[NQVHNWI]

Well I wish I could have parsed it as well as you Mee.

[NQVHNWI]

And…???

My last response was about the electrical engineering design of a product….power in to digital amplification power out.

Batteries are going to vary in terms of power delivery. But further, is there anywhere where in the B&O specs that says the Halo should last +48hrs? It may be fully on, communicating with something (or trying to communicate with something) and uses just as much power sitting alone as it does with User interaction?

Is this perceived lack of battery life down to the electrical engineering design – or the realisation of poor software (i.e. I hear the Theatre will be receiving an update shortly which will stop it continually chattering with BeoRemotes – to improve battery life).

I think the two issues are separate and distinct. One should not (I believe) worry about the Power Supply delivery on the A5 with listed Sonic power output power of the A5. They are different numbers, derived from different methodologies/applications.

Finally, if the A2 only gave 2hrs playback and nowhere near 24hrs, I would return it as a dud.

[NQVHNWI]

cds wrote:

The power supply concerns me a little – the output is rated at a combined 280W RMS and yet it appears that the USB-C module can only handle 45W. This was apparently an issue with the Beolit 17 (and I’m assuming the 20, too), whereby the battery would actually drain at high volume levels while the unit is connected to a charger – the result being that speaker goes into low-power mode and reduces volume considerably. The Beolit is “only” 70W RMS, so the gap between input and potential output is even greater with the A5. I know it’s unlikely the unit would output a sustained 280W, but the 45W threshold is quite low in comparison. That said, the battery is larger on this than the Beolit so perhaps it’s enough of a buffer that the problem rarely presents itself. I’m interested to hear about real-world use.

I think we are over-thinking the specs and assuming B&O have not been doing their own Electrical Engineering?

Im sure the A5 can play pretty loud all day connected to the designed power source. Im sure they specify a playback volume and battery life hours as a pseudo metric. Where and how the watts are applied makes a difference and Im too lazy to work out the sound pressure to convert to a watts output.

Think of the BL90. 8200 Watts of digital amplification per speaker. It only does goes this high at full chat for a brief moment in time. If it were sustained, it would melt the power sockets and plugs, electrical power cord etc… Rather, the onboard power supply has an input power, and output power and a degree of integral electrical storage (either the power modules or capacitors etc..) to ride out the loud passages of high music output.

I would relax, go and listen to it, decide if it suits your usage needs or not and buy/dont buy. But I would not for one minute think that B&O don’t know what they are doing power-management wise.

 

 

 

 

[NQVHNWI]

Normann wrote:

OK, thanks. I was hoping that I could use a better DAC that’s in my pc.. That’s why I bought a Audioquest Dragonfly so I could use that instead my pc as an Roon endpoint. (when listening with headphones f.e) Really hope that BO could be a Roon Ready product soon.. I then have to reconsider what I should do with the A5, sadly as it really is a good speaker with nice punch.

Normann,

With all due respect to you and your equipment selection is that there is a need to buy into a “system”. I think it is unreasonable that some OEM produces a quality entry-level product with all the standards, connections, superior DAC and Beolab90 quality loudspeakers.

The A5 is targeted a relatively simple (but sophisticated) User who requires to connect a simple music source (say a mobile phone with any given App, or attach to a system with DNLA compliant broadcast) to a useful semi-portable soundbox.

Roon does not support DNLA. Nor does BlueSound. As for AQ Dragonfly – Im sure they are good but their intent is really for filtering noisy PC output or mobile phone outputs to headphones.

I think as per MMs post, if you want to play the game of comparing external DACs to the one inside the A5, go ahead but I dont really think you will achieve anything. Ditto bitrates.

As for USB-C connections, I believe B&O designed the connect for powering the A5 rather than adding on countless peripherals. If that is something you require….why not buy a USB-C hub from Amazon to compliment the A5?

Im not sure if you can still get this – I only remember it vaguely but iFi did once do a Roon to DNLA bridge. (iFi Bridge). Failing that, the iFi Stream may also help.

[NQVHNWI]

Millemissen wrote:

A fully working BS Theater………with all new ‘satellite’ speakers for surround/rear/height ? MM

They are saving that for the 110yr anniversary

 

[NQVHNWI]

I was very fortunate to be able to participate in B&Os 90th anniversary with my BL90s. However, I doubt if I can or want to participate in a pair of BL100’s?

BL90s took 3 years to develop and bring to market and remain one of their more expensive offerings. The BeoPlay95s were a bit “meh”. I dont think spending huge resources on a BL100 is merit worthy, nor something with a short life-cycle like earphones or a TV or a Beosound is the way forward. It should be something that has the potential to last another 100years where quality out-shines any technological advancement.

I do think a Beogram would be a good candidate as a 100yr anniversary offering. It represents a good span of their existence, it can be electronically simple and robust, infinitely repairable/serviceable and made to a traditional high material quality. It also allows a much larger participation of customers. It needs to be limited (1000’s – not 10’s or 100’s) and hopefully, the first of a new class of products in the 21stCen.

[NQVHNWI]

I have no issue with the A5 or its specs bar one. Its a nice enough product and wish it well.

My problem is that I have a 6-year old A6 in the bedroom and a  P6 , couple of  P2s and an A2 all minty good condition in storage box somewhere doing very little. So no room for an A5 – and im that the case with many people?

I do have a SoTA home theatre system which still has to rely on a 3 pairs of 2005 vintage BL3s.

What I would really like is a very compact Beolab that can discretely act as HT surrounds without the need to carve-up the walls and ceilings.

I wonder where the money is for B&O. Flogging a refresh of the same mobile products (good ones at that), or producing a flexible home loudspeaker solution that is affordable and compact?

[NQVHNWI]

Just send a support note to B&O and ask then to push an update through. Or call your dealer. He can do the same

 

[NQVHNWI]

Good Day everyone, Lee and Keith

I have given this posting a degree of thought but have to admit a degree of ignorance to the working behind the scenes and the relationships with Sponsors, suppliers and B&O themselves. I’m also ignorant to the costs of a web-forum, hosting and development costs.

Shooting from the hip, here is my view-point: –

• The current forum is stale, has a limited number of niche Users and a very unappealing interface. There are too many sub-forums based on legacy site designs. Consolidate and simplify would be my first thought?
• There is or has been too much “control” or moderation on-site, based on keeping things civil – whereas in the other forums I regularly visit and participate in don’t seem to have that problem. There is too much onus on forum members “protecting” B&O operating revenues with keeping B&O secrecy. As far as I can determine, product releases are released unofficially either by Dealers/re-sellers, those with ties to B&O or B&O themselves. We are too quick to stifle “finds” on the Web, for the sake of upsetting B&O – when it is in fact it is in all in the public domain. Therefore a light hand or an even-lighter hand (let it rip) would be welcome. Stiffen-up buttercup.
• I perceive B&O doing very little to help this forum? My view is that Beoworld has long-served its purpose for B&O who I believe want to focus on HNWI’s rather than those of us who may tend towards the more to vintage and David-Lewis legacy era equipment. There may be a few “visits” or “previews” here and there given by B&O to some of the more enthusiastic members/moderators/Sponsors – either directly or indirectly but little that actually helps the site? Therefore like the so-called “Special relationship” between UK and US politicians, its not really Special and arguably not a relationship either? BeoWorld needs to decide where its position is?
• Manuals. Most legacy manuals are already out in the public domain (up to the Beolab5/7/9 era – I have not for instance seen the BL90 or Eclipse/Harmony manual out there??).  I think/assume there is very little out there (B&O probably want more control of this now than premature product leaks?). I do not see this as a USP for paid membership tiers.
• Circle-back to point 1 again. I participate in a number of forums (B&O/Auralic/some watch forums/Wood-working and motorcar forums – where my hobbies/interest lie). I am also drifting more towards Mikipedias Discord B&O site (more on that in the next point).   https://community.auralic.com/ and https://community.naimaudio.com/ are examples of Company-provided but not Company-controlled/dominated web forums. They are relatively fresh, clean and easy to search/reference. There is a very “light-touch” in terms of moderation and in-particular, the Auralic forum is very well behaved and sparsely populated with interactive Auralic employees.
• I assume there are costs to these sites like Auralic and Naim (there is very little advertising on these sites – if any) and either has a modest support by the OEM or use your data for a “free” web-site access. I would state here that web-forums today are so well-developed and extensive, that the prospect of preventing “you are the product” is well-past its sell-by date. Every data-miner in the world probably has multiple layers of intel on us all and out habits. With the advent of ChatGPT and other advanced algorithms, it is only a matter of time that these programs scan the entire interweb over multiple, separate and un-related forums and could therefore work-out our various aliases, interests, political leanings etc…etc…and know who we are. Therefore, I would dismiss “we are the product” argument as a constraint. Its going to happen one way or another.
• Discord is developing more and more as the future of chat forums. Mikipedia has develop his own excellent site (too many sub-forums for my taste, somewhat harder to reference info etc but quite dynamic and seems to have a much higher frequency of well-mannered regulars contributing than Beoworld). I don’t know how Mikipedia supports this Discord site (free, small annual fee, data-gathering) but he does, alone and it works very well.  There is also a perception that his site leans more towards the “later-day” products and gossip rather than older legacy products. Either-way, he’s not charging £0/£15/£30 per annum membership fees for a growing and improving product over BeoWorld?
• Now I am fully aware that B&O is still a stuffy and undynamic and Conservative company. B&O have failed twice as far as I can recollect in its own Web-forum aspirations. I’m also aware they are now more interested in HNWI’s – now that us “Useful-Saps” have bailed them out (again) by buying countless discounted BeoPlay products that they can now once again neglect us (in a recession) and focus on the folly of chasing the dream of too-many-high-end-high-price products with a 30-minute shelf-life for the uninterested uber-rich and destroy their loyal buyer base (again)??  However, I do wonder if – there is a possibility for one-off support for BeoWorld by B&O to setup a new modern web-forum for BeoWorld to manage and tune to both B&O’s future pathway and BeoWorlds legacy stance? Im sure it’s a well trodden asking B&O path but I’m only asking?
• As per my earlier points, I’m against paid and tiered membership. Its not because of personal snobbery or affordability on my part but that (again my perception), is that this leads to a “tribal” take-over of the forum and ends up losing more regular contributors than it gains. I see Beoworld right now in this position and its withering-away.
• As a means to funding the site – I wonder – as a suggestion if it is possible/feasible for Beoworld to have an online shop? A shop that at one end can sell BeoWorld merch, but at the other (hopefully sponsored by B&O), selling a few BeoPlay-level products, with margins helping to support forum costs? This may not help the Dealers but not wont help BeoWorld and with Amazon, both stand to lose-out if you don’t?
• The prize-draw is nice but not essential. I viewed this as a way to generate membership fees with a draw-down of Lee’s stock (and business profitability) as a generous benefactor? I think streamlining the Web-forum this is not required – and to be frank, very few Web-forums offer anything like this (Fees or prizes). I think it is an unsustainable practice in numerous ways.

Anyway, this list is given as useful/not-useful feedback as an honest opinion that hopefully helps give the Owners of BeoWorld my perspective at least. Make of it what you will for what it is worth?

With regards and respect.

10%

 

 

 

[NQVHNWI]

I think this is part of the BR1/BSTH bug.

I know if you rename a source too many times (more than twice), the only way out is a total factory reset of the BSTH.

The default display on too many renames is the APP looks OK but the remote shows “HDMI A” or similar in the source lists

[NQVHNWI]

I think the Theatre does not have CEC but can effectively direct CEC commands from the LG Panel to the third party device.

Clearly from my experience and others, CEC compliant devices can be controlled with a BR1, so mine in not to over-think how but rather that it does.

[NQVHNWI]

Check the settings inside your BR-player. The Oppo-105D for instance has a setting to disable and is disabled by default.

You will also see that CEC only covers basic functions and is rather slow/laggy. PUC is much better.

[NQVHNWI]

I have 3 pairs of white BL3s. 2 x Mk2, 1 xMk1

1. Cant tell the difference sonically sound-wise between them.
2. Suspect Mk2 = revised parts as Mk1 components become revised.
3. Mk1 and Mk2 have zero wireless capabilities
4. I would say the Mk2 white has a thicker, more enamel-like “paint-job” over the Mk1.

I think B&O have moved-on dramatically since they introduced these ground-breaking speakers  (2005 IIRC?). However, I think as a surround speaker they are excellent for the sound and compactness but would question their sonic performance in a primary music-room loudspeaker.

[NQVHNWI]

The dropping of the Beoplay branding confuses nomclementure somewhat.

I would imagine if it is a Beosound and has Mozart it is WiFi and Beolink-able?

If it is a (former Beoplay) Beosound and does not have Mozart….it will be a portable Bluetooth speaker only??

Everything I have heard and been told is that future Beolabs will be dual purpose i.e. a Loudspeaker with integrated music player?

It also leads to the confusing possibility if Beosounds will have integrated Beolabs?

 

 

[NQVHNWI]

My comments are that “leaked” information comes from a number of sources.

PR Companies, FCC, B&O themselves, B&O Dealers, some non-B&O vendors.

All should if they require absolute secrecy keep their mouths shut and their pictures to themselves. That is where the root-cause of problem is and it should not be for Moderators to limit or control that here in Beoworld.

Most of us here are enthusiasts who are rather bloodhound-like sourcing data and rumours. Those that leak are (probably 99% are paid some form of income through the B&O product franchise) are the ones jeopardising B&O competitiveness and future revenue. Not Beoworlders

Lets get real please.

[NQVHNWI]

I would look at experimenting moving the BL17s back to a position of height and run a 5.1.2 setup. Move the BL17 Rears in the App to a height surround role. Experiment with sound levels and distances and see where you go. Unless you have a big room – or a room where you can put the BL17 back/rears somewhat back behind you, I think they may be wasted?

I think the virtual loudspeakers get greyed-out once you have physical loudspeakers in position? I must admit, apart from the soundbar, I dont really get the virtual “thing”. Physicals are easy to understand.

[NQVHNWI]

Im not 100% certain if that is the problem. Maybe/maybe not?

Going back to the first few days of owning my BST, I linked an Oppo BR with the BST and it worked but was painfully slow to move to icon to icon. In terms of response speed if observed (with no inexplicable shutdown):-

1st PUC only

2nd CEC only

3rd PUC and CEC

I think that the CEC protocol is for a very basic set of controls which help legacy devices (non-B&O) and best not used if you can have a PUC control.

[NQVHNWI]

The only issue I have (BL90 plus 3pairs of BL3s) is the boot time for the 90s to click online and to form the latency.

probably 2-3 seconds max

[NQVHNWI]

Looks like the Samotech hub on Amazon (£179). Add a bit of pre-programmed code and any guess that this will be +£1000?

[NQVHNWI]

I know this is bordering on unhelpful or unrealistic to check (unless you have a Halo as well as a BR1) but a lot of issues I have had since late November have been with the BeoApp and/or the BR1 locking up. (Especially with PUC selection).

I wonder if something is going on where the Theatre or BeoApp is telling the BR1 to shut down…or something like that? Wonder if disengaging the battery unit after a given command kills future error-state shutdown?? Inconvenient…yes.

As an extension to the postulation above, have you tried changing your PUC settings to always stay on? I’m hypothecating, there is some bug which is telling the Theatre that there may be a microsecond change (say going from one HDMI source to another) and this is forcing a shutdown? Bit of a Hail Mary……….but worth eliminating it as a cause with a quick configuration change?.?

[Author]

Posts