[MacosNerd]

Well the wife and I are about to jump into the 21st century and we're starting to look for a flat screen lcd tv.

I see that Vizio is a popular brand and I should be able to get one very cheaply this friday from costco.

My question for you hi-def experts. How does vizio rate against the more established name brands like samsung, panasonic and sony.

I'm looking at somewhere in the neighborhood of 42" My only concern is at that vizio uses substandard parts to achieve the lower price. I heard that ghosting, color saturation and blackness (or lack of) can be issues with an LCD. Since we're going to plunk down a serious hunk of change I'm trying to gather as much info, and advice from everyone who has one (either a tv or an opinion).

[Mastrap]

We've got a Samsung 42" and couldn't be happier with it. Great picture, clean design, all the features we need.

[MacosNerd]

A friend of mine bought the samsung.

Here's a for instance
the samsung 46" 1080p is currently 2400 bucks at best buy
the vizio 47" 1080p is 1500 at costco. That's a 900 dollar difference.

Why? did vizio cheap out on the parts and if I opt for it, I'd regret it because of cheap craftmanship or that it will fail because of cheap parts in a couple of years.

[zipperzap]

We've got a Samsung 42" and couldn't be happier with it. Great picture, clean design, all the features we need.

Ditto, ditto, ditto!

We like to rent movies and this 1080p has one of the best - no, I think - THE best screen color/clarity/audio that we've seen - and we've seen many - researched many. Anything happen to this TV and we'd replace it with another in a heartbeat!

[residentEvil]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

A friend of mine bought the samsung.

Here's a for instance
the samsung 46" 1080p is currently 2400 bucks at best buy
the vizio 47" 1080p is 1500 at costco. That's a 900 dollar difference.

Why? did vizio cheap out on the parts and if I opt for it, I'd regret it because of cheap craftmanship or that it will fail because of cheap parts in a couple of years.

check all the specs; don't just look at screen size and cost.

[SVass]

Speed affects display of motion (6 milliseconds versus ??)
Blackness
Tuner (QAM for cable?)
number of HDMI input ports
sam

[Steve Bosell]

I went into the store with every intention to buy a Samsung, and came out with a Panasonic. You really have to spend some time in the store comparing them.

[Teronzhul]

I like my Vizio. I have the GV42LF (42 inch 1080p) that I purchased from Sears. It is similar to the VU42L they have at costco, but with detachable speakers and a slightly nicer bezel. The picture isn't quite as nice as the 40" Sony that was sitting next to it for $2500, but I walked out of the store with a display 2" larger for $1050 + tax.

Once you get your tv away from the showroom and you don't have anything to compare it to, all that matters is how satisfied you are with the picture in your home. I think the Vizio produces a fantastic image now that I've got it home, and don't care for a moment that it is not a better known brand.

Vizio also has a 1 year limited warranty, with a Zero bright pixel guarantee for 1 year.

[mduell]

I love my Vizio VU42L... I'm sure it's no Aquos or Bravia, but it looks good to me and it was a bit less than half the price.

[goMac]

I'm a Samsung guy. The Vizio's are cheaper, but they don't have near the quality the Samsungs do. I can even record digital TV in 1080i straight from my Samsung to my computer over Firewire.

[Teronzhul]

Well, I decided I would try to get a couple of shots to show the Vizio off. Turns out my point and shoot cam is worthless for such an exercise. Might as well post what I got anyway.

You're doing yourself a disservice if you don't check out the Sharp Aquos TVs - they look better in many different types of video (high def, standard def, action, sports, etc.)

[dlefebvre]

Another vote for the Sharp Aquos.

I was at the Consumer Electronic Show in Vegas last year, and I have to admit that throughout the dozens of LCD TV brands I saw there (A lot of Asian brands I had never heard of) the Aquos clearly stood out and was by far the best looking LCD there, my co-workers all agreed. Up until that day, I always had a preference for Sony and Sharp was not even an option. I bought a Sony a few months before the CES and I really regretted my purchase, after seeing the Aquos. If I had to buy another LCD TV, I would definitely, without hesitating buy the Aquos.

[Eug]

Also, Toshiba Regza. Excellent bang for the buck. Better image than the Vizios, and some models rival the higher end Aquos line, often for less money.

Sony Bravia XBR is good, but way overpriced.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Also, Toshiba Regza. Excellent bang for the buck. Better image than the Vizios, and some models rival the higher end Aquos line, often for less money.

Sony Bravia XBR is good, but way overpriced.

I got scared off of Regzas when I went shopping for my TV. Some of the Regzas had issues where they would have 1080p panels, but only accept 720p over their inputs.

[MacosNerd]

Thanks guys for all of the input.

I was reading the recommendations over at consumerreports.org and found that the samsung 46" to be one of the highest rated. I'm not ready to a decision but I am seriously leaning towards samsung. I also found it at amazon for 1800 and change. If I see a good deal friday I may jump on it then.

I'm also taking a hard look at sony, and the dark horse in the race is the vizio. The price is hard to beat and for how much we watch tv, it may be a better option to spend less.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I got scared off of Regzas when I went shopping for my TV. Some of the Regzas had issues where they would have 1080p panels, but only accept 720p over their inputs.

? All of the 1080p models accept 1080i and 1080p just fine.

Perhaps there is some issue where the source won't mesh properly with the TV, and thus won't allow a 1080p to be sent. However, if received, the TV will work with it.

[Paco500]

Were it I, I would go ahead and get the Vizio from Costco. Take it home and live with it for a bit. If you are happy, great, if not, you can take it back. Costco has the best return policy ever.

That being said, I returned the 37" Vizio I bought a few years ago has I felt the picture quality was lacking. I replaced it with a Samsung that I have been very happy with.

[MacosNerd]

I'd rather try to make the best decision to buy the best tv for me before I plunk money down.

I agree that costco does have the best return policy but by the same token, a 46" tv is a big honkin tv to unbox, set up, look and if I don't like, take it down, dis-assemble, rebox and lug it back to costco.

I'll buy the local newspaper tomorrow and see what types of black friday sales will occur. I'm in no real rush, I have the benefit of not needing a tv just wanting it, so I have the time to mull things over, and search out a good deal.

[Eug]

Yeah, TVs like the Vizio are fine for my mom, and fine for me as a second TV. Actually, I have a Dell POS as my second... errr... third... TV.

However, I would never want one of these as my primary TV.

[Goldfinger]

Sony's have always had the best SDTV performance IMHO. Don't know if that's still true compared to the latest generation of other non-Sony TVs.
Don't know how important that is for you, but it is for me since HDTV is close to non-existant in Europe.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Eug 

? All of the 1080p models accept 1080i and 1080p just fine.

Perhaps there is some issue where the source won't mesh properly with the TV, and thus won't allow a 1080p to be sent. However, if received, the TV will work with it.

UltimateAVmag.com: Toshiba Goes Coconuts

None of Toshiba's new 1080p sets will accept a 1080p source direct to any input. The only 1920x1080 source they will accept is 1080i.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by goMac 

UltimateAVmag.com: Toshiba Goes Coconuts

None of Toshiba's new 1080p sets will accept a 1080p source direct to any input. The only 1920x1080 source they will accept is 1080i.

You posted an article that is a year and half old.

I don't know if that's accurate, but even if it is, it's irrelevant, because those models have been discontinued for quite some time now.

Even my lowly 720p Regza (which I bought many moons ago) accepts 24p inputs... although on my TV it's rather pointless since it's a 60 Hz TV. Only the higher end Regza TVs support 120 Hz output.

P.S. 24p input support is a complete non-issue for lower priced LCD TVs. Why? Cuz they're basically all 60 Hz TVs anyway, and like I said, 24p input support is pointless on a 60 Hz TV. Unless the original poster is willing to spend $$$$ more to get a 120 Hz TV, 24p support shouldn't even be a consideration.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger 

Sony's have always had the best SDTV performance IMHO. Don't know if that's still true compared to the latest generation of other non-Sony TVs.
Don't know how important that is for you, but it is for me since HDTV is close to non-existant in Europe.

I haven't done direct comparisons lately, but 6 months ago I looked into it a little bit. The Sony Bravia XBR line did indeed set the standard, but several name brand competitors were comparable. What I did notice however is that a lot of the cheap off-brand LCDs had absolutely terrible SDTV performance in comparison, when using an analogue connection. Too bad the XBR line and its competitors all cost so damn much. The good news though is if you use a digital cable box for analogue channels (ie. analogue from cable --> converted to digital in box --> output as digital via HDMI to TV) then the result is often quite acceptable even on a cheap LCD. (It seems to me that a lot of budget LCD TVs really cheap out on the analogue to digital converter.)

The sad part of all of this though is the fact that cheap CRTs easily beat the Sony Bravia XBR line both in analogue SDTV performance and in black levels. They're not even in the same league.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Eug 

You posted an article that is a year and half old.

I don't know if that's accurate, but even if it is, it's irrelevant, because those models have been discontinued for quite some time now.

Well, I was TV shopping about a year ago... So these were the models that were out when I was looking....

It kind of put me off on the whole brand with regards to LCD's. And it is an actual problem, there are a lot of posts across the web with people having this issue.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Well, I was TV shopping about a year ago... So these were the models that were out when I was looking....

It kind of put me off on the whole brand with regards to LCD's. And it is an actual problem, there are a lot of posts across the web with people having this issue.

But how is it an issue? If your source can't output 1080i, then there's a problem with your source.

1080i is the standard. Anyone who releases a 1080 product that can't output 1080i properly should be shot.

EDIT:

I just remembered... The PS3 was such a stupidly designed source. It couldn't output 1080i on certain games, so I could see it being an issue on those games. However, that was a problem with the PS3, not the TV, and I think they may have corrected that now.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Eug 

But how is it an issue? If your source can't output 1080i, then there's a problem with your source.

1080i is the standard. Anyone who releases a product that can't output it properly should be shot.

EDIT:

I just remembered... The PS3 couldn't output 1080i on certain games, so I could see it being an issue on those games. However, that was a problem with the PS3, not the TV, and I think they may have corrected that now.

My issue was it was advertised as a 1080p tv, they charged a 1080p price for it, yet it couldn't actually handle a 1080p source. Given that I was going to be using it as a computer display, I would rather have 1080p than 1080i.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by goMac 

My issue was it was advertised as a 1080p tv, they charged a 1080p price for it, yet it couldn't actually handle a 1080p source. Given that I was going to be using it as a computer display, I would rather have 1080p than 1080i.

All 1920x1080 TVs are 1080p. That's the way the technology works. However, it was quite common for TVs of that era (not just Toshibas) to NOT support 1080p inputs, cuz well... no mainstream broadcast 1080p sources existed (and still don't).

But like I said, it's all moot now, since most higher end TVs support 1080p inputs in 2007...

However, the bigger issue you might want to consider is many TVs are NOT setup to be used a a computer display. If you hook up a computer to a TV, the black levels might be off. Fortunately some TVs now let you use alternate black level settings.

VGA on TVs is setup as IRE 0 usually, so that would work, but the other problem (besides that it's an analogue connection), is that some TVs even today don't let you send a 1920x1080 signal over VGA.

Basically what I'm saying is that TVs are not really built to be computer displays, so if your main problem with a TV is that it doesn't make a good computer display, well that's a small criticism IMO, at least for someone who just wants to use the thing as a TV. For your niche usage you just have to research your options a little harder.

P.S. I've noticed that ironically, a lot of the el cheapo TVs have much better options for computer hookup than the expensive LCD TVs. ie. Back when you were looking, you were better off buying a Dell 37 incher than a Sony XBR that cost several times the price, if you wanted to hook it up to a computer.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Basically what I'm saying is that TVs are not really built to be computer displays, so if your main problem with a TV is that it doesn't make a good computer display, well that's a small criticism IMO, at least for someone who just wants to use the thing as a TV. For your niche usage you just have to research your options a little harder.

P.S. I've noticed that ironically, a lot of the el cheapo TVs have much better options for computer hookup than the expensive LCD TVs. ie. Back when you were looking, you were better off buying a Dell 37 incher than a Sony XBR that cost several times the price, if you wanted to hook it up to a computer.

I certainly don't use it as a computer display very often, but every once in a while when I need a bigger screen to show something I'll plug a DVI->HDMI cable into it. The reason I went with the Samsung is because they promised (and then released) an update to turn off overscan.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I certainly don't use it as a computer display very often, but every once in a while when I need a bigger screen to show something I'll plug a DVI->HDMI cable into it. The reason I went with the Samsung is because they promised (and then released) an update to turn off overscan.

Heh. My main criticism with the Dell is you couldn't turn ON overscan.

So, on certain channels, you'd have extra lines/blips around the edges, because the stations just assumed that all TVs would have overscan.

[olePigeon]

Samsung.

[Lateralus]

LG. Hands down.

[moonmonkey]

not phillips.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by goMac 

My issue was it was advertised as a 1080p tv, they charged a 1080p price for it, yet it couldn't actually handle a 1080p source. Given that I was going to be using it as a computer display, I would rather have 1080p than 1080i.

That's how 99% of 1080p TVs were when they were released. Pretty dumb if you ask me.

And to the OP - Get a Panasonic Plasma. Blows the picture quality of the LCDs out of the water.

[Ratm]

I wouldn't consider anything other than Samsung 81 series. Back-lit OLED. Everything thing else is crap and on its way out.

The proof are in the pix.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=788306

[Eug]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

That's how 99% of 1080p TVs were when they were released. Pretty dumb if you ask me.

Yeah, hence my comments early. Early Toshiba TVs were like that, but it was odd to single out Toshiba Regzas, because those were prior model Toshiba TVs, and most TVs of the same era had the same issue. ie. It was a minority that functioned well as computer displays, and the strange part is that those that did were off-brand models, which unfortunately aren't as good for video content.

However, it may be of note to some of you that even today, some TVs do not have have support for the native resolution as an input. For example, my cheap Regza is a 1366x768 native TV, but won't actually accept 1366x768 as in input. It does accept 1280x720 though, which fortunately looks OK.

But again, this issue is common amongst name brand TVs. It's not limited to Toshibas. And if you're looking at 1080p, new 1080p TVs today will usually accept 1080p60 as an input.

Originally Posted by jokell82

And to the OP - Get a Panasonic Plasma. Blows the picture quality of the LCDs out of the water.

Not necessarily. Yeah, plasmas often have superior contrast and black levels. However, when it came right down to it, for the 42" size I still preferred an LCD, and 42" LCDs are quite inexpensive too. At 50", I recommend plasma generally, since they often have a much better bang for the buck at that size, but even then, some people may prefer LCDs.

Originally Posted by Ratm 

I wouldn't consider anything other than Samsung 81 series. Back-lit OLED. Everything thing else is crap and on its way out.

The proof are in the pix.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=788306

These represent an interesting technology, but they sure ain't cheap. Remember, the OP was asking about a 42" Vizio. BTW, does Samsung even make this TV in the 40" size? All I see are 46" 81s advertised.

I may buy a TV based on this technology in the future though... once the prices come down and after my current TV dies.

However, it may not be a Samsung. Their higher end 40" TVs are often physically wider than 42" TVs from many other manufacturers, cuz they put their speakers on the sides. I custom built a TV armoire with a 43" interior width, which means that many 40" Samsung TVs simply won't fit, even though many 42" LCD TVs do. Not a big problem for most people, but it is a consideration for some like me:

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Not necessarily. Yeah, plasmas often have superior contrast and black levels. However, when it came right down to it, for the 42" size I still preferred an LCD, and 42" LCDs are quite inexpensive too. At 50", I recommend plasma generally, since they often have a much better bang for the buck at that size, but even then, some people may prefer LCDs.

I own a 42" Plasma, and wouldn't consider replacing it with an LCD anytime soon. I guess it's just a matter of personal preference, but I've never seen the image quality oh my plasma replicated by a similar-sized LCD. The blacks always look too grey...

And nice work on the cabinet!

[Eug]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

I own a 42" Plasma, and wouldn't consider replacing it with an LCD anytime soon. I guess it's just a matter of personal preference, but I've never seen the image quality oh my plasma replicated by a similar-sized LCD. The blacks always look too grey...

Yeah, personal preference. In terms of image quality, I agree, LCD's biggest drawback is the black level. I notice the same thing on my 3LCD projector... yet I bought an LCD projector.

I'm coming from a CRT TV, so I definitely understand how much better black levels can be, considering CRTs have superior black levels to not just LCDs, but plasmas as well. However, in the end it came down to bang for the buck, and compromises.

And nice work on the cabinet!

Oh, just to be clear, while I designed the main parts of it (around the dimensions of a 42" TV), somebody else built it. Math is the easy part. Actually building it is the hard part. I had to design it because most of the furniture stores don't have armoires that big, and for some reason it's really, really hard these days to get one in a light colour. They assume everyone has a 37" or smaller TV or wants a dark colour. Plus they're clueless about viewing heights etc. They often want to put the TV on a platform that's 30" or higher. That's OK for some people, but most TV stands are in the 18-26" high range.

BTW, on the right side there you can see a 3rd HDMI cable. That TV is just calling out for a Mac mini. Maybe I'll get one once the Mac mini gets HDCP support... and maybe an HD DVD or Blu-ray drive. goMac would approve I'm sure.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Eug 

BTW, on the right side there you can see a 3rd HDMI cable. That TV is just calling out for a Mac mini. Maybe I'll get one once the Mac mini gets HDCP support... and maybe an HD DVD or Blu-ray drive. goMac would approve I'm sure.

Actually I'm kind of stuck. I too have an HDMI cable on standby, but I can't seem to find a device that meets my requirements. I need to handle at least iTunes audio streaming, which the AppleTV or an actual Mac can do. I would like to watch and record TV, but the only devices that have integrated support for that are Windows Media Center devices (which don't support iTunes files). At least the first component, a Mac Pro, will be on order as soon as the new ones come out. I'll fill that up with storage and begin stock piling my media on there. I've got an XBox 360 working as an extender right now, I might get an AppleTV if Apple ever gets around to upgrading those. I probably could get an EyeTV at that point that automatically sent content into iTunes. The issue is right now I'm on laptops which aren't that great for EyeTV.

I am pretty jealous of the T model Samsungs with their 3 HDMI port thought. Not enough to make me give up my LN-S4096 with CableCard though.

Edit: I'm actually considering adding a voice controlled mini to my car as an alternative project. Maybe write up some stuff so it can look up things on voice command when it has wifi...

[Stratus Fear]

Yeah, personal preference. In terms of image quality, I agree, LCD's biggest drawback is the black level. I notice the same thing on my 3LCD projector... yet I bought an LCD projector.

I'm coming from a CRT TV, so I definitely understand how much better black levels can be, considering CRTs have superior black levels to not just LCDs, but plasmas as well. However, in the end it came down to bang for the buck, and compromises.

This is definitely true, but you have to admit LCDs have made some nice improvements on that recently. Samsung has really done some good work in this area. The LN-TXX65F series TVs are a nice step up from what I saw out last year. I have an LN-T4066F myself (difference from the 65 is merely that the speakers aren't on the sides and it has touch sensitive controls on the unit). Really nice black levels for an LCD. And I know that the 71 and 81 series models look even better. The only real problem I see with LCDs though is even though the black level has increased nicely, you do tend to lose a bit of detail in dark areas of the screen (black crush). I think that's supposed to be a common problem related to the dynamic contrast technology many are using now, but like you said, it's all about compromises and the bang for the buck. Right now I think these Samsung sets are some of the best LCDs (TVs overall, even) on the market for their price (especially if you got a black friday deal! My set was $1150 @ Best Buy on Friday morning).

[olePigeon]

Samsung Develops Thin CRT Television

Thin CRT.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Samsung Develops Thin CRT Television

Thin CRT.

$1000 for a 36" is too much. If they could keep the price well below LCD and Plasma I can see the tech having a chance. But if I can get a 42" plasma for $1000 why would I go with a smaller (albeit thicker) CRT?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

$1000 for a 36" is too much. If they could keep the price well below LCD and Plasma I can see the tech having a chance. But if I can get a 42" plasma for $1000 why would I go with a smaller (albeit thicker) CRT?

Well, the blacks on CRTs blow away the blacks on both plasma on LCD. CRTs generally handle analogue SD way better than LCD and plasma too.

IF the are high rez, and IF the text is crisp, I'd pay MORE for a thin CRT than for an LCD.

However, 35 cm isn't exactly thin. I was hoping for SED to fill this role, but that seems dead.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Well, the blacks on CRTs blow away the blacks on both plasma on LCD. CRTs generally handle analogue SD way better than LCD and plasma too.

IF the are high rez, and IF the text is crisp, I'd pay MORE for a thin CRT than for an LCD.

However, 35 cm isn't exactly thin. I was hoping for SED to fill this role, but that seems dead.

Not to mention that CRTs don't have a "native resolution." It won't look like crap no matter the device you hook up to it (1080, 720, some computer at a wonky resolution.)

[MacosNerd]

Well I pulled the trigger and bought a tv. I did not opt for the 46" tv because our dishwasher decided that it needed to be replaced.

Instead I purchased from Amazon a Samsung 32" tv. The LNT3253H model specifically. I almost went for the LNT3242H which was a 100 bucks cheaper but it seemed the specs were a little better for the 3253 model. overall it was half the cost of the 46" which frees up the money to purchase a dishwasher..

Thanks for all the opinions, advice. While its not the largest tv, I'm pretty happy to get something. My bedroom tv is on its last legs and I needed to replace it withing something. The horizontal hold is now gone and its really hard to watch tv.

[cman8]

I might be mistaking but I thought vizios were made by samsung, with most of the same components, either way if you get a vizio from costco you cant go wrong because they add a 2 year warranty after vizios 1 year ends.

[cman8]

By the way I have had my vizio for more than 2 years now, 37" that looks more like a 40" and I love it. If LT likes it so should you. hahaha.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by cman8 

I might be mistaking but I thought vizios were made by samsung, with most of the same components, either way if you get a vizio from costco you cant go wrong because they add a 2 year warranty after vizios 1 year ends.

Nope, Vizio is a separate company. I don't know whose panels they use, but they certainly aren't Samsung. All you have to do is look at a Vizio next to a Samsung and you can easily tell they aren't the same panel.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Nope, Vizio is a separate company. I don't know whose panels they use, but they certainly aren't Samsung. All you have to do is look at a Vizio next to a Samsung and you can easily tell they aren't the same panel.

My uncle (who installs TVs in his spare time) says that Vizio uses older, surplus Samsung panels (aka, cheaper, lower quality).

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

My uncle (who installs TVs in his spare time) says that Vizio uses older, surplus Samsung panels (aka, cheaper, lower quality).

The majority of their panels are actually LG Philips, not Samsung. And they're not "surplus" models either - they're the standard panels but Vizio puts fewer things in their TVs to keep the prices down.