Harman To Acquire B&W, Denon, Polk And Marantz From Masimo In $350 Million Deal

[mhardy6647]

If the Revel speakers were designed according to preference research principles, why didn't this result in them selling better?

There's an obvious potential answer: the correlation between preference research principles and sales potential is not very strong.
Consider, as a possible analogy: exit polling or surveys conducted before voting opportunities.

De gustibus non est disputandum.

You guys are funny. My Revel F228Be sounds better than any B&W speaker I have heard.

That's a rather low bar.

 

[GXAlan]

There's an obvious potential answer: the correlation between preference research principles and sales potential is not very strong.
Consider, as a possible analogy: exit polling or surveys conducted before voting opportunities.

De gustibus non est disputandum.

People like their speakers to look a certain way, and they may be willing to sacrifice the raw aural performance for improved aesthetics.

The same data that says better speakers are favored in blind testing can be flipped around and stated as “in real world use, which is not blinded, actual consumer preference score can exceed what is predicted based upon spinorama prediction.”

 

[chelgrian]

People like their speakers to look a certain way, and they may be willing to sacrifice the raw aural performance for improved aesthetics.

The same data that says better speakers are favored in blind testing can be flipped around and stated as “in real world use, which is not blinded, actual consumer preference score can exceed what is predicted based upon spinorama prediction.”

It depends what the people are looking at, if they have nothing else to look at but the speaker possibly as a piece of art or furniture then you will get effects based on the look of the speakers.

If people are looking at a screen in a dark room then the speakers can be black monoliths aka Perlisten products and still sell. Of course you can have the top end Perlisten products painted in any Pantone colour you ask for as long as you are willing to pay for it.

Similarly pro-audio products tend to be dull trapezoidal black things as people are looking at the stage or an screen and many installs will remove the branding from the grills as well or hide the installs behind acoustically transparent scrim.

 

[MattHooper]

It depends what the people are looking at, if they have nothing else to look at but the speaker possibly as a piece of art or furniture then you will get effects based on the look of the speakers.

No doubt we can be influenced by the look of a speaker. But it’s not always determinative.

I really care about how a speaker looks.
Three of my favourite speakers in the world are also three of my favourite looking speakers in the world.

That said, I have also been disappointed by the sound of speakers whose aesthetics I really loved, and I really wanted to like those speakers, which includes speakers that I’ve auditioned and even owned. One time I bought Audio Physic Scorpio speaker speakers in the Ebony finish that I prized.
At the time they were just about the best looking speaker I had seen, they hit my taste with a bull’s-eye, and they also fit the aesthetics of my room perfectly. So I really wanted these speakers to work. But in the end I just didn’t love their tonal character and so I sadly sold them. Fortunately, I’ve ended up with a couple pairs of floor standards that hit my sweet spot with both looks and sound.

 

[Palladium]

verging off topic but as one of the under 30s that hangs around here I just can’t see any of my peers feeling compelled to spend thousands on better sound quality. I feel extremely fortunate as there’s never been a better time to be an enthusiast if that is something important to you.

The most interest I’ve seen was in vinyl, and I think that only worked as it wasn’t terribly expensive to get in to and was a fun and different way to experience music. Then new records became $40-50 and everyone I know started to hesitate as that’s the cost of several months of spotify or a local concert.

Headphones, soundbars, and active/lifestyle speakers are the only real forms I see audio continuing on for Gen Z. There’s just next to no interest in buying expensive electronics boxes (be they DACs/amps/AVRs) when I could get a homepod or a soundbar that wouldn’t need any of it. The perceived value is just so poor for the bulk of hi-fi products.

I think there’s a moderate market for nearfield active monitors spurred by bedroom musicians and producers, it’s a meme for 20-something year old guys to have a Focusrite Scarlett interface. But with the typical living configurations for most young people now, they’re extremely fortunate if they could have anything beyond a 2.0 or 3.1 setup at the most. And would rather spend their money on something else than dumping more in to what is already largely a solved problem for them (“can I hear Netflix and Spotify clearly?”).

I'm 37 and do of most of my listening on my gaming PC hooked to pair of iLoud Micros in nearfield. I have auditioned so many far more expensive and larger speakers and found none of them really sounded better for my use case which comes to me as a huge surprise.

 

[watchnerd]

There's an obvious potential answer: the correlation between preference research principles and sales potential is not very strong.
Consider, as a possible analogy: exit polling or surveys conducted before voting opportunities.

De gustibus non est disputandum.

That's a rather low bar.

Yes, see above comment about blind vs sighted o

 

[mhardy6647]

Yes, see above comment about blind vs sighted o

My suspicion is that it's not so simple as that. Loudspeakers tend (albeit less so now than in the past) to sound different in a real world environment.
Folks who actually care about such things... care about such things.
Others don't.
As a comparator, cf. Rick "who knows what his actual nickname is" Denny's heartfelt and articulate rhapsodies on tubas (tubae?) and euphoniums (euphonia?). I don't think I could tell the difference, despite there apparently being easily measurable differences. Actually, I probably could -- but it wouldn't rise to the level of concern for me.

 

[amper42]

I may be in the minority but I don't really care much about what a speaker looks like as long as it sounds great. My only hesitation are speakers that go out of their way to look unusual like Genelec. If looks are going to be important in the selection it's usually a result of the wife factor and a common room issue. But the argument that speakers have to be exotic or look a certain way to get sold is false in my circle of audio friends.

 

[tomchris]

Irregardless of brand pedigree, aesthetics and established research, what do you think will happen to the various brands going forward?

What I expect to see: Streamlining cost centres, cutting corners in production and massaging the margins, D2C and price increases. Everything else is influenced by market trends.

What I want to see is another matter entirely.

 

[Oddball]

If I can choose, I will opt for a good sounding speaker that looks good and represents some kind of solid value.

What looks good is obviously very subjective and in my case means that if its just a plain old box, it will not excite my visual senses. For me that is important as I live with my speakers in the open living space every day.

An example of the speaker that has been my favourite for years

And what I can live with and still feel good

 

[watchnerd]

My suspicion is that it's not so simple as that. Loudspeakers tend (albeit less so now than in the past) to sound different in a real world environment.
Folks who actually care about such things... care about such things.
Others don't.
As a comparator, cf. Rick "who knows what his actual nickname is" Denny's heartfelt and articulate rhapsodies on tubas (tubae?) and euphoniums (euphonia?). I don't think I could tell the difference, despite there apparently being easily measurable differences. Actually, I probably could -- but it wouldn't rise to the level of concern for me.

Indeed. I also noted physical environment above, as well.

 

[watchnerd]

Irregardless of brand pedigree, aesthetics and established research, what do you think will happen to the various brands going forward?

What I expect to see: Streamlining cost centres, cutting corners in production and massaging the margins, D2C and price increases. Everything else is influenced by market trends.

What I want to see is another matter entirely.

A few brands will not survive, either because they are effectively being culled (no new models, sell out existing stock, etc) or just put on a glide path of underinvestment.

The speculation is about which of those brands are likely to be the victims.

My bet is that it will not be the ones that sell the best.

 

[Audionaut]

Critical care units use maggots for antibiotic resistant infections.

The first sentence that appears when I open this thread.
Interesting, but is this an analogy of Samsung and Harman vs. B&W, Denon, Polk And Marantz?
One does not know.

All in all, the choice of the new CEO points to a stronger focus on the automotive sector, which is much more profitable than home hi-fi anyway.

 

[watchnerd]

People like their speakers to look a certain way, and they may be willing to sacrifice the raw aural performance for improved aesthetics.

The same data that says better speakers are favored in blind testing can be flipped around and stated as “in real world use, which is not blinded, actual consumer preference score can exceed what is predicted based upon spinorama prediction.”

Not only that:

Because of how psychoacoustics work, it may not just be "well, A&B sound the same, but I prefer the looks of B".

B might actually be perceived as sounding better *because* it has preferred looks.

I can't find the study right now, but there was some research that the same speaker in a darker color is perceived as having better bass.

 

[Arindal]

There's an obvious potential answer: the correlation between preference research principles and sales potential is not very strong.

That is counterintuitive in my understanding. As many people being into the market for speakers costing more than 10 Grand doing some listening comparison this or that way, I would expect a more significant correlation between preference research and actual sales. Why should they prefer different models to a high degree in the listening test compared to their home or the dealership´s demo room?

Consider, as a possible analogy: exit polling or surveys conducted before voting opportunities.

There is a level of uncertainty, surely, but I have never heard of any serious polling saying a presidential candidate is likely to get 65% and the result in fact was 0.5%.

As an analogy, if I would be hiring some researcher or pollster telling me how my acoustical (or political) agenda should look like to meet the absolute majority's preference, I would not be satisfied with 0.5%. Probably I would not even be as patient as Harman has been over the course of 30 years.

De gustibus non est disputandum.

Which as a matter of consequence would mean that any audio objectivism, any preference calculation, any measurement would be futile and meaningless. And even if personal taste or preference cannot be discussed (to which I would not subscribe), it should be able to identify and describe them by proper research with the results in a meaningful way helping to design products successfully. My initial question why the latter failed, has seemingly not been answered.

People like their speakers to look a certain way, and they may be willing to sacrifice the raw aural performance for improved aesthetics.

Cannot see why people would buy 10k+ speakers solely for improved aesthetics, or how any of the successful brands in this segments is even meeting the latter criteria.

What I expect to see: Streamlining cost centres, cutting corners in production and massaging the margins, D2C and price increases.

Not sure we would see dramatic changes of that kind. In the past, Harman was pretty conservative if not even generous with manufacturers they had acquired. Take Arcam as an example. Not overly much has changed for Arcam.

 

[watchnerd]

I'm 37 and do of most of my listening on my gaming PC hooked to pair of iLoud Micros in nearfield. I have auditioned so many far more expensive and larger speakers and found none of them really sounded better for my use case which comes to me as a huge surprise.

I'm sort of surprised that you're surprised.

Lots of things change in a nearfield situation:

--Desk reflection
--Direct vs reflected mix
--Vertical sensitivity to driver integration

The better studio monitors usually have various shelving filters to deal with the various quirks of nearfield listening.

If I were looking to upgrade from the iLoud, I wouldn't be looking at larger, more expensive speakers, but other small form factor near field speakers that upgrade to things like a 4" or 5" driver.

 

[watchnerd]

That is counterintuitive in my understanding. As many people being into the market for speakers costing more than 10 Grand doing some listening comparison this or that way, I would expect a more significant correlation between preference research and actual sales. Why should they prefer different models to a high degree in the listening test compared to their home or the dealership´s demo room?

Because listening at home or a dealership can introduce all sorts of cognitive bias into the equation that isn't at play in a blind, controlled listening test.

Sight bias, confirmation bias based on what you're told/read *should* sound better, knowledge of cost, feedback from peers, etc.

Or actual differences in acoustics and the speaker/room interface.

 

[Arindal]

Because listening at home or a dealership can introduce all sorts of cognitive bias into the equation

Do not deny that this is possible to a certain degree, but I cannot imagine a situation in which almost no-one is buying a speaker which they with overwhelming majority preferred in a blind test while buying a competitor they had previously dismissed for its flawed performance.

Or actual differences in acoustics and the speaker/room interface.

Sounds like a much more logical explanation to me. I would in general primarily ask what was the main acoustic difference between the blind preference tests and the average test defining a purchase decision.

 

[watchnerd]

I may be in the minority but I don't really care much about what a speaker looks like as long as it sounds great. My only hesitation are speakers that go out of their way to look unusual like Genelec. If looks are going to be important in the selection it's usually a result of the wife factor and a common room issue. But the argument that speakers have to be exotic or look a certain way to get sold is false in my circle of audio friends.

This isn't actually consistent with psychoacoustic and behavioral research because because cognitive bias exists in everyone.

Most of us would like to think we can differentiate sound preferences from appearance preferences, but that behavioral research doesn't support that.

Sight impacts what we hear, whether we like it or not.

Which is why we have blind tests.

 

[watchnerd]

Do not deny that this is possible to a certain degree, but I cannot imagine a situation in which almost no-one is buying a speaker which they with overwhelming majority preferred in a blind test while buying a competitor they had previously dismissed for its flawed performance..

I think you're massively underestimating the impact of cognition on hearing.

See the McGurk Effect.

Or even things like NOS DACs that perform worse than OS DACs, but in sighted listening some people prefer them because there is a social belief reinforcing that position.

If spinorama overruled everything, nobody would buy Klipschorns.