Picture or Sound, which is the most important?

Greetings all

In a nutshell, I'd like to hear from experienced users some opinions as to which is THE most important element in the movie viewing experience - the picture or the sound?

Are we approaching things the right way, as many of us new to HT have a background in 2 channel and assume the sound to be the most important aspect.

But is it?

For me, HT/AV is proving to be a very different and elusive animal compared to music, and I'm most interested in some opinions please.

All comments appreciated

Best

John.

 

Forum with interest rooted in music reproduction with lean towards the audio side.
Home Theatre forum not infrequently has set up with super expensive plasma screen or projector supported by entry level receivers.

If you have the means, why not give it equal importance.

 

I did this test many years ago, watch a HQ video with a good large TV using its speakers, I mean 32" or so, then a small TV but sound from stereo...

Everybody preferred the second option, more impact, I guess the brain adapts better to the image lack of quality, or maybe the thunder, explosions, doors cringing, etc... excite people more...

Anyway, I rather spend most money on the sound side, but, of course, will buy a nice plasma as soon as I can afford it... :MILD:

 

It's a bit of a silly question, pictures are quite obviously the most important factor in the movie experience - by miles.

Which is better, watching a movie on a 6ft projector image with a small mono speaker or on a 14" kitchen TV with a top class 5.1 surround system?

Would you rather watch a movie with subtitles (as the deaf watch them) or would you prefer to have just the full on surround sound but no picture?

Come on, movies are a visual experience. Of course good quality surround sound can enhance the experience and I enjoy having it but it's a clear secondary concern for me.

Michael.

 

Silly, who is beeing silly...

You get a much bigger scare with a deep rumble, followed by a piercing scream than watching the beast on the screen without sound... :JOEL:

 

Maybe, but would you rather watch a movie without sound (with subtitles) or without the picture?

The answer to that question determines which is most important and I can't see anyone who isn't blind seriously suggesting they'd rather watch a movie without the picture. Case closed

Michael.

PS: no smart arse exceptions like "Koyaanisqatsi" (which is basically music with some nice pictures) please

 

Maybe, but would you rather watch a movie without sound (with subtitles) or without the picture?

That is out of the question, the question is about big image or big sound...

Anyway, a movie without sound and subtitles is useless, I would not bother... :SLEEP:

 

The latter is better IMO.

 

My priorities would be: buy a presentable TV (ie. probably a really good 28'' or a decent-ish 32''), then get a really good surround sound system. I'd rather have a reasonable display and top-notch sound than a top-notch display and reasonable sound, if that makes any sense.

 

Picture first and as long as its reasonable stereo/mono I'm quite happy.

 

It is all about suspending disbelief, and the exact formula will almost certainly be different for different people. I can only answer for myself, but I find sound to be absolutely critical. Much of TV content is spoken, and if the audio system is capable of reproducing speech with a high degree of accuracy (and few are) the suspension of disbelief in something being 'real' is far greater.

I don't have a large TV, just a 21†Sony Trinitron (set up within an inch of its life!), but I do have a decent audio system with speakers that are incredibly natural on voice (Harbeths). This combo sounds infinitely more 'real' to me than the vast majority of home cinema installations I have heard regardless of cost, and the picture on the Sony is exceptional in clarity and colour (though quite small). I would rate picture and sound quality as being roughly equal in priority and essential to the experience, though picture size and surround sound are for me largely irrelevant.

Tony.

 

It's not a simple question; it's quite complicated really.

First of all, no one's asking wether picture with no sound is preferable to sound with no picture - that's just silly, everybody has both. The question is in which aspect is high quality most important, and therefore where should the bulk of the budget go?

Personally, I do rate sound above picture for the most part. I would much rather have a 21" telly with a top notch surround system (say... Lexicon MC12B feeding ATC Concept 7? :JOEL: ) than the world's best three-chip DLP projector with a POS stereo mini-system. Cinema is all about involvement and for me at least, a really good surround system does more for involvement than a really good picture. In the extreme, for me at least, sound comes first.

That said, projectors do make a REALLY BIG difference. There's a HUGE difference between watching the film in a little box in front of you (even plasmas and rear projection tellies don't really cut it IMO) and letting it take up your whole field of view - the immersion factor is infinitely higher on a projector.

If it was a more realistic comparison - say, 36" telly (~£1500) with Lex MC1 (£1.5K) and ATC Concept 2 speakers (£6K) vs. a nice reasonably high end DLP (something like the latest top of the line Sharp, prolly around £6-9K) with a midpriced Denon integrated (£600) and ATC Concept 1 speakers (£2K), I'd probably go for the latter. The fact that you can get a REALLY GOOD projector these days for £1200 means that the bang-for-buck quotient of the video side seems to be quite a lot higher than audio. But then, for me at least, as you go above that £1200 mark the VFM goes way down...

Anyway, I'm not sure what conclusion to draw from my ramblings - just that it's not a simple question with an obvious answer. AV be surprisingly complicated....

Dunc

 

I think it was George Lucas who said the importance of each aspect, sound and picture, is a straight 50/50 split.

Although there's also the proven human psychological fact that superior sound quality positively affects our perception of the picture quality we're viewing, whilst a higher quality picture does not alter our perception of the quality of the audio side of things.

 

Personally, I've been building a really decent sound system with a view to incorporating a decent sized plasma screen when:

1. I can actually accommodate one (presently my CRT sit's in front of a window).
2. The prices come down a bit more.

The other option is a projector - this is fine for a dedicated room but if it's in a general lounge then you're hardly going to fire it up (and black the room out) to watch the 6 o'clock news i.e. you would need a CRT in there too. For this reason, I'm kind of thinking that a plasma might be a better bet.

On the sound vs picture argument - 50/50 sounds good to me. As to the size of that picture, that's another argument and I'd suggest that in a smallish room, a 36" CRT set would give you a reasonable "at the movies feeling".

And here's an alternative analogy for sound vs pictures - let's say there's a top football match on - would you rather watch it with no sound at all or listen to it on the radio. I think you'd enjoy it more listening to it on the radio, appreciating the atmosphere etc. rather than just watching a silent screen.

Matt.

 

All I would say is get an image size to match your soundfield and vice versa. Therein lies the path to total immersion

 

About a year ago I had NEC come in and demo a 40" widescreen LCD screen.

I had thought about buying a plasma, but not anymore.

This beat it into the last century. Nothing like those awful 17" jobs you see in Currys.

Save your pennies and wait for an LCD. Plasma is not the way forward IMO.

 

FWIW, my view is that the split is 70/30 in favour of sound.

Of course, going from my 32" w/s TV to a 96" projected image means my smile goes from this to this

 

The key is whether it be audio or visual is to get the presentation as life like as possible. Once you get used to a 46"+ screen then their is no going back to small crt screens. small screens rob you of the experience, same as speakers with poor bass extension and narrow positioning dulls the experience of stereo reproduction

Sound needs to be very dynamic and this requires high sensitivity speakers with no less than a monster 18" sub or dual 15 inchers.

 

Greetings All

Thank you all for your many thoughts - it's appreciated.

The reason I asked the question is somewhat tied in with my post re high-end processors.

I have noticed and hence wondered, as to what is the most important element in the movie watching experience, as in the presence of the picture, (and of course, bigger is almost always better) I have noticed that perceived differences between high-end processors and cheaper receivers etc were little, when the experience was taken as a whole, i.e. picture and sound.

This lead me to wonder as to the correctness of my approach to HT re the importance of the sound, coming as I am from a 2 channel background, in that despite the obvious such as the plot, story-line etc of a film, being the lead element, the visuals as such were perhaps slightly the more immersive, 'being there' factor of the overall experience.

Intriguingly, I found on recent audition that a high-end processor that majored on strengths that would apply to 2 channel, such as transparency, detail etc, was outdone IMHO in the overall movie watching stakes (sound AND picture), by cheaper equipment that had obviously less overall resolution etc, but nevertheless had an excellent and even perhaps better sense of surround 'wrap' re the sound-field.

Somehow, this sense of excellent surround sound-field envelopment brought more to the sense of involvement overall in the presence of the picture.

My thoughts thus were, that the picture was perhaps ultimately the leading element, with the sound accompanying it as it were - certainly in the 'distraction' of the picture, the lower resolution of the cheaper processors was scarcely noticed, whereas the extra sense of sound-field 'wrap' definitely added more re that vital 'being there' feeling.

And as others have noted, the size of the soundfield 'matching' the picture was of more subjective importance, than the picture with a smaller, but slightly more detailed soundfield, at least in the audition that I had.

Cheers

John...

 

John,
Buy a cheap HC integrated amp, you'll probably be very happy with it.

I've been down that road. I can now appreciate what my processor/power amp combo does that an integrated can't, but most of my friends wouldn't be able to tell the difference.