snookie

TheBossManX said:

ericthehalfbee said:

Terrible comparison and this why using numbers off a spec sheet is meaningless (though the Android fans love spec sheets).

For starters, no Android device display can touch the iPhone because Android has a horrible version of color management. Nobody can render content anywhere nearly as accurate as the iPhone. As to pixel count, both are so high nobody could ever tell the difference.

The brightness spec is wrong. You can measure peak brightness in a small area of the screen or over the entire screen. Bottom line is the iPhone has the brighter screen and Samsung is playing with numbers when they quote 1,200 nits.

Cameras? Try to record a video and switch between cameras during the video. The Note 10 often stutters and has to refocus when changing. The iPhone does this seamlessly.

Just a couple obvious examples.

What in the world this is so uneducated.

1)How does Android have "terrible color management" first of all that is not even a real term and second actually compare a note 10 plus display to a iPhone 11 pro max display and you will see there is little difference in iPhones (inferior display) and the note 10 plus display espe5 when it comes to high quality her vidoe.

2) Check displaymate before you make false ill-informed claims. I'll leave it at that and let realize your own stupidity.

3) have you actually tried switching while recording because I just did it seamlessly on my note 10 plus.

Nice to see ill-informed morons spread their "knowledge" to the world.

zoetmb said:

AnotherBrick said:

seanismorris said:

AnotherBrick said:

There is one sentence that will prevent me from buying a HomePod: “Apple's HomePod is a fantastic home speaker. It connects solely over Wi-Fi and streams Apple Music natively, but nothing else.”

A device which claims to be an audiophile grade speaker that only plays mp3 quality music and cannot accept other sources unless that source has AirPlay, which probably eliminates turntables for people who are vinyl purists, absolutely killed my interest in the device. I wanted something that could play the highest quality bit rate for digital and could play my high end vinyl collection as well.

Below is Apple’s response to these complaints (via cultofmac).  I wouldn’t know not being an audiophile, but it sounds like you’re fighting Father Time in a digital world.  Nothing wrong with that, but it sounds like you won’t be interested in most new products...

“Mastered for iTunes is all about the quality of the source,” Apple says. “24-bit audio has a remarkably wide dynamic range which is preserved during encoding to AAC and these files are virtually indistinguishable from the original. Some of the best audio engineers in the business have a hard time telling them apart even on high-end audio equipment. Experts may be able to tell you that they are different in some subtle ways, but they can’t necessarily tell you which one they like better. This isn’t about AAC vs. CD or vinyl. It’s about creating the best possible master for the unique characteristics of each medium.”

Apple talks up its “powerful and practical software tools” designed for pro musicians.

“We want the music to sound as close as possible to the way it did in the studio or in the concert hall, preserving your vision and intention,” Apple says. “We want artists and sound engineers to be thoroughly satisfied and proud of the results they can now achieve in our format. So we have worked very hard to provide both the monitoring and quality assessment tools, plus an end-to-end mastering and encoding process that delivers the best possible audio for today’s digital world.”

AAC is a lossy format. Despite what the article says, it is NOT a 24 bit format either. Lossy means you are losing some of the audio quality when compared to the same music in a lossless file format, even if both formats are digital.  Apple shouldn't charge high end prices for mid level performance equipment, especially ones that require you to jump through hoops to use your existing but high quality music. The connection to a HomePod is wireless ethernet, in all but the poorest of wireless systems you should be able to stream ALAC or FLAC files versions which would mean at least CD quality bitrate (16 bit) lossless versions of songs and could have a frequency  and data rate up to 24 bit with a higher frequency response. ALAC IS an Apple format, and it has been around for years, so Apple already has a format they could use. The physical means of getting the music TO the  HomePod, wifi, isn't the problem. It's the restrictions of what you can (easily) stream and the loss of fidelity inherent in an AAC format. Bluetooth would struggle and probably drop out trying to stream ALAC at least for now, but wifi has no problem unless you are an extremely very heavy wifi streaming user. 300 mb is many times more than enough bandwidth for the highest digital music format and most routers are at least that, and 1 gb routers are pretty common now as well.

You will hear people talk fondly of tube based systems sounding better (usually described as 'warmer') than a discrete based amplifier system. I won't argue with them, but I know I cannot hear the difference. I can hear the difference in AAC and either ALAC or FLAC. If you can't then don't buy a super high end system, you won't notice the improvement. But that doesn't mean that the improvement isn't there. But to me, even if it's all in my mind (another thing people will say when you bring up quality) and not reality, a high quality vinyl disc sounds better than the same album on a CD, and much much better than any streaming service, whether its Pandora, Spotify or Apple Music. I have heard of, but never personally listened to, Tidal music which is supposed to be (if you pay for the upper tier of their service) CD quality streaming music. I don't know if you can get Tidal on an iPhone or iPad but I know I can get it on my iMac, so I could stream it to an HomePod, but with the other physical and software limitations, which I think were artificial and not inherent in what Apple said they were trying to do, I'm not interested in going to the trouble.

I don't understand why we have essentially and mostly returned to mono.    Plus, I don't want a device that spies on me.   But I'm an old fogey and almost the only time I stream is when I'm bike riding and I suppose eventually when I buy my next car.   At home, it's all physical media.  

xyzzy01 said:

A couple of questions about the sound quality:

1. Do the Ikea Sonos players support Sonos Trueplay, and was it in use when comparing the sound? (Trueplay is Sonos' way of configuring the sound to the room - which involves waving an iPhone around while Sonos is playing some special sounds, and then adjusting the sound afterwards - somewhat reminiscent of Audyssey)
2. How is the sound of a pair of the Sonos speakers, compared to one Apple HomePod ?

I already have a lot of Sonos and I use other music sources beyond Apple Music - including something so simple as Internet radio - so the HomePod isn't for me. But the Ikea Sonos speakers could make fine gifts.