Slashdot Mirror
Reddit Audiophiles Test HomePod, Say It Sounds Better Than $1,000 Speaker (arstechnica.com)
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.
...still needs more cowbell.
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
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
Equally obvious alternative title: some audiophile gear is way over-priced.
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
...and it involves actual tests? I'm pretty shocked.
Also this homepot certainly is quite mono, ..?
If there is anyone I trust, it is audiophiles from the Internet. They are the ones that prompted me to buy the $10,000 gold plated cables to hook my gear together. My music has never sounded better!
THD in the lower frequencies (below ~75 Hz) is between 18% and 56%, per his own graphs. I guess that is audiophile?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The Apple HomePod sounds good, but other smart speakers sound better.
#DeleteFacebook
Too bad all of your losses audio is trapped in music libraries that you are not allowed to connect to homepod. -- "You may want to use iTunes Match or iCloud Music Library to keep your iTunes library in the cloud. If your iTunes library contains lossless files, iTunes Match and iCloud Music Library treat them differently from other files. If the files are matched, then they’re matched to the iTunes Store equivalents: files at 256kbps AAC. If iTunes can’t match them and needs to upload them, iTunes converts them to 256kbps before uploading. This means that your lossless files will never be in the cloud." - Macworld
Monster audio cables are worth every penny, some people just don't have the aural capacity to appreciate their greatness.
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.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
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.
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
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".
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
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.
They have it! In fact, they have nearly eleven times that type of audio, since it streams a solid 256 kbps! Oh wait, you mean 24 bits per PCM sample? Sorry - you have to go elsewhere for high quality music...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I'm sure it is quite possible to do some ABX testing on this speaker vs some others and arrange them into an order that represents their comparative quality without people's bias / imagination creeping into reviews.
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.
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.
The "base" response (lol) is total shit under 300 Hz... The +/- 3db range is only 300 Hz - 12 kHz in the figures I have seen... And this article is conspicuously lacking in figures. The figures I quoted certainly line up with the physics of having a driver no larger than about 4 inches... You won't get any kind of real low bass response out of that, regardless of how high the excursion is. If the word "audiophile" wasn't a good enough clue that whatever you're reading is bullshit. $1000 speakers? You can find "audiophiles" spending triple that for turntable tech that was outdated 30 years ago, plus "directional speaker cable" and stands to lift them off the floor and other crap that was never anything more than hocus-pocus at ANY point in history.
Come to think of it, Apple's Reality Distortion Field and audiophiles are a perfect match!