General Forum

Re: The End Of Bang&Olufsen ?

benjnz — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 03:49:35 GMT

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.

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

Re: The End Of Bang&Olufsen ?

Puncher — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 03:11:26 GMT

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.

Re: The End Of Bang & Olufsen ?

Flappo The Grate — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 03:10:47 GMT

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 !!!

Re: The End Of Bang & Olufsen ?

TripEnglish — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:52:29 GMT

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.

Re: The End Of Bang&Olufsen ?

jvezina — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:35:02 GMT

"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

Re: The End Of Bang&Olufsen ?

Russ — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:39:02 GMT

Hi Linder,

I would rather have a BV-7 on my living room as well. Of any size. 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!

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

Re: The End Of Bang&Olufsen ?

linder — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 12:08:28 GMT

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.

Re: The End Of Bang&Olufsen ?

soundproof — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:25:28 GMT

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.

Re: The End Of Bang&Olufsen ?

Russ — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:58:34 GMT

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

Re: The End Of Bang&Olufsen ?

soundproof — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:09:59 GMT

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.

Re: The End Of Bang&Olufsen ?

Russ — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:51:35 GMT

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

Re: The End Of Bang&Olufsen ?

TripEnglish — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:19:02 GMT

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.

Re: The End Of Bang&Olufsen ?

Flappo The Grate — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 06:07:51 GMT

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..

Re: The End Of Bang&Olufsen ?

soundproof — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 03:20:29 GMT

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.

Re: The End Of Bang&Olufsen ?

Russ — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 22:26:25 GMT

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