The Official Sony 2007 KDS-(XX)A2020 [NO PRICE TALK] SXRD Owner's Thread - Page 15 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #421 of 3635 Old 04-25-2007, 11:25 PM
Member
 
Edward Karlinski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Villa Rica, Georgia
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Strube View Post

Really? So the fact that you can in fact purchase a region-free HDMI upconverting DVD player for not too much over $50, still doesn't make one that costs $230 a bit expensive? (You can argue all you like about different upconversion methods like Faroudja, but that's another thing that comes down to personal taste.) You can also argue all you like about Denon's that cost almost $4g, but that's not even within the buying power of most people who would be looking at something in the price range we're talking about. This is like saying a house for $500,000 is inexpensive because there's 10 million dollar mansions out there. You're saying my comparison to HD-DVD players isn't fair, when in fact your comparison to insanely high-end Denon's is not fair. An HD-DVD is, in fact, a viable DVD player, and in my mind a very fair comparison, because guess what - it plays DVD's! (With the ability to play the next-gen format as well.) It plays DVD's, and also upconverts them thru HDMI. How is that "ludicrous"?

Your arguments are disingenuous. You originally contested my statement of fact that $229.99 is inexpensive for an upconverting region-free DVD player. It is more expensive than $50.00, but that is irrelevant as defining whether a product is expensive or inexpensive is determined by the price's position within a range of prices. In this case, that range is from $50.00 up to $3799.99 or more. It is clear than within this range, $229.99 is inexpensive as it would clearly fall below the median price range for DVD players. Only a fool would suggest otherwise. There are players less expensive, and they would also be defined as inexpensive. That does not make the Oppo an expensive player.

Your real estate argument is ridiculous as it is clear that inexpensive would be defined based on the median home price in the nation, which is currently about $219,300.00. Anything above the median would properly be defined as expensive and anything below as inexpensive. Thus your argument that a $500,000.00 home is inexpensive because a $10,000,000.00 home exists is demonstrated to have no relevance, and in fact to be ridiculous.

Your HD-DVD argument is just plain silly. People who want a DVD player are not shopping for an HD-DVD player and buying one during a format war because one may want to use it for HD content at some unknown future date. That would be just plain stupid. You know this, but are still dishonestly trying to assert that this has relevance. Only a person who has already decided that he is going to buy some HD content would even consider buying an HD-DVD player. Do try to keep your arguments grounded in the real world and not the fantasy land of minimum wage earners buying home theater equipment and people buying HD-DVD players so they can watch HD content years down the road.
Edward Karlinski is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #422 of 3635 Old 04-26-2007, 12:24 AM
Member
 
Mark Strube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward Karlinski View Post

You originally contested my statement of fact that $229.99 is inexpensive for an upconverting region-free DVD player. It is more expensive than $50.00, but that is irrelevant as defining whether a product is expensive or inexpensive is determined by the price's position within a range of prices. In this case, that range is from $50.00 up to $3799.99 or more. It is clear than within this range, $229.99 is inexpensive as it would clearly fall below the median price range for DVD players. Only a fool would suggest otherwise. There are players less expensive, and they would also be defined as inexpensive. That does not make the Oppo an expensive player.

I'll state it another way, then... since you can't seem to understand this logic. This is all completely relative to the price range. Someone deciding on different units within say a $50 to $300 price range, are not even going to consider buying one of those Denon's for thousands of dollars. Thus, for people like that - which I can easily say are the majority of DVD player purchasers - calling the Oppo "inexpensive" compared to such a high priced unit is completely inapplicable. Of course it's inexpensive, but only when compared to such a high-end unit. You talk about reality - the reality is that the prices of HDMI upconverting DVD players have dropped drastically. $230 is now on the pricey side, especially for someone looking into that price range. If someone really saved 3 grand by going with the Oppo instead of one of those Denon's, then more power to them, that's then an inexpensive player for that particular person. But, that's the point I'm trying to make. It's inexpensive to YOU... to someone else who's shopping around, looking at all the upconverting players available, that's a bit pricey.

Things in the marketplace are a bit more dynamic than you like to make them sound. If you wish to say "When compared to such & such Denon, this player is an awesome deal, because it provides similar performance in these apsects..." then fine, that's both informative and providing a point of reference as to what aspects make this "inexpensive." But just declaring the player as inarguably inexpensive, and wishing to end it at that - isn't helping anyone.
Mark Strube is offline  
post #423 of 3635 Old 04-26-2007, 12:59 AM
Member
 
Edward Karlinski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Villa Rica, Georgia
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Strube View Post

I'll state it another way, then... since you can't seem to understand this logic. This is all completely relative to the price range. Someone deciding on different units within say a $50 to $300 price range, are not even going to consider buying one of those Denon's for thousands of dollars. Thus, for people like that - which I can easily say are the majority of DVD player purchasers - calling the Oppo "inexpensive" compared to such a high priced unit is completely inapplicable. Of course it's inexpensive, but only when compared to such a high-end unit. You talk about reality - the reality is that the prices of HDMI upconverting DVD players have dropped drastically. $230 is now on the pricey side, especially for someone looking into that price range. If someone really saved 3 grand by going with the Oppo instead of one of those Denon's, then more power to them, that's then an inexpensive player for that particular person. But, that's the point I'm trying to make. It's inexpensive to YOU... to someone else who's shopping around, looking at all the upconverting players available, that's a bit pricey.

Things in the marketplace are a bit more dynamic than you like to make them sound. If you wish to say "When compared to such & such Denon, this player is an awesome deal, because it provides similar performance in these apsects..." then fine, that's both informative and providing a point of reference as to what aspects make this "inexpensive." But just declaring the player as inarguably inexpensive, and wishing to end it at that - isn't helping anyone.

Whether an item is expensive or inexpensive is determined by comparing the prices of all units in the defined set. One cannot conveniently eliminate high or low priced units in order to win an argument. Further, you are attempting to substitute expensive for affordable, and the two are not the same. It is an objective fact that the Oppo is inexpensive. Its affordability depends on one's income. You have some nerve to bring up logic since your arguments are based on manipulating statistics instead of honestly stating facts. You are now simply demonstrating that you will twist words in any direction just to win an argument. The Oppo is inarguably inexpensive, just as you are inarguably dishonest in your argumentation.
Edward Karlinski is offline  
post #424 of 3635 Old 04-26-2007, 01:22 AM
Member
 
Mark Strube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward Karlinski View Post

You are now simply demonstrating that you will twist words in any direction just to win an argument. The Oppo is inarguably inexpensive, just as you are inarguably dishonest in your argumentation.

I took a look at some of your previous posts in this and other threads... you like that words "dishonest" quite a bit. (And apparently you aren't adverse to rubbing members here the wrong way.) How in the world is it "dishonest" to attempt to explain that simply saying "If you think that $229.99 is too expensive then you are really cheap" is not a statement of fact at all? Whether a person is "cheap" or not is completely subjective to whether that person is sacrificing major performance for a price cut. In the case of HDMI upconverting DVD players, a person going with a player that's $50 or $100 cheaper wouldn't be sacrificing very much at all. (Which also depends on how picky you are with PQ. Some people might see a difference with Faroudja, some might not. Personally, I've never seen much of a difference when compared with other upconverting players in the $140 - $200 price range, and I consider myself quite picky.)

It is also completely unrealistic to base this on the entire price range of a given product, especially when the high end is drastically higher, like in this case.

If someone has a 1080p HDTV (with subpar internal upscaling), and instead of spending $180 on a nice upscaling player, they spend $150 on one that doesn't upscale, mainly because of the price difference... I'd call that person cheap. However, you seem to think that someone going with a player that has very comparable features for less than $229.99 is cheap, just because you like this player so much... which is absolutely ridiculous. You, in fact, are "dishonest" by way of omission.
Mark Strube is offline  
post #425 of 3635 Old 04-26-2007, 01:52 AM
Member
 
Edward Karlinski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Villa Rica, Georgia
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Strube View Post

I took a look at some of your previous posts in this and other threads... you like that words "dishonest" quite a bit. (And apparently you aren't adverse to rubbing members here the wrong way.) How in the world is it "dishonest" to attempt to explain that simply saying "If you think that $229.99 is too expensive then you are really cheap" is not a statement of fact at all? Whether a person is "cheap" or not is completely subjective to whether that person is sacrificing major performance for a price cut. In the case of HDMI upconverting DVD players, a person going with a player that's $50 or $100 cheaper wouldn't be sacrificing very much at all. (Which also depends on how picky you are with PQ. Some people might see a difference with Faroudja, some might not. Personally, I've never seen much of a difference when compared with other upconverting players in the $140 - $200 price range, and I consider myself quite picky.)

It is also completely unrealistic to base this on the entire price range of a given product, especially when the high end is drastically higher, like in this case.

If someone has a 1080p HDTV (with subpar internal upscaling), and instead of spending $180 on a nice upscaling player, they spend $150 on one that doesn't upscale, mainly because of the price difference... I'd call that person cheap. However, you seem to think that someone going with a player that has very comparable features for less than $229.99 is cheap, just because you like this player so much... which is absolutely ridiculous. You, in fact, are "dishonest" by way of omission.


Unable to defeat my arguments, you are now proving your dishonesty with the old ad hominem attack. You searched my other posts? So what? Only a fool would think they are relevant to the discussion at hand and only someone unable to adequately defend his position would seek ammunition outside the current thread. It would never have occured to me to look up your prior posts in other threads in order to use those posts to attack you. What you said in other threads has no bearing on this one.

It is unrealistic to define inexpensive and expensive based on part of a range of prices for the units in a defined set. Worse, it is fraudulent.

That is not my argument at all. Try actually reading posts. This all started because I called someone cheap for not buying the Oppo because he thought it was expensive. I never commented on his choice, you are the only one who has done so. I only commented that he is cheap if he thinks that $229.99 is expensive for a multi-region upscaling DVD player. That is an indisputable fact. No matter how you try to twist this argument, I will just bring you back to basics.
Edward Karlinski is offline  
post #426 of 3635 Old 04-26-2007, 02:36 AM
Member
 
Mark Strube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward Karlinski View Post

Unable to defeat my arguments, you are now proving your dishonesty with the old ad hominem attack. You searched my other posts? So what? Only a fool would think they are relevant to the discussion at hand and only someone unable to adequately defend his position would seek ammunition outside the current thread.

Ah yes... "fool" "ad hominem" I was wondering when those favorites of yours would pop up, I see you don't disappoint! I'm sorry... I couldn't resist. I had to check the other posts of someone who is so incredibly militant about their opinion of what they think constitutes a "cheap" consumer, just to see if this is their usual demeanor around here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward Karlinski View Post

It is unrealistic to define inexpensive and expensive based on part of a range of prices for the units in a defined set. Worse, it is fraudulent.

It's also unrealistic to base who is a "cheap" consumer based simply on the numbers game. It's much more complex than that - especially when you're considering the features of the items. If you can get the same features for $50 less, you're not cheap - you're a smart shopper. Looking at it this way is "fraudulent"? Okay come on... you work for Oppo doncha? You're just throwing all kinds of unrelated words out there now... I see you haven't experienced real fraud in your life, or you'd be more careful with the usage of that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward Karlinski View Post

I only commented that he is cheap if he thinks that $229.99 is expensive for a multi-region upscaling DVD player. That is an indisputable fact.

Well, you're half right. It's an indisputable fact that you said he's cheap for thinking that was a lot of money for that functionality. However, being cheap for thinking that is not a "fact." Where one person sees a cheap person, another person sees a smart person. Learn the difference. If you can't do that, you're neither.
Mark Strube is offline  
post #427 of 3635 Old 04-26-2007, 05:02 AM
Newbie
 
igor512's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward Karlinski View Post

Your real estate argument is ridiculous as it is clear that inexpensive would be defined based on the median home price in the nation, which is currently about $219,300.00. Anything above the median would properly be defined as expensive and anything below as inexpensive. Thus your argument that a $500,000.00 home is inexpensive because a $10,000,000.00 home exists is demonstrated to have no relevance, and in fact to be ridiculous.

Nobody uses the median price to determine if something is expensive. You use the MEAN price. AVERAGE. We don't care about the shape of the distribution. We want to know where the prices are concentrated. The median does not tell you that. ESPECIALLY in electronics, where it's a very, very skewed distribution.

You're apparently taking high school debate class, but I passed college statistics. Twice.

And yes, I signed up for this forum just to tell you that.
igor512 is offline  
post #428 of 3635 Old 04-26-2007, 05:35 AM
Member
 
Edward Karlinski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Villa Rica, Georgia
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Strube View Post

Ah yes... "fool" "ad hominem" I was wondering when those favorites of yours would pop up, I see you don't disappoint! I'm sorry... I couldn't resist. I had to check the other posts of someone who is so incredibly militant about their opinion of what they think constitutes a "cheap" consumer, just to see if this is their usual demeanor around here.



It's also unrealistic to base who is a "cheap" consumer based simply on the numbers game. It's much more complex than that - especially when you're considering the features of the items. If you can get the same features for $50 less, you're not cheap - you're a smart shopper. Looking at it this way is "fraudulent"? Okay come on... you work for Oppo doncha? You're just throwing all kinds of unrelated words out there now... I see you haven't experienced real fraud in your life, or you'd be more careful with the usage of that.



Well, you're half right. It's an indisputable fact that you said he's cheap for thinking that was a lot of money for that functionality. However, being cheap for thinking that is not a "fact." Where one person sees a cheap person, another person sees a smart person. Learn the difference. If you can't do that, you're neither.


No, once again, you are attempting to twist the argument. First, you checked other threads because you could not argue the point on its merits.

Second, using a range of prices as a basis for determing whether or not a given item in a particular set is expensive or inexpensive is not a numbers game, it is a logical thought process.

Finally, it is indisputable that the original poster is cheap for thinking $229.99 is expensive. The standing of that price within the price range bears this out. It takes a fool to ignore mathematics. It would never be smart for someone to believe that this is an expensive price for a multi-region upscaling DVD player. You just cannot deal with facts being immutable. Everything is not a matter of compromise.
Edward Karlinski is offline  
post #429 of 3635 Old 04-26-2007, 05:41 AM
Member
 
Edward Karlinski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Villa Rica, Georgia
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by igor512 View Post

Nobody uses the median price to determine if something is expensive. You use the MEAN price. AVERAGE. We don't care about the shape of the distribution. We want to know where the prices are concentrated. The median does not tell you that. ESPECIALLY in electronics, where it's a very, very skewed distribution.

You're apparently taking high school debate class, but I passed college statistics. Twice.

And yes, I signed up for this forum just to tell you that.

Actually, I meant median and not average or mean price. What we actually want to know is the extremes in the range, not where the prices concentrate. The extreme prices are what determine expensive versus inexpensive, not the average. The median price is the exact halfway point among all the prices. Go back a retake your statistics course. You obviously forgot what you were taught.

Your last remark speaks volumes about your character. That you signed up just to post that is childish. That you would actually say this in your post is petty.
Edward Karlinski is offline  
post #430 of 3635 Old 04-26-2007, 06:28 AM
Newbie
 
igor512's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward Karlinski View Post

Actually, I meant median and not average or mean price. What we actually want to know is the extremes in the range, not where the prices concentrate. The extreme prices are what determine expensive versus inexpensive, not the average. The median price is the exact halfway point among all the prices. Go back a retake your statistics course. You obviously forgot what you were taught.

Your last remark speaks volumes about your character. That you signed up just to post that is childish. That you would actually say this in your post is petty.

Woah, geez man, easy with the ad hominem attacks!

And the average definitely sets what expensive is. How else can you center the price range? "Expensive" is a relative comparison. That's just the nature of the word. Expensive compared to what? If you choose the median, you're saying it's expensive, compared to anything that costs less. (Or saying it's cheap compared to anything that costs more, depending on where the median falls.) We call that a tautology. It doesn't tell you a damn thing. If you compare it to the mean, you're saying it's expensive, compared to most DVD players.

You follow so far? Now here's where the economics comes in: Rational people only buy expensive items if the marginal benefits outweigh the marginal costs. That means you're only going to pay the extra $150 for a DVD player if you think you're getting $150 worth of extra features.

So how do you value that extra $150? It must be subjective to that person. You can't put a unilateral value on picture quality or an HDMI port. So depending on that person's perception of the extra $150 of features, that DVD player is either worth the extra money, or not worth the extra money.

KAY? KAY.
igor512 is offline  
post #431 of 3635 Old 04-26-2007, 06:34 AM
Senior Member
 
squeeblez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Greenville, S.C.
Posts: 278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward Karlinski View Post

The Oppo DV-981HD sells for $229.99 on Amazon. It is region free and does some of the best upconversion on the market. It has received rave reviews. If you think that $229.99 is too expensive then you are really cheap.

First off Jacka@!, I bought the Oppo 981HD. I purchased it directly from Oppo and I was glad I did, because it made it extremely easy to facilitate the return (they have great customer service). I was not impressed by the player and comparable performance can be had, as I stated, for less than half the price.

Secondly dumba$!, I never quantified it as "expensive". Read my post. I said the performance didn't justify the price difference between it and another model I referenced. To save some money where you can doesn't make you cheap. It makes you a savvy consumer.

Now I realize you are an arrogant, pompous, wind bag who likes to attack people on a personal level for trying to express their opinion and I hate that I have stooped down to your oh so lowly level, but try and get your facts straight before you lauch some ignorant personal offensive.
squeeblez is offline  
post #432 of 3635 Old 04-26-2007, 06:35 AM
Senior Member
 
Dead.Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 423
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Wow, a whole page of off-topic bickering. So do you guys think the all-black cabinet is EXPENSIVE when comparing it to the prices for the A2000?
Dead.Horse is offline  
post #433 of 3635 Old 04-26-2007, 06:49 AM
Newbie
 
igor512's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead.Horse View Post

Wow, a whole page of off-topic bickering. So do you guys think the all-black cabinet is EXPENSIVE when comparing it to the prices for the A2000?

Off topic? But this is the av SCIENCE forum! Statistics and Economics are both sciences! (Not opinions! )

But since my entertainment center is made of particle board, if I put any TV that big on it, the shelf would probably break in half and crush my Playstation and dish box. So yeah, it's probably expensive.
igor512 is offline  
post #434 of 3635 Old 04-26-2007, 07:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
davehancock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hamburg, NY (near Buffalo)
Posts: 5,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by igor512 View Post

Off topic? But this is the av SCIENCE forum! Statistics and Economics are both sciences! (Not opinions! )

Arguing over personal honesty, "value" of DVD players, etc. is certainly off the topic of the KDS-(XX)A2020!

If you guys all want to argue and personally bash each other - start a different thread in a different area. PLEASE do not continue to subject those of us interested in the A2020 display to your continued bickering!

Dave Hancock
davehancock is offline  
post #435 of 3635 Old 04-26-2007, 04:02 PM
Member
 
Mark Strube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason One View Post

It seems like this set is going to be somewhat of a challenge to calibrate. So many settings!

I'd highly recommend starting out with the Cnet review's found settings... on my 50" the settings ended up matching exactly, confirmed with the HDNet Test Pattern. (The settings are also exactly the same for Component, which is nice.)
Mark Strube is offline  
post #436 of 3635 Old 04-26-2007, 11:57 PM
Member
 
dhauser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Is there a way of editing my personal settings so that I can ignore this Edward guy? I've never come across him here before so nothing personal but he's obviously a very unhappy person so there's no need to subject myself to his negative yet aggressive attitude.
dhauser is offline  
post #437 of 3635 Old 04-27-2007, 12:24 AM
Member
 
dhauser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I just got setup on Dish today (I have the 622 dual receiver) at my beach house in Mexico and am a little underwhelmed with the pq so I could use your guys help. First off, I'm not questioning the Sony's pq as I've seen how good it can look but this is the first time I've fed it HD content and I'm pretty sure something isn't setup correctly.

I haven't had satellite service before plus I'm south of the border so there are multiple things I'm dealing with. Basically, high def looks pretty good but just really soft/almost a little blurry compared to the high def picture I used to get on my Sony 60XS955 with HD cable. I can't imagine this tv would be worse then that one. Even the Dish menu screens don't have the crisp lines and letters that I've seen in the past and the first time the menu came on I was surprised at how soft/blurry it looked. I'm running the HDMI into the tv and then optical audio to my receiver. I went into the dish receiver settings and increased the res from 480p to 1080i for HD (it's strange that they don't have 1080p) and it made a noticeable difference but it's still not what I'm used to. HD looks kind of like a good standard def DVD and then standard def programming looks really bad. Is it likely the receiver? The fact that I've got about a 60-70' run from the dish to the receiver? The fact that I'm way south of the border?

I have a 1.8 meter (6') dish and my signal strength is strong so the installer said that shouldn't be a problem. Of course he doesn't have an HD tv and was impressed with the pq of the Suns/Lakers game on TNTHD but is convinced that nothing else can effect the pq if I have a strong signal to the receiver. As I told him, it looks about 80-90% of what a good HD picture should look like. I tried the component connections as well but that was inferior. Is there a way of choosing the resolution settings on the tv for each input? Maybe it's reduced some how.

I appreciate any suggestions!
dhauser is offline  
post #438 of 3635 Old 04-27-2007, 09:18 AM
Senior Member
 
squeeblez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Greenville, S.C.
Posts: 278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhauser View Post

I just got setup on Dish today (I have the 622 dual receiver) at my beach house in Mexico and am a little underwhelmed with the pq so I could use your guys help. First off, I'm not questioning the Sony's pq as I've seen how good it can look but this is the first time I've fed it HD content and I'm pretty sure something isn't setup correctly.

I haven't had satellite service before plus I'm south of the border so there are multiple things I'm dealing with. Basically, high def looks pretty good but just really soft/almost a little blurry compared to the high def picture I used to get on my Sony 60XS955 with HD cable. I can't imagine this tv would be worse then that one. Even the Dish menu screens don't have the crisp lines and letters that I've seen in the past and the first time the menu came on I was surprised at how soft/blurry it looked. I'm running the HDMI into the tv and then optical audio to my receiver. I went into the dish receiver settings and increased the res from 480p to 1080i for HD (it's strange that they don't have 1080p) and it made a noticeable difference but it's still not what I'm used to. HD looks kind of like a good standard def DVD and then standard def programming looks really bad. Is it likely the receiver? The fact that I've got about a 60-70' run from the dish to the receiver? The fact that I'm way south of the border?

I have a 1.8 meter (6') dish and my signal strength is strong so the installer said that shouldn't be a problem. Of course he doesn't have an HD tv and was impressed with the pq of the Suns/Lakers game on TNTHD but is convinced that nothing else can effect the pq if I have a strong signal to the receiver. As I told him, it looks about 80-90% of what a good HD picture should look like. I tried the component connections as well but that was inferior. Is there a way of choosing the resolution settings on the tv for each input? Maybe it's reduced some how.

I appreciate any suggestions!

Have you hit the display button on the Sony remote when watching an HD channel? What is it saying it is receiving?
squeeblez is offline  
post #439 of 3635 Old 04-27-2007, 10:58 AM
Member
 
scottyja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Any difference between the A2020's and the A2000's with respect to connecting to a PC via DVI-HDMI? I notice the manual gives a stern "Do not connect a PC to the TV's HDMI input." warning. Anyone have success connecting and getting quality 1080p? I would like to connect my HTPC's 6600GT to the TV.

Samsung's new rear-projections finally gave up this silly restriction (support 1920 x 1080p via RGB and DVI)... wondering when Sony will, too (in the manual, at least).
scottyja is offline  
post #440 of 3635 Old 04-27-2007, 11:26 AM
Member
 
snathanb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 91
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhauser View Post

I haven't had satellite service before plus I'm south of the border so there are multiple things I'm dealing with. Basically, high def looks pretty good but just really soft/almost a little blurry compared to the high def picture I used to get on my Sony 60XS955 with HD cable.
I appreciate any suggestions!

Dish network is not broadcasting full bitrate HD. That's why it looks worse than what you got with HD cable. And SD on dish network on a large HD set is going to look really, really bad.

Trust me. I've got a 65" HD set and the poor picture quality from Dishnetworks over-compressed channels was the reason I dumped them.

It's got nothing to do with your signal strength and probably not your TV set, either.
snathanb is offline  
post #441 of 3635 Old 04-28-2007, 03:43 AM
Member
 
Freeheeldude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottyja View Post

I notice the manual gives a stern "Do not connect a PC to the TV's HDMI input." warning.

It does?! Hmmm... someday perhaps I'll RTFM.... Anyway, my Mac goes into the HDMI, hooked it up & Mac says "Hello Sony TV @ 1080". Then I had a beer. I love Apple.
Freeheeldude is offline  
post #442 of 3635 Old 04-28-2007, 07:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
davehancock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hamburg, NY (near Buffalo)
Posts: 5,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason One View Post

I made a simple graphic to try to demonstrate what I'm seeing. Say the circle on the left is the original image from a DVD. The circle on the right is how it would look on my 60A2020.

Again, I have only fed my TV 480p/i so far -- I can't say yet whether it happens in HD.

Yes, it is just the fact that the original had 480 lines and the TV has 1080 lines. Try adjusting the DRC controls to clean this up.

Dave Hancock
davehancock is offline  
post #443 of 3635 Old 04-28-2007, 10:43 AM
Advanced Member
 
TimothyB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I currently have the Toshiba 65hm167, but I see rainbows all the time so i'm considering returning it to Circuit City. And I swear my eyes have been feeling different than I've ever experienced at night when watching this, like pressure on them, don't know if I was just tired or eye fatigue.

So now I'm considering the 60A2020. I'm bummed it will be 5 inches smaller, but I need to make sure my eyes do not bleed all the time.

Before I had the Sony 55xs955. Great picture, but poor blacks that really glowed too much in a dark room. But with overall viewing of SD it was spectacular even zoomed, blu-ray and HD-DVD were great too. I enjoyed the picture on picture feature and great sound despite the dumbo ears, which were not bad at 55inchs.

Despite the flaws with the blacks I was impressed with the tv. But this round of upgrade I really want a huge improvement in blacks for dark room viewing. The Toshiba delivered this. There was just a new depth in the HD viewing thanks to the added contrast. Testing a scene the Happy Feet graduation scene with"Some Body to Love" song that was nearly all black at points looked amazing in a dark room. Clarity and motion were also an improvement.

That was my first DLP tv, and it's a new model. Will the A2020, a hold over model, be as good? Also, does it have any silk screen effect. My 55xs955 had some of that in the center of the screen, but that was an LCD model back then.
TimothyB is offline  
post #444 of 3635 Old 04-28-2007, 12:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Steve S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Fresno CA
Posts: 5,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimothyB View Post

I currently have the Toshiba 65hm167, but I see rainbows all the time so i'm considering returning it to Circuit City. And I swear my eyes have been feeling different than I've ever experienced at night when watching this, like pressure on them, don't know if I was just tired or eye fatigue.

So now I'm considering the 60A2020. I'm bummed it will be 5 inches smaller, but I need to make sure my eyes do not bleed all the time.

Before I had the Sony 55xs955. Great picture, but poor blacks that really glowed too much in a dark room. But with overall viewing of SD it was spectacular even zoomed, blu-ray and HD-DVD were great too. I enjoyed the picture on picture feature and great sound despite the dumbo ears, which were not bad at 55inchs.

Despite the flaws with the blacks I was impressed with the tv. But this round of upgrade I really want a huge improvement in blacks for dark room viewing. The Toshiba delivered this. There was just a new depth in the HD viewing thanks to the added contrast. Testing a scene the Happy Feet graduation scene with"Some Body to Love" song that was nearly all black at points looked amazing in a dark room. Clarity and motion were also an improvement.

That was my first DLP tv, and it's a new model. Will the A2020, a hold over model, be as good? Also, does it have any silk screen effect. My 55xs955 had some of that in the center of the screen, but that was an LCD model back then.

As far as blacks go the A2020 will do at least as well as the Toshiba, if not better.
It doesn't have picture on picture or picture in picture, but I don't think the Toshiba does either. Silk screen effect is no worse on the A2020 than it is on the Toshiba, just turn down the contrast about 10 clicks and/or use the energy saver bulb setting.

Steve S.
Steve S is offline  
post #445 of 3635 Old 04-28-2007, 12:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
davehancock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hamburg, NY (near Buffalo)
Posts: 5,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimothyB View Post

So now I'm considering the 60A2020. I'm bummed it will be 5 inches smaller, but I need to make sure my eyes do not bleed all the time.

Maybe you want to consider the SXRD R70XBR2. Bigger, Twin Picture (and more expensive )

Dave Hancock
davehancock is offline  
post #446 of 3635 Old 04-28-2007, 02:35 PM
Advanced Member
 
TimothyB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Just came back from CC. I believe I can get a good price that's comparable to online deals. Though, because I'm worried prices will change tomorrow I wanted to order in the store now, then return the Toshiba later since I didn't have the player on hand. Due to the Toshiba defect I have I'd expect the DLP to be picked up free due to that.

This would give me a possible chance to compare side by side until I setup up the Toshiba return. The employee went to the back to see how this would work out and they actually wanted to charge delivery for the Sony because they considered it early delivery compared to waiting to have it exchanged at the same time with the Toshiba. But I can't setup an exchange because I didn't have all that was needed for the return.

Well dang, they were about to get stingy on shipping when it was supposed to be free to begin with because I was going to return a defective tv? So I told the guy I can get the same deal ordering through online and free shipping and just return the Toshiba for free late, which he said would be okay, that the return would be free. I guess they didn't want to make the sale in the store.
TimothyB is offline  
post #447 of 3635 Old 04-28-2007, 02:37 PM
Advanced Member
 
TimothyB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by davehancock View Post

Maybe you want to consider the SXRD R70XBR2. Bigger, Twin Picture (and more expensive )

I thought about 70inches, might be too big for a 960sq ft condo living room. And I'd have to take off those speaker ears. Though, I can get a 70inch JVC FN97 for a lot less online. Probably $2k+ less than a XBR2 70inch.

I guess I can live without twin view.
TimothyB is offline  
post #448 of 3635 Old 04-28-2007, 02:44 PM
Advanced Member
 
TimothyB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
At Circuit City their RP display was too low and no seating. Most the tvs seemed dim in dark scenes and the lighting was enough to create glares.

They had the Toshiba 65inch I had next to the 60A2000. The A2000 whites seemed dim compared to the Toshiba, but the Toshiba looked like it was in Sports mode. Also, when a black screen was on the Toshiba, it looked like it was off, while the A2000 had a blue glow to it. 4 sets down the 55A2020 didn't have the blue glow, and sometimes that one got near the brightness of the Toshiba when say a blue screen came up, but overall contrast in dark scenes was less on the Sony. But the Sony was near more lights and again the Toshiba appeared more like it was in a sports mode with cool color. Couldn't compare 55a2020 picture quality since the HD image had an odd offset after image around everything.

It drives me nuts since I know you can compare the tvs in store and who knows their settings.

So did someone say the SXRDs have a silk screen effect themselves, didn't seem like it. Also, when I looked at the 60a2000 up close, it was hard to make out the individual pixels, while the 55a2020 it was much easier to tell the spaces between the pixels up close (talking about eyes right up to the screen)

I suppose I can add the Sony 60A2020 to me CC card and test them both out side by side. I'll get a couple new movies and watch them on the Toshiba to see if I have eye strain. If I only see rainbows with no fatigue, it would be hard to give up 5inches and half off the HD-A1 player if the Sony wasn't just as good or better.
TimothyB is offline  
post #449 of 3635 Old 04-28-2007, 07:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
6SpeedTA95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Tulsa area
Posts: 2,320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by igor512 View Post

Nobody uses the median price to determine if something is expensive. You use the MEAN price. AVERAGE. We don't care about the shape of the distribution. We want to know where the prices are concentrated. The median does not tell you that. ESPECIALLY in electronics, where it's a very, very skewed distribution.

You're apparently taking high school debate class, but I passed college statistics. Twice.

And yes, I signed up for this forum just to tell you that.

:werd:

It's hilarious when I hit this page of the thread, I have just finished reading two chapters in my masters level stats class...yet some folks dont even grasp the most basic concepts of outliers, means, medians and modes.
6SpeedTA95 is offline  
post #450 of 3635 Old 04-30-2007, 08:18 AM
Member
 
Edward Karlinski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Villa Rica, Georgia
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well, I am now officially an owner of the KDS-60A2020. My replacement for the KDS-R60XBR1 arrived last Thursday, and I spent the weekend testing it. I am very happy with the set. I have not had any yellow stain or green blob. The set does not turn on to a solid green screen either.

The picture looks great. I am now able to set my Oppo to 1080p and Night At The Museum looked gorgeous upconverted. I also watched two episodes of Perry Mason, and the black and white picture was sharp and looked better than anything I have ever owned. I do recommend this set highly.
Edward Karlinski is offline  
Reply Rear Projection Units

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


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