home theater, LED TV really.

[Cliff Rohrabacher]

I've been sourcing things and reading reviews
the klipsh speakers were easy
The marantz radio was easy
The CD player is easy
I already own a Denon turntable

The Yamaha RX-V2065BL was a challenge. With it’s skimpy 25 pounds I wondered if it’d be a good choice but the reviews keep saying that it’s pretty good. It can drive 3 different rooms from 3 different audio sources independently and at the same time. So the TV can be running in one room, with the stereo in another, and the radio in yet one more all at once from the one amp.

The TV is proving to be the trickiest.

I need thin, thin, thin, thin, thin, and thinner still. The location is what drives the need for thin. I want 60”. I’m not interested in three-D. The reviews are so all over the place. There’s dejudder and jitter and local dimming and LED is really edge lit LCD and on and on. It’s like there is no way to get a handle on best for the parameters kind of TV they have all become so complex.

What I’ve looked at in the 55 – 60 inch range:
Sharp Aquos ( I’m leaning this way; almost 40 degrees of viewing)
Samsung ( some 1” models; limited viewing angles )
Panasonic ( meh)
LG (meh)
Hitachi (1.5” thick but no 60” entry )

If I wanted to take a wall down I could get the sony at 200 pounds and get it to tilt too.

[Mitchell Andrus]

I've got a Sharp Aquos 52" and it's phenomenal, runs cool and there isn't any concern about viewing angle. I had a Samsung 42" plasma before this one (burnt the power supply in 18 months). This one puts that plasma to shame.
.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Cliff,

My wife want big screen. I didn't.

I ended up going with a Sony. Incredible image.

[Eric DeSilva]

Go to AVSForum.com. Those guys know TVs like SMCers know planes. Frankly, my view would be to ignore the advice, take a calibration disc and one of your favorite movies and calibrate, then watch some, at your local stores. Unless you calibrate it yourself, you are likely to get some wonked out setting pushing the warmth, brightness and contrast.

Frankly, if I was doing a home theater again, I'd probably go LCD projector and control the ambient light. If you can't control the ambient light, how much difference is "excellent" versus "very very good" anyway? Then again, I convinced myself that "home theater" is a plot by the equipment manufacturers to sell you more electonics of marginal value, ditched my uber-high end home theater, and am a lot happier. So I'm probably not the right person to talk too.

[Bruce Page]

I love my SONY but I'm saving my pennies for a 60" OLED tv.

[Jamie Buxton]

How do you mount a super-thin TV? All the wall mounts I've seen are several inches deep. That kinda negates the thinness of the TV itself.

[Neal Clayton]

speaking from LED versus the old LCD computer monitors, the difference is night and day. the LEDs are way brighter, and don't have the severe viewing angle restrictions due to that.

that said, i agree with the idea to check avsforum. there are people on there with far too much time on their hands coupled with far too much money to spend on audio/video equipment.

[Van Huskey]

+1 on the AVS forums.

I am a certfied A/V geek with probably 50 times the number of posts on A/V forums than on woodworking forums. As far as the TV I won't interject my personal biased opinions but you can get all you want and more at AVS.

I would mention a more systemic approach. HDMI is a funny creature still not without kinks. I suggest you decide on your sources and display before deciding on the receiver. Once you decide on in particular sat/cable receiver, Bluray and display then make sure the receiver you pick "likes" each one of those and further has the switching (and proper pass through) as well as power and flexibility to meet your currect and "expected" future demands. Take a long hard look at the Denon offerings, I have owned them for 15 years everything from a 3300 to a 5308CI and not a one has ever failed me and they have been the best at dealing with HDMI issues. There are huge owner threads for almost every receiver on AVS and most every issue with HDMI and the lastest sound Codecs will be addressed.

Although I love the old school Klipsh for a variety of reasons there are a lot of "better" less colored speakers compared to the modern Klipsch often for less money. Certainly, the Klipsh subs are surpassed by a lot of others and aquaint yourself with the internet only subs, take SVS for instance, just one of the brands that can lay waste to anything Klipsch offers in the sub range for less money.

Enjoy... :D

[Dave Johnson29]

Cliff,

With LCD, "specs" don't count for doodlies. You need to go look and compare. The most visually difficult thing for LCD is to produce for YOUR eyes is a good dense black.

It's like speakers to the ears. Personally I would go for B &W as MY ears don't like Klipsch. :)

[Ron Cole]

As someone else mentioned, take a look at projectors. If you want thin, it's hard to beat a layer of paint. I've only read about it, so I don't know if its worth the extra money, but there's a product called Projector Goo which is supposed to provide a superior surface to project onto. The projectors themselves come in all price ranges and qualities, and the newer LED projectors look like them may solve the replacement bulb issues.

[Pat Germain]

I wouldn't be so quick to blow off Panasonic. My brother and I have been running Panasonic 50 Plasma TVs for several years. The picture, performance and reliability are top notch.

Based on my research and shopping experience, most stores don't push Panasonic because the markup isn't very high. But the prices are very competitive.

[Brian Elfert]

I love my SONY but I'm saving my pennies for a 60" OLED tv.

You should have plenty of time to save at the rate OLED technology is (not) evolving. We've been hearing about OLED for years yet I know of only the Sony 11" OLED TV that was actually available for sale.

[Eric DeSilva]

You should have plenty of time to save at the rate OLED technology is (not) evolving. We've been hearing about OLED for years yet I know of only the Sony 11" OLED TV that was actually available for sale.

Apparently Sony is terminating OLED production in Japan, but LG is ramping up in Korea. Still, don't expect a 40" OLED until 2012.

[Mike Cruz]

My experience is as follows: I am looking at/typing on a 65" Panasonic plasma right now (its my computer screen as well as a TV screen). Picture is incredible. I've been through DLP, and LCD's, and now a Plasma. For the size, Plasma is the way to go. You can't get LCD's or LED's this size, or at least not without taking out a loan. You can get the Samsung LED in 58". That would have been my second choice. LED's run a LOT cooler and take a LOT less electricity than Plasmas. My Plasma sucks 750 watts. Also, while Plasmas don't have the burn in issues that they used to, they still can leave small ghost images. They kinda do eventually disappear, but they certainly aren't as bad as they used to be. They extended warrantys cover burn in...

Bottom line, for the thinnest, brightest pic, go with the Samsung LED. I have had nothing but great experience with their CS. They really stand behind their stuff. Plasmas are cheaper than LED's, but I think if you have the money and want under 60", LED's are better.

[Ken Garlock]

Good afternoon.

I think there may be some confusion as to what an LED TV really is. From what I have found, and I may be wrong, the LED TV still has the LCD screen. The standard LCD TV has several florescent lamps behind the viewing/LCD screen. The lamps provide the white light that is then translated by the LCD panel into the required color that in turn is seen my the viewer. What the LED does is to replace the florescent lamps with a field of solid state LEDs. The remainder of the TV is essentially the same as with LCD TV.

I am guessing that many people think the LEDs replace the LCD panel, that is what I thought when I first heard of the LED TV. What LED does do is to give a stronger more consistent light source with which the LCD panel can work. More light means a brighter picture. There are two types of LED light sources, the edge lit, and back lit. Edge lit is cheaper to make with LEDs providing a light source around all 4 edges of the TV. The other type is back lit. There are about 1000 LEDs forming a matrix behind the LCD. Those LEDs are turned off (dimmed) in small groups to give the high contrast realized. The back lit TV will cost more, and have contrast ratios that are as high as 6,000,000 to 1.

So, this is what I have found by doing some 'googling' and reading. I probably left out some important points so feel to tell me where is went wrong, or what I left out.

[Mike Cruz]

No, Ken, I think you nailed it on the head...you didn't miss a beat. The only other difference to speak of is that the LED's are generally thinner than LCD's because of the abscence of the florescent lights. Great description. Thanks for adding that.

[Bruce Page]

You should have plenty of time to save at the rate OLED technology is (not) evolving. We've been hearing about OLED for years yet I know of only the Sony 11" OLED TV that was actually available for sale.

Yeah, I meant that tongue-in-cheek. I think the 11" Sony goes for around $2300.
It'll be awhile.

[Brian Elfert]

I recently bought my first flat panel TV. It is a Pioneer 50" plasma. They are discontinued, but I was still able to get one new in box with warranty. It is a nice TV.

Plasma right now has the price edge over LCD in larger sizes and arguably has the best picture quality.

A retail store is never the right place to compare TVs. They are usally set to very high brightness as retailers know that customers are attracted to the brightest TV.

[Bob Borzelleri]

When we built our retirement house, I made sure to add a "media room", (actually Bob's music practice room, movie room, office and general place to be room).

After looking at TV options I went with an LCD projector (Sanyo) and a painted wall. That lasted a year or so until the LCD started displaying dust globs and dead pixels. I had to threaten legal action in order to persuade the manufacturer that globs and dead pixels did not constitute "acceptable variation" in projector performance.

Despite getting a rebuild under warranty, I decided that the design limitations (allowing dust to enter the LCD panels, which Sanyo fixed on subsequent models) were more than I wanted to live with so I bought a DLP projecter (Optoma HD73) and replace the painted wall screen with a 120" Carada screen. The Sanyo has been on loan to my neighbor and it seems to be performing well so far.

In my view, if you have the room for a projector and screen, do it. There's nothing like watching something like Avatar in Blu ray on a 120" screen with house made popcorn and no sticky floors.

As for cost, my Optoma was originally $1,295 with a free OPPO DVD player, a spare bulb, a free 2 year warranty on the projector as well as on the bulb.

As it turned out, I had occasion to utilize both aspects of the free warranty so here's the cost breakdown so far:

Projector: Retail $1,995, I paid $1,295

Free Incentives:
OPPO DVD player worth $170 at the time
Spare bulb $345
Warranty on projector roughly $50-100
Warranty on bulb roughly $50-100

Net cost of projector so far: $680

And then it gets better. 18 months into ownership, the remote quit. Replacement cost was a whopping $80 but the warranty covered it.

Net cost of projector is now $600.

A month later, the original bulb went out with a replacement cost, at the time, of $345 and the warranty covered that, too.

Net cost of the projector is now down to $255 but, if I bump the estimated 2 year warranty cost to the upper range of $100 each, then the projector is now down to $155).:D Without a doubt, the best technology type purchase I have ever made.

I figure we will get another 2,500 hours on this last bulb at which time, we will search for a new generation projector with incentives.:)

[Mitchell Andrus]

Projector: Retail $1,995, I paid $1,295

Free Incentives:
OPPO DVD player worth $170 at the time
Spare bulb $345
Warranty on projector roughly $50-100
Warranty on bulb roughly $50-100

Net cost of projector so far: $680

And then it gets better. 18 months into ownership, the remote quit. Replacement cost was a whopping $80 but the warranty covered it.

Net cost of projector is now $600.

A month later, the original bulb went out with a replacement cost, at the time, of $345 and the warranty covered that, too.

Net cost of the projector is now down to $255 but, if I bump the estimated 2 year warranty cost to the upper range of $100 each, then the projector is now down to $155).:D Without a doubt, the best technology type purchase I have ever made.



I think you'll find that getting things fixed under warranty doesn't make the purchase price (or cost of ownership) go down.

If I pay $200.00 for a blender and the $50.00 motor is replaced under warranty, it still cost $200.00, not $150.00.

If you pay $1,295.00 for a projector with 2 bulbs, the cost isn't $1,295.00 minus $345.00, the value of the 2nd bulb.

Can you explain your math better perhaps?
.

[Bob Borzelleri]

The math isn't precise; it's tongue in cheek:rolleyes: If you have to use three bulbs and only paid for one of them, then the cost avoidance is $690. If you don't have to pay $80 for a remote, then it goes to $760. I didn't have to pay for the DVD player; that was another $170. Whether I avoided the costs up front or while the projector was in is not an issue to me.;)

How does getting things fixed under warranty not reduce the cost of ownership? Having to pay for those fixes certainly would increase the cost of ownership; why not the inverse?

[Mitchell Andrus]

How does getting things fixed under warranty not reduce the cost of ownership? Having to pay for those fixes certainly would increase the cost of ownership; why not the inverse?

The cost for fixes is borne by the manufacturer while under warranty, so the change to your purchase cost basis is zero when repairs are made. The manufacturer is selling you a 1 year promise. You paid for the warranty as part of the purchase price. If it does need fixing, you're just getting something that is pre-paid. It's not 'free'.

Amortization is the best way to figure use/cost.

If an appliance is in service for 1 year and you pay $100.00 for the appliance and the 1 year warranty, the cost to you is $100.00 for that year. If the manufacturer spends $100.00 in repairs that year your cost is not reduced to $0.00, it's still $100.00 per year. If the manufacturer spends $200.00, you are not $100.00 ahead, you still had to pay $100.00 for the appliance and the guarantee that the manufacturer would keep it working for that first year. After a year, the cost has been amortized over the anticipated life (1 year) and your use of the appliance is 'free' from then until you need to pay for repairs or replacement at which time the process begins again. If it runs 2 years, your cost is $50.00 per year. 4 years, $25.00, etc...

If the appliance is in service for 4 years and you spend $100.00 to buy it and $300.00 fixing it, the cost to you is still $100.00 per year. If the manufacturer ALSO spends $300.00 under warranty, you STILL incurred a cost of $100.00 per year.

So, if Sony sends a bulb a year during the warranty period and you never pay for a bulb, you still paid for the projector and the cost to you is fixed, it doesn't change. Free repairs under warranty isn't a reduction in cost, it's just a realization of the promise of use over the course of the warranty. You paid for the projector and the promise.

Under your financial model, if a $100.00 appliance needs $300.00 in warranty repairs, your cost would be less than zero. That never happens in accounting because you weren't liable for the $300.00 in warranty repairs.

If Sony is sending you gifts, you STILL paid for the projector, it's just the cost per year that goes down, not the cost of the initial purchase. You local IRS agent can help you with this. It's a gross cost vs. amortized cost thing.

You still don't have the purchase price in your checking account, you are however pushing off the purchase of a replacement to a later day.
.
.

[Bob Borzelleri]

The cost for fixes is borne by the manufacturer while under warranty, so the change to your purchase cost basis is zero when repairs are made. The manufacturer is selling you a 1 year promise. You paid for the warranty as part of the purchase price. If it does need fixing, you're just getting something that is pre-paid. It's not 'free'.

Amortization is the best way to figure use/cost.

If an appliance is in service for 1 year and you pay $100.00 for the appliance and the 1 year warranty, the cost to you is $100.00 for that year. If the manufacturer spends $100.00 in repairs that year your cost is not reduced to $0.00, it's still $100.00 per year. If the manufacturer spends $200.00, you are not $100.00 ahead, you still had to pay $100.00 for the appliance and the guarantee that the manufacturer would keep it working for that first year. After a year, the cost has been amortized over the anticipated life (1 year) and your use of the appliance is 'free' from then until you need to pay for repairs or replacement at which time the process begins again. If it runs 2 years, your cost is $50.00 per year. 4 years, $25.00, etc...

If the appliance is in service for 4 years and you spend $100.00 to buy it and $300.00 fixing it, the cost to you is still $100.00 per year. If the manufacturer ALSO spends $300.00 under warranty, you STILL incurred a cost of $100.00 per year.

So, if Sony sends a bulb a year during the warranty period and you never pay for a bulb, you still paid for the projector and the cost to you is fixed, it doesn't change. Free repairs under warranty isn't a reduction in cost, it's just a realization of the promise of use over the course of the warranty. You paid for the projector and the promise.

Under your financial model, if a $100.00 appliance needs $300.00 in warranty repairs, your cost would be less than zero. That never happens in accounting because you weren't liable for the $300.00 in warranty repairs.

If Sony is sending you gifts, you STILL paid for the projector, it's just the cost per year that goes down, not the cost of the initial purchase. You local IRS agent can help you with this. It's a gross cost vs. amortized cost thing.

You still don't have the purchase price in your checking account, you are however pushing off the purchase of a replacement to a later day.
.
.

Interesting theoretical construct, of which I am actually aware. However, in the real world there are certain facts that render constructs just that, constructs.

The manufacturer didn't sell me an extended warranty; nor did the dealer. The warranty was free. Yes, I am aware that in your model, there is nothing for free; that the customer pays for the "extras" in the purchase price. But that doe not apply here.

I knew what the projector was selling for at the time. I ended up with the lowest price that was then available and the "extras" were thrown in. Had I bought the projector from a dealer who did not throw in a free bulb, I would have had to pay for a replacement bulb; that's a simple fact. Had the dealer not thrown in the extended warranty, I would have had to pay to replace the second bulb; another fact. Had the free extended warranty not covered the remote after the expiration of the manufacturers warranty, I would have had to pay to replace that, too.

Your comments on what I have already stated was a tonge-in-cheek post are beginning to sound a bit like a lecture and condescending.