48 replies to this topic

[murcod]

In the latest JB catalogue they've got listed a Soniq 40"/ 101cm 1280 x 1024 LCD TV.

Retail price is $2998 and it's got response time listed as 8ms. No mention of what inputs it's got though?

Has anyone seen it?

[sjb266]

watch out for lip sync problems..

i bought a 66cm lcd SONIQ and took it back coz it was shite!

[xtractdigit]

sjb266, on Dec 5 2005, 11:57 PM, said:

watch out for lip sync problems..

i bought a 66cm lcd SONIQ and took it back coz it was shite!

Are you using a digital surround amp,if so you should be able to change the centre channel delay time.What sound sys are u using

[a-switcher]

murcod, on Dec 5 2005, 09:02 PM, said:

In the latest JB catalogue they've got listed a Soniq 40"/ 101cm 1280 x 1024 LCD TV.

Retail price is $2998 and it's got response time listed as 8ms. No mention of what inputs it's got though?

Has anyone seen it?

I do hope it has HMDI or at least DVI-D with HDCP....

[mxlaser]

murcod, on Dec 5 2005, 09:02 PM, said:

In the latest JB catalogue they've got listed a Soniq 40"/ 101cm 1280 x 1024 LCD TV.

Retail price is $2998 and it's got response time listed as 8ms. No mention of what inputs it's got though?

Has anyone seen it?

Again another wasted screen, due to a **** resolution selection... Surely making it 1280x720 would of been easier

The original Soniq 32" and 26" were plagued with issues... Looked crap, colours bad, and generally, much better cheaper LCD's at the time could be had (AWA, Pio etc)

This one will hopefully be different... Mate at JB was told its a Philips LCD and its not too bad... Personally the Bravia/Samsungs would be a better buy in my opinion... Or the extra $500 for the Sharp 1920x1080 panel

[sjb266]

xtractdigit, on Dec 6 2005, 12:39 AM, said:

Are you using a digital surround amp,if so you should be able to change the centre channel delay time.What sound sys are u using

That's not really the point...! Any excuse to take this lump back will be fine!

a-switcher, on Dec 6 2005, 05:19 AM, said:

I do hope it has HMDI or at least DVI-D with HDCP....

The 66cm i bought had HDMI so i imagine this one would..

[Jim_]

Picked up the same catlogue yesterday, didn't see one in the shop.

Interestingly enough the Soniq 27" above it in the catalogue has the same resolution specified (1280x1024), it's $999 if anyone's interested.

What it doesn't say is whether it's native resolution or not. JB's pretty good at cherry picking numbers from the spec sheet without actually saying what they are, well I guess most of them do that.

[mybrains]

mxlaser, on Dec 6 2005, 09:07 AM, said:

.. Mate at JB was told its a Philips LCD and its not too bad...

Phillips & LG both get panels from their joint company LPL in Korea. To my knowlege LPL have not made the 40" format. LPL has protested that this is not the format for the future and instead push the 42" size. They can cut 8 of these from one glass substrate sheet btw (so its in their best interests). LPL screens are IPS and you can normally see a strong purple tinge when you get right off angle on the blacks. Shouldnt be to hard to identify.  

Samsung on the other hand is the other 'big' Korean panel supplier. They specifically are the promoter of 40" size as their factories cut 8 of these from their sheet size. PVA technology will show very black blacks, and very rich colours. However IMOP PVA shows blur/smearing/clay face too and this puts me off them. Dont Sonys latest Bravia range use samsung panels?

I have noted a tendency on this forum to always think any unknown panel is Korean (be it LCD or Plasma). The Taiwanese (AUO & CMO) also make a massive amount of LCD panels (as do the chinese with plasma), and these are just as likley to turn up in these cheep screens.

more info on LCD sizes here (bit long winded, but scroll down):
http://www.displayba...s_type=&s_word=

[blacknbrindle]

Id like to know a little more about the 50" Soniq they have advertised for $3998
It quotes a resolution of 1366 x 768  and a contrast of 2500:1

[mxlaser]

mybrains, on Dec 6 2005, 11:38 AM, said:

Phillips & LG both get panels from their joint company LPL in Korea. To my knowlege LPL have not made the 40" format. LPL has protested that this is not the format for the future and instead push the 42" size. They can cut 8 of these from one glass substrate sheet btw (so its in their best interests). LPL screens are IPS and you can normally see a strong purple tinge when you get right off angle on the blacks. Shouldnt be to hard to identify.  

Samsung on the other hand is the other 'big' Korean panel supplier. They specifically are the promoter of 40" size as their factories cut 8 of these from their sheet size. PVA technology will show very black blacks, and very rich colours. However IMOP PVA shows blur/smearing/clay face too and this puts me off them. Dont Sonys latest Bravia range use samsung panels?

I have noted a tendency on this forum to always think any unknown panel is Korean (be it LCD or Plasma). The Taiwanese (AUO & CMO) also make a massive amount of LCD panels (as do the chinese with plasma), and these are just as likley to turn up in these cheep screens.

more info on LCD sizes here (bit long winded, but scroll down):
http://www.displayba...s_type=&s_word=

So better chance it being a Samsung panel then? Would fit well, as the Soniq Plasma was Samsung panel/Scaler, and built by samsung.

Will talk to mate at HO tomorrow and see what he knows... He purchases the stock for JB, so likely he'll know. Got my heads up from him for the Soniq plasma i owned.

The 50" looks like it may be good too.. .although no mention of MS rating... Im put of the Soniq brand as the support is absolute crap. So be warned of that.. PLus their plasma and 32"/27" LCDs where plagued with lipsync issues as well.

[mybrains]

I would think 1.CMO or 2.Samsung as a guess in the dark. These companies, along with LPL, actively sell a lot of panels to china for no name brands to use.

Yes the resolution is very odd. makes me wonder if that panel was designed for something else and adopted for general TV use? 1280x1024 is a typical square PC resolution. It hints that it was intended PC display panel. Suppose this is good if you can drive it at the native 1280x1024 resolution, but didnt the 32" sonic at the same res prevent this? Something to check with your laptop over DVI.

[mxlaser]

mybrains, on Dec 6 2005, 11:09 PM, said:

I would think 1.CMO or 2.Samsung as a guess in the dark. These companies, along with LPL, actively sell a lot of panels to china for no name brands to use.

Yes the resolution is very odd. makes me wonder if that panel was designed for something else and adopted for general TV use? 1280x1024 is a typical square PC resolution. It hints that it was intended PC display panel. Suppose this is good if you can drive it at the native 1280x1024 resolution, but didnt the 32" sonic at the same res prevent this? Something to check with your laptop over DVI.

Yeah, the first wave wouldnt allow accurate 1:1 mapping

Just got it confirmed, the 40" & 50" model are infact Samsung panels. The 50" is supposedly 12ms, although they have no confirmation from Soniq on that. Guy at purchasing didnt like the screens much, wasnt impressed with colours or image on the screen, he much prefers their Plasma.

JB have confirmed to be Soniq's seller, so part of the agreement is to Stock all their products now.. They sold over 2600 of the Plasma's when they were released (i was an owner at one point too... I know my post on here, and OCAU helped just over 40 people to buy one) wish i was on commission!

Have to wait and see what others who actually see one in action think, but at JB, they are hoping they sell of the fact of size and its LCD, and price obviously

[mybrains]

One of the big problems with LCDs over your plasma background mx, is their sensitivity to analog signals at non native resolutions. The quality shoots up 1000% the moment you drive them with a clean digital signal at native res (ie from a PC or mac).

This is a bit of an indication that the inbuilt analog image processors are 'budget' minded. lol. Works against an already bad LCD screen (bad as in CR and speed).

Its a bit of a shame however, as Every store you will see a LCD displayed in will be running either analog TV (inbuilt tuner) or a 576i Analog component feed. neither is native resolution and neither is digital & clean. Expect most to look like sh*t. Its not a true test of what the set is capable of.... but I suppose it IS an indication of how most ppl will use it. Could never understand why a $80 STB couldnt be included. Suppose some cant get digital and this would limit the market?

My suggestion is take in a laptop (pref with DVi, though RGB is still ok) and play some HD samples at the screens native resolution (1280x1024). Apple, Divx and M$lop have plenty to download for free @ 720p and 1080p. The media player on the PC will scale to the native resolution, not the screens inbuilt 'budget' image processor. Also if you avoid interlace content, you avoid the 'budget' image processor cutting the resolution in half again.  

I think the ideal drive for a very high res LCD (say 1920x1080) would be a powerful HTPC. This is why so many are after native resolution ove DVI (or HDMI) on these sets.

[mxlaser]

mybrains, on Dec 7 2005, 10:51 AM, said:

One of the big problems with LCDs over your plasma background mx, is their sensitivity to analog signals at non native resolutions. The quality shoots up 1000% the moment you drive them with a clean digital signal at native res (ie from a PC or mac).

This is a bit of an indication that the inbuilt analog image processors are 'budget' minded. lol. Works against an already bad LCD screen (bad as in CR and speed).

Its a bit of a shame however, as Every store you will see a LCD displayed in will be running either analog TV (inbuilt tuner) or a 576i Analog component feed. neither is native resolution and neither is digital & clean. Expect most to look like sh*t. Its not a true test of what the set is capable of.... but I suppose it IS an indication of how most ppl will use it. Could never understand why a $80 STB couldnt be included. Suppose some cant get digital and this would limit the market?

My suggestion is take in a laptop (pref with DVi, though RGB is still ok) and play some HD samples at the screens native resolution (1280x1024). Apple, Divx and M$lop have plenty to download for free @ 720p and 1080p. The media player on the PC will scale to the native resolution, not the screens inbuilt 'budget' image processor. Also if you avoid interlace content, you avoid the 'budget' image processor cutting the resolution in half again.  

One thing you avoid with a DVi feed is the mpeg2 decoder in the TV. This is great if its having trouble decoding a very heavy signal (read high bandwidth) it could show side effects.

I think the ideal drive for a very high res LCD (say 1920x1080) would be a powerful HTPC. This is why so many are after native resolution ove DVI (or HDMI) on these sets.

But surely with eveything you've said there, its clear that plasma is then better... bear with me here...

A TV is just that... The fact that to see the LCD in its best form (anything else results in crap image) is to go to such extremes, and with native HD being so scarce in Australia still, and you recommending using HD sample clips, shows how LCD is still very much in its infancy in regards to ease of use, and picture quality.

I know i can plug practically anything into my plasma, and also any resolution, from 480p/576i/576p/720p/1080i and all will display an excellent image (if the source is good) however, most of those would result in a bad image on an LCD.

I realise it can easily be overcome by using the exact components and connections, but thats what makes it stand alone in regards to a "TV" as seen by the typical user.

Think of your olds, or other firends/family members without the knowledge you have... They could still potentially buy an LCD, always to be disappointed with the image as the salesman sold them some SD STB.

The same, but with a plasma will yield a far better image and PQ.

Thats not to say i don't like LCD. The post i had before wasnt my opinions, is what that of a friend in Purchasing at JB head office. I think LCD will eventualy have its day, however, for the next 24 months or longer untill that day, plasma IMO gives the best image, simplest solution and overall best PQ, expecially for price in the current market.

I've seen the 40" Bravia, connected by HDMI running a 720p broadcast and yes, it looked stunning... But that was a very small % of what you will really see everyday.

Like you explained, LCD is great, but the hassle to get the most from it isnt worth the benifit with current Plasma's being so good... Although in time, i can see LCD taking over... Hopefully before its overthrone by SED

[chargin8]

For me it always comes back to HD plasmas being so expensive, and even then HD plasmas still generally dont have the best resolution, 1024x1024 seems a bit lacking to me with 1280x720 in mind. Almost all LCD's will show 720p with pixels to spare and cost a lot less. (this is leaving the size issue out- which isnt an issue to me as if I want a big screen I turn off the LCD and turn on the projector)

[mxlaser]

chargin8, on Dec 7 2005, 11:16 AM, said:

For me it always comes back to HD plasmas being so expensive, and even then HD plasmas still generally dont have the best resolution, 1024x1024 seems a bit lacking to me with 1280x720 in mind. Almost all LCD's will show 720p with pixels to spare and cost a lot less. (this is leaving the size issue out- which isnt an issue to me as if I want a big screen I turn off the LCD and turn on the projector)

I don't know... I realise what you say about size, but then your not comparing apples for apples...

A 40" LCD is $3-6k

A 42" Plasma is $3.5-4k for the best in the market.

I don't see it as cost prohibitive...

If your talking about comparing a cheap 32" LCD for $1.8k compared to a 42" HD then yes, but theres 10 inches difference in size (ask any women, thats a lot! )

Apples for apples, LCD is still a lot more expensive for the similar in plasma, especially to get the same image quality, blacks and contrast.

Plasma is just a lot more mature than LCD TV's are... Time is the only thing that will change that.. Time being the next 18-24 months by current things.

Also, your comment on pixels was technically wrong. if you take PC related resolutions and pixels aside (not to comlicate things) a plasma with 1024x1024 has 1048576 pixles in total, giving lots to spare for a 720p image. However 1280x720 only has 921600 pixels and is the base amount for a 720p image. So technically a 1024x1024 plasma will maintain a higher amount of pixels and resolution than that LCD.

Edited by mxlaser, 07 December 2005 - 10:33 AM.

[chargin8]

Yes you are right thats why I added my size disclaimer lol
OK answer me this then, why arent there any 32" HD plasmas? is it not economical to make them that size?

[mxlaser]

chargin8, on Dec 7 2005, 11:29 AM, said:

Yes you are right thats why I added my size disclaimer lol
OK answer me this then, why arent there any 32" HD plasmas? is it not economical to make them that size?

I remeber seeing some at one point, as well as a 27" plasma too... Im guessing there must be a reason behind it... Not sure what... Probably manufacturing costs.

[chargin8]

Id buy a 32" HD over an LCD if they were similarly priced.

How do you feel about the resolution of the HD plasmas? do you think 1024x1024 is really HD, compared to 1366x768 or 1280x1024? I know these last 2 res's arent perfect either, as scaling will be taking place.
Are there HD plasmas with higher res than 1024x1024 that are under say $6000?

[mybrains]

Ah, the old plasma vs LCD chestnut. Well, all should buy what they are most happiest with!

If its for a beginner that wants to simply ditch a CRT and plug up a screen to their STB & DVD player, then a 480SD plasma is the go. Make a great gift an impress the rellos with its size and PQ. Keep an eye on the burn in issue. Power bill may be a bit higher than expected as 500Watts on 4+ hours a day will catch a few out, as will heat generated by any big screen in summer.  

If your a boffin that will fiddle and tune till u go blue in the face, and you love using a PC most of the time (say to watch legal HD downloads) then I would suggest holding for a 1920 HD LCD and driving it with a HTPC.  1080p samples are available now to play and this is certainly the future next year and onwards.  Just remeber that 1920 LCDs ARE shipping OS and its only Australian importers that are behind here!

Just depends where you are coming from.  

Re resolution and whats avaliable today, yep 1080i/50i/25p is the best we get on domestic TV. Even then its often upscaled from 625 pal or 525NTSC. Oh well. Dont buy a flash screen to watch OZ Free to air!

most boffin type ppl are hanging out for bluish ray or HD DVD to see what sort of quality HD we get. Also these bofins do tend to have internet access and can get quite a few legal downloads. If free to air or cable in the USA broadcasts 720p or even 1080p/24 (yes its in the free to air spec for USA) then downloads may show up on the net. The whole concept of the mdia centre is apon us now.

[mxlaser]

chargin8, on Dec 7 2005, 11:44 AM, said:

Id buy a 32" HD over an LCD if they were similarly priced.

How do you feel about the resolution of the HD plasmas? do you think 1024x1024 is really HD, compared to 1366x768 or 1280x1024? I know these last 2 res's arent perfect either, as scaling will be taking place.
Are there HD plasmas with higher res than 1024x1024 that are under say $6000?

You don't want me started on resolutions!

I don't buy into any current LCD or plama that claims HD unless it is true HD being 1920x1080 and able to display 1080p... Anything other than that IMO is enhanced SD... I just don't see the point... Theres very little difference in quality (actually SD has the advantage of better PQ when displaying SD content (85% of FTA) and DVD's) and again, theres no visable, or percievable difference in seeing the pixels when viewing at 3m.

PQ is typically better on HD models due to much better componentry all around, but there are plenty of SD panels that are much better than some HD models, despite the extra resolution.

Most current HD panels, both LCD and Plasma, are not what i and most purist consider HD. They are a marketing bodged up enhanced SD resolution at best, to past the time till native 1080p broadcasts, contents and dvd's are common place, but they needed something to create a divide and increase sales.

of course, thats only opinion, and HD even in its current state is great, but personally, a great SD plasma will display a 720p/1080i image almost as well as a 1024x1024 plasma, or 1280x720 LCD.

Where the difference in resolution really truly makes a massive difference is when PC/HTPC aplications are used.

mybrains, on Dec 7 2005, 11:57 AM, said:

If its for a beginner that wants to simply ditch a CRT and plug up a screen to their STB & DVD player, then a 480SD plasma is the go. Make a great gift an impress the rellos with its size and PQ. Keep an eye on the burn in issue. Power bill may be a bit higher than expected as 500Watts on 4+ hours a day will catch a few out, as will heat generated by any big screen in summer.

Yeah, i completly agree. I for one went SD now, knowing in 24-36 months once 1080p is more common place, and will probably be similar to 720p is now in the market, i'll go over to 1080p.

Your a little off on the above though.. Typically 42" plasma's are outputting on average 260-280Watts of power, and burn-in, as shown by IDC's latest whitepaper really isnt a big deal and a misconception of current plasma's. Image retention is apparent, but will go after running the plasma for a while.

[mybrains]

On the wattage issue, looks like we were both a little off. just to a google of some common brands to get an idea

42" Fuji HD 420Watts
http://www.mitsubish...play/dv42P2.htm

42" pana HD 341Watts
http://panasonic.com...m?objectID=2636

42" Trio SD 380Watts  
http://www.triocorp....au/PTL-42S.aspx

couldnt find new Teac or Sonic but if you do, would be interesting. should be ballpark

As a comparison, I found a Sony bravia 40" lcd @ 240Watts
http://www.sonystyle...ame=specs&var2=

[mxlaser]

mybrains, on Dec 7 2005, 12:32 PM, said:

SNIP

So with only a 100watts between plasma and LCD, its no difference than running a light bulb

And with all the extra brightness and contrast that plasma has over LCD, you wouldnt need that extra lightbulb

Just joking.. Suprising those figures, as the Sonic was 285watts, and the TCL reportedly was 260watts.

Mind, those figures are never that reliable anyway, as there is no set test they have to conform to to prove those facts. They can run it without sound, image, processing etc to use the minimal amount of onboard components and power usage, but then some more test the MAXIMUM it will ever output.

For instance, the onboard sound would use roughly 20-50watts itself, so if you don't use them, you won't have the power for them etc...

Nevertheless, the 100watts difference (pana to sony) IMO isnt a big deal.

[mybrains]

more here. AWA DEckton 37 is 200watts
http://www.decktron....s/lcd_37_g.html

also their 42" LCD is 250Watts
http://www.decktron....s/lcd_42_g.html

[mxlaser]

mybrains, on Dec 7 2005, 05:02 PM, said:

more here. AWA DEckton 37 is 200watts
http://www.decktron....s/lcd_37_g.html

also their 42" LCD is 250Watts
http://www.decktron....s/lcd_42_g.html

Yeah, theres about 100-150watts in it, based from non monitored testeing though... Im always skeptical, the sames as contrast figures too

That said, it is a difference, but its no different than leaving a light on for the 2-3 hours a night. Then again, it would make a difference over a 5 year period though...

However, im sure, at half brightness/contrast, no sound the real figures for a plasma would be in the 250-300watts range. LCD would follow suit with a 150-200Watts realisticly