extra speakers for tv.

almillar

I'll add in at h) for that same £200 a second hand AV amp and a some speakers. AV amps especially depreciate something shocking as they're always having new features stuffed into them. You'll have a 4 yr old £400 amp for £100 no problem. Have a look on gumtree for the amp and speakers as they're heavy.

...Time_for_a_brew_then..

Just 'fixed' my mums tv sound (£500 tv, sounded like a fisher price toy) by simply plugging in a spare pair of computer speakers. (£2.99 from a local ebayer...)

Improved the sound no-end. Obviously, if you have a decent set of PC speakers with a sub woofer it'll be even better...

hardpressed

Well the TV, Sharp 32", is up and running and I have to say the sound is fine, much better that the 22" TV it replaced.

InsideInsurance

GlynD wrote: »

OP's only asdking for a cheapo solution though - not state of the art sound.

The same applies to cheapo as state of the art, if anything it is more so. The more "bits" your buying the less per bit your paying. Inevitably there are some bargains and there are some overpriced items but if you are paying £120 for 2 speakers or £120 for 6 speakers generally you'll find the £60 per speaker to be better than the £20 per speaker solution.

Idiophreak

InsideInsurance wrote: »

The same applies to cheapo as state of the art, if anything it is more so. The more "bits" your buying the less per bit your paying. Inevitably there are some bargains and there are some overpriced items but if you are paying £120 for 2 speakers or £120 for 6 speakers generally you'll find the £60 per speaker to be better than the £20 per speaker solution.

Not sure about that. I agree that each speaker's likely to be of better quality, but I'm not sure that's really the point.

I used to have 2 very good speakers. Now I have 5 smaller, less good speakers. Which sounds better? 5 speakers, by a country mile. Why? Because I have surround sound. This means I get the effects of surround sound, but also means that I have a lot of smaller sounds, rather than a couple of larger sounds...This means I can have the volume lower, suffer less distortion (in theory) and also lower the bass a little without sacrificing sound quality too much (more sociable for the neighbours, anyway)...

If I stick the amp in stereo mode, you know what, the sound's not as good as it used to be...but that's to be expected.

Your example's fundamentally flawed, because you're not comparing like for like.

Stereo: a set of £120 speakers would sound better than a set of £40 speakers, sure.

Surround: the £120 surround set would do much better than the £120 pair of speakers...because the £120 speakers just don't do it.

If you got 5 speakers at £60 (as in your example), the sound you'd end up with would be much better, again, than the £120 stereo setup.

There's more to sound quality than simple audiophilia.

InsideInsurance

Idiophreak wrote: »

I used to have 2 very good speakers. Now I have 5 smaller, less good speakers. Which sounds better? 5 speakers, by a country mile. Why? Because I have surround sound. This means I get the effects of surround sound, but also means that I have a lot of smaller sounds, rather than a couple of larger sounds...This means I can have the volume lower, suffer less distortion (in theory) and also lower the bass a little without sacrificing sound quality too much (more sociable for the neighbours, anyway)

Unfortunately the logic isnt true because of the nature of surround sound. For example the voice channel comes ~80% through the centre speaker (plus sub depending on frequency/ crossover) and therefore in stereo you had 2 "large" speakers driving the speech where as now you have a single "small" speaker.

Whilst we all may like crisp sound effects/ explosions etc, the issues of distortion/ having to turn it up the volume levels are much greater on dialogue than effects.

I agree that there is a matter of taste, that some will be happy with lower quality sound because they prefer the immersive quality of surround sound... and thats fine, but it is by no means a matter of the sound being "better".

I know a fair few people, including those that work for AV stores who gone back from 5.1 to 2.0 or 2.1 ask they feel they get much better quality sound and the "loss" of the surround channel (which only plays ~10% of the sound anyway) is by far preferable for the gains in overall quality.

Personally, I like my surround sound and so do have a 5.1 setup but did spend a significant sum on my fronts 3.1 and continue to use an old set of rears speakers for rears that are an 8th the price of the fronts.

The other posters comment was incorrect, you do not get the same quality in 5.1 for the same price for 2.0. You may however be happy with the quality sacrifice in exchange for other factors (eg effect or space saving) or you may not.