Remember when iPhone didn't have 3G or MMS? People said the same thing about it that you are saying about HomePod.
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.
Audiophile Review: HomePod 'Sounds Better' Than $999 KEF X300A Digital Hi-Fi Speakers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Remember when iPhone didn't have 3G or MMS? People said the same thing about it that you are saying about HomePod.
Ben Thompson’s latest podcast is interesting. He argues the opposite of most...that HomePod isn’t about generating more Apple Music subscriptions but Apple pushing to generate more revenue from its existing customer base now that smartphone growth is slowing.
I doubt HomePod will be locked down to Apple Music for very long. Why? Because I think there is a certain percentage of iOS device users who don’t use Apple Music for specific reasons but would buy HomePod in a heartbeat if it natively supported other services. Read all the HomePod reviews and not natively supporting Spotify is probably the #1 complaint. Apple TV isn’t locked down to just iTunes and Apple Music. There’s no reason HomePod should be either.
It’s quite in line with the stratechery article I read a few days back.
https://stratechery.com/2018/apples-middle-age/
No, I just have 15 years of mixing in the audio industry including working with grammy award winning mix engineers - but whatever mate. You believe the self proclaimed "audiophile" on Reddit who's other gear is one set of Kef speakers. It's no skin off my nose
I was just about to buy pair of KRK Rokit RP6,
how homepod compares to studio monitors like these?
Pair of homepods is more expensive but for the monitors I also need to buy a sound card, cables, stands, pads, and acoustically treat room at least with a bunch of foam and bass traps and all of that makes this more expensive, additionally they take much more power. This way I can play 24bit audio, but if homepod is exceptionally flat and don't need very expensive room treating how it compares to studio monitors?
how homepod compares to studio monitors like these?
Pair of homepods is more expensive but for the monitors I also need to buy a sound card, cables, stands, pads, and acoustically treat room at least with a bunch of foam and bass traps and all of that makes this more expensive, additionally they take much more power. This way I can play 24bit audio, but if homepod is exceptionally flat and don't need very expensive room treating how it compares to studio monitors?
Yup - I agree.
I think they can probably make more from shifting HomePods to Spotify subscribers than they can from additional Apple Music subscriptions. Simply because I don't think that many Spotify subscribers would switch to Apple Music because of the HomePod.
Last edited:
Ted there is nothing obvious about the HP. In audio you can make a speaker that sounds like you think something should sound or you can make one that sounds like something does sound. Audiophile is the latter. That is not in any way the homepod. Apple has created the modern day Bose. They have done the same thing in a different way. But Apple has taken it much further, than Dr. Bose ever could. Because Apple can put a computer into each speaker and re-model the sound on the fly. Now you might like what they have done with your sound. Or you might not. But it's in no way accurate or has any fidelity with the recording.
Might people want to emulate that? Sure. But then they will make THEIR version of the sound. I don't know how anyone should see that as a good thing.
Furthermore; not everybody cares about having a speaker that does all that stuff. I just want an airplay target really.
Far more important to me is how it actually sounds, and the google/alexa boxes are trash.
Great news for likers, very bad news for haters (usually people who compare $10.000 set up to a single $300 speaker)
And, of course, the hater group is strong here at MacHateRumors.com
Yep, he was expanding on that article in his podcast. I really like his podcast because he’s not an Apple shill who defends every decision the company makes but he’s also not a knee jerk hater and is willing to admit when he’s wrong.
It’s the best sound in its class* (save Siri’s poor performance).
*NOTE: it’s class is the little soundbox with internet connectivity on the kitchen counter for occasional music and some Interweb stuff.
We must remember NOTHING in this class could ever produce a reference quality soundscape or signature. Even Apple can’t defy the laws of physics.
*NOTE: it’s class is the little soundbox with internet connectivity on the kitchen counter for occasional music and some Interweb stuff.
We must remember NOTHING in this class could ever produce a reference quality soundscape or signature. Even Apple can’t defy the laws of physics.
I’m super happy I can’t tell the difference between different sounding speakers. While I can say the echo isn’t a good speaker to me Bose, Sonos and some of the others all sound great and I’m sure the Home pod does also. Everyone seems to be overly stressed about splitting hairs.
Exactly. A perfect example is Christina Warren. She used to write for Mashable, now works at Microsoft. But she’s pretty much all-in on Apple products. She currently uses Sonos speakers and won’t get a HomePod precisely because it doesn’t natively support Spotify. So far from Apple press briefings and interviews it seems they’re really focusing on audio quality not Apple Music. I’m not aware of anything special with Apple Music (or iTunes) other than Siri integration. It’s not like Apple created Mastered for HomePod tracks or anything. if Apple isn’t using Apple Music to sell the device there’s no reason they can’t open it up.
I don't think you understood his point. Good speakers are designed to produce the "concert" as closely as possible to what you would hear if you were at the concert. That's not what the HP does. Or even tries to do. That's the issue.
Last edited:
Hmmm..... sounds more lifelike for live music than i've personally heard.
At the end of the day you're limited by the source recording. If you want to reproduce the recording then accuracy is fine i guess. But if you want something that sounds better (perhaps even potentially... closer to real than the recording captured?), then maybe processing it is a good idea.
Either way. I'm pretty blown away by this little box for the price. It's a killer product for the people who are in the ecosystem and want a speaker that sounds good.
edit:
All i can suggest is if you're curious: go listen to one of the things. Graphs and stats and all the other stuff is all well and good, but really, whether you like the sound is what is important.
Last edited:
What the hell are you expecting out of a $350 speaker? He said it is amazing for it's price point and nothing exist under $1000 that can compete with it.
Obviously a 5.1 or heck even a good 2.1 system will always be better. But are you going to put a 2.1 system in every room? The homepod allows you to listen to exception sounding music anywhere in your house with out meretriciously having to set up a sound system.
There are so many good used speakers that are way less and several cheap but capable Chinese amps to drive them.
There’s one flaw with your thinking (and also with the tests WinterCharm has performed). I’m surprised it didn’t occur to you.
Are studio monitors (or any quality speaker) perfectly flat in any listening room you place them? What kind of curve do you get when they’re in your living room (for example)?
There’s a problem with taking these types of measurements of the HomePod - it calibrates itself to the room. How do you know if those peaks and valleys aren’t a result of the HomePod altering the sound to fit the environment? What kind of curve would you get if someone tested the HomePod in an anechoic chamber? Or if you tested “studio monitors” in the same room WinterCharm used? So arguing about them is kinda pointless.
Is a HomePod a serious listening speaker for “audiophiles” or someone mastering a mix? Of course not. Is it going to sound better than anything near its price range for the majority of people who buy one? Absolutely. That’s all that really matters.
Agreed. I think ultimately the HomePod will be perfect for a lot of people (it is for us), and for others not so much. And that's all fair enough, although I suppose there's still going to be a lot to 'its crap compared to Alexa, you're an idiot for spending that much!' type stuff.
Unrelated, but I'm a big Price fan too - Sign O The Times sounds incredible on the HP!
Well you could buy a pair of Behringer Truths for about £50 second hand that sound much more revealing. You could buy any PAIR of studio monitors for less than one HomePod which will be more revealing. You can buy a pair of Andrew Jones designed Elac speakers for not much more than a stereo pair of HomePods. So definitely things under $1000 can easily compete with it, he's totally incorrect there and appears to only have a pair of Kef speakers to to compare it to.
It's a good hi-fi speaker, that's what it is - it sounds like Sonos speakers but better. It's not going to be everyones cup of tea, but price has nothing to do with that.
[doublepost=1518449406][/doublepost]
You're of course correct - you could buy the best studio monitors in the world and they'd be useless if you didn't have a treated room.
The only difference is i made to try and reproduce the original sound as close as possible - and one is made to process the hell out of the sound and make it sound instantly appealing.
I think there are many better sounding speakers you could get for under $1000 - but it does of course totally depend what your tastes are and what you want to do with them. The HomePod has more than just being a speaker to it and it's way of discovering music is fun. If you just wanted to hear the truest representation of music available you could get a pair of active studio monitors for about £400 that would do the job much better.
As I said in the original post, horses for corses.
Exactly this - we mostly listen to music in the kitchen / dining room, so that's where the HP is. But I'm already thinking in terms of $$$ / convenience / sound quality / ease of set up they'd be great in other rooms. A couple in my little home office will sound fantastic, and all I need to do is plug them in.
[/QUOTE]
It's a cool speaker. You can't get perfection out of something like this, obviously. It's mono for **** sake, but it has potential I think. From what I can see of it's internals, at least it doesn''t have those passive radiators that work well with very small speakers, but can be a problem when they get bigger. Hopefully Apple will give us more EQ options. That would be good.
A desirable item, like most Apple products.
It's a cool speaker. You can't get perfection out of something like this, obviously. It's mono for **** sake
, but it has potential I think. From what I can see of it's internals, at least it doesn''t have those passive radiators that work well with very small speakers, but can be a problem when they get bigger. Hopefully Apple will give us more EQ options. That would be good.A desirable item, like most Apple products.
Live or studio, that's a fool's errand. What you will hear at a concert is determined by so much more than simply being there. Where in the concert hall, specifically, are you trying to reproduce and at what hall, among many other factors? Even studio music is mixed to a specific speaker target. Megadeth played on a boom-box may be a lot more accurate than what you hear on your klipsch corner horn speakers (and vice versa for your Yo-Yo Ma sessions). It's always a trade off and there is no 'right' answer.
Yep, and even the HD800 (which I own, and sometimes use for mixing ) is still not really that flat , they've got a huge bump in the treble around 7/8 k , and need something like the Sonarworks plugin to correct for those.
But spot on.