# Please recommend a TV...



## zipperbaum (Jul 25, 2009)

I am going to buy a 46-48 inch tv (needs to be no longer than 44 1/2). I do have a problem with a bit more light in the room than I would like. The TV will sit 9 feet away from couch and the viewing angle for the other chairs is no more than 6 feet off center. Price is not the critical component but I am not willing to spend a bunch more for a small increase in quality... I just viewed the Sony XBR 46 240hz which I liked.... I have HDTV....Thoughts???

Thanks for any input....


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

If it helps check out some of the recommendations at cnet....I'm currently helping a buddy pick a 46-50" out and we seem to be focusing on the Samsung B650 line, and the Panasonic TG or TC line IIRC...


----------



## davring (Jan 13, 2007)

LCD's typically do well in a room with a lot of bright outdoor light, reflected light on the screen is minimal. I don't think you can go wrong with an XBR, I have a Bravia V series in our Florida room, which as a very sunny, bright room and it does well. The Samsung 650 series, as CCarcross suggests, is an excellent choice as well, my brother has one and loves it.


----------



## zipperbaum (Jul 25, 2009)

I think LCD is definitely the way to go... I was told that the Samsung's used a screen that was a bit more reflective than either Pansonic or Sony...True?

Thoughts on 240mh vs 120... I do watch a bunch of sports...


----------



## davring (Jan 13, 2007)

zipperbaum said:


> I think LCD is definitely the way to go... I was told that the Samsung's used a screen that was a bit more reflective than either Pansonic or Sony...True?
> 
> Thoughts on 240mh vs 120... I do watch a bunch of sports...


Sony/Samsung have a co-owned company that produces their displays, many of their models share the same screens, with, of course, different electronics.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

The 120/240 thing just seems to be marketing a gimmick to me. I definitely saw huge improvements going from 60 to 120, but I think we've gotten above the eye's threshold to see change now that we are at 120, so 240 doesn't seem necessary. Personally, after having compared the 120 and 240 models side by side, I wasn't willing to pay more for that feature alone.


----------



## mechman (Apr 29, 2006)

CCarncross said:


> The 120/240 thing just seems to be marketing a gimmick to me. I definitely saw huge improvements going from 60 to 120, but I think we've gotten above the eye's threshold to see change now that we are at 120, so 240 doesn't seem necessary. Personally, after having compared the 120 and 240 models side by side, I wasn't willing to pay more for that feature alone.


Kind of like 1080p and a 32" lcd. Who sits that close? Outside of computer gamers that is...


----------



## NOLANSKI (Apr 4, 2007)

zipperbaum said:


> I am going to buy a 46-48 inch tv (needs to be no longer than 44 1/2). I do have a problem with a bit more light in the room than I would like. The TV will sit 9 feet away from couch and the viewing angle for the other chairs is no more than 6 feet off center. Price is not the critical component but I am not willing to spend a bunch more for a small increase in quality... I just viewed the Sony XBR 46 240hz which I liked.... I have HDTV....Thoughts???
> 
> Thanks for any input....


I have owned HDCRT, LCD and Plasma

In general LCDs are nice bright and detailed in bright environments. They tolerate things like static images and video games better than Plasmas. LCDs can offer better anti glare screens. Off angle viewing is not so good. They don't do blacks well and that would only mean something if you watched in a dark room because you would notice un-even blacks. They also handle motion more poorly than Plasmas. The good LCDs usually cost more than Plasmas as for a screen size to cost ratio.

Plasmas in general have better color accuracy and black levels than LCDs but it's close. They consume more power and generate more heat than LCDs. They are more prone to Image Retention and Burn In than LCDs but really today it's not a concern. Plasmas are on the way out but not soon. For now plasma picture quality is better than LCD.

From a personal standpoint I think Sony products are really over priced.
You can't go wrong with Samsung, Toshiba or Panasonic.

Good luck....


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

zipperbaum said:


> The TV will sit 9 feet away from couch and the viewing angle for the other chairs is no more than 6 feet off center.


The viewing angles on LCD's are crap. I love LCD's in general, but unless you're sitting right in front of the display, they can put out a horrible picture.

Too bad you have that width issue. From that viewing distance, the benefit of 1080p doesn't even begin to be noticeable until you get over 50", and you don't get the full benefit until you get over 60". If you had more width (is it going into an entertainment center or something), I'd go for one of the 60" (or 65") Mits DLP's, which have much better off axis viewing angles.

The only knock on DLP's is that you can't hang them on the wall (easily).


----------



## zipperbaum (Jul 25, 2009)

This is all great stuff...keep it coming... 

Yeah, I agree with most on here.... Plasma if this was going into the bedroom because I dont have a light problem...

LCD would be the perfect end of discussion way to go except of the viewing angle (my favorite chair is 6 feet off center....

In the end I think I have to go LCD because the light issue is more of a problem than the angle.


Few questions... Interesting to see both Sony and Samsung use the same screens as I have seen in a few different places that Samsungs screens have a very glossy look.... has this changed lately?

can someone recommend a good viewing distance calculator as I have seen a few and they all have different results...


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

mechman said:


> Kind of like 1080p and a 32" lcd. Who sits that close? Outside of computer gamers that is...


Actually 1080p is pretty much useless unless you have bluray if you are talking movie watching.

Broadcast tv is horribly compressed, and while Directv VOD has good quality, $5.99 is a rip off.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

zipperbaum said:


> can someone recommend a good viewing distance calculator as I have seen a few and they all have different results...


HERE YOU GO. (click on the chart in the article for a bigger version).


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

There's more to it than resolution. In the bedroom we watch a 32-inch HDTV from fifteen feet away and although the resolution is lost, HD still looks better than SD due to to lack of colors bleeding and less video compression.

I recently bought a Toshiba 47ZV650U and am really impressed with it. I'm no expert, but to my eyes it does well off-axis as long as one is not looking up or down at the display. The screen is glossy but unless the light source is behind the viewer, this doesn't seem to be a problem. It's 120Hz with a 240Hz strobe effect. I would encourage the OP to check this model out and see what he thinks...it's a couple hundred less than Sony or Samsung.


----------



## acman (May 8, 2005)

zipperbauam,
Since you are asking I will tell you my experience. Your initial feeling regarding the Sony XBR was a good one. I recently purchased a
Sony 46XBR8. It has by far exceeded any of my expectations. The picture is jaw droppingly beautiful whether in a bright room or dark. It has every feature that you can imagine and more. Also the XBR8 comes with a linear speakers on each end of the TV that really put out terrific sound. This TV was more than double in price than a regular 46" Bravia but when you are viewing it in your home, there is no question as to what that extra money
was for. I happen to be a Sony fan and the last 3 TV's I've owned were XBR's, but this one continues to blow me away everytime I watch it. Of course this is just my opinion. I found the XBR8 to be better than the newer XBR9. The best of luck to you in your quest!


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

acman said:


> Also the XBR8 comes with a linear speakers on each end of the TV that really put out terrific sound.


You will lose credibility very quickly with statements like that.


----------



## DavidRobert (Apr 6, 2008)

Like YOU, I was twisting in the wind trying to decide what to buy.

Three weeks ago, I got a great deal at Sears on a SONY 46Z5100. I got it because it had the Bravia 3 engine and s_video input. My TV source is DISH with SD. I wanted a tv that had a good SD PQ and this set does a great job; as many Dish channels I like are only SD.

I have no issues with the tv. The sound is very good, controls are fine, no issue with reflection from the picture window behind me. THe PQ is good when compared to my 32" Sony tube set. I do not have high speed internet, so cannot comment on the internet connection capability.
The Sears deal/promotions was 25% off the already sale price. I had to take it and I am glad I did. I hope this helps you. Soon I hope to go to Dish HD.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Just bought a Mits WD-65837 this afternoon. Should be delivered next week sometime. For $1600 total, I couldn't pass it up.


----------



## zipperbaum (Jul 25, 2009)

Thats a DLP isn't it? What are your thoughts on DLP vs LCD vs Plasma and how are they on screen reflection?


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

spartanstew said:


> You will lose credibility very quickly with statements like that.


Actually I notice the XBR8 comes with two 10w speakers and a 12w woofer... I don't notice alot of tvs with built in woofers, so it may actually have decent sound.

EDIT: From the site specs:



> Audio Power Output : 10 W + 10 W, 12 W + 12 W (Woofer)
> Speakers (Total) : 8


From that, I'm guessing each sides speaker has 4 individual ones at 10 watts total, and each side is powered by a 12 w subwoofer. All in all the device seems to have a decent lower powered speaker system that would be capapble of decent bass!


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

I have always had good luck with Sonys....but I have to say that the 47" Vizio LCD we purchased for the game room has an excellent picture and cost much less. You might want to check them out at your local Costco.


----------



## acman (May 8, 2005)

Thank you Zellio. Usually people pay much more attention to picture quality as oppose to sound. But I found the sound is really above and beyond what most flatscreens put out now. Most usually come with one speaker across the bottom and you somtimes have to struggle to hear unless you hook it up to your own sound system.. Anyway, it is just a real treat to view and hear.
You are certainly correct Ken about the price being high and I definitely agree that you can spend much less for very good picture. It is really a personal preference as to what your needs are and what you are going to be happy with.


----------



## ThomasM (Jul 20, 2007)

paulman182 said:


> I recently bought a Toshiba 47ZV650U and am really impressed with it. I'm no expert, but to my eyes it does well off-axis as long as one is not looking up or down at the display. The screen is glossy but unless the light source is behind the viewer, this doesn't seem to be a problem. It's 120Hz with a 240Hz strobe effect. I would encourage the OP to check this model out and see what he thinks...it's a couple hundred less than Sony or Samsung.


I recently bought a Toshiba 42ZV650U and also am extremely pleased with it. I find very little color bleeding you mentioned while watching SD programming. Unfortunately, after emptying my wallet on the TV it will be some time before I spend another $199 to upgrade my DirecTV service to HD. In the meantime, I do watch some HD programming using an OTA antenna and it is considerably sharper.

The BEST feature of this TV is a selection of picture size options not found on many other TV sets. There are three to choose from. They are called "Theaterwide" in Toshiba-ese. The first one takes an SD 4:3 picture and fills the screen but unlike most ways of doing this ("stretch-o-vision") it only stretches the sides of the picture. In other words, things in the middle of the picture are NOT DISTORTED. This works great.

The second "Theaterwide" option is perfect for watching "full screen" DVD's. It does the stretch a little differently but still manages to fill the entire screen.

The third "Theaterwide" option works when watching a SD 4:3 letterbox picture. (One that contains top and bottom black bars when viewed on a standard 4:3 TV) It fills the screen perfectly with little distortion.

The issue of off-center viewing causing a washed-out picture due to the characteristics of it being an LCD TV are minimized through some sort of new coating on the screen. When comparing TV's in the showroom, the effect was quite noticeable compared with similar size and model sets.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

acman said:


> Thank you Zellio. Usually people pay much more attention to picture quality as oppose to sound. But I found the sound is really above and beyond what most flatscreens put out now. Most usually come with one speaker across the bottom and you somtimes have to struggle to hear unless you hook it up to your own sound system.. Anyway, it is just a real treat to view and hear.
> You are certainly correct Ken about the price being high and I definitely agree that you can spend much less for very good picture. It is really a personal preference as to what your needs are and what you are going to be happy with.


Usually I don't pay attention either. The reason is because sound is still analog, run by vacuum tubes, and need a large amount of space to be decent. If I want sound I get a home stereo.

With that said, it is nice to see a tv with decent sound. Tvs like that would be excellent for wall mounting....


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

Zellio said:


> Usually I don't pay attention either. The reason is because sound is still analog, run by vacuum tubes, and need a large amount of space to be decent. If I want sound I get a home stereo.


Sound waves are indeed analog, but that has nothing to do with vacuum tubes (which are still used in transmitters and high end audio equipment). Home stereos handle only analog sound. However, DVD's have both analog and digital sound tracks. A TV with HDMI inputs fed by say, an upconverting DVD player via HDMI cable, is being fed digital sound. Today's home theater receivers have three types of digital sound inputs: optical, coaxial and HDMI.


----------



## jam131 (Jun 16, 2008)

LCDs will be the future of HD cuz a lot of company is starting to phase out plasma in the next couple years so i think LCDs would be the way to go


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

jam131 said:


> LCDs will be the future of HD cuz a lot of company is starting to phase out plasma in the next couple years so i think LCDs would be the way to go


Why would what happens in the future be relevant to a buying decision today?


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

Zellio said:


> Actually 1080p is pretty much useless unless you have bluray if you are talking movie watching.


Actually, 1080p is also desirable when watching 1080i content. Although the set will need to do some interpolation to fill in the missing lines due to interlacing, it need to do no horizontal conversion and that can result in a better picture. A 768p set has to perform conversion on everything since inputs will be 480, 720 or 1080.

As for the LCD vs. plasma argument, I have never heard anyone complain about viewing angles, contract, and motion blur on plasma sets, but I have heard many people discuss the compromises with LCD, even on the latest high-end 480hz LED sets. I have two Panasonic plasmas and while they do consume more energy than LCD's, they have both been excellent sets. The first one we bought five years ago and used it with 4:3 content for several years before upgrading to HD. It has no burn-in issues at all. The newest one in the living room has a matte screen like an LCD which does away with the typical complain about plasma screens being too reflective in a brightly lit room.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

Cholly said:


> Sound waves are indeed analog, but that has nothing to do with vacuum tubes (which are still used in transmitters and high end audio equipment). Home stereos handle only analog sound. However, DVD's have both analog and digital sound tracks. A TV with HDMI inputs fed by say, an upconverting DVD player via HDMI cable, is being fed digital sound. Today's home theater receivers have three types of digital sound inputs: optical, coaxial and HDMI.


I mentioned vacuum tubes due to the large size needed. If all you get is a tv to wall mount, a good stereo system would take up alot of room.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

rudeney said:


> Actually, 1080p is also desirable when watching 1080i content. Although the set will need to do some interpolation to fill in the missing lines due to interlacing, it need to do no horizontal conversion and that can result in a better picture. A 768p set has to perform conversion on everything since inputs will be 480, 720 or 1080.
> 
> As for the LCD vs. plasma argument, I have never heard anyone complain about viewing angles, contract, and motion blur on plasma sets, but I have heard many people discuss the compromises with LCD, even on the latest high-end 480hz LED sets. I have two Panasonic plasmas and while they do consume more energy than LCD's, they have both been excellent sets. The first one we bought five years ago and used it with 4:3 content for several years before upgrading to HD. It has no burn-in issues at all. The newest one in the living room has a matte screen like an LCD which does away with the typical complain about plasma screens being too reflective in a brightly lit room.


Personally I think both sides argue too much (Although I get more annoyed at the attitudes of Plasma lovers that lcds will never improve).

Alot of lcd bashing goes into gen 1 of the led backlighting, which they didn't do a really good job with.

I say this because the original design of the gen 1 samsung led lcds were that the lcds were to shut off pixels at true black, which would mimic oled quality (Probably not be as good though). Apparantly Samsung rushed the gen 1 out, possibly due to it being small and they wanted money :\

I think you may find plasmas and lcds moving closer to each other in the next year.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Zellio said:


> Personally I think both sides argue too much (Although I get more annoyed at the attitudes of Plasma lovers that lcds will never improve).
> 
> Alot of lcd bashing goes into gen 1 of the led backlighting, which they didn't do a really good job with.
> 
> ...


I don't know about that. I'm kinda picky about my picture quality, as you probably already know, and I've seen the Samsung LED side-by-side with my plasma.

I thought the Samsung looked great. Head on it was comparable to my Panasonic. True it still suffered from the degradation when moving more then about 15° off axis but there's no doubt it's a great picture. From the couple of standard back-lit LCDs I compared it to, it was definitely the best looking one of the bunch.

AAMOF, if it weren't for the off axis thing I would've considered getting one...well that and the fact it was $1000 more then my Panasonic. :eek2:

To the OP, if I were to recommend a TV right now it would be the Panasonic TC-P50G10...it's the one I bought in April. :grin:

Mike


----------



## NOLANSKI (Apr 4, 2007)

jam131 said:


> LCDs will be the future of HD cuz a lot of company is starting to phase out plasma in the next couple years so i think LCDs would be the way to go


Whom besides Pioneer is phasing out plasma?

Panasonic has no plans neither does Samsung....so what companies are you referring to?

Really it's about what aspects of the technology you like.

I think plasma still has the edge...side lit LCDs are getting close though.

I absolutely think my Samsung 58B860 is superb no issues and we watch in a dark room.


----------



## HIGHWAY (Apr 11, 2007)

i have a samsung 46 led 6000 it plays very good.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

MicroBeta said:


> I don't know about that. I'm kinda picky about my picture quality, as you probably already know, and I've seen the Samsung LED side-by-side with my plasma.
> 
> I thought the Samsung looked great. Head on it was comparable to my Panasonic. True it still suffered from the degradation when moving more then about 15° off axis but there's no doubt it's a great picture. From the couple of standard back-lit LCDs I compared it to, it was definitely the best looking one of the bunch.
> 
> ...


The original Samsung LED panels were going to be far better. I dunno what happened, well besides the $$$ signs over their heads.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Zellio said:


> The original Samsung LED panels were going to be far better. I dunno what happened, well besides the $$$ signs over their heads.


They are very expensive. If they were to be "far better" I don't want to know what they would cost. :eek2:

Mike


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

Oh wait, they actually released one of them!

http://www.nordichardware.com/news,9583.html

Maybe it took longer, I dunno.



> Using LED technology Samsung has managed to slim down the monitor quite a lot and it calls it "finger-slim", something we first heard when it showed the L2370L monitor in May, *then mistaken for an OLED monitor*.





> Samsung XL2370 has similar specifications with 1920x1080 pixel resolution and 2ms response time (GtG), but the already impressive contrast ratio has been improved to phenomenal 5,000,000:1. Dynamic of course, but still a number to respect.
> 
> The new slim monitor consumes 40% less power than equivalent LCD monitors and the finger thin monitor is around 1.5-2.0 cm (3/5-4/5")


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

Alright, I also notice the new $4000 models are the same as that. So why then were the original Samsung leds so blurry and less contrast?

Not only that, but why wasn't the black levels where they said it would be? I dunno, still feels like marketing to me.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

Those are a couple cheap videos from someone who is either testing it or has it. One is a stupid example of the menu, and one is playing Counter Strike. Both videos though, should show that it has good coloring and good blacks.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

Zellio said:


> Personally I think both sides argue too much


I agree.



> (Although I get more annoyed at the attitudes of Plasma lovers that lcds will never improve).


The thing that plasma has going for it is what I call the "analog edge". Over the last 30 years, we've been fed the line that "digital is better". While it is in some respects, there are certain nuances that digital (whether we're talking audio or video) just can't reproduce. Although plasma HDTV"s are "digital", they still use phosphors to reproduce color images, Because these phosphors take time (albeit a very short amount) to illuminate and go dark, they tend to reproduce colors and shades that are more like traditional analog film and CRT images. This solves problems with color reproduction and motion artifacts that some people complain about with LCD screens. The design also gives a very wide angle of view without degradation of brightness.

I'm not bashing, but this is something that plasma (and even CRT's) can do that LCD cannot. Well, unless they get to some ultra high refresh rate that is completely imperceptible to human vision and a near 180-degree viewing angle. Having said that, is it really that important to the average person watching TV in the living room? Probably not. But, given that a really nice plasma is less than half the cost of a (not quite) comparable LCD, there's the edge.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

Zellio said:


> Alright, I also notice the new $4000 models are the same as that. So why then were the original Samsung leds so blurry and less contrast?
> 
> Not only that, but why wasn't the black levels where they said it would be? I dunno, still feels like marketing to me.


The first Samsung LED sets still used rear-mounted LEDs to backlight the set and employed a technology referred to as local-dimming backlighting (Sammy is not the only manufacturer using this tech, I know Sony has some models and others may as well). The reviews I have seen of those sets were not positive with any of the local-dimming options enabled and just so-so with them disabled.

The new "LED TV" that Sammy has out uses LEDs around the edge of the display and light-pipes to backlight the display. The big advantage is how slim the display can be (to me this is a non-issue but others find it very important), these sets also employ some of the better motion resolution and refresh rates. The reviews have been pretty positive with some calling them some of the best LCD FPs available but it has not resolved off-angle viewing issues and some settings can make 24FPS program look like an afternoon soap opera due to the frame interpolation.

LCDs are getting better and I'm sure they will continue to, but to get comparable picture quality you have to spend more and no one has yet fixed the off-angle issues with them.

As for choosing LCD because plasmas are being "phased out" (which I don't believe is the case for Sammy or Panny): I don't believe that LCDs are really "the future" of HDTV either. Some other tech (OLED, or who knows what) will come along and supplant it at some point.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

That's the other thing I don't get. Why do we care how thin they are?

If you're hanging it on the wall, whether it's 1.5" thick or 4" thick really doesn't matter. It's hanging on the wall and you're not going to use that extra 2.5" of space for anything.

If it's on a table top your still constrained by the footprint of the stand which isn't that much different and in any case it's not space you can capture for use by something else either.

Anyone?

Mike


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

MicroBeta said:


> That's the other thing I don't get. Why do we care how thin they are?
> 
> If you're hanging it on the wall, whether it's 1.5" thick or 4" thick really doesn't matter. It's hanging on the wall and you're not going to use that extra 2.5" of space for anything.
> 
> ...


Some people are more about the stylish look of the super-thin displays than I am. I want people saying "WOW" when they look at the picture on the screen, not when they walk up to the side of it and see how thin it is.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

MicroBeta said:


> That's the other thing I don't get. Why do we care how thin they are?


Exactly. I don't care, which is why i'll probably be a DLP man as long as they keep making them. I can't see myself ever hanging a TV on the wall, so the depth is a non-issue.


----------



## jam131 (Jun 16, 2008)

Yea to me picture is the most important thing but the only 1 who still makes DLP is Mitsubishi and they will soon exit that market as well


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

jam131 said:


> Yea to me picture is the most important thing but the only 1 who still makes DLP is Mitsubishi and they will soon exit that market as well


Yep, it won't be long now. And while picture quality is very important to me, value is more important. A 65" Mits Diamond DLP might run you $1500 - $2000. How much is a 65" LCD or Plasma? $6000 maybe. I don't think the picture is 3 times as good.


----------



## NOLANSKI (Apr 4, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> Yep, it won't be long now. And while picture quality is very important to me, value is more important. A 65" Mits Diamond DLP might run you $1500 - $2000. How much is a 65" LCD or Plasma? $6000 maybe. I don't think the picture is 3 times as good.


I paid $2525 for my 58" with a 3 year extended warranty.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

NOLANSKI said:


> I paid $2525 for my 58" with a 3 year extended warranty.


My point exactly. You can get a 2009 60" Mits DLP for around $1000. Is your smaller 58" 2.5 times better in picture quality? No, regardless of the model.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> My point exactly. You can get a 2009 60" Mits DLP for around $1000. Is your smaller 58" 2.5 times better in picture quality? No, regardless of the model.


For me wall mounting is a must...my wife says so. :grin:

That effectively leaves out DLP.

Mike


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

spartanstew said:


> My point exactly. You can get a 2009 60" Mits DLP for around $1000. Is your smaller 58" 2.5 times better in picture quality? No, regardless of the model.


I have an almost five year old 62" Mits DLP upstairs and that room is setup pretty well for a DLP. In my setup downstairs though it would not have worked as well and the extra size it would eat up would have been an issue so I went with Plasma and hung it on the wall. Plus I like the clean look of the TV framed by the floor standing speakers in the recessed area of the room (the center channel is mounted in the wall). There is a much bigger difference between 19 inches deep versus 3.5 than there is between 3.5 versus 1 inch deep (which I believe is how the discussion turned towards "does thickness matter  ). I like the DLP technology but after the issues I've had I would never buy another Mits TV of any kind - I hope your experience with them is much better!


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

MicroBeta said:


> For me wall mounting is a must...my wife says so. :grin:
> 
> That effectively leaves out DLP.
> 
> Mike


Yep, that's the advantage of LCD and Plasma



bobukcat said:


> In my setup downstairs though it would not have worked as well and the extra size it would eat up would have been an issue so I went with Plasma and hung it on the wall. *Plus I like the clean look of the TV framed by the floor standing speakers in the recessed area of the room *(the center channel is mounted in the wall). There is a much bigger difference between 19 inches deep versus 3.5 than there is between 3.5 versus 1 inch deep (which I believe is how the discussion turned towards "does thickness matter  ). I like the DLP technology but after the issues I've had I would never buy another Mits TV of any kind - *I hope your experience with them is much better!*


If you're framing your TV with your fronts, then you're not getting enough separation with your sound (unless you're sitting too close to the display). The L/R speakers and your seating distance should form an equilateral triangle.

This will be my third DLP and all have been flawless, so I'm not too worried. Besides, I picked up a 3 year warranty from Mack, so all should be good.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

spartanstew said:


> If you're framing your TV with your fronts, then you're not getting enough separation with your sound (unless you're sitting too close to the display). The L/R speakers and your seating distance should form an equilateral triangle.


They're spaced properly, it's hard to explain but the way the wall is recessed in that area the speakers do form a framing effect (they are tall speakers too so that helps).


----------



## NOLANSKI (Apr 4, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> My point exactly. You can get a 2009 60" Mits DLP for around $1000. Is your smaller 58" 2.5 times better in picture quality? No, regardless of the model.


Yeah I REALLY think it is.
From ANY DLP I have ever seen maybe 5 times better!

Why?

Far better contrast.
Far better calibration control over color space and black level.
Far Far better off axis viewing.
My Samsung 58B860 and any other decent plasma will kill a DLP on almost any level....so will a far more expensive LCD especially the side lit LED models.

I too was like a moth and was drawn to DLP tech for size and price when I shifted from HDCRT based displays.
It by far is the cheapest large display available right now. It also is going the way of the dodo bird.
It's just plain inferior to plasma or LCD or...even OLED tech in so many ways.

Mits I think is the only mfr of DLP right now and even the laser RPTVs they have offered haven't caught on and were poorly reviewed.

JMTC


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Wow, 5 times better. Then you got quite a deal. :sure:


----------



## NOLANSKI (Apr 4, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> Wow, 5 times better. Then you got quite a deal. :sure:


Point being in my opinion my plasmas picture or any decent current LCD will blow a DLP picture out of the water.

Yep I did...you get what you pay for.

I'm all about picture quality not the quantity for the cheapest buck.


----------



## NOLANSKI (Apr 4, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> Wow, 5 times better. Then you got quite a deal. :sure:


Of course you ignored the facts I posted....


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Nope, just not really worth debating.

Are Plasma black levels better? Yes. Are they 5 times better? No. They're just marginally better than the 2009 Mits Diamonds. As with many TV's, you can tell the difference between contrast and black levels when they're side by side (PS. Contrast is directly related to black level, so you don't need to mention them seperately), but not many people have 2 displays in their home. When isolated and properly calibrated, the Mits puts out a fantastic picture. Have you ever seen one of the new Mits properly calibrated? If you had, I doubt we'd be having this discussion.

As for off-axis viewing, you're mistaken in real world situations. Vertically, I can sit or stand and the picture doesn't change. If I'm on a ladder, it might, but I don't watch anything that way. As for horizontal, I can walk from my chair and exit the room and the picture doesn't change that way either. Perhaps you're thinking of 2006 DLP's which did suffer from this issue.

As for calibration control, again no. The 2009 Mits have easy access to the ISF calibration control area, where users can adjust each individual color, H and V position, Deep Field Imager (which adjust the iris for improved blacks), as well as many other color and gamma corrections.

Besides, if I wanted a smaller TV, perhaps DLP or LCD would come into play, but I don't. I want a big screen TV. From my viewing distance of 12', I need a 73", but due to my space had to settle for 65". I like to be immersed in the show, I don't want to see mainly wall with a TV in the middle.

The 65" Sharp LCD is about $9000, what 65" Plasma would you recommend?

Here's one of my favorite quotes from AVS:



Darin said:


> Agreed. If looking strictly at image quality, a good plasma is a little better than DLP. No geometry issues, almost 180° viewing angle, and maintains contrast in brighter rooms better. But the "softness" of DLP is a double-edged sword. That's mostly due to the wobulation, which also tends to smooth jaggy lines (diagonal lines _appear _straighter on DLP as opposed to jagged on Plasma). Because of this, DLP doesn't have screendoor effect. There are pros and cons to all display technologies. We have a 42" plasma in one room, and the 73" mits in another, and the mits is by far the preferred display to watch. It's MUCH more immersive. *The best way I can describe it is: the plasma looks better if you're looking at the screen, and the DLP is more enjoyable if you're looking at the content. *


I'm a content and movie experience guy. Not everyone is.

PS. You only need to quote a post once and then put all your replies in the same message.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

This is turning into a DLP versus FP debate but I will ask if they have really fixed the geometry problems of the Mits DLPs?? The first one I bought had a pretty serious keystone effect and Mits didn't want to replace it because it was "within specifications", even though they couldn't produce those written specifications. I had a heck of a fight with HHGregg until they finally agreed to replace it. We fired up the replacement in the store and it was almost as bad but thanks to AVS I knew how to adjust it better than their techs and I got it to an acceptable point. There is still a slight bow to the bottom of the picture that is noticeable mostly on sports or news shows when there is a scrolling line on the bottom. I also had to adjust the set to a pretty significant overscan (~8%) to best mitigate the keystone issue.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Geometry is still the biggest issue with these sets. The good news is that it's not present on every set and the better news is that the 2009 models have more options in the sub-menus to correct it.

Here's an example of a set with bad Geometry out of the box:










And here's after the adjustments to Geometry:


----------



## NOLANSKI (Apr 4, 2007)

I have to say the DLP tech actually has superior black level than LCD or Plasma!


----------

