The question is "Was the LCD "TEST" by Texas Instruments cooked?". This is a biased statement by Anon the poster, who read the biased article by ProjectorCentral.com. While it's true that T.I asked for and paid for the experiment, it's also true that Munsell Color Science Laboratory conducted it. I haven't seen results from any LCD manufacturers requesting lab experiments from independant sources. The test conditions were clearly accelerated time wise, however the temperature range seems reasonable and the moving air would disipate accumulated heat. So the discription "cooked" appears to be biased as well. Is ProjectorCentral.com primarily an LCD shop? We can't really be sure of their motives for making subjective and biased statements in the article either. For instance, I don't know anyone who has their tv on just three hours a day, but then I don't know anyone who runs theirs 24/7 either. So, the 3 hour number equating to the two year duration is extremely subjective. Trying to say that based on this time frame, truck loads of LCD's should be coming back to manufacturers for repair is purely speculation. I am certain that cycling the LCD's on and off extends their life greatly. Therefore, the first subtle problems with the displays may be occurring well after any warranty period and far beyond involvement by the selling retailer. I don't know of any manufacturer who discloses the type or quantity of parts they sell to service shops. There is a percentage of consumers, both business and pleasure, that simply discard failed displays after years of use. While ProjectorCentral.com claims to want to participate in testing under real life conditions on multiple models they are, in essence, a .com. It is well known that Best Buy, Circuit City, Tweeter, and other storefront type retailers are continuously displaying muliple sets powered 24/7. I have seen failing LCD displays in these stores. I have heard a few salesman comment on LCD's that were pulled off the floor due to display failures before the new models arrived to cycle them. I have seen a number of posts on boards from frustrated people who purchased "open box" or floor model LCD's. In the absence of an LCD manufacturer offering test results from an independant source, we have only the experiences we here about. You be the judge!
Anonymous
Posted on
Lets get back to reality, the only obvious "bias" is TEXAS INSTRUMENTS themselves as it is TEXAS INSTRUMENTS that has the most to gain by trashing LCD technology, a company that has 100's of millions of dollars riding on DLP winning over LCD in the marketplace
Texas Intrustruments paid for the test, handpicked the LCD units, choose the methodology, and exclusively interpreted and analyzed the results, and most strange of all will not release the complete "test" details. The lab's role in fact was limited to physically carrying out the test.
Projector Central biased against DLP? LOL
As Projector Central article points out WHERE'S THE BEEF? WHY ARE LCD'S not just dropping like flies all over the place?
THE KEY PORTION OF THE THE ARTICLE THE DLP ZEALOTS CANNOT REFUTE is as follows:
"The statistical results in this test do not match up well with general marketplace experience."
"To illustrate, let's assume a typical three-hour per day usage on a portable projector. If it fails in just 1368 hours as one of the units did in this test, that translates to a usable lifespan of about 15 months. Taking it one step further, TI's test results indicate that three of the five units (60% of the test population) failed in 2352 hours or less. If we were to use this data to predict the lifespan of LCD projectors in general, we would conclude that with a typical 3-hour per day usage, 60% of all LCD projectors sold would degrade into a condition unacceptable to the user in just a bit over two years."
"This extrapolation is not credible. LCD is by far the most popular projector technology in the marketplace, outselling DLP worldwide by a factor of about three-to-one in the last 18 months. Major brand manufacturers including Epson, Panasonic, Sharp, and Sony have projector product lines either exclusively based upon LCD technology or heavily oriented toward it. These companies have outstanding reputations for quality and are not known for marketing products that routinely degrade to failure within a year or two."
Post Reader
Unregistered guest
Posted on
The article is subjective speculation. The lab results were given the name Torture Test, which by it's very description is not stating that the findings are indicative of "normal" use. Some information (like brand names) that would obviously damage the reputation of certain specific manufacturers (one being JVC's exclusive LCOS/D-ILA technology) were omitted for "legal" reasons. The test results can't be "good" for any LCD retailer, especially a .com that doesn't have a storefront. So, why not attack the results. It's motive enough! Nobody said LCD's in "normal" use will fail in a year or two, but they will fail. That's the whole point. In the long term, with CRT it's the cathode that fails. With LCD it's the liquid crystal that fails. With DLP it's...it's...well nobody has proven yet that the "display" will ever fail in a DMD chip. It may take more than thirty years to determine. A DLP set will need a lamp or an occasional color wheel. Both cost about the same now and will become less expensive in the near future. It's all done with light and mirrors, not electrons and liquid that ultimately render the expensive displays unwatchable. Let the LCD manufacturers bring on their own evidence of durability. As for me, my 3 year old laptop display is already changing color and contrast.
Some people just can't face reality!
Anonymous
Posted on
oh so you think Texas Instruments would get sued if they actually released the full details of the test?
That is strange, Consumers Union among other parties, including dozens of audio/video publications routinely tests various products and offers all the details
Post Reader
Unregistered guest
Posted on
This was a "Torture Test" indicating failures of the products. Yes, the attorneys could file suits if specific brands were mentioned.
Anonymous
Posted on
The only "torture test" is DLP zealots citing this bogus test over and over again when Texas Instruments themselves refuse to stand behind the test and release the complete details
Truth in fact is a defense to libel. Otherwise no audio/video magazine could ever test and release the results of any product test
Post Reader
Unregistered guest
Posted on
I don't think the intent was to slander any "specific" brand by trying to kill the whole lot of them. Besides brand names, what other pertinent details do you suppose were omitted? And, what have you got against DLP advocates, other than the fact that your an LCD advocate?
Post Reader Basher
Unregistered guest
Posted on
Do not, under any circumstances, take anything that Post Reader says as accurate. He is a DLP guy and will never, ever admit that any other technology is viable. Your reputation preceeds you Post Reader and your credibility is shot to he-double hockey sticks.
Anonymous
Posted on
It almost appears they did literally cook the units at they were apparently placed so close to each other that they created a localized heat field, of some unknown temperature, beyond the room's overall alleged room temperature
They could have easily had a comparison array of units running for example ON 18 hours and OFF 6 hours, more typical of actual use even under extreme conditions - to compare any degradation over the same period with the main sample group
I got nothing against DLP zealots, in fact I prefer them to Plasma pushers
Post Reader
Unregistered guest
Posted on
PRB,
Your lack of maturity has given you away!
Anon,
I suppose you forgot about the fan used to disipate any "localized heat field". Obviously, you would have preferred they conduct the test under more "normal" operating conditions, but that was never their intent. The displays were treated equally and the results are what they are. I am certain that LCD manufacturers and owners like yourself along with some retailers are displeased with the findings. I think other independant experiments should be conducted to possibly refute or otherwise confirm the results.
Post Reader
Unregistered guest
Posted on
I know more than the lot of you! Do as I say, BUY DLP AND DLP ONLY!
The REAL Post Reader
Unregistered guest
Posted on
The above is not my posting, but that of a foolish child.
Here is another post from the childish little b^stard.
Post Reader Basher Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 09:40 am:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do not, under any circumstances, take anything that Post Reader says as accurate. He is a DLP guy and will never, ever admit that any other technology is viable. Your reputation preceeds you Post Reader and your credibility is shot to he-double hockey sticks.
All they have to do is provide the internal temperature of the projectors during the test. They must have collected the data since it is so simple to obtain and it is a logical product of such a study.
We can then compare the temperature to what is expected in today's RP LCD unit.
Post Reader
Unregistered guest
Posted on
Here is another guy that wants to change a "Torture Test" to a "normal condition" test.
That's not the point people! All eight units were treated exactly the same. Temperature was not an issue according to this quote. "Average ambient temperature in the room during the test was 25 degrees C, or 77 degrees F." Here is another quote. "They were arranged in a manner to prevent the hot exhaust of one unit feeding the intake vent of another. At the end of each shelf a fan was installed to blow air across all units on that shelf. The objective of these fans was to distribute cool air from the air conditioning vents as evenly as possible over all units."
The "Torture Test" wasn't heat, it was time, which was 24/7 for 5 months. The Rochester Institute of Technology is an independent entity. They set it up and they took the measurements, not Texas Instruments. There is no claim that this is indicative of normal use. However, it is an example of heavy use with no off and on cycling. Fair minded people can ponder the findings. Perhaps it will provoke other independent tests. I hope so.
Post Reader
Unregistered guest
Posted on
Read my lips...."DLP is the only way to go!" And, there's just no room for anything else, period. I am unwilling to entertain any possibility that the test was stacked in TI's favor or that the testing entity was beholding to them because of a large funding grant. In the end, only DLP will survive!
The REAL Post Reader
Unregistered guest
Posted on
The above post is, once again, not mine. It belongs to a childish idiot that wants to make himself feel better about his LCD purchase! Poor guy!
Post Reader
Unregistered guest
Posted on
All of you non-DLP owners out there are fools! How could you buy anything else!? How stupid are you!
"Here is another guy that wants to change a "Torture Test" to a "normal condition" test.
My problem is that too many have been too quick to accept these torture test results ( of home theater or office a/v *projectors*) and apply them as a "normal condition" to be associated with home LCD rear projection *televisions*.
Televisions were not tested here, yet people are concluding that DLP makes a better choice for a television because of this test.
I don't think that conclusion is warranted.
Jared Thomas
Unregistered guest
Posted on
DLP and LCD are core technologies used in both front and rear projection "television" systems. The core display technology isn't any different if implimented in an office A/V display or a Home Theater application. The lens may change and the lumins or lamp wattage may be different, but the basic core display remains the same. Anyone who doesn't understand this will make statements that lack credibility.
As for the test conducted by the Munsell Color Science Laboratory, it clearly shows that 24/7 operation over 5 months will cause all 5 LCD displays tested to degrade significantly while the DLP displays remain unchanged. I could not find any referrence to normal use, so logical thinking people will understand that this test was meant to kill the displays. The same logical thinking people can also decide for themselves what they think about the results.
Jared, there are differences between home television and these front projectors which were tested.
These differences are enough to make me question the relevance of the article.
And trust me, I have enough basic intelligence to understand the difference.
Credibility is maintained when a person does not make statements which he doesn't know for SURE are true.
For you to imply that the test proves that home LCD longevity is suspect diminshes your credibility, not mine, because there is not a shred of PROOF that such a problem exists.
You think there is a possibility that it might, based upon that test, but there is no proof, no proof at all that there is a problem.
Let's put it this way, Jared. How do you think you would fare in court, if SONY decided to sue you for libel? Your defamation of their product has led to reduced sales because you have poisoned the water for viewers of this web site.
To defend yourself, you would have to PROVE that the test guaranteed that all of their products were destined to produce significantly degraded pictures within 3000 hours of use - or you lost your home.
Still think your argument has iron-clad credibility?
For god's sake, man, the geometry of home LCD and front projector LCD are different! The bulbs are different, the wattages are different, the heat is different, etc, etc.
When you are not casting aspersions on my intelligence or credibilty, you are talking about logical thinking.
Why do you think it is logical to assume that different projector designs will behave identically?
Jared Thomas
Unregistered guest
Posted on
Hold on a minute! You're getting all worked up again in your own confusion. I have never said that the "Torture Test" represents any brands "normal" use, but you insist that I have. I've been very clear about the test's effort to kill the units in a fair and equal mannor. I have never implied, as you continue to do, that any manufacturer's LCD RPTV will fail in 3000 hours. You are making that assumption on your own.
You're a complete fool if you think the core display technologies are different. They are exactly the same. I've stated that the lens and lamps are different, but it doesn't change the basic display as you imply. Once again, you confuse the fact that the test was not idicative of "normal" use as you persist to cross-over. These displays are used in all forms of projection and that is the only cross-over. I'm not implying anything. You are making invalid assumptions of my point based on confusing a Torture Test" with the "normal use" of an LCD RPTV. Don't put words in my mouth! Your conclusions are your own.
I took issue with you saying the test was somehow flawed or that the units didn't receive equal treatment. I'm still waiting for your evidence!
Anonymous
Posted on
CONSUMERS UNION and about 1/2 dozen specialized (for profit) audio/video publications routinely conduct tests on various types of displays and ROUTINELY identify the precise brands tested in various comparison tests
WHY ISN'T TEXAS INSTRUMENTS TELLING US THE PRECISE UNITS TESTED?
Anon2
Unregistered guest
Posted on
Anon,
You are describing evaluations, not "Torture Tests". Evaluations compare displays, features, user friendliness, etc. for marketing purposes. It's quite a bit different than lining them up for the kill.
I believe the test results would have been squelched had a DLP display failed. The independent testing lab probably had to signed a non-disclosure agreement with T.I. prior to conducting the experiment. That way, T.I. could control what made it to public eyes if the results were unfavorable to the DMD chip. Of course, this is purley speculation on my part.
I bought my RP DLP before I saw the results of this test. Personally I'd rather be on the side of the fence that doesn't have to justify that the results of this test are erroneous for this reason or that reason. Obviously the results of this test are well known, so why hasn't a company with an LCD interest put forth a similar test showing the long term faults of DLP? It would be in their best interest.
Anonymous quoted the article.
"LCD is by far the most popular projector technology in the marketplace, outselling DLP worldwide by a factor of about three-to-one in the last 18 months"
Fair enough. But what is the future trend? Here's a link to a poll on another forum that you might find interesting.
I don't know what the best technology is but for now I'm confident that I made the right choice. Maybe I'll change my mind tomorrow, or next month, or next year....