 
|
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 |
58.166.107.199
In Reply to: RE: Market pressures posted by unclestu52 on June 21, 2008 at 13:49:35
... However I also think it had to do with size irrespective of PQ.I have a really good 17” CRT computer monitor in the store room. It probably has a slightly better over-all PQ than the LCD computer monitor I’m using now. But, I much prefer the 25” monitor on my desk now. I can split the screen and do more things at once simply because it is bigger.
For me the principle is the same with HT viewing. I don’t care if the 34” CRT possibly has a better PQ because I discern far more enjoyment from watching a 55” plasma screen. Size really does matter. :o)
I think LCD panels have a far greater potential of higher returns on capital invested, compared to plasma, and as such manufacturers are following the perceived greater potential return. Economies of scale seemed to have benefited LCD technology more so than plasma technology.
I think picture quality has little to do with the LCD versus plasma debate. Issues such as heat, power consumption & screen reflections seemed to be an issue with most people. Curiously none of those issues are a consideration for me & irrespective if they were I find plasma technology superior for my use. To me, it simply looks better to my eyes.
EDIT: typo
Smile
Sox
Edits: 06/21/08Follow Ups:
Well, I'm speaking as an old man and remembering that Mits had a 480I 42 inch plasma for a mere $10K back in about 1990 with a relatively lousy picture. I can say that the initial flat screens did not have 1080 or even 768 resolution and the 480 sets were very expensive. Curiously these early sets did begin to move, and by the time the 768 sets came out even though prices for a 42 inch plasma were still in the $3K to $4K range they began to move and cosmetics had a lot to do with it. PQ had relatively little to do with it. Women wanted a smaller set with better furniture appeal visually.
That's been my experience.
Stu
...G'day Stu,
Well I am speaking as me and maybe I am young to some & old to others?
Back the 1991 I became aware of the first 42” plasma panels available here in Australia. They were Fujitsu. They were not readily available in shops & you needed to source then direct from Fujitsu. The recommended retail price was $18,999. However you could have one delivered for about $12,000 ~ I inquired to Fujitsu and the national or state (I forget now) sales manager phoned me back and offered me the price.
I didn’t end up buying one as I wanted to actually see it in the flesh first. By the time I saw one I did think it looked ok but not as good as the glossy pics in the magazines. I didn’t pull the trigger for several years but I have owed several since then and currently have two.
I have never noticed or heard of women being the driving force behind flat-panel sales in this area. They are still often referred to as ”boy’s toys” but just this last 12 months flat panel TVs have reduced in price to where they are just about affordable to anyone who chooses to own one.
Stu I do not doubt many women will not allow large rear-projection TVs in their lounge rooms or other items viewed as “ugly” but I am just not aware of it being a significant factor in driving plasma (any flat panel) sales in this area. Of course it may well be a factor in other areas or even here & I am simply not aware of it.
Smile
Sox
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
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 ]
