Help: Need a new TV

[Darren Harris]

I have an old 19" Zenith (model SC1327W) I purchased about 18 years
ago, and have decided that it is time to get a new set. I've read the
pros and cons of various features and formats and wanted to get real
world opinions on several things. The kind of things that only
users(not the manufacturers) will truthfully tell you.

1) Is there really a big difference in picture quality between a flat
and a "normal" screen TV? Can the average person live without it? In
fact will the average person really notice it?

2) And is a 16:9 aspect ratio really a big deal?

3) Is it a good idea to get a TV with a HD monitor, with the intent of
getting a HDTV receiver/decoder in the future? Or should I wait and
get an all-in-one set-up?

4) Is there any clear information on the picture degradation of a
HDTV? In two years will it still have a better picture than a new
"regular" TV?

5) Lastly, is "Picture-In-Picture" worth it, or is does two internal
tv tuners
constitute more possible problems in reliability?

As of now, I am looking to get a reliable TV with a Flat-screen that
can
accomodate a 16 X 9 ratio.

I originally tried posting this to "uk.tech.digital-tv" and
"uk.media.home-cinema", but the posters from abroad appear to have a
problem with with an american posting on those groups, and basically
told me that TVs over there use different technology, so they would be
unable to answer my questions.

Anyway any adivce(or recommendations) would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks a lot.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Steve]

Searcher7@mail.con2.com (Darren Harris) wrote in message news:<9437a27c.0309110139.3e0c5b84@posting.google.com>...

My two cents;

1) Is there really a big difference in picture quality between a flat
and a "normal" screen TV? Can the average person live without it? In
fact will the average person really notice it?

Picture quality is an ambiguous term used in this situation by
unscrupulous sales people to woo the unsuspecting. I would suggest
that there's no difference in quality between the two, I'm not exactly
sure what the appeal of a flat screen is. Decide for yourself, don't
listen to anyone!

I'm used to having the edges of my screen a little bit bowed. So when
they square it up and present you with a near perfect rectangular
picture, it takes some adjustment period before it looks "normal."

It's not better or worse, it's just different.

The electron beam needs to be "bent" more critically in a flat panel,
requiring a more complex yoke and deflection arrangement. The tubes
are expensive and heavy (a lot of glass).

The average schmo probably wouldn't notice, nor would they care. But,
some people like to have the latest and greatest, and this is what the
manufacturers say is the best! It's personal opinion if you ask me.

the flat screens I've watched seem to be lacking in "depth" and
contrast.

2) And is a 16:9 aspect ratio really a big deal?

Again, depends who you talk to. I couldn't give a rats ass about it.
Most shows I've seen in wide screen just have more of the boring
background to the sides of the presenter! WOW! I'm not about to get
a wide screen TV just so I can see the edges of the set pieces! Maybe
once documentaries are being produced in wide screen it might make a
difference. Considering most of our program content comes from the US
we are at your mercy when it comes to making a decision on formats.

For DVDs it would be good, because they more or less force you into
viewing DVDs in wide screen. It's a horse and cart argument. But,
like so many things before it, it's what the industry wants, so the
consumer is going to get it, like it or not. However, as far as I'm
aware, DVDs are NOT yet available in HD format.

I'm prepared to be proved wrong on that count.

3) Is it a good idea to get a TV with a HD monitor, with the intent of
getting a HDTV receiver/decoder in the future? Or should I wait and
get an all-in-one set-up?

That's up to you. Could cost you more to buy separately, but HD sets
are still ridiculously expensive... it's hard to predict how fast HD
will catch on. Currently, there's no free to air programming in HD
format that would interest me.

I would have thought that a HD set would come with a decoder as
standard. Personally, I'm sticking it out with crappy old TVs that I
get for free and fix up. When the new format is set in concrete, I'll
consider buying a new TV.

4) Is there any clear information on the picture degradation of a
HDTV? In two years will it still have a better picture than a new
"regular" TV?

I can't see why not. The technology of CRT manufacture has come a
LONG way since NTSC and PAL were invented. Computer monitors seems to
last a decent amount of time, why not HDTVs? Trouble is, if you
thought replacing a tube in a normal TV was expensive, wait till your
HD set needs a new CRT! Get ready to rob the bank! If this scenario
worries you, don't get a HD flat screen! The alignment procedure for
one of those puppies would be unimaginably complex.

5) Lastly, is "Picture-In-Picture" worth it, or is does two internal
TV tuners constitute more possible problems in reliability?

I would think it's worth it. I'd be more worried about the switch
mode power supplies than the RF stages.

...have a problem with an American posting on those groups, and basically
told me that TVs over there use different technology, so they would be
unable to answer my questions.

Ridiculous. Yes, you guys use NTSC and we use PAL, but that has NO
relevance whatsoever to the questions you're asking. The "technology"
is the same, it's the broadcasting standard that is different.

Perhaps they are doing multicasting and not HD in the UK? Maybe they
don't know what HD is? Are flat screens not actually flat in the UK?
Baffling…

Here is Australia we are getting HDTV forced upon us. I think most of
us would prefer normal definition and multicasting, but one of our
media moguls has successfully lobbied to government into submission.

Currently, not many people have HDTVs, not many programs are produced
in HD. I think standard def, wide screen, with multicasting is the
way to go, but I'm stuck with what the government wants.
Unfortunately I can't afford to buy ANY TV let alone a fancy one.

Different stokes for different folks. Don't listen to sales people,
they're brainwashed into selling you the most expensive set in the
store. If you can afford it, buy a set that matches the proposed
format exactly, that way you can't go wrong (provided the government
doesn't change its mind!) If you need a TV right away, but a standard
TV as cheap as you can, you'll only need it to last up until the new
format is mainstream.

nifty