12-24-2011, 07:55 PM

I still have one.. a giant RCA 32" .. the thing weighs about 275lbs.. Can't wait to take it out back with an 8lb sledge after I get a new panel.

I've had many flat panels, had an older 42" RCA plasma, really sucked.. a 40" Aquos LCD (very nice), and a Panasonic Viera LCD (nicest of the 3 I've owned).

I returned the Viera because it wasn't worth the $125/month I was paying for it.

I'm instead going to save up to buy a nice TV outright instead of through a finance company.

12-24-2011, 08:12 PM

Originally Posted by EndlessMac

Not to go too far off topic but I'm not a big fan of 3D. If I wanted to see 3D I would go see the game in person.

In general I prefer 2D TV and movies in theaters.

out of curiosity have you seen some 3D movies on a panel with active 3D glasses? Blows theaters out of the water. I have a 55" Panny plasma 3D and buy every 3D movie that comes out because i LOVE IT.

I don't have any CRT televisions left just the plasma and a 32" LCD

12-24-2011, 08:54 PM

Rustproof probably a dumb question but how is the quality of the 2d movies?

With 3d coming down in price I was thinking of buying a 3d plasma TV

12-24-2011, 09:20 PM

I have been CRT free for 8 years as an installer flat panel tech blows CRT away in every field except black levels especially blacker than black for the videophiles until this year with the new ELITE TV's and real close with the VT line of Panasonic they finally equal not beat CRT.
If you have a brightly lit room are one that has a lot of windows get an LED backlit LCD.
If you have a darker room and movies are your main source get the plasma.
If they can ever get cost and reliability of OLED down it could be the best of both worlds.

12-25-2011, 02:41 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckoir

There's a lot of football (soccer) on in our house, and watching it in standard def is just horrible. Horrible.

Makes me wonder how I watched it before HD came about.

Never seen a game in 3D though, I bet that's interesting.

There is another reason for this. The broadcasters give minimal bandwidth to SD broadcasts these days, so the picture is awful as a result. Any SD broadcast on Sky is abysmal, but it never used to be. HD takes a ton of bandwidth, and there are loads of HD channels now, so the SD has suffered more.

12-25-2011, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by osxx

I have been CRT free for 8 years as an installer flat panel tech blows CRT away in every field except black levels especially blacker than black for the videophiles until this year with the new ELITE TV's and real close with the VT line of Panasonic they finally equal not beat CRT.
If you have a brightly lit room are one that has a lot of windows get an LED backlit LCD.
If you have a darker room and movies are your main source get the plasma.
If they can ever get cost and reliability of OLED down it could be the best of both worlds.

This!

Both our flat screens are LCDs, as they're in high-light environments. If/When we ever get around to finishing the basement, a plasma would be a better choice for down there. Plasmas do give a truer "black", BUT as an example, in our 2-story west-facing great room the amount of sun coming through those windows would make a plasma tv darn near impossible to watch in the afternoons.

My ancient 27" Sony (CRT) that I bought in 1997. is still kickin' as the bedroom TV. We don't have cable TV anymore so we had to get a converter box to be able to watch OTA broadcast TV. But considering all it's used for is to watch Letterman as I fall asleep.. it works just fine and I'm in no hurry to replace it.

The 52" Samsung (LCD) in the family room pulls in almost 30 channels with an old-fashioned set of bunny ears, with the Wii, the Panasonic blu-ray player and a Mac Mini hooked up to it with a cable modem & wifi who needs cable TV?! We cut the Comcast Craptastic cable cord last June, and I haven't missed it a BIT. Kept the cable modem (of course) but ditched the expensive TV service.

12-25-2011, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by MacDude121

I haven't made the jump to a LCD TV yet either. Have no real need for it, the old one still works fine.

(1000th post btw, )

Originally Posted by Lavenderlady

CRT here still, when it goes, I'll make the change. For the amount of TV I watch the old tube still works just fine!!

+2
When the old TV dies, my surviving relatives can dispose of it. Although, with degenerating eyesight, I have to admit that a larger image would be nice.

12-25-2011, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Kevriano

There is another reason for this. The broadcasters give minimal bandwidth to SD broadcasts these days, so the picture is awful as a result. Any SD broadcast on Sky is abysmal, but it never used to be. HD takes a ton of bandwidth, and there are loads of HD channels now, so the SD has suffered more.

Ha! That is interesting! Kinda makes sense though, and you can really see the difference when switching between the two. Football does look good in HD though, in fact most things do.

12-25-2011, 11:24 AM

Due to lack of funds right now, still using my tried and true 27" Sony WEGA Tube set in the front room. HEAVY at 120LBS but still looks and works great. LCD everywhere else.

12-25-2011, 12:09 PM

What a lot of our clients have found that a good UHF/VHF outside antenna provides a far superior HD picture than cable and sat do to the fact they are compressing the heck out of them for squeezing in more channels. The OTA could be even better if they did not slice up their allocation to provide 3 to 4 channels instead of 2 one SD and one HD.

12-27-2011, 11:27 PM

Originally Posted by toMACsh

+2
When the old TV dies, my surviving relatives can dispose of it. Although, with degenerating eyesight, I have to admit that a larger image would be nice.

My Dad has a TV from the 70's that we keep in our spare room. It has no remote, wood grain sides, and the old silver turn dials. (still in color though)

Our cable company recently switched over to all digital, and with some doubts we plugged in the converter box and BAM. It works like a charm. Now complete with a remote that comes with the converter box so we can change channels easily and adjust the volume.

I wouldn't be surprised if 30 years from now the thing is still kicking.

12-27-2011, 11:37 PM

The one nice thing about TV's now is they are the best performance to dollar for screen size at any one time in their history and probably the only product that can state that over the years has improved and sold for a lot less anyone who's family bought a color TV in 1964 will know this.

12-27-2011, 11:48 PM

Originally Posted by osxx

The one nice thing about TV's now is they are the best performance to dollar for screen size at any one time in their history and probably the only product that can state that over the years has improved and sold for a lot less anyone who's family bought a color TV in 1964 will know this.

Figure, what.. about $600 for a < 19" color TV at the time? That's about $4200 today.

12-27-2011, 11:52 PM

Originally Posted by Dysfunction

Figure, what.. about $600 for a < 19" color TV at the time? That's about $4200 today.

That sounds about right.

12-28-2011, 01:04 AM

i had an interesting (if you're that way inclined) with a guy in the tv shop the other day as i have been anguishing over whether i should have bought a LED over a plasma but the tv guy said: if you enjoy sports go for the plasma as even the worst ones have a better response time over the lcd's. All LED's are LCD's - just the backlight is an LED, which uses less power than the old system LCD. The best LCD/LED's now can compete with the plasma rich blacks but are no better and a cheaper plasma will do that job better than a cheap LCD. Plasma's do use more juice and give out more heat but i agree with BrianLachore - plasma is still best bang for your buck.