Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Downingtown, PA
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I took the plunge and purchased the 32LC2DU on sale at CC. I even popped over to Delaware to save the tax. The LG really does seem to have plenty of features, a beautiful appearance, and great performance for such a low cost. The new Sony XBR2, which also has QAM, would have cost twice as much! That is ridiculous! Even the lesser Sony and the Samsung both would have been hundreds more. They don't even have the QAM, unless they are just keeping it a secret. That is also ridiculous! They are all 720p, since I guess 1080P would be wasted on a 32 TV. Why pay twice as much?
Anyway, now that I have the 32LC2DU in my room, I am very glad that I didn't pay more for a better TV. I am only using standard cable and used the QAM to get free HD. It is obvious that the picture quality is limited by the signal from different channels. The TV does not limit picture quality! Even if you paid twice as much, the bad channels would still be bad. Who knows, the bad channels might even be worse, considering what I read in reviews from consumers and professional reviewers. The good channels are great! Even SD looks great, although it depends on the channel. Everything looks better than my old 27 Mitsubishi CRT and as good as my newer Sony 27 Trinitron CRT.
As for HD, it does look very nice. I can see that I may watch shows that I would not have watched normally, simply because I like looking at the HD. Last night, for example, I watched some desperate housewives. I can't believe it, but I did. The women do look pretty good in HD! I did have one issue with Leno in HD. The sound was not in synch with the picture. That was not true with Letterman on a different channel and it wasn't true with the show that was on before Leno on the same channel. Once again, the performance varied because of the signal, not because of the TV. I think it would make you absolutely crazy if that happened on a TV that cost twice as much, even though it has nothing to do with the TV itself.
At the last minute, I almost switched to Panasonic for $100 more. It turns out the Panasonic also has QAM, even though it isn't advertised or even mentioned on their own website. I had to call Panasonic to get confirmation from their technical department. The Panasonic also advertised a larger contrast ratio, but who knows if that really means anything at all, since there doesn't seem to be a real standard for the claims from different manufacturers. Somehow Panasonic seems like a bigger name to me and I was being tempted, then I remembered that my last 27 CRT Panasonic had picture tube issues within a very short time. My wife remembered the previous Panasonic problem and I think I would have been in the doghouse if the new Panasonic LCD broke. I didn't buy the Panasonic.
I am sure I will want to say more after I have the TV for a while, but for now that is it.