Apple's Phil Schiller on HomePod: We Want to Create a New Kind of Music Experience in the Home That Sounds Incredible

[csurfr]

Thx, shame..
[doublepost=1517427245][/doublepost]

Oh i didn’t think of that, so at least spotify via AirPlay would be no Problem! Thx

It's a shame that more people don't think like you do. There are so many people bashing the HomePod in regards to "supporting" Spotify, Pandora, etc. . . Are you able to talk to the HomePod and say "Play Spotify"? No. Are you able to use AirPlay and send pretty much everything directly to it? Yes. I personally think that trumps my Sonos hands down. I'll be happy that I don't need to pay for both Spotify and Apple Music. I've been using Spotify just to play music on my Echo. No longer!
[doublepost=1517432199][/doublepost]

I'm one of those nutso audiophiles and won't be getting the HomePod, but I do think the idea is cool. My parents would love the HomePod, though.

I think you have it pegged. While I absolutely love music and usually have something playing, I have no desire to fill my place with amps, wires, and speakers for it. I'm the target audience hands down. None of us have had a chance to listen to the HomePod yet, but I think we should all be able to agree that it's not going to sound like a $10k audio system with McIntosh amps or what have you.

 

[Uofmtiger]

I'm one of those nutso audiophiles and won't be getting the HomePod, but I do think the idea is cool. My parents would love the HomePod, though.

Yeah, but do you have Magnepans in your kitchen?

 

[AppleScruff1]

Conceptually, yes- a better quality source will sound better on "best quality sound" hardware.

The key to the debate about this topic comes down to can our ears hear a difference? It's an odd topic in a thread where we're simultaneously trying to rationalize the higher price of a speaker mostly around "best quality sound." We're basically trying to say, "yes buy this speaker because it has the best quality sound" while also saying "no, people's ears are not good enough to hear higher quality sources." Result: we are supporting Apple's push to sell this speaker in spite of locking it to the same lossy source of audio. More simply, the speaker is a sonic upgrade but the source is fine "as is." It's almost an argument of our ears needing to pay up for better sound but cannot hear better sound at the same time.

Whether one buys the argument of 256kbps is all humans can possibly hear or not is almost irrelevant for these purposes. Very soon, people can put one of these in their own homes and listen to a track from AM and then the same track from a lossless source like Tidal... or a lossless rip of the very same track from a CD or other even higher quality source. Then, they can let their own ears be the judge. Conceptually, a very high quality speaker will sound it's best with a very high quality source file. As you wrote, a lossy format cannot accurately make up the details it jettisons to achieve it's small size. Instead, it's best guessing to fill in those blanks.

Apple has a lossless format too. Why would they bother if 256kpbs is all that human ears can hear? IMO: AAC (well) serves it's primary purpose of being able to fit a lot of good-sounding-audio into a pocket. If it was the end all, be all, there would be no need for any format capable of more. And yet, even Apple has put the time and support into an Apple lossless format.

And consider this: if we ACTUALLY believe what some of us are saying abut this, what if Apple decided to do a retina for audio and pair this HP with an Apple Lossless stream option? Would we be calling Apple stupid for the audio file overkill? Of course not: it's only stupid while Apple is not yet endorsing something more. Right up to the launch of a 4KTV, we passionately argued that 1080p was good enough... with a pile of recycled rationale why none of us could even see a difference. And then Apple endorsed 4K video files and nobody called Apple stupid for the visual overkill. Same here. Apple endorses 256kbps as "good enough" so it is. If Apple rolled out lossless, we'd all be propping this HP up even higher on the strength of finally being able to hear ALL of the fine details NOT available from Echo and Google music's inferior lossy audio formats.

Our ears could suddenly hear those nuances. Apple just needs to tell us they can.

What do you mean we?

 

[Burger Thing]

What do you mean we?

 

[ApfelKuchen]

I know it's got seven tweeters, Apple won't let you forget that, but how is subscribing to Apple's compressed music service to be pushed through a mono system of speakers going to "sound incredible?

You could check my earlier explanation of why this is not a "mono system." HomePod takes a stereo input, analyzes that stereo "sound stage," and synthesizes it into an 8-channel system - each speaker in the box has its own channel.

Mono (when created from a stereo signal) is the sum of Left and Right - it is always less than the sum of its parts, because the sum of left and right includes the loss of certain frequencies from certain instruments... Sorry, I don't want to write a treatise on phase cancellation, but basically, summed mono sucks.

Speaking as a former audio engineer who produced concerts for live radio broadcast for 25 years, I had to accept mono as a fact of life - lots of people would be listening on crappy audio systems, and I wanted my sound to be as good as it could be on those systems as well as $100,000 audiophile systems. That meant doing what I could to avoid phase cancellation, and it meant checking my mix in mono and on crap speakers as well as my expensive stereo control room monitors. It was really nice to get compliments from audiophiles on the quality of my sound, but I also had to make sure the masses wouldn't tune out.

The audio industry has long taken advantage of the knowledge that our ears can more easily detect location from mid- and high-frequency sounds, but we have a harder time detecting directionality in low frequency sounds. That's why so many home theater systems have a single sub-woofer and multiple small "satellite" speakers carrying only midrange and highs. It's a highly economical solution to an otherwise expensive and space-wasting alternative - 5-7 large, full-range speakers.

In the case of HomePod, you can consider this to be the equivalent of an 8-speaker home theater system - mono woofer, plus 7 satellites - they just happen to be arrayed in a single enclosure. It's a similar approach to the one Bose has been using for several generations - adding complexity to the listening room sound field by mounting additional speakers on the rear of the speaker enclosure, facing the wall. The big difference is that Bose did this passively - no signal processing. Stereo in, stereo out. Apple, on the other hand, is throwing an entire computer at this.

As to "Apple's compressed music service," of course it's data-reduced, for the same reason web sites post JPG images, not TIFFs or RAW. Bandwidth and storage space come at a cost, both in dollars and in real-world performance. Now, you may happen to be a cost-is-no object audiophile who believes he can detect every nuance and imperfection, but a mass-market product has to strike a balance in order to satisfy the largest possible customer base - if too many users can't stream the service because it demands too good a cellular (or even wifi) signal, then there are going to be a lot of unhappy customers.

In the end, music listening is NOT about technical quality, it's about music - composition, musicianship, arrangement, melody, lyrics, harmony, counterpoint... Someone who truly loves the music, for its own sake, isn't going to let themselves be upset by technical imperfections unless they're so glaring and obnoxious that they become distracted - say, the person sitting behind you coughing or opening a candy wrapper (or loud pops and clicks from a black vinyl disk) during a heart-rending pianissimo passage. What audiophiles typically complain about can be compared to the story of the Princess and the Pea. Sure, the princess may truly have been able to detect that pea under a stack of mattresses, but it takes a really special individual to lose sleep over it.

 

[UL2RA]

You could check my earlier explanation of why this is not a "mono system." HomePod takes a stereo input, analyzes that stereo "sound stage," and synthesizes it into an 8-channel system - each speaker in the box has its own channel.

Mono (when created from a stereo signal) is the sum of Left and Right - it is always less than the sum of its parts, because the sum of left and right includes the loss of certain frequencies from certain instruments... Sorry, I don't want to write a treatise on phase cancellation, but basically, summed mono sucks.

Speaking as a former audio engineer who produced concerts for live radio broadcast for 25 years, I had to accept mono as a fact of life - lots of people would be listening on crappy audio systems, and I wanted my sound to be as good as it could be on those systems as well as $100,000 audiophile systems. That meant doing what I could to avoid phase cancellation, and it meant checking my mix in mono and on crap speakers as well as my expensive stereo control room monitors. It was really nice to get compliments from audiophiles on the quality of my sound, but I also had to make sure the masses wouldn't tune out.

The audio industry has long taken advantage of the knowledge that our ears can more easily detect location from mid- and high-frequency sounds, but we have a harder time detecting directionality in low frequency sounds. That's why so many home theater systems have a single sub-woofer and multiple small "satellite" speakers carrying only midrange and highs. It's a highly economical solution to an otherwise expensive and space-wasting alternative - 5-7 large, full-range speakers.

In the case of HomePod, you can consider this to be the equivalent of an 8-speaker home theater system - mono woofer, plus 7 satellites - they just happen to be arrayed in a single enclosure. It's a similar approach to the one Bose has been using for several generations - adding complexity to the listening room sound field by mounting additional speakers on the rear of the speaker enclosure, facing the wall. The big difference is that Bose did this passively - no signal processing. Stereo in, stereo out. Apple, on the other hand, is throwing an entire computer at this.

As to "Apple's compressed music service," of course it's data-reduced, for the same reason web sites post JPG images, not TIFFs or RAW. Bandwidth and storage space come at a cost, both in dollars and in real-world performance. Now, you may happen to be a cost-is-no object audiophile who believes he can detect every nuance and imperfection, but a mass-market product has to strike a balance in order to satisfy the largest possible customer base - if too many users can't stream the service because it demands too good a cellular (or even wifi) signal, then there are going to be a lot of unhappy customers.

In the end, music listening is NOT about technical quality, it's about music - composition, musicianship, arrangement, melody, lyrics, harmony, counterpoint... Someone who truly loves the music, for its own sake, isn't going to let themselves be upset by technical imperfections unless they're so glaring and obnoxious that they become distracted - say, the person sitting behind you coughing or opening a candy wrapper (or loud pops and clicks from a black vinyl disk) during a heart-rending pianissimo passage. What audiophiles typically complain about can be compared to the story of the Princess and the Pea. Sure, the princess may truly have been able to detect that pea under a stack of mattresses, but it takes a really special individual to lose sleep over it.

I always dread walls of text, but this entire comment was enjoyable to read. Thanks.

 

[IGI2]

99% of listeners don't care. For the vast majority of users, a normal 128bit MP3 is perfectly fine.

Apple markets to the average user. They're the largest percentage of the market and the largest potential to make money.

Just look at how going after hi-fi audio has worked out for Tidal.

128 kbps MP3 is an exaggeration to the other pole.

I hear the difference in 128 kbps and 256 kbps mp3 it's very telling.

 

[UL2RA]

128 kbps MP3 is an exaggeration to the other pole.

I hear the difference in 128 kbps and 256 kbps mp3 it's very telling.

128 Kbps is hot garbage.

 

[buststyles]

You could check my earlier explanation of why this is not a "mono system." HomePod takes a stereo input, analyzes that stereo "sound stage," and synthesizes it into an 8-channel system - each speaker in the box has its own channel.

Mono (when created from a stereo signal) is the sum of Left and Right - it is always less than the sum of its parts, because the sum of left and right includes the loss of certain frequencies from certain instruments... Sorry, I don't want to write a treatise on phase cancellation, but basically, summed mono sucks.

Speaking as a former audio engineer who produced concerts for live radio broadcast for 25 years, I had to accept mono as a fact of life - lots of people would be listening on crappy audio systems, and I wanted my sound to be as good as it could be on those systems as well as $100,000 audiophile systems. That meant doing what I could to avoid phase cancellation, and it meant checking my mix in mono and on crap speakers as well as my expensive stereo control room monitors. It was really nice to get compliments from audiophiles on the quality of my sound, but I also had to make sure the masses wouldn't tune out.

The audio industry has long taken advantage of the knowledge that our ears can more easily detect location from mid- and high-frequency sounds, but we have a harder time detecting directionality in low frequency sounds. That's why so many home theater systems have a single sub-woofer and multiple small "satellite" speakers carrying only midrange and highs. It's a highly economical solution to an otherwise expensive and space-wasting alternative - 5-7 large, full-range speakers.

In the case of HomePod, you can consider this to be the equivalent of an 8-speaker home theater system - mono woofer, plus 7 satellites - they just happen to be arrayed in a single enclosure. It's a similar approach to the one Bose has been using for several generations - adding complexity to the listening room sound field by mounting additional speakers on the rear of the speaker enclosure, facing the wall. The big difference is that Bose did this passively - no signal processing. Stereo in, stereo out. Apple, on the other hand, is throwing an entire computer at this.

As to "Apple's compressed music service," of course it's data-reduced, for the same reason web sites post JPG images, not TIFFs or RAW. Bandwidth and storage space come at a cost, both in dollars and in real-world performance. Now, you may happen to be a cost-is-no object audiophile who believes he can detect every nuance and imperfection, but a mass-market product has to strike a balance in order to satisfy the largest possible customer base - if too many users can't stream the service because it demands too good a cellular (or even wifi) signal, then there are going to be a lot of unhappy customers.

In the end, music listening is NOT about technical quality, it's about music - composition, musicianship, arrangement, melody, lyrics, harmony, counterpoint... Someone who truly loves the music, for its own sake, isn't going to let themselves be upset by technical imperfections unless they're so glaring and obnoxious that they become distracted - say, the person sitting behind you coughing or opening a candy wrapper (or loud pops and clicks from a black vinyl disk) during a heart-rending pianissimo passage. What audiophiles typically complain about can be compared to the story of the Princess and the Pea. Sure, the princess may truly have been able to detect that pea under a stack of mattresses, but it takes a really special individual to lose sleep over it.

I actually logged in for the first time in years just to like your comment. It is frustrating to read posts of people who do not understand the difference between mono and stereo.

PPL - The word stereo does not mean two.

 

[Brandhouse]

What he didn't say is that you have to have a subscription to listen to music, so without that it's just a thing sitting in your room that can't do much else. Big fail.

I was excited about the HomePod, didn't need one but thought it had possbilities, but when I found out about the hidden details, nope.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

I always dread walls of text, but this entire comment was enjoyable to read. Thanks.

Thanks. I know, walls of text are a turn-off. I look at my own and cringe. But then, the Tweet-length one-liner intentionally over-simplifies nuanced topics. C'est la guerre.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I actually logged in for the first time in years just to like your comment. It is frustrating to read posts of people who do not understand the difference between mono and stereo.

PPL - The word stereo does not mean two.

So you're saying Apple themselves are wrong about that because Apple says "it takes two" HPs for stereo in writing right in the HP overview section on Apple's site (see a clip of that in the very first post of this thread).

I keep asking all these people who are spinning it as already being stereo or more to call Apple wrong for that but that hasn't happened yet. So will you be the first?

 

[ApfelKuchen]

So you're saying Apple themselves are wrong about that because Apple says "it takes two" HPs for stereo in writing right in the HP overview section on Apple's site (see a clip of that in the very first post of this thread).

I keep asking all these people who are spinning it as already being stereo or more to call Apple wrong for that but that hasn't happened yet. So will you be the first?

Yeah, Apple studiously does not say "Stereo" for a single HP. But it is quite clear, from many statements they've made that it is not "Mono," either. For example (with emphasis added):

Place HomePod anywhere in the room. It automatically analyzes the acoustics, adjusts the sound based on the speaker’s location, and separates the music into direct and ambient sound. Direct sound is beamed to the middle of the room, while ambient sound is diffused into left and right channels and bounced off the wall. So your music sounds amazing, wherever you are in the room.

My position is that this is not traditional summed mono, it is a synthesized multi-channel audio experience, derived from a Stereo source. There's no reason it cannot have directionality or a spacious sound field. The fundamental premise of Stereo (and all multi-channel systems) is an attempt to deliver the spacious and complex sound field of the live experience. Mono is decidedly space-less, a point source substituting for a multi-directional experience. HP, clearly, for good or for bad, will be spacious. Since this is a synthesized sound field, the proof will be in the quality of execution (which I've yet to experience).

The fun part here is that Apple calls the sound "incredible." It's not surprising, then, that people find the claims less than credible. What it comes down to is that hearing will be believing (or not believing). "I can't believe it's not Stereo!"

 

[kyykesko]

I bet they'll make a courageous decision in a few years from now to discontinue updates to the device making it obsolete and people are happily throwing all those garbage cans into trash. Oh yay, but now there's the new HomePod 2 Air Pro Mini!

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

128 kbps MP3 is an exaggeration to the other pole.

I hear the difference in 128 kbps and 256 kbps mp3 it's very telling.

Apple Music streaming runs at 256kbps, but it uses a better encoding scheme, AAC.

Point is that the vast majority of the public will experience better sound through the HomePod, no matter what the quality of the song they're listening to, because most are use to listening through the cheap earbuds that come with their iPhone. And that's why it will sell. It's much better than what they're use to from a sound source, regardless of the audio input.

 

[legacyb4]

So HomePod is essentially an Apple Music accessory? That means the HomePod’s total potential market is 30 or so million customers. If a generous 10% buy it, that’s only 3 million sold. I don’t believe such a product is really worth Apple’s time. I don’t want to see them further lose focus. I’m all for them getting into new product categories when it makes sense. And that means offering something better, something different. HomePod is not that.

As for features that Alexa/Google miss, a $30 echo dot can connect to whatever speakers you want. Better privacy? Who cares? Not most consumers. Part of what makes Alexa and Google better is the fact that they gather data. I find the whole privacy argument around assistants rather absurd. How does anyone expect an AI assistant to genuinely assist if it knows nothing about you? The better it knows you, the more useful it becomes.

I hope HomePod does well. I’m a longtime customer and investor and I certainly want every product to be successful. But I don’t think a niche accessory really merits Apple’s attention right now. I feel like they are losing focus, maybe becoming a little too big and bloated. That never ends well.

Nope, seeing as the Homepod does/will support Airplay/Airplay2, the potential market is any iPhone user who, again, is looking for hardware that supports the points I mentioned above. And seeing that Amazon just rolled out a new Alexa feature (some sort of messaging) which excludes the iOS platform (for now), why would I continue to invest in a platform that is explicitly not supporting my device platform of choice (same argument that Spotify users have against the Homepod, works both ways).

Like you, I'm a longtime customer, investor, and have interest in seeing the bar raised.

Guess we'll know more this Friday (longer for me as I'm north of the border...)!

 

[blackdogaudio]

I agree with this entire post, but this is the crux of my problems with HomePod. You cannot get more information (sound quality) out than what was stored in the file in the first place. Yes you can use algorithms to make the file smaller. But the type of compression Apple is using is a “lossy” type. Information is not being saved and can’t be restored from the remaining data. The question then becomes are those losses in data (sound) perceivable?

Most consumers either don’t notice or don’t perceive enough of a difference to care. Those that do can’t make someone else hear what they hear. Lots of products promise to improve sound quality- not sure if brand names are allowed- for reasons that audio engineers say is hogwash.

But for accurate sound reproduction, you can’t ever get more out than what information the file contains.

And Apple Music isn’t encoded using the best sound file format.

You can’t have better sound than your source.

Maybe using AirPlay 2 you can use a better format and the sound will cross that threshold of least perceivable change, where the improvement is likely to be noticed. I don’t know. Right now, I don’t know if anyone outside of Apple CAN know, since we don’t know what Airplay 2 standards are.

I fully expect that the HomePod will sound much better than a $30 Dot. The quality of speaker a company can afford to put in a $30-100 speaker set shouldn’t compete with a speaker costing 3 times more.

But what if you hook the HomePod up to a lossless file source and compare that to a HomePod hooked to Apple Music? Would the sound quality difference be noticeable? Does anyone here know for certain?

No. But we are back to you can never have better sound than your source contains.

Largely agreeing with your post (information loss is loss period and can't be recreated out of thin air by a speaker or any box in the signal chain), however, we may find the HP might be more revealing than expected. For example, my sixty year old ears easily hear the difference between a 256 kbps rip of a CD and another rip of the same CD made in AIFF. The AIFF rip is more alive and vibrant like The Real Thing when heard through my late 2014 iMac's built in speakers or through blue toothed AirPods! I would hope the HP offers a greater degree of fidelity than either of those transducers.

 

[neutralguy]

If you’re halfway serious and curious about HomePod, simply purchase one and try it in your home risk-free for 14 days. Easy. And a much better assessment.

Isn't everything else is 30 days risk free? Why is HomePod only 15 days? Plus if that's what eveeybody should do, why do stores have demo unit?

In Apple store, there will be only HomePod for demo. But the situation will be different in Best Buy or Target. There will be other speakers to compare with and it will be interesting to see how HomePod will fare with the price sticker and sound.

 

[citysnaps]

Isn't everything else is 30 days risk free? Why is HomePod only 15 days? Plus if that's what eveeybody should do, why do stores have demo unit?

In Apple store, there will be only HomePod for demo. But the situation will be different in Best Buy or Target. There will be other speakers to compare with and it will be interesting to see how HomePod will fare with the price sticker and sound.

"Isn't everything else is 30 days risk free? Why is HomePod only 15 days?"
I haven't seen anything else at 30 days. With respect to HomePod, that's a decision Apple made with respect to their products. Ask Apple if you're genuinely curious. Or simply purchase another device if you're unhappy with Apple's policy.

"In Apple store, there will be only HomePod for demo. But the situation will be different in Best Buy or Target. There will be other speakers to compare with and it will be interesting to see how HomePod will fare with the price sticker and sound."
That's because Apple doesn't sell those other products like Best Buy or Target. If you're genuinely interested in a HomePod and you would rather demo it in a large store rather than your home where you would actually be listening to it, then feel free to demo and purchase a HomePod, or any other speaker, somewhere else.

This, and life in general, doesn't need to be so complicated.

 

[Gameboy70]

Apple markets to the average users who not care about high fidelity music. Yet these same average users will be very happy with a $350 speaker thats primary selling point is sound quality?

Bose and pre-Apple Beats have already proven the market for midrange audio devices north of $300 ($599 for the rather lame looking Wave SoundTouch). If a company like Bose can sustain their own retail stores strictly on consumer audio products, Apple must know that there's something to it—not to mention the sales data they have from the non-Apple speakers they've sold for years.

 

[Gameboy70]

Here's the thing about "stereo." Two-channel stereo is artificial to begin with - two speakers trying to mimic a much more complex live musical environment. What Apple is doing here is not a mono speaker (which would take the sum of the left and right channel signals, resulting in a flat non-directional experience) - it's a multi-speaker array (single woofer, 7 separately-driven directional horn tweeters) that, with the help of tons of computer processing and direct/reflected sound from those tweeters, creates a complex sound field from a single box (well, cylinder). This takes both channels of a stereo signal and uses all of it. The addition of a second unit will allow for an even more complex sound field.

The principles behind this have been around for a very, very long time. We've seen many implementations come and (sometimes) go. Quadraphonic, 5-channel and 7-channel surround, sound bars, Bose Direct/Reflecting speakers, self-tuning sound systems... All these were done with cheap, passive speaker/amp arrays, with relatively little or no active signal processing. There's also nothing new about beam-forming tweeter arrays. A dual-HomePod array should produce the equivalent of super-stereo, accomplishing with two units what others may hope to accomplish with 5-speaker systems.

The main difference is that Apple is able to take these established principles, add their proprietary R&D, apply a ton of active digital signal processing, and execute it all in a mass-market product that sells for $350. What they're applying here has been learned giving iPhones, iPads, AirPods, and iMacs remarkably good sound (for what they are), and no doubt, what they've been learning for HomePod will also flow to Apple's/Beats other products.

Oh, and P.S., yes, HomePod will be controllable by multiple people (which is to say, more than one person can issue voice commands).

Great summary, as supported by a Redditor who posted his impressions in NDA is up. What can I tell you about the HomePod?

What really was interesting is the instrument separation in the room. At about 45% volume, the HomePod FILLED the room I was in with some great sound. When you walked away from it, the sound gets quieter, but not as quickly as you’d expect. All the details were still there, just softer. there was no feeling of walking out of the sweet spot that you get with a normal speaker. And that’s when it hit me... Apple really has done it.
...
Speaker companies who have not figure out beamforming it even room correction should start worrying. A single HomePod, for the size and price, slaughters most speakers under $1000. I had a hunch that HomePods in Stereo would give my KEF X300A’s a run for their money... now it’s confirmed. Apple briefly demoed stereo for me, and I was quite floored. When Stereo is enabled via software update, a pair of HomePods may be the best bookshelf (2.0) setup under $1000 that you can get. No it will not beat floorstanding speakers with a dedicated sub. But for $700 a pair, they’ll be a good replacement for a pair of bookshelves.

 

[MacBH928]

We don't think it's just about HomePod though, or any one product, it's about creating an experience that moves with you throughout the day -- so the experience you have at home, is replicated in the car with CarPlay, at work with iPad and Mac, and when you're out for a run with Watch and iPhone. You can listen to the same music, control your home accessories or ask Siri to do something for you, wherever you are.

I like Apple and all but honestly, I don't want any one company to control my whole life. I really don't want to use my Samsung computer, using Samsung browser, over my Samsung router, which is streaming music to my Samsung tv, from my Samsung Music store account, which I purchased using Samsung pay, and received the bill on my Smail account, which I read on my Samsung phone on the SamsungOS, which is the same OS that controls my dashboard in my Samsung car.

 

[Sevendaymelee]

Thank god the word "incredible" is subjective or else he'd already be slapped with a lawsuit so large that it would blot out Kim Kardashian's rear-end.

 

[_Refurbished_]

True. That statement was also true in 2008, 1998, 1988, 1978, and 1968.

That’s the point.

My dad’s old Technics floor standing speakers from the 80’s sounds better than any of my friend’s modern age speaker systems. I’d bet the house it bests the HomePod. If I wanted to get good sound from a small package, I would rather get a $350 soundbar.

I don’t see the convenience in these things for “just music”. Siri is on my phone, don’t need an assistant in my living room. “Hey Siri” works fine.

Last week I was at my friend’s house and I saw he got an Echo. He said the only thing he uses it for is to reed recipe directions to him while he’s cooking. Oh the revolution of the smart speaker! Fads will be fads.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

I agree with this entire post, but this is the crux of my problems with HomePod. You cannot get more information (sound quality) out than what was stored in the file in the first place. Yes you can use algorithms to make the file smaller. But the type of compression Apple is using is a “lossy” type. Information is not being saved and can’t be restored from the remaining data. The question then becomes are those losses in data (sound) perceivable?

Most consumers either don’t notice or don’t perceive enough of a difference to care. Those that do can’t make someone else hear what they hear. Lots of products promise to improve sound quality- not sure if brand names are allowed- for reasons that audio engineers say is hogwash.

But for accurate sound reproduction, you can’t ever get more out than what information the file contains.

And Apple Music isn’t encoded using the best sound file format.

You can’t have better sound than your source.

Maybe using AirPlay 2 you can use a better format and the sound will cross that threshold of least perceivable change, where the improvement is likely to be noticed. I don’t know. Right now, I don’t know if anyone outside of Apple CAN know, since we don’t know what Airplay 2 standards are.

I fully expect that the HomePod will sound much better than a $30 Dot. The quality of speaker a company can afford to put in a $30-100 speaker set shouldn’t compete with a speaker costing 3 times more.

But what if you hook the HomePod up to a lossless file source and compare that to a HomePod hooked to Apple Music? Would the sound quality difference be noticeable? Does anyone here know for certain?

No. But we are back to you can never have better sound than your source contains.

I agree, whatever is lost in lossy "compression" is lost forever. However, until the cost of storage and data transmission bandwidth drops much farther than it has, what I call "data destruction" will be a necessary compromise for streaming services. By all means, load your devices, iTunes library, and local media server with all the lossless tracks you want. Just don't expect any of the streaming media companies to drop lossy streaming anytime soon.

Whether you listen to those lossy streams on a $100,000 audiophile system or a HomePod, the results will likely be similar. Those who have learned to detect data-reduction artifacts will likely be able to hear them on either system, but ultimately, the better your system, the easier it is to detect defects. Lower-quality equipment has a way of masking defects in the source media, and sometimes ignorance is bliss.

HOWEVER, the only way this affects HomePod is if HomePod lacks the wireless bandwidth to handle lossless streams.

• 802.11ac Wi-Fi with MIMO

• Direct guest access2

• Bluetooth 5.0

AirPlay uses wifi, and 802.11ac is more than capable of handling lossless audio. (If you haven't upgraded your router to 802.11ac, that might be a good thing to buy along with your HomePod.)

And as to the ability to decode various audio formats? HomePod comes with

HE-AAC (V1), AAC (16 to 320 Kbps), protected AAC (from iTunes Store), MP3 (16 to 320 Kbps), MP3 VBR, Apple Lossless, AIFF, WAV, and FLAC

). That seems a fair number of codecs for a first generation product, and four of them are lossless.

For now, Apple Music may be the only Siri-aware music source, but any music service that chooses to become Siri-aware will be able to do so. Meantime, anyone who connects their device to HomePod via AirPlay can choose any music service they want - they just have to control it from the app.