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

41–50 of 344 posts

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

#41

Post by bombcar »

kyriakos wrote: post #22
bombcar wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

eARC or whatever it is really changed this. I don't need a receiver with buttons anymore, I just need one that handles eARC gracefully. We're about five years away from "no remotes" anymore, imo. As it is I only need to find the TV remote when something goes really wonky - and even then I can reset it by using the smart app to power cycle the outlet ;)

eARC is amazing tech - when it works. I have a recent top of the line Samsung TV, and last year's 5.1 Samsung soundbar and even though both components are from the same brand there are some very frustrating times eARC fails. The rest of the time it works like magic.

There's a reason my tv was named "Slamsung" for awhile, and I didn't cry or yell at all when a kid put a toy through it. Thing was an absolute steaming pile of barely usable crap, so I went back to Vizio.

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

#44

Post by insane_dreamer »

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…

Yes, but vinyl is making a strong comeback, and with that comes the need for traditional receivers. Even CDs are making a comeback -- as many indie artists publish CDs (and some do vinyl), which implies demand for standalone CD players with a receiver (like those made by the Denon, Onkyo, etc.)

I have a HomePod in my living room and it gets used, but I also have a traditional receiver hooked up to my external speakers, with a turntable and CD player plugged into the receiver.

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

#45

Post by keoneflick »

tzs wrote: post #39
keoneflick wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

You can have the TV still be a dumb monitor by using a TV box, but handle the switching of inputs if you have more than one input.

The problem is that as video technology has advanced, it makes less and less sense to pay for video processing technology on a receiver. Your new TV supports HDMI 2.1 with 120hz and VRR for your new PS5.

Does your receiver? Are you willing to spend $1000 to upgrade your receiver to simply correctly pass through that video signal, with little meaningful audio upgrade?

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

#46

Post by insane_dreamer »

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.)

Pioneer is still around. TEAC too but they're a bit more mid-to-high pro market, I guess.

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

#47

Post by gehwartzen »

kyriakos wrote: post #28
neuroelectron wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like this is tied to the overall decline in movie and music quality. Maybe I'm just getting old. There is no more "Titanic" or "Nirvana". Lots of people have noticed the decline in audio mixing in movies as well, which has led to a generation of younger adults who need captions for regular movies. A discrete audio system would probably help with this but for what? How many times are you going to watch latest A…

There are 2 problems currently with movie audio. One is that the channel separation is not as good as it used to be. New movies have 5.1 audio the effect is minimal which no longer justifies the expense on the sound system. People online are saying this is because many movies are made for primarily for streaming and that majority of people listen on their TV or sound bar instead of dedicated surround systems. The sec…

For most people a good 2.1 system vs surround or soundbars is where it’s at these days. As you say most surround mixing is an afterthought now anyway.

The physics of moving air to create sound hasn’t really changed in any meaningful ways; the biggest upgrade is usually larger drivers fed with more power. I think most would experience that as much more of a theatre like experience than 7+ tiny underpowered satellites outputting an already bad mix.

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

#48

Post by keoneflick »

al_borland wrote: post #34
keoneflick wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Yes, definitely had that experience growing up of going over to someone's house and being unable to operate the very complex tower of black boxes. Could not agree more.

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

#49

Post by nfriedly »

AyyEye wrote: post #18
notfed wrote: post #2

Great...Samsung buying the competition. Denon makes great audio receivers. I expect them to turn to junk soon.

Maybe it's always been this way and I just never noticed but at some point in the last ten years or so Samsung became synonymous with bottom of the barrel quality, while still charging premium prices. I won't buy anything with a samsung sticker on it, even used, because it's inevitably going to have failing electronics, stupid design decisions, too many half-baked features, and horrible buggy software/firmware. Your…

Prettymuch agree with you.

I have a Samsung plasma TV from 10~15 years ago. The picture quality is and always was beautiful, I had to have the power supply replaced once, and the software experience is and always was terrible.

I eventually factory-reset the TV to make it forget my wifi credentials so it would stop interrupting me to claim my internet connection was down, when actually their update server was down. (I was trying to watch a DVD, so it would have been fine even if my internet was down!) Now it's just connected to a PC and I completely avoid the samsung software.

Also agree with you about Sony and their contempt for their customers. I went through 3-4 pairs of linkbuds because they kept failing in ~6 months. I loved the idea of the design ("open back" earbuds with a hole in them to allow in outside sound, instead of using microphones), but the build quality just wasn't there.

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

#50

Post by baq »

al_borland wrote: post #34
keoneflick wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

> It always seemed like more complexity than I wanted under my TV.

the receiver doesn't need to be under the TV. it can sit in a basement. the question is if you really want to have proper sound or it's only a nice to have.

> use my TV without taking a class first

this is not an issue at all. HDMI ARC handles this.

Post reply on HN