Flat Screen TV advice

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I can't stand the aritfacts seen around most lower-end TVs. Ill stick with my CRT until they are not perceivable...

Are you talking about artifacts introduced by high compression algorithms that some/most service providers utilize? If so, this doesn't have anything to do with the TV itself. If your CRT is analog, you don't see it, but with a digital TV and digital content, we are at the mercy of the service providers.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: 97tbird
our Samsung has been toally reliable while providing great PQ.

Glad the Samsung LCD is working well for you.

To all the others, just stay away from the current crop of Samsung LED TVs - a lot of them suffer from uneven backlighting, which you won't notice until you have the set at home and view it in dim lighting. A shame that Samsung dropped the ball on these because they are otherwise very nice TVs. You can of course keep exchanging them until you find one that's not messed up, but it can get tiring after a while. We are on our second one, and it still has some PQ issues. However, it's a TV that mostly my SO watches, and she doesn't mind it. And since she paid for it, I'm not going to fight over it anymore.

 

[97tbird]

I agree about the lEd tvs

I normally don't jump on new technology even from brands I trust normally - like LED from Samsung- heck, i waited a long time till i jumped to LCD from CRT even !!!
it will take some time to work out the LED bugs - even LCD is not yet perfected.

It would be a looong time before I even think about LED tv's.

I researched a long time before going with the 550 series Samsung LCD, which had the least problems with uneven backlights, etc (yep the LCDs also have those). my backlight is pretty even, and the pic is very stable. 7 and 8 series have varying reports - still, compared with Toshiba's green push, Sharp's banding, and Sony's clouding, Sammy's backlight unevenness of their LCDs were very minor, IMO, esp. if you do enough research to get the series that's least/not affected by it. Another thing that I like about Sammy is that their black levels are among the best in LCD business - Cnet review of the 5-series TV that I own reported that the black levels were near CRT levels.

Panasonic has been pretty solid with their LCDs - the only reason I didn't go with Panny is because they didn't offer any LCDs with 1080p at the size i wanted - they would have been my 2nd choice - despite the meager amount of pic adjustments they offer - Sammy offered professional calibration level pq adjustments even on their mid level models!
I also like the USB inputs and 4 HDMI inputs - a lot of TVs still don't offer enough inputs - may not be a matter immediately but is imp. for future upgrades/connections - USB is handy watching digital pic slideshows...which I never thought i'd do till i tried it out..beats the heck out of watching them on a PC

 

[youdontwannaknow]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I can't stand the aritfacts seen around most lower-end TVs. Ill stick with my CRT until they are not perceivable...

Are you talking about artifacts introduced by high compression algorithms that some/most service providers utilize? If so, this doesn't have anything to do with the TV itself. If your CRT is analog, you don't see it, but with a digital TV and digital content, we are at the mercy of the service providers.


QP,
what JHZR2 is talking about is the effect of video processing that needs to happen on any non-native signal. So if your set is 1080p then anything other than 1080p needs to go through the processing to make it 1080p. This processing is quite demanding so budget brands use low end processsors and that results into the effects that JHZR2 is referring to. And the further away you are from the native resolution the worse is the end result. This is the exact reason why SD looks so horrible on HDTVs. (and my suggestion for asking the sales guy to switch the signal to SD).

You could counter this effect(to a certain extent) by using a source that has better video processing like a better dvd/bluray player or a better cable box.

 

[Quattro Pete]

I see. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Cutehumor]

http://www.walmart.com/Vizio-32-Class-Eco-LCD/ip/10993794

My inlaws got me this 32 inch flat screen for xmas. I thought about returning it to get a bigger and better one, but I would be in the dog house if they come over and see I did that.

 

[97tbird]

I REALLY REALLY REALLY think one should give a gift voucher/gift cards and let people select their own stuff when it comes to ELECTRONICS !

 

[Bluestream]

Originally Posted By: 97tbird
I REALLY REALLY REALLY think one should give a gift voucher/gift cards and let people select their own stuff when it comes to ELECTRONICS !

It's a good idea, but giving a gift card can be kinda cold compared to a real gift. It's just one notch above giving cash.

 

[97tbird]

yeah i agree a bit, but still better than giving something that my not be liked/used at all...

 

[Bluestream]

Very true..

 

[dwendt44]

Some of the lower end sets are being re-labeled with names like RCA, Memorex, Magnavox etc.... to give the illusion of 'quality' to a el-cheap-o set.
The second tier and third tier brands/lines have quality problems, customer service problems, and 'who can fix it' problems.
I stick with the better brands.
Vizio is the better of the cheaper stuff as tbird said.

 

[bigmike]

Originally Posted By: crinkles
my advice... i would never spend this much money on a TV...


+1 It's amazing society thinks we all need movie screens in our living rooms. I got by fine on a [censored] TV all my life and they were cheap. They even lasted for decades and I could record TV shows for free using a VCR.

Thanks to congress, my way of life has been deemed as unnecessary. Now I have to have a converter, my VCR is a glorified playback device, and I have no means of recording anything unless I spend alot of money. I quit watching TV pretty much altogether, except for college football (of course).

 

[Patman]

Originally Posted By: bigmike

+1 It's amazing society thinks we all need movie screens in our living rooms. I got by fine on a [censored] TV all my life and they were cheap.


Some of us honestly do get a lot of enjoyment out of it though. My wife and I watch a lot of TV, especially in the winter, and we really are getting more enjoyment out of our 50" plasma than we did from our old 42" rear projection TV. And when we occasionally watch TV in our bedroom on the 27" TV in there, I can't even imagine going back to that, let alone the 20" TV that I spent most of my childhood and teenaged years watching. The good old days? Definitely not.

I personally like the "movie experience" at home. I can't wait for the day that I can upgrade my sound system even more than it is now for even better sound. It's not too shabby now, currently it's just a simple setup of a Yamaha 110w/ch amp with a pair of PSB Alpha B1 bookshelf speakers and a 10" Polk Audio PSW10 subwoofer, but with just three speakers it's obviously not surround sound, so I want to add a PSB center channel plus get another pair of PSB bookshelf speakers and I'll move the current ones behind me for true surround.

A good friend of mine has a projector with a 96" screen and an incredible sound system. He custom built the entire media room (raised floor, soundproofed, baffles on the walls to absorb and reflect the correct sounds) and spent about $25,000 on it. When we go over there and watch a movie on Blu-Ray it is simply amazing! He has extremely comfy leather chairs, and the sound and picture are actually better than in the movie theater, IMO. We saw the new Star Trek in an IMAX theater last summer, and again over at his house a few weeks ago, and I preferred seeing it at his house. If I had that kind of money to spend, I definitely would do it, as it's something I would enjoy every single day. I'd never get bored of it.

 

[97tbird]

Agree with Patman.

I don't have a "movie screen" in my house but have a great 40" 1080p LCD and a nice blu ray player and a simple but mid-hi end 2.1 sound system - everything except TV and BR plyr was bought used and was pretty affordable.
Some people enjoy good quality audio / video representation like some people enjoy fast cars, food, etc - some people just don't care - That doesn't mean there's something wrong with people (or the society) who have a decent TV or s sound system - to criticize them as "something wrong with the society" is silly- just because you have no interest in a/v stuff and are happy with a [censored] TV doesn't mean that's the right way to live.

I am a budding audiophile and would gladly spent more money for audio stuff than on clothes or a big house or a lawnmower or guns or whatever. (but i don't criticize those who spend money on them either - just different interests)

 

[Patman]

Originally Posted By: 97tbird


I am a budding audiophile and would gladly spent more money for audio stuff than on clothes or a big house



That's exactly what my friend is like, he could easily afford to move up from his townhouse, but then he wouldn't have been able to build that expensive media room and take vacations (and build his race car!). His philosophy is the same as mine, it's better to live in a smaller (but not too small, his townhouse is 2000sqft) home and have money for all kinds of nice things, than to live in a bigger home and be house poor. I can't wait to pay off my townhouse and then I'll really be able to build the media room I've always wanted!

 

[bigmike]

I guess I have a different look on life that the two of you do. I have the outlook of 1)what is it my family needs and 2)what is it I need. There are plenty of "wants" but I'm sure not going to let society (in this case congress or the en masse) decide what those are.

Then again, I don't buy TV service either. I find it a waste of money.

 

[97tbird]

Originally Posted By: bigmike
There are plenty of "wants" but I'm sure not going to let society (in this case congress or the en masse) decide what those are.

Then again, I don't buy TV service either. I find it a waste of money.


with me, No one decided it for me; I have always-even as a kid-had an interest in audio- and video technology and never lost it - I never for a moment think someone else decided it for me - Audio (and video to a lesser extent) quality is something i enjoy, and is not really that expensive.

TV service - I agree - we have never had cable-probably never will; to watch the news etc, we get enough over the air FREE digital HDTV stations, which is great quality.

For our primary entertainment, we get movies from Netflix - one up from the most basic plan is fine for us.

 

[CROWNVIC4LIFE]

I notice just about every buisness down here [sports bars,health clubs,and restarants use LG Flat Screens...They hold up real well as they are on almost 24/7 for years and the picture quality looks perfect IMHO.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: 97tbird
TV service - I agree - we have never had cable-probably never will; to watch the news etc, we get enough over the air FREE digital HDTV stations, which is great quality.

+1. I refuse to PAY to watch COMMERCIALS. Cable TV should follow the model of the satellite radio music stations - you pay, no commercials. They double dip and Comcast builds a huge skyscraper in Philadelphia... Obviously they make too much money selling their overpriced TV services, IMO.