New Flat TV - Request Opinions

apc

I'm in the market for a flat tv to hang above the fireplace. Have not begun to shop and would like opinions based on your experiences. Which route to go - LCD vs plasma? Which brands? Will most likely be at least 42". Thanks in advance.

millerman 3732

you would get more help if you posted this in the electronics section.

apc

Never noticed Electronics, but you are right. It's a shame we can't delete a post/thread ourselves.

univera

I've looked alot at these lately as I am getting ready to pull the trigger. I ruled out plasmas due to burn in issues and glare, so I can only speak of LCD's. I am approaching this with the idea that you don't have a budget, or you have at leaset $2700 to spend, and that you aren't planning on buying from a retail shop such as Tweeter, etc. I know you mentioned 42" or larger, but not all manfacturers make a 42. Some are 40 and some are 42.

After quite a bit of looking around, I was strong on the Samsung 40" LCD, but when I looked at the Sony KDL-V40XBR1 (currently being replaced with the newer XBR2) it was just a better set. If you do side by side comparisons, the Sony's blacks are just as deep and definitely more detailed. When viewing a Samsung, the black will be deep, but there will be a lack of detail. A leather couch will show the general shape, but you won't see the graining in the leather or finer details such as buttons, tufting, etc.

The Samsung looks nice and bright, but the consensus of all the guys at the Tweeter store (one of whom I know and trust) was that the Sony had the best picture. They also felt that the Sony had "truer" color as oppossed to the Samsung which looks nice but doesn't necessarily represent the real colors when all things are set equally. The XBR1 is currently being discontined and sells for about $2200 shipped on Ebay ($2700 plus tax at Tweeter if you can even get one.) It's main downfall, IMO, is that it only has one HDMI input and it is a 1080i/720p t.v. while the XBR2 will have the highest resolution possible at 1080p, has 2 or 3 HDMI inputs and will upconvert lesser signals. The current model XBR1 does look very elegant with the black faceplate.

The reviews are very positive on the 40 or 42" 1080p Westinghouse in terms of bang for your buck, but you won't be getting the best picture quality, which is something I hold as the ultimate importance along with connectivity (as long as my budget allows.) Cable card slots are something to consider, but you don't really need to worry unless you don't want to have a cable box. I also hear that some cards don't work all that well and that the cable companies aren't really eager for consumers to use them as they would prefer to rent boxes. It also seems that the early cable card slots can't support pay-per-view, etc, but the newer ones may be more up to date. Perhaps other members can help.

1080p t.v.'s will cost you more, but you are getting the most up to date, advanced picture quality. They have already dropped and will likely be the standard production in a very short time. For only a few hundred dollars more (Ebay prices), you can get the most up to date Sony.


As far as Consumer Reports in concerned, their issue several months back rated the Sony XBR1 as having a better picture than some of the 1080p sets, so I would expect the newer XBR2 to be even better. To my knowledge, they haven't dedicated a full issue to larger sets at this time. They just mentioned this set.

Something else I would consider is the color of the monitor itself. I found the black facing of any set to be more enveloping. The newer Sony kdl-40xbr2 comes in a silver, but has an option for customizing the faceplate to several different colors. The Sony site shows them being $300.00, which is ridiculous just to get a black face plate that is standard on the current model. So, those are things to consider. Although the Panasonics in smaller sets are well regarded, I haven't really compared them to these two. One criticism of Panasonic LCD's is that at times their resolution is so high that they make subpar pictures that aren't HD look even worse.

Lastly, plasma displays are much heavier than LCD's in terms of hanging, and plasmas have a very reflective surface. Therefore, plasmas are generally recommended for dark rooms. If you look closely at plasmas, you will see background reflections.

The newer Sony kdl-40xbr2 is getting ready to hit the stores. It has a native 1080p resolution, which is the highest possible and should be able to display true Blu-Ray and HD-DVD formats. At the very least, it will upconvert those signals. Sony's will cost more, but so far, I have found them to be the best picture. Plus, I'm not willing to take a chance on an off-brand set. In case it wasn't obvious, I am going with this set unless something drastic happens.

apc

univera,

Thanks for the great data! It's exactly what I had hoped for. Thinking this movie oriented forum would attract people with home theaters and thus, new TVs...Very informative and thanks for your insight based on your research!

univera

Here's a recent thread to further confuse....Although the Sony is well received other than price. http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42062&highlight=lcd

dorokusai

I have a Sony Bravia 36" and absolutely love it. That being said, I think the PQ on the XBR model is even better. I'm not sure if that helps much, but there you go.

I installed a 42" Samsung(LCD) for a friend and thought it looked very good, but not as good as mine

criverajr

The new TV I got was a Vizio 50" plasma, they retail aroung 1900.00, Is it the best of the best no, but in my dark room I think it looks fantastci, will get it isf calibrated when I get a chance.

CRj

ND13

I just got a 37" Westinghouse LCD flat panel. I've been really pleased so far, especially with HD signal and dvds. Somedays I wish i would have gotten the 40 or 42", but I'm 90% satisfied(would be 95% if it had 2 hdmi inputs instead of one) and that's pretty damn good for me. I'll get a larger one in a year or two and move this one into the living room or bedroom.

univera

dorokusai wrote:

I have a Sony Bravia 36" and absolutely love it. That being said, I think the PQ on the XBR model is even better. I'm not sure if that helps much, but there you go.

I installed a 42" Samsung(LCD) for a friend and thought it looked very good, but not as good as mine

I'd take Doro's comments/suggestions to the bank. During my short time in this forum, I find his comments to be the most unbiased, level headed around. For what its worth, the salesperson I know at the Tweet has the Bravia 40." He felt it had nearly as good a picture as the XBR and costs less but it has the not- as-pleasing silver face. Now the new XBR has that silver face even though the t.v. is better styled/sleeker.

People say Sony's are overpriced, but I have looked and looked, and that picture seems the best to me. The best of anything usually costs more..And, FWIW, the new Sony's have more advanced processing than the previously awesome XBR's. I'm just waiting for the initial price drop in a few weeks before grabbing one and getting my system done.

And, don't let anyone fool you about burn in on plasmas. He told me that during the NFL draft, they had the t.v.'s on ESPN for two solid days and that the time clock for the draft rounds burned in. He said it took two weeks to reverse out and he found it quite annoying to see the ghosting still present during the time.

New Sony link with specs: http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/-/-/-/SY_DisplayProductInformation-Start?CategoryName=hid_tv_newbravia&ProductSKU=KDL40XBR2 And no, I'm not a member of the Sony fan club nor have I ever owed a single Sony product.

dorokusai

I'm officially hiring Univera as my agent/web attorney for when things get ugly in here.

ND13

UNIVERA,

Your check is in the mail.

Doro

apc

I have heard that you should determine your screen size based on the distance away from the screen. I'd also like to hear about height as well. I want mine over the mantle and am concerned about installing it too high. Anybody know of a "rule of thumb" to go by. This seems to be a case of bigger is not always better...

PhantomOG

I remember reading at AVS that the bottom 1/3 line of the TV should be at eye level from the viewing position.

however, alot of people mount their tv's above the fireplace which is pretty high. I would think my neck would fatigue from looking up like that though.

criverajr

You would use a Swivle, tilt down wall mount for you plasma/lcd works like a charm, these are a little more expensive than the non swivle ones.

CRj

Willow

apc wrote:

I have heard that you should determine your screen size based on the distance away from the screen. ..

true but $$$ might come into play as well. We sit 11 ft away from our 32". It's great...could it be better of course it can.
If I had to do it all over again I would have opted for a 37 or 40".
After calibrating mine with both Avia and that one by JKP, I find the pic the best I have ever had.

apc

To clarify, I did not want to buy a 40" if a 36" is the "right" size. The space I am going to mount the thing is 65" wide by 30" tall if I don't modify the mantle. Based on specs online, a 50" or bigger may fit. I'm for getting the biggest screen I can fit and afford. The couch is about 10' from the wall the tv will be installed.

univera

apc wrote:

To clarify, I did not want to buy a 40" if a 36" is the "right" size. The space I am going to mount the thing is 65" wide by 30" tall if I don't modify the mantle. Based on specs online, a 50" or bigger may fit. I'm for getting the biggest screen I can fit and afford. The couch is about 10' from the wall the tv will be installed.

Check this out. I saved this to my favorites because I found it very useful. I forget the Club member who posted it (or perhaps I found it on my own.) In any event, this is awesome info. I discovered that anything over 40" was too large for my short viewing distance. Read it a couple of times and it will make sense. I may post in electronics in case others haven't seen it.
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article.asp?section_id=5&article_id=1137&page_number=1

apc

That's exactly the type of data I was looking for. Thanks!

univera

The 40" XBR has now dropped to $2575 shipped from a very reputable seller. I have watched it drop incrementally over the past week. The drops have already paid for any potential tilt mount. People are paying $21-2200 for the previous model. It's only advantage is the stock black bezel. An XBR3 model will be out in a month or two. It comes stock with black and is $300 more than the current model, but that is Sony.com prices, not real world or Ebay.

ND13

What i want to know is which is better..720p or 1080i??

cfrizz

While I might never again buy any Sony Audio products, I will always have a Sony tv!

As for size, I have a 32" Sony XBR crt & I doubt that I'm even sitting 6 ft away from it. I love it, I can even read the fine print from the car commercials!

DarqueKnight

ND13 wrote:

What i want to know is which is better..720p or 1080i??

http://www.the-hdtv-tuner.com/720p-vs-1080i.html

http://alvyray.com/DigitalTV/default.htm

TheReaper

DarqueKnight wrote:

http://www.the-hdtv-tuner.com/720p-vs-1080i.html

http://alvyray.com/DigitalTV/default.htm

In my opinion, the articles above are outdated/biased and not based on real content. If you read up, you will find that all (or most) agree that on a static image 1080i is superior (double the number of pixels), and that when viewing fast motion 720p is clearer.

Now the reality check. When people view motion it is a blur. We naturally move our head and eyes to focus on a moving object, viewing it as if it was not moving (statically). Directors and cameramen all know this, whether they are making a movie, tv show, or filming sports. There are 2 basic ways to film showing motion:

- keep the subject still and have the background blur past
- keep the background still and have the subject blur past

The net effect as you watch movies, tv or sports. When viewing motion, the subject is usually a static image or almost static, with the background a blur. Even in live sports the camera follows the subject keeping it as still of an image as possible. In the few other motion viewing cases, the subject is a blur, and the background is still. And for the rest of the time, you are usually watching a fairly static image, whithout much motion.

So you decide, get the TV that shows the blurry part of the picture better (720p), or get the TV that shows the still part of the picture better (1080i/p).

My general rules of thumb:

- SD content looks better at 720p than 1080i
- HD content looks good at both 720p and 1080i
- HD content looks best at 1080i

univera

Link to the new review on the Sony KDL-40xbr2. I just saw this in person today for the first time. It is a very sweet t.v. A black frame would really set off the glass, which is pretty thick. Best looking set made so far IMO. Pictures do it NO justice. http://reviews.cnet.com/Sony_KDL_40XBR2/4505-6482_7-31901205-2.html?tag=nav The XBR is the only LCD to make C-Net's top 11 of all t.v.'s, just updated.

PhantomOG

so that LCD has a big ol' slab of glass in front of it??

I thought one of the "features" of LCD's was the fact that there was no glass to create reflections/glare.

univera

PhantomOG wrote:

so that LCD has a big ol' slab of glass in front of it??

I thought one of the "features" of LCD's was the fact that there was no glass to create reflections/glare.

There is no glass in front of the LCD panel. There is the normal, plastic trim that goes around the panel (Sony is ridiculous for charging $300.00 for this plastic crap "upgrade" to black or other colors, but I'll probably do it down the line) and the outer edges of the plastic trim have a seperate, heavy looking, thick piece of glass around the edges. Very upscale as oppossed to the all plastic designs. Gives it a "piece of art" look.

The Samsungs in Black look really nice, but this is just completely its own deal. Curious to see what others think. I'm digging it and can't wait to see it on my wall!

PhantomOG

ah, ok that makes sense.