Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Patent on Virtual Speakers
- Thread starter AtHomeBoy_2000
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
ohh marketing hype! Everytime I've had a sales person play some "virtual" speakers it always still sounds like 2 speakers to me, granted some do have a fuller sound, but this crap about 2 speakers sounding like 5 is nothing more than marketing.
boncellis said:
The "sunflower" iMac which you are referring to came with the "Apple Pro Speakers" made by Harmon-Kardon. Those same speakers were the ones used in the eMacs.
The Harmon-Kardon "iSub" was the bass accompaniment for those speakers which turned those speakers into a 2.1 system.
I'm hoping that they apply this Virtual Speaker technology to the iPod Hi-Fi for a full 5.1 effect in the larger spaces that the Hi-Fi is intended for, that would really make the Hi-Fi a great buy.
I have no idea how this technology works, but would it be possible to introduce this effect through an iPod Software Update that would add this setting to an iPod and enable it through the Hi-Fi?
If so, that would be a huge selling point over the competition's speaker offerings at around the $300+ price point.
dornoforpyros said:
No kidding. It reminds me of those shady Audio shops that always happen to have a regional sales rep in the store ready to make a once-in-a-lifetime offer. He pushes you into a demo room and shows you how 2 speakers sound like five ("Just imagine what the whole set sounds like!").
Little do you know, they reversed the contacts on one of the speakers to bring them out of phase. It sounds cool, but it's just a gimmick. I wouldn't be surprised if all this Virtual Speaker tech is based on the same thing, only more dynamic.
MacQuest said:
not if a microphone is required, as the patent filing seems to indicate. well, unless Apple has been holding out on us... where's the Hi-Fi disassembly pics?
it'll take years for the filing to come to fruition, if indeed it does.
skwert said:
screw 5.1
get two good speakers, and an analog/digital amp thats powerful enough to drive those two speakers. a sub if you REALLY need it, and didn't get two speakers with adequate bass response. i love my setup, with digital inputs, but mainly everything is used as analog. i've got a 5 disc kenwood cd player, an audio technica phonograph, a kenwood reciever (hoping to replace with a denon at some point in my life) and a dvd player.
i hooked 5.1 up once, and its not worth the hassle, really. the two speakers are more than enough to fill the room. if virtual technology can be done well enough that it sounds like 5 speakers in one room, with only 2 speakers, do it. but i'd probably not turn it on.
It's not a patent
It's a patent application and the two are very different. A patent is something you can sue someone under while a patent application is merely a description of your idea together with an indication of what you WANT to be able to sue people for doing. Patent applications are published 18 months after filing, but this does not mean that Apple have or are going to get a patent.
There's little chance of Apple getting a patent from the European Patent Office for at least two or three years, especially since, as several people have pointed out, and as the EPO seem to agree, the basic invention is not new. As part of a published patent application, the EPO lists the documents that they think preclude the patenting of Apple's idea. There are three documents which the EPO have brought forward (there may be others, but why use a shotgun when a sniper rifle will do) one from Sony, one from Microsoft and one from Deutsche Thomson-Brandt.
A full report from the EPO states that most of the claims for the invention are not new and that those that are new are obvious because "distance measurements based on a time difference between origination and detection of a signal from loudspeakers are already known". So, looks like Apple were trying to get a patent on sonar!
The report from the EPO also says that they cannot see anything in the application which might be patentable. There may be something that Apple can amend their claims to to get a patent, but it will be on some implementational detail, not the general concept.
So would people PLEASE not say that the patent system is rubbish merely because Apple has filed an application for a rubbish invention.
It's a patent application and the two are very different. A patent is something you can sue someone under while a patent application is merely a description of your idea together with an indication of what you WANT to be able to sue people for doing. Patent applications are published 18 months after filing, but this does not mean that Apple have or are going to get a patent.
There's little chance of Apple getting a patent from the European Patent Office for at least two or three years, especially since, as several people have pointed out, and as the EPO seem to agree, the basic invention is not new. As part of a published patent application, the EPO lists the documents that they think preclude the patenting of Apple's idea. There are three documents which the EPO have brought forward (there may be others, but why use a shotgun when a sniper rifle will do) one from Sony, one from Microsoft and one from Deutsche Thomson-Brandt.
A full report from the EPO states that most of the claims for the invention are not new and that those that are new are obvious because "distance measurements based on a time difference between origination and detection of a signal from loudspeakers are already known". So, looks like Apple were trying to get a patent on sonar!
The report from the EPO also says that they cannot see anything in the application which might be patentable. There may be something that Apple can amend their claims to to get a patent, but it will be on some implementational detail, not the general concept.
So would people PLEASE not say that the patent system is rubbish merely because Apple has filed an application for a rubbish invention.
The case will probably cost $999 then.Kingsly said:As long as its not $1999 I want one. Maybe It'll come with a leather case.
Didn't the connector also look identical on the 1G and 2G iPods? I know it wouldn't have worked on them properly, if at all, but just to give some idea to others.skwert said:
That's one of the things I would have liked to have seen continued onto the G5 iMac. Those seperate harmon kardon speakers made the flat panel G4 sound so good for a desktop.
this patent sounds a lot like bang and olufsens beolab 5 which digitally measure and compute a room to calibrate themselves with small microphones which pop out from the bottom of the speaker so the user is free to place them anywhere in the room without ever losing the 'sweet spot'.
http://www.bang-olufsen.com/web2/systems/product.asp?section=systems&sub=ls&prodid=544
£10,000
http://www.bang-olufsen.com/web2/systems/product.asp?section=systems&sub=ls&prodid=544
£10,000
That would be funny: "How did you get that new car"?Erased Citizen said:this patent sounds a lot like bang and olufsens beolab 5 which digitally measure and compute a room to calibrate themselves with small microphones which pop out from the bottom of the speaker so the user is free to place them anywhere in the room without ever losing the 'sweet spot'.
http://www.bang-olufsen.com/web2/systems/product.asp?section=systems&sub=ls&prodid=544
£10,000
"Oh, I sold my speakers"!
laidbackliam said:
much agree. haven't found the desire for 5.1 yet. music is written for 2 speakers, thats what makes it sound good. don't watch many movies.
however, instead of a 5 disc cd player I would recommend wiring you computer (or ipod) to the receiver and lose the whole cd thing. much much easier to play music on demand.
It's already been done...
http://www.bose.com/controller?event=VIEW_PRODUCT_PAGE_EVENT&product=321_dvd_index
http://www.bose.com/controller?event=VIEW_PRODUCT_PAGE_EVENT&product=321_dvd_index
iPod Surround
I want to take this concept and push it a little farther. If they can do virtual surround with two speakers, why not with a pair of headphones? THis does two things...
1) Allows for surround sound on a video iPod when you are listening on the go.
2) SA-DVDs and DVD-Audio never took off, but the concept of surround sound music is amazing. Imagine 5 track AAC files that sound like surround sound whne you are listening on your iPod.
The options are endless!
I want to take this concept and push it a little farther. If they can do virtual surround with two speakers, why not with a pair of headphones? THis does two things...
1) Allows for surround sound on a video iPod when you are listening on the go.
2) SA-DVDs and DVD-Audio never took off, but the concept of surround sound music is amazing. Imagine 5 track AAC files that sound like surround sound whne you are listening on your iPod.
The options are endless!
speaking of which, isn't it about time for invitations?Whistleway said:
I'm getting a bit worried they might postpone it
AtHomeBoy_2000 said:
Doesn't such a system as described use the space in between and the walls?
I don't think they will be able to do that with the normal headphones, although there are big ones (caps) that have surround sound.
