Talk:Bang & Olufsen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Denmark (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Brands (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


This article is incredibly POV, and reads like either corporate fellatio or advertising copy.

Agreed. —Vespristiano 20:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Copy edited, hopefully it is OK now, so I removed the {{bias}} tag. If you disagree put it back on, please.--Nabla 00:08, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
Most of Bang & Olufsen's gear has nothing to do with high-end, especially the turntables with their sub-par moving iron cartridges. There is even a thread in the "Beogram" section of the Beoworld forums in which Beogram owners advise against the purchase of a used Beogram turntable, considering the competition from other companies. Only B&O's most expensive loudspeakers, TV sets and the ICEpower digital amplification modules are close to their high-end competition. The thread is this one: [1], in which I requested advice on whether I should buy a used Beogram or opt for something else from the competitive companies' ranges; and the competition's turntables in my shopping list are just entry-level machines. As for the Beocenters, they are NOT considered audiophile at all. Furthermore, wikipedia entries are supposed to be neutral and sticking to facts rather than based on personal admiration for something. --Elp_gr

This issue is like discussing whether strawberrys or raspberries are best. However I think everyone can agree that B&O makes high quality (albeit maybe not enthusiast level) equipment, that may be more expensive than similiar quality other products. However they generally look great, and this is part of what you pay for.
B&O certainly does make high-end products - but it is famous for design - not electronics. Celcius 23:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I cleaned it up and did some wikifying. If it is still not in compliance with NPOV please re-insert dispute tag. Celcius 00:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I recommend phoning a hi-fi mag and asking the reviewers... Elp gr 23:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

About what? I agree with Celcius; famous for design in most of its products, although lately they have achieved respect for ICEPower digital amp modules and their newest speakers. Lgreen 18:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the comment about the Beogram turntables is un-called for. The thread on Beoworld was an honest response to a query as to whether a Beogram would be a good match to an audiophile system. The models that were asked about were of a lightweight design and an honest opinion was given that a newer deck would be preferable and easier to get parts and cartridges for than a model that was made over ten years previously. Beograms have been well reviewed in the press over the years. Hi-Fi Choice no. 18 of 1980 lists the Beogram 2200 as recommended and the Beogram 4002/4 as worth considering despite the latter being more expensive than the Linn Sondek motor unit. Equally the B&O cartridge range was reviewed in Hi-Fi Choice no. 28 of 1982, and three of the range of four were worthy of recommendation, with extremely positive reviews. B&O are often slated for being a triumph of style over substance, but their turntables are held in high regard for the most part, with a proper three point suspension sub chassis and superb build quality. Even now B&O take great pride in their testing and have one of the largest anechoic chambers in Europe, the Cube, and all products are subject to test by a listening panel before release. (source - Vision and Legend - Jens Bang ISBN 87-987865-1-2) Yes, B&O is expensive, but it is aimed at a particular place in the market - very successfully! Peter@beoworld 21:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed the furniture part, the companies B&O and BO Concept are not related. /mikkel

Perhaps someone should mention the BeoSound 9000 (, which is probably one of their most recognizable products, appearing in tons of movies and TV shows. Also, there should probably be mention of their CD players with the sliding glass doors (motion activated).

I must state that a of 2 September 2007, the article, especially its lead paragraph reads like a brochure. Shouldn't we change this? Wideeyedraven 05:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it needed some work. However, the part about the listening panel was worth keeping because it's an unusual practice. Rivertorch 22:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know about a B&O exhibit at MOMA? Did the BeoMaster 1900 go on display there?

History section needed[edit]

Perhaps the most obvious question not answered in this entry is: Who are Bang and Olufsen? --Navstar 00:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed marketing copy[edit]

I removed the section reproduced below, because it reads like blatant ad copy. The term "B&O Sphere" is clearly a marketing term, and unless someone can show that it holds large currency outside promotional material, it has no place in an encyclopedia article. All that stuff about their elite psychoacoustic panel is similarly just fluff, and the talk about the efforts made by the "heads of audio and video" reads like a prospectus.

Bang & Olufsen's audio department today describes this as placing the original performance inside a "B&O Sphere" where it remains intact as it is conveyed through various items of hardware, until it reaches the listener or viewer. True sound and image, as the artists intended it, is therefore the goal of B&O's product development.
This is best exemplified through their use of ears and eyes in determining the exact technical specifications of their equipment. The heads of audio and video both delve deep into the physiology and psychology of hearing and vision, and B&O have always placed psychoacoustics before hard technology in its work with sound, for instance. To this purpose, the company maintains a panel of B&O Golden Ears, who are part of the development process. These Golden Ears go to a minimum of twenty-five live concerts each year, and judge audio products with the goal of experiencing the sound, emotions and psychology of the live performance.
For this reason, B&O engineers may actually change the technical specifications of their audio systems and speakers, even if the measurements are technically correct, if the Golden Ears indicate that "it doesn't sound right."

If there are any notable facts that I have removed here, feel free to replace them. --Slashme 05:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right—it did sound like ad copy. Having a designated "Golden Ears" listening team is, however, a practice that is unique to B&O, as far as I'm aware, so it's valid to mention. I'm going to try to rework this section a bit. Rivertorch 18:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It does seem much improved, good job! I still feel a bit itchy about the whole "B&O Sphere" schtick, but I'm not dogmatic on that issue.--Slashme 06:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's back. Are B&O marketers violating use rules? Juanolator 17:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


As one of the main selling points of B&O is their industrial design, the article could do with a non-copyrighted picture or two of some of the more influential designs. And please, you B&O ad executives, if you're reading this, note: non-copyrighted, and no, that doesn't mean a gallery of 20 pictures! --Slashme 06:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could incorporate the Beocom 2 picture from the article of the same name. It's not a bad picture, and is one of Bang & Olufsen's more recognizable products of the 21st century.(Myscrnnm 08:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

Bang & Olufsen Medicom[edit]

The reason I came here in the first place was the following article: New inhaler launched

Who are B&O Medicom, and are they connected with the audio company? --Slashme 06:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, here is the link: B&O Medicom. I've got to get back to my day job, so I'll leave it up to someone else to add the info ;-). --Slashme 06:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Noise Reduction[edit]

I once heard that B&O developed a noise reduction system for tape systems, which was later known as Dolby C. Though I did not find any reference to this in either article. Can anyone enlighten me (and, if apropiate, edit the article) concerning this rumor? --Klaws 11:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No, what B&O did develop was the HX-PRO system for tape. HX-PRO is not a noise reduction system, it alters the record bias according to the high frequency content of the music being recorded. The net result is improved frequency response.

Spam: beocollectors[edit]

Someone in France with a dynamic IP keeps adding a link to the web site, also in France. This is a site whose primary purpose is clearly commercial, not informational. I have tagged the section and would appreciate help from others who watch this page in deleting it when it appears. In the extremely unlikely event that the spammer is behaving this way out of ignorance but reads talk pages, a friendly note to him/her: your link is inappropriate; please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's spam policies. Rivertorch 02:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we can temporary request for protection for this page to prevent the anonymous user from adding that link. Blindwaves

I've posted second and third warnings. Let's see if we need a fourth: if so, then it's time to report the user. Page protection may be possible, as may a block on the IP range in question and other measures. Thanks for helping with this. Rivertorch 15:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Fourth warning issued. WP vandal-reporting database locked for maintenance right now; I'll make report later today. Rivertorch 17:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


Article still has issues - particularily lead section is too adverty - reads like advertorial..FengRail (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a crack at it.Bruno23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC).
Thanks, I've replaced the tag with a cleanup one - the article is not embarressing now.
One issue is claims that B&O have some sort of special design - repeated (I removed a few) across the article - I accept that the products are a bit different - but claims of "cutting edge industrial design" will be nuked from space :)FengRail (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
It could be argued with some evidence that some of their products are recognized icons of modern design. I think the Museum of Modern Art in NYC has one of their stereos on display. Let me see if I can find references to support that.Bruno23 (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
See [2]. Not supported by a cite, but I personal recall seeing part of that collection myself.Bruno23 (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes (and no) - there's no doubt that B&O products have a design and are collectable, but sometimes being different isn't the same as being very good. - My particular point here is one of long term notability - if the products were still in the museum I would not argue, but a decade or two later - it becomes clear (opinion) that the stuff is good - but nothing special in terms of design/art (though build quality and longlevity of products is another thing).
(It could be argued that the Museum of modern art has a massive collection too..)
eg the Beolab5 is a stunning thing - but in 10 years - will it just be another odd looking B&O product.
By the way here's a ref
I've no issue with including info about products that have been exhibited as you described above, if referencable. But would like to proceed with caution as far in terms of hyperbole and praise in the article.
The article had a lot of trompery WP:puffery, now gone, i'd like to avoid it in future.
Some older products now look like 'tacky 80s design' - it could be argued that this is due to imitation by others - denegrating the design.
That said (long winded) - are there any particular products that stand out as icons - if you can name them I'll try to find references.

By the way - I've finished my attempt at a tidy - still a few unreferenced outstanding, and please look at the "business and products" section - I tried to clear it a bit - but think it could be presented better. That's me done for today.FengRail (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet work[edit]

This article is mentioned in a sockpuppet investigation. Wow. This article has been up since 2005. And for just as long, there have been accusations of puffery and promotion -- as well as arguments on the talk page about the relative quality of the company's products. Now, instead of attacking the article, the editors are being called into question. This article, like every other, could stand improvement. I'm afraid that as in the case of Hollywood Reporter's list of 1947, the investigation will tar this article with a a broad brush. That would be a shame. Rhadow (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)