In the very near future (like, October)

Jstas · March 2004

I am going to be moving out and into my own place with my bride-to-be. I am going to need to get a larger TV. We are most likely going to move into an apartment for a year or so to better our financial position (reduce debt, save more money than what we already have). The biggest TV that either one of us has is my 24 inch Sony WEGA. It is an impressive TV for it's size and has many options you find on larger more expensive TVs that are not present on smaller TVs. Needless to say, I will not be parting with it any time soon. That TV along with the VCR and DVD player I have are perfect for a bedroom setup. I'll eventually get a matching reciever and a Home-Theater-in-a-box for it and use it as my bedroom setup. The 24 inch sized screen is a little too small for normal viewing in a room larger than ~12x12. So I'll have to get a larger TV to fit my needs.

So I was looking at this one: Sony KV-34XBR910

The image and info are from Crotchfeel but I know I can get a better price somewhere else. This is also a Sony WEGA and it is a 34" widescreen XBR. It's HDTV ready, all you have to do is get a tuner. It would be large enough for an apartment and at around 2,000-2,500 it isn't opressive for a TV. Given Sony's track record with TVs that I have owned, I can see owning it for a long time. It is also small enough that it would work as an everyday TV in a larger home or as a TV for a pool/bar room or something.

I just wanted to get some opinions on what people thought. I would not get the stand with it because I think Sony's stands are ghastly. I would probably build an entertainment center to fit that TV's dimensions. Or at least something close. So what do ya think? Is it worth the money? By the time I am ready to get it, it will probably drop in price drastically especially if they release a new model next year.

RVJII · March 2004

For that money I'd go with the Samsung 43" DLP. The outside measurements are very close to the Sony and IMHO it is a better TV.

Samsung HLN437W

You may also want to keep in mind that Intel just introduced a new chipset that is supposed to be incredible. (They rolled it out at CTIA in January.) The latest information suggests that by the holidays of this year you'll be able to get a 50" HDTV that is only 7" thick for around $1200. It could be hype but I've read about it in several different publications. Since you are going to wait until October you might want to go that direction.

Jstas · March 2004

I'm not really all that fond of Samsung. I don't like the looks of thier gear and I don't think the price matches the quality. They have a very "cheap" feel to them and I have found quality to sporadic at times. It is a good option but for a small apartment, a 43 inch screen is big and I think it may be uncomfortable to look at. Kind of like when you get to a movie late and have to sit too close to the screen. The measurements may also be close to the size of the Sony but the price is 500-1,000 dollars more and that is a difference that I can't ignore.

Willow · March 2004

I have been told that in April new samsung DLP's should be hitting the shelves different sizes. well thats here in canada Ill be looking at them, a 40" dlp would be just great for me...see what they have !!!

RVJII · March 2004

Oops...thought that Sony was also $2999.

You still might want to take a look at the new Intel technology once it is in mass production at the end of the year. The pricing makes it sound like it could be the way to go.

BTW, from what I heard the picture quality was right up there with Plasma...sure hoping it is true.

PhantomOG · March 2004

i have to wonder about the pricing of this newly hyped chip. i have no idea about the technology so I'm not saying its not possible to produce cheaply, but I just can't imagine TV manufacturers undercutting existing technology prices by so much.

I imagine they would barely undercut prices at the time and gouge the cosumers for every penny possible. TVs are relatively durable so I just think this tactic would take place. Maybe I'm just too cynical and pessimistic.

RVJII · March 2004

The current pricing isn't due to "gouging" but rather to relatively low volumes. Why do people always blame the evil corporations??? Don't listen to the media as most of them seem to be dullards who have no clue when it comes to simple economics.

Working in telecom, I can tell you from personal experience that when products are new and volumes are small that the prices are always going to be high. (It has to do with economies of scale in both the manufacturing process and the supply chain.) Once a market becomes established / viable it becomes more competitive and profit is usually driven by high volumes (ie. gaining larger market share using pricing, features, etc) with relatively low margins.

HDTV and widescreen penetration is VERY low right now. The projections for the next few years are for greatly accelarated adoption of the technology. This is due to several factors, including the increasing popularity / availability of HT at a reasonable price.

Anyway, based on everything I have read it is quite possible that we could be talking about a $1200 price point. I'll let you know if I'm right sometime at the end of the year.

I'll now step down off of my soap box...

Jstas · March 2004

If the new technology is based on older chipsets from Intel then it is quite possible that the cheapness could be realized. Reason being is that with alot of newer models, it's not the picture viewing part of the TV that costs money but rather the electronics behind the operation of the TV. Processors, in any way, shape or form, are not cheap. If Intel can take older technology and adapt it to TV technology then the volume is already there and so is the tooling needed to make the technology. That reduces the price drastically and the companies can then pass that savings on to consumers.

As far as Samsung goes, I really appreciate the help and advice but if I really wanted a Samsung DLP, I would have asked about them, not a Sony CRT. A TV larger than 35 inches is really too big for an apartment that is shared by 2 people. It takes up alot of space and really isn't worth the effort and cost. I like this Sony and it has many of the options I am looking for and all of the ones that I already have and use. I just wanted some opinions about the model because I do not see too many models from other companies like it. The Samsung units do not have the same options and I would be compromising my requirements for a TV if I went with a similarly priced and sized Samsung of any kind. I really do appreciate the help but the Samsung units do not fit my tastes or needs at this time. Maybe that will change if new models are to be released in April, who knows.

PhantomOG · March 2004

I didn't say that current prices were set high because of gouging.

I said I thought that they might gouge with the new chip. Why not? Just because a manufacturer can half his manufacturing cost doesn't necessarily mean they will pass all of that savings on to the consumer.

If this new chip is the only game in town as far as quality at a significantly lower than current price point, they have no real reason to pass all of the savings on to consumers. Just undercut all the competition and reap the profits.

Who knows, maybe it will be that cheap. I was just being pessimistic. Its just seems unusual to me for anything to come down in price that quickly. I would love to see it but I won't get my hopes up.

ken brydson · March 2004

You can't go wrong with a Sony CRT. I have a 36" XBR, HD ready set and absolutely love it. (and I haven't even taken the HD plunge yet)

Jstas · March 2004

Originally posted by PhantomOG
I didn't say that current prices were set high because of gouging.

I said I thought that they might gouge with the new chip. Why not? Just because a manufacturer can half his manufacturing cost doesn't necessarily mean they will pass all of that savings on to the consumer.

If this new chip is the only game in town as far as quality at a significantly lower than current price point, they have no real reason to pass all of the savings on to consumers. Just undercut all the competition and reap the profits.

Who knows, maybe it will be that cheap. I was just being pessimistic. Its just seems unusual to me for anything to come down in price that quickly. I would love to see it but I won't get my hopes up.

I agree with you entirely. I was just offering a viewpoint as to what can cause prices to drop. But there is a much more powerful force in the world than the almighty dollar and that's greed. It makes people unwilling to part with the alimight dollar they already have but gives them an uncontrolable urge to gain another almighty dollar to horde for themselves.

I don't see prices dropping any time soon either, unless the economy suddenly picks up like it never has and the U.S. Dollar is worth a dollar again.

PolkThug · March 2004

Jstas,

Look at the model below that one, IMO you get more bang for the buck, especially since I'm sure some day you will graduate to a "big" screen.

Also, if you get that XBR at CC right now, you get the hideous Sony stand free. (affil)

Regards,
PolkThug

Oh, one more thing, keep in mind with any widescreen tv, any brand, they're only really good at HDTV and DVD's. Regular tv tends to look a little washed out (or stretched, etc)

RVJII · March 2004

Ok...I don't want to get into an arguement about economics here. Suffice it to say that one of the main reasons to lower price is because in increases the market size. Larger markets tend to mean larger profits even though margins are less. (If you still don't believe me we can have an offline discussion about it.)

Jstas...sorry that your thread went so far off track. A buddy of mine bought a new Sony WEGA a few weeks ago and I think that it might be the same model that you are looking at. I'll see if I can check it out this weekend and give you some feedback. Anything specific that you'd like to know?

PhantomOG · March 2004

back on topic, I have to say I agree with you as far as liking the Sony HD CRT's.

I've got a 32 HD WEGA and thinks its awesome.

Just be prepared for the pain and suffering of moving around a tv that heavy. Looking at the link the one you are thinking about clocks in at 199 lbs.

I'm about to move from one apartment to another one and would probably move myself but the thought of moving my TV is cause enough for me to pay for movers. Maybe I'm just lazy but I don't want to risk dropping that beast after all the money I paid for it.

Jstas · March 2004

Originally posted by RVJII
Jstas...sorry that your thread went so far off track. A buddy of mine bought a new Sony WEGA a few weeks ago and I think that it might be the same model that you are looking at. I'll see if I can check it out this weekend and give you some feedback. Anything specific that you'd like to know?

I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just didn't want this to turn into 45 posts suggesting I look at Samsung when all I asked for was opinions on the Sony. As far as specifics, just wanted to know what everyone thought about it. The functions/menus.use look pretty much the same as my current WEGA TV so I know what it's like useage-wise. I just wanted opinions.

Jstas · March 2004

Originally posted by PolkThug
Jstas,

Look at the model below that one, IMO you get more bang for the buck, especially since I'm sure some day you will graduate to a "big" screen.

Also, if you get that XBR at CC right now, you get the hideous Sony stand free. (affil)

Regards,
PolkThug

Oh, one more thing, keep in mind with any widescreen tv, any brand, they're only really good at HDTV and DVD's. Regular tv tends to look a little washed out (or stretched, etc)

I don't think there is a widescreen below this one in the line-up. I look and see though. I will eventually get a big screen but it will most likely be a Pioneer and of a 60" or bigger size for a dedicated home theater. This TV will certain see both regular TV duty and HT duty too.

But, in true Sony fashion, it has features and options out the wazoo and they have planned for the 4:3 on 16:9 screen issue by offering several modes of display for a 4:3 picture.

==============================================
Wide Screen Modes: You can select a default screen mode to use for 4:3 sources. While watching a channel, you can use the Wide Mode button to cycle through the wide screen modes. If the 4:3 Default is set to anything but Off, the wide screen mode setting changes only for the current channel. When you change channels, the wide mode is automatically replaced with the 4:3 Default setting. You can choose from the following screen wide screen mode options:

Wide Zoom: select to enlarge the 4:3 size picture, while the upper and lower parts of the picture are condensed to fit the 16:9 screen
Normal: returns the 4:3 picture to normal mode
Full: enlarges the 4:3 picture horizontally only to fill the wide screen
Zoom: enlarges the 4:3 picture horizontally and vertically to an equal aspect ratio that fills the 16:9 screen
==============================================

Looks like a pile of bang for the buck already with plenty of split screen viewing options, tuning option and A/V inputs and outputs. It is expensive but it doesn't seem like that bad of a deal if you look at the the Detailed Info on the Crotchfeel website for this TV. I know I can beat the Crotchfeel price too. It's just that this TV is so new that not alot of sites have it listed yet.

PolkThug · March 2004

Do you have a CC nearby? We've been selling it for around 6 months now I believe. There is also a non-XBR version, which was the model I was referring to (don't remember the model numbers).

brettw22 · March 2004

Jstas......Love the set, I say just go for it. (that's what you're wanting to hear, no?)

Originally posted by Jstas
If the new technology is based on older chipsets from Intel then it is quite possible that the cheapness could be realized. Reason being is that with alot of newer models, it's not the picture viewing part of the TV that costs money but rather the electronics behind the operation of the TV. Processors, in any way, shape or form, are not cheap. If Intel can take older technology and adapt it to TV technology then the volume is already there and so is the tooling needed to make the technology. That reduces the price drastically and the companies can then pass that savings on to consumers.

I don't understand this part about Intel using 'older technology.' (believe it or not, I'm not trying to be an **** here) From what I understand about the new Intel technology, instead of copying the DLP's layout of one chip, the Intel would be using 3, in essence mirroring the 3 color guns of PROJO's without the ridiculous bulk of them. The jist of that might be wrong, but I KNOW I've heard that they'd be putting more than just one chip in there.

DLP chips are expensive because of the moving parts on the chips to attain the picture. The intel chips have no moving parts, making them cheaper to produce, and less likely to wear out........I know I'm waiting to upgrade from my 40" Mitsubishi tube until the Intel comes out. Putting out the $3-5k on the sets nowadays isn't gonna happen.

Frank Z · March 2004

Jstas,
Saw one at a customers house a few days ago and the picture quality was very good. I think you'll like it.

Jstas · March 2004

Originally posted by PolkThug
Do you have a CC nearby? We've been selling it for around 6 months now I believe. There is also a non-XBR version, which was the model I was referring to (don't remember the model numbers).

Went to a local CC and as luck would have it, they had the XBR version sitting right next to a non-XBR version and both were plugged into the satellite TV demo channels.

The non-XBR was like $1999 and the XBR was $2499. A $500 difference. Looking at the two next to each other, the only real difference is a couple of options that I will probably never use and XBR. Normal TV, the XBR was slightly crisper in image with more vivid colors. Overall quality was roughly the same with a slight skew to the XBR. Then the salesman showed me the HD channel and that XBR just looked 10 times better than the non-XBR. I asked what DVD's would look like so the salesman went around the corner and grabbed a portable DVD player and opened a package from an S-video cable. Plugged the same DVD into each one. The non-XBR looked wonderful! The sound was actually pretty good for a TV too. Then we switched to the XBR and it was an incredible picture and the sound was better too. Then again, the TV's sound isn't all that important but I was impressed enough to mention it.

Between the two, I think the XBR offers a significantly higher level of performance to justify the extra 500 dollars. Not that I will be getting it any time soon but it was good to just go and look.

The salesman did say that they were supposed to start selling the XBR one in November but didn't recieve it in stock until late December. I really haven't seen the TV around until late January. Maybe different stores got stock later than others. No big whoop.

brettw22, I am not looking for someone to say something I want to hear. I'm not looking for validation. I'm just looking for honest opinions. I figured if enough people had a bad experience with tham, I'd consider another option. I was looking for opinions because I'm kind of biased. I have one of the first WEGA TV's and it is flat out incredible for a 400 dollar TV. I've had it for about 2 years now and I'm still impressed with it. So I wanted other opinions so that my own biased opinion wouldn't get in the way of making a good or bad decision.

Jstas · March 2004

As far as the new Intel TV's, I'm not versed well on the technology in the TV's at all. I am just going on what I know from the computer industry and how I have seen old chip sets from Intel Or AMD released by no-name companies who bought the tooling and license to manufacturer older chip sets and sell the as "economy" processors.

Infact, some of the sound board processors you see in the newer sound cards are based off of old main processor technology. The same goes for some of the graphics cards. Even HP is using older main processing technology to run network hub/switchs and other lan equipment now. They gain added performance but keep cost down by using older technology in a new manner.

Granted, it isn't as prevolent as I am probably making it sound but I have read in several industry rags that companies are looking at new was of reducing cost and padding profit margins. Building on older technology that is still viable is one way they are doing it.

As far as my implicatio that old technology was bing used, I can't be certain. I was merely offering a possible explanation for the cost difference. Nothing more.

In the very near future (like, October)

Comments