“Why would Samsung do this?” Because they are a deeply, deeply consumer hostile brand. Do not buy Samsung consumer products, no matter what the feature set and price tag look like. They are not trying to provide you with a good or service in exchange for money, they are trying to take as much of your money as they can.
I've regretted nearly every Samsung device I've ever purchased. The only one I've ever been pleased with were the Galaxy Buds Pro (gen 1). I bought the gen 2s after I thought I lost my first pair but found them a month later. Those gen 2 buds have always been flakey. They take a few extra seconds longer to connect, sometimes one doesn't connect until I dock it and try again or if it does connect, it has staticy or garbled audio on just one bud. I also have an awful time getting them to switch to other devices. Connecting them to my steam deck requires telling the deck to forget them and then re-pair. Meanwhile, the gen 1 buds just work. Battery life is not great on them anymore but they last long enough for my typical daily use.
I have two Sony Bravias. They are older LCD with souped up panels. I have been eyeing the micro-leds but can’t justify buying it when the other two are still going strong.
I went through the cabled vs wireless run around with Q-Symphony as well until I just settled on using wireless.
The main, unsolved issue was getting the Samsung remote to also work as the cable box remote. Spent 2 full days working on that, to no avail. This will be the last Samsung TV I ever buy. It's back to projectors or industry display TVs for me.
I actually recall seeing an option on my TV to set up the Samsung remote as a ‘universal’ controller. I haven’t had the need to do so because I have a Philips Sync Box that handles HDMI-CEC for me (So I can basically use the TV’s controller on the devices connected to the Sync Box).
Oddly enough (At least in my model) the ‘trigger’ to setup the universal remote is within the ‘input sources’ menu?
I get that running seven different kinds of cables everywhere was a bit of a faff, but honestly I miss those days now that I have to be an electrical engineer, a computer systems analyst and a network engineer just to have my TV play sounds.
(And I still have to turn the subtitles on because I can't quite hear what the people on the TV are saying.)
Now movies, music & games sound great, subtitles are no longer needed, and I don't have to worry about a single app! Just the windows shattering from the massive subwoofer
> (r/hometheater please put down your pitchforks).
To be fair, the r/hometheater community feels strongly because they're trying to help people avoid the mistake that's led to these problems. If you care about home theater audio, even a low-end or used AVR paired with low-cost separate speakers will generally provide better results today and more flexibility going forward.
100% agree. It was merely a pun, I do actually enjoy reading through some of the posts there.
I'm actually looking forward into owning an AVR and starting "simple" (Subwoofer, central speaker and 2x fronts) but I kinda want to future-proof a bit (I'd like 5.1, at least, in the future) so I'm eyeing what are the better options for me to buy in terms of hardware.
I really value having the "freedom" of having more codecs available to work with (Soundbars aren't great for that), but I wanted something "simple" for the time being before I do the actual jump to an AVR.
Interestingly enough my father used to have a 5.1 setup with a Yamaha AVR in the '00s and he told me he was able to go to a specialized store where they let him test a myriad of speakers so he could customize the sound "flavor" to his liking; but seems it's closed and I'm a bit nervous spending money on something I can't hear...
> I'm actually looking forward into owning an AVR and starting "simple"
I'm glad to hear that because reading your article, as each new sub-problem arose, I felt increasingly bad for you. We've all been in that spiraling sinkhole where every issue spawns two more :-).
I totally get the conceptual appeal of inexpensive, compact soundbar products: all-in-one, single input and wireless satellites. It seems great. It can even work as long as your sound-field expectations are modest AND you: 1) Happen to have a compatible room, 2) Commit to one incompatible, closed-ended product line, and 3) Nothing goes wrong because, as you discovered, these all-digital, integrated systems are largely opaque. While the initial cost can appear attractive, every dollar is locked into an inflexible system which can't grow beyond what its manufacturer offers and which may not be as good a fit in another room or reusable with other components.
I've never bought (or even considered) a soundbar, even in a context where it might have fit, been slightly cheaper or looked better with less effort - and I'm NOT an audiophile snob or insensitive to price. I'm an engineer so I see this like any other system design, an architectural choice with no perfect solutions, just different sets of trade-offs. Like many engineers, I've learned to value understanding systems from first principles, sometimes right down to the underlying physics of things. This often yields some general default assumptions. These are things which, until proven otherwise, I'll broadly assume are probably at least directionally true. For example, when it comes to speakers, things like surface area, volume and position matter. While it's true things like wave guides, linear arrays, digital signal processing and acoustic tricks (eg bouncing sound off ceiling/walls) can make smaller or poorly positioned speakers sound bigger or better than they should - it's still using cleverness to overcome a fundamental physical deficit.
Bottom line: all-other-things-equal, there's a point beyond which overcoming the deficits of smaller, fewer or poorly placed speakers yields diminishing returns - no matter what the marketing claims. So, I've generally leaned my limited budgets toward investing in decent 'fundamentals' based on physics and economics. In audio, the physics means things like ensuring components have enough size and coverage to handle one of two generic residential sizes: small (bedroom/home office) and large (den/living room). Economically, it means investing in reuse so I'm not always starting over when I move/remodel and can repurpose older components into smaller or larger configs in the future.
Examples: the main speakers in my teenage daughter's room are were the best surrounds I could afford for our living room back when she was born. Getting slightly larger, better full-range surrounds back then paid off because they were good enough and flexible enough to have three lives. The first and cheapest AVR-ish amp I ever bought is now so old it has no digital inputs- but with a $15 BT/Wifi to RCA adapter, it's now driving the speakers above my garage workbench and it's a much better amp than I would ever have bought for our garage.
Since my other post on AVR trade-offs was getting long, I'm responding to your other points separately here as there are a few things you may find useful to know.
> but I wanted something "simple" for the time being before I do the actual jump to an AVR.
I confess to being an engineer who's worked most of my professional life developing and using digital and analog video/film production tooling but I paused reading that because it's not at all the way I see AVRs and soundbars. Architecturally speaking, AVRs + speakers and integrated soundbars are very nearly identical.
They both take digital signal formats from an HDMI cable and decode the audio portion into analog then send it to either the internal amplifier for output at 'speaker level' on speaker wire or to a pre-amplifier for output on red and white RCA plugs as 'line level'. The difference is the soundbar just bundles that into one opaque box where you don't see those wires or have any choices about which formats or where they go.
That 'sea of red and white jacks' on the back of an AVR may look complicated but it's actually quite simple and you won't even connect anything to most of them. They're just options in case you ever need them. Example: In our primary home theater system I actually use two AVRs. One is a fairly cheap, newer AVR I bought just to decode the HDMI into analog audio. The second AVR actually drives the 8 main speakers. It's a very high-end Denon AVR from 2002 - so old it has ZERO HDMI connectors. The former owner of our house said it was 'too heavy to move' and asked if I'd mind if he just left it. Realizing it was a literally a classic >$4,000 audiophile amp which weighs 70 pounds because it has capacitors the size of Coke cans, I couldn't say "YES!!! Really, it's no bother!" fast enough :-). The size and weight of those capacitors is another example of how "Physics Matter" in audio.
> he was able to go to a specialized store where they let him test a myriad of speakers so he could customize the sound "flavor"
Many people aren't aware that "auditioning" speakers in a showroom is almost pointless. The size, proportions and shape of a room can profoundly change the sound of speakers. And the way it changes is also quite counter-intuitive due to how acoustic reflections and standing waves can cause even an 8-inch difference in ceiling height or width can turn "Amazing" sounding speakers into "Mediocre" sounding speakers.
High-end audiophile stores have long allowed in-home auditions (not that I waste money at those places). But Best Buy type stores will let you return things and many budget audiophile-type, online-only discount speaker companies offer "in-home auditions". I bought my first decent 5.1 system from such an online place over 20 years ago now and I was stunned at how good they sounded for the price. Since speakers must be auditioned in the actual room anyway, the difference between potentially needing to rebox them and drive back to the store or driving to UPS is close to zero (arguably, a pre-printed label drop-off at UPS is a lot faster than the return line at Best Buy or Magnolia.
AV equipment is cheap if you are ok with (1) buying used equipment and (2) accepting large speakers that many people will think are ugly. If you can accept these two things you can find incredible deals on the used market because people don’t know what they’re selling. I picked up a solid 5.1 Boston acoustics system with a 4k receiver for $50 in the sf Bay Area. Boston acoustics went bankrupt and has no brand value anymore. The speakers look like boring rectangles. But that system will absolutely destroy the soundbar in this article. And the difference will be huge, not just audio files but anyone with ears. Obviously this was a ridiculous deal but with some effort and awareness of non cool, dead brands like BA, you can build an amazing system for cheap.
When you get a sound bar, you aren’t just getting a lower cost product you’re getting a product that is handicapped by physics (and cost).
> you’re getting a product that is handicapped by physics (and cost).
Absolutely. I even call that out on the post itself. Couldn't agree more.
The issue for me is that I'm a complete novice when it comes to buying speakers, like I'm not even sure what you need to "look" into them so you get the best bang for your buck (And also taking into consideration where you'll end up placing them and all that). That's the main reason behind me not owning an AVR already.
18 comments
[ 0.42 ms ] story [ 38.1 ms ] threadThe main, unsolved issue was getting the Samsung remote to also work as the cable box remote. Spent 2 full days working on that, to no avail. This will be the last Samsung TV I ever buy. It's back to projectors or industry display TVs for me.
Oddly enough (At least in my model) the ‘trigger’ to setup the universal remote is within the ‘input sources’ menu?
(And I still have to turn the subtitles on because I can't quite hear what the people on the TV are saying.)
I went with;
* Denon AVR-X1800H
* Q Acoustics 5000 family (5020s surrounds, 5050s fronts, & 5090 centre)
* RSL Speedwoofer 12S
Now movies, music & games sound great, subtitles are no longer needed, and I don't have to worry about a single app! Just the windows shattering from the massive subwoofer
That's a respectable subwoofer but let me introduce you to massive:
https://www.avsforum.com/posts/64557995/
That would be 8x SI HS-24’s in 4 sealed GSG cabinets, with cabinets placed around the corners of the room, two in front behind the screen:
https://www.avsforum.com/posts/64778927/
To be fair, the r/hometheater community feels strongly because they're trying to help people avoid the mistake that's led to these problems. If you care about home theater audio, even a low-end or used AVR paired with low-cost separate speakers will generally provide better results today and more flexibility going forward.
I'm actually looking forward into owning an AVR and starting "simple" (Subwoofer, central speaker and 2x fronts) but I kinda want to future-proof a bit (I'd like 5.1, at least, in the future) so I'm eyeing what are the better options for me to buy in terms of hardware.
I really value having the "freedom" of having more codecs available to work with (Soundbars aren't great for that), but I wanted something "simple" for the time being before I do the actual jump to an AVR.
Interestingly enough my father used to have a 5.1 setup with a Yamaha AVR in the '00s and he told me he was able to go to a specialized store where they let him test a myriad of speakers so he could customize the sound "flavor" to his liking; but seems it's closed and I'm a bit nervous spending money on something I can't hear...
I'm glad to hear that because reading your article, as each new sub-problem arose, I felt increasingly bad for you. We've all been in that spiraling sinkhole where every issue spawns two more :-).
I totally get the conceptual appeal of inexpensive, compact soundbar products: all-in-one, single input and wireless satellites. It seems great. It can even work as long as your sound-field expectations are modest AND you: 1) Happen to have a compatible room, 2) Commit to one incompatible, closed-ended product line, and 3) Nothing goes wrong because, as you discovered, these all-digital, integrated systems are largely opaque. While the initial cost can appear attractive, every dollar is locked into an inflexible system which can't grow beyond what its manufacturer offers and which may not be as good a fit in another room or reusable with other components.
I've never bought (or even considered) a soundbar, even in a context where it might have fit, been slightly cheaper or looked better with less effort - and I'm NOT an audiophile snob or insensitive to price. I'm an engineer so I see this like any other system design, an architectural choice with no perfect solutions, just different sets of trade-offs. Like many engineers, I've learned to value understanding systems from first principles, sometimes right down to the underlying physics of things. This often yields some general default assumptions. These are things which, until proven otherwise, I'll broadly assume are probably at least directionally true. For example, when it comes to speakers, things like surface area, volume and position matter. While it's true things like wave guides, linear arrays, digital signal processing and acoustic tricks (eg bouncing sound off ceiling/walls) can make smaller or poorly positioned speakers sound bigger or better than they should - it's still using cleverness to overcome a fundamental physical deficit.
Bottom line: all-other-things-equal, there's a point beyond which overcoming the deficits of smaller, fewer or poorly placed speakers yields diminishing returns - no matter what the marketing claims. So, I've generally leaned my limited budgets toward investing in decent 'fundamentals' based on physics and economics. In audio, the physics means things like ensuring components have enough size and coverage to handle one of two generic residential sizes: small (bedroom/home office) and large (den/living room). Economically, it means investing in reuse so I'm not always starting over when I move/remodel and can repurpose older components into smaller or larger configs in the future.
Examples: the main speakers in my teenage daughter's room are were the best surrounds I could afford for our living room back when she was born. Getting slightly larger, better full-range surrounds back then paid off because they were good enough and flexible enough to have three lives. The first and cheapest AVR-ish amp I ever bought is now so old it has no digital inputs- but with a $15 BT/Wifi to RCA adapter, it's now driving the speakers above my garage workbench and it's a much better amp than I would ever have bought for our garage.
> but I wanted something "simple" for the time being before I do the actual jump to an AVR.
I confess to being an engineer who's worked most of my professional life developing and using digital and analog video/film production tooling but I paused reading that because it's not at all the way I see AVRs and soundbars. Architecturally speaking, AVRs + speakers and integrated soundbars are very nearly identical.
They both take digital signal formats from an HDMI cable and decode the audio portion into analog then send it to either the internal amplifier for output at 'speaker level' on speaker wire or to a pre-amplifier for output on red and white RCA plugs as 'line level'. The difference is the soundbar just bundles that into one opaque box where you don't see those wires or have any choices about which formats or where they go.
That 'sea of red and white jacks' on the back of an AVR may look complicated but it's actually quite simple and you won't even connect anything to most of them. They're just options in case you ever need them. Example: In our primary home theater system I actually use two AVRs. One is a fairly cheap, newer AVR I bought just to decode the HDMI into analog audio. The second AVR actually drives the 8 main speakers. It's a very high-end Denon AVR from 2002 - so old it has ZERO HDMI connectors. The former owner of our house said it was 'too heavy to move' and asked if I'd mind if he just left it. Realizing it was a literally a classic >$4,000 audiophile amp which weighs 70 pounds because it has capacitors the size of Coke cans, I couldn't say "YES!!! Really, it's no bother!" fast enough :-). The size and weight of those capacitors is another example of how "Physics Matter" in audio.
> he was able to go to a specialized store where they let him test a myriad of speakers so he could customize the sound "flavor"
Many people aren't aware that "auditioning" speakers in a showroom is almost pointless. The size, proportions and shape of a room can profoundly change the sound of speakers. And the way it changes is also quite counter-intuitive due to how acoustic reflections and standing waves can cause even an 8-inch difference in ceiling height or width can turn "Amazing" sounding speakers into "Mediocre" sounding speakers.
High-end audiophile stores have long allowed in-home auditions (not that I waste money at those places). But Best Buy type stores will let you return things and many budget audiophile-type, online-only discount speaker companies offer "in-home auditions". I bought my first decent 5.1 system from such an online place over 20 years ago now and I was stunned at how good they sounded for the price. Since speakers must be auditioned in the actual room anyway, the difference between potentially needing to rebox them and drive back to the store or driving to UPS is close to zero (arguably, a pre-printed label drop-off at UPS is a lot faster than the return line at Best Buy or Magnolia.
When you get a sound bar, you aren’t just getting a lower cost product you’re getting a product that is handicapped by physics (and cost).
Absolutely. I even call that out on the post itself. Couldn't agree more.
The issue for me is that I'm a complete novice when it comes to buying speakers, like I'm not even sure what you need to "look" into them so you get the best bang for your buck (And also taking into consideration where you'll end up placing them and all that). That's the main reason behind me not owning an AVR already.