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

91–100 of 344 posts

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

#91

Post by alabastervlog »

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…

Seconded, I’m happy with my Denon (especially because I got it cheap) but only because I rarely touch it. The front panel design is demented.

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

#92

Post by mikepurvis »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #88
mikepurvis wrote: post #27

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…

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

I guess that's true too, certainly in a living room setting if you've still got a vinyl player or whatever— but modern TVs have the audio streaming apps of course, plus they can be a cast target for anything on your phone.

Maybe it also matters in a home theatre that's oriented around a projector rather than TV.

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

#93

Post by wlesieutre »

mcsniff wrote: post #86
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…

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

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?

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

#94

Post by alabastervlog »

dylan604 wrote: post #29
bombcar wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could estimate it from sales or something, but Walmart has a huge wall full of various TVs, and barely one half of one aisle-side of soundbars, and no receivers/speaker setups. I suspect something like 80% of people use the TV, and of those who upgrade, use a soundbar, maybe. And even those with a dedicated theatre room, probably have other TVs that are just TV audio.

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/…

Modern TV speakers are so bad that you need a soundbar just to get back to the level of bad audio present in any standard stereo mid-sized CRT TV in 1990. There’s no room for decent-sized speakers, they’re often pointed some weird direction due to space or aesthetics or both, and none of the TV makers care to try to make them work as well as they possibly could (see: the tiny speakers in iPads) because anyone who gives a shit is gonna get a soundbar or receiver anyway.

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

#95

Post by cosmic_cheese »

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.)

I have a Marantz receiver that I’ve been using for around a decade now and it’s been excellent, having done its job well the whole time and it having continued to get updates fixing or improving things (e.g. after Spotify bricked a bunch of stuff by deprecating its old API, Marantz issued an update using the new API).

Given Samsung’s track record with enshittification and support timelines I’m worried that this acquisition means all that will be going away, which is a shame. Guess I’ll be looking at Sony and Yamaha models instead going forward.

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

#96

Post by Mistletoe »

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…

This is why I love vintage audio. I’m sitting here listening to classical on FM radio on my Marantz 2215B made in the 1970s and it is what you are describing and sublime.

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

#97

Post by lttlrck »

hedora wrote: post #83
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…

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 guess that many people listen to more music than watch TV or movies. They might not want the TV on all the time. So a A/V receiver can make a lot of sense for them.

Plus AV receivers can consolidate all the connections so there is only one run to the TV. This could be done with an HDMI switch if you can find one that integrates as well as a receiver, with similar number of inputs and isn't a large fraction of the cost.

Plus many (most?) very nice speakers need an external amplifier. Once you look at the cost of a bare bones amp, an A/V receiver with everything else they offer makes a ton of sense. Even for two channels.

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

#98

Post by AdamJacobMuller »

wlesieutre wrote: post #93
mcsniff wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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?

Just pick better brands for your receiver.

I have an Anthem pre and an LG TV, both of which are blocked from accessing the internet, and I have none of these issues.

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

#99

Post by alabastervlog »

prpl wrote: post #70
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/…

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.

God, does 5.1 or better really shine on 90s surround sound movies. And occasionally newer ones, but a lot more back then.

They also hadn’t given up on original music. It’s crazy how much the soundtrack elevates otherwise-not-amazing films like Twister. I desperately wish they’d at least go back to caring about that.

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

#100

Post by dylan604 »

prpl wrote: post #70
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/…

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, but the LFE is often the red headed step child of audio data.
Post reply on HN