lorin schultz

tmay said:

[...] Raising the HomePod has been already demonstrated to help on reflective surfaces

This, combined with the frequency response graph suggesting the possibility of room nodes affecting low frequency linearity, makes me wonder how effective Apple's automatic room correction actually is. A theoretical "perfect" implementation would negate the effects of raising it up. It *should* sound the same sitting on top of some books as it does sitting on the shelf. (Maybe it actually does, and what users are reporting is placebo effect.)

gatorguy said:

Just a general comment for anyone getting their HomePod in the next couple of days: Make sure to place it only on hard surfaces. Otherwise it will sound like crap and you might not understand why.

I'm not disagreeing or being pedantic, but I'm genuinely curious where one might place a HomePod that is not a hard surface? I can't think of a spot in my house in which I could place a HomePod that would be characterized as a "soft" surface.

foggyhill said:

Not having an EQ, which is almost always wrong for the room even in a good system, is a feature.

Ah Fogster, you make me giggle! We have some great discussions, but when it comes to the HomePod, you are truly the King of the Fanbois!

Not being able to tailor the output to my taste is a "feature?" Perhaps then I would be better served by a less well-featured device!

I am inclined to believe, despite not yet having heard it, the HomePod can probably do a better job of compensating for room acoustics than I can. Of course, the HomePod is assuming that the spectral balance of the source material is desirable. Sometimes it isn't. Sometimes the recording exhibits characteristics I don't care for. Like the stuff I ripped from CDs that were mastered in the '80s, when engineers were still accustomed to mastering for vinyl, that wound up having enough high-end sizzle to scorch your eyebrows while also being bass-shy? Or the tracks produced by Herman Thumpster, who thinks the bass is too low if it doesn't rattle the dishes in the cupboard? Being able to dial in a little compensation may actually make the track sound better.

I'm listening to a HomePod for enjoyment, not critical evaluation. There will be times when a little tweaking may be more enjoyable than a pure representation of the source. The absence of that capability is not enough reason to disqualify the HomePod from consideration, and honestly most of the time I wouldn't even bother with EQ anyway, but let's not pretend that not having EQ somehow makes it "better!"

AppleZulu said:
I would imagine this particular ‘limitation’ is at least in part related to Apple’s approach to security. Do you really want anyone who just happens to be passing through to be able to place or answer calls using to your cell phone number? I don’t think I do.

Having somehow survived decades of having a telephone on my desk that any passer-by can use to place or answer a call, I don’t really see a security threat here.

Besides, I can place a call from my Mac without having to pull my phone out of my pocket. Why would the HomePod not offer similar functionality?

jb1741 said:

"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?

Actually, we don't yet know that Apple HAS been able to defeat the effects of room acoustics.

I'm skeptical that they can at all, much less at this price point. My expectation is that it'll turn out one of two ways:

1. The HomePod becomes invisible as a source and corrects for room acoustics, but in doing so introduces a bunch of weird phase artifacts because the tolerances are too fine and the requirements too daunting for a simple SOC to handle.

or

2. It will do a better job than a conventional box speaker of sounding "spacious" but won't live up to the directional-steering, ambience-recreating marvel some people seem to expect.

I'm hoping it's #2.