Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Less space than a Nomad.
No WiFi.
Lame.
[doublepost=1517550585][/doublepost]
God damn you people are dense. Let me reiterate this from the other thread so you people understand:


Here’s the thing people don’t get about the word stereo. It is NOT the opposite of mono, that would be duo. Sound reproduction is never going to be perfect. A live orchestra or band will project sound in all directions and will be louder or softer depending on the distance between you and whatever emits the sound.

Stereo is trying to replicate that three dimensionality of sound, and using two channels and two speakers is so far the most common and easy way of achieving that. We have two ears, spaced apart. Let’s take advantage of that and simulate space. Unsurprisingly, it’s also the least sophisticated way of doing so. We tried making stereo more immersive by introducing quadraphonic sound at first. This is four channels, four speakers. Also called stereo.

Now tangentially, the first “stereo” records were in fact not. They were dual-mono. A channel could either be hard panned right or hard panned left. If you’ve ever listened to early Beatles or Stones “stereo” releases you know what this sounds like: vocals in one ear, guitars in the right. To achieve true stereo, each channel would have to be panned somewhere in between. The time difference it takes for each channel to hit each of your ears is what creates the illusion of a multi-dimensional sound stage.

Now the problem with two channel, two source stereo becomes immediately apparent: You need to be in the perfect spot between the sources of sound for the illusion to become complete. This is what is known as the sweet spot. It’s also why listening to headphones is the optimal way of listening to two channel audio – your sweet spot is right in the middle of your head. Move out of that sweet spot and the illusion of stereo fades away. Move way out, say stand next to the speakers projecting sound in cones in front of them and the perceived quality of the entire output degrades.

This is what Apple is trying to solve with the HomePod: A consistent, multi-dimensional soundstage, with both depth and width (think surround) regardless of your relative position to the speaker. It will use a combination of beam-forming, echo-cancellation, a speaker array, microphones and lots and lots of real time processing to solve this. And it is an insanely difficult problem to solve. Which is why the nascent version of this technology was only available in $20K+ audio systems only a few years back.

One of this units will apparently project an amazing multi-dimensional soundstage rivalling most 2.1 systems. Two will probably rival many 5.1 systems. The problem Apple is creating in using specific wording, is that “stereo equals two” in most people’s minds. The truth is that they could probably described the soundstage two HomePods create as “surround” and got away with it.

There are Dolby ATMOS soundbar that are single units projecting a fully immersive depth, width, height sound out there and apparently doing a great job of it. The wording Apple is using here is underselling the capabilities of a single HomePod unit and vastly underselling what two can do.

If you think the HomePod is a mono speaker, you must think this is as well:

View attachment 749566

And if you think about pointing to Apple’s wording, read it again. Nothing about that headline or paragraph precludes a single HomePod from being stereo.
Thanks for explaining this to us all. Could you also explain how the rumoured clean coal version works too? Will it be completely wireless or will it have an optional power cable?
 
They would make more profit, if u could use spotify with it.
You don’t have to look for the single product profit but for the whole set of tools and service Apple wants you to pay for. And I guess it is safe to say they’re good at making a profit from almost anything
 
Less space than a Nomad.
No WiFi.
Lame.
[doublepost=1517550585][/doublepost]
God damn you people are dense. Let me reiterate this from the other thread so you people understand:


Here’s the thing people don’t get about the word stereo. It is NOT the opposite of mono, that would be duo. Sound reproduction is never going to be perfect. A live orchestra or band will project sound in all directions and will be louder or softer depending on the distance between you and whatever emits the sound.

Stereo is trying to replicate that three dimensionality of sound, and using two channels and two speakers is so far the most common and easy way of achieving that. We have two ears, spaced apart. Let’s take advantage of that and simulate space. Unsurprisingly, it’s also the least sophisticated way of doing so. We tried making stereo more immersive by introducing quadraphonic sound at first. This is four channels, four speakers. Also called stereo.

Now tangentially, the first “stereo” records were in fact not. They were dual-mono. A channel could either be hard panned right or hard panned left. If you’ve ever listened to early Beatles or Stones “stereo” releases you know what this sounds like: vocals in one ear, guitars in the right. To achieve true stereo, each channel would have to be panned somewhere in between. The time difference it takes for each channel to hit each of your ears is what creates the illusion of a multi-dimensional sound stage.

Now the problem with two channel, two source stereo becomes immediately apparent: You need to be in the perfect spot between the sources of sound for the illusion to become complete. This is what is known as the sweet spot. It’s also why listening to headphones is the optimal way of listening to two channel audio – your sweet spot is right in the middle of your head. Move out of that sweet spot and the illusion of stereo fades away. Move way out, say stand next to the speakers projecting sound in cones in front of them and the perceived quality of the entire output degrades.

This is what Apple is trying to solve with the HomePod: A consistent, multi-dimensional soundstage, with both depth and width (think surround) regardless of your relative position to the speaker. It will use a combination of beam-forming, echo-cancellation, a speaker array, microphones and lots and lots of real time processing to solve this. And it is an insanely difficult problem to solve. Which is why the nascent version of this technology was only available in $20K+ audio systems only a few years back.

One of this units will apparently project an amazing multi-dimensional soundstage rivalling most 2.1 systems. Two will probably rival many 5.1 systems. The problem Apple is creating in using specific wording, is that “stereo equals two” in most people’s minds. The truth is that they could probably described the soundstage two HomePods create as “surround” and got away with it.

There are Dolby ATMOS soundbar that are single units projecting a fully immersive depth, width, height sound out there and apparently doing a great job of it. The wording Apple is using here is underselling the capabilities of a single HomePod unit and vastly underselling what two can do.

If you think the HomePod is a mono speaker, you must think this is as well:

View attachment 749566

And if you think about pointing to Apple’s wording, read it again. Nothing about that headline or paragraph precludes a single HomePod from being stereo.


Excellent analysis. Thanks you!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ErikGrim
The HomePod has Bluetooth 5.0
Bluetooth 5.0
Bluetooth 5 is announced in 16 June 2016 to come in late 2016 or early 2017. Bluetooth 5 is here and with it release, developers have tried to meet the all the advanced standard of wireless world with more privacy and security. This version is the continuation of Low Energy LE. Its speed is 48MBps (double than last version). It can be connected up to distance of 300 meters or 985 feet (4 times of last version). The ISM band ranges from 2.4-2.485 GHz. One little disappointing thing for users is that it don’t have any backward compatibility with its old or previous versions. It requires new hardware which should be latest and advanced so that those devices meet the requirements of Bluetooth v5.0 to run it smoothly.
This makes HomePod ready for the future as opposed to tied to the past.

You do realize that Bluetooth 5.0 is backwards compatible with Bluetooth 4.1, right?
 
One of the problems for me is the lack of a line-in.
I know this product is meant for the Apple ecosystem, and without a physical connection to get audio from the only way to listen to music is AirPlay or Apple music.
I'm deeply into their ecosystem now, but what about 10 years from know? A speaker is not something I want to buy every other year or even after 5 years like a Mac, but is something I expect to use for 10/15 years at least. What if I switch to Android or to another platform in the future? I'd need to sell that thing, and I bet I won't get good money from an old product.
If it costed less I'd consider it, but buying at least a couple of those for a big living room and maybe another for the bedroom means spending at least $1000, and its big money.

And let's forget about the line-in and use it online all the time, what about Spotify or other music services? Being able to run them natively on the speaker would be a plus, but you need an iPhone or an iPad to stream music via Airplay and it isn't as convenient.
 
Is it just me that even though these are meant to be definitive, they still feel like each pint is written at the end to leave some ambiguity about them.

"iTunes Music: HomePod users can ask Siri to play any songs, albums, or audiobooks purchased from the iTunes Store."

At the start it reads like HomePod will play any songs in iTunes, (a comma is a break in a sentence) or audiobooks purchased from iTunes.

Is it either:
• any songs I have in iTunes, purchased or saved into iTunes; or
• any songs and audiobooks etc., so long as I've purchased them?


This is from the HomePod tab on MacRumors site. It has changed since last Friday:

“As outlined by Apple, HomePod (and Siri) will work with the following music sources:

  • Apple Music
  • iTunes Music Purchases
  • iCloud Music Library with an Apple Music or iTunes Match Subscription
  • Beats 1 Live Radio
  • Podcasts
  • AirPlay from iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, Apple TV, and Mac”
Now the confusion I have with this statement is the last bulletpoint, “AirPlay from iPhone, iPad” etc. when in the opening paragraph it says “HomePod (and Siri) will work with ” - If you can use Siri to AirPlay songs to the HomePod then you can play any music you have and not just AM, purchased iTunes, iTunes Match etc. described in the bulletpoints, you can play most things


I think that this bulletpoint should have read something like “In addition you can play other music sources using AirPlay but Siri will not be functional when using AirPlay sources.”

If I’m wrong and someone has a source please post that information.
 
This is from the HomePod tab on MacRumors site. It has changed since last Friday:

“As outlined by Apple, HomePod (and Siri) will work with the following music sources:

  • Apple Music
  • iTunes Music Purchases
  • iCloud Music Library with an Apple Music or iTunes Match Subscription
  • Beats 1 Live Radio
  • Podcasts
  • AirPlay from iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, Apple TV, and Mac”
Now the confusion I have with this statement is the last bulletpoint, “AirPlay from iPhone, iPad” etc. when in the opening paragraph it says “HomePod (and Siri) will work with ” - If you can use Siri to AirPlay songs to the HomePod then you can play any music you have and not just AM, purchased iTunes, iTunes Match etc. described in the bulletpoints, you can play most things


I think that this bulletpoint should have read something like “In addition you can play other music sources using AirPlay but Siri will not be functional when using AirPlay sources.”

If I’m wrong and someone has a source please post that information.
Yes you can get it to play any music via airplay. When it says Apple Music/ iTunes March/ iTunes purchases it means you can ask Siri using voice commands to play music from those sources.

For example in my iTunes library I have bring it on home by Mariah Carey. I do not subscribe to Apple Music or iTunes Match and I did not buy the song from iTunes. Therefore the only way I can get the HomePod to play the song is by air playing from my iPhone or Mac (because the song is stored locally on there. I can’t say hey Siri play bring it on home.

Now in my library I have a song called I don’t by Mariah Carey. I purchased this song from iTunes so I can say hey Siri play I don’t and it will play.

As I have songs in my iTunes library which I didn’t purchase from iTunes the only way I can play these songs is via airplay. If I want to use hey Siri then I’d need to pay for an Apple Music or iTunes Match subscription.
[doublepost=1517578878][/doublepost]
They would make more profit, if u could use spotify with it.
You can use Spotify with it just not via Siri. You can airplay from your iPhone in the Spotify app to the HomePod.
 
eeee
This is from the HomePod tab on MacRumors site. It has changed since last Friday:

“As outlined by Apple, HomePod (and Siri) will work with the following music sources:

  • Apple Music
  • iTunes Music Purchases
  • iCloud Music Library with an Apple Music or iTunes Match Subscription
  • Beats 1 Live Radio
  • Podcasts
  • AirPlay from iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, Apple TV, and Mac”
Now the confusion I have with this statement is the last bulletpoint, “AirPlay from iPhone, iPad” etc. when in the opening paragraph it says “HomePod (and Siri) will work with ” - If you can use Siri to AirPlay songs to the HomePod then you can play any music you have and not just AM, purchased iTunes, iTunes Match etc. described in the bulletpoints, you can play most things


I think that this bulletpoint should have read something like “In addition you can play other music sources using AirPlay but Siri will not be functional when using AirPlay sources.”

If I’m wrong and someone has a source please post that information.

I believe you are absolutely correct.
 
Less space than a Nomad.
No WiFi.
Lame.
[doublepost=1517550585][/doublepost]
God damn you people are dense. Let me reiterate this from the other thread so you people understand:


Here’s the thing people don’t get about the word stereo. It is NOT the opposite of mono, that would be duo. Sound reproduction is never going to be perfect. A live orchestra or band will project sound in all directions and will be louder or softer depending on the distance between you and whatever emits the sound.

Stereo is trying to replicate that three dimensionality of sound, and using two channels and two speakers is so far the most common and easy way of achieving that. We have two ears, spaced apart. Let’s take advantage of that and simulate space. Unsurprisingly, it’s also the least sophisticated way of doing so. We tried making stereo more immersive by introducing quadraphonic sound at first. This is four channels, four speakers. Also called stereo.

Now tangentially, the first “stereo” records were in fact not. They were dual-mono. A channel could either be hard panned right or hard panned left. If you’ve ever listened to early Beatles or Stones “stereo” releases you know what this sounds like: vocals in one ear, guitars in the right. To achieve true stereo, each channel would have to be panned somewhere in between. The time difference it takes for each channel to hit each of your ears is what creates the illusion of a multi-dimensional sound stage.

Now the problem with two channel, two source stereo becomes immediately apparent: You need to be in the perfect spot between the sources of sound for the illusion to become complete. This is what is known as the sweet spot. It’s also why listening to headphones is the optimal way of listening to two channel audio – your sweet spot is right in the middle of your head. Move out of that sweet spot and the illusion of stereo fades away. Move way out, say stand next to the speakers projecting sound in cones in front of them and the perceived quality of the entire output degrades.

This is what Apple is trying to solve with the HomePod: A consistent, multi-dimensional soundstage, with both depth and width (think surround) regardless of your relative position to the speaker. It will use a combination of beam-forming, echo-cancellation, a speaker array, microphones and lots and lots of real time processing to solve this. And it is an insanely difficult problem to solve. Which is why the nascent version of this technology was only available in $20K+ audio systems only a few years back.

One of this units will apparently project an amazing multi-dimensional soundstage rivalling most 2.1 systems. Two will probably rival many 5.1 systems. The problem Apple is creating in using specific wording, is that “stereo equals two” in most people’s minds. The truth is that they could probably described the soundstage two HomePods create as “surround” and got away with it.

There are Dolby ATMOS soundbar that are single units projecting a fully immersive depth, width, height sound out there and apparently doing a great job of it. The wording Apple is using here is underselling the capabilities of a single HomePod unit and vastly underselling what two can do.

If you think the HomePod is a mono speaker, you must think this is as well:

View attachment 749566

And if you think about pointing to Apple’s wording, read it again. Nothing about that headline or paragraph precludes a single HomePod from being stereo.


When your marketing uses long established words to describe your new product then you have to accept that most people will have long established preconceptions that they attach to those words.

Stereo has meant 2 speakers since at least the 1960’s when the first push of higher quality sound aimed at a mass market first occurred. I don’t remember who used it but there was an ad in the 60’s or 70’s saying that you have 2 ears why would you settle for just one speaker. Stereo has meant 2 speakers for decades.

Sonos describes their surround sound as a 5.1 system. It only has 3 speakers. They replace the front/center/right speakers using a sound bar. Bose and other systems do the same. They didn’t use existing terms to describe this unit they invented new terminology and told you why it was better than individual speakers. I’ll leave whether that’s true to other websites.

Point is, they didn’t use phrases that people already have long and strong preconceptions of what those words mean to describe their product. They used new terminology and told you why it’s better. Apple DOES say stereo will be available for available for the HomePod ‘soon’ when AirPlay2 is rolled out. You use the terminology you accept the baggage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sofila
When your marketing uses long established words to describe your new product then you have to accept that most people will have long established preconceptions that they attach to those words.

Stereo has meant 2 speakers since at least the 1960’s when the first push of higher quality sound aimed at a mass market first occurred. I don’t remember who used it but there was an ad in the 60’s or 70’s saying that you have 2 ears why would you settle for just one speaker. Stereo has meant 2 speakers for decades.

Sonos describes their surround sound as a 5.1 system. It only has 3 speakers. They replace the front/center/right speakers using a sound bar. Bose and other systems do the same. They didn’t use existing terms to describe this unit they invented new terminology and told you why it was better than individual speakers. I’ll leave whether that’s true to other websites.

Point is, they didn’t use phrases that people already have long and strong preconceptions of what those words mean to describe their product. They used new terminology and told you why it’s better. Apple DOES say stereo will be available for available for the HomePod ‘soon’ when AirPlay2 is rolled out. You use the terminology you accept the baggage.
Amazingly that was all covered by what I just wrote and you just ignored. Congrats. You just played yourself.
 
So that it remains anti-competitive and forces users to stay within the Apple ecosystem. (That way you can't use it with an Android device or something)

Aren't there Android apps that can use Airplay to stream audio? Or have those been disabled by Airplay updates?

Anyway, saying the HomePod is "anti-competitive" is kinda funny. I mean that would be Apple's entire product line if you twist that logic into place. Their products are primarily for their products. No one is forcing you to buy a HomePod if you have a Galaxy Note 7.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ErikGrim
Not calling you out - I truly don't know - but is this confirmed? Does it only work with Apple Music, or does it work if you are streaming Spotify from your iPhone? I've never tried AirPlaying Spotify to my Apple TV and receiving a call to see if music stops playing.

If the music does continue to play, this will be fantastic.

If you are streaming audio from your phone via Bluetooth to anything and your phone rings, all of the sounds from your phone are going to come from the Bluetooth speaker.

That's one of the reasons why wifi speaker like Sonos, Google Home, and HomePod are better, because the music is streaming from the internet directly to your speaker. With Sonos, you're basically using your phone as a remote control telling the speaker "play this song from this service." With Google Home and HomePod, you can take the phone out of the equation, as the built in assistant finds the song on the supported music services.
 
Yes you can get it to play any music via airplay. When it says Apple Music/ iTunes March/ iTunes purchases it means you can ask Siri using voice commands to play music from those sources.

For example in my iTunes library I have bring it on home by Mariah Carey. I do not subscribe to Apple Music or iTunes Match and I did not buy the song from iTunes. Therefore the only way I can get the HomePod to play the song is by air playing from my iPhone or Mac (because the song is stored locally on there. I can’t say hey Siri play bring it on home.

Now in my library I have a song called I don’t by Mariah Carey. I purchased this song from iTunes so I can say hey Siri play I don’t and it will play.

As I have songs in my iTunes library which I didn’t purchase from iTunes the only way I can play these songs is via airplay. If I want to use hey Siri then I’d need to pay for an Apple Music or iTunes Match subscription.
[doublepost=1517578878][/doublepost]
You can use Spotify with it just not via Siri. You can airplay from your iPhone in the Spotify app to the HomePod.
I get that, but I don’t think it is clearly defined anywhere, including here on MacRumors in their HomePod tab. Something like:

HomePod sources you can use with Siri Commands:
  • Apple Music.
  • Songs you have purchased on iTunes.
  • Songs you have uploaded to iTunes Match-iTunes Match subscription required.
  • Beats 1 Radio .
  • iTunes Podcasts.
In addition, you can send any other music or audio source not listed above to play on the HomePod using AirPlay but you cannot use Siri with these sources. This includes but is not limited to:
  • Songs or audio physically stored on your devices and not on Apple Music/iTunes Match.
  • Spotify, Amazon Music, Google Music and other similar non Apple streaming music providers.
You specify. These sources work with Siri commands and these don’t. You make sure that you put the most common sources that people like to use in the proper can use/can’t use Siri column.You try to limit confusion by as much as you can by being as clear and explicit as possible. If there are other consequences to using AirPlay, something like sound conversion loss or whatever, then you tell people. I don’t know if there are any problems using AirPlay (haven’t ever heard of any) but if Apple doesn’t say and it turns out there is it’s another marketing black eye. Tell them up front if you know about it.
[doublepost=1517583822][/doublepost]
Amazingly that was all covered by what I just wrote and you just ignored. Congrats. You just played yourself.

Thanks for pointing out that everyone who was complaining about ‘stereo ‘ in this thread is a complete idiot and doesn’t understand either sound technology or what audio terminology like someone superior such as you. And when someone replies to your post, doesn’t call you names, explains his points, tells you why some people might be missing what stereo really is you belittle that attempt, insult the person directly, and claim that your explanation already covered everything necessary.

What a shining example of humanity you are.
 
Does anyone know if it is possible to set up an Apple TV to airplay to HomePod by default? Is it possible to set up the Apple TV to automatically connect to HomePod every time I wake up my Apple TV or will I need to manually change the audio output every time I use the Apple TV?
 
  • Like
Reactions: FunnelDog
I think the article should have pointed out that the Homepod does not support Home Sharing and so, unlike the Apple TV, it cannot play non-Apple-purchased music directly from an iTunes library on a Mac in the same house. It not even clear if all Apple-purchased music has to be streamed from the internet rather than a local Mac.
I realise Airplay will allow me to play all music from my Mac via iTunes but that is not nearly as convenient as having a "smart" speaker that finds the music for me.
Next thing I suppose iTunes will lose support for Home Sharing (oh... maybe I shouldn't have given Apple the inkling of an idea!)
 
Last edited:
I thought AirPlay 2 prevents audio stopping when a call is received or am I wrong?

I believe you're right, but that's because it's streaming over your wifi network and Bluetooth. If you were just using Bluetooth audio from an iPhone or an Android phone, a phone call would stop the music playback.

I know someone with a Bluetooth soundbar and an Android phone. They answered their phone when it rang, and they were super confused that the person's voice was coming out of the soundbar instead of the phone held up to their ear.
 
Revolutionary! Announcing product specs nearly a week after it goes on sale.

I'm sure this has totally nothing to do with the fact that it's still showing February 9th availability for both colors.

The spec were posted last week.
Excellent analysis. Thanks you!

I read that when it was posted.

I am getting two Homepods only because of my interest in hearing the difference with a "mono" and "stereo" setup.

The homepods will ultimately end up in separate rooms.
 
I am getting two Homepods only because of my interest in hearing the difference with a "mono" and "stereo" setup.

The homepods will ultimately end up in separate rooms.

You are aware that the two won’t work together at the moment?
[doublepost=1517605553][/doublepost]
I think the article should have pointed out that the Homepod does not support Home Sharing and so, unlike the Apple TV, it cannot play non-Apple-purchased music directly from an iTunes library on a Mac in the same house. It not even clear if all Apple-purchased music has to be streamed from the internet rather than a local Mac.
I realise Airplay will allow me to play all music from my Mac via iTunes but that is not nearly as convenient as having a "smart" speaker that finds the music for me.
Next thing I suppose iTunes will lose support for Home Sharing (oh... maybe I shouldn't have given Apple the inkling of an idea!)

I think it’s clear that if you use Siri to request a song, it will take it from the internet rather than a local library. I’ve not seen anything which even suggests that the HomePod is able to draw from a local library. The only way to play music from your Mac is to airplay it from that Mac.

Basically, if you want to request a song from the HomePod using Siri then you have to have a copy in the cloud (purchased, matched or uploaded) and it is that cloud copy which will be played.
 
One of the problems for me is the lack of a line-in.
I know this product is meant for the Apple ecosystem, and without a physical connection to get audio from the only way to listen to music is AirPlay or Apple music.
I'm deeply into their ecosystem now, but what about 10 years from know? A speaker is not something I want to buy every other year or even after 5 years like a Mac, but is something I expect to use for 10/15 years at least. What if I switch to Android or to another platform in the future? I'd need to sell that thing, and I bet I won't get good money from an old product.
If it costed less I'd consider it, but buying at least a couple of those for a big living room and maybe another for the bedroom means spending at least $1000, and its big money.

And let's forget about the line-in and use it online all the time, what about Spotify or other music services? Being able to run them natively on the speaker would be a plus, but you need an iPhone or an iPad to stream music via Airplay and it isn't as convenient.


I've sold plenty of "old apple products" and I'm always amazed by the value they retain...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shanghaichica
Really. So Apple's strategy is to not sell as many HomePods as possible?

Wrong. Their strategy is to sell as many APPLE DEVICES as possible. Forcing HomePoop owners to buy iPhones and iPads is more to their liking than to allow Android users to use the speaker.
[doublepost=1517657326][/doublepost]
I know I am going to get flak for this but lets face it there is no perfect speaker that is bluetooth and wifi and chrome casting and airplay 2.

If you're looking for Sonos level audio performance, keep looking. The toy category doesn't have anything that supports your requirements. My speakers have integrated Spotify Connect, Tidal HiFi, Deezer and whatever else. They support bluetooth, Airplay and whatever else. They have optical inputs and they're connected to my LAN. Or rather, wifi because I didn't want to have all those cables on the floor. They play all of those without a hitch, from Windows, from Mac, from iPhone, from Android and whatever else. They sound amazing. I could purchase as many as I wanted and set them up in different rooms in the house should I have too much money. They also serve as my TV's sound system. All that combined with a sound quality Sonos and HomePod can only have wet dreams about.

Should the Chrome casting be a dealbreaker, hook one of those up to your TV and you're set. I'll make do with all of the options I have already. Oh, did I forget to mention - I can use every single one of those speakers as a separate bluetooth target OR use them as a stereo pair.

Now waiting for people to flock in as promised. And no, it's not 'perfect'. I could get much better audio out of a setup that costs about three times as much but it's not as portable, doesn't have all the same wireless connectivity as this one. And I can't afford it.
[doublepost=1517657664][/doublepost]
I have a question: when multiroom comes out with AirPlay 2 and I have multiple Homepods will for example I be able to listen to a particular song in the home office, while another person in my house/family listens to a different song downstairs in the kitchen?

I plan on buying multipul HomePod’s for around the house and is the above is possible then that would make it even better.

I bet Siri works as usual. "Hey siri, play hotel california in living room". -"Calling mother...." -"NOOOOOOOOOO!"
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.