Vizio 42" HD 1080p... what do you think of this TV? [Archive]

RoadRunner6

02-08-2008, 11:26 PM

First of all, unless you have a specific reason for choosing an LCD flat panel such as an extremely bright room (lots of direct sun) or you have static images on your screen for a long time; then do yourself a big favor and buy a plasma tv. Better color, black level, off angle viewing and more. Do not judge by what you see in the store. The LCDs look very bright and very detailed. You do not need that brightness in normal viewing situations and the super detailed picture is typical of the overpixelated video like picture in many LCDs. The plasmas are more natural and film like in picture.

Second, do whatever you can to come up with the extra cash and go for a Panasonic plasma. I think the 42" panasonic plasma is now about $1199. A 768p resolution is just fine, you will not be able to tell the difference from the 1080p on most source material from more than 8 feet or so. The difference between 768p and 1080p is very small and not the difference you might think from the numerical differences in pixels. It is a technical explanation and much too complicated to explain here. The Vizio brand is only OK. I think it is very important that you don't skimp on the TV. Only the best flat panel TV's have very good picture quality with standard definition sources as well as HD. Pioneer and Panasonic are the best plasmas, Samsung and LG are a notch below in my opinion. Panasonic's are much cheaper than Pioneer and about equal in quality.

Third, consider going up to a 50" plasma. Last time I looked Costco had the Panasonic 50inch 768p plasma for about $1600. Most people who buy a 42" later wish they had gone with a 50."

I have convinced several friends at work to buy Panasonic plasmas over LCDs and they thank me every day for the superb picture. Both have 768p models.

The current February issues of both Sound and Vision magazine and Home Theater magazine have comparison reviews of plasmas versus LCDs. Do yourself a big favor and read both of these reviews. Unfortunately, they are not availbale yet online. They have glowing reviews on the Panasonic plasmas and explain why plasmas are still the superior choice over LCDs.

I don't always place a lot of value in the Consumer Report ratings on electronics but they do get it right on TV picture quality. They have the 42, 50 and 58 inch Panasonic plasmas all at the top with ratings of excellent in picture quality for HD, SD and DVD both in the 768p and 1080p models. Panasonic plasmas also have the best repair history from CR.

RR6

Rich-n-Texas

02-09-2008, 05:41 PM

WOW! This really is ringing endorsement for Panasonic 50" Plasmas I must say. I'm glad you threw a "in my opinion" and a few "I thinks" in there because otherwise you'd have come across as a Panasonic employee... Aside from that, you're going to get a lot more opposing opinions later on.

First of all, unless you have a specific reason for choosing an LCD flat panel such as an extremely bright room (lots of direct sun) or you have static images on your screen for a long time; then do yourself a big favor and buy a plasma tv.
You're kidding right? Put ANY TV in an "extremely bright room" and PQ will suffer. RR6, LCD's are now or will very soon be the mainstream HDTV's for many reasons, not the least of which are their versatillity in most environments. And you're reading this from a DLP TV owner. How about another reason for choosing LCD, like... AFFORDABILITY? tinturn_footie (that's a bizarre one), price out a few 52" 1080p LCD's then a few Plasma 1080p TV's and see what you get.

Better color, black level, off angle viewing and more. Do not judge by what you see in the store. The LCDs look very bright and very detailed.
Again, at what price? Don't judge Plasmas or DLP's by what you see in the store either. A very harsh environment which is why stores set the brightness level up the way they do.

You do not need that brightness in normal viewing situations and the super detailed picture is typical of the overpixelated video like picture in many LCDs. The plasmas are more natural and film like in picture.
First you assume he has an extremely bright room, then you assume he has normal viewing situations. And then..."Overpixelated video like picture"? What the he!! does that mean?

Second, do whatever you can to come up with the extra cash and go for a Panasonic plasma. I think the 42" panasonic plasma is now about $1199.
So, #1, Don't buy an LCD, buy a 720p Plasma. #2, Buy a Panasonic plasma. A 42" Panasonic plasma. A Visio 1080p LCD can be had for $1K.

A 768p resolution is just fine, you will not be able to tell the difference from the 1080p on most source material from more than 8 feet or so. The difference between 768p and 1080p is very small and not the difference you might think from the numerical differences in pixels.
Wrong wrong wrong. Just plain wrong. Just like LCD's are becoming the norm, so is 1080p. You want some assurance that you'll be staying up-to-date with the technology you'll want a 1080p set. Forward thinking gents!

It is a technical explanation and much too complicated to explain here.
Ummm.... dude, it's been explained over and over again here on the AR forums. I suggest t_footie you take a little time to read some of the conversations. Just do a search on the screen name "pixelthis" and you'll get explanations out the wazoo!!!

The Vizio brand is only OK. I think it is very important that you don't skimp on the TV. Only the best flat panel TV's have very good picture quality with standard definition sources as well as HD. Pioneer and Panasonic are the best plasmas, Samsung and LG are a notch below in my opinion.
Yes, your opinion. (Wait till Pix sees this one! :yikes: )

Panasonic's are much cheaper than Pioneer and about equal in quality.
Maybe, maybe not. If I had to choose, I'd choose Pioneer.

Third, consider going up to a 50" plasma. Last time I looked Costco had the Panasonic 50inch 768p plasma for about $1600. Most people who buy a 42" later wish they had gone with a 50."
So, to sum it up: #1, buy a plasma; #2, buy a Panasonic plasma, #3, buy a 42" Panasonic plasma, #4, don't buy a 42" Panasonic plasma, buy a 50" Panasonic plasma. Do you see where I'm going with this fellas?

I have convinced several friends at work to buy Panasonic plasmas over LCDs and they thank me every day for the superb picture. Both have 768p models.
Well, are your friends on the same budget as t_footie? Were your friends just being polite and cursing you behind your back? :smilewinkgrin:

The current February issues of both Sound and Vision magazine and Home Theater magazine have comparison reviews of plasmas versus LCDs. Do yourself a big favor and read both of these reviews. Unfortunately, they are not availbale yet online. They have glowing reviews on the Panasonic plasmas and explain why plasmas are still the superior choice over LCDs.
I'm sub'ed to S&V magazine, and I've yet to read a review where the writers have anything bad to say about one brand or another... one tech over the other. Ya think maybe it's because magazines are TOOLS for the manufacturers who ADVERTISE in them?

I don't always place a lot of value in the Consumer Report ratings on electronics but they do get it right on TV picture quality. They have the 42, 50 and 58 inch Panasonic plasmas all at the top with ratings of excellent in picture quality for HD, SD and DVD both in the 768p and 1080p models. Panasonic plasmas also have the best repair history from CR.

RR6
Sometimes you place value in Consumer Reports, sometimes you don't. But it sounds like you place a lot of value on Home Theater rags. :sosp:

Things that make ya go Hmmmm...

pixelthis

02-09-2008, 09:59 PM

I'm in the market to buy a new flat panel LCD and I saw at Costco they have this 42" Vizio 1080p for a really good price!

I don't know anything about Vizio though... I mean I have heard a few things like they're cheaper than Sony or Samsung but still good quality but I don't know what to think. Is it a good value for the money?

Thanks for the help!

One thing for sure,
STAY AWAY FROM PLASMA.
They have a slightly better black level and thats IT, most wont notice and its certainly not worth the trouble.
I have had a Vizio for a little over a year, and love it. Some snobs on this board will claim its inferiour, but dont listen.
Its not as good as higher line brands but its not as expensive, its the num one lcd
because most like the picture and dont see why they should pay more.
As I type this I am lookin at my vizio which makes a great computer screen.
You cant do that with plasma because of burn in issues.
And if the gas leaks out you wont be able to do ANYTHING.
Plasmas use a LOT more electricity, a hugh amount actually.
And you need a pro to mount it, it weighs a lot more than an LCD.
But dont beleive me, go and compare the price, picture quality.
AS for reliability , nary a peep.
Vizio also has DVDO deinterlacing tech (at least mine does) which is quite good.
MINES a 37in BTW.
The fact that some know nothings on this board dont like this set is a vindication to me that its a decent product.
They dont like LCD for the simple reason that its not complicated, troublesome, and finicky enough, so it CANT be any good.
BTW if you do want to use your new set for computer or game use you would have to be insane to get a plasma, the burn in would ruin the set with the showing of static images.:1:

RoadRunner6

02-09-2008, 11:06 PM

Well Rich I knew my opinion (aren't we allowed to voice our opinion here?) would cause some disagreement. I think that is what a forum is for. I wasn't prepared for the personal attack.

I wrote my post becuase I feel there are lots of newbies out there that have formed a very quick opinion that LCd's are the best bet in flat panel TV's. I wanted him to know that he should also consider plasmas which I still feel are superior. Yes LCD's have made a lot of improvements in their drawbacks such as motion blur, poor off angle viewing, lower black levels and color accuracy compared to plasmas. However, plasmas still have a slight edge. I think (OK attack me here on using the word think) Panasonic just happens to be a big best bang for the buck in plasmas.

You obviouisly are not a very careful reader. I think Pioneer plasmas are also excellent but significantly more expensive. That is fact if you check out the prices.

My comments about bright rooms was that most LCD's are brighter than plasmas and one possible reason for choosing one over a plasma would be if you do a lot of daylight viewing in a room with lots of windows and direct sunlight (otherwise most people don't need that extra brightness) . Another reason to buy an LCD would be if you have a lot of static images. Although the "burn in" problem was overstated on plasmas the latest generation models have virtually no burn in or image retention problems if used correctly. I would not buy a plasma for games or as a computer monitor. That is why I made those comments which you completely misunderstood. I presume that he and many people coming here for opinions on flat panel TV's are using them for TV and movies like the large majority of viewers are unless they state otherwise. So my comments are based on a comparison of flat panel LCD's and plasmas for movies and TV. I didn't think it was necessary to spell all of that out in a ten page treatise.

What the heck does "their versatillity in most environments" mean.

If you have followed flat panel TV's in the last 5 years or more you would know that LCD's have been higher priced than comparable plasmas in the same screen size. By the way, who ever said anything about DLP's? Not I.

He mentioned a 42" TV. That is why I first mentioned the 42" Panasonic. I then mentioned that a lot of people after they have already bought a 42" later decide that they wish they have gone up to a 50". That is for his consideration now so that he could at least think about it. Is this stream of logic too hard to follow?

You say "First you assume he has an extremely bright room". I never assumed that. You need to read more carefully.

You are obviously one of those that does not understand the objective difference to the human eye of 768p versus 1080p. It is very small indead and not a linear difference as in the difference between the number 768 and 1080 would seem to imply. It is somewhat similar to the reason why 200 watts versus 100 watts is not a significant difference in an amp becuase it in reality makes only a 3db increase in sound level ouput. Would I buy a 1080p? Yes, for the very slight difference because one of our viewing seats is about 6-7 feet from our TV. You seem to think 1080p is a big leap forward in technology (now who is being influenced by those tools of advertisng?) But here we have a guy who is trying to keep his budget down. That is one reason why I recommended going with the lower priced Panasonic 768p to stay close to the price of the Vizio. 1080p or not, the Panasonic 768p is a superior TV to that Vizio and also the Vizio plasma. I am usually a big bang for the buck buyer. A TV is one place not to buy budget in my opinion.

The lastest reviews which I referenced compared LCD's to plasmas. In both cases the plasma models were the better performance in their opinion. Both explain in detail about the different plusses and minuses of both types of flat panels TV's and that plasmas still have the edge in performance.

Both Samsung and LG have come a long way over the last 5 years or more. However, I still put them slightly lower than the Pioneer and Panasonic. That is not to ruffle your feathers or those of your freind.

My post was to give tinter_footie my alternative thoughts about plasmas for his consideration. I don't often single out one particular brand as the best buy. In the case of the flat panels I think buying the budget brands like Vizio is a mistake. I also think Pioneer and Panasonic are at the top of the heap. Panasonic is considerably cheaper. Can you follow the logic? I don't mean to be condescending here but I think your rude and illogical attack deserves it. You are welcome in my opinion to post here like the rest of us. How about dropping your tone a little. I have 40 years personal interest in audio and home theater. I have read and researched a great deal during that time. That doesn't mean I have any or all the answers. But I do have a very large knowledge base and feel I have the right to voice my opinion here with out the line by line attack. Disagree, fine, but please drop the attack mode.

RR6

blackraven

02-10-2008, 07:14 PM

The question here was are Vizio LCD TV's any good!

The bottom line here is that the Vizio gives a pretty good picture at a bargain price. Check out the reviews in the current consumer reports.Its a very good TV if you have a limited budget and dont want to spend hundreds of $'s more for a Sony or Samsung LCD. Vizio and many other LCD TV's do not give as good a picture in STD definition like Sony or Samsung. (STD definition picture quality sucks on all High def TV's, some times its rather painful to watch and many people have returned HDTV's because of this , instead opting to wait till there are more HD programs and letting the price of the TV's come down as well).

I believe that if you are looking at a 42" TV that you will not be able to tell the difference between 1080p and 720p unless you are right on top of the screen. I checked this out when I was considering a smaller TV for my son.

As far as plasma's go. Some have better pictures than an LCD but not by much. They certainly are cheaper and you can get alot more TV for the money over an LCD.
LCD TV's are better in bright surroundings, give off much less glare and reflections than a plasma. In fact, with our LCD TV, we see no reflections of any lamps that may be on in the room. This used to really annoy me with our CRT TV. Plasma's are best viewed in darkenss or with lighting sources above or behind the screen.

As far as power. The cost for running a 52" LCD for a year is about $80 and for a 50" plasma its about $110.

Plasma's give off more heat than an LCD, so if your in a small room with poor ventilation, it could get uncomfortably warm.

pixelthis

02-11-2008, 02:51 AM

If you are looking for a "bargain" BTW there is an RCA 46in at wallmart for 1200 bucks.
For PQ the best price to buck ratio I have seen is a 50" rca DLP , again at wallmart.
Its 998 bucks and has a stand
I am not a DLP fan, and dont think that rear projection has much of a future, but this is a cheap way to get a 50" picture that is quite good really, you just have to live with the drawbacks of a spinney wheel and a 200$ bulb ever two years or so,
But you had better hurry, wont be around long:1:

GMichael

02-11-2008, 06:28 AM

I sure hope the OP was able to get an answer from all this banter.

Vizio seems OK. Good bang for the buck. Not sure of the longevity myself. Does anyone know how long they've been around?

f0rge

02-11-2008, 07:11 AM

One thing for sure,
STAY AWAY FROM PLASMA.
They have a slightly better black level and thats IT, most wont notice and its certainly not worth the trouble.

i notice, i have a 50inch plasma (panasonic) in my HT/game room, a 37in LCD (sharp) in the family room and 26inch LCD (samsung) in the bedroom, the plasma's black levels are VERY noticeable, especially in movies but also games, and in my opinion make a big difference to the overall picture quality.

And you need a pro to mount it, it weighs a lot more than an LCD.

i'd like to see anyone mount any 50 inch television without help

But dont beleive me, go and compare the price, picture quality.

i did, i ended up with a plasma. to get similar picture quality (but still worse black levels) i was actually looking at spending more on an LCD than a plasma

BTW if you do want to use your new set for computer or game use you would have to be insane to get a plasma, the burn in would ruin the set with the showing of static images.:1:

my plasma sees about 85% gaming, 10% movies, 5% tv. i invite you to come over and see burn in, you'll have a tough time though, because there is none.

pixelthis

02-13-2008, 01:44 AM

tintern_footie

02-14-2008, 02:38 PM

Wow, can I just say thank you all SO much for giving such detailed and interesting opinions on which TV you prefer. I have been leaning towards LCDs vs. plasma mainly because they are cheaper and I have heard that plasmas don't last as long. Secondly, I asked about Vizio because this brand seems to be good quality but also inexpensive. Unfortunately, my budget is not going to enable me to get a Sony, or to get a 50" plasma. It's interesting to see all of this information though, because I've heard many of these things (like the issue with plasma burn-in) in passing, but never seen such details in one concentration. I hadn't considered DLP because I don't like how they seem cumbersome in the back whereas the LCDs and plasmas are pretty much flat.

You've all been very helpful. I guess I'm still kind of on the fence about Vizio. But, the 42" 1080p does seem like a good deal for only $950 at Costco. I am glad you guys discussed the 720 vs. 1080 difference, and yeah I think I definitely need the 1080 since everything is moving in that direction.

Thanks again for all your help!

alt4

03-01-2008, 11:28 AM

captjamo

03-02-2008, 07:16 PM

I think I see what Vizio is doing which is just good business. They have founded their business on good quality price point TV's and now they are leveraging that market position which I understand has paid off in huge sales. They are moving to a very good quality reputation. I have not had my Sony KDL-W3000 1080p LCD TV long but I have not seen a better looking screen out there accept the Pioneer plasmas which cost cosiderably more. I was at Sam's Club and looked at the new 47"LCD 1080p Vizio and was extremely impressed with the picture on this TV especially considering its 1400.00 dollar price. So I say buy one if that is your budget.

alt4

03-02-2008, 09:02 PM

alt4

03-02-2008, 09:04 PM

Heck...I was thinking of a flat screen on my wall in my bedroom!
I'm gonna do some more research on these.

pixelthis

03-02-2008, 10:06 PM

After I posted here earlier I came across a Vizio...I'll have to say they are a impressive looking TV!

Its so nice to hear a compliment on Vizio.
A lot of nimrods on this site , most of who wouldnt know a decent picture if it was an original of the Mona Lisa, love to denigrate Vizio.
Well, my 37in is about a year and a half old now, and no problems.
And the picture is outstanding.
Is a Sony BETTER? OF COURSE.
But a B&W is better than a ford mustang, but that doesnt mean that the mustang isnt a nice car.
Vizio does something I REALLY LIKE, they put a lot of value into an inexpensive product.
They allow a lot of dreamers to actually own a decent display that otherwise couldnt afford one.
They arent liquid nitrogen cooled CRT fantasy stuff like sir talky prattles on about, but they are HT grade, and computer grade as well:1:

alt4

03-03-2008, 03:12 PM

Its so nice to hear a compliment on Vizio.
A lot of nimrods on this site , most of who wouldnt know a decent picture if it was an original of the Mona Lisa, love to denigrate Vizio.
Well, my 37in is about a year and a half old now, and no problems.
And the picture is outstanding.
Is a Sony BETTER? OF COURSE.
But a B&W is better than a ford mustang, but that doesnt mean that the mustang isnt a nice car.
Vizio does something I REALLY LIKE, they put a lot of value into an inexpensive product.
They allow a lot of dreamers to actually own a decent display that otherwise couldnt afford one.
They arent liquid nitrogen cooled CRT fantasy stuff like sir talky prattles on about, but they are HT grade, and computer grade as well:1:

Nicely put!

captjamo

03-03-2008, 06:33 PM

I just think Vizio should now be a first place to look for the savy consumer/HT enthusiast. My son loves his 37" Vizio 2 years old no trouble.

alt4

03-05-2008, 09:54 AM

I just think Vizio should now be a first place to look for the savy consumer/HT enthusiast. My son loves his 37" Vizio 2 years old no trouble.

Last part of your post I loved hearing!
2 years old and no trouble...
Def. gonna go with one in my bedroom!
Thanks

alt4

03-05-2008, 09:55 AM

I guess your sons 37" is in his bedroom?
Is he happy with that size?

Groundbeef

03-05-2008, 12:09 PM

i notice, i have a 50inch plasma (panasonic) in my HT/game room, a 37in LCD (sharp) in the family room and 26inch LCD (samsung) in the bedroom, the plasma's black levels are VERY noticeable, especially in movies but also games, and in my opinion make a big difference to the overall picture quality.

i'd like to see anyone mount any 50 inch television without help

my plasma sees about 85% gaming, 10% movies, 5% tv. i invite you to come over and see burn in, you'll have a tough time though, because there is none.

I too have a 50" Plasma (Pioneer) and a 37" (Sony) upstairs. The Sony is almost 5 years old, and I have NO issues of "Burn In". I watch TV, and Movies upstairs. Used to have my XBOX 360 up there, but its now on the 50". Pixel is off his rocker.

BTW I DID rehang my Plasma myself after it was installed. I had to pull it off the wall and adjust the wiring routes. After I was done, I would ask for help in the future. The weight wasn't the real issue (120 lbs) but just the akward nature of moving it.

captjamo

03-05-2008, 04:49 PM

To Alt4:
My son is 26 and two years married. No kids yet but still limited in what he could spend on a TV. The Vizio was 800.00 at Sam's so he bought there. He plays a lot of XBOX 360 and watches Direct TV HD channels and loves it. 720p is excellent if the screen size is around 40". Any bigger and 1080p is better in my opinion.

alt4

03-09-2008, 07:12 AM

Woochifer

03-10-2008, 09:37 AM

Vizio's are made here in america and are good quality TV's with middle of the road pictures. The pictures are above average but not the quality of the Major players like Sony, Samsung, Sharp and LG. If your on a tight budget they are worth the money. I know a few people that have them and I almost bought one for my son but decided to get him something else for christmas.

Gotta correct you on one thing here, the Vizio TVs are made wherever Vizio can get the low bid, and none of this manufacturing occurs in the U.S.

TVs from the likes of Sony, Panasonic, LG, Samsung, or Pioneer are designed internally and made at plants owned and operated by those companies. Vizio TVs are made solely by contract outsource manufacturers. Most of these outsource manufacturers are currently located in Mexico. Nothing inherently wrong with Mexican made TVs, but unlike other companies that operate manufacturing lines in Mexico, Vizio's business model maintains little if any control over the manufacturing process. This means little continuity from one model to another, especially if Vizio decides to change outsource partners. This is no different than how Apex Digital operated.

As far as power. The cost for running a 52" LCD for a year is about $80 and for a 50" plasma its about $110.

The power consumption argument can be iffy because LCD and plasma consume power very differently. The LCD relies on backlighting, which means that the power consumption will be relatively constant. Plasmas do not use backlighting, so the power consumption will greatly vary depending on the source and the settings. A dark image using a high contrast setting can actually use less power than a LCD set displaying that same image. Generally, plasma does consume more power, but that's not a constant.

pixelthis

03-10-2008, 10:50 PM

Gotta correct you on one thing here, the Vizio TVs are made wherever Vizio can get the low bid, and none of this manufacturing occurs in the U.S.

Mine was made in Taiwan, as most are

TVs from the likes of Sony, Panasonic, LG, Samsung, or Pioneer are designed internally and made at plants owned and operated by those companies. Vizio TVs are made solely by contract outsource manufacturers.

Like quite a few others these days

Most of these outsource manufacturers are currently located in Mexico. Nothing inherently wrong with Mexican made TVs, but unlike other companies that operate manufacturing lines in Mexico, Vizio's business model maintains little if any control over the manufacturing process.

In your opinion, you don't really know

This means little continuity from one model to another, especially if Vizio decides to change outsource partners. This is no different than how Apex Digital operated.

And a lot of other companies. THE DESIGN SPECS ARE GIVEN TO THE MANUFACTURER, and if they dont meet it another is chosen.My Vizio is going on a year and a half old, with no problems whatsoever.
This "poor" quality argument is meerly opinion and means you don't have anything else to say

The power consumption argument can be iffy because LCD and plasma consume power very differently. The LCD relies on backlighting, which means that the power consumption will be relatively constant. Plasmas do not use backlighting, so the power consumption will greatly vary depending on the source and the settings. A dark image using a high contrast setting can actually use less power than a LCD set displaying that same image. Generally, plasma does consume more power, but that's not a constant.

Theres nothing "iffy" about it. LCD and plasma do consume power differently, lcd has a cool power saving florescent backlight, and plasma uses a gas created with high voltage and current that produces a lot of waste heat, a LOT of heat, heat that cost electricity to use.
THE WAY THAT LCD AND PLASMA use their power is why plasma is such an energy hog.
Where I work they are using plasma displays, about 50in or so (for static images!!!)
and I was amazed that when I put my hand as far as five inches away from the screen
that I could still feel a great deal of heat!
Not only does this cost more (significantly more) but heat is the devil in electronics.
And one of the reasons I wont use a tube amp.
This heat is bad in front of the screen? Well, its eating up the componets inside the set also, and shortening the life of a set that already has half the lifespan of a LCD outta the box.

BTW a friend still has a 27in Apex and loves it, and regrets getting rid of his apex DVD player, as it would play everything he threw at it:1:

GMichael

03-11-2008, 05:27 AM

BTW a friend still has a 27in Apex and loves it, and regrets getting rid of his apex DVD player, as it would play everything he threw at it:1:

I have a 32" Apex CRT. Although it plays with no problems, it has about the grainiest picture I have ever seen.

Groundbeef

03-11-2008, 09:05 AM

I have a 32" Apex CRT. Although it plays with no problems, it has about the grainiest picture I have ever seen.

Take it off the front porch. I discovered I had a "grainy picture" issue with my TV. After I moved it from behind the screen door, the grainiest went away. Go figure.

Woochifer

03-11-2008, 03:39 PM

Like quite a few others these days

But, all of the companies cited in my example own their manufacturing lines, and produce their own panels. Companies like Apex and Vizio are the exact opposite in that they do not do any of their own R&D or manufacturing.

In your opinion, you don't really know

Let's see ... Sony makes many of their LCD TVs in Mexico, and they are the second highest ranked LCD TV manufacturer in the Consumer Reports reliability rankings. Yuh, I really don't know what I'm talking about when I say there's nothing wrong with the TVs from there! :rolleyes5:

And a lot of other companies. THE DESIGN SPECS ARE GIVEN TO THE MANUFACTURER, and if they dont meet it another is chosen.

In other words, they go to the lowest bidder. Yeah, that's where all that top notch quality comes in! Vizio does little to none of the design work (how can they with a workforce of 100 workers that has to handle everything from sales to marketing to distribution?), since they operate in a virtual business model with no R&D capacity. And since they can switch from one manufacturer to another, then there's no continuity in the product quality from one model to another.

My Vizio is going on a year and a half old, with no problems whatsoever.
This "poor" quality argument is meerly opinion and means you don't have anything else to say

Good for you. But, a sample of one says absolutely nothing. Looking over at the JD Power owner satisfaction surveys (which uses a sample of thousands), Vizio tied for the lowest ranking among HDTVs up to 49".

Theres nothing "iffy" about it. LCD and plasma do consume power differently

Isn't that exactly what I just said?

lcd has a cool power saving florescent backlight, and plasma uses a gas created with high voltage and current that produces a lot of waste heat, a LOT of heat, heat that cost electricity to use.
THE WAY THAT LCD AND PLASMA use their power is why plasma is such an energy hog.

Again, as I said, the power consumption will vary according to the source, and depending on the source, a plasma can consume less power than a LCD. LCD power usage is constant, plasma power usage is variable -- what part of that don't you understand? On an overall average, the plasma will typically use more, but it's nothing on any huge orders of magnitude like you claim.

This heat is bad in front of the screen? Well, its eating up the componets inside the set also, and shortening the life of a set that already has half the lifespan of a LCD outta the box.

If this is the case, then why are there LCD TV brands with higher repair rates than plasma brands, as reported via Consumer Reports (which uses a sample of 75,000 responses and adjusts the data for the age of the TV)? If this is a fundamental design issue, like you claim, then presumably every plasma would be less reliable than a LCD.

BTW a friend still has a 27in Apex and loves it, and regrets getting rid of his apex DVD player, as it would play everything he threw at it

And my former roommate went through two defective Apex TVs before his 90-day warranty expired, and he finally had to junk the thing when he found that no shops could repair them (yeah, outsource manufacturing's not an issue, until the manufacturer closes up shop with no repair manuals or spare parts available). Yup, it's all about the quality! :22:

And I guess that Apex was ssssooooooo beloved that consumers kept buying from Apex, right? I mean, just the other day, I saw some dude at Best Buy screaming at the top of his lungs "WHAT DO YOU MEAN I CAN'T BUY AN APEX???" Yeah, like that'll ever happen ... :lol:

pixelthis

03-12-2008, 12:06 AM

Woochifer]But, all of the companies cited in my example own their manufacturing lines, and produce their own panels. Companies like Apex and Vizio are the exact opposite in that they do not do any of their own R&D or manufacturing.

And where do you get this? You'd be surprized at how many "name" companies outsource their stuff

Let's see ... Sony makes many of their LCD TVs in Mexico, and they are the second highest ranked LCD TV manufacturer in the Consumer Reports reliability rankings. Yuh, I really don't know what I'm talking about when I say there's nothing wrong with the TVs from there! :rolleyes5:

And what does this have to do with anythingI had a 65 in Mitshubishi that had been made in MEXICO AND IT WAS EXELENT
so what?

In other words, they go to the lowest bidder. Yeah, that's where all that top notch quality comes in! Vizio does little to none of the design work (how can they with a workforce of 100 workers that has to handle everything from sales to marketing to distribution?), since they operate in a virtual business model with no R&D capacity. And since they can switch from one manufacturer to another, then there's no continuity in the product quality from one model to another.

I also means that they can incorporate new tech a lot faster and put a lot more in a lot cheaper. My VIZIO HAS A DVDO scaler and it shows.AND i have compared my older set to a friends two newer ones. CANT TELL MUCH DIFFERENCE

Good for you. But, a sample of one says absolutely nothing. Looking over at the JD Power owner satisfaction surveys (which uses a sample of thousands), Vizio tied for the lowest ranking among HDTVs up to 49".

Isn't that exactly what I just said?

Again, as I said, the power consumption will vary according to the source, and depending on the source, a plasma can consume less power than a LCD. LCD power usage is constant, plasma power usage is variable -- what part of that don't you understand? On an overall average, the plasma will typically use more, but it's nothing on any huge orders of magnitude like you claim.

THANKS FOR AGREEING WITH ME.Yeah, plasma power usage is "variable" and ALWAYS higher than LCD.
WHY ARE YOU ARGUING AGAINST WHAT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE
Are you stupid?

If this is the case, then why are there LCD TV brands with higher repair rates than plasma brands, as reported via Consumer Reports (which uses a sample of 75,000 responses and adjusts the data for the age of the TV)? If this is a fundamental design issue, like you claim, then presumably every plasma would be less reliable than a LCD.

every plasma is less reliable than an LCD, their is a real scandal with gas leakage and screen burn-in.And the best plasma ever made wont last ten years, typical LCD will last at least twenty.
And now you're quoting consumer reports? HOW DESPERATE OF YOU.
Dont pay their kickbacks (like Audi) and they try to put you out of business

And my former roommate went through two defective Apex TVs before his 90-day warranty expired, and he finally had to junk the thing when he found that no shops could repair them (yeah, outsource manufacturing's not an issue, until the manufacturer closes up shop with no repair manuals or spare parts available). Yup, it's all about the quality!

Why do you keep bringing up Apex? BECAUSE you cant find a thing wrong with Vizio,so you are arguing about a DIFFERENT brand!!!
Could you please stick to what we're talking about please?

And I guess that Apex was ssssooooooo beloved that consumers kept buying from Apex, right? I mean, just the other day, I saw some dude at Best Buy screaming at the top of his lungs "WHAT DO YOU MEAN I CAN'T BUY AN APEX???" Yeah, like that'll ever happen ... :lol:

More Apex crap. WHY DO YOU KEEP BRINGING THEM UP?Does Apex make Vizio? IF NOT THEN shutUP about apex please

SOME WOMEN ARE CRACK HOS', does that mean YOUR wife is a crack ho?
See the stupidity of what you're saying?:1:

Woochifer

03-12-2008, 07:59 AM

And where do you get this? You'd be surprized at how many "name" companies outsource their stuff

All of those aforementioned companies are OEM vendors -- i.e. THEY supply components to other manufacturers and they all have their own manufacturing capacity. The "name" companies that outsource their manufacturing are usually doing so with at least some control over the design and specs. When Sony outsources a portion of its manufacturing, those outsource vendors are making the exact same product that's manufactured in Sony's own plants. Companies like Vizio and Apex that operate on a virtual model are letting the outsource vendor do the design work and the R&D.

And what does this have to do with anythingI had a 65 in Mitshubishi that had been made in MEXICO AND IT WAS EXELENT
so what?

Well, let's see ... you were telling me that I didn't know what I was talking about when I said there wasn't anything inherently wrong with TVs made in Mexico. I guess you don't know what you're talking about either when you say that your Mexican made Mitsu is "EXELENT"! :17:

I also means that they can incorporate new tech a lot faster and put a lot more in a lot cheaper. My VIZIO HAS A DVDO scaler and it shows.AND i have compared my older set to a friends two newer ones. CANT TELL MUCH DIFFERENCE

And it also means zero continuity from one model to another. And it's cheaper only because Vizio bids it that way.

And with regard to your comparison, did you calibrate both sets to make sure that the reference points for color, contrast, brightness, sharpness, etc. are identical? Your comments on the DVDO scaler, what about it "shows"? Are you comparing native 480i, 480p, 720p, and 1080i sources upscaled using the TV against an image upscaled to 1080p using an external device? If you haven't done any of these controls, then you don't know what you're talking about.

I now patiently await your next whiny tantrum in response, since it's too much to expect a rational explanation or admission that none of your observations incorporated any kind of bias control.

THANKS FOR AGREEING WITH ME.Yeah, plasma power usage is "variable" and ALWAYS higher than LCD.
WHY ARE YOU ARGUING AGAINST WHAT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE
Are you stupid?

You'll just do anything to make up for your cluelessness, like twisting the truth, won't you? :rolleyes: Plasma power usage is not "ALWAYS" higher than LCD, and I've stated that twice already. Do I need to spell that out for you a third time, or are you now going to lie about it yet again? Or is the third time when you usually break out the personal insults? :sleep:

every plasma is less reliable than an LCD, their is a real scandal with gas leakage and screen burn-in.And the best plasma ever made wont last ten years, typical LCD will last at least twenty.

Your points about screen burn-in and leakage are old old old. Try reading something that was at least written in this decade. Like I said, if "every plasma" was less reliable than an LCD, then why would ANY reliability ranking show ANY plasma TVs with a higher reliability rating than an LCD TV? I know that logic is not one of your strongsuits, but trust me if you pretend that this is a coloring book and you grab some crayons to connect the dots, you'll eventually get it! :yesnod:

Is your LCD TV 20 years old? How many 20 year old LCD TVs are there? So, how would you know that a "typical" LCD will last 20 years?

Oh and BTW, Panasonic's plasmas are now rated with an operational life of 100,000 hours. At 6 hours of daily TV viewing, that works out to a LOT more than 10 years. I'll let you do the math. So, let me guess, you're now going to tell me that Panasonic is lying because you're the only one who knows the truth because "you were there"? :lol:

And now you're quoting consumer reports? HOW DESPERATE OF YOU.

Hmmm ... who should I trust more? A non-profit organization that uses an annual survey with a statistically significant sample of more than 75,000 responses to tabulate its reliability rankings? Or an anonymous internet poster with a long track record of erroneous statements, lies, personal attacks, trolling, and distortions, and who will never admit to anything even when caught in a lie? You say that I'M desperate? :lol:

Why do you keep bringing up Apex? BECAUSE you cant find a thing wrong with Vizio,so you are arguing about a DIFFERENT brand!!!
Could you please stick to what we're talking about please?

More Apex crap. WHY DO YOU KEEP BRINGING THEM UP?Does Apex make Vizio? IF NOT THEN shutUP about apex please

Two companies with an almost identical business model -- no internal R&D capacity, outsource all major functions, outsource manufacturing to the lowest bidder, no technological succession from one model to another, etc. Just pointing those simple facts out. No need to get your panties bunched up over what's true, unless of course, you're more comfortable dealing in untruths! :cornut:

Vizio exists only because flat panel HDTVs have a price point that they can undercut. Once those price points fall further, then they won't have price to fall back on. At that point, they'll have to rely on their reputation and customer support to keep customers. With a workforce of 100 employees supporting a multibillion dollar operation, that's not a lot of infrastructure to handle any post-purchase support needs, and anyone who had problems with Apex saw first hand how that kind of a low overhead business model creates headaches at the back end. Companies like Panasonic, Sony, and Samsung have thousands of employees, internal capacity to supply spare parts, and a broad network of customer support functions. They're not going away anytime soon. Vizio has not established anything comparable, and their lack of manufacturing and support infrastructure means that they can go away very quickly.

SOME WOMEN ARE CRACK HOS', does that mean YOUR wife is a crack ho?
See the stupidity of what you're saying

Uh, try reading what you're writing sometime before accusing someone else of stupidity! :cool:

Rich-n-Texas

03-12-2008, 09:21 AM

Even though I have nothing to contribute to this thread, I am nonetheless totally lost as to who said what! :crazy:

GMichael

03-12-2008, 09:27 AM

Even though I have nothing to contribute to this thread, I am nonetheless totally lost as to who said what! :crazy:
Pixie is still struggling with the quote function.:nonod:

Rich-n-Texas

03-12-2008, 09:49 AM

L.J.

03-12-2008, 09:49 AM

Pixie is still struggling with the quote function.:nonod:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I tried to help him but he wasn't havin' it.

Woochifer

03-12-2008, 10:00 AM

You or somebody offered a tutorial, but I guess his ego got in the way. :rolleyes:

The only thing that got in the way was that cognitive sinkhole between his ears where a functional brain would normally go! :skep: If he can't comprehend the quote function, then why would anyone expect him to say anything coherent about any remotely technical subject? C'mon, do his writings and views read like they came from someone who's got it together upstairs? Oh right, he's the one with the answers because "he was there"! :lol:

pixelthis

03-12-2008, 10:44 PM

The only thing that got in the way was that cognitive sinkhole between his ears where a functional brain would normally go! :skep: If he can't comprehend the quote function, then why would anyone expect him to say anything coherent about any remotely technical subject? C'mon, do his writings and views read like they came from someone who's got it together upstairs? Oh right, he's the one with the answers because "he was there"! :lol:

I should take daddys advice and never argue with a moron.
EVEN when you win it does no good because hes' too stupid to know it.
THE ENERGY PULL FROM LCD IS A FEW FLOURESCENTS
and some solid state electronics.
THEY will ALWAYS pull less than a plasma, nimrod, ALWAYS.

This isnt just me saying this , its EVERYBODY.
Just because you're too dumb to understand why this is so, don't take it out on ME:1:

pixelthis

03-12-2008, 10:49 PM

You or somebody offered a tutorial, but I guess his ego got in the way. :rolleyes:

Just to stay on topic... Vizio BLOWS! I was in a BB one time and I asked the interface unit to show me a Vizio. The only one he had was off all by itself, with a bright, red, stuck pixel shining like a lighthouse beacon! It was awesome!

YEAH,, they are gonna keep a defective set on display.
VIZIO has a bright pixel display warrenty , lasts the life of the set.
Get one bright pixel, ONE, and they give you a new set, no questions asked.
And BB and CC don't sell many because the main outlets are walmart, sams, and office depot, etc.
One day while shopping for DVD they put a pallet stacked with 42in Vizios on the floor,
the stack was half gone whien I left.:1:

pixelthis

03-12-2008, 10:52 PM

And the really funny thing is that you're so clueless that you don't even know that this argument is moot.
Plasma will follow RPTV out the door in a few years, sales are already falling.
And when economies of scale start kicking in with OLED PLASMA will join
hoop skirts and buggy whips in the tech dustbin of history.
AND GOOD RIDDANCE:1:

Rich-n-Texas

03-13-2008, 04:53 AM

If I had the means to do so, I would've purchased a Plasma TV in a heartbeat. No matter what you say, they're still atop the leader board and with good reason.

And didn't I say I was going to choke the next person who said "economies of scale"? Y'all a bunch of management types with you're marketing buzz words? :mad:

bobsticks

03-13-2008, 05:23 AM

I can't believe that energy consumption is seriously becoming a bone of contention in this discussion.

GMichael

03-13-2008, 06:07 AM

I can't believe that energy consumption is seriously becoming a bone of contention in this discussion.

Welcome to the wonderful world of subterfuge. If he can't dazle us with brains then he'll... well, you know the rest.

Rich-n-Texas

03-13-2008, 06:18 AM

Welcome to the wonderful world of subterfuge. If he can't dazle us with brains then he'll... well, you know the rest.
What da HE!! is THAT word? :idea:

It had to be you didn't it sticks? By choking I meant red chicklet and as usual no joy with the red chicklet shotgun barrel.:incazzato:

Woochifer

03-13-2008, 09:12 AM

I should take daddys advice and never argue with a moron.

I guess that says a lot then that all you do is argue with just about everyone on this board. If we were all morons, you'd pretty much be the neutered mute mutt on this board! :yesnod:

EVEN when you win it does no good because hes' too stupid to know it.
THE ENERGY PULL FROM LCD IS A FEW FLOURESCENTS
and some solid state electronics.
THEY will ALWAYS pull less than a plasma, nimrod, ALWAYS.

Again, that's dependent on the source and the settings. The point that you keep ignoring is that the energy consumption on a LCD is constant no matter what's in the source material, whereas a plasma will consume less power with certain types of sources and that power consumption can be LOWER than with a LCD TV. Depending on the type of test pattern used, and the settings used on the TV, a plasma TV can easily use less power than a LCD. This has been verified in lab tests. Therefore, your absolute word of God proclamation that a plasma will "ALWAYS" use more power than a LCD will "ALWAYS" be false. You're more of an inanimate object than a moron, because at least a moron will admit when the facts aren't on his side.

This isnt just me saying this , its EVERYBODY.

I guess then that Home Theater magazine doesn't count as part of "EVERYBODY"? Their lab tests verify exactly what I've been telling you. But, of course that's y'know this kind of technical stuff with lots objective measurements. I mean, you can't even get the quote function straightened out, so I guess it would be unfair to expect you to understand something with numbers! :out:

Just because you're too dumb to understand why this is so, don't take it out on ME:1:

Not my fault that you post so much easily debunked nonsense. Don't like being proven wrong? Then try posting points that you can back up! And no, personal insults about someone's mother or wife (which seems to be your familiar response when you don't know what the f*k you're talking about and someone points that out) don't count as backup. :biggrin5:

And the really funny thing is that you're so clueless that you don't even know that this argument is moot.
Plasma will follow RPTV out the door in a few years, sales are already falling.
And when economies of scale start kicking in with OLED PLASMA will join
hoop skirts and buggy whips in the tech dustbin of history.

OLED is still years away from challenging either LCD or plasma. Most of the HDTVs in use today will be ready for the recycling bin by the time OLED is a feasible mass market option. It all boils down to cost. Once OLED goes down in price and can get up to manageable screen sizes, then LCD won't be too far behind plasma out the door.

LCD's market gains have been strictly due to cost, the fact that plasma TVs are not made in the smaller screen sizes (in the screen sizes under 42", LCD's market gains have been strictly at the expense of CRT), and because LCDs were first to market with 1080p resolution. Plasma generally maintain measureable advantages in some key areas, and until LCD can match or exceed them, that market won't go away.

pixelthis

03-13-2008, 10:12 PM

I can't believe that energy consumption is seriously becoming a bone of contention in this discussion.

I NEVER THOUGHT IT WAS A BIG DEAL EITHER.
But we have several in the hospital where I work.
I put my hand five inches away from the screen and could feel the heat, felt like a friggin space heater. EASY to figure out where the excess heat comes from, mainly extra power drain.
Does it take a rocket scientist to figure out that a flourescent runs a LOT cooler than a glass tube full of highly charged gas?
And yes a glass tube is what a flourescent is but the tech is a lot different:1:

Woochifer

03-14-2008, 09:22 AM

I NEVER THOUGHT IT WAS A BIG DEAL EITHER.
But we have several in the hospital where I work.
I put my hand five inches away from the screen and could feel the heat, felt like a friggin space heater. EASY to figure out where the excess heat comes from, mainly extra power drain.
Does it take a rocket scientist to figure out that a flourescent runs a LOT cooler than a glass tube full of highly charged gas?
And yes a glass tube is what a flourescent is but the tech is a lot different:1:

Clueless to the end. So I guess that anyone who would otherwise conduct a benchmark test and measure the wattage input should just hold their hand "five inches away" and cite that as proof that one component uses more energy than another? Line level measurements and replicatible technical tests have got nothing on your method! I'm sure that the ISF and AES membership are waiting for you to make a presentation on this revolutionary comparison method! :lol:

captjamo

03-15-2008, 01:17 PM

pixelthis

03-15-2008, 11:28 PM

The new 47" Vizio 1080p LCD HDTV sold at Sam's looks amazing. Take a look for yourself the next time your in there buy'n a Bluray or bottle of wine. I posted this comment somewhere else but wanted to put my 2 cents in for Vizio here too. I also want to say that Vizio and (APEX<--has Rent-a-Center written all over it) are not the least bit comparable. I believe I was told at the time I bought my first Yamaha Dolby 5.1 receiver (RXV-870 or something like that) that Yamaha only specs their AV receivers--that they were built at a Panasonic factory--didn't matter. I wanted the performance I knew I would get from the Yammy.

Vizio is the "kick around boy" of some of the snobs who populate this site.
And they are typical of the clueless "wooch"
I have NEVER read ANYWHERE that an LCD pulls more juice than a plasma,
however I have read the opposite in every article I have reaD ON THE SUBJECT.
Comparing Vizio to APEX is all hes' got really, and that is just making stuff up.
Vizio has NOTHING to do with APEX, I have seen a lot of Apex products and while
competent for the most part none even come close to the quality of my Vizio.
My Vizio has a DVDO SCALER FOR INSTANCE, and its really quite good.
While watching "A fish called wanda " in SD 4:3 theres a scene in a libaray, the books go across the screen and all are the same size.
Geometric distortion for SD is quite small.
I am going to want a bigger set sooner or later, and might want an OLED,
but this Vizio is going to be in the family for awhile:1:

Woochifer

03-16-2008, 08:17 AM

Vizio is the "kick around boy" of some of the snobs who populate this site.
And they are typical of the clueless "wooch"

And considering how often your often your nonsensical rants get debunked on this board, and how you've yet to prove anything I've stated wrong, it's pretty humorous for you to start pulling the "clueless" card. I mean, if the regulars on this board who actually get their facts straight most of the time are "clueless", then how would you regard someone (oh y'know, like yourself) who gets it wrong almost all the time? :sleep:

I have NEVER read ANYWHERE that an LCD pulls more juice than a plasma,

Then I guess you've never read Home Theater magazine? Their lab tests (conducted under controlled and replicatible conditions) demonstrated that a plasma TV can consume less energy than a LCD, depending on the source and the settings. Isn't that what I've been saying all along? :ihih:

You on the other hand, keep insisting that a LCD will "ALWAYS" consume less power because you held your hand five feet away from a plasma and felt heat. Gosh, I didn't realize how scientific you were! :rolleyes:

Comparing Vizio to APEX is all hes' got really, and that is just making stuff up.

And as usual, you're just distorting the subject to avoid the truth -- that both Vizio and Apex operate under similar business models. Apex ran into big time problems when their price point advantage eroded and had to compete with the name brands on a more equal basis, only without any product continuity and broad customer support infrastructure. Vizio's price advantage is already eroding, as is their market share.

Vizio has NOTHING to do with APEX, I have seen a lot of Apex products and while
competent for the most part none even come close to the quality of my Vizio.

So where have you seen a Apex LCD HDTV? I presume that you have, otherwise this whole point of comparing the "quality" of that Apex with your Vizio is just pure nonsense, since most of the Apex TVs that they sold were SD CRTs.

My Vizio has a DVDO SCALER FOR INSTANCE, and its really quite good.
While watching "A fish called wanda " in SD 4:3 theres a scene in a libaray, the books go across the screen and all are the same size.
Geometric distortion for SD is quite small.

Bragging about how your TV handles something in SD 4:3 is hardly a ringing endorsement. :lol:

And what does a scaler have to do with geometric distortion? Lemme guess, you're also watching this 4:3 source using the 16:9 stretch mode, and here you are talking about the absence of distortion!

I am going to want a bigger set sooner or later, and might want an OLED,
but this Vizio is going to be in the family for awhile:1:

Of course, it will be in the family for a while, since the only OLED TV on the market is an 11" Sony that sells for $2,500. You keep bringing up OLED, yet you've never seen a OLED TV. And, viable OLED options in larger screen sizes are years away, not to mention even further down the road before the price points fall below LCD or plasma. Given how cheap you are in general, you'd better hope that Vizio has got a LOT more years left on it.

Woochifer

03-16-2008, 08:31 AM

I believe I was told at the time I bought my first Yamaha Dolby 5.1 receiver (RXV-870 or something like that) that Yamaha only specs their AV receivers--that they were built at a Panasonic factory--didn't matter. I wanted the performance I knew I would get from the Yammy.

Not true. Unless things have changed over the last couple of years, Yamaha makes most of their receivers at their own facility in Malaysia. They are also one of the few receiver manufacturers that makes their own processor chips and other internal components. Panasonic makes Yamaha's DVD players, and they do contract manufacturing for other companies as well.

bubslewis

03-16-2008, 10:11 AM

I too am in the market for (yet another) TV. Was in Best Buy the other day and looked at an "Insignia" brand, LCD, 1080p. It was a fair amount less expensive than other comparably sized units in the store (except that there were no Vizios at all)

The guy said that "Insignia" was Best Buy's brand and was manufactured by what used to be Zenith. Anybody have any experience with the Insignia brand, or any good or bad thoughts?

pixelthis

03-17-2008, 01:37 AM

Woochifer]And considering how often your often your nonsensical rants get debunked on this board, and how you've yet to prove anything I've stated wrong, it's pretty humorous for you to start pulling the "clueless" card. I mean, if the regulars on this board who actually get their facts straight most of the time are "clueless", then how would you regard someone (oh y'know, like yourself) who gets it wrong almost all the time? :sleep:

Your opinion, and ONLY that.
But you dont have ANYTHING to say so you start throwing the insults, typical

Then I guess you've never read Home Theater magazine? Their lab tests (conducted under controlled and replicatible conditions) demonstrated that a plasma TV can consume less energy than a LCD, depending on the source and the settings. Isn't that what I've been saying all along? :ihih:

What you've been saying all along is nonsense. Short term lab tests?
What about long term usage? In which case the LCD will ALWAYS beat plasma

You on the other hand, keep insisting that a LCD will "ALWAYS" consume less power because you held your hand five feet away from a plasma and felt heat. Gosh, I didn't realize how scientific you were! :rolleyes:

A lot more than you , since you are unable to make scientific obsevations.
A body that is putting off heat is always going to have to be pulling more power than
a body that doesnt, and LCD doesnt produce that kind of heat

And as usual, you're just distorting the subject to avoid the truth -- that both Vizio and Apex operate under similar business models. Apex ran into big time problems when their price point advantage eroded and had to compete with the name brands on a more equal basis, only without any product continuity and broad customer support infrastructure. Vizio's price advantage is already eroding, as is their market share.

When the gov of new york got caught with a high priced call girl, she was basically using the same "business model" as a crack ho, so was the gov frequenting crack hos?
This is the sort of nonsense you've been blathering with you "business model"
nonsense, a business model has NOTHING to do with the quality of the product produced,
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

So where have you seen a Apex LCD HDTV? I presume that you have, otherwise this whole point of comparing the "quality" of that Apex with your Vizio is just pure nonsense, since most of the Apex TVs that they sold were SD CRTs.

AND THOSE CRTS didnt run on pixie dust, they used electronics, most of which looked quite well put together.
You realize that the more you blather on about ANOTHER COMPANY ENTIRELY
that you only further prove you have NOTHING to say

Bragging about how your TV handles something in SD 4:3 is hardly a ringing endorsement. :lol:

Just an example of the quality built into this set

And what does a scaler have to do with geometric distortion? Lemme guess, you're also watching this 4:3 source using the 16:9 stretch mode, and here you are talking about the absence of distortion!

KEEP displaying your ignorance.
A good deal of material on TV is still in 4:3, ntsc, and has to be rescaled to the native res of my (or anybodies) screen.
It is also converted to 16:9 if I have it set to wide.
ITS A STATEMENT OF HOW GOOD THE ELECTRONICS ARE that geometric distrotion
is minimal

Of course, it will be in the family for a while, since the only OLED TV on the market is an 11" Sony that sells for $2,500. You keep bringing up OLED, yet you've never seen a OLED TV. And, viable OLED options in larger screen sizes are years away, not to mention even further down the road before the price points fall below LCD or plasma. Given how cheap you are in general, you'd better hope that Vizio has got a LOT more years left on it.

How do you know I have never seen an OLED? There you go making stuff up again.
THEY SELL THEM at Circuit you know.
And anybody with a cell phone has seen one, they are the display tech used in cell phones , nimrod.
And wasnt it just a few years ago that LCD was 1500 bucks for a 20in screen?
Saw a 32in for 500 bucks in the sunday paper yesterday.
OLED will follow a similar trajectory.
As for "proving" you wrong how about saying something thats not an insult or bleeting
nonsense?
EVERYTIME YOU SAY SOMETHING ITS BASICALLY wrong:prrr:

GMichael

03-17-2008, 05:25 AM

The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. This proves that 5 comes before 3 .. :shocked:

Woochifer

03-17-2008, 09:41 AM

Your opinion, and ONLY that.
But you dont have ANYTHING to say so you start throwing the insults, typical

Look in the mirror, that's your conscience (or in your case, subconscious) calling!

What you've been saying all along is nonsense. Short term lab tests?

Don't blame the messenger. I'm just reporting facts. Got an issue with objective lab tests that debunk your myth-driven rants? Take it up with Home Theater and their technical staff.

What about long term usage? In which case the LCD will ALWAYS beat plasma

Blah blah blah. I proved your universal proclamation wrong, so now you're backtracking just to avoid admitting as such. How manly of you! :lol:

A lot more than you , since you are unable to make scientific obsevations.

Takes one to know one, eh? I've never pretended to be a scientist, so you're not really saying anything here.

A body that is putting off heat is always going to have to be pulling more power than
a body that doesnt, and LCD doesnt produce that kind of heat

And your subjective observation doesn't prove anything, since energy consumption is something that you quantify using an objective measurement. Your "hands five feet away" evaluation doesn't measure the actual draw from the outlet. I guess this is your definition of "scientific"? :lol:

When the gov of new york got caught with a high priced call girl, she was basically using the same "business model" as a crack ho, so was the gov frequenting crack hos?

What's this obsession you have with crack ho's? I'll just defer to your expertise on this subject, since you seem to know a lot more about them than I do. :6:

This is the sort of nonsense you've been blathering with you "business model"
nonsense, a business model has NOTHING to do with the quality of the product produced,
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

But, it does have a lot to do with the lack of continuity from one model to another. Problem with the virtual business model that companies like Vizio and Apex use is that one good production run does not guarantee that the next product revision will be similarly good, since every time a new model revision comes out, there's no guarantee that the same outsource partner will be used. That's a good method for driving down prices, but not so good for ensuring consistent product quality and performance.

AND THOSE CRTS didnt run on pixie dust, they used electronics, most of which looked quite well put together.
You realize that the more you blather on about ANOTHER COMPANY ENTIRELY
that you only further prove you have NOTHING to say

For someone who claims to know so much about history (i.e., YOU WERE THERE), you're sure ignorant of the lessons that the rise and fall of the Chinese DVD player industry taught. Vizio's following the exact same business model that many off-brand DVD player distributors followed, which left many consumers burned in the process. While that's no guarantee of history repeating itself, it's certainly worth noting that undercutting a price point means compromises somewhere along the line, whether that's in the product quality or the customer support or both.

KEEP displaying your ignorance.
A good deal of material on TV is still in 4:3, ntsc, and has to be rescaled to the native res of my (or anybodies) screen.
It is also converted to 16:9 if I have it set to wide.

In other words, you shouldn't be talking about geometric distortion if you're watching a distorted picture right from the outset!

What do you think a 16:9 stretch mode is doing to that 4:3 image?

And pixel says: UH, DISTORTING THE IMAGE? And pixel's right for the time first time ever!!!! Well, only in his dreams! :rolleyes:

How do you know I have never seen an OLED? There you go making stuff up again.
THEY SELL THEM at Circuit you know.
And anybody with a cell phone has seen one, they are the display tech used in cell phones , nimrod.

Right, an 11" Sony model that sells for $2,500! And a cell phone screen?! That will REALLY tell you a lot about how a display technology will fare when blown up to a 40"+ screen size!

And wasnt it just a few years ago that LCD was 1500 bucks for a 20in screen?

And at least a few years ago, you had LCD screens in that size configuration. OLED hasn't even reached that point yet. Samsung doesn't anticipate having anything in a larger size until 2010 at the earliest, and who knows what price points those will have.

OLED will follow a similar trajectory.

And given that the TVs won't even approach the 40"+ screen sizes that currently dominate the market for at least two more years, you're at least that much time away from that price trajectory even beginning. Like I said earlier, by the time OLED's prices become competitive, most of today's LCD, DLP, CRT, and plasma HDTVs will be ready for the recycling bin.

As for "proving" you wrong how about saying something thats not an insult or bleeting
nonsense?
EVERYTIME YOU SAY SOMETHING ITS BASICALLY wrong:prrr:

I see that you're typing this while looking in the mirror. Nice to see that you're giving yourself abject lessons on life. The only question is whether you'll actually listen to yourself, since we already know that you don't listen to anyone else, as evidenced by your repeating the same nonsense over and over even after someone proves you wrong! (Got news for you, saying something that was wrong the first time does not make it right, no matter how many times you repeat it!) :lol:

Rich-n-Texas

03-17-2008, 10:09 AM

...Right, an 11" Sony model that sells for $2,500!...
Would that be this one:

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/hdtvs/2740/we-size-up-sonys-oled-tv.html

Bizzaro looking thing IMO.

bobsticks

03-17-2008, 05:02 PM

"Crack Ho" seems to be a reoccuring theme with you, Pixie :biggrin5:

Rich-n-Texas

03-17-2008, 05:06 PM

How much fo the ho? (Not the crack)

pixelthis

03-18-2008, 12:30 AM

Look in the mirror, that's your conscience (or in your case, subconscious) calling!

Don't blame the messenger. I'm just reporting facts. Got an issue with objective lab tests that debunk your myth-driven rants? Take it up with Home Theater and their technical staff.

Blah blah blah. I proved your universal proclamation wrong, so now you're backtracking just to avoid admitting as such. How manly of you! :lol:

Takes one to know one, eh? I've never pretended to be a scientist, so you're not really saying anything here.

And your subjective observation doesn't prove anything, since energy consumption is something that you quantify using an objective measurement. Your "hands five feet away" evaluation doesn't measure the actual draw from the outlet. I guess this is your definition of "scientific"? :lol:

What's this obsession you have with crack ho's? I'll just defer to your expertise on this subject, since you seem to know a lot more about them than I do. :6:

But, it does have a lot to do with the lack of continuity from one model to another. Problem with the virtual business model that companies like Vizio and Apex use is that one good production run does not guarantee that the next product revision will be similarly good, since every time a new model revision comes out, there's no guarantee that the same outsource partner will be used. That's a good method for driving down prices, but not so good for ensuring consistent product quality and performance.

For someone who claims to know so much about history (i.e., YOU WERE THERE), you're sure ignorant of the lessons that the rise and fall of the Chinese DVD player industry taught. Vizio's following the exact same business model that many off-brand DVD player distributors followed, which left many consumers burned in the process. While that's no guarantee of history repeating itself, it's certainly worth noting that undercutting a price point means compromises somewhere along the line, whether that's in the product quality or the customer support or both.

In other words, you shouldn't be talking about geometric distortion if you're watching a distorted picture right from the outset!

What do you think a 16:9 stretch mode is doing to that 4:3 image?

And pixel says: UH, DISTORTING THE IMAGE? And pixel's right for the time first time ever!!!! Well, only in his dreams! :rolleyes:

Right, an 11" Sony model that sells for $2,500! And a cell phone screen?! That will REALLY tell you a lot about how a display technology will fare when blown up to a 40"+ screen size!

And at least a few years ago, you had LCD screens in that size configuration. OLED hasn't even reached that point yet. Samsung doesn't anticipate having anything in a larger size until 2010 at the earliest, and who knows what price points those will have.

And given that the TVs won't even approach the 40"+ screen sizes that currently dominate the market for at least two more years, you're at least that much time away from that price trajectory even beginning. Like I said earlier, by the time OLED's prices become competitive, most of today's LCD, DLP, CRT, and plasma HDTVs will be ready for the recycling bin.

I see that you're typing this while looking in the mirror. Nice to see that you're giving yourself abject lessons on life. The only question is whether you'll actually listen to yourself, since we already know that you don't listen to anyone else, as evidenced by your repeating the same nonsense over and over even after someone proves you wrong! (Got news for you, saying something that was wrong the first time does not make it right, no matter how many times you repeat it!) :lol:

let me explain something to you nimrod, you dont "WIN" by mearly stating that you have "won".
You're so damn stupid that you don't know that you lost, and looked rather bad when losing for that matter.
now I guess youi're gonna do like the GERMANS at the end of WWII, declare yourself the victor and shoot yourself in the head.
WELL, don't bother, theres NOTHING up there for a bullet to hit:1:

pixelthis

03-18-2008, 12:33 AM

Would that be this one:

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/hdtvs/2740/we-size-up-sonys-oled-tv.html

Bizzaro looking thing IMO.

Which everybody on this site is going to be lining up to buy, consider the way they bleet
on and on about black level at the expense of just about EVERYTHING else
(OLED has a perfect blacklevel)
And if you think THATS weird they also have a prototype that is flexible, you can wrap it around a pole:1:

Woochifer

03-18-2008, 07:23 AM

let me explain something to you nimrod, you dont "WIN" by mearly stating that you have "won".

Nope, I win by refuting your nonsense with facts. Your non-response to any of the points that I brought up merely illustrates that you're at the losing end, and won't admit as such.

You're so damn stupid that you don't know that you lost, and looked rather bad when losing for that matter.

:lol: Keep fishing, you might come up with the right answer one of these days. But, while you're stretching that "scientific" mind of yours, keep your desperation zipped up -- it's showing. :p

now I guess youi're gonna do like the GERMANS at the end of WWII, declare yourself the victor and shoot yourself in the head.

Nope, I don't need to declare anything. This nonsensical rant of yours, which refutes none of what I've stated, does more to declare that you've been schooled than anything I can add.

WELL, don't bother, theres NOTHING up there for a bullet to hit:1:

But, at least you lace your personal insults with such verve and wit ... yuh, right! :rolleyes:

pixelthis

03-18-2008, 11:24 PM

Nope, I win by refuting your nonsense with facts. Your non-response to any of the points that I brought up merely illustrates that you're at the losing end, and won't admit as such.

WHAT "facts"? Plasma used MORE energy than LCD, 37 DOLLARS A YEAR
in electricity, THATS a FACT CRAP FOR BRAINS

:lol: Keep fishing, you might come up with the right answer one of these days. But, while you're stretching that "scientific" mind of yours, keep your desperation zipped up -- it's showing. :p

Now you've become completely delusional, desperation? Desperate over what?
I've won every argument and proven you wrong EVERYTIME

Nope, I don't need to declare anything. This nonsensical rant of yours, which refutes none of what I've stated, does more to declare that you've been schooled than anything I can add.

What you're "stating" (that plasma is more efficent than LCD) doesnt need "refuting,
its the exact OPPOSITE OF WHAT everybody in the industry agres on, dillweed.
You're like a hillbilly arguing that the world is flat, and you're embarassing yourself

But, at least you lace your personal insults with such verve and wit ... yuh, right! :rolleyes:

Yes I AM RIGHT! Finally, something we can agree on!:1:

pixelthis

03-18-2008, 11:30 PM

http://www.plasmatvbuyingguide.com/plasmatvreviews/plasma-vs-lcd.html

THIS LINK compares plasma to LCD, and declares that plasma energy usage is up to twice what an LCD is

pixelthis

03-18-2008, 11:34 PM

http://www.geekologie.com/2007/05/how_not_to_ship_a_plasma_tv.php

This is interesting

pixelthis

03-18-2008, 11:35 PM

http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/plasma-tv-is-dead

To the clueless wooch, THIS is what I am saying

pixelthis

03-18-2008, 11:50 PM

GMichael

03-19-2008, 05:41 AM

http://www.plasmatvbuyingguide.com/plasmatvreviews/plasma-vs-lcd.html

THIS LINK compares plasma to LCD, and declares that plasma energy usage is up to twice what an LCD is

That's an overall average. Wooch is saying that under certain conditions an LCD can use more power for a short period of time.

GMichael

03-19-2008, 05:43 AM

http://www.geekologie.com/2007/05/how_not_to_ship_a_plasma_tv.php

This is interesting

Ship an LCD the same way and you'll not like how it comes out either.

GMichael

03-19-2008, 05:48 AM

And just in case THAT aint ENOUGH,
Another thread

http://www.audioholics.com/education/display-formats-technology/display-technologies-guide-lcd-plasma-dlp-lcos-d-ila-crt/display-technologies-guide-lcd-plasma-dlp-lcos-d-ila-crt-page-3

stating the obvious.
AND I CAN GO ON ALL DAY
No one said that LCD's don't have the edge with Mr Joe Average. Just that the PQ with plazma is a little better. But as we all (or most of us) know, quality does not always win out over convenience.

f0rge

03-19-2008, 06:30 AM

GMichael

03-19-2008, 06:52 AM

who cares if plasma takes more power? 37 dollars?

you can take your tree huggery elsewhere thanks

i bet your air conditioner takes a lot more power than a fan, but that sure doesn't make the fan better.

But if you hold your hand 5 inches away from the back of that a/c unit you will feel the heat coming off it.:arf:

Woochifer

03-19-2008, 09:15 AM

WHAT "facts"? Plasma used MORE energy than LCD, 37 DOLLARS A YEAR
in electricity, THATS a FACT CRAP FOR BRAINS

Fact? Only for that particular set of conditions, but not all. Isn't that what I've been saying all along? Or is your reading comprehension failing you, as usual?

Now you've become completely delusional, desperation? Desperate over what?
I've won every argument and proven you wrong EVERYTIME

Boy, and you accuse me of prematurely declaring victory! At least I got the facts on my side! You've got a proclamation, and nothing to back it up. Sad when myopia gets to this level. :cool:

What you're "stating" (that plasma is more efficent than LCD) doesnt need "refuting,

Nope, try reading my original post and all of my subsequent responses. I've stated all along that plasma CAN be more efficient than LCD depending on the source and the settings. Your responses all along have been that LCD is ALWAYS more efficient than plasma. Well, if Home Theater's benchmark tests can demonstrate circumstances under which plasma power consumption undercuts LCD, then that proves your statement WRONG. Game. Set. Match. Check the scoreboard dude, you got schooled! :cool:

You're like a hillbilly arguing that the world is flat, and you're embarassing yourself

Considering that you're the resident hillbilly of this board, are you now saying that the world is flat? How "scientific" of you! :lol:

Yes I AM RIGHT! Finally, something we can agree on!:1:

Considering that you finally got the quote function right, maybe there's hope that you might correctly read a snark when you see one! But, I'm not holding out hope here ... :sleep:

THIS LINK compares plasma to LCD, and declares that plasma energy usage is up to twice what an LCD is

That is under THOSE circumstances. Under other circumstances, the plasma will use about 38% less energy, as measured in the January 2006 issue of Home Theater.

Out of the box, the plasma is slightly better than the LCD, at 194 watts. Drop the contrast to 80 percent of its maximum (where you'd expect a calibrated set to be, more or less), and now you're down to 162 watts. That's a savings of $0.40 each month (calculated based on two hours per day of use) over the full-lamp LCD!

Like I said, don't let facts get in the way of your delusional rants. :cornut:

This is interesting

Only if you're now trying to argue that LCD TVs are indestructible! :lol:

To the clueless wooch, THIS is what I am saying

What are you saying? This link sure doesn't say anything about plasma power consumption, does it? So Pioneer's going to start purchasing their plasma panels from Panasonic. Big deal. Panasonic has surpassed Pioneer's display technology, and they already undercut Pioneer's prices. Pioneer's been trying to sell 720p plasmas for higher prices than Panasonic's 1080p plasmas. Doesn't take a business genius to see that Pioneer's going to have trouble sustaining that kind of price structure. In the meantime, Panasonic's doing just fine.

And just in case THAT aint ENOUGH,
Another thread

http://www.audioholics.com/education...ila-crt-page-3

stating the obvious.
AND I CAN GO ON ALL DAY

And like I said, under what circumstances are they making that assertion about the power consumption?

You can go on all day, but that won't make your universal proclamation that LCD ALWAYS uses less power than plasma correct. Just like your typical pattern of repeating debunked information ad nauseum doesn't make you any less wrong than you were the first time. Better to cut bait the first time, rather than risk further embarassment by getting into repeated losing argume ... oh never mind, it's too late for you! :lol:

Also, note that this very same link has this to say about plasma's picture quality ...

* Excellent (real) contrast ratios and black levels
* Excellent color reproduction
* Excellent life expectancy
* Excellent viewing angle with no real loss of color or contrast

As GM correctly points out, quality is not always something that Joe6p gravitates towards.

pixelthis

03-19-2008, 10:25 PM

But if you hold your hand 5 inches away from the back of that a/c unit you will feel the heat coming off it.:arf:

FUNNY, I HELD MY HAND FIVE INCHES
away from your wife and felt the same thing:1:

pixelthis

03-19-2008, 10:29 PM

Fact? Only for that particular set of conditions, but not all. Isn't that what I've been saying all along? Or is your reading comprehension failing you, as usual?

Boy, and you accuse me of prematurely declaring victory! At least I got the facts on my side! You've got a proclamation, and nothing to back it up. Sad when myopia gets to this level. :cool:

Nope, try reading my original post and all of my subsequent responses. I've stated all along that plasma CAN be more efficient than LCD depending on the source and the settings. Your responses all along have been that LCD is ALWAYS more efficient than plasma. Well, if Home Theater's benchmark tests can demonstrate circumstances under which plasma power consumption undercuts LCD, then that proves your statement WRONG. Game. Set. Match. Check the scoreboard dude, you got schooled! :cool:

Considering that you're the resident hillbilly of this board, are you now saying that the world is flat? How "scientific" of you! :lol:

Considering that you finally got the quote function right, maybe there's hope that you might correctly read a snark when you see one! But, I'm not holding out hope here ... :sleep:

That is under THOSE circumstances. Under other circumstances, the plasma will use about 38% less energy, as measured in the January 2006 issue of Home Theater.

Out of the box, the plasma is slightly better than the LCD, at 194 watts. Drop the contrast to 80 percent of its maximum (where you'd expect a calibrated set to be, more or less), and now you're down to 162 watts. That's a savings of $0.40 each month (calculated based on two hours per day of use) over the full-lamp LCD!

Like I said, don't let facts get in the way of your delusional rants. :cornut:

Only if you're now trying to argue that LCD TVs are indestructible! :lol:

What are you saying? This link sure doesn't say anything about plasma power consumption, does it? So Pioneer's going to start purchasing their plasma panels from Panasonic. Big deal. Panasonic has surpassed Pioneer's display technology, and they already undercut Pioneer's prices. Pioneer's been trying to sell 720p plasmas for higher prices than Panasonic's 1080p plasmas. Doesn't take a business genius to see that Pioneer's going to have trouble sustaining that kind of price structure. In the meantime, Panasonic's doing just fine.

And like I said, under what circumstances are they making that assertion about the power consumption?

You can go on all day, but that won't make your universal proclamation that LCD ALWAYS uses less power than plasma correct. Just like your typical pattern of repeating debunked information ad nauseum doesn't make you any less wrong than you were the first time. Better to cut bait the first time, rather than risk further embarassment by getting into repeated losing argume ... oh never mind, it's too late for you! :lol:

Also, note that this very same link has this to say about plasma's picture quality ...

* Excellent (real) contrast ratios and black levels
* Excellent color reproduction
* Excellent life expectancy
* Excellent viewing angle with no real loss of color or contrast

As GM correctly points out, quality is not always something that Joe6p gravitates towards.

And making sense is something you NEVER gravitate towards.
It takes several thousand volts to produce a plasma, a flourescent will ALWAYS
be more energy efficient, nimrod:1:

GMichael

03-20-2008, 05:07 AM

FUNNY, I HELD MY HAND FIVE INCHES
away from your wife and felt the same thing:1:

She is kind of hot. Don't get too close though. You may get burned.

Rich-n-Texas

03-20-2008, 09:32 AM

She is kind of hot. Don't get too close though. You may get burned.
Too late. :ihih:

GMichael

03-20-2008, 09:41 AM

Too late. :ihih:

How long did it take for you to catch your breath?

Woochifer

03-20-2008, 10:22 AM

And making sense is something you NEVER gravitate towards.
It takes several thousand volts to produce a plasma, a flourescent will ALWAYS
be more energy efficient, nimrod:1:

So by your logic, a plasma TV should produce nothing more than a blank screen using a standard 120V AC current? And you say that I don't make any sense! :lol:

The contention at hand is whether a plasma TV can consume less energy than a LCD TV. So if you say that plasma is ALWAYS less efficient than fluorescent, then how come I can cite a test bench measurement that clearly demonstrates a plasma TV using less energy than a LCD TV? Your theoretical rants always turn into nonsense whenever they run into practical applications -- y'know when technology is actually used in the real world! Of course, I don't expect you to understand anything along those lines, since your posts demonstrate that you have a rather hazy grasp on reality to begin with! Or maybe you're just trying to impress all your imaginary friends with imaginary science? :cool:

Woochifer

03-20-2008, 10:34 AM

How long did it take for you to catch your breath?

Okay, crack ho's been checked off. Now, the wife blast has been fired off. So, I guess the only canned insult that pixel's got left is the mother? When personal attacks are all anyone's got left, it's sad (or in pixel's case, FUNNY AS HELL) to see them limp along with so few bullets in the clip ... :ihih:

Rich-n-Texas

03-20-2008, 10:43 AM

How long did it take for you to catch your breath?
Dam near had a heart attack!

When personal attacks are all anyone's got left, it's sad (or in pixel's case, FUNNY AS HELL) to see them limp along with so few bullets in the clip ... :ihih:
Bullets in the clip? I've been shooting blanks so long it's embarrasing!!! :cryin:

GMichael

03-20-2008, 10:59 AM

Okay, crack ho's been checked off. Now, the wife blast has been fired off. So, I guess the only canned insult that pixel's got left is the mother? When personal attacks are all anyone's got left, it's sad (or in pixel's case, FUNNY AS HELL) to see them limp along with so few bullets in the clip ... :ihih:

I think that he knows that most of what he's saying is wrong. He's just having fun with us.

E-Stat

03-20-2008, 01:08 PM

As GM correctly points out, quality is not always something that Joe6p gravitates towards.
The real answer is that for smaller screen sizes, LCDs are now cheap. Picked up a (mere) 720p 42" Vizio LCD for one of the guest bedrooms at Wal-Mart for six bills.

rw

Woochifer

03-20-2008, 08:02 PM

The real answer is that for smaller screen sizes, LCDs are now cheap. Picked up a (mere) 720p 42" Vizio LCD for one of the guest bedrooms at Wal-Mart for six bills.

rw

Yep, and that's also the big reason why LCD has an overall market share lead -- because they are made in those smaller screen sizes. Plasmas are almost exclusively in the 42" and larger sizes (though LG's supposedly looking to introduce a 32" model). The overall market is moving into those larger screen sizes, which is why none of the market analysts that actually look at sales trends are projecting plasma to go away anytime soon.

LCD's market growth has tracked with price drops and being the first direct view segment to implement 1080p across the board. Until a newer technology comes along that can trump LCD and plasma in every performance facet, plasma will retain a sizable market niche because it still has inherent advantages over LCD (e.g., black levels, contrast, smoothness with moving backgrounds, etc.), and there are frankly a lot of consumers out there that just don't like LCD. Those consumers driven by price will go to LCD, consumers driven by image preference will choose between LCD and plasma based on that preference.

pixelthis

03-20-2008, 10:31 PM

So by your logic, a plasma TV should produce nothing more than a blank screen using a standard 120V AC current? And you say that I don't make any sense! :lol:

The contention at hand is whether a plasma TV can consume less energy than a LCD TV. So if you say that plasma is ALWAYS less efficient than fluorescent, then how come I can cite a test bench measurement that clearly demonstrates a plasma TV using less energy than a LCD TV? Your theoretical rants always turn into nonsense whenever they run into practical applications -- y'know when technology is actually used in the real world! Of course, I don't expect you to understand anything along those lines, since your posts demonstrate that you have a rather hazy grasp on reality to begin with! Or maybe you're just trying to impress all your imaginary friends with imaginary science? :cool:

YOU really are as ignorant as you seem , arent you?

You dont know it (or much of anything ) but CRT sets have 30,000 volts going to
the tube, you ever have a "30,000 volt" plug in your house?
Plasmas get their high voltage by trading off current.
You can get 120 volts ac outta a car battery by trading off some of the 600 amps for
voltage.
And that current is expensive.
ITS DONE WITH A LITTLE THING CALLED A STEP-UP TRANSFORMER,
a tech that has been around since A.C current.
NO WONDER YOU KEEP ARGUING NONSENSE WITH ME, you are totally
ignorant of the subject on which you're arguing.
Typical of this board.

Btw none of this is "theoretical" , neither is measuring the power of equipment
over time to get an average, THIS is whats important.
Like Mark twain said there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
If you think that a momentary drop in power usage ( everytime theres a blank screen)
which only lasts for a few nanoseconds equates to "using less power"
than feel free to do so, you dont even know what a step up transformer is
so what does it matter what you're "opinion" is?:1:

pixelthis

03-20-2008, 10:39 PM

Yep, and that's also the big reason why LCD has an overall market share lead -- because they are made in those smaller screen sizes. Plasmas are almost exclusively in the 42" and larger sizes (though LG's supposedly looking to introduce a 32" model). The overall market is moving into those larger screen sizes, which is why none of the market analysts that actually look at sales trends are projecting plasma to go away anytime soon.

LCD's market growth has tracked with price drops and being the first direct view segment to implement 1080p across the board. Until a newer technology comes along that can trump LCD and plasma in every performance facet, plasma will retain a sizable market niche because it still has inherent advantages over LCD (e.g., black levels, contrast, smoothness with moving backgrounds, etc.), and there are frankly a lot of consumers out there that just don't like LCD. Those consumers driven by price will go to LCD, consumers driven by image preference will choose between LCD and plasma based on that preference.

The reason LCD is beating the pants off of Plasma is the advent of 1080P, plasma in 1080p is very expensive, and most can't justify paying the extra for what most think is a nebulous benefit.

And its funny how plasma boosters talk about LCD DOMINANCE of "smaller screen sizes"
neglecting to mention that this segment goes up to 52in and is
MOST OF THE MARKET.
And there are those who prefer the sharper, more accurate picture of LCD, coulda
gotten a Plasma , didnt want one, didnt want the trouble and didnt want to pay a premium for a very small improvement in black level and a LOT of glare.

CLUELESS as usual:1:

GMichael

03-21-2008, 05:01 AM

CLUELESS as usual:1:

Oh, you aren't THAT bad. And some day, you may even grow out of it.

Woochifer

03-21-2008, 10:06 AM

YOU really are as ignorant as you seem , arent you?

You dont know it (or much of anything ) but CRT sets have 30,000 volts going to
the tube, you ever have a "30,000 volt" plug in your house?
Plasmas get their high voltage by trading off current.
You can get 120 volts ac outta a car battery by trading off some of the 600 amps for
voltage.
And that current is expensive.
ITS DONE WITH A LITTLE THING CALLED A STEP-UP TRANSFORMER,
a tech that has been around since A.C current.
NO WONDER YOU KEEP ARGUING NONSENSE WITH ME, you are totally
ignorant of the subject on which you're arguing.

So, what does any of this have to do with power consumption, and how a plasma TV performs in an actual power consumption measurement? Nothing.

Btw none of this is "theoretical" , neither is measuring the power of equipment
over time to get an average, THIS is whats important.

Keep right on backtracking, you're getting closer to the truth, which is exactly what I said in my ORIGINAL POST.

Typical of this board

Right, countering your nonsensical jibberish with real world facts. Oh so typical.

Like Mark twain said there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
If you think that a momentary drop in power usage ( everytime theres a blank screen)
which only lasts for a few nanoseconds equates to "using less power"
than feel free to do so, you dont even know what a step up transformer is
so what does it matter what you're "opinion" is?:1:

And what does this have to do with your universal proclamation that LCD ALWAYS uses less power than plasma? Again, nothing. If you'd just admitted that there were verifiable circumstances under which plasma uses less power than LCD, that would've saved you a lot of embarrassment. But, I guess that so long as you can keep on arguing in a circle, you might someday win just ONE argument! :lol:

The reason LCD is beating the pants off of Plasma is the advent of 1080P, plasma in 1080p is very expensive, and most can't justify paying the extra for what most think is a nebulous benefit.

As usual, trying to win an argument with old information. The latest Panasonic 1080p plasma comes in with a list price of $1,600, which is comparable to a name brand 1080p LCD of the same size and lower than the 120 Hz LCD models (which is needed to come anywhere close to matching the motion smoothness of plasma).

And its funny how plasma boosters talk about LCD DOMINANCE of "smaller screen sizes"
neglecting to mention that this segment goes up to 52in and is
MOST OF THE MARKET.

And where is plasma's market niche? Uh, in the larger screen sizes (now up to 70")? And where is MOST OF THE MARKET? In the 42" and below screen sizes, where aside from the 42" size, plasma does not occupy! :idea:

And there are those who prefer the sharper, more accurate picture of LCD, coulda
gotten a Plasma , didnt want one, didnt want the trouble and didnt want to pay a premium for a very small improvement in black level and a LOT of glare.

Nah, I think you just looked at the cheaper price tag, and said SOLD! :lol:

pixelthis

03-23-2008, 10:56 PM

So, what does any of this have to do with power consumption, and how a plasma TV performs in an actual power consumption measurement? Nothing.

Keep right on backtracking, you're getting closer to the truth, which is exactly what I said in my ORIGINAL POST.

Right, countering your nonsensical jibberish with real world facts. Oh so typical.

And what does this have to do with your universal proclamation that LCD ALWAYS uses less power than plasma? Again, nothing. If you'd just admitted that there were verifiable circumstances under which plasma uses less power than LCD, that would've saved you a lot of embarrassment. But, I guess that so long as you can keep on arguing in a circle, you might someday win just ONE argument! :lol:

As usual, trying to win an argument with old information. The latest Panasonic 1080p plasma comes in with a list price of $1,600, which is comparable to a name brand 1080p LCD of the same size and lower than the 120 Hz LCD models (which is needed to come anywhere close to matching the motion smoothness of plasma).

And where is plasma's market niche? Uh, in the larger screen sizes (now up to 70")? And where is MOST OF THE MARKET? In the 42" and below screen sizes, where aside from the 42" size, plasma does not occupy! :idea:

Nah, I think you just looked at the cheaper price tag, and said SOLD! :lol:

more NONSENSE.
Keep arguing with yourself, I'm not wasting my time arguing with a ninny who understands NOTHING about which hes arguing:1:

Woochifer

03-24-2008, 03:51 PM

more NONSENSE.
Keep arguing with yourself, I'm not wasting my time arguing with a ninny who understands NOTHING about which hes arguing:1:

Typical response from someone who gets scoreboarded and schooled time after time! Would help if you try looking up some CURRENT information before ranting away. But, then again, READY FIRE AIM seems to be your motto.

I guess my assessment of how you decided on that Vizio of yours hit a bit close to home? Nothing wrong with that, but at least admit that the price tag was your numero uno criteria! Talking about glare, accuracy, color, etc. just don't hold up. LCD's primary advantage right now is price (at least in the 42" range) and the brightness levels. Just about every other performance measure where it's not a push -- black levels, color accuracy, contrast, motion resolution -- shows the latest plasma models with a verifiable advantage.

"Ninny"?! Now THAT'S a word everybody's still using! :rolleyes: I guess it's time for you to go back your Hee-Haw reruns ... :thumbsup:

pixelthis

03-24-2008, 11:31 PM

Typical response from someone who gets scoreboarded and schooled time after time! Would help if you try looking up some CURRENT information before ranting away. But, then again, READY FIRE AIM seems to be your motto.

And I STILL hit my target much more than you do.
And science isnt a "current" matter, not that you know anything about current,
(or voltage, watts, amps, english)

I guess my assessment of how you decided on that Vizio of yours hit a bit close to home? Nothing wrong with that, but at least admit that the price tag was your numero uno criteria! Talking about glare, accuracy, color, etc. just don't hold up. LCD's primary advantage right now is price (at least in the 42" range) and the brightness levels. Just about every other performance measure where it's not a push -- black levels, color accuracy, contrast, motion resolution -- shows the latest plasma models with a verifiable advantage.

What a maroon, you come to a wrong conclusion , make a wrong assumption (that plasma is better than LCD) and assume that it MUST be cost that made me buy my set.
And you think you hurt my "feelings" by intimating that I couldnt afford "better"
WHAT GALL
iF YOU MUST KNOW the buying process it was a choice of several sets, a nice 34in crt from Sony(didnt measure up) a plasma on closeout , and the Vizio that I eventually bought,
which at 37in was the same price as a 32in from a year earlier.
BUT that was the only thought about price, the store where I bought my set gave me 1500 in credit as soon as I walked through the door.
I bought my Vizio because it looked better and was cheaper than anything else, like the other three vizio buyers that were there

"Ninny"?! Now THAT'S a word everybody's still using! :rolleyes: I guess it's time for you to go back your Hee-Haw reruns ... :thumbsup:

HEE HAW? Now THATS something I havent heard of for a decade or so, giving yourself away there a bit arent ya?

Woochifer

03-25-2008, 10:33 AM

And I STILL hit my target much more than you do.
And science isnt a "current" matter, not that you know anything about current,
(or voltage, watts, amps, english)

And stuff you pulled out of a science textbook still doesn't address how a plasma TV can consume less energy than a LCD TV in a verifiable test.

Celebrating that you hit a target says absolutely nothing about what you were actually aiming for! :lol:

What a maroon, you come to a wrong conclusion , make a wrong assumption (that plasma is better than LCD) and assume that it MUST be cost that made me buy my set.
And you think you hurt my "feelings" by intimating that I couldnt afford "better"
WHAT GALL

I could care less about your "feelings"; I simply stated the facts as I see them. I have no control over your own inability to keep from overreacting anytime someone spells out the truth to you.

And BTW, I don't "intimate" anything about what you can or cannot afford. You could be earning a seven-figure income for all I care, but that doesn't stop anyone from being cheap. After all, you once proudly proclaimed "I am the king of the bottomfeeders. I know how to get the bargains," right? :D I thought you were proud of being cheap, but I guess now you want to be perceived as a discerning consumer or somethin'! Good luck with that endeavor!

iF YOU MUST KNOW the buying process it was a choice of several sets, a nice 34in crt from Sony(didnt measure up) a plasma on closeout , and the Vizio that I eventually bought,
which at 37in was the same price as a 32in from a year earlier.
BUT that was the only thought about price, the store where I bought my set gave me 1500 in credit as soon as I walked through the door.
I bought my Vizio because it looked better and was cheaper than anything else, like the other three vizio buyers that were there

So, this is your endaround way of admitting that you saw the cheapest set and bought it! Isn't that what I originally said? :lol:

HEE HAW? Now THATS something I havent heard of for a decade or so, giving yourself away there a bit arent ya?

Earth to Pix! I'm not the one recycling old one-liners, and outdated slang! :lol: Then again, your moldy wordsmithing speaks volumes to the outdated information sources that you use. :Yawn:

bobsticks

03-25-2008, 11:13 AM

ROTFLMAO..."moldy wordsmithing"....one chicklet promisory note as soon as my Green Wiki gun unjams...oh god

pixelthis

03-26-2008, 12:25 AM

And stuff you pulled out of a science textbook still doesn't address how a plasma TV can consume less energy than a LCD TV in a verifiable test.

which test, and why DOES THIS ISSUE matter so much to you?
Is it all you have to cling to?

Celebrating that you hit a target says absolutely nothing about what you were actually aiming for! :lol:

I simply stated the facts as I see them.

You might want to stop that, you're embarassing yourself

And BTW, I don't "intimate" anything about what you can or cannot afford. You could be earning a seven-figure income for all I care, but that doesn't stop anyone from being cheap. After all, you once proudly proclaimed "I am the king of the bottomfeeders. I know how to get the bargains," right? :D I thought you were proud of being cheap, but I guess now you want to be perceived as a discerning consumer or somethin'! Good luck with that endeavor! [/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

You sound like someone in the seventh grade, good luck with that endevour!

And yes I like to save money but I DONT LIKE TO COMPROMISE ON QUALITY.
Maybe you can take home economics and they'll help with that for you

So, this is your endaround way of admitting that you saw the cheapest set and bought it! Isn't that what I originally said? :lol:

THE CHEAPEST , and the best in terms of PQ and features, only a moron would think that the two are exclusive of one another

Earth to Pix! I'm not the one recycling old one-liners, and outdated slang! :lol: Then again, your moldy wordsmithing speaks volumes to the outdated information sources that you use. :Yawn:

YOU'RE the one talking about "hee haw", and the only things "moldy" around here are youor brain cells.
GET SOME HELP:1:

GMichael

03-26-2008, 05:13 AM

which test, and why DOES THIS ISSUE matter so much to you?
Is it all you have to cling to?

You might want to stop that, you're embarassing yourself

And BTW, I don't "intimate" anything about what you can or cannot afford. You could be earning a seven-figure income for all I care, but that doesn't stop anyone from being cheap. After all, you once proudly proclaimed "I am the king of the bottomfeeders. I know how to get the bargains," right? :D I thought you were proud of being cheap, but I guess now you want to be perceived as a discerning consumer or somethin'! Good luck with that endeavor!

You sound like someone in the seventh grade, good luck with that endevour!

And yes I like to save money but I DONT LIKE TO COMPROMISE ON QUALITY.
Maybe you can take home economics and they'll help with that for you

THE CHEAPEST , and the best in terms of PQ and features, only a moron would think that the two are exclusive of one another

YOU'RE the one talking about "hee haw", and the only things "moldy" around here are youor brain cells.
GET SOME HELP:1:

Maybe you should just give up on that quote button.

Rich-n-Texas

03-26-2008, 05:25 AM

Maybe you should just give up on that quote button.
Exactly. Exactly.

Woochifer

03-26-2008, 11:59 AM

which test, and why DOES THIS ISSUE matter so much to you?
Is it all you have to cling to?

I already posted the citation to Home Theater's measurements, therefore I have a lot more to cling onto than the false proclamations that you support. All you got left are lies, and for whatever reason, you seem most desperate not to let this one go.

You might want to stop that, you're embarassing yourself

Why would I want to stop? Because the truth hurts your oh-so-feeble feelings? :lol:

You were the one that proclaimed yourself the king of the bottomfeeders! If you don't want to wear the crown, then don't lay claim to the throne! But hey, it's your seat, now go sit in it ... your subjects at Wal-Mart await you!

You sound like someone in the seventh grade, good luck with that endevour!

Maybe it sounds like 7th grade, because you never got past that level? Or is English As A First Language too advanced for you?

And yes I like to save money but I DONT LIKE TO COMPROMISE ON QUALITY.
Maybe you can take home economics and they'll help with that for you

THE CHEAPEST , and the best in terms of PQ and features, only a moron would think that the two are exclusive of one another

Yet, here you are presuming that they are one and the same. So much for your "no compromise" claims about quality! :lol:

YOU'RE the one talking about "hee haw", and the only things "moldy" around here are youor brain cells.
GET SOME HELP:1:

If you say so. Then again, my "moldy" brain cells can at least grasp contemporary language usage, whereas your remaining cells seem to have maxed out sometime back in the 70s!

pixelthis

03-30-2008, 10:51 PM

I already posted the citation to Home Theater's measurements, therefore I have a lot more to cling onto than the false proclamations that you support. All you got left are lies, and for whatever reason, you seem most desperate not to let this one go.

Why would I want to stop? Because the truth hurts your oh-so-feeble feelings? :lol:

You were the one that proclaimed yourself the king of the bottomfeeders! If you don't want to wear the crown, then don't lay claim to the throne! But hey, it's your seat, now go sit in it ... your subjects at Wal-Mart await you!

Maybe it sounds like 7th grade, because you never got past that level? Or is English As A First Language too advanced for you?

Yet, here you are presuming that they are one and the same. So much for your "no compromise" claims about quality! :lol:

If you say so. Then again, my "moldy" brain cells can at least grasp contemporary language usage, whereas your remaining cells seem to have maxed out sometime back in the 70s!

One quote from HT mag is all you have, and all they say is that this happens "sometimes" but isnt the standard by a long shot.
THE TRUTH IS, PLASMA IS MORE OF AN ENERGY HOG THAN lcd,
and THAT IS A FACT.
As for the quote button that wasnt MY fault, thing wouldn't work on one paragraph
for some reason :1: