Thanks for the input on my previous "21st century" post. More questions.

[markw]

Again, thanks for all your inputs here. I've taken all your precious advice into consideration and, after reading all threads possible on this subject, I've made a temporary decision but have a few more questions.

Oh, a little clarification. I'm replacing a third set (an old 19" CRT with only an RF input) in the 9 X 9 reading room/guest room and want to upgrade. So, as you might deduce from this room size, space is somewhat of an issue. The old VCR there died and I replaced it with a Toshiba DVD/VHS combo and found how really wretched DVD's looked on this tiny set, particularly running thru an RF modulator.

My initial thoughts were to simply get a 19/20" 4:3 LCD EDTV to replace it but scope creep set in. It seems unavoidable hanging around these sites. Likewise, after watching her favorite "Phantom of the Opera" DVD there, the wife now wants better sound as well as a bigger picture. That's not a problem.

I've been looking around and it seems all the Big Box stores use "ideal" source to show off their wares, which I understand, don't necessarially like. I'd like to see how well these sets handle everyday OTA or analog cable signals. I'm also surprised to find out that many don't include tuners. They assume you'll be running from a cable box.

So far, it seems (to me, anyhow) that Samsung has the best picture to my old eyes but their cost is a little out of my price range. So, balancing my desires with my pocketbook, I'm looking at a Sharp LC32SH20U which seems the have a pretty good picture and most of the features I think I'll need. Here's a link to it's specs at CC, although 6th Ave has the better price.

http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Speci...cation.do#tabs

Since, at this time, most of my viewing will be, in the following order,

1) standard def (4.3) over analog cable

2) DVD viewing, mostly in "wide screen" mode, which translates into letterbox in a 4:3. I'm hoping (expecting) the set will know the difference between the 4:3 sources and, in a "normal, not "stretch" mode, adjust the picture accordingly, while leaving the vertical blackwith a 4:3 source. Am I thinking too much here? ...or is it whishful thinking?

3) Finally, an occasional foray into HD via OTA transmissions in our area via an RF switch on the RF input. Unless, of course, our analog cable passes this signal. Does anyone know if Comcast in NJ broadcasts network HD over their standard (i.e. cheapo) analog service?

Eric's post on lack of quality in the 4:3 mode seems to have me concerned. I don't intend to "stretch" the picture to fill the full width*. Will that help?

As always, I solicit your more experienced opinions and comments on these matters.

Thanks again, markw

*I MNSHO, to do so is akin to maxing out the bass and treble controls on an amp simply because they are there.

[kexodusc]

*I MNSHO, to do so is akin to maxing out the bass and treble controls on an amp simply because they are there.

Hey markw,

I would suggest this is more than a bit unfair analogy IMHO. There's science behind it, and it's nothing at all like cranking the tone controls or a gimmicky dsp in audio. Most of the visual info is in fact preserved, the non essential visual information is what gets stretched, and not all that noticeably on most decent sets. I've been told (and just accepted as being true) that watching too much 4:3 with the bars on the side can cause burn in or lines to appear etc....most of the HDTV forums I visit recommend users use these modes. Though I profess to being at the mercy of what I've read, and probably know less than most here.

Anyway, if you haven't done so give these stretch modes a try sometime. You may be surprised. Most people I've invited over didn't even notice until I pointed it out.

[AVMASTER]

I don't know about "Noo Joisey" Comcast service, but if its' like DC, then you'll need a cablebox for HD service ( local channels as well) . The "non-Aquos" Sharp models are fairly decent displays as far as secondary televisions go. Relatively low contrast and viewing angle when compared to "Aquos" models but under the conditions you listed: room size, budget, usage, it should be just fine.

[markw]

I've been told (and just accepted as being true) that watching too much 4:3 with the bars on the side can cause burn in or lines to appear etc....most of the HDTV forums I visit recommend users use these modes. Though I profess to being at the mercy of what I've read, and probably know less than most here.

From what I've read. LCD tends to be immune to the burn in effect. ...or so I've been told. And, I've noticed the visual distortion in virtually every stretehed picture I've seen. Maybe I'm more sensitive than most, but the bars seem bother me less than the visual distortion.

[markw]

I don't know about "Noo Joisey" Comcast service, but if its' like DC, then you'll need a cablebox for HD service ( local channels as well) . The "non-Aquos" Sharp models are fairly decent displays as far as secondary televisions go. Relatively low contrast and viewing angle when compared to "Aquos" models but under the conditions you listed: room size, budget, usage, it should be just fine.

I guess I'll be doing the OTA thing for HD for now. There are some advantages to being < 10 miles (as the crow flies) from NYC and having a pretty clear line of site shot.

[drseid]

The over the air HD stations should actually look as good or better than most digital cable/sat HD channels IMO. Broadcast HD is very different than most people's experience with regular SD TV signals OTA. I recommend getting an inexpensive 720p LCD HDTV that can hadle the broadcast HD channels when you need them.

---Dave