Just purchased a lagless HDTV just wanted to share with anyone - Page 11

cxxliu · 11-30-2008, 07:03 AM

I got a Sony 32" Bravia KD-L4000 for $460 at thanksgiving sale. I play 13th DistorteD on a modded slim PS2 with composite cables (the yellow-red-white ones).

I'm just a noob at the 7* level so I can't tell if the video lag would be noticeable for advanced IIDX players, but what I can say is my just-great ratio isn't affected at all after changing to HD. I'm (relatively) much better at DDR and with this TV I can still get around 70% marvelous and >20% perfect on most expert songs.

Okay, anyone noticed I mentioned "video lag"? Yes, the video lag is not bad at all, and I'm very happy about it. Well, you guessed it... the AUDIO LAG is just terrible! My rough estimate is that the audio is at least 100ms behind the video. I picked a few easy songs with a strong beat and did the following experiment...
Mute, play by sight - grade AA
Sound on, Hidden, play by ear - grade D/E with 60% GOOD.

In DDR I can get around this by setting both the arrow delay and the judgment delay to +5. (Yes, I actually have to make the video "lag" to sync with audio.) Adjusting timing in IIDX doesn't work though because when you press a key you don't hear the key sound instantly and this messes up your rhythm.

I'll try using component cables instead of composites later this week. If that doesn't fix the problem I'll probably find a speaker with RCA inputs and connect it directly to the PS2 audio output.

barrettsan · 12-01-2008, 11:55 AM

cxxliu, do you have your audio running through the TV or through external speakers? I had the same problem that you did with my Sharp Aquos - there was no video lag at all, but the audio lag was noticeable. That was why there was a lag when I did drum fills on Rock Band 2, but no noticeable lag in IIDX.

I was able to resolve this by plugging my audio directly from the xbox 360 into some external speakers. This way the audio never went through the TV and produced lag. Now I can still hear a tiny, tiny lag in the audio but it's close enough that the fills no longer bother me in Rock Band.

If you have no video lag, try plugging the red and white audio cables into external speakers!

sdf368 · 12-09-2008, 01:43 AM

This is great.. Nice info..

Dorkmaster Flek · 12-09-2008, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrettsan

cxxliu, do you have your audio running through the TV or through external speakers? I had the same problem that you did with my Sharp Aquos - there was no video lag at all, but the audio lag was noticeable. That was why there was a lag when I did drum fills on Rock Band 2, but no noticeable lag in IIDX.

I was able to resolve this by plugging my audio directly from the xbox 360 into some external speakers. This way the audio never went through the TV and produced lag. Now I can still hear a tiny, tiny lag in the audio but it's close enough that the fills no longer bother me in Rock Band.

If you have no video lag, try plugging the red and white audio cables into external speakers!

I have the same setup. With my audio cables going to external speakers, there's very very tiny audio lag, and with game mode turned on with my Toshiba Regza there's basically no video lag. The fills in RB are fine, and I have no lag in IIDX on my PC, except for the controller input lag from the PS2/USB convertor. Hopefully that gets sorted out when my DJ Dao controller gets here and I can use the parallel port instead.

rmz · 12-15-2008, 12:12 AM

Just wanted to drop a note here to mention that I can confirm that the Sharp Aquos GP2U and GP3U series are for all intents and purposes lag-free if you use the side "Vyper Drive" inputs. Got a 32GP2U tonight and was matching my old scores on RED right out of the box

Chacranajxy · 12-25-2008, 09:46 AM

I got a Samsung LN40A630 and... yeah. The input lag actually isn't too bad, but its got this weird issue where scrolling notes will get super-blurry and fall really weird. I don't know what in the hell the reason for that is. But more importantly, the thing's going back because the backlight bleeding is horrible.

So basically, I'm thinking about jumping ship and going with a Sharp, but does anyone know how the LC-42D85U is? Or perhaps how good Sony's 40W4100 is? Both in terms of input lag and picture quality. Because the Samsung does look really good aside from those issues, so I don't want to take too much of a step back.

Edit: How did I miss this? I'm looking at Panasonic's 42PZ85U and it looks perfect. I'm going to check it out tomorrow.

PooIs · 12-26-2008, 12:13 AM

A.)Try the TV with Component cables and see if that fixes the image blur on the notes.
B.)Make sure to get the TH(plasma versions) series of that TV, as opposed to the TC(LCD versions) if you choose to go the Panasonic route. The LCDs have horrible image processors for some odd reason. The plasmas don't have that problem though; they are as lag free as HDTVs can get.

Chacranajxy · 12-26-2008, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PooIs

A.)Try the TV with Component cables and see if that fixes the image blur on the notes.
B.)Make sure to get the TH(plasma versions) series of that TV, as opposed to the TC(LCD versions) if you choose to go the Panasonic route. The LCDs have horrible image processors for some odd reason. The plasmas don't have that problem though; they are as lag free as HDTVs can get.

I've been using component cables from the start and had the problem. But it's weird, because it'll be fine for a while, and then it'll blur for a few seconds, like the TV's just like "man, I can't keep up with this shit... why can't you go play Halo or somethin?"

And yes, I will be getting the plasma.

BeBoBli · 12-30-2008, 05:27 AM

Would I be justified in getting the Aquos over the Panasonic because of the native resolution? An odd complaint, but I noticed the Sharp Aquos talked about in this thread so much is native 1080p as it's maximum resolution whereas the 42" Panasonic plasma is 1024x768. That's a common 4:3 resolution which may in part help with 480i/480p signals, however that is not natively widescreen (720p).

Or should I just stop bitching because a 720p signal looks fantastic (which if it's competing with the Pioneer Kuro it better).

Edit: The Sharp doesn't have composite video out? If it doesn't that'll probably seal the deal on the plasma more than anything.

tl;dr:
(Sharp AQUOS LC-42D64U) vs. (Panasonic Viera TH-42PX80U)
How much does the non-native resolution (1024x768 != 720p) of the Panasonic affect the picture and should I care? Does the Sharp have composite A/V out? Is the Kuro outdone by the Viera?

Thanks!

**cmcm** · 12-30-2008, 08:56 AM

I own a 1080p Panasonic Viera TH-42PZ80U plasma. The spec sheet says native resolution of 1024x768. I think the spec sheets are wrong. It seems to have the native resolution of whatever the set is supposed to display, whether it's 1280x720 or 1920x1080.

BeBoBli · 12-30-2008, 11:45 AM

The Z model (which you own) has 1080p. The one I speak of is the X model which cannot reach that resolution.

Quantium · 12-30-2008, 01:02 PM

What would you need composite video out for? Why is that a selling point? Also, 1024x768 is not 720p, 1280x720 is.

BeBoBli · 12-30-2008, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quantium

What would you need composite video out for? Why is that a selling point? Also, 1024x768 is not 720p, 1280x720 is.

I record fighting game matches and am hoping to replace my current television which has this feature. Splitting or routing to another recording source first creates more response time lag.

I am very aware that 2 sets of numbers are different. It is very common for televisions to have a slightly higher resolution than 720p or whatever is being advertised as available resolutions. As you can see here for example, the television in question: Panasonic Viera TH-42PX80U specs and Flat-panel TV specifications - CNET Reviews
actually does have a resolution of 1024x768. Yet it can display 720p. I think this also might just be straight up wrong because there isn't enough horizontal space to reach 720p.

The specifications might very well be wrong even if for different reasons. 1024x768 mgiht only be the max 4:3 resolution. Why would they list it like that?

**cmcm** · 12-30-2008, 03:38 PM

That's what I mean. The spec sheet says 1024x768 but it obviously is not.

Blackraven · 12-30-2008, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmcm

That's what I mean. The spec sheet says 1024x768 but it obviously is not.

Must be a unique thing to plasma TVs. I say that because in LCD TVs, their resolutions are 1366x768 (or WXGA) but in plasma, the horizontal resolution is different.

Just pointing out.