There's another element which plays a role: the fact that B&O speakers are active, and that the interconnects are proprietary.

HiFi lives handsomely off the profits generated by the sales of interconnects (manufacturing cost minimal - sales price astronomical), and the B&O range of speakers stands outside this category completely.
Some decades ago, B&O was actually leading the HiFi field with a number of their products, driving development, and it was impossible for the magazines to ignore them. Today, B&O is in its own category, seen with their eyes. HiFi-fashion is about matching equipment, and people will mix components and interconnects from a large number of manufacturers - that's not available to them with B&O, or at least B&O makes it harder than it has to be.

Many of the HiFi faithful are dead set against Class-D amplifier technology, and are simply unwilling to accept that it can produce good sound. Which leads to some amusing shenanigans, such as when Rotel put their Class-D (ICEpower) amplifiers inside another cabinet, and reviewers were ecstatic about the sound, until told it was Class-D they were ecstatic about.

And then B&O itself is also to blame. They have not stressed the audiophile quality of their products, in spite of comparing them against some of the world's leading audiophile brands in their own listening rooms, and B&O coming out on top.
Instead, B&O have sold their products as design articles and "furniture" - which makes it hard for serious HiFi-reviewers to get their head around what B&O is selling.
Add to this the fact that B&O doesn't really spend much time telling people how to set up for proper sound, instead saying that acoustic-lens equipped speakers "can be placed wherever you want," and one is left wondering what a reviewer is to make of it all?

If B&O had launched the acoustic lenses as an audiophile revolution, back in 2003, and instructed their dealers to set up the speakers correctly, using the side walls for reflection as intended, then audiophiles would have been forced to visit their B&O dealers to find out what the fuss was all about. Incorrect, unbalanced setups of acoustic lens equipped speakers is actually not very good at all - which resulted in a lot of those who were curious coming away with the wrong impression.

Shooting foot at close range, in a sense!

I have seen and read many tests the last 6 years in magazines.

Like:

-BV7 was tested 3 times in German magazine VIDEO.

-BV7 tested in WhatHiFi or Hifi World

-BeoLab 3 was tested do not remember the magazine

-BeoLab 9 was tested in German magazine Stereo and in WhatHiFi or Hifi World

-BeoLab 5 was tested in German magazine AUDIO and in WhatHiFi or Hifi World

-BeoSound 5 was tested, do not remember the magazine

I have archived the German magazines at home, so I can help you depending on your German skills.

What test are you interested in? Possibly I can write you the conclusions.

Regards, Robert

Don't forget that a lot of people have probably seen a dozen B&O's in their life, but haven't noticed them or haven't seen the fact that they were B&O's.

Hint: Quite a few people on these boards probably have a piece of the Battlestar Galactica set in their living room as the main CD audio system. 😁

Point is, B&O may not get as much media attention as the 'major' brands like Samsung/Philips/Sony or higher range hardware like Pioneer, H&K, Onkyo, Marantz and the like, but that doesn't make it overpriced, bad equipment. B&O has done a lot of research in ICEpower -- a system that is found in automotive stereos (Audi, Mercedes, Volvo) as well as recent PA systems (alongside Powersoft), so there's a lot of B&O you can find behind the scenes.

To me, the fact that a B&O looks stylish, nice and often gets unnoticed as a stereo system because it blends in so well, and has a lot of intelligent technical gadgets under the hood of which you might not even think, is jus the charm of the brand. It works like it should, without attracting attention and screaming 'I've got money, so look at my shiny B&O set!'

A lot of the factors have already been mentioned, including the fact that if you do sell a product for well over a decade, such as BeoLab 6000, well, then any reviews are going to be at least a decade old!

Another factor must be the wiring, don't you think?  In a decade when tens of millions of people have been scammed and fooled into buying hundred and thousand-dollar "oxygen free, pure copper" runs of wiring of cable as thick as my fingers... B&O has idiosyncratically kept on selling comparably spidery thin BeoLink and PowerLink cables.

In fact B&O is intrinsically different from any other manufacturer.  I keep thinking it is a miracle they are still around, but I hope it remains an enduring miracle.

@ Multimedia Robert

Thank you my friend but as i said, i was speaking generally and by not means meant that i cannot find it anywhere. The points that are mentioned here are more than enough to explain the reason. I am just disturbed by the fact that some ''HIFI EXPERTS'' would not think as audiophile a B&O owner...

Hifi= uncompromised High Fidelity component products. Their only purpose is to sound good!

B&O= Lifestyle products. The purpose is to look good and blend in to your home and have a decant performance.

It´s your choice to decide witch is the most important for you.

This is a fact that b&o stands behind.

Regards

malcolm welborn wrote:

very simple its business, does matter what market your in, reviews of products preference given to company advertising in their mag i was inthe food industry same applied

Very very wrong. This is my industry and I can tell you that this does *not* happen. I think it's a basic assumption from readers.

What is more likely to happen is that advertisers are the most pro-active people to send product in for review, as they want to get value-for-money for their paid-for adverts. They get their kit in first, call to see if it has been received etc etc.

Magazine companies are lazy. They often do not pro-actively go after kit. They wait for it to be sent to them. If it's not sent, or they are now allow to use it for a while, it's often no reviewed.

Yes, reviewers may *choose* the products they review, too, if there are too many products to feature in the mag. But I can tell you that 99.9% of of reviewers have no clue about the adverts in the mag - most of our tech reviewers don't work in the office, as an example.

Most advertisers are aware that their advert can't influence editorial. If it did, and there was massive bias, then there are various laws to protect against this.

a lot of it is that bno don't fit into their hidden flat earth agenda

tbh a lot of the twaddle hi-fi mags come out with is pure 'the king is in the all together' dross

external power mains and scratching lines on your plugs , adding plastic green tabs and putting everything on marble to improve the sound

crazy

Last week B&O was mentioned on Topgear.

Jeremy Clarkson was mentioning about the option of B&O as a sound system for Audi.

He made it sound like a gimmick about the raising speakers on the dashboard and wondered about the interior of the equipment.

"It just B&O on the outside and Philips inside, isn't it?"

So, that helps a lot. A common misunderstanding which everyone seems to know if I'm asked about B&O and strengthened on the national tv.

Far more brands uses Philips components like more cars uses the same tyres, leather, paint etc.

I think B&O has to do a bit more of advertising explaining that behind the design there excistes a own design of technique and software in used i.e. (panasonic.samsung) flatpanels.

Mayby this does effect the prejudiced thoughts of journalists.

Also inaccurate as very little is Philips these days! Still, JC is a big B&O fan, so he can't be all bad!