Why do people often buy a soundbar with a new television?

[Actual_Criminal]

I have noticed in a lot of people's houses I visit, people tend to have a soundbar for their main lounge TV.

 

I'm not talking about surround sound speakers in addition to the bar, I'm talking about a single soundbar that usually sits below the TV.

 

I don't understand why people do this? Every TV I have ever seen usually has it's own audio and the new ones even have built in Dolby Atmos etc. - with a soundbar, it is still transmitting the same audio file and probably creates lag compared to direct TV audio. 

 

I highly doubt someone would buy it for 'Increased Volume' since I rarely ever turn my TV to MAX volume.

 

Just curious, any ideas?

[Electronics Wizardy]

A soundbar normally has much better sound quality than included speakers in a TV.

 

1 minute ago, Actual_Criminal said:

probably creates lag compared to direct TV audio. 

Not really noticable lag, thats not really a issue

 

 

[BondiBlue]

Sound quality. To put it bluntly, the speakers built into most TVs just suck. They're usable, but even a relatively cheap sound bar will offer much better audio quality. It doesn't introduce latency either when configured properly. Plus, most sound bars make use of a wireless subwoofer as well, which really helps to improve the audio experience compared to TV speakers alone. 

 

I use a sound bar with my living room TV, but I don't use it for increased volume. I use it for better audio quality than the speakers built into my TV. 

[tikker]

12 minutes ago, Actual_Criminal said:

I highly doubt someone would buy it for 'Increased Volume' since I rarely ever turn my TV to MAX volume.

It's not so much volume, but rather sound quality. As TVs got thinner and thinner so diminished their ability to house decent speakers. That limits what they can properly reproduce. They'll suffice for most people that don't really care and for things like watching the news, but if you want something more then you'll want to buy an external audio solution. Have you ever noticed when hearing an explosion through TV speakers, for example, that it sounds flat or hollow or tinny or just not impressive? That's because they can't reproduce the relevant frequencies.

12 minutes ago, Actual_Criminal said:

I don't understand why people do this? Every TV I have ever seen usually has it's own audio and the new ones even have built in Dolby Atmos etc. - with a soundbar, it is still transmitting the same audio file and probably creates lag compared to direct TV audio. 

The built-in Dolby Atmos is similar to all the "HDR capable" monitors. Just because it can decode an Atmos signal, it doesn't mean you get the intended Atmos effect, namely spatial audio. Some soundbars are apparently quite good at achieving something like it, but they are expensive and also still depend quite a bit on room geometry (and satellites as well). Your TV will never match a proper Atmos setup with a proper 5.1.X speaker setup, for example.

 

[Roswell]

Because they sound leagues better than built-in speakers.

[jec6613]

Because TV manufacturers figured out how to make more money by selling a sound bar separately.  A bit of history: 

 

Back in the tube era of the 80's and 90's, it wasn't uncommon to have 5+ built-in speakers because the physical unit was large enough to house them - typically a pair of forward firing midrange, a pair of forward firing tweeters, and a pair of rear firing 8" woofers.  These also solved a major problem of tube TVs: you couldn't put speakers nearby them unless they were shielded, but as part of the entire unit, much fewer returns occured.

 

When we first got plasma TVs, and later LCD models.  These came with built-in speaker bars to the sides or below, having an array of at least 4 and sometimes 10+ speaker drivers, and they were included with it.  These were still fairly thick (4" or more) so this made sense - I have the side speakers from an Elite Kuro and they handily outperform almost any sound bar today.

 

Consumers then wanted even thinner TVs, but the problem is: speakers to reach specific volumes at specific frequencies need a minimum amount of size.  And at the same time, consumers demanded cheaper TVs ... so, speakers were almost completely removed from TVs.  Your typical TV nowadays might have 2 drivers that are barely more powerful than an OK set of laptop speakers ... or in the case of higher end TVs, just a single speaker to make beeping noises.

 

And so the TV manufacturers came up with a separate accessory, the sound bar, to make up for the missing margin on low-priced TVs while restoring the capability for consumers, and they did it with something that didn't require manual speaker wiring (woohoo!).

 

Back to the present:

 

Why does the sound quality matter even if you don't care about sound quality?  For one thing, if you have high ceilings or a large-ish room, the built-in speakers can't push enough air to be heard everywhere in the room and still have on-screen dialog be intelligible, but that's obvious.  But there are less obvious effects as well: in order to fit the entire sound-track into the narrow frequency and power ranges of those built-in speakers, this means compressing both the dynamic range and clipping bass and treble, so all of the sound energy is in a narrow band of both power and frequency range, and this leads to both 1) bleeding more sound to the next room and 2) making dialog less easily understood at the same volume, so you need to turn up the volume more.

 

This means that if you have sufficient sound quality, you can run your TV at lower volumes, and at the same volume get less bleed-through to other rooms, all while enjoying a much more life-like sound.  Pretty cool, huh?

 

And this doesn't even get into the ability of these sound bars to provide positional audio because they can point speakers in different directions, having discrete wireless rear speakers, being able to be used for music without turning on the TV, and the like.

 

Oh, and as for lag?  No, the lag is less than 1 frame if it exists at all after the TV does its anti-lag thing.  Imperceptible, and even if it exists because you have a very old TV, it's trivial for a TV to adjust it out.

[IPD]

On 12/11/2021 at 3:56 PM, tikker said:

It's not so much volume, but rather sound quality. As TVs got thinner and thinner so diminished their ability to house decent speakers. That limits what they can properly reproduce. They'll suffice for most people that don't really care and for things like watching the news, but if you want something more then you'll want to buy an external audio solution. Have you ever noticed when hearing an explosion through TV speakers, for example, that it sounds flat or hollow or tinny or just not impressive? That's because they can't reproduce the relevant frequencies.

The built-in Dolby Atmos is similar to all the "HDR capable" monitors. Just because it can decode an Atmos signal, it doesn't mean you get the intended Atmos effect, namely spatial audio. Some soundbars are apparently quite good at achieving something like it, but they are expensive and also still depend quite a bit on room geometry (and satellites as well). Your TV will never match a proper Atmos setup with a proper 5.1.X speaker setup, for example.

 

This.  Times eleventy billion.  Same argument I have about why I don't feel game consoles offer true ATMOS.

[Stahlmann]

Long story short: Integrated TV speakers nowadays suck because people want thinner TVs. Some models still have good integrated speakers but these typically have thick chin bars to house them. Here are some models currently on the market from Philips: