# Mitsubishi finally waves the white flag



## trdrjeff (Dec 3, 2007)

*Mitsubishi drops rear projection TVs*

Mitsubishi is finally ceding to competition from flat-panels which have grown to equally ridiculous size, and cut prices so sharply that it "can no longer sustain our business in its current form." The company's official statement is after the break, confirming that its DLP and LaserVue models are no more however "existing customer relations and parts and services departments will remain in place along with existing authorized service centers" which should be good news for current owners. There's an in-depth retrospective of the technology at the source link, looking back to Samsung's exit that left Mitsubishi alone in the segment three years ago, long after others like Sony and Hitachi fled for thinner-framed climates.

Mitsubishi also made a go of it in flat-panels, but ditched those efforts last year and will now focus on the professional market and home-theater projectors here in the US. In recent years the tech has improved with thinner models, integrated soundbars and even larger screens available. The slowing economy may have extended RPTV's lease on life with a size bang for buck that's tough to beat, but ultimately customers opted for bright flashy flat-panel HDTVs that offer easier wall-mounting options while seeming to get bigger, lighter and cheaper every year.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/12/02/mitsubishi-rptv-rip/

hard to believe they lasted this long, I'd still one off to the side at Fry's behind 100's of flat panels.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Too bad, they still put out a great display for a great price.

Too many people fell in love with sticking a TV on the wall.


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

My younger son was faced with the prospect of a big repair bill a few years ago when his 60 inch Mits black box gave up for the second time. He decided to buy a Samsung 55 inch 3D LED receiver at Best Buy and took advantage of their free delivery and removal service. Neither TV would have fit in his 350Z! :lol:


----------



## jdskycaster (Sep 1, 2008)

RPTV's seemed like great bang for the buck until the owners realized they had to spring for $300 bulbs. I still say the best of the RPTV's were HD quality CRT based units. The image quality and lifespan were great if you could afford the room.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

jdskycaster said:


> RPTV's seemed like great bang for the buck until the owners realized they had to spring for $300 bulbs. I still say the best of the RPTV's were HD quality CRT based units. The image quality and lifespan were great if you could afford the room.


Not exactly. I have 3 DLP's and have only had to replace the bulb on one of them (they're all between 3-6 years old). The one I replaced was about 2 months ago and it cost $99.

Expensive, short life bulbs are a myth used by proponents of other technologies, much like Plasma burn-in still is.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

My brother in law finally had to replace the lamp in his Mits after over 9,600 hours on it for $99. For what he paid three years ago for a 73" set there was o way he could have got a flat panel for anywhere near the same price.


----------



## chevyguy559 (Sep 19, 2008)

I finally had to replace my 2004 Panasonic DLP earlier this year, and there wasn't a local place I could view a DLP....only place I could get one was online, and I wasn't about to buy a TV without seeing if I liked the picture first....so I went with a 55" Vizio 3D LED tv, and I LOVE it!


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

jdskycaster said:


> RPTV's seemed like great bang for the buck until the owners realized they had to spring for $300 bulbs.


I replaced the bulb in my 61" JVC D-ILA (LCoS) back in March and the lamp assembly was $53.71 delivered.


----------



## rlnoonan (Jan 6, 2007)

jdskycaster said:


> RPTV's seemed like great bang for the buck until the owners realized they had to spring for $300 bulbs. I still say the best of the RPTV's were HD quality CRT based units. The image quality and lifespan were great if you could afford the room.


As others have noted, the price of a bulb is nowhere near that. Last year I replaced my 5 year old bulb on my 57" Mits and it cost about $67. It was cheap enough that I considered buying a second one in case I couldn't find them anymore in another five years.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

rlnoonan said:


> As others have noted, the price of a bulb is nowhere near that. Last year I replaced my 5 year old bulb on my 57" Mits and it cost about $67. It was cheap enough that I considered buying a second one in case I couldn't find them anymore in another five years.


 Yea , NOW those bulbs aren't $200 and $300 but they were when these DLP and Rear LCDs were in their prime 5 years ago.

I had a 50 inch sony, and guess what the bulb was $300. I know I replaced 2 of them. They lasted about 8,000 hours each. Thats 2 years viewing in my house.

Who wants to put money into a tv every 2 years. Apparently not many. 
Since DLP and rear LCD have been 95% dead in the market for years.

PQ was good, but viewing angles sucked, the blacks were the worst on the market.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

damondlt said:


> PQ was good, but viewing angles sucked, the blacks were the worst on the market.


A device with a good iris can produce some reasonable blacks.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

harsh said:


> A device with a good iris can produce some reasonable blacks.


Dead technology! I've been away from DLP's since 2008, when I kicked my 2004 sony to the curb. 
I have a 6 year old 32 inch Magnavox LCD thats works as good as the day I bought it, and cost $100 less then them 2 sony bulbs did.

My 55 inch LG Smart TV , I wouldn't Trade for the world.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

damondlt said:


> Yea , NOW those bulbs aren't $200 and $300 but they were when these DLP and Rear LCDs were in their prime 5 years ago.
> 
> I had a 50 inch sony, and guess what the bulb was $300.


I think Sony left the market on these displays 6-7 years ago, so I don't think they were in their prime 5 years ago. And even if they were, an expensive bulb 5 years ago is not even relevant now - just like burn in and other factors with other displays isn't.

As to viewing angles (as someone else mentioned), with DLP's it's an issue vertically, not horizontally, so unless you have various viewing heights it's rarely an issue. And blacks on models the last 3-5 years have been very good when properly calibrated - but most people don't do that.


----------



## Rickt1962 (Jul 17, 2012)

rlnoonan said:


> As others have noted, the price of a bulb is nowhere near that. Last year I replaced my 5 year old bulb on my 57" Mits and it cost about $67. It was cheap enough that I considered buying a second one in case I couldn't find them anymore in another five years.


yea ! alot of people got turned off because of the bulb. LOL Not true. I enjoyed mine for 5 years its a 65" Mits and the bulb didnt burn out, I replaced it because it wasnt as brite like it used to be. I think i spent around 60 bucks and took me 5 minutes to change ! And i know ive been thru 3 LCD's set in my office in that 5 year period. And the DLP dosent have the SDE aka Screen Door effect ! How many TV's that you own that you can fix your self ? Even the board is easy to change out if it ever goes.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Rickt1962 said:


> yea ! alot of people got turned off because of the bulb. LOL Not true. I enjoyed mine for 5 years its a 65" Mits and the bulb didnt burn out, I replaced it because it wasnt as brite like it used to be. I think i spent around 60 bucks and took me 5 minutes to change ! And i know ive been thru 3 LCD's set in my office in that 5 year period. And the DLP dosent have the SDE aka Screen Door effect ! How many TV's that you own that you can fix your self ? Even the board is easy to change out if it ever goes.


 I've never replaced an LCD set,because it was defective. I still have a Dell computer Flat screen thats bee on non stop for 7 years out of the 10 years I still own it.

6 years on a 32 inch magnavox, and 4 years on a Philips 47 inch.

You enjoy your tank of a TV. LOL:lol:

I'd rather have the CRT rear projection, then a DLP.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

*than


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

damondlt said:


> I'd rather have the CRT rear projection, than a DLP.


Not me, got tired of having to redo the convergance every couple of months on the CRT based RPTV's that I've had. In the 40 months with my Mits 73" DLP all I've done is replace the bulb at 4900 hours, not because it burned out but just to get the set back into like new brightness and the bulb was $99 from Mits.


----------



## jdskycaster (Sep 1, 2008)

RAD said:


> My brother in law finally had to replace the lamp in his Mits after over 9,600 hours on it for $99. For what he paid three years ago for a 73" set there was o way he could have got a flat panel for anywhere near the same price.


Agree that the price of bulbs have become much less expensive but that became the norm once market interest in these types of displays dropped off the cliff.

The brightness on that Mits with 9600 hours on it was most likely 50% or less thus he has been watching a severely degraded picture. Watchable? Sure but this is not something that even comes into play on a plasma or LCD. I can also make the bulbs in my Panasonic front projector in the HT last 5000 hours if I wanted to but at 1000 hours the decrease in light output is already visible so I replace them at 2K hours.

The half-life on plasma's has been 100K hours or better for many years now. Sure not as big as the RPTV's but having to replace a high quality flat panel within 5 years? Should never happen unless you run it 24/7/365. We still have our first Samsung LCD in the house that we purchased 9 years ago. It is only 720p but for watching Sat programming it holds its own against the 2 year old Samsung in the same room.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

spartanstew said:


> Too many people fell in love with sticking a TV on the wall.


I was surprised to find out that Mits was still making rear projection DLPs. I could have told them the single most valuable thing in a living room is floor space.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Carl Spock said:


> I was surprised to find out that Mits was still making rear projection DLPs. I could have told them the single most valuable thing in a living room is floor space.


For some yes, but in my gameroom, where I have my DLP, it's on a stand that has a DIRECTV HD DVR, Denon AVR, Sony Playstation 3, Panasonic Blu-Ray player, Nintendo Wii, ethernet switch, center speaker and an Apple TV. So that floor space would have been used anyway so why not put a nice 73" set on top of it, not taking one inch of extra floor space.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

jdskycaster said:


> Agree that the price of bulbs have become much less expensive but that became the norm once market interest in these types of displays dropped off the cliff.
> 
> The brightness on that Mits with 9600 hours on it was most likely 50% or less thus he has been watching a severely degraded picture. Watchable? Sure but this is not something that even comes into play on a plasma or LCD. I can also make the bulbs in my Panasonic front projector in the HT last 5000 hours if I wanted to but at 1000 hours the decrease in light output is already visible so I replace them at 2K hours.
> 
> The half-life on plasma's has been 100K hours or better for many years now. Sure not as big as the RPTV's but having to replace a high quality flat panel within 5 years? Should never happen unless you run it 24/7/365. We still have our first Samsung LCD in the house that we purchased 9 years ago. It is only 720p but for watching Sat programming it holds its own against the 2 year old Samsung in the same room.


Yea, bother in law isn't that picky about video quality. I have the same set and mine lasted over 4,900 hours before I noticed a difference (my main TV is a 51" Samsung plasma).

Yes plasma will last longer for brightness then a DLP's bulb, so every now and then you spend the $99 for a new bulb (how much you paying for your Panny's bulb). And how much do you have to pay to get a plasma or LCD/LED screen that's in the 73" range? Back over 4 years ago when we purchased them it was $2,100, you couldn't touch a flat panel anywhere close to that price and still hard to beat.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Carl Spock said:


> I was surprised to find out that Mits was still making rear projection DLPs. I could have told them the single most valuable thing in a living room is floor space.


I would bet that nearly have the people that stick a TV on the wall have a lowboy or cabinet underneath it anyway.

And those that don't, do you really think they're using that 18" - 24" in front of the TV for anything?

My living room set happens to be in a 24" deep niche and the other two are on TV stands to hold the rest of the equipment.

Even if I felt like hanging something on the wall, I wouldn't gain any floor space.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> I would bet that nearly have the people that stick a TV on the wall have a lowboy or cabinet underneath it anyway.
> 
> And those that don't, do you really think they're using that 18" - 24" in front of the TV for anything?
> 
> ...


I've never wall mounted my Living room's TV, nor will I, for the reasons you mentioned.

I have a 60 inch wide stand, with 3 shelves that fits my 55 inch LG, PS3, DVD player, Samsung sound bar and Sub, and my HR34.

Now my bedroom tvs,I've mounted on walls. But all are move-able arm type ,and one has a small stand for HR23, my other 2 have wall mounted H25's.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> Too many people fell in love with sticking a TV on the wall.


Well, the RPTV's do take up a good amount of space. When I was able to get a flat-screen for my wall in the Family Room, that opened a lot of space up on the floor. It also allowed us to sit about another 2-3 feet farther back from the TV now.

- Merg


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

My DLP's are only 16" deep. What exactly do you do with that 1' directly in front of the TV?

And wouldn't freeing up floor space mean you could move your seating closer? How does it enable you to move it further away.

And, as has been mentioned, many that get a big screen TV have A/V receivers, DVR's, Blu Ray players, etc. that they need to put under it anyway.


----------



## Rickt1962 (Jul 17, 2012)

Carl Spock said:


> I was surprised to find out that Mits was still making rear projection DLPs. I could have told them the single most valuable thing in a living room is floor space.


LOL Well I dont live in a closet LOL my room is 18x25 and the TV is only 10 inches or so deep ! Whoo Yee LOL Sits on my Mantel which is 2 feet deep. Im sure alot wont complain about 10 inches:lol:


----------



## Rickt1962 (Jul 17, 2012)

spartanstew said:


> I would bet that nearly have the people that stick a TV on the wall have a lowboy or cabinet underneath it anyway.
> 
> And those that don't, do you really think they're using that 18" - 24" in front of the TV for anything?
> 
> ...


MY thoughts exactly LOL people are silly Yea its wall mounted but my AV equipment under it sticks out ! LOL Hmmm I guess if they mount it in ther hall way so they dont trip over it ! LOL


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Rickt1962 said:


> MY thoughts exactly LOL people are silly Yea its wall mounted but my AV equipment under it sticks out ! LOL Hmmm I guess if they mount it in ther hall way so they dont trip over it ! LOL


Yep, I see so many setups like this:









Not only is the TV to high on the wall, but it's further back than it needs to be thereby reducing the immersive experience you could get. Hey, but it's on the wall like the magazines.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

spartanstew said:


> My DLP's are only 16" deep. What exactly do you do with that 1' directly in front of the TV?
> 
> And wouldn't freeing up floor space mean you could move your seating closer? How does it enable you to move it further away.
> 
> And, as has been mentioned, many that get a big screen TV have A/V receivers, DVR's, Blu Ray players, etc. that they need to put under it anyway.


by the viture of the LED/LCD being thinner then the DLP, you can that space from the front of the set


----------



## Rickt1962 (Jul 17, 2012)

wingrider01 said:


> by the viture of the LED/LCD being thinner then the DLP, you can that space from the front of the set


Yep thats what i want to set closer to the wall to watch LOL :eek2:


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

I replaced a 2008 61" Samsung LED DLP with a 2012 65" Panasonic GT50. The DLP was the best of its kind in 2008. I replaced it with the Panny plasma because I wanted something better. Mine is on the wall with the center of the screen at eye level when seated. I did this because is still out of reach of my youngest child that way and it simply looks better aesthetically. It is a much "neater" or "cleaner" look in my home, the way I have done it.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> Not exactly. I have 3 DLP's and have only had to replace the bulb on one of them (they're all between 3-6 years old). The one I replaced was about 2 months ago and it cost $99.
> 
> Expensive, short life bulbs are a myth used by proponents of other technologies, much like Plasma burn-in still is.


+1

My 70" Sony SXRD which I bought open box from Best Buy has been running on the original bulb for 5 years now. Based on the manufacture date it was in the store less than 9 months before I bought it. No way of knowing if they changed bulbs or not, but it had about 4800 hours on it when I got it.

That new 90" Sharp is tempting, but not as long as the current beast is running strong.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

flat screen on the wall makes big diff in smaller rooms.. mines only 12x16 so I'm only 10' away.. lcd made room look a ton bigger..


and all my equiment is in the bottom of a custom made curio cabnet in corner


----------



## Dude111 (Aug 6, 2010)

spartanstew said:


> Too many people fell in love with sticking a TV on the wall.


Yes quite sad........ They do not know what GOOD IS anymore


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

bolted to the wall helps with pets.. my cat knocked over whole entertainment center once.. was all laying in the middle of the room face down :lol:


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

As long as they will continue to support my 73" DLP for at least another 10 years, I'll be happy! This is the first time I have ever had a TV fit so nicely in a room.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"Dude111" said:


> Yes quite sad........ They do not know what GOOD IS anymore


That depends. There are no DLP's that can beat or meet the best flat panel displays on the market today, aside from price.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

houskamp said:


> flat screen on the wall makes big diff in smaller rooms.. mines only 12x16 so I'm only 10' away.. lcd made room look a ton bigger..
> 
> and all my equiment is in the bottom of a custom made curio cabnet in corner


There's certainly probably situations when a flat panel on the wall makes sense, but I would wager it doesn't make sense in most situations.

And regarding room size, how big is your display? Assuming a 60" display, you should only be 8' away to get the full benefit of 1080p anyway, so even in a small room the depth of DLP is rarely an issue. Most people sit too far away anyway and would benefit from having the display another 18" - 24" closer to their seating.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Dude111 said:


> Yes quite sad........ They do not know what GOOD IS anymore


Outside of the false insinuation that only Mitsubishi DLP TVs are good, practicality and good human engineering trump performance every day of the week.

I still like and listen mostly to vinyl.

CDs are easier to use, can be played in many places and are more durable, but to my ear, don't sound as good as a phonograph record. Most people gave up LPs for CDs decades ago.

MP3s are even more flexible than a CD and it's as easy as a download to own a bunch of great songs. With thousands of songs on your phone, you can take your music anywhere. But MP3s became this convenient only by throwing away 80-95% of the information that's on a CD.

In terms of convenience and what people like, MP3s are better than CDs which are better than phonograph records.

In terms of sound quality, phonograph records are better than CDs which are better than MP3s.

It's the way of the world. I bet in 1455, people complained to Gutenberg that his Bible didn't look as fine as a hand-written manuscript.

Mitsubishi lost millions of dollars in forfeited sales because they couldn't get over it.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

"spartanstew" said:


> My DLP's are only 16" deep. What exactly do you do with that 1' directly in front of the TV?
> 
> And wouldn't freeing up floor space mean you could move your seating closer? How does it enable you to move it further away.
> 
> And, as has been mentioned, many that get a big screen TV have A/V receivers, DVR's, Blu Ray players, etc. that they need to put under it anyway.


My old TV is a 55" RPTV. It is just over 2 feet from the wall to the front of the TV. While I do have a TV stand under my TV that is now wall mounted, it is not taking up space off to the side. Also, I mounted my TV at eye level and my viewing distance is now an appropriate 8 feet instead of the 6 feet it was.

- Merg


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

Carl Spock said:


> In terms of sound quality, phonograph records are better than CDs which are better than MP3s.


I'll never be able to agree with that. Every last one of the hundreds of LPs I've had exhibit the same thing - I can hear the 'hiss' from the needle in the groove. Now, with older CDs, I heard the 'hiss' of the original master tapes because they were in analog. Never mind the fact that, no matter how carefully you handle an album, you will always eventually get popping anc clicking from dirt and other imperfections. You need perfect storage conditions or the LPs will warp - and even a slight warp ruins a song.

When I buy a CD today, the first thing I do is rip it to my hard drive. I keep the bit rate as high as it will go. But I find it amusing that people still argue over sound quality when their ears can't hear many of the aspects of it. Heck, teenagers found a ringtone for phones that almost everyone over 40 CAN'T HEAR. Mine tried it out on me once and I could *barely* hear a clicking noise and my hearing is still pretty damn good. CDs sample up to 40khz, if I remember correctly and we can hear only into the 20s.

Yeah, if you're talking about an MP3 with a 128kbps bitrate, you CAN hear the difference. No argument there. And yeah, you're losing information. But I listen to music in the car, on the street, in a room that is NOT a recording studio, etc. In most of those places, a 320kbps MP3 will be indescernible from any other recording.


----------



## 1980ws (Mar 18, 2008)

I have 55" Mitsubishi RPT I bought in February 2004. It is our main TV. Other than an occasional convergence, I haven't touched the thing. Just the other day I said to the Mrs. about what a nice picture it still is. Different from my two smaller flat screens, but still pleasing to my eye. Goods seem to last for us though. We have a Whirlpool W&D and a Toro lawn mower we still use, all purchased in 1991. Not sure if I had to replace the TV if I would have bought another RPT.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

djlong said:


> But I find it amusing that people still argue over sound quality when their ears can't hear many of the aspects of it.


Come over to my house. You'd hear the superiority of analog immediately. It isn't even subtle. As a friend, hardly an audiophile, said after a listening session, "This sounds too good to have died." Euphonic is the right word for the sound the best analog can achieve. It's agreeable, pleasing and sweet.

And if we played a MP3 file on my analog system? You'd echo Don McLean in _American Pie_. "The day the music died."

As for vinyl rumble, which you call hiss*, it is audible on soft passages but I do not find it annoying except in the worst instances. You do have to get past the first 30 seconds of vinyl on some records. The record pressing process itself can make the lead in grooves and the first few seconds of music the worst in terms of vinyl noise.

EDIT: *The hiss of a master tape is audible on some records but a lot of good vinyl is being mastered off of 30ips analog tapes, which have almost no hiss, or off of 24 bit/96K digital, which sounds excellent. I have no problem with hi-res digital. I record using it and can't hear any degradation. Older records, where they music may be from a 1/4" tape going at 7 1/2 ips, yes, you can hear tape hiss, but it is at a low level that is quickly masked by the music. There are worse things than hiss. It's like complaining about the weaving in the canvas of a painting or the sediment at the bottom of the glass from a great bottle of wine. I'll take the warmth of vinyl, the stereo image of an lp, the depth, air and three dimensionality of a great analog recording and put up with a few pops, ticks, rumble and hiss any day.

Neil Young said it best maybe 25 years ago. Analog, he said, is like soothing water rushing over you. Digital is like ice cubes falling on your head.

EDIT EDIT - BACK ON TOPIC: If you re-read my post, djlong, you will see I was arguing for the marketing and human engineering superiority of MP3s over either CDs or vinyl, and that how Mitsubishi was foolish pushing their belief that rear projection DLP was superior. In the quiet of my living room I can appreciate vinyl but in the real world, I know the battle is lost. MP3s won. So have flat screen televisions.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Rickt1962 said:


> Yep thats what i want to set closer to the wall to watch LOL :eek2:


simple visual math

1. WD73642 - 65.2" x 43.6" x *17.9*
2. M650VSE - 60.35"W x 36.46"H x *2.58*

By the simple reason the depth of the two devices are about 15 inches in difference you gain an additional 15 inches of viewing distance. The is a current run DLP comparision, you go to some of the older units that where the depth of the device was almost double the viewing distance is increased even more. Simple, logical thought processes :heybaby:


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Carl Spock said:


> Outside of the false insinuation that only Mitsubishi DLP TVs are good, practicality and good human engineering trump performance every day of the week.
> 
> .
> 
> Mitsubishi lost millions of dollars in forfeited sales because they couldn't get over it.


 Couldn't agree more.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> That depends. There are no DLP's that can beat or meet the best flat panel displays on the market today, aside from price.


I don't agree. While I would agree that DLP doesn't beat plasma even from an entry level plasma, I sure couldn't say that about the LCD/LED panels I've seen.

If I were to buy a big screen this year, it would either be a bigger plasma or a much bigger DLP. LCD/LED need not apply.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"lparsons21" said:


> I don't agree. While I would agree that DLP doesn't beat plasma even from an entry level plasma, I sure couldn't say that about the LCD/LED panels I've seen.
> 
> If I were to buy a big screen this year, it would either be a bigger plasma or a much bigger DLP. LCD/LED need not apply.


I tend to despise LCD, but the Sharp Elite and Sony XBR-HX950 can compete with the Panasonic VT50. Behind those two...I wouldn't buy an LCD.


----------



## klang (Oct 14, 2003)

1980ws said:


> I have 55" Mitsubishi RPT I bought in February 2004. It is our main TV. Other than an occasional convergence, I haven't touched the thing. Just the other day I said to the Mrs. about what a nice picture it still is. Different from my two smaller flat screens, but still pleasing to my eye. Goods seem to last for us though. We have a Whirlpool W&D and a Toro lawn mower we still use, all purchased in 1991. Not sure if I had to replace the TV if I would have bought another RPT.


You will be amazed if you replace the lamp. I have a 55" Sony SXRD set from 2006. Lamp went out a couple years ago. Had no idea how much the original lamp had dimmed over the years. Like having a brand new set.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

klang said:


> You will be amazed if you replace the lamp. I have a 55" Sony SXRD set from 2006. Lamp went out a couple years ago. Had no idea how much the original lamp had dimmed over the years. Like having a brand new set.


A new lamp can do wonders!


----------



## BLMN (Sep 6, 2011)

I'm an owner of 2 mitsubishi sets. bought my first one in 2010 (a C9 model), had to replace the bulb ($99) this year but we used the tv a lot. did not stop me on buying a second model (2011 one). just hope the technical support stays on for some good years now or i will have to start stock piling some bulbs here


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

wingrider01 said:


> simple visual math
> 
> 1. WD73642 - 65.2" x 43.6" x *17.9*
> 2. M650VSE - 60.35"W x 36.46"H x *2.58*
> ...


Why do you want to gain viewing distance? Most people already sit too far from their displays. The objective should be to reduce viewing distance.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"spartanstew" said:


> Why do you want to gain viewing distance? Most people already sit too far from their displays. The objective should be to reduce viewing distance.


Depends on the size of the display. It also possible to be too close.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Sure, it's possible, but I've never seen that scenario in any living room I've visited or photo I've seen.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"spartanstew" said:


> Sure, it's possible, but I've never seen that scenario in any living room I've visited or photo I've seen.


Regardless, there are better ways to adjust your seating distance from the display. Wall mounting also allows for better positioning of a center channel.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Hoosier205 said:


> Wall mounting also allows for better positioning of a center channel.


Only if you sacrifice viewing angle. I'd much rather have the display at the proper height and the center channel above and angled toward the listener - you'd swear it's coming right from the display when done properly.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"spartanstew" said:


> Only if you sacrifice viewing angle. I'd much rather have the display at the proper height and the center channel above and angled toward the listener - you'd swear it's coming right from the display when done properly.


Not when you can have the best of both worlds. A wall mounted display with the center of the image at eye level with the center channel in its optimal position for proper calibration, just below the screen. (Actually, optimal would be behind an acoustically transparent projector screen.)


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Hoosier205 said:


> Not when you can have the best of both worlds. A wall mounted display with the center of the image at eye level with the center channel in its optimal position for proper calibration, just below the screen. (Actually, optimal would be behind an acoustically transparent projector screen.)


No, optimal is to have the image at eye level and the center channel at ear level (psst. that's the same thing). So, to have the center channel ideally placed, you have to raise the set on the wall, which as I mentioned, compromises the video.

And further, the optimal placement for a center channel is always above the screen, not below. There's several reasons for this, one being that the human ear has a harder time localizing sounds from above than it does from below, and secondly there's less interference from things like coffee tables, feet in recliners, etc. when the center channel is above the display.

Placing a display on the wall doesn't help with center channel placement at all, because you still have the ability to put the center channel above the display when it's on a lowboy (or below, if for some reason you're set on that).


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"spartanstew" said:


> No, optimal is to have the image at eye level and the center channel at ear level (psst. that's the same thing). So, to have the center channel ideally placed, you have to raise the set on the wall, which as I mentioned, compromises the video.
> 
> And further, the optimal placement for a center channel is always above the screen, not below. There's several reasons for this, one being that the human ear has a harder time localizing sounds from above than it does from below, and secondly there's less interference from things like coffee tables, feet in recliners, etc. when the center channel is above the display.
> 
> Placing a display on the wall doesn't help with center channel placement at all, because you still have the ability to put the center channel above the display when it's on a lowboy (or below, if for some reason you're set on that).


False. Believe what you want to believe however. Your setup must look and sound awful.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

LOL, I've forgotten more about home theater than you'll ever know.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"spartanstew" said:


> LOL, I've forgotten more about home theater than you'll ever know.


That doesn't appear to be the case, but enough already.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

spartanstew said:


> Why do you want to gain viewing distance? Most people already sit too far from their displays. The objective should be to reduce viewing distance.


really? I guess the professional's that setup my home viewing area know less then you, I guess I should have hired you to come out and design the room, then you would have thought it was perfect. not..


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

wingrider01 said:


> really? I guess the professional's that setup my home viewing area know less then you, I guess I should have hired you to come out and design the room, then you would have thought it was perfect. not..


+1......Some people are a legend in their own mind. :sure:


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

wingrider01 said:


> really? I guess the professional's that setup my home viewing area know less then you, I guess I should have hired you to come out and design the room, then you would have thought it was perfect. not..


Well, if you classify yourself as sitting too far away from your display than I guess so.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> Sure, it's possible, but I've never seen that scenario in any living room I've visited or photo I've seen.


Well, in my Family Room, with the way it is laid out, with a RPTV my viewing distance was under 7 feet, which is less than what would be normally recommended. With the replacement flat-screen wall-mounted, my viewing distance increased to just over 8 feet.

- Merg


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Hoosier205 said:


> False. Believe what you want to believe however. Your setup must look and sound awful.


So, which part are you disagreeing with?

The part where we have a harder time localizing sounds from above than below?

Here's a good old post from a gentleman at Audio Experts (Sam Stone), where I first read about the phenomenon, where he says this:

*The center channel speaker should be located right OVER the viewing device. A little-known fact about human hearing is that we are very good at locating sounds that come from below ear level, but not when it's above ear level. So if you want your center channel dialog to sound like it's coming from the actor's mouths, located the center channel above the screen instead of below it (the ultimate is directly behind a perforated screen, like theaters do, but if you have a TV that's not possible).*

Now, you could say it's just some guy on a message board, and that might be true, but Here's a paper on sound localization and about halfway down (10th paragraph), you'll find this:

*In each trial a surface thatreflects sound was placed along a wall, the floor, or the ceiling. Itwas found that if the reflecting surface was on the ceiling, thesubjects could not locate the sound as effectively. While if it wereon the floor the subjects did significantly better at localizing.*

which also supports this idea that we localize sound better from below than above. This is also the reason side and rear surrounds are placed above the ear (usually 2'). If the center channel is not on the same plane as the head, you don't want to be able to localize it, therefore above is better than below.

Or, were you disagreeing with the part where objects (coffee tables, etc.) are more likely to get in the way when a speaker is toward the floor versus above? If that's the case, you must have a strange layout with things hanging in mid-air in your room.

Now, if you have some anecdotal evidence to the contrary, by all means share.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

The Merg said:


> Well, in my Family Room, with the way it is laid out, with a RPTV my viewing distance was under 7 feet, which is less than what would be normally recommended. With the replacement flat-screen wall-mounted, my viewing distance increased to just over 8 feet.
> 
> - Merg


Sure, there's always specific contrary examples, but I'd say your situation is probably rare. And BTW, 7' of viewing distance is perfect for a 60" display (to get the full benefit of 1080p). 8' is the sweet spot for a 65".


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

The bottom line is there are no true set of standards for viewing distances. Variances differ. Professional installers have their standards, manufacturer's have their standards, retailers theirs, THX theirs, ect., ect., ect.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

There might be variances, but Carlton Bale's standards for viewing distance, based on what the human eye can see, are pretty universally accepted.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

spartanstew said:


> There might be variances, but Carlton Bale's standards for viewing distance, based on what the human eye can see, are pretty universally accepted.


So was the belief that the earth was flat. Personally I'd put him in that group I listed in post #67.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

spartanstew, in a half empty movie theater, do you say to those folks sitting in the first couple of rows, "You realize you're sitting too close, right? You really should move ten rows back."


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Nope, personal preference certainly comes into play (I tend to sit closer than recommended), but that doesn't have any effect on the standards.

If someone enjoys sitting 15' away from their 60" display, that's their choice, but they're not getting the full effect of 1080p when doing so - in fact, they're not even getting the full effect of 720p.

Some people like having their surrounds (in a 5.1 set up) directly behind the listening area (for many reasons), instead of to the sides of the listening area. That's OK too, but it's not the standard and any professional that set the room up would know that - just like a professional would know the optimal seating distance from the display.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"spartanstew" said:


> Nope, personal preference certainly comes into play (I tend to sit closer than recommended), but that doesn't have any effect on the standards.
> 
> If someone enjoys sitting 15' away from their 60" display, that's their choice, but they're not getting the full effect of 1080p when doing so - in fact, they're not even getting the full effect of 720p.
> 
> Some people like having their surrounds (in a 5.1 set up) directly behind the listening area (for many reasons), instead of to the sides of the listening area. That's OK too, but it's not the standard and any professional that set the room up would know that - just like a professional would know the optimal seating distance from the display.


List your equipment.


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

Carrot length contest time


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

spartanstew said:


> Well, if you classify yourself as sitting too far away from your display than I guess so.


pray tell, where exactly did I state that I was "sitting to far away from my display"? In those words, not a implied understanding of the reader


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

wingrider01 said:


> pray tell, where exactly did I state that I was "sitting to far away from my display"? In those words, not a implied understanding of the reader


Why else would you think the professional's that set up your viewing area would know less than I?

I stated that most people sit too far away and the objective should be to reduce viewing distance.

You seemed to take offense at that, which could only mean you fit into that category. If you don't fit into that category (sitting too far away), than why would you reply?

If yours was set up correctly, than you would not be in the "most" category and my comments wouldn't even pertain to you, no?



spartanstew said:


> Why do you want to gain viewing distance? Most people already sit too far from their displays. The objective should be to reduce viewing distance.





wingrider01 said:


> really? I guess the professional's that setup my home viewing area know less then you, I guess I should have hired you to come out and design the room, then you would have thought it was perfect. not..


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> Why else would you think the professional's that set up your viewing area would know less than I?
> 
> I stated that most people sit too far away and the objective should be to reduce viewing distance.
> 
> ...


I would have to say that was a good response.

And I do agree most people do sit too far away , but not so much because they are mis-informed, but maily their budget will only allow sub par equipment sizes based on their room and what is recommended.

To this day people buy 32 inch tvs as their main living room tv. And they think like wow, I got a 32.

I think i read somewhere, that the National average is below 40 inch on main viewing TVs.

I can't remember where I saw it , But I'll look for a link.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Found it.!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/t...is-living-room-big-enough-for-my-tv.html?_r=0


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

It is somewhat disappointing to hear this news from Mitz...especially since their HDTVs are known for having some of the greatest and most natural image reproduction out there....but technology moves on, so this version gives way to the newer wave.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

spartanstew said:


> Why else would you think the professional's that set up your viewing area would know less than I?
> 
> I stated that most people sit too far away and the objective should be to reduce viewing distance.
> 
> ...


Mine is correctly setup - if your comments did not apply to me then why did you quote my response.

Personally I never "assume" anything with out sticking the word IN the sentence to verify it is a assumption and not a fact. As far as taking offense to your comments - not on the worst day in my life, again you are assuming.



spartanstew said:


> Well, if you classify yourself as sitting too far away from your display than I guess so.


You "assumed" in this reponse that I classified my self as sitting to far away - which I don't - I am "assuming" that you disagree with everything that does not fit your ideals from your responses


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

They haven't been near the top of the industry for a long time. They weren't even the best DLP the last year they had competition, in 2008. They had become the budget conscious choice for people seeking large screens who didn't want a projector.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

*then


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

wingrider01 said:


> if your comments did not apply to me then why did you quote my response.


I have no idea if my comments apply to you or not. I was quoting you because your post referenced gaining viewing distance with a flat panel. My initial question (which you never answered) was:



spartanstew said:


> Why do you want to gain viewing distance?


I know these threads can sometimes be hard to follow, but not this hard. Here's the cliff notes for you:

1. You posted about how you can gain viewing distance with a flat panel.
2. I asked why you would want to gain viewing distance, as most people need the opposite.
3. You posted that I must know more than those that set up your room.
4. I stated that that's only true if you're sitting too close.
5. You claimed I make assumptions.
6. I explained why (see #3)
7. You asked why I quoted you.
8. I told you why.
9. Your turn.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> I have no idea if my comments apply to you or not. I was quoting you because your post referenced gaining viewing distance with a flat panel. My initial question (which you never answered) was:
> 
> I know these threads can sometimes be hard to follow, but not this hard. Here's the cliff notes for you:
> 
> ...


Hey I understood what you meant. :lol:


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> They haven't been near the top of the industry for a long time. They weren't even the best DLP the last year they had competition, in 2008. They had become the budget conscious choice for people seeking large screens who didn't want a projector.


That about sums it up. If they were the best , everyone would have one, and they would still be around.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

"Being the best" doesn't guarantee victory in the marketplace.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

djlong said:


> "Being the best" doesn't guarantee victory in the marketplace.


Well said, if it did Pioneer would still be making and selling Elite Plasma TVs.


----------



## 4HiMarks (Jan 21, 2004)

bobukcat said:


> Well said, if it did Pioneer would still be making and selling Elite Plasma TVs.


And Betamax would have beat out VHS.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

djlong said:


> "Being the best" doesn't guarantee victory in the marketplace.


Not even staying competitive will certainely guarantee defeat. Mitsubushi DLP's are a good example of that. Samsung left the DLP market after 2008 and Mits was only able to hang on for a litle while longer.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Mitsi DLPs are somewhat an example of not being the best, but first you have to define 'best'.

In the case of DLPs, it isn't that they weren't good to excellent, it was that they aren't skinny enough. People just keep wanting to not give up space in the room.

Frankly I'm watching the prices of these sets and may yet decide to get one as the size of the cabinet isn't an issue for me and I would love to have a 73+" size.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> It is somewhat disappointing to hear this news from Mitz...especially since their HDTVs are known for having some of the greatest and most natural image reproduction out there....but technology moves on, so this version gives way to the newer wave.


As with most everything in the current world economy, it is more about consolidation than technological progress.

Pioneer may have sold the Kuro patents to Panasonic but I'm not convinced that Panasonic has produced a decidedly superior TV.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

lparsons21 said:


> In the case of DLPs, it isn't that they weren't good to excellent, it was that they aren't skinny enough. People just keep wanting to not give up space in the room.


I'm anxiously waiting to hear what people are using all this reclaimed cubic footage for.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

harsh said:


> As with most everything in the current world economy, it is more about consolidation than technological progress.
> 
> Pioneer may have sold the Kuro patents to Panasonic but I'm not convinced that Panasonic has produced a decidedly superior TV.


I've had very good success with Vizio and Samsung HDTVs. The one Panasonic in the past worked well before it became a "hand-me-down" to a relative.

In another 3 1/2 weeks...I'll check out the Panasonics and other new ones coming out at CES. the next "big thing" will be 4K HDTVs...but that's still a bit off into the future.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Here ya go!
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/12/14/how-much-would-you-pay-for-a-tv/

Why wait??


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

bobukcat said:


> Well said, if it did Pioneer would still be making and selling Elite Plasma TVs.


 Yea the best at PLASMA.

Plasmas are scary in the market place.
Pioneer wasn't that great either. People thought cause they made stereos so long that the were indestructable.

Yea Far from the case.

Poloroid made cameras forever to , and guess what, where are they now?

Sony, Samsung,Phillips,and LG are leaders in the TV marketplace.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

damondlt said:


> Yea the best at PLASMA.
> 
> Plasmas are scary in the market place.
> Pioneer wasn't that great either. People thought cause they made stereos so long that the were indestructable.
> ...


I'm not sure what you're referring to but it is widely accepted that Pioneer Elite Plasmas were the best in terms of picture quality from a flat panel HD display. The last ones released are still better than a lot of what is on the market today.

And they still make "stereos", their Elite AVRs are right up there with Denon in terms of performance.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

lparsons21 said:


> Here ya go!
> http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/12/14/how-much-would-you-pay-for-a-tv/
> 
> Why wait??


Actually....saw some of those last January already at CES...but thanks for the link.


----------

