Thu 1 Jun 2006
Why I Didn’t Buy An HDTV
Posted by coglethorpe under frugal
HDTVs look so amazing in the store - especially the large plasma or LCD ones. They radiate a billboard sized picture with details so perfect you swear you could reach inside and touch the action. But I didn’t buy one and I’m pretty darn happy about it. Here’s why…
We had two televisions and about a year ago one of them just up and died. In true frugal fashion, the one that died was a hand-me-down set from my spouse’s parents. They had upgraded and the old set ended up in our bedroom. It wasn’t a bad deal - until the TV croaked.
We went out hunting for televisions, and went to store after store seeing essentially the same gallery of super-sized flat-screen HDTVs. They also came with the super-sized price tag neither of us were impressed with.
After searching and searching, we found a 36″ tube TV at a monster discount. It was almost as cheap as the 27″ it was replacing. I wondered what the catch was, but I can’t resist a deal, so I took the bait. I was happy to have found something almost an order of magnitude cheaper than the plasma TV’s but wondered what I was missing.
A Tale of Two HDTVs
After visiting two friends with HDTV screens - one with HDTV service, the other without, I had my answer. My friend without the HD service was disappointed. Without an HDTV signal, he only had a regular picture going to a giant television screen. The regular (4×3) picture didn’t look better on the screen, just bigger. So did any static. He ended up taking the set back for a tube TV.
Spending, Then Spending More
My other friend went the distance and bought an HDTV dish to go with his new television. The HDTV picture was just as sharp and clear as in the store - when he had an HD channel with an HD feed coming in. Otherwise the signal had to be stretched to match the wider HDTV screen, or have black borders on the sides of the image to match the size of a “reguar” TV.
There weren’t many HD channels, and the ones that were, didn’t always have an HD signal. Instead they put their own borders on to make the picture fit the screen. Once the borders were added, the resulting image was just about as big as the 36″ TV I purchased. A TV that cost a lot less.
Right now, there aren’t many HD channels out there. I honestly expected a lot more, because you will pay more to get an HDTV dish or cable. I’m still on analog cable. This is one of those situations where you spend for a device and then spend more for the additional costs associated with it. That spend/spend scenario is why I haven’t gotten a new car. Of course, my HTDV friend is very smart with money (loaded) so he can afford the setup.
But Won’t All TVs Have to be HDTV’s soon?
That’s a question I’ve heard, so I thought I would check it out. It is true that all broadcasters are required to broadcast only DTV signals by February 17th, 2009. That’s over 2 years off, and what DTV and what the cutoff means is a bit confusing. Here’s what I understand:
- DTV is “Digital Television”
- HDTV is a type of DTV (the highest resolution), but the “D” in each name means something different (Digital in DTV, Definition in HDTV). That’s confusing for sure.
- To tune in after Feb. 17th, 2009, you will need a TV that can tune in to a DTV signal.
- After the date, your TV won’t have to be one that receives HDTV, but I imagine that programming choices and channels will have improved greatly over the next two years. Your TV can still receive a standard DTV signal (or SDTV).
Will My TV Work?
As Douglas Adams said, “Don’t Panic.” According to the dtv.gov FAQ:
“Set-top boxes which convert digital signals to analog signals are available now and will continue to be available at lower prices to consumers as the transition progresses. However, to enjoy the full benefits of Digital TV, including superior sound and clarity, you must own a Digital TV set. An analog television, with the addition of a set-top box, will still allow viewers to enjoy all of the programming they have always enjoyed.”
So if you stick with your old analog TV, you should still be ok. It won’t show the wide (16×9) image an HDTV does, but you should be able to get an SDTV signal. You will need a converter, however. But that might not be a huge pinch (from fcc.gov):
“Beginning in 2008, your household may be able to obtain up to two coupons worth $40 each toward the purchase of converter boxes. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has responsibility for administering the coupon program, and will issue rules regarding the coupons in the future. Additional information can be found at www.ntia.doc.gov.”
If you do decide to upgrade, July 1st, 2007 is the date for all TVs 25″ or larger to have an DVT, with smaller sets following in 2008 (via howstuffworks). So if you get a new set, it should be good to go.
Me? I’m hanging onto my regular old analog tube TV with it’s square-ish display. I honestly don’t need to see Deal or No Deal in widescreen. I figure I’ve got at least a couple more years before I’ll need a converter, and by then, I can go crazy and get the HDTV set I passed on at half the price if I want.
Note: I live in the USA, and my comments are based on what the USA is doing with TV signals. Your mileage may vary.
13 Responses to “ Why I Didn’t Buy An HDTV ”
Comments:
Trackbacks & Pingbacks:
-
Pingback from » Weekly Blog Round-Up » Consumerism Commentary: A Blog About Personal Finance
June 2nd, 2006 at 11:38 am[...] Here’s why Financial Reflections didn’t buy an HDTV. [...]
-
Pingback from Why I’m Still Not Buying and HDTV
July 20th, 2006 at 1:16 pm[...] Recently I wrote an article stating my plans to avoid purchasing a HDTV for some time. Well, part of my reasoning looks like it’s slipping away, due to the forces of supply and demand. And it might be partly due to people agreeing with me. [...]
June 1st, 2006 at 10:25 am
AntennaWeb.org will show TV reception at your specific address (or zip code if you prefer) in the USA. It is interesting that ALL 22 DTV signals in the Los Angeles area come from Mt. Wilson. even if the analog NTSC signal comes from somewhere else.Please note that DTV signals are all in the UHF band, so a standard UHF antenna works fine. Do not let anyone try to sell you a fancy ’special’ (expensive) DTV antenna.
Financial Reflections replies: Interesting link! I tried my area just now. It might prove useful in the future - thanks!
June 1st, 2006 at 12:37 pm
The silliest thing about this long rant is that it does not factor in watching movies on DVD.
Personally, I spend most of my time (when I’m using the TV) playing console games or watching movies on DVD. I happen to watch 1-3 TV shows per week, depending on whether or not they are airing new episodes of those 3 shows.
I could definitely understand not wanting a large HD set if your primary use is just watching regular old NTSC television broadcasts, but that’s far from the ONLY usage.
Financial Reflections replies: I do watch more than “Deal or No Deal” on my TV. DVDs look great (in my opinion) on my 36″ screen, even ones that are in widescreen format. I don’t currently have a game console, but I think XBox 360 is the only one currently out that has an HD output (which looks great). In time more, if not al,l game consoles will have HD outputs.
June 1st, 2006 at 12:49 pm
As it happens, the biggest benefit to DTV is the clear signal. I live within sight of Mt. Wilson, in Altadena, and I despise both cable and satellite TV. My wife likes to watch certain shows on the various networks, and we always had a major issue with crappy reception. So I bought a nice antenna ($50), a nice DTV tuner box refurb ($100), and now we have all sorts of channels in crystal-clear error-corrected digital format, with lots of extras (each local station seems to have their own 24-hour news channel and a weather-only channel, for example). Granted, I took a compass up on my roof, sighted the towers on Mt. Wilson, and mounted a decent mast for the thing, along with a grounding block ($5) for any errant lightning strikes. Anyways, the signal is just as clear on my old Quasar tube TV as it is on the expensive HDTVs in the store. I would like a flat screen TV to hang on the wall, but it isn’t worth $1500 or more (plus we’d have to sell the armoire). What is really nice, though, is that the DTV tuner (a Samsung SIR-T451) sends a full Dolby Digital output to my stereo, so we get full 5.1 sound on the channels and programs where it is available. I have finally convinced my wife that sound quality is at least as important as picture quality, especially for dramatic shows (CSI and the like). This was an unexpected bonus and something I was very pleased by.
For about $160, I buried the question of “can we get cable TV?” forever. Now that my wife has played with the new setup, she is delighted that we are saving about $600/year (minimum!) and pulling in something like 50 channels of crystal-clear reception, right off the airwaves. It’s been fun for me, and we are saving quite a bit of money for the same level of enjoyment. Maybe one day I’ll buy an HDTV, but I doubt it, at least until they get an awful lot cheaper. The tuner, on the other hand, is great!
Financial Reflections replies: I’m impressed. That’s a great way to get milage out of your money. With the way cable and sat. prices are, you will have covered your costs in about 3 months, depending on what kind of package you get.
June 1st, 2006 at 2:06 pm
Thanks for softening the blow. I was expecting someone to say, “how can you be smart with money and buy an HD dish + Plasma?”
Someday we will have you define “loaded”. I don’t view myself as loaded!
FR replies: How can you be smart with money and buy an HD dish with plasma? Sounds like a great article idea. Hmm. I think I’ll have you on as a guest blogger to write that one, my “loaded” friend!
June 1st, 2006 at 3:06 pm
“The silliest thing about this long rant is that it does not factor in watching movies on DVD.”
Assuming you are in the U.S, all DVD content is standard definition NTSC. Yes you can view anamorphic 16×9 content without letterboxing on your HDTV but the resolution is still 640×480.
June 1st, 2006 at 3:15 pm
The silliest thing about this response is that the poster doesn’t realize dvd’s are all standard definition, rendering his assertions moot. That’s the whole reason HD-DVD and bluray is coming out.
June 1st, 2006 at 5:27 pm
DVDs are standard definition, but they are 720 x 480, not 640 x 480. They are actually 720 x 525 in the NTSC video system used in the USA, but some of the lines are used for the blank area in between the frames, called the blanking interval. Most widescreen (not full screen)DVDs use a format called anamorphic widescreen, to allow more picture information to be displayed on your display device. That is why, when using a standard, 4×3 TV with a DVD player that is improperly set up, everything will seem to tall and skinny. Anamorphic refers to the process of taking a 4×3 image and stretching it into a widescreen image. If this was not done, you would have to put a widescreen image inside a 4×3 window. The result is what you see when you have a 16×9 image displayed on a, standard 4×3 TV; black bars above and below the image.
These black bars contain no active picture information, so if the image was stored this way, when the 16×9 image was displayed on a 16×9 TV set, you’d be using a picture created using only about 2/3 the picture information available. Anamorphic widescreen squeezes the widescreen picture into a 4×3 frame whan stored on the DVD, allowing all the height to be used for picture information, instead of for creating those nasty black bars above and below the picture. When the image is viewed on a 16×9 TV, the TV expands the image horizontally to restore the correct image geometry.
As far as HDTV goes, when viewed on a large, HDTV capable display, good native HD content will leave no doubt as to it’s superiority. It depends upon your location and your taste in content as to the availability of HDTV programming. Most primetime network programming(except some reality shows) is in HD. This includes the 4 major netowrks, the WB, and UPN. On cable or satellite there is HD Net, HBO, Showtime, Discovery, TNT, and a few more. You can get the network content over the air, using an antenna, or through your cable TV provider in many areas. In addition, there is a tremendous amount of sports content available in HDTV. ESPN and ESPN2 are in HD now, although not all of their programming is in true HD. Many college and pro sporting events are broadcast in HD, with more coming all the time as more production facilities become available.
One thing to watch out for. If you’re using a larger, digital TV, many standard definition channels look terrible. That is for a multitude of reasons, but three of the main ones are: 1) Standard NTSC video was never made to be viewed on a screen that large
2)The video processing circuitry used for processing standard definition video in many mainline TVs is fairly poor.
3)Many digital cable systems and satellite systems use a fair bit of compression to allow more channels to be squeezed into the available bandwidth. The more squeeze, the worse the picture. Unfortunately, “100% digital quality” can mean crap sometimes.
June 1st, 2006 at 9:52 pm
I agree about DVD viewing on HDTV’s If you compare a dvd on yer old tv with an HDTV you see a VERY significant improvement, especially with a unit that will upscale the video……
June 6th, 2006 at 10:42 am
Very good post! I remember about 20 years ago when stereo TVs came out. We got one but only one station was broadcasting in stereo. Eventually they all caught up but we could have waited to buy the TV and I’m sure prices would have been significantly lower.
July 6th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
No right or wrong here, but a few more considerations:
- Plasmas and LCDs can solve interior design problems (or just make a room way more functional) if they hang on wall. Putting mine above fireplace (with wires inside wall) freed up space for another sofa in one room, and made media theater seating possible in another.
- I don’t have HD tuners yet as I valued my Tivo above picture quality, and HD Tivos had been too expensive and lacking local content. Tivo now leasing (like cable companies) and local content now available, so am looking forward to this…)
- DVDs look better to my eye, much bigger than possible on equiv. size 4:3 TV but crisp and vivid. Component video connection (3 cables) vs. S-video or (gasp) composite made a noticeable difference.
- Many standard TV shows are letterboxed which I zoom in on and lose a little bit of image but not enough to bother me. Artifacts are more noticeable, but I’m sitting far enough away so it doesn’t bother me.
To each their own.
June 24th, 2007 at 9:15 am
HD Articles, Reviews & Resources! Great source for beginners to HDTV! Come visit us!