I love the idea of a soundbar. Who wouldn’t want the quality of a proper home cinema sound system in a form that fits unobtrusively below the television? Just one box and none of the wiring spaghetti. That was the highly appealing promise offered by the first soundbar What Hi-Fi? reviewed, the Yamaha YSP-1.
That was back in 2005, and I distinctly remember the What Hi-Fi? team’s excitement about this new concept; and, with certain provisos, how much we liked that product.
The YSP-1’s design was hugely ambitious for the time. It featured 42 drive units and clever processing technology that could focus beams of sound to produce a proper multi-channel effect, all from a single, one-box product.
Over the years, I have grown increasingly disappointed with the direction of soundbar design. The cleverness of the YSP concept hasn’t been used as a foundation to progress the category.
Single-unit soundbars largely seem to have given up trying to deliver proper surround sound – the kind that wraps around you – choosing instead to focus on Dolby Atmos to deliver a sense of height. The days of a single soundbar enveloping the listener in a (mostly) convincing soundfield are long gone.
If you do want more of a surround soundfield, manufacturers now offer soundbar systems with separate speakers that sit behind you, and usually a subwoofer, too. Such systems, good as they can be, seem well removed from the original, minimalist soundbar idea.
So, if you are looking for a simple way to improve your TV’s sound, I would like to suggest an alternative. Given that single soundbars often no longer even try to emulate true surround sound, maybe forgo the idea altogether and try stereo.
Stay with me on this.
The stereo system could be a pair of powered speakers or even a traditional two-channel amplifier driving a pair of passives. As long as you can get a signal in, whether through HDMI, optical, coaxial or analogue, and can position the speakers on either side of the screen, it will work.
Not convinced? Think of it this way. Soundbars tend to be pretty thin and long in proportion. It is impossible to use anything other than tiny drive units in such an enclosure.
It isn’t unusual to have a driver count in double figures, so internal volume is at a premium, leading to restriction in the kind of amplification and power supplies that can be fitted
While clever use of DSP and a lot of engineering know-how get a surprisingly capable sound out of such limited ingredients, the two-channel route I have suggested allows much more scope for the designer.
The drive units are larger, and there is more space for amplification, power supplies and drive units to breathe. The result, in my experience, is better sound almost across the board.
Sure, the result is limited to stereo, and you’ll have to live with that. There isn’t necessarily a separate subwoofer to augment the lows, either – but even relatively humble solutions such as Fyne’s Cubitt 5 can produce a sound of such insight, resolution and subtlety that similarly priced soundbars are invariably left floundering.
Height information, too, is off the menu. But, for me, the extra expression in voices and greater dynamic finesse more than compensate. Soundtracks sound more thrilling, and dynamics have more delicacy and punch.
Bass may not be as prominent, unless you add a subwoofer to your stereo pair of speakers, but it is invariably more tuneful and better integrated.
Then there is the added bonus of stereo music sounding better, too. Even the best soundbars on the market tend to struggle to convince with music, but a good, dedicated stereo system won’t.
So, if you want to improve the sound from your TV, I suggest leaving the herd and going full retro with a dedicated two-channel set-up rather than a dedicated soundbar. Take the jump; I suspect you’ll be happy you did.
MORE:
Convinced? Here are the best active speakers you can currently buy
Not so sure? Here are the best soundbars
