Apple announces HomePod a smart MUSIC speaker

[THeEmpire.01]

Apple - "Immersive hi-fi audio. All the music you love. And the intelligence of Siri. Welcome HomePod — Available in December."

 

https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/5/15722994/apple-wwdc-2017-news-highlights-recap

 

Quote

So let’s get the Siri speaker rumors out of the way: it turns out Apple wasn’t quite aiming its smart speaker to go against just Amazon Echo and Google Home, but also the Sonos home entertainment speakers. Called the HomePod, it uses spacial awareness to tune and better fill the room with sound based on the space it’s in. It also has a “Musicologist” feature that works with Apple Music to stream the music you ask the speaker’s built-in Siri to play. You can even ask more complex, music-related questions like “Who’s the drummer in this song?” or “What album came out on this day 20 years ago?”

APPLE PRICED THE HOMEPOD AT $349

The HomePod will be available in two colors — black or white — and will integrate Siri in an Amazon Echo / Google Home-like use case. You can ask it to control smart home devices and check the day’s weather and news briefings. Apple priced the HomePod at $349, with plans to ship it in December first to customers in the US, UK, and Australia. It will enter more international markets next year. Check out our hands-on with the HomePod for a first look.

Quote

Although we were rebuffed at the Apple’s main demo area at WWDC today, later on we did get a chance to go listen to the HomePod. In a controlled demo with specific songs designed to show off the HomePod’s strengths, we heard it do some pretty impressive audio tricks. We couldn’t test Siri, nor pick our own tracks, but we did get to hear it both individually and set up as a pair of stereo speakers.

I’m no audio expert, so my colleagues Vlad and Nilay will surely take me to task for the words I’m about to type, but here goes. The main thing to know is that Apple has done a remarkably good job finding ways to get its speaker to feel like it’s filling a room with sound. It starts with the subwoofer, which delivers bass that doesn’t quite hit you in the chest but does manage to put other smart speakers like the Echo or Google Home to shame. It’s obviously no standalone subwoofer, but it outperforms what you’d expect from a speaker of this size.

APPLE IS DOING SOMETHING INTERESTING WITH AUDIO PROCESSING ON A SINGLE SPEAKER

The other thing to know is that Apple is doing something interesting with those seven tweeters. Over the course of a few songs, Apple explained the the HomePod isn’t trying to do anything cheap like create artificial stereo by bouncing the left and right channels in different directions. Rather it’s trying to separate out different aspects of the music. Apple referred to the “ambient” parts like background piano music as distinct from the more central parts like the vocals.

Basically, Apple is claiming that, using the microphones, the speaker can work out the shape of the room and then beamform different parts of the song to different areas. So the vocals get pumped straight out into the center of the room while the “ambient” bits get bounced off the wall. I can’t speak to the proper audiophile terms for what they’re talking about, but I can say that it sounded pretty immersive and impressive in person. 

That’s not really a surprise — this is called the HomePod, after all, and it seems like it was designed for music rather than as a vehicle for some vision of ambient computing. Siri will be here when it launches in December, but even on stage Apple referred to its assistant as a “musicologist” first and an assistant second.

 

 

https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/5/15743886/homepod-audio-quality-demo-echo-sonos-bass

 

This should be an interesting product. And knowing how loyal Apple costumers are, they might have single handedly destroyed Sonos and maybe even Alexa. It is also quite strange how Apple is showing this of as a Music device first and an assistant second. That may actually play in their favor since Apple Music is becoming widely popular and a device that is centralized on playing music from the service customized to that person could be very popular.

[goodtofufriday]

3 hours ago, THeEmpire.01 said:

This should be an interesting product. And knowing how loyal Apple costumers are, they might have single handedly destroyed Sonos and maybe even Alexa. It is also quite strange how Apple is showing this of as a Music device first and an assistant second. That may actually play in their favor since Apple Music is becoming widely popular and a device that is centralized on playing music from the service customized to that person could be very popular.

Considering Sonos cost to entry I think youre right here. I'd expect to see a android assistant version of sonos soon in response. Otherwise I think their days are numbered, at least for the market share they enjoy.

[Dackzy]

hah hi-fi my ass. At best this shit is going to be low mid-fi, but prob just going to be lo-fi.

[potoooooooo]

5 hours ago, Dackzy said:

hah hi-fi my ass. At best this shit is going to be low mid-fi, but prob just going to be lo-fi.

What makes you say that?

 

You don't think apple can make a good speaker?

[PlayStation 2]

$349 seems a bit pricey for it. Hopefully it holds up compared to Amazon and Google's shit.

Edited June 6, 2017 by Dan Castellaneta
wot

[vyx]

10 hours ago, THeEmpire.01 said:

they might have single handedly destroyed Sonos and maybe even Alexa.

Really doubt it, Apples crap networking alone will turn people off. Airplay 2 may fix this but it will be apple music only initially, so imo this speaker is far from ready to compete with Sonos. However if it causes Sonos to bring down their prices i wouldn't be sad.

[Dackzy]

12 minutes ago, potoooooooo said:

What makes you say that?

 

You don't think apple can make a good speaker?

1. Apple made it

2. Apple made it

3. It is clear that there have been a lot of thought put into the design, which given the price point means less thought into the audio.

 

When you add those things up you get at best low-end mid-fi. 

 

Hi-fi= high fidelity, which once you actually get into the audio world starts meaning something else than just audio gear. It actually means to get about as close as you can get to the original recording.

 

(these are just examples, but they are all generally seen by different audio communities to fit in the given categories I have put them in)  

 

With hi-fi you have headphones like the HD 800 and Focal Utopia and DACs like schiit gungnir multibit, Theta DS Pro Prime II, schiit Yggdrasil and amps like the Audio-GD - NFB 1. Ofc also combos like the RME-Audio ADI-2 Pro. (this stuff is expensive)

 

With Mid-fi you have headphones like HD 600, HD 650, K612 and the DACs would be something like schiit modi 2, schiit bifrost and others, paired with amps like asgard 2, magni 2 and many others. Ofc we also have comboes like the Audio GD NFB 11. (this is not that expensive, but can be)

 

With lo-fi you basically just have the entry level, this is where you meet quite a few Grado headphones, ATH MX0x headphones and the rest of your not total shitty things. (often cheap and used by people that just want something that sounds okay)

 

My own gear is a mix of hi-fi to some degree and mid-fi. I also have some that is seen as lo-fi.

 

This video explains hi-fi in a simple way.

 

[THeEmpire.01]

When I said that I think there is a chance that Apple could single handedly destroy Sonos and Alexa I was referring to the people who are super loyal to Apple. Not necessarily people like us "tech enthusiasts" who actually know about better products I made by other people. I was referring to the hype train and status of owning an Apple Product, wether it be the HomePod, iPhones, or Mac, people love Apple regardless of if they even like the product. Most consumers don't like the fact that Apple removed the headphone jack from the iPhone 7. So did consumer stop buying iPhones or MacBooks which removed usb ports, NO. People continued to buy their products. Thats why their one of the richest and most successful companies in the world. There products may be absolute trash it doesn't matter, because ordinary people who are in the "tech world" could care less.

 

 

Also I know the stuff that I'm saying above doesn't apply to everyone in the world, I'm just making a statement based on my experiences. 

 

 

Also we don't really know much about the HomePods audio quality yet, but based on the articles talking about its audio demos at WWDC it shouldn't be absolute trash. HiFi audio though, I wouldn't really be sure about that. : https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/5/15743886/homepod-audio-quality-demo-echo-sonos-bass 

[Hunter259]

52 minutes ago, Dackzy said:

-snip-

So you have no reasoning. Got it. How about waiting till it comes out before bashing it because currently your only reasoning that it will suck is "Hur Dur Apple Made it" and "It looks nice."

[Jito463]

57 minutes ago, THeEmpire.01 said:

because ordinary people who are in the "tech world" could care less.

Sorry to be "that guy", but I just have to say: it's 'couldn't care less' ('could care less' means you do care, even if it's just a little bit).

[raphidy]

1 hour ago, Hunter259 said:

So you have no reasoning. Got it. How about waiting till it comes out before bashing it because currently your only reasoning that it will suck is "Hur Dur Apple Made it" and "It looks nice."

Well, the community (head-fi and such) considered hd800 to be the best headphone on the market. They are like 1.5k$. It's not really bashing to say expecting lo-fi. It's just 350$, you have speaker, amp, mic and computing hardware. Audiophile won't buy this, for sure. It's more for convenience like airpods.

[NickTheMajin]

2 hours ago, Dackzy said:

1. Apple made it

2. Apple made it

3. It is clear that there have been a lot of thought put into the design, which given the price point means less thought into the audio.

 

When you add those things up you get at best low-end mid-fi. 

 

Hi-fi= high fidelity, which once you actually get into the audio world starts meaning something else than just audio gear. It actually means to get about as close as you can get to the original recording.

 

(these are just examples, but they are all generally seen by different audio communities to fit in the given categories I have put them in)  

 

With hi-fi you have headphones like the HD 800 and Focal Utopia and DACs like schiit gungnir multibit, Theta DS Pro Prime II, schiit Yggdrasil and amps like the Audio-GD - NFB 1. Ofc also combos like the RME-Audio ADI-2 Pro. (this stuff is expensive)

 

With Mid-fi you have headphones like HD 600, HD 650, K612 and the DACs would be something like schiit modi 2, schiit bifrost and others, paired with amps like asgard 2, magni 2 and many others. Ofc we also have comboes like the Audio GD NFB 11. (this is not that expensive, but can be)

 

With lo-fi you basically just have the entry level, this is where you meet quite a few Grado headphones, ATH MX0x headphones and the rest of your not total shitty things. (often cheap and used by people that just want something that sounds okay)

 

My own gear is a mix of hi-fi to some degree and mid-fi. I also have some that is seen as lo-fi.

 

This video explains hi-fi in a simple way.

 

 

I don't know if I'd consider HD 800s hi fi. I have a pair and there is a pretty distinct difference in sound quality between them, and what I'd actually consider hi fi my Martin Logan electrostatics. The 800s are great in the mid to high range, but the mid-low range they fall very very short.

 

Maybe its just me, but once you experience true premium sound from very high end speakers, it is very hard to go back to headphones. Even those with superb imaging like the 800s. Most of the people I've seen talking about "hi fi" are the ones who bought $400-1500 headphones and dacs and now think they are ballers when in reality true hi fi is going to be from a company like Martin Logan with amplifiers. 

[potoooooooo]

2 hours ago, Dackzy said:

1. Apple made it

2. Apple made it

3. It is clear that there have been a lot of thought put into the design, which given the price point means less thought into the audio.

 

When you add those things up you get at best low-end mid-fi. 

 

Hi-fi= high fidelity, which once you actually get into the audio world starts meaning something else than just audio gear. It actually means to get about as close as you can get to the original recording.

 

(these are just examples, but they are all generally seen by different audio communities to fit in the given categories I have put them in)  

 

With hi-fi you have headphones like the HD 800 and Focal Utopia and DACs like schiit gungnir multibit, Theta DS Pro Prime II, schiit Yggdrasil and amps like the Audio-GD - NFB 1. Ofc also combos like the RME-Audio ADI-2 Pro. (this stuff is expensive)

 

With Mid-fi you have headphones like HD 600, HD 650, K612 and the DACs would be something like schiit modi 2, schiit bifrost and others, paired with amps like asgard 2, magni 2 and many others. Ofc we also have comboes like the Audio GD NFB 11. (this is not that expensive, but can be)

 

With lo-fi you basically just have the entry level, this is where you meet quite a few Grado headphones, ATH MX0x headphones and the rest of your not total shitty things. (often cheap and used by people that just want something that sounds okay)

 

My own gear is a mix of hi-fi to some degree and mid-fi. I also have some that is seen as lo-fi.

 

This video explains hi-fi in a simple way.

 

So your only reasoning is that it's apple. Got it. Maybe at least try and hide your bias next time.

 

Also your definition of Hi Fi is ridiculous. It's not about sounding closest to the original recording, it's about sounding the best

 

people don't want it to sound exactly like the recording, they want headphones that fit their preferred sound signature. Whether that's warm, V shaped, or what have you. There's no such thing as a perfect pair of headphones, so saying that Hi-Fi is trying to get close as close to the recording as possible is laughably naive.

 

Also your elitism is showing, HD 600s and 650s aren't mid fi, and the M40x and M50x aren't lo fi. Higher price != Higher fi

[Drak3]

49 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Sorry to be "that guy", but I just have to say: it's 'couldn't care less' ('could care less' means you do care, even if it's just a little bit).

Nah, people probably care a little about it, but not much.

[THeEmpire.01]

53 minutes ago, Aleksiandrovich said:

I thought about this product. I see it with the following workings. It will work better than the google and amazon assistant for the following reasons; The Apple tight knit ecosystem will allow for better optimizations across all devices and in turn a better experience when using the speaker as such, my hopes for this "homePod" is that the actual music quality is on par and better than say (as a point of comparison) the UE MEGABOOM 2. I think that OP had the right idea that even if (audio wise) it was inferior it will beat out and possibly kill other competitors due to the way in which the Apple consumer base works. Apple will outsell competitors for this reason alongside the fact that it will be more appealing for users already inside of the Apple ecosystem. 

 

Myself included become more intrigued due to wanting to see how it works and interacts both inside and outside of the Apple ecosystem alongside the integration and optimization it may experience vs other competitors. All this hinges on how well the new Siri optimizations work by comparison to Alexa and the Google variant. If Siri is unable to beat and or be on par / better than the competitors, this whole concept fails. In saying this tho, Apple has a tendency to get existing ideas and or functions and adding their own flair / optimizing it for a much more advanced experience.

 

I know and have expectations that this will be by no means an audio enthusiast device. I'm not being blinded in this sense but what I do expect is an enjoyable listening experience that will match other similar Bluetooth speakers and in turn being something that people enjoy as regular, casual listeners.

 

PS: I'm not an Apple fanboy, I enjoy their ecosystem and products, but I (frankly) don't like the way they are going with some of their products and particularly pricing but rather I can see the product for its worth and contribution, price aside.

I absolutely agree, and Apple's device ecosystem and features like handoff could give HomePod a huge upper hand.

[BuckGup]

That mesh looks god awful

[JuNex03]

2 hours ago, Jito463 said:

Sorry to be "that guy", but I just have to say: it's 'couldn't care less' ('could care less' means you do care, even if it's just a little bit).

B....b...but, "couldn't care less" also means that you do care, but the amount of "cares" you give can't get any lower.

[captain_to_fire]

12 hours ago, huilun02 said:

Omg Apple invented speakers. $349 totally worth

They have something similar back in 2006. It was the iPod Hi-Fi that retails for $349. 

Source: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2006/02/28Apple-Announces-iPod-Hi-Fi/

 

[SilverMight]

I nearly spit out my drink laughing at the name

[sazrocks]

3 hours ago, SilverMight said:

I nearly spit out my drink laughing at the name

So? It's not like apple is the worst when it comes to naming stuff.

[Dackzy]

7 hours ago, NickTheMajin said:

 

I don't know if I'd consider HD 800s hi fi. I have a pair and there is a pretty distinct difference in sound quality between them, and what I'd actually consider hi fi my Martin Logan electrostatics. The 800s are great in the mid to high range, but the mid-low range they fall very very short.

 

Maybe its just me, but once you experience true premium sound from very high end speakers, it is very hard to go back to headphones. Even those with superb imaging like the 800s. Most of the people I've seen talking about "hi fi" are the ones who bought $400-1500 headphones and dacs and now think they are ballers when in reality true hi fi is going to be from a company like Martin Logan with amplifiers. 

HD800's are gnerally seen as the entry level hi-fi headphone and you are comparing speakers to headphones, headphones will IMO never have a real chance of competing. Speakers are simply superior.

a pair of Martin Logan electrostatic speakers cost what, 4k? Ofc they are going to be better, martin logan speakers are really good and ofc they are also speakers, which gives them a clear advantage when it comes to sounding more natural.

I hope that I can some day get a pair of Martin Logan speakers, but it would max be their entry level speaker. I don't think that I would ever be able to spend more on speakers. Though I do like the look of Ohm speakers, but sadly I haven't heard any....

7 hours ago, potoooooooo said:

So your only reasoning is that it's apple. Got it. Maybe at least try and hide your bias next time.

 

Also your definition of Hi Fi is ridiculous. It's not about sounding closest to the original recording, it's about sounding the best

 

people don't want it to sound exactly like the recording, they want headphones that fit their preferred sound signature. Whether that's warm, V shaped, or what have you. There's no such thing as a perfect pair of headphones, so saying that Hi-Fi is trying to get close as close to the recording as possible is laughably naive.

 

Also your elitism is showing, HD 600s and 650s aren't mid fi, and the M40x and M50x aren't lo fi. Higher price != Higher fi

oh god dude. If you even cared to look up what the audio communities call hi-fi then you will see that it is what I wrote. The video I linked that is made by a respected audio guy who also says the same thing as I am.

also did you even read my 3rd reasoning behind it not being good? It is clear that they cared a lot about the looks, which means they have spent a good amount of money designing it, which means less money spent on the driver they put in it and less money spent on the acoustic properties. Which equals lower audio quality and a nice looking speaker. Also because it is made by Apple is a valid point to some degree, because you are going to pay for the brand. This might have been a 250-300$ speaker if a small unknown brand made it.

 

Did I ever say there was a perfect? Nope. Do we hear things differently? Yes. None of us knows how the original recording sounded, for all we know the sound engineer might have made the consumer version a bit darker or a bit lighter sounding or the gear they used might have changed the sound a bit (which it most likely did). One thing we do know is that some headphones brings out more detail in the audio and have a smoother frequency response than other headphones. Plus then we also have a part of people that only thinks that you can call the most "neutral" and natural sounding headphones for hi-fi.

 

also yes HD600 and HD650 are generally viewed upon as mid-fi, but really good mid-fi. The same are my HE560's which cost way more than a pair of HD600/650's.

 

actually M50x are viewed upon as lo-fi by a lot of people, with their around 300Hz dip, bass that overflows a bit and peaks in the upper mid range that gives them a harsh sound. M40x's are seen as a superior headphone in terms of audio quality.

who here said that higher price= higher fi? I didn't. As far as I know then the M50x's cost about the same as a pair of K612's, but those are generally seen as a entry level mid-fi headphone, plus then you have brands like grado that makes headphones that cost as much as a pair of HD800's, but are generally seen as mid-fi.

Again this is very general, some people will disagree with some of the headphones that are put in a given catagory and some will agree. The other hifi comment here didn't agree with HD800's being hi-fi which is totally fair. All I have done is stating the general view that I have found in different audio communities.

 

you shouldn't take the labeling of your gear that hard, I was kinda annoyed when I got my HE 560's and found out that they were generally only viewed as mid-fi, but the thing that matters the most is that you enjoy your gear. The only gear I own that is seen as hi-fi by quite a few people would be my DAC, but there are also very mixed feelings about it. Some people calls it hi-fi, while others call it mid-fi, mostly because it has a warm sound to it.

 

kek calling me for an elitist is about as far off as you can get, I often discuss audio with people that are of the more elitist nature, but our views on audio are very different. They often say anything below hi-fi is a waste of money and time, where I am more as long as they enjoy their gear then it is fine, but I can see their point. Instead of buying 3 pairs of mid-fi headphones, then buy a single pair and wait until you can buy something that is hi-fi. It makes sense, instead of being "stuck" in the same audio quality "area" with all of your headphones, then save up and buy something that offers the "next level" audio quality.

[Dackzy]

10 hours ago, Hunter259 said:

So you have no reasoning. Got it. How about waiting till it comes out before bashing it because currently your only reasoning that it will suck is "Hur Dur Apple Made it" and "It looks nice."

do I really need to explain this to you? Apple most likely spent quite a bit of money on the design, which means less money spent on the actual sound, plus then we have all of the extra features which also take away from the money spent on the actual sound quality, plus you will be paying for that little apple logo.

 

It won't be hi-fi, I won't be close at all. If it is going to be hi-fi, then it would need to beat out speakers that cost like 800$ for a single pair and they have no amp or DAC built into it or any special features and are made by respected audio companies, so use some logic here. What is the chance of that happening? None. Hell I am 100% sure that a lot of audio people will say that it is first once you hit 1500$ mark or more that you start meeting hi-fi speakers.

I have actually yet to meet a pair of speakers that are generally viewed upon as hi-fi under 1000$.

Hi-Fi is generally just used by companies as a marketing thing, with no real meaning behind it, the same with stores.

[NickTheMajin]

59 minutes ago, Dackzy said:

HD800's are gnerally seen as the entry level hi-fi headphone and you are comparing speakers to headphones, headphones will IMO never have a real chance of competing. Speakers are simply superior.

a pair of Martin Logan electrostatic speakers cost what, 4k? Ofc they are going to be better, martin logan speakers are really good and ofc they are also speakers, which gives them a clear advantage when it comes to sounding more natural.

I hope that I can some day get a pair of Martin Logan speakers, but it would max be their entry level speaker. I don't think that I would ever be able to spend more on speakers. Though I do like the look of Ohm speakers, but sadly I haven't heard any....

oh god dude. If you even cared to look up what the audio communities call hi-fi then you will see that it is what I wrote. The video I linked that is made by a respected audio guy who also says the same thing as I am.

also did you even read my 3rd reasoning behind it not being good? It is clear that they cared a lot about the looks, which means they have spent a good amount of money designing it, which means less money spent on the driver they put in it and less money spent on the acoustic properties. Which equals lower audio quality and a nice looking speaker. Also because it is made by Apple is a valid point to some degree, because you are going to pay for the brand. This might have been a 250-300$ speaker if a small unknown brand made it.

 

Did I ever say there was a perfect? Nope. Do we hear things differently? Yes. None of us knows how the original recording sounded, for all we know the sound engineer might have made the consumer version a bit darker or a bit lighter sounding or the gear they used might have changed the sound a bit (which it most likely did). One thing we do know is that some headphones brings out more detail in the audio and have a smoother frequency response than other headphones. Plus then we also have a part of people that only thinks that you can call the most "neutral" and natural sounding headphones for hi-fi.

 

also yes HD600 and HD650 are generally viewed upon as mid-fi, but really good mid-fi. The same are my HE560's which cost way more than a pair of HD600/650's.

 

actually M50x are viewed upon as lo-fi by a lot of people, with their around 300Hz dip, bass that overflows a bit and peaks in the upper mid range that gives them a harsh sound. M40x's are seen as a superior headphone in terms of audio quality.

who here said that higher price= higher fi? I didn't. As far as I know then the M50x's cost about the same as a pair of K612's, but those are generally seen as a entry level mid-fi headphone, plus then you have brands like grado that makes headphones that cost as much as a pair of HD800's, but are generally seen as mid-fi.

Again this is very general, some people will disagree with some of the headphones that are put in a given catagory and some will agree. The other hifi comment here didn't agree with HD800's being hi-fi which is totally fair. All I have done is stating the general view that I have found in different audio communities.

 

you shouldn't take the labeling of your gear that hard, I was kinda annoyed when I got my HE 560's and found out that they were generally only viewed as mid-fi, but the thing that matters the most is that you enjoy your gear. The only gear I own that is seen as hi-fi by quite a few people would be my DAC, but there are also very mixed feelings about it. Some people calls it hi-fi, while others call it mid-fi, mostly because it has a warm sound to it.

 

kek calling me for an elitist is about as far off as you can get, I often discuss audio with people that are of the more elitist nature, but our views on audio are very different. They often say anything below hi-fi is a waste of money and time, where I am more as long as they enjoy their gear then it is fine, but I can see their point. Instead of buying 3 pairs of mid-fi headphones, then buy a single pair and wait until you can buy something that is hi-fi. It makes sense, instead of being "stuck" in the same audio quality "area" with all of your headphones, then save up and buy something that offers the "next level" audio quality.

I have a pair of Martin Logans Theos speakers. ~$6000 when I picked them up. 

 

I did audition the $8000 and $15000 pair during the same visit. The $8000 pair was identical aside from having a powered subwoofer instead of the passive one the Theos has. I use a dual subwoofer combo in my home theater so the powered sub didn't make a difference. 

 

The $15k pair was noticeably better with imaging but only by about 25-30% whereas the difference between the $2000 and $6000 pair was night and day. The electrostatic panel was the same size between the $6000 and $15000 pair but the powered sub in the thing was amazing. 

 

I dont think you can get hi fi with headphones but that's just me. The only thing that fucking triggers me is when people call the god fucking awful ath m50s hi fi. Those are the headphones for the tech nerds who think they're better than the people who buy beats, when in reality they sound just as bad and aren't as comfortable. 

[Dackzy]

35 minutes ago, NickTheMajin said:

I have a pair of Martin Logans Theos speakers. ~$6000 when I picked them up. 

 

I did audition the $8000 and $15000 pair during the same visit. The $8000 pair was identical aside from having a powered subwoofer instead of the passive one the Theos has. I use a dual subwoofer combo in my home theater so the powered sub didn't make a difference. 

 

The $15k pair was noticeably better with imaging but only by about 25-30% whereas the difference between the $2000 and $6000 pair was night and day. The electrostatic panel was the same size between the $6000 and $15000 pair but the powered sub in the thing was amazing. 

 

I dont think you can get hi fi with headphones but that's just me. The only thing that fucking triggers me is when people call the god fucking awful ath m50s hi fi. Those are the headphones for the tech nerds who think they're better than the people who buy beats, when in reality they sound just as bad and aren't as comfortable.  

5

that is a very nice setup. The most I probably will ever be able to spend is about what a pair for Martin Logan Motion 15's cost which is about 2600$ here in Denmark....

Yep M50x's are bad, really bad. The M50s were my first "proper" headphone (I fell for the hype), but damn I regret buying them. They are just bad.

[Tieox]

46 minutes ago, NickTheMajin said:

I have a pair of Martin Logans Theos speakers. ~$6000 when I picked them up. 

 

I did audition the $8000 and $15000 pair during the same visit. The $8000 pair was identical aside from having a powered subwoofer instead of the passive one the Theos has. I use a dual subwoofer combo in my home theater so the powered sub didn't make a difference. 

 

The $15k pair was noticeably better with imaging but only by about 25-30% whereas the difference between the $2000 and $6000 pair was night and day. The electrostatic panel was the same size between the $6000 and $15000 pair but the powered sub in the thing was amazing. 

 

I dont think you can get hi fi with headphones but that's just me. The only thing that fucking triggers me is when people call the god fucking awful ath m50s hi fi. Those are the headphones for the tech nerds who think they're better than the people who buy beats, when in reality they sound just as bad and aren't as comfortable. 

Still enjoying Andromeda at 4k?