Sony's 240Hz BRAVIA KDL-52XBR7 HDTV reviewed: extra Hz not worth the $

by Darren Murph posted Dec 10th 2008 at 6:46PM

Here it is, the review you've been waiting for. Are all those Hz worth all those dollars? If you believe CNET, the answer is "sadly, no." The 52-inch KDL-52XBR7 was all the rage upon its arrival, promising slick visuals and a dejudder processor that would wow, stun and awe. Unfortunately, it seems the set hasn't exactly lived up to expectations, as the deep black levels, accurate color temperature and color decoding, comprehensive complement of inputs and beautiful body weren't enough to overcome the breathtaking $4,200 price tag. Furthermore, the 240Hz refresh rate was found to offer "only minor improvements to picture quality," proving our fears of it being more about marketing than performance absolutely correct. Bottom line? Take your dollars elsewhere -- chances are, you won't miss the Hz.

Filed under: Reviews, Displays, Sony

Tags: 240Hz, BRAVIA, hdtv, KDL-52XBR7, LCD HDTV, LcdHdtv, review, reviewed, sony

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Highly Ranked

Olivier @ Dec 10th 2008 7:16PM

Has anyone ever seen an actuall 100Hz set running?
I work at CE retail store and I can tell you from experience that every 100Hz and + set that I got to see in the last year is pure unadulterated crap with slightly sped up motion that makes every movie look like a joke 1930's newsreel. I'm exagerating a bit, but how can it seriously not be subject of constant ridicule for HD blogs?

Neutral

DeadPlasmaCell @ Dec 10th 2008 7:48PM

I'm not a fan of it either.. Every set I've seen with it running doesn't do it consistently, it kinda jerks around every now n then and it's very annoying.

Highest Ranked

Daniel @ Dec 10th 2008 7:53PM

Because you're not setting the TV's correctly. Out of the box, the 120Hz mode is a disaster, and looks exactly like you are describing it. Set correctly (probably on low mode, but that depends on the TV), and it will smooth out motion as intended. Yes, there will be occasional artifacting/tearing, but nowhere nearly as bad as what you get with out-of-the-box settings.

That said, for $4,200, get a damn Pioneer Elite.

Neutral

daaper @ Dec 11th 2008 1:55PM

My tv has the 120Hz and I must say that for most movies I don't like it. It makes movement so smooth that it feels like a soap opera or actually being there instead of watching a movie. It seems counter-intuitive, like you'd want it to be as real as possible, but it's really not the case for me. However, I will say that on anything animated -like Pixar movies or Video Games- it's brilliant. For those, I don't want any grain and it does a great job smoothing out any aliasing/juddering . This is all just my take...

Neutral

a ham sandwich @ Dec 10th 2008 8:50PM

i posted this on regular engadget, too, but i assume this is the better place to ask this:

my question to you guys is this: if this sony bravia is a no-go for the price, what say you all to the new samsung ln-55a950? im seriously considering buying it.

if you guys could compare it to not only this guy, but maybe the pioneer elite kuro, that'd be great! thanks in advance!

Neutral

JM @ Dec 11th 2008 1:02AM

Honestly if I had to chose it'd depend on what you plan on using the set for.
If you're going to be watching mainly movies I'd say check out the 240Hz set and see what you think of it on Blu-ray and movie content.

If it's for regular HD channels, gaming, monitor, etc...
The 9 series might be best bet.

Consider this though, LED sets have sweet spots.
This means if you are not in the center of the set you're going to lose quality.
The 9 series suffers from some serious angle problems. Colors get washed out.

Check my site out for more info: John-MichaelDelValle.com

Neutral

engage @ Dec 11th 2008 8:52PM

These overpriced sets make people appreciate their 60 Hz LCDs even more, which is fast enough for my eyes. I know all about 5:5 pulldown and the supposedly judder-free picture that feature was supposed to bring, but watching what Samsung and Sony sets do with a 24 Hz signal from a Blu-ray disc produces that "live-action" look that I don't exaclty care for.

For 2009 and beyond, companies should focus on eliminating that look somehow, or at least making sure that the pulldown process is as good as it can be without so much additional processing. I see the power of something like Toshiba's cell technology solving this dilemma.

Neutral

JM @ Dec 11th 2008 12:59AM

Whoever comes out with the Cell first will change the market.
The Cell can have over 12 HD video streams going at once on the screen.
Brings PIP to a whole no level. Not to mention correct interpretation of new frames.

Highly Ranked

Andy @ Dec 10th 2008 10:01PM

I don't see a point of a 240Hz display over 120Hz

Neutral

joe @ Dec 11th 2008 12:53PM

This sounds like the high end dilemma. Once you reach a certain level of performance you pay a lot more for a small improvement.

I haven't seen the xbr7 but I have seen the xbr8 and it is the best looking set I have seen in person. That said it was 3~4x the price of the set I have. However, on initial inspection it was visually apparent that the xbr8 was better in every way.

Just like in audio $4000 speakers don't sound 4x as good as $1000 ones.

Neutral

JBDragon @ Dec 11th 2008 3:44PM

Forget LCD's, get a Plasma and you don't need this garbage! You have a better, more natural looking picture. something even a high end LCD still can't reach. LCD is fine for a PC Monitor, but for that extra pop on Movies and Games, and the WIDE viewing angles Plasma still can't be beat.

Highly Ranked

Loban @ Dec 12th 2008 11:44AM

Agreed. If you're buying a set based purely on refresh rate, why wouldn't you go with a 480Hz Plasma for a quarter the price? Then you get the higher refresh rate and just about every other spec that is better than LCD.

Neutral

Grumpyoldbastard @ Dec 12th 2008 11:01AM

I am probably in the Minority, but when I first sa 120Hz on my XBR4, my Jaw dropped. It was so realistic... I thought I could make out the camera movements and all... the isue I had was that on fast moving action, the processor could not generate the frames fast enough, the faster the motion the worse it got but that only happens in 1-2% of the time on a given movie... I figured they'd go up in multiples of 180Hz or 240Hz etc... but I would hold out for 1.2kHz (1200Hz).. lets see if I get that in 2012 in a XBR15.... :)

Final Fantasy XIII announcement possibly due on Nov. 13 EA Sports MMA gameplay footage revealed during Strikeforce match Nintendo 'hasn't committed' to new Zelda for Wii in 2010	HTML5 YouTube viewer: close, but not quite there Photoshop.com Mobile now available for Android devices Jailbroken iPhones in Australia getting Rickrolled by a worm
Balloons! Sending out a mystery message on your iPhone Brenthaven: The best computer backpack I've ever seen Is the Magic Mouse a dog?	Sunday Funnies: Barron's predicting profits? Entrepreneur's Journal: Putting together a solid sales contract Walmart, Amazon now slash DVD prices: What's next?
Reminder: Watch the first episode of Halo Legends today [update: It's gone] Homemade Fallout 3 Shishkebab, make 'em now before the apocalypse Gears of War 2 celebrates first anniversary with triple XP	SEMA 2009 Worst of Show: This car stinks... The Tony Fox "Proud American" and "Bonneville Boss" Rocket Truck High Speed, High Fashion: Izod secures deal as IndyCar title sponsor
The Best of Big Download: November 2-8 BioWare's Neverwinter Nights downloadable modules no longer available PC Modern Warfare 2 can't be played until Tuesday, even if you get it early	Philip Rivers Redeems Self in 'Eli Bowl' Patriots Taking Control in AFC East Mike Holmgren on Cleveland's Radar