KV-36XBR450: A Close Call
Written: Dec 04 '01 (Updated Nov 06 '02)
|
Product Rating:
|
|
| Sound: |
 |
|
| Ease of Use: |
|
|
| Picture Quality: |
 |
|
| Durability: |
|
|
|
Pros: Sharp, vivid DVD images
Cons: DRC-MF is not defeatable: You get video artifacts with poor quality signals.
The Bottom Line: If you like the Sony KV-36XBR450 then add the Panasonic CT-34WX50 to your shopping list.
|
|
|
| lhkm's Full Review: Sony KV-36XBR450 36 inch TV |
You should know this article is more about the considerations that I have been labouring over around picking one TV over another. In this case it's the Sony KV-36XBR450 versus the Panasonic Tau CT-34WX50. I am not doing a detailed feature by feature walk-through nor will I drill into any technical details.
Choosing a high quality direct-view TV these days is not an easy job, especially if you would like the unit to be an overall good performer with various sources. After sifting through an avalanche of consumer reviews and discussion threads, I would have to admit that the credibility of many reviews is questionable at best. Some individuals demonstrate a propensity to engage in religious battles around declaring the best TV: Sony Wega XBR? Panasonic Tau? Loewe? I have read a volatile brew of unqualified opinions, unclear criteria, with pride and vanity adding fuel to fire. Let's be honest: it can be tough to write an objective review for a product you already own. In the end, the truth usually gets distorted and the reader will walk away confounded.
After visiting a number of retail stores (kicking the tires, so to speak), I will readily assert that flat-screen direct-view consumer TVs from Sony, Panasonic and Loewe are arguably among the best I've seen. I said arguably, ok? Asian sets offer sharper, more vivid pictures while European TVs generally offer smoother pictures with subdued or more natural colours. You decide what you like best. I prefer the crisper images of the Japanese sets, and I am thankful for that: The Loewes are significantly more expensive (at least for the North American market) and I unable to justify their value even when considering styling that can be reasonably described as Art Deco. I've observed a number of Asian brands including JVC, Samsung and Toshiba. In my opinion, the Sony Wega XBR and Panasonic Tau leap out with better pictures.
What is my criterion? The television will sit in the family room mainly for viewing cable television and VCR. The ratio will undoubtedly change with a growing DVD library. Being prepared to part with $4000 Canadian, I am seeking an intelligent compromise between viewing traditional sources and digital TV (DTV). In particular, I would like a combination of high quality DTV (i.e. DVD 480p) and acceptable viewing of cable TV and VHS VCRs. I am not too concerned about evolving HDTV standards. The current lack of HDTV programming in our area coupled with a slow rate of introduction demotes my long term consideration (read 5-10 years) for HDTV. I am more of a pragmatist than an early adopter.
What does this leave me with? I have opted out of rear projection TVs - too large for the family room and, in spite of recent improvements, too many known issues remain relative to direct-view tubes including lower brightness, finicky focus/convergence and narrower viewing angles. Plasma TVs are compelling but are relatively expensive. I'd like to buy something soon. Our existing box is over 15 years old.
I have narrowed the choices to the Panasonic Tau CT-34WX50 and Sony Wega KV-36XBR450. If the CT-34WX50 didn't exist it would be a choice between the KV-36XBR450 and the CT-36HX41. I would pick the Wega XBR despite the premium it commands over the Panasonic CT-36HX41. Both 4:3 aspect units are assembled in Mexico and/or USA for the North American market. The Wega XBR reportedly has better geometry, features DRC-MF resolution enhancement and reverse 3:2 pull-down. The CT-34WX50 adds an interesting twist: Wide-screen at a similar price, 57MHz/10 Bit Super Progressive Scan and it's made in Japan (at least for the units I have seen in the Canadian market).
After doing some substantial research/testing, I have assembled a list of considerations. For Sony Wega KV-36XBR450 these include:
- high quality tube, sharp, vivid DVD images
- 4:3 aspect ratio - about 9% reduced viewing estate when watching 16:9 sources (DVD) - equivalent to 33" wide-screen
- relatively accurate geometry
- abundant inputs including component inputs/advanced controls
- DRC-MF is not defeatable. You get video artifacts with poor quality such as the 'aliasing' effect
- reverse 3:2 pull-down
- impressive styling, perhaps imposing in 36" form with matching stand
- varying consumer reports around quality/service/support issues
- assembled in Mexico and/or USA
- 12 month warranty
- HDTV "ready" - 1080i analogue
Considerations for the Panasonic Tau CT-34WX50 include:
- high quality tube, sharp, vivid DVD images (perhaps a little more toned down than the Sony)
- 16:9 aspect ratio - about 18% reduced viewing estate when watching 4:3 sources in correct aspect - equivalent to 28" TV
- relatively accurate geometry
- flexible aspect control for 4:3 inputs: normal, stretched, zoomed etc.
- Accepting the view of 4:3 signals in zoomed or stretched mode in order to avoid burn-in. I am told that phosphor burn-in will result if watching 4:3 programming the majority of the time full framed and in the correct aspect (as indicated by black bars on both sides)
- abundant inputs including component inputs /advanced controls
- 57MHz/10 Bit Super Progressive Scan
- understated yet elegant in styling
- Varying consumer reports around quality/service/support issues. I have been told that 16:9 sets are more prone to problems in general but this is not verified
- made in Japan
- 2 year warranty
- HDTV "ready" - 1080i analogue
The following are NOT current considerations for me:
- heavy weight
- future of HDTV standards, support of additional (HDTV) stds. e.g. - 720p
- no built-in digital HDTV digital tuners
- subjective differences in image quality between Tau and Wega. They are both acceptable to me. Sony is noticeably more vivid, even mesmerizing. Both TVs offer signal processing (resolution "enhancement" and/or de-interlacing) however the level of improvement can be debatable given the potential to introduce artifacts. The Panasonic appears to generate fewer artifacts with NTSC signals.
In summary, given all other things are more or less equal (with any nitpicking set aside ...and you can read about that elsewhere on the Web), I am really torn between the Panasonic that:
a) is made in Japan
b) is optimised for 16:9 - DVD, 480p
c) (slightly) compromises viewing experience (size/aspect) for 4:3 sources
and the Sony that:
a) is made in Mexico/USA
b) is aspect-ratio friendly for traditional sources
c) is not designed to accomodate lower quality signals (i.e DRC-MF can't be disabled or user adjusted)
(2002 Update: Sony has addressed the DRC-MF issue. 2002 models including KV-34XBR800,KV-36XBR800 and KV-40XBR800 now feature DRC-MF V1. The "V" stands for "variable customization" in order to compensate for differences in incoming signals, personal preferences and viewing environment.)
d) (slightly) compromises viewing estate for DVD compared to CT-34WX50
What is the overriding consideration? It is a very close call. In the end, I have purchased the Sony based on a feeling that my tolerance around viewing stretched or zoomed 4:3 sources on the Panasonic would diminish over time. I am fortunate to be able to exchange the Sony for a Panasonic within 30 days if I'm not happy with the experience. I would give high but not perfect ratings for both TVs. (nothing is perfect, even higher prices do not guarantee perfection)
LHKM
December, 2001
Recommended:
Yes
Amount Paid (US$): 2400
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
lhkm
|
|
Reviews written: 2
Trusted by: 3 members
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.