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


Picture quality is not a function of price, the picture on my =A349
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 pictu=
re
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 =A349 portable would pale next to a =
=A3500
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 expensiv=
e,
infact it is pretty cheap. By perfect I mean as good as the signal reciev=
ed.
Also due to the economies of scale more work goes into mass
producing cheap sets

(BS snipped)

HELP! HELP! someone's anus has broken loose!