Ex-Apple designer targets HomePod with Syng 'Cell' speaker startup

Posted:
in General Discussion edited November 2020
A former Apple designer, as well as ex-Apple employees, have formed the start-up Syng, with their 'Cell' speaker aiming to take on the HomePod and other smart speakers with its own superior computational audio processing.




A key element of the HomePod is its adaptive audio, which is able to create an optimal audio experience for the user, regardless of its position and nearby obstacles. While impressive to most listeners of the HomePod, one team believes it can create a far better product.

The startup Syng is using a combination of design and sound quality to create a new type of speaker, according to the Financial Times. Its first product, the "Cell" speaker, will use "immersive rendering" and a novel audio format to create a "revolutionary" sound "indistinguishable from reality."

In its pitches to investors, Syng plans to launch a range of speakers, with the initial launch scheduled for the fourth quarter of 2020. Along with expanding the speaker range, Syng also hopes to bolster revenues by licensing out its rendering technology to other speaker producers, as well as setting up its own subscription service.

So far, the startup has raised in the region of $15 million in Series A funding, and is aiming to raise more ahead of the launch.

The company is headed up by Christopher Stringer, a prominent industrial designer who left Apple after 21 years of employment. Stringer had worked on a number of Apple products, including the original iPhone and iPad, and was involved in Apple's famous legal battle against Samsung over iPhone patents.

Stringer is named on more than 1,400 patents in the United States, and is credited for innovations pertaining to the iPhone, Apple Watch, and the HomePod. The patents list includes filings for HomePod's spatial audio system, which is likely to have been improved upon by Stringer for the new speaker.

According to the report, Stringer moved from Silicon Valley in 2017 to set up the startup in Venice Beach, Los Angeles. The company also counts other Apple employees in its ranks, including co-founder Afrooz Family who worked for Apple for six years as an audio engineer and contributed to the HomePod.

Other employees for the firm formerly worked for Nest, Ring, Nike, Facebook, and major audio companies including Harman International and Bowers & Wilkins.

While offering a better audio experience is hoped to make Syng stand out, its fortunes remain uncertain. It is entering an already crowded market, and has to deal with the effects of the coronavirus pandemic, which can impact both attracting investment and the scheduling of production.

Stay on top of all Apple news right from your HomePod or HomePod mini. Say, "Hey, Siri, play AppleInsider Daily," and you'll get a fast update direct from the AppleInsider team.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 18
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member
    The question is whether they will be smart enough to include an audio-in port of some type...
    viclauyycmike54williamlondonCloudTalkin
  • Reply 2 of 18
    rob53rob53 Posts: 3,241member
    So Stringer worked on the HomePod and he along with the other Apple employees had access to all sorts of Apple technology so how do they think they'll be able to come out with a similar product without violating Apple patents, which might still belong to Apple even though Stringer is named on a ton of patents? Yes, real long sentence, which is what all the legal documents will contain as soon as he tries to sell his products.
    flyingdpkuduScot1watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 18
    viclauyycviclauyyc Posts: 849member
    rob53 said:
    So Stringer worked on the HomePod and he along with the other Apple employees had access to all sorts of Apple technology so how do they think they'll be able to come out with a similar product without violating Apple patents, which might still belong to Apple even though Stringer is named on a ton of patents? Yes, real long sentence, which is what all the legal documents will contain as soon as he tries to sell his products.
    You know all these patents are published and anyone can look into it if they wish, right?

    Not to mention adaptive sound technology is nothing new. Pilot use it on plane for ages. 
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 18
    kimberlykimberly Posts: 427member
    rob53 said:
    So Stringer worked on the HomePod and he along with the other Apple employees had access to all sorts of Apple technology so how do they think they'll be able to come out with a similar product without violating Apple patents, which might still belong to Apple even though Stringer is named on a ton of patents? Yes, real long sentence, which is what all the legal documents will contain as soon as he tries to sell his products.
    Impressively self-defeating :/
  • Reply 5 of 18
    rob53 said:
    So Stringer worked on the HomePod and he along with the other Apple employees had access to all sorts of Apple technology so how do they think they'll be able to come out with a similar product without violating Apple patents, which might still belong to Apple even though Stringer is named on a ton of patents? Yes, real long sentence, which is what all the legal documents will contain as soon as he tries to sell his products.
    If he raised enough capital to license BlueTooth, he might be successful against Apple...
    edited May 2020
  • Reply 6 of 18
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    rob53 said:
    So Stringer worked on the HomePod and he along with the other Apple employees had access to all sorts of Apple technology so how do they think they'll be able to come out with a similar product without violating Apple patents, which might still belong to Apple even though Stringer is named on a ton of patents? Yes, real long sentence, which is what all the legal documents will contain as soon as he tries to sell his products.
    Other speakers exist without violating Apple patents, so I'm sure they'll do fine.
    edited May 2020 williamlondoncgWerksuraharamike1
  • Reply 7 of 18
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    rob53 said:
    So Stringer worked on the HomePod and he along with the other Apple employees had access to all sorts of Apple technology so how do they think they'll be able to come out with a similar product without violating Apple patents, which might still belong to Apple even though Stringer is named on a ton of patents? Yes, real long sentence, which is what all the legal documents will contain as soon as he tries to sell his products.
    If he and his company create a better audio product than Apple and are able to get the word out, then they’ll be rewarded with sales. Personally, I have no interest in speakers which use computational models to reshape the audio. I’d rather have the audio the engineer/artist/band originally intended to be represented by the speaker(s).
    cgWerksmobird
  • Reply 8 of 18
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,834member
    rob53 said:
    So Stringer worked on the HomePod and he along with the other Apple employees had access to all sorts of Apple technology so how do they think they'll be able to come out with a similar product without violating Apple patents, which might still belong to Apple even though Stringer is named on a ton of patents? Yes, real long sentence, which is what all the legal documents will contain as soon as he tries to sell his products.
    Ideas aren’t protected, only specific implementations are. So if they write their own code and design their own stuff, they can use the general ideas and execute them uniquely. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 18
    A former Apple designer, as well as ex-Apple employees, have formed the start-up Syng, with their 'Cell' speaker aiming to take on the HomePod and other smart speakers with its own superior computational audio processing.
    ...
    A key element of the HomePod is its adaptive audio, which is able to create an optimal audio experience for the user, regardless of its position and nearby obstacles. While impressive to most listeners of the HomePod, one team believes it can create a far better product.

    The startup Syng is using a combination of design and sound quality to create a new type of speaker, according to the Financial Times. Its first product, the "Cell" speaker, will use "immersive rendering" and a novel audio format to create a "revolutionary" sound "indistinguishable from reality."

    I can see where some sort of "computational audio processing" might allow compensation for some real-world system and/or listening environment deficiencies to achieve an improvement in sound quality. A properly set parametric EQ can help this regard, so I'm not opposed to extending the concept in more sophisticated ways, as long as the goal is to re-create the sound as the artist intended. But when I see the terms "revolutionary" and especially "indistinguishable from reality," I just have to cringe a little.
    lolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 18
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member
    SpamSandwich said:
    ...  Personally, I have no interest in speakers which use computational models to reshape the audio. I’d rather have the audio the engineer/artist/band originally intended to be represented by the speaker(s).
    True, but then you're going to have to have a very specialized speaker setup and listening environment. The idea of this, in my understanding, is to compensate for inadequacies of the speaker and environment.
    lollivermike1
  • Reply 11 of 18
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,884member
    If your target is a mass market for smart speakers, then your customers will not really be able to distinguish one "computational audio processing" approach/method/implementation from another.  They'd probably worry more about the color of the damn thing.
    cgWerkswatto_cobraSpamSandwich
  • Reply 12 of 18
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member
    tundraboy said:
    If your target is a mass market for smart speakers, then your customers will not really be able to distinguish one "computational audio processing" approach/method/implementation from another.  They'd probably worry more about the color of the damn thing.
    Uggg, yeah! The state of audio these days is abysmal aside from the real high end stuff. Years ago, the stuff the average person was buying was much better. But, do people even care anymore? Our own home systems are quite lacking, because I can't generate enough interest within the household to spend any $ on it. Everyone just listens to their own device with (cheap) headphones anyway.

    I wonder if my wife/son will ever experience what good sound is actually like? While good headphones can probably do some things even the best speakers can't, they still aren't the same experience as being in a room with a great sound-system. The closest thing are probably live concerts, where at least the 'feel' is present, but typically the sound systems are crap (or the people running them mess it all up).
  • Reply 13 of 18
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,408member
    rob53 said:
    So Stringer worked on the HomePod and he along with the other Apple employees had access to all sorts of Apple technology so how do they think they'll be able to come out with a similar product without violating Apple patents, which might still belong to Apple even though Stringer is named on a ton of patents? Yes, real long sentence, which is what all the legal documents will contain as soon as he tries to sell his products.
    If he and his company create a better audio product than Apple and are able to get the word out, then they’ll be rewarded with sales. Personally, I have no interest in speakers which use computational models to reshape the audio. I’d rather have the audio the engineer/artist/band originally intended to be represented by the speaker(s).
    There's no such thing as a speaker that "represents" audio 100% accurately. That's why you mix on studio monitors and headphones and then go take your mix out to your car stereo for another listen. Everything "reshapes the audio". What's the difference if there's computational modeling happening in between whatever medium is being played and the speaker itself? What if that modeling serves to create a more accurate rendering of the recording?
    cgWerks
  • Reply 14 of 18
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member
    fastasleep said:
    There's no such thing as a speaker that "represents" audio 100% accurately. That's why you mix on studio monitors and headphones and then go take your mix out to your car stereo for another listen. Everything "reshapes the audio". What's the difference if there's computational modeling happening in between whatever medium is being played and the speaker itself? What if that modeling serves to create a more accurate rendering of the recording?
    I think the problem might be one more of perception, in that over the last few decades, we've been sold wave after wave of 'new frontier' kind of audio/video stuff that has mostly degraded the experience. So, while you're right, a lot people just see stuff like this as fancy-schmancy audio-ruining tech.
  • Reply 15 of 18
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,408member
    cgWerks said:
    fastasleep said:
    There's no such thing as a speaker that "represents" audio 100% accurately. That's why you mix on studio monitors and headphones and then go take your mix out to your car stereo for another listen. Everything "reshapes the audio". What's the difference if there's computational modeling happening in between whatever medium is being played and the speaker itself? What if that modeling serves to create a more accurate rendering of the recording?
    I think the problem might be one more of perception, in that over the last few decades, we've been sold wave after wave of 'new frontier' kind of audio/video stuff that has mostly degraded the experience. So, while you're right, a lot people just see stuff like this as fancy-schmancy audio-ruining tech.
    Of course it's a problem of perception, as are most things. There were all kinds of sound systems and headphones 50 years ago and none of them were the authoritative "representation" of a recording. That's still the case, software modeling or not.
  • Reply 16 of 18
    mariowincomariowinco Posts: 112member
    I do not agree with the idea of (entry level) audio getting worst over time, quite the contrary for me (and my ears).
    spent 4K between speakers and a Yamaha receiver two years ago and result is very good. Was the 15k solution audibly better? Yes, but not 4 times better. Is my 500usd living room sound system 8 times worst than my audio gear? I’ll say not. Is my iPhone with whatever earbuds (shure, sennheiser, etc) I throw at it “bad sound”? I don’t think so. And etc. 
    fastasleep
  • Reply 17 of 18
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member
    fastasleep said:
    Of course it's a problem of perception, as are most things. There were all kinds of sound systems and headphones 50 years ago and none of them were the authoritative "representation" of a recording. That's still the case, software modeling or not.
    I meant more along the lines of the room modeling and shaping and all that kind of stuff. The public perception might be that after decades of new features and tech that were supposed to improve the audio, but often degraded it, they might not care so much for something like this, even if it is actually pretty good.

    I do not agree with the idea of (entry level) audio getting worst over time, quite the contrary for me (and my ears).
    spent 4K between speakers and a Yamaha receiver two years ago and result is very good. Was the 15k solution audibly better? Yes, but not 4 times better. Is my 500usd living room sound system 8 times worst than my audio gear? I’ll say not. Is my iPhone with whatever earbuds (shure, sennheiser, etc) I throw at it “bad sound”? I don’t think so. And etc. 
    Yeah, it depends on what we're talking about and at what cost levels. The capability of digital audio storage vs cassette tapes is certainly a huge improvement. But, on the basic stuff like the typical amp/receiver people have, I don't think that's the case.
  • Reply 18 of 18
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,408member
    cgWerks said:
    fastasleep said:
    Of course it's a problem of perception, as are most things. There were all kinds of sound systems and headphones 50 years ago and none of them were the authoritative "representation" of a recording. That's still the case, software modeling or not.
    I meant more along the lines of the room modeling and shaping and all that kind of stuff. The public perception might be that after decades of new features and tech that were supposed to improve the audio, but often degraded it, they might not care so much for something like this, even if it is actually pretty good.
    Most people don't care what's going on inside these speakers as long as the end product sounds good. Like computational photography, the vast majority of users will never even know what that means — they just know their iPhone photos look great. 
    cgWerks
Sign In or Register to comment.