The Era 100 has a 25% larger woofer and two tweeters compared to the One SL’s single tweeter. So the Era 100s should have a wider soundstage and more bass than the One SLs.

Thanks for the feedback.  I'll be getting a pair of Era  100s.   Will they add more height as well or do you need to pair the arc/sub with 300s for that?

The Era 100 doesn’t have an upward-firing driver like the Era 300.

Thanks so much for the info.  

Most of what I watch is not Atmos, but Dolby 2.0 or 5.1.  I also listen to a fair balance of music.  I was reading a number of threads about some of the drivers in the 300’s being disabled unless the ARC feed is Atmos.

So, for my balance of listening, which would be preferred, 100’s as surrounds or 300’s?

Thanks!

Dave

IMO as I have both the Era 300’s and Era 100’s used as surrounds in different  rooms (the former bonded to an Arc and the latter to a Beam 2) the Era 300’s sound better in all aspects. However, if you do not watch a lot of Dolby Atmos then the Era 100’s should be OK for your needs. If cost is not a factor I’d go with the Era 300’s.

I have both Era-100’s and 300’s operating as Sonos HT surrounds and I much prefer the 300’s …by far. So if their cost is not prohibitive, I would certainly go with the Era-300’s too, especially with a Sonos Arc and Sub.

This is a bit nitpicking…to the Nth degree

The only other reason to choose the Era 100’s over the Era 300’s is footprint. If you do not intend to invest in stands and you are limited on space to place the Era 300’s vs the Era 100’s the latter is more forgiving.

I have some One SL speakers mounted at ear level in the main viewing room. It's paired with and Arc and 2 Sonos subs. The arc generates a fair amount of sound upwards, so all is not lost if you don't get the Era 300s. I will probably be upgrading to the 100s this week.