Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Samsung is paying $350M for audio brands B&W, Denon, Marantz and Polk

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 344 posts

Re: Samsung is paying $350M for audio brands B&W, Denon, Marantz and Polk

#101

Post by smackeyacky »

jwr wrote: post #81
tzs wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any article posted here about smart TVs draws a large number of comments about limitations and annoyances of smart TV platforms. 90+% of the things people complain about would no longer be a problem if they got a traditional A/V receiver, plugged all their sources such as streaming boxes and game consoles into the receiver, and just used the smart TV as a monitor (and as a tuner if they watch OTA television). Until t…

> 90+% of the things people complain about would no longer be a problem if they got a traditional A/V receiver, plugged all their sources such as streaming boxes and game consoles into the receiver, and just used the smart TV as a monitor (and as a tuner if they watch OTA television). The problem there is the terrible UI of those A/V receivers, designed by committee that upholds long-standing traditions. It takes a l…

The Harmony remotes used to solve this problem - I am dreading the day my old Harmony One dies.

Re: Samsung is paying $350M for audio brands B&W, Denon, Marantz and Polk

#102

Post by bob1029 »

Duwensatzaj wrote: post #80
jauntywundrkind wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really good call out, that the TV now often is the center of the AV experience, where-as the "receiver" (and amplifier) used to be driving the show. I really really wish there were digital audio decoder/processors available. It sucks so bad that you either buy a semi affordable consumer amplifier with 7.2.2 Dolby Atmos out and ok amplification, or if you want to step up you need a $4000+ processor whose only real job…

MiniDSP? https://www.minidsp.com/ I used their stuff for a four-speaker audio setup but they do affordable home theater devices as well.

I use the miniDSP 2x4 in my office right now to split the LFE and filter out the room modes.

It's amazing the difference you can make with a basic DSP engine and a tape measure.

Re: Samsung is paying $350M for audio brands B&W, Denon, Marantz and Polk

#103

Post by hedora »

jeffbee wrote: post #85
hedora wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand what an A/V receiver is for. Our setup: - An old LCD TV with 4(?) HDMI inputs and a few legacy ports. - linux box with hdmi out - apple tv with hdmi out - console with hdmi out - line out cable from TV to 1970’s receiver’s line in. - line out from sonos to another line in on the receiver. - roof antenna, with a Y to the TV and receiver - turntable - two extremely nice speakers (Before someone asks,…

I would say my greatest suspicion about such a setup would be that your TV is doing a poor job of decoding surround streams into sensible 2-channel downmixes. However, if you're happy with it, that's all that matters.

The AppleTV and Linux do the downmix (and are probably both state of the art at it.)

The console might be suboptimal, but it knows the TV is in 2 channel mode, so it it’s emitting surround encoded signal, that’s just dumb.

Re: Samsung is paying $350M for audio brands B&W, Denon, Marantz and Polk

#104

Post by hedora »

lttlrck wrote: post #97
hedora wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand what an A/V receiver is for. Our setup: - An old LCD TV with 4(?) HDMI inputs and a few legacy ports. - linux box with hdmi out - apple tv with hdmi out - console with hdmi out - line out cable from TV to 1970’s receiver’s line in. - line out from sonos to another line in on the receiver. - roof antenna, with a Y to the TV and receiver - turntable - two extremely nice speakers (Before someone asks,…

I would guess that many people listen to more music than watch TV or movies. They might not want the TV on all the time. So a A/V receiver can make a lot of sense for them. Plus AV receivers can consolidate all the connections so there is only one run to the TV. This could be done with an HDMI switch if you can find one that integrates as well as a receiver, with similar number of inputs and isn't a large fraction of…

That’s what the sonos is for in this setup. If we eliminated it, I’d probably just put a VM with similar software on it on the linux box and give it access to linux’s line out. (A raspberry pi would work, but might need a better dac and it takes more cabinet space than a vm on an existing machine.)

Re: Samsung is paying $350M for audio brands B&W, Denon, Marantz and Polk

#105

Post by EnPissant »

trentnix wrote: post #77

Now there are more avenues for Samsung to shove bloatware down our throats. I have a modestly high-end home theater and it is utterly maddening waiting for devices to “boot” and “handshake”. And after the wait, I’m presented with another “User Agreement” to sign that insists on shoveling ads down my throat and harvesting data. How much do you have to pay for a quick boot, no ads, and a private movie or music experien…

Samsung soundbars are all of the things you asked for.

Re: Samsung is paying $350M for audio brands B&W, Denon, Marantz and Polk

#106

Post by bigiain »

Mistletoe wrote: post #96
trentnix wrote: post #77

Now there are more avenues for Samsung to shove bloatware down our throats. I have a modestly high-end home theater and it is utterly maddening waiting for devices to “boot” and “handshake”. And after the wait, I’m presented with another “User Agreement” to sign that insists on shoveling ads down my throat and harvesting data. How much do you have to pay for a quick boot, no ads, and a private movie or music experien…

This is why I love vintage audio. I’m sitting here listening to classical on FM radio on my Marantz 2215B made in the 1970s and it is what you are describing and sublime.

Same.

Back in the mid 80s I spent way more than was sensible and bought myself seperate NAD pre/power amps, Boston Acoustic Speakers, and a Rega turntable for my birthday. I not only still have and use all that gear, but have since bought more of the same brands 2nd hand mostly from the same era, so I now have 5.1 surround in my lounge room, and stereo amp/speaker sets in my kitchen, office, bedroom, and guest bedroom - all NAD/Boston Acoustic, and all capable of doing Apple AirPlay via Apple TV or old Airport Expresses.

Vintage hifi is great. You will probably need to become the sort of person who can replace all the electrolytic capacitors in your amps and speakers crossovers, or at least know someone who can. And you'll become the sort of person who'll hunt the internet for someone who can ship you replacement drivers for your speakers, styluses and drive belts for your turntable, and hifi grade capacitors (and you'll probably stock pile all of those those). It's at least partially a hobby instead of just appliances you own.

Re: Samsung is paying $350M for audio brands B&W, Denon, Marantz and Polk

#107

Post by EnPissant »

lysace wrote: post #31

"Hifi" was sort of mainstream for a while in the early 2000s. Remember when everyone went all-in on sound systems for their "home cinemas", very often spending serious money on 5.1 systems? Then Netflix, the race to the bottom in terms of bitstreams and portable devices happened.

People just prefer soundbars because they are easier and less imposing while delivering 80% of the value. Samsung sound bars in particular are very good. Compared to a 5.1 setup, their biggest fault is lacking good stereo separation.

Netflix delivers Dolby Atmos in bitrates that are indistinguishable from lossless audio. It's better, not worse.

Re: Samsung is paying $350M for audio brands B&W, Denon, Marantz and Polk

#108

Post by hedora »

alabastervlog wrote: post #90
hedora wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand what an A/V receiver is for. Our setup: - An old LCD TV with 4(?) HDMI inputs and a few legacy ports. - linux box with hdmi out - apple tv with hdmi out - console with hdmi out - line out cable from TV to 1970’s receiver’s line in. - line out from sonos to another line in on the receiver. - roof antenna, with a Y to the TV and receiver - turntable - two extremely nice speakers (Before someone asks,…

It’s mainly useful for getting good surround. If you don’t care about that, sure, not really necessary. That’s like the whole point of it. Side benefits include: - Adding more ports to often port-starved TVs or projectors. - Providing alternative port-switching interface if you hate your TV’s UI and want something simpler. - An organizational aid—you can put all your stuff somewhere away from the TV, and all that nee…

We just ran a wider conduit through the wall It has 4 hdmi cables, a usb extension cord and tv coax in it. (Didn’t bother with Ethernet the closet has a wifi access point in it.)

The appletv is in the closet, but the other devices don’t make sense there. The linux box is about as big as a decent USB hub, and has a few wired game controllers plugged into it. The console is a switch, and going into the closet is too much trouble. I could put the sonos in the closet, but the play/mute button on it is too convenient when I don’t have a phone handy. The other stuff is self explanatory.

Can you not get a surround sound audio receiver/amp anymore? The digital out on the tv presumably would feed it. I had an old one like that, but it died.

Re: Samsung is paying $350M for audio brands B&W, Denon, Marantz and Polk

#109

Post by hedora »

mikepurvis wrote: post #92
mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it done this way because your TV might not be the only thing that wants to use your nice speakers?

I guess that's true too, certainly in a living room setting if you've still got a vinyl player or whatever— but modern TVs have the audio streaming apps of course, plus they can be a cast target for anything on your phone. Maybe it also matters in a home theatre that's oriented around a projector rather than TV.

Our bargain basement projector (for a project; it was under $100) has more smart app bs on it than the TV.

I get the impression everyone eventually settles on a roku ($35, but full of spam) AppleTV (a bit over $100; better in all ways), or maybe goes with the google thing.

All of those cost < 10% the price of upgrading a TV, and all of our TVs have outlasted the (incredibly shitty) software they were bundled with.

Re: Samsung is paying $350M for audio brands B&W, Denon, Marantz and Polk

#110

Post by iancmceachern »

wlesieutre wrote: post #93
mcsniff wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sonarr, Radarr, Lidard are completely free, no ads, and private. Throw in JellyFin and Kodi and you're set -- no financial cost.

Which one of those replaces a Denon AV receiver to accept a bunch of inputs in various formats (HDMI, phono, optical, etc) including Dolby Atmos and ARC support to drive a multi-room 15.4 speaker system?

Get an integra pre amp or receiver
Post reply on HN