I just helped a friend of mine hook up a new TH-42PD50U this weekend and I can vouch for the fact that it is a stunning TV. He got it because he doesn't see himself getting HD service any time in the next 18-24 months and figures that it will take at least that long (probably 2x) before HD DVD players and content are in the market. In the mean time, the 480p content he watches will kick major ass.

 

But the real question is, why would you buy a ED setup when HD is the emerging standard? It just doesn't make financial sense to buy a TV that you're going to have to upgrade in a couple years to make use of HD broadcasts.

 

Even with HD content, the difference in PQ is marginal at best. I viewed a 42" ED and HD Panasonic commercial display side by side. I could barely tell a difference on HD content, and on SD content, the ED was clearly better.

 

I don't think you understand what ED and HD are. a ED set can accept HD content, it just displays it with different pixels. The current HD sets cannot accept TRUE HD content. In a few years you will have to buy TV's that support 1080p anyway. Why waste the extra money now on a HD set, buy an ED and then when 1080p becomes the standard, upgrade to a different set.

 

I think some people are getting confused that ED and HD are two different types of signals sent to your TV. ED and HD are just different resolution sizes. Going from ED to HD is like going from 800x600 on your monitor to 1280x1024. The numbers for ED and HD are different, but its the same principal. Then there are different versions of HD, 720i,1080i and 1080p. 1080p is what the standard will be eventually, I believe that is 1920x1200 or something like that. None of the current tv's (well sub10k) display that.

 

720p, 1080i, 1080p down the road... I'm just being lazy asking this, but are they ever going to stop? Where are the FCC standards in this? Or did the FCC only mandate that HD equipment has to be capable of upscaling/downscaling the different signals? Again, I'm just being lazy. I'm not in the market so I haven't done the research.

 

This is starting to look like that most complicated watch in the world thread.

 

i have no idea to tell you the truth. i dont really follow this stuff that much. i was just in the market for a couple new tv's so i did some research.

 

what the fuck are you talking about? we are trying to save the guy some money and at the same time get him a better product. i am also trying to answer a few misconceptions some people had about HD content.

 

Man...I was joking. I should really start putting in those signs. Im sorry if you felt offended, my actions were uncalled for.

 

I think the last I heard, 1080p won't be broadcast until 2009. Call me crazy but if I were buying a set today, I'd want it to be able to display the best image possible with today's technology.

 

I will try this again. HD does not mean better picture quality then ED. It only means larger resolution.

 

My parents just bought some 42" Panasonic Plasma ED set, and I think it looks pretty hot. But I don't know anything about these newfangeled things.

 

Whatever makes you happy.

Why even make HD TV's then? Why would anyone buy an ED TV to display an HD signal?

 

Are you listening to anything I am saying? Did I say ED means better picture? No, a HD set CAN have better picture quality, just like an ED set CAN have better picture quality. It all depends on a number of things.

 

Right, which leads me back to my orignal point: If you're buying a TV to watch HD shows, buy an HDTV. Which of course is what wsklar has done until you tried to convince him otherwise. I agree that EDTV's are better for standard definition broadcasts because that's what they're designed to do.

 

This is like talking to a wall. There is very little if no difference between ED and HD if you sit ~8 feet away. I tried to convince wsklar to buy a TV that has better picture quality for both HD and SD content.

 

Fine, we'll leave it at that. wsklar, if you want a set that looks good from 8 feet away, go with the one that Jarod recomends.

 

wsklar, if you want the best set for your money that looks better then the HD set you picked out and cost 1000 less, buy the one i reccomend and buy a samsung HTIB with a dvd player and save another 1,000. then ditch the cable/surge protectors and save another 1k.

 

wow, JarodL you really don't know what you're talking about. EDTV is 704x480 resolution, an EDTV set CANNOT display a HDTV signal because HD content is 720p or 1080i currenlty. 480p is not a HDTV standard. In order for your EDTV to display the content of a HD signal, it would have to downconvert the signal, which immeadeately brings about a loss in quality.

You claim to have seen an EDTV set running alongside a HDTV set with the EDTV set looking better, theres a couple explanations for this:
1. You were NOT looking at an HD signal on either TV (most likely)
2. The HDTV set sucked or ran at a non-standard resolution (many LCD models do this)
3. You're half blind

what exactly makes your EDTV set so great? Color reproduction? Contrast? Whatever advantage you think it has, the manufacturer probably has a HDTV version that has those advantages PLUS the increased resolution.

Also spending thousands on a TV that looks better for SD signals is really stupid at this point IMO. HDTV content has been slow to build but its always increasing

 

Meh...Hes the watch aficianado

 

higher resolution = better quality... am I wrong?

 

at what happened after I went to sleep.....

Ok, so the ED model may look better for analog signal, thats fine. I still think that HD content will look better on the HD (Actually I know it would) and the hope is more and more channels will be brodcast in HD in the future.

I will do some more research today.

Also - no fighting kids

 

I believe you have a $500 or $1000 (I can't remember) acceptance limit, so if you go over this, you'll have to upgrade to the business class account.

btw. that is going to be an awesome setup!

 

All I have to say about this discussion is that my cock is HUGE. (bigger and more detailed looking on HD than ED)

 

I can see that fucking thing from 8 MILES away, fuck 8 feet!!!

 

Thanks, one of the more helpful posts.

 

I guess you failed to see the humor in that one.

 

The TV is fine... The one thing I will caution on the audio side...


Anything, and I mean ANYTHING can sound good in a high-end audio store. So what may have sounded awesome in the store, may not sound all that hot at home. Those rooms are specifically desgined to produce the richest sounds possible.

I know nothing about the audio stuff you bought, unfortunately. But there are some very sharp people here who do, namely ShawnS.

 

Nice setup Wsklar.

Take pics when its all installed.

 

JarodL - I do appreciate the help and I do understand that you are trying to save me money which by the way

I plan on watching HDTV content from about 10-12 feet away from the set and I budgeted about 3K for a TV, so I am fairly comfortable with the TV decision (nobody has said nor have I read that the HD Panasonic is a bad set).

I agree that the Yamaha is not going to reproduce surround as well as a true 5.1. I disagree that a pair of bookshelf speakers will sound better or produce better surround sound then the Yamaha. As I said, my wife is dictating this decision by not wanted holes and speakers in the family room (I am sure I am not the only married guy in this boat). It tok a lot of convincing to allow the sub As far as cost, it's about a wash:
Yamaha DSP - 1300
Subwoofer - 300
DVD Player - 300
vs.
5 Speakers - 600
Subwoofer - 300
Amp / Receiver - 600
DVD Player - 300

The Remote is expensive, but I need something that my mother and wife can operate and Tweeter fully programs it.

I fully agree that the cables and power protection could be cheaper, but I am spening about 6K is the components and I don't feel that I should go to Tweeter and say, "Give me the cheap cables". Plus as I said there is a lot of distance between components, so I know better cable is needed.

JarodL - The people you know who returned the Yamaha DSP, do you know why? Was the sound really that bad? It sounded good at the store?

 

No I saw it and I wasn't being sarcastic....

 

my father bought a sony edtv for a spec house he's building; the picture isn't as good as my sony hd tv's, and i've tested most formats.

 

Your wife doesn't want holes....how much does Tweeter charge for hardwiring? (I'm sure it's insane, but it sure does look good) Did you ask?

 

But I can only go by what my ears heard. I am not an audiophile, I am just trying a compromise of sound and astethics.

 

Yes Sir

 

If I had a chance with the wife , it would be with the in-wall speakers (you would just see the grills), but the cost of that install was a lot higher then the DSP.

 

You should get some Wilson X-1's if you want stealth:




I think they use the same angled sides as the F-117 Nighthawk so they won't set off your wife's wifedar.

 

Those wll be great for the times I want to wake up Dom(n)'s baby from NJ......

 

Most spouses’ that are against the “look” of a surround system are imagining monster 3FT tall cabinets housing 15” woofers.
It’s just not like that today.
A good quality system with 5 1/4” or 6” drivers will do fine with a good Subwoofer taking care of all the Bass.
If your wife saw a nice set of hardwood from someone like B&W or Energy I bet she would change her mind.
And I guarantee that a set of five properly placed small speakers w/sub will sound better then 42 tweeters haphazardly firing from one spot front/center of the room.

But apparently you value the opinion of a salesman that’s working on commission more then someone who’s been setting up A/V systems for myself and friends and family for nearly 20-years now.
So I’ll shut up now.