Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Please explain your cheap vinyl analogy. What is the difference between cheap and expensive vinyl? You mention source material, but you also have to take into consideration the source. I have a turntable and two channel set up that would blow away just about any digital source in my opinion. I'd love to hear your reasoning.

I have 30 year old LP's and more recent 180 gram vinyl. They can all sound great if you take care of your albums. Do you use a disk washer? I have also found that the recording itself makes a difference, but what you are implying makes little sense.

How old are you? I'm being serious and not trying to be insulting. If you are under 35 then a lot of things that were very common when I was young haven't been common since then. My 'Cheap Plastic' was lighter (thinner) vinyl records. This was real common for pop music- read "Rock and Roll"- from the early to mid 60's because record companies thought rock was a fad and would fade away. No point in producing higher quality albums for a fad.

The second factor in this was record players. Most of the kids I knew first had a mono player that, as likely as not, was in a small suitcase. Open the lid, plug the player in and listen to the single speaker. They didn't have easily replaceable needle cartridges and the tone arms weighed a lot, proportionately. Even when stereo equipment became more widely available cost was usually a big factor, so big and heavy tone arms with questionable quality needles were still the norm, unless you were an audiophile. Audiophiles are a small subset now and were probably an even smaller subset then. Most people wanted price first then convenience as long as the sound quality met a rather low threshold.

Combine thin vinyl with a heavy tone arm/needle and you have a nice record gouging machine, sometimes derisively called a record lathe. Yes I know that there are real record lathes and that they are part of the record manufacturing process, but the term was meant as an insult for these cheaper stereos. Most stereophonic equipment sold to people at that time was a one piece turntable/receiver combination, and probably did NOT have inputs for other playback devices like tapes or a separate turntable. This would have been the late 60's at least in my area. I live in the center of the country and at the time fads and products from the coasts might take a couple of years before they filtered into my state.

In the 70's things became modular, and it was possible to buy and upgrade pieces of your sound system one at a time. So you would buy a good amplifier, with at least a turntable and tape inputs but maybe more, and then maybe upgrade your speakers or buy a good turntable.

A good turntable. What defines a good turntable now? Whose cartridges are considered good and whose are considered inferior? Are belt driven turntables frowned upon now or preferred? It went back and forth for a while. I haven't been keeping up, because by the early 90's I was already mostly CD's. I thought my records sounded better, but CD's were smaller, harder to scratch, and 'the future'. But I didn't get rid of my records.

So that's what I mean when I say 'Cheap Vinyl'. Its a term from the late 60's and early70's that described a record that you would play only a few times before there were a lot of pops and clicks, even if you treated them well because of limitations with the quality of your equipment. With a good turntable and a modern cartridge these probably would still sound fine, but finding the original album from that time in good shape would be the challenge.

As far as records, I have 50 year old records that I have bought. I think I still have every 45 or LP that I ever purchased. Plus I had older siblings who passed down their records to me, so I've got a few albums from the late 50's to very early 60's from before I could possibly have bought them. In addition, I have now inherited a large collection of 78's that go all the way back to the 1920's. But these are made of out of shellac and not vinyl.
 
How old are you? I'm being serious and not trying to be insulting. If you are under 35 then a lot of things that were very common when I was young haven't been common since then. My 'Cheap Plastic' was lighter (thinner) vinyl records. This was real common for pop music- read "Rock and Roll"- from the early to mid 60's because record companies thought rock was a fad and would fade away. No point in producing higher quality albums for a fad.

The second factor in this was record players. Most of the kids I knew first had a mono player that, as likely as not, was in a small suitcase. Open the lid, plug the player in and listen to the single speaker. They didn't have easily replaceable needle cartridges and the tone arms weighed a lot, proportionately. Even when stereo equipment became more widely available cost was usually a big factor, so big and heavy tone arms with questionable quality needles were still the norm, unless you were an audiophile. Audiophiles are a small subset now and were probably an even smaller subset then. Most people wanted price first then convenience as long as the sound quality met a rather low threshold.

Combine thin vinyl with a heavy tone arm/needle and you have a nice record gouging machine, sometimes derisively called a record lathe. Yes I know that there are real record lathes and that they are part of the record manufacturing process, but the term was meant as an insult for these cheaper stereos. Most stereophonic equipment sold to people at that time was a one piece turntable/receiver combination, and probably did NOT have inputs for other playback devices like tapes or a separate turntable. This would have been the late 60's at least in my area. I live in the center of the country and at the time fads and products from the coasts might take a couple of years before they filtered into my state.

In the 70's things became modular, and it was possible to buy and upgrade pieces of your sound system one at a time. So you would buy a good amplifier, with at least a turntable and tape inputs but maybe more, and then maybe upgrade your speakers or buy a good turntable.

A good turntable. What defines a good turntable now? Whose cartridges are considered good and whose are considered inferior? Are belt driven turntables frowned upon now or preferred? It went back and forth for a while. I haven't been keeping up, because by the early 90's I was already mostly CD's. I thought my records sounded better, but CD's were smaller, harder to scratch, and 'the future'. But I didn't get rid of my records.

So that's what I mean when I say 'Cheap Vinyl'. Its a term from the late 60's and early70's that described a record that you would play only a few times before there were a lot of pops and clicks, even if you treated them well because of limitations with the quality of your equipment. With a good turntable and a modern cartridge these probably would still sound fine, but finding the original album from that time in good shape would be the challenge.

As far as records, I have 50 year old records that I have bought. I think I still have every 45 or LP that I ever purchased. Plus I had older siblings who passed down their records to me, so I've got a few albums from the late 50's to very early 60's from before I could possibly have bought them. In addition, I have now inherited a large collection of 78's that go all the way back to the 1920's. But these are made of out of shellac and not vinyl.

In that context your analogy makes perfect sense. And by the way I agree with your comments about the HomePod.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EdT
I’m not sure anyone who’s serious about audio quality is looking at Sonos either.

I guess it all depends on the magnitude of one’s “seriousness” :)

Perhaps not a Sonos speaker, but with a Sonos Connect or Connect:Amp, you can connect the speakers of your choice.
 
Perhaps not a Sonos speaker, but with a Sonos Connect or Connect:Amp, you can connect the speakers of your choice.
Yes, I was responding to the “Anyone who is serious about audio quality isn’t looking to a $350 WiFi speaker” comment. WiFi speakers at $350 from any manufacturer are unlikely to be satisfactory to someone who is serious about audio quality.

Does HomePod sound good enough to please those who would spend $350 on a powered speaker? I can’t answer until I hear it for myself, but apparently it sounds pretty good. Apple has upwards of a billion users who have spent that much on a phone or iPad; if 2% buy a HomePod, that’s 15 million units right there, and $5 billion in revenue.
 
I have nothing against Sonos; I just feel that there is more utility to be had in the homepod which has the benefit of more tight-knit integration with the Apple ecosystem. That's why I went all in with Apple many years back. I made a decision and decided that I valued an integrated computing solution over more options. Give me one optimised workflow which just works, over half a dozen different ways which don't work as well.

Yes, some parts of Apple work better than their non-Apple counterparts, just as some aspects are worse, but the point is that when everything comes together, the pros far outweigh the cons. It's a package deal.

I agree with you, but with a caveat. I love the tight-knit integration of the Apple ecosystem, but I hate it when Apple refuses to allow third-parties into that integration. For example - iOS became 1000x times better when Apple allowed third-party apps. iOS has very tight integration with the hardware, and Apple sets very strict APIs for developers to use that ensure optimal performance. tvOS, watchOS, macOS. It's great. Even iCloud is relatively open now, in that other third-party apps can make use of it. And they've recently made it easier to integrate iOS with other cloud providers.

But then we have things HomePod, which Apple seems to keep closed. Siri and CarKit are partially closed too. Why is Apple Maps the only GPS nav on CarKit? Why, after iOS updates, is there no navigation API for CarKit. There's a freakin' text messaging API, WhatsApp is not on CarKit, but no nav? I refuse to believe there is a technical or legal reason for this - I think Apple is just refusing to release a navigation api to block Google and Waze from taking advantage. They're doing it for competitive reasons, and it hurts the consumer. Same with Spotify or Pandora and Siri - why is it that Siri has an API for so many things but not for music controls? When it comes to music controls, Apple Music is the only option. Again, there is no technical reason for this, and it's certainly been long enough (two or three iOS versions with Siri APIs). I think Apple is just doing this to block competition, and not let Prime Music, Spotify, Pandora, and the rest take advantage of Siri.

This all brings it to HomePod. I'm all for the tight hardware-software integration that Apple offers. I love it. But if they don't open up the APIs to third-party developers, and let other services in, the product is a total non-starter.

I see myself staying with Apple Music for as long as I remain entrenched in the Apple ecosystem, which will likely be for the next few years at least.

A lot of things can happen in three years, I give you that. But I will take my chances with Apple.
I'm not a fan of how Apple is handling the competitiveness of Apple Music. They seem to be taking the Walmart approach - undercut and outlast the competition, and then gain a monopoly. Maybe I'm wrong, but if Spotify goes out of business, I see a huge price hike coming to Apple Music. Maybe it won't happen in the next few years, but Apple's strategy here looks pretty bad for consumers.

Either way, options are good. I like that I can choose between 3 ISPs where I live - keeps my prices low. I like that I can choose between 4 grocery chains where I live - keeps my prices low. I like that my speakers can play from any service, I think it keeps my prices low too.

https://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2018/1/23/apple-watch-is-a-bridge-to-the-future
The writer at the website linked above makes a very compelling argument for how the Apple Watch can one day become a legitimate alternative to the iPhone, and how the homepod is not just an iPhone accessory, but also an Apple Watch one.

The homepod can be seen as a computer with speakers and a smart assistant. In essence, by choosing the homepod, I am also betting that it will one day be more than just a pricey, internet-connected speaker, and that Apple has plans to morph it into something else. Something more. In contrast, Sonos can never be more than just a pricey, internet-connected speaker because that's what they are. A speaker company with no ecosystem to call their own.

It's pebble vs the Apple Watch all over again.
The speakers are already a computers with speakers. What do you think Sonos is? It's a computer that can stream from all those sources directly, plus an amp and speakers.

Here is the thing - what else do you want from your speakers? I want music (sometimes Podcasts) in high-quality. For accessing info, I have always found a screen more useful. To me, visual is better. Take weather for example, yea I get Siri to read me the weather sometimes, but I always end up looking at the screen anyway because the icons and temperature tables are such a better way of conveying that info.

I have Siri in my pocket, on my wrist, and on my TV, and that will always be more convenient than on a speaker.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.