"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:bVl0f.5569$YH6.2895@trnddc06...


Picture quality is not a function of price, the picture on my £49
portable
is
great, I am sure televisions for 5-10 time price have poorer pictures.
TV show rooms would never display a picture which would allow you
to ascess picture quality.





Great compared to what? Sure you don't automatically get a better picture
by
spending more on a TV, but higher end sets do have far more adjustments,
higher quality video amps, and generally have tighter tolerances on the
CRT.
Properly tuned I guarantee that a £49 portable would pale next to a £500
CRT.


I am sorry you are wrong, there would be no difference whatsoever, infact
the expensive TV is likely to be worse.
The technology required to produce a *perfect* TV picture is not expensive,
infact it is pretty cheap. By perfect I mean as good as the signal recieved.
Also due to the economies of scale more work goes into mass
producing cheap sets than building a handfull of expensive models, which
due to their high price makes a repair worthwhile.
The cheaper sets have to right first time.
Same goes for Rolls-Royces and Ford Focus's, the engineering on the
Ford is vastly superior.
Go into any TV show room and there will be no correlation between
picture and price, usually the more expencive sets have the worst piccture.

Peope pay more for a TV set because they believe that they must pay a price
to suit their 'status', the picture is the same.