# Wife Demands New Display -- Please Help!



## Otto (May 18, 2006)

Hey people,

My wife has decided that we want a wall-mountable flat display. Well, I hinted that "it sure would be nice to have that thing on the wall, all neat and flush-mounted like that" and she bought in. She was also impressed by the picture quality of the HD-DVD demo at Best Buy. So, in an effort to keep her happy, I'm appealing to those that know more about current video display technology than I.

Let me start by telling you what we're currently using: a 52" Mitsubishi 720p DLP (WD-52725). A good display, no doubt, and we've had no problems with it whatsoever. It's about 2 years old. Just looking for something a little more sleek. Does anyone have an idea what something like this would be worth on the used market? Anyone in the Denver/Front Range area interested?

We use the display as our "normal" TV and for movies. It's connected to an HD Dish DVR, a Denon upscaling DVD player and an HTPC, so currently all signals are 720p, 1080i or SD. 

I don't think I _need_ a built-in tuner unless someone has a good reason that I'm not considering. I've never used the built-in tuner in the Mitsubishi, and I just took down my HD over-the-air antenna this afternoon (that was used in conjunction with the Dish box's external input tuner). On the other hand, if it has it, it just becomes a don't-care.

I don't require speakers in the display; never once used the ones in the Mitsubishi.

I want 1080p, and at least a couple HDMI inputs (although, in general, I can switch HDMI through an external switcher). Of course, I want top-notch picture quality!

I'd like it to run quietly -- minimal fan noise. I'd like it to not get terribly warm, either, but that may just be the nature of the beast. I _think_ I'll take "warm" over "noisy."

It's gotta be wall-mountable; that's the whole point of the exchange.

We have some ambient light, but it's not terrible. Still, the less sensitive to glare, the better -- I hate the glare!

Since our current set is 52", and mounting it on the wall will actually move it _further_ from the seating position, I'd like to go a little bigger -- the 58" and 60" models are looking nice, and I'd even go bigger than that if it doesn't get crazy expensive.

I'm not terribly sensitive to cost, but I'm not made of money, either. From what I'm seeing in my cursory pass through Best Buy, prices are higher than I would have guessed. I suppose I'd set my budget at no more than $5k, but would prefer to keep it around $3k or less. I won't sacrifice quality, reliabilty and performance to save some $$$. I'd like to keep this set longer than two years...

So, that's it. I'm going to go out and do some research, but I figured I'd ask here first. I'm really more of an "audio" guy, and the TV we have has worked well, and I don't have to think about it much. I want something like that -- good picture, no hassle, high quality. As far as I can tell, the options are LCD and plasma. I've heard some rumblings of SED-TV or something like that. Should I wait? What are the real differences between the competing technologies?

Please help me keep my wife happy!

Thanks for reading; let me know what you think.


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

I've yet to see a plasma I would actually want to own - the screen glare, pixelation, and lack of "pop" to color are things I can't look past....especially the glare. For LCD, I don't believe any are available larger than 52" right now, and the 52" models available are from Samsung, Sharp, Sony, and Toshiba, with an LG and Westinghouse to come out in the Fall I believe. It also looks like Sony will have their new XBR 52" models out this Fall as well. 

I've heard a lot of quality complaints about the Sharp, and during my own comparing, I didn't care for the Aquos line too much. The Samsungs aren't bad but I always see a digital edge to their picture, like there is some artificial sharpness feature you can't turn off. It's there even when I turn the sharpness all the way down. There were also isses about PC compatability and whether the screen could truely display 1920x1080, as I believe it always cropped it by 3%. I don't know if Samsung resolved these issues yet. 

PQ wise I don't have much to complain about with the Sony's, they typically look great, but I have read about clouded screens due to their screen assembly techniques. That would be either a hit or miss quality issue. I honestly haven't even seen a Toshiba LCD, guess I must have always passed them by, but I know the new 52" is supposed to be a big deal. Though the name and price makes it seem like a bargain bin set, the previous LVM line of Westinghouse monitors were truely top notch, and I went with one myself. No cropping, 6 1080p inputs, and a great chipset. Unfortunately, reviews of the new line of 1080p displays point to them taking a slight setup backward. Haven't heard anything concrete on the yet to be released 52". LG is another brand that I haven't given much viewing time or consideration to, but they may very well be great, I just don't know. 

Without having seen the Toshiba yet, if you needed to buy one right now, I'd probably lean toward the Sony XBR. Ideally though, you'd be able to hold off until the Fall when the 52" 1080p LCD screen market will be much more competitive with several new displays having been released.


----------



## Otto (May 18, 2006)

Excellent discussion. Exactly the type of thing I'm looking for. Thanks, Steve.


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

How big of a hurry are you in?


----------



## Otto (May 18, 2006)

We're not in too much of a hurry. 6 months?


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

The 52" Sony has been out for a while. We had one come through the shop that I had a chance to pull out of the box and get a look at and it was quite good. It uses the Samsung panel, as do all the Sonys. I am pretty sure that Samsung is on their second generation of these sets in this size. The Sony sets have been very good. I have had exactly one service call (bad panel with a line of pixels misbehaving) on all of the Sony LCD sets that we have sold and we have sold dozens. Can't say about the Samsung sets, but if the other products they make are an indication, I would stick with the Sony.

We just got the first of the Mitsubishi sets in from their new line. They have apparently shifted suppliers for their panels, as the sets look very different than last years. I had thought that they were using LG in last years sets but the sizes did not macth up. This year they do, so I think that that is the new source. I have not had a chance to calibrate one yet but will try to get to it this week. My initial impression was that the sets are blazing OOB, so much so that it is hard to tell what they will do when I try to calibrate for accuracy.


----------



## ACGREEN (Feb 23, 2007)

LG's plasmas and LCDs are nice. Plus you can get them cable card ready with a built in DVR. But I am a fan of DLP and LCOS. I think there are some thin design rear projection DLP's that you can hang on the wall. Check out the Samsung models.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

While I am a DLP fan myself, I do not think the idea of a unit thin enough to hang on the wall is a very good one. Think about how far you would have to push the optics to get that to work. IMO, the largest of the RPTV systems are already pushing it too far at typical depths.

Flat panel displays have a different look that you dont get with RPTV of any sort. If you likel that look, or you need the wall mounting, they are a very good choice. They have come a long way in the last few years, particualrly the LCD sets.


----------



## bobgpsr (Apr 20, 2006)

I'm impressed with the Toshiba new LX177 series. So a 52LX177 would do nicely for you. The big deal with this display is the advantage that its 120 Hz video refresh provides for both 60 or 30 fps video and also for 24 fps movie (film) sources. It seems it has different modes for video or film and does do a proper (simple) direct 5:5 pulldown of a 1080p24 HDMI input to 120 Hz display. This reduces the jerky judder we used to get with 3:2 pulldown (inverse telecine) for a 60 Hz display. The LX177 version is their top-of-the-line model for this size (premium price).
http://www.tacp.com/televisions/lcd/product.asp?model=52lx177


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

I've gone through lots of gyrations and debates with myself about a wall mounted HDTV that I plan to buy within the next six months and have lately come to decide on the Panasonic Plasma TH-58PZ700u. It's a 1080p model that looks pretty good.

I like sports and I'm afraid that LCD just doesn't cut it. The response time is simply too slow. Makes hockey look like a big blur. That's where plasma really shines (at least in my viewing experience).

Anyway, LCD and plasma are the two types I'm looking at for sure. Simply not interested in fans and hot bulbs. I want to mount it on my wall for sure, although the big ones sure seem heavy...

brucek


----------



## Otto (May 18, 2006)

Yeah, brucek, I think that was the same Panasonic plasma I saw yesterday. Very nice. 

My wife liked the plasma for its color presentation and detail -- they seemed better than the LCDs. Or is that just the way they have the brightness/color/contrast jacked up in Best Buy?

While in Best Buy, I ended up talking with a sales guy. He didn't seem like a stereotyped BB employee, so we chatted for a bit. He told me that plasma is susceptible to glare because they require the use of glass as the physical "front" of the TV. LCD does not require that, and can use anti-reflective plastics. (Is this accurate?) We turned off a few of the TVs, and the difference between the plasma and LCDs reflectivity was quite pronounced.

I see that the Panasonic website indicates that their display has some "anti-glare technology". And I see that the Toshiba LCD lists its set as having "anti-blur technology". Are these the main tradeoffs?

I have some ambient light, and I deal with it when using my semi-reflective DLP. I'd like to have _less_ glare, but not necessarily at the expense of picture quality!


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

Yeah, I guess both types have trade offs. I tend to watch TV at night, so as long as a light isn't directly reflected in the screen, I'm OK. The anti-glare coatings are better now, but still not as good as LCD. 

I think plasma has better off-axis viewing and they certainly display black better than LCD. My understanding is that they have solved the burn-in problems with plasma. 

I wasn't really interested in plasma until they came out with the 1080p, but now I am preferring it - it just looks more film like to me. And the speed issue has always been huge. I just can't watch an LCD for long.

I guess if you have a bright viewing room and you aren't a big sports guy, maybe LCD would be the way to go... hard to decide eh?

brucek


----------



## Chrisbee (Apr 20, 2006)

Screens are such a personal choice! My wife was dead against a big screen but changed her mind when we started watching. 

If you are going to get a new screen get the next size up from the one you like.

At first they look huge but you will very quickly adjust to the size. 

If you are watching lots of films the screen will begin to shrink over time.

I agree with Steve C on plasma. I wouldn't give any plasma house room because of the obvious pixelation at any viewing distance up to 100 feet to my eyes! 

It took me at least 2 years of standing in front of hundreds of screens in dozens of dealers before we finally saw the one we really liked! I believe in doing my homework! :dumbcrazy:

The 100Hz model was head and shoulders above the standard model on horizontal movement in both SD and HD. 

No other make came close on SD as far as I was concerned and we knew it would be a very long time before HD took off in Europe. It still hasn't! 

We were a bit upset that our choice had a shiny piano black frame when the shop display model was mat black. The frame (not the screen) reflected our movements when watching TV. So we just tipped the screen back very slightly. End of problem. 

Does anybody else agree that LCD screens improve with use? :scratch:

Good luck in your choice!


----------



## wbassett (Feb 8, 2007)

Otto said:


> _...snip_
> It's gotta be wall-mountable; that's the whole point of the exchange.
> 
> We have some ambient light, but it's not terrible. Still, the less sensitive to glare, the better -- I hate the glare!
> ...


I know you're looking for an LCD or plasma, but have you thought about a 1080p projector and a screen like a HoloVega ambient light screen? It's a tad more than your $3K price, but not by much- you can bring in a projector like the Epson PowerLite Home Cinema 1080 for $2499 and an 80" diagonal screen for $1100, or a 90" one for $1383. Light at the screen for an 80" diagonal image would be around 18fL of light, which is very bright and something you could watch even during the day. If you used the 4.8 high gain side (without hot spotting) you would have an unbelievable amount of light at the screen. Plus it's very sleek and sexy.

Cables, always the hidden cost.. not a bank breaker there either. RiteAV has a 50' HDMI cable for $46 and you can get an HDMI amplifier for $26 if you're concerned about signal loss on a longer run like that. 

This doesn't sound like what you were initially asking about, but at least you can say you now have food for thought and if you go another route you'll know you checked out all options.


----------



## Otto (May 18, 2006)

Thanks for the comments, Bill. Are you going to make me into a screen DIYer?!?!?!? :bigsmile:

Well, a projector is something we've thought of, but I kinda nixed it because of potential ambient light problems. It sounds like that might not be too much of a problem. I'll have to look into the stuff you're recommending. Could I DIY a screen that would work in these conditions? If so, and if I could save the $1,100, that would be an interesting consideration. I have actually have a good location to place a projector -- it could be almost hidden. Part of this project is aimed at getting rid of the big black box in the room, so it would definitely take care of that. I've also considered some type of roll-down screen to put in front of the plasma/LCD when it's not in use, just so I don't have to look it its bigness, so a projector could help with that, too (I think, anyway). 

I'm already using a 50' HDMI cable, so I'm covered there.

How about fan noise, heat, bulb life, bulb price? I'm thinking these are comparable to the things I deal with in my current DLP, which aren't deal breakers (I'd prefer it to be silent, but I can only ask for so much!).

I'm open to the idea!

Thanks!


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

> How about fan noise, heat, bulb life, bulb price?


Those are things that bug me about the projector route also. And besides the fact that not every thing I have has an HDMI output, so I'd have to run a bunch of cables through the ceiling...

And I got to thinking about my usage too. Am I going to want to light a projector up every time I want to flop down and watch the news for a few minutes. With a 'TV' I don't mind doing that, but a projector seems more like an 'event'.

Thoughts on that Otto?

brucek


----------



## Otto (May 18, 2006)

Well, my current connections from AV rack to TV are a 50' HDMI cable and a 50' VGA cable. I have plenty of slack there, so I could make the run. If I'm lucky, the new display will be compatible with my video card's DVI output (my Mitsubishi doesn't like it for some reason). If I have to run both, I'm OK with it. I'm not using any other inputs to the TV, and don't anticipate it, but it _is_ something to keep in mind.

You're absolutely right about usage. Currently, the DLP we have takes about one minute to warm up and display an image, so I'm somewhat used to that delay. We don't do a lot of on/off cycles in a day, but I suppose usage could change (especially as my daughter gets older). What's a reasonable time for the projector to come ready?

Thanks!


----------



## wbassett (Feb 8, 2007)

Otto said:


> Thanks for the comments, Bill. Are you going to make me into a screen DIYer?!?!?!? :bigsmile:
> 
> Well, a projector is something we've thought of, but I kinda nixed it because of potential ambient light problems. It sounds like that might not be too much of a problem. I'll have to look into the stuff you're recommending. Could I DIY a screen that would work in these conditions? If so, and if I could save the $1,100, that would be an interesting consideration. I have actually have a good location to place a projector -- it could be almost hidden. Part of this project is aimed at getting rid of the big black box in the room, so it would definitely take care of that. I've also considered some type of roll-down screen to put in front of the plasma/LCD when it's not in use, just so I don't have to look it its bigness, so a projector could help with that, too (I think, anyway).
> 
> ...


nah wasn't even thinking DIY on this one. There is one though that held it's own against the HoloVega and the price difference would be around $1000. I'm also getting ready to test two more screens as well as nine commercial screens.

I know Mitsubishi sold a 73" TV that could be mounted in a wall, but I can't find the model number anymore.

As Steve said the Westinghouse is one helluva set and has a ton of inputs to boot.


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

> wasn't even thinking DIY on this one


Why is that? Are you saying the whole 'paint a wall' route is not too good?

Bill, what are your comments with regard to a projector being used as an every day TV, in a room without too much light control?

Hopefully I'm not off-thread Otto.... this seems of interest to you also?

brucek


----------



## Otto (May 18, 2006)

brucek said:


> Hopefully I'm not off-thread Otto.... this seems of interest to you also?


Although it wasn't really on my radar in my original post, I'm definitely open to the idea! You're definitely not going off-topic from my point of view. I'll be happy to hear more about projectors or any other technologies that I've missed. 

Anyone know anything about this SED TV?


----------



## wbassett (Feb 8, 2007)

brucek said:


> Why is that? Are you saying the whole 'paint a wall' route is not too good?
> 
> Bill, what are your comments with regard to a projector being used as an every day TV, in a room without too much light control?
> 
> ...


No not at all, I was just trying to keep it to commercial gear and not hijack the thread as a DIY thingy 

Without light control, you're going to need a bright projector, 2000 lumen min. and then a screen that doesn't wash out either.

Here's a lumen chart to give you an idea of what's needed for different screen sizes an lighting.







I have a 55" Sony SXRD 1080p set that I use for everyday viewing, but I know many people that use their projectors as TVs. Most have 3000 hour bulb life now too.

I really can't find much on LCD's that are as big as what you have. There are a few but Plasma seems like that will fit the bill as far as size and wall mountable. That's why I kinda suggested a projector if you hadn't thought about it. The downside of a projector setup for daytime viewing is you'll want to keep the screen size a tad smaller, but 80" is still a big display, so would a 70" for that matter. 

If you weren't looking to wall mount, I am very impressed with my SXRD set. I tend to agree with bob that the 52LX177 looks like a pretty nice set.


----------



## wbassett (Feb 8, 2007)

brucek said:


> Those are things that bug me about the projector route also. And besides the fact that not every thing I have has an HDMI output, so I'd have to run a bunch of cables through the ceiling...
> 
> And I got to thinking about my usage too. Am I going to want to light a projector up every time I want to flop down and watch the news for a few minutes. With a 'TV' I don't mind doing that, but a projector seems more like an 'event'.
> 
> ...


That's how we use ours, but some people do use them as TV's. I think mech uses his as a TV so he'd be better to answer that. It takes around a minute for my SXRD to come up to full brightness, and the projector a couple minutes, but I also have an older projector right now too.


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

Otto said:


> My wife liked the plasma for its color presentation and detail -- they seemed better than the LCDs. Or is that just the way they have the brightness/color/contrast jacked up in Best Buy?


Could very well be - you get hundreds of people walking by each day messing with settings. I'd ask an employee for the remotes to a few sets you are interested in to take a look at the settings. It's somewhat of a stereotype, but on the whole, the LCD will have more vivid, intense colors, whereas the plasma will have colors more similar to the reproduction of a CRT. Some will call the LCD's colors cartoon like, but personally speaking, when I saw the image pop from a calibrated 1080p LCD, I was hooked. Looked better than real life to me, the colors were just so vivid.



> so we chatted for a bit. He told me that plasma is susceptible to glare because they require the use of glass as the physical "front" of the TV. LCD does not require that, and can use anti-reflective plastics. (Is this accurate?) We turned off a few of the TVs, and the difference between the plasma and LCDs reflectivity was quite pronounced.


Yes, LCDs mainly use a plastic outer screen. Glare is a non issue with them, even with open windows.



wbasset said:


> I wouldn't give any plasma house room because of the obvious pixelation at any viewing distance up to 100 feet to my eyes!


Yep, I still see this even on the newest plasma sets. I don't know if it is true, but I came across a thread talking about this very issue on AVS and it was explained that with the way a plasma works, each pixel is only ~75% filled in, like the corners are rounded off or something :dontknow:



> Does anybody else agree that LCD screens improve with use?


Yes - I've also read that it takes a LCD a few minutes to warm up to get the repsonse time to it's fastest. I can observe this on my set pretty consistantly. If I start a 1st person video game just as I am turning on my display, and I make my character spin in a circle, I can see some slight blurring. After the display has been on for five minutes or so, I cannot replicate the blurring anymore. With the sets nowadays having <=8ms response time, after having your display on for a few minutes, blurring is basically a non issue.


----------



## bobgpsr (Apr 20, 2006)

Yes 60 Hz is 16.7 ms dwell time. So 8 ms ought to be quick enough given proper design. The ClearFrame tech for the new Toshiba LX177 120 Hz video mode refresh is supposed to give anti-blur improvements with interpolated frame insertions.


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

> With the sets nowadays having <=8ms response time, after having your display on for a few minutes, blurring is basically a non issue.


hehe, guess you don't watch a lot of hockey.

I've certainly gone back and forth on what type of display to get.

When LCD's went to 1080p, I sure started liking them a lot better though. When they introduced 120Hz LCD's I thought I had made my choice. I watched the new 52" Sharp AQUOS LC-52D82U with 120Hz and 4ms response time with 10,000:1 contrast ratio. To me this is a very nice set. I still see the blur on very fast moving stuff, but it ain't that bad. I liked this set over the plasmas because there were no 1080p plasmas (affordable) at the time.

Then Panasonic came out with the TH-58PZ700u (and also the 50") and I liked it better than the AQUOS. It looks more film like and the speed is instantaneous.

I keep changing my mind, but those are the two TV's I like.

Actually, probably the best picture I've seen to date is the Sony 60" SXRD. What a great set. I don't want anything but a panel this time, so unfortunately, it's out of the running. At least I've decided that much....

My present TV is a CRT RPTV and is as big as a volkswagon, so a new panel will be nice. 

brucek


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

I really like the LCOS sets too, but I hated the idea of having to perform maintenance on my tv in the form of replacing a bulb, even if it was only once every 3 years or so. If I paid X dollars for my display, I wanted it to end there, not having to add an extra $400 every 3 years. I'm probably makingit out to be a bigger deal than it is, but that's how I saw it.



> with 10,000:1 contrast ratio


As much as I like LCD, specs like that from manufacturers are just way off. There is no way a current model LCD will have a contrast ratio that high, it's probably closer to 2,000:1 in reality. There have been some advancements made in using LEDs for backlighting in which regions on the screen that are supposed to be dark will have the corresponding LED backlight cluster dim intelligently, giving deeper blacks by eliminating the backlight intensity, but the heat output from LEDs is still too high last I read. I can't wait for something like that to be perfected.


Earlier on SED was mentioned. Due to the rapidly dropping prices on LCDs and plasmas, I believe SED has been shelved, as it wouldn't be competively priced at all. By the time they get all the kinks out, LCDs and plasmas will look that much better anyway.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

All this generalization about LCD looks like this, plasma looks like that, etc, is just impressions of a few products. After seeing hundreds of different products from dozens of vendors, I have come to the conclusion that there is great variance within technologies, greater often than the differences between. You have to compare specific models, and even within the same model, there may be arge differences in performance that needs to be caligrated out.

The things that you can generalize are that PDPs have the dissadvantages of burn-in, glare, and low level actifaiton noise. LCDs are brighter but vary in their abilities to view at extreme of-axis angles. LCDs are brighter, but often have poorer transition to blacks. Flat panels of both types have better ful screen focus and do not suffer from optical aberations like RPTV all do to some extent. This gives them the "picture window" appearance and crispness that RPTVs ladk to some degree. RPTVs offer larger sizes for less money and the best value if large size is a consideration.


----------



## Otto (May 18, 2006)

Awesome guys, excellent discussion.

While I'll still be happy to hear more about them, my wife and my boss have nixed front projection; they think it's too finicky (boss has front projection, likes it, etc., but wouldn't recommend it for my application). He said if he could have a 100" plasma he would take it over the 100" screen he has for simplicity's sake.

Yesterday, I commissioned metal worker at my company to create some brackets that will support my current TV. These will support a shelf that's just the size of the TV itself, and the brackets will be behind and under, such that they won't really be visible from any standing or seating position. We will place the TV there and see how it goes. It will at least help us get rid of the giant cabinet that's in the room.

Keep the discussion going! We're still in the market, but will continue to wait and watch technologies. 

I read the SED technology article here at Wikipedia. It sounds like a great promise, but will it ever get here? There were prototypes at CES 2006 but not at CES 2007. That's not very promising. And now they also appear to be tied up in litigation over some of the technologies involved. Not good.


----------



## wbassett (Feb 8, 2007)

Otto if you're going to go that route, you could think about getting the 60" SXRD and doing the same thing. I am more than pleased with my 55" SXRD and it is a very slim and sleek profile from the front.

One thing I am very impressed with about the SXRD is its ability to upconvert the incoming source. I pumped in a regular DVD from my regular DVD player on the composite input (just to test all the inputs) and I was really surprised at how good it looked. It certainly wasn't HD, but it looked better than my 36" Toshiba CRT TV and my 720p LCD TV in the bedroom. Plus the 60" is well within your 3K budget. The KDS-60A2020 is actually cheaper now than what I paid for my 55" set back in March! $2199 at CC :hissyfit:

Make sure though that no matter what set you mount this way that there is enough air flow.


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

Yeah, and the price is extremely good. The 60" is only about $2600.

As I implied before, I have not seen a picture better than the SXRD. For me, that is the standard that I compare all other types against.

Yep, we've decided for you Otto. You can tell the family that you're getting an SXRD and will wait five years for the panel technology to get better...........

brucek


----------



## wbassett (Feb 8, 2007)

Oh... bulbs. It was mentioned by Steve about not wanting to spend any money replacing bulbs and I agree with him. This is one area most salesmen tend to neglect to mention and they only talked about it after I brought it up.

The bulb is covered with the extended warranty at Best Buy, I don't know if it is at CC or not, you'd have to ask them. The extended warranty does add a boat load to the price (I think mine was $380 for four years) but it's a bumper to bumper in house service and as I mentioned at least at BB the bulb is covered, so no additional costs down the road. I think most people get the extended warranty on purchases this expensive, so it was nice hearing the bulb is included.


----------



## wbassett (Feb 8, 2007)

Otto one last comment on the SXRD, if they have an 80 incher out next year at bonus time, my projector may be coming down and replaced with that!


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

> All this generalization about LCD looks like this, plasma looks like that, etc, is just impressions of a few products.


Yeah, I agree with you Leonard, but the technologies seem to change so fast that I think it's smart to go and take a look at anything new that comes out. The advances for the most part are more than just marketing fluff between models. 

So if one LCD model claims they've upped the rate to 120Hz, or a Plasma model claims new anti-glare advances, it may provide the quality change that I am looking for.

At any time those 'generalized disadvantages' may not apply to the next generation.... I always go check them out and compare....

brucek


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

wbassett said:


> at least at BB the bulb is covered, so no additional costs down the road


But will BB still stock the bulb five or six years down the road?


----------



## wbassett (Feb 8, 2007)

SteveCallas said:


> But will BB still stock the bulb five or six years down the road?


Guess then they have to give me the latest and greatest set as a replacement under the warranty eh 

Actually I'm sure the bulbs will be around, I can still get them for my projector and it's over six years old. That is an interesting question about their warranties though. Bit off topic, but this is warranty related... My brother's A1 was acting up a bit and he thought it might have died on him. We were wondering if they would have given him an A2 is it did die, but he unplugged it for a couple hours and it started working.

'Supposedly' from what they told me they will fix or replace my set if anything happens to it. Well, anything that's not caused from abuse.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

brucek said:


> Yeah, I agree with you Leonard, but the technologies seem to change so fast that I think it's smart to go and take a look at anything new that comes out. The advances for the most part are more than just marketing fluff between models.
> 
> So if one LCD model claims they've upped the rate to 120Hz, or a Plasma model claims new anti-glare advances, it may provide the quality change that I am looking for.
> 
> ...


Exactly. Also realize that what you see in a store demo is modulated by the environement, the calibration conditions, the source material, and how long you observe. There is no substiture for viewing under multiple conditions with lots of known material.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

wbassett said:


> Oh... bulbs. It was mentioned by Steve about not wanting to spend any money replacing bulbs and I agree with him. This is one area most salesmen tend to neglect to mention and they only talked about it after I brought it up.
> 
> The bulb is covered with the extended warranty at Best Buy, I don't know if it is at CC or not, you'd have to ask them. The extended warranty does add a boat load to the price (I think mine was $380 for four years) but it's a bumper to bumper in house service and as I mentioned at least at BB the bulb is covered, so no additional costs down the road. I think most people get the extended warranty on purchases this expensive, so it was nice hearing the bulb is included.


It is absurd that a salesman not discuss lamp replacement on such a product. It is, however, less of an issue than many make it out to be. The lamps in the better sets have held up quite well for us, with the average life on the Mits lamps being around 7000 hours and the Sonys being a little higher. At about $250 per lamp, figuring a 5000 hour life to be conservative, you have a cost of about a nickel per hour. That is likely in the range of the cost of the electricity to run the set. Compared to the cost of ownership of CRT based RPTV, the lamp based sets have been pretty cheap to own. 

The problem comes in when a lamp fails in a short lifetime, which is relatively rare, but creates significant distress on the part of the client. Extended Warranties can be purchased, but overall, they are not a great value in most cases. The occassional catastrophic repair cost, however, and the higher average cost of repair on newer products makes the risk higher. While I don't recommend them, normally, for those who are concerned about the risk, they can be a good option.


----------



## wbassett (Feb 8, 2007)

Normally I don't get the warranty unless it's a really big ticket item. I've had a couple items break a month after the warranty was up and I didn't have an extended warranty.

It's absurd what some of the salesmen say or don't say period!


----------

