Why do people on this forum recommend Samsung over Sony for lcd? - Page 3

Quite a number of those I mentioned previously are not Sony alone developments, such as Blu Ray. Video8 was initially made by Kodak. The 3.5 Disk was invented by Sony, but it was Maxell and a few others than up'd the storage capacity to make it more cost effective that the then dominant 5.25" Shugart disks.

The point is is even with all-Sony inventions, the licensing of their technology makes it less an issue to buy an all-Sony product.

OLED is pretty unique, but its not a Sony invention, but Sony has the 1st consumer grade TV, 11" model for $2500. Principle commercial OLED panel developers are Samsung and Toshiba.

Oh I get it . . . your poking fun at my post!

Hey not for you . . . but for any serious and interested poster . . . the reason the Samsung base was difficult to remove was because the screw holes were not threaded uniformly and that caused the low-quality screws to spin and not be able to be screwed out (retract.)

And yeah . . . jiggly!

Yes, but gently.



That's OK, I get a little jiggly myself.

Both companies purchase their panels from the same korean source, I have a 32 Sony in the bedroom but believe Samsung has a better picture.

For me 3 of my last 4 Sony purchases have failed way sooner than they should have including a $6500 TV. So for me even if Sony had a 80" laser TV for $500 it wouldn't be an option. You can't just decide to take a few years off from quality and expect nothing to happen. Ask the car companies.

Really? That's weird, I went through 3 different Samsung's until the 4th one was good. I got the Sony at first try and it didn't suffer from the problems I had with the first 3 Samsung. I guess it depends on the tv you get. Some are faulty and some are great. Right now both of them are running strong, no problems at all.

My Sony 13" Trinitron is going into it's 18th year of service with zero problems or downtime!

If its 18 years old, its likely a Japanese Sony. My Sony is 22 years old, and I have 2. From mid-1990s many Sony's were made, initially at the mini-dragons i.e., Malaysia, Indonesia, then later Mexico and China. They are not made as well, but still good, but not as rock solid as the days when Aiko Morita was CEO. Those were golden days.

The guy from Karate Kid?

I'm a Sony fan boy and when I was shopping for my LCD I still had an open mind about other brands. I still preferred the Sony though and a price drop at Futureshop on the KDL46-W4100 made up my mind. I got it for $CAD1350 while it was still $CAD1999 at the Sony store. The price is back up at Futureshop to $CAD1799 so I guess I got lucky on that weekend.

I got it home and the picture is amazing even without calibrating it (I guess coming from a CRT has a factor as well )

Now it is calibrated with the help of the thread on this forum and BDs are just amazing on it.

I'm addicted to HD and BD.

Wax on! But that was Pat.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Morita

For Sony its Akio Morita, my misspell:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akio_Morita

You mean "Sony had unique and superior technologies...". My point exactly - it's a "has been". Nowadays they have nothing (incidentally blu-ray gives exactly no advantage to Sony over any other CE manufacturer, except extra revenue from licensing).

Problem is Sony still considers itself superior to everyone else (and they charge higher prices) when the fact is they are not. Until they get real, they won't get any business from me.

Samsung on the other hand is down to earth and delivers. And in some ways they surpassed Sony in innovation already - Sony has currently nothing on the market to compete with the Samsung Luxia. Who's the market leader then?

A better approach is don't buy based only on brand name. Weigh the benefits and pitfalls of every product, and use reputation as just another feature. That's how new companies are born and make a name, like Vizio, and one could get a better bang for buck.

As for who leads, I'm not sure its helpful. I think the market leader overall in flat TVs maybe Samsung, Sony or Vizio.

you can buy 3-4, 55 inch Vizios, together or in succession, and even if they break, costco gives you 2 years of warranty, x 4, is 8 years covered, and if they have a new replacement, unfixable situation that is even better lol with better technology that 55 XBR8, that might outlast life of a single 8K XBR lol.

I can tell you from my own very recent personal experience, that the Customer Service & Tech Support I received from Sony was a much more positive and professional experience than the support I received from Samsung.

well it might be only my opinion,but the luxia is nothing to cry about in performance.the pure thing they offer is the design which is so attractive,thats why it sells.Behind it though the technology is nowhere near exceptional and perfect,at least not as the samsung commercials and ads show,as LED tv's:the new kind of television.I have nothing against them,in fact they are excellent,but a B650/B750 can perform equally for much lower price.so what sony has to do is do a more inspiring design,because the technology inside is superior,but with a worse styling its simply not showed to the consumer.Back in 2007,it was the really bad year for sony tv department,where there was no technical superiority(or it was very little),compared to the samsung tv's which were much cheaper.things in 2008 were better,except....usa,europe got a huge market share boost,narrowing the gap with samsung.In USA,things I believe were overally better but the growth came only near the last christmass,when the discounts started.Now we are in 2009,and at least for now,the sony line up available,is priced very well compared to the equivalent samsung tv models.Luxia aside.We have to compare the equivalent models,and these are not still available from sony,they will be later in the year,and I am very confident that when they come,they will really beat the samsung,and that in technical superiority.Withought tricky and fake adverts and design only

that is my ONLY CONCERN too, my experience with samsung has been extremely negative and with sony extremely positive.

So some times GOOD CUSTOMER SERVICE can make or break for a company..SAMSUNG TO BE BEWARE OFF!

It is like APPLE, they command more dough for their product , one think, providing excellent Customer Support, rest is subjective, but Reliability and build quality is there too.

As of last Q of 2008, this is market share standings:

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/zd/20090507/tc_zd/240117

Vizio
Samsung
Sony
LG
Sharp

1) being first also has something to do with it. samsung released its new models this year first, including the new led backlit displays.

2) price: the only led backlit sony is the expensive xbr8.

Monkey see monkey do!! Many misinformed consumers. Hatred for strong companies from long ago. Advertising. Puts Samsung above Sony. Why are they always tooted on AVS? Not sure other than they do make a nice picture, however I personally like the Sony. Sony had a much more steady PQ through out different lighting conditions, where as the Samsung really shone more in only darker lighting conditions. Bare in mind this was on a lower end 32" model. Personally if you are going for large screen sizes I say forget LCD anyway and go plasma, but that is my opinion.

And again, these consumers have been "misinformed" by EVERY organization with credibility that tests tvs. The average person does not consider paying 30% more for a less capable tv to be too smart.

I've measured the black levels on my a550 and they are closer to the Sony's measured ones then that b650 specs they quote, and since they don't offer full analysis of that tv like they do the Sony, I bet they just copied the settings from somewhere else done with different equipment. Both black levels still are unacceptably high for dark viewing which makes the issue irrelevant. For example, my Toshiba has half again a darker black level as compared to my Samsung, but they both look equally bad in the dark. Oh and fyi ansi contrast ratio is not important, it's very hard to assess blacks with bright whites on the screen at the same time, only the black level is important, (white level not really because have you ever met a tv that could not output at least 30 ftL?).

The bottomline is that Samsung is rec'd over Sony because it offers similar pq for less money. On the website that you linked, you can also look at there CIE diagrams and confirm that they both have highly inaccurate green primaries. So both Sony and Samsung have poor black levels, inaccurate green primaries... yet Sony costs more.

You mean first Q 2009 as the link points out, last Q of 2008 went like this

Samsung
Vizio
Sony

Vizio was top in 1st Q 2007 as well but never made it to the top in 2008.

i find sonys image sharper then samsungs... samsungs are a bit cheaper though and their image is usually comparable to sonys, hype is also a factor as others have alluded to...

Yes. I refer readers to the article you linked.



I'm not sure you can say that of all Sonys. The fact is most TVs of a certain type, i.e., budget, midline, flagship quality, are so close in spec between different brands that the only differences maybe the brand name reflecting on long term reliability, its like buying a Toyota versus a Mazda. Of course, if a maker has a unique TV, such as Sony's OLED, they have no competition. The issue would then be is this TV better than a top line but older tech TV from another maker, would you want to try a new tech and like pioneers risk having 'arrows' in your back?

I thought vizio took over again, per engadget yesterday

Most average consumer is not going by testing data, as to most people it is like reading a foreign language. They go by what someone in the store is telling them. To be quite honest I don't know about the store around anyone else but the ones around me don't exactly have the most informed or they just don't care to inform. They are simply salesmen/women period. What ever product they are told to sell and/or the one that nets the most for them. Sad really.