What are peoples thoughts on the true quality of Bang & Olufsen
products??

Sure, they are marketed well - look different and organic, and produce
excellent sound and quality.

But, do people really think their products prices are justified by such
a huge premium over other sound equipment?

Do they have that x-factor that appeals to the rich, and so are able to
charge a big premium (that doesnt neccessarily equal that much better
performance and quality) ?

I'd be interested to know whether people thought the sound quality was
really fantastically better than other brands.

Its a similar story to Bose ... great name, great reputation - but is
the product really THAT much superior, especially to justify the price?

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 02:01:13 -0800, andrew_h wrote:

What are peoples thoughts on the true quality of Bang & Olufsen
products??

Sure, they are marketed well - look different and organic, and produce
excellent sound and quality.

But, do people really think their products prices are justified by such
a huge premium over other sound equipment?

Do they have that x-factor that appeals to the rich, and so are able to
charge a big premium (that doesnt neccessarily equal that much better
performance and quality) ?

I'd be interested to know whether people thought the sound quality was
really fantastically better than other brands.

Its a similar story to Bose ... great name, great reputation - but is
the product really THAT much superior, especially to justify the price?


What are you looking for? Something that looks classy and sounds expensive
or something where the looks don't particularly matter, but the sound is
superb? B&O fit very nicely into the first group. The sound quality is
usually very good, but I personally probably couldn't live with it for a
long time. On the other hand, if motorised sliding things and fancy lights
do it for you then there's no argument!

Bose - definitely not my cup of tea at all. IMHO they have lots of hype
and fancy literature but generally sound pretty mediocre if you compare
with good speakers.

At the end of the day, its *your* ears and eyes that you have to please.

--
Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!)
Remove blockage to use my email address
Web: http://www.nascom.info & http://mixpix.batcave.net

"andrew_h" wrote in message
oups.com...
What are peoples thoughts on the true quality of Bang & Olufsen
products??

**They look nice, but offer poor (sonic) value for money.


Sure, they are marketed well - look different and organic, and produce
excellent sound and quality.

**Not for the Dollars spent.


But, do people really think their products prices are justified by such
a huge premium over other sound equipment?

**That would need to be judged by the person buying the product. Many people
value style over sound quality.


Do they have that x-factor that appeals to the rich, and so are able to
charge a big premium (that doesnt neccessarily equal that much better
performance and quality) ?

**Clearly, given their market success, yes.


I'd be interested to know whether people thought the sound quality was
really fantastically better than other brands.

**Nope.


Its a similar story to Bose ... great name, great reputation - but is
the product really THAT much superior, especially to justify the price?

**Not even close. Bose is cheap crap, selling for an obscenely high price.
B&O is stylishly designed, often very well engineered, expensive equipment.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Neither B&O nor Bose offer good value for money. Most Bose equipment
is poor in absolute terms whereas B&O is somewhat more presentale
technically, but both are horribly overpriced and a sure sign of
yuppity.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com
Neither B&O nor Bose offer good value for money. Most
Bose equipment is poor in absolute terms whereas B&O is
somewhat more presentale technically, but both are
horribly overpriced and a sure sign of yuppity.

This sudden interest in price-effectiveness is quite refreshing, Bret,
Perhaps you could help this guy "Fella" out?

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...
Neither B&O nor Bose offer good value for money.

**That would be YOUR opinion. For many of those who purchase B&O, it offers
a sense of style not provided by other products and, hence, represents good
value. Bose, OTOH, represents extremely poor value for money, since other
products can offer more for less. I suggest to you, however, that, due to
the prescence of wasteful output autoformers, that McIntosh amplifiers
represent spectacularly bad value for money.

Most Bose equipment
is poor in absolute terms whereas B&O is somewhat more presentale
technically, but both are horribly overpriced and a sure sign of
yuppity.

**And again: That is YOUR opinion. In a pure sonic sense, few arguments can
be made to defend B&O (and none for Bose), but with it's unique styling, B&O
may be the only alternative for many buyers.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 08:39:36 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
roups.com...
Neither B&O nor Bose offer good value for money.

**That would be YOUR opinion. For many of those who purchase B&O, it offers
a sense of style not provided by other products and, hence, represents good
value. Bose, OTOH, represents extremely poor value for money, since other
products can offer more for less. I suggest to you, however, that, due to
the prescence of wasteful output autoformers, that McIntosh amplifiers
represent spectacularly bad value for money.

Most Bose equipment
is poor in absolute terms whereas B&O is somewhat more presentale
technically, but both are horribly overpriced and a sure sign of
yuppity.

**And again: That is YOUR opinion. In a pure sonic sense, few arguments can
be made to defend B&O (and none for Bose), but with it's unique styling, B&O
may be the only alternative for many buyers.

On any other Usenet group your argument might carry some weight, but
not here.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Their equipment is very good looking, and expensive to service when the
warranty is finished. As for the sound quality, it is okay. For the money
spent, you can do better with the more popular name brands.

--

Jerry G.
======


"andrew_h" wrote in message
oups.com...
What are peoples thoughts on the true quality of Bang & Olufsen
products??

Sure, they are marketed well - look different and organic, and produce
excellent sound and quality.

But, do people really think their products prices are justified by such
a huge premium over other sound equipment?

Do they have that x-factor that appeals to the rich, and so are able to
charge a big premium (that doesnt neccessarily equal that much better
performance and quality) ?

I'd be interested to know whether people thought the sound quality was
really fantastically better than other brands.

Its a similar story to Bose ... great name, great reputation - but is
the product really THAT much superior, especially to justify the price?

Just to clear up - I didnt at any stage mean to infer that Bose and B&O
are equal on all levels.... just that both have niche markets I guess -
or both have something of a cult status with certain buyers.

I know people who swear black and blue by bose .. Also, the brand image
with alot of people (who don't know a great deal about sound and sound
quality) would instantly think "must be great" if its Bose.

Who are B&O's main competitors??? Do they have any real out-and-out
competitors ?

Some excellent sound engineers, rich money-filled businessmen, and
great marketing men should get together and bring out a new audio brand
to rival B&O.

So much of what they sell is related to the image, and feel that their
products GIVE to the buyers. Obviously the sound must be terrific, but
the whole aura that surrounds their products would tend to persuade
people that the product is better sounding. I reckon if they did a test
of 100 people....blind-folded them, played music from two amps (which
were identical), said one was B&O and one was a lesser (but still
strong) brand, 99% would chose the B&O as the better. Assumign they
knew of B&O.

Perception ... that is the key to successful marketing. B&O is to
speakers and sound equipment what Coke is to soft drinks.

On 3 Mar 2006 05:02:36 -0800, "andrew_h"
wrote:

Just to clear up - I didnt at any stage mean to infer that Bose and B&O
are equal on all levels.... just that both have niche markets I guess -
or both have something of a cult status with certain buyers.

I know people who swear black and blue by bose .. Also, the brand image
with alot of people (who don't know a great deal about sound and sound
quality) would instantly think "must be great" if its Bose.

Who are B&O's main competitors??? Do they have any real out-and-out
competitors ?

Can't think of any that aren't actually in jail.

B&O and Bose are very similar operations, they just operate in
different sectors of the market. Image is everything.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 08:39:36 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
roups.com...
Neither B&O nor Bose offer good value for money.

**That would be YOUR opinion. For many of those who purchase B&O, it offers
a sense of style not provided by other products and, hence, represents good
value. Bose, OTOH, represents extremely poor value for money, since other
products can offer more for less. I suggest to you, however, that, due to
the prescence of wasteful output autoformers, that McIntosh amplifiers
represent spectacularly bad value for money.

Most Bose equipment
is poor in absolute terms whereas B&O is somewhat more presentale
technically, but both are horribly overpriced and a sure sign of
yuppity.

**And again: That is YOUR opinion. In a pure sonic sense, few arguments can
be made to defend B&O (and none for Bose), but with it's unique styling, B&O
may be the only alternative for many buyers.

Sonically, that is no longer true. B&O CD players sound as good as
anything on the market, are beautifully built, and are *much* more
stylish than almost anything else. The latest line of B&O active
speakers uses state of the art amplifier modules (also used by Rotel)
and their 'acoustic lens' speaker technology really does work. A B&O
system comprising any of their CD players and a pair of Lab 5 speakers
is truly high end by any standard, and may even be regarded as good
value in this rarefied market, at less than £15k for the lot.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...
Neither B&O nor Bose offer good value for money.

**That would be YOUR opinion. For many of those who purchase B&O, it offers
a sense of style not provided by other products and, hence, represents good
value. Bose, OTOH, represents extremely poor value for money, since other
products can offer more for less. I suggest to you, however, that, due to
the prescence of wasteful output autoformers, that McIntosh amplifiers
represent spectacularly bad value for money.

Most Bose equipment
is poor in absolute terms whereas B&O is somewhat more presentale
technically, but both are horribly overpriced and a sure sign of
yuppity.

**And again: That is YOUR opinion. In a pure sonic sense, few arguments can
be made to defend B&O (and none for Bose), but with it's unique styling, B&O
may be the only alternative for many buyers.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...
Neither B&O nor Bose offer good value for money.

**That would be YOUR opinion. For many of those who purchase B&O, it offers
a sense of style not provided by other products and, hence, represents good
value. Bose, OTOH, represents extremely poor value for money, since other
products can offer more for less. I suggest to you, however, that, due to
the prescence of wasteful output autoformers, that McIntosh amplifiers
represent spectacularly bad value for money.


You are triventriliquating again.

(That means you are talking out both sides of your mouth and your ass
all at the same time.)

Mcintosh also has unique styling and many of its customers feel it is
the best looking line of audio equipment in the world. Whilst I
understand the technical arguments against the autoformers as well as
anyone, they do not harm the performance of McIntosh power amplifiers
which measure very well. They don't sound all that superior but many
solid state and some tube amps sound even worse.

I feel the McIntosh autoformers combined with tube driven (as with
Moscode) MOSFET outputs could be a very good thing. I am not impressed
at all or respectful of McIntosh's reisue tube equipment, for several
reasons. I do think they should stick with solid state if they don't
believe in the genuine merit of tubes, and am certain they do not.

Since Mcintosh amplifiers are not the most expensive brand to be had
(but are certainly somewhat overpriced) one can not take excessive
umbrage at their poor value for money.

If you want to triventriliquate some more might I suggest you learn
"Fugue for Tinhorns" from 'Guys and Dolls'? Then you could record it
with three mics and a vintage 3 channel Ampex or Presto deck.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ps.com...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...
Neither B&O nor Bose offer good value for money.

**That would be YOUR opinion. For many of those who purchase B&O, it
offers
a sense of style not provided by other products and, hence, represents
good
value. Bose, OTOH, represents extremely poor value for money, since other
products can offer more for less. I suggest to you, however, that, due to
the prescence of wasteful output autoformers, that McIntosh amplifiers
represent spectacularly bad value for money.


You are triventriliquating again.

(That means you are talking out both sides of your mouth and your ass
all at the same time.)

**Prove it.


Mcintosh also has unique styling and many of its customers feel it is
the best looking line of audio equipment in the world.

**Yep. That much is true. Personally, I reckon they look incredibly dated
and clunky. However, style is a personal issue. Trouble is, you pay SO MUCH
for that style. You sure don't get any sonic gains.

Whilst I
understand the technical arguments against the autoformers as well as
anyone, they do not harm the performance of McIntosh power amplifiers
which measure very well.

**Yes, they do harm the performance of the amplifiers.

They don't sound all that superior but many
solid state and some tube amps sound even worse.

**SUre. I agree that there are even more incompetently designed producs,
than McIntosh. Not many, mind you.


I feel the McIntosh autoformers combined with tube driven (as with
Moscode) MOSFET outputs could be a very good thing.

**Why? Please provide your technical reasons to support this assertion.

I am not impressed
at all or respectful of McIntosh's reisue tube equipment, for several
reasons. I do think they should stick with solid state if they don't
believe in the genuine merit of tubes, and am certain they do not.

Since Mcintosh amplifiers are not the most expensive brand to be had
(but are certainly somewhat overpriced) one can not take excessive
umbrage at their poor value for money.

**Sure one can. If McIntosh dumped the usage of autoformers, they could
reduce their costs (and, hopefully, retail prices) significantly.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Mcintosh also has unique styling and many of its customers feel it is
the best looking line of audio equipment in the world.

**Yep. That much is true. Personally, I reckon they look incredibly dated
and clunky. However, style is a personal issue. Trouble is, you pay SO MUCH
for that style. You sure don't get any sonic gains.

And B&O style is inexpensive???? I think it looks like overt
form-over-function. Mc's look is at least something someone raised on
Altec, WE, Ampex and other serious professional equipment can relate
to.


Whilst I
understand the technical arguments against the autoformers as well as
anyone, they do not harm the performance of McIntosh power amplifiers
which measure very well.

**Yes, they do harm the performance of the amplifiers.

They still measure better than almost all their competitors. Not that,
in my opinion, it matters.

They don't sound all that superior but many
solid state and some tube amps sound even worse.

**SUre. I agree that there are even more incompetently designed producs,
than McIntosh. Not many, mind you.


I feel the McIntosh autoformers combined with tube driven (as with
Moscode) MOSFET outputs could be a very good thing.

**Why? Please provide your technical reasons to support this assertion.

It would allow McIntosh to appeal to the desire of Mc purchasers to
have vacuum tubes while providing a product which could meet the lowest
measurements of distortion, at significantly lower build cost, and
could-like the Moscode line-sound good to boot (as if that mattered.)

I am not impressed
at all or respectful of McIntosh's reisue tube equipment, for several
reasons. I do think they should stick with solid state if they don't
believe in the genuine merit of tubes, and am certain they do not.

Since Mcintosh amplifiers are not the most expensive brand to be had
(but are certainly somewhat overpriced) one can not take excessive
umbrage at their poor value for money.

**Sure one can. If McIntosh dumped the usage of autoformers, they could
reduce their costs (and, hopefully, retail prices) significantly.

They could not reduce their retail costs without lowering their
profits and prestiege in the minds of their upscale purchasers as well.
Mc prices its products according to what the market will bear at a
certain "value plateau" and designs their product for their requisite
profit margin whilst maintaining reasonable reliability and their
signature superb measurements, which along with appearance and the
prestiege of the McIntosh marque constitute the McIntosh value
proposition.

Mc's best measuring model to date was autoformerless. It was a rather
poor seller, however.

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ps.com...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...
Neither B&O nor Bose offer good value for money.

**That would be YOUR opinion. For many of those who purchase B&O, it
offers
a sense of style not provided by other products and, hence, represents
good
value. Bose, OTOH, represents extremely poor value for money, since
other
products can offer more for less. I suggest to you, however, that, due
to
the prescence of wasteful output autoformers, that McIntosh amplifiers
represent spectacularly bad value for money.

I don't want to argue the relative merits of autoformer output amps, but
does anyone know why McIntosh uses them, and what advantages they claim for
them? They must have an argument of some sort, since I know of no other
such designs.

Norm Strong

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...


Mcintosh also has unique styling and many of its customers feel it is
the best looking line of audio equipment in the world.

**Yep. That much is true. Personally, I reckon they look incredibly dated
and clunky. However, style is a personal issue. Trouble is, you pay SO
MUCH
for that style. You sure don't get any sonic gains.

And B&O style is inexpensive????

**Read my comments about B&O. We are in complete agreement about B&O.

I think it looks like overt
form-over-function.

**You're entitled to your opinion. However, B&O have always led the industry
in various technological areas. The customer pays very dearly for that
technological innovation (and the fact that the product is sourced from a
First World nation).

Mc's look is at least something someone raised on
Altec, WE, Ampex and other serious professional equipment can relate
to.

**Not with those silly output autoformers. They are akin to bolting on a
fifth wheel to a Ferrari.



Whilst I
understand the technical arguments against the autoformers as well as
anyone, they do not harm the performance of McIntosh power amplifiers
which measure very well.

**Yes, they do harm the performance of the amplifiers.

They still measure better than almost all their competitors.

**No, they do not. The autoformers see to that.

Not that,
in my opinion, it matters.

They don't sound all that superior but many
solid state and some tube amps sound even worse.

**SUre. I agree that there are even more incompetently designed producs,
than McIntosh. Not many, mind you.


I feel the McIntosh autoformers combined with tube driven (as with
Moscode) MOSFET outputs could be a very good thing.

**Why? Please provide your technical reasons to support this assertion.

It would allow McIntosh to appeal to the desire of Mc purchasers to
have vacuum tubes while providing a product which could meet the lowest
measurements of distortion, at significantly lower build cost, and
could-like the Moscode line-sound good to boot (as if that mattered.)

**I see. Kinda like bolting a few wheels to a Ferrari.


I am not impressed
at all or respectful of McIntosh's reisue tube equipment, for several
reasons. I do think they should stick with solid state if they don't
believe in the genuine merit of tubes, and am certain they do not.

Since Mcintosh amplifiers are not the most expensive brand to be had
(but are certainly somewhat overpriced) one can not take excessive
umbrage at their poor value for money.

**Sure one can. If McIntosh dumped the usage of autoformers, they could
reduce their costs (and, hopefully, retail prices) significantly.

They could not reduce their retail costs without lowering their
profits and prestiege in the minds of their upscale purchasers as well.

**The autoformers add SIGNIFICANTLY to the cost of McIntosh products. Audio
frequency transformers are expensive to manufacture, both in materials and
labour. They also add significantly to the mass of the product and offer no
performance benefits.

Mc prices its products according to what the market will bear at a
certain "value plateau"

**Really? Prove it. Do you have access to their confidential costing
systems?

and designs their product for their requisite
profit margin whilst maintaining reasonable reliability and their
signature superb measurements, which along with appearance and the
prestiege of the McIntosh marque constitute the McIntosh value
proposition.

Mc's best measuring model to date was autoformerless. It was a rather
poor seller, however.

**Which proves nothing, except that some buyers may be particularly stupid.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ps.com...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...
Neither B&O nor Bose offer good value for money.

**That would be YOUR opinion. For many of those who purchase B&O, it
offers
a sense of style not provided by other products and, hence, represents
good
value. Bose, OTOH, represents extremely poor value for money, since
other
products can offer more for less. I suggest to you, however, that, due
to
the prescence of wasteful output autoformers, that McIntosh amplifiers
represent spectacularly bad value for money.

I don't want to argue the relative merits of autoformer output amps, but
does anyone know why McIntosh uses them, and what advantages they claim
for them?

**They make the amp heavy.
* They allow McIntosh to offer a USP (Unique Selling Proposition) to
gullible consumers.
* They give McIntosh to charge more for the product.
* They have this warm, fuzzy, old fashioned 'feel' about them.

They must have an argument of some sort, since I know of no other
such designs.

**Not for the last 40 years anyway.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

B&O are 'interior design statements'.

geoff

Trevor Wilson wrote:
snip


**You're entitled to your opinion. However, B&O have always led the industry
in various technological areas. The customer pays very dearly for that
technological innovation (and the fact that the product is sourced from a
First World nation).

Several US, UK and Continental European manufactured brands are
available at much more reasonable prices than B&O (or McIntosh for
that matter.)

Mc's look is at least something someone raised on
Altec, WE, Ampex and other serious professional equipment can relate
to.

**Not with those silly output autoformers. They are akin to bolting on a
fifth wheel to a Ferrari.

Nonsense on stilts. Altec used output and interstage transformers on
several early solid state amplifiers.


snip



I am not impressed
at all or respectful of McIntosh's reisue tube equipment, for several
reasons. I do think they should stick with solid state if they don't
believe in the genuine merit of tubes, and am certain they do not.

Since Mcintosh amplifiers are not the most expensive brand to be had
(but are certainly somewhat overpriced) one can not take excessive
umbrage at their poor value for money.

**Sure one can. If McIntosh dumped the usage of autoformers, they could
reduce their costs (and, hopefully, retail prices) significantly.

They could not reduce their retail costs without lowering their
profits and prestiege in the minds of their upscale purchasers as well.

**The autoformers add SIGNIFICANTLY to the cost of McIntosh products. Audio
frequency transformers are expensive to manufacture, both in materials and
labour. They also add significantly to the mass of the product and offer no
performance benefits.

Mc prices its products according to what the market will bear at a
certain "value plateau"

**Really? Prove it. Do you have access to their confidential costing
systems?

I have friends currently employed in Binghamton, whom of course I will
not name here, but you can do your homework and find this is in line
with what Mc executives have said publicly and privately for decades.

The autoformers, and the tube Unity Coupled OPTs before them, are not
terrifically expensive because Mc wind their own on machinery
inexpensively built by themselves, by not terribly well paid
labor-female, and resembling from my trips there, Shelley Winters'
character from a pretty good movie late in her career called "Heavy". A
pair cost less than $100 in cores, wire, and labor, you may be sure,
except on the "full gallon" model.

Keep in mind low build cost has always been a core component of
McIntosh's business model. The most expensive products in their history
build-cost-wise are some of their bigger speaker systems and the
show-stoppingly superior (for its day) MR 78 tuner and even they were
built more cheaply than one might think. A person I know who has worked
at both Mc Binghamton and Rockwell Collins in Cedar Rapids once told me
that had the MR78 been built at Cedar Rapids it woulod have cost $5000
in build cost

Mc built one model of autoformerless heavy power amp and it was not
well received by buyers. Several have found their way into transformer
manufacturers' test labs, ironically, along with many autoformer SS
models and the MI-200 tube triode amp. Mc does learn from experience
pretty well.

Karl Uppiano wrote:
"Geoff@work" wrote in message
...
B&O are 'interior design statements'.

The WAF (Wife Approval Factor) is relevant in the hi-fi business...

If you let wifey carry your balls around for you that's very true.
That aside, if you are really serious about sound you need to marry one
that thinks Klipschhorns are okay decor.

On 5 Mar 2006 18:28:21 -0800, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:


Karl Uppiano wrote:
"Geoff@work" wrote in message
...
B&O are 'interior design statements'.

Luckily, they also sound very good these days.

The WAF (Wife Approval Factor) is relevant in the hi-fi business...

If you let wifey carry your balls around for you that's very true.
That aside, if you are really serious about sound you need to marry one
that thinks Klipschhorns are okay decor.

Nah, you don't really want a deaf wife...........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On 3 Mar 2006 05:02:36 -0800, "andrew_h"
wrote:

Just to clear up - I didnt at any stage mean to infer that Bose and B&O
are equal on all levels.... just that both have niche markets I guess -
or both have something of a cult status with certain buyers.

I know people who swear black and blue by bose .. Also, the brand image
with alot of people (who don't know a great deal about sound and sound
quality) would instantly think "must be great" if its Bose.

Who are B&O's main competitors??? Do they have any real out-and-out
competitors ?

Can't think of any that aren't actually in jail.

B&O and Bose are very similar operations, they just operate in
different sectors of the market. Image is everything.

**Not even close. B&O actually innovate (or have innovated), whilst Bose
merely takes the ideas of others, patents them through the hopelessly inept
US Patent Office and litigates vigorously when it sees the need. More
importantly and fundamentally, B&O is a public company, whose records are
available for all to see. The profit margins are able to be seen, for those
with a forensic eye for financial detail in a balance sheet. Bose, OTOH, is
a private company. NO information is available to the public. Only Bose and
the IRS know what is going on (and I doubt the IRS knows the true story).
Bose is a secret and closed entity, solely geared to lining the pockets of
Dr Amar Bose with as much money as can be taken from gullible consumers.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
snip


**You're entitled to your opinion. However, B&O have always led the
industry
in various technological areas. The customer pays very dearly for that
technological innovation (and the fact that the product is sourced from a
First World nation).

Several US, UK and Continental European manufactured brands are
available at much more reasonable prices than B&O (or McIntosh for
that matter.)

**Sure. However, I have not seen any product which quite matches B&O's sense
of style. Style, of course, being a completely personal issue.


Mc's look is at least something someone raised on
Altec, WE, Ampex and other serious professional equipment can relate
to.

**Not with those silly output autoformers. They are akin to bolting on a
fifth wheel to a Ferrari.

Nonsense on stilts. Altec used output and interstage transformers on
several early solid state amplifiers.

**The operative words being: ".....several EARLY solid state amplifiers."
(My emphasis). In the early days, solid state amplification was expensive
(transformers were cheaper than transistors), direct coupling was not often
used and, more importantly, the current capabilites of power transistors was
seriously limited. Transformers were necessary to allow reasonable current
into laods, without adding extra (very expensive) output transistors.

Things are very different now. Direct coupling and the low cost of
transistors renders coupling transformers unnecessary. The low cost of
providing high currents, at high Voltages renders output transformers
completely superfluous. All they do is add mass, cost and volume. They also
damage performance.



snip



I am not impressed
at all or respectful of McIntosh's reisue tube equipment, for
several
reasons. I do think they should stick with solid state if they don't
believe in the genuine merit of tubes, and am certain they do not.

Since Mcintosh amplifiers are not the most expensive brand to be had
(but are certainly somewhat overpriced) one can not take excessive
umbrage at their poor value for money.

**Sure one can. If McIntosh dumped the usage of autoformers, they
could
reduce their costs (and, hopefully, retail prices) significantly.

They could not reduce their retail costs without lowering their
profits and prestiege in the minds of their upscale purchasers as well.

**The autoformers add SIGNIFICANTLY to the cost of McIntosh products.
Audio
frequency transformers are expensive to manufacture, both in materials
and
labour. They also add significantly to the mass of the product and offer
no
performance benefits.

Mc prices its products according to what the market will bear at a
certain "value plateau"

**Really? Prove it. Do you have access to their confidential costing
systems?

I have friends currently employed in Binghamton, whom of course I will
not name here, but you can do your homework and find this is in line
with what Mc executives have said publicly and privately for decades.

**Lack of response duly noted.


The autoformers, and the tube Unity Coupled OPTs before them, are not
terrifically expensive because Mc wind their own on machinery
inexpensively built by themselves, by not terribly well paid
labor-female, and resembling from my trips there, Shelley Winters'
character from a pretty good movie late in her career called "Heavy". A
pair cost less than $100 in cores, wire, and labor, you may be sure,
except on the "full gallon" model.

**Which is around US$90.00 more than the output transistors which could be
used instead.


Keep in mind low build cost has always been a core component of
McIntosh's business model.

**Nope. I have a reasonable idea of how much things cost to build. McIntosh
amps are not cheap to build.

The most expensive products in their history
build-cost-wise are some of their bigger speaker systems and the
show-stoppingly superior (for its day) MR 78 tuner and even they were
built more cheaply than one might think. A person I know who has worked
at both Mc Binghamton and Rockwell Collins in Cedar Rapids once told me
that had the MR78 been built at Cedar Rapids it woulod have cost $5000
in build cost

Mc built one model of autoformerless heavy power amp and it was not
well received by buyers. Several have found their way into transformer
manufacturers' test labs, ironically, along with many autoformer SS
models and the MI-200 tube triode amp. Mc does learn from experience
pretty well.

**McIntosh know how to milk money form gullible consumers, by providing a
USP that other amps do not have. Nothing more.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ps.com...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...
Neither B&O nor Bose offer good value for money.

**That would be YOUR opinion. For many of those who purchase B&O, it
offers
a sense of style not provided by other products and, hence, represents
good
value. Bose, OTOH, represents extremely poor value for money, since
other
products can offer more for less. I suggest to you, however, that, due
to
the prescence of wasteful output autoformers, that McIntosh amplifiers
represent spectacularly bad value for money.

I don't want to argue the relative merits of autoformer output amps, but
does anyone know why McIntosh uses them, and what advantages they claim
for them?

**They make the amp heavy.
* They allow McIntosh to offer a USP (Unique Selling Proposition) to
gullible consumers.
* They give McIntosh to charge more for the product.
* They have this warm, fuzzy, old fashioned 'feel' about them.

C'mon Trevor, there must be some plausible excuse. I can't believe the
McIntosh design team got together and agreed on the arguments you mentioned.
They must have some technical reason for this design. After all, they could
have made it heavier by just using a bigger power xfmr.

Is it possible that an autoformer was the way they chose to secure the same
ouput power at any load impedance, instead of the usual constant voltage
out, which would make the maximum output inversely proportional to the load
Z? That has a sensible ring to it. Instead of X watts out into 8 ohms and
2X into 4 ohms, they can offer a unform power output at any nominal load Z.

What do you think?

Norm

wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ps.com...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...
Neither B&O nor Bose offer good value for money.

**That would be YOUR opinion. For many of those who purchase B&O, it
offers
a sense of style not provided by other products and, hence,
represents good
value. Bose, OTOH, represents extremely poor value for money, since
other
products can offer more for less. I suggest to you, however, that,
due to
the prescence of wasteful output autoformers, that McIntosh
amplifiers
represent spectacularly bad value for money.

I don't want to argue the relative merits of autoformer output amps, but
does anyone know why McIntosh uses them, and what advantages they claim
for them?

**They make the amp heavy.
* They allow McIntosh to offer a USP (Unique Selling Proposition) to
gullible consumers.
* They give McIntosh to charge more for the product.
* They have this warm, fuzzy, old fashioned 'feel' about them.

C'mon Trevor, there must be some plausible excuse.

**Why? What is wrong with my reasons? They are perfectly valid and some can
be used to excuse the existence of some tube amps (notably SETs).

I can't believe the
McIntosh design team got together and agreed on the arguments you
mentioned. They must have some technical reason for this design. After
all, they could have made it heavier by just using a bigger power xfmr.

**I provided FOUR reasons, not one.


Is it possible that an autoformer was the way they chose to secure the
same ouput power at any load impedance, instead of the usual constant
voltage out, which would make the maximum output inversely proportional to
the load Z? That has a sensible ring to it.

**Not to any sane person. Speakers are not resistors. Speakers (usually)
present a lot of reactive components in their impedance characteristic. A
transformer is exactly what is NOT needed.

Instead of X watts out into 8 ohms and
2X into 4 ohms, they can offer a unform power output at any nominal load
Z.

**In the real world, even that does not apply. Transformers REFLECT the
impedance of the load into the amplifier.


What do you think?

**I think my reasons are perfectly valid and logical.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson wrote:

I don't want to argue the relative merits of autoformer output amps, but
does anyone know why McIntosh uses them, and what advantages they claim
for them?

**They make the amp heavy.
* They allow McIntosh to offer a USP (Unique Selling Proposition) to
gullible consumers.
* They give McIntosh to charge more for the product.
* They have this warm, fuzzy, old fashioned 'feel' about them.

C'mon Trevor, there must be some plausible excuse.

**Why? What is wrong with my reasons? They are perfectly valid and some can
be used to excuse the existence of some tube amps (notably SETs).

I can't believe the
McIntosh design team got together and agreed on the arguments you
mentioned. They must have some technical reason for this design. After
all, they could have made it heavier by just using a bigger power xfmr.

**I provided FOUR reasons, not one.


Is it possible that an autoformer was the way they chose to secure the
same ouput power at any load impedance, instead of the usual constant
voltage out, which would make the maximum output inversely proportional to
the load Z? That has a sensible ring to it.

**Not to any sane person. Speakers are not resistors. Speakers (usually)
present a lot of reactive components in their impedance characteristic. A
transformer is exactly what is NOT needed.

Instead of X watts out into 8 ohms and
2X into 4 ohms, they can offer a unform power output at any nominal load
Z.

It's an assumption that a speaker is the load. A safe one today, but
in McIntosh history a LOT of Mc amps were sold to drive motors, small
shake tables, load coils, and a cornucopia of weird loads. Some of
those had bizarre characteristics.

The solid state autoformer circuit was developed back then and they
have stuck with it. Attempts on their part to get away from it have
been met with buyer resistance. Mc sells their customers what they
want, within limits.

The fact is the Mc amplifier is a successful product at an excellent
profit margin whether or not you like it, Trevor. They will probably be
building them after both of us are dead and buried, so I'd just get
over it.

Mc electronics are not cheap compared with typical mass market
consumer equipment but as compared to military or telecom grade
equipment or first tier test equipment it's obvious many cost cutting
measures are used. Electrolytics are a consumer grade, the chassis is
bent up of prechromed mild steel and silkscreened rather than aluminum
sandcast or extrusion or a welded steel then polished and triple plated
and engraved or stamped. Circuit boards are the common fiberglass and
not conformal coated. Wire is the common stuff and passives, caps and
resistors, are the regular kind and no high dollar audiophile parts are
used even where all other "high end" manufacturers do. Tube models are
built with power tubes on the PCB, which is quite objectionable. Output
is by open binding posts even on models that could put lethal voltages
on them. A Mark Levinson or Rowland or Krell by contrast uses much
better parts and more expensive chassis, not that the sound necessarily
benefits, buit the build cost is higher. In my opinion, in these price
classes construction should rival Tek scopes of Vollum vintage, Collins
avionics, telco CO equipment. Mc is more reminiscent of Fender guitar
amps or early 60s Zenith TVs.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

Mc electronics are not cheap compared with typical mass market
consumer equipment but as compared to military or telecom grade
equipment or first tier test equipment it's obvious many cost cutting
measures are used. Electrolytics are a consumer grade, the chassis is
bent up of prechromed mild steel and silkscreened rather than aluminum
sandcast or extrusion or a welded steel then polished and triple plated
and engraved or stamped. Circuit boards are the common fiberglass and
not conformal coated. Wire is the common stuff and passives, caps and
resistors, are the regular kind and no high dollar audiophile parts are
used even where all other "high end" manufacturers do. Tube models are
built with power tubes on the PCB, which is quite objectionable. Output
is by open binding posts even on models that could put lethal voltages
on them. A Mark Levinson or Rowland or Krell by contrast uses much
better parts and more expensive chassis, not that the sound necessarily
benefits, buit the build cost is higher. In my opinion, in these price
classes construction should rival Tek scopes of Vollum vintage, Collins
avionics, telco CO equipment. Mc is more reminiscent of Fender guitar
amps or early 60s Zenith TVs.


Do you actually WORK for McIntosh, or just suck their cocks ?

geoff