Now, I know that most everyone's first reaction to this question will be that it is silly, or that video is the obvious choice, but upon reflection, I'm not so sure that the answer is so easy. Granted, I am more of an audiophile than videophile, but after watching the 40th Anniversary release of "The Graduate" last night, I started thinking. The picture quality of this SD DVD played on an XA2 (w/Reon) through my 50" 1080p set was amazingly good. While it didn't have the sharpness of an HD disc, it also didn't leave me wanting more. The audio on the other hand, while passable, seemed a bit thin at times. A true uncompressed, lossless soundtrack would be fantastic--and likely an improvememt, despite the fact that the original mix was a basic mono track.
Perhaps those with a much larger screen/projector setup would be less likely to feel this way than those of us with relatively smaller screens. Discuss.

Video over audio, every time, provided the audio is passable. But can the audio track from a 40 year old movie be made better?

Video.

I have lots of CD's and only one SACD. The SACD sounds better but Cd's still sound amazingly good. I could live with CD quality audio.

Video on the other hand is much better in native HD. The difference between HiRez Video and HiRez audio is not very compare-able.

-Brian

AQ > PQ for me by a small margin

IMO PQ doesnt "move" you like AQ does.

Video

Video, but not by a whole lot... after watching a title like Seabiscuit or Rundown, I'm really astonished by how great good audio can be, and those titles aren't even lossless audio.

Audio, definitely. Certainly for music(!) but even for movies. HD is nice, especially for TV but neither my wife nor I find it essential. In fact, I could live without video/movies (if I had to); it would be painful to live without music...................and the better it sounds, the more valuable it is to me.

In the context of HDM, Video.. audio is clearly secondary.

IMO video>>>audio

HD Video

To me the silk screened art on the disc makes all the difference.

It's all downhill after that.

The better the video, the better. I'm already satisfied with 1.5 Mbps DD+ (transcoded to DTS) over optical.

P.S. I consider 1.5 Mbps DD+ over optical "Hi-def". It's a lossy compression format, but then again so are VC-1, MPEG-2, and H.264. Indeed, the so-called "Hi-def" video formats are arguably much more lossy than 1.5 Mbps DD+ (transcoded to DTS) over optical.

That's a tough one because with both BD and HD DVD you don't need to sacrifice either audio or video. I believe the premise is false. That said, I have seen some very good upscaled video and I really like my DD+, TRUEHD and LPCM audio tracks. I guess if I had to choose, I'd pick audio.

Oh crap, not exactly right. Just thought of how much I liked the new look of Tremors on HD DVD but the sound track IMO is not as important for that movie in that it's really mostly dialog.

I'm sooo confused. Never mind. :rolleyes: :D

Should have made this a poll. Video for me, as long as the audio is decent.

video...

That's a tough one because with both BD and HD DVD you don't need to sacrifice either audio or video.
What about if you're doing incremental upgrades?

In my case I upgraded both my display and my audio system, but the only reason I upgraded my audio system was because the IR sensor was dying.

ie. Better video was a big bonus to me, but I'm perfectly happy with optical audio, even on my new receiver. Even though I was upgrading my receiver anyway, I saw no real reason to spend $$$$ on a receiver capable of getting lossless audio over HDMI. I'd rather spend that same $$$$ on video... and I did. I bought a 720p projector to throw a 90" image.

My next upgrade will likely also be video --> a 1080p24 player.

And then my next upgrade after that may also be video --> 1080p projector.

Males are visual centric thus I love video >>> audio

What about if you're doing incremental upgrades? ....



You would toss that in! ;)

More :confused::confused::confused:

In a year most HDM players will be connected to HDTVs and TV speakers. Even now most are connect to DD+ HiTBs.

For the early adopters and AV fans, HD Audio is great. But even they will be connecting their 2nd or 3rd HDM player to that 32 inch HDTV and its speakers in the bedroom.

BTW, aren't many of the BEST movies in mono or silent? (think Cane, think Metropolis).

While video matters more, that doesn't mean I want the audio to suck. I absolutely love lossless audio tracks!

video

Such a question could only be posed at AVS. Considering abysmal failure of SA-CD and DVD-A, the answer would be obviously be video. If AQ is important at all, then HDM would be truly doomed:)

I'm another of the video >>>>>>>> audio people. IMO, any audio format above DD 5.1 is overkill. The differences become very subtle, and you need several things to even hear them. Good equipment, good room, good setup, etc. Improved video just requires a HDTV to shine.

I would rather watch HD video with a stereo soundtrack rather than SD with lossless audio.

Such a question could only be posed at AVS. Considering abysmal failure of SA-CD and DVD-A, the answer would be obviously be video. The question does not ask which is more important for which we could have a poll of opinions and I would not doubt that your prediction of the outcome would hold, especially on this forum.

However, the question was asked quite personally: "If you could only have one....." and that invites a variety of opinions. As for the failure of SACD/DVD-A, I will always have many more of those than DVDs.

Video.

But thankfully we don't have to choose.

Video - film is primarily a visual medium

This is almost like a question of which would you rather be? Blind or deaf?

Video hands down.

Lee, both would be horrible, but I would rather have my sight. I am an avid golfer, so sight is kind of important.

Could you imagine watching lord of the rings with a mono track? How about Star Wars without John Williams?

We have room on HDM to include both so this is a moot point. Especially if hd dvd will get their 51gb disc to market.

I guess I am very different. Audio. Without a doubt. I have been an avid movie nut my entire life and love going to theaters. I enjoyed movies that were not digitally projected. I have enjoyed movies with standard definition DVD. The one thing that has ruined a movie for me was a theater or disc with substandard audio. I saw one of the Matrix movies at the Imax. Awesome. Saw it in a theater where the surround channel kept popping in and out. Ruined the experience. If it was between say a high definition release of Speilberg's War of the Worlds and I could either buy it with 1080p and 2.0 audio or with 480p and DTS-HD MA, I'll take the DTS any day.

Audio.

I still feel HDM PQ is an incremental step-up from upscaled DVD.....flame away. :rolleyes:

A year ago, before I owned a high-def player, I would have ignorantly said Video.

But now, after experiencing the joy of having BOTH high quality Video and Audio on many of my high-def discs, the choice would not be as clear cut.

While I still lean towards watching amazing Picture quality as being more important, in no way can I undervalue the benefits that top-notch Audio has provided me in making my filmic experience even more immersive.

It's funny, there are movies that, because of Director's Intent, are made to look rather gritty and poor, and I still enjoy them. But I doubt that a movie with an intentionaly poor sound design would make me jump for joy and embrace their artistic decision.

I guess I am very different. Audio. Without a doubt. I have been an avid movie nut my entire life and love going to theaters. I enjoyed movies that were not digitally projected. I have enjoyed movies with standard definition DVD. The one thing that has ruined a movie for me was a theater or disc with substandard audio. I saw one of the Matrix movies at the Imax. Awesome. Saw it in a theater where the surround channel kept popping in and out. Ruined the experience. If it was between say a high definition release of Speilberg's War of the Worlds and I could either buy it with 1080p and 2.0 audio or with 480p and DTS-HD MA, I'll take the DTS any day.
Uh, I don't think anyone would enjoy a movie where the sound isn't actually working properly.

I also don't think very many people on this forum would be happy with 2.0 audio for current summer blockbuster type movies either.

However, with even lowly DVD, excellent quality DTS 1.5 Mbps is already available.


Could you imagine watching lord of the rings with a mono track? How about Star Wars without John Williams?
As above... Not really applicable. Or are you in agreement with me that 1.5 Mbps audio over optical arguably can be called Hi-def audio, if we are using compressed video as the standard with which to compare?

Audio.

I still feel HDM PQ is an incremental step-up from upscaled DVD.....flame away. :rolleyes:

Im gonna need a Hydrogen bomb to flame this away!

Isnt HD all about the video.? As long as the audio is good, then Ill gladly take exceptional video quality.

Audio

Video.

I can handle MP3's but I can't handle a monitor at 640x480.

I am the same way with my home theater.

As much as I enjoy music, if the question is which contributes most to the home theater experience, I would also have to pick video over audio.

I often have friends over for movie parties. A few of them are fellow home theater/projector enthusiasts, but the majority don't have full home theater set-ups. And even though more than half have HDTVs in their homes, they tend to be in the 24 to 36 inch range. The one thing that everyone talks about when they come over to watch HDM at our place is the picture. They certainly comment on the sound when they first hear it, but the audio "WOW" factor seems to wear off more quickly. On the other hand, the same people will constantly comment on specific visual scenes that stand out in HD, especially if they've seen the film before on SD DVD.

Good question.

Video for me.

I thought of it this way:

1. 480p Video and THD/DTS-HD MA
or
2. 1080p Video and DD/DTS

I'll choose 2.

John

Well, it depends.

Just for movies I would rather have hi-def video than hi-rez audio - I just feel the improvment in the video is more significant than in the audio.

If you mean hi-rez audio more broadly to include music as well as movies, then sign me up for audio every time. Of course, this would require the labels actually releasing hi-rez music (beyond clasical and a trickle of all other).

i love my SACDs and DVDAs - just wish I had more of them.

Video. I used to think DTS was the dogs bollocks. So HD Video with DTS would not bother me in the slighest. No one can say Saving Private Ryan, or Gladiator were unsatisfactory sound tracks.

Image means more to me the past few years having a front projector system...

Video. I used to think DTS was the dogs bollocks. So HD Video with DTS would not bother me in the slighest. No one can say Saving Private Ryan, or Gladiator were unsatisfactory sound tracks.
And how many SD DVDs have DTS, let alone DD at a decent bitrate?

If most SD DVDs carried a decent DTS track, I would have voted Video.

Also, I must admit that I don't have a 120" screen (you'll forgive me if I don't use centimeters.) If I had a bada$$ viewing angle, I probably would have voted video for that reason as well. Seeing all of that pixelization would be more distracting than a poor audio track.

Bottom line, one of my biggest hopes for HDM was good audio. Loads of extras and a 384 Kbps DD track on DVD are an insult, IMO.

I guess it's only fair to include the Visually challenged and plump for audio 1st, as video would obviously not be important. Descriptive audio would be the big deal in that instance
Well you're a real peach, aren't you. You must be a treat at parties.

Video quality will always, always, be more important than audio quality. Always.

...However, the question was asked quite personally: "If you could only have one....." and that invites a variety of opinions.
Frankly, the question is just pointless. HDM is a video based format, it's really that simple:)

As for the failure of SACD/DVD-A, I will always have many more of those than DVDs.
Well, good for you. I guess you don't have to worry about whether or not HDM fails.

As above... Not really applicable. Or are you in agreement with me that 1.5 Mbps audio over optical arguably can be called Hi-def audio, if we are using compressed video as the standard with which to compare?

If you have the room, you should have a full lossless track and the best possible video. 1.5 DD+ sounded great on Transformers, could it have sounded better? We will never know.

That is why I have fully supported Blu Ray from the beginning. If you don't have to worry about space, you don't have to worry about what goes on the disc.

If HD DVD would release the 51gb disc I would be more supportive of the format.

And how many SD DVDs have DTS, let alone at a decent bitrate?

If most SD DVDs carried a decent DTS track, I would have voted Video.

Also, I must admit that I don't have a 120" screen (you'll forgive me if I don't use centimeters.) If I had a bada$$ viewing angle, I probably would have voted video for that reason as well.
I have a 90" screen, and that may bias my opinion, but I would still have voted video on my 42" screen. In fact, the same is true for my 34" CRT as well.


Seeing all of that pixelization would be more distracting than a poor audio track.

Bottom line, one of my biggest hopes for HDM was good audio. Loads of extras and a 384 Kbps DD track on DVD are an insult, IMO.
Luckily, this is not an issue with HD discs.

Frankly, the question is just pointless. HDM is a video based format, it's really that simple:)Yes, it is a bit silly but, if you read the question, it is either/or and does not refer to any specific medium.

Well, good for you. I guess you don't have to worry about whether or not HDM fails.What does one thing have to do with the other?

Sometimes I turn the audio off and just watch the subtitles J/K

Good question.

Video for me.

I thought of it this way:

1. 480p Video and THD/DTS-HD MA
or
2. 1080p Video and DD/DTS

I'll choose 2.

John
This is what I was going to say... and I think it should be the real question. Those of you who said "audio", would you answer 1 above?

Video, pending we can still get DTS or DD+ or any 1.5+mbps streaming audio.

My gear won't pass lossless, and I still enjoy HDM, and I plan to buy a new AVR when the prices come down and more kinks get worked out (must everything need firmware updates now? What are we beta testers?)

So I vote video based only on the fact that I cannot pass the lossless and still think the movies are worth the extra $5-$10 in HDM format.

Luckily, this is not an issue with HD discs.
Certainly most of them. I just hope our luck doesn't run out.

Long live HDM!!!

100% Video for me. As long as I can hear the movie I am happy.

I can put it this way.

Once I started to watch the movie, the AQ differences is easy to forget. The HD PQ experience is hard to not notice during the playback.

So if the new format only had PQ difference from DVD i still buy them.

If the new format only had AQ differences I would pass.

I am shocked that so many people are choosing AQ. Give me a pretty picture to look at and I am one happy camper.

Audio.

Before HDM came along, I already had movies from HD broadcasts, so the PQ improvement was noticeable but no big deal.

But the audio improvement from HDM compared to what I had before (regular DVDs and HD broadcasts) was significant.

I'm actually glad that some of us are touting audio as being just as integral to the whole enjoyment factor of watching movies.

I would hate to give any studio insider that might come across this thread the false impression that ONLY picture quality counts for us high-def buffs, causing them to scratch future high-res audio tracks in order to save them a few bucks on their releases.

Top-notch picture quality and audio quality should go hand in hand with HD media. Hopefully, we will never have to make a choice between one or the other, because it sure has been a blissful marriage so far.

Well, I can clearly see the difference of an SD picture and an HD picture, but I have a hard time hearing the difference between an 24 bit TrueHD track and a 16 bit 448kbps Dolby Digital track. So to me, the improved audio on HDM is completely irrelevant.

That's not to say that I don't appreciate the effect a good audio track has on the movie experience. I have a fairly decent surround setup. It's just that I've always been very satisfied with the sound quality of regular DVDs, and if there was a new format that only offered improved audio, it simply wouldn't be enough to catch my interest.

Video.

With my old SD projector set-up, even the best SD DVD had noticeable pixels & line structure.

But who ever sat through the dts Saving Private Ryan and thought "This sounds a bit dull"?

Home cinema is supposed to re-create the real cinema.

SD on a projector was always inferior to your local cinema. HD is almost always better.

But sound, even on SD DVDs, has always been better than at the cinema - a P.A. system in a large hall can't possibly hope to match great hi-fi equipment.

Finally, imporoved video is of benefit to 99% of films (the exception being the likes of 28 Days Later, shot on SD video). High def audio can't really do much with Casablanca.

Steve W

I am shocked that so many people are choosing AQ. Give me a pretty picture to look at and I am one happy camper.

It could only happen on a forum like this. One poster even called 384kbps Dolby Digital an insult. That's a ridiculous position, 90% of homes don't even have AV gear where you could even hear a difference between that and lossless audio like Dolby TrueHD. Only an audiophile could or would say that Dolby Digital and DTS aren't good enough. Meanwhile, almost everyone can appreciate HD video.

People with surround sound setups, expensive speakers, and the latest wowzahmahdoodle audio filterer are going to pick AQ. The general public, meaning the majority of people who are going to buy these things, doesn't have any of those things so they are going to go for PQ. Personally I think surround sound is nice when you can actually get it done right but most of the time when I go to the local high tech very expensive theater, I can't even get a decent surround experience. It usually sounds more like a really loud stereo mix. If I'm not going to get a good audio experience in the theater, why should I really care about Dolby TrueHD or DTS-Unmolested Really Really Nice Sounding High Resolution Audio, especially when I can't have a setup in my home to take advantage of such things because the neighbors hate any noise that comes from anyone but themselves.

To me the "theater experience" is 50% AQ/ 50% PQ. So I can't really pick one.

If you can have it without compromise, why is this even a topic of discussion?

Only an audiophile could or would say that Dolby Digital and DTS aren't good enough. Meanwhile, almost everyone can appreciate HD video.

I have never been satisfied with the audio from DVDs, starting from day one. I remember picking up my first DVD Blade Runner (I think back in '97), and was impressed immediately with the PQ improvements over laserdisc, but for the AQ I thought "did I do something wrong"?

Dolby Digital always sounded thin and unsatisfying to me. And I am definitely not an audiophile. I listen to music maybe for a total of 10 hours a year, mostly at Christmas time :).

I have never been satisfied with the audio from DVDs, starting from day one. I remember picking up my first DVD Blade Runner (I think back in '97), and was impressed immediately with the PQ improvements over laserdisc, but for the AQ I thought "did I do something wrong"?

Dolby Digital always sounded thin and unsatisfying to me. And I am definitely not an audiophile. I listen to music maybe for a total of 10 hours a year, mostly at Christmas time :).
Even with optical, you don't have to be stuck with 384 Kbps DD on HD DVD or Blu-ray.

VQ<=AQ

I need the whole package so that I feel completely immersed in the story. Video is quite nice, but when I switched to HDM, it was the expanded audio and increased use/quality of surround sound that I really noticed. I do notice if there are glaring visual problems though as that can be a distraction.

Video by far.

By way of example I'd rather lose surround sound and take stereo than have full screen over wide screen.

I implied this before...

Can a movie be great without audio? Sure...even still photos don't need audio, and movies are just "moving pictures".
Can a movie be great without video? Naaa. Wouldn't be a movie then would it?

Can a movie be great with just mono audio? Sure Citizen Kane, Metropolis are two of my favorites.

Lots of opinions here. Keep them coming. For those who have stated that making a choice between audio and video is pointless, why not have a little fun here? Last night, I watched the BD of "Live Free or Die Hard," a movie, with modern picture quality and soundtrack--a much different experience than "The Graduate." As great as the picture quality was, what impressed me the most was the audio. The DTS-MA sountrack had crystal clear dialog, room shaking, yet never muddy bass, and great use of ambient sound and rear surrounds. I could probably live with 480p video upconverted to 1080p as long as I could keep the DTS-MA with this one.

Video

Most people watch home movies and TV shows via their TV speakers.

...called 384kbps Dolby Digital an insult. That's a ridiculous position, 90% of homes don't even have AV gear where you could even hear a difference between that and lossless audio like Dolby TrueHD. Only an audiophile could or would say that Dolby Digital and DTS aren't good enough. Meanwhile, almost everyone can appreciate HD video.
...and the title of this thread is what? "If you could..." not whats adequate for J6P.

Good question.

Video for me.

I thought of it this way:

1. 480p Video and THD/DTS-HD MA
or
2. 1080p Video and DD/DTS

I'll choose 2.

John

I would actually choose 1. I guess the unconversion on my Pioneer Elite is really good. Now don't get me wrong, but watching Jaws on my HD channel looked so much better than my DVD; however, the DVD sounded better than the DD on Comcast, so I felt it was almost a push, with the HD picture winning. However, a different movie that required a more robust surround channel? I would say something recent like "The Mist" I would easily go the other way. I think it is also not accurate to answer in the abstract without a side by side comparison. I also think most people that have HD displays do not have a really good sound system. Finally, I am sure that most people would pick video, and I could very well be an oddball, but the sound has always been very important.

...For those who have stated that making a choice between audio and video is pointless, why not have a little fun here? ...
That's me:) I am all for fun:p

In the end, it's not really either AQ or PQ choice, with HDM now it's possible to have both. For most people, it's far easier to see PQ improvement than hear AQ improvement.

Audio - granted that the system is adequate (no satelites, with base modules)

I find Audio to be better in home, than in theater. louder, more rumble, clearer, more encompasing. Video seems about the same given screen-to-seating ratio of both.

like in a scary movie, it's not the cat jumping out of the closet that scares ya, it's the shrilling audio track that fills your shorts

Video, easily. Just including 1.5Mbps DTS would be an audio upgrade over most DVDs. I just feel that audio was further along than video. We were already getting sound as good as in theaters, yet the video was far behind.

I think this is going to be affected by the movies you like. I can see those who only buy contemporary action and sci-fi movies in HD choosing the audio because those movies benefit more, whereas those who have a more varied taste would choose video because older movies, dramas, and comedies aren't going to sound much better.

I also wouldn't be surprised if some of those who are very biased towards a certain format would be inclined to believe audio is more or less important depending on which format is favored.

V-i-d-e-o!

With Blu-ray you don't have to choose, so of course the answer is both.

With Blu-ray you don't have to choose, so of course the answer is both.

Didn't you read the new rules? Trolling is not allowed. HD DVD delivers HD audio and video on every release as well.

Video

Most people watch home movies and TV shows via their TV speakers.

Thats how I watch my HD DVD player. I can only have two things hooked up through the recieiver with the hdmi cables and I chose my BD player and my cable box.

Thats how I watch my HD DVD player. I can only have two things hooked up through the recieiver with the hdmi cables and I chose my BD player and my cable box.

can i ask why? wouldn't it make more sense to hook up the hddvd player via hdmi and the cable box component/optical?

can i ask why? wouldn't it make more sense to hook up the hddvd player via hdmi and the cable box component/optical?

Honestly I know very little about that kind of stuff. Im not really sure how.

In the spirit of the OP's question, I would choose audio. I spend around 6 hours a week watching something, 4-5 hours on movies and maybe 2 hours on broadcast TV. I conservatively spend 20 hours a week listening to music, and I find music infinitely more interesting. It's not that I don't like video, but I just don't have time to devote 100 percent of my attention to watching it.

Doug

A flawless transfer with excellent color everytime and a Dolby Digital + soundtrack @ 1.5 mbps and I am a perfectly happy!:D

Shoot I would be happy with vanilla DTS and DD 5.1 if they are done at 12 bit with no volume dampening. My existing setup can squeeze every bit off a disk and blow the socks off the average listener. My family can't believe how good it sound when they come over!:cool:

Great topic. Couldn't read all the replies so perhaps this has already been said, but for me audio is more important because it can put you in the action rather than being a spectator. Even after watching a movie again and again good audio through surround can still make me jump outta my seat. The first time my father-in-law watched The Matrix on my set-up he went out and purchased new speakers and a new receiver for a fair amount of money. Now that he's seen it on HD-DVD, he still hasn't purchased a Hd player even though they've been insanely inexpensive.

...HD DVD delivers HD audio...on every release as well.

No it doesn't, but neither does BD.:eek:

Boy this is a real tough one. I got into this whole thing by hearing what a movie sounded like on decent speakers, I remember it like it was yesterday. My friend took me to his friends house so I could check it out. He was watching the movie Jade. He was playing the movie on a VCR (shudder) and running the sound through an Adcom amp and Klipsch speakers. There was a scene where glass broke, and I couldn't believe it sounded so real, so lifelike...I was hooked. That was 1995 or so, and back then the audio did it for me. After I bought my first HDTV, things changed. It would be impossible for me to go back to a 19" tube tv that I had when I was younger (hooked up to surround sound). I'll take the video, as a movie will still sound great in lowly 2 channel stereo, after all, my friend's did.

Video by a huge margin.

Honestly I know very little about that kind of stuff. Im not really sure how.

do yourself a favor and set it up the way i pointed out... :)

y'know...

my initial response to this question was "video"...

but the more i think about it... i'm waffling... with an appropriate big screen display and good scaling, it becomes more of a difficult call...

No it doesn't, but neither does BD.:eek:

+1

It seems many don't realize that not all BD releases include lossless.

Personally video is more important to me. I will admit however that I rarely purchase or rent a release with 2.0 audio, so audio is also important.

No it doesn't, but neither does BD.:eek:

At the moment,

61% of Blu Ray releases contain a lossless track
21% of hd dvd have a lossless track.


For the record of course....

here we go again... :rolleyes:

c'mon guys... don't ruin a good topic with that garbage, ok?

SD Video is just ugly anymore. Last gen audio is much less distracting to me.

A bad portent for hd media?

Seems like many don't care about video quality as much as audio quality in a video format.

Good story > video > audio

Bad audio is much worse than bad video - we can tolerate a dropped
frame a lot better than a dropped 1/24th of a second of audio!

The big challenge is defining what "HD" means for each. In some ways, you could argue that discreet digital AC-3 on LD got us much of the way to the ultimate audio experience, and we've spent the last 15 years or so catching video up to the same point. There's historically been a lot more of the experience let of the way from the interpositive to the eyeball than from the master audio soundtrack to the ear. Heck, the HiFi track on VHS was pretty darn good for stereo content - certainly vastly better than VHS was visually.

In the HDM era, I'd say video and audio are in reasonable balance, because video made huge strides forward, and audio had a nice incremental improvement.

But certainly for the casual consumer, the SD>HD transition is going to be a lot more obvious in A/B compare than going from 448 Kbps AC-3 to even lossless 24-bit.

Audio.

Before HDM came along, I already had movies from HD broadcasts, so the PQ improvement was noticeable but no big deal.

But the audio improvement from HDM compared to what I had before (regular DVDs and HD broadcasts) was significant.
BAM!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by doublejack View Post
...called 384kbps Dolby Digital an insult. That's a ridiculous position, 90% of homes don't even have AV gear where you could even hear a difference between that and lossless audio like Dolby TrueHD. Only an audiophile could or would say that Dolby Digital and DTS aren't good enough. Meanwhile, almost everyone can appreciate HD video.

...and the title of this thread is what? "If you could..." not whats adequate for J6P.
Thanks. I think that was me he was referring to.

:)

A flawless transfer with excellent color everytime and a Dolby Digital + soundtrack @ 1.5 mbps and I am a perfectly happy!:D

Shoot I would be happy with vanilla DTS and DD 5.1 if they are done at 12 bit with no volume dampening. My existing setup can squeeze every bit off a disk and blow the socks off the average listener. My family can't believe how good it sound when they come over!:cool:
Though it was not spelled out ultra clearly, the context of the OP, IMO was a debate between DVD and HDM. So HD Audio in said context meant, to me anything better than the majority of DVD audio.

So to qualify my stance on this topic...

If I could get at least 1.5 Megs of Audio (with properly handled mixes, of course) I would be content enough and would then vote for Video.

As I've said before, when HDM was on the horizon, I was most looking forward to better audio.

Audio.

Before HDM came along, I already had movies from HD broadcasts, so the PQ improvement was noticeable but no big deal.

But the audio improvement from HDM compared to what I had before (regular DVDs and HD broadcasts) was significant.

I understand you're saying that you're more impressed with the audio, but I don't think you're answering the question.

The question is, "if you could only have one." Are you saying you would go back to an SD image for lossless audio? You don't get to keep your HDTV-quality image to go along with lossless audio. :)

I have a simple take on this:

For films more than 25 years old or so, DVD-quality audio is good enough, so the video is more important.

For newer films that have an engaging soundtrack, you really need the higher bandwidth to reproduce the audio properly, so the audio becomes more important.

Thus, for a film like 'Grand Prix' or 'Casablanca', I'm far more interested in the video quality. The same holds true for a non-audio-centric film like 'Pride & Prejudice'. OTOH, for film like the LotR, Harry Potter or Star Wars series', I'd want the best audio I could get.

I understand you're saying that you're more impressed with the audio, but I don't think you're answering the question.

The question is, "if you could only have one." Are you saying you would go back to an SD image for lossless audio? You don't get to keep your HDTV-quality image to go along with lossless audio. :)

480p w/lossless audio if I had to choose.

I have a simple take on this:

For films more than 25 years old or so, DVD-quality audio is good enough, so the video is more important.

For newer films that have an engaging soundtrack, you really need the higher bandwidth to reproduce the audio properly, so the audio becomes more important.

Thus, for a film like 'Grand Prix' or 'Casablanca', I'm far more interested in the video quality. The same holds true for a non-audio-centric film like 'Pride & Prejudice'. OTOH, for film like the LotR, Harry Potter or Star Wars series', I'd want the best audio I could get.
Very astute. So whichever type of film is more important to you would dictate your answer since we were allowed only one choice.

For me it remains audio. Time is not standing still. More movies are produced everyday and most of today's movies that will make it to HDM will have passable to high quality soundtracks.

The question is, "if you could only have one." Are you saying you would go back to an SD image for lossless audio? You don't get to keep your HDTV-quality image to go along with lossless audio. :)

I would still pick audio. When we went from laserdiscs to DVDs, we got PQ improvement, but the audio took a step back. Thus in a way HDM audio is making up for what we lost 15 years ago.

but after watching the 40th Anniversary release of "The Graduate" last night, I started thinking. The picture quality of this SD DVD played on an XA2 (w/Reon) through my 50" 1080p set was amazingly good. While it didn't have the sharpness of an HD disc, it also didn't leave me wanting more. The audio on the other hand, while passable, seemed a bit thin at times. A true uncompressed, lossless soundtrack would be fantastic--and likely an improvememt, despite the fact that the original mix was a basic mono track.

Video, but not by a whole lot... after watching a title like Seabiscuit or Rundown, I'm really astonished by how great good audio can be, and those titles aren't even lossless audio.
Bingo! A great soundtrack has far, far, far less to do with it being uncompressed lossless than with having a great mix, audio pre-processing and a ton of other things.
I've stated this before: this forum has science in its descriptor and science is telling us that the majority of people is not even be able to tell a full bitrate DTS soundtrack from the original uncompressed one.

For me video, without even the slightest doubt. And I have a DVD-Audio/SACD player with good Dynaudio speakers, so I know about hi-res audio content.

1) Video
2) Audio

Audio by a small margin. I offer the new Star Trek series as my evidence:

While the remastered video and FX scenes look very cool. It was the intro theme song that sent shivers up my spine and gave me goose bums on my goose bumps. In the end I could live without my TV but not my speakers.

Audio by a small margin. I offer the new Star Trek series as my evidence:

While the remastered video and FX scenes look very cool. It was the intro theme song that sent shivers up my spine and gave me goose bums on my goose bumps. In the end I could live without my TV but not my speakers.

But wouldn't the theme tune have done that on good quality dts?

Steve W

Video hands down.

+1.
I could live without a TrueHD sound, but I want the best visual experience possible.