Three TVs: which one to get? (1 Viewer)

[Tony_Pat]

I've been roaming the stores in the post-holiday period, finally looking for something to replace my 17 year old Sylvania Supertuner III 27" TV. I was originally intending to buy a 36" tube. I went to the usual stores and - as far as tubes go - narrowed it down to the Panny 36SX31 and Sony 36FV27, ultimately picking the Sony. They both looked about equal in the store(given that neither was really set up well), but what swayed me over to the Sony was that it looked a little better to me on a standard cable signal,

and it has 16:9 for my widescreen DVDs. Also, I heard that the Panny has only one input memory; is this true?

I then wandered over to the 4:3 RPTVs and saw that for around the same price as the Sony tube I could get either the 43T90 or the 48V80. I wasn't crazy about the glare on the T90, but now I'm looking for a little help. My TV watching is still mostly standard cable broadcast, with an equal split between DVDs and VHS. I watch from about 12' away. Given my viewing habits, and that I'm basically looking for the best choice in a non-HD TV for my viewing preferences (in this price range), which would you all recommend? Things like image quality, sound quality, flexible adjustment capability (the ability to properly calibrate is a big concern) are high on my list. I rarely have more than four people watching at a time, so I'm not sure the viewing angle thing for RPTVs would be a concern. Thanks.

 

[Anthony Stephan]

If you don't get the bigger screen you'll regret it.

I did.

And don't be concerned with off axis viewing of RPs.

 

[Tony_Pat]

Well, let's say I bite the bullet and go with either of these RPTVs. Given that the 43T90 and 48V80 can be had for the same money, what's the 43T90 got that results in it being the same price as the 48? And isn't 16:9 a good thing to have? Far as I can tell, neither of the RPTVs on my list have it, but the FV27 does.

 

[Michael Cook]

Tony, Why not go for a 16:9 Tv?? Someone listed 2 16:9's for under $2,000 in the other thread. You obviously have room for a TV bigger than the 36" Sony, so I would look into a 16:9. You get the best of both worlds then (large screen and 16:9 viewing).

Mike

 

[Michael Cook]

Tony, I don't know anything about these tv's but they are 16:9 ratio and under $2,000
Toshiba 42H81
43Hx71
50H71
Panasonic PT-47WX51 (says 16:9 mode, dont know what mode means)
Panasonic PT-51HX41
http://www.cnet.com/electronics/sear...0.html?tag=dir

 

[Tony_Pat]

I don't know about 16:9 RPTVs Michael. I'm worried about burn-in, as most of my viewing is broadcast cable (I would not want to "stretch" a 4:3 image - if it were possible on any of these sets). Besides, all of the units you've suggested are outside of my $1300 limit (that's a pretty hard limit). Maybe I should change the nature of my question to "What's the best bang for the buck for $1300"? When I did this analysis I came up with the ones I've mentioned, plus the Panny 36SX31, all of which are available for at or under $1300. Are they any good ones I've missed?

 

[Kishu]

If your viewing distance is 12 ft, then go big ..I'd recommend a 60"+ which will amaze you or if you want something less intimidating go for 55-60" set.
Since you mostly watch standard cable I'd say Toshiba & Sony and is your best bet WRT 4:3 TV sets.(I'd recommend a 16:9 set but I assume you will go for 4:2)
A Sony 61HS30/Toshiba 61HX71/ or Sony 53HS30/Toshiba 53HX71 would be your best bet. With a 61" you would typically have 55" widescreen and with a 53" you would have a 46" widescreeen size.
Both have good doublers, and offer appropriate vertical resolution/squeeze for movies.
Edit: Now that you have listed your budget-If you can stretch your budget a little- you could get 40"+ sets (for under $1800).
Cheers,
Kishore

 

[Tony_Pat]

I'm not really looking for a HD set, Kishore. I'd love to get a huge screen, but that money limit is non-negotiable. :frowning:

 

[Michael Cook]

Hey Tony, Is the Wega in your price range you mentioned?? The KV27 model. That sounds like the TV you are looking for. Plus you will have the 16:9 compression when you want to watch DVD's. I love mine, and the FV27 is a better model than the one I have. They even have some different model Wegas that might be even cheaper too.

 

[Richard Burzynski]

Tony:

If most of your viewing is 4:3 analog cable then you should strongly consider a 4:3 analog set. That's what we mostly watch in my house and we love our new set (70" Mitsubishi). For $1300 you can get a nice 4:3 Mitsubishi RPTV. Model #VS45609 is a 45" model, and #VS50609 is a 50" model. The 45" model streets for about $1300, find a really good sale and you may get the 50" for the same price.

This is a very nice set with 3DYC filter (very important for quality analog viewing) and 64 point manual convergence - very effective. The sony V series is equally nice in quality but they tend to be a little bit pricier than the Mits sets. The smallest V series set is 48", model #KP48V90.

If you go with an HD set and watch mainly cable, the TV's line doubler will drive you nuts, if the short fat stretched people don't do it to you first! Go analog and enjoy a nice sharp picture, just make sure you have appropriate sitting distance from the screen (approx 4x the screen's height).

Good Luck.

RIch B.

 

[Tony_Pat]

Michael, that's the conclusion I'm coming to. I like the FV27 a lot, but you know how the draw to a bigger screen can be. If I knew that from a performance perspective a 43" or 48" RPTV in that price range could compare, it would be hard to stay away from it.

 

[Tony_Pat]

I have also concluded that 4:3 analog is the way to go, Richard. Am I being stupid to be concerned about the performance capabilities of a "low-priced" ($1300-$1400) RPTV compared to a near top-o'-the-line 36" tube, like the 36FV27? Is the 16:9 feature of the FV27 enough to outweigh the larger screen size on some of these similarly priced RPs? Given my viewing distance I can be satisfied with anything from 36" to 45-48".

 

[Richard Burzynski]

Tony:

That's the best part - don't let the "low price" of the Mits set fool you. It is one of 2 of BEST analog RPTV's money can buy right now. It has some of the best possible "guts" an analog set can have today. A set with these same features used to cost $2-3K just a few years ago. Thank HD technology for the significant price drop in quality analog sets. My 70" TV cost me $2200, the same model was $4000+ 2-3 yrs ago.

Your $1300 36" tube is not top of the tube line. No 3dyc filter (VERY important for analog source viewing) and endless Sony Wega problem stories come with it. The anamorphic mode is nice, but your looking at a 27" 16:9 picture.

The BETTER analog RPTV's will NOT disappoint, AND you get the larger picture as well. Add a Toshiba DVD player (with 4 level zoom) and you will be in bigscreen heaven. Only 2 left to choose from IMO: Mits and Sony V.

Good Luck.

Rich B.

 

[Tony_Pat]

You're very persuasive, Rich. Is there anything to the color smearing problems reported by some Mits owners in the Spot forums? In particular, one guy seemed to have real issues with a 45607, to where even a Mits tech couldn't fix it. I'm assuming (hoping) that's an exception.

 

[Richard Burzynski]

Tony:

I will admit that no TV is perfect, my suggestion is more of a "best of most important features". I do notice that red will "smear" a little on certain channels (those cable channels that aren't too clear, but my Panasonic 36" has the same problem with those bad channels so I don't think it is unique to my Mits). But better channels look good (no smear) and DVDs look great (no smear). To judge the image quality, go to a local Sears - they carry both sets: the Mits & Sony. While you are there, look at other brands as well. See which one is more/most pleasing to your eyes.

As for my persuasiveness, thanks! I spent the better part of a year researching my recent TV purchase. I weighed many pros/cons of analog/hd and then even brands/models/features. I wanted to be sure this time, as my first RPTV was a great widescreen model. It was a Pioneer, it wasn't cheap, and image quality was outstanding. Problem: we watched 1-2 DVD's a week and several hours of cable almost daily. Short fat people really got to us over time.

First question should always be what is the intended primary usage of the set going to be.

Rich B.