HDTV Almanac - Rather Switch than Pay?

Some--perhaps many--of us in NYC have no choice other than Time Warner with their increasing fees every time you turn around and their absolute inability to deliver acceptable customer service when there are service difficulties or--god help us--billing issues!

There are many obstacles to being able to switch from Time Warner to some other provider. TW is the only game in town for many of us. A competing service isn't allowed in because of the city's interference in so many ways.

AND...if you live in an apartment building (and most of us do!), and don't happen to face the Empire State building...well then...you can't switch to a satellite provider. Additionally, many buildings won't allow you to place a dish on the building's exterior outside your window anyway even if you DO happen to face the right direction.

As always, those of us who live here know that this city is behind every curve imaginable while soothing itself with such meaningless slogans as "the world's greatest city," etc.. We "lead" the country in nothing--except perhaps bureaucratic red tape, cost of living, taxes and disintegrating infrastructure.

Certainly NOT in alternative television delivery systems.

Giovanni, I feel your pain. I know that NYC is not very friendly to television consumers, but I guess there are some advantages to living in the city or else there wouldn't be so many people doing it. I do understand that Verizon has started running optical fiber into many apartment buildings, which does provide an option, but given the number of buildings involved, it will be years before the can make much of a dent.

I don't know what the answer is for major urban areas such as New York, but I suspect that some form of broadband will take the place of the phone and cable TV pipes that we rely on now. Whether it will be a WiMax-type wireless solution, or a physical one like the FiOS optical fiber, I don't know. But I suspect that this is where we're headed for getting information into and out of our urban homes.

Alfred

Hi, Alfred,

Thanks for such a swift reply! [It's "Giovanna," not "Giovanni." I'm a girl...but that's okay; everybody does it ]

The fact that so many people still live here really isn't an indication of anything much other than that it takes at least a generation or two for cities to either adapt to changing situations, or just disintegrate. Happened to smaller places like Pittsburgh, etc.. New York has been losing population steadily for at least a decade--actually longer I believe. A collapsing financial industry should hasten the exodus, I imagine. Many more of us WOULD leave, I'm sure. It's just not always that immediately feasible.

However, we're talkin' TV here so...your prediction about broadband/wireless changes would be heartening (though like you I wonder how long it might take for that to be a workable reality) except for, once again: government interference. Do you know how long it took the "outer boroughs" (Queens, Brooklyn, Staten Island) to be fully wired for cable? My friends in "the city" (that's Manhattan) had cable for at the very least 10 years before I did in Queens! We weren't wired until summer, 1989!

I guess my only point is this: I wish I had a viable alternative to Time Warner. But I don't. And most of us don't.

However! I AM in the market for a new TV and am awaiting the new lineups from the majors. Hope there'll be some movement in full local dimming.

Do you think Sharp's announcement of a four-color system might have any impact on the white LED vs. something like Sony's triluminous system? Sony seem to have abandoned that even in their HX900 series projected for summer rollout.

Maybe by the summer, I'll be able to find an XBR8 for around $1,500 (NEW, of course!)

Thanks,

Giovanna

My apologies for mangling your name. As someone who is called by many variants of my first name, I can understand.

I saw the Sharp four-color LCD HDTVs at CES and they were impressive, especially with metalics like gold and brass. But would it have been so stunning if it had not been shown with a typical set next to it? I'm not at all sure. As for white vs. RGB LED backlights, the RGB approach does make it possible to do some correction for ambient light temperatures, but I think the benefits of reduced part count (thus increased reliability and lower assembly costs) for white LEDs will probably win out. And they're making some great strides in the white LED technology. (One company just announced a white LED with 100 lumen per Watt efficiency.)

As for local dimming, the jury is still out for me. I like high contrast and a deep black is the key to a great image. But I have to believe that the local dimming must introduce some sort of visible artifacts, simply because there are image elements that span dimmed and non-dimmed regions. I haven't spent enough time with one of these sets to know if I am able to notice (and be bothered by) these artifacts, which is why I'm not sure if it's a problem or not. But I'm cautious about endorsing it as a solution.

Alfred

Thanks so much, Alfred, for these insights. I really appreciate it.

I was wondering about artifacts too. It seems with every pronounced advance come artifacts.

Sigh...I was going to opt for one of Sharp's LE700 series sets if only because they DO use back as opposed to edge-lighting even though the system is "proprietary," whatever that means in this case. I believe one thing it means is there's no local dimming.

According to sources I've read, electricity usage in the LE700 series is way below the other majors. This is a major consideration for me. (You wouldn't believe my monthly electric bills, but I don't want to turn this conversation back to life in the big city and what it really costs.)

Have seen the LE700s in person and PQ looked excellent, BUT... of course they're running at torch levels in the store. So it's hard to tell if there are any real PQ differences from the set next door.

I would suggest putting a calculater to your suspicions... The difference in savings is marginal for the individual and the main issue at hand is the decrease in power consumption your energy provider sees due to a mass volume power reduction for your local power grid.

Thanks, Richard. I understand what you mean about overall usage as viewed by the electric company.

However, in New York city the reality is that change in the usage of just one appliance can have a startling effect on one's Con Ed bill.

My apartment building was constructed in 1937. It was rewired in the early 1970s, and nothing's been done since. You wouldn't believe my monthly electric charges for a studio apartment (that's New-York-speak for an apartment that doesn't have a separate bedroom: one large living room, small kitchen, small bath, small entrance hall).

Last summer was one of the most remarkably mild in the city's recent history. My Con Ed charges went from $132 to $109 per month--mostly because of far more limited a/c usage than usual.

Not to compare a TV's electricity consumption to that of an a/c, but a TV using over 100 watts less than another (estimates are from Home Theater Magazine's comprehensive listing) could make a big difference in my case. During the baseball season, my TV can be on more than six hours a day.

However, in the end PQ is the most important factor. It's often difficult to judge that because, as I mentioned, everything runs at torch level in the big box stores which is where I can see the sets at all. So...one reads to gather as much information as possible.

Let's see - 100 watts times 6 hours per day times 30 days per month = 18 Kw/hours. Best I can tell Con Ed is charging roughly 8 cents per Kilowatt Hour (worst case).

That's $1.44 per month. Maybe we could take up a collection.......

Hey "akirby," hello...

You live here?

If you DO, and don't think $109 per month is an outrageous monthly electric charge for a studio apartment then there's not much else I can say. (And that's on level billing too, BTW.) I've no doubt that amount will jump back to the vicinity of $132 shortly. I'm planning on it.

Anyway, I DID say PQ is the most important consideration (with reliability right behind). But in my case lowering monthly electric charges ain't to be sneezed at. So taking that into consideration makes sense for me.

Now I'm certainly not asking that a collection be taken up...but what the hey...if you'd like to, I won't stop you!

No, I don't live there. I was only pointing out that it doesn't matter whether you're spending $109/month or $1000/month, the DIFFERENCE between one tv and another is only 100 watts which equals less than $2/month.

Or to look at it another way - going with a TV that consumes 100 watts less than another TV will only save you $2/month. In my world, that would be a non-issue.

Oh, you could well be right. OTH, when my bill DECREASED by $24 per month because of LESS air conditioner usage last summer (because it was the mildest, most comfortable summer we've had here in decades) I was astounded.

Perhaps one can't compare the amount of electricity used by a flat panel TV to that of an air conditioner, but that dollar difference was enough to make me consider the Sharp LE700 series vs. the various Sonys and Toshibas I'd been considering.

It's likely Sharp will discontinue the 700 series whenever they roll out their 2010 lineup so the entire "energy saving" discussion may be moot. Curious to see if their four-color system will be available this year.

Meantime, it looks like Sony has abandoned RGB backlighting even in their announced 2010 flagship HX900 series.

Alfred seems to think white LED will win out with all the majors in the end because of lower production costs and greater parts reliability.

Perhaps one can't compare the amount of electricity used by a flat panel TV to that of an air conditioner

A medium sized window unit uses about 900 watts. A large plasma uses around 350 watts. A large LCD is about 250. And you probably use the air conditioner more than you use the TV in the middle of summer.

Not using the A/C saves you about 7 cents per hour. Buying a LCD instead of a Plasma saves you less than 1 cent per hour.

The math is simple.

A "watt" costs more here than pretty much anywhere else. That's just the way it is. Everything costs more here. By a lot. If you live here, you live with it, and you look at usage for any new electronic item.

However, to conclude this topic: my a/c was not used anywhere NEARLY as much as it usually is...because the summer was so UNusual! To me, a $24 PER MONTH savings is enormous. If it isn't to you, well, I'm happy for you. That $288 annual savings probably will be wiped out this year anyway.

This was mentioned in connection with a more important TV issue: LED backlighting with/without local dimming! Sharp is currently offering sets with some kind of proprietary backlighting that also supposedly uses less electricity per kw hour than the comparables I was looking at. (According the Home Theater Mag's survey, end '09)

One more time: PQ is the primary issue, and more specifically LED backlighting and how that develops...white? RGB? Four-color?

I am looking forward to the 2010 lineups. Thanks.

You have a serious reading comprehension problem. If that's because English is a second language for you then I apologize.

But you said:

According to sources I've read, electricity usage in the LE700 series is way below the other majors. This is a major consideration for me.

What I was trying to point out to you is that if you look at the difference in electricity usage between the most efficient and least efficient Television sets, the difference would only be less than $2/month.

To put it in perspective:

watching a 350 watt TV for 6 hours per day at 8 cents/kilowatt-hour = $5.04 per month.
watching a 250 watt TV for 6 hours per day at 8 cents/kilowatt-hour = $3.60 per month.

You are not going to save $25/month just because you bought an Energy Star rated TV. Capiche?

And as far as a $109 electricity bill being significant - a standard 2000 square foot 3 br house in the South would routinely see $300-$400 monthly electric bills in the summer when the A/C is running 24/7.

aKirby,

I understand perfectly well what you were saying and can do without your condescension.

Simply considering one additional POSSIBLE factor in the purchase of a new TV doesn't make me or anyone else an idiot. If, in the end, that difference is negligible, well...then it's negligible.

I thought I was being polite enough to warrant a pleasant conversation, and believe I even stated in my original response to you--and then repeatedly--that you might well be correct. Perhaps you missed that.

I think my English in these e-mails should indicate that it isn't my "second" language.

BTW, the spelling is "capice," (pronounced "ka-pee-chay") not "capiche." "Capeesh" is a mangled, illiterate anglicization of the verb form in question.

The "ch" sound in Italian results in the "k" sound in English. But I realize it isn't your "second" language.

"Basta!" That means "enough!"

Forgive my attempt at Italian - I took French in college.

It sounded like you expected to see a huge difference in your monthly electric bill similar to the $24 difference you saw with the air conditioner.
I was trying to point out that if you actually did the math then the difference was more like $2 per month.

I was not trying to tell you what to buy - if you want to buy the most energy efficient tv possible that's perfectly fine. I just did not want you to do it under the mistaken belief that you'd be saving $24 instead of only $2 per month in electricity costs.

If I misinterpreted your replies then I apologize.

akirby,

Most gracious. Forgive my perceived anger.

I was not expecting another steep plunge in monthly charges from just one appliance. However, it's worth considering energy efficiency--or rating or whatever it's variously called--for every new appliance. At least here in New York it is.

BTW, I use a Con Ed plan called "level billing" wherein they bill you the same amount every month. At year's end Con Ed informs the customer what his "actual" charges would have been without level billing. My actual charges in 2009 would be in the area of $245 per month! That's for a studio apartment: 27x18 living room, small bath, non-eat-in kitchen, small entry hall.

I can only imagine (or maybe I can't!) what the monthly charges would be for a 2000 sq. ft. house with three bedrooms here in Queens, New York city!!!

Anyway...it's BACKLIGHTING and the effectiveness thereof that would be my ultimate determinant. And PQ...PQ...PQ!

It's difficult to judge PQ because the big box stores run everything at torch levels. There aren't many options to A/B sets either. If you own a car that would enable you to get to New Jersey or somewhere else outside the city and view sets under more realistic circumstances than is the case at your local Best Buy.

Hence assistance from HDTV Mag, Home Theater Mag, other publications and online sites.

I try to absorb as much as I can understand about technical details. Although the A/V Science Forums can be intimidating, I must say. I think I understand every other word.

I talk to people who know more than I, and to those who've recently bought, etc.

At some point, however, I have to make a decision. I've been dithering for over two years now. Probably should have pulled the trigger on an XBR8.

Perhaps after all the 2010 lines are introduced, I'll finally be able to stop worrying, love the bomb, and be happy.

Well, maybe the latter is asking too much...

Anyway, thank you for your assistance and indulgence.

I just did not want you to do it under the mistaken belief that you'd be saving $24 instead of only $2 per month in electricity costs.

Even THAT is another $24/year. Should my monthly Con Ed charges remain $109 then my annual savings would be $312.

But it's highly unlikely that my charges will not increase in '10. In fact, I'll bet they'll increase.

I'll get back to you in April or May which is when Con Ed automatically and arbitrarily increases the monthly charge based on THEIR estimated assumptions for summer usage! Cute, isn't it?

My advice is to pay less attention to the specs and go by what you see, even if it's torch mode. I compared 52-55" Sony Bravia LCDs side by side in Best Buy. I guess I'm lucky that my local BB (and I hate big box stores) uses subdued ambient lighting in their TV display section. I looked at 60 hz, 120 hz and 240 hz LED sets side by side and I simply could not discern any meaningful differences, so I saved the money and went with the 120 hz non-LED model.

There was a noticeable difference between low end and high end brands, 720p (kinda sorta) vs. 1080p. And LCD is certainly a bit different than plasma but since mine was for casual viewing in the family room I was more concerned about light reflection than absolute PQ so I went with the LCD and couldn't be happier.

Thanks for your opinion.

I have a lot of fairly high-end A/V equipment. While high-end audio has never really been a hobby I could afford, I've always wanted the highest quality I COULD afford.

If I can't afford to own, say, a pair of Martin Logan CLX's or even Spires, I still like reading about them and measuring whatever I CAN afford against that type of product.

Just the way I am.

As an audiophile, I've ALWAYS cared more about what I "heard" than what the spec sheets said. But that doesn't invalidate specs.

However, in audio one CAN A/B components--even bring one's own program content to the store. Can't really do that with TVs. Most of the time you can't get a big box store to show you live programming (say, ESPN live and at-the-moment or a local station live and at-the-moment). They won't turn off whatever DVD they're showing on all the sets. The sets aren't calibrated properly. Ever. However, this last you can correct at home with benchmark DVDs.

Been living with a 720p TV for a couple of years, but the rest of my components are of far better quality than it is. I've a lot of DVDs, etc., and am not a casual viewer.

If I can get everything else I want/need--very importantly connectivity, and backlighting, etc.--then "motion flow" (Sony's name) or "ClearScan" (Tosh's name) would be middlin' on my list. You can always turn that off anyway if it introduces noticeable artifacts, particularly in 1080p/24 material.

Everyone has different criteria. As a non-casual viewer, backlighting is an important consideration for me. 'S why I was asking Alfred his opinion on the Sharp four-color innovation, which he saw at CES, and why his points about white LEDs vs. RGB (or 4-color) were so interesting to me.

However, there's no question that LED backlighting is a "real" advance for LCDs, and local dimming DOES make a very real difference. It's not a "maybe" or simply a cosmetic possibility like "motion flow" might be.

I SAW that difference. At Sony's flagship store here in the city. The XBR8 was startlingly better than everything else there--obviously all Sonys! All the sets were better calibrated than at a PC Richard or a Best Buy. The XBR8 was also a small fortune.

So, 2010 lineups will be interesting. Or, failing that (which I doubt) I may even seek out an XBR8. Maybe I can find one at a reasonable price.

Wow - an audiophile AND a videophile? And female to boot? Somebody call National Geographic - I think we've discovered an endangered species!

I'm very demanding up to a point, but that point is a lot lower. I'm just fine with $1200 LCDs, mid-line Denon receivers and mid-line PSB speakers.

I have an audiophile friend who came over to see my home theater. He said it would sound a lot better if I got rid of that stupid TV and middle channel speaker - it was ruining the stereo sound field. Then again he spends more on speaker wire than I spent for my Sony Bravia TV.

Wow - an audiophile AND a videophile? And female to boot? Somebody call National Geographic - I think we've discovered an endangered species!

<LOL> I've heard that a lot! Especially back in the '70s and '80s. When in a high-end store (we hardly have any more of those in the city), I could NOT be relied upon to measure the "WAF" of various components! (WAF="wife acceptance factor"). I have been a record collector all my life too, which is obviously why I "got into" audio. LPs and CDs have practically moved me out of this small apartment, I've so many.

However, I wouldn't say I'm a videophile on the same level. Video's more complicated in several ways than audio. Or maybe I'm just old and can't learn as quickly as I used to! That's likely.

Your friend sounds like a lot of the audiophiles (guys) I'd encounter back in the day. They'd talk ONLY about specs and the audio equivalent of the...what did he call it?...video "sound field?" That's all interesting to me, could even wind up being important, BUT...I'd always finally have to ask those guys: Do you actually listen to MUSIC? Or only to equipment?...

A very good friend of mine who was an equipment rep--and before that the best salesman I've ever seen in action--always would FIRST ask a customer: a) What do you want to spend, and b) What are your listening preferences? IOW, he'd find out what his customer wanted (or thought he wanted) and go from there. He would NOT tell a customer looking at, say, $600 or $700/pair speakers that he needs to buy the Martin Logans I mentioned ($21,000 to $25,000/pair) and throw out his Denon amp because it's not good enough and probably couldn't drive them anyway!

I admit I do have Cardas cables pretty much everywhere...speaker wire and interconnects, but entry-level. I have to implement them one by one because even his entry-level line is actually more than I can really afford.

Originally (this was years ago), I didn't believe the hype about cables. It was the first and only time that friend I mentioned and I nearly came to blows! But after living with my Cardas speaker cables for a week or so, I really did hear a difference, particularly after a/b-ing them with the Monster cable I had.

BUUUT!!!...What's important is THE END-USER. There are many factors that go into a purchase. And today one of the BIGGEST issues is: C-O-S-T, and cost measured against the end-user's preferences.

Be thankful that at $0.08/kwh you can be indifferent to relative power consumption inefficiencies as a consideration in your choices. Many of us are paying more than twice that with no end in sight.

It's all relative to one's income. Paying an amount in the hundreds of dollars every month is a hardship in my case.