choose

[pixelthis]

There has been an ongoing argument in this forum and others, mostly from
audiophiles and audiophile wanna-bes, mainly, sound or video?
Great if you can afford two systems, but if you cant then what?
Most audio enthusiasts accept the compromises inherent in an HT system,
and admitedly they are small, but it suddenly occurred to me the other day that
it is really a non problem.
My receiver is a bit long in the tooth but will work fine if the player does the decoding.
While trying to figure out my "upgrade" path for when my vacation pay comes in
later this year, I decided that it is rather silly to sacrifice a decent audio system
so that you can hear a movie soundtrack in perfect quality.
Sure its exciting , but does it have to be precise?
A movie soundtrack is totally put together anyway, the very definition of fake.
So I have decided that my current HT receiver is fine.
I am going to take my fronts(602s2 B&W, oldies but goodies) and replace them with my rears(305 B&W floorstanders).
And it will take quite awhile but I am going to buy a nice integrated , a decent CD player,
both probably from Cambridge or somesuch, add my turntabe and a preamp,
stack it on my lovan rack , and start the process of building a decent audio system.
Which is the point of this thread, mainly that if you had to choose one system,
and had to bias it toward either audio or video, which would it be?
which would you choose?
So choose.
Because unless you are very well off, having two systems will involve compromise.
Having a combo system likewise.
We cant all have a no compromise system like the one posted in the audiophile thread on this page, owned by a certain Micheal Fremmer, but, as much as he spent on his gear
there is NO video anywhere near it.
He didnt choose, there was simply no question of which was which .
But most of us arent fremmer.
So choose.