 
|
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 |
In Reply to: Most HT set-ups are d*mned silly!... posted by Rich H on January 11, 2002 at 07:12:01:
For 30 years I have considered picture quality to be the first consideration when buying a TV. Many people don't. Even magazine reviews often focus on other issues like number of features or serviceability or price, without really telling you which model has the best picture. And you can't see the picture in a magazine!Salesmen in stores almost never mention picture quality, except to talk about some new buzz-word like "flat screen" or "black-screen" or "super-pixel saturation" or some other term that is meant to impress upon the buyer that this set is better than others. I'm always amazed to see people walking out with a set that I wouldn't bother to turn on because I wouldn't want to watch a whole half-hour on it.
That's why I still listen to my TV in stereo. The 27" CRT doesn't justify a surround system.
Follow Ups:
Agreed Ted.I purchased my Panasonic Tau 27" tv over seven years ago, based on it's excellent picture quality. I still get a better picture on that thing than most of the displays I've seen in stores and it's hard to replace it with anything meaningfully better (except, darn it, a plasma).
Two things in my TV's favor: 1. I have tweaked the best picture out of it, whereas the dumbasses in most stores can't seem to be bothered to actually take five minutes and adjust their display models to look decent.
2. Many of the larger CRTs costing mega bucks are using internal processing (line doubling etc) to try to reduce scan lines and artifacts. I find myself quite aware of the unnatural artifacts that this processing produces. Whereas, my Panasonic does not screw with the picture info with processing, and at 27" from most viewing distances the scan lines are invisable. The result is an absolutely amazing little jewel of a picture - wonderful clarity, no distracting artifacts. It simply looks better than what I see in most show rooms.It's funny. I was recentlyl in a high-end AV store standing beside a father and son who were being shown some 32" (I think) Sony tvs. Both sets were showing "Bug's Life." One Sony set was the "basic" model, while the other was a couple thousand dollars more, owing to it's internal line doubling/processing which reduced scan lines.
The salesman was going on his oratory, aimed at convincing these two guys why the more expensive picture looks better, sharper, truer, richer. But anyone could see the "basic" model had a subjectively clearer, punchier picture (despite slightly visable scan lines). The Father and Son pointing at the basic model both said: "But that one looks better." Causing the salesman to cast a look as if these bumpkins just couldn't appreciate quality. But the customers were right on the ball. Good for them for using their own eyes.Rich.
The proof is in the pudding . I reckon when buying a TV ,picture quality is the first option. I still get amazed by some rather expensive TV's producing terrible flicker when playing DVDs , and yeah sometimes cheaper sets can produce better pictures as well (unless the store is run by idiots who use the RF connectors to show off the picture quality).
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 ]
