tmay said: I would note that even the detractors of that specific test haven't figured out how Apple is both analyzing the room and creating the speaker outputs beam forming and levels for that.
It's certainly possible that whatever voodoo Apple do with the HomePod confused the analyzer and caused it to report incorrect data.
It's also possible that the room correction feature of the HomePod just doesn't work very well.
Based on what we know about the physics of sound and what we've been able to accomplish in reproduction systems over the last century I'm inclined to suspect it's the latter, but I'm keeping an open mind.
What the fastcompany article is talking about is a different function. It's discussing the radiation pattern. I'm talking about the linearity of the frequency response. What the fastcompany test demonstrated is that the response doesn't vary from place to place within the room. It does not say that the response anywhere in the room is accurate, just that it's consistent. So if there's a 10dB dip at 100Hz and a 10dB peak at 240Hz, the same peak and dip will be evident no matter where you stand or sit.
The almost omnidirectional radiation pattern of the HomePod is definitely a good thing -- I'm not dismissing it. I'm just saying it's only one of several considerations and isn't what i was talking about.
I missed a lot of posts on the homePod on this and several threads.
Last evening, I decided to recommission the old B&O with McIntosh speakers in the living room. I unplugged it about 3 years ago because, in the middle of the night, one of our cats would jump up on it, turning on the amp, then dial up the volume spinner.
It didn't just work! My grandson and I spent about 45 minutes unplugging/replugging gold-tipped cables, removing components (turntable, cassette player), plugging RCA jacks into the Airport Express -- until we finally got it to work -- bits and pieces spread all over the living room (some very big and heavy bits and pieces).
It sounded terrible! I could coax acceptable sound at very low volume. Turns out the speaker cone and adhesive material had deteriorated -- speakers don't last for ever.
My grandson said he'd clean it up and put everything back together -- another 45 minutes.
I thought about that, and said no...
The old B&O had given me great service -- bought it in Saratoga, Ca, moved it to Tucson, Pasadena, SF East Bay...
Each setup or teardown had taken about an hour, plus another hour or so spread over several days fiddling with the tuning/speaker placement -- often buying some expensive new cables.
I ain't gonna' do that nomore! It took about a minute to teardown and setup my homePod -- moving it from the family room to the living room. The homePod did all the heavy lifting -- and, to quote Jeff Goldblum: It Just Worked!
For now, the homePod is sitting atop one of the McIntosh speakers -- a second homePod, arriving today, will sit atop the other. I am going to trash the B&O components. The B&O cabinet is made of beautiful rosewood, and my grandson will repurpose it for his bedroom.
I have KEFs and VonSchwikert speakers, a mixture of NAD and Denon gear, etc. scattered about and I simply can't be assed anymore now that I have kids. I don't even have a sound bar on the TV we most use (we have a full HT setup in the basement).
We have a google home and an echo but I find them meh as devices. We use them to stream music so a homepod is on the list but I want one in every bedroom so that might be pricey.
tmay said: I would note that even the detractors of that specific test haven't figured out how Apple is both analyzing the room and creating the speaker outputs beam forming and levels for that.
It's certainly possible that whatever voodoo Apple do with the HomePod confused the analyzer and caused it to report incorrect data.
It's also possible that the room correction feature of the HomePod just doesn't work very well.
Based on what we know about the physics of sound and what we've been able to accomplish in reproduction systems over the last century I'm inclined to suspect it's the latter, but I'm keeping an open mind.
What the fastcompany article is talking about is a different function. It's discussing the radiation pattern. I'm talking about the linearity of the frequency response. What the fastcompany test demonstrated is that the response doesn't vary from place to place within the room. It does not say that the response anywhere in the room is accurate, just that it's consistent. So if there's a 10dB dip at 100Hz and a 10dB peak at 240Hz, the same peak and dip will be evident no matter where you stand or sit.
The almost omnidirectional radiation pattern of the HomePod is definitely a good thing -- I'm not dismissing it. I'm just saying it's only one of several considerations and isn't what i was talking about.
tmay said: I would note that even the detractors of that specific test haven't figured out how Apple is both analyzing the room and creating the speaker outputs beam forming and levels for that.
It's certainly possible that whatever voodoo Apple do with the HomePod confused the analyzer and caused it to report incorrect data.
It's also possible that the room correction feature of the HomePod just doesn't work very well.
Based on what we know about the physics of sound and what we've been able to accomplish in reproduction systems over the last century I'm inclined to suspect it's the latter, but I'm keeping an open mind.
What the fastcompany article is talking about is a different function. It's discussing the radiation pattern. I'm talking about the linearity of the frequency response. What the fastcompany test demonstrated is that the response doesn't vary from place to place within the room. It does not say that the response anywhere in the room is accurate, just that it's consistent. So if there's a 10dB dip at 100Hz and a 10dB peak at 240Hz, the same peak and dip will be evident no matter where you stand or sit.
The almost omnidirectional radiation pattern of the HomePod is definitely a good thing -- I'm not dismissing it. I'm just saying it's only one of several considerations and isn't what i was talking about.
"Steeped in the apple ecosystem" my ass. How could you not have an iPhone? Or an iPad? Or a Mac laptop?
Does that make me steeped? No, it makes me reasonable. I want the best.
I'm getting this speaker. And I have never been interested in any (gag) "smart speaker."
I also want the best. Apple rarely makes the best phone, as for tablets and laptops it arguably does but also depends on what you want from them.
I have an iPad Pro 10.5 because it probably is the best for my needs, but I wouldn't buy an Apple laptop or desktop because it's over-priced for my work needs and not suited to my gaming needs. So you could very easily not have much/any Apple stuff even if you want and can afford the best (which itself is a very big if for a lot of people).
As for the HomePod, the early impressions aren't all super positive. Consumer Reports reckons the Google Home Max and even the far cheaper Sonos One sound better, while elsewhere there are reports that Siri isn't as useful/able to respond to as many requests on it as Google Assistant on the Google Home.
So if you're so certain you want the best you might want to do a bit more research, or if you just want the best audio not buy any of these things because you can do far, far better without the 'smart' features.
The ironic thing is that these reviews are the best free advertising for SONOS and their ONE/1. Most Reviews seem to say very close to Apple at half price. GoogleMax seems just too expensive to be just louder. I would have liked to see Apple compared to systems costing $300 to $500 including Bose, Sonos Play 5, Yamaha, BlueSound, etc. See if is as good or better than more expensive Speakers. Everyone is just mimicking the comparison Apple did.
RedditAudiophile said: This image was incorrect and is very misleading.
On top of the incorrect measurement method, please read the additional critique.
Somewhat irrelevant though, no? As the whole point of the HomePod is it's ability to adjust to the room, not be the best sounding speaker in the perfect environment.
And, though they can sometimes be useful, I've found over the years that statistics, charts, graphs, etc. typically don't tell the whole story. I need to go hear one these in person. But, I do appreciate the attempts (and those keeping them honest!).
lorin schultz said: Neither of these points are meant to demean the HomePod in any way. By all accounts it sounds better than it costs. The fact that it isn't a studio monitor-grade performer doesn't mean it can't be an excellent value and thoroughly enjoyable. It just isn't the paradigm shifting revolution the marketing implied it would be.
Most people don't actually like studio monitors, anyway. I'm trying to sell a system right now and I can't tell you how many people I've had to explain this to. I was a bit shocked, to be honest, when all this talk about 'flat' came up. I suppose flat is a good starting point, but if the EQ isn't readily available to the end user, the average person isn't going to like the sound w/o juicing it up a bit (and, then will it still sound good?).
dick applebaum said: I did read most of the exchange. What I came away with:
the article was written by someone who felt the homePod sounded good in his environment -- and tried to analyze why by performing various tests
the detractor, and several others, criticized the authors methodology and subjective evaluation -- because he did not perform traditional tests in an anechoic chamber
people don't listen to music in an anechoic chamber
It's also Reddit. I tried to participate there for a few years before giving up. A few smart people and a TON of idiots, all with WAY, WAY too much time on their hands. It isn't uncommon (at least from my experience years ago), for massive debates to take place, all talking past each other. That happens everywhere on the 'Net, I guess, but it's especially bad there.
gatorguy said: No amount of technical testing to prove I should prefer olives will make them taste better.
Now, whether you should eat waffles or olives in terms of health outcomes, is a whole other thing.
lorin schultz said: Based on what we know about the physics of sound and what we've been able to accomplish in reproduction systems over the last century I'm inclined to suspect it's the latter, but I'm keeping an open mind.
And, given that I'm usually disappointed by marketing claims, even (especially?) by Apple these days, I'd agree.
StrangeDays said: Nonsense. Using AirPlay is entirely normal and I do it on multiple devices every day. Contrary to all the hullabaloo about voice assistants, most of the time I do it better with a screen. I like reviewing and browsing my content.
We've had our disagreements, but a hearty amen on this one!
k2kw said: The ironic thing is that these reviews are the best free advertising for SONOS and their ONE/1. Most Reviews seem to say very close to Apple at half price. GoogleMax seems just too expensive to be just louder. I would have liked to see Apple compared to systems costing $300 to $500 including Bose, Sonos Play 5, Yamaha, BlueSound, etc. See if is as good or better than more expensive Speakers. Everyone is just mimicking the comparison Apple did.
I'm not sure how many of the target market are onto the whole privacy thing... but IMO, that gives the HomePod a huge advantage (or, more like simply rules the other out). If I don't get a HomePod, it will be some powered bookshelf speakers hooked to an AX. Also, I suppose many see it being trapped in the Apple eco-system as a good thing.
Comments
The almost omnidirectional radiation pattern of the HomePod is definitely a good thing -- I'm not dismissing it. I'm just saying it's only one of several considerations and isn't what i was talking about.
We have a google home and an echo but I find them meh as devices. We use them to stream music so a homepod is on the list but I want one in every bedroom so that might be pricey.
And, though they can sometimes be useful, I've found over the years that statistics, charts, graphs, etc. typically don't tell the whole story. I need to go hear one these in person. But, I do appreciate the attempts (and those keeping them honest!).
Most people don't actually like studio monitors, anyway. I'm trying to sell a system right now and I can't tell you how many people I've had to explain this to. I was a bit shocked, to be honest, when all this talk about 'flat' came up. I suppose flat is a good starting point, but if the EQ isn't readily available to the end user, the average person isn't going to like the sound w/o juicing it up a bit (and, then will it still sound good?).
It's also Reddit.
Now, whether you should eat waffles or olives in terms of health outcomes, is a whole other thing.
And, given that I'm usually disappointed by marketing claims, even (especially?) by Apple these days, I'd agree.
We've had our disagreements, but a hearty amen on this one!