So would that be crap or very good? You just quoted two as very good. It kinda negates the first sentence in your post does it not???

How strange to post asking for an intelligent post then waffle on about how disagreeing with you makes me an idiot and a moron.

I would have thought that it was obvious that SD of dvd quality would be better than SD of DTT or DSAT quality,but any SD is better on a CRT as many have found ,and even some of those getting used to LCD will even admit.

The age old excuse about stores not setting them up properly is wearing thin.
Its clear that those in stores have equal knowledge on setup to the majority of punters who are going to buy one,and if a store making profits cannot set them up correctly what hope does Joe Public.
But much of Joe Public dont care about quality so the sets will continue to sell anyway.

Its been posted a number of times on various threads from the likes of Jarrak about the technical reasons why SD suffers on flat panel displays.
And as many buyers are finding out they dont like the defects of SD on LCD dont get all worked up because your low quality threshhold has been revealed.
At least those with access to Sky HD and either HDDVD or Blu-Ray can actually compare HD with SD.
I dont think you come into that category either
Last edited by prophetfive : 03-04-2007 at 14:15

I think his post clarifies what many are saying.

SD is crap on LCD and plasma but depending on the screen size the images become watchable at varying viewing distances.
If you get up as close as you can with a CRT then the SD pics look poor.

If you are going to buy an HD LCD Television why are you complaining about the SD quality, go get an HD box, that was the whole point of HD LCD TVs...

More channels will come and the picture quality is fantastic.

If you can't put up with the SD then wait for it all to be HD (might be a long wait though)

The reason people complain about SD on an LCD is because they spend most of their time watching SD as the HD content is a very small amount currently.

If the whole point of getting an LCD was simply to watch HD then very few would be sold.

Unfortunately many fall for the HD hype and dont realise how poor SD is until they get the set home.

The picture quality for HD may be fantastic but until BBC ,ITV,C4 and FIVE start broadcasting in HD full time the HD market will remain niche.

A settlement between HDDVD and Blu-Ray would also help sales.

I apologise for stooping to your low level. You have completely missed the point being made.
I do not have a low quality threshhold, in fact quiet the opposite. The one thing I won't do is set myself up as the arbitary authority as you are.
Contrary to the argument you are putting forward I would not generalise. CRT's suffer from geometry problems. Would that be all of them? If that was the case then any signal SD or HD could be said to be crap on CRT's. The fact is that it only happens on some CRT's therefore, not rendering the whole breed as crap. Your argument falls because you are only quoting from the experience you have in stores. You are ignoring the fact that many people are happy with their LCD's and have stated such on here and on other AV forums.
I understand that you cannot bring yourself around to seeing this any other way, It would be your loss and really of no interest to me. You are however, missrepresenting one side of the argument.
As I have both a nice Sony CRT and my LCD to compare. I also have HDTv (So that shoots down more of your argument) I at least have a more realistic approach to the argument.

Its not really a matter of choice. At the moment you would struggle to find a CRT in most audio-video retail stores. manufactures are not too far war away from packing up that business - at least in relatively wealthy countries like this.

I dont know too many people who wanted a "High definition" - they wanted a bigger TV and if possible a slimmer one.

Beyond that it is all about the hype machine, not actually follwing consumers preferences.

BT to the original poster, I would say look at tthe couple of LCD units I mentioned. Also another angle is fo focus on the older generation of 37" and 42" plasmas. They are cheap and at 480 resolution, they are more suited to watching standard plain old TV material. So owning one of these will not force you to High definiton TV.

I think it depends on what stores you go to. Some stores either have bad input (i.e. a dodgy aerial split between 50 sets) or they are just too lazy to show the products off to how they can really perform.

As for the Sammys, there is an issue with some of them sets being built with inferior panels. Therefore they may not necessarily have a SPVA panel. I think the sets I was reading about were R73's, but it may well apply to R74's as well.

Check out AVForums under LCD tv's, and read on there. There is the model numbers show which panel you have. If the model is 'S' it is an SPVA panel, 'C' is for CMO which is the worse on and 'A' is the AUO panel which is supposed to be ok.

I was reading about them this morning. What I have written may not be spot on, but if you have a read on AVForums it is all there.

Hope that helps.

There is also a psychological aspect to this as well. A lot of people cannot admit that the product they have chosen is not as good as they would like it to be or something else they previously had or that a friend may have. It's like admittting that they themselves are a failure in some way or gullible for believing the market hype. They will go to some extreme lengths to vigorously "defend" their choice.

You, however, have admitted to yourself the reality of the situation. Unfortunately as things "progress" with technology, replacements quite often don't meet up to the expectations of people. For example the first VHS video recorder I bought gave by far the best picture of any I have had since and the same goes for the first S-VHS recorder. You would assume that things would get better or at least be as good, but this isn't always the case.

As for TVs, at the moment the choice for replacing most sets is coming down to having to move from CRT to either Plasma or LCD. There are some gains in the move, but there are some losses. It something we will have to put up with and hope that things will get better in the future.

It reminds me of the time we moved from using the dot screens for TV to the little lines. The picture looked brighter with more contrast but not as sharp - gains and losses again.
Last edited by comicsansserif : 05-04-2007 at 08:34

In most cases it is the picture quality that is crap, not the LCD set. Most people understand this and live with it. I find most SD programs acceptable and the HD stuff is superb, easily enough to justify the cost.

Yes the bulk of the UK's digital broadcasts fall short of both the resolution of SD and the bitrate to support it and the effects can be seen on CRT's let alone larger flat panel technology.

Well I disagree - the picture on my LCD - only a 26in Philips is great on the main channels.

The lower rate channels can look poor - but something like Dr Who at the moment looks excellent.

One real improvement I like with LCD is the loss of the line scanning structure that you get with CRTs.

So I'm very happy with mine - however when I can afford it I'll be buying something like a 37in model.

EDIT - just to add DVD pictures via HDMI look great too.

Cheers, daveac
Last edited by daveac : 06-04-2007 at 13:39

Do you have any HD input? If not, why the HDMI cable?

Rgds,
Scorp

Agreed.

For DVDs of course.

No - the TV has built in Freeview. My DVD Samsung Recorder has HDMI upscaling.

I don't have Sky - I stopped it when my youngest went to Uni.

They keep inviting me back but I just want the HD channels without paying 50+ quid.

Every time I say - give me 10 HD channels for 20 Quid and I'll be happy.

My old Sky box is just used for FTA stuff and was left on my old CRT TV.

Cheers, daveac