Ill turn this into a poll... i'm curious.. colors aside.. if you find the PQ on the Sony to be immensily sharper than that of the LED Samsung. I still have an LED set.. i've been considering taking back (per the other major threads for each tv).. but i'm still waivering.

I have the issue where my tv stand sits 25.75" high, we sit 16 feet back.. i have a small "sweet spot" or major hotspotting, where the top and bottom are shady / hazy.. mainly due to the fact we sit 5" below center give or take.

I tried looking for this on the sony when white screens would come up on the store demos.. i did notice bright spotting there too.. though not as bad.. i think.

But I seem to think the PQ on the sony was a bit sharper.. and I was using tweaked settings on the LED, which I thought were optimal.

Also.. side note.. the prospect of already encoded with 3d material to use the 3d glasses on the LED sets, has me thinking to hold onto it.. maybe just getting a shorter table as a bandaid to the issue.

So far.. appears we are dead even. :)

So far.. appears we are dead even. :)

I read 5 for Sony, 1 for Samsung, and three nuetral = 9 so how do you see dead even? Perhaps the lunch contributors are coming in now.

That's measuring sharper or slightly sharper for both.

Out of fairness I did not vote since I've not seen the A3000 but have compared both sxrd and that Samsung in the past and while they are extremely close I always found myself seeing noise in the Samsung picture that was not visible on the SXRD panel when getting up close no matter how times I've compared them.

I have a bias favoring SXRD having owned one and experienced best of class shadow details/blacks in HD Movies but don't feel fair to rate the A3000 against the Samsung when I haven't seen one yet.

Someone should start a compilation list on how many times these two sets have been compared now, which is made even more ludicrous by the fact the A3000 is nearly limited to one store due to such low availability at this time.

I read 5 for Sony, 1 for Samsung, and three nuetral = 9 so how do you see dead even? Perhaps the lunch contributors are coming in now.

That's measuring sharper or slightly sharper for both.

Out of fairness I did not vote since I've not seen the A3000 but have compared both sxrd and that Samsung in the past and while they are extremely close I always found myself seeing noise in the Samsung picture that was not visible on the SXRD panel when getting up close no matter how times I've compared them.

I have a bias favoring SXRD having owned one and experienced best of class shadow details/blacks in HD Movies but don't feel fair to rate the A3000 against the Samsung when I haven't seen one yet.


Must have been a spur of voters since then :)

Your explaination in the difference is exactly what I haven't been able to put my finger on thus far.. I went back again today looking at both sets.. I still thought, maybe the Sony was a little "sharper" but thats it.. the fuzziness/noise on the Samsung is what keeps making me think the Sony is a little better.

I'm not sure if there is a tweak to do to the Samsung to eliminate this "noise" or not, but I thought I had the settings pretty well tweaked to date though.

The only thing keeping me on the Samung side is that 3d port, but if they come out with 3d boxes or adapters that wont mean your tv needs the port, down the road, then i may be holding onto a set for the wrong reasons (other than long life LED).

12-8 in favor of the Sony if you take the neutrals and put them on both sides.

I'm guessing most are judging based on show room displays and that it may differ once the sets are in an actual home with "real" lighting and settings changed.

14-9 sony now.

21-12 Sony.
25-15 sony

This is all for statistical fun.

The only thing keeping me on the Samung side is that 3d port, but if they come out with 3d boxes or adapters that wont mean your tv needs the port, down the road, then i may be holding onto a set for the wrong reasons (other than long life LED).

Doesn't the fact that the Samsung powers on up to 3 times faster than the Sony have some strong appeal? As an impatient person, it did with me.

Doesn't the fact that the Samsung powers on up to 3 times faster than the Sony have some strong appeal? As an impatient person, it did with me.

I forget how long it takes mine to come on? 7 seconds? So it takes 21 or more seconds for the 60a3k?

To me.. that wouldnt be a show stopper.. I keep thinking about the image on the sony and how it has more pop, despite all my tweaking on the Sammy.

Doesn't the fact that the Samsung powers on up to 3 times faster than the Sony have some strong appeal? As an impatient person, it did with me.

The logic of this when you buy a TV for it's PQ makes little sense to me. How many times do you turn the tv on/off during a day that you cannot wait? If you get home from work and turn it on don't you simply leave it on the rest of the evening? It's like your turning it on/off throughout the day or evening unless someone's a little nuts.

Old Proverb say "Patience is Bitter but it's Fruit is Sweet" Which means that patience for the PQ is what matters - not a race to the start line - it's the WoW and Pop factor after start that your viewing. Reference the proverb as I do for many things in my life as I'm also impatient but not to such a state that it would decide a TV purchase. Has anyone here ever gotten one of these and then when friends/relatives come over and you ever bothered demo'd how fast the TV starts? I doubt it - they are going to be looking at PQ not timing start times.

Now, I can feel one's pain if we were comparing a gen 1 HD DVD player vs. current one or my BD 1200 - they are night and day start times that are torturous with the Toshiba as it's retarded as the first born but both are equal in delivering crystal clear PQ once going but the time difference with those two is huge. The SXRD is nothing like that.

I thought I just saw an "Impatient TV Start Syndrome" commercial on CNBC to go along with the restless leg baby!:D

Doesn't the fact that the Samsung powers on up to 3 times faster than the Sony have some strong appeal? As an impatient person, it did with me.

No zero and NEVER came into my thought process when buying.

The logic of this when you buy a TV for it's PQ makes little sense to me. How many times do you turn the tv on/off during a day that you cannot wait? If you get home from work and turn it on don't you simply leave it on the rest of the evening? It's like your turning it on/off throughout the day or evening unless someone's a little nuts.

Old Proverb say "Patience is Bitter but it's Fruit is Sweet" Which means that patience for the PQ is what matters - not a race to the start line - it's the WoW and Pop factor after start that your viewing. Reference the proverb as I do for many things in my life as I'm also impatient but not to such a state that it would decide a TV purchase. Has anyone here ever gotten one of these and then when friends/relatives come over and you ever bothered demo'd how fast the TV starts? I doubt it - they are going to be looking at PQ not timing start times.

:DIt may be unlikely, but you could miss something important in a program while waiting for a Sony to power up. I only keep the TV on when I'm actually watching it because I got an electric bill to pay.

I was one of those voting who could tell no difference between the screen quality of the sets. They were near each other in Best Buy when I compared them. So I had to judge my purchase on the non pictured related characteristics of the sets and in that regard the Samsung was the clear winner to me.

And some of us impatient souls get concerned how fast it takes a TV to change channels. There's probably nothing that changes channels faster than a Panasonic. I don't think the Sonys and Samsungs stand out for quick channel change but thank goodness they're not as slow as Mitsubishis.

I must say tonight, after using Tallbain's movie settings.. I'm even more happy with the Samsung.. granted i dont have it next to a Sony right now to compare.. but its "getting there"..

This weekend i'll be taking "wild" with me on BluRay to Sears, where i will then have 2 copies.. I'm going to tweak their 61" LED to the new settings.. pause the screen at the same point for both movies and compare (and might as well do one more motion comparison too)..

As of now though, I'm getting a bit happier by the day and if i had about a 3" shorter stand, it may not even be a question at this point.. i think :)

12-8 in favor of the Sony if you take the neutrals and put them on both sides.

I'm guessing most are judging based on show room displays and that it may differ once the sets are in an actual home with "real" lighting and settings changed.

14-9 sony now.

21-12 Sony.

Just don't know about you guys and your polls, I would not care if it was a 100 to 1, I would buy the one that looks the best PQ wise to me , after all i'm the one that would be watching it, You could have the same poll on another forum, and could very easy be a 100 to 1 the other way. don't get me wrong. as i think opinions are good ,it helps you get your choice down to 2 or 3 models, but in the end you should buy what looks best to you, i know i do!

I have viewed both sets at BB and find the Sony much better, but in different ways than just sharpness. The Sammy is very sharp, but suffers in two areas compared to the Sony.

First is it has a much hotter sweetspot and fall off more rapidly than the Sony does off axis. The Samsung is too bright in the center.

The second is that the Samsung seems to have exagerated sharp edges to images where the Sony looks more like film while still looking sharp.

I am not biased - I was actually hoping the Sammy were better, As I really like the idea of not replacing bulbs, but the Sony has an amazing picture.

PS I have no idea what they both look like on SD, but Sony has a pretty good track record in that department.

Cheers,

Ray

I have viewed both sets at BB and find the Sony much better, but in different ways than just sharpness. The Sammy is very sharp, but suffers in two areas compared to the Sony.

First is it has a much hotter sweetspot and fall off more rapidly than the Sony does off axis. The Samsung is too bright in the center.

The second is that the Samsung seems to have exagerated sharp edges to images where the Sony looks more like film while still looking sharp.

I am not biased - I was actually hoping the Sammy were better, As I really like the idea of not replacing bulbs, but the Sony has an amazing picture.

PS I have no idea what they both look like on SD, but Sony has a pretty good track record in that department.

Cheers,

Ray

Maybe the Sony's edge control was off while the Samsung's was on. Anyway, in Best Buy's customer ratings on both sets it's close to a tie with the Sony edging out the Samsung 5.0 to 4.8, saying to me it's difficult to go wrong whatever you decide with your own eyes. Out of fairness to Samsung, the Sony being newer, has only been subject to half as many ratings.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Berlind/?p=635

I have viewed both sets at BB and find the Sony much better, but in different ways than just sharpness. The Sammy is very sharp, but suffers in two areas compared to the Sony.

First is it has a much hotter sweetspot and fall off more rapidly than the Sony does off axis. The Samsung is too bright in the center.

The second is that the Samsung seems to have exagerated sharp edges to images where the Sony looks more like film while still looking sharp.

I am not biased - I was actually hoping the Sammy were better, As I really like the idea of not replacing bulbs, but the Sony has an amazing picture.

PS I have no idea what they both look like on SD, but Sony has a pretty good track record in that department.

Cheers,

Ray

I too find the Sony superior in more areas than just sharpness. Screen is much more uniformly lit with less dropoff at angles. Sharp edges in simple stationary images is about the same, but add some complex detail to the screen like the closeups of Kong's face on the King Kong HD DVD and the Sammy dissolves into a murky mess while the Sony faithfully reproduces each individual strand of fur. The Sammy lamp based sets do not suffer this problem.

As for startup time I couldn't care less, I have actually figured out that if a show is going to start at 8pm I am free to turn the set on a couple of minutes early so I don't miss anything waiting for the set to achieve full brightness. Most times this isn't an issue as I have an HD DVR and rarely am in a situation where I'm at the mercy of broadcast schedules anyway. I'm not convinced that frequent on-off isn't just as bad for an LED set as it is for a lamp based set anyway, and I'm also pretty sure that the extra cost of the LED set is not going to be made up by split second on-off cycling to save electricity.

I have viewed both sets at BB and find the Sony much better, but in different ways than just sharpness. The Sammy is very sharp, but suffers in two areas compared to the Sony.

First is it has a much hotter sweetspot and fall off more rapidly than the Sony does off axis. The Samsung is too bright in the center.

The second is that the Samsung seems to have exagerated sharp edges to images where the Sony looks more like film while still looking sharp.

I am not biased - I was actually hoping the Sammy were better, As I really like the idea of not replacing bulbs, but the Sony has an amazing picture.

PS I have no idea what they both look like on SD, but Sony has a pretty good track record in that department.

Cheers,

Ray


I too have a problem with the sweet spot on the Sammy.. esp since we sit 5" below center.. It doesnt appear to be this "bad" on the Sony.. but my final evaluation with two movies (the same) on two bluray players on both sets at Sears will prove to me which I like best, with the tweaked LED settings in place.

After tweaking though, the sammy is looking better, but that shadyness around the hotspot is a bugger. But again, ill be a little disappointed if i have to go Sony.. as I'll lose the 3d ability, which is going to be big soon, esp in gaming.

Here is the photo i was able to take tonight at Sears of the 60A3000. This photo is with the image set to Vivid and all default settings. I think it is comparible to the Dynamic one for the Sammy.. After i snapped the photo.. the Customer service girl came running up to tell me i cant take pictures.. Ridiculous.. At any rate..

This has me leaning towards the Samsung, I like its richer color base and with Dynamic mode or a tweaked Standard mode.. more detail can be brought out.. what does everyone else think:

Sony-Vivid:
http://remotelypossible.info/images/led/thewild-sony1vivid.jpg

Samsung-Dynamic:
http://remotelypossible.info/images/led/thewild-dynamic.jpg

(i have more photos from the Samsung in my home, here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=908130)

As far as the hazing/veritcal issue.. On the sony.. if i put my head/eyes about 1" from the bottom.. the haze was visible there too.. to just below the creatures nose (squirrel).. and on the Samsung it was say to his mouth.. so maybe 2.5" lower.. but keep in mind the Sony base of the image is 1.25" higher. So they all have bright spotting to a degree. I think if it bugs me with the LED, ill buy a 21" stand instead of my 25.75" one.