A POLL OF YOUR FAVOURITE 32" TV ?
Anonymous
I am conducting an opinion poll of people's choice for their
favourite *mid-priced* television: 32" only please.
They should be either recent acquisitions or at least in the
process of buying.
Please share your research by including the brand name, model, and
why your choice beat out any others.
Appreciate the input,
Wayne
w...@islandnet.com
Jake
Anonymous <w...@islandnet.com> wrote in article
<35E753B2...@islandnet.com>...
J. Gu
One out of four TVs sold in the US are RCA / GE. Try to convince all those
people not to buy RCA / GE TVs.
David Kuhajda
years, say they bought it because of the low PRICE, they thought wrongly that
because it had a name they thought was good, that it wouldn't be so bad of
quality. Most people are just in the last few years replacing the RCA and GE
sets that they bought in the late 1970's when they actually were made by RCA
and GE, not Thomson who bought the rights to use the name once the American
companies went under.
We had one gentleman who replaced his 1972 model Zenith tv set with a 1995
model Zenith tv set, It just came in with a shorted picture tube and he just
can't believe that his Zenith is broken with such a major repair when his old
set lasted "forever" without any problems.
These companies who use to have good names really are making junk at the
present time, if it lasts 3 years you are doing pretty good.
32" reliable sets,
1. Toshiba with Toshiba's picture tube, not the cheap Toshiba's being made with
the Thosmon picture tubes.
2. Hitachi good overall reliability
3. Panasonic good picture good relaibility, good performance for the money.
4. Sony Good picture, less than average relaibility, power supply used in the
non-xbr sets is very unreliable due to the lack of tolerance for any power
spikes, brown outs, sudden on/off
Bad quality, RCA,GE,Zenith, I wouldn't own one of these if given to me, I have
in fact given away for free a 27" set that was given to me.
J. Gu wrote:
Myself, every tv I own is a Hitachi, I repair tv's for a living, and fix a lot
of them every day, Hitachi has the best reliability and best overall design of
any set I have seen for the cost.
David
Gerenser
wrote:
>Gearing up for those long lazy nights ahead.
>
>I am conducting an opinion poll of people's choice for their
>favourite *mid-priced* television: 32" only please.
>They should be either recent acquisitions or at least in the
>process of buying.
>
>Please share your research by including the brand name, model, and
>why your choice beat out any others.
>
>Appreciate the input,
>Wayne
>w...@islandnet.com
I have personally ordered the Toshiba CX32H60 32" model and from the
specs, it looks like a good deal for the price. Component video, Color
temp. control, S-video, digital comb filter, 2-tuner PIP, etc. I haven't
received it yet, but when I do I'll post with my results. It was about
$650 shipped from shop4. Compared many prices and models and this one
seemed to be on top. The next best thing would probably be the Cinema
Series from Toshiba or the Sony XBRs, but that's gonna cost a lot more
than this set.
Of course, most models from Panasonic (especially Superflat or "Panablack"
models ending in 33) Sony (especially XBR), Hitatchi and several others
are also going to be pretty good TVs also.
Post/e-mail with the status of your search!
--
Mike and Scott Gerenser
to send us e-mail, please remove the hyphen (-) in the address
o...@gci-net.com
>In article <01bdd2f0$0d3b0e40$105a...@albrecht.lisco.net>,
> "Jake" <albr...@se-iowa.net> wrote:
>>Don't buy a RCA or GE!!!
>
>One out of four TVs sold in the US are RCA / GE. Try to convince all those
>people not to buy RCA / GE TVs.
And a lot more than one out of four TVs sold in the US are junk.
What's your point?
Jake
themselves! I just hate to see people buy TV's with built in "Time Bombs".
Lets be honest about this, would you tell your Mother to buy one? RCA is
going to Hell in a Handbag as far as reliability goes...On the other hand
its kept Service Shops extra busy...
J. Gu <j...@uci.edu> wrote in article <6s89f8$c...@news.service.uci.edu>...
Tom MacIntyre
>Idiots buy price. Always have always will. This has nothing to do with
>quality, performance, reliability, etc.
>Only an idiot would not know this.
>
>
>J. Gu wrote in message <6s89f8$c...@news.service.uci.edu>...
>>In article <01bdd2f0$0d3b0e40$105a...@albrecht.lisco.net>,
>> "Jake" <albr...@se-iowa.net> wrote:
>>>Don't buy a RCA or GE!!!
>>
>>One out of four TVs sold in the US are RCA / GE. Try to convince all those
>>people not to buy RCA / GE TVs.
>
>
Isn't it entirely possible that the reason why RCA/GE/Thomson is so
beset by problems is that they are fairly innovative in their approach
to design, and made some strategic mistakes? How short are people's
memories? Remember those CTC 100's, 110's, 120's, 130's 140's, 150's,
160's...(not to mention before the 100's).
Now to defend people buying by price...idiots overspend, too, and only
time can show whether a given product will withstand the test of time.
Always remember...the dinosaurs died out.....the biggest, toughest
creatures ever to walk the earth, and they died out.
Tom
Firestunt
>> "Jake" <albr...@se-iowa.net> wrote:
>> >Don't buy a RCA or GE!!!
>>
>> One out of four TVs sold in the US are RCA / GE. Try to convince all
those
>> people not to buy RCA / GE TVs.
>
lot
>of them every day, Hitachi has the best reliability and best overall design
of
>any set I have seen for the cost.
>
>David
>
A friend bought an RCA 20". It worked 4 months. The small town repair shop
coudn't fix it in over two months. He left it there and bought a Sanyo.
My Sony KV27XBR10 (purchased 12/89) had solder joints fail twice in the first
four years. Fixed them myself. It now has thousands of hours on it with no
component failures, and the picture is still great. Although I am starting to
hear a faint high pitched whine from it now, wonder if that means the flyback
is on its way out? (I already cleaned around the HV lead)
You get what you pay for with those $150 Wal Mart sets IMHO.
>
FS
TexTekHank
>
>I am conducting an opinion poll of people's choice for their
>favourite *mid-priced* television: 32" only please.
>They should be either recent acquisitions or at least in the
>process of buying.
>
>Please share your research by including the brand name, model, and
>why your choice beat out any others.
>
I bought a Sony, mainly because my son has one and has been
very happy with it, and because I have heard bad reports on other
makes. Cost a bit more, but I think it was worth it.
Hank S
Robert Snelgrove
bob
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
> Gearing up for those long lazy nights ahead.
>
> I am conducting an opinion poll of people's choice for their
> favourite *mid-priced* television: 32" only please.
> They should be either recent acquisitions or at least in the
> process of buying.
>
> Please share your research by including the brand name, model, and
> why your choice beat out any others.
>
> Appreciate the input,
> Wayne
> w...@islandnet.com
Alright guys, what's your goofy replies got to do with my original
polling request, huh?
W.
Homer Simpson
side by side, the Philips won, no doubt about it.
I have the multi standard pip svhs pal ntsc secam wide dog's wottsits, and I
love it to bits!
I like it.
Paul Luggar (Homer)
Gerenser wrote:
> In article <35E753B2...@islandnet.com>, Anonymous <w...@islandnet.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Gearing up for those long lazy nights ahead.
> >
> >I am conducting an opinion poll of people's choice for their
> >favourite *mid-priced* television: 32" only please.
> >They should be either recent acquisitions or at least in the
> >process of buying.
> >
> >Please share your research by including the brand name, model, and
> >why your choice beat out any others.
> >
> >Appreciate the input,
> >Wayne
> >w...@islandnet.com
>
Stefan Drever
Let's get some useful information here please! I want to know about this
subject too.
Anonymous
Robert Snelgrove wrote:
> Sony 32XBR100, hands down, no competition. If you can still find one.
>
> bob
Ah.. er.. Bob. The recommended set should be in the mid-priced range for
a direct view. Not home-ransom price-point. Thanks for the effort
anyway.
Wayne
Gerenser
<stee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Sony 32XBR100, hands down, no competition. If you can still find one.
>
>bob
Yes, but how much are these? I believe the original poster was looking
more for a midrange set, not something very expensive. According to Sony's
web site, the retail price on this TV is almost $2000. But agreed, it is a
very good TV (from what I've heard, I don't actually own one).
--
Scott Gerenser
to send e-mail, please remove the hyphen (-) in the address
Clifton T. Sharp Jr.
> One out of four TVs sold in the US are RCA / GE. Try to convince all those
> people not to buy RCA / GE TVs.
IIRC, RCA's share used to be higher. Guess people are learning without
our convincing them.
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Cliff Sharp | Hate spam? Join The Great American Pink-Out! |
| WA9PDM | http://www.ybecker.net/pink/ |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Stefan Drever
: I have personally ordered the Toshiba CX32H60 32" model and from the
Excellent choice!
: specs, it looks like a good deal for the price. Component video, Color
: temp. control, S-video, digital comb filter, 2-tuner PIP, etc. I haven't
: received it yet, but when I do I'll post with my results. It was about
: $650 shipped from shop4. Compared many prices and models and this one
You're right. I spent days shopping around and researching this on the
web and the Toshiba models H40 and up are exceptional value for the image
enhancement features you get. Same tube as their Cinema Series (salesmen
will tell you otherwise - just read the spec sheets: digital comb filter,
temperature control, etc.) and only missing one more image feature
(variable scanning freq or something). Same price as a bottom of the line
JVC, and $300 cheaper than Sony's bottom. Also touted better reliability.
: seemed to be on top. The next best thing would probably be the Cinema
: Series from Toshiba or the Sony XBRs, but that's gonna cost a lot more
: than this set.
I made my decision today and went with the Toshiba 32" Cinema Series only
because I decided to buy their new (3rd gen. SD-2108) DVD player which has
the "Colour Stream" seperate 3-colour video signal outputs, and the 32H95
has these inputs. This means DTV ready for the future. It looked
gorgeous, and same price as bottom-end Sony money-pit!!
If you already have a DVD or LD player then by all means get the
non-Cinema Series 32H40 or up, and just use S-video cable. If you want to
save $300 and can do without PIP and other gimmicks, go with the H40.
Stefan Drever
Ha - $4000 in Canada! Toshiba 32H95 Cinema Series $1300 CAD.
Lee
Homer Simpson wrote:
> I looked at the whole range of 32" widescreen TV's in the UK runing together
> side by side, the Philips won, no doubt about it.
> I have the multi standard pip svhs pal ntsc secam wide dog's wottsits, and I
> love it to bits!
> I like it.
> Paul Luggar (Homer)
>
I also looked at all the 32" widescreen sets in the UK and absoulutely hated the
soft picture on the philips,
and what is that STUPID button on the top of the cabinet!!!!!!!
I bought the Sony after a lot of consideration of the Mitsubishi.
The Sony is really pricey though..........and it's heavy!!!!!!! (I had to carry
it up 2 flights of stairs)
Lee
Clifton T. Sharp Jr.
> You're right. I spent days shopping around and researching this on the
> web and the Toshiba models H40 and up are exceptional value for the image
> enhancement features you get. Same tube as their Cinema Series (salesmen
> will tell you otherwise - just read the spec sheets: digital comb filter,
> temperature control, etc.) and only missing one more image feature
> (variable scanning freq or something). Same price as a bottom of the line
> JVC, and $300 cheaper than Sony's bottom. Also touted better reliability.
I own two 1984 Toshiba sets, a 13" and a 27". The 27" has been worked on
twice (one failed solder, one bad cap) and has one more servicing in its
near future (AGC problem, probably a $3 IC); the 13" has been worked on
once for physical damage but never had an electrical failure. Pictures
are as bright and sharp as the day they were new.
A very finicky friend of mine went shopping last year for a set. He did
the Consumer Reports thing, and lots of shopping, before asking me for
a recommendation. He tried to tell me how good Zeniths were according to
a friend of his, but I found out and pointed out that the friend sold
Zenith. I took him to the stores and I asked him to compare the Toshibas
to models in the other brand lines that were at least $200 more than the
Toshiba he was looking at, showed him the better pincushion correction
and lesser overscan of the Toshibas, and sold him on picture quality alone.
Disclaimer: I've never made a dime from the sale of a TV set, and I've
never received a dime from Toshiba; just owned my two and haven't needed
to buy another.
P.S. They SUCK on service information; buy a service manual from Toshiba
while the set is new.
Tom MacIntyre
>It usually just takes them one time with a newer RCA/GE to convince
>themselves! I just hate to see people buy TV's with built in "Time Bombs".
>Lets be honest about this, would you tell your Mother to buy one?
My mother has an RCA, about 8 years old (probably a 166/167) that has
never been in a shop, and in her living room, my granfather's floor
model 109 (ca. 1983) that I recently had to change the luma/chroma IC
in. That was its first time being opened up as well. The 175/177 sets
were dogs from a consumer standpoint, but it remains to be seen
whether the same or other serious problems will haunt the 18x/19x
chassis.
Tom
Gerenser
<dre...@engsoc.carleton.ca> wrote:
>In rec.video Gerenser <sco...@softh-ome.net> wrote:
>
>: I have personally ordered the Toshiba CX32H60 32" model and from the
>
>Excellent choice!
>
>: specs, it looks like a good deal for the price. Component video, Color
>: temp. control, S-video, digital comb filter, 2-tuner PIP, etc. I haven't
>: received it yet, but when I do I'll post with my results. It was about
>: $650 shipped from shop4. Compared many prices and models and this one
>
>You're right. I spent days shopping around and researching this on the
>web and the Toshiba models H40 and up are exceptional value for the image
>enhancement features you get. Same tube as their Cinema Series (salesmen
>will tell you otherwise - just read the spec sheets: digital comb filter,
>temperature control, etc.)
Actually, a salesman didn't tell me otherwise! I went to a local store to
look at the set, but it turned out they didn't have any in stock yet.
However, the salesman did admit that the set was virtually identical to
the Cinema series, with the same tube and everything. He said basically
the difference was that the Cinema Series comes with some kind of
enhancement or "modulation" that makes the picture look better (not sure
if it really would) and a backlit remote. There might be other
differences, but he didn't know any.
>I made my decision today and went with the Toshiba 32" Cinema Series only
>because I decided to buy their new (3rd gen. SD-2108) DVD player which has
>the "Colour Stream" seperate 3-colour video signal outputs, and the 32H95
>has these inputs. This means DTV ready for the future. It looked
>gorgeous, and same price as bottom-end Sony money-pit!!
However, the 32H60 *does* come with component video input, which is why I
went for that one (not to mention that Shop4 is selling it for less than
the retail price for the 32H40, only $650 shipped). I'll let everyone know
how I like the TV once I get it. I hope it won't be much more than a few
more days (while Shop4 does have great prices, they don't have the best
shipping policies :-)
Homer Simpson
Lee wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Lee <white...@netscape.net>
> UK
>
> Lee
> UK <white...@netscape.net>
> Netscape Conference Address
> Netscape Conference DLS Server
> If you wish to reply, please replace *** with com "It does not pay to leave a live Dragon out of your calculations"----Tolkien
> Additional Information:
> Last Name
> First Name Lee
> Version 2.1
Bah Humbug old chap! The philips that I have is 100Hz refresh digital scan, unless you saw a bad one, the Philips makes the Sony
look fuzzy!
Somebody call the fire department!!!
Mike
Tom MacIntyre wrote in message <35ea8819...@nr1.ottawa.istar.net>...
Philip Nasadowski
>
>>It usually just takes them one time with a newer RCA/GE to convince
>>themselves! I just hate to see people buy TV's with built in "Time Bombs".
>>Lets be honest about this, would you tell your Mother to buy one?
Heh...We got an RCA in the mid 80's to replace our old tube portable (it
was going, though putting it on a shag rug sure didn't dom anything to
help it)
Almost from the start, we had: flip off-on, sudden kicks into Audio B,
Stereo sound that crapped out about a month after we got it, and a
tendancy to want to turn on when it waned to. One day, it wouldn't go on
at all, and was dragged to the shop. Came back with the same problems
(the shop guy said he saw LOTS of RCAs like ours). Then it got better -
The set used to suddenly stop recieving Channels 13, working it's way to
2. Sometimes flipping to 2 then back would fix it. To keep my
electrically stupid dad from messing with it (he had nearly killed himself
once before with his electrical ignoreance), I just told my parents it was
"sunspots". They actually believed it for a few years, but ultimatly,
back into the shop it went. Got a rebuilt "microprocessor" (can some tell
me HOW you rebuild a chip???), and the set's been more or less fine since.
From this experience alone, I tell people not to buy RCAs.
But RCA was getting bad back in the 70's, my grandma had an old tube
clunker that blew 7 Horz output tubes, 2 HV rects, 2 focus rects, one
shunt reg, a flyback, a damper, a few misc recieving tubes, and to the day
it finnally died, it NEVER worked right. Picture would wave back and
forth and make you seasick. The set was gone around 88 or so. My other
grandma had a Zenith of the same vintage that worked *perfectly* up to the
day it died - go figure.
Frankly, I've noticed a general decline in the quality of "american made"
stuff from 1970 on, and I've noticed that "Japanese" stuff has been
getting pretty bad too lately.
My '57 Magnavox consonle radio, on the other hand, only need $1.00 in
resistors to be made perfect again, my '31 Atwater-Kent still runs strong,
my '59 Fisher Amp is still good, and so on. Heck, I have a '47 Dumont
that needs new wirewounds and a few caps and it'll go well too (anyone
know where I can find a rather long shaft, 25 watt, 1k or so wirewound
pot?)
I'm starting to believe that the "solid state" revolution is what did in
consumer electronics - I've never had good luck with anything
transistor...
Joe
Hi all, we have an older Magnavox T995-01 chassis TV that I found in
the garbage a few years ago. It was in excellent condition when I
found it, but the picture tube was bad. I replaced the picture tube in
1989 and that set is still working great. The T995 series of Magnavox
TV's have to be about the best set made, plus they are very easy to
work on. Just my 2 Lincolns!:)
Joe
Tom MacIntyre
>Heh...We got an RCA in the mid 80's to replace our old tube portable (it
>was going, though putting it on a shag rug sure didn't dom anything to
>help it)
>Almost from the start, we had: flip off-on, sudden kicks into Audio B,
>Stereo sound that crapped out about a month after we got it, and a
>tendancy to want to turn on when it waned to. One day, it wouldn't go on
>at all, and was dragged to the shop. Came back with the same problems
>(the shop guy said he saw LOTS of RCAs like ours). Then it got better -
>The set used to suddenly stop recieving Channels 13, working it's way to
>2. Sometimes flipping to 2 then back would fix it. To keep my
>electrically stupid dad from messing with it (he had nearly killed himself
>once before with his electrical ignoreance), I just told my parents it was
>"sunspots". They actually believed it for a few years, but ultimatly,
>back into the shop it went. Got a rebuilt "microprocessor" (can some tell
>me HOW you rebuild a chip???), and the set's been more or less fine since.
>
>From this experience alone, I tell people not to buy RCAs.
Hope you warn them away from that shop too.
Tom
Max Kuenkel
$600. I hope that was a good price. I'm very happy with it, except that I
don't have the manual.
Is there a website that offers something like a consumer's tutorial on
TVs? Maybe with a glossary of TV terms and concepts? For example: I think
my TV has a digital comb filter, but I hear there are 2D, 3D, and 3D Y/C
digital comb filters. It would be nice if there was a website that
explained all these things to the non-technician like myself. Max
Steve Helling
inclined to say a word or two in their defense.
My experience has been that after the nuisance CTC175/176/177/187 tuner
problem is properly resolved, very little else goes wrong with recent
Thomson sets, and indeed, but for the solder problem, the tuner-on-board
design is very reliable. A great many of my customers went away happy after
Thomson paid for the repair of their set as much as three years after
purchase, and almost none of them has suffered any further failures of any
sort other than lightning damage. Show me the major japanese or korean
brand that will go that far for the customer.
I keep hearing in this newsgroup how poorly the customers think of their TCE
sets. Strange, when one considers that TCE is the fourth largest producer
of consumer electronics in the world, and makes the number-one-selling TV in
the United States. The vast majority of RCA/GE set owners I have talked to
think highly of their TVs, even considering the tuner problem.
I have to wonder, given the vehement, vitriolic attacks on TCE that come
from a handful of techs in this newsgroup, why all this contempt for
Thomson?
Is it because of the tuner problems? So what, we're techs. We fix broken
TVs. Why complain about job security? So TCE is a little more progressive
about introducing new technologies in their sets. Anytime a new design is
fielded, there are going to be 'growing pains'. Beside, every brand I can
think of has had various periods where a particular chassis was plagued with
some defect.
Is it because TCE sets are inferior in quality to other brands. Hardly.
While I agree that they may not be built like a Sony, I also hear a lot of
Sony's breaking in this newsgroup and in my customers' homes. In terms of
materials, workmanship and design (exception: tuner grounds, 1993-1995),
they look to me to be as good as most competing brands.
Is it because TCE is (partially) French owned? Don't blame TCE for
surviving where RCA didn't.
Or, finally, are the digs at TCE more likely due to sour grapes among techs
who themselves haven't kept up with technology and curse TCE for innovations
like tuner-on-board and Chipper Check?
Well, I know I'm going to get slammed for this posting, so let's get it over
with.
Steve
A & S Electronic Repair
Tom MacIntyre wrote in message <35ea8819...@nr1.ottawa.istar.net>...
>"Jake" <albr...@se-iowa.net> wrote:
>
>>It usually just takes them one time with a newer RCA/GE to convince
>>themselves! I just hate to see people buy TV's with built in "Time Bombs".
>>Lets be honest about this, would you tell your Mother to buy one?
>
Steve Helling
Anonymous wrote in message <35E820D0...@islandnet.com>...
>
>
>Anonymous wrote:
>
>> Gearing up for those long lazy nights ahead.
>>
>> I am conducting an opinion poll of people's choice for their
>> favourite *mid-priced* television: 32" only please.
>> They should be either recent acquisitions or at least in the
>> process of buying.
>>
>> Please share your research by including the brand name, model, and
>> why your choice beat out any others.
>>
>> Appreciate the input,
>> Wayne
>> w...@islandnet.com
>
>polling request, huh?
>
>W.
Make a goofy request, you get goofy replies. It's a very subjective
issue. If you want statistics, read Consumer Reports.
In the meantime, sit back and be entertained by the opinionated controversy
you've stirred up.
Dennis
>
> I am conducting an opinion poll of people's choice for their
> favourite *mid-priced* television: 32" only please.
> They should be either recent acquisitions or at least in the
> process of buying.
>
> Please share your research by including the brand name, model, and
> why your choice beat out any others.
>
> Appreciate the input,
> Wayne
> w...@islandnet.com
I just bought the Philips 32PW9503. It's a really nice TV
with very sharp picture (widescreen+) and nice digital
features like DNR and 100 Hz. I didn't buy it because I
work at Philips (although not Philips-employee, but hired)
but because this TV just was the best I could afford.
Dennis.
--
E-mail @ work : Dennis...@ehv.ce.philips.com
E-mail @ home : g...@iaehv.nl
Homepage : http://www.iaehv.nl/users/gto
Pete Belden
CTV or DSS doesn't transmit that capability. It has been very reliable
and has excellent picture quality. It has an S-video input, as well as
two pairs of A/V outputs. I would have preferred more though. It has
P/P (single tuner...need your VCR). It's been in use about 1 1/2 years.
WEnterprisesNW
Why? I appreciated its flat screen, true colors, true black, and excellent
resolution as well --- not to mention the most cinema-like picture quality
I've seen. I would chose it over the 40" Mitsubishi without much thought
about it. If features were most important, then I would go with JVC which
offers tons of features for the money and a credible picture. My
preference? Definately performance over features!
Let your eyes compare and decide for themselves.
Sincerely,
-Donald J. Winslow, Owner
W Enteprises Northwest
WEnterp...@msn.com
fax: 503.282-0742
Anonymous wrote in message <35E820D0...@islandnet.com>...
>
>
>Anonymous wrote:
>
>> Gearing up for those long lazy nights ahead.
>>
>> I am conducting an opinion poll of people's choice for their
>> favourite *mid-priced* television: 32" only please.
>> They should be either recent acquisitions or at least in the
>> process of buying.
>>
>> Please share your research by including the brand name, model, and
>> why your choice beat out any others.
>>
>> Appreciate the input,
>> Wayne
>> w...@islandnet.com
>
Brad Wilson
Even though it's nowhere close to the "mid-priced" range that the original
poster asked for, I'd have to agree. I found myself wondering what kind of
television I could get for ~ $1500-2000, and looking at everything I could
lay my eyes on. The Sonys were easily the most expensive direct view TVs.
I considered going with a smallish (for the type) rear projection, but what
it came down to was just _unreal_ quality.
As I said to the guy I bought it from, "I'd rather sit closer to
perfection". It was the best $1199 I even spent. It made LDs and DVDs look
much better than my old 25".
-- Brad Wilson ----- Student of Objectivism ----- Mercenary Programmer --
Email: bradw<at>pobox<dot>com http<colon>//pobox<dot>com/<tilde>bradw
Anonymous
> issue. If you want statistics, read Consumer Reports.
>
> In the meantime, sit back and be entertained by the opinionated controversy
> you've stirred up.
>
> Steve
> A & S Electronic Repair
And isn't this what ng's are for sir? Obviously, you're having a pretty bad
day and really hope tomorrow is much better.
Wayne
Lee
Homer Simpson wrote:
> Lee wrote:
>
> > Homer Simpson wrote:
> >
> > > I looked at the whole range of 32" widescreen TV's in the UK runing together
> > > side by side, the Philips won, no doubt about it.
> > > I have the multi standard pip svhs pal ntsc secam wide dog's wottsits, and I
> > > love it to bits!
> > > I like it.
> > > Paul Luggar (Homer)
> > >
> >
> > I also looked at all the 32" widescreen sets in the UK and absoulutely hated the
> > soft picture on the philips,
> > and what is that STUPID button on the top of the cabinet!!!!!!!
> >
> > I bought the Sony after a lot of consideration of the Mitsubishi.
> > The Sony is really pricey though..........and it's heavy!!!!!!! (I had to carry
> > it up 2 flights of stairs)
> >
> > Bah Humbug old chap! The philips that I have is 100Hz refresh digital scan, unless you saw a bad one, the Philips makes the Sony
> look fuzzy!
> Somebody call the fire department!!!
The Sony KV 32WS3U is ALSO 100hz digital scanning , perhaps you thought I meant the more common KV32WS2U...anyway it's purely
subjective--I still think the Philips's picture looks soft.
I think it's a bit like Cats & Dogs---you like one or the other--not usually both.
FWIW I remember the 20AX tubes coming out in the 70's---and I reckon the're all soft as well!!!!!!!
Lee :-) <BFG>
Homer Simpson
Lee wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Lee <white...@netscape.net>
> UK
>
> Lee
> UK <white...@netscape.net>
> Netscape Conference Address
> Netscape Conference DLS Server
> If you wish to reply, please replace *** with com "It does not pay to leave a live Dragon out of your calculations"----Tolkien
> Additional Information:
> Last Name
> First Name Lee
> Version 2.1
Well, i'm a big old softy any how! We will have to agree to differ on this one.
PS I have a 20" Sony monitor thats u/s at the moment, I wounder which monitor has the best picture.......?
Dohhh!
Paul
Lee
>
> Well, i'm a big old softy any how! We will have to agree to differ on this one.
> PS I have a 20" Sony monitor thats u/s at the moment, I wounder which monitor has the best picture.......?
> Dohhh!
> Paul
Oh please, lets NOT have that discussion!!!!! :-)
I have a Sony monitor (no surprise there he says........), a 15SF, but I also have a Goldstar (LG) SW56 and I have to say that the display
on the Goldststar is better than the Sony. It's better built as well ,with a real steel chassis.
Also, I don't know if it's just me, but I find the way the display curves around the inside of the flaceplate on the Sony (due to the
curved apperture grill) to be annoying---not to mention, that the purity looks off if it's viewed from an angle but perfectly OK if you
look staight at it.
Lee :-)
James C Napolitano
compared to the XBR and can be had for 900 bucks
my 2 cents
James Napolitano
JANapo...@Prodigy.net
Lee <white...@netscape.net> wrote in article
<35F030A5...@netscape.net>...
Andy Cuffe
>
> >
> >
> > Well, i'm a big old softy any how! We will have to agree to differ on this one.
> > PS I have a 20" Sony monitor thats u/s at the moment, I wounder which monitor has the best picture.......?
> > Dohhh!
> > Paul
>
> Oh please, lets NOT have that discussion!!!!! :-)
>
> I have a Sony monitor (no surprise there he says........), a 15SF, but I also have a Goldstar (LG) SW56 and I have to say that the display
> on the Goldststar is better than the Sony. It's better built as well ,with a real steel chassis.
> Also, I don't know if it's just me, but I find the way the display curves around the inside of the flaceplate on the Sony (due to the
> curved apperture grill) to be annoying---not to mention, that the purity looks off if it's viewed from an angle but perfectly OK if you
> look staight at it.
>
> Lee :-)
>
>
> Name: vcard.vcf
> Part 1.2 Type: text/x-vcard
> Encoding: 7bit
> Description: Card for Lee
I have completely the opposite opinion. I would never use anything
other than a Sony monitor. I have yet to see anything that is even
close to Sony for sharp focus. All other monitors I've seen look out of
focus compared to a Sony. I like the shape of the screen.
--
Andy Cuffe
balt...@psu.edu
Charley S McCue
a decade. Sure once it is 'properly fixed', it seems to be a good TV. But fix
it before it is sold.
The 'innovative' people chose not to pay the $2 or $3 for MTS stereo when first
available because of the "high cost", quoted to me by the tech line when
problems showed up on their bastard stereo.
My problem isn't their owners in the case of these problems. American
management made these decisions. I do complain that the French government
through Thompson gave TCE of America $2 Billion (yes billion!!!) to REDUCE their
debt.
They represent the trend we all hate of the '1/8th cent solution' (trim every
tiny amount regardless of effect) that permeates the industry. TCE builds this
tuner for price reasons. They sell at a loss to steal market share. Then they
use French tax money to continue the downward trend.
Spend they extra $50 or so. NEC built really tough equipment but finally left
the market because of this trend. We all know that no company's products can be
expected to last as well as in the past. We have failures of CRACKED components
because they are so SMALL.
Well, this is too long, but TCE gets the heat because they are leader in the
trend of cut corners to win market and deserves the heat.
Steve Helling
But with all respect, I think you can't blame TCE or its masters in Paris
for competitive business practices, or for trying to streamline the
production of televisions by making the tuner part of the main board. Isn't
that the goal of all manufacturers, to build a better, more
saleable(cheaper) mousetrap? They are trying to survive in a dog-eat-dog
world. (Sorry, Nipper & Chipper) I agree that some of their actions (or
those of the French government) may be unfair, even underhanded, and we
don't have to like that, but the world of global commerce has never been nor
ever will be 'fair'.
As for the defects they 'build into' the TV, I really doubt this has been
intentional or planned. From what I know, the CTC17x TOB problem cost TCE
plenty both in money and reputation (which equates back to money). Also,
they have worked hard to correct the problem, and apparently did correct it
back in 1996. Anytime a new design is attempted, there is a chance of
encountering new problems. At least they took responsibility for repairing
customers sets at their expense for several years. I do think they should
have sent letters to all known set owners letting them know about the defect
so they would know what was happening when they saw symptoms.
I really don't see TCE as a 'leader in the trend of cut corners to win
market' so much as just another big company trying to do what all big
companies do-make money.
Steve
A & S Electronic Repair
Charley S McCue wrote in message <35F29298...@midusa.net>...
Philip Nasadowski
<ste...@snowhill.com> wrote:
>But with all respect, I think you can't blame TCE or its masters in Paris
>for competitive business practices, or for trying to streamline the
>production of televisions by making the tuner part of the main board. Isn't
>that the goal of all manufacturers, to build a better, more
>saleable(cheaper) mousetrap?
Yeah, but they're mousetrap wasn't better, just cheaper. I'm sure a
tunner on board the set can be reliable, provided it is built right. Part
of it is that there aren't enough mechanical people involved to tell the
electronics people what will and won't fail mechanically. And a bad
solder joint is a mechanical failure. Actually, the Mechanical
construction of most recent consumer electronics leaves a lot to be
desired. There's nothing wrong with useing plastic, but there sure is
when you've got sloppy mechanisms, cracking parts, and weak cases.
>I agree that some of their actions (or
>those of the French government) may be unfair, even underhanded, and we
>don't have to like that, but the world of global commerce has never been nor
>ever will be 'fair'.
So the French Gov props them up. They prop up Airbus too.
>As for the defects they 'build into' the TV, I really doubt this has been
>intentional or planned.
It's not intentional, just poor engineering, and poor decisions by
manegement. Classic recipe for disaster.
>From what I know, the CTC17x TOB problem cost TCE
>plenty both in money and reputation (which equates back to money). Also,
>they have worked hard to correct the problem, and apparently did correct it
>back in 1996.
Maybe, but I would never by an RCA/GE again.
>Anytime a new design is attempted, there is a chance of
>encountering new problems.
Yeah, but I mean, come on, color TVs aren't exactly new, Solid state TVs
aren't either, and printed circuit boards have been around since at least
the early 50's. (I know of a few 50's vintage jukeboxes that use them).
>At least they took responsibility for repairing
>customers sets at their expense for several years. I do think they should
>have sent letters to all known set owners letting them know about the defect
>so they would know what was happening when they saw symptoms.
They should have recalled the sets once it was obvious they screwed up,
and fixed it THEN. I think most people are MUCh more forgiving if their
set is recalled to be fixed BEFORE it breaks...
Ed Ellers
"But RCA was getting bad back in the 70's, my grandma had an old tube
clunker that blew 7 Horz output tubes, 2 HV rects, 2 focus rects, one shunt
reg, a flyback, a damper, a few misc recieving tubes, and to the day it
finnally died, it NEVER worked right. Picture would wave back and forth and
make you seasick. The set was gone around 88 or so. My other grandma had a
Zenith of the same vintage that worked *perfectly* up to the day it died -
go figure."
There must have been something else going on in the horizontal output/HV
section to cause all those failures, and the shop should have checked on
that at least after the second failure (preferably after the first!).
Ed Ellers
"TCE is the only one that has continued to build a defect into the TV for
almost a decade. Sure once it is 'properly fixed', it seems to be a good
TV. But fix it before it is sold."
You're exaggerating -- the CTC175/176/177 was introduced in 1993, just five
years ago, and other reports say that the tuner bug was fixed some time ago.
"The 'innovative' people chose not to pay the $2 or $3 for MTS stereo when
first available because of the "high cost", quoted to me by the tech line
when problems showed up on their bastard stereo."
It wasn't just the cost of dbx NR (both in licensing and in manufacturing);
part of the reason for XS Stereo was to provide enhanced separation in table
models with the speakers less than two feet apart, and the Indianapolis guys
discovered that they could make the same circuit deal with noise reduction
as well. RCA still used dbx in their CTC168 and 169 chassis in the Home
Theatre and ProScan lines, and from what I've heard the engineers never
intended for XS Stereo to be used in models that had audio output jacks --
but were overridden by the marketing group.
"They represent the trend we all hate of the '1/8th cent solution' (trim
every tiny amount regardless of effect) that permeates the industry. TCE
builds this tuner for price reasons. They sell at a loss to steal market
share. Then they use French tax money to continue the downward trend."
Do you really believe that they aren't at least trying to make money on
every set they build?
Ed Ellers
"my choice hands down is the panasonic supeflat 32SF35 great picture
compared to the XBR and can be had for 900 bucks"
I still prefer Sony's signal processing, especially aperture correction.
Also, you'd be surprised how little difference there is in basic performance
between the S, V and XBR series.
Ed Ellers
"Sony 32XBR100, hands down, no competition. If you can still find one."
I'd much rather have an XBR200 -- it has a flat-face tube and component
video input.
Ed Ellers
"Most people are just in the last few years replacing the RCA and GE sets
that they bought in the late 1970's when they actually were made by RCA and
GE, not Thomson who bought the rights to use the name once the American
companies went under."
Please don't spread this manure. RCA did *not* go under. It was bought
intact by GE, and what they bought in consumer electronics was sold intact
to Thomson. Yes, TCE did build a new headquarters building in
Indianapolis -- several years *after* the Thomson deal. Yes, they did shut
down the Bloomington plant, but not until this year. Yes, they did start
selling European-designed 9" and 13" sets -- again, several years after the
acquisition. But the GE and RCA TVs with chassis designations starting with
CTC are still designed in Indianapolis.
Steve Helling
>
>"But RCA was getting bad back in the 70's, my grandma had an old tube
>clunker that blew 7 Horz output tubes, 2 HV rects, 2 focus rects, one shunt
>reg, a flyback, a damper, a few misc recieving tubes, and to the day it
>finnally died, it NEVER worked right. Picture would wave back and forth
and
>make you seasick. The set was gone around 88 or so. My other grandma had
a
>Zenith of the same vintage that worked *perfectly* up to the day it died -
>go figure."
Sounds more like the repair technician was 'getting bad', not RCA. Your
story also begs the question, why, if the set was such a lemon, did your
grandmother continue to pour money into it?
Tom MacIntyre
>>Philip Nasadowski wrote:
>>
>>"But RCA was getting bad back in the 70's, my grandma had an old tube
>>clunker that blew 7 Horz output tubes, 2 HV rects, 2 focus rects, one shunt
>>reg, a flyback, a damper, a few misc recieving tubes, and to the day it
>>finnally died, it NEVER worked right. Picture would wave back and forth
>and
>>make you seasick. The set was gone around 88 or so.
When did RCA make their last all-tube sets? This thing lasted 15-20
years-not a stellar performer for the time, but at least average?
Tom
Philip Nasadowski
<ste...@snowhill.com> wrote:
>Sounds more like the repair technician was 'getting bad', not RCA. Your
>story also begs the question, why, if the set was such a lemon, did your
>grandmother continue to pour money into it?
I don't know, I wish I did. She wasn't very mobile, and was pretty much
attachted to watching TV. At the time, it was easier to just pour money
into it, rather than go find a new one. My aunt tells me the repait guy
wanted to drag the set to the shop, but my grandma wouldn't allow it.
Ultimately, family politics kicked in, and my parents got her a new set.
My mom's side of the family was always a bit weird anyway. But this is
all past history now, as my grandma died a year ago about this time.
Anyway, if the set was still around, I'd take a shot at fixing it, but it
was ditched years ago.
Ed Ellers
"When did RCA make their last all-tube sets?"
Depends on what you call "all-tube." RCA's last color sets with *some*
tubes were discontinued in 1974 (at the same time that instant-on was
deleted from their solid-state chassis); they first used transistors in
remote controls in 1958, in the remote receiver subchassis in 1962, in UHF
tuners in 1964 and in the main chassis in 1965; the first all-solid-state
color chassis from RCA came out in 1968.
"This thing lasted 15-20 years-not a stellar performer for the time, but at
least average?"
Average in those days was 10 years or so, so this one goes in the "stellar"
category.
Bill
It's as if the S had some major components left out and "still works." It's
dim; if the brightness or "picture" is driven upwards, the brightest parts
of the picture smear out of focus badly... so dim it stays. No such
limitation with the V. The V has a sparkling bright picture, more of what
you might expect.
The V has sound enhancements over the S, but they both sound horrible... so
the picture is the thing.
Many years ago Sony tried that narrow side firing speaker scheme on a 19"
set; it didn't sound good then and it doesn't sound good now.
My dealer demonstrated the XBR and I don't deny that it has a very clean
picture with minimal noise, but whatever it is that is done to reduce dot
crawl, which he gleefully demonstrated, yielded a picture that seemed to
have much less detail and sharpness. I'll take the dot crawl.
Ed Ellers wrote in message <6t054n$lb3$1...@usenet46.supernews.com>...
Ed Ellers
"I have a KV32S36 and a KV32V65. There is all the difference in the world.
It's as if the S had some major components left out and "still works." It's
dim; if the brightness or "picture" is driven upwards, the brightest parts
of the picture smear out of focus badly... so dim it stays. No such
limitation with the V. The V has a sparkling bright picture, more of what
you might expect."
Your S36 must be broken. I have never seen a problem like that with any
Sony Trinitron TV in good condition, much less a recent model. All the Sony
documentation I've seen indicates that 27" and larger S series models use
the same chassis as the V series (and last year's KV-20V60 had the same
chassis as the 20" S series).
Bill
comments from within this group.
Bottom line to me, is that the S does have many attributes I would associate
with the Trinitron concept - unusually low geometric distortion, seemingly
perfect purity and very good convergence (it loses it in the extreme lower
right corner, but I've observed many high end large screen sets and they
lose it in far larger areas). However, the V seems capable of far more
brightness levels and astounding contrast; I was watching an old movie on
AMC with costumes that "sparkled" (this was black and white). On the V it
WAS sparkling - and on the S - ho-hum. My current dealer does not even
carry the S series, calling it bottom of the line mass market stuff.
Ed Ellers wrote in message <6t2g3o$9mb$1...@usenet40.supernews.com>...
Homer Simpson
> > Encoding: 7bit
> > Description: Card for Lee
>
> I have completely the opposite opinion. I would never use anything
> other than a Sony monitor. I have yet to see anything that is even
> close to Sony for sharp focus. All other monitors I've seen look out of
> focus compared to a Sony. I like the shape of the screen.
> --
> Andy Cuffe
> balt...@psu.edu
When I fix my Sony I'll compare it to a recent CTX!
Heres hoping!
Homer