Best HDTV under $3000

[sleepy]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

OK guys, I have a $3000 budget to buy an HDTV. Anybody have any
suggestions for the best buy? I'm not too iinterested in features, or
even size necessarily. I'd prefer to just have a crystal-clear high
quality image.

Any opinions are appreciated!

- Sleepy (www.hdtv1.com)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Sleepy wrote:
> OK guys, I have a $3000 budget to buy an HDTV. Anybody have any
> suggestions for the best buy? I'm not too iinterested in features, or
> even size necessarily. I'd prefer to just have a crystal-clear high
> quality image.
>
> Any opinions are appreciated!
>
> - Sleepy (www.hdtv1.com)
>
Sony 34XBR960

Breathtaking picture quality!!!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

If you're most concerned with picture quality and you don't mind the
bulky size of rear-projection sets, I highly recommend the following
models:

57"
--------------------------------------------------
Hitachi 57S500 (2003 model without tuner)
or Hitachi 57S715 (2004 model with integrated ATSC tuner)

Toshiba 57HX93 (not 57H93, there is a signifigant difference)
Sony's KDP-57WS550

65"
--------------------------------------------------
Hitachi 65S500
Toshiba 65HX93
Sony KDP-65WS550


I wouldn't recommend anything less than 51". The larger the screen the
better you can appriciate HD quality. If you're sitting 5-6 feet from
the screen you should have at least a 51" set, you're setting 9-10
feet from you screen you probably want at least a 57" set.

65" is as large as you can get inside your budget.

Regarding the manufactuers. Toshiba, Hitachi and Sony all make
outstanding product, trick of it is making sure you get the right
"series" of product. For Hitachi look for model numbers with a S in
the middle (57S500, 51S500, etc...) for Toshiba look for model numbers
with an HX in the middle, HX models should be labeled "Cinema Series".
There are features in the "higher end" models that are worth their
nominal $100-$200 extra cost. You may have to shop around for a
retailer that carries the high-end series (hint: skip Best Buy, unless
you set on Sony)

Let your eyes be the judge, and find a knowledge sales assoiciate that
can explain the differences between models and series.

-Jeremy






Sleepy <sleepy@sleepy.net> wrote in message news:<clbtm0tb995qcvkud8bg9mmia9ttcn6dn9@4ax.com>...
> OK guys, I have a $3000 budget to buy an HDTV. Anybody have any
> suggestions for the best buy? I'm not too iinterested in features, or
> even size necessarily. I'd prefer to just have a crystal-clear high
> quality image.
>
> Any opinions are appreciated!
>
> - Sleepy (www.hdtv1.com)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Sleepy wrote:

> OK guys, I have a $3000 budget to buy an HDTV. Anybody have any
> suggestions for the best buy? I'm not too iinterested in features, or
> even size necessarily. I'd prefer to just have a crystal-clear high
> quality image.

I'm very happy with my RCA 38" CRT. It's big and heavy, but the picture
is second to none. It comes with DirecTV tuner built in. Ready for
HDTV.

http/www.hometheatermag.com/directviewandplasmatvs/95/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:52:01 -0400, Sleepy <sleepy@sleepy.net> wrote:

>OK guys, I have a $3000 budget to buy an HDTV. Anybody have any
>suggestions for the best buy? I'm not too iinterested in features, or
>even size necessarily. I'd prefer to just have a crystal-clear high
>quality image.
>
>Any opinions are appreciated!
>
> - Sleepy (www.hdtv1.com)

Best images I've seen are glass. LCD and PLASMA seem to have
artifacts in the pixels that really destroy the HD when displaying
high motion. My monitor is a Panosonic 32inch. I think it retails
for $1100 but I got it for $700 (scratch on side). Went to Frys
(local electronics store) and they had a Sony 42inch glass. Didn't
see the picture and wouldn't buy an HDTV without first seeing it in
play, including high motion.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I had a Sony 60" LCD RPTV for awhile (floor model we took back -- have a new
KDF-60XS955 on the way) and never saw a single "artifact in pixel" while
watching sports for 3 weeks. Incredible picture, still or motion. (Took it
back for startup problems, not the picture)

mack
austin


"Diver" <Diver@Home.com> wrote in message
news:416fb9bd.69191312@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:52:01 -0400, Sleepy <sleepy@sleepy.net> wrote:
>
> >OK guys, I have a $3000 budget to buy an HDTV. Anybody have any
> >suggestions for the best buy? I'm not too iinterested in features, or
> >even size necessarily. I'd prefer to just have a crystal-clear high
> >quality image.
> >
> >Any opinions are appreciated!
> >
> > - Sleepy (www.hdtv1.com)
>
> Best images I've seen are glass. LCD and PLASMA seem to have
> artifacts in the pixels that really destroy the HD when displaying
> high motion. My monitor is a Panosonic 32inch. I think it retails
> for $1100 but I got it for $700 (scratch on side). Went to Frys
> (local electronics store) and they had a Sony 42inch glass. Didn't
> see the picture and wouldn't buy an HDTV without first seeing it in
> play, including high motion.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I think this is good advice. You can get a damn good CRT-based RPTV for
well under $3,000. We had a Sony 48" SD RPTV for years and loved it.

For SD pictures, your 3:4 diagonal screen size should be about 1/3 the
distance between the screen and your eye. So, if you sit 12 feet away, a
48" TV is about right. But you can go bigger for HDTV because of the higher
resolution.

We chose the 60" size for our 16:9 HDTV, partially because the 3:4 SD
picture is still about 48" screen size. Now that we've watched HDTV at that
size, I would not want to go smaller.

mack
austin



"JDeats" <jeremy@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:b0738dc6.0410141509.46d07dfc@posting.google.com...
> If you're most concerned with picture quality and you don't mind the
> bulky size of rear-projection sets, I highly recommend the following
> models:
>
> 57"
> --------------------------------------------------
> Hitachi 57S500 (2003 model without tuner)
> or Hitachi 57S715 (2004 model with integrated ATSC tuner)
>
> Toshiba 57HX93 (not 57H93, there is a signifigant difference)
> Sony's KDP-57WS550
>
> 65"
> --------------------------------------------------
> Hitachi 65S500
> Toshiba 65HX93
> Sony KDP-65WS550
>
>
> I wouldn't recommend anything less than 51". The larger the screen the
> better you can appriciate HD quality. If you're sitting 5-6 feet from
> the screen you should have at least a 51" set, you're setting 9-10
> feet from you screen you probably want at least a 57" set.
>
> 65" is as large as you can get inside your budget.
>
> Regarding the manufactuers. Toshiba, Hitachi and Sony all make
> outstanding product, trick of it is making sure you get the right
> "series" of product. For Hitachi look for model numbers with a S in
> the middle (57S500, 51S500, etc...) for Toshiba look for model numbers
> with an HX in the middle, HX models should be labeled "Cinema Series".
> There are features in the "higher end" models that are worth their
> nominal $100-$200 extra cost. You may have to shop around for a
> retailer that carries the high-end series (hint: skip Best Buy, unless
> you set on Sony)
>
> Let your eyes be the judge, and find a knowledge sales assoiciate that
> can explain the differences between models and series.
>
> -Jeremy
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sleepy <sleepy@sleepy.net> wrote in message
news:<clbtm0tb995qcvkud8bg9mmia9ttcn6dn9@4ax.com>...
> > OK guys, I have a $3000 budget to buy an HDTV. Anybody have any
> > suggestions for the best buy? I'm not too iinterested in features, or
> > even size necessarily. I'd prefer to just have a crystal-clear high
> > quality image.
> >
> > Any opinions are appreciated!
> >
> > - Sleepy (www.hdtv1.com)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:09:22 GMT, "Mack McKinnon"
<MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com> wrote:

>I had a Sony 60" LCD RPTV for awhile (floor model we took back -- have a new
>KDF-60XS955 on the way) and never saw a single "artifact in pixel" while
>watching sports for 3 weeks. Incredible picture, still or motion. (Took it
>back for startup problems, not the picture)
>
>mack
>austin
>
>
>"Diver" <Diver@Home.com> wrote in message
>news:416fb9bd.69191312@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
>> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:52:01 -0400, Sleepy <sleepy@sleepy.net> wrote:
>>
>> >OK guys, I have a $3000 budget to buy an HDTV. Anybody have any
>> >suggestions for the best buy? I'm not too iinterested in features, or
>> >even size necessarily. I'd prefer to just have a crystal-clear high
>> >quality image.
>> >
>> >Any opinions are appreciated!
>> >
>> > - Sleepy (www.hdtv1.com)
>>
>> Best images I've seen are glass. LCD and PLASMA seem to have
>> artifacts in the pixels that really destroy the HD when displaying
>> high motion. My monitor is a Panosonic 32inch. I think it retails
>> for $1100 but I got it for $700 (scratch on side). Went to Frys
>> (local electronics store) and they had a Sony 42inch glass. Didn't
>> see the picture and wouldn't buy an HDTV without first seeing it in
>> play, including high motion.
>
Saw the artifacts on Olympic broadcast in diving. When still, the
picture was perfect HD, when diving, worse than analog. I asked the
salesman who responded with the problems that all LCD/Plasma's have
this problem. I thought about that for awhile and decided that if I
spent so much money on a monitor (I was eying a 60" model) I sure
would be angry. It's most likely the salesmand didn't know what he
was talking about or there would be many angry owners out there.
Someone else posted a good recommendation to this thread, let you eyes
be the judge. See HD before you buy.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

RCA 61-inch DLP. I bought mine on sale at Circuit City for $2800 in July.
Great picture quality and size does matter.

"Sleepy" <sleepy@sleepy.net> wrote in message
news:clbtm0tb995qcvkud8bg9mmia9ttcn6dn9@4ax.com...
> OK guys, I have a $3000 budget to buy an HDTV. Anybody have any
> suggestions for the best buy? I'm not too iinterested in features, or
> even size necessarily. I'd prefer to just have a crystal-clear high
> quality image.
>
> Any opinions are appreciated!
>
> - Sleepy (www.hdtv1.com)
>

 

[dizzy]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:39:57 GMT, Diver@Home.com (Diver) wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:09:22 GMT, "Mack McKinnon" wrote:
>>
>>I had a Sony 60" LCD RPTV for awhile (floor model we took back -- have a new
>>KDF-60XS955 on the way) and never saw a single "artifact in pixel" while
>>watching sports for 3 weeks. Incredible picture, still or motion. (Took it
>>back for startup problems, not the picture)
>
> Saw the artifacts on Olympic broadcast in diving. When still, the
>picture was perfect HD, when diving, worse than analog. I asked the
>salesman who responded with the problems that all LCD/Plasma's have
>this problem.

Umm... The Olympic diving image problem was at the source. Everyone
saw the same horrible pixelation. I know I did on my CRT
rear-projector. Lesson learned. Salesmen are clueless idiots, and
are not to be taken seriously.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 02:05:39 GMT, dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:39:57 GMT, Diver@Home.com (Diver) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:09:22 GMT, "Mack McKinnon" wrote:
>>>
>>>I had a Sony 60" LCD RPTV for awhile (floor model we took back -- have a new
>>>KDF-60XS955 on the way) and never saw a single "artifact in pixel" while
>>>watching sports for 3 weeks. Incredible picture, still or motion. (Took it
>>>back for startup problems, not the picture)
>>
>> Saw the artifacts on Olympic broadcast in diving. When still, the
>>picture was perfect HD, when diving, worse than analog. I asked the
>>salesman who responded with the problems that all LCD/Plasma's have
>>this problem.
>
>Umm... The Olympic diving image problem was at the source. Everyone
>saw the same horrible pixelation. I know I did on my CRT
>rear-projector. Lesson learned. Salesmen are clueless idiots, and
>are not to be taken seriously.

Never saw the diving pixelaton on my panosonic.

 

[Scott]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

You're ignorance speaks for itself.


>Salesmen are clueless idiots, and
> are not to be taken seriously.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I also happened to see those artifacts on an Olympic broadcast, on display
models at Fry's. But the salesman there at the time told me that they came
down from the network, that was using poor equipment and/or transmission
that caused the action to break up every time an athlete moved. (A real
problem for sports.)

You might expect a salesman to say something like that, true or not, but,
sure enough, during the three weeks I had my Sony HDTV, I don't recall
seeing another sporting event plagued by pixilations. So, I think the
salesman was right, that this was just a problem with the NBC HDTV broadcast
of the Olympics. I don't think you should worry about sporting events such
as football or baseball pixilating once you get your HDTV. Not a problem.

mack
austin


"Diver" <Diver@Home.com> wrote in message
news:416f0d71.90619562@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:09:22 GMT, "Mack McKinnon"
> <MckinnonRemoveThis@tvadmanDeleteThisAsWell.com> wrote:
>
> >I had a Sony 60" LCD RPTV for awhile (floor model we took back -- have a
new
> >KDF-60XS955 on the way) and never saw a single "artifact in pixel" while
> >watching sports for 3 weeks. Incredible picture, still or motion. (Took
it
> >back for startup problems, not the picture)
> >
> >mack
> >austin
> >
> >
> >"Diver" <Diver@Home.com> wrote in message
> >news:416fb9bd.69191312@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
> >> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:52:01 -0400, Sleepy <sleepy@sleepy.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >OK guys, I have a $3000 budget to buy an HDTV. Anybody have any
> >> >suggestions for the best buy? I'm not too iinterested in features, or
> >> >even size necessarily. I'd prefer to just have a crystal-clear high
> >> >quality image.
> >> >
> >> >Any opinions are appreciated!
> >> >
> >> > - Sleepy (www.hdtv1.com)
> >>
> >> Best images I've seen are glass. LCD and PLASMA seem to have
> >> artifacts in the pixels that really destroy the HD when displaying
> >> high motion. My monitor is a Panosonic 32inch. I think it retails
> >> for $1100 but I got it for $700 (scratch on side). Went to Frys
> >> (local electronics store) and they had a Sony 42inch glass. Didn't
> >> see the picture and wouldn't buy an HDTV without first seeing it in
> >> play, including high motion.
> >
> Saw the artifacts on Olympic broadcast in diving. When still, the
> picture was perfect HD, when diving, worse than analog. I asked the
> salesman who responded with the problems that all LCD/Plasma's have
> this problem. I thought about that for awhile and decided that if I
> spent so much money on a monitor (I was eying a 60" model) I sure
> would be angry. It's most likely the salesmand didn't know what he
> was talking about or there would be many angry owners out there.
> Someone else posted a good recommendation to this thread, let you eyes
> be the judge. See HD before you buy.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Sleepy sleepy@sleepy.net wrote:

>OK guys, I have a $3000 budget to buy an HDTV. Anybody have any
>suggestions for the best buy? I'm not too iinterested in features, or
>even size necessarily. I'd prefer to just have a crystal-clear high
>quality image.
>
>Any opinions are appreciated!

Sony 34XBR960. I have last year's model, the 34XBR910, and IMHO it is the
best, sharpest picture you can get. The TV is only 34", but the picture is
better than larger non-tube TVs at twice the price.

Michael W.
Chicago, IL, USA

 

[dizzy]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 05:18:33 GMT, Diver@Home.com (Diver) wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 02:05:39 GMT, dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Umm... The Olympic diving image problem was at the source. Everyone
>>saw the same horrible pixelation. I know I did on my CRT
>>rear-projector. Lesson learned. Salesmen are clueless idiots, and
>>are not to be taken seriously.
>
>Never saw the diving pixelaton on my panosonic.

Then you didn't watch diving.

It was in the broadcast, period.

 

[dizzy]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:55:00 -0400, "Scott" <crpediem@ptdprolog.net>
top posted:

>You're ignorance speaks for itself.

Said the stupid top poster. The irony.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 05:18:33 GMT, Diver@Home.com (Diver) wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 02:05:39 GMT, dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>Umm... The Olympic diving image problem was at the source. Everyone
> >>saw the same horrible pixelation. I know I did on my CRT
> >>rear-projector. Lesson learned. Salesmen are clueless idiots, and
> >>are not to be taken seriously.
> >
> >Never saw the diving pixelaton on my panosonic.
>
> Then you didn't watch diving.
>
> It was in the broadcast, period.

I watched the diving and did not see any pielation.
Chip

--
-------------------- http/NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

cjdaytonjrnospam@cox.net wrote:
> dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 05:18:33 GMT, Diver@Home.com (Diver) wrote:
> >
> > >On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 02:05:39 GMT, dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > >>Umm... The Olympic diving image problem was at the source. Everyone
> > >>saw the same horrible pixelation. I know I did on my CRT
> > >>rear-projector. Lesson learned. Salesmen are clueless idiots, and
> > >>are not to be taken seriously.
> > >
> > >Never saw the diving pixelaton on my panosonic.
> >
> > Then you didn't watch diving.
> >
> > It was in the broadcast, period.
>
> I watched the diving and did not see any pielation.
> Chip

Oops, I used to know how to spell! Pixelation, of course.
Chip

--
-------------------- http/NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

 

[Scott]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I made a typo, not an ignorant statement.

>>You're ignorance speaks for itself.
>
> Said the stupid top poster. The irony.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Scott" <crpediem@ptdprolog.net> wrote:
> You're ignorance speaks for itself.

"You're" is wrong. It should be "your".
Who is the ignorant one now?
Raoul

--
-------------------- http/NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB