Horrible Time to Buy a TV
After many moves in my lifetime, I've developed a theory - no matter how carefully you pack, carry, and unpack household possessions, there will always be at least one object that fails to participate, and choses that moment for a celestial dirt nap.
In this move, the deceased was a 1987 21" Toshiba television. It wasn't dropped or mishandled in any way. I simply picked up the set, gingerly placed it in the back-seat of my car, drove it to the new house, placed it on the floor, and plugged it in. No power. I tried another socket - still no power. After three positively-live sockets its fate was clear - the television that survived moving between my high school bedroom, three college dorm rooms, and five apartments, had had enough.
Since then I've been shopping for a new television. I've surfed the web, been in and out of Best Buy and Circuit City a couple of times, and have come the conclusion that the timing of my Toshiba's death lurch couldn't be worse. Now is absolutely the worst time to be considering a new TV.
Look around a little, and its obvious the entire sector is in a state of flux. You have traditional 4:3 analog televisions, cute LCDs with small footprints, gigantic (both in size and price) plasmas, and that oh-so-confusing amalgamation of both old and new technology known as "HDTV-ready" digital televisions.
The plasmas are gorgeous, but too expensive. The LCDs are great too, but don't offer that rich of a picture (they feel flat, low-contrast to me) and are too small for a typical living room. The CRTs offer the richest picture, but a decent size screen comes with a huge back-end, weighs hundreds of pounds, and would occupy about the same amount of living room floor space as a baby elephant. The "perfect" TV which offers a rich, true-black picture in a lightweight, thin casing for around a thousand bucks just doesn't exist yet.
The television that comes closest to what I'm looking for is the Sony KLV-30XBR900. The size is just right for a typical living room (30" instead of the gargantuan 42" of a typical plasma), has a gorgeous picture, and a hard, translucent outer shell that's a beauty to behold. And for a mere $5,000, it's all yours.
So 2003 flat-panels are out of the question. And besides, by the time prices come down on the models, the picture quality will only continue to improve.
But price and picture aside, I can't shake their 16:9 aspect ratio. I've always wanted to watch DVDs and widescreen television shows (Sopranos, ER, CSI) the way they're meant to be seen; not cropped inside a square box and flanked by black letterbox bars. With more television shows moving towards widescreen, not to mention all those DVDs out there, a brand-new 4:3 TV just feels foolish.
So, I've been looking at a compromise, and may have found it in the Samsung TXN3098WHF. The picture is fantastic, the size isn't too awful (21" inches deep), and is thousands less than the aforementioned Sony, but with the same screen size (30" diagonally) and is just as flat.
The only concern I have is watching regular, 4:3 broadcast television, which if my calculations are correct, would fill about the same space on a 30" 16:9 screen as a 24" 4:3 television (unless you zoomed / strectched the picture, which doesn't seem like a good option). Then again, a widescreen DVD on the Samsung would be larger than on a 4:3 simulating a 16:9 picture (get that?).
So if anyone reading this silly post has some real-world experience with 16:9 flat CRTs, or general opinions, I'm all ears.
Update: After writing this I found a very handy Screen Size Calculator over at c|net so it's easy to calculate diagonal screen sizes on 4:3 and 16:9 TVs. Interestingly, there is only one inch of difference between letterbox sizes on a 30" 16:9 TV and a 32" 4:3 (the 32" is one inch smaller diagonally, but nearly 8 inches larger for regular 4:3 TV).
Final Update: (6/27/03) After much haggling, I settled on the Samsung TXM3298HF. The picture is phenomenal - as good as a Sony Wega - but for hundreds less ($892 with zero tax and free shipping from Amazon). And according to the screen calculator above, a widescreen display on the 4:3 would only be an inch smaller than if I owned the 30" 16:9.
Comments
Ebay
simple replace the old TV with second hand one for $300
then wait till the dust settles in a couple years
then get exactly what you want
Posted by: artguy at June 25, 2003 12:49 PM
Gateway has plasma for about $3000 - not cheap, but considerably less than others. That being said, the Samsung you mention looks really neat.
Posted by: rob at June 25, 2003 1:21 PM
For some reason I can't see Todd buying a Gateway anything.
C'mere cow. C'mere cow. Eat my beef, wear my skin. I don't give a s@#t. Stupid cow.
-Anthony Clark
Posted by: Cow. Moo. at June 25, 2003 1:32 PM
I totally agree with you that buying a TV right now is
a pain (unless money is no object). one thing I have
notivced is that the 16:9 tvs are more expensive than
a comparable 4:3 (meaning the 4:3 with letterbox is big enough to show a 16:9 movie at the same size). Just have to judge what is most important to ya. I mainly watch DVDs (dont have normal/cable TC), so I would get a 16:9.... good luck!
Posted by: rob at June 25, 2003 2:33 PM
What is your opinion on 1999$ Philips 30PW8520
Widescreen TV 30"?
Posted by: JabbyPanda at June 25, 2003 2:54 PM
Have you considered Digital Light Processor sets? (http://www.bestbuy.com/HomeAudioVideo/Televisions/hr/DLP10_6.asp) These are essentially rear-projection units to produce remarkably crisp images without the bulk and weight of traditional CRT-based rear-projection sets.
Another option: If you have a big white wall...buy a projector and suspend it from the ceiling - and build yourself a cool "AV coffee table" to house all your gear. THere are DLP-based "HDTV-capable" projectors out there for under $2K. Higher-end "digital cinema" DLP models, like the Optoma H55 and H56, are closer to $3K. So now you must choose - new G5, or TV? :)
Posted by: AJ at June 25, 2003 3:40 PM
We purchased Samsung HD widescreen last Christmas. I think its a 30 inch. We love it. DVDs and games are great. It has a panorama feature so when you're watching regular 4:3, it stretches dynamically as it approaches the edges. It's much less abrasive than the evenly-distributed (wide) setting. Coming from a 1980-something Magnavox, it's as if we're watching telly for first time again.
Posted by: Kevin at June 25, 2003 4:16 PM
Why replace the TV in the first place?
Seriously. I lived in Vermont for 10 years in a remote spot where there was no TV reception. I refused to pay for a satellite dish. It took no time at all for me to fill my time with activities that were far more engaging than watching television. Eventually I bought a small used one for watching videos on long winter nights.
I'd say get a 17" flat-screen iMac if you don't already have one, and use it for watching DVDs. Don't bother replacing the television. Read books, go out to movies, have friends over for supper, write a novel, learn a musical instrument. Life's too short to waste on TV.
Posted by: Brad at June 25, 2003 4:17 PM
My 1989 19" Sharp TV died a few months ago and I was in the same situation.
I went with the 27" Samsung and I've been pretty happy with it. It weighs a hefty 100 lbs (i did not enjoy getting it up the stairs), but the picture is great, and if you watch DVD's get the high quality component cables ($60 and up) and the HD pic is beautiful.
One thing to note- the 30" model you are looking at has the slim case design and while it sounds and looks good, i read some reviews online about them overheating or something not very nice like that, so I went with a normal case to be safe.
Posted by: Tim at June 25, 2003 4:46 PM
Have you looked at the Sony models? I have a 2 year old version of this 32" sony and it's great.
Posted by: Lewis at June 25, 2003 5:16 PM
How come in every post about TV there is always one hippie self-congratulating themselves for not watching TV for X amount of years? Congratulations Johnny Appleseed you are officially better than everyone else.
I just recently bought a the Hitachi 46F500, which is a 46" 16:9 RPU. I was considering a direct-view TV, but they just couldn't display 720p & 1080i as well as rear projection units and their weight was just too much for me in my opinion. Alot of these cheaper HDTV-ready units can't display 720p which is the real bread and butter of HDTV, but if you don't care about that than stick with 480p (DVD, as long as you have a progressive scan DVD player and PS2). Also, if you do get a 16:9 make sure you check out how it stretches 4:3 signal. You should checkout AVS Forum a lot of great people there with a lot of reviews, calibration hacks, etc..
Posted by: barry at June 25, 2003 5:30 PM
"Congratulations Johnny Appleseed you are officially better than everyone else."
Thanks, I knew someone would say that (it's just as predictable.)
Posted by: Brad at June 25, 2003 6:18 PM
Posted by: jeremy at June 25, 2003 6:56 PM
Posted by: Robbie at June 25, 2003 7:00 PM
....wow it is hard to find a good television these days ( p.s., you have a very cute site.... indeed you do )
Posted by: nons3ns3 at June 25, 2003 7:26 PM
We went through this last December and it was hell. Who would have thought that buying a TV would feel like making a life changing decision...
We ended up getting a 119cm (inches?) 16:9 HDTV rearpro.
LCDs were off the planet in price (you can double the US prices for TVs here in Australia).
CRTs had the best picture but were too small for what we wanted.
Plasmas were too expensive for the same size (and "burn in" like rearpros anyway).
The Panasonic we finally decided on has a "just" mode for viewing 4:3 on 16:9. This stretches the sides of the picture leaving the centre normal. It is definitely a compromise for watching TV. Watching lots of 4:3 unstretched on 16:9 rearpros or plasmas is not recommended as it can "burn in" the blank bars on either side of the picture.
Also rearpros need calibration as the contrast and brightness are set too high out of the box. I think they call it "torch mode" and it can eventually stuff your set.
LCD projectors are worth looking at but they don't work too well in bright rooms.
Hope this helps a bit.
Posted by: gavin at June 25, 2003 8:03 PM
I just went through the same thought process you're going through. In the end I decided to just get a large-ish but cheap 4:3 CRT with the full intention to buy a really nice HD in 18-24 months. They're going to be considerably cheaper by then, almost all networks will be broadcasting in HD, and besides, TiVo isn't ready for high definition yet, anyway.
Posted by: Dave at June 25, 2003 8:28 PM
6 months ago, we were in the wondrous position of (my girlfriend) having won a shopping centre voucher for lots of $s, so we prolly weren't as price concious as we would normally have been. But even so, imho the Panasonic TX-86PW100A kicks the arse of everything else on the market in the bang-for-buck department. Haven't seen anything since to change my opinion either.
It is HUGE, and it does weigh a ton, but somehow it seems to blend into the corner of our room much better than my old 52cm Sony-on-a-stand did. Admittedly, that could be because I *want* it too ;)
One thing I was very surprised about was the massive difference in picture quality between brands. Last time I bought a TV (and the time before that, and before that, etc), Sony were absolutely superior. You could maybe include Phillips, but basically Sony ruled. But they seem to have lost it with the flat HD widescreens, We did a side-by-side (in the shop) comparison between about 5 similar level TVs and the Panasonic was so much better that it just wasn't funny.
My 2 c's anyway. And I'm in Australia, so the model number may be different.
Posted by: Da5id at June 26, 2003 2:24 AM
Good one Robbie. Haha.
Posted by: Evan Backes at June 26, 2003 5:26 AM
I am glad to see Sony has framed the tube with a black strip after moving their line to that platinum color. the older models didn't have that and it annoyed me.
Posted by: pepe at June 26, 2003 9:27 AM
I have a 42" Toshiba HD projection TV.
The picture quality is quite good - especially with DVD and games.
This particular model has 5 different picture modes:
4:3 with side bars (grey, not black to reduce ghosting)
16:9 native for DVDs, etc.
The other 3 modes are variations of 4:3 streteched to 16:9. One displays the 4:3 picture at its normal aspect ration but cuts off the top and bottom. One is a normal horizontal stretch....
...but my favorite is the one that does a kind of progressive stretch. The center of the screen is largely untouched and the picture becomes more proportionately stretched toward the edges of the screen. I find this to be the best compromise.
And I will say that we had initial trouble with the stretched modes but after several months I can say I don't even think about it anymore.
Posted by: JZ at June 26, 2003 9:41 AM
I agree with Brad.
Take time to evaluate what TV brings to your life. Then, sit down and make an objective decision about whether it makes sense to have one.
Also, was the onion piece supposed to be a parody? The final paragraph made alot of sense to me...
[People don't realize just how much time their TV-watching habit—or, shall I say, addiction—eats up. Four hours of television a day, over the course of a month, adds up to 120 hours. That's five entire days! Why not spend that time living your own life, instead of watching fictional people live theirs? I can't begin to tell you how happy I am not to own a television.]
Reid
Posted by: Reid at June 26, 2003 9:43 AM
I bought a Sony 34" widescreen HDTV (34XBR800) and it is fantastic. The "wide zoom" feature lets you watch 4:3 material with a minimum of distortion or cropping and is fine for most programming. The weight of the unit is 200 pounds with is pretty damn excessive, but the picture is wonderful and watching a DVD is great. I could've gotten roughly the same screen area for widescreen material by going to a 36" 4:3 set, but that thing would be eating my living room. 16:9 is the way to go.
Posted by: Phil Oye at June 26, 2003 11:06 AM
A year ago I went through the same situation - just moved, TV died, too many options out there. After countless hours of surfing and such, I gave in and called a friend who knew more than me. A lot more. He politely answered all my quetions, and then told me I was getting a Mitsubishi. Anything else and I would be disappointed or spending too much. Eight of my friends have Mitsubishi's (55" or 65" widescreen rear-projection), and every one of them will vouch for it.
My wife even loves it, once I took the reflective screen protector off. Her only complaint - When on "progressive stretch" mode, the girls on Friends look fat if they're at the edge of the picture. Oh yeah, it cost me $2k, $2200 after tax and delivery.
Posted by: Bryan at June 26, 2003 2:43 PM
On the subject of TV or not TV....
Yes, most network television is a grand waste of time. There are people that obsess over the trivia of reality shows, soaps and prime-time dramas (I'm currently in a Law and Order 12-step program).
For those that are choosy, there is a lot of gold in amongst the pyrite - slabs of channels full of documentaries, classic movies, science, nature, political debate. And pretty much anything on PBS or the CBC is worth watching.
That being said, we are a visual culture. North America pretty much grew up with photography, film, and going on nearly 60 years of television. It has shaped our narratives, our sensibilities, our language. In a world of plural identities, it can, at the best of times, provide a shared sense of community. Canada would not exist without the CBC and the NFB, frankly.
Of course, it can be a "lowest common denominator" of culture as well, but the fault doesn't lie in television itself, it lies in the corporate structure of broadcasting today. If the airwaves are a public commons that have been largely turned over to private interests, then the public should take it back. Boycott advertisers, but more than passive protest (of a so-called passivity-inducing medium) get actively involved. Get a Mac, a camcorder and Final Cut Pro (or heck, an old Beta VCR- whatever works) and make your own TV. And get involved. Lobby the FCC and the CRTC. Start a weblog and organize with like-minded individuals.
Giving up on TV is like saying you don't vote because all the candidates are crooks. That very well might be, but then you have no right to complain about the government you get afterwards. Instead, why not run for office yourself if you really care about it?
Cheers.
Posted by: AJ at June 27, 2003 9:51 AM
Posted by: Benjamin at July 1, 2003 12:21 AM
I have just purchased the Panasonic TX-86PW100A 86cm wide screen. Overall very good. You can weel and deal the price down to around $4,400 including the stand.
On the bottom of the remote control is a flap that opens up to allow you to control your VCR or DVD. There are many different choices of manufacturers VCR's you can code in but the DVD function is only limited to work with a Panasonic.
Therefore I purchased the new Panasonic DVD-RP82 which supports progressive scan technology to marry in with the TV. The problem is the buttons on the TV remote do not work the Panasonic DVD player ! Be careful of this one if you want this feature to work.
Posted by: sekiwake at July 4, 2003 1:13 AM
Hitachi DLP sucks! I spent $5,000 for this set. After 640 hours of viewing, a $250 bulb went out. It was supposed to last 3000 hours. After 6 months we had colored spots on the screen. That was a $3500 drive engine, but was under warranty. Now 1year and 1 week after the warranty has expired, it won't power up at all. Another $3500 drive engine. Thank God I bought the extended warranty! But last time it took 2 months to get the new drive engine in. Meanwhile, I am watching a 20 year old 13" set, which has never had a problem.
Posted by: jas at July 10, 2003 7:21 PM
BURN-IN ON SONY TV's: I am examining legal remedies for owners of Sony rear-projection TV's who have experienced "burn-in" on their TV screens. If Sony has not compensated you for "burn-in" repair, you may have a claim against Sony. If you are a Sony customer who has to repair his/her TV due to burn-in, and if Sony refused to pay for the repair, you should email me at dimitri001@rogers.com.
Posted by: dimitri at March 4, 2004 2:48 PM
