Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
There is also the question of: how does one play lossless music in the HomePod? Is AirPlay the only way?
The AirPlay audio protocol IS Apple Lossless; so what is your question, exactly?

Also, I am FAR from an AudioPile in my attitudes toward audio gear; but, even being a devout Apple fan, if you REALLY believe you can hear the difference between even something like 128k AAC and Lossless on something as prosaic as a HomePod (despite the glowing reviews and "wonderful, room-filling" sound), you are sadly mistaken.
 
What’s the logic or rationale for not including an Aux input and a BT interface I wonder. Certainly not the added cost.
 
The AirPlay audio protocol IS Apple Lossless; so what is your question, exactly?

Also, I am FAR from an AudioPile in my attitudes toward audio gear; but, even being a devout Apple fan, if you REALLY believe you can hear the difference between even something like 128k AAC and Lossless on something as prosaic as a HomePod (despite the glowing reviews and "wonderful, room-filling" sound), you are sadly mistaken.

It was easy to hear the difference between the Apple Music version of a song and a hi-rez WAV file played over AirPlay (no EQ). 3 of us confirmed it. The WAV was more detailed - easy to hear.
 
Whether this article is true or not, most studio monitors are still going to blow the HomePod's music quality out of the water. Also Apple has never used premium-grade audio converters in their equipment, and Beats never made anything other than consumer-grade over-priced products as far as I'm aware.

It's a high-end smart consumer hi-fi that isn't going to be flat nor transparent, but rather have the classic HI-FI EQ 'smiley face' i.e. boosted bass and treble. Which then drown out certain mid-range frequencies (as has been said in some reviews).

1. There is a LOT of smoke and mirrors regarding D/A converters in the Audiopile world. A L-O-T!!! There WERE some somewhat non-monotonic and "spiky" converters way back when D/A converters were built from stone knives and bearskins; but at this point, pretty much anything with sufficient resolution (number-of-bits) is going to do a bangup job, if applied correctly in the surrounding circuitry.

2. Apple BOUGHT Beats. Apple did NOT (and probably STILL doesn't) DESIGN Beats Products. So, don't lay their engineering (or lack thereof) at Apple's R&D Team's Doorstep!
 
  • Like
Reactions: throAU
Since Flat Earth is back, does this mean people want compressed Digital Audio from a mono speaker instead of Hi Fi Stereo Audio?

I'm not sure if you are referring to the HomePod when you talk about a 'mono speaker'.

But in case you are, if you are going to argue that a pair of HomePods won't be true 'stereo' (as people have been arguing), then you can't also refer to a single HomePod as being true 'mono', as it clearly is no such thing.

My understanding is that a regular mono speaker just has everything reduced down into a single channel. But the HomePod with all its tweeters and ability to put out different parts of the music in different directions, plus the woofer, is clearly doing a lot more than a traditional single mono speaker.
 
As I said before, this Still isn't going to compare with a real audio setup. I have several different amps, different preamps, and lots of speakers (change them out every so often)

Measurements are important, but artificially changing the frequency response to sound "better" is another thing. The HomePod can't hold a candle to my old Ohm C2s, Boston Acoustics VR-M90, VR-M60, VR-40s, etc. Keep in mind the source. HomePod streams mp3s from Apple Music. I'm playing aiff/wav files, and some even higher (from HD Tracks) directly to my stereo. I tried a HomePod at the Apple Store last night and was not impressed with how loud and clear it was, but the bass and treble were a bit overpowering with the mids sounding a little lacking.

Probably a great speaker for MOST people though.

Don’t make the mistake of evaluating the HomePod audio quality in the store environment. Take it home, listen to it, then if you still don’t like it, use the 14 day return policy to relieve yourself of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacsRuleOthersDrool
What’s the logic or rationale for not including an Aux input and a BT interface I wonder. Certainly not the added cost.
Well, for the Aux Input, you have to have an Analog input section, and an A/D converter. And then, you have to have ISOLATION for the digital trash that flies around in something like the HomePod, so it wouldn't get picked-up by the analog input circuitry. And as far as BT, then IT becomes a pretty-serious noise SOURCE.

It seems to me that Apple was absolutely fanatical that this be as "quiet" as possible, and both of your proposed additions would make that all the more challenging.
 
I'm not sure if you are referring to the HomePod when you talk about a 'mono speaker'.

But in case you are, if you are going to argue that a pair of HomePods won't be true 'stereo' (as people have been arguing), then you can't also refer to a single HomePod as being true 'mono', as it clearly is no such thing.

My understanding is that a regular mono speaker just has everything reduced down into a single channel. But the HomePod with all its tweeters and ability to put out different parts of the music in different directions, plus the woofer, is clearly doing a lot more than a traditional single mono speaker.

Apple doesn't tout the HomePod as stereo in any way...

I would assume a single speaker will be limited in the soundstage it produces:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidp...es-homepod-secrets-release-date/#274a86da4d6a

2 It ain’t a mono speaker. But stereo… ?

The HomePod has lots of speakers inside it. Seven tweeters and one big woofer. These are beam-forming tweeters, that is, they can push particular sounds in specific directions, creating a wide soundstage as they do so. This is not a mono speaker, where the music is mixed down to a mono track. It does pay attention to the distinct left and right channels of a stereo track and uses them as part of the sound it creates. I suspect Apple doesn’t refer to it as stereo partly because audiophiles have strong opinions about what qualifies as stereo in terms of separation of speakers, whether they’re two independent speakers and so on. And perhaps because it feels that it’s irrelevant to most listeners, that when they hear HomePod they’ll feel such distinctions are academic. Certainly, the sound that a single HomePod produces is wide and persuasive.

2 HomePods? LOL - I can't even afford a cheap pair of stereo speakers...
 
An audiophile would not apply room correction software to a two channel setup. It alters the sound. In a good way for some, but to an audiophile manipulating the sound is something that equipment should not do. I use it for watching movies on my home entertainment system, but would never apply it to my two channel set up I use for listening to music.

Do you only listen to music (like an orchestra) captured by a pair of microphones and sent directly to the final master? If so I’d agree. Otherwise, no.

It seems odd to me to complain about processing when listening to content that’s already extensively processed/manipulated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bopajuice
Well, for the Aux Input, you have to have an Analog input section, and an A/D converter. And then, you have to have ISOLATION for the digital trash that flies around in something like the HomePod, so it wouldn't get picked-up by the analog input circuitry. And as far as BT, then IT becomes a pretty-serious noise SOURCE.

It seems to me that Apple was absolutely fanatical that this be as "quiet" as possible, and both of your proposed additions would make that all the more challenging.

It doesn’t seem like Apple had issues with that in their other products like iPhones, iPads, and iPods. Apple also could’ve gone optical instead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bingeciren
It was easy to hear the difference between the Apple Music version of a song and a hi-rez WAV file played over AirPlay (no EQ). 3 of us confirmed it. The WAV was more detailed - easy to hear.
Not THIS meme again!

Yeah, and I am SURE it wasn't an actual A/B/X test. You KNEW what was playing, and then "Heard" what you wanted to hear. Apple Lossless is just that. a Bit-for-Bit reproduction of the original file. Sorry. It is the same as saying a Zipped MS Word File encurs "loss" when you un-zip it.

FLAC and ALAC BOTH use what is more akin to a "ZIP" format to compress data. They represent REDUNDANT "runs" of Data as a "token", then, on "de-archiving", reconstruct that data back from the token.

THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS MP3, AAC, Etc. Those ARE "Lossy" Formats. Information is (cleverly) squeezed-out, NEVER TO RETURN.

But feel free to THINK you "hear" something that bit-for-bit file-compare tools cannot.

BTW, this is why people REALLY in-the-know all laugh at Audiopiles...

http://www.pooraudiophile.com/2013/07/difference-between-flac-vs-alac-recordings.html

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/is-apple-lossless-real-lossless.650804/

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/is-apple-lossless-real-lossless.650804/
 
Not THIS meme again!

Yeah, and I am SURE it wasn't an actual A/B/X test. You KNEW what was playing, and then "Heard" what you wanted to hear. Apple Lossless is just that. a Bit-for-Bit reproduction of the original file. Sorry. It is the same as saying a Zipped MS Word File encurs "loss" when you un-zip it.

FLAC and ALAC BOTH use what is more akin to a "ZIP" format to compress data. They represent REDUNDANT "runs" of Data as a "token", then, on "de-archiving", reconstruct that data back from the token.

THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS MP3, AAC, Etc. Those ARE "Lossy" Formats. Information is (cleverly) squeezed-out, NEVER TO RETURN.
/

Either I need to write slower or you need to read slower...

I said "Apple Music" - not Apple Lossless.

And yes, it was A/B/X. I knew what was being played. The other two did not.

EDIT: So the point was the HP could distinguish between a lossy and a lossless file.

Try again.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tinmania
Bought mine on Saturday and so far, only switched it off through the night. We have it on quietly in the background pottering about the house, nice bit of light jazz in the evening, Disney sound tracks and kiddies stuff at random points throughout the day if Siri manages to understand my toddler. This morning I woke everybody up at 6:30 with GnR Sweet Child of Mine - pretty loud.

The sound quality is unbelievable. Before buying, I listened to it pretty much side-by-side to the Sonos One and a few others in a department store (John Lewis - FYI, currently offering interest free on apple kit…).

Yes, it's somewhat limited to the Apple ecosystem and a tad annoying you can't plug something in - but we are a 100%* apple household and actually, have nothing to plug in to it anyway… (other than Amazon Dot...)

Siri is a different story. Appalling, really quite shocking - I hope they take some serious thought and pile a shedload more $$ at the siri teams doorstep.

*We have an Amazon Echo dot for any smart queries we have (and question of the day). I also use Alexa to control my house lights and heating (Hive system - not siri/home compatible… but is with Alexa)

I was explaining to my dad last night, I don't normally listen to much music at home. But i've realised now, that's because i've never had a decent system to listen through. Now I do - so subsequently signed up for AppleMusic too (which I think you should get at least 1 year free with HomePod purchase).

All in all, happy with the sound quality. Not happy with the Siri side of things (but no surprise there)
Just a quick note in case you didn’t already know, Siri is severely limited due to Apple’s stance on privacy and I for one hope that never changes. I expect improvements but doubt we will ever see Siri measure up to Alexa or whatever google calls their assistant. This is because Google and Amazon collect vast amounts of user data. While this works in favor for the capabilities of those assistants, they do very little in the way of privacy considerations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xdhd350
It doesn’t seem like Apple had issues with that in their other products like iPhones, iPads, and iPods. Apple also could’ve gone optical instead.
1. How do you know? Ever put the analog headphone out from an iPhone (when they had that) or iPad (or iPod) on a Spectrum Analyzer?

2. Until we have TRUE optical processors, that Optical data STILL has to be converted to an ELECTRICAL datastream. And then, you're right back where you started.

It is REALLY hard to get something COMPACT to be TRULY quiet, when it contains digital circuitry. Listen to the headphone out on most chintzy Windows laptops for an education in that regard...
[doublepost=1518466315][/doublepost]
Either I need to write slower or you need to read slower...

I said "Apple Music" - not Apple Lossless.

And yes, it was A/B/X. I knew what was being played. The other two did not.

EDIT: So the point was the HP could distinguish between a lossy and a lossless file.

Try again.
I apologize if I misread "Apple Music" for "Apple Lossless".

Apple Music is 256kbps AAC, which is, of course, a lossy CODEC. However, my "group of 3 friends" decided that around 160 kbps was where we honestly couldn't tell the difference between "real" and "AAC". So....?
 
  • Like
Reactions: throAU and chabig
Apple doesn't tout the HomePod as stereo in any way...

I would assume a single speaker will be limited in the soundstage it produces:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidp...es-homepod-secrets-release-date/#274a86da4d6a

Sure, a single speaker will always be more limited than a pair of speakers. But I think it does the HP a disservice to describe it as a mono speaker, as is evident from the part you quoted.

Whatever is going on, its clear the HP sounds way better than it should given its size.
 
  • Like
Reactions: artfossil
I apologize if I misread "Apple Music" for "Apple Lossless".

Apple Music is 256kbps AAC, which is, of course, a lossy CODEC. However, my "group of 3 friends" decided that around 160 kbps was where we honestly couldn't tell the difference between "real" and "AAC". So....?

Maybe you just need friends with better hearing? ;)

But seriously, I also don't know if there is something in the app I was using for the lossless files that influenced the sound. But it was easy to hear the difference between the two.
 
1. How do you know? Ever put the analog headphone out from an iPhone (when they had that) or iPad (or iPod) on a Spectrum Analyzer?

2. Until we have TRUE optical processors, that Optical data STILL has to be converted to an ELECTRICAL datastream. And then, you're right back where you started.

It is REALLY hard to get something COMPACT to be TRULY quiet, when it contains digital circuitry. Listen to the headphone out on most chintzy Windows laptops for an education in that regard...
[doublepost=1518466315][/doublepost]
I apologize if I misread "Apple Music" for "Apple Lossless".

Apple Music is 256kbps AAC, which is, of course, a lossy CODEC. However, my "group of 3 friends" decided that around 160 kbps was where we honestly couldn't tell the difference between "real" and "AAC". So....?

1. I’ve listened with decent headphones and it sounded fine. It’s always possible digital devices would pick up primarily inaudible flaws upon analysis.

2. If Apple can do all the other amazing things they can do with hardware and software, I think something as basic as shielding would be rather trivial. I’m sure other components already in the HomePod require much more complex shielding than an optical port would require.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bingeciren
Define negative reviews.

If you mean have I seen any overwhelmingly negative reviews that can't say one good thing about HP, no- nor have I have ever seen such a review about any such product. Generally reviews that are not by extremist fans or extremist haters are able to offer up both pros & cons about most any commercial product.

If you mean have I seen any reviews that have some negative things to say about HP? Sure, plenty... maybe even most of them? Generally just about every "review"- even those that generally gush about HP in most ways- have something negative to say, particularly toward the relative performance of Siri and the tight "lock-in" in native use.

Did you read the head-to-head redux review offered by one of the mods near the start of this thread (post #3)? I don't take that as purely negative or purely positive, but it does show what can happen when a review gets more objective, especially when the audience has no sense of which speaker is playing. In that one, the tester was basically replicating Apple's demo, only this time with a different variety of songs and it not being obvious which speaker was playing at any given time. Presumably, the tester was not overly guiding the presentation, nor talking about the strong points of a chosen speaker, nor putting down the weak points of another.

I don't take the result as purely scientific, nor any extremist bash or praise of HP- just another point of comparison that appeared to not be catering to a pre-determined outcome objective. Pile up a bunch of that kind of testing and one can draw some conclusions to help them make a smart speaker decision... which could very well still be HP, but it could also be something else.

I completely agree with you on almost everything you say. Of course, unless the product is faultless (which barely any product is), I do expect negative points in literally every review. And of course, every review is biased in the sense that it is not (literally) scientific.
But the most important metric (call it "overall impression", "aggregate score", or even "bang-for-your-back measure") determines in my opinion whether a review is favourable or not. This type of conclusion is given in every review I've read so far.

Hence, going back to your original comment, I struggle to see how reviews have been cherry-picked, or especially how "positive reviews are the only ones that are right" when I have yet to see a review that, overall, concludes the HP to be poor.

On a conceptual level, I am completely with you, don't get me wrong. And I also, as you do, advocate the idea of rigorous testing and avoiding "pre-determined outcome objectives". But we are at the point where even some audiophiles say HP sounds great (and, again, I have yet to see a review, a single review, that claims HP does not sound great).

PS: Massive disclaimer: I do not own HP nor have I tried it. I also concede that the points I have been arguing above mainly refer to the audio quality of HP and nothing else.
 
The HomePod is a perfectly good "hyped" speaker, but it is anything but revealing, clear, detailed, open, transparent, flat, bright or even top end hi-fi. It does however sound better than 90% of the stuff most people will have heard or bought before, which is all Apple needed to do (and yes it destros the entire Echo range and easily puts Sonos to shame, not that i'd ever want to listen to either for extended periods)

I was going to say something along these lines! Not that it would be a fair test, but stick it up against a genelec 8330 and 7350 2.1 system with room correction. THEN people will be able to tell the difference between PRO sound and consumer sound. I mean, I've never even heard of this speaker that he's referring to! Who the hell are KEF? What about the proper studio heavyweights? Genelec, Dynaudio, Adam, Event, Mackie, Neumann, etc. They are the big players in that field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dannys1
Are you saying that having the perceived loudness of relative frequencies fluctuate as the listener adjusts the volume is “correct” or are listeners expected to listen to particular songs at particular decibel levels if they want to hear “true” sound the way it was intended?

No, psychoacoustic processing is what they're employing to make the bass sound even bigger than it is from the smaller woofer. It's a trick audio engineers use too, with plugins like Waves R-Bass.
[doublepost=1518467956][/doublepost]
Overall, though, I think there are far fewer "flat earther" audiophiles at this point than many non-audiophiles assume.

I don't know every time I venture over in those areas I read something wacky - they can all hear stuff that has been scientifically proven the ear can't hear - they still spend loads unnecessarily on cables and I even read one once claiming the ethernet cable connect to is network hard drive improved the sound of his audio files.
 
Siri isn’t as easily fixable, and the lack of Spotify may never be rectified.

The two issues you listed are checkbox features that were easily added to the iPhone in the next version.

Its amazing really that:

1. Opening Spotify
2. Tapping share > HomePod

is deemed to be such a hassle, there are all these column inches about "the lack of Spotify".

I mean, I know its not ideal, but talk about First World Problems.
 
Have you ever listened to the Zeppelin Wireless or anything from B&W? B&W makes better sounding speakers than Bose, JBL and H&K. I’m trying to understand the point to that comparison but I can’t find one. You seem to be just mouthing off and on a rampage, you’re not making much sense. B&W makes premium sounding speakers at any given price range. I’m disappointed you put their name with the likes of Bose and proceeded to say “and all the cheap bluetooth boomboxes and all the Soundbars“

Your credibility just went out the window.

The Zeppelin and the iPod dock version that went before is horrendous. It IS a big boom box. Funnily enough the person who headed the HomePod project is from B&W and around the time first Zeppelin came out. I wouldn't want to buy or listen to anything from any of those companies. Not when there's Adam, Andrew Jones Elac stuff and Genelec out there.
 
How does one become an audiophile? Is it something you go to school for or does it apply to anyone who spends a lot of money on audio gear?

Does this sort of prose entice you to part with your money?

Let's get one thing straight right away: There's very little of mystery about the Brick. It's a nicely dove-tailed wooden block that frames a heart of laminated iron in a transformer-type core. In Mr. Weisfeld's own words, "The main idea was to redirect the flux lines away from the chassis and remove the many eddy currents it would produce. I think [the Brick] was doing this quite well, plus [providing the additional benefits of] the mass damping of the concentrated weight." Harry, ever the engineer, sure ain't speaking lightly of "concentrated weight". This innocuous looking, 4-7/8" x 3-7/8" x 2-5/16" block of blonde wood weighs in for the fight at an impressive 8lbs (slightly more on my imperfect household scale). That may not seem like much in the abstract but when that sort of heft is coming from an object barely bigger than an old-fashioned bar of Ivory soap, it totters on the line between mass weighting and mass hallucination.

If so...
 
I wouldn't argue that Apple HomePod is indeed a capable speaker but I have not heard it, neither I intend to. Probably better than Logitech speakers. Maybe Harman Kardon. KEF ? I don't think so (and I don't even rate my X300A that much either). But you never know. I am old and wise enough to trust my own ears before I trust my eyes and my oscilloscope, and I don't need the random "hifi" guy on the internet to tell me what I am supposed to listen, like, and buy. I don't see the convenience because I hate Siri anyway. But if people want to make an argument about costs vs sound quality, I would suggest to _listen_ and compare first with the KEF Eggs.
 
I completely agree with you on almost everything you say. Of course, unless the product is faultless (which barely any product is), I do expect negative points in literally every review. And of course, every review is biased in the sense that it is not (literally) scientific.

But the most important metric (call it "overall impression", "aggregate score", or even "bang-for-your-back measure") determines in my opinion whether a review is favourable or not. This type of conclusion is given in every review I've read so far.

Hmmmm, perhaps another way to address your question/issue is to encourage you to go look for reviews for OTHER speakers. In general, nearly ALL speakers are going to get generally positive reviews. HP is no exception in this. There are not a lot of speakers that are going to get a 0 on a 10-point scale (10 being perfection), especially once the pricing gets above a few hundred dollars. In general, the differences from some kind of worst to best of this group might range from about 6 to about 9, which generally translates all to "good" to "very good." That's the game.

For example, try this: let go of HP for an experiment and decide that you are interested in Google Home or Sonos 1. Go look for reviews for those as if THEY were Apple's speaker. What you'll find in general are pretty favorable reviews, mixing lots of pros with some cons and generally concluding good-to-great speaker. That's (practically) normal. Key here is pretending that they are Apple's speaker instead, so you can see them through the very same lens that you can see an HP, thus you won't be heavily noticing their cons as one might be heavily noticing HP's pros in other reviews.

There are fresh head-to-head tests out now. One writer invited to the recent Apple demo redid the very same demo on his own... and expected the outcome to come out just like the apparent "reviews" resulting from Apple pre-release demos. But he did this crazy, crazy thing: he put the speakers behind a curtain so that the reviewers could not tell which was which, different than Apple apparently lighting up an area around the very visible speaker playing at the time. He also made sure that all were getting fed audio the same way, not one getting inferior bluetooth while the favorite was getting a superior stream. Etc. It's all in his article- a very, VERY interesting read.

Another comes from a source that I personally tend to trust very much: Consumer Reports. They don't even sell advertising so that their reviews can avoid even a whiff of "payola."

Jettison ANY bias at all for a moment and go read those two in full as if you were in the market for any smart speaker instead of only a single smart speaker made by only a single company. Minimally, those have to make an objective mind think.

None of that- nor any of my posts- are meant to tell someone to buy or not buy- that's fully "ears of the beholder" and "it's your money" type stuff. I simply don't swallow the opinions of the extremists at either end of the debate and encourage those able to be objective to actually be objective in making such a choice. Speakers are not phones- they tend to be a product that one might use for 10-15+ years. Thus, IMO, they need even more care & consideration in making a purchase than a phone that might cost 2-3+ times more that one will be replacing 2-4 years from now.

Am I saying people should only trust those 2 reviews that don't conclude with "HP is perfection- buy now"? No, I'm simply pointing out that there are a LOT of choices for this kind of thing and that any ONE option is not actually the only right option for all. There's easy access to seemingly a dozen very favorable reviews building upon pre-release demos and/or by members of the "friends of Apple" press given pre-release versions of HP to be first out with reviews. We are just now starting to get real third party reviews from entities that had to WAIT until they could buy a HP to get to put it through some paces.

Should we just cherry-pick reviews that don't conclude with "Buy HP now" recommendations? No- that's the same issue the other way. A generally good approach is to look at a bundle of reviews- ideally all objective sources (that had to BUY an HP instead of being given one) and carefully read for both pros & cons. Notice BOTH pros & cons. If one sees appeal, gather up your own favorite music and head for a store where you can play that music on a HP and see how it sounds to your own ears. If you do that at a store other than Apple, you might even be able to do a little head-to-head listening with some competitors too. Then, make the best decision for you... which certainly could be HP... or it could be lots of other options.

Disclaimer: I own a TON of Apple hardware myself. I make my living with Apple hardware, using it all day every day as key tools to doing what I do. However, the ability to be objective and see both pros & cons is what I consider the definition of "think different." Noticing some faults is not the same as being a "hater"- just being a consumer trying to evaluate a potential purchase.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.