General Forum

Re: B&O's TV range.

355f — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 15:04:53 GMT

Flappo The Grate:

so how did they win what hi fi tv of the year then and become the number one selling lcd tv ?
my tv has a stunning pic quality and cost less than half the equivalent bno
maybe you should demo one with a decent souce ? > i have blu ray and hd dvd players and they both look staggeringly good on a 1080p screen

They get rave reviews because sony spend more than most on advertising- since when did a what hifi mag every say a mainstream product was bad!!

Being in this business ive seen and tried the sony LCDs- go onto av forums and see the general opionons there about them. Im sure a 1080 source is ok- its an ok screen but although he B&O LCDs offer appalling value for money one cannot say sony comes close im afraid

Re: B&O's TV range.

Flappo The Grate — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 14:23:59 GMT

so how did they win what hi fi tv of the year then and become the number one selling lcd tv ?

my tv has a stunning pic quality and cost less than half the equivalent bno

maybe you should demo one with a decent souce ? > i have blu ray and hd dvd players and they both look staggeringly good on a 1080p screen

Re: B&O's TV range.

355f — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 11:12:37 GMT

Flappo The Grate:

what i DO find utterly mad is the bv8 sold as a cutting edge tv , then not having built in dtv
in fact it looks like it's an option all bno tvs unless you spend £15k
and sony's new lcd's aren't as bad as has been made out , i've had one a year and it's excellent , my brother bought the 32sd3000 a few months ago and it's amazing - £700 on line too !
slightly better value than a bv8 32 for £3k without a dtv option i would say..

Sony LCD really ARE awful im afraid- Far better picture elsewhere- thank god they moved out of plasma- they were even worse

Re: B&O's TV range.

Flappo The Grate — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:52:02 GMT

what i DO find utterly mad is the bv8 sold as a cutting edge tv , then not having built in dtv

in fact it looks like it's an option all bno tvs unless you spend £15k

and sony's new lcd's aren't as bad as has been made out , i've had one a year and it's excellent , my brother bought the 32sd3000 a few months ago and it's amazing - £700 on line too !

slightly better value than a bv8 32 for £3k without a dtv option i would say..

Re: B&O's TV range.

Chrisreunion — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:55:17 GMT

Looking at this thread, I realize how much the world, B&O, and myself have changed..

When I discovered B&O almost 20 years ago, they had 2 types of TVs: the MX and the LX range, both in 2 different sizes..that made 4 TV sets, and I wanted one of each!!

Now, 20 years later, I realize the B&O TV range has never been so wide, and yet, as others, I can't find something to replace my BV3-32.

Obvious replacement would be the BV7-32, but the TV is becoming obsolete everyday, without B&O doing anything to fit the right/updated connections & panels to it, as well as the DVD player. The press is giving excellent reviews of the BV7-40, but not much has been improved on the 32 version since it came out.

Another option is now BV8-32, but I doubt it can offer the same picture quality as BV3's. And it has no Dolby Digital option.

With CRT, B&O was the leader in terms of design & sound/picture quality, but nowadays almost all flat TVs look nice, and B&O seem to focus too much on the great sound to compensate for their "no more perfect" pictures; unless you're ready to buy something big & expensive: I mean, with BV7-40, BV4 and 9, you get outstanding performance, but the lower range is quite disappointing in terms of picture, don't you think?Especially when you're sending a prehistorical composite signal to a link TV..

And I'm not even talking about connectivity..BV4/9 are fantastic TVs, but having watched Star Wars on BV4-65 played on a BeoCenter 2 via SCART , I was frankly disappointed by the poor picture with an RGB signal.Please B&O, go digital all the way!!Digital TVs require digital signals!

Re: B&O's TV range.

355f — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:27:56 GMT

Greg:
Danny:

a wide selection of different sized LCD and plasma screens to connect to the BS3 would be my favourite - and easily (and relatively cheap) to upgrade!

That's an excellent solution, and one I really wanted to work, but the BS3 isn't quite there for me, and I've heard so many horror stories about non-B&O panels not working with it. A selection (not necessarily a large selection, but at least including a 40" plasma HD Ready and a 50" Full HD) of B&O panels would solve that problem, assuming they're good enough (i.e. much better than the original BV4!).
Also, if the BS3 were 'modular' and could be configured to order...
Could we make this suggestion to B&O??

The question is why on earth would B&O shoot themselves in the foot and offer full support for panels that are not their own and technically the time and effort required to make the BS3 perform properly with many third party brands is not worth the effort.

They know full well that if an individual can spend £5500 on BS3 then he can spend £4-5K on the screen.

The Bs3 is matched to the BV4- its been calibrated for it- hence the reason why it does very little to enhance the quality of third party products

Re: B&O's TV range.

The Beonic Man — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:24:09 GMT

Replying late to this thread because a new computer I bought recently hasn't been working but I have ditched it now and back up and running again on my old machine. So, on with the thread... Just wanted to say that I am waiting for a new BV 7-40 Mark III to be delivered next Friday but in the neamtime the dealer has given me a Mark II to use. I have been extremely impressed with this television and believe me I really didn't like the 7-40 at all beforehand for several reasons mentioned in this post so far. It is a matter of fact that when you put the right source and high quality signal through these TVs then you see what they are truly capable of. I am simply using Sky non-HD (but digital) and playing my Region 2 DVDs, nothing more. The picture quality is superb. I can't see motion problems on any channel which is broadcast digitally, only when I look at standard broadcasts and then it is bad. I may subscirbe to HD with Sky I am not decided yet. But suffice to say this TV has truly exceeded my expectations. I don't think you should go by the pictures you see in dealers, I did, but it is completly different when you get it up and running back home. The Mark III is supposed to be a lot better because of the BS3 chassis. It has to be said that I can't wait to see what this set delivers. Buy one, believe me. I did and I have no regrets, and that's with a Mark II ... so far!

Simon.

Re: B&O's TV range.

Greg — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:37:24 GMT

Danny:
a wide selection of different sized LCD and plasma screens to connect to the BS3 would be my favourite - and easily (and relatively cheap) to upgrade!

That's an excellent solution, and one I really wanted to work, but the BS3 isn't quite there for me, and I've heard so many horror stories about non-B&O panels not working with it. A selection (not necessarily a large selection, but at least including a 40" plasma HD Ready and a 50" Full HD) of B&O panels would solve that problem, assuming they're good enough (i.e. much better than the original BV4!).

Also, if the BS3 were 'modular' and could be configured to order...

Could we make this suggestion to B&O??

Re: B&O's TV range.

Danny — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:20:27 GMT

Greg:
I know there's been similar posts before but wanted to share my own experience, as someone - a B&O enthusiast - looking to replace our old TV. Naturally enough, I kind of assumed I'd be going down the B&O route. Having looked into it in some detail over the past year, reluctantly I'll be looking elsewhere, and here's my reasons!
1) BV7 - has an integrated 'classic' DVD drive that will soon be obsolete (and I already own DVD players), ugly 'tacked on' speakers, and very limited connectivity (although I gather the new version is better in that respect).
2) BV6 - a beautiful piece of design and manufacture, but almost comically inadequate connections (no HDMI, for example), and having decided 26" is too small, it's out for me.
3) BV8 - the 'unusual' design actually grew on me, but again woeful connectivity and no option to add surround, plus it lacks so many of the features that the 'proper' B&O TVs have to help justify their price tag. Yes, the BV8 is priced much lower, but the difference between it and the mainstream competition for a fraction of its price becomes very slight.
So all of these have issues that are deal-breakers for me. I'm aware B&O are never at the cutting edge, and I prefer their strategy of waiting for technology to 'bed in' and then doing it right. And having a product that will last for years.
Problem is, if I'm spending thousands on a TV, I want it to work after the analogue switch-off (i.e. beyond next year). I'd also like to be able to connect something else to it, or ideally, more than one thing. I'm not even bothered about TrueHD or DTS+ right now, I don't want to be too demanding.
But the real clincher is that the picture quality, while way above average across the range, is not way above the best of the mainstream. For example, the Pioneer 428 is truly exceptional.
Still, I'd prefer a 40" BV6 (nicer form factor than BV7, better integrated and less dominating speaker, and no redundant DVD drive) but with 3xHDMIs and a surround module and Beo5 thrown in.
But I'm pretty sure I'll actually be buying a Pioneer 428 or a Sony 40W3000. If BS3s weren't so flaky with non-B&O screens, I'd still look to get one of those so I can have B&O's lovely surround speakers (I'm thinking BL9s at the front and BL3s at the rear) but they are, so I won't. And I'm not minded to get a BV4 (even if they still did the 40") for that price, with its very non-exceptional picture and ordinary design and build.
Having said all this, I bought a Serene, so don't listen to me!

I totally agree:

a wide selection of different sized LCD and plasma screens to connect to the BS3 would be my favourite - and easily (and relatively cheap) to upgrade!

Re: B&O's TV range.

dilznik — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:40:25 GMT

Alex:
As for the 'inadequate connections', do bear in mind that B&O have now launched the HDMI expander, and while this isn't the most elegant solution, I'd imagine it works very well.

Sounds worth checking out. Anyone have a link?

Re: B&O's TV range.

355f — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 05:38:16 GMT

Pinoeer isa good choice and if one feels its way better than the BV4 then you must get the Pioneer! no further debate required!

Re: B&O's TV range.

Greg — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 05:09:45 GMT

355f:
Greg:
With SD content only, I'd maybe agree - although a well set-up (professionally calibrated) 8G Pioneer probably still has the edge IMO (obviously, this is subjective). I've seen this and the Sony with my own SD content, as well as blu-ray discs. To be fair, the Sony did look quite impressive, if a little brash, oversharp and lacking depth (being LCD rather than Plasma). But with HD content, both sets were superb. That stuff about how HD is pointless on screens less than 50" is, frankly, rubbish. The difference was very *very* obvious to me, on a 40"/42" display, about 11 feet away. Of course a good 720p set, like the Pioneer or BV4 can (and does) still look much better than a full HD LCD, but that's a very different argument!

The common issues are that 720 screens display sd better and bacuse there is less processing to do actually make avery good job of HD.
Porfessional installers and the BBC point to the fact that on a 50 in screen or less no one could consistently tell the difference- if you can fair enough!- from 11 feet away !!!
Porfessonal installers seem to take the view that the very best set up can be achieved with a panasonic commercial screen and a lumagen processor or similar- not far removed from the BV4 solution in fact.There are differences with Pioneer and Panasonic glass on a purely colour and greyscale basis. I think it will come down to taste and the job itself. The Pioneer handles bright rooms better, but I also reckon the Panasonic has the deeper contrast image overall which really shines when the lights are turned down and you are sitting down to a good movie. if the plasma is going to be the movie watching screen as well as general TV use then it has to be a Panasonic (or even better a Fuji) because I think it has the more filmic, CRT like almost, picture.

Well maybe I'm just "special", but to me the difference between 1080 and 720 on a 40" screen was *so* obvious I'd be *amazed* if anyone *couldn't* see it. Either way, it is not a "fact" that no could consistently tell the difference - no matter what professional installers (who until recently only had 720p screens to sell at sub 50" sizes) or the BBC (who can't yet commit to deliver - other than on a trial basis - 720p, let alone 1080p) will tell you.

Again, I'd emphasise that it doesn't mean 1080 looks *better*, just sharper; in fact to me the best 720 plasmas still give the best picture - thanks to greater depth and contrast, and that 'filmic' quality you describe. Again, I must be "special" because I've spent some time looking at both Panasonic and Pioneer's best offerings, and have had a look at Fujitsu's, and to me the 8th gen Pioneer is the better picture - having the edge over the Panasonic, largely because of it's better contrast - the Panasonic, while pretty good, is still grey at times when it should be black - the same problem as the BV4, IMHO. Whereas, the Pioneer really can do black. Again, YMMV, this is my personal experience and I may well be 'special' :-)

Re: B&O's TV range.

355f — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:15:05 GMT

Greg:
With SD content only, I'd maybe agree - although a well set-up (professionally calibrated) 8G Pioneer probably still has the edge IMO (obviously, this is subjective). I've seen this and the Sony with my own SD content, as well as blu-ray discs. To be fair, the Sony did look quite impressive, if a little brash, oversharp and lacking depth (being LCD rather than Plasma). But with HD content, both sets were superb. That stuff about how HD is pointless on screens less than 50" is, frankly, rubbish. The difference was very *very* obvious to me, on a 40"/42" display, about 11 feet away. Of course a good 720p set, like the Pioneer or BV4 can (and does) still look much better than a full HD LCD, but that's a very different argument!

The common issues are that 720 screens display sd better and bacuse there is less processing to do actually make avery good job of HD.

Porfessional installers and the BBC point to the fact that on a 50 in screen or less no one could consistently tell the difference- if you can fair enough!- from 11 feet away !!!

Porfessonal installers seem to take the view that the very best set up can be achieved with a panasonic commercial screen and a lumagen processor or similar- not far removed from the BV4 solution in fact.There are differences with Pioneer and Panasonic glass on a purely colour and greyscale basis. I think it will come down to taste and the job itself. The Pioneer handles bright rooms better, but I also reckon the Panasonic has the deeper contrast image overall which really shines when the lights are turned down and you are sitting down to a good movie. if the plasma is going to be the movie watching screen as well as general TV use then it has to be a Panasonic (or even better a Fuji) because I think it has the more filmic, CRT like almost, picture.

Re: B&O's TV range.

Alex — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:50:43 GMT

soundproof:
Alex:
The Pioneer displays are much more impressive, although I saw one of the latest Pioneer panels round at my uncle & aunt's house the other day, and it wasn't all that good! Far over 'bloated' colours (reducing the colour control just made it look washed out, but still somehow 'over compensated'), and very poor detail at mid-colours (although the extremes of hues seemed pretty good).
You have to go into the pro setup functions on the Pioneer to adjust the image. Send me a PM and I'll send you two good setups you can try.

Thanks for the offer, but no thanks! My aunt & uncle think the picture is pretty good for what they paid. They've seen B&O sets (they love B&O, and are thinking of getting their new house wired up with a complete BeoLink setup), and are mighty impressed, so I think they're not massively bothered about the Pioneer.

Re: B&O's TV range.

soundproof — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:44:21 GMT

Alex:
The Pioneer displays are much more impressive, although I saw one of the latest Pioneer panels round at my uncle & aunt's house the other day, and it wasn't all that good! Far over 'bloated' colours (reducing the colour control just made it look washed out, but still somehow 'over compensated'), and very poor detail at mid-colours (although the extremes of hues seemed pretty good).

You have to go into the pro setup functions on the Pioneer to adjust the image. Send me a PM and I'll send you two good setups you can try.