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

131–140 of 344 posts

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

#131

Post by ryandrake »

Gigachad wrote: post #78
dylan604 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a really sad percentage of people listening to such subpar sound that they might as well not be. I understand not everyone can afford nice audio, but a soundbar is such a drastic improvement, VHS=>DVD level of improvement, while a soundbar to surround is a DVD=>BluRay improvement. It's great for those with discerning taste, but not noticed by the vast majority. Granted, I'm not an audiophile, but I've been in/…

Average person just can’t tell the difference. My parents have a sound bar but half the time I visit the tv is set to use the built in speakers and they don’t even notice.

The average person consumes lossy-compressed movies and music through their phone or laptop. They wouldn’t know high quality sound if it trumpeted down from god.

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

#132

Post by ryandrake »

bombcar wrote: post #38
dylan604 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a really sad percentage of people listening to such subpar sound that they might as well not be. I understand not everyone can afford nice audio, but a soundbar is such a drastic improvement, VHS=>DVD level of improvement, while a soundbar to surround is a DVD=>BluRay improvement. It's great for those with discerning taste, but not noticed by the vast majority. Granted, I'm not an audiophile, but I've been in/…

I swear there's something genetic about it; I can see the difference between VHS and 4K clearly every time, but I have to remind and point it out to my wife (she couldn't care about the difference between the VHS-quality rip of a movie and the 4K blu-ray). It has to be absolutely seamless; the received stopped working and the TV was making the noise instead, and it took a month for me to be finally arsed to go fix it…

We have traditional cable TV, where there are standard def channels on, say, channels 2-99 and then identical HD channels from 702-799, and my wife constantly lands in the SD channels by accident and doesn’t notice the difference. I have switched back and forth between the same show on SD and then HD to show her the huge difference and she just shrugs and legitimately doesn’t see it or care.

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

#133

Post by timc3 »

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…

What exactly are you waiting for. I have two Dolby atmos systems, denon receivers, Apple TVs, OSMC boxes on both, and LG Smart TVs disconnected from the internet. Start up time is less than a second.

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

#134

Post by ryandrake »

bombcar wrote: post #37
brianwawok wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who have a home theater aren’t exactly the core market for Wally World.

Sure, but just look at the revenue. Some do build it out (and I'm sure HN has higher percentages of "home theater types" than most) - but the average house? It's a TV. Thinking over everyone I know who has a TV, I'm the only one with a receiver connected. I think one has a soundbar.

A lot of it is that the design of good home theater equipment is ugly and not spouse-approved. My wife simply will not tolerate big black speaker boxes and a black stack of receiver equipment in the family room. No matter how well it’s hidden away. And I know a lot of families that have the same desire for a nice looking living space.

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

#135

Post by timc3 »

iancmceachern wrote: post #110
wlesieutre wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Don’t think they are available outside the US.

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

#136

Post by timc3 »

keoneflick wrote: post #14
dsr_ wrote: post #4

There are lots of speaker manufacturers; I'm not too concerned about Polk and B&W. But! There are relatively few home theater receiver makers, and the Denon/Marantz siblings have been a big chunk of them for decades. (Sony, Yamaha, Onkyo, Denon. Nobody else covers the low and mid cost market.)

The thing is, traditional receivers wanted to be the "brains" of home theater, switching video inputs, managing audio, turning everything on. That role is no longer sensible when used with smart TVs/Apple TV boxes/Android TV boxes. As a result, traditional receivers are relegated to be being audio decoders and amplifiers. Honestly, I think there's already more manufactured and lying around than the world really needs…

If you are really into AV they are more important than ever.

Yes at first glance a TV does the switching, and the rest. But a modern receiver can be better. Better switching, better ability to handle multiple speakers ( particularly for Dolby Atmos ) including Room EQ. Alot of TVs only have 2 HDMI ports with all the latest features.

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

#137

Post by [deleted] »

timc3 wrote: post #133
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…

What exactly are you waiting for. I have two Dolby atmos systems, denon receivers, Apple TVs, OSMC boxes on both, and LG Smart TVs disconnected from the internet. Start up time is less than a second.

[deleted]

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

#138

Post by ryandrake »

skydhash wrote: post #56
baq wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not very popular, but popular enough. If you care about sound more than looks (...and if you get the system set up and have a convincing story for your wife that it must be this way), it's the only way to experience movies 'properly'; mixed with an OLED TV, a proper subwoofer (like PB-1000 or similar) and bluray-quality content the system will be better than your average cinema experience. Now, whether that means any…

There are some nice speakers that can fit nicely in a living room, but rears placement are always a problem. Especially if the sofa is isolated in the middle of the room. But my SO has enjoyed nice sounds so there was no struggle there (It was gradual with a 2.0 setup before the 5.1).

A lot of living rooms these days are terrible for surround sound, and sound listening in general. Big, “open concept” spaces without doors and walls, often with the “living room” area occupying an odd corner of the big open blah-space. No feasible way to correctly install and aim surrounds. Also sound insulation is generally quite poor unless you deliberately do it while building the house.

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

#139

Post by timc3 »

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…

Yeah I agree. There are maybe 6 buttons used regularly on mine. Everything else is not needed for the family day to day.

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

#140

Post by ethbr1 »

timc3 wrote: post #133
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…

What exactly are you waiting for. I have two Dolby atmos systems, denon receivers, Apple TVs, OSMC boxes on both, and LG Smart TVs disconnected from the internet. Start up time is less than a second.

This. The correct answer is to never connect anything to the internet that doesn't need to be.
Post reply on HN