• 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!

Sound United, B&W, has entered agreement to been sold mid 2022.

amper42

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
1,583
Likes
2,285
MASI stock down 40% this morning. Investors not too happy with SU deal? :p
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?
 
Last edited:

Matias

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
5,031
Likes
10,803
Location
São Paulo, Brazil
We all know what this means: once this acquisition goes through B&W gear will start to sound way too "clinical" ... :cool:
Almost sterile! But hey, at least they will be "hospital grade" from now on!
 

Loathecliff

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2021
Messages
377
Likes
487
Location
Iberia & UK
MASI stock down 40% this morning. Investors not too happy with SU deal? :p
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?
You have it Sir!
(All roads will of course lead to Blackrock Inc.)
 

anmpr1

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
3,722
Likes
6,406
I'm really looking forward to B&W selling $100+ "hospital grade" power cords and power receptacles ... :facepalm:
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.

An added benefit will be if he decides to substitute one of the more volatile anesthetics for the usual nitrous oxide, during his listening sessions. In that case he won't have to worry about blowing anything up. So he'll have that going for him.


connector.jpg
 

ahofer

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
4,952
Likes
8,698
Location
New York City
It’s a warning. Sometimes the buyer can bring new resources, but often you end up with…what happened to Thiel. My first really good speakers were B&W monitors. Then I had Thiels in my living room for over 20 years. Both companies lost their way, IMO, trying to make ’showroom’ speakers or…whatever happened to Thiel.

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.
 

muslhead

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
1,560
Likes
1,718
Something similar in sailboats (e.g. Hinckley, Sparkman & Stephens).
Something similar in every mature industry. Rollups for the old guard while the new takes over.
 

anmpr1

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
3,722
Likes
6,406
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.
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?
 

ahofer

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
4,952
Likes
8,698
Location
New York City
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?
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.
 

CRobertson

New Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 4, 2021
Messages
4
Likes
4
Location
Bay Area California
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.
 

JonfromCB

Active Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2020
Messages
111
Likes
53
Interesting stuff. Kiani says just enough without giving up the goods. Masimo is obviously developing home/patient worn monitoring devices (that's already stated in their existing corporate profile) and he clearly states interest in Heos and connectivity in particular. Why start from scratch with a development team and liscensing issues when you can just buy a conglomerate that already has what you want, with their engineers (Kiani mentions one by name), licenses, patents, manufacturing capability, marketing and distribution resources.

So Kiani gives a fairly specific picture of his vision, but the question remains: Why and how does a medical tech corporation with 2021 revenues over $1.239 Billion convince it's corporate board to lay-out over $1.2 Billion of shareholders money to buy an AV conglomerate consiting of 41 separate companies that had a combined 2021 revenue of only $117 Million? With those numbers and what Kiani does tell us, it's because
Sound United has something Masimo wants.....they sure didn't buy it for a second revenue stream now did they?

I do like that Kiani explains his audio passion and enthusiam and that he is "hopefully going to do things that help them become even better..." That gives me hope he isn't just going to take what he wants and spit out the rest to the highest bidder....we'll see.

Lets face it, S.U. has not done a good job of wrangling, all it's dogs and cats, consolidating managemnt, competing product lines within it's own corporation, and using all the resources from it's 41 separate companies to develop newer better cheaper AV products. One can only imagine the redundant bagage that exists in 41 seperate companies. No successful unrelated company takes on that kind of challenge because they are enthusiasts. My guess is this merger/buy out was negotiated for some time and is intended to be mutually beneficial rather than a snatch grab and flip.
 

anmpr1

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
3,722
Likes
6,406
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.
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.

B&W might have the most appeal. Why? Because of its history. Some might recognize a B&W speaker because it's associated with Abbey Road, and Boomers, who are the ones that can most afford a high-end B&W, probably have a Beatles album they want to play on it. But if the Beatles had named their record something else, most wouldn't even know about that.

Marantz has an historical legacy, but only because it's a long lived brand. Remember Superscope? No one associates the current product with their past product, the ones made in the US under supervision of Saul Marantz, Sid Smith, Dick Sequerra, et al. Most people who recognize the Marantz name, and are looking for a home theater receiver, probably consider the products a cut above average, but nothing special.

Denon? Denon competes with Marantz. Why would a company want that? Where's the value in market cannibalization? I'm conflicted: do I want a three thousand dollar Marantz integrated, or a Denon for the same price? I can't make up my mind, so I'll compare features: they both are the same, and both pretty much look the same--an unappealing black box.

Let's move upscale. What about a nine thousand dollar Marantz integrated? For those dollars, I'm buying an entry level Mark Levinson or McIntosh. Or if I'm tech oriented, I'm ordering an AHB2/DAC3, and pocketing a fistful of dollars.

I'm not saying that Sound United can't make a go of it, and be successful. Under the right leadership. But if I'm a savvy businessman, I'm sticking with pulse oximetry.
 

mhardy6647

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
11,217
Likes
24,181
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.
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/about
And, of course, some pretty cheesy equipment (as well as some nice pieces) bore the "marantz" name while Philips owned the brand.

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.
 

anmpr1

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
3,722
Likes
6,406
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.
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.
 

anmpr1

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
3,722
Likes
6,406
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.
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.

A comparison might be the Alpine/Luxman situation. Alpine pretty much dumbed down Lux, and it showed. But that sitatuon didn't last long, and the company recovered its heritage.
 

ahofer

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
4,952
Likes
8,698
Location
New York City
Vanishingly few brands have really carefully maintained their reputation, compared to other fields. That may say something about audio. In theory, it's a very infrequent purchase*, which can be a problem for brand loyalty. I have a Bryston from 1987 that is still going strong...

*in practice, the circle of confusion spurs the upgrade treadmill
 

anmpr1

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
3,722
Likes
6,406
I'm going to offer Joe Kiani some business advice. (Like he needs it, LOL).

At the outset, merge Def Tech assets into Polk. No one cares about Def Tech, and anyone that does care would be just as happy with a Polk loudspeaker. Boston Acoustics is a dead brand. May it RIP.

Classe? Do they have a dealer network that is profitable? Is their market penetration favorable for expansion? Can they compete with Samsung (Mark Levinson) or McIntosh? Answering those questions should determine the fate of that brand.

Next, for the core. Merge Denon into Marantz. You don't need two brands selling essentially the same product to the same customers, for the same price. And, at least in the US (and probably any place except Japan), the Marantz name is more known and respected.

Second, if you must keep the Denon name, it should be only for small market analog oriented specialty product--I mean the cartridges, which probably still sell decently for a decent price. With the analog resurgence, it might be time to bring back some of the higher-end and better performing Denon cartridges, like the 103D, and the 3x series, and so on. But that's about it. Unless you want to market a higher-end record player under the Denon name, sold through Marantz dealers. If you do that, it should be something in keeping with Denon's historical legacy. A first class DD with historical Denon features--is the tooling for that still available? Whatever, definitely not a Malaysian sourced Technics SL-1200 knock off.

Third, embrace Marantz design heritage in your two-channel products. The current thing is cosmetically underwhelming and, frankly, not too appealing. It looks like every other black box out there. There is no aesthetic relationship to historical product. Nostalgia for the '70s runs high in this stuff. And, at the higher-end, where profit maximizes, consumers can buy much more visually and tactile-oriented product--product that demonstrates not only each company's heritage, but offers pride in ownership; gear that that looks like you want to place it on your equipment rack. Below are some examples so you can compare. Choose which designs are the most appealing, and then go from there...

lux1.jpg
lux2.jpg

1060.jpg
pm10_1.jpg
 
Top Bottom