In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes
Reception may also benefit simply from the removal of the four or five analogue signals. These are usually 10dB (or even, in a few places,
16dB) stronger than the often-adjacent digital signals, and must make the reception of the digitals just that bit more difficult.
Trails? On fast moving action or just at one particular speed?
Demos in shops are careful to avoid any motion at speeds or subject material that will highlight defects in digital LCD TVs. About the hardest thing to get right is the spray from waterskiing in bright sunlight filmed against the sun with deep shadow trees in the background.
This I can reproduce. But you must have to be very close to the set to see it. This is only really visible on my set at a pixel peeping level.
Last afternoon because the snooker finished unexpectedly early they were showing one man and his dog sheep trials with a 2 minute delay between BBC HD and BBC2.
Some of the problems you describe appear to be where HD source material had been resampled for transmission as SD. I am not sure what they are doing, but BBC2 and ITV make a particularly bad fist of it. At close range pixel peeping the announcers mouth has the occasional few wild pixels from the motion component but only on the SD signal. Their SD signal at one point also had an appalling edge effect on the horizon.
Comparing the BBC2 SD image to the delayed HD image it was easy to identify artefacts introduced onto the SD broadcast image. Original material at SD resolution did not show anything like the same problems. Obviously SD source material cannot match the HD detail, but it doesn't have anything like the same peculiar motion artefacts on moving edges.
I suspect the SCART lead can't really provide the bandwidth needed and at least some of the smearing may be down to that interconnect. Keep the signal path to the set in the digital domain if at all possible.
Regards, Martin Brown
Ditto that - it was really noticeable on the news channels on outside video. I seem to have developed a tolerance for it, as I don't expect OBs from around the world to be studio quality. However, the old CRT didn't show up the rubbish quality anything like as much and it wasn't a piece of cheap shit.
There is a difference in the way they convert an electrical signal to light. For example, a CRT set retains the same colour balance regardless of the angle you view it at. LCD are better than once - but still not perfect, and vary by maker. Similarly, the way they handle motion varies too. And the way some show up low data rate pictures more than others - and it's not just to do with the size.
We were. To the point we sent it back for a refund.
Short list of bad points:
o Even at max. brightness it was not very bright. And that in the evening in a not over-lit room. o Change of colour/contrast/brightness by viewing angle - both vertical and horizontal - was the worst I had seen ever in a television. o Speakers were spectacularly awful - worse than many cheap radios. o Manual was skimpy even by modern standards.
Yes - we did go through every bloomin' menu on the thing trying to improve matters. At best we reduced the posterisation effect a bit for the dead-straight ahead viewer. But never could we get colour even bearable.
Ours is a 23" Bravia KDL-23B40xx. It's about 3 (or even 4) years old, and long-discontinued. I suppose it's not too bad (not bad enough to take back), but I agree with most of those comments - in particular about the viewing angles. I believe that, at the time, Sony was using rather old-fashioned screens. I'm sure their modern sets are a lot better. However, I get the impression that the Panasonics have a very tolerant viewing angle (in all directions). If I was buying a new set, it's the parameters I would put top of the list of importance.
Ian,
Not sure they have improved since then! My story applies to about 3 (or even 4) weeks ago!
When looking round shops with that experience under our belts, it was clear that at least the majority of Sony televisions we saw had worse viewing angles than the competition.
Decided instead on a Panasonic and viewing angle is not an issue. And the reason we were surprised it was so bad is that the old one we were replacing had no such issues (an Acer - not exactly top of the pile in terms of television reputation). Unfortunately it did develop other issues such as needing to be switched on up to five times before it worked properly.
Do you know which model it was at all?, I really cannot say I've found any of those problems with he one we've got which is a KDL40EX503U.
Plenty of brightness, decent viewing angles good on most all SD and excellent on good decent bitrate HD. The only thing I'll agree with you is the sound but there're it seems, all like that theres not a lot you can do with the sort of enclosures that they are made of with that shallow cabinet depth....
FWIW even off the SCART input from a Dreambox on most all satellite sources from France and Germany especially the SD is almost HD !..
It was Sony KDL26EX320BU - and I simply don't recognise it from some of the reviews on Amazon.
We view using Virgin cable, in case that has any relevance.
We have a KDL40HX803, and are quite happy with it. The major problem I'm sure will go away with full DSO - dropouts.
You're right about the manual though.
Andy
As soon as we can get a solid Freeview signal, nor will we...
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.