Reddit Audiophiles Test HomePod, Say It Sounds Better Than $1,000 Speaker (arstechnica.com) 327
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Apple released its much-hyped HomePod speaker to the masses last week, and the general consensus among early reviews is that it sounds superb for a relatively small device. But most of those reviews seem to have avoided making precise measurements of the HomePod's audio output, instead relying on personal experience to give generalized impressions. That's not a total disaster: a general rule for speaker testing is that while it's good to stamp out any outside factor that may cause a skewed result, making definitive, "objective" claims is difficult. But having some proper measurements is important. Reddit user WinterCharm, whose real name is Fouzan Alam, has made just that in a truly massive review for the site's "r/audiophile" sub. And if his results are to be believed, those early reviews may be underselling the HomePod's sonic abilities. After a series of tests with a calibrated microphone in an untreated room, Alam found the HomePod to sound better than the KEF X300A, a generally well-regarded bookshelf speaker that retails for $999. What's more, Alam's measurements found the HomePod to provide a "near-perfectly flat frequency response," meaning it stays accurate to a given track without pushing the treble, mids, or bass to an unnatural degree. He concludes that the digital signal processing tech the HomePod uses to "self-calibrate" its sound to its surroundings allows it to impress at all volumes and in tricky environments. "The HomePod is 100% an audiophile grade speaker," he writes.
I don't know... (Score:5, Funny)
...still needs more cowbell.
Re:I don't know... (Score:4, Funny)
Never thought the day would come when slashdot becomes reddit, and reddit becomes slashdot.
(just poking fun at ourselves, don't take offense)
Duh (Score:2, Insightful)
Not saying they're right, but this should not be unexpected.
Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Duh (Score:5, Funny)
Monster audio cables are worth every penny, some people just don't have the aural capacity to appreciate their greatness.
Monster? (Score:3)
Bah! Pear Anjou cables are the minimum acceptable cables you should be using. Sure, they're about $450/foot but aren't your ears worth it?
(Yes... I'm kidding. But not about that pricing.)
Re: (Score:3)
No Spotify, no deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet it can't even play Spotify using voice control A major fail. The walled garden works as long as the services you are tied to are actually competitive with the alternatives. Apple Music sucks in terms of compatibility. I want a service I can use to play music anywhere
Do you have to use Apple software or hardware as a sound source? If so, I won't even bother reading reviews, since I've never once used either of these things and have no desire to.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You also have to have an iOS device to even setup the HomePod. If all you have is $5,000 Mac Pro, you're out of luck!
"Requires iPhone 5s or later, iPad Pro, iPad (5th generation), iPad Air or later, iPad mini 2 or later, or iPod touch (6th generation) running iOS 11.2.5 or later."
The only iOS devices I have are an iPhone 5 and iPad mini (v1), so I'm out of luck, too, since I'm not going to upgrade either one of them any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And yet it can't even play Spotify using voice control
A major fail. The walled garden works as long as the services you are tied to are actually competitive with the alternatives. Apple Music sucks in terms of compatibility. I want a service I can use to play music anywhere
Do you have to use Apple software or hardware as a sound source? If so, I won't even bother reading reviews, since I've never once used either of these things and have no desire to.
It uses AirPlay as its audio protocol; but that is available on many devices and applications, including, but not limited to, Spotify.
Here is an AirPlay Server. Also does GoogleCast and Miracast:
https://www.airserver.com/ [airserver.com] ...and another one:
http://www.airsquirrels.com/ai... [airsquirrels.com]
Here's a Free one:
https://www.5kplayer.com/airpl... [5kplayer.com]
Here's a money-grubbing one:
http://www.x-mirage.com/x-mira... [x-mirage.com] ...or Roll-Your-Own:
https://github.com/jamesdlow/o... [github.com]
https://github.com/watson/airp... [github.com]
So, yeah, it's AirPlay; but, as you can
Re: (Score:2)
Doubletwist + Airtwist for Android should be under $5, but I still can't see a point in shelling out $350 for one of those unless I were already one of the 100% Apple faithful.
Kodi has limited Airplay support, though the specifics depend on the device and Kodi build. It can definitely connect to audio devices, which might make it the perfect middleware for one of these things.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So, in other words you never had any intention of purchasing an Apple product and it has nothing to do with Spotify after all.
Re: (Score:2)
An article with audiophiles and Apple products (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:An article with audiophiles and Apple products (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Completely agree. That said, I think there's still room in a product space for a single speaker that tries to do it all. After all, not everyone has the space or inclination for a proper stereo setup. And you nailed the crux of the issue related to the "sweet spot" problem (which also holds true in a stereo setup, to be clear), but one advantage the HomePod has in that regard is that it may be possible to move the "sweet spot" without moving the speaker.
The HomePod uses an accelerometer to recognize when it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe EarPods are good headphones. For the price they fucking aught to be.
Re: (Score:2)
The GP was talking about EarPods, not AirPods:
EarPods [apple.com] - $29
AirPods [apple.com] - $179
They're confusingly, similarly-named, so the misunderstanding is not in the least bit surprising. I even swapped the names at one point as I was typing up this post.
Re: (Score:2)
I call bullshit (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I call bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
Not so, for reasons that should be apparent once you take a look at the device's interior layout (see: Apple's HomePod page [apple.com]).
You'll notice that the sound is produced by a circular array of seven tweeters. Were the HomePod relying on the sound going directly from the tweeters to your ears, you're quite correct to suggest that (given the lack of spatial separation) it wouldn't be able to achieve a decent stereo effect. But the HomePod's sound isn't going directly to your ears. Rather, it's relying on the fact that the rear and side tweeters will have their sound reflected—and then coupling that with beam forming that's automatically recalculated whenever the accelerometer detects that the device has been moved—to produce a stereo effect.
The reviews I've seen so far seem to suggest that they've managed to achieve an outsized soundstage for such a small device, but I don't know what that really means in comparison to other devices, and I frankly don't see how it can hold a candle to a proper stereo setup. Even so, it does sound like it'd be pretty decent for people who want just one speaker.
As for the rest of the claims, which you call BS on, the original redditor didn't make the subjective claim (that the headline does) that the HomePod sounded better than the more expensive speaker. Rather, he claimed that it reproduced sound more accurately than the more expensive speaker, which is a claim that can be empirically tested and verified without subjectivity. Towards that end, he described his control setup, posted pictures of it, discussed how he accounted for confounding variables, and then provided graphs, numbers, and files with the raw data so that anyone interested in verifying or refuting his claims could be capable of doing so.
So, if you think his claims are BS, have at it. He's given you everything you need to disprove him. In the meantime, he's provided empirical evidence that the HomePod reproduced sound more accurately than a speaker that costs nearly 3x its price.
Re:I call bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
except, of course, 6 speakers in a circle CANNOT ACHIEVE BEAMFORMING.
This is PURE marketing BS from Apple, there is no beamforming happening, because it is physically impossible given the physical layout, frequencies involved, driver geometry, etc. It is not even a matter of opinion, it is simply impossible.
What is being used is a mixture of room mode excitement, perceptual tuning and direct/reflect sound to give people some feeling of 'space', however there is practically no actual stereo separation. Really. Try listening to strong left/right panning audio on one - it is just a mess.
Of course the pudits, as usual, just swallow the pseudo-tech terms thrown out by marketing, and write big glowing reviews which assume thats what is actually happening...
What this 'with the numbers' review fails to address is the HORRIBLE compromises in other areas (I am looking at you, phase and group delay) that must be made to achieve what they are doing. These speakers are 'better' than a cheap PC speaker (and 90% of the shite bluetooth speakers people listen to these days), and yet such a large distance away from even a middling proper speaker setup that A/B blind testing is made impossible as it is simple to audible tell if you are listening to this is a proper pair of separated speakers.
If having flat frequency response was the main target of speaker design, then speakers would have been near perfect in the 60s.. and yet they were not.
But that wont stop the believers, marketers, and consumers who need to rationalise their purchases.
So, No, he has NOT 'provided empirical evidence that the HomePod reproduced sound more accurately than a speaker that costs nearly 3x its price.' .
It is trivial to get flat response - and few look for that as the only requirement, because it comes at the cost of other bad problems.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, No, he has NOT 'provided empirical evidence that the HomePod reproduced sound more accurately than a speaker that costs nearly 3x its price.' .
Yes, he has, and your assertion to the contrary is nothing more than denialism. While you’re quite correct in arguing that having a flat response curve is not the be-all-and-end-all when it comes to speakers, that doesn’t change what he provided evidence of. You can disagree with his methodology or you can disagree with the conclusions people are drawing from his evidence (and by all means feel free to do so, since I’ll be right there with you in agreement that many of them are way off-bas
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Confused (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but I don't call +- 10dB flat..
Re:Confused (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm confused by your confusion: if it measures neutral on a highly calibrated microphone in a given environment then wouldn't it sound neutral to a listener in the same environment?
Not necessarily, and actually highly unlikely. The problem is that if the sound is shaped to sound better in one spot, it will sound worse in other spots, especially when it does trickery like bouncing sound off walls. Unless you plug one ear with wax, and put the other one in the exact same spot as a directional mic, you won't hear the same.
There are some other problems with the test procedures here, including not testing sound latency nor echo effects as noise. If you send continuous tones, you won't capture these kind of problems, which are quite common in speaker systems that aren't unidirectional.
Playing back a rattle sound with varying speed easily exposes this problem, which direct line speaker systems are immune to.
Then there's the high-pass filter. You won't actually get deep bass, only psycho-acoustic approximations. But then again, today's generation grew up with music without any deep bass like tympani, or even mid-deep bass like bass guitar.
To get bass that moves your diaphragm, you need speakers that displace air with their diaphragm.
Wow, I'm getting one (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a little obscure trick that you can do with gold plated cables that only a few dozen people know about. Did you know that tying these cables around your neck will grant you three wishes? It's true! My father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate tried it and he died!
Re: (Score:2)
Or after. Maybe the roommate wished to be reincarnated as an urinal.
Check the THD plots (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you even get something to play on the homepod that isn't subject to compression of the top and bottom end?
Re:Check the THD plots (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
From the Technical Specs:
Audio Formats: HE-AAC (V1), AAC (16 to 320 Kbps), protected AAC (from iTunes Store), MP3 (16 to 320 Kbps), MP3 VBR, Apple Lossless, AIFF, WAV, and FLAC2
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Apple Music [cnet.com] is at 256 kbps. Airplay can do 16/44.1 [geekout.io], basically redbook audio. No high res, though...
FLAC and Apple Lossless is probably as best as it's going to get. High res audio - while useful for mastering/mixing and other pro transformations - is utterly useless for end-user music listening gear.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. It's Apple Music, or Bluetooth/Airplay. You're limited - by the Apple ecosystem - to AAC, or MAYBE 24 bit/48 kHz if you have a Lightning output device. High res audio? 24/192 or 32/384? DSD? Sorry - no love for you in the Apple world. Even decent Bluetooth codecs like AptX HD and Sony's LDAC are barred from iOS (due to it not using/supporting CSR chips). Audiophile and Apple stop at source - and apparently that stoppage is now reinforced with a speaker that has 50%+ THD at average SPL levels.
Quit LYING, FUCKER!
AirPlay is Apple LOSSLESS, not some horrible AptX or other LOSSY format.
"Decent Bluetooth CODECS". Now THERE's and Oxymoron. Apple uses AAC over Bluetooth, which is getting at least SOMEWHERE toward's "Decent".
But Airplay is LOSSLESS, period!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"The AirTunes part of the AirPlay protocol stack uses UDP for streaming audio and is based on the RTSP network control protocol.[16] The streams are transcoded using the Apple Lossless codec with 44100 Hz and 2 channel
Re:Check the THD plots (Score:4, Insightful)
Airplay can do Redbook audio [geekout.io] if your SOURCE material is that bit rate (good luck getting that on to your phone, though). Apple Music is 256 kbps [cnet.com]; you'd have to do your own rips to get to redbook (16/44.1), but you cannot do high resolution audio at all. Period. Nada. Apple doesn't care about high quality audio - just Beats and earpods and a mono speaker it claims can be full stereo (but which, in reality, it is not per lots of reviews, not to mention the laws of physics).
The butt hurt is strong with you!
Re: Check the THD plots (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This. Whenever I see tiny speakers I think no bass.You have to move air for good bass and that means a largish cone. Otherwise that 3" cone is moving 12" up and down and that ain't happening. You can get some advantage with bass reflex and some other tuning methods, but these end up as larger cabinets. Many smaller speakers have a weird hump to emphasize 80Hz to around 160 and hope you think it is deep bass. Of course for apartment dwellers the i-thing will be good as the neighbor will not be moving to the
Re: (Score:2)
THD in the lower frequencies (below ~75 Hz) is between 18% and 56%, per his own graphs. I guess that is audiophile?
Quit with the crap!
1. THD is VERY hard to hear. IM distortion is what is annoying.
2. Even Audiophile-quality (whatever THAT means!) Subwoofers generate around 25-30% THD when they are crankin'.
3. To get that 56%, he was driving the woofer to within an inch of its life.
And here are his comments in the "Distortion" Section:
"If we look at the Total Harmonic Distortion (THD) at various sound pressure levels (SPLs) we see that Apple begins to “reign in” the woofer when THD approaches 10db below the
Re: (Score:3)
It's not even Hi-Fi by the old DIN 45500 standard [hifimuseum.de] of the early 70s.
And certainly not by newer standards which require 20-20,000 Hz @+- 3dB, max 10% THD @ 96 dB @1m.
Re:Check the THD plots (Score:5, Interesting)
Quit with the crap!
Yes, you should!
1. THD is VERY hard to hear. IM distortion is what is annoying.
False. Go and check any of the AES papers by gentlemen like Louis Fielder, Grant Davidson, or Dane Grant (all gentlemen I work with weekly). THD audibility is dependent upon SPL and frequency, and levels as low as 0.5% are not only audible, but objectionable based upon the spectrum of the THD.
Don't believe that? Perhaps Dr. Earl Geddes' presentation on the audibility of distortion [gedlee.com] will help. Of course, when you live in a reality distortion field, I guess THD might be a good thing!
2. Even Audiophile-quality (whatever THAT means!) Subwoofers generate around 25-30% THD when they are crankin'.
Really? In 2004 I was well below that level [soundandvision.com], and later I took it to >100 dB SPL [data-bass.com] with single digit THD. You're flailing here. Oh - and these SPL levels are a solid 20+ dB beyond the HomePod, meaning literally 100 times the sonic power, with one quarter - or less - the THD.
3. To get that 56%, he was driving the woofer to within an inch of its life.
Funny, because it can't move even close to an inch, or even half an inch.
And here are his comments in the "Distortion" Section:
"If we look at the Total Harmonic Distortion (THD) at various sound pressure levels (SPLs) we see that Apple begins to “reign in” the woofer when THD approaches 10db below the woofer output. Since decibels are on a log scale, Apple’s limit on the woofer is to restrict excursion when the harmonic distortion approaches HALF the intensity of the primary sound, effectively meaning you will not hear it. What apple has achieved here is incredibly impressive — such tight control on bass from within a speaker is unheard of in the audio industry. [...] Even though Distortion rises for the woofer, it's imperceptible. The (lack of) bass distortion is beyond spectacular, and I honestly don't think there is any bookshelf-sized speaker that doesn't employ computational audio that will beat it right now."
So he likes the sounds of the compressor kicking in, and he believes that you cannot hear which, provably, you can. And he's - like you - a self-admitted Apple fan. The bottom line is his measurements are middling performance at best. And yes, I work in this industry, I design speakers, and you HAVE heard my work - guaranteed. Probably directly (SONOS, Polk, Genesis, Infinity, Beats, Blue, Audioquest, Mackie, EAW, KRK, Polycom, Microsoft, etc.) or indirectly (monitors for Mackie, Event, KRK, microphones for a dozen brands, etc).
The HomePod is an interesting idea - but it's got, at best, middling performance. These measurements confirm as much.
Re: (Score:3)
No, the human ear is quite sensitive to THD in the bass, it comes down to the order of the harmonics. If it is just 2nd and 3rd, then it can be much less objectionable (you can hear 2-3% of each harmonic, but it's not "bad"). Higher order harmonics, though, become extremely pronounced and easy to hear and objectionable. In fact, as you go up in frequency, the importance of those higher harmonics somewhat lessens. All this is pretty heavily documented in the several AES presentations by Louis Fielder of
Re:Check the THD plots (Score:4, Informative)
Study the Fletcher Munson curves [wikipedia.org]. You'll find that 75 dB SPL in the bass frequencies - where the THD was up to 56% - is about the same perceived loudness as a 55-60 dB conversation. A quiet level. If you don't know of what you speak - keep your mouth shut.
Meanwhile, in the real world... (Score:5, Informative)
The Apple HomePod sounds good, but other smart speakers sound better [consumerreports.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it tells me Apple are paying well.
Maybe I'm just a cynic.
256k (Score:4, Informative)
Advertising Masquerading as Content (Score:2)
I don't trust slashdot anymore.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:24-bit audio support (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Where are your 24-bit ears?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is actually nearly 100 years of data [wikipedia.org] showing that the dynamic range of the auditory system is around 140 dB SPL. So that would imply 24 bits needed to capture that range.
Good luck hearing something at 20 dB SPL, or withstanding anything much above 120 dB SPL for any length of time.
I agree that when recording stuff, go for the gusto as far as bit depth (and sampling frequency) are concerned; but there are exactly ZERO pieces of audio gear that can REPRODUCE 140 dB SPL dynamic range. In fact, even GOOD audio gear has a s/n ratio not much above 120 dBm. Yes, I know I am mixing dB SPL and dBm; but you know exactly what I mean.
Or maybe you don't. After all, you said something RE
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm.... So your contention is that the well documented hearing limits from Fletcher-Munson (and later Robinson-Dadson) tests are in fact not relevant? My personal listening room in my home is ~31 dBA per measurements (APx515 with an Earthworks M50 mic and an Earthworks 1021 preamp). Given the well-known capability of the human auditory engine to be able to perceive information 15-20 dB below the noise floor, that puts my "lower limit" around 15 dBA. My speaker system (custom 7" woofer, 0.75" wide x 5" l
Better Than $1,000 Speaker (Score:3)
To be accurate, they compared the HomePod to a $999 speaker. That extra dollar might make all the difference.
So what? (Score:5, Informative)
I used to be a sound tech. I've tested more speakers than I care to count, and set up enough audio rigs that I can typically pinpoint sound quality problems in a few seconds with the right test clips.
Pro tip: It's almost never the speakers' problem.
I know it annoys the "audiophile" crowd, but a speaker is, for the most part, just a speaker. The response curve doesn't matter much, if you can equalize it to suit your taste. Yes, I said that evil nasty word: taste. No, you're not usually going to get objective measurements of a "good" or "bad" speaker that are worth anything*, because listening to sound, especially music, is a heavily subjective experience.
If I'm setting up a sound system for a classical piano concert, the whole system is configured for that goal... There is still reinforcement, but it's only to boost what's naturally echoed by the room, not to push anything unnaturally. For a rock concert, I usually arrange the sound differently, boosting instruments to match the band's desired sound profile. Generally, my best advice is to figure out what kind of mood the music is supposed to inspire, and adjust to fit that.
If the HomePod includes an automatic equalizer, that's great, but I'd just as soon spend 15 minutes doing proper configuration on my own. Frankly, a flat response sounds boring. I prefer a thumping (but not rumbling) bass, with clear vocals. In other words, I like a fairly deep low-end disco scoop. Is the HomePod for me? Eh, perhaps not, unless I can tweak it or pull the output to my own system. After all, I'm the one listening to the music, so I should enjoy it, no?
* There are actually bad systems out there, but (barring mechanical failure) they're usually because somebody put too much work into fine-tuning to meet a particular response curve spec, rather than making things that sound good. Such systems can be identified (and rejected) in about 30 seconds by playing the Star Wars main theme.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, right on the nose. Using equalization can fix some frequency response issues at the expense of adding phase shifts which ultimately destroy the impulse response. The KEFs are nowhere near audiophile quality so I'm not impressed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the design end, yes, those all come into play, and I appreciate your efforts, but on the listening side, very little of that matters.
To start, let's assume we're not building our own enclosures. Frankly, all prebuilt consumer gear is already engineered by folks like you to meet a basic level of quality, or it never makes it to market. These days, even the cheap $20 speaker sets have sufficient engineering to pass muster.
Once assembled, the biggest influence on the system's overall sound is indeed the EQ.
Re: (Score:2)
My own two bits (Score:4, Informative)
I'm an Apple house, we have it all, but I've had Sonos Play 5 for a couple of years.
We got the HomePod and I did a side-by-side comparison by playing 'Such Great Heights' from the Sonos and from the HomePod. This song has been a good test for me because there are well-defined trebles and bass notes with a tenor/alto vocal that sounds clean. Both units were tuned to the room using their tuning algorithms.
To be completely honest, based on my hearing (and I'm older than 45, younger than 50), the Sonos has a little bit more depth in the mid-range and bass. But it's close. The HomePod does well with hearing 'Hey Siri' even when the music is on, and so far it seems like Siri works better than it has in the past (we don't push it though). Sonos is also a little louder.
Both have high quality sound, I haven't plugged my Vienna Acoustic Grand Beethoven's into my receiver for three years because they have been good enough for my needs.
Monster cable's new router for Apple HompePod (Score:5, Funny)
It uses gold coated platinum antenna on the wifi. The spokesman said, "It is a myth to say signal quality does not matter for digital transmission. The new Monster Cable Wi-Fi router will broadcast perfectly circular zeros and the perfectly straight ones. All audiophiles will appreciate the difference in the sound quality".
Comparing apples and half apples (Score:5, Informative)
The $999 price is for a *pair* of speakers, so you can listen in stereo.
This Apple thing costs $349 for a single speaker. So unless you listen exclusively to pre-1965 monophonic classics, it will sound significantly less good than any decent pair of stereo speakers.
Re: (Score:2)
The $999 price is for a *pair* of speakers, so you can listen in stereo.
This Apple thing costs $349 for a single speaker. So unless you listen exclusively to pre-1965 monophonic classics, it will sound significantly less good than any decent pair of stereo speakers.
I don't have room for two speakers in my tiny house, you insensitive clod!
Audiophile says it all (Score:4, Interesting)
Cat Proof. (Score:2)
Did they have a cat knock it off a table six or seven times to check the toughness?
If it isn't cat proof it is junk.
Do not use the cab^H^H^H HomePod (Score:2)
We live underground. We talk with our hands. We wear the earplugs all of our lives. Do not use the HomePod.
Siri, does HomePod sound as good as $1000 speaker? (Score:2)
Giant step backwards (Score:2)
Why are speakers not a solved problem yet? (Score:2)
There seems to have been some progress - those 10$ little chinese bluetooth speakers sound way better than most medium range speakers I heard when I was growing up, IMHO - but how come that there's still innovation happening regarding how you route some air pressure waves through a box?
Re: (Score:2)
There's plenty of innovation happening in the speaker world. Today you can buy ridiculously cheap speakers with impressive performance, and even studio-quality monitors for about $500.
The HomePod, fwiw, is just a cheap full range speaker with digital EQ. The review is, well... what you'd expect from Reddit.
Re: (Score:2)
After hundreds of years of engineering speakers, why haven't we come up with an almost eprfect speaker?
We have come up with some extraordinary speakers. They just cost more than a HomePod. You can build something exceptional for under $1000 in the Linkwitz LXmini kit from Madisound, but there's no commercial product under $1000 worth a shit.
Re: Why are speakers not a solved problem yet? (Score:2)
You can't buy an audiophile speaker for $1000 (Score:2)
A true audiophile grade loudspeaker will faithfully reproduce the timbre of acoustic instruments and voices. I'm a stickler for mid-range detail and clarity and that doesn't come easily, and certainly
Re: (Score:3)
I"d like a really good sounding BT set up for my office, but I have no need nor want to bug my surroundings with an always on listening device talking to the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm....well, if it does sound that good, AND...if Apple gives me a way to disable the Siri "always listening" parts, I might consider buying one for my office.
I"d like a really good sounding BT set up for my office, but I have no need nor want to bug my surroundings with an always on listening device talking to the internet.
You can disable Siri on HomePod.
Also, it doesn't really start listening until it hears "Hey, Siri", which it decodes locally.
https://www.imore.com/how-cust... [imore.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You can disable Siri on HomePod.
Physically, or through a "trust me" software option?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Then you can claim it as a business expense, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Uh huh (Score:4, Interesting)
PROVE it sends constant audio to Apple Servers (or to anyone outside your LAN), or STFU.
Why does it have to send "constant" to be a problem?
It certainly captures sound (or it wouldn't react to keywords), and it certainly has the capabilities to connect to the mothership (or it wouldn't be able to look anything up), and whether it combines the two now or not is enough of a potential problem that I won't allow it in my home or my office.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
PROVE it doesn't.
We'll need full access to read (and decrypt) every packet (and all embedded data) it sends out.
Then, prove it can't.
We'll need the same access as above, then unfettered root and physical access to the device to ensure that its code cannot be changed without our consent, that the device is secure against at least remote hacks, etc.
Here's how these devices can spy on you.
1: Always listen - they already do this to enable detection of the activation word/phrase.
2: Analyze everything said - th
Re: Uh huh (Score:2)
Didn't he say the same thing about "natural medicine"?
Stereo sound (Score:2)
The most striking six comments I have read in almsot every review of this device are consistent:
1. It has stereo-like directional sound effects.
2. It sounds good in any room. Somehow it is adpating
3. There is no "sweet" spot but sounds good in most places in the room. This one is very intriguing.
4. It's definition is very good. not mushy sounding like typical devices.
5. remarkable base that doesn't turn to buzzing when cranked to max volume
6. the ability to command siri is not affected by how loud t
first non-linear speaker compensation??? (Score:2)
the not "mushy" sound is interesting because one common reason for a device to sound mushy is because the device is non-linear so while it could play any one frequency in a "flat" way, it can't play them all at the same time.
This is almost dictated by the physics. And this is why, in part, why speakers that divide up the base and trebble to different speakers do better.
A related phenomena is the direction of sound. a given speaker may angularly radiate different frequency bands differently. Again giving b
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Stereo sound (Score:4, Informative)
Come to think of it, Apple's Reality Distortion Field and audiophiles are a perfect match!
Re: (Score:2)