My bedroom TV speakers are crap, so I want to get some speakers by the side to get something with higher fidelity. The problem is that space is an issue. I need something that can fit on the bookcases where my TV is resting, on either side.
This means that my choice must be no more than 6" wide and 7" deep, and no more than 50" tall whilst still delivering good quality sound. There's nowhere to put a subwoofer so it has to be a stereo setup, or a set of speakers that can simulate a subwoofer etc.
I can't use a sound bar because there is nowhere in front of the TV for it to go and the wall behind is only plasterboard so it can't support the weight of one. If anyone can suggest a reasonably priced sound bar that a TV can rest on top of and is no more than 7" deep, that will also suffice.
I can't move the TV. This is the only place where it can go. Thank you! Apologies if my phone places the photograph sideways.
>>24369 PC speakers have become pretty high quality over the years, to the point where at the lower end of audio (which I assume is where you're looking, seeing as an upgrade to built in TV speakers is your only stated goal) they sound better than pretty much anything you're going to get for "home theatre" equipment at a similar price. Especially soundbars, which are all shite in my experience.
Are those much better than the T20s? Because I just got a pair of those and I'm impressed. Bass is decent for a 2.0 system. Sound quality is great for films.
>>24374 I looked at his shelves and decided not to comment for fear of being called a pretentious twat. In fairness, there are a handful of decent books on there.
>>24373 Similar quality, just louder and with a stronger bass, which could be an advantage seeing as he'll likely be further from the TV than one might typically be from a monitor.
Also, fuck the books, the important thing you've all neglected to point out is that OP needs to clean his TV properly, I don't know how you could look at a screen like that and not be bothered.
Depending on your tastes, the Dickens, the Thompson, the Hemingway and the non-fiction. The non-fiction might not be any good, I'm in no position to judge.
Thanks I will check out those speakers, my books are all lovely and the TV only displays the streaks when the sun shines directly on it and you look at an angle. I shall also download the Vulcan book!
>>24382 >I'd be looking at self-amplified small bookshelf speakers eg. AudioEngine A2 over "PC speakers"
And what precisely would you call A2s if not PC speakers?
>>24383 If you seriously think higher wattage=better speaker, your general rule should be not to volunteer your opinions mate.
>>24383 >£84 for a pair of 16W speakers with tiny cones like that is a waste of money.
I agree, I bought the T20s some years back, and although they're not that bad, I do regret not getting a pair of active monitors for the same price.
>>24384 >And what precisely would you call A2s if not PC speakers?
It can be difficult to say where to draw the line, but there is an important design difference. PC speakers are designed to be sat on a desk in just two or three feet from your ears. They're almost all built into a case which is pointing the cones slightly upwards, and the output is balanced to suit typical tastes at that distance. These two design issues don't have any meaningful impact on cost, but they do mean that even if you buy the best PC speakers in the world they're not very capable of filling a large room with sound, if you're sat on the other side of the room from them, a lot of sound will be projected above your head and the bass will drop off quite a bit. Comparatively, if you stick some active monitors either side of your laptop, they will blast most of the sound at your chest and the bass will be overly loud. Although plenty of people like that anyway.
>If you seriously think higher wattage=better speaker, your general rule should be not to volunteer your opinions mate.
He didn't say that at all, if anything he said bigger cone=better speaker.
>>24384 Remove the bit about wattage and the point stands. Those speakers would be shit for a telly, and £84 is a ridiculous price, especially when compared to what could be bought instead.
>>24386 They aren't going to fill the Albert Hall, but they're obviously not supposed to. Based on the photo, OP's TV is scarcely 4 Hitchhiker's Guides wide. The distance he'll reasonably be sitting from the TV means he would likely be better served looking at speakers with good nearfield sound, and it that regard the T40s are excellent.
>>24388 "I bought the T40s and I'll be fucked if I'm going to sit here and listen you lads talk shit about them."
If this is the case, please understand I'm not knocking your kit, just pointing out that they'd be a poor choice for a TV even if OP was sitting right in front of the screen. They're no doubt fine for a bit of youtube while you're sitting browsing at your desk, but given the cone sizes there's no way they're moving enough air to have any substantial bass response, which makes them a poor fit for movies (and TV shows like, er, Game of Thrones).
If all OP does is watch the news then the built-in speakers would be adequate, that this thread exists suggests they aren't. There are better alternatives for that kind of money.
