Two HomePods are NOT a Soundbar

[BlankStar]

Even with that functionality of being able to control the TV, there’s still the issue of sound. Right now the HP is not tuned for playing movies. Until that is changed, I see no purpose in controlling the TV.

For me it depends on what I'm watching. Some netflix bingewatching is fine with the HP. No need for the whole x.1 surround setup and stuff. But all that is personal ofcourse.

Nevertheless, let's hope Airplay 2 and iOS 12 bring some advancements on that front... (both HP tuning & voice controlling the Apple TV)

You are, fries need frite saus, preferably by Remia. Or as some refer to it; mayonnaise.

You are bonkers

Mayonnaise & "fritessaus" are not the same my friend. Mayonnaise has a 75+% amount of fat and fritessaus has 25%-ish of fat.
In Belgium, the home of the fries (they're not French you stupid American soldiers who heard French in Belgium ), we prefer mayonnaise since eating them is ruining your diet anyway ;-)

*end of off-topic rant*

 

[bmac4]

For me it depends on what I'm watching. Some netflix bingewatching is fine with the HP. No need for the whole x.1 surround setup and stuff. But all that is personal ofcourse.

Nevertheless, let's hope Airplay 2 and iOS 12 bring some advancements on that front... (both HP tuning & voice controlling the Apple TV)



Mayonnaise & "fritessaus" are not the same my friend. Mayonnaise has a 75+% amount of fat and fritessaus has 25%-ish of fat.
In Belgium, the home of the fries (they're not French you stupid American soldiers who heard French in Belgium ), we prefer mayonnaise since eating them is ruining your diet anyway ;-)

*end of off-topic rant*

Yeah I can see that a bit, but I guess I was hoping for better results from the HP. It sounds so good as a music player that I assumed it could sound just that amazing as a sound bar. I am still not sure why Apple is missing this. It’s seems like a complete no brainer.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

F
Mayonnaise & "fritessaus" are not the same my friend. Mayonnaise has a 75+% amount of fat and fritessaus has 25%-ish of fat.
In Belgium, the home of the fries (they're not French you stupid American soldiers who heard French in Belgium ), we prefer mayonnaise since eating them is ruining your diet anyway ;-)

Oh gosh I know the distinction, yet most people in the world call it 'putting mayonnaise' on the frietjes. And yes, much less fat, yet much tastier as well, in Frite Sauce.

PS. Much better Frietjes in the Netherlands with Remia Fritesaus. Or even better a 'patatje speciaal'.

*end of off-topic rant*

Hehehe sorry, how can we get from HomePod to Soundbar to Fries with Mayo

 

[BlankStar]

I've got it: with airplay 2.0 the Apple TV can use the internal speakers of the tv as the center channel and two HP's for left and right: 2.1 setup achieved.

 

[craig1410]

I think many of you, including the OP are neglecting the fact that, whatever the HomePod can or cannot do today only requires a software update to realise.

Apple are clearly behind schedule with software otherwise it would have shipped with Airplay 2 and multi-room support and the HomePod has more CPU power than any speaker in history (educated guess) so the potential to extend the capabilities of computational audio is huge!

If they can create a computational model of a room in close to real time using the array of mics and tweeters and woofer as they appear to be doing, does anyone seriously think that simulating a centre channel will be insurmountable when they put their minds to it? Especially with two HomePods in the same room?

We may need to start letting go of concepts such as stereo/mono and surround sound in the near future. In any case, the vast majority of people just don’t care about a “home cinema” sound setup. I myself have a Sonos Playbar and a couple of Play:1’s although the Play:1’s are usually located outside the lounge because I’m pretty much the only person in my family of 5 who cares about home cinema, and to be honest even I don’t miss the array of speakers and wires and receivers etc that used to furnish our lounge and which now lie in boxes in our attic. I would dearly love to get rid of our satellite TV box and just have a dumb TV, Apple TV 4K box, a couple of HomePods and an internet connection! Such a setup would free the TV from the same corner of the room it has been in for 13 years as it would only require power and a WiFi signal!

I have a single HomePod currently and so far I really love it and definitely won’t be buying any more Sonos gear in the near future. I have tried it very briefly in my living room attached via AirPlay 1 to my Apple TV 4K and as expected it doesn’t CURRENTLY perform as well as my Playbar as a TV speaker but I didn’t really give it a chance as I had it plugged in way off to the right side. What I can say is that audio sync was not an issue due to the fact that Airplay delays both audio and video by 2 seconds equally. I might try the HomePod in a more central position one night when I’ve got the TV to myself to get a better idea of how it performs but as I said at the start of this post, it doesn’t really matter what it does today, we can only judge it properly when all the pieces fall into place hopefully in the coming months with the Airplay 2 etc update. Until then all we can do is speculate.

 

[vipergts2207]

I've got it: with airplay 2.0 the Apple TV can use the internal speakers of the tv as the center channel and two HP's for left and right: 2.1 setup achieved.

That is not what 2.1 means. Not to mention the whole point is to NOT use the garbage TV speakers, but yet you'd be routing 90% of dialogue to the worst speaker...

 

[subjonas]

I agree with others that as far as hardware is concerned, a pair of HomePods should have the potential to replace a soundbar and provide very good home theater audio.

All a soundbar is really is an upgrade from the cruddy tv speakers. Any pair of decent stereo speakers should be able to do that better than a soundbar, because regular stereo speakers aren’t as constrained by size, shape, and limited stereo separation.

However, the limited stereo separation of a soundbar can also be seen as its strength, since, like a center channel, it “anchors” the centralized dialogue audio to the screen, which helps give people sitting outside the “sweet spot” a bit more of a natural experience. The merits of a center channel are a subject of debate, however. Some prefer unfettered high quality stereo and say, “screw people sitting outside the sweet spot”.

I've got it: with airplay 2.0 the Apple TV can use the internal speakers of the tv as the center channel and two HP's for left and right: 2.1 setup achieved.

In 2.1, the “.1” refers to the subwoofer. So two stereo speakers with a center channel would be 3.0, I guess. Interesting idea, but not ideal because of the low quality tv speakers.

 

[Karnicopia]

I actually think these could make great HT speakers in that they would all be timbre matched could all be programmed to fire direct content toward the listening area and atmospheric information that appears in more than one channel off the walls as surround information similar to how PLIIz works. The speakers could be crossed over pretty low since they are all self powered. I think they could work really well as atmos speakers and are probably already much more capable at this than anything else on the market already. They also have the benefit of not needing to be wired to a receiver or to be honest even needing a receiver or amplification, or calibration.

Apple comes out with a HomePod Center that can take typical HT inputs and a HomePod Sub and they make a killing in the HT market. It isn't going to beat high powered big speakers but the average customer isn't really interested in that they want good sound without having to worry about wiring. I think Apple would make a lot of money here.

 

[vipergts2207]

I actually think these could make great HT speakers in that they would all be timbre matched could all be programmed to fire direct content toward the listening area and atmospheric information that appears in more than one channel off the walls as surround information similar to how PLIIz works. The speakers could be crossed over pretty low since they are all self powered. I think they could work really well as atmos speakers and are probably already much more capable at this than anything else on the market already. They also have the benefit of not needing to be wired to a receiver or to be honest even needing a receiver or amplification, or calibration.

Apple comes out with a HomePod Center that can take typical HT inputs and a HomePod Sub and they make a killing in the HT market. It isn't going to beat high powered big speakers but the average customer isn't really interested in that they want good sound without having to worry about wiring. I think Apple would make a lot of money here.

HomePods are not Atmos capable because they aren’t designed properly, at all. Don’t know what gives you the idea that they’re more capable than anything else on the market since in-ceiling speakers are the single best way to do Atmos, bar none.

 

[Karnicopia]

HomePods are not Atmos capable because they aren’t designed properly, at all. Don’t know what gives you the idea that they’re more capable than anything else on the market since in-ceiling speakers are the single best way to do Atmos, bar none.

Because it could EQ each speaker in the array to either send direct content if it's facing the listening position or surround content if it's not. Each speaker would be able to act in an array of intelligent Bi-pole surrounds while still providing the localized content directly. So if something is coded as coming from the top right of one of your rear surrounds in Atmos the HomePod could actually direct that content in that specific direction using the wave forming of a tweeter array. I really can't think of any speaker that could remotely do that. There are bi(di)-polar that can just throw out a lot of surround content but nothing that I know of that could direct that information intelligently based on the way it's coded. I think that is really powerful for Atmos which can encode where these locations should be so I guess what I'm saying is if you have a way to encode exactly where a sound should come from and a speaker that can direct sound to exact locations that's a pretty amazing overlap of capability and I think does make it potentially the best Atmos speaker out there.

In ceiling is great too because of placement but not necessarily capability. Again if you could ceiling mount a HomePod it could send the localized content down and de localized off surrounding walls in whatever direction it needed to. They definitely aren't a typical speaker design but I think that can actually give them significant advantages in HT if they are programmed correctly. The main difference is nobody is likely to put a HomePod on the ceiling so in ceiling would probably be better but honestly most people probably aren't going to be putting any speakers in the ceiling in which case the HomePod could probably achieve better results than a typical speaker design because of the intelligent directionality they are capable of. If you can't install a speaker in the ceiling being able to bounce a signal off of different points on that ceiling would be a great way to achieve the same effect and if you are able to direct this based on the way the location information is encoded in Atmos intelligently it could be a really powerful and low construction way of achieving that effect at almost any point on the ceiling.

 

[vipergts2207]

Because it could EQ each speaker in the array to either send direct content if it's facing the listening position or surround content if it's not. Each speaker would be able to act in an array of intelligent Bi-pole surrounds while still providing the localized content directly. So if something is coded as coming from the top right of one of your rear surrounds in Atmos the HomePod could actually direct that content in that specific direction using the wave forming of a tweeter array. I really can't think of any speaker that could remotely do that. There are bi(di)-polar that can just throw out a lot of surround content but nothing that I know of that could direct that information intelligently based on the way it's coded. I think that is really powerful for Atmos which can encode where these locations should be so I guess what I'm saying is if you have a way to encode exactly where a sound should come from and a speaker that can direct sound to exact locations that's a pretty amazing overlap of capability and I think does make it potentially the best Atmos speaker out there.

In ceiling is great too because of placement but not necessarily capability. Again if you could ceiling mount a HomePod it could send the localized content down and de localized off surrounding walls in whatever direction it needed to. They definitely aren't a typical speaker design but I think that can actually give them significant advantages in HT if they are programmed correctly. The main difference is nobody is likely to put a HomePod on the ceiling so in ceiling would probably be better but honestly most people probably aren't going to be putting any speakers in the ceiling in which case the HomePod could probably achieve better results than a typical speaker design because of the intelligent directionality they are capable of. If you can't install a speaker in the ceiling being able to bounce a signal off of different points on that ceiling would be a great way to achieve the same effect and if you are able to direct this based on the way the location information is encoded in Atmos intelligently it could be a really powerful and low construction way of achieving that effect at almost any point on the ceiling.

What you’re talking about is simulated surround, not Atmos. Atmos is specifically related to the vertical dimension by either having a source directly in the ceiling or a properly designed speaker to reflect sound off of the ceiling so that it sounds like that’s where the sound originates.

Atmos speakers look like this. Notice the distinct facing of the drivers so that when placed on your front speakers, they bounce sound off of the ceiling in a manner to allow it to arrive at the seating area.

http://www.klipsch.com/products/elevation-speakers?model=rp-140sa

The HomePod may be able to do a simulated surround if Apple were to implement it, but not Atmos. The tweeters’ arrangement would only allow them to bounce sound off of walls. And while the woofer faces upward, it isn’t angled and sound would mostly come straight back down on top of the HomePod. Low frequencies also coincidentally reflect the most poorly and the woofer crossover is reported to be somewhere around 200-500 Hz.

 

[Karnicopia]

What you’re talking about is simulated surround, not Atmos. Atmos is specifically related to the vertical dimension by either having a source directly in the ceiling or a properly designed speaker to reflect sound off of the ceiling so that it sounds like that’s where the sound originates.

Atmos speakers look like this. Notice the distinct facing of the drivers so that when placed on your front speakers, they bounce sound off of the ceiling in a manner to allow it to arrive at the seating area.

http://www.klipsch.com/products/elevation-speakers?model=rp-140sa

The HomePod may be able to do a simulated surround if Apple were to implement it, but not Atmos. The tweeters’ arrangement would only allow them to bounce sound off of walls. And while the woofer faces upward, it isn’t angled and sound would mostly come straight back down on top of the HomePod. Low frequencies also coincidentally reflect the most poorly and the woofer crossover is reported to be somewhere around 200-500 Hz.

What I'm saying is Atmos can give you the coordinates that a sound should come from. HomePod can direct content to specific locations using the wave forming capability of a tweeter array and it's ability to sample it's environment. That combination of being able to tell exactly what point a sound should come from and being able to deliver that sound to that point is exactly the point of Atmos. It makes the HomePod potentially the most powerful atmos speaker by a fairly significant margin because of the combination of the two capabilities. Pinpoint the source of a sound and deliver that sound to that specific point without drilling a bunch of holes in what will never be the exact correct position anyway.

 

[cap7ainclu7ch]

What I'm saying is Atmos can give you the coordinates that a sound should come from. HomePod can direct content to specific locations using the wave forming capability of a tweeter array and it's ability to sample it's environment. That combination of being able to tell exactly what point a sound should come from and being able to deliver that sound to that point is exactly the point of Atmos. It makes the HomePod potentially the most powerful atmos speaker by a fairly significant margin because of the combination of the two capabilities. Pinpoint the source of a sound and deliver that sound to that specific point without drilling a bunch of holes in what will never be the exact correct position anyway.

Can Atmos work without the specialized speakers that bounce off the ceiling? It does seem like even though the HP can't do that, that they would still be a great tool for Atmos style sound delivery.

 

[Karnicopia]

Can Atmos work without the specialized speakers that bounce off the ceiling? It does seem like even though the HP can't do that, that they would still be a great tool for Atmos style sound delivery.

So the basic idea is the mirror method if you bounce the sound off of a surface it's pretty much like having a speaker in that location. That's actually why people find speakers in bad locations muddy is because it's kind of like putting a bunch of speakers right next to each other (thousands) which smears the sound. It's also how you place room treatments is to avoid mirror reflections of audio at the listening position that can smear the sound. If you can aim sound directly though based on the position and sound characteristics of the room (which is basically what the HomePod does) I think it could be a really powerful speaker for this. The thing is nobody is putting this kind of intelligence, self amplification and sensor capability for each driver in an array like this as there isn't really a point to.

Apple may have stumbled onto something truly great though because if they come out with a center that can take HT input and a decent sub they really may be able to disrupt the market. These things are solid down to 40hz so they are great for surrounds because they can handle any localized bass and you don't need to wire them to anything except a normal wall outlet. Each one doesn't have a lot of power consumption but it's 7 horn loaded tweeters so those things are pretty efficient and really loud in whatever direction it needs and the woofer is double excursion so it's probably moving as much air as a 6.5" woofer which gives you about 40hz and what you need for music or surrounds and if you look at the measurements these are basically flat to 40 Hz which is great crossover for HT.

They aren't going to compete with high end HT speakers as far as sheer output but they can put out a heck of a lot of sound and again may have significant capability without drilling a lot of holes in the wall and there is a lot of money to be made in that.

 

[vipergts2207]

What I'm saying is Atmos can give you the coordinates that a sound should come from. HomePod can direct content to specific locations using the wave forming capability of a tweeter array and it's ability to sample it's environment. That combination of being able to tell exactly what point a sound should come from and being able to deliver that sound to that point is exactly the point of Atmos. It makes the HomePod potentially the most powerful atmos speaker by a fairly significant margin because of the combination of the two capabilities. Pinpoint the source of a sound and deliver that sound to that specific point without drilling a bunch of holes in what will never be the exact correct position anyway.

Yes, Atmos uses object-oriented audio. However, my point wasn’t that HomePod couldn’t bounce audio off of walls, because it could. It cannot bounce audio off of the ceiling though, which is the point. Instead of audio being in a 2D plane, you can create a 3D aural atmosphere with Atmos. Without ceiling reflections the HomePod cannot make it sound like it’s coming from above you, only around you.

 

[Karnicopia]

Yes, Atmos uses object-oriented audio. However, my point wasn’t that HomePod couldn’t bounce audio off of walls, because it could. It cannot bounce audio off of the ceiling though, which is the point. Instead of audio being in a 2D plane, you can create a 3D aural atmosphere with Atmos. Without ceiling reflections the HomePod cannot make it sound like it’s coming from above you, only around you.

It says direct and indirect beam forming audio so I definitely wouldn't take that to mean it can only project sound in a 2 dimensional field and it could definitely project sound in more directions and more accurately than a conventional speaker design at which point you are again talking about placement instead of capability. It also wouldn't be any more difficult to bounce sound from a wall to the ceiling than to bounce sound directly from the ceiling (or floor) in that you would just need more amplitude to the signal to account for the signal loss. This is already what Audyssey does to account for speaker distance and phase shift to arrive correctly at the listening position. From the speakers perspective all it has to do is shoot sound in various directions against the walls and see how that sound is reflected to the listening position as normal and what position it arrives at which would be new. Map where it has to send sounds to where they end up in the listening position and the amplitude it needs to send the audio and it should work. The process does't have to care how many reflections or steps the sound needs to take it just needs to know what direction and amplitude and time delay to send sound and how that sound is received at the listening position at a desired position and amplitude and time. If it has to bounce upward off a wall to the ceiling to the listening position doesn't really matter as long as you amplify the signal enough and can measure the response of all potential directions you should be able to map the atmos coordinates.

Again this is largely what Audyssey type software already does is measure the frequency response and time delay and how it impacts the listening position. The difference is because of the ability to direct high frequency sound in the direction you could map amplitude time delay and direction of the sound. You add one variable to the equation and you just need enough processing power to calculate that and each one of these is packing the processing power of an iphone which is pretty significant and the sensors which these also have a full array of microphones to measure the environment. Each speaker can handle it's own sensing, signal processing and amplfication. You would basically have a parallel processing receiver with multiple calibration mic per speaker that are beam forming and directional. I think the potential in this area is pretty significant.

 

[vipergts2207]

It says direct and indirect beam forming audio so I definitely wouldn't take that to mean it can only project sound in a 2 dimensional field and it could definitely project sound in more directions and more accurately than a conventional speaker design at which point you are again talking about placement instead of capability. It also wouldn't be any more difficult to bounce sound from a wall to the ceiling than to bounce sound directly from the ceiling (or floor) in that you would just need more amplitude to the signal to account for the signal loss. This is already what Audyssey does to account for speaker distance and phase shift to arrive correctly at the listening position. From the speakers perspective all it has to do is shoot sound in various directions against the walls and see how that sound is reflected to the listening position as normal and what position it arrives at which would be new. Map where it has to send sounds to where they end up in the listening position and the amplitude it needs to send the audio and it should work. The process does't have to care how many reflections or steps the sound needs to take it just needs to know what direction and amplitude and time delay to send sound and how that sound is received at the listening position at a desired position and amplitude and time. If it has to bounce upward off a wall to the ceiling to the listening position doesn't really matter as long as you amplify the signal enough and can measure the response of all potential directions you should be able to map the atmos coordinates.

Again this is largely what Audyssey type software already does is measure the frequency response and time delay and how it impacts the listening position. The difference is because of the ability to direct high frequency sound in the direction you could map amplitude time delay and direction of the sound. You add one variable to the equation and you just need enough processing power to calculate that and each one of these is packing the processing power of an iphone which is pretty significant and the sensors which these also have a full array of microphones to measure the environment. Each speaker can handle it's own sensing, signal processing and amplfication. You would basically have a parallel processing receiver with multiple calibration mic per speaker that are beam forming and directional. I think the potential in this area is pretty significant.

Clearly you think the the HomePod is far more capable than it is in reality. You’re treating beam forming like a laser bouncing off a mirror, which it certainly is not. It’s much more akin to a flashlight (though not exactly) and after the first reflection the sound diffuses around the room rather than with any sort of coherence.

A misguided attempt at using multiple reflections also falls victim to the inverse square law. You’re going to end up hearing the sound coming from the speaker as it compensates for increasing distance the sound travels and energy loss of bouncing off of surfaces.

You cannot bounce audio from a wall to a ceiling. The angles you’d need to be at play are not there.

Additionally, Audyssey uses a mic at the MLP, which is why it’s able to do what it does. The HomePod however does not know what it sounds like at the MLP, which that alone makes it impossible to do what you’re claiming.

The HomePod you’re describing is a fantasy and no more real than a unicorn.

 

[Karnicopia]

Clearly you think the the HomePod is far more capable than it is in reality. You’re treating beam forming like a laser bouncing off a mirror, which it certainly is not. It’s much more akin to a flashlight (though not exactly) and after the first reflection the sound diffuses around the room rather than with any sort of coherence.

A misguided attempt at using multiple reflections also falls victim to the inverse square law. You’re going to end up hearing the sound coming from the speaker as it compensates for increasing distance the sound travels and energy loss of bouncing off of surfaces.

You cannot bounce audio from a wall to a ceiling. The angles you’d need to be at play are not there.

Additionally, Audyssey uses a mic at the MLP, which is why it’s able to do what it does. The HomePod however does not know what it sounds like at the MLP, which that alone makes it impossible to do what you’re claiming.

The HomePod you’re describing is a fantasy and no more real than a unicorn.

Of course you can you just provide more volume to the signal if it is at low amplitude you provide more power on the signal, if it takes twice longer to get there you send the sound earlier than the others. This is already what audyssey does with amplitude and time delay. The room is a black box the software doesn't care what path the sound took to get somewhere it cares about the amplitude of the signal and the time delay that's it. It doesn't map the path of the sound you shoot sound in various directions and measure how it impacts the listening position you don't care about whatever happened in between. The only piece I'm saying is the home pod can clearly directionally send sounds around the room based on the measured response. You are correct that you need a microphone at the listening position but that's absolutely trivial to acomplish. All you really have to do to solve this is put a microphone at the listening position. This adds one dimension to the calculation that Audyssey and the real missing piece is the ability of a speaker to direct sound intelligently which is obviously what the HomePod does.

It isn't an issue with measuring it's an issue with directing sounds which is done with the tweeter array not fantasy or unicorn. If you have a tweeter array you can delay the sound out of each speaker in the array to give shape direction to the sound. It isn't fantasy or some magic unicorn it's how a tweeter array can function if you can intelligently direct sound to it which is what the home pod is already doing and yes audio controlled by a micro processor and array of tweeters can provide far more directionality than a direct firing speaker that you drilled into a wall for WAF purposes. You really don't need a laser beam to be more accurate than the handful of holes you drilled into your ceiling. You want to insult the potential here or make fun of the concepts I really don't care but the application is pretty straightforward, sound and simple to understand and the it's a hell of a lot more convenient having something like home pod reflect sound than having to drill in and wire bunch of direct radiating speakers that can only fire in one direction. If you don't see potential in that I don't know what to tell you.

 

[vipergts2207]

Of course you can you just provide more volume to the signal if it is at half amplitude you provide twice the power on the signal, if it takes twice as long to get there you send the sound 2x earlier than the others. This is already what audyssey does with amplitude and time delay. The room is a black box the software doesn't care what path the sound took to get somewhere it cares about the amplitude of the signal and the time delay that's it. The only piece I'm saying is the home pod can clearly directionally send sounds around the room based on the measured response. You are correct that you need a microphone at the listening position but that's absolutely trivial to acomplish. This adds one dimension to the calculation that Audyssey and the real missing piece is the ability of a speaker to direct sound intelligently which is obviously what the HomePod does.

It isn't an issue with measuring it's an issue with directing sounds which is done with the tweeter array not fantasy or unicorn. If you have a tweeter array you can delay the sound out of each speaker in the array to give shape direction to the sound. It isn't fantasy or some magic unicorn it's how a tweeter array can function if you can intelligently direct sound to it which is what the home pod is doing. You want to insult the potential here or make fun of the concepts I really don't care but the application is pretty straightforward, sound and simple to understand and it's a hell of a lot more convenient having something like home pod reflect sound off of walls than having to drill in a bunch of direct radiating speakers that can only fire in one direction.

I’m done trying to explain. You lack a basic understanding of geometry, physics, and acoustics. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. Continue on with your fantasy, though I hope others have more sense than to believe the unicorn physics you’re peddling.

 

[Karnicopia]

I’m done trying to explain. You lack a basic understanding of geometry, physics, and acoustics. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. Continue on with your fantasy, though I hope others have more sense than to believe the unicorn physics you’re peddling.

Resorting to insults is usually far more indicative of someone having no more straws to grasp for than them having some kind of superior understanding of the topic at hand.

 

[vipergts2207]

Resorting to insults is usually far more indicative of someone having no more straws to grasp for than them having a strong understanding of the topic at hand. If you had a strong understanding of the topic at hand you wouldn't spend your time with insults.

I’ve explained the flaws in what you’re saying already. If you want to see why you’re wrong, feel free to go back and reread my responses. I’m not going to waste my time repeating myself though.

 

[Karnicopia]

I’ve explained the flaws in what you’re saying already. If you want to see why you’re wrong, feel free to go back and reread my responses. I’m not going to waste my time repeating myself though.

Directionally bouncing sound off of walls is far from impossible the HomePod is doing this today. Adding amplitude to the signal to account for signal loss (and time delay BTW) is also pretty far from impossible Audyssey is doing this today. The ceiling is nothing but a wall in a different direction. You don't need the accuracy of a lazer to provide more directionality than the handful of holes you drilled into your ceiling to place your speakers. Those 5 holes you drilled into your ceiling firing sound in one direction could easily be beaten by the accuracy of a tweeter array reflecting sound and you wouldn't have to drill a bunch of holes and wire them. Again if you don't see the potential in this it is a lack of vision not some deep understanding of physics.

 

[vipergts2207]

Directionally bouncing sound off of walls is far from impossible the HomePod is doing this today.

I never said it was impossible, far from it, but what you're claiming can be done exceeds the limits of that technique. You'll get one reflection off the wall (the first one) that will be semi-coherent. By the time you get to secondary and tertiary reflections, which is what you're talking about would require, the sound will be an incoherent mess and effectively be nothing more than faint echoes. Sound. Is. Not. Reflected. Like. A. Laser. Off. A. Mirror.

Strike one.

Adding amplitude to the signal to account for signal loss (and time delay BTW) is also pretty far from impossible Audyssey is doing this today.

Completely ignoring my previous point, by the time you add enough dB to get the sound to the listener at proper volume (due to multiple reflections and increased distances), it will be so loud coming from the speaker that this is where it will appear to originate, not the reflected surface. Of course this assumes the specific tweeter playing that sound can get that loud in the first place, which a single HomePod tweeter is unlikely going to be able to do.

Strike two.

The ceiling is nothing but a wall in a different direction. You don't need the accuracy of a lazer to provide more directionality than the handful of holes you drilled into your ceiling to place your speakers.

While holding a laser parallel to the ground, and only parallel to the ground, (the same way the tweeters face), please demonstrate how it would be possible to reflect the light (sound) from the wall to the ceiling.

Strike three.

 

[Karnicopia]

Directionally bouncing sound off of walls is far from impossible the HomePod is doing this today.

I never said it was impossible, far from it, but what you're claiming can be done exceeds the limits of that technique. You'll get one reflection off the wall (the first one) that will be semi-coherent. By the time you get to secondary and tertiary reflections, which is what you're talking about would require, the sound will be an incoherent mess and effectively be nothing more than faint echoes. Sound. Is. Not. Reflected. Like. A. Laser. Off. A. Mirror.

Strike one.

Adding amplitude to the signal to account for signal loss (and time delay BTW) is also pretty far from impossible Audyssey is doing this today.

Completely ignoring my previous point, by the time you add enough dB to get the sound to the listener at proper volume (due to multiple reflections and increased distances), it will be so loud coming from the speaker that this is where it will appear to originate, not the reflected surface. Of course this assumes the specific tweeter playing that sound can get that loud in the first place, which a single HomePod tweeter is unlikely going to be able to do.

Strike two.

The ceiling is nothing but a wall in a different direction. You don't need the accuracy of a lazer to provide more directionality than the handful of holes you drilled into your ceiling to place your speakers.

While holding a laser parallel to the ground, and only parallel to the ground, (the same way the tweeters face), please demonstrate how it would be possible to reflect the light (sound) from the wall to the ceiling.

Strike three.[/QUOTE]

This is exactly how audyssey already calibrates your surrounds. You shouldn't have your surround speakers firing directly into the listening position Audyssey boosts and time corrects the reflected sound at the listening position which is exactly what I'm saying. You time correct and correct the amplitude from the reflection of the tweeter array. This isn't impossible it's being done right now today in my living room. Your in ceiling Atmos speakers are likely calibrated the exact same way off of their indirect reflected audio boosted by Audyssey to sound correct at the listening position. The two are no different the only difference is the tweeter array is applying that sound in one direction which again is what the HomePod is already doing so it would not have as much reflections.

All you would have to do to reflect off the ceiling is change the placement of the speaker. There isn't physically any difference from bouncing sound off a ceiling than their is bouncing it off of a wall outside of placing the array of tweeters in a different direction. If they added a second tweeter array higher or did vertical stereo of home pods they could use stereo imaging to lift the signal to the ceiling. It's far from impossible and would be more accurate than 5 direct radiators that are drilled into the ceiling. I don't agree that this is some limitation of tweeter arrays either they can get way more accurate than your handful of direct radiators. None of this is unicorn physics the tools are there today to do this just nobody tried to put this into a speaker before.

 

[vipergts2207]

This is exactly how audyssey already calibrates your surrounds. You shouldn't have your surround speakers firing directly into the listening position Audyssey boosts and time corrects the reflected sound at the listening position which is exactly what I'm saying. You time correct and correct the amplitude from the reflection of the tweeter array. This isn't impossible it's being done right now today in my living room. Your in ceiling Atmos speakers are likely calibrated the exact same way off of their indirect reflected audio boosted by Audyssey to sound correct at the listening position. The two are no different the only difference is the tweeter array is applying that sound in one direction which again is what the HomePod is already doing so it would not have as much reflections.

All you would have to do to reflect off the ceiling is change the placement of the speaker. There isn't physically any difference from bouncing sound off a ceiling than their is bouncing it off of a wall outside of placing the array of tweeters in a different direction. If they added a second tweeter array higher or did vertical stereo of home pods they could use stereo imaging to lift the signal to the ceiling. It's far from impossible and would be more accurate than 5 direct radiators that are drilled into the ceiling. I don't agree that this is some limitation of tweeter arrays either they can get way more accurate than your handful of direct radiators. None of this is unicorn physics the tools are there today to do this just nobody tried to put this into a speaker before.

LO f'n L. If nothing else makes it clear to others that you have no clue, it should be the first bolded remark.

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/surround-sound-speaker-setup/7-1-setup.html

As for the second bolded remark, so now we're not even talking about the HomePod anymore? Certainly not as it exists today, which is what this thread is about.