Not impressed with HD TV

My surge ran $700.00 and handles the whole system. Clean and stable power is much easier on electronics and it leave less artifacts for you screen resolution but what it does for the noise floor of the system is worth it!

strollin said:

These latest posts are really supporting my idea that HD TV is not worth the hoopla. People insist you have to have good source material, use good cables, calibrate TV, check distance & ambient light as well as have an expensive sound system. Just to watch TV? You have to be kidding me. I never had to worry about ANY of that stuff with SD.

HDTV not worth the hoopla??? i disagree. For myself and many of those that I know who have jumped onto HDTV...we are sorely disappointed anytime we have to watch anything on standard definition. Just ask anybody with an HDTV if they would go to a Super Bowl party if the friend didn't have an HDTV.

While you do need good source material....that's easy. My cable TV provider offers a wide range of HDTV channels and they look fantastic. My BluRay players in both my living room and my bedroom provide a great signal. And in my bedroom where I don't have an HDTV cable box, I just tune in the HDTV channels that my QAM tuner picks up from the cable tv. It's only the major network (CBS, NBC, FOX, ABC, etc)...but they look great.

Controlling ambient light is not new to HDTV...it's been there forever. Ever have glare from the sun coming in your windows on a standard TV? That's what window shades, blinds and the like are for.

Having decent cables just makes sense. I had decent cables when I had SDTV. But that doesn't mean that I spent tons of money on them. I wouldn't say that my cabling expenses have increased much over the years at all. I find it just as easy to get cabling for my equipment today as I did my equipment from 15 years ago.

The sound system is not required for HDTV. But for somebody like me who watches a ton of movies, it makes the experience MUCH better. When watching a movie like U571...with standard TV speakers you just don't experience the same suspense that you get with a proper home theater system when the sub is 200 meters deep and creaking and groaning and ready to implode on itself. I had a proper home theater system long before I had an HDTV and I wouldn't have it any other way.

I'm not sure what you are experiencing. I think it boils down to 2 things
#1). something is wrong with your configuration and you don't see the difference in HDTV. Do you have any friends who have it and can switch back and forth between SD and HD..so you can see what other people see? If you do and you don't feel the difference is worth it...please see #2 below.

#2). You simply don't care what the picture looks like. To you, keeping your costs down and simplicity in place is far more important. The story is more important than the audio visual experience. There is nothing wrong with this viewpoint...but it's not universally shared.

My wife is not overly gaga about HDTV either. While she really appreciates the fact that we have it and she certainly knows the difference between SDTV and HDTV...she is just as happy laying in bed and watching it on SDTV as she is on sitting in the living room and watching it on HDTV. She would never say that the difference isn't significant...but if she lived by herself on her own...I don't honestly know if she would have it.

pparks1 said:

My wife is not overly gaga about HDTV either. While she really appreciates the fact that we have it and she certainly knows the difference between SDTV and HDTV...she is just as happy laying in bed and watching it on SDTV as she is on sitting in the living room and watching it on HDTV. She would never say that the difference isn't significant...but if she lived by herself on her own...I don't honestly know if she would have it.

My lady friend is about the same. We have Dish Network which gives you the same channel in both SD and HD. Half the time when I come home she has a movie on and it is in SD. I just can't stand it. Aside from the picture not covering the screen (my manual says that can be harmful to the TV), I just can't stand to see the SD. I ask her to change it to HD. == The channel she is watching is usually "Lifetime". Every movie on there is the same anyway. -- Man cheats on wife. Wife finds out. Wife gets even.

bigmck said:

(my manual says that can be harmful to the TV),

If it's a plasma, it potentially can be. Any static image displayed for prolonged lengths of time can cause image retention, or worse cause permanent burn in.

If there are both SD and HD channels, I will watch the HD channel as it is a somewhat better picture but I am also perfectly content to watch the channels that are SD only such as TV Land or Encore Westerns. I watch TV mostly in the bedroom (my 4 kids dominate the HDTV in the family room) which is SD and it doesn't bother me in the least.

I've always identified strongly with the little boy in the story of "The Emperor's New Clothes" who says, "But the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes!"

Hopefully nobody took the example about my wife as a statement that women aren't savvy enough to know or care about the difference. That is clearly not what I meant. I was just sharing an example of somebody who sees the difference...but just doesn't care enough to make it a priority.

pparks1 said:

Hopefully nobody took the example about my wife as a statement that women aren't savvy enough to know or care about the difference. That is clearly not what I meant. I was just sharing an example of somebody who sees the difference...but just doesn't care enough to make it a priority.

No need to clarify. Everyone knows that there are no Male Chauvinist Pigs on this forum.

Actually it's is often the reverse. With audio it is actually women with much greater sound acuity. Vision is another matter as that is one of personal sight issues and certainly with TV it's one of diminished return.