Need TV buying advice . . .

[Don Vito Corleone]

OK, I know we have some HT gurus here, so . . .

My mother's 23-year-old(!) Sony Trinitron 27" TV appears to finally be dying. I'm helping her pick out a new set.

She will probably use it for watching standard DirecTV programming at least 80% of the time. She won't want to pay any additional fee for HDTV programming. The remainder of the time will consist of watching DVDs.

She really doesn't want to spend a lot (I'd say $1K is the absolute tops), and I think a 32" would be ideal for the room.

Since she will mostly be watching 4:3 programming, I'm thinking a 16:9 TV won't be ideal for her. She wants HDTV compatibility to ensure she can keep the set for a while, however.

I'm thinking about a Panasonic Tau 32" for her. Ultimate has one for $899, and Wal-Mart actually has an HDTV-compatible 32" Panasonic for $699 (I don't think it's technically labeled a Tau, and I don't see it for sale anywhere but WM).

Does anyone have any arguments to talk me out of this, or thoughts on why 16:9 is a must-have? I am happy to keep an open mind as to brand and aspect ratio, assuming there are strong arguments in favor of one or the other.

Thanks!

EDIT: Well, that went well! Mom ended up falling for the Sony KV-34XBR960, probably the finest direct-view TV ever made. Works for me! This thing is a beast, and had far and away the best image of anything in the store. Mom has a good job and can afford it, so what the hell . . .

 

[KLin]

One reason you would want 16:9 is to fill up the whole screen while watching high definition programming. With a 4:3 HDTV, to get the correct AR while watching HD programming, you would have to shorten the image vertically. This would show bars on the bottom and the top instead of seeing a stretched image.

 

[Aves]

If I were going to get a non-HD 32" TV I'd get the Toshiba 32AF44 for $550 from Best Buy. In fact that's exactly what I did and I love the TV.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: KLin
One reason you would want 16:9 is to fill up the whole screen while watching high definition programming. With a 4:3 HDTV, to get the correct AR you would have to shorten the image vertically. This would show bars on the bottom and the top instead of seeing a stretched image.

Yeah, but I believe all 4:3 sets have a mode to adjust HDTV programming to 4:3.

It seems to me that since she isn't presently planning on getting HDTV, a 16:9 set would mean either watching a very stretched-out 4:3 image, or black bars that would burn in and damage the screen (again, the overwhelming majority of her watching will consist of 4:3 analog TV for the foreseeable future).

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: aves2k
If I were going to get a non-HD 32" TV I'd get the Toshiba 32AF44 for $550 from Best Buy. In fact that's exactly what I did and I love the TV.

The thing is, I want it to be HDTV-compatible.

 

[Aves]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: aves2k
If I were going to get a non-HD 32" TV I'd get the Toshiba 32AF44 for $550 from Best Buy. In fact that's exactly what I did and I love the TV.

The thing is, I want it to be HDTV-compatible.

Sorry. 🙂 I read "She won't want to pay any additional fee for HDTV" and totally missed "She wants HDTV compatibility to ensure she can keep the set for a while, however". 😱

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

UPDATE: Well, that went well! Mom ended up falling for the Sony KV-34XBR960, probably the finest direct-view TV ever made. Works for me! This thing is a beast, and had far and away the best image of anything in the store. Mom has a good job and can afford it, so what the hell . . .

Ultimate Electronics is a nice store, and the salesman was a friendly, low-pressure type; it was a very pleasant experience all around.

 

[RossMAN]

Did you also check out the Panasonic Tau series?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: RossMAN
Did you also check out the Panasonic Tau series?

Yeah. Actually we went to Ultimate specifically to look at the Tau 34", which was my recommendation. It's a great set for the money ($1200), and I thought it compared very favorably to the $1500 Sony 34" model (though not to the XBR).

I wanted to take a look at the XBR once I saw they had them, and it was so superior that Mom's mind was more or less instantly made up. As I said, she has had the same set for 23 years, and so the $1000 increment in price for the XBR didn't seem unreasonable. The quality really was not close, though the Tau is also a nice set.

 

[Staples]

I am surprised a Sony lasted 23 years. I have never seen one last more than 10-12 years.

Anyway, Sony is still overpriced and a lot less quality than they were 10 years ago. I would have not getten one especially since everything I have had with the name Sony on it has broken within a year or two.

Lots of stores do not calibrate their TVs at all. Anyway, hope you have better luck than I have had with Sony.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Staples
I am surprised a Sony lasted 23 years. I have never seen one last more than 10-12 years.

Anyway, Sony is still overpriced and a lot less quality than they were 10 years ago. I would have not getten one especially since everything I have had with the name Sony on it has broken within a year or two.

Lots of stores do not calibrate their TVs at all. Anyway, hope you have better luck than I have had with Sony.

I was not inclined to get a Sony, particularly, but I have yet to read a single review of this particular set that doesn't say it's the best television on the market, and the ultimate evolution of the direct-view TV. Honestly I don't think your comments are useful in this context anyway.

 

[ponyo]

Nice choice on XBR. While lot of Sony haters will tell you how aweful and overpriced Sony's products are, I bet most of them have never owned XBR.

IMO, Sony's XBR are the best CRT available and always has been. You can never go with XBR other than the price. But TV is something most people don't change for awhile and it seems your Mom maximized the use out of the previous set so it's perfectly fine to pay little more for quality.

 

[TechnoKid]

I hope she got an extended warranty on that sony. I have an older 32XBR400 and it's had it share of problems like convergence (on a crt, go firgure) and geometry problems, brightness uniformity, and red push; sony's less than stellar customer support didn't help my problems. The TV still works today, and it still has a bit of convergence and geomtry problems.

I think sony makes some really nice and accurate CRT tvs, but their customer service rates low among me, for the three times I called them to get it serviced under warranty, I spent at least a good hour on the phone, either on wait, or trying to explain the problem, or waitng for a higher up tech/csr. The sonys usually have very picture quality, no doubt; always seem to test well in sound and vision/home theater magazine with minimal tweaking from the "Pro" setting, with warm color temp, VSM (velocity scan modulation, and edge enhancemet). I actually went into the service menu in mine in an attemp to cure some of the red puch my set had, as well as some of the geometry. But, the geometry problems are inherent in flat screened CRTs.

Now, when you start talking about that $13,000 sony lcos tv...wow...umm, but i'd still get an extended warranty on that beast.

 

[Qwest]

your mom just bought the reference set which all HDTV are compared against. nice purchase!
i have the 40" (4:3) XBR and it's doing fine for the last 3,4 yrs.