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

271–280 of 344 posts

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

#271

Post by anton-c »

skydhash wrote: post #54
al_borland wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of the things that kept me from getting a proper home theater setup. It always seemed like more complexity than I wanted under my TV. I could do it, but I simply objected to the idea. Not to mention, I like for someone to be able to come to my house and use my TV without taking a class first.

I have a somewhat cheap Denon for 5.1 audio and after the initial sound setup, I've never needed to touch the settings other for adjusting the subwoofer volume. It's mostly Apple TV -> AVR -> TV, but I got other inputs like a PS4 and a PC for music. And it has Airplay, Bluetooth and Spotify Connect for anyone that wants to play from their phone. There's no need for a super-complicated setup for good sound.

When non-tech people(ie my folks) set one up, you end up with the 3 remote thing for a cable box, receiver, and streaming stuff. It's real wild - I just let them turn stuff on when I'm over there.

I do audio work but they took my brothers recommendation on the home theater so I'm a bit 'you made your bed' about it haha.

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

#272

Post by s1artibartfast »

rayiner wrote: post #219

My left wing idea is that the government should be much more aggressive in preventing his sort of consolidation. Every industry is like the same handful of companies, with numerous “brands.” (These particular brands are all already owned by a single entity.) I’ve got an “Amana” heat pump. It’s really a Daikin, and is part for part compatible with Goodman, also owned by Diakin. But all the brands are sold to customers…

My left wing idea is prohibition of preferential pricing after a certain size to mitigate monopoly leverage. If you have say 20% of a market for chips, eggs, or whatever and more than a billion in revenue, then you have to set the same price anyone can buy at.

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

#273

Post by [deleted] »

steveBK123 wrote: post #207

It's a shame that big box stores (Walmart, Target) / online retail (Amazon) / brand owned stores (Apple, Bose) have all conspired to reduce consumer choice. Even in big cities, there's practically no specialty stores to go to in which I can demo a product category across brands. Think pre-GFC peak Best Buy & the old CompUSA/Circuit City chains of the past or even Apple before they captured every other product categor…

[deleted]

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

#275

Post by TimByte »

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…

It feels like you're renting access to your own devices

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

#276

Post by anton-c »

dylan604 wrote: post #100
prpl wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the mastering of most shows and movies is shit today anyway, and the downmixing of that shit to -e.g. 2.1 is even worse.

I've processed lots of sources with 5.1 audio that have "interesting" issues of various types. My favorite is when the LFE channel has a full range signal instead of a low pass filtered one. When that data is down mixed by what ever chip is doing it, there's way more data in the mix resulting in not what one would hope. These are studio provided sources that have been outsourced to 3rd parties for various reasons, bu…

Idk why they have to make it so weird. My 2.1 setup just has the sub get the full signal and the built in filter takes care of it. Id been reading about how 'perfect' the atmos to stereo conversion is... what an odd issue to run into to throw a wrench in that(or just use it as a consumer). I guess theatres really need that LFE channel.

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

#277

Post by TimByte »

steveBK123 wrote: post #207

It's a shame that big box stores (Walmart, Target) / online retail (Amazon) / brand owned stores (Apple, Bose) have all conspired to reduce consumer choice. Even in big cities, there's practically no specialty stores to go to in which I can demo a product category across brands. Think pre-GFC peak Best Buy & the old CompUSA/Circuit City chains of the past or even Apple before they captured every other product categor…

We went from being able to walk into a store and actually try stuff out - compare how headphones sound, how a speaker feels in your hands - to now just gambling on Amazon reviews and hoping return policies are generous

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

#278

Post by cj »

itfossil wrote: post #248
cj wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple TV connected via HDMI to a big screen TV not connected to the internet. 2-3 second boot up. No ads. Snappy interface. No complaints. No bloatware. No adware. Why does this solution not work for you? Does your TV not work when you turn off WiFi with an attached Apple TV? I’m confused.

As it so happens I currently run a Roku TV that is not connected to the internet with an Apple TV attached. However that is not long a term solution and if it ever dies you can be damn sure I'll buy a different television. Roku is breaking things constantly. If you ever have to replace that hardware, it will have more up to date software and your experience will be broken. This will be by design. Even implying that s…

I'm not sure how anyone accidentally fell into the smart TV trap, honestly.

From day 1, all smart TVs had horrible latency when it comes to navigating through menus and screens. I'm glad for that, because it stopped me from ever buying one in the first place!

Maybe it's the people that show up at best buy without doing any research and just buy the most expensive TV not realizing it's a crappy smart TV. Who knows. Do your research!

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

#280

Post by TimByte »

bhouston wrote: post #11

I feel that sound bars + speakers directly attached to TVs has decimated the "home theatre receiver." "Back in the day", home theatre receivers made sense when you wanted Radio + CD inputs in addition to the TV input. But radio and CD players are gone. There is just TV. Even when I do audio, I run it through the TV. Thus why do you need a separate box? It just seems like a waste. Instead everyone these days are just…

If you're into lossless audio formats, room correction, or full surround setups with discrete speakers, receivers still have a strong case
Post reply on HN