9 ms·

Apple HomePod – The Audiophile Perspective and Measurements

83 points by lqueenan 9y ago

herodotus 9y ago
What surprises me most are the rave reviews in the absence of stereo (coming later), which I always thought was de rigueur for audiophiles. I look forward to those future reviews.
- jakebasile 9y ago
  I love music but I don't consider myself an audiophile. After having written off the HomePod yet trying one for a weekend - I cannot wait for the stereo upgrade. It is astonishingly good as a speaker.
  - pohl 9y ago
    Same here. I love music and good sound, but I don't go down the audiophile optimization rabbit-hole – for many reasons, but mostly because one quickly gets to the point of diminishing returns. I was surprised by the HomePod. It's much smaller than I had imagined, and sounds much better. I think I might get another one when the Airplay 2 update comes out.
- Osmium 9y ago
  That's part of the point: it has a 7-tweeter 360º array that is used to add directionality to the sound. Obviously won't compare to a true stereo pair, but it's not nothing either. Personally speaking, I'd take great mono over sub-par stereo any day anyway.
  - gehwartzen 9y ago
    This is part of what I don't understand; directionality of sound is a concept understood to be in reference to the listener (or point of measurement). So what exactly is the homepod doing? Since the listener could always be moving within the room is it dynamically tracking and adjusting? I assumed it just optimized the sound for the room in a more generalized sense (i.e eliminating weird reflections, dead spots, etc)
    - givinguflac 9y ago
      It uses beam forming to create a left right and center channel spread.
      - mcphage 9y ago
        Left, right, and center... of what? Like what is it oriented to?
- leetcrew 9y ago
  i dunno if this continues today, but before digital became prevalent there was something of a holy war in the audiophile community between mono and stereo. i know a lot of people still prefer the mono mix of sgt pepper, but that might be because the stereo mix of that particular album is actually inferior. today practically all new systems marketed to audiophiles are stereo, but my guess is that most would consider faithful reproduction of the signal to be more important than the number of channels if they had to pick.
- sambeau 9y ago
  There are 7 tweeters in each Pod. Not only does a single Pod do stereo, it will analyse the surroundings to make use of walls etc to make wider stereo than it could just do by naively choosing a side speaker.
  - Someone 9y ago
    So, I guess it determines which direction to use for the left and which for the right channel based on closeness to the wall. If so, what does it do when in the center of a symmetrical room? Is there a weird border case where it starts oscillating between multiple states?
  - TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
    Stereo requires two horizontally displaced time-coherent sources. There is no other meaning. If you're bouncing audio off walls you may get ambience, but you're not going to get a clean stereo image. Also, the KEF speakers are hardly world beaters. They have a good reputation as PC speakers, but that's not setting the bar very high. Professional speaker manufacturers like Genelec use a similar adaptive tuning system, and you can buy a microphone and software add-on to flatten the response of any speaker. https://www.sonarworks.com/reference https://www.sonarworks.com/reference The limitations are well known. The correction curve is level-dependent, because room resonance is a time domain phenomenon created by physical standing waves in a 3D space that includes damping elements, and you can't truly correct it with a frequency domain solution. You can approximate a time-domain correction with convolution and some assumptions about the room geometry and acoustics, but it's never going to be perfect. Bottom line: I'm sure the Homepod sounds very nice, and - as usual - it's innovating with technology that's been available elsewhere for a while, and made much easier to use. But it's not magic, and it's not going to sound hugely better than a much more expensive true stereo system. Of course that'll do just fine for a lot of buyers.
    - Clubber 9y ago
      >There is no other meaning. Apparently there is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereophonic_sound https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereophonic_sound "Stereophonic sound or, more commonly, stereo, is a method of sound reproduction that creates an illusion of multi-directional audible perspective. This is usually achieved by using two or more independent audio channels through a configuration of two or more loudspeakers (or stereo headphones) in such a way as to create the impression of sound heard from various directions, as in natural hearing.[1]" I'm inferring from that there are other methods to create an illusion of multi-directional audible perspective.
- falcolas 9y ago
  I'm a bit surprised as well, but I've also recently realized how few songs actually benefit from having stereo mixes, given they're almost all added in post processing. It matters even less for a room-wide speaker, when the listener is not at a fixed point. That said, stereo can matter, but only when the recording itself was done in stereo. Proper stereoscopic recording is pretty cool to listen to with headphones. All my opinion, of course.
  - givinguflac 9y ago
    Personally I disagree on the stereo not really mattering due to post-production. Proper stereo imaging can really do wonders with vocals being dead center, for example.
  - thirdsun 9y ago
    I disagree as well. Any decent audio engineer will know that placing tracks, instruments and certain elements slightly, or widely, off-center is essential to a good recording.
- berberous 9y ago
  Well, they are excited because the speaker performs excellently. I suspect many audiophiles will wait until they can get it to work in stereo, but when it does, the reviews should be the same since it’s just two of the same. Also, I doubt most audiophiles would use it as their primary listening source, but it may be the perfect solution for additional listening areas.
- ryanlol 9y ago
  Does anyone really expect proper stereo from a single speaker?
- jaxondu 9y ago
  I'm no audiophile, I do realize from reading speakers review in audiophile magazine that they tend to compare speakers in the same particular price range. The OP review seems to suggest that a dual HomePod stereo setup (about $700-800) could well compete with audiophile grade speakers in sub $1000 range. It is great feat by Apple if they can achieve it with their stereo release later this year. HomePod is "engineered" sound with its surrounding acoustic adjustment etc and I bet a large portion of audiophile prefers their gears to have a more faithful reproduction of source material. Anyway HomePod will not be the only gear for hardcore audiophile as they tend to have exotic source material equipment which HomePod can not accept. It is interesting to see in near future when dual HomePod can be used with AppleTV for movie viewing with simulated centre speaker and surround sound. I remembered Tim Cook said they finally cracked home TV few years back, maybe HomePod + AppleTV is the solution.
sidibe 9y ago
Great marketing to let an obvious fan (check his history) who loves writing get an early look at your product.
- jakebasile 9y ago
  Where does it say they got it early? It's plausible this was done over the weekend.
  - sidibe 9y ago
    https://www.reddit.com/r/audiophile/comments/7t51a2/nda_is_up_what_can_i_tell_you_guys_about_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/audiophile/comments/7t51a2/nda_is_u...
    - jakebasile 9y ago
      Looks like he got to play with it for an hour. TFA is his measurements from multiple hours of use at his house.
      - donarb 9y ago
        He was given an intro listen before the device came out. Meanwhile he ordered one for himself, promising to post measurements after he received it.
- Osmium 9y ago
  The reviewer seemed to be very frank about listing their biases in fairness (see the big section titled 'Bias' in the review). And they shared their original data, so it's up to you what you want to make of it.
  - dawnerd 9y ago
    Now if only more tech reviewers gave out raw data or even actually measured. Too many just read off the specs and go yep sounds good!
reiichiroh 9y ago
So basically all this intangible nonsense makes it sound like the second coming of the Bose WaveRadio. Er, no pun intended.
smackfu 9y ago
Is it better to test audio products with a meter or with double blind humans?
- kkirsche 9y ago
  Depends on if you want factual technical measurements or subjective human opinions
  - sgt101 9y ago
    If it's double blind isn't it objective?
    - mastax 9y ago
      Only if all humans have the same opinion about what good audio sounds like.
    - LgWoodenBadger 9y ago
      It's as objective as a subjective measurement can get. It's not repeatable, and I don't know what units of measure could be used either.
- mastax 9y ago
  I've been convinced by a knowledgeable person[1] that measurements are the only useful way to measure performance. To paraphrase poorly: subjective reviews are useless since they are limited by the reviewers subjective perception, their ability to turn that perception into words, and your ability to turn those words into a concrete idea about how something sounds. Since there is no part of a speaker's performance that cannot be precisely measured, the best course of action is to learn how each measurement affects your perception and what qualities you like in a speaker. Then you can fairly accurately evaluate if you would like a speaker with just a few graphs. (Of course this is completely impractical for almost everyone, but I'm talking about some platonic ideal of audiophile) 1: http://zaphaudio.com/ http://zaphaudio.com/
  - 9y ago
geoffreyy 9y ago
I am a bit surprised, having received mine last Friday, I was very disappointed by the sound quality but even more with the actual features themselves. Of course this is highly subjective but I will keep my two Sonos Play:1 stereo and return the HomePod. I just wish Sonos Play:1 had a line-in or/and bluetooth connectivity...
- eridius 9y ago
  It sounds to me like you're comparing the solo HomePod against a stereo setup?
hudo 9y ago
Even measurements on the paper looks great when we talk about how it actually sounds, this review explains it the best https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=12&v=uzbTRMIFL-4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=12&v=uzbTRMIFL-4 That's the difference with "mainstream" companies (sony, panasonic, ...,apple?) and hifi one (rotel, nad, marantz, ...): sony will probably send the amp/speaker to production after it looks ok in measurements, while hifi companies always listen after measurement, tweak, measure again, listen, ... you get the point.
- glhaynes 9y ago
  Sorry, can't watch the video at the moment, but: if anything, the hifi companies are tweaking for an "incorrect" response, then, right? Which it seems at best might sound "better" for one type of music but it seems like would thus have to sound worse for others. If not, it seems like all editing stations ought to have an EQ that applies the universally-superior-sounding shape to all output. (Of course this assumes speakers aim for flatness…) Edit: this other thread on this same post is already discussing this topic - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16360296 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16360296
- dkonofalski 9y ago
  Hmm. I disagree with that video on several points, mostly because I think it's a bit disingenuous and unfair. If you're going to make comparisons, you have to make them equal (or as close to equal as possible) for them to have any validity. For one, he makes the point that, for the price, you can get that amp, an Echo Dot, and build the speakers he put together... except that's the entire point. You'd have to build the speakers yourself (including soldering!), have 3 (technically, 4) distinct pieces of equipment to maintain, and you have to have that unsightly hardware and wires everywhere. The setup he shows in the video looks like complete crap to me and there's no way that I would put it out for display like that in my house. The HomePod isn't meant to be an alternative for that. It's meant to compete with other wireless speakers and, when compared against those, it's a significantly better product at a slightly higher price. It's like the "I can build a PC myself that's way better than an iMac for cheaper". Sure you can...but don't pretend like it's the same quality, form factor, ease of setup, or any multitude of reasons why the price differs from a DIY solution. That's not the point here. The other thing that bothered me is that he tested it in a studio with sound insulation on the walls and then complains about the audio and balance, saying that it's very bass heavy. Again, this isn't what the HomePod was designed for. The mics and the processor are specifically meant to listen for acoustics and reflections and use those to set up the soundstage for the speaker. He's taken all that away and then complains that it's too bass-heavy. Of course it's too bass-heavy! He removed the entire mechanism by which the HomePod determines its output! Now, I'm sure everyone will be quick to point out that he moved it into his bedroom as if that's a good example of his objectivity. I would agree except that he then doesn't objectively assess the HomePod. He, again, compares it (which he says he set up on his nightstand or table) to his custom-built speakers that are mounted to provide directionality to his sweet spot. He's starting from a non-neutral reference point, comparing to something that the HomePod is not even attempting to be a comparison to, and then pretending to make the objective assessment that it's lacking. Of course it's lacking! It's also lacking when compared to my home theatre setup. That's not really a fair assessment. If he had put an actual Echo on the same nightstand/table and then compared them, I'd find that fair. Again... I think the HomePod is really just a wireless speaker that is significantly higher quality than what you'd normally get from a wireless speaker at a slightly higher price. As an audiophile, I like it much better than my Echo, my Sonos, or the little Bluetooth speaker that my wife has for obvious reasons. Of course I can build something that sounds better for that amount of money. That's not the point. I'm not going to be able to put together what they did in the package they did for that money without a ton of hassle. That's where the HomePod is worth it to me. YMMV.
oflannabhra 9y ago
I'm no audiophile, and I don't plan on getting a HomePod, but the interesting tidbits to me were the following: >Apple uses Balanced Mode Radiators (BMRs) instead of industry typical tweeters. They have a response range of ~250Hz-20kHz, whereas typical tweeters have a range of 2kHz-20kHz. Here is gif of a BMR compared to other speaker technologies [1] >Apple applies Equal-loundness contours[2] to equalize absolute energies of loudness to perceived loudness by the human ear. That is, the dB of sounds in the 2KHz-5KHz is decreased by several decibels, because the human ear is more sensitive to them. >They recommend putting the HomePod on a small stand (5 in), because even the room correction processing Apple is using is unable to compensate for echoes that originate so close. >There is apparently some agreement within this community, at least, that if Apple made a HomePod Plus with a larger subwoofer to allow reproducing sounds down to 18Hz, they would essentially beat the entire high-end audio market. [1] - https://gfycat.com/BiodegradableNiftyKoala https://gfycat.com/BiodegradableNiftyKoala [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour
- colanderman 9y ago
  > That is, the dB of sounds in the 2KHz-5KHz is decreased by several decibels, because the human ear is more sensitive to them. I would expect recorded material to already account for this. Does anyone know why Apple finds it needed to further apply sound shaping to recorded sound? (That is, I would expect audiophile-grade equipment to best mimic the monitors on which most recordings are mixed, which presumably is a flat loudness curve.)
  - ksk 9y ago
    >(That is, I would expect audiophile-grade equipment to best mimic the monitors on which most recordings are mixed, which presumably is a flat loudness curve.) Not necessarily, because that assumes the audio was mixed correctly to begin with. The audio will have to be played back over digital and analog broadcasts with varying dynamic range characteristics, not to mention various output technologies, including $5 headphones. And not to mention how the shape of each persons ear affects the response curve in different ways. There is no way for an engineer to produce a rendition that sounds great in all of those scenarios, making 'mimicking the monitor' a pointless pursuit to begin with - even IF you were an audiophile listening to 400MB DSD files. >Does anyone know why Apple finds it needed to further apply sound shaping to recorded sound? I'd say the vast vast majority of people want more to have the audiophile label/association than actually listen to music with a flat curve, because most music will sound like crap. Sorry for the rant :P
mrob 9y ago
>I'm an EDM guy and demand a certain performance to 20hz, which homepod lacks. I've checked a lot of dance music and never found anything with meaningful 20Hz content. It's extremely rare for "deep bass" to be lower than 40Hz. The only genre I can think of that often has very deep bass is pipe organ music. EDIT: Movie soundtracks also commonly have <40Hz content for sound effects.
- S_A_P 9y ago
  This. Even with a giant subwoofer system, 20 hz is more felt than heard. The "deep 808 bass drum" usually centered between 40-60 hz. My Tr-808 was centered at ~53 hz. Keep in mind that a doubling of frequency is an octave, so 26.5 hz would be an octave down and 106hz would be an octave higher
- 52-6F-62 9y ago
  I always understood ~20Hz to be relegated more for inaudible movie effects like you mentioned. Usually contributing to the feeling of dread, fear, and anxiety in horror movies, etc. It’s news to me that one might need 20Hz for purely an audio track, especially in the home. I would understand at a concert or something but to demand it from a single small self-contained unit like that sounds like looking for love in all the wrong places.
  - EADGBE 9y ago
    Ah yes, the subwoofer rattling sound. Dreadful indeed. Can kinda take me out of it. I wonder if the "undertone series" for a bass hits this, since a low E on a 4-string already is at the ~40hz range. Definitely something that's felt, more than heard, as you mention.
- S_A_P 9y ago
  Pipe organ music can commonly reach down to 16 hz or so, but for those looking for (slightly) more current music containing truly deep bass here are a few options: Pink Floyd- Dark Side of the moon. The Heartbeat in the introduction contains significant energy in the 20-40hz range Bass Mekanik- Each of his releases includes some music but also features a test section which will play frequencies with labels as to their frequency. Even if this sort of music isnt your thing it is helpful if you are curious as to what the frequency response of your stereo. Tchaikovsky 1812 overture- Cannon Blasts go sub sonic.
tomxor 9y ago
There is no way i'm believing this thing actually sounds good unless Apple are using some tech that is not a normal transducer based loud-speaker... First off: This guy is talking about "measurements" not perceptible quality, and anyone who has reasonable experience in audio quality will know that amp specs and measurements have almost zero correlation to audible sound quality and musicality (THD anyone). Second: An all in one active load-speaker this small, singular and low powered will never sound "good" compared to the same money spent on actual audio (a basic integrated amp and some bookshelf speaker). These types of devices are always a bag of compromise for audio quality, in the form of "everything must be small" (speaker diaphragms and drivers suffer because you need both large and small ones to comfortably reproduce the frequency spectrum without seriously fucking with the audio signal), battery powered (D-class amps), and finally mono for some bizarre reason, because who cares about sound anyway.
- jtbayly 9y ago
  This device is not battery operated. FYI.
- lobster_johnson 9y ago
  The HomePod is wired, not battery-powered. I don't think you've looked at it very closely. Having purchased the HomePod, it's noticeably better than the bookshelf speakers I own (AudioEngine A2+ and Odyssey LES). It also sounds as good as my Vizio soundbar/subwoofer combo, though I've not compared it at high volume or with movies. It is, not unexpectedly, vastly better than my battery-powered BeoPlay P2 Bluetooth speaker. I'm very impressed.
  - tomxor 9y ago
    Battery powered or not it will be low powered... there is no class-A amp in that little thing unless it's being cooled by liquid nitrogen, it will be Class-D. I've no doubt many people will be impressed, it's all relative. But if you actually care about audio you could have bought a lot more for you $300 or whatever it is, but then people don't buy these types of things for audio, they buy them for integration. The fact that you are comparing it to a "soundbar" shows that you probably haven't heard much better. (i'm not trying to be nasty, it's just true of most consumers, we are not living in the HiFi age anymore).
S_A_P 9y ago
For those looking to add some deep bass to their home listening, there are really good options available these days. The availability of high power class D amplification means that you can (relatively) cheaply provide room shaking bass to a level that was prohibitively expensive even a decade ago. parts-express.com(and others as well Ive no interest in plugging their site) offers a large range of high quality subwoofer drivers in the 1-300 dollar range, they offer pre-made cabinets, but you can really save if you build your own MDF cabinet. The subwoofer plate amplifiers run ~250 bucks for 3-500 watts rms. It definitely can make movie night at home more fun.

83 points by lqueenan 9y ago

What surprises me most are the rave reviews in the absence of stereo (coming later), which I always thought was de rigueur for audiophiles. I look forward to those future reviews.

jakebasile 9y ago
I love music but I don't consider myself an audiophile. After having written off the HomePod yet trying one for a weekend - I cannot wait for the stereo upgrade. It is astonishingly good as a speaker.
- pohl 9y ago
  Same here. I love music and good sound, but I don't go down the audiophile optimization rabbit-hole – for many reasons, but mostly because one quickly gets to the point of diminishing returns. I was surprised by the HomePod. It's much smaller than I had imagined, and sounds much better. I think I might get another one when the Airplay 2 update comes out.
Osmium 9y ago
That's part of the point: it has a 7-tweeter 360º array that is used to add directionality to the sound. Obviously won't compare to a true stereo pair, but it's not nothing either. Personally speaking, I'd take great mono over sub-par stereo any day anyway.
- gehwartzen 9y ago
  This is part of what I don't understand; directionality of sound is a concept understood to be in reference to the listener (or point of measurement). So what exactly is the homepod doing? Since the listener could always be moving within the room is it dynamically tracking and adjusting? I assumed it just optimized the sound for the room in a more generalized sense (i.e eliminating weird reflections, dead spots, etc)
  - givinguflac 9y ago
    It uses beam forming to create a left right and center channel spread.
    - mcphage 9y ago
      Left, right, and center... of what? Like what is it oriented to?
leetcrew 9y ago
i dunno if this continues today, but before digital became prevalent there was something of a holy war in the audiophile community between mono and stereo. i know a lot of people still prefer the mono mix of sgt pepper, but that might be because the stereo mix of that particular album is actually inferior. today practically all new systems marketed to audiophiles are stereo, but my guess is that most would consider faithful reproduction of the signal to be more important than the number of channels if they had to pick.
sambeau 9y ago
There are 7 tweeters in each Pod. Not only does a single Pod do stereo, it will analyse the surroundings to make use of walls etc to make wider stereo than it could just do by naively choosing a side speaker.
- Someone 9y ago
  So, I guess it determines which direction to use for the left and which for the right channel based on closeness to the wall. If so, what does it do when in the center of a symmetrical room? Is there a weird border case where it starts oscillating between multiple states?
- TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
  Stereo requires two horizontally displaced time-coherent sources. There is no other meaning. If you're bouncing audio off walls you may get ambience, but you're not going to get a clean stereo image. Also, the KEF speakers are hardly world beaters. They have a good reputation as PC speakers, but that's not setting the bar very high. Professional speaker manufacturers like Genelec use a similar adaptive tuning system, and you can buy a microphone and software add-on to flatten the response of any speaker. https://www.sonarworks.com/reference https://www.sonarworks.com/reference The limitations are well known. The correction curve is level-dependent, because room resonance is a time domain phenomenon created by physical standing waves in a 3D space that includes damping elements, and you can't truly correct it with a frequency domain solution. You can approximate a time-domain correction with convolution and some assumptions about the room geometry and acoustics, but it's never going to be perfect. Bottom line: I'm sure the Homepod sounds very nice, and - as usual - it's innovating with technology that's been available elsewhere for a while, and made much easier to use. But it's not magic, and it's not going to sound hugely better than a much more expensive true stereo system. Of course that'll do just fine for a lot of buyers.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    >There is no other meaning. Apparently there is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereophonic_sound https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereophonic_sound "Stereophonic sound or, more commonly, stereo, is a method of sound reproduction that creates an illusion of multi-directional audible perspective. This is usually achieved by using two or more independent audio channels through a configuration of two or more loudspeakers (or stereo headphones) in such a way as to create the impression of sound heard from various directions, as in natural hearing.[1]" I'm inferring from that there are other methods to create an illusion of multi-directional audible perspective.
falcolas 9y ago
I'm a bit surprised as well, but I've also recently realized how few songs actually benefit from having stereo mixes, given they're almost all added in post processing. It matters even less for a room-wide speaker, when the listener is not at a fixed point. That said, stereo can matter, but only when the recording itself was done in stereo. Proper stereoscopic recording is pretty cool to listen to with headphones. All my opinion, of course.
- givinguflac 9y ago
  Personally I disagree on the stereo not really mattering due to post-production. Proper stereo imaging can really do wonders with vocals being dead center, for example.
- thirdsun 9y ago
  I disagree as well. Any decent audio engineer will know that placing tracks, instruments and certain elements slightly, or widely, off-center is essential to a good recording.
berberous 9y ago
Well, they are excited because the speaker performs excellently. I suspect many audiophiles will wait until they can get it to work in stereo, but when it does, the reviews should be the same since it’s just two of the same. Also, I doubt most audiophiles would use it as their primary listening source, but it may be the perfect solution for additional listening areas.
ryanlol 9y ago
Does anyone really expect proper stereo from a single speaker?
jaxondu 9y ago
I'm no audiophile, I do realize from reading speakers review in audiophile magazine that they tend to compare speakers in the same particular price range. The OP review seems to suggest that a dual HomePod stereo setup (about $700-800) could well compete with audiophile grade speakers in sub $1000 range. It is great feat by Apple if they can achieve it with their stereo release later this year. HomePod is "engineered" sound with its surrounding acoustic adjustment etc and I bet a large portion of audiophile prefers their gears to have a more faithful reproduction of source material. Anyway HomePod will not be the only gear for hardcore audiophile as they tend to have exotic source material equipment which HomePod can not accept. It is interesting to see in near future when dual HomePod can be used with AppleTV for movie viewing with simulated centre speaker and surround sound. I remembered Tim Cook said they finally cracked home TV few years back, maybe HomePod + AppleTV is the solution.

sidibe 9y ago

Great marketing to let an obvious fan (check his history) who loves writing get an early look at your product.

jakebasile 9y ago
Where does it say they got it early? It's plausible this was done over the weekend.
- sidibe 9y ago
  https://www.reddit.com/r/audiophile/comments/7t51a2/nda_is_up_what_can_i_tell_you_guys_about_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/audiophile/comments/7t51a2/nda_is_u...
  - jakebasile 9y ago
    Looks like he got to play with it for an hour. TFA is his measurements from multiple hours of use at his house.
    - donarb 9y ago
      He was given an intro listen before the device came out. Meanwhile he ordered one for himself, promising to post measurements after he received it.
Osmium 9y ago
The reviewer seemed to be very frank about listing their biases in fairness (see the big section titled 'Bias' in the review). And they shared their original data, so it's up to you what you want to make of it.
- dawnerd 9y ago
  Now if only more tech reviewers gave out raw data or even actually measured. Too many just read off the specs and go yep sounds good!

reiichiroh 9y ago

So basically all this intangible nonsense makes it sound like the second coming of the Bose WaveRadio. Er, no pun intended.

smackfu 9y ago

Is it better to test audio products with a meter or with double blind humans?

kkirsche 9y ago
Depends on if you want factual technical measurements or subjective human opinions
- sgt101 9y ago
  If it's double blind isn't it objective?
  - mastax 9y ago
    Only if all humans have the same opinion about what good audio sounds like.
  - LgWoodenBadger 9y ago
    It's as objective as a subjective measurement can get. It's not repeatable, and I don't know what units of measure could be used either.
mastax 9y ago
I've been convinced by a knowledgeable person[1] that measurements are the only useful way to measure performance. To paraphrase poorly: subjective reviews are useless since they are limited by the reviewers subjective perception, their ability to turn that perception into words, and your ability to turn those words into a concrete idea about how something sounds. Since there is no part of a speaker's performance that cannot be precisely measured, the best course of action is to learn how each measurement affects your perception and what qualities you like in a speaker. Then you can fairly accurately evaluate if you would like a speaker with just a few graphs. (Of course this is completely impractical for almost everyone, but I'm talking about some platonic ideal of audiophile) 1: http://zaphaudio.com/ http://zaphaudio.com/
- 9y ago

geoffreyy 9y ago

I am a bit surprised, having received mine last Friday, I was very disappointed by the sound quality but even more with the actual features themselves. Of course this is highly subjective but I will keep my two Sonos Play:1 stereo and return the HomePod. I just wish Sonos Play:1 had a line-in or/and bluetooth connectivity...

eridius 9y ago
It sounds to me like you're comparing the solo HomePod against a stereo setup?

hudo 9y ago

Even measurements on the paper looks great when we talk about how it actually sounds, this review explains it the best https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=12&v=uzbTRMIFL-4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=12&v=uzbTRMIFL-4 That's the difference with "mainstream" companies (sony, panasonic, ...,apple?) and hifi one (rotel, nad, marantz, ...): sony will probably send the amp/speaker to production after it looks ok in measurements, while hifi companies always listen after measurement, tweak, measure again, listen, ... you get the point.

glhaynes 9y ago
Sorry, can't watch the video at the moment, but: if anything, the hifi companies are tweaking for an "incorrect" response, then, right? Which it seems at best might sound "better" for one type of music but it seems like would thus have to sound worse for others. If not, it seems like all editing stations ought to have an EQ that applies the universally-superior-sounding shape to all output. (Of course this assumes speakers aim for flatness…) Edit: this other thread on this same post is already discussing this topic - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16360296 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16360296
dkonofalski 9y ago
Hmm. I disagree with that video on several points, mostly because I think it's a bit disingenuous and unfair. If you're going to make comparisons, you have to make them equal (or as close to equal as possible) for them to have any validity. For one, he makes the point that, for the price, you can get that amp, an Echo Dot, and build the speakers he put together... except that's the entire point. You'd have to build the speakers yourself (including soldering!), have 3 (technically, 4) distinct pieces of equipment to maintain, and you have to have that unsightly hardware and wires everywhere. The setup he shows in the video looks like complete crap to me and there's no way that I would put it out for display like that in my house. The HomePod isn't meant to be an alternative for that. It's meant to compete with other wireless speakers and, when compared against those, it's a significantly better product at a slightly higher price. It's like the "I can build a PC myself that's way better than an iMac for cheaper". Sure you can...but don't pretend like it's the same quality, form factor, ease of setup, or any multitude of reasons why the price differs from a DIY solution. That's not the point here. The other thing that bothered me is that he tested it in a studio with sound insulation on the walls and then complains about the audio and balance, saying that it's very bass heavy. Again, this isn't what the HomePod was designed for. The mics and the processor are specifically meant to listen for acoustics and reflections and use those to set up the soundstage for the speaker. He's taken all that away and then complains that it's too bass-heavy. Of course it's too bass-heavy! He removed the entire mechanism by which the HomePod determines its output! Now, I'm sure everyone will be quick to point out that he moved it into his bedroom as if that's a good example of his objectivity. I would agree except that he then doesn't objectively assess the HomePod. He, again, compares it (which he says he set up on his nightstand or table) to his custom-built speakers that are mounted to provide directionality to his sweet spot. He's starting from a non-neutral reference point, comparing to something that the HomePod is not even attempting to be a comparison to, and then pretending to make the objective assessment that it's lacking. Of course it's lacking! It's also lacking when compared to my home theatre setup. That's not really a fair assessment. If he had put an actual Echo on the same nightstand/table and then compared them, I'd find that fair. Again... I think the HomePod is really just a wireless speaker that is significantly higher quality than what you'd normally get from a wireless speaker at a slightly higher price. As an audiophile, I like it much better than my Echo, my Sonos, or the little Bluetooth speaker that my wife has for obvious reasons. Of course I can build something that sounds better for that amount of money. That's not the point. I'm not going to be able to put together what they did in the package they did for that money without a ton of hassle. That's where the HomePod is worth it to me. YMMV.

oflannabhra 9y ago

I'm no audiophile, and I don't plan on getting a HomePod, but the interesting tidbits to me were the following: >Apple uses Balanced Mode Radiators (BMRs) instead of industry typical tweeters. They have a response range of ~250Hz-20kHz, whereas typical tweeters have a range of 2kHz-20kHz. Here is gif of a BMR compared to other speaker technologies [1] >Apple applies Equal-loundness contours[2] to equalize absolute energies of loudness to perceived loudness by the human ear. That is, the dB of sounds in the 2KHz-5KHz is decreased by several decibels, because the human ear is more sensitive to them. >They recommend putting the HomePod on a small stand (5 in), because even the room correction processing Apple is using is unable to compensate for echoes that originate so close. >There is apparently some agreement within this community, at least, that if Apple made a HomePod Plus with a larger subwoofer to allow reproducing sounds down to 18Hz, they would essentially beat the entire high-end audio market. [1] - https://gfycat.com/BiodegradableNiftyKoala https://gfycat.com/BiodegradableNiftyKoala [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour

colanderman 9y ago
> That is, the dB of sounds in the 2KHz-5KHz is decreased by several decibels, because the human ear is more sensitive to them. I would expect recorded material to already account for this. Does anyone know why Apple finds it needed to further apply sound shaping to recorded sound? (That is, I would expect audiophile-grade equipment to best mimic the monitors on which most recordings are mixed, which presumably is a flat loudness curve.)
- ksk 9y ago
  >(That is, I would expect audiophile-grade equipment to best mimic the monitors on which most recordings are mixed, which presumably is a flat loudness curve.) Not necessarily, because that assumes the audio was mixed correctly to begin with. The audio will have to be played back over digital and analog broadcasts with varying dynamic range characteristics, not to mention various output technologies, including $5 headphones. And not to mention how the shape of each persons ear affects the response curve in different ways. There is no way for an engineer to produce a rendition that sounds great in all of those scenarios, making 'mimicking the monitor' a pointless pursuit to begin with - even IF you were an audiophile listening to 400MB DSD files. >Does anyone know why Apple finds it needed to further apply sound shaping to recorded sound? I'd say the vast vast majority of people want more to have the audiophile label/association than actually listen to music with a flat curve, because most music will sound like crap. Sorry for the rant :P

mrob 9y ago

>I'm an EDM guy and demand a certain performance to 20hz, which homepod lacks. I've checked a lot of dance music and never found anything with meaningful 20Hz content. It's extremely rare for "deep bass" to be lower than 40Hz. The only genre I can think of that often has very deep bass is pipe organ music. EDIT: Movie soundtracks also commonly have <40Hz content for sound effects.

S_A_P 9y ago
This. Even with a giant subwoofer system, 20 hz is more felt than heard. The "deep 808 bass drum" usually centered between 40-60 hz. My Tr-808 was centered at ~53 hz. Keep in mind that a doubling of frequency is an octave, so 26.5 hz would be an octave down and 106hz would be an octave higher
52-6F-62 9y ago
I always understood ~20Hz to be relegated more for inaudible movie effects like you mentioned. Usually contributing to the feeling of dread, fear, and anxiety in horror movies, etc. It’s news to me that one might need 20Hz for purely an audio track, especially in the home. I would understand at a concert or something but to demand it from a single small self-contained unit like that sounds like looking for love in all the wrong places.
- EADGBE 9y ago
  Ah yes, the subwoofer rattling sound. Dreadful indeed. Can kinda take me out of it. I wonder if the "undertone series" for a bass hits this, since a low E on a 4-string already is at the ~40hz range. Definitely something that's felt, more than heard, as you mention.
S_A_P 9y ago
Pipe organ music can commonly reach down to 16 hz or so, but for those looking for (slightly) more current music containing truly deep bass here are a few options: Pink Floyd- Dark Side of the moon. The Heartbeat in the introduction contains significant energy in the 20-40hz range Bass Mekanik- Each of his releases includes some music but also features a test section which will play frequencies with labels as to their frequency. Even if this sort of music isnt your thing it is helpful if you are curious as to what the frequency response of your stereo. Tchaikovsky 1812 overture- Cannon Blasts go sub sonic.

tomxor 9y ago

There is no way i'm believing this thing actually sounds good unless Apple are using some tech that is not a normal transducer based loud-speaker... First off: This guy is talking about "measurements" not perceptible quality, and anyone who has reasonable experience in audio quality will know that amp specs and measurements have almost zero correlation to audible sound quality and musicality (THD anyone). Second: An all in one active load-speaker this small, singular and low powered will never sound "good" compared to the same money spent on actual audio (a basic integrated amp and some bookshelf speaker). These types of devices are always a bag of compromise for audio quality, in the form of "everything must be small" (speaker diaphragms and drivers suffer because you need both large and small ones to comfortably reproduce the frequency spectrum without seriously fucking with the audio signal), battery powered (D-class amps), and finally mono for some bizarre reason, because who cares about sound anyway.

jtbayly 9y ago
This device is not battery operated. FYI.
lobster_johnson 9y ago
The HomePod is wired, not battery-powered. I don't think you've looked at it very closely. Having purchased the HomePod, it's noticeably better than the bookshelf speakers I own (AudioEngine A2+ and Odyssey LES). It also sounds as good as my Vizio soundbar/subwoofer combo, though I've not compared it at high volume or with movies. It is, not unexpectedly, vastly better than my battery-powered BeoPlay P2 Bluetooth speaker. I'm very impressed.
- tomxor 9y ago
  Battery powered or not it will be low powered... there is no class-A amp in that little thing unless it's being cooled by liquid nitrogen, it will be Class-D. I've no doubt many people will be impressed, it's all relative. But if you actually care about audio you could have bought a lot more for you $300 or whatever it is, but then people don't buy these types of things for audio, they buy them for integration. The fact that you are comparing it to a "soundbar" shows that you probably haven't heard much better. (i'm not trying to be nasty, it's just true of most consumers, we are not living in the HiFi age anymore).

S_A_P 9y ago

For those looking to add some deep bass to their home listening, there are really good options available these days. The availability of high power class D amplification means that you can (relatively) cheaply provide room shaking bass to a level that was prohibitively expensive even a decade ago. parts-express.com(and others as well Ive no interest in plugging their site) offers a large range of high quality subwoofer drivers in the 1-300 dollar range, they offer pre-made cabinets, but you can really save if you build your own MDF cabinet. The subwoofer plate amplifiers run ~250 bucks for 3-500 watts rms. It definitely can make movie night at home more fun.