Picture quality or sound quality

[Donivlapog]

In which area would you invest more?

My take is audio is very important. Picture quality is something that the eyes will get used to. Say a FALD 75" plus a home theater 7.2 channel equals a 77" OLED in price. (dual subwoofers have become a standard to me these days but 7.1 is the popular vote and that also makes a difference).

The sound recording, mixing and separation by the creators of various content intend a real external gear that a TV plus an inexpensive sound bar cant give (maybe an expensive one might), however we can count on a real good AVR plus multi channel sound for a real bombarding immersive experience. Your opinion pls, my friends.

 

[liverpool_for_life]

In which area would you invest more?

With a HT, you're going for immersion. With both audio and video. While one can be more important than the other based on personal preference, IMO, it's a folly to concentrate resources far too much on one side.

Your opinion pls, my friends.

When I started, I figured audio was the most important for me. Video was the proverbial "oppuku chappani", even though I did want a big screen and PJ. Consequently, my first iteration of this theater (5.1 with a HD resolution Epson PJ and a 135 in diagonal screen) was skewed extremely in favour of audio (~90:10 or thereabouts).

As time rolled on, and the room got better, thoughts turned toward improving the video as the imbalance between the audio and video quality widened. While I don't believe my room currently is good enough to truly get the best out of my video equipment, I'm still glad for the change. I'd guess that the current skew in favour of audio is 60:40.

A big screen with puny speakers is not a good idea. A large TV (65 in or above) paired with impactful speakers/subs is unlikely to be as incongruous the former. If I had the option though, I'd go with a big screen picture and impactful speakers to match every time. Wrt video, size matters. YMMV.

 

[k-pad]

In which area would you invest more?

My take is audio is very important. Picture quality is something that the eyes will get used to. Say a FALD 75" plus a home theater 7.2 channel equals a 77" OLED in price. (dual subwoofers have become a standard to me these days but 7.1 is the popular vote and that also makes a difference).

The sound recording, mixing and separation by the creators of various content intend a real external gear that a TV plus an inexpensive sound bar cant give (maybe an expensive one might), however we can count on a real good AVR plus multi channel sound for a real bombarding immersive experience. Your opinion pls, my friends.

My spends stand at 60:40 so far in favour of Audio. And as time goes on (replacements, upgrates, etc) I guess this ratio will remain the same for me, though in the very looong run, if you decide to stick to your speakers come what may, V will overtake A and I guess it will roughly be around 70 V, 30A... because I guess we will cycle through TVs faster than audio gear (mostly speakers i mean)

Ideally keeping them around about equal should be the way to go...

regards

 

[sandeepmohan]

Its always going to be Audio for me. I find Video harder to get right between the two. With 99% OTT being the source, its like throwing in a spanner. Video quality is not consistent. I am also a bit forgiving towards video. I can live with a non-fald TV. Its not the end of the world. I've made my peace with old school led. Even if I go fald, I'll probably stick to a led based solution. I don't have videophile eyes to demand or care about oled or qled.

I went through hell trying to watch The Mandalorian. My TV was not good enough to handle hdr, to the point where it pushed me towards blowing a few lacs. It did not make sense. To watch one TV series! In the end, I decided to watch only after sunset, switch off all the lights. That sorted my picture issues. I finally gave up watching the series cause I got bored. Switched back to some other content which was so bright that it made my eyes bleed, at the settings I used to watch that Disney show. Such is the variability with video content (or quality) we watch these days.

I am not in pursuit of what the Studio, Producer or Artist intended either. I can never achieve that cause I don't know what they have or had in mind. As long as it sounds (I can't stress this enough) and looks good, is all I care about.

 

[DB1989]

In which area would you invest more?

My take is audio is very important. Picture quality is something that the eyes will get used to. Say a FALD 75" plus a home theater 7.2 channel equals a 77" OLED in price. (dual subwoofers have become a standard to me these days but 7.1 is the popular vote and that also makes a difference).

The sound recording, mixing and separation by the creators of various content intend a real external gear that a TV plus an inexpensive sound bar cant give (maybe an expensive one might), however we can count on a real good AVR plus multi channel sound for a real bombarding immersive experience. Your opinion pls, my friends.

It depends upon one's priorities. Which are informed by one's experiences. Most people have not experienced a good stereo set up, let alone a full fledged HT. For the fortunate few who have experienced a good setup at home, i would imagine they would keep the split at least 50:50. For those who haven't, they simply haven't a clue about what they are missing out on or that such performance is attainable.

No wonder Marshall BT speakers manage to blow the layman's mind and for many, the gold standard (Disclaimer: I do find them to be enjoyable and can indeed see, or rather hear, why it manages to impress)

 

[Barun7]

It is 60% picture quality and 40% sound quality for me. Although sound quality is very important for a true audio visual experience, the picture quality is primary when I see something. It's like your eyes vs your ears.


Digressing a little. Take 'Na kajre ki dhar' from the film 'Mohra' for example. You hear Pankaj Udhas but you see Sunil Shetty!

 

[Donivlapog]

It is 60% picture quality and 40% sound quality for me. Although sound quality is very important for a true audio visual experience, the picture quality is primary when I see something. It's like your eyes vs your ears.


Digressing a little. Take 'Na kajre ki dhar' from the film 'Mohra' for example. You hear Pankaj Udhas but you see Sunil Shetty!

In Mohra, Sunil Shetty does a fine job. But that song is a goosebump inducing melody/almost ghazal. Let me play it on my HT! Thanks for reminding me about this song.

 

[Bloom@83]

For movies a huge projector (say 150 inches or higher ) with even a 5.1 HT makes for a much more immersive experience than , say , a 65inch uber expensive TV with a 7.2.4 setup. Budget accordingly needs to be allocated likewise. Just my 2 paise.

 

[Bloom@83]

Most people have not experienced a good stereo set up

This is very true. Once you’ve experienced a really good stereo setup , there’s no going back. And setting up a great sounding two channel stereo setup is more of a PITA than a HT in my experience.

 

[alpha1]

Ears are more sensitive than eyes.
You brain cannot shut off audio signal, but can easily close the eyes.
Audio is diffused and audible everywhere, video is directional and only visible directly.

Enough logical reasons to spend more on audio than video.

 

[amit11]

My experience is if there is something to see in front of us, then audio becomes relatively less important. For example we all have been watching normal TVs but we never felt short of sound while watching. Whether it was a serial, interview, reality show or movie on tv, we are fully immersive in it and do not think about sound much at that point of time. Ofcourse improving sound will improve our experience. On same lines when i purchased a projector which had small normal speakers inside it, i felt initially that it may not work out. I use it to project on a normal white wall and believe me, i do not feel that i am lacking in sound while i am watching movie. I am not saying that sound is not important, yes it is, but while watching our mind focus more on watching rather than analysing the sound.

 

[skk]

I think depends on what is being watched, for example horror movies sound plays a very important role setting up the atmosphere!
A visual treat such as Avatar makes picture quality more important.

 

[Donivlapog]

I think depends on what is being watched, for example horror movies sound plays a very important role setting up the atmosphere!
A visual treat such as Avatar makes picture quality more important.

Very true. 100% agree with horror movies. For the weak hearted it is not recommended at all in a 7.2 home theater settings or more. Sudden audio effects can make us miss a heart beat. Conjuring for example got me a few times!! Sheer adrenalin. Visually impressive movies like Sandeepmohan says can be watched in a 4k LED too with a mid-level model of a 65" TV. Not so impacting as every TV has its own pros and cons. Bright QLEDs can be a pain to the eyes if seen in a dark room while shadow crushing nature of OLEDs will sometimes irritate you or if the TV blooms and FALDs (using that as a verb as you guys know what i mean) your experience, people start adjusting to what they have. But audio impacts a lot. Especially if the frequency response is good and multi channel audio is perfectly staged.

 

[sandeepmohan]

A visual treat such as Avatar makes picture quality more important.

I had a sneak peak of the new film, in 3D a couple of weeks ago. Its going to be a reference disc for sure.