why all the hate for soundbars?

[Bman123]

I was wondering why there is so much hate when a soundbar is brought up? Sure its not a 2.1 or a 5.1 setup but they are way better then the tv speakers. I recently got a samsung with a wireless sub and I'm really impressed with it. I got a hw-fm45c. I didnt want to run wires everywhere for surrounds but wanted better audio then my tv provides and im pretty happy with it so far

 

[nickbits]

Because everyone here makes 100k plus and sound bars are below their standard

 

[sdifox]

Because even ancient speakers sound better than soundbars.

 

[Bman123]

Because everyone here makes 100k plus and sound bars are below their standard

Somehow ive been on the wrong forum for 5 1/2 years if thats the case.

 

[JackBurton]

B&W and Yamaha make some great soundbars. Samsung, not so much. So no, I don't hate soundbars at all. They are great if you have limited space and want a minimalistic and clean looking setup. Definitely the way to go if you want to step up from your TV speakers.

So in short, I'm not against soundbars, just against crappy soundbars. That being said, if you have a small budget, you won't have a lot of options, but most soundbars are at least better than most built-in TV speakers.

 

[Bman123]

The sound bar I have blows the tv speaker's out of the water by a long shot. Ive never been big on audio so maybe thats why im impressed with this set.

 

[velillen]

I think at certain price points and situations sound bars are great. like if you only have 200-300 bucks total it is a great addition and will sound better than tv speakers.

But step up the budget to say 500 and you can start getting much better front/left/center and receivers.

Also if in a small room where space is limited (or you put the tv in the corner of the room) a soundbar is good too.

 

[Soundmanred]

I have a Samsung soundbar/wireless sub combo in the playroom that sounds fine even at higher volumes.
It's definitely not enough for the main room though.
I will agree that it sounds better than any flatscreen TV speakers.

 

[alcoholbob]

Because everyone here makes 100k plus and sound bars are below their standard

They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. I have a friend in Manhattan working as a software engineer making 120k+ a year who lives on ramen noodles and has a ancient sound setup with $100 speakers. It happens when your 1 bedroom studio rent is $4,000 a month (apparently this isn't even considered an upscale studio in Manhanttan) and you have to pay student loans.

 

[MBentz]

I don't hate soundbars. If you've got a limited budget/space they are a viable option instead of making do with terribad TV speakers.

 

[boomhower]

Also don't hate sound bars. I had a cheaper Sony one a few years ago and they are certainly better than the TV speakers. Most will certainly recommend a more traditional set-up as they sound will be much much better.

 

[luv2liv]

in a nutshell...the bigger the speakers, the better they can move air around for better sound. hence TV speaker < sound bar < regular 5.1 setup.
it is really painful to see how much people are willing to pay for super small speakers like those Jamboxes for over $100. the sound is just awful

 

[Number1]

Somebody who buys a sound bar has other priorities than good sound. Other parameters like WAF, room available, not disturbing the neighbours, etc are more important to them.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Its because soundbars fundamentally are a compromise, which generally leads to subpar sound. Yes they'll be an upgrade TV speakers, but often I think you can find an alternative minimalist solution that will sound better. I have a hard time accepting that you can't fit a pair of decent quality bookshelf speakers and an amp if you can fit a sound bar.

 

[HeXen]

I used to have a 5.1 system with all the bells but now I just use the TV built in speakers. I like the simplicity and audio never seemed to matter to me so long as I can hear it.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Soundbars are awesome. I just bought a lg with wireless sub and Bluetooth and it sounds great. I was actually blown away how much great sound was coming from it. Tbh I'd have no issue dumping a true ht system and going with a soundbar if I was on a budget.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Its because soundbars fundamentally are a compromise, which generally leads to subpar sound. Yes they'll be an upgrade TV speakers, but often I think you can find an alternative minimalist solution that will sound better. I have a hard time accepting that you can't fit a pair of decent quality bookshelf speakers and an amp if you can fit a sound bar.

This.

There's no way in hell you can't find a decent set of used speakers on Craigslist that'll be much better than any soundbar.

Yes, a soundbar is better than the TV's speakers. That's about it. But if you buy one, just know that. Don't try and compare them to even a low-end 5.1 setup.

But again, if you're going to spend 300 bucks on a soundbar only because you want better sound, go to Craigslist and get a real 5.1 setup for the same price. You'll be much happier IF you really care about sound.

 

[Pacfanweb]

I used to have a 5.1 system with all the bells but now I just use the TV built in speakers. I like the simplicity and audio never seemed to matter to me so long as I can hear it.

Well then, you are simply a person that doesn't care about quality sound.

And there's nothing wrong with that, not a thing.

 

[hans030390]

I think they have their place in the audio market. Or, at least, the decent ones do.

Still, if you have the space and know-how, I recommend folks go for a 2.1 setup. With sales, discontinued models, refurbs, and used units, you can find speakers, subs, and receivers at good prices.

For example, I snatched some of those well-received Pioneer bookshelf speakers for about $50 a pair (new, they were being discontinued, and this was a common deal for a while). Receiver was found for $60 on Craigslist several years ago. I got a basic 12" sub from Parts Express for $100, but I bet you could find a used 8" for $50.

At $150-200, you should get a better sound than a soundbar would provide, but, again, not everyone has the space or know-how when it comes to dedicated audio setups.

 

[007ELmO]

I've been doing 2.2 for years and don't miss surround sound, I think it's difficult to properly set up rear speakers for most people.

 

[soulcougher73]

Just have a buy a real soundbar with 6.5" speakers. I own it and love it. Sure its not a 5.1 or greater set up. But for a soundbar it kicks butt. I got it through amazon with their sub package. But this is the soundbar.
http://www.parts-express.com/bic-formula-fh56-bar-speaker-bar-system--303-442

Even has its own thread over at AVS forum:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1355998/the-official-bic-america-formula-fh56-bar-owners-thread

 

[poofyhairguy]

I've been doing 2.2 for years and don't miss surround sound, I think it's difficult to properly set up rear speakers for most people.

One goes on the left, one goes on the right. Not that hard.

I think what you are implying, and what is the truth, is that there are many people that prioritize aesthetics over sound. For some having five visible black boxes in a room, even if you can hide the wire, is unacceptable.

 

[007ELmO]

Somewhat towards my point, it's more difficult than that. There is a height to rear speakers, there is a location (in front of your seating position, right beside, behind you). There's math involved.

I have actually never seen anyone else (other than dedicated theater rooms) have their surround speakers in the right spot.

Side speakers too high, too far back, too far forward, not meant to be 1ft away from your ear, angled in the corner, rear speakers not spaced correctly, etc. One speaker in the right spot, the other not, etc. You usually don't see front or center speakers in the right spot, either (i.e. acoustically transparent screen) if we want to get nit picky. There's a reason people do AT screens with the center (and sometimes L&R) behind the screen.

I hope you agree with me that most of the surround sound setups you have seen have been poorly implemented because they are in a non-theater environment (i.e. family room). That is the portion I agree with, the environment doesn't lend itself to people doing a proper install.

I highly prefer a quality 2.1 or 2.2 setup over a similarly priced 5.1. Just my opinion, avoid home theater in box setups unless you think you won't upgrade - in which case you may not need our advice.

To get the most for your money you begin with two nice front mains, a nice subwoofer, and a nice amplifier/pre-processor. I have to often remind myself of this too, thinking I need 2 subs in a room I'm working on when I haven't done any in-room measurements with just 1 to see if that would suffice.

 

[biostud]

Also a 2.1 lover here. I had a 5.1, but exchanged the larger floor speakers for a couple of good stand speakers + sub.

I can understand why you would choose a sound bar, but once you've had something better it would be hard to settle for less.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I hope you agree with me that most of the surround sound setups you have seen have been poorly implemented because they are in a non-theater environment (i.e. family room).

Sure, but that is what is so nice about a modern sound system- just about every home theater receiver comes with an automatic speaker setup and calibration system. They won't make a sub-optimal setup perfect, but I have heard them make a family room sound much better than anything a soundbar can do.

Doing the math only applies if you want perfection. The truth is 30% of perfect is still better than a sound bar.