Yes, the Samsung is a grand cheaper and has genuine surround and rear overhead channels. Believe me, that makes a massive difference when it comes to immersive audio.Maybe they are working on a follow up it's about time Concluding your review you give the samsung q90r soundbar the advantage over the Ambeo ?
This is true, but some people have no choice and need to go with a soundbar solution.Grown tired of Soundbars quickly noting like a decent receiver /Amp and a pair of speakers the combo could be had for a lot less , most receivers have very nice features where you couldn't squeeze inside a soundbar .
if you stick some two-channel through it you'll be stunned at how good it sounds.
Without saying Mr editor in your site you recommend a bunch of receivers & speakers with awesome features that surpasses any soundbar in sound quality . I guess I am too old for the sound bar.This is true, but some people have no choice and need to go with a soundbar solution.
Without saying Mr editor in your site you recommend a bunch of receivers & speakers with awesome features that surpasses any soundbar in sound quality . I guess I am too old for the sound bar.
Can I just ask in the review you say one could purchase an AVR/speaker/ sub package for the same price. What would you recommend that would be wife friendly? Or would you just recommend the Samsung soundbar?
I purchased the Samsung Q90 soundbar and returned it as I couldn't get the bass to integrate well in my room. Probably with corner placement and only being a 4.5*3.5m living room!
Would the Ambeo maybe a better choice? Or is it too big for the room size too?
Reviews occasionally frustrate me on this site when reviewing high end items in a specific product category and I always wonder how much value/price factors into the review ratings? This is an awful lot for a single box solution considering it's almost £1000 more than it's nearest rivals. I've written before in other posts that I feel the reviews don't seem to really weigh the value/cost aspect enough. Or rather I'm never clear on what part it plays.
What I'm trying to say is if you're paying £1000 more for 2% or even 10% improvement in a product that costs £2000 is that in any way good VFM? How can a product be given 9/10 when I'd suggest the VFM should be near 3 or 4/10, not the 8/10 given and the overall score should probably be nearer 7/10. The law of diminishing returns in AV has never been greater when even low end kit now gives you 95% of the performance of high end kit in most categories while costing 1/10th the price.
Value is of course relative to its peers, relative to the person buying and relative to overal cost of the item coupled with the delta with reguards to how much better it is for how much money. Reading this review I really struggle with the use of "Value" or VFM as a metric at all because frankly I don't think you can really ever give any higher end product a high score in this category. That is unless you clearly set out the criteria you're judging that value against - otherwise it's a meaningless metric which has no "value".
thanks for the replyFor speakers you could get something like the Kef T105 which maybe more wife friendly than this sound bar if you mount on the wall and hide the cables.
Then a sub £1000 receiver, plenty great options to choose from. Maybe the top slimline model Marantz do NR1710 if you want to keep as wife friendly as possible.