Hello al! The more I learn from you guys the more I doubt which TV I should buy. Can someone please help me and tell me which LCD is simply THE BEST when it comes to perfomance, like displaying 24fps without any juddger, no clouding, motion blur and things like that...or is that LCD without any of these problems still waiting to be made? It seems to me that every LCD has is good and bad things which personally makes it hard for me which one to buy. I always thought the Sony KDL40x3500 was THE ONE but it seems that LCD has it's problems too..... Browsing at this forum, I noticed that there is almost not 1 negatieve review yet to be found about certain Panasonic LCD models...? Are they really that good? Help this desperate man please !!!
-
Do you stream hi-res music or download hi-res tracks? We want your opinions!
Without a doubt: Which TV is the best in quality in size 40/42 inch (or bigger)
- Thread starter admin_exported
- Start date
hello. without doubt the best tv you can buy in the 42" size is the pioneer 428xd and it's a plasma. nothing else comes close. amazing with sky hd too. not cheap, but worth every penny
Hello guys thx for the quick reply!! Nice to know this....do you know which one is the best when it comes to FULL HD?
And the mentioned Pioneeer in your post is judderfree when it comes to 24fps?
And the mentioned Pioneeer in your post is judderfree when it comes to 24fps?
[quote user="JJRules"]Hello guys thx for the quick reply!! Nice to know this....do you know which one is the best when it comes to FULL HD?
And the mentioned Pioneeer in your post is judderfree when it comes to 24fps?[/quote]
Yep
And the mentioned Pioneeer in your post is judderfree when it comes to 24fps?[/quote]
Yep
And yep. Though the Pioneer isn't technically Full HD, it outperforms most full HD sets I've seen, of any size, with both TV (SD/HD) and video, be it DVD, HD DVD or Creme Blu-ray.
My god guys is it that good? I'm fairly new to this and the FULL HD market is growing rapidly, if I buy this Pioneer I am afraid that it will be 'outdated' in a few years because it's not FULL HD or am I talking bulls@@t thinking like that?
So if I should choose between the Sony KDL40x3500 or this Pioneer I should go for the Pioneer according to you guys? Is this plasma also suitable for gaming consoles in HD like the xbox 360 or the PS3? I also see this Pioneer has an CI SLOT, I got digital TV through the cable, with an external decoder (samsung) with an smartcard. Reading this info about the Pioneer I should be able to put my smartcard directly in this Pioneer? That would be a big advantage.
So if I should choose between the Sony KDL40x3500 or this Pioneer I should go for the Pioneer according to you guys? Is this plasma also suitable for gaming consoles in HD like the xbox 360 or the PS3? I also see this Pioneer has an CI SLOT, I got digital TV through the cable, with an external decoder (samsung) with an smartcard. Reading this info about the Pioneer I should be able to put my smartcard directly in this Pioneer? That would be a big advantage.
I've had my 428XD for about a month and I have to say, agree with everone elses comments regarding the quality of this TV. SD, DVD, V+ and HD are truly amazing compared to anything else I've seen. With a 42" screen, I personally wouldn't worry too much about full HD unless your sitting less than 8 foot away from the TV.
Can't comment on the gaming or CI slot. Why would it be a big advantage to put the smartcard directly into the TV? Not sure you can even do this.
Can't comment on the gaming or CI slot. Why would it be a big advantage to put the smartcard directly into the TV? Not sure you can even do this.
Hello Ian, it would be a big advantage cause some channels I recieve through the cable with digital TV are broadcast in HD.
So when its possible to put the smartcard directly into the Pioneer there is no need to buy a new decoder which can recieve HD signals through and HDMI output which goes into the TV. Cause my currect decoder from Samsung cannot recieve signals in HD. Gosh, my english sucks sometimes so I hope someone understands this post ;-)
I am really thinking about buying this one (after I have seen it 'live' in the shops ofcourse) cause everyone seems to be so positive!
So when your sitting less than 8 foot away the difference between FULL HD (1920 x 1080) and HD READY (like this pioneer, 1024 x 768) is barely visible?
So when its possible to put the smartcard directly into the Pioneer there is no need to buy a new decoder which can recieve HD signals through and HDMI output which goes into the TV. Cause my currect decoder from Samsung cannot recieve signals in HD. Gosh, my english sucks sometimes so I hope someone understands this post ;-)
I am really thinking about buying this one (after I have seen it 'live' in the shops ofcourse) cause everyone seems to be so positive!
So when your sitting less than 8 foot away the difference between FULL HD (1920 x 1080) and HD READY (like this pioneer, 1024 x 768) is barely visible?
hi mate. i aslo run my ps3 through the pioneer for games and use my projector for blu ray films on ps3 and games run smooth and are mostly in 720p anyway. as said before, on atv this size the diference between 720 and 1080 is minimal. go and have a look at the pioneer with an sky hd feed and a standard def signal as well. make sure the dealer has a good standard def feed as well though, you won't regret it. lcd does not even come close to a good plasma. shame the general public think lcd is the way forward due to marketing of sony in particular.
Quasi thx for your reply. I think you have a very good point about the marketing sony is doing about LCD and how many are believing LCD is the best there is; nowadays PLASMA screens are not that popular anymore if I am correct and I really don't know the reason for that. But from what I have learned and read on the internet and on this forum is that Plasma really is more stable and better than LCD and that the Plasma is getting better and better.
But especially with games, you must see some kind of difference when playing them in 1080p instead of 720p? I;m asking this cause I wille be gaming a lot with my new TV.
But especially with games, you must see some kind of difference when playing them in 1080p instead of 720p? I;m asking this cause I wille be gaming a lot with my new TV.
[quote user="JJRules"]I think you have a very good point about the marketing sony is doing about LCD and how many are believing LCD is the best there is; nowadays PLASMA screens are not that popular anymore [/quote]
If ever there is a case for people reading mags and joining forums, it has to be the LCD vs plasma debate. I was in the same boat as you JJ when, a few months ago, I embarked on my Flat Screen Holy Grail. I also thought that plasma was old technology - LCD was the only way to go. This way of thinking was not so much down to Sony but more due to my occasional forays into tv departments of High st stores - apart from plasma's being outnumbered 4:1, lcd tv's seemed much brighter and more vivid compared to the rather soft, 'washed out' look of the plasmas.
If my purchasing decision had been based on such visits, I would now be watching an lcd tv which probably would have been a Sony or Panasonic ( those makes being two of the CRT kings of the past )..
Thanks to this magazine (and others) and the many forums out there, I too own a 428xd. £25 and several hours surfing were, in my case at least, very well spent.
If ever there is a case for people reading mags and joining forums, it has to be the LCD vs plasma debate. I was in the same boat as you JJ when, a few months ago, I embarked on my Flat Screen Holy Grail. I also thought that plasma was old technology - LCD was the only way to go. This way of thinking was not so much down to Sony but more due to my occasional forays into tv departments of High st stores - apart from plasma's being outnumbered 4:1, lcd tv's seemed much brighter and more vivid compared to the rather soft, 'washed out' look of the plasmas.
If my purchasing decision had been based on such visits, I would now be watching an lcd tv which probably would have been a Sony or Panasonic ( those makes being two of the CRT kings of the past )..
Thanks to this magazine (and others) and the many forums out there, I too own a 428xd. £25 and several hours surfing were, in my case at least, very well spent.
Hey David, agree totally on that. Thanx to this mag and forum I am pretty sure that Plasma is not that 'bad' as nowadays we all seem to think. But I am still in doubt if I should go for the 428xd which NO ONE seems to find bad and must be brilliant or for a full HD from Panasonic which mostly has good reviews too. I just don't know if the Panasonics are capable of displaying 24 fps judderfree (which is something my TV MUST DO).
Although the Panasonic is a great tv, try not to get bogged down with Full HD and the surrounding hype. There is no such thing as future proofing. To try it now would mean you never going out and buying anything. All you can do is ensure that what you purchase now will still be able to hold its own in, say, five year time. If you are in the market for a Blu-ray player then ensure it is Profile 1.1 and that it is firmware upgradable. Likewise, ensure that your tv is capable of supporting 1080p/24fps. Then go out and buy the best that your budget will allow.
You have probably gathered from reading past postings that Full (1080 native) resolution HD really only comes into play when considering larger panels - unless you plan to sit very close to your screen. Most people will probably agree that the two Full HD Pioneers LX508D and LX608D are the best flat screens you can buy - but at a price. And before you ask, Pioneer as yet have no plans to bring out a Full HD 42" for the very reason that you will not notice the difference.
Until we will be able to buy 42" OLED screens for £1200 - £1500, manufacturers will just carry on 'tweaking' current LCD/Plasma technology. 30000:1 contrast, min 4 hdmi, USB ports etc. that sort of thing plus no doubt a few gimmicks just to try and get us to part with our hard earned.
So, JJ, go and get yourself the Pioneer which should serve you well into the next decade.
You have probably gathered from reading past postings that Full (1080 native) resolution HD really only comes into play when considering larger panels - unless you plan to sit very close to your screen. Most people will probably agree that the two Full HD Pioneers LX508D and LX608D are the best flat screens you can buy - but at a price. And before you ask, Pioneer as yet have no plans to bring out a Full HD 42" for the very reason that you will not notice the difference.
Until we will be able to buy 42" OLED screens for £1200 - £1500, manufacturers will just carry on 'tweaking' current LCD/Plasma technology. 30000:1 contrast, min 4 hdmi, USB ports etc. that sort of thing plus no doubt a few gimmicks just to try and get us to part with our hard earned.
So, JJ, go and get yourself the Pioneer which should serve you well into the next decade.
Wonder if the Pioneer had something written on it underneath like LG you would still like to by it
I think a lot TV's should be blind tested without anyone knowing at first glance what they are.
I think a lot TV's should be blind tested without anyone knowing at first glance what they are.
professorhat
Well-known member
- Dec 28, 2007
- 992
- 22
- 18,895
Check out What Hi-Fi's reviews of budget all in one home cinema systems in the last issue. In it, you'll see an LG system win the test and get five stars while Sony and Panasonic systems come in as after runners.
Not TVs I know, but shows you WHF team are not "brand" affected in their testing.
Not TVs I know, but shows you WHF team are not "brand" affected in their testing.
Too right.
There's also the fact that one element of our TV testing is the sets in a pitch-black room where the only thing visible is the picture - bring a tester into that situation and the only thing they're judging is the performance (and how to avoid tripping over other testers/furniture).
That's why we a) test in facilities that allow a wide range of reviewing scenarios and b) test in teams, allowing for such methods to be employed....
There's also the fact that one element of our TV testing is the sets in a pitch-black room where the only thing visible is the picture - bring a tester into that situation and the only thing they're judging is the performance (and how to avoid tripping over other testers/furniture).
That's why we a) test in facilities that allow a wide range of reviewing scenarios and b) test in teams, allowing for such methods to be employed....
Hi David thx for your clear post.
From all the comments I got I am really thinking about buying this one; no one yet has called this pioneer 'average' or something like that; is it really that good that is easily outshines let's say my first preference TV, the Sony KDL40x3500?
Is it a good plasma when it comes to playing games? And can someone please help me explaining why the difference between FULL HD and HD READY is not visible when a TV is size HD 42 or less? I still have the feeling that when it comes to playing XBOX 360 or PS3 in FULL HD must be a really big difference compared to HD Ready gaming.
From all the comments I got I am really thinking about buying this one; no one yet has called this pioneer 'average' or something like that; is it really that good that is easily outshines let's say my first preference TV, the Sony KDL40x3500?
Is it a good plasma when it comes to playing games? And can someone please help me explaining why the difference between FULL HD and HD READY is not visible when a TV is size HD 42 or less? I still have the feeling that when it comes to playing XBOX 360 or PS3 in FULL HD must be a really big difference compared to HD Ready gaming.
I cannot imagine that an indepent magazine like What Hifi has a preference - despite the outcome - towards some brands, that would be like digging your own grave I quess....I surely hope not ;-)
[quote user="JJRules"]I cannot imagine that an indepent magazine like What Hifi has a preference - despite the outcome - towards some brands, that would be like digging your own grave I quess....I surely hope not ;-)[/quote]
As said above, we certainly have no prejudice - everything is on performance-per-pound, in whatever sector we review, and advertising certainly doesn't come into it. When you get the March issue (out on Thursday) there's an incredibly clear example of that (three-star review for a product advertised in prime, back-cover position).
As said above, we certainly have no prejudice - everything is on performance-per-pound, in whatever sector we review, and advertising certainly doesn't come into it. When you get the March issue (out on Thursday) there's an incredibly clear example of that (three-star review for a product advertised in prime, back-cover position).
professorhat
Well-known member
- Dec 28, 2007
- 992
- 22
- 18,895
Hi there, the reason it isn't so noticeable on smaller screens is down to the size. Think of an iPod or a PSP - the resolution required on this screen is much less as the screen is so much smaller. The maximum resolution of a PSP screen is 480 x 272 i.e. it has 272 vertical lines down the screen. Now, if (as an example only - this is never going to happen!) Sony made a PSP which was a Full HD screen i.e. was capable of displaying 1080 lines, the quality of the picture is not going to be noticeably different because your eyes just can't pick up on these details.
The same is true (on a lot less extreme scale!) with a TV less than 42". Unless your eyes are incredibly sharp, you just can't see a difference. It's only when the screen size gets bigger that you can then see the difference as the image itself is bigger i.e. each of 1080 lines can be seen more clearly. As a re-assurance, I play Xbox 360 and PS3 games on my Panasonic 42" at 720p and they look fantastically detailed and smooth. According to everyone, the Pioneer is a much better TV, so the images on this must be superb!
The same is true (on a lot less extreme scale!) with a TV less than 42". Unless your eyes are incredibly sharp, you just can't see a difference. It's only when the screen size gets bigger that you can then see the difference as the image itself is bigger i.e. each of 1080 lines can be seen more clearly. As a re-assurance, I play Xbox 360 and PS3 games on my Panasonic 42" at 720p and they look fantastically detailed and smooth. According to everyone, the Pioneer is a much better TV, so the images on this must be superb!
Hi Proffessor, thx for explaining that. I quess I am a bit confused sometimes at all these HD FULL HD READY i-dont-know-what-to-call-it-anymore terms 🙂
Now I have noticed that some Panasonic TV's are capable of accepting 1080P signals but the max. resolution is about 1366 x 768. Althought they accept the 1080 P signal, they are still HD Ready. How exactly does that work and what is the difference between that and lets say a HD Ready TV who accepts 720 P and not more ?
Now I have noticed that some Panasonic TV's are capable of accepting 1080P signals but the max. resolution is about 1366 x 768. Althought they accept the 1080 P signal, they are still HD Ready. How exactly does that work and what is the difference between that and lets say a HD Ready TV who accepts 720 P and not more ?
professorhat
Well-known member
- Dec 28, 2007
- 992
- 22
- 18,895
Hi there - okay, I will try and explain this, but I have to admit, I myself was very confused and got it very wrong a few days ago! However, someone else has explained this to me since so I'll give it a stab!
Basically, the resolution of the set decides what signal a TV can actually display. In the case of 1366 x 768 set, the maximum signal it can display natively is 720p (as it only has 768 vertical lines so can't display 1080 lines). However, these TVs will happily accept 1080p (or 1080i) signals and then downscale them to 720p so they can be displayed. This is an "HD Ready" TV.
A "Full HD" set on the other hand will have a resolution something like 1920 x 1080 or more (i.e. has at least 1080 vertical lines), and it can therefore display this full image progressively (i.e. 1080p) or interlaced (i.e. 1080i) natively without downscaling.
I understand some of the Panasonic's have some 1080p processing chip which upscales anything to 1080p and then, in the case of the HD Ready TVs, downscales it back to 720p to display it. I don't really understand why this is beneficial, but apparently it is - possibly someone else can explain this! That's something else entirely though.
As I say, I hope I've got this right this time - if I haven't, please someone tell me and JJ where I've gone wrong as it's the only way I'll learn!
Basically, the resolution of the set decides what signal a TV can actually display. In the case of 1366 x 768 set, the maximum signal it can display natively is 720p (as it only has 768 vertical lines so can't display 1080 lines). However, these TVs will happily accept 1080p (or 1080i) signals and then downscale them to 720p so they can be displayed. This is an "HD Ready" TV.
A "Full HD" set on the other hand will have a resolution something like 1920 x 1080 or more (i.e. has at least 1080 vertical lines), and it can therefore display this full image progressively (i.e. 1080p) or interlaced (i.e. 1080i) natively without downscaling.
I understand some of the Panasonic's have some 1080p processing chip which upscales anything to 1080p and then, in the case of the HD Ready TVs, downscales it back to 720p to display it. I don't really understand why this is beneficial, but apparently it is - possibly someone else can explain this! That's something else entirely though.
As I say, I hope I've got this right this time - if I haven't, please someone tell me and JJ where I've gone wrong as it's the only way I'll learn!
Hi professor, it's ok if you don't know if you got it all right I appreciate you take the time like anybody on this forum to help me out. It seems to me then, that there really is not much of a difference when you have a plasma/LCD which is capable of processing 1080P but due to limitation of the TV it can only display a max of 720P?
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram