HD Ready...is it really worth the extra!

I`m looking at the 32" Panny LXD50 and 500, obviously the 50 is without HD connectivity and priced at £1050 (online) and the 500 is HD ready and has a online price tag of £1400-500 !

THAT seems like a HUGE increase for the addition of a simple connector and since i only just bought my home and on a budget is it really worth all that extra?? I haven`t got Sky Digital nor will i be able to afford it at least for another few years, the only extra i`ll have is freeview, ! are there any plans for HD on freeview! Terrestrial , well BBC say no plans for HD until 2010, and from what i can see the only benefit i can see if from DVDs!! Well yea, i do watch a hell of lot of DVDs but i mean i`m quite happy with the fantastic quality they produce all ready!

Am i being neive in thinking that i`d be quite happy with the LXD50 without HD or is there some underlying factor i am missing that should or could sway my opinion to part with the extra cash?

Chris

PS, any other TVs, 32" you would recommend me consider!?

 

Well it all depends on your finances and how long you plan to keep the TV for and what you plan on using it for.

I am just about to buy a HD TV but that should last me at least 5 or longer years as I can't afford to buy one any sooner.

But as you say, you have no plans to watch any HD transmissions, so there is no point in paying the extra, except you mention DVDs. If you can afford it go for the HD one now. If you work it out by value per year, the HD one should give a much better return.

Also I don't know much really about the technical side of things, but I don't think it's just a case of a different connector?? Not sure though.

Greg

 

Other recommends would be Pannys sister - JVC DS6 and Sharp P50 or GA6. Neither of the latter two have Freeview included, whereas the JVC does. GD7 is Sharp's Freeview equipped TV.
Some members have also plumbed for the Hitachi or Samsung models, and seem to be quite content with them.

As per the above reply - if you're banking on a 5 year ownership (minimum) then you seriously want to consider HD as something you MAY opt for, even if only 3+ years from now. You're better off having something you can use later on than realising later that you sold yourself short and regret not having gone HD Ready.
The £300 is £5/month difference - you'll fork out more by the time you sell the TV and buy another one with HD capabilities in 2 or 3 years time, if you see HD take off and want it.
If the difference were £1000, then that'd be worth deliberating over.

Also, you've held off buying a fancy new TV this long, another 3 months or so won't make any difference, so you could have the more expensive HD Ready one then, when the price has dropped some more.

 

It is about your needs but also if you buy something now would it not be worthwile to think about the future, there are no current plans for freeview to go HD and if it did it would have to be after the anolouge signals are switched of (around 2012) as at present there simply isnt the bandwidth and this has been recently stated by the BBC.

The advantage to going HD is about future proofing yourself with the new DVD formats on there way, Sky HD (which may or may not include the BBC from the start and in the future other broadcasters) and the next generation of games consoles supporting HD it makes sence to factor this into your equation.

There are HD ready models out there for around £1000 and they will come down in price. I think if you wait a few months you will see more HD models around and also the price of them will also fall. I had saved up some money to buy a new TV but when I checked out www.pricerunner.co.uk I found that the TV I wanted the Hitachi 32LD7200 was cheaper than I thought so really have a look round and don't rush into buying something only to regret your dessision a little while down the road.

 

Hi Folks

I've just been looking at the TX32LXD50 in a small independent retailer and the picture looked absolutely dreadful. It suffered badly from the "Oily water" effect and also looked very pixelated. The guy in the store basically agreed and said that is how LCD screens are until technology improves in about 4 years time. He didn't even say that it was because the TVs (and there weren't many of them) were all running from the same feed.

I've read that the TX32LXD500 can improve standard definition broadcast pictures but having not been able to see one anywhere first, I am reluctant to order one from an internet company. Everyone says that they must be ordered.

Can anyone please confirm that standard definition pictures would look any better on the TX32LXD500 than the TX32LXD50 ?

Does the TX32LXD500 still suffer from the same appalling picture quality, even from say four feet away ?

Thanks
Gogglebox

 

Can't comment on Panny, but GD1 from Sharp with analog RF (NTL) looks more than satisfactory on the majority of channels. Even DVD recording of Shrek and Tomb Raider last Xmas on JVC DRM10 at variable BR looks very good via Sharp's HD400 DVDR. "Lost" recording in SP mode via NTL digital was splendid - some scenes displayed a depth of field, which I'd never seen before on ANY CRT tubed TV, no matter whom made by nor what fancy gubbins they included to 'help' the image look good.
Any TV 4ft from your eyes will look poor - even the best CRTs. You've got to be realistic about the viewing dstance and the lighting conditions, not to mention the feed being fed.