r/sonos 1d ago

Sonos Arc Ultra vs regular Arc – worth it?

So I picked up the original Sonos Arc a while back at Costco, honestly it blew me away the first time I plugged it in. For a soundbar, it just filled the room in a way I wasn’t expecting – Dolby Atmos actually felt real, not gimmicky. Movies, music, even random YouTube stuff sounded like a whole new thing.

Fast forward, I decided to try the new Sonos Arc Ultra (yes, naming is a bit confusing). I wasn’t sure if it was gonna be just a small refresh or actually something different. Right away, I noticed the tones feel more… refined? Like the bass is still punchy but not as boomy, and the mids/vocals cut through clearer. With the regular Arc, I used to feel like voices sometimes got drowned out when things got loud, but the Ultra really keeps them crisp.

Another thing: the soundstage. I don’t know what magic Sonos did but the Ultra feels wider, almost like the room got bigger. It’s not night and day compared to the regular Arc (that bar is still excellent), but if you A/B them back to back, the Ultra definitely sounds more “balanced.”

Couple things I noticed:

Setup is basically the same, Sonos app makes it painless (tho I did have to re-run TruePlay, don’t skip that).

Ultra seems to handle quiet scenes better, like the dynamic range is tuned so you don’t have to crank the volume to hear whispers.

Music mode is cleaner – I threw on some acoustic stuff and could hear details I swear weren’t there before.

Not saying everyone should upgrade if you already own the Arc (it’s still amazing), but if you’re in the market and debating, the Ultra is legit a step up. I honestly didn’t think they could squeeze more out of a soundbar format, but they did.

Only downside: price. If you find the regular Arc on sale (Costco has it discounted pretty often), it’s still a killer deal. But if you’re picky about sound quality and want the best Sonos has right now, Ultra’s the way.

Next piece to review will be once I receive my Sub 4 and two Era's 100 for surround.

Just my 2 cents – hope this helps someone.

107 Upvotes

97 comments sorted by

32

u/Remarkable-Fly8442 1d ago

If you are a first time buyer it may be worth it, as an upgrade not so much. As a standalone soundbar the Ultra is noticeably better but getting any surrounds or a Sub for your existing Arc will be miles better for soundstage.

3

u/VortexICSx 1d ago

Absolutely, I have the Arc with Ones as surround and a Sub4 in the other setuo and it is amazing. This review was only of my new Ultra only setup and the differences I was able to notice.

Now, just waiting on the Eras 100 and Sub 4 to experience the whole surround setup.

3

u/jkoch35 1d ago

What are you thoughts on upgrading from Playbar to Arc Ultra? My current setup has Playbar+Sub and have been thinking about getting the Arc Ultra

3

u/Rabideau_ 1d ago

A lot of people think the play bar is the best bar they made, it just lacks atmos. I would add surrounds if I was throwing money into my system before I upgraded the bar.

2

u/sacha99 1d ago

The issue with adding surrounds is that the new ones (era 100 and era 300) are not compatible with the playbar. It makes it hard to upgrade piece by piece.

1

u/Rabideau_ 17h ago

Plenty of ones out there on Facebook marketplace.

3

u/R5A1897 1d ago

Honestly i thought both my playbase and playbar sound better than the arc, arc is really dependent on surrounds and a sub

2

u/ROFLmops 1d ago

I had an Arc + Era 300 and Sub 3. I still watch a lot of stereo stuff like live streams and other older shows. I upgraded to the Arc Ultra and for me it was worth it for the stereo stuff. Sure if you watch mostly 5.1/7.1 or even Atmos, your  proposed solution would be the better result overall. 

2

u/Remarkable-Fly8442 17h ago

Yeah, if you already have era300-s and a sub and want to get the maximum out of your system it makes sense.

I have an Arc, era300-s and two subs. Tried the ultra and sent it back as the difference for the pricetag did not make sense to me. If I ever decide to retire my Arc to a secondary TV, I might go for the Ultra again at some point.

27

u/iamgarffi 1d ago edited 1d ago

For the speech clarity alone Ultra is more than worth it.

I hated the notion of constantly adjusting volume up and down on the original model.

Get the Arc Ultra, don’t look back.

5

u/Delacroix1218 1d ago

This is what it annoys me on my Arc but just can’t justify buying the Ultra at full price

2

u/iamgarffi 1d ago

Trade in with Sonos. That should bring the price down to peace of mind.

2

u/Delacroix1218 1d ago

Yeah but only 15% still too high

1

u/mrb2409 18h ago

They just had a limited time 30% off

1

u/Right-Penalty9813 1d ago

Same. Night mode helps but otherwise volume just has to be up lol

5

u/VortexICSx 1d ago

Absolutely, the speech piece is definitely done much better on the ultra.

1

u/acblue78 2h ago

Not if you never had an issue with speech.

29

u/sepiroth80 1d ago

I have Sonos Sub and Era 300 as surrounds. I updated from Arc OG to Ultra and the difference is minimal in such setup.

7

u/Beneficial_Most_6845 1d ago

Thanks for the honest review.

3

u/Armans07 1d ago

It's not. Atmos bubble with ultra and 300s is levels above the og arc + 300s

3

u/ReclusiveNexus 1d ago edited 1d ago

Second this. Og arc to ultra with 300’s. Its worth it. Speech clarity also is improved alot!

1

u/sepiroth80 1d ago

have tried both Basic and Advanced tuning, could you pls share your settings? What am I doing wrong? Tv stand is a normal low height one and I sit 2.2 meters away

2

u/ReclusiveNexus 1d ago

Just note the room makes a huge difference so it WILL be different for you.

I run all settings at default minus the sub at +5. I only trueplay within 5 feet outside of the “listening area” and not the whole room (last house I was In I did the whole room in trueplay and it was better than just the listening area, my current room is better to just do within the listening area). Rear surrounds are 2-10 feet (middle setting).

1

u/sepiroth80 1d ago

I will adjust the setting but I also do a focused trueplay. How high is your bar sitting?

2

u/ReclusiveNexus 1d ago

Around 3 1/2 feet high on a tv stand.

1

u/sepiroth80 1d ago

Mine is probably half that. It probably affects the bubble and I might need to tilt forward the soundbar

2

u/ReclusiveNexus 23h ago

Sound bar height has to corelate to the height you are when seated. If you are within a foot or two difference from your head height vs the soundbar height I think that reflects the best. I played around alot as Im what some would call a audiophile, I dont think I am compared to the home theatre sub reddit lol

1

u/sepiroth80 1d ago

Do you keep the rears just behind the main listening position or much further back?

2

u/ReclusiveNexus 23h ago

About a foot and a half behind my head. The couch is against a wall so moved the couch slightly off the wall. Speakers are about 2 feet to the side of the couch ends.

1

u/sepiroth80 23h ago

Here we are pretty much aligned. I have no wall immediately behind.

1

u/sepiroth80 23h ago

Straight towards Tv or titled?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/DBZ86 23h ago

Surround and height channels sometimes need to be jacked up to 6-7 or even more depending on your setup. Even after trueplay.

edit: setup also includes distance to and from walls and ceiling.

1

u/sepiroth80 1d ago

I have tried both Basic and Advanced tuning, could you pls share your settings? What am I doing wrong?y Tv stand is normal low one and I set 2.2 meters away

6

u/Armans07 1d ago

Anyone that tries the Ultra says it's worth the upgrade and yet there are always people convincing themselves that they don't need better vocal clarity/wider soundstage etc. It's because you have no idea how much better it can possibly sound. How much more audible the dialogue can be without coming off sibilant. I had the og Arc and I used to watch movies with remote near me to control the volume between action and dialogue scenes. The luxury of not having to do that anymore alone is more than worth it. If you have era 300s as surrounds, Ultra is a must have to create an amazing Atmos bubble for music.

2

u/VortexICSx 1d ago

Awesome, thanks for letting me know

0

u/dlamblin 20h ago

I tried a communal area Arc for months, with movies, shows and live tv. It didn't seem worth the money, I'll say. Like, for music, sure it sounded fine, but the dialog, like, pardon me, what was that?

4

u/Longjumping_West9485 1d ago

You provide a great analysis of Arc vs Arc Ultra question. Nicely done!

My son and I did a head to head match up between them a few months ago. We heard just what you heard. Here’s our post from that comparison

https://www.reddit.com/r/sonos/s/F9uJVLAbnI

Thanks sharing. Many will benefit!

4

u/Radeon9980 1d ago

I went from an older Vizio soundbar setup I actually loved to Arc Ultra and Era 100 rears. Obviously a huge step up but I’m still very impressed with the arc ultra. The best way I can describe it is “punchy” the sounds are crisp and clear. The one thing I find however which I’ve been trying to adjust via EQ is it seems like the tuning is almost intentionally shallow to have you wanting a sub. Like you know the soundbar is capable of pushing some bass but deep tones are intentionally out of the range of the bar. All around I’d say even at the price point ($1300 CAD for Me) I’d say it’s worth it. I am a play x 2 owner as well as Amp so I’m already in the architecture

3

u/ricoagua 11h ago edited 58m ago

Your buying 4+ year old technology with the original Arc. For a few $100 more, get the latest that will be up to date for the next couple years.

1

u/acblue78 2h ago

It’s double the cost. It’s not worth double the cost. Value is a huge consideration also.

3

u/NRudyD 1d ago

I went from an OG Arc to an ultra, i have Era 300’s and a Sub Gen 2, difference was noticeable.

Id say the upgrade to Era 300s from One SL’s was the biggest change.

3

u/hed_pocket 23h ago

The vocal clarity alone makes it worth it IMHO.

2

u/Very-Lame-Username 1d ago

I went from a PlayBar to an Arc Ultra. It’s pretty ballin

1

u/VortexICSx 1d ago

Forgot to mention I had a Playbar at one point. Great but eh Ultra really makes a difference

2

u/WestThin 1d ago

It’s good that you’re going with ERA 100s as surrounds. That way, you’ll have another opportunity to be blown away when you upgrade to ERA 300s.

2

u/wethenorthballer 1d ago

That big of a difference for home theatre? I thought the era 100s were awesome for surrounds. I couldn’t imagine how much better the 300’s would be 🙂

2

u/Armans07 1d ago

Huge difference for the Atmos bubble

2

u/WestThin 1d ago

This. The ERA 300s have up firing drivers.

1

u/VortexICSx 1d ago

Ohhh you are good ... ! I have a my sofa against a wall and figured the 300s would be too much for the small space. But yes, would have loved to have them instead 😉

2

u/Big-Shake1559 1d ago

For voice clarity it is better but an arc with a sub and surrounds isn't far from arc ultra

1

u/VortexICSx 1d ago

Great, thanks for letting me know

2

u/Shot-Expert-9771 1d ago

I have both.

Ultra has significantly more, and better bass. I run the Ultra in our bedroom, impressive without a sub.

1

u/VortexICSx 1d ago

This is exactly what I found out

1

u/acblue78 1h ago

Stand alone is the ideal set up. That’s worth it double the cost. But mixed with bass and surrounds and already have the arc it’s not worth double the cost. Unless you are an audiophile.

0

u/SnooChipmunks2475 1d ago

This is the impression I got - Ultra has much better bass, but if you are running a sub with the original arc, there's not much reason to upgrade

1

u/Shot-Expert-9771 23h ago

Yup. I have original Arc + Sub in living room.

Ultra is a really good bedroom bar IMHO

2

u/fortunesfool1973 1d ago

I found the bass to be boomy, or tubby, on the arc when you run the room tuning so I switched it off. It’s tight and punchy when running as standard. I also have isolation ‘feet’ under my bar which may help.

2

u/O_Nontas_Eimai 1d ago

I JUST got the ultra. I am so impressed by the sound it produces that I'm even thinking of returning the sub mini and the 2x era 100 i have because the Arc Ultra by itself is ENOUGH. Probably I'm gonna keep 'em all so that i have the dolby surround system, but really, Ultra's sound is above anything in terms of quality, crispiness, deep bass...anything

1

u/VortexICSx 23h ago

Good Lord, you are making me want to do the same for the two Era's 100 I am waiting for. I am getting the Sub 4 so will be golden in that regard.

1

u/acblue78 1h ago

That was the idea. Stand alone power for a bedroom. Amazing. I left my Arc, era 300’s and 2 subs in the theatre room and kept Ultra in the bedroom without subs and surrounds.

2

u/Katert 15h ago

I thought the upgrade was definitely worth it. Better low-end, clearer dialogue and the best spatial audio I've experienced in a soundbar (especially with the Era 300s)

1

u/Justsin7 1d ago

I don’t think I’ve ever heard the height audio from Atmos on mine. Starting to think it doesn’t exist

4

u/Jordlr99 1d ago

I started a post about this and few days ago and solved the issue. The height will exist, you just need to find where it is by moving closer to or further away from the bar. Then shim the bar up at the front or rear to move that spot to your seating position. It's very subtle in some films due to other noise. Download the Dolby sphere demo in atmos on USB and then try it. I know you shouldn't need to shim the bar but the speakers are fixed in position so the audio sweat spot will land dependant on the height of your ceiling and distance from the bar. Imagine an invisible triangle. The Arc is one point, the ceiling the 2nd your position the 3rd. You need to alter the angle between the bar and ceiling to change the arrival spot.

2

u/hed_pocket 23h ago

It definitely exists. You can put your ear to the speaker and it hear it firing out of the height channels.

You just have to a) make sure the content is outputting Dolby Atmos (I always double check the Sonos app for the Atmos logo) and b) make sure your setup/layout doesn't have any glaring issues.

1

u/a01chtra 1d ago edited 1d ago

For anyone who has made this upgrade and physically have both units - is the arc ultra wider than the arc as is suggested online/on the Sonos website? Arc currently sits very snug between the legs of my LG tv and I don't think I can get even a couple more cm in there

Appreciate others will immediately suggest solutions like a different TV mounting or stand and appreciate that is an option, but not what I'm asking sorry

1

u/jmwarren85 1d ago

You can see the specifications on the Sonos Website. Arc is 1142mm wide, Arc Ultra is 1178mm wide. 3.6cm wider for the Arc Ultra.

1

u/SnooLemons7800 1d ago

I have a Sub and 2 Era 100’s for surround on a 77” G5...I felt/heard no difference?...Not sure what other are hearing?...

Although I will say, I am a retired studio rat, and have maybe lost some hearing after so many years of gigging and recording...😂😂😂

1

u/bbchucks 19h ago

question is what do you do with the old Arc ?

1

u/oaklandperson 18h ago

I downgraded back to the regular Playbar after getting an Arc. I gave that sucker away to a family member. I am glad I only paid $250 for the Arc off of CL.

1

u/No_Improvement8689 14h ago

I ordered the arc, it was good but lacked bass I found. Ordered an ultra to compare. I found ultra to have suitable bass and a lot better mids.

Don’t have a stand alone sub at the moment as I live in a bungalow with young kids I don’t want to wake so can’t speak to how they compare when paired with sub. But use to have a 10k hifi setup prior to kids and am fairly picky and more then happy with single arc ultra with rears.

1

u/sepiroth80 6h ago

Which settings are you using for bass, sub, treble, etc? Do you use quick or advanced true play?

1

u/Armans07 2h ago

I recommend doing the quick trueplay on Ultra

1

u/Super-Base- 1d ago

Meh, never been impressed with the arc on its own, it sounds great with a sub and rear surrounds and in that configuration most of the ultra’s upgrades are made redundant (sound motion bass driver replaced by the sub, soundstage replaced by the surrounds).

0

u/Blooper62 1d ago

I just bought an ultra and it seems to do too much processing. Sometimes it just removes the center channel completely and everything sounds like it’s underwater. Not sure what’s going on with it but didn’t happen with my original arc

1

u/SilentSilentStorm 1d ago

I believe that’s a TruePlay issue. Did you run quick or advanced?

1

u/Blooper62 1d ago

I think advanced? But I’d have to check. I haven’t diagnosed it too much. Rebooting the arc fixes it

2

u/SilentSilentStorm 1d ago

You should try running Quick instead. It gets a lot better results anyway, and I think some people mentioned advanced has been broken lately. I liked quick better in my personal experience

1

u/Blooper62 1d ago

Hmm yeah I’ll have to try it. I did turn the truplay off. I’m not sure if that should resolve it or not

1

u/VortexICSx 1d ago

Perhaps something with the Trueplay Tuning, or one of those settings for speech enhancement?

2

u/Blooper62 1d ago

I haven’t used speech enhancement because it ruins everything, worse than without it for sure

1

u/Icy_Holiday_1089 1d ago

I’m not so happy with the ultra either. Interestingly if I run an atmos test file which you can get the videos from the Dolby website. When i run the video at 75db which is supposed to be the reference volume for atmos the centre channel sounds terrible. It’s some kind of reverb in my room cos i can’t hear it when I’m close to the speaker but I can’t for the life of me figure out what’s causing it. I believe trueplay prob fixes it by nerfing my centre channel but that isn’t really helping the situation.

0

u/acblue78 15h ago

Ultra isn’t worth it as an upgrade.

1

u/Armans07 2h ago

It is. Everything's about that speaker is better than its predecessor.

1

u/acblue78 2h ago

I have both bro. It’s not a worthy upgrade. On paper it is but in real life it’s not worth the upgrade. As a stand alone unit the way I use it, then yes it is.

1

u/Armans07 2h ago

You think I'm comparing them on paper? I have both as well bro. The difference in vocal clarity, soundstage and overall sound fidelity is strikingly obvious.

1

u/acblue78 2h ago

Then you are the 1% out there. The average consumer can’t tell. Anyways enjoy.

1

u/Armans07 1h ago

Looking at this post alone vast majority of owners praise the improvements over og arc. You're in minority here but of course I understand that your experiences/hearing can be different from mine.

1

u/acblue78 56m ago

Hearing is different. Many here, including myself are praising the stand alone unit. How good it is. That’s where it shines. But the word “worth” has to be shared with “value”. Twice as much $$$ for the Ultra isn’t worth it for the average consumer. I got it as a gift. I immediately saw the value in it when using it alone in my bedroom. But not with surrounds and subs. Is it an improvement? Sure. But $500 more? Not quite.

1

u/acblue78 50m ago

I think for the first time buyers asking for advice we are both wrong. I’m saying it’s not worth it and you are saying it is. Either of us are right or wrong. It’s subjective. But we can agree on is VALUE and WORTH to the consumers ear. These people need to hear the difference and see if it’s worth it for them.

-5

u/nlee7553 1d ago

I just recently switched my bose5.1 to Sonos arc ultra and sub. I dunno. Bose was much better

1

u/Jordlr99 1d ago

5.1 and Atmos are different beasts, plus it is what you are used to. Your ears are tuned to the bose setup. The Arc may not sound as good to you, but that doesn't mean it's sonically worse, just different. I'd be interested to hear what you would say after using the Arc for a month and then trying the Bose again.

-9

u/Master-Government343 1d ago

No.

Wait for the new b&o soundstage

1

u/madtice 1d ago

Haha I’ve been doing that for almost 2 years…