iPhone 3GS from AT&T. Free Shipping
Home audio & video: Monitors vs. Televisions: Aren't televisions obsolete?
Monitors vs. Televisions: Aren't televisions obsolete?
by jcvesq - 4/28/08 8:42 AMHere is my question/comment:
Most people I know subscribe to cable or satellite television services instead of watching "broadcast" television. They don't need the analog or digital tuners that come with all televisions sold these days. Also, a signifcant percentage of them have audio systems that they use to listen to their television programs instead of the built-in speakers. This obviates the need for built-in speakers, audio connects, wiring etc. in the tv's.
So the question is, if a good percentage of the people who buy tv's don't use the audio wiring or the built in tuners or both, why hasn't an electronics manufacturer started selling a monitor without these features? They could save money by eliminating all the extraneous junk and focus its egineering and marketing dollars on just the display. Am I missing something here?
I partially agree
by Dan Filice - 4/28/08 10:21 AM In reply to: Monitors vs. Televisions: Aren't televisions obsolete? by jcvesqI don't use the tuner in my TV because I have a cable box, but I still do use the built-in TV speakers for all viewing unless I am watching a DVD.
Even those of us with a cable box may very well want to
by NM_Bill - 4/28/08 11:04 AM In reply to: Monitors vs. Televisions: Aren't televisions obsolete? by jcvesqreceive local HD broadcasts over the air. So, in that case we still need the tuner. In OTA (ovewr the air) the reception is often better than that from through the cable system as the cable usually compresses the signal.
Yes, with an audio system, I do not use the small built in speaker.
they already make what you want...
by Dabonka1 - 4/28/08 2:43 PM In reply to: Monitors vs. Televisions: Aren't televisions obsolete? by jcvesqThey used to be called HD "monitors". Panasonic previuosly made a highly successful and well awarded pro-series of plasma monitors. However, since the announcement of the analog signal broadcasts to be cutoff in Feb 2009. It was madated that "all and any" tv's sold started as of March 2007 MUST have a built in ATSC {digital} tuner. I believe, this recently expanded into other certain tv related devices such as DVRs and DVD recorders as now they too MUST have a ATSC tuner. Older inventory of such items must have specific SIGNAGE specifying that as of Feb 2009 they will no longer be able to recieve {NTSC} analog signals and may require the addition of a digital converter to operate properly. As we all know, this is bad news for retailers... LOL Oh well not all of them were up to the task of putting up a simple sign... Recently, the FCC fined multiple consumer electroni stores {ie CC, BB, Sears, K-Mart,WalMart, Ect} check it out here:
>> http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-04-11-0142.html
and/or
>> http://www.wtopnews.com/?sid=1384735&nid=108
I read somewhere they are getting another huge round of fines in June for continually selling smaller 9" portables w/o ATSC tuners! LOL
Sometime corporate America makes me laugh, man... Wonder who thought of.. "lets save .02 cents and not put up a 3x5 business card notices"... Next week, Circuit City fined $2,000,000.00. LOL
Well thats the tuners...
AS FOR Speakers... I think MOST {but not all} consumers demand having built in speakers. I think a large percentage of the general publich just use their built in tin cans on the TV's themselves. I think only in the last 5 - 10 years have any form of actual "home theatre" even come into the consciuosness of most regular Joes. Not to mention with the increase in technology finally getting down in proce to a practical level for the average citizen. I do believe, built in speakers will be the norm for many years to come.
Please take my opinion for what its worth {basically nothing}... hope you enjoyed reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it.
Enjoy!
Dabonka1
More about TV speakers
by Dan Filice - 4/28/08 3:22 PM In reply to: Monitors vs. Televisions: Aren't televisions obsolete? by jcvesqI've had a surround system probably longer than most people on this forum, but I still use my TV speakers. When I'm watching the news, local TV shows, sitcoms, Huell Howser on PBS, etc., I don't need my surround system enveloping me with sound. Hearing Huell from two speakers is plenty. The "tin can" speakers on my 55" Sony sound great for non-dramatic TV viewing. Yes, my surround system sounds much better, but I find there is a time and place for both.
Sorry to say your assumption is probably incorrect.
by ahtoi - 4/28/08 7:17 PM In reply to: Monitors vs. Televisions: Aren't televisions obsolete? by jcvesqLike most here, I also use the built-in speakers on my tv. I probably would use my tuner too if I didn't have hills all around me. The other thing is that the extraneous junks doesn't cost that much. Just my thought on this.
I never use...
by stuntman_mike - 4/29/08 12:11 PM In reply to: Monitors vs. Televisions: Aren't televisions obsolete? by jcvesqthe built in tuner and I never, ever, use the built in speakers under any circumstances, so I am with you on this one. Surround systems cost too much IMO to only use them when I watch I movie lol. No offense to anyone who only uses it for this, but for me that doesn't make sense.
As far as you asking why don't manufacturers make TVs without this stuff, they do. You alluded to it in the title of your thread, it's called a monitor. The only difference between a TV and a monitor is the tuner.
As others have mentioned, there are companies like Panasonic and Pioneer that make professional monitors without the tuner and speakers. They also usually have much better picture adjustments than on the consumer models. Unfortunately they are a pain to configure with respect to inputs and outputs, speakers if you want them, and stands, and that can quickly add up to be more than the comparable consumer model.
What can you do lol?
Huell Howser
by dinox64 - 5/1/08 6:09 PM In reply to: I never use... by stuntman_mikeYou're missing out if you don't get him saying "Golleee..." or "That's Amazing.." in surround.
Monitor vs TV
by Dan Filice - 5/2/08 2:49 PM In reply to: I never use... by stuntman_mikeMike,
You stated "The only difference between a TV and a monitor is the tuner." Technically this is correct. But in some circles, like the broadcast industry, "monitors", like the Ikegami, Sony and JVC monitors we use at work, don't come with a tuner or speakers, but they come with setup parameters that are not meant for the consumer. They are made for technicians that hookup scopes and other equipment to the "monitor", feed them specific signals, and they calibrate the TV pictures to match the levels as spelled out by SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers). All of this is so that the editors or Telecine colorists can be given a picture that shows a "perfect" image in regards to color, contrast, blacks and whites so when they work on product for us consumers, it's the best possible product. For many of the professionals who work on TV and movie product, there needs to be a base-level of picture quality so if they work at different facilities, the TVs they use can all look the same. This is the standard that was developed by SMPTE and this is what the technicians use to adjust all of the professional monitors so they all look the same. Bottom line is that if we consumers got our hands on a real monitor, we wouldn't know what to do with it.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
