HDTV Questions (Particularly Sony Grand Wega Rear-Projection LCD vs. XBR)

[sgupta]

Hey all,

I'm going to be living in a new place soon, and so I'm looking into TV's. I've pretty much narrowed it down to Sony. I'm considering 3 models right now (well, 2 mostly, but have questions about a 3rd) and wanted some opinions here.

Right now, my top choice is probably the Grand Wega Rear Projection LCD 50". I'm also considering its smaller brother (the 42").

One area of confusion I have is about XBR vs. these sets. I notice these are NOT XBR models (those only start at 60", which is probably bigger than I need, and they're also significantly more expensive).

So, here are my questions:

1. Aside from size, what are the main differences between the XBR models and the Grand Wega Rear Projection LCD's? I think they use basically the same technology, so is there anything MAJOR I'm missing out on if I go with the latter?

2. How is the sound on these? I'm not a big fan of multi-speaker setups (5.1 for example), but these sets appear to have two nice speakers and a sub along with 3D sound simulation. Work pretty well?

3. I plan to go with a satellite provider (going to ask more about this in a separate post), but unfortunately, to get all the programming I enjoy (such as stuff on the WB), I'm going to have to get local channels from my cable company for the time being. These will most likely be in analog format (I doubt they offer their most limited selection digitally, but will check). I've heard of issues watching analog programming on HDTV's. My question is, will these programs/local channels be close to as watchable on a new HD set (given they are fine on a regular 4:3 CRT TV)?

4. One issue I've heard about with (at least early generation) LCD TV's is that fast action scenes can be almost too fast for the television to keep up. Is this much of a problem with the Sony's?

5. Ditto #4 concerning black levels - pretty good on the Sony?

6. I'm also wondering how the viewing angle is on these sets. Can they be viewed effectively, say, at a 45 degree angle?

I know this is a LOT of questions, so thanks for any answers. =o) I'll add more below if I think of any. LOL.

 

[sgupta]

Oh - one more question.

7. I've heard LCD TV's work best in bright rooms. I do a lot of my TV viewing at night. How do they work at night?

 

[mini1]

1. The XBR's are like the proformance or "tuner" versions of the Sony TV line. I have an XBR HDTV, and see a big imporvement in the technology, connection and overall look of the TV.
2. The sound isn't going to be great. These TV's are made to be video displays, and should be connected to a surround sound system.
3. I can't understand why you don't like surround sound systems? the 2.1 such as the super over priced Bose just doesn't match the sound of a true 5.1.
4. make sure you get at least a 5.1 digital surround system to go with this TV, otherwise your missing 1/2 of the experience, since almost all of the HD programming you will watch includes 5.1 sound.
5. visit www.avsforum.com and click on the section for your TV. Expert advice and help is available for you there, along with great reviews.

 

[sgupta]

Thanks for the response. Appreciate it.

Can you be more specific at all about how the XBR's are better than the other Grand Wegas? Overall look is unimportant (I like the GW's just fine) - I'm more concerned with technology and performance. "Tuner?"

Now, as far as 5.1, those systems do sound impressive. BUT, quite honestly, I don't want to deal with the wires and mess of setting one up. I know I couldn't do it neatly, and I wouldn't know how to position the speakers, etc. (Yes, yes, I know they come with guides, but the logistics still wouldn't be simple). Plus it's added expense, etc. I just don't think it's something I could execute well.

 

[mini1]

If you really can't handle 5.1 then at least get a 2.1, like the Bose. Something that will simulate 5.1 with only 3 wires to connect-it can get any simpler then that. BTW, 5.1 is not that hard to set-up-just read the AVSfourm if need any help, say with were to place the speakers. if you think 5.1 is too hard to set-up then have someone install it for you. I don't know how you plan on setting up an HDTV if you think 5.1 surround is over your head.

 

[sgupta]

Ohhh, it's not the setup that's bad. I have little doubt I could set up a 5.1 system. It's the hiding the wires and making it look neat that bothers me. I'm the type of person who likes a simple and clean look, and I'm not convinced I could accomplish that with 5.1. You're right, I could have a professional do it, but I'd guess that gets expensive. (Now if they ever make good wireless speakers, it might be a possibility.) I may consider 2.1 though. (As I understand it, some of the Sony's have a decent system built in with subwoofer, which would probably be ideal for me.)

In addition, I found another possibility as far as television. A little bigger than I was looking for at 55", but according to Crutchfield (who was very knowledgeable and I wish I could buy from, but they're pretty expensive), the KDF-55XS955 would probably be ideal. A bit smaller than the XBR's, but with pretty much the same technology (and possibly better black levels). I believe it also has a nice speaker system and a sub.

The only thing I'm not sure at this point is if 55" is too big for the room I'm planning on. I'll be pushing it by sitting 7' or less from the TV.

 

[mini1]

"Now if they ever make good wireless speakers, it might be a possibility."
You need to catch up on your electronics! They do make wireless 5.1 systems. the back two speakers are completly wireless, there are now quite a few makers of these systems. What are you going to feed your HDTV with? HD cable, satellite or OTA?

 

[sgupta]

"You need to catch up on your electronics! They do make wireless 5.1 systems."

Oh really? It's been a while since I've looked up speaker systems to be sure. Interesting. I *might* consider going 5.1 in this case, depending on cost of these speakers and how good the sound is I end up with with the stock TV.

"What are you going to feed your HDTV with? HD cable, satellite or OTA?"

Cable doesn't offer HD around here yet (and no immediate plans to), and as far as I know, there aren't any OTA broadcasts either. (I'm sort of out in the boonies.) If I can, I'm going to go satellite (I'm deciding on the provider too - have a thread on this in the HDTV Programming forum in fact). And then probably local channels via analog cable. I wish the choices were better around here.

Thanks for the information. =o)

 

[mini1]

I bet you can get a waiver without any problems, for the national feeds (by satellite) of NBC and CBS HD on DirecTV. Plus the soon to be offered Fox-HD. ABC-HD is rumered not to be far behind. If you live way out in the middle of nowhere, it shouldn't be a problem to obatain a waiver from the nearest broadcaster. hey, you may not even need one at all.

 

[TheTimm]

Right now, my top choice is probably the Grand Wega Rear Projection LCD 50". I'm also considering its smaller brother (the 42").



2. How is the sound on these?

3. My question is, will these programs/local channels be close to as watchable on a new HD set (given they are fine on a regular 4:3 CRT TV)?

4. One issue I've heard about with (at least early generation) LCD TV's is that fast action scenes can be almost too fast for the television to keep up. Is this much of a problem with the Sony's?

5. Ditto #4 concerning black levels - pretty good on the Sony?

6. I'm also wondering how the viewing angle is on these sets. Can they be viewed effectively, say, at a 45 degree angle?

I have a KF-50XBR800 that I got in May of 2003 -- not exactly brand new, but I'll throw in my two cents anyway. Maybe they'll still be relevant to the new Sony models.

2. While the sound on my set can't compare to my 5.1 set-up, I'm actually pretty impressed with the tv's speakers. They're definitely better than you get with the average tv, so if sound isn't of the utmost importance to you, you'll probably be satisfied with the Sony integrated speakers.

3. I don't see why this would be a problem. The OTA analog channels look just as good, if not better, on my LCD as they do on my little non-HD CRT.

4. Haven't had any problem at all with the set not keeping up with fast action.

5. The black levels are probably my least favorite thing about the Sony I have. Most of the time it's not a big deal at all, but it is noticeable when watching a dark movie like Panic Room or Bram Stoker's Dracula. Bright, colorful movies - like, oh, Vertical Limit - look much better on this set than the darker ones do.

6. Viewing angle's very good - 45 degrees is no problem whatsoever.

 

[TheTimm]

7. I've heard LCD TV's work best in bright rooms. I do a lot of my TV viewing at night. How do they work at night?

I think you heard backwards. I find the opposite to be true. It's much better to view my tv in a darker room. I'd say they actually work best at night, or anytime the room is darker. LCD's ain't exactly the brightest tv's in the world, so they view better in the dark in my opinion.

 

[RichardF]

Have you calibrated the contrast and brightness controls using a calibration DVD? With a digital display you don't really have these kinds of controls as they need to be set for maximum dynamic range for the encoding process for the display device. Put another way you set them and then based on the black level you have you typically need to use a bias light to get the iris in your eyes set to the correct black level. If you are using over 5 screen heights it can also reduce viewing fatigue. Most of these are too bright, will not have the correct black level, in a dark room. There is also a mod that calibrators perform to reduce the light output so you will get the correct response in a dark room.

http://www.hdlibrary.com/viewtopic.php?t=41

 

[sgupta]

Thanks for the GREAT replies. Sorry - been a week or so since I've been here, so I just read it now!

Sounds like the only major downside is the black levels, but I hear the new XS's have pretty good back levels and they've made some strides in the last few years.

I have to say I'm really leaning towards the XS right now. It might be different if they still made a 50" XBR, but unfortunately they don't anymore (60" is the smallest).

The XS is 55", but it seems like an upgrade from the WE's with almost the same technology and possibly better black levels than the XBR's. The XBR's do have a few enhancements in them I think, but I don't think it's anything I'd notice. And the XS is at a pretty decent price.

Also, glad to hear I'll be alright with nighttime viewing and analog viewing.

As far as sound systems, I believe the XS now has a very nice sound setup too, though I'm not sure how it compares to the XBR exactly.

Sounds like the only thing left to figure out is this:

In the room I'm planning on putting this, my primary seating position will probably only be 7-8 feet away. Some guides put this as being too close to a set that's 55", while others make it sound like it'll be alright...

Any feedback on this? I don't want to go too small, but I don't want to go too big either. lol.

Thanks again for all the great input!

 

[Mtnmike]

The WF, WE, and XS series are Sony's latest and greatest line-up for model year 2005. XBR series is not! The WE's & WF's are the same except the cosmetics (Example KDF55WF655). WF's have a dark gray border vs a steel gray for the WE's and both are new this fall (10/04). XBR's are replaced with the XS series (10/04). The XS (example KDF60XS655) has one more HDMI output (2 v 1), an upgraded internal sound system (better internal speakers), and a few more picture tweak options than the WE's or WF's. The XS series are about $400 more across the board than the WE/WF's. The guts and tuners of both WE/WF series are the same as XS series and newer than XBR's. So for $400 average across the board you get a couple more bells & whistles in the XS vs the WE or WF series. Picture quality (absolutely outstanding) of WE/WF and XS series are the same!

 

[sgupta]

Really? Very interesting. Crutchfield seemed to indicate different, though they did say the XS was the newest. So should the Sony KDF-50WE655 have the same picture quality as the Sony KDF-55XS955? I was under the impression the latter had a brighter lamp, better visibility, and some other features to make the picture better?

My other question is, if the XS is the newer XBR replacement, why is the XBR in 60" still significantly more expensive than the XS in the same size (60")? (Not doubting what you're saying by the way...just confused. lol).

I never replied to the waiver statement earlier in the thread. I do hope I can get waivers if necessary and pick up the DirecTV local channels! They honestly have HD feeds of both CBS and NBC? When I inquired about this, they seemed to indicate that unless you could receive over-the-air signals, these weren't available in HD as of yet. This is awesome news if so though!

Finally, still wondering if 55" would be too big for a maximum viewing distance of 7-8 feet.

Thanks again for all the help. =o)

 

[Mtnmike]

My error on the XBR. I stand corrected the XS series is not its replacement. The XBR has a few more bells & whistles and is still the top of the SONY line. The lamps in the XS and WE/WF series are both 132W UHP lamps and the brightness is the same.

The owner's manual for the 55XS955 gives the following viewing minimum distances:

6.8 ft for 55XS955
7.0 ft for 60XS955

Sony Series HDTV

 

[TheTimm]

I sit a little closer than 8 ft from my 50". I don't think you'll have any problem at the same distance from a 55" screen.

 

[RichardF]

Finally, still wondering if 55" would be too big for a maximum viewing distance of 7-8 feet

Due to the screen door effect, the ability to see pixel structure, the distance you are considering may be the ticket.

For more info...
http://www.hdlibrary.com/viewtopic.php?t=37

 

[sgupta]

Hmmm. Interesting link - thanks. I suppose it's more one of those things you don't know for sure until you try it and varies person to person.

From everything I'm reading, I *think* 55" would be manageable for me at that distance, but I'll do more research (and of course appreciate any further feedback). Thanks again. =o)

 

[sgupta]

Just as an update, I figured out I actually have a bit more distance than I thought to work with. For example, I failed to take into account measuring from where the head is...not the edge of the chair, etc. I also made some other minor changes and I think I can safely say I can get a fairly easy 9-10' if necessary instead.