Can someone convince me - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-05-2013, 07:37 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
schro5150's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 114
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
why the Mits 82840 is a better TV than the 82842? Although it may cost me my marriage, I plan to be watching the Masters on an 82" Mits, and not my trusty 60" Sony XBR1. It looks like the 82842 has dropped below $2k, while the 840 is running about $500 more. Perhaps that's just a function of supply and demand.

What differences could I expect in picture quality from my current set? With four anklebiters, we would be watching 3D quite a bit.

I have read about every post in the *42 and *40 threads.
schro5150 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 01-09-2013, 12:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
gtgray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,445
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by schro5150 View Post

why the Mits 82840 is a better TV than the 82842? Although it may cost me my marriage, I plan to be watching the Masters on an 82" Mits, and not my trusty 60" Sony XBR1. It looks like the 82842 has dropped below $2k, while the 840 is running about $500 more. Perhaps that's just a function of supply and demand.
What differences could I expect in picture quality from my current set? With four anklebiters, we would be watching 3D quite a bit.
I have read about every post in the *42 and *40 threads.

I hate to answer a question with a question but I am somewhat uninformed on the 2012s.. Does the 82842 have the clear contrast screen? The 82840 does. If the 82842 doesn't then that is fundamental. The clear screen is either a blessing or a curse depending on your lighting. I have the 92840 and for me the clear screen makes the TV, it would be even better at 82" if your viewing distance is inline.

Just another blank signature.
gtgray is online now  
Old 01-09-2013, 04:34 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
schro5150's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 114
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks for the reply. The tv would be in a very light-controlled basement. According to the Mits website, the specs for the 842 do NOT include the clear contrast screen.

Scott
schro5150 is offline  
Old 01-10-2013, 08:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
yadfgp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Meridian, Idaho
Posts: 2,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 42
I think the only reason why last years model might be more than this years model is they probably have alot more of last years than this years I guess. If you ask me, the 42 has gotta be a better TV than the 40. I think it's just a supply thing. Or maybe a pricing error......? tongue.gif

As for me I had last years WD-73640 which I had for about a year or so. I just got this years WD-82642 about 3 weeks ago, and to me it's a noticeably better TV overall. The PQ on it to my eyes and everyone else who has been both of my TV's, agrees with me as well. If I were you I would definitely go for the 42! biggrin.gif

I think gtgray might be correct on the contrast screen. I'm pretty sure only the 92" 2012 series has that screen. So that might be a factor for you.

1 Mitsubishi WD-82642 82" TV
1 Onkyo TX-NR929 11.4 setup
2 Emotiva XPA-5's
1 Emotiva XPA-100
1 Definitive Technology CLR 3000 (Center)
2 Definitive Technology BP2004TL's (Mains)
2 Definitive Technology ProMonitor 1000's (Heights)
6 Definitive Technology BPX's (Rears Wides Sides)
4 CHT VS-18.1 Subs
yadfgp is online now  
 
Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off