Sony 240 Hz

[diamondpete]

i am thinking about getting a 240Hz BRAVIA KDL-52XBR7 HDTV. Anyone have one?

I have heard that the 240 hz is more overkill than necessary but it is the only 52 in the Sony line up (though new models may be out this december). Just wondering if anyone has one, and how they like or dislike it.

cheers

Peter

[OldGuy]

I have an LG 240 Hz. If you're watching sports it's not overkill. It's like I'm sitting in the stands at Denver right now (although much warmer than they are).

[diamondpete]

thx, Bob. I am 98 % decided on that. I have read some pretty "anti-sony" reviews but they soind more like anti SOny than good reviews. Most of the bad comments are the 240 is not worth the money- but my question is : is it better , and your answer is what I was looking for- cheers.

BTW, what is the supposed best height for the TV (am looking at stands as well)? I have read that the middle of the screen should be at eye height.. What do you think?

My brother had a 42 plasma and it was about 3/4 of the sceen at eye height and he just changed to a sharp LCD 46 in the same position, and I think it feels low, but he likes it that way (or maybe he lays down on the sofa too much when he watches- lol)

Thoughts?

BTW, do you have a hard disc recorder? I didn't think one was necessary but everyone who has one swears by them (I do not watch that much TV..). Initially I was just going to get a blue ray player, but I am now going with a Blue ray recorder/burner- just wondering whether I will stick at the low end ( 320 GB at about ¥90,000 or jump up a bit - I think that they go as high as 2 TB at around 180,000) I am not one to "buy for the future", but by what I need now and get a newer one (fro cheaper) when what I need now doesn't do the trick- so I am leaning towards the smaleest one - the 320 GB (I gues HD TV is very demanding- they said that gives me about 32 hours, or maybe 500 GB - around 60 hours. )

So what do you think?

cheers

Peter

[OldGuy]

If you go into a store and see a 240 Hz next to a 120 Hz running the same picture you'll be convinced the 240 is worth it.

I agree on the picture height - that's how I have mine right now and it's very comfortable to watch.

I don't have a hard disc recorder (I don't watch a lot of TV either) so I'm leaning to getting just a Blue-Ray player.

[diamondpete]

Originally Posted by OldGuy

If you go into a store and see a 240 Hz next to a 120 Hz running the same picture you'll be convinced the 240 is worth it.

I agree on the picture height - that's how I have mine right now and it's very comfortable to watch.

I don't have a hard disc recorder (I don't watch a lot of TV either) so I'm leaning to getting just a Blue-Ray player.

Bob

Thanks again for your comments. I know what you mean by the "side by side" test. In Japan they run "split screen" demo TVs - one side 60 or 120 and the other 240. With the Bravia 3 engine the biggest difference I notice is the darkness of the blacks but that is not the 240. The refresh rate shows when they put up a map and whisk it by, you can read it - but not a very realistic test- lol. Hard to tell the 120 vs 240 on sports, at least when standing in a shop looking at 20 + large screen TVs - you get a bit "overloaded and confused" I think - sort of imagining the difference- so it is good to here your "sport" comment and that you have noticed a diff (that is supposedly the big reason to go to 240 - though NO other Japanese makers have followed Sony- I think Samsung was first to announce but Sony beat them to the production line and stole their thunder.

As far as the blue ray goes, I am not much for "recording and time shifting" programs because it means that I will watch WAY to much TV- Now I just kick on the tube, watch CNN for a few minutes , then BBC, then flip to National Geographic, History Channel, Discovery, and the golf channel- and on the weekend an occaisonnal movie. That process on a bad night takes an hour, on a good night - done in 15 min. BUT if I were to have a line up of documentaries I want to watch it would be TROUBLE time wise. We pretty much limit our kids to less than an hour a day on the tube - most week days they don't watch- and about 2 hours a day on the weekends.


But now I am wondering whether to subscribe to some kind of movie channel and let the TV save the movies for me (not sure about the states, but recording movies, etc is pretty simple- perhaps too simple and convenient.

One thing that is not though is bloody well choosing a service. We have regular NHK (like PBS) that we have to pay for (like the BBC does in Britain) , the NHK pay service called BS , a CS service, foreign language programs, which can all be recieved with a sattelite dish and tuner, or cable with similar but different options, discounted if you use them for the internet and change to a cable phone, or the service offered by the phone company NTT, which has again similar packages but different enough that you have to read all the pamphlets to figure out which "works for you, also tied if desired to internet, and telephone.... Oh yeah, I am having a real fun time making the shift from analog to digital!!!

ARRRRGH!!!


a bit of venting there,


cheers


Peter