Samsung edge lit 46 " lcd TV
Lu R
PICTURE of ANY TV's EVER!! Picture sharpness and the deepest blacks are just
out of this world.. Planet Earth on Bluray is to die for!! The intro to Dark
Knight in Imax HD Bluray is sooo clear your jaw will drop I swear. Just buy
the TV, I promise you will never look back.
A Little Bit
I see your 46" and raise you 9"...
I fell in love with the 55" Samsung LED TV, at Myer it is $3909. RRP at Samsung is $6499.
The thing is only 29 mm thick and weighs a paltry 29kg. Doesn't chew much power, either.
I am due for a big tax refund in the next few weeks and my existing 42" plasma set will be
retired to the bedroom.
Lu R
"A Little Bit" <ti...@beerlover.com.au> wrote in message
news:s8goj5luatbodvh65...@4ax.com...
9 inches=$1200 more. A bit over my budget but Im sure its lovely!! Yep power
savings means your room wont heat up in summer too with that plasma. Gotta
say the markdowns from RRP are very impressive or rather the RRP is just
blown out BS.
Me
"Lu R" <wh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b3c31a0$0$11336$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Clocky
Let the pissing contest begin...
Superman
Plasmas are still better- better pic, more natural. Check out the
Samsung 58" plasma. ($4.5K)
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com
"We stopped the boats coming. The facts speak for themselves. People knew where we stood. We didn't try to be all things to all men. Look, our policy worked. There was no need to alter it" - John Howard
"Our journalists are finally noticing the elephant in the room. Rudd has given us grocery watch, fuel watch, a national dept our children will still be paying, an ETS scheme that will further bankrupt the nation without making an iota of difference to global warming. Rudd is all spin and no substance. Even worse, he expects to fool all people all the time." - media comment
"I don't care what you f__kers think!" - The Hon Kevin Rudd MP, Prime Minister of Australia
Lu R
"Me" <M...@me.com> wrote in message news:4b3c4bc3$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Do you have the model number?
>
UA46B600OVF
Clocky
"Superman" <"the _man_of_steel"@metropolis.com> wrote in message
news:xT%_m.65951$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> On 31/12/2009 5:17 PM, A Little Bit wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:08:09 +1100, "Lu R"<wh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I bought one for xmas at Myers for $2,719 reduced from $4,233 RRP...THE
>>> BEST
>>> PICTURE of ANY TV's EVER!! Picture sharpness and the deepest blacks are
>>> just
>>> out of this world.. Planet Earth on Bluray is to die for!! The intro to
>>> Dark
>>> Knight in Imax HD Bluray is sooo clear your jaw will drop I swear. Just
>>> buy
>>> the TV, I promise you will never look back.
>>>
>>>
>> I see your 46" and raise you 9"...
>>
>> I fell in love with the 55" Samsung LED TV, at Myer it is $3909. RRP at
>> Samsung is $6499.
>> The thing is only 29 mm thick and weighs a paltry 29kg. Doesn't chew
>> much power, either.
>>
>> I am due for a big tax refund in the next few weeks and my existing 42"
>> plasma set will be
>> retired to the bedroom.
>>
>>
>
> Plasmas are still better- better pic, more natural. Check out the Samsung
> 58" plasma. ($4.5K)
>
Not these days, the Samsung LCD and LEDs are awesome and without the
drawbacks of plasmas.
Superman
Have you seen the Samsung Series 8 Plasmas? Picture is better, more
natural than the LCD's. And what are the 'drawbacks of plasmas'? They
use more power and run hotter but that's about it. Meanwhile LCD/LED's
still have the motion problem eg. Samsung Series 8 Plasmas have a
response time of .001ms, compared to 2ms for their 55" LED. Plasmas also
have a much wider viewing angle, and LED's are still only an LCD but
with different illumination.
Lu R
Crap...I havent seem any motion blur.
eg. Samsung Series 8 Plasmas have a
> response time of .001ms, compared to 2ms for their 55" LED.
Irrelevant specs. Let your eyes and your pocket, be the judge.
Plasmas also
> have a much wider viewing angle, and LED's are still only an LCD but with
> different illumination.
Which makes them far superior to normal LCD's. Your point is?
Clocky
As if that isn't enough, they don't last anywhere near as long and still
suffer from the static image problem.
Meanwhile LCD/LED's
> still have the motion problem eg. Samsung Series 8 Plasmas have a response
> time of .001ms, compared to 2ms for their 55" LED. Plasmas also have a
> much wider viewing angle, and LED's are still only an LCD but with
> different illumination.
>
I doubt you would be able to tell the difference in a double blind trial.
(so to speak)
A Little Bit
> I doubt you would be able to tell the difference in a double blind trial.
> (so to speak)
Mr.T
> Gotta
> say the markdowns from RRP are very impressive or rather the RRP is just
> blown out BS.
Yep the latter is always the case to make suckers think they are getting a
bargain.
Of course it's a nice TV, just don't get too upset when they are another
$1,000 cheaper next year.
I still remember when low def plasma's were over $10k, and not that many
years ago. Even know people who bought them, and a few that no longer work,
as well as the ones given away when they upgraded to Hi-def. You'd have to
be a real TV addict IMO to spend thousands of dollars a year on a TV. But
it's not an issue to many apparently because they spend thousands more on
cable TV subscriptions, Hi-Def PVR's, Blu-Ray players, disks etc.
Helps keep the economy going anyway, even if it's mostly the Chinese one!
:-)
MrT.
Superman
Maybe you should get your eyes tested. And you still don't say what the
supposed 'drawbacks' of Plasmas are.
>> eg. Samsung Series 8 Plasmas have a response time of .001ms, compared to 2ms for their 55" LED.
>>
> Irrelevant specs. Let your eyes and your pocket, be the judge.
>
>
>
Well if your'e happy with LCD technolgy, that's fine. But don't try to
tell me that Plasmas are crap just because you think LCD's are better.
>> Plasmas also have a much wider viewing angle,
Some ppl think that's important. I do.
>> and LED's are still only an LCD but with
>> different illumination.
>>
> Which makes them far superior to normal LCD's. Your point is?
>
>
The point is that it's still LCD technology.. which means it's not as
good as a plasma. :)
Superman
How long do you want them to last? current technology is quoting 60,000
hours to half life, which translates to at least 50 years lifespan for
3-4 hours per day viewing! most ppl would upgrade well before then I
daresay. And burn in is not the problem it used to be with current
technology, and all major brands have screen savers anyway. But if
you're a greenie you'd buy an LCD for environmental reasons I guess.
>> Meanwhile LCD/LED's
>> still have the motion problem eg. Samsung Series 8 Plasmas have a response
>> time of .001ms, compared to 2ms for their 55" LED. Plasmas also have a
>> much wider viewing angle, and LED's are still only an LCD but with
>> different illumination.
>>
>>
> I doubt you would be able to tell the difference in a double blind trial.
> (so to speak)
>
Nope. I can always tell if I'm watching a plasma or LCD/LED. Another
aspect of difference is what I call the 3D effect. LCD's always seem to
have a 'flatter' picture.
Superman
I remember paying $6K plus for a 90cm Sony CRT- the largest CRT made
actually. That sucker weighed over 100 kgs!
Lu R
I USED to think that plasmas were the best too..and Ive held off buying a
big screen tv for a few yrs because I hated LCD picture quality...until the
Samsung that is :)
Superman
> "Superman"<"the _man_of_steel"@metropolis.com> wrote in message
> news:n_k%m.66134$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>> On 1/01/2010 6:08 PM, Lu R wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Superman"<"the _man_of_steel"@metropolis.com> wrote in message
>>> news:oNg%m.66087$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>>> and LED's are still only an LCD but with
>>>> different illumination.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Which makes them far superior to normal LCD's. Your point is?
>>>
>>>
>> The point is that it's still LCD technology.. which means it's not as good
>> as a plasma. :)
>>
> I USED to think that plasmas were the best too..and Ive held off buying a
> big screen tv for a few yrs because I hated LCD picture quality...until the
> Samsung that is :)
>
>
It is brilliant. The best currently available in fact.
Me
> On 31/12/2009 5:17 PM, A Little Bit wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:08:09 +1100, "Lu R"<wh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I bought one for xmas at Myers for $2,719 reduced from $4,233 RRP...THE
>>> BEST
>>> PICTURE of ANY TV's EVER!! Picture sharpness and the deepest blacks are
>>> just
>>> out of this world.. Planet Earth on Bluray is to die for!! The intro to
>>> Dark
>>> Knight in Imax HD Bluray is sooo clear your jaw will drop I swear. Just
>>> buy
>>> the TV, I promise you will never look back.
>>>
>>>
>> I see your 46" and raise you 9"...
>>
>> I fell in love with the 55" Samsung LED TV, at Myer it is $3909. RRP at
>> Samsung is $6499.
>> The thing is only 29 mm thick and weighs a paltry 29kg. Doesn't chew
>> much power, either.
>>
>> I am due for a big tax refund in the next few weeks and my existing 42"
>> plasma set will be
>> retired to the bedroom.
>>
>>
>
> Plasmas are still better- better pic, more natural. Check out the Samsung
> 58" plasma. ($4.5K)
>
I'm worried about the "Buzzing" noise that many have complained about with
the Samsung Plasmas....
Clocky
Here you go again stating meaningless figures. In the real world plasmas do
not last as long as LCD technology with excess heat being one of the
reasons.
And burn in is not the problem it used to be with current
> technology, and all major brands have screen savers anyway.
Ah, so all these problems are irrelevant but your problem with the Samsung
LCD is motion blur... which is so minor it is indistinguishable.
But if
> you're a greenie you'd buy an LCD for environmental reasons I guess.
>
Or you don't like wasting money on excess power usage for no direct benefit.
>> Meanwhile LCD/LED's
>>> still have the motion problem eg. Samsung Series 8 Plasmas have a
>>> response
>>> time of .001ms, compared to 2ms for their 55" LED. Plasmas also have a
>>> much wider viewing angle, and LED's are still only an LCD but with
>>> different illumination.
>>>
>>>
>> I doubt you would be able to tell the difference in a double blind trial.
>> (so to speak)
>>
>
> Nope. I can always tell if I'm watching a plasma or LCD/LED. Another
> aspect of difference is what I call the 3D effect. LCD's always seem to
> have a 'flatter' picture.
>
You can't know without doing a double blind trial where bias is eliminated.
Superman
I haven't heard about that. Do you have an references for it?
Superman
They're not meaningless if they translate to factual information, as
they do.
> In the real world plasmas do
> not last as long as LCD technology with excess heat being one of the
> reasons.
>
>
I seriously doubt that I'll still be watching the same Plasma panel in
50 years time, and not because it's burnt out, but rather because it's
been replaced or I'm dead!
>> And burn in is not the problem it used to be with current
>> technology, and all major brands have screen savers anyway.
>>
> Ah, so all these problems are irrelevant
I've stated why they're irrelevant. Rationality is not your forte is it.
> but your problem with the Samsung
> LCD is motion blur... which is so minor it is indistinguishable.
>
It's a fact that LCD response times are much less than Plasmas. You're
not too good with facts either I see.
>
>
>> But if you're a greenie you'd buy an LCD for environmental reasons I guess.
>>
>>
> Or you don't like wasting money on excess power usage for no direct benefit.
>
The 'direct benefit' is a better picture, as I've stated ad nauseam now.
>
>>>
>>>> Meanwhile LCD/LED's still have the motion problem eg.
>>>> Samsung Series 8 Plasmas have a response
>>>> time of .001ms, compared to 2ms for their 55" LED. Plasmas also have a
>>>> much wider viewing angle, and LED's are still only an LCD but with
>>>> different illumination.
>>>>
>>> I doubt you would be able to tell the difference in a double blind trial.
>>> (so to speak)
>>>
>>>
>> Nope. I can always tell if I'm watching a plasma or LCD/LED. Another
>> aspect of difference is what I call the 3D effect. LCD's always seem to
>> have a 'flatter' picture.
>>
>>
> You can't know without doing a double blind trial where bias is eliminated.
>
>
I know what I like and what I want. Perhaps you should go watch
something on your LCD instead of engaging in pointless argument on usenet?
Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF
> On 2/01/2010 12:17 PM, Clocky wrote:
>
> I know what I like and what I want. Perhaps you should go watch
> something on your LCD instead of engaging in pointless argument on usenet?
Oh, don't say that, Peter! Without his pointless arguments on Usenet,
Clockbreath would have absolutely no human interaction.
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ipvdBnU8F8
- KRudd at his finest.
"The Labour Party is corrupt beyond redemption!"
- Labour hasbeen Mark Latham in a moment of honest clarity.
"This is the recession we had to have!"
- Paul Keating explaining why he gave Australia another Labour recession.
"Silly old bugger!"
- Well known ACTU pisspot and sometime Labour prime minister Bob Hawke
responding to a pensioner who dared ask for more.
"By 1990, no child will live in poverty"
- Bob Hawke again, desperate to win another election.
"A billion trees ..."
- Borke, pissed as a newt again.
"Well may we say 'God save the Queen' because nothing will save the governor
general!"
- Egotistical shithead and pompous fuckwit E.G. Whitlam whining about his
appointee for Governor General John Kerr.
"SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU DUMB CUNT!"
- FlangesBum on learning the truth about Labour's economic capabilities.
"I don't care what you fuckers think!"
- KRudd the KRude Rat at his finest again.
"We'll just change it all when we get in."
- Garrett the carrott
Mr.T
> How long do you want them to last? current technology is quoting 60,000
> hours to half life, which translates to at least 50 years lifespan for
> 3-4 hours per day viewing!
If only it was so! Of course that figure even if it were true, doesn't
include the power supplies which seem to fail first.
> most ppl would upgrade well before then I daresay.
Absolutely, but the manufacturers don't guarantee they will last that long
of course. 2 or 3 years if you are lucky. And many fail even under warranty.
And many people I know have their TV on for FAR more than 3-4 hours per day.
The kids turn it on when they come home from school (assuming mum hadn't
already been watching daytime TV) and it often stays on until the adults go
to bed and turn it off. Weekends it may be on all day and night in many
houses.
MrT.
Mr.T
"Clocky" <not...@happen.com> wrote in message
news:034e8b92$0$1354$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> You can't know without doing a double blind trial where bias is
eliminated.
A double "blind" trial on a TV is fairly pointless! :-)
But like most people I sure as hell can tell whether a TV is LCD or Plasma
without reading the label!
MrT.
Mr.T
> I seriously doubt that I'll still be watching the same Plasma panel in
> 50 years time,
I'd bet my house it won't still be working anyway.
>and not because it's burnt out, but rather because it's
> been replaced or I'm dead!
Or more commonly the power supply has failed and you choose to replace the
TV rather than the power supply when you find out the cost!
Not that LCD's are much better in that regard though. Plenty of both have
been thrown away while many older CRT sets keep on going.
(and even plenty of working CRT's thrown away when they are replaced with
big flat screens)
MrT.
Mr.T
> I remember paying $6K plus for a 90cm Sony CRT- the largest CRT made
> actually. That sucker weighed over 100 kgs!
And the TV weighed nearly as much!
MrT.
HaZ
price. Kicked myself as i had paid the same for my 46" A850. But alas in the
end there will always be a better deal around the corner.
"Lu R" <wh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b3c31a0$0$11336$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Me
This will get you started
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1202374&p=18 but a Google
of the model number and the word "buzz" should bring up plenty of hits
Superman
Thanks!
Superman
And not just by big screens either. I want to replace some smaller CRT's
with flat panels, eg. dining room, bedroom, etc.,but what to do with the
CRT's? I'm a hoarder by nature and hate disposing of perfectly good
equipment. Guess I'll have to ask friends if they want them. I still
have VCR's in perfect order, but no one wants those.
> MrT.
Superman
> Superman wrote:
>> On 2/01/2010 12:17 PM, Clocky wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> I know what I like and what I want. Perhaps you should go watch
>> something on your LCD instead of engaging in pointless argument on
>> usenet?
>
> Oh, don't say that, Peter! Without his pointless arguments on Usenet,
> Clockbreath would have absolutely no human interaction.
>
Indeed! How inconsiderate of me..
Superman
And which do you consider has the better picture?
> MrT.
Mr.T
> > But like most people I sure as hell can tell whether a TV is LCD or
Plasma
> > without reading the label!
>
> And which do you consider has the better picture?
Well the best Plasma's still beat the best LCD's IMO for color, contrast and
speed. (and the cheapest plasma's beat the cheapest LCD's for that matter,
at the same sizes of course) But both still have limitations. Only for
resolution, geometry and size can they both easily beat a good CRT.
I'm waiting for OLED to become commercially viable in large screen sizes, at
a reasonable cost. I just hope it happens sooner rather than later!
MrT.
Mr.T
>. I still have VCR's in perfect order, but no one wants those.
If you have a good VHS-HiFi unit, I'll have it. Still have plenty of old
tapes not available on DVD.
MrT.
Superman
Where are you? I don't know if any are HiFi tho. I'd have to check.
Clocky
" Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF " <""samiam\"@hihat.com is a lying, dhimmi
troll ."> wrote in message news:034e9f43$0$1325$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> Superman wrote:
>> On 2/01/2010 12:17 PM, Clocky wrote:
>>...
>>
>> I know what I like and what I want. Perhaps you should go watch something
>> on your LCD instead of engaging in pointless argument on usenet?
>
> Oh, don't say that, Peter! Without his pointless arguments on Usenet,
> Clockbreath would have absolutely no human interaction.
That's pretty rich coming from the irrational netkook that you are.
Clocky
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4b3f6d1c$0$6093$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Ofcourse you display common sense where Superman and the netkook display
none.
Anyone who believes that a TV will last 50 years has rocks in their head,
higher loads on the power supply = higher temps = greater thermal cycling
effect = higher failure rates not to mention the effects that has on other
components.
Clocky
Yes, ears.
Plasma panel buzz is a normal operational feature of plasma displays. Just
another drawback.
Superman
That's bullshit.
Superman
> "Mr.T"<MrT@home> wrote in message
> news:4b3f6d1c$0$6093$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
>> "Superman"<"the _man_of_steel"@metropolis.com> wrote in message
>> news:Fal%m.66141$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>> How long do you want them to last? current technology is quoting 60,000
>>> hours to half life, which translates to at least 50 years lifespan for
>>> 3-4 hours per day viewing!
>>>
>> If only it was so! Of course that figure even if it were true, doesn't
>> include the power supplies which seem to fail first.
>>
>>
>>> most ppl would upgrade well before then I daresay.
>>>
>> Absolutely, but the manufacturers don't guarantee they will last that long
>> of course. 2 or 3 years if you are lucky.
They last much longer than that. Many CRT's went for 15 - 20 years.
>> And many fail even under
>> warranty.
>> And many people I know have their TV on for FAR more than 3-4 hours per
>> day.
>> The kids turn it on when they come home from school (assuming mum hadn't
>> already been watching daytime TV) and it often stays on until the adults
>> go
>> to bed and turn it off. Weekends it may be on all day and night in many
>> houses.
>>
> Ofcourse you display common sense where Superman and the netkook display
> none.
>
> Anyone who believes that a TV will last 50 years has rocks in their head,
> higher loads on the power supply = higher temps = greater thermal cycling
> effect = higher failure rates not to mention the effects that has on other
> components.
>
It's what the manufactures say, not what I say, numbnuts.
Mr.T
> Where are you?
Melbourne, and it's not worth shipping around the country of course.
>I don't know if any are HiFi tho. I'd have to check.
Need HiFi for all the music video's I have. I still have 3 units with head
or other problems. :-(
MrT.
Mr.T
> They last much longer than that.
*May* do. Or may not.
>Many CRT's went for 15 - 20 years.
Absolutely, and many LCD's or Plasma's don't.
MrT.
Superman
> "Superman"<"the _man_of_steel"@metropolis.com> wrote in message
> news:4YP0n.67095$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>> They last much longer than that.
>>
> *May* do. Or may not.
>
I know of some that have been going for 5 years or more. Mine is at
least three years old I think.
>> Many CRT's went for 15 - 20 years.
>>
> Absolutely, and many LCD's or Plasma's don't.
>
You mean many haven't, but many probably will. :)
> MrT.
Mr.T
> >> They last much longer than that.
> >>
> > *May* do. Or may not.
> >
>
> I know of some that have been going for 5 years or more. Mine is at
> least three years old I think.
Just as I said, *some* will last far more than that. Some won't.
> > Absolutely, and many LCD's or Plasma's don't.
>
> You mean many haven't, but many probably will. :)
Just as I said. But I'm glad you now agree with me at least that not all
will.
MrT.
A Little Bit
> Anyone who believes that a TV will last 50 years has rocks in their head,
> higher loads on the power supply = higher temps = greater thermal cycling
> effect = higher failure rates not to mention the effects that has on other
> components.
broken down and still gives an excellent picture. What will kill it is the change to
digital.
Mr.T
"A Little Bit" <ti...@beerlover.com.au> wrote in message
news:avr8k551604beghgq...@4ax.com...
> We have a 1976 Toshiba TV here in the games room that is still going
strong. It's never
> broken down and still gives an excellent picture. What will kill it is
the change to
> digital.
Not at all, a set top box will keep it going. What will kill it is if you
don't think it's worth the trouble.
(with stb's selling as low as $35, and probably less by the time analog is
gone altogether, you can't really say it's the expense.)
Just think though, your old Toshiba will probably get remote control for the
first time, (then probably break down, it must be about due.)
But as the old saying goes, they don't make them like that any more :-)
MrT.
A Little Bit
> > We have a 1976 Toshiba TV here in the games room that is still going
> strong. It's never
> > broken down and still gives an excellent picture. What will kill it is
> the change to
> > digital.
>
> Not at all, a set top box will keep it going. What will kill it is if you
> don't think it's worth the trouble.
> (with stb's selling as low as $35, and probably less by the time analog is
> gone altogether, you can't really say it's the expense.)
There are no STB's for that TV. It is VHF only and has antenna input only.
annily
Some of the earlier digital STBs had RF output (maybe not VHF though).
You can get RF modulators to connect to the A/V outputs of the STB. May
not be worth the cost though, even if they can output VHF.
--
Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which may or may not influence my opinions.
Superman
> "Superman"<"the _man_of_steel"@metropolis.com> wrote in message
> news:dRS0n.67129$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>>>> They last much longer than that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> *May* do. Or may not.
>>>
>>>
>> I know of some that have been going for 5 years or more. Mine is at
>> least three years old I think.
>>
> Just as I said, *some* will last far more than that. Some won't.
>
>
You originally said "2 or 3 years if you are lucky"
>>> Absolutely, and many LCD's or Plasma's don't.
>>>
>> You mean many haven't, but many probably will. :)
>>
>
> Just as I said. But I'm glad you now agree with me at least that not all
> will.
>
I'm glad you now agree with me that many if not most will last much
longer than '2 or 3 years' :)
DJT
wrote:
>A Little Bit wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 02:35:18 +1100, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
>>
>>>> We have a 1976 Toshiba TV here in the games room that is still going
>>> strong. It's never
>>>> broken down and still gives an excellent picture. What will kill it is
>>> the change to
>>>> digital.
>>> Not at all, a set top box will keep it going. What will kill it is if you
>>> don't think it's worth the trouble.
>>> (with stb's selling as low as $35, and probably less by the time analog is
>>> gone altogether, you can't really say it's the expense.)
>>
>> There are no STB's for that TV. It is VHF only and has antenna input only.
>>
>
>Some of the earlier digital STBs had RF output (maybe not VHF though).
>You can get RF modulators to connect to the A/V outputs of the STB. May
>not be worth the cost though, even if they can output VHF.
It can be done if you have a VCR as well.
RF cable input to STB. AF cable from STB to VCR.
Set VCR to output on RF and connect to TV.
Use STB to change chennels.
I had to this this for elderly Mother who would not get an up to date
TV
DJT
Superman
tune TV to VCR RF output frequency and leave there.
> Use STB to change channels.
>
> I had to this this for elderly Mother who would not get an up to date
> TV
>
>
> DJT
>
Mr.T
> > Not at all, a set top box will keep it going. What will kill it is if
you
> > don't think it's worth the trouble.
> > (with stb's selling as low as $35, and probably less by the time analog
is
> > gone altogether, you can't really say it's the expense.)
>
> There are no STB's for that TV. It is VHF only and has antenna input
only.
So what, a video to RF converter is around $20, IF you really wanted to keep
it.
But as I said, it's simply not worth the trouble.
MrT.
Mr.T
> >>>> They last much longer than that.
> >>> *May* do. Or may not.
>
No, I said "the manufacturers don't guarantee they will last that long of
course. 2 or 3 years if you are lucky".
Note the word *guarantee*!
But your comment of "They last much longer than that" was completely
unqualified.
In any case we now seem to be in agreement. Some might last long enough to
get your money's worth, some won't!
MrT.
Superman
Well you can buy a 50" Panasonic HD panel for less than a grand now, so
I reckon ppl ARE getting their moneys worth, because most panels will
last much more than three years.
Clocky
It's very well documented.
Mr.T
> Well you can buy a 50" Panasonic HD panel for less than a grand now,
Where? But not full HD anyway I bet, and you'd really need full HD for a 50"
TV unless you have a *huge* home theatre room, which would cost 50 times
that amount. anyway. Then of course there are currently no 1920 HD
broadcasts anyway, so add in the cost of a Blu-ray player and disks, what's
the real cost now? Is TV viewing really worth that much? Only you can
decide.
> I reckon ppl ARE getting their moneys worth, because most panels will
> last much more than three years.
I know millionaires who paid $10k for a SD plasma that probably thought they
got their money's worth too. Not me, but it's all relative!
As long as you are happy though, that's all that matters.
I'm still pretty happy with my 28" widescreen CRT for $300. And it's over 3
years old :-) Great value IMO. I can easily afford to throw it away when it
breaks down. Not so with a $1,000+ set for me. But as you say, no problem
for many others I'm sure.
MrT.
Coach
> "Superman" <"the _man_of_steel"@metropolis.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ctW1n.266$pv...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> > Well you can buy a 50" Panasonic HD panel for less than a grand now,
>
> Where? But not full HD anyway I bet, and you'd really need full HD for a 50"
> TV unless you have a *huge* home theatre room, which would cost 50 times
> that amount. anyway. Then of course there are currently no 1920 HD
> broadcasts anyway, so add in the cost of a Blu-ray player and disks, what's
> the real cost now? Is TV viewing really worth that much? Only you can
> decide.
>
> > I reckon ppl ARE getting their moneys worth, because most panels will
> > last much more than three years.
>
> I know millionaires who paid $10k for a SD plasma that probably thought they
> got their money's worth too. Not me, but it's all relative!
Name even one millionaire who paid $1oK for a SD plasma? No, I
thought not.
Superman
> "Superman"<"the _man_of_steel"@metropolis.com> wrote in message
> news:ctW1n.266$pv...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>> Well you can buy a 50" Panasonic HD panel for less than a grand now,
>>
> Where?
JB
> But not full HD anyway I bet,
No, 768 res but has inbuilt HD tuner
> and you'd really need full HD for a 50"TV
No, jot really. Mine is 768 vertical res and does 1080i. I get a great
picture from HD, but not as good as full HD of course.
> unless you have a *huge* home theatre room, which would cost 50 times
> that amount.
Why would you need that to watch a 50" panel?
> anyway. Then of course there are currently no 1920 HD
> broadcasts anyway, so add in the cost of a Blu-ray player and disks, what's
> the real cost now? Is TV viewing really worth that much? Only you can
> decide.
>
the discussion was about the value for money of the panel.
>
>> I reckon ppl ARE getting their moneys worth, because most panels will
>> last much more than three years.
>>
>
> I know millionaires who paid $10k for a SD plasma that probably thought they
> got their money's worth too. Not me, but it's all relative!
> As long as you are happy though, that's all that matters.
> I'm still pretty happy with my 28" widescreen CRT for $300. And it's over 3
> years old :-) Great value IMO. I can easily afford to throw it away when it
> breaks down. Not so with a $1,000+ set for me. But as you say, no problem
> for many others I'm sure.
>
> MrT.
>
>
>
Mr.T
> No, 768 res but has inbuilt HD tuner
50" at 768 :-) How far away do you sit!
Lets see 768 for a 50" display is nearly 1 mm per pixel. Who cares if it has
a HD tuner built in, it's not really a *HD display*, and there isn't
anything now on HD that's not on SD anyway is there? Nice to have the extra
channels just in case of course, but I do get annoyed when people claim it
is somehow "High Definition"!
> > unless you have a *huge* home theatre room, which would cost 50 times
> > that amount.
> Why would you need that to watch a 50" panel?
Because if you sit too close it looks like crap. Admittedly all the SD
channels look like crap even on much smaller TV's, but I can't imagine
watching something that looks worse than YouTube for hours on end! And
paying $1000 for the "privilege" :-)
> the discussion was about the value for money of the panel.
Yep, no value to me. If you are happy, then good luck to you.
I'd be more interested in the 42" full HD LCD they have for under $1000.
With an upscaling DVD player it might almost be worth it. (can't afford to
replace all my DVD's with Blu-Ray) And I'd sure buy the 5 year warranty for
a "Soniq" TV. But I do agree plasma has better color and contrast.
So roll on OLED! Oh wait, they want everyone to upgrade to 3D first :-(
It seems many people are going to pay $1,000+ for a TV every few years for
some time to come yet.
The Chinese economy will thank them at least.
MrT.
Michael
>
> "Superman" <"the _man_of_steel"@metropolis.com> wrote in message
> news:4yz2n.670$pv....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> No, 768 res but has inbuilt HD tuner
>
> 50" at 768 :-) How far away do you sit!
> Lets see 768 for a 50" display is nearly 1 mm per pixel. Who cares if it
> has
> a HD tuner built in, it's not really a *HD display*, and there isn't
> anything now on HD that's not on SD anyway is there? Nice to have the
> extra
> channels just in case of course, but I do get annoyed when people claim it
> is somehow "High Definition"!
In Australia, 576p or above is classified as HD.
Gilgamesh
"Michael" <quadhammerNO@SPICEDHAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b526c1c$0$11336$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Incorrectly classified as HD.
SD also used 576 lines but it is interlaced.
When you look at computer video cards you will see that the US will classify
anything with a component cable output HD even if it has poor resolution.
The only correct definition of HD is 1920x1080. And to get that quality
everything from the source material through to the TV itself needs to be
capable of that. On the back of some BluRay discs they say they were
sources from 720x576 material but some people still think these are HD
simply because it is BluRay.
>
>
>
>
Mr.T
"Michael" <quadhammerNO@SPICEDHAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b526c1c$0$11336$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
"Classified", big whoop!
You really think the same 576 lines is somehow "high definition" rather than
standard definition, just because it's progressive rather than interlaced?
If so, they sure conned you!
MrT.
Michael
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4b52c890$0$1780$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Coach
wrote:
>
> In Australia, 576p or above is classified as HD.
Yeah, and in Australia, a standard engine 6 cylinder Ford Falcon like
the one that killed those 5 bogans in Victoria yesterday is classified
as a "high performance vehicle". FFS, my mini clubman could out
manouver a shitbox falcon (and I wouldn't have hit the tree either).
Friggin stupid bogans.
Mr.T
> >> In Australia, 576p or above is classified as HD.
> >
> > "Classified", big whoop!
> > You really think the same 576 lines is somehow "high definition" rather
> > than
> > standard definition, just because it's progressive rather than
interlaced?
> > If so, they sure conned you!
>
No, you're just spouting the bullshit you have been told by the stupid media
and freeview dickheads.
You cannot turn a pigs ear into a silk purse just by making up stupid
definitions, no matter how much they would like to.
MrT.
Michael
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4b54142f$0$11336$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Mr.T
> I pity da foo' who gets upset by facts.
What "facts" would they be? The fact that the *only* reason 576p is
considered HD is that you need a HD box rather than an SD one to decode it?
But hey, it's not much worse than transmitting 1080 at ULTRA LOW bit rates
and calling that HD I guess. The morons do not have enough technical
knowledge to understand why it still looks like crap. The same people are
happy buying Blu-Ray disks sourced from DVD transfers too.
Doesn't bother me though :-)
MrT.
Michael
>
> "Michael" <quadhammerNO@SPICEDHAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4b55032d$0$1783$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> I pity da foo' who gets upset by facts.
>
> What "facts" would they be? The fact that the *only* reason 576p is
> considered HD is that you need a HD box rather than an SD one to decode
> it?
The fact that 576p is classified HD in Australia.
> But hey, it's not much worse than transmitting 1080 at ULTRA LOW bit rates
> and calling that HD I guess.
Yup, it's all dodgy.
Mr.T
>> > What "facts" would they be? The fact that the *only* reason 576p is
> > considered HD is that you need a HD box rather than an SD one to decode
> > it?
>
> The fact that 576p is classified HD in Australia.
Yep, just as I said. But only one of us believes it is *HIGH DEFINITION* in
any proper use of the term. I sure don't!
Others can continue to delude themselves however they wish, without it
bothering me at all.
MrT.
Michael
I just stated a fact, not my beliefs.
Mr.T
> I just stated a fact, not my beliefs.
And about a dozen times for something you don't even believe!
MrT.
Michael
And yet you're still ascribing me beliefs. I just stated a fact.
Mr.T
> >> I just stated a fact, not my beliefs.
> >
> > And about a dozen times for something you don't even believe!
>
> And yet you're still ascribing me beliefs. I just stated a fact.
So you still believe it was worth pointing out the same thing a dozen times
then, when I already CLEARLY stated the REAL facts the first time around?
(Just because it needs a High-Def decoder doesn't make the ACTUAL on screen
visual definition HIGH. Get it yet?)
If so, GOOD, we are in agreement and can move on!!!
MrT.
Michael
>
> "Michael" <quadhammerNO@SPICEDHAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4b590639$0$6092$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> >> I just stated a fact, not my beliefs.
>> >
>> > And about a dozen times for something you don't even believe!
>>
>> And yet you're still ascribing me beliefs. I just stated a fact.
>
> So you still believe it was worth pointing out the same thing a dozen
> times
> then, when I already CLEARLY stated the REAL facts the first time around?
Probably not no, it doesn't seem to be sinking in.
> (Just because it needs a High-Def decoder doesn't make the ACTUAL on
> screen
> visual definition HIGH. Get it yet?)
Decoder is irrelevant. In Australia 576p is classified as HD. I feel I've
been quite clear on this point.
Mr.T
> > (Just because it needs a High-Def decoder doesn't make the ACTUAL on
> > screen visual definition HIGH. Get it yet?)
>
> Decoder is irrelevant.
Not so, as I clearly stated already.
>In Australia 576p is classified as HD.
On which we agreed ages ago.
>I feel I've been quite clear on this point.
You mean I *haven't* been clear on *why* it is "classified" as HD?
You must be thicker than I thought.
MrT.
Michael
windmill of fact.
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4b5fc734$0$11336$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Michael" <quadhammerNO@SPICEDHAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4b5f9d10$0$11336$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au..
Mr.T
> You've got on your high horse to tilt at projected beliefs,
Nope, I couldn't give a rats what YOU believe.
> but it's just a windmill of fact.
*IF* you actually disagree with anything I said, why not just say so, and
tell us exactly what it is? I'm sure no one is interested in you stating the
same "fact" a hundred times when no-one ever disagreed in the first place.
MrT.
Michael
>
> "Michael" <quadhammerNO@SPICEDHAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4b60e79c$0$32748$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> You've got on your high horse to tilt at projected beliefs,
>
> Nope, I couldn't give a rats what YOU believe.
Projected, i.e. not mine, but yours. HTH
>> but it's just a windmill of fact.
>
> *IF* you actually disagree with anything I said, why not just say so, and
> tell us exactly what it is? I'm sure no one is interested in you stating
> the
> same "fact" a hundred times when no-one ever disagreed in the first place.
You might want to reread the thread. You seem confused.
Mr.T
> > *IF* you actually disagree with anything I said, why not just say so,
and
> > tell us exactly what it is? I'm sure no one is interested in you stating
> > the same "fact" a hundred times when no-one ever disagreed in the first
place.
>
> You might want to reread the thread. You seem confused.
Yep, confused why you can't answer a simple question, but go on with *so*
much bull-shit instead.
So I guess we can assume you do in fact agree, and we can move on to more
important things!
MrT.
Michael
Agree with the fact I posted? Why yes, yes I do.