Is going analog for RPTV a mistake now?? (1 Viewer)

[STLMIKE]

I'm looking at an RPTV in the 40-50" range, and want to stay w/4:3 -- however, am I making a mistake by staying w/analog and not going HDTV?

The area I'm moving to doesn't broadcast in HDTV, and I haven't been able to really tell a difference in stores I've visited.

Sony has a nice "tabletop" 42" analog RPTV that would fit my needs, but I'm not sure if I'd regret it later.

Thanks for any advice...

 

[elMalloc]

prices are cheap, I wouldn't regret it at this time.

 

[Steve Schaffer]

Mike,
Are you only going to watch regular tv or vhs in an area with poor reception or poor quality cable, and is the price of the analog set $500 or more cheaper than an HD-ready model of the same size?

If so, then you won't lose anything by sticking to analog.

Sony, Hitachi, and I think Toshiba make very nice 43" HD-ready 4/3 sets that typically sells for around $1500. The Sony even has a raster squeeze for anamorphic dvd and all have good line doubling for ntsc stuff if the source is halfway decent.

If you do watch a lot of dvds, a widescreen set in the 43-47" size can be had from several good mfgs for well under $2k.

Unless you're moving outside the US, HD will be coming within a year or so almost anywhere you'll be moving to.

Even Fresno, where I live has on HD local up with the rest of the major networks due to be up within 6 months.

If you're anywhere in the continental US, by the way, you can get at least 3 HD channels from either DirecTV or Dishnetwork.

I could see getting a relatively cheap 27-32" analog for a college dorm room HT setup or as a secondary set for the bedroom, but not for a main set for HT use.

 

[Andy L]

I think that buying an analog big screen set now would be a mistake. Digital TV is rolling out fast and the conversion is scheduled to be complete in 2006 (although that date will likely slide). While analog sets will be able to display HD programming using a converter, the picture quality will be significantly less than viewing the same programming on a HD set.

I am pretty sure that if you can't tell a difference on the HD sets that you've seen in the stores, they aren't showing a HD signal. HD sets don't automatically make every signal HD, no matter what the manufacturer's marketing departments say. You need to use a HD receiver to actually decode and output the HD signals to the set. The picture quality difference between HD and our current NTSC signals is night and day.

Even if you can't receive local HD stations right now, they will be coming. In addition, Discovery, HBO, Showtime and HDNet are all available in HD from either DirecTV or Dish right now and ESPN is scheduled to begin HD broadcasting in April, 2003.

With the investment that you are going to make either way on your TV and as long as TVs last, I think that you would be wise to invest the extra required to upgrade to a HD set IMHO.

BTW, I don't know where you are moving, but if you are staying in St. Louis, it looks like many if not all of the local networks are broadcasting in HD.

 

[CAnth_L]

I almost went 4:3 analog and ended up going 4:3 digital and for only $400 more I know I made the right choice. Even though I haven't seen hdtv on it yet, dvds look spectacular.
So does PS2 and even the digital cable channels look good.
I got the Toshiba 50h72 and love it and I haven't even seen true HD on it yet.

 

[Ken Ingram]

Mike ,Go into a Circuit City, Ultimate Electronics and ask to see
the PBS High definition loop and you wont believe your eyes
then decide,Its amazing.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Buying an NTSC-only RPTV would be buying into an obsolete technology, so don't. A number of manufacturers have already stopped offering these things in the U.S. And besides, a big NTSC image sans line-doubling does not look good at all. Pony up a few more bucks and go for an ATSC-capable RPTV. You'll much prefer line-doubled DVD images, and that should suffice until you spring for an ATSC settop box or satellite receiver.

 

[Jan Strnad]

I think it would be a mistake to buy an analog RPTV. The picture is pretty crummy IMHO compared to ATSC, America is going digital, and yes, I think you'll regret it in years to come.

Jan

 

[DaveF]

I'm looking for a new TV and pondered the HD vs. analog choice.

Analog:
+ ~$500 cheaper for same-size set

HD-ready:
+ Even analog TV looks better after line-doubling (up-conversion, etc.) on the larger sets.
+ 16:9 "squeeze" is standard; only a handful of analog sets offer this. (which is want you want for watching DVDs on a 4:3 set).
+ "Way of the future." If you care about "future compatibility", which is never a sure thing, then this is a good thing.

For me, the analog pictures on HDTVs look better than on analog sets. They all offer the 16:9 mode for movies, though this is also in analog Sony Wegas and a few others. And only $500 more expensive. The picture improvement seems worth the price.

I don't care about HD signals right now because they're currently unavailable (Out here there's no off-the-air HD broadcasts to receive with a $500 HD tuner. And I'm not interested in paying an additional $30 - $50 / mo. for digital cable with only a few HD shows.)

 

[carlton h]

IMHO, you'll regret RPTV if your budget allows for a 40"+ HD ready TV. I'm embarrassed to say that I own a 60" Mitsubishi RPTV, an older Sharp FP, and a Sony 42" XBR Wega (4:3). (Yes, I watch way too much video.) The RPTV is easily the weakest PQ of the 3, even though the Sharp is 4-5 years old. Although some are better than others, the RPTV's I've seen all lose some brightness and quality as you move to the side. There are several really good HD ready TV's over 40". I don't understand it, but the 42" Wega has technology that makes the satellite feed look almost high def. If you see a quality source on a big TV like this, I don't think you will won't want RPTV.

 

[Guy Usher]

I have had HDready widescreen TVs starting with the Mits46805, 46809 and now a 48311, however just before I bought this 48311 I got an amazing deal on a analog 50 inch silver series, new in the box for 800 dollars and I love it. It does everything it is supposed to do perfectly, the picture, while you can see scan lines they disarrear very quickly,is great.
The big thing is that it doesn't drive me crazy because I don't expect it to be anything other than what it is. This thing comes on at 5AM and goes untill midnight everyday all the while set at its default positions. It is a big sturdy thing that you could put about anything on top you have a mind to.
I dont care what anyone says but for watching "normal" television it is great. It looks better than my 48311 by far for 4:3 TV viewing on AT&T cable that I have in this house. I tape my wifes "soaps" on a JVC SVHS deck so she can fast forward thru the commercials.
I paid 800 dollars and I would not sell it for 1000 dollars, it does good at what it does, I think I wouldn't put anymore in a analog set but dont kid yourself for the right price there is still room for one of these normal TVs.

 

[elMalloc]

I dunno carlton, with that 42" 4x3 sony you could easily get a 65" 16x9...and for most..I doubt 36" image could wield a presentation better than a 61".

-ELmO

 

[Angelo.M]

At the risk of splitting the hair too finely, I think that analog RPTV's are only obsolete in one sense. One definition of "obsolete" is "no longer in use," clearly not the case for analog RPTV's. Another definition is "outmoded in design, style, or construction." One could argue, successfully I think, on both sides of the fence with regard to analog RPTV's being "outmoded." What is difficult to argue with is that manufacturers are phasing these sets out, so, at least at the level of production, they are becoming "outmoded" or "obsolete."

However, in the real world, analog sets are used and useful, and have a place. If you can get a superb deal, and nowadays you can, and if you have no immediate use for digital/HD-ready, then an analog set may be a reasonable option.

Stepping out of my flame-retardant suit,

AM

 

[Hanson]

Echoing the thoughts of others, the line doubling really shoots picture quality of non-HD sources through the roof. I was just at a friend’s house yesterday watching the Giant’s game on his 50” RPTV, and the chunky scan lines and constant aliasing were driving me crazy. If he had put a DVD on, I would have had to leave. When I got home, I watched a recording of the same game on my Pioneer SD533HD5, and even though I was a lot closer to the set, it wasn’t the mess of scan lines his set was. Then I slapped in the Monsters Inc DVD; it was breathtaking.

In this day and age, not buying an HD RPTV to save a few bucks is like buying a Dolby 2.0 receiver over a DD 5.1 receiver to save a few bucks. The gulf in performance is just too wide for the money.

 

[Jeffrey R]

In this day and age, not buying an HD RPTV to save a few bucks is like buying a Dolby 2.0 receiver over a DD 5.1 receiver to save a few bucks. The gulf in performance is just too wide for the money.

That's a good analogy. Also, I dealt with this same dilemma over a year ago when I bought my Sony 43HT20, which is their 43" 4:3 HDTV. They have a comparable analog model, for a couple of hundred dollars cheaper, and I debated the two until I went with the HDTV model. The picture with analog cable and DVD just stood out on the HDTV. And since I have now had HDTV through Time Warner for the past 6 months or so, I am so happy I went with the HDTV. I had thought I was buying the HDTV for 2-4 years down the road, and I still would have been happy with the decision. But when TWC rolled out their HDTV, I would have been kicking myself if I had bought the analog model. Considering what has happened in the last year with HDTV growing, it is definitely worth it to get the HDTV. Analog looks great, and with the 16:9 squeeze, DVD's and HDTV look amazing. Good luck.