Home Theatre Advice and Planning

[Dinner]

It looks like Samsung just released a new model LCD TV which runs native in 1080p. The Samsung LN-S4696D 46" 1080P is getting rave reviews and it's online price is around $2700. I'm sure that will drop in a month or two after it has been on the market for a while and other competitors release new models. Right now though it looks like a contender.

http://www.samsung.com/Products/TV/LCDTV/LNS4696DXXAA.asp

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Plasma tvs are thinner, lighter, and the screen is brighter with more contrast then an LCD screen.

Brightness is offset by the fact that Plasmas usually have a quasi-reflective glass surface on them, while LCDs do not. There is no real world difference I've seen between the two of them.

BTW, you've got it backwards: Plasmas are heavier and use more power and run hotter than LCDs. Further, Plasmas are a lot more fragile than LCDs are.

Lastly, the reason you want an HDTV with a built in tuner is because there will HDTV broadcasts in just a few years. If you have cable or satallite then you won't need it but if you ever want to watch local stations then it would be nice to not have to buy a separate tuning box.

Local TV stations are already being provided in high definition via digital cable.

I'd never use a built-in TV tuner on my TV, because I watch TV with a DVR and cannot stand watching TV without one now. It's a useless frill to me.

And, again, my major concern with Plasma screens are the fact that they do suffer from burn-in issues (and are not recommended for use with game consoles or viewing channels like CNN a lot), they do still have brightness reduction over time (though it is diminished in later models), they usually have a reflective screen, and none of them offer anywhere close to the 1920x1080 resolution.

As you said, I want it to last a while. That's why I'm choosing a true 1920x1080 LCD over a more expensive 1024x1080 plasma.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oerdin
It looks like Samsung just released a new model LCD TV which runs native in 1080p. The Samsung LN-S4696D 46" 1080P is getting rave reviews and it's online price is around $2700. I'm sure that will drop in a month or two after it has been on the market for a while and other competitors release new models. Right now though it looks like a contender.

http://www.samsung.com/Products/TV/L...S4696DXXAA.asp

And it's only $4,300 US! What a deal.


Compare that to $1,999 US for the Westinghouse 42" 1080p.

[Asher]

Also just found out Plasmas frequently have problems working correctly at high altitudes.

Calgary's elevation is 1048 meters, so I'm wondering if that may be a problem.

[snoopy369]

The westinghouse looks nice ... would be nice if I had $1999 sitting around (CDN I assume, so more like $1800 or whatever USD, but either way not happening for a year or two at least)

[DanS]

Originally posted by Ecthy
What ricidulous amounts of money you people talk about... good thing I never watch TV / play console games.

Some people spend money on fast cars. Some on fast women. Some on A/V equipment. Some on blow.

Choose your poison. It's all just useless ****, of course.

If you walk into a European electronics store, you will not see nearly the space devoted to large screen TVs as you will in the US.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Asher
Also just found out Plasmas frequently have problems working correctly at high altitudes.

Calgary's elevation is 1048 meters, so I'm wondering if that may be a problem.

http://www.cnet.com.au/tvs/0,39035250,40036500,00.htm

The article is about Plasma vs LCD. Read the section about plasma and you'll see that image burn in is no longer a problem and that the higher quality plasmas are now rated at 60,000 viewing hours just like an LCD screen.

Also look at the thickness of a plasma vs the thickness of a LCD set. Almost always the plasma is thinner then the LCD so they end up being lighter. The difference isn't huge but if you're going to hang it on a wall then plasma is a better choice.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Asher

And it's only $4,300 US! What a deal.


Compare that to $1,999 US for the Westinghouse 42" 1080p.

http://www.bajangles.com/viewitem.php?IndexID=17423&RefTag=nextag

You can get the Samsung for US$2,749.00 I imagine in a few months when it is no longer the latest design it will be down to $2000. I'm not sure why the Westinghouse is so much cheaper but that is usually not a good sign though it may just be because the Westinghouse brand isn't well known in the TV market.

[Dinner]

Lastly, if you are really are interested in the Westinghouse then you can buy that model for around $1500 if you shop around.

http://www.nextag.com/Westinghouse-LVM-42W2-42-88908953/prices-html

The best price listed was US$1,544.53.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oerdin

http://www.cnet.com.au/tvs/0,39035250,40036500,00.htm

The article is about Plasma vs LCD. Read the section about plasma and you'll see that image burn in is no longer a problem and that the higher quality plasmas are now rated at 60,000 viewing hours just like an LCD screen.

While I recognize CNET Australia's clear leadership in the plasma/LCD debate, just a few months ago a former colleague of mine at IBM had burn-in on his year-old plasma screen from his kids PS2 (San Andreas). I'm not willing to take the risk considering how much I game and I also plan to use the display as a monitor for PC gaming.

Also look at the thickness of a plasma vs the thickness of a LCD set. Almost always the plasma is thinner then the LCD so they end up being lighter. The difference isn't huge but if you're going to hang it on a wall then plasma is a better choice.

Westinghouse 42w2 42" LCD weight: 52 lbs
Westinghouse 42w2 42" LCD thickness: 4.5"

Samsung HP-S4273 42" plasma weight: 89.1 lbs
Samsung HP-S4273 42" plasma thickness: 3.8"

It's slightly thinner but a helluva lot heavier...this is par for the course. The newest plasmas are quite thin, but they're certainly not lighter...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oerdin

http://www.bajangles.com/viewitem.php?IndexID=17423&RefTag=nextag

You can get the Samsung for US$2,749.00 I imagine in a few months when it is no longer the latest design it will be down to $2000. I'm not sure why the Westinghouse is so much cheaper but that is usually not a good sign though it may just be because the Westinghouse brand isn't well known in the TV market.

You are linking to different things.

The Samsung that's $2749 is a 40", not 46".

And the Westinghouse brand is cheaper because they want to establish a name for themselves in the market place. I've read a ton on this particular model (including about 170 pages total on avsforum) and the response is overwhelmingly very positive. Early revisions of the firmware had lockup issues, but that's been fixed in the latest 1.19 firmware.

Lastly, if you are really are interested in the Westinghouse then you can buy that model for around $1500 if you shop around.

http://www.nextag.com/Westinghouse-...953/prices-html

The best price listed was US$1,544.53.

Few problems with that:
1) Those are American retailers, which is a huge hassle
2) Those are American retailers, and I value my warranty
3) I want to get it at a brick & mortar store so I can exchange it if I get any banding or an unreasonable amount of dead pixels

Best Buy in Canada also stocks the 47" 1080p version for $3199CDN (vs $2499CDN for the 42"). I'm looking at that as well.

Westinghouse also has in-home service for the first year included, which is always nice. And the customer support line are North Americans...

[Dinner]

It's way to expensive but I love this model from the Pioneer Elite series. It's the world's first 50" plsma native 1080p and supposedly it has the smallest pixel size on any tv out there.

http://www.cnet.com/4660-11405_1-6413233.html

I do think it is over kill since there just isn't much 1080p content out there. Only the latest HD-DVD players and Blu-Ray Disc machines with the latest HDMI spec. have any sort of 1080p output. That does mean the vast majority of the stuff being watched will be 480p DVDs with a fair amount of 480i TV and/or cable thrown in.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oerdin
It's way to expensive but I love this model from the Pioneer Elite series. It's the world's first 50" plsma native 1080p and supposedly it has the smallest pixel size on any tv out there.

To me that doesn't make any sense. I would think that a, say, 14" LCD with 1920x1080 resolution would have smaller pixels than a 50" screen?

http://www.cnet.com/4660-11405_1-6413233.html

I do think it is over kill since there just isn't much 1080p content out there. Only the latest HD-DVD players and Blu-Ray Disc machines with the latest HDMI spec. have any sort of 1080p output. That does mean the vast majority of the stuff being watched will be 480p DVDs with a fair amount of 480i TV and/or cable thrown in.

HD-DVD and Bluray movies are 1080p. One of the two will be around for a while (likely HD-DVD).

Even the Xbox 360 will be outputting 1080p HD-DVDs, and the PS3 will be ouptutting 1080p Bluray...all HD-DVD/Bluray players support 1080p as well.

The vast majority of the content being watched on my set will be 720p, but it's nice to know that it'll work with 1080p as well.

[DanS]

Lastly, the reason you want an HDTV with a built in tuner is because there will HDTV broadcasts in just a few years.

FYI, almost all stations are already broadcasting in HDTV.

[LordShiva]

Yesterday I ordered a 61" 1080p DLP for $2600US. Any smaller would do me no good, as I want to be able to actually read text from 10 feet away.

As for sound, please please please don't go HTiB.