# How well does an HD TV work with regular TV channels?



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

I have been reading up on HD TVs and think I'm pretty much clear on all the technical details.
Will probably go for a 27 inch LCD one, but one thing I keep reading in user comments and reviews is that regular TV channels produce a very por picture on the HD sets.
Is that inherent in the technology (like an LCD monitor not being used at it's native resolution) or are some sets better at this than others. 
Anything specific I can watch out for in this regard?
Would perhaps a 42" or 32" provide a better SD picture?
Somehow the LCD pixels at the various screen sizes and SD/HD 'No of lines' specs don't match.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Oh that's an ugly and difficult question.

Depends on source material.

If your set top box has an upconvert.

How good the filters are in the HD set.

Size.

Size generally makes it worse.

CRTs generally do non HD ( and HD for matter ) best.

It IS something to be concerned about.

First get the right size of HD for your space or don't bother. ( HD distance for a 27" is 4.5' )
SD distance double that.

Then look at the reviews on SD capabilities. Toshiba has a good rep in this area but your source has a lot to do with it.

Some SD channels like a good National Geo program are terrific - others like OLN are uniformly awful.

LCDs might smooth out SD - I have no experience with them so I can't comment.
I don't like the blacks for HD.


----------



## Ants (May 6, 2003)

having just made the leap into the HD arena, I am pleasantly surprised how well certain SD programming looks on the 42" Panny. However, not all signals are created equal. Some SD channels look better than others but your settings/viewing distance from the set will also play into this. 

I use a Rogers HD cable box but let the tv do the conversion to it's native format. I found the tv does a slightly better job than the cable box.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That's about my experience too - it's very uneven varying from channel to channel and between programs on the same channel.

You get hooked on the good ones and don't watch the ugly ones.

42 is a good size I feel - still theatre but not overwhelming in a smaller space and decent in a larger space.
I enjoyed my 42 and it still performs well in the family room.

Wii is very cool on it.

Pannies are rock solid.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Oh that's an ugly and difficult question.
> 
> Depends on source material.
> 
> ...


More questions than answers............

The TV is for the house in Montreal.
There is no cable feed in the house - current TV simply uses rabbit ears which gives me a few basic, pretty clear channels.
Plan to go with cable or satellite eventually, as well as DVD and VHS. Don't think I'll hook any of the Mac up to it though.

Size is most likely 37 inches unless I get a super deal on a 42 inch LCD unit on boxing day.

I realize that the picture can only be as good as the signal from the TV station, but the comments I read invariably claim that SD TV is a lot worse on an HD set than with a regular SD set.


----------



## hungryhouse (Feb 2, 2005)

If you get the digital box, the HD channels on a HD tv are sooooooo great. I never thought I'd notice a difference but I was pleasantly mistaken. I just watch the animal channel.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Generally yes and I would not buy an HD set unless you intend to get HD soon.

There are terrific SD deals out there - especially big Sony CRTs that are 

a) hard to move
b) glorious to watch.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> That's about my experience too - it's very uneven varying from channel to channel and between programs on the same channel.
> 
> You get hooked on the good ones and don't watch the ugly ones.


I'd have to agree. It seems to really vary from channel to channel on Rogers. Some of the better channels look as good as DVD quality while others are terrible. I'll sometimes turn to a different station of the same network, just because the picture is better.


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

krs said:


> I realize that the picture can only be as good as the signal from the TV station, but the comments I read invariably claim that SD TV is a lot worse on an HD set than with a regular SD set.


Those opinions are probably skewed somewhat because after watching a HD channel for a while, SD just doesn't look as good. But if you're only watching SD and the TV's processor is fairly decent, you should be happy with the SD performance.

BTW, if you want, you can watch HD stations over-the-air. Check out this thread for information on what stations are available in the Montreal area. Many people are picking up HD stations from Vermont. I'm doing the same in Toronto, and have around 10 HD stations from Buffalo and Toronto, all with a $40 UHF antenna I bought at The Source


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

While I agree with most of the opinions voiced so far, I will add my two cents worth.

I recently bought a 30" Sony Vega HD TV but it is a CRT. It is big and heavy, but the picture quality outweighs the TV.

First let me state that the quality of SD channels improved significantly from my six year old Magnavox 26" that was retired to the basement. So much so that before the installer arrived to replace the dish to give us an HD signal, I thought it was a good as HD.

That changed once I saw the HD when set to 1080i as there is a very noticeable difference in detail. I recently rearranged our room so that three people could watch the TV from three different areas, none farther than 8 feet, slightly outside the recommended viewing distance of 7.5 feet. Experience has taught me that the viewing distance is not nearly so critical as some people would have you believe as moving forward to 6 feet makes not an iota of difference, nor does moving back to 10 feet.

I have no angle viewing issues with the CRT, unlike my neighbour who has an LCD and angles and lighting become major issues.

There is indeed a huge difference between some SD channels, but for the most part 90% of them are very clear. I am convinced this is because I am on ExpressVu satellite which is totally broadcast in digital as well as HD.

A friend bought the identical TV to mine, except it is the 32" model. He subscribes to StarChoice satellite, which in reality is Shaw Cable in disguise. His TV does not perform anywhere near to mine in quality and his reception of SD channels is all over the map. It is very much like our neighbourhood pub who have Shaw Cable, not satellite and run a 32" CRT HD TV. They have the same dismal quality.

I am convinced that ExpressVu is head and shoulders over other providers for both SD and HD quality of signal and picture. That is confirmed by friends who arrive and take one look at the picture and say, "WOW, you've got HD". Most times they say that when the TV is operating on SD and they are completely blown away when I flip it over to a HD channel.

If you don't really need a 42" screen, I would recommend scrapping the LCD idea and get a 32" CRT. It eliminates all lighting and angle viewing issues and provides a far superior SD viewing experience.

Given what I have seen between cable and satellite, satellite wins hands down every time and ExpressVu beats StarChoice all to hell.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Interesting Montreal thread - thanks.

Ome thing I was wondering - people on that thtead are concerned that a high input signal to the TV tuner/converter can "fry" it.
That doesn't make much sense to me. Aren't these inputs capacitor coupled and have some basic protection?
I can see that a 120 volt line voltage at the input could be a problem, but a high level from a pre-amp.
Worst that should happen is that the signal gets distorted.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Thanks for the input SINC.

When I'm in Montreal next, I'll try to decide where the TV is going to go and if a regular CRT unit would work there size wise.


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

krs said:


> Interesting Montreal thread - thanks.
> 
> Ome thing I was wondering - people on that thtead are concerned that a high input signal to the TV tuner/converter can "fry" it.
> That doesn't make much sense to me. Aren't these inputs capacitor coupled and have some basic protection?
> ...


I read on that site on another thread that the "frying" thing is a myth. I have the antenna connected directly to the TV's RF input (co-ax) and it works perfectly. It would have to a lot of power going into the RF to fry the tuner. Maybe if the antenna got hit by lightning, but mine is an indoor antenna so I'm not worried about that. Even with the small on-board amp turned on, I don't think the power would be enough to do any damage.

There is a whole section on that forum about OTA setups. Check it for more info than I can give you.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

SD on my LG HD LCD is bearable, it's no worse than watching SD signals on a TV Tuner or 320x240 video full screen on your Mac's LCD. It's a teething pain we'll just have to deal with for awhile. Otherwise I just don't notice it much.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sinc has an ideal feed into an ideal small room set up for SD. CRTs rule both environments and satellite SD is superior to most cable SD.

Satellite receivers do the the best job on SD and I'll bet somewhere in the link is an upconvert in the Sat dish or the TV.

CRT and hopefully soon SED really do offer the best picture BUT ....big and heavy.

•••

KRS - do check the craigslist - some people are selling terrific Sony CRTs for very little.


----------

