Live data from Hacker News

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

engadget.com

81–90 of 344 posts

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

#81
post #39

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…

> 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 lot of fussing with the complicated remote to get to where you want, which is perhaps fine for geeks, but annoying in a family setup, where all household members would like to know how to watch Netflix.

BTW, these traditions are ridiculous: as an example, my DENON receiver has two monstrous knobs on the front, like most AV receivers. The one on the left I will never use in its entire lifetime: it is for manually sequentially switching input sources, which nobody does anymore. And yet they still place it as the most prominent feature/control on the front panel.

The buttons that I'd like to use are small, black-on-black with dark gray labeling in 8pt type, so basically impossible to use unless you use a magnifying glass and a flashlight.

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

#82
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 ;)

For a wall-mounted TV, it's still pretty essential to get a single cable run to it, vs needing to plug in each device individually. That said, it's curious how the multiplexing and audio amp functionality ended up in the same box. Really what it should be is: - a "remote" multiplexer comes in the box with my TV. It speaks HDMI/CEC to the TV telling it what input is active so that the TV's UI can reflect that and it c…

Monoprice make a HDMI switch that does a lot of this. No metadata for game mode, etc. as far as I know but I have:

TV

Apple TV on earc connection (HomePods for sound)

Blackbird switch with all other devices.

It can automatically switch between everything, but also has an IR remote for selecting an input.

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

#83
post #39

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…

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, the TV has some sort of multichannel digital audio out. I don’t care. If I did, that’d give me surround sound. Similarly, I could get a subwoofer if I wanted.)

This is completely fine. The apple tv and console auto-switch the tv to their output, and sync the power buttons. The linux box doesn’t, but probably could if I decided to RTFM. The apple tv can be controlled with the tv remote, but its native remote is nicer. We only use the TV remote to access linux.

We only touch the receiver to switch between TV, turntable, sonos and radio.

How would an A/V receiver possibly improve this? (Note: I want the analog radio and record player with their nice mechanical switches and warm FM sound, and will run the sonos s1 app until the cloud side of it dies.)

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

#84

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…

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…

Licensing is definitely strangling the market for Atmos decoders. If you have particular requirements you can always do it with ~$2k in Dolby software licenses and also ~$2k in converters. You cannot, unfortunately, DIY hardware for Atmos without an HDCP license. If you have one of those you can actually DIY something around a DSP like the ones Analog Devices sells preloaded with the IP. Then again if you have those kinds of resources you probably already work for Harman or something.

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

#85
post #83
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…

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.

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

#86

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…

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

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

#87
post #7

must...have...name...brands Recently I was looking for a toaster. Target has a nice selection of toasters. Look down into the slots, and they are all exactly the same. There were, at peak, only three different VCRs. All those brands used one of three standard mechanisms. But you could get a hundred different cases.

Funny you should say that about toasters... Because I've been down a toaster buying rabbit hole over the past year and toasters are not all the same. I mean sure, a €20 toaster is gonna be the same as all other €20 toasters. But beyond that they have massively different build quality and toasting speed, and don't get me started on how hard it is to find a toaster designed for real bread instead of square supermarket slices(+).

My recommendation is actually to buy a commercial toaster. It'll toast twice as fast and last for years. Downside is that it will probably look ugly. I've heard good things about Dualit too though.

(+) On the other hand if all you eat is white sliced pan, then go ahead and buy any €20 toaster. You're in luck, they were built for you.

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

#88
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 ;)

For a wall-mounted TV, it's still pretty essential to get a single cable run to it, vs needing to plug in each device individually. That said, it's curious how the multiplexing and audio amp functionality ended up in the same box. Really what it should be is: - a "remote" multiplexer comes in the box with my TV. It speaks HDMI/CEC to the TV telling it what input is active so that the TV's UI can reflect that and it c…

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

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

#89
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a wall-mounted TV, it's still pretty essential to get a single cable run to it, vs needing to plug in each device individually. That said, it's curious how the multiplexing and audio amp functionality ended up in the same box. Really what it should be is: - a "remote" multiplexer comes in the box with my TV. It speaks HDMI/CEC to the TV telling it what input is active so that the TV's UI can reflect that and it c…

Monoprice make a HDMI switch that does a lot of this. No metadata for game mode, etc. as far as I know but I have: TV Apple TV on earc connection (HomePods for sound) Blackbird switch with all other devices. It can automatically switch between everything, but also has an IR remote for selecting an input.

I've had bad experiences in the past with autodetecting switches, especially that tiny square one. But I should give this a shot— it would be awfully nice to just pipe everything directly to the TV and have the AVR in eARC-only mode.

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

#90
post #83
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…

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 needs to reach it is a single HDMI cable. This can create interesting room layout options that are otherwise impractical.

All of these can also be accomplished by a simple HDMI port switch, but still, it’s handy.

Post reply on HN