I watched the Bears game yesterday at a friends on his new Sony LCD hi-def TV.

The picture quality was simply amazing.

But the sharpness was so sharp, it actually had an "odd" look to it, almost an "artificial" look to my eye.

My 1982 19" Sony Trinitron has very warm colors, the detail, of course, is less sharp than new TVs, but to me - more pleasing to my eye.

Are people over 50 (like me), with an eye trained to years of low-def TV viewing, going to switch back to vintage TVs as we get older, just like many of us now prefer the analog sound of records compared to digital ?

It could very well happen. Only time will tell. I'm not even close to 50 and I plan to watch SD sets as long as I can.

About every hi-def TV to me seems like it has all the controls turned up "all the way to 11"- the color's too colorful, the image is too sharp, the whole business is "Dolly Parton"- too much too much. And motion scenes look weird- they "tear" or something, just don't look quite right. But then I'm an old poop, wish this whole HDTV nonsense would just go away.

The old vacuum tube color TVs may not have much 'definition', but the warm, rich color always brought to mind the look of movie film to me (and I am thinking carbon arc projectors).

Lots of video professionals prefer CRT monitors for color correction. Broadcast quality CRTs are disappearing rapidly, to the frustration of many.

I have a high def CRT RP and the images it produces in HD is stunning.LCDs,DLPs and the like just do not look normal to me either.There's something about the image that looks phony..cannot describe it in words.I don't think it's our age or our eyes.They just look artificial.

I think we prefer analog to digital because we exist, we hear, and we see in an analog world. Digital is an artificiality to allow easier storage, cheaper production, and pursuit oif the almighty $.

God, analog vs. digital debate finally crosses into video lines LOL.

IMO with color and everything set correctly on my DLP the picture walks all over my analog sets.

One wierd thing though, is the magnification is so great on some things that its odd. Think of the detail you see on someones face normally, then blow it up to fit a 50" tv. I can see lines on the upper lips of most news anchors that smoke. Honestly, not sure if I could see it in real life.

Evan

LCD's, Plasma's and even DLP's have very distinct looks, and yes they can easily look "too powerful".

Personally I have found myself liking Samsung's LCD's, they seem to be warm and not "too" sharp. As for DLP's Sony makes some nice ones, Plasma's I don't know to be honest.

Don't worry its not the age in your eyes, I'm 23 and notice it.

motion scenes look weird- they "tear" or something, just don't look quite right.

Yeah, the LCD ones seem to do this smearing the worst, that and if anything is black, it turns into a black lump with no detail at all.

For this I should spend the big bucks? :no: Not this cowboy.

All that hi-res also increases the obviousness of digital artifacts that you can see when you have DVD-read errors, or poor digital cable transmission. If you want it bad, you usually get it bad.

I like the descriptions above of "too powerful", "too colorful" and so on. High-definition TV breaks all the boundaries of traditional NTSC, but maybe it is like showing the real Grand Canyon to someone who has only seen pictures of it, or how a live NASCAR race sounds, or a real lion up close after seeing only MGM movies.

Most people, when they say they prefer analog, really mean they do not like things too real. There is a reason TV dramas have always been filmed but comedies were often on tape. Put a drama on tape and it will look like the TV news, but we know it is acting and it will seem fake. On film, with its "warm", specific look, we are already prepared for an act rather than real life.

IMO with color and everything set correctly on my DLP the picture walks all over my analog sets.
You said the magic words- "with everything set correctly". Probably relatively few people have seen well-adjusted HDTV displays. Certainly none of the ones in retail stores are ever set up properly.

I watched the Bears game yesterday at a friends on his new Sony LCD hi-def TV.

The picture quality was simply amazing.

But the sharpness was so sharp, it actually had an "odd" look to it, almost an "artificial" look to my eye.

My 1982 19" Sony Trinitron has very warm colors, the detail, of course, is less sharp than new TVs, but to me - more pleasing to my eye.

Are people over 50 (like me), with an eye trained to years of low-def TV viewing, going to switch back to vintage TVs as we get older, just like many of us now prefer the analog sound of records compared to digital ?
You need to drop by for a few beers some day and watch a properly adjusted Sharp Aquos... ;)

I also agree with the picture being to "powerful" and too sharp. I also agree with the idea that it appears that the controls are all the way up. This is not biased because I like my vintage color Tv sets. I personally cannot watch those sets without some kind of side effect. The picture is outstanding, but it strains the eye and i almost get a vertigo effect. Im only 24 so Im not going to factor the age thing here. Im glad this was brought up because I felt like the only one who felt this way about viewing those sets. Vintage tv or not, I like NTSC on a CRT set.

I prefer the pic on my 32" Toshiba SD down here in the cave. My wife got a 32" LG LCD and I have it tweaked for best effect. Football looks best, OTA HD looks great, but I like the CRT overall.

One of these days, when I'm home alone, I'm going to "steal" it for a bit to see what it looks like in the basement.

Reminds me of the discussion of how some older folks, back in the sixties, preferred the "soft" picture of a Motorola color tv...or generally disliked a properly adjusted NTSC set. There is something odd about these new sets that I just can't put my finger on. When I see them in the store or in someone's house I have to stop and stare, but I'm not sure I like what I see. Too bright? Too clear? I don't know. If I look too long all I see are artifacts/pixelating and I walk away.

Well i have noticed something, on the last two sets i found at thrift stores both of them had the sharpness control turned way down. One control was hidden in a out of the way area of the back. so it might have still had the factory adjustment. maybe people liked it that way back then?

My Dad has a 65" Samsung HDTV CRT projector... The last of the CRT style HD projection screen units circa 2005. He has the sharpness way down on his set as well because in HD mode it's just too sharp, especially around the edges of images in football games and nascar.. So I think Hi Def is most likely a cause of the sharpness issue.

Perhaps, but the last 2 sets I found were made in the mid 70's. 1 Zenith and 1 Sears Toshiba and I think they have never seen HD, heck they aren't even cable ready.:scratch2:

Most recent CRT TVs (including projection) have scan velocity modulation. It slows the beam down at edges of objects to make the picture look sharper. It makes the image look like someone traced around everything with a pen. I can't stand what it does to the image and I always disable it when I fix a set for myself, or to sell. One way to reduce the adverse effect on the picture is to turn the sharpness way down.

It started to show up on high end sets in the mid 80's, but it's now standard on most TVs. They have also gradually increased the strength of the SVM over the years. It was hardly noticeable on the first TVs to have it, but now it's very annoying.

'svm'?

'svm'?

Scan Velocity Modulation

Well i have noticed something, on the last two sets i found at thrift stores both of them had the sharpness control turned way down. One control was hidden in a out of the way area of the back. so it might have still had the factory adjustment. maybe people liked it that way back then?


Sharpness should be turned down on most sets. If set too high,it causes edge blooming.There's a couple of test patterns that are used to actually adjust sharpness.

If I new the new sets would last as long as my 1982 13" Montgomery Ward, maybe I'd buy into them. I'm 19, so my eyes are still decent, and I have to agree on the "odd look" issue. HD sets look completely artificial to me. Now I'm making my judgement based on retail displays, so they're probably not adjusted properly. Either way though, TV's are made with the same cheapo quality components that everything else is made of now, so I just don't want any part of it. It's all so disposable...

Besides, is there really anything on TV these days that justifies their price tag?

Clearly (pun intended), age has nothing to do with whether people like HD displays or not. I am 47, and last spring I replaced my 720p projector with a 1080p model because the old one was not detailed enough. I watch high-def movie discs on a 92" screen, and I sit about 8 to 9 feet from the screen. For casual viewing, I have a 1080p 42" LCD hanging on the wall behind where the big screen pulls down. I can read text just fine on a 1920x1080 Windows desktop on that LCD (or the 92" screen, for that matter). I have a really good pair of glasses... :)

Clearly (pun intended), age has nothing to do with whether people like HD displays or not. I am 47, and last spring I replaced my 720p projector with a 1080p model because the old one was not detailed enough. I watch high-def movie discs on a 92" screen, and I sit about 8 to 9 feet from the screen. For casual viewing, I have a 1080p 42" LCD hanging on the wall behind where the big screen pulls down. I can read text just fine on a 1920x1080 Windows desktop on that LCD (or the 92" screen, for that matter). I have a really good pair of glasses... :)

Hi Chris, Good discussion.

My point on age was not really related to the quality of our vision.

I've been watching TV (too much) for 50 years, most of that time on Zenith color tube sets of my youth and more recently - Sony Trinitrons. Over the years, you develop an appreciation (based on your own experience) for what is a good picture and bad picture.

To my eye, the HD TVs I have seen are too sharp and too bright.

This is just a statement of personal preference. I may get a HD TV someday, but for now, I like my old low-def Trinitron.

Cheers, Snade

To my eye, the HD TVs I have seen are too sharp and too bright.

This is just a statement of personal preference. I may get a HD TV someday, but for now, I like my old low-def Trinitron.

Cheers, Snade

That's because they're designed to be brighter and sharper than the set that's sitting next to them at Best Buy. This war has been going on for a long time, so things are really out of hand now. If you saw a properly adjusted set in one of these displays, you'd laugh at it for being dim and soft with dull color. In the home, a properly adjusted HD TV (with a good signal) should look similar to a movie screen.

That's because they're designed to be brighter and sharper than the set that's sitting next to them at Best Buy. This war has been going on for a long time, so things are really out of hand now. If you saw a properly adjusted set in one of these displays, you'd laugh at it for being dim and soft with dull color. In the home, a properly adjusted HD TV (with a good signal) should look similar to a movie screen.

I have on occasion adjusted one set in a store display to have correct color and contrast settings. Once I had the set looking good, id did then appear weak and washed out compared to the adjacent sets. Most of the flat panel sets I have seen do not look very good at all and are never adjusted correctly at the store. Perhaps at home they would look better but I just have no interest in buying one. I would prefer to stick to tube color sets from now on. At least I know I can service them. What's the point of finding a great flat panels TV only to have to throw it out in a few years because parts are not available.

LCD technology really isn't good enough yet for TV. Even the "fastest" LCDs still show noticeable ghosting or blurring during fast action scenes when compared side by side with CRTs. But damn....the convenience size wise is definitely a HUGE selling factor.

As for analog vs. digital...

...consider the fact that all video and film is recorded at a specific "frame rate" and even older television displays had certain "characteristics that are analogous to digital :saywhat:" mainly relying on "tricking" the brain into thinking that it is seeing a fluid "analog" image it comes down more to the quality of the image being transmitted rather than the domain.

At one time audio was about reproducing a linear analog recording. Video has never been like this.

I would prefer to stick to tube color sets from now on. At least I know I can service them. What's the point of finding a great flat panels TV only to have to throw it out in a few years because parts are not available.

Amen to that. I already have two friends that want me to fix their fairly new flat panel TV's. Even though I told them I wasn't very interested; they want me to check them anyway. One of these sets was replaced under warranty by the mfg. They didn't wan't to claim the old one. The other one was given to the guy by a friend when it died. They have not actually made their way over here, and, I really hope they don't. I've also heard of other people having problems with these sets and not being able to get parts. All I know is that if I pay several thousand $$ for a TV; then, that sucker better work from now on. Yet, there's one of the electronic stores around here claiming that the new flat panel TV's are designed to last 15 to 25 years. All that store is doing is trying to suck people into buying these high priced sets. It's funny that there are plenty of regular old TV's that have long passed that mark and are still going.

I too will try to keep my old sets going. At least the parts are big enough to see and often easier to obtain than the speciallized parts often found in newer TV's.

I have on occasion adjusted one set in a store display to have correct color and contrast settings. Once I had the set looking good, id did then appear weak and washed out compared to the adjacent sets. Most of the flat panel sets I have seen do not look very good at all and are never adjusted correctly at the store. Perhaps at home they would look better but I just have no interest in buying one. I would prefer to stick to tube color sets from now on. At least I know I can service them. What's the point of finding a great flat panels TV only to have to throw it out in a few years because parts are not available.
That why I settled on a Sharp Aquos. It was the only LCD set I found that I could actually buy replacement backlight lamps for after the originals go too dim to be useful to light up the LCD screen. I can just take the back off and replace them myself. It's also the reason I chose it over a limited-life plasma screen. Otherwise, the internal electronics are just as serviceable as any standard set and if I bust the LCD screen, well, I'd be just as screwed as if I busted a large CRT. New TV time... :D

It could very well happen. Only time will tell. I'm not even close to 50 and I plan to watch SD sets as long as I can.


Me too, and I'm 41.

I have a high def CRT RP and the images it produces in HD is stunning.LCDs,DLPs and the like just do not look normal to me either.There's something about the image that looks phony..cannot describe it in words.I don't think it's our age or our eyes.They just look artificial.

Agreed, it seem the picture I get on my 1982 Zenith is much better than I have seen on any HDTV.

God, analog vs. digital debate finally crosses into video lines LOL.

IMO with color and everything set correctly on my DLP the picture walks all over my analog sets.



I made the switch to plasma just over one year ago - I would NEVER go back. Watching a standard definition 19" or 25" tv is almost torturous now.

Copy, "Otherwise, the internal electronics are just as serviceable as any standard set"
When was the last time you tried to repair a set with surface mount devices, even when you can find the parts and have a $1,600.00 solder station the board will get damaged or the smd several microns away will go bad. Then you try to buy the whole board from the overseas manufacturer and if available it is half the cost of the TV. Yes, I am old and grumpy.
Richard

Copy, "Otherwise, the internal electronics are just as serviceable as any standard set"
When was the last time you tried to repair a set with surface mount devices, even when you can find the parts and have a $1,600.00 solder station the board will get damaged or the smd several microns away will go bad. Then you try to buy the whole board from the overseas manufacturer and if available it is half the cost of the TV. Yes, I am old and grumpy.
Richard

I'll have to agree with that. I've cracked open various pieces of modern consumer electronics and I see all the surface mounted parts. There's no way I'm going to try to change a square surface mounted IC with 5 billion legs on it. If I can't fix it with a regular soldering iron, I'm not interested. A friend that runs a local TV shop was telling me that he needed a board for a fairly new large screen LCD set just to learn that it was "NLA" from the factory. All he could do was give the set back to the owner and let them take it up with the company. For me, I'll keep fixing the '50's through the '80's stuff that actually have parts that are more generic in nature and that are easier to see. I know I'm sick of all this modern, throw away, non repairable garbage that has done nothing but shut down American TV plants and close TV shops all over the country.

i have a 106" dlp infocus hd projector. that is the main set in our home. movies and sporting events look great,however, the dreaded rainbow can creep on you. goldmark discovered this in his early experiments with the cbs color wheel. we also have an lcd phillips that has an absolutely amazing picture. possibly the best i ve ever seen. i am currently watching my chromacolor in the bedroom. dlp,lcd,hd,is remarkable,but i am still enthralled with the picture and quality of this old set. 25vdmp22 that produces beautiful tones and clarity. i watch this set everyday now. cant wait to get back on my roundie.nice picture,just hard to keep going.who needs hd anyway?

I wish there was a way to capture the picture I get on some of my sets, and display it without having to rely on everybody's computer monitor. I can only say that I've had "non-TV" people rave at this picture displayed on my Over-The-Air NTSC sets, the newest being from 1990. I'm sure that some of it has to do with the relatively smaller screen sizes (27" at the most).

I think the only reason for HDTV has to be increased screen size. I know there are people out there with 32' wide "media" rooms, but I'm in a house that pre-dates TV anyways, so why do I need a 64" screen? Watching TV (or DVDs) just isn't that big a part of my life. I prefer to spend my down time on the internet anyways, and when I do rent a DVD, I'm usually squeezed in with my girlfriend in a less-than-ideal viewing position. I prefer that my TV remains in a box, lest I start getting far too involved with it. I'd jump off the roof if I ever found myself caring about who won some idiotic game show.

But I have seen HD and big-flat-screen sets at restaurants/bars and in friend's houses. For the most part, I think they look lousy. The reds on a team jersey seem to "float" around like it's in another dimension. The artifacts are way too obvious, the video equivalent of audio compression.

Since there is no such thing as a local station/programming anymore, I don't know if I'll care that much when analog goes away. :scratch2:

Should a LCD or plasma HDTV ever make it to my home, a strategically placed 8,5Kv zap on the HDMI socket with the electric horse fence HV generator (just after the warranty expires of course) will send the damn thing to the landfill :D

Only old, big boxy TVs with round cornered CRTs here!

By the way, i'm 28

My only gripe about HD tv's is when I am forced to watch Oprah and she is stretched to fit a widescreen. Other than that I like the new look, but not sure if I would spend the money for a low lifespan piece of equipment for my family to watch the Disney channel and America's Top Model on. I'll keep my 32" CRT and eventually get a projector for the movies and sports. Though I am very wishy washy on all this, as in if a set came to me in a good deal, I would be all over it.

I don't think the life span of flat panel TVs is as bad as people expect. If it was, we would be swimming in broken plasma TVs. I still haven't seen a single broken flat panel TV in the trash, at a thrift store, or yard sale.

I don't think the life span of flat panel TVs is as bad as people expect. If it was, we would be swimming in broken plasma TVs. I still haven't seen a single broken flat panel TV in the trash, at a thrift store, or yard sale.

You mean like with a cracked screen? Me neither. I once saw a guy at a hamfest trying to unload a 56" plasma for $300. He said it had a bad power supply. :no:

You mean like with a cracked screen? Me neither. I once saw a guy at a hamfest trying to unload a 56" plasma for $300. He said it had a bad power supply. :no:

Actually, I mean anything but a cracked screen. A cracked plasma TV is just as worthless as a CRT TV with a broken CRT. I'm talking about ones that died of natural causes, not abuse. $300 for a broken TV, no matter how nice it was, is just nuts.

I have always figured a low life expectancy from talking to the guys who were trying to sell me one. I assume they are better now, but when they first were getting popular I was told by the salesguys that I should buy a home maintenence program because the quality goes down every year and they would need to come to my house and adjust it. Without the program it was like 250 bucks a year. I then asked him if I could expect to get 10-15 years out of one like I do my older sets. He said no way, maybe 5 if I was lucky, this was when you would pay 5-8,000 for one.

I figure they must be better now, but even 14-1600 bucks is a huge investment for me and I would need to get many years out of it, at least 10 or so would be good.

The fence charger should get the job done nicely. It reminded me that I have a neon sign transformer that is rated 15 KV at 60 ma. I have been told that they are no longer made above 30 Ma. (like it matters) I bet that would fix it real good.

To me the HD picture does look better than analog NTSC...the standard definition digital picture looks worse to me with a lot more artifacts/pixellation than standard definition analog.
Even though I can tell and appreciate the increase in quality of HDTV...it does not increase my viewing pleasure enough to want to go out and buy all the expensive new equipment.

Also the flat panel sets have not shown up at all at Texas Recycles day...so at least in this community their failure rate seems fairly low, just based on the low apparent level of discarded sets.

Very interesting discussion. I'm on the verge of making the leap, but I'm going to wait a bit before I buy.

The one thing that appears to be missing from most posts describing what the poster likes/dislikes about a particular type of set is the set size and viewing distance.

A 19" CRT set will just look fabulous from 6'. If you sit 2 feet away from a 36" CRT set, it will look like you're watching TV through venetian blinds.

If you're watching a 42" HD set at 15' distance, you probably couldn't tell the difference between 480p, 720p, or 1080p.

Sitting 5' away from a 60" HD set displaying a standard non-HD picture, it will look very bad.

So, it's all dependent on the details of the viewing situation.

I do agree, though, that far too many sets are adjusted "over the top", with the brightness, sharpness, and color intensity wayyyy too high. I was over at a friend's house to watch a golf tournament on his new HD tv. The fairways were such a shocking neon mint green that you could barely stand to look at it. You couldn't even see a ball sitting on the grass the bloom and fuzzines was so bad.

The anchors on the evening news aren't supposed to look like they just spent two hours frying in a tanning booth.:thumbsdn:

Fisherdude, many good points.

I've visited several friends / family where the TV screen is too big for the room and seating distance.

I'm guessing we buy a HD next year and it will be an under 40 inch screen and based on some fine feedback from this thread, probably a plasma and we'll turn down the sharpness. I watch a lot of tennis and no doubt you see the ball and the game way better on hi-def.

But I'll keep the 19 inch Trinitron in the family room for low-def viewing - news, old movies, Cubs game playing in the background.

Snade

The anchors on the evening news aren't supposed to look like they just spent two hours frying in a tanning booth.:thumbsdn:

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

For some people, screen size means more to them than picture quality. I've been in many houses where a 19" TV would have been big enough for the room; but, they have a 60" projection TV sitting there. The picture looks like crap; but, they've got a BIG TV!

I'm going to try to post this chart in case anyone reading this thread missed it. It's a great explanation of what size hd tv will make sense for you in your particular viewing room.

I'm not sure how to read that chart. We have a large room, but will sit about 10 foot from the TV if we get HD. So how big should we get. I want an immersive experience, but I don't want to see up Dr. Phil's nose if you know what I mean. :no: we could move back a bit, but it would change the layout of the room, but I'm willing if it would make for better viewing.

Take a look at where the 10' viewing distance line intersects with the 50" screen size. It's right on the green line where "full benefit of 720p (vs 480p) is visible".

This means that at 10', if you put a 50" 480p set and a 50" 720p set side by side, the difference would be dramatic. The 720p set would have a noticeably better picture. However, if you put a 50" 720p and 1080p set side by side, you really wouldn't be able to see much difference. If you moved closer than 10', you'd start to see the 1080p set start to look better than the 720p.

In order for a 1080p set to look as good as it could at 10', you'd need an 80" screen.

I know this may not sound logical, and it may be hard to grasp the concept of what degrees of arc the human eye is capable of resolving, so maybe an extreme example will make it clear. If you put a 50" 720p set and a 50" 1080p set side by side, and viewed the pictures from a distance of 50', obviously you wouldn't be able to tell any difference between the two whatsoever. If you started walking slowly toward the two tv's, eventually you would get close enough that you could juuuuust barely tell that the picture on the 1080p was starting to look juuuuust a little better. That's what the chart is showing.

In my viewing room, the couch and the tv are 18' apart. What does that mean in my case? In order to get the maximum benefit of 1080p, I would need a 120" screen. Not gonna happen. So, that means that in my case (probably a 46"-50"), 720p will be just fine.

Otoh, if I think about what's happening in the marketplace, i.e. that 1080p is becoming more and more common, and prices continue to drop as they eventually do with every new technology, I'll probably end up with a 1080p set anyway. It just won't really make that much difference in the picture that I'm actually viewing on a 50" set at 18'.

Thank you for posting that chart here, Fisherdude. For my big-screen viewing, I sit between the red and purple lines, closer to the purple. I am definitely one of the people for whom the jump from 720p to 1080p was a big improvement. (I sit 96-108" away from a 92" diagonal screen.) I love pausing an HD DVD movie on a street scene and looking at all the people and small stores, or on a shot of a newspaper and reading the articles. It is fun to see how they took a regular newspaper and added in the fake story that relates to the movie's plot.

... I am definitely one of the people for whom the jump from 720p to 1080p was a big improvement. (I sit 96-108" away from a 92" diagonal screen.)...

I'm not surprised! At that combo, 1440p would start to look better than 1080p!

As far as reliability, consider this. In our store the display sets are on 24 hours a day 7 days a week and 364 days a year. That is over 61,000 hours of operation. At 2000 hours per year (about 5 or 6 hours per day) that is equal to some 30 years of operation. It is rare that we have any set completely fail, but it does happen on occasion. We reset the display usually once a year with maybe an update at 6 months. Now while the quality of the sets is not what it was years ago, the reliability is still better than you might expect. Of the lcd and plasma sets that do come back, it is mostly sets like the Polaroid, Emerson, low end stuff. We do not see many of the Samsung, Sanyo, Vizio sets returned. We sell a lot of tv's over the course of a year.

Bill R

Thanks for sharing that informative chart, Fisherdude. I measured - where I sit on the couch is 9' from the screen - I've been contemplating upgrading from a 42" plasma to a 50". There's been some excellent deals on 50" 720p sets in the last week. But I thought I should probably hold out for 1080p. According to your chart, I could probably *just* start to see the advantage.

Now, I'm just going to wait until spring - given the way prices have fallen, a 1080p 50" will be about the price a 50" 720p is currently :)

As far as reliability, consider this. In our store the display sets are on 24 hours a day 7 days a week and 364 days a year. That is over 61,000 hours of operation. At 2000 hours per year (about 5 or 6 hours per day) that is equal to some 30 years of operation. It is rare that we have any set completely fail, but it does happen on occasion. We reset the display usually once a year with maybe an update at 6 months. Now while the quality of the sets is not what it was years ago, the reliability is still better than you might expect. Of the lcd and plasma sets that do come back, it is mostly sets like the Polaroid, Emerson, low end stuff. We do not see many of the Samsung, Sanyo, Vizio sets returned. We sell a lot of tv's over the course of a year.

Bill R

Well this sets my mind a bit at ease. Now I'll have to figure out how to get me one. :yes:

...Now, I'm just going to wait until spring - given the way prices have fallen, a 1080p 50" will be about the price a 50" 720p is currently :)

That's pretty much what I'm counting on!

About every hi-def TV to me seems like it has all the controls turned up "all the way to 11"- the color's too colorful, the image is too sharp, the whole business is "Dolly Parton"- too much too much. And motion scenes look weird- they "tear" or something, just don't look quite right. But then I'm an old poop, wish this whole HDTV nonsense would just go away.

Took the words right out of my mouth, Sandy.


Damn! I'm posting in a TV forum. I've obviously lost my way. :D

Took the words right out of my mouth, Sandy.


Damn! I'm posting in a TV forum. I've obviously lost my way. :D

:huge: :banana:

Also the flat panel sets have not shown up at all at Texas Recycles day...so at least in this community their failure rate seems fairly low, just based on the low apparent level of discarded sets.

One possible reason is that broken flat panel TVs are still worth a lot of money as part donors, so instead of being scrapped, they're coming up on Ebay or are sold to repair shops.

Wait a few years, sooner or later they'll become obsolete and they'll begin to show up on the curb too... i just can't wait to see how they mate with a brick :D

I'm not sure what I tihnk of them...quite a few of my friends have them...either I like the way they look, or can't stand it. The Sony, Samsung, and Panasonic seem to be pleasing to look at, according to my eyes. All the other brands, especially the super inexpensive low-end stuff just looks HORRID to me.

I have some friends who have a 60" or something Sony ?XBR? I think? It's a nice TV, however, something just isn't right about it, I can't put my finger on it, but the set is fatigueing to look at after a while...that and they have direct TV, and I can't stand their menu/guide layout at all! I prefer dish...

My mom & dad bought a 42" Sanyo a couple years ago...I didn't like it at all from the first time I saw it...blurry image, washed out colors, just terrible They 27" Fisher from 1991 and the 27" Zenith from 1995 where FAR better, IMO. I got a call from my mom back in august or so...The Fisher apperantly finally bit the big one--just one white line down the center (horizontal) of the TV...and the Sanyo flat screen was displaying nothing but a couple werid color test pattern type things, or dots or something...I took this as an oppertunity to say too bad about the CRT, and to tell her what I REALLY thought about their Sanyo...of course I know nothing about HD sets, so I can't say much...

I have been rather impressed with the Sony Wega CRT TV's that where introduced around 1999-2000 I want one, those are nice. I think so anyway.

And rear-projection big screens, while they have improved considerably over the years, are still a big pain to watch....

I have two TV's...a 13" color unit from SEARS manufactured in 1983 or so that I've never even plugged in, and probably never will. I also have a 20" color montgomery ward that I've used a little for LD viewing...both of these given to me...the main reason I won't use either one of these is because they only have UHF/Coax in on the back, and that is all they have...I know there are converter boxes to use to plug an RCA signal into, but still :thumbsdn: gonna just save for a nice TV...be it CRT or flat, I don't know yet....

I'm not sure what I tihnk of them...quite a few of my friends have them...either I like the way they look, or can't stand it. The Sony, Samsung, and Panasonic seem to be pleasing to look at, according to my eyes. All the other brands, especially the super inexpensive low-end stuff just looks HORRID to me.




There is a big difference in quality between those brands and the department store fodder. Pioneer is another high quality brand - reputedly superior to the Panasonics, Samsungs, and Sonys, although I haven't had an opportunity to evaluate one.

i just can't wait to see how they mate with a brick :D
That brings back memories, of finding old TV sets in the alleys in our neighborhood in Chicago in the 1970's. It was pretty cool to heave a big rock at a large B&W CRT screen and listen to the "kaboom" (from around the corner where we ran while the rock was in the air, for protection).

It's a nice TV, however, something just isn't right about it, I can't put my finger on it, but the set is fatigueing to look at after a while...that and they have direct TV, and I can't stand their menu/guide layout at all! I prefer dish...
You have brought up an important point that I tend to forget when people mention "poor non-HD quality on HD sets":

The satellite-TV standard-def picture "quality" is disgusting, absolutely awful.

Both satellite providers base their whole business on providing the bare minimum picture quality in their signals that they can get away with, so that they can offer "more channels" instead. These signals will look bad on any display bigger than 25", and will look especially bad on a digital (LCD, etc.) display. Look at something like the local TV channels rebroadcast over satellite on a display without overscan, and you will see how they literally have higher compression (and extra-bad quality) in the outside edges of the picture, where they figure most TVs are not displaying it. I forgot about this because I have not had satellite TV in two years (and have not had cable TV since 1995). I suspect cable TV, especially digital cable, is not much better.

Before making an opinion of the quality of SD on an HDTV, make sure the signal itself is good. That means the analog output of a DVD or Laser Disc player, or the analog output of a digital TV tuner in non-high-def mode, or even over-the-air NTSC from a real, outdoor antenna properly aimed toward the station, and with the sharpness and any other "enhancements" on the HDTV all turned off. I think most people will be much more happy with an HDTV then, except for the people (and there may be more than a few) who just plain don't want to admit (or accept) that modern technology can look good.

Well, this seems to have been the beginning for many of todays vintage TV nuts... when i was a kid i used to tear apart junked TVs to get the speakers, and before leaving i usually smashed the CRT too... so today i have some 500 TV speakers... and just 20-25 complete sets :tears:

I began to seriously collect and restore TVs when i was 16 yrs old

That brings back memories, of finding old TV sets in the alleys in our neighborhood in Chicago in the 1970's. It was pretty cool to heave a big rock at a large B&W CRT screen and listen to the "kaboom" (from around the corner where we ran while the rock was in the air, for protection).

I only "KaBoom'ed" the sets I didn't like, lol...

I admit that HDTV does look good-when a proper HDTV signal is received correctly using truly high definition receiver.

The issue is: How reliable is HDTV when everthing is not perfect???. Storms in the area, rainy weather, attennas blowing in the wind, etc. Analog may not be perfect in these situations, but is still usable. I have my doubts about HDTV(based my experience with the HDTV tuner I have).

Remember, everyone in the US does not live in southern California, where the weather is perfect all the time(except during Santa Anna season).

From my experience, Directv, Dish, and digital cable have an aweful Sd picture quality. It's compressed to hell and looks like total crap on any tv. The problem is that on LCD and plasma sets the scalars that scale the picture up to the LCD or plasma panel's native resolution is total crap. Even the best scalars are not perfect. LCD and plasma will look good if you have a signal of the same resolution as the native resolution of the panel. I love CRT, and will not own a plasma or LCD for a long time to come, probably never. The picture quality is just better. I love Trinitrons, especially the flat ones. I love Roundies too. CRT just looks better, even when plasma or LCD TVs get a proper source. I hate modern electronics now, they are cheap, throw-away crap. And as for analog broadcasts stopping in 2009, I'm not really that concerned. Other than a few occasions I do watch broadcast TV, I've given up on it totally, because it's pretty much crap. I watch the parades, occasional movies, and occasional specials, but that's it. Get a decent HDTV STB for yourself. They are pretty much the same as digital DVB satellite receivers. They have s-video and composite outputs as well as RF to make your vintage sets happy. Keep those vintage sets going for as long as you can!

Jonathan

Digital is an artificiality to allow easier storage, cheaper production, and pursuit oif the almighty $.

That is an excellent way to put it, exactly as I was thinking a few minutes ago but couldn't quite put into words. DIGITAL is cheap GARBAGE when compared to the real thing.

I know I'm sick of all this modern, throw away, non repairable garbage that has done nothing but shut down American TV plants and close TV shops all over the country.

Another excellent point that I couldn't agree with more. It's good to see that most people on this board (but far too few in the general public, unfortunately) continue to support the use of old, repairable, AMERICAN MADE TVs and the people who enjoy and know how to work on them.

Another excellent point that I couldn't agree with more. It's good to see that most people on this board (but far too few in the general public, unfortunately) continue to support the use of old, repairable, AMERICAN MADE TVs and the people who enjoy and know how to work on them.

Exactly. I don't think there's a single set on the market today without some kind of surface-mount componentry inside. And the prices you have to pay to replace a whole board when on an older set you could spend a buck on a resistor to get it working. :no:

You folks would be shocked at the number of PC Board "cores" that we send back to the manufacturer because of the burned SMD you can see. We are an RCA and others service center and I had a board with a burned SMD resistor that I jumped with a 1/8 watt flameproof and the set worked great, but was told to remove it, order the replacement board and make the customer wait 3 weeks for it to arrive. Not to mention the extra cost of shipping and "refurbishing" the board for some other poor guy. BTW the set had been in service about 3 months when the SMD resistor failed.
HURRUMPH!

Most of recent dirt cheap off brand sets that I see are almost entirely through hole components. The only SMD parts in most of them would be the ones in the tuner can. Judging by what I see in most of these the manufacturers are using old hand me down production lines and parts (I see some relatively old ICs in them, they must get old stock cheap). I don't think the SMD stuff has filtered down to them all yet.

I've patched many SMD board with through hole parts, but then I usually considering ordering anything a last resort.

People who bring their computers in are usually shocked when I repair their existing motherboard rather than replacing it (well, there is only so much you can do with on a motherboard, but like so many other things a common fault is yet again bad caps).

I do not want to trash modern TVs too much. I have a 4 year old Sanyo, that has given no trouble, watched just about every night. My mother has a Samsung of similar age, watched just as much with no failures. Prior to that she had a Goldstar that went 10+ years. The failure was the CRT wearing out.

I like restoring old TVs(and radios) as much as anyone, but think modern electronic reliability is hands down better than the past(1950s, 1960s, 1970s).

I still remember the dirty tuner problems, the failing horizontal and vertical output tubes, the poor tuner selectivity and other issues from that era.

As far as US made, many of the integrated circuits in these TVs, including Japanese and Korean brands, may be US made, Samsung has two factories in Austin, Texas. Also, my US semiconductor makers sell chips to these companies. If it is a computer motherboard with Intel processor, the processor chip is most likely made in the US.