NQVHNWI
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
-
I have no issue with the A5 or its specs bar one. Its a nice enough product and wish it well.
My problem is that I have a 6-year old A6 in the bedroom and a P6 , couple of P2s and an A2 all minty good condition in storage box somewhere doing very little. So no room for an A5 – and im that the case with many people?
I do have a SoTA home theatre system which still has to rely on a 3 pairs of 2005 vintage BL3s.
What I would really like is a very compact Beolab that can discretely act as HT surrounds without the need to carve-up the walls and ceilings.
I wonder where the money is for B&O. Flogging a refresh of the same mobile products (good ones at that), or producing a flexible home loudspeaker solution that is affordable and compact?
Just send a support note to B&O and ask then to push an update through. Or call your dealer. He can do the same
Good Day everyone, Lee and Keith
I have given this posting a degree of thought but have to admit a degree of ignorance to the working behind the scenes and the relationships with Sponsors, suppliers and B&O themselves. I’m also ignorant to the costs of a web-forum, hosting and development costs.
Shooting from the hip, here is my view-point: –
- The current forum is stale, has a limited number of niche Users and a very unappealing interface. There are too many sub-forums based on legacy site designs. Consolidate and simplify would be my first thought?
- There is or has been too much “control” or moderation on-site, based on keeping things civil – whereas in the other forums I regularly visit and participate in don’t seem to have that problem. There is too much onus on forum members “protecting” B&O operating revenues with keeping B&O secrecy. As far as I can determine, product releases are released unofficially either by Dealers/re-sellers, those with ties to B&O or B&O themselves. We are too quick to stifle “finds” on the Web, for the sake of upsetting B&O – when it is in fact it is in all in the public domain. Therefore a light hand or an even-lighter hand (let it rip) would be welcome. Stiffen-up buttercup.
- I perceive B&O doing very little to help this forum? My view is that Beoworld has long-served its purpose for B&O who I believe want to focus on HNWI’s rather than those of us who may tend towards the more to vintage and David-Lewis legacy era equipment. There may be a few “visits” or “previews” here and there given by B&O to some of the more enthusiastic members/moderators/Sponsors – either directly or indirectly but little that actually helps the site? Therefore like the so-called “Special relationship” between UK and US politicians, its not really Special and arguably not a relationship either? BeoWorld needs to decide where its position is?
- Manuals. Most legacy manuals are already out in the public domain (up to the Beolab5/7/9 era – I have not for instance seen the BL90 or Eclipse/Harmony manual out there??). I think/assume there is very little out there (B&O probably want more control of this now than premature product leaks?). I do not see this as a USP for paid membership tiers.
- Circle-back to point 1 again. I participate in a number of forums (B&O/Auralic/some watch forums/Wood-working and motorcar forums – where my hobbies/interest lie). I am also drifting more towards Mikipedias Discord B&O site (more on that in the next point). https://community.auralic.com/ and https://community.naimaudio.com/ are examples of Company-provided but not Company-controlled/dominated web forums. They are relatively fresh, clean and easy to search/reference. There is a very “light-touch” in terms of moderation and in-particular, the Auralic forum is very well behaved and sparsely populated with interactive Auralic employees.
- I assume there are costs to these sites like Auralic and Naim (there is very little advertising on these sites – if any) and either has a modest support by the OEM or use your data for a “free” web-site access. I would state here that web-forums today are so well-developed and extensive, that the prospect of preventing “you are the product” is well-past its sell-by date. Every data-miner in the world probably has multiple layers of intel on us all and out habits. With the advent of ChatGPT and other advanced algorithms, it is only a matter of time that these programs scan the entire interweb over multiple, separate and un-related forums and could therefore work-out our various aliases, interests, political leanings etc…etc…and know who we are. Therefore, I would dismiss “we are the product” argument as a constraint. Its going to happen one way or another.
- Discord is developing more and more as the future of chat forums. Mikipedia has develop his own excellent site (too many sub-forums for my taste, somewhat harder to reference info etc but quite dynamic and seems to have a much higher frequency of well-mannered regulars contributing than Beoworld). I don’t know how Mikipedia supports this Discord site (free, small annual fee, data-gathering) but he does, alone and it works very well. There is also a perception that his site leans more towards the “later-day” products and gossip rather than older legacy products. Either-way, he’s not charging £0/£15/£30 per annum membership fees for a growing and improving product over BeoWorld?
- Now I am fully aware that B&O is still a stuffy and undynamic and Conservative company. B&O have failed twice as far as I can recollect in its own Web-forum aspirations. I’m also aware they are now more interested in HNWI’s – now that us “Useful-Saps” have bailed them out (again) by buying countless discounted BeoPlay products that they can now once again neglect us (in a recession) and focus on the folly of chasing the dream of too-many-high-end-high-price products with a 30-minute shelf-life for the uninterested uber-rich and destroy their loyal buyer base (again)?? However, I do wonder if – there is a possibility for one-off support for BeoWorld by B&O to setup a new modern web-forum for BeoWorld to manage and tune to both B&O’s future pathway and BeoWorlds legacy stance? Im sure it’s a well trodden asking B&O path but I’m only asking?
- As per my earlier points, I’m against paid and tiered membership. Its not because of personal snobbery or affordability on my part but that (again my perception), is that this leads to a “tribal” take-over of the forum and ends up losing more regular contributors than it gains. I see Beoworld right now in this position and its withering-away.
- As a means to funding the site – I wonder – as a suggestion if it is possible/feasible for Beoworld to have an online shop? A shop that at one end can sell BeoWorld merch, but at the other (hopefully sponsored by B&O), selling a few BeoPlay-level products, with margins helping to support forum costs? This may not help the Dealers but not wont help BeoWorld and with Amazon, both stand to lose-out if you don’t?
- The prize-draw is nice but not essential. I viewed this as a way to generate membership fees with a draw-down of Lee’s stock (and business profitability) as a generous benefactor? I think streamlining the Web-forum this is not required – and to be frank, very few Web-forums offer anything like this (Fees or prizes). I think it is an unsustainable practice in numerous ways.
Anyway, this list is given as useful/not-useful feedback as an honest opinion that hopefully helps give the Owners of BeoWorld my perspective at least. Make of it what you will for what it is worth?
With regards and respect.
10%
I think this is part of the BR1/BSTH bug.
I know if you rename a source too many times (more than twice), the only way out is a total factory reset of the BSTH.
The default display on too many renames is the APP looks OK but the remote shows “HDMI A” or similar in the source lists
I think the Theatre does not have CEC but can effectively direct CEC commands from the LG Panel to the third party device.
Clearly from my experience and others, CEC compliant devices can be controlled with a BR1, so mine in not to over-think how but rather that it does.
Check the settings inside your BR-player. The Oppo-105D for instance has a setting to disable and is disabled by default.
You will also see that CEC only covers basic functions and is rather slow/laggy. PUC is much better.
I have 3 pairs of white BL3s. 2 x Mk2, 1 xMk1
- Cant tell the difference sonically sound-wise between them.
- Suspect Mk2 = revised parts as Mk1 components become revised.
- Mk1 and Mk2 have zero wireless capabilities
- I would say the Mk2 white has a thicker, more enamel-like “paint-job” over the Mk1.
I think B&O have moved-on dramatically since they introduced these ground-breaking speakers (2005 IIRC?). However, I think as a surround speaker they are excellent for the sound and compactness but would question their sonic performance in a primary music-room loudspeaker.
The dropping of the Beoplay branding confuses nomclementure somewhat.
I would imagine if it is a Beosound and has Mozart it is WiFi and Beolink-able?
If it is a (former Beoplay) Beosound and does not have Mozart….it will be a portable Bluetooth speaker only??
Everything I have heard and been told is that future Beolabs will be dual purpose i.e. a Loudspeaker with integrated music player?
It also leads to the confusing possibility if Beosounds will have integrated Beolabs?
My comments are that “leaked” information comes from a number of sources.
PR Companies, FCC, B&O themselves, B&O Dealers, some non-B&O vendors.
All should if they require absolute secrecy keep their mouths shut and their pictures to themselves. That is where the root-cause of problem is and it should not be for Moderators to limit or control that here in Beoworld.
Most of us here are enthusiasts who are rather bloodhound-like sourcing data and rumours. Those that leak are (probably 99% are paid some form of income through the B&O product franchise) are the ones jeopardising B&O competitiveness and future revenue. Not Beoworlders
Lets get real please.
I would look at experimenting moving the BL17s back to a position of height and run a 5.1.2 setup. Move the BL17 Rears in the App to a height surround role. Experiment with sound levels and distances and see where you go. Unless you have a big room – or a room where you can put the BL17 back/rears somewhat back behind you, I think they may be wasted?
I think the virtual loudspeakers get greyed-out once you have physical loudspeakers in position? I must admit, apart from the soundbar, I dont really get the virtual “thing”. Physicals are easy to understand.
Im not 100% certain if that is the problem. Maybe/maybe not?
Going back to the first few days of owning my BST, I linked an Oppo BR with the BST and it worked but was painfully slow to move to icon to icon. In terms of response speed if observed (with no inexplicable shutdown):-
1st PUC only
2nd CEC only
3rd PUC and CEC
I think that the CEC protocol is for a very basic set of controls which help legacy devices (non-B&O) and best not used if you can have a PUC control.
The only issue I have (BL90 plus 3pairs of BL3s) is the boot time for the 90s to click online and to form the latency.
probably 2-3 seconds max
Looks like the Samotech hub on Amazon (£179). Add a bit of pre-programmed code and any guess that this will be +£1000?
I know this is bordering on unhelpful or unrealistic to check (unless you have a Halo as well as a BR1) but a lot of issues I have had since late November have been with the BeoApp and/or the BR1 locking up. (Especially with PUC selection).
I wonder if something is going on where the Theatre or BeoApp is telling the BR1 to shut down…or something like that? Wonder if disengaging the battery unit after a given command kills future error-state shutdown?? Inconvenient…yes.
As an extension to the postulation above, have you tried changing your PUC settings to always stay on? I’m hypothecating, there is some bug which is telling the Theatre that there may be a microsecond change (say going from one HDMI source to another) and this is forcing a shutdown? Bit of a Hail Mary……….but worth eliminating it as a cause with a quick configuration change?.?
Hello appeardk,
The grey line is the network line. I assume both your Theatre and core are connected? wifi may also be an option but wiring from the TV to the core I think would be a good thing as a minimum.
The core will be feed music via the network
The core will output via the TOSLINK digitial output (laser light, in stereo thru one terminal)
You will need to buy a TOS to CoAX converter. These are inexpensive.
The BL5s usually come with 2 x 5m CoAx 75ohn cables. If not, a good quality set of cables or the BL5 ones from your dealer will be OK. Again coax is digital and carries both L/R signals. You can daisy-chain the coax in/out from one BL5 to another
The BL5 have L/R switches. This configures the channels. The PL will carry ( this I assume from experience of old ML products) volume control. The coax, music signal. I am not 100% certain if BeoApp products work in the same way?
In this configuration, your Theatre works optimally for surround sound, and the core can side-stream to get the best out of the almondo.
The reason the Almando hums is probably because it is not 100% B&O compatible and has a ground loop caused by poor component shielded on the PL side. I have posted comments that I believe the Theatre needs good (B&O standard) PLs – otherwise there may be a risk of small hum??
10
Ok, thanks, My 2 cents here.
1. Set the Theatre, BL5s and BL3s optimally for the Theatre.
2. Daisy-Chain the PLs BST >> BL5 >> BL5
3. Daisy-chain PLs BST >> BL3 Splitter >> BL3s
4. Connect Core to BST (not sure how this is done)
5. Daisy-chain Core coax >> BL5 >> BL5.
You will need to make a listening position for the BL5s stereo only and maybe configure the BR1. The music signal will be digital to the BL5s from the Core and the BST should control volume signal via PL? Thats how I imagine it. Obviously, I can’t test but hope it helps?
Im still seeing comments about relaying PL from BL5 to BL3?? You only have two channels on BL5 – Left and Right. Daisy-chaining the PL to BL5 is OK ,followed by channel selection. The BL3’s need to be coming from the Theatre from another second PL outlet.
This is what I had in mind with my comment above. (also to add, you will need a TOSLink to Coax converter to take the SPDif signal from optical to electrical – which the BL5 accepts.
I dont think it is the cables – or rather it is (silly)
I had the same issue taking a regular CAT7 (flat cable), connecting my Beolab3s (with RJ45 to PL connector) and the issue was bad. I could clearly hear an impulse when pressing vol +/-.
I threw out all my PL cables and RJ45’s and replaced the lot with Sound Heavenly cables. It worked but there is still a noise.
Im not sure of other peoples setups, but I think this has a good deal to do with the number of PLs connected (3 pairs of BL3s) and the way Theatre controls the signals.
Its workable, almost imperceivable unless your ear is against the driver but it is there.
To summarise,
- Have good PL cables to improve cable hygiene
- Theatre may have a PL distribution issue.
I used to run BL5s from a BV7 via PL. I also had a BS5/BM5 which sounded terrible when piped through ML to the BV7. However, piping the BM5 sound via coax directly to the BL5 raised the sound quality for music dramatically. BS5 or the BV could control volume.
Hopefully, the same principle can apply to you? BST/PL for TV, core/coax for music
Ok, thanks,
My 2 cents here.
1. Set the Theatre, BL5s and BL3s optimally for the Theatre.
2. Daisy-Chain the PLs BST >> BL5 >> BL53. Daisy-chain PLs BST >> BL3 Splitter >> BL3s
4. Connect Core to BST (not sure how this is done)
5. Daisy-chain Core coax >> BL5 >> BL5.
You will need to make a listening position for the BL5s stereo only and maybe configure the BR1. The music signal will be digital to the BL5s from the Core and the BST should control volume signal via PL?
Thats how I imagine it. Obviously, I can’t test but hope it helps?
Im sorry if I get this wrong, but I having difficulty understanding the setup you want?
I think for Wife Acceptance Factor (WAF), you want a Theatre, two BL5 as rear surrounds and BL3 as fronts?
You also want to play material via the Core?
Please can you clarify the roles of the loudspeakers as I think everything else is straight-forward (except the Almando box bit)
10
