Picture or sound - which is the most important (1 Viewer)

[RobertR]

If that's your idea of the equipment that gives you the best video quality you can get, you haven't seen top quality CRT front projection. No "good CRT set" and set top DVD player combo comes close.

 

[Vince. V]

This question would be so much easier to answer for a blind or deaf person. In all other cases I'd prefer a blend of both good quality audio, as well as video.

 

[eryn shannon]

As a rough guideline I think 40% of your budget should be spent on video and 60% on audio.

 

[Rajeev_s]

I lean more toward video than audio, of course I was never into 2 channel audio, because I started with HT. I think I have better eyes than ears. I easily get amazed by PQ more than sound. I can notice subtle differences in PQ, while with sound all that subtlety is not as easily percievable for me.

 

[Rich Wenzel]

interesting question...

im going to assume you mean good video/great sound, or great video/good sound...

for good video, im going to choose a 50-65 inch rptv, and a good, say denon 1600 dvd player...

for great video, im going to assume a dlp hd2+ chip, say the marantz, and a 110" screen, and silicon image scaler...

for good sound, im going to assume a $2k speaker set up, of the PSB/AXIOM type quality, with a yammie 2400/h&k630 type of front end

for great sound, im going to assume a revel f50 type set up/quality, and a cary type audio...

now if it was me, i woudl go with good video/great sound...

i think most people would agree that the great video/good sound would make the better movie though, for the following reasons:

1) movie sounds tend to be less revealing than music, and the quality needed for speakers is less (not saying that moving up in front end/speakers wont help, but not as much as music)

2) with just average equipment, any person can be fooled by a phone ringing, footsteps in the back, etc...sound is just much closer to the real thing than video

3) when watching a movie, i would say more than half your perception is viewing based, and 110 inches is going to have 272% percent larger viewing area than 57 inches...by including a good scaler, the picture wont be degraded at the end...

4) a very good/believeable sound field is much easier to create than a video...how you ever heard something and thought it was real, but it came from a speaker? can you say that you ever looked at a movie and thought that picture was real? you can get 3 dimensional sound, you cant get 3 dimensional video.

having said all that though...its sounds what makes some types of movies great...with bad sound, horror movies pretty much suck...its that creepy music and the WHAM that scares people...not really the pictures...the music builds the mood...

Rich

 

[ChrisWiggles]

Oh, I don't know about that. I think the sound side is equally, or more involved than the video side of things. Like you said, "great picture" would be an HD2+ dlp and a good source, I'd say an HTPC. Can be done for 10k or so pretty easily. Even better would be a CRT projection setup of the same HTPC, can be done for less than 10K easily. The "best" would be a 9in crt setup, that can be done for 10K, and you have *THE* best PQ on earth. The same can not be said for the same amount of time designing an audio system for a similar pricetag.

Anyway, I think this thread is kind of pointless because they both go hand-in-hand, and taste really comes into play. IT's like the threads about how much percentage to spend on this, or that, or the other. You'll get a zillion answers and end up realizing that you have to figure things out on your own usually. Every setup is unique, buit/designed by or for a person with unique tastes and preferences.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

Sorry, but I have. ISF'ed, Avia'ed, the whole 9 yds. Bigger, sure. But better resolution, clarity, detail, brightness, etc, than a Sony XBR Wega? Not in my opinion. But what I'm looking for in terms of picture quality might be quite different from someone else.

 

[RobertR]

A CRT front projector is indeed capable of better resolution, clarity, and detail than a one tube set such as a Wega. The Wega is limited by its aperture grill. It simply can't resolve a spot size as small in relation to the screen size as the projector. Also, it's hopelessly outclassed with respect to screen size. The projector is closer to the cinema experience (which after all, is the reference). As for brightness, it's true that a front projector needs a dark room, but once again, the reference for picture quality (a film projector) needs the same thing, and if the projector meets or exceeds SMPTE standards for brightness, it's bright enough.

 

[JeremySt]

I would rather have a 27" crap tv with a killer surround soud system as opposed to a big 61" plasma that used its own speakers.

 

[RobertR]

Do you watch any movies made without multichannel sound?

 

[ChrisWiggles]

Since when is a plasma a reference in PQ?? lol.

Robert is definitely correct w/regard to wega vs crt FP. There's no contest.

 

[Craig_Kg]

For HT, once you have decent surround sound, it's better to allocate resources towards upgrading the picture. To me, decent is ~US$800 receiver + ~US$500 sub + ~US$700 fronts (inc center) + ~US$300 rears.

You already have a great stereo system so don't waste your money trying to raise the surround sound system to that level.

And yes, a well set up FP CRT with EM focus will slay any WEGA.

 

[ChrisDixon]

For a long time, I only cared about sound. Music is my number one priority and the signal from cable or satellite isn't that good anyway, so I put all my money into speakers and amplification. Now that HD is finding its way into most prime-time network shows, I am much more fussy about picture. Still, if I had to make a choice, I would give up my plasma TV before my speaker system. Hmmm... glad I don't have to make that choice!

Chris

 

[JeremySt]

Do they even make software without multi channel sound? :rolleyes

 

[Jerome Grate]

For me, I'd have to say sound. There's something about hearing and feeling the movie as you watch it. Now I can't say I can truly appreciate a good action movie on a 24 or 25 inch t.v. with a kick ass system but sound really can make the movie that more interesting. My next two steps in achieving the perfect HT is a High Def DLP RPTV and then replacing the diy subs with a SVS or HSU sub.

 

[RobertR]

Well, let's see...There's Gone With the Wind, Casablanca, Citizen Kane, The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, On the Waterfront, Dr. Strangelove, and thousands of others, quite a few of which are held in somewhat higher esteem than the latest multichannel summer action flick.

 

[Shane Martin]

Today even still they make movies w/o multichannel sound. Check out Woody Allen's flicks. Mono only!

Beyond his personality, I will say he is an oddity in todays cinema.

 

[JeremySt]

I guess you guys didnt understand my post. I was being sarcastic. I have tons of DVD, including the ones you mention. I was joking. Yes, I have mono movies, and I would still rather have a great surround system with a mediocre tv.

 

[Yogi]

Why are we going into oddities? We are discussing latest sound and picture formats and the equipment to reproduce that. Now lets not go into mono/black and white/pre audio movies etc and skew the subject at hand.

I think everyone has his/her own priorities when it comes to AV systems, and I think everyone is right in their own viewpoint. Like someone else pointed out earlier there is no wrong answer to a question like this. Search your own priorities and decide.

Cheers.

 

[JeremySt]

Well said yogi.