I need some advice about flat panels, 355f appears to know his stuff, and I thought the rest of you guys might benefit from our discourse.

355f,

I've been waiting to purchase two flat panel TVs for some time now, but I keep waiting for some things to be upgraded in the B&O line before pushing the button on a purchase.  I'm gradually getting frustrated with the wait.  You seem to know your stuff about flat panel technology, and I was wondering if you'd take the time to render some advice to me.

I love B&O products, but up until now I've only owned some of their lower end products (Beosound 1s, headphones, some speakers, etc.) as I haven't been able to afford much in the way of their higher-end gear.  Also, I want LCD panels rather than plasma.  My intention is to use my Apple system (including the Apple TV) to beam my music collection and videos that I rent or have on my hard drive to a B&O "system" which primarily consists of a B&O panel, BS3 and some BeoLab 3s.  I already have two sets of new BeoLab 3 speakers that I was planning on using (i.e. one set on each TV).  What I would like (but I'm open to advice) is a BV-7 for the wife and I (we live in the USA so it'd include the BS3), but with an updated Samsung panel in it with LED backlight and the higher flick rate.  For the children, I'd ideally like a larger LCD panel (BV-7 46" / 52" or a Samsung equivalent).  The kids are little and from my perspective, LCD offers the advantage of being more durable as they play video games and leave the TV on for long periods of time.  I'd been thinking that I would most likely add a BS3 to the larger Samsung LCD panel to accomplish this and still use the BeoLab 3s.  I'd also have an Apple TV hooked to that TV.

However, I keep hearing the same mantra from B&O and in this forum:  "B&O won't make a big LCD panel as the PQ isn't good enough at larger sizes, and the BS3 essentially doesn't do a damn thing for a third party panels like a Samsung LCDs."  Also, I don't hear much in the way of rumors regarding the BV-7 40" III being upgraded to the newer Samsung panels with quicker refresh rate and LED backlights.

I'm gradually coming to the conclusion, that despite my willingness to spend a small fortune on a couple of TVs, B&O is unlikely to make what I want in the foreseeable future.  What are your thoughts in these regards?  Should I be thinking differently?  Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

As an aside, I'm getting rid of cable as I'm tired of having my young kids watch stuff that I don't approve of yet am paying to have piped in to my house.  In it's place, I'll install fiber optic internet and order media content "a la carte" via iTunes.  I've also been diligently working on cataloging hundreds of Looney Tunes cartoons, old Andy Griffith and Lucille Ball episodes, etc. etc. to put on my media server (i.e. iTunes) for the kids to watch.  I've done this using DVDs and the Handbrake software.

Mark 

BeoNut1:

I need some advice about flat panels, 355f appears to know his stuff, and I thought the rest of you guys might benefit from our discourse.

 

355f,

I've been waiting to purchase two flat panel TVs for some time now, but I keep waiting for some things to be upgraded in the B&O line before pushing the button on a purchase.  I'm gradually getting frustrated with the wait.  You seem to know your stuff about flat panel technology, and I was wondering if you'd take the time to render some advice to me.

I love B&O products, but up until now I've only owned some of their lower end products (Beosound 1s, headphones, some speakers, etc.) as I haven't been able to afford much in the way of their higher-end gear.  Also, I want LCD panels rather than plasma.  My intention is to use my Apple system (including the Apple TV) to beam my music collection and videos that I rent or have on my hard drive to a B&O "system" which primarily consists of a B&O panel, BS3 and some BeoLab 3s.  I already have two sets of new BeoLab 3 speakers that I was planning on using (i.e. one set on each TV).  What I would like (but I'm open to advice) is a BV-7 for the wife and I (we live in the USA so it'd include the BS3), but with an updated Samsung panel in it with LED backlight and the higher flick rate.  For the children, I'd ideally like a larger LCD panel (BV-7 46" / 52" or a Samsung equivalent).  The kids are little and from my perspective, LCD offers the advantage of being more durable as they play video games and leave the TV on for long periods of time.  I'd been thinking that I would most likely add a BS3 to the larger Samsung LCD panel to accomplish this and still use the BeoLab 3s.  I'd also have an Apple TV hooked to that TV.

However, I keep hearing the same mantra from B&O and in this forum:  "B&O won't make a big LCD panel as the PQ isn't good enough at larger sizes, and the BS3 essentially doesn't do a damn thing for a third party panels like a Samsung LCDs."  Also, I don't hear much in the way of rumors regarding the BV-7 40" III being upgraded to the newer Samsung panels with quicker refresh rate and LED backlights.

I'm gradually coming to the conclusion, that despite my willingness to spend a small fortune on a couple of TVs, B&O is unlikely to make what I want in the foreseeable future.  What are your thoughts in these regards?  Should I be thinking differently?  Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

As an aside, I'm getting rid of cable as I'm tired of having my young kids watch stuff that I don't approve of yet am paying to have piped in to my house.  In it's place, I'll install fiber optic internet and order media content "a la carte" via iTunes.  I've also been diligently working on cataloging hundreds of Looney Tunes cartoons, old Andy Griffith and Lucille Ball episodes, etc. etc. to put on my media server (i.e. iTunes) for the kids to watch.  I've done this using DVDs and the Handbrake software.

 

Mark 

well first off- the 'updated panels' that give higher contrast ratios achieve the higher values as a result of the whites being brighter rather than blacks being blacker! In the real world i doubt your going to see much difference even if the BV7 had this later panel in it. For picture quality to really improve especially in SD you need real world response times which are not presently available.

With the later panasonic screens and pioneer screen in plasma I would say they were nearly as durable as LCD and they wont cause problems with extended use- after the initial 200 hours run in.

Why is it that that Samsung is placed on a pedestal as being a quality manufacturer? is it because BnO use them!

In technology terms, Sharp presently make the best LCDs and hold the most patents for its manufacture. They are so good that Samsung has stolen some of those and that is the subject of court action now.

It isnt my intention to upset LCD owners and we all have a preference- some prefer LCD- the brighter colours ect.

IMHO if you want picture quality, with correct skintones, depth of image, realistic colours and proper handling of SD material there is only one choice and its plasma all the way. At least with the latest panasonics they will mate to the BS3

This is a topic close to my heart. Myself and 355f have had many discussions around this subject and I must reiterate that plasma is definitely the way to go. Visit a specialist and see for yourself. When you look at an LCD screen next to a plasma screen the difference is easily noticeable in favour of plasma.

I spent a year researching the technologies and eventually bought a BeoVision 7-40 Mark III which is an LCD set as you know. The only reason I bought this was because it was a more practical purchase than buying a BeoVision 5 which is what I wanted but it was out of date and plasma technology at that time did not offer what it does at this time. I chose the route that would give me the best trade in down the line. My problem, and I do see it as a problem, was that I wanted a B&O television. I wasn't prepared to buy a plasma that was not B&O and I won't buy the BeoVision 9 out of principle; it's ridiculous to spend that amount of money on a television no matter how good it might be.

So, now you know how and why I arrived at my decision. I hope this will be of some use to you. I do not regret my purchase; well sometimes I do but I know there really wasn't any other choice for me, but let me give you advance warning that the BV7 does not produce a great picture. I would say its OK and that's it. Think carefully and make sure you make the right decision. If B&O offered the BV7-40 with a plasma screen I would have felt much more happier with my choice. I really can't see why this would be a problem for them and hope it is offered in the near future, at least another plasma option aside from and cheaper than the BV9. If you do end up buying a BV7 then wait at least until the DVD player is Blu-Ray compatable.

All the best.

Simon.

The Beonic Man:

This is a topic close to my heart. Myself and 355f have had many discussions around this subject and I must reiterate that plasma is definitely the way to go. Visit a specialist and see for yourself.

Sorry Simon, I disagree slightly. It depends on the source. Some HD programmes through the BV7-40 MKIII are outstanding and even leave the BV4-50 in the shade. Ok, perhaps not up to the BV9 level, but that's a step up from the BV7-40.

Some HD movies are stunning. Skin tones superb, black levels deep, no artifacts etc.

Where plasma really excels is SD content. However, we don't know where we're going to be in a couple of years time. I spend the majority of my time watching HD (or upscaled SD through HD channels, such as Channel 4 HD) and this content is superb. I'd definitely recommend the BV7-40 MKIII if you're planning on using it with a HD source. I'd definitely go with plasma if you're primarily watching SD or Freeview.

The Beonic Man:

but let me give you advance warning that the BV7 does not produce a great picture. I would say its OK and that's it.

Simon, this is so wrong. Please make sure you advise correctly. With *SD* you receive an 'OK' picture. With upscaled SD, you receive an excellent picture. With programmes filmed in HD (football on Sky Sports HD, films on Sky Movies HD, HD content through BBC HD or Sky One HD), the picture is outstanding.

Hey, I know this isn't the best example, but that Ross Kemp in Afghanistan, which is filmed in HD, is such a stunning image on my BV7-40 MKIII, it's worth watching just to admire the picture.

So, you need to say that the picture can be outstanding, depending on the source material.

moxxey:

The Beonic Man:

This is a topic close to my heart. Myself and 355f have had many discussions around this subject and I must reiterate that plasma is definitely the way to go. Visit a specialist and see for yourself.

Sorry Simon, I disagree slightly. It depends on the source. Some HD programmes through the BV7-40 MKIII are outstanding and even leave the BV4-50 in the shade. Ok, perhaps not up to the BV9 level, but that's a step up from the BV7-40.

Some HD movies are stunning. Skin tones superb, black levels deep, no artifacts etc.

Where plasma really excels is SD content. However, we don't know where we're going to be in a couple of years time. I spend the majority of my time watching HD (or upscaled SD through HD channels, such as Channel 4 HD) and this content is superb. I'd definitely recommend the BV7-40 MKIII if you're planning on using it with a HD source. I'd definitely go with plasma if you're primarily watching SD or Freeview.

The BV4 50 and the BV9 are of course an identical product in performance terms.

355f:

Why is it that that Samsung is placed on a pedestal as being a quality manufacturer? is it because BnO use them!

This was something I also believed to be true. Although I have to admit I am not that impressed with the 32" Samsung LCD we purchased last year for our eldest Son. Connected to a SD source the picture is not that good IMO.

Craig

moxxey:

The Beonic Man:

but let me give you advance warning that the BV7 does not produce a great picture. I would say its OK and that's it.

Simon, this is so wrong. Please make sure you advise correctly. With *SD* you receive an 'OK' picture. With upscaled SD, you receive an excellent picture. With programmes filmed in HD (football on Sky Sports HD, films on Sky Movies HD, HD content through BBC HD or Sky One HD), the picture is outstanding.

Hey, I know this isn't the best example, but that Ross Kemp in Afghanistan, which is filmed in HD, is such a stunning image on my BV7-40 MKIII, it's worth watching just to admire the picture.

So, you need to say that the picture can be outstanding, depending on the source material.

To be fair to you Chris, and to be fair to the TV, you are right with what you say. I have seen HD content from Channel 4 on it and some of the footage is very good I agree. The SD footage is awful. I really think it has a long way to go though and I couldn't advise someone to pay BV7 money for the TV you get because I really don't think its worth it. I know I bought one so I know how this sounds but it was a mistake. I shouldn't have given in just because I wanted B&O, I should have waited until I was 100% happy with what I was buying. The BV7 is simply not good enough in my opinion.

Simon.

Craig:

355f:

Why is it that that Samsung is placed on a pedestal as being a quality manufacturer? is it because BnO use them!

This was something I also believed to be true. Although I have to admit I am not that impressed with the 32" Samsung LCD we purchased last year for our eldest Son. Connected to a SD source the picture is not that good IMO.

 

Craig[:)

i agree with this statement 7-32 not up to the b&o standard picture-wise, i have seen bv4-65 picture was stunning but too big and expensive ,imho plasma is better TV's

People should be wary of knocking the hardware for signal related problems.

I had my cable wiring and junction box replaced/checked when I bought my flatscreen. They measured the signal strength at the various outlets in my apartment and found it far below where it should be. Prior to the reinstallation I had a grainy and at times jittery SD picture - afterwards it was rock solid, and depending upon the channel I would say potentially translucent and 3D (at least that's how it seems now.)

Complaining about what SD signals look like on a full-HD screen is slightly silly, particularly given that most people do not have access to any full-HD signal, and do most of their watching at SD-resolutions.
This is, of course, a hobby horse of mine: HD-ready is as high a resolution as you should go for until we're (1) quite a few more years down the road, and we have regular access to full-HD; (2) the format war gets resolved, or we have ready access to full-HD downloads. The latter are available at 1080i now, in a very few instances.

Customers were misled by the press and salesmen to ask for a picture resolution they don't need, and are now stuck with screens they are unhappy with, due to having to upscale far out of proportion to the signal starting point.

To end on a positive note: do have your cable/satellite signal checked. Often you can do this yourself, by accessing the STB setup menu. If it's borderline, see if you can get it fixed. It was, literally, of huge significance to me -- I even suspect that some of those grumbling about the BV8 image quality have sub-par signals. On mine the images look great - but I did stay at a hotel recently which had BV8s in the rooms with PQ that was totally off, due to bad signals ...
 

The Beonic Man:

To be fair to you Chris, and to be fair to the TV, you are right with what you say. I have seen HD content from Channel 4 on it and some of the footage is very good I agree. The SD footage is awful. I really think it has a long way to go though and I couldn't advise someone to pay BV7 money for the TV you get because I really don't think its worth it. I know I bought one so I know how this sounds but it was a mistake. I shouldn't have given in just because I wanted B&O, I should have waited until I was 100% happy with what I was buying. The BV7 is simply not good enough in my opinion.

Yes, SD-based football is terrible. Mind you, I have a Sony LCD owning friend and we both agreed that the Manchester Utd match on BBC1, on Sunday, was worse on his than the BV7-40. He thought it was 'unwatchable' on his TV and 'poor' on mine. I heard a rumour recently this was due to the BBC reducing their SD bandwidth over Sky.

I definitely agree on the price though - it's not worth the money. Also, if I moved and lost Sky HD, I'd be stuffed and far more disappointed with the PQ.

Simon, take a look at that Ross Kemp in Afghanistan though, if you can, on Sky One HD. My gawd, this is absolutely amazing PQ.

soundproof:

To end on a positive note: do have your cable/satellite signal checked. Often you can do this yourself, by accessing the STB setup menu. If it's borderline, see if you can get it fixed. It was, literally, of huge significance to me -- I even suspect that some of those grumbling about the BV8 image quality have sub-par signals. On mine the images look great - but I did stay at a hotel recently which had BV8s in the rooms with PQ that was totally off, due to bad signals ...

I've got to be honest, my Sky box states that my signal level is 'poor'. However, the HD quality is fantastic, so I wondered if the signal quality may be affecting SD. I might get this looked into. Even a slight knock to the Sky dish can affect the signal.

moxxey:

The Beonic Man:

To be fair to you Chris, and to be fair to the TV, you are right with what you say. I have seen HD content from Channel 4 on it and some of the footage is very good I agree. The SD footage is awful. I really think it has a long way to go though and I couldn't advise someone to pay BV7 money for the TV you get because I really don't think its worth it. I know I bought one so I know how this sounds but it was a mistake. I shouldn't have given in just because I wanted B&O, I should have waited until I was 100% happy with what I was buying. The BV7 is simply not good enough in my opinion.

Yes, SD-based football is terrible. Mind you, I have a Sony LCD owning friend and we both agreed that the Manchester Utd match on BBC1, on Sunday, was worse on his than the BV7-40. He thought it was 'unwatchable' on his TV and 'poor' on mine. I heard a rumour recently this was due to the BBC reducing their SD bandwidth over Sky.

I definitely agree on the price though - it's not worth the money.

Simon, take a look at that Ross Kemp in Afghanistan though, if you can, on Sky One HD. My gawd, this is absolutely amazing PQ.

well the problem there is that Sony cant make a decent LCD  or plasma - which is why they gave up on plasma and should do the same with LCD 

355f:

The BV4 50 and the BV9 are of course an identical product in performance terms.

It's weird 335F. I agree with most of what you say about plasma, but if I take a look at, say, Casino Royale on Blu-ray on my BV7-40 MKIII compared to the BV4-50, the BV4-50 looks like it has more noise reduction. It looks more like how the Blu-ray DVD would appear on the BV7-40 MKII. If I reduce the sharpness on the MKIII, it gives the same effect.

I wonder what the sharpness level is set to on the dealer's BV4-50. I might check this when I next go in, as it's driven by the BS3 and my sharpness is now set to 12.

moxxey:

355f:

The BV4 50 and the BV9 are of course an identical product in performance terms.

It's weird 335F. I agree with most of what you say about plasma, but if I take a look at, say, Casino Royale on Blu-ray on my BV7-40 MKIII compared to the BV4-50, the BV4-50 looks like it has more noise reduction. It looks more like how the Blu-ray DVD would appear on the BV7-40 MKII. If I reduce the sharpness on the MKIII, it gives the same effect.

I wonder what the sharpness level is set to on the dealer's BV4-50. I might check this when I next go in, as it's driven by the BS3 and my sharpness is now set to 12.

I doubt the dealer has changed the settings beyond that set by the factory.

We all see images differently and it could well be, bearing in mind your previous comments that you just prefer LCD and thats fine.

moxxey:

355f:

The BV4 50 and the BV9 are of course an identical product in performance terms.

It's weird 335F. I agree with most of what you say about plasma, but if I take a look at, say, Casino Royale on Blu-ray on my BV7-40 MKIII compared to the BV4-50, the BV4-50 looks like it has more noise reduction. It looks more like how the Blu-ray DVD would appear on the BV7-40 MKII. If I reduce the sharpness on the MKIII, it gives the same effect.

I wonder what the sharpness level is set to on the dealer's BV4-50. I might check this when I next go in, as it's driven by the BS3 and my sharpness is now set to 12.

I would not be confident that sets in dealerships are correctly set up (could even be that they have been temporarily set up for another source, and then they forgot to set it back.) I always check the setup menu before beginning to watch - and have had quite a few surprises in my time. (Though never like the two BL5s that had both been set to left channel, and had been playing left channel "mono" for weeks ...)

355f:

We all see images differently and it could well be, bearing in mind your previous comments that you just prefer LCD and thats fine.

 

We can't complain. A top quality HD image is going to look darned good on a BV7-40 MKIII, BV9 or BV4-50, I guess.

moxxey:

355f:

The BV4 50 and the BV9 are of course an identical product in performance terms.

It's weird 335F. I agree with most of what you say about plasma, but if I take a look at, say, Casino Royale on Blu-ray on my BV7-40 MKIII compared to the BV4-50, the BV4-50 looks like it has more noise reduction. It looks more like how the Blu-ray DVD would appear on the BV7-40 MKII. If I reduce the sharpness on the MKIII, it gives the same effect.

I wonder what the sharpness level is set to on the dealer's BV4-50. I might check this when I next go in, as it's driven by the BS3 and my sharpness is now set to 12.

My associate recently bought a Pioneer Kuro and was delighted with it. To me although the image was superb it was 'larger than life' lots of contrast and colour.

I suggested an indvidual who would calibrate it and the results made the screen produce a very 'filmic' image- to me it was suberb and yet my associate disliked it and wanted the settings returned to normal.

My conclusion is that one 'gets used to' a particular image and anything else seems not to be the norm. In general a plasma set up in this way( as is the bv9/4) the image is smoother with the skin tones perfect and nicely balanced- easy to watch. LCD is the antithesis of this , cartoon reds and yellows are the hallmark of this technlogy it is not like the picture one would see at the cinema- whereas plasma is.