Can a soundbar rival a surround-sound system in a blind listening test? (2020) | Hacker News Reader

Can a soundbar rival a surround-sound system in a blind listening test? (2020)

nytimes.com

44 pointsingve90 comments

I'm sure it's just a reflection of my narrow experience, but the direct competitor of sound bars is not surround sound, but rather included TV speakers.

How can they be competitors if they do totally different things? You can't watch TV with only a sound bar, but you can do the opposite

> You can't watch TV with only a sound bar, but you can do the opposite

You can watch the soundbar with only a TV?

The soundbar exists only as an audible wavelength up until a TV casts it forth into the spectrum of visible light.

Some TVs have good built-in speakers. Most don't, but if you look for them you can find them.

TVs don't compete with sound bars, but sound bars certainly compete with TVs.

Not the GP, but I think the comment is akin to 'inertia is the competitor of everything.'

Sound bars can also offer a budget priced mobile speaker solution. If installed correctly and with the correct adapters it’s rather trivial to grab the sound bar off of the TV stand and bring it out to some other area and connect your phone to it for decent quality listening. Returning it to its normal resting place is nearly as trivial.

I think your right here. The rise of the sound bar as installed below many TVs, I believe is a direct response to the preponderance of modern LCD/LED TVs to have as small a footprint as possible - the lack of depth leads to the installation of smaller speakers of perhaps lesser quality because there is no cabinet within which to place larger fuller range speakers.

People who choose to make use of a sound bar are using it to enhance/replace the speaker array that the TV came equipped with.

Although thr rise of sound bars may have come from supplementing the television, I do not think you are correct in your final sentence.

People who use a sound bar do so because it checks as many audio needs as necessary within a simple setup. For myself and many others, its use as a quality bluetooth sound system is just as important.

Are modern phased array sound bars capable of bouncing sound off walls to emulate surround sound? I understand that Apple's Homepods for example have quite sophisticated algorithms for sound.

It's not quite the same, but third number of Dolby Atmos systems denotes the number of ceiling facing speakers to bounce audio:

https://professional.dolby.com/categories/soundbars/

That was definitely the case for me. My TV had "meh" speakers built in, so we bought a sound bar to mount underneath of it.

Surround sound was never seriously considered, the sound at (and the subwoofer that came with it) are more than adequate.

A better question: Can modern movie formats mix sound such that people with two stereo speakers can actually hear the voice track?

This is scientifically impossible unfortunately.

I don't think the problem is the number of speakers.

Movies just have higher dynamic range where the lounder part is not suitable for home use if you adjust the volume to have the voices at "normal volume". The "problem" exists even if you have proper surround sound systems (obviously, surround sound systems would have it better due to better channel separation, but the volume issue is still there).

Don't get me wrong, I agree that movies released on home media should have a mix that is more balanced (compressed) in loudness. Just that the problem isn't related to the setup of the speakers.

Question for people in the industry: Is it too hard to include a separate audio track that's more suitable for home use where a better emphasis is placed on dialogue?

Not a sound engineer but that sounds like remixing and remastering a rather large percentage of the film, if not the entire thing. I think you would have to have a director really push for that expense.

Some do, the one I noticed recently is the Valerian bluray.

The number of speakers is part of the problem. Reproduction of a center channel using two loudspeakers ("phantom center") is inherently flawed, because you get comb filtering between them. Unlike with headphones, both ears can hear both speakers at once, but unless you're sitting perfectly centered, the distance from them is not the same. This means the signal from one is delayed relative to the other, so you get frequency-dependent constructive and destructive interference. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comb_filter

The effect is more noticeable in an acoustically dry room where there are few reflections filling in the notches. A real center channel eliminates this source of comb filtering.

That doesn't make any sense to me. People have been listening to mono audio sources with two speakers forever without this issue. Even if the "comb filtering" is noticeable you can still make out voices just fine.

The length of time people have been ignoring something doesn't affect if it's real or not. A phantom center channel is a cost optimization, and in many cases it's good enough, but it's also true that many people have trouble hearing dialogue in movies. Some of them will benefit from a real center channel. How much they'll benefit depends on the acoustic environment and listening position.

This isn't a new idea; the very first movie with multi-channel audio used a real center channel:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasound

Downvoters, it's a real thing:

>The tests showed significant improvements in word recognition using a separate center loudspeaker when compared with a phantom center image between a pair of loudspeakers.

https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14174

I have a good 5.1 setup at home and it's still irritating. To hear the quiet parts you have to have it up loud enough that the loud parts are deafening.

I don't enjoy that even/especially at the cinema. Why do they do this? I don't need to hear gunshots and explosions at full real volume.

You need hearing protection when shooting for a reason.

Make a patent now ;-)

I remember having to leave the theater during "Public Enemies" because I couldn't understand the dialogue. No idea if the mix was bad, or something was wrong at the theater. The volume was loud, but I couldn't make out words at all.

Googling around a bit, others complained too.

In every Michael Mann movie I can think of, the gunfire is really loud compared to everything else; I can understand wanting to show off after recording all of the gunfire in the Heat shootout for real.

The mix is bad, I own it on Blu-Ray and it's indecipherable.

Don Lindich recently recommended a ZVOX product. I wish I could hear it first, before buying. Although this isn't solving the root-cause of the problem.

> If you are willing to spend a bit more for a sure thing, ZVOX is the go-to for voice clarity and one of the most popular companies I write about. Their lines of headphones, soundbars and television speakers use their proprietary AccuVoice, based on hearing aid technology, to make dialogue clear and easy to understand.

> Last year I reviewed and recommended the ZVOX AV157 Television Speaker, which includes 6 levels of AccuVoice Boost and 6 levels of SuperVoice boost

> https://soundadvicenews.com/2021/05/14/cheap-soundbars-for-b...

I’ve been running home theater in stereo for years and the solution I’ve found is a combination of phantom center channel level control, and adjusting the compression settings to reduce dynamics.

What works for me is a passive hardware mixer in front of my 2 channel power amp.

I take the line level center (mono) and main (L/R) pre-out signals from my hdmi receiver, and mix them on the passive mixer.

This gives full control over the center level mix without actually having a center speaker (I have just a pair of stereo speakers)

I also set dynamics to minimum to keep dialog and special fx at roughly the same volume level (instead of constantly riding the volume control during action scenes)

Took some time to tune it, but I’m really happy with the setup now!

Can't you do this on your AVR? Most have a center level control. Does that not work with a phantom center?

Depends on the model afaik. On mine phantom center disables level control.

One unmentioned thing: you can start off with a receiver and two speakers and upgrade over time. If you choose good components, they'll retain value either as a second system or for resale.

I bought a NAD stereo receiver and two PSB Alpha A/Vs twenty years ago. Now the Alphas are my surround speakers and the NAD runs some nice speakers in a different room.

With a soundbar, that's it. Maybe you get to swap subwoofers, maybe not.

There is nothing about a sound bar that says you can't add surrounds. Granted many of the lower end sound bars are not going to have this option, but then that's low end.

I had the Sonos Beam with two Symfonisks for a few weeks. The problem with this soundbar is that you need the Sonos Sub for anything lower than 90Hz, but it's €800 where I live.

Also it has the same problem as most other soundbars: the front stage just isn't wide enough. With the Symfonisks you clearly have a left and right in the back, but everything from the front only comes from one direction. I didn't like that at all.

After some consideration I figured I didn't think the surround sound was that important to me. So I bought a second-hand (but modern) receiver and went to a nearby audio dealer and bought some big floorstanding speakers (Tannoy Platinum F6) and I haven't looked back since. Audio quality is great for a non-audiophile like me. It goes low enough without a sub for movies and music simply sounds amazing.

It cost me €900 in total, while the beam setup had cost me €650, so it is somewhat more expensive. Well worth it in my opinion, though.

I got the Sonos Arc, which was (a ridiculously expensive IMHO) £799, and I was expecting to be blown away after reading glowing reviews. Instead, it's just... OK. Using the app to calibrate it to the room made a big difference. I might be spoiled by my obsession with headphones, it obviously won't match the fidelity of my e.g. Focal Clears. Still better than the built-in LG CX speakers, and good enough for the occasional movie or Switch game. It also looks pretty good.

I’ve got the Arc, sub and two Ones for rear speakers. It’s way better than the Beam was but there’s far better sounding speakers out there.

What I do enjoy is the simplicity and small number of wires for speakers throughout my house.

I’m setting up a recording studio and going very high end with the speakers there- for video games otherwise this is good enough most days

Ugh, I have a half-height Marantz A/V which struggles to drive my 5.1 B&W 600-series speakers. Since moving to my new home, where the couch doesn’t face the wall, I was inclined to ditch the set up and get Arc+Ones. It looks fantastic... but:

- no DTS:X encoding. What? Many UHD blu-ray movies only come with DTS:X tracks and no, getting your player (e.g. XBOX One) to do the conversion doesn’t do the trick because for object-based audio formats (DTS:X and Atmos), it has to be done by the processor, which has data of where the speakers are. And I disagree the future of 4K movies is streaming (which favor Atmos, according to Sonos), because the difference of any streaming 4K movies and an UHD disk without all the ridiculous compression os night and day - this is not a problem exclusive to Sonos, but no brand does anything to help with cable management. Yes there are less wires with soundbars, but the rears are where the main problem is. With wireless rears, you’re just trading speaker wires for power wires (with the exception of one soundbar brand selling battery-powered rears, but forgot which now)

So, with all that and considered the price, I couldn’t justify getting the Arc system.

Even though there is still a wire, that wire can be plugged in where it is, and not wrapped around a room.

I used to love Sonos and recommend their products to friends and family.

But as time passed, far more options for playing a digital music library, or from streaming services, have appeared. Meanwhile, Sonos devices have got even more expensive, and they've tried to make some very popular earlier units obsolete.

I guess I expected too much by treating Sonos gear as 'hi-fi products' - expecting the devices to last essentially forever if not abused. At the end of the day, they rely on a lot of software, and in particular rely on being controlled by mobile apps, where the idea of 'backwards compatibility' is simply not a thing any more.

So it's very hard to justify Sonos prices, knowing that there'll be an artificial limit to the lifespan of the devices (even if it's a pretty long one by tech standards, it's short by hi-fi standards)

Interesting, I haven't heard a Symfonisk, we use a beam and a couple of play:1 units. I like the sound, but it definitely could use a sub, and I agree those are very pricey.

Maybe when I move house and get a decent media room...

It’s been 25 years since I was last into surround sound.

What feels amazing and also slightly weird is that some of these surround sound receivers haven’t changed at all in aesthetic since the 90s.

I know there are probably technical reasons for it, but it seems odd that while we have waved goodbye to CRTs, VHS, and 10BaseT, the shape of these Denon receivers looks largely unchanged.

They still have the parade of Dolby etc logos across the top, and it looks like the main display is still a light blue plasma dot matrix?

I think the shape (or size, at least) is dictated somewhat by the sheer amount of I/O that receivers provide.

If you look at the rear of some receivers they are jam packed with speaker terminals, analogue and digital inputs and outputs, HDMI ports, USB, etc.

That's true, but yet the LCD screen is like... strange at least nowadays. I mean, they are Internet-connected, Spotify-streaming AV receivers, with bugs, firmware upgrades etc but they still use those old fashioned displays.

If only they used Nixie tubes instead. I would pay extra for that.

There’s also still a fairly standard size for hi-fi separates, and most AV receivers stick to that same footprint.

The bulk of the receiver isn’t really an issue to those who still prefer to use large-ish hi-fi speakers, rather than following the trend of small mono speakers fed lossy audio over Bluetooth or wifi.

Personally, I’ve never liked the ‘tiny speakers plus big boomy sub’ sound ever since it became a trend in computer speakers, and most sound bars just continue that idea.

Also, why is there never the option to turn up the center channel contribution when downmixing surround formats to stereo? Many sound bars are plagued by excessively quiet dialog when playing back certain content. A big bulky AV receiver is likely to give you a lot more control.

Is my NAD AV receiver the only device smart enough to know I want the LED power indicator off when I watch a movie, either that or someone wired it wrong?

Amen, the obsession with putting LEDs on everything is infuriating - especially standby LEDs.

This is compounded with the newer super bright LEDs. I've got a Asus chromebook that lights up a dark room every couple of seconds when it's charging. It's served as a great beater laptop for the past 5 years yet that LED has never once been of use to me but pissed me off dozens of times as I've had to get out of bed to cover it when in a hotel room somewhere.

Color it with a Sharpie to reduce the brightness, or cover it with a piece of electrical/duct tape. I have applied auto window-tint film over too-bright LCD clock-radio displays so they don't light up the bedroom.

The issue is that you think about it exclusively when sharipe-less, tape-less, angry and weak.

It's nice when you get a device with an option to turn the power/standby LED off (Have seen this on Sonos devices and Ubiquiti wifi access points. Would be good to see it in more places)

Onkyo receivers don't have a power LED, they have a standby one that is off when the device is in use. They also usually have a dimming feature on the display and I have seen some units have a "pure audio" mode that turns off the display unless you are actively changing things.

nice :)

There have been advancements in sound technology, computational audio, better designed speakers, Class-D amplifiers which are cheap, efficient and sound really good. It switches millions of times a second, cool design! It can power your speakers with a tiny DIY amp that uses a lot less power these days. But yes the hi-fi aeshetic remains mostly the same.

Good. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

But it is somewhat broke. If receivers were smaller and prettier, soundbars would not be a thing, and we’d all be better off.

I'm pretty sure soundbars are popular because of the speakers and cables etc. For many people, running cables between playback devices, receivers and speakers is way too confusing. Nobody who is comfortable with separates is going to switch to a soundbar because they don't find the received "modern" enough or something.

I think it’s space (the receiver is bulky and difficult to place), and looks — it’s common for one member of a household to be enthusiastic about sound and messing with wires, and for another to be enthusiastic about interior design.

I hope people are not as helpless with technology as you think. Also, you can pay someone to deal with wires.

I think the problem is head related transfer functions are too specific to people's head size.

One time in my life I have heard amazing HRTF encoded audio with this dog running from what sounded like 100 feet away and then coming up and sniffing my ear. It was freaky. That was the only time the transfer function fit for me. Every other time it just didn't work and just sounded like the sound panning around the standard stereo field.

If HRTF was one size fits all we would be long done with all this but I don't know that there is a better option that can be done for a reasonable price for what you get.

You can try the Dolby Atmos demo file - on the Dolby Atmos intro page - to get an idea of how good/bad the encoding is.

On my (studio) headphones it was more spatial than stereo, but certainly not a jaw-drop moment.

I have a 7.1.4 Dolby Atmos[1] setup with decent sized modern speakers, hooked up to an 11 channel Denon amp. There is absolutely NO WAY any soundbar can compete with this setup.

That said, for people who do not have the luxury of having a dedicated space for a home cinema rig like mine, and want a better sound stage than the rubbish speakers in their LCD television, then a soundbar is a great non-intrusive solution.

The problem here is, TV manufacturers focus so hard on the pixels in their panels, but ignore the acoustic properties of the on-board speakers.

---

[1] https://www.dolby.com/about/support/guide/speaker-setup-guid...

> NO WAY a soundbar can compete [but may be a] great non-intrusive solution

Used to agree with you, but there’s yet another setup out there that is good enough while non-intrusive, that I’m perplexed how.

I’m a home theater snob. For 20 years in a suburban home I’ve had a 20 ft diagonal screen in a cork walled room with multiple level floor going back to the projector, with a series of AV setups.

Meanwhile, in city condos or co-ops I’ve used top of the line Onkyo or Denon AVRs with Polk or Definitive wired speakers and powered sub (compromises made to get white speakers for white decor) in 7.1.4 or 7.1.2. I had auditioned a number of sound bars, and no way. Sound is just too important to the film and premium television experience.

But then, this summer I’m at a vacation home where for expedience I brought two of our HomePod speakers (full size) that were for whole house audio, plugged them as an Atmos enabled “stereo pair” to latest Apple TV that has eARC, and … I am shocked.

(Room/TV/speaker arrangement: room is shaped like a shoebox with 75 inch wall mount TV on the narrow wall with Home Pods 6” below and 1 foot in towards the center from the sides of the screen, and about 2” away from the wall. Room is ~3 TVs wide and ~5 TVs long. Couch is 4/5ths back in the room.)

I don’t know what Apple is doing to make just that pair sound so good. Certainly, I can tell it’s not “real” 7.1.x, but it’s better spatially than top of the line gear rendering Dolby Pro-Logic to 5.1 worth of speakers, and competitive sonically with the top in-wall/in-ceiling Polk and free standing Definitive models. It even “sounds” like we have a sub, though you cannot “feel” it.

For a studio / apartment / condo / co-op, thanks to how minimal this is relative to the sound experience it provides, as long as Apple keeps updating or at least supporting the HomePods I don’t think I’ll ever do a full system again.

I even purchased another pair to update and then keep in a box as spares.

// Yes, LG TV’s own audio was garbage, sounding practically mono and somehow simultaneously tinny and muffled.

GoldenEar has a very nice passive soundbar that I recommend if you don't have the room or a high WAF criteria for separates. Pair it with some solid in ceiling speakers and you'd be surprised how well it performs.

I was never into surround, but having a proper 2.1 setup has always been a huge priority. I've been rocking a pair of Polk RTI12s and a hand built subwoofer for the last decade and I can't imagine upgrading.

Even the highest end soundbar on the market today would be a drop in the bucket compared to what this setup is capable of. I actually have a few sound bars/docks/etc on hand to compare. It is comedy at best.

People are often surprised at how encompassing a sufficiently wide stereo setup is. My stereo speakers can go down to 50Hz so I don't consider a subwoofer to be essential. However, with a larger screen and multiple people viewing, a centre speaker is a good improvement. The ghost centre channel on stereo only really works if you're sitting in the sweet spot.

But that is not what soundbars are about, they are meant to look nice first and only then sound good

There's no replacement for displacement. Most people see the subwoofer price tags and skip them. I got a 12" Dayton sub for $150. Worth every penny.

I wish there were more closed enclosure subwoofers for lower group delay. Building seems like an intriguing route. There's a lot of theory that goes into design, so I'd have to find some time and passion for it. The passion is easy. Time, not so much.

> Most people see the subwoofer price tags and skip them.

Or they are aiming for good quality sound (in particular, clear dialogue) at relatively low volumes. In which case, adding a center speaker will be more beneficial than adding a sub.

(Some of us have neighbours who really wouldn't appreciate us attempting to recreate a cinema-volume experience at home...)

Subs don't need to be cranked up. You could simply enjoy hearing sub 100 Hz sounds at a reasonable volume.

A center channel isn't needed to increase clarity. Buying a center channel speaker without first knowing your stereo speakers' radiation pattern and positioning them and your seating appropriately is a waste of money.

The magical point of crossover is more like ~50Hz in my experience. If you can get mains that go as low as 50hz and you set crossovers properly, the chances that the subwoofer is going to screw up clarity/stereo imaging is really small. At that point it is more about making sure the kettle drums provide authentic presence (i.e. small cracks in your drywall).

I built a sealed box around a Sony 15 inch car speaker. Does a really nice job and didn’t need any theory because sealed boxes are inherently more tolerant.it’s a cube about 2 and something foot on a side. Knocked it together with nails and a jigsaw. Yeah I’m a really hack wood worker :)

You can actually get kits that are pretty hard to screw up these days:

https://www.parts-express.com/Dayton-Audio-18-Reference-Seri...

You'd be hard pressed to find something as good as that DIY kit for <$2000 in the retail marketplace.

https://archive.is/kit5Z

It doesn't seem like a blind test when the subjects are saying things like

"With the soundbar, it sounded more like a ‘front and back’ effect rather than a wraparound effect.”"

Am I misunderstanding something?

Maybe after the test it was revealed what was what. So they can refer to the soundbar, when for the test it was only known to be "Speaker B".

Which defeats the purpose of a blind test.

I had assumed they did a truly blind test, then asked them for opinions on the sound. After they got that feedback, they revealed the systems and price and asked, with this new info what would you get?

Well, the way it's phrased it seems like they asked for opinions after revealing which device they are discussing.

They were unblinded after the tests to enable a discussion:

After the listening tests, I showed the systems to Major and Gonda, discussed the prices and features, and concluded by asking them which type of system they’d be more likely to buy.

Then any opinion they give after knowing is worthless. Why bother publishing that?

The article is not detailed enough to say whether the quality of the sound choice was given prior to the deeper discussion. Given the writer thought a blind test was important, I would imagine they would have gotten the quick pick before revealing the systems. Even though both participants picked the full system as the best sounding, they both also said they would probably buy the sound bar over full system. The true point of the article is to answer the question of whether the sound bar quality has advanced far enough that people would choose them over full systems despite the quality difference.

I believe when the article says, "We decided to try to answer this question in the most scientific way possible" they were using hyperbole, as the test was clearly not scientifically rigorous.

Just a pair of decent open-back headphones. (I use Sennheiser HD600)

Better than the best speaker setup you could possibly have.

Ultimately, it's all about having the best independent control of each ear. No speaker setup can possibly compare.

Having experienced a near optimal headphone setup, I must say I was pleasurably suprised by the sound quality and all the details. Having said so, I did miss the "feeling" of bass and other tidbits. For me music is for the most part hearing, but also feeling. That is something not a single headphone can provide. I'm saying this with a relatively simple setup of a Rode AI-1, Yamaha HS5 on ear height and the Yamaha HS8S.

Neither could a headphone compare to an aneachoic chamber with a >96-channel 3D surround driven music experience, but then again, no one has that yet.

>but then again, no one has that yet.

And even with such an ideal room, you'd still have to deal with latency. It would be a sick setup for music I suppose.

I had a random Sony surround-sound system that I bought for 60 bucks and it was great! I have to replace it because it's not easy to connect to my new TV. I tried a few soundbars and I've been flabbergasted at how shitty they all were. They're pretty and convenient, but any basic 5.1 or even 3.1 system is ten times better. I'm not fond of 5.1 because of wires, but 3.1 is good enough for depth and intensity.

Not surprised to hear how the soundbar sounded.

I used to have a fancy Denon 5.1 receiver, sp/dif optical, and Linux 'mplayer -ac hw(ac3|dts)' which was totally amazing.

Now I have a Logitech Z906 which has only the features I actually needed from the Denon, but my display device is an Android TV and no combination of audio settings in Android or VLC will get a raw audio stream to the optical port. I'm getting a mini PC for that. FFS.

The underlying topic of such questions is: How capable are psycho-acoustical engineered* devices nowadays? When I succeed to design a device to sound exactly like a pro-setup, do I still need the latter?

I think that is a increasingly interesting philosophical question transferable to more and more topics.

My experience has been that such tricks don't hold up. For example, smaller speakers that EQ their way into seeming like they have more bass by boosting harmonic frequencies -- they sound nice on first listen, but handle low volume poorly and, after prolonged listening, give me a headache. And nothing lets you feel the bass like big speakers moving air.

But this is mostly music, not movies. There, I find the quality of the script and acting far more immersive than fancy audio tricks, so I'm probably not the target audience.

A pair of good 6.5” bookshelf speakers are the way to go IMO.

They are small, don't require a sub and a decent set can sound absolutely huge.

You’ll get so much more enjoyable sound, especially for music, and they will hold value better/longer than a soundbar too.

I have a very decent soundbar (Bose), I like it because I don't need to put speakers or a subwoofer anywhere, the main unit has girthy enough sound. Main downside is probably resonance with the cabinet I have it standing on, I could put a rubber mat or some felt pads under it I guess.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com