Top 10 ripoffs when getting HD TVs

[grcswoosh]

Getting an HD TV soon? Read this unless you already know better
http://hdguru.com/the-10-worst-hdtv-scams-lies-and-video-ripoffs/235/


The 10 Worst HDTV Scams, Lies and Video Ripoffs
This is the HD Guru’s™ 2008 list of ripoffs a prospective buyer needs to be aware of before choosing an HDTV. In a few days I will add another post that will provide more detailed explanations of every point listed.

10-Dynamic Contrast Ratio Measurement Specification
The recent arrival of 2008 HDTV models, has ushered in the era of “dynamic contrast ratio” boasting up to “one million to one (1,000,000:1). The reality? Not only is the dynamic contrast ratio number meaningless, it reminds me of something Dr. Evil of Austin Powers fame would be promoting. Disregard it when comparing HDTVs.

9-Fake HD Cable and Satellite Channels
A number of HD channels provide fake HD image for much of the day. Instead of gorgeous widescreen true high definition programming these channels put out standard definition fare that is upconverted and stretched to fill the screen. The result? Images appear soft and distorted. These fake HD channels include: History Channel HD, TNT HD, USA HD, A&E HD and Lifetime HD. Consider this before choosing a HD program provider and their HD package.

8-Line Conditioners
They claim they make the HDTV image sharper and provide better color. Horse Hockey! Put the $200-$1500+ instead into a bigger, better model HDTV or a Blu-ray player.

For significantly less money than a line conditioner, buy a surge suppressor or surge protector with uninterrupted power supply to protect your HDTV against voltage surges.

7-Deep Color
This feature should be named Deep Baloney. Digital displays (LCD, Plasma or DLP) will only display the amount of color depth (number of shades) a given HDTV is capable of displaying. With no Deep Color source available today, it’s another worthless product feature.

6-x.v. Color
The promise, more colors on the screen then ever before possible. The reality? The only displays that can take full advantage of the wider color gamut x.v.Color promises are Laser TV and they wouldn’t be available for months. In addition, the only sources today that can provide an x. v. color signal are a handful of HD Camcorders. Bottom line, until Laser TVs and xv Color HD discs appear (no one can say if these discs will ever be available), it is a pretty worthless feature.

5-1080p HDTVs below 42” (diagonal)
Most buyers don’t realize how close you must be to a 1080p set to notice the full benefit over a 720p display. The average viewing distance in America is 9 ft. To see all the detail in a 32” 1080p set you have to sit 4 feet 2 inches from the display (or closer). For more info and a chart go to
http://hdguru.com/?p=21

4-Flat LCD HDTVs 26” and Smaller
With the price of LCD flat panels continuing to drop, the image quality of LCD HDTVs in the 26” or below size has actually diminished! A number also have non-standard aspect ratios (1.6:1 instead of 1.78:1 aka 16×9) that will cut off part of an HD image!

3-Off Brand Model HDTVs
Buying no name brands will save you money, but they may be nearly as expensive to repair as to replace after the factory warranty expires. In fact, some models have no post warranty service or parts available. For more information go to
http://hdguru.com/your-new-disposable-flat-panel-hdtv/107/

2-120Hz HDMI Cables
Super priced HDMI cables that cost over 100 times more than ones you can buy from Amazon.com ($1.98) are claimed to handle “faster speed” signals to meet the requirements of 120 Hz signals, and therefore are present and “future” ready.

The rip-off? There are no 120 Hz signals today or planned in the future. All 120 Hz HDTVs today or tomorrow accept signals at a rate no higher than 1080p/60 Hz.

1-HDMI
The worst connector design since S-Video and the most unreliable interface ever foisted on the buying public. Don’t be surprised if your HDMI hookups do not provide any image on your HDTV. You should always pretest HDMI connections before installing your sources and/or new HDTV.

Copyright ©2008 Gary Merson/HD Guru™. All rights reserved. The content and photos within may not be distributed electronically or copied mechanically without specific written permission.
Follow up regarding #1



The problem with HDMI? It does not work reliably. There are untold combinations of sources, switches (Audio/Video receivers) and displays that wouldn’t work together, resulting in either no picture or an image of just snow. Some combinations will work sometimes and others times not, requiring a power off on of the components and crossed fingers.

The solutions are as follows. Before you hang a flat panel on the wall or install a A/V receiver and a source(s) (i.e HD. cable box) in a wall unit or stand, connect all parts together with your HDMI cables and test them to make sure everything works together via HDMI. If you have failure, use the process trial and error to determine where the problem lies. For example, connect the cable box directly to the display (bypassing the receiver) an see if that produces a picture. Then follow with other combinations. Its better doing it this way than keeping your fingers crossed after you mounted everything and possibly snake HDMI cables into the wall.

You want to avoid placing all components in a wall unit or stand only to find out the HDMI does not operate properly. I also recommend a back-up connection of component video cables from your main source to the HDTV in case you experience a problem now or later, you will still be able to get a picture on your HDTV

[JoNJoN]

I don't particularly agree with #5 completely. I agree in the case of that Sharp 32" 1080p LCD but I got a Sony 40" 1080p LCD and I definitely can see a difference. Guess I got some good eyes maybe.

I'm totally confused with #1 though. I love HDMI and never have had any problems with it.

The other stuff was some really good points tho, especially the 102hz cables LOL. Classic :rolleyes:

[mrnagy88]

Just about every HD TV sold at Walmart?

[Sederior]

I don't particularly agree with #5 completely. I agree in the case of that Sharp 32" 1080p LCD but I got a Sony 40" 1080p LCD and I definitely can see a difference. Guess I got some good eyes maybe.

I'm totally confused with #1 though. I love HDMI and never have had any problems with it.

The other stuff was some really good points tho, especially the 102hz cables LOL. Classic :rolleyes:

They're talking about the outrageous prices of HDMI cables that some companies charge.

Most of the time you can get away with using a bargain bin model that costs around 5-10 dollars, there are others that I've seen from Magnolia Hi-Fi that cost 70 dollars for a cable about 15 feet in length.

Edit: Nevermind I just read the article. Huh?! How is HDMI worse than S-Video? Does that mean Component is even worse than HDMI? I'm confused.

[rmac694203]

1-HDMI
The worst connector design since S-Video and the most unreliable interface ever foisted on the buying public. Don’t be surprised if your HDMI hookups do not provide any image on your HDTV. You should always pretest HDMI connections before installing your sources and/or new HDTV.

That's what they said in the article. I've never had a problem w/ any of my HDMI connections. I love HDMI and wouldn't have it any other way.

[grcswoosh]

1-HDMI
The worst connector design since S-Video and the most unreliable interface ever foisted on the buying public. Don’t be surprised if your HDMI hookups do not provide any image on your HDTV. You should always pretest HDMI connections before installing your sources and/or new HDTV.

That's what they said in the article. I've never had a problem w/ any of my HDMI connections. I love HDMI and wouldn't have it any other way.

What they are talking about is the communication issues HDMI has due to the HDCP compliance. Once in a while the 2 devices will not have a clean handshake and the signal will not be allowed to continue. Usually fixed with a device reset or unplug/replug of the wire. Not a huge problem but for a modern interface pretty lame.

http://www.digitaltvdesignline.com/showArticle.jhtml?printableArticle=true&articleId=198900437


I think this combined with the standard overcharge is why HDMI is #1

EDIT - Added some extra stuff in original post regarding this

[Beodude123]

At least for number 5 they explain why it's there. While I would usually say that a catch all phrase like #5 is BS, they back it up with the average viewing distance. So yeah, it makes sense for them to say that.

[immunoman]

Dudes I have the 32'' TV with the 1080p and you can tell the difference when compared to 720p. The detail is much higher and the colors look glossier and richer. GT5 looks absolutely beautiful in 1080p and the cars look about as real as it gets. 1080p FTW!

[Essenshizer]

Dudes I have the 32'' TV with the 1080p and you can tell the difference when compared to 720p. The detail is much higher and the colors look glossier and richer. GT5 looks absolutely beautiful in 1080p and the cars look about as real as it gets. 1080p FTW!


Friend of mine has the same TV as you and I can totally attest to noticing the difference versus the 720p, granted it is not a marketed difference, and you'll need 20/20 or greater, but it isn't a waste to all.

[bobtheduck]

I've never had a problem with HDMI... It's all I use on the high def...

This list is incomplete, though... It should have mentioned overscan... GRR... I HATE overscan, I can't use my vizio as a monitor...

As for 1080p, I very often sit close to the screen, so 1080p would be useful for me even at 32 inches... Granted, I can't afford one of those at the moment...

[THUGGEDOUT]

I cant tell you how many times I hear people yaking on about "my tv has this much dynamic contrast ratio!!!", the internet is a useful tool to do research before you buy expensive audio and visual items. Plus they can get suckered in by salemans that will use some of the "special features" that just want a sale...

[JamesP]

I had no idea about the "Dynamic Contrast Ratio." Not surprised at all that companies have found a stat to flout around that really means nothing. It really doesn't change my opinion on my TV though. Still think it's the best...

[simbadogg]

Whoever wrote this article is a fu*king idiot. I hate, hate, HAAAAATE people who love to post their OPINIONS on the internet, no matter what "qualifications" they have behind their name/company (even c-net reviewers/editors and mossberg himself fall into this category) and have everyone else take it as gospel.

In reverse order
1) If you're planning on running HDMI from source a to source b, i have never once in my life ever seen any problems with that. a blu ray player, dvd player, ps3 etc to a tv has never giving me any problems, or any of the many installs i've done in the past. if you're running it through an older receive, therein lies the problem as some receivers do not handle HDCP switching and repeating correctly, and will not pass copy protected material through to the tv. Again, almost all receivers and switches currently on the market will do this just fine nowadays
2) THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A 120 HZ HDMI CABLE ! ! ! ! ! !! Jeezus, even saying that "120 hz hdmi is garbage" is kind of like saying, "the boogey man isn't REALLY that scary" its hard to make an arguement about something when it DOESNT EXIST. hdmi 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.3a...thats it. There's bandwidth limitations on all the cables, but and some cables will do things that others wont (CEC, 1080p 60hz, 7.1 audio, 30, 36 48 bit color etc)
3) I agree...
4) imagine quality in sub 26" sized tvs has dimished? Aside from black levels in good ol' CRT tvs, there's almost nothing that the CRTs still have over a well made LCD. In these smaller sizes you're going to find almost no pixelation dude to fast moving objects, and many have black levels that are starting to rival CRT tvs. Another "what the hell is this guy talking about point"
5) http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadgethd.com/media/2006/12/resolution_chart.jpg
Check the graph, and i dont want to get into this...the graph shows enough. Size has nothing to do with whether you need 1080p or not, you have to look at size and distance. Size tells you only have of the equation. i'm sitting about 8 inches away from my 21 inch monitor, and you better believe i'd see a difference between 720p and 1080p at this distance...
6 and 7) Deep color and xvYCC or x v color (sony) go hand in hand. though no one has or probably will ever measure how many colors the human eye can see, i must say theres a huge difference between 16.7 million colors and 1 billion. Anyone who says they'd rather have 16.7 million rather than a billion dollars simply doesn't have a grasp on math.
8) Some of these conditioners do work, but i've used to seeing them applied on TVs that are 5,10, even 15 thousand dollar tvs. I'm sorry, you're not going to see a huge difference between a panamax (much better than monster) line conditioner for $300 when you're using it on a a thousand dollar tv.
9) Some agreement here, there are many many many channels that are said to be HD that are really not. But as far as checking between difference providers, that'll do you almost no good because in most cases its the station not the satelite provider that's giving you the sub HD project (well, except for Direct in years past and their "hd lite" fiasco, look it up.
10) Total agreement here. Contrast ratio, lumens/candelas/nits of brightness, screen resolution, response time/refresh rate...all some of the biggest misleaders you can run into when buying a tv. Two things make an HDTV (when looking at plasma and lcd, i'm leaving RPTV out of this) quality of panel, and quality of processor. you'd be surprised how inferior a manufacturer like pioneer is with their ratings, but how amazing their 720p plasma pictures are compared to other manufacturers with their 1080p sets.

if there's one thing i know, i know monitors...do some research and dont let fools like this guy try to brainwash you.

[ManaBurnX]

Thanks for the information guys. I am going to be buying my first HDTV in the next month or so. Right now I'm debating between a 40" or a 52". The current brands I have been looking at are Samsung and Sharp. The ones I've seen are 1080p. I have three questions though.

1. Could you name me the top 5 brands that are good for HDTV LCDs
2. If I'm going to be sitting back approximately 8 to 10 feet from my television, which would suit me better, a 40" or 52"?
3. What questions should I ask when shopping for my HDTV?

If simbadogg (http://www.ps3forums.com/member.php?u=38349) or anyone can answer these questions it would help me out a lot.

[simbadogg]

Thanks for the information guys. I am going to be buying my first HDTV in the next month or so. Right now I'm debating between a 40" or a 52". The current brands I have been looking at are Samsung and Sharp. The ones I've seen are 1080p. I have three questions though.

1. Could you name me the top 5 brands that are good for HDTV LCDs
2. If I'm going to be sitting back approximately 8 to 10 feet from my television, which would suit me better, a 40" or 52"?
3. What questions should I ask when shopping for my HDTV?

If simbadogg (http://www.ps3forums.com/member.php?u=38349) or anyone can answer these questions it would help me out a lot.
give me a rep, and i'll answer more questions...

but top 5 brands, eh...i'll stick to 3
1) samsung, sony, and sharp (depending on the model series, sharp has had some weird issues w/ banding on their tvs in the past, google it "sharp banding" and i'm sure you'll find lots of stuff to read up on. )
2) check the chart that i posted...many of the guys on avs forums will stand by it as a useful tool for picking the right size tv, and also whether u need to even go 1080 over 720...at 8 ft i'd recommend either a 46 or 52, at 10 i'd def recommend a 52...though the price would be killer. in that size range anyways, i'd def pick plasma or lcd. cheaper, better black levels, better motion response
3) there are no right or wrong questions, or even a handbook to asking questions. just ask whats on your mind, and dont try to take everything in all in one shot...take ur time, because this'll probably be a purchase you'll have to stick with for quite some time...

[ManaBurnX]

Ok, thanks a lot. The reason I planed on getting a 52" one is because I'm also going to be using it in my entertainment room (movie room) and want one that is a decent size. I've seen some 60" ones but the price over here is ridiculous. Well, actually all the prices over here are ridiculous but there's not really much choice though.

[grcswoosh]

Whoever wrote this article is a fu*king idiot. I hate, hate, HAAAAATE people who love to post their OPINIONS on the internet, no matter what "qualifications" they have behind their name/company (even c-net reviewers/editors and mossberg himself fall into this category) and have everyone else take it as gospel.
...
if there's one thing i know, i know monitors...do some research and dont let fools like this guy try to brainwash you.


1) I have had a few issues over the past year with my PS3 and TV (Samsung 42' Plasma). I have also read about it on forums several times. Sure it is probably less than 1% but, as I said before, for a modern interface that is still weak.
2) Are you kidding, you really think there is no one out there trying to take advantage of this. You really think they just made this up. Get out more.
4) You have got to be kidding. CRT still rule in that range. My close friend has a 32 in tube HDTV and the picture kills any LCD I have seen seen, even the newest high end screens.

I really find it hard to believe that you know so much about monitors and still claim that LCDs have caught up to CRTs. No disrespect, but I just can't see how you could say that.

[RuneRules]

Hey Simba I noticed you didnt include Pioneer in your list of good brands. Is there a reason why its not there. I've been eyeing the PDP-5080HD for a while now and when comparing with other sets the picture quality is superior. I know its only 720p but the black levels on it are SO much better than any other TV i've seen.

[Bansh88]

I bought an off, off-brand. I saved about $800 buying a Polaroid 46" LCD over a name brand. So far the TV has been awesome for over 10months now. If it goes out in a year? I'll buy another one. The prices will all be significantly lower.

I'm using 3 HDMI cables with my setup and have had no problems.

[simbadogg]

1) I have had a few issues over the past year with my PS3 and TV (Samsung 42' Plasma). I have also read about it on forums several times. Sure it is probably less than 1% but, as I said before, for a modern interface that is still weak.
2) Are you kidding, you really think there is no one out there trying to take advantage of this. You really think they just made this up. Get out more.
4) You have got to be kidding. CRT still rule in that range. My close friend has a 32 in tube HDTV and the picture kills any LCD I have seen seen, even the newest high end screens.

I really find it hard to believe that you know so much about monitors and still claim that LCDs have caught up to CRTs. No disrespect, but I just can't see how you could say that.
either you didn't carefully read what i said, or you have the reading comprehension level of a 4th grader. Since when does saying "Aside from black levels in good ol' CRT tvs, there's almost nothing that the CRTs still have over a well made LCD." mean that LCDs have caught up w/ CRTs?


Hey Simba I noticed you didnt include Pioneer in your list of good brands. Is there a reason why its not there. I've been eyeing the PDP-5080HD for a while now and when comparing with other sets the picture quality is superior. I know its only 720p but the black levels on it are SO much better than any other TV i've seen.
didn't include them because they dont make LCDs, but pioneer is hands down my favorite tv manufacturer followed by fujitsu. I have a pioneer elite 50" right now, 2 years old but it stills looks quite a bit better than some of the newer samsung, lg, and panasonic plasmas.

[grcswoosh]

either you didn't carefully read what i said, or you have the reading comprehension level of a 4th grader. Since when does saying "Aside from black levels in good ol' CRT tvs, there's almost nothing that the CRTs still have over a well made LCD." mean that LCDs have caught up w/ CRTs?


:confused:
Uhhhh do you know what you are saying there. You are saying that besides black levels, CRT are as good as CRT in every other way. How is that not implying that LCDs have caught up to CRTs? CRT kill LCD in color, contrast, and picture quality. Just to be clear I have not seen a single LCD that us up to CRT level in any spec, except energy use.

[seebs]

Energy use, also weight.

For computer monitors, at least, LCDs seem to be winning on quality as well; they are consistently MUCH sharper. Switching from a CRT display to an LCD about 4 years ago made a huge improvement in my quality of life, upgrading to a better LCD made even more of a difference. Switching to digital was amazing. The net result is that there is absolutely no comparison between the best CRTs I've ever owned and the LCD display I picked up on a whim one night; the LCD wins.

Yeah, the CRTs probably have better black levels. Probably. But in practice, the LCD's wins on sharpness and color controls make up for it, IMHO.

[simbadogg]

:confused:
Uhhhh do you know what you are saying there. You are saying that besides black levels, CRT are as good as CRT in every other way. How is that not implying that LCDs have caught up to CRTs? CRT kill LCD in color, contrast, and picture quality. Just to be clear I have not seen a single LCD that us up to CRT level in any spec, except energy use.
not i'm convinced you can't read...i said CRTs have ALMOST nothing over a well made LCD monitor. The key word being almost, meaning that that are still some deficiencies that LCDs have....i even went as far to name on of the deficiencies, black levels. In terms of flat panel displays, CRTs are still going to be the reference monitors over LCDs over quite some time, but the tech is still catching up.
color gamut LCD > CRT (many lcds can do over 100% of the NTSC color gamut, i dont think i've ever seen a crt monitor that can, not even sonys XBR series which were considered the best of the best)
contrast CRT > LCD (becoming very marginal)
refresh rate CRT > LCD
resolution LCD > CRT
then of course stupid ones like
weight LCD > CRT
bulk LCD > CRT
But seriously man, are you simply trying to be stubburn and not wanting to read what i'm posting, or you just like calling people out/debating people on forums? i dont get it. anyone who understands the meaning of almost in that sentence would take it to understand that CRT > LCD, so seriously...what the hell ar you talking about.

[TurdFergueson2]

When I realized that no television programs are broadcast in 1080p it made me feel better about my 720p plasma I got a few years ago. A lot of it is marketing. But to each his own. My buddy wants a 1080p 120hz tv but is too cheap to get the internet at his house.

[grcswoosh]

Energy use, also weight.
For computer monitors, at least, LCDs seem to be winning on quality as well; they are consistently MUCH sharper. Switching from a CRT display to an LCD about 4 years ago made a huge improvement in my quality of life, upgrading to a better LCD made even more of a difference. Switching to digital was amazing. The net result is that there is absolutely no comparison between the best CRTs I've ever owned and the LCD display I picked up on a whim one night; the LCD wins.
Yeah, the CRTs probably have better black levels. Probably. But in practice, the LCD's wins on sharpness and color controls make up for it, IMHO.
Maybe on a still image, but I have never seen a LCD perform as well as my old Trinitron when there is motion. LCD video does not look as good IMO

not i'm convinced you can't read...i said CRTs have ALMOST nothing over a well made LCD monitor. The key word being almost, meaning that that are still some deficiencies that LCDs have....i even went as far to name on of the deficiencies, black levels. In terms of flat panel displays, CRTs are still going to be the reference monitors over LCDs over quite some time, but the tech is still catching up.
But seriously man, are you simply trying to be stubburn and not wanting to read what i'm posting, or you just like calling people out/debating people on forums? i dont get it. anyone who understands the meaning of almost in that sentence would take it to understand that CRT > LCD, so seriously...what the hell ar you talking about.
If that is what you truly meant, fine, I am not trying to single you out, so don't be so sensitive. But you have to admit that your argument seemed to be that LCD > CRT. I really disagree with that, so take it as you want.

1.color gamut LCD > CRT (many lcds can do over 100% of the NTSC color gamut, i dont think i've ever seen a crt monitor that can, not even sonys XBR series which were considered the best of the best)
2.contrast CRT > LCD (becoming very marginal)
3.refresh rate CRT > LCD
4.resolution LCD > CRT
5.then of course stupid ones like
weight LCD > CRT
bulk LCD > CRT

1. Still haven't seen anything to show this. With the technology LCD uses the color will never be perfect. The backlight will always effect how pixels near each other look, as the light is not always spread exactly even.
2. Don't be fooled by "dynamic" contrast ratio, CRT still kills LCD here
3. Agreed, and that is huge since we are talking about TVs
4. HD TVs pretty much have the same resolution so what do you mean by this.
5. Agreed
When I realized that no television programs are broadcast in 1080p it made me feel better about my 720p plasma I got a few years ago. A lot of it is marketing. But to each his own. My buddy wants a 1080p 120hz tv but is too cheap to get the internet at his house.
I felt the same way until I got my PS3 and realized there is now a reason for 1080P (BluRay).

[simbadogg]

Maybe on a still image, but I have never seen a LCD perform as well as my old Trinitron when there is motion. LCD video does not look as good IMO


If that is what you truly meant, fine, I am not trying to single you out, so don't be so sensitive. But you have to admit that your argument seemed to be that LCD > CRT. I really disagree with that, so take it as you want.

1. Still haven't seen anything to show this. With the technology LCD uses the color will never be perfect. The backlight will always effect how pixels near each other look, as the light is not always spread exactly even.
2. Don't be fooled by "dynamic" contrast ratio, CRT still kills LCD here
3. Agreed, and that is huge since we are talking about TVs
4. HD TVs pretty much have the same resolution so what do you mean by this.
5. Agreed

I felt the same way until I got my PS3 and realized there is now a reason for 1080P (BluRay).

What i wrote, is what i meant. I dont think anyone on this entire board that will read this post will come to the same conclusion that you did. I simply think that your bias against LCD (seems fairly obvious now) made you read what you wanted to read.

As far as the color gamut, do some research. There are many many many many LCDs on the market that are doing 102, 105, even 108% of the NTSC color gamut. There's no arguing with facts.
Continuing on w/ color gamut, i under the impression that when you're talking about the backlight of an LCD, you're still talking about older tradationaly backlights and not the CCFL backlights, LED, or OLED backlights which have been progressively becoming more and more common in the market in the last few years. All the problems that you listed are becoming almost non existant thanx to LED and OLED backlighting.

You're honestly saying that tube televisions can compare with LCDs as far as sheer resolution? Whens the last time you ever saw a 26" and smaller HD TV in a CRT? In the last 5-6 years that i've been in retail, i dont think i've ever seen a CRT smaller than 23" that was HD. Now we're finding 23" and 24" inch LCDs that are 1080p, and you still say that CRTs are up to par w/ LCDs on resolution? This is simply not correct.

[grcswoosh]

What i wrote, is what i meant. I dont think anyone on this entire board that will read this post will come to the same conclusion that you did. I simply think that your bias against LCD (seems fairly obvious now) made you read what you wanted to read.

OKAY, the whole board? So you were arguing that CRT is better? Then why say:
Another "what the hell is this guy talking about point"

As for being biased, no I just think that Plasma and CRT are better techs than LCD. I can say you seem to be LCD biased just as easy. LCD is winning cause it is easier/cheaper to produce. Don't take things so personally.
As far as the color gamut, do some research. There are many many many many LCDs on the market that are doing 102, 105, even 108% of the NTSC color gamut. There's no arguing with facts.
Continuing on w/ color gamut, i under the impression that when you're talking about the backlight of an LCD, you're still talking about older tradationaly backlights and not the CCFL backlights, LED, or OLED backlights which have been progressively becoming more and more common in the market in the last few years. All the problems that you listed are becoming almost non existant thanx to LED and OLED backlighting.

Color you might be right, but I haven't seen the difference in my experience, my friends tube is still the best overall HD picture I have seen at that size by far.
As for the lighting, almost (your favorite word) non-existent is not non-existent, so there is still an issue. Doesn't matter what the source is the point is there is light for more than 1 pixel being shared so they will not be spread perfectly.
You're honestly saying that tube televisions can compare with LCDs as far as sheer resolution? Whens the last time you ever saw a 26" and smaller HD TV in a CRT? In the last 5-6 years that i've been in retail, i dont think i've ever seen a CRT smaller than 23" that was HD. Now we're finding 23" and 24" inch LCDs that are 1080p, and you still say that CRTs are up to par w/ LCDs on resolution? This is simply not correct.
I am not comparing 720p to 1080p, which at this size is negligible unless you are sitting very close, but that is a whole other argument. 720p CRT vs 720p LCD has the same resolution. That is my point. I am going off a 32' CRT 720p HDTV as I said above, which kill any LDC display I have seen at that size, or smaller.

[bobtheduck]

OLEDs win... TV Shirts and TV Pants are the future.

[simbadogg]

OKAY, the whole board? So you were arguing that CRT is better? Then why say:Another "what the hell is this guy talking about point"

As for being biased, no I just think that Plasma and CRT are better techs than LCD. I can say you seem to be LCD biased just as easy. LCD is winning cause it is easier/cheaper to produce. Don't take things so personally.

Color you might be right, but I haven't seen the difference in my experience, my friends tube is still the best overall HD picture I have seen at that size by far.
As for the lighting, almost (your favorite word) non-existent is not non-existent, so there is still an issue. Doesn't matter what the source is the point is there is light for more than 1 pixel being shared so they will not be spread perfectly.

I am not comparing 720p to 1080p, which at this size is negligible unless you are sitting very close, but that is a whole other argument. 720p CRT vs 720p LCD has the same resolution. That is my point. I am going off a 32' CRT 720p HDTV as I said above, which kill any LDC display I have seen at that size, or smaller.
sorry, but i find it borderline offensive when people do not read what you're writing and try to extrapolate from it what they want, instead of what the person actually wrote. i dont like it being done to me, and i dont like it being done to anyone else. its one the reasons why on some forums on the internet it is nearly impossible to have an intelligent debate, because some people dont read what the other person wrote, they just manipulate words to get what they want from it.

Trust me, in color i am right. I'm not sure how vast your experiences are as far as different monitors on the market, but if you're basing the opinions off of your buddies CRT and not looking at other CRTs (what is actually still available) and LCDs from real world experience (not just what you read on the web), then i have to say they honestly carry very little weight.

Nearly non existant, i say this because most people, will not pick up on this. Even people that have been trained and know what to look for (avsforums chaps, and soundandvisionmag editors etc) will agree that the difference are not night and day. To see those differences you truly have to seek them out.

Ok, going off a 32" monitor, well before i thought the original poster had said something about 26" and smaller. Even in the 32" size there are still many many many LCDs on the market that will have any tube beat as far as resolution. 1080i vs 1080p anyone?

[grcswoosh]

sorry, but i find it borderline offensive when people do not read what you're writing and try to extrapolate from it what they want, instead of what the person actually wrote. i dont like it being done to me, and i dont like it being done to anyone else. its one the reasons why on some forums on the internet it is nearly impossible to have an intelligent debate, because some people dont read what the other person wrote, they just manipulate words to get what they want from it.
I apologize if I misunderstood, I just thought you were arguing with what the guy said, especially considering the quote above. My bad ;)
Trust me, in color i am right. I'm not sure how vast your experiences are as far as different monitors on the market, but if you're basing the opinions off of your buddies CRT and not looking at other CRTs (what is actually still available) and LCDs from real world experience (not just what you read on the web), then i have to say they honestly carry very little weight.
Sure I have not seen every single TV, but I have seen a lot. And you are right there are pretty much no more CRT HDTV on the market, so my argument could be considered moot at this point. I am simply talking about the best performing TVs, and the tube takes the cake IMO.
Nearly non existant, i say this because most people, will not pick up on this. Even people that have been trained and know what to look for (avsforums chaps, and soundandvisionmag editors etc) will agree that the difference are not night and day. To see those differences you truly have to seek them out.
Like I said above, I am talking about the absolute best video performance so I take everything into consideration. I understand it could be considered nit-picky ;)
Ok, going off a 32" monitor, well before i thought the original poster had said something about 26" and smaller. Even in the 32" size there are still many many many LCDs on the market that will have any tube beat as far as resolution. 1080i vs 1080p anyone?
Complete agreement. We all know 1080i (on a 720p TV) is the same as 1080p. LOL ;) I've slammed my head against the wall trying to explain this to family many times.
OLEDs win... TV Shirts and TV Pants are the future.
TV Pants! LOL. Hey ladies, care to adjust my antenna?

[Evoking1230]

sounds like they dont know what theyre talking about in regards to #1

havent had a problem with my HDMI connections

[The Sith]

buying that stupid video essential calibration disc. It's the biggest rip job there is. does not professionally calibrate your tv at all.

[simbadogg]

buying that stupid video essential calibration disc. It's the biggest rip job there is. does not professionally calibrate your tv at all.
you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. the video essentials discs are honestly one of the closest things you can get to an ISF calibration w/out dishing out close to 300 bucks. or this http://spyder.datacolor.com/product-ht-stv.php which is just about as good as ISF. that dvd is a bargain at the 20-30 bucks that you'll pay for it on dvd/blu ray/hd dvd

[Einz]

TNT HD is really horrible, but when they have the NBA on TNT you can tell that its an HD source.

[Uhyve]

Totally agree with #10. Should be #1 in my opinion. Shops list dynamic contrast ratio in the place of the actual contrast ratio, that sort of deception should be illegal. My TV supports dynamic contrast, but it looks really crappy, especially if there is any sort of flashing in a scene, it just doesn't adapt quick enough. Got to disagree with #1 though, I love HDMI, I've got my consoles hooked up to my surround sound with two wires, and one wire which passes the 1080p signal through to my TV, it's so tidy around the back of my TV at the moment.

The whole HDCP handshake thing was a problem a while ago, but seems fine now. So they do know what they are talking about, it's probably just a bit of an old article. I seem to remember there were a lot of Westinghouse (and a couple of Bravia and Samsung) TVs that just wouldn't work with the 360 HDMI connection when the elite first launched.

PS It is Westinghouse isn't it?
PPS The contrast ratio on CRTs is still pretty much unbeaten, shame it's pretty much impossible to find HD CRTs anymore. I mean, if demand was as high as LCDs, maybe the technology (resolution wise) would have kept up. Tis a shame.

[crozz]

Not to sure I agree with the statement that HDMI is a ripoff. Even if the increased resolution is not enough for someone, the picture is noticably brighter than the same source sent through component cables, at least in the cases I've seen. Apparently HDMI can have some handshake issues although I have never had an issue with this and it seems most people on this forum haven't either, but that hardly justifies a #1 biggest ripoff spot for me. This list would be a lot better if they switched #10 with #1.

[RedDragon7]

I think one of the other big rip-offs is the "1080 FULLHD" label on TV's. They display a 1080p picture but the TV's native resolution and input resolution is only 1080i. My friend thought he had a 1080p native 60" TV till I hooked up my PS3.

[Dobbs2]

I think one of the other big rip-offs is the "1080 FULLHD" label on TV's. They display a 1080p picture but the TV's native resolution and input resolution is only 1080i. My friend thought he had a 1080p native 60" TV till I hooked up my PS3.


What Tv and model was it? I have never seen one advertised as full 1080p hd and it not be native. Are you using component some tv's dont except 1080p over component.

[RedDragon7]

I don't know the model exactly. It was a 60" Sony DLP. i was using an HDMI hook-up. It's actually not that uncommon (at least back then, not sure if it's less of a problem with newer models or not). I myself was almost duped into getting a 40" 1080 Samsung that was actually only 1080i. I looked it up on Cnet and it listed the input resolutions, and it only went up to 1080i. Yet the display is 1080p. Now I'm cross-referencing any TV I see on Best Buy or Circuit City for the native TV resolution and the native contrast ratio (if that is given).

[Dobbs2]

I don't know the model exactly. It was a 60" Sony DLP. i was using an HDMI hook-up. It's actually not that uncommon (at least back then, not sure if it's less of a problem with newer models or not). I myself was almost duped into getting a 40" 1080 Samsung that was actually only 1080i. I looked it up on Cnet and it listed the input resolutions, and it only went up to 1080i. Yet the display is 1080p. Now I'm cross-referencing any TV I see on Best Buy or Circuit City for the native TV resolution and the native contrast ratio (if that is given).

Last I checked Sony wasn't in DLP market. Are you sure it wasn't a Sxrd model.

This is a little older model, but its native res. is still 1080p

http://reviews.cnet.com/projection-tvs/sony-kds-60a2000/4507-6484_7-31901232.html

http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&partNumber=KDS60A2000


And this was the newer model just in the 55inch (I couldnt find a review of the 60inch) one and its 1080p.
those were the only rear projection tv's I can think of off the top of my head that Sony make. I was looking at the 60inch of the last Tv.

http://reviews.cnet.com/projection-tvs/sony-kds-60a2000/4507-6484_7-31901232.html

http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665153957
Thats saying that one is native to 1080p in the sony style website

is that the TV your thinking about.

[coolguy]

I hread that the Dynamic Contrast Ratio Measurement has something to do with the blacks in the back round??
is this ture

[RedDragon7]

Last I checked Sony wasn't in DLP market. Are you sure it wasn't a Sxrd model.

This is a little older model, but its native res. is still 1080p

http://reviews.cnet.com/projection-tvs/sony-kds-60a2000/4507-6484_7-31901232.html

http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&partNumber=KDS60A2000


And this was the newer model just in the 55inch (I couldnt find a review of the 60inch) one and its 1080p.
those were the only rear projection tv's I can think of off the top of my head that Sony make. I was looking at the 60inch of the last Tv.

http://reviews.cnet.com/projection-tvs/sony-kds-60a2000/4507-6484_7-31901232.html

http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665153957
Thats saying that one is native to 1080p in the sony style website

is that the TV your thinking about.This was quite a while ago. Sony stopped making DLP's early this year I think it was. But this was back around last summer sometime...

[Dobbs2]

They quit making Sxrd earlier this year I still think thats what your talking about. I believe they brought out the LCOS technology of the SXRD to combat Samsungs DLP TV's. I have never personally seen or heard of a Sony DLP tv.

[RedDragon7]

They quit making Sxrd earlier this year I still think thats what your talking about. I believe they brought out the LCOS technology of the SXRD to combat Samsungs DLP TV's. I have never personally seen or heard of a Sony DLP tv.I guess it could have been something else. I don't look into or know all the ins and outs of HDTV's with big back-ends, as opposed to LCD's. If I'm correct, SXRD and LCOS are different technologies of rear-projection correct?

EDIT: Looked it up. And they are indeed technologies of rear-projection.. DLP being a different technology. So it could have been an SXRD.

[rmac694203]

AFAIK, Sony has never made a DLP. Their rear projection offerings were LCD projection and SXRD (LCoS).

[The Sith]

you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. the video essentials discs are honestly one of the closest things you can get to an ISF calibration w/out dishing out close to 300 bucks. or this http://spyder.datacolor.com/product-ht-stv.php which is just about as good as ISF. that dvd is a bargain at the 20-30 bucks that you'll pay for it on dvd/blu ray/hd dvd
first of all the disc does not adjust for gray scale, gamma and color temprature 6500k. Secondly it does not adjust the geometry settings on your tv. Lets take a look at a Sony tv for instance, right out of the box there tv is pushing blue very high. It will take an ISF calibrater to go into the service menu to adjust the blue driver. The video essentials test disc can't do that.

[JamesP]

What is the difference between dynamic contrast ratio and contrast ratio? I thought this was THE STAT to use to compare HDTV sets.

[JamesP]

What is the difference between dynamic contrast ratio and contrast ratio? I thought this was THE STAT to use to compare HDTV sets.

Sorry for double post mod please delete.

[ttech10]

1-HDMI
The worst connector design since S-Video and the most unreliable interface ever foisted on the buying public. Don’t be surprised if your HDMI hookups do not provide any image on your HDTV. You should always pretest HDMI connections before installing your sources and/or new HDTV.

That's what they said in the article. I've never had a problem w/ any of my HDMI connections. I love HDMI and wouldn't have it any other way.

Yea, I've never had a problem with it and I've dealt with a good deal of HDMI appliances.

[simbadogg]

first of all the disc does not adjust for gray scale, gamma and color temprature 6500k. Secondly it does not adjust the geometry settings on your tv. Lets take a look at a Sony tv for instance, right out of the box there tv is pushing blue very high. It will take an ISF calibrater to go into the service menu to adjust the blue driver. The video essentials test disc can't do that.
wow...i didn't know by me saying "its the closest things you can get" meant that it would do everything that ISF does. you're trying to tell me stuff i already know. i think just about everyone here that is familiar w/ isf knows that there are a lot of things that you simply can't adjust in the menu of the tv, that you can do w/ the service/isf port

[drkazndragon]

i agree with the hdmi comment.
its one the worst designed connectors out there, dunno about you guys but all of the hdmi connections i have experienced so far are pretty loose (no reassuring click). feels like it could fall out any moment. i know there are hdmi locks out there but cmon, im not gonna go out of my way to install something that shouldve been designed for it in the first place.