Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Samsung TXP3271H

Tags:
  • HDTV
  • TV
  • Samsung
  • Home Theatre
Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
September 13, 2005 1:38:29 AM

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

Hi all. Anyone have any experience with this model - or general input
on the '04 vintage Samsung HD CRTs? Pretty tough to find any reviews
out there...

More about : samsung txp3271h

Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
September 14, 2005 1:04:25 AM

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

Bump...
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
September 14, 2005 3:48:01 AM

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

I have a smaller one... a TXP2670WH. The best point: plain old CRTs
give you far better picture than anything else for the money. The
worst point: the CRT in this model uses too coarse a dot pitch, so if
you sit closer than six feet you see vertical striping, especially in
white areas. A Sony or Toshiba avoids that problem, but you pay
significantly more.

It does a good job at upconverting NTSC content without leaving you
with a picture full of artifacts, as a lot of last year's HDTVs tended
to do.

Another minor bad point: when it's struggling to tune in a bad signal,
it often doesn't hear the buttons you push on the remote.

All in all, it's somewhat short of ideal HDTV quality, but I found it
to be a fine value.
Related resources
September 14, 2005 11:37:41 AM

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

Paul Kienitz wrote:
> I have a smaller one... a TXP2670WH. The best point: plain old CRTs
> give you far better picture than anything else for the money. The
> worst point: the CRT in this model uses too coarse a dot pitch, so if
> you sit closer than six feet you see vertical striping, especially in
> white areas. A Sony or Toshiba avoids that problem, but you pay
> significantly more.
>
> It does a good job at upconverting NTSC content without leaving you
> with a picture full of artifacts, as a lot of last year's HDTVs tended
> to do.
>
> Another minor bad point: when it's struggling to tune in a bad signal,
> it often doesn't hear the buttons you push on the remote.
>
> All in all, it's somewhat short of ideal HDTV quality, but I found it
> to be a fine value.


Three more strikes against CRTs:

1. They're HEAVY!!! A 30" HDTV CRT weighs in easily over 100lbs. A
30" LCD weights about 1/3 that amount.

2. CRTs use substantially more electricity.

3. CRTs require a lot more space compared to the 3-4" depth of an LCD
screen.

3.5. They're HEAVY!!! 8-)

Cheers,
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
September 15, 2005 6:07:01 PM

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

Ritz wrote:

> Three more strikes against CRTs:
>
> 1. They're HEAVY!!! A 30" HDTV CRT weighs in easily over 100lbs. A
> 30" LCD weights about 1/3 that amount.
>
> 2. CRTs use substantially more electricity.
>
> 3. CRTs require a lot more space compared to the 3-4" depth of an LCD
> screen.
>
> 3.5. They're HEAVY!!! 8-)
>
> Cheers,

So it's heavy. My $650 CRT still has a far better picture than your
$2000 LCD.
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
September 15, 2005 8:19:48 PM

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

Thanks for all the replies, Guys. But the CRT debate is pretty much
irrelevant to me, as right now a CRT is realistically all I can afford.
I'm looking for more of a feel as to whether this model or the TXP
line generally is a decent choice among CRT options. I can get the
3271H for $380, which seems like a decent deal based on all the pluses
and minues. Just not easy to find many reviews out there...
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
September 15, 2005 9:13:36 PM

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

Paul Kienitz wrote:
> Ritz wrote:
>
>
>>Three more strikes against CRTs:
>>
>>1. They're HEAVY!!! A 30" HDTV CRT weighs in easily over 100lbs. A
>>30" LCD weights about 1/3 that amount.
>>
>>2. CRTs use substantially more electricity.
>>
>>3. CRTs require a lot more space compared to the 3-4" depth of an LCD
>>screen.
>>
>>3.5. They're HEAVY!!! 8-)
>>
>>Cheers,
>
>
> So it's heavy. My $650 CRT still has a far better picture than your
> $2000 LCD.
>

I suppose that if you are a college student or move several times a
year, the weight of the display would have some meaning. My TV weighs
nearly 300 pounds and it hasn't been moved since 1997.

--
Matthew

"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of
people" -- Alexander Bullock ("My Man Godfrey" 1936)
September 15, 2005 9:34:36 PM

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

Matthew L. Martin wrote:

> Paul Kienitz wrote:
>
>> Ritz wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Three more strikes against CRTs:
>>>
>>> 1. They're HEAVY!!! A 30" HDTV CRT weighs in easily over 100lbs. A
>>> 30" LCD weights about 1/3 that amount.
>>>
>>> 2. CRTs use substantially more electricity.
>>>
>>> 3. CRTs require a lot more space compared to the 3-4" depth of an LCD
>>> screen.
>>>
>>> 3.5. They're HEAVY!!! 8-)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>>
>> So it's heavy. My $650 CRT still has a far better picture than your
>> $2000 LCD.
>>
>
> I suppose that if you are a college student or move several times a
> year, the weight of the display would have some meaning. My TV weighs
> nearly 300 pounds and it hasn't been moved since 1997.
>
Dislike like vacuuming, do you?
September 15, 2005 9:55:42 PM

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

tim@nocomment.com wrote:
> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
>> Paul Kienitz wrote:
>>
>>> Ritz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Three more strikes against CRTs:
>>>>
>>>> 1. They're HEAVY!!! A 30" HDTV CRT weighs in easily over 100lbs. A
>>>> 30" LCD weights about 1/3 that amount.
>>>>
>>>> 2. CRTs use substantially more electricity.
>>>>
>>>> 3. CRTs require a lot more space compared to the 3-4" depth of an LCD
>>>> screen.
>>>>
>>>> 3.5. They're HEAVY!!! 8-)
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So it's heavy. My $650 CRT still has a far better picture than your
>>> $2000 LCD.
>>>
>>
>> I suppose that if you are a college student or move several times a
>> year, the weight of the display would have some meaning. My TV weighs
>> nearly 300 pounds and it hasn't been moved since 1997.
>>
> Dislike like vacuuming, do you?


Heh. I'm happy the fellow's $650 boat anchor has a great picture.
Personally, I like being able to hang my display on the wall and not
have it take over my living room (that role is reserved for my
Magnepans). I also like the fact that it uses substantially less power
and is easy to move around (if I should desire to move it). Just a
couple of fingers under the conventient carry handle on top and away ya go.

Cheers,
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
September 15, 2005 10:58:05 PM

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

Ritz (ritz@mordor.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Personally, I like being able to hang my display on the wall and not
> have it take over my living room (that role is reserved for my
> Magnepans). I also like the fact that it uses substantially less power

Well, now we know why having a low power display is important to you...you
need all the power to run your speakers. :) 

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/Win95CatOnMonitor....
September 15, 2005 11:21:51 PM

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

Jeff Rife wrote:
> Ritz (ritz@mordor.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>Personally, I like being able to hang my display on the wall and not
>>have it take over my living room (that role is reserved for my
>>Magnepans). I also like the fact that it uses substantially less power
>
>
> Well, now we know why having a low power display is important to you...you
> need all the power to run your speakers. :) 


Heh, a man's got to have his priorities. As I get older, my ears seem
to outperform my eyes. 8-)

Though I'm going to be switching over to a digital amp for the Maggies
soon. I suspect that will dramatically lower power consumption as well.

Cheers,
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
September 15, 2005 11:42:19 PM

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

tim@nocomment.com wrote:
> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
>>
>> I suppose that if you are a college student or move several times a
>> year, the weight of the display would have some meaning. My TV weighs
>> nearly 300 pounds and it hasn't been moved since 1997.
>>
> Dislike like vacuuming, do you?

Why vacuum under an RPTV. Especially one that is on top of a sub woofer
that weighs more than the TV.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
September 17, 2005 11:01:57 AM

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

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d93c688d6aaf5ba989fb8@news.nabs.net...
> Ritz (ritz@mordor.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> Personally, I like being able to hang my display on the wall and not
>> have it take over my living room (that role is reserved for my
>> Magnepans). I also like the fact that it uses substantially less power
>
> Well, now we know why having a low power display is important to you...you
> need all the power to run your speakers. :) 
>
> --
> Jeff Rife |
> | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/Win95CatOnMonitor....

Darn, Jeff, that was going to be my SAA but you beat me to it.

Leonard
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
September 17, 2005 11:04:16 AM

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

"Deeg" <deeg67@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1126826388.585999.283330@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks for all the replies, Guys. But the CRT debate is pretty much
> irrelevant to me, as right now a CRT is realistically all I can afford.
> I'm looking for more of a feel as to whether this model or the TXP
> line generally is a decent choice among CRT options. I can get the
> 3271H for $380, which seems like a decent deal based on all the pluses
> and minues. Just not easy to find many reviews out there...

Deeg,

I don't have much repair experience with Samsung CRT sets, but what I do
have has not impressed me. You might want to post in sci.electronics.repair
to see if there are any Samsung ASCs that are familiar with the recent
history of the line and similar chassis reliability.

Leonard
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
September 17, 2005 11:08:19 AM

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

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:11ik1mli0a0ec0e@corp.supernews.com...
> tim@nocomment.com wrote:

> Why vacuum under an RPTV. Especially one that is on top of a sub woofer
> that weighs more than the TV.

Besides, all those dust bunnies provide extra acoustical damping...

The real reason to vaccuum is to break connectors while moving it so that we
will have to service the set. Then when we do, we won't have to deal with
the dust.

Leonard
!