austin532 wrote:I often wonder if people think the 20" PVM's look better is simply because the screen size is smaller. Obviously anything running on a smaller screen is going to look better and sharper. I would love to see a comparison between a 20" Sony PVM vs the Sony KV-20FV300 TV. I guarantee they would look very similar. The only difference is one cost around $400 while the other is usually free. Doesn't take a genius to figure out which one is the better deal.
I've had both, in those sizes as well, and assuming normal viewing distance for this size (2~6 feet) I thought they look completely different. The BVM monitor will potentially have studio level colors and very thick scanlines, the aperture grille is not visible unless you put your face to the screen, so to the eye, it really looks just like a good LCD (with good colors and contrast) with emulated scanlines (something I've been saying a lot in these kind of comparison threads). The FV300 in 20 or 24 inch has very visible grille, and the scanlines are more moderate, it's basically what you expect from a consumer set with aperture grille. Colors are fantastic, definitely improved over shadow mask tubes, and an fair improvement over other non XBR Trinitron tubes, but not studio levels like the pro monitors.
Brad251 wrote:tjstogy wrote:Yeah I think consumer sets get a bad rap and IMO should be considered first and foremost over broadcast monitors. It's near impossible to find a pvm over 20" and even if it's 20" it's expensive and yes it's sharp but it's still small at only 20". More people on these forums should be pushing consumer tvs, the kind that are ending up in garbage dumps. Not in spite of it, but because they really looked great. I'm selling my pvm 20L5 now that I have a consumer Sony kv-27fv310. It's frustrating to see people thinking of the holy grail as a broadcast monitor when in reality it's nothing like you remembered. Simply not for everyone....
I recently owned an FV310. Do you think the picture on the 310 is more similar to a PVM than a consumer TV? If the 310 is more similar to a PVM, how much better does a PVM look than a 310?
Being the owner of an FV300, the FV300 is a great set and has a really nice picture but the picture is not as sharp as the 310. On the 310 everything looked crystal clear and I'm guessing this is because the 310 has a voltage regulator (minimizes blooming) and the 300 does not. I wouldn't necessarily say the 310 is a better set, though. The two sets just have a different look. I prefer a bit of blooming in the picture which I get on the FV300 and the FV300 looks closer to the consumer TVs I grew up playing on so I guess I just prefer that consumer TV look. That said, certain games looked amazing on my 310. For example, I couldn't believe how good Comix Zone and Ecco the Dolphin for Genesis and Super Mario World looked on the 310. I would have kept my 310 but got rid of it because I didn't like the way my set displayed reds. This could have been a defect in my particular set or it may not have. I don't know. I hope to at some point see some games running on another 310 to see how the reds look on other 310 sets. Maybe you could take a picture of a game with a lot of red running on your set?
I can't say about the reds but this is an interesting comment. I'm not sure how the FV310 really compares to the PVM or BVM because the FV310 still has regular sized scanlines as is running on a standard tube not an enhanced high line count tube like the ones used on the PVM's and BVM's. However the fact that the blooming is regulated by the high voltage regulator definitely does sharpen the image from the little I've seen running on it, which is why personally I prefer the FV300 that came before it, but in some ways for folks who are used to pro monitors and might not like the too thick scanlines (really too thick on bvm's) and would prefer a noticeable grille (or maybe even a more consumer looking tv) then the FV310 could be the greatest compromise.
korpse413 wrote:But question for you guys. What is the naming structure of the Sony line? For example
I look here and notice pretty much everything, but I am just curious what everything stands for. For example this discussion is stemming from the KV24FV300 and the ever popular KV27FV310 - obviously the number following KV equals screen size, but what exactly is KV, FV and the last number? with other models being KD or involving a FS instead of FV?
Not sure what the initials stand for but during the later flat line CRT years, the FS line up was the entry level sets, generally more affordable. The FV sets were the higher end range of tv's. I'm not sure where the HS range of tubes ranks, but these are great for watching movies, I used to watch a ton on one. I think they have higher resolution tubes and from what I've read the downside is that there is some input lag. The XBR sets were marketed as the premium line up that only came in giant sizes like 32 or 36 inches, from what I've read they suffer from the same downsides as the HS tubes in terms of input lag. A friend of mine when we were young adults had one at his father's place and we'd game on it like crazy without being bothered by the input lag, so the lag on XBR sets and HS sets is probably not in line with early LCD levels of lag.
)