This was posted 15 years 8 months ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

42'' Plasma with HD Tuner only $799!

480
42'' Plasma with HD Tuner only $799!
Go to Deal
Pbuzzed on 02/06/2009 - 13:19 jbhifi.com.au (2273 clicks)

Jb Hi-Fi are currently offering a 42''/106cm plasma for a super cheap price of just $799!
The Soniq QSP425T has:
1024 X 768 Resolution
HDMI Input
30,000:1 Contrast Ratio

It my not be nearly the best quality plasma tv out there, but for this price, quality cannot always be assured. So, if you are looking to purchase one of these, don't be surprised if it is not what you expected and didn't get what you bargained for. If you are looking for quality, you might as well save your money and spend that little bit extra for a good brand.
But, if all you want is a large screen, and you know exactly what you are buying, this might just be that great little deal that you've been waiting for.

Entertainment 42inch Plasma TV TV

Related Stores

JB Hi-Fi
JB Hi-Fi

closed Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 02/06/2009 - 13:22

    Direct link.

    I bought something similar 3 years ago and have been very happy with it. Not incredibly happy I payed twice that amount :P

  • wisc on 02/06/2009 - 13:46

    1024 X 768 Resolution was almost enough to just go neutral, but your quite clear in the declaimer of what this is so, 800 bux 42" plasma with hd tuner… not bad :)

    • ESEMCE on 02/06/2009 - 14:30

      768 is fine for a TV of this size.. Unless you're sitting closer than 3m. The human eye physically cannot tell the difference between 768 and 1080 at that range and at that size screen.

      FullHD is largely a marketing gimmick to make people pay a heap extra for a "feature" they don't actually need..

      • neosin on 02/06/2009 - 17:04
        +1

        lol

        u my friend have no idea what ur on about! Unless you're planning to watch standard def tv lol!

        1024x768 = about 800k pixels

        full hd 1920x1080 = about 2 million pixels

        YES u can tell the difference, if u can't, u better get your eyes checked mate.

        Try play a bluray movie on this tv and then compare to any full 1080p tv

        also try view some small text on a low res tv result=BLURRY TEXT!

        I hate it when noobs give advice on somthing they have no clue about or heard from other noobs on whirlpool lol!

        • [Deactivated] on 02/06/2009 - 22:18
          +6

          I'm not going to add lols randomly to try and make my case stronger, but here goes.

          Here's a nice chart of the distances and resolutions the best 20/20 vision person can see (unfortunately in feet instead of metres on the y axis).

          As you can see from the chart, the best vision humanly possible at any more than about 6' (or ~1.8m) will start to lose detail on a 42" screen. You'll also note that it starts getting worse for 720p at about 8' (~2.4m).

          You're only truly able to notice the difference between 720p and 1080p below the distance of ~2.4m.

          These are simple facts based on the real, measurable acuity of the human eye instead of vague personal statements about noobs with no clue.

          Blurryness in text is much more likely to be caused by lower resolutions, interlacing instead of progressive, or straight up lower quality plasma TVs. This is relatively a low quality plasma and for all we know that resolution is an interlaced one, not a progressive one.

          Which is where this becomes interesting.

          Is that resolution interlaced? If so, then you could indeed tell the difference over 3m.

          • neosin on 03/06/2009 - 01:23
            -4

            @[Deactivated]: I can prove that article written in 2006 wrong simply by taking a picture of crysis running at 1024x768 and one at 1920x1080.

            Even at 2.4 meters you will notice that at lower res you see heaps of aliasing i.e jaggy edges where as the full hd version will be alot sharper

            • ESEMCE on 03/06/2009 - 07:29
              +1

              @neosin: I don't think the optics of the human eye has changed since 2006 Neosin..

              If you want to argue Human Anatomy based on your knowledge of Crysis screen resolutions, I think you're going to lose!

              It's OK to swallow that pride.. It's how we all learn!

            • BlinkyBill on 03/06/2009 - 19:27

              @neosin: I have a 42 in Philips Plasma with native res of 1024 x 768. 1080i looks perfect. This is at a view distance of about 3 metres. The TV is only really use to play GT5 on PS3 and the graphics and image quality is amazing. The only giveaway that it's i as opposed to p is when you watch a reply the ghost care flickers slightly.

              I also have a 32in Samsung 1080p LCD set for comparison and the Plasma is just as good, if anything colours are richer and more vibrant. If you want use your TV as a monitor then buy a monitor.

          • pais on 03/06/2009 - 15:48

            @[Deactivated]: tantryl is most definitely right in this regards. You cannot really dispute empirical data :)

        • jase13 on 03/06/2009 - 00:06
          -1

          @neosin - I worked for over 3 years in retail electronics. Read tantryls post. That's about exactly the advice i give anyone who asks.

          • cheapo.one on 03/06/2009 - 00:14

            @jase13: edit - sorry, misread post

          • neosin on 03/06/2009 - 01:25

            @jase13: also 1024 X 768 is not 720p

            shows how much u know

            • ESEMCE on 03/06/2009 - 07:33

              @neosin: Yeah, 1024x768 is a square screen monitor resolution..
              Obviously not a widescreen TV res.
              I'd edit my comment to 720 (but I can't) and I have assumed the TV is 720p (had forgotten there even was a 720i.. it's been years since that was even an issue!)

            • [Deactivated] on 03/06/2009 - 09:49

              @neosin: Technically true.

              Although it should be noted, if that's a progressive resolution, it's a better resolution than 720p. Technically.

              720p just means 720 horizontal lines. It doesn't automatically assume a 16:9 or 16:10 widescreen resolution with corresponding vertical lines. That resolution indicates 768 horizontal lines.

              Of course, that's just a technicality. 1024x768 has lower clarity than the more common 720p resolution of 1280x720. I simply used it with the chart because it was the closest. You want to know how much difference that makes on the graph? Less than 0.2m.

              • ESEMCE on 03/06/2009 - 10:14

                @[Deactivated]: I think it's probably a typo in the catalogue..
                The pixels would need to be very wide for there to be only 1024 columns.. I think it's more likely it's a 1280x720 panel..

                • [Deactivated] on 03/06/2009 - 11:12

                  @ESEMCE: 1024x768 refers to the 4:3 ratio native resolution as someone (you?) already said.

                  With the scant details on specs it could be referring to the detail the HD Tuner can acquire.

                  Honestly, it's not a good number to be working with.

                  I really would prefer it if the specs listed proper 480p/1080i/720p etc.

                • jiggen on 03/06/2009 - 15:29

                  @ESEMCE: Most of the older plasmas that have a native res of 1024x768 use wide pixels to get widescreen. So it is 1024x768 native.

                  • BlinkyBill on 03/06/2009 - 19:31

                    @jiggen: Correct the 1024x768 plasma's use RECTANGULAR pixels. So while they 1024x768 they will quite happily do 720p and 1080i widescreen formats. This is where not all plasma's are created equal. I would take the Philips image processing engine (ie the thing that does the on fly scaling) over a no brand one.

        • ESEMCE on 03/06/2009 - 07:26

          Yeah.. so do I..
          I also hate it when noobs give advice on something they know nothing about!

          Do some research Neosin.. you'll find you're wrong, except in the unusual circumstance of being closer than about 3m..
          It doesn't matter how many pixels there are if they're so tiny you can't distinguish them..

        • jiggen on 03/06/2009 - 15:27

          You are a bit off (neosin). It would not result in blurry text if you set a resolution equal to the native (1024x768). A 1920x1080 would be blurry too if the didn't do 1:1 mapping with other resolutions…

  • TOKEN8 on 02/06/2009 - 14:08

    This size and brand new from a big retailer is a great deal. For watching DVDs and TV this screen is fantastic. A great second or bedroom TV. At this price, buy one for the whole family, Xmas shopping done early!

  • WingedNike on 02/06/2009 - 14:10
    +5

    Voting positive because the poster said the quality isn't good. We need more honest warnings like these.

    • cheapo.one on 02/06/2009 - 16:09

      i had already voted +ve before reading this comment but i agree entirely, too bad i can't vote +ve twice, lol

    • catmao on 02/06/2009 - 16:27

      totally agreed! + for the honest comments

  • lobbie on 02/06/2009 - 16:29

    Very informative & to the point with your post.

    Great work mj90mj90!

  • 00 on 02/06/2009 - 18:12

    nice find

  • JPOWER on 02/06/2009 - 19:14
    -2

    SONIQ'S BREAK, IF UR GOING TO GET IT GET THE 4YR WARRANTY.

  • samfisher5986 on 02/06/2009 - 21:17
    +2

    Sigh, My mum has this EXACT TV!

    Unless you are watching bluray or using the PC input with 1080p you can barely tell the difference.

    I love it how all the people that have 1080p native tv's try to justify why they paid $3000 for their TV.

    This TV looks good for actual Digital Television, even with Ten's 1080i "One HD"

    Just because its 1080i doesn't mean its even close to bluray, Digital TV's bitrate is poor, you can't see the difference in a $3000 because the quality isn't there to display!

    Garbage in > Garbage Out

    Don't waste your money on a $2000-3000 TV for no reason.

    Just remember, this is a Plasma. I prefer LCD myself. :)

    Oh and just a tip, when you buy this TV, ask for a cash price, they should reduce it, as happened with me :)

    • neosin on 03/06/2009 - 01:28
      -5

      "Unless you are watching bluray or using the PC input with 1080p you can barely tell the difference."

      uh lol!!!!!!
      that's exactly why people buy 1080p tvs!!! to view 1080p content! LOL! People don't buy 1080p televisions to watch 480p dvds HAHAHA!

      if it makes u sleep better at night then go for it mate, enjoy your 1024x768

      • [Deactivated] on 04/06/2009 - 00:34

        Ya know, at first I thought the lols and noob comments might just be a bit of ironic, over-the-top, play acting.

        But you're making yourself sound like you know nothing about anything.

        What's that, seven exclamation points? Followed by a sentence using three? Then another just for a lol… and another for the approximation of an actual laugh out loud.

        sigh

        If you want to make your case seem remotely credible, please use actual information to prove your case instead of pointless and mindless blather.

  • creeps_bay on 02/06/2009 - 22:47

    I dont want to go for Soniq at all, they are not of good quality, even u ask jb hifi storepersons, they will tell you y they r so cheap.

    They told me its like giving $800 away, and recommended me to buy LG paying $200 more, saying atleast the quality and customer service are better, and is value for money, But said if want to go with better quality go for Sony or panasonic.

    What do you guys say?

    • [Deactivated] on 03/06/2009 - 00:39
      +1

      As I mentioned, I have had a Soniq 42"er of similar design for the last 2.5-3 years. Not a single problem with it. Great for my rather large DVD collection and HD Foxtel. A friend of mine caught a similar $800 special about 1.5-2 years ago, and hers hasn't had a problem either.

      Since I don't have a HD or BR collection, as well as the distance issue I mentioned earlier, there's not really much point in me getting anything higher.

      That being said, I have no doubt they have a higher return rate than other brands. They likely use cheaper components in the electrical side of things than some of the bigger brands and are probably slightly more likely to fail in normal situations and reasonably more likely to fail with a spiking/noisy power line.

      But "giving $800 away" is as ridiculous an exaggeration as "every single one is brilliant, never fails and tastes like chocolate".

    • ESEMCE on 03/06/2009 - 07:38

      Depends how much you value the "quality".. I'd probably steer clear of a cheap brand personally.. I'd rather spend the extra 25% for the security of a brand and probably better electronics driving the screen…

      That being said.. if you're desperate to get something soon at this price, it's cheap and will do the job quite adequately.

      Oh and check the post below.. there's no HDMI.. That'd definitely be a deal breaker for me.. HDMI is a necessary connection when buying a TV of this size in my opinion.

      • allseason on 03/06/2009 - 10:31

        seems that it said 2xHDMI on the website… which post below claimed there’s no HDMI??

        • ESEMCE on 03/06/2009 - 10:42

          must've misread it..
          I thought cheapo.one's comment said no HDMI.. but it doesn't now..

  • Jacku on 03/06/2009 - 00:03

    Can this baby handle Xbox360 or PS3???

    • cheapo.one on 03/06/2009 - 00:15

      yep: "HDMI input" or if you so wish, you can just use the composite connections whcih lessen the quality (though the extent to which they do so is arguable, as you can see above)

      • Jacku on 03/06/2009 - 08:36

        Oh thanks… Yeah, sorry I mean any input lags? Especially on PS3.

  • mason on 03/06/2009 - 11:35
    +1

    Pay with paypay, use coupon PPEOFYFFO and get free delivery in Aus.(exp 13 june).

    • [Deactivated] on 04/06/2009 - 00:36

      Nice.

  • Mikinoz on 03/06/2009 - 11:40

    I wouldnt buy a monitor or screen from JB hifi , last time i bought a soniq it had to have more than 3 dead pixels for a refund ( i had 2)
    and the waaranty is they send it back to supplier , or at least thats they said to me.

    • pais on 03/06/2009 - 15:41

      You're more than entitled to a refund if it's within a reasonable time frame. Just gotta be a bit more persistent with what your rights are…

  • JaeTee on 03/06/2009 - 22:45
    +1

    I went to have a look at it today while passing by the city. I must say the quality is very good. Even a full HD LG LCD was pixalated compared to it. Colors were great. For those keen, my advise is to go have a look at it.

  • Peefa86 on 05/06/2009 - 08:29
    +2

    Hi,

    Coming from a user perspective and nothing more, I have had a Soniq brand 1024x768 LCD (40 inch) for about 4 years now - and it is perfect, has never skipped a beat. The quality is just fine. The panel is a Samsung panel (named brands used in even the no-name surrounding bits) so not sure about the "cheap electricals" comments above. When I bought it the LCD was about $2K less than the Samsung - and the same panel.

    I suppose you get what you pay for. I'm going in store to have a look at one of these for my girlfriend's place to replace her old standard TV. Just to add to the vote for no-name brands, I also have a HD 50 inch plasma - brand is "CLONE" - which is last year's LG 50 Plasma panel in the unknown brand surrounding and it is also fine - especially noting I paid $1300 for it and it came with a 2 year warranty when the LG only came with one year…

    Just pay the extra $139 for 4 years warranty and you're covered….

  • forenzic on 07/06/2009 - 20:29

    i had one of these, no issues at all. just wanted to go lcd for my htpc, so i went samsung and sold this off to a mate. everyone is happy.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join