in Search
Untitled Page

ARCHIVED FORUM -- April 2007 to March 2012
READ ONLY FORUM

This is the first Archived Forum which was active between 17th April 2007 and 1st March February 2012

 

Latest post 07-19-2009 11:09 AM by henrik. 4 replies.
Page 1 of 1 (5 items)
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • 07-18-2009 3:35 PM

    • henrik
    • Top 200 Contributor
    • Joined on 04-16-2007
    • Stockholm, Sweden
    • Posts 299
    • Founder

    LX/MX 33xx software - is it worth upgrading from 1.0 to 1.1 (or later?)?

    Hi all,

    I finally managed to find a rosewood LX6000 in great condition to replace my LS4500! I'm really satisfied, the pq is stunning (for an SD crt, that is), if one doesn't mind the 50Hz flickering (and I don't, I prefer that to strang 100 Hz processing artifacts). I was actually surprised by the picture quality, most other 28" LXs I've seen have been wors than my trusty old 25" LS, but this one really was a lot better. I guess it has really low mileage, but since it is a 33xx model, I can't verify that.

    The only disappointment is that the RGB inputs are as bad as on the ls/lx 4500/5500 - even the composite input delivers better pq, what a shame! so I've connected my Humax PVR cable receiver to the s-video input instead, much much better result than via the rgb input! I just wish it hade more s-video inputs, as I'd also like to connect a mac mini via s-video.

    And now to my question: :-) I noticed that my LX6000 has older s/w than my MX4000 (also a 33xx unity mk II model) - s/w 1.0 vs 1.1. What are the differences, and are there even later s/w versions for these tvs? Anyone who knows?

    Henrik

  • 07-18-2009 4:16 PM In reply to

    Re: LX/MX 33xx software - is it worth upgrading from 1.0 to 1.1 (or later?)?

    S/W 1.1 is the latest and offers better handling of decoder boxes - the blurb on it is as follows:

    S/W 1.1

    A new software version 1.1 for 33XX has now been introduced.

    Cause: New handling of NICAM module to avoid fault experiences with Texas IC.
    Expansion of AV1 setup to contain 12V handling of decoder. The extra menu item is "V.TP-1 + DEC".

    S/W 1.1 will be implemented in the production in January '94 as from serial no. 10526815.

  • 07-18-2009 4:24 PM In reply to

    • henrik
    • Top 200 Contributor
    • Joined on 04-16-2007
    • Stockholm, Sweden
    • Posts 299
    • Founder

    Re: LX/MX 33xx software - is it worth upgrading from 1.0 to 1.1 (or later?)?

    Ah, then I won't bother - I only use the NICAM decoder in my mx4000 (which is connected to analogue cable tv instead of digital) and that one already has s/w 1.1, and I don't have any use for that decoder setting in my LX6000. Thanks for yout reply!
  • 07-19-2009 10:27 AM In reply to

    Re: LX/MX 33xx software - is it worth upgrading from 1.0 to 1.1 (or later?)?

    3.x would give you better teletext, but the teletext board would have to be swapped as well. And you would lose two-way remote control! The RGB switching in all of the LX/MX range with two SCARTs is really a crying shame. They used biased diodes for vision switching instead of something slightly more expensive that could've passed even near the full RGB bandwidth. The RGB picture in my 20+ years old MX2000 is immensely sharper than my MX4002!

    -mika

  • 07-19-2009 11:09 AM In reply to

    • henrik
    • Top 200 Contributor
    • Joined on 04-16-2007
    • Stockholm, Sweden
    • Posts 299
    • Founder

    Re: LX/MX 33xx software - is it worth upgrading from 1.0 to 1.1 (or later?)?

    Mm, and I don't want to lose two-way rc (I forgot to mention that, sorry!).

    Yes. it's really a shame! Those of you that still use these old LX/MXs, try connecting your DVD player or set-top box to the s-video input - prepare yourself for a nice surprise! Too bad there is only one s-video input, though. If you can't use s-video, try disabling rgb in your dvd/stb and use composite instead. As most of you know, composite is usually the last option to use, but in these tvs even composite delivers better pq than the rgb inputs (if you can stand the jaginess (is that a word?) of composite, that is). The engineers responsible for this design flaw should be ashamed!

Page 1 of 1 (5 items)