apple lossless depends on the music-- but I think the highest bitrate in my collection (ripped from CDs) is about 900 Kbs. Most are around 750 Kbs.
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.
HomePod's Sound Continues to Receive Top Marks After Listening Demos in New York and London
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But no voice control, making HomePod just another wireless speaker. I don’t really understand what Apple is doing here. Getting into the speaker business because there aren’t enough wireless speaker brands? If you’re just using AirPlay, is HomePod really better than a Sonos Play:3, or two Sonos Ones?
As an Apple customer, I have no interest in this product but recognize that some will, especially Apple Music subscribers. As an investor and fan, I’m disappointed in what I see as a weak offering. The assistant features require Apple Music for voice control. There’s no support for music services other than Apple. Sure, you can airplay to it, but you can airplay to hundreds of speakers already.
Furthermore, as a smart speaker, HomePod only illustrates how far Apple has fallen behind the competition. They should be releasing a smart speaker that blows us away compared to Alexa, but Alexa clearly has nothing to fear from the lobitomized Siri. And Apple knows this, hence the focus on audio quality over cool tech.
I think a lot of Apple fans are just eager to buy some new Apple tech and I appreciate that. But I want more from Apple. When they release a new product, it should stand out, not struggle to be understood and not ship feature incomplete.
Because that is an opinion and personally I don’t base my enjoyment of a product based on someone else’s opinion.
Are you seriously telling us that your argument that 9to5Mac thinks the speaker is bad boils down to a URL and a copy and paste of a Wired article about a demo that 9to5Mac was not at? The speaker may or may not be bad in reality, but your argument on this point is laughable on its very face.
I bought a couple, one for the Mac on my desk, one for the Apple TV in my living room. My use case is simple: they're just advanced AirPlay speakers; Siri functionality is supplemental.
Right now I have a couple of old NOCS NS2 Air Monitors that I paid $500 for when they came out. The sound great, but their pairing is flaky, and they don't support 802.11AC or 5GB 802.11N.
I'm sure that reviewers will frame the HomePod as a voice assistant and judge it accordingly, which I think is valid, even though that's not how I'm likely to use it. It some point Apple needs to extend SiriKit to support third party streaming services.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Thank you for what seems to be a solid answer to that question. But man, I can't hardly believe it. It just seems so UN-Apple like, even the more modern Apple.
But thanks. One of the reasons I visit this site is to try to get real information. It can be tough around here because so many seem to want to work so hard to help Apple sell anything (that a lot of puffery flies) and so many others seem to work so hard to make everything Apple does out to be junk... but then there's those bits & pieces of information that fills in some gaps that may matter to people.
For me in particular, this one is a whopper. The vast majority of my iTunes music is ripped from CDs (as Apple encouraged back in the days of iPods... especially before there was an iTunes store). I prefer AM competitors for streaming vs. AM. So, that about does it for my consideration unless Apple comes around on this point. It seemed plausible that doing the "Match" process would make it possible for everything that could be Matched to be "seen" by Siri in voice-driven searches. I was guessing that that would mean HP would still be playing NOT the ripped (perhaps ripped at a higher quality) version on my Mac but the Matched version from the cloud, but at least thousands of more songs would be Siri viewable by HP.
It certainly seems like Apple could have made that work right out of the gates, just to make the HP have that much more reach for those with ripped iTunes libraries. Too bad. Maybe a future software update will fill this big hole?
VHS vs Beta. Not always does the best system win. Convenience, price, content, huge drivers of who wins. Not so much tech specs when it comes to what the masses purchase.
Because they are confusing what can be done right now with Siri, versus what you can do with Airplay. In essence, with Airplay, you can play anything. Right now, as Apple implements the Homepod, if you want to use Siri and play directly without using Airplay, you are limited to Apple Music and any purchased music, so if you have ripped your own tracks, you will have to use Airplay to play them with HP, not a big deal, but not as convenient as Siri direct. One area that Apple hasn't officially clarified, but various reporters have claimed Apple has, is iTunes Match. Reports are that if you use Match, you will be able to play any music from any source using Siri, but again we are waiting for confirmation from Apple.
These Apple 9to5 Mac are deep in Apple, you knot gonna believe them when they something is poor?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Not released yet. Maybe it's coming? And hopefully so. Whether one buys a HP speaker or not, a smarter Siri should be a big benefit to anyone that uses Siri on anything.
True, but in this instance the argument solely revolves around the aforementioned sound quality.
There is a comparative HomePod hands-on made by the reliable British hifi specialist What HiFi?
Actually it's a hands-on in a controlled environment, not in their own labs:
"Sound Quality
We've had a chance to listen to the HomePod and two rival speakers side by side.
In a controlled environment, we heard tracks played on a Sonos Play:3, Amazon Echo and HomePod.
The Play:3 had been tuned for the room using Sonos' excellent Trueplay software. The HomePod had also been calibrated using its own set-up software - although we didn't get to see how exactly the speaker carries this out.
As Sia’s The Greatest played out, the HomePod sounded impressive: strong bass rang out – which was perhaps the overriding audio takeaway for the speaker – but the vocals still seemed sharp and crisp.
In comparison, the Sonos Play:3 appeared uncharacteristically flat, while the Amazon Echo felt almost pedestrian.
We listened to Superstition by Stevie Wonder and DNA by Kendrick Lamar. Both sounded good on the Sonos but appeared punchier and louder on the HomePod. As we moved around the room, the HomePod managed to project in every direction, with no discernible sweet spot.
We also heard a pair of HomePods playing a live recording of Hotel California by The Eagles. The attention to detail was striking, with different instruments sounding discretely realised. Did we feel like we were at the concert? Maybe not, but it did sound powerful."
https://www.whathifi.com/apple/homepod/review?oq=apple home&src=dropdown&aq=product:apple/homepod/review&type=product&pos=top
Actually it's a hands-on in a controlled environment, not in their own labs:
"Sound Quality
We've had a chance to listen to the HomePod and two rival speakers side by side.
In a controlled environment, we heard tracks played on a Sonos Play:3, Amazon Echo and HomePod.
The Play:3 had been tuned for the room using Sonos' excellent Trueplay software. The HomePod had also been calibrated using its own set-up software - although we didn't get to see how exactly the speaker carries this out.
As Sia’s The Greatest played out, the HomePod sounded impressive: strong bass rang out – which was perhaps the overriding audio takeaway for the speaker – but the vocals still seemed sharp and crisp.
In comparison, the Sonos Play:3 appeared uncharacteristically flat, while the Amazon Echo felt almost pedestrian.
We listened to Superstition by Stevie Wonder and DNA by Kendrick Lamar. Both sounded good on the Sonos but appeared punchier and louder on the HomePod. As we moved around the room, the HomePod managed to project in every direction, with no discernible sweet spot.
We also heard a pair of HomePods playing a live recording of Hotel California by The Eagles. The attention to detail was striking, with different instruments sounding discretely realised. Did we feel like we were at the concert? Maybe not, but it did sound powerful."
https://www.whathifi.com/apple/homepod/review?oq=apple home&src=dropdown&aq=product:apple/homepod/review&type=product&pos=top
Last edited:
You have it backwards. His wife is like the vast majority of people, she doesn't want the hassle of dealing with a nice hi-fi system, or the limitations of having it just the one room it is set up in. She will, however, be like most people when she hears the fantastic sound of the Homepod and all it takes is her speaking with the specially enhanced Siri who now has six beam forming mics to hear her. She won't probably know it, but she will love the fact that it has an accelerometer so that she can simply pick it up and move it anywhere in the house and it will know it has been moved and reset to sound perfect in the new place she moved it.
I really hope so. Siri has been pretty much the only product I really find lacking in the apple ecosystem.
"stereo sound capabilities of two HomePods" Wow... Apple invented Steero with two speakers. Magical. Amazing.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Not a review, that's "hands-on" at a demo. A review is when it's hands on in their own labs. At the demo, they got to see & hear what the demonstrator- Apple- chose to present & play. In a review, THEY will choose what they want to play and compare variables beyond the messaging provided by a seller. They won't have a predetermined objective but just let it prove itself on it's own merits. Potential marketing plays in a demo would be much less likely to be utilized in doing their own testing. Etc.
Consider this: just any time now, one of the other guys is going to roll out their head-to-head demo where their smart speaker is going to come out on top. This crowd will skewer that as blatant trickery, ripping the demo as a farce, obviously designed to make their own look the best. Imagine that playing out. Is this crowd going to be so quick to accept the outcome and spin it like it's factual evidence of echo or google or sonos superiority? Absolutely NOT!!! And we all know it. Don't be so easily fooled by any master of ceremonies with real skin in this game.
Consider this #2: how long until Samsung rolls out something that looks much like HP in a head-to-head demo and claims sound superiority. Press friends of Samsung will probably agree. Will we accept that as fact? Of course not. We'll skewer that whole demo process like they were shooting puppies, kicking kittens and calling our own children ugly.
In both scenarios, WHY will be so quick to rip into the head-to-head demos and proclaim them false? Whatever your answer(s): step back here and see how it applies to this demo.
[doublepost=1517166066][/doublepost]
With this release, I perceive it's one of two great benefits for all of us whether we buy an HP or not. The other? The potential for the iTunes library to finally add a lossless tier for those that want to feed "best quality hardware" with "best quality audio source files." Conceptually, BOTH of those could come from this product release... or soon. And I hope so.
Last edited:
Wired heard the demo, not 9to5Mac. And unfortunately for you, your argument is based on the false premise of: 9to5Mac loves Apple, 9to5Mac thought HomePod was bad (wrong, they didn't hear it), therefore it must actually be bad. Anybody with an iota of reading comprehension can figure out that you're being disingenuous about it to the point of just trying to troll people.
Tidal's lossless HiFi streaming tier is $19.99 a month. The niche of audiophiles who insist on lossless are far more likely to have a collection of FLAC files ripped from CDs than have a Tidal HiFi account.
As someone crazy enough to subscribe to both AM and Spotify, and have ordered two HomePods at launch, I'm not put off by the price of Tidal. I'm just leery of their long term existence, so I would avoid any solution with Tidal as its lynchpin.
Actually my point, arguing sound quality like arguing video quality. At decision time, quality just one aspect in the decision making and for many, will sacrifice it for the other mentioned features.