sharp 2.1 ht-sb60 vs ht-sl75 soundbar system v older 5.1 channels home theater system

lendbz

New Member
Hi,

I currnetly owned these 2 old sharp 5.1 channels home theater system
1) http://sharp-world.com/products/1-bit/sd-at1000/
2) http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1650422

Not sure which of the above two are better as they are maybe 10 years old, even though the sdat1000 is 600 watts.

But anyway, I am thinking of geting new system, but it's 2.1 channels, it's the new sharp sound bar system
http://www.sharpusa.com/ForHome/HomeEntertainment/SoundBar.aspx

either the ht-sb60 or the ht-sl75 2.1 channels sound bar or htsb600 3.1 channels (leaning toward the ht-sb60 as I have a 60inch tv, the htsb600 soundbar is too short I think, and I read the ht-sl series soundbar sound is much inferior to ht-sb,anyone knows if that's true or has experience?

i currently own a sharp LC-60LE847 3D HD TV, and a sharp 3D blu-ray player, so those soundbar would be plug into sharp HDTV vs HDMI vs the ""audio Return Channel" technology present in the TV and the soundbar.

I live in a 500sq ft apartment so not a big house.

Question is, would one of those new 2.1 channels system actually sound and perform better than my old 5.1 channels system I listed above? I would lose surround sound going down to 2.1 channels.. or sould I stick with one of my old 5.1 channels instead. would those new sharp soundbar i listed above actually sound better even though they are 2.1 ? if so, how much better? a littie? a lot? i want to know if it's worth it to buy these soundbar or not. And if it is worth it, should I go wit ht-sb 60, ht-sb 600, or ht-sl75? I would ideally want 3.1 channels but the 600 3.1 channel one would that be too small for my 60.inch tv,it is made for 40inches tv with 39inches long soundbar compared to above 60 inches from.the other two model made for 60 inches or bigger tv I mentioned. The sound won't come out right from.the short soundbar when I mount it on top of my 60inches tv, would it sound like the sound is coming out from just a portion of the tv and sound weird or would it be okay?What do u think I should get?

And If anyone with experience with both the ht-sb and ht-sl series can tell me if the ht-sl series is really as bad as all reviews I saw sound and I should get the sb, or the sl is actually not that bad, that would be greatly appreciated. As the sl75 is about $150 cheaper than the sb 60 and I'm on a tight budget,but I'm not going to invest on a sound bar that sound the same as my tv...

i am a sharp freak, everything i own is sharp, so don't need to suggest other systems for me :) i only buy sharp stuff lol.

any input is appreciated.
 
Last edited:
If you value surround, then sticking with 5.1 would be the way to go. How important is surround to you?

Is it necessary to replace your current system(s)?

I have movie and TV sound coming through a 2.1 channel system because music is my main source of entertainment. I hate TV speakers. Surround is not very important to me and having both a music and movie system is not an option at present.

So, you need to answer these questions for yourself before anyone can give you any meaningful advice.
 
hi :) surround is important to me as i watch a lot of bluray movie, but the system i currently have is very old, it only decode up to 5.1, not HD 7.1 channels, and since they are old, i am wondering if even these new 2.1 without surround would sound more"surround" than my old 5.1 :)
 
lol thanks for the yamaha :p but i am mainly concerned with the sharp soundbars.. any one have any experiences with the ht-sb60 or ht-sl75/77 series? should i replace my current 8 year olds 5.1 setup with one of those? i am mostly concerned with novies and playing video games, i live in an apartment and my living room is less than 400 sq ft. Just to give you an idea how small it is, the 60'" TV actually hurts my eyes because it is too big and the furthest wall is still too close to the TV....
 
I'd probably stick with one of the systems you have now. 7.1 is nice, but unless you can set up the speakers properly it's not worth changing just for that. If you go to the Dolby website you can see the recommended speaker placement for 7.1 vs 5.1.

ARC probably won't work on the older systems, but likely it doesn't decode the lossless formats anyway so an optical cable connection from the TV to the system probably will work OK.
 
....the 60'" TV actually hurts my eyes because it is too big and the furthest wall is still too close to the TV.

Perhaps you should sell that TV and get a 39 to 42 inch model. Since you say that surround is important, you might want to get a newer 5.1 channel system rather than a sound bar. I don't know what exactly sound bars are capable of, but I would bet that an actual 5.1 would be better.
 
my TV is equally important lol. i watch 3D blu ray on there, and need a good sound, but can't afford too expensive. I am wondering would the sharp 2.1 sound bar be actaully better sounding than my 10 years old 5.1 channel system, lol. everyting i owned is from sharp...
 
I'm guessing few have compared that exact combination of systems head-to-head for a direct, personal opinion.

My thoughts tend toward the discrete systems over the soundbar, but I've heard none of the above.
 
what about the size of my living room? i just move to a around 400sf living room, would you recommend the soundbar is enough and would surround around the wall?
:) :)

but soundbar looks cooler hah
 
my TV is equally important lol. i watch 3D blu ray on there, and need a good sound, but can't afford too expensive. I am wondering would the sharp 2.1 sound bar be actaully better sounding than my 10 years old 5.1 channel system, lol. everyting i owned is from sharp...

Smaller 3D TVs are available. I just don't see suffering with something that hurts your eyes.

As for 5.1 vs soundbar, you really need to experience both and determine which one is better according to your ears.
 
The question is for opinions, I gave mine in a clearly-qualified manner. Since nobody seems to be jumping up to say they've compared this exact gear I provided my thoughts on the matter.

I think a discrete 5.1 system, generally, will sound better than a 2.1 sound bar for surround sound.
 
Last edited:
what about the size of my living room? i just move to a around 400sf living room, would you recommend the soundbar is enough and would surround around the wall?
:) :)

but soundbar looks cooler hah

My livingroom, where my HT system is, is a bit under 300sq ft. In it I have a full 7.1 compliment including fairly large main speakers, two 15" subs, and something on the order of 3,800 watts, not including the two subs that are self powered at 400W each. I can't imagine being pleased with a sound bar in 400sq ft.
 
My livingroom, where my HT system is, is a bit under 300sq ft. In it I have a full 7.1 compliment including fairly large main speakers, two 15" subs, and something on the order of 3,800 watts, not including the two subs that are self powered at 400W each. I can't imagine being pleased with a sound bar in 400sq ft.

whoa 3,800W taht's a lot of watt. how much did you pay for said system?
my budget is $300...
 
The question is for opinions, I gave mine in a clearly-qualified manner. Since nobody seems to be jumping up to say they've compared this exact gear I provided my thoughts on the matter.

I think a discrete 5.1 system, generally, will sound better than a 2.1 sound bar for surround sound.

Don't take offense brother. I'm just saying that the OP wants someone to say "Get this." and no one can tell him what is right for him.

I agree that a 5.1 system SHOULD be better, but having no experience with sound bars and not having his ears, it's impossible to say for sure. :scratch2:
 
whoa 3,800W taht's a lot of watt. how much did you pay for said system?
my budget is $300...

A lot of it has been pieced together over time when I found (relative) deals.

Haven't priced out stuff recently but if I had to replace my HT in event of a theft or something like that it would be a fair bit; somewhere in the lower range of five figures.
 
Last edited:
:)

but did anyone actually look at the links i sent though??

The 2 - old 2 5.1 systems I have, they have these specs:

(1) a bit newer one (5 years old) is 300w total:
The manual stated:

"Rated power outout"specs:
- speakers - 50 watts per channel (250W total) into 4 ohms at 1khz, , 10% T.H.D.
- subwoofer - 50 watts 4ohms at 100 Hz. , 10% T.H.D.
"Power output "specs:
- speakers - 50 watts minimum RMS per channel (250W total) into 4 ohms from 150 Hz to 20 kHz , 10% T.H.D.
- subwoofer - 50 watts minimum RMS, 4 ohms from 20 Hz to 150 Hz, 10% T.H.D.

Maximum input power of speakers and subwoofer each is 100W and Rated input power is 50W..

Not sure the differeces between FTC/RMS/ and Rated Power Output are, nor the differences between maximum input power and Rated input power... Can someone explain? and what those Hz means, is it significant? is T.H.D. significant?

(2) My second 5.1 system, which is a few years older, has 600W total, but only one spec:

"Output Power" specs:
- Speakers - 100 Watts RMS per channel (500W total) into 4 ohms at 1khz,
- subwoofer - 100 Watts RMS 4 ohms at 100Hz

Though the amp also has en extra spec that states "2.8224 Mhz (64fs) 1-bit switching (remarks: fs = 44.1 kHz). " It says the amp uses a unique technology called 1-bit technology... no idea what it is saying...


The 2 soundbars i was thinking about getting have these specs:

(1) The cheaper 2.1 channels which cost $100 has total 200W:
RMS spec:
Soundbar speakers L/R: 50 watts per channel(100 total) 3 ohms at 1 kHz, 10% T.H.D.
Subwoofer: 100 watts , 4 ohms at 100 Hz, 10% T.H.D.
FTC spec:
Soundbar L/R: 35Watts Minimum per channel (70W minimum total) into 3 ohms at 200 Hz to 20 kHz, 1% t.h.d.
Subwoofer: 93 watts Minimum ,4 ohms at 100 Hz, 1% t.h.d.

maximum input power of the soundbar is 200W and subwoofer is 200W (400W?)
Rated input power of the soundbar is 100W and subwoofer is 100w (200W)

(2) The other more expensive 2.1 channels soundbar that cost around $250 has total 310W and has this spec:
RMS:
soundbar speakers L/R: 80 watts per channel (160W) into 4 ohms at 1 kHz, 10% t.h.d.
subwoofer: 150 watts per channel into 3ohms at 100 Hz, 10% t.h.d,
FTC:
soundbar speakers L/R: 50 watts minimum per channel into 4 ohms at 120Hz to 20kHz, 1% thd.
subwoofer: 110 watts minium into 3 ohms at 100 Hz, 1% thd
Maximum input power of the soundbar is 320W and subwoofer is 300W (640W?)
Rated input power of the soudbar is 160W and subwoofer is 150W (310W)


The only thing i understand is wattage, does maxiumn input power actually mean anything?? The only thing that seems to matter is Rated input power? And RMS vs FTC? Does the speaker actually goes above the rated input power to maxium iput power?

Confused...

Should I jsut get the soundbar to replace my old 5.1 systems? and whichsound bar, one is $100 one is $250, but specs look almost the same???

....
 
Lendbz, no one can tell you whether or not a soundbar will be satisfying for you. Your best bet is to audition some and see what you think. If it works for you, go with it. If not, you can either use it temporarily until you can get a new 5.1 channel system or use what you have now and save your money for a new system. For us to try to tell you what you will or won't like is impossible.
 
I will also add that going by a brief review of those specs, there's going to be little material difference in output for the general surround. At this level, even 5-10-15 watts one way or another is essentially immaterial.

I'd expect those systems with two or three times more power for the sub may have meaningfully more potential for subwoofer volume. But, if you're in an apartment, having a lot of sub output available may not matter much if you can't use it due to neighbors, etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom