You're right. 17 pounds is heavy. But I quess you don't live in New York. Some of the boomboxes make this look very dainty indeed.
You've raised some really good points throughout this topic, melgross, but there's still something we need to address, something I missed in my first post ("just what the world needs, another iPod boombox") and something that'll make all the difference:
This is not a boombox. It's a bookshelf hi-fi.
Why isn't it a boombox?
1.) Your iPod would keep falling out.
2.) It's white, and that means scuff marks and other dirt will show up.
3.) It has no grille across the speakers, instead, it has one of those nasty stretched stockings we're used to seeing on speakers.
4.) The only means of controlling it, while it's over your shoulder, is by reaching for the tiny iPod it's cradling.
5.) It has no bar handle. You'd have to carry it like a log. The little handles on its sides are good for moving it about but no good for carrying it over your shoulder.
6.) It has no tape deck, CD player, radio, or any other built-in means of playing music. You have to connect your iPod to it to play music.
7.) While having none of the things mentioned in point 6, it does, like all good micro systems, have a line in.
8.) As already pointed out, it looks neither 'manly' not 'ghetto' enough.
9.) Your iPod would keep getting swiped out of its little dock.
10.) Apple are calling it a hifi, not a boombox.
I don't think we should be comparing it to other iPod boomboxes, we should be comparing it to micro systems in the same pricerange ($350, give or take $50).
It's slightly less costy and slightly less attractive. It has more speakers, it's less portable. It has a CD, radio, and cassette for whoever uses them. Its controls are easier to access, if you can find the one you're looking for. Apparently, it records to AAC so it can be used to back up old tapes or even record radio shows. But it sounds?... mediocre, according to Amazon's review.
I really hope the iPod hifi sounds great. At $350 with no extra gadgets, the buyer knows his money HAS to be going into a decent amp and speakers because there's nothing else there. I think buyers of this system will mostly be apartment dwellers who want something they can take out to friends houses and play them some tunes from their iPods.
BTW, for those of us who were hoping for integrated AirTunes: head to Apple's store and go to the refurb section (click the 'sale' price tag low on the right nav bar). Scroll down to the bottom of the page that loads and you'll see some refurbed AirTunes base stations for $100. It's not integration, but at least it saves $30.
Is anyone here familiar with the Sonos wireless music system? Very nice. Now imagine if the iPod and iPod Hi-Fi both had 802.11g built in. You could use your iPod as the controller. Wirelessly. Why can't they do something like that?
How about something like this only a little larger? Now imagine that rather than having a built-in display the iPod would dock in the front instead of on top and the iPod's display would not only show the usual iPod info but also act as a radio tuner the way the optional remote does now. A special inverse mode could make it easier to see from across the room. Add in HD Radio support and you something special.
They put a basic amp behind a center channel speaker, no more, no less.
I think you're on to something. I hadn't thought of that but with that driver configuration that is exactly what it is. A center channel speaker. It's a speaker designed for one channel, not two. So they adapted a monophonic speaker to be used as a stereo one. Only the midrange drivers on the left and right are stereo of course with lower frequencies from both channels going to the woofer in the center. I see no tweeters so no wonder it rolls of at 16 kHz. Hi-Fi my ass. Of course whenever a computer person starts talking about "audiophile" quality you should cover your ears. Did anyone catch the part where Steve Jobs said he was replacing his home Hi-Fi with this? Kind of hard to believe coming from a multimillionaire, right? It's all just marketing BS just like any other company I guess. Still, this could have been so much better, at least in features if not sound quality.
Again, it's hard to see why this is being taken to mean what it doesn't.
The RESULTS of bad engineering are well known.
The costs of the engineering are what my friend (Bob Carver) was talking about, not the costs of the errors made by bad engineers.
Good engineering might have resulted in less loss for the city. but those engineers might have charged the same amount as those who, unfortunately, did do the engineering.
The devil is in the "MIGHT have charged." I have no dog in this fight, but Apple seems to spend more money on R&D - much of it engineering - perhaps more than My-Tee-Fine Computer Speaker Company. So whether they are paying them the same per engineer and have twice as many engineers or not, engineering costs can not be assumed to be equal - bad or good.
As for NO, the Army Corps spent so much channelizing the Mississippi and dredging the channels, that in comparason, they did less work on structurally building up the city. So there the engineering was biased toward some goals vs. other goals. The same for any project. You may say that the RESULTS should not be monetized into the COSTS, but that hides the true costs and that is why lawyers and insurance companies make lots of money.
You've raised some really good points throughout this topic, melgross, but there's still something we need to address, something I missed in my first post ("just what the world needs, another iPod boombox") and something that'll make all the difference:
This is not a boombox. It's a bookshelf hi-fi.
Why isn't it a boombox?
1.) Your iPod would keep falling out.
If it is meant to be solely a bookshelf unit, why would it accept batteries? I think the point needs to be made is that it is a boom box, but really one that is not well designed to fit that role. If it is meant to be stationary, handles wouldn't be necessary.
A response for the rest of the thread:
I think other people are getting a little too persnickety about what defines a "Hi-Fi". I get tired of the snobs telling other people what they are getting is junk and doesn't constitute their own elitist definition. I used to disagree with this idea, but it seems like people spend way too much more time and money worrying about the equipment than the medium, it seems as if the music is actually secondary.
I think other people are getting a little too persnickety about what defines a "Hi-Fi". I get tired of the snobs telling other people what they are getting is junk and doesn't constitute their own elitist definition.
Another person who misinterprets what I say. Are you doing it deliberately?
I'll say it yet again: I don't think the iPod HiFi is Junk!
Another person who misinterprets what I say. Are you doing it deliberately?
I'll say it yet again: I don't think the iPod HiFi is Junk!
I didn't say anything about iPod HiFi. I wasn't referring to what you say. I was more referring to people that insist that a certain price with lots of zeros is Hi-Fi and somehow, the ones without the zeros isn't. Or trotting out certain luxury brands or designers.
It seems absurd to suggest that there is no market for this thing. All the people who have bought, and continue to buy the Bose Sound Dock are living proof to the contrary. Is Apple's marketing machine out of control again? You bet. This is to Hi Fi what the PPC was to super computing. The disappointment in this thread seems to be that Apple did not take advantage of the opportunity to leverage the Mac in some way. Built-in Airport Express would have tied it to iTunes. If they make a camera, it will surly be tied to iPhoto as would a vid cam to iMovie and iDVD. Apple did not advance the ball of convergence by including a radio or TV or some such. They did not correct the omissions of similar products. The remote still won't allow for changing playlists, no readability from a distance, etc. All they did was to make a clone of an existing product near the same price range, bringing nothing new to the table. This may be disappointing, but it does not mean the product is any worse than its chief competitor. If the sound quality is equally as good, why not get the Apple product? At least you have the option of setting it up on a pick-nick table away from an outlet.
As for me, I am not the target market. I am perfectly happy with my Logitech mm50. It is highly mobile with great sound. It goes from location to location without feeding it expensive external batteries. It goes for many hours without a wall wart. And you never have to stop the music in transit. Did I mention it is less than half the price of Apple's product.
Part of the product of high-end audio is that it is confined only to the obscenely wealthy. It is an unnecessary indulgence, even for Apple devotees. The reason is that the ear, unless highly trained, just cannot distinguish between good sound and great sound. I am enjoying my $50 2.0 JBL Duets hooked up to my Mac mini every bit as much as my old $300 5.1 Altec Lansing system. We have already broken the sound barrier. By and large, for consumers, cheap speakers are plenty good enough. If you can't tell the difference between a $100 system and a $300 system, what's the point of the more expensive system? It is like PC spec whores who have a system that looks better on paper, but in the real world, does not perform any better than less expensive systems. Therefore, consumers like us place a premium on features, not khz. We would rather have a $100 set of speakers with $200 in additional features. We want a better remote, wireless streaming, a nice display, and the like. Those are the sorts of things that would get us to fork over $350. This product is intended for the Bose, Sharper Image jet set, not the Best Buy rank and file. That doesn't make it bad. It's just not for most of us. Personally, I hope they keep trying.
You've raised some really good points throughout this topic, melgross, but there's still something we need to address, something I missed in my first post ("just what the world needs, another iPod boombox") and something that'll make all the difference:
This is not a boombox. It's a bookshelf hi-fi.
Why isn't it a boombox?
1.) Your iPod would keep falling out.
2.) It's white, and that means scuff marks and other dirt will show up.
3.) It has no grille across the speakers, instead, it has one of those nasty stretched stockings we're used to seeing on speakers.
4.) The only means of controlling it, while it's over your shoulder, is by reaching for the tiny iPod it's cradling.
5.) It has no bar handle. You'd have to carry it like a log. The little handles on its sides are good for moving it about but no good for carrying it over your shoulder.
6.) It has no tape deck, CD player, radio, or any other built-in means of playing music. You have to connect your iPod to it to play music.
7.) While having none of the things mentioned in point 6, it does, like all good micro systems, have a line in.
8.) As already pointed out, it looks neither 'manly' not 'ghetto' enough.
9.) Your iPod would keep getting swiped out of its little dock.
10.) Apple are calling it a hifi, not a boombox.
I don't think we should be comparing it to other iPod boomboxes, we should be comparing it to micro systems in the same pricerange ($350, give or take $50).
It's slightly less costy and slightly less attractive. It has more speakers, it's less portable. It has a CD, radio, and cassette for whoever uses them. Its controls are easier to access, if you can find the one you're looking for. Apparently, it records to AAC so it can be used to back up old tapes or even record radio shows. But it sounds?... mediocre, according to Amazon's review.
I really hope the iPod hifi sounds great. At $350 with no extra gadgets, the buyer knows his money HAS to be going into a decent amp and speakers because there's nothing else there. I think buyers of this system will mostly be apartment dwellers who want something they can take out to friends houses and play them some tunes from their iPods.
I'm just saying boombox, because it's been described that way. I agree that a boombox is not really what it is. It's a portable sound system. You take the iPod out of your pocket and put it in when you're ready to listen.
Don't go by the number of speakers (drivers). four cheap drivers are worse than two good ones.
Apartment dwellers. But, I think that this is intended more for college dorms. Many students already have iPods. This is perfect for them. Pop it in, listen, and recharge. listen to music or lectures. Get pretty decent sound for something small enough to actually fit into a small, crowded, often messy dorm. Take it to parties.
Teenagers will also find this to be good. It's not more expensive than one of the better iPods. It will sound far better than what they have now.
It's also good for a kitchen, which is where I'll put it when I get it.
Did Steve engage in a bit of hyperbole? Sure, that's called marketing. I can't fault him for that. It's done all the time.
Look, we both know that this isn't designed to compete with bigger systems. But, if you add a decent CD player, a decent tuner pre-amp. Antenna, and hi-end cables, you can bring this ststem up to the price of that $1,000 system easily, without going overboard.
This isn't a complete system. There isn't a front end to it. Add one and the price egos up. With the 30GB iPod, it goes to $650. Add that FM tuner, and it can go to $1,000, once the cables are factored in.
That $1,000 ststem mentioned above won't be any better than this. The only difference, for a larger room than this is obviously intended for, is the ability to set the speakers further apart. I agree with that one.
But, in a smaller room, you would be surprised at how well closely mounted speakers can give a satisfing stereo presentation. There are several European speaker manufacturers that make combines stereo pairs. And, no, I don't have the names in front of me. But a couple were exhibited at the Home Entertainment Show in NYC last year. A friend of mine imports one. That is, he's a dealer. I could get the name of that one, if you are interested.
As I said in my above post, this is intended for small rooms.
If it is meant to be solely a bookshelf unit, why would it accept batteries? I think the point needs to be made is that it is a boom box, but really one that is not well designed to fit that role. If it is meant to be stationary, handles wouldn't be necessary.
A response for the rest of the thread:
I think other people are getting a little too persnickety about what defines a "Hi-Fi". I get tired of the snobs telling other people what they are getting is junk and doesn't constitute their own elitist definition. I used to disagree with this idea, but it seems like people spend way too much more time and money worrying about the equipment than the medium, it seems as if the music is actually secondary.
It's not a boombox, it's just being described that way. Think portable sound system.
I agree with you 100% about people seeing the music as secondary.
There are two ways to listen. You can listen through the system to the music.
Or, you can listen through the music to the system.
I always tried to design products that would make you want to listen through them to the music.
Much of hi-fi, especially hi-end products, are designed for the opposite role, and many people who buy them, buy them for that purpose.
I'll happily concede that we can't dismiss this as crummy sounding without an audition, but it follows that we can't blithely declare it "great sounding" without same.
If 20 to 20khz is an audio industry joke, than surely you will take Apple's "custom designed cones" and "super rigid enclosure" with a grain of salt.
What specs that are offered look OK for what it is, but we have no amp wattage or THD numbers to assist our evaluation.
Surely speaker design is outside of Apple's core competency, so it's not just a forgone conclusion that this will be best of class.
For instance, there's this., a well reviewed single box solution with quite a bit more amenities and costing $200. There are many others that can't be considered "junk", that cost less and do more than the iPod Hi-Fi. Most of them, while they don't take batteries, do have a 12V power input, which is arguably more useful. And yes, a built in dock is a feature, but so are multiple inputs, monitor loops and more sophisticated trim controls
Do any of them sound better than the iPod Hi-Fi? I have no idea. Will more people buy the iPod Hi-Fi because of a certain "Appleness"? Almost certainly.
But none of that makes the iPod Hi-Fi some kind of triumph, at least from a purely sonic perspective (design and form factor are another matter). It doesn't make it bad by any means, but I don't see where we need to start singing its praises, unheard.
I didn't say anything about iPod HiFi. I wasn't referring to what you say. I was more referring to people that insist that a certain price with lots of zeros is Hi-Fi and somehow, the ones without the zeros isn't. Or trotting out certain luxury brands or designers.
Jeff, that's most definately directed towards me, and should be.
I'm not a hi-fi snob. Just the opposite. I've been in the industry and have tried to convince manufacturers to come down in their prices.
I've even been "insulted" by one designer, who accused me, of all things, of not being a real hi-end person, but, and can you imagine this - a "music lover"!
Of all the things to be called.
But, we do have to distinguish between items whose purpose is very much not to be "hi-fi", and those that, at least, try to be better.
I believe that, with this product, Apple has made an attempt to come up with something that stands on the middle ground. I know from experience, that products of this type, and in this price range, can sound pretty good, within their limitations.
There's a lot of emotional angst being presented here over what is, after all, just another product.
If it sounds better than other products in its price range, and sells well, that's good. It will spur others in the business to improve the quality of their products as well.
I'll happily concede that we can't dismiss this as crummy sounding without an audition, but it follows that we can't blithely declare it "great sounding" without same.
If 20 to 20khz is an audio industry joke, than surely you will take Apple's "custom designed cones" and "super rigid enclosure" with a grain of salt.
What specs that are offered look OK for what it is, but we have no amp wattage or THD numbers to assist our evaluation.
Surely speaker design is outside of Apple's core competency, so it's not just a forgone conclusion that this will be best of class.
For instance, there's this., a well reviewed single box solution with quite a bit more amenities and costing $200. There are many others that can't be considered "junk", that cost less and do more than the iPod Hi-Fi. Most of them, while they don't take batteries, do have a 12V power input, which is arguably more useful. And yes, a built in dock is a feature, but so are multiple inputs, monitor loops and more sophisticated trim controls
Do any of them sound better than the iPod Hi-Fi? I have no idea. Will more people buy the iPod Hi-Fi because of a certain "Appleness"? Almost certainly.
But none of that makes the iPod Hi-Fi some kind of triumph, at least from a purely sonic perspective (design and form factor are another matter). It doesn't make it bad by any means, but I don't see where we need to start singing its praises, unheard.
I can't say if it is "great" sounding, or just pretty nice.
I don't take their custom designed drivers with a grain of salt, because I used to design my own drivers as well. Many speaker companies do that. Many others buy them off the shelf. It often depends on what performance you need, and also on how many you will sell, and at what price.
But, Apple did one thing that most other manufacturers have not done. And that is to give meaningful specifcations. I stress the word "meaningful".
The reason is that a company can't give one spec without giving the other that will define and limit that spec.
When frequency response is given, it MUST be accompanied by the delimiter+-db. Without that, it means nothing. That's why I say that the spec 20-20KHz is an industry joke. By itself, it means nothing.
When I was a teenager (in the early-mid sixty's), the console manufacturers, such as GE, RCA, Zenith, and others were the big guns in the industry. Hi-fi was just becoming well known.
It wasn't unusual to see them advertize that their models had 2,400 watts peak music power. But, what did that mean?
Well, first, it could be divided into two channels for 1,200 per channel. Then it could be divided in half again, because peak power was a simple doubling of music power. That gave 600 watts. Take off another 25% for music power, and you had about 450. The specs usually used by these companies past that were usually about 5% HD from 100 to 10Kcycles (no Hertz in those days).
Retest, and bring those numbers to 50 to 15Kcycles with 1% HD, and you got about 50 watts.
So, those 2,400 watt amps were really 50 watt stereo amps.
That's what a lack of standards does. There were hearings before Congress about this, and a law was passed requiring that whenever a company advertises power output, it MUST be accompanied by both frequency at the -3 db levels (at worst), and HD numbers. The amp must also be tested at one third power output for one hour, to see if it gets too hot, ot turns off, or blows up, or melts down (some did).
Too bad, but that law didn't cover small devices that were not intended as hi-fi. Table radio's and the like. It is a loophole.
Apple is to be admired that they give the system response as 53 to 16KHz +-3 db, 108 db output level 1 meter, ac, 102 db 1 meter batteries.
That's a real spec!
The amp power doesn't matter. What does matter is that it was sized for the speaker system. We know the output levels and that is all that is needed. We won't know any more by knowing how many watts is has.
Distortion levels are ticklish. Remember that these are system specs. There never has been a rule, and certainly no law, about speaker specs.
The amp will have low distortion. That's not a problem these days, except for single-ended tube amps, which have a lot of distortion.
The problem with stating system distortion specs, is that people can easily get scared off by the levels of distortion that speakers exhibit.
A good small speaker can have 2% distortion in the mid range. 4% in the treble, and 10% in the bass.
But those would be good specs for a small inexpensive speaker.
I'm not sure that the public is ready for those numbers when they read of amps with levels of 0.01% or less.
EDIT: Spelling, etc. Sorry. Someone came to my door, so I had to hit the button.
Comments
Originally posted by melgross
You're right. 17 pounds is heavy. But I quess you don't live in New York. Some of the boomboxes make this look very dainty indeed.
You've raised some really good points throughout this topic, melgross, but there's still something we need to address, something I missed in my first post ("just what the world needs, another iPod boombox") and something that'll make all the difference:
This is not a boombox. It's a bookshelf hi-fi.
Why isn't it a boombox?
1.) Your iPod would keep falling out.
2.) It's white, and that means scuff marks and other dirt will show up.
3.) It has no grille across the speakers, instead, it has one of those nasty stretched stockings we're used to seeing on speakers.
4.) The only means of controlling it, while it's over your shoulder, is by reaching for the tiny iPod it's cradling.
5.) It has no bar handle. You'd have to carry it like a log. The little handles on its sides are good for moving it about but no good for carrying it over your shoulder.
6.) It has no tape deck, CD player, radio, or any other built-in means of playing music. You have to connect your iPod to it to play music.
7.) While having none of the things mentioned in point 6, it does, like all good micro systems, have a line in.
8.) As already pointed out, it looks neither 'manly' not 'ghetto' enough.
9.) Your iPod would keep getting swiped out of its little dock.
10.) Apple are calling it a hifi, not a boombox.
I don't think we should be comparing it to other iPod boomboxes, we should be comparing it to micro systems in the same pricerange ($350, give or take $50).
After a quick Amazon search, I found this:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...Fencoding=UTF8
It's slightly less costy and slightly less attractive. It has more speakers, it's less portable. It has a CD, radio, and cassette for whoever uses them. Its controls are easier to access, if you can find the one you're looking for. Apparently, it records to AAC so it can be used to back up old tapes or even record radio shows. But it sounds?... mediocre, according to Amazon's review.
I really hope the iPod hifi sounds great. At $350 with no extra gadgets, the buyer knows his money HAS to be going into a decent amp and speakers because there's nothing else there. I think buyers of this system will mostly be apartment dwellers who want something they can take out to friends houses and play them some tunes from their iPods.
Originally posted by melgross
Take 4 audio systems, one costing $1,000, one costing $10,000, one costing $100,000, and one costing $1,000,000.
Systems at all of those levels exist.
Which one is the hi fidelity one?
The one that doesn't cost $350.
Originally posted by a_greer
They put a basic amp behind a center channel speaker, no more, no less.
I think you're on to something. I hadn't thought of that but with that driver configuration that is exactly what it is. A center channel speaker. It's a speaker designed for one channel, not two. So they adapted a monophonic speaker to be used as a stereo one. Only the midrange drivers on the left and right are stereo of course with lower frequencies from both channels going to the woofer in the center. I see no tweeters so no wonder it rolls of at 16 kHz. Hi-Fi my ass. Of course whenever a computer person starts talking about "audiophile" quality you should cover your ears. Did anyone catch the part where Steve Jobs said he was replacing his home Hi-Fi with this? Kind of hard to believe coming from a multimillionaire, right? It's all just marketing BS just like any other company I guess. Still, this could have been so much better, at least in features if not sound quality.
Originally posted by 1984
Did anyone catch the part where Steve Jobs said he was replacing his home Hi-Fi with this?
Try reading my last post before this one in this thread.
Originally posted by melgross
Again, it's hard to see why this is being taken to mean what it doesn't.
The RESULTS of bad engineering are well known.
The costs of the engineering are what my friend (Bob Carver) was talking about, not the costs of the errors made by bad engineers.
Good engineering might have resulted in less loss for the city. but those engineers might have charged the same amount as those who, unfortunately, did do the engineering.
The devil is in the "MIGHT have charged." I have no dog in this fight, but Apple seems to spend more money on R&D - much of it engineering - perhaps more than My-Tee-Fine Computer Speaker Company. So whether they are paying them the same per engineer and have twice as many engineers or not, engineering costs can not be assumed to be equal - bad or good.
As for NO, the Army Corps spent so much channelizing the Mississippi and dredging the channels, that in comparason, they did less work on structurally building up the city. So there the engineering was biased toward some goals vs. other goals. The same for any project. You may say that the RESULTS should not be monetized into the COSTS, but that hides the true costs and that is why lawyers and insurance companies make lots of money.
Originally posted by jdbartlett
You've raised some really good points throughout this topic, melgross, but there's still something we need to address, something I missed in my first post ("just what the world needs, another iPod boombox") and something that'll make all the difference:
This is not a boombox. It's a bookshelf hi-fi.
Why isn't it a boombox?
1.) Your iPod would keep falling out.
If it is meant to be solely a bookshelf unit, why would it accept batteries? I think the point needs to be made is that it is a boom box, but really one that is not well designed to fit that role. If it is meant to be stationary, handles wouldn't be necessary.
A response for the rest of the thread:
I think other people are getting a little too persnickety about what defines a "Hi-Fi". I get tired of the snobs telling other people what they are getting is junk and doesn't constitute their own elitist definition. I used to disagree with this idea, but it seems like people spend way too much more time and money worrying about the equipment than the medium, it seems as if the music is actually secondary.
Originally posted by JeffDM
I think other people are getting a little too persnickety about what defines a "Hi-Fi". I get tired of the snobs telling other people what they are getting is junk and doesn't constitute their own elitist definition.
Another person who misinterprets what I say. Are you doing it deliberately?
I'll say it yet again: I don't think the iPod HiFi is Junk!
Originally posted by Mr. H
Another person who misinterprets what I say. Are you doing it deliberately?
I'll say it yet again: I don't think the iPod HiFi is Junk!
I didn't say anything about iPod HiFi. I wasn't referring to what you say. I was more referring to people that insist that a certain price with lots of zeros is Hi-Fi and somehow, the ones without the zeros isn't. Or trotting out certain luxury brands or designers.
Apple never said this WAS a boombox.
Those were just rumours. All the literature says STEREO and nothing else.
Regular people that don't go to mac sites will never know that anyone ever claimed this was a boombox.
It's just a compact stereo system, that can be mildly portable.
Just thought I'd comment on the fact that everyone here keeps saying boombox. This isn't one.
As for me, I am not the target market. I am perfectly happy with my Logitech mm50. It is highly mobile with great sound. It goes from location to location without feeding it expensive external batteries. It goes for many hours without a wall wart. And you never have to stop the music in transit. Did I mention it is less than half the price of Apple's product.
Part of the product of high-end audio is that it is confined only to the obscenely wealthy. It is an unnecessary indulgence, even for Apple devotees. The reason is that the ear, unless highly trained, just cannot distinguish between good sound and great sound. I am enjoying my $50 2.0 JBL Duets hooked up to my Mac mini every bit as much as my old $300 5.1 Altec Lansing system. We have already broken the sound barrier. By and large, for consumers, cheap speakers are plenty good enough. If you can't tell the difference between a $100 system and a $300 system, what's the point of the more expensive system? It is like PC spec whores who have a system that looks better on paper, but in the real world, does not perform any better than less expensive systems. Therefore, consumers like us place a premium on features, not khz. We would rather have a $100 set of speakers with $200 in additional features. We want a better remote, wireless streaming, a nice display, and the like. Those are the sorts of things that would get us to fork over $350. This product is intended for the Bose, Sharper Image jet set, not the Best Buy rank and file. That doesn't make it bad. It's just not for most of us. Personally, I hope they keep trying.
Granted, it's not as powerful or elegant (not that the Hi-fi is much more elegant) but it's a fraction of the cost.
They also have something called a Vase USB Speaker that looks interesting.
http://www.boynq.com/
Originally posted by jdbartlett
You've raised some really good points throughout this topic, melgross, but there's still something we need to address, something I missed in my first post ("just what the world needs, another iPod boombox") and something that'll make all the difference:
This is not a boombox. It's a bookshelf hi-fi.
Why isn't it a boombox?
1.) Your iPod would keep falling out.
2.) It's white, and that means scuff marks and other dirt will show up.
3.) It has no grille across the speakers, instead, it has one of those nasty stretched stockings we're used to seeing on speakers.
4.) The only means of controlling it, while it's over your shoulder, is by reaching for the tiny iPod it's cradling.
5.) It has no bar handle. You'd have to carry it like a log. The little handles on its sides are good for moving it about but no good for carrying it over your shoulder.
6.) It has no tape deck, CD player, radio, or any other built-in means of playing music. You have to connect your iPod to it to play music.
7.) While having none of the things mentioned in point 6, it does, like all good micro systems, have a line in.
8.) As already pointed out, it looks neither 'manly' not 'ghetto' enough.
9.) Your iPod would keep getting swiped out of its little dock.
10.) Apple are calling it a hifi, not a boombox.
I don't think we should be comparing it to other iPod boomboxes, we should be comparing it to micro systems in the same pricerange ($350, give or take $50).
After a quick Amazon search, I found this:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...Fencoding=UTF8
It's slightly less costy and slightly less attractive. It has more speakers, it's less portable. It has a CD, radio, and cassette for whoever uses them. Its controls are easier to access, if you can find the one you're looking for. Apparently, it records to AAC so it can be used to back up old tapes or even record radio shows. But it sounds?... mediocre, according to Amazon's review.
I really hope the iPod hifi sounds great. At $350 with no extra gadgets, the buyer knows his money HAS to be going into a decent amp and speakers because there's nothing else there. I think buyers of this system will mostly be apartment dwellers who want something they can take out to friends houses and play them some tunes from their iPods.
I'm just saying boombox, because it's been described that way. I agree that a boombox is not really what it is. It's a portable sound system. You take the iPod out of your pocket and put it in when you're ready to listen.
Don't go by the number of speakers (drivers). four cheap drivers are worse than two good ones.
Apartment dwellers. But, I think that this is intended more for college dorms. Many students already have iPods. This is perfect for them. Pop it in, listen, and recharge. listen to music or lectures. Get pretty decent sound for something small enough to actually fit into a small, crowded, often messy dorm. Take it to parties.
Teenagers will also find this to be good. It's not more expensive than one of the better iPods. It will sound far better than what they have now.
It's also good for a kitchen, which is where I'll put it when I get it.
Did Steve engage in a bit of hyperbole? Sure, that's called marketing. I can't fault him for that. It's done all the time.
Originally posted by 1984
The one that doesn't cost $350.
Look, we both know that this isn't designed to compete with bigger systems. But, if you add a decent CD player, a decent tuner pre-amp. Antenna, and hi-end cables, you can bring this ststem up to the price of that $1,000 system easily, without going overboard.
This isn't a complete system. There isn't a front end to it. Add one and the price egos up. With the 30GB iPod, it goes to $650. Add that FM tuner, and it can go to $1,000, once the cables are factored in.
That $1,000 ststem mentioned above won't be any better than this. The only difference, for a larger room than this is obviously intended for, is the ability to set the speakers further apart. I agree with that one.
But, in a smaller room, you would be surprised at how well closely mounted speakers can give a satisfing stereo presentation. There are several European speaker manufacturers that make combines stereo pairs. And, no, I don't have the names in front of me. But a couple were exhibited at the Home Entertainment Show in NYC last year. A friend of mine imports one. That is, he's a dealer. I could get the name of that one, if you are interested.
As I said in my above post, this is intended for small rooms.
Originally posted by JeffDM
If it is meant to be solely a bookshelf unit, why would it accept batteries? I think the point needs to be made is that it is a boom box, but really one that is not well designed to fit that role. If it is meant to be stationary, handles wouldn't be necessary.
A response for the rest of the thread:
I think other people are getting a little too persnickety about what defines a "Hi-Fi". I get tired of the snobs telling other people what they are getting is junk and doesn't constitute their own elitist definition. I used to disagree with this idea, but it seems like people spend way too much more time and money worrying about the equipment than the medium, it seems as if the music is actually secondary.
It's not a boombox, it's just being described that way. Think portable sound system.
I agree with you 100% about people seeing the music as secondary.
There are two ways to listen. You can listen through the system to the music.
Or, you can listen through the music to the system.
I always tried to design products that would make you want to listen through them to the music.
Much of hi-fi, especially hi-end products, are designed for the opposite role, and many people who buy them, buy them for that purpose.
I'll happily concede that we can't dismiss this as crummy sounding without an audition, but it follows that we can't blithely declare it "great sounding" without same.
If 20 to 20khz is an audio industry joke, than surely you will take Apple's "custom designed cones" and "super rigid enclosure" with a grain of salt.
What specs that are offered look OK for what it is, but we have no amp wattage or THD numbers to assist our evaluation.
Surely speaker design is outside of Apple's core competency, so it's not just a forgone conclusion that this will be best of class.
For instance, there's this., a well reviewed single box solution with quite a bit more amenities and costing $200. There are many others that can't be considered "junk", that cost less and do more than the iPod Hi-Fi. Most of them, while they don't take batteries, do have a 12V power input, which is arguably more useful. And yes, a built in dock is a feature, but so are multiple inputs, monitor loops and more sophisticated trim controls
Do any of them sound better than the iPod Hi-Fi? I have no idea. Will more people buy the iPod Hi-Fi because of a certain "Appleness"? Almost certainly.
But none of that makes the iPod Hi-Fi some kind of triumph, at least from a purely sonic perspective (design and form factor are another matter). It doesn't make it bad by any means, but I don't see where we need to start singing its praises, unheard.
Originally posted by JeffDM
I didn't say anything about iPod HiFi. I wasn't referring to what you say. I was more referring to people that insist that a certain price with lots of zeros is Hi-Fi and somehow, the ones without the zeros isn't. Or trotting out certain luxury brands or designers.
Jeff, that's most definately directed towards me, and should be.
I'm not a hi-fi snob. Just the opposite. I've been in the industry and have tried to convince manufacturers to come down in their prices.
I've even been "insulted" by one designer, who accused me, of all things, of not being a real hi-end person, but, and can you imagine this - a "music lover"!
Of all the things to be called.
But, we do have to distinguish between items whose purpose is very much not to be "hi-fi", and those that, at least, try to be better.
I believe that, with this product, Apple has made an attempt to come up with something that stands on the middle ground. I know from experience, that products of this type, and in this price range, can sound pretty good, within their limitations.
There's a lot of emotional angst being presented here over what is, after all, just another product.
If it sounds better than other products in its price range, and sells well, that's good. It will spur others in the business to improve the quality of their products as well.
And, that's a good thing. right?
Originally posted by addabox
Mel--
I'll happily concede that we can't dismiss this as crummy sounding without an audition, but it follows that we can't blithely declare it "great sounding" without same.
If 20 to 20khz is an audio industry joke, than surely you will take Apple's "custom designed cones" and "super rigid enclosure" with a grain of salt.
What specs that are offered look OK for what it is, but we have no amp wattage or THD numbers to assist our evaluation.
Surely speaker design is outside of Apple's core competency, so it's not just a forgone conclusion that this will be best of class.
For instance, there's this., a well reviewed single box solution with quite a bit more amenities and costing $200. There are many others that can't be considered "junk", that cost less and do more than the iPod Hi-Fi. Most of them, while they don't take batteries, do have a 12V power input, which is arguably more useful. And yes, a built in dock is a feature, but so are multiple inputs, monitor loops and more sophisticated trim controls
Do any of them sound better than the iPod Hi-Fi? I have no idea. Will more people buy the iPod Hi-Fi because of a certain "Appleness"? Almost certainly.
But none of that makes the iPod Hi-Fi some kind of triumph, at least from a purely sonic perspective (design and form factor are another matter). It doesn't make it bad by any means, but I don't see where we need to start singing its praises, unheard.
I can't say if it is "great" sounding, or just pretty nice.
I don't take their custom designed drivers with a grain of salt, because I used to design my own drivers as well. Many speaker companies do that. Many others buy them off the shelf. It often depends on what performance you need, and also on how many you will sell, and at what price.
But, Apple did one thing that most other manufacturers have not done. And that is to give meaningful specifcations. I stress the word "meaningful".
The reason is that a company can't give one spec without giving the other that will define and limit that spec.
When frequency response is given, it MUST be accompanied by the delimiter+-db. Without that, it means nothing. That's why I say that the spec 20-20KHz is an industry joke. By itself, it means nothing.
When I was a teenager (in the early-mid sixty's), the console manufacturers, such as GE, RCA, Zenith, and others were the big guns in the industry. Hi-fi was just becoming well known.
It wasn't unusual to see them advertize that their models had 2,400 watts peak music power. But, what did that mean?
Well, first, it could be divided into two channels for 1,200 per channel. Then it could be divided in half again, because peak power was a simple doubling of music power. That gave 600 watts. Take off another 25% for music power, and you had about 450. The specs usually used by these companies past that were usually about 5% HD from 100 to 10Kcycles (no Hertz in those days).
Retest, and bring those numbers to 50 to 15Kcycles with 1% HD, and you got about 50 watts.
So, those 2,400 watt amps were really 50 watt stereo amps.
That's what a lack of standards does. There were hearings before Congress about this, and a law was passed requiring that whenever a company advertises power output, it MUST be accompanied by both frequency at the -3 db levels (at worst), and HD numbers. The amp must also be tested at one third power output for one hour, to see if it gets too hot, ot turns off, or blows up, or melts down (some did).
Too bad, but that law didn't cover small devices that were not intended as hi-fi. Table radio's and the like. It is a loophole.
Apple is to be admired that they give the system response as 53 to 16KHz +-3 db, 108 db output level 1 meter, ac, 102 db 1 meter batteries.
That's a real spec!
The amp power doesn't matter. What does matter is that it was sized for the speaker system. We know the output levels and that is all that is needed. We won't know any more by knowing how many watts is has.
Distortion levels are ticklish. Remember that these are system specs. There never has been a rule, and certainly no law, about speaker specs.
The amp will have low distortion. That's not a problem these days, except for single-ended tube amps, which have a lot of distortion.
The problem with stating system distortion specs, is that people can easily get scared off by the levels of distortion that speakers exhibit.
A good small speaker can have 2% distortion in the mid range. 4% in the treble, and 10% in the bass.
But those would be good specs for a small inexpensive speaker.
I'm not sure that the public is ready for those numbers when they read of amps with levels of 0.01% or less.
EDIT: Spelling, etc. Sorry. Someone came to my door, so I had to hit the button.