Apple Hi-Fi?

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
I know this is a little weird but what about an Apple Hi-Fi.

It could have an

-HD for storing music

-Airport for wireless connection to the mac and for Internet radio

-Cd player of course

-iPod dock? Not sure of it's use

-Harman Speakers. Of course Apple won't make the speakers. We are a hardware company :P

-And of course it will be a white Hi-Fi stereo equipement



I'd buy one. It would be sure "Music for my ears"
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 30
    chychchych Posts: 860member
    So it's just a minisystem with additional capabilities...



    I'd prefer a separated component that I can plug into my real sound system (since when did HK make good speakers?)
  • Reply 2 of 30
    low-filow-fi Posts: 357member
    This was the kind of thing that people were predicting before the iPod launched. Yours is a good idea, but the Turtle Beach Audiotron is a similar kind of concept. They work very well, and can access things like internet radio, and SMB shares, thus enabling you to get your mp3s etc. And they exist



    It is a separate hi-fi component, and the sound quality is good according to my friend who has one.



    low-fi
  • Reply 3 of 30
    jante99jante99 Posts: 539member






    http://www.rotel.com/products/specs/rsp1098.htm

    http://www.rotel.com/products/specs/rmb1095.htm



    Let HiFi companies make HiFi and computer companies make computers. There are plenty of great products for stereos, no need for Apple to enter this extremely competitive market.



    The only thing Apple should add is a high quality digital output port on the PowerMac and iMac.
  • Reply 4 of 30
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,273member
    Ewwwwwwwwwww ick Rotel Just kidding.



    I don't think he means Apple making Amps/Processors but Apple making the link between Computer Audio Files(no pun intended) and a persons existing HiFi system.



    I for one think that most of the affordable(read less that $2k Audio Servers) are VERY lacking in features. Perhaps Apple may be looking towards this area.



    The nifty thing about Rendezvous that ties into the planned Music service is that with an Audio file on one of the Rendezvous enabled Macs it will seamlessly appear as if that Audio file is on all the computers. Just like in the iTunes 4 Demo. I wouldn't mind wireless as an option but I'm still not convinced that Wireless is cost effective enough. I would like Ethernet and HomePNA connectivity which would be cheaper to implement.
  • Reply 5 of 30
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    Apple will never come close to my Onkyo system. (which BTW has a FireWire Port ) Apple is smart enough to leave HIFI to the pro's. The closest thing you'll see to HIFI from Apple is a 7.1 audio card as a BTO option, and that's if they even chose to add the option. They should though.
  • Reply 6 of 30
    Compressed audio is not hi-fi. mp3, aac, these don't have the audio quality for a quality sound system. mp3 is ok through computer speakers, but pipe it through $1000 hi-fi speakers and it's much easier to notice the inferior sound quality compared to CDs or vinyl.
  • Reply 7 of 30
    bill mbill m Posts: 324member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by onlooker

    Apple will never come close to my Onkyo system. (which BTW has a FireWire Port ) Apple is smart enough to leave HIFI to the pro's. The closest thing you'll see to HIFI from Apple is a 7.1 audio card as a BTO option, and that's if they even chose to add the option. They should though.



    Hmmm... an ONKYO with firewire? I just bought my ONKYO late last year, maybe I should have waited. Care to mention what model you have there?
  • Reply 8 of 30
    chychchych Posts: 860member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg

    Compressed audio is not hi-fi. mp3, aac, these don't have the audio quality for a quality sound system. mp3 is ok through computer speakers, but pipe it through $1000 hi-fi speakers and it's much easier to notice the inferior sound quality compared to CDs or vinyl.





    Mmm, have you tried this yourself? MP3 and compressed formats are way better than you would expect.



    I find it that through my systems I can tell a slight difference between the two (being lossless vs compressed, and moreso with headphones) but I cannot pinpoint which one is better, so in the end I do not care which I listen to (I've been blind tested on this on 128kbps AAC IIRC, just as a simple test for the format I conducted). The difference is irrelevant anyway in music that is not recorded to the maximum (as in non audiophile recordings). And boy, better recordings by FAR eclipse the differences between file formats, which adds another, way more significant, variable.



    I suppose I'm not a super purist, but I do have ears and an objective mind. YMMV of course. And my systems (headphone and speaker) total to around $1500ish so I do have the equipment.



    Of course this is a great topic to troll, flame, and burn on.
  • Reply 9 of 30
    trevormtrevorm Posts: 841member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by chych

    .

    And boy, better recordings by FAR eclipse the differences between file formats, which adds another, way more significant, variable.





    Ahh indeed. And whats more alot of recordings are now being done digitally onto Sony Digital 48 track/ Protools /Euphonixs HD system bla bla bla so sometimes the difference between CD and MP3 will be minimal. Come a recording the has gone through yummy neve preamps, good old analouge 2" tape for the drums to get that natural compression bla bla bla and then thats when one can start to notice slight differnces IMHO.



    Some of the muck (Any of that handbag music) thats being produced is bad to begin with so the diff will be hard to tell.









    [Ive devloped a lasy ass attitude with my typing so excuse my bla bla blas inbetween]
  • Reply 10 of 30
    netromacnetromac Posts: 863member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by chych

    Mmm, have you tried this yourself? MP3 and compressed formats are way better than you would expect.



    I find it that through my systems I can tell a slight difference between the two (being lossless vs compressed, and moreso with headphones) but I cannot pinpoint which one is better, so in the end I do not care which I listen to (I've been blind tested on this on 128kbps AAC IIRC, just as a simple test for the format I conducted). The difference is irrelevant anyway in music that is not recorded to the maximum (as in non audiophile recordings). And boy, better recordings by FAR eclipse the differences between file formats, which adds another, way more significant, variable.



    I suppose I'm not a super purist, but I do have ears and an objective mind. YMMV of course. And my systems (headphone and speaker) total to around $1500ish so I do have the equipment.



    Of course this is a great topic to troll, flame, and burn on.




    Ok, here we go. On my ($7000) system I simply can't use mp3 or other compressed formats because they sound so freakin bad compared to CD's and even worse when compared to SACD. On my computer system (about $500 for speakers and amp) it sounds ok though. Even 320kbps can't really be compared to CD's because some of the music is actually lost in the process and therefore nuancec in the music is lost. But I don't really think this is a problem because the market for Hi-Fi systems in this price range is rather small and I don't think that many people are really listening to music. And yes there is also big differences in the quality of the recordings, with some typical pop albums having a really lousy sound quality that almost make them sound better when gone trough mp3 endcoding. In our living room we use the mac as source for the music, and for that use I think downloaded - good quality - compressed AAC music is going to be perfect. On my Hi-Fi system, I'm still going to use real CD/SACD albums (enjoying the new DSOTM release enormously by the way) though.
  • Reply 11 of 30
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    hmmm...



    I'm not for spending huge amounts on a stereo, but having listen to some of the very best, I can say that a true HiFi will bring music to a damn impressive level of detail, but no matter what you spend it won't sound like live music, (because venues just sound different, so at the end of the day it's better to spend a little less and go out a little more.



    For a home, I'm willing to spend about as much as an iMac on a sound system (over time). Even on this range of system you can definite tell when you're listening to an Mp3 vs a CD. Actually, you can tell even on cheaper systems. I've tested it out with my buddies and there's no way that 128kbps can pass for a CD recording, nor 160, or even 192. At 320 it's a bit more hit and miss, but if you pump it through an moderately priced system, you notice. Mebbe you don't notice right away, but if you play the tracks side by side with the CD, then you notice, not always, sometimes only just, but you do.
  • Reply 12 of 30
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Bill M

    Hmmm... an ONKYO with firewire? I just bought my ONKYO late last year, maybe I should have waited. Care to mention what model you have there?



    It's a TX-DS 989. I've had it for a few years. There is a newer version that came out recently called the (get this) TX-DS 989 Ver2 Original isn't it.
  • Reply 13 of 30
    It's all about tube!



  • Reply 14 of 30
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Uh oh! AppleInsider is turning into rec.audio.opinion... let the flame fests begin!



    Analog vs. digital!

    Vinyl vs. CD!

    Tube vs. solid state!

    Rhodium-plated yak-fur insulated "time-aligned" $500/m interconnects vs. 12-gauge zip cord!



    Woo hoo!
  • Reply 15 of 30
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,273member
    American HiFi rulez!!!



    Parasound ownz Rotel



    Analog sucks Digital is teh win!



    High End cables are bunk!



    Tubes are full of distortion.



    Let's see what else can I say to piss people off.



    MP3s are High Rez!!



  • Reply 16 of 30
    netromacnetromac Posts: 863member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    American HiFi rulez!!!



    Parasound ownz Rotel



    Analog sucks Digital is teh win!



    High End cables are bunk!



    Tubes are full of distortion.



    Let's see what else can I say to piss people off.



    MP3s are High Rez!!







    LOL
  • Reply 17 of 30
    Ahem ...



    Analog is boss!



  • Reply 18 of 30
    Quote:

    Originally posted by chych

    Mmm, have you tried this yourself? MP3 and compressed formats are way better than you would expect.





    Yes, I have. I had a freind play songs/pieces from a CD, and from mp3s encoded at 160 kb/s, without me knowing which he was playing. I did the same for him. We both could tell the mp3s 100% of the time. Colder, harsher, much like the first CD players in the 80s. This was through mid-priced B&W speakers on a Yamaha receiver, good but certainly not excellent audio equipment.
  • Reply 19 of 30
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    Quote:

    Tubes are full of distortion.







    And that is a bad thing? What planet are you.... Ohh wait... Were talking about stereo's not Guitar Amps. Oops...
  • Reply 20 of 30
    Quote:

    Originally posted by onlooker

    And that is a bad thing? What planet are you.... Ohh wait... Were talking about stereo's not Guitar Amps. Oops...



    Heh, I make love to my tube amp. Never had such an impulse with solid state tech.
Sign In or Register to comment.