator music, but it's definitely on the path to elevator music hell and at some level "damages" your audio perception.
Let me predict this. In a few months Samsung release their first smart speaker called SamPod which look exactly like HomePod and with similar but watered down technology, just a month before Apple release their HomePod. And you know what is going to happen then when eventually Apple release theirs? The internet is exploding with "Apple copy Samsung again!" everywhere. Fact be damn.
If you look at the recent history of speakers, you'll find it doesn't start with Apple. There have been wireless speakers for years, including some from Samsung itself and its subsidiaries. Then there are smart speakers - started by Amazon, followed by Google. Microsoft announced it was putting Cortana into speakers from HP and HK (owned by Samsung), which will come out in the fall. Then, after all of that, Apple made its announcement and now finally Samsung under its own brand. No one is copying Apple. No one is copying Samsung.
Except Apple is not really doing a "wireless speaker" considering it got a A8... So, that's kind of a non sicatur, in fact Apple is probably opening a whole new market segment in audio equipment.
If Samsung puts a big chip in their speakers they'll be copying Apple.
As I said, there were wireless speakers then there were smart speakers. The homepod is a smart speaker. What does the homepod do that the ones from Amazon, Google, and MS not do?
I've already said it in 3 posts, Apple's main differentiating factor is NOT SIRI,. But adjusting acoustics to room, how room reacts to music and even user placement.
So, NO THEY ARE NOT OFFERING THE SAME THING. Good grief. It's like people have actually missed the whole homepod announcement.
We'll know soon enough if people are buying the homepod because it adjusts to the room it's placed in or because of some other reason, like Siri, security, ecosystem, speaker quality. My guess is that you're reading too much into something quite minor
Who knows. Samsung did buy Harman so they could have a Harman or JBL speaker for their smartspeaker.
The companies Samsung acquired in the process were JBL, Harman Kardon, Mark Levinson, AKG, Lexicon, Infinity, and Revel. Plus they have access to licenses from Bowers & Wilkins and Bang & Olufsen. Those are big names in the sound industry, with more experience than Apple + Beats. I see no reason for Samsung to release a speaker with better sound quality than the competition, including Apple.
I see no reason for you to be posting here, troll.
No reason for you to be calling anyone names either. At least he posted info many of us weren't aware of. I know I wasn't aware how many audio companies Samsung had snatched up and am quite surprised at some of the names.
He posted info that many of you could've learned on the internet, without the need for his Samsung cheer-leading on an Apple forum. But if you're offended I can give you a hug.
What? Look at the title of the piece! It's about Samsung. On an Apple forum. The only connection is that it might compete with an Apple product that isn't even shipping!
Be reasonable. 'Go away troll'? How did you reach that conclusion? And how did you figure out he was a Samsung cheerleader?
And what if he was (which, on the basis of what he wrote, isn't even the case)?
Why can't he (or anyone) cheerlead Samsung if the piece is about Samsung?
Should we only worship Apple and not talk about the bad parts?
It's an Apple forum that caters to everyone, not only people that adore the company and its products.
Be patient, respectful and argue your point. If you just label and insult people you lose credibility.
Who knows. Samsung did buy Harman so they could have a Harman or JBL speaker for their smartspeaker.
My point is that if you’re an iOS user, you’re not buying a GalaxyPod (what else would these clowns name it?). If you are then you’re a terrible consumer. It’s like buying an Android watch to use with your iPhone...you’re getting a fraction of the functionality without full integration.
We have 2 iPhones and 3 Android phones at home, so what should we do? It is an illusion to assume all members of a family have all Andriod or all iOS devices. A home speaker system is shared by all members of a famliy and should integrate with both eco systems. If not, its appeal will be not be that high.
This sort of thing is puzzling to me. Why would you buy essentially incompatible devices and then expect the manufacturers of those competing devices to make them compatible later? If you want speakers that will work with all those phones, you can buy any Bluetooth-compliant speaker on the market right now. If you want a "smart" speaker device that's integrated into either the Android or Apple ecosystems, you're going to have to make a choice on which one to get and which phones to keep or replace. That type of system integration is part of the choice you make when you buy the phones. This is particularly true with Apple devices. Their entire business model is built around making their stuff work well together but not adding unnecessary complications and variables by trying to be all things to all people. That's the engineering explanation for where the whole 'it just works' ethos comes from. If that is dissatisfying to you, then you keep the three android phones and let loose of the two iPhones. I hear they just released a new Galaxy phone yesterday.
Let me predict this. In a few months Samsung release their first smart speaker called SamPod which look exactly like HomePod and with similar but watered down technology, just a month before Apple release their HomePod. And you know what is going to happen then when eventually Apple release theirs? The internet is exploding with "Apple copy Samsung again!" everywhere. Fact be damn.
If you look at the recent history of speakers, you'll find it doesn't start with Apple. There have been wireless speakers for years, including some from Samsung itself and its subsidiaries. Then there are smart speakers - started by Amazon, followed by Google. Microsoft announced it was putting Cortana into speakers from HP and HK (owned by Samsung), which will come out in the fall. Then, after all of that, Apple made its announcement and now finally Samsung under its own brand. No one is copying Apple. No one is copying Samsung.
Except that Samsung only turn their focus to home speaker after Apple's announced their HomePod? Oh right, they wouldn't do that following Amazon because it's not Apple.
Basically, a lot of people here don't seem to have a clue. The reason all those speaker/receive companies are consolidating is because people are tired of their really crappy sound no matter how much you pay for them. Why? Because the speaker and receiver part alone is not the issue. It's putting them in a particular environment that's unsuited for them, and not being able to adapt to the music or listener location that's the issue.
Apple is offering an adaptive to room, music, etc, minimum setup speaker.
None of those bozos producing traditional speakers or sound systems have the processing chops to do anything about this; they're as doomed long term as the traditional watch makers.
This post is a lot of nonsense. Seriously, what are you talking about?
Maybe learn English or stop posting then.
The room acoustics and ambient sound, setup and placement is crucial to the sound you get..
The number of people who buy speakers/sound systems and then put them in their room and it sucks ass and they are not satisfied is beyond measure.
That's why the whole industry is slowly being decimated and consolidated; people prefer portable sounds to the actual sounds these systems produce.
The only place where those systems still make some sense is in home theater installations were the shear number of speakers overwhelms whatever deficiency there is and high fidelity is less important.
That you ding someone for not speaking English well and then make a grammatical mistake in your first sentence is hilarious. Honestly, better etiquette would do wonders for getting your points across.
Anyway, part of what you are saying is true: Yes, acoustics and speaker placement can make a big difference in the quality of sound reproduction.
But to blame that for why people are turning away from better audio components is completely off-base. The real reason is that many people look at the price of what they're buying and the functionality that comes with that purchase and go for cheap(er) and easy. The majority of people have decided that portable solutions using Bluetooth and/or music streaming services that play lossy (AAC, Ogg Vorbis, etc.) files are good enough. For them, the balance of quality and price is fine. To be honest, some of these wireless/portable systems can actually sound decent, even if they can't really compete with what you can get from a system built to produce high fidelity.
There is still a place in our modern lives for better quality systems in the living room or wherever people listen to music, some of which don't actually cost an arm and a leg (although most do, which is the real reason why the industry is suffering -- there aren't enough people willing to pay several hundred or thousands of dollars to get better sound). But for many, many people, that is a secondary consideration to convenience and cost. And that is real reason why the audio industry is suffering.
There is a common mistake in conversations about trends in the quality of consumer audio. People want to compare the the current sound from iPhones, iPods, mp3s played through various earbuds to high-end home audio from days of yore, with the tube amps, and the boutique vinyl pressings, and the magnaplaner speakers, etc., and lament that trends in consumer audio are going down the tubes. The opposite is actually true. If the high-end audio business is suffering, it's because the low-end gear is vastly improved. Coming up through the decades, most home audio consumers were listening through handheld transistor am radios, cardboard box turntables with record stackers and two-inch speakers, 8-track tapes, cassette tapes, mass produced vinyl gobbed up with dust and fingerprints, off-brand walkmans, boom boxes, and stereo component racks from K-mart.
Compared to all that, the sound you get from streaming Apple Music on an iPhone through some stock earbuds or via Bluetooth and a beer-can speaker is orders of magnitude better. So is audio from a TV sound bar, coming from an AppleTV box. For a while in the 80s, people with component systems could get a graphic EQ with a white noise generator to try to manually compensate for speaker and room deficiencies. This fall, you'll be able to get a HomePod that does all that not just for EQ, but for room acoustics. The truth is, that thing playing Apple Music files will likely produce sound that's orders of magnitude better than even decent, moderately priced home component systems from back in the day. Yes, current audiophile stuff is still going to be better, but the average consumer probably isn't going to feel the need to make the investment, when they can spend less and get HomePod audio networked throughout the house.
You make some good points. One thing I would add to your list of reasons people think music sound quality is deteriorating -- more and more compression of recordings/loudness. That is something that no playback equipment can overcome if the original recording is less than great.
I guess I look at it as a situation in which Apple could do a lot to further improve reproduction quality to further build on the advancements you mention. I have a middling system quality-wise at home, but at work and in traffic I listen to my iPhone and a pair of B&W cans. I think the sound quality is very good and better than what I got years back. But I can really tell most times when I'm listening to a file in AAC or Ogg Vorbis as opposed to ALAC or CD-quality (or better) file. It's often a question of getting just a bit more bloom and less harshness instead of it being a question of whether the music is listenable or not. And that's the extra bit of quality that I think Apple and other companies could strive for given today's technology and one that I think many could appreciate without changing their gear.
I'm really interested in hearing what the HomePod is going to do, especially in stereo/sets of two. It might even make me believe that AAC is an acceptable baseline...
I think ever-increasing bandwidth will make it possible for high-bitrate, lossless music to be a thing. The shift to a lot more streaming audio also maybe means that such upgrades will, for once, not require the re-purchase of the same recordings yet one more time. I think that's probably been one of the main reasons various super high-fidelity audio formats always seem to flounder. It's a niche market, and you have to buy all your old records again just to get it. Pressing it onto physical media makes the economics of it fairly dismal, as even enthusiasts have their limits for how many of the things they'll go out and buy at a premium. I'd also sort of like it if Surround mixes become more readily available and streamable through the Apple TV. I already watch films with surround sound, but that great new Sgt. Pepper's surround mix still requires firing up the old Blu-Ray player. If Apple made hi res and multi-channel mixes available, they could charge an extra buck or two to Apple music subscribers who want access, and start work with the labels to roll out a lot of titles in those formats. It would still be a niche, but it could be a sustainable niche.
As for the whole 'brick wall' compressed audio thing, that's a matter of taste, and the industry has been chasing it for a while. At this point, the playback technology really doesn't have much to do with it, other than the fact that portability means you have more people listening in environments with a lot of background noise that has to be overcome. Consumers don't like quiet passages in their earbuds while riding the subway or working out at the gym, so the music producers accommodate.
Let me predict this. In a few months Samsung release their first smart speaker called SamPod which look exactly like HomePod and with similar but watered down technology, just a month before Apple release their HomePod. And you know what is going to happen then when eventually Apple release theirs? The internet is exploding with "Apple copy Samsung again!" everywhere. Fact be damn.
If you look at the recent history of speakers, you'll find it doesn't start with Apple. There have been wireless speakers for years, including some from Samsung itself and its subsidiaries. Then there are smart speakers - started by Amazon, followed by Google. Microsoft announced it was putting Cortana into speakers from HP and HK (owned by Samsung), which will come out in the fall. Then, after all of that, Apple made its announcement and now finally Samsung under its own brand. No one is copying Apple. No one is copying Samsung.
Except that Samsung only turn their focus to home speaker after Apple's announced their HomePod? Oh right, they wouldn't do that following Amazon because it's not Apple.
Crap man, are you so far under Apples wing you have no clue what’s going on beyond Apple?
Definitely not a Samsung supporter in any way, but they’ve been making home speakers of all different sorts for years. I mean, everything from cheap crap that cost $50 to high end stuff. Plus things that are already closely related to what Apple is coming out with.
This is isn’t just something out of the blue for Samsung. They have made this stuff for far longer than Apple has owned Beats.
Who knows. Samsung did buy Harman so they could have a Harman or JBL speaker for their smartspeaker.
My point is that if you’re an iOS user, you’re not buying a GalaxyPod (what else would these clowns name it?). If you are then you’re a terrible consumer. It’s like buying an Android watch to use with your iPhone...you’re getting a fraction of the functionality without full integration.
We have 2 iPhones and 3 Android phones at home, so what should we do? It is an illusion to assume all members of a family have all Andriod or all iOS devices. A home speaker system is shared by all members of a famliy and should integrate with both eco systems. If not, its appeal will be not be that high.
This sort of thing is puzzling to me. Why would you buy essentially incompatible devices and then expect the manufacturers of those competing devices to make them compatible later? If you want speakers that will work with all those phones, you can buy any Bluetooth-compliant speaker on the market right now. If you want a "smart" speaker device that's integrated into either the Android or Apple ecosystems, you're going to have to make a choice on which one to get and which phones to keep or replace. That type of system integration is part of the choice you make when you buy the phones. This is particularly true with Apple devices. Their entire business model is built around making their stuff work well together but not adding unnecessary complications and variables by trying to be all things to all people. That's the engineering explanation for where the whole 'it just works' ethos comes from. If that is dissatisfying to you, then you keep the three android phones and let loose of the two iPhones. I hear they just released a new Galaxy phone yesterday.
Because with all the others you don’t have to worry about what phone OS you have. They work with everything. Apple is the only one that works with Apple.
Let me predict this. In a few months Samsung release their first smart speaker called SamPod which look exactly like HomePod and with similar but watered down technology, just a month before Apple release their HomePod. And you know what is going to happen then when eventually Apple release theirs? The internet is exploding with "Apple copy Samsung again!" everywhere. Fact be damn.
If you look at the recent history of speakers, you'll find it doesn't start with Apple. There have been wireless speakers for years, including some from Samsung itself and its subsidiaries. Then there are smart speakers - started by Amazon, followed by Google. Microsoft announced it was putting Cortana into speakers from HP and HK (owned by Samsung), which will come out in the fall. Then, after all of that, Apple made its announcement and now finally Samsung under its own brand. No one is copying Apple. No one is copying Samsung.
Except that Samsung only turn their focus to home speaker after Apple's announced their HomePod? Oh right, they wouldn't do that following Amazon because it's not Apple.
Crap man, are you so far under Apples wing you have no clue what’s going on beyond Apple?
Definitely not a Samsung supporter in any way, but they’ve been making home speakers of all different sorts for years. I mean, everything from cheap crap that cost $50 to high end stuff. Plus things that are already closely related to what Apple is coming out with.
This is isn’t just something out of the blue for Samsung. They have made this stuff for far longer than Apple has owned Beats.
I am not talking about normal home speakers as you should be aware of. Or you didn't.
Who knows. Samsung did buy Harman so they could have a Harman or JBL speaker for their smartspeaker.
My point is that if you’re an iOS user, you’re not buying a GalaxyPod (what else would these clowns name it?). If you are then you’re a terrible consumer. It’s like buying an Android watch to use with your iPhone...you’re getting a fraction of the functionality without full integration.
We have 2 iPhones and 3 Android phones at home, so what should we do? It is an illusion to assume all members of a family have all Andriod or all iOS devices. A home speaker system is shared by all members of a famliy and should integrate with both eco systems. If not, its appeal will be not be that high.
This sort of thing is puzzling to me. Why would you buy essentially incompatible devices and then expect the manufacturers of those competing devices to make them compatible later? If you want speakers that will work with all those phones, you can buy any Bluetooth-compliant speaker on the market right now. If you want a "smart" speaker device that's integrated into either the Android or Apple ecosystems, you're going to have to make a choice on which one to get and which phones to keep or replace. That type of system integration is part of the choice you make when you buy the phones. This is particularly true with Apple devices. Their entire business model is built around making their stuff work well together but not adding unnecessary complications and variables by trying to be all things to all people. That's the engineering explanation for where the whole 'it just works' ethos comes from. If that is dissatisfying to you, then you keep the three android phones and let loose of the two iPhones. I hear they just released a new Galaxy phone yesterday.
Because with all the others you don’t have to worry about what phone OS you have. They work with everything. Apple is the only one that works with Apple.
That's been true since Steve and Woz' early days. What's your point?
From my perspective, this is Amazon's territory now. "Alexa" is used a LOT more than Siri - Siri is not dependable.
You of course have some documentation to support this fatuous claim? Oh right of course -- this is based on a sample size of one.
(hint: Siri is on at least 100M times more devices than Alexa, so you are of course wrong on all counts)
Why aren't we surprised. Copy, Copy, Copy is all they know. And be sure to introduce the product just before the others do their intro or product updates.
But, Apple copied Amazon in this case, so what's your point?
Comments
I guess I look at it as a situation in which Apple could do a lot to further improve reproduction quality to further build on the advancements you mention. I have a middling system quality-wise at home, but at work and in traffic I listen to my iPhone and a pair of B&W cans. I think the sound quality is very good and better than what I got years back. But I can really tell most times when I'm listening to a file in AAC or Ogg Vorbis as opposed to ALAC or CD-quality (or better) file. It's often a question of getting just a bit more bloom and less harshness instead of it being a question of whether the music is listenable or not. And that's the extra bit of quality that I think Apple and other companies could strive for given today's technology and one that I think many could appreciate without changing their gear.
I'm really interested in hearing what the HomePod is going to do, especially in stereo/sets of two. It might even make me believe that AAC is an acceptable baseline...
Be reasonable. 'Go away troll'? How did you reach that conclusion? And how did you figure out he was a Samsung cheerleader?
And what if he was (which, on the basis of what he wrote, isn't even the case)?
Why can't he (or anyone) cheerlead Samsung if the piece is about Samsung?
Should we only worship Apple and not talk about the bad parts?
It's an Apple forum that caters to everyone, not only people that adore the company and its products.
Be patient, respectful and argue your point. If you just label and insult people you lose credibility.
As for the whole 'brick wall' compressed audio thing, that's a matter of taste, and the industry has been chasing it for a while. At this point, the playback technology really doesn't have much to do with it, other than the fact that portability means you have more people listening in environments with a lot of background noise that has to be overcome. Consumers don't like quiet passages in their earbuds while riding the subway or working out at the gym, so the music producers accommodate.
Definitely not a Samsung supporter in any way, but they’ve been making home speakers of all different sorts for years. I mean, everything from cheap crap that cost $50 to high end stuff. Plus things that are already closely related to what Apple is coming out with.
This is isn’t just something out of the blue for Samsung. They have made this stuff for far longer than Apple has owned Beats.
The vice-chairman of Samsung Electronics has been sentenced to five years in prison for bribery, perjury and embezzlement.
The prosecution wanted twelve years. I reckon he'll be released on appeal.
But, Apple copied Amazon in this case, so what's your point?
Samsung own Harmon Kardon , so I'm guessing that just like Apple , they will focus on audio for the speaker