Tweet
I know its a lower end model, but i need a tiny upgrade to hold me over abit longer.
Any recomendations for or agasint the set? I can get it for 455 US including tax.
Mostly I'd be watching normalish tv, and playing video games (wii, etc).
-
I know its a lower end model, but i need a tiny upgrade to hold me over abit longer.
Any recomendations for or agasint the set? I can get it for 455 US including tax.
Mostly I'd be watching normalish tv, and playing video games (wii, etc). -
Looks good to me. Samsung have great tvs. So does Sharp too. I just bought this two months ago: http://www.newegg.com/product/produc...82E16889101109
Very happy with Sharp. -
I haven't seen that model but I am impressed with Samsung overall. Like BamaStangGuy, I think Sharp would also be a good investment.
Edited: Corrected spelling of name.Last edited by Freesteyelz; Tue 6 Nov '07, 8:23pm.Comment
-
I myself own canadian version TX-R 3079WH of TX-R 3080/82WH american. It is a 16:9 ratio and it cost me $399 new in Jan 07 and I think you can still get next gen for same price in the U.S. TX-T 3093WH. I would investigate more about the set you wish to buy, as I had trouble with the first one and had it replaced within 2 weeks of recieving it.
This is where I go to see what owners of sets say about the tvs they have owned.
Comment
-
I'd never ever buy a tube TV. Go for TFT or plasma. Who wants a TV with Aspect ratio: 4:3 these days? I'd reccomend looking into it in a lot more detail and going at least 32". The prices keep falling and the specs keep getting higher. It's a good time to be a consumer in the HDTV market
Dean Clatworthy - Web Developer/DesignerComment
-
I agree... do your shopping! It took me several weeks to decide. I would go to the store and look at all of the tvs next to each other, and you can see a big difference. I ended up getting a 50" JVC DLP tv. It has 16:9 ration and 1080p resolution. It was a $2500 tv, but I got it on sale, and with a coupon I had for $1600.
Definitely DO NOT get a 4:3 ration and make sure to get a TV with at least 1080i. Most games are made at that resolution now, and the ones that aren't, the tv should be backwards compatible. There is a noticeable difference in the picture quality, so why not spend a little more and be able to enjoy it!Comment
-
dynamite, you went and bought a DLP for that much? It is like buying a TUBE tv. Plus you can not stand, walk away and have it in a brightly lit room. You do live in the U.S. and should of gotten at least a brand name plasma in that size.Comment
-
Why would I want to pay 2-3 times the price for less viewing space, most tv in the US is still broadcast in 4:3 and ontop of that I'm not currently doing any HD gaming.I'd never ever buy a tube TV. Go for TFT or plasma. Who wants a TV with Aspect ratio: 4:3 these days? I'd reccomend looking into it in a lot more detail and going at least 32". The prices keep falling and the specs keep getting higher. It's a good time to be a consumer in the HDTV marketComment
-
Less viewing space? 16:9 looks great on my TV filling up the entire screen. And i'm pretty sure that most TV is broadcast in WS these days, and if not scaling works fine converting 4:3 to 16:9Dean Clatworthy - Web Developer/DesignerComment
-
-
I haven't had any problems with my DLP. Picture quality is better than on the plasma I looked at, and where the TV is placed in my house I don't have the problem with glare on the screen, and it is placed on a stand, so standing up doesn't cause a problem either. Besides, when I purchased it about a year ago, a comparable sized plasma was in the $3000+ range!Comment
-
Personally, I would suggest waiting until January and purchase from holiday overstock. Retailers are already predicting doom and gloom for this year. Steep cuts and overstocking will be a boon for consumers when they need to clear inventory for yearly reports after the holidays.
I can understand your sentiment for 4:3 if that is what you have now, but when you have HDTV, then you can get the 16:9 content and have a better experience it seems foolish to blow $500 on a 4:3 when for a few hundred dollars more you can get a 16:9 ratio. It will still play your 4:3 content just fine. Just instead of horizontal black bars, you'll have vertical ones on each side. I don't know what your cable system is like and I do understand that most are lagging in implementing HDTV service compared to DirecTV but it will only grow. Especially when analog signals are cut off in 2009. If you live in a major city, you can pick up HDTV broadcasts via antenna. If you have a south facing view, switch to DirecTV and get 70 HDTV channels now and up to 100 by the end of the year.
There are a couple of other things to consider besides a tube based television. Look at the weight of that monster. At approximately 120 pounds, I hope you live on the first floor. Yet, I can pick up a 42" LCD and carry the box in one hand. Also something like an LCD will only use 30% of the energy as a tube television. If you are concerned about ongoing monthly bills, that will add up to a few dollars in your pocket every month.
To me it just seems foolhardy to purchase antiquated technology right now.Translations provided by Google.
Wayne Luke
The Rabid Badger - a vBulletin Cloud demonstration site.
vBulletin 5 APIComment
-
For that money I wouldn't bother buying a tube 4:3 .. those should be cheaper, I rather invest a bit more and get a nice hd tv that's hd-ready.Comment
-
Comment
Comment