AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm desperate for some advice. I have been reading these boards for the past 34 hours straight trying to get some solid advice about the right LCD. I recently picked up the Sharp Aquos 32d40u and I really really wanted to like it becuase I got it super cheap but there were just too many problems (including a bright corner). So I've traded it in for the LG 32LC2DU, but I have been reading alot about Vizio this evening and I'm even becoming curious about Olevia and the like.


The bottom line is I absolutely cannot spend more than $1000, and I would rather pay less than more for a comparable TV. I will mostly be watching SD analog cable straight from the wall (which is why I like the XD engine from LG) and the few HD channels that I can pick up so QAM is a requirement.


I dont know if I should risk the Vizio, because its about 200 less or if I should just keep the LG because it seems to be a proven winner on these boards whereas it seems the Vizio is different for different people. I know it is mostly personal preference, but I just want some one to lay out the pros and cons or the trade off for going with the budget TV, or just tell me which TV to buy


I just want some one to tell me what to do becasue I can't make a decision without the unanimous support of some arbitrary body like this AVSforum. I need couseling, not an LCD... help me... please


d
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
It is currently on sale for 9 @ CC where I bought mine, so if it goes more on sale at best buy I think I get a price match. However, I picked it up last night and its sitting in front of me in a box. I was kind of hoping to get a better idea about the Vizio before I open it up, but I think if I stare at it long enough it'll probably convince me to set it up later this afternoon. I am not very good at judging TVs so don't expect a great review when I do open it.


My main problem with the sharp was that all the reasons I wanted to buy it ended up only applying to the 37" model which is actually made by Sharp, whereas my 32" is made by another company for Sharp. It also takes an eternity to change channels, the infamous red push on faces, the overall setup of menus and setup seemed under-engineered, I wasn't able to pick up a few HD channels even on cable, and I just wasnt impressed with SD. It looks fine at first, but I notived that when my friends came over I was super self-conscious about every flaw it displayed. I think I was really anxious for it to be good because it was 200 less than this LG. EIther way its a pretty big purchase for me, so I decided I would always be trying to justify it to myself because of the price and I would rather just be happy.


d
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
I know what you mean about trying to be happy after spending too much money. My wife always tells me that I like to pay more, or even extra, just to be sure I have the Best thing possible. This time, however, I went for the 32LC2DU. It was half as expensive as the Sony XBR2, which is the TV I thought I was going to buy. I can tell you that it is much easier to accept any little flaws with the LCD, since I didn't pay extra to own it.


My current opinion, after finally taking the plunge to buy an LCD, is that the programming is the biggest limitation for these TVs. The LCDs all struggle with the bad SD signals and they all look pretty darn nice with HD. Even if you pay twice as much for your LCD, you will still have the bad channels. It is also true that after watching HD the SD starts to look worse and worse. Actually some SD looks pretty darn good, although it seems to vary rather dramatically from channel to channel and even with the same channel with different shows at different times of the day. In fact, the same is even true for the HD. Some of the so-called HD channels broadcast a variety of formats that vary in signal quality. It is truly amazing that there seems to be no standard. Maybe someday the broadcasters will get their act together and send high quality signals with the same format. Then all LCD TVs will look great from regular cable or an antenna. I said this in anther post, but it is so true that it is worth repeating. The signal is the limitation for these LCD TVs. The TVs are not the limiting factor!


For me, this TV is just a replacement for a 27 CRT that I had in my bedroom. It was easier to give this a try at this size and at this price point. I have not taken the plunge to replace my 36 in my HT set-up. I have quite a stereo system in there so I can't keep from wanting to get the best LCD possible. Now however, after experimenting with the 32LC2DU, I think I might go for a bigger LG rather than throwing money at the situation by getting the super Sony. The bad channels are likely to look even worse on the bigger screen, so I know I would be irritated if I spend $3000 for the 40 Sony just to look at a bad picture. I will likely get the HD tuner box from Comcast with the bigger LCD HT set-up and an up-converting DVD player, so I bet the bigger LG would be fine. I am still drawn to paying extra for that special room, but I am trying to rethink that behavior.


I watched my first HD football games. It was fun. The only problem is that I watched it in my bedroom on my new 32LC2DU, rather in my super HT room with my old 36 CRT and my incredible 5.1 stereo system. I may have to go buy another LCD. Here we go again. Is it going to be 37 or 40, LG or Sony
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I plugged in the LG and did the EZ setup. The first thing I notice is a slight lag of the audio behind the video. This is probably the single worst thing I could find in a TV. It drives me absolutely crazy when they dont synch... it makes me want to puke. I am wondering if others have this problem


I did some more testing and I am pretty sure this is only on HD programs (which is worse IMO). I have that sharp HD lcd plugged in right night to it and i am using a switcher backwards to attempt continuity, but i plugged it in direct to confirm any findings FYI
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
548 Posts
I've been on the edge between these two models myself.

I took the plunge today and just ordered the LG for pickup at CC.

I wasn't too keen on the bent in speaker look of the Vizio or the power-up problems people have been experiencing in the official Vizio thread.

Nor was I crazy about the Vizio's 4:3 panoramic picture mode to display 4:3 at 16:9 (people said is was full of distortion).

I should add that the picture on the Vizio I saw at Sam's (playing HD content) looked very nice (the plastic surrounding the back of the Viz was very ugly and warped on the display model on the speakers).

I'll post back after I hook it up this afternoon. I had a Pioneer PDP5070 in the basement so I'll post my picture comparison for what its worth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Ok so here is the latest, I have decided that the LG looks better than the sharp on both SD and HD (although I have not tried too hard to match them, I did calibrate the sharp and the LG is out of box). One big diffference to me is that the Sharp seems to map a still background of a shot and let the foreground moving image change alot. The result is that the picture looks more stable and clear if the background is constant and the foreground is moving. THe LG on the other hand looks as though it is constantly updating both the foreground and background so the result is a more organic backgroud with artifactual movement. This can be overlooked becauase when the background starts moving the Sharp process makes it look like it is smearing along while the LG keeps up much better. You end up getting used to the "organic" (im inventing that term usage I think) background because the movement looks so much better. The LG menus and are better looking (but maybe less useful, the jury is still out there) and the QAM tuner gets more channels.


HOWEVER, this audio lag is a serious problem. I hoped that I could amplify the signal to give the LG a chance to catch up but no dice. I think I will have to upgrade the cable but I was hoping not to incurr more cost. Please some one give me a fix that doesn't involve a change in cable.


d
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
548 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by drmethical /forum/post/0


HOWEVER, this audio lag is a serious problem. I hoped that I could amplify the signal to give the LG a chance to catch up but no dice. I think I will have to upgrade the cable but I was hoping not to incurr more cost. Please some one give me a fix that doesn't involve a change in cable.


d

I officially confirm the audio lag too; I'm using the QAM to tune in HD on Cox CT and get a definate audio lag on the HD channels only, enough so that it is very annoying to watch.

I have not tried digital audio into the TV via HDMI because I haven't got a second converter to hook up to this set yet; I can't say whether it will introduce lag there also. However, the QAM tuner is basically useless. If you are buying this set for the QAM tuner, look elsewhere.

This set is going back to CC; no more LG's for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
I agree, its a nice TV and I'd prefer to like it myself. I am coming to think that maybe it is not so bad. I've noticed that the lag is pretty variable and it seems to be worst when the digital channel is putting out a non-HD program. When there is a full fledged HD broadcast the sound is better. I am going to wait for the prime-time line up this week to see if they are alright. I figure the HD signal is most useful for sporting events and then it doesnt really matter if the sound is slightly off because you cant see the faces of the people talking. If my prime-time test fails... I dont know what I'll do. I am very interested in hearing about your experience with the Vizio if you decide to go that route. Please keep me posted with PM, let me know where you'll be posting.


d
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
548 Posts
So I tried an HDMI source and I still have the same audio lag. I called LG and they, of course, claim they've never heard of this issue.

So, I've pretty much narrowed it down to any 720p/1080i source (it almost like the thing has to work harder and the pic is time delayed).

I have no choice but to trade this in for a better set; I have no idea how anyone can watch this set.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
I didnt use the HDMI, but I picked up the digital/hd box from my cable provider and used components to hook it up. Sure enough the lag was still there. I am back to the Sharp for now, but I guess now that I have that box I may try to go bigger with a true monitor using the box as a tuner. Any suggestions or reasons not to do this are welcome... but i dont really think anyone else reads this thread.


d
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
548 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by drmethical /forum/post/0


I didnt use the HDMI, but I picked up the digital/hd box from my cable provider and used components to hook it up. Sure enough the lag was still there. I am back to the Sharp for now, but I guess now that I have that box I may try to go bigger with a true monitor using the box as a tuner. Any suggestions or reasons not to do this are welcome... but i dont really think anyone else reads this thread.


d


I just bit the bullet on the Samsung LNS3251D through Amazon... has an ATSC tuner; I'll never use the QAM tuner anyway (using the HD DVR).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
By the way, i just read your post more closely. I think that the video is actually ahead of the audio. That is why I am confused. I figured same as you that the video must require extra processing, but surely the audio is not processed. Even when I send it to my AV receiver there is a lag and the AV but it is smaller (the receiver is barely ahead of the TV audio if you play them both). I dont get it, maybe it takes too long to process the dolby audio? I have a box plugged into that sharp now, and on Fox (the worst of the laggers) I still notice some lag on the news (24 seemed ok but i didnt watch much, just to test real quick). So, i hope that you samsung does experience the same problem, but Im beginning to wonder if it is just your/my local transmission since it seems the prime-time show 24 was better? I will be watching house in its entirety tonight, though it is a re-run sadly. More info to come.


d
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
548 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by drmethical /forum/post/0


By the way, i just read your post more closely. I think that the video is actually ahead of the audio. That is why I am confused. I figured same as you that the video must require extra processing, but surely the audio is not processed. Even when I send it to my AV receiver there is a lag and the AV but it is smaller (the receiver is barely ahead of the TV audio if you play them both). I dont get it, maybe it takes too long to process the dolby audio? I have a box plugged into that sharp now, and on Fox (the worst of the laggers) I still notice some lag on the news (24 seemed ok but i didnt watch much, just to test real quick). So, i hope that you samsung does experience the same problem, but Im beginning to wonder if it is just your/my local transmission since it seems the prime-time show 24 was better? I will be watching house in its entirety tonight, though it is a re-run sadly. More info to come.


d

I thought the same thing (yes, the if it was the vid processing taking longer the audio should come first...).

Since you said you tried component in and had to use video L/R (no dolby encoding there!) I don't see how it could be the digital audio processing either...

The above said, since I picked up a second DVR I now have my PDP-5070 and the LG running the same HD channels last night (both local and pay channels; DISCHD, etc). I had the lag ONLY on the LG; since I had recorded the feed I could play it over and over on both and I never had an issue with my pioneer.

BTW - what state are you in and what carrier do you have?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
362 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimdeath /forum/post/0


However, the QAM tuner is basically useless. If you are buying this set for the QAM tuner, look elsewhere.

This set is going back to CC; no more LG's for me.

I don't agree, how is it that it's "useless"? Allowed me to watch the NFL playoff games this past weekend in awesome HD, just by plugging the cable into the back of the TV. No extra cost for HD service, no STB required. Also get a lot of SD channels in DTV that look way better than my friends Samsung via STB. Plus I get all my local stations that broadcast in HD including Fox Sports Net. Another thing I noticed is we get a lot of "other" channels that we never got before, including what appears to be VOD that other subscribers in my area have ordered. The QAM tuner in these LG's is hardly what I would call "useless". Quite the contrary, IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
548 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by RetRoe /forum/post/0


I don't agree, how is it that it's "useless"? Allowed me to watch the NFL playoff games this past weekend in awesome HD, just by plugging the cable into the back of the TV. No extra cost for HD service, no STB required. Also get a lot of SD channels in DTV that look way better than my friends Samsung via STB. Plus I get all my local stations that broadcast in HD including Fox Sports Net. Another thing I noticed is we get a lot of "other" channels that we never got before, including what appears to be VOD that other subscribers in my area have ordered. The QAM tuner in these LG's is hardly what I would call "useless". Quite the contrary, IMO.

Read carefully: a QAM tuner is useless when IT DOES NOT WORK CORRECTLY. In reality, we have come to find that not only is it QAM sources, but EVERY HD source. So, more acurately now, this TV is useless if you want to watch HD and are sensitive to audio sync issues.

By all means, if you don't want a converter box, a QAM/ATSC tuner is the way to go.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
362 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimdeath /forum/post/0


Read carefully: a QAM tuner is useless when IT DOES NOT WORK CORRECTLY. In reality, we have come to find that not only is it QAM sources, but EVERY HD source. So, more acurately now, this TV is useless if you want to watch HD and are sensitive to audio sync issues.

By all means, if you don't want a converter box, a QAM/ATSC tuner is the way to go.

Well I understand what you're saying. In other words, sync issues lead you to this "useless" opinion. But I have read that other TV's have got these sync issues as well. I can't speak for all brands but if other brands have similar issues then it leads me to belive its the broadcast and not the TV. One poster replied in this thread that he noticed sync issues on a Sharp TV as well and then said "Im beginning to wonder if it is just your/my local transmission".


One way to tell if it's a TV issue or local transmission issue is to play a DVD. If that doesn't lag but broadcasts do, then it would seem to suggest that it's not the fault of the TV. I've read that HD signal quality varies greatly between stations and location. Because of this, to label a TV "useless" (due to sync issues with HD content) doesn't seem to hold water. Branding LG's as "useless" and your "no more LG's for me" statement lends one to believe that you're employed by one of LG's competitors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
548 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by RetRoe /forum/post/0


Well I understand what you're saying. In other words, sync issues lead you to this "useless" opinion. But I have read that other TV's have got these sync issues as well. I can't speak for all brands but if other brands have similar issues then it leads me to belive its the broadcast and not the TV. One poster replied in this thread that he noticed sync issues on a Sharp TV as well and then said "Im beginning to wonder if it is just your/my local transmission".


One way to tell if it's a TV issue or local transmission issue is to play a DVD. If that doesn't lag but broadcasts do, then it would seem to suggest that it's not the fault of the TV. I've read that HD signal quality varies greatly between stations and location. Because of this, to label a TV "useless" (due to sync issues with HD content) doesn't seem to hold water. Branding LG's as "useless" and your "no more LG's for me" statement lends one to believe that you're employed by one of LG's competitors.

Again, if you READ the whole thread, you would know that I also have a Pioneer PDP-5070 connected to the same identical HD DVR. I DO NOT see any Sync issues on the Pioneer, ONLY the LG.

I also said that this set is useless to me for watching HD material; why would I want another LG? "No more LG's for me" means just that; you can buy whatever the heck you want.

Since I know it is not the cable feed, it must be the set. You will ALSO read that I connected speakers to the TV's pre-amp out. There is a noticable lag between the pre-amp out and the internal speakers too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
362 Posts
Well I'm not trying to get in a heated argument with you, Mr.Grim. But I have read numerous posts in this forum that discuss sync issues and those posts are certainly not limited exclusively to LG's.


Today I was talking to my dad on the phone and he has a Samsung LN-S4041D. I asked him if he's ever noticed sync issues with the audio being in time with the video and he said he has. Some channels he's noticed it more often and seemed to recall it more apparent when HD channels broadcast content that is not in full HD. This again lends itself to the signal and not the TV, and his is not an LG, it's a Samsung.


So is his Samsung also "useless" ? If you asked him he'd tell you he loves his TV but understands that this "HD stuff" is not perfect and is still in it's infancy. Something to keep in mind when making blanket "useless" statements.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top