2. misc-audio
  3. 974123360

B&O, overpriced artistic piece of audio?

I have always had some sort of fascination to all things nifty and modern looking. Since 1982, before coming to this country, I was able to look into a B&O advertisement page in the NYTimes. Are B&Os a compromise sonically compared to my current system (Preamp SFL-2, Amp, Sonic Frontiers Power 2, speakers Gershman X-1 and Sw-1 subwoofers, Japanese DVD+Bel Canto DAC-1, Tuner MCintosh Mr-78)? Can I be enamoured just for the looks and this sense of nostalgia or should I simply say that B&O does conquer sonically? PAUL
bemopti123
bmpnyc
713 posts
 
I agree about the audio aspect of B & O products, but I must say that their widescreen televisions with the Runco line doubler built in look as good as anything I have seen for DVD playback, and their phones look cool. I wonder if they are any good or if like their audio gear, they are pretty on the outside, ugly on the inside.
onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
5,218 posts
 
Sound quality is not the sole criteria for equipment selection! The visual presentation of a product is critical. Bemop, if the looks are that important, then go for it and be happy. You will lose sound quality, but so what. After all, even the most passionate B&O distractors seem to say their products sound OK -- not horrible, not unlistenable -- but OK.
no_money
638 posts
 
Sound is not the sole critera???? Why even bother then, Bose look great in with most decors.
joe_coherent
130 posts
 
You must be joking. Please... even B&O dealers admit that gear they don't sell sounds better. B&O has OK looks, passable sound, that's all. I'm sure your wife will be pleased though...
onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
5,218 posts
 
I personally wouldn't do what Bemop is contemplating, but I think I understand why he would consider it. Why shouldn't audio equipment look great? Style counts. Some companies understand. Take a look at Sonus Faber, Jeff Rowland or Avalon. A component should look as good as it sounds, and vice versa.
More to discover