This is going to be in the dictionary right next to Oxymoron from now on.
[doublepost=1517484688][/doublepost]
I agree that it is dumb as **** that Apple worded it this way. Because clearly it is confusing for people who doesn’t know what stereo means, and the layman will write posts like this.
[doublepost=1517484718][/doublepost]It is a stereo speaker.
[doublepost=1517484795][/doublepost]Absolutely not. That’s what the layperson think it is, and it is certainly A WAY of achieving stereo. But that’s definitely not THE meaning of Stereo.
[doublepost=1517485129][/doublepost]That is correct. Apple is wording it wrong. Two HomePods will simply make a wider and deeper stereo soundstage. They are using the word stereo because people mistakenly thinks it means two channels / speakers.
[doublepost=1517486334][/doublepost]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.
Thank you. So much chatter going on about this and your deep dive is enlightening.
I’ve been guilty of repeating the “stereo is two speakers, separated” line before, like Apple, in the spirit of
colloquial brevity. Sometimes it’s just too ungainly to get into esoteric technical discussions of things when your audience doesn’t know or care about the difference, and the terminology you’re using is “practically true” in most cases.
But underneath that, my understanding has always been that stereo is an
effect, not necessarily a specific speaker configuration. Which is why in the past I’ve grumbled at cheap all-in-one speakers that essentially just jammed two regular speakers near each other in the same enclosure, pointing the same direction, and call it “stereo”. Yes, technically it’s stereo, but you only hear a good version of stereo
effect if you are really close, like when you hold a small boom box on your shoulder and it sounds awesome. But across the room, it’s barely distinguishable from mono. The new iPhones have stereo and it sounds pretty cool when you are right up in there, with your face a foot away the way many people watch stuff on their phone. But again, once you move across the room, outta the sweet spot, it’s hard to tell it from mono. UE does a neat trick with their bluetooth speakers that allows you to create a stereo pair and spread them pretty far apart, which allows you to create a nice stereo effect that can be customizing based on where where you place them in relation to your beach blanket.
So things can
technically be stereo whenever two speakers are working together but practically, their distance from each other and your distance from them (e.g. where you are relative to the triangular “sweet spot”) will determine how much of a stereo
effect your ears (and brain) actually experience. Up ‘til now, when using regular ‘ol speakers, the ability to physically separate those was HUGE in determining how well it created a “stereo” sound field.
What Apple seems to be doing is to try to achieve a wide stereo “effect” that that moves
beyond the need to physically separate the sound sources in separate devices by
virtually separating the sound, projecting it beyond the device itself and bouncing it off of walls and objects so that it feels, to the listener, like it’s not just coming from that one small device and that one spot in the room. “Beamforming” seems to be part of how they’re doing it (along with echo cancellation, etc.) and it’s seems really clever. It sounds like it’s been tried in the past at great expense but I’m guessing, classically, that Apple may be the first to perfect it, which simplicity, on an affordable scale.
But again, the whole concept for a device like this has to start with a basic understanding that stereo is an
effect, not just configuration. Something we experience when our ears
believe that sound is coming from multiple directions. Whether the sound
really is coming at you from multiple speakers set up around you, or whether it’s coming from a single source and being bounced around the room to create the
virtual experience of sound coming at you from multiple locations, may not ultimately matter to our ears. Apple understands that, and in typical fashion decided to approach the problem of creating a wide, deep, usable, stereo field with the simplest possible set up. Their ability to think beyond conventional wisdom is what has made them such frequent purveyors of revolution.
I’ll be playing around like a school kid to see if they’ve succeeded in creating their next wave of techno magic when mine arrives on the 9th. Can’t wait!
