TV purchase advice

simonn · 12-03-2012, 12:52

I'm looking to replace my current TV which is on it's last legs, and am considering replacements, with a fully HD TV on my list of must have's, as well as a minimum of 100 HZ's. At present I only have a regular Sky+ box (not HD) and a Samsung 5.1 surround sound system with DVD player (HT D550 I think).

Will I notice a picture improvement over my current CRT TV (50HZ) despite not having an HD box when watching TV? The DVD player is upscaleable, and so I presume I will get a better quality DVD picture (though not BluRay quality). Correct me if I'm wrong!

I had a decided on an LED rather than LCD, but have read that sound quality can be comparatively poor - not a problem for me as I'll always switch the surround on, but my wife relies on TV sound on the whole. How noticeable is this?

The item I'm currently considering is the Samsung UE32D5000, which is available for £349. Any negative comments on this TV welcomed. I've read occasional comments re picture blur, which I thought wouldn't have been as much of an issue with a 100hz tv vs a 50hz, but again correct me if I'm wrong! Would there be less blur on a 200HZ?

paulmapp8306 · 12-03-2012, 12:54

Depends on the size of TV you go for.

anything more than 32" and you will probably notice a DECREASE in picture quality over a CRT TV with standard definition programs.

simonn · 12-03-2012, 12:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by paulmapp8306

Depends on the size of TV you go for.

anything more than 32" and you will probably notice a DECREASE in picture quality over a CRT TV with standard definition programs.

I've just updated my post with a bit more info - and yes it is a 32 inch that I'm after.

David (2) · 12-03-2012, 13:05

if you can afford it, i would get the SkyHD upgrade to go with it - and connect it to the tv using HDMI cable (not scart).

LED is LCD. LED only refers to the method of back lighting. It does not mean you have an LED screen (this is what OLED is designed for, but currently very rare and very expensive).

paulmapp8306 · 12-03-2012, 13:10

Its not the Hz really that matters. Youll still get Blur on a 600hz tv. Its to do with how quickly the LEDs can change - and why Plasma TVs generally do much better with fast scenes. However, you wont get a Plasma less than 37" - and very few below 42" so there out anyway.

Personally I wouldnt consider anyting but Panosonic or Sony - but they are more expensive. What you get is more natural picture quality (not overly bright or cartoony colours), better motion handling and better build quality.

If you cant stretch, then a Samsung or LG would be the next choices for me - but IMO there is a considerable difference (obviously Samsungs top of the range TV will be better than Panosonics bottom of the trange but you get what I mean).

This if you can stretch to £450:

http://www.richersounds.com/product/...pana-txl32e30b

If you cant - this Sony is worth a look over the Samsung at a similar price:

http://www.richersounds.com/product/...ony-kdl32ex723

simonn · 12-03-2012, 13:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by David (2)

if you can afford it, i would get the SkyHD upgrade to go with it - and connect it to the tv using HDMI cable (not scart).

LED is LCD. LED only refers to the method of back lighting. It does not mean you have an LED screen (this is what OLED is designed for, but currently very rare and very expensive).

I'd say I can't afford that upgrade at the moment.

Have looked at Panasonics and Sonys too and they are still in the mix.

To go back to my original question, if buying 32" am I likely to see picture improvement with my current setup - by jumping from a 50hz to a 100hz?

paulmapp8306 · 12-03-2012, 13:50

No - not really. A good quality 50Hz TV will be better than a poor quality 100Hz TV.

the human eye cant really detect anything faster than 50Hz - which is why 50Hz was initially chosen by TV manufacturers all those years back.

i will also say again - the refresh rate is less important than the rate the pixels can change. The faster refresh halps a little - but (despite what the salesmen would have you believe) it is very little. Its unlikely you'll notice a difference, especially on the smaller (which 32" is) screens.

If you want to be sure - get soen a local shop and A/B a 50hz and 100hz TV in a similar price bracket and see if you notice anything.

David (2) · 12-03-2012, 13:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by simonn

I'd say I can't afford that upgrade at the moment.

Have looked at Panasonics and Sonys too and they are still in the mix.

To go back to my original question, if buying 32" am I likely to see picture improvement with my current setup - by jumping from a 50hz to a 100hz?

without having any HD to view on, the set will be runnning at only half its picture quality.......as time goes on, the technical people at places like Sony and others will further downgrade their SD reproduction on new sets. I think this is already happening to some extent. Its a cost saving for those making the sets (theres not much profit on a £300-£400 tv).

As for 100Hz over 50Hz, well 100 should be better in theory, but there are lots of other issues also playing a part. I guess a very poor 100Hz tv might have a worse picture than a top notch 50Hz tv. Its all rather subjective, and SD only display further reduces your chances of getting the kind of new tv picture you really want. It will always be a compromise. You really need to try before you buy.

paulmapp8306 · 12-03-2012, 14:22

Its not the TV making SD picture quality poor - its the TV broadcast itself (particularly Sky), and to some extend the size of TV. Put a decent SD picture on a 32" and below TV against a HD picture and the difference isnt that great. Do the same on a 50" and its VERY evident.

ultimately, CRT TVs were pretty much all 50Hz (OK some 100hz in there last year or 3), BUR put a 28" CRT TV against a 28" LCD TV, and the CRT will be a better picture - that just because of how the techs work. Whats lead to flat screens popularity is size and weight - not picture quality (with SD pictures). With HD it makes sencse as CRTs only ever has 512 lines so cant display HD content.

simonn · 12-03-2012, 20:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by paulmapp8306

No - not really. A good quality 50Hz TV will be better than a poor quality 100Hz TV.

the human eye cant really detect anything faster than 50Hz - which is why 50Hz was initially chosen by TV manufacturers all those years back.

i will also say again - the refresh rate is less important than the rate the pixels can change. The faster refresh halps a little - but (despite what the salesmen would have you believe) it is very little. Its unlikely you'll notice a difference, especially on the smaller (which 32" is) screens.

If you want to be sure - get soen a local shop and A/B a 50hz and 100hz TV in a similar price bracket and see if you notice anything.

Yes, I have done the 50 v 100hz comparison, and that's what has lead me to think that 100HZ should always be better than 50HZ - when looking at the same manufacturer - as I've mainly been looking at Samsung. Seems that's too simplistic. What I won't be able to tell by looking at tv's in a shop is the kind of picture I can expect with my setup, as they'll obviously be playing HD sources through their demo TV's. Whichever way I turn it just seems I'm not going to be able to find this oput easily. Very frustrating.

Thanks for everyone's comments to date.

Nigel Goodwin · 12-03-2012, 20:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by simonn

Yes, I have done the 50 v 100hz comparison, and that's what has lead me to think that 100HZ should always be better than 50HZ - when looking at the same manufacturer - as I've mainly been looking at Samsung. Seems that's too simplistic. What I won't be able to tell by looking at tv's in a shop is the kind of picture I can expect with my setup, as they'll obviously be playing HD sources through their demo TV's. Whichever way I turn it just seems I'm not going to be able to find this oput easily. Very frustrating.

It's really pretty easy - a better and more expensive set will almost always give a better picture - regardless of claimed frame rates. 100Hz sets from the same range are usually better than the 50Hz models, but I suspect that's simply because it's a better TV rather than specifically 100Hz.

Deacon1972 · 12-03-2012, 20:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by paulmapp8306

Its not the TV making SD picture quality poor - its the TV broadcast itself (particularly Sky), and to some extend the size of TV. Put a decent SD picture on a 32" and below TV against a HD picture and the difference isnt that great. Do the same on a 50" and its VERY evident.

ultimately, CRT TVs were pretty much all 50Hz (OK some 100hz in there last year or 3), BUR put a 28" CRT TV against a 28" LCD TV, and the CRT will be a better picture - that just because of how the techs work. Whats lead to flat screens popularity is size and weight - not picture quality (with SD pictures). With HD it makes sencse as CRTs only ever has 512 lines so cant display HD content.

Whilst I agree the TV broadcast plays it's part, the TV also plays a big part too.

I have a 50" and 100" screen in the front room, the 50" has good processing power (DCDi by Faroudja - 8-bit) and SD is very good, compare that to the PJ which also has DCDi by Faroudja but more power as it's 10-bit, SD is even better blown up to twice the size, the PJ also has Texas DarkChip2 which helps in other areas.

There's a thread here linking to the new Toshiba 3D TV without glasses, the TV has 4K resolution, apparently 2D looks very good, I'm assuming it's just HD that has been put through it, they are putting that down to the video processing, it'll have to have some power if it's got to upscale SD to 4K so it looks reasonable.

simonn · 12-03-2012, 21:12

I've also been looking at this model:-

http://www.richersounds.com/product/...ony-kdl32cx523

One basic question, I notice they have freeview hd on there. Is this built in to the tv, and therefore doesn't need an aerial, as my aerial socket would be used for my Sky box? I ask as this might be a way of me getting some tv channels to show hd content when I've still only got non HD Sky+.

C19th Fox · 12-03-2012, 22:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by simonn

I've also been looking at this model:-

http://www.richersounds.com/product/...ony-kdl32cx523

One basic question, I notice they have freeview hd on there. Is this built in to the tv, and therefore doesn't need an aerial, as my aerial socket would be used for my Sky box? I ask as this might be a way of me getting some tv channels to show hd content when I've still only got non HD Sky+.

It will have an HD tuner and will be able to pick up HD signals but it won't do it without an aerial plugged in to it. However if you plug your aerial into the sky box and then connect that from the RF out socket to the TV as well as linking up the scart sockets you should be able to get Freeview HD on your TV. This arrangement works with my Freeview + PVR which is also non HD. I can get HD signals on the TV but cannot record them as the PVR is not HD ready. Apart from that PVR behaves as normal if i wanted to record anything.

emptybox · 12-03-2012, 23:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by simonn

I've also been looking at this model:-

http://www.richersounds.com/product/...ony-kdl32cx523

One basic question, I notice they have freeview hd on there. Is this built in to the tv, and therefore doesn't need an aerial, as my aerial socket would be used for my Sky box? I ask as this might be a way of me getting some tv channels to show hd content when I've still only got non HD Sky+.

Your Sky box is connected to a satellite dish for it's reception. This will be of no help at all for Freeview reception. For that you will need a terrestrial aerial on your roof or loft, or if you are in a strong reception area you might get away with an indoor aerial.

chrisjr · 12-03-2012, 23:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by simonn

I've also been looking at this model:-

http://www.richersounds.com/product/...ony-kdl32cx523

One basic question, I notice they have freeview hd on there. Is this built in to the tv, and therefore doesn't need an aerial, as my aerial socket would be used for my Sky box? I ask as this might be a way of me getting some tv channels to show hd content when I've still only got non HD Sky+.

If you do not have any form of TV aerial on the roof or in the loft then it doesn't matter if the TV has Freeview HD or not. You won't get anything at all using the TV's built in tuner.

You have to connect an aerial to the TV to get any Freeview channels, including the HD ones. It cannot amke any use whatsoever of any signals coming down the cables from the dish to your Sky box. Not only do they never reach the TV but even if they did the TV can't make any sense of them.

You say the aerial is connected to the Sky box? If there is an aerial connected to the RF IN socket on the Sky box then you can connect either RF 1 OUT or RF 2 OUT to the TV's aerial socket to feed the Freeview signals to the TV.

C19th Fox · 12-03-2012, 23:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by simonn

. What I won't be able to tell by looking at tv's in a shop is the kind of picture I can expect with my setup, as they'll obviously be playing HD sources through their demo TV's. Whichever way I turn it just seems I'm not going to be able to find this oput easily. Very frustrating.

Depends where you go. National chains tend to play pre recorded promos or have sets hooked up to HD. However imdependent stores and department stores are more likely to have TV's tuned into live broadcasts from a shared aerial - if you go on a breezy day issues such as blurring as a result of aerial movement can become apparent and helps to sort the wood from the trees.

Found a review on the Sony which is good. If you did not have a top end CRT set you should definately notice an improvementhttp://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/sony-...1105191151.htm Sound however will be poor. Its nothing to write home about on the higher spec EX723!

simonn · 13-03-2012, 13:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by C19th Fox

Depends where you go. National chains tend to play pre recorded promos or have sets hooked up to HD. However imdependent stores and department stores are more likely to have TV's tuned into live broadcasts from a shared aerial - if you go on a breezy day issues such as blurring as a result of aerial movement can become apparent and helps to sort the wood from the trees.

Found a review on the Sony which is good. If you did not have a top end CRT set you should definately notice an improvementhttp://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/sony-...1105191151.htm Sound however will be poor. Its nothing to write home about on the higher spec EX723!

Yep, I'd seen that, had put me off a bit! Saw this one for £380 today, whihc I'm currently considering http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/samsu...1107121282.htm

And yes my CRT is certainly not top end - it's a Daewoo!

Nigel Goodwin · 13-03-2012, 15:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by paulmapp8306

Its not the Hz really that matters. Youll still get Blur on a 600hz tv.

You've fallen foul of the advertising con - there are no 600Hz sets, the 600Hz refers to something completely different, and the sets are actually 100Hz refresh rate.

C19th Fox · 13-03-2012, 21:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by simonn

And yes my CRT is certainly not top end - it's a Daewoo!

mmm must have been when Daewoo were trying their hand at anything! I knew they did radios but not TV's. Whilst the Daewoo speakers should not be match for those in the Sony Trinitron CRT sets it is inevitable that you will notice some difference. If you still have the handbook probably worth having a look to see what the specs were for the speakers to try to determine what you might lose out on, but the only way to find out is to bite the bullet and chose one as the accoustics in every room is different.

At the end of the day you will still be able to hear the set and you do already have a surround system which you will be able to use.

Nigel Goodwin · 13-03-2012, 21:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by C19th Fox

mmm must have been when Daewoo were trying their hand at anything! I knew they did radios but not TV's. Whilst the Daewoo speakers should not be match for those in the Sony Trinitron CRT sets it is inevitable that you will notice some difference.

Daewoo made CRT TV's for many years, mostly badged under various crap brands (Logik, Goodmans etc.) - and in later years even badged Daewoo.

Sony CRT sets didn't always have decent speakers either, there were some pretty crappy ones amongst them!

simonn · 14-03-2012, 12:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by C19th Fox

mmm must have been when Daewoo were trying their hand at anything! I knew they did radios but not TV's. Whilst the Daewoo speakers should not be match for those in the Sony Trinitron CRT sets it is inevitable that you will notice some difference. If you still have the handbook probably worth having a look to see what the specs were for the speakers to try to determine what you might lose out on, but the only way to find out is to bite the bullet and chose one as the accoustics in every room is different.

At the end of the day you will still be able to hear the set and you do already have a surround system which you will be able to use.

Agreed. It's more a case of persuading the wife to make the effort to put it on all the time, so that her viewing/listening experience doesn't alter out of all recognition!!

niall campbell · 15-03-2012, 02:55

the bit rate on Sky is far higher than freeview and you will get a better picture

and get a bigger tv if its your main set

http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/panason...88043-pdt.html

simonn · 15-03-2012, 07:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by niall campbell

the bit rate on Sky is far higher than freeview and you will get a better picture

and get a bigger tv if its your main set

http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/panason...88043-pdt.html

Bigger telly would look ridiculous in our front room. I've seen some tv's dominating a room, not for me.

XxBlaKOuTZxX · 15-03-2012, 08:20

How do you know which size screen to buy for your sitting room though. I have a 55 inch screen and it is recommended that I/we sit no further than 3 meters from it to get the best viewing for both HD and 3D. I wouldn't say it dominates our sitting room though as it is tucked away in a recess.

12-03-2012, 12:52	#1
simonn Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 443	TV purchase advice I'm looking to replace my current TV which is on it's last legs, and am considering replacements, with a fully HD TV on my list of must have's, as well as a minimum of 100 HZ's. At present I only have a regular Sky+ box (not HD) and a Samsung 5.1 surround sound system with DVD player (HT D550 I think). Will I notice a picture improvement over my current CRT TV (50HZ) despite not having an HD box when watching TV? The DVD player is upscaleable, and so I presume I will get a better quality DVD picture (though not BluRay quality). Correct me if I'm wrong! I had a decided on an LED rather than LCD, but have read that sound quality can be comparatively poor - not a problem for me as I'll always switch the surround on, but my wife relies on TV sound on the whole. How noticeable is this? The item I'm currently considering is the Samsung UE32D5000, which is available for £349. Any negative comments on this TV welcomed. I've read occasional comments re picture blur, which I thought wouldn't have been as much of an issue with a 100hz tv vs a 50hz, but again correct me if I'm wrong! Would there be less blur on a 200HZ?

12-03-2012, 12:54	#2
paulmapp8306 Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 780	Depends on the size of TV you go for. anything more than 32" and you will probably notice a DECREASE in picture quality over a CRT TV with standard definition programs.

12-03-2012, 12:58	#3
simonn Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 443	Quote: Originally Posted by paulmapp8306 Depends on the size of TV you go for. anything more than 32" and you will probably notice a DECREASE in picture quality over a CRT TV with standard definition programs. I've just updated my post with a bit more info - and yes it is a 32 inch that I'm after.

12-03-2012, 13:05	#4
David (2) Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: S.West England. Posts: 18,037	if you can afford it, i would get the SkyHD upgrade to go with it - and connect it to the tv using HDMI cable (not scart). LED is LCD. LED only refers to the method of back lighting. It does not mean you have an LED screen (this is what OLED is designed for, but currently very rare and very expensive).

12-03-2012, 13:10	#5
paulmapp8306 Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 780	Its not the Hz really that matters. Youll still get Blur on a 600hz tv. Its to do with how quickly the LEDs can change - and why Plasma TVs generally do much better with fast scenes. However, you wont get a Plasma less than 37" - and very few below 42" so there out anyway. Personally I wouldnt consider anyting but Panosonic or Sony - but they are more expensive. What you get is more natural picture quality (not overly bright or cartoony colours), better motion handling and better build quality. If you cant stretch, then a Samsung or LG would be the next choices for me - but IMO there is a considerable difference (obviously Samsungs top of the range TV will be better than Panosonics bottom of the trange but you get what I mean). This if you can stretch to £450: http://www.richersounds.com/product/...pana-txl32e30b If you cant - this Sony is worth a look over the Samsung at a similar price: http://www.richersounds.com/product/...ony-kdl32ex723

12-03-2012, 13:31	#6
simonn Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 443	Quote: Originally Posted by David (2) if you can afford it, i would get the SkyHD upgrade to go with it - and connect it to the tv using HDMI cable (not scart). LED is LCD. LED only refers to the method of back lighting. It does not mean you have an LED screen (this is what OLED is designed for, but currently very rare and very expensive). I'd say I can't afford that upgrade at the moment. Have looked at Panasonics and Sonys too and they are still in the mix. To go back to my original question, if buying 32" am I likely to see picture improvement with my current setup - by jumping from a 50hz to a 100hz?

12-03-2012, 13:50	#7
paulmapp8306 Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 780	No - not really. A good quality 50Hz TV will be better than a poor quality 100Hz TV. the human eye cant really detect anything faster than 50Hz - which is why 50Hz was initially chosen by TV manufacturers all those years back. i will also say again - the refresh rate is less important than the rate the pixels can change. The faster refresh halps a little - but (despite what the salesmen would have you believe) it is very little. Its unlikely you'll notice a difference, especially on the smaller (which 32" is) screens. If you want to be sure - get soen a local shop and A/B a 50hz and 100hz TV in a similar price bracket and see if you notice anything.

12-03-2012, 13:50	#8
David (2) Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: S.West England. Posts: 18,037	Quote: Originally Posted by simonn I'd say I can't afford that upgrade at the moment. Have looked at Panasonics and Sonys too and they are still in the mix. To go back to my original question, if buying 32" am I likely to see picture improvement with my current setup - by jumping from a 50hz to a 100hz? without having any HD to view on, the set will be runnning at only half its picture quality.......as time goes on, the technical people at places like Sony and others will further downgrade their SD reproduction on new sets. I think this is already happening to some extent. Its a cost saving for those making the sets (theres not much profit on a £300-£400 tv). As for 100Hz over 50Hz, well 100 should be better in theory, but there are lots of other issues also playing a part. I guess a very poor 100Hz tv might have a worse picture than a top notch 50Hz tv. Its all rather subjective, and SD only display further reduces your chances of getting the kind of new tv picture you really want. It will always be a compromise. You really need to try before you buy.

12-03-2012, 14:22	#9
paulmapp8306 Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 780	Its not the TV making SD picture quality poor - its the TV broadcast itself (particularly Sky), and to some extend the size of TV. Put a decent SD picture on a 32" and below TV against a HD picture and the difference isnt that great. Do the same on a 50" and its VERY evident. ultimately, CRT TVs were pretty much all 50Hz (OK some 100hz in there last year or 3), BUR put a 28" CRT TV against a 28" LCD TV, and the CRT will be a better picture - that just because of how the techs work. Whats lead to flat screens popularity is size and weight - not picture quality (with SD pictures). With HD it makes sencse as CRTs only ever has 512 lines so cant display HD content.

12-03-2012, 20:02	#10
simonn Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 443	Quote: Originally Posted by paulmapp8306 No - not really. A good quality 50Hz TV will be better than a poor quality 100Hz TV. the human eye cant really detect anything faster than 50Hz - which is why 50Hz was initially chosen by TV manufacturers all those years back. i will also say again - the refresh rate is less important than the rate the pixels can change. The faster refresh halps a little - but (despite what the salesmen would have you believe) it is very little. Its unlikely you'll notice a difference, especially on the smaller (which 32" is) screens. If you want to be sure - get soen a local shop and A/B a 50hz and 100hz TV in a similar price bracket and see if you notice anything. Yes, I have done the 50 v 100hz comparison, and that's what has lead me to think that 100HZ should always be better than 50HZ - when looking at the same manufacturer - as I've mainly been looking at Samsung. Seems that's too simplistic. What I won't be able to tell by looking at tv's in a shop is the kind of picture I can expect with my setup, as they'll obviously be playing HD sources through their demo TV's. Whichever way I turn it just seems I'm not going to be able to find this oput easily. Very frustrating. Thanks for everyone's comments to date.

12-03-2012, 20:05	#11
Nigel Goodwin Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: North Derbyshire Posts: 41,789	Quote: Originally Posted by simonn Yes, I have done the 50 v 100hz comparison, and that's what has lead me to think that 100HZ should always be better than 50HZ - when looking at the same manufacturer - as I've mainly been looking at Samsung. Seems that's too simplistic. What I won't be able to tell by looking at tv's in a shop is the kind of picture I can expect with my setup, as they'll obviously be playing HD sources through their demo TV's. Whichever way I turn it just seems I'm not going to be able to find this oput easily. Very frustrating. It's really pretty easy - a better and more expensive set will almost always give a better picture - regardless of claimed frame rates. 100Hz sets from the same range are usually better than the 50Hz models, but I suspect that's simply because it's a better TV rather than specifically 100Hz.

12-03-2012, 20:33	#12
Deacon1972 Guest Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 8,103	Quote: Originally Posted by paulmapp8306 Its not the TV making SD picture quality poor - its the TV broadcast itself (particularly Sky), and to some extend the size of TV. Put a decent SD picture on a 32" and below TV against a HD picture and the difference isnt that great. Do the same on a 50" and its VERY evident. ultimately, CRT TVs were pretty much all 50Hz (OK some 100hz in there last year or 3), BUR put a 28" CRT TV against a 28" LCD TV, and the CRT will be a better picture - that just because of how the techs work. Whats lead to flat screens popularity is size and weight - not picture quality (with SD pictures). With HD it makes sencse as CRTs only ever has 512 lines so cant display HD content. Whilst I agree the TV broadcast plays it's part, the TV also plays a big part too. I have a 50" and 100" screen in the front room, the 50" has good processing power (DCDi by Faroudja - 8-bit) and SD is very good, compare that to the PJ which also has DCDi by Faroudja but more power as it's 10-bit, SD is even better blown up to twice the size, the PJ also has Texas DarkChip2 which helps in other areas. There's a thread here linking to the new Toshiba 3D TV without glasses, the TV has 4K resolution, apparently 2D looks very good, I'm assuming it's just HD that has been put through it, they are putting that down to the video processing, it'll have to have some power if it's got to upscale SD to 4K so it looks reasonable.

12-03-2012, 21:12	#13
simonn Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 443	I've also been looking at this model:- http://www.richersounds.com/product/...ony-kdl32cx523 One basic question, I notice they have freeview hd on there. Is this built in to the tv, and therefore doesn't need an aerial, as my aerial socket would be used for my Sky box? I ask as this might be a way of me getting some tv channels to show hd content when I've still only got non HD Sky+.

12-03-2012, 22:51	#14
C19th Fox Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Spalding, Lincs Posts: 1,059	Quote: Originally Posted by simonn I've also been looking at this model:- http://www.richersounds.com/product/...ony-kdl32cx523 One basic question, I notice they have freeview hd on there. Is this built in to the tv, and therefore doesn't need an aerial, as my aerial socket would be used for my Sky box? I ask as this might be a way of me getting some tv channels to show hd content when I've still only got non HD Sky+. It will have an HD tuner and will be able to pick up HD signals but it won't do it without an aerial plugged in to it. However if you plug your aerial into the sky box and then connect that from the RF out socket to the TV as well as linking up the scart sockets you should be able to get Freeview HD on your TV. This arrangement works with my Freeview + PVR which is also non HD. I can get HD signals on the TV but cannot record them as the PVR is not HD ready. Apart from that PVR behaves as normal if i wanted to record anything.

12-03-2012, 23:01	#15
emptybox Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Scottish Borders Posts: 11,995	Quote: Originally Posted by simonn I've also been looking at this model:- http://www.richersounds.com/product/...ony-kdl32cx523 One basic question, I notice they have freeview hd on there. Is this built in to the tv, and therefore doesn't need an aerial, as my aerial socket would be used for my Sky box? I ask as this might be a way of me getting some tv channels to show hd content when I've still only got non HD Sky+. Your Sky box is connected to a satellite dish for it's reception. This will be of no help at all for Freeview reception. For that you will need a terrestrial aerial on your roof or loft, or if you are in a strong reception area you might get away with an indoor aerial.

12-03-2012, 23:02	#16
chrisjr Forum Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Reading Posts: 27,916	Quote: Originally Posted by simonn I've also been looking at this model:- http://www.richersounds.com/product/...ony-kdl32cx523 One basic question, I notice they have freeview hd on there. Is this built in to the tv, and therefore doesn't need an aerial, as my aerial socket would be used for my Sky box? I ask as this might be a way of me getting some tv channels to show hd content when I've still only got non HD Sky+. If you do not have any form of TV aerial on the roof or in the loft then it doesn't matter if the TV has Freeview HD or not. You won't get anything at all using the TV's built in tuner. You have to connect an aerial to the TV to get any Freeview channels, including the HD ones. It cannot amke any use whatsoever of any signals coming down the cables from the dish to your Sky box. Not only do they never reach the TV but even if they did the TV can't make any sense of them. You say the aerial is connected to the Sky box? If there is an aerial connected to the RF IN socket on the Sky box then you can connect either RF 1 OUT or RF 2 OUT to the TV's aerial socket to feed the Freeview signals to the TV.

12-03-2012, 23:20	#17
C19th Fox Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Spalding, Lincs Posts: 1,059	Quote: Originally Posted by simonn . What I won't be able to tell by looking at tv's in a shop is the kind of picture I can expect with my setup, as they'll obviously be playing HD sources through their demo TV's. Whichever way I turn it just seems I'm not going to be able to find this oput easily. Very frustrating. Depends where you go. National chains tend to play pre recorded promos or have sets hooked up to HD. However imdependent stores and department stores are more likely to have TV's tuned into live broadcasts from a shared aerial - if you go on a breezy day issues such as blurring as a result of aerial movement can become apparent and helps to sort the wood from the trees. Found a review on the Sony which is good. If you did not have a top end CRT set you should definately notice an improvementhttp://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/sony-...1105191151.htm Sound however will be poor. Its nothing to write home about on the higher spec EX723!

13-03-2012, 13:01	#18
simonn Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 443	Quote: Originally Posted by C19th Fox Depends where you go. National chains tend to play pre recorded promos or have sets hooked up to HD. However imdependent stores and department stores are more likely to have TV's tuned into live broadcasts from a shared aerial - if you go on a breezy day issues such as blurring as a result of aerial movement can become apparent and helps to sort the wood from the trees. Found a review on the Sony which is good. If you did not have a top end CRT set you should definately notice an improvementhttp://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/sony-...1105191151.htm Sound however will be poor. Its nothing to write home about on the higher spec EX723! Yep, I'd seen that, had put me off a bit! Saw this one for £380 today, whihc I'm currently considering http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/samsu...1107121282.htm And yes my CRT is certainly not top end - it's a Daewoo!

13-03-2012, 15:29	#19
Nigel Goodwin Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: North Derbyshire Posts: 41,789	Quote: Originally Posted by paulmapp8306 Its not the Hz really that matters. Youll still get Blur on a 600hz tv. You've fallen foul of the advertising con - there are no 600Hz sets, the 600Hz refers to something completely different, and the sets are actually 100Hz refresh rate.

13-03-2012, 21:00	#20
C19th Fox Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Spalding, Lincs Posts: 1,059	Quote: Originally Posted by simonn And yes my CRT is certainly not top end - it's a Daewoo! mmm must have been when Daewoo were trying their hand at anything! I knew they did radios but not TV's. Whilst the Daewoo speakers should not be match for those in the Sony Trinitron CRT sets it is inevitable that you will notice some difference. If you still have the handbook probably worth having a look to see what the specs were for the speakers to try to determine what you might lose out on, but the only way to find out is to bite the bullet and chose one as the accoustics in every room is different. At the end of the day you will still be able to hear the set and you do already have a surround system which you will be able to use.

13-03-2012, 21:24	#21
Nigel Goodwin Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: North Derbyshire Posts: 41,789	Quote: Originally Posted by C19th Fox mmm must have been when Daewoo were trying their hand at anything! I knew they did radios but not TV's. Whilst the Daewoo speakers should not be match for those in the Sony Trinitron CRT sets it is inevitable that you will notice some difference. Daewoo made CRT TV's for many years, mostly badged under various crap brands (Logik, Goodmans etc.) - and in later years even badged Daewoo. Sony CRT sets didn't always have decent speakers either, there were some pretty crappy ones amongst them!

DS Forums

TV purchase advice

14-03-2012, 12:55	#22
simonn Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 443	Quote: Originally Posted by C19th Fox mmm must have been when Daewoo were trying their hand at anything! I knew they did radios but not TV's. Whilst the Daewoo speakers should not be match for those in the Sony Trinitron CRT sets it is inevitable that you will notice some difference. If you still have the handbook probably worth having a look to see what the specs were for the speakers to try to determine what you might lose out on, but the only way to find out is to bite the bullet and chose one as the accoustics in every room is different. At the end of the day you will still be able to hear the set and you do already have a surround system which you will be able to use. Agreed. It's more a case of persuading the wife to make the effort to put it on all the time, so that her viewing/listening experience doesn't alter out of all recognition!!

15-03-2012, 02:55	#23
niall campbell Forum Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Aberfeldy Posts: 7,035	the bit rate on Sky is far higher than freeview and you will get a better picture and get a bigger tv if its your main set http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/panason...88043-pdt.html

15-03-2012, 07:41	#24
simonn Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 443	Quote: Originally Posted by niall campbell the bit rate on Sky is far higher than freeview and you will get a better picture and get a bigger tv if its your main set http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/panason...88043-pdt.html Bigger telly would look ridiculous in our front room. I've seen some tv's dominating a room, not for me.

15-03-2012, 08:20	#25
XxBlaKOuTZxX Forum Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Edinburgh / Scotland Posts: 2,773	How do you know which size screen to buy for your sitting room though. I have a 55 inch screen and it is recommended that I/we sit no further than 3 meters from it to get the best viewing for both HD and 3D. I wouldn't say it dominates our sitting room though as it is tucked away in a recess.