Which HDTV is the best? (dlp vs. lcd vs. plasma)
|
Unregistered guest | Which is the better buy if you want to get a new HDTV? I've heard different answers everywhere I go. But what's the true winner in types of HDTVs? DLP, LCD, or Plasma? Could someone guide me in the right direction? |
|
bobccity Unregistered guest | Ok, here is the deal... It all depends on what you are looking for. Between DLP and LCD, DLP have a better picture and LCD have a brighter picture. Americans are naturally attracted to a big, bright, and flashy tv like LCD proj. That is why they sell so much better than DLP. When it comes to plasma, if you can afford it, this is a great way to go. You can hang them on your wall, which is a big turn-on for people. And they are rated longer than a tube. So, just stop into your big box electronics retailer and see the pictures for yourself. Take your time buying because it is a major purchase. Think it over and go back. What I am trying to get to is do not let a pushy salesman talk you into buying if you are not 100% sure of what you want. Oh yea, and VinDSL is a moron and he does not know what he is talking about, so if he jumps in and disagrees with me, as he normally does...ignore it. He just does not like to admit when he is wrong and will not accept the realities of HDTV. Thank you. |
|
fx Unregistered guest | Vin thinks plasma's are the best but for the life of me I just don't know why he feels this way!  xvxvxvx |
|
Marshall T. Unregistered guest | Sony has offered a new display which I believe is similar to lcos. 50" Grand WEGA SXRD Rear Projection HDTVKDS-R50XBR1 If I had the dough this is what I would get |
|
Bronze Member Username: SaakethamPost Number: 31 Registered: Jul-05 | Plasma screens look much better compared to a similar-sized LCD or DLP set. Richer colors, lack of ghosting (unline LCD) and brighter than DLP. Some folks supposedly see the "rainbow effect" on DLP sets, due to the color wheel spinning. LCD has ghosting and would be my last choice. Plasmas are, IMHO, the way to go, if you can afford them. Be sure its HDTV and not just EDTV. |
|
Damonte Unregistered guest | Plasmas may have good quality, but it's comparable to many of the LCD, and DLP. They have come a long way, and many offer superior quality. Plasmas have shorter life spans, and you can expect quality to degrade after about 1 1/2 years of serious use. |
|
Silver Member Username: VindslPost Number: 263 Registered: Jul-04 | "...what's the true winner in types of HDTVs? DLP, LCD, or Plasma? There is no TRUE winner! That's why 'they' make so many different types of HDTVs. Some manufacturers even make several models of each type. After a while, this will all pan out. What the American market will finally settle for is the worst one of the bunch -- they always do. That's why DLP and plasma gas TVs are so popular with red-necks and other troglodytes... I don't know if you remember phonographs. The original standard called for 78.26 RPM. Then they knocked the speed down to 45 RPM, and eventually 33.5 RPM before its death. How about reel-to-reel tapes? Originally the speed was 30 IPS, then 15 IPS, then 7.5, 3.75, and finally 1.87. What did ppl finally settle for, before its death? Compact cassette tapes (originally made for voice recordings only). What do ppl use now? Compact Discs, which are sonically inferior to both reel-to-reel tapes and phonograph recordings, but cost only pennies to make. And, so it will go with HDTV. Take your pick. They'll get cheaper and crappier the longer you wait. That's why Americans are finally getting interested in them... |
|
L Cos Unregistered guest | LCOS is true winner hands down. Or will be when they make true 1080p. Not fake 1080p that sold now. They dont accept 1080p only convert 1080i to p. Dont know what a troglodyte is, but am sure they will buy LCOS true 1080p. |
|
Unregistered guest | Someone needs to tell 'Damonte' that computers are faster than P1 100 mhz now. That statement "you can expect quality to degrade after about 1 1/2 years of serious use" is an embarassment and complete garbage. It might have been true when 19" tv's were the largest they made, but the technological advances in the Plasma industry make these last 20 years or longer now. Let's just say you will have a new TV before you notice any degration. |
|
New member Username: Chris_dvorakMinneapolis, MN USA Post Number: 2 Registered: Oct-05 | I think it depends on what you are giing to do with it. I bought a 20" Sharp Aquous for around $800. This is a LCD HD set and it works great in our kitchen. |
|
New member Username: DjfixxxPost Number: 1 Registered: Nov-05 | Quote from VinDSL, Lenon.com "After a while, this will all pan out. What the American market will finally settle for is the worst one of the bunch -- they always do. That's why DLP and plasma gas TVs are so popular with red-necks and other troglodytes... I don't know if you remember phonographs. The original standard called for 78.26 RPM. Then they knocked the speed down to 45 RPM, and eventually 33.5 RPM before its death. How about reel-to-reel tapes? Originally the speed was 30 IPS, then 15 IPS, then 7.5, 3.75, and finally 1.87. What did ppl finally settle for, before its death? Compact cassette tapes (originally made for voice recordings only). What do ppl use now? Compact Discs, which are sonically inferior to both reel-to-reel tapes and phonograph recordings, but cost only pennies to make." Hey Lou, ever try puttin a Reel to Reel in your car. Ever try fittin' 50 Minutes of music on a 78 speed record? Are you goona knock Blue Ray disk when there out because they can hold 33 Gig instead of CD 780 Meg? Since you like livin in the Past I suggest you crawl back there |
|
Silver Member Username: VindslPost Number: 265 Registered: Jul-04 | "Since you like livin in the Past I suggest you crawl back there." Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not livin' in the past... I'm just saying Americans are stupid and go for low-quality. It's the American way! |
|
fx Unregistered guest | Curtis I see you have been exposed to the troll named Vin. He is pretty harmless as long he only voices his opinion. It is when he begins stating anything as a fact that you should become wary. He is very opinionated and confuses the fine line between reality and fantasy very easily. xvxvxvx |
|
neededarandomname Unregistered guest | Interested in a LCD screen and need to know if any of you, not NOT Vin, whether a Hitachi 50V500 is a good 1 to get. I have found it on Overstock and cheaper other places starting at 1,366.00 on up to 1,555.00. Any thoughts and comments are more than welcome. Again Vin you stay out of this one bud. Dont need any negativity. Buying a TV should be a joyious occasion...dick. |
|
el see dee Unregistered guest | no. the 50v500 is not good. if looking for lcd, the sony units are much better. if looking for the best blacks possible for lcd, a panny with a neutral density filter installed works miracles. the filter can be installed on a sony but is much harder |
|
Silver Member Username: VindslPost Number: 266 Registered: Jul-04 | Heh! Stupid is as stupid does... Good fun |
|
Silver Member Username: John_sColumbus, Ohio US Post Number: 497 Registered: Feb-04 | $1500 is not cheap enough for a two-year-old 50" model...even if it includes the stand for it. I agree with el see dee, the Sonys are better. I say this with some experience as I've owned a 50V500 for almost two years now. There are many things to recommend about this TV, but the fact remains the Hitachis have the weakest blacks in fixed pixel TVs. I would not consider one (the 50V500) for more than $1000 including S&H. If you still like LCDRPs (or LCoS) and you have the means, check out Sony's SXRDs. http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=898 |
|
Bronze Member Username: ReinhartPost Number: 41 Registered: Nov-05 | "I don't know if you remember phonographs. The original standard called for 78.26 RPM. Then they knocked the speed down to 45 RPM, and eventually 33.5 RPM before its death." Practical flat disc phonos started with 78 RPM shellac records. RCA Victor introduced the 45 RPM vinyl single while CBS introduced the 33 1/3 RPM vinyl LP record. Both were microgroove, significantly different from the 78s of yore. The two were defacto standards, one for singles and the other for full length albums, for decades until the advent of Compact Disc from Sony and Philips in 1982 (1983 for North America). The 45 and the LP were produced for different reasons by different companies. As for death, vinyl still enjoys a following, including the limited release of various albums, including those from what's popular today. Vinyl also sees use in the deejaying field, alongside CD. For instance, I have a 2001 45 RPM single of Enya's "May It Be" and "Only Time" from Reprise Records. (7-16719-A/7-16719-B, UPC 5439-16719) While it's easy to surmise at how a 33 1/3 microgroove LP may be inferior to a 78 at bandwidth due to rotation speed, microgroove LPs have the advantage of not suffering from rumble, which is inevitable with the high rotation speed and heavy tracking force used with 78 RPM records. "How about reel-to-reel tapes? Originally the speed was 30 IPS, then 15 IPS, then 7.5, 3.75, and finally 1.87. What did ppl finally settle for, before its death? Compact cassette tapes (originally made for voice recordings only)." You'd be surprised what you could do with CompactCassette, especially if you use a high quality metal bias cassette with a decent deck (preferrably a 3 head with bias calibration and a closed loop dual capstan) that has Dolby S, which is probably the best analogue compander ever devised yet. It's amazing that it works as well as it does, considering that it was originally designed for dictation purposes only. Of course, to realize the benefit with CompactCassette, you need a low coercivity tape, hence the preference for metal bias types or CrO2 hi-bias. So, you can record the higher frequency ranges without reaching saturation. "What do ppl use now? Compact Discs, which are sonically inferior to both reel-to-reel tapes and phonograph recordings, but cost only pennies to make." Even though Compact Discs do not suffer from wow and flutter as well as phase distortions. Even though CDs have superior SNR and dynamic range. Even though CDs have a response from 1 cycle all the way up to 22,050 cycles according to the 44.1 kHz sampling rate from the Nyquist Theorem. AND, despite the fact that proper digitalization results in NO LOSS of information at any time within the frequency bandwidth. Even though its method of modulation is simpler with fewer question marks concerning signal integrity. As for reel-to-reel, provided that you use a quality deck and a quality tape, you will get quality results matching or, with a fast enough linear speed and if the tape travel is stable enough, surpassing Compact Disc. But records, superior to CD? Please! For one thing, records are not capable of the bandwidth that CDs have due to practical reasons. The recording lathe used to cut the master disc for LPs and 45s have a ceiling of about 16 kHz to prevent the cutter head from overheating. Right there, you have a ceiling, which is one BIG limit to records. As for 78s, what good is the extra bandwidth if you have to contend with the other warts inherent in the other format? LPs cannot reproduce bass ranges in stereo and the bass is rolled off at a certain point to keep the groove shape under control during the cutting; a groove shape accomodating a bass sound lower than 40 cycles would more than likely cause a cantilever movement more than sufficient to knock the stylus out of the groove during playback. And, let's not forget that records must use compression (and I'm not talking about perceptual codecs, like MP3) to try and attempt to get a flat response out of them. Ever heard of the RIAA rolloff and equalization characteristics? So, you do the math. 40 Hz - 16 kHz for records with compression or 1 Hz - 22.05 kHz for CD without compression Plus, CDs can achieve a dynamic range with cheap equipment that is not possible on even the finest phonograph using the best tonearm and the best moving coil pickup alongside the best phono preamp playing a virgin vinyl pressing. You can only imagine how the sonud quality would be if you used a reference grade CD player with an excellent bitstream converter and a fully transistorized analogue section (as opposed to using opamps) that's playing a first class CD. The "airy" sound quality of records that many people tend to confuse as bandwidth are known as euphonic distortion, mainly brought about by the effects of the RIAA rolloff and equalization that's applied as well as phase irregularities that are inherent in records. I enjoy records myself and am not ashamed to admit that, but facts are facts. I can see how others denounce your posts as nonsense since that's what they are. You need to get YOUR facts straight, buster! - Reinhart |
|
Silver Member Username: VindslPost Number: 267 Registered: Jul-04 | "I can see how others denounce your posts as nonsense since that's what they are. You need to get YOUR facts straight, buster! - Reinhart" Yeah, okay, whatever you say 'fx'. That was pretty convincing. Next time, though, leave out the "buster" part... |
|
el see dee Unregistered guest | john s, excellent reference article on sony sxrd. cc had 60xbr1 on display today. no sde until nose close to screen. minimal tweaks produced superior picture. (only drawback was offset speakers to side). maximus01, this display just may end your search |
|
Silver Member Username: John_sColumbus, Ohio US Post Number: 498 Registered: Feb-04 | Kip: Why the harangue on analog vs. digital audio on a HDTV thread? Good post though, but you should move it so more people who care will see it. el cee dee: The Sony SXRD is the TV to buy this season. |
|
fx Unregistered guest | Vinny, YOU KNOW I CALL YOU AND YOUR FLOOR SWEEPER SON IDIOTS, NOT "BUSTER". YOU REALLY ARE PARANOID. WHY IS IT SO HARD TO BELIEVE THAT YOU KNOW LITTLE TO NOTHING ABOUT ELECTRONIC GEAR? Obviously others agree!! xvxvxvx |
|
Silver Member Username: VindslPost Number: 268 Registered: Jul-04 | Sheesh, fx, turn the caps off already... It was a good article, except for your hallmark personal attack[s]. Why don't you move it, like John S. said, where "people who care will see it"? |
|
Bronze Member Username: ReinhartPost Number: 66 Registered: Nov-05 | John S., It was a reply to one of VinDSL's posts discussing some of his opinions which had some errors, which indicated CD's inferiority to reel-to-reel tape and records. I'm of the belief that if you don't have a good grasp of the techologies you praise and deride, you shouldn't really pass a serious criticism. You should try to understand how something works, why it works, and how it compares to other things. Otherwise, it's an opinion borne from preference and bias, not knowledge and understanding. - Reinhart |
|
Silver Member Username: VindslPost Number: 269 Registered: Jul-04 | That's better -- no personal attacks -- MUCH more convincing! Look, I don't mind replying to a guy that's using 20 or more different nicks in the same forum, as long as he's clever about it, but it's kind of hard pretending I'm talking to 20 or more ppl when I KNOW it's the same guy... I'm wondering why you do this. The last time I ran across this situation, it was a Webmaster trying to liven-up his forums on a small-town web site. He was several guys, a few girls, a biker, a school principal, a realtor, yada, yada, yada. Who knows? Maybe it's the same deal here -- someone trying to keep these forums alive. That's cool! Really, I don't care, either way. I simply return insults in kind, but it's a lot more fun if you keep your 'characters' distinctly dissimilar. As far as CDs go, 'fx', yes, CDs (et al) contain a lot of DIGITAL information, but in order to extract that information properly, it takes a LOT of processing power, and you don't get that kind of processing power with a $200 CD player from Circuit City, or whatever. A good analogy would be the processing power of PCs -- some are fast, some are slow, some have great CPUs and terrific graphic chipsets, et cetera -- some just barely get you by... Check this out (picked at random): http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue17/ces05dc1.htm Pay particular attention to the Cary CD306 SACD I agree that there may be situations where CDs outshine vinyl -- such as a cheap 1 year-old Sony CD player vs. a 20 year-old Dual turntable, but... Anyway, my point is, Americans are more inclined to buy a $100 Sony CD player at Costco and think they're hot-sh!t, than plop down $6000 for a Cary at Paris Audio. Look at the link above and tell me -- How does that equipment compare to what you're running? I suggest, in the end, the American 'Yankee Doodle Dandy' buying public will settle for whatever HDTV is on sale at Sears... They always do! |
|
Bronze Member Username: ReinhartPost Number: 85 Registered: Nov-05 | "Look, I don't mind replying to a guy that's using 20 or more different nicks in the same forum, as long as he's clever about it, but it's kind of hard pretending I'm talking to 20 or more ppl when I KNOW it's the same guy..." Too bad I don't know what the heck you're talking about! It's amusing to me that you think I'm someone that you know. It should be embarrasing for you to sound like a fool to others not only because of your confusion, but also due to your confidence in it! Stop trying so hard to be "clever" with your rattlesnake mentality and understand that I am not the person who you think I am. Continue with your assumption and you'll only convince me that you're crazy. That makes you look less credible to me, which means that I may not take you very seriously in the future. "As far as CDs go, yes, CDs (et al) contain a lot of DIGITAL information, but in order to extract that information properly, it takes a LOT of processing power." Firstly, CDs contain MODULATED information, and only what was actually recorded: no more and no less. The inscription on CD is optical representing the mathematically modulated signal as opposed to being mechanical on vinyl to generate the cantilever oscillations, which is the only difference between info stored on vinyl and on a CD. In basic idea of the concept, albeit with different execution, it's the same: information is converted in a way that allows it to be recorded on a carrier unit for storage and playback. What makes the difference more important is which method of execution for carrying out the function is more robust and less prone to "interference?" But in the end, the modulated signal is always converted back into a line level electrical signal that can be amplified and then used to drive loudspeakers to reproduce the sound waves that were recorded. It is the sound waves, and nothing else provided that nothing caused a disruption in the process of demodulation, that you will hear at the end of the reproduction chain. As for what it takes to process the signal from a CD: all it takes is eight-fourteen demodulation of the read, CIRC error correction, oversampling, D/A conversion, and then analogue filtering. Typically, you have an LSI with a dedicated EFM demodulator and the CIRC engine to convert the EFM modulated data into its original 16-bit 44.1 kHz form. Then, it's sent to a digital oversampling filter which pushes the aliasing artifacts out of the audible range. Then, it's converted back to analogue. Then, the analogue section deals with rolling off the ultrasonic ranges that are present in a sound from a signal that was oversampled (it's not added aliasing noise that's being filtered but existing aliasing noise that was pushed into the ultrasonic range beyond the range of human hearing from oversampling, which is a better approach than not using oversampling and relying on brickwall filters to deal with filtering the aliasing noise). And, to reduce (if not eliminate) jitter, all parts are synchronized to one central quartz oscillator clock. For an LP, it takes the cantilever oscillations to produce weak sound waves to be picked up by the pickup and converted into a weak electrical signal where it's sent to a preamp to amplify it to line level and then it goes through a filter that applies an equalization curve to undo the RIAA compression. Anyways, for D/A conversion, processing power is not a factor as a competently designed digital section will handle the task with aplomb. And, it doesn't have to be that powerful as it only has ONE task to perform according to a single strict specification known as the redbook standard. A CD player digital section does not have to be like a personal computer, which is why your analogy comparing a CD player to computers has more holes in it than a backyard full of gophers and is ultimately irrelevant. All your explanation shows is your level of knowledge, which is either lacking or provided by those who push snake oil products or CD players with overkill. Anyways, in terms of D/A conversion, execution of that conversion is important. I prefer the bitstream "pulse density modulation" approach as it's done "bit by bit" at high speed instead of doing things in groups of bits using a multi-bit configuration. It's simplicity solves potential problems with dynamic range since an inaccuracy in how the data words are processed can cause problems with how amplitudes are reproduced with the frequencies. Remember, in simple terms: in full digitalization of PCM, sampling rate records frequency while quantization records amplitude. If anything, the biggest weakpoint in a CD player is more likely to be the analogue section, not the digital section. Most CD players have good digital sections but ruin it with a cheap and lousy analogue section composed of low cost electrolytic capacitors, muting transistors, and jellybean opamps like the Japan Radio NJM4560. "Pay particular attention to the Cary CD306 SACD" Yes, with a 768 kHz rate for redbook, which means the player has roughly 17.4 times oversampling. In other words: overkill. You don't need that much aliasing headroom for a 44.1 kHz signal! It's almost laughable that the player in question has it for redbook! The better benefit to that CD player, as usual with some (but not all) upper tier players, is likely going to be a well designed and constructed analogue section and not the digital section. "I agree that there may be situations where CDs outshine vinyl -- such as a cheap 1 year-old Sony CD player vs. a 20 year-old Dual turntable, but... " Even though I specifically mentioned in the post I had written before that a cheap CD player could outperform the finest turntable having the finest tonearm and the finest pickup with the finest preamp. I do not think a Dual turntable is something that qualifies as "the finest," especially if you're thinking of something that's idler driven as opposed to being belt driven or direct drive. "Look at the link above and tell me -- How does that equipment compare to what you're running?" It's likely not as good. But, you know what? I've got to work with what I can actually afford. I don't have a money tree, after all. Budget is THE BIGGEST limiting factor. I purchased some of my equipment used to get as much quality as possible for little money. Some of the equipment I have were acquired broken and I repaired them by myself. It also helped that I have good knowledge about this hobby so I could make some good choices and avoid ripoffs. For my audio sources and amplificaiton, I use Sony ES components (STR-DA4ES, CDP-X229ES, TC-K707ES) with exception of my turntable (Sony PS-X600 Biotracer). The only thing that's newer is my receiver. My CD player, tape deck, and turntable are vintage, with my cassette deck being 11 years old, CD player being 12 years old, and turntable being about 22 years old. I modified the CD player slightly, replacing the stock Texas Instruments NE5532 with Burr-Brown OPA-2604 opamps in the analogue section. Sure, it's not the finest, but it works extremely well, seems to be very reliable (although the receiver had one problem that was fixed under warranty with no problem), and is a darn shade better than anything found at a "Best Buy." If you wanted snobbery from me in regards to my gear: you can only find Sony ES at licensed dealers that also sell some of the stuff that you are praising. Sony ES does have some exclusivity in this case. Plus, I also love that 5 year warranty (and it certainly helped when my receiver required service one time about a year ago). "I suggest, in the end, the American 'Yankee Doodle Dandy' buying public will settle for whatever HDTV is on sale at Sears... They always do!" And they always have. My question to you on that matter is: "So, what?" What can you do to change that? Furthermore, how does that give you the right to be a jerk to others about it? At least be happy that there is an industry for those who appreciate quality and want decent mid-fi and hi-fi equipment. But, in defense of some of those HDTVs for sale at a department store, there are, believe it or not, some decent sets there that are better than you think, especially Sony. Sometimes, you don't have to pay exorbitant amounts of money to obtain appreciable quality: you only have to know the difference between a good buy and a cheap buy. Granted, there are people who don't know. That's what informing others are for, hence these forums. - Reinhart |
|
Silver Member Username: VindslPost Number: 270 Registered: Jul-04 | Whatever! Look, 'fx' et al, go buy a big gas plasma TV at Walmart, and call it a day. That's the 'best' TV made, now that your fascination with DLP is over... Next topic!?!?! |
|
Jim Lowrie Unregistered guest | Next topic is the new sony sxrd. I have a basic question about the signal staying digital or converted to analog at some point. Now, the dlp keeps the signal all digital and the lcd rear projection converts the signal to analog (which does not imply this lessens the quality of the signal). What does the sxrd do? Does it stay all digital or is there digital to analog at some point? Is there a basic answer w/o getting into semantics of "digital" or which is better? I am just trying to learn the basics of the different technologies. Thanks, JL |
|
Silver Member Username: ReinhartPost Number: 112 Registered: Nov-05 | "Look, 'fx' et al, go buy a big gas plasma TV at Walmart, and call it a day. That's the 'best' TV made, now that your fascination with DLP is over..." I'm insulted that you suggest that I buy a television from Wal-Mart. IMO, that's the absolute last place anyone should go to for their electronics since all they stock are the lowest end from only a small handful of major brands (most of which should not even be in the business, like RCA) as well as their own crap under their "Durabrand" and "iLo" names. And, to add further insult to injury, I'm not at all impressed with DLP and prefer to stick with calibrated Trinitron direct view CRTs. You are quite paranoid for thinking that I'm someone else. BTW, if you are so confident that I am this "FX" fellow, PROVE IT! Why I am asking you to do this? Because if you bothered to check up on my screen name, including my posting history throughout eCoustics so far, you'd see that your accusation is unfounded and that you will SHUT THE HECK UP about it! - Reinhart |
|
Silver Member Username: ReinhartPost Number: 113 Registered: Nov-05 | "Next topic is the new sony sxrd. I have a basic question about the signal staying digital or converted to analog at some point. Now, the dlp keeps the signal all digital and the lcd rear projection converts the signal to analog (which does not imply this lessens the quality of the signal). What does the sxrd do? Does it stay all digital or is there digital to analog at some point? Is there a basic answer w/o getting into semantics of "digital" or which is better? I am just trying to learn the basics of the different technologies. Thanks, JL" First off, DLP does have a conversion into analogue: it's when the image gets projected to the screen. Secondly, even if something incurs a conversion in the interim between reception and display, it's more important that the implementation is proper and allows a high quality image to show up on the display in the first place. In this regard, do a side-by-side comparison between a DLP and an SXRD LCD and make your decision there. - Reinhart |
|
Silver Member Username: VindslPost Number: 271 Registered: Jul-04 | "You are quite paranoid for thinking that I'm someone else." Fair enough! Let's analyze you... How many ppl do you think have participated in this thread, so far? Assuming you're for real, I count four. If you think there are more than that, you're a fool... |
|
Anonymous | "I count four." Wha? I count sixteen. |
|
Anonymous | "I count four." Wha? I count sixteen. |
|
Silver Member Username: VindslPost Number: 272 Registered: Jul-04 | Yeah, you don't run across this situation very often. In all my years of doing this BBS/Web Board stuff, I've only encountered a person like this twice... "multiple personality, a very rare psychological disorder in which a person has two or more distinct personalities, each with its own thoughts, feelings, and patterns of behavior. The personalities often are direct opposites and dominate at different times, with abrupt transitions triggered by distressful events or memories. Each may be entirely unaware of the other but aware of unexplained gaps in remembered time. In psychiatry the condition is known as dissociative identity disorder." |
|
Anonymous | Look at it this way, he can deduct himself twice at tax time. |
|
Silver Member Username: VindslPost Number: 273 Registered: Jul-04 | Yeah, go ahead and make a joke of it... You need help, my friend! |
|
Silver Member Username: ReinhartPost Number: 121 Registered: Nov-05 | You can believe whatever you want to. I think you're either paranoid or just annoying. Perhaps you're both. You remind me of a television character who shall remain nameless. Let's just say that he was a heartless, paranoid, ferret-faced jerk who had no business being a surgeon and was replaced by a better character much later on in the series. Anyways, what I find most amusing is that you are giving a diagnosis about me, even though you don't know me, have never met me, and are likely not a licensed psychiatrist and do not have any expertise or experience in the field short of reading up on internet journals on the subject and taking disorder descriptors from Wikipedia. Maybe the bigger reason as to why you are resorting to such childish evasion is that you cannot directly and effectively counter my posts that pointed out the fallicies in your posts. So, instead of admitting what is obvious to everyone here besides yourself, you choose to counter by sidestepping the argument and accuse me of being some other person with a false identity and even a disorder. You think I'm some other guy. I even gave you a suggestion in my previous post (that you replied to, by the way, when you quoted a line from that very same post) that would help you to try and prove it and it seems obvious that you didn't even take it. Maybe it's because you've tried and found that I'm not this person, yet you wish to continue with this charade? If anything, YOU are the one that needs help, "Dr." VinDSL. Grow some balls and deal with the fact that you are wrong and have become so bitter about it that you cannot post on-topic and would rather just post insults and a "diagnosis" to try and get back at me. You should stop being irrational and deal with your problems in this regard like a sensible adult. A good first step would be for you to leave this topic alone since it's obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about and have no grasp of the concepts involved with the technology that is the focus of the discussion. - Reinhart |
|
Silver Member Username: VindslPost Number: 274 Registered: Jul-04 | LoL! Guess we're back to three now... |
|
Silver Member Username: ReinhartPost Number: 134 Registered: Nov-05 | "LoL! Guess we're back to three now... " Hopefully that means that you will stop trolling and will be leaving. If not, then I'll just simply ignore you unless you make a post that tries to mislead other people. - Reinhart |
|
Nigel the Pigeon Unregistered guest | kip aint even an american. so he cant be fx |
|
Silver Member Username: VindslPost Number: 275 Registered: Jul-04 | I'll just simply ignore you... Really? All of 'you'? |
|
fx Unregistered guest | Really? All of 'you'? I'm still here for you vinny boy. Glad to see you are still making a fool of yourself. I would expect no less. Why haven't you acknowledged your ignorance of all things electronic yet? You are so stubborn vinny boy. Get well soon, xvxvxvx |
|
Silver Member Username: ReinhartPost Number: 149 Registered: Nov-05 | "kip aint even an american. so he cant be fx" I was born in Texas and currently live in Florida. I think I'm a legal American. ;-) - Reinhart |
|
Silver Member Username: ReinhartPost Number: 150 Registered: Nov-05 | "Really? All of 'you'?" Just one of me since that's all I am: me. As for you, well. You seem too narrow to be anymore than just one simpleton. - Reinhart |
|
Jim Lowrie Unregistered guest | Whoa. What happened to this thread? Basically my question is on the sxrd technology. I know dlp uses micro mirrors and lcd uses lcd panels where the light shines through. To me both look good. Everyone tells me sxrd has the benefits of both. How exactly does it work (in not too complicated an explanation) as the people at the retail stores admit they do not really know. JL |
|
Silver Member Username: ReinhartPost Number: 178 Registered: Nov-05 | This may help in explaining SXRD. http://www.ultimateavmag.com/videoprojectors/504sony/index6.html And, I personally think Sony kicks @$$ when it comes to displays. For instance, I'd rather have an XBR Trinitron than a Loewe. - Reinhart |
|
Wooly Unregistered guest | Would anyone care to comment on "fake 1080p?" Quote from soundandvisionmag.com link (SXRD): "Rather than sacrificing resolution, it delivers the same progressive-scan 1,920 x 1,080-pixel (1080p) pictures as the 006..." I've also read a brief review claiming that this TV was incapable of displaying a true 1080p signal. Is this true? Does it just upsample 1080i signals? And if so, is there a noticeable difference between an upsampled 1080i signal, and a true 1080p signal? Thanks. |
|
Jim Lowrie Unregistered guest | Kip, thank you for the link. That was exactly what I was looking for. JL |
|
Silver Member Username: John_sColumbus, Ohio US Post Number: 519 Registered: Feb-04 | "Next topic is the new sony sxrd. I have a basic question about the signal staying digital or converted to analog at some point. Now, the dlp keeps the signal all digital and the lcd rear projection converts the signal to analog (which does not imply this lessens the quality of the signal). What does the sxrd do? Does it stay all digital or is there digital to analog at some point? Is there a basic answer w/o getting into semantics of "digital" or which is better? I am just trying to learn the basics of the different technologies. Thanks, JL" A reader in the latest "The Perfect Vision" magazine (Dec. '05) writes in to ask that if there's digital to analog conversion occurring in any fixed pixel TV, then just what constitutes a "digital" TV. Video Editor Scott Wilkinson replies: "In one sense, only DLP and plasma are truly digital, because the pixels alternate rapidly between two states, on and off, in response to a purely digital signal. Different levels of brightness are achieved by changing the amount of time each pixel is on and off during each frame. By contrast, LCD and LCoS vary the brightness of each pixel be increasing or decreasing an electrical voltage, which allows more or less light to pass through the panel.* This is an inherently analog process, even though the voltages are controlled by digital signals and varied in discrete steps, which means these display technologies are digital in practical terms. Thus, receiving a digital video signal is better for LCD and LCoS sets, because they don't have to convert an analog signal to digital before using it to control pixel-voltages. In my experience, a DVI or HDMI signal generally yields better picture quality than a component-video signal on any fixed-pixel display, be it LCD, LCoS, DLP, or plasma--all of which I consider to be digital." *This statement is not quite accurate as the light is reflected off an LCoS panel rather than through it as with LCD. This does not change the Mr. Wilkinson's basic point here, however. |
|
Jim Lowrie Unregistered guest | Excellent article, John S. I was having trouble grasping the basics of "analog" and "digital" processes in these new technologies. Thank you for lifting the veil of confusion. JL |
|
Silver Member Username: ReinhartPost Number: 200 Registered: Nov-05 | Although, if we were to disregard the technical and be philosophical, all processes ultimately convert something that's digital or analogue (and ultimately beyond our range of perception) into a humanly perceptible state. The image that's perceived by your eyes is what it would look like in the signal's completely demodulated form. The final conversion is from the electrical signal into pixel patterns to manipulate the emmission from the light source in regards to transmissive and reflective projection systems. Ultimately, digital or not, the result is what you can see and/or hear when it works. - Reinhart |
|
Joeman Unregistered guest | Wooly, There is no such thing as a 1080p signal. As it does not yet exist, TV's that are capable need to resample to 1080i. /JMAN |
|
Wooly Unregistered guest | Thanks JMAN. I guess what I'd like to know is what the new 50"/60" SXRD sets will display when given a true 1080p signal (when it becomes available). I've read that it can't accept a 1080p signal on any of its inputs. Does this mean a 1080p signal simply can't be displayed on this set? Or will some conversion take place allowing the TV to display the content in 1080i? As an example, suppose the Playstation 3 has 1080p HDMI outputs. If I hook the PS3 up to an SXRD's HDMI input (only capable of 1080i?), will I see anything? Or will I just see a blank screen? If you can't tell, I'm new to all this, so thanks for bearing with me... |
|
Silver Member Username: John_sColumbus, Ohio US Post Number: 529 Registered: Feb-04 | Although, if we were to disregard the technical and be philosophical, all processes ultimately convert something that's digital or analogue (and ultimately beyond our range of perception) into a humanly perceptible state. The image that's perceived by your eyes is what it would look like in the signal's completely demodulated form. The final conversion is from the electrical signal into pixel patterns to manipulate the emmission from the light source in regards to transmissive and reflective projection systems. Ultimately, digital or not, the result is what you can see and/or hear when it works. - Reinhart Congratulations Mr. Reinhart, this is some of the best gobeldegook prose I've seen on this forum. Of course, what the eye and ear percives in the human brain is "analog", but it doesn't mean the signal path before isn't, or cannot be, digital. |
|
Silver Member Username: ReinhartPost Number: 216 Registered: Nov-05 | "Congratulations Mr. Reinhart, this is some of the best gobeldegook prose I've seen on this forum." Thanks ... I guess. "Of course, what the eye and ear percives in the human brain is "analog", but it doesn't mean the signal path before isn't, or cannot be, digital." Of course. But, the point I was trying to make is that everything for storage and transmission is modulated, whether it be digital or analogue. And, it has to be demodulated if we want to make sense of that information again. The cycle is a signal that's recorded and/or transmitted and then later reproduced. - Reinhart |
|
Silver Member Username: John_sColumbus, Ohio US Post Number: 533 Registered: Feb-04 | Well, I guess there's modulation and then there's...modulation. As with wine, women and song, some's better than others. |
|
Silver Member Username: ReinhartPost Number: 226 Registered: Nov-05 | True. Basic idea is always the same. The difference, however, is always in execution. It's this execution that makes the difference in which is better and worse. - Reinhart |
|
New member Username: KmcoolOrlando, Fl USA Post Number: 5 Registered: Nov-05 | This seems to be a lively thread, since there was no response for my other post. please advise: I am new to Home Theater and a DIY'er, Can anyone tell me the difference in the Sony KDF-70-XBR950 and the Sony KDS-70CQ006-70" LCOS. The pictures on both look the same to me, but there is a 6k difference in price with the XBR being less costly. Looking at all the DPL's, Plasma and LCD, 60" and above, the Sony has the best picture in my opinion. If anyone can offer suggestions and/or opinions, it would be a big help. Any owners of these sets could offer insight into, bulb life, customer service and satisfaction. |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics