@mahler123 wrote:
”High performance sound bar”?
+1
@tony1954 wrote:
Any speaker worthy of using in a two channel setup is going to be overqualified for HT, as most of the sound in a HT comes from the centre channel.
This is grossly incorrect. Obviously the bar is pretty low among some here with regard to Home Theater sound reproduction, certainly when it comes to the core, meat and potatoes 2-channel sound (which is vastly preferred in my book vs. a malnourished 5.1 or more setup). Even streaming a movie would be able to expose the difference a good pair of fairly full-range, resolving and dynamically capable speakers would do, but with Blu-ray/4K UHD physical format discs you'll be treated with the full frequency spectrum, dynamic range and resolution that would see many if not most of the music oriented, typically size and sensitivity restricted hifi speakers meeting their limits at ref. volume, and that in more than one way when being tasked with reproducing the complex and often very demanding soundtracks of movies.
Put bluntly: if you had heard what a proper, full-range speaker setup could do reproducing movie tracks you'd know the difference full well, but the question seems to be whether it really matters to audiophiles at large and whatever priorities they have. Still, compared to such, a sound bar - indeed any sound bar - will fall short in ways that, to put it mildly, aren't subtle. The best of them may be impressive for their size, easy to install-factor and if one is used to the sound coming from the TV itself, but in the bigger scheme of things can't escape the fact they are merely a convenient and aesthetically pleasing solution. If that's enough for whoever chooses sound bars, peace, but it goes to show the criteria for what passes as good movie sound reproduction varies a lot, also with regard to how many channels are required for this.
If anything most hifi speakers are unqualified for a fuller realization of the core 2-channel sound of movie soundtracks; they compress too easily - meaning they'll also distort more, they're LF-frequency range limited, and being mostly direct radiating speakers their directivity pattern isn't suitable either. My contention is however that mainspeakers meeting these criteria will benefit in regards to what serves music reproduction as well; the two areas of sound reproduction here aren't mutually exclusive, but rather complement each other. My 2-channel music and movie speaker system is a fully active, 3-way setup (4-way with the passively integrated tweeters), with the main speakers actually being professional cinema speakers intended for large auditorium coverage (but which sum well at the LP in a domestic environment) and augmented with a pair of tapped horn subs that extend down to 20-25Hz at full tilt (~125dB's). Contrary to what some may believe this system is dialed in for music first and foremost at average SPL's around 75-80dB's (with peaks higher than that), while being naturally and uninhibitedly at home with movie soundtrack reproduction to boot.
This is also where the decluttering part and chosen compromise of mine comes in: where I fail to realize the full intent of the filmmakers and their sound design is omitting the surround and center channels, and while adding more channels for a full surround setup + center channel (which for my needs would require an extra main speaker similar to the ones I use) would make a worthwhile difference, I wouldn't want to do it half-hearted. Not to mention that the physical presence of surround and center channels with passive, vibrating cones in the same listening room isn't ideal when it comes to 2-channel music reproduction only. As such, yes, music and movie sound systems would be better off in each their separate spacings, but kept as a 2-channel approach aren't in the least incompatible, au contraire.