Sharp Aquos 46D64U vs Sony Bravia XBR series

Definitely XBR4 is a better set and doesnt have banding

I would probably avoid Sharp if you can see the banding. It seems all Aquos (at least above 42") have banding to some degree and it really depends on severity and your eyes whether or not you can see it.

I bought a 46D64U last week (E802) and returned it two days later due to banding. While it was not severe, I could see it whenever there was one main color, and every pan shot. Once you see it, it is tough to not see it all the time.

As for the Sony, it seems they also have their share of issues, mainly ghosting and clouding. In fact, after researching a lot, all three major brands (Sharp, Sony, Samsung) have some issue that effects a large portion of the sets. Because of that I threw in the towel and went with a Panasonic plasma and am very happy.

Take a look in the D64 owners thread and the Sharp banding thread. You will see pictures. Basically they are horizontal and vertical bands of uneven light.

well if i were you i would get the xbr Sony bravia no banding problems and far better picture.

its worth it

I think you guys are exaggerating the improvements in the XBR line over the D64U line. IMO they are not worth the price premium, especially if you get a good deal on the D64U. Banding is not noticeable during most watching. As was said, all these TVs have some issues (plasmas too). Dont spend the extra money if you want & will expect a perfect set.

I agree LCDs have too many issues with screen uniformity. Simple things like clouding, blacklight banding, ghosting and crushed blacks are just not acceptable if you are into technology at all. I am jumping to the plasma side after going through 3 Sharp 64U LCDs. I must say that Sharp does have excellent customer support, only if their products were as good as their service.

Personally if I were you I'd stay away from both the Sharp and Sony and look into the new Toshiba and Philips sets.

OK here it is.... The Sony is NOT worth it! Yes it may be a good tv BUT it is in a different class. XBR4-5 is Sony TOP OF THE LINE TV. It always has been. It has a refresh rate of 8ms which is TERRIBLE! Look at scenes with fast moving images...It give me a head ache to look at that tv!!!! The Sharp has 4ms and it's well documented! Go to Sonys site and look up any XBR tv and see if you can find the refresh rate on their site. You can't! hmmmm.

I don't own any lcd tvs yet. I have been very disappointed in the advancement of the technology. Don't buy into the "Dynamic Contrast Ratio" numbers, it's all ********! Find out real numbers! As far as I know the Sharp needs to be matched up with the Sony V series. I choose that because of the difference in the 10 bit color gamut. The W and above has the 10 bit which I believe has 64 times more color capability than 8 bit.

So if you compare those models because of that, the Sharp wins HANDS DOWN!!!!!

If you insist on comparing the XBR4 to the Sharp 46d64u then look at these specs...
resolution - both-1080p
contrast - both-2000:1(each man. has its own dyn contrast IGNORE THEM BOTH!)
brightness - sony not given-sharp 450
response time - sony 8ms-sharp 4ms
120hz-sony has this sharp does not(does this really matter? does it mean that sonys
panels are better and that the 8ms rt is good enough? NO!)
10 bit color-sony has it sharp does not(sony can produce more colors but to what disadvantage?)


Price----
Sony - on average online is about 2200 to 2600
Sharp- about 1600 to 2200

Now if you take the average price and do the math.....
I decided to use be$tbuy.c0ms prices.....Each tv can be found much cheaper through other means but its an example
Sony-2999
Sharp-1899

Thats about 1100 difference. Is it worth it? I really don't think so. One of the biggest problems with LCD technology is how fast an image can be displayed. This technology is GREAT for computers like the office environment. But for MOVING images it is not. That doesn't mean its terrible, its just not the perfect tech for MOVING IMAGES!

For example....why is 1080P P P P so popular now? why is it one of the new techs???? Because it is replacing the INTERLACED display method. We are moving from interlaced display tech(crts) to progressive display techs(720,1080P etc.) But why???? BECAUSE IT'S MORE SMOOTH FOR THE HUMNAN EYE TO WATCH. It's better, smoother, faster, more natural etc. So why invest in technology that is WORSE that your old crt tv?????

For example....I know another one.....My "old" sony high def super fine pitch 1080i tube tv is better than ANYTHING in the world available to consumers. This has nothing to do with the fact that it's mine. The reason is completely technical! The ONLY thing as far as I know, (power issue aside because I really don't think the majority of people give a rats ass about power consumption) that is better about todays tvs is that they are progressive scan tvs. tube tvs are better at contrast ration by millions of times.....refresh rate is speed of light fast etc....

Do we have a choice anymore? NO and that such BUT I understand newer tech is growing and becoming better. LCD is also becoming better much in the last few years. But now what we are seeing is manufacturers not improving the basic tech but masking it with dynamic contrast and 120hz refresh rates. The BASIC tech needs to improve.

Holy **** this is long....sorry....bottom line....go with the Sharp. The Sony may be able to produce more colors and look more vivid, but motion on the Sony is terrible! This is one of the MOST important specs of lcd tech. How fast can the machine display an image and then change to another image. The sony does it very slowly. 8ms was something computer monitors have been doing for years.

Don't go saying computers monitors are different because they are not. An lcd is an lcd! PERIOD! Dont get me started on the the physical resolution of these big tvs....some of them are still at 1368x768 LUDICRIS!!!! is that spelled right?

Anyways....buy the sharp from new3gg or something for around 1600....use it for 3 years or so.....buy a new oled that will have a million:1(thats what they are now,today) contrast or whatever it is by then and be happy!

i believe all my data is accurate but let me know if something is wrong!!

well my sony has a 8ms and i dont really notice any blurring. Sony are still a little better than sharps.

A little??
The XBR4/5 series is the rolls royce of LCD..
I like the new 81F sammy but I still like the Sony XBR4/5 best over all LCD.
i would not even consider a Sharp.

Check out Cnets review of the XBR4. They are calling it the best 120hz/1080p LCD on the market.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4321-6482_7-6591614.html?tag=ms

enough said

Are you crazy? Did you read anything I wrote???? Read this.... http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...767932&page=19

Don't buy the Sony hype! I have a Sony, but I'm truly disappointed on their new xbrs! I also don't trust their reviews. I do not think they really take technology into their equations. 120hz motionflow? please.... http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/s...d.php?t=615615
A lot of bad reviews!!!!!

all tvs have their own problems and defects, some people can tolerate certain defects, while others can't or won't, it depends on what people deems most important to them, and nobody is going to feel the same way about everything. Like for me, I have major issues with samsungs 120hz AMP and its glossy screen but for others they don't mind. Some people cant stand the clouds or smears on the sony, but I don't think its such a big issue.

As for the overall PQ, there's little doubt that the Sony is ahead of most other players with its superior video processor. I would trust the Cnet reviews as they are more thorough and more objective than personal reviews found here.

Are you saying the PEOPLE at Cnet don't post PERSONAL reviews? Of course they do. They are people! And again if you READ my postings, they are more about the TECHNOLOGY than they are my personal preference!!!!! Yes, I do make some personal comments but as a whole, I am mentioning that even though most people think Sony has a better lcd tv based on the fact that they are Sony, they had better check specs before saying that. Those specs certainly DO NOT point in that direction! As a matter of FACT, some of those specs are hidden....hmmmmm brightness for one...hmmmmm

I wouldn't worry much about reviews and specs. Go and look at them. Take your time, make adjustments, take your own content, etc. Then get the one you like and if it sucks when you get home, return it. You are the one that will have to watch, not Cnet, not us.

Sorry, but as a whole, the XBR blows away a 64u. Dont pay attention to specs, they are all inflated anyways. Why would you care about Sony ommittting the brightness specs in the first place? Nobody watches them at full brightness anyway. Do you plan too? It may have been omitted as it is an unimportant spec. Trust me, 8ms response time is just fine. Even though listed contrast ratios are the same, if you can't visibly see the contrast level difference between the two without reading the spec sheet, then I suggest you get an Insignia or something like that instead. The black level of the Sony is quite a bit better than the Sharp. Its not all about milliseconds and brightness.