There are a wide variety of Mitsubishi HDTV's. The one I own has the better "guts" inside. Some of the ones you might find at BB or Sears, are of lower quality (they aren't allowed to sell Diamond models). I could have bought a plasma when I bought mine, but I wanted something big...and they don't make 65" and 72" plasmas. Like I said, I helped my cousin purchase a plasma and we set it up in my home theater room to compare to mine, and the RPTV had a sharper image. I don't really care enough about the subject to waste anymore time discussing it, I was just giving my well educated opinion as someone that owns a HDTV and has helped many others shop for their own HDTV over the past 3yrs. I'm so geeky about this stuff that I'm a member of a local home theater club that meets each month to watch a movie at another member's house each month. I've seen everything from $2000 setups to $100,000 setups with real theater seating. I'm sorry that you feel I'm blowing smoke, but I've seen pretty much every kind of HDTV there is on the market (in action at someone's home, not on a showroom floor), and the best picture (currently) comes from front and rear DLP projectors.
ok, well thats that i guess. didn't mean to stir up anything, just seemed kinda fan boy-ish towards projection. i have always been told other wise. but what i have, im happy with now.
I would get a LCD over a plasma any day of the week, unless you need to hang it over a couch or something. LCD's offer almost the same thin-factor that a plasma does and the nice and wide viewing angle too.
Not fan-boy at all man. When I designed my system, I could have went with any of the technologies, but went with rear projection because: a) I wanted something huge (plasma's are currently limited to 60", and those are huge money) b) I have a light controlled room, so glare was not a factor. c) My viewing angle for myself and wife would be straight on, so the extra viewing angle of the LCD's and plasma's wouldn't be a benefit d) The set and technology I picked out offered the best priceerformance ratio of anything else on the market. e) It was easily upgradable and easy/cheap to maintain over a long period of time. If I was buying again right now, I'd probably go with a front projection dropped from the ceiling and maybe a 100" screen. The biggest drawback of plasma (and LCD to an extent) is that it can not produce a true-black, which is very important (ie. night scenes, shadows, space movies, etc). Instead of displaying black, the plasma screens display more of a dark gray due to the plasma gas still being electrically charged. LCD's have a bit of this problem as well, but not as bad. Both technologies product motion artifacts (ie. like moving your mouse really fast on your laptop). If you want the closest thing to film quality, then it's projection. Plasma's and LCD's are good if you have a limited size, or alot of light (which most homes have this problem). They are excellent replacements for the typically living room situation, where you have big windows, lots of lights on, etc... but for a true home theater buff looking for the absolute best picture, projection will get you the best image possible.
That's what I have as well, mine is a monitor....for most people, it's actually the better way to go (unless they don't like extra remotes and do not want premium HD channels). I went with a HDTV monitor over a HDTV with a built in tuner because I planned to get a DirecTV HD Receiver when I bought my setup. It would have been a waste of money to get the built in tuner since I was getting one for DirecTV anyway and it does the OTA channels just fine. I guess if you can't get HD cable in your area, and have no plans to get DirecTV, then it's a toss up...either get the HD tuner built in, or pay $300-500 and get an external HD tuner. Either way, you really need it to see what your HDTV is capable of. Of course, if there are no local digital channels in your area (ie. rural areas) then it's an easy choice (HD monitor, since the only way you'll get HDTV is through cable or satelite).
good answer, one more thing. if you have cable, and you split you signal, mine is split 3 ways, do you really lose that much picture quality compared to no splits and one direct line.
3 splits shouldn't be a problem at all. I have 6 TV's, 3 VCR's, 2 PVR's plus my PC using the cable (internet) and I don't have any problems with a weak signal anywhere. Of course, your mileage may vary...depending on your cable co.
Your question is a loaded question! You need both good sound and a clear picture. You have to have the visual to see everything going on, but the sound will then bring it to life. Got to have both to have the ultimate experience.
thast what i said, but i think they want you to pick just one, and are asking which one would you buy first.
Right now, i have to vote for sound...Just because i have DD5.1 and DTS 5.1 with a KICK ASS sub...Acoustic Research Powered sub. 300 watts of sheer POWER.....=P~
great sound is just great when you have a great system. but is sucks when you have a movie or a game that doesn't really utilize it as much as they should. i think ghost recon had the best use of 5.1 dd sound in any game. there was no music, just ambient sound that would get you more excited than any sound track every put together!
Right, that was the point I was trying to make earlier. You can skimp with an average DD5.1 system and spend most of your dough on a higher end TV (which you'll notice a big difference over an average TV). If you do it the other way around, and sink a bunch of money in a higher end DD5.1 system, you might not really appreciate it as much as investing more in the picture since it's harder to tell the differences between a $1000 DD5.1 system and a $4000 DD5.1 system.
