in Search
Untitled Page

ARCHIVED FORUM -- April 2007 to March 2012
READ ONLY FORUM

This is the first Archived Forum which was active between 17th April 2007 and 1st March February 2012

 

Latest post 02-13-2008 3:49 AM by benjnz. 72 replies.
Page 3 of 3 (73 items) < Previous 1 2 3
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • 02-11-2008 5:05 PM In reply to

    • muck22
    • Top 500 Contributor
    • Joined on 12-15-2007
    • germany
    • Posts 83
    • Bronze Member

    Re: The End Of Bang&Olufsen ?

    everything stil said!

    My opinion:  I buy B&O because of its design AND its functionality, its durability and its look and feel.

    There are quite "little things", that make B&O products valuable. E.g. light control on TVs, or contrast filter, a heavy and good looking/feeling remote control...or my Beolab 4500 loudspeakers: just great! Not because of their sound quality (well...), but: its combination of musicsystem AND art!

    but (IMO): if a loose a lot of potential buyers because pricing is to high, because I cannot combine with other products (still mentioned here) and have to buy an over expensive "system" - than I have to  admit, that there is going something wrong.

    If I produce a new TV (BeoVision 8) even as a "lowpricing product" and I forget something as essential as an DVB-T (from 2010 there will be no more analogue TV in germany) ....  its hard to believe, they spend many time in thinking about their new products. There are missing "the little things" that let me buy an B&O product instead of an xy product.

     So, please B&O: not only TV panels for 15.000.-€ or TV systems for over 7.000.-€

    Even a normal midclass worker like an architect, lawyer or a doctor want to buy your products ...

    (btw: Leica has just to fight with similar problems) 

     

    K@y 

  • 02-11-2008 5:14 PM In reply to

    • Russ
    • Top 100 Contributor
      Male
    • Joined on 05-07-2007
    • Washington, DC USA
    • Posts 641
    • Bronze Member

    Re: The End Of Bang&Olufsen ?

    355f:

    One doesnt want to offend anyone on this forum but fact is the BV7 is a poor product when one considers the prive v performance for an LCD.

     

    The entire TV issue crystalized right there.  OK, so here in the US we have our disadvantages...but all I have ever seen are the MKIII BV-7; so please take that into consideration...I have no opinion on the MK1 or 2.

     Have any of you actually LOOKED at a MKIII?  Especially with a true HD source?  There is not another LCD TV on the planet that looks any better, and very few that look as good.  I know that there are two objections (at least) coming, so here goes:

     

    Analog/SD programming doesn't look as good.  OK, but it doesn't look as good on ANY LCD I've seen.  It never will.  I ask those of you who are old enough (like me) to think back to the transition from B&W to color broadcasting.  It really isn't fair to criticise a new TV for not being any better with an outgoing format.  BV-7 does a fine job with the old stuff because the BS-3 engine does a fine job.  And that brings me to my second point. Price vs. performance:

     

    In the current marketplace, these are the facts:

     

    BeoSystem 3  $7,700USD

    BeoLab 7-2     $3,800USD

    DVD-1 (last price) $1,200USD

    BS-3 small cabinet $1,000USD (to hold the BS-3 and DVD 1)
     

    total:  $13,700USD 

     

    BV-7/BL-7-2/table stand  $13,800USD

     

    You're gettting a 40" 1080p LCD panel with world class picture for  $100USD.  One Hundred dollars US...where can you buy that?

     

    This TV is a STEAL at that price.  The problem is not the price, it is the perception of value.  The actual quality is stellar.  Sound, check: Picture, check: Ease of use...anybody?  Check.  Does anyone else on the planet build a TV which can doo all of the things the MKIII can do? At any price?  Could you rasonably expect to assemble pieces from Sony, Loewe, Phillips, Marantz, Lexicon, Faroujda, or any other manufacturer, which once combined, really do what the MKIII does.  If so, at what price? How many B&O customers are willing to do the same amount of leg work?  How many would want to figure out how to put it all together?  Program the remote(s)?

    B&O TV's are expensive because they are expensive.  Just like good kitchen knives, Saville Row suits, and fine jewelry.  I don't care how many carats the diamonds are, you can't cook with them, and they don't play music.  I once bought a 12 year old Benz with 120,000 miles on it (no, made well before the 90's)....and got a lot of usage out of it.  If I had the money, I would buy a 2008 E320-CDi right now.  You couldn't get me to buy a 12 year-old Ford if you put a gun to my head.

     

    I know that B&O have stumbled a bit here and there; but lets not allow our own financial situation to color our views of the things they've done right. 

     

    Russ 

    We kid because we love.

     

    Bang & Olufsen Tysons Galleria

    McLean, VA USA

  • 02-11-2008 5:29 PM In reply to

    • moxxey
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on 04-14-2007
    • South West, UK
    • Posts 2,360
    • Bronze Member

    Re: The End Of Bang&Olufsen ?

    RussR:

     Have any of you actually LOOKED at a MKIII?  Especially with a true HD source?  There is not another LCD TV on the planet that looks any better, and very few that look as good.

    Yes, it's absolutely superb with the best HD source. Sky Movies through HD, football on HD and so on. However, the majority of UK TV is still either SD or upscaled SD (ie on Channel 4 HD).

    The other excellent thing about the BV7 is the audio. The 7.2 is an excellent standalone speaker. Music through the 7.2 sounds better than through my BL3's, which are £2100 speakers. More with their floor stands.

    For me, trading in my old BV7-32 made the BV7-40 MKIII good value. That's another bonus for owning B&O kit. In theory, pick the right product and you should be able to trade it in in a couple or so years. BV7-40 is a good example of this, whereas the BV4 wasn't.

    I'm not getting back in to that 'this is what B&O should do', as nothing is going to change short term. We'll just need to sit back and see. Prices won't drop though, but I'd settle for DVB-T as standard in the BV8, perhaps two HDMI sockets as standard, and so on..

  • 02-11-2008 6:15 PM In reply to

    • 355f
    • Top 100 Contributor
    • Joined on 04-19-2007
    • Posts 655
    • Bronze Member

    Re: The End Of Bang&Olufsen ?

    RussR:
    355f:

    One doesnt want to offend anyone on this forum but fact is the BV7 is a poor product when one considers the prive v performance for an LCD.

     

    The entire TV issue crystalized right there.  OK, so here in the US we have our disadvantages...but all I have ever seen are the MKIII BV-7; so please take that into consideration...I have no opinion on the MK1 or 2.

     Have any of you actually LOOKED at a MKIII?  Especially with a true HD source?  There is not another LCD TV on the planet that looks any better, and very few that look as good.  I know that there are two objections (at least) coming, so here goes:

     

    Analog/SD programming doesn't look as good.  OK, but it doesn't look as good on ANY LCD I've seen.  It never will.  I ask those of you who are old enough (like me) to think back to the transition from B&W to color broadcasting.  It really isn't fair to criticise a new TV for not being any better with an outgoing format.  BV-7 does a fine job with the old stuff because the BS-3 engine does a fine job.  And that brings me to my second point. Price vs. performance:

     

    In the current marketplace, these are the facts:

     

    BeoSystem 3  $7,700USD

    BeoLab 7-2     $3,800USD

    DVD-1 (last price) $1,200USD

    BS-3 small cabinet $1,000USD (to hold the BS-3 and DVD 1)
     

    total:  $13,700USD 

     

    BV-7/BL-7-2/table stand  $13,800USD

     

    You're gettting a 40" 1080p LCD panel with world class picture for  $100USD.  One Hundred dollars US...where can you buy that?

     

    This TV is a STEAL at that price.  The problem is not the price, it is the perception of value.  The actual quality is stellar.  Sound, check: Picture, check: Ease of use...anybody?  Check.  Does anyone else on the planet build a TV which can doo all of the things the MKIII can do? At any price?  Could you rasonably expect to assemble pieces from Sony, Loewe, Phillips, Marantz, Lexicon, Faroujda, or any other manufacturer, which once combined, really do what the MKIII does.  If so, at what price? How many B&O customers are willing to do the same amount of leg work?  How many would want to figure out how to put it all together?  Program the remote(s)?

    B&O TV's are expensive because they are expensive.  Just like good kitchen knives, Saville Row suits, and fine jewelry.  I don't care how many carats the diamonds are, you can't cook with them, and they don't play music.  I once bought a 12 year old Benz with 120,000 miles on it (no, made well before the 90's)....and got a lot of usage out of it.  If I had the money, I would buy a 2008 E320-CDi right now.  You couldn't get me to buy a 12 year-old Ford if you put a gun to my head.

     

    I know that B&O have stumbled a bit here and there; but lets not allow our own financial situation to color our views of the things they've done right. 

     

    Russ 

     

    This is a very interesting way of looking at the BnO scenario! -

    One  takes the awful dvd1 and include that at $1100- this has the quality of a machine that presently sells for £65

    Then the BS3 variant- which of course is needed to run the screen-

    In the UK the vast- 90% of viewing at present is SD material - it is not an outgoing format- its the present one!!- and will be for many years to come- so why produce a TV that by everyones admission makes an awful job of reproducing the picture in the format that we all watch!!!- this is really quite alarming. Ah yes i hear you say- but WHEN HD is reality this tv will be good- its not for what most people watch now though!  in three years time maybe- but advances in panel design will far far outweigh this perceived advantage that  this super Samsung LCD has in producing HD!

     

    To be fair- most tvs look pretty good showing a high def picture and I could name many sets that for 10th of the price produce a picture thats as good.

    Increasingly other brands offer good integration, with a remote that controls all - and better than the fiasco that is the beo5-and many specialist operators that will set up a system that far exceeds the technical abilities of BnO products for LESS cost.

    Your analogy with a 12 year old benz was highly appropriate however, back in the early 90s is when BnO peaked- thats when they made good products, with design that was exclusive with performance to match a high price.- Please tell me ONE product that that statement applies to in the present product range?? BL9/5 excepting)

    BnO tv expensive because they are expensive?? I fear its that very thought process that has led BnO into its  demise.

    Meanwhile, back in the real world, prices have dropped alarmingly and technical features and picture quality has risen- the sales figures would suggest to me that buyers are voting with their feet- wealthy ones or not! I really cant see how 'our financuial situation' ( i quote) colours any views! increasingly unless your a barking millionaire you would be mad to buy it.

  • 02-11-2008 7:50 PM In reply to

    • Russ
    • Top 100 Contributor
      Male
    • Joined on 05-07-2007
    • Washington, DC USA
    • Posts 641
    • Bronze Member

    Re: The End Of Bang&Olufsen ?

    Brilliant debating technique:

    "Your analogy with a 12 year old benz was highly appropriate however, back in the early 90s is when BnO peaked- thats when they made good products, with design that was exclusive with performance to match a high price.- Please tell me ONE product that that statement applies to in the present product range?? BL9/5 excepting)"

    Or rather: "please use whatever evidence you wish...except that which refutes my argument". 

     
    The BeoLab 5, and it's progeny, the BeoLab 9, the BeoLab 3 (you forgot), and even the BeoLab 7-X family (already praised in this thread) stand as clear evidence that B&O can still do the job.  The BeoSound 9000 appeared in the mid-to-late 90's (96 in the US), the Avant is roundly praised in all of it's forms, the BeoCenter 2 is a stunning piece of design, engineering, and manufacture.  BeoSound 1.  I might even argue that the BeoSound 3200 is a magnificent example of good engineering extending an existing platform beyond its apparent useful life.  BeoCom 2...well, OK..let's not get carried away.

     

    "In the UK the vast- 90% of viewing at present is SD material - it is not an outgoing format- its the present one!!- and will be for many years to come- so why produce a TV that by everyones admission makes an awful job of reproducing the picture in the format that we all watch!!!- this is really quite alarming. Ah yes i hear you say- but WHEN HD is reality this tv will be good- its not for what most people watch now though!  in three years time maybe- but advances in panel design will far far outweigh this perceived advantage that  this super Samsung LCD has in producing HD!

     

    "To be fair- most tvs look pretty good showing a high def picture and I could name many sets that for 10th of the price produce a picture thats as good."

     To be fair...every LCD TV screen on the planet looks pretty bad when showing SD programming.  And if you really look at the MKIII, the deep blacks, the sharper edges, the smoother motion handling really put everything else on the shelf.

     
    Once again, I look backward to see clearly...Color TV did not take off over night either.  The MKIII is a shrewd investment during a transitional period, particularly when you consider what the Avant/BeoSystem 1/2 offered just a couple of years ago...but that began in 2001. 

     We've taken this thread pretty far afield, I really must aplogize, but my point has been all along, that B&O do have several areas, Speakers, VisionClear, and their expertise in user interaction, which can all be relied upon to ensure their future. 

     

    Thre is a huge battle going on right now as the Internet srtuggles to get out of the office and into the living room.  Computer companies have worked from the office in (WebTV, AppleTV, Windows MediaCenter), and A/V manufacturers are fighting to counter-attack.  We will continue to argue about past mis-steps *cough* BeoMedia 1 *cough*, but I think B&O have shown in the past that they can learn and evolve.  AV-7000...BeoSystem 1/2...BeoSystem 3.  So we now await...  BeoLink PC, BeoPort, BeoMedia 1...BeoSound 5....

     

    Russ 

     

     

    We kid because we love.

     

    Bang & Olufsen Tysons Galleria

    McLean, VA USA

  • 02-11-2008 9:10 PM In reply to

    Re: The End Of Bang&Olufsen ?

    I second the good Mr. Rhodes on all counts and would like to add that the many threads on the forum, taken in aggregate, seem to damn Bang & Olufsen if they do and damn them if they don't.

    Russ is absolutely astute in that we are in a transitional period where SD will give way over time to HD on the content side and that panel technology will plow on as well. What leaves me speechless is that the same critics that hammer Bang & Olufsen for being slow to adopt new technology (a strategy which I roundly support), are the ones insisting that they provide better support and focus on a medium which is vanishing before our eyes! No matter what percent of your programming is in HD there us utterly no argument about where it is heading, and knowing that Bang & Olufsen products are going to be with you for so long I just don't see the point! If they were still peddling the Avant as the latest and greatest I might be concerned, but the thing is built for the future!

    That aside, though, I have to say that the picture, even with SD content from a DVD or cable/satellite, is so much better than ANY system you could put together that the BeoVision 7 is the smartest investment anyone could make at a time like this. No matter how inexpensive a Sony or a Samsung is, you will be done with it in a few short years with almost no exceptions. It will die, it will become irrelevant, or most likely it will simply bore you to tears and hurl you into another fit of consumerism due to its dodgy features, appalling picture, and creaky commodity plastics. I have 2 generations of Bang & Olufsen TVs, neither of them current, and my family and friends marvel at them as if they were artifacts from the future.

    The whole reason that I buy Bang & Olufsen is that I fetishize quality. Keeping a shirt until the sleeves fray, resoling shoes, taking knives to get sharpened, tracking down auto parts, and wowing guests with 20 year old AV equipment (as well as some brand new stuff!) makes me happy because I live in a world where commoditization has yet to gobble up every last factory and workshop and that careful consumers like myself can still find heirloom quality everything if we look hard enough. Bang & Olufsen is all that's left in electronics and I worry sometimes that anxious nitwits are going to complain them into oblivion!

    Frankly any current technical concerns over a B&O product are insane. Buying B&O, if you're doing it right, is like entering into a marriage. Will 1080p, HDMI, response time, black idle, contrast ratio, etc. make a damn bit of difference in 10 years? Absolutely not. But I'll still have my BeoVision 7, my Avant, and God willing a few MXs laying about fulfilling various tasks as best they can and keeping me and my newer products company! 

    Sorry if I ruffled any feathers but mine were ruffled first! 

     

    There is scarcely anything in this world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little more cheaply. The person who buys on price alone is this man's lawful prey. - John Ruskin

  • 02-11-2008 9:20 PM In reply to

    Re: The End Of Bang&Olufsen ?

    Honestly I don't think this is all so black for them as well.

    - For example they have the Apple TV/Mac integration down through their TVs - who else does? Sony? Ha. If you can't beat them, integrate them. 

    - They product range is fairly wide, at least in Europe where they cover different price points on Stereo and TVs

    - I don't think they are that far behind with their technology. BV7 40" BV4 and BV9 are in my opinion close enough, BV7 32" is in dire need of an upgrade, the rest is OK I would think. I don't think 1 or 2 HDMI matters, one can buy a switch.

    - In US they finally came to their senses and started selling TVs without Tuner - everybody has a cable box anyway and this does allow them to sell a TV which is reasonable close to the Europe Version. Just as an FYI, the US Avant has a complete different chassis from the European Avant. They should be able to take any European BV and sell it here. until very recently we had only BV5, BV4 and BV9. Read you need 20K$ to enter.

    - That said, as they introduced the BV8 without Tuner in US that should enable them to bring BC6 as well, BV7 32" hopefully will have BS3 in the back so that should come too. Read, they finally have some products to show that do not require this 20K commitment. The reason why the US market is so bad compared Europe is in my opinion the lack of product. 

    - The new speakers they introduced after BL3 are through the bank awesome. Wouldn't say a bad thing about BL4, BL9, BL5 for what they are. I wouldn't say that about the older models.

    - I would consider Beomedia a technology driver. They need long term this know how, not just how to built them but also how to install and support them. This requires extensive dealer training and even though it might have looked a bit clumsy in the execution I would expect a much better roll out for BS5. To built up the skill in an organization that is focused around audio and TV is a huge step forward.

    Honestly from my US point of view I am exited about the brand as I wasn't in a long long time. I will have either a BV7 32 or a BC6/BC2 and BS5 is in the cards as well. Not all at once but over the next 3 years, pending on how they roll out. BV8 will be looked at as well.

     

    JK 

     

     

     

     

    BS9000, BS2300, BC2, BL2500, BL3, Bl2, BS1, BV8, BC4, A8

  • 02-11-2008 9:55 PM In reply to

    Re: The End Of Bang&Olufsen ?

    Thanks JK for the perspective. 

    I think that a thread like this is natural in a period where technology is in flux, a CEO was released, and economies are slowing down. We all love B&O and when we criticize it's like a parent seeing a child making poor decisions and wishing there was a way to lend them our wisdom and perspective. 

    What I would submit is that none of us really know what goes in to running a company whose reputation, structure, distribution, and ethos are so different from the balance of the industry that our "suggestions" might seem a bit silly to those who know better. I would say that anyone who can continue to design, build, and turn a profit on the sale of heirloom quality museum worthy audio & video equipment must be doing something right.

    People often say that B&O is very much like Apple, and in a way they are. Apple is the last refuge in computing for people who want a simple experience in computing from a product that offers emotional gratification through form and material. Bang & Olufsen offers the same in AV, but my first iPod is dead. My second one is dead. My third one is dead. My fourth one is dead. My iPhone has had to be replaced. My girlfriend's iPhone has had to be replaced. My iBook is dead. My G4 Powerbook is dead. All of these were built and junked within a fraction of the lifespan of most of my Bang & Olufsen products. Even my BeoSound 2, from so many years ago, is still my primary MP3 player.

    If anyone thinks that its an accident that the company is coming up on 90 years and that their products continue to last long enough to be passed on to the next generation, then they're not paying attention. If Bang & Olufsen ever zoomed in to the level of detail that so many patrons of this board demand, they'd be long gone. Or worse, they'd be building comical stabs at what a dizzy buying public grunts for and competing for the shallowest pockets and the least sophisticated minds.

    When you step back and look at a greater timescale, you see a beautiful city of products with charm and personality. You see buildings being repurposed and renovated and new ones going up with only the greatest care and reverence for their environment. If you look at Bang & Olufsen's competitors, though, you see buildings thrown up and demolished. You see chaos and confusion and a competition toward uncertain ends. I know which town I want to live in. 

     

    There is scarcely anything in this world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little more cheaply. The person who buys on price alone is this man's lawful prey. - John Ruskin

  • 02-11-2008 10:26 PM In reply to

    • Russ
    • Top 100 Contributor
      Male
    • Joined on 05-07-2007
    • Washington, DC USA
    • Posts 641
    • Bronze Member

    Re: The End Of Bang&Olufsen ?

    Quote:

    Then the BS3 variant- which of course is needed to run the screen- 

     

    This remark escaped me initially, and I am ashamed to admit it. My entire defense of the MKIII was based on its inherent value, and the inclusion of the BS-3 engine is paramount in the explanation of it's price.  The main reason for the MKIII's price IS the BS-3; and it isn't just its contribution to picture quality; but Surround Sound processing, and system management as well.  If you don't need those things, then look at the BV-8 or BV-6 (if you live in markets which offer them).  Clearly the BV-7 MKIII is not the right product for you...but to criticize it's price while at the same time pooh-poohing its additional capabilities seems puerile.

     

    Russ 

    We kid because we love.

     

    Bang & Olufsen Tysons Galleria

    McLean, VA USA

  • 02-12-2008 3:20 AM In reply to

    Re: The End Of Bang&Olufsen ?

    TripEnglish:

    People often say that B&O is very much like Apple, and in a way they are. Apple is the last refuge in computing for people who want a simple experience in computing from a product that offers emotional gratification through form and material. Bang & Olufsen offers the same in AV, but my first iPod is dead. My second one is dead. My third one is dead. My fourth one is dead. My iPhone has had to be replaced. My girlfriend's iPhone has had to be replaced. My iBook is dead. My G4 Powerbook is dead. All of these were built and junked within a fraction of the lifespan of most of my Bang & Olufsen products. Even my BeoSound 2, from so many years ago, is still my primary MP3 player.

    Thanks for the passioned defence of B&O. Must say I suspect you are emitting a magnetic field of some kind, as my Apple products are all functional. (I have replaced the batteries in my first gen iPods, though.) 

    I don't buy your "zoom in to the level of detail that so many patrons of this board demand" comment. I think there's a general understanding that B&O does things their own way. Yet it puzzles me why so many of their products seem deliberately hobbled in a critical part/function: your BeoSound 2 is great, but there's a reason why there are screens on B&O's new mp3-players; why no digital surround or "movie screen opening" on the BV8?; the late adoption of hdmi-connections?; digital in on BL5/no digital in on BL9; no digital out on BeoSys3; no DVD-player in BeoSound 4; no SACD - which would have been a nod to audiophiles -- I could go on.

    I get the impression the brand development lives in a cocoon, where they think customers will never compare functions with the competition, maybe they thought people would be so locked into BeoLink that they couldn't or wouldn't? But flatscreens changed that game -- suddenly people got a product they wanted, and particularly with the BV4 it was hard to tell the difference between that and a competitor's screen just by looking, but there were/are quite a few differences when you checked the spec's, and B&O has been forced to play catch-up instead of being on the ball right away.
    So, they had a bad experience with Betamax/VHS. Should that be allowed to cripple their product development every single time for the rest of time and force them to wait? I don't think that's viable in today's a/v market.

     

  • 02-12-2008 6:07 AM In reply to

    Re: The End Of Bang&Olufsen ?

    one thing that does bug me aboot bno is the fact that they are sold on their ease of use , but in actual fact , they're not very easy to use at all

    try plugging in a new item into a bno tv and you have to go through all this ridiculous palaver that i'm sure the average bno buyer just wouldn't have the patience , savvy or interest to do 

    all this hold list then button 4 then that button and the red one

    yes , SO easy to use.. 

    popgear is grate™

  • 02-12-2008 8:19 AM In reply to

    Re: The End Of Bang&Olufsen ?

    I appreciate your appreciation!

    But I disagree that with the notion that the majority of B&O clientele are comparing specs with other manufacturers. While every poster here may be an owner of some kind, many of the comments seem to reflect more budgetary concerns than technological ones. For example, the BeoVision 8 has been criticized for no surround sound module, yet if it had it it would also need a more powerful built in speaker to act as a center channel and then it would be a BeoVision 7-32. And I wonder what it would cost.

    I have to go back to Russ' comment that he (and I) are defending the latest variant that is available in the US. I understand that Europe may have gotten a few half-baked models, but our TVs are 1080p with the most advanced picture processing suite available, 7.1 surround sound, 2 tuners, video distribution, on board media in some cases, a speaker system that will blow your head off, clever mounting, and the best build quality in AV. That being said, Bang & Olufsen don't just throw a dart at the wall to determine the price, they add up the cost of designing, building, and distributing the product and add in the profit they need to keep doing it. Who can really complain that the best TVs on the planet happen to be the most expensive. 

    Now when people say that they don't see the difference, or that the difference is so minute as not to warrant the high price, and are willing to overlook $8k in onboard gear aside from the screen, I say, "you're lucky!" And I truly mean it. My bank account would be more substantial if I was able to settle for less. I often make the analogy with wine. To appreciate the best wines, you need some sophisticated understanding of what you're looking for. I don't have that sophisticated a pallet. So while I hope to develop it, an expensive wine is, at this point, wasted on me! So in a sense, I'm lucky. As a man who has a few "pursuits," I know the burden of sophisticated appreciation and how it can gobble up time and money. I think that to truly appreciate AV requires this same level of sophisticated appreciation. Speakers have the ability to be turned up loud to impress the yobs, but we all know the BeoLab 5's assets have little to do with high volumes. There is no way to cheat with a TV. You are either a sophisticated and critical viewer, or you're not. No amount of explanation on my part can blow you to pieces over the span of a demonstration. So if you can look at a BeoVision 9, see it move, see its curtains open as it wakes up, feel its cabinet, watch it play an audio CD from across the shop, watch it control 3rd party sources as though they were built right in, and hear its sound and see its picture and then walk out and buy a TV at a fraction of its cost and quality, I consider that your loss and not mine.   

     

    There is scarcely anything in this world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little more cheaply. The person who buys on price alone is this man's lawful prey. - John Ruskin

  • 02-12-2008 8:51 AM In reply to

    • Russ
    • Top 100 Contributor
      Male
    • Joined on 05-07-2007
    • Washington, DC USA
    • Posts 641
    • Bronze Member

    Re: The End Of Bang&Olufsen ?

    From Soundproof:

    "...your BeoSound 2 is great, but there's a reason why there are screens on B&O's new mp3-players; why no digital surround or "movie screen opening" on the BV8?; the late adoption of hdmi-connections?; digital in on BL5/no digital in on BL9; no digital out on BeoSys3; no DVD-player in BeoSound 4; no SACD - which would have been a nod to audiophiles -- I could go on."

    Just to take the items one at a time:

     

    There are also reasons that the iPod Shuffle doesn't have a screen...like Trip I have a BeoSound 2, and not a 6.  It drops into my pocket with my keya and I do not worry that the screen will be scratched, because it doesn't have one.  The BV-8 with curtains and DSS is called the BV-7, B&O wanted/needed a less expensive TV for non-critical viewing.  Early on there was enough debate concerning implementation that HDMI was not clearly going to win over DVI...and if you look at other threads here and on other AV boards it is becoming clear that the HDMI stanndard isn't quite yet a standard at all.  Digital in on the 9's?  Once again, answered in your question, the additional cost involved would place such a speaker well above the intended price point.  "Digital out" from the BS-3.  To what purpose?  It is only useful from a CD or CD-like source, in order to control volume correctly, one still needs to run MK2 PowerLink cables, and in order to properly balance or 'steer' the audio signals among all of the channels used during video playback would require massive amounts of processing power, and once again wildly affect the retail price of the BeoSystem 3.  DVDin BeoSound 4 (or more commonly heard, the BeoSound 9000), OK, firstly where do you put all of the additional output sockets, secondly what does the addition do to the retail price particularly in the case of the BS-4.  SACD?  You're not serious.  Why not DVD-A as well?  Well for one thing NOBODY is buying the software.   History's landscape is littered with the carcasses of failed formats which B&O never supported:  8-track, el-Cassette, mini-disc, DAT, CDV, LaserDisc, I could really go on.

     One may as well ask why BMW didn't make the 1-series able to seat 7 adults and stick a V8 in it...oh wait, that would be the X7...but that costs soooooooo much, why not do that in the 1?   Why not indeed.

     

    Russ 

    We kid because we love.

     

    Bang & Olufsen Tysons Galleria

    McLean, VA USA

  • 02-12-2008 9:09 AM In reply to

    Re: The End Of Bang&Olufsen ?

    Sorry Russ, I'm not buying into the game you're setting up. And here's why: people feel they have other choices today, and while each of the MIAs I'm listing aren't critical, they are standard repeat elements in customer and BeoWorlder feedback.

    1. OK - so the BeoSound 2 is an iPod Nano? The BS2 doesn't sell very well, and never has. There's a reason. The Nano sells well as a complement to the overall functionality of screen-iPods and iTunes. With a better mp3 player UI B&O could have made an impact in the top end of players, instead of now hashing over Samsung chassis.

    2. The BV7 is too expensive as an entry level television, and the curtains are a B&O hallmark, comparable to the ignition key to the left of the steering wheel on a Porsche and between the seats on a Saab. All BeoVisions should have it. DSS would work nicely in a BV8, the speaker array can serve perfectly as a centre channel and B&O dropped the ball on this one because they must have been afraid of cannibalization. Which is stupid - give your entry-level customers what they're looking for.

    3. HDMI has never been under debate - it's an industry standard, and DVI is the vision only version of HDMI.

    4. The missing digital in on the BL9s, while BL5s have it, just confuses the picture, and one should have considered implementing it. The fact that BeoSys3 doesn't have digital out means I can't use the digital in on the BL5s with a BeoSys3. Again - I suspect we're dealing with let's keep the consumer inside the circle of our matched products, instead of letting speakers wander off into the world. And there's no way that digital in would have compromised the price point of the BL9s.

    5. BeoSys3 digital out is relevant in many respects - there are dirt cheap receivers on the market that channel digital untouched from input to output, and the BeoSys3 could easily have made that possible. The s/pdif selling point of the BL5s now comes to nothing against the best processor available from B&O. And volume is easily controlled without Powerlink, but as the speakers sense when they have a digital feed available, and you still can control volume using PL, your argument doesn't hold water. And no - it wouldn't require massive amounts of processing power - BeoSys3 is 32-bit/192kHz capable.

    6. DVD in BS4 I suspect wasn't implemented because one feared cannibalizing BeoCenter 2. Universal CD/DVD/etc drives are standard, and you almost have to cripple the OEM drives these days to make them incapable of DVD-playback.

    7. SACD. I am serious, as a selling point. If B&O is serious about the quality of its sound reproduction, then it should support efforts to improve it. And no - it isn't a dying format. I have a number of hybdrid CD/DVD disks in front of me that I have recently purchased, and it is a format that is embraced by music connoisseurs, who appreciate the effort. (It's another matter entirely whether one hears a difference.)
    SACD sales are increasing - and the format is also increasingly available as downloads.

    See the symbol in the top left corner of this recent hybrid release. They appear on most quality classical and jazz releases, because demanding listeners want the option:

    B&O should deliver products designed for demanding customers, and deliver complete product groups within each price point category -- if not, customers will cross the street and buy from others.

     

  • 02-12-2008 9:58 AM In reply to

    • Russ
    • Top 100 Contributor
      Male
    • Joined on 05-07-2007
    • Washington, DC USA
    • Posts 641
    • Bronze Member

    Re: The End Of Bang&Olufsen ?

    Hi Soundproof,

     

    Gee I love a lively debate.

     

    1.  I mentioned the shuffle, not the nano, to be precise.  I think that there are a LOT of people here who would agree that B&O ought to throw in the towel on portable mp3 players.  But, then again so should a lot of other companies.  To be honest, alongside my BeoSound 2 I have 2 iPod Nanos.  But for music I have ripped myself the BeoSound 2 does sound better.  I also have to say that among true audiophiles the term 'high-end mp3 player' is considered an oxymoron.

    2.  Of course the BV-7 is too expensive as an entry level TV.  That's because it ISN'T an entry level TV.  The BV-8 is.  I can grant you the curtains, but the DSS module is a total waste in a TV meant for bedroom, kitchen, and the occasional loo.  And it's expensive.  I'm just glad that the PUC is in there. 

    3. HDMI was under debate, and was late to the party at a time when people  on this very forum were criticizing B&O for not yet implementing DVI.  Sometime too many technologies are moving at once, and the best thing to do is wait.  Unlike Sony and Samsung, B&O do not have the extra money laying around to gamble with (see my prior post regarding mini-disc , DAT and el-Cassette.)  And it appears now that there are a handful of issues regarding HDMI in the field, the professional journals regularly do stories concerning how finnick the format is, and the various headaches which arise when non-standard devices fail to 'handshake' properly.

     4.  I'm sure the digital in was considered, but it does cost something to design and build a DSP engine, and implement as many as 3 DA's in a speaker.  I don't see why you think otherwise, they aren't justt sitting in the breakroom next to the sugar packets.  And again, part of the reason for having a 'flagship' product, is to let it carry the flag.  The 5 does that nicely.  Perhaps oneday, the BeoLab 1X will split the difference between the 9 and the 5.

    5.  If one owns a BS-9000, or a BeoCenter 2, or even a BeoGram5500-CD, and has a BeoSystem 3, and a pair of BeoLab 5,s then indeed the digital input on the BeoLab 5's is perfectly useful.  I've even done it with a BeoSystem 1.  The digital input was conceived as part of the muic/audio market,not the theatre/video market.  I can certainly see a time when all B&O speakers are pure digital, as well as all of the masters; and the day that happens someone much like you will be here bemoaning the fact that B&O have left all of it's old customers behind for an evil new format which can never sound as good as analog/tubes/vinyl...or something.

     6.  I suspect that it wasn't included in order to meet a price point.  The capabilities of the drives aside there is still the not-inconsequential matter of the extra output circuitry, and all of those pesky sockets to hide.  Once again, much like your BeoLab 5/9 argument, the 5 came first, as did the BC-2, once you turn your eye towards building a less expensive alternative, you begin to look for ways to make it less expensive.  One begins to ask what one can do without.  By extension of your logic, why not just make the BS-3200 a blu-ray player, and not build any other systems at all?  Same for the constant harping that the BeoVision 8 isn't a 7.  Why not offer just one Audio system, one TV, and one speaker? 

     7. SACD and DVD-A are dead and dying.  I read that turntable sales are on the rise of late as well.  Don't really think we're going back there either.

     

    Russ

     

    We kid because we love.

     

    Bang & Olufsen Tysons Galleria

    McLean, VA USA

  • 02-12-2008 10:25 AM In reply to

    Re: The End Of Bang&Olufsen ?

    Thanks Russ, I agree - debate is healthy.

    I did mean the Shuffle - as the Nano does have a screen. Same point though.

    I like that B&O try to do things differently, but they shouldn't do it at the expense of sense and sensibility. Maybe there should have been a screen-enabled mp3 player launched at the same time as the BS2 in order to build credibility in the high-end mp3 player niche. (And the BS2 should have had Mac software ready from day one ... think they got a surprise when they got a deluge of flames from mac users who wondered why B&O thought they weren't important.)

    HDMI is the superset; DVI is a subset of HDMI. Same protocol, with vision only for DVI. Yes - there are issues with implementing HDMI 1.3, causing lots of delays now for manufacturers. Yet the point is that this is what customers are asking for. BV7 mkIII got the picture with HDMI connectors galore.

    You're deliberately misunderstanding my point about the BV8/BV7. B&O can spend as much time as they like thinking up where people should use their products or not - their customers don't care one whit. Casual television? What the heck is that? I have to wear a suit while watching formal television then? Television, in whatever shape or form, is casual -- and the thinking behind BV8 was flawed because of a fear of cannibalization.

    Make the product as good as effing possible, for a particular subset of customers, within a given price point. I have ridden this hobby horse of mine before: Imagine BeoSound 4, DVD-capable -- with BeoVIsion 8 -- with BL3s as L/R speakers and BL4s as rear speakers.
    Now there's a serious entry level package for young entry level customers looking for something expressive, that covers all their AV needs, in their limited space, because urban space has become ridiculously expensive. B&O has to leave the mansion owner thoughtpolice mode once in a while. And that young customer would have been: locked into BeoLink - with upgrades paving the road ahead as their careers advance.

    As to SACD. Yes - just as Blu ray it will be replaced by high-resolution multi-channel downloads. But again this misses the point - a lot of connoisseurs of music, and there are zillions more than B&O think around, want the highest possible quality. It's strange - B&O caters to its customers with wine-fiestas, chocolate tastings, gourmet evenings and whatnot. But when it comes to transferring music - which is what B&O actually helps recreate as the dealers are not delicatessens, they decide that 192kbps is a high enough resolution for the BeoSound 4 SD-card CD-to-card transfer. And an aware music lover balks at that: "why didn't they make lossless transfer a cinch? Just give me the option through one of those many buttons???"

    Same with SACD. I have an acquaintance who is a well known saxophone player. He only buys releases that are hybrid or SACD, claims he can hear the difference. Wouldn't touch B&O players because he can't play his discs on the equipment, but he owns BL3 speakers. The point is that SACD caters to those who want improved sound quality, and so should B&O.

    Turntable and vinyl sales are exploding, and the chief buyers are ... wait for it ... young, musically aware and have money. Who should B&O try to appeal to, in order to lower the median age of the customers walking through the door ... ? Personally, I am going for digitally stored music, though I do have two record players (both B&O) - but people like the feeling of exclusivity and ritual that vinyl is affording them. Think about it.
     

  • 02-12-2008 12:08 PM In reply to

    Re: The End Of Bang&Olufsen ?

    This discussion is really helpful because it demonstrates to B&O that they have a confused marketing strategy that in turn confuses the consumer.

    TV is not my priority.  I want great sound and I want that sound from the best speakers that I can afford.  For me, its the Beolab 5s without question.  Here is the dilemma.  It is taking me about 2 years to save for the Beolab 5 purchase.  In the meantime B&O has come out with other digital products such as the Beomedia 1 which I did purchase.  As a computer engineer, I understood Beomedia 1 very well and was able to install it without problem.  The salesman had no idea how to install it and ultimately I gave him a demonstration of how it works.  For me the best part is internet radio.  However you have to settle for the internet radio stations that B&O has in its database.  You cannot add a new station yourself.  Having been on software development projects for several years, I don't have high hopes for Beosound 5 other than product design.  Here is my question.  Why would I want what is essentially a linked MP3 player connected to Beolab 5s?  I hope I am wrong and the Beosound 5 will be able to play high quality lossless audio.  In the meantime I have an Apple TV which can do high quality audio and video for $249.  Very soon I will be able to rent HD movies on the Apple TV.  The Apple TV is hidden away so as not to detract from my Beocenter 2.  I don't want to spoil the look.  Ha!

    I agree with the idea this is the technology "in between time" for B&O but that really only applies to television.  All the other technologies are very mature and widely understood.  iTunes and iPods are an extraordinary success not because of the technology but because they are easy to use.  Add on products for iPod and iTunes are a $ 1 billiion dollar a year business for many companies.  Why is B&O trying to do all this themselves?  To me it is a mystery.

    Russ, I am glad the BV8 is available in the US but I would rather have a BV7-32. 

    Beosound 5 BL9 BC2 BL8000 Beovision 7 BL6002  BL11 

     

  • 02-12-2008 1:39 PM In reply to

    • Russ
    • Top 100 Contributor
      Male
    • Joined on 05-07-2007
    • Washington, DC USA
    • Posts 641
    • Bronze Member

    Re: The End Of Bang&Olufsen ?

    Hi Linder, 

    I would rather have a BV-7 on my living room as well.  Of any size. Wink  I am really looking forward to seeing if they can do the  MKIII transplant into the 32" chassis.  My frustration is with a viewpoint which seems to demand a MKIII for the price of a BV-8.  The BV-8 is the entry level tv precisely because it lacks the DSS module, Video engine, and DVD player, oh and the NTSC, and ATSC (DVB-T) tuners which make the MKIII so distinct in the family.

    As for my 'casual' viewing remark....the term is perfectly clear and easily understood.  This afternoon I will spend 2 hours in the kitchen preparing dinner for a group of friends.  I want to watch the news, and sports channels as our local football team has just gotten a new head coach.  In the kitchen, the food prep and cooking are the primary focus as it will involve sharp knives and a fair amount of hot oil.  I don't need, or want surround sound in the kitchen, I really don't need stereo; but with all the noise and commotion I do require good solid audio.  The same could be said for a TV in the bedroom, the office, or as I did rather facetiously, in the loo.  Since it is the BV-8's job to be in those places, serving as the 'always on' TV it doesn't need the higher end audio and video processing available from the BS-3 platform.  If you want a 32" TV with DSS, B&O already build one.  If you're looking at the 28" size, then I suppose that I can see your point, to an extent.  But the whole push away from CRT's to flat panels was, in part, to make it possible to get a larger size screen into your tiny little living room!  Stick out tongue

    It is B&O's drive and proven ability (in many cases), to spot these different task briefs and design separate products for them which will also help define the company's future.

    Russ 

     

    We kid because we love.

     

    Bang & Olufsen Tysons Galleria

    McLean, VA USA

  • 02-12-2008 8:35 PM In reply to

    Re: The End Of Bang&Olufsen ?

    "Analog/SD programming doesn't look as good.  OK, but it doesn't look as good on ANY LCD I've seen.  It never will.  I ask those of you who are old enough (like me) to think back to the transition from B&W to color broadcasting.  It really isn't fair to criticise a new TV for not being any better with an outgoing format.  BV-7 does a fine job with the old stuff because the BS-3 engine does a fine job.  And that brings me to my second point. Price vs. performance:"

    I have followed this thread with interest and this is my contribution.

    The problem with SD programming is that cable or satellite companies compress too much their signal and this is clearly visible on a 40 inch screen. The compression technique used in Canada by many cable operators (and I suspect this is the same in other countries) uses two steps:

    1- Image smoothing: this remove details in order to ease MPEG-2 compression. Skin becomes very smooth and people looks they have a very thick makeup.

    2- MPEG-2 encoding. The compression rate used is selected to pack the highest number of channels for a given bandwidth. This results in pixellation and artifacts around objects. Cable companies prefer offering more SD channels with a poorer image than less channels with a good picture quality.

     This is why analogue programs are often better than their digital (SD) counterparts. But analogue transmissions have also their limitations. The North American BV-7 digitizes the analogue input to a resolution of 720X480 pixels, the same as a DVD. But when a 16:9 program is transmitted in NTSC, the black bars are included in the scan lines in order to allow older televisions to display the picture. But when the viewer zooms the picture to fill the BV-7 screen (FORMAT 2 ), the scan lines corresponding to the black bars are discarded. That means that the vertical resolution is lower than 480 pixels, giving a blurry picture. There is nothing that can be done here. Properly mastered DVDs have a full 720X480 resolution even for widescreen movies.

    Quality of upscaled SD programming to HD depends of the nature of the original program. If the original signal was in NTSC, then the limitations of the color standard (rainbows, crawling dots) cannot be entirely removed and the upscaled image will show artifacts. If the signal was in RGB or component and uncompressed, then the quality will be that of a good DVD.

    One must not forget that HD was invented to provide good quality pictures on large screen TV sets.

     Concerning the future of B&O, it is clear that if the audio/video area becomes similar to the PC area with codecs changing every year and well as new versions of flat screens appearing frequently, it will be tough for high end manufacturers to propose durable, long lasting products.

    Regards,

    Jean

     

  • 02-13-2008 12:52 AM In reply to

    Re: The End Of Bang & Olufsen ?

    I am superkalifrajalisticexpliala-done with this thread.  

     

    I'm going over to Boseworld.org where everyone is totally ass-over-teacups in love with their tweeters and tubes. Those people are fun. Their eyes are a bit close together, but they're fun. 

    There is scarcely anything in this world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little more cheaply. The person who buys on price alone is this man's lawful prey. - John Ruskin

  • 02-13-2008 3:10 AM In reply to

    Re: The End Of Bang & Olufsen ?

    the problem seems to me that bno are pushing products that simply aren't competitive in any way at all

    not only ridiculously over priced ( flat panels are very cheap these days you know  ) but technically far behind the times ( dvb-t n/a on the bv8 for example ) 

    at least we have the speakers - the 5 & 9 are pretty impressive bits of kit

    now make some reference level dvd / cd players to go with them and stop trying to copy apple with awful rebranded samsung rubbish

    we really need natural successors to the glory days of the early 80's , the beomasters , beograms and beocords ( 8k and 9k series ) that were expensive but easily justified their cost by being truly state of the art in every way !

     

    bring back jacob jensen !!! 

    popgear is grate™

  • 02-13-2008 3:11 AM In reply to

    • Puncher
    • Top 10 Contributor
      Male
    • Joined on 03-27-2007
    • Nr. Durham, NE England.
    • Posts 9,588
    • Founder

    Re: The End Of Bang&Olufsen ?

    RussR:

      The BV-8 is the entry level tv precisely because it lacks the DSS module, Video engine, and DVD player, oh and the NTSC, and ATSC (DVB-T) tuners which make the MKIII so distinct in the family.

    And that is the point made by others elsewhere on the site. B&O are selling a distinctly average performing LCD in a distinctly plastic looking housing (although some, not all, like the style) for a price that beggars belief.

    What they are actually selling is an entry level TV at premium level prices.

    Generally speaking, you aren't learning much if your lips are moving.

  • 02-13-2008 3:49 AM In reply to

    • benjnz
    • Top 150 Contributor
      Male
    • Joined on 04-16-2007
    • Auckland NZ
    • Posts 392
    • Gold Member

    Re: The End Of Bang&Olufsen ?

    Ho hum, yes they should drop some prices, like the BV8 and the BV7 32" if it does need a radical upgrade, but it's not all bad. Ditch the dual logo branded items, never a good idea really, and get your basic equipment especially the BV8 up to normal B&O viewing basics, so put in ALL the visionclear technologies, taking it out dumbs down the brand and any reason to pay the damn premium, why would anyone want to buy anything above that at a later date.

    OK like everyone else product rant over.Stick out tongue

    It will carry on as a brand, they've done a very good balancing act of pseudo supporting the iTunes and Apple nuts out there with BeoPort, laughably supporting the PC crowd with Beomedia, which is a massive expense, but hey that's the price of luxury. There TVs just get better, for the size of company its ok but the opportunity is there to get much better, even if it's just basic thoughts of putting MasterLink with everything and STB tuners it'd at least give them a push in the right area. Build on your plus points of excelling in vision and sound and make sure you do!

    Good luck to them is all I can say and looking forward to anything new that comes out Big Smile 

Page 3 of 3 (73 items) < Previous 1 2 3