Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2025 Apple TV 4K: All the Rumors So Far
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But most audio visual ones do since they drive displays and projectors.
Thye have one part of the pieces with Apple Music Sing. A Bluetooth mike that can connect to the ATV and software capability to mix vocals with music; along with Karaoke mixes of songs in Apple Music, would make it happen.
Absolutely, however I believe way more people have a stereo system hooked up to their TV then a full receiver and possibly surround system.
Either way - the Apple TV with a proper audio output is not expensive compared to many/most other dedicated audio streamers. A dedicated audio streamer that supports Apple Music cost at least 3 times as much as an Apple TV (Right now a streamer running Android is the only option if you wanna stream high res audio from Apple Music).
True, but most AV Amps do and the Apple TV is ahem a streaming device and the TV stands for Television. And those who still have stereo amps surely wouldn't want the compressed sound from an Apple TV over a DDD CD or Gramophone recording.
Me, I still use my Oppo for UHD bluray AV experiences and SACD awesome audio. But for quick and easy we just airplay directly to our AMP, although we could do AIRPLAY to ATV and then the AMP as well.
However, also don't forget the person I was responding to mentioned it in context of a soundbar
Not a stereo amp.
IIRC, HDMI can do better audio formats than optical, so HDMI->TV->Optical->Receiver is the same as ATV->Optical-> Receiver. In eitehr case the optical input is the constraints assuming ATV can use higher audio codecs.
Hence, my point. We still need ethernet. The OP implied that ethernet ports became obsolete in the 90's. I merely pointed out that in order to get advertised speeds from your ISP, you must use ethernet. Even today.
Yeah. I have gigabit internet and I'm getting gigabit speeds on my NETGEAR Orbi mesh network no matter where I am in my house. I do use Ethernet on my Apple TV simply because the option is there, though.Or configure your WiFi correctly
The AppleTV we have in the kitchen stopped send a 4K signal to our Samsung Frame television. It just stopped. One day it was working fine, the next not so much. Nothing I do will fix it. The AppleTV 4Kin the living room works fine.
I still love the AppleTV.
I still love the AppleTV.
I was sure that Apple Music Sing was a precursor to a full-on ATV karaoke experience. I still think it is but it's obviously not a high priority for Apple.
Sigh. I was about to pull the trigger an update one of my 1080p ATVs, but was wavering since it seems like no native FT camera support in the current 4K APV seems to be just a weird hole in the feature. I suspected that a next generation device would address this, but was not hearing any rumors about a timeline.
Now I feel like I need to wait…
Now I feel like I need to wait…
Leverage the Apple Sing capability through Apple Music and you’re halfway there 😂
Regarding inputs i.e. HDMI, Ethernet, optical: while I feel they can be very helpful for maximising bandwidth, it would appear that Apple would prefer to maximise convenience of having less wires. Yes, that may not suit current or past state activities or situations, but it is a way to push forward into future state. For example: the removal of the CD/DVD, headphone jack, FireWire, etc.
I just want the user profiles implementing correctly so that each user sees their correct content and is logged into apps as required. At the moment switching profiles does barely anything apart from game centre as far as I can see
Data transfer speeds are not the issue. Latency is. Interference is.Alternatively, you can just configure your Wi-Fi correctly and you have the same. The maximum I can get at home is 1Gb internet, and whether connected via Ethernet or Wi-Fi, I get the same speeds.
The AppleTV has a maximum of 9600, my Asus WiFi mesh has 4804 (bi-directional), and my internet has only got 1024
When you are watching media and people on Zoom have lag or interruptions, it’s not wifi speeds. It’s latency. It’s poor latency inherent in wifi. Same with gaming. It sucks over wifi.
Also, try the ethernet port on your Apple TV. Just try it. You’ll likely see just how much snappier and improved it is. Don’t take my word for it.
As I said, then you have configured it wrong
it really doesn't have to be like that. But I wonder how you'll move the goalpost with the next response...
Ok, good answer, I agree on your opinion that a receiver and a lot of speakers are better at giving a surround experience.
But if Apple would enable at least one extra homepod to be used as a back speaker, so you have some more real surround , spatial effect, it would still be great. Not as good as a dedicated receiver and speakers, but still pretty good, and less hassle. You would still be able to play sound from other sources through hdmi/arc of your tv and Apple TV.
A setup consisting of HomePods and HomePod minis where the HomePod could act as a sub as well as the main speaker and minis as satellites would let people setup a surround sound system without wires at a reasonable cost and with a lot less hassle.
I wonder if the issue is latency which would hurt the effect.
I have setup ATVs on Wifi and ethernet on the same network and have not noticed any difference in the stream, and that is with 1GB fiber. I can see where it would make a diligence in some gaming scenarios ut for video I have seen none.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
One uses either speaker wires for “dumb” speakers or power cords for “smart” ones. There is no escaping “wires” in this comparison. If you don't like wires, neither is an option.
And I would guess the odds of many living/TV rooms just happening to have power outlets in all of the places hypothetical HPs suitable for a true surround setup would need to be is not high…. going to nearly 0% if one wants a true ATMOS setup with several HPs on the ceiling. They all need power- either through power cords or speaker wire.
If one is unable to run speaker wire through walls/attic/basement to get them where you want speakers (often more “where there’s a will” vs. actually impossible) there are many options to hide relatively thin speaker wire vs typically thicker power cords through some hollow baseboards or crown molding or even running it OUTSIDE the house from Receiver through buried speaker wire then bringing it back in where you want surround sound speakers.
If one wants to go all the way to true ATMOS, you have to get speakers above the seating position. So that's either protruding (hypothetical) HP orbs (you think iPhone camera protrusion is less than ideal, wait until you have whole orbs on your ceiling) or you can install quality speakers fully flush in ceiling, even paint the grill to match your ceiling paint making them blend right in. Conceptually, Apple could make flat ceiling HP speakers so that one is not putting full HP orbs up there, but there's not even a hint of a rumor Apple is considering such a thing.
In general, the 3.0 setup up front: Left, Center, Right "dumb" speakers is easy because speaker wires simply run along one wall and behind a television placed in the middle. A true Center channel will already beat a HP setup for theater sound because it will mostly own the dialogue instead of attempting to faux create it from 2 stereo speakers left & right. If one wants to improve the faux dialogue from stereo HPs, the easiest option is to bring them closer together near the the TV... but then you are sacrificing the stereo separation. 3 speakers deliver ideal dialogue AND ideal separation. There's no way to top that with TWO speakers. Your ears will hear the difference.
Anyone mostly happy with front speakers only (the HP crowd now), could add a subwoofer up front for 3.1. That brings much improved bass into the mix without any wires running back through the room to try to deliver surround too. This is the ideal setup for those who cannot or will not run wires back from the receiver but still want to maximize the sound out front. There is no way to crank comparable bass from tiny little HP speakers or "dumb" (but small) speakers. Subs are generally biggest speaker for a physics reason. If you like big bass, you need that kind of big speaker in the mix. There is not even a hint of a rumor of a HP subwoofer in development.
There are home theater systems that nicely overcome the aesthetics/opinion "problem" of surround sound signal without wires from front to back by making the Sub a wireless receiver and to which one connects (usually) 2 surround speakers with wires. So that setup is 3.0 up front wired and then a wireless send of sub + rear channel audio to a subwoofer generally put behind or beside the prime seating position (PSP). 2 speaker wires run OUT of the sub to feed to surround sound speakers beside/behind the PSP to deliver the true surround sounds. Wires carefully run from sub this way to rear speakers are often easily hidden and out of sight from the PSP. This can work very well for those who don't want a few wires to run from front to back of a room. And these have existed and been refined for years.
Hypothetically, Apple could replicate HP home theater speakers like that last paragraph: HP Left, HP center, HP right up front, wireless HP sub behind/beside PSP and then HP Left & HP Right surround speakers beside/behind PSP. But again, there is not a single rumor about Apple having ANY interest in doing anything more than "as is" with stereo-only HPs.
Lastly, true ATMOS requires overhead speakers. You need to run wires up there (attic?). Else, you need access to power up there for any kind of wireless ATMOS speakers. There is no way around that. Marketing putting ATMOS on the box or in the online description of a speaker or soundbar that is not going to be overhead is only faux ATMOS. Faux ATMOS- like faux center channel sound- can sound better than nothing... but if you want to maximize audio for your ears, there's nothing like the real thing.
Again, visit ANY professional theater ANYWHERE in the world and see how many lean on 2 HPs down front vs. putting speakers all around the audience. You won't find ONE like that even though it would be so much cheaper and simpler for them to only use 2 HPs vs a true theater speaker setup. Why? Because the ears would easily know. If you want the same at home, replicate their setups... which is just as impossible with either 2 HPs or any single Soundbar with ATMOS written on the box.
One More Thing: If you really want "smart" speakers over "dumb" ones anyway but you also really want true surround sound in the theater room, go Sonos or similar. They already have what people are dreaming Apple would develop someday: fully refined wireless* speakers (*but power cords required) for surround sound configurations and bass units too. The software to make it all work already "just works" and they work just as well with Apple Music and Airplay. The Siri "smarts(?)" of HPs is also built into your iDevices, your Mac and your AppleTV to utilize them like you use HP "smarts(?)". They can be put into HomeKit rooms just like HPs too so you can tell Siri to "play whatever in _____ room" or "play whatever whole house" and they will blend right in with any HPs to do as you command. Sonos already does ALL of this vs. waiting & hoping Apple might start going there someday.
And big bonus: Sonos is not walled garden, so they work with pretty much every other source of audio too, including having AUX in for connections to audio stuff you can't connect to your TV (like all kinds of things without HDMI outputs). People wanting much more flexibility in the main theater room could go Sonos and move HPs to other rooms where they can play fantastic-sounding music in those rooms. And when you give the order for whole home, Sonos and HPs will sync right up together and play as one.
Last edited:
It's not wireless though
You'd need power outlets. It is way easier to run speaker cable underneath carpets or behind skirting than extending a mains ring and put several power sockets in.Also the HomePod is no sub, you need volume for a sub, there is no way around it. It's why Sonos sells a lifestyle sub, as even that one isn't a great example of a sub.
But yes, Sonos took this route of marketing wireless, and always makes me laugh when that is one of their selling points because it isn't wireless.
A controller could compensate for that and sync together with the video. I don't think that has to be the problem.
Yea, you always need some source of power. My point was for people who just want good sound, Apple could make the HP a viable way to do that a lot easier than trying to snake wires through walls or under trim. Sure, it's not audiophile quality but most people don't want to spend that kind of money for a system nor pay for professional installation.
It's not wireless though
Ya, until Apple comes up with MagSafe Pro to deliver 1.21 jigawatts of power wirelessly...
Having done both, they're still more of a pain than most people want to deal with to setup a speaker system.
Putting 4 speakers around a room to give the allusion of surround sound, even if it is not true surround sound, would be a likely compromise.
Yea, Apple would need to build one, and subs tend to be big to be effective.
Yea, wireless has come to mean "No wires except perhaps a power cord..."
I doubt Apple comes out with a home stereo system, unless they do something like buy Sonos and integrate everything into HomeKit. It would make some sense, if they also bought a home automation company and integrated it all into one system, and the offered a security subscription as a monthly cost.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
This idea that it will cost a lot vs. some hypothetical HP equivalent is also not true. A minimal system of 5 HPs plus a hypothetical HP sub to deliver real 5.1 is probably 3 full-size HPs up front and 2 Minis behind. Conceptually, Apple would develop some other form factor for the center up front (probably priced HIGHER than a normal HP) and a true HP sub (probably priced much higher than a normal HP). But let's use what we can to rough up a price estimate:
3 full size HPs for the fronts: $300 times 3 = $900
2 HP minis for the rears: $100 times 2 = $200
Hypothetical HP Subwoofer = (wild guess at an Apple price) $500-$1000???
TOTAL: $900 + $200 + $750 = Approx. $1,850
If someone wants to put together a good 5.1 system and $1850 is their total budget, they can easily do it. If they want to maximize sound quality, upping that to about a single MBpro nicely configured price would get them "spectacular" sound... and that collection of "dumb" speakers would far outlive that MBpro or that HP setup married to iOS updates that will inevitably be "vintaged." A "dumb" speaker setup is probably good for at least 10 years and good "dumb" speakers themselves can sound just as good 20-30 years after purchase.
A good Receiver probably needs upgraded every 10-12 years to keep up with relatively slow evolving Audio hardware standards... which seems to move at a pace of about 1/3rd of computer tech evolution. I know people still leaning on Receivers they purchased in the 1990s and 2000s... and the same, great "dumb" speakers they purchased back then too.
Professional installation is not necessary unless one just doesn't want to do relatively simple work themselves, and/or they want invisible wires throughout but don't want to drill into drywall and crawl around in their attic or basement to get them where they need to go. I've done this for many friends/family and it's never an overly complicated job. The wiring part is color coded so that's red to red and black to black at each end. It's hard to get the wiring wrong when there are only 2 connections. However, for those who opt for professional (for whatever reason), they will pay for what is usually a few hours work and then enjoy it for likely the rest of their time in that home. And the next buyer will likely appreciate the benefit of "pre-wired for surround sound" vs. not too. And a wired system will eat not ONE byte of wifi bandwidth vs. an all wireless system which will eat a nice big slice of that pie when in use and/or may suffer from drops when other members of the family are eating wifi and not leaving enough for the all wireless sound system at all times.
I have little faith that HPs will survive the usual "vintage" window of about 7 years... else Apple will be maintaining this ONE branch of an iOS core for far longer than they ever had for any other product. tvOS may be the most obvious proxy in support of this guess. Old tvOS-based AppleTVs do not make it past about 7 years in spite of the internal hardware remaining perfectly capable of continuing to sling Video & Audio out of the HDMI port. A "dumb" speaker setup detaches the speakers from the "smarts" so that they can't be arbitrarily vintaged. Receivers as central brain are not built like Apple hardware with a relatively short-term EOL in mind, nor any staunch walled garden limitations on what can be played on the attached speakers.
Obviously, if me, I would NOT put $1850 into that all wireless HP hypothetical system out of concern of vintaging "throw baby out with the bathwater" every 7 years or so. I see HPs like I now see iMacs... with the speaker portion being like the screen portion of iMacs. When the tech "smarts" conk or when Apple arbitrarily vintages them, you toss the speaker or screen too. That will never be a scenario with my "dumb" speaker home theater setup: AppleTV to one Receiver Input and then I'm actually in control of the rest... instead of a corporation who likes to see hardware regularly turn over... even the "dumb" parts that still have plenty of life in them.
Last edited:
While everything is hypothetical, my assumption is the target market would just want good sound beyond what one HP does. In such a case, 1 HP and 4 minis would probably suffice so it's $700 before a hypothetical Apple sub. Even if you assume 750 for a sub you're at $1450; and I am not sure many people would care about a sub and forgo it if it costs $750.
I'm looking at a target market that just wants plug and go with minimal setup. His could do that if Apple wanted to; I think they just don't want to, at least not now. I suspect they feel the existing HP capabilities is enough for the market they target.
Even if you get speakers at that price point you still need to spring for a decent AV receiver. A quick glance at Crutchfield shows 5.1 running from 1000 - 2000 and Av recovers 400 -1000 so yea, you could but your more likely to be higher; before wires, plugs, etc.
But we're comparing Apples to oranges to a large extent, sine Has are targeted to teh ease of setup and use crowd, not someone wanting higher quality sound. For the former, a cheaper option that is good enough would be well, good enough.
However, Apple could, if they wanted, develop a system for probably half that price and meet the needs of many Apple users. I doubt they will, however.
Except most people will accept good inexpensive sound vs expensive spectacular.
While Apple will no doubt vintage them, that doesn't mean they magically stop working, and the target market is likely not caring about better sound or upgrades.
I have as well, and while not complicated it is a bit of a PITA to do right. I run conduit whenever possible simply to make it easier to run newer cable if ever needed, but that requires wall access and possibly sheet rock work. Even snaking cable is to all that much fun; even when you have all the request tools and drill bits. Most people have neither the skill set nor tolls to do it and not have problems.
HP will never compete with a good quality wired speaker system; but could be good enough for many users with a lot less hassle and lower costs.