Sonos Trueplay Now Works With iPhone 14 Models

[macinfojunkie]

I was somewhat skeptical myself. However, you can reset to factory and then listen to a few things... then use Trueplay to do its thing and listen to the same things. I definitely notice a fairly meaningful difference. I didn't expect it to be dramatic but I would claim dramatic to my ears and for my purposes (which is mostly music).

Of course, in a "blind" test, someone could manually change EQ and fool someone that a Trueplay-type process was run. But the idea here is that maybe a program can "listen" within each owners room to tweak settings to try to make these speakers sound as good as they can in that room.

This kind of idea has been around for a long time. A receiver I bought about 10+ years ago came with a long wire to a mic that was supposed to be put in the prime listening position to auto-adjust my speakers to optimal listening from that spot. iPhones now claim to do AppleTV video calibration for TVs (usually a multi-hundred dollar service by an in-home tech). HomePods claim to do the same for audio. I give Sonos some faith (too) that they can actually squeeze more out of their speakers by this process. Else, my discerning ears are effectively fooled by using it.

Given that it is FREE, even if it is a placebo, Sonos owners can easily give it a try themselves and hear or not hear a difference. No big loss either way... but possibly a gain- imagined or actual- like using an iPhone to adapt AppleTV video quality... and all of the "magic" we mostly accept accomplished by HomePods.

There a number of similar, and arguably more sophisticated system available for other speakers too. I would hope they are more sophisticated as they cost more than a Sonos play 5 or even in some cases a whole house system. Sonorworks, Genelec GLM and Trinnov to name a few. But they all work in a similar way to some degree - there’s a microphone to sample the frequency response of the room, a box of tricks that calculates driver time alignment, crossovers, some eq and way to counter any peaks or dips in the desired frequency response curve - which is usually aimed to be flat as most of these systems are used in high end mixing and mastering studios.

So whether subtle or a mild placebo. Considering it is free, built in and a breeze to use then can’t complain much about True-play*.

I’ve over 25 sonos speakers inc two 5.1 systems in the house, the difference true play makes is mostly down to the room and positioning. But mostly it improves the overall performance, optimised for placement. When you have a two sub system it also manages that as well as adjusting crossovers with the Arc.

*There will always be a few entitled c***s who have little experience of it and expect it to do the work of a $10k Trinnov system on their tiny $200 speaker, but they are a special breed best kept in their moma’s basement.

 

[macinfojunkie]

What an interesting idea. Taking advantage of a sophisticated smartphone to tune the speakers once, instead of permanently adding complex hardware and cost to the speaker itself (I’m looking at you, Tim).

Actually the Sonos Move speakers have a dynamic version which adapts the output in real time based on the speaker positioning and surroundings. The rest of the range however has the doe once and apply static type.

 

[LuminousFX]

I wish they can be used as ideal desktop speakers for mac mini/studio

 

[mabaker]

What an interesting idea. Taking advantage of a sophisticated smartphone to tune the speakers once, instead of permanently adding complex hardware and cost to the speaker itself (I’m looking at you, Tim).

Not like Sonos isn’t overpriced or anything to begin with…

 

[lybentius]

I’d be very interested in the results of a randomized, double-blind study comparing unmodified vs Trueplay-modified sound.

Not scientific but my music has better clarity with it turned on, albeit with the bass toned down a bit.

 

[Velli]

What an interesting idea. Taking advantage of a sophisticated smartphone to tune the speakers once, instead of permanently adding complex hardware and cost to the speaker itself (I’m looking at you, Tim).

The issue is, I’m expecting this feature to be about as accurate as using the Apple TV/iPhone feature to calibrate your TV. Which means, it may improve, but it may also make it worse. And you don’t really know which one it is, so you’re back to subjective evaluation. In which case, we might as well go back to bass/treble controls.

(To be fair, this goes for built-in microphones as well).

 

[msackey]

I’d be very interested in the results of a randomized, double-blind study comparing unmodified vs Trueplay-modified sound.

Yes! I wonder how much can you tune speakers to a room without actually moving them

 

[satpalram]

Actually the Sonos Move speakers have a dynamic version which adapts the output in real time based on the speaker positioning and surroundings. The rest of the range however has the doe once and apply static type.

Thanks for clarifying that - I thought I’d missed something.

Poor choice of picture by MR.

 

[B/D]

OG Homepods did this automatically without user intervention, but unfortuntely, the ending results seemed worse than Sonos trueplay (according to my testing in the same rooms).

The Homepod Mini does not do automatic room correction.

 

[B/D]

What an interesting idea. Taking advantage of a sophisticated smartphone to tune the speakers once, instead of permanently adding complex hardware and cost to the speaker itself (I’m looking at you, Tim).

@Someyoungguy

Not sure I follow you. So if the autoEQ/room correction feature is done by an external device with its own mics trough a dedicated app, it´s better than if the speaker does it automatically with its own mics, because the latter option would make the speaker more expensive?.

What about simplicity, convenience, and the cost of the external IOS device ( given that for some reason you can´t do this with an Android device)?.

 

[steevn]

It's annoying but they go through this every year. I believe it's because of how finely tuned the usage of the microphones are but newer devices aren't supported with TruePlay until a software update later in the year. I had to use my wife's iPhone 13 Pro Max to set up TruePlay about 2 months ago.

Honestly Trueplay support for iPhone 14 seems to have come out faster than it did for iPhone 11, 12, and 13 lol.

 

[PauloSera]

Your system may not be tuned right, but it sounds like you're expecting loud continuous sound out of the surround channels, and that's not how it is supposed to work.

I'm fully aware of how its supposed to work. And its wrong. Its a waste of an expensive set of equipment.

 

[Velli]

I’d be very interested in the results of a randomized, double-blind study comparing unmodified vs Trueplay-modified sound.

I'll try again without the snarkiness: Why do you think this is needed or relevant? This is EQ. There are very few things in audio that potentially make more difference than EQ. EQ is not snakeoil.

I understand why some people limit themselves to objective improvements. But I don't understand this race to the bottom of trying to downplay even objective improvements, by arguing that they may not be audible in a blind test. And this particular feature is probably the most likely candidate ever for a difference you CAN hear in a blind test... Put your speaker in the corner, and you will easily boost the bass by more than 10 dB. Even a rough, inaccurate EQ will make a huge difference in sound under those circumstances. Sorry, but this is like asking for a test drive to check that your car has wheels.

 

[Velli]

OG Homepods did this automatically without user intervention, but unfortuntely, the ending results seemed worse than Sonos trueplay (according to my testing in the same rooms).

Which makes sense as the Homepods are measuring the sound in the speaker position, whereas trueplay is measuring the room. None of them are as accurate as using tools such as Dirac or REW using a separate USB microphone, but the Sonos approach is at least much closer to the real thing.

 

[PauloSera]

Your system may not be tuned right, but it sounds like you're expecting loud continuous sound out of the surround channels, and that's not how it is supposed to work. Akin to people who used to complain bitterly about black bars at the top and bottom of their 4:3 TVs when watching movies, who felt that they were somehow being ripped off because the screen wasn't full.

Surround channels are there to play the sounds that the producer and director wanted to put behind you or around you. Subtle amounts of sound from the surround channels heighten the immersion (like, say, crickets when the main characters are standing in a field at night) - loud continuous sound from the surround channels pulls you out of that immersion and pulls your focus to that speaker. Some movies handle surround very well, but plenty of others not so much. And if what you're watching is two people on screen, close-up, talking, you want their voices to only be coming from the center channel drivers.

On a Sonos system, when playing (2-channel stereo) music, as opposed to watching movies, you can have the sound more evenly distributed around the room by going into settings and changing the surrounds from "ambient" to "full" (ambient is the default) - this setting affects only 2-channel audio (so, mostly music), not 5.1/Atmos movies/video. This will fill the room with music, rather than keeping the focus at the front. It lessens the stereo imaging a bit, but I like having the music all around me.

Don't turn the surrounds way up "to get your money's worth" from a movie / your system, you're just setting yourself up for a mediocre experience. If you want sound from all the speakers all the time, maybe check out some action movies? But for proper use of surround, google "movies with best surround sound" or similar (though you have to watch out for people simply going on how much low frequency there is - some people's appreciation of home theater begins and ends with the subwoofer). Blade Runner 2049 gets recommended a lot, for good reason. The pod racing scene in Star Wars: Phantom Menace will run all the pods around you, each with different sounding engines.

I'm sorry but this is just crap.

Traditional surround sound is for the birds and needs to change. Immersion comes from having a consistent audio experience. Your suggestion that more ambient sound "takes you out" is ridiculous. You know what takes you out of the experience? Every 30 minutes hearing a single sound effect play from the surrounds and realizing, "Oh hey they do work". Surrounds need to be better utilized, and they can be if traditional and boring approaches to it are shunted.

 

[Velli]

Yes! I wonder how much can you tune speakers to a room without actually moving them

See my post above - you can change the sound a lot more with EQ than by placement. That doesn't mean that an auto-EQ feature will get it right, but the difference can be massive.

 

[Velli]

Sonos has a history of taking too long to do this with basically every new Apple device. Sure, it's involved. Start sooner, Sonos.

They can't start before they actually have a phone in their hands.

 

[Velli]

Which would be useless unless the listener was very, very familiar with a very highly accurate version of the listening material.

Not at all. Put a Sonos speaker in a corner, and I guarantee you that my 70 year old mother will be able to blindly hear the difference between Trueplay on and off, playing Barbie Girl.

 

[Velli]

I'm a Sonos fanatic, and I'm not even sure what Trueplay does for the room in which we have our home theater. Maybe it sounds, "better," or maybe it's a placebo? The speakers are incredible, however, and occasionally during a movie the surround is so real it convinces our dog someone's outside, or it literally "feels," like something is moving through the room. So, maybe Trueplay works? I'm just not sure I could tell the difference.

In theory, the better the system sounds without Trueplay, the less difference it should do. Trueplay is mostly designed to be an easy-to-use solution if your speaker placement for whichever reason has to be all screwed up.

 

[Velli]

I'm sorry but this is just crap.

Traditional surround sound is for the birds and needs to change. Immersion comes from having a consistent audio experience. Your suggestion that more ambient sound "takes you out" is ridiculous. You know what takes you out of the experience? Every 30 minutes hearing a single sound effect play from the surrounds and realizing, "Oh hey they do work". Surrounds need to be better utilized, and they can be if traditional and boring approaches to it are shunted.

Assuming your system is properly set up, this is a discussion you need to have with the creators of the movies you are wathing. A speaker system is just a canvas, and the content creator is totally free to put 95% of the sound in the rear channels if he wants to. But it just so happens that most of the content in most movies happens on-screen, so that is where the sound is.

 

[B/D]

@Velli. Completely agree. AutoEQ/Room Correction its a wonderful, critical thing (when implemented correctly can do wonders for the perceived sound quality ), that should be widely available for the vast majority of consumer self powered speakers (but it isn´t outside things like Sonos, Homepods, or the Echo Studio). Perhaps some day.

No blind test neccesary. Normally, the difference is quite significant.

 

[Kabeyun]

I'll try again without the snarkiness: Why do you think this is needed or relevant? This is EQ. There are very few things in audio that potentially make more difference than EQ. EQ is not snakeoil.

I understand why some people limit themselves to objective improvements. But I don't understand this race to the bottom of trying to downplay even objective improvements, by arguing that they may not be audible in a blind test. And this particular feature is probably the most likely candidate ever for a difference you CAN hear in a blind test... Put your speaker in the corner, and you will easily boost the bass by more than 10 dB. Even a rough, inaccurate EQ will make a huge difference in sound under those circumstances. Sorry, but this is like asking for a test drive to check that your car has wheels.

Pretty sure you read waaay more into my comment than it contained.

 

[mthe1718]

I'm not even sure what Trueplay does

I've been in the business of tuning live sound systems. You never hear just the speaker, it's the speaker + the characteristics of the room that you hear. And different rooms color what a speaker sounds like. Trueplay compensates for the environment and puts the system closer to its intended frequency response, all while being easy for a consumer to do. It's well implemented. If you don't hear a big difference, it means you room just didn't change the frequency response much in the first place, which is a good thing.

 

[CarlJ]

They can't start before they actually have a phone in their hands.

The first iPhone 14's started shipping about two months ago. Are you suggesting their microphone tests take the better part of two months to perform? I find that rather hard to believe. Two weeks I could imagine. Two months sounds outlandish. It may be complex, but it's a well traveled path for them. And there is likely a fairly noticeable overlap in the Venn diagram between "people likely to purchase the latest iPhone" and "people likely to own Sonos speakers".

 

[CarlJ]

The issue is, I’m expecting this feature to be about as accurate as using the Apple TV/iPhone feature to calibrate your TV. Which means, it may improve, but it may also make it worse. And you don’t really know which one it is, so you’re back to subjective evaluation. In which case, we might as well go back to bass/treble controls.

Bass/treble controls only allow broad sweeping general changes, while TruePlay can set a much more nuanced response curve, more akin to a graphic equalizer.