Since Czech questioned Satellite Radio...

[Ripper 0]

I think if you can't see that much of a difference between HD and SD TV, then you need your eyes seriously checked. They are night and day different. I would say its is a much bigger jump from VHS (well...a new VHS) and DVD in picture quality. But its not like SDTV is horrible looking crap or anything, so I can understand not wanting to upgrade.

 

I personally love the picture quality of a HDTV once you get it home and tweek it out of those "THIS IS THE COLOR BLUE!!!!!!!!!" bright ass store settings.

 

I find myself watching shit just because its so beautiful on the screen.

 

 

[DrVenkman PhD 0]

The NBC store in NYC has The Office playing on a 1080i (or did in May, anyway) or whatever TV to promote the HD experience. It didn't seem to look all that different than watching it on DVD on a widescreen HDTV (without an S-Video cable or anything like that, so just the standard DVD resolution). I also don't like the idea that if I were to pony up for the HD receiver for $x's a month, like al said in the original post, all I've basically done is give myself the right to watch the major networks in HD. Anything else is extra.

 

That said, once HD is mandatory, I assume receiver prices will go down and this will be a golden age of television.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

I'm not sure HD will be "mandatory" anytime soon. You might be thinking of the plan to replace all analog broadcasts with digital broadcasts by 2009. HD is always digital, but digital is not always HD.

 

I sound like fucking Marv and Mole. Kill me, heh...mmm

[Guest Pizza Hut's Game Face]

I'm hearing a lot of "those dadgum kids and their new technologies."

Well, sorry, it's just that I don't watch enough hours of television to want a really nice television. I wouldn't turn one down, I guess, but it's not a high priority at the moment. I watch a few things on my 14" TV without a remote, and I watch my DVDs on my laptop. I'm gettin' by. Come on, it's not like I'm saying "this is too real."

[Ripper 0]

You can hook a antenna up to your TV and get alot of HD channels (Like NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, and CW) so you don't HAVE to pay for a receiver. That alone was worth it for me anyway. My 32inch flat tube HDTV was about 100 bucks more than the SD version. Well worth the money.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I'd say it's worth it if you're buying a new TV in general. Due to my constant moving around and shifting of environments and television sets, I've had to buy a new TV for the past couple years and this one included. I bought a 30" HD set in `05 (CRT) which I gave to my mom when I moved out, then I bought a smaller 20" widescreen HD set which was intended at first to be just a second monitor for video editing and is now my only television set in the house, so I'm trying to buy a new 28-32" TV for my girlfriend and I. I don't watch cable all that often, mostly sports, but having the HD set is useful for games as well.

[Nighthawk 0]

I've never actually purchased a television, I always get them second hand from richer relatives who are upgrading. My current one is a pretty decent 42 inch one, but I would never buy something like that for myself.

[Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0]

Most TV's have the tuners built into them.

I like watching things in HD. One of the reasons I watched the WS because it was in Hi-Def. I don't like that DirecTv wants an extra $10 a month for HD.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I think for HD to be really appreciated, you need to watch a fair amount of it, then go back to watching standard definiton stuff. This came up in the NHL thread a few weeks ago, how spoiled we've become. It really is miles better, though I do appreciate the point of not wanting to pay for it.

 

Like Mik said, I spend four figures on my new tv, and I don't regret it even a little. It's really akin to VHS being replaced by DVD as far as the sound and picture quality.

 

And yeah, where's Marvin?

 

I have had XM (March 05) about as long as Ive had my HDTV (November 04). Im on my 4th XM Receiver (Ive had a Roady1, Roady 2, SkyFi1 and my Inno which Ive had since May) whereas Im only on my 3rd HDTV/Directv receiver (Regular HD, HD-Tivo, HD-DVR) (and 1 TV).

 

I love my Pioneer Inno portable XM receiver btw. Between being able to set it to record and listen to stuff later and to be able to walk around listening to it just about anywhere, it was worth the $100 I paid for it. $13 a month isn't such a big deal if you consider I pay $75 for my Directv subscription.

 

However, the XM/Sirius merger will pretty much kill off Sat Radio, so I really hope it doesn't happen.

 

As far as HDTV Goes, I believe the people who say "I dont see any difference between regular tv and HD" are blind.

 

While you CAN buy flat panels for $500 you will get what you pay for. There are big differences between low end and high end LCD/Plasma/DLP's.

Vizzio's go for around that price and they are rated very well by just about everyone.

 

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I can't believe some companies charge extra for HD programming. With Starchoice in Canada it's free with whatever satellite package you have.

 

Directv right now is $9.99 for their 70+ HD Channels. It may/may not go up as planned in December to $15 if you want all the hD channels.

After 2 years of spending $10 for 7 hd channels, $15 for over 100 (by the end of the year) sounds like a bargain.

[Ripper 0]

I can't believe some companies charge extra for HD programming. With Starchoice in Canada it's free with whatever satellite package you have.

 

Directv right now is $9.99 for their 70+ HD Channels. It may/may not go up as planned in December to $15 if you want all the hD channels.

After 2 years of spending $10 for 7 hd channels, $15 for over 100 (by the end of the year) sounds like a bargain.

 

You know its not really a hundred channels though, right?

 

Kinda like how Comcast talked about how they will have over 400 HD choices by the end of the year, counting each and every movie or show they will have in HD along with all the channels.

 

Direct TV is counting each channel of the NFL network, and regional stuff that not everyone will get.

 

Fucking lying fuckers. Both of them.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

As far as HDTV Goes, I believe the people who say "I dont see any difference between regular tv and HD" are blind.

 

Unfair. There's a parade of ignorance associated with HDTV.

[Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0]

There was study done recently. A lot of people who have the HD sets don't have HD. In LA, we have ABC7 in HD, which means those who are ignorant think they have HD by default.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

The NBC store in NYC has The Office playing on a 1080i (or did in May, anyway) or whatever TV to promote the HD experience. It didn't seem to look all that different than watching it on DVD on a widescreen HDTV (without an S-Video cable or anything like that, so just the standard DVD resolution). I also don't like the idea that if I were to pony up for the HD receiver for $x's a month, like al said in the original post, all I've basically done is give myself the right to watch the major networks in HD. Anything else is extra.

 

That said, once HD is mandatory, I assume receiver prices will go down and this will be a golden age of television.

 

 

I don't really see $1600 for a TV and another $200 for a receiver as that big of a deal to watch amazing looking television. It's about spending money on what you like.

Spending $1800 on ANYTHING is a big deal.

 

I'll upgrade when HDTVs are roughly the same price as regular tvs, and I need a new tv. I have a 19" mono television I got in about 1999, so that shows you how much I value technology in my television watching. Hell, I still often use a commodore 64 monitor to play video games. It's not that new technology isn't an improvement. It's that the cost in this case doesn't add up. If I have $1800 to spend, it goes towards paying off principal on loans.

[CanadianChris 0]

What I don't get is how "I wouldn't spend the money on HD" has been extrapolated to "Why would anyone spend money on HD?" Some people have different likes and different priorities when it comes to disposable income. Me, I paid $2200 total for my two HDTVs and some amount I don't remember for my two receivers and programming, and it's been money well spent.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

What I don't get is how "I wouldn't spend the money on HD" has been extrapolated to "Why would anyone spend money on HD?" Some people have different likes and different priorities when it comes to disposable income. Me, I paid $2200 total for my two HDTVs and some amount I don't remember for my two receivers and programming, and it's been money well spent.

I hate anyone who has $2200 to throw around on general principle.

[CanadianChris 0]

Heh.

 

Marrying someone who makes even more than you do helps.

[Craig Th 0]

I get over 40 HD channels for free with Cablevision.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

I walked into the electronic section the other day, pleasantly high, and watched the last few incredible plays of Oklahoma/Boise State. Awesome.

 

All the football I've watched today has been on my dad's badass HDTV. I have no fucking idea what size or resolution it is; that's like spouting off car engine statistics to me.