Very interesting subject, as this is exactly what I have been working on for the last few years....I would suggest that in a perfect world, two separate systems of extreme quality should be "better", but that a combined system may well bring about greater personal involvement due to it's very duality of purpose. The enjoyment of one aspect of this hobby has often led me to a greater appreciation, and enjoyment, of the other side (audio and video).As far as obtaining the best performance in this possibly compromised situation, I would argue that one must first determine those parameters of greatest personal value, then use those goals as targets.
In my own case, audio (and especially, stereo) qualities were of greatest importance and hence dictated to at least some extent speaker positioning, choices in equipment, and so on. In fact, my own failure to truly render transparent a RPTV (I used ASC wall panels, wave panels, tube traps, curved masonite/diffusor panel, etc., but never managed to pass the test of not noticing the difference made when the TV was physically moved away)was one of the greatest factors in moving to a FPTV and that disappearing screen! (though mind you, I appreciate the projector for a lot more than just things audio). This has left me with speakers moved quite a bit into the room, about the 1/3 point, and with a preamp/amp combo that does a nice job with music as job 1(Theta, Bryston). Speakers are, interestingly enough, both direct firing and yet limited dispersion: Newform Research ribbon/scanspeak hybrids utilizing a monopolar line source ribbon (45" tall, the ribbon that is, hence not a perfect line source) that supplies vertical directivity without the necessity of THX artifacts. I liked them for music first, before appreciating their qualities as video speakers. Various foolishly expensive wires and suchlike audiophile trappings round out the system.
Two things have stood out as time has passed: First, the room was absolutely critical in achieving good sound (a litle room treatment was astonishing, and proper speaker/seating placement imperative), and second was the discovery that whatever I did that brought better sound also brought about a concomitant increase in video involvement/enjoyment. There was not a separation here, they were in fact joined at the hip.....Which leads me to the supposition that the integration of the two systems is a worthy goal in and of itself. (Although I can't say that additional channels has, in the main, brought about greater audio fidelity at this point- I still prefer stereo listening to most of my music. But then, I still play RECORDS on occasion, so obviously there's no hope for me)
As a bit of background, the qualities I most prize in audio are accurate tonality/frequency response, natural detail, soundstaging (an orchestra should sound farther away than a small group, and appropriately sized-a sense of space, of air, is needed here) and frequency extension at both ends. I want speakers to "disappear", aurally, and not just when the lights are dimmed- loudspeakers should not (short of vicious pan-potting!) normally seem to be the producers of the soundfield. I want the Wizard of Oz's curtain not pulled back! When I obtain these qualities for audio, what do you know-the movies get a heck of a lot more interesting. As far as things video, I sit at about two screen widths, the room is light controlled, and color/sightlines/etc are planned appropriately. My screen is on the small size, which fits my own parameters (visual "pop", detail and proper geometry combined with reduced artifacts).
Hmmm...my little two cents worth appears to have stretched out to a buck plus change, and it's now past midnight with an early meeting tomorrow. Oh, joy. I guess I'll post and regret later...be kind now, I'm a junior member!
