No, I have not heard a stereo pair of Homepods because they haven't been available until the iOS 11.4 update. Furrther, it was Apple that was the one saying that the Homepods were so advanced that they would sound better than a "traditional" stereo pair, whatever that is.
There have been speakers systems with arrays of drivers in a single enclosure forever. If a Homepod pair is going to sound better than a similarly priced system of "traditional" stereo pairs, they're going to have to demonstrate more than just their ability to spin a press release.
here have been speakers systems with arrays of drivers in a single enclosure forever
You're kidding, right?
The difference is that every one of the Drivers in a HomePod is under INDIVIDUAL Computer-Control. What the Driver sends to the speaker, and WHEN, are exactly determined by the A8 microcontroller, INDIVIDUALLY, for EACH DRIVER.
THAT my friend, has never been done before. And yes, it makes all the difference.
Having listened and measured a HomePod, it's doing a bit more than the 901 - but not much, in terms of final results. Wave field synthesis is a pretty well-established field, and the biggest issue is always the tradeoff between image accuracy and image size. HomePod pushes way too far to the image size at great expense of image accuracy. A pair of them will most likely end up with a big image - and one that has no definition inside of it. Much like a modern 901.
Well, you won't get me to argue that a 901, even a 901a, is anything LIKE a high-fidelity speaker system.
But it will still be interesting to hear what a stereo pair of these things sound like. I'm pretty sure that no one else has created a system quite like this before. Yes, it is still limited by the size of its drivers and power amps; but I wouldn't be surprised to be quite surprised when I hear a stereo pair of HomePods.
I have friends and family that don't look down on me because I don't have the newest fancy-dancy. They care about hearing music, not looking at the device that makes the music. Be free from your ego.
Here is my stereo (Video-oriented stuff excluded) :
Arcam 80W x 5 Surround Receiver. Gift from a friend that worked in a repair-shop. Free. Only use it in stereo mode.
Oppo DV-981HD DVD Player I bought off eBay for $125. Bought it because it can play DVD-As and multichannel SACDs (as well as everything else). It has recently developed an issue with the front-panel microcontroller, so it has no display and the front-panel buttons don't work (thank Diety the IR Remote input works fine!)
Home-Built 3-way acoustic-suspension speakers (well, the cabinets were surplus Avid 103s), with various drivers and crossover likely sourced from Parts Express (I didn't build the cabs.). No subwoofer, unfortunately. I also have a pair of DCM Time Frame TF-500s that I was "perma-loaned" by a friend; but I haven't deployed them yet.
I've got various other old stereo equipment (a few Dynaco amps and preamps, Thorens TT, Teac R-R) sitting in quiet repose in my storage room, unused; but that's my hoity-toity playback system as of now.
As you can see, it's a pretty "ego-free" system. Sounds good; but not a Martin Logan in sight...
I have not heard these, but I have heard many high end compact speakers. All of them sound like small speakers when it comes to low-end bass response. You're not going to be watching a movie with lots of explosions on these.
Oh, I am sure it won't have the low-end of an 18" sub with a dedicated 1200W Class D amp; but, OTOH, I don't think that Home Theatre was the target. More like secondary-location speakers (kitchen, bedroom, office, etc.). And for that, I think they will sound better than most.
Arrange your twiddlers around the periphery so that only one points forward. HomePod - bringing the Bose 901 "blur of audio-something generally over-in-that-direction" to the 21st century!
For those not aware, Bose calls their wideband midrange/tweeter transducer a twiddler.
Computer-controlled beamforming is a LOT different from Bose fakery.
If you'd get your head out of your ass, you'd see that there really is some pretty cool shit going on in the lowly HomePod.
I would have never bought the squeezebox devices. As with any of these solutions, the point is to not get locked into these devices which will be made crappy. The point is that a better solution is possible with an old netbook running linux and squeezeplayer.
Oh, that's ever so much more elegant than plopping a HomePod down on a shelf and applying power.
Something tells me you're not going to replace a decent setup with a subwoofer with many small speakers, no matter how hard you try.
I tend to agree: But pretty much everyone who hears the HomePod in real life is amazed with how good they sound; and the frequency response plots seem to bear that out.
I haven't heard one (let alone two) yet. Have you? (Serious question)
If you are going the multi-room route, it is incredibly inefficient to put a separate pair of $700 speakers in every room. Yes, maybe those are decent for a primary space such as an entertainment room; but what if I want to set up a speaker in the bathroom so I can listen while I'm taking a shower? Or the garage for when I'm working on something? I'd prefer to just have reasonably decent but ultimately cheap speakers in those places. I have three stereo clock radios that sound pretty good and have aux inputs. I also have older devices I don't use any more. Again, this is part of a culture that throws out devices instead of reusing them.
So, for those places, get a cheapie set of AirPlay-compatible speakers. I wouldn't put a $700 set of HomePods in a bathroom or even likely a garage (unless I was rich).
From what I saw regarding the design of the speakers, it looks as though each pod has got an array of speakers that is putting sound out in every direction. You should expect that to be able to produce a better overall sound all else equal. If you're pitting it against some cheap speakers that came as part of a surround package, it's probably no contest. I suspect that if you've got a decent pair of quality speakers though that you can probably get better sound quality from them.
Getting two HomePod units is $700 though. You can get a great set of floor standing stereo speakers for that price though and even a pair of really good ones for the cost of just one HomePod. You're also going to get something that can fill a much larger space because each of your really good speakers is going to be able to handle far more power individual than a single HomePod so you'll be able to get loud without getting distorted.
And, keep in mind that every one of those speakers has a separate, computer-controlled, input; so there is MUCH more that something like a HomePod can do with its speakers than any conventional speaker system.
"The company says that when two speakers are paired, they are capable of "delivering room-filling sound that is more spacious than a traditional stereo pair."
You gotta give it to Apple. Who you gonna believe, them or your own lying ears?
It's called "Acoustic Holography", and studios have been using it for years to use psychoacoustics to apparently place sound sources outside of the stereo field. I can't find any good cites at the moment; but I read about it several years ago.
Your brain is very easily deceived when it comes to sound-direction.
NFC enabled locks don't really cost much more than your standard programmable keycard lock, so I'm not sure that argument rests on very solid ground. Over time, the NFC and Bluetooth locks end up cheaper as the require less hands-on maintenance and everything short of hardware failure can be handled from the front desk. Add to that, keycards are then only needed for guests who don't have phones, so fewer keycards need be purchased (and replaced) over time.
It's actually getting to the point where the more well-heeled hotels are the only ones who can not to implement these locks.
They may not cost much more than keycard locks; but they sure as shit cost more than the tumbler-based locks that the Motels (not Hotels) that the people who can only afford plastic shitbox Android phones (the phones that make up the VAST majority of Android units sold) still use.
The inference of the current story is that Apple has now figured out how to invite strangers into this element of its technology in such a way as to provide end user convenience while maintaining a consistent user experience and high degrees of security and privacy.
Before Apple, it never worked, it was tough to use, inconsistent, and insecure. Now Apple - courageously - has solved all those issues! Hurray!
Sounds to me like yellow journalism on top of yellow journalism.
Because most businesses want to provide a consistent customer experience. That is, one that works for 100% of customers, not merely 85%. Especially when some monetary investment is required on their part.
NFC payments were actually a thing before Apple Pay. Basically, you only saw them at places that upgraded their card terminals after they became a thing, because it came as part of the terminal. Of course, back then, nobody was using NFC payments. Then again, now that we have Apple Pay and businesses have spent the money to upgrade their terminals (because now everyone can do it), still nobody uses it.
So, I think you were trying to say that things suddenly become popular just because Apple implements them? Was that your point? Because it hasn't quite worked out for... well... a lot of things. NFC payments: NOPE. Screen notches: despite a handful of experiments, NOPE, those models don't sell. No headphone jack: despite a handful of experiments, NOPE, those models don't sell. No SD card: debatable, but most people I know either own an iPhone or an Android with SD support.
And, since most people own Android phones, it's hard to say these things that don't do well in the Android ecosystem are "popular" by any legitimate definition of the word.
How about this?
Although 85% of the general population may have some plastic shitbox version of an Android phone, I would bet that 85% of the population that stays at hotels that are well-heeled enough to install NFC-enabled locks on every room use iPhones.
NFC on Android has been around for 5 years. Apple is once again lagging Android, and going to try to spin it as "revolutionary" even though 75% of all smart phones have been doing this for half a decade.
Courage?
I didn't see one thing that looked like Apple was claiming this was their invention, let alone anything revolutionary. It is just a new capability for iPhones (and maybe iPads?). Nothing more, nothing less.
Try not to Hate before thinking. Is that even possible for you?
I understand why Apple locked down hardware interfaces on their devices back when you plugged most accessories into the bottom of your phone, but why do they still continue to do it now in the era of wireless? For example, the Bluetooth interface still doesn't let you open a serial port profile with another Bluetooth device unless you have paid silly amounts of money to get your product through MFI. What bad thing is my app accessing a wireless bluetooth serial port device going to do that I cannot do with a TCP/IP port onto the internet?
They relaxed things a tiny bit with BTLE, but they ensured the data rates on this were painful slow to the point of excluding a huge class of use cases. And then they ditched the headphone jack which removed a common hack used to get a signal in/out of iDevices. A whole world of external devices controlled by your phone would have been available to use years ago if Apple had had a reasonable wireless hardware policy (or at least had simplified its MFI program - you can't even find out how much it costs until you sign your life away).
Again, I totally understand the original motivation for regulating hardware devices, but with most of the devices people want to connect to being wireless that now seems redundant, and since Apple doesn't appear to be interested in building their own IOT ecosystem, I don't even see what they are gaining financially from the situation. If they opened up the bluetooth SPP there would an explosion in hardware gadgets that you can control with your iPhone.
Now Apple(and whoever they sell the information to) can know where I live, what time I got home, what time I left, what mode of transport I took, what I bought and where, and criminals can now hijack not just my bank account but my home, my car and my transit pass horrraaa!
Any that have NFC-capable door locks. I doubt there are many (if any) of those, though, because until this update only Android phones could operate them. Hotels have used Bluetooth for their digital key systems, because it would work with all mobile devices. Not that iPhones are catching up, maybe we'll see hotels switching to NFC.
But I thought that Android was the dominant platform in mobile. Why would the Hotels wait until iPhones got this capability?
Unless...
Perhaps Android isn't so all-pervasive as the fandroids would have us believe...
I am a commercial software developer. I want to build a closed source app, distribute the.ipa from my server after a customer pays me, and then the customer installs it on an iPhone. No XCode. No magical web sites. Just my distribution mechanism (email or HTTPS download). It would be acceptable to require a desktop computer as an intermediary, but it must be my software that runs on the desktop, not some magical program from who knows what.
Is this possible? (I don't think so, but I'd like to be proven wrong.)
And don't tell me to just use the AppStore. My application does not meet Apple requirements (it provides for in-app software upgrades).
You are quickly exceeding my knowledge on this subject, sorry!
I believe that Cydia Impactor is Open Source; so you should be able to distribute it, rebrand it, etc.
Why is it so important that you have in-app updates? There is very little reason to do that. Can you explain why you are so adamant about that?
If you have a Mac, you can Compile and Run (or Install and Run) source, and maybe binaries via XCode.
It you have a Mac or Windows machine, you can use Cydia Impactor to go to sites that are hosting ".ipa" files (which are pre-compiled), and use Impactor to install them on your iOS device.
Both methods assume you are using a computer to make the install happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Other than they all produce sound, those Line Arrays have very little in common with the HomePod.
No, I have not heard a stereo pair of Homepods because they haven't been available until the iOS 11.4 update. Furrther, it was Apple that was the one saying that the Homepods were so advanced that they would sound better than a "traditional" stereo pair, whatever that is.
There have been speakers systems with arrays of drivers in a single enclosure forever. If a Homepod pair is going to sound better than a similarly priced system of "traditional" stereo pairs, they're going to have to demonstrate more than just their ability to spin a press release.
here have been speakers systems with arrays of drivers in a single enclosure forever
You're kidding, right?
The difference is that every one of the Drivers in a HomePod is under INDIVIDUAL Computer-Control. What the Driver sends to the speaker, and WHEN, are exactly determined by the A8 microcontroller, INDIVIDUALLY, for EACH DRIVER.
THAT my friend, has never been done before. And yes, it makes all the difference.
And your you are here boring us with your lack of ego.
Speak English much, Coward?
Having listened and measured a HomePod, it's doing a bit more than the 901 - but not much, in terms of final results. Wave field synthesis is a pretty well-established field, and the biggest issue is always the tradeoff between image accuracy and image size. HomePod pushes way too far to the image size at great expense of image accuracy. A pair of them will most likely end up with a big image - and one that has no definition inside of it. Much like a modern 901.
Well, you won't get me to argue that a 901, even a 901a, is anything LIKE a high-fidelity speaker system.
But it will still be interesting to hear what a stereo pair of these things sound like. I'm pretty sure that no one else has created a system quite like this before. Yes, it is still limited by the size of its drivers and power amps; but I wouldn't be surprised to be quite surprised when I hear a stereo pair of HomePods.
They sound better than a clock radio, but they don't sound $700 good.
Do you speak from experience, or just guessing?
And I assume you haven't heard a stereo pair yet.
I have friends and family that don't look down on me because I don't have the newest fancy-dancy. They care about hearing music, not looking at the device that makes the music. Be free from your ego.
Here is my stereo (Video-oriented stuff excluded) :
Arcam 80W x 5 Surround Receiver. Gift from a friend that worked in a repair-shop. Free. Only use it in stereo mode.
Oppo DV-981HD DVD Player I bought off eBay for $125. Bought it because it can play DVD-As and multichannel SACDs (as well as everything else). It has recently developed an issue with the front-panel microcontroller, so it has no display and the front-panel buttons don't work (thank Diety the IR Remote input works fine!)
Home-Built 3-way acoustic-suspension speakers (well, the cabinets were surplus Avid 103s), with various drivers and crossover likely sourced from Parts Express (I didn't build the cabs.). No subwoofer, unfortunately. I also have a pair of DCM Time Frame TF-500s that I was "perma-loaned" by a friend; but I haven't deployed them yet.
I've got various other old stereo equipment (a few Dynaco amps and preamps, Thorens TT, Teac R-R) sitting in quiet repose in my storage room, unused; but that's my hoity-toity playback system as of now.
As you can see, it's a pretty "ego-free" system. Sounds good; but not a Martin Logan in sight...
I have not heard these, but I have heard many high end compact speakers. All of them sound like small speakers when it comes to low-end bass response. You're not going to be watching a movie with lots of explosions on these.
Oh, I am sure it won't have the low-end of an 18" sub with a dedicated 1200W Class D amp; but, OTOH, I don't think that Home Theatre was the target. More like secondary-location speakers (kitchen, bedroom, office, etc.). And for that, I think they will sound better than most.
The way the summary reads, you have to have Homepod speakers for multi-room support.
I don't think so. I think the device only has to support AirPlay 2.
Arrange your twiddlers around the periphery so that only one points forward. HomePod - bringing the Bose 901 "blur of audio-something generally over-in-that-direction" to the 21st century!
For those not aware, Bose calls their wideband midrange/tweeter transducer a twiddler.
Computer-controlled beamforming is a LOT different from Bose fakery.
If you'd get your head out of your ass, you'd see that there really is some pretty cool shit going on in the lowly HomePod.
I would have never bought the squeezebox devices. As with any of these solutions, the point is to not get locked into these devices which will be made crappy. The point is that a better solution is possible with an old netbook running linux and squeezeplayer.
Oh, that's ever so much more elegant than plopping a HomePod down on a shelf and applying power.
Something tells me you're not going to replace a decent setup with a subwoofer with many small speakers, no matter how hard you try.
I tend to agree: But pretty much everyone who hears the HomePod in real life is amazed with how good they sound; and the frequency response plots seem to bear that out.
I haven't heard one (let alone two) yet. Have you? (Serious question)
No. An array of speakers in one enclosure is not an improvement on true stereo when all music is now recorded in stereo.
Unless Apple now wants to argue that all music is being produced and mastered wrong.
They are talking about a PAIR of HomePods being used to do a stereo field; not ONE HomePod.
If you are going the multi-room route, it is incredibly inefficient to put a separate pair of $700 speakers in every room. Yes, maybe those are decent for a primary space such as an entertainment room; but what if I want to set up a speaker in the bathroom so I can listen while I'm taking a shower? Or the garage for when I'm working on something? I'd prefer to just have reasonably decent but ultimately cheap speakers in those places. I have three stereo clock radios that sound pretty good and have aux inputs. I also have older devices I don't use any more. Again, this is part of a culture that throws out devices instead of reusing them.
So, for those places, get a cheapie set of AirPlay-compatible speakers. I wouldn't put a $700 set of HomePods in a bathroom or even likely a garage (unless I was rich).
And yes, I agree that they are pricey.
From what I saw regarding the design of the speakers, it looks as though each pod has got an array of speakers that is putting sound out in every direction. You should expect that to be able to produce a better overall sound all else equal. If you're pitting it against some cheap speakers that came as part of a surround package, it's probably no contest. I suspect that if you've got a decent pair of quality speakers though that you can probably get better sound quality from them.
Getting two HomePod units is $700 though. You can get a great set of floor standing stereo speakers for that price though and even a pair of really good ones for the cost of just one HomePod. You're also going to get something that can fill a much larger space because each of your really good speakers is going to be able to handle far more power individual than a single HomePod so you'll be able to get loud without getting distorted.
And, keep in mind that every one of those speakers has a separate, computer-controlled, input; so there is MUCH more that something like a HomePod can do with its speakers than any conventional speaker system.
You gotta give it to Apple. Who you gonna believe, them or your own lying ears?
It's called "Acoustic Holography", and studios have been using it for years to use psychoacoustics to apparently place sound sources outside of the stereo field. I can't find any good cites at the moment; but I read about it several years ago.
Your brain is very easily deceived when it comes to sound-direction.
With purely NFC-based locks many hotels will be able to skip the registration entirely. You just get the room number and go there directly.
Maybe so; but how is that germane to this discussion?
NFC enabled locks don't really cost much more than your standard programmable keycard lock, so I'm not sure that argument rests on very solid ground. Over time, the NFC and Bluetooth locks end up cheaper as the require less hands-on maintenance and everything short of hardware failure can be handled from the front desk. Add to that, keycards are then only needed for guests who don't have phones, so fewer keycards need be purchased (and replaced) over time.
It's actually getting to the point where the more well-heeled hotels are the only ones who can not to implement these locks.
They may not cost much more than keycard locks; but they sure as shit cost more than the tumbler-based locks that the Motels (not Hotels) that the people who can only afford plastic shitbox Android phones (the phones that make up the VAST majority of Android units sold) still use.
So, my argument stands.
Here's a great quote stating it's a new Apple thing:
The inference of the current story is that Apple has now figured out how to invite strangers into this element of its technology in such a way as to provide end user convenience while maintaining a consistent user experience and high degrees of security and privacy.
Before Apple, it never worked, it was tough to use, inconsistent, and insecure. Now Apple - courageously - has solved all those issues! Hurray!
Sounds to me like yellow journalism on top of yellow journalism.
Because most businesses want to provide a consistent customer experience. That is, one that works for 100% of customers, not merely 85%. Especially when some monetary investment is required on their part.
NFC payments were actually a thing before Apple Pay. Basically, you only saw them at places that upgraded their card terminals after they became a thing, because it came as part of the terminal. Of course, back then, nobody was using NFC payments. Then again, now that we have Apple Pay and businesses have spent the money to upgrade their terminals (because now everyone can do it), still nobody uses it.
So, I think you were trying to say that things suddenly become popular just because Apple implements them? Was that your point? Because it hasn't quite worked out for... well... a lot of things. NFC payments: NOPE. Screen notches: despite a handful of experiments, NOPE, those models don't sell. No headphone jack: despite a handful of experiments, NOPE, those models don't sell. No SD card: debatable, but most people I know either own an iPhone or an Android with SD support.
And, since most people own Android phones, it's hard to say these things that don't do well in the Android ecosystem are "popular" by any legitimate definition of the word.
How about this?
Although 85% of the general population may have some plastic shitbox version of an Android phone, I would bet that 85% of the population that stays at hotels that are well-heeled enough to install NFC-enabled locks on every room use iPhones.
NFC on Android has been around for 5 years. Apple is once again lagging Android, and going to try to spin it as "revolutionary" even though 75% of all smart phones have been doing this for half a decade.
Courage?
I didn't see one thing that looked like Apple was claiming this was their invention, let alone anything revolutionary. It is just a new capability for iPhones (and maybe iPads?). Nothing more, nothing less.
Try not to Hate before thinking. Is that even possible for you?
I understand why Apple locked down hardware interfaces on their devices back when you plugged most accessories into the bottom of your phone, but why do they still continue to do it now in the era of wireless? For example, the Bluetooth interface still doesn't let you open a serial port profile with another Bluetooth device unless you have paid silly amounts of money to get your product through MFI. What bad thing is my app accessing a wireless bluetooth serial port device going to do that I cannot do with a TCP/IP port onto the internet?
They relaxed things a tiny bit with BTLE, but they ensured the data rates on this were painful slow to the point of excluding a huge class of use cases. And then they ditched the headphone jack which removed a common hack used to get a signal in/out of iDevices. A whole world of external devices controlled by your phone would have been available to use years ago if Apple had had a reasonable wireless hardware policy (or at least had simplified its MFI program - you can't even find out how much it costs until you sign your life away).
Again, I totally understand the original motivation for regulating hardware devices, but with most of the devices people want to connect to being wireless that now seems redundant, and since Apple doesn't appear to be interested in building their own IOT ecosystem, I don't even see what they are gaining financially from the situation. If they opened up the bluetooth SPP there would an explosion in hardware gadgets that you can control with your iPhone.
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
It does seem to be a hard-to-defend position.
Now Apple(and whoever they sell the information to) can know where I live, what time I got home, what time I left, what mode of transport I took, what I bought and where, and criminals can now hijack not just my bank account but my home, my car and my transit pass horrraaa!
You have Apple confused with Google.
my Android phone from 2014 has that.
And in how many hotels could you use it yet ?
Any that have NFC-capable door locks. I doubt there are many (if any) of those, though, because until this update only Android phones could operate them. Hotels have used Bluetooth for their digital key systems, because it would work with all mobile devices. Not that iPhones are catching up, maybe we'll see hotels switching to NFC.
But I thought that Android was the dominant platform in mobile. Why would the Hotels wait until iPhones got this capability?
Unless...
Perhaps Android isn't so all-pervasive as the fandroids would have us believe...
I am a commercial software developer. I want to build a closed source app, distribute the .ipa from my server after a customer pays me, and then the customer installs it on an iPhone. No XCode. No magical web sites. Just my distribution mechanism (email or HTTPS download). It would be acceptable to require a desktop computer as an intermediary, but it must be my software that runs on the desktop, not some magical program from who knows what.
Is this possible? (I don't think so, but I'd like to be proven wrong.)
And don't tell me to just use the AppStore. My application does not meet Apple requirements (it provides for in-app software upgrades).
You are quickly exceeding my knowledge on this subject, sorry!
I believe that Cydia Impactor is Open Source; so you should be able to distribute it, rebrand it, etc.
Why is it so important that you have in-app updates? There is very little reason to do that. Can you explain why you are so adamant about that?
Not quite.
If you have a Mac, you can Compile and Run (or Install and Run) source, and maybe binaries via XCode.
It you have a Mac or Windows machine, you can use Cydia Impactor to go to sites that are hosting ".ipa" files (which are pre-compiled), and use Impactor to install them on your iOS device.
Both methods assume you are using a computer to make the install happen.