|
|
Posted by David Levy on 12/15/05 21:16
Jeff Rife wrote:
> > You stated that an ATSC tuner "needs to be in every TV." Do you
> > wish to amend this to include only HDTVs?
> For now, it's not as important for *all* TVs to have ATSC
> tuners...sets under 15" come to mind, but all TVs that display at
> HD resolutions *and* have any tuner should have them *now* (and
> *should* have had them two years ago).
Is that a "yes"?
> The FCC should have required that all sets greater than 25" should
> have ATSC tuners (assuming they have any tuner) by Jan 1, 2005,
On the plus side, this would have increased the number of homes with
ATSC tuners, and also would have accelerated the rate at which ATSC
tuner prices have declined. On the minus side, it would have resulted
in higher short-term prices for television sets containing NTSC
tuners, along with the introduction of tunerless models that offered
little or no monetary discount compared to models with (only) NTSC
tuners thrown in.
> and, by Jan 1, 2007, I think *all* TVs with tuners should be
> required to have ATSC tuners.
I could see that happening.
> The "digital cable ready" ball was really dropped by the FCC,
> too...they should have gotten off their butt and forced cable
> companies to pick a standard back when ATSC was set as the OTA
> standard, so that DCR tuners could have been available for 5 years
> now. With that, they could have mandated DCR + ATSC for all large
> sets this year. I probably won't ever subscribe to cable again,
> but I still think that it would have been a good thing, since
> eventually digital cable will be like analog today, with much of it
> unscrambled if you subscribe at all. And, it would have been
> better to mandate DCR + ATSC than just ATSC, as the consumer gets
> more and the cost is no different...most chips in "ATSC receivers"
> also handle QAM that is used by digital cable...that's just the way
> the VLSI is made.
I agree with all of the above.
> > I thought that you wanted "to compare apples to apples." Paying
> > approximately the same amount for a product with "more features"
> > is tantamount to paying a lower price (especially when one
> > factors the 8% inflation experienced between 2001 and now).
> In general, the feature sets are about the same in reality, you
> just get a couple of extra things that aren't really a big deal
> (like a universal remote instead of a more dedicated one) today.
> Many of them are silly, though (flash card readers to display
> photos, digital audio *inputs*, FireWire *outputs* so you can
> record from your TV to a D-VHS VCR, etc.),
While certainly not among a typical consumer's top priorities, I don't
see how any of those features are silly.
And of course, you haven't addressed the 8% inflation experienced
between 2001 and 2005.
> and a few are even more "dirt cheap" than NTSC tuners (extra video
> inputs, etc.).
Dirt cheap, but extremely convenient.
> > > BTW, try to find a cable-ready NTSC tuner for "dirt cheap"
> > > sometime...I think you'll find that $25 is easily the least
> > > you'll pay.
> > Are you seriously comparing the cost of an internal component to
> > the cost of a standalone device?
> Yeah, when the supporting hardware really is that dirt cheap.
The remaining components are inexpensive, but collectively compose a
significant portion of the product's cost (as do assembly,
distribution and marketing).
> $25 is for a unit that is as lowball as they come...most cable TV
> tuner boxes are $100 or more.
Now you're comparing apples to pineapples.
Television sets with NTSC tuners are readily available for $70.
> > I ignore MSRPs entirely. The fairest cost comparison is that of
> > a particular retailer's regular prices.
>
> No, it isn't, since a retailer can get "perks" for selling a brand,
> or might never get the latest stuff, but always gets closeouts
> (this isn't as uncommon as you think now that you see 2-3 cycles
> of "new" from each manufacturer each year).
Okay, how about comparing the lowest regular prices charged by any
reputable retailer(s)?
> > > and you'll see that when those RCA units hit the same "closeout
> > > deal" you got,
> > Who said anything about a "closeout deal"? The regular price is
> > $449.99, the special sale price was $427.49, I had a coupon
> > redeemable for a 10% discount on any TV or TV monitor costing
> > $399 or more, and I'm receiving $12.69 in rebates from
> > FatWallet.com.
> That's pretty much a "closeout deal"...i.e., a very special set of
> circumstances that lowered the cost of the set by nearly 10%.
That isn't the definition of the word "closeout." A "closeout" is "a
sale intended to dispose of all remaining stock."
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=closeout
A typical closeout involves a discontinued product (to be superseded
by a new model) or a retailer that no longer intends to sell a
particular category of products (or is going out of business).
I purchased a current model (presently in stock at the regular price),
and I'm fairly certain that Circuit City intends to remain in the
business of selling consumer electronics.
> > And again, I specifically wanted this particular Samsung model.
> > I don't know how the aforementioned RCA model compares, because
> > I've been unable to locate it on any website (including RCA.com).
> Although the RCA website isn't the easiest to navigate,
The interface is atrocious.
> I found it quite easily (I knew exactly as much as you did when I
> looked, which was that it was 27" with an ATSC tuner):
>
> http://tv.rca.com/en-US/ModelDetail.html?MN=27F634T&nav=BySize&PC=BySizeMedium
I was searching for an "HD" model (my error) with a $549 MSRP (your
error).
> I guess I was wrong about the MSRP, though...it's $459. You *know*
> that it won't sell for more than that, so it's basically the same
> as your set, yet has a free ATSC tuner.
I examined the spec sheet, and I see no evidence that this unit is
comparable to the "HD" Samsung model that I purchased. As you pointed
out in February, not even 480p display is mentioned:
http://www.dvd-software.info/forums/ftopic17476.html
While extremely positive, this review confirms that the display is
strictly 480i:
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/entertainment/special_packages/holiday_guide/13289371.htm
Aside from the inclusion of an ATSC tuner/decoder and digital F-type
input, nothing in the spec sheet suggests that it's any better than
the Samsung 27" 4:3 SDTV that cost me $450 three years ago. In fact,
that unit (model TXL2791F) features three sets of dedicated composite
video / stereo audio inputs, one dedicated set of component video
inputs, and two S-Video inputs. RCA's model 27F634T features one
dedicated set of composite video / stereo audio inputs, one additional
set that doubles as component video inputs, and one S-Video input.
Samsung's model TX-R2765 (the 27" 4:3 HDTV monitor that I purchased)
displays 480p. It features two sets of dedicated composite video /
stereo audio inputs, two additional sets that double as component
video inputs, and two S-Video inputs.
So no, RCA's 27F634T is *not* "basically the same." And as far as I
can tell, despite having been announced in January (via a press
release indicating that the 27" SDTV models would "be available for
suggested retail prices below $300"), it either has just begun
shipping or has not yet shipped. (Did you notice the "Weight: TBD"
notation, which matches a spec sheet that was revised in October?)
As of the time of this posting, a Froogle search for "27F634T" yields
one result:
http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=27F634T
I contacted AV Discount Depot by telephone, but their "computers are
down," so the gentleman to whom I spoke was unable to provide the
item's stock status.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|