help me decide b/w the two. i have narrow it down
will be using it with opp 981 dvd player and HD over the air

thank

The latest shootout in Home Theater Magazine rated the Sony SXRD XBR2 (which is better than the 2000) 4th out of six displays tested. The JVC was 2nd closely behind the Samsung.

Good question, I'm in the same boat. I don't know if I can bring myself to buy a JVC television....especially over Sony.

Good question, I'm in the same boat. I don't know if I can bring myself to buy a JVC television....especially over Sony.

I didn't think I could either, but I did...the $800 I saved had a lot to do with it, however.

Good question, I'm in the same boat. I don't know if I can bring myself to buy a JVC television....especially over Sony.
That would be name whoring. The JVC sets are fantastic, and as mentioned in a recent magazine "shootout" was rated better than the Sony. If you prefer orange-reds (a Sony trademark) go with them then. For my money it's JVC.

Saw these side-by-side in BB. Sony's colors were way more vibrant and sharp than JVC. Got the Sony.

And I'm not so sure about "orange-reds", my set looks fantastic using CNET's recommended settings.

I had planned on getting the 56" JVC. My local BB has the JVC and A2000 side by side and the JVC always looked a bit sharper. Then I read that the early A2000 had an error in one of the service menu parameters that caused a softening of the picture and that later models were ok. The set in BB was an early production model.

I bought a 60" A2000 on Black Friday, picked it over the JVC based on a fantastic price, hoping for the best on the softness issue, took delivery Nov. 30, it's a Nov. build date and the picture is not soft.

Both are excellent sets. The JVC doesn't have a QAM tuner (won't get non-scrambled HD cable channels without a cable box), the Sony does. The Sony has per-input memory for picture settings, the JVC doesn't, and the Sony has many more adjustments available in the user menu, including grayscale adjustment.

So far no serious ongoing issues have been reported on the JVC, some few Sony owners are still having color uniformity problems. My set's been problem free for 3 months of heavy use.

I'm using a 1st generation HD DirecTivo connected via component cables, Toshiba HDA2 and PS3 connected via HDMI. SD from the sat box is watchable on all but the most compressed SD channels, HD is very impressive. The HDDVD and BD pics are astounding on some discs.

The OTA tuner in the Sony is quite good, picks up a decent digital signal from stations whose analog reception is only fair at best. I haven't had a chance to check out the ota tuner on the JVC.

If the JVC has a significant price advantage I'd go for it. If the difference is only a couple of hundred I'd prefer the Sony for it's better user interface.

I've looked at both the sets quite a bit and here is my two cents
the jvc -I like the thin bezel alot more than the sony
sse effect more noticeable on the jvc
sound much better on jvc
seems to handle motion maybee just a tad better than sony
usually can be had cheaper than sony with the stand also included


the sony seems a little better in color
less noticeable sse
not as good sound
better menus and easier navigation



overall unless they are right next to eachotherit would be hard to discern the differences between the two I think you cant go wrong with either set

Both are excellent sets. The JVC doesn't have a QAM tuner (won't get non-scrambled HD cable channels without a cable box), the Sony does.
I have the JVC 56FN97 and it has the QAM tuner

If the JVC has a significant price advantage I'd go for it. If the difference is only a couple of hundred I'd prefer the Sony for it's better user interface.
It seem to be significant at $300 less and a free stand ~$250 = $550.00 in saving. Now the Sony may be a little better in value but is it 25 - 30% better? (550/2000). That's for each individual to determine.

I agree with swirvan and the pro/con analysis.
Regards,

I own the 70" fh 97. Love it. Does what it is supposed to.
Honestly, which ever set you like better is good. Sure one
did better in a magazine test. But that is never the same as
real world. If it looks good in your living room, it's the best
tv in the world.

The key phrase here is "if it looks better in your living room". Very few of us get the chance to compare two displays in our living room. Unfortunately, trying to compare in the showroom is a huge crap shoot. The picture you see there is almost never what you will see in your living room. I agree that relying on magazine comparisons takes some of the personal observation choice out of your hands but for the most part I doubt any of us would be disappointed using their conclusions. When a magazine does a serious comparison (showing their test procedures and equipment utilized) then I feel comfortable allowing those results a high degree of consideration in my buying choice.