Is HDTV too expensive and confusing for the average Joe?

[BarneyFife]

My father and I are looking for a new tv to replace the old one that's dying. So we are looking at getting an HDTV and all I see is mass confusion and dollar signs flashing before my eyes. First off the tv's have many different features. Secondly, to actually get an hdtv signal you have to buy a receiver or call your cable\satellite company and get a special receiver. A receiver costs $400 bucks just to get your local channels. I called Comcast tonight and to get hdtv, they want to increase my bill by $20 a month because I don't have digital cable. Instead of paying $38, they want $15 more for digital and $5 for hdtv. The confusion doesn't end there. I notice that a few companies make you pay for each channel. For examply Discoveryhd costs a premium each month. Same with ESPNHD in some markets.

They gotta be nuts if they think I'm going to pay $20 a month extra for my local hdtv channels and then think I'm going to pay per hdtv channel. Was HDTV
created by satellite and cable companies to exploit more money? I'm a computer geek and I find all this talk about 1080, receivers, special antenna very confusing. I'm beginning to think if people are dumb enough to pay for ESPNHD as a premium channel that the cable companies will start charging us per channel. I can just imagine paying $50 for 12 channels. I think I'm better off buying a non-hdtv and living off of that until I absolutely have to get HDTV.

 

[Angrymarshmello]

HDTV's are for people with cash to blow. Like people who buy Porsche Cayennes, or something totally useless like that

 

[Jugernot]

At this point, yes...

 

[Thraxen]

Totally useless? I'm watching game two of the NBA finals in HDTV as I type this.

 

[Ylen13]

depends on your definition of average joe. We got hdtv tv for almost $2100 i think or it could have been more don't remmber it was toshiba 50 inch. We got digital cable and got hdtv for free as it was the same price for digital or hdtv cable.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Thraxen
Totally useless? I'm watching game two of the NBA finals in HDTV as I type this.

Because you couldnt watch it without hdtv.. or cable for that matter.

 

[InverseOfNeo]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
My father and I are looking for a new tv to replace the old one that's dying. So we are looking at getting an HDTV and all I see is mass confusion and dollar signs flashing before my eyes. First off the tv's have many different features. Secondly, to actually get an hdtv signal you have to buy a receiver or call your cable\satellite company and get a special receiver. A receiver costs $400 bucks just to get your local channels. I called Comcast tonight and to get hdtv, they want to increase my bill by $20 a month because I don't have digital cable. Instead of paying $38, they want $15 more for digital and $5 for hdtv. The confusion doesn't end there. I notice that a few companies make you pay for each channel. For examply Discoveryhd costs a premium each month. Same with ESPNHD in some markets.

They gotta be nuts if they think I'm going to pay $20 a month extra for my local hdtv channels and then think I'm going to pay per hdtv channel. Was HDTV
created by satellite and cable companies to exploit more money? I'm a computer geek and I find all this talk about 1080, receivers, special antenna very confusing. I'm beginning to think if people are dumb enough to pay for ESPNHD as a premium channel that the cable companies will start charging us per channel. I can just imagine paying $50 for 12 channels. I think I'm better off buying a non-hdtv and living off of that until I absolutely have to get HDTV.

Perhaps it is too expensive but too confusing? I dont think so. You just need to do a lil research. 1080i, isnt as good as 720p...720p will be a better picture (mostly because it is progressive, not interlaced) but will cost more. I was equally as confused as you are when I began to look at HDTV. But I think you are right, it can be too confusing for the average person. I mean think about how stupid the average person is, then think 50% of people are even stupider. I tend to believe that us who reside at ATOT are in the uppver 50%.

 

[Thraxen]

Because you couldnt watch it without hdtv.. or cable for that matter.

Your point? Do you play all your games at 640x480? Get my drift?

 

[rh71]

Let's calculate a bit here:

Sony 57" widescreen (HDTV-capable) - $1800-$2000 (discounted)
Digital Cable / mo. (with free HD tuner from cable company) - $60/mo.

It's not all that expensive. The big expense is the tv itself, but after that, a lot of people spend $50+ per month on cable/satellite anyway.

 

[Doggiedog]

Samsung has a 32" 16:9 tube TV thats under $1000. I saw it right next to the Sony 34" 16:9 XBR Wega and it didn't compare. The Sony was much better. But if you want HDTV cheap, that might be a way to go.

I'm trying to get a HDTV from Time Warner here in NJ but there is a huge wait list. They tell me they only get like 10 HDTV boxes a month. It doesn't cost any extra though fortunately.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Because you couldnt watch it without hdtv.. or cable for that matter.

Your point? Do you play all your games at 640x480? Get my drift?

my point being, you need to cough up some better proof about hdtv if your trying to prove how great it is.. .other then just watching it. im perfectly fine without hdtv.. but im also fine without cable.. all i do on my tv is watch movies or game.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: Doggiedog
Samsung has a 32" 16:9 tube TV thats under $1000. I saw it right next to the Sony 34" 16:9 XBR Wega and it didn't compare. The Sony was much better. But if you want HDTV cheap, that might be a way to go.

I'm trying to get a HDTV from Time Warner here in NJ but there is a huge wait list. They tell me they only get like 10 HDTV boxes a month. It doesn't cost any extra though fortunately.

Proper calibration makes all the difference in the world. No, the Samsung isn't going to be as good as the XBR Wega. But properly calibrated it's a nice TV for not much $$$.

Viper GTS

 

[Spac3d]

I went looking a few months ago - it was defintely confusing to people who aren't home theater buffs.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
My father and I are looking for a new tv to replace the old one that's dying. So we are looking at getting an HDTV and all I see is mass confusion and dollar signs flashing before my eyes. First off the tv's have many different features. Secondly, to actually get an hdtv signal you have to buy a receiver or call your cable\satellite company and get a special receiver. A receiver costs $400 bucks just to get your local channels. I called Comcast tonight and to get hdtv, they want to increase my bill by $20 a month because I don't have digital cable. Instead of paying $38, they want $15 more for digital and $5 for hdtv. The confusion doesn't end there. I notice that a few companies make you pay for each channel. For examply Discoveryhd costs a premium each month. Same with ESPNHD in some markets.

They gotta be nuts if they think I'm going to pay $20 a month extra for my local hdtv channels and then think I'm going to pay per hdtv channel. Was HDTV
created by satellite and cable companies to exploit more money? I'm a computer geek and I find all this talk about 1080, receivers, special antenna very confusing. I'm beginning to think if people are dumb enough to pay for ESPNHD as a premium channel that the cable companies will start charging us per channel. I can just imagine paying $50 for 12 channels. I think I'm better off buying a non-hdtv and living off of that until I absolutely have to get HDTV.

I fail to see any confusion.

You don't want an integrated tuner. And what's wrong w/cable companies charging a bit of a premium? The box you get from them is worth a lot more than a regular cable box so $5 more/month is no biggie.

As for Discovery/ESPN charging for their HD channels, well, it's early in their offerings and that will change one day. I'm sure you'll see DISH/DirecTV following cable companies and offering an HD Pak.

HDTV sets aren't that expensive for certain models and are comparable in price to many 4:3 analog sets.

Build an HTPC (HD tuner cards are now under $200) and receive OTA HD broadcasts w/o cable or satellite. NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, WB all offer some form of HD programming (CBS is the leader with ABC right behind them). FOX is only 480p on some shows.

I don't know where Ferndale, MI is but if it's near Detroit/Chicago, you can definitely get HD OTA.

And imagine playing those 480p/720p/1080i XBOX games on your HDTV!

 

[Ylen13]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Doggiedog
Samsung has a 32" 16:9 tube TV thats under $1000. I saw it right next to the Sony 34" 16:9 XBR Wega and it didn't compare. The Sony was much better. But if you want HDTV cheap, that might be a way to go.

I'm trying to get a HDTV from Time Warner here in NJ but there is a huge wait list. They tell me they only get like 10 HDTV boxes a month. It doesn't cost any extra though fortunately.

Proper calibration makes all the difference in the world. No, the Samsung isn't going to be as good as the XBR Wega. But properly calibrated it's a nice TV for not much $$$.

Viper GTS

i would go with toshiba over samsung

 

[Doggiedog]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Doggiedog
Samsung has a 32" 16:9 tube TV thats under $1000. I saw it right next to the Sony 34" 16:9 XBR Wega and it didn't compare. The Sony was much better. But if you want HDTV cheap, that might be a way to go.

I'm trying to get a HDTV from Time Warner here in NJ but there is a huge wait list. They tell me they only get like 10 HDTV boxes a month. It doesn't cost any extra though fortunately.

Proper calibration makes all the difference in the world. No, the Samsung isn't going to be as good as the XBR Wega. But properly calibrated it's a nice TV for not much $$$.

Viper GTS

I know calibration goes a long way but I'm pretty sure the Wega will beat it regardless. I forgot to mention though that I also saw some Toshiba 32" HDTV that was spectacular. The picture on it was as good if not better than the Sony.

 

[Angrymarshmello]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Because you couldnt watch it without hdtv.. or cable for that matter.

Your point? Do you play all your games at 640x480? Get my drift?

Sitting 15 feet away from your computer is a huge difference than sitting 2 feet away from your computer screen. We're talking the average joe - the 26 million AOL subscribers, the people who pay Best Buy "techs" to install a USB modem. These people don't give a $hit nor could they tell a difference to justify the cost, therefore making it useless.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Doggiedog

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Doggiedog
Samsung has a 32" 16:9 tube TV thats under $1000. I saw it right next to the Sony 34" 16:9 XBR Wega and it didn't compare. The Sony was much better. But if you want HDTV cheap, that might be a way to go.

I'm trying to get a HDTV from Time Warner here in NJ but there is a huge wait list. They tell me they only get like 10 HDTV boxes a month. It doesn't cost any extra though fortunately.

Proper calibration makes all the difference in the world. No, the Samsung isn't going to be as good as the XBR Wega. But properly calibrated it's a nice TV for not much $$$.

Viper GTS

I know calibration goes a long way but I'm pretty sure the Wega will beat it regardless. I forgot to mention though that I also saw some Toshiba 32" HDTV that was spectacular. The picture on it was as good if not better than the Sony.

Do NOT go by what you see in the stores. With the bright lights, the sets are typically cranked on brightness/contrast and colors will not be properly represented. Plus, there's no telling what people do with the remotes while looking at the sets.

Go to a high-end retail store and look at the setups there. While probably not perfect (and probably not ISF calibrated), they'll be much better than at Best Buy or Circuit City or wherever.

 

[Thraxen]

my point being, you need to cough up some better proof about hdtv if your trying to prove how great it is.. .other then just watching it. im perfectly fine without hdtv.. but im also fine without cable.. all i do on my tv is watch movies or game.

Proof? Huh? It's higher resolution and widescreen, what else do you want? Again, I go to my example of games...do you need "proof" that playing a game at 1280x960 is better than playing the same game at 640x480? If you're content with low res interlaced 4:3, fine.

These people don't give a $hit nor could they tell a difference to justify the cost, therefore making it useless.

EASILY 90% of "these people" you are referring to have never seen their favorite shows or sporting events in HDTV. Most stores rarely have any HDTV running, just normal TV or DVDs on HDTVs... and the TVs are almost always way out of calibration.

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: rh71
Let's calculate a bit here:

Sony 57" widescreen (HDTV-capable) - $1800-$2000 (discounted)
Digital Cable / mo. (with free HD tuner from cable company) - $60/mo.

It's not all that expensive. The big expense is the tv itself, but after that, a lot of people spend $50+ per month on cable/satellite anyway.

It's not the price of the tv that's killing the deal, it's the price of programming. To go from $40 a month to $60 is a 50% jump and the only channels I'll get are the free channels such as abc and pbs. I just watch news and sports. Sspn, fox sports, cnn etc.. does its job for me. I don't care for any premium channels or that digital cable fluff. The other thing that kills me is some of the channels like ESPNHD are being charged as a premium channel. I don't believe in paying $7 a month for the same exact game on ESPN. Isn't it illegal that Comcast is forcing people to buy digital tv just to get the regular (network stations) in hdtv? I can't justify spending $60+ a month on tv when the $40 I'm paying now is fulfilling my entertainment purposes.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TallBill

my point being, you need to cough up some better proof about hdtv if your trying to prove how great it is.. .other then just watching it. im perfectly fine without hdtv.. but im also fine without cable.. all i do on my tv is watch movies or game.

Try here

 

[Siddhartha]

HDTV is still very expensive. I am not sure about it being confusing...
Color tv use to be too expensive.

 

[Doggiedog]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TallBill

my point being, you need to cough up some better proof about hdtv if your trying to prove how great it is.. .other then just watching it. im perfectly fine without hdtv.. but im also fine without cable.. all i do on my tv is watch movies or game.

Try here

Despite the hi-res pictures. It still doesn't do justice to HDTV. You really have to see it live to understand. The pictures are so clear they look three dimensional.

 

[Thraxen]

To go from $40 a month to $60 is a 50% jump and the only channels I'll get are the free channels such as abc and pbs. I just watch news and sports. Sspn, fox sports, cnn etc.. does its job for me.

If you live in a larger city you might be able to get the major networks OTA (over the air). I live in a city of only about 60K and I can get CBS and ABC OTA for free.... and the local NBC station has just put up their digital tower, but have not yet begun broadcasting.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Doggiedog

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TallBill

my point being, you need to cough up some better proof about hdtv if your trying to prove how great it is.. .other then just watching it. im perfectly fine without hdtv.. but im also fine without cable.. all i do on my tv is watch movies or game.

Try here

Despite the hi-res pictures. It still doesn't do justice to HDTV. You really have to see it live to understand. The pictures are so clear they look three dimensional.

True...

And, with a Dolby Digital receiver, the audio on many shows is awesome, too!