Soundbars vs stereo speakers

[Kaikidan]

Not using a receiver?

Really wanted to, but those things are Absurdly pricey here where I live since our currency devalued so much for various reasons in recent years, including pandemic, also, import taxes are high. Our currency got from 1BRL = 2 USD 5 years ago to 5,80USD + a 60% tax on imported goods. So I'm improvissing for now until things settle and becomes cheaper. (for comparison, when I'm Bought my R1000TNC pair they cost me the equivalent of 39USD, now they cost 180USD)

Also I have some nice 70' sony Stereo speakers (I think GX12 like model with 3 drivers in each at 100W RMS per unit) paired with an old amplifier that was part of the kit, Really wanted to use them, but they're TOO loud and powerfull for the small apartment that I live in Currently. They look kinda like those, and the AMP is a Gradiente Model 160

 

[steve62388]

Agree with a lot of the comments here. Also… where are you going to put a pair of speakers? Most peoples’ tv stands are the width of their tv or less, you can normally fit a sound bar on but not separate speakers.

 

[JeffPerrin]

Agree with a lot of the comments here. Also… where are you going to put a pair of speakers? Most peoples’ tv stands are the width of their tv or less, you can normally fit a sound bar on but not separate speakers.

Speaker stands. Or tower speakers. Or wall mounted. Or shelves. Lots of options. But I get it if some folks aren't into high fidelity as others, or just don't have the luxury of space. To each their own...

 

[steve62388]

Speaker stands. Or tower speakers. Or wall mounted. Or shelves. Lots of options. But I get it if some folks aren't into high fidelity as others, or just don't have the luxury of space. To each their own...

I suppose my question was rhetorical. I’m aware of stands etc. It’s just that the vast majority of people don’t want speakers dotted all over their room, but they can live with a sound bar.

 

[phrehdd]

Sounds bars make sense when there are challenges to setting up surround sound or locations of a pair of speakers. Typically we see people talking about active power sounds bars (pre and amp included in the soundbar) but there is a great world of passive soundbars that can hook up to an integrated amp or AVR that do sound impressive. Of the latter Yamaha and Goldenear come to mind. Better yet, add a sub and if set up in the correct manner in a room that is ideal, it can be an excellent experience for movies and for music.

 

[ignatius345]

I have stated this in many forums about the Homepods. the HomePod failed because of Apple's approach to the software. They are lovely speakers.

I think they sold badly because people were comparing them with crappy cheap "smart speakers" instead of the high-end AirPlay speakers they are.

Agreed, though, Apple could've and should've made them "plug and play" with more choices of devices and added a line-in to make them even easier to integrate into existing systems. On sheer sound quality, though, I think the HomePod is a great value at $400.

 

[oneMadRssn]

I think they sold badly because people were comparing them with crappy cheap "smart speakers" instead of the high-end AirPlay speakers they are.

It's not about the comparison, it's just about the market. Apple entered a market run by loss-leaders and extremely thin profit margins. Apple usually does not succeeded in that kind of situation (Airport, Hifi). Rather, Apple is great at entering a market with good margins, and then leveraging vertical integration to squeeze even more profit out of each sale than their competitors can manage.

The Echo Dot and Home Mini are so cheap (and regularly on sale) that it's an easy impulse buy. And that's the point - Google and Amazon aren't trying to make money on them, the goal is to grow the install base as rapidly as possible. Apple stood no chance trying to go WAY upmarket.

Also, AirPlay is not to big selling point that I think fanboys think it is. Most people have no idea what it is, and even those that do are meh about it. I think being platform agnostic, like Sonos, is a much bigger selling point.

 

[ignatius345]

The Echo Dot and Home Mini are so cheap (and regularly on sale) that it's an easy impulse buy. And that's the point - Google and Amazon aren't trying to make money on them, the goal is to grow the install base as rapidly as possible. Apple stood no chance trying to go WAY upmarket.

Right that's my point. HomePod is not in the same league at all a competitor to these crappy little speakers. The comparison is not a very useful one.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Right that's my point. HomePod is not in the same league at all a competitor to these crappy little speakers. The comparison is not a very useful one.

Maybe we're in agreement, but I don't think we're making the same point. You're focusing on the sound quality. Whether they're indeed "crappy little speakers" and whether HomePod is a league above, does not matter that much.

What matters is price and features: Apple was trying to convince people to buy one HomePod instead of ten Echo Dots. In other words, a single semi-smart walled-garden speaker versus a whole-home automation ecosystem with a speaker in every room and even stereo pairs in a few rooms and with a gazillion plug-ins. Moreover, Apple was trying to get a high margin in a market where every other competitor sells their products at cost or even at a loss.

Apple took their shot, and that's good. They're certainly rich enough to try. But I cannot see how anyone expected Apple to succeed here.

 

[jav6454]

Soundbars are the speakers TVs lost. Furthermore, Soundbars provide (assuming you are buying into the brand's speaker ecosystem) an upgrade path from up to 5.1 Audio.

 

[subjonas]

I just bought a pair of homepod minis for my parents. They’re a godsend… Pretty much no setup required. They’re tiny and can be positioned anywhere with power, which is especially great for my parents who are getting hard of hearing, so the speakers sit next to them on the end tables (no wires to the tv) so that they don’t have to blast the volume for the neighbors to hear. They look nice. They sound good. And they offer Siri, Apple Music, and Airplay. And not too expensive considering all that.

Not sure how they compare sound-wise to a similar priced or slightly cheaper sound bar, but for my parents who live in an apartment, they are more than adequate. Plus they have the stereo separation advantage.

Just waiting for tvOS 15 now so that they can be set as default speakers.

 

[mtbdudex]

Agree, I have a 2.1 system in my tiny basement office, as seen here.
Actually thx to the Covid19 pandemic and working home 14+ months I’ve re-discovered stereo listening.
Yea, nearfield setup at ear level , truly the imaging is dialed.

My 22 year old daughter graduated and moved into an apartment for her first job. I had an extra pair of Paradigm mini-monitors, for grad gift bought her same hybrid tube amp from parts express, setup with tv in her family room.
She loves the stereo sound and imaging.

 

[whitby]

Soundbars are great if you do not want wires and speakers in a room. They provide reasonable sound, certainly better than built in TV speakers but have a number of shortcomings.

1. Stereo separation is very poor unless you have walls close to the left and right hand ends of the soundbar. They work by reflecting side facing speakers in the sound bar and using the walls to reflect the sound to you.
2. You need to add on rear speakers if you want true surround sound. Sonos have kits that provide them.
3. Sound bar speakers are by necessity small and require electronic equalisation to make them sound better. Not always good for fidelity.

Homepods which are placed appropriately sound much better than a sound bar, but really need a sub to provide the low frequencies you need in a larger room.

Central speakers are designed to take the vocal channels in a standard Dolby 5.1 or higher mix, and help keep the dialog clear and separate from the other sounds and effects. Yes it can be provided by a stereo pair but you then lack the control you may need and stereo speakers tend to lose the dialog in some film mixes.

In summary Sound bars are great for smaller rooms and where you do not want the clutter of wires and speakers for a full multichannel sound system, but they are a compromise and you should be aware of that.

 

[phrehdd]

Soundbars are great if you do not want wires and speakers in a room. They provide reasonable sound, certainly better than built in TV speakers but have a number of shortcomings.

1. Stereo separation is very poor unless you have walls close to the left and right hand ends of the soundbar. They work by reflecting side facing speakers in the sound bar and using the walls to reflect the sound to you.
2. You need to add on rear speakers if you want true surround sound. Sonos have kits that provide them.
3. Sound bar speakers are by necessity small and require electronic equalisation to make them sound better. Not always good for fidelity.

Homepods which are placed appropriately sound much better than a sound bar, but really need a sub to provide the low frequencies you need in a larger room.

Central speakers are designed to take the vocal channels in a standard Dolby 5.1 or higher mix, and help keep the dialog clear and separate from the other sounds and effects. Yes it can be provided by a stereo pair but you then lack the control you may need and stereo speakers tend to lose the dialog in some film mixes.

In summary Sound bars are great for smaller rooms and where you do not want the clutter of wires and speakers for a full multichannel sound system, but they are a compromise and you should be aware of that.

I appreciate your overall take on this topic. We will have to disagree somewhat on the notion or poor separation when using soundbars. Soundbars have changed quite a bit and some are impressive in what audio they can produce, separation and even high tech to create an atmos effect. I have one soundbar that with a sub is better than some bookshelf speakers.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Quality of soundbar vs. quality of bookshelf speakers is going to be a factor. But where we don't shoot one down to prop up the other, the general hierarchy for best theater sound is IMO:

1. Traditional Receiver plus wired "dumb" speakers, placed all around the main seating position, including overhead (ceiling) if one wants true ATMOS
2. Traditional plus wired "dumb" speakers minus the overhead speakers for highest quality surround sound that is short of ATMOS
3. Very high quality soundbars that have some way to work with surround speakers and a sub too (one example of many: Sonos Ultimate Immersive with Arc + twin 300s + Sub)
4. Cheaper soundbars that can still work with surround speakers and sub
5. Stereo speakers including things like Apple HPs
6. Mono speaker including cheap soundbars with no surround or sub capability
7. TV built-in speakers

Core assumption in this list is spending the money to buy quality vs. cheaping out.

I think soundbars have become popular because they are:

• generally/relatively cheap,
• definitely sound better than #7,
• involve minimal effort to install them (as little as one cable),
• people notice their friends have one and assume that is better than (them) not having one, and
• the marketing messages claim "ATMOS" (when NONE of them- at any price- deliver true ATMOS). If "I can get ATMOS for $200, why should I spend $2000?" Consider "if I can text, call and internet browse with a $200 Android phone, why pay up for iPhone?" and the mainstream answers you start conjuring will generally apply here too.

Since anything will sound better than the default (#7), anything anyone chooses to try is a huge improvement. They will then gush about how much better it sounds, which then makes those hearing the gush think that whatever they chose is a great option for them too. Some go with it, it sounds better than their default (#7) too and they gush to their friends. What is missed in most cases is how much BETTER it can sound if they step on up above some cheap option they pit against the worst option. Most don't fundamentally know that because their point of reference is only how it used to sound (#7) vs. how much better it sounds now. This makes it easy for misinformation to spread with up to great passion for less-than-the-best possibilities.

Whenever it is at all possible, anyone seeking best possible sound should go #1 or #2. As one steps down the list, audio quality compromises are being made.

Now again, if we couch arguments of "great" #3 vs. "cheap" #1 or the more ambiguous "a high quality this vs. a low quality that," then about anything on the list can move up or down vs. any other thing.

BUT, if anyone is pursuing maximum quality of home theater sound, there's no getting it from ANY solution that has all speakers "up front" as is the case with #5-#7. Step into any professional cinema before the lights go down and take a good look around. NONE of them will have any kind of speakers only down front. Why not? Because there's no way to deliver the audio experience vs. the more expensive setups they DO use that involves speakers placed all around the viewer.

Similarly, there is no professional theater leaning on only a soundbar-based setup. Again why when it would cost much less than what they DO use? Same answer.

Extrapolate BOTH examples to a home theater if the goal is great audio quality.

If the theater room is not wide, soundbar options in #3 and #4 can sound pretty good or even great. But as room size grows, stereo separation is limited to the width of the bar. Yes, there IS some technical trickery possible, but that's the same as the (marketing) trickery that will spin soundbars as being both ATMOS and surround sound. Your ears will absolutely notice if you compare such options to other setups where there is actually speakers "back there" and "up there."

My advice to anyone interested is always the same: strive for #1. Work through every possible option to try to get yourself a #1 system, even if you have to build it over time.

If #1 is just impossible, similarly strive for the easier #2 (because you don't have to get speaker wire into the ceiling).

If you just can't do it, consider allocating some money to bring in some pros to figure out how to install it. They won't cost that much and this is a one-time expense that will then serve you for up to however long you live in that home (and then most of the same system will move to the next home with you when you move). You call in an electrician to solve electrical issues. You call in a plumber to solve plumbing problems. Call in A/V installers to solve traditional home theater issues.

Below #2, barely consider #4 and below because it's a sizable compromise when you jam left, center & right into a single container that is only a few feet wide. So go quality (#3) if it has to be a soundbar. The best rated ones will generally be pricey (like Apple tech) but there's a (most fundamental) reason for that. If there's ever a "you get what you pay for" chunk of tech, it's this one. Unlike iPhones, Macs, iPads, etc... get this right and you can potentially enjoy the very same tech purchase for up to the rest of your life... not just a few years and then feel the need to replace it... over and over again. Since this can be a decade+ (use) purchase, BOTH choose wisely and spend accordingly.

From #4 to #7, you are basically opting for lower quality audio and/or other compromises in almost all cases. Consider #4+ when theater sound quality is not your priority. If cost dominates your thinking, just about anything will be (a lot) better than #7.

I hope this is helpful to all who discover this zombie thread recently revived by a few new posts. OP has likely long-since made their decision years ago.

 

[AL2TEACH]

Quality of soundbar vs. quality of bookshelf speakers

Was wondering when you would post

 

[whitby]

Quality of soundbar vs. quality of bookshelf speakers is going to be a factor. But where we don't shoot one down to prop up the other, the general hierarchy for best theater sound is IMO:

1. Traditional Receiver plus wired "dumb" speakers, placed all around the main seating position, including overhead (ceiling) if one wants true ATMOS
2. Traditional plus wired "dumb" speakers minus the overhead speakers for highest quality surround sound that is short of ATMOS
3. Very high quality soundbars that have some way to work with surround speakers and a sub too (one example of many: Sonos Ultimate Immersive with Arc + twin 300s + Sub)
4. Cheaper soundbars that can still work with surround speakers and sub
5. Stereo speakers including things like Apple HPs
6. Mono speaker including cheap soundbars with no surround or sub capability
7. TV built-in speakers

Core assumption in this list is spending the money to buy quality vs. cheaping out.

I think soundbars have become popular because they are:

• generally/relatively cheap,
• definitely sound better than #7,
• involve minimal effort to install them (as little as one cable),
• people notice their friends have one and assume that is better than (them) not having one, and
• the marketing messages claim "ATMOS" (when NONE of them- at any price- deliver true ATMOS). If "I can get ATMOS for $200, why should I spend $2000?" Consider "if I can text, call and internet browse with a $200 Android phone, why pay up for iPhone?" and the mainstream answers you start conjuring will generally apply here too.

Since anything will sound better than the default (#7), anything anyone chooses to try is a huge improvement. They will then gush about how much better it sounds, which then makes those hearing the gush think that whatever they chose is a great option for them too. Some go with it, it sounds better than their default (#7) too and they gush to their friends. What is missed in most cases is how much BETTER it can sound if they step on up above some cheap option they pit against the worst option. Most don't fundamentally know that because their point of reference is only how it used to sound (#7) vs. how much better it sounds now. This makes it easy for misinformation to spread with up to great passion for less-than-the-best possibilities.

Whenever it is at all possible, anyone seeking best possible sound should go #1 or #2. As one steps down the list, audio quality compromises are being made.

Now again, if we couch arguments of "great" #3 vs. "cheap" #1 or the more ambiguous "a high quality this vs. a low quality that," then about anything on the list can move up or down vs. any other thing.

BUT, if anyone is pursuing maximum quality of home theater sound, there's no getting it from ANY solution that has all speakers "up front" as is the case with #5-#7. Step into any professional cinema before the lights go down and take a good look around. NONE of them will have any kind of speakers only down front. Why not? Because there's no way to deliver the audio experience vs. the more expensive setups they DO use that involves speakers placed all around the viewer.

Similarly, there is no professional theater leaning on only a soundbar-based setup. Again why when it would cost much less than what they DO use? Same answer.

Extrapolate BOTH examples to a home theater if the goal is great audio quality.

If the theater room is not wide, soundbar options in #3 and #4 can sound pretty good or even great. But as room size grows, stereo separation is limited to the width of the bar. Yes, there IS some technical trickery possible, but that's the same as the (marketing) trickery that will spin soundbars as being both ATMOS and surround sound. Your ears will absolutely notice if you compare such options to other setups where there is actually speakers "back there" and "up there."

My advice to anyone interested is always the same: strive for #1. Work through every possible option to try to get yourself a #1 system, even if you have to build it over time.

If #1 is just impossible, similarly strive for the easier #2 (because you don't have to get speaker wire into the ceiling).

If you just can't do it, consider allocating some money to bring in some pros to figure out how to install it. They won't cost that much and this is a one-time expense that will then serve you for up to however long you live in that home (and then most of the same system will move to the next home with you when you move). You call in an electrician to solve electrical issues. You call in a plumber to solve plumbing problems. Call in A/V installers to solve traditional home theater issues.

Below #2, barely consider #4 and below because it's a sizable compromise when you jam left, center & right into a single container that is only a few feet wide. So go quality (#3) if it has to be a soundbar. The best rated ones will generally be pricey (like Apple tech) but there's a (most fundamental) reason for that. If there's ever a "you get what you pay for" chunk of tech, it's this one. Unlike iPhones, Macs, iPads, etc... get this right and you can potentially enjoy the very same tech purchase for up to the rest of your life... not just a few years and then feel the need to replace it... over and over again. Since this can be a decade+ (use) purchase, BOTH choose wisely and spend accordingly.

From #4 to #7, you are basically opting for lower quality audio and/or other compromises in almost all cases. Consider #4+ when theater sound quality is not your priority. If cost dominates your thinking, just about anything will be (a lot) better than #7.

I hope this is helpful to all who discover this zombie thread recently revived by a few new posts. OP has likely long-since made their decision years ago.

Agree with most of this, although I would swap options 4 and 5. Good self powered discrete speakers ( as exemplified by the Apple HomePods, not the Minis which are quite dreadful in my opinion) are much better than cheap soundbars In my opinion.

Basically it comes down to cost and your tolerance for wiring/speakers placement. You can also add, to me the most important, the quality of the sound the system produces.

i have four types of system in my house:

1. A full stereo system designed for high fidelity listening using system components chosen carefully over many years and costing the appropriate amounts of money commensurate with my financial constraints and listening room.

2. A multi channel ATMOS capable media set up with a good OLED TV set. This has 9 speakers and 2 subwoofers. Attempting to get a full range theatre experience.

3. A sound bar set up with TV in 2 bedrooms. Sonos in one, Bose in the other. Not used for music listening but produce sound which is not distasteful and is bearable.

4. A number of stereo self powered speakers designed for casual and music listening in various rooms (kitchen, dining room, bedrooms, workshop etc.). These are a mix of Homepods and Sonos ERA 300s and 100s.

I admit to being to being very fussy about sound and was employed in the H Fi industry as a speaker and electronics designer for quite a few years.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I gave 4 the nod because even a cheap soundbar that can also get surround speakers behind and a Sub in play > stereo speakers like HPs for "home theater" purposes IMO. HPs seem like they are long-term locked to being stereo at best. There is not even 1 rumor of Apple aspiring to add in an actual center channel, nor sub, nor surrounds. While HPs sound very good for what they are, they can't deliver the lows of even a (not too) cheap subwoofer and, of course, any surround sound perception is algorithmic trickery vs. actually emanating from "back there." I'm no fan at all of cheap subwoofers but, given the choice of 2 nice stereo (limited) speakers vs. a cheap but decent surround sound setup, I'd favor the latter after a test with my own ears. IMO, there's no substitute for the supporting speakers beyond left & right stereo when assembling speakers for home theater purposes.

If this was about music playback, I'd probably switch the two too, as HPs do a nice job of stereo audio reproduction and, of course, can offer much wider stereo separation than a rigidly spaced soundbar. But- IMO- they begin and end with that purpose (music) and are relatively forced into trying to be someone's home theater audio source. It wasn't Apple's original intent for them to be used that way but it became a thing later- when people really wanted Apple speakers to be their TV speakers. And yes, they too are better than #7 but there are many better options.

However, that shared, Instead of the cheaper option of HPs for a bedroom, I opted to put a Sonos ARC in there to only be used for audio playback. In other words, I use it like others use HPs for music. Why? Because it can readily link in other supporting pieces vs. beginning and ending at stereo-only playback. There's also bias to Sonos because it is far more open than HPs, able to work with about all services vs. only a handful that have cut a deal with the Corp over all these years.

To each his own of course. The bigger recommendation for anyone wanting a great home theater is don't get down to #4 or lower at all, whatever order the list would be in down there. #3 if it HAS to be a soundbar setup, else take best shot at #1 or #2 if at all possible.

 

[phrehdd]

I gave 4 the nod because even a cheap soundbar that can also get surround speakers behind and a Sub in play > stereo speakers like HPs for "home theater" purposes IMO. HPs seem like they are long-term locked to being stereo at best. There is not even 1 rumor of Apple aspiring to add in an actual center channel, nor sub, nor surrounds. While HPs sound very good for what they are, they can't deliver the lows of even a (not too) cheap subwoofer and, of course, any surround sound perception is algorithmic trickery vs. actually emanating from "back there." I'm no fan at all of cheap subwoofers but, given the choice of 2 nice stereo (limited) speakers vs. a cheap but decent surround sound setup, I'd favor the latter after a test with my own ears. IMO, there's no substitute for the supporting speakers beyond left & right stereo when assembling speakers for home theater purposes.

If this was about music playback, I'd probably switch the two too, as HPs do a nice job of stereo audio reproduction and, of course, can offer much wider stereo separation than a rigidly spaced soundbar. But- IMO- they begin and end with that purpose (music) and are relatively forced into trying to be someone's home theater audio source. It wasn't Apple's original intent for them to be used that way but it became a thing later- when people really wanted Apple speakers to be their TV speakers. And yes, they too are better than #7 but there are many better options.

However, that shared, Instead of the cheaper option of HPs for a bedroom, I opted to put a Sonos ARC in there to only be used for audio playback. In other words, I use it like others use HPs for music. Why? Because it can readily link in other supporting pieces vs. beginning and ending at stereo-only playback. There's also bias to Sonos because it is far more open than HPs, able to work with about all services vs. only a handful that have cut a deal with the Corp over all these years.

To each his own of course. The bigger recommendation for anyone wanting a great home theater is don't get down to #4 or lower at all, whatever order the list would be in down there. #3 if it HAS to be a soundbar setup, else take best shot at #1 or #2 if at all possible.

Bedroom - nothing wrong with a decent powered (active) soundbar vs regular speakers or "dumb" (passive) soundbar. Today, one can even get wireless bookshelf speakers and they all do well with TV as the main center of the experience.

For me - I have a passive soundbar that sounds terrific in my small room. I also have a pair of traditional speakers as "zone 2" for music. The traditional speaker works well with the TV whether with a center channel or a "phantom" center channel. The use of the soundbar serves two purposes - at lower volumes it does a great job when properly set up. That means late night tv is not going to bother anyone in another room. Also, I have the TV on a wall mount. Having the soundbar with the TV on the mount, I can swing the TV out in a different direction and have the bar go with it. Works brilliantly. I am not pushing soundbars but pointing out they are a good and viable choice for many. My alternative to a soundbar in the above scenario would be to get headphones made to be used with TVs. Sennheiser's wireless offering is a well-established choice in this venue.

 

[whitby]

Bedroom - nothing wrong with a decent powered (active) soundbar vs regular speakers or "dumb" (passive) soundbar. Today, one can even get wireless bookshelf speakers and they all do well with TV as the main center of the experience.

For me - I have a passive soundbar that sounds terrific in my small room. I also have a pair of traditional speakers as "zone 2" for music. The traditional speaker works well with the TV whether with a center channel or a "phantom" center channel. The use of the soundbar serves two purposes - at lower volumes it does a great job when properly set up. That means late night tv is not going to bother anyone in another room. Also, I have the TV on a wall mount. Having the soundbar with the TV on the mount, I can swing the TV out in a different direction and have the bar go with it. Works brilliantly. I am not pushing soundbars but pointing out they are a good and viable choice for many. My alternative to a soundbar in the above scenario would be to get headphones made to be used with TVs. Sennheiser's wireless offering is a well-established choice in this venue.

If this works for you then it is fine. As noted in my post I use soundbars in the bedroom for TV and then a pair of HomePods or Sonos ERA 100/300s for music. I do not like music reproduced over a sound bar, but each to his own.

There are a number of workable solutions and it all depends on what you like/need and can afford or put up with. For me a decent pair of speakers and amp beat out a soundbar every time (with or without a subwoofer), whether it is one of Sonos' offerings or some other high end unit. They have their place and so long as you accept the compromises they will be fine.

 

[phrehdd]

If this works for you then it is fine. As noted in my post I use soundbars in the bedroom for TV and then a pair of HomePods or Sonos ERA 100/300s for music. I do not like music reproduced over a sound bar, but each to his own.

There are a number of workable solutions and it all depends on what you like/need and can afford or put up with. For me a decent pair of speakers and amp beat out a soundbar every time (with or without a subwoofer), whether it is one of Sonos' offerings or some other high end unit. They have their place and so long as you accept the compromises they will be fine.

I tend to agree where active soundbars are concerned. However, some passive soundbars with a sub are akin to very good small to midsize bookshelf speakers. Some even better than lower end bookshelf speakers. What we will certainly agree on is they are not cheap and one might want to consider traditional speakers. I recall my first surround speakers and was beyond amazed at all the sound from different direction that it was a great first experience. However, the same front speakers were mediocre where music was concerned. Today, I rather have a higher end 3.1 system than 5.xx or greater if the speakers are just so so or , at least (assuming timbre was the same) good right and left front speakers for music.

While out of most people's budget, these are some really good soundbars and I'll add that Goldenear does a decent soundbar (well their regular and XL version). https://audiophiles.co/passive-soundbar/

 

[mtbdudex]

This is time tested and proven, even with dsp you still cannot really overcome the brains HRTF that’s has evolved

This is my son’s room.
I put decent bookshelves as shown, angled them at MLP, center of bed.
Truly sitting there, watching that 40” TV, you do get very good imaging and it adds to the viewing experience.
Any soundbar tucked there would NOT do same, not possible.

 

[wonderings]

For me it came down to simplicity. For many years I had the big receiver with the 5.1 surround sound. Tower speakers, powered sub, etc. I got tired of running cables and everything that went with the big receivers and opted for an LG Atmos soundbar with a sub. Not quite as immersive as having full surround sound but still the sound is good and I don't miss the old setup.

 

[oneMadRssn]

For me it came down to simplicity. For many years I had the big receiver with the 5.1 surround sound. Tower speakers, powered sub, etc. I got tired of running cables and everything that went with the big receivers and opted for an LG Atmos soundbar with a sub. Not quite as immersive as having full surround sound but still the sound is good and I don't miss the old setup.

Same, though I sometimes miss the old setup solely for the superior center channel. I find even with the best sound bars and wireless surrounds, dialogue never sounds as good as it did when I had a discrete 5.1 system.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

That's because our ears are much more directionally sensitive than we think. We have the ability to zero in on exactly where some sound is coming from at a distance. Extrapolate that ability out to an idea that maybe a couple of speakers creating a faux center is about as good as a true center. Nope... sound is still coming from both speakers, not from dead center. Our ears can tell the difference.

Same with surround sound vs. faux surround. Faux can fake it a little but all sound is still coming from speakers up front. Our ears can tell.

Same with ATMOS overhead speakers. Faux ATMOS including upfiring is not the same as sound actually coming from above. Our ears can tell where the sound originates.

Yes, there is some room to fool our ears to a degree. But, in general, 2 ears are about as good at directional sound sensitivity as our 2 eyes are at depth perception.

When we experience the real thing, any of our ears can hear the quality upgrade vs. any "good enough" choice we've made for any of the reasons we make in support of it. If that's actually good enough, that's just fine. To me though, home audio is something that is typically experienced near daily (for some, MANY hours each day) and also typically for many years: might as well make the most of it.

Yes, it is harder to set up ONCE but once it is set up, you are done with the hard part. Then, you just enjoy it for years and years. I've lived at the same place for more than 20 years. I've enjoyed the traditional setup for all that time... after running them wires ONCE way back then. Unlike Apple tech, that's the nature of speakers: they can sound as good 2 or 3 decades after we buy them with only a little care. But we'll spend fortunes on Apple tech over and over again but then go at home theater tech like lowest/lower prices win... or just find some "good enough" level for some other reason when many of us could have something towards "the best" (for decades) if we wanted it.