Audio Or Video: What's More Important To You? (1 Viewer)

[Michael Lee]

A recent thread in Hardware made me curious to others' priorities. I used to be more of an audio nut, growing up with stereos and LPs. My transition to HT was a natural course but I always put more money into audio in the early years. It wasn't until I saw a friend's 11' diagonal screen in '94 that I realized how much more important video was for cinema-like experience (to me). I would definitely take a front projector setup with a $600 HTB over a 20" TV with separates, tower speakers and a car-sized subwoofer.
So my obvious vote is Video.
------------------
Link Removed
My Home Theater Pics
My Equipment List
My DVD Collection
Link Removed

 

[Jason Seaver]

Video. My directional hearing stinks, so expending a lot of time or money on incremental audio improvements isn't going to net me much.
[Edited last by Jason Seaver on September 26, 2001 at 02:40 PM]

 

[JustinT]

Audio. I dont have enough money for a widescreen tv, so my 27" will have to do for now.

------------------
My DVD's

 

[MikeH]

Audio -- I have a 15 yr. old 27" tv

Mike

 

[Rob Tomlin]

I have to go with Video. If the video sucks, the movie can be virtually unwatchable, regardless of what type of movie it is. Sound plays a more important role in some movies than others obviously. Video is ALWAYS important to a MOVIE! After all, the first movies didn't even have sound!

 

[Patrick Wilmes]

Video.If the audio is good it's like a bonus.If it's not oh well.

 

[Neil Joseph]

Audio.
That is a complex question though. With video quality being the way it is with dvd these days, I would settle for a slightly worse picture (still good though as I remember the vhs days) in order to get kick ass sound.
orangeman
------------------
Link Removed

 

[Rob Tomlin]

I was thinking about this a little more, and I am even more convinced that VIDEO is more important.
I have the DTS version of Apollo 13. The audio is great. The picture SUCKS by todays standards. Very soft picture etc. I really enjoy this movie, but I just can't stand to watch it because the picture bugs the crap out of me! If the audio was not great, i.e., it was pro-logic or something, I would have a much easier time watching it that way than with the poor video quality.
Just my 2 cents.

 

[Alex Spindler]

Video. I will listen to a scratchy mono soundtrack before I'll watch a non-anamorphic picture.
------------------
Bombardment Society - Member

 

[Steve Christou]

Picture quality for me definitely, audio is great fun and a very important enhancement to enjoying today's films, but if the picture sucks I'll probably never watch that movie ever again, and if the sound isn't the best it could be I wouldn't know the difference anyway, so I would still happily enjoy a movie with less than perfect sound, erm did any of that make any sense?
POSTED BY STEVE 'IF ITS LOUD I'LL TAKE IT' CHRISTOU.

 

[Richard Travale]

Ill have to go with audio right now because I'm still stuck with my 27" display. When I get my Widescreen RPTV, then we'll see how I feel. Chances are it will still be audio though since that is what I feel draws me into the "experience"
------------------
Rich
"A) You can never go too far and B) If I'm going to get busted it is NOT going to be by a guy like DAT."
My Website

 

[Jim_F]

My video upgrades have tended to be attempts to get a picture worthy of previous audio upgrades. My spending on my system is about 2/3 audio and 1/3 video.
Audio.

 

[Bjorn Olav Nyberg]

I think the video is more important as well. Of course both are important, there are examples where I have not been able to comprehend what has been said in an audio track, but this is also due to my understanding of english of course, so both can destroy the experience. But since movies are primarily a visual medium, video quality is more important to me. My hearing could be a little better as well, and even in cinemas I have trouble picking up surround effects as good as it seems other people are, so that is why I am still content with my old second hand prologic receiver. I have heard some Dolby digital and DTS setups over at friends, but I think there is not very much to gain for me, although I still want a better setup for myself. I also figure a really good, as in really expensive, receiver and speakers might help me, but I feel a bit insecure about spending so much cash on something I am not entirely sure I will enjoy all that much.
------------------
"You're 10 seconds away from the most embarrassing moment of your life!"
Click here to admit you want to see Ford Fairlane on DVD!
DVD List Link Removed

 

[Ricky f]

Easily Video
Regards,
Ricky
------------------

www.petitiononline.com/UncutDVD
Thank you WILL K for the banner

 

[Andrew V]

My vote goes to: Video.
------------------
~Andrew~
~Pronto Programmer~
AIM SN: FFU Productions
ICQ #: 21603991
Home Theater Pictures
Equipment List | My Growing DVD Collection

 

[george kaplan]

Let's see,
cds - audio is more important
dvds - video is more important
Seems obvious to me.
------------------
13-time NBA world champion Lakers: 1949, 1950, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1972, 1980, 1982, 1985, 1987, 1988, 2000, 2001

 

[Ron-P]

Audio
Although I have a 46" 16:9, I still prefer the audio over the video.
Peace Out~

------------------
http://home.earthlink.net/~peregrinefalcon

 

[KeithH]

Audio. I have around 1500 CDs, plus SACDs, DVD-Audio discs, DTS CDs, pre-recorded minidiscs, etc., plus many audio components to play them on. On the flipside, I have a 27" TV.
------------------
My:
HT Pics ; Equipment List ; DVD Collection ; LD Collection
KeithH: Saving the Home Theater World Before Bedtime

 

[JohanK]

For me it is probably audio...an answer which comes about b/c the HT is dual purpose (music and movies). However, I just got a projector so we'll see if MHO changes.
------------------
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/bbs/equipment/28687.html

 

[Adam Tyner]

Video, for me. It's not that I think audio is unimportant -- I'm just not as discerning as I'd like.
------------------
My DVD list | My personal site