You could do that and that would mean buying a plasma, but the OP is looking for a TV that is 30" or smaller. I don't believe plasmas are offered in that size. That leaves the choice of an lcd. You buy an lcd television and you're stuck with image processing. The amount of it varies by manufacturer and model, but it's always going to be there. Game mode is a necessary evil when it comes to lcd televisions.
[QUOTE="rastan"]Definitely look for a refurb or used receiver. Anything made for the $150 price point probably will not be any better than your TV's sound.chocobo7000
why would you say that? the speakers are responsible for sound, I doubt the amp would make such a significant difference.
You would be somewhat wrong. The speakers reproduce what the receiver sends to them. A cheaply made receiver paired with cheap speakers will give you very poor audio. A cheaply made receiver paired with quality speakers will sound somewhat better, but you will still be getting subpar audio. Earlier this year I went from a nice Pioneer Elite VSX82 to a Pioneer Elite SC-05. During each receiver's retail life-cycle, they sold for roughly the same price: $1200. The SC-05 is noticeably better than the similarly priced receiver that it replaced. Imagine the difference in sound quality and feature set if you go from a $150 receiver to one that is in the $500 range. You get what you pay for.
lag isn't really an issue anymore with lcds. Granted, lcd's still have some slight motion blur, but nothing that affects gameplay. I have a new 40" Samsung lcd with the game mode and it seems worthless to me. Doesn't improve detail, color, or reduce blurring. From my experience gamemode really is a gimmick so I would say not to let it factor into your decision of which TV to get.
dougpinsak
Game mode doesn't have anything to do with improving detail, color, or reducing blur. It has everything to do with eliminating extraneous video processing that causes input lag. On my LN52A650 Samsung turning on game mode is essential for games that require precise timing such as guitar hero and street fighter 4. Other games I can get away with leaving it off.
During the early days of dvd movie studios showed a surprising lack of foresight on a couple of issues. The first was their insistence on cropping widescreen releases to fit 4:3 television sets. They didn't see the point in it when most people didn't have widescreen displays. They argued their stance by saying that people didn't like widescreen releases. Most people thought the letterboxing was actually hiding the picture. The other issue was that when a film was released widescreen it often lacked anamorphic enhancement for widescreen displays. When you watch a non-anamorphic dvd on a widescreen display you get an image that is window-boxed, meaning there are bars on all four sides of the image. Their reasoning for this was the same excuse that most people didn't have widescreen displays. Never-mind the fact that in just a few years the rate of hdtv adoption would rise dramatically.
It was a long, difficult battle for enthusiasts to get the studios to see the need for widescreen releases with anamorphic enhancement. The studios eventually pulled their heads out of their behinds and got it right. Now with Blu-ray we are seeing a lot of the same issues popping up. Uniformed consumers complaining to studios about things like aspect ratios and film grain. For some reason a lot of people thing that just because a movie is in high definition it should fill their screen. Why? Because tv shows and sports programming do? That is a foolish and mistaken assumption. The films are just the same as they were on dvd, they only thing that has changed is the resolution that they are displayed at. We just want the studios to do the best possible job of putting the films we love on disc for us to enjoy. Don't alter aspect ratios, don't obliterate fine detail by scrubbing the image with DNR, and don't short change us by not including a loss-less audio track. Hi-def media on a disc is the best thing that's ever happened to home theater, but if consumers are not further educated, and a close eye kept on what the studios are releasing, then problems will ensue. If that happens we all lose.
There are more than 2 aspect ratios. You would have to make a different shape tv for each of them and that still would not solve the problem of letterboxing. The black bars would just be different sizes, or moved to the sides of the screens. Not a very feasible idea.
Because not all movies are filmed in the same aspect ratio. There's a thing called artistic intent that directors like to use. They have a particular way they want their film to look and the shape of a tv screen does not factor into their decision making process. The image is too small? Get a bigger tv, or better yet invest in a front projector, an anamorphic lens, and a video processor, and masking system so that you never have to look at letterboxing. Most people who love films don't want them to be altered. Cropping a 2.35:1 film destroys the framing and composition of shots, drastically altering the intended look and feel of the film. I'm amazed that after 10+ years of dvd this is still an issue for people.
I wouldn't expect a whole lot out of that Sony. It's a budget entry level receiver and nothing more. I'm not sure what you mean about it working "with" your stereo. It would replace the receiver you are currently using. Using an optical connection is fine for legacy surround formats, but if you want to use the newer lossless formats that blu-ray offers, then you use HDMI. There really is no discussion over which is better, you simply have no choice in the matter.
Log in to comment