I'm sure it will be a fine box for the office, bedroom, or small apartment. Apple tends not to make junk, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that for the form factor this thing sounds as good as anything else out there.
Anyone who really knows about audio isn't going to get one - except if they need the small form factor.
I guess Apple just wanted to get a piece of the iPod speaker pie. This should get them a piece. But it's not an exciting product.
Also, it's gotten some good reviews on target.com (only place I looked).. saying Apple's is better right now before a single review is a little more "blinded by the hype." On paper, the iBoom has higher range. According to reviews, people are satisfied with it. According to the price tags, Apple's is four times more expensive.
I'm not sure talking down to people who're trying to compare products is necessary. Apart from the information out there, all you're doing is speculating, just like everyone else.
No, I'm not.
When Apple make a spec, and says + _ 3 db, they are telling us just what to expect. When companies say 20-20 KHz, they are telling us nothing. Nothing at all!
I've measured products like that, costing far more than Apple's unit. They never come close to anything like what they would want you to believe. Because stating frequency alone isn't a valid spec. It's usually, for a fairly cheap device, more like 100-10,000KHz +- 6db. for something like that.
Reviews on Target mean nothing other than that the people who bought it aren't expecting much from it in the first place. That's why they spent $90.
Let's see a review in an audio magazine. I'll get one next month and test it as well.
It is NOT a jam-bos, like speculation claimed, it is hardly HI-FI...the sound processor, amp and PSU are in the same housing as the speaker? and this is "HIGH END"?
They put a basic amp behind a center channel speaker, no more, no less.
Let's see a review in an audio magazine. I'll get one next month and test it as well.
Good luck and congratulations on your new purchase!
I'm sure you'll get a lot of good use out of it. As I said, it's a very specialized product and the only one that does precisely what it does so simply and so effectively (within a specific ratio).
I agree with what someone else posted here though: I don't want Apple to go in this direction. We already have one Bose, we don't need another
Yes, this is Apple becoming a Bose competitor, but that is actually good. It keeps all of the iPod accessory makers in the $50-$200 range in business and happy and just works on a narrower niche - the stereo to iPod switchers. I wonder if we'll get baby-boomer switcher ads too.
The iPod ecosystem is still vibrant. Apple isn't banking the farm on the Hi Fi, it is just priming the pump at a specific price point and if it just breaks even, so what?!
The home entertainment system is coming later, so don't worry and it isn't going to be a TiVo killer so don't wait for one.
PS At least wait until you hear the dang thing to whine about it.
Yes, this is Apple becoming a Bose competitor, but that is actually good. It keeps all of the iPod accessory makers in the $50-$200 range in business and happy and just works on a narrower niche - the stereo to iPod switchers. I wonder if we'll get baby-boomer switcher ads too.
The iPod ecosystem is still vibrant. Apple isn't banking the farm on the Hi Fi, it is just priming the pump at a specific price point and if it just breaks even, so what?!
The home entertainment system is coming later, so don't worry and it isn't going to be a TiVo killer so don't wait for one.
PS At least wait until you hear the dang thing to whine about it.
Agreed.
Look, just because Apple made "tubes" for the Nano, does that mean they're trying to be iSkin? Hell no ... they're offering their own alternative to iPod accessories. Don't forget ... for every Bose SoundDock or JBL OnStage or iHome or whatever gets sold, that's money Apple doesn't make. (outside royalties for the dock connector) So again, Apple didn't set out to reinvent the wheel. They wanted part of a market that has quite a few buyers and guess what - they're making the money. Not Bose or JBL or Cambridge.
Slam it all you want ... but just remember, nobody knows what it sounds like yet
I think the Apple store selling passable songs, not 128kbps pieces of junk would have been more newsworthy. If they're aiming this at the bulk of ipod users, why bother making it sound good, as they only use 128 anyway which sounds horrible.
A product that isn't the one YOU wanted to see on this date isn't an automatic flop and doesn't somehow make Apple a bad company
This looks much higher-end than any other iPod speaker system--in many ways--so if you're looking for that, it's worth the price. I wouldn't replace my stereo with it, I'd use it in a room that didn't HAVE my stereo.
I don't know. I think the BOSE one looks pretty good. Although I don't need another BOSE system somewhere is my home, But BOSE is a name I can trust when it comes to High Fidelity sound. I think Apple is killing them self for no good reason on this trying to out play a BOSE system.
it is hardly HI-FI...the sound processor, amp and PSU are in the same housing as the speaker? and this is "HIGH END"?
Whilst I agree that this is hardly HiFi - The fact that the PSU, sound processor and Amp are all in the same box is not the thing stopping it being so: Meridian DSP8000 speakersedit:I heard these in a demo last weekend and they are awesome, but then at around £16,000 a pair, they should be.
The things that do stop this being Hi-Fi are the fact that all the drivers are in one box (and yet they claim a decent stereo image, despite the fact all drivers point straight ahead?) and that the high end is -3 dB @ 16 KHz.
Now, I don't think that this is a bad product. It's just insulting to call it "Hi Fi".
I don't know. I think the BOSE one looks pretty good. Although I don't need another BOSE system somewhere is my home, But BOSE is a name I can trust when it comes to High Fidelity sound. I think Apple is killing them self for no good reason on this trying to out play a BOSE system.
What??? How do you know? Have you heard it yet? Didn't think so ... just cause it doesn't have BOSE plastered on it doesn't make it a piece of crap speaker system. Please folks ... let's at least wait till we've heard it before we start bitching about sound qualities.
Cost and sound quality is anything but a linear situation, getting the last fraction of percent a difference can make up the entire difference.
When we're talking about $250,000 speakers, and $350,000 pre-amps. you're right. But this unit for $350 is still pretty cheap.
It shouldn't be compared to $100 devices. It should be compared to devices that cost about the same, or possibly even higher.
A $100 boombox can't even begin to have proper sound quality. That doesn't mean that the people buying them won't enjoy them. I'm not saying that they shouldn't either.
But, this is not meant to compete with those units.
If you buy a $350 pair of speakers, you'll notice that they rarely are good at all. But a very few models are fine. They have specs that are no better than this unit does, and usually worse. Then you need an amp to power them.
If this meets the specs Apple has given, then it would be a bargin.
Good luck and congratulations on your new purchase!
I'm sure you'll get a lot of good use out of it. As I said, it's a very specialized product and the only one that does precisely what it does so simply and so effectively (within a specific ratio).
I agree with what someone else posted here though: I don't want Apple to go in this direction. We already have one Bose, we don't need another
This won't replace my audio equipment.
Whether WE want Apple to go in this direction is beside the point. If Apple feels that this is a good thing for the company, then I hope, and expect that it will be sucessful.
Apple is obviously not backing down from producing computers. We have to be realistic about this. Every major computer company today is producing home electronics. This seems to be a direction they all feel is required for them.
I think the Apple store selling passable songs, not 128kbps pieces of junk would have been more newsworthy. If they're aiming this at the bulk of ipod users, why bother making it sound good, as they only use 128 anyway which sounds horrible.
A number of guys in my hi end audio qroup have bought iPods after Apple came out with their lossless compression. They rip their own cd's.
They don't like the cheap speaker models on the market for the iPods, and some of the good ones START at $1,000. Just because these guys like hi end sound doesn't mean that they can all afford it. This is in a good range for many people.
Whilst I agree that this is hardly HiFi - The fact that the PSU, sound processor and Amp are all in the same box is not the thing stopping it being so: Meridian DSP8000 speakersedit:I heard these in a demo last weekend and they are awesome, but then at around £16,000 a pair, they should be.
The things that do stop this being Hi-Fi are the fact that all the drivers are in one box (and yet they claim a decent stereo image, despite the fact all drivers point straight ahead?) and that the high end is -3 dB @ 16 KHz.
Now, I don't think that this is a bad product. It's just insulting to call it "Hi Fi".
Hi-Fi is relative. Compared to what? That $90 dollar unit shown above? My main home system?
A friend of mine was quoted, years ago by a magazine that was about to review a new pair of speakers he had just come out with. Not revolutionary, but, fairly close. The magazine people remarked that his model sounded better than other, more expensive models, and how was that possible?
His reply is one I agree with.
"Good engineering costs no more than bad engineering."
Hi-Fi is relative. Compared to what? That $90 dollar unit shown above? My main home system?
A friend of mine was quoted, years ago by a magazine that was about to review a new pair of speakers he had just come out with. Not revolutionary, but, fairly close. The magazine people remarked that his model sounded better than other, more expensive models, and how was that possible?
His reply is one I agree with.
"Good engineering costs no more than bad engineering."
Hi-Fi is not relative. It stands for high-fidelity. Once you define high-fidelity, something is either Hi-Fi or it is not.
Hi-Fi is, however, subjective (subtly different to "relative"). I might define Hi-Fi differently to how you define it, but to me it is (amongst other things) at least 50 Hz - 20 KHz with speakers that are more than one metre apart (to give a decent stereo image).
Comments
Originally posted by melgross
Have you ever heard of "Apple Lossless Encoding"?
Exactly, for the users that are overly obsessive about audio, there's lossless. Which works on an iPod therefore it works on iPod Hi-Fi.
For the rest of us normal people who have their priorities in order
Originally posted by melgross
Have you ever heard of "Apple Lossless Encoding"?
Don't be so condescending. You've just forgotten about the DAC, which is just as important. Where's the DAC in this thing? the iPod or the box?
And Apple lossless.. Wouldn't that defeat the point of this thing? you put a 1 gig nano on there, with lossless that's less than 2 albums
.. or is it assumed that we all have 60 gig ipods now?
Originally posted by slughead
Don't be so condescending. You've just forgotten about the DAC, which is just as important.
And Apple lossless.. Wouldn't that defeat the point of this thing? you put a 1 gig nano on there, with lossless that's like 2 albums at the most
.. or is it assumed that we all have 60 gig ipods now?
Anybody who uses Apple Lossless most likely does not have a nano.
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
Anybody who uses Apple Lossless most likely does not have a nano.
Anybody who uses lossless probably has a monstrocity of a home stereo already :X
I'm sure it will be a fine box for the office, bedroom, or small apartment. Apple tends not to make junk, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that for the form factor this thing sounds as good as anything else out there.
Anyone who really knows about audio isn't going to get one - except if they need the small form factor.
I guess Apple just wanted to get a piece of the iPod speaker pie. This should get them a piece. But it's not an exciting product.
- Jasen.
Originally posted by slughead
<cough>it's 1/4 the price</cough>
Also, it's gotten some good reviews on target.com (only place I looked).. saying Apple's is better right now before a single review is a little more "blinded by the hype." On paper, the iBoom has higher range. According to reviews, people are satisfied with it. According to the price tags, Apple's is four times more expensive.
I'm not sure talking down to people who're trying to compare products is necessary. Apart from the information out there, all you're doing is speculating, just like everyone else.
No, I'm not.
When Apple make a spec, and says + _ 3 db, they are telling us just what to expect. When companies say 20-20 KHz, they are telling us nothing. Nothing at all!
I've measured products like that, costing far more than Apple's unit. They never come close to anything like what they would want you to believe. Because stating frequency alone isn't a valid spec. It's usually, for a fairly cheap device, more like 100-10,000KHz +- 6db. for something like that.
Reviews on Target mean nothing other than that the people who bought it aren't expecting much from it in the first place. That's why they spent $90.
Let's see a review in an audio magazine. I'll get one next month and test it as well.
Originally posted by melgross
And, I'm sure that your JBL is worth every bit the $280 less that you paid for it.
But, this isn't competing with that, or any other cheap speaker set out there. It will compete with Klipsh, and others, in that price range.
Cost and sound quality is anything but a linear situation, getting the last fraction of percent a difference can make up the entire difference.
It is NOT a jam-bos, like speculation claimed, it is hardly HI-FI...the sound processor, amp and PSU are in the same housing as the speaker? and this is "HIGH END"?
They put a basic amp behind a center channel speaker, no more, no less.
Originally posted by melgross
Let's see a review in an audio magazine. I'll get one next month and test it as well.
Good luck and congratulations on your new purchase!
I'm sure you'll get a lot of good use out of it. As I said, it's a very specialized product and the only one that does precisely what it does so simply and so effectively (within a specific ratio).
I agree with what someone else posted here though: I don't want Apple to go in this direction. We already have one Bose, we don't need another
The iPod ecosystem is still vibrant. Apple isn't banking the farm on the Hi Fi, it is just priming the pump at a specific price point and if it just breaks even, so what?!
The home entertainment system is coming later, so don't worry and it isn't going to be a TiVo killer so don't wait for one.
PS At least wait until you hear the dang thing to whine about it.
Originally posted by MacGregor
Yes, this is Apple becoming a Bose competitor, but that is actually good. It keeps all of the iPod accessory makers in the $50-$200 range in business and happy and just works on a narrower niche - the stereo to iPod switchers. I wonder if we'll get baby-boomer switcher ads too.
The iPod ecosystem is still vibrant. Apple isn't banking the farm on the Hi Fi, it is just priming the pump at a specific price point and if it just breaks even, so what?!
The home entertainment system is coming later, so don't worry and it isn't going to be a TiVo killer so don't wait for one.
PS At least wait until you hear the dang thing to whine about it.
Agreed.
Look, just because Apple made "tubes" for the Nano, does that mean they're trying to be iSkin? Hell no ... they're offering their own alternative to iPod accessories. Don't forget ... for every Bose SoundDock or JBL OnStage or iHome or whatever gets sold, that's money Apple doesn't make. (outside royalties for the dock connector) So again, Apple didn't set out to reinvent the wheel. They wanted part of a market that has quite a few buyers and guess what - they're making the money. Not Bose or JBL or Cambridge.
Slam it all you want ... but just remember, nobody knows what it sounds like yet
Originally posted by nagromme
A product that isn't the one YOU wanted to see on this date isn't an automatic flop and doesn't somehow make Apple a bad company
This looks much higher-end than any other iPod speaker system--in many ways--so if you're looking for that, it's worth the price. I wouldn't replace my stereo with it, I'd use it in a room that didn't HAVE my stereo.
And it DOES integrate with AirPort Express.
Doomsayers may wish to note:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthre...=&threadid=500
I don't know. I think the BOSE one looks pretty good. Although I don't need another BOSE system somewhere is my home, But BOSE is a name I can trust when it comes to High Fidelity sound. I think Apple is killing them self for no good reason on this trying to out play a BOSE system.
Originally posted by a_greer
it is hardly HI-FI...the sound processor, amp and PSU are in the same housing as the speaker? and this is "HIGH END"?
Whilst I agree that this is hardly HiFi - The fact that the PSU, sound processor and Amp are all in the same box is not the thing stopping it being so: Meridian DSP8000 speakers edit:I heard these in a demo last weekend and they are awesome, but then at around £16,000 a pair, they should be.
The things that do stop this being Hi-Fi are the fact that all the drivers are in one box (and yet they claim a decent stereo image, despite the fact all drivers point straight ahead?) and that the high end is -3 dB @ 16 KHz.
Now, I don't think that this is a bad product. It's just insulting to call it "Hi Fi".
Originally posted by onlooker
I don't know. I think the BOSE one looks pretty good. Although I don't need another BOSE system somewhere is my home, But BOSE is a name I can trust when it comes to High Fidelity sound. I think Apple is killing them self for no good reason on this trying to out play a BOSE system.
What??? How do you know? Have you heard it yet? Didn't think so ... just cause it doesn't have BOSE plastered on it doesn't make it a piece of crap speaker system. Please folks ... let's at least wait till we've heard it before we start bitching about sound qualities.
Originally posted by JeffDM
Cost and sound quality is anything but a linear situation, getting the last fraction of percent a difference can make up the entire difference.
When we're talking about $250,000 speakers, and $350,000 pre-amps. you're right. But this unit for $350 is still pretty cheap.
It shouldn't be compared to $100 devices. It should be compared to devices that cost about the same, or possibly even higher.
A $100 boombox can't even begin to have proper sound quality. That doesn't mean that the people buying them won't enjoy them. I'm not saying that they shouldn't either.
But, this is not meant to compete with those units.
If you buy a $350 pair of speakers, you'll notice that they rarely are good at all. But a very few models are fine. They have specs that are no better than this unit does, and usually worse. Then you need an amp to power them.
If this meets the specs Apple has given, then it would be a bargin.
Originally posted by slughead
Good luck and congratulations on your new purchase!
I'm sure you'll get a lot of good use out of it. As I said, it's a very specialized product and the only one that does precisely what it does so simply and so effectively (within a specific ratio).
I agree with what someone else posted here though: I don't want Apple to go in this direction. We already have one Bose, we don't need another
This won't replace my audio equipment.
Whether WE want Apple to go in this direction is beside the point. If Apple feels that this is a good thing for the company, then I hope, and expect that it will be sucessful.
Apple is obviously not backing down from producing computers. We have to be realistic about this. Every major computer company today is producing home electronics. This seems to be a direction they all feel is required for them.
Apple is no different.
Originally posted by 666
I think the Apple store selling passable songs, not 128kbps pieces of junk would have been more newsworthy. If they're aiming this at the bulk of ipod users, why bother making it sound good, as they only use 128 anyway which sounds horrible.
A number of guys in my hi end audio qroup have bought iPods after Apple came out with their lossless compression. They rip their own cd's.
They don't like the cheap speaker models on the market for the iPods, and some of the good ones START at $1,000. Just because these guys like hi end sound doesn't mean that they can all afford it. This is in a good range for many people.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Whilst I agree that this is hardly HiFi - The fact that the PSU, sound processor and Amp are all in the same box is not the thing stopping it being so: Meridian DSP8000 speakers edit:I heard these in a demo last weekend and they are awesome, but then at around £16,000 a pair, they should be.
The things that do stop this being Hi-Fi are the fact that all the drivers are in one box (and yet they claim a decent stereo image, despite the fact all drivers point straight ahead?) and that the high end is -3 dB @ 16 KHz.
Now, I don't think that this is a bad product. It's just insulting to call it "Hi Fi".
Hi-Fi is relative. Compared to what? That $90 dollar unit shown above? My main home system?
A friend of mine was quoted, years ago by a magazine that was about to review a new pair of speakers he had just come out with. Not revolutionary, but, fairly close. The magazine people remarked that his model sounded better than other, more expensive models, and how was that possible?
His reply is one I agree with.
"Good engineering costs no more than bad engineering."
Originally posted by melgross
Hi-Fi is relative. Compared to what? That $90 dollar unit shown above? My main home system?
A friend of mine was quoted, years ago by a magazine that was about to review a new pair of speakers he had just come out with. Not revolutionary, but, fairly close. The magazine people remarked that his model sounded better than other, more expensive models, and how was that possible?
His reply is one I agree with.
"Good engineering costs no more than bad engineering."
Hi-Fi is not relative. It stands for high-fidelity. Once you define high-fidelity, something is either Hi-Fi or it is not.
Hi-Fi is, however, subjective (subtly different to "relative"). I might define Hi-Fi differently to how you define it, but to me it is (amongst other things) at least 50 Hz - 20 KHz with speakers that are more than one metre apart (to give a decent stereo image).