Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Sony Gets Too Cheap

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
February 8, 2005 12:41:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Helped a friend set up her new 20 inch Sony direct view to her DVD and SVHS
player. The TV sports a component input set; so the DVD player was no issue.
BUT, there was no S-Video input to be found, only composite video! Talk
about getting cheap. [The guys at CC and Best Buy failed to mention the
different feature sets on the various Sony sets she looked at so she went
with price]. Not a big deal mind you, but this is dumb.

Richard.

More about : sony cheap

February 8, 2005 2:32:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

So is buying simply on price.

>, but this is dumb.
>
> Richard.
>
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 3:41:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Thumper wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 16:46:14 GMT, "Mack McKinnon"
> <MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com> wrote:
>
> >Possibly the screen is so small on that TV that they did not think
the
> >difference in an SD picture between S-video and composite would be
> >noticeable.
> >
> >mack
> >austin
> >
> Most likely they just decided to save the price of another input.
Why
> do many DVD players no longer have a coaxial output?
> Thumper

He didn't say coax (RF), he said Composite.
Related resources
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 7:46:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Possibly the screen is so small on that TV that they did not think the
difference in an SD picture between S-video and composite would be
noticeable.

mack
austin


"Richard" <rfeirste at nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:110hjtn6bq50p7c@corp.supernews.com...
> Helped a friend set up her new 20 inch Sony direct view to her DVD and
> SVHS player. The TV sports a component input set; so the DVD player was no
> issue. BUT, there was no S-Video input to be found, only composite video!
> Talk about getting cheap. [The guys at CC and Best Buy failed to mention
> the different feature sets on the various Sony sets she looked at so she
> went with price]. Not a big deal mind you, but this is dumb.
>
> Richard.
>
February 8, 2005 7:46:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 16:46:14 GMT, "Mack McKinnon"
<MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com> wrote:

>Possibly the screen is so small on that TV that they did not think the
>difference in an SD picture between S-video and composite would be
>noticeable.
>
>mack
>austin
>
Most likely they just decided to save the price of another input. Why
do many DVD players no longer have a coaxial output?
Thumper
>
>"Richard" <rfeirste at nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:110hjtn6bq50p7c@corp.supernews.com...
>> Helped a friend set up her new 20 inch Sony direct view to her DVD and
>> SVHS player. The TV sports a component input set; so the DVD player was no
>> issue. BUT, there was no S-Video input to be found, only composite video!
>> Talk about getting cheap. [The guys at CC and Best Buy failed to mention
>> the different feature sets on the various Sony sets she looked at so she
>> went with price]. Not a big deal mind you, but this is dumb.
>>
>> Richard.
>>
>

To reply drop XYZ in address
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 7:46:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <015i01lstktlb5p7372istaqbefj6docsm@4ax.com>,
Thumper <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net> wrote:

> Most likely they just decided to save the price of another input.
> Why do many DVD players no longer have a coaxial output?

When did DVD players have a coax output? I bought my first DVD player
in 1999, and none of the ones I could find had a coax output.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
February 8, 2005 7:53:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Mack McKinnon" <MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com> wrote in
message news:q16Od.21872$sr1.1761@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> Possibly the screen is so small on that TV that they did not think the
> difference in an SD picture between S-video and composite would be
> noticeable.
>
> mack
> austin
>
This would be a good point except:

1. They included a component input set.
2. A small set needs and can provide as much resolution as a large set, and
needs it just as much if you sit closer; which is most likely in the real
world.

Richard.
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 6:32:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Richard" <rfeirste at nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:110id72q0h4kd0b@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Mack McKinnon" <MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com> wrote in
> message news:q16Od.21872$sr1.1761@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>> Possibly the screen is so small on that TV that they did not think the
>> difference in an SD picture between S-video and composite would be
>> noticeable.
>>
>> mack
>> austin
>>
> This would be a good point except:
>
> 1. They included a component input set.
> 2. A small set needs and can provide as much resolution as a large set,
> and needs it just as much if you sit closer; which is most likely in the
> real world.
>
> Richard.

Well, I was just suggesting what the Sony rationale might be, not a critique
of that rationale as you are doing here with point #2. Point #1 doesn't
really address the notion that someone might conclude that there was no
noticeable difference in this case between an S-video and composite picture.
They probably had Sony DVD players in mind with the component input.

I am not sure that one sits that much closer to a 27" TV than to a larger
TV, in most cases. Maybe so. Certainly, the additional resolution is more
valuable the larger the screen.

mack
austin
February 10, 2005 5:33:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Certainly, the additional resolution is more valuable the larger the
screen.
>
> mack
> austin
Just not so. It is a function of BOTH the screen size and how far one sits
from the screen. All things being equal, a larger screen permits you to sit
further away. And a smaller screen permits you to sit closer.

Richard.
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 5:40:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Mack McKinnon wrote:

> I am not sure that one sits that much closer to a 27" TV than to
> a larger TV, in most cases. Maybe so.

I do. In my smallish apartment, I sit about six feet from a 26"
screen. That gives me as big a picture angularly as most people get
from rear projection. (My parents, on the other hand, sit like fifteen
feet from a screen of about 23", so for them there would be no point in
upgrading from SD.)
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 6:15:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Mack McKinnon wrote:

> Sounds to me as though you would benefit from higher resolution, i.e.
> HD, even though your screen is so small, because you sit so close.

Yes. Even though I have HD, I would benefit from upgrading to a better
HDTV set. This one's dot pitch is too big. But I had budget
limitations. I'll live with it.

> And your parents would benefit from HD because they could then
> graduate up to a much bigger screen. My wife and I -- 53 and 60,
> respectively, so maybe old enough to be your parents -- sit about
> 12-14 feet from a 60 inch HDTV screen. Over the past decade, we
> have moved up from 19" to 32" to 48" to 60" which says something
> good about our adaptability to new technology but maybe not so
> good about our addiction to TV.

My parents are over 70 and not as much into TV. They have a TV mounted
in the middle of some wall furniture and probably would not be willing
to allocate new floor space, let alone allocating four-digit dollars.
And they're thinking of moving to a smaller place anyway...
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 7:11:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Richard" <rfeirste@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:BJzOd.29340$8H2.10102@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> Certainly, the additional resolution is more valuable the larger the
> screen.
>>
>> mack
>> austin
> Just not so. It is a function of BOTH the screen size and how far one sits
> from the screen. All things being equal, a larger screen permits you to
> sit further away. And a smaller screen permits you to sit closer.

Given that this is pretty much just empty argumentation, how does what you
say above negate what I said above that? The larger the screen, the more
valuable a greater resolution. "Everything else being equal" is unstated
but should be understood.

mack
austin
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 2:07:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Paul Kienitz" <paul-NOZPAM@paulkienitz.net> wrote in message
news:1108075254.688052.24480@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Mack McKinnon wrote:
>
>> I am not sure that one sits that much closer to a 27" TV than to
>> a larger TV, in most cases. Maybe so.
>
> I do. In my smallish apartment, I sit about six feet from a 26"
> screen. That gives me as big a picture angularly as most people get
> from rear projection. (My parents, on the other hand, sit like fifteen
> feet from a screen of about 23", so for them there would be no point in
> upgrading from SD.)

Sounds to me as though you would benefit from higher resolution, i.e. HD,
even though your screen is so small, because you sit so close. And your
parents would benefit from HD because they could then graduate up to a much
bigger screen. My wife and I -- 53 and 60, respectively, so maybe old
enough to be your parents -- sit about 12-14 feet from a 60 inch HDTV
screen. Over the past decade, we have moved up from 19" to 32" to 48" to
60" which says something good about our adaptability to new technology but
maybe not so good about our addiction to TV.

mack
austin
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 7:02:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Paul Kienitz" <paul-NOZPAM@paulkienitz.net> wrote

> My parents are over 70 and not as much into TV. They have a TV mounted
> in the middle of some wall furniture and probably would not be willing
> to allocate new floor space, let alone allocating four-digit dollars.
> And they're thinking of moving to a smaller place anyway...

One very good reason for not graduating to an HD set it that it pulls you
further into the World of Television. Even network prime-time shows become
less resistable when they are on a 60" HDTV screen. When you watch the
latest IMAX movie on INHD2, you are still just sitting there mesmerized,
watching the tube, as distinct from reading a book, having a conversation
(conversation? what is that?), meditating, whatever. I am not too pleased
by the amount of TV I watch -- at least 2-4 hours every night! That's as
much as 28 hours a week, right there! And my understanding is that that is
fairly low, as TV-viewing goes. HD makes this worse. (But ain't it grand!)

mack
austin
!