Why do so many people buy big TVs but don't buy proper speakers?

[Hitman Horton]

Moving on. The consumer electronics market is a very interesting one. I've had a surround sound system for decades and when I upgraded to 5.1 I had everything that I wanted. I've upgraded receivers as technology has improved but I've stuck with 5.1 because it works for me. Some don't even see the point in having more than the speakers in their TV, as this thread addresses. Others need to have the latest technology as soon as it becomes available no matter what the cost. I can honestly say that if money was not a factor, I would still never move beyond 5.1. Maybe that's why I can understand why some people see no need to buy a soundbar or separate speakers for their TV.

[smithb]

Originally Posted by Hitman Horton

I have absolutely no idea what the point is that you're trying to make here.

I made a simple point that overall speaker quality was not being emphasized enough in the TV speakers vs. multi-speaker surround system debate, and that a simple 3.0 system was a viable solution to gain performance without sacrificing what deters many from upgrading from TV speakers.

After that, I was just responding to your challenges to my assessment. Look back at the posts, everything I wrote after that is directed at a specific comment you made on what I posted. If you don't understand the direction the postings took from there you need to look back at what you posted because you drove that part of the conversation.

[smithb]

Originally Posted by Hitman Horton

Moving on. The consumer electronics market is a very interesting one. I've had a surround sound system for decades and when I upgraded to 5.1 I had everything that I wanted. I've upgraded receivers as technology has improved but I've stuck with 5.1 because it works for me. Some don't even see the point in having more than the speakers in their TV, as this thread addresses. Others need to have the latest technology as soon as it becomes available no matter what the cost. I can honestly say that if money was not a factor, I would still never move beyond 5.1. Maybe that's why I can understand why some people see no need to buy a soundbar or separate speakers for their TV.

I actually agree. I have two 3.0 setups that serve the intended purpose in those rooms, and I see no need to upgrade beyond that. I have a 7.1 setup in a dedicated basement HT with a 2K projection system. For me, I have no reason to move up to Atmos or 4k UHD at any time in the near future. There isn't enough 4K content of interest to me for the expense of upgrading to a 4K projector, the same is true of Atmos. My setup more than fulfills my needs as is.

I don't advocate anyone going past what completely supports their needs and I would never criticize their choices. However, if their setup is based on constraints and compromises that limit what they truly want, and there are ways to get there that they may not have explored yet, then I think it is worth mentioning in a forum such as this where people seek advice.

[Hitman Horton]

Originally Posted by smithb

I made a simple point that overall speaker quality was not being emphasized enough in the TV speakers vs. multi-speaker surround system debate, and that a simple 3.0 system was a viable solution to gain performance without sacrificing what deters many from upgrading from TV speakers.

After that, I was just responding to your challenges to my assessment. Look back at the posts, everything I wrote after that is directed at a specific comment you made on what I posted. If you don't understand the direction the postings took from there you need to look back at what you posted because you drove that part of the conversation.

Just to clarify, my comment was regarding the post that I quoted.

[smithb]

Originally Posted by Hitman Horton

Just to clarify, my comment was regarding the post that I quoted.

I thought it was pretty clear. In one response, you referenced comments that I made as being basically incorrect. In the next, you stated whatever works for someone is correct. Can't have it both ways. How far do you want to take this back in forth?

I made a simple post offering a suggestion to those that find a full surround sound system to be too much, that they can still get quality output surpassing TV speakers by going 3.0 without many of the negatives of going full 5.1 or greater. Especially, geared to those that may not fully embrace the sound of TV speakers, but think that is the best they can do without going full out.

Everything from there has been dictated by your responses. If you disagree with me, fine, lets leave it at that. I was sharing my experiences, nothing more. For those interested, they can read my posts, but I see no reason for continuing. If you want the last word, its yours. Knock yourself out.

[Hitman Horton]

Originally Posted by smithb

I thought it was pretty clear. In one response, you referenced comments that I made as being basically incorrect. In the next, you stated whatever works for someone is correct. Can't have it both ways. How far do you want to take this back in forth?

I made a simple post offering a suggestion to those that find a full surround sound system to be too much, that they can still get quality output surpassing TV speakers by going 3.0 without many of the negatives of going full 5.1 or greater. Especially, geared to those that may not fully embrace the sound of TV speakers, but think that is the best they can do without going full out.

Everything from there has been dictated by your responses. If you disagree with me, fine, lets leave it at that. I was sharing my experiences, nothing more. For those interested, they can read my posts, but I see no reason for continuing. If you want the last word, its yours. Knock yourself out.

I was letting you know that I didn't understand your last point so that you could explain it further if you chose to do so.

[smithb]

Originally Posted by Hitman Horton

I was letting you know that I didn't understand your last point so that you could explain it further if you chose to do so.