Sub-forums

[John Duncan]

Maybe there should be a sub-forum for legacy separates and passive speakers.

Maybe we'll do that when active speaker manufacturers have a turnover that matches B&W's £140m.

 

[jacking]

Exacttly!

 

[Covenanter]

This often solves the blank post problem: Http://windows.microsoft.com/en-GB/internet-explorer/use-compatibility-view#ie=ie-10

I know about compatibility mode but it doesn't solve all the issues.

Chris

 

[John Duncan]

Which issues does it not solve?

 

[Clare Newsome]

Maybe there should be a sub-forum for legacy separates and passive speakers.

Maybe we'll do that when active speaker manufacturers have a turnover that matches B&W's £140m.

B&O's turnover last year was £148m - does that count? ;-)

 

[John Duncan]

Maybe there should be a sub-forum for legacy separates and passive speakers.

Maybe we'll do that when active speaker manufacturers have a turnover that matches B&W's £140m.

B&O's turnover last year was £148m - does that count? ;-)

Founded in 1925 - isn't that about as legacy as it gets? :-D

 

[Covenanter]

Which issues does it not solve?

It doesn't solve the inability to scroll down a long post, for example if you quote something longer than the text box you can use the scroll bar to get to the bottom but when you release the mouse button it flips back to the top like it's on elastic! I don't think it cures the "Subject longer than 64 characters" thing either but that seems to be purely random.

Chris

 

[visionary]

I thought turnover was something you did with vinyl. Shouldn't that be in the turntables sub-forum >-)

 

[jcbrum]

Having had a quick look at current B&W stuff, it would seem their biggest sellers are actives.

 

[chebby]

Having had a quick look at current B&W stuff, it would seem their biggest sellers are actives.

Apparently not (from a recent thread) ...

In 2011 the ipod dock and headphone side of B&W turned over about £35million with £97million for loud speakers.

Of course that ratio could have changed since the end of 2011, but I doubt it's changed much.

 

[jcbrum]

Founded in 1925 - isn't that about as legacy as it gets? :-D

Hmmm, according to their website, B&W was founded in 1966 by John Bowers following a bequest of £10,000 from a Miss Knight, for whom he had made a pair of loudspeakers.

JC

 

[chebby]

Founded in 1925 - isn't that about as legacy as it gets? :-D

Hmmm, according to their website, B&W was founded in 1966 by John Bowers following a bequest of £10,000 from a Miss Knight, for whom he had made a pair of loudspeakers.

JC

He was talking about B&O - in response to Clare - not about B&W.

(B&O started in 1925).

Admittedly the nested quotes - along with similar 'B&' prefixed brand names - can make it a bit confusing at first glance.

 

[jcbrum]

Ah, right.

The iPod stuff is just Zepplins, and so on, but turnover is not the same as unit product sales, which represent individual customer preferences and purchases much more accurately.

Without that qualification, the question of turnover does not represent the volume of readership of forum member potential interest.

JC

 

[chebby]

The iPod stuff is just Zepplins, and so on, but turnover is not the same as unit product sales, which represent individual customer preferences and purchases much more accurately.

B&W's Z2, A5, A7 and 'Zeppelin Air' cost £329, £399, £699 and £499 respectively. (Not exactly cheap by the standards of most iPod docks.)

These prices stack up against those of some of B&W's smaller 600 and CM series speakers.

I would speculate that the biggest factor accounting for the ratio of B&W passive products vs active systems would be the A/V system buyer who is buying 5 (or even more) of the passive speakers at a time.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Ah, right.

The iPod stuff is just Zepplins, and so on, but turnover is not the same as unit product sales, which represent individual customer preferences and purchases much more accurately.

Without that qualification, the question of turnover does not represent the volume of readership of forum member potential interest.

JC

Well, there is a specialist active speaker forum which has a massive membership of just over 2000 members, and this after several years. Of those members, at least five are regularly on line - if that doesn't represent consumer interest, what does?

 

[jcbrum]

Bitter, Lemon ?

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Not bad, JCB, whatever else you might be, you have a good sense of humour!

 

[John Duncan]

The iPod stuff is just Zepplins, and so on, but turnover is not the same as unit product sales, which represent individual customer preferences and purchases much more accurately.

B&W's Z2, A5, A7 and 'Zeppelin Air' cost £329, £399, £699 and £499 respectively. (Not exactly cheap by the standards of most iPod docks.)

These prices stack up against those of some of B&W's smaller 600 and CM series speakers.

I would speculate that the biggest factor accounting for the ratio of B&W passive products vs active systems would be the A/V system buyer who is buying 5 (or even more) of the passive speakers at a time.

I disagree. I would speculate that the biggest factor accounting for the ratio of B&W speakers vs active systems is people actually buying them.

 

[jcbrum]

You raise an interesting point, upon which I'm trying to dig out some data.

I suspect the turnover figure quoted was actually $US 140m but it derives from a newspaper article which quoted the total retail sales figures.

Those figures for retail sales will be nothing like the manufacturing company's turnover output which will be much lower, because of the added costs of distribution and dealer markups, which in the case of B&W are astronomically large. Possibly the manufacturers turnover amounts to less than a third of the retail price.

Also B&W's Group is a Canadian company, irrc, which includes Classe and Rotel. Only one or two models are made in the UK, with the majority of manufacture in the Far East. British purchasers will be tiny compared to US, Pacific rim, and other European countries, but expensive loudspeakers sell best to a world market if they have a British connection.

I have asked a colleague if he can provide a better level of knowledge on these matters.

JC

 

[altruistic.lemon]

And the colleague would be??

Answers on a postcard to JCBrum, c/- AJ, Nailsworth, Gloucs.

Any chance of getting back on topic?

 

[chebby]

JC, why are you so determined to find any way you can to diminish the reported figures for B&W's business? (Especially that portion selling 'legacy' or 'traditional' or 'passive' products.)

Personally I applaud B&W for keeping their business thriving, whatever their mix of product types happens to be, and whatever sectors/age-groups/geographies/lifestyles/technologies they are aimed at.

I am keeping an eye on B&W to see what they might come out with next in their 'A' and 'Z' series active systems. The A7 tempts me and I would like to see a similarly sized 'Z' model too. (A bigger & better featured version of the Z2 or an A9 with more comprehensive DSP modes maybe?)

If it's under a grand and all in one box and looks/sounds great then I could be tempted.

I'd love to - eventually - get rid of seperate speakers and free up yet another couple of square metres of floor to put something more useful/interesting there instead (or just enjoy a bit more space for it's own sake).

 

[John Duncan]

Classe and Rotel

legacy ftw!

 

[John Duncan]

Which issues does it not solve?

It doesn't solve the inability to scroll down a long post, for example if you quote something longer than the text box you can use the scroll bar to get to the bottom but when you release the mouse button it flips back to the top like it's on elastic! I don't think it cures the "Subject longer than 64 characters" thing either but that seems to be purely random.

Chris

OK. Not sure about the first bit, but useful in case anybofy technical ever reads here...

The second bit is a defect. The original post is allowed to have a title of greater than 64 characters, but responses are not. Yes, it's stupid. Yes, we noticed before we launched the website. No, we didn't do anything about it.

 

[Alec]

and one for Actives that I could ignore.

Problem is that actives would likely still be recommended on the regular (passive) HiFi forum, so you wouldn't be able to completely ignore them.

Aye, cables too.

 

[Covenanter]

Which issues does it not solve?

It doesn't solve the inability to scroll down a long post, for example if you quote something longer than the text box you can use the scroll bar to get to the bottom but when you release the mouse button it flips back to the top like it's on elastic! I don't think it cures the "Subject longer than 64 characters" thing either but that seems to be purely random.

Chris

OK. Not sure about the first bit, but useful in case anybofy technical ever reads here...

The second bit is a defect. The original post is allowed to have a title of greater than 64 characters, but responses are not. Yes, it's stupid. Yes, we noticed before we launched the website. No, we didn't do anything about it.

That's not quite the 64 character defect! Many replies are bounced when their titles are very short, it just thinks they are >64. You just delete a bit and it is happy.

Chris