This was probably Consumer Reports music source....
You joke, but reel to reel tape is one of the highest quality ways of storing analog audio.
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
You joke, but reel to reel tape is one of the highest quality ways of storing analog audio.
You lose credibility when you use terms like “actual instruments”. First, anything can be an instrument. Second, a lot of hip-hop is made using “actual instruments”. Sometimes they’re live recordings. Sometimes they’re samples of recorded instruments or samples of individual notes.
Like many media companies, they’ve learned that negative Apple headlines are quite profitable. It gets both rabid Apple haters and fanboys clicking on it, and if it’s controversial, it goes viral so their “review” gets mentioned many times over.
That’s a choice we all need to make for ourselves. To me, the assistant just needs to be good enough. And I don’t care about open v closed. Hope you enjoy your Max, though.
I’m sure I’ll get flamed for saying this but I’ve been listening to my HomePod for the past couple of days, and I think the novelty is already starting to wear thin. I’m not an audiophile by any means but unless you're playing music at a high volume, the sound quality can be underwhelming depending on type of music youre listening to and the room acoustics. I’ll give it a few more days, but I may end up returning my to Apple. I’m hoping future software updates will improve HomePod, and introduce some new features as well.
Nothing to do with whether it’s a joke or not. When discussing the obvious bias of posters here at MR (of which there are many on both sides regarding anything Apple) you consistently criticize or make fun of those posts which are favorable to Apple. That’s the bias. Why no “joke posts” or criticisms towards the negative Apple comments?
You then follow many of those up with the obligatory “I own and use many Apple products” as if that fact somehow legitimizes your comments.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I criticize both extremes. I don't think either extreme helps those trying to make sense of thread topics. Sometimes, I'll step in and offer my own opinions. They are mine to make after all. If you don't like my posts, it's easy enough to use the "ignore" option.
They appear to have two rooms: a treated one (I’ve been told this is to mitigate reflections—possibly also called reverberations) and an anechoic one (I’ve been told these are different). (A website I just read says an anechoic room is just a more extreme implementation of the former.)
Either way, if the HomePod uses reflected sound as part of its calibration process and to bounce ambient sounds off the wall during playback, then I don’t think they are evaluating the HomePod fairly. (They also only appear to have listened from one or two seated positions, and so may not have tested the HomePod’s 360 design and purported ability to fill a room better than conventional speakers.)
I suppose not using an external calibration process (or at least having one as a fallback) for people with treated or acoustically “dead” rooms could be considered a shortcoming of HomePod in relation to Sonos who use an iOS device’s microphone to calibrate their speakers. (Google’s, I believe, but am not sure, only makes adjustments when it detects overpowering bass when placed next to a wall or on a bookshelf, which doesn’t appear to have been done—I’ll have to go look at reviews, I think.)
I suppose Apple could implement an external calibration process (and perhaps manual adjustments) if they need to, as a supplement for “dead” rooms or dedicated listening positions.
(Whatever the case, Consumer Reports should provide more information about their methodology and rationale. And should consider trying to implement double-blind testing—I think David Pogue’s test would be considered single-blind. I’m also skeptical of his choice of using a fabric to hide the speakers—if its possible hiding them in darkness may be ideal.)
Last edited:
1) I meant it from the philosophical point of view. If you have anyone in your surroundings that is a classical guy he would tell you. So I’m sorry I should’ve been clearer with this.
2) I don’t want people to go and listen to their stuff live. You clearly aren’t a music lover so I’ll try to say it like this and as shortly as I can.. here’s a specific example. Search for a song called “Forever Now” by a band called Green Day. Skip to 4:32 time. There are 3 different vocal parts. Main vocals, background vocals and two additional harmonies. Until I bought a decent pair of speakers I didn’t hear one harmony at all. That’s exactly the thing that CR meant by boomy bass, etc. You should hear all the elements and layers clearly and don’t make them muddy with too strong bass. That’s why I mentioned that kind of music as I did in my original post.
I personally love music and the crime I did was to comment on an article about an unusual review of a product. Every review I’ve seen so far meassured the quality of the sound based on how loud it is and who’s got a greater bass. I din’t say that HomePod is bad. I just appreciated the review, that’s all.
I’m not from the US, so I’m sorry for the grammar and I now I would like to go to sleep because I’m too tired for this. I’m gonna reply tommorrow...
It probably isn't relevant because out of all the other sites you mentioned, CR is the only non-profit organization. It's probably the least likely to have biased reviews.
I'm not sure I understand the objections to the testing procedure by everyone. If the HomePod can adjust to a regular room, why wouldn't it be able to adjust to a controlled environment? Apple themselves showed it being tuned in a soundproof room with sound deadening egg crates everywhere. Why would this not be a proper venue for testing?
The point of the controlled environment is to remove as many factors from contaminating the ear as possible and get proper readings on what the output of the speaker is without any reverberation. Surely the HomePod can handle that environment and doesn't rely on cavernous hardwood floors or the random couch to sound good.
I managed to get a HomePod at half price through an employee discount (not mine), and ... I think its fine. Doesn't sound as good as my stereo, obviously, but sounds better than, say, my UE Megaboom, which I think sounds fine to begin with. It fills a pretty big, high-ceiling room pretty well, Siri controls my HomeKit stuff fine, and its small enough to not stand out. I would never pay full price for one, but at $175, it's nice enough.
Though it is enormously stupid that you can't use it as a bluetooth speaker, and that it doesn't run on battery power.
Though it is enormously stupid that you can't use it as a bluetooth speaker, and that it doesn't run on battery power.
As an EE i have not much favour for non-scientific tests like CR (or the UK equivalent Which Magazine) - I avoid the products they recommend.
But having done quite a bit of research into Audio quality - you simply can't rely on people to listen to what is better or more correct. It is different for everybody. It depends on what you are USED to listen too - what you listened to right before - so blind and double blind tests simply can only tell you there is a difference and Subject A likes that more than Subject B.
HomePod's bass goes extremely low for a small speaker - out of range of many pro speakers and that might be why it feels overdone. They are simply not used to the bass being there. They go lower than my MunroSonic Egg's which are well regarded as very fine and flat speakers
You can see my pink noise test & measurement of MunroSonic vs the HomePod here
HomePods are not as flat expression wise as the MunroSonics but not far from it.
Audio is like your partner.. Some like them thin - some like them heavy - some like the mid tones enhanced - other like the top tweeters. It is all down to personal preference.
But having done quite a bit of research into Audio quality - you simply can't rely on people to listen to what is better or more correct. It is different for everybody. It depends on what you are USED to listen too - what you listened to right before - so blind and double blind tests simply can only tell you there is a difference and Subject A likes that more than Subject B.
HomePod's bass goes extremely low for a small speaker - out of range of many pro speakers and that might be why it feels overdone. They are simply not used to the bass being there. They go lower than my MunroSonic Egg's which are well regarded as very fine and flat speakers
You can see my pink noise test & measurement of MunroSonic vs the HomePod here
HomePods are not as flat expression wise as the MunroSonics but not far from it.
Audio is like your partner.. Some like them thin - some like them heavy - some like the mid tones enhanced - other like the top tweeters. It is all down to personal preference.
Considering someone who actually did the whole in depth testing with frequency meter says they're drunk, they're indeed drunk/
The anechoic chambers that Apple used to develop the HomePod are not its intended listening environment. Any speaker manufacture will test/develop in an acoustically isolated environment in order to ensure the speaker is making the sounds they need it to make, and this is especially true for a product like the HomePod where they presumably ran through thousands of hours of testing and analysis to measure frequency responses, set EQs, ensure that they could control the sound output etc...
I would also challenge your assertion that all speakers will be negatively impacted in the same way. For decades the holy grail for audio is an acoustically inert environment so that the listening experience is not negatively affected by unwanted (and uncontrollable reverberations). To that end, the best testing environment for traditional, front firing speakers is completely the worst environment for a speaker that has been specifically designed to utilise those very reverberations in order to enhance its sound.
The "controlled environment" in essence handicaps it but even there, it doesn't match other's people's actual measurements. So wtf are they measuring.
The whole point of this speaker is how it sounds in a really bad environment, if your removing the possibility of it using for example it's back speaker to bounce off sound, you'd remove half the god damn speakers it uses.
Tests where the other speakers were configured to optimal settings, while the other claims to configure itself but wasn't manually dialed in. Honestly, I can see how that is objective, if the steps are clear and defined then it's objective. But if let's say "optimal" means, "the most balanced" ... they should have blown out HomePod's EQ, to remove it from the equation because HomePod's EQ is not about objective balance.
This is not to defend the HomePod as I thoroughly believe it should have EQ controls, but it doesn't. However, comparing speakers that are manually controlled (to specs) versus one that cannot be is an invalid premise. It would have been more fair to compare each speaker's default sound, to each other, and then ask people which they subjectively prefer. Amusingly, I doubt HomePod would have won that either, because Apple EQ'd it to be bass heavy, like everyone's a Beats customer or something ... it missing the midrange is purely an Apple sound design choice, not a hardware limitation. But even though Apple still might have lost that comparison, it would have been more fair, as then it would be a comparison of what each manufacturer thinks is the best signature. But they basically compared Apple's opinion of a best signature, to their own designed CR lab opinion of a best signature. The other speakers being able to be configured to match closely to that optimal signature, would have obviously scored more highly than one that couldn't be configured.
It was a skewed test.
The audiophile test removed Apple's EQ from the equation. So it lacks preference. That too is limited though, because data doesn't mean it's better to a person listening to it. And no matter how great the HomePod can score without the EQ, it doesn't mean it's going to be a great, actual, EQ experience. I think it's valid to test it both ways, but not with a biased deck of cards, the HomePod needed a different set of parameters to fit into the predefined testing constraints. For example, the HomePod obviously needs to be positioned appropriately ... maybe there is a placement that could have given it the adequate wall reflections necessary to provide a more balanced sound. Did they test that? Or did they test it in the same configuration which they usually test speakers that do not require rear reflections?
Ultimately both tests were flawed. And the more variation we get in the tests, the closer we'll get to the truth. But I think that even at the end of all of that ... it will still be a case of preference versus not, until HomePod can be tailored to preferences.
--- edit ---
The absence of the mids, is possibly evidence of inappropriate positioning. This is because the vocals are aimed directly ahead, the bass it aimed straight up ... and the mids are reflected off the back wall. It could be very true that the mids are lacking, but how do we know that's not just due to inadequate reflection? The HomePod cannot be tested using standard methods if we want to perceive something like balance, the mids aren't all being fired forward.
Last edited: