LCD TV deal-- should I bite?

[deckeda]

kj wrote:
All we have is over-the-air, and the only program I can think of that we've seen that is 4:3 is one local news. So HD and 16:9 is basically synonymous? We were thinking about getting a super basic cable deal since we'll be losing the non-digital ota channels, but if all the channels are 4:3, no way. kj.

OTA digital should already be giving you a selection of HD content, although OTA digital doesn't have to actually be happening yet until the transition happens. Your best bet to see HD content is with the major stations.

Whether or not it appears as HD/16:9 depends on if you have an HDTV and are using its built-in ATSC tuner or if you're using a converter box (for some odd reason.) Cheap converter boxes do not output HD, even on HD channels. Also, HDTVs might be setup to only display a 4:3 image, even with HD content, but that would be more rare unless you just haven't visited your set's menu settings in a while.

[Black Landlord]

deckeda wrote:
The other option is simply to replace your old CRT with another old CRT if it's cheap enough, either new or used. But wait --- didn't you say you fixed your current set with a b!tch slap on its side?

Well yeah . . . I did inherit a 30-something inch Toshiba about the same age from some tenants who left, and in the meantime it's become said friends' bedroom TV-- I asked about getting it back and didn't get a definitive answer (my own resolve to have to transport the damn thing was fairly weak anyways). Would also like an LCD for greater ease of moving to the living room when needed.

[kj]

deckeda wrote:
[quote=kj]
All we have is over-the-air, and the only program I can think of that we've seen that is 4:3 is one local news. So HD and 16:9 is basically synonymous? We were thinking about getting a super basic cable deal since we'll be losing the non-digital ota channels, but if all the channels are 4:3, no way. kj.

OTA digital should already be giving you a selection of HD content, although OTA digital doesn't have to actually be happening yet until the transition happens. Your best bet to see HD content is with the major stations.

Whether or not it appears as HD/16:9 depends on if you have an HDTV and are using its built-in ATSC tuner or if you're using a converter box (for some odd reason.) Cheap converter boxes do not output HD, even on HD channels. Also, HDTVs might be setup to only display a 4:3 image, even with HD content, but that would be more rare unless you just haven't visited your set's menu settings in a while.
We have both ota digital stations (can only get 3 right now, due to being close to the foothills) and ota analog. It seems to me 16:9 has more to do with the particular program than the station. Also, shows like Conan are 16:9 even on the analog station. I have the tv set to display the native format. Our local Fox news station is 4:3 on a digital ota station. That's a bummer to hear that cheap cable might be all 4:3? I might have mixed up my distinction between HD and digital, but I realize there's a difference. What a mess T.V. is right now. I thought it'd be fixed by now. kj.

[Black]

I made a trip downtown after work to chec out the Vizio at Sears.
Frakkin' miserable experience-- no help to be had, they denied they had the Vizio and eventually I discovered it; couldn't get any help getting it hooked up to a working cable feed; no other customers, the usual ghetto BS of employees yakking on their cell phones instead of paying attention to whats going on in the store. I've always tried to support Sears, even after Kmart bought it because at least they kept the HQ here; no more.
Oddly, they had a 32" 1080p Toshiba with a model # I've never heard of despite all my searching-- $999 . . .

[deckeda]

I'm typically a very picky shopper, especially with regards to audio or video equipment. And in the case of a TV, ya wanna see the picture before you buy.

Or do you? Is it necessarily critical, I wonder, for what's essentially a lower-end TV. Consider that while differences in picture quality, ergonomics and features will always exist it becomes a question of how important those differences are, in light of A) the effort to uncover them in less than optimal retail settings and B ) will those differences actually be apparent at home? Buying online has certainly shifted the equation, especially if you can determine with some reasonable clarity if item A is "at least as good" as item B, even if sight-unseen.

[Black]

deckeda wrote:
I'm typically a very picky shopper, especially with regards to audio or video equipment. And in the case of a TV, ya wanna see the picture before you buy.

Or do you? Is it necessarily critical, I wonder, for what's essentially a lower-end TV. Consider that while differences in picture quality, ergonomics and features will always exist it becomes a question of how important those differences are, in light of A) the effort to uncover them in less than optimal retail settings and B ) will those differences actually be apparent at home? Buying online has certainly shifted the equation, especially if you can determine with some reasonable clarity if item A is "at least as good" as item B, even if sight-unseen.

I guess I have an expectation that there will be no way to really compare the picture adequately in the store; the sound is extremely important to me, and the inituitiveness of the menus and remote secondary; I figure the specs can tell me what I really need to know about the picture.
My current set really sounds great. The bass can crank, and the treble is so clear I was watching medium last night and every time a cell phone rang on the show it was so clear it freaked me out a bit.

[deckeda]

That's one thing I like about my old Panasonic 27" 'SuperFlat.' When Panasonic's high-end PRISM line folded, the Panasonic SuperFlat models got the PRISM's good audio system. (This was all back in the early '90s.) I think I paid $1100 for it. Couldn't quite swing the $1400 for Sony's XBR, but the picture quality and features were really really close. Better in the green colors actually. But Panasonic didn't do a very good job of marketing their higher-end sets. The brand's name was gold lettering. Lesser Panasonics made do with silver lettering. Anyway.

Although there are only slim speaker grills on either side of the screen, it has larger speakers inside the cabinet (where there's room) and ported out the slim openings.

I worked at a retail shop that sold PRISM. We'd have a LaserDisc hooked up to the TV and play CDs on it across the showroom. Customers would stroll over, wanting to see the speaker system that wasn't there.

[freeradical]

Black wrote:
...the sound is extremely important to me, and the inituitiveness of the menus and remote secondary; I figure the specs can tell me what I really need to know about the picture.
My current set really sounds great. The bass can crank, and the treble is so clear I was watching medium last night and every time a cell phone rang on the show it was so clear it freaked me out a bit.

I just run the TV audio through my stereo.

[Black]

freeradical wrote:
[quote=Black]
...the sound is extremely important to me, and the inituitiveness of the menus and remote secondary; I figure the specs can tell me what I really need to know about the picture.
My current set really sounds great. The bass can crank, and the treble is so clear I was watching medium last night and every time a cell phone rang on the show it was so clear it freaked me out a bit.

I just run the TV audio through my stereo.
I think I addressed this 2-3 times in the course of this thread already.