>I'm an EDM guy and demand a certain performance to 20hz, which homepod lacks.
I've checked a lot of dance music and never found anything with meaningful 20Hz content. It's extremely rare for "deep bass" to be lower than 40Hz. The only genre I can think of that often has very deep bass is pipe organ music.
EDIT: Movie soundtracks also commonly have <40Hz content for sound effects.
This. Even with a giant subwoofer system, 20 hz is more felt than heard. The "deep 808 bass drum" usually centered between 40-60 hz. My Tr-808 was centered at ~53 hz. Keep in mind that a doubling of frequency is an octave, so 26.5 hz would be an octave down and 106hz would be an octave higher
I always understood ~20Hz to be relegated more for inaudible movie effects like you mentioned. Usually contributing to the feeling of dread, fear, and anxiety in horror movies, etc.
It’s news to me that one might need 20Hz for purely an audio track, especially in the home. I would understand at a concert or something but to demand it from a single small self-contained unit like that sounds like looking for love in all the wrong places.
Pipe organ music can commonly reach down to 16 hz or so, but for those looking for (slightly) more current music containing truly deep bass here are a few options:
Pink Floyd- Dark Side of the moon. The Heartbeat in the introduction contains significant energy in the 20-40hz range
Bass Mekanik- Each of his releases includes some music but also features a test section which will play frequencies with labels as to their frequency. Even if this sort of music isnt your thing it is helpful if you are curious as to what the frequency response of your stereo.
Tchaikovsky 1812 overture- Cannon Blasts go sub sonic.
I am a bit surprised, having received mine last Friday, I was very disappointed by the sound quality but even more with the actual features themselves. Of course this is highly subjective but I will keep my two Sonos Play:1 stereo and return the HomePod. I just wish Sonos Play:1 had a line-in or/and bluetooth connectivity...
I'm no audiophile, and I don't plan on getting a HomePod, but the interesting tidbits to me were the following:
>Apple uses Balanced Mode Radiators (BMRs) instead of industry typical tweeters. They have a response range of ~250Hz-20kHz, whereas typical tweeters have a range of 2kHz-20kHz. Here is gif of a BMR compared to other speaker technologies [1]
>Apple applies Equal-loundness contours[2] to equalize absolute energies of loudness to perceived loudness by the human ear. That is, the dB of sounds in the 2KHz-5KHz is decreased by several decibels, because the human ear is more sensitive to them.
>They recommend putting the HomePod on a small stand (5 in), because even the room correction processing Apple is using is unable to compensate for echoes that originate so close.
>There is apparently some agreement within this community, at least, that if Apple made a HomePod Plus with a larger subwoofer to allow reproducing sounds down to 18Hz, they would essentially beat the entire high-end audio market.
> That is, the dB of sounds in the 2KHz-5KHz is decreased by several decibels, because the human ear is more sensitive to them.
I would expect recorded material to already account for this. Does anyone know why Apple finds it needed to further apply sound shaping to recorded sound?
(That is, I would expect audiophile-grade equipment to best mimic the monitors on which most recordings are mixed, which presumably is a flat loudness curve.)
What surprises me most are the rave reviews in the absence of stereo (coming later), which I always thought was de rigueur for audiophiles. I look forward to those future reviews.
That's part of the point: it has a 7-tweeter 360º array that is used to add directionality to the sound. Obviously won't compare to a true stereo pair, but it's not nothing either.
Personally speaking, I'd take great mono over sub-par stereo any day anyway.
I'm a bit surprised as well, but I've also recently realized how few songs actually benefit from having stereo mixes, given they're almost all added in post processing. It matters even less for a room-wide speaker, when the listener is not at a fixed point.
That said, stereo can matter, but only when the recording itself was done in stereo. Proper stereoscopic recording is pretty cool to listen to with headphones.
Well, they are excited because the speaker performs excellently. I suspect many audiophiles will wait until they can get it to work in stereo, but when it does, the reviews should be the same since it’s just two of the same.
Also, I doubt most audiophiles would use it as their primary listening source, but it may be the perfect solution for additional listening areas.
There are 7 tweeters in each Pod. Not only does a single Pod do stereo, it will analyse the surroundings to make use of walls etc to make wider stereo than it could just do by naively choosing a side speaker.
I love music but I don't consider myself an audiophile. After having written off the HomePod yet trying one for a weekend - I cannot wait for the stereo upgrade. It is astonishingly good as a speaker.
I'm no audiophile, I do realize from reading speakers review in audiophile magazine that they tend to compare speakers in the same particular price range. The OP review seems to suggest that a dual HomePod stereo setup (about $700-800) could well compete with audiophile grade speakers in sub $1000 range. It is great feat by Apple if they can achieve it with their stereo release later this year. HomePod is "engineered" sound with its surrounding acoustic adjustment etc and I bet a large portion of audiophile prefers their gears to have a more faithful reproduction of source material. Anyway HomePod will not be the only gear for hardcore audiophile as they tend to have exotic source material equipment which HomePod can not accept. It is interesting to see in near future when dual HomePod can be used with AppleTV for movie viewing with simulated centre speaker and surround sound. I remembered Tim Cook said they finally cracked home TV few years back, maybe HomePod + AppleTV is the solution.
i dunno if this continues today, but before digital became prevalent there was something of a holy war in the audiophile community between mono and stereo. i know a lot of people still prefer the mono mix of sgt pepper, but that might be because the stereo mix of that particular album is actually inferior.
today practically all new systems marketed to audiophiles are stereo, but my guess is that most would consider faithful reproduction of the signal to be more important than the number of channels if they had to pick.
For those looking to add some deep bass to their home listening, there are really good options available these days. The availability of high power class D amplification means that you can (relatively) cheaply provide room shaking bass to a level that was prohibitively expensive even a decade ago. parts-express.com(and others as well Ive no interest in plugging their site) offers a large range of high quality subwoofer drivers in the 1-300 dollar range, they offer pre-made cabinets, but you can really save if you build your own MDF cabinet. The subwoofer plate amplifiers run ~250 bucks for 3-500 watts rms. It definitely can make movie night at home more fun.
That's the difference with "mainstream" companies (sony, panasonic, ...,apple?) and hifi one (rotel, nad, marantz, ...): sony will probably send the amp/speaker to production after it looks ok in measurements, while hifi companies always listen after measurement, tweak, measure again, listen, ... you get the point.
Sorry, can't watch the video at the moment, but: if anything, the hifi companies are tweaking for an "incorrect" response, then, right? Which it seems at best might sound "better" for one type of music but it seems like would thus have to sound worse for others. If not, it seems like all editing stations ought to have an EQ that applies the universally-superior-sounding shape to all output. (Of course this assumes speakers aim for flatness…)
Hmm. I disagree with that video on several points, mostly because I think it's a bit disingenuous and unfair. If you're going to make comparisons, you have to make them equal (or as close to equal as possible) for them to have any validity.
For one, he makes the point that, for the price, you can get that amp, an Echo Dot, and build the speakers he put together... except that's the entire point. You'd have to build the speakers yourself (including soldering!), have 3 (technically, 4) distinct pieces of equipment to maintain, and you have to have that unsightly hardware and wires everywhere. The setup he shows in the video looks like complete crap to me and there's no way that I would put it out for display like that in my house. The HomePod isn't meant to be an alternative for that. It's meant to compete with other wireless speakers and, when compared against those, it's a significantly better product at a slightly higher price. It's like the "I can build a PC myself that's way better than an iMac for cheaper". Sure you can...but don't pretend like it's the same quality, form factor, ease of setup, or any multitude of reasons why the price differs from a DIY solution. That's not the point here.
The other thing that bothered me is that he tested it in a studio with sound insulation on the walls and then complains about the audio and balance, saying that it's very bass heavy. Again, this isn't what the HomePod was designed for. The mics and the processor are specifically meant to listen for acoustics and reflections and use those to set up the soundstage for the speaker. He's taken all that away and then complains that it's too bass-heavy. Of course it's too bass-heavy! He removed the entire mechanism by which the HomePod determines its output!
Now, I'm sure everyone will be quick to point out that he moved it into his bedroom as if that's a good example of his objectivity. I would agree except that he then doesn't objectively assess the HomePod. He, again, compares it (which he says he set up on his nightstand or table) to his custom-built speakers that are mounted to provide directionality to his sweet spot. He's starting from a non-neutral reference point, comparing to something that the HomePod is not even attempting to be a comparison to, and then pretending to make the objective assessment that it's lacking. Of course it's lacking! It's also lacking when compared to my home theatre setup. That's not really a fair assessment. If he had put an actual Echo on the same nightstand/table and then compared them, I'd find that fair.
Again... I think the HomePod is really just a wireless speaker that is significantly higher quality than what you'd normally get from a wireless speaker at a slightly higher price. As an audiophile, I like it much better than my Echo, my Sonos, or the little Bluetooth speaker that my wife has for obvious reasons. Of course I can build something that sounds better for that amount of money. That's not the point. I'm not going to be able to put together what they did in the package they did for that money without a ton of hassle. That's where the HomePod is worth it to me. YMMV.
I've been convinced by a knowledgeable person[1] that measurements are the only useful way to measure performance. To paraphrase poorly: subjective reviews are useless since they are limited by the reviewers subjective perception, their ability to turn that perception into words, and your ability to turn those words into a concrete idea about how something sounds. Since there is no part of a speaker's performance that cannot be precisely measured, the best course of action is to learn how each measurement affects your perception and what qualities you like in a speaker. Then you can fairly accurately evaluate if you would like a speaker with just a few graphs.
(Of course this is completely impractical for almost everyone, but I'm talking about some platonic ideal of audiophile)
"I also paid full price for this HomePod, with my own money. I paid for all the equipment to measure it with, and I own every speaker in featured in this review."
This is very clear too:
"Neither KEF, nor Apple is paying me to write this review, nor have they ever paid me in the past."
This wasn't necessary, in my opinion, but again is very open:
"At the same time, I’m a huge apple fan. Basically, all the technology I own is apple-related. I don't mind being in their ecosystem, and it’s my responsibility to tell you this."
The reviewer seemed to be very frank about listing their biases in fairness (see the big section titled 'Bias' in the review). And they shared their original data, so it's up to you what you want to make of it.
There is no way i'm believing this thing actually sounds good unless Apple are using some tech that is not a normal transducer based loud-speaker...
First off: This guy is talking about "measurements" not perceptible quality, and anyone who has reasonable experience in audio quality will know that amp specs and measurements have almost zero correlation to audible sound quality and musicality (THD anyone).
Second: An all in one active load-speaker this small, singular and low powered will never sound "good" compared to the same money spent on actual audio (a basic integrated amp and some bookshelf speaker).
These types of devices are always a bag of compromise for audio quality, in the form of "everything must be small" (speaker diaphragms and drivers suffer because you need both large and small ones to comfortably reproduce the frequency spectrum without seriously fucking with the audio signal), battery powered (D-class amps), and finally mono for some bizarre reason, because who cares about sound anyway.
mrob|8 years ago
I've checked a lot of dance music and never found anything with meaningful 20Hz content. It's extremely rare for "deep bass" to be lower than 40Hz. The only genre I can think of that often has very deep bass is pipe organ music.
EDIT: Movie soundtracks also commonly have <40Hz content for sound effects.
S_A_P|8 years ago
52-6F-62|8 years ago
It’s news to me that one might need 20Hz for purely an audio track, especially in the home. I would understand at a concert or something but to demand it from a single small self-contained unit like that sounds like looking for love in all the wrong places.
S_A_P|8 years ago
Pink Floyd- Dark Side of the moon. The Heartbeat in the introduction contains significant energy in the 20-40hz range
Bass Mekanik- Each of his releases includes some music but also features a test section which will play frequencies with labels as to their frequency. Even if this sort of music isnt your thing it is helpful if you are curious as to what the frequency response of your stereo.
Tchaikovsky 1812 overture- Cannon Blasts go sub sonic.
geoffreyy|8 years ago
eridius|8 years ago
oflannabhra|8 years ago
>Apple uses Balanced Mode Radiators (BMRs) instead of industry typical tweeters. They have a response range of ~250Hz-20kHz, whereas typical tweeters have a range of 2kHz-20kHz. Here is gif of a BMR compared to other speaker technologies [1]
>Apple applies Equal-loundness contours[2] to equalize absolute energies of loudness to perceived loudness by the human ear. That is, the dB of sounds in the 2KHz-5KHz is decreased by several decibels, because the human ear is more sensitive to them.
>They recommend putting the HomePod on a small stand (5 in), because even the room correction processing Apple is using is unable to compensate for echoes that originate so close.
>There is apparently some agreement within this community, at least, that if Apple made a HomePod Plus with a larger subwoofer to allow reproducing sounds down to 18Hz, they would essentially beat the entire high-end audio market.
[1] - https://gfycat.com/BiodegradableNiftyKoala
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour
colanderman|8 years ago
I would expect recorded material to already account for this. Does anyone know why Apple finds it needed to further apply sound shaping to recorded sound?
(That is, I would expect audiophile-grade equipment to best mimic the monitors on which most recordings are mixed, which presumably is a flat loudness curve.)
herodotus|8 years ago
Osmium|8 years ago
Personally speaking, I'd take great mono over sub-par stereo any day anyway.
falcolas|8 years ago
That said, stereo can matter, but only when the recording itself was done in stereo. Proper stereoscopic recording is pretty cool to listen to with headphones.
All my opinion, of course.
berberous|8 years ago
Also, I doubt most audiophiles would use it as their primary listening source, but it may be the perfect solution for additional listening areas.
sambeau|8 years ago
jakebasile|8 years ago
jaxondu|8 years ago
leetcrew|8 years ago
today practically all new systems marketed to audiophiles are stereo, but my guess is that most would consider faithful reproduction of the signal to be more important than the number of channels if they had to pick.
ryanlol|8 years ago
S_A_P|8 years ago
hudo|8 years ago
That's the difference with "mainstream" companies (sony, panasonic, ...,apple?) and hifi one (rotel, nad, marantz, ...): sony will probably send the amp/speaker to production after it looks ok in measurements, while hifi companies always listen after measurement, tweak, measure again, listen, ... you get the point.
glhaynes|8 years ago
Edit: this other thread on this same post is already discussing this topic - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16360296
dkonofalski|8 years ago
For one, he makes the point that, for the price, you can get that amp, an Echo Dot, and build the speakers he put together... except that's the entire point. You'd have to build the speakers yourself (including soldering!), have 3 (technically, 4) distinct pieces of equipment to maintain, and you have to have that unsightly hardware and wires everywhere. The setup he shows in the video looks like complete crap to me and there's no way that I would put it out for display like that in my house. The HomePod isn't meant to be an alternative for that. It's meant to compete with other wireless speakers and, when compared against those, it's a significantly better product at a slightly higher price. It's like the "I can build a PC myself that's way better than an iMac for cheaper". Sure you can...but don't pretend like it's the same quality, form factor, ease of setup, or any multitude of reasons why the price differs from a DIY solution. That's not the point here.
The other thing that bothered me is that he tested it in a studio with sound insulation on the walls and then complains about the audio and balance, saying that it's very bass heavy. Again, this isn't what the HomePod was designed for. The mics and the processor are specifically meant to listen for acoustics and reflections and use those to set up the soundstage for the speaker. He's taken all that away and then complains that it's too bass-heavy. Of course it's too bass-heavy! He removed the entire mechanism by which the HomePod determines its output!
Now, I'm sure everyone will be quick to point out that he moved it into his bedroom as if that's a good example of his objectivity. I would agree except that he then doesn't objectively assess the HomePod. He, again, compares it (which he says he set up on his nightstand or table) to his custom-built speakers that are mounted to provide directionality to his sweet spot. He's starting from a non-neutral reference point, comparing to something that the HomePod is not even attempting to be a comparison to, and then pretending to make the objective assessment that it's lacking. Of course it's lacking! It's also lacking when compared to my home theatre setup. That's not really a fair assessment. If he had put an actual Echo on the same nightstand/table and then compared them, I'd find that fair.
Again... I think the HomePod is really just a wireless speaker that is significantly higher quality than what you'd normally get from a wireless speaker at a slightly higher price. As an audiophile, I like it much better than my Echo, my Sonos, or the little Bluetooth speaker that my wife has for obvious reasons. Of course I can build something that sounds better for that amount of money. That's not the point. I'm not going to be able to put together what they did in the package they did for that money without a ton of hassle. That's where the HomePod is worth it to me. YMMV.
smackfu|8 years ago
mastax|8 years ago
(Of course this is completely impractical for almost everyone, but I'm talking about some platonic ideal of audiophile)
1: http://zaphaudio.com/
kkirsche|8 years ago
reiichiroh|8 years ago
sidibe|8 years ago
sambeau|8 years ago
"I also paid full price for this HomePod, with my own money. I paid for all the equipment to measure it with, and I own every speaker in featured in this review."
This is very clear too:
"Neither KEF, nor Apple is paying me to write this review, nor have they ever paid me in the past."
This wasn't necessary, in my opinion, but again is very open:
"At the same time, I’m a huge apple fan. Basically, all the technology I own is apple-related. I don't mind being in their ecosystem, and it’s my responsibility to tell you this."
Osmium|8 years ago
jakebasile|8 years ago
tomxor|8 years ago
First off: This guy is talking about "measurements" not perceptible quality, and anyone who has reasonable experience in audio quality will know that amp specs and measurements have almost zero correlation to audible sound quality and musicality (THD anyone).
Second: An all in one active load-speaker this small, singular and low powered will never sound "good" compared to the same money spent on actual audio (a basic integrated amp and some bookshelf speaker).
These types of devices are always a bag of compromise for audio quality, in the form of "everything must be small" (speaker diaphragms and drivers suffer because you need both large and small ones to comfortably reproduce the frequency spectrum without seriously fucking with the audio signal), battery powered (D-class amps), and finally mono for some bizarre reason, because who cares about sound anyway.
lobster_johnson|8 years ago
Having purchased the HomePod, it's noticeably better than the bookshelf speakers I own (AudioEngine A2+ and Odyssey LES).
It also sounds as good as my Vizio soundbar/subwoofer combo, though I've not compared it at high volume or with movies.
It is, not unexpectedly, vastly better than my battery-powered BeoPlay P2 Bluetooth speaker.
I'm very impressed.
jtbayly|8 years ago