why aren't monitors more popular? (1 Viewer)

[waag56]

I am another newbie to hd tv buying and after researching for a couple of days I can't understand why hd monitors aren't more popular. to me this is the most logical choice if you already have a sound system and a sat. or hd cable box whats the down side? am I overlooking something? I really want to order the panasonic TH-50PH9UK.........$1749.00, no tax, plus a 5 yr in home warranty from panasonic and a $100.00 rebate. no HDIM but that can be added via a plug and play type module for $155.00 - $200.00 . any body out there own one of these or any other monitor that can give me the downside of owning one of these would be appreciated

 

[Steve_L_B]

Actually, plasma monitors ARE a popular choice. I've owned a Panasonic 42" plasma monitor for 3½ years and just upgraded to the 50" 9UK. The only downside is if you ever want to switch it for use as a secondary TV in a bedroom or den, where you may not want to have to use an external tuner and external speakers. Also, some people don't like having to power up their AV receiver just to watch regular TV.

But, as you've noted, if you have an HD cable box or sat receiver, then the internal tuner is more or less useless. Why pay for features that you don't need? Plus, I personally prefer the cleaner look and slim black bezel of the monitors to the mostly silver or silver/black consumer TV models with the wider bezels and built-in speakers.

 

[Allan Jayne]

Monitors, especially for HD, should be more popular. Actually nowadays, most "HD built in" sets (true hi-def TV receivers) have quite crappy conversion of 1080i shows to a 720p, 768p, or 1080p screen. Many buyers won't pay attention to this detail but others will notice it long after they bought the set and have to resort to an external tuner and video processor anyway.

Video hints:
http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/hdtvnot.htm

 

[Jimi C]

I have a 37" 1080p lcd monitor and I love it. I have directv and It would have been a waste of money to spend more for a "TV" just because it has a tuner I would never use.

 

[SethH]

That Panasonic is pretty sweet. It's a shame that the 1080p version is so much more expensive for the same size screen.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

I think they are indeed getting more popular. I have had my Panny 8uk for almost a year now. There was an article in the San Jose paper just a few days ago about a few monitors. They did a pretty good job of explaining the differences.

"TVs" though are more turnkey. Sometimes monitors don't come with stands or speakers, and I do have a lot less inputs than the commercial Pannys. But if you know what you're getting, and you know what you want, I also feel they can certainly be a better choice than "TVs".

Personally, I would die without the aspect ratio control I have with mine. I am constantly changing AR and overscan between sports programs and regular stuff. And ... I didn't have to pay for a tuner that I don't use.

 

[Greg.G]

I find cable/satellite a really bad deal especially considering that Sturgeon's rule (90% of everything is crud) applies. I guess that's why I do OTA plus Blockbuster DVDs by mail. What's even worse there are only about 4-6 channels in HD with satellite for their normal service - hardly worth it since I rarely watch those particular channels. If you are talking about a-la-carte HD cable/satellite you would have me interested.