|
Thank you, SG. Quite helpful info there!
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Nish,
1. There really isn't any such thing as an LED TV - they are all actually LCD TVs but they use LEDs as the backlight - which allows them to be thinner and generate less heat (and use less power, I think). The actual mechanism of the screen is otherwise identical -it's jsut LED backlight vs a bunch of candles, or whatever the other LCD TVs use. In my experience, the LCDs look maybe brighter and I'm told the contrast is better - but honestly I couldn't tell much of a difference.
2. No. Buy the TV that is right for the size of room and viewing position - remember the bigger the TV the larger the pixels so if you are sitting close to a large TV it can actually look much worse than sitting further away ot looking at a smaller TV. (up to a point, obviously - sitting 1km away from a 1cm screen, by my logic, should look fantastic and, honestly, you'll see no pixellation!)
3. Personal preferences. I have a Sony - picture is good, sound is nice, it's all fine. But the menuing system is horrible - and it's something I regret not playing with before I bought it! It can take me a minute to choose and select the channel I want. I watch most TV through Foxtel now - even thought its' not HD - cuz I can't be arsed with the Sony TV menu.
4. Internet TVs are about as useful as Internet fridges. Internet enabled PVRs - fineand useful. Get a PS3 then you have internet (wireless) BluRay player, music library oh, and games!
___________________________________________
.\\axxx
(That's an 'M')
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Max, that was very useful. It's likely that I may get a 55" TV though, since the wall where it'll be placed next to is going to be rather large (and tall). And the viewing distance is pretty long too.
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: 2) 46, 52 or 55?
Imho, your decision should be based on the intended viewing distance, not price.
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: 3) Samsung vs Sony.
Imho, Samsung beats the pants of both Sony and Sharp.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Ravi Bhavnani wrote:
Imho, Samsung beats the pants of both
Sony and Sharp.
Thanks Ravi. I went to a Best Buy and Sears and I looked at all their TVs for a good while. I agree with you, Samsung did seem the best. Although it may all depend on how they've tuned the TVs.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm very happy with my 2-yr old Samsung 40" LCD. I bought it when my 9 month old Sharp Aquos bit the dust.  The Samsung's picture quality and black level are much better than the Sharp and a friend's Sony.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, my friends who have the Samsung swear by it. So I am 99.99% decided on Samsung now. Thanks again, Ravi.
|
|
|
|
|
4) Internet enabled TVs
Because I do not use cable, an internet enabled TV would be nice so I could use Hulu.com to watch shows I like, but are only available on cable (or some internet outlet). If you would like to sit in your TV chair and check your facebook, twitter, or email, then the internet enabled TV would be nice.
But, if you have cable, TiVo (or something like it), and see no reason to check facebook, twitter, email, etc. from your TV chair, then you don't need the internet enabled TV.
I have my laptop hooked up to my receiver and TV so I do not "need" a TV that is internet enabled. My laptop serves that function for me. And my TV (26 inch) is too small to check email on from my TV chair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, Nish. Mrs. Flynn and I recently went through the process of buying TVs. 
- LED vs. LCD -- refers to the back/side lighting used. Both are LCD screens. LED TVs use LEDs for the back/side lighting (the thin TVs use side lighting) while LCDs use fluorescent light. LEDs tend to produce better contrast ratios than LCDs, though newer LCDs are closing the gap.
- Size depends on how far away you're viewing the picture and how much room you have. Take measurements and see what fits best for your viewing area.
- Samsung and Sony both get good reviews. Sony tends to be a little more expensive than other brands for roughly the same results. You may also want to check out Vizio.
- Internet enabled TVs are mostly used for apps built in to the TV. A number of TVs now have Netflix, Hulu, YouTube and other apps straight from the TV. If you want to use them from your TV and you don't already have a Blu-Ray, Roku, etc. box, it may be worth it. Also, the manufacture could send firmware updates for the TV over it (usually to update said apps).
When we bought our TVs, we went with a pair of 37" Vizio Razor LED[^] TVs (link to product page). We had a 32" and 37" Vizio LCD previously. We couldn't find much in the way of modern TVs with S-Video (used for our media capture cards) connectors, but otherwise, things worked out pretty well. We didn't opt for an Internet capable TV as we already have a PS3 and media computer connected that have access to Hulu, Vudu and Netflix. Both TVs look nice and have great color and contrast. The TVs were $599 each at Costco.
Flynn
|
|
|
|
|
|
1) LCD/LED - LED TVs use a bit less power and the picture seems a bit richer. Judgement call if it is worth the extra money. Plasma is somewhat cheaper and has the best picture by far, but they use more power (almost twice?) and generate a lot more heat.
2) Size - Depends on distance. I have a 55" at a viewing distance of 15 feet and I wouldn't mind a bigger one (that 65" is really pricey though).
3) Brand - My last two have been Samsung and I've been happy with them.
4) Internet - I don't have this on my TV, but I do through a BD player. I don't use it much but it's kind of nice to have available, occasionally watch some Hulu and YouTube on it, Netflix is also available if I subscribe. I don't know about the TV version, but the BD version just has a couple dozen selected sites you can access, it is not a general web browser.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, it's usually Internet Apps and not WebTV-type access.
Flynn
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know it's in the nature of all languages to contain difficult phrasing that's hard to explain but I recently came across the use of "had had". I used it during the day sometime and it puzzled me why and when I mentioned it to my wife she also said she'd used it when writing to a medical case file. Her use described a patient "she had had an injection..."
Why "she had had an..." and not "she had an injection..." Both forms, I think are correct, but how would you try to explain "had had" to someone learning english?
It's almost like words ending in -ough. Through is "-oo", bough is "-ow", thorough is "-urrer", rough is "-uff", cough is "-off", dough is "-o".
To quote: "Beware of beard, a terrible word, it looks like heard, but sounds like weird."
I'm still surprised that english is almost the universally dominant language in the world but gaw'd 'elp those poor souls that try to learn it.
|
|
|
|
|
It's the past perfect of 'to have', isn't it? (long time ago since I had to learn grammar though)
|
|
|
|
|
Yep. And it's possible to have even more "hads" in a sentence.
|
|
|
|
|
Many many years ago I came across the following, the task being to punctuate it correctly:
John where James had had had had had had had had had had had the teachers approval
Eleven hads and yes it DOES make sense. I don't know if there's a way of manipulating a longer string of "had"s but it must be pretty gruesome....!
Answer (scroll down to view
John, where James had had "had" had had "had had". "Had had" had had the teacher's approval.
|
|
|
|
|
I've always thought that the second 'had' refers to some action; in your example, "she had received an injection...". Other words (in other contexts) could be 'gotten', 'experienced', 'undergone', etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Hans - This thread is "English as she is spoke" NOT "American as she is spoke". No such word as "gotten" in English.
Controversial or what  ?
Keith
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, 'gotten' was common English. It emigrated from the Old World to the New World in the days of the early American settlers but dropped out of usage in the Old World. So, perversely, you could say that some parts of American English (or English as the Americans call it) are purer than some parts of British English (or English as everyone else calls it).
|
|
|
|
|
You are of course right in that gotten has dropped out of English usage by the English. However, I do take exception with your definition of the word "pure". Given that English is derived from German, Dutch, French, Latin, Celtic, Indian, Chinese and the languages of just about every other people with whom we have had contact (Including the Americans), English (In all its forms) is about as "pure" as very gritty mud! You never now, we might get around to using gotten again.
Keith
|
|
|
|
|
kstraw wrote: we might get around to using gotten again.
You will. You just haven't gotten around to it yet.
|
|
|
|
|
Touché
Oops French!
Keith
|
|
|
|
|
kstraw wrote: However, I do take exception with your definition of the word "pure"
I didn't say "pure" I said "purer", meaning less impure (albeit only slightly).
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
