Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Found a TV--I think!

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
April 18, 2005 5:18:26 AM

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

Hi all, I think I've narrowed down the choice of a 32-37" HDTV to this
model:

Sony KLV-32M1, an LCD TV. Saw it at Circuit City today, sells for around
$2600 there on sale but for around $2400 online. Picture was
fabulous...first time I had seen the set, beautifully part-retro styled.
Very highly rated by Consumer reports and by reviewers online. It's for my
daughter's apartment. 37" LCDs go for almost $1000 more, not worth that
much. There are plasmas of 37" size but Panasonic's model is discontinued
and the replacement has no speakers: model TH-37PX50U. No wonder it is
hundreds of dollars cheaper. It's a nuisance to have to hook up the cable or
satellite receiver to a stereo receiver every time you want to watch TV!
Interesting that Circuit City has far fewer of the clunky old
rear-projection TVs. They had some scattered rear-projection LCDs, but
largely flat panels now! Quite a change in the past year. Quite a few Plasma
EDTVs, but I'm not falling for that game.
Alan and others have been raving about Plasmas, and yes they're great but
most of them 42" and up. Samsung has a plasma HDTV 37" but no HDMI input,
only DVI, which I think is a pity. My Time-Warner 8300HD receiver does not
even have a DVI output, only HDMI and component outputs. Looks like DVI is
obsolete. Why spend money for a HDMI to DVI adapter?

So there it is. Looks like LCD is king of the 32" to 37" hill. Anyhow, we're
not buying till June, who knows models might well change by then.
Roger

More about : found

Anonymous
April 18, 2005 5:18:27 AM

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

Roger wrote:

> There are plasmas of 37" size but Panasonic's model is discontinued
> and the replacement has no speakers: model TH-37PX50U. No wonder it is
> hundreds of dollars cheaper. It's a nuisance to have to hook up the cable or
> satellite receiver to a stereo receiver every time you want to watch TV!

Roger, the TH-37PX50U is a consumer model, of course it has speakers. It
will have ATSC/QAM/NSTC tuners, but it appears it will lack a cablecard
slot, so the QAM tuner will be of limited use for receiving digital
cable. Panasonic has not yet posted the manual for the PX50 line, so the
details of exactly what features will be in the PX50s besides finally
adding 720p component input for the consumer models is not nailed down.
Panasonic did strip out features for the ED 42PD50 from the predecessor
42PD25 - dropped the VGA port, cablecard & SD memory card slots.

I have not been that impressed with the picture quality of the budget
Sony KLV-32M1 LCD TV, but it is a lot cheaper than what Sony was asking
for their 32" and 42" XBR LCDs not all that long ago. IIRC, the list
price about a year ago for the 42" XBR LCD was $12,000 or in that ballpark!

As for the big CRT RPTVs, yes, they are fading fast from the major
electronics chains in favor of the DLP, LCD, LCOS Rear Projection TVs.
Many of the videophiles still prefer CRT RPTVs, but the masses want the
lighter and thinner microdisplay (15 to 17" deep versus 25" or more)
based RPTVs. I expect the CRT RPTVs will hang on the in the specialty
home theater stores for a few more years, but will fade as vendors drop
them from their product line.

Alan F
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 12:42:12 AM

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

FYI - I think that Sony LCD is a "Projection" LCD, that's why it's so
cheap.
Related resources
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 1:24:02 AM

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

"Roger" <nospam@world.com> wrote in message
news:CVD8e.72665$QB6.3342120@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> Hi all, I think I've narrowed down the choice of a 32-37" HDTV to this
> model:
>
> Sony KLV-32M1, an LCD TV. Saw it at Circuit City today, sells for around
> $2600 there on sale but for around $2400 online. Picture was
> fabulous...first time I had seen the set, beautifully part-retro styled.
> Very highly rated by Consumer reports and by reviewers online. It's for my
> daughter's apartment. 37" LCDs go for almost $1000 more, not worth that
> much. There are plasmas of 37" size but Panasonic's model is discontinued
> and the replacement has no speakers: model TH-37PX50U. No wonder it is
> hundreds of dollars cheaper. It's a nuisance to have to hook up the cable
> or satellite receiver to a stereo receiver every time you want to watch
> TV!
> Interesting that Circuit City has far fewer of the clunky old
> rear-projection TVs. They had some scattered rear-projection LCDs, but
> largely flat panels now! Quite a change in the past year. Quite a few
> Plasma EDTVs, but I'm not falling for that game.
> Alan and others have been raving about Plasmas, and yes they're great but
> most of them 42" and up. Samsung has a plasma HDTV 37" but no HDMI input,
> only DVI, which I think is a pity. My Time-Warner 8300HD receiver does not
> even have a DVI output, only HDMI and component outputs. Looks like DVI is
> obsolete. Why spend money for a HDMI to DVI adapter?
>
> So there it is. Looks like LCD is king of the 32" to 37" hill. Anyhow,
> we're not buying till June, who knows models might well change by then.
> Roger

I got a Sony 42-inch LCD (KF-42WE610) a year ago from CC for $2400. It was
floor model, so they'd knocked about $400 off the price. I'm surprised at
how high the prices are that you're mentioning. I would have thought they'd
have come down in the past year. I love my Sony - great picture quality and
have had no problems with it.
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 3:57:48 AM

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

Walter Bellhaven wrote:
> I got a Sony 42-inch LCD (KF-42WE610) a year ago from CC for $2400. It was
> floor model, so they'd knocked about $400 off the price. I'm surprised at
> how high the prices are that you're mentioning. I would have thought they'd
> have come down in the past year. I love my Sony - great picture quality and
> have had no problems with it.

Your Sony 42WE610 is a LCD Rear Projection TV. The model Roger is
posting about is a direct view LCD TV. Too different types of TV.

Alan F
April 19, 2005 4:41:36 AM

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

Alan, I did find out you were right, yes, the Panasonic 37PX50U
*does* have speakers!! Maybe just two as compared to 4 in some of the
Pannys. Pedestal stand comes with it. It will probably sell for around $2500
to $2800; some online sellers have already set the price in that range. To
tell you the truth I can't wait to see that Panasonic Plasma on display
somewhere!!!!

Circuit City had an LG 37" plasma on display, and I'll have my daughter see
which size she'd rather have. To me 37" would be great, even for an
apartment, as her living area is combined with a dinette area making it
actually larger even than my family room at home where I have a 55"
Mitsubishi rear-projection TV 3 years old. The set still works fine, was a
Platinum Plus when I bought it and with the Time-Warner 5300HD the picture
is more than satisfactory (though it looks monstrous in the small room). I
have no pressing need to get a newer set.

Roger
April 19, 2005 4:41:36 AM

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

Walter, it seems so unusual you got a Sony Wega 42" LCD for such a
reasonable price!! Anyhow please see my reply to Alan. I'd still dearly like
to see the Panasonic TH-37PX50U.
Roger
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 4:37:44 PM

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

"Roger" <nospam@world.com> wrote in message
news:CVD8e.72665$QB6.3342120@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Samsung has a plasma HDTV 37" but no HDMI input,
> only DVI, which I think is a pity. My Time-Warner 8300HD receiver does not
> even have a DVI output, only HDMI and component outputs. Looks like DVI is
> obsolete. Why spend money for a HDMI to DVI adapter?
>
I really don't "get" the popularity of hdmi. why would I want to spend two
grand+ on a tv only to use the inferior speakers that are built in for the
audio? maybe the tv has a digital passthrough to hook an optical cable to
a receiver, but then its 6 of 1, half dozen of the other, might as well just
have dvi instead of hdmi. I personally with there'd be more options for
speakerless displays...
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 2:24:31 AM

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

Khee Mao (big_bad_buddha_daddy@yahoo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> I really don't "get" the popularity of hdmi. why would I want to spend two
> grand+ on a tv only to use the inferior speakers that are built in for the
> audio?

The idea is to put HDMI on A/V receivers and have an HDMI cable from the
receiver to the TV. This allows you to use your receiver to play audio,
while the TV handles the video (and just ignores the audio).

In the real world, though, it isn't much of a win because a receiver
will probably have HDMI only for HD connections, and still have to have
all the "old-style" connections.

--
Jeff Rife | "_Grease_ is one of my favorite movies. A
| sociopathic greaser in a leather jacket turns an
| innocent high school girl into a slut.
|
| Kind of like _My Fair Lady_ in reverse."
|
| -- Scot Gardner, in alt.video.dvd
April 20, 2005 1:59:01 PM

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

Hi,
<<I really don't "get" the popularity of hdmi. why would I want to spend
two grand+ on a tv only to use the inferior speakers that are built in for
the audio? >>

Ah, good point. Could be that many new TVs have the ability to play center
channel sound, without which speech is not heard well at all. I know because
for a couple of weeks the cable to my center channel speaker had come
unplugged without my knowing it and I was wondering why even with my Dolby
receiver turned way up the volume was so poor! Better TVs have an optical
out but lesser ones don't. In any case, I'd not use the optical out ever
because the Cable receiver's optical out goes to my Dolby receiver to listen
to the music channels without the TV on.
Roger
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 5:31:28 PM

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

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ccf876d70c0b87d989cbf@news.nabs.net...
> Khee Mao (big_bad_buddha_daddy@yahoo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> I really don't "get" the popularity of hdmi. why would I want to spend
>> two
>> grand+ on a tv only to use the inferior speakers that are built in for
>> the
>> audio?
>
> The idea is to put HDMI on A/V receivers and have an HDMI cable from the
> receiver to the TV. This allows you to use your receiver to play audio,
> while the TV handles the video (and just ignores the audio).
>
see? I still don't "get" it. why even send the video through a receiver
when all it needs is the audio? come to think of it, I haven't even seen a
receiver (maybe because I'm considerably less affluent than Bill Gates?)
that handles hdmi (or dvi). is this a conspiracy by cable manufacturers to
sell $100 cbles?
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 5:33:40 PM

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

Well, you can use the audio portion of the HDMI if you want, or not. I run
video from two sources, an SA 8300 DVR cable box and a Panasonic S97 DVD
player, into the two HDMI inputs on my TV set. But I have the TV set's
speakers turned off. The cable box feeds my receiver digital audio via
optical cable while the DVD player feeds audio to another receiver input
using a coax digital cable.

mack
austin


"Roger" <nospam@world.com> wrote in message
news:FJp9e.83130$QB6.3680280@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> Hi,
> <<I really don't "get" the popularity of hdmi. why would I want to spend
> two grand+ on a tv only to use the inferior speakers that are built in for
> the audio? >>
>
> Ah, good point. Could be that many new TVs have the ability to play center
> channel sound, without which speech is not heard well at all. I know
> because for a couple of weeks the cable to my center channel speaker had
> come unplugged without my knowing it and I was wondering why even with my
> Dolby receiver turned way up the volume was so poor! Better TVs have an
> optical out but lesser ones don't. In any case, I'd not use the optical
> out ever because the Cable receiver's optical out goes to my Dolby
> receiver to listen to the music channels without the TV on.
> Roger
>
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 6:00:18 PM

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

Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
> Khee Mao (big_bad_buddha_daddy@yahoo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > I really don't "get" the popularity of hdmi. why would I want to spend two
> > grand+ on a tv only to use the inferior speakers that are built in for the
> > audio?

It's not popular with *us*, it's being forced down our throats to
implement copy protection.

> The idea is to put HDMI on A/V receivers and have an HDMI cable from the
> receiver to the TV. This allows you to use your receiver to play audio,
> while the TV handles the video (and just ignores the audio).

My TV doesn't ignore the audio on it's HDMI input, though I don't listen
to it. Instead, it informs my cable STB that it only does 2 channel
sound, so the STB then refuses to send DD 5.1 to my receiver. Because
HDMI is an "intelligent" interface. What a pain.

> In the real world, though, it isn't much of a win because a receiver
> will probably have HDMI only for HD connections, and still have to have
> all the "old-style" connections.

No, HDMI will pass SD.

--
Greg Lee <greg@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 6:00:19 PM

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

Greg Lee (greg@ling.lll.hawaii.edu) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
> > Khee Mao (big_bad_buddha_daddy@yahoo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > > I really don't "get" the popularity of hdmi. why would I want to spend two
> > > grand+ on a tv only to use the inferior speakers that are built in for the
> > > audio?
>
> It's not popular with *us*, it's being forced down our throats to
> implement copy protection.

No, it isn't. HDCP over DVI exists without HDMI.

> > The idea is to put HDMI on A/V receivers and have an HDMI cable from the
> > receiver to the TV. This allows you to use your receiver to play audio,
> > while the TV handles the video (and just ignores the audio).
>
> My TV doesn't ignore the audio on it's HDMI input, though I don't listen
> to it. Instead, it informs my cable STB that it only does 2 channel
> sound, so the STB then refuses to send DD 5.1 to my receiver. Because
> HDMI is an "intelligent" interface.

That's a bug in your receiver and TV. You should connect the HDMI to the
receiver, and it should tell the STB what capabilities it has. It can
then either pass or not pass the audio to the TV. Either way, the TV
should be able to be set to ignore the audio.

> > In the real world, though, it isn't much of a win because a receiver
> > will probably have HDMI only for HD connections, and still have to have
> > all the "old-style" connections.
>
> No, HDMI will pass SD.

Wow, that's impressive. So, a VCR/DVD player/game console/etc. without an
HDMI output will be able to use the HDMI input on a TV?

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/ToDo.gif
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 8:54:38 PM

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

I had the same impression before buying a video-switching receiver, but
here's my justification: I use a Sherwood Newcastle receiver to switch
component inputs from a DVD, and a set-top HD/cable tuner. My TV has
more than enough inputs to accommodate all the components, but I prefer
to leave the monitor on a single input - keeps me from having to macro
all the discreet input changes into my remotes.

Plus, the Sherwood uses an onscreen display feature that requires it to
be hooked up to the monitor via S-vid. Maybe someday they'll upgrade
that to make it work over the component monitor outs, but until then,
that's a useless feature, as far as I'm concerned.

Plus, the Sherwood lets me map any digital audio input to any of the
video inputs. Sony always seems to want to force me to use the coax for
my DVD and nothing else :-/

Khee Mao wrote:

>"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1ccf876d70c0b87d989cbf@news.nabs.net...
>
>
>>Khee Mao (big_bad_buddha_daddy@yahoo.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>>
>>
>>>I really don't "get" the popularity of hdmi. why would I want to spend
>>>two
>>>grand+ on a tv only to use the inferior speakers that are built in for
>>>the
>>>audio?
>>>
>>>
>>The idea is to put HDMI on A/V receivers and have an HDMI cable from the
>>receiver to the TV. This allows you to use your receiver to play audio,
>>while the TV handles the video (and just ignores the audio).
>>
>>
>>
>see? I still don't "get" it. why even send the video through a receiver
>when all it needs is the audio? come to think of it, I haven't even seen a
>receiver (maybe because I'm considerably less affluent than Bill Gates?)
>that handles hdmi (or dvi). is this a conspiracy by cable manufacturers to
>sell $100 cbles?
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 10:23:19 PM

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

Brett (spam@magnet.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Khee Mao wrote:
> >>The idea is to put HDMI on A/V receivers and have an HDMI cable from the
> >>receiver to the TV. This allows you to use your receiver to play audio,
> >>while the TV handles the video (and just ignores the audio).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >see? I still don't "get" it. why even send the video through a receiver
> >when all it needs is the audio? come to think of it, I haven't even seen a
> >receiver (maybe because I'm considerably less affluent than Bill Gates?)
> >that handles hdmi (or dvi). is this a conspiracy by cable manufacturers to
> >sell $100 cbles?
>
> I had the same impression before buying a video-switching receiver, but
> here's my justification: I use a Sherwood Newcastle receiver to switch
> component inputs from a DVD, and a set-top HD/cable tuner.
>
> Plus, the Sherwood uses an onscreen display feature that requires it to
> be hooked up to the monitor via S-vid. Maybe someday they'll upgrade
> that to make it work over the component monitor outs, but until then,
> that's a useless feature, as far as I'm concerned.
>
> Plus, the Sherwood lets me map any digital audio input to any of the
> video inputs. Sony always seems to want to force me to use the coax for
> my DVD and nothing else :-/

Well, I don't have an HDMI switching receiver yet, either, but I do have
a nice Sony, and it has on-screen display on all the outputs (including
the component), and allows assignment of digital inputs.

But, you made the point, which is that you can switch at one place and
don't need a hyper-smart remote to do macros. In addition, a receiver
could add a video processing with this sort of setup.

Once there are no "legacy" components, the HDMI connector idea is a
great one, but until then, it's still a niche feature.

--
Jeff Rife | "I feel the need...the need for
| expeditious velocity"
|
| -- Brain
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 11:20:02 PM

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

Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
> Greg Lee (greg@ling.lll.hawaii.edu) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
....
> > My TV doesn't ignore the audio on it's HDMI input, though I don't listen
> > to it. Instead, it informs my cable STB that it only does 2 channel
> > sound, so the STB then refuses to send DD 5.1 to my receiver. Because
> > HDMI is an "intelligent" interface.

> That's a bug in your receiver and TV. You should connect the HDMI to the
> receiver, and it should tell the STB what capabilities it has. It can
> then either pass or not pass the audio to the TV. Either way, the TV
> should be able to be set to ignore the audio.

My receiver predates HDMI. My STB (SA 8300HD) does have a bug in its
software which prevents setting it to send DD 5.1 regardless of what
the TV says it can accept. Presumably that will be fixed one day.

> > > In the real world, though, it isn't much of a win because a receiver
> > > will probably have HDMI only for HD connections, and still have to have
> > > all the "old-style" connections.
> >
> > No, HDMI will pass SD.

> Wow, that's impressive. So, a VCR/DVD player/game console/etc. without an
> HDMI output will be able to use the HDMI input on a TV?

I can't follow this. I was just remarking that a receiver with HDMI doesn't
"have HDMI only for HD connections", since an HDMI interface can carry an
SD video signal. Maybe I didn't understand what you meant by "HD
connections".
--
Greg Lee <greg@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 11:20:03 PM

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

Greg Lee (greg@ling.lll.hawaii.edu) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > > My TV doesn't ignore the audio on it's HDMI input, though I don't listen
> > > to it. Instead, it informs my cable STB that it only does 2 channel
> > > sound, so the STB then refuses to send DD 5.1 to my receiver. Because
> > > HDMI is an "intelligent" interface.
>
> > That's a bug in your receiver and TV. You should connect the HDMI to the
> > receiver, and it should tell the STB what capabilities it has. It can
> > then either pass or not pass the audio to the TV. Either way, the TV
> > should be able to be set to ignore the audio.
>
> My receiver predates HDMI.

Then, you aren't using it like a receiver with HDMI would be used. With
HDMI, you connect the STB to the receiver, then the receiver to the TV.

> > Wow, that's impressive. So, a VCR/DVD player/game console/etc. without an
> > HDMI output will be able to use the HDMI input on a TV?
>
> I can't follow this. I was just remarking that a receiver with HDMI doesn't
> "have HDMI only for HD connections", since an HDMI interface can carry an
> SD video signal. Maybe I didn't understand what you meant by "HD
> connections".

Connections that support HD. Currently, that's component and DVI/HDMI.
But, a receiver has to be able to support input from *all* devices, not
just devices with HD outputs. So, that would mean that the goal of
replacing the rat's nest of cables with one HDMI cable could work for
new equipment, but the receiver will still have to have composite, S-Video,
component, optical digital, co-axial digital, etc.

So, the receiver will have HDMI, but that will be used for HD devices
only. It's also likely that the receiver won't convert from S-Video, etc.,
to HDMI for output, so you would need multiple connections from receiver
to TV.

Also, 480i is not supported by standard DVI/HMDI (although some devices
support it as an option), so you can't actually use DVI/HDMI for SD
signals.

--
Jeff Rife | Sam: Hey, how's life treating you there, Norm?
|
| Norm: Beats me...then it kicks me and leaves me
| for dead.
!