The HomePod is in some respects better than Stereo. The DSP respects the intent of the original stereo mix. For example, if it detects backing vocals mixed toward the left channel it will send these more toward the left tweeters. At the same time lead vocals will be beamed to the center of the room. This creates a sound stage intelligently from the stereo mix and it allows each of the 7 tweeters to be dedicated to reproducing a smaller number of sounds.
There is just one woofer in a HomePod but this fact does not completely destroy the stereo effect because the human ear and brain are not as good at detecting the direction of very low frequency sounds. Nether-the-less when two HomePods are able to work together they will do an even better job, especially if a track has a bass guitarist mixed to one side.
That’s highly subjective. Sound engineers and composers mix their songs to be listened on stereo speakers. So if there’s some digital wizardry going on, the original intend is manipulated. Whether that’s experienced negatively or positively is subjective. That said, having standard, single wireless 360 degree speakers is a bad place to start with anyway so every improvement beyond that is desirable.
"Audio changes depending on where you stand in a room.?" How is that expert analysis? How about some analysis explaining how competitor systems control audio to balance the room effects or why Apple has been able to package the tech at this price point?
The first few times I saw the term HP on this website I thought it meant the computer company. I recommend not using the term HP and use HomePod. Or if you must, use HPod.
Or, just use some common sense and understand context. ex: MP in context here usually means Mac Pro and not Military Police.
Or even older than either of them, 'Member of Parliament'.
What a load of rubbish! Sure, Apple does a great job of engineering audio devices that work well in difficult circumstances, and the HomePod devotes impressive technology to the task of providing a voice-controlled interface to internet-connected devices. Good quality music reproduction is a welcome by-product, but it's not automatically "an audiophile's ideal speaker".
Matt Hines is correct to say that speaker location can affect performance. But "causing some resonant frequencies to become inconsistently louder", "sudden, violent variations in frequency levels" and "bass might disappear"? Really, Mr. Hines? I challenge you to prove in a blind listening test that "adjusting the listening position even an inch will have a very material impact on the arrival time of the audio to your ear"?
If your ear can hear that difference, I will gladly eat it.
What a load of rubbish! Sure, Apple does a great job of engineering audio devices that work well in difficult circumstances, and the HomePod devotes impressive technology to the task of providing a voice-controlled interface to internet-connected devices. Good quality music reproduction is a welcome by-product, but it's not automatically "an audiophile's ideal speaker".
Matt Hines is correct to say that speaker location can affect performance. But "causing some resonant frequencies to become inconsistently louder", "sudden, violent variations in frequency levels" and "bass might disappear"? Really, Mr. Hines? I challenge you to prove in a blind listening test that "adjusting the listening position even an inch will have a very material impact on the arrival time of the audio to your ear"?
If your ear can hear that difference, I will gladly eat it.
Are you actually saying that moving you listening position, or moving a speaker’s position in a room won’t have change the sound as it is perceived by your ears? Seriously ?
Ok am I missing the joke here? I have to ask.... Why are people taking such issue with the word audiophile being used with this speaker!? They aren’t saying it’s “studio” quality or referring to is as “reference” quality, the word audiophile quality is being used.
a person who is especially interested in high-fidelity sound reproduction.
Origin of audiophile
The homepod is going to produce hi fidelity sound, people interested in this will appreciate that. Period ...
I have seen people on multiple occasions now write this speaker’s quality completely off...and either take offense to the word audiphile being used, or go into a rant about how HP can’t possibly achieve that quality and then name drop some expensive reference speakers that they have hooked up to an expensive amp/receiver and system.
Exactly.
If you’re an audiophile, you won’t buy a HomePod speaker but ‘regular’, high-end speakers with a high quality amp and cables.
There’a a reason there isn’t a SiriKit domain for music. The only way I see Apple adding native support for services other than Apple Music is if HomePod doesn’t take off and people say lack of music integration choices is the reason.
What a load of rubbish! Sure, Apple does a great job of engineering audio devices that work well in difficult circumstances, and the HomePod devotes impressive technology to the task of providing a voice-controlled interface to internet-connected devices. Good quality music reproduction is a welcome by-product, but it's not automatically "an audiophile's ideal speaker".
Matt Hines is correct to say that speaker location can affect performance. But "causing some resonant frequencies to become inconsistently louder", "sudden, violent variations in frequency levels" and "bass might disappear"? Really, Mr. Hines? I challenge you to prove in a blind listening test that "adjusting the listening position even an inch will have a very material impact on the arrival time of the audio to your ear"?
If your ear can hear that difference, I will gladly eat it.
Errm as an ex (and retired) sound engineer who's worked in some of the modest to the best recording studios, who's worked on live shows from clubs to stadiums, alongside some of the best sound engineers, I can 100% tell you that you're talking bollocks. Moving small distances changes the phase as well as the frequency alignment, both of which have become the most critical factors in modern systems. Hence the modern day preference for electronically controlled line-array systems.
So, you're suggesting that a 5 inch single speaker with the proper electronics can replace a full system in a home, club or stadium? Seriously?
As a single device the HomePod comes across as overpriced.
The question is: How does 4 of them (after the software is updated) compare to a $2000 sound system?
How about 2 vs. $1000 system? It’s hard to imagine the HomePod is superior...
Apple has to be counting on more than audio quality to sell these.
I have Siri disabled on my IPhone & IPad... I don’t see a HomePad in my future.
I agree... I can see a HomePod in my kitchen where I can listen to music while chopping veges. But not in my living room replacing my 9 speaker, double amped audio/home theater system....
My feeling is that anybody who compares a single speaker (or even a paired) HomePod to a high end audio system simply doesn't understand high end audio. That's not to trash the HomePod. Not at all. But, as good as it may be, as a man once said: "A speaker's got to know its limitations" (My apologies to Dirty Harry).
No, the real fools are the ones trying to compare it to a hifi system and then knocking it down for not being that which it isn’t and never claimed to be. It’s a cheap shelf speaker. Nobody except those looking to attack straw men say otherwise. Certainly not Apple.
Claims of "A U D I O P H I L E Q U A L I T Y" is essentially the subject of this whole thread. That means competing with, matching or exceeding the sound quality of a high-end audiophile system.
To call that a straw-man argument is itself a straw-man argument.
While I don't think Apple is making that Audiophile claim, there have been many on this thread making it for them....
The first few times I saw the term HP on this website I thought it meant the computer company. I recommend not using the term HP and use HomePod. Or if you must, use HPod.
Or, just use some common sense and understand context. ex: MP in context here usually means Mac Pro and not Military Police.
No, on a tech forum, "HP" STILL means "HP"... You can't rewrite the language because you're too lazy to type HomePod.
Sonos speakers are able to stream over 60 different music services worldwide. speaker is limited to one, correct?
I don't see why you can use it as an AirPlay speaker too...therefore, you can use it with any service. Apple Music is only required for Siri to work properly with music type requests.
If being able to be used like any run of the mill BT speaker is the bar then that's a damn low bar.
Nonsense. First of all AirPlay is wireless but not BT. Second, so many FUD machines keep saying “But but it only supports Apple Music!” and citing using any source for other competing devices, completely ignoring the fact that HP performs this exact same use case. Now you attempt to discredit that and for unknown reasons bring up BT.
Classic goalpost games. Keep me moving! Don’t hold still now!
You're the one spreading the FUD—and on extra thick, I might add—and moving the goalposts to claim that manually using a second device to choose music sources is the same as simply making a single verbal request to change the audio source… which is at the foundation for using "smart" with the term speaker because it includes a digital personal assistant, as opposed to using it as just a wireless dumb speaker that you're arguing is "just as good" because you can pair an iPhone, open up Sirius XM, then tap buttons all day long to play what you wish.
You'd be much better off arguing that other services will come, just as the iPhone didn't have an App Store or the Watch didn't have local apps at their launch; unless, of course, you have so little faith in Apple and the HomePod that you don't want to admit to yourself that you think it's not going to evolve into a better product over time. I think it will, but that's just me.
Nonsense. Like I’ve said my friends have sonos and must use an app to manage their audio sources. Pretending all sonos users are using voice only or voice cabpable is wishful thinking on your part.
HP is a wifi speaker. Claiming its use case is the same as a BT speaker is bogus FUD, dropped right out of your mouth. Ew.
As for your fantasy of what I believe, have fun with it. If building little straw men and writing fantasies in your head are what you need to feel good about yourself, have at it.
What a load of rubbish! Sure, Apple does a great job of engineering audio devices that work well in difficult circumstances, and the HomePod devotes impressive technology to the task of providing a voice-controlled interface to internet-connected devices. Good quality music reproduction is a welcome by-product, but it's not automatically "an audiophile's ideal speaker".
Matt Hines is correct to say that speaker location can affect performance. But "causing some resonant frequencies to become inconsistently louder", "sudden, violent variations in frequency levels" and "bass might disappear"? Really, Mr. Hines? I challenge you to prove in a blind listening test that "adjusting the listening position even an inch will have a very material impact on the arrival time of the audio to your ear"?
If your ear can hear that difference, I will gladly eat it.
I’ve perosnally sat in a small sound recording studio with calibrated monitors. There is a small sweet spot in the room, and if you move out of its space you can definitely hear it.
From ears-on reviews posted today the HomePod also has an audio sweet spot according to one: But like all speakers, it has its limitations and the HomePod left me wanting for true stereo sound. Which is probably why the only time I got truly jazzed during the demo was when they paired the two HomePods together and delivered some real separation.
And all that fancy spatial awareness and room optimization? I still found the sweet spot was sitting in the middle of the couch 8 to 10 feet away, the speakers at close to ear level -- just like regular stereo speakers.
or also described as a sweet zone by another reviewer invited by Apple "With most speakers, there's a sweet spot where everything sounds just right. The HomePod, however, endeavors to build a sweet zone. There are some exceptions, like when you're standing near a wall the HomePod has its back to, but the sound in those cases is still well worth listening to.."
Another high profile review brings up something I've not seen mentioned until now, tho perhaps with the size limitations it might not be surprising: "It's not all good news, however. There is a distinct lack of mid-range, leaving you feeling that something is missing in the mix... The result is that the sound reproduction is not as powerful as it should be - Let It Goin particular is a big song. A speaker such as this should really punch it out, but not in this admittedly brief demonstration." One other note: "Three times in our short demo Siri failed to understand what was being asked of it."
while another equally high-profile invittee commented on the soon-to-come stereo update syncing two HomePods: "We also got an early look at stereo mode, which involves pairing together two Apple HomePod speakers to create a bigger sound in a room. They sounded just as good, except just a bit louder – using two speakers didn't seem to add any extra smarts, they just created a wider sound that filled the room more comprehensively. They obviously sync together, meaning pausing or changing the volume on one unit has the same effect on the other"
Still one thing (almost) everyone agrees on is the sound is wonderful, more nuanced and rich than the competing Google Home Max (whose sound reviews range from "great" to "needs work" to even "awful, muddy and bass-y") or the Sonos 1 which can't quite get the same level of bass as Apple achieved. So the HomePod has great sound but not quite "following you around the room" as marketing might imply but more "filling the room no matter where you're standing" according to the invited guests and that's in Apple's controlled listening room where it's assets should have been heard at their best.
I have no idea what your long winded reply was about with regards to my post. As I clearly quoted, I was replying to the fool who claimed moving position doesn’t affect audio:
”I challenge you to prove in a blind listening test that ‘adjusting the listening position even an inch will have a very material impact on the arrival time of the audio to your ear’?”
...but congrats on your FUD dissemination. Keep up the solid work!
Do you even know what FUD is? It's not "I don't like what you posted".
I do, and you’re the lord of spreading it around. I’m talking about this guy’s BS claim about sweet spots not being real, and you reply to me with a bunch of shit that has nothing to do with the topic but spreads seeds of doubt on the HP’s abilities. Classic FUD farming, especially since it’s off topic to my post you were replying to. Typical for you and your agenda tho. Shrug.
As a single device the HomePod comes across as overpriced.
The question is: How does 4 of them (after the software is updated) compare to a $2000 sound system?
How about 2 vs. $1000 system? It’s hard to imagine the HomePod is superior...
Apple has to be counting on more than audio quality to sell these.
I have Siri disabled on my IPhone & IPad... I don’t see a HomePad in my future.
I agree... I can see a HomePod in my kitchen where I can listen to music while chopping veges. But not in my living room replacing my 9 speaker, double amped audio/home theater system....
My feeling is that anybody who compares a single speaker (or even a paired) HomePod to a high end audio system simply doesn't understand high end audio. That's not to trash the HomePod. Not at all. But, as good as it may be, as a man once said: "A speaker's got to know its limitations" (My apologies to Dirty Harry).
No, the real fools are the ones trying to compare it to a hifi system and then knocking it down for not being that which it isn’t and never claimed to be. It’s a cheap shelf speaker. Nobody except those looking to attack straw men say otherwise. Certainly not Apple.
Claims of "A U D I O P H I L E Q U A L I T Y" is essentially the subject of this whole thread. That means competing with, matching or exceeding the sound quality of a high-end audiophile system.
To call that a straw-man argument is itself a straw-man argument.
While I don't think Apple is making that Audiophile claim, there have been many on this thread making it for them....
Nope, you’re still building strawmen, because neither Apple nor anyone here has said a dinky and cheap 350 speaker is supposed to perform the same or better than a dedicated hifi system. They’re entirely different use cases and that is obvious. Please quote somebody here who is saying it’s supposed to replace a dedicated hifi system.
BTW, you realize audiophile isn’t a concrete thing right? It just means someone interested i’m quality. There’s no certification or standard.
The first few times I saw the term HP on this website I thought it meant the computer company. I recommend not using the term HP and use HomePod. Or if you must, use HPod.
Or, just use some common sense and understand context. ex: MP in context here usually means Mac Pro and not Military Police.
No, on a tech forum, "HP" STILL means "HP"... You can't rewrite the language because you're too lazy to type HomePod.
Nonsense. In topics dealing with the HomePod and having nothing to do with Hewlett-Packard, it’s obvious what HP is shorthand for. Only a complete fucking moron has difficulty with this.
The beauty of language is we can adapt it however we wish. I’m free to use HP as an abbreviation and you’re free to suck eggs if you don’t like it.
Sonos speakers are able to stream over 60 different music services worldwide. speaker is limited to one, correct?
I don't see why you can use it as an AirPlay speaker too...therefore, you can use it with any service. Apple Music is only required for Siri to work properly with music type requests.
If being able to be used like any run of the mill BT speaker is the bar then that's a damn low bar.
Nonsense. First of all AirPlay is wireless but not BT. Second, so many FUD machines keep saying “But but it only supports Apple Music!” and citing using any source for other competing devices, completely ignoring the fact that HP performs this exact same use case. Now you attempt to discredit that and for unknown reasons bring up BT.
Classic goalpost games. Keep me moving! Don’t hold still now!
You're the one spreading the FUD—and on extra thick, I might add—and moving the goalposts to claim that manually using a second device to choose music sources is the same as simply making a single verbal request to change the audio source… which is at the foundation for using "smart" with the term speaker because it includes a digital personal assistant, as opposed to using it as just a wireless dumb speaker that you're arguing is "just as good" because you can pair an iPhone, open up Sirius XM, then tap buttons all day long to play what you wish.
You'd be much better off arguing that other services will come, just as the iPhone didn't have an App Store or the Watch didn't have local apps at their launch; unless, of course, you have so little faith in Apple and the HomePod that you don't want to admit to yourself that you think it's not going to evolve into a better product over time. I think it will, but that's just me.
Nonsense. Like I’ve said my friends have sonos and must use an app to manage their audio sources. Pretending all sonos users are using voice only or voice cabpable is wishful thinking on your part.
HP is a wifi speaker. Claiming its use case is the same as a BT speaker is bogus FUD, dropped right out of your mouth. Ew.
As for your fantasy of what I believe, have fun with it. If building little straw men and writing fantasies in your head are what you need to feel good about yourself, have at it.
The HomePod is in some respects better than Stereo. The DSP respects the intent of the original stereo mix. For example, if it detects backing vocals mixed toward the left channel it will send these more toward the left tweeters. At the same time lead vocals will be beamed to the center of the room. This creates a sound stage intelligently from the stereo mix and it allows each of the 7 tweeters to be dedicated to reproducing a smaller number of sounds.eap forward compared to anything else in this price range.
Where did you get this information? I haven't seen anything from Apple that indicates the HomePod "steers" directional information in the way you describe. Have I missed something or are you speculating?
There is just one woofer in a HomePod but this fact does not completely destroy the stereo effect because the human ear and brain are not as good at detecting the direction of very low frequency sounds.
Kinda right, kinda wrong. We can usually get away with single woofers in a finite space, but not necessarily because of any lack of directional acuity in human hearing at lower frequencies, but because of room boundaries. Once a wave reaches a certain length within the confines of room boundaries, the source of the wave is obscured. Since low frequencies are long waves, one can usually get away with using a single woofer.
However, if the space in which the speaker is placed is large enough, and the frequencies the woofer has to produce are high enough, the masking effect can be lost and we can clearly identify the source. In those cases, having two woofers at suitable distances from the listener and each either will result in a better stereo image.
[...] Matt Hines is correct to say that speaker location can affect performance. But "causing some resonant frequencies to become inconsistently louder", "sudden, violent variations in frequency levels" and "bass might disappear"? Really, Mr. Hines? I challenge you to prove in a blind listening test that "adjusting the listening position even an inch will have a very material impact on the arrival time of the audio to your ear"?
If your ear can hear that difference, I will gladly eat it.
Mr. Hines' language is a bit hyperbolic, but the essence of it is absolutely valid. While I may not be a "typical" listener (I'm an audio engineer), I can clearly hear the changes in sound caused by moving the speakers one inch closer to or further away from a nearby boundary (I doubt I'd hear a change of an inch if the speaker is not near any walls though).
Just about anyone should be able to hear how the timbre of the sound changes as you turn your head. And, if your living room is anything like mine, you'll notice that as you walk around there are areas that seem to have very little bass and others where it just BOOMS! Standing waves are very real and clearly audible. Most people just don't pay attention to them.
The problems are well known. What remains to be seen is how well the HomePod remedies them. I'm a little sceptical, but also both prepared and hoping to be surprised!
What a load of rubbish! Sure, Apple does a great job of engineering audio devices that work well in difficult circumstances, and the HomePod devotes impressive technology to the task of providing a voice-controlled interface to internet-connected devices. Good quality music reproduction is a welcome by-product, but it's not automatically "an audiophile's ideal speaker".
Matt Hines is correct to say that speaker location can affect performance. But "causing some resonant frequencies to become inconsistently louder", "sudden, violent variations in frequency levels" and "bass might disappear"? Really, Mr. Hines? I challenge you to prove in a blind listening test that "adjusting the listening position even an inch will have a very material impact on the arrival time of the audio to your ear"?
If your ear can hear that difference, I will gladly eat it.
What a load of rubbish! Sure, Apple does a great job of engineering audio devices that work well in difficult circumstances, and the HomePod devotes impressive technology to the task of providing a voice-controlled interface to internet-connected devices. Good quality music reproduction is a welcome by-product, but it's not automatically "an audiophile's ideal speaker".
Matt Hines is correct to say that speaker location can affect performance. But "causing some resonant frequencies to become inconsistently louder", "sudden, violent variations in frequency levels" and "bass might disappear"? Really, Mr. Hines? I challenge you to prove in a blind listening test that "adjusting the listening position even an inch will have a very material impact on the arrival time of the audio to your ear"?
If your ear can hear that difference, I will gladly eat it.
Are you actually saying that moving you listening position, or moving a speaker’s position in a room won’t have change the sound as it is perceived by your ears? Seriously ?
Ok am I missing the joke here? I have to ask.... Why are people taking such issue with the word audiophile being used with this speaker!? They aren’t saying it’s “studio” quality or referring to is as “reference” quality, the word audiophile quality is being used.
a person who is especially interested in high-fidelity sound reproduction.
Origin of audiophile
The homepod is going to produce hi fidelity sound, people interested in this will appreciate that. Period ...
I have seen people on multiple occasions now write this speaker’s quality completely off...and either take offense to the word audiphile being used, or go into a rant about how HP can’t possibly achieve that quality and then name drop some expensive reference speakers that they have hooked up to an expensive amp/receiver and system.
Exactly.
If you’re an audiophile, you won’t buy a HomePod speaker but ‘regular’, high-end speakers with a high quality amp and cables.
Actually you would still buy unless you only want to listen to music in your living room. Even "audiophiles "are not going to put a big ass stereo pair in their kitchen because it would make no sense at all from a listening sweet spot point of view and it's a hellishly crowded space already.
So, are they using headphones and a portable high quality DAC
connected to a very high quality recorder they have on their person at
all time even in their own houses? Probably not.
Before the homepod, they had to deal with the fact that in places where
they could not control the acoustics like bathroom, kitchen, they'd
probably get terrible sound no matter what they put there. The speaker
could not really "read the room", at least none at a reasonable price.
Audiophiles are interested in high quality audio reproduction and according to situations, it adjusts.
Also it assumes that a person with interest in high fidelity has the money to succeed in their ambition.
Current two speaker and amp setups under $1000 in small untreated living rooms usually dissapoint people with small budgets both in convenience and in sound. These people with limited budgets if they have put some money in their living room don't have the money to buy decent sound anywhere else and are left to crank up their living room audio and listen to them in the rest of the house (horrible and echoey usually) or buy small crap speakers like the $100 ones.
What if they could buy 2 Homepod to serve both those spaces well and it cost less than that big stereo in the living room that never quite sounded right.
The core of Apple's market is AFFORDABLE LUXURY. You give something to someone they could not aspire to before.
PS: Also, high fidelity is a whopping loaded word by itself, high fidelity compared to what? The source? What someone recorded (which until pretty recently had to content with pretty crappy reproduction and was mastered consequently). There is a reason why there are millions of remastering, remixing, etc.
[...] Matt Hines is correct to say that speaker location can affect performance. But "causing some resonant frequencies to become inconsistently louder", "sudden, violent variations in frequency levels" and "bass might disappear"? Really, Mr. Hines? I challenge you to prove in a blind listening test that "adjusting the listening position even an inch will have a very material impact on the arrival time of the audio to your ear"?
If your ear can hear that difference, I will gladly eat it.
Mr. Hines' language is a bit hyperbolic, but the essence of it is absolutely valid. While I may not be a "typical" listener (I'm an audio engineer), I can clearly hear the changes in sound caused by moving the speakers one inch closer to or further away from a nearby boundary (I doubt I'd hear a change of an inch if the speaker is not near any walls though).
Just about anyone should be able to hear how the timbre of the sound changes as you turn your head. And, if your living room is anything like mine, you'll notice that as you walk around there are areas that seem to have very little bass and others where it just BOOMS! Standing waves are very real and clearly audible. Most people just don't pay attention to them.
The problems are well known. What remains to be seen is how well the HomePod remedies them. I'm a little sceptical, but also both prepared and hoping to be surprised!
I think people forget that a lot people want to hear music, audio in non ideal settings. In fact, in small appartments and condos, non ideal settings and lack of space for an "audiophile"(sic) setup are the norm. You get really terrible acoustics in most of them, especially at higher volumes.
That's why people use those small single speakers in every room and plop in close to where they usually want to hear it.
These speakers are mostly played at lowish volume as background cause they are themselves pretty terrible when the volume is pushed up even a bit exacerbating the bad acoustic issue of the rooms.
From my own experience, sounds that have been heavily compressed (most music these days) sound really bad on those small sized speakers at more than moderate volume in any room and even on high fi speakers in small crowded rooms (also at moderate to high volume).
Classical Music and Instrumental Jazz with lots of dynamics sound terrible on small sized speakers or small inexpensive hifi system in small rooms. Better use the headphones cause it is not worth it!
Things like alt-pop, acoustic music with few instruments, folk, vocal jazz, anything where vocals are at the forefront, are decent in current speakers as long as you don't push up the volume too much (they you notice how little low end there is). Music where there is not 20 overlays, and 50 tracks sound the best on those small midrange speakers currently on the market.
Right now, because as soon as you crank up those small speakers they don't sound so good, you can't really fill the kitchen with sound with one speaker.
So, Apple tries to solve this bad acoustic, small listening area, hard to set up, better audio takes space, frequency response to room changes a lot with the volume and type of track, they will have improved the sound a lot.
From ears-on reviews posted today the HomePod also has an audio sweet spot according to one:
(Excellent summary snipped for brevity)
To me, that's all actually GOOD news! Trying to accomplish what some people here seemed to be expecting struck me as fraught with peril. Trying to do too much would have created the possibility for some yucky outcomes. I'm glad Apple engineers chose to reel it in a bit and go for subtle enhancement rather than going all-in and possibly creating a phasey, comb-filtered nightmare.
(EDIT: Okay, the part about Siri still being stupid is NOT good news. That's really, really, really disappointing.)
Unless you are an audio engineer, you would think it’s so simple to make a speaker and not understand why HomePod costs $349 or why you should be so thrilled.
As an audio engineer that understands the physics of sound and technology, when I saw the keynote at WWDC, I was floored. Basically Apple is shrinking what amounts to concert-level (room tuning, steerable audio, sub node cancellation, phase cancellation detection, audio engineer experience) into a sub $400 device. Are you kidding me???
As an audio engineer myself, that's what worries me... that's a lot to expect from a small, cheap speaker. It seems like the odds are stacked against it.
However, early reports indicate that claims about steering and real-time phase cancellation processing have been exaggerated, and the path Apple has actually taken is more subtle. That's probably a good thing.
Comments
Or $700 pair should compare to $1000 of stereo?
That said, having standard, single wireless 360 degree speakers is a bad place to start with anyway so every improvement beyond that is desirable.
How about some analysis explaining how competitor systems control audio to balance the room effects or why Apple has been able to package the tech at this price point?
If you’re an audiophile, you won’t buy a HomePod speaker but ‘regular’, high-end speakers with a high quality amp and cables.
That means competing with, matching or exceeding the sound quality of a high-end audiophile system.
To call that a straw-man argument is itself a straw-man argument.
While I don't think Apple is making that Audiophile claim, there have been many on this thread making it for them....
HP is a wifi speaker. Claiming its use case is the same as a BT speaker is bogus FUD, dropped right out of your mouth. Ew.
As for your fantasy of what I believe, have fun with it. If building little straw men and writing fantasies in your head are what you need to feel good about yourself, have at it.
I do, and you’re the lord of spreading it around. I’m talking about this guy’s BS claim about sweet spots not being real, and you reply to me with a bunch of shit that has nothing to do with the topic but spreads seeds of doubt on the HP’s abilities. Classic FUD farming, especially since it’s off topic to my post you were replying to. Typical for you and your agenda tho. Shrug.
BTW, you realize audiophile isn’t a concrete thing right? It just means someone interested i’m quality. There’s no certification or standard.
Nonsense. In topics dealing with the HomePod and having nothing to do with Hewlett-Packard, it’s obvious what HP is shorthand for. Only a complete fucking moron has difficulty with this.
The beauty of language is we can adapt it however we wish. I’m free to use HP as an abbreviation and you’re free to suck eggs if you don’t like it.
Kinda right, kinda wrong. We can usually get away with single woofers in a finite space, but not necessarily because of any lack of directional acuity in human hearing at lower frequencies, but because of room boundaries. Once a wave reaches a certain length within the confines of room boundaries, the source of the wave is obscured. Since low frequencies are long waves, one can usually get away with using a single woofer.
However, if the space in which the speaker is placed is large enough, and the frequencies the woofer has to produce are high enough, the masking effect can be lost and we can clearly identify the source. In those cases, having two woofers at suitable distances from the listener and each either will result in a better stereo image.
Mr. Hines' language is a bit hyperbolic, but the essence of it is absolutely valid. While I may not be a "typical" listener (I'm an audio engineer), I can clearly hear the changes in sound caused by moving the speakers one inch closer to or further away from a nearby boundary (I doubt I'd hear a change of an inch if the speaker is not near any walls though).
Just about anyone should be able to hear how the timbre of the sound changes as you turn your head. And, if your living room is anything like mine, you'll notice that as you walk around there are areas that seem to have very little bass and others where it just BOOMS! Standing waves are very real and clearly audible. Most people just don't pay attention to them.
The problems are well known. What remains to be seen is how well the HomePod remedies them. I'm a little sceptical, but also both prepared and hoping to be surprised!
(EDIT: Okay, the part about Siri still being stupid is NOT good news. That's really, really, really disappointing.)
As an audio engineer myself, that's what worries me... that's a lot to expect from a small, cheap speaker. It seems like the odds are stacked against it.
However, early reports indicate that claims about steering and real-time phase cancellation processing have been exaggerated, and the path Apple has actually taken is more subtle. That's probably a good thing.