tube, dlp or plasma? Help

[strutter]

hey guys, new to audio review.

i am currently shopping for an hdtv. i currently have a seven year old sony 27" wega. ultimatley i want a bigger screen. around 42" would be the right size for my liv. room.

although i want a 42" i think the picture on tube tvs, such as the sony 34" xbr is better. i have heard alot of people are having problems with the picture tube on this model. anyone hear of this problem? i also like the samsung dlp tvs and the panasonic 42"plasma 42px50u.

any advice on which to buy? are crt tube tvs the best picture in this price range? is the $2,800 panasonic plasma worth the price?

tube, dlp, or plasma? can't spend more than $3,000.00
p.s. i like video games. do they look good on plasmas and dlps? lots of questions for a first timer. any advice is appreciated.

[edtyct]

Hi strutter,

Are you talking about the Sony's 34XBR960? Everything that I've heard about its picture and feature set is all good. You might check the AVS forum for any threads about potential problems with the tube. We've been kicking around the advantages of CRTs lately on this board; they are not to be underestimated. The 960 apparently, even more than its excellent predecessor the 910, is capable of the kind of stunning subtlety in black level, greyscale, color decoding, and signal processing that LCDs, plasmas, and DLPs cannot even approach. If you can handle 200 lbs of TV in a big bulky box and don't mind a relatively small screen size, what's left not to like, especially since it lists as $600 less than the 910, at $2200? I would almost go so far to say that at this price, the picture on this CRT is unbeatable.

In the context of what plasmas gernerally cost and how they perform, I'd say that the EDTV Panasonic is worth the money. It may well be the best plasma of its kind, producing a better picture than many HD plasmas. It comes closest to CRT in its black level and has a nice color palette. On these points alone, however, the Sony XBR still trumps it--and not just because it is fully HD-capable. The Sony also makes standard defintition look better than the Panasonic, or any other microdisplay, can make it look. The new digital TVs thrive on the highest resolution that they can muster, or at least the resolution of their respective panels (though the ED plasmas usually downconvert HD impressively). I've left out the Samsungs, though I'll say that as HD RPTVs, they have much to offer--decent black levels (for a microdisplay) and color decoding, good physical design, and all of the requisite features. I would suggest that the HD2+ models are preferable to the HD3s and warn about the color wheel's rainbow effect, which is rarely a problem but still worth checking out. Other companies also do a good job with Texas Instruments' DLP technology.

Money isn't an issue here, and picture quality goes to the CRT. But the small screen size of the CRT could make a difference. It just doesn't make for a big HT experience in the same way that a 42" screen in a small to medium viewing area can. The CRT is also the proverbial giant gorilla in the middle of the room. It takes up a lot of space for its small screen, and moving it around is not for the faint of heart or weak of limb. I speak from experience. I had the Sony 34" in our livingroom and absolutely loved its images. It relplaced a much larger plasma on the grounds of PQ alone. But something in me wasn't satisfied with the package in that environment. It was too small to justify its geographical commitment, and given my family's predominant viewing habits (HD channels, sports, cartoons), bright and sharp were arguably more important than rich and dark.

One more thing to consider is the HD vs. ED issue. Though the Pansonic ED plasma is really pretty good, the lure of actual HD might well overtake you in time. If so, a rear projection CRT or DLP might be the way to go--that is, if the fine points of the Sony's direct-view CRT cannot overshadow its downside for you. An RP CRT might save you money and get you a bigger screen, though it would be the biggest box of the RP crowd. The RP DLPs, or even LCDs, would come in at your price, depending on size, but they might represent a few picture sacrifices vis a vis CRT, depending on your outlook. Hope this helps. It's a complicated issue when you're starting from scratch.

Ed

[strutter]

ed,
thanks for the response. i would have never considered an EDTV, but i will look into them. it is the 960 sony xbr i was referring to. i read reviews from people on cnet (whose website rates this tv the best), about the failing picture tube. maybe its 1 in a million that have this problem. i definately want that true ht experience. i have the sound, now i just need a large screen. picture quality or size. i wish i could have the best of both.

someday maybe.

Hi strutter,

Are you talking about the Sony's 34XBR960? Everything that I've heard about its picture and feature set is all good. You might check the AVS forum for any threads about potential problems with the tube. We've been kicking around the advantages of CRTs lately on this board; they are not to be underestimated. The 960 apparently, even more than its excellent predecessor the 910, is capable of the kind of stunning subtlety in black level, greyscale, color decoding, and signal processing that LCDs, plasmas, and DLPs cannot even approach. If you can handle 200 lbs of TV in a big bulky box and don't mind a relatively small screen size, what's left not to like, especially since it lists as $600 less than the 910, at $2200? I would almost go so far to say that at this price, the picture on this CRT is unbeatable.

In the context of what plasmas gernerally cost and how they perform, I'd say that the EDTV Panasonic is worth the money. It may well be the best plasma of its kind, producing a better picture than many HD plasmas. It comes closest to CRT in its black level and has a nice color palette. On these points alone, however, the Sony XBR still trumps it--and not just because it is fully HD-capable. The Sony also makes standard defintition look better than the Panasonic, or any other microdisplay, can make it look. The new digital TVs thrive on the highest resolution that they can muster, or at least the resolution of their respective panels (though the ED plasmas usually downconvert HD impressively). I've left out the Samsungs, though I'll say that as HD RPTVs, they have much to offer--decent black levels (for a microdisplay) and color decoding, good physical design, and all of the requisite features. I would suggest that the HD2+ models are preferable to the HD3s and warn about the color wheel's rainbow effect, which is rarely a problem but still worth checking out. Other companies also do a good job with Texas Instruments' DLP technology.

Money isn't an issue here, and picture quality goes to the CRT. But the small screen size of the CRT could make a difference. It just doesn't make for a big HT experience in the same way that a 42" screen in a small to medium viewing area can. The CRT is also the proverbial giant gorilla in the middle of the room. It takes up a lot of space for its small screen, and moving it around is not for the faint of heart or weak of limb. I speak from experience. I had the Sony 34" in our livingroom and absolutely loved its images. It relplaced a much larger plasma on the grounds of PQ alone. But something in me wasn't satisfied with the package in that environment. It was too small to justify its geographical commitment, and given my family's predominant viewing habits (HD channels, sports, cartoons), bright and sharp were arguably more important than rich and dark.

One more thing to consider is the HD vs. ED issue. Though the Pansonic ED plasma is really pretty good, the lure of actual HD might well overtake you in time. If so, a rear projection CRT or DLP might be the way to go--that is, if the fine points of the Sony's direct-view CRT cannot overshadow its downside for you. An RP CRT might save you money and get you a bigger screen, though it would be the biggest box of the RP crowd. The RP DLPs, or even LCDs, would come in at your price, depending on size, but they might represent a few picture sacrifices vis a vis CRT, depending on your outlook. Hope this helps. It's a complicated issue when you're starting from scratch.

Ed

[Pyrrho]

Since you like video games, you should keep in mind that plasma is the worst for picture burn-in. Whether that would be a problem or not would depend upon what games you play, as well as how much you play them.

[strutter]

Since you like video games, you should keep in mind that plasma is the worst for picture burn-in. Whether that would be a problem or not would depend upon what games you play, as well as how much you play them.

thanks prrho for the response. is burn in still an issue with plasma?

[Pyrrho]

thanks prrho for the response. is burn in still an issue with plasma?

Yes. If it were me and I were going to display static images for long periods of time, I would avoid plasma. (They also use a lot of power, generate a lot of heat, are not the most reliable things [though this varies with brand], and tend to be expensive to repair.) I personally like LCD, especially for games, as there is zero risk of burn in. But they tend to be expensive at any large size, and many have trouble with displaying large areas of black, and the lesser ones have trouble with fast motion. (But they are lightweight, use little power, tend to be reliable, and, as already mentioned, they have zero risk of burn in.)

CRTs still give the best picture, and they have a relatively low risk of burn in (compared with plasma), but they are of limited screen size, are very heavy (particularly with a flat front screen and larger than a 27"), and need to be kept away from strong magnetic fields (hence the need for magnetic shielding for center speakers placed very close to them).

Rear projection (of all types) is bulky, though this varies considerably (with the thinner ones costing more). To make my life easier, here a link listing pros and cons of the different types of TVs:

http://www.crutchfieldadvisor.com/S-.../TV_chart.html

Alas, there is no perfect TV.

[topspeed]

Alas, there is no perfect TV.

Truer words were never said.

CRT's offer the best picture BUT...
* Are limited in screen size
* Weigh a ton
* Pricey (for the good, big ones)
* Sony's reliability is seriously questionable these days
* Zero "cool" factor

CRT RPTV
* Just HUGE
* Bad in high ambient light areas
* Bad picture off axis
* Even less "cool" factor than standard crt

LCD
* Suffer from the dreaded Screen Door Effect, especially on fast motion (there goes the ball game)
* Doesn't do blacks as well as CRT's (nothing does) or DLP's
* Contrast ratios lower than DLP's

DLP
* Suffer from Rainbows (although some people see 'em, some don't)
* Doesn't do blacks as well as CRT's
* LCD offers better whites (this may not be true with the new DLP2+ chips)
* Can't hang it on a wall

Plasma
* If a few pixels die, you're screwed as the whole thing has to be replaced
* Burn-in
* Limited life
* That's a nice looking space heater you've got there

LCoS/D-ILA
* Doesn't do blacks as well as CRT's
* Can't hang it on a wall
* Somewhat limited availability, although that is going to change the 4th quarter.

[strutter]

thanks topspeed. i think dlp makes the most sense for me? is that dlp2+ chip in current models or is it coming out soon?

Truer words were never said.

CRT's offer the best picture BUT...
* Are limited in screen size
* Weigh a ton
* Pricey (for the good, big ones)
* Sony's reliability is seriously questionable these days
* Zero "cool" factor

CRT RPTV
* Just HUGE
* Bad in high ambient light areas
* Bad picture off axis
* Even less "cool" factor than standard crt

LCD
* Suffer from the dreaded Screen Door Effect, especially on fast motion (there goes the ball game)
* Doesn't do blacks as well as CRT's (nothing does) or DLP's
* Contrast ratios lower than DLP's

DLP
* Suffer from Rainbows (although some people see 'em, some don't)
* Doesn't do blacks as well as CRT's
* LCD offers better whites (this may not be true with the new DLP2+ chips)
* Can't hang it on a wall

Plasma
* If a few pixels die, you're screwed as the whole thing has to be replaced
* Burn-in
* Limited life
* That's a nice looking space heater you've got there

LCoS/D-ILA
* Doesn't do blacks as well as CRT's
* Can't hang it on a wall
* Somewhat limited availability, although that is going to change the 4th quarter.

[strutter]

thanks again. your comments and link you sent me were very helpful.

i think dlp makes the most sense for me. i mostly watch tv for dvds and video games.
it seems samsung dlp are the best (not perfect) in the dlp category. have you heard differently?

the search continues.

Yes. If it were me and I were going to display static images for long periods of time, I would avoid plasma. (They also use a lot of power, generate a lot of heat, are not the most reliable things [though this varies with brand], and tend to be expensive to repair.) I personally like LCD, especially for games, as there is zero risk of burn in. But they tend to be expensive at any large size, and many have trouble with displaying large areas of black, and the lesser ones have trouble with fast motion. (But they are lightweight, use little power, tend to be reliable, and, as already mentioned, they have zero risk of burn in.)

CRTs still give the best picture, and they have a relatively low risk of burn in (compared with plasma), but they are of limited screen size, are very heavy (particularly with a flat front screen and larger than a 27"), and need to be kept away from strong magnetic fields (hence the need for magnetic shielding for center speakers placed very close to them).

Rear projection (of all types) is bulky, though this varies considerably (with the thinner ones costing more). To make my life easier, here a link listing pros and cons of the different types of TVs:

http://www.crutchfieldadvisor.com/S-.../TV_chart.html

Alas, there is no perfect TV.

[thekid]

My vote based on your game comment is for a traditional CRT model. You do risk burn or image problems with the other sets if you are going to use it alot for gaming. I assume you did your homework regarding sitting position/room dimension when you say a 42-inch would be the "right size" don't make the mistake I have seen where people have a large room but the viewing positions are too close to the screen. I have a Sony 34-inch HD and the picture is great and based on the sitting positions is perfect for my HT. Plus with CRT prices falling you could use the money saved for other items on your HT wish list. Enjoy your search that is half the fun......

[Pyrrho]

thanks again. your comments and link you sent me were very helpful.

i think dlp makes the most sense for me. i mostly watch tv for dvds and video games.
it seems samsung dlp are the best (not perfect) in the dlp category. have you heard differently?

the search continues.

I have no idea who makes the best DLP rear projection TVs. As for the type of TV, make sure you take a look at examples of each type before you buy, so you will know what each looks like (at least, what they look like as set up in the stores, which is usually far from ideal, but it can still be useful for seeing the types of flaws common in each). Just remember, no matter what you buy, it will not be the best TV in every way. So you need to select a TV with vices you can comfortably tolerate. If, after looking at the various possibilities, and reading about the pros and cons of each, you like DLP rear projection best, buy it.