Is an HDTV really worth it for me??

spudderz

Ive been wanting to buy a HDTV recently, more specifically a Sony 32" KDL32L4000. I receive standard cable from Virgin. I have no interest in buying a HD channel provider because as far as I know HD cable has limited channels and besides, I can't really afford it. So I searched around and found that "standard definition" (I'm guessing what I have is SD?) looks bad on an HDTV. So I guess what I'm trying to say is, is it worth me buying a HDTV if I want to watch standard cable? Also, this TV has built in freeview and I have never experienced it, does this provide a good image? I have read posts in the forum but I just got confused..

rbinck

If you need a new TV it will be hard to find a quality SD TV these days. Most that are available are crap. So to get a decent TV, I would think you would be talking about a HDTV.

As far as the picture quality of SD on HDTVs, it will depend on the provider a lot. Standard analog cable may not look so good. My U-verse service is pretty good, but I still try to avoid it.

__________________
www.highdefinitionblog.com
www.BlogOfHawaii.com

DoctorCAD

If you do a scan on the "basic cable" that you are getting now, you MAY find that there are several high def channels that will show up on that new HDTV...FOR FREE!!!!!

My cable company has 15 free HD channels.

NonMcTubber

To spudderz,

If you are confused, I can somewhat understand it, until you get a HD set and see the difference, its hard to explain.

But to try to overly simplify it, High definition television simply looks better and delivers a better picture because it has more scan lines.

In the analog days, television sets in this country had 480 scan lines, and now some HD sets push that up to 720 scan lines, and some sets even go up to 1080. An older standard using interlaced went by a i suffix and the more modern standard is P. And the sony set you posted is a 720P capable model.

As you point out, because a high definition channel takes more bandwidth, not all channels offered by cable can be in high definition. And worse yet, because the cable operator does not know in advance what type of a television will be used by a given user, all HD channels must be compatible with older 480 scan line analog sets, 720i sets, 720P sets, 1080i sets, and 1080P sets. But it takes much less bandwidth to transmit channels in 480 scan lines standard definition.

And here you are in what a psychologists call a approach avoidance situation. On one hand you want a quality TV, and on the other hand you are horrified at the high price.

And I certainly would not pay that much for a discontinued sony model. So I would suggest shopping for a less pricey brand name with a lesser price. Look at something like a visio or a similar model. But knowing what I know now, I would not try the false economy of 480 scan lines, it really does not cost much, engineering wise to have at least 720P capacity. And as a rule of thumb, until your screen size exceeds 55 inches or so, you probably do not need 1080P.

And even as you worry about not getting your money's worth from 720P HD, you will find enough HD channels on cable to see the better picture, it will happen enough over the years and years of ownership of your television to pay off any false economy. The other thing to point out, is that you can pick up older analog 480 scan lines sets on the used market for almost nothing, they are basically dumpster items now.

But if you get with the spirit of the rest of this forum, you can also dabble in OTA reception, and in over the air free broadcasts, nearly every channel is in high definition. And just because you pay for cable, there is nothing preventing you from doing cable and OTA TV. also. A simple AB switch, and for some a simple set of rabbit ears is all it takes to do OTA and cable also.

__________________
High definition is not the definition of my life.
But knowledge is power and HD does have some potential to increase content variety and choices.

Cyborger

To NonMcTubber,

I've been meaning to ask this. If HDTVs are so great how come they need receivers and HDMI connections? Also how come the sound quality is so bad that you need speakers and how come SD programming looks so bad? It's seems to me like HDTVs can't really do what they say without help.

gossamer

New technologies usually bring on new ways to connect things. That being said, HDMI is not the only way to experience HD. All if not most HDTVs have component (RGB RCA cable). But with sites like Monoprice.com selling HDMI cables at affordable prices why bother with 5 cables instead of just one to deliver audio and video.

As far as SD is concerned. If this is a barometer as to a reason to get an HDTV then why bother. FYI, LCD do tend to make SD look bad as oppose to Plasma.

__________________
Living Room:
Panasonic TH-50PZ700U Plasma
Scientific-Atlanta SA8300HD DVR
Sony PlayStation 3 80GB
Toshiba HD-A2 HD DVD
Toshiba SD-4700 SD DVD
Apple Mac mini, 1.83GHz Intel Core Duo
Onkyo TX-SR706 Receiver
Paradigm Cinema 110 Speaker System
Pioneer CLD-3070 LaserDisc Player
Quasar VHQ760 VCR
Bedroom:
Panasonic TC26LX50 26-inch LCD
Scientific-Atlanta SA8300HD DVR
Panasonic DMP-BD30K Blu-ray
Panasonic DMRES15 DVD Recorder
JVC HR-S8000U S-VHS

DoctorCAD

The basic answers to your questions:
1. HDTV's do not "need" a receiver or an HDMI cable. If you just hook an antenna to it, the HDTV that is free in the air will give you a spectacular picture. The receivers and cables are because cable companies and satellite companies need a way to make you pay for their service. HDMI is only a better way to connect all of the required wires to the TV, one wire instead of 5 wires.
2. The sound coming out of the TV is the same as a SD TV. The reason people get better speakers and high-dollar A/V receivers is that the audio quality in the HDTV signal is very good and (as in all things) better quality comes with a price, but only if you want to use it.
3. HDTV's do a perfect job of showing a SD signal, its just that the SD signal is not very good to begin with. GIGO, garbage in - garbage out. If broadcasters would give you a high quality SD signal, it would look better on the HDTV.

So you see,its not the HDTV's fault. The better signal delivered to your house simply requires better equipment to utilize all of its features. Like I posted earlier, just plug the cable in and scan for free HD signals, you won't go back to SD.

Cyborger

Are you saying AV Receivers are just for sound?

DoctorCAD

Yes

NonMcTubber

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therein lies the myth, my HD TV is has all the hoopla to hook in extra speakers, other forms of video recorders, but does as well as better than my old analog TV without any of that optional and expensive equipment. And even if I feel I do not need to keep up the the Jone's, there is nothing wrong with someone who wants full surround sound and expensive audio receivers,
its their money and their choice.

But in one sense you are correct, certain things like old analog VCR's no longer work and can thus be an opportunity for electronic manufacturers to double dip on recorder technology.

But a digital signal and HD television are two different animals, both came out at basically the same time and hence are easy to confuse, but a digital signal can carry either a HD or SD signal.

And one of the big advantages of a digital signal is that it can be compressed and an analog signal can not. And one of the advantages of a digital signal is that there is enough room now to allow multicasts on the same channel, and up to five multicasts is the current max. The problem is the max bandwidth per channel is 19.8 Mega bits per second to carry all. And a fully HD multicast can take up to 13 Mb/second, which means those other SD multicasts get their signals cheated so the the main channel offering can be in HD. And how good of a picture do you need on a weather of news multicast anyway? How ant y given television transmitter juggles that multicast question varies from station to station as some will cheat the HD part some to allow more for the multicasts.

__________________
High definition is not the definition of my life.
But knowledge is power and HD does have some potential to increase content variety and choices.

mrbeankc

Good points. I think it comes down to how much do you want to get out of your TV. It's sort of like buying a car. For some a car is simply transportation and that's about it. For others they add nicer speakers for music, satellite radio or expensive tires. It's because they want their car to be more than just simple transportation.

In the case of TV's many folks want their system to be more than just a TV to watch the news and a few nighttime TV shows. They want it to be a home theater with the sound quality they would get at the local theater. So in the end it comes down to what you want your TV to do for you.

bicker

Great point, and we see the same thing, over and over again, when folks consider cable or satellite service for their television: On one hand they want lots of choices, each delivered with high quality and reliability, and lots of flexibility and configurability for their home entertainment solution, but they are "horrified" at the high price for all that they want.

Experts disagree, surely, but the boundary I've seen asserted, between where 720 scan lines is adequate and where 1080 scan lines would be more appropriate, is more often 46 inches or 50 inches (at most).

Loves2Watch

And even that depends largely on the seating distance...

__________________
Theater 1 - Panasonic TH-85PF12U Plasma TV, 6 Conrad Johnson LP275M Amps, Anthem Statement D-2 Pre/Pro, 6 Thiel SCS4 Speakers, 2 REL T-1 Subs, Infinity Interlude 120S Sub, Simaudio MOON Orbiter Universal Disc Player, ELP Laser Turntable, 2 Dish Network ViP 622 DVR's, Oppo BDP-83 Blu-ray Player, Onkyo DV-HD805 HD DVD Player.

bicker

Absolutely, though the way I've seen it typically is that you start with seating distance (after all, that's the only criterion that doesn't have to do much with the HDTV itself) and then trade-off price, resolution and screen size.

oblioman

True, but if we are to coach a new potential buyer into the market, me choice would be to tell them to spend the extra couple of clams to go with 1080p, no matter the size. one never knows what's around the corner.