yeah so he shouldn't be buying those crap low end sony's is the point.
not every tv sony makes is decent. those are the crap ones he linked to.
the 32" j6300 is the king of the 32" market.
the w705 you mention is the 42" in the review. tv's of different sizes don't use the same panels. therefore if you read the review of the 42" the 32" could be terrible in comparison. especially if buying from sony who buy in all their panels.
this point was proven when hdtvtest and avforums reviewed the same model of tv's but in 3 different sizes. they found profound differences in the 40 inch models to the 48inch and the 55 inch models, etc.
therefore unless you can provide a review for a current model 32" sony. he's best off with the samsung.
1) But that doesn't justify dismissing Sony in total, like you implied.
2) Indeed, I even said so myself: ALL manufacturers have bad sets. That includes Samsung, as well.
3) The review recommends it for its picture quality, not input lag (42ms). Which is quite bad for gaming. Which was supposed to be the main usage scenario.
4-5) If you read my earlier posts, you'll find that I specifically recommended the 40", 42" and 43" models. I even raised my own concerns over the specific policy of clumping down together all the sizes within the model line, and recommended to look for individual reviews. And like shown earlier, Sony using other manufacturers' panels still made them the input lag king, and especially on the low-mid-range.
Also, you do understand that even the
32" version of W653 is still better than the Samsung J6300? (33ms vs 42ms)
6) That's why I'm not recommending 32" sets at all, as the industry has started moving away from 32", so he would have a limited selection. And even fewer people are reviewing them, and that's the core problem. I stated these points earlier, as well.
Bottom line:
42ms is too much for gaming. If he can't get anything better in 32", then he simply shouldn't get a 32". And if he can't find a good 42" one for a price he's content with (or if 42" is too big for his taste), then he shouldn't purchase a bad one, either. In that case, a monitor is indeed the better option for him.
Edit, to comment for the latter post:
You do understand that with your mentioned 32ms and 45ms, the 45ms is actually 40% slower than the 32ms? I have a 35ms set, and the input lag is noticeable, and barely tolerable. There is no way I'm getting a set with over 25ms input lag ever again. Unless the set is ONLY for movies or television programs, etc.
Having 20/20 vision shouldn't affect you noticing input lag, btw. Rather, vision acuity determines only "resolution".
