Videophiles prefer plasma TV to LCD, and plasma rates higher than LCD in side-by-side testing. Â In addition, large-sized plasmas are less expensive than comparable LCDs, and their greater refresh rate allows them to produce cleaner 3D images. Â Nonetheless, the days of plasma TV are numbered.
As consultant David Barnes observes, you need look no farther than [...]
Contrary to this report, I have never been impressed with the picture quality of a plasma TV. To me, the picture has always looked flat (no pun intended). The colors didn't seem rich to me and the picture was not crisp in comparison to an LCD TV. And since LED LCD TV's have come into the picture, they look even sharper to me than plasmas. Plus, I've heard that plasmas use more electricity and are more delicate. The only positives I see in a plasma is the better contrast ratio and better price. Other than that, I'm surprised they've stayed around as long as they have. Everyone I know either has an LCD or an LED LCD TV.
Like others I have never been impressed with plasma displays, other than their ability to generate interference to other communication devices. They can't get rid of the plasma display soon enough for me.
I am surprised that readers of this magazine consider the image quality of LCD better than plasma when there have been a number of research material available for years that confirm the opposite in many areas, such as color accuracy, black level and detail, angle of view, motion issues and blurriness, natural imaging (rather than the cartoonist look of LCD), etc.
I agree that LCD is very bright, it is also lighter in lbs, and low in electric consumption, but those are factors that, unless they are crucial for the application, such as needing a bright image for an apartment in the beach, or need an under 42-inches panel and there is no choice of alternate technology, should not be factors to declare that LCD has better image quality than plasma.
I include below some links that could help understand the superiority of plasma and the weakness of LCD in many areas:
Unsuspected consumers may find very easy to get instantly attracted to the torching mode brightness of LCD displayed at Best Buy showrooms when comparing it to a plasma, but when you adjust the settings where they should be to appreciate the panel capabilities to render a correct image quality the torching mode is obviously masking LCD’s limitations, and of course, Best Buy would not do that.
Let me offer a subjective comment on Plasma. I live in a sea of non-technical family and friends who think I am an over the top obsessive nerd.
I have NEVER ever heard a one of them comment on any kind of LCD TV other than they are buying one (think generic anything).
I have NEVER not heard a "Holy Cow" when they see my calibrated Kuro (in a light controlled) room. Their faces somewhat glaze over as they are drawn into the image (think Dexter, Tru Blood...Tron...good images, not the Brady Bunch shows).
I have found I am able to get them to actually hear the words about and see what a quality image is. And bridge them to consider what they are seeing, buying and quality.
Now, am I considering a 90" LCD-LED Sharp? Heck yeah. For Football games, big images-immersive 3D, and overall group fun (and I have a piece of inheritance to blow...). But I still have another Kuro in my bedroom, and probably will not let my livingroom Kuro go to anyone but family, like the midcentury teak furniture the family has, some things are too good to loose.
So in the end, I love plasma, buy cheap LG plasmas for my kids (all three starting to live on their own) and fully expect any and all technologies to die of age and market forces. Long live Plasma - but I can't wait to see a mature OLED, and appreciate a good LCD. All in the proper contexts though.
Speaking to the screens, I am thinking LCD has thin, flexible glass which seems to be resilient to touches, but not hits. Plasma seems to have a very hard surface, with coatings that are delicate, but I am going to guess they break less often. I am not sure of failure rates I guess I'd have to read Consumer Reports info on that.
I would love to see a statistic of Wii controller impacts on the two sets and what the survival rates were. Or even better, get to watch/participate in a shoot out. You know, like Myth Busters, kids and adults launching controllers at screens at high speed and scoring the damage. Safety glasses required.
My dislike for plasma is not the quality of the image, but rather the type of display tends to generate Radio Frequency Interference, or RFI.
OTOH video, like sound is beyond the average persons ability to discern those differences. The affectionate can discern audio and or video quality to a fine degree. I've been a photographer for most of my long life and can discern color, hue, and saturation. I could do so better than my professor at the University, but the human eye is highly adaptable and will soon discern what it's viewing as natural. For example, in target shooting we used to wear either Kalichrome Yellow, or a bright pink to increase contrast. Pink clouds look strange, but and I have to emphasize the but, after a half hour or so, every thing looked normal including white clouds. At that point if you took the glasses off the clouds would be green! You mind had filtered out the pink as it knew the clouds were white so it presented them as white through the pink glasses. It would take it a few seconds to a minute to readjust after taking the glasses off. It's a tiny % who view in darkened rooms which give me eyestrain anyway. Perhaps I should rephrase that and just say, controlled environment viewing.
Like others I have never been impressed with plasma displays... They can't get rid of the plasma display soon enough for me.
I responded to your quote above referring to image quality, not your interference situations. Other than knowing that some plasmas at high altitude generate some buzzing noise, I have not experienced the interference you describe since HDTV was introduced in 1998.
Judging by the picture and color abilities you describe as having I am still surprised you have never been impressed with plasma but rather with LCD, perhaps you may not be analyzing the image using the correct factors of evaluation; reading the links I provided may help.
Regarding your last post, I do not see the relationship of what you describe on that post with the plasma subject.
Under ambient light, or available light if you will, I've just never seen a notable improvement of the plasma display over the LED or LCD. As I don't watch TV under laboratory conditions and even controlled lighting is not an option, all of my comparisons have been, real world. I compare that to the extra weight of the display over LED which can be substantial, the extra power required, and I understand plasma ages. I'm also limited to a maximum of 40-42 inch display. I just don't have a larger place to set up a display unless I redid the basement and put the set where the down stairs fire place is located. Of course removing that fireplace might reduce the heating costs a bit, but the house is already so efficient that the payback for a geothermal set up was 50 years or about twice the life of a typical installation.
As to the radio interference generated by plasma displays, that has been well documented and is fairly wide spread. Not all plasma displays generate the Radio Frequency Interference, but many do. Unless you have a communications receiver close by or a scanner you'd never notice it. It typically sounds like a hiss on the receivers. Hence most hams stay away from plasma displays and if you live near a ham and create interference you are responsible for resolving the issue according to the FCC. There are roughly 3/4 of a million hams US wide so the chances of being close to one are fairly high unless you live out in the boonies which I do, sort or. I live on the edge of a rural subdivision and not counting myself there are 5 ham stations within roughly a mile to mile and a quarter from me. I don't hear any plasma displays at present, but there are a couple of really obnoxious network routers though. The best bet if some one really can see a difference and wants a plasma display is to find a dealer who will let you try before you buy. Best Buy did that with me. They basically told me I could try until I was satisfied. I would assume not all stores follow that policy, but we've done it twice now including having the display properly calibrated for color, hue, and saturation where we view rather than being overwhelmed in the store. OTOH I've never noted the local store adjusting the displays into the "bloom mode". Of course a new manager could take over, or directions from above could change things without prior notice. So there are no guarantees that every one will be treated the same..
Thanks Roger for highlighting your concern with plasma’s RFI issue, which, as you said, is “widely spread” (in Ham radio circles I should add).
The following are some excerpts from November 27, 2002 (eHam.net), the W1RFI poster appeared to be savvy enough with the technology as to be invited for presentations and to speak in conferences, may be you know him:
“These types of devices are unintentional emitters under the rules. Unintentional emitters deliberately generate RF energy, but do not intentionally radiate it. Another example of an unintentional emitter is a computer system.
Part 15 of the FCC's rules set limits on unlicensed emitters of RF energy. Unintentional emitters must meet radiated emissions limits above 30 MHz and conducted emissions limits below 30 MHz. That means that on HF, there is no specific limit on the amount of noise this type of device can radiate.
The manufacturer of the device is required to meet the absolute emissions limits. In the case of a device like this TV, the device must be Verified under the FCC Part 15 rules. This simply means that the manufacturer is required to have tested it for compliance and must have those test results available to the FCC, if an FCC agent asks for them.
This is the sole regulatory responsibility of the manufacturer. The Part 15 rules then stipulate that the operator of the unlicensed device must do so in a way that does not cause harmful interference. In most cases, the operator of the device is in our own household -- where we at least have some control -- or in a neighbor's house. Telling a neighbor that a brand-new TV he just bought at the local electronics emporium is being operated in violation of federal law is a conversation I would not want to have to have with my neighbors.
Even worse, the absolute-maximum emissions limits are extremely high, by amateur radio standards. The limits for intentional emitters on HF -- that can operate in the ham bands if they choose -- are 30 uV/m at 30 meters distance from the source. Translate: S9+15 dB to an 80 meter dipole located 100 feet away. The conducted emissions limits result in approximately the same levels, with the typical efficiency of power-line wiring.
By the time these battles get down to individual cases, the battle may be won, but the war is being lost. ARRL may have put in 500 staff hours dealing with the 3.53 MHz wireless modem jacks, ultimately succeeding in helping to persuade the manufacturer to make design changes, then working with AT&T cable to do a system-wide recall, taking care of 90% of the problem. But the potential in the rules is still there for the next noisy computer, the next new technology and the next widespread threat to HF. “
Roger, as you said, not every plasma panel was guilty as charged, and I am not sure that after 10 years some plasma panels may still radiate unintentional RFI (100% of TV reviews do not do such test/verification), but by the above, it appears to me that a plasma owner would not be responsible (by the FCC as you said) for any RFI it may radiate to any other equipment, Ham radio included, otherwise please share a link to such regulation/owner-responsibility.
It seems you made the LCD choice mainly because the panel size needed to be less than 42 inches, which is the domain of LCD, and because your “real world” image comparisons in a lighted room showed LCD better to your eyes (I only go to the space station to compare TVs so plasma looks better), LCD is very bright and fits well lighted environments; brightness is only one element in image quality, but quite frankly, if the image and view angle also satisfies your quality requirements, look no further, although we all know it differs from 100% of LCD/plasma image quality comparisons done since both technologies were invented.
When it comes to part 15 devices including incidental radiators there is a sticker required on every device that states, should the device cause interference the user must cease operation and should they receive interference they are required to put up with it.
There is no specific signal limit if the device causes interference, but there is a limit to how much the device can radiate to pass qualification.
There are so many devices that can cause RFI we don't have room to list them, but it's seldom that the FCC becomes involved and except in a few circumstances most hams just put up with the interference. OTOH there have been cases where the FCC has actually required uses to cease operation of such innocuous devices such as battery chargers. In reality the FCC really doesn't want to get involved, particularly when you have a large number of devices involved.
In other words, what you are saying is that plasma is among millions of devices that radiate RFI, and Ham operators are affected by all of those millions of devices, and since you are one Ham operator that is one main reason you dislike plasma (and the other devices), even if the image quality of plasma has been compared to be better than LCD by all reports.
My response about the FCC not holding you responsible to solve the problem was based on your first comment:
Hence most hams stay away from plasma displays and if you live near a ham and create interference you are responsible for resolving the issue according to the FCC.
But then you are saying this on your last post:
..should they receive interference they are required to put up with it
There's really nothing to reconcile. One statement is about plasma creating RFI and the other is about them receiving it. In both cases it is the plasma display that is held responsible. Part 15 devices must cease operation if they are creating RFI and they have no recourse if they are receiving interference according to the sticker on all part 15 devices.
However it's not just ham radio. AM broadcast is likely to hear the hash created by "some" plasma displays.
What I asked you to reconcile from your statements is why a plasma owner is still “responsible for resolving the issue of interference” if Ham operators are still “required to put up with it”, like they do with all the other RFI created by many other devices.
I understand a Ham operator may prefer to own LCD to reduce the chances for more RFI, but, if there are devices that a Ham operator can use to clean the interference created by his own plasma or by a neighbor’s plasma, why plasma owners that appreciate a better image quality (than LCD) are still held responsible (in your view) of an RFI issue they cannot resolve, as it happens with many other devices people buy every day, and a Ham operator can from his/her end, regardless of what the labels say?
Rodolfo,
There is no conflict. Both statements reference the TV set, not the Ham station. Here is the part 15 statement that all TVs (and other devices) have :
FCC Compliance Statement
This device complies with part 15 of the FCC Rules. Operation is subject
to the following two conditions:
1. This device may not cause harmful interference, and
2. This device must accept any interference received, including
interference that may cause undesired operation.
FCC WARNING
This equipment has been tested and found to comply with the limits for a
Class B digital device, pursuant to Part 15 of the FCC Rules. These limits
are designed to provide reasonable protection against harmful
interference in a residential installation.
This equipment generates, uses and can radiate radio frequency energy
and, if not installed and used in accordance with the instructions, may
cause harmful interference to radio communications.
However, there is no guarantee that interference will not occur in a
particular installation. If this equipment does cause harmful interference to
radio or television reception, which can be determined by turning the
equipment off and on, the user is encouraged to try to correct the
interference by one or more of the following measures:
• Reorient or relocate the receiving antenna.
• Increase the separation between the equipment and the receiver.
• Connect the equipment into an outlet different from that to which
the receiver is connected.
• Consult the dealer or an experienced radio/TV technician for help.
Note 1 and 2. That is what Roger is referring too.
In my work we have many sensors including Radars, sensitive receivers, two way voice and packet communication over WIFI and Public service bands, High frequency data links (licensed), and imaging devices. We use them for a computer generated situation awareness display. We are vary aware of RFI. Not only do we have issues with part 15 rules, but we also have FCC station licenses.
We have learned almost all displays have RFI issues, but Plasma and CRT are by far the worse and we avoided them at all cost.
There is also an issue with 24/7 operation in which Plasma does poorly compared to LCD but that is another issue.
If you are an owner of a Plasma display and it causes interference to anybody (Hams are most concerned) then if you (the plasma owner and operator) can not eliminate the interference by changing the location, orientation or operation of the set you (the plasma owner and operator) must cease operation of the plasma set.
If the Ham causes interference with the plasma set and he(the Ham operator) is operating within his licensed parameters you (the plasma owner and operator) must accept the interference.
The problem is this becomes an issue between neighbors, and like most such issues even when one is legally correct, you still have to live in the same neighborhood. That is why most Hams will be happy to work with the set owner and operator to find a solution. In area where there are continuous issues with the product (as with ATT Universe devices) then the ARRL will work with the manufacture and FCC to resolve the issue.
My point was that if a Ham radio is also considered as another device that radiates interference, why the “have to put with it” does not apply to the radio itself, but apply only to the plasma in the Ham’s operator view? Or a computer, a modem, a router, a wireless phone, or the thousands of other consumer devices?
According to the text of the Part 15 provided “This device may not cause harmful interference”. What is considered “harmful” and to whom? About harmful to a Ham radio that may also cause “harmful” interference to other far away devices? such it happened to my home theater for about 16 years. I had to listen to radio exchanges in the middle of a movie or while listening Beethoven’s 7th, at high volume, so pleasant indeed.
Would I have felt sympathetic about the objections of a Ham operator regarding plasmas at such time? I guess you know the answer.
Also, according to the same text of the Part 15 provided: “If this equipment does cause harmful interference to radio or television reception, which can be determined by turning the equipment off and on, the user is encouraged to try to correct the interference”.
“Encouraged to try” is far different than “being held responsible and obligated to stop using a plasma”, what about a Ham operator being “obligated to stop” interfering into a home theater?
In other words, it works both ways, and it appears the FCC rules are, as btreth said, “clear as mud”.
I prefer display devices of better picture quality, and unless is under 42-inches, the only panels that get into my house are hi-end plasmas, so I agree 100% with the author of this article, get a plasma while they last.
My point was that if a Ham radio is also considered as another device that radiates interference, why the “have to put with it” does not apply to the radio itself, but apply only to the plasma in the Ham’s operator view? Or a computer, a modem, a router, a wireless phone, or the thousands of other consumer devices?
HINT: Part 15 applies to non licensed use. Your TV (and many other devices such as computers, routers, WIFI, etc) comes under part 15. A licensed station such as Ham radio does not. Licensed operation, as an emitter or as a receiver if operated whiten the license parameters have priority.
If the Ham is operating whiten his license, part 15 says if he interferes with you, your set is wrong. You must accept the interference. If you cause him interference you are wrong and must stop. That is the law. Other licensed activities have the same rights.
I used to have an FM receiver that would receive aircraft transmissions when they flew over my house and used their radio. My receiver was part 15 and had to be modified.
Also, according to the same text of the Part 15 provided: “If this equipment does cause harmful interference to radio or television reception, which can be determined by turning the equipment off and on, the user is encouraged to try to correct the interference”.
“Encouraged to try” is far different than “being held responsible and obligated to stop using a plasma”, what about a Ham operator being “obligated to stop” interfering into a home theater?
The first two parts are the rule, the last parts are suggestions for working with the requirements.
The word MUST as in Must not interfere and Must accept interference are key. These are legal requirements where encouraged is just a legal suggestion.
Properly designed and operated home theater should not be receiving Ham radio. However older equipment, mostly high end and tube was poorly designed with shielding and filtering. The designers thought it would interfere with "good" sound. Most Hams would work with you to try and eliminate the interference. They want to be a good neighbor.
I cannot recall the equipment I had in my HT back then, I keep upgrading and testing new stuff all the time and most probably was a Theta Casablanca II hi-end pre-amp at that time (upgraded now to III HD, over $25,000 MSRP just for the preamp).
It had and still has the best sound quality in the market, and Theta Digital is very picky with using unnecessary filtering, which goes along with what you mentioned related to Hams.
Giving my options, and to be a lawful citizen, I suppose I must consider giving away my Theta and all my plasmas on eBay for peanuts, so the Ham operators, the FCC, and Part 15 are pleased. I will buy LCDs and low-end receivers from now on, as my contribution to solving their mess, and to make Ham operators happy as well. I am starting to feel the goodness of trading high quality audio and video equipment for what others like me to buy.
Okay, so I'll sell my Kuro to satisfy the Hams up the block but maybe they outta take down all those antennas lest they make the neighborhood look cluttered. Is there a legal basis for visual noise pollution?
But if I sell my Kuro, (and more realistically) my question is....should I buy a Panasonic VT50. I do want 3D along with better processing - and would give up a tiny bit of black level if I HAD to.
So Rodolfo, I should rush before the market collapses so I will ask directly rather than wait for a full review. Have you taken a look at a VT50 set, especially a calibrated and do you have any comments?
Selling your Kuro? I hope you are joking; unless you really need THX and 3D.
To respond your questions, I informally tested all the VT30 and VT50 top-of-the-line series for the past 2 years (from 42 to 65 inches), the VTs are the best plasmas right now (I do not think you can get the VT30 line any longer, it was a 2011 model, maybe in eBay).
I also tested the GT30 and GT50 series (all the sizes, one line below VTs), the VTs have better video processing, but the GTs are very close in image quality, still with THX and 3D like the VTs, for at least $1000 less.
After the tests, and before the 50-line hit the market earlier this year, I "had" to buy a GT30 50-inches I did not need, so I gave it to my Son for his bedroom. My wife has the 60" Kuro, she did not need it either, but after I made 5 installations with that beauty (to very satisfied clients) and noticed that the stock was almost empty with the exit of Pioneer, I could not avoid getting one for someone in my home.
The active-shutter 3D on the GT is very pleasant and with sufficiently bright 3D images, I could not detect serious crosstalk, and the THX gives good natural colors on the menu presets. You are always free to pay $400 for 2 input ISF but I frankly think the sets are decent enough as they are as starting point (or forever if $400 hurt you enough, you can always use the Kane's disc for some basics). Panasonic is still on top of its plasma game.
Samsung was a close competitor, the panels are a bit brighter, whiter whites, and still have natural imaging like Panasonic, but beware of the bezel/stand movement, it shakes back and forward when you touch it, Panasonic is firm, but the bezel/stand maybe irrelevant if the panel ends up on the wall. Note that Samsung seems more expensive but note the added features, like more 3D glasses/3D Blu-ray player.
I have two Pioneer Elites, one is a Kuro, and I also have the GT30 from Panasonic, the Kuro is unique but the GT and VT lines of Panasonic are very good looking and they took the place Pioneer had in terms of image quality, they surpass the image quality of the large LCDs, including Sharp's Elite (LCD/LED), specially for angle viewing over 20 degrees, unless you like cartoon-like representations on torch-mode of film based movies, many people do and so I respect the taste, bright sells, not image quality.
Good luck Steve, it hurts selling a Kuro for 3D.
However, if you are not in a hurry and can fork out $8-$10K, which maybe is about what you paid for a Kuro when it was on top, I would wait a few months for the 55" OLED (Samsung's true RGB OLED, not LG's WOLED, which is FPR 3D passive 540p per eye), check a first lab review and do some viewing after toning down the settings to close to ISF levels to get some natural imaging, then, if you like it, sell the Kuro. The OLED technology has the potential to take the Kuro's throne as the best panel image, no matter how many more gimmicks and features LCD/LED may add.
However, if you like the Kuro image quality, imagine a huge plasma that does not exist (other than the $500,000 152 inches of Panny), and try the new Sony 4K projector. It feels like a huge plasma, stunning colors, great natural detail on 8 million pixels, almost Kuro blacks but on huge images (showing also white on the same video frame). I tested it for two months, the projector "refused" to leave my HT, you know that feeling, so I dismounted my other projector and bought the 4K Sony; it is worth every penny and nothing touches the image quality of that projector now (JVC is not a true 4K image).
Rodolfo: I only post every few years but I follow the discussions. I asked you once about the Kuro and was ready to buy one after they released it in a 65" size. That did not happen so i purchased a Panasonic TH-65VX100U. My wife and I love it, but I was always curious how it compares to the Kuro. Do you have any thoughts? That was an interesting dialogue about "Buy a plasma now" thread. I think the LCD's lack depth and look a little artificial.
Rodolfo: I only post every few years but I follow the discussions. I asked you once about the Kuro and was ready to buy one after they released it in a 65" size. That did not happen so i purchased a Panasonic TH-65VX100U. My wife and I love it, but I was always curious how it compares to the Kuro. Do you have any thoughts? That was an interesting dialogue about "Buy a plasma now" thread. I think the LCD's lack depth and look a little artificial.
Rodolfo, thanks for the thorough response. Your input is always appreciated.
I would probably never actually sell my Kuro's...I have 3 daughters, 3 step kids and some best friends. Like grandma's solid wood and teak furniture, until utterly dead it all gets moved within the family as needed. My main seating is a recliner-love seat set about 10' from the present TV so angular views are 50% of the seating. So LCD is not going to be acceptable unless I just assume the other viewers are not going to notice or care - which is typical in a friends and family group.
I have wife approval for a projector, that is what I started planning, then got distracted by the concept of a big Sharp. I have been concerned over lighting - actually more concerned about too dark situation and falling over the dog's toys etc. I also would enjoy having friends over for sports and then worry about too much light, both needed, and leaking in the room. Oh the details to work through!
I am quite patient and will probably wait awhile to move anything around. After all 2 kids are in college and all 3 are moving intermittently, mother-in-law needs a condo, etc. so by the time all that settles down, maybe OLED or a 4k projector will fit the situation. I am spoiled though and can hardly imagine going down in size - now a 90" OLED....hmmmm.
To answer your questions. The Panny plasma is excellent now, but the Kuro was already excellent when the Panny was catching up 3 years ago. Panny now has the 200 Kuro engineers that left Pioneer when they closed, they are in the best position to still improve the image quality, that is, if they can survive the slide produced by the masses buying LCD.
My Kuro/Panny plasmas are not the same size but the ones I tested were; when Kuro left it was 10 on a 1-10 scale and Panny was 8 in image quality (although with some black level issues that were later resolved), now Panny's VT line is 9 while Kuro is still 10.
If you ever saw Kuro's absolute black, a black so inky that seamlessly blended with the black bezel, you may use that as a parameter when you see the Pannys (or anyone else's). That black made all the colors pop, giving depth to all the objects in the image.
Steve,
You have it right, never sell the Kuro, pass it to someone that can take good care of it and appreciate image quality.
As 2010 was the year of 3D's introduction, this is the year of OLED and 4K's introduction.
If you can wait until next year to make your move, I anticipate more 4K projectors than the Sony (and the faux JVC), I also hope TI would do their 4K chip soon to compete with LCoS although I have not heard a word about that, that will bring more projectors on that resolution.
The Sony 4K is 2000 lumens and beats my large venue DLP projector with 2300 lumens regarding how bright the image looks in low lamp and reference level. Sometimes it is so bright that I feel better turning on some lights in the HT, or opening the door. I use a Firehawk Deluxe G3 with 1.3 gain and silver color, it handles well the room light, you should be OK for your application.
I am expecting a testing Stewart wanted to do with a StudioTek 130 sample when I was testing the 4K projector, but the Firehawk shows the 4K detail very well, so you may want to consider the same silver Firehawk for the light on your room.
Your viewers may get their nose to the huge screen and still not see the 4K pixels, although 4K is not just about small pixels, the reality of the image and the detail is outstanding. OLED is expected to be larger than 55-inches and 4K as well, but that will take time, I anticipate LG and Samsung showing some prototypes of that at next CES.
To give you an idea of possible pricing, the 84-inches 4K LCD panel from LG shown at CES this year is now selling for about $22,000 in Korea, it is not in the US yet, so a 4K OLED of that size would be expensive, but relatively speaking, the Sony 4K projector is a great deal for $25,000 MSRP and can give you any screen size. I am using a 130.5" screen for Cinemascope and the image is stunning. Let me know when you are ready and I will be glad to help. Remember you only have one life to enjoy these toys.
Good luck, I am glad you are not getting rid of your Kuro.
Thanks for the explanations btreth. I would expand on the hams side, and operating within their license parameters. They would be at fault if for instance they were operating outside their assigned frequencies. But as you stated, the TV receiver is an unlicensed device while the ham is operating with a license in a licensed service which is often used in public service. Here the county installed ham stations in both the EOC and the mobile EOC which is manned by volunteer hams as you have to have the proper license to operate the equipment.
Most hams try to work with the owners of equipment receiving RFI to determine the source of the interference. Many areas actually have RFI committees that are willing to serve as intermediaries between the ham and the TV or stereo owner.
There is such a thing as the "pin 1 problem" in audio systems. Poorly shielded TV sets close to a transmitter may also be a problem. They may change channels, turn on and off, change volume all on their own. There is actually a cure for most pin 1 problems and an RFI tutorial on line. Just search on " RFI tutorial " by audiosystemsgroup.com
He shows how to build a number of chokes inexpensively that will get rid of the RFI in many audio systems.
One problem with the hi fi systems is the long speaker leads serve as a very good antenna, bringing common mode voltage back into the output transistors or stage (tubes). In the case of bipolar transistors in the output they become the RFI generator whether turned on or not. This can then get into all sorts of equipment. The same is true for the input to outboard amps used in stereo systems. Often the ground for the input is not chassis ground (the pin 1 problem)
so I will ask directly rather than wait for a full review. Have you taken a look at a VT50 set, especially a calibrated and do you have any comments?