Samsung HT-X200 Test (Home Theatre System)


  Select and compare
Samsung HT-X200
Test score: B Above average
The score of B is reached using 4 different tests on the Samsung HT-X200 (s).
Average score of all home theatre systems: B.
Product specs: Audio channels: 2.1; RMS rated power: 300W; Type: Compact Home Cinema System, Home Cinema in a Box; Built - in sound decoders: Dolby Digital, DTS, Dolby Pro Logic II; Components: DVD Player more info
 
CNET.co.uk
Publication date 3/2008
Single test 		"Good" (6 out of 10 points)
"The Samsung HT-X200 is one of the best looking 2.1 home cinema systems we've seen, but although its DVD playback quality is good, it's let down by its slightly sterile audio performance."
Download
TrustedReviews
Publication date 1/2008
Single test 		6 out of 10 points Value for money: 7 out of 10 points
"To us, it seems as though Samsung spent too much time perfecting the HT-X200's (admittedly gorgeous) design and not enough time tweaking its sound quality. ..."
Download
What Hi-Fi? Sound and Vision
Issue 10/2007
6 products on test 		"very good" (4 out of 5 stars)
"Performance-wise, this Samsung betters its 5.1 sibling for pictures, with improved upscaling abilities that translate into a fresh and revealing DVD picture. Stereo sound is likeable, too ..."
 
What Hi-Fi? Sound and Vision
Issue 8/2007
Single test 		"very good" (4 out of 5 stars)
"A good-looking two-channel alternative to surround sound, with picture quality that's highly impressive for the money."
 
Your opinion
   
Your experience and expert knowledge on the home theatre system "Samsung HT-X200" will help others make the right choices...
Please write your opinion on the "Samsung HT-X200" here.

Summary of Samsung HT-X200



The home theatre system was put to the test in 3 magazines most of them feeling the product did at least have some merit.
Its highest score of "very good" (4 out of 5 stars) came from What Hi-Fi? Sound and Vision magazine which tested the Samsung HT-X200 in their 8/2007 issue. TrustedReviews online magazine (1/2008), gave the product its lowest score; a rating of 6 out of 10 points, which says a lot about its quality.