Apple released the iPod Hi-Fi recently. It kinda looks interesting (esp. how it can run on D-cell batteries). They make a good point about how you can have all your music at your fingertips rather than a stack of CD cases. But what do you think of the $349 price?

Nothing new here. Move along...move along.

I don't think apple has added anything new. Instead, they decided to copy some of the devices available from 3rd parties and make one of their own. A boom box w/ an aux input that can run off AC or DC power is nothing new.

The interesting thing to me is taking business away from the 3rd parties. Rather than Apple focusing on technology, they've decided to make some battery powered speakers. Definitely taking business from companies like Bose.

I have NO doubt that it will do reasonable well. It'll be in the Apple stores, Apple ads, and spoken from "on high the Apple mountain". That is why this product will be successful. Not because of its innovation or technology.

Two thumbs up!

meh...

I don't think it'll do well. It's overpriced, has shit specs (53hz to 16khz ± 3dB IIRC), looks ugly and unwieldy and has no stereo separation. I'm REALLY surprised they released this, i think they dropped the ball here big time.

I'd still like to hear it in person though.

Now, I'm only starting to get into audio tech, but those two statements seem to conflict each other. Doesn't sound very good to me!

The HF extension could be better, but you can't really expect < 50Hz from anything other than a subwoofer or decent main speakers.

Also, decent quality mono > bad quality stereo. If it is going to be a box like that there's not going to be much use for stereo anyway (almost as useless as stereo speakers in a cell phone, for god's sake!)

Yep. A speaker with that kind of response can indeed sound very good. Note also that they give figures at +-3dB, while many manufacturers use +-6dB.

And 350$ for a good quality (i have no idea if the Apple unit actually is of good quality) active speaker is hardly overpriced.

Psst, these active speakers are better and cheaper than the boombox.

http://www.acoustic-energy.co.uk/Product_r...ries/Aego_M.asp

just got my ipod nano (i only regret i bought the 2GB instead of 4GB), and i usually like apples products, but when i so the price, i thought it came with an ipod. The price is toooooooooooooooooooo much. More like 150 u$s for a pair of speakers. 200 at most. Unless they are really bosse quality, but still toooo much.

I think Apple has really done something here. Sure, it is not that innovative or new but they have created competition from 3rd party developers. The demand for iPod speakers is pretty high, people want to be able to just dock their iPod and start playing music at decent quality. Most iPod speakers out there don't have good quality though. Most sound like upgraded notebook speakers. The few exceptions are the Bose Sound Dock and the Altec Lensing IM7. Apple has now set a standard bar that 3rd party developers need to surpass in order to sell their products and set a price, now 3rd party developers need to come out with better products at cheaper prices.

I do agree that the price is way too high. You are paying more for the Apple brand and convinience of having a all-in-one speaker set than you are for the quality. The Bose Sound Dock was the most expensive iPod speaker set at $300 which is about $50 too high. Again, you are paying more for the Bose brand and convinience.

I like what Apple has done but I am not going to get this product. I probably would have gotten it if Apple put a $250 price tag on it but I am not paying for a iPod specific speaker set that costs $50 less than my actual iPod. Who knows though, I may hear one of these things in the Apple store and get blown away by the quality. I will have to actually hear the product before I make any judgements.

I also like to hear the product. But it is annoying to me, that they name it with the term HiFi.

Would like to have a 100GB Nano with flac playing capabilities

mmm mmm....listen to an album with bits of silence between the tracks, and through a mono source which could potentially ruin the sound, all from a speaker that looks like a toaster.....the ultimate hi-fi experience.

seriously, the mono thing sounds pretty whack. arent there plenty of albums out there (read nin - broken) that use special stereo fx stuff and that when played in mono the sound like phases out or something? im no super-tech but that sounds like bad news.

some people are going to hate me for this, but i feel like apple really capitalises on ignorance and fear, making people just feel happy because their new box is so pretty and simple. true, that works for a lot of people, but as has been stated, it does nothing to really advance the technology and actually make the listening experience better.
i mean for real, give almost anyone an ipod and they'll revel in the amount of music for the size, and accept the numerous little annoyances. give somebody who knows a bit more about music an ipod and you get rockbox ;].
when is google going to start making goopods? that would shake things up.

I'm 99% sure it's a stereo speaker system in a single enclosure, especially from this part:

"Precise imaging and separation: Close your eyes. With iPod Hi-Fi, you can ‘picture’ the relative placement of each instrument or voice in space. Every instrument or voice — even in complex, polyphonic pieces — sounds clear, discrete, and uncrowded."

Oh, and "iPod Hi-Fi features three speaker cones custom designed to provide balanced sound across the frequency range. The result of numerous rigorous acoustic tests, this design delivers room-filling stereo imaging."

I'm starting to change my opinion of it. It's not for me of course, but I can see where it would be useful in tonnes of situations. Dorm rooms, etc - not everyone wants a speaker in every corner of their room and the accompanying cabling.

Despite being called "audiophile" quality, this isn't really marketed at the HA.org sort of crowd.

If you already have a hi-fi system, it would be much better to just plug in the ipod to a free line-in, and use some kind of remote to control the ipod.

Ipod hi-fi will be probably bought by people that know little and care less about proper hi-fi systems. This is just a fancy, probably good quality expensive boombox, but at last still a boombox. Its name should be "iPod BoomBox" instead

to be honest, i cant find much about it being stereo or mono on the site. it was earlier comments that led me to believe it was mono or 'lacks stereo seperation'...if those are different.

either way, apple saying you can 'picture' the placement, or that it has 3 speakers that cover a wide frequency range, has nothing to do with whether or not it is stereo :].

my original thought would be of course it is, who would design a mono box like this, but again, its earlier comments that make me wonder if somebody knows something i dont.

I believe the left high-frequency driver does left channel, and right right. The low-frequency driver in the middle does lower range for both channels.

"iPod Hi-Fi features three speaker cones custom designed to provide balanced sound across the frequency range. The result of numerous rigorous acoustic tests, this design delivers room-filling stereo imaging."

I am quite certain that the HiFi will sound more "stereo" than many posters think. There is abundant technology that allows for the creation of a wide stereo field from closely-spaced sources.

Most of us have only seen the cheesiest implementation - the craptastic "wide" effects on zillions of ghastly $100 boomboxes. But in fact very sophisticated methods exist that can provide a pretty convincing large field from a small source. I would be very surprised if Apple did not incorporate such technology.

It is clear that Apple has observed that Bose (and to a lesser degree Altec) have runaway hits with $300 powered speaker systems, and so the price point is by definition reasonable no matter what people here at HA think. Of course there are cheaper ways to go, but that is of no consequence. Most people over 30 shudder at the thought of alien-looking computer speakers in their living room (e.g, JBL Creatures) and find the idea of high quality, compact systems very attractive. I don't need to belabour this point: the market has confirmed it and made Bose a $1.5 billion company. Aesthetics and ease of use really sell, as they should.

My $0.02 on price: $350 is not much to pay for decent sound with actual power, no matter how you slice it. The price point has NOTHING to do with the relative cost of the iPod, just as the price of a regular stereo system has nothing to do with the cost of CDs. For reference, the lowest price I have ever paid for a small system I could stand to listen to was about $600 - so if it works for a lousy $350 it makes plenty of sense. All the sub-$200 solutions I have auditioned are unacceptable for anything remotely serious, and/or are often aesthetically off limits for folks with nice homes.

All Apple had to do was read the tea leaves left in the cup by Bose. My bet is that it will enjoy reasonably healthy sales if it is well implemented.

but it is not even beautifull. they pretty much suck.

350 would be a killer if it included a 1GB nano ... or a shuffle ...

Total suckage. It's ugly. And by all accounts it sounds bad and is too heavy. Yuck.

I like the idea of having an integrated playback system for DAP's (I can think of various possibilities one could use such a device) but personally, I miss a dedicated tweeter. Simple cone speakers (even small 80mm ones) might be very well suited for the midrange (up to 5 or 7k), but they are (in theory, at least) not suited for high-range (mostly due to partial oscillations and stronger focussing at higher frequencies IIRC).

I wonder why Apple did not invest in a koaxial 2-way system (plus mid-ship mounted woofer) that can be found in car stereo environments ...

The rumored product had wireless streaming, a dedicated hard drive, etc. I'm sure many are disappointed that it's basically an iPod boom box, like many people already offer. For that kind of money, get a SoundBridge Radio and wirelessly stream from your iTunes server: http://www.rokulabs.com/products/soundbrid...Radio/index.php

I don't think bundling is Apple's style. Also, a shuffle wouldn't work with the iPod Hi-Fi.




Have you personally heard the sound of iPod Hi-Fi? Or have anyone for that matter?

For that, we already have Airport Express (AirTunes) and I think the sound from the Hi-Fi is at the very least better than the sound from the Soundbridge Radio.

However, I agree that Apple should have been think forward a little bit and come up with a stereo replacement (with all of the features you mentioned) instead of a mundane iPod accessory.

The existing Airport Express is a little different, since it's no more than a remote audio jack for your iTunes... you need to compare to something you can control locally, with integrated amplified speakers.

Anyway, it's a little silly saying the sound of the Hi-Fi is "at the very least better than" the Roku product without doing a real comparison! I'm sure they are pretty close, as they they are both targeting the "expensive" consumer grade ("Bose Soundwave" like) market.

Regarding the Roku product marketing "specifications", it seems to be good:

Q: What are the specs of the speakers?
A: SoundBridge Radio includes very high-quality, built-in powered speakers and ported subwoofer. They were custom designed for Roku by Godehard Guenther, famous audio designer and founder of A/D/S.

Front left and right speakers: Two Linear Magnetic Drive (LMD) Full-Range Speakers, +0/–6dB from 80Hz to 20kHz, each in its own tuned acoustic enclosure and each powered by a built-in 20Wrms 3G digital amplifier.

Subwoofer: One Linear Magnetic Drive (LMD) Subwoofer, +/–3dB from 40Hz to 160Hz, in a proprietary Delta-Tunnel™ tuned acoustic enclosure and powered by a built-in 30Wrms 3G digital amplifier.

I have not, thus the phrasing "by all accounts", which I intentionally used. However, I *have* read multiple accounts of people who have, and all of them were fairly uniformly bad. I could only find these links on short notice:
http://www.technudgelive.com/2006/03/on-ipod-boombox.html
http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/28/apple-i...hi-fi-hands-on/

Does the iPod really just sit on the top like that? Seems rather an odd design choice to me. Looks stupid, flimsy, easy to knock off, etc.

Call me picky but I would have thought the minimum qualification for a review of a piece of audio equipment would be having listened to it.

Hell, Roy Orbison was an ugly bloke but he sure sung purty.

Here is a real review of the iPod Hi-Fi, although I am not sure how accurate it is as far as the audio quality claims goes. I am somewhat suspicious at the author's claim that he can tell the difference between 128kbps AAC files from iTMS (Isn't it supposed to be 192kbps AAC?) and ALAC.

http://playlistmag.com/reviews/2006/03/ipo....php?lsrc=mwrss

iTMS tracks are indeed 128 kbps.

Even then, is it possible for the average person to hear the difference between QT AAC LC at 128 and ALAC? I think even a golden ear can't do it without ABX.

Taking business from Bose is the best thing that could possibly happen.

Don't click this if you have a sophisticated antipathy against being told the truth.

Perhaps the couple of albums I (stupidly) bought a while back were encoded with a hopelessly outdated version of Apple's AAC codec, but many exhibited obvious ringing and flanging and certainly did not require ABX testing to hear problems. Examples: Miles Davis's "Bitches Brew, "George Benson's "Greatest Hits," Rush's Counterparts, and so on. I've subsequently bought all these albums on actual CD's, and my testing proved that the ITMS files were readily identifiable as being of poorer quality than the same files off the same CD ripped to AAC 128. ITMS songs also tended to have 16kHz lowpasses when I bought them. In all, not transparent by any means. George Benson's CD was SO bad in fact that it sounded like the m4p files were actually transcoded from 112kbps MP3's.

Are ITMS files still lowpassed at 16kHz? Perhaps that explains why the iFi isn't so worried about frequencies above 16kHz....

Will be interesting to see unbiased reviews on this.

Looks like your average fairly decent 'HiFi' center speaker. Umm, for a whopping $350.

I've also had some bad experiences with iTMS, especially early on. Even high profile stuff like Coldplay's Speed of Sound was very easily ABX-able, but recent tracks have all been very good. It wouldn't surprise me that some labels have slipped through some lossily sourced tunes.

As for the iPod Hi-Fi, I don't really see people getting it as a stereo replacement, but it's probably perfect for dorm rooms and stuff like that. The price is high, but that hasn't really been a problem for Apple in the past

The price isn't just high, it's ridiculous. I just bought a set of Altec Lansing speakers which sound good, but by no means are amazing. I paid roughly AUS$120 for them. Now Apple wan't me to pay AUS$549 for a essentially a boom box that will probably have poor stereo seperation (mostly because the speakers are all so close together). I'm also pretty sure that even if they sound better than my $120 speakers, I doubt they sound better to the tune of $429 (the price difference between my speakers and the iPod Hi-Fi). It's also suprisingly ugly for an Apple product.

I just don't see how many Australian's could justify spending $549 on a secondary pair of speakers, because clearly it's not designed to replace any sort of proper Hi-Fi system.

Well, then what's the point of all those ABC-HR tests this site organizes at that bitrate?

And the notion of being a "golden ear" is silly. Having listened to more music won't magically improve one's hearing, and in fact may have damaged it if it's played at high volume.

Great post. I read both articles and nowhere do the articles say that the boombox sounded poor. Only the second link had a 'hands on' experience with it, the other was an internet view of it. And the rubbish they state about "i wonder if the bloody thing is 200-watt, which it bloody well couldn't be". Most 200-watt systems are about as loud as a truly 25-watt system; judging power by the watt is a third-world technique becuase if you look at those that advertise by the watt, they are exactly that, wattage. Not soundage, not niceage, merely wattage. I might admit that the thing is not something I would buy, that I prefer my Hi-Fi, but to quote two internet sites as having 'things to say' and only one has touched the bloody thing, poor form.

iLounge recently reviewed this sucker and gave it a "B" grade - hardly befitting of a "revolutionary" product. And since it was iLounge, you know they were probably being nice - after all, you don't see too many Apple products being slammed in their reviews.

Even if it were to sound good, it's seriously overpriced and I wouldn't let its ugly woofers be seen anywhere near my "real" stereo. What's this junk about replacing my record player?

It may not be exactly what people were clamoring for at Steve Jobs' most recent media hypevent, but the Apple iPod Hi-Fi ($349 direct) is now part of Apple's steadily growing repertoire of iPod accessories. I got my hands on one and took it for a spin in the PC Magazine audio lab, and I'm very happy with it. The one-piece three-way combination speaker and iPod dock looks a lot like a center-channel speaker from a home theater system, with horizontally set drivers. Though it costs about $50 more, it can thump, sing, and squeal with a lot more power than the Bose SoundDock, plus it's portable. I'm glad Apple included a combination analog and S/PDIF optical digital input, but a video pass-through for outputting photos and video to a TV would be convenient...

PC MAG Review (probably not the most "music" oriented mag but)

What would be good speakers for this kind of use?

I am thinking about buying JBL OnTour.

Does anyone have a recommendation?

Yup, 7kg, with handle on both end which mean you need TWO hands to carry them.

You must be kidding!