[thebtman]

Having tried a few different sets I would seriously advise staying away from the bargain models...regardless of manufacturer.

Also, people go on about flicker and all that other crap but it must surely get to the point where you are just constantly analysing TV quality instead of enjoying whats on it!

[GetFrodo]

I disagree. We got a cheap and cheerful 32" panel for our bedroom and it is fine. Perfectly acceptable quality (SD/HD) at a good price.

If you are really fussy about quality then maybe it wouldn't be for you, but I don't think that applies to most people.

[soulboy77]

Ok for second TVs where not so fussed about PQ but your main viewing TV needs to be something decent. I always advise people to view in a shop before buying as some of the more obscure makes are seriously atrocious but there are also some real bargains to be had.

[Gilbertoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by thebtman

Having tried a few different sets I would seriously advise staying away from the bargain models...regardless of manufacturer.

Also, people go on about flicker and all that other crap but it must surely get to the point where you are just constantly analysing TV quality instead of enjoying whats on it!

A bit of clarity around your statement would be good.

For example, the Samsung Series 6 is a very good TV. Now, when the Series 7, 8, 9 are released and stockists reduce the price of a Series 6 down to "bargain model price", it doesn't stop the TV from being a very good one, does it?

[SilverFox2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by thebtman

Having tried a few different sets I would seriously advise staying away from the bargain models...regardless of manufacturer.

Also, people go on about flicker and all that other crap but it must surely get to the point where you are just constantly analysing TV quality instead of enjoying whats on it!

Before abandoning your set(s) try looking at these webpages:

http://www.curtpalme.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10457

also

http://www.avforums.com/forums/avfor...libration.html

go to bottom of this page for video

I.m not saying you are not right with the sets you have tried but perhaps the guides will help and perhaps indicate that its not only price that affects your picture.

Apologies if this is old hat to you.

[Slipstreem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by thebtman

Having tried a few different sets I would seriously advise staying away from the bargain models...regardless of manufacturer.

As already said, that's a very wide and sweeping statement and certainly doesn't hold true globally.

There have been a few truly classic designs in terms of image quality over the past few years and many of the cheaper LCD TVs available will be using yesterday's classic technology. I deliberately avoided buying an expensive LCD TV because most of the modern so-called image enhancement features make the image look a darn sight worse to me personally.

Drawing a parallel with properly designed audio equipment, decent stereo amplifiers haven't improved audibly in terms of sound quality for well over 30 years. Many new sound-mangling features have arrived since, but they always take you further away from what was intended to be heard rather than closer to it. They pervert the sound in the same way that many of the more expensive LCD TVs pervert the image by adding 'bling' that was never part of the original image in the first place.

Quote:

Also, people go on about flicker and all that other crap but it must surely get to the point where you are just constantly analysing TV quality instead of enjoying whats on it!

But how can you enjoy what's on if the flicker is so bad that you can't watch it?

I walked into a showroom last year when looking for an LCD TV and had to be helped out of the store by a friend on the verge of having a fit of some kind due to being surrounded by TVs most of which flickered horribly when playing back a standard commercial DVD. I don't suffer from epilepsy and never have, but I came damn close to having something akin to an epileptic fit.

Further investigation revealed that the common factor that all of these TVs shared was a very similar flicker-reduction technology that actually made flicker dramatically worse with some content by introducing a bizarre stop-frame effect on certain elements of the image whilst blurring others. I went back a generation when buying the one I chose and ended up with no flicker-correction and no perceivable flicker.

Having said that, LCD TV technology is an incredibly complex animal and there are such a huge number of variables that come into the equation that you can't just draw a line and say "pre-year X is good and post-year X is bad", or "Below £XXX is bad and above £XXX is good". A person needs to view any TV they're considering buying to find out whether or not the technology involved suits them.

Do they need to understand the technology involved and the techno-babble used to push it? Hell no! They just need to look at the picture in the same way that they'd listen to the sound when buying an amplifier and find out if the advanced features suit them or can be disabled if they annoy them.

Sorry for the long, drawn out post. I just couldn't let your post go without a comment and couldn't find any less words to get the message across adequately.

[_ben]

I would have agreed with you, until I went into our local currys/dixons/comet (can never tell which one I'm in) with the intention of buying a 19" samsung LCD and came out with a 22" proline for £50 less instead. I was astonished, but the TV corner of the shop had the lighting turned right down and I had the remote controls so was able to fiddle with the settings on a range on material. It was a good comparison, and I can honestly say the proline was better than the samsung and much better than a comparably priced sony. The blacks were blacker, the colours were more natural, motion was smoother, SD upscaling was better, it was just a better picture, and the sound and connectivity were great too. My only criticism (beyond what I would say about any LCD regardless of price) is that the vertical viewing angle is severely limited, so you have to be at the same level as the telly, not above or below it, but that suits us fine.

While we were in the shop I had a look at larger TVs and in my opinion (although it was a much closer thing) the LGs looked at least as good as comparably priced top brand models too. Not sure if you'd consider LG a cheap and cheerful brand any more though.

[Anika Hanson]

Quote:

Originally Posted by _ben

I would have agreed with you, until I went into our local currys/dixons/comet (can never tell which one I'm in) with the intention of buying a 19" samsung LCD and came out with a 22" proline for £50 less instead. I was astonished, but the TV corner of the shop had the lighting turned right down and I had the remote controls so was able to fiddle with the settings on a range on material. It was a good comparison, and I can honestly say the proline was better than the samsung and much better than a comparably priced sony. The blacks were blacker, the colours were more natural, motion was smoother, SD upscaling was better, it was just a better picture, and the sound and connectivity were great too. My only criticism (beyond what I would say about any LCD regardless of price) is that the vertical viewing angle is severely limited, so you have to be at the same level as the telly, not above or below it, but that suits us fine.

While we were in the shop I had a look at larger TVs and in my opinion (although it was a much closer thing) the LGs looked at least as good as comparably priced top brand models too. Not sure if you'd consider LG a cheap and cheerful brand any more though.

I have an LG 42" LCD HD tv which I paid 800 pounds for, I find the quality to be fine and dont experience any problems with flickering.

[SilverFox2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by _ben

I would have agreed with you, until I went into our local currys/dixons/comet (can never tell which one I'm in) with the intention of buying a 19" samsung LCD and came out with a 22" proline for £50 less instead. I was astonished, but the TV corner of the shop had the lighting turned right down and I had the remote controls so was able to fiddle with the settings on a range on material. It was a good comparison, and I can honestly say the proline was better than the samsung and much better than a comparably priced sony. The blacks were blacker, the colours were more natural, motion was smoother, SD upscaling was better, it was just a better picture, and the sound and connectivity were great too. My only criticism (beyond what I would say about any LCD regardless of price) is that the vertical viewing angle is severely limited, so you have to be at the same level as the telly, not above or below it, but that suits us fine.

While we were in the shop I had a look at larger TVs and in my opinion (although it was a much closer thing) the LGs looked at least as good as comparably priced top brand models too. Not sure if you'd consider LG a cheap and cheerful brand any more though.

Don't want to recommend any brand but cheap does not always equate to nasty and expensive is not always justified.
It seems to me that as already lucidly explained the so called ''extras'' get in the way of simple calibration.

The first thing i would do when attempting to calibrate a TV is turn off these enhancement extras and see what the panel itself can do.

Not suggesting it always happens but there is for example a vested interest in having the ''backlight'' of an LCD panel at 100% (helps with the type of lighting in usual showrooms) so manufacturers set them up this way.
What a way to burn energy never mind the life of the backlight itself.
Calibration is much more than just this of course but its a start.

Its worth repeating that TV sets are usually set up by the manufacturers for the environment in which they are usually sold not where they are used.

My own Toshiba LCD was like this but with a little time and effort the picture is now unrecognizable from the ''as received'' condition.

Hope this helps.

[Nigel Goodwin]

Many sets now ask you during setup if it's for home use or shop use, and sets the picture accordingly.

Previously, as you say, they all came set to 'vivid' or whatever each manufacturer calls it.

[AlanO]

Quote:

Originally Posted by soulboy77

Ok for second TVs where not so fussed about PQ but your main viewing TV needs to be something decent. I always advise people to view in a shop before buying as some of the more obscure makes are seriously atrocious but there are also some real bargains to be had.

But what you're forgetting is some people are on a budget, and will therefore buy the cheapest and accept the quality limitations - not everyone can afford to buy a Sony / Panasonic.

And not everybody is 100% bothered about having the best picture quality possible.

Surely it's down to personal choice ?

[DeadJoe]

I have been following this thread with some interest.

We are still using a 28" wide screen Panasonic Quintrix Pro-Logic CRT - it's not even a 100hz model, and is about 10 years old. We use it to watch Freeview, and the odd video.

Most of the people we know have 'upgraded' to LCDs made by the likes of Samsung, LG and Panasonic, to watch Freeview, or Sky, and DVDs- and I have to say, I am not at all impressed.

In my opinion, from non-HD sources, the old Panasonic produces a picture which is way more natural looking and 'clean' than any of the LCDs I have seen so far, and with much better colour rendering. On-screen movement is smooth, and the sound is pretty good too.

I just don't see the point. Until the majority of broadcasts are available in full HD at a sensible price (i.e. free), then I can't see any reason to give up my beautiful SD picture in return for the ability to watch a bit of HD now and again.

I basically agree with the OP - cheap LCD is a bit of a waste of time. But I'd go further. For many people, at this time, even the change from a decent CRT to a decent LCD is a waste of time as well.

[meltcity]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadJoe

For many people, at this time, even the change from a decent CRT to a decent LCD is a waste of time as well.

Try telling that to all the people who have swapped CRTs in perfect working order for an LCD. My local charity shop is stuffed full of CRTs that have been rejected by their owners. I think it is shame to get rid of a working TV set, but may people do.

[SkipTracer]

That’s progress for you. It’s the LP v CD, CD v MP3, Betamax v VHS, VHS v DVD, Blue ray v HD DVD, Apple v PC, the list is endless.

The model CRT TV you have there Deadjoe sound like the same one I had until replacement with a Panasonic LCD. I have been using this set for 3 years now and when set up correctly it beats my old TV hands down every time except that is with black images.

I did love the contrast of the picture on the old CRT but the stretched picture from 4.3 to 16.9 made every body look like Eric and Wise, you know the short fat hairy ones and even with a digital Freeview box connect via scart the picture would still bend at the edges. Now with digital built in and wide screen broadcasts everybody looks right and all tall buildings go straight up with no curves. As for colour the old CRT won’t even get a second look when compared to watching HDTV on the LCD.

By the way, that Panasonic CRT widescreen cost me £800 11 years ago and the current one cost £1,800 3 years ago and I could find a Panasonic to the same spec for less than a grand today.

Now where did I store that 78rpm record player and 405 line valve TV set, they are so good they beat anything you can buy today.

[DeadJoe]

I never use the stretch image facility. If it's 4:3, then I watch it in 4:3... But I agree, there is a degree of image distortion, but it's pretty minor, really. The thing I really like about it is the way skin tones are properly presented. I swear on my life, I haven't yet seen an LCD create an image anything like it - but I guess I may have been seeing sets that are not correctly set up. I accept the point that a properly set up LCD might create truly wonderful SD images - I just haven't seen it yet. And I have no doubt that HD is going to be better - how could it not be?

The puzzle for me is why someone with a good CRT could go into a TV shop and think that what they are seeing is in any way 'better' than what they have. I was in my local Sainsburys just now - they have some Samsungs on display, showing standard SD images - BBC news 24, I think. The images are just dreadful. Not just bad, but truly god-awful. How on earth do they sell these things? And honestly, every LCD they had in the shop was equally as bad.

I know I sound like one of those 'it was better in the old days' types, but I am genuinely puzzled. Why do people do it? Why throw out a really nice TV in favour of some dreadful LCD which is demonstrably worse?

Like I have said - I fully accept that a good HD image is going to be better - I have no doubt about that. But I suspect 90% (if not higher) of LCDs are used to view SD sources, and I am really not sure that, in this situation, the picture quality provided by an LCD is going to match a good CRT.

Do all LCDs 'judder' on fast pan images? And do they all have that horrible 'crawling' effect on people's faces? I haven't seen one yet that doesn't!

[SilverFox2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

Many sets now ask you during setup if it's for home use or shop use, and sets the picture accordingly.

Previously, as you say, they all came set to 'vivid' or whatever each manufacturer calls it.

Hi Nigel,

Only got experience of Toshiba where as you say one can change many of the picture settings but this has to be done after delivery ie out of the box and by the purchaser.

Unsure if you mean this though ?

Do you mean other brands ask before delivery what setup you want and then calibrate the TV in your home after delivery?

[Nigel Goodwin]

We sell mostly Sony, when you unpack them and plug them in they ask you:

Menu language:

Country you're installing in:

If you're doing a home install or a shop install:

Antenna or Cable:

Then on to tuning, digital then analogue.

Previously they defaulted to VIVID for installation in a shop, and you had to change every one you installed - I suspect most people who take the sets away just left them on VIVID.

[SilverFox2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

We sell mostly Sony, when you unpack them and plug them in they ask you:

Menu language:

Country you're installing in:

If you're doing a home install or a shop install:

Antenna or Cable:

Then on to tuning, digital then analogue.

Previously they defaulted to VIVID for installation in a shop, and you had to change every one you installed - I suspect most people who take the sets away just left them on VIVID.

Im sure your suspicions are accurate.

At least it makes users aware that environment affects picture.

My set was probably in the ''vivid'' category but as you know tweaking the service menu with a good set of test patterns can make a massive difference.