Sony Grand WEGA KF-60WE610 60 in. HDTV-Ready LCD TV
Out of stock |
Similar in Projection Televisions
- Digital TV Standard: HDTV-Ready
- Aspect Ratio: 16:9 14:9
- Weight: 100 lb.
- Projector Technology: LCD
- Built-in Tuner: NTSC
- Screen Size: 60 inch
- Overview
-
Reviews
-
Compare Prices
User ReviewRead All Reviews »
HDTV ahead of its time
Pros
Excellent picture quality
Cons
Not enough HD channels to fully appreciate TV's capability
Recommended it?
Yes
The Bottom Line:
For 50-inch or larger, buy Sony's LCD. For smaller HDTV, I recommend Samsung's DLP.
My 50-inch rear projection TV started giving intolerable "double images" after 14 years. It was a time to replace it.
For a new TV, I shopped three different stores with three others (my wife and another couple). Considering picture quality, size, and price, we all agreed on two things. One: below 50-inch category, Samsung's DLP TVs provided the best picture quality – brighter and more crisp image – in all three stores. Comparing TVs are so much easier, and pretty objective, because you see the TVs side by side. The DLPs cost a little more, compared to other technology-based equivalent size; but at several thousand dollar level, a couple hundred dollar becomes . . . well . . . less significant. Unfortunately, we couldn't purchase Samsung's DLP because they only went up to 40-some inch size. Two: for 50-inch or larger category, Sony's LCD was the winner. The LCD simply provided the best quality picture. (My wife often believes in a theory that "you get what you pay for." So I was a little wary that she would opt for $10,000 plasma TV; but, she also was convinced that the LCD showed better images. I later learned that some plasma TVs are actually inferior because many of them only goes up to 780 pixel count, not up to 1,080 like the Sony LCDs. In addition, a plasma TV lasts only about 60% or so of a life of a LCD TV. LCDs last about the same as the "conventional" CRT TVs – I guess time will tell.)
PRICE JUSTIFICATION: We watch TV almost every night. We convinced ourselves that $3,600 was worth the money for the next 15 years or so.
HIGH DEFINITION: I read somewhere that FCC (Federal Communications Commission) will mandate all TV broadcasts in the U.S. to be digital by 2006. This may be an optimistic schedule, but, I wanted my TV to be ready for the future. Right now, I am receiving some HD channels through Cox Cable. Oh, what a difference HD makes! Images are so clear that you think you're watching a three dimensional pictures. It's too bad that more than 80% of what I watch now is NOT in HD format. I am patiently waiting. I suspect that when broadcasting companies change over all their equipment for the digital signals, they will make a leap into HD arena as well. Why spend millions and billions of dollars just to settle for the low-end technology!
TV SIZE: We upgraded from a 50-inch (4:3 aspect ratio) TV to a 60-inch (16:9 aspect ratio) TV. Due to different aspect ratios, we can't really tell that we have a larger TV now. I think it is pretty true that diagonal measurement of an "older" TV should be compared with the WIDTH of the wide-screen TV, not with the diagonal dimension.
IMAGE OPTIONS: This is the only issue my wife and I disagree on, pertaining to this TV. Because many channels are still in 4:3 aspect ratio, we get two dead bands on "normal" view, one on left and the other on right. I'm told these bands can ruin your future images if left as is. My wife likes to fill up the screen with "wide" view, which makes every image wide and short. It's a distortion I refuse to see on this $3,600 TV. Although I lose some top and some bottom portions, I like to watch in "zoom" mode. Everything looks normal except on few occasions, top portions of people's heads are beyond the TV's top edge. Captions at the bottom are also chopped off. Then, my wife goes nuts. If we watch HD channels, all images look normal and the screen is full – we're a happy couple, munching on popcorns.
The TV has some neat features like freezing a frame (to read a long caption or those important phone numbers) and adjustable size picture-in-picture. However, these features are "sacrificed" in return for cable and home theatre system hookups. For some reason, as I add on more equipment, I seem to have to give up on special capabilities.
By the way, each speaker is rated at 5 Watts. I think a TV this big deserves a little more power.
For a new TV, I shopped three different stores with three others (my wife and another couple). Considering picture quality, size, and price, we all agreed on two things. One: below 50-inch category, Samsung's DLP TVs provided the best picture quality – brighter and more crisp image – in all three stores. Comparing TVs are so much easier, and pretty objective, because you see the TVs side by side. The DLPs cost a little more, compared to other technology-based equivalent size; but at several thousand dollar level, a couple hundred dollar becomes . . . well . . . less significant. Unfortunately, we couldn't purchase Samsung's DLP because they only went up to 40-some inch size. Two: for 50-inch or larger category, Sony's LCD was the winner. The LCD simply provided the best quality picture. (My wife often believes in a theory that "you get what you pay for." So I was a little wary that she would opt for $10,000 plasma TV; but, she also was convinced that the LCD showed better images. I later learned that some plasma TVs are actually inferior because many of them only goes up to 780 pixel count, not up to 1,080 like the Sony LCDs. In addition, a plasma TV lasts only about 60% or so of a life of a LCD TV. LCDs last about the same as the "conventional" CRT TVs – I guess time will tell.)
PRICE JUSTIFICATION: We watch TV almost every night. We convinced ourselves that $3,600 was worth the money for the next 15 years or so.
HIGH DEFINITION: I read somewhere that FCC (Federal Communications Commission) will mandate all TV broadcasts in the U.S. to be digital by 2006. This may be an optimistic schedule, but, I wanted my TV to be ready for the future. Right now, I am receiving some HD channels through Cox Cable. Oh, what a difference HD makes! Images are so clear that you think you're watching a three dimensional pictures. It's too bad that more than 80% of what I watch now is NOT in HD format. I am patiently waiting. I suspect that when broadcasting companies change over all their equipment for the digital signals, they will make a leap into HD arena as well. Why spend millions and billions of dollars just to settle for the low-end technology!
TV SIZE: We upgraded from a 50-inch (4:3 aspect ratio) TV to a 60-inch (16:9 aspect ratio) TV. Due to different aspect ratios, we can't really tell that we have a larger TV now. I think it is pretty true that diagonal measurement of an "older" TV should be compared with the WIDTH of the wide-screen TV, not with the diagonal dimension.
IMAGE OPTIONS: This is the only issue my wife and I disagree on, pertaining to this TV. Because many channels are still in 4:3 aspect ratio, we get two dead bands on "normal" view, one on left and the other on right. I'm told these bands can ruin your future images if left as is. My wife likes to fill up the screen with "wide" view, which makes every image wide and short. It's a distortion I refuse to see on this $3,600 TV. Although I lose some top and some bottom portions, I like to watch in "zoom" mode. Everything looks normal except on few occasions, top portions of people's heads are beyond the TV's top edge. Captions at the bottom are also chopped off. Then, my wife goes nuts. If we watch HD channels, all images look normal and the screen is full – we're a happy couple, munching on popcorns.
The TV has some neat features like freezing a frame (to read a long caption or those important phone numbers) and adjustable size picture-in-picture. However, these features are "sacrificed" in return for cable and home theatre system hookups. For some reason, as I add on more equipment, I seem to have to give up on special capabilities.
By the way, each speaker is rated at 5 Watts. I think a TV this big deserves a little more power.
