No, people who complain about B&O do so because their sound quality generally did not match their price. I could have bought B&O speakers but I preferred the sound of B&Ws.
Beats, B&O and Bose are all about style and marketing taking precedence over sound quality. B&W delivered on sound quality and went on to become the worlds largest and most successful speaker manufacturer with their products being used in numerous recording studios, something that can not be said of the other three Bs.
Whilst one pays a premium for the design, I find my B&O particularly good for classical music; it's a neutral, refined sound. I hear B&W are very good speakers, too. Classical music is the toughest test for speakers, because it exposes the details very well, provides a very wide dynamic range and highlights the slightest weakness in sound reproduction.
No, people who complain about B&O do so because their sound quality generally did not match their price. I could have bought B&O speakers but I preferred the sound of B&Ws.
Beats, B&O and Bose are all about style and marketing taking precedence over sound quality. B&W delivered on sound quality and went on to become the worlds largest and most successful speaker manufacturer with their products being used in numerous recording studios, something that can not be said of the other three Bs.
Uninformed people say the same things about Apple -- 'style and marketing' -- as you do about Beats, B&O, and Bose. It's basically the same arrogant view that says: (1) If I don't like something and you do, you must be stupid; and (2) Consumers, who speak in droves with their choices, are stupid.
I know a bit about recording studios. Most of them do not necssarily use the highest end equipment. The economics of the business is brutal, and they're cutting costs like crazy. Most I know couldn't set up a studio with B&O, for instance, even if they wanted to.
(Edited the edit.... the original wording was correct.:embarrass)
Uninformed people say the same things about Apple -- 'style and marketing' -- as you do about Beats, B&O, and Bose. It's basically the same arrogant view that says: (1) If I don't like something and you do, you must be stupid; and (2) Consumers, who speak in droves with their choices, are stupid.
I know a bit about recording studios. Most of them do not necssarily use the highest end equipment. The economics of the business is brutal, and they're cutting costs like crazy. Most I know couldn't set up a studio with B&O, for instance, even if they wanted to.
I think the quality and nature of the recording studios you are referring to aren't quite of the calibre of the ones that I had in mind. Studios like EMI, Decca and Deutsche-Grammophon, Abbey Road, Skywalker Sound - all of them have the financial resources to equip their recording studios with wahtever they like, including B&O. However, they use B&W.
B&O make some of the best looking and stylish domestic A/V equipment ever made. Other companies make better performing equipment that costs less. Some companies like Meridian, manage both the style/design and performance, though at the same price levels as B&O.
You are attempting to put words in my mouth with point 2. B&W is the worlds leading speaker manufacturer because people have bought their products in droves. Honda is similarly the worlds largest engine manufacturer. I own products made by both, funnily enough, as well as a few made by Apple. That shoe doesn't fit.
Oh, and I understand Bose noise cancelling headphones are about the best you can get of the type.
I think the quality and nature of the recording studios you are referring to aren't quite of the calibre of the ones that I had in mind. Studios like EMI, Decca and Deutsche-Grammophon, Abbey Road, Skywalker Sound - all of them have the financial resources to equip their recording studios with wahtever they like, including B&O. However, they use B&W.
B&O make some of the best looking and stylish domestic A/V equipment ever made. Other companies make better performing equipment that costs less. Some companies like Meridian, manage both the style/design and performance, though at the same price levels as B&O.
I agree. I've worked in professional audio in Los Angeles for 30 years. B&O has never been a serious choice for pro audio, nor the most expensive. The only people I've ever seen with B&O speakers in a professional workspace are entertainment executives who decorate their offices with them, and show off the glass CD player that opens when you wave your hand in front of it. I've been in the homes of Music producers and other pro audio people for whom money is not a problem, who would never install B&O.
Uninformed people say the same things about Apple -- 'style and marketing' -- as you do about Beats, B&O, and Bose. It's basically the same arrogant view that says: (1) If I don't like something and you do, you must be stupid; and (2) Consumers, who speak in droves with their choices, are stupid.
I know a bit about recording studios. Most of them do not necssarily use the highest end equipment. The economics of the business is brutal, and they're cutting costs like crazy. Most I know couldn't set up a studio with B&O, for instance, even if they wanted to.
Most studios wouldn't use B&O equipment because they don't sound neutral with their playback equipment. B&O and Bose speakers really only sound decent (and just decent) when using their own matching equipment. It has nothing to do with the cost of B&O equipment. Plus, sound engineers don't need to pay extra for speakers just because they look prettier, for studio use. But some consumers may if they're going to be using it in a living room. Specially if one has to take into consideration the WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor).
The difference between Apple and B&O and Bose is that even the uniformed can easily find speakers costing a lot less that sounds better (which is all that really matters for most) than B&O or Bose speakers, without paying for the added cost of "styling and marketing". But it has been shown time and time again that competitors to Apple products cost just as much (or not that much less) when taking into consideration all features (which matters to a lot), even without the added cost of "styling and marketing".
Most studios wouldn't use B&O equipment because they don't sound neutral with their playback equipment. B&O and Bose speakers really only sound decent (and just decent) when using their own matching equipment. It has nothing to do with the cost of B&O equipment. Plus, sound engineers don't need to pay extra for speakers just because they look prettier, for studio use. But some consumers may if they're going to be using it in a living room. Specially if one has to take into consideration the WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor).
The difference between Apple and B&O and Bose is that even the uniformed can easily find speakers costing a lot less that sounds better (which is all that really matters for most) than B&O or Bose speakers, without paying for the added cost of "styling and marketing". But it has been shown time and time again that competitors to Apple products cost just as much (or not that much less) when taking into consideration all features (which matters to a lot), even without the added cost of "styling and marketing".
Perception of sound quality is utterly subjective. There is no such thing as an objective measurement of who qualifies as 'audiophile' and who does not -- it is pure vanity and arrogance. Actually, bs.
Moreover, as you mention, B&O speakers sound best with B&O equipment. Which does not come cheap. It goes back to my original point about a lot of people I know of complaining about B&O being those who can't afford it (I am not making a value judgment). If those folks want to make a virtue out of a necessity by buying what they think are 'better' speakers for a lower price, good/great for them, but there is absolutely no need to diss someone else's --utterly, entirely subjective -- sound preferences.
High price does not equal high end. B&O is a textbook example of this.
They pack a lot of gimmickry into their product lines. Some of it sounds decent. But, you're paying more for the brand and the styling than the actual sound quality.
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
I know a bit about recording studios. Most of them do not necssarily use the highest end equipment. The economics of the business is brutal, and they're cutting costs like crazy. Most I know couldn't set up a studio with B&O, for instance, even if they wanted to.
Most studio monitors are also optimized for near field listening, so B&O (and most home audio speakers) wouldn't be on the shopping list to begin with. And in the larger rooms, recording engineers are not going to use monitors with a sound dispersion device like B&O's "acoustic lens" design.
Flipping your last sentence around, why would a recording studio want B&O speakers even when they can afford them?
Comments
Whilst one pays a premium for the design, I find my B&O particularly good for classical music; it's a neutral, refined sound. I hear B&W are very good speakers, too. Classical music is the toughest test for speakers, because it exposes the details very well, provides a very wide dynamic range and highlights the slightest weakness in sound reproduction.
Uninformed people say the same things about Apple -- 'style and marketing' -- as you do about Beats, B&O, and Bose. It's basically the same arrogant view that says: (1) If I don't like something and you do, you must be stupid; and (2) Consumers, who speak in droves with their choices, are stupid.
I know a bit about recording studios. Most of them do not necssarily use the highest end equipment. The economics of the business is brutal, and they're cutting costs like crazy. Most I know couldn't set up a studio with B&O, for instance, even if they wanted to.
(Edited the edit.... the original wording was correct.:embarrass)
Uninformed people say the same things about Apple -- 'style and marketing' -- as you do about Beats, B&O, and Bose. It's basically the same arrogant view that says: (1) If I don't like something and you do, you must be stupid; and (2) Consumers, who speak in droves with their choices, are stupid.
I know a bit about recording studios. Most of them do not necssarily use the highest end equipment. The economics of the business is brutal, and they're cutting costs like crazy. Most I know couldn't set up a studio with B&O, for instance, even if they wanted to.
I think the quality and nature of the recording studios you are referring to aren't quite of the calibre of the ones that I had in mind. Studios like EMI, Decca and Deutsche-Grammophon, Abbey Road, Skywalker Sound - all of them have the financial resources to equip their recording studios with wahtever they like, including B&O. However, they use B&W.
B&O make some of the best looking and stylish domestic A/V equipment ever made. Other companies make better performing equipment that costs less. Some companies like Meridian, manage both the style/design and performance, though at the same price levels as B&O.
You are attempting to put words in my mouth with point 2. B&W is the worlds leading speaker manufacturer because people have bought their products in droves. Honda is similarly the worlds largest engine manufacturer. I own products made by both, funnily enough, as well as a few made by Apple. That shoe doesn't fit.
Oh, and I understand Bose noise cancelling headphones are about the best you can get of the type.
Uninformed people say the same things about Apple -- 'style and marketing' -- as you do about Beats, B&O, and Bose. It's basically the same arrogant view that says: (1) If I don't like something and you do, you must be stupid; and (2) Consumers, who speak in droves with their choices, are stupid.
I know a bit about recording studios. Most of them do not necssarily use the highest end equipment. The economics of the business is brutal, and they're cutting costs like crazy. Most I know couldn't set up a studio with B&O, for instance, even if they wanted to.
Most studios wouldn't use B&O equipment because they don't sound neutral with their playback equipment. B&O and Bose speakers really only sound decent (and just decent) when using their own matching equipment. It has nothing to do with the cost of B&O equipment. Plus, sound engineers don't need to pay extra for speakers just because they look prettier, for studio use. But some consumers may if they're going to be using it in a living room. Specially if one has to take into consideration the WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor).
The difference between Apple and B&O and Bose is that even the uniformed can easily find speakers costing a lot less that sounds better (which is all that really matters for most) than B&O or Bose speakers, without paying for the added cost of "styling and marketing". But it has been shown time and time again that competitors to Apple products cost just as much (or not that much less) when taking into consideration all features (which matters to a lot), even without the added cost of "styling and marketing".
Most studios wouldn't use B&O equipment because they don't sound neutral with their playback equipment. B&O and Bose speakers really only sound decent (and just decent) when using their own matching equipment. It has nothing to do with the cost of B&O equipment. Plus, sound engineers don't need to pay extra for speakers just because they look prettier, for studio use. But some consumers may if they're going to be using it in a living room. Specially if one has to take into consideration the WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor).
The difference between Apple and B&O and Bose is that even the uniformed can easily find speakers costing a lot less that sounds better (which is all that really matters for most) than B&O or Bose speakers, without paying for the added cost of "styling and marketing". But it has been shown time and time again that competitors to Apple products cost just as much (or not that much less) when taking into consideration all features (which matters to a lot), even without the added cost of "styling and marketing".
Perception of sound quality is utterly subjective. There is no such thing as an objective measurement of who qualifies as 'audiophile' and who does not -- it is pure vanity and arrogance. Actually, bs.
Moreover, as you mention, B&O speakers sound best with B&O equipment. Which does not come cheap. It goes back to my original point about a lot of people I know of complaining about B&O being those who can't afford it (I am not making a value judgment). If those folks want to make a virtue out of a necessity by buying what they think are 'better' speakers for a lower price, good/great for them, but there is absolutely no need to diss someone else's --utterly, entirely subjective -- sound preferences.
High price does not equal high end. B&O is a textbook example of this.
They pack a lot of gimmickry into their product lines. Some of it sounds decent. But, you're paying more for the brand and the styling than the actual sound quality.
Most studio monitors are also optimized for near field listening, so B&O (and most home audio speakers) wouldn't be on the shopping list to begin with. And in the larger rooms, recording engineers are not going to use monitors with a sound dispersion device like B&O's "acoustic lens" design.
Flipping your last sentence around, why would a recording studio want B&O speakers even when they can afford them?