Plasma or LCD?

[drunkle]

“Go out and buy component cables now, you won’t regret it.”

why? rca’s have served well for like 20 years. (my) dvd player is not hd, snaggle tooth, hdmi, whathaveyou. if i use an adapter, rca to hdmi, what have i gained?

actually, i think i use s-vid + rca sound…

the loopback for sound from tv to dvd (home theater system) is limited to rca inputs anyway as well…

the only improvement i really want for my home entertainment is a good remote. all in one, smart/programmable, ergonomic, with forward and back buttons to change channels like the forward and back buttons on a web browser. or a “favorites” type button that lets you flip through your most watched channels.

edit:
the plan is to rip and convert dvd’s and play them off a computer anyway. so the compression will kinda kill whatever bennies new cables or hdvd provide anyway…

[stockstradr]

I love how someone posts they think cable provides a better picture than satellite.

Hey, I’m the biggest cable TV fan. Had cable for YEARS. Three months ago we kept the cable AND got sat signal also. Our home is wired with two coaxial jacks everywhere, so we could compare cable vs. satellite picture with the push of a button.

And this fool posts here that cable has a better picture. It never fails on this Forum. A person could post “1+1=2” and some fool would flame post him and dispute it.

About fifty friends who visited our home in the last few months took the Cable vs. Satellite Viewing test. Veryone agreed:

The satellite picture absolutely blew away the cable picture…on both low def AND HDTV channels. It wasn’t even close. We dumped cable.

Also, the fool posts how he loves Direct TV. What, is he baiting us?

Get a clue. Compare the price of Direct TV with DISH Network. Direct TV is MUCH higher cost for basically the same channels, but the real bargain with Direct TV are the sign-up specials. The sign-on special gave us about six months of Direct TV for about half price.

[stockstradr]

I love how someone posts they think cable provides a better picture than satellite.

Hey, I’m the biggest cable TV fan. Had cable for YEARS. Three months ago we kept the cable AND got sat signal also. Our home is wired with two coaxial jacks everywhere, so we could compare cable vs. satellite picture with the push of a button.

And this fool posts here that cable has a better picture. It never fails on this Forum. A person could post “1+1=2” and some fool would flame post him and dispute it.

About fifty friends who visited our home in the last few months took the Cable vs. Satellite Viewing test. Veryone agreed:

The satellite picture absolutely blew away the cable picture…on both low def AND HDTV channels. It wasn’t even close. We dumped cable.

Also, the fool posts how he loves Direct TV. What, is he baiting us?

Get a clue. Compare the price of Direct TV with DISH Network. Direct TV is MUCH higher cost for basically the same channels, but the real bargain with Direct TV are the sign-up specials. The sign-on special gave us about six months of Direct TV for about half price.

[stockstradr]

I love how someone posts they think cable provides a better picture than satellite.

Hey, I’m the biggest cable TV fan. Had cable for YEARS. Three months ago we kept the cable AND got sat signal also. Our home is wired with two coaxial jacks everywhere, so we could compare cable vs. satellite picture with the push of a button.

And this fool posts here that cable has a better picture. It never fails on this Forum. A person could post “1+1=2” and some fool would flame post him and dispute it.

About fifty friends who visited our home in the last few months took the Cable vs. Satellite Viewing test. Veryone agreed:

The satellite picture absolutely blew away the cable picture…on both low def AND HDTV channels. It wasn’t even close. We dumped cable.

Also, the fool posts how he loves Direct TV. What, is he baiting us?

Get a clue. Compare the price of Direct TV with DISH Network. Direct TV is MUCH higher cost for basically the same channels, but the real bargain with Direct TV are the sign-up specials. The sign-on special gave us about six months of Direct TV for about half price.

[stockstradr]

I love how someone posts they think cable provides a better picture than satellite.

Hey, I’m the biggest cable TV fan. Had cable for YEARS. Three months ago we kept the cable AND got sat signal also. Our home is wired with two coaxial jacks everywhere, so we could compare cable vs. satellite picture with the push of a button.

And this fool posts here that cable has a better picture. It never fails on this Forum. A person could post “1+1=2” and some fool would flame post him and dispute it.

About fifty friends who visited our home in the last few months took the Cable vs. Satellite Viewing test. Veryone agreed:

The satellite picture absolutely blew away the cable picture…on both low def AND HDTV channels. It wasn’t even close. We dumped cable.

Also, the fool posts how he loves Direct TV. What, is he baiting us?

Get a clue. Compare the price of Direct TV with DISH Network. Direct TV is MUCH higher cost for basically the same channels, but the real bargain with Direct TV are the sign-up specials. The sign-on special gave us about six months of Direct TV for about half price.

[stockstradr]

I love how someone posts they think cable provides a better picture than satellite.

Hey, I’m the biggest cable TV fan. Had cable for YEARS. Three months ago we kept the cable AND got sat signal also. Our home is wired with two coaxial jacks everywhere, so we could compare cable vs. satellite picture with the push of a button.

And this fool posts here that cable has a better picture. It never fails on this Forum. A person could post “1+1=2” and some fool would flame post him and dispute it.

About fifty friends who visited our home in the last few months took the Cable vs. Satellite Viewing test. Veryone agreed:

The satellite picture absolutely blew away the cable picture…on both low def AND HDTV channels. It wasn’t even close. We dumped cable.

Also, the fool posts how he loves Direct TV. What, is he baiting us?

Get a clue. Compare the price of Direct TV with DISH Network. Direct TV is MUCH higher cost for basically the same channels, but the real bargain with Direct TV are the sign-up specials. The sign-on special gave us about six months of Direct TV for about half price.

[sdrealtor]

stockstradr
Thanx for all the great input. I hate to break your heart but the Samsung LN-T4661F is now $1399+tax+ $75 shipping at buy.com.

Still trying to make a final decision but that looks like a great option.

[sdrealtor]

stockstradr
Thanx for all the great input. I hate to break your heart but the Samsung LN-T4661F is now $1399+tax+ $75 shipping at buy.com.

Still trying to make a final decision but that looks like a great option.

[sdrealtor]

stockstradr
Thanx for all the great input. I hate to break your heart but the Samsung LN-T4661F is now $1399+tax+ $75 shipping at buy.com.

Still trying to make a final decision but that looks like a great option.

[sdrealtor]

stockstradr
Thanx for all the great input. I hate to break your heart but the Samsung LN-T4661F is now $1399+tax+ $75 shipping at buy.com.

Still trying to make a final decision but that looks like a great option.

[sdrealtor]

stockstradr
Thanx for all the great input. I hate to break your heart but the Samsung LN-T4661F is now $1399+tax+ $75 shipping at buy.com.

Still trying to make a final decision but that looks like a great option.

[Navydoc]

“why? rca’s have served well for like 20 years”

I’ll tell you why, because you get 3X the signal carrying capacity. Try this experiment: if your TV has component inputs unplug your RCA jacks and plug them into the component video outputs from your DVD player to your TV inputs. I use Red=Red, White=Blue and Yellow=green. The cables are the same, just colored differently. During this experiment you wont get any audio, but I want you to see the difference. If you don’t notice a substantial improvement in the picture make an appointment at the eye doctor, because you are definitely visually impaired.

This works even with a standard DVD player, and a standard def TV, as long as it has component inputs. Why? If you use RCA your DVD cannot put out any higher resolution than what a VCR can do, perhaps 320i. The DVD can do 480i if it’s standard, 480p if its a progressive scan. Couple that with the superior stability if the digital media storage format and you see why VCR’s are going the way of the dinosaur.

The more modern formats can go as high as 1080i and 1080p, but your TV has to be able to accept 1080p over component cables. Not many do, but the Sharps and the Sony XBRII’s do. HDMI is nice because it can also carry the lossless audio signal in addition to the video, requiring only one cable to the TV.

One last thing, you only need the really expensive component cables if you have a lot of electronic interference. I have achieved superb results with a $4 video cable. Expensive HDMI’s are even sillier, as it is a digital signal, either it’s there or it’s not, quality will be exactly the same as long as the signal is carried.

[Navydoc]

“why? rca’s have served well for like 20 years”

I’ll tell you why, because you get 3X the signal carrying capacity. Try this experiment: if your TV has component inputs unplug your RCA jacks and plug them into the component video outputs from your DVD player to your TV inputs. I use Red=Red, White=Blue and Yellow=green. The cables are the same, just colored differently. During this experiment you wont get any audio, but I want you to see the difference. If you don’t notice a substantial improvement in the picture make an appointment at the eye doctor, because you are definitely visually impaired.

This works even with a standard DVD player, and a standard def TV, as long as it has component inputs. Why? If you use RCA your DVD cannot put out any higher resolution than what a VCR can do, perhaps 320i. The DVD can do 480i if it’s standard, 480p if its a progressive scan. Couple that with the superior stability if the digital media storage format and you see why VCR’s are going the way of the dinosaur.

The more modern formats can go as high as 1080i and 1080p, but your TV has to be able to accept 1080p over component cables. Not many do, but the Sharps and the Sony XBRII’s do. HDMI is nice because it can also carry the lossless audio signal in addition to the video, requiring only one cable to the TV.

One last thing, you only need the really expensive component cables if you have a lot of electronic interference. I have achieved superb results with a $4 video cable. Expensive HDMI’s are even sillier, as it is a digital signal, either it’s there or it’s not, quality will be exactly the same as long as the signal is carried.

[Navydoc]

“why? rca’s have served well for like 20 years”

I’ll tell you why, because you get 3X the signal carrying capacity. Try this experiment: if your TV has component inputs unplug your RCA jacks and plug them into the component video outputs from your DVD player to your TV inputs. I use Red=Red, White=Blue and Yellow=green. The cables are the same, just colored differently. During this experiment you wont get any audio, but I want you to see the difference. If you don’t notice a substantial improvement in the picture make an appointment at the eye doctor, because you are definitely visually impaired.

This works even with a standard DVD player, and a standard def TV, as long as it has component inputs. Why? If you use RCA your DVD cannot put out any higher resolution than what a VCR can do, perhaps 320i. The DVD can do 480i if it’s standard, 480p if its a progressive scan. Couple that with the superior stability if the digital media storage format and you see why VCR’s are going the way of the dinosaur.

The more modern formats can go as high as 1080i and 1080p, but your TV has to be able to accept 1080p over component cables. Not many do, but the Sharps and the Sony XBRII’s do. HDMI is nice because it can also carry the lossless audio signal in addition to the video, requiring only one cable to the TV.

One last thing, you only need the really expensive component cables if you have a lot of electronic interference. I have achieved superb results with a $4 video cable. Expensive HDMI’s are even sillier, as it is a digital signal, either it’s there or it’s not, quality will be exactly the same as long as the signal is carried.

[Navydoc]

“why? rca’s have served well for like 20 years”

I’ll tell you why, because you get 3X the signal carrying capacity. Try this experiment: if your TV has component inputs unplug your RCA jacks and plug them into the component video outputs from your DVD player to your TV inputs. I use Red=Red, White=Blue and Yellow=green. The cables are the same, just colored differently. During this experiment you wont get any audio, but I want you to see the difference. If you don’t notice a substantial improvement in the picture make an appointment at the eye doctor, because you are definitely visually impaired.

This works even with a standard DVD player, and a standard def TV, as long as it has component inputs. Why? If you use RCA your DVD cannot put out any higher resolution than what a VCR can do, perhaps 320i. The DVD can do 480i if it’s standard, 480p if its a progressive scan. Couple that with the superior stability if the digital media storage format and you see why VCR’s are going the way of the dinosaur.

The more modern formats can go as high as 1080i and 1080p, but your TV has to be able to accept 1080p over component cables. Not many do, but the Sharps and the Sony XBRII’s do. HDMI is nice because it can also carry the lossless audio signal in addition to the video, requiring only one cable to the TV.

One last thing, you only need the really expensive component cables if you have a lot of electronic interference. I have achieved superb results with a $4 video cable. Expensive HDMI’s are even sillier, as it is a digital signal, either it’s there or it’s not, quality will be exactly the same as long as the signal is carried.

[Author]

Posts