Article: Apple HomePod Review - An Audiophile Perspective

[Sevenfeet]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Thanks for the honest comments, but I'm not sure where you got the idea that I planned to slam it before I had heard one. Especially because I said, "I really wanted to like the HomePod and I wanted to to sound fantastic." I had no intention of buying one because the last thing I need to purchase is another all-in-one loudspeaker. If you could see my house you'd understand. 

 

I use an iPad Pro, iPhone 8, iMac 5K, and MacBook Pro. I have no axe to grind with Apple. I love its products. 

 

Without comparing the sound from a reference system, how can one expect to gage what the HomePod sounds like? Without this, it would be like measuring one's height starting a few inches off the ground or a few feet off the ground. There has to be a reference with which comparisons can be made. 

 

I was a fan of AirPlay when it first came out as AirTunes, but the technology is so far behind now that I can't take it. It makes zero sense. Using Roon with a HomePod via AirPlay is problematic because of volume control issues. There isn't a two-way sync between the Pod and Roon. 

 

I'm looking at the AirPlay 2 specs now. 

 

Here's the problem.  Your executive summary was "Don't fool yourself into thinking this is an audiophile product. "

 

Apple isn't marketing this as an "audiophile" product.  They are marketing it as a high quality home speaker.  And then you listed the "reference" speakers you would compare it to...the TAD Compact reference One CR1 which a pair cost more than all of the equipment in my three different music rooms put together.  Not exactly a fair fight or an appropriate comparison.  A better tactic would have been just to compare it to the Klipsch The Three which makes more sense for this audience and is a product most major publications aren't comparing it to.

 

And then there's the really big problem...you speculated that Apple might be cheating by changing it's output if it detected the user playing known test tones.  It's not that your hypothesis is impossible.  It's that it's a very damaging charge by a reviewer to level without any evidence.

 

And it's not in Apple's nature for a few reasons.  First, Apple is the biggest target in business for lawsuits by class action trial lawyers.  There are literally dozens of these firms waiting for a smidge of a chance to sue Apple for a piece of that $250 billion war chest of theirs.  Need evidence?  Remember the recent iPhone battery issue?  In that case, Apple was trying to prevent users' older iPhones from inexplicably dying prematurely when internal voltages got too high.  So they determined that slowing the CPUs in those old phones would solve the problem.  Everything good, right?

 

Well they slipped in the feature without telling anyone and Apple is the only company who has people who regularly speed test old hardware.  And it was noticed and then the trial lawyers pounced, accusing Apple of intentionally obsoleting people's phones which is the last thing they wanted to do....and never mind the fact that every new iPhone has about 4 years of software upgrades in its lifespan, way more than the industry.

 

But the whole fiasco is costing Apple millions to make it go away.  Or what about AntennaGate years ago?  What was a design flaw ended up costing Apple a lot of money and damaged reputation as the issue ended up in national news broadcasts.

 

But there was an incident where cheating did occur on phone performance, except the perpetrators were a number of major Android manufacturers that disabled their phone battery management features if they detected that known speed tests were running.  And those same trial lawyers made them pay.  The company that wasn't doing this?  Apple.

 

Finally, Apple does has experience delivering high quality sound to their products over several years.  Remember the iPod Hifi?  Steve Jobs himself introduced that over a decade ago to do better than the boomboxes of the day or more expensive Bose systems.  And there have been other examples over the years.  Again, they aren't looking to be an audiophile product, but a product with higher quality than the competition.  Did they succeed here from a sound standpoint?  The jury is out but most reviewers say yes.

 

Anyway, it's ok to say that you like one product over another.  After all, audio performance is very subjective which is why there is no "best product" for anything.  But I have a real problem of you accusing Apple of cheating without hard proof, and using the "speculation" word isn't enough to protect yourself.

[Sevenfeet]

13 hours ago, PeterG said:

 

Please--Apple has more than anybody(?) to shift the listening market to low quality sound, degrading the experience for us all.  An iTunes store that pushes singles instead of albums (thus encouraging producers to increase loudness and reduce dynamic range), delivered as low res files (or even lower if you're running low on storage!), onto garbage earbuds that further discourage investments in sound quality and encourage low dynamic range.

 

Love their computers, phones, and tablets; hate what they've done with music

 

You aren't even thinking about the period of time that Apple introduced the iTunes Store.  It wasn't a few years ago.  It was way back in April of 2003.  Back then, the music industry was being decimated by Napster and other sharing technologies.  And if you got your music from there (as so many of us did), it was very low quality stuff....128 kb/sec files, yes but also 64 and 32 kb/sec files too.  You were lucky to find a 320 kb/sec MP3 file of your favorite album.  But the quality was all over the place since you were relying on whatever software people had lying around to do the rips and transcodes.

 

So Apple introduces a store that artists and labels could actually make some money off of, had consistent quality and yes, wasn't illegal piracy (I live in Nashville where this is a very big deal).  They used AAC as a standard instead of MP3 which was higher quality.  But why 128 kb/sec files?  Do you remember what "broadband" internet was on average back in 2003?  I do....speeds were measured in kilobits per second, not megabits per second.  According to Pew Research, only 31% of households in the US had "broadband" which meant that nearly 7 of ten households either had dialup or nothing at all.  Cable modems were just getting out of their infancy period in the late 90s (I had one in '97) but most people had ISDN/DSL from a phone company at anywhere from 128 kbit/sec to 1.5 mb/sec if you were lucky.  So Apple was coming to market in a period where most people still had 56 kb/sec dialup (assuming it was that good) or maybe early broadband.  And just for perspective, Netflix was still a "DVD in the mail" only business.

 

Now fast forward to today...we can debate why Apple hasn't done a CD-quality service like Tidal when they certainly have the technical means to do so.  And Apple has been asking for hi-res versions of music from labels for a while in order to master their 256 kb/sec AAC content.  But it's unknown whether Apple just doesn't want to do it or of the main content providers don't want them to do it.  Ever since Apple introduced the iTunes store, it continued the industry disruption began by Napster from rampant piracy to a single technology player made strong by iPod sales and later, a leviathan by iPhone sales.  Before iTunes, the leading seller of music in the US was Wal-Mart which exerted a large amount of control over the record industry.  Now they traded that relationship for one with Apple where they all feel they ceded even more control of their business model.  Here in Nashville, the music industry is finally growing again in revenue as of 2017 versus years of decline since the early 2000s.  That industry treats Apple with a large amount of trepidation, even though it owes it's very survival to them.  What we've seen in years since 2003 was attempts by the industry to even the playing field by offering advantageous deals to companies like Amazon (before they became a leviathan in their own right) or other content delivery mechanisms.  And one of those other delivery mechanisms was streaming...which ended up disrupting the industry (again!) so here we are.

 

Need anymore proof that the industry just doesn't do everything new with Apple anymore?  How many video (TV/movie) cord-cutting packages are available now, including Google's YouTube but strangely, Apple isn't among them.  They certainly tried bringing one to market ages ago according to the tech press, but Hollywood is afraid of Apple's disruptive power (even more so than Google!).

[Sevenfeet]

21 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Thanks for the comments. 

 

Why is my executive summary a problem, given that so much of the press had called the HomePod an audiophile product? I received many emails asking if this was true in my opinion and asking if I had one for review. 

 

Question: Without a reference, how does one rate sound quality? How can I determine what the HomePod sounds like if I don't have a reference? I can't. Anyone who claims they can, is kidding themselves. It's impossible to suggest the HomePod has too much bass if I'm comparing it to another speaker that isn't of reference quality. Sure it may have more bass than the Klipsch, but the Klipsch is by no means a reference either. 

 

I included both my reference system and the Klipsch to satisfy people who wanted to learn how the HomePod compares to a reference and how it compares to something in a similar category. I guess I can't please everyone. 

 

I don't see my speculation as a really big problem. Given the previous measurements posted on reddit and retweeted by Phil Schiller, I couldn't help but think something was amiss. It turns out that something was amiss. As of today, it appears the measurements don't really say what author the suggested and they may be suspect. 

 

I'm not really worried about speculating what Apple is doing or worried that someone is going to sue them. I also don't buy into the idea that Apple is holier than thou as a company. As soon as it stops using slave labor, I might be more open to thinking about it. Apple is beholden to shareholders. Given that fact, all bets are off. 

 

You didn't address my point.  Apple is not calling the HomePod an audiophile product.  The fact that a review or two used the word didn't change that.  And frankly, the world "audiophile" means different things to different people.

 

Which gets me to your next point....what should be a reference?  Well, how about a reasonable accounting for price and intended use?  By your measure, if an automotive journalist reviews a Chevy Tahoe, the "reference" vehicle must be a Bentley Bentayga because both are large SUVs.  No one does that and neither should you.

 

And your speculation is the biggest problem of the article.  You're a respected website visited by thousands who make purchasing decisions based upon the articles and the forum commentary.  I have no problem with you poking holes in the methodology of the review on Reddit, assuming it's on the merits by your own testing or obvious flaws in his methodology.  But to make a leap to accusing Apple of cheating with no proof is journalistic malpractice.  it was unnecessary and detracted from your argument.

 

I'm not saying that Apple is holier than thou.  I am saying that they aren't stupid.  And intentionally making modifications to the DSP algorithms when test tones are played would be class-action lawsuit stupid.   And Apple deals with enough of these lawsuits from frivolous stuff not to invite more of them, and the horrific press that would come from it being a market leader.  And if it were the case, people would find out eventually and lots of people would get fired.

 

Remember Volkswagen?  Nobody wants to be those guys.

 

Slave labor?  If you're referring to Chinese labor practices, that's another conversation for the entire consumer electronics industry.  Again, not a proper retort for this discussion.

[Sevenfeet]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I don't believe I could ever satisfy your requirements for a proper retort.

 

We obviously disagree on quite a bit. 

 

Don't get me wrong....I LOVE good debate.  I just hate poor arguments.

 

This hobby is about as subjective as they come.  But as the operator of site I visit regularly, I rely on you and your team to be critical but fair in your evaluations since the rest of us are consumers in the industry.  If I can't rely on that, they it lessens your credibility elsewhere.

 

One way you could have mitigated my response would have been something like "This isn't a fair fight, but I usually compare everything regardless of price to my CR1's so..."

 

Speaking of cars, this reminds of when Car and Driver back in the 1960s compared the Ferrari GTO to the Pontiac GTO just because of the name.  Were they anything alike?  Not really.  Did they admit the comparison test was completely silly?  Absolutely.  And therefore, the reader could put away their critical eye for a few pages and enjoy the ride, so to speak.

[Sevenfeet]

1 minute ago, ShawnC said:

Give it a rest. 

 

Agreed.

[Sevenfeet]

1 minute ago, wgscott said:

@Sevenfeet:   

 

Since you hate flawed arguments, I think the thing to point out here is that your assumption that Chris is being unfair by comparing the sound produced by the Homepod to that of his "reference" high-end system misses the point.  Chris elsewhere says that a more reasonable comparison of products would be to compare to the "Klipsch: The Three" bluetooth speaker, or a Sonos.  The point of the "reference" system is to have a positive control for unadulterated high-quality sound, not to compare two sets of hardware per se.

 

Unless you have a way to play Eddie Vedder's "Society" that allows you to hear what it is supposed to sound like with a high degree of confidence, then you can't really claim that playback of the same tract through the Apple Homepod sounds distorted.  The high-end reference system allows you to do so with a much greater degree of confidence than, say, a Sonos or bluetooth speaker of comparable quality/cost.

 

As for the DSP, this result surprised me.  The measurement I glanced at made the room response look quite reasonable and flat.  What appears to be happening is that for an actual, known Apple music file, the DSP is adaptive.  It might be as something as simplistic as cranking up the bass based on the "Genre" tag, or it might do something a bit more sophisticated.  That hardly makes Apple the functional/moral equivalent of Volkswagen.

 

@WGScott

 

Your first two paragraphs...now that's a good retort!  And a good point taken.  Thanks!

 

Yes, Apple's DSP algorithms do seem to be adaptive since it's already been published that they use music and the built in microphones to build it's own curve based upon the room.  And I imagine that there will be some situations and environments it will sound better than others.  To quote the car industry again, "Your mileage may vary".

 

And one more point....David Pogue or Yahoo! recently published a blind test of the HomePod against the Echo, Sonus and Google Home with a group of people including one professional musician who didn't even know what they were listening to.  The result?  The HomePod wasn't the winner (as he predicted since that was his personal favorite).  Again, how we process music is very subjective and it was a fascinating read.

[Sevenfeet]

7 hours ago, bobfa said:

Today I sent the HomePods back to Apple.  This decision was predicated on several things. 

 

1. The audio quality is "interesting",...  Apple has created a sound that I describe as uncomfortable. Too much bottom, not enough detail, not enough middle.

2. The integration with Apple services is very weak and it does not work in a multiple person household.

3.  Apple Music works well and I cannot fault it for what it is. The integration with Homepod is very good.  I do not need Apple Music except for this.

4.  The controls and configuration of HomePod in the Apple Home App is just plain odd.  It kind of works but needs a LOT of UI work.

5.  The AI domains are very limited on the HomePod rendering it neutered and less than useful.

6.  Little things are annoying such as the inability to control Alarm volume or type.  The whole timer and alarm controls, weird.

7.  Yes I know that almost all of this is software but I have less patience than I used to.

8.  I have a VERY GOOD system to listen to and I do not need the HomePod for "performance listening"

 

So a bit more narrative is needed here.  First on home automation.  I have rather simple needs that HomePod did not enhance.  I have shared calendars and shared task lists that it could not address or manage well.  I have simple lighting automation that only requires occasional intervention and the is very little need for additional features that the HomePod might bring.

 

I will write more on this later on Friday!  

 

 

All very good reasons.  I have a house full of Apple equipment and for right now, I can't see a place in it for the HomePod since most places in my house that I want music already have it via Airplay to other devices, usually to discreet loudspeakers.  And unlike some of the people here, I haven't heard it yet either so I have no idea if I'll like the sound profile.  I guess I could use it as a glorified speakerphone/speaker for my Mac Pro but that an expensive proposition for that use.

[Sevenfeet]

An epilogue for me on the conversation...

 

i am am sitting in front of a Klipsch The Three right now that my neighbor ordered for their remodeled kids playroom.  Although it’s impossible to do critical listening during a birthday party for a 3 year old girl and friends, it seems to be a pleasant enough sounding box that fills a 18’x18’ room pretty well.  The owner likes it.