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

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

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.

A quick re-read may show I mentioned picture quality several times. Sony was able to build sets that had more intensity, via higher gain, and they were set up in what we now call "torch mode" in stores. Over time, this wound up damaging sets left in that mode - Sony owners from that period will tell you about how they eventually had a green cast to the image, if left that way.

The Trinitron was lionized at the time for its design, with the primary differentiator being that it Sony only made "solid state" sets. By the early 1970's, many manufacturers made sets that were nearly all transistorized, or completely transistorized, but tubes were around for a long, long time.

The big thing was to advertise "solid state" and "instant on", a huge difference from the old days when people had to be sure to warm up the television, and adjust it, before their favorite show came on. There was also variance in the picture even after a few minutes or hours of use, requiring adjustment during viewing - for tuning in the channel (see if you can remember the term, "tune in" from back then), color saturation adjustments, etc.

Solid state, i.e. fully transistorized sets didn't have such drawbacks, or at least they weren't as noticeable. American manufacturers didn't make the switchover immediately - their production lines weren't set up for it - and when they did start making transistorized sets, the components that were available for high-current color television weren't of high enough quality to make good sets.

Picture quality, once adjusted, was terrific with the standard manufacturers. But diddling around with setting was a headache. Trinitron sets were a dream for most folks, forcing the American manufacturers to spend more, and move to transistorized inner works. They never really recovered from the transition, and it threw the entire television support industry into a tizzy.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

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.

I inherited several televisions before buying a high quality set in 1977. I really wanted a Sony - they were amazing - but it was a critical comparison of the picture, and overall build quality, that finally had me settle on Motorola's Quasar.

RCA, GE (another huge producer of sets), and their sub-brands were never in the running, because by that time they had really given up on quality production. Their higher end sets were primarily furniture - nice cabinets, but mediocre picture quality.

Their competition was from the Japanese, with Sony and JVC. Motorola was the only American company that was doing comparable electronics production, at least in their Quasar line.

Sony was doing many things to allow an intense picture, though I didn't understand (and still don't) how their various tricks with masking on the inside of the picture tube affected things. They certainly handled high power - tube televisions from that period had the intensity of a table lamp for light output - and while Sony was the benchmark, they actually did have competition for picture quality.

I've always liked Sony, and own two of them now.