I can tell you my experience, buying Arc + Sub 3 just before Ultra and gen 4 introduction and one year later adding two Era 300.
For TV daily watching, Arc and sub improve the experience a lot. Also for films, but don’t expect Atmos or any surround feeling, even if they advertise it. But for sure it develops a very powerful experience compared with the TV speakers.
For music, the result is also quite good, but the bar doesn’t fill the room as a good pair of stereo speakers. But for sure enough for normal listening.
The bigger improvement is to complete the system with the Era 300 backwards. Now the experience in movies or music is impressive. Atmos is absolutely noticiable in music and the experience goes to another level. Also watching films the experience is great, even in 5.1.
In my opinion:
- For the size of the TV and if you’re thinking to upgrade in the future, the Arc is better than Beam.
- Arc Ultra is much better than Arc if they are alone, but, adding sub and surround, the differences are not so noticiable.
- I think Sub 4 doesn’t worth it for the price difference. As far as I know, perhaps more skilled users say the opposite, I never test the last one.
Thanks for the reply, @Triticale
For me, the Arc + Sub Gen 3 actually works out cheaper than the Ultra.
Initially, I was only considering the Beam Gen 2, but later I found that the Arc is about €50 cheaper than the Beam.
Just to give you a bit more context — it’s a medium-sized living room (3.5m x 6m) with an 8ft ceiling height.
I can tell you my experience, buying Arc + Sub 3 just before Ultra and gen 4 introduction and one year later adding two Era 300.
For TV daily watching, Arc and sub improve the experience a lot. Also for films, but don’t expect Atmos or any surround feeling, even if they advertise it. But for sure it develops a very powerful experience compared with the TV speakers.
For music, the result is also quite good, but the bar doesn’t fill the room as a good pair of stereo speakers. But for sure enough for normal listening.
The bigger improvement is to complete the system with the Era 300 backwards. Now the experience in movies or music is impressive. Atmos is absolutely noticiable in music and the experience goes to another level. Also watching films the experience is great, even in 5.1.
In my opinion:
- For the size of the TV and if you’re thinking to upgrade in the future, the Arc is better than Beam.
- Arc Ultra is much better than Arc if they are alone, but, adding sub and surround, the differences are not so noticiable.
- I think Sub 4 doesn’t worth it for the price difference. As far as I know, perhaps more skilled users say the opposite, I never test the last one.
Thanks for the reply, @Triticale
For me, the Arc + Sub Gen 3 actually works out cheaper than the Ultra.
Initially, I was only considering the Beam Gen 2, but later I found that the Arc is about €50 cheaper than the Beam.
Just to give you a bit more context — it’s a medium-sized living room (3.5m x 6m) with an 8ft ceiling height.
If you can get an Arc (not Ultra) for 50 anything less than the Beam 2, it’s a no brainer. The Arc has actual height channels, the Beam’s height channels are virtual. The Arc also has a significantly wider soundstage.
I can confirm what @jgatie says. I’ve spoken with a friend who has both in different rooms and he says that there is no doubt: always Arc.
We replaced a Beam gen 1 with an Arc and it with an Arc Ultra.
For dialog clarity we prefer the Beam gen 1 to the Arc. We still have 3 beams and passed the Arc on.
The Arc Ultra has outstanding dialog and fills our big room better. Beams are adequate in the bedrooms.
We have Subs on a Beam and the Ultra and they add a lot to movies and music, not so much to talking heads.
We use Ones, on the Beam and 100s on the Ultra as surrounds. The 300s were a lot better but we couldn't fit them in our space.
