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

311–320 of 344 posts

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

#311

Post by fsloth »

intrasight wrote: post #290
fsloth wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can agree used speakers offer incredible value. Having an 4k oled TV bundled into $400 package _is_ surprisingly cheap even then imho!

Looking for used speakers. What makes/models should I be considering. Also gotta add, if my B&W speakers started playing ads at startup, Id be fucking livid!

My algorithm was ”plan a budget. See what options are available and compare reviews.”. I think the critical thing is that you specify a) what your amplifier is b) how many speakers c) music, movies or both.

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

#312

Post by mrandish »

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #163
mrandish wrote: post #111

I'm a little surprised these four companies combined sold for only $350M.

In other news, Block Audio ASI Inc. (providing AI services for audio providers on the blockchain) was just acquired for $3.14B.

Yeah, I guess Denon should have changed the name of their AVRs (Auvio Video Receivers) to AiVR. That might've added a cool billion dollars to their value :-).

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

#313

Post by silisili »

elihu wrote: post #198
silisili wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same boat. I made the unfortunate mistake of buying Samsung kitchen stuff. The fridge ice maker had to have been designed by a troll. One piece of ice every 10 seconds or so. It took a minute to fill a simple dinner glass! Then the microwave handle just...fell off the door. In all my years of owning bottom of the barrel to top end brands, I didn't even realize it was possible. The repairman said it was common, but be…

My current phone is a cheap Samsung. It's awful. The usb-C connector has never worked for data and only barely works for power (the plug sits at a funny angle and doesn't charge unless it's "just right"). There doesn't seem to be any debris in the connector and I've tried a couple different cables, so my best guess is just the connector came from the factory misshapen. Phone reception is terrible where I live, but I'…

That reminds me of the WinPhone days. The Moto Q was an awesome device built like a brick.

Samsung knocked it off with the BlackJack, which itself was an obvious copy/knock on Blackberry. It felt like such a downgrade - cheap plastic, hollow, and really buggy. Sounds like not much has changed since those days...

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

#314

Post by immibis »

pembrook wrote: post #303
immibis wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fundamentally still a forum for VCs to VC. You see this periodically where some topic comes up that's completely antithetical to VC, and gets quickly flagged or downvoted to oblivion, even though there may be lively discussion. For example, this occurs when open source licenses are being discussed. The remaining undead comments are the ones favouring licenses that favour venture capital interests.

I find this fascinating as my impression is usually the exact opposite (all I see is lots of open source fetishism and anti-VC, anti-big tech, anti-AI, anti-risk, anti-new stuff, anti-everything sentiment). However it could be certain headlines attract a certain type of person, allowing for an entirely different subjective experience of what "people on hacker news" are like.

Please note there are two main branches of open source: there is permissive, which is a donation to venture capitalists, and there is copyleft, which is prohibited from use by venture capitalists unless they play nice. This forum champions the former and is generally opposed to the latter, and the more copyleft it is, the more this forum is against it (LGPL vs GPL vs AGPL vs SSPL).

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

#316

Post by alsetmusic »

itfossil wrote: post #310
cj wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The accident is that you basically can't buy a dumb TV anymore. It's a really sad state of affairs.

You can purchase store displays. They’re meant for use like the menu at a fast food place. No smarts.

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

#317

Post by j_heffe »

morellt wrote: post #224
Disposal8433 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole "4/5 speakers around the room" never made sense to me. It always felt overly complicated for a premium price that no one could afford or cared about. I used to hang out with people who had luxury sound systems but it was way too expensive or complicated for my daily use. For the past 15 years, I have used the same cheap combo of soundbar+subwoofer (Sony but anything goes) and it's perfect for everything I t…

I think this ties in more with the decrease in quality of movie/music sound mixing. There are current movies coming to theaters with mixing so bad that they have to rerelease it with the proper audio (such as Across the Spiderverse). Many, MANY albums that release today have noticeable digital clipping because engineers have now assumed that high gain is always better etc. etc. There used to be a reason to have a 5.1…

I think audio really took a hit in the 90s and early 2000s when home theater became a lot cheaper and a lot more accessible and so too did the quality. Guys would spend their life savings on some crazy Polk or JBLs back in the day, and they were genuinely good quality and expensive.

I always thought "Blinded by the light" was a garbage song hearing it on the radio all the time, but after listening to the album on my dad's JBL L100's, I understand why he's such a vintage purist. It changed the sound of the song completely. The speakers picked up things I had literally never heard before.

I know nothing about audio engineering, but it does seem like the art has sort of died out or became "more productionized".

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

#318

Post by neuralRiot »

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…

I’ve been into electronics for over 35 years and the basic audio amplifier topology hasn’t changed since the invention of the transistor, the only thing that had been improved is efficiency, beyond that it’s just added features as a selling point. That’s why vintage amplifiers are very sought after.

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

#319

Post by skydhash »

anton-c wrote: post #271
skydhash wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's three remotes (TV, Apple box, AVR), but if you setup HDMI-CEC, it quickly becomes one (the Apple box). It's not like you're fiddling with the others' settings every day.

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

#320

Post by timc3 »

ThatMedicIsASpy wrote: post #210
hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

are you telling me the reason my tv turns on slowly is because it has internet access?

I can enable fast start for a lot of things and have them draw 100W doing nothing or I can live with a 15W idle TV shelf and slow startups.

Both systems I have are pulling less than 10W at the wall. I measured with a meter - I would need to check but I think its 2W each, I only make a mental note when its 5W or above on a device or group of devices and then I start doing something about it. electricity is fairly expensive here.
Post reply on HN