Vizio readies its sub-$2000 47-inch 1080p LCD TV
By Darren Murph 
posted Dec 16th 2006 10:19PM
posted Dec 16th 2006 10:19PM
Ah Vizio, at it again with the low-cost offerings (which Sony doesn't appreciate very much). While we're sure more than a few folks are kicking back and gazing at their recently-purchased $1,000 42-inch PDP, the firm has divulged that come next February, we can all expect a 47-inch LCD HDTV to hit Sam's Club, Costco, and potentially other big box retailers for "less than $2,000." Oh, and it sports 1080p, too. The firm's CEO declared that current 1080p sets in the $3,000+ range simply "aren't affordable," and is hoping the Super Bowl rush to pick up an HDTV before the big game will boost sales of its undercutting set. An analyst noted that Vizio's offerings didn't "have all the extra features" that other manufactures typically include, and that it didn't feature "the best picture quality," but admitted that it was a bargain and "a good value" nonetheless. So if you know that aging set will need replacing come Super Bowl Sunday, and you've only got about two large to throw down, Vizio should be able to fit the bill quite nicely.
I can't wait until all LCD/Plasma TVs pretty much become today's standard for a television set kind of like how a lot of people now use an LCD for a monitor instead of a CRT.
I really want a nice widescreen HDTV, but I don't want to pay thousands and thousands of dollars.
Why even bother with 1080p if you are not going to put the best picture quality out there? This sounds serious given the huge differences in quality on LCD screens. Besides we can expect $1000 1080p LCDs from pretty much all manufacturers this time next year.
HDTVs is one area where the much-maligned Sony actually kicks ass. I don't like any other Sony products but their HDTVs look excellent.
Panasonic kicks Sony's butt in both performance and value in HDTV, Pioneer too.
I have seen Vizios next to Samsungs and other HDTVs, and I must say that the stock whitepoint of the Vizios is always.....off, i.e. too hot or too cold. It varies with the individual program being run, but is consistent in its incorrectness. The only program that looked better on the Vizio than on the others was a Vizio commercial! My guess is that it wasn't calibrated to a standard whitepoint, but specifically to the Vizio's whitepoint.
Thats an ironic marketing strategy since the Superbowl isnt even broadcast in 1080p.
well, i picked up one of the vizio 42" plasmas at costco, and i have to say, unless youre completely anal, you cant beat vizio. I love mine, but granted im not a HDTV expert or anything, but i get a nice crisp, bright, and vibrant picture on mine... and even DVDs look awesome. I have no complaints and highly reccomend them.
Westinghouse's 47" LCD has been out for a while and is sub-$2k.
Anybody have a guess when I can pick it up from Costco, directly?
btw, Westinghouse's 47" beauty is 1800 at Best Buy. I'm wondering, What's the CATCH!?
I own this TV. I am happy with the purchase, and I haven't even viewed a 1080p source on it yet. Even DVD's look great. They even looked good before I remembered to change the setting on my DVD player to upscale them. The 1080i signal supplied by the cable company is stunning and makes everything else hard to watch.
On the downside, of course is the lack of a tuner, but unless you are planning on using OTA signal this is not an issue.
My only other complaint is that there is no zoom function so if you have a widescreen DVD that isn't "Enhanced for widescreen TV's" then you end up watching a little rectangle in the center of your screen with a black border all around.
>>Panasonic kicks Sony's butt in both performance and value in HDTV, Pioneer too.
NO, definitely not in 1080p LCDs. In 1080p LCD HDTVs Sharp and Sony are easily the industry standard. The Sony XBR2/XBR3 are amazing. Both Aquos and XBR sets have contrast ratios that approach plasmas without the negaties that plasma brings alsong. Also, the Bravia S-line and cheaper Aquos sets are also very good relative to the price.
Pioneer and Panny do great plasma sets, but they are much more expensive, the Pioneer Elite series plamsa is easily the best set out there but costs over multiple times as much as LCP 1080p sets.
>>Westinghouse's 47" LCD has been out for a while and is sub-$2k.
From first hand experience. . .
The Westinghouse is highly flawed. First off, it doesn't have a TV-tuner (much less a HDTV tuner) so you'll need a device with a TV tuner built in the receive signals (like a set top box or a VCR).
It does ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE deinterlacing, so any interlaced signal looks like absolute garbage.
It does do 1080p signals beautifully and if you have a good clean source the TV looks great, however the low contrast ratio makes images look incredibly washed out, the TV is cheap but you get what you pay for.
Within the next year, expect 1080p sets to become the standard.
After 1080p, once HDMI 1.3 HDTVs come to market, the next big selling point will be "True Color" TVs, currently TVs are entirely 24bit, being that that is the limitations of component and HDMI 1.0 spec, but future sets will support 30-bit color.
$2000! This is why I miss CRT's, they provided excellant pictures for a decent price. A 1080p CRT is technicly possible, but manufacturers no longer want to invest in something that does not have CHIC appeal, despite the fact that CRT's have better contrast and colour when compaired to most "affordable" LCD's.
"...manufacturers no longer want to invest in something that does not have CHIC appeal, despite the fact that CRT's have better contrast and colour when compaired to most "affordable" LCD's."
Welcome to the future. This may be true in a few instances, but only with the highest-end CRT's compared to mid-range and lower-end LCD's; any gap in quality that may be present is quickly fading, so the "CRT's are better than LCD's" argument is too. Most CRT's I see look like absolute crap and I would never choose one over a sharp LCD.
Z:
I dont know what CRTs you've been looking at, but I've owned both a CRT and LCD HDTV and anyone worth their salt will tell you that any decent CRT's picture quality by far blows away anything you'll see on any HIGH-end LCD or plasma (geometry and some convergence issues aside). Now the gap may be closing, but I really don't think flat panel displays will really surpass CRT until SED comes out in 2008. By this point I've probably lost you since your experience with displays probably is limited to looking at them at best buy. But the main reason for CRT's decrease in popularity is that they're huge and are consequently limited in size to 34".
"By this point I've probably lost you since your experience with displays probably is limited to looking at them at best buy."
I'm sure all those crazy professional graphic designer who've switched to LCDs (including myself) are just not educated enough, huh?
I find it amusing that you sit in judgment of me considering you have no clue has to who I am or my level of experience with anything. But hey partner, just keep repeating everything you said, over and over again, and after awhile you'll feel all better. In the meantime, have fun with your boulder sized monitor.
This is all too funny. How many LCD/plasma owners will be bitching about replacing bulbs and poor contrast ratios IF SED's starting hitting the market next year?
Now, if only my damn RCA CRT would die so I could justify replacing it!
Not that you couldn't figure it out, but just to clarify, Deluxe, my response was not to you, but to wei.
No one cares who makes the tv at this point, these vizios will sell like hotcakes, watch and see.
"The Westinghouse is highly flawed. First off, it doesn't have a TV-tuner (much less a HDTV tuner) so you'll need a device with a TV tuner built in the receive signals (like a set top box or a VCR)."
A tuner is redundant - most people use a PVR or a digital cable/satellite box. Speakers are also redundant - most people use a surround sound system. I feel ripped-off by being forced to buy useless features with a tv - built-in tuner, built-in speakers, built-in MP3 player, built-in photo viewer! I think more manufacturers need to follow Westinghouse's lead and remove redundant and useless features.
Plus the Westinghouse gets rid of lame features like "good scalers" for displaying content not in its native resolution.
That's ok though, there's tons of native 1080p content out there so it's not really an issue.
"A tuner is redundant - most people use a PVR or a digital cable/satellite box. Speakers are also redundant "
Sorry Buddy But I know a lot of People who are ditching the ole' Cable box Cause they now get over 20 HD over-the-air channels for free. Why Pay 45 Bucks a month just for The Sapronos in HD?? So I would not Say redundant maybe just not needed by a few, an ATSC tuner is obviously a great saleling point or BB, CC.... would not have it advertised in BOLD letters on TV's that carry it. I mean we are talking about FREE HDTV, FREE, FREE, FREEEEEEEEE
I purchased the Vizio 47" 1080P from Costco, paid $1,649 with the sale coupon. But it wasn't the price that sold me initially, it was the side-by-side comparison with the big boys like Sony, etc. (at mega bucks more) It blew them away!!!, the affordable price was just frosting.
But to your point about spending needless money on an HD tuner, well I used to think that way as well until I got mine home and realized DirecTV didn't offer all my local channels in HD. Guess what, I can get absolutely fantastic HD from the 34 year old antenna mounted in my attic (hadn't been used in years because it never got more than one decent channel, now I can tune a dozen. . .perfectly). This is the best TV I ever owned!!!
Oh yeah, my coworker bought a 40" XBR2 1080p LCD from Amazon for $2300 shipped last week. Sorry Vizio, for my tv I'll spend the extra $300.
40" and 47" are two different numbers. just FYI.
Vizio/Westinghouse are making tv for people who needs a decent set for the price. these are not videophiles, as mentioned earlier if one uses satellite or cable they do not need tuner in sets, these sets will cut corner in order to reduce costs, it is up to the buyer to decide if he could live with it or not or go and buy SONY or other expensive sets, the difference between higher end models and these TVs is content in standard definition Samsung and SONY PQ in SD is very good and HD material is top notch as compared to Vizio/Westinghouse, but for a person switching from 10 year old CRT will defintle enjoy 720P/1080i/1080P HD content on VIZIO.
Remember not everyone will buy BMW/Mercedes there are people who wants cheaper transportation too.
Just saw the Vizio 47" 1080p at Costco. It's hard to tell with their highly compressed HD feed, but the image looks really, really tight. The color, clarity, brightness and contrast seemed very accurate. Without the proper test equipment it's impossible to give a full technical analysis, but I work in broadcasting and monitor calibration is critical to me -- I can usually spot crappy monitors with just my eyes.
Surprisingly, the aesthetics are very well designed. Something that other budget priced HDTV manufacturers seem to not care about.
With the $250 off coupon applied to the already low price of $1,899 at Costco, this set is the best value I've found to date. $1,649 for a Full HD 1080p TV. I don't see how you can go wrong.