opinions/comments on sony kv27fv300 vs old mitsubishi

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by lee.b, Dec 21, 2002.

  1. lee.b

    lee.b Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First time poster here with several points/questions. I have been looking for a tv to replace my 19 year old mitsubishi 25" console. It really is a surprisingly vivid picture when proper adjustments are made. I almost hate to replace, which I'll try to address later.

    I've been looking for the best 27" I can get (without hd stuff)and I suppose it is, indeed, the sony fv300. The comments I've read here and elsewhere concerning the purple/pink tint stuff going on in the corner really concerns me. To be sure, maybe its only a minority that take the time to post and post negative things on these forums and product review sites. Maybe 98% of all users don't have the problems. I don't know.

    But why do I feel like I might actually be trading in for a 1.worse picture, and 2.a problem-laden tv, when i consider losing the mitsubishi for this fv300?

    The real reason for wanting the new tv is to get stereo, and the proper tools for viewing my newly acquired sony dvd at full strenght (component out). Since I had to buy an rf modulator...I'm told my signal is much degraded (albeit better than vhs)from even the composite out of a new tv. More importantly, I can only view the original 36 channels on the tv, when my vcr is out of the 'loop'.

    So, questions...is it really going to be a nightmare if I lose my mitsubishi, or is the picture improvement going to be a no-brainer even with a flaw here or there? And, why..when I view tv and dvd on my mother's 3 year old kv32v68, does is seem like things aren't as vivid compared to my mitsubishi? It's almost as if I'm looking through deep glass when I view hers, while mine is sharper. Is it because hers is 32"? Or does my old mitsubishi retain some characteristic that the new tvs don't have - even though it has no comb filters etc etc, that make it appealing to view?

    I have more to say, but that is enough for this first post. Thanks in advance to any that can shed light on this.
     
  2. lee.b

    lee.b Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Another post, another question.

    Looked at kv300, for umpteenth time yesterday. Local store had that and a kv100 about ten feet away from it. As I stated previously, I wanted the 'best' picture/product I can get in this price range, so I dismissed, previously, the kv100. But...

    Even though it shouldn't have - the kv100 picture was noticeably better than the dv300 in this store. The salesman tried to adjust the 300..didn't make a difference. We were viewing the endleses 'sony promo loop' - the one that has hot air balloons etc.

    Now I know the kv300 has features that are supposed to give a better picture - 3d filter, instead of 3line, and so on. So, again, I was disappointed when I couldn't qualify this occurence. Perhaps I would've just bought the kv100..but I don't think I can handle it because the sound isn't as good, and there might have been another feature it missed. So, confusion. Thanks in advance for comments.
     
  3. TimTurtino

    TimTurtino Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    lee.b--

    I'm not sure where you're shopping, but first of all, I'd suggest that you play with some of the settings yourself. Tubes in a retail environment get set to some god-awful settings, even when knowledgeable salespeople are around, and it quite often takes more time to fix them than those people have (especially around this time of the year). The sharpness and contrast are often turned up to ludicrous levels, for instance.

    FWIW, I personally much prefer the FV300, and I don't think you'd go wrong with it...

    Me
     

Share This Page