Picture please.Our new set is scheduled to arrive tomorrow. (XX)
Tyro
Picture please.Our new set is scheduled to arrive tomorrow. (XX)
Tyro
Did you get an extended warranty (I believe somewhere I read that this is one purchase that warrants the warranty )?
I mentioned earlier about my observation that newer electronics do not seem to last as long as what we bought 15-20 years ago.
I only replaced my CRT set because they are too bulky (as per DW).
To be fair, HDMI does simplify things. The problem is that your neighbors didn't know about the new, simple way - they only knew about the old, complicated way.I just went to a neighbors house to help them hook up a tv to the cable box. They did not know what HDMI was. Just viewing TV is getting too complicated for many people.
Blame consumers for that. The two industries complied with the government's order to get together and provide an alternative to the two remotes issue, and they did - and no one bought it. It seems, sometimes, that the only way people can ever be helped is for government to take away their choices and force them to do it the better way.Still had to use two remotes to control the TV.
True, but on average, they break less frequently during their first four years of service than televisions when we were growing up. Television repairman (because they were all men, of course) was a pretty common job back then. Now, it's pretty arcane. And beyond that, consumers again are the culprits here, rewarding companies that produce crap because they charge less, leaving superior brand to face either going out of business because they cannot survive on the handful of people still willing to pay for quality, or follow the industry on its compliance with the wishes of the bargain-hunters.Compared to TV's made years ago, newer TV's now have more features and just have more things that can break (Murphy's law).
No you're not the only one, but I think we are in the minority - at least in this forum!I think I am the only one who does not care about a gigantic screen.
I have yet to see a really substantive, compelling argument for why the viewing experience on a smaller screen is necessarily better than on a larger screen. The only defensible objections I've seen to larger screens are (a) it just physically doesn't fit; (b) it's really expensive; or (c) what you indicated later in your message - an interior decorating aesthetic preference. These are all valid priorities to have, but just as valid is placing the viewing experience above those other considerations, as a matter of personal preference.No you're not the only one, but I think we are in the minority - at least in this forum!
... and they wanted to charge us some obscene amount to have some geek come to the house and connect everything properly and adjust the settings. ...The "settings" will be largely subjective (our opinion vs. the geek's) and if the thing isn't adjusted correctly out of the box, the "optimum" settings can be found on several of the geek sites I mentioned. I'll probably wind up messing around with them anyway.
You're an audiophile, so you can appreciate the desire a videophile has to reproduce at home an image that originates elsewhere in a much "purer" form. Past a certain point, marginal improvements cost big $$. The audio world has done a better job at this than the video world. There is no question, however, that the flat screens and HD have vastly improved the video experience.I'm curious about those settings. I have also seen comments on TV forums about, 'oh, once you get everything adjusted right, the picture is better than xyz set that costs 2x! Here's my settings....'.
I'm skeptical. If a certain setting was so much better, why wouldn't that be the default, or at least a menu selection? Maybe the default has more 'wow factor' on the display floor, but isn't really so great for long term viewing? Like a stereo with the bass/treble pumped to sound 'impressive'?
Also, those settings are not just brightness, contrast, etc, are they? Do they get into some sub-menu with black levels and such?
I do care about my (stereo) sound, I'm pretty lax when it comes to video. The way I see it (pun intended), these flat screen TVs are about 200x better than what we had pre-digital OTA, that tweaking is just about like 'gilding the lily'. No ghosts, shadows, noise. More pixels, wide screen. It's fantastic. Remember the old days of adjusting horizontal and vertical hold? Seems like cave-man days!
So far, the first 20" LCD (Vizio) we bought >5 years ago is going strong, another in the family, just three years now with no problems. The kids have small ones that are two years old. I'm not sure if these things really have a shorter life than the old CRT style or not. I might need to wait 10-15 years to see.
-ERD50
The way they talk about it, it is almost as if that ideal setting that they're talking about depends on the specific room that the television is in, from where you're viewing the television, the color of the walls, etc. I do believe the professional calibration does take such things into account, but a specific set of "settings" published on a geek website isn't going to do that, so I have no idea what they could be trying to achieve with that, except to set down a set of settings that are internally-consistent based on some generally-accepted, nominal viewing conditions. As such, they won't do what they're supposed to do for you, to the extent that your viewing conditions vary from nominal.I'm skeptical. If a certain setting was so much better, why wouldn't that be the default, or at least a menu selection?
Practically every television produced today has a "dynamic" mode, which is best for displaying the images in a viewing environment that features harsh, glaring, overhead fluorescent lighting. However, each of those televisions also have an easy way to switch to some other mode.Maybe the default has more 'wow factor' on the display floor, but isn't really so great for long term viewing?
Definitely. I've played with gamma adjustment settings, a whole mess of white/black high/low settings, etc. It's all very complicated. Thank goodness for factory reset.Also, those settings are not just brightness, contrast, etc, are they? Do they get into some sub-menu with black levels and such?
I agree that a lot of people go too far with this, but there is one part of the process that really helps you understand why you may want to pay some attention to it. There are portions of the calibration where you're making an adjustment and stuff you see on the screen either appears or disappears, without the video information itself changing - the settings are responsible. If you have things set so that nuances in the image that you should be seeing aren't visible to you, or that there are artifacts on screen that you shouldn't be seeing but are, then you're probably not getting the best viewing experience. However, the more simple, self-calibration discs can help you with those adjustments, generally keeping you out of the "behind the curtains" menus.The way I see it (pun intended), these flat screen TVs are about 200x better than what we had pre-digital OTA, that tweaking is just about like 'gilding the lily'. No ghosts, shadows, noise. More pixels, wide screen. It's fantastic. Remember the old days of adjusting horizontal and vertical hold? Seems like cave-man days!
I'd say you're lucky, but the reality is that even though Vizio's display problems are notorious, that doesn't mean that a majority of people will encounter problems. It's still going to be a minority, and probably a small minority, just a bit larger than the better brands, and - the notorious part - with significantly less support from the manufacturer regarding defects that are found after the warranty expires as compared to better brands.So far, the first 20" LCD (Vizio) we bought >5 years ago is going strong, another in the family, just three years now with no problems.
And if you just want to skip all the details and just buy a great television, my overall recommendation for 2012 and early 2013 is the Panasonic TC-PST50 series.
Join the club. About 5 years ago I got our then super-duper Sony Bravia 40" 1080p HDTV discounted to $2200 when I bought it! What a deal!TV's are so unbelievably cheap these days. I am comforting myself with the thought that maybe by the time I actually need a TV again, the best around might cost half as much.
Probably longer than CRT's.I wonder how long LCDs last...
Most likely the failure of the owner/operator will precede it.... and what the mode of failure is?
Join the club. About 5 years ago I got our then super-duper Sony Bravia 40" 1080p HDTV discounted to $2200 when I bought it! What a deal!
Last week I found the current closest equivalent at Best Buy, regular price of $349.
My last CRT lasted 19 years before it died, I wonder how long LCDs last and what the mode of failure is?
My, aren't we turning into quite the spendthrift.If high end 60" plasma TVs go down to $400 or so eventually, I'd litter my house with them.
I have no idea, but I wish you luck.
If high end 60" plasma TVs go down to $400 or so eventually, I'd litter my house with them.
My last CRT lasted 19 years before it died, I wonder how long LCDs last and what the mode of failure is?
I still have 13" sears CRT my parents bought around 1976. Still works, thing won't die !
I've already thrown out a couple of LCDs after couple of years. Also there are no TV repair shops anymore, no one fixes them, just replaces. Repairs cost almost as much as new.
I have no doubt that CRT TV's lasted longer than modern TV's ...
And incidentally, the scientific data does not say "bigger is always better". There is a maximum size for each distance from the screen beyond which larger screens detract from the viewing experience (probably because you have to move your head around too much to appreciate all the nuances).
Doing a little math, that maximum size, at an 80 degree field of view @ 10 ft. viewing distance would be a ~231" diagonal screen (~201 in. wide x ~113 in. tall).SMPTE (The Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) provides a single guideline with regards to viewing distance, that the screen width should occupy a 30° field of view at minimum. The minimum guideline angle is also the same guideline that SMPTE uses for the back row of movie theaters, with regard to the field of view that the movie screen occupies for a viewer in the back row. The guideline stems from psychophysical experiments preformed during the development of the HDTV specifications. The experiments found that as you increased the field of view that video occupied beyond 20 degrees, viewers perceived the picture as more immersive and impressive. Successive increases in the view angle found that a plateau was reached when the display occupied about 80 degrees of the subjects’ field of view. Nevertheless, a 30° view angle was the original design goal for HDTV. With regard to elevation of the display, SMPTE recommends no more than a 15° elevation above a straight on view. Elevating the display beyond 15° will likely lead to physical discomfort in prolonged viewing situations.
HDTV Size - Viewing Distance
I am comforting myself with the thought that maybe by the time I actually need a TV again, the best around might cost half as much.
I wonder how long LCDs last and what the mode of failure is?
I'm curious about those settings. I have also seen comments on TV forums about, 'oh, once you get everything adjusted right, the picture is better than xyz set that costs 2x! Here's my settings....'.
I'm skeptical. If a certain setting was so much better, why wouldn't that be the default, or at least a menu selection? Maybe the default has more 'wow factor' on the display floor, but isn't really so great for long term viewing? Like a stereo with the bass/treble pumped to sound 'impressive'?
Also, those settings are not just brightness, contrast, etc, are they? Do they get into some sub-menu with black levels and such?