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

[bubslewis]

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]

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?

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?

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!

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.

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

[GMichael]

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

[Woochifer]

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!

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"?

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.

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!

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

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!)

[Rich-n-Texas]

...Right, an 11" Sony model that sells for $2,500!...

Would that be this one:

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/hdt...s-oled-tv.html

Bizzaro looking thing IMO.

[bobsticks]

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

[Rich-n-Texas]

How much fo the ho? (Not the crack)

[pixelthis]

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!



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"?



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.



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!



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!)

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

[pixelthis]

Would that be this one:

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/hdt...s-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

[Woochifer]

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.

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.

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

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

[pixelthis]

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

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.

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!

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

[pixelthis]

http://www.plasmatvbuyingguide.com/p...ma-vs-lcd.html


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

[pixelthis]

http://www.geekologie.com/2007/05/ho..._plasma_tv.php

This is interesting

[pixelthis]

http://www.audioholics.com/news/indu...sma-tv-is-dead


To the clueless wooch, THIS is what I am saying

[pixelthis]

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

[GMichael]

http://www.plasmatvbuyingguide.com/p...ma-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]

http://www.geekologie.com/2007/05/ho..._plasma_tv.php

This is interesting

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

[GMichael]

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

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]

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.

[GMichael]

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.

[Woochifer]

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.

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!

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!

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

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 ...

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.

This is interesting

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

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!

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]

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.

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

[pixelthis]

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.



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!



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



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 ...



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.



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



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!

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

[GMichael]

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

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

[Rich-n-Texas]

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

Too late.