Google Nest Audio Speaker Review

[Soniclife]

It's a, quote: "Active crossover operating at low signal levels." - which I think means DSP.

I would read that the other way around, but I think your right and these are DSP. I'm sure there is a good reason for not using very steep slopes, I just don't know what it is.

 

[EJ3]

My next question would then be: Why are Neumann and Genelec not following suit?

Because they don't have the extra 100% profits that are made from taking information about you buying habit's (and likely other information) and selling it.

 

[EJ3]

Good point. Late night, tired, and I mixed feet and meters in the same mental equation. It is a bit under 40 cubic meters.

Mathematically I resemble that when I am not tired. But then I recognize that the answer is far out of wack, have a good laugh at myself & demurely but slowly & with great concentration start over (or what until the next day if it's late, to start over).

 

[staticV3]

Because they don't have the extra 100% profits that are made from taking information about you buying habit's (and likely other information) and selling it.

Which is required for implementing steep crossover filters? Really?

 

[EJ3]

Which is required for implementing steep crossover filters? Really?

No, it's because they can build it and sell it for less than they built it for because thy have money coming in from other sources of income.
A loss leader, so to speak, To get you more into their universe and use more things that they do make money off of.
It's an age old business strategy, even grocery stores use a form of it.

 

[staticV3]

No, it's because they can build it and sell it for less than they built it for because thy have money coming in from other sources of income.
A loss leader, so to speak, To get you more into their universe and use more things that they do make money off of.
It's an age old business strategy, even grocery stores use a form of it.

I understand your point of criticism, I'm just bewildered by how that could possibly relate to Google achieving smooth vertical directivity where Neumann and Genelec couldn't...

 

[olieb]

I'm just bewildered by how that could possibly relate to Google achieving smooth vertical directivity where Neumann and Genelec couldn't...

The smoothness of vertical directivity of two-ways in the crossover region is - among other things - dependent on the center to center distance. This gets bigger if you choose a bigger woofer.
That said, Neumann has it all (at least in KH80): bigger woofer, steep filter (8th order) and at least as good vertical directivity as this Google Nest. [The Google has about 10 dB difference between floor bounce and ceiling bounce at 2kHz.]
I do not know about filters In Genelec 8020 or 8030 but vertical directivity is not much worse for 8030 although this is a much more grown up speaker.

 

[staticV3]

and at least as good vertical directivity as this Google Nest.

Evidently not:

 

[thewas]

The KH80 is though a 4" monitor while the Nest 3". The only comparative model would be the 8010 but since it is an old non DSP design it doesn't have as steep crossover slopes and thus doesn't perform at that region as great as the Nest.

 

[EJ3]

I understand your point of criticism, I'm just bewildered by how that could possibly relate to Google achieving smooth vertical directivity where Neumann and Genelec couldn't...

My point is not that Neumann & Genelec could not do it, my point was that perhaps they need more money to do it (particularly since [I believe] that their designs are for what I would say is a larger coverage area at a larger volume), and that Google has the money to hire the people that can make it happen (fantastic, of course, that they could do it [but on a smaller scale). They are NOT doing it at the same sound level as what would be normal for Neuman & Genelec.
It's like comparing the Tiddly Pomme (42 mm diameter apples) with the Granny Smith (72.1mm apples).
They are both apples but...

 

[ElJaimito]

Some people have had the police called on them by a similar device simply because they were having a loud argument with their significant other.
Some people are just loud.
There are many others that do care. If you don't care, why did you bother to respond?
This is great and excellent information to know and gives people several choices in how to deal with it.
My personal choice is to simply not support Google (or any other entity that does this type of thing) by not purchasing or using their products. (I do not use anything Google, nor have I for many years, for this reason. If they want to use me for their research, they should pay me for being used.)

You do know there is an "off" switch?

 

[ElJaimito]

TOR is ancient technology.
Invented at the bequest of the US military & then hacked by them in just a few years.

Extensively used by the United States Department of Defense. I'd steer clear!

 

[ElJaimito]

Some people have had the police called on them by a similar device simply because they were having a loud argument with their significant other.
Some people are just loud.
There are many others that do care. If you don't care, why did you bother to respond?
This is great and excellent information to know and gives people several choices in how to deal with it.
My personal choice is to simply not support Google (or any other entity that does this type of thing) by not purchasing or using their products. (I do not use anything Google, nor have I for many years, for this reason. If they want to use me for their research, they should pay me for being used.)

I wouldn't dream of telling anyone else what they should do (unless they ask, and pay me as a consultant)

So let me enlarge on my brief statement. I subscribe to Google One which I find tremendously useful, it also changes my ad profile. If I want a private email I use Virtru (but is it trustworthy?). I also am an Apple and Microsoft 365 subscriber. Microsoft is the most intrusive, but I wouldn't "trust" any of them as such. I ran an IT company for 30+ years after leaving the music business, and "in retirement" I run here at home a FreeBSD firewall, an M1 Studio Max music workstation, an i7 1270K gaming machine, and an AMD music/gaming portable and about 8 other machines plus phones and tablets. My NASes all run Linux, together with my virtualisation host. I trust Linux and FreeBSD a whole lot more than the rest, but despite being a programmer (once) and my years in the IT industry, I simply DO NOT have the expertise to significantly audit any of the systems I use for security and as in all other areas of life, have to rely on legislature and societal sytems and the expertise of others to ensure that systems are reasonably safe, that aircraft pilots know how to fly, and that airplane companies build safe planes. Oh wait! Fortunately I live in Europe where we have rather stronger privacy legislation and a bit less free-speech absolutism... However as we see in the terrible death toll in the flood in Spain, it doesn't matter what security systems are in place if they are not used! (Warnings of risk to life and stay home were issued by the Meteorological service, but not relayed to the populace at risk for 12 hours).

Overall, "ye pays yer money and ye takes yer choice". I adopt IMO a cautious risk profile, and track and delete my history regularly. My grandson is an ardent OpenAI advocate, and doesn't apply security updates regularly. That action - regularly updating systems - is probably more important for personal security than worries about Google snooping, in my professional opinion.

 

[EJ3]

Good point. Late night, tired, and I mixed feet and meters in the same mental equation. It is a bit under 40 cubic meters.

I was thinking that my home is 1100 sq. feet with 8 ft ceilings. & IF your system was not that loud in the 2200 sq. ft place you described, it would be more than sufficiently loud in my place.
And also, IF that was the small room, damn, how big are the larger rooms?

 

[EJ3]

I understand your point of criticism, I'm just bewildered by how that could possibly relate to Google achieving smooth vertical directivity where Neumann and Genelec couldn't...

I guess that we just have different thought processes.
I hope that an explanation may help (if not, I guess that some things will just be):
I am pretty sure that Neuman & Genelec could also do it on their scale, if they had enough money to do it (and another factor: IF people wee willing to pay what it would actually cost) to get them to the same level of close to perfection in the arena (home audio and the volume level that it entails) that they design for.
They have been creeping up on it and (maybe) they would look at what Google has done & see if it can be applied to what they do.
Businesses hire engineers from other businesses from time to time based on what those engineers have succeeded at in the past (again, it requires money [benefits], etc., to do so.
Or to pay for the rights to any applicable patents.
Google obviously has a source of income not directly related to these speakers.
And can hire the appropriate engineers, etc, without worrying about: if these speakers don't sell well at a profit, then we go out of business.

 

[Mr. Widget]

That action - regularly updating systems - is probably more important for personal security than worries about Google snooping, in my professional opinion.

True, based on the recent hacks by the Chinese government on the US telecom industry where they have access to everyone's "private" text and voice communications, there obviously is no such thing as privacy, but still... the idea that a company will sell you a product at a deep discount in exchange for your data bugs me.

It may not be absolutely rational, but is the same reaction I have when there is a 50% service charge on a 5¢ purchase. The cost may be trivial, but I find the charge offensive.

 

[JeremyFife]

Quite remarkable really, nice.

 

[ROOSKIE]

I guess that we just have different thought processes.
I hope that an explanation may help (if not, I guess that some things will just be):
I am pretty sure that Neuman & Genelec could also do it on their scale, if they had enough money to do it (and another factor: IF people wee willing to pay what it would actually cost) to get them to the same level of close to perfection in the arena (home audio and the volume level that it entails) that they design for.
They have been creeping up on it and (maybe) they would look at what Google has done & see if it can be applied to what they do.
Businesses hire engineers from other businesses from time to time based on what those engineers have succeeded at in the past (again, it requires money [benefits], etc., to do so.
Or to pay for the rights to any applicable patents.
Google obviously has a source of income not directly related to these speakers.
And can hire the appropriate engineers, etc, without worrying about: if these speakers don't sell well at a profit, then we go out of business.

It will not take millions or anything, even certainly some decent DIY hobbyists understand technically how to get good vertical off axis. The problem is it requires other trade offs in designs. Especially size and looks

When the driver spacing is large the tweeter cannot easily be crossed low enough to fully remove comb filtering off axis. It is not enough to cross low and use steep slopes as you will still overdrive a 1" driver easily if you want usable SPL in a large system and room.

Because of the driver center spacing distance vertical response off axis becomes out of phase off axis when the wavelength size is to small for the drivers output to sum in phase relative to the C-C distances.
As you move up the tweeter is physically closer to you vs the woofer and as you move down the woofer is physically closer to you vs the tweeter. You will get that nastly comb filtering if not crossing low enough (very low for a tweeter) so the wavelength at the crossover frequency is large and still sums in phase despite the distances.
Horizontally, in center spaced driver alignment, these relative driver distances do not change. (They do change in an offset tweeter design)

In order to cross a 1" or 1&1/8 tweeter low enough you need to use a huge wave guide to support sensitivity in the lower treble and midrange. A huge guide requires again an even larger center to center spacing for the guide to fit in the design. So that pushes the center to center spacing further so now you have to cross even lower and need an even larger guide. And if you use a large woofer to match the look and scale of the waveguide you increase C-c spacing again.

Look at the JBl 4309 & 4329, they both almost got the vertical directivity match we'd like but in reality even with the large guides they need even larger guides and lower crossover points for the center to center distance to sum in phase and not present any comb filtering off axis.

The living room filling capable monitor design that actually makes this work essentially as well as a concentric would likely have a a small woofer to help minimize C-C distance like a 5" or 6"(since the waveguide needs to be huge) crossed with steep slopes to a beastly tweeter at 900-1100hrz with a HUGE waveguide sized maybe like the JBL 4329 is using or even bigger like the 4349 but with a 6" woofer vs the 12" . This would work but look odd to many buyers and be very large for a given design. It would work perfectly well though. Some folks have done this but I can't think of good ones to link to now. They are out there though.

 

[EJ3]

It will not take millions or anything, even certainly some decent DIY hobbyists understand technically how to get good vertical off axis. The problem is it requires other trade offs in designs. Especially size and looks

When the driver spacing is large the tweeter cannot easily be crossed low enough to fully remove comb filtering off axis. It is not enough to cross low and use steep slopes as you will still overdrive a 1" driver easily if you want usable SPL in a large system and room.

Because of the driver center spacing distance vertical response off axis becomes out of phase off axis when the wavelength size is to small for the drivers output to sum in phase relative to the C-C distances.
As you move up the tweeter is physically closer to you vs the woofer and as you move down the woofer is physically closer to you vs the tweeter. You will get that nastly comb filtering if not crossing low enough (very low for a tweeter) so the wavelength at the crossover frequency is large and still sums in phase despite the distances.
Horizontally, in center spaced driver alignment, these relative driver distances do not change. (They do change in an offset tweeter design)

In order to cross a 1" or 1&1/8 tweeter low enough you need to use a huge wave guide to support sensitivity in the lower treble and midrange. A huge guide requires again an even larger center to center spacing for the guide to fit in the design. So that pushes the center to center spacing further so now you have to cross even lower and need an even larger guide. And if you use a large woofer to match the look and scale of the waveguide you increase C-c spacing again.

Look at the JBl 4309 & 4329, they both almost got the vertical directivity match we'd like but in reality even with the large guides they need even larger guides and lower crossover points for the center to center distance to sum in phase and not present any comb filtering off axis.

The living room filling capable monitor design that actually makes this work essentially as well as a concentric would likely have a a small woofer to help minimize C-C distance like a 5" or 6"(since the waveguide needs to be huge) crossed with steep slopes to a beastly tweeter at 900-1100hrz with a HUGE waveguide sized maybe like the JBL 4329 is using or even bigger like the 4349 but with a 6" woofer vs the 12" . This would work but look odd to many buyers and be very large for a given design. It would work perfectly well though. Some folks have done this but I can't think of good ones to link to now. They are out there though.

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[pablolie]

True, based on the recent hacks by the Chinese government on the US telecom industry where they have access to everyone's "private" text and voice communications, there obviously is no such thing as privacy, but still... the idea that a company will sell you a product at a deep discount in exchange for your data bugs me.
....

There are data they can share, there definitely is data that can't ever be shared/monetized. People need to be more aware of privacy laws like GDPR etc and react when some providers don't respect it. I have noticed the seeming magic correlation between talking to someone about something and the something being pitched to me 5 minutes later on several websits has decreased since I inquired about the use of my data repeatedly and demanded to see who it was shared with (which they must legally disclose, in theory).