can someone explain sound bars to me please?

movingtables · 28 Mar 2013 at 23:10

my requirements are:

Bluetooth: i want to stream music from nexus 7.

SKYplus HD: i want to connect my sky box to it.

connect my xbox360 also.

I am a bit confused by the inputs on some of them.
some sound bars have HDMI inputs. this confuses me, would i connect
the sky box to the sound bar with a HDMI cable ? if so does the sound bar handle the video side of it also? my sky box only has one HDMI out?

cheers.

AbsenceJam · 28 Mar 2013 at 23:29

Sky > Soundbar/Amp > TV

They pass through the signal.

lucid · 29 Mar 2013 at 04:19

movingtables said:
my requirements are:

Bluetooth: i want to stream music from nexus 7.
Just Google for "soundbar bluetooth" to find compatible products

SKYplus HD: i want to connect my sky box to it. Until very recently the best sound quality (Dolby Digital - "DD") was only available from an Optical or Coax connector on the back of the recording Sky boxes. The sound via HDMI has always been a digital version of plain stereo called PCM.

So, for the best quality sound from those Sky TV channels that have DD, you need a soundbar or AV amp that can accept picture via HDMI and sound via either optical or coax depending on which is fitted to that particular Sky box. If your sound bar doesn't support this feature then the alternative is to connect up in a different way: HDMI for picture + stereo sound direct to the HDMI in of a TV. Then Coax/Optical for just sound direct to the appropriate digital audio input on the sound bar.

However, this limitation with HDMI is due to change for some Sky HD owners.... but not all.

The Amstrad DRX890 and DRX895 boxes are getting DD over HDMI. This is happening by an over-the-air firmware update that is being rolled out progressively. There's no news yet about other models and makes of Sky+HD boxes, so if you have one of those it's a watch-this-space situation. More info here

connect my xbox360 also. Audio support over HDMI with the XBox 360 is a bit hit and miss. There's lots of people complaining that it's flaky. The fallback is to use the optical audio adapter. If sound better than basic ProLogic/ProLogicII is important to you then make sure your soundbar has a second optical input because you may need it.

movingtables · 29 Mar 2013 at 07:33

thanks very much

Psycho Sonny · 29 Mar 2013 at 10:12

isn't sound quality over bluetooth terrible?

i mean it is decent for voice calling and stuff like that, but anything else and it isn't the cleanest of sounds.

i have tried playing music from my nexus 4 through my pioneer bluetooth head unit in my car which sounds crystal clear when playing off a usb, the same file being played over bluetooth is terrible.

imo you would be better off connecting your tab with a cable or buying a seperate device for music rather than bluetoothing it.

movingtables · 29 Mar 2013 at 12:01

Psycho Sonny said:
isn't sound quality over bluetooth terrible?

i mean it is decent for voice calling and stuff like that, but anything else and it isn't the cleanest of sounds.

i have tried playing music from my nexus 4 through my pioneer bluetooth head unit in my car which sounds crystal clear when playing off a usb, the same file being played over bluetooth is terrible.

imo you would be better off connecting your tab with a cable or buying a seperate device for music rather than bluetoothing it.

my dad has one in the front room and his galaxy tab 2 plays music to it via
bluetooth and its crystal clear. sounds really good.

Psycho Sonny · 29 Mar 2013 at 12:12

movingtables said:
my dad has one in the front room and his galaxy tab 2 plays music to it via
bluetooth and its crystal clear. sounds really good.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-57445372-47/bluetooth-audio-vs-wires/

this seems to backup what I was hearing, bass especially is restricted over bluetooth.

in terms of quality FLAC = CD > MP3 > BT > Radio

but the difference in quality between MP3 and BT is huge

413x · 29 Mar 2013 at 15:07

BT always sounded dire to me. Not just a bit, but terrible

leezer3 · 29 Mar 2013 at 16:19

Give me objective data and I might be interested in that argument, but until then it's simply a case of another unsubstantiated audiophile claim.

Sure, some devices may have a crappy BT implementation, but I wouldn't tar everything with the same brush

-Leezer-

Psycho Sonny · 29 Mar 2013 at 17:46

leezer3 said:
Give me objective data and I might be interested in that argument, but until then it's simply a case of another unsubstantiated audiophile claim.

Sure, some devices may have a crappy BT implementation, but I wouldn't tar everything with the same brush

-Leezer-

have you ever listened to audio over bluetooth on decent speakers with decent bass?

AbsenceJam · 30 Mar 2013 at 00:12

Some newer BT hardware supports the apt-x codec which sounds considerably better than regular BT audio, but it's still not fantastic. For portable audio it's not a bad compromise.
There is apt-x lossless which has caused some confusion, that would sound perfect but it's not on any consumer equipment for practical reasons.

leezer3 · 31 Mar 2013 at 17:26

Psycho Sonny said:
have you ever listened to audio over bluetooth on decent speakers with decent bass?

Objective data

Take a *decent* pair of speakers & sending device, with a modern (APT-X) BT implementation on both ends, a decent bitpool setting, go away and perform an ABX test.
Jumping up and down with ridiculous comparisons and linking to an article with no technical grounding at all helps nothing.

I never claimed that in every situation or device combination it was absolutely perfect, or that you'll categorically never get signal dropouts (A fact of wireless transmission), but I *cannot* tell the difference.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with lossless ripping, and in many ways it's better, but to rip something to bits because it uses lossy compression that's transparent to most ears is potty.

First and only rule-
Listen, ABX and decide for yourself

For the record, I'll note that I can't hear much if any reliable difference above ~200kbps VBR encoding.

-Leezer-

Psycho Sonny · 31 Mar 2013 at 17:35

i have done an ABX test, and the SQ was noticeably a lot worse, the reason why I use a USB drive instead of my phone to play music in the car.

I am using decent gear though, a pioneer head unit with philips or panasonic speakers.

bass is the easiest way to notice the difference it is terrible over BT is is practicably non-existent

AbsenceJam · 31 Mar 2013 at 18:53

leezer3 said:
Objective data
Take a *decent* pair of speakers & sending device, with a modern (APT-X) BT implementation on both ends, a decent bitpool setting, go away and perform an ABX test.
Jumping up and down with ridiculous comparisons and linking to an article with no technical grounding at all helps nothing.

I never claimed that in every situation or device combination it was absolutely perfect, or that you'll categorically never get signal dropouts (A fact of wireless transmission), but I *cannot* tell the difference.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with lossless ripping, and in many ways it's better, but to rip something to bits because it uses lossy compression that's transparent to most ears is potty.

First and only rule-
Listen, ABX and decide for yourself

For the record, I'll note that I can't hear much if any reliable difference above ~200kbps VBR encoding.

-Leezer-

Leezer, I'm a massive objectivist when it comes to audio, nonetheless with the half-dozen pieces of apt-x equipment I've used the drop in SQ has been so obvious that I've seen absolutely no point in ABX'ing, and interference is not uncommon either.
It's difficult to actually find any true technical details about apt-x as even CSR seem to vary them in different documents. There is a lot more to this than looking at data rates. If I transcoded anything to the supposed rate apt-x uses with a typical codec it would sound transparent.