$329 - Vivo 43" HD Plasma TV @ DickSmith

Related Stores

Dick Smith / Kogan

Marketplace

• 

  n3xv5 on 26/07/2012 - 12:03

  -7

  Horrible resolution 1024 x 768 streched everything

  • 

    irajohn90 on 26/07/2012 - 12:05

    +2

    it's not a samsung your buying.

  • 

    bargaino on 26/07/2012 - 12:07

    +2

    Streched? No different from any other TV. But it amazes me how most people don't notice when the aspect ratio is wrong.

    1024 x 768 is plenty for Aussie HDTV, and lots better than the old 480p plasmas. It is $329 FFS!

    • 

      StewBalls on 26/07/2012 - 13:29

      AR isn't wrong, the pixel shape is actually different in these 42" PD panels. ;)

  • 

    wbeer on 26/07/2012 - 12:13

    Most TV channels are Standard Def anyway- resolution is fine.

• 

  JROX20 on 26/07/2012 - 12:05

  These TVs are cheap for a reason, less than average picture quality and what you save in outright price, you will pay in your power bill.

  Power Consumption (Max.)<300W

  Still, it is a sale price and if the TV is just for the patio or something it could be OK.

  EDIT: Somehow I think OP is being sarcastic.

  • 

    Cluster on 26/07/2012 - 12:42

    Indeed. If someone uses this TV all day they will be better off in the long run buying a much more efficient LCD TV, even if it costs twice the price.

    Still, $329 for 43" is dirt cheap. Lower quality (480p) 40" plasmas cost the thick end of $10k a decade ago.

    • 

      dan76n on 26/07/2012 - 13:13

      I would love to see some stats to support this?

      • 

        Cluster on 26/07/2012 - 13:33

        This TV consumes sub 300w, according to DSE. Let's assume 275w, which is about right for a 43" plasma. It's possible to buy an LED LCD for about double the price that consumes a little over 100w. Let's saw 125w.

        The Energy Star standard assumes 10 hours of TV use per day. The difference between the two is 150w of consumption, therefore 1.5kw/h per day. At my local power prices (SA), that's 33c per kwh. 1.5 * .33 = $0.495 saved per day by buying the more expensive TV.

        $0.495 * 365 days = $180.67 in electricity savings per year. After 2 years (without even taking into account electricity price inflation), the owner of the more expensive TV has saved $360, which is more than enough to cover the price difference of buying the more expensive TV ($329 * 2).

        All this assumes people use their TV 10 hours a day. I never would, but have been to homes where the TV is turned on at 8am and only turned off when the last person goes to bed.

      • 

        wbeer on 26/07/2012 - 13:42

        I dont think that is right…. that would give this TV a sticker of 1000Kwh~ for the year.

        I i think its more like 500kwh…. based on 10 hours use. (Edit: based on 10 hours use - over the year)

      • 

        Cluster on 26/07/2012 - 13:51

        Energy Star AU site doesn't list the VIVO 43, but there is a Panasonic 105.7cm Plasma (TH-42PF30W) that's rated at 907kw/h, so using that much power for such a small screen is quite possible.

        The Panasonic has a 365w power consumption, or 215w on 'average mode', whatever that means. Power consumption is going to vary with how the TV is used.
        http://panasonic.net/prodisplays/download/pdf/specsheet/TH-4…

      • 

        wbeer on 26/07/2012 - 14:01

        Yeh- im not disputing your calculations- but im pretty sure the VIVO is around the 550-650kwh mark (sticker wise)

        Plasma's arent the power hog that they used to be. A good quality plasma would consume less than a cheaper LED/LCD. IT really depends on the model.

        You'll find 42" vivos LCD/ cheaper brands will be around the 450-600 kwh mark anyway.

• 

  Balls on 26/07/2012 - 13:08

  didnt know they still made these, let alone selling

• 

  bargainoftheyear on 26/07/2012 - 14:33

  I have one of these as the tv for the kids. They only watch around 3 hours of tv per week which makes this one a pretty good buy for me. Picture quality is great and remote quite easy to use as well. I have a samsung led which has much better contrast etc but I wouldn't hesitate to pick up one at this price if it isn't going to be used 10 hours a day. Thanks for posting the calculations for energy useage!

• 

  Diogenes on 26/07/2012 - 14:42

  +1

  Folks who are heaping obloquy on this telly are obviously getting spoilt by the abundance of low-cost consumer electronics.

  Oldies like me (I'm not old, dammit - I was just born quite a long time ago) remember 1989 when I paid $8.5k for a 102cm box that weighed as much as a baby elephant, had a 4×3 aspect ratio, and needed a SCART lead to connect a VCR (Blu-Ray and DVD lay well into the future: CDs were becoming ubiquitous but cost $25 each).

  For those playing at home, $8500 in 1989 dollars (at 3%-ish inflation) is a little over $17k in modern money. So yeah, I enjoyed the hell out of it.

  If She Who Must Be Obeyed permits it, I'ma buy one of these 43-incher kerjiggers for my home office so I can watch (ahem) nature documentaries in peace. And old episodes of Ren & Stimpy (you young'uns probly don't even know who Ren is, dammit).

  • 

    xyron on 26/07/2012 - 16:14

    With the amount I hear old people whinging about life, it must really suck to be old. :)

  • 

    Balls on 26/07/2012 - 20:13

    well….

    in youngun's defence, life SHOULD be improving as time goes, how does it make sense if we went backwards as well as technology.

• 

  imket on 26/07/2012 - 18:18

  +1

  my phone has a higher resolution than this thing