Can you say... Bravia?

[videoholic]

I saw the other day on a show on HDNet a speaker system built for Plasma/LCDs that hangs below the screen.  It has 30 some odd speakers in it that are capable of creating a surround sound environment.  (Sound is freaky)

Other than that, I dunno what TVs would have sound processors in them.  There really is no reason.  They may have a loop through, but why would they increase the cost of the TV a couple hundred bucks when anyone who wants a surround sound system would just have a stereo.

HDMI is great.  More and more receivers are incorporating this input into their system.  So much cleaner than 4 cables with RGB and Optical.

Ryu,

I know the TV has an Optical Out/In setup, but does the TV have a coax output as well?  If that\'s the case, I bought both a Coax and a Optical cable, not knowing which one to use.  If it boiled down to it, which offers better in terms of sound?

Cause I\'m going to keep one and return the other.  Any suggestions?

[videoholic]

Coax for audio wouldn\'t go to the tv, it would go to the stereo.  I can\'t tell the difference on my system between coax and optical.

TV would not have a coax audio out.

Yah, Coax is usually for one component in your home theatre to the surround sound receiver, typically the dvd player itself.  I tried both the coaxial and the optical on my dvd player and I couldn\'t tell what the difference was -- if there was any difference at all.  With that in mind, I now have my PS2 hooked up via the optical and the DVD player hooked up via the coax and I save on cable switching that way (as there\'s only one optical port on the receiver - not many for many devices that take advantage of it).  It\'s the best of both worlds really.  Convenient and easy.

[§ôµÏG®ïñD]

Originally posted by videoholic
It transmits the same data as toslink.

 
Toslink is far better then Coax on long distances simply because it doesn\'t have rmi/efi interference.  Coax is meant to hold more bandwidth but it\'s unused in AC3 anyway. So i prefer Toslink simply because of the amount of crap in my room.  Generally it\'s pretty hard to notice the difference.  Some people say they can, others not. I can\'t personally. I have my ps2 running via toslink and the pc on coax.

That TV is worth 2100. You could have gotten it new from Circuit city for like 2300 though. Sony makes a non-xbr bravia for 1699 thats 32 inches. The XBR is much brighter is takes cable card, and decodes all form of HD. A truely beautiful LCD.

P.S. Coax is a dying cable. Digital Optical is taking over.

I was lurking around technology shops yesterday and I was able to check this model of Sony with a DVD player. Again, I must say that the quality/price of this kinda tvs is not fair, IMO. I will never pay 2000€ for a TV that shows blurry images.

[Paul2]

I kind of agree that MSRP of $2,700 for 32" TV is kind of pricey.

And for critical viewers like me, LCD still leave much to be desire in the viewing angle and black level.  But for those that aren\'t so pickyy about picture quality, then LCD does looks pretty.  Its just that I still couldn\'t really justified the $2,700 MSRP for 32"...it\'s not 1080p display, just 768p...built in hdtuner and cablecard slot still shouldn\'t make the set cost that much, especially it\'s 2006 already...

Originally posted by Paul2
I kind of agree that MSRP of $2,700 for 32" TV is kind of pricey.

And for critical viewers like me, LCD still leave much to be desire in the viewing angle and black level.  But for those that aren\'t so pickyy about picture quality, then LCD does looks pretty.  Its just that I still couldn\'t really justified the $2,700 MSRP for 32"...it\'s not 1080p display, just 768p...built in hdtuner and cablecard slot still shouldn\'t make the set cost that much, especially it\'s 2006 already...

The XBR model is 1080

I\'m upgrading my system early next week... I\'m so excited, I just can\'t hide it...

The XBR model is 1080

1080i not 1080p.  There\'s a considerable difference.  1080p won\'t even become sought after until HD-DVD or blu-ray becomes the new well-established digital medium standard.  Were looking at something like four years tops.

[videoholic]

Originally posted by Ryu
1080i not 1080p.  There\'s a considerable difference.  1080p won\'t even become sought after until HD-DVD or blu-ray becomes the new well-established digital medium standard.  Were looking at something like four years tops.

You think it will be 4 years till you will want or be able to had an HD DVD?  Seriously?  I\'m guessing you aren\'t buying a PS3.

I said when it is the well-established digital medium standard.  I don\'t see them phasing out dvd\'s right away pretty much the same way dvd didn\'t phase out casettes right away.  It takes time before stores really move over and adopt the medium and when there\'s plenty of titles on the medium to really make a large library.  I don\'t see all the current movies out now hitting blu-ray for quite some time.  Certainly took us an awful long time for us to get Back to the Future, Indiana Jones, Star Wars, and many other great movies we all wanted for a long time on DVD.

How old is the DVD medium currently? I know the players were like 1000 bucks at one point. 97 was it? Little later? Little earlier? It\'s 2006 now. DVD\'s weren\'t the full on accepted medium until 2000 at the earliest.

[videoholic]

DVDs were the fastest adopted electronic appliance in history.

1080p will become the norm.  At CES all th companies now are touting their 1080p screens.  I know the next set I buy will certainly be 1080p.  Although my next set will be front projection anyway.