Directors Which is more important to you: video or audio?

Discussion in 'Movies' started by Brett Creider, Oct 17, 2003.

  1. Brett Creider

    Brett Creider Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2003
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It seems that a lot of you have usually very nice audio systems in your home theater but your visual lacks...some of you have small TVs...like 21" or 27" or something...


    So which is more important to you? Audio or Video?


    To me it's video.
     
  2. mark alan

    mark alan Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2002
    Messages:
    620
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    7' wide front projection system and $350 speakers. You tell me.
     
  3. Matthew Todd

    Matthew Todd Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2000
    Messages:
    338
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'd have to say I'm a video guy too. 7' wide front projection screen with $2000 for audio (DD only, no DTS yet)

    Matt
     
  4. Lew Crippen

    Lew Crippen Executive Producer

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    Messages:
    12,060
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My systems are reasonably modest by most HT standards. I do use my audio system for music as well, so the money that is spent there should really not all be assigned to HT.

    Just as some of my video money is spent in bringing in HD TV.

    In the end, I want the best picture and sound I can get (but at my price point). [​IMG]
     
  5. John Garcia

    John Garcia Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 1999
    Messages:
    11,571
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    NorCal
    Real Name:
    John
    Audio. I spend more time listening to music, and can tolerate an average picture. I calibrate, and use good interconnects on my video to get the most out of what I have, but image size and pq are not the focus of my system, so I don't feel it is lacking. I also have a second small system that is 2ch audio only.
     
  6. Jack Briggs

    Jack Briggs Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 1999
    Messages:
    16,738
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is really a poll. Hence, its move to the appropriate section. Also note title change.
     
  7. MartinTeller

    MartinTeller Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,721
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Video. When I get the money, I intend to buy a sizeable widescreen TV (right now just using a 30" 4:3). However, I'm content to listen through the TV speakers. Most of the time I listen on the headphones, anyway.
     
  8. Jonathan Dagmar

    Jonathan Dagmar Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    723
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am neither and audiophile nore a videophile, but I would have to say that both are equally important to me. I do not have a lot of money, so I bought a very modest system with the idea of upgrading the components overtime. So right now I have a 27" i'art analog tv. Would I like a nicer progressive scan tv? Yep, you bet. But I certaonly don't have enough room for a rear projection unit, an exensive to maintain FP unit is out of the quesiton. Therefore my 27 inch interlaced display with it's 16:9 squeeze will remain until I can afford a decent sized LCD panel. I have a fairly nice progressive scan DVD player wating patiently for that day.

    As for audio, I have a nice 6.1 receiver, connected to a set of yamaha satelites and subwoofer. Certainly nothing amazing, but it provides pretty great sounds for what it cost me.

    All told I am very happy with my entire system, even if it is entry level and only cost me about $2000 Canadian dollars. Happy enough that I do not feel a great need tp upgrade anything just now. When I first wanted a home theatre, it was because I love movies. I wanted great sound, and a great picture. BVy moving from VHS to DVD with surround sounds, I already have that. Fruther imporvement will only be incremental
     
  9. Elizabeth S

    Elizabeth S Producer

    Joined:
    May 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,686
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    4,110
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Real Name:
    Elizabeth S
    While I have a very simple setup, I'm more concerned with video. My apartment doesn't really allow me to crank up the sound, anyway; thus not even a subwoofer.
     
  10. Steeve Bergeron

    Steeve Bergeron Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 1999
    Messages:
    2,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Real Name:
    Steeve Bergeron
    Video
     
  11. Brett Creider

    Brett Creider Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2003
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    For Home Theater I am definitely going to say video is more important. It doesn't matter if you have a George Lucas autographed system that came from his own house for $20,000...if you have a 21" TV from WalMart the experience will suck.

    On the other hand, I am at my computer more than my home theater so I will definitely say audio there is more important (thus I just spent $350+ on a sub) because even when I do play games sometimes or type stuff I listen to music much more...
     
  12. Rob Tomlin

    Rob Tomlin Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2000
    Messages:
    4,505
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think video is more important overall.

    Let's face it, many of the older, classic movies, are in mono sound anyway...and there are no LFE going on.

    Then there are silent movies, where we don't need sound at all!

    That being said, I think a modern Home Theater should excel at both sound and video.

    I have a 9 foot wide screen, with a High Definition DLP projector.

    I am also using a Parasound C 2 Pre-pro with a 7/2100 Sherbourn Amp that puts out 200 watts per channel fed into Monitor Audio Gold Reference speakers.

    I am using two subwoofers: a SVS 20-39 PC+ and a HSU VTF-2.

    I think it is fair to say that both audio and video are important to me!
     
  13. NicholasL

    NicholasL Second Unit

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    Messages:
    298
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Even though video makes or breaks the experience, I think audio is inherently more expensive and that's probably why people spend alot more on audio. I know I do. My TV costs $2500. The rest of the system costs $31,500.
     
  14. Rob Tomlin

    Rob Tomlin Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2000
    Messages:
    4,505
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  15. BarryUK

    BarryUK Auditioning

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2003
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As a newcomer to this money-pit of a hobby, I would say I initially thought that video would be most important.

    However, after purchasing a cheap no-name surround kit on a whim, I was totally blown away by the difference even that made to my viewing pleasure.

    I've now found myself on the inevitable upgrade path, but I still get enormous pleasure just playing with all the different sound settings available (much to the annoyance of my wife and kids, who just want to watch a film!).

    I guess I'll eventually get the twiddling out of my system and actually enjoy my films as I used to, but until then it's audio all they way [​IMG]
     
  16. Jan H

    Jan H Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2001
    Messages:
    2,007
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have more money invested in audio (Polk Lsi25's, LSiC, LsiFX, SVS 20-39PC+, EAD PM1000, Outlaw 950, plus $1500 worth of cables) than video (ISF'd Tosh 65H80 & Denon 2900), but it bugs me more when a DVD transfer sucks than when the soundtrack is less-than-impressive. So I'd say,

    Video
     
  17. wayne p

    wayne p Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2002
    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    For me it's the audio. My next upgrade will be on the video side as my audio goals have been met. In the interim, even though I am only using a 35" older Panny (Gao), I am easily drawn into a movie where the sound is compelling. I have been to friends homes where large rptv's show great pictures, but without a decent sound system the movie doesn't hold my interest as firmly and I find I am easily distracted.

    As an extreme example, a large screen with excellent picture could not hold me seated through a showing of Chicago even though it was my first time seeing the movie. I admit I am not a big fan of musicals although I am a big fan of music. A few weeks later, when screening the movie at home for my wife, I thought I would put the movie on for her then leave her to it. The almost physical presence of the rhythm and the "real" sound and feel to the brass at the opening caught me and I sat through the entire movie. Other then the tap dancing I really enjoyed it. The impact of the big band sound placed me in the night club.

    As another example, try watching LOTR where you do not feel the ground shake when armies are on the move, or hear a background of gently flowing river and the movements of birds when at an elfin kingdom. LOTR becomes another TV show regardless of the screen size.

    Having said all this a good picture of a size to have impact is essential, but unless you can afford to purchase your dream theatre all at once I would recommend blowing the budget on the audio side first. The display side can come later. Of course, if you choose wisely, the other benefit is to be able to enjoy your CD's, DVD-A's, SACD's etc. on a great sounding system when not watching movies or other video.
     

Share This Page