Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests to win things like this Logitech Harmony Ultimate Remote and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Samsung Flat Panel With 2 Component Inputs?


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1 of 34 Fastfwd

Fastfwd

    Agent

  • 38 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 10 2011

Posted January 24 2013 - 04:31 AM

I was burglarized and they got my Samsung LNT4061F 40" 1080p LCD. I have ‘replacement’ insurance as opposed to ‘actual cash value’ coverage – which is a topic all on its own. Basically, ‘replacement’ coverage equates to them supposedly not just giving ‘actual cash value’ for my television – which would have meant it depreciated at what they figure to be 50% for a 5 year old television. So, what they do to you is they find what they consider to be the ‘replacement’ with the same tech as your television (or other item) and in my case – they claim that my $1,150 Samsung is now equal to a like less than $450 television (which it is not, but they claim they are willing to negotiate that). That might be all well and good, but what they do then – is they only pay out 50% (depreciated value or actual cash value) of the less than $450 until you purchase the item they approve as ‘replacement’ – which is yet to be determined. Following me? They are essentially wanting to give me like $233 dollars upfront for ‘replacement value’ on what might otherwise presumably be nearly $700 for simple ‘actual cash value’ by their own estimation of depreciation. So, I’ve got to make the argument that I’m not accepting just whatever television that they claim to be equal to mine. I bought a higher end LCD when I purchased that had 3 HDMI and 2 Component connectors, etc. Not the cheapest set I could find with a 40” screen which is more or less what they would like to claim as ‘replacement’ if I can’t argue a case I suppose. The Samsung website shows that their E7500 Series televisions have 2 component connections, but I’m not seeing that reflected elsewhere on their own website or Best Buy, etc. I know component connectors are not the current standard, but I have legacy components that only have ‘component’ connections that are not all that old. A Panny C72 for starters and my old Xbox, etc. Am I missing something? Do they actually not make any televisions with more than one component input? Any advice on negotiating this ‘replacement’ coverage business would be appreciated btw. I’m trying not to flip out over what they’ve brought to the table as their settlement of the claim.

#2 of 34 Jason Charlton

Jason Charlton

    Screenwriter

  • 2,790 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2002
  • Real Name:Jason Charlton
  • LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted January 24 2013 - 04:56 AM

Can't offer any negotiating advice... bummer to hear about the situation.


As for component inputs, yes, they are disappearing.  One reason (other than the standard "digital" vs. "analog" argument) is that the clunky connectors interfere with making a sexy thin display.  And we all want sexy thin over everything else, right?  Posted Image


Maybe you'd have better luck looking at plasma displays or full backlit LED/LCD sets as opposed to edge-lit.  Just a thought.


On a related note, do you have an A/V receiver in your setup?  Getting a decent AVR that will upconvert analog (component) signals to HDMI would eliminate the problem for you (and get you better audio performance, to boot).  TVs are ill-equipped to serve as a system's hub.


Are you new to the Home Theater Forum? Stop by the New Member Introductions area and introduce yourself! See you there!


#3 of 34 Dave Upton

Dave Upton

    Owner

  • 765 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2012
  • Real Name:Dave Upton
  • LocationHouston, TX

Posted January 24 2013 - 05:11 AM

If money is the factor, you'll get far better picture for your dollar going with plasma. The component issue can be easily enough avoided by buying a simply converter like this one.



#4 of 34 Fastfwd

Fastfwd

    Agent

  • 38 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 10 2011

Posted January 24 2013 - 06:29 AM

Thanks for the input. I do have a receiver, but it is old school component – no HDMI and I’m not upgrading just for component to make up for my loss on the television if you catch me. I want the television to more closely match what I lost and they want to try to get me to take the least possible television they can find that is 40” as I note below: I’m still trying to process just what they presented to me, but this is the ‘replacement’ in the ‘valuation report.’ http://www.bestbuy.c...lass (40" Diag.)+-+LCD+-+1080p+-+60Hz+-+HDTV/4833565.p?id=1218538974886&skuId=4833565&st=ln40e550&cp=1&lp=1#tab=specifications Samsung LN40E550 Not quite the television that I had stolen by many measures. Including only 2 HDMI inputs vs. 3 on mine, 1 component input, etc. it’s just generally inferior. It looks inferior beyond the tech specs. If anyone has any suggestions for in the least a more suitable ‘replacement’ please do advise. They are being pretty generous in other areas of my claim. I really haven’t put a pencil to it to see if it balances out or not, but if anyone has suggestions please let me know.

#5 of 34 schan1269

schan1269

    HTF Expert

  • 12,823 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 04 2012
  • Real Name:Sam
  • LocationChicago-ish/NW Indiana

Posted January 24 2013 - 08:04 AM

Having done numerous negotiations...fire back with the "TV you want".

#6 of 34 Joseph DeMartino

Joseph DeMartino

    Lead Actor

  • 8,301 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 31 1969
  • Real Name:Joseph DeMartino
  • LocationFlorida

Posted January 24 2013 - 08:45 AM

Pity you didn't think to list the receiver among the items lost... ;) All things considered, I'd still weigh the option of upgrading the receiver at this point. HDMI is more than just a more convenient replacement for analog component video. It brings more features to the table, especially for future options. That Samsung your looking at does 1080p - component video does not support anything higher than 720p. If you have a Blu Ray player you're missing out on both the audio and video side. And as noted by others, a receiver makes a much better switching device than a TV does, especially one that does audio pass-through so you can listen to your media sources through the TV's speakers, without powering up the AVR. Otherwise Dave Upton's adapter idea is a good one. What other components are in your system and how are they connected? Also what is your current receiver (which would make suggesting comps easier) This Onkyo NR414 was my Christmas gift to myself. It is replacing a very nice Yamaha that has served me well for years, but didn't have enough HDMI inputs for my growing system. (And it lacked some cool but not necessary bells and whistles, like networking and a smartphone app. :)) The Yamaha, in turn, replaced an earlier Onkyo that didn't have HDMI. :D New Egg has the NR414 for $238.00 with free shipping - a little more than the rock-bottom price I got on Black Friday. If Audessy EQ and networking aren't must-haves for you they also have the NR313 for $179.99. (Or you might want to step up from the NR414 and look at the NR515 for $61 more.) Regards, Joe

#7 of 34 Fastfwd

Fastfwd

    Agent

  • 38 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 10 2011

Posted January 24 2013 - 09:51 AM

Well, I’m holding on to the receiver for the time being anyway – it’s been a trooper for me and I don’t have more components than I do inputs for now anyway. I think my new argument is over the DVI Input. My old tv had a ton of inputs that none of these new tv’s are going to have. I forgot that my old tv has ‘Wiselink’ that would let you remotely control a compatible mount – how cool was that! LOL It had several analog connectors that are no longer popular, but they were there if needed for any reason; a couple s-video, composite, the 2 component, etc. If I persist that I need at least the 3 HDMI inputs and the DVI input then I’m at least not getting screwed over as hard as they would like and I don’t see how they could deny it really regardless of the other specs. There aren’t many that still include DVI either for that matter. This is a 40” with DVI that is at least better than the thing he first suggested: http://www.bestbuy.c...d=1218540192699 He said he would approve a 46” if that was closer to my ‘replacement’ – I am just not seeing how I can base an argument for one other than just because I would like a bigger set and I’m losing a lot of connections to have to settle for this 40” that is still short of my old set. Should I pitch them the 46” from that model range? http://www.bestbuy.c...d=1218540196359 I suppose worst thing that would happen is they would turn it down and I could pitch the 40” – anybody have any other suggestions?

#8 of 34 schan1269

schan1269

    HTF Expert

  • 12,823 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 04 2012
  • Real Name:Sam
  • LocationChicago-ish/NW Indiana

Posted January 24 2013 - 10:22 AM

What source do you have that is DVI? The "DVI" on that Samsung is nothing but a HDMI that can use the "audio connection" next to it, which most TVs do anyway.

#9 of 34 Fastfwd

Fastfwd

    Agent

  • 38 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 10 2011

Posted January 24 2013 - 02:00 PM

No, nothing that requires DVI – I’m just looking at what my old ($1,150+) TV had that I don’t want to give up on the ‘Replacement’ television. DVI looks to be one of the many connections that I had that are still present on the current televisions. I’m not sure I’m expressing myself well enough. I’m trying to not get SCREWED with a television that is far inferior to the one I had stolen from me and I’m looking for features beyond the very basic 40” LCD 1080P 60HZ, etc. Connections are the first things that come to mind for me in that effort. I know I purchased my television with connections as a consideration – component and HDMI being primary considerations, but I have an array of other devices that utilized the other available connections including S-Video, etc. that I don’t see on any of the current TV’s. I’ve got a receiver to switch those analog connections for the most part and I might get by with just one composite connector for instance, but I’m still looking at giving up a number of valuable options with nearly any set that I’ve seen so far. If anyone has alternative suggestions for how I might base an argument that my ‘replacement’ television qualifies as a LED 120hz Smart TV, etc. – which are the current trend and the only offerings that are going to have the minimum number of connections that I would require just to hook the thing back up then feel free to enlighten me. I’m sorry if that comes off as snarky, but I’m currently still just in a bit of shock at what my ‘replacement’ insurance actually means in reality for my television – despite them being really pretty gracious on other accounts of the loss. I’m hoping to present an option that they will approve and it not be unreasonable as a ‘replacement’ and I’m kind of having a tough go at it right at the moment.

#10 of 34 schan1269

schan1269

    HTF Expert

  • 12,823 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 04 2012
  • Real Name:Sam
  • LocationChicago-ish/NW Indiana

Posted January 24 2013 - 02:04 PM

I alluded to finding the TV you want, and firing back with it. You aren't going to find S-Video...at all. Most TV now have a "catchall" Component/composite input. I haven't seen(but I haven't looked for it either) two component on a TV in 2 years.

#11 of 34 Fastfwd

Fastfwd

    Agent

  • 38 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 10 2011

Posted January 24 2013 - 02:16 PM

I alluded to finding the TV you want, and firing back with it. You aren't going to find S-Video...at all. Most TV now have a "catchall" Component/composite input. I haven't seen(but I haven't looked for it either) two component on a TV in 2 years.

Oh, wow! Are you saying the single ‘component’ input is supposed to pull duty as the ‘composite’ input as well? Oh, that suxs if that’s the case – that’s not going to fly at all. Something else to look more closely at – I only recently noticed the connection you are talking about while hooking up my mother’s Roku.

#12 of 34 schan1269

schan1269

    HTF Expert

  • 12,823 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 04 2012
  • Real Name:Sam
  • LocationChicago-ish/NW Indiana

Posted January 24 2013 - 03:00 PM

That is why we are bringing up a "new AVR". A4L has an Onkyo HT RC 360(I thing, could be 270/460) for a nice low price. Lowest priced "new" AVR that has two component inputs. It has HDMI upconversion as well. But yeah, now that "digital" has taken over BD(Analong Sunset), component is disapperaing and S-video essentially vanished 2 years ago. The last Onkyo (at less than $1500) to still have S-video are the X07(607/707/8/10 etc)...(I may backtrack a tad. I don't remember if the X08 do or not. If my 1008 has them, I didn't pay any attention)

#13 of 34 Fastfwd

Fastfwd

    Agent

  • 38 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 10 2011

Posted January 24 2013 - 03:51 PM

I appreciate that you all are hoping to bring me up to 2013, but I’ve got a receiver already that will technically probably switch/up convert my analog connections (I haven’t actually verified they would all switch/up convert because I haven’t needed to utilize that functionality before – I had a tv that had plenty of inputs for my components). It has 2 component inputs even that it will switch to one and presumably (will need to check) – probably funnel everything to any tv that has only one component input. Frankly, I am a bit leery of the component switching on it too – seems like when I did try at one point it was shoddy. That’s not really the point for me. The point is that I’m looking for arguments to make if challenged on why I’m not thrilled about the insurance company wanting to try to steer me toward a far inferior television set – regardless of the tech specs of LCD 60hz, etc. being available. They aren’t buying me a ‘replacement’ receiver for the one I have – they are buying a ‘replacement’ television for the one I lost. The televisions at that level of specific tech spec are so far out of the trend that they are the cheapest and least well equipped televisions you can buy now and beyond ‘thin’ being the trend and limiting input availability – most of these lower end televisions only have 2 HDMI connections. I believe my approach is going to be that since I am giving up so many connection options that my old set had that in the least they should be willing to pony up for a ‘replacement’ that offsets the loss of those (regardless of if I might be able to technically work around some of those limitations – that’s not the point). I think I’m going to pitch this one and see how they respond: http://www.bestbuy.c...59#tab=overview I may need to at least look at a few reviews or on here first. I wasn’t exactly shopping for a new tv before this all happened – obviously from my revelations of surprise at what’s available. If anyone knows about that set and would like to chime in – feel free.

#14 of 34 Jason Charlton

Jason Charlton

    Screenwriter

  • 2,790 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2002
  • Real Name:Jason Charlton
  • LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted January 25 2013 - 01:19 AM

Originally Posted by Fastfwd 

I’m not thrilled about the insurance company wanting to try to steer me toward a far inferior television set


"Far inferior" is a very strong term for what you're describing.  The fact is, you are missing out on legacy connection types that have become much more scarce in the 5 years since you purchased your last TV.


That being said, the TV you linked at BB may be as close as you're going to get to the number of inputs you need.  Too bad that has to be the driving force behind your display decision.


Are you new to the Home Theater Forum? Stop by the New Member Introductions area and introduce yourself! See you there!


#15 of 34 Fastfwd

Fastfwd

    Agent

  • 38 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 10 2011

Posted January 25 2013 - 02:46 AM

"Far inferior" is a very strong term for what you're describing.  The fact is, you are missing out on legacy connection types that have become much more scarce in the 5 years since you purchased your last TV. That being said, the TV you linked at BB may be as close as you're going to get to the number of inputs you need.  Too bad that has to be the driving force behind your display decision.

Well, this is an audio/video forum; if you consider that my assertion of the suggested set as being ‘far inferior’ is overstated then I welcome you to make the argument that it isn’t beyond excusing that my old set had over a half dozen more ‘legacy’ input options than the one suggested that are ‘outdated.’ There have been multiple suggestions that I should go out and buy a receiver to make up for the lack of inputs – at a cost of several hundred dollars minimum for anything worth owning to make up for the fewer inputs on the new televisions. I have an Onkyo TX-SR700 already. I don’t need to go out and replace my $700+ retail receiver out of pocket to make up for the lame television they would like to try to get me to settle for that has 2 HDMI, a ‘catch all’ component + composite that only one can be used at a time, and one rf/antenna connector – which boils down to 3 total inputs vs. my old set that had more like about TEN workable inputs (not counting the s-video/composite connectors separately). Beyond that; from what I’m gathering on this forum Samsung might not be all that it used to be for flat panel televisions. Not only was my old set probably a ‘far superior’ set in regards to inputs – it appears that it was from a vintage of much higher quality televisions before they took a dive in quality of product possibly? I’m not going to list every component that I own, but trust me – I used a number of those old ‘legacy’ inputs and I really haven’t even investigated how it’s going to work for me to no longer have them available. Like I said, I believe my old set was superior on many levels and this initial offering of ‘replacement’ is ‘far inferior’ to it. They have seemed to be more than receptive to me making a suggestion that I feel is a more suitable ‘replacement’ and I was just curious if anyone had suggestions for arguments to make against what they initially offered and for better sets, but I see that I’m mostly only getting suggestions to buy a new receiver, etc. That’s not really what I’m looking for from here, but thanks anyway. If you want to argue the case of why you think it’s a suitable replacement so I can be prepared to refute that I welcome you to. I don’t really think I’m going to see as much resistance from the insurance company as I might be seeing here frankly.

#16 of 34 Jason Charlton

Jason Charlton

    Screenwriter

  • 2,790 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2002
  • Real Name:Jason Charlton
  • LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted January 25 2013 - 04:07 AM

Originally Posted by Fastfwd 

If you want to argue the case of why you think it’s a suitable replacement so I can be prepared to refute that I welcome you to.


I never said it was a "suitable" replacement, I merely suggested it's about as close as you're likely to get based on your requirements of the number and type of inputs you want.


I have an Onkyo TX-SR700 already. I don’t need to go out and replace my $700+ retail receiver out of pocket to make up for the lame television they would like to try to get me to settle for that has 2 HDMI, a ‘catch all’ component + composite that only one can be used at a time, and one rf/antenna connector – which boils down to 3 total inputs vs. my old set that had more like about TEN workable inputs (not counting the s-video/composite connectors separately).


Home theater technology is changing faster than ever.  Component video had a long lifespan (in consumer electronics terms) but its time has passed and it's been replaced with HDMI.  If you read this forum with much frequency, you'll see that it's often recommended to choose a receiver based on number and type of inputs you need/want, NOT the display.  Displays cost more than receivers, so the standard advice is to not overspend on a receiver, because more than likely you'll replace it sooner than you will your display.


There's a great "sweet spot" in AVR price points at around $400.  Unless you have specific needs of multizone/networking capability, you can generally avoid paying anywhere near $700 for an AVR.


 I don’t really think I’m going to see as much resistance from the insurance company as I might be seeing here frankly.


I'm sorry about that.  But you came here lamenting that you can't find a display with the number and type of inputs your old set had.  We explained that it's hard to find simply because TVs don't come with that many legacy inputs anymore.  We also tried to explain that if you need lots of inputs, it's better to choose a receiver that supports them - that's what AVRs are for - serving as the hub of your system.


The situation sucks, no doubt about it.  But I don't think you should expect to "break even" in terms of capabilities given the fact that the insurance company won't pony up enough cash to get something that you really want.


Best of luck.


Are you new to the Home Theater Forum? Stop by the New Member Introductions area and introduce yourself! See you there!


#17 of 34 Fastfwd

Fastfwd

    Agent

  • 38 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 10 2011

Posted January 25 2013 - 04:46 AM

I never said it was a "suitable" replacement, I merely suggested it's about as close as you're likely to get based on your requirements of the number and type of inputs you want. Home theater technology is changing faster than ever.  Component video had a long lifespan (in consumer electronics terms) but its time has passed and it's been replaced with HDMI.  If you read this forum with much frequency, you'll see that it's often recommended to choose a receiver based on number and type of inputs you need/want, NOT the display.  Displays cost more than receivers, so the standard advice is to not overspend on a receiver, because more than likely you'll replace it sooner than you will your display. There's a great "sweet spot" in AVR price points at around $400.  Unless you have specific needs of multizone/networking capability, you can generally avoid paying anywhere near $700 for an AVR. I'm sorry about that.  But you came here lamenting that you can't find a display with the number and type of inputs your old set had.  We explained that it's hard to find simply because TVs don't come with that many legacy inputs anymore.  We also tried to explain that if you need lots of inputs, it's better to choose a receiver that supports them - that's what AVRs are for - serving as the hub of your system. The situation sucks, no doubt about it.  But I don't think you should expect to "break even" in terms of capabilities given the fact that the insurance company won't pony up enough cash to get something that you really want. Best of luck.

I appreciate that anyone responded period I suppose, but the disappointment on my part is that I don’t really think anyone is listening to the issue I’m experiencing and responding appropriately to the question that I have. I’m not asking advice on how to build a new home theater system and what components might be the best options from the current offerings for that pursuit. I need to see if anyone can provide me with arguments I can take to my insurance to substantiate why simply meeting the basic specs of my old set being 40” 1080p 60hz are falling pretty far short of ‘replacement’ of my old television that cost me well over DOUBLE what they would like to suggest is a suitable ‘replacement’ from the current market. I know they might like to dupe some dope into accepting that and not raise any argument because that is their business/bottom line, but I’m not a moron and I know I could have bought a junk cheap 40” flat screen instead of spending $1,150 for the one that I did when I bought it that would have met those same specs even then. It’s not simply a matter that the tech is ‘cheaper’ now. It’s a ‘far inferior’ set to the one I purchased in many regards beyond the number of inputs. I’ve got a DVD Audio setup currently. I don’t use it very often, but I’ve got a few discs anyway. My Onkyo isn’t getting replaced with a cheaper and less powerful receiver so I can switch HDMI on the receiver instead of the television to make up for a ‘far inferior’ set that doesn’t have sufficient inputs to be a ‘replacement’ for the set that I had stolen. Much less am I going to pay hundreds and hundreds of dollars out of pocket to pick up the slack for the cheap tv. It’s as if you guys aren’t even listening to me and I’m sure you are more than intelligent enough to understand what it is that I am asking advice on, but you’re all stuck on trying to get me to buy a new receiver for whatever reason I can’t begin to imagine. It’s not happening. Not now and not in the near future. My receiver is fine. My television was stolen. I want to see it be replaced with the best quality television that I can argue that I deserve to see it be replaced with that isn’t unjustifiably more expensive than what I paid for mine. It’s really not that hard. I’m just asking if anyone might know of any points to make that I can include in my request for a more suitable replacement. I guess I’m going to request the one I last mentioned and see what the response is since I’m not really getting any advice to try to justify one that actually cost what my old set cost me. I’m feeling like I’m going to wind up with a flashy set with a lot of tricks, but is going to be of far less quality regardless. If anyone has arguments that I could make for a better quality picture than just inputs, etc. than the set mentioned then please feel free.

#18 of 34 schan1269

schan1269

    HTF Expert

  • 12,823 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 04 2012
  • Real Name:Sam
  • LocationChicago-ish/NW Indiana

Posted January 25 2013 - 04:59 AM

I did listen to you. And I said "fire back with the TV you want". Period, simple. Of course the insurance company is lowballing you. It is their job. I had an accident in my luxury van a few years ago. Wasn't my fault and I had to deal with "the other" insurance company. They shot me a replacement cost that I actually laughed at. Seriously I said "wow, that is a good joke". After 2 weeks of back and forth(and me not bending) they finally gave me 90% of what I was expecting. Their first quote was for a Ford E150 V6 cargo van. The van I had was an E350 extended conversion with full leather, twin LCD in the riser...and it was diesel.

#19 of 34 Joseph DeMartino

Joseph DeMartino

    Lead Actor

  • 8,301 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 31 1969
  • Real Name:Joseph DeMartino
  • LocationFlorida

Posted January 25 2013 - 05:14 AM

Jason G: I understand your frustration, but you're sort of in the position of someone who is miffed that a 2013 desktop or laptop computer doesn't come with a parallel port to connect to the laser printer he spent $1,000 on ten years ago. Technology changes, and - especially in consumer electronics - gets better and cheaper. Best solution in that case is a $200 laser printer that prints 3 times as many pages per minute and uses 1/3rd the electricity, and comes with a USB port and - if you catch a good sale - built-in Wi-Fi. I used to have exactly the Onkyo model that you have. That was two receivers ago for me. The SR700 was replaced by a Yamaha V665 (because the Onkyo lacked HDMI and didn't upconvert signals over component video - only did composite to S-video) and now the Yamaha is giving way to the new Onkyo NR414. That's over the space of about 10 years. In that time I've had the same TV, a 720P LCoS rear projection set with a single HDMI input. But I'm probably going to replace that later this year, so as I've had a chance to upgrade other components at good prices, I've done so with an eye to the future. My new BD player supports 3D, and now so does my receiver. As Jason C noted, TVs are expensive, other components less so (Especially if you by factory refurb from trusted vendors or buy when items are on sale.) The 414 I recommended to you is a better receiver than the one you have, except in the nearly-meaningless category of raw power. (The 80 watts per channel RMS of the 414 will more than match your SR700 at any reasonable volume in most normal sized living rooms.) It does more, is easier to configure, uses modern connections and is more energy efficient than your 700 - a ten year old design that came to market before the first Blu Ray player arrived in the U.S. when DVD was king and laserdisc was still dying a lingering death. AND it costs 34% of the price. Look at it this way - it cost you about $70 a year to own that SR700. So I'd say you got your money's worth out of it. (For $299 - 42% of what the 700 cost new - you can get the NR515 with 100 watts per channel and not give up anything - except DVI and component connectors that you don't even need.) I don't own NewEgg or Onkyo stock, and don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just trying to point you towards the most cost-effective of your admittedly less-than-optimal choices. As you've seen, trying to match 2002 technology in 2013 is a mug's game. Try finding an analog NTSC televsion set out there or a VHS tape deck. Nobody makes them because nobody buys them anymore - the technology has moved on. I'm giving you the same advice I'd give a friend or relative in the same position. Don't make the best the enemy of the good enough. Don't drive yourself crazy trying to find an ideal solution that isn't out there. Choose the bad option that has the most future upside potential, which in your case is a new receiver. Best of luck whichever path you take, Joe

#20 of 34 Fastfwd

Fastfwd

    Agent

  • 38 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 10 2011

Posted January 25 2013 - 06:24 AM

I did listen to you. And I said "fire back with the TV you want". Period, simple. .

Yes Sir, you did and I believe I will. I was hoping to prepare an argument if needed or find advice on matching the same price at least of my old set, but they presented such a low starting point they have me believing I'll never get that and need to ask for something in-between.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users