Archives

Hi All:

I have not turned on the 55" 1080i Projection in over 3-months (in fact< I unplugged the ESP) but am missing some really good stuff related to OTA news and such by doing so.

So anyway, my wife and I were talking and are considering a 47" to 55" 1080p LCD but I want a relatively to immaculately low energy consumption with the swap out. The old projection will go in the basement for my son and his friends for summer time use as he is in College now.

Anyone have any good ideas or suggestions as to which brand, reviews, someone that has actually plugged in a Killawatt into the back both on and off to make sure it is a low energy consumption TV?

TIA

Wayne

Look at an LED also. My mom purchased a 55" Samsung LED and it is great. The Power consumption is less when compared to LCD and especially plasma.

You can compare different models side by side on Best Buy's website and the in-store displays make a choice much easier.

Daox has an Efficient TV List (http://ecorenovator.org/forum/appliances-gadgets/943-efficient-tv-list.html) that compares different models.

Notice the vampire consumption as well as the yearly consumption number.

The Vizio Razor (Edge lit LED rather than array of LEDs) shows 125w average for the M550NV 55" screen. The Sony Bravia 55" EX710 Edge LED is 138w. Vizio seems to focus on energy efficiency, and the 13 watt savings does mean 10% less electricity.

Other manufacturers advertise "Energy Star" compliance, but they don't tell you power consumption. In those cases, I seek out and download the owners manual, where they usually specify a vague number followed by "(typ)". I can understand that because power consumption depends on the television settings. You can knock quite a few watts off the power consumption by just lowering the backlight setting.

I did something unique for the living room here, where I have the 47" ESP set (roughly 170 watts) mounted on a stand. I rigged up a 19" Vizio Razor LED set mounted on a vesa swing arm mount above the big TV. The 19" Razor draws only 31 watts, and I can angle it toward me when sitting at the desk so I can see the screen clearly. I feed both televisions with the same two outputs from the cable box, so I can watch either output with either set. When I want to watch news or other "who cares" content, I use the small television. For the movie experience, I use the big screen. In TV-Junkie mode, I can use both sets for a "Picture above picture" dual screen. It works so well that my wife wants me to rig the same setup at the house in NEPA, allowing us to leave the big screen powered off and use the little screen for casual viewing.

Unfortunately, if you're looking to compare the power consumption of one television to another, the EnergyStar testing methodology will let you down. The EPA only tests televisions with the default settings, even though some ship with higher default brightness than others. Most of the ones I've seen consume about a third as much power at minimum brightness vs maximum.

http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/tv-power-test/

"CNET follows the standards outlined in IEC 62807, the same methodology employed by Energy Star, to test TV power usage. Per these methods, TV power draw is tested in the default picture setting and in standby mode. At CNET, we also test two additional picture-setting scenarios: post-calibration and power saver."

You can check out the CNET reviews, which are not great but they are the best around.

Samsung has a tendency to produce TVs that are a little more expensive than the competition, but with better power consumption. Look for a set with good energy saving features, like Samsung's presence sensor which can turn the video off if it senses that you have left the room.

I'm in the market for a ~40" unit myself, and I'm leaning towards an LED edge-lit Samsung for $650 at the warehouse club.