Bang and Olufsen VS. Internet Direct (AV123, Salk)

[blackzarg]

I posted this in the AVS Forum, but maybe you guys can help me out here..

I have a friend whose family is planning on getting a B&O home theater system, but after seeing my AV123 Rocket 5.1 package, and finding out how much I paid for them, they're curious about ID sellers such as AV123 and Salk, particularly.

How would some of the B&O models compare with, say, the Salk HT3s? They currently own a pair of Beolab 5s (came with the house they got), but would consider selling them to purchase a pair of HT3s (since the Salk Sound site compares the HT3 with $20,000 speakers). Thanks!

Edit: Ugh. I can't believe I spelled the title incorrectly. Bang and Olufsen. I'm such a band nerd. If I'm typing "Ban" my fingers just want to go to D =)

[bunnyma357]

With B&O you are mainly paying for state of the art design rather than performance, but that said the performance is generally pretty good. B&O will never be the best value, but it will be designed either to fit into an environment unobtrusively or as a focal point. In any case it should provide decent sound. The ID stuff will kick its butt in a bang for the buck comparison, unless your criteria is industrial design over sound quality.

Back in the day, I had a B&O Linear TT and loved it, it performed well compared to the available competition, but from a pure SQ perspective there were alternatives that would easily trump it.


Jim C

[dane]

+1 Jim's description.. I used to drool over the form and fit of the B&O stuff... would still love to have some, but can't justify the cost/performance ratio...

cheers,
..dane

[Cheeseboy]

+1 Jim's description.. I used to drool over the form and fit of the B&O stuff... would still love to have some, but can't justify the cost/performance ratio...

cheers,
..dane

I could on the turntable line.

[Jason]

Those beolab's are pretty cool. IIRC they were some of the first to use ICE amps (a B&O technology BTW) and they also have upward firing drivers that fire into a 'lense' of sorts to direct the sound. They are active speakers too, so they have all digital x-overs which is a big advantage over passive x-overs.

I heard them once at a mall in Dublin, CA I think.

It's been so long since I've heard them, and my tastes have become a bit more refined and acute since then and I've never heard a Salk product, so I can't say how they'd compare.

As cool as the beolab's look, they certainly won't fit in just any decor.

If it were me, I'd keep the B&O's and take my time looking around. Go listen to as many different speakers as they can/want to and then make a decision. Also, I don't know what your experience level is, but maybe you could go over and critically listen and go from there.

[django1]

I was in a high end shop and remember being very unimpressed with the B&O I heard there. A little anecdote: I had this really ugly, fake wood Sony radio that I used for work. My clients and other workers thought it sounded bad. Because they listened with their eyes... It actually sounded terrific but it looked bad. The B&O I heard were the other way around. Have your buddy listen with his eyes shut...

[geekinthehood]

I've heard a few people here talking about how good the B&O turntable was, but my experience was the exact opposite. I never owned one, but I heard it in a local high end audio dealer's shop. He didn't sell it, he just kept it around to show that 1) you really can hear a difference in turntables, and 2) a $150 NAD turntable would kick it's ass. And, no - the test wasn't rigged. The cables went straight from either turntable to the preamp, and he switched them out (because there was only one phono-in). That, and I trust the guy.

I second what a lot of people say, though: They don't suck (too badly), but you can easily do better. Much better.

As I think about it, though, I realize that my experience was from the analog era. They might do digital better. Still, I'm sure you can do much better for the price.

[bunnyma357]

I've heard a few people here talking about how good the B&O turntable was, but my experience was the exact opposite. I never owned one, but I heard it in a local high end audio dealer's shop. He didn't sell it, he just kept it around to show that 1) you really can hear a difference in turntables, and 2) a $150 NAD turntable would kick it's ass. And, no - the test wasn't rigged. The cables went straight from either turntable to the preamp, and he switched them out (because there was only one phono-in). That, and I trust the guy.

One of the real strengths of the B&O TX2 that I had was that it was impossible to screw up. You had to use one of only 5 B&O cartridges, and there was no adjustment or alignment to be done, no skewing, no azimuth, etc. The tonearm and cartridge were designed as a whole, so no worries with matching cartridge and tonearm characteristics.

With the top 2 cartridges in the line up, it sounded really nice and the fact that you cued by pushbutton, without touching the arm was a really nice feature and probably saved a lot of my LP's from getting scratched up. In the party environment of a drunken college/post college lifestyle, it did a great job, as it was the least susceptible to external vibrations of any TT I've ever had.

It definitely had some design problems, like a resonant metal platter with no mass to it, and it really couldn't be tweaked at all. But, even compared to the Music Hall MMF-5 I replaced it with, it sounded very good, and got way better WAF marks. Plus it worked flawlessly for over 20 years, so while any properly set up decent TT would probably kill it sonically, it was a great sounding and very usable TT that always made me feel good any time I listened.

Jim C

[geekinthehood]

...always made me feel good any time I listened.

How can I argue with that? :)