Shawn S

I bet this guy does NOT let his wife tell him what he can/cannot buy……….

Dan Martin

^^^ probably doesn't have a wife

Whiskers

The guilt, the guilt. We saw small nice speakers, but she wasn't into it. She is the money maker and I am just happy to have something better then my 14 inch B&W Emerson that it's replacing .

Whiskers

Yeah, I was about to say that that man is old and alone and all he has is his gigantic speaker.

Dan Martin

I don't think he's disagreeing that a 5.1 system will sound better, he just said that his wife doesn't want speakers everywhere.

I'm running just two Klipsch RB-5 speakers and an RW-12 sub in my home theater but I'll probably buy some surround speakers and a center one day.

Edit: wsklar beat me on the reply.

dom

wsklar's life is funny.

Whiskers

Right, I am sure that a 5.1 system would sound better. But there is a market for the DSPs for people like me. If it gets installed and I think it sounds worse that the TV speaker, I will return it.

Whiskers

If I told you that we will really are just going watch Elmo and Big Bird all the time on the 9K project, you would really laugh....

Well, it's true

Dan Martin

That's exactly what I would do.

You can't really tell how something sounds until you have it set up in your home.

dom

I'll be sure to save the electronics equipment upgrades until the kid is in his teens and has no interest in his parents then.

I wish my wife made more than me. If she did I'd be staying home with the kid for a year instead of her.

Whiskers

Work > Staying home with an under 1 year old
Work < Staing home with an over 1 year old

SiGGy

This is what jrod is trying to say...

The "HD" (it's not) plasma monitor your looking at has a native resolution of 1024 x 768. Which comes to a aspect of 1.33. 1.33 is the aspect ratio of a square TV. That means your TV is doing nasty/bad things to make the picture wide, it's not a true 16:9 picture. It's a 4:3 (square) pic stretched to be 16:9

Both STD TV and widescreen DVDs will look bad on this TV. Especially when compared to a TV which does have a native resoltion that is 16:9

A 16:9 picture has a aspect of 1.78.

Your 1.33 to 1.78 is WAY off. The TV will have to distort a 16:9 picture to make it match the 1024x768 "HD" resolution. 1.33 is a 4:3 (square) TV, so you have a 4:3 resolution stretched to fit a 16:9 screen. BAD!

Picture quality on the ED will look better because it's native resolution is 16:9 resolution.

So in the end, with the "HD" model your looking at the ED will look better.

FYI

The 2 16:9 HD video modes used today...
720p= 1280x720 1.77 ratio
1080i=1920x1080 1.77 ratio

Your TV is 1024x768 Still doesn't match even the lowest HD resolution. Not to mention it isn't 16:9 compliant. You have a 4:3 picture which is stretched to 16:9 for EVERYTHING.

I don't suggest buying that TV at all.

Whiskers

Guys, can you point me to some reviews or articles on this? The TH-42PD50U
is $2500 at Best Buy compared to the HD which is $3100.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....=1099392081954

http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Panas...oductDetail.do

Dan Martin

Good point SiGGy.

Sorry wsklar, I thought you were getting a 1280x720 screen. You should probably reconsider that set.

rise

Here's some reviews on the yamaha ysp:
http://search.ecoustics.com/a.php?search=yamaha+ysp

Python2121

chill, i think he is just trying to talk about how unbellivably complex the HD standards are. HD is by far the most complex set of standards of any consumer electronics, and there aren't even any standards. even with a pretty technical background it takes a while to catch on, i dont understand how mortals are supposed to figure it out

Davediego

good catch Siggy, wsklar definitely do NOT get a tv that isn't 16x9 or that isnt a standard resolution. Have you looked at the latest DLP sets from Samsung? I've read they're supposed to be the best things out this year.

Whiskers

Ok what am I missing...

TH-42PD50U - ED (JarodL recommended)
http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs...s&displayTab=S

Native Resolution (Number of Pixels) = 852 x 480

vs.

TH-42PX50U - HD
http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs...s&displayTab=S

Native Resolution (Number of Pixels) = 1024 x 768

1024 x 768 > 852 x 480 Right.

None I the models I saw have 1280x720, at least in the 3K price range.

I went to the stores during lunch and everyone I spoke to says to ge HD over ED. By the end of the year Comcast will have over 100 HD channels. They did say that non HD content may look better on a ED because the ED can handle the analog signal better, but since I will have this for years, I would think I would kick myself not getting HD.

Whiskers

The DLPs wont hang on a wall.....

Whiskers

From their website.....


Aspect Ratio 16:9 (Widescreen)

Whiskers

Mixed but expected.

PHUNBALL

What is so complex about this setup?

Whiskers

Here is Best Buys list of TV's.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....cat33900050026

Of the 42's - Only the Sharp has anything higher then 1024 x 768 and it's $6,999.99

SiGGy

Your totally missing what im saying...

ok..

1024x768 = 1.33 aspect ratio, which is the same as a 4:3 TV (i.e. square)
BUT it's widescreen? HOW THE HELL DOES THAT WORK? everything is going to look jacked on that TV.

852x480= 1.77 aspect ratio, which is true 16:9. This will display a true 16:9 picture /wo any stretching or image manipulation. UNLIKE the 1024x768 TV your looking at.

basically 1024x768 will ONLY work correcly on a SQUARE TV. 1024x768 is NOT a widescreen resoltuon. It's a 4:3 square TV resolution.

852x480 is designed to be widescreen, it's a 16:9 resolution.

That TV is 1024x768 it's NOT HD. it's more like EED. Sure it's slightly better than EDTV but at a 1.33 aspect ratio? Thats totally whacked. PASS ON THAT!

Yes, go HD over ED. But not at 1024x768 on a widescreen. Thats resoution is designed for a 4:3 screen (square). Your screen is 16:9 (wide rectangle) if you were buying a square tv i'd say 1024x768 is fine. But the manufacturer stretched 1024x768 onto a widescreen. Thats just TOTALY wrong.

1024x768 is not HD. Find a 1280x720 or a 1920x1080 HW monitor then your talking HD.

do you see what im trying to say?

edited, please re-read

Whiskers

Mainly the fact that the AV components (Cable, DVD, etc) will be on the far side of the room, which is about 20 feet. They will need to go into the basement or garage to run the cables. They also need to calibrate the DSP and of course they setup the components and program the remote.

blumpkin

yea, i dont understand that either

edit: okay, but it still doesn't seem complex--- maybe the calibration

Dan Martin

Hmmm, that might just be a limitation of plasma screens right now.

That sharp does sound pretty sexy though.

SiGGy

no, there are widescreen HD plasmas made with correct 16:9 resolutions. They are much more $$$$.

That "HD" TV is a hack, it's resolution is 4:3 yet on a 16:9 screen. And it claims to be HD, but it really falls short... especially since most HD content today is 1920x1080. It can only display 50% of a HD signal...

He'd be better off buying the EDTV than the "HD" one. Picture will look better on the EDTV.

doopstr

How about a nice UPS for less money than those surge things? Can a UPS power a plasma or do they take too much power?

Also, IMO spending a lot of money on cables is just

A lot of dudes on AVSForum swear by the ED Plasma because it can display SD content better.

Are you worried about burn in?

I hear that even the new plasmas can burn in those stupid network logos and the CNBC ticker.

Whiskers

I think the confusion may be because the size of the TV. This is a 42 inch TV.

I can only find 1 or 2 sets that have higher then 1024x768 and they are about 7K.

Also, isn't HD broadcasts 1024x768? Why would that be streched? And for the non HD (what little there is) I can either stretch it or it's it's bad, I can make it a square and have the black borders on either side.

SiGGy, what TV would you recommend which is 42 inch, flat and around 3K?

Whiskers

Yes, a lot more money....

If the HD TV is a hack, then I guess a lot of people are falling for it, because a lot of people are buying plasmas at the 3K-4K mark.

I can't find any evidence that HD content would look better on an EDTV compared to HDTV.

Whiskers

The Sharp is lottery money....

As I said, The HD Panasonic seems to be on par with others and call me crazy, but I know I will regret getting an ED over HD in the longrun.

SiGGy

I dont mean to be rude, but I have spelled this out 3 times now.

1024x768 is NOT a HD resolution.

99% of HD content is 1920x1080

Do the math. It's < 50% of HD resolution.

1024x768 is NOT 16:9, PERIOD. But it's being displayed as 16:9 that is INHERRITANTLY wrong.

Buy the EDTV, or spend the $$ and get a REAL HD plasma. Don't buy that hack middle of the line POS.

Whiskers

Burn in

PHUNBALL

I installed my Hitachi 42HDT51 Plasma (wall mounting and running all of the cables through the wall). Maybe I just have a different perspective...

SiGGy

for the 38290389028390289038290832372738979042789047894892 04.1^8932890320 time it's NOT, NOT HD.

It's a hack, and it's a whacked 4:3 resolution crammed into a 16:9 screen.

I can't repeat myself any more...

Good luck with the purchase...

Your the standard person purchasing, you have hard facts in front of you.

But you keep saying it says "HD", but I keep trying to show you it's a hack. Welcome to the world of marketing...

Either pony up the $$ and buy a REAL HD plasma, or get the EDTV. Or be sold on marketing, get the "HD" monitor you are looking at. And enjoy the worse picture than the ED one has...

Scrib

why not get a nice DLP and be done with it?

SiGGy

JarodL

Is english your first language? How many times do Siggy, Shawn S and I have to explain this to you. The Panasonic model you are looking at is NOT true HD. The ED TV will look better for HD content and SD.

The ED TV has a prettier picture then the HD... Is that easy enough?????

PHUNBALL

There are not any PLASMA's I know of that have a native resolution of 1920x1080. Even my Hitachi 42HDT51 has a native resolution of 1024x1024, but displays 1080i HD content like a champ. Even the most expensive Pioneer Elite on the market does not have a native resolution that high.