Is it worth buying a new TV?

[admin_exported]

I saw the glowing What Hi-Fi review of the Sony 40EX503 so went along to my local Sony Centre to have a look at it. Looked great on HD. So I asked the salesman (lovely bloke, credit to the trade) if I could see it in SD - after all much of my TV viewing will be SD for some time to come. My jaw dropped; it looked horrible and nowhere near as good as my old Toshiba 32ZH36p - an 8 year old CRT TV. Since then I've been marvelling at how good the old CRT is - sharp, great contrast, great colours, smooth motion etc etc etc.

To be fair, the samesman did say that the signal wasn't brilliant in the shop and there was a deal of interference with all the TVs in store - he said the picture would be 'slightly' better with a better signal.

But paying £700 or whatever for a worse viewing experience seems nuts. (The Sony was getting it's signal from the built-in Freeview and the old CRTis getting it's signal from a sky+ box, by the way)

The question is, will I be able to get the Sony to deliver anything like the quality in SD I'm used to. Evidence of one demonstration suggests not. How can the best TV product from last year look so poor next to an 8 year old, appaently obsolete bit of kit?

Any thoughts?

 

[bigboss]

Welcome ot the forum! Few points:

1) I personally have not been impressed by the SD picture quality of the 40EX503. Too soft in my opinion.

2) Going from a CRT TV to an LCD TV, there will be a deterioration in SD performance. LCD TVs are optimised for HD viewing.

3) Also, upgrading to a bigger size TV gives the same results as the point above.

4) Your eyes will get used to it to some extent.

5) The salesman is right about the poor signal quality. Get the sales person to play a DVD (and disable the blu-ray player from upscaling the picture); that's about the best SD performance you can get from a non-calibrated TV. See what you think.

6) Look around & compare more TVs. don't restrict yourself to Sony. Look at both plasmas & LCDs from Panasonic, Samsung, LG and Philips as well.

All the best!

 

[strapped for cash]

Likewise, welcome to the forum.

Following on from bb's more detailed comments, I would suggest the two main advantages of "upgrading" to an HD television are:

1) Screen size (if you're specifically looking for a bigger picture, that's a good reason to take the plunge); and

2) The quality of HD content (whether via satellite, Freeview, Blu-ray, or for gaming).

If these are priorities for you, a new television will be worth the outlay. If not (and especially if your priority is SD viewing), you'll probably feel underwhelmed by the performance of HD-ready televisions. As pointed out above, HD TVs are not designed for optimal reproduction of SD content, since a standard-definition picture has to be up-converted (somewhere) to fit the resolution of the display.

Best of luck...

 

[Anonymous]

My 720p Plasma was far better upsclaing the SD content than my current 1080p LG.

And the 720p was one of the first out, about 6 years ago, well maybe not first, but early.

My mother in law I think has that sony and I find it better than my LG, very nice pic in SD, thats why I am looking as my

TV was 360.00 new, and its very basic and does not do anything great its just ok

 

[Anonymous]

Most TV sets today are tuned for best performance at Blu Ray, and not SD. This since they stuff more into the sets for a lower price ---> cut somewhere --> SD scaller. There may even not be a dedicated chip for SD scalling, but done in software ?

But - some TV sets still put a priority to SD - the job is to track down the ones who do.

 

[Andrew Everard]

And track down a retailer that can be bothered to get a decent off-air signal to demonstrate sets, rather than making excuses for the quality of signal.

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks everyone - that's really interesting.

It does rather beg
the question that why does the entire industry make TVs that are poor
at handling the signals that the vast majority of people are still
using and will be using for some time to come - espcially the less expensive end of the market where people might, presumably, just want 'ordinary' TV. I have hundreds of satellite channels and a small handful that, for a big extra monthly cost, give a mere smattering of HD content. In my area, Terrestrial HD isn't coming until April or
September and the vast majority of programmes are going to be broadcast
in SD. Is the BBC going to stop running Dad's Army sometime soon
because it isn't up to spec? I doubt it!

In defence of my local Sony Centre, I have to say that at least they could show an SD signal through the TV, unlike my local Currys and Comet and pretty well everywhere else round here. I hope I didn't give the impresion that the guy was 'making excuses' - he was honest about the shortcomings of the TV with SD.

I'll ask to see a non-upscaled DVD - great advice!

Cheers all.

 

[Anonymous]

Andrew is right - for some reason the SD signal in stores is 99% of bad quality.

Most channels are today also available in HD - I suggest to consider to change what you see into HD, subscribe to HD packages with your provider. HD looks about equal on all mid-high level TV sets today - and HD looks much much better on a mid-level, than SD on any TV set money can buy.

 

[Anonymous]

I watch a lot of SD, but TBH when I get home, first thing I do is see whats on sky HD, and dont look at the SD stuff first.

Sky HD, I think I have about 50 channels, so its getting really good and soon to get Sky atlantic, and cant wait to see that one show, boardwalk empire.

 

[Sun_Shang_Xiang]

I've seen the 40EX503 and the 40HX703 in in my local Sony Centre the HD channels were great but as regards standard definition was a bit disappointed for 5 star reviewed models. I preferred the standard def pictures on the Philips 40 PFL 7605 and the Toshiba WL753 which were awarded 4 stars and 3 stars respectively.

 

[Chewy]

As mentioned by Bigboss, you can't discount the effect of the increase in screen size too. Moving from a 32" to a 40" in any screen technology would produce a percieved reduction in image quality if viewed at the same distance.

Also did you view the in-store screen form the same distance as you do at home, because if you sat close that will also magnify the problem.

Finally, the set in the shop will more than likely have terrible image settings applied to make it stand out in the shop. This can impact percieved image quality, even sharpness, if colours are oversaturated etc.

As suggested above, take in a DVD you are familiar with, and have the rep output it to the screen at 576p (or 576i if the player will do it), sit at your normal viewing distance, and then judge - then do the same with outher sets; some are better with SD material than others.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, I was careful to stand at a similar distance to the distance I normally watch TV at home.

I think the DVD idea is a very good one - at least then there's a way of seeing how it looks with a decent SD signal. Many thanks.

I was going to go the route of a Humax Freesat+ box, but there seems to be so little HD content on there - 3 channels?. In view of comments here and a bit of research, it's probably not worth getting a new HD TV unless I upgrade my sky service to a Sky HD+ box and get a decent amount of HD content.

Even so, a quick look online shows that Peter's suggestion that

PeterHerz:

Most
channels are today also available in HD

Is surely a bit optimistic. It's still a minority isn't it, when on Sky? Or am I mising something.

So unless it's Sky, I'll probably spend all my time being frustrated by having to look at a poor SD picture that's - at least on current evidence - worse than my old CRT.

Or is the amount of free (-sat or -view) HD set to rise enormously in the near future? (Round here they're only just about to upgrade Freeview to a level where you can get any kind of stable signal even on SD.)

 

[kinda]

If SD is your priority and you don't need to save space maybe leave it.

I went from a quality 36" Hitachi CRT recently to a projector and Samsung 26" C450 LCD TV for casual viewing. The picture is great on the Samsung all round after decent setup, and I don't miss the CRT. However, if I get closer than about 1.75 metres it's not great, (struggling to explain why but you see too much of the constituents of the picture). Didn't have that with the CRT.

If you go from a 32" to a 40" LCD at the same distance you may not be impressed for SD.

 

[Cofnchtr]

Hi,

Using a SKY+HD box, BBC1 HD, BBCHD, ITVHD, CH4HD and CH5HD are all available with no HD subscription. There are others but I can't list them all off the top of my head.

If you already subscribe to SKY, a free upgrade to HD may be available to you - call and ask. You may have to pay the £10/month HD subscription to get a free box upgrade though.

Cheers,

Cofnchtr.

 

[StanleyAV]

I think you'd be surprised how good upscaled SD can look from a Sky or Humax FreeSat box (you can select from 576p, 720p, 1080i).

The better bit rate channels do give a very reasonable picture in my opinion. The problem you encountered is more likely a result of the internal tuner not giving great results. It's not the be all and end all handling 576i - most modern DVD players and Satellite/Freeview boxes will upscale to 1080i or output progressive 576p/720p which will give better results.

I have seen Sony Bravia fed from a Humax upscaled to 1080i and I thought it was fair : maybe you can find a dealer who can demonstrate this pairing.

The Panasonic TVs since 2010 have featured a resolution enhancer for SD : this does make quite a difference for their internal tuners.

I use a Humax FoxSat HDR upscaled to 1080i into a Panasonic Viera Z1 : I get really good SD via this route. When I saw the Z1 on demonstration, SD looked poor : this was via Panasonic's tuner and also one of their FreeSat Recorders.

Sure the Z1 can look great on the main satellite channels but not all are transmitted with a high bit rate : offloading TV to an external box with better scalers starts to make sense.

Things have moved on since HD Ready TVs outshone Full HD sets : my TV showing BBC Snooker comfortably eclipsed a Panasonic PX80 from a few years ago : boy it looked so bad!!

In my opinion give Panasonic sets released this year a go (2010 sets had 50hz issues and other troubles

) see what you think or you could track down a cut price Viera Z1 (while stocks last

) or even a 2009 S10 model : my parents have a 46" and a 50" and love them!!

Yes CRT can have the edge in some areas of picture performance but larger screens are now less of a compromise than you think when it comes to standard definition.

 

[chebby]

Our almost 4 year-old 32" Samsung LCD (with all new main board replaced just before Christmas under John Lewis 5 year cover) gives a smashing SD performance. DVDs - upscaled of course - look almost as good as BluRay pictures.

Whilst we were having the set repaired, John Lewis arranged for a 'loan' set. It was a much more recent Samsung 32" model. Despite replicating all the same settings, the SD performance was awful. Soft and 'washed out' with terrible contrast and a predominate grey/blue 'cast' to the colours and real problems with evident pixellation and blocky artifacts. (Even writing on the on-screen menus/EPG/subtitles etc. had soft edges rather than being crisp.)

It was a relief to get our old set back. Natural colours, no artifacts, no blockiness in large areas of the same colours, nice crisp contrast and no pixellation or doomy grey/blue cast.

I am quite worried about upgrading to a new Freeview HD 32" next year when the 5 year cover on our old Samsung runs out. (And when our area finally gets Freeview HD.)

Our old Panasonic widescreen CRT also had exemplary picture quality and it was a relief (when we changed to LCD) that the Samsung was - and still is - so good. It even looks quite good with BBC iPlayer (SD and 720p 'HD') from the S370.

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks Stanley and Cofnchtr and everyone,

That's most encouraging!

I must say, everyone's responses have been so helpful.

Cheers,

Frids.

 

[Liam19]

Fridbin:
It does rather beg
the question that why does the entire industry make TVs that are poor
at handling the signals that the vast majority of people are still
using and will be using for some time to come

I think the key thing to remember here is that, for the last 4-5 years, there
has been an explosion in available HD content (both broadcast and on
optical media), and ultimately there is little point in having such higher-quality video
signals if TVs are not designed to display them at their best. A Full HD screen like the Sony 40EX503, with a native resolution of 1920 horizontal lines and 1080 vertical lines, is obviously going to look best with an image that fits that resolution. SD content has to be upscaled to fit that resolution, so a considerable loss of image quality is inevitable, however good the upscaling.

It's a case of not being able to have it both ways, really. The latest TVs are designed for HD signals, which an ever-increasing number of people can now enjoy.

 

[Anonymous]

Hmm, not sure I agree there.

"for the last 4-5 years there has been an explosion in available HD content (both broadcast and on
optical media)", says Liam.

Not in free to air, there hasn't. It's still very limited. In my city Freeview HD hasn't happened yet leaving most viewers here having to wait until September for any HD off an aerial. Meanwhile Freesat has a massive ... er ... two channels right now. Not exactly an explosion!

I reckon that most TV viewing in the UK is still, by a large majority, in SD. Yet evidence from Chebby, above, suggests that ability to handle SD might be getting worse in modern HD TVs and this is backed up by what I saw the other day. I do hope not, because if it can't give me decent SD picture quality, the deal is off and I'll have to find something else to do with my £900!

I'm not expecting brilliant quality from SD - and I understand upscaling - but not much much worse than it was in TVs 10 years ago or any worse than from earlier generation HD TVs as Chebby suggests.

I would also argue that new TVs are patently NOT designed solely for HD - if they were they wouldn't sell very well would they? (And I know you didn't actually say that Liam!) My point is they have to do both and they should do both reasonably well to fit in with real-life viewing, which for the forseeable future will be a mix of the two. We should be able to 'have it both ways' for one simple reason, because having it both ways - HD and SD - is actually part of the spec.

 

[Liam19]

Fridbin:
Hmm, not sure I agree there.

"for the last 4-5 years there has been an explosion in available HD content (both broadcast and on
optical media)", says Liam.

Not in free to air, there hasn't. It's still very limited. In my city where Freeview HD hasn't happened yet leaving most viewers here having to wait until September for any HD off an aerial. Meanwhile Freesat has a massive ... er ... two right now. Not exactly an explosion!

Evidence from Chebby, above, suggests that ability to handle SD might be getting worse in modern HD TVs and this is backed up by what I saw the other day.

I understand your point about the relative lack (or complete lack, in your case) of free-to-air HD content available, but what I said about content is beside the point I was trying to make.

My point was simply that a HDTV, because of its much higher native resolution, can only do so much with an SD signal. Even a HDTV with superior upscaling will struggle to match a good CRT, simply because older TVs have a native resolution to match the incoming SD signal.

The fact that your area doesn't receive Freeview HD (yet) shouldn't make you question why TV manufacturers are making equipment designed to deal with the highest-quality sources. In the coming years we will all most likely be able to receive more and more HD content for free, and obviously we want TVs that allow us to take full advantage of that.

With regards to your original post, my advice would be to hang on to your Toshiba until your area can receive Freeview HD, and then seek out a HDTV which upscales HD well to your eyes.

 

[Liam19]

Fridbin:
I reckon that most TV viewing in the UK is still, by a large majority, in SD. Yet evidence from Chebby, above, suggests that ability to handle SD might be getting worse in modern HD TVs and this is backed up by what I saw the other day. I do hope not, because if it can't give me decent SD picture quality, the deal is off and I'll have to find something else to do with my £900!

I'm not expecting brilliant quality from SD - and I understand upscaling - but not much much worse than it was in TVs 10 years ago or any worse than from earlier generation HD TVs as Chebby suggests.

I would also argue that new TVs are patently NOT designed solely for HD - if they were they wouldn't sell very well would they? (And I know you didn't actually say that Liam!) My point is they have to do both and they should do both reasonably well to fit in with real-life viewing, which for the forseeable future will be a mix of the two. We should be able to 'have it both ways' for one simple reason, because having it both ways - HD and SD - is actually part of the spec.

Sorry, your post expanded while I was writing mine!

I really think you need to demo some other TVs with SD, as others have said. Now that you accept that there will always be a trade-off in quality when watching SD on a HDTV, I think you need to find a TV which offers the least compromise (to your eyes!). Try some other brands - I know both my Panasonic plasma and Samsung LED do an excellent job with SD!

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, sorry my post expanded somewhat!

Thanks for the tip Liam - I'll certainly take a look as SD though the Panasonic and Samsung as you suggest.

 

[D.J.KRIME]

IMHO I think you may prefer the SD image on a good Plasma set over the LCD's you have had a look at so far, Panasonic have various 42" models within your price range and IMHO plasma offers a picture far more akin to CRT over LCD.

 

[Anonymous]

D.J.KRIME:IMHO I think you may prefer the SD image on a good Plasma set over the LCD's you have had a look at so far, Panasonic have various 42" models within your price range and IMHO plasma offers a picture far more akin to CRT over LCD.

 

[Anonymous]

Please note that 2010 Panasonic plasma are not good at SD ( as others ) - they are tuned at Blu Ray, dont know about the 2011 models though - good SD like on your CRT will be difficult to find on todays TV ses - look at the reviews from WhatHiFi - I remember they have a cupple og TV sets recently with good SD scaling.

I still recommend to go for HD - and yes - you have to pay ( still ) for the HD channels ( even they begin to give the HD channels away for free ) , and new HD channels pops up with an incresing speed.