I tested Bose’s Lifestyle Ultra soundbar, and it raised the ‘too much bass’ debate in my home


lusoundbar-2.jpg

Bose Lifestyle Ultra Soundbar

pros and cons

Pros

  • Excellent design
  • Great app support
  • Google Cast built-in
Cons

  • Slightly overpriced
  • Uncontrolled bass at loud volume

Follow ZDNET: Add us as a preferred source on Google.


Bose has been in the home theater game for a long time, though its modern product catalog favors innovation and updates in its personal audio and wearables categories. As a result, the company’s home theater lineup has been stale, with only a few soundbars, rears, and subs to choose from.

Also: Forget the soundbar: How I upgraded my TV audio with spare Bluetooth speakers

Still, the company makes an effort to remind its consumer base of its home theater roots, and the new Lifestyle Ultra lineup, consisting of a smart speaker, soundbar, and subwoofer, shows it wants to continue its tenure in the industry. 

I spent a week with the $1,099 Lifestyle Ultra Soundbar, swapping my beloved Sonos Arc with Bose’s latest offering. With the Lifestyle Ultra Soundbar residing in the same price range as Sonos’s and Sony’s premium equivalents, Bose has big shoes to fill. 

Best bluetooth speaker deals of the week

Deals are selected by the CNET Group commerce team, and may be unrelated to this article.

Visible (and invisible) upgrades that matter

The Bose Lifestyle Ultra Soundbar debuts with a nine-driver array, with two upfiring speakers, four front-facing speakers, one dedicated center tweeter, and two horizontal speakers. On its own, the Lifestyle Ultra Soundbar delivers a 5.0.2-channel arrangement.

Under the hood, the Lifestyle Ultra Soundbar closely resembles its predecessor, the Bose Smart Ultra Soundbar, as both feature a nine-driver array. However, Bose fitted the new Lifestyle Ultra bar with an improved AI-powered speech enhancement algorithm, a microphone-enabled room-correction feature, a proprietary spatial audio upmixing software, and enhanced bass response technology.

Bose Lifestyle Ultra Soundbar in Black

Jada Jones/ZDNET

Bose gave its premium soundbar a much-welcomed facelift, introducing a glass panel along the topside and a touch-enabled dial of controls on the bar’s right side. Bose also swapped squoval edges for rounded ones, resulting in an elevated, modern look.

Overall, the soundbar is good; it does what it needs to do, especially in the midrange. The soundbar’s center channel handles dialogue very well, and Bose’s AI-powered dialogue enhancement sounds more natural than some competitors’. However, without external rear channels, the Lifestyle Ultra Soundbar struggles to deliver immersive sound on its own.

That’s too much bass

Additionally, the Lifestyle Ultra Soundbar’s bass response is weak, so the Lifestyle Ultra Subwoofer add-on is necessary for a meaningful bass response when watching movies or TV shows. The Lifestyle Ultra Subwoofer would not only add dimension to the soundbar’s lower frequencies but also offload some of the stress the soundbar would otherwise bear when handling deep bass on its own.

When watching intense scenes from “Dune: Part Two,” the rumble of the movie’s soundtrack often rattled the Lifestyle Ultra Soundbar, which in turn rattled my TV stand and produced an annoying sound. Some people may like this crashing sound effect, while others, like me, won’t.

Also: Why the ‘Subwoofer Crawl’ is the only way I found the bass sweet spot in my living room

In comparison, my standalone first-gen Arc Ultra didn’t do the same when playing the same scene from the same movie. The Sonos soundbar delivered a more controlled bass response, though Bose’s midrange reproduction was louder and clearer. 

Still, the Lifestyle Ultra Soundbar carries the same $1,100 price as the Sonos Arc Ultra, Marshall Heston 120, and Samsung HW-Q800H, all of which deliver deeper, and most importantly, tighter bass response.

One major drawback

The best thing about the Lifestyle Ultra collection is that they operate on an open ecosystem, offering multi-room audio via Google Cast and Apple AirPlay. Yet the Lifestyle Ultra collection doesn’t support backward compatibility with Bose’s older modern home theater products, which is a miss.

Though Bose doesn’t offer many home theater products in its current catalog, interoperability among all of them would be a plus; support for a wide range of devices is what gives Sonos and Sony an edge over Bose in this context. According to Bose, you can wire the Bose Bass Module 700 to the Lifestyle Ultra Soundbar — that’s it.

ZDNET’s buying advice

The Lifestyle Ultra Soundbar is good; it’s certainly the best from Bose, delivering refined sound technologies, a clean design, and an open ecosystem for Wi-Fi streaming. However, the Sonos Arc Ultra shares the same $1,099 price tag. If bigger, more theatrical sound is what you want in your living room, Sonos does it better.

Also: Your TV can sound a lot better: 7 easy but unexpected ways to improve audio quality

However, the Lifestyle Ultra Soundbar sounds great when playing music, and has plenty of smart speaker features, including Bluetooth, Apple AirPlay, Google Cast, and Alexa built in. Thus, it’s a solid option for those looking for a smart speaker that happens to be a soundbar, rather than those interested in a soundbar tuned for immersive movie-watching.





Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


After a four-year wait, Euphoria has returned to television, but season 3 is providing a major shake-up to its formula. Not only have four years passed in the real world, but the in-universe tale has moved forward, taking the cast of the Zendaya-led teen drama out of high school and into the trials of young adulthood. As such, the series faces a new challenge of whether it can keep up its momentum with this drastic new status quo.

While it remains to be seen how Euphoria can move past its teen drama roots, it’s an excellent time to dive into the celebrated and controversial series Skins. Let’s see how it handled the test of time, how it outshines Euphoria, and how it fell into similar trappings.

What is Skins?

Skins broke the teen drama mold

Created by Bryan Elsley and Jamie Brittain, Skins is Channel 4’s British drama series that premiered in 2007. Initially, the series first honed in on a group of teens enjoying their youth in the city of Bristol, caught between youthful revolt, partying, and the pressures of adulthood. The show walked a fine line between relatable comedy and serious drama. This combination of genres attracted a following.

Skins aired for seven seasons between 2007 and 2013, running for a final total of 61 episodes. The series was praised by critics and prominent industry voices—including Doctor Who’s Russell T. Davies and Black Mirror’s Charlie Brooker—for breaking the mold of what a teen drama could be. Even over a decade after its final episodes aired, its characters are still fondly remembered, finding new life through a thriving online fandom.


skins


Release Date

2007 – 2013-00-00

Network

E4

Showrunner

Jamie Brittain, Bryan Elsley

Writers

Jamie Brittain, Bryan Elsley



Skins was celebrated as a realistic depiction of teen life

The series was willing to show the highs and lows

Skins is part of a unique generation of teen-focused media released in the mid-2000s and 2010s. The series wasn’t a glossy depiction of youth culture; its cast comprised young people stumbling through life, making mistakes, or intentionally causing trouble. They were allowed to be flawed and even unlikable, which would resonate with the young target demographic at the time, who would find their struggles relatable.

With this clear recognition of what its audience was looking for, Skins became acclaimed for its willingness to dive into taboo and controversial subjects at the time. Alongside several storylines tackling queer themes, the series dared to depict a generation in conflict with those who came before, with the show’s adults either being unintentionally neglectful or outright malicious towards the young cast. As Skins was exploring teens transitioning between youth and adulthood, the show is a coming-of-age story that is willing to show every aspect these changes bring, for better or worse.

Skins spawned several stars

Several actors are now household names

The cast of Skins in a photo. Credit: Warner Home Video

While Euphoria can be credited with being the breakout show for several actors, Skins had no shortage of faces who would dominate both the big screen and television. Seasons 1 and 2’s cast not only featured Nicholas Hoult, Dev Patel, Joe Dempsie, and Hannah Murray long before they would star in highly celebrated projects such as Superman, The Green Knight, and Game of Thrones.

The show also featured small appearances by Get Out’s Daniel Kaluuya, who would pen several episodes for the series. Season 2 would continue to feature future stars in their breakout roles, such as 28 Years Later’s Jack O’Connell as the brash and loud hooligan Cook and The Gentlemen’s Kaya Scodelario, who transformed her season 1 character Effy Stonem into a compelling lead.

When paired with a supporting cast of several talented, established mainstays on British television, it is understandable why Skins provided a perfect chance to give these future stars the perfect breakout roles. Not only were the characters able to tap into the youthful rebelliousness and culture of the time in a way that made it highly relatable to audiences, but the stars behind these characters were able to show their skills against their older costars and prove themselves. As such, it is unsurprising that Skins‘ young leads would go on to bigger projects that would be recognized around the globe.

Skins avoided Euphoria’s production issue

Skins’s major cast shake-ups helped the series continue

The skins show 3. Credit: Warner Home Video

However, with a young cast who would gradually grow out of their roles, Skins was limited in the stories that it could tell while the audiences could still plausibly believe that the actors were the same age as their characters. While finding a cast who could believably play younger characters is hardly a new predicament, it is something that has become more scrutinized as time goes on. Even Euphoria has had to grapple with this issue, with season 3 featuring a time jump of several years to account for its cast outgrowing their high school roles in the gap between each season’s production.

Arguably, out of most teen dramas, Skins found the ideal way to handle this issue. Rather than following a single group of teens across seven seasons, the first six seasons can be divided into three distinct eras with their own unique casts. The final season explored what happened to several fan-favorite characters following their education. Not only did this compromise avoid any potential issues due to the cast’s ages, but it also broadened the scope of the kinds of stories that could be told due to its revolving cast.

Skins wasn’t without its own controversies

A young cast brought several difficulties

That’s not to say that Skins didn’t attract criticism. Due to the young ages of the cast at the time of filming and the situations they were placed in, the series understandably and rightfully received heavy scrutiny of how they were treated, alongside discussions of whether the series was guilty of glorifying unhealthy habits. These critiques weren’t limited to viewers and professional critics either, as several lead actors such as Scodalerio, April Pearson, and Dakota Blue Richards have spoken about their time on set through social media.

While Skins can be celebrated for its willingness to depict a gritty and relatable portrayal of growing up in the early 2000’s, it is important to acknowledge where things could have been handled better, especially as more of its stars open up about their time making the show. It is also important to acknowledge how these revelations can affect the show’s perception, either by those who grew up with the show or newcomers looking in. If you feel uncomfortable by the events depicted onscreen or feel sour towards the show due to the cast’s treatment, it may be best to avoid it.​​​​​​​

Where to stream Skins

The series has a lasting legacy

Effy in Skins. Credit: Channel 4

For better and worse, Skins represents a major moment in British television history. Between casting future stars in their breakout roles and giving audiences an unflinching depiction of teen life, the series is worth revisiting for these aspects. Furthermore, if you are familiar with Euphoria, it is also interesting to go into the series and compare how each show tackles similar themes, not only due to how times have changed between series but also through how a British cultural lens vs. a US lens works.


Furthermore, for US viewers, Skins is currently readily available to stream. The full series is available to Hulu subscribers, as well as those who pay for the Disney+ bundles that feature the service. If your excitement for Euphoria has been dimmed by the lengthy wait between seasons or you are just looking for an interesting show to compare it to, Skins still stands as the best option available.

hulu-poster.jpg

Subscription with ads

Yes, $10/month

Live TV

Yes, various plans available




Source link