Almost sterile! But hey, at least they will be "hospital grade" from now on!We all know what this means: once this acquisition goes through B&W gear will start to sound way too "clinical" ...
I'm really looking forward to B&W selling $100+ "hospital grade" power cords and power receptacles ...Almost sterile! But hey, at least they will be "hospital grade" from now on!
I looked at the date to check if it was April 1.Wow, would have never imagined someone paying so much for this. Wonder if the PE company that financed Sound United made money out of this.
You have it Sir!MASI stock down 40% this morning. Investors not too happy with SU deal?
This makes me wonder if the financing lined up to make the SU deal possible is tied to a specific MASI stock price at closing?
Below is clip art, promoting the company's product. Maybe they can integrate a Marantz remote into the pulse oximetry unit. Just a suggestion, but if it works out, I think I deserve some royalties for the idea.
View attachment 187020
This will not be good news for Fremer, who will have to rip out all the wiring he just installed, replacing it with new hospital grade stuff. But it will definitely improve the air around the instruments, along with the pace and timing of his record player. And his mom will immediately hear the difference.I'm really looking forward to B&W selling $100+ "hospital grade" power cords and power receptacles ...
Something similar in every mature industry. Rollups for the old guard while the new takes over.Something similar in sailboats (e.g. Hinckley, Sparkman & Stephens).
Marketing and market share is an interesting topic, especially with historical brands. In hi-fi there aren't many long-term examples. A few. McIntosh comes to mind, but Mac is a schizo company. They make more or less traditional gear, and they make over the top goofball stuff. I'm surprised they are able to hold it together, but so far they seem to be capable.It’s a warning... My first really good speakers were B&W monitors. Then I had Thiels... Both companies lost their way,
Fortunately, there seem to be some up& coming brands to take their place, even some dedicated to research & measurements-based improvement.
Something similar in sailboats (e.g. Hinckley, Sparkman & Stephens). HInckley is mostly an overpriced motorboat company now, Sparkman is lost.
There are a number of custom shops that make better Strats, better L5s, etc. And of course, PRS has now made a strat (Mayer model). The studio guitarists have been using these for years, and if they use Gibson/Fender, they have their axes custom made/tuned. The guitar market is odd.Marketing and market share is an interesting topic, especially with historical brands. In hi-fi there aren't many long-term examples. A few. McIntosh comes to mind, but Mac is a schizo company. They make more or less traditional gear, and they make over the top goofball stuff. I'm surprised they are able to hold it together, but so far they seem to be capable.
There's ARC, who still sell gear like it's 1970. ARC made an effort in the late '70s to move away from their core product, but quickly saw the writing on the wall, and abandoned that.
JBL made the transition to a more modern 'sound' via research, but at the same time have been able to play on their heritage. And they have a huge multi-national operation behind them. In Asia, the brand may have a bigger 'name appeal' than in the US.
Marantz has a storied name, but a name without any real connection to their origin. In spite of that, my impression is that the Marantz name still holds value.
Denon? Not sure about them. They appear to have been 'dumbed down'--product wise. And how many DL-103s can they sell in order to keep the company afloat (to play off your boat analogy).
Polk has a recognizable name, but IMO doesn't have the historical brand 'love' like B&W. Nothing really negative, but nothing really positive. On the other hand, market-wise, Polk appears to have a pretty good mass-market mail-order gig. Not too expensive, and looking half-way decent in the cosmetic department.
On the other hand, B&W really wants a showroom in order to highlight their 'house' sound, and expert fit 'n finish. Buying a B&W should be like buying an Audi. They exist as a designer, high ticket item. But showrooms are in the twilight of their autumn. So I don't know how it works out for a company like B&W, from a marketing standpoint.
Interesting about boats. I don't know about boats, but in guitar-land you have Fender and Gibson. Or Gibson and Fender. It doesn't seem to matter what they do; those companies will always be top-tier in the marketplace. Even a company as mismanaged as Gibson--its name carries the day for them. And it doesn't seem to have any direct or intrinsic relationship to quality or playability.
FWIW, I recently bought a relatively inexpensive instrument from Schecter. While even non-musicians know Gibson and Fender, unless you are hard-core you've probably never heard of Schecter Guitar Research. But I'll tell you, the SGR was so much better in the playability department than the Fenders I compared it to. The fit and finish was better. And there's plenty of other guitar companies that are the same. But in spite of competition, there will always be Fender and Gibson. Or Gibson and Fender. Can anyone say the same for Denon or B&W?
When I first saw the report, I thought of Fender for another reason. CBS's purchase of them in 1965. That didn't seem to go real well, nor did the purchase the year before of the New York Yankees.Marketing and market share is an interesting topic, especially with historical brands. In hi-fi there aren't many long-term examples. A few. McIntosh comes to mind, but Mac is a schizo company. They make more or less traditional gear, and they make over the top goofball stuff. I'm surprised they are able to hold it together, but so far they seem to be capable.
There's ARC, who still sell gear like it's 1970. ARC made an effort in the late '70s to move away from their core product, but quickly saw the writing on the wall, and abandoned that.
JBL made the transition to a more modern 'sound' via research, but at the same time have been able to play on their heritage. And they have a huge multi-national operation behind them. In Asia, the brand may have a bigger 'name appeal' than in the US.
Marantz has a storied name, but a name without any real connection to their origin. In spite of that, my impression is that the Marantz name still holds value.
Denon? Not sure about them. They appear to have been 'dumbed down'--product wise. And how many DL-103s can they sell in order to keep the company afloat (to play off your boat analogy).
Polk has a recognizable name, but IMO doesn't have the historical brand 'love' like B&W. Nothing really negative, but nothing really positive. On the other hand, market-wise, Polk appears to have a pretty good mass-market mail-order gig. Not too expensive, and looking half-way decent in the cosmetic department.
On the other hand, B&W really wants a showroom in order to highlight their 'house' sound, and expert fit 'n finish. Buying a B&W should be like buying an Audi. They exist as a designer, high ticket item. But showrooms are in the twilight of their autumn. So I don't know how it works out for a company like B&W, from a marketing standpoint.
Interesting about boats. I don't know about boats, but in guitar-land you have Fender and Gibson. Or Gibson and Fender. It doesn't seem to matter what they do; those companies will always be top-tier in the marketplace. Even a company as mismanaged as Gibson--its name carries the day for them. And it doesn't seem to have any direct or intrinsic relationship to quality or playability.
FWIW, I recently bought a relatively inexpensive instrument from Schecter. While even non-musicians know Gibson and Fender, unless you are hard-core you've probably never heard of Schecter Guitar Research. But I'll tell you, the SGR was so much better in the playability department than the Fenders I compared it to. The fit and finish was better. And there's plenty of other guitar companies that are the same. But in spite of competition, there will always be Fender and Gibson. Or Gibson and Fender. Can anyone say the same for Denon or B&W?
Yes. The point I was thinking about was that some brands sell themselves. Regardless. In hi-fi you could say McIntosh. Some folks want a Mac just because it is what it is. But I don't think the Sound United brands are like that. Does anyone wake up and say, "I really want to buy a Marantz amp because it's a Marantz? Or a Denon, or Polk loudspeaker? Instead, with those brands, prospective customers are probably looking at price point and features.There are a number of custom shops that make better Strats, better L5s, etc. And of course, PRS has now made a strat (Mayer model). The studio guitarists have been using these for years, and if they use Gibson/Fender, they have their axes custom made/tuned. The guitar market is odd.
Marantz is an extra-funny example, since Saul Marantz basically (and, at least, as I understand it) basically bankrupted the company with the Model 10/10B tuner, and sold the brand off to Superscope surprisingly early on (1964). https://www.superscopetechnologies.com/aboutMarantz has a storied name, but a name without any real connection to their origin. In spite of that, my impression is that the Marantz name still holds value.
Yes. There is always someone willing to screw up an established brand. Someone in another thread mentioned, AMF and Harley Davidson. But then again, another group will always be there to buy Fender or Gibson. And maybe even HD, but I wouldn't count on them, once my generation beams up. Fender and Gibson sell themselves. Not sure about Denon.When I first saw the report, I thought of Fender for another reason. CBS's purchase of them in 1965. That didn't seem to go real well, nor did the purchase the year before of the New York Yankees.
What you say about McIntosh ownership is true. But even with the Clarion thing, the products remained consistent. And they've always been made in the same place. And in spite of the fact that some of their latest stuff borders on the ridiculous, their core product, a Mac amp, is still going to be a Mac amp. So there's legacy and consistency with the brand. You just have to overlook (if you can) the other goofy stuff they make.McIntosh's history is a little more checkered than it may seem looking at the Big Blue Meter Company today. It may be recalled that Clarion owned Mac for a while, ca. 1990. ... Even in recent years, there's been some bouncing around of the corporate ownership of the brand.