3D better on Panasonic's Plasma HDTV than on Samsung's LCD HDTV says Consumer Reports

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

It began in the mid-70's. RCA and Magnavox ruled the television world with "consoles", big television cabinets that often included stereo record players and AM/FM radios. The television quality was actually quite good with these sets - they had connections for rooftop antennas, etc., and the quality of the stereo was also quite good.

The televisions gradually increased in quality for over the air broadcast, and slimmed down in size and weight. As RCA began doing offshore production through their Japan Victor Corporation, some components actually improved, but television picture tubes were still manufactured in the States.

Then came the box stores, replacing J.C. Penney and Woolworths, who were selling lower end units without all the fancy wood cabinetry. Emerson, Phillips, Westinghouse, and hundreds of off-brand names were slapped onto Japanese televisions...along with JVC, and many others. With them came Sony, more expensive, and the early models came with faux-wood cabinets and not much better quality.

Most Japanese sets were small. 13" color televisions were common amongst Japanese imports. Sony, however, almost pretentiously sold 19" televisions; and of course, everyone knew that Japanese products were notoriously inferior to American models.

In the mid-1970's, the top end was RCA, Magavox, and Motorola's Quasar. Curtis Mathes had a reputation for great quality, but they weren't anything special, and were hard to find. Then, around 1977, Sony began releasing their latest, modernistic 27" color set, and everyone went wild. The secret was that their sets ran in what is now contemptuously referred to as "torch mode", but without color bleeding found in other sets with the gain turned up that high. Eventually the phosphors would cook, and there would be a greenish cast to the picture that could never be removed - but on the showroom floor, nothing had the "pop" of the Sony. It became the new standard, especially among sports fans.

It was in 1977 that I purchased a Quasar, after spending a long time comparing the Sony and Quasar models. At that time, the Quasar was $800; the Sony, $900. This was big money, and a big difference, in 1977. I went with the Quasar (a console model, TV only). The reason? Once you got past the "look, the fire truck is really red" showroom intensity settings of the Sony, there was not really any difference in the image. It was clearly a high quality set, no question. But it did not exceed the quality of other top end units at all.

Perhaps Sony's image was enhanced by the fact that they had few models, but all were higher quality than their imported counterparts, and that American television brands had a large product line - with only their top models competing with Sony's quality. This really left the perception that overall, Sony was better, but it's like comparing a Lexus to a Cadillac - and a Chevy Cruze.

Since you were around, think back to that time, you'll remember how it was.

I don't know if all the stuff you mention are right (but they don't seem to deal with PQ so irrelevent), but doing some search on Trinitron I found out Sony got a Tech Emmy for it in 1973 for the Trinitron (supposedly the first for a TV), On the other hand searching RCA and Emmy I found out they got several but none for TV sets.


Also according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitr..._note-shist-13

In comparison to early shadow mask designs, the Trinitron grille cuts off much less of the signal coming from the electron guns. RCA sets built in the 1950s cut off about 85% of the incoming signal, while the grille cuts off about 25%.

Don't get me wrong I don't have an issue with RCA, the first TV I bought (in 87) was an RCA when I left for University and so was my older sisters when she left a few years earlier. But neither was chosen because they where better but because they where cheaper.