• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Bang & Olufsen Beosound Balance Review

Rate this smart speaker:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 69 35.9%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 86 44.8%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 31 16.1%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 6 3.1%

  • Total voters
    192
Really don't understand how a company which makes some great groundbreaking loudspeakers https://www.tonmeister.ca/wordpress/bo-tech/ and has a high knowledge of acoustics https://www.tonmeister.ca/wordpress/series-of-articles-on-audio/ can tune a DSP loudpeaker so poorly...
Because their customers do not read ASR forum and know very litter about sound quality.
I went for a demo listen of Beolab 50 (59.000eur) in their shop in my country and it sounded terrible. I heard nothing but bass that overpowered everything. Once EQ setting in their app for bass were turned down from +oo it actually sounded good (but not 59.000eur good).
 
This is a review, listening tests, equalization and detailed measurements of the Bang & Olufsen Beosound Balance wireless speaker. It was kindly drop shipped by a member and costs US $3,299.
View attachment 391989
The Balance doesn't deviate much from the typical look of these speakers but does manage to feel/look luxurious. Importantly, it is substantially heavier than any other smart speaker I have tested, bringing hopes of higher playback volumes and bass response. I was pleased to find good connectivity including analog input which I used for measurements (does away with latency of wireless connection):
View attachment 391990
I do wish the ports were labeled however. The info is in the manual but that is also hard to read with every paragraph written in what seemed like a dozen different languages.

The design is complex as you can see from this picture:
bo_BeosoundBalance_hifi_news_mrch_2020_3.jpg


There is a woofer on the bottom followed by midrange in the middle and array of tweeters.

Typical of the class, you need to use an App to setup and configure the speaker. Like most of its competition, the app was a bit glitching, ending the setup with an error. But when I restarted the app, all was well and speaker was ready to be used. Navigation through the app was non-intuitive. For example, when try to play Tidal, it got me to login but then complained that the content can only play through the Tidal App???

Upon configuration, speaker has a forced room optimization where it played a single CHIRP tone and proceeded to activate that mode. Playing music at that point sounded decidedly "wrong" so after much searching, I found the option to turn that off. Turning it back on forces the calibration all over again, making it hard to do AB testing of what the difference is.

There are four or so playback scenarios from voice to "optimal." It defaults to Optimal which I again found to not sound good. For simplicity of measurements (and better sound as you will see later), I configured the Balance in "Front" mode. As the name indicates, this setting sounds more like a normal speaker with sound firing toward you.

Measuring such a complex design and interpreting the results is not straightforward. As such, I highly recommend that you don't skim through the review quick and do pay attention to the listening test section.

If you are not familiar with the measurements that are about to follow, I recommend watching my video on understanding speaker measurements:


Bang & Olufsen Beosound Balance Speaker Measurements
It was challenging to find the tweeter as you cannot feel its location through the fabric. Nor is there a clear "front" reference. I guess at both, resulting in the following anechoic measurements:
View attachment 391992

Due to complexity of the soundfield at higher frequencies with multiple tweeters overlapping each other, the off-axis response past 8 kHz or so drops in accuracy. On-axis response though, was hardly impacted. At first glance, this seems like a mess: we have pronounced resonances around 1500 and 3300 Hz and droop around 220 Hz. Note however that bass response goes quite deep which is very unusual for such a small speaker. The sound power hugs the on-axis response indicating that we have an omni speaker despite me selecting "front" mode. Given this early window and predicted in-room responses mirror on-axis response:
View attachment 391993

View attachment 391994

It is harder to see the omni behavior through directivity plots but it is there if you look at the scale:
View attachment 391995

See how the response goes to -180 degree or so up about 1.5 kHz. The contour graph shows this more clearly:
View attachment 391996

While there are potholes, the response is generally even in amplitude across the full ±180 degree spans.

Vertical response is decently broad but obviously not omni:
View attachment 391997

I stopped sweeping the speaker at 86 dBSPL and instead, added 80 dB for refence in our distortion tests:

View attachment 391998

View attachment 391999

Subjectively the response was much cleaner than what the above shows, perhaps due to ultra low distortion between 1 and 4 KHz where our hearing is most sensitive.

The waterfall display is super busy due to multiple resonances:
View attachment 392000

Step response also shows high level of complexity due to multiple drivers firing:

View attachment 392001

Bang & Olufsen Beosound Balance Listening Tests and Equalization
Based on my setup experience and measurements I expected horrible sound when I fired the speaker in my near-field setup. To my surprise, the opposite was true: the deep bass was quite satisfying overall fidelity seemed pretty good! Surprised, I changed the setup from Front to Optimal and fidelity sank big time. I then ran the Room EQ and that made things even worse! On this topic, I don't see how EQ works when the measurement is at speaker rather than listening position.

I turned off Roon EQ and set the speaker back to front. Then started to develop a few crude filters to back out major issues in on-axis response:
View attachment 392002
Sorry, forgot to drop down and show the actual filter settings (can't do it now without repowering the speaker). Will show them later. For now, it should be rather clear what the filters do. The collective set markedly improved fidelity. Female vocals were now more balanced and not so forward as with the stock tuning. That deep and clean sounding bass was there to provide major satisfaction.

Spatial effects were a major surprise. On some tracks with high frequency instrumentation, there was a gorgeous halo of sound in a hemisphere behind the speaker. Closing my eyes, I enjoyed that image maybe even more than a set of speakers in stereo configuration! There seems to be something to this omni response and back firing mid to high frequencies.

Sub-bass response was poor with clear distortion but go up a few hertz and per my earlier notes, the bass was absolutely clean. FYI most of my listening was with the volume at 50% with listening distance of about 2 meters/6 feet. Based on this, I think you will be able to fill even a large room with the Balance speaker.

Once there, I did not want to stop to take a picture of the speaker in my photo booth! The overall fidelity and experience was that good with equalization.

Conclusions
Coming into this review, I was not hopeful that I could quantify the performance of B&O Balance. But when I completed the full circle of analysis including listening tests and EQ, the story came together. First, the modes and room EQ in my opinion do a lot of damage. I don't know what listening tests were performed but in my book, they just sound wrong. Yes, I could have made before and after measurements but this is a complex speaker and single microphone measurements are going to be hard to interpret. Fortunately these modes can be turned off. Then with some EQ -- which would have been nice to have in the speaker itself as it clearly has that ability -- produced excellent sound. Despite the complexity of the speaker, measurements did provide great insight as to what needed fixing. Again, shame that this was not done in the speaker to begin with.

The old saying of diamond in a rough describes the speaker. If you can EQ it, I can recommend the Beosound Balance. We can fix the flaws with EQ but can't bring bass response and dynamics to the table which is the major failing of this class of speakers.
-----------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/
Looks nice, but so it should for that (GULP!) price. VFM is off the bottom of the scale compared with, say, the Apple Homepod, which has faults but is 10% of the price, and no one expects monitor quality from a "smart" speaker anyway. I really can't see how you can recommend the B&O, even with EQ*, given the price.

Edit: *Anyone who's able to do that would never buy this in the first place!
 
Last edited:
I suppose this thing does have place, plopped on an island in the kitchen, or otherwise scattered around for ambience. Unfortunately not for most at that price! Gotta make bank to pay that much for stylish ambience, vs some mini bookshelf type speakers mounted up high or other professionally installed speakers.

A curious product indeed.
 
Thanks for the review Boss. You just keep slamming out the reviews like a Machine! Impressive.

$3300 USD + Shipping and Taxes @ average 5 to 7% in the US is an additional $165 USD to $231 USD. For a grand total of $3465 to $3531 not including shipping is just insane expensive for this little single speaker. The value equation is very difficult to defend when there are ample similar products for a fraction of this cost. Taking into consideration this value consideration this is a fail. For a basic two channel setup we’re talking $7 grand +. To me this is a Headless Panther and possibly the Panther robbing the piggy bank… ;)
 
I just don't think we know enough about how to measure these types of speakers, and also I don't think this "strange" configuration of just one omnidirectional speaker can faithfully reproduce what was ideally intended by the artist, as that would be based on ideally placed stereo speakers. I just think this kind of a product is not really a hardcore audiophile product & is more of a lifestyle product - it's convenient & not necessarily striving for accuracy. I don't think it really applies to what we measure here on this site, it's an outlier. All that aside, it is one expensive product at 3 Grand - I'd rate it downwards in poll because it's not a serious audiophile product and it's extremely expensive too! (Haven't read any of the comments yet, so this is not in reply to any posts that may be above mine.)
 
Last edited:
Here is my take on the EQ.
Please report your findings, positive or negative!

For the score rational your journey starts here
Explanation for the sub score
The following EQs are “anechoic” EQs to get the speaker right before room integration.
If you able to implement these EQs you must add EQ at LF for room integration, that is usually not optional… see hints there.

The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:

Score no EQ: -0.3
With Sub: 1.9


Spinorama with no EQ:
  • Make noise: check
  • Tons of resonances: check
View attachment 392010

Directivity:
Try to be Omni directional?
View attachment 392018View attachment 392024
EQ design:
I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.
  • The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
  • The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable.
  • The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.

Score EQ LW: 2.4
with sub: 4.0

Score EQ Score: 4.9
with sub: 62.

Code:
B&O Balance APO EQ LW 96000Hz
September132024-143954

Preamp: -3.90 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 0.1 Hz Gain 0.00 dB Q 0.12
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 110.0 Hz Gain -4.62 dB Q 0.84
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 236.8 Hz Gain 3.06 dB Q 2.58
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 371.4 Hz Gain -1.43 dB Q 3.29
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 806.2 Hz Gain -4.39 dB Q 1.96
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 1515.9 Hz Gain -7.70 dB Q 2.79
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 3440.4 Hz Gain -8.88 dB Q 2.20
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 5703.6 Hz Gain -3.17 dB Q 5.13
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 6978.2 Hz Gain 5.61 dB Q 3.74
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 13519.1 Hz Gain -3.10 dB Q 1.99

B&O Balance APO EQ Score 96000Hz
September132024-143954

Preamp: -1.60 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 0.1 Hz Gain 0.00 dB Q 0.13
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 114.5 Hz Gain -3.98 dB Q 0.55
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 233.8 Hz Gain 4.14 dB Q 2.25
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 412.5 Hz Gain -0.69 dB Q 4.47
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 785.8 Hz Gain -4.74 dB Q 1.54
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 1547.0 Hz Gain -7.05 dB Q 2.91
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 3488.8 Hz Gain -9.22 dB Q 2.07
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 5442.8 Hz Gain -3.25 dB Q 1.70
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 7088.7 Hz Gain 4.25 dB Q 2.89
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 10316.3 Hz Gain -6.33 dB Q 0.88

View attachment 392015

Spinorama EQ LW
View attachment 392011

Spinorama EQ Score
View attachment 392012

Zoom PIR-LW-ON
View attachment 392014

Regression - Tonal
View attachment 392013
rest of the figures attached FYI
Hehe, I like the fact that you did a with sub score! :D
(I do like that you do these EQ's for this site, this speaker was always gonna be one of the exceptions though just in general.)
 
Sorry, no!
7.2kg of Chinese plastic for 3000€ / 3500 US$ and a sound that has to be equalized like hell to be acceptable? Chinese plastic speaker for Danish granite price? I would not even buy it for 350€.
Maybe it sounds good with Chinese classical music. Amir should do a test with that kind.

The worst thing is, I know enough silly nouveau rich that would buy it, because it is B&O. "It has to sound good, it was expensive."
 
If you’re prioritizing eye-candy over ear-candy, B&O should be at the top of your shopping list.

Well, B&O audio products are merely meant to be some kind of well chosen furniture for your exquisitely styled living room. That’s the circumstances where they have to please the people around, not a laboratory-like test bench environment.
 
Hi

I don't like the product. I have to admit/accept however that we were never the target audience.. Pun intended.
It remains to see if this product will sell. There is no guaranteed success for it because it is a B&O. In this market segment, there exist some serious competitors, among these, De Vialet, SONOS, (they of the software update debacle) and the elephant in the room, Apple , whose products will integrate better with the IOS ecosystem.

I see this product as a missed opportunity (although some firmware tweaks/EQ may bring it in a better direction), a victory of marketing over good engineering. In the past, IME, B&O was able to balance the two; the last two examples reviewed here, at ASR, seem to point that they are trending in the opposite direction...

Peace.
 
There is no guaranteed success for it because it is a B&O. In this market segment, there exist some serious competitors, among these, De Vialet, SONOS, (they of the software update debacle) and the elephant in the room, Apple , whose products will integrate better with the IOS ecosystem.
There's scarfs and there's Hermes scarfs. Idk how to compare them. One is utilitarian the other is a luxury and an extravagance. Different purposes.
 
I think it looks pretty good, and to me that is a virtue in the world of mostly ugly audio. Even so, I find it estheticaly a bit over the top, and I would much prefer Dieter Rams minimalism.
 
Would be a neat background music speaker for $500 with better EQ out of the box, but $3300? That's actually crazy.
Indeed, give me a pair of Sonos Fives, or even one, and pocket the difference.
 
If you’re prioritizing eye-candy over ear-candy, B&O should be at the top of your shopping list. If your priority is great sound, you can do far better elsewhere for a lot less.
In defence of the brand, they have the facilities to make some technically excellent products and even in the 80s when they went off the boil with some products, they did get them there in the end, their generally preferred tonal balance being a bit on the lean side rather than 'BeeBeeCee-style warmth' or a sucked out crossover region which persists to this day, often for legitimate reasons.
 
In defence of the brand, they have the facilities to make some technically excellent products and even in the 80s when they went off the boil with some products, they did get them there in the end, their generally preferred tonal balance being a bit on the lean side rather than 'BeeBeeCee-style warmth' or a sucked out crossover region which persists to this day, often for legitimate reasons.
That only makes the performance of the Beosound Balance (balance of what???) even more inexcusable.
 
Back
Top Bottom