"Apple Homepod: a Speaker to Reinvent Home Music"

[Eric Auer]

I have Airplay on a Android tablet, used to cast to a Pioneer AVR that also has it.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.airaudio&hl=en
You have to root your device tho.

Probably could cast to a Homepod as well.

Eric

 

[12B4A]

"These traces were taken at 1m and the only difference between them was the level of the sweep tone, and the HomePod did what it does on its own."

True, false, or more explanation required?

That's true. Streaming airplay directly from Mac running REW.

 

[RayDunzl]

That's true. Streaming airplay directly from Mac running REW.

I'll start a thread based on your measurements.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

At this point, I may have entered the realm of over analysis. Too much reading, too much thinking. I may have been better off just assuming it’s magic and accepting that.

But no. My OCD kicked in. I started asking myself questions:

To create its remarkable space, it directs whatever it thinks is important directly forward, sends secondary material to side and rear drivers, depending on placement. It knows the room, he’ll, it probably knows about the backpack hanging on a dining room chair between me and itself right now, and it adjusts itself when I move it. But it doesn’t know where I am! So I sat it on a speaker stand in the middle of my living room, set Babylon Sisters on repeat, and moved myself, in a semi circle around the thing, ears pointed toward it from positions in a 180 degree arc. I honestly didn’t hear any change in balance from complete “left or right” to dead in front of it. But that’s with it in the middle of the room, so I moved it to my tv stand, right in front of my trusty old glass-screened plasma. Gonna make her work for a living. Even set up like that, the sweet spot is huge, but I think I heard a subtle change in the balance between primary content - vocals, solos...and background material, but it was so subtle, I may have just been hearing what I expected to hear.

Of course all of that may change when a pair are set up for stereo. I’ll find out, because at just $350, I’ll be buying a second one as soon as the firmware upgrade arrives. I’m hooked.

 

[Cosmik]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43064772

Apple's new smart speakers can discolour wooden surfaces, leaving a white mark where they are placed, the firm has acknowledged....

....The £319 HomePod has been praised in reviews for the quality of the bass notes that it can produce. But to do so, it needs to be placed on a flat surface.

"Most others devices that I test have small feet that raise them off the counter ever so slightly to cause an air flow," commented Mr Miles.

"But the HomePod appears to need contact with the surface that it's on to resonate and create the powerful bass.

"I put it on a coaster to see if that would combat [leaving a mark] but that destroyed the bass qualities, so that's not a fix to the problem," he added.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43064772

No white ring here so far. He put it on a coaster? That’s a big coaster.

 

[Palladium]

The jbl lsr305p mk2 goes lower than my Atc Scm19 at half it’s size and does a good job at it, so I’ve switched to the JBLs for my living room setup. I swore I would never move away from the ATCs due their SL driver but I think they are getting left behind by active DSP speakers.

I love market disruptions like this. Dinosaurs need to evolve.

Remember how the traditional photography crowd loved poo-pooing smartphone cams about how those kiddo devices will never be as good as their DSLRs before the early-2010s? Then the meteoric rise of computation photography from the smartphone makers happened.

IMO a similar situation is happening in audio products like Homepod.

 

[Sylafari]

Remember how the traditional photography crowd loved poo-pooing smartphone cams about how those kiddo devices will never be as good as their DSLRs before the early-2010s? Then the meteoric rise of computation photography from the smartphone makers happened.

IMO a similar situation is happening in audio products like Homepod.

Smartphone pictures are still leagues away from DSLRs.

 

[Wombat]

Remember how the traditional photography crowd loved poo-pooing smartphone cams about how those kiddo devices will never be as good as their DSLRs before the early-2010s? Then the meteoric rise of computation photography from the smartphone makers happened.

IMO a similar situation is happening in audio products like Homepod.

I think smartphones have a long way to go to approach the performance and flexibility of DSLRs, especially in sensor and lens performance. Nice little snapshooters, though.

The little pod-speaker user comparisons, so far, have only stirred my suspicions that some home systems aren't as good as their users thought they were or their critical listening skills are questionable. Hoffman's Iron Law still holds until proven otherwise. Any such proof?

 

[Sylafari]

I think smartphones have a long way to go to approach the performance and flexibility of DSLRs, especially in sensor and lens performance. Nice little snapshooters, though.

The little pod-speaker user comparisons, so far, have only stirred my suspicions that some home systems aren't as good as their users thought they were or their critical listening skills are questionable. Hoffman's Iron Law still holds until proven otherwise. Any such proof?

I feel like both are similar in that its just physics in terms of a camera, a larger sensor will be better and in terms of speakers, a larger driver will be better (obviously both needs to be designed well). Not too sure how this cycle will end.

 

[oivavoi]

Smartphone pictures are still leagues away from DSLRs.

I have a couple of friends who are professional press photographers. For their serious, challenging jobs, they use a DSLR of course. Both of them, however, frequently use a higher end smartphone camera for occasional shooting on the go, or if they can't be bothered to bring out their DSLR for simple pics. These photos get published in the papers. They are both adamant that in 99 percent of the instances, they are able to take better photos with their smartphones than the average hobby photographer is able to take with a DSLR. Smartphone camera technology has become so good, they tell me, that photographer skill is much more important than technical camera specs by now.

Relevance for audio? I think similar things are happening here. DSP and software are making it easier and easier to get good quality out of less.

 

[Wombat]

I have a couple of friends who are professional press photographers. For their serious, challenging jobs, they use a DSLR of course. Both of them, however, frequently use a higher end smartphone camera for occasional shooting on the go, or if they can't be bothered to bring out their DSLR for simple pics. These photos get published in the papers. They are both adamant that in 99 percent of the instances, they are able to take better photos with their smartphones than the average hobby photographer is able to take with a DSLR. Smartphone camera technology has become so good, they tell me, that photographer skill is much more important than technical camera specs by now.

Relevance for audio? I think similar things are happening here. DSP and software are making it easier and easier to get good quality out of less.

A Kodak Brownie can be fine for the papers. Newsprint is not much better than better quality toilet paper re resolution.

 

[oivavoi]

A Kodak Brownie can be fine for the papers. Newsprint is not much better than better quality toilet paper re resolution.

I meant "the papers" as in "the press", including glossy and colored weekend magazines. Point is: they take pictures with their smartphones which are of professional grade quality.

 

[Sylafari]

I meant "the papers" as in "the press", including glossy and colored weekend magazines. Point is: they take pictures with their smartphones which are of professional grade quality.

But that is more to do with the person's skill when they say they can take a better photo with a smartphone camera compared to a hobbyist with a DSLR. In an ideal scenario, if he or she could take that picture with a DSLR or a smartphone, the DSLR would end up producing the better results because it captures a sharper image. The smartphone image may be good enough for whatever they need it for but the DSLR image is just better.

 

[Wombat]

I meant "the papers" as in "the press", including glossy and colored weekend magazines. Point is: they take pictures with their smartphones which are of professional grade quality.

Similar low resolution requirements applies for glossies. Try posters and billboards. I do agree that smartphones offer quality above that required by most everyday users.

Look at a glossy magazine page under a loupe' and you will see the dots.

 

[oivavoi]

But that is more to do with the person's skill when they say they can take a better photo with a smartphone camera compared to a hobbyist with a DSLR. In an ideal scenario, if he or she could take that picture with a DSLR or a smartphone, the DSLR would end up producing the better results because it captures a sharper image. The smartphone image may be good enough for whatever they need it for but the DSLR image is just better.

Objectively, that's true of course. But this is also related to audio discussions: when does distortion become so low that it's a moot point to chase it further? Now I'm not claiming that smart phones are at that point yet. I'm not aware of any professional photographers who only rely on their smartphones. But I do think that smartphones have become good enough for most of our everyday needs, as Wombat said above.

 

[Cosmik]

Objectively, that's true of course. But this is also related to audio discussions: when does distortion become so low that it's a moot point to chase it further? Now I'm not claiming that smart phones are at that point yet. I'm not aware of any professional photographers who only rely on their smartphones. But I do think that smartphones have become good enough for most of our everyday needs, as Wombat said above.

I think that apart from the obvious issues like shutter response time, ability to interchange lenses, ability to take low depth-of-field images, absolute resolution, etc. the biggest difference is that the smartphone probably routinely performs adaptive contrast control and noise reduction on its images to compensate for its limited optics. It is such things that make their images just less than satisfying even if they are ostensibly sharp, bright, colourful. The same for audio gear that is 'adaptive' to compensate for its limited hardware - I suggest.

 

[oivavoi]

I think that apart from the obvious issues like shutter response time, ability to interchange lenses, ability to take low depth-of-field images, absolute resolution, etc. the biggest difference is that the smartphone probably routinely performs adaptive contrast control and noise reduction on its images to compensate for its limited optics. It is such things that make their images just less than satisfying even if they are ostensibly sharp, bright, colourful. The same for audio gear that is 'adaptive' to compensate for its limited hardware - I suggest.

Interesting points. I'm no hardcore photography buff, but these photos taken by a professional photographer with the iPhone 8 seem fairly satisfying to me: https://www.cnet.com/features/apple-iphone-8-plus-camera-perfect-photos-san-francisco/

It is possible, of course, that we would perceive a difference if we saw them them side by side with photos taken by a DSLR, with no adaptive control. But for my use, it's mostly good enough by now. YMMV!

 

[Cosmik]

Interesting points. I'm no hardcore photography buff, but these photos taken by a professional photographer with the iPhone 8 seem fairly satisfying to me: https://www.cnet.com/features/apple-iphone-8-plus-camera-perfect-photos-san-francisco/

It is possible, of course, that we would perceive a difference if we saw them them side by side with photos taken by a DSLR, with no adaptive control. But for my use, it's mostly good enough by now. YMMV!

Yes, I think my mileage is varying..! To me, there's something less than satisfying about many of those images. Mind you, I just use an iPhone and I'm more than happy with it most of the time.

 

[Palladium]

Interesting points. I'm no hardcore photography buff, but these photos taken by a professional photographer with the iPhone 8 seem fairly satisfying to me: https://www.cnet.com/features/apple-iphone-8-plus-camera-perfect-photos-san-francisco/

It is possible, of course, that we would perceive a difference if we saw them them side by side with photos taken by a DSLR, with no adaptive control. But for my use, it's mostly good enough by now. YMMV!

If you can't read Chinese: The Sony A6000 with the stock lens on auto mode actually performs worse than current gen Apple/Samsung/Pixel phones in the HDR scene and even the lit night scene, and it only "wins" in the dim night scene by using 15x the exposure time verus the Pixel 2 and the reviewer also mentioned it's much, much easier to get decent auto night shots with the phones than the A6000. Of course manual controls, interchangable lens, etc blah blah in the end when compared to a bundled feature for free...