Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (
More info?)
Leonard Caillouet wrote:
> Comments imbedded.
>
> "burwil" <burwil@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1104120094.337142.243840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > trader4@optonline.net wrote:
> > > Perhaps you missed my main point. You apparently still relate
this
> > > sound sync issue to the DLP display technology, rather than what
is
> > > supported by your own links, which is that it's a problem with
some
> > > Samsung units.
> >
> > Yes, it is almost exclusively Samsung's problem. But it *IS* a
DLP.
> > And the link was made with lip sync>>>>Samsung>>>>DLP because for a
> > long time Samsung was the only DLP player in the market. Of
course,
> > the market has changed and other manufacturers have entered.
Still,
> > this problem isn't present with LCDs, CRTs, or plasmas.....not such
a
> > pervasive problem. Make the semantic argument if you like.
>
> You are the one playing with semantics and missing the point. The
sync
> issue has nothing to do with DLP as a technology as opposed to others
and
> your argument was a falacious attempt to support your opinion that
DLP is
> the most flawed display technology.
Neither LCD or CRT technologies have exhibited this problem. It just
happens that Samsung is the top DLP producer in the world and they *do*
have the problem. And I have not heard this occuring with other
Samsung display products.
>
> > I threw out lip sync as just one of the shortfalls of the
> > technology...which you have focused on. It has others....and IMO,
more
> > than any other display technology (clay faces, bad blacks,
shimmering,
> > dithering, rainbows, eye fatigue, headaches, etc.) And getting
back to
> > the origin of my comments, I contested a view from another poster
who
> > claimed that DLP was considered by 'industry reps' to have the best
> > picture of all RPTVs. So, in other words, I'm not hung up on sound
> > sync specifically.
>
> I believe you threw it out in response to my posts which did NOT
argue that
> "DLP was considered by 'industry reps' to have the best picture of
all
> RPTVs". I was making the comparison between LCD and DLP, and after
many
> converstations with manufacturers reps, those doing sales, service
training,
> and technicians, I have yet to find one who thinks that LCD will
prevail as
> a technology for rear and front projections applications. Even Sony
does
> not claim that the technology in LCD is inherently superior to DLP,
only
> that it is more well established and mature. Sony has at least two
other
> technologies in the pipeline to replace LCD as a projection
technology, one
> more similar to DLP, and one more similar to LCOS.
You said, "There is much closer to a consensus that DLP looks better
in general than LCD than vice versa, however. If you look at the trends
in
manufacturing among the major players, it is definitely away from LCD
for
front and rear projection applications. That was a qualified and very
accurate statement when considering the feedback that I get from
manufacturers tech reps that I deal with."
Perhaps you need to write your sentences clearer. One can easily claim
that you are making the argument that these reps see the DLP picture as
better.
>
> Please don't change my statements to justify your more polarizing
position
> and recriminations.
LOL, polarizing???? Looking back on your posts in this thread you are
the one that is polarlizing.....trashing LCD at every opportunity.
Writing your comments in such a way as to suggest there is a definitive
belief among those 'in the know' that DLP is the superior technology,
with the better picture and LCD technology is on the way out. Please
note, this view is in *your opinion*. Really, that is quite
presumptuous and arrogant on your part.
>
> > >That is far different from it being a DLP display
> > > problem in general, which is what you claimed. This is like
saying
> > > there is a problem with CRT technology display RPTV's, that they
are
> > > prone to turning themselves off randomly and hence inferior,
because
> > a
> > > while back Toshiba had that problem with some of it's RPTV units.
> > > Many systems have had problems of one type or another totally
> > unrelated
> > > to the particluar type of display.
>
> You obviously missed or chose to ignore this very good analogy that
makes
> your use of the sound sync issue look quite silly and desparate.
You have been the DLP shill in this thread. Haven't figured out if you
are an investor, seller or perhaps both. In any case, it is clear to
me that your views are not impartial and to the buyer....beware.
> Look at the choices that manufacturers are making. The only major
player to
> move toward LCD as a projection technology more than toward DLP is
Sony, and
> they see it only as a temporary bridge to newer displays. Even sharp
is
> using DLP in projectors because there are advantages. Consider the
higher
> end of the home theater market. Runco moved to DLP several years
ago.
> Yamaha and Marantz have very fine projectors as well and could choose
any
> technology the want. Which do they chose? DLP.
>
> The point always was that both technologies have advantages and
> disadvantages, both have different looks, and some people will choose
> either. Those of us who deal with them evey day and have serviced
the sets
> for many years seem to come to the same conclusions in the vast
majority of
> cases. The Sony and Panasonic LCD based RPTVs are very good, the
Samsung
> DLPs which most people have seen as their reference are a poor
example of
> DLP and have had lots of problems that have not been typical of the
other
> DLPs available over the past few years, and there are much better
> implimentations of the DLP technology. For almost as long as the
Samsung
> has been available, BTW, we have had the Optoma sets which for a long
time
> were the better alternative. Now there are other, better products
> available. Also, before the Samsung we had front projection DLPs,
both
> single and three ship systems. From this experience it is clear that
the
> problems with the Samsung product does not represent the technology
well at
> all.
>
> I still prefer a good CRT based system, but I am sure that will not
be the
> case for very long. I also doubt that it will be LCD that convinces
me to
> move away from a CRT based set.
>
> Leonard
Facebook
Twitter