Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
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.
Acoustic imaging is a very interesting topic as the way we determine locations in multiple dimensions is based on observation (it affects how our brain processes what we hear, though we can shut it off and still locate sounds perfectly well but can be more easily fooled), frequency, amplitude and phase (the relative phasing of the frequency components in a signal). I did a lot of work in this area and it is amazing how we can fool our hearing. Positional information is also related to the shape of our ears and how our brain learns how to position sounds (experiments that pinned peoples ears back caused them to lack the ability to locate sound, which they then learned and then had to relearn when their ears were allowed back into their normal shape).

All in all it is a very complex subject and is related to data and the way our brain processes data. A lot of the current processed audio system use phase as well frequency and directional control to create the effect of moving the location of a sound. Dolby ATMOS does exactly this by allowing you to map audio objects anywhere in 3 dimensional space by using the amplitude, frequency and phase of the signal you are trying to locate in 3 dimensional space. As you point out stereo was one of the first systems that attempted to locate sounds in a 2 dimensional space. Surround sound does this in a plane in which you are placed and ATMOS tries to create a 3 dimensional space in which a sound is located.

Soundbars use some of this to create the illusion that you have widely separated sources from a small system where the actual transducers are only locate 36" to 48" apart. It has a lot of work to do and in general they depend a lot on location and adjacent reflective surfaces i.e. environment. Loudspeakers interact with their surroundings and this is what causes the problems with them functioning when trying to fool your ears into locating sound sources in space. Headphones have complete control of the environment and can more easily fool your brain into convincing you that a sounds is located in a particular point in space. I remember early tests with open backed headphones where the test was a person walking around you and whispering in your ear. It made you jump and you had no problem locating them in a 2 dimensional flat plane. Adding a third dimension is very hard with headphones however.

Anyway, after all this pontificating, I was just trying to point out that soundbars if correctly placed in an ideal environment can possibly fool you into thinking you are sitting in the middle of a sound stage, but environmental issues, restricted speaker capabilities and some of the artifacts of the necessary processing make them a compromise which is more easily overcome with discrete speakers , amplifiers and careful processing but at some cost and convenience loss.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HobeSoundDarryl
HRTF is definitely above what most people care to know, hence I typically stay away from bringing its nuances up.



Something easier to grasp may be the classic book “master handbook of acoustics”, and then “sound reproduction” .
36fb7bca9445df85ced3f3202fb58339.jpg
 
HRTF is definitely above what most people care to know, hence I typically stay away from bringing its nuances up.



Something easier to grasp may be the classic book “master handbook of acoustics”, and then “sound reproduction” .
36fb7bca9445df85ced3f3202fb58339.jpg
Agree and am very familiar with these references. Trying to distill the issues into something that is easily digestible as, as you say, most people do not care to get that into the theory etc. was my initial objective.

They look well thumbed and noted your home theatre citation, so I assume you are well familiar with the issues I alluded to. Having designed loudspeakers for many years (a few years ago now as I moved onto a more computing systems orientated career and am now retired), the science and art of designing systems to achieve certain objectives is something I loved and relished and have followed the latest developments with interest, albeit and sometimes with a rather cynical eye and skepticism at times. Toole's book is especially interesting (I have the edition published in 2008, I do not know whether he updated it later). And of course, Everest's book is a standard reference for anyone working in the field.

Appreciate your comments and feedback. Nice to meet someone who has as much interest in this as I do.
 
Mama Bear won't let me run wires ...

Papa Bear can have wants fulfilled too.

And there are LOTS of ways to hide wires if you can't get into walls, ceilings, basements. See JeffPerrin's many good suggestions. While least favorite, I'll add one more to his if applicable: take them outside and then underground if you want to mostly hide them out there too, around to a suitable entry point and back in again. For example, if your main room is in a corner room and "front" is a wall that touches the outside, you could go through that wall, optionally underground (suggesting inside of some simple PVC piping you bury in a little trench) then around to the side wall that would basically be either beside or behind main seating position, back in there and get your surrounds, (optionally rear) and optionally sub cables to the right location that way.

There's also the wireless option of casting subwoofer and surrounds as a wireless signal, usually to a Sub positioned a little behind the main seating position and then wires from the sub to the surrounds. This eliminates front-to-back wiring in situations where there's just no way. I'm no big fan of this option but it exists too.
 
Last edited:
Yea I’ve built my own speakers for both dedicated HT in basement (9.2.6) and family room (5.1.4). Having similar off axis response to on axis does help immensely for many acoustic matters.

8a5ac7b063de862f2e2c8ac0f94cb562.jpg


These are the front wides (smaller ones) and the larger ones serve rear sides / surrounds and atmos front and rear height duty
7152476e04a7c8fe41a0a15d343866a7.jpg


This was upon completion the mains, before went AT screen. Those are 15” wide waveguides with 12” woofer. I was trying different locations
b2873d8109c4a4c40d64d7c6d4c25db2.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: phrehdd
I had a nice surround sound system set up at my house. I could crank it up loud. It sounded great. But moved into a high rise apartment. And now just use wired headphones. It's mostly for TV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: phrehdd
Thinking newer is better and wanting to get rid of the wires snaking all over our living room, a few years ago I replaced our old wired receiver/speakers system with a Sonos system. The sound quality is not as good. The old front speakers were spaced apart much wider than the sound bar and simply sounded spatially better. But there is something to be said for the convenience of wireless.
 
Thinking newer is better and wanting to get rid of the wires snaking all over our living room, a few years ago I replaced our old wired receiver/speakers system with a Sonos system. The sound quality is not as good. The old front speakers were spaced apart much wider than the sound bar and simply sounded spatially better. But there is something to be said for the convenience of wireless.
I can appreciate what you are saying but then again, there is a mad rush between makers to come out with soundbars that are good enough for home play of movies and such. They are far far better than those of just a few years ago. I prefer passive as they are usually 3 channel and can be hooked up to a receiver and gain other benefits but - there are a handful of impressive soundbars out there that in a small to medium room, with a subwoofer, can sound better than just okay.
 
I'm not a fan of soundbars. Here's the thing: if you put a soundbar in front of a TV, you're concentrating two channels of stereo in a small amount of space. Thus, it actually breaks the "equilateral triangle rule" unless you're sitting mere inches from the TV.

But now TV manufacturers seem to require the use of bluetooth systems (which limits you to either soundbars or bluetooth-enabled stereo speakers), because they don't have analog audio outputs. My family's 75" LG TV does not have analog audio outputs on it, so can't hook it up to really good speakers unless they're wireless. But I don't watch anything on that, so it doesn't matter much to me.

I'll admit I don't know much about soundbars, so maybe someone can weigh in on my next point... which is that the two stereo channels in a soundbar are coexistent. In other words, as far as I know, you cannot independently control each channel's output level. So therefore, if you are trying to calibrate your system using an SPL meter, you have two issues:
  1. You cannot turn off the left or right channel to test each stereo channel individually (which is how you calibrate a speaker system)
  2. You are basically hoping and praying that the two stereo channels are the same "volume" (really, same SPL measurement).
The playback system in my studio (JBL 308p's with subwoofer) provides all of the things soundbars don't: you can independently control the left/right channel, spread them out as much as you need, and can therefore calibrate them properly.
 
I'm not a fan of soundbars. Here's the thing: if you put a soundbar in front of a TV, you're concentrating two channels of stereo in a small amount of space. Thus, it actually breaks the "equilateral triangle rule" unless you're sitting mere inches from the TV.

But now TV manufacturers seem to require the use of bluetooth systems (which limits you to either soundbars or bluetooth-enabled stereo speakers), because they don't have analog audio outputs. My family's 75" LG TV does not have analog audio outputs on it, so can't hook it up to really good speakers unless they're wireless. But I don't watch anything on that, so it doesn't matter much to me.

I'll admit I don't know much about soundbars, so maybe someone can weigh in on my next point... which is that the two stereo channels in a soundbar are coexistent. In other words, as far as I know, you cannot independently control each channel's output level. So therefore, if you are trying to calibrate your system using an SPL meter, you have two issues:
  1. You cannot turn off the left or right channel to test each stereo channel individually (which is how you calibrate a speaker system)
  2. You are basically hoping and praying that the two stereo channels are the same "volume" (really, same SPL measurement).
The playback system in my studio (JBL 308p's with subwoofer) provides all of the things soundbars don't: you can independently control the left/right channel, spread them out as much as you need, and can therefore calibrate them properly.
Your words speak true on small 2 channel soundbars and likely built in audio power (amp). However, there are also far more advanced soundbars that not only can do right center and left, but also special set up that emulates some surround and even atmos.

I have a small room with a good size TV. I also have an AVR attached to a normal stereo speaker setup and then a passive sound bar with 3 channels along with a small sub. I use the stereo speaker set up for music and the soundbar only for the TV. The sound bar with the sub really does quite an excellent job. The particular soundbar I use has some ability not just for separation but solves certain issues of speaker channels being too close to one another.

Get a cheapie soundbar get cheapie sound (but still better more often than the TV itself). Invest in a well designed soundbar along with a subwoofer nad you will find it may impress you. Not everyone has the room for a full speaker setup and the soundbar meets their needs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rm5
But now TV manufacturers seem to require the use of bluetooth systems (which limits you to either soundbars or bluetooth-enabled stereo speakers), because they don't have analog audio outputs. My family's 75" LG TV does not have analog audio outputs on it, so can't hook it up to really good speakers unless they're wireless. But I don't watch anything on that, so it doesn't matter much to me.

Analog audio out of TV should be towards least desirable way of connecting. If you use those, the TV is acting as AMP and- best I know- no TV maker puts much into their AMPs (just like they don't put much into built-in speakers). I don't even think there would be many/any TVs with amplified out, so I would guess that's un-amplified out to separately powered speakers with amplifiers built in... like computer speakers. But maybe there are a few TVs with some powered speaker jacks???

IDEAL: HDMI out from any video sources to Quality Receiver HDMI IN and then the Receiver with high-quality amp tech powers connected "dumb" speakers. In cases with no HDMI option, connect with optical or coaxial (digital) out to Receiver IN.

Similarly, if TV is one of the video sources, TV HDMI out also into that Receiver to then use the far superior amp tech too. And if TV has no such option, optical out to Receiver is next choice.

In short: IMO, let the TV be a "dump" viewscreen only and siphon off all audio to other options. Audio is just about always crap within TVs... almost an afterthought. Similarly, if one enjoys video sources from any variety of little boxes, try to connect those boxes directly to a "middleman" piece of tech- typically a quality Receiver- to then split off audio from video and pass only the later to the viewscreen (TV). That is the best path to maximize video & audio quality.

IMO: the ONLY reason to consider using the "bluetooth" option in a TV is perhaps as an easy way to watch while others sleep while you wear bluetooth buds or headphones. Or if one just wants to force wireless speaker options on themselves.

Bluetooth doesn't have the bandwidth for full range audio, so it is a compromise every time anyone depends on it- even between our phones and up to pro buds/headphones. I'd avoid it except in cases where it is towards only option or one just doesn't care about maximum quality audio.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: phrehdd and rm5
Analog audio out of TV should be towards least desirable way of connecting. If you use those, the TV is acting as AMP and- best I know- no TV maker puts much into their AMPs (just like they don't put much into built-in speakers). I don't even think there would be many/any TVs with amplified out, so I would guess that's un-amplified out to separately powered speakers with amplifiers built in... like computer speakers. But maybe there are a few TVs with some powered speaker jacks???

IDEAL: HDMI out from any video sources to Quality Receiver HDMI IN and then the Receiver with high-quality amp tech powers connected "dumb" speakers. In cases with no HDMI option, connect with optical or coaxial (digital) out to Receiver IN.

Similarly, if TV is one of the video sources, TV HDMI out also into that Receiver to then use the far superior amp tech too. And if TV has no such option, optical out to Receiver is next choice.

In short: IMO, let the TV be a "dump" viewscreen only and siphon off all audio to other options. Audio is just about always crap within TVs... almost an afterthought. Similarly, if one enjoys video sources from any variety of little boxes, try to connect those boxes directly to a "middleman" piece of tech- typically a quality Receiver- to then split off audio from video and pass only the later to the viewscreen (TV). That is the best path to maximize video & audio quality.

IMO: the ONLY reason to consider using the "bluetooth" option in a TV is perhaps as an easy way to watch while others sleep while you wear bluetooth buds or headphones. Or if one just wants to force wireless speaker options on themselves.

Bluetooth doesn't have the bandwidth for full range audio, so it is a compromise every time anyone depends on it- even between our phones and up to pro buds/headphones. I'd avoid it except in cases where it is towards only option or one just doesn't care about maximum quality audio.
Well stated. I don't believe bluetooth is a really viable option given at time the potential for synch issues. There are wireless headphone options available that are quite good. Typical to the mix would be Sennheiser's RS 175 family. They don't rely on Bluetooth nor one's WiFi set up to function.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HobeSoundDarryl
Get a cheapie soundbar get cheapie sound (but still better more often than the TV itself). Invest in a well designed soundbar along with a subwoofer nad you will find it may impress you. Not everyone has the room for a full speaker setup and the soundbar meets their needs.

I currently have a Sony soundbar/sub that's not all that impressive. It's also eight years old and cost perhaps $350 - so certainly not high end. I'd love to upgrade - is it necessary to spend a grand on something like a Sonos Arc Ultra to get better sound, or can I take it down a notch and still be happy? The space should be easy to fill with sound - we have the TV in a den off the main living area and it's a perfectly symmetrical rectangle.
 
I haven't read the whole thread, but in what I did read there was never a mention of active speakers. Speakers with built-in amplification. Simple enough; just one analog stereo cable from your mac audio output. Typically bought by someone wanting to produce music or other audio in some way, with a good frequency response and good stereo image. I consider it the next step up from soundbars and such. Prices range from a couple of hundred $ to $1000 and more.

Still, a good old second hand stereo system could make a great solution for very little money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: phrehdd
I currently have a Sony soundbar/sub that's not all that impressive. It's also eight years old and cost perhaps $350 - so certainly not high end. I'd love to upgrade - is it necessary to spend a grand on something like a Sonos Arc Ultra to get better sound, or can I take it down a notch and still be happy? The space should be easy to fill with sound - we have the TV in a den off the main living area and it's a perfectly symmetrical rectangle.
I appreciate the budget factor when talking about soundbars. I have no clue what "take it down a notch" is for you. Is that 500 or 350 or??? What I would suggest is take a browser stroll in Youtube for "best soundbars under 500" (if that is your budget) and see what the reviews offer up. I think you will be pleasantly surprised at the reviews.

I admit my soundbar is passive and expensive. It is hooked up to my AVR. It sounds very good and excellent with a subwoofer. There are cheaper active soundbars out there (amp built into the soundbar that are pretty decent).
 
  • Like
Reactions: dmr727
I haven't read the whole thread, but in what I did read there was never a mention of active speakers. Speakers with built-in amplification. Simple enough; just one analog stereo cable from your mac audio output. Typically bought by someone wanting to produce music or other audio in some way, with a good frequency response and good stereo image. I consider it the next step up from soundbars and such. Prices range from a couple of hundred $ to $1000 and more.

Still, a good old second hand stereo system could make a great solution for very little money.
I did mention it in passing since most want active soundbars. I have a passive sound bar that is quite good and matched with a reasonable AVR plus a small subwoofer. I knew the soundbar would be good but was even better than I expected.
When one gets up into the higher price range, sometimes it is not a bad idea to invest in an active soundbar and certainly easier to set up. I like my AVR setup was the soundbar for TV and then regular speakers (other zone) for stereo music.
 
I was dog sitting at my friend's house and used his Sonos Arc soundbar (MSRP $900) for a few days, and honestly I think my first receiver + speakers setup, which was a Denon receiver and Energy Take Classics & subwoofer I found at a thrift store for under $100, ran circles around it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Scrip
If anything, that would be because the cheap Receiver had superior speaker separation for the room. In home theater, there is great advantage to being able to spread left & right front, left & right surround OUT to work best for each room. Even the very best soundbars in the world have no spread- left & right separation is fixed at width of bar. That's a big tradeoff for all but relatively small rooms where the distance of separation would not be much greater.

Again, how do the professionals do it? Head for a cinema and before the lights go down, look for speakers. You'll find NONE leaning on any soundbar down front to try to fake good stereo separation for large cinema rooms. Instead, speakers will likely be widely spread in a cinema on the left & right walls. Why do they do this when a soundbar would cost so much less than professional cinema speakers? Because it sounds better in that size of room.

And even a cheap subwoofer found in a thrift store that works can likely hit lows that the generally tiny tube packages that are ANY soundbar can't match.

I would also guess you had pretty good left & right speakers hooked to that Denon.

In general...

Receiver + dumb speakers > Soundbars > Left & Right stereo > Mono > TV speakers​

...unless the counter is cheap this vs. best that-type spin. For example, the very worst TV speakers > Receiver + dumb speakers if the Receiver is broken or the dumb speakers are blown. But if we don't disadvantage a "tier" to prop up another tier with such adjectives, the tier hierarchy is generally always true.
 
Last edited:
This is time tested and proven, even with dsp you still cannot really overcome the brains HRTF that’s has evolved
9749c60c44d111721494385fb609ead4.png


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.

b1065bc2584d47950dbac9eaf1a02866.jpg

ad57fa8e07d9742042092e0eb9ba665a.jpg

c3cab24b6f7e1b2f8afe0cbc30decb79.jpg

Suggestion for this setup: get that TV mounted on one of the ceiling beams- probably the same one to which you mounted the speakers- roughly centered between the 2 speakers.

You are right about the "triangle" concept but when set up and used for Home Theater instead of only music- if that's what you are doing here- 2 speakers are going to create a faux center speaker in between them. As is, TV screen far left (under left) speaker is fairly distant from the faux center "channel," which is where most dialogue plays.

It may seem fine as is but it will likely be a noticeable improvement if you ceiling mount the TV roughly between the 2 speakers... as then almost all dialogue will seem to come from the TV instead of off to the right of it.

Now, I don't see how you are getting audio to the speakers. If these are perhaps self-powered speakers not powered by Receiver or AMP, they are only going to play mono each or perhaps stereo as a linked pair... and not create the faux center. But if you are working through a Receiver or Home Theater amp, center channel sound would be faked by them and sound like it is coming from about dead center between them. A viewer's ears from that bed would likely notice... and may even perceive that it seems like audio is improved.

Another option if Receiver is involved is hang the TV in the center as described and mount a true center speaker- perhaps down firing from that ceiling- perhaps a bit in front of TV (perhaps one ceiling beam closer to the bed). This would switch it from what would be a called a 2.0 system now to a 3.0 system (true left + center + right).

Lastly, you could easily put a SUB in such a setup about anywhere in that room too for lower lows, yielding a 2.1 or 3.1 system. And then you are only 2 more wire runs from being able to put a left & right surround speaker back on each side of the bed to make it a true 5.1 surround sound system (which would be VERY noticeable from that bed, when watching anything with surround sound audio).
 
Last edited:
Is Dolby Pro Logic still a thing? 😎

I remember having a home theater receiver in college in the 90s and 2000s with Dolby Pro Logic. The receiver sent dialog through the center-channel speaker since dialog is mono. But everything else was sent through the left and right speakers. (I rarely had surround speakers hooked up in my various homes)

Today's soundbars are similar to a center-channel speaker. But soundbars play everything through that small narrow enclosure.

It would be nice if we could have a soundbar for dialog... but have everything else play through wider stereo left and right speakers.

I guess the closest thing would be a 5.1 system and only use the front 3 channels.

The nice thing about Dolby Pro Logic is that it took any stereo signal and automatically sent the mono signal to the center. I don't remember if VHS tapes had their audio tracks encoded in any particular way. I think the receiver itself separated the mono and two stereo channels.

What does 5.1 do with stereo?
 
Dolby Pro Logic is still a thing. It can still dynamically attempt to turn old mono & stereo TV and movies into something that sounds a little more like surround and even ATMOS... by faking it of course... but still better than nothing.

Most soundbars aren't just center channel speakers. They usually have dedicated speakers within for left + center + right... all fitting within the soundbar tube case. In a manner of speaking, it is like they are 3 little speakers glued together as left, center & right. Some will have the left & right speakers at the ends firing left & right to try to better fake separation... much like using up-firing speakers attempts to fake ATMOS sound from above.

The "it would be nice" solution is buying left, center and right speakers. Center speakers are a thing, sold separately and often paired with left & right speakers. When one has a center speaker it then tends to get the bulk of the dialogue and music, etc is mostly parsed out to the left & right speakers.

Any such setup is known as a 3.0 system. Add a sub and that becomes a 3.1 system. Only adding some rear surrounds make it a 5.1 system. The 5 is front left, center & right + rear left & right. The Sub shows in the .1 part.

Incidentally the popular desire around here to use HP minis for surround would only yield only a 4.0 system (left & right front and left & right surround)... if Apple ever chose to make that happen (and there's not even 1 rumor about that so far).

If the signal is mono or stereo, prologic and/or 5.1 processing may attempt to spread it around a bit. I find that some old thing in stereo only will mostly play in the front left & right speakers with just a bit of the same in the rear surround left & right speakers. If there is a center channel speaker, the common sounds playing from both left & right front will mostly shift to the center speaker (which is usually dialogue). So this basically "fakes" surround sound... farrrrrrrrrrr from mastering the audio for surround but better than remaining pure mono or stereo only in many people's opinions.

The tech is best guessing on what sound should be where, so it's obviously not as good as anything actually audio mastered for surround.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.