Thanks for the pics, Nielsio. I have to admit, that looks very good.

Mine runs 3000 hours. If I would watch a 2 hour movie every day it would last over 4 years. The lamp costs around 100 euros (90 pounds, or ~133 usd ?). That's 9 dollar cent per day. Conclusion: lamps are basically of no concern whatsoever. In 4 years I'll probably buy a new one anyway, or stick a new lamp in for really no cost compared to how long you use it.

Awesome.

How much was the projector to begin with?

I bought a Panasonic Plasma 42" about six months ago, and have no regrets. Now that I'm in the market for another, similar size set (different room), I'm just wondering whether there has been any new developments since my purchase.

If my prior research led me to a Panasonic plasma before, is there any reason now I might reach a different conclusion?

I paid around 670 euros for it earlier this year. It's superb as far as price/quality. I have money but I'm not even considering upgrading because it's that good.

An extensive review:
http://www.projectorreviews.com/optoma/hd65/

prices are way down, i saw panny 1080p 42" + blu ray player + 2 blu ray movies for $950, which feels really cheap to me. i bought the panny 720p 42" for $1099 a year and a half ago when it was going for $1400ish, and thought i got a steal.

here's the link if interested:
http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?t=1009491

I just got an email solicitation for the following 42" Panasonic, and I'm tempted.

Any opinions?

One day sale from J&R

Good TV. I wish this sale would have happened 3 months ago. If you don't really need it, prices could come down even further post horrendous christmas sales numbers.

I have that TV (got it from the FTP store a while back) and its a great set imo.

The one feature it doesn't have is picture-in-picture, so if that's an important feature to you then you may want to look for something else.

I wall mounted mine with this bracket, it works great and was much cheaper than similar mounts I've seen elsewhere.

What is a top tier Blu-Ray player atm?

If you can wait, this will "likely" be the best if it's anything like their dvd players: http://oppodigital.com/blu-ray-bdp-83/

Not sure on price but I hope it's competitive.

I have one of their DVD players. I'm not shocked to see their biz be the best.

TY.

I have the PX80, the 720P set, and it's excellent.. I've always been a plasma guy so I'm a bit biased, but I think Panasonic makes good quality Plasmas that don't break the bank (Pioneers are awesome and all but expensive). That's a great deal

Predictably, I didn't pull the trigger on that deal, as I know I will feel the need to re-research what I did last January, when I purchased my first Panasonic.

Am I correct in understanding that the basic pros/cons for/against Plasmas/LCDs have not changed in the last 12 months or so? In Jan, I had decided that a plasma made the most sense for me, I think mostly because I decided that burn-in would not be an issue and I cared about the potential for blurring during fast-moving scenes, like in sports.

What do you guys think about OLED?

http://video.google.com/videosearch?...num=5&ct=title

http://video.google.com/videosearch?...num=5&ct=title



"Over at the OLED-heavy FPD International 2008 show, Samsung is showcasing the biggest panel (of this nature) that its pilot line can even create: a 40-inch Full HD OLED display. 1,920 x 1,080 pixels of delicious OLED goodness, mixed with a contrast ratio of 1,000,000:1, a color gamut of 107% NTSC, a luminance of 200cd/m2 and a thickness of just 8.9-millimeters."

I don't even want to ask how much an 40" OLED would sell for.

Wynton, for the last two years, I've been finding Samsung plasmas to look better than Panasonics. Of course this is a personal preference thing. However, you can get a 720p 50 inch Samsung from Amazon right now for $1000 shipped, and I think it will only go down from there, too. About a month ago I was in Best Buy - I know, not the ideal place for viewing - and once again I found the Samsung plasmas to look better than Panasonics.

That's interesting. I don't recall when I researched this a year ago coming to that conclusion. But I will certainly take another look at the Samsungs.

I would put very little stock in what the models look like at best buy. There is a lot of variance looking at them in those stores. I've heard that best buy employees purposely pick bad picture settings on cheaper models and good color settings on more expensive models (or models they are trying to push basically).

100% agree. However, like I said, these have been my findings consistently for the last couple of years, whenever and wherever I have been able to compare. I think it would be safe to say, at the very least, picture quality is negligible between the two brands, if not in favor of Samsung.

Still a long while away from making an affordable big screen OLED for the consumer market

I currently have a 2 channel stereo, with good bookshelves providing my sound. I use my stereo to listen to CDs, line out my TV audio, as well as the audio for DVDS or whatnot. I was considering adding a pair of front towers, rotating the bookshelves to back, and picking up a 5.1 or 7.1 or whatever receiver, adding more speakers later. But then, I remembered that I thought someone told me once that the next speaker to add to a 2 speaker setup was a center channel, particularly if you do your tv audio through your stereo. Before I move forward on anything, I wanted to see what he opinion of some experts was. This sounds like a reasonable idea, since the voices/etc are always on the center channel. But maybe it doesn't make sense, since my receiver is 2 channel, and probably doesn't route voices in that way? It would be cool if the next logical thing to add was also the cheapest (1 center channel).

Your 2 channel stereo only has two output channels, if it is indeed a 2 channel stereo, DUCY?

So you'll need a new amplifier anyway if you want to add either a center speaker, or front and back speakers or both. I'm pretty sure multi-channel amplifiers can configure for 4 speakers as well as two fronts and a center, depending on what feed they get. If you only get a stereo-signal from your television, then you'll want to play it in stereo, even if you have a center.

IMO, no amount of functional gimmicking can replace basic sound quality. For this reason I'd say upgrade your front speakers and front amplifier, if you want to upgrade anything. The realism that basic quality can provide (over functionality), the way it is articulate, soothing, deep, etc, is very underrated.

Most people don't think like this though, and they'd rather have 8 speakers and 2 subs without worrying about in-room responce.

So what is the next 'logical' thing is subjective.

citanul,

I'm a little confused. First you suggest getting a multichannel receiver and adding some front towers. Then you realize that a center channel would probably make more of a difference but claim that because you only have a 2 channel stereo, it wouldn't process the center channel. Why exactly wouldn't you be getting a multichannel receiver in the second case?

Either way, if you want surround sound for movies (or anything encoded for it), you're going to have to upgrade to a multichannel receiver, so that's probably your first step before adding any more speakers.

Also, I think more important than which speakers you get first (new front towers or a center channel speaker) is that your front 3 speakers all end up matching one another.

Obviously, I'm using the term multichannel receiver to refer to one that can process 5.1 or more channels.

You lose zero dialogue by not having a center speaker if your setup is 2 channel.

I would add surrounds or a subwoofer before anything else, as you will notice the largest difference this way.