What is Digg?163 Comments
- thyratron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I'm amazed at the number of people here showing considerable ignorance by flaming performance based on the frequency response spec. It is actually very good for a system of this size, and certainly better than much source material I see people listening to. Additionally, many speaker vendors give some very useless numbers. If someone claims 15-28,000 response, but doesn't give the range of amplitude variation in dB, it's tells us almost nothing. Many that don't specify the variance from ideal flat response are using plus/minus 6 dB or worse, Apple is using 3. Regardless, the numbers don't describe the sound. The type of amplitude and phase variations near the crossover frequency, box resonances, variations in absorbing energy across the spectrum, radiation from the enclosure, variations in horizontal and vertical plane directional effects as a function of frequency, the amount of doppler distortion (phase intermodulation) of the high frequencies due to cone excursions at the lower frequencies.... amplitude non-linearities due to cone contortions and variations in the field around the voice coil with position.... all of these things and more affect the sound making it totally absurd to use one simple specification to describe what's going on. That's not even talking about the design of the internal amplifiers. Could anyone describe the overall experience with their girlfriend with a numeric benchmark that others could agree on?
How many people would describe the character of wine with a number? There are so many variables that the only way to really judge a speakers system is by comparitive listening using various types of music that you're familiar with.
Some are complaining about lossy compression? Like lossy compression is the fault of a speaker system? The iPod supports a lossless format with about 4:1 compression. Whether you use it us up to you. AAC is certainly superior to MP3.
When Apple stores, Best Buy etc get the iPod Hi-Fi in stock, then we can go in and compare the sound with other products. I believe in the end the spec most people would have an issue with is the cost. For those that can afford it, and that need something this small, I think it'll be an appealing option. I'm happy with my JBL media speakers (their first attempt, seems much better than what they now offer), and my audiofile speakers (about 15 times the price of Apple's, not counting crossover and two sets of amplifiers). Apple's system offers a couple of things my two systems don't. It is as simple as possible. Not even a power brick or input cable. (My JBLs have separate bricks for the subwoofer and satellite speakers!) And it can give excellent performance even from batteries. The iPod Hi-Fi would be useable in situations I can't even take my other speakers. I think Apple has given this more thought than people are giving them credit for. Experience the product, THEN judge. - newmind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4pretty is the new ugly
- deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's hilarious how everyone here is bitching about prices of the iPod stuff. Market research shows Apple customers are usually very rich -- these products are priced accordingly. It's just like anything else.. if you want a big brand name you'll have to pay. If you don't want to pay, ignore the products and move on with your life.
- Akram, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This isn't that much of a rip off. The winner is DEFINENTLY the iPod leather case...at $99....what were they thinking?
- laughterkillsme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2wow, can't help but be underwhelmed.
- jahutch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm by no means an Apple fanboy (for example, I think the integrated graphics in the new mini are utter nonsense) but I don't see why people think this is so ugly. It looks very bland to me, but I can see it being rather unobtrusive in a lot of applications. And who knows, perhaps, just sometimes, bland and unobtrusive is better than sexy and noticeable. This seems like it could blend in nicely on a bookshelf and not draw attention to itself.
I do agree the ipod on the top is something of an oversight, but insofar as they mean this to be a "bookshelf" sytem rather than something jammed into a home theater rack, it may just be an oversight. The main thing I question is the price. If it has unique technology and provides room filling sound (sort of like the Bose wave radio allegedly does) perhaps it is worth it - otherwise, it definitely isn't.
As for the leather case.. what the hell??? I'd pay, maybe, $9.99 for that thing, if that. - dvoddo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Frequency response: 53Hz to 16kHz ± 3 dB
LMAO!!!!
What a piece of *****, and apple calls it "audiophile" quality......haha. Same ***** bass response as the iPod itself. Then they even claim its "home stereo, reinvented" LOL, liars. - secretagent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Can it make toast too...What happened to then new ipod video
- uptown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The $99 leather case is nuts. The only thing that could possibly make them worth the price would be if they came stuffed with $20s.
- thyratron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Quoting mateo60 who quoted someone unknown "I wonder if they actually consult real audio engineers when these companies come out with stuff like this. A horizontally aligned D'Apolito array like this guarantees major off-axis imaging and frequency response issues."
mateo60 - I don't mean to be insulting, but you don't understand what you're talking about well enough to see that this is obviously not an issue for the iPod Hi-Fi. Many things about audio are pretty technical and understood by relatively few people, so most others might make the same mistake when someone throws misinformation or FUD out there. I'll explain the issue you mentioned and then I'll explain why it doesn't not apply to the iPod Hi-Fi.
Sound doesn't move very fast. The distance sound travels during the time it takes for one back and forth excursion of the speaker cone is the wavelength. If the same sound is fed to two speakers and you're an equal distance from both, the sound from both adds up. But if you get off at an angle such that you're a greater distance from one driver than another, the added time delay from the more distant one causes a timing difference a.k.a. phase shift. When the path length difference is 1/2 wavelength the sound cancels. The same thing occurs whether the drivers are separated horizontally or vertically, but is much more of a problem for horizontal separation since the angle varies more in practice (you're more likely to go off to the side of the speaker than be on the floor below it or the ceiling above it). Because sounds of higher frequency (cycling back and forth more rapidly) have a much shorter wavelength, the problem is greatest at very high frequencies. The effect of having multiple drivers radiating the same sound is to make a speaker system more directional. Try wandering back and forth and squatting down and standing up near your speakers, and you'll hear the effect I'm talking about. Since the effect is very much frequency dependent, what a designer can do depend on the frequency the drivers of interest are working at. At very low frequencies the wavelength is so long, bass speakers can be far part. That's why systems with subwoofers can have the subwoofer moved around with little effect (except for boosts caused by corner reflections, but that's another topic). This directional effect I've described is worst with arrays, but the same principle applies in tow other important situations. When a speaker system uses more then one driver per channel to give better behavior across the full frequency range, the bigger drivers normally carry the lower frequencies and the smaller ones the higher frequencies. Electronic filtering helps dish out the appropriate range of the audio spectrum to the appropriate driver. There is a intermediate point between lower-and higher frequencies where a set of drivers is fed to provide equal power from both. That point is called the crossover frequency. There may be more than one cross over frequency depending on the number and type of drivers in a design. At the crossover frequency, the same directional effects occur as with an array. In normal speaker design this dictates putting the center of the high-frequency radiator as close as possible to the mid-range radiator, and normally separating the drivers vertically since directional effects are less problematic in the vertical plane.
The directional effects I described even occur within ONE driver, because no driver is actually a point source. Sound leaving one side of the a speaker cone won't hit you at the same time as that leaving the other. That is why it is we shouldn't use too large a large diameter driver at the higher frequencies. Most of us have heard some homemade speaker systems with a huge driver that sound bad (poor response at higher frequencies, very directional even at mid-range frequencies... plus other design problems like internal box reflections I won't go into here)
Directional effects depend on more than horizontal or vertical separation of drivers at mutually radiating frequencies too... the cross-over filters introduce frequency dependent time delays. Also, the average point of radiation from a mid range driver is actually behind the mounting plane (a cone isn't flat - it goes back).
What Apple has done actually comes close the best case for all of these design issues.
1) There is no array - the two identical drivers SHOULD be horizontally separated because they're separate left & right units!
2) The only crossover occurs between the bass unit and the mid/upper range driver. The wavelengths are so long at those low frequencies the bass could be many feet away and not be a problem. Because our ears are so close together in terms of wavelength at low frequencies, we can't perceive the very small timing difference that varies with direction. That's why Apple's bass, as with most sub-woofers, can be mono with no ill effects.
Low frequencies also propagate around the head with little loss, so there's essentially no amplitude (volume) difference with direction at bass frequencies either. If one feeds bass to one side of a headset and not the other the sensation is so unnatural as to be uncomfortable. It's like when on gets gets water/soap in one ear when showering.
3) Apple has avoided the problems of time delays between mid and high frequencies from crossovers by not having electrically separate drivers. Their driver radiates higher frequencies from the dome at the center of the cone. The main cone which radiates midrange energy is of a soft material which absorbs higher frequencies, so the cone diameter isn't a directional problem for the higher frequencies.
The crossovers in many speakers have very steep filters, mainly to protect tweeters from burnout. With some common designs the time delays would actually cause complete cancellation at the crossover frequency right in front of the speaker! They get around this by reversing the tweeter wires. Using an oscilloscope and high quality microphone to see the result when feeding the speaker a lower-midrange square-wave would be humorous if it weren't so sad. The lower frequencies show looking like a squareave but with very rounded corners and greatly reduced rising/falling slopes. Added to the waveform are the spikes of energy from the tweeter corresponding to the rising/falling edges, but they go the wrong direction, and are shifted horizontally due to center-of-radiation time delay differences. Few people get to see how really horrible some design aspects of many common speakers systems are.
Apple's design choices make for a much smoother amplitude and time-delay characteristic across the critical middle and higher frequencies. Many people are (understandably) a bit clueless about speakers, and think simply in terms of how strong the bass or highs are. But preserving subtle time delay uniformity gives a speaker system another important quality. Listening to good recordings on a well designed speaker system with the eyes closed, one gets a sense of the different locations of individual instruments. From what I can see of the design, I expect the Apple iPod Hi-Fi will perform far better than most speakers in this regard.
With the eyes closed, one should not be able to "hear" the edges of the speaker enclosure. Rounded corners cause less of a discontinuity and are better in this regard.
A well designed box must not radiate any sound of its own. Most cheaper computer speakers are horrible in this regard. The mention of resins and weighing 14 pounds is pretty good indication that the iPod Hi-Fi is well above average with that too.
Aside from aspects of enclosure tuning for lower-mid and bass performance, it is also important that there aren't excessive mid/higher frequency reflections in the enclosures (I use plural, because the bass and left/right midrange are actually three separate areas).
That aspect of Apple's design is something I couldn't judge without listening, or seeing the inside, but I do have more faith in Apple than some here seem to.
The ultimate test is judging by listening. Some seem to think that Apple jumped into making a speaker system with no clue. But as someone who has designed speakers and electronics, I'm inclined to believe that Apple has spent some time and tried to pay attention to every detail. Any design involves balancing many factors and making tradeoffs. This is a case of something that is actually a very complex design, presented in a elegantly simple form.
The issues I've described are far to involved for Apple to put into an ad. (and I still omitted much about driver design and enclosure tuning) Ultimately I think the success of this product will come after people experience it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Market research shows Apple customers are usually very rich"
Wrong. Market research shows Apple customers are willing to pay a little more. Do you see iPods only in the hands of the rich?
As for the leather case, no i wouldn't buy one (after all, I'm not rich!). But it's fine Italian leather, and the "uppers" will buy this. I would if I had the money. Don't be confused and think Apple is trying to make this for the mass market. You tear Apple apart because they've created a high-margin accessory for a niche. Every company does that, folks. It's called smart business.
As for the Hi-Fi, if it were $299 I would at least consider it, but it does seem a bit pricey. Though the fact that it integrates with AirTunes has me tempted... But I still doubt I'd buy it at that price.
For every fanboy, there are three nerds who live to hate Apple. I type this from a 2GHz MacBook Pro with iLife, Front Row, OS X, and the best laptop screen I've ever seen. From what I hear by the haters, I should probably dislike this product a lot... but I absolutely love it. Best laptop I've owned. Am I delusional? Am I suffering from some sort of kool-aid hysteria? No. I just know what I prefer.
And don't try to sell me on that MP3 player debate. Show me an MP3 player than lets me download legal TV content, sync my music and calendar info, has a gorgeous color screen, is thin and well-designed, has a click-wheel which I love, lets me integrate podcasts with the touch of a button, and does all of this without stringing together ***** open source software. Then we'll talk. 45 million iPod owners probably aren't wrong. - cpawl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The $99 leather case is nuts. The only thing that could possibly make them worth the price would be if they came stuffed with $20s.
posted by uptown (1)
So are $250 diesel jeans, Italian shows, and spaghetti for 2 by candlelight yet people buy that crap up. - jk_baller23, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm glad that they tried, but I don't think they did a good job. The speaker system dwarfs the iPod. In the last pic, the speakers go good with the tv, not the iPod. I personally like the way Bose's iPod boombox looks. I like how the iPod is in the fron't, rather than the top, making the overall appearance seem more compact.
- TheCount, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Horrible. Simply horrible.
My favorite part was stat Job's said he would sell his home stereo and replace it with this. That's a damn dirty lie steve, and you know it. Not to mention any stereo system he has probably cost thousands of dollars in custom installation. - maxsunset, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As a bonafide audiophile myself, this thing is a slap in the face of the term HiFi. If apple wants to get into the iPod accessory market, fine, just don't call it HiFi. Most audiophiles I know won't even listen to downloads at all, let alone this piece of *****! When I first heard rumors of Apple's HiFi project, I was hoping apple would come out with a really nice music server, much like Music Giant's SoundVault, or McIntosh's MS300, only be able to interface with iTunes. This just took my respect for apple down more than a few points. What a joke.
- stokestack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2What is the point of even pretending to support high fidelity when the iTunes store sells only 128 kbit AAC?
This despite the availability of a DRM-riddled lossless format.
No sense whatsoever. - canyonblue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1well i for one think the design is attractive... with one cavet. i think the overall look is very agressively modern and therefore not for everyone, but it matches the "apple" look very well. what KILLS it is the iPod sticking out of the top... what was apple thinking? if it somewent inside or beside the unit the look, for me at least, would be quite attractive but as it stands the placement of the ipod on the unit makes the whole thing ugly and take up too much space.
- AtomB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I love apple stuff but I was really disappointed with the new products. I was expecting something a little more exciting.
- cbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"OK- I seriously doubt anyone in this thread has actually heard or used the iPod HiFi. You can sit back and look at specs all day, but if you haven't heard it or used it don't bash it (yet)."
Sorry, but an advertised 53hz to 16kHz ± 3 dB frequency response is a joke. It simply can't sound good. Well, let me rephrase that. It can't sound good to anyone that likes good sounding music. Of course, if you liked good sounding music you wouldn't be spending hundreds on iTunes 128Khz crap either. - richwise, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Who would buy this honking thing? Lottery Winners? Overpaid Athletes? Hollywood Stars? If you make less than 100K a year and are interested in buying this thing, I'd like to hear why. Email me at rwonline (at) Geemail dott comm.
- skunkman62, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1iCrap
- kolop1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1 If it had a cd player and an FM tuner in it, it may not be so bad. But as you can only use it with an Ipod i think it is stupid. Right now I have my Ipod connected into my stereo and it works just fine.
- thyratron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1On reviewing the information on the Apple website, a few interesting things came to light.
1) The iPod Hi-Fi includes a remote control. That's a very nice touch.
2) In addition to input from the iPod, the iPod Hi-Fi can accept an analog input as well as an optical digital input!
Apple's Airport Express has a digital output and would allow streaming to the Hi-Fi wirelessly from iTunes on a Mac or PC elsewhere in the house. The Airport Express has both analog and optical-digital outputs, and uses lossless compression for "AirTunes" streaming. Combining playlist sharing, One could effortlessly have the main music library in one Mac or PC, share it wirelessly to your PowerBook/MacBook Pro at the kitchen table, living room coffee table or wherever, and stream losslessly to the Airport Express / Hi-Fi of your choice without ever going analog.
3) The Hi-Fi uses Class-D switching mode amplification. That makes it very efficient from an energy use standpoint. While the amount of energy saved may not be huge from a cost standpoint, it allows the electronics to run much cooler and gives significantly lower battery drain than otherwise possible for a given power output. That's especially important when cranking some bass, as that takes the most energy. Switching mode electronics (both amplifiers and power supply) should make it practical to have several of these on around the house using nearly no standby power, just waiting for you to select the destination of your choice with AirTunes.
Limitations: There'd be no easy way to steam wirelessly to the Hi-Fi when it is running on batteries. Being fairly powerful (it looks like it runs at 1/4 power when on batteries as shown by the 6 dB lower maximum pressure levels) it'd be wise to have some good rechargeable batteries. I've dealt with 9 Amp/hour metal-hydrid D-cells before (about $11 each a couple of years ago). It'd be nice to have a convenient way of charging those.
Although marketed as being for the iPod, the Hi-Fi looks like it'd work well being fed digitally from the Mac Mini (playing either music or video, stored internally or from a shared playlist) - macewan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1does seem like a bit of a let down, rather pricey too
- MrFisty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2HAL9000 called. He wants his stereo back.
- iamsam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I want to know how watts the Hi-Fi is putting out. Anyone?
- OlnyGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nothing special. Just a waste of money and space.
- seanharrop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It looks like an old stereo component that nobody bought at a yard sale. iJunk, if you will. Ten years from now, I bet you'll be able to snag one of these rare collector items for $10.50
- Deuterium, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Man I guess Steve is back to drinking again. That sure didn't take long. I never gave it much hope anyway.
Man I don't know what else to say.... At least Apple's other failures looked nice. - AHIGHERGOD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Just as retarded as a $99 leather iPaid2much case.
- Jozer99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thats a pretty emo room. They should make sure that the pillow is wet with tears, and that there is some "My Chemical Romance" playing on the stereo.
- sspooner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Apple fanboys". Nope, I think you'll find the term is "Apple Zealots" and "Microsoft Fanboys"
Let's at least get our derogatory terms correct. - dechah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"so it may end up being a better product than people expect"
Agreed that it is possible however by all indications, the product is a steaming pile of crap. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is MFDA... I can't believe how stupid they are having the ipod sticking out like that.
a) it's ugly
b) it's not practical
I don't mind the idea of having a portable devic e that plugs into speakers like that, but surely it should've been front mounted, and maybe clip in. - kday, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Frequency response: 53Hz to 16kHz ± 3 dB"
LOL, nevermind. I don't even need to hear those speakers. They will sound like crap. That is an absolutely horrible frequency response. For that price, it should atleast have an 18khz frequency response. - snowthrower, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1L...A...M...E...!
Seems like Apple is running out of ideas... - Phyrefly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Apple have already proved that they don't know anything about audio quality. Ever heard of anyone buying the iPod for its audio quality? Me neither.
- absoluteczech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1sorry, that is the ugliest piece of plastic ive ever seen, for being mac i think it was poorly designed.
- dechah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"WHAT indications? That's my problem here"
The following indications.
1. from all the pictures I have seen it looks like a cement brick
2. from the technical specs it has lousy frequency response
3. the way the iPod pokes out the top looks daft - 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1>> Frequency response: 53Hz to 16kHz ± 3 dB....LMAO!!!!
Indeed...It's hard to believe they're trying to pass this off as quality audio- this is what you'd reasonably expect from a budget boom box at Target or something. - leonbev, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1For $350, I can buy a $280 stereo system and still have $70 left over for an Apple remote and a universal dock with an audio output jack.
For that price, I'd get better speakers, better stereo separation, an AM/FM radio, CD changer, and possibly a tape deck if you still want one. No deal here. - Flankk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Apple's hardware has never made sense to me. Periphials are meant to be kept outside the box, just as speakers should have satilites. Apple has always had a creepy obsession with putting everything in one box. It's not practical. Next the keyboard will be integrated into the iMac. I guess that's where they're moving with their touchscreen technology anyways.
- rebrad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So Steve steals some other companies ideas again. Who product are you going to hijack next Steve?
- cbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1iPod Lo-Fi.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks it's rather ugly. I mean, it's a big white box. With an ugly black screen on the front. It's awkward to say the least.
With computer speakers selling for $150 with a 31 Hz to 20 kHz frequency response (Klipsch ProMedia 2.1) I don't see how they couldn't have made this a lot nicer.
The only way this could even possibly be okay is if they add some inputs, move the strange iPod dock sticking out of the top, and upgrade the fidelity to something more "HiFi" then that. - zweben, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It really needed built in wireless to be a good product. I don't know why they left that out.
I'll stick with my $150, 200 watt Logitech Z-2300s with 35Hz - 20kHz frequency response and wired remote. - drlog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1>>Frequency response: 53Hz to 16kHz ± 3 dB
I thought you were joking but you aren't! Not only does it look ugly, it will also sound so *****!
Note to everyone, youre better off getting a normal stereo...with a sub ;) - Pogue_Mahone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1For $350 US, that is lame.
I was teetering right on the brink of becoming a mac convert too - a reasonably price intel ibook probably would have done it. - TheoDork, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Lame.
- lexmagnum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1::cough:: waste!
- okcomputer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1there better be a graphing calculator in that thing, because its expensive and ugly
-
Show 51 - 100 of 163 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is