I just finished moving and for some reason my tv won't display blue through the standard inputs. The HD inputs work perfectly but whenever I use something with composite cables the blues come out gray. The television was not dropped during the move. Can anyone give me some suggestions to try fixing the tv?

I just finished moving and for some reason my tv won't display blue through the standard inputs. The HD inputs work perfectly but whenever I use something with composite cables the blues come out gray. The television was not dropped during the move. Can anyone give me some suggestions to try fixing the tv?
ISF calibration maybe. Just a guess.

I took off the back of the tv and I don't see any loose cables. Sony said that they thought that the video card (I think he may have called it something else) may have become unseated properly during the move. I don't see anything wrong with the card or any of the cables connected to any of the cards. I'm going to have a repair person come take a look at it unless someone on here has a suggestion.

Hello everyone, I apologize in advance if someone has already posted on this issue, but I did not find the topic in this thread. Basically, tomorrow I have Comcast coming for a CableCARD installation in my 960, but I am wondering if all channels will output digital audio to my receiver (previously, I had an HD DVR hooked up to the 960 that output all channels to digital audio - most 2 channel, some 5.1). This is a deal-breaker for me, because I want to use my stereo receiver for all audio, and not have to flip back and forth between audio on the TV set and the receiver.

The reason I ask is that I hooked up the cable line directly into the TV, and only the digital channels are outputting digital audio through the Toslink connection. When I switch to a standard def channel (non digital/HD) the audio does not go through the toslink connection.

I hope this makes sense and I am not rambling. I apologize if this doesn't make sense. Any and all help will be greatly appreciated!

Chris
I have been using a Comcast cable card in my set since I got it 4 years ago and have had no problem receiving 5.1 signals when Comcast sends them out. The optical output from the set runs to my receiver. Both OTA and cable signals can change from 5.1 to 2.0 depending on the program or commercial being broadcast. The audio always sounds better OTA, because I'm told it is not compressed.

If anyone has a 960 in the Monterey, CA area that they are wanting to part with, please PM me.

Hi,

Can someone help me figure this out??

I just bought a second XBR960 and it makes it clear that my first Xbr960n has some sort of light output problem via HDMI.

Is there a setting in the SM somewhere that caps the light output for HDMI?

I have SPIC set to 15(in the SM) and Picture(in the user menu) set to 31 on both sets, yet the new 960 is significantly brighter. I even had to set the YCON on the old 960n to 1 as an attempt to increase brightness, but the new 960's white levels are too high with it at 1.

What is causing this difference?? Is it the fact that one is a 960n? From what I can tell, it's only the HDMI input that is suffering from this problem. What the heck, man?

Just a really inconsequential item here... that might be of use to some people.

I came home today to discover that my cleaning girl had for some reason decided to "wipe down" the screen of my XBR960. HORRORS!

I don't know what she did it with, but I'm guessing from the residual large sweeping dried streaks on the screen that it was probably a cloth of some type (probably 100% cotton, since that's what's in the bag of rags I supplied her with) and possibly dampened with Windex. I wouldn't be surprised if she was dusting all around, and decided to "dust off my screen" with the same cloth. HORRORS!

Anyway, I kept my composure and ran to get the can of trusty "oil free, wax free, non-streaking" screen cleaner (ingredients unknown) I use for my computer monitors. It works great on them so hopefully it would also work great on the 960's screen.

Did it in two sections, using a 100% cotton T-shirt rag to wipe it down, and then a complete wipe again to be sure.

And, sure enough, like magic, absolutely 100% perfectly clean and clear and streak-free, my 960's screen has been returned to mint condition.

Case closed.


So, just in the event you find yourself wanting to perform a similar function on your own 960, this item is just a house-brand Office Depot item labeled strangely enough, "Screen Cleaner, non-streaking".

UPC code: 0-79086 30236-0

Can't recommend this item highly enough, for 960 screens as well as computer display screens (anti-glare, notebook, CRT's and LCD's).

Just a really inconsequential item here... that might be of use to some people.

I came home today to discover that my cleaning girl had for some reason decided to "wipe down" the screen of my XBR960. HORRORS!

I don't know what she did it with, but I'm guessing from the residual large sweeping dried streaks on the screen that it was probably a cloth of some type (probably 100% cotton, since that's what's in the bag of rags I supplied her with) and possibly dampened with Windex. I wouldn't be surprised if she was dusting all around, and decided to "dust off my screen" with the same cloth. HORRORS!

Anyway, I kept my composure and ran to get the can of trusty "oil free, wax free, non-streaking" screen cleaner (ingredients unknown) I use for my computer monitors. It works great on them so hopefully it would also work great on the 960's screen.

Did it in two sections, using a 100% cotton T-shirt rag to wipe it down, and then a complete wipe again to be sure.

And, sure enough, like magic, absolutely 100% perfectly clean and clear and streak-free, my 960's screen has been returned to mint condition.

Case closed.


So, just in the event you find yourself wanting to perform a similar function on your own 960, this item is just a house-brand Office Depot item labeled strangely enough, "Screen Cleaner, non-streaking".

UPC code: 0-79086 30236-0

Can't recommend this item highly enough, for 960 screens as well as computer display screens (anti-glare, notebook, CRT's and LCD's).

As long as it's not "anti-static." Or at least I remember the manual to my FW900 CRT said anti-static formulations could scratch...

I'm guessing from the residual large sweeping dried streaks on the screen that it was probably a cloth of some type (probably 100% cotton, since that's what's in the bag of rags I supplied her with) and possibly dampened with Windex.

Hi Dsperber,

You are very, very lucky that all you had were streaks on the screen. Occasionally I used something like Windex on my 960 because water also often left streaks. But the last time it took off a small part of the 960's anti-glare coating which, to this day, I kick myself for causing.

Fortunately, it's only about an inch and a half in length and half-inch wide toward the upper left-hand side and not noticable except from a certain viewing angle. And when seen, it appears as nothing more than natural glare reflected off the screen with no picture distortion.

But to play it safe, I'm sticking with soft paper-towels damped in cold water followed by dry paper towels to avoid streaks and spots.

But to play it safe, I'm sticking with soft paper-towels damped in cold water followed by dry paper towels to avoid streaks and spots."Soft" paper towels? They're primarily a wood product and I would think using this kind of "cloth" would run the risk of scratching the screen's surface. Of course maybe wetting the paper towel for the first step would saturate it rendering it essentially harmless, but using the dry paper towel for the second step would seem kind of risky.

Except for the "Job Squad" brand that I have used forever because I like it's softness, every other paper towel I've ever tried has been stiff and had a rough surface. Maybe "Viva" is kind of similar to "Job Squad" in softness, because they're now both made by the same corporate giant conglomerate.

But personally I'm going to stick with a 100% soft cotton clean T-shirt rag for addressing screen cleaning needs, both for occasional dusting-only and possibly for the very rare actual screen cleaning such as I was forced into this week (along with the Office Depot anti-streaking screen cleaner, nothing else).

Fortunately, my 960's screen seems to have escaped unscathed. No indications whatsoever of anything at all removed from the anti-glare surface.

"Soft" paper towels? They're primarily a wood product and I would think using this kind of "cloth" would run the risk of scratching the screen's surface. Of course maybe wetting the paper towel for the first step would saturate it rendering it essentially harmless, but using the dry paper towel for the second step would seem kind of risky.

Except for the "Job Squad" brand that I have used forever because I like it's softness, every other paper towel I've ever tried has been stiff and had a rough surface. Maybe "Viva" is kind of similar to "Job Squad" in softness, because they're now both made by the same corporate giant conglomerate.

But personally I'm going to stick with a 100% soft cotton clean T-shirt rag for addressing screen cleaning needs, both for occasional dusting-only and possibly for the very rare actual screen cleaning such as I was forced into this week (along with the Office Depot anti-streaking screen cleaner, nothing else).

Fortunately, my 960's screen seems to have escaped unscathed. No indications whatsoever of anything at all removed from the anti-glare surface.

Only thing is, the screen is already wet when the dry paper towel is applied and that one becomes wet in the process as well. But you do have a point and maybe it wasn't just the windex but the paper towel used to dry it down that time too.

I always dust the screen with a soft rag but have also gently washed it with cold water it every two weeks or so the past four years which keeps it pristinely clean. I never had a problem with paper towels except that one time with the Windex. Found damped, t-shirt-type rags left not only streaks but watermarks and even a bit of lint on the screen but will give it another try to play it safe.

I was playing my 360 when I went to go eat. Turned off the TV and the XBOX. When I came back to play more I got no sound from my 360. Turned all off and back on again and still no sound. I thought it was just the 360 failing on me. I hooked up the DVR and the DVD player and none of them would give sound via HDMI. I made sure that everything was set to deliver audio via HDMI. Nothing works. Even tried different HDMI cables that work on another TV set. Any ideas on how to fix it? Or should I just start saving for another HDTV and use my component hookups for now.

I was playing my 360 when I went to go eat. Turned off the TV and the XBOX. When I came back to play more I got no sound from my 360. Turned all off and back on again and still no sound. Any ideas on how to fix it? Or should I just start saving for another HDTV and use my component hookups for now.Not that it's guaranteed to fix anything, but have you pulled the 960 power cord from the wall? Sometimes this cold power-on reset kicks things back into operation.

I was playing my 360 when I went to go eat. Turned off the TV and the XBOX. When I came back to play more I got no sound from my 360. Turned all off and back on again and still no sound. I thought it was just the 360 failing on me. I hooked up the DVR and the DVD player and none of them would give sound via HDMI. I made sure that everything was set to deliver audio via HDMI. Nothing works. Even tried different HDMI cables that work on another TV set. Any ideas on how to fix it? Or should I just start saving for another HDTV and use my component hookups for now.

As a matter of routine I unplug my 960 about once a month to avoid things like this and also to be sure that the degauser kicks in completely.

Not that it's guaranteed to fix anything, but have you pulled the 960 power cord from the wall? Sometimes this cold power-on reset kicks things back into operation.

I would like tothank all of you for actually pulling the power cord. I did that immediately after I posted. Pulled up Newegg andBest Buy website and started looking at new sets while I ate breakfast. Turned it on to watch a bit of cable and there was sound. Then I noticed the input wasthe HDMI input :D.

Contemplating selling my 960. Here are the details:
-Original owner, bought new in August 2004. Have all reciepts+manual and remote.
-Excellent condition, never had a single problem with it. Limited weekend use with just video games and HD DVD/Blu Ray. Always covered when not in use and run through a surge protector when in use and unplugged when not in use. Only used by myself and never any kids or pets around it.
-Anti-glare guard removed and ISF calibrated twice with geometry during ownership by ChadB. Have a Word document of the most recent one from January of this year.
-Matching Sony stand included.

I am located in Lakewood, NJ 08701. $600 Send me a PM.

Not trying to crap on your post I'm just curious about the removal of the anti-glare? I did that to my PC monitor which is the cousin of the 960 (the fw900), and the black levels went WAY up. It now looks like a CRT/LCD hybrid it's so freakin bright. I removed mine because it had so many scratches on it.

good luck Darkie

I can't locate the thread replying to mine

I had to ditch my 960 a whlie back; got a 4100 and now a 5100 SONY 46"

NEVER had a chance to calibrate my 960...where I live ;-(

These sets are OK but I miss my 960 ;-0

replied below...

Not trying to crap on your post I'm just curious about the removal of the anti-glare? I did that to my PC monitor which is the cousin of the 960 (the fw900), and the black levels went WAY up. It now looks like a CRT/LCD hybrid it's so freakin bright. I removed mine because it had so many scratches on it.

Well, the overall brightness of the picture increased as expected, but not a whole lot where I would say it was way off. The blacks still looked inky to me, but with a touch more shadow detail. The picture was slightly sharper as well. I had Chad calibrate it a few days later just to have it accurate. It was almost 3 years since he last calibrated it and my black levels actually had droped a bit where he had to bring them up. There was nothing wrong with mine, but I had a chance to see one earlier w/o the glare filter and I was impressed with how it looked.

Well, the overall brightness of the picture increased as expected, but not a whole lot where I would say it was way off. The blacks still looked inky to me, but with a touch more shadow detail. The picture was slightly sharper as well. I had Chad calibrate it a few days later just to have it accurate. It was almost 3 years since he last calibrated it and my black levels actually had droped a bit where he had to bring them up. There was nothing wrong with mine, but I had a chance to see one earlier w/o the glare filter and I was impressed with how it looked.

Since the 960 has an anti-glare coating and the 960N has an internal glare filter, has thre been an increase in glare since your set now has neither?

Yes, there is an increase in glare. I have good light control where it is, so it's not a problem. It loses that purple-ish tint when turned off, just like my Sony 24" FS120.

Have owned my XBR960 for almost 3 yrs.(It's a 2006 model). Just recently got a HD package with my Charter TV service. When I try to compare pictures between Standard Definition (SD) & High Definition (HD) on a HD channel (HBO, Showtime, Animal Planet, etc.) I can't tell much of a difference in picture quality. Is this TV HD ready or do I need to buy something to make it produce HD quality pictures? I had a friend stop by to review the Owners Manual, specs., wiring hook-up, etc. and he says he's not certain that my TV is HD ready. Am I doing something wrong or just what exactly do I need to do to get my XBR to display HD quality pictures? Any help or advice you can provide to this "newbie" will be appreciated. Thanx.

Certainly, the TV is HD ready.

How do you have your cable box connected to the 960? Should be either HDMI or component.

Have owned my XBR960 for almost 3 yrs.(It's a 2006 model). Just recently got a HD package with my Charter TV service. When I try to compare pictures between Standard Definition (SD) & High Definition (HD) on a HD channel (HBO, Showtime, Animal Planet, etc.) I can't tell much of a difference in picture quality. Am I doing something wrongYes, you must be doing something wrong.

The Charter cable box (probably a Scientific Atlanta SA8300, but you need to tell us specifically what you have) has multiple video output connectors, for connection to a variety of possible TVs. HD-quality pictures MUST use either (a) component video connection to INPUT5/6 on the XBR960, or (b) DVI/HDMI connection to INPUT7 on the XBR960. You can even use the firewire (1394) connection from cable box to the XBR960's firewire input and get HD-quality picture, if your cable box supports it, but I do not recommend that firewire approach since the cable box graphics (i.e. Guide, menus, etc.) are not propagated on the firewire output.

If you use either of the other two possible video outputs from the cable box to the XBR960 (i.e. composite or S-video, to INPUT1/3 of the XBR960) then you are NOT watching 720p/1080i HD-quality picture. You are watching 480i picture. And if you are tuned to an HD channel and watching it on INPUT1/3 composite/S-video (by setting your cable box to do this) then you have down-converted your HD 720p/1080i channel content for 480i presentation: NOT HD.

So, in summary, component from cable box to INPUT5/6 of the XBR960, or DVI/HDMI from cable box to INPUT7 of the XBR960, and SA8300 (or whatever) configured to deliver 720p/1080i to the TV. Now you'll actually be watching the HD-quality picture from Charter's HD channels on your XBR960. (Of course, you must choose INPUT 5/6/7 on the XBR960 to be watching the HD source content)

Using any other connection method to INPUT1/3, or configuring your cable box so that it does NOT deliver 720p/1080i out of component/HDMI, and you're NOT watching HD picture. But this is not the fault of the XBR960. The fault lies with your connections and/or cable box video setup.

. Is this TV HD ready or do I need to buy something to make it produce HD quality pictures? I had a friend stop by to review the Owners Manual, specs., wiring hook-up, etc. and he says he's not certain that my TV is HD ready. Am I doing something wrong or just what exactly do I need to do to get my XBR to display HD quality pictures? Any help or advice you can provide to this "newbie" will be appreciated. Thanx.

The tv is HD ready but requires a cable card (free) from your cable provider to get the premium channels

Plus you will need a scheduled visit from a technician as they typically don't allow you to do the cable card setup

Alternately you can rent an HD cable box as others have mentioned

The local broadcast channels should be available in clear HD (QAM) on the cable input - but sometimes cable operators provide the SD versus HD version of the local broadcast

The tv is HD ready but requires a cable card (free) from your cable provider to get the premium channelsIs this actually correct? Cable cards are free? I thought they were a few bucks a month, but I may be wrong.

Anyway, it's certainly true that the minimal information provided in the OP regarding some kind of "HD package" obtained from Charter definitely does not define whether or not a cable box and/or DVR was part of the story. I actually had not even considered the cable card alternative.

Nevertheless, the fact that there is some mention of contrasting SD vs. "HD channels" (e.g. premiums like HBO and SHO, and non-premiums like APL-HD vs. APL-SD) suggests that whatever the arrangement (cable card or STB/DVR) he must have the proper equipment already installed... else it would be impossible to even tune to one of these "HD channels", as almost universally now it is only the OTA local network HD channels which can be tuned "in the clear".

I still think it must be a cabling story from what I'm guessing must be an STB/DVR to the 960, rather than a cable card configuration with coax direct to the 960. If this were the case, and a true HD channel tuned to, the picture would have to be presented in HD by the 960... and this would easily be differentiated from the SD version of the same channel.

pharmerphil, can you provide some additional info?

Phil,

I agree with the others that you probably are not connected to video six or seven.

The only other possible answer is that your cable system uses a video mapping system where the HD feed automatically comes on, even if one had selected a channel allocated for the SD transmission instead. Does your picture quality in general now seem like night and day compared to the old box? If so, it might be the mapping system and that's why you can't tell any difference.

Thanks to all of you that have tried to help me thusfar. Here's some info. that may be pertinent:
The Charter Receiver/Box is a Motorola, HD Dual Tuner, DVR, Model #DCH 6416. I don't really see a slot/place for a Cable Card & I do not have such a card.
The wiring from my TV to the receiver is a thick, white, 5 strand ribbon wire.
3 wires labeled video And 2 labeled audio are connected to the back of the receiver. There are 4 ports/connectors on the back of the receiver that are empty/unconnected and they are the HDMI, Ethernet, USB, & Sata.

Just to make sure that it wasn't just my old eyes that couldn't see any difference I've had 3 other younger friends make a comparison between SD & HD channels and they too said it was barely noticeable, if any at all.
If there is any other info. I can provide that would be helpful, please advise. Sorry that I'm not more versed on TV's and able to provide more intelligent input. Thanks again.

The 5 wire ribbon wire IS connected at the back of the 960 to Video #5 HD/DVD IN. My "hook-up" was done by a Charter Service Rep, not myself.

The 5 wire ribbon wire IS connected at the back of the 960 to Video #5 HD/DVD IN. My "hook-up" was done by a Charter Service Rep, not myself.

Phil,

There's the problem -- the Charter Service Representative hooked it up to the wrong input. Video five is not meant for high definition. Re-connect the cables to video six and you'll see the difference.

Yep, Joseph, switched the ribbon wires over to #6 and saw the improvement in sharpness, clarity, "crispness", immediately. I certainly appreciate yours, and everyone elses, prompt responses and helpful info. I've heard great things about AVS and the knowledge & experience of the "posters" at their site. For a novice such as myself I would never have figured out what to do (and it was so easy).
By the way, I love my XBR960! Got friends with 40 to 60 inch LCD's & Plasma's but I think my picture blows theirs away. Now that I got the HD picture to work it's even more awesome!
Thanks again to every one of you fellow XBR960 fans.

Is this actually correct? Cable cards are free? I thought they were a few bucks a month, but I may be wrong.

....
Nevertheless, the fact that there is some mention of contrasting SD vs. "HD channels" (e.g. premiums like HBO and SHO, and non-premiums like APL-HD vs. APL-SD) suggests that whatever the arrangement (cable card or STB/DVR) he must have the proper equipment already installed... else it would be impossible to even tune to one of these "HD channels", as almost universally now it is only the OTA local network HD channels which can be tuned "in the clear".



I haven't looked at my bill in a while - but at least initially there was no rental fee for either of my cable cards but there was a $2 per "outlet" charge (which also applied to my HD DVR in addition to themonthly rental fee).

On the SD/HD comment I was thinking it could have been a clear QAM situation. The OP should clarify his equipment/cabling as you noted.

However your point above on clear QAM is not correct, at least in my case as I am getting several hundred clear as evidenced on my HD Homerun tuner (can't tell on the Sonys due to the cable card decoding encrypted). These include several HD premiums such as UHD. Probably related to the cable digital realignment and with the ongoing effort to role out free digital boxes for the non-HD customers and recover analog bandwidth.

Long point is that I was thinking he was probably seeing some of those channels (eg SD HBO and STarz etc) on a direct cable connection, else as you note the resolution difference would have been obvious - but only a response from OP can clarify.

(EDIt - I see he did clarify that he has a cable box so my points above were not the case)

However my point on the free digital boxes is quite applicable for all of us with QAM tuners - you will be able to get the same set of channels that the cable provider is affording its customers with those boxes - typically this is the basic cable level - maybe 70 channels or so and they are all available without a cable box (or cable card) now (but most are 480 resolution)

There's the problem -- the Charter Service Representative hooked it up to the wrong input. Video five is not meant for high definition. Re-connect the cables to video six and you'll see the difference.Joe,

I must respectfully disagree with this diagnosis and proposed solution.

On the XBR960 both INPUT5 and INPUT6 are identical, and are both capable of receiving 480i/480p/720p/1080i input via component video.

Switching the component video connection from the DCH3416 from INPUT5 to INPUT6 should accomplish nothing.

The answer must lie elsewhere, if in doing so Phil noticed a "dramatic" improvement in picture after changing the connection on the back of the 960 from INPUT5 to INPUT6.

Joe,

I must respectfully disagree with this diagnosis and proposed solution.

On the XBR960 both INPUT5 and INPUT6 are identical, and are both capable of receiving 480i/480p/720p/1080i input via component video.

Switching the component video connection from the DCH3416 from INPUT5 to INPUT6 should accomplish nothing.

The answer must lie elsewhere, if in doing so Phil noticed a "dramatic" improvement in picture after changing the connection on the back of the 960 from INPUT5 to INPUT6.I agree with DSperber on this. Inputs5 & 6 are identical, component video inputs capable of both SD and HD resolutions.

I would suggest that the Motorola box is not setup correctly. I suggest taking a look at Motorola STB Setup (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/How_to_use_a_Motorola_DVR/Setup). I have been using a Moto DCT6200 with a Sony 34HS510 for many years and TVType = 16:9, HDMI/YPbPr = 1080i, 4:3 override = OFF is my suggested setup.

4:3 override set to off allows the very good upconverter in the Sony to do its thing and allows use of the screen modes on the Sony. One note, because of a firmware problem on the DCT boxes, if it appears that a color is missing on SD channels, then set the override = 480p. However, this may not effect your DCH.

Yep, Joseph, switched the ribbon wires over to #6 and saw the improvement in sharpness, clarity, "crispness", immediately.Phil, as I mentioned in my reply to Joe's post, I disagree that this connection change from INPUT5 to INPUT6 accounts for the difference you see. In my opinion that is impossible, as INPUT5 and INPUT6 are identical component video inputs on the 960... simply TWO separate alternatives for connection from source devices.

Since BOTH of these connections DO support the full range of input resolutions (480i from SD TV, 480p from DVD, 720p/1080i from HD channels) you could certainly have connected your DCH3416 to either input, and SHOULD have been able to clearly see what is in HD in its native and glorious resolution on the 960... and easily distinguishable from the SD equivalent channel.

The "5-strand" white ribbon cable you describe as installed by the cable company is simply an "all-in-one" standard-issue component video cable, with three of the five strands (green, blue, red male connectors at the end) going to the corresponding YPbPr green/blue/red remale connectors of the 960's component video input. The remaining two strands (red, white male connectors at the end) go the corresponding analog audio input for that particular component video input, which also have red/white female connectors.

Using the five INPUT5 connectors for this ribbon cable instead of the INPUT6 connectors makes no difference whatsoever. Both inputs are identical. There's nothing wrong with your current INPUT6 choice, but there should have been nothing wrong with your INPUT5 choice either.


So... now that you've told us you have a DCH3416 from Charter, let's first make sure that the cable guy did right by you. For simplicity let's just call it your "DVR". Let's make sure your DVR is configured correctly for the 960.

If you have the DVR powered on and the 960 powered on and you're watching INPUT6, go over to the DVR and push the POWER button on the front panel of the DVR and then right away (i.e. right after pushing the POWER button) push the MENU button on the front panel of the DVR. This should produce a setup screen on your 960.

At the top of the setup screen (titled "USER SETTING STATUS"). Use your remote down-arrow key to navigate the cursor around this menu. If any of the choices presented are NOT what I tell you should be set, if you push the OK button on the remote the settings menu will change the value to the next allowed value for that setting which you're pointing to.

Top line "TV TYPE" should be set to "16:9".

Second line "YPbPr OUTPUT" should show "1080I". The DCH3416 only supports 720p or 1080i (one or the other) for HD resolutions, depending on what the connected HDTV can accept. The 960 can accept either, but since only one of these values can be specified you should specify the "1080I" value to ensure maximum possible resolution on your screen. This will cause the DVR to up-convert 720p programs to 1080i resolution, but that's not a crime.

Third line "4:3 OVERRIDE" should show "off". This will cause 4:3 SD programs to be presented on the screen of the 960 as 4:3 images within the 16:9 rectangular screen, surround on left and right with black "pillar bars". In other words a 4:3 image will appear natural, normal, as if you are watching on a conventional 4:3 SD television, and with NO HORIZONTAL STRETCH. Of course this is a matter of personal taste (and is mine, naturally) but really only affects how 4:3 SD programs appear on the 960. I recommend this value.

Now push the POWER button again on the face of the DVR, to turn off the DVR and make your above settings permanent.


Now... you can power on the DVR again (use the remote) for normal operation.

Since you're new to HD, I'll state some obvious facts that make watching HD channels different from watching conventional SD channels. This may really be the true explanation why you saw "no appreciable difference" in SD channels vs. their HD counterparts... something which is actually impossible, if you've tuned to the proper channels. Nobody can NOT SEE a difference from SD to HD, if watching the proper HD channel.

And that's the key here... that there are TWO DIFFERENT CHANNELS provided by Charter, one for SD watching and a second separate channel for HD watching. To use an example from my Time Warner cable system, NBC is provided on both "SD" at channel 4 and also for "HD" on channel 404.

So yes, I can choose channel 4 and see it presented in 4:3 SD 480i resolution on INPUT5/6/7, or I can choose channel 404 and see it presented in 16:9 HD 1080i resolution on the same INPUT5/6/7.

Same with HBO on Time Warner... it is provided on 503 in SD 4:3 as well as on 502 in HD 16:9.

So first, you MUST be tuned to the HD version of a channel (when both SD and HD channel alternatives are provided, e.g. with your Animal Planet SD and HD).


Second, the channel most actually be broadcasting an HD 16:9 program in order for you to actually see HD clarity. Unfortunately, many of the standard cable and network channels (and APL is no different) often broadcast non-16:9 non-HD content. Even though this content is being sent to the HD 16:9 version of the channel (as well as to the SD 4:3 version of the channel), it will simply appear onscreen as a regular 4:3 non-glorious image.

This is not the fault of your 960, not the fault of your connection to INPUT5 or INPUT6, and not the fault of your DVR. It is simply that at that moment there is not a true 16:9 HD image being sent from network to Charter to you.

Now as a general rule, this is NEVER the case with premiums like HBO-HD. Except for inter-program promos or the very rarest of shows, you will likely ALWAYS see true 16:9 HD-quality images coming from HBO-HD and SHO-HD. But you MUST TUNE TO THOSE HBO-HD and SHO-HD channels in order to get HD pictures. You will NOT get HD picture on your 960 if you tune to the SD version of HBO and SHO.

Again... two separate channels for SD and HD for any single network/premium/cable source , and you must ALWAYS TUNE TO THE HD version of that channel in order to see the HD picture.


Finally, although the cable company used the standard-issue 5-strand white ribbon cable to connect your DVR to the 960 on INPUT5 (or INPUT6, no difference), I think you might find that buying your own HDMI cable to connect the DVR to the 960 using an HDMI connection might produce a slightly superior image (you would select INPUT7 on the 960 to watch via HDMI). At least that's been my experience, although the difference is quite small and you may not see it yourself.

In other words, component video connection vs. HDMI connection is more noticeable when using a digital flat-panel display device (e.g. LCD or plasma or DLP). With the CRT 960 there is almost no noticeable difference when using HDMI vs. component video, so until you get used to your new HD world I'd say just leave things exactly as they are right now.


So, I know you said all you did was moved your connection to the DVR from INPUT5 on the 960 over to INPUT6, but honestly that could not have been the explanation for why you now see an SD vs. HD difference.

I think you must have simply been not tuning to the proper channel... remember there are TWO to choose from for each network, one is SD and one is HD.

And on the HD channel they might be broadcasting an old 4:3 SD program which case there will be little difference between watching it on the HD channel and watching it on the SD channel.

But if they are broadcasting a true 16:9 HD program on the HD channel, I assure you there will be a GIANT difference between watching that 16:9 HD-resolution 720p/1080i program from the HD channel, and watching what will be a 4:3 cropped SD-resolution 480I version of that same program. NIGHT AND DAY, and anybody can see it.


Hope that helps clarify things.

Appreciate your lengthy reply putting terminology in language that an amateur like myself can understand. I followed all your directions about using the menu/setup and my Motorola Receiver/DVR #9416 was set exactly to the specifics you recommended.
I wish it were something as simple as my not hitting the correct HD channel when comparing. I tried several (Animal Planet SD#61,HD#729. HBO SD is 500, HD=550. Showtime 400, HD 570. Food 26/751. TNT 40/781. etc.) When going from a SD to HD channel I did notice a pause of a couple seconds BEFORE the HD appeared on screen. Then when I get to the HD channel it displays the channel # & shows HD next to that #. I'm certain that getting the HD channel when trying to compare to the SD channel.
If I had to give a "seat of the pants" comparison of my SD to HD picture I would say SD is a 9 and HD is a 9.3. Both pictures are great. Maybe I'm expecting too much of a difference but you got to really look close and focus on a brick, or a crack in the sidewalk, or scales on snake to see a discernable difference between the two. Because of this "lack of difference" in picture quality between SD &HD (at least to my wife's & my eyes) I'll probably not pay extra for the HD Package the next time the bill is due.
I learned a lot from all of the replies here & glad I posted my request for help. At least I now know everything is wired correctly, settings are correct, and I am receiving the HD channels . I'm content! Thanx.


I feel confident that my wiring, connections, settings, etc. are where they should be.

Ther's no need to speculate on whether you are hooked up correctly or not or to describe what you are seeing (but it still doesn't sound right). Just hit the display button on the remote and the tv will report the resollution you are receiving on screen eg 1080i for most HD channels but 720 p for others; 480i for SD

Yep, No longer any speculation because, as you suggested, I used the Display Button and got the 1080, 480 on the HD/SD Channels as they should be. Thanx.

Hi all,

See where I made the mistake.

On page 34 of the manual it specifically said to connect the DVD player's component outputs to video 5 (not 5 or 6). Since this was before the advent of Bluray and that non-HD monitors also had component inputs, I took this to mean only 480i/p could be accepted.

I see now where both 5 and 6 are clearly marked "HD" and feel quite embarrased. Hope this won't tarnish my reputation in future posts! :)

I agree with Dsperber - HDMI does offer a slightly bit better picture quality (I saw the difference when comparing the two, having used HD test patterns to be sure both inputs were properly set).

But either way, the difference between standard definition and HD (regardless of input-type) is so obvious so Phil, I would suggest trying a HDMI cable before unscribing your HD service. Perhaps there is a problem with the component output from your cable box.

I tried several (Animal Planet SD#61,HD#729. HBO SD is 500, HD=550. Showtime 400, HD 570. Food 26/751. TNT 40/781. etc.) When going from a SD to HD channel I did notice a pause of a couple seconds BEFORE the HD appeared on screen. Then when I get to the HD channel it displays the channel # & shows HD next to that #. I'm certain that getting the HD channel when trying to compare to the SD channel.

If I had to give a "seat of the pants" comparison of my SD to HD picture I would say SD is a 9 and HD is a 9.3. Both pictures are great. Maybe I'm expecting too much of a difference but you got to really look close and focus on a brick, or a crack in the sidewalk, or scales on snake to see a discernable difference between the two.Again... much depends on the cameras used to shoot the original content. If they're not HD cameras, but rather "WideScreen SD" just to produce the 16:9 aspect ratio image while not actually producing 720p/1080i resolution, then the content is not going to produce that much of a WOW effect when comparing SD to HD.

Since you have apparently gotten some "all you can eat" option from Charter (maybe for 3 months) I suggest you spend a bit more time comparing actual known 16:9 true HD-content against its cropped 4:3 SD counterpart, before rushing to any 9.0 vs. 9.3 estimate of relative difference.

The 960 is a fantastic HDTV and does some remarkable things with images, but I can assure you that SD vs. HD is simply not 9.0 vs. 9.3. There is a HUGE amount of additional visual data in 1920x1080 vs. 640x480, and the scan lines in both horizontal and vertical directions are MUCH closer together, making it look much more like film rather than interlaced TV.


Because of this "lack of difference" in picture quality between SD &HD (at least to my wife's & my eyes) I'll probably not pay extra for the HD Package the next time the bill is due.Well I don't know what the HD package from Charter consists of, but I'm sure that even if you discontinue whatever they sold you you'll still be getting local OTA networks and other "basic cable" channels in HD as well as SD. Please... only tune to the HD channels if they exist. This goes for setting timer recordings on your DVR... ONLY CHOOSE THE HD CHANNEL VERSIONS FOR RECORDING (you may need to "train the wife" here). DO NOT WATCH SD CHANNELS WHEN HD CHANNELS ARE AVAILABLE.

However I don't take issue with your right to get whatever you want from Charter, especially discontinuing some of the real options (like premium movie channels other than HBO and SHO).

But if you've got HBO-HD and SHO-HD at least for this month, please tune in on Sunday night and watch (a) "Curb Your Enthusiasm" on HBO-HD, and (b) "Dexter" on SHO-HD. These are going to both be in stunning 16:9 true HD shot with absolutely genuine HD cameras. And go back and forth to the 4:3 SD channels (with big black bars on left and right since the image is only 4:3) and compare what you see, and tell me you can't tell the difference!

Even your wife should easily be able to see the difference. 16:9 vs. 4:3, 1920 horizontal scan lines vs. 640, 1080 vertical scan lines vs. 480. Come on.

Then, on Thursday night, do the same thing with "Survivor" and "CSI" on CBS-HD. These are two network HD shows in 1080i that are ABSOLUTELY STUNNING in true 16:9 HD and look shameful by comparison in 4:3 SD. Come on.


Welcome to the HD world. Keep it (but delete optional packages with channels you'll never watch).

I'm already an avid fan of both CSI & Dexter so I will watch both these upcoming episodes in HD. I'm going to experiment with all my HD channels (about 20 total) before I make the decision to cancel my HD channels. I do think I'll spend $10, including shipping,(Amazon) for a 6 ft. HDMI cable (Mediabridge Ultra, Version 1.3, Category 2) & see if that helps.
If I order a HDMI cable, to replace my "ribbon wire", does this one connection do both audio & video? On the rear panel of my 960 I see the HDMI, Video 7 IN, plug. Then below that plug "hole" there are 2 RCA type audio jack "holes", Audio IN, left & right. Do I have to connect the 2 white ribbon wire RCA jacks to these audio connections or does the one single HDMI connection serve both purposes (video & audio)?

No - the audio will come to the TV over the HDMI digitally

You may want to hook up the digital out of the STB to a receiver however to get DD 5.1 suround sound, I also have the TV digital out hooked up to receiver as well

I currently have both a DVD player & my Charter DVR connected & working fine with my 960. I also have a VCR that is NOT connected at present time. Occassionally I would like to play a VCR tape that I have on hand. What specific connections do I need to connect to get the VCR to work with my TV? What goes where & what "type" connector wire/cable do I need to do so? Thanx again.

I currently have both a DVD player & my Charter DVR connected & working fine with my 960. I also have a VCR that is NOT connected at present time. Occassionally I would like to play a VCR tape that I have on hand. What specific connections do I need to connect to get the VCR to work with my TV? What goes where & what "type" connector wire/cable do I need to do so? Thanx again.Unless your VCR happens to have an S-video output, some do but most do not, composite video will be your best option. This connection consists of one yellow RCA video connection and two red/white RCA audio connections. Video 1, 2(on the front), & 3 are s-video or composite and 4 is composite only. Take your pick.

Good Luck

Don't forget, I'm a "newbie" with very little video expertise. I do not have S video on my DVR. Now, I connect my VCR to what------the TV itself, or the Charter box/receiver? Pls. specify what specific connections on the DVR go to what specific connections on the TV, or is it the receiver. Pls. bear with this amateur as this is all new to me. I just want to make certain that I connect the VCR to the right piece of equipment. In this case, is it the TV or is it the Receiver/DVR box from Charter?

I have a strange problem with my Sony XBR800 right now. I just picked up a hd/dvr converter from my cable company yesterday. The clarity is fine, however, for some reason on HD channels in both 720p and 1080i formats, there is a sliver of the bottom portion of the picture sitting right on the top of the picture. For example, watching the NFL games today, the yard lines and people on the sidelines are shown in a small sliver on top part of the picture.

If you guys don't know what I'm talking about I can snap a picture. I went into the service menu and adjusted some of the geometry codes and searched if it was an overscan problem on this forum but couldn't find anything.

Thoughts?

Don't forget, I'm a "newbie" with very little video expertise. I do not have S video on my DVR. Now, I connect my VCR to what------the TV itself, or the Charter box/receiver? Pls. specify what specific connections on the DVR go to what specific connections on the TV, or is it the receiver. Pls. bear with this amateur as this is all new to me. I just want to make certain that I connect the VCR to the right piece of equipment. In this case, is it the TV or is it the Receiver/DVR box from Charter?You're mixing up your terms a little. I understood your latest question to be, how to connect your VCR to your HDTV to playback existing VHS tapes. My response answered this question. Connect the video and audio out of the VCR to video 1 of your HDTV using a yellow, red/white RCA cable. Select video 1 on the set to view.

BTW, you did not mention any desire to record on the VCR so this solution does not include that capability.

Yep, you're totally correct. I used the term DVR, twice, when I meant to say VCR. You're also correct in that I asked only how to Play a tape and did not specify anything about Recording a tape on my VCR. Thanks to the details & specifics you sent, I now know how to Play a VCR tape. Just in case I may one day want to Record a tape could you pls. provide that info. as well? Thanks again for your response and helpful info.

I'm already an avid fan of both CSI & Dexter so I will watch both these upcoming episodes in HD. I'm going to experiment with all my HD channels (about 20 total) before I make the decision to cancel my HD channels.I forgot to mention one other show which looks stunning in HD, and that's "Saturday Night Live" on NBC (it was on last night, of course).

The other shows are filmed, or shot using digital cameras to produce a film-like look. But SNL is actually live 1080i (with essentially no motion so that there are no motion artifacts of any kind), and you can't get any better than that. You should be able to see a HUGE difference in picture quality watching the HD version... not to mention the HUGE increase in pure enjoyment from the gorgeously perfect color, 16:9 widescreen image, etc.


I do think I'll spend $10, including shipping,(Amazon) for a 6 ft. HDMI cable (Mediabridge Ultra, Version 1.3, Category 2) & see if that helps.It will not "help" anything in a dramatic way. With the CRT 960 component video picture is honestly almost indistinguishable from HDMI picture, although I've come to feel that the HDMI version of the picture from my Motorola DVRs (previously DCH3416 like yours, and now DCX3400) has a small bit of "pop" and sharpness that just looks a little better to me. So now I've opted for HDMI rather than component (although I can choose either, since I have both connections in place), but I've watched HDTV over component video on the 960 for many years, going HDMI only in the past 6 months or so.

Again, the difference is subtle, and depending on the "calibration" of your 960 you may either not see any difference or you may actually prefer one or the other. Remember, the USER MENU settings for INPUT5, 6 and 7 are uniquely remembered. So you can adjust each input separately.


If I order a HDMI cable, to replace my "ribbon wire", does this one connection do both audio & video?This was answered earlier. And the answer is that the HDMI cable completely replaces the 5-strand ribbon cable. HDMI provides both digital audio and digital video to the 960. You need nothing else, so you can remove the ribbon cable completely.

And, as has also been mentioned, if you have an external audio receiver and loudspeakers for multi-channel sound, you should connect the DVR to the receiver using an optical connection. The 960 itself is incapable of reproducing multi-channel sound, so you'll only hear 2-channel L/R stereo (just as you currently do from the red/white pair of wires in your 5-strand ribbon cable).

The only difference is that the sound currently being fed over the red/white wires from the DVR is in analog form, being fed to the analog audio input of the 960 (corresponding to INPUT5/6). The job of converting from the 2-channel PCM stereo digital audio that is part of the digital TV program content is being done by the DVR.

In contrast, when you use the HDMI cable from DVR to 960 then the job of converting the 2-channel PCM stereo digital audio in the digital TV content is performed by the 960 itself. This may or may not actually sound better than the analog stereo sound currently coming from the DVR.

Remember that you have audio setup available to you, in both the 960 as well as the DCH3416. Given the meagerness of the 960's speakers, I don't know that there's much that can be done to really make anything sound all that good.

Personally, I don't use the speakers on the TV (I have them disabled) because honestly they're not all that great. Instead, I use a very good set of external 2.1 Altec-Lansing computer speakers instead of the 960's speakers, when I want to just casually listen to something on the TV. These speakers are connected through my A/V receiver which is fed optically from the DVR (which feeds both 2-channel digital PCM stereo as well as multi-channel Dolby Digital audio through the same optical cable).

Otherwise, I have a "virtual multi-channel" headphone setup (also from my A/V receiver) for when I want to do serious listening to multi-channel source. I do not actually have a real 5.1 loudspeaker system, and the "virtual multi-channel" headphone system is my alternative.

Took your advice & watched a football game, or two, and Dexter in HD. Kept switching between the SD channel & HD channel just to compare/contrast the difference in video quality. The HD is noticeably a better, clearer, sharper picture. Even my wife remarked about Dexter looking so much better than our "normal" Showtime channel. Thanks again for helping me to appreciate the HD that my 960 now provides!

Yep, you're totally correct. I used the term DVR, twice, when I meant to say VCR. You're also correct in that I asked only how to Play a tape and did not specify anything about Recording a tape on my VCR. Thanks to the details & specifics you sent, I now know how to Play a VCR tape. Just in case I may one day want to Record a tape could you pls. provide that info. as well? Thanks again for your response and helpful info.As has been detailed earlier, to play a tape from VCR to 960 you simply connect the audio/video outputs of the VCR to either INPUT1/3 (on the back of the set) or INPUT2 (on the front of the set). L/R audio output from the VCR uses a red/white RCA-connector cable. Video can either be using the yellow composite cable (lesser video quality) or preferably an S-video cable (better video quality) if your VCR has an S-connector. The 960 supports either [yellow] composite or S-video as input for INPUT1/2/3.

To record something from your DVR, you similarly connect the analog outputs of the DVR to the audio/video inputs on the VCR. Note that the DCH3416 only has one set of red/white analog audio outputs... so if you have them connected as part of your 5-strand component video ribbon cable to INPUT5/6 of the 960, then you can't also connect them directly to the L/R audio input of your VCR. Of course if you go the HDMI route then the L/R audio outputs on the DVR are now freed up and you can re-purpose them for connection to the L/R audio inputs on your VCR.

Of course even if you stick with the 5-strand ribbon cable for getting HD from DVR to the 960, you can solve the "need 2 audio outputs but the DVR only has 1 audio output" dilemma by going to Radio Shack and buying a pair of Y-splitter adapters (single end is male, double end is female). You plug the single male end of each Y-splitter into red/white female audio output connectors on the DVR, and then you connect the female ends to two pairs of red/white cables going to both the 960 and VCR. This will effectively give you two sets of L/R audio outputs from the DVR to your two other devices (VCR and 960), even though the DVR only has one set of audio outputs on the box itself.

Anyway, aside from the audio cabling issue of not having two sets of audio outputs on the DVR if you don't use HDMI from DVR to 960, again you have a choice of video cabling connections from DVR to VCR. You can again use [yellow] composite cable (lesser video quality) or the preferred S-video cable (better video quality).

I'm describing an audio/video connection from DVR to VCR assuming you can set recordings on your VCR with "line input" as the "channel". If your VCR is so old that it only allows recording from the old 75-ohm RF coax cable connector (and using the tuner in the VCR to select a channel), well come back at a later time for further instructions.

So... 3-cable audio/video from DVR to VCR, and 3-cable audio/video from VCR to 960. S-video is preferred all around, if possible.

Note: the 960 has separate USER MENU settings memories for INPUT1/2/3 as well. So any customization here has nothing to do with customization you might do for your HDTV watching on INPUT5/6/7.

The HD is noticeably a better, clearer, sharper picture. And... 16:9 using up your entire wide screen, instead of just 4:3 in the center. You can see the whole tennis stadium, or basketball court, or ice rink, or football field. Nothing cut off on the sides.

Took your advice & watched a football game, or two, and Dexter in HD. Kept switching between the SD channel & HD channel just to compare/contrast the difference in video quality. The HD is noticeably a better, clearer, sharper picture. Even my wife remarked about Dexter looking so much better than our "normal" Showtime channel. Thanks again for helping me to appreciate the HD that my 960 now provides!

Hi Phil,

Glad you see the difference now.

The 960 offers user adjustments to help enhance the picture. There are four different type modes and for HD, most in the forum use the PRO mode (I found the MOVIE mode with it's slightly softer picture more to my liking for both live action and film but that's a personal preference, of course).

These are my HD settings for both PRO and MOVIE if you would like to use them for a starting point:

MODE: PRO MOVIE
PICTURE: 42 43
BRIGHT: 30 30
HUE: R2 R1
COLOR: 41 39
SHARP: 16 19
TEMP: COOL COOL
C. EDGE: MEDIUM HI
C. AXIS: DEFAULT DEFAUL

As pointed out by others, these user settings can vary from set to set based on callibration and since I have made adjustments in the service menu to my 960 they might not work as well for yours. But again, you can use them for general reference.

If you are not sure how to adjust your set, the instructions appear on page 94 of the manual. I DO SUGGEST WRITING DOWN YOUR CURRENT SETTINGS FIRST so you can always return to them if you don't like the way picture became adjusted.

Hope this helps,
Joe

Joe, I used your parameters as a guide in "setting" my 960 and my colors are much better now. I varied a little in brightness & hue but that was just for personal preferences. The rest were exactly what you had suggested and they worked well for me. If you have any further suggestions, recommendations, etc. pls. free to let me know. I've learned more about my XBR960 in the past 2 days here at AVS than what I had learned in the past 3 yrs. of ownership. Thanks again.

Joe, I used your parameters as a guide in "setting" my 960 and my colors are much better now. I varied a little in brightness & hue but that was just for personal preferences.Don't forget "some like chocolate and some like vanilla". Sure, it's personal taste, and that's what you should adjust to.

But just for a contrast, here's what my settings are for INPUT7:

Mode PRO
Picture 35
Brightness 32
Color 31
Hue 0
Sharpness MIN
Color Temp COOL
Clear Edge OFF
Adv Color Axis DEFAULT

I suspect this will look visibly different to you than Joe's. Again, just another set of values for you to try... and then decide for yourself what looks best to you.

I suggest you use some HDTV program like "Leno" or "SNL" for reference which is essentially stationary on the screen, so that you can make individual settings clicks and still see the same scene. That way you can really tell exactly what you're accomplishing, and whether a bit more or a bit less of some setting is helpful or harmful.

Kind of like getting an eyeglass prescription: "better, or worse?"

Dark or rapidly moving sample programs are NOT what you want to use for tweaking. In fact, stationary test patterns are required for geometry adjustements, etc. But for brightness, contrast, color, edge enhancement, sharpness, etc., as stationary a real picture as you can find... with human skin tone predominant... is what will serve you best in your tweaking effort.


Also, one thing that's very critical for natural color on the 960 is to back off the "red push" in the Service Menu (if you've never done it). I'm talking about the four crucial values in 2170P-4 of the Service Menu.

Corresponding to my own personal User Menu values above are my own personal Service Menu values for these four crucial values which will make skin-tone look like real human skin-tone:

VITAL » 7 RYR 0-15 13 (8)
VITAL » 8 RYB 0-15 15 (9)
VITAL » 9 GYR 0-15 5 (9)
VITAL » 10 GYB 0-15 4 (6)

Others may have slightly different values here, but I find that my 13,15,5,4 values are perfect for my User Menu color-related values. Again... personal taste.


Don't forget... settings vary by viewing environment. A set of "Pro" values in a dark room will be very difficult to accept in a room with big glass windows and broad daylight. My values are for dark-room viewing, which is the only way I watch HDTV.

You might also try NBC's Nightly News as another test platform for color adjustment.

They went HD a while back, and the lighting and makeup set and and studio colors were all adjusted to make Brian Williams look his best.

He's always wearing a perfectly white shirt, his makeup is excellent and his skin tone looks perfect, and his tie is typically a beautiful color (e.g. purple or lavendar) and always provides a striking contrast to his pure white shirt.

Plus, he's essentially a still-motion photograph on your screen for 30 minutes, so it's very easy to adjust your various settings and see what you do to his visage.

The other shows (Leno and SNL) are pretty much a riot of color, with lots of different people's skin tone visible. Remember, skin tone varies widely by individual, so you must accept that not everyone will look like Brian Williams even though your color settings on the 960 are "perfect". Leno is interesting because you have several people onscreen at once, so the variety of skin color is obvious... and interesting.

But if you can get the skin color of someone who you're familiar with (night after night) to look natural, you can be confident that the other colors you see are quite accurate.

Proper flesh tone on a "live" 1080i show where people are sitting stationary is the secret to getting your color right. Filmed shows with artistic lighting and constant motion are not good for tweaking.

Don't forget "some like chocolate and some like vanilla". Sure, it's personal taste, and that's what you should adjust to.

But just for a contrast, here's what my settings are for INPUT7:

Mode PRO
Picture 35
Brightness 32
Color 31
Hue 0
Sharpness MIN
Color Temp COOL
Clear Edge OFF
Adv Color Axis DEFAULT

I suspect this will look visibly different to you than Joe's. Again, just another set of values for you to try... and then decide for yourself what looks best to you.

I suggest you use some HDTV program like "Leno" or "SNL" for reference which is essentially stationary on the screen, so that you can make individual settings clicks and still see the same scene. That way you can really tell exactly what you're accomplishing, and whether a bit more or a bit less of some setting is helpful or harmful.

Kind of like getting an eyeglass prescription: "better, or worse?"

Dark or rapidly moving sample programs are NOT what you want to use for tweaking. In fact, stationary test patterns are required for geometry adjustements, etc. But for brightness, contrast, color, edge enhancement, sharpness, etc., as stationary a real picture as you can find... with human skin tone predominant... is what will serve you best in your tweaking effort.


Also, one thing that's very critical for natural color on the 960 is to back off the "red push" in the Service Menu (if you've never done it). I'm talking about the four crucial values in 2170P-4 of the Service Menu.

Corresponding to my own personal User Menu values above are my own personal Service Menu values for these four crucial values which will make skin-tone look like real human skin-tone:

VITAL » 7 RYR 0-15 13 (8)
VITAL » 8 RYB 0-15 15 (9)
VITAL » 9 GYR 0-15 5 (9)
VITAL » 10 GYB 0-15 4 (6)

Others may have slightly different values here, but I find that my 13,15,5,4 values are perfect for my User Menu color-related values. Again... personal taste.


Don't forget... settings vary by viewing environment. A set of "Pro" values in a dark room will be very difficult to accept in a room with big glass windows and broad daylight. My values are for dark-room viewing, which is the only way I watch HDTV.

That's the truth. Noticed huge color improvement (more natural, better tonal quality, etc.) when changes were made in the service menu. Until one gets used to it, maneuvering through the service manual is actually more difficult than making setting adjustments :). Let us know if you want to give it a try - it's not as scary as it might seem as long as you write down your orginal settings to return to if you make a mistake.

And just to show that there is (for me) a very tiny difference between HDMI and component video, my INPUT6 settings are identical except for Brightness (33 for component video, 32 for HDMI):

Mode PRO
Picture 35
Brightness 33
Color 31
Hue 0
Sharpness MIN
Color Temp COOL
Clear Edge OFF
Adv Color Axis DEFAULT

I think HDMI has a bit more natural "pop" and I didn't need to tweak Brightness for it quite as much as for component video. I know, it's just 1-notch, but it's still something.

Of course this could also be accounted for by a difference in the component video outputs of my Motorola DVRs, where the digital color and brightness are being converted to analog by the DVR. With HDMI it's being determined by the decoding logic in the 960.

Anyway, everybody's 960 is different, and everybody's viewing room environment is different (unless you make your room artificially all-dark... for optimal "Pro" viewing with minimal 960 "boost" for anything), and everybody's viewing tastes are different. For example, I only watch HDTV with the rarest of DVD/BD. So my 960 adjustements are essentially 100% concerned with HDTV programming delivered from my cable company and DVR. Your viewing habits may be quite different.

Incidentally, if you have a DVD player connected to one of your component video inputs and your DVR connected to the other (or HDMI), don't forget that you can tweak EACH INPUT SEPARATELY. The 960's User Menu Settings are remembered uniquely by input.

"I think HDMI has a bit more natural "pop" and I didn't need to tweak Brightness for it quite as much as for component video. I know, it's just 1-notch, but it's still something."

Hi Dsperber,

HDMI seems to have more punch but as you mentioned, it could be due to many factors. In our local Cablevision forum many have agreed with me that the picture on the SA 8300 HD-DVR was slightly more vibrant using HDMI. In addition, the HD picture on the DVR had more punch to it than that of the SA non-DVR unit. However, with the non-DVR box many actually found component to be the equal or better than HDMI.

And I also noticed a one-notch change in brightness indeed makes a difference in sharpness and color saturation. If I didn't retain those HD test patterns on my DVR I am sure I would be constantly changing the setting for it.

Hi,

I video taped many films from Turner Classic Movies before the advent of the DVD recorder. Since these titles have not been aired for many years (nor scheduled in the future) I would like to dub them onto DVD for preservation.

A couple of quick questions.

I plan to use the 960's video/audio out for dubbing - the reason being I cannot dub directly from the VCR to the DVD recorder because our previous cable provider's scrambler was messed up, causing the pictures to shake during playback (TCM was not scrambled, the system was just bad). This distoration was seen on every previous monitor I owned but to my joy, I found these tapes played back pefectly viewed on the 960 (hence the need to use the Sony as an in-between). So am I correct to assume the 960 will pass the stable picture through to the DVD recorder?

The other is, I admit, a stupid question. The 960 must remain on when recording for if it isn't, I'll be recording a black screen, right?

Hi,

I video taped many films from Turner Classic Movies before the advent of the DVD recorder. Since these titles have not been aired for many years (nor scheduled in the future) I would like to dub them onto DVD for preservation.

A couple of quick questions.

I plan to use the 960's video/audio out for dubbing - the reason being I cannot dub directly from the VCR to the DVD recorder because our previous cable provider's scrambler was messed up, causing the pictures to shake during playback (TCM was not scrambled, the system was just bad). This distoration was seen on every previous monitor I owned but to my joy, I found these tapes played back pefectly viewed on the 960 (hence the need to use the Sony as an in-between). So am I correct to assume the 960 will pass the stable picture through to the DVD recorder?

The other is, I admit, a stupid question. The 960 must remain on when recording for if it isn't, I'll be recording a black screen, right?

Joe, you're pulling our legs on the second question, right? (You know the answer--no output when it's turned off!)

OK, now what I think is the bad news: To my knowledge, the 960 does not "correct" the signal. It just has "wider window of acceptance." So it doesn't stabilize or time base correct the signal, it "just" is more forgiving of errors and displays a good picture with an unstable input. So I don't see that you're going to get better copies by routing the signal through the 960. Go direct and save some processing/signal conversion steps.

The proof, of course, is to try it and see what happens. But a word of caution if this appears to work (in other words, if the DVD copies play acceptably on the 960): Try it on another TV set just to be sure your trusty 960 isn't continuing to mask the signal problems.

Best,

Mark

Joe, you're pulling our legs on the second question, right? (You know the answer--no output when it's turned off!)

OK, now what I think is the bad news: To my knowledge, the 960 does not "correct" the signal. It just has "wider window of acceptance." So it doesn't stabilize or time base correct the signal, it "just" is more forgiving of errors and displays a good picture with an unstable input. So I don't see that you're going to get better copies by routing the signal through the 960. Go direct and save some processing/signal conversion steps.

The proof, of course, is to try it and see what happens. But a word of caution if this appears to work (in other words, if the DVD copies play acceptably on the 960): Try it on another TV set just to be sure your trusty 960 isn't continuing to mask the signal problems.

Best,

Mark

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the "bad news" that the 960, in masking the problems, might pass the instable picture onto the DVD which, even if it plays fine on the 960, might still be apparent on other monitors. If the DVD only plays OK on the 960 that is acceptable since on other sets they will then appear no different than the actual video tape and at least it will be preserved.

I previously experimented dubbing directly from the VCR to the DVD recorder and it did nothing to reduce the unstable picture of those particular tapes.

Of course, I wasn't that serious about asking if the power needed to be remain on but I posed the question anyway, having seen wierder things happen in my lifetime (don't forget I admitted it was a stupid question).:)

Hi again, Mark.

Well, you were 100% right. Those old recordings on VHS could not be dubbed onto DVD without re-capturing the instability caused by our old cable provider's messed up system. Used the 960's video output from the VCR and also connected the VCR to the DVR's auxillary input - didn't matter Same with recording directly from the VCR to DVD recorder bypassing the 960 altogether.

Well, at least I still have them on VHS. Only recorded a few mintues using a DVD Ram so I didn't waste a lot of my time or a blank DVD-R.

I moved my 960 to one of the bedrooms when I got my new Sony KD46XBR8 this week. (It has a very good picture, equal to the 960 and bigger but maybe not better.)

FYI, I went through the same CC hassle with my Cable company (Cox) as I did two years ago. I had the 960 on Tivo through HDMI the last year so did not have a CC in it. Cox came on Thursday with one CC and, of course, it did not work. He then got two more and neither of them worked either.

So, he gave up and scheduled another tech for Friday AM. That rep checked out the entire system, replaced the coax under the street to the Cox distribution box on the other side and, to my relief, made the Card work.

All OK now but the message is have much patience and don't let them force you into a $6/month cable box when a $2/month card will do. I now have three TV's with CC (one is a Tivo-feed) and no Cox box. Happy.

FYI.

I moved my 960 to one of the bedrooms when I got my new Sony KD46XBR8 this week. (It has a very good picture, equal to the 960 and bigger but maybe not better.)

FYI, I went through the same CC hassle with my Cable company (Cox) as I did two years ago. I had the 960 on Tivo through HDMI the last year so did not have a CC in it. Cox came on Thursday with one CC and, of course, it did not work. He then got two more and neither of them worked either.

So, he gave up and scheduled another tech for Friday AM. That rep checked out the entire system, replaced the coax under the street to the Cox distribution box on the other side and, to my relief, made the Card work.

All OK now but the message is have much patience and don't let them force you into a $6/month cable box when a $2/month card will do. I now have three TV's with CC (one is a Tivo-feed) and no Cox box. Happy.

FYI.

Congratulations on your new LCD and sorry you went through the hassle to again get the cable card to work. It's also nice knowing there is a LCD the equal of (but not better than) the 960 (in case we need to replace our sets down the road) even though it took five years to do so. Am sure the LCDs and DLPs of five years back cannot make the same claim.

All OK now but the message is have much patience and don't let them force you into a $6/month cable box when a $2/month card will do. I now have three TV's with CC (one is a Tivo-feed) and no Cox box. Happy.

FYI.

I also had cable company (Comcast) hassles setting up my cable card in the 960 - but also kept after them to get it right.

Its worth it for me. Especially how the 960 works via firewire to my DVHS recorder.

Much more useable (and cheaper by $4 a month as you note) for recording digital programming to my D-VHS tape uint. The TV's controls are fine for my use via I-link interface. Firewire via the cable box is more awkward but there is more control of record scheduliinng programming via guide on the cable co dvr

Congratulations on your new LCD and sorry you went through the hassle to again get the cable card to work. It's also nice knowing there is a LCD the equal of (but not better than) the 960 (in case we need to replace our sets down the road) even though it took five years to do so. Am sure the LCDs and DLPs of five years back cannot make the same claim.
Thanks.

I am not sure how long this Sony LCD unit will be available. It is a triple LED backlight and is no longer available on Sony's website. I got mine through Best Buy at 1/2 the original price from Sony a year ago. Comes in 46 and 55 inch sizes although the 55 price has not been reduced much.

Thanks.

I am not sure how long this Sony LCD unit will be available. It is a triple LED backlight and is no longer available on Sony's website. I got mine through Best Buy at 1/2 the original price from Sony a year ago. Comes in 46 and 55 inch sizes although the 55 price has not been reduced much.

Well, am sure the model that replaces it will have all the same features plus a few new "cosmetic" ones to up the price somewhat.

Well, am sure the model that replaces it will have all the same features plus a few new "cosmetic" ones to up the price somewhat.
I have owned the 32XBR100 that was arguably the best SD set Sony ever made. It cost more in 1997 than the one I just bought. The 960 is an exceptional CRT HD set. Neither of these TV's are being made now. It may be that the accountants over-ruled the engineers and that is why the XBR8 design is going away. I am sure it was costly to make. Like the previous two mentioned, I think the XBR8 will rule for another year or two without better replacement.

I have owned the 32XBR100 that was arguably the best SD set Sony ever made. It cost more in 1997 than the one I just bought. The 960 is an exceptional CRT HD set. Neither of these TV's are being made now. It may be that the accountants over-ruled the engineers and that is why the XBR8 design is going away. I am sure it was costly to make. Like the previous two mentioned, I think the XBR8 will rule for another year or two without better replacement.

Could also be the eventual heir to the XBR8 series might not be as good since all know SONY already did that with a tailored-down 970. Just shows a new, higher model number doesn't always mean new, higher quality.

Don't see how anyone could improve over the 960 other than in screen size.

On another subject, forgot that many of the service settings are mode dependent and recently found I needed to re-adjust some of the factory settings that were off when switching from PRO to MOVIE.

Other than using a switcher, how are you all hooking up your HDMI-equipped sources? Any issues on color settings having to be compromised when using more than one source through the 960's single input? Just curious as to what you're doing.

Other than using a switcher, how are you all hooking up your HDMI-equipped sources? Any issues on color settings having to be compromised when using more than one source through the 960's single input? Just curious as to what you're doing.

Was wondering that myself in case we went to bluray and wanted to take advantage of the upconversion if better than the 960's drc (can't upconvert via component).

Assuming the bluray player would have it's own controls for color, tint, brightness, etc. that could be adjusted within the perimeters already set for HD. Would be great if the settngs need not be changed at all.

Was wondering that myself in case we went to bluray and wanted to take advantage of the upconversion if better than the 960's drc (can't upconvert via component).

Assuming the bluray player would have it's own controls for color, tint, brightness, etc. that could be adjusted within the perimeters already set for HD. Would be great if the settngs need not be changed at all.
That's true. The Oppo bluray player I'm planning to get has decent picture adjustments. I already own the Oppo 983 upscaling player, so they may not be much different from eachother, color-wise. I'm so used to adjusting the display to match the source.

Anyone else?

Don't see how anyone could improve over the 960 other than in screen size.

Yes, larger would be nice. Ansi contrast could be improved I think and maybe sharpness but it's pretty sharp after a calibration anyway. The color is fuxxing stunning though I've never seen a set do color this good. Sorry for my language. :)

That's true. The Oppo bluray player I'm planning to get has decent picture adjustments. I already own the Oppo 983 upscaling player, so they may not be much different from eachother, color-wise. I'm so used to adjusting the display to match the source.

Anyone else?

You might consider hooking up the Oppo bluray player via component cable and let the 960 handle the upconverting for 480i DVDs (I recently purchased a $40 progressive scan Sony without upconversion and the upconverted picture using the 960's DRC circuitry is fantastic). If this works, it would eliminate any concern about messing up adjustments already made for your video seven input.

One way to determine if the 960 provides as good an upscaling as your Oppo 983 would be to connect your current Oppo to component in addition to HDMI and compare both pictures by switching back and forth. Or have you already tried that?

Resolved the problem of dubbing old films from VHS onto DVD.

Using my DVR's auxillary input helps clear up most of the jittery picture caused by my previous provider's faulty descramblng equipment and captured on tape. It's much more stable than dubbing directly through the 960 or from the VCR but I also need to keep the Sony powered on, otherwise the HD DVR senses a break in the "handshake" and the picture is replaced by a notification that a HD cable needs to be connected. This also allows me to use the DVR's S-video output which provides better overall picture quality from what I would get using an ordinary RCA cable (it really shows for a silent filmed in early two-strip technicolor.

Had to adjust the horizontal size on the 960 from 44 to 53 to eliminate the white line appearing on the extreme left. Perhaps the the width wasn't set properly to begin with but even not, the difference is hardly noticable.

Mind you, some recordings were just so bad that they are not worth dubbing but for the most part, this resolves the problem.

Hey, is there by chance anybody out there that had to get rid of their XBR960 (or 910) and has the Sony stand that they are now looking to get rid of? I just came to be the new home of an XBR960 and need to get it off of the file cabinets...

Hey, is there by chance anybody out there that had to get rid of their XBR960 (or 910) and has the Sony stand that they are now looking to get rid of? I just came to be the new home of an XBR960 and need to get it off of the file cabinets...

Congratulations on at least getting the more important part of the duo - the 960. Still the best HD monitor out there for it's life-like picture.

There have been past posts in this forum about alternate stands that could be used for the SONY and if you take a search your're sure to come across them.

We just got a LG 55 inch LED backlit LCD for our conference room at work.

Couldn't help being impressed by the huge picture and it was indeed quite colorful, crisp and breath-taking -- but to a point. Indeed, the term applied to these technologies I think still accurately describes the one big drawback -"flat screen". Unlike a CRT, on live broadcasts the picture did not seem natural enough to appear like looking through a glass window. There was still no illusion of three-dimensional depth. And the facial details (creases in skin, hair stubble, etc.) seemed less pronounced than what I see on the 960.

Overall it was just the size that made me drool. The picture quality, while obviously impressive, just seemed "flat" compared to that of the 960.

As one can see, I'm a little bit biased when it comes to this set of ours!

rightly so

Has anyone else in the So. Bay Area had to rescan their OTA channels on frequent basis? I'm starting to wonder if my ATSC tuner might be going out. :eek:

We just got a LG 55 inch LED backlit LCD for our conference room at work.

Overall it was just the size that made me drool. The picture quality, while obviously impressive, just seemed "flat" compared to that of the 960.

Well, plus you are comparing an LG to a SONY XBR. ;)

Know we many times discussed whether the 960 line doubler performs as well as an upconverting DVD player. Well, I will find out the answer this week.

My old Panny DVD recorder is on the blink - every other disc or so it won't write down the recorded information. So just ordered a new Panasonic EA-18K with upconversion plus a 5x1 HDMI switch and two more cables through Monoprice. Will let you guys know what the results are.

Does the 960 output 5.1? When I hooked up an optical cable directly from my 960 to my Yamaha receiver audio only came out in 2.0. Both video and audio was fed to the set via HDMI from a DVR.


The XBR960 will output Dolby Digital 5.1 via toslink if the source is from the Digital ATSC and QAM Tuners. If the source is HDMI then it will only output 2ch audio. The reason I suspect is that during the handshake process the XBR960 identifies it's self as a 2ch audio device (internal speakers) and thus the HDMI source agrees and only sends 2ch audio down the line.

I did a short write up in this same thread on the topic, this question has been asked a few times.

We just got a LG 55 inch LED backlit LCD for our conference room at work.

Couldn't help being impressed by the huge picture and it was indeed quite colorful, crisp and breath-taking -- but to a point. Indeed, the term applied to these technologies I think still accurately describes the one big drawback -"flat screen". Unlike a CRT, on live broadcasts the picture did not seem natural enough to appear like looking through a glass window. There was still no illusion of three-dimensional depth. And the facial details (creases in skin, hair stubble, etc.) seemed less pronounced than what I see on the 960.

Overall it was just the size that made me drool. The picture quality, while obviously impressive, just seemed "flat" compared to that of the 960.

As one can see, I'm a little bit biased when it comes to this set of ours!

Much more impressive is the Panasonic Z1 line, which is just as good as (if not better than) the Kuro that it's trying to replace.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/22/panasonics-1-inch-thick-z1-plasma-reviewed-playing-with-perfec/

FWIW, there's a 960 on eBay (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=110461534932&ssPageName=ADME:B:SS:US:1123#ht_500wt_1182) looking for a new home... :D

Got the upconverting Panasonic DVD recorder last night.

DVDs do appear more crisper and colorful upconverted to 1080i via HDM as opposed to being fed into the 960 at 480p via component. We still get an excellent picture with the 960 doing the upscaling, however, there is a difference.

Recordings made directly from 480p sources have no problem filling the screen properly at 1080i - but those made from downconverted HD stations do. With a 16x9 picture reduced to 4x3 for recording, a letterboxed picture within a letterboxed picture appears when played back at 1080i. And it cannot be made to properly fit the screen by the 960.

Of course, I get a much superior picture recording off an HD feed even if downconverted so these just need to be played back at 480p with the 960 doing the upscaling for them to appear at their natural size with the monitor zoom it for letterboxed movies. Even so, the advantage of a HDMI connection is an improvement over component.

Recordings made directly from 480p sources have no problem filling the screen properly at 1080iDid you mean "from 480i" sources and not 480p? That would be normal SD 4:3 content on 480i (formerly, UHF/VHF NTSC), which is kind of what the DVD recorder is mostly intended to do (replacing the SD VCR to transcribe SD 4:3 broadcast NTSC content).

480p is SD DVD, and I don't think you would be copying those using your DVD recorder.

As far as downscaling from 720p/1080i source resulting in unusual letterboxing on the generated DVD, I this this may just be the standard approach to output of HD via SD outputs (e.g. S-video, or DVD recording which is equivalent to VCRs).

I just got a new 32" LCD Sony XBR9 to replace my 15-year old Sony 27" 4:3 XBR CRT which recently died. I also put a TWC HD DVR there, replacing my old SD DirectTV SD receiver previously feeding the 27" XBR CRT. I also have a small 13" Sony XBR 4:3 CRT kitchen TV that I "slave" off of the receiver in the other room (fed from a 75ohm RF coax from the "TV out" of the receiver that runs from the other room to the kitchen), which until now has always been that D* receiver but now is the TWC HD DVR.

Well previously, the picture on the 13" kitchen TV has always been the same SD 4:3 image I saw on the 27" TV in the other room, filling the entire kitchen TV screen. This made sense, since everything was SD 4:3 from D* receiver through all TVs. In fact, no channel other than an SD 4:3 version of anything could be selected because of the D* SD receiver.

Now, with the TWC HD DVR I can select either the 4:3 480i (SD) version of a channel or the 16:9 720p/1080i version of that channel... for viewing "native" via HDMI on the 32" LCD. And it shows up correctly there, either 4:3 480i (with pillar bars on left and right) or as 16:9 720p/1080i, depending on which channel I've tuned to.

But just as with your odd letterboxing when down-converting to your DVD recorder, if I tune to an HD 720p/1080i channel on the TWC HD DVR the down-converted (to 480i) image sent out over the 75ohm RF coax output to the kitchen 4:3 set will vary in appearance depending on whether the content on the HD channel is 16:9 or 4:3.

If the HD content is 4:3 then the image on the kitchen TV appears as "centered letterbox"... so that there are black bars ON ALL FOUR SIDES of the 4:3 image which appears centered inside of the 4:3 screen. It is not "enlarged" (i.e. side-cut) so that the true 4:3 portion of the 16:9 content is presented as full-screen 4:3 on the 4:3 kitchen TV. It appears simply as the 16 (horizontal) dimension used to fill the entire width of the 4:3 set (showing the black bars on left and right of the centered 4:3 image width just as they appear on the 16:9 set) and the 9 (vertical) dimension presented with black bars on top and bottom (as the only way to show a full 16:9 image in a 4:3 area).

In contrast, if the HD content is genuinely 16:9 then a complete 16:9 image is presented on the kitchen TV filling the entire width of the 4:3 screen with the full 16 dimension of the HD image visible but having black bars on top and bottom for the 9 dimension. This is the conventional letterbox presentation for how rectangular movies always used to be presented on a 4:3 screen... using the entire width of the 4:3 screen to show the full width of the rectangular content but placing black bars on top and bottom as appropriate.

If I actually tune the TWC HD DVR to the 480i SD version of the same channel, the true 4:3 image (which again appears as 4:3 on the LCD with black bars on left and right) now appears as full-screen 4:3 on the 4:3 kitchen TV.

Now regarding your Panny DVD recorder, I'm surprised that downconverting 16:9 720p/1080i images to 16:9 480p would not retain the full-screen rectangular image on the resulting SD 480p DVDs. I can understand some shenanigans (like as with my own story above) if you're trying to record 4:3 content broadcast on a 16:9 channel, where I would have thought you'd get full-height with black bars on left and right, just as it appears on your 16:9 screen.

I'm guessing this Panny DVD recorder is actually just a DVD-version of a 480i 4:3 VCR, except that the recordings are in 4:3 480p instead... using the same kind of rules for presentation as in my kitchen TV story above being fed from the TWC HD DVR. So you're seeing transformations in the H and W dimensions as well as down-converting resolution to 480p.

It sounds like they're down-converting to 4:3 480p (as with my kitchen TV story, but to 480i in that case) resulting in the same kind of "miniaturized" 16:9 double-letterboxed appearance if you're recording from a 16:9 HD channel which is showing 4:3 content at that time.

I would guess that if you played back your DVDs on a 4:3 set instead of on a 16:9 set, they would look like my kitchen TV presentation.

Hi Dsperber,

Sorry I made you go through so much writing after I found out there was a way to resolve the problem after all.

I needed to re-adjust the zoom ASPT service setting in the 960 to coincide with the output of the Panasonic - it was way too high causing the height of 4x3 upconverted picture to be stretched. Decreasing it enabled my recorded downconverted DVD-Rs to fit the screen perfectly. Now, using the 960's vertical expand for 4x3 material I only get the usual black bars on the left and right sides whereas before the top and bottom was cut off way too much. On movies with widescreen aspect ratios I can also now properly duplicate it from my recorded DVDs (I guess the zoom service setting also affects the vertical expand mode). Obviously, picture quality is much better as well since the picture isn't being stretched like silly putty.

So I can now also watch all my recordings in 1080i upconversion and the difference is noticable. And now I know why there were horizontal and vertical expands - it's necessary for upconversion.

I too have a coaxil cable fed to a 4x3 monitor in our den with the same letterboxing effect as with your kitchen set. With Cablevison of New York, we do not have a choice between the SD or HD version of the same channel so on 4x3 material on HD, it's also with bars on all four sides (recently the system was changed to only show the HD feed regardless of which channel is selected).

All this means is less storage space on the DVR and watching 4x3 movies (like recorded off of Turner Classic Movies in HD) with black bars on the side since wide-zoom cannot be used with 1080i and the horizontal/vertical expands stretches are not appropriate.

BTW - my sd signal is output at 480p to the 960 so I mistook the same being output through the S-video to the recorder. Realize now it has to be interlaced.

Thanks for all your help. A Happy Gobble Gobble to you and yours in Marina Del Ray.

Joe

For those thinking of (or already have) added a switch box for the HDMI port be aware that user settings perfect for one might very well be off for the other.

These are the differences between my newly acquired 1080i upconverting DVD recorder and HD DVR in the MOVIE mode (used the THX Optomizer for DVD and the old INHD test patterns stored on my DVR for HD):

PICTURE: DVD - 43, DVR - 44 (difference of 1)
BRIGHTNESS: DVD - 31, DVR - 25 (difference of 6) *
COLOR: DVD - 28, DVR - 40 (difference of 12)
HUE: DVD - 0, DVR - R1 (difference of 1)
SHARPNESS: DVD - 27, DVR - 19 (difference of 8)

* DVD output set to dark (the better of the two options because the blacks are more pure) - had it been at light the setting would have been lower.

As you can see, there were big differences with brightness, color and sharpness. Both have cool temperatures and high clear edge settings. The 960 has been callibrated.

Out of curiosity, I found the differences in MOVIE and PRO mode for the DVR to be less drastic overall:


PICTURE: Movie - 44, PRO - 41 (difference of 3)
BRIGHTNESS: MOVIE - 25, PRO - 23 (difference of 2)
COLOR: Movie - 40, PRO - 43 (difference of 3)
HUE: Movie - R1, PRO - R2 (difference of 1)
SHARPNESS: Movie - 19, PRO - 23 (difference of 4)

I use the PRO mode for the DVR and the MOVIE mode for DVD so I don't have to change everything but the picture mode when switching between the two.

Have others found they also needed to change adjustments?

- Joe

Slowly by slowly minute portions of the 960's coating are coming off. Only really noticable when up close with the set off. No affect on picture quality when the set is on and, at most, the one or two small areas that are affect appear more like natural glass reflection than anything more.,

Many have talked about removing the coating, however, is anything available that can cover-up these little gaps instead?

Again, only in a few tiny areas, does not affect picture quality or viewing pleasure and is nothing more that upsetting to me just knowing it's there..

I'm not sure if there is anything to reapply to coat. My screen is starting to do the same. Very annoyed with it. I'm debating if I will use the steel wool method or not.

I'm not sure if there is anything to reapply to coat. My screen is starting to do the same. Very annoyed with it. I'm debating if I will use the steel wool method or not.

Whatever you do DON"T USE STEEL WOOL - you can get permanent scratches on the screen even if all the coating is removed.

If your's is the same as mine, then it's probably not noticable when the set is on except when viewing at a certain angle and even then it only appears as a reflection. Still, it's upsetting just to know it's there, even if camoflauged.

Two members claimed to had success using this method w/o scratches. I'm too nervous to do it anyway. And yes very upsetting.

Note: I just tried the #0000 steel wool treatment again, only using a little more elbow grease, and it's working! Anyway, here's my original post before trying again with more muscle:

I've lurked here for several years; rarely post. Anyway, thought I'd share my steel wool experience. Short version: didn't hurt anything, but didn't help either.

Like many of you, I first noticed the weird horizontal streaks just in the upper left corner, about 2 years ago (bought my set 9/05). Didn't know what it was, nor what caused it, though I suspect movers, as I hadn't noticed it before moving.

Streaks continued to gradually appear on more of the left side of the screen. (Always in perfect horizontal lines… kinda reminded me of the slits in the Titanic's hull). Finally I decided to be bold, and cleaned the screen with Windex for the first time. The left 2/3 of the coating easily came off in minutes (leaving a curious brownish stain on the t-shirt cloth). The right third stubbornly remained. Aside from removing the coating, Windex appeared to cause no damage whatsoever.

Today I decided what-the-hell, I'm gonna try #0000 steel wool (thinking if I ruined my screen, it would be a sign to replace the XBR with a flat-screen). I wet the screen with Windex and went to work—gently—with the the steel wool (which, by the way, is amazingly soft and fine). And it had… no effect. Screen is the same as before. Then I tried Goo Gone, letting it sit on the screen a few minutes before gently rubbing. Again, no damage and no improvement.

I am now convinced that should there be a nuclear attack on Manhattan, one of the few things remaining will be the anti-glare coating on the right 1/3 of my screen. ;)

Wow, the #0000 steel wool is working like a charm. If it's having any effect on the glass, it might be polishing it? The trick is to spray water over the area before you rub, rub firmly, and rub vertically as well as horizontally.

I can certainly understand members being reluctant to put steel wool to glass. Here's an idea - if you need convincing, perhaps you can try it on a corner of an older CRT relegated to the guest room or basement. Just a thought.

Hi Richard,

I also thought it was windex that caused some of the coating to come off but it seems that others have experienced the same problem without mentioning use of any cleaner.

So even though the coating remains on about 1/3 of the screen I gather you do not notice any inbalance in brightness, contrast or color when watching the set?

And if there is a nuclear attack, be sure to watch the portion of your screen that still has the anti-glare coating to protect your eyes.

Yes, Joseph—like everyone else, the "problem" does not affect the picture in any way, shape or form. It just bothered me having the screen "streaked" (before I did anything) or 1/3 shiny-2/3 coated (like it was after the Windex) because I'm a perfectionist—or anal, depending on how you want to look at it.

But I must say, now that the coating is completely removed, I'm very happy. Feel like I have a brand new tube! It took about an hour of scrubbing to remove it. I can assure you the screen is beautiful, smooth, shiny and scratch-free, if you're contemplating doing this. But yeah, the picture was great before and it's great now. Cannot see any difference.

Yes, Joseph—like everyone else, the "problem" does not affect the picture in any way, shape or form. It just bothered me having the screen "streaked" (before I did anything) or 1/3 shiny-2/3 coated (like it was after the Windex) because I'm a perfectionist—or anal, depending on how you want to look at it.

But I must say, now that the coating is completely removed, I'm very happy. Feel like I have a brand new tube! It took about an hour of scrubbing to remove it. I can assure you the screen is beautiful, smooth, shiny and scratch-free, if you're contemplating doing this. But yeah, the picture was great before and it's great now. Cannot see any difference.

Hi Rich,

Great to know the screen remained in perfect condition.
It does bug me just knowing the few small, virtually unseen blotches are there and I'm too tempted to remove the whole coating, however, with my luck I'd somehow make a good screen bad (once when adjusting an old set's agc with a screwdriver (to eliminate video tape flagging) I exerted a bit too much pressure and broke it - if I did anything like that to the 960, I'm sure my wife would then break my head!).

While you didn't notice a differece between the portion with and the portion without the coating, since it was there for a reason do you now notice a bit more glare or did you have to make any adjustments for contrast, brightness, etc?

Just chiming in with my experience removing the anti glare from an FW900. The black level went WAY up. The glare only got a little worse. It ended up being bright as or brighter than current LCD's, but overall I'd say the image was worse. That's not saying the 960 has the same anti glare coating though, they may be far different.

While you didn't notice a differece between the portion with and the portion without the coating, since it was there for a reason do you now notice a bit more glare or did you have to make any adjustments for contrast, brightness, etc? Oh, in daylight, the screen is now clearly more reflective, although I can only notice it when the set is off. (Sitting on the couch, I can clearly see myself reflected in the uncoated section; the coated section absorbed much of the reflection, as you know.)

But when the set is on, I don't notice any more glare. (I should point out that I do most of my serious viewing in a darkened room.) Could be my imagination, but the screen seems a bit brighter and snappier now. I think the picture may be, dare I say, better? My set was last calibrated 3 years ago and is due for recalibration (I just moved again), so I've been tweaking the settings for each program or film (usually just a 'click' or two up or down). So whatever change there might be with the coating removed is minor, and well within the "click or two" tweaking I normally do.

If you only have a couple of tiny blotches, I would probably leave the remaining coating alone—particularly if you frequently watch in a sunlit or brightly lit room (where you might catch the reflection of a lamp in the screen). But at least it's nice to know that a) you can remove the coating without too much difficulty, b) removing it (apparently) won't damage the screen and c) it might actually improve the picture. (Actually I now suspect that the super fine steel wool polishes the glass—the way some people use Bon Ami on a windshield to remove subtle, fine scratches.)

(And remember, if you ever decide to go ahead and do it, try it first on an old TV—with coating or not—just to prove to yourself that the #0000 doesn't hurt anything.)

Oh, in daylight, the screen is now clearly more reflective, although I can only notice it when the set is off. (Sitting on the couch, I can clearly see myself reflected in the uncoated section; the coated section absorbed much of the reflection, as you know.)

But when the set is on, I don't notice any more glare. (I should point out that I do most of my serious viewing in a darkened room.) Could be my imagination, but the screen seems a bit brighter and snappier now. I think the picture may be, dare I say, better? My set was last calibrated 3 years ago and is due for recalibration (I just moved again), so I've been tweaking the settings for each program or film (usually just a 'click' or two up or down). So whatever change there might be with the coating removed is minor, and well within the "click or two" tweaking I normally do.

If you only have a couple of tiny blotches, I would probably leave the remaining coating alone—particularly if you frequently watch in a sunlit or brightly lit room (where you might catch the reflection of a lamp in the screen). But at least it's nice to know that a) you can remove the coating without too much difficulty, b) removing it (apparently) won't damage the screen and c) it might actually improve the picture. (Actually I now suspect that the super fine steel wool polishes the glass—the way some people use Bon Ami on a windshield to remove subtle, fine scratches.)

(And remember, if you ever decide to go ahead and do it, try it first on an old TV—with coating or not—just to prove to yourself that the #0000 doesn't hurt anything.)

Hi Rich,

Be aware that increased brightness can make a picture seem a bit sharper but at the expense of color and black level detail and that you might have to re-adjust your user settings even more. For example, last night I was watching the silent epic "Ben Hur" on TCM and compared it to the DVD-R made a while back to see if there was any difference in picture quality.

Well, I was upset for the broadcast appeared sharper and the color a bit different than my recording (could not re-record it because TCM had messed up the audio). I then realized I failed to change picture modes when switching between the DVR and the upconverting DVD player (with the 960 having only one HDMI input, I have a monoprice switch box - the DVR is in PRO and the DVD is in MOVIE).

The settings are different in the MOVIE mode (especially brightness, which is much higher due to the player's darker black level) and caused last night's broadcast to appear sharper with the early two-strip technicolor a little less pronounced. After realizing my mistake, I realized that what I thought was a crisper picture was actually one that was too bright, causing the color to be a bit washed out.

I then hardly saw any difference between the two (other than the slight softness naturally inherent in MOVIE)

My set has been callibrated and both service and user settings were based on specific test patterns (HD from the old INHD stored on the DVR and the THX optomizer for the upconverting DVD player) so both the MOVIE and PRO are properly adjusted.

So again, the eyes can be tricky. If you don't have any test patterns to go by am sure the technician will be able to adjust the user settings for you as well if they need to be.

- Joe

Thanks for the tip, Joe! Chad B. the technician will be swinging by in a couple of months—can't wait. By the way, let me ask you a question which you probably don't have an answer for: how high above this set do you think an unshielded center-channel speaker would have to be to not interfere with the picture??

Thanks for the tip, Joe! Chad B. the technician will be swinging by in a couple of months—can't wait. By the way, let me ask you a question which you probably don't have an answer for: how high above this set do you think an unshielded center-channel speaker would have to be to not interfere with the picture??

Rich,

I wouldn't even consider an unshieled speaker for if it is placed high enough not to affect the screen, it will would then affect the 5.1 balance and audio direction will sound out of place and not as rich, Rich. :)

DZ board replacement.

DZ board was replaced on a 3 year old xbr960 to fix the 6 blink problem. Unfortunately, the board replacement caused the picture to be displayed in 4:3 mode and not in 16:9 mode. The technician who replaced the board did not know how to fix this problem and he did not want to start adjusting parameters as he said that the wrong adjustment will cause the screen to go black. I am stuck. I have the service manual, but I am not sure which parameter to adjust to fix my problem as I have not If someone could point me to some clear instructions on how to fix my convergence problem, it would be much appreciated as I would prefer to fix this set rather than get a new TV.

thanks for the spreadsheet. I had my DZ board replaced (due to the 6 blink problem), and the set is all messed up (the screen seems to be in 4:3 mode as opposed to 16:9 mode). Do you have any suggestions for how to go about resetting the parameters?

DZ board was replaced on a 3 year old xbr960 to fix the 6 blink problem. Unfortunately, the board replacement caused the picture to be displayed in 4:3 mode and not in 16:9 mode. The technician who replaced the board did not know how to fix this problem and he did not want to start adjusting parameters as he said that the wrong adjustment will cause the screen to go black. I am stuck. I have the service manual, but I am not sure which parameter to adjust to fix my problem as I have not If someone could point me to some clear instructions on how to fix my convergence problem, it would be much appreciated as I would prefer to fix this set rather than get a new TV.

Am sure you already asked but since the problem began after they replaced and installed a new DZ board should not the service center be responsible for restoring your 16x9 picture and have sent a qualified technician who would understand how to adjust service settings?

Did you go through an authorized Sony repair shop? If so, and they won't resolve the problem without costing you further, I would contact Sony customer service to lodge a complaint.

There is also a special number you can get through Sony customer service to speak with its technical office which can lead you through the proper steps.
Good luck and keep us posted.

hey all, after a year of great picture quality and genuine enjoyment of my 34xbr960, it suddenly will not turn on at all. note that the lights on the front don't blink at all. there is no sign of life.

tried switching on with the remote, and by directly clicking the power button.

also tried replacing the batteries in the remote.

and tried leaving unplugged for 10 minutes.

no difference. no life.

all i can think is: power surge? there is no surge protector between the tv and my outlet. in retrospect: dumb. if it was a surge, then i am hopeful it was just a blown fuse, although i'm fearful at the thought of opening up this beast to find some impossibly hidden part?

there is no surge protector between the tv and my outlet. in retrospect: dumb.

That's not really dumb at all. Even though surge protectors are recommended in the manual, a Sony representative told me that in order for the automatic degausser to operate fully, maximum power is required when the 960 is first turned on. For that, it must be plugged directly into the wall.

And, of course, sorry your 960 suddenly stopped working. Am sure you can get it repaired but don't blame yourself for not using a surge protector.

joseph, thanks for the reply regarding surge protectors. maybe a power conditioner without the surge protector is what i'm after then.

but putting aside future prevention: in terms of fixing the existing problem, it seems likely that the fuse has blown. can anyone tell me where to look for blown fuses, how to evaluate them, etc?

according to its service manual, my 34xbr960 probably has a blown fuse on the AZ board. unfortunately, the manual has no real specifics on replacing this (despite it being such a likely point of failure). has anyone done this before?

it looks like the AZ board is right behind the grid of jacks on the back panel. any chance i can remove just the jack panel area and replace the fuse? would love to avoid disassembling the chassis.

once i do get in there, where exactly do i find this fuse? would i just pop it out like most fuses or is soldering required? anything else i should know or watch out for?

finally: any thoughts about replacing the fuse with a slo-blo version, so this is less likely to happen in future?

any insight appreciated.

according to its service manual, my 34xbr960 probably has a blown fuse on the AZ board. unfortunately, the manual has no real specifics on replacing this (despite it being such a likely point of failure). has anyone done this before?

it looks like the AZ board is right behind the grid of jacks on the back panel. any chance i can remove just the jack panel area and replace the fuse? would love to avoid disassembling the chassis.

once i do get in there, where exactly do i find this fuse? would i just pop it out like most fuses or is soldering required? anything else i should know or watch out for?

finally: any thoughts about replacing the fuse with a slo-blo version, so this is less likely to happen in future?

any insight appreciated.The fuse is very near where the AC line attaches to the AZ board. Unplug the AC from the ac outlet and don't touch any of the high voltage components. They can store energy for a LONG time. The fuse should be easy to spot. Check the old one for continuity. I would recommend replacing it with the exact same spec'd fuse. You will need to slide the rear cover off to access any of the internals. The service manual shows 4 screws along the top, 3 screws on each side, and 5 screws on the back. Don't use a power screwdriver, it will create color impurities on the crt.

according to its service manual, my 34xbr960 probably has a blown fuse on the AZ board. unfortunately, the manual has no real specifics on replacing this (despite it being such a likely point of failure). has anyone done this before?

it looks like the AZ board is right behind the grid of jacks on the back panel. any chance i can remove just the jack panel area and replace the fuse? would love to avoid disassembling the chassis.

once i do get in there, where exactly do i find this fuse? would i just pop it out like most fuses or is soldering required? anything else i should know or watch out for?

finally: any thoughts about replacing the fuse with a slo-blo version, so this is less likely to happen in future?

any insight appreciated.

My set showed the same problem last September...3 days after I was laid off from my job!

I knew there was a fuse in there somewhere, but I could not find it. So I reluctantly called for service. The serviceman replaced the blown fuse for me. It took him at least 10 minutes of disassembly to access it. (Unfortunately, Sony did their best to hide it!) He told me I was very lucky the fuse was the only problem. He said in every other case he seen, a circuit board was also damaged, which is why the fuse usually blows. (He credited my whole-house surge protector and the old fuse with saving the board...but who knows?)

My suggestion: Unless you're really handy and comfortable working around electronics, call for service, and hope it's only a fuse.

Best of luck.


Mark

I purchased an XBR960 on Craigslist, and want to use the Memory Stick reader. The manual states 'up to 1 gb', but has anyone successfully used larger capacity sticks? If so which ones? I don't want to spend money on a large stick that won't work...

Thanks for any info...

Just started having this issue with my set that I have had since 2005. My HDMI port now Fails with all DVD and or blue players but STILL works with my Direct TV BOX? What is so different between the 2? I am outputting my signal to 1080i. It is almost like it fails during the HandShaking process. It will Blink (black screen) and flash and then go black. This repeats every 5-10 seconds. This does not happen at all with Direct TV Via the HDMI. Just DVD players.. Is there any thing that can be done? A Reset Switch?

Any one with any suggestions? I have read something like this happened before on this forum but I can not find that post.

Anything will help.. I fear this set is now out of Warrenty....

Just started having this issue with my set that I have had since 2005. My HDMI port now Fails with all DVD and or blue players but STILL works with my Direct TV BOX? What is so different between the 2? I am outputting my signal to 1080i. It is almost like it fails during the HandShaking process. It will Blink (black screen) and flash and then go black. This repeats every 5-10 seconds. This does not happen at all with Direct TV Via the HDMI. Just DVD players.. Is there any thing that can be done? A Reset Switch?

Any one with any suggestions? I have read something like this happened before on this forum but I can not find that post.

Anything will help.. I fear this set is now out of Warrenty....

Since the 960 only has one HDMI output, are you using a switchbox? Some people have had problems develop with their HDMI switchers.

I originally was using my reciever as a hdmi switch box, but since it was not working with my DVD player, i unplugged it and am going directly into the tv from my sony blue-ray s360. Still the same thing happens...

My TV was working fine. I had a digital cable box hooked up with HDMI. Then I decided to hook up a computer, so I could watch Netflix downloads on the TV. It worked fine. I used a DVI / HDMI adapter with HDMI cable going to TV. When I disconnected it, and plugged back in digital cable, it no longer works. I got an error message: GS511_HDCP_DLG. Your TV does not allow display of this program through the DVI input source. I tried resetting the TV to factory state, as described in TV's manual. It didn't help. Any ideas?

I have a XBR 910 that has some weird screen issues going on. For instance, my Samsung blu-ray player has an all blue start up screen with white text. The white text has a blurred ghost effect to the right of the text.

Is this a sign of the tube going bad or something I can adjust?

Also. how do I get into the advanced video menu?

Thank you

Hello all, I've had my KD34XBR960 since July 2005 and it just started giving me a problem. I'm using it with Cox Cable fed directly into the set (no converter box). The set has lost all its HD channels and won't respond to the channel up/down commands from the remote. I can tune directly with the keypad to analog channels, but not to digital channels. When I re-autoprogram the set, everything works normally until I power it off. Once turned back on, it's back to the same issues.

I've seen one other person report this problem and some alluded to "Service Bulletin E26205993 dated 10/26/2004 TV loses channel memory, resolution is to upgrade the software to version 1.3 part number T99860195, a memory stick)." Trouble is that I can't find this Service Bulletin anywhere on the web (some say it was cancelled, plus it was issued before the XBR960 was even manufactured so I don't even know if it's applicable).

I also heard that the issue only started popping up on cable systems that had over 511 channels. When I ran my multiple re-autoprograms, I saw numbers as high as 65 analog + 400 digital channels but didn't monitor it to the end. So....it's possible that I have over the 511 channels mentioned.

I can call a Sony tech but my concern is there going to come to the house, verify the problem, then hold the set hostage in their shop while they "investigate".

I'd really rather fix this myself if it's simply a software update and would appreciate any help that any of you can provide.

Has anyone else experienced this problem? If so, how did you solve it??

M3Ntal:

Check and see if it's the same after 10 minute warmup. Might be contrast is too high, sharpness too high, VM/SVM is on and some CRT wear is possible. Can you post a picture?

jdre

I will let it warm up a little and check it out. It seems to only be an issue with still images.


One other question - how do I adjust the "advanced" screen options?

Thanks,
M3NTAL

I was successfully operating with a Motorola M Series Cable Card with COMCAST. Last week I shifted to Verizon Fios and the technician tried to set up the same type of Motorola multistream cable card with Verizon FIOS but could not get a pairing to provide information to allow activiation.

He indicated that older TVs such as this one would not work with later cable cards, and needed older versions. (Single stream types?)

I have a hard time thinking that it's a problem with the TV as the same series card worked with COMCAST.

Is anyone out there successfully hooked up with Verizon FIOS and a cable card; and if you are can you tell me the type of cable card so I have Verizon make sure they have the right one on the truck when it rolls?

M3NTAL:

I also had a 910 with that same problem. I know exactly what you're talking about. It's especially apparent with light text on a darkish background, right? I tried everything under the sun to fix it. I scoured every inch of the service menu to find some sort of "focus" fix. Unfortunately, after a month of trying, I decided that there was nothing I could do about it and sold it off for cheap.

I've owned 2 960s and can say for a fact that the problem is present on both 960s(one 960v2 and one 960n), yet at a fraction of the severity of the 910. The 960 seems more like a teeny tiny edge(like a glass reflection), whereas the 910's issue was "smeared" to the right a good bit more. Also, on the 960s, it's only really visible in situations like black text on a white background. It is such a slight problem on the 960s that I doubt anybody else that I know would even be able to see it, even if I pointed it out. Nevertheless, I tried to fix it again. I even thought it might be "dirty" power and tried a Monster power cleaner/stabilizer thing. Did nothing.

I believe that you just have very discerning eyes, and the 910 may not be exactly what you want. If you can, try to swap out for a 955 or 960 like I did.

Funny thing is, I owned a 955 before any of the others and didn't notice the problem, but I'd bet money that if I saw my old 955 again, it would probably be there.

I have a XBR 910 that has some weird screen issues going on. For instance, my Samsung blu-ray player has an all blue start up screen with white text. The white text has a blurred ghost effect to the right of the text.

Is this a sign of the tube going bad or something I can adjust?

It's not the tube. The problem is somewhere in the video circuitry, some failed/dried capacitors most likely.

my 960 will no longer power on. it doesn't respond to either the remote or a direct press on the front panel power button. no blinking lights appear, either.

the service manual says that since there are no diagnostic blinks, the problem is probably the fuse. but i ordered a new fuse, opened the case, replaced the fuse, and there's no change. actually the old fuse wasn't blown as far as i can tell.

note: yes, i have checked that it's plugged in. and there's nothing wrong with the power. even tried a second, known-good outlet. no dice.

does anyone have any diagnostic suggestions? otherwise, i'll be leaving this beast on the sidewalk and checking craigslist for a replacement 960. seems like a repairman's visit and replacement parts would be more than the $300 a used 960 is going for these days...

otherwise, i'll be leaving this beast on the sidewalk and checking craigslist for a replacement 960. seems like a repairman's visit and replacement parts would be more than the $300 a used 960 is going for these days...

Sorry you are having trouble with the 960.

Might be worth investing in the repairman since you know the condition of your set compared to whatever is being sold on Craig's List. And if the set on Craig's List needs to be properly callibrated that's also an additional cost to consider.

Been "kicking tires" on a POSSIBLE replacement of my 960. Prinmary objective is a larger screen as my old, ageing eyes seem to need larger size. I live in a darker type house as it is a "berm" home & only have windows on one side (South). After reading as many posts & sites as I can (yeah, I'm a novice) it seems that a plasma might be best for my viewing room (mostly dark). My wife & I sit about 9 to 10 ft. from the screen. I think a 50 inch MAY be appropriate for this. I realize that NO new TV will probably match the 960 for color and picture quality. I just wish my existing screen was larger. What would be a good replacement TV to fit my needs? Am I correct that a plasma would be best for this darker room condition & would a 50 in. be about right also? I always respect the opinions from posters here at AVS & have learned lots of good information from visiting here. I hope some of you will be able to suggest/recommend a specific brand, model, & screen size of a new TV that would best fit my requirements. Thanks in advance for any info. you do provide.

Don't own one myself, but the Panasonic V series get great reviews for the price... other than that, try to get yourself a Pioneer Kuro display... still the best money can buy in plasma, though no longer in production I understand (like our 960's.)

Got some spare change? Sony XBR10: KDL-52XBR10 or KDL-46XBR10.

Go look at these for yourself in a good audio/video store first, before you spend that much money on anything. Then buy it online and save much money... although Sony does seem to have cut the legs off of deep-discounting recently, enforcing "universal discounted prices" both online and in retail stores.

Plasma is very different from LCD in appearance, and your taste for an XBR960 CRT may result in having a strong preference one way or the other for high-end plasma vs. high-end LCD.

You may like plasma better, try viewing in the store at your viewing distance to check size. I watch my 34HS510 at 8 feet. My sister got a Sony KDL-52XBR9 last weekend, and it is usable at 10 feet, certainly.

There are many high-quality LCDs and Plasmas to chose from that give beautiful pictures but unfortunately neither technology still reproduces a picture as well as a CRT. Plasma by far comes the closest but it's drawback is still the chance for burn-in. While manufactuers say moving-pixels has decreased that possibility, the risk is very much there, especially with so many stations having something that remains stationary.

Am sure you will be awestruck with a larger screen flat panel, however, it won't completely duplicate the picture quality one gets on the 960. As an example, it has been quite a while since my wife and I watched in an old VHS tape and we were both surprised how good it looked considering it's low-resolution (especially after being used to HD and upconverted DVD).

I replaced mine with a 46 inch XBR8. Best Buy is still doing deals on them, I believe.

I consider the picture quality equal to the 960, which I still own.

After 6+ years with my 34HS510, I have now moved it to the bedroom and put a Panasonic TC-P54G10 plasma in its place. I am very happy with it.:) Very good black levels and PQ. No more geometry and convergence to tweak.:D I'm looking forward to calibrating it in the near future.

I replaced mine with a 46 inch XBR8. Best Buy is still doing deals on them, I believe.

I consider the picture quality equal to the 960, which I still own.

Really? The color? The contrast? The black level is equal? I've seen sony and samsung TV's all over the place and none have even come close

I recently replaced my 960 with a 50" Pioneer KRP-500M am very, very happy with it. It's "out of the box" performance is phenomenal and I can't wait for Chad B to come install the ISFccc patch and calibrate it. I got it mainly because it was the last, and considered the best, plasma to be made by Pioneer and there was a killer deal on them that was too good to pass. They are next to impossible to find now and the price has gone back up as a result. You may still be able to find some of the other 2nd-gen Kuros out there, however. Next best thing, IMO, would be the Panasonic V-series. At your viewing distance and for hi-def content, I would recommend the 54" size. Plasmas come the closest to reproducing the picture quality of our beloved CRTs and have come along way in terms of improving on image retention and I honestly don't think that should hamper your decision to get one. If you haven't already, check out the FAQ in the plasma section.

I would have loved to have held onto the 960 and waited for OLED, but that now seems to be following SED.

Really? The color? The contrast? The black level is equal? I've seen sony and samsung TV's all over the place and none have even come close

The XBR8 is the only one I saw that measured up.

From what I have seen, the Sony XBR8 has EXCELLENT contrast. Transcending the stereotypes most people have of LCDs.

To be clear, ONLY the XBR8 performs this well. The XBR9 and XBR10 are downgrades from the XBR8.

So if you are used to an XBR960, your flat-panel choices are really limited to:

Pioneer Kuro(PRO-111FD?)
Panasonic G10 or V10
Sony XBR8


Anything else will not measure up..

From what I have seen, the Sony XBR8 has EXCELLENT contrast. Transcending the stereotypes most people have of LCDs.

To be clear, ONLY the XBR8 performs this well. The XBR9 and XBR10 are downgrades from the XBR8.

So if you are used to an XBR960, your flat-panel choices are really limited to:

Pioneer Kuro(PRO-111FD?)
Panasonic G10 or V10
Sony XBR8


Anything else will not measure up..

It's been more than five years since the 960 began leaving the factory. With all the advances in flat-screen technology (LCD, Plasma and DLP) and the hundreds upon hundreds of monitors produced in the half-decade that followed, and only the above three can measure up to the 960, well that says a lot about our beloved set. No better compliment could be given.

I accidentally came across this thread and was shocked to see that there are still so many people stuck with CRT TVs. Come on, guys: CRTs belong to the past and you need to really move on. Do you guys realize how much you lost when you are still watching a tiny 34 inch TV? Things have changed a lot and there are many better TVs outside.
Don't get me wrong: I still have a 32 inch Panasonic Direct View HDTV monitor and I am still amazed how good a normal DVD can look on that TV. However, it is the age of blu-ray, and unless you insist watching only standard definition TV programs and DVDs, you are gonna need a better TV! Once you see the blu-ray's 1080P picture on a large screen (52 inch plus) on either a decent LCD or a plasma, you will not look back. I also have a 32 inch LCD TV and it looks tiny sitting besides my Sony 52W5100 LCD TV.
Only three kinds of TVs can measure up to the 960? I am speechless. How about Samsung 8500 or LG 55LH90 local dimming LED-backlit LCD TV? Before you even bring up the motion blur problem on LCD, I can also criticize the geometry and convergence issues on CRTs that are not even able to show 1920*1080 pixel by pixel. Just my 2 cents.


It's been more than five years since the 960 began leaving the factory. With all the advances in flat-screen technology (LCD, Plasma and DLP) and the hundreds upon hundreds of monitors produced in the half-decade that followed, and only the above three can measure up to the 960, well that says a lot about our beloved set. No better compliment could be given.

Haha I shouldn't even dignify that post but I own the 960, a 60" SXRD(A3000), a 57" RPCRT(1080i), a 42" LCD(1080P), and soon to be a panny plasma(58 or 65"). The 960 has the best image quality followed by the RPCRT out of all those sets. Just because they don't make em anymore doesn't mean anything other than they were large and costly so the market adapted to make more money, that is all.

Btw I've never seen a blu-ray look so good in my life on this set

I assume others will reply to this comment. My two cents: I would love to find an affordable alternative to a 960, not for screen size (which is about fine for me) but because it's so ridiculously bulky. But I've yet to see anything other than a Kuro with as good picture quality. I have a friend with the Samsung and I'm not impressed with shadow detail, off-axis viewing or the way it handles motion. It also seems to me that there is NO set that can display ALL content, from standard broadcast up to bluRay, as consistently well. Owning a TV that requires bluRay seems a lot like being a lonely audiophile that only listens to those direct-to-disc audiophile test records of drummers playing tympani, because it's the only material with sufficiently high production value. Not my kind of party.

Here's a review of the 960, it's now over a year old but I think still summarizes the "pro" argument well:

http://www.avguide.com/review/sony-wega-kd-34xbr960-direct-view-34%E2%80%9D-hdtv

Anyway if people who have actually owned a 960 (sorry the Panny hdtv is not an equivalent) and are now happy with a plasma or LCD, please chime in with model numbers and your comparison review.

In the meantime, my 960 just broke and I'm buying a replacement 960 through Craigslist for $300. Sure beats forking over $2300 for a LG 55LH90.

I accidentally came across this thread and was shocked to see that there are still so many people stuck with CRT TVs. Come on, guys: CRTs belong to the past and you need to really move on. Do you guys realize how much you lost when you are still watching a tiny 34 inch TV? Things have changed a lot and there are many better TVs outside.
Don't get me wrong: I still have a 32 inch Panasonic Direct View HDTV monitor and I am still amazed how good a normal DVD can look on that TV. However, it is the age of blu-ray, and unless you insist watching only standard definition TV programs and DVDs, you are gonna need a better TV! Once you see the blu-ray's 1080P picture on a large screen (52 inch plus) on either a decent LCD or a plasma, you will not look back. I also have a 32 inch LCD TV and it looks tiny sitting besides my Sony 52W5100 LCD TV.
Only three kinds of TVs can measure up to the 960? I am speechless. How about Samsung 8500 or LG 55LH90 local dimming LED-backlit LCD TV? Before you even bring up the motion blur problem on LCD, I can also criticize the geometry and convergence issues on CRTs that are not even able to show 1920*1080 pixel by pixel. Just my 2 cents.

I assume others will reply to this comment. My two cents: I would love to find an affordable alternative to a 960, not for screen size (which is about fine for me) but because it's so ridiculously bulky. But I've yet to see anything other than a Kuro with as good picture quality. I have a friend with the Samsung and I'm not impressed with shadow detail, off-axis viewing or the way it handles motion. It also seems to me that there is NO set that can display ALL content, from standard broadcast up to bluRay, as consistently well. Owning a TV that requires bluRay seems a lot like being a lonely audiophile that only listens to those direct-to-disc audiophile test records of drummers playing tympani, because it's the only material with sufficiently high production value. Not my kind of party.

Here's a review of the 960, it's now over a year old but I think still summarizes the "pro" argument well:

http://www.avguide.com/review/sony-wega-kd-34xbr960-direct-view-34%E2%80%9D-hdtv

Anyway if people who have actually owned a 960 (sorry the Panny hdtv is not an equivalent) and are now happy with a plasma or LCD, please chime in with model numbers and your comparison review.

In the meantime, my 960 just broke and I'm buying a replacement 960 through Craigslist for $300. Sure beats forking over $2300 for a LG 55LH90.

Great review! And most of your colleagues in the industry also agree the new technologies still have not completely reached the picture quality of a CRT.

Of course, I don't want to knock plasmas, LCDs, DLPs, etc. but they do have their limitations. At work we have that 55 inch LG with the LED backlight. As you said, with the lights off the LCD picture is too dark and washed out.

And with the lights on the picture is indeed crystal sharp but is also overall too bright and lacks the deep colors, depth and natural life-like picture that I've become accustomed to. And even the bigger size does not bring out those tiny, minute details that the 960 does.

So again, not to say that the pictures on this and other large screen sets aren't awesome on their own, it's just that advances in size, shape, weight, glare retraction, etc. aren't the bottom line - it's picture quality.

Good luck with your new 960 too.

I accidentally came across this thread and was shocked to see that there are still so many people stuck with CRT TVs. Come on, guys: CRTs belong to the past and you need to really move on. Do you guys realize how much you lost when you are still watching a tiny 34 inch TV? Things have changed a lot and there are many better TVs outside.
Don't get me wrong: I still have a 32 inch Panasonic Direct View HDTV monitor and I am still amazed how good a normal DVD can look on that TV. However, it is the age of blu-ray, and unless you insist watching only standard definition TV programs and DVDs, you are gonna need a better TV! Once you see the blu-ray's 1080P picture on a large screen (52 inch plus) on either a decent LCD or a plasma, you will not look back. I also have a 32 inch LCD TV and it looks tiny sitting besides my Sony 52W5100 LCD TV.
Only three kinds of TVs can measure up to the 960? I am speechless. How about Samsung 8500 or LG 55LH90 local dimming LED-backlit LCD TV? Before you even bring up the motion blur problem on LCD, I can also criticize the geometry and convergence issues on CRTs that are not even able to show 1920*1080 pixel by pixel. Just my 2 cents.

It is quite obvious you have never seen an XBR 960.

I was successfully operating with a Motorola M Series Cable Card with COMCAST. Last week I shifted to Verizon Fios and the technician tried to set up the same type of Motorola multistream cable card with Verizon FIOS but could not get a pairing to provide information to allow activiation.

He indicated that older TVs such as this one would not work with later cable cards, and needed older versions. (Single stream types?)

I have a hard time thinking that it's a problem with the TV as the same series card worked with COMCAST.

Is anyone out there successfully hooked up with Verizon FIOS and a cable card; and if you are can you tell me the type of cable card so I have Verizon make sure they have the right one on the truck when it rolls?
No one responded but for info of others and to save a hassle - the install yesterday was unsuccessful - the technician couldn't get the numbers out of the tv

According to an on line chat session with SONY our sets are only guaranteed to work with single stream cards (and the Verizon tech didn't have one)

So even though I know it worked before with comcast and a multistream card - I have to call Verizon and see if they will special order a single stream card for my tv and set up another appointment.

Edit - Verizon tech showed up yesterday. Even though customer service indicated need for a single stream card he didn't have a clue when he called 30 mins before appointment and had to go back to his office to get a single stream\\

He, like me - didn't beleive you need a single stream so he first tried a Motorola multi-stream; which again failed

After trying with the single stream the connection was made with Verizon and the numbers were available to activate. Alll is now fine with my 960xbr and the cable card with Verizon FIOS

Indeed I have never seen a XBR 960. You may call me ignorant but I'd rather watch my blu-ray on a decent, big screen rather than on a small 34 inch CRT TV, no matter how good it is. Actually, I can hardly believe the picture on this CRT TV is leaps and bounds better than Samsung 8500 or LG 55LH90. Talking about image quality or color accuracy, can this XBR 960 be compared with Sony broadcast level professional monitors? A 17 inch one can easily cost between $3k-$6k. Would you be willing to watch TVs or blu-rays on such a monitor that will definitely give you a superior picture? So you see that picture quality is not the only important thing to consider. It is the whole package that matters.
Oh, by the way, Vizio (I guess the kind of brand that will be belittled here) is gonna have a 72 inch, 480HZ, LED-backlit, 3D-ready, 1080P LCD TV at $3500 later this year. I will upgrade my current Sony 52W5100 to this one by that time while I guess you can keep enjoying your beloved 34XBR960. Wait a second, is XBR960 even capable of showing native 720P, not mentioning 1080P, signal?

It is quite obvious you have never seen an XBR 960.

I accidentally came across this thread and was shocked to see that there are still so many people stuck with CRT TVs. Come on, guys: CRTs belong to the past and you need to really move on. Do you guys realize how much you lost when you are still watching a tiny 34 inch TV? Things have changed a lot and there are many better TVs outside.
Don't get me wrong: I still have a 32 inch Panasonic Direct View HDTV monitor and I am still amazed how good a normal DVD can look on that TV. However, it is the age of blu-ray, and unless you insist watching only standard definition TV programs and DVDs, you are gonna need a better TV! Once you see the blu-ray's 1080P picture on a large screen (52 inch plus) on either a decent LCD or a plasma, you will not look back. I also have a 32 inch LCD TV and it looks tiny sitting besides my Sony 52W5100 LCD TV.
Only three kinds of TVs can measure up to the 960? I am speechless. How about Samsung 8500 or LG 55LH90 local dimming LED-backlit LCD TV? Before you even bring up the motion blur problem on LCD, I can also criticize the geometry and convergence issues on CRTs that are not even able to show 1920*1080 pixel by pixel. Just my 2 cents.

I dont know how many people here use it as their main TV, but i personally use it for a bedroom tv, and i think sets like these Widescreen DV-CRT's do very well in these settings. My dad owns a Toshiba 47ZV650U, and personally, i cannot stand the backlight-bleed on it. Sure you can spend more or research more to find an LCD that does well with minimal-backlight bleed, but for the $250 i spent buying and using it as a bedroom tv, and watching blu-ray's on it, its a very fine tv for my needs.

I recently watched Star Trek on blu-ray with this set, and the first thing i notice was that the deep dark space was just that, deep and dark. ;)

EDIT: 720p is possible with these tv's, but i do not know if its native or not. But really, since this is a crt, what is native for these sets? The main picture itself is analog, so in theory, it can display whatever its fed, provided that the 'guns' can properly picture it. But it then all comes down to the actual electronics inside, where it governs what can and cannot be displayed.

Here's a review of the 960, it's now over a year old but I think still summarizes the "pro" argument well:

http://www.avguide.com/review/sony-wega-kd-34xbr960-direct-view-34%E2%80%9D-hdtv

.
That review left out a very significant feature for me that was important in my decision to buy a used 960 - the firewire capability. I can archive whatever I want (copy once) onto my D-VHS.

Also don't think it mentions the upconversion of DRC for 480i material; but frankly I would rather watch 480i on my other Sony SFP - the 36 4:3 KD955xs (yes I am a dinosaur and like big CRTs)

"Talking about image quality or color accuracy, can this XBR 960 be compared with Sony broadcast level professional monitors? A 17 inch one can easily cost between $3k-$6k. Would you be willing to watch TVs or blu-rays on such a monitor that will definitely give you a superior picture? So you see that picture quality is not the only important thing to consider. It is the whole package that matters."

Arthur,

One should never compare consumer grade to that on the professional level.

And of course there are many factors a "consumer" must take into account, but after those of budget, room space and manufacturer reputation, how rich the picture looks is usually the next thing one then considers (need it be CRT, LCD, Plasma or DLP).

I accidentally came across this thread and was shocked to see that there are still so many people stuck with CRT TVs. Come on, guys: CRTs belong to the past and you need to really move on. Do you guys realize how much you lost when you are still watching a tiny 34 inch TV? Things have changed a lot and there are many better TVs outside.
Don't get me wrong: I still have a 32 inch Panasonic Direct View HDTV monitor and I am still amazed how good a normal DVD can look on that TV. However, it is the age of blu-ray, and unless you insist watching only standard definition TV programs and DVDs, you are gonna need a better TV! Once you see the blu-ray's 1080P picture on a large screen (52 inch plus) on either a decent LCD or a plasma, you will not look back. I also have a 32 inch LCD TV and it looks tiny sitting besides my Sony 52W5100 LCD TV.
Only three kinds of TVs can measure up to the 960? I am speechless. How about Samsung 8500 or LG 55LH90 local dimming LED-backlit LCD TV? Before you even bring up the motion blur problem on LCD, I can also criticize the geometry and convergence issues on CRTs that are not even able to show 1920*1080 pixel by pixel. Just my 2 cents.

Would it kill you to write one intelligent post? And you call me a plasma fanboy...you go from the plasma section to the LCD section and now the CRT section to spread your nonsense. Have you noticed how no one EVER agrees with your drivel? Do you even understand PQ? You do realize that your beloved LCD technology is generally considered the worst in the industry? Do you grasp this?
Even though I retired my CRT RPTV recently for a plasma, I still know that the best CRTs are the still the epitome of PQ. No technology is purer. Do you understand the words I'm typing? CRT just happens to be bulky and thin is more important to you than PQ. Plasma comes close to CRT in many respects but not everything. Why do you think studio monitors are ALL still CRT? How many ways does this need to be explained to you?

Go enjoy your LCD but leave the technical discussions to people that actually have a semblance of a clue.

Seems to me that posting in the CRT forums that CRT technology is outmoded is basically just trolling. Personally, I will enjoy my big beautiful glass TV's as long as I can still find them.

You can call me LCD fanboy if you want. I have no problem in acknowledging Plasma and CRT TVs' advantages. But it seems to me that you and other guys have difficulty in being open-minded. As I wrote in another thread, I will not respond to your post anymore. I welcome objective discussions but not personal attack from people like you.


Would it kill you to write one intelligent post? And you call me a plasma fanboy...you go from the plasma section to the LCD section and now the CRT section to spread your nonsense. Have you noticed how no one EVER agrees with your drivel? Do you even understand PQ? You do realize that your beloved LCD technology is generally considered the worst in the industry? Do you grasp this?
Even though I retired my CRT RPTV recently for a plasma, I still know that the best CRTs are the still the epitome of PQ. No technology is purer. Do you understand the words I'm typing? CRT just happens to be bulky and thin is more important to you than PQ. Plasma comes close to CRT in many respects but not everything. Why do you think studio monitors are ALL still CRT? How many ways does this need to be explained to you?

Go enjoy your LCD but leave the technical discussions to people that actually have a semblance of a clue.

You can call me LCD fanboy if you want. I have no problem in acknowledging Plasma and CRT TVs' advantages. But it seems to me that you and other guys have difficulty in being open-minded. As I wrote in another thread, I will not respond to your post anymore. I welcome objective discussions but not personal attack from people like you.

This to me is a troll, but just in case it is not, you say you want an open minded discussion, yet it is apparent that the ONLY thing important to you is size. Hands down the XBR960 is not the biggest TV, maybe even small by today's standards. BUT, the picture quality has yet to be beat in CONSUMER grade electronics. For years (and maybe still today) the XBR 960 was/is used as the CONSUMER grade reference that ALL other HDTV were used to compare. The picture quality is that good.

Not to sound like a cliche, but to me (and others) "Size does not matter".

P.S. Check the specs, the XBR 960 natively displays 720p and 1080i. 1080p is not much of an issue on this "small" screen. :)

This to me is a troll, but just in case it is not, you say you want an open minded discussion, yet it is apparent that the ONLY thing important to you is size. Hands down the XBR960 is not the biggest TV, maybe even small by today's standards. BUT, the picture quality has yet to be beat in CONSUMER grade electronics. For years (and maybe still today) the XBR 960 was/is used as the CONSUMER grade reference that ALL other HDTV were used to compare. The picture quality is that good.

Not to sound like a cliche, but to me (and others) "Size does not matter".

P.S. Check the specs, the XBR 960 natively displays 720p and 1080i. 1080p is not much of an issue on this "small" screen. :)


Has it sunk in now, arthur?

Probably not.

You can call me LCD fanboy if you want. I have no problem in acknowledging Plasma and CRT TVs' advantages. But it seems to me that you and other guys have difficulty in being open-minded. As I wrote in another thread, I will not respond to your post anymore. I welcome objective discussions but not personal attack from people like you.

You acknowledge nothing (just like the posts in the other threads). You state opinions and indicate a clear lack of knowledge of not only how PQ is defined but also how little you know of the various display technologies. You regularly imply that LCD is great because of it's market share. You earlier stated that VHS was "better" than Beta because it won.

I would not resort to personal attacks if you had one shred of justifiable evidence in your favor about any comments you've made thus far. Not only that, you have not been successful (hell, you haven't even tried) in contradicting my views. Your entire argument against everything I've stated in the threads is that I'm a "fanboy"...WOW!...you got me.

P.S. Note all the other responders to your ridiculous posts. See how NO ONE has agreed with you yet? I'd say that's a pretty big market share.

"I welcome objective discussions"

There was nothing objective in your original email other than sarcasim. No credible points open to debate, just rantings.

"but not personal attacks".

Please remember your original email had infantile remarks aimed not at any individual but putting us down as a group.

I've got some geometry problems with my 960 and I could use some help. Can anyone tell me where to look in the service menus to adjust the following problems?

- picture bows out in the middle, ie the left side looks like this: ( rather than this: | and the right side is ) rather than |

- picture is skewed so the top left corner is lower than top right corner, and lower left corner is lower than the lower right corner.

for the left side being higher than the right there is an option to tilt I forget what it's called atm. Not sure how to fix the bowing

for the left side being higher than the right there is an option to tilt I forget what it's called atm. Not sure how to fix the bowing

Thanks for the reply unclepauly. I think youre referring to the tilt setting accessible through the regular setup menu. If so, that isn't the right solution as it tilts the left and right sides which are currently vertical.

I think there's a service menu setting that bends the picture like a parallellogram. Something like that, possibly in combo with a tilt setting, is necessary or I'd just be left with one problem istead of the other.

Could someone please elaborate on the firewire output/input of this set and its capabilities? I have a DVHS deck but I haven't used it to record something in forever so I've forgotten a lot about the possibilities of firewire and the XBR.

Fogcity, you might get more responses by posting in the Display Calibration forum here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/search.php?searchid=14626136

I've got some geometry problems with my 960 and I could use some help. Can anyone tell me where to look in the service menus to adjust the following problems?

- picture bows out in the middle, ie the left side looks like this: ( rather than this: | and the right side is ) rather than |

- picture is skewed so the top left corner is lower than top right corner, and lower left corner is lower than the lower right corner.The third page of this Sony Service Code Thread Page1 - xbr960_conv_geom_p7-10.pdf (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=37943) may help. I always recommend a cross-hatch pattern be used for geometry adjustments.

Could someone please elaborate on the firewire output/input of this set and its capabilities? I have a DVHS deck but I haven't used it to record something in forever so I've forgotten a lot about the possibilities of firewire and the XBR.

What exactly did you want to know? I had mine working fine to record/playback HD from COMCAST with a cable card - it recorded all the premium content fine but the DVHS tapes are expensive at $7 or so and they only lastlike 150 minutes at HD speed. You can record all copy always (e.g. broadcast tv) and copy once (like HBO and Showtime and other premium channels); but not copy never (pay per view).

Currently I have shifted to Verizon Fios and I don't have a cable card working yet so can only record unencrpted material like broadcast tv..Whena tech comes this Friday with a single stream cable card I should be able to record all the programming I am subscribed to.

By the way you can also playback material recorded on another DVHS deck, eg one conneced to a cable company dvr via firewire, and play that back on the dvhs deck connedted to the 960xbr - so you are not stuck with dedicating hd storage in the dvr.

Another use is for direct viewing of camcorder tapes via firewire instead of using the composite video inputs.

I have also hooked mine up to computer and toyed with things like using the string of firewire devices to edit / record both personal videos and things like strip out commercials but haven't gone too far with any degree of success (hasn't been a priority for me as commercial stripping with HDTV2mpg is so easy on files recorded OTA or via a QAM tuner (MyHD or HDHomerun in my case).

Hi Rich,

Be aware that increased brightness can make a picture seem a bit sharper but at the expense of color and black level detail and that you might have to re-adjust your user settings even more. For example, last night I was watching the silent epic "Ben Hur" on TCM and compared it to the DVD-R made a while back to see if there was any difference in picture quality.

Well, I was upset for the broadcast appeared sharper and the color a bit different than my recording (could not re-record it because TCM had messed up the audio). I then realized I failed to change picture modes when switching between the DVR and the upconverting DVD player (with the 960 having only one HDMI input, I have a monoprice switch box - the DVR is in PRO and the DVD is in MOVIE).

The settings are different in the MOVIE mode (especially brightness, which is much higher due to the player's darker black level) and caused last night's broadcast to appear sharper with the early two-strip technicolor a little less pronounced. After realizing my mistake, I realized that what I thought was a crisper picture was actually one that was too bright, causing the color to be a bit washed out.

I then hardly saw any difference between the two (other than the slight softness naturally inherent in MOVIE)

My set has been callibrated and both service and user settings were based on specific test patterns (HD from the old INHD stored on the DVR and the THX optomizer for the upconverting DVD player) so both the MOVIE and PRO are properly adjusted.

So again, the eyes can be tricky. If you don't have any test patterns to go by am sure the technician will be able to adjust the user settings for you as well if they need to be.

- Joe

Well, just had my set calibrated by Chad B. yesterday. He had with him a small "piece" of a removed anti-glare screen from a 960! It looked nothing like the anti-glare coating that was on mine; Chad's was an actual plastic-y looking thin "screen" that you could pick up and hold – it had edges; you could easily imagine it having to be peeled off the screen! The anti-glare coating on mine appeared to be just that – a coating that was somehow applied; it was never something you could actually peel or pick up and hold, like Chad's sample. Interesting!

Anyway, Chad did a marvelous job with the calibration. Spent several hours getting everything just right – that includes removing the back of the set to add a few tiny magnets for correct geometry. My set has never looked this good!

And yes, I asked Chad about drawbacks re: picture quality if the anti-glare coating is removed. He said 'no' – aside from giving up a little anti-glare protection if there is light in the room, picture quality is not compromised in any way and might even be better. As far as how no coating affects brightness, color or any other settings - absolutely not a factor. Remember, calibration is determined from readings he gets with his calibration equipment hooked up to the set – and the set doesn't know whether you have anti-glare coating or not.

So, all in all, a good day! And here's an idea: rather then dropping a couple of thousand on a new plasma, simply have your 960 recalibrated; it's like getting a brand new set (with a breathtaking picture) for just a few hundred bucks. I'm now comfortable keeping mine for several years, or at least until flat-screen technology stops improving so rapidly. (I hate buying something only to learn there's something significantly better – or cheaper - 7 months later.)

And if anyone's looking for someone to calibrate their set, Chad's your man! :)

Hi Rich,

Thanks for the follow-up and so glad Chad did a great job re-callibrating your set. Perhaps others in the forum who had the coating removed noticed a slightly brighter picture because they did not adjust their service or user settings to compensate for it.

I callibrated most of the settings myself, based on comparing the sony service chart against the consensus of personal adjustments posted in the Sony Service Code forum. With the aid of HD test patterns I found most of the consensus values different from the Sony chart did enhance picture quality but since each set has it's own little quirks there were also a few that needed values in-between the range suggested by Sony and the forum members.

I found that my set was overall poorly callibrated by the factory technician. So many settings were neither the ones recommended by Sony or anywhere close to the consensus range and it showed once the items were re-set. Especially off was geometry and overscan. Fortunately, I was able to properly adjust both with the aid of an external cross-hatch pattern and guess I was just lucky that the magnets were OK so I was able to get everything straight and in proportion.

And unless somebody really wants a much bigger picture size (46 inches or more) I don't know why one would want to replace a perfectly working 960 (I say 46 inches because a flat screen against the wall would cause one to sit about two feet further away from the screen due to the 960's 26 inch depth -- six inches more would make a 40 inch screen two feet further away only appear a slightly bit bigger than a 34 inch when sitting closer).

Again, happy that Chad did such a great job. If it wasn't for the help I found with the Sony Service Code forum I'm sure he would have been over at my place as well.

P.S. I'm most likely going to replace my SD tube set in the den with a budget level 32 inch Sony LCD (1080p) - while it's not the 960 it should be sufficent for our secondary HT set-up. Another 960 would crush the den furniture and probably be right on top of me as well.

P.S. I'm most likely going to replace my SD tube set in the den with a budget level 32 inch Sony LCD (1080p) - while it's not the 960 it should be sufficent for our secondary HT set-up. Exactly my thinking when my SD Sony 27" Trinitron (circa 1995) finally died two months back. It lived in a TV "hole" in an entertainment built-in wall system of my den which had been built to hold just about that size "table-top" TV in that opening.

Turns out a 32" 16x9 flatscreen LCD on its own base was just about perfect to fill in the space previously occupied by the 27" 4x3 CRT, at least width-wise. Height-wise it was pretty good as well, because the LCD stands on its own base which adds some additional inches to the height.

Anyway, Sony had slashed the price on its 32XBR9 120hz 1080p model down to $497, which was exactly the kind of "budget" price I was looking to spend for a rarely used but necessary TV in that room.

It's not anything like my 34XBR960, but is perfectly acceptable and "good enough" for my needs there. Most importantly, it has sufficient SD/HD inputs to support my needs in that room... both HD-DVR, HD-DVHS, and SD-VCR.

Exactly my thinking when my SD Sony 27" Trinitron (circa 1995) finally died two months back. It lived in a TV "hole" in an entertainment built-in wall system of my den which had been built to hold just about that size "table-top" TV in that opening.

Turns out a 32" 16x9 flatscreen LCD on its own base was just about perfect to fill in the space previously occupied by the 27" 4x3 CRT, at least width-wise. Height-wise it was pretty good as well, because the LCD stands on its own base which adds some additional inches to the height.

Anyway, Sony had slashed the price on its 32XBR9 120hz 1080p model down to $497, which was exactly the kind of "budget" price I was looking to spend for a rarely used but necessary TV in that room.

It's not anything like my 34XBR960, but is perfectly acceptable and "good enough" for my needs there. Most importantly, it has sufficient SD/HD inputs to support my needs in that room... both HD-DVR, HD-DVHS, and SD-VCR.

Hi DS,

I'm going to replace the den's 4x3 set even though it's working fine because CV of New York City is to soon scramble all it's stations so we won't be able to use the 960's twin view using a splitter (my better half likes to watch QVC while I'm catching something else). Though CV does provide picture-in-picture, the second screen is way too small and not adjustable in size. This way we can both watch what we want and natch I'd rather it be in HD with a second box.


Going to check out the Sony you mentioned for the closest I found about that price was the 60 Hz model for $479. Will let you know.

Joe

Going to check out the Sony you mentioned for the closest I found about that price was the 60 Hz model for $479. Will let you know.Well... don't hold your breath. Turns out my memory is apparently failing! It definitely was the Bravia KDL-32XBR9 120hz 1080p model, but $497 was wrong.

I thought it was $497, but it apparently was $697! Still down about $500 from its original MSRP I think, but not the $497 I thought it was. I'm an idiot.

I actually paid $780, which included tax plus "California recycling charge" which the state adds to try and cover their costs associated with the disposing of electronic equipment properly. This charge varies by the size of the set you buy.

Sorry for my mistake.

Well... don't hold your breath. Turns out my memory is apparently failing! It definitely was the Bravia KDL-32XBR9 120hz 1080p model, but $497 was wrong.

I thought it was $497, but it apparently was $697! Still down about $500 from its original MSRP I think, but not the $497 I thought it was. I'm an idiot.

I actually paid $780, which included tax plus "California recycling charge" which the state adds to try and cover their costs associated with the disposing of electronic equipment properly. This charge varies by the size of the set you buy.

Sorry for my mistake.

Ha, thought you were wrong cause I couldn't find it anywhere near that price! :)

Since it is my secondary HT setup I don't think I'd be upset with just a 60hz set. Am also considering the less expensive one at 720p since it got so many great reviews.

And now my Yamaha receiver has crackling coming out of the right rear speaker - more noticiable on mono movie and stereo enhancements than 5.1. Changed wires and speakers - still there. And since it's almost non-existant on 5.1, I think I can contend with it since I'm also trying not to raise up the credit card that much more .

If I decide on the 720p unit I'll use my newer progressive scan DVD player with it (don't think the difference for a DVD would be that much going from 480p to just 720p on a 32 inch LCD) but if I decide on 1080p I would want an upconverting player as well.

What do you and others think about 720p versus 1080p for just a 32 inch screen?

What do you and others think about 720p versus 1080p for just a 32 inch screen?Depends on your needs.

I don't have a DVD or BluRay player in that room, only 1080i/720p sources (HD-DVR and HD-DVHS) and 480i (SD-SVHS). So I don't really have any pressing concern about 1080p content.

I simply bought that 32XBR9 because it was the right size, looked good and had a pretty good picture, sounded pretty decent with the set's speakers, was on sale and the price was about what I was willing to spend.

Personally, I would not try to save some money and go with a 720p set. 1080i (i.e. 1080p, today, which is the new standard) is simply non-negotiable, even for 32" displays... at least for me. I think I can see the difference, and can't not noticing.

Looks like the price on the XBR9 has come down another $100 since I bought mine.

Hi DS,

I'm going to replace the den's 4x3 set even though it's working fine because CV of New York City is to soon scramble all it's stations so we won't be able to use the 960's twin view using a splitter (my better half likes to watch QVC while I'm catching something else). Though CV does provide picture-in-picture, the second screen is way too small and not adjustable in size. This way we can both watch what we want and natch I'd rather it be in HD with a second box.


Going to check out the Sony you mentioned for the closest I found about that price was the 60 Hz model for $479. Will let you know.

Joe


CV? Assuming it's cable or FIOS scrambling the locals would be illegal by the cable co. Not that they need to be analog, but they have to be clear. Down here I also get a lot of local govment and local service channels clear, as well as QVC and other channels that Verizon doesn't want to encrypt.

And remember you can save every month if you get a cable card set like our 960's which gives you all your subscribe channels. For me Verizon charges $4 for a cable card, $10 for an HD STB and $5 for a normal cable box. And with the latter you should still be able to get the local broadcast in HD if you split the feed and have a QAM tuner

CV? Assuming it's cable or FIOS scrambling the locals would be illegal by the cable co. Not that they need to be analog, but they have to be clear. Down here I also get a lot of local govment and local service channels clear, as well as QVC and other channels that Verizon doesn't want to encrypt.

And remember you can save every month if you get a cable card set like our 960's which gives you all your subscribe channels. For me Verizon charges $4 for a cable card, $10 for an HD STB and $5 for a normal cable box. And with the latter you should still be able to get the local broadcast in HD if you split the feed and have a QAM tuner

Hi Ralph,

Somehow Cablevision of New York did get a ruling that allows them to scramble all of their stations, including standard broadcast, but just for the New York City area. The majority of their unscrambled stations are either the broadcast networks, PBS, shopping and public access. Don't see what good it would be scrambling those except that it seems it opens more bandwidth (?) or something to that extent.

CV's cablecard goes for $2.00 and a box (HD is free) for additional outlets $5.00

Depends on your needs.

I don't have a DVD or BluRay player in that room, only 1080i/720p sources (HD-DVR and HD-DVHS) and 480i (SD-SVHS). So I don't really have any pressing concern about 1080p content.

I simply bought that 32XBR9 because it was the right size, looked good and had a pretty good picture, sounded pretty decent with the set's speakers, was on sale and the price was about what I was willing to spend.

Personally, I would not try to save some money and go with a 720p set. 1080i (i.e. 1080p, today, which is the new standard) is simply non-negotiable, even for 32" displays... at least for me. I think I can see the difference, and can't not noticing.

Looks like the price on the XBR9 has come down another $100 since I bought mine.

Hi DS,

Been reading a lot about 32 inch screens and it seems just about all the technical people (CNet, Epionions, etc) say there is no real noticable difference between 720p and 1080p for a screen that size. Perphas you see a difference because you have the XBR9, which is not Sony's entry level set and is sure to surpass even the 1080p picture quality of it's Bravia line. Of course, neither compares to that of the 960!

Unfortunately, the Bravia's 720p unit didn't fair too well in what I've also read. So many noted certain colors appearing slightly green. From what I've read, the consensus is that the Samsung LN32B360 produces the best overall picture for a budget, entry level set. Love Sony but I might go with the sammy instead.

Thanks for the feedback. Will let you know what I finally decide to do.

Joe
Both those go for $399 and your XBR9 for $599.

DS.

Purchased the Samsung LN32B360 for the den. Was also told by Crutchfield that for that size 1080p wouldn't make much of a difference, nor would an upconverting DVD player. Got my 960 through them - shows they don't push to make any extra sale.

Know it won't compare to the 960 but will let you know how it works out.

OK!! So it's been years since I've purchased my XBR960. It's been great and amazing.

But lately I've been thinking.. "Hmmm, it's 2010, there has to be a better display out there by now, especially considering technological advancements since 2006."

So my question is:

Is there any displays under "40 that can match or surpass the all mighty XBR960 today?? If so, which one/s???

My brother moved his XBR CRT upstairs and got an XBR LCD. The screen is bigger, the PQ not as good IMO. I think his was the larger 36" and top of their line model from maybe 5 years ago. I never understood why he did it. I would'nt give up PQ for screen size. Then they had to come to his house and fix green/yellow patches on the screen (appartently a widespread issue from faulty manufacturing with those models of Sony LCD). That's the thing that scares me from buying a big screen- I keep reading about reliability issues, in fact the more I read on this forum, the more I want to keep my 24" Wega trinitron than give it up and be stuck with a Chinese made TV that might crap out in short order. I never had a Sony CRT that did'nt work well for less than 15 years. I did'nt even start seeing PQ comparable to CRT until maybe a couple years ago on some of the better plasmas, but it still was a little off. Maybe I'll go to BB in spring to look at Panasonics latest plasma screens this year and see if the funny green colors are still there.

My brother moved his XBR CRT upstairs and got an XBR LCD. The screen is bigger, the PQ not as good IMO. I think his was the larger 36" and top of their line model from maybe 5 years ago. I never understood why he did it. I would'nt give up PQ for screen size. Then they had to come to his house and fix green/yellow patches on the screen (appartently a widespread issue from faulty manufacturing with those models of Sony LCD). That's the thing that scares me from buying a big screen- I keep reading about reliability issues, in fact the more I read on this forum, the more I want to keep my 24" Wega trinitron than give it up and be stuck with a Chinese made TV that might crap out in short order. I never had a Sony CRT that did'nt work well for less than 15 years. I did'nt even start seeing PQ comparable to CRT until maybe a couple years ago on some of the better plasmas, but it still was a little off. Maybe I'll go to BB in spring to look at Panasonics latest plasma screens this year and see if the funny green colors are still there.

Hmmm... I wonder if any of todays displays can surpass the XBR960's PQ??

OK!! So it's been years since I've purchased my XBR960. It's been great and amazing.

But lately I've been thinking.. "Hmmm, it's 2010, there has to be a better display out there by now, especially considering technological advancements since 2006."

So my question is:

Is there any displays under "40 that can match or surpass the all mighty XBR960 today?? If so, which one/s???

Doubtful since the 960 is still a CRT and that's the best in the business, however, will admit LCDs have come a long way. We just got a 32 inch Samsung 32B360 for our secondary HT system and will admit we're quite impressed with the picture despite it not being a reference model like the 960 and only 720p (it got better overall ratings than the entry level Sony equivalent).

Overall the picture is indeed sharp, colorful and vibrant with the main difference between the two is that the tiniest of minute details (i.e., a facial hair, etc) brought out on the 960 are more or less masked on the new set. The problem of LCD black level also seems to have been dramaticly reduced, however, the blacks are still not quite as deep as the 960 with a bit less detail within those deep blacks.

The CRT also still provides a more three-dimensional type feel to the picture but I was surprised at the depth of this one.

DVDs look much better, even when not upconverted, on the 960. While upconversion improves the picture on the Sony it is much more drasticly needed on the LCD - so much so that I had to go out and get one today for it.

These are not enough reasons for anyone not to get a mid sized LCD screen and be happy but it is reason enough not to replace the 960.

As far as larger sized LCDs, we have a 55 inch at the office and the picture appears way "flatter" in depth with less richer black detail. Another drawback I found with that 55 inch LCD is that even though it is full 1080p resolution the picture appears less crisper than the 32 inch Samung and especially with the 34 inch 960. So it's my guess that the larger the LCD screen the lesser the HD picture quality.

I was ready to get a lcd or plasma in the 50 in range but as I was looking around I find lots of imperfections magnified by these tvs. Unless you feed it hd materials all else is ok at best. I dont have money for sets over 2k which I hear from folks swear to their excellent pix quality. But tv costing 3k up is just way too much for tv. My 34xbr960 servicing me for the past 5-6 years can't match the size of my bro-in-laws 47" lcd but my pix quality still beats his lcd. Now that I quit paying cox cable(fed up with their overpriced rerun programs--80% of it) I catch all of ota broadcast in vegas,(with signal strenght 75-95) I get hd for free--happy. I will eventually get a 50" screen eventually but maybe I will look around for a while.

I was ready to get a lcd or plasma in the 50 in range but as I was looking around I find lots of imperfections magnified by these tvs. Unless you feed it hd materials all else is ok at best. I dont have money for sets over 2k which I hear from folks swear to their excellent pix quality. But tv costing 3k up is just way too much for tv. My 34xbr960 servicing me for the past 5-6 years can't match the size of my bro-in-laws 47" lcd but my pix quality still beats his lcd. Now that I quit paying cox cable(fed up with their overpriced rerun programs--80% of it) I catch all of ota broadcast in vegas,(with signal strenght 75-95) I get hd for free--happy. I will eventually get a 50" screen eventually but maybe I will look around for a while.

Good to know it wasn't my imagination and wishful thinking.

Picture quality is somewhat sacrificed in order to have a screen size 55 inches or higher. It seems screens that large require even more resolution than just 1080i/p can provide.

I agree, I think 60 inch may be the top size unless you are far away. My sister just got a 52XBR9 a very nice LCD. It's unflattering to all but HDTV signals. I'm going to spend some quality time with it and see if I can get it looking better. Can't sit too close with SD signals..

So what's the going rate for a used 34xbr960?

Probably 3-400 usd. I'd gladly pay up to $700 for one in good condition. (not looking as I've already bought one last year :p)

So what's the going rate for a used 34xbr960?

It seems like $400 is the most common asking price from the craigslist ads I have seen. Most people who buy them usually say they paid closer to $300. A recently calibrated set could probably ask for and get something closer to $500.

Two weeks ago we got our first LCD (Samsung 32B360) to add to our den HT system. The 960 is in the system in the living room.

Now that I own a LCD (instead of seeing them in homes or stores) I've had a chance to see a properly tweaked set with time to observe the differences between one and the 960. My thoughts still remain the same - a mid-sized LCD picture is indeed slightly sharper (which I think has a lot to do with perfect geometry) but does mask a lot of little, minute details that the 960 brings out (facial hair, skin ipedements, stiching in clothes, etc.). And watching something live on the 960 one feels as if he or she is looking through a window with it's life-like clarity and 3-dimensional feel while on a LCD (despite it's vivid and colorful picture) it seems less-life like and more like something projected on a screen.

Also noticed that the 960 makes DVDs outputted in 480p appear much richer than it's den counterpart, making upconversion (or bluray) more essential for LCD. Have upconverting players for both TVs and the quality seems about even. Again, a minutely bit sharper on the LCD but less detailed than what one gets on the 960 (although due to it's flat screen and "non-window" effect the LCD feels more like being in a movie-theater).

Not to put down LCD. It's come a long, long way over the past few years (especially with black and contrast levels) and we're extremely happy and surprised with the quality of our Samsung - it has a great picture, extremely sharp with rich color and deep blacks. And if I was just starting out in HD, I wouldn't be disappointed in picture quality if I got a good model.

But the 960 is still reference-grade and has the advantages mentioned above so there is no need to think because it's older it should be replaced (despite the advances in LCD and LED technology) unless one just wants a much bigger size. In that case, one should also keep in mind what I've observed on the 55 inch LED in our conference room at work: the overall sharpness and detail isn't comparable to a smaller set, my own theory being (for what it's worth) that the larger the picture the more it's stretched out, requiring even higher resolution than 1080p to retain the same sharpness level as smaller sized screens.

Joseph,
Congrats on your recent purchase! I have to admit that I'm very curious as to why you didn't go with a plasma, as that technology is the closest thing to CRT image quality available today. If my 960 bites the dust, I wouldn't consider anything else (unless another mint 960 became available at the time).

Again, not trying to put down your Samsung, but could you tell us what kept you away from plasma?

~Matt

It seems like $400 is the most common asking price from the craigslist ads I have seen. Most people who buy them usually say they paid closer to $300. A recently calibrated set could probably ask for and get something closer to $500.

I actually paid $150 for one in great condition (although it oddly came with a 34XBR910 remote) last October just up in San Francisco.

Joseph,
Congrats on your recent purchase! I have to admit that I'm very curious as to why you didn't go with a plasma, as that technology is the closest thing to CRT image quality available today. If my 960 bites the dust, I wouldn't consider anything else (unless another mint 960 became available at the time).

Again, not trying to put down your Samsung, but could you tell us what kept you away from plasma?

~Matt

Thanks Matt,

It was the burn-in issue. I would always be worried about something staying on the screen (though I understand in newer sets the pixils move a bit and by not remaining stationery reduces but doesn't eliminate the chance of it happening). Otherwise, I would have looked into a plasma since it does come closest to a CRT of the new technologies.

Didn't take it at all as putting down the Samsung - after all, it was I who raised the issue this time anway! :). And I was also afraid of offending those who owned a LCD by sounding like an elitist. There are excellent LCDs available (hopefully mine is one of them) but the 960 is still happens to be of the top HD monitors around and in a league all by itself.

Don't even want to think of my 960 biting the dust! :eek:

WOW!!

2010 and still the king huh?

I was afraid my 960 was becoming outdated after all these years of technological advancements.

Great to hear it still has years in it.

WOW!!

2010 and still the king huh?

I was afraid my 960 was becoming outdated after all these years of technological advancements.

Great to hear it still has years in it.

Yeah, that was my fear too. It started about a year ago in my doctor's office. He has a LCD which is fed one of those special channels seen in waiting rooms. Was floored by how sharp and colorful the picture looked and thought that the 960 had finally been overtaken.

But it was deceptive. I tweaked the 960 to resemble the brightness level I had seen (my own settings were written down so wasn't worried about losing them) and found that the picture indeed became much sharper but in doing so it was then way too bright and lacked the vital contrast that brings out minute details and deep, rich color.

Perhaps LCDs, LEDs, etc. fair better against older HD CRTs by Toshiba, RCA (and even the less expensive Sony units) but I found it's just be unfair to compare any of them to the reference-level 960.

Now, I don't get jealous seeing the picture while waiting to be told I need to lose some weight.:)

Don't forget that LCD's brightness only has one advantage. That's daytime viewing, put that same LCD in your home and try to turn the lights down low and prepare to be *horrified.







*not by a scary movie.

Don't forget that LCD's brightness only has one advantage. That's daytime viewing, put that same LCD in your home and try to turn the lights down low and prepare to be *horrified.

*not by a scary movie.

Adjusting the basic settings (contrast, brightness, etc.) utilizing HD test patterns of course results in that bright picture. A darker picture can be obtained by further adjusting it's gamma, backlight and dynamic range while still using the test patterns as reference. But unlike the 960, the darker settings did not enhance the picture or bring out any more detail; instead, picture became dull and lifeless, no matter what combination of advance settings was used.

So I guess in order for a LCD to provide the best quality it can, the picture has to remain brighter than usual, no matter the circumstances of the viewing environment. I have no complaints about the brighter picture - I actually enjoy it watching sporting events - but it's also easy to recognize it's shortcomings.

Again, not meant to put down LCD technology since obviously I am now an owner of one. :cool: It's just to prove the point that it doesn't approach the quality of a CRT. Same holds true to one extent or another to plasma and DLP. And of course, other HD CRTs do not match the quality of the 960! ;)

Am a silent film fan and was shocked to read the following from a web page I follow:


"Sony Corporation (USA) has taken a surprising tack in resolving quality issues with their complete line of rear-projection HD televisions that were manufactured from 2002 through 2007. The main HD monitor that Silent Era utilizes in reviewing home video products, the Sony Grand WEGA™ SXRD™ KDS-60A2000 60" rear-projection HD television, developed a yellow hue on the right half of its picture late in 2009. When learning of an extended warranty program from Sony to resolve this issue, we arranged for a service call that resulted in the replacement of the optical block unit, from which a picture is projected onto the viewing screen. The monitor no longer exhibited a yellow hue but, instead, projected a prominent magenta oval encircling the picture. The service technician acknowledged the defect and arranged to have another optical block shipped from Sony. In late January, the replacement was installed only to exhibit the same magenta oval but to an admittedly fainter degree. When contacted regarding the persistent issue by the service company on our behalf, Sony closed the repair ticket and said that we would be contacted directly regarding the issue. When we spoke with the Sony customer service department on 3 February 2010, their representative would not directly acknowledge the defect but offered instead to sell us a Sony 55" LCD flatscreen for $1,100 as a replacement. Other resolutions of the issue were not allowed in the discussion by the Sony representative, in circular, policy-driven repetition, regardless of our original rejection of the smaller picture size and display technology when we purchased the rear-projection unit for its more filmlike picture. We were given until 17 February 2010 to accept Sony’s offer to sell us a replacement television. We have since learned of wide-spread problems with Sony rear-projection televisions, allegedly known to the corporation while the units were being manufactured, that have resulted in three class-action suits against Sony — one resolved, two currently pending. Our hope is that Silent Era readers will become aware of these issues and think twice about how the once-trusted Sony Corporation has chosen to resolve problems experienced by us and other previously dedicated Sony customers."

Hope a similar situation won't develop with the 960 since it was manufactured during that same period.

I would just like to say my 960 is still performing beautifully with CableCard and Xbox 360 inputs. Great value! CRTs are amazing :D

".....quality issues with their complete line of rear-projection HD televisions that were manufactured from 2002 through 2007. The main HD monitor that Silent Era utilizes in reviewing home video products, the Sony Grand WEGA™ SXRD™ KDS-60A2000 60" rear-projection HD television,.........Our hope is that Silent Era readers will become aware of these issues and think twice about how the once-trusted Sony Corporation has chosen to resolve problems experienced by us and other previously dedicated Sony customers."

Hope a similar situation won't develop with the 960 since it was manufactured during that same period.There shouldn't be any similarities between the products being discussed and the 960 since they are LCD sets with problematic light engines. I must say though, that Sony seems to have lost that top quality edge that they have been known for in the past. One used to feel confident in paying extra for the Sony name on a product. I no longer feel that way, especially after Sony's mishandling of the vertical scrolling bar issue that plagues the Sony crts.

That being said, it seems that almost every model of tv has its idiosyncratic issues. When I purchased a plasma, I went with Panasonic because of its advertised deep blacks, but lo and behold they have a rising black level issue that Panny may or may not resolve. Go figure.:(

Yeah,

Knew the technology was different but was concerned because if Sony let this happen on one product, the same could happen to another.

So it seems in terms of durability Sony has taken a step backwards the past few years? That is a shame.

CRT sets have been around 50+ years...I think Sony knew how to make them.

CRT sets have been around 50+ years...I think Sony knew how to make them.

Sony knows how to make all types of electronics and it's not a case of poor design as it is a lack of professional integrity once the defect was discovered. Allowing it to continue and remain unresolved put a blemish on it's reputation and raises doubt on how Sony will stand behind and take responsibility for their products, no matter what the type.

My point was that the design was no challenge and we should be pleased that our 960's have no glaring errors like failed optical blocks, clouding, flashlighting, or burn-in.

Yeah I think the 960 is the only set I own that I feel is bulletproof. Except for a few problems I heard about the hdmi port, which was new at the time.

Yeah I think the 960 is the only set I own that I feel is bulletproof. Except for a few problems I heard about the hdmi port, which was new at the time.

A few of us have noticed parts of the external anti-glare coating starting to come off. Might be why Sony did away with this with the "N" model. For ours, fortunately, it's very small and in a corner area so it can't be seen except at a certain angle and at that point, it only appears as reflection off the screen.

I have a 34xbr960 in the house and it is displaying discoloration around the edges. Sometimes unplugging the TV fixes the issue but it comes back. Should I sell the TV because of this issue? Also how do I access the service menu in this TV to fix the geometry issues? Anyone want to make me an offer for the TV (like new condition just the discoloration problem) :D ?

I have a 34xbr960 in the house and it is displaying discoloration around the edges. Sometimes unplugging the TV fixes the issue but it comes back. Should I sell the TV because of this issue? Also how do I access the service menu in this TV to fix the geometry issues? Anyone want to make me an offer for the TV (like new condition just the discoloration problem) :D ?

Don't sell your 960 so fast. That discoloration could be due to magnetism that the degausser hasn't completely gotten rid of via normal turning the power on or not keeping the set unplugged long enough.

Keep the 960 unplugged for at least ten minutes. Also, be sure it's plugged directy into the wall socket and not a surge protector (despite what it says in the manual, customer service told me protectors do not pass along the full power required for the degausser to work completely when turning the set on). Also check to see if your audio speakers are too close to the screen and might need to be move a bit further away.

There is an AVS forum called the Sony Service Codes with information on how to properly set the geometry. Make sure you have a cross-hatch pattern as a guide before doing anything along with one for overscan if possible.

Hope this helps. Please let us know.

Joe

I've been trolling the forums looking for a worthy successor to HD CRT, and am disappointed there doesn't seem to be a clear upgrade.

I don't have the 960, but rather the 34XBR800. Still an amazing set, but the sheer size and weight of the unit is starting to trouble me in my small apartment.

I too recently bought the Samsung 32B360, and was blown away by the PQ on an entry level 720p lcd. It replaced a fully functional 24" WEGA. FYI.. the set still had great PQ (albeit SD).

I was so impressed by the entry-level Samsung, I started wondering about replacing the 34XBR800. It's as good as it was new... but the promise of blu-ray, improved monitor tech, and smaller footprint is enticing.

After much investigation, it seems Plasma is the best successor... but sadly still not quite as good. LED is promising, but expensive and focused improperly (IMO) on thin form factor rather than full-array local dimming. Panasonic plasma felt like a good choice, but now seems to have uncertain longevity issues with black levels.. and then there's my DVD collection.

I'm all for blu-ray, but what about DVD playback? My CRT paired with a Denon 1600 produces an AWESOME progressive scan image. Without expensive upscalers, it seems only a $500 Oppo player can produce better PQ with DVD.

Are there any Plasma (or LCD) owners in this thread who feel their new set is a worthy replacement for the top CRT HD? (I'm thinking 46" or 50" max) I'd love to hear your thoughts and/or recommendations.

I've been trolling the forums looking for a worthy successor to HD CRT, and am disappointed there doesn't seem to be a clear upgrade.

I don't have the 960, but rather the 34XBR800. Still an amazing set, but the sheer size and weight of the unit is starting to trouble me in my small apartment.

I too recently bought the Samsung 32B360, and was blown away by the PQ on an entry level 720p lcd. It replaced a fully functional 24" WEGA. FYI.. the set still had great PQ (albeit SD).

I was so impressed by the entry-level Samsung, I started wondering about replacing the 34XBR800. It's as good as it was new... but the promise of blu-ray, improved monitor tech, and smaller footprint is enticing.

After much investigation, it seems Plasma is the best successor... but sadly still not quite as good. LED is promising, but expensive and focused improperly (IMO) on thin form factor rather than full-array local dimming. Panasonic plasma felt like a good choice, but now seems to have uncertain longevity issues with black levels.. and then there's my DVD collection.

I'm all for blu-ray, but what about DVD playback? My CRT paired with a Denon 1600 produces an AWESOME progressive scan image. Without expensive upscalers, it seems only a $500 Oppo player can produce better PQ with DVD.

Are there any Plasma (or LCD) owners in this thread who feel their new set is a worthy replacement for the top CRT HD? (I'm thinking 46" or 50" max) I'd love to hear your thoughts and/or recommendations.

Congrats on your new Samsung. Glad you are blown away with it's picture quality like I am.

Did you see my posts #6940, 6945 and 6947 regarding it's quality and comparision to the KD34XBR960? While I love the new Sammy, Sony's 960 is still reference level and not worth replacing and the same might hold true for the 800 as well.

If you want, contact me privately and we can go over user settings for HD and upconverted DVD. I have HD test patterns stored on my DVR from the old INHD which I was able to use as a reference.

Hi Joseph,

I did read your posts, and greatly appreciate your reviews/insights
- I believe the 960 is 2 model generations newer than my 800
- Comparable, but I'm sure the 960 has some added pq and hardware refinements (e.g. I only have component & 1 DVI port.. no hdmi)

Although I agree there's no need to replace for the sake of quality, I may have to part ways with the set for physical space in the next 3-5 months. Was hoping to find some positive reviews from those who lived with these great CRT's and found comparable replacements.

Since the Samsung is literally Entry-Level model (and performs so well), I thought it possible to find something suitable further up the model lines.

I've been trolling the forums looking for a worthy successor to HD CRT, and am disappointed there doesn't seem to be a clear upgrade.

I don't have the 960, but rather the 34XBR800. Still an amazing set, but the sheer size and weight of the unit is starting to trouble me in my small apartment.

I too recently bought the Samsung 32B360, and was blown away by the PQ on an entry level 720p lcd. It replaced a fully functional 24" WEGA. FYI.. the set still had great PQ (albeit SD).

I was so impressed by the entry-level Samsung, I started wondering about replacing the 34XBR800. It's as good as it was new... but the promise of blu-ray, improved monitor tech, and smaller footprint is enticing.

After much investigation, it seems Plasma is the best successor... but sadly still not quite as good. LED is promising, but expensive and focused improperly (IMO) on thin form factor rather than full-array local dimming. Panasonic plasma felt like a good choice, but now seems to have uncertain longevity issues with black levels.. and then there's my DVD collection.

I'm all for blu-ray, but what about DVD playback? My CRT paired with a Denon 1600 produces an AWESOME progressive scan image. Without expensive upscalers, it seems only a $500 Oppo player can produce better PQ with DVD.

Are there any Plasma (or LCD) owners in this thread who feel their new set is a worthy replacement for the top CRT HD? (I'm thinking 46" or 50" max) I'd love to hear your thoughts and/or recommendations.

This is the beauty of the 960, you can feed it any material available today and it will shine. Just wish it was close to the 50 inch screen that I am looking for.

I have a 34xbr960 in the house and it is displaying discoloration around the edges. Sometimes unplugging the TV fixes the issue but it comes back. Should I sell the TV because of this issue? Also how do I access the service menu in this TV to fix the geometry issues? Anyone want to make me an offer for the TV (like new condition just the discoloration problem) :D ?

Greetings,

Your display is not defective, rather CRTs need a little TLC to bring out their best performance. No need to sell the set just for those reasons, if you are comfortable making some service level adjustments. If this is purple or magenta colored fringing then it's probably the landing settings. Basically the CRT is being influenced by the earth's magnetic field. Search for Sony and Landing to get more information. Look at post # 80 in this page http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=5687363&&#post5687363. Make a log of any service menu changes for future reference. The Sony Settings thread has information on convergence adjustment.

Regards

Hi Joseph,

I did read your posts, and greatly appreciate your reviews/insights
- I believe the 960 is 2 model generations newer than my 800
- Comparable, but I'm sure the 960 has some added pq and hardware refinements (e.g. I only have component & 1 DVI port.. no hdmi)

Although I agree there's no need to replace for the sake of quality, I may have to part ways with the set for physical space in the next 3-5 months. Was hoping to find some positive reviews from those who lived with these great CRT's and found comparable replacements.

Since the Samsung is literally Entry-Level model (and performs so well), I thought it possible to find something suitable further up the model lines.

My brother is set on getting a Samsung the next few months, if that helps. If this is entry-level quality, can imagine how good their top of the line ones are. But again, it's not CRT.

You might have read that the Sony equivalent entry level 32 inch set had problems with greenish-type tint on some flesh tones and other colors.

Sorry to barge in on this thread, but I figured someone here would be able to help me make up my mind.

A friend has an KD-34XBR960 that he wants to sell for $100.
Works great, except if you turn it off when it's hot, it will need to be unplugged for a few hours before it turns back on.
Once it's on, it's fine. Until you shut it off again.

Is this a solder joint issue? Or something else?
Be specific, if possible. I'm good with a soldering iron, but not well versed in tv repair.

I just don't want to buy a tv that's going to die in a few more weeks.

Thanks for the help,
Don

Don, here's my humble opinion (I don't own the 960, I have the 955), just from what you posted, I would pass. The 960 is an incredibly huge (40" x 2' x 2') and heavy set (200 lbs). If you are ok with that and someone here has an idea for a quick fix for the issue, don't pay your friend, he/she should be lucky if you want to take it off their hands.

Hello all, been a long time since I lurked here. I have an xbr960n I bought new. Still works perfectly! Best Picture I have ever had. I however want something a bit bigger. Is it time to start looking again or should I just hold tight for awhile longer? Any advice appreciated. Thanks!

Hello all, been a long time since I lurked here. I have an xbr960n I bought new. Still works perfectly! Best Picture I have ever had. I however want something a bit bigger. Is it time to start looking again or should I just hold tight for awhile longer? Any advice appreciated. Thanks!

See my post number 6940 - is a bit bigger picture worth the bigger drop in picture quality? LCDs are great and we have one in our second HT system, however, we would not replace our 960 to get a bigger one in the living room.

Hello all, been a long time since I lurked here. I have an xbr960n I bought new. Still works perfectly! Best Picture I have ever had. I however want something a bit bigger. Is it time to start looking again or should I just hold tight for awhile longer? Any advice appreciated. Thanks!

I am very happy with my Sony 46XBR8 but they are not being made new anymore. Still have a 960 in the bedroom and can't see the difference in picture quality.

Hey all,

So, after some searching, I recently came to acquire the KD-34XBR960 because I wanted to see it for myself based on all the praise I've heard about it.

And when I first turned it on I was pretty disappointed, but after playing with the standard menu settings a lot, I came to see why this set has so much praise!

I'm very pleased with the picture quality now, except for a few things:

-Some Overscan Issues
-Some Inward Bowing on the Horizontal Extremes
-Some Slight Blur/Convergence Issues on the Horizontal Extremes (only really noticeable with fine text towards those edges)

Now then, I've found some pretty good guides here on adjusting the overscan, and that seems easy enough, so I'm good to go as soon as I get around to doing it.

As for the bowing, I'm not sure exactly what setting needs to be adjusted for this. I want to find the global setting that will adjust this as these problems seem to be the same over all inputs.

Just in case I'm not being clear:

This is sort of what the screen looks like now, everything kind of gets squished a little bit towards the middle as you get towards to horizontal edges. *EDIT:* OK, I found that this is called "Barrel Distortion", but it doesn't look like typical Barrel Distortion, I don't know, but still can't find the option to fix it...

. --------------------- .
. .
| |
| |
| |
| |
. .
' --------------------- '


Whereas this is what I want it to look like:

-----------------------------
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
----------------------------


I hope that makes sense, haha...

So I need to know what settings there are to correct that.

And finally, what would the settings be to adjust the blur/convergence towards the horizontal edges?

Thanks in advance for any info you can give!

-Paul

Hey all,

So, after some searching, I recently came to acquire the KD-34XBR960 because I wanted to see it for myself based on all the praise I've heard about it.

And when I first turned it on I was pretty disappointed, but after playing with the standard menu settings a lot, I came to see why this set has so much praise!

I'm very pleased with the picture quality now, except for a few things:

-Some Overscan Issues
-Some Inward Bowing on the Horizontal Extremes
-Some Slight Blur/Convergence Issues on the Horizontal Extremes (only really noticeable with fine text towards those edges)

Now then, I've found some pretty good guides here on adjusting the overscan, and that seems easy enough, so I'm good to go as soon as I get around to doing it.

As for the bowing, I'm not sure exactly what setting needs to be adjusted for this. I want to find the global setting that will adjust this as these problems seem to be the same over all inputs.

Just in case I'm not being clear:

This is sort of what the screen looks like now, everything kind of gets squished a little bit towards the middle as you get towards to horizontal edges. *EDIT:* OK, I found that this is called "Barrel Distortion", but it doesn't look like typical Barrel Distortion, I don't know, but still can't find the option to fix it...

. --------------------- .
. .
| |
| |
| |
| |
. .
' --------------------- '


Whereas this is what I want it to look like:

-----------------------------
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
----------------------------


I hope that makes sense, haha...

So I need to know what settings there are to correct that.

And finally, what would the settings be to adjust the blur/convergence towards the horizontal edges?

Thanks in advance for any info you can give!

-Paul

Do a search for the Ken Tech thread, an excellent reference for this set. For the bowing you may have to adjust magnets.

Hey all,

So, after some searching, I recently came to acquire the KD-34XBR960 because I wanted to see it for myself based on all the praise I've heard about it.

And when I first turned it on I was pretty disappointed, but after playing with the standard menu settings a lot, I came to see why this set has so much praise!

I'm very pleased with the picture quality now, except for a few things:

-Some Overscan Issues
-Some Inward Bowing on the Horizontal Extremes
-Some Slight Blur/Convergence Issues on the Horizontal Extremes (only really noticeable with fine text towards those edges)

Now then, I've found some pretty good guides here on adjusting the overscan, and that seems easy enough, so I'm good to go as soon as I get around to doing it.

As for the bowing, I'm not sure exactly what setting needs to be adjusted for this. I want to find the global setting that will adjust this as these problems seem to be the same over all inputs.

Just in case I'm not being clear:

This is sort of what the screen looks like now, everything kind of gets squished a little bit towards the middle as you get towards to horizontal edges. *EDIT:* OK, I found that this is called "Barrel Distortion", but it doesn't look like typical Barrel Distortion, I don't know, but still can't find the option to fix it...

. --------------------- .
. .
| |
| |
| |
| |
. .
' --------------------- '


Whereas this is what I want it to look like:

-----------------------------
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
----------------------------


I hope that makes sense, haha...

So I need to know what settings there are to correct that.

And finally, what would the settings be to adjust the blur/convergence towards the horizontal edges?

Thanks in advance for any info you can give!

-Paul

Hi Paul,

Congratulations on the 960.

When I first adjusted the overscan I wound up having the same problem.

If you go to the SONY SERVICE CODES forum, instructions regarding geometry adjustment appears in post number 33. Go through the entire procedure. Also suggest upon completion you further adjust the corners by going into service item 2710D-2, number 7 (UCP) and 8 (LCP). Cannot give you any advice regarding the magnets.

A complete spreadsheet of Sony suggested factory pre-sets plus Ken Tech's own settings is attached to post number 35. I actually found that a large number of my factory pre-sets were way off and really diminished picture quality - in all cases, re-adjusting them based on the Sony recommended factory settings improved the picture tremendously. At that point, of course, further callibration was still required so I went through the entire list, comparing items which differed between Sony and those in Ken's spreadsheet (most of Ken's suggestions we're better) while finding some needed values different from either Sony or Ken (obviously because no two sets are alike).

Be sure to write down the settings you have before making any adjustments.

Hope this helps.

Good luck and let us know how it works out.

Joe

Thanks for the tips.

I've got it looking pretty good now, but there are a few minor things I'd still like to perfect towards the corners.

Are there UCP, LCP like options for the horizontal edges of the screen?

Where is a good place to find information about magnet adjustments? (I hope it won't come to that)

Thanks in advance.

My xbr960 has been on the fritz for a little while now. The hdmi port doesn't work and the tuner is fuzzy unless you jiggle the chord. Any ideas on what could be wrong with it and how much it would cost to repair?

Thanks for the tips.

I've got it looking pretty good now, but there are a few minor things I'd still like to perfect towards the corners.

Are there UCP, LCP like options for the horizontal edges of the screen?

Where is a good place to find information about magnet adjustments? (I hope it won't come to that)

Thanks in advance.

Paul,

Group 2170D-2, items 7 through 13 deal with the corner geometry.

Can't help you with the magnet part but glad I was able to help you a bit otherwise..

My xbr960 has been on the fritz for a little while now. The hdmi port doesn't work and the tuner is fuzzy unless you jiggle the chord. Any ideas on what could be wrong with it and how much it would cost to repair?

Sorry to hear you're having problems. What cord do you "jiggle"? (POWER cord? Antenna?)

Mark

Alright, I've got the edge focus pretty good and I've got the edges looking pretty much perfect, with one slight exception...

In the bottom right part of the screen only, the horizontal lines curve upwards slightly as they approach that corner from left to right...Any ideas on how to fix that?

Thanks again!

Alright, I've got the edge focus pretty good and I've got the edges looking pretty much perfect, with one slight exception...

In the bottom right part of the screen only, the horizontal lines curve upwards slightly as they approach that corner from left to right...Any ideas on how to fix that?

Thanks again!

Greetings,

Ours does that too. You need to adjust the magnets for that.

Regards

Sorry to hear you're having problems. What cord do you "jiggle"? (POWER cord? Antenna?)

Mark

The time warner coax going from my wall to my tv.

The time warner coax going from my wall to my tv.

You should not need to jiggle any cables to make the signal work. Check the connector on each side to make sure they're tight. (If a twist type, securely hand tighten, and if a push-on, you might want to take a pliers and g-e-n-t-l-y push down on the shield to make it fit tighter on the socket.)

If the problem is still there, the fault could be in the TV or in Time-Warner's system. Try moving the cable to a different TV if you have one. If it works on that other TV, then the problem is indeed in your XBR-960. If it still doesn't work, breath a sigh of relief because you've ducked a repair cost and call Time-Warner to have them fix it.

Good luck!

Mark

I have a Panasonic EA18 recorder in my living room connected to the 960 along with a Sony NS710H player connected to a Samsung 32B360 (LCD) for our second HTS. Both players use HDMI and, of course, have up-conversion.

With the 960, my recorded DVD-Rs look way much better up-converted from 480p, however, on the Samsung they actually appear worse (overall picture way too harsh and unpleasing with movement appearing un-natural). On that set, retaining the output at 480p brings out the best in the picture. Please note that the Samsung does do a fine job up-converting commercial DVDs; it is only with those I’ve recorded that it doesn’t.

I know the 960 is a reference set and the Samsung is entry level but am curious as to why, on the Samsung, the same principles of up-conversion that apply to commercial DVDs to not apply to DVD-Rs (with and without any enhancement settings from the player). Is this the norm for many HD sets, making the 960 more the exception rather than the rule? If so, then it’s another tribute to the 960’s great ability at bringing out the best of any source material

Am not at all worried or upset – it just means changing the DVD player’s output. So I honestly do not think it’s a knock on the LCD but more an attribute of the 960.

Thanks as always,
Joe

P.S.

The recordings I make are of excellent quality. They are dubbed from HD stations with good source material using s-video cable. Of course, the output is down-converted to 480i but at high speed it yields results far superior to standard definition broadcasts or VHS (though I realize no DVD recorder is able to reproduce picture quality on the same level of a disc made commercially).

I have the 34" xbr910 which i believe is the model just prior to the 960. biggest difference is DVI not HDMI and no HD tuner on board. I have the stand the service manual, the regular manual and remote. Basically everything is as new minus the box. I did a ISF on everything I could do to the DVI input without opening the box and it works great. I don't want to just trash/recycle this thing. Does anyone want it? I would like to get a bit of money for it but I am entertaining free to a good home idea. Send me an email at: tom@theaudioartisans.com. I will consider what to do based on the response. thanks...

I have the 34" xbr910 which i believe is the model just prior to the 960. biggest difference is DVI not HDMI and no HD tuner on board. I have the stand the service manual, the regular manual and remote. Basically everything is as new minus the box. I did a ISF on everything I could do to the DVI input without opening the box and it works great. I don't want to just trash/recycle this thing. Does anyone want it? I would like to get a bit of money for it but I am entertaining free to a good home idea. Send me an email at: tom@theaudioartisans.com. I will consider what to do based on the response. thanks...

I'd say the biggest difference is the lines of resolution. Not trying to be a jerk

Hey guys, im looking for a tube strictly for old gaming (PS2, PS1, Sega Saturn,Super Nintendo) and have a chance to get a KD-34XBR960 for a good price. I was planning on going the RGB route, but if the KD-34XBR960 is as good as everyone says, maybe I can just do that with S-Video.

Or since it upscales everything, will the old video game systems suffer from HD blur and pixelation?

Hey guys, im looking for a tube strictly for old gaming (PS2, PS1, Sega Saturn,Super Nintendo) and have a chance to get a KD-34XBR960 for a good price. I was planning on going the RGB route, but if the KD-34XBR960 is as good as everyone says, maybe I can just do that with S-Video.

Or since it upscales everything, will the old video game systems suffer from HD blur and pixelation?

Long/short: ALL of your source material will look as good as it possibly ever could. Proceed with confidence. :)

Long/short: ALL of your source material will look as good as it possibly ever could. Proceed with confidence. :)

Agree - even my old VHS recordings from 25 years ago look better than ever!

I just got a Blu-Ray player, and can't find a way to play only the front channels of 5.1 through the 960's speakers. I can tell the player to send no sound over HDMI and only through it's RCA audio outputs, but when I plug audio input into the RCA plugs just below the HDMI input in the Video 7 area on the back of the TV, no sound comes out. Sound does come out with Video 5 and other input areas, though.

Is the TV broken and need repair, or is this just the way it is?

I just got a Blu-Ray player, and can't find a way to play only the front channels of 5.1 through the 960's speakers. I can tell the player to send no sound over HDMI and only through it's RCA audio outputs, but when I plug audio input into the RCA plugs just below the HDMI input in the Video 7 area on the back of the TV, no sound comes out. Sound does come out with Video 5 and other input areas, though.Why would you want the audio to be delivered over analog L/R RCA audio instead of wanting to play the digital PCM 2-channel stereo delivered over HDMI from your BluRay player to the 960? That's the right way to do it.

Anyway, I think the L/R audio inputs under the HDMI connector for INPUT7 are intended for a source device that only has a DVI output, which is digital video only (you'd use a DVI-to-HDMI converter cable to connect to HDMI on INPUT7 of the 960). The L/R audio input is then necessary to provide the 2-channel stereo audio since no digital audio can possibly be delivered through the DVI-to-HDMI cable coming from the DVI-only source device. I'm guessing the 960 senses the absence of audio on the HDMI input and falls back to the L/R analog inputs for its audio source on INPUT7.

But from a real HDMI-capable source device, where there actually is an audio program being delivered via HDMI, I would guess that the 960 senses that and deactivates the L/R analog input. Since the 960 has no Menu control to designate where the audio is coming from on INPUT7 I'm going to guess it auto-determines it to be on HDMI when there actually is digital audio coming across the HDMI cable, and the 960 simply does not use the L/R analog input in this case.

So even if you provide L/R analog audio from the BluRay player to these input connectors for INPUT7 they will be ignored if there is digital audio coming in through HDMI. That's just my guess.

I have no problem playing from my BluRay player to my 960 and getting sound... using nothing more than an HDMI cable. This is all that is required, with the 2-channel PCM stereo digital audio program also contained on the BluRay disc being what gets automatically picked off by the 960 and delivered to its speakers. It is NOT the L/R channels of the 5.1 program you're hearing. It is the true alternate 2-channel PCM stereo program (which actually is a mix of all 5.1 channels, created by the studio... not by the BluRay player).


Anyway, you WANT the 2-channel PCM stereo digital audio from your BluRay player fed to the 960 via that HDMI cable. You do NOT want to use the 2-channel analog audio (as produced from D-to-A by your BluRay player)... even if you could provide it from BluRay to the 960.

Again, the 960 will automatically select the imbedded 2-channel PCM stereo program being delivered over HDMI, and play it through its speakers. Or, you may need to pick the 2-channel PCM stereo audio program on the disc's Main Menu.

But one way or the other, you WANT to use HDMI to deliver 2-channel PCM stereo digital audio from BluRay to 960. You do not want to use the analog L/R inputs, even if that worked.

But from a real HDMI-capable source device, where there actually is an audio program being delivered via HDMI, I would guess that the 960 senses that and deactivates the L/R analog input. Since the 960 has no Menu control to designate where the audio is coming from on INPUT7 I'm going to guess it auto-determines it to be on HDMI when there actually is digital audio coming across the HDMI cable, and the 960 simply does not use the L/R analog input in this case.

This makes sense to me, and thanks for the answer. But this may not be the case with my TV because even when I tell the player to turn off all sound through HDMI, the TV still will play no sound source through the L/R analog input of Video 7.

But maybe the TV is sensing that HDMI sound is connected, i.e. has some electrical current, and is just turned all the way down, and so shuts off all input through the L/R analog of Video 7 as you suggest. I think that must be the case, because those input plugs have never even been touched before, so very unlikely that both of them are broken.

I suppose I could do some fancy cabling, HDMI to DVI to HDMI and see what happens, but not worth buying more cable/adapters.

Why would you want the audio to be delivered over analog L/R RCA audio instead of wanting to play the digital PCM 2-channel stereo delivered over HDMI from your BluRay player to the 960?

Because I have two rear speakers powered through a stereo amplifier that gives me surround sound, without a center or subwoofer. There is no way to prevent the rear/surround sound tracks from playing through the TV's speakers with the HDMI connection as the Oppo Blu-Ray player has no option to send just the front channels through the HDMI cable.

The player does have an option to stop ALL sound from coming through the HDMI cable. But then there is no other pathway to get the front channel sound into the TV's speakers, because the Video 7 L/R audio inputs are blocked or broken.


Anyway, you WANT the 2-channel PCM stereo digital audio from your BluRay player fed to the 960 via that HDMI cable. You do NOT want to use the 2-channel analog audio (as produced from D-to-A by your BluRay player)... even if you could provide it from BluRay to the 960.

Is there something better about the sound coming from HDMI vs RCA/analog?

Separate rear sound does comes through the Blu-Ray player's analog surround output RCA jacks, but the rear soundtracks are still coming out of the front speakers, too, as part of the HDMI stereo tracks the TV is using.

Therefore, I've decided it's best to forego HDMI whenever I want surround sound, and just use the Video 5 component video input with analog sound, otherwise I'd have to buy a 5.1 receiver and two speakers for the front channels.

Also, I could not see a significant difference in video quality with HDMI vs component video input on a short video test sequence of nature and city shots. And finally, I'm not using high-end amplifier and rear speakers, and aesthetically don't need that for movie sound.

I plan to post a separate message about the HDMI vs component with the Oppo player, and how the Anchor Bay video processing on their 83 model made no perceptible difference to me, so I am using their model 80.

Separate rear sound does comes through the Blu-Ray player's analog surround output RCA jacks, but the rear soundtracks are still coming out of the front speakers, too, as part of the HDMI stereo tracks the TV is using.

Therefore, I've decided it's best to forego HDMI whenever I want surround sound, and just use the Video 5 component video input with analog soundIf you're sending the LS/RS channels from the BluRay player to your external amplifier for rear speakers, and the LF/RF channels to the 960's analog audio inputs on INPUT5 (along with component video output from the BluRay player to INPUT5 on the 960), then in my opinion you are losing the C channel... which is a crucial loss in multi-channel sound. You're also losing any SW audio.

Forgetting about the marginal difference (if any) of HDMI video to the 960 vs. component video to the 960, my point is that if you are feeding any combination of the discrete analog audio outputs from the BluRay player's decoding of the multi-channel audio source program (d.g. DD5.1) to what appears to be discrete amp/speaker outputs and you don't feed the C channel somewhere, then you're not hearing the C channel. LF and RF discrete channels do not have C channel mixed in. You're simply losing C channel audio.

In contrast, the 2-channel PCM stereo program (which is certainly not the DD5.1 sound, but is actually a studio-produced 2-channel mixdown of all of the audio channels discretely contained in the DD5.1 alternative) contains all the sound from all the channels. Typically the discrete C channel audio is fed to both L and R channels of the 2-channel stereo program (along with mixing in the rear surround channels). I honestly don't know where the SW channel audio might get handled, but I suspect it's mixed in as well... again, probably to both L and R channels.

Bottom line: if you're trying to have a hybrid multi-channel system without really having one, by having your own amp/speakers for just the LS and RS channels out of your BluRay player, I don't see how you are going to get the overall multi-channel audio you really want by trying to use the two speakers in the 960 to handle the THREE remaining audio channels (LF, RF, and C)... not even counting SW which is going nowhere. If you feed the 2-channel PCM stereo to the 960 then you get all channels (including what you're also sending to your LS/RS via your external amplifier for those). If you feed just the LF/RF channels from the BluRay player to the 960 then you're losing C and SW audio.

Why not just get an inexpensive receiver that supports multi-channel audio decoding, and a few more speakers to finish what you really need for true 5.1 sound at modest cost, do NOT use the 2 very ordinary speakers in the 960 to listen through (i.e. set them to "OFF" in the audio setup), and listen to the true DD5.1 audio program as it was meant to be heard. Forget trying to get what at best is a compromise in audio quality anyway.

The 2-channel audio available from the 960 is very very mediocre, no matter what you feed it. Sure... it's "acceptable" if you don't really care. But if you want to enjoy multi-channel audio you need decoding and multi-channel amplification and corresponding speakers. Connect the HDMI output from your BluRay player to the HDMI input of your [new] AVR (which probably contains its own amplifiers for all channels), use your existing two rear speakers plus the new ones you buy for LF, RF, C and SW, turn off the 960's audio, connect AVR to 960 via HDMI (for video only, as it turns out), and you've got what you really want.

In passing I mention that I have turned off my 960's speakers and instead use a spare set of Altec-Lansing 621 computer audio speakers (two excellent satellites plus sub-woofer, with cross-over in the system's amp electronics contained in the sub-woofer unit). I feed the 2-channel stereo audio program out of my Yamaha receiver to these external speakers when I'm only interested in "listening to TV" casually... even if there was multi-channel audio available. I find that these full-range magnetically shielded Altec-Lansing speakers+SW to provide much superior sound to the speakers built into the 960.

In contrast, I use my full multi-channel audio system (also via the Yamaha) when I'm truly "watching/listening" to some program source (HDTV or BluRay or DVHS) which provides DD5.1.

If you're sending the LS/RS channels from the BluRay player to your external amplifier for rear speakers, and the LF/RF channels to the 960's analog audio inputs on INPUT5 (along with component video output from the BluRay player to INPUT5 on the 960), then in my opinion you are losing the C channel... which is a crucial loss in multi-channel sound. You're also losing any SW audio.

The Blu-Ray player has a speaker setup menu for analog output that routes the information from any missing speakers through the remaining speakers. So I tell the player there is no center channel, and the center soundtrack is mixed into the L & R front channels. I tell it there is no subwoofer, and that track is mixed into the tracks for speakers I designate as "large" as opposed to "small." This speaker setup menu on the Oppo player is virtually identical to the speaker setup on the 10-year old Sony DVD player I replaced.


But if you want to enjoy multi-channel audio you need decoding and multi-channel amplification and corresponding speakers.

Yes, I'm sure it would sound a lot better if I did this, but the sound quality in movies is just not worth that expense to me. Instead, I put my money into my stereo system in another room.

Thanks for all this thorough analysis. :)

I recently purchased an Oppo Blu-Ray player as they are consistently rated excellent, and better than similarly priced Sony player. The BDP-83 is $500 and has Anchor Bay video processing, whereas the BDP-80 costs $290 and is virtually the same, but without the Anchor Bay processing. They both play SACD, too: http://www.oppodigital.com/blu-ray-bdp-80/blu-ray-BDP-80-Compare.aspx

The BDP-83 has a "Demo" mode option in the HDMI submenu of the video setup menu, and it displays the Anchor Bay processed video on the left side of the TV screen, and non-Anchor Bay video on the right. A Blu-Ray calibration disc is also included with the 83 (but not the 80), with some nature and city scenes. I watched it a couple of times, and was not able to perceive a bit of difference between the two parts of the screen.

Oppo sells these online, but I found a local dealer, who recommended them as the best in this price range, and he let me return the 83 and get the 80.

Also, the dealer didn't know about the Demo mode, so we did that with their $65,000 video projector on about a 10 foot screen in a separate viewing room. (The Oppo 83 was already setup as the player they used for demonstrating that system, the best in the store.) For a while, the dealer couldn't tell the difference even on that system, but then said he saw some more detail in a closeup of an actor's face on the Anchor Bay-processed side. (I didn't have my glasses on, so it all looked the same to me.)

So I'm very happy with the BDP-80. Also, see discussion immediately above this about surround speaker setup options and HDMI vs component connections with the TV.

So I'm very happy with the BDP-80. Also, see discussion immediately above this about surround speaker setup options and HDMI vs component connections with the TV.I see.

Actually, I myself own the Oppo BDP-83. I don't actually watch many DVD/BD movies but I did want to get a modern and high-quality universal player to replace my long-owned Sony DVP9000ES CD/DVD player vintage 1995. This is one source device connected to my Yamaha RX-V863 receiver via HDMI, along with my Moto DCH3416 HD-DVR and JVC DT100U DVHS VCR both of which are also connected to the Yamaha via HDMI. In turn, the Yamaha is connected to my 960 (built-in speakers set to "OFF") via HDMI. All HDMI. For my "casual" 2-channel stereo listening from any source I use the aforementioned Altec-Lansing 621 "stereo" speaker system (2 satellites plus sub-woofer) which genuinely sounds terrific. I actually have its big-brother Altec-Lansing 641 "quadrophonic" speaker system (4 satellites plus larger sub-woofer plus twice the power wattage as with the 621) on one of my computers. Again, sounds terrific.

But I, too, have a non-standard audio situation for multi-channel audio in my HDTV setup, as I am unable to have a true multi-channel loudspeaker setup in my condo. This would simply be unacceptable for the people living below me, should I choose to play things at the audio volumes I'd often like to.

My solution to that one, for several years, was originally to use a Pioneer DIR-SE1000 Dolby Headphone processor. Optical digital audio input, analog L/R-stereo headphone (transmitting wirelessly to provided wireless headphones, and also provided "wired" through a built-in amplifier and headphone-output jack). I sent the wired headphone output to my DBX 14/10 EQ for "tone control", then on to my Stax SRM-T1S headphone amp and Stax Omega-1 headphones. This setup served me well, and it was as best as I could hope for absent a true loudspeaker system.

Last April, after waiting more than five years for a "virtual surround headphone-based" product I'd first read about back in 2004, I finally was able to buy the very first (serial number #0001) "Smyth Virtual Surround Realiser A8 (http://www.smyth-research.com/index.html)" that finally had reached production and "for sale" status.

This radical new device provides multi-channel processing against up to 8 discrete analog multi-channel source inputs (decoded "upstream", by the source... say the Yamaha receiver or BluRay player, as long as there are discrete "preamp-out" analog outputs for each discrete channel). The output is again 2-channel analog L/R-stereo to be fed to headphones, but the illusion (or should I say "spatial accuracy") of virtual surround sensation to your ears and brain is simply astonishing. The output is "un-amplified" (i.e. line-level) and you MUST feed it to a high-quality headphone amp (the Realiser system includes a Stax 2050II system of amp and headphones) for listening.

The Realiser is not a Dolby Headphone mechanism. It is a radical digital processor (but currently sourced using up to 8 pre-decoded discrete analog channels as RCA input) designed by the man who developed the DTS codec, and represents probably 10 years of work. Its use is completely "owner-specific", and you go through a "calibration" process (using microphones placed inside of each ear) to capture the "sonic signature" of a particular listening room environment you have access to... as what is referred to as a PRIR file.

You also perform a separate and unrelated second "calibration" process (again involving the microphones placed inside your ears) to capture the "reproductive capability" of your headphones... as what is referred to as an HPEQ file.

Results of essentially an unlimited number of these "measurements" are stored either on (a) a removable flash card, or (b) in the memory of the Realiser which can hold up to 64 PRIR and 64 HPEQ files. Subsequently, any combination of PRIR (room sound as heard by your ears) and HPEQ (headphone sound as heard by your ears) can be put together and conveniently stored into one of the four available "presets" conveniently selectable using the remote.

The result at playback time (i.e. of sending discrete multi-channel source to the Realiser and then out to your headphones) is to truly and accurately duplicate (as genuinely indistinguishable) the sound of that listening environment which got measured and stored in the PRIR file and played back using the headphones represented by the matching HPEQ file... as your own ears and brain hear sound (which is different from how everybody else's ears and brains hear sound, hence the "personalization" nature of this whole concept).

I feed the 8 discrete pre-amp analog outputs from my Yamaha receiver (containing discrete decoded channels from any source) to the 8 discrete analog inputs of the Realiser. As before, the 2-channel L/R-analog headphone output of the Realiser goes to my DBX 14/10 EQ and then on to my Stax SRM-T1S/Omega-1 for listening.

The spatial cues of directionality of the original multi-channel loudspeakers (e.g. either 5.1 or 7.1 setups), along with the tonal and quality aspects of that whole "measured as heard by the microphones in your ears" listening environment (per the PRIR file) that include speakers, walls, carpets, wall and ceiling coverings and baffles, audio electronics, etc., well it's simply amazing. It's truly like being in that room again, and listening to the current source material and hearing it through the headphones you're currently using (per the corresponding HPEQ file) and believing that you are actually in that room with its true multi-channel loudspeakers and listening without headphones.

Anyway, the Realiser is my own personal solution to listening and enjoying multi-channel source material through headphones. However it has an obvious remarkable advantage over having your own multi-channel loudspeaker system in your own listening room: the ability to "capture the sound" of any number of other listening environments (as stored in the PRIR file that gets captured from those measurements... taken in those other listening environments which you might have/buy access to so that you can perform a "calibration" there) allows you to then play back source material and hear things "virtually exactly" as if you were in that listening environment listening to that same source material.

In other words, your own personal bedroom multi-channel sound system might be very mediocre. But if you could arrange for a "calibration" in the high-end mixing room of a high-end audio company, with fantastic equipment and sound-contributing electronic and physical aspects worth hundreds of thousands of dollars that you could obviously never afford yourself... well eventually listening to an HDTV program or BluRay movie through the PRIR file corresponding to that studio's equipment instead of through your own mediocre bedroom sound system, that's truly a breakthrough. And that's how it works.

Through Smyth, I was lucky enough to arrange for a "calibration" at several studios and listening venues (including the remarkable Egyptian theater in Hollywood) here in LA. So I have a "library" of those listening environments, each represented by a PRIR file that captured how my own ears heard sound in each of those listening environments. And thus I can choose to play source material back through any of those PRIR files, pretty much duplicating that listening environment.

As it turns out, I have settled on just one of my "available listening environments, represented by PRIR files"... this one captured at the AIX Records (http://www.aixrecords.com/) mixing room, where they produce their high-definition audio products. This room truly sounded amazing, and I have simply taken to using it as my one-and-only "private multi-channel AIX-studio loudspeaker system", as heard through my DBX/Stax equipment.

This would simply have been impossible without the Realiser, and I could never actually have or afford the electronic equipment and speakers and sound-room environment that exists at AIX. So listening through headphones and believing I'm at AIX, rather than listening to any true "mediocre" loudspeaker system I might have put in my own bedroom or listening room and simply living with its "adequacy"... well what can I say?

Look into it. It's amazing.

Well, I've come full circle. Just re-purchased the XBR960 that I sold 2 years ago...LOL. My buddy Chad B is going to perform a touch-up calibration in the near future. It might be more than a touch-up though ;) I tried a sub-$1,000 flat panel (Panasonic, Samsung, Sony) and I just wasn't happy, so I went back to CRT. For the past 2 years I've had a 60" Kuro and it was very nice. My wife and I hope to move at some point, so we've been streamlining...selling the big stuff. I will not be taking the 960 with me when I move, but it will be a nice hold-me-over-until-I-get-a-new-house-and-projector HDTV. I wonder if "nice" CRT projectors will be a lot more affordable in a couple of years?

Well in my quest for an awesome CRT TV for my old gaming needs (PS1, Sega Saturn) I was brought to the 960 as being the best CRT ever. I scratched it off my list when I realized my PS2 light guns wont work on any HD CRT's.

Today I stopped into a local Salvation Army to try and find an old Commodore RGB monitor, and a 960 was sitting there. Tested it out, and now its home and my PS1 games so far look great via S-Video, PS2 via component looks pretty awesome as well. Im going to plug in my PS3 and 360 just to check out some real HD on this thing. But I just wanted to share my excitement.

Price was $76.50 out the door.

Today I stopped into a local Salvation Army to try and find an old Commodore RGB monitor, and a 960 was sitting there. Tested it out, and now its home and my PS1 games so far look great via S-Video, PS2 via component looks pretty awesome as well. Im going to plug in my PS3 and 360 just to check out some real HD on this thing. But I just wanted to share my excitement.

Price was $76.50 out the door.

Wow!

Joe

I love Salvation Army and Goodwill...you can find THE most amazing deals there

Well in my quest for an awesome CRT TV for my old gaming needs (PS1, Sega Saturn) I was brought to the 960 as being the best CRT ever. I scratched it off my list when I realized my PS2 light guns wont work on any HD CRT's.

Today I stopped into a local Salvation Army to try and find an old Commodore RGB monitor, and a 960 was sitting there. Tested it out, and now its home and my PS1 games so far look great via S-Video, PS2 via component looks pretty awesome as well. Im going to plug in my PS3 and 360 just to check out some real HD on this thing. But I just wanted to share my excitement.

Price was $76.50 out the door.

I'm rarely jealous of people, but damn

Originally Posted by hemogoblin:
Well in my quest for an awesome CRT TV for my old gaming needs (PS1, Sega Saturn) I was brought to the 960 as being the best CRT ever. I scratched it off my list when I realized my PS2 light guns wont work on any HD CRT's.

Today I stopped into a local Salvation Army to try and find an old Commodore RGB monitor, and a 960 was sitting there. Tested it out, and now its home and my PS1 games so far look great via S-Video, PS2 via component looks pretty awesome as well. Im going to plug in my PS3 and 360 just to check out some real HD on this thing. But I just wanted to share my excitement.

Price was $76.50 out the door.

Originally Posted by unclepauly:
I'm rarely jealous of people, but damn

- Obviously the Salvation Army had no idea of the resale value on the secondary market. I mean, $76.50? I paid that much for an upconverting DVD player with sales tax!

Well, I've come full circle. Just re-purchased the XBR960 that I sold 2 years ago...LOL. My buddy Chad B is going to perform a touch-up calibration in the near future. It might be more than a touch-up though ;) I tried a sub-$1,000 flat panel (Panasonic, Samsung, Sony) and I just wasn't happy, so I went back to CRT. For the past 2 years I've had a 60" Kuro and it was very nice. My wife and I hope to move at some point, so we've been streamlining...selling the big stuff. I will not be taking the 960 with me when I move, but it will be a nice hold-me-over-until-I-get-a-new-house-and-projector HDTV. I wonder if "nice" CRT projectors will be a lot more affordable in a couple of years?

Sell high, buy low?

The only thing that my LCD seems to have over the 960 is a slightly sharper HD picture and that is only because LCDs in general lack the richer detail, color, black level and depth that the 960 has and the trade-off enables the picture to be a bit sharper, abiet, without the same type of punch.

I'm on a quest for the KD-34XBR960 and SU-34XBR3! I rather connect the PS3 and AppleTV well as the Xbox 360. I really want a good old Sony XBR CRT to keep from spending $5,000 plus on 3D LED XBR. It's tempting but I rather buy more photography equipment like Canon 5D Mark II. Any input on where to find a good condition 960 is welcome.

I'm on a quest for the KD-34XBR960 and SU-34XBR3! I rather connect the PS3 and AppleTV well as the Xbox 360. I really want a good old Sony XBR CRT to keep from spending $5,000 plus on 3D LED XBR. It's tempting but I rather buy more photography equipment like Canon 5D Mark II. Any input on where to find a good condition 960 is welcome.

Where are you? These TV's do not ship well.

There is always Ebay and Craigslist.

I'm in Houston, TX but close to Spring, TX.