Sharp Aquos vs. Sony Bravia LCD TV`s

[Disney Daniel]

A question for all of the LCD TV experts out there. I am looking at purchasing a television during the after Christmas sales and I am torn between two models.

The first is a Sharp Aquos 40" LCD, 1080p, 60Hz refresh rate, a 6ms response time and a dynamic contrast ratio of 25,000:1. Cost = $599

The second is a Sony Bravia 40" LCD, 1080p, 120Hz refresh rate, an 8ms response time and a dynamic contrast ratio of 50,000:1. Cost = $899

I am attempting to figure out if the Sony is worth the additional $300 dollars. I have been told that the higher refresh rate and contrast ratio would provide a clearer, sharper picture, especially when watching sports. I am not really sure what to make of the difference to response time to be honest. I probably watch a few hours of sports per week, especially during football season, but do not watch sports continuously, so I wanted to get some opinions on the difference in cost and quality. I currently have digital cable without high definition, but will likely move up to HD within the next year.

Thanks in advance and happy holidays!

 

[N.Bailey]

I'd imagine someone will get around to answering your questions (I can't), but Samsung and Panasonic are really the top brands. Well, that's unless things have drastically changed in the last year. We have a 40" that we bought about a year and a half ago, and I really can't tell you how happy we've been with this LCD TV. We LOVE it.

I'd suggest heading over to Best Buy's website and/or maybe Amazon's and read some of the reviews.

I did buy my daughter a 26" (I think that's the size, it's wrapped or I'd check), Sony Bravia for Christmas. I have to say though, unless it was in the settings, the 32" Sony Bravia had one of the worst picture quality of the TVs we were comparing this afternoon at Best Buy. The 26" had a fantastic picture.

 

[bicker]

Panasonic has really come on strong this year, and has now edged Sony back into third place. (Samsung remains the best.) However, figure that the difference between Sony and Panasonic, in this regard, is pretty small.

However: Sharp (and Toshiba and LG) are also good brands.

Between the two HDTVs that Daniel is looking into, I'd call it a tie. The Sony is more expensive, but for that you're getting a little better quality television, and one that serves up higher performance (120 Hz). If I was a sports fan, or if I was watching more action films on Blu-Ray Disc (instead of from HBO or Showtime*), then it would be a no-brainer for me... I'd go with the Sony.

______________
* One thing you'll notice about HBO and Showtime, and the other premium channels, is that not only are they broadcasting in 1080i instead of Blu-ray's 1080p, but they've radically thinned out their bitrate. What does that mean? When I record a one-hour drama off of my antenna, it takes up to 8 GB on my DVR hard drive. One hour of an HBO movie, it takes up 5.8 GB. That "missing" 2+ GB is what accounts for some additional graininess and some additional pixelization, especially in water scenes and fire scenes. You'll also see this on standard cable channels, especially AMC. And all this is before the satellite service or cable company compresses the data even further, which many of them do. So, if you're aiming to get most of your content from satellite or cable, you may keep this in the back of your mind, that perhaps the refresh rate, while still valuable, might be less valuable to you, because the source of your content is already degrading the content such that the difference the refresh rate makes might not make as much of a big difference.

 

[bicker]

I currently have digital cable without high definition, but will likely move up to HD within the next year.

I'd factor the upgrade to HD service into your purchase decision. Having an HDTV without HD service is a little like using your Indy race car to go back and forth to the train station. Many folks feel that HDTVs, in general, deliver a worse picture for standard definition video than the older, analog televisions that were replaced by the HDTV. We have actually given up favorite television shows, because they are not broadcast in HD (waiting, instead, until the DVDs come out -- remarkably, DVDs, which are also standard definition, look fine on HDTVs, imho).

... had one of the worst picture quality of the TVs we were comparing this afternoon at Best Buy. ...

One of the most troubling things about buying an HDTV is that what you see in the store might be very misleading.

First, they're "supposed" to set up the HDTVs in the store in some sort of "dynamic" mode. That, itself, can be misleading, because you'll practically never watch television with that mode engaged -- it is truly there solely to give the picture more of a "wow" factor in the showroom. With some displays, the "dynamic" mode is actually damaging to the longevity of the set (which is one reason I'll never buy a display model).

Second, the more sophisticated HDTVs have loads of calibration settings, which you can rest assured no one in the store has taken the time to consider -- or they've calibrated the set for "perfect reproduction" but maybe you personally don't like "perfect reproduction" as much as something off-perfection. So you're may be comparing televisions based on how someone else likes to watch television.

Third, there is no reason to believe that all the televisions in the showroom were set up with equal care and concern. For whatever reasons, ranging from inconsistency of staff expertise, to perhaps which brands the sales staff get bigger bonuses for selling, there is no reason to think that you're getting an apples-to-apples comparison in the showroom. Heck, in many showrooms, you have television sets on two levels, upper and lower. Since you're supposed to look at televisions at eye levels, the lower sets are invariably not going to look the way they would in your home, and if the upper sets are very high, then they're going to look wrong, too.

Fourth, there is limited space in store showrooms, and so very often the "best television for you" may be one that is only available online, and so you have no way of seeing it in person.

It is very frustrating, because while you can go to various sites (such as CNET) and get technical comparisons you can count on, for at least accuracy and independence, they cannot inject your own personal preferences and predilections into their recommendations. You go to the stores to try to "see for yourself", armed (hopefully) with the great information from whatever resources you've used to learn about your purchase, but still needing to make your own decision based on your own personal, sound, comprehensive, and qualitative analysis.... and there just is no way to accomplish that. In the end, like many things, it turns into a gamble to some extent. We can only do the best we can do.

However, (the point is) don't rely so completely on your own visual inspect in the stores (for the reasons mentioned above). Understand that there may be no way to really do a fair comparison.

 

[Micca]

I'm no expert (that would be Bicker), but I do enjoy Hi def TV and home theater gear. I would choose the Sony, but you can't go too far wrong with either of the products you're considering. By choosing something with better stats, you're taking a step toward being ready for the day you'll be a blu-ray owner and watching more & more hi def material.

 

[Golf4food]

Bicker's the big expert on these things but I'll add a few comments.

Dynamic contrast ratio is not a standardized measurement industry wide and thus the manufacturers can almost say whatever they want. They could tell you their TV has a 1 billion:1 contrast ratio and there is no way to dispute it because there is no standard measure. Contrast ratio on a TV is a little like megapixel count in cameras: over rated, but the big number is impressive to people who haven't done enough research.

Response time: can you tell the difference between 6 milliseconds and 8 milliseconds? Can any human? Didn't think so. Another mostly over-rated number.

All other things being equal I'd go with the higher refresh rate (120 mhz vs 60 mhz). I also wouldn't pigeonhole myself into a Sharp or Sony. Samsung, Panasonic, LG... there are plenty of good brands out there.

And if you aren't forced into a 40" because of size restraints on your entertainment center or something, you might be able to get a 42" or larger for less money depending on the sales.

And if you really want the true HD experience, buy yourself a decent Blu-ray player to go with it, and surround sound if you want the full effect. You can get a good blu-ray now for $99 and decent starter home theater setups with blu-ray for $300-$400.

 

[CJMickeyMouse]

I would definitely go with the Sony. Mainly because I know they will stand behind their products. We had a 60" rear projection TV go bad - they did not have a service person in our area, so they brought us a new (upgraded) TV and took the other one away.

That said, we just bought a Mitsubishi Unisen 52" over a Sony simply because of the built in sound bar. I have never been impressed with Samsung or Panasonic, but I think it all depends on the individual eye. Fortunately DH and I must look for the same details because we always agree.

Good luck!!

 

[bicker]

Contrast ratio on a TV is a little like megapixel count in cameras: over rated, but the big number is impressive to people who haven't done enough research.

Abso-friggen-lutely. Just ignore that metric.

And if you aren't forced into a 40" because of size restraints on your entertainment center or something, you might be able to get a 42" or larger for less money depending on the sales.

It is really important to note that, conceptually, a 40" HDTV is "smaller" than a 36" standard definition television. HDTVs are, of course, wider, but as a result, they are smaller vertically, for the same, and even for larger diagonals. If you're replacing a 36" standard definition television, then a 44" HDTV has the same height (21.6") as what you're replacing, and so essentially you can consider a 44" HDTV the "same size" as a 36" standard definition television.

There are a couple of good references for deciding what size screen you "really" "need". This first chart shows a good concordance between standard definition televisions and HDTVs, and some important information about what the optimal viewing distance (how far your eyes should be away from the screen). To go from standard definition to HDTV, you find the diagonal dimension of your standard definition television on the left, and then follow across to the right to see what size HDTV would be the "same size". Then in the middle column you can see how far away from the screen the seating is supposed to be (for 1080i/p HD).

Optimal Viewing Distance

This second resource is more of a sliding scale, allowing you to vary screen size with seating distance and resolution, to find a perfect mix.

Viewing Distance When Resolution Becomes Important

One more note about viewing distance: It is always measured from the surface of the screen to your eyes. Not from wall to back of couch.

And if you really want the true HD experience, buy yourself a decent Blu-ray player to go with it, and surround sound if you want the full effect. You can get a good blu-ray now for $99 and decent starter home theater setups with blu-ray for $300-$400.

I cannot over-state just how much of a difference DD5.1 (Dolby Digital surround sound) makes. It totally transforms the viewing experience -- indeed, it has as much, if not more, positive impact on your viewing experience than switching to HD has.


(Sorry for putting so many words in quotes, but y'know how a lot of this is a matter of perspective, and these words are way over the line into the land of subjectivity.)

 

[N.Bailey]

Panasonic has really come on strong this year, and has now edged Sony back into third place. (Samsung remains the best.) However, figure that the difference between Sony and Panasonic, in this regard, is pretty small.

snip

We bought our Samsung 46" (sorry, I said 40" upthread, but it is indeed a 46) last year, and I don't have a gripe in the world with it. At that time however, the Panasonic was actually the better TV when comparing feature for feature and reading reviews. It however cost considerably more. For the price difference alone, it wasn't the best option at the time, IMO. We could have paid $1000 more (something like that, we're talking a significant difference here), I just couldn't justify it.

 

[quentina]

A question for all of the LCD TV experts out there. I am looking at purchasing a television during the after Christmas sales and I am torn between two models.

The first is a Sharp Aquos 40" LCD, 1080p, 60Hz refresh rate, a 6ms response time and a dynamic contrast ratio of 25,000:1. Cost = $599

The second is a Sony Bravia 40" LCD, 1080p, 120Hz refresh rate, an 8ms response time and a dynamic contrast ratio of 50,000:1. Cost = $899

I am attempting to figure out if the Sony is worth the additional $300 dollars. I have been told that the higher refresh rate and contrast ratio would provide a clearer, sharper picture, especially when watching sports. I am not really sure what to make of the difference to response time to be honest. I probably watch a few hours of sports per week, especially during football season, but do not watch sports continuously, so I wanted to get some opinions on the difference in cost and quality. I currently have digital cable without high definition, but will likely move up to HD within the next year.

Thanks in advance and happy holidays!

My husband is a retail high end audio/video manager...he says he will give you a great response however, needs the model numbers (this is how they know the good versus the bad). He also said to look at the LG LH50 series (42 inch). I asked why, cause I thought LG was junk however, he says it allows you to stream you tube, netflix and music and pictures from computer over to TV and it has a nice picture.

That LG answer also fit into the price range you put up.

PM me if you want to talk to him.

 

[Golf4food]

My husband is a retail high end audio/video manager...he says he will give you a great response however, needs the model numbers (this is how they know the good versus the bad). He also said to look at the LG LH50 series (42 inch). I asked why, cause I thought LG was junk however, he says it allows you to stream you tube, netflix and music and pictures from computer over to TV and it has a nice picture.

That LG answer also fit into the price range you put up.

PM me if you want to talk to him.

Nothing wrong with LG that we've seen from our 37 LH40 and LG 5.1 Blu-ray surround system. My only complaint is that we couldn't get a bigger one because of the entertainment center (and DW wouldn't let me replace it to make more room! ).

 

[alamode]

For the small size (I know a 40" TV doesn't sound small, it's all relative), I don't think you would notice the difference between the 60 and 120 to be worth the price difference. Once you get to 50" and above, that's where the change would become apparent.

 

[Disney Daniel]

Thanks very much for the replies everyone, the advice was much appreciated.

Happy Holidays!

 

[yevrus]

For the small size (I know a 40" TV doesn't sound small, it's all relative), I don't think you would notice the difference between the 60 and 120 to be worth the price difference. Once you get to 50" and above, that's where the change would become apparent.

Same holds true between 720p and 1080p resolutions. You won't notice the difference. That's why it's preferable to opt for a 720p plasma in that size range because that savings can be quite substantial. For example, the Panasonic VIERA TC-P42X1 42" Plasma TV which is only 720p has a very high LCD TV ratings of 86 but is only priced at 595 bucks.

 

[bicker]

Same holds true between 720p and 1080p resolutions. You won't notice the difference.

As long as you are sitting within seven feet of the 40" HDTV.

http://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/9/96/htf_imgcache_27455.gif

 

[shortbun]

Samsung makes Best Buy's Insignia brand. I like them and they are less expensive.

 

[bicker]

Best Buy actually contracts different manufacturers to produce the different products sold under this name. Even narrowing the scope down to televisions, some might be produced by one company, others by a different company.

FWIR, more Insignia televisions are made by LG than by any other manufacturer.

 

[N.Bailey]

Samsung makes Best Buy's Insignia brand. I like them and they are less expensive.

Are you sure? We were talking to a salesman and he said it was LG. I could be mistaken in that we may have been talking about a different brand name than Insignia.

 

[N.Bailey]

Best Buy actually contracts different manufacturers to produce the different products sold under this name. Even narrowing the scope down to televisions, some might be produced by one company, others by a different company.

FWIR, more Insignia televisions are made by LG than by any other manufacturer.

I guess I should have kept reading.

 

[tazdev3225]

I just saw this thread and have 2 questions that hopefully somebody can answer. My DH and I just redid our downstairs and the final thing we want to do is upgrade to a flatscreen TV. He wants to get a Vizio which looks like a decent model in the stores but I have never heard of most of the brands out there other than Sony and Samsung. Anybody know anything about Vizio in general. He also thinks bigger is better I don't want 60" in a room where the maximum viewing distance is less than 15 feet. I am leaning towards a 32" maybe a 36" TV. As I stated the maximum viewing distance is 15 feet will either of these sizes work? We have already agreed on the surround sound and DVD upgrade, they were easy compared to the TV. Thanks.