LCD TV recommendation (2013)

[encephalon]

I went from a small 22" Samsung to a Sony 32" Edge Lit EX340 and I did notice that the TV seemed to work better with my XRGB3 (less fidgeting with screen position which had to be done on my old TV) and I'm able to quickly adjust the color vibrancy for SD games with the extra settings so that it looks closer to what it would look like on an SDTV. Moreover, and this may be big or small depending on your viewpoint, but the TV no longer blacks out and cuts out the sound during resolution changes from the source. It can handle them seamlessly. So for PS1 games with different resolutions for titles screens and FMV (star ocean 2) or the opening PS1 logo (which always blacked out for me halfway), it's an improvement. I was worried about lag but I don't notice any.

[Ed Oscuro]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
Having a fast internal scaler is precisely what makes it 'low lag'.

You're wrong, sorry.

When you see "this display has X ms of lag" that means (on any site you care to name) that it was tested for lag at its native resolution. Native resolution means the signal is in a format ready for the display. That is all the "low lag" designation means. And that is OK, because a scaler is an expensive type of device which most people do not need (or cannot afford, or would not care to purchase for the advantage it will give - in some cases going from a built-in to a dedicated scaler will only give a slight advantage, or even no especially worthwhile advantage - such as if you were to buy a fast scaler and then only use it to play RPGs).

A "fast internal scaler" (by the standards of low lag set by the XRGB series these don't exist as built-in units, which isn't hard to understand when you consider good scalers can be $500) would mean that there was less lag on that unit than there is on competing units.

This is very, very basic stuff. I'm kind of astonished to get this kind of resistance here to what is common knowledge on many sites.

Where's that ignore button...


Found it.

If life hands you your ass on a platter, make porkchop sandwiches.

Poor dude couldn't troll as good as he thought.

[kedawa]

No, I'm not.
We're talking about running content that's non-native resolution.
Context is important.

[Ed Oscuro]

No, I'm not.
We're talking about running content that's non-native resolution.
Context is important.

Indeed it is, which is why any newbie to the scene should know that whenever a set is called "low lag" it is essentially always in reference to the performance at native resolution - even if you persist in the belief that there are televisions out there with fast internal scalers (there are not, or at least, nobody has found any).

Nobody I know of does testing of televisions' composite inputs for lag, but there are many sources for low lag at native resolution.

The point of all this is that trying to force a non-standard definition (even if it is technically correct) for the term "low lag" is going to do nothing but confuse many people. At the very least you have to admit that we now have discussed what is really going on, so that the issue is out there. It never ceases to surprise me how much people hate finding things out - or at least admitting them. Use the information or don't, it doesn't bother me!

[kedawa]

Yes, it's important to differentiate between image processing that affects all content, and scaling that only affects non-native stuff.
What makes it all the more confusing is that many displays have a native resolution that doesn't match any signal that it would be receiving, like 1440*900 for example, which would mean everything goes through the scaler. Yuck.

[Ed Oscuro]

Well, to be slightly more precise: User-selectable image processing will decrease a set's input lag potential, but this is actually not the sole cause of input lag on sets. To make things slightly more confusing, many displays (i.e. computer monitors) have input processing that is laggy but not user-configurable. Even that term "image processing" can lead to some mistaken beliefs (because some image processing is integral to a display's design and can't be switched off, although many panels used in such displays can also be found in other displays with a faster design). Of course, even on displays that are designed for as much speed as possible, the technology itself is responsible for lag (pixels must respond to signals through voltage, hence the pixel response; and image data goes through a multiplexer, rather than being scanned onto the image one pixel at a time as on a CRT).

1440x900 would probably be a PC display, and if you're at the limit of space (as in a laptop) or can't run something full speed on your hardware (again quite likely on laptops, at least older ones), then it could be acceptable. For a television, I would definitely avoid something that isn't 1080p (or maybe 720p if you have a specific use for 720p).

[MarioMania]

CRT last..LCD's won't cheap ass parts

CRT is dime a dozen - if you find a good one

Play Retro Systems on CRT only

[cd\tony2]

I only need 1 hdmi on my tv because everything is in the stereo receiver..can't plug the nes in there though..it doesn't handle upconverting. I have it hooked up to my 60'' led sony..but no stereo sound..can i split the one audio cable with a y-plug? i haven't tried it yet.