I have a television which is at least 10 years old, and the picture is good on it. Many people who visit me comment on how good the picture is and say “My picture would never be as good as that”. These are people who have more modern televisions. Someone I know has a modern television with 100Hz scan rate, and the picture does not look as clear as mine which is 50Hz.
Some people who claim their reception is not as good have SCART 21-pin connections to their television but I have a Radio Frequency cable. These people also have roof-mounted antennas but mine is inside. Perhaps I live in an area where there is a stronger signal, but some more modern televisions do not have as good a picture as mine.
Someone else told me that modern radios are not as good as a 30 year old one he has. He can pick up many stations clearly on his radio, but cannot get them at all on his more modern one.
Do any of you have similar experiences?
Does new equipment mean it is better?
The quality of components and manufacturing of current consumer electronic equipment is abyssmal. Unbelievably bad. Note that some modern devices have newer features, etc. but the likelihood that it is going to last much beyond the warranty is low.
Every type of device is different. A really old CD player, for example, may not have many programming features and may not play CD-Rs. But not counting features, etc., an older device is almost always going to perform better than a “modern” one.
It’s interesting you mention TVs though. The tuners on modern TVs, for example, are really awful. You have to have cable to get a halfway decent image. Forget rabbit ears. (I could get stations 100+ miles away on rabbit ears on 1970’s vintage TVs.) Just like the radio example of your friend. OTOH, sound quality is much better. Stereo as standard for TVs is relatively new. Non-existent even on the high end sets before 1985 IIRC. Picture quality is much improved on $$$ sets but really bad on low end under $300 sets.
You have any cites for these claims? Because I’ve heard similar claims for years – including back when the OP’s TV was manufactured. In reality, any manufacturer making deliberately crummy equipment is going to find itself losing position in the marketplace. Particularly now when all a consumer has to do is log onto the Internet to find out which brands and/or models are particularly problematic.
It may be the case that low-end consumer equipment has sub-par components, but you are painting with any awfully wide brush to say that all consumer equipment won't last beyond the warranty.
I think it really depends on lots of complex subjective and objective factors. I tend to purchase older audio speakers and amplifiers because I prefer the sound and build quality. CD players, however, I always purchase new because to me the digital-to-audio converters produce more accurate and three-dimensional sound.
My 11 year old TV is fine, until I saw a new spiffy (and unaffordable) plasma thing. My subsequent TV watching has been tainted.
I would also never trade my new microwave oven for anything a day older–the feature-set is still maturing.
A lot of new, cheaper audio-video components seem to be less hefty in look and feel. Whether that translates into poor quality is partially offset by what seems like lower and lower pricing. If my nice DVD player dies in three years I won’t weep too long.
We live in an area where TV reception is generally poor.
My neighbours have expressed amazement at the quality of the pictures on my TVs compared to theirs.
It has nothing to do with the TVs. It’s because a lot of attention is required to get the antenna set up right.
Dunmurry, what you’re probably seeing is the result of either living in a place where the TV signal is very strong, or of having the antenna installation done well.