I run a decent Panasonic 42" LCD, 120HZ, 1080p. Wasn't bad at $550, but the audio goes through $10k (retail) of audio gear.
There's a fundamental difference between audio and video for me.
Video, for me, is about the story. I don't need the biggest screen, best resolution or whatever to get the story from a movie. In the same way, I enjoy NPR greatly on my lousy car stereo or modest clock radio. With NPR, I want the information conveyed, better sound quality won't make me enjoy it more. So an adequate picture is fine for understanding the story.
But music is simply music. Getting the full details depends on how well it is reproduced. Take away the reproduction's quality and you'll lose something.
Similarly, I'd agree that spectacular video would be necessary if you were using it to display photos or artwork.
However, most movies and TV shows are storytelling. Picture quality is not as important.
There's a fundamental difference between audio and video for me.
Video, for me, is about the story. I don't need the biggest screen, best resolution or whatever to get the story from a movie. In the same way, I enjoy NPR greatly on my lousy car stereo or modest clock radio. With NPR, I want the information conveyed, better sound quality won't make me enjoy it more. So an adequate picture is fine for understanding the story.
But music is simply music. Getting the full details depends on how well it is reproduced. Take away the reproduction's quality and you'll lose something.
Similarly, I'd agree that spectacular video would be necessary if you were using it to display photos or artwork.
However, most movies and TV shows are storytelling. Picture quality is not as important.
