Well, can you blame them? There's no explanation provided that the photo has nothing to do with CR's tests.
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.
Consumer Reports: Google Home Max and Sonos One Sound Better Than HomePod
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, can you blame them? There's no explanation provided that the photo has nothing to do with CR's tests.
That might explain it
That must be it, still, I'm suitably embarrassed. Have a great day.
I have the Sonos 1 and love it. I have not yet heard the HomePod so I cannot say one way or the other whether it sounds better than than the HomePod. I didn't hear that CR thought the HomePod a bad speaker, they just thought that the Bass was a little over emphasized on the speaker and didn't sound as good at the Sonos 1 or Google Max. They still say it is a good speaker. Time will tell but I don't think they have an anti-Apple bias, indeed when they have had trouble with a product they have welcomed Apple engineers to see if there was something wrong with the tests they perform, hardly biased.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
What is the point of "click bait?" To bring eyeballs to a site. Why do that? Because the vast majority of sites have advertising and eyeballs = dollars.
CR does not have advertising. That's part of their thing. Accept advertising and there is much more potential to be biased in favor of your advertisers. For example, if Samsung is a major advertiser in a publication or website, that website MIGHT think twice before harshly reviewing some Samsung product(s), for fear of running Samsung advertising money right out the door.
CR does not have ads. Go try to find a SINGLE ad on their website right now.
Their goal is to sell subscriptions. So is this "click bait" to sell subscriptions? In this case, they are giving away the report for free, so anyone being lured by this "click bait" are getting the entire bait without any hook inside. More simply, nobody is having to pay to see this full report.
So what's the point of click bait here? No ad money in it. No subscription required to see this particular bait.
I know we have to spin conspiracy because we don't like this particular review in spite of CR ranking HP "very good" which, is equivalent to a grade school grade of "B" on an A-F scale. Note that the 2 speakers they favored have the very same "very good" or "B" grade too, so the actual difference is relatively tiny in ranking one of 3 "B" grades slightly higher or lower than the other 2 "B" grades.
In a full review, this may be being ranked against 30 or 50 or 100 speakers and could conceptually come in 3rd out of 30 or 50 or 100. By not ranking it best of all doesn't mean CR is ranking it worst of all... but look at the cumulative sentiment in this thread. You'd think that not only did CR rank HP worst but they also called someone's children ugly. Wow! So many seem to be taking this personally. It's just a product review. Lives are completely unaffected if they rate anything best or worst or anything in between.
If we want to fault CR as biased against Apple, where is a comparable body of anti-CR sentiment when they are so positive about Apple stuff. Did we see CR's Apple Watch review? How about them ranking Apple's service best yet AGAIN? Those don't read so anti-Apple to me. And if CR's reviews are always wrong, are we going to call the well-reviewed Apple Watch a piece of junk because CR is so positive on that product and/or rebel against CR saying Apple Service is best? Of course not. When CR reviews are very favorable toward Apple, they become right in our eyes. Only when they are not crowning something best do they become so very wrong. Think.
"Obviously CR hates Apple." So why do offer many good reviews about Apple stuff? In fact, I don't know of anything that Apple makes that is reviewed by CR that doesn't get a very good (B) or excellent (A) rating on CR. Could anyone point us to anything from Apple that actually gets a bad review on CR?
"The test is wrong- change the test" (so HP can win). Bending the testing protocol to favor any single product is the opposite of objective testing. A Miss Universe contestant that is 100 years old, 500 lbs with has a massive wart on her nose should still be crowned Miss Universe: just overlook the age, the weight and the wart. Change how the contest is judged based on factors like how many grandchildren and great-grandchildren the contestants have... because those are factors that really matter (this time, so our contestant can win). If we want ANY given product to win a head-to-head, change the testing parameters to favor the product and it (any product) can win.
As consumers, we should appreciate the consistency of testing, rather than want a specific outcome so badly we want them to compromise the protocol to give us a predetermined & desired result. Anyone willing to make such compromises should set up their own "test" and write up their own "report" and go ahead and crown a winner THE winner before you even run a biased test. In such a scenario, you already know the winner. Your test can be catered to be sure the favored choice wins.
Otherwise, see this for what it is: just ONE review, not by Apple Marketing demoing their own product as favorably as they can because they want a very profitable launch... not from press "friends of Apple" with a strong desire to stay on the friends list so they can be given other, future Apple products to "review" before they are publicly available... but AFTER the product is available to be purchased, then purchased by an entity like this, then reviewed just as they would if it was a Samsung speaker or Google or Microsoft or Amazon. There will be a stream of such reviews now that HP is in the wild. Others may very well arrive at a different outcome (including the one we personally want so very, VERY badly). In the end, reviews are just a tool for consumers to make good decisions. Accept or reject them is individual choice. If you want to buy a speaker(s), choose wisely.
As opposed to those who believe if you read it on Amazon or watch it on Youtube, then it must be objective?
Seems like there's a bit of 'old people' hate going on in a few posts here. Might be worth remembering that those "old people" brought us things like the Mac, the iPhone, etc. Steve Jobs would qualify for AARP if he were still with us.
That said, I really don't care for CR. I used to subscribe (and I'm not even an OP!), but dropped after a couple of years because it did seem that they had their favorites and played them accordingly.
IMO, proof of bias would be if they don't point out that the HomePod has a significant advantage when it comes to distributing sweet-spot-free sound throughout the room vs. a compact forward facing system. That's a very obvious aspect of the design vs. competitors and they've made no mention of it so far.
I noticed you ignored the line where I said "It shows the actual test room in the embedded YouTube video".
Watch the Verge's review of the HomePod. They sync one song up among all these devices and the HomePod blows them all away. I was a SKEPTIC of this thing, too.
I noticed you ignored the line where I said "It shows the actual test room in the embedded YouTube video".
No, I didn't ignore that. However, how would someone scanning the article know that the room shown in the video was actually the "dedicated testing space" and not the photo with the acoustic panels? You'd have to admit that a couple of people sitting on a couch in front of a table cluttered with every speaker imaginable doesn't exactly come across at first glance as a "dedicated testing space".
I am a Sonos user and really like the sound, aesthetic and quality of their equipment and the Sonos mesh network is far superior to AirPlay, which used to cutout on me constantly. But, I cannot imagine my setup only consisting of Play:1s, which is what the HomePod is being compared to.
Each room in my apartment has a PlayBar, two Play:1s, a SUB (bass), and a powered Play:5 to bring a bit more power to the center or rear of each room. Collectively the sound in each room is amazing as you can hear crisp clean music in every direction and the SUBs bring power and depth to each room as well. My small bathroom is the only room powered by just a Play:1.
So while the Play:1s sound amazing on their own (for their size) and do not distort at high volumes, I cannot imagine only using those little speakers as my main sound system. They are used as satellite speakers and are part of a larger array.
I am not sure if Apple is going to be building out the HomePod line with subs or bigger speakers, but if the HomePod is all there is, then I am happy to hear that they have prominent bass and that they are more powerful than the Sonos Play:1s since the Play:1s are not typically used as stand alone speakers unless they are placed in very small rooms or work areas.
Each room in my apartment has a PlayBar, two Play:1s, a SUB (bass), and a powered Play:5 to bring a bit more power to the center or rear of each room. Collectively the sound in each room is amazing as you can hear crisp clean music in every direction and the SUBs bring power and depth to each room as well. My small bathroom is the only room powered by just a Play:1.
So while the Play:1s sound amazing on their own (for their size) and do not distort at high volumes, I cannot imagine only using those little speakers as my main sound system. They are used as satellite speakers and are part of a larger array.
I am not sure if Apple is going to be building out the HomePod line with subs or bigger speakers, but if the HomePod is all there is, then I am happy to hear that they have prominent bass and that they are more powerful than the Sonos Play:1s since the Play:1s are not typically used as stand alone speakers unless they are placed in very small rooms or work areas.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
No. Neither extreme is right, IMO. Apple makes great stuff in general. There are those who will buy this and be completely thrilled with it for exactly what it is and does. If it scratches this particular audio speaker itch for people, good for them.
There is no "smart speaker" more tightly integrated with the Apple ecosystem than HP. For anyone that values that, there is no other choice at any price.
There are those who are apparently perfectly happy to live within the "walled garden." For those, this is up to a perfect fit if they want to buy a smart speaker now.
We seem to have some mentality where this product is either perfection of the opposite of perfection (complete junk?) with seemingly little room for it to be somewhere in between (which is where it actually is).
Even this CR review ranks it "very good" on their scale. Guess what the other 2 rank on the same scale? Also "very good." All 3 speakers referenced got an equivalent of a "B" on a grade school report card scale. The other 2 ranked slightly higher than HP on a finer points scale. That's equivalent to getting a report card grade of a "B" because you have an 86 in the class and 2 other guys getting a "B" because they have an 87 and 89 in the class. All 3 of you got a B.
Watching this thread evolve, you'd think CR gave 2 speakers an A+++ and HP an F--- and that most of us birthed the HP from our own wombs. All three ranked a "B." Buyers who buy any of these 3 may be challenged to objectively hear any difference at all, much like 3 kids all getting a "B" on their report card aren't seen as 2 far superior to the third... unless of course Apple gets into making children and then all other children will clearly be inferior in every way.
Last edited by a moderator:
There is no real way to judge performance by watching a review as you are hearing the mics used to capture the audio and the speaker you are actually listening on. Yes, you can pick up distortion at certain volumes.
I'm also not a fan of "volume" matching (Pogue test) when it comes to testing. At what volume do you have to lower one speaker to make it sound like the other. Are we testing at real world "normal" listening volumes? This reminds me of the DD vs DTS debate back in the DVD days. The argument was that DTS was just louder. Maybe it was, but at louder volumes I listened at, that codec (at the time) was clearer and offered more separation between channels.
The homepod is not a directional speaker like the Google or Sonos. It is meant radiate sound throughout a room or rooms. A better test will come for me tonight when I can finally test the Homepod against my Libratone Zipp. That is a very good omnidirectional speaker that retails at $300 without smart functionality. (Ok there is some Alexa functionality coming). Both the HomePod and Zipp feature Airplay. Playing field should be level.
I'm also not a fan of "volume" matching (Pogue test) when it comes to testing. At what volume do you have to lower one speaker to make it sound like the other. Are we testing at real world "normal" listening volumes? This reminds me of the DD vs DTS debate back in the DVD days. The argument was that DTS was just louder. Maybe it was, but at louder volumes I listened at, that codec (at the time) was clearer and offered more separation between channels.
The homepod is not a directional speaker like the Google or Sonos. It is meant radiate sound throughout a room or rooms. A better test will come for me tonight when I can finally test the Homepod against my Libratone Zipp. That is a very good omnidirectional speaker that retails at $300 without smart functionality. (Ok there is some Alexa functionality coming). Both the HomePod and Zipp feature Airplay. Playing field should be level.
This article yes. Any other review, you need access. You'll need access to read this review too accept it's been printed en masse. No, NBC doesn't have a thing against Apple, nor does CR, they just want traffic to their site and, as I tried to explain to you earlier, NBC is a customer of CRs. They pay them to share CR's content with viewers. If CR's reviews are boring, it doesn't give NBC a reason to provide that content to consumers. If NBC doesn't use the content they've paid for, they're unlikely to renew that partnership with CR. Which is in desperate need to find new revenue avenues.
Seriously? You can't put that together all by yourself?
No. Neither extreme is right, IMO. Apple makes great stuff in general. There are those who will buy this and be completely thrilled with it for exactly what it is and does. If it scratches this particular audio speaker itch for people, good for them.
There is no "smart speaker" more tightly integrated with the Apple ecosystem than HP. For anyone that values that, there is no other choice at any price.
There are those who are apparently perfectly happy to live within the "walled garden." For those, this is up to a perfect fit if they want to buy a smart speaker now.
We seem to have some mentality where this product is either perfection of the opposite of perfection (complete junk?) with seemingly little room for it to be somewhere in between (which is where it actually is).
Even this CR review ranks it "very good" on their scale. Guess what the other 2 rank on the same scale? Also "very good." All 3 speakers referenced got an equivalent of a "B" on a grade school report card scale. The other 2 ranked slightly higher than HP on a finer points scale. That's equivalent to getting a report card grade of a "B" because you have an 86 in the class and 2 other guys getting a "B" because they have an 87 and 89 in the class. All 3 of you got a B.
Watching this thread evolve, you'd think CR gave 2 speakers an A+++ and HP an F--- and that most of us birthed the HP from our own wombs. All three ranked a "B." Buyers who buy any of these 3 may be challenged to objectively hear any difference at all, much like 3 kids all getting a "B" on their report card aren't seen as 2 far superior to the third... unless of course Apple gets into making children and then all other children will clearly be inferior in every way.
Bravo! Very well stated. And bonus points for the “birthed from our own wombs.” That’s what it seems like around here for many people, like someone telling you your child was ugly. Of course I don’t have. Awomb, but I still get your point.
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh. I bought one, and have been really impressed with it, as it sounds fantastic.
I'd hate to think it was because the HomePod isn't what you are after, and are assuming that because its not what you are after, it wouldn't be what anyone else was after either.
Because that sounds exactly like the sort of thing an idiot would think. But I wouldn't like to go around calling people I know nothing about an idiot.
Last edited by a moderator:
Any speaker that can be repaired easily is better than this throw away that Apple has created. They also need to bring back user serviceable batteries in the laptops and phones. Stop making everything thin and cramming higher powered components inside and gluing it all together.
I have a Sonos Play:1, and two pretty impressive Yamaha speakers from a decade ago, and the HomePod blows them all away. I wasn't going to buy one at first, but caved yesterday. As a smart speaker that can control my home, sync with all my Apple Music playlists seamlessly, and deliver top-notch sound, it's a winner for me.
The thing is, people are hating on this for two reasons: the price, and the fact that it's Apple. The price, for me, is 100% spot-on. The iPod HiFi was the same price over 10 years ago, and the tech since has vastly improved and evolved. It's essentially the cost of an iPod, but can control my home, works wirelessly, and has great sound - how is that too high? The sound quality alone places this thing in a premium category over Google/Alexa. But the fact that this is Apple, and that it's a high-brow design that connects with Apple's infrastructure sends people into ****ing orbit.
It's simple: if you value design, and are pretty absorbed into the Apple ecosystem, this is a great product for you. If you aren't, then Alexa is probably a better and more affordable option.
The thing is, people are hating on this for two reasons: the price, and the fact that it's Apple. The price, for me, is 100% spot-on. The iPod HiFi was the same price over 10 years ago, and the tech since has vastly improved and evolved. It's essentially the cost of an iPod, but can control my home, works wirelessly, and has great sound - how is that too high? The sound quality alone places this thing in a premium category over Google/Alexa. But the fact that this is Apple, and that it's a high-brow design that connects with Apple's infrastructure sends people into ****ing orbit.
It's simple: if you value design, and are pretty absorbed into the Apple ecosystem, this is a great product for you. If you aren't, then Alexa is probably a better and more affordable option.
I agree that consistent testing is important, but what do you do when that environment handicaps one of the products being tested? Take the Yamaha sound projector sound bars as an example. They use arrays of multiple 'sound projectors' to create virtual speakers around a room, replicating a traditional surround sound system, using beam forming and bouncing the sound off of the walls/floors/ceilings. If you tested that product in an anechoic chamber it would sound awful, because it can't do what it's designed to do, you wouldn't hear any of the virtual speakers and would only really get the centre channel audio. In the same environment a traditional system will multiple physical speakers would sound infinitely better, because each is generating sound and directing at the listener.
Am I right in thinking that the HomePod doesn't connect to services itself? You connect to services via your phone and then your phone streams to the HomePod? So if your phone went out of range/battery dies, the HomePod stops playing?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Wow man. Take the insinuation you are making above and apply the very same scrutiny to ALL of the other "reviews" we seem to be so wanting to trust more than this one.
All of the "demo" driven "reviews" were enormously biased, just by accepting the company wanting to sell their speaker getting to run the demo. Put me in that same situation, pay me to make the weakling (Echo) win and I'll come up with a demo sequence so that it can win. We've already had one demo invitee read some of those kinds of suspicions and decide to do the demo again himself, this time blind, by hiding the speakers behind a curtain and not handicapping some with inferior bluetooth feeds vs. superior Airplay, etc. That demo attendee fully expected the outcome to be exactly the same. But what a difference a curtain can make. Take a look at that article for yourself.
Then, there's all this insinuation of "click bait" in this thread and you implying that CR would compromise THIS one review to give NBC something juicier for their show that frankly, I didn't even know existed until you brought it up, and I actually LIKE CR as a source of consumer product reviews. And yet, every single one of the pre-release "reviews" by the press friends of Apple desperately want to stay on the friends list for exactly that: click bait. All those free pre-release review editors are paid by advertising revenue. Getting a story before the mainstream press brings lots of eyeballs to their sites. That's a direct, money-in-the-pockets motivation to stay in Apple's good graces: first means maximum number of eyeballs. Eyeballs generally means ad revenues. Revenues pay article writers & editors.
So I'll grant you that CR could be every bit as crooked as you seem to be trying to imply if you can then grant me the very same scrutiny of the vast majority of the rest of the review sites where the very issues you are trying to suggest may be in play here are much more likely to actually be in play there. Can you do that? Or is only CR suspect, presumably because their review is not the desirable result we so want it to be?
Last edited:
I just got mine and I love it compared to other small speakers I own. The audio needs the ability to adjust the curve template based on the content. Not all content is supposed to have a "loudness" curve. Just like the music/iPod EQ settings, we need do be able to do our own EQ. The "automatic" settings thing is subjective and assumptive. It sounds much better than anything close to the size and features. Whatever CR says is subjective and unless it comes with a anechoic chamber measurements, we're only relying on opinions.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
It's thoroughly married to Apple services: AM, iCloud, Match, etc.
If by services you mean competing services like Spotify and similar, yes, it doesn't make a direct connection like, for example, running Pandora, Tidal or iHeartRadio app on the
TV sans Airplay. It has no HP apps.Everything not Apple ecosystem plays via Airplay. If the source device gets out of range/dies, etc, it stops playing.
Last edited:
Ok great. You like the Bose sound. There is nothing wrong with that.
I have not heard the 35, only older models and they were not balanced, but rather light on the highs.
In my case, I find that the Airpods replaced 2 different AKGs, one in ear, albeit they sound different, and yet balanced.
How can you "love it" in one breath then point-out it's fault's "needs the ability to adjust the curve template based on the content"? Are you saying you love it despite it being a flawed product from the start that needs improving?