Anybody have a 54" AKAI or or experience with them

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by JustinPaul, Mar 8, 2002.

  1. JustinPaul

    JustinPaul Extra

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2002
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    At sams club they have a 54' akai rptv for $999. Anyone have any input on this set. I really want the 55" hd toshiba they have the 55h70 for $1799 but if it doesnt go on clearence for $1400 and something like it has at other sams its out of my budget.

    Any input would be appriciated.

    Thanks,

    Justin
     
  2. Dave Bennett

    Dave Bennett Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2000
    Messages:
    1,167
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wow a 54 foot TV? [​IMG] As far as the set, I think Akai sets are made by Samsung so if you can find reviews of the 54" Samsung they'll probably be indentical to the Akai.
     
  3. JustinPaul

    JustinPaul Extra

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2002
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks Dave

    lol yeah 54 foot is kinda big. Ill look for the reviews anyone else have any input.
     
  4. Jack Briggs

    Jack Briggs Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 1999
    Messages:
    16,738
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Justin: The overwhelming consensus in all of home theater--this Forum, the magazines, other forums (yes, they exist), industry professionals, etc.--is that buying a big NTSC-only RPTV simply is not a wise purchase in this era. For a grand, you can do better. Wait and save a little longer and plunge for an ATSC-based RPTV. I cannot stress this enough.
     
  5. Brad_V

    Brad_V Second Unit

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Messages:
    356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The overwhelming consensus of people on forums such as these to buy an HDTV set is probably because they are overly enthusiastic about HD and try to convince the rest of the world that HD is the greatest thing since sliced bread like they think it is. Yeah, you can watch some primetime stuff in HD now, but the other 50 channels and 20 hours of programming a day and the last 40 years of reruns are still 4:3 analog and will remain that way for quite some time if not forever.

    There is no law that says anyone has to broadcast in HD, and in the future, an affiliate may not even broadcast CBS' or whomever's HD feed and instead put four 480p feeds in its place. Non-HD sets are still great buys and will remain so until 16:9 HD material is commonplace. And if that ever happens, it's going to take awhile.
     
  6. JustinPaul

    JustinPaul Extra

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2002
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am just trying to keep all of my options open right now. The top one I want is the toshiba 55h70, then the toshiba 50" non-hd, thanks to Brad. And then its up in the air the AKAI for $999 just sounded like a really good deal. I know that Jack thinks I should buy HD which I would like if I could afford, but doesnt anyone else here have any input.

    Thanks,

    Justin
     
  7. Mike I

    Mike I Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2000
    Messages:
    720
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No it is not going to take a while for 16.9 Hd to become a reality..IT is here now and to spend that much money on an NTSC set that will be useless in a few years without a box is money not well spent...
     
  8. Brad_V

    Brad_V Second Unit

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Messages:
    356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I didn't say HD wasn't a reality. I said it wasn't commonplace. And it isn't.

    HD is here now *somewhat*. And what does that *somewhat* include? It includes people who don't care at all about ski jumping or bobsledding watching the olympics _only because_ it was some of the only HD content they could find to watch.

    And again, no station is required to broadcast _anything_ in HD, and CBS can't force affiliates to broadcast Everybody Loves Raymond or CSI or anything else in HD if they don't want to. Once the whole bandwidth scenario truly comes into play, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see most affiliates airing programs at 480p and only airing HD for special events.

    How will an analog set possibly be useless in a few years? That's the kind of scare-mongering I overhear the Best Buy employees telling customers to frighten them into buying an HD set. "Sure, Little Old Lady, you could buy this nice analog set for half the price, but it will have a black screen in 2006." I mean, come on. There is no way the analog signals will be shut off anywhere close to 2006 unless the government passes a new regulation that will shove DTV down the nation's throats and piss off 99% of all TV owners.

    Even *if* everything would miraculously be only DTV or HDTV in a few years, a cheap converter box would have to be available or else, again, it would piss off 99% of all TV owners. And if you think a million or two HDTV owners will be mad if DVI ruins their day, imagine how mad all analog owners in the entire country would be if their sets suddenly didn't work.

    Besides, if the sky would fall and everything would be HD, those converters would most likely down-convert the HD signal to current DVD-480i quality. And very few people are going to complain about having to watch DVD-480i quality on their "useless" analog sets.

    Oh yeah, Justin, compare that Akai 54" to the 54" Samsung at Best Buy. If it is indeed the same TV, that's a good price for the size and a decent 54" picture. It's definitely soft on the focus, but for $999 at Sam's, not a bad deal on a "decent" TV of that size.
     
  9. Mike I

    Mike I Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2000
    Messages:
    720
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Many of the top producers of RPTV's are dropping their analog tv's by the end of the year...If you spend that much money on an anolog set, good luck getting parts in the future. Some people try justify why they bought analog with information that is out dated and not relevent
     
  10. Brad_V

    Brad_V Second Unit

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Messages:
    356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If manufacturers drop their analog sets next year, which would be a surprise, then I guess people better buy them while they can so they don't have to fork over twice the money for an HD set they may not get much extra use out of.

    "Good luck getting parts in the future." You're just scare-mongering like those Best Buy employees I mentioned. Even if some kind of magical parts shortage would happen, people almost always put extended warranties on RPTVs because they are afraid of the technology, and even moreso are afraid of an HD set breaking, so an extended warranty will make ANY set good for four or five years minimum.

    That's also part of the beauty of a cheaper analog set. People don't feel as great a need to pay for an extended warranty on them because even if they break they didn't cost that much in the first place and pretty much anyone can fix them.

    And if you want to talk about parts and breaking, then you have to include HD sets. That's one of the tricks I hear my local BB guys use all the time to sell the extended warranties. "You know, HD sets have very expensive parts in them, and there are only two people in the entire state who can fix them, so I strongly suggest you get the extended warranty for it to have peace of mind because if it breaks it's going to cost a LOT." Meanwhile, if a non-HD RPTV set breaks, just about any mom-and-pop TV shop can fix the thing.

    You say people try to justify having bought an outdated set. I say people try to justify having paid twice as much for a set that many of them hardly use the capabilities of. Most HDTV owners don't even have HD receivers for them and justify their purchase by saying how much better DVDs look in 480p than 480i and how "cool-looking" a widescreen looks in the living room. That's all great, and sure it's a little better picture, but it doesn't mean an analog TV isn't still a viable choice -- especially at the lower price.

    High-Definition is what is not relevant to most people. It is relevant to Home Theater junkies who want the best available picture and are willing to spend the money to get it. HD isn't even relevant to the Fox network.

    And besides, all that aside, Justin doesn't have the cash for a big HD set at the moment, and if he buys an analog big-screen to fit his current budget he'll probably give it to his dad in two years anyway. And THEN he can buy whatever set he wants at the time.

    And who knows, maybe by then there'll actually be a DVI standard. Don't forget that one, too... any HD set bought now has a chance of being "obsolete" itself. So if someone has the choice between two "obsolete" TVs, an analog and a non-DVI HD, I'd say erring on the side of caution and cheapness wouldn't be a bad idea.
     
  11. Mike I

    Mike I Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2000
    Messages:
    720
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ok what ever you say...
    A 1400 dollar Digital 50 inch set or a 1200 dollar analog set....oh yea that is double the price. [​IMG]
     
  12. JustinPaul

    JustinPaul Extra

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2002
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Mike,

    WHere and what 50" hdtv can I get for 1400? That sounds like a really good deal can you giv me details?

    Thanks,

    Justin Sargent
     
  13. Brad_V

    Brad_V Second Unit

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Messages:
    356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, by all means, tell us where we can buy a 50" HDTV *with* an HD receiver for $1400 -- because without the receiver it's next to useless. Hell, for that price, I'll buy two of them.
     
  14. Brad_V

    Brad_V Second Unit

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Messages:
    356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's been over four days now, and still no place where the masses can buy a 50" HDTV for $1400?
     
  15. Mike I

    Mike I Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2000
    Messages:
    720
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You know Brad your a pretty scarcastic know it all, try looking in the paper or the internet...I have found a 27 in HD ready set for as little as 899...I have have not been here for 4 days because I have better things to do than argue with you who thinks they know it all..
     
  16. Fred K

    Fred K Auditioning

    Joined:
    May 10, 2000
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    HDTV is great right now! Great if you can receive it OTA. Otherwise, you better be a BIG fan of hockey or lacrosse, or HD movies that you probably already own as DVDs.

    While somewhere around 64% of transmitted content is digital right now, the penetration of HD signals is, what, about 2%; a negligible fraction of U.S. households and unlikely to grow much given the high cost of the receiving equipment- HDTVs, receivers, DSS & DS-HD cable.

    Anybody that thinks that HDTV is the wave of the future in their lifetime needs to get real.
     
  17. Mike I

    Mike I Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2000
    Messages:
    720
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  18. Brad_V

    Brad_V Second Unit

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Messages:
    356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I wasn't being sarcastic until you were first, Mike. "Oh yea... $1400 is double $1200...." And then putting your mean little red face there. I'd call that being sarcastic and hostile. We were just having a spirited discussion, but then you ran out of things to support your case, so you turned to sarcasm and hostility.

    It would be one thing if you were actually right on the subject and could back it up, but you're not and you can't, and you know it. You gave me the mean red face about it, so come on, tell us all where to find a decent 50" HDTV for $1400.

    Heck, tell us where to find one even without the HD tuner. COST on something like the 47" wide or 51" 4:3 Panasonic is at least $1375 at most places, so unless you can tell everyone where to get something like that at cost, then it's simply not possible for the average person to get one for $1400. Onecall was clearancing out the 47" Samsungs, but even on clearance they were like $1550.

    Some people *have* gotten Sears to pricematch some pretty crazy prices, but not $1400.

    So the next time YOU act like a sarcastic know-it-all and give someone the mean little red face, first make sure you're right about what you're saying. If you can't tell everyone here where the average person can get a decent 50" HD set for $1400, then you have no business writing sarcastically and giving me a mean little red face and then calling *me* a sarcastic know-it-all when I reply to you in kind.

    All of this is just television gabbing anyway and nobody really cares if someone is wrong about something, but instead of sticking to your guns when your guns are wrong, instead try just saying, "Oops, I was wrong. My bad." instead of giving people sarcasm and mean little faces.
     
  19. Steve Schaffer

    Steve Schaffer Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 1999
    Messages:
    3,756
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gee, this is starting to get nasty.

    In my case, I bought a 16/9 HD capable rptv solely to watch anamorphic dvds in thier progressively scanned glory, with little or no thought about HDTV.

    I had a top-of-the line 4/3 analog rptv, an Hitachi 53UWX59B, virtually the same set Consumer Reports rated their top pick for analog rptvs. I paid 2300 for this set in October of 99.

    Today one can buy a 50-53" 16/9 rptv for about the same price which will blow that set away for dvd or other Home Theater use, and is at least as good for regular tv from any decent signal.

    There are still a couple or 3 circumstances in which a 4/3 analog set is a better choice:

    1--one does not care about getting the best performance for dvd.

    2--one is much more concerned with getting the best picture quality when watching conventional tv fare and sports from a poor signal source.

    3--the set is for use by aging parents who don't want to be concerned with the arcane mysterys of dvd, HD, etc., simply need a bigger screen to compensate for failing eyesight.

    These are all perfectly legitimate scenarios, and I do not mean to put down folks with these priorities in any way.

    My own parents fit in category 3 and I would consider an HD-ready set to be a waste of money for them.

    I don't think those in the first 2 categories, who's priorities in a tv don't really fit the context of what's best for home theater use, should be discouraging others who are interested in great home theater performance from purchasing what fits that requirement.

    Out of curiosity and perhaps a foolish desire to be on the bleeding edge, I did later purchase an HD box for my set, and in this backwater market only get 2 satellite channels and one local ota channel that's a bit glitchy. My other locals should be up by the end of the year, however. I am blown away by the quality of what little HD stuff I can get, and look forward to much more in the future. In my case, the box may not have been the best investment, but the tv's superior performance on dvd was worth the extra cost of the set even if I never got into HDTV.
     
  20. Mike I

    Mike I Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2000
    Messages:
    720
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You your right Brad..as usual
     

Share This Page