Considering LG OLED & LG Sound Bar, good choice or any alternatives please?

[HRL]

CX picture is slightly better, deals with dirties sources better, will have an extra year of LG software updates, has many AI picture options which you probably won't use, its motion is better (even without BFI) and its picture is slightly better again.

The C9 has full 48gbps ports, more apps in the UK. It has been reported slightly brighter but IMO its panel variation. Its also better value.

HOWEVER... just as a bit of friendly advice from a home cinema and PC enthusiast...



In real world terms, I think the you will not miss anything from the CX but it is a marginally better TV PQ quality wise. I'd go for C9. Well, actually I'd go for whichever TV is sold by John Lewis if you're using it for the PC and get the protect plus warranty/insurance. Features like DTS, 48gbps, AI picture options, motion, upscaling quality are meh IMO but Burn-in is and always will be the enemy for users like us who PC game. I take it you are the same as me.. in that you will connect this baby to your PC.. and maybe sometimes you will forget its an OLED and browse the web on it... etc. etc.

John Lewis offer a protect plus warranty which will offer for £150 replacement of TV/panel for burn in for 5 years. That means you can actually use your screen for anything and not have to worry or do any workarounds. I find that peace of mind absolutely invaluable. Its even better than Best buys geek squad warranty.

Funny that. I bought a 65” C9 yesterday from John Lewis with the £140 warranty for exactly that, peace of mind.

At least for 5 years I won’t have to worry about what I use it for.

 

[hornetstinger]

It's not about having rear surrounds. You can have rear surrounds but it doesn't mean all rear surrounds are born equal. The power, the drivers, the bass it can produce, the soundstage, the detail retrieval are all different. The rear surrounds that come with soundbars are trash. The rear surrounds people use in home theatre could be used as their L+R most of the time. My old system I used KEF Q100s for example.

The simple fact is that a wireless speaker will struggle to sound as good as a passive speaker for obvious reasons. the wireless speaker has to compromise on sound quality to be small, portable, wireless etc.

Maybe something is wrong with your setup.. maybe tweak your positioning if a £1500 soundbar is competing or beating your audio setup. A dedicated good 5.1 system will comfortably IMO destroy a soundbar (yes even with wireless rear speakers.. yes even with a wireless subwoofer.. ).


To say there is little in it is... well I think grossly inaccurate. Maybe if your hearing is poor, or you just don't care about audio quality. If all you care about is do I have a bubble of sound around me.. then fine.. put loads of crap speakers around you and bouncing in different directions and with DSP.. u can kind of create that.

If you want crisp dynamic audio with clarity, a huge soundstage, directional audio,... then I think a soundbar will always be comfortably beaten (for obvious reasons.. it has to compromise on all these things for form factor, portability, price, hvaing to power itself).

I understand my current audio setup would be a very unfair comparison.. but even my KEF Q setup was insanely better IMO.

there is only so far you can play with DSP... the law of physics is hard to beat. The size of a soundbar and its rear speakers restricts what it can produce to a fully passive speakers whos only job is to produce sound when it is powered.

Yup I'm using £1000 rear speakers with ATI 300w RMS amplfier. That will be better than any soundbar alone. And that's just the rears.

Soundbars can be quite good, I am impressed with parents q acoustics qtv2, for £150 I would be happy with it upstairs in the bedroom console / pc system.

However not a patch on mine, plus if one part breaks (speakers, sub, amplfiier) the whole lot is useless.

A £1500 seperates system will be better than a £1500 soundbar. And have the positives from previous paragraph

 

[aoaaron]

Funny that. I bought a 65” C9 yesterday from John Lewis with the £140 warranty for exactly that, peace of mind.

At least for 5 years I won’t have to worry about what I use it for.

Exactly! Power users like us who PC game, mod games, etc. are probably the most susceptible to burn in. Of course we can change usage habits. mitigate risks.. heck i wrote a whole guide on it in the monitor section.. but if for £150 and maybe an extra £150 going for JL, you have 5 years of total peace of mind.

 

[aoaaron]

Yup I'm using £1000 rear speakers with ATI 300w RMS amplfier. That will be better than any soundbar alone. And that's just the rears.

Soundbars can be quite good, I am impressed with parents q acoustics qtv2, for £150 I would be happy with it upstairs in the bedroom console / pc system.

However not a patch on mine, plus if one part breaks (speakers, sub, amplfiier) the whole lot is useless.

A £1500 seperates system will be better than a £1500 soundbar. And have the positives from previous paragraph

Thank you!

Soundbars have their place. If you are willing or need to compromise on upgradability, build quality, sound, bass, clarity, soundstage, direction, treble but in return you get get small stylish speakers which don't require powering or loads of messy wires and have a slimmer more beautiful form factor.. then go for it.. But I dislike when people to try to dress up soundbars as if they are a fraction away from proper passive speakers in terms of quality. They are worlds away. But the convenience of a soundbar is also streets ahead of passive speakers.

I'm not about to try and make out that passive powered speakers are so convienant and small.. cos they aren't.. lol. similarly I won't dress up a soundbar solution as anything more than a compromise (yes even the expensive ones...)

Two distinct different technologies! One is a sleek, small form factor, convenient solution.. the other is pure quality, no compromise sounding, fully upgradable, thumping bass which will if positioned and brought together properly, beat the sound which you get at a cinema.



Its like people trying to downplay the improvement of going from budget passive speakers to mid-range speakers. the difference is huge. diminishing returns for home theatre and sound kicks in around the £7-10k (rear+atmos+centre+avr+towers+subwoofer) mark in my experience. up until that point in time, you do get your moneys worth (if you can afford it).

I think soundbars are very useful when they cost less than an AVR. for example.. at £150.. i will struggle to price someone with a good passive speaker + amp which will last time a good while.. i will have to end up speccing them a cheap 2.0 amp without features like earc etc. Then its obviously hard to argue against them. but for £1.5k... I could source second hand a VERY nice 5.1 setup.

also if u time passive speaker purchases carefully.. u will end up never losing money on them. I bought my kef Qs when KEF were doing a refresh. the speakers go on ebay for more money than what i bought them for.

 

[hornetstinger]

Since this is a computing forum it's like saying integrated graphics or affordable passive you are 90% of a decent dedicated gaming GPU.

Nope.

 

[Gibbo]

Once Richer Sounds has being re-opened for a while I do plan on visiting to hear the options in person, I am not opposed to a separate system but I must stress I don't want any speaker cables going to rears and as I am doing it and do enjoy movies and streaming games from the PC to the TV via the NVIDIA Shield Pro I want to get a proper surround setup and preferably an ATMOS one.

Here is a question would the SN11RG outperform my current audio setup which is a NAD Amplifier that cost about £200 around 7-10 years ago and a pair of tall floor standing Liberty 5+ speakers so right now my setup is just 2.0 using a dedicated AMP and floor standing speakers.

 

[aoaaron]

Since this is a computing forum it's like saying integrated graphics or affordable passive you are 90% of a decent dedicated gaming GPU.

Nope.

Perfect example

Once Richer Sounds has being re-opened for a while I do plan on visiting to hear the options in person, I am not opposed to a separate system but I must stress I don't want any speaker cables going to rears and as I am doing it and do enjoy movies and streaming games from the PC to the TV via the NVIDIA Shield Pro I want to get a proper surround setup and preferably an ATMOS one.

Here is a question would the SN11RG outperform my current audio setup which is a NAD Amplifier that cost about £200 around 7-10 years ago and a pair of tall floor standing Liberty 5+ speakers so right now my setup is just 2.0 using a dedicated AMP and floor standing speakers.

Its about hiding the wires gibbo! You cannot see the wires in my room whatsoever. Just takes a bit of handyman work (which I aked my dad to do). Its a tough question. The soundbar will overall provide a more immersive experience because it involves bouncing sound in different directions and the DSP on them, especially at the high end can be fantastic.

If you're saying under no circumstances will you tolerate wires and putting in the small work to hide them, then the decision is kind of made!

Atmos wise, really the only two viable options which REALLY work are the ones which sit ontop of floor standing speakers and the ones which are in the ceiling. The other ones are... strange. I have the ones ontop of my floor standers and its nice. Its a bubble of sound from the top with good detail but direct ones are better (but if you're not going to tolerate speaker wires to your rears.. take it you won't be drilling your ceiling.



Look at youtube examples of some setups. I drew some experience from these guys:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A9sMLIKZWc&t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVvrrzK0o5k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dITsG7LSSbw&t=889s

 

[Psycho Sonny]

It's not about having rear surrounds. You can have rear surrounds but it doesn't mean all rear surrounds are born equal. The power, the drivers, the bass it can produce, the soundstage, the detail retrieval are all different. The rear surrounds that come with soundbars are trash. The rear surrounds people use in home theatre could be used as their L+R most of the time. My old system I used KEF Q100s for example.

The simple fact is that a wireless speaker will struggle to sound as good as a passive speaker for obvious reasons. the wireless speaker has to compromise on sound quality to be small, portable, wireless etc.

Maybe something is wrong with your setup.. maybe tweak your positioning if a £1500 soundbar is competing or beating your audio setup. A dedicated good 5.1 system will comfortably IMO destroy a soundbar (yes even with wireless rear speakers.. yes even with a wireless subwoofer.. ).


To say there is little in it is... well I think grossly inaccurate. Maybe if your hearing is poor, or you just don't care about audio quality. If all you care about is do I have a bubble of sound around me.. then fine.. put loads of crap speakers around you and bouncing in different directions and with DSP.. u can kind of create that.

If you want crisp dynamic audio with clarity, a huge soundstage, directional audio,... then I think a soundbar will always be comfortably beaten (for obvious reasons.. it has to compromise on all these things for form factor, portability, price, hvaing to power itself).

I understand my current audio setup would be a very unfair comparison.. but even my KEF Q setup was insanely better IMO.

there is only so far you can play with DSP... the law of physics is hard to beat. The size of a soundbar and its rear speakers restricts what it can produce to a fully passive speakers whos only job is to produce sound when it is powered.

these are my rears

https://www.whathifi.com/monitor-audio/bronze-bx2/review

these are my fronts

https://www.richersounds.com/moni-audio-bx6-blk.html

with matching centre

and i have top yamaha 4k dolby atmos AVR.

bk xxls 400 sub

i'd say the sound is better but i wouldn't go as far to say that the average person would be able to notice the difference.

my hearing is pretty spot on i use AKG Q701's on my pc with a creative x7 so a very high end headphone set up. with premium music and i can spot the difference between differing qualities. but when you get to a certain point the law of diminishing returns kicks in.

the OP isn't an audiophile. he honestly wouldn't care for the subtle differences IMO.

 

[aoaaron]

these are my rears

https://www.whathifi.com/monitor-audio/bronze-bx2/review

these are my fronts

https://www.richersounds.com/moni-audio-bx6-blk.html

with matching centre

and i have top yamaha 4k dolby atmos AVR.

bk xxls 400 sub

i'd say the sound is better but i wouldn't go as far to say that the average person would be able to notice the difference.

my hearing is pretty spot on i use AKG Q701's on my pc with a creative x7 so a very high end headphone set up. with premium music and i can spot the difference between differing qualities. but when you get to a certain point the law of diminishing returns kicks in.

the OP isn't an audiophile. he honestly wouldn't care for the subtle differences IMO.

IMO you should not have to be an audiophile to be able to appreciate a good 5.1 from soundbar.
My 55 year old mum and father can easily tell it apart as much as my 26 year old sister and 19 year old cousin.
Even my change from KEF to Arendal, they were jaw dropped.. and I would equate the difference between a high end soundbar and the KEF as kind of similar.

The bass from your BK XXLS 400 sub should in itself set the low frequencies apart from the cheap subwoofers that normally come with sounbars.

Not sure if AKG 701 are classed as high end. I thought they were entry level open back headphones <£100.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

IMO you should not have to be an audiophile to be able to appreciate a good 5.1 from soundbar.
My 55 year old mum and father can easily tell it apart as much as my 26 year old sister and 19 year old cousin.
Even my change from KEF to Arendal, they were jaw dropped.. and I would equate the difference between a high end soundbar and the KEF as kind of similar.

The bass from your BK XXLS 400 sub should in itself set the low frequencies apart from the cheap subwoofers that normally come with sounbars.

Not sure if AKG 701 are classed as high end. I thought they were entry level open back headphones <£100.

they used to sell for £600 RRP about 10 years ago. when i bought mine 8 years ago they were £300 on amazon.

prices have come down because they moved manufacturing from austria to china.

i also have HD600's, HD700's, DT 770's and XM3's.

the AKG's blow them out of the water for soundstage.

i've also owned probably 10+ other high end headphones.

 

[aoaaron]

they used to sell for £600 RRP about 10 years ago. when i bought mine 8 years ago they were £300 on amazon.

prices have come down because they moved manufacturing from austria to china.

i also have HD600's, HD700's, DT 770's and XM3's.

the AKG's blow them out of the water for soundstage.

i've also owned probably 10+ other high end headphones.

I agree. I love AKG's soundstage

Its the only 'massive' headphone where I feel its actually worth having 2 heavy ass things on my head. The detail retrieval they offer I think is still nearly second to none even 3x the price.

I think it was zeos who said the AKG 712 detail retrieval was close to his STAX.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

I agree. I love AKG's soundstage

Its the only 'massive' headphone where I feel its actually worth having 2 heavy ass things on my head. The detail retrieval they offer I think is still nearly second to none even 3x the price.

I think it was zeos who said the AKG 712 detail retrieval was close to his STAX.

mine are the Q701's

they were tuned by quincy jones. they are from the same family as all the rest though.

 

[hornetstinger]

Even if the cables are visible, who cares? Mine runs in front of fireplace it's not a trip hazard, sure can be neater I guess but would have to buy new runs of speakers cable and I can't be arsed to do that. Rear and side cables go under sofa and under rug. Up wall in thin conduit.


I'd rather have a better quality 7.1 system than a low quality 16 channel Atmos.

I bet mine would thrash a 16 channel Atmos for sound quality.

 

[aoaaron]

Even if the cables are visible, who cares? Mine runs in front of fireplace it's not a trip hazard, sure can be neater I guess but would have to buy new runs of speakers cable and I can't be arsed to do that. Rear and side cables go under sofa and under rug. Up wall in thin conduit.


I'd rather have a better quality 7.1 system than a low quality 16 channel Atmos.

I bet mine would thrash a 16 channel Atmos for sound quality.

Alternatively just get a handy man for a 2 hours work to hide them.
It took my dad an hour or two and the cables are now no where to be seen in my room.


I think 7.1.2 is the sweetspot. Atmos speakers are just a pain in the butt to get mounted in the ceiling.

 

[Gibbo]

Hi there

So I know I was dead cert on a 55” as believed a 65” would be too big but as an experiment I cut out the size of the TV according to LG’s website so 57” x 34” and placed it on the wall, a couple of pictures:




Now doing the trial fit I’m starting to think a 65” might be fine. The TV shall be on a 60” long TV stand with a Samsung Q950 or LG SN11RG soundbar in front.

Seating position is 90-110” away from the TV on a corner sofa.

Will 65” work or are we sat too close?
Before anyone suggest mounting above fire we have already decided against that.

Ignore the decor as I’m renovating so new flooring and decorating to do.

So 65” or 55” and I’m leaning 65” does anywhere know the best deal please on an LG C9 65” and is the C9 an improvement over the B9 that I would notice?

most likely to go with LG SN11RG soundbar to have a matching setup.

 

[hornetstinger]

What if you place it on the wall to the left in front of radiator. Similar to mine except I don't have rad there. Fireplace in similar place to mine. My room length 25 foot, so sofa is about 10' from radiator wall. Is yours decent side?

Then have sofa facing the rad. With many many many speakers.

 

[hornetstinger]

Don't forget 2:35 borders. So 65" is not 65". You'll lose fair bit due to borders.

65" is fine for full screen 16:9 animation but would liked to have 77" for 2:35 movies

 

[xb8browney]

I got the 55 and 65 would fit no problems at all but I just don't see the need for such a big TV.

LG SN11RG would be overkill for me but enjoy, I regret not going oled sooner.

 

[Gibbo]

What if you place it on the wall to the left in front of radiator. Similar to mine except I don't have rad there. Fireplace in similar place to mine. My room length 25 foot, so sofa is about 10' from radiator wall. Is yours decent side?

Then have sofa facing the rad. With many many many speakers.

No plans to move around TV would be positioned as per photos just higher up as shall be on a TV stand.

Corner sofa is directly opposite against back wall which is about 110-120" away. Room is about 30ft x 10ft.
Sound setup is just soundbar setup so sub and rear speakers. Something simple, few wires but sounds OK, I know a separates system would sound better for less money.

Just really if 65" will just be comedically to big due to viewing distance or is it like cinema, bigger the screen, the better, downside is we can sit more than around 8-10ft away from TV.

Don't forget 2:35 borders. So 65" is not 65". You'll lose fair bit due to borders.

65" is fine for full screen 16:9 animation but would liked to have 77" for 2:35 movies

Yep true guess my question is simply down to the fact we are sitting 8-10ft away would 55" be better suited or is 65" still the better choice?

 

[aoaaron]

No plans to move around TV would be positioned as per photos just higher up as shall be on a TV stand.

Corner sofa is directly opposite against back wall which is about 110-120" away. Room is about 30ft x 10ft.
Sound setup is just soundbar setup so sub and rear speakers. Something simple, few wires but sounds OK, I know a separates system would sound better for less money.

Just really if 65" will just be comedically to big due to viewing distance or is it like cinema, bigger the screen, the better, downside is we can sit more than around 8-10ft away from TV.




Yep true guess my question is simply down to the fact we are sitting 8-10ft away would 55" be better suited or is 65" still the better choice?

im 10ft away from a 77 inch screen and its too small for letterbox content.

so i think 65'' is definitely fine.