 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
My 40" Pioneer analog set bit the dust after 15 years of service. I have been looking at new sets and trying to learn about HDTV. I have heard it said that Analog sets do a better job on analog signals. I looked at a new Sony 34" HDTV Monitor and the picture on analog tv seemed quite a bit worse to me than they were on my old Pioneer. What is the story? How can that be? Am I confused?Thanks ahead of time:)
Follow Ups:
"Is Analog TV better on Analog set?"Yes! It's kind of sad but true. I'm a video service tech for Comcast, and am in homes every day, all day long, looking at the SD cable reception.
People are very mad because they go and spend a ton of money and bring home a $4000 55" HDTV that looks worse than their old $400 32" analog set. So they call us. They'll say "It looked great in the store". Of course it did, it was receiving a HD feed. But unfortunately, they didn't ask to see what standard cable looks like.
People need to research a bit more before making major purchases. I am an extremist in this regard.
...that most SD (standard definition, analog signals) look bad on new HD sets. GIGA is the rule: garbage in, garbage out. The HDTVs look gorgeous with hi def and very good with DVD...but cable is another story, for various reasons.Not all line doublers are created equal. Some sets, like the Pioneer Elites and the Philips direct views do an excellent job with SD. Alas, they seem to be the exception. Most HD capable sets are optimized for higher quality signals so they simply show up the flaws of SD more dramatically, especially on larger screens. The older sets were designed to look good with analog. Some people, who have HD set top boxes, get around the SD problem by having their set top boxes upconvert everything to 1080i. Some people use external scalers. The rest of us punt.
Also be aware that there is wide (and I mean WIDE) variation between cable/satellite channels. My Time-Warner "digital" cable ranges from very good (HBO, Encore) to incredibly crappy (Bravo, an analog signal just patched in thus double converted). Sat feeds are highly compressed and prone to digital artifacts on some channels. This is just TV life in the 21st century.
HD feeds look pretty wonderful on almost every HD TV, good, bad or indifferent. But trying to determine how a set loks with SD at the local elcectronics emporium is an exercise in frustration. Generally, ALL TVs look worse in the showroom than they'll look in your house. (Although, as you noted, the SD looks particularly bad.)
There are no perfect TVs. I bought a Philips 34" direct view because it looked better with SD and had more options for analog (PixelPlus) than the Sonys. I'm sorely tempted to keep a 28" or 32" analog direct view around just for some precious VHS tapes that haven't made it to DVD yet and the current cable programming.
No doubt about it, however - DVD looks WAY superior on the new Philips than my old set, and HD is awesome.
You can find vast amounts of lamentations and advice at avsforum.com and hometheaterforum.com. Good luck, don't get discouraged.
Yes, the truth is that many of the line doublers in digital TVs have trouble with less than pristine signals. DVDs usually look very good, but cable TV and some of the DSS systems can look pretty crappy. The line doubler in my Sony KP43HT20 is okay, but many cable channels definitely look worse than on my old 32" direct view. However, the new TV does get rid of the scan lines, and hopefully, HDTV will become more available in my area in the near future.Todd
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
