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

[chelgrian]

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.

When Samsung took over Harman there were large layoffs at

AKG, AMX, BSS, Crown, dbx, DigiTech, JBL, IDX, Martin, Soundcraft, Studer, and SVSI.

Many of those brands exist in name only or are entirely moribund now. AMX and JBL obviously develop new product. In some cases it wasn’t even deprioritising a brand in favour of a different one they entirely got out of many segments.

 

[watchnerd]

When Samsung took over Harman there were large layoffs at

AKG, AMX, BSS, Crown, dbx, DigiTech, JBL, IDX, Martin, Soundcraft, Studer, and SVSI.

Many of those brands exist in name only or are entirely moribund now. AMX and JBL obviously develop new product. In some cases it wasn’t even deprioritising a brand in favour of a different one they entirely got out of many segments.

And there will be territorial knife fighting to protect turf, VPs looking to fold acquired remaining human resources into the surviving brands, while pushing to axe competing product lines that they may perceive as cannibalizing.

JBL, B&W, Polk, and Revel will be in a knife fight internally. There will be casualties.

 

[Oddball]

Speculating what will happen with SU brands in the Samsung/Harman stable is interesting but futile exercise.

At Harman level it might be more (but still not entirely) related to business results and potential, but at Samsung level it is all a rounding error and could be a matter of personal preferences of the executives.

At Samsung level, closing out D&M Japanese factory (and high end brand with it) might be something to show the power, or one just might enjoy telling all the Japanese in the factory what to do - in a Korean way.

If the Samsung executive has Revel Salon 2's or 328s, then it is likely that Revel is going to do well. If they don't it is a coin toss.

There will be fight and blood for sure, but how it will end is as certain as where the S&P will land at the end of the year. We can just make our best bets.

 

[Arindal]

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

As mentioned, I am not doubting the effect, but I am doubting that it can turn the result of the controlled preference test upside down on such a scale. We are not talking about preferring one product which sounds similar or identical in a controlled test compared to others but overruling a measured preference.

If spinorama overruled everything, nobody would buy Klipschorns.

Certainly true, but as with B&W, it is pretty easy to experience and explain what people like about them and make them accept aspects which we would probably describe as crucial flaws. In the end of the day, people have individual priority of what matters most to them.

 

[MattHooper]

Which as a matter of consequence would mean that any audio objectivism, any preference calculation, any measurement would be futile and meaningless.

Yes, as I pointed out before: ASR generally employs criteria for evaluating loudspeakers derived from studies using blind testing. As does of course, Harman Kardon.

If the measurements did not translate substantially to what listeners are going
to perceive in the actual use case for the loudspeakers - informal sighted conditions - then the data from blind testing may be of academic interest, but have little application for recommending audio gear.

Certainly true, but as with B&W, it is pretty easy to experience and explain what people like about them and make them accept aspects which we would probably describe as crucial flaws.

And it still seems to me that the “ less good doesn’t mean unimpressive” principal probably applies as well.

In blind tests people may select speaker A over speaker B, which doesn’t necessarily mean that speaker B can’t be impressive in of itself.

I’ve had a great many “high-end” loudspeakers through my home, some of which measured “better” then others, but virtually every single one was able to cast a very impressive compelling presentation in one way or another. People listening to my MBLs felt like they were seeing ghosts, they’d never heard anything like it. And really, guests we were completely blown away by any number of different sounding loudspeakers. And it’s clear that an enormous number of audiophiles have been having extremely compelling listening experiences with a wide variety of gear over the years.

 

[Arindal]

ASR generally employs criteria for evaluating loudspeakers derived from studies using blind testing. As does of course, Harman Kardon.

Which other studies, independent from Toole/Olive/Harman provenience, for evaluating existing hi-fi loudspeakers or their sound quality, were taken as a base to define these criteria?

I have stumbled across a few internal ones trying to standardize loudspeaker criteria for broadcast use, but they never involved hi-fi speakers, andresult were seemingly never published in detail as no-one wanted to disclose procurement policy and evaluation methods of big institutions, mainly public ones.

In blind tests people may select speaker A over speaker B, which doesn’t necessarily mean that speaker B can’t be impressive in of itself.

Absolute agree, and of course every loudspeaker is a compromise and many people are simply used to live with this or that flaw. I think we should simply accept that.

Nevertheless I am not aware of a single case in which loudspeakers had been preferred under controlled conditions, or had been designed specifically after test results, and turned out to be a failure in terms of sales.

Very curious what Harman will do with B&W´s development team, as these guys are kind of famous for not letting anything or anyone external interfere.

 

[ta240]

JBL, B&W, Polk, and Revel will be in a knife fight internally. There will be casualties.

Do you think when the people from Revel see the B&W ones they ever say "Look it is the B&W people, everybody smile"?

 

[watchnerd]

Yes, as I pointed out before: ASR generally employs criteria for evaluating loudspeakers derived from studies using blind testing. As does of course, Harman Kardon.

If the measurements did not translate substantially to what listeners are going
to perceive in the actual use case for the loudspeakers - informal sighted conditions - then the data from blind testing may be of academic interest, but have little application for recommending audio gear.



And it still seems to me that the “ less good doesn’t mean unimpressive” principal probably applies as well.

In blind tests people may select speaker A over speaker B, which doesn’t necessarily mean that speaker B can’t be impressive in of itself.

I’ve had a great many “high-end” loudspeakers through my home, some of which measured “better” then others, but virtually every single one was able to cast a very impressive compelling presentation in one way or another. People listening to my MBLs felt like they were seeing ghosts, they’d never heard anything like it. And really, guests we were completely blown away by any number of different sounding loudspeakers. And it’s clear that an enormous number of audiophiles have been having extremely compelling listening experiences with a wide variety of gear over the years.

Electrostats are another good example of this.

Terrible in many ways.

Amazing in others.

 

[mhardy6647]

JBL, B&W, Polk, and Revel will be in a knife fight internally. There will be casualties.

Polk -- and it saddens me deeply to say this, as they were one of my gateway drugs into hifi ca. 1976 -- is moribund.
I don't think there is a future for that brand name.

https://flic.kr/p/fmsmcv

 

[ta240]

Polk -- and it saddens me deeply to say this, as they were one of my gateway drugs into hifi ca. 1976 -- is moribund.
I don't think there is a future for that brand name.

https://flic.kr/p/fmsmcv

I got a bad feeling about them when I was looking for a vendor for the L200 speakers and there were none within several hundred miles.
That is normal for the more niche brands but when mainstream brands like Polk come back with results like that it isn't good.

 

[watchnerd]

Polk -- and it saddens me deeply to say this, as they were one of my gateway drugs into hifi ca. 1976 -- is moribund.
I don't think there is a future for that brand name.

https://flic.kr/p/fmsmcv

I actually didn't know they were still in business.

 

[mhardy6647]

They might not be... but their forum is still surprisingly active.
Amusingly, the major posters there are largely well past their Polk Audio days -- but they (ahem, we ) acknowledge the revelation that the early Polk "Monitor Series" was to us in terms of good, "British monitor-style" sound in modest but very affordable packages.

I bought my Monitor Series Model 7A ("Monitor 7A" in typical/later Polk parlance), as demonstrators, in 1978. Still have 'em (see photo I posted earlier, taken when they moved to NH in July 2014), still love 'em. Dollar for dollar, they were hard to impossible to beat when they were new.

https://flic.kr/p/2m9GNDA

Front page of a brochure I picked up at Soundscape in Baltimore (Polk's first dealer) in 1976. By that time, the Model 10 had joined the Model 7 (original version, with 8" passive radiator) in their lineup. Their first commercial product, the Model Nine (see below) was still around but the 7 and 10 were far more popular (and for good reason! ).

The earliest widely-circulated Polk ad I've managed to locate, thanks to worldradiohistory.com, from Audio magazine, March 1975:

 

[dlaloum]

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

View attachment 454513

And what I can live with and still feel good

After

After years of living with Quad Electrostatics (57's, 63's, 98's) - WAF started to be an issue...

Gallo Nucleus Reference 3.2 (the earlier model to the 3.5 in the picture) was my solution, it sounded remarkably similar to the electrostatic panels... and it met the WAF criteria of my household.

I will however note, that they were a slight step down in midrange transparency... but then, nothing beats the electrostatics in midrange transparency (certainly nothing within an order of magnitude of my budget!).... and the Gallo's did compensate somewhat in providing me with deeper and more impactful bass than the electrostatics could.

15 years later they are still my main speakers... (I had the 989's for about 10 years, the 63's before that for 7 years, and the 57's for 10 years before that...)

 

[watchnerd]

After years of living with Quad Electrostatics (57's, 63's, 98's) - WAF started to be an issue...

Gallo Nucleus Reference 3.2 (the earlier model to the 3.5 in the picture) was my solution, it sounded remarkably similar to the electrostatic panels... and it met the WAF criteria of my household.

I will however note, that they were a slight step down in midrange transparency... but then, nothing beats the electrostatics in midrange transparency (certainly nothing within an order of magnitude of my budget!).... and the Gallo's did compensate somewhat in providing me with deeper and more impactful bass than the electrostatics could.

15 years later they are still my main speakers... (I had the 989's for about 10 years, the 63's before that for 7 years, and the 57's for 10 years before that...)

I had 2 sets of Martin Logan hybrids (the Sequel II and the ESL).

Ultimately:

--The bass driver never really did seamlessly integrate with the elecrostat panel

--It never had enough output in the upper bass / lower mid to pressurize a room in the orchestral / rock "power band", which detracted from the musical experience on those genres.

On things like acoustic guitars and violins, though, they were amazing.

 

[Snarfie]

.

When the music is all made by AI, there may not even be recording, mixing, and mastering studios.

That could become tru. But now it is already quite easy to find multi instrument files like
.ogg .mogge stems an more to produce without AI your own/creative ( for the sake of the artist) private version. It is so easy in Ableton or Protools. Must say making such version for own use is quite exciting/rewarding

 

[dlaloum]

I had 2 sets of Martin Logan hybrids (the Sequel II and the ESL).

Ultimately:

--The bass driver never really did seamlessly integrate with the elecrostat panel

--It never had enough output in the upper bass / lower mid to pressurize a room in the orchestral / rock "power band", which detracted from the musical experience on those genres.

On things like acoustic guitars and violins, though, they were amazing.

I listened to the ML hybrids multiple times, and yes the bass never did seamlessly integrate! (Their full range CLS models were fantastic though!)

I also tried to integrate subs into my Quad setup several times - never achieved integration, and finally gave up.... (then went over to Gallo.... bypassing the issue )

 

[Arindal]

The bass driver never really did seamlessly integrate with the elecrostat panel

A typical problem for hybrid concepts of omnidirectional bass plus line/planar/dipole type transducer, resulting in a huge step in directivity between different frequency bands.

I am not familiar with all ML models, but seemingly this was only solved with introducing true dipole subwoofer integration, like in CLX or ESL15A Renaissance.

 

[MattHooper]

I had 2 sets of Martin Logan hybrids (the Sequel II and the ESL).

Ultimately:

--The bass driver never really did seamlessly integrate with the elecrostat panel

--It never had enough output in the upper bass / lower mid to pressurize a room in the orchestral / rock "power band", which detracted from the musical experience on those genres.

As I believe I’ve chimed in before those are exactly my impressions of such hybrid speakers, the Martin Logans in particular.

I listened to plenty of their hybrids over the years and always had the same frustration: anything coming from the dipole panels seem to have a sort of ghostly quality, whereas the sound coming from the woofers had a more familiar dense punchy quality.

My friend had a pair of Martin Logan hybrid’s for quite a while that I used to listen to at his house. I tried to listen to rock on them and it was just fruitless. Some of the bass guitar and the lower end of the kick drum would have some palpable punch and density, but everything above that - guitars vocals, etc, just had a washed out quality like they weren’t really moving the same amount of air.

My friend seemed to think that they did fine with rock and I think he was cuing in to the pressure created in the bass region. But I was just too aware of the discontinuity and the lack of drive in the lower mids and upper frequencies.

 

[MattHooper]

A typical problem for hybrid concepts of omnidirectional bass plus line/planar/dipole type transducer, resulting in a huge step in directivity between different frequency bands.

A speaker that avoids this IMO - at least to the greatest degree that I’ve heard - are the MBL speakers. They can sound properly dynamic up and down the frequency band.
In fact, that was one of my first impressions: that I was finally hearing something like an “electrostatic with balls.”

 

[Oddball]

Now back to the tread?