40" Sony XBR2/3 VS. samsung LN-S4095D

[LCD guy]

I'm going to buy one of these two tomorrow. Both are around $2500. The only difference I could find is sony's contrast ratio is 7000:1 vs. samsungs 6000:1....

I've read that some companys overexaggerate the specs. Is one of these any better than the other??

[LCD guy]

BTW: In march when they release the second round of ps3's I'll be buying one and using this tv. (Used for lots of gaming, so it needs a quick refresh rate"


EDIT: Am I also understanding correctly that the only difference between the xbr2 and 3 is the frame is black not grey on the 3?

[tcwong]

You can get the samsung at a lower price than Sony. I'm getting my 4095D this week. Will let you know if I'm happy with it or going back for the Sony.

[LCD guy]

[QUOTE=tcwong]You can get the samsung at a lower price than Sony. I'm getting my 4095D this week. Will let you know if I'm happy with it or going back for the Sony.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for the comment.

Any other people know if one of these are better?

Also where are you buying yours? and for what price if you don't mind me asking.

[Daniel L]

Specific pricing discussion isn't allowed on here but I have to remind you that the prices on the XBR2/3 have gone down a significant amount within the last 3 days.

IIRC, the Samsungs also have non adjustable overscan. That might sway you towards the Sony if that kind of thing is important to you.

[LCD guy]

[QUOTE=Daniel L]Specific pricing discussion isn't allowed on here but I have to remind you that the prices on the XBR2/3 have gone down a significant amount within the last 3 days.

IIRC, the Samsungs also have non adjustable overscan. That might sway you towards the Sony if that kind of thing is important to you.[/QUOTE]

OK we won't discuss the price difference. Let's assume they where both the same price. Which one would be the better option?? So far I see two advantages to the sony. (The larger contrast ratio and the adjustable overscan.) Anything else I should think about when comparing the two. Does the Samsung have ANY advantages over the sony?

[SR20DEN]

Isn't Samsung going to release a new firmware for the 4x9x series to adjust the overscan? At least that's what I have been reading on the other threads.

[bumbledude]

The Sammy looks more "Hi Def" out of the box, (i.e., meaning overly saturated and bright). Some people like this look, but it's far from natural.

The Sony requires some tweaking to look its best, but has far more control over the picture from the user menu then the Sammy. To get the Sammy looking as good as the Sony can requires mucking around in the service menu... so throw in a few extra $$$ for an IFS calibration if you go with the Sammy.

On the other hand, on the user trhead, a very happy XBR2 owner had a professional calibration done, which didn't require entering the service menu, and he posted his settings. Use his settings and your picture will be pretty dialed in - whereas with the Sammy, there is only so much you can do without pulling out a service manual and going into the service menu... something most of us are loathe to do.

[the3rdpower]

New firmware is being released soon (I'm a S5296D owner). I'm a current Sony owner as well (Sony XBR Grand Wega LCD RPTV). It has been a great set and it commands a nice resell value. I was looking for a 1080p TV and the sony 52" was wayyy out of line with the offering Samsung was putting up. The Samsung casing also looks a LOT better to me as well.

[GreatDecay]

Your are where I was about a month ago. I was deciding between these two tvs myself so I decided to buy them both! I went to Best Buy and picked them up on the same day. I then tested them both on HD cable, SD cable, and my XBOX360 and the Sony was superior on every test. The Samsung has a swivel base and a nicer menu interface but thats where it ends. The Sony was much clearer and smoothed out a lot of the rougher edges on the 360. It's funny because the doorman at BB was telling me how badly he wanted my Samsung...little did he know. Oh, and I did return the Samsung...i am far from rich.