7 ms·

I feel that sound bars + speakers directly attached to TVs has decimated the "home theatre receiver." "Back in the day", home theatre receivers made sense when

I feel that sound bars + speakers directly attached to TVs has decimated the "home theatre receiver." "Back in the day", home theatre receivers made sense when you wanted Radio + CD inputs in addition to the TV input. But radio and CD players are gone. There is just TV. Even when I do audio, I run it through the TV. Thus why do you need a separate box? It just seems like a waste. Instead everyone these days are just attaching their speaker systems directly to the TV. And with wireless speakers, e.g. Sonos and similar systems, a centralized audio amplifier just doesn't make sense at all. So all that is left is ultra-high end applications and there are few of those.

KerrAvon 1y ago
Soundbars -- and also improved built-in TV speakers -- have eaten the low-end receiver market, for sure, but there are still a lot of other installations. A soundbar and stuff like Sonos are still compromises vs discrete channel speakers, and many people are still willing to pay for better sound. You don't have to go too high end to want better sound. Marantz gear in particular is great, and Samsung buying them seems really unfortunate. Might be better than some private equity randos though.
neuroelectron 1y ago
I feel like this is tied to the overall decline in movie and music quality. Maybe I'm just getting old. There is no more "Titanic" or "Nirvana". Lots of people have noticed the decline in audio mixing in movies as well, which has led to a generation of younger adults who need captions for regular movies. A discrete audio system would probably help with this but for what? How many times are you going to watch latest Avengers?
- kyriakos 1y ago
  There are 2 problems currently with movie audio. One is that the channel separation is not as good as it used to be. New movies have 5.1 audio the effect is minimal which no longer justifies the expense on the sound system. People online are saying this is because many movies are made for primarily for streaming and that majority of people listen on their TV or sound bar instead of dedicated surround systems. The second issue is what you described, the mixing is just bad, sound effects and music are much louder than dialog making it impossible to comprehend without subtitles.
  - gehwartzen 1y ago
    For most people a good 2.1 system vs surround or soundbars is where it’s at these days. As you say most surround mixing is an afterthought now anyway. The physics of moving air to create sound hasn’t really changed in any meaningful ways; the biggest upgrade is usually larger drivers fed with more power. I think most would experience that as much more of a theatre like experience than 7+ tiny underpowered satellites outputting an already bad mix.
    - SoleilAbsolu 1y ago
      I'd say "specific format surround mixing" like 5.1 or 7.1 is mostly an afterthought, but Dolby Atmos (which is "mix once and it automatically folds down properly to the actual number of atmos speakers" has become huge in the audio world according to multiple interviews I've read with pro audio mixers and film/video/TV post folks.
      - gsibble 1y ago
        Be careful about Atmos. Most Atmos discs (I refuse to stream it) are a 5.1 TrueHD main setup with atoms layered in. So it's still 5.1 or 7.1 with some atmos effects. That being said, I have a 7.1.4 Atmost setup and it is on the level of "HOLY SHIT" good.
  - amlib 1y ago
    > The second issue is what you described, the mixing is just bad, sound effects and music are much louder than dialog making it impossible to comprehend without subtitles. The trend of mixing sound effects much louder has been in vogue for longer than star wars exists and not a lot of movies drown out everything in super loud music (Christopher Nolan films being exhibit number 1 lol). I think part of the issue stems from the audio not being adapted for home releases. There used to be special sound mixes for VHS, TV shows and even DVDs (as stereo version of the 5.1 track) that lowered the dynamic range and made everything fairly clear even on your 70s CRT TV speakers. Nowadays sound engineers probably marvel at how nice and crisp their work sounds on a studio kitted with 1 million worth of audio gear and call it good enough for playback in all systems. Add some directors wanting more "natural" dialog requesting actors to speak softly and the deal is sealed, only the 0.1% can watch anything without subtitles. I honestly think the solution is for the industry to adopt a standardized audio gain control solution. The only reason we didn't get that in the past was because implementing such things on consumer gear was far too expensive (it was far more cost effective to just pre-process it and deliver the low dynamic range mix right in the medium, with the advantage of the possibility of a custom tuned mix). Today's TVs all have some kind of audio normalization functionality but they are all kinda bad (they alter loudness balance making everything sound tiny, a proper solution requires proper equal loudness contour compensation) and not suited for sudden and constant jumps of volumes like in movie action scenes. It also doesn't helps that every manufacturer does it differently.
- TiredOfLife 1y ago
  > There is no more "Nirvana" That cacophony was considered quality music?
  - lupusreal 1y ago
    Subjectivity aside, I'm pretty sure Nirvana's target audience was teenagers using cheap headphones or their car stereos, not boomers with expensive HiFi setups, so that really is a funny remark.
    - neuroelectron 1y ago
      https://archive.org/details/nirvana-mtv-unplugged-in-new-york-live-1994 https://archive.org/details/nirvana-mtv-unplugged-in-new-yor...
  - vile_wretch 1y ago
    Are you 100 years old?
    - neuroelectron 1y ago
      Name one good movie since Titanic
      - vile_wretch 1y ago
        Titanic 2 (I was replying to the person who called Nirvana cacophony/not music)
    - TiredOfLife 1y ago
      No. But I have ears
- Disposal8433 1y ago
  The whole "4/5 speakers around the room" never made sense to me. It always felt overly complicated for a premium price that no one could afford or cared about. I used to hang out with people who had luxury sound systems but it was way too expensive or complicated for my daily use. For the past 15 years, I have used the same cheap combo of soundbar+subwoofer (Sony but anything goes) and it's perfect for everything I throw at it. The sound is equivalent to what I remember on those expensive sets, it's only $250, and I don't spend my whole time in front of the TV listening to high-quality remasters of classical concerts while smoking a cigar. The high-end brands have failed to recognize that for most people a decent set of cheap speakers is equivalent to a cinema experience. They should have studied that instead of focusing on incomprehensible technical values and numbers. The software industry is guilty of this too.
  - morellt 1y ago
    I think this ties in more with the decrease in quality of movie/music sound mixing. There are current movies coming to theaters with mixing so bad that they have to rerelease it with the proper audio (such as Across the Spiderverse). Many, MANY albums that release today have noticeable digital clipping because engineers have now assumed that high gain is always better etc. etc. There used to be a reason to have a 5.1 surround system, because that's how the movies were supposed to be enjoyed. There used to be a reason to engineer your home "soundstage" because that's how the music was mixed and optimally appreciated. I don't think the bar of entry being money is truly the reason, rather that people have become much more passive consumers of media, and the producers have recognized that and absolutely enshittified their products. As for the cheap speakers = cinematic experience, watch Interstellar with 5.1, then with the soundbar and tell me how equal the experience is.
    - j_heffe 1y ago
      I think audio really took a hit in the 90s and early 2000s when home theater became a lot cheaper and a lot more accessible and so too did the quality. Guys would spend their life savings on some crazy Polk or JBLs back in the day, and they were genuinely good quality and expensive. I always thought "Blinded by the light" was a garbage song hearing it on the radio all the time, but after listening to the album on my dad's JBL L100's, I understand why he's such a vintage purist. It changed the sound of the song completely. The speakers picked up things I had literally never heard before. I know nothing about audio engineering, but it does seem like the art has sort of died out or became "more productionized".
leptons 1y ago
Most people are basic and have basic needs, and a soundbar suffices in most cases. I was sort of one of those people, with a soundbar, because it was easy and convenient. The soundbar came with a wireless subwoofer, and that solved the problem of running wires across my living room. But, I had a gifted B&W 5.1 system with powered sub collecting dust out in my garage for a long time. I recently made the push to dust it all off and buy a receiver to power it, replacing the soundbar+sub we had been using for years. The difference is really night and day. The soundbar just never got loud enough for when I wanted to crank-it-up when playing music. It was good enough for watching most TV shows, but the sound we get now from a 5.1 movie is incredible in comparison. I did the work to run completely flat speaker wires to the surround speakers, under the rug in our living room. It took some work to re-route wires and get power to where the receiver is, but it was well worth it. The new system goes as loud as I can stand it with crystal-clarity all the way up to "11". The soundbar looks like a piece of junk in comparison and is now out in the garage collecting dust.
- baq 1y ago
  Yeah proper sound is something you have to experience to understand, otherwise you’ll keep saying ‘I don’t need it’ or ‘a soundbar is good enough’. If you never cross the -30 level, maybe it is…
  - leptons 1y ago
    You get what you pay for, too. The B&W setup is about $1700 with the amp (I only had to pay $250 for the amp), but the soundbar was about $170. It seems difficult to spend that kind of money when something 10x less will do, especially without hearing it in your living room first. But after hearing it I'd absolutely spend the whole $1700 to get this system. I do get 10x the enjoyment out of it, when it counts. Next I'm probably going to surprise my wife and install some bass-shakers inside my couch for the full movie theater experience.
  - ahartmetz 1y ago
    IME, a soundbar sounds terribly flat and lifeless compared to some good (B&W in my case) speakers, even at moderate volume. I switched from a 500€ Marantz amp to an 80€ SMSL SA-50 btw, these things sound amazing and I recommend class D amps to everyone.
hulitu 1y ago
> Thus why do you need a separate box? It just seems like a waste The sound quality of modern TV is absymal. The digital compression does play its part, but the speakers and the case are crap.
- bhouston 1y ago
  I have a Sonos hooked up to my TV via the arc-X port. I do not disagree that TV speakers are generally horrible.
- relwin 1y ago
  Most TVs have downward firing speakers which splat the audio all about -- bouncing around before entering your ears. I wonder if it's easy to detach the speaker and pull it out and face it forward just like my old Vizio did 15 years ago...
- ausaus 1y ago
  I have a Philips TV with awful sound connected to a Marantz NR1200 2.1 AV receiver. More than happy with it, handles all my audio needs and has so many inputs I don't think I'll need to replace it anytime soon.
darkwater 1y ago
Personally I have a Raspberry with Kodi, a Chromecast and a Nintendo Switch attached to my Onkyo receiver and only one HDMI cable going to the wall-mounted TV. Plus two nice (for my taste) big speakers. And I can listen to streaming music without turning the TV on (big big plus)
- distances 1y ago
  I have Chromecast, Blu-ray player, Steam Deck, and computer hooked to my beamer. My solution was a HDMI switch with audio extraction capability, so the HDMI audio goes from the switch to a tiny digital amplifier feeding my stereo speakers. And one HDMI out from the switch to the beamer of course. Very compact and modular system, quite happy with it.
ben7799 1y ago
I agree with this. I think the overall experience with the modern setup is worse in every way than 20 years ago with the exception of picture quality since we have 4K now. (Of course mostly we watch heavily compressed streaming video). 20 years ago I had a 5.1 system and would watch DVDs. The sound was vastly better than TV speakers/soundbar, compression was lower on the video despite being SD. By 15 years ago this was no longer true with a Blue Ray player of course, everything was better. My setup back then even had an audio compressor ("dynamic range adjustment") so you could actually hear the dialog when you needed to turn the volume down at night. No need to use subtitles! But the old setup doesn't make sense anymore either as you would have had to keep replacing the receiver a bunch of times for no good reason as AV standards changed. I got rid of my old setup at some point. I have a new system in another room that doesn't do video at all. It's just stereo with a CD player, a Turntable, a digital media player (doesn't get used much) and a Bluetooth input for streaming.
- realityking 1y ago
  Nearly all TVs have an SPDIF out and can send 5.1 Dolby Digital extracted from whatever input (Streaming, Blu-ray via HDMI, broadcast, etc.) to that output. I’m sure you’re 20 year old receiver already had an SPDIF input and a Dolby Digital decoder. You could have easily kept that setup with the same level of soundquality the whole time - assuming nothing breaks. I think large 5.1 just went out of fashion due to the size and cable requirements and the fact that soundbars became good enough.
gsibble 1y ago
I have an 7.1.4 Atmos system with a Sony ES receiver. I can definitively tell you that sound bars to not come anywhere close to the quality of what I have, and at a decent price too (the entire audio setup cost less than my OLED tv). I think most people are never exposed to real home theater audio so they don't know what they are missing. Similar with high end stereo audio these days (which I also have). Every time I show Top Gun Maverick in my theater room to a friend, they want to go out and buy a real setup. Several have. It sounds better than an actual theater plus I get to lounge on my couch with my dog.
TimByte 1y ago
If you're into lossless audio formats, room correction, or full surround setups with discrete speakers, receivers still have a strong case
- dan_quixote 1y ago
  Ahem... > So all that is left is ultra-high end applications and there are few of those. (and yes, I am mostly in that tiny demographic)

KerrAvon 1y ago

Soundbars -- and also improved built-in TV speakers -- have eaten the low-end receiver market, for sure, but there are still a lot of other installations. A soundbar and stuff like Sonos are still compromises vs discrete channel speakers, and many people are still willing to pay for better sound. You don't have to go too high end to want better sound. Marantz gear in particular is great, and Samsung buying them seems really unfortunate. Might be better than some private equity randos though.

neuroelectron 1y ago

I feel like this is tied to the overall decline in movie and music quality. Maybe I'm just getting old. There is no more "Titanic" or "Nirvana". Lots of people have noticed the decline in audio mixing in movies as well, which has led to a generation of younger adults who need captions for regular movies. A discrete audio system would probably help with this but for what? How many times are you going to watch latest Avengers?

kyriakos 1y ago
There are 2 problems currently with movie audio. One is that the channel separation is not as good as it used to be. New movies have 5.1 audio the effect is minimal which no longer justifies the expense on the sound system. People online are saying this is because many movies are made for primarily for streaming and that majority of people listen on their TV or sound bar instead of dedicated surround systems. The second issue is what you described, the mixing is just bad, sound effects and music are much louder than dialog making it impossible to comprehend without subtitles.
- gehwartzen 1y ago
  For most people a good 2.1 system vs surround or soundbars is where it’s at these days. As you say most surround mixing is an afterthought now anyway. The physics of moving air to create sound hasn’t really changed in any meaningful ways; the biggest upgrade is usually larger drivers fed with more power. I think most would experience that as much more of a theatre like experience than 7+ tiny underpowered satellites outputting an already bad mix.
  - SoleilAbsolu 1y ago
    I'd say "specific format surround mixing" like 5.1 or 7.1 is mostly an afterthought, but Dolby Atmos (which is "mix once and it automatically folds down properly to the actual number of atmos speakers" has become huge in the audio world according to multiple interviews I've read with pro audio mixers and film/video/TV post folks.
    - gsibble 1y ago
      Be careful about Atmos. Most Atmos discs (I refuse to stream it) are a 5.1 TrueHD main setup with atoms layered in. So it's still 5.1 or 7.1 with some atmos effects. That being said, I have a 7.1.4 Atmost setup and it is on the level of "HOLY SHIT" good.
- amlib 1y ago
  > The second issue is what you described, the mixing is just bad, sound effects and music are much louder than dialog making it impossible to comprehend without subtitles. The trend of mixing sound effects much louder has been in vogue for longer than star wars exists and not a lot of movies drown out everything in super loud music (Christopher Nolan films being exhibit number 1 lol). I think part of the issue stems from the audio not being adapted for home releases. There used to be special sound mixes for VHS, TV shows and even DVDs (as stereo version of the 5.1 track) that lowered the dynamic range and made everything fairly clear even on your 70s CRT TV speakers. Nowadays sound engineers probably marvel at how nice and crisp their work sounds on a studio kitted with 1 million worth of audio gear and call it good enough for playback in all systems. Add some directors wanting more "natural" dialog requesting actors to speak softly and the deal is sealed, only the 0.1% can watch anything without subtitles. I honestly think the solution is for the industry to adopt a standardized audio gain control solution. The only reason we didn't get that in the past was because implementing such things on consumer gear was far too expensive (it was far more cost effective to just pre-process it and deliver the low dynamic range mix right in the medium, with the advantage of the possibility of a custom tuned mix). Today's TVs all have some kind of audio normalization functionality but they are all kinda bad (they alter loudness balance making everything sound tiny, a proper solution requires proper equal loudness contour compensation) and not suited for sudden and constant jumps of volumes like in movie action scenes. It also doesn't helps that every manufacturer does it differently.
TiredOfLife 1y ago
> There is no more "Nirvana" That cacophony was considered quality music?
- lupusreal 1y ago
  Subjectivity aside, I'm pretty sure Nirvana's target audience was teenagers using cheap headphones or their car stereos, not boomers with expensive HiFi setups, so that really is a funny remark.
  - neuroelectron 1y ago
    https://archive.org/details/nirvana-mtv-unplugged-in-new-york-live-1994 https://archive.org/details/nirvana-mtv-unplugged-in-new-yor...
- vile_wretch 1y ago
  Are you 100 years old?
  - neuroelectron 1y ago
    Name one good movie since Titanic
    - vile_wretch 1y ago
      Titanic 2 (I was replying to the person who called Nirvana cacophony/not music)
  - TiredOfLife 1y ago
    No. But I have ears
Disposal8433 1y ago
The whole "4/5 speakers around the room" never made sense to me. It always felt overly complicated for a premium price that no one could afford or cared about. I used to hang out with people who had luxury sound systems but it was way too expensive or complicated for my daily use. For the past 15 years, I have used the same cheap combo of soundbar+subwoofer (Sony but anything goes) and it's perfect for everything I throw at it. The sound is equivalent to what I remember on those expensive sets, it's only $250, and I don't spend my whole time in front of the TV listening to high-quality remasters of classical concerts while smoking a cigar. The high-end brands have failed to recognize that for most people a decent set of cheap speakers is equivalent to a cinema experience. They should have studied that instead of focusing on incomprehensible technical values and numbers. The software industry is guilty of this too.
- morellt 1y ago
  I think this ties in more with the decrease in quality of movie/music sound mixing. There are current movies coming to theaters with mixing so bad that they have to rerelease it with the proper audio (such as Across the Spiderverse). Many, MANY albums that release today have noticeable digital clipping because engineers have now assumed that high gain is always better etc. etc. There used to be a reason to have a 5.1 surround system, because that's how the movies were supposed to be enjoyed. There used to be a reason to engineer your home "soundstage" because that's how the music was mixed and optimally appreciated. I don't think the bar of entry being money is truly the reason, rather that people have become much more passive consumers of media, and the producers have recognized that and absolutely enshittified their products. As for the cheap speakers = cinematic experience, watch Interstellar with 5.1, then with the soundbar and tell me how equal the experience is.
  - j_heffe 1y ago
    I think audio really took a hit in the 90s and early 2000s when home theater became a lot cheaper and a lot more accessible and so too did the quality. Guys would spend their life savings on some crazy Polk or JBLs back in the day, and they were genuinely good quality and expensive. I always thought "Blinded by the light" was a garbage song hearing it on the radio all the time, but after listening to the album on my dad's JBL L100's, I understand why he's such a vintage purist. It changed the sound of the song completely. The speakers picked up things I had literally never heard before. I know nothing about audio engineering, but it does seem like the art has sort of died out or became "more productionized".

leptons 1y ago

Most people are basic and have basic needs, and a soundbar suffices in most cases. I was sort of one of those people, with a soundbar, because it was easy and convenient. The soundbar came with a wireless subwoofer, and that solved the problem of running wires across my living room. But, I had a gifted B&W 5.1 system with powered sub collecting dust out in my garage for a long time. I recently made the push to dust it all off and buy a receiver to power it, replacing the soundbar+sub we had been using for years. The difference is really night and day. The soundbar just never got loud enough for when I wanted to crank-it-up when playing music. It was good enough for watching most TV shows, but the sound we get now from a 5.1 movie is incredible in comparison. I did the work to run completely flat speaker wires to the surround speakers, under the rug in our living room. It took some work to re-route wires and get power to where the receiver is, but it was well worth it. The new system goes as loud as I can stand it with crystal-clarity all the way up to "11". The soundbar looks like a piece of junk in comparison and is now out in the garage collecting dust.

baq 1y ago
Yeah proper sound is something you have to experience to understand, otherwise you’ll keep saying ‘I don’t need it’ or ‘a soundbar is good enough’. If you never cross the -30 level, maybe it is…
- leptons 1y ago
  You get what you pay for, too. The B&W setup is about $1700 with the amp (I only had to pay $250 for the amp), but the soundbar was about $170. It seems difficult to spend that kind of money when something 10x less will do, especially without hearing it in your living room first. But after hearing it I'd absolutely spend the whole $1700 to get this system. I do get 10x the enjoyment out of it, when it counts. Next I'm probably going to surprise my wife and install some bass-shakers inside my couch for the full movie theater experience.
- ahartmetz 1y ago
  IME, a soundbar sounds terribly flat and lifeless compared to some good (B&W in my case) speakers, even at moderate volume. I switched from a 500€ Marantz amp to an 80€ SMSL SA-50 btw, these things sound amazing and I recommend class D amps to everyone.

hulitu 1y ago

> Thus why do you need a separate box? It just seems like a waste The sound quality of modern TV is absymal. The digital compression does play its part, but the speakers and the case are crap.

bhouston 1y ago
I have a Sonos hooked up to my TV via the arc-X port. I do not disagree that TV speakers are generally horrible.
relwin 1y ago
Most TVs have downward firing speakers which splat the audio all about -- bouncing around before entering your ears. I wonder if it's easy to detach the speaker and pull it out and face it forward just like my old Vizio did 15 years ago...
ausaus 1y ago
I have a Philips TV with awful sound connected to a Marantz NR1200 2.1 AV receiver. More than happy with it, handles all my audio needs and has so many inputs I don't think I'll need to replace it anytime soon.

darkwater 1y ago

Personally I have a Raspberry with Kodi, a Chromecast and a Nintendo Switch attached to my Onkyo receiver and only one HDMI cable going to the wall-mounted TV. Plus two nice (for my taste) big speakers. And I can listen to streaming music without turning the TV on (big big plus)

distances 1y ago
I have Chromecast, Blu-ray player, Steam Deck, and computer hooked to my beamer. My solution was a HDMI switch with audio extraction capability, so the HDMI audio goes from the switch to a tiny digital amplifier feeding my stereo speakers. And one HDMI out from the switch to the beamer of course. Very compact and modular system, quite happy with it.

ben7799 1y ago

I agree with this. I think the overall experience with the modern setup is worse in every way than 20 years ago with the exception of picture quality since we have 4K now. (Of course mostly we watch heavily compressed streaming video). 20 years ago I had a 5.1 system and would watch DVDs. The sound was vastly better than TV speakers/soundbar, compression was lower on the video despite being SD. By 15 years ago this was no longer true with a Blue Ray player of course, everything was better. My setup back then even had an audio compressor ("dynamic range adjustment") so you could actually hear the dialog when you needed to turn the volume down at night. No need to use subtitles! But the old setup doesn't make sense anymore either as you would have had to keep replacing the receiver a bunch of times for no good reason as AV standards changed. I got rid of my old setup at some point. I have a new system in another room that doesn't do video at all. It's just stereo with a CD player, a Turntable, a digital media player (doesn't get used much) and a Bluetooth input for streaming.

realityking 1y ago
Nearly all TVs have an SPDIF out and can send 5.1 Dolby Digital extracted from whatever input (Streaming, Blu-ray via HDMI, broadcast, etc.) to that output. I’m sure you’re 20 year old receiver already had an SPDIF input and a Dolby Digital decoder. You could have easily kept that setup with the same level of soundquality the whole time - assuming nothing breaks. I think large 5.1 just went out of fashion due to the size and cable requirements and the fact that soundbars became good enough.

gsibble 1y ago

I have an 7.1.4 Atmos system with a Sony ES receiver. I can definitively tell you that sound bars to not come anywhere close to the quality of what I have, and at a decent price too (the entire audio setup cost less than my OLED tv). I think most people are never exposed to real home theater audio so they don't know what they are missing. Similar with high end stereo audio these days (which I also have). Every time I show Top Gun Maverick in my theater room to a friend, they want to go out and buy a real setup. Several have. It sounds better than an actual theater plus I get to lounge on my couch with my dog.

TimByte 1y ago

If you're into lossless audio formats, room correction, or full surround setups with discrete speakers, receivers still have a strong case

dan_quixote 1y ago
Ahem... > So all that is left is ultra-high end applications and there are few of those. (and yes, I am mostly in that tiny demographic)