VideoHelp Forum

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Consider supporting us by disable your adblocker or Try ConvertXtoDVD and convert all your movies to DVD. Free trial ! :)
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2
1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 56
Thread
  1. Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Centennial CO USA Near Denver Colorado
    Search Comp PM
    I am of limited income and buying a new flat screen TV is quite expensive. So it is very very important to me to get the right answer on this one. I was recently in a Best Buy store looking three place my now not working CRT television which must have lasted at least 17 years or more. The salesperson responded to my statement that the reason I was looking for LED backlit television was because I was reading about longevity than I would like my new television to last as long as my old one did. He told me it was no reason to buy LED backlit television over fluorescent backlit television because of longevity even though it may be true those LEDs will last longer a television of any kind won't last long enough for the back with lighting to be at issue. New televisions and all consumer electronics are only designed to last five years and the power supply will go before the backlighting. So what do you think of that? Is it true?
    Quote Quote  
  2. Well over on Troubleshooting TVs and Video Sources subforum @ http://www.badcaps.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=31 there are plenty of people that have had to repair their HDTVs.

    Many of the failures are in the power supply. If you can spare the time go there and do some reading to get a feel for what brands give the most problems.

    Something else to consider a LED LCD like you were thinking about will generally use less electric than a CFL LCD or Plasma.
    If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    The difference between an appliance salesman and a used car salesman is that the used car salesman knows that he is lying to you.

    I don't think that your guy knows "shit from shinola". If I was buying a new TV today, I would buy one with an LED backlight. A power supply, if it goes out, is relatively easy to replace - a backlight is less so.
    ICBM target coordinates:
    26 14' 10.16"N -- 80 16' 0.91"W
    Quote Quote  
  4. How it looks to your eyes is more important than how long it lasts.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Originally Posted by SLK001 View Post
    The difference between an appliance salesman and a used car salesman is that the used car salesman knows that he is lying to you.

    I don't think that your guy knows "shit from shinola". If I was buying a new TV today, I would buy one with an LED backlight. A power supply, if it goes out, is relatively easy to replace - a backlight is less so.
    Agreed, I suspect less parts involved in a LED LCD TV. In laptops it is a tossup which is bad when the backlight isn't working. Inverter or CFL backlight. From what I've seen the big screen TVs have more than one inverter and backlights. More failure points.
    If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Originally Posted by handyguy View Post
    How it looks to your eyes is more important than how long it lasts.
    Maybe you haven't been on a budget where you need to get the most out of the lifetime on things like that.

    Cheapest can often come down to lifetime before replacement is needed versus upfront price.

    That is one of the reasons there are so many picture Tube SDTVs still in use.
    If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Pocatello, ID
    Search Comp PM
    Don't worry about LED vs. CCFL. The tv will breakdown long before the backlight does. If money is an issue but glare won't be, you should get a plasma. They "wear out" sooner than LCD tvs, most rated at 100,000 hours, but it's not an issue in the real world. That's more than 68 years at four hours a day, every day.

    $700 will get you an awesome 720p 50" Samsung plasma that will run circles around 80% of the 1080p LCD/LED TVs out there. You can get the same TV with 3D capability for less than a thousand.

    Some people will tell you that Plasma uses 4x as much electricity as an LED, but that's old information. Current models will use about 40% more than your typical LED. Once again, breaking that down to real world numbers, it's a difference of $5 or $6 on a typical monthly power bill.
    Last edited by smitbret; 12th Aug 2011 at 13:03.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    When I was shopping for LCD TVs, I steered clear of plasmas, because compared to the CCFL models (LED models weren't available at the time), they were energy hogs.

    Perusing my local "hhgregg" Sunday ad, a generic 32" HDTV can be had for $250. My "Brandsmart USA" Sunday ad has a Samsung 32" LED for $450.

    Perhaps if the OP can give us the minimum size and his budget, we could zero in on better suggestions.
    ICBM target coordinates:
    26 14' 10.16"N -- 80 16' 0.91"W
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Pocatello, ID
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by SLK001 View Post
    When I was shopping for LCD TVs, I steered clear of plasmas, because compared to the CCFL models (LED models weren't available at the time), they were energy hogs.

    Perusing my local "hhgregg" Sunday ad, a generic 32" HDTV can be had for $250. My "Brandsmart USA" Sunday ad has a Samsung 32" LED for $450.

    Perhaps if the OP can give us the minimum size and his budget, we could zero in on better suggestions.
    I'd better correct myself. Looks like plasma draws about 2-3 times the energy of a similar sized LED. I shoulda done the research on it.

    However, OP is probably more concerned with how much more $$$ it is going to cost him. Well, CNET says that it will cost about $40/year more to power a plasma. For $3.50 a month, I'd save the 100's of dollars up front and enjoy the improved picture quality from the plasma.

    http://www.plasmadisplaycoalition.org/results/power.php
    http://www.ehow.com/about_6471944_lcd-vs-plasma-power-consumption.html
    http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/tv-power-efficiency/
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by smitbret View Post
    Well, CNET says that it will cost about $40/year more to power a plasma. For $3.50 a month, I'd save the 100's of dollars up front and enjoy the improved picture quality from the plasma.
    You've got to figure in the operating costs for someone on a limited budget. When I was in the stores, I was amazed (shocked, really) at how much heat was rising off the back of the plasma TVs. In my case, this heat has to be offset by increased air conditioning usage (my air conditioner runs nearly 365 days a year - if my house has a heater, I've never used it), which adds even more to the monthly costs (mine, anyway).

    Anyway, we need additional input from the OP.
    ICBM target coordinates:
    26 14' 10.16"N -- 80 16' 0.91"W
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    It's true that the backlight usually won't "break down" before the power supply does, but a BIG difference between LED and CFL backlights is that the LED is known to stay CONSISTENTLY at good quality until it breaks down, whereas CFL will lose brightness with age, making the contrast worse - before it breaks down. And, THEORETICALLY the LEDs should last much longer (there hasn't been enough time in real-world examples to prove or disprove this yet). **Edit: but LED's have been around a long time now and have proven themselves worthy**

    Of the various types, CRT is still the longevity king, but I wouldn't get one anymore except for those special video-editing and/or color-correction related jobs that require them. After that, I'd say LED-LCD, then (newer) CFL-LCD, then Plasma, then older LCD types.

    However, these days, all equipment is made to not last as long as they used to. Old CRTs could last 20-30 years (at varying levels of degrading quality), now it seems that 6-12 (maybe 15) years is the norm (not counting those power supply problems which I've encountered as well).

    Scott
    Last edited by Cornucopia; 12th Aug 2011 at 15:47.
    Quote Quote  
  12. There is no happy answer to this question, whatever your income or budget.

    The days of buying a Sony Trinitron and having it function perfectly 24/7 for 15, 20 years are gone forever: we live in a new disposable age. Everyone who's said the HDTV electronics will die long before the backlight is correct: todays flat screens have a life expectancy of 5-6 years tops under normal home use, less if you keep it on all the time. The quality of basic but critical parts like power supplies became dismally poor across the board about seven years ago: everything made since then is a ticking time bomb. At first this was caused by a Chinese industrial scandal, but instead of righting itself in the wake of massive problems the parts industry got stuck at a "below cost, below par" mentality. So we pay half what we did in 2004, for less than half the durability. There's really no alternative: all brands use the same shoddy parts.

    Plasma vs LCD doesn't really matter: they both rely on crappy electronics despite any screen durability advantage (Samsung and LG plasmas break down as often as their LCDs, and Panasonics have issues of their own). There are no plasmas below 42" anymore, so if you need a smaller size its LCD or nothing. At 40" and larger, plasma offers sometimes better performance at half the price of jumbo-size LCD. LCD is lighter weight, thinner, uses less electricity, and has a range of screen finishes from matte to glossy (plasma is glossy and reflective- not good for sunny rooms). Plasma offers more bang for the buck, better viewing angles, and is easier to get used to when switching from an old CRT set. Plasma also tends to more consistent screen quality control: if it looks good in the store or at a friends house, yours will look just as good.

    The biggest drawback with LCD is atrocious quality control and the annoying "screen panel lottery" scam all the brands get away with: they promote a particular type of superior LCD in their ads, which gets good reviews and is put on display in stores, but a month after introduction they randomly install two or three junk screens with different specs. As a consumer you have no way of knowing this, you get the thing home and it sucks (poor color, bad viewing angles). Then you have the added complication of LED vs CFL backlights: the CFL has more natural color, less obvious backlight flaws, and better viewing angles (on high grade panels). The LED has more "punch" to the image, but almost always involves a high gloss screen cover which kills the viewing angles of even the best panels. LED is actually much cheaper to mfr than CFL,so don't believe the hype that overpriced LED sets are inherently "better" just because its more expensive. CFL will be gone by next year: "budget" LED (same as last years "high end" LED) has taken its place, and "high end" LED (more bulbs, better engineering) will appear in more top models.

    None of these options (plasma, LCD-CFL or LCD-LED) will make all people happy all of the time. They'll never be as seamless as the old CRTs, you'll always notice something is "off" depending on the video feed and your home environment. Pick the compromise that works for your budget and eyes, and expect to replace it every five or six years (unless you're handy with a soldering iron and willing to do your own repairs). If you have room for a 42" screen, the LG or Zenith (by LG) plasmas frequently go for fire-sale prices at Sears (under $400). Samsung and Panasonic plasmas are $100 more, some like these better. LCDs are a total crapshoot: you'll never know what it looks like until you get it home, so be prepared to return it and buy from a warehouse store with liberal return/exchange policy. Panasonic 32 and 37 inch LCDs have the least screen variation, because they avoid the panel lottery, making them a good starting point. Their only drawback is an irritating inability to hold fleshtones consistently: if you set the TV to look perfect on a soap opera, filmed movies will look strange, etc., so you have to ride the picture controls. Other LCD brands have inconsistent issues model to model, pick your poison and roll the dice. Watch out for screens that look great in the store playing a high def feed but will look awful at home playing typical standard-def cable (Best Buy "house" brands especially). Opt for 1080p if at all possible: its not much more expensive than 720 now and tends to have the better screen, even if you have no 1080 material to play on it.

    I had to replace my dead Samsung recently, and ended up with a Sony LCD after returning a Vizio, a Panasonic, and three different Samsungs. Each had major flaws, although it took me nearly two weeks to choose between the Panasonic and the Sony. I preferred the viewing angle and overall color on the Panasonic, but having to constantly adjust it drove me nuts. I grudgingly kept the Sony because it locks onto a color palette and stays there no matter what I 'm watching, despite a narrow viewing angle and sloppy backlighting. I'm not looking forward going thru this awful auditioning process again in five years (if the set even lasts that long).
    Last edited by orsetto; 12th Aug 2011 at 14:34.
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Pocatello, ID
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by SLK001 View Post
    Originally Posted by smitbret View Post
    Well, CNET says that it will cost about $40/year more to power a plasma. For $3.50 a month, I'd save the 100's of dollars up front and enjoy the improved picture quality from the plasma.
    You've got to figure in the operating costs for someone on a limited budget. When I was in the stores, I was amazed (shocked, really) at how much heat was rising off the back of the plasma TVs. In my case, this heat has to be offset by increased air conditioning usage (my air conditioner runs nearly 365 days a year - if my house has a heater, I've never used it), which adds even more to the monthly costs (mine, anyway).

    Anyway, we need additional input from the OP.
    I've had a 47" LCD and a 50" plasma and while I can/could feel more heat coming off the plasma, it has had negligible affect on my cooling bill. I suppose, if you lived in a small, studio apartment then I could see it raising your power bill another 5 or 10 bucks a month, but that's still a lot less than paying the additional $300-$400 for an equivalent, poorer quality LCD.

    If the $10-12/month is going to adversly affect your lifestyle, then you have no business buying an HDTV in the first place. Go to the pawn shop and pick up an old 27" Zenith CRT for $50.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Centennial CO USA Near Denver Colorado
    Search Comp PM
    Thanks for all those great responses. If I can beg your indulgence a little longer perhaps I could tell you my reaction to the above and my television requirements.

    I am gathering from the above that if you're handy with a soldering iron which I am today's TVs still may not last very long certainly not 17 years. So let me tell you about how I watch TV. I mostly watch what I download on the Internet BBC science and history programs mostly. I have to be able to either sneakernet or perhaps with a new home network set up stream these programs to my television. I brought home a Samsung UN32D5500 32 inch television for $629 plus tax at Best Buy I was willing to pay that much and more for another 17 year television if that was the case. However I am gathering that isn't the case. While I had this television I thought the picture was incredible however I could not keep it because it had one level of sound out of the phonejack. This one level out of the phonejack was keeping me from using it, with my very old, Bose 901 speakers which I love. I am using the power amplifier portion of my old hi-fi receiver as my amplifier with these power-hungry speakers. The preamp section of this receiver went long ago but I was having a very acceptable arrangement just using the audio out of my old CRT television as the preamp. I am very fond of exercising while playing music videos in front of the speakers playing pretty loudly. Another requirement of a new television or from my thinking now a new television arrangement is receiver sensitivity. I now possess a returnable TV called LG42lk450 which I will indeed have to return because it fails to receive any over the air stations and is quite expensive for just the monitor.

    So this is my thinking as of now I am willing to pay no more than $400 for a monitor of a new system which will let me get over the air television. I am now thinking that maybe I should be looking for a sensitive television tuner in something like

    "Hauppauge WinTV HVR-1950 - ATSC HDTV / QAM receiver / analog TV / radio tuner / video input adapter - Hi-Speed USB - External$120 online, $160 nearby"

    those nearby stores Google Shop mentions will let you return back item if you don't like it. And I am learning that this class of item is often called "digital media receivers" which can include television tuners and even if they don't they can include playing a wide arrive he of video and audio codecs types which will meet my playing of downloaded video from the Internet requirements. So now I am thinking I either need a new sensitive receiver television or external device with sensitive tuner. I also need the arrangement to play a wide variety of audio and video codecs. I am willing to pay no more than $400 for the television if it turns out I am just using it as a monitor for an external box that has tuner and place the codecs is I require. If this monitor of my new system turns out to be a television which will do everything have variable audio out to let me keep my Bose speakers arrangement, place all the codecs that I could ever want by your sneakernet, and has a sensitive television tuner I would be willing to pay a little more than the $400. But not much more for televisions that will not last for very long. 32 inches would be just fine but I am figuring on a maximum of 46 inches however unlikely that may be to fine in my price range. So what do you think I appreciate any further feedback. My present LG LG42lk450 must be returned to Wal-Mart around the end of October.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Pocatello, ID
    Search Comp PM
    So, you are wanting a television that controls the volume level coming out of the RCA jacks that you have plugged into you Bose speaker setup?
    Quote Quote  
  16. Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Centennial CO USA Near Denver Colorado
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by smitbret View Post
    So, you are wanting a television that controls the volume level coming out of the RCA jacks that you have plugged into you Bose speaker setup?
    No I will not say the RCA jacks since none of them seem to have those Jack's at least in the class of TVs I've been looking at. What I'm talking about is a miniphono output to an RCA wire adapter (just wiring). I am using this arrangement presently LG television I mentioned above that I will have to return course of his costly for just a monitor since the television tuner is not sensitive enough for my antenna arrangement which is basically just a modern UHF equivalent of rabbit is.
    Quote Quote  
  17. Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Freedonia
    Search Comp PM
    MarcMiller - I've been following this on and off. Look, all we can do is give you opinions. You'd probably be best served to not take anything any of us say as more than just our opinions. orsetto, who I do respect, has written a rather lengthy and mostly informative post, but you do need to understand that what he sees as engraved in stone facts are just his personal opinions to me. Some of his "Plasma rules, LCD sucks" type comments are just completely wrong in my opinion but plasma vs. LCD is a religious issue to some. A lot of the arguments about why LCDs supposedly are inferior haven't been true for years. But to be fair some of the arguments against plasma TVs are also no longer true either.

    I know plenty of people who have LCD HDTV who are absolutely and completely thrilled with their TVs. I don't know if 17 years is really a realistic goal though. Heck, I'd argue that that wasn't even a realistic goal for CRT TVs. Everything I can find suggests that the typical consumer should easily be able to get 10+ years out of his HDTV purchase today. I should warn you that today's electronics typically don't do well in enclosed spaces so if you have one of those "entertainment centers" that women and some men in America fall in love with and your TV is jammed into it with very little free space, it might suffer from heat damage. I think the "entertainment center" is the stupidest crap ever, but I seem to have a minority opinion on that. Then again, I've had pretty good longevity from my electronics so I just might be onto something.
    Quote Quote  
  18. My take on this is that if the TV you picked up found no OTA stations you won't be happy with any of them. You did go to antennaweb and look to see what kind of antenna you need at your location. The old OTA antenna may not work good with HDTVs The Hauppauge WinTV HVR-1950 probably won't do any better than the TV you had. If you are fine using the computer to drive the TV ......
    If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself.
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by MarcMiller View Post
    Thanks for all those great responses. If I can beg your indulgence a little longer perhaps I could tell you my reaction to the above and my television requirements.

    I am gathering from the above that if you're handy with a soldering iron which I am today's TVs still may not last very long certainly not 17 years. So let me tell you about how I watch TV. I mostly watch what I download on the Internet BBC science and history programs mostly. I have to be able to either sneakernet or perhaps with a new home network set up stream these programs to my television. I brought home a Samsung UN32D5500 32 inch television for $629 plus tax at Best Buy I was willing to pay that much and more for another 17 year television if that was the case. However I am gathering that isn't the case. While I had this television I thought the picture was incredible however I could not keep it because it had one level of sound out of the phonejack. This one level out of the phonejack was keeping me from using it, with my very old, Bose 901 speakers which I love. I am using the power amplifier portion of my old hi-fi receiver as my amplifier with these power-hungry speakers. The preamp section of this receiver went long ago but I was having a very acceptable arrangement just using the audio out of my old CRT television as the preamp. I am very fond of exercising while playing music videos in front of the speakers playing pretty loudly. Another requirement of a new television or from my thinking now a new television arrangement is receiver sensitivity. I now possess a returnable TV called LG42lk450 which I will indeed have to return because it fails to receive any over the air stations and is quite expensive for just the monitor.

    So this is my thinking as of now I am willing to pay no more than $400 for a monitor of a new system which will let me get over the air television. I am now thinking that maybe I should be looking for a sensitive television tuner in something like

    "Hauppauge WinTV HVR-1950 - ATSC HDTV / QAM receiver / analog TV / radio tuner / video input adapter - Hi-Speed USB - External$120 online, $160 nearby"

    those nearby stores Google Shop mentions will let you return back item if you don't like it. And I am learning that this class of item is often called "digital media receivers" which can include television tuners and even if they don't they can include playing a wide arrive he of video and audio codecs types which will meet my playing of downloaded video from the Internet requirements. So now I am thinking I either need a new sensitive receiver television or external device with sensitive tuner. I also need the arrangement to play a wide variety of audio and video codecs. I am willing to pay no more than $400 for the television if it turns out I am just using it as a monitor for an external box that has tuner and place the codecs is I require. If this monitor of my new system turns out to be a television which will do everything have variable audio out to let me keep my Bose speakers arrangement, place all the codecs that I could ever want by your sneakernet, and has a sensitive television tuner I would be willing to pay a little more than the $400. But not much more for televisions that will not last for very long. 32 inches would be just fine but I am figuring on a maximum of 46 inches however unlikely that may be to fine in my price range. So what do you think I appreciate any further feedback. My present LG LG42lk450 must be returned to Wal-Mart around the end of October.
    The Hauppauge WinTV HVR-1950 is an external TV tuner plus SD capture device for a PC. If you need an external device to watch and record TV on your PC, or capture the SD analog output from some device (via composite or S-Video) using MPEG-2 hardware encoding, it is a decent choice. However, there may be better external or internal ATSC tuners for your PC and your location.

    PC TV tuners are always a "your mileage may vary" type of purchase, but unless it is defective, the NTSC/ATSC/QAM tuner in a new TV from a big-name maker is going to be better than most PC TV tuners. TVs use the newest TV tuners, while those in PC TV tuners typically use older designs.
    Quote Quote  
  20. Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Centennial CO USA Near Denver Colorado
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by TBoneit View Post
    My take on this is that if the TV you picked up found no OTA stations you won't be happy with any of them. You did go to antennaweb and look to see what kind of antenna you need at your location. The old OTA antenna may not work good with HDTVs The Hauppauge WinTV HVR-1950 probably won't do any better than the TV you had. If you are fine using the computer to drive the TV ......
    Well Samsung TV I had in my house before I retured it the Samsung UN32D5500 performed just fine with my UHF rabbit ears, I mean the thing that looks like a Star Trek model, so it is possible to do the local television receiving I desire just from that small antenna. My present TV is the LG 40Lk450 which is giving me a very good experience when watching music videos and listening to my Bose speakers. So I thought if the sensitivity of the tuner is not acceptable, which I feel it is, I might as well try some tuners, which are returnable, while I have it since I am not required to return it before the end of October for a full refund. It's also does well in playing video via sneakernet playing many codecs I download videos on. So if I can get any suggestions for either a TV with tuner is sensitive as a Samsung or an external tuner that would be as good as a Samsung that what I need. A Samsung itself is not good because of the non-variable audio output which doesn't work with my speaker arrangement.
    Last edited by MarcMiller; 13th Aug 2011 at 17:52.
    Quote Quote  
  21. Originally Posted by MarcMiller View Post
    I brought home a Samsung UN32D5500... I could not keep it because it had one level of sound out of the phonejack...
    Did you try the headphone jack? That's almost always adjustable. It is on my Samsung LCD HDTV.
    Quote Quote  
  22. Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Centennial CO USA Near Denver Colorado
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    Originally Posted by MarcMiller View Post
    I brought home a Samsung UN32D5500... I could not keep it because it had one level of sound out of the phonejack...
    Did you try the headphone jack? That's almost always adjustable. It is on my Samsung LCD HDTV.
    Yes I did try to headphone jack and I talked to Samsung technical support as well and they said it wasn't adjustable. It seems that they now only build them to interface with home theaters. You must have an headphone with adjustable volume to adjust the volume they told me. I would find it interesting to find out exactly what vintage Samsung TV you have. Perhaps I can be looking at getting an old Samsung where the headphone jack will have adjustable volume.
    Quote Quote  
  23. Originally Posted by MarcMiller View Post
    I would find it interesting to find out exactly what vintage Samsung TV you have.
    It's an LNT 4665. Actually, I opened up that TV, disconnected the internal speakers, and ran the wires to a pair of Polk audio speakers -- much better sound, no external amp required.

    We also have a recent Vizio M221NV -- the headphone output from that is controlled by the remote control too. We use that connected to a pair of M-Audio mini studio monitors.

    Originally Posted by MarcMiller View Post
    Perhaps I can be looking at getting an old Samsung where the headphone jack will have adjustable volume.
    If you only need to reduce the volume, and don't need a remote control, a passive volume control like this will do:
    http://www.amazon.com/Quality-PAC-AMPLIFIER-CONTROLLER-VOLT-CAR/dp/B0057YBEYA/
    Quote Quote  
  24. Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Centennial CO USA Near Denver Colorado
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by jagabo
    I opened up that TV, disconnected the internal speakers, and ran the wires to a pair of Polk audio speakers -- much better sound, no external amp required.
    Well having a passive volume control like you show would be a bit of a pain in that to be constantly running to it to change the volume but you're right the fixed audio out of the headphone jacks is at a high level and it is basically a matter of reducing it. You seem to be into audio. I'm wondering if you think this alternative http://www.aliexpress.com/store/201108/209787181-344666417/Kinter-Subwoofer-Reader-Headphone-Amplifier-DC5V-12V-SD-Card-Reader-Remote-Control-U-Disk-MP3-Decoder.html would be nearly as good audio quality wise? Also disconnecting the speakers itself may not be a valid test of using the headphone jack as is only comes on when you turn the speakers off.
    Quote Quote  
  25. That appears to be an MP3 player with SD and USB ports (for storage, probably no internal flash memory). I don't see any way of getting an external analog audio source into it. If you just want an MP3 player it's probably ok.
    Quote Quote  
  26. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    Code:
    http://www.plasmadisplaycoalition.org/results/power.php
    http://www.ehow.com/about_6471944_lcd-vs-plasma-power-consumption.html
    http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/tv-power-efficiency/
    #1 = Biased consortium.
    #2 = eHow is a content mill. Any unqualified goober can write anything. Not a good resource.
    #3 = CNET is a lot like eHow now, and many "reviewers" don't have a clue.

    Just FYI.
    Last edited by lordsmurf; 18th Aug 2011 at 02:50.
    Quote Quote  
  27. Originally Posted by jman98 View Post
    Some of [orsetto's] "Plasma rules, LCD sucks" type comments are just completely wrong in my opinion but plasma vs. LCD is a religious issue to some.
    My "emphatic" comments are sometimes misinterpreted: I'm afraid you took away a different perspective than I meant to convey.

    To be clear, I never make blanket recommendations that "plasma is better than LCD." Only a fool would do that: it depends on what your eyes subjectively prefer, the size screen you need, how much you want to pay, and your environment. So the answer for each person would change depending on how these variables combine. I chose LCD because I needed a 32" size, have too many bright windows, and wanted relative portability: plasmas now start at 42", have high gloss screens and weigh 60+ lbs.

    MarcMiller specifically mentioned low cost as a priority. Once "budget" tops the list, it would be silly not to look at plasma first. Its half the price of LCD for a given screen size. From there, you adjust your expectations and budget accordingly until you find something you like. Maybe its plasma, maybe not. Maybe you're willing to pay more for a somewhat smaller LCD. Its a personal choice, plasma and LCD look very different. In bright light, near windows, plasma washes out during the day so I had to rule it out for my room, despite preferring the more natural motion blur and better presentation of most standard-def material. Its a mistake to get mentally locked into only LCD or plasma: your needs might change, each has advantages, and LCD transforms itself every couple of years. Plasma technology functions similarly to the old CRTs, so some people find it easier to watch, others prefer aspects of LCD presentation.

    My only real beef with LCD is terrible sample-to-sample variation and the related "panel lottery". This is a very real, very common, extremely annoying problem confirmed by looking up the history of any random LG, Samsung or Sony television model on Amazon or Best Buy websites. It gets worse every year as profits fall and consolidation of mfring increases. It doesn't happen with plasma because plasma's popularity dropped so long ago theres only a couple of screen suppliers left, and they're pretty consistent: they've cut the price/performance of plasma to the bone so its been stable for years (also plasma is far simpler to mfr than LCD). LCD is still in the midst of cutthroat competition with high volume and slim margins, Sony alone has been in total free fall since 2007 with no end of losses in sight. This is not conducive to product consistency. You can get a beautiful affordable LCD set, I certainly did, but it requires more careful shopping, looking for serial number codes on the cartons, and sometimes a couple of returns/exchanges. Early spring is a good time to find closeout deals on previous models.
    Quote Quote  
  28. Member louv68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Minneapolis, USA
    Search Comp PM
    [QUOTE=orsetto;2099994]
    Originally Posted by jman98 View Post

    To be clear, I never make blanket recommendations that "plasma is better than LCD." Only a fool would do that
    Count me in as one of those fools. Plasma is far and away better than any LCD I've ever seen. In my eyes opinion, the only advantage LCD has over plasma, is daytime viewing in bright light. Some people will however strongly disagree with me. That's Ok though. Definitely go with whatever looks best to you. If looking for the best bang for the buck, you can't beat plasma at the moment.
    -The Mang
    Quote Quote  
  29. Originally Posted by louv68 View Post
    Count me in as one of those fools. Plasma is far and away better than any LCD I've ever seen. In my eyes opinion, the only advantage LCD has over plasma, is daytime viewing in bright light. Some people will however strongly disagree with me. That's Ok though. Definitely go with whatever looks best to you. If looking for the best bang for the buck, you can't beat plasma at the moment.
    Went to Target & they have a LCD 42" smart tv that uses just $12 a year of power. Plasma uses more.

    But I agree with you that plasma is great, I only wish you could buy smaller sets.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads