View Full Version : Sony Tops LCD TV Market
Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20060223/tc_pcworld/124836)
Sony leapt to first place from fourth place in the LCD-TV market during the final three months of last year, knocking rival Sharp off the top spot for the first time ever, according to market researcher DisplaySearch.
In what may mark signs of a revival for Sony, the company's Bravia series of LCD-TVs (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/pcworld/tc_pcworld/storytext/124836/18172837/SIG=12309ubih/*http://www.digital-world.com/archives/2006/01/dv_hdtv_psp_oh.html) led it to the first place spot in the fourth quarter of last year in both units and revenue, along with its LCD panel capacity from its TFT-LCD panel joint venture with Samsung Electronics, DisplaySearch said.
Bobbler
23-Feb-2006, 20:37
Well deserved.
I'm hoping this is a sign of what's to come from Sony -- back to the high quality (yet high priced, still) stuff they used to be famous for. Doesn't hurt the consumers to have a solid competitor back in the market, that's for sure!
We bought a Sony LCD in the last month anyway.
What's the difference between the Grand Wega and the Bravia, with the Bravia being so much more expensive?
booomups
24-Feb-2006, 02:27
i just read a review on the net and the sony got real bad response times........ (one should see this by gaming on it, they said)
else it got ok test results, xcept an also not so good blacklevel
how happy are you with your sony lcd?
Well, I don't game with it. It's a fine general HDTV.
booomups
24-Feb-2006, 02:59
well... i'd love a 40" sony anyway. :roll:
Well deserved.
I'm hoping this is a sign of what's to come from Sony -- back to the high quality (yet high priced, still) stuff they used to be famous for. Doesn't hurt the consumers to have a solid competitor back in the market, that's for sure!
Back to the best in DRM which won't allow you to use your new equipment with any of the old. Bravo for the pioneers known as sony may they fester and swell.
NANOTEC
24-Feb-2006, 08:23
Well deserved.
I'm hoping this is a sign of what's to come from Sony -- back to the high quality (yet high priced, still) stuff they used to be famous for. Doesn't hurt the consumers to have a solid competitor back in the market, that's for sure!
The stronger sales may not even be attributed to better quality and/or performance. The SONY name along with cheap prices are usually enough to spark sales. Believe it or not you can find SONYs for very cheap prices nowadays. It doesn't have to be cheaper than the competition, it only has to be cheap enough for people to go "Hey I can get a SONY for that price? I'm sold!".
london-boy
24-Feb-2006, 10:17
The funny thing with the Bravia HDTVs is that the main hero of the situation is the Wega Engine: amazing processing, but it's OFF when in HD mode. It's just an engine to make SD sources look much better. Works like a charm, but in HD mode it's not needed and therefore is OFF.
Still, the sets are really really good, 8ms, amazing colour reproduction, good design, good build... Only in Europe they messed them up and took the VGA port out of the top of the range ones (The V-Series with the WEGA Engine), but left them on the lower range ones (the S-series which don't have the WEGA Engine)... go figure...
Bobbler
24-Feb-2006, 17:07
Back to the best in DRM which won't allow you to use your new equipment with any of the old. Bravo for the pioneers known as sony may they fester and swell.
Last time I checked the Bravia's don't have any DRM, so if you're going to take swipes at what I said, you may want to provide some sort of valid response.
In Sony's hayday (walkman/discman era) DRM was almost non existant, so I'm not really sure what your DRM hyperbole is really aiming for. Hate on Sony/BMG all you want, but that has little to do with Sony's LCD/TV products.
Bobbler
24-Feb-2006, 17:11
The stronger sales may not even be attributed to better quality and/or performance. The SONY name along with cheap prices are usually enough to spark sales. Believe it or not you can find SONYs for very cheap prices nowadays. It doesn't have to be cheaper than the competition, it only has to be cheap enough for people to go "Hey I can get a SONY for that price? I'm sold!".
Well, considering about the only thing that has changed for Sony in the LCD TV market is the Bravia's, I'd consider that the reason for it's success. And the Bravias are a fantastic LCD TV.
karlotta
24-Feb-2006, 17:36
Well, considering about the only thing that has changed for Sony in the LCD TV market is the Bravia's, I'd consider that the reason for it's success. And the Bravias are a fantastic LCD TV. Yes they are a nice LCDTV but volume sales are from price and marketing. "Sony has been aggressively slashing prices of its Bravia series, and pumped up its marketing in the final months of last year ". Good for them.
The funny thing with the Bravia HDTVs is that the main hero of the situation is the Wega Engine: amazing processing, but it's OFF when in HD mode. It's just an engine to make SD sources look much better. Works like a charm, but in HD mode it's not needed and therefore is OFF.
Still, the sets are really really good, 8ms, amazing colour reproduction, good design, good build... Only in Europe they messed them up and took the VGA port out of the top of the range ones (The V-Series with the WEGA Engine), but left them on the lower range ones (the S-series which don't have the WEGA Engine)... go figure...
Well, thanks, but I'm still not quite getting it. What does Bravia bring to the table beyond this http://www.sonystyle.ca/commerce/servlet/ProductDetailDisplay?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&productId=1001598 (ie. KDFE42A10). Which is the one in my home office, btw. I'm just curious, as there seemed to be a sizable price difference and it wasn't readily apparent to me why.
NANOTEC
24-Feb-2006, 18:48
Yes they are a nice LCDTV but volume sales are from price and marketing. "Sony has been aggressively slashing prices of its Bravia series, and pumped up its marketing in the final months of last year ". Good for them.
Heh I was right and I didn't even read the article before I posted. Also, "Its strong name brand was the biggest boost, a DisplaySearch analyst says.".
karlotta
24-Feb-2006, 19:14
Well ya the brand is big. In the Tv section of any US store, there are alot of choices and cool stuff going on. Also it was the sports time of the year.. "need to get HDTV", " Time to get a thin display, the cool adverts from Sony on the Braiva line, then you see the mark down! WOW i can get that uber name for same as the others who are not on sale...SOLD. Wega is a great display.
Bobbler
24-Feb-2006, 21:59
Well, thanks, but I'm still not quite getting it. What does Bravia bring to the table beyond this http://www.sonystyle.ca/commerce/servlet/ProductDetailDisplay?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&productId=1001598 (ie. KDFE42A10). Which is the one in my home office, btw. I'm just curious, as there seemed to be a sizable price difference and it wasn't readily apparent to me why.
I can't visit the link, but...
I think it's a matter of paying a lot for that last 10%, which may not even be apparent or fully realized depending on the source material (likely a vast majority of possibly source material you could have at the moment).
randycat99
25-Feb-2006, 04:58
Isn't Bravia also the 3 LCD design, or is that present on their other Sony models, as well?
The funny thing with the Bravia HDTVs is that the main hero of the situation is the Wega Engine: amazing processing, but it's OFF when in HD mode. It's just an engine to make SD sources look much better. Works like a charm, but in HD mode it's not needed and therefore is OFF.
Still, the sets are really really good, 8ms, amazing colour reproduction, good design, good build... Only in Europe they messed them up and took the VGA port out of the top of the range ones (The V-Series with the WEGA Engine), but left them on the lower range ones (the S-series which don't have the WEGA Engine)... go figure...
I don't know if I would say the main hero is the scaler because the CCFL is always used and thus the wider color gamut is always there.
NANOTEC
25-Feb-2006, 08:06
Isn't Bravia also the 3 LCD design, or is that present on their other Sony models, as well?
No, the Bravia line only consists of direct view LCDs while the Grand WEGAs are rear projection LCDs.
Well, thanks, but I'm still not quite getting it. What does Bravia bring to the table beyond this http://www.sonystyle.ca/commerce/servlet/ProductDetailDisplay?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&productId=1001598 (ie. KDFE42A10). Which is the one in my home office, btw. I'm just curious, as there seemed to be a sizable price difference and it wasn't readily apparent to me why.
Bravia's are direct view LCDs. Grand WEGA's are rear projection LCDs that use 3 LCD panels, one for each color. The Grand WEGAs need to have the Xenon bulbs replaced every so often. Grand WEGAs are similar to DLP.
Mintmaster
07-Apr-2006, 07:38
Well, thanks, but I'm still not quite getting it. What does Bravia bring to the table beyond this http://www.sonystyle.ca/commerce/servlet/ProductDetailDisplay?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&productId=1001598 (ie. KDFE42A10). Which is the one in my home office, btw.
Eeewwwww, rear-projection LCD. :razz:
Hardknock
07-Apr-2006, 09:22
Sony and Samsung have the best LCD tvs on the market. Can't go wrong with either of those. Plus the Sony set's are reasonably priced. Their success is well deserved.
london-boy
07-Apr-2006, 11:35
Sony and Samsung have the best LCD tvs on the market. Can't go wrong with either of those. Plus the Sony set's are reasonably priced. Their success is well deserved.
Samsung makes cheap LCD tv's, not "best" LCD tv's. Trust me i have one.
I'd put Panasonic way above Samsung, and Toshiba too, which always provides the best connections at a cheap price... And let's not forget Hitachi. Lots of companies make better sets than Samsung, and i say that as a Samsung customer.
Samsung makes cheap LCD tv's, not "best" LCD tv's. Trust me i have one.
I'd put Panasonic way above Samsung, and Toshiba too, which always provides the best connections at a cheap price... And let's not forget Hitachi. Lots of companies make better sets than Samsung, and i say that as a Samsung customer.
and let's not forget Philips with Philips-LG panels. ;)
Samsung makes cheap LCD tv's, not "best" LCD tv's. Trust me i have one.
I'd put Panasonic way above Samsung, and Toshiba too, which always provides the best connections at a cheap price... And let's not forget Hitachi. Lots of companies make better sets than Samsung, and i say that as a Samsung customer.
What you say is true london-boy, that Samsung are not a "best" brand, but I have a friend with a top of the range 40" Bravia Sony LCD and he is not happy with it as certain media played on it looks really bad. Yes I am talking about DivX stuff here that he encodes at high bitrates himself. He is comparing it to his aging 36" CRT set, but is disappointed that you need very high quality material being fed into it for the screen to really shine.
Of course he says that when HD material is here the screen will be able to stretch its pixels.. but realistically for most people that is still a year or more off.
For that main reason I have shied away from LCD TV screens.
randycat99
08-Apr-2006, 22:09
Just a troubleshooting point for your friend- ask him if he has tried to play the original, uncompressed content (assuming this divx stuff came from his own digital movie stock/home movies) on his Bravia (as in the camera in playback mode streaming directly to the TV). Does it still look bad? Hopefully there is a digital output option when connecting the digicam, because if the TV has to convert it from an analog signal, then that would be an extra complication to effect the resulting video.
The only update I have is that blacks have green patches in them, but this is not picked up on his CRT. Possibly poor encoding at fault but the main point is that without good material LCD screens look bad. I will speak to him and see if I can get more information.
As to where the original material came from - I didn't enquire.. ;)
randycat99
09-Apr-2006, 04:49
This could lead to an interesting result. Please keep us posted! ;)
london-boy
10-Apr-2006, 11:19
The only update I have is that blacks have green patches in them, but this is not picked up on his CRT. Possibly poor encoding at fault but the main point is that without good material LCD screens look bad. I will speak to him and see if I can get more information.
As to where the original material came from - I didn't enquire.. ;)
I understand, the "green ghost" of compressed DivX can be quite annoying, but for some reason, after a bit of tweaking, my TV doesn't suffer from that anymore. It all depends on the brightness and contrast settings on the TV.
I can testify that some DivX files do have horrible compression artifacts, and an LCD screen will usually amplify them if it's not tweaked properly, but all in all, todday the picture i get from my LCD is the best i've seen in people's homes, be it CRT or Plasma or anything else. I do try to always feed it nice things, my DVD player for example is an upscaling HDMI one and it shows... :wink:
My experience on LCD screens (computer displays, but I think LCD TV is the same) is that they have fewer colors so the compression artifacts are amplified. Furthermore, LCD have more detail than most CRT, so it's easier to see.
I once played a Real Media file on my CRT TV, which looks OK (it's an internet streaming video, low bitrate), but it looks terrible on my low-end 15" LCD. I think it's probably the same "problem" with LCD TV.
london-boy
10-Apr-2006, 11:55
What i found strange is that i see "green" where "black" should be on certain DVD players even on CRT, and never on my LCD... Which leads me to believe it's the source that's the prolem (either badly compressed or just a crap DVD player), not the display.
The LCD will only show the flaws a bit more, but that's just because it can show a lot more detail than old CRT. Still, with a good source, it looks great.
randycat99
11-Apr-2006, 03:09
Hasn't "green" been historically the most troublesome color to reproduce on CRT's and LCD's alike? The rendering suffers at its extremes, and likely finess in steps in between, as well. It may also be the color of greatest sensitivity for the human eye (whereas blue is typically the color of least sensitivity). So if there are residuals and artifacts in this color range, the eye will pick it up quite readily. ...or it could just be the particular TV has a calibration error where the green is getting some extra push at the low gray levels.
Samsung makes cheap LCD tv's, not "best" LCD tv's. Trust me i have one.
I'd put Panasonic way above Samsung, and Toshiba too, which always provides the best connections at a cheap price... And let's not forget Hitachi. Lots of companies make better sets than Samsung, and i say that as a Samsung customer.
The new R7xs are causing quite a stirr though. £800 for the 32" model, weeee.
Same goes for the new Bravia S - damn nice.
london-boy
14-Apr-2006, 13:41
The new R7xs are causing quite a stirr though. £800 for the 32" model, weeee.
Same goes for the new Bravia S - damn nice.
Yep, i might just sell my R51 to my best mate for 600 quid (totally ripping him off but hey, he's loaded and clueless!) and get a new one!! :lol:
Just made the dreaded trip to Currys to check out some LCDs and get dribbled on by the absolute spacktards that set them up (badly).
The standout performer was a 32" Sony V series (old one). They had neither the new S nor the new V in store, but if the former is as good as the set we saw (supposedly it's even better) then Sony have another winner - absolutely suberb in every respect.
They had a Samsung R73 and R51 side by side there as well. Unfortunately their freeview tuners seemed to really struggle with the signal they were getting and they were the only sets which were dropping the stream repeatedly. IQ-wise, the R7x wasn't the improvement over the R5x that I was expecting, though it was hard to tell because (with identical menu settings) the former provided very pink-biased skin tones, while the latter tended towards orange. They made each other look a bit silly to be honest, though the quality of the panels was evident - I suspect they'd come closer to the Sony with HD video.
Aesthetically, the R73 is absolutely hideous. It looks great in brochures but when you see it up close the uneven gloss black surface lets it down - it just seems tacky. I much prefer the more faceted older models.
Got to say, the most distinguishing factor in-store was the way the sets coped with a standard definition feed. The few LCDs that were hooked up to HD sources were more tricky to compare. The LGs looked good for the money, but again, the Sony won out due to deeper blacks and far more useful processing - LG's "XD" seemed less intelligent, by default raising the saturation and contrast to silly levels. There was a Panasonic unit there which looked quite good, but I didn't have time to investigate. Shame there were no Toshibas.
NANOTEC
16-Apr-2006, 23:48
I'm surpised they didn't have any Sharps which usually are the best direct view LCDs.
I'm surpised they didn't have any Sharps which usually are the best direct view LCDs.
They have a pretty good reputation, but their relatively new P-series isn't HD-ready (res is 960 x 540) which obviously doesn't do them any favours on the "checkbox feature" list. IIRC, they also have pretty crappy PC compatibility - VGA res limitation on the DB15 port.
london-boy
19-Apr-2006, 13:26
Just made the dreaded trip to Currys to check out some LCDs and get dribbled on by the absolute spacktards that set them up (badly).
The standout performer was a 32" Sony V series (old one). They had neither the new S nor the new V in store, but if the former is as good as the set we saw (supposedly it's even better) then Sony have another winner - absolutely suberb in every respect.
They had a Samsung R73 and R51 side by side there as well. Unfortunately their freeview tuners seemed to really struggle with the signal they were getting and they were the only sets which were dropping the stream repeatedly. IQ-wise, the R7x wasn't the improvement over the R5x that I was expecting, though it was hard to tell because (with identical menu settings) the former provided very pink-biased skin tones, while the latter tended towards orange. They made each other look a bit silly to be honest, though the quality of the panels was evident - I suspect they'd come closer to the Sony with HD video.
Aesthetically, the R73 is absolutely hideous. It looks great in brochures but when you see it up close the uneven gloss black surface lets it down - it just seems tacky. I much prefer the more faceted older models.
Got to say, the most distinguishing factor in-store was the way the sets coped with a standard definition feed. The few LCDs that were hooked up to HD sources were more tricky to compare. The LGs looked good for the money, but again, the Sony won out due to deeper blacks and far more useful processing - LG's "XD" seemed less intelligent, by default raising the saturation and contrast to silly levels. There was a Panasonic unit there which looked quite good, but I didn't have time to investigate. Shame there were no Toshibas.
Hey you copied some guy's post on the avforums! And you're using his username too!!!
lol. Yeah - have to be bit careful when you post in a bandwagon thread like that. AVF is ok though.
Good to know the reception problem probably isn't a Samsung "feature". It was odd - pretty sure a Samsung rep would have something to say about the way their TVs are being presented in the Aylesbury branch of Currys. :roll:
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.