CurtPalme.com Home Theater Forum

draganm · Joined: 08 Mar 2006 Posts: 8990 Location: Colorado

I recently had a conversation with Curt over some authentic Mexican food and this article ties right in to our conversation. Great read, I'm glad I still have a good old fashioned CRT picture tube in our living room.

LCD and plasma TVs fail much sooner as manufacturers cut costs
By Andy Vuong
The Denver Post
Posted: 10/24/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT

A technician at AAAA TVs and Electronics works on a 2007 Samsung 40-inch LCD set. As manufacturers have cut costs, the reliability of flat-panel sets has fallen, along with prices. (Andy Cross | The Denver Post )

Colorado Springs resident Sumanth Maddirala bought a 23-inch Philips LCD television for $400 a year ago.

The TV broke down last month, Maddirala said, even though his family watched it for less than two hours daily.

"One day, all of a sudden, it showed a white screen," he said. "It still looks brand new. We never even had to change the batteries on the remote."

The liquid crystal display TV's short life span left Maddirala incredulous, but he's among a growing number of consumers finding that it's tough to squeeze more than a few years out of their new flat-panel sets before something goes wrong.

The latest plasma and LCD TVs are thinner and lighter, but not nearly as durable as the big honking cathode ray tube TVs or even the first generations of plasmas introduced in the late 1990s, metro area technicians say.

"The timeframe within which they usually fail seems to have changed," said Haz Murib, manager of AAAA TVs and Electronics in Centennial. "It seems like they happen within five years, whereas with older TVs, it used to happen usually between five and 10 years."

Though no hard statistics or reports are available, technicians attribute the problems to two developments:

• To cut costs, manufacturers are using lower-quality components, such as power-supply capacitors that help stabilize voltages. Higher-quality capacitors can handle more stress and heat and are less prone to burning out.

• To reduce weight, circuit boards are more compact, meaning computer chips that serve as the brains of a TV are smaller and closer together, leading to more frequent malfunctions.

Repair technicians say the growing use of cheaper components is one reason prices on flat-panel TVs — LCDs and plasmas — have drastically dropped in recent years.

In the fourth quarter of 2009, a 32-inch LCD TV sold for an average price of $511, down from $1,566 in 2005, according to market research firm iSuppli. The average price is expected to fall to $374 in the fourth quarter of this year.

"Panasonic makes capacitors, but they don't use their own capacitors," said Eagle Wehner, owner of Eagle Vision TV Repair in Englewood. "They use cheaper parts in their TVs."

In the past, manufacturers used components that cost up to $3 each, compared with capacitors that cost as little as 10 cents each today, said Bruno Buzevicius, owner of International TV Sales & Service in Denver.

Manufacturers say lower prices on TVs come from breakthroughs in research and development.

"Our plasmas are (built) to last 100,000 hours, at which point they achieve half brightness, something discernible only if you have a new set for side-by-side comparison," said Jeff Samuels, a spokesman for Panasonic. "Lower prices are the result of continual R&D engineers constantly working to build better, less expensive sets."

Over the past three years, thousands of Better Business Bureau complaints have been lodged against TV manufacturers across the country. But the agency has not conducted a cumulative report on the complaints, which cover issues with advertising, warranty and product quality, among other things.

Repair shops are not among those complaining.

"If (manufacturers) didn't make them with some of the components that they use, I wouldn't have a job," said Steven Gonzales, a technician with AAAA.

"For the newer technology, if you get five to six years out of it before something fails, that actually is very good," Gonzales said. "In the past, the big-screen TVs went 10 to 15 years."

Despite the shorter life spans, flat-panel sets now represent the vast majority of TV sales. Nearly 34 million LCD and plasma TVs are expected to be sold this year, up from 13.4 million in 2006, according to the Consumer Electronics Association.

One factor driving sales could be that, amid plummeting prices, consumers are choosing to buy new sets rather than repair an old unit. Replacing an entire circuit board — a common repair for a TV that loses its picture — could cost $300 or more.

Warranty coverage for repairs vary depending on where the TV was bought and its manufacturer.

Maddirala said his TV, bought online, was still under warranty, but Philips only offered to send him a comparable replacement if he paid $380. Philips officials didn't respond to requests for comment.

Maddirala decided to buy a 40-inch Sony LCD and is trying to sell the broken Philips for $55.

Tim in Phoenix · Joined: 21 Oct 2006 Posts: 4409 Location: Phoenix

Yup

I have a 31" Mits tv, still works, bought it in 1985. I took the back off a few times to blow the dust out, nothing more. Marquee 9500, retubed in 2000, watch it five hours a night, lost the lvps three years ago, probably due to ac wiring issues in the wall, otherwise rock solid.

.

**AnalogRocks** · Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:36 am Post subject:

I've got at least a dozen CRT TV's that are 20+ years old. They all work great.

garyfritz · Joined: 08 Apr 2006 Posts: 12088 Location: Fort Collins, CO

Yup. My current TV is at least 15 years old, and never a problem. The Sony before that started getting flaky after 20+ years.

**AnalogRocks** · Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:45 am Post subject:

I got my 1985 Zenith TV retubed in 1996. I wore out the tube watching Star Trek. Very Happy

Who does that anymore?

**Curt Palme** · Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:51 am Post subject: Re: new TV's are crap

stefuel · Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:12 am Post subject: Re: new TV's are crap

km987654 · Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:26 am Post subject: Re: new TV's are crap

**Curt Palme** · Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:48 pm Post subject:

I could get those machines, but I don't plan to. It's cheaper to buy used replacement boards on eBay if that's the case. I can repair about 50% of the stuff by replacing capacitors, so spending 1/2 hour on one set vs 2 hours and $47K on an SMT machine to fix another, the choice is obvious.

My future is NOT in repairing digital flat screens. I have dabbled with about 50 machines at this point, and have repaired about 1/2. I've got other plans to complement the CRT work, trust me...

virusc · Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 358 Location: Massachusetts

OK I just want to put this out there. I work at a facility of 10,000 people in IT in which we all have 2 or more LCD monitors on average each. We also have over 200 large screen flat panels either Plasma or LCD and 100 or so digital projectors. I will tell you right now from a service prospective these are worlds better than 15 years ago when we had all CRT monitors and CRT projectors in the conference rooms and in offices. The defective rate on the LCD and plasmas are far less and require far less maintenance than all of the CRT we ever had and we have 3x more now due to the fact that you can actually fit more than one in your office/cube. In general you guys are just pointing out junk that otherwise if it was CRT would break the same. Philips does not make that many good products in my opinion and we had may returns and failures when I sold them back in the day when they were CRTs too. Yes some may use less than the best caps but since when is that new? Given the fact that also a tech is not required to maintain the digital gear I think also has played a part in some digital failures. Back in the day we had routine maintenance on the CRT projectors and larger monitors but now it is not needed but if we did I think the failure rate would be even lower.

akajester · Joined: 09 Jul 2008 Posts: 934 Location: Wisconsin

Is there a difference between televisions and monitors? We've had really good luck with lcd monitors from dell the last 5+ years with very few problems. I wonder if the TV industry is slightly different from the computer industry?

Dale

**Curt Palme** · Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:06 pm Post subject:

The Dell I use as my main monitor is on almost 24/7, and has been running for about 7 years. The thing is though, I've had multiples of the same monitor come through here that failed.

Yes,big differences between consumer TVs and computer monitors. Monitors don't have near the circuits in them that TVs do.

I'm not sure at all that I buy the fact that CRT monitors were less reliable than digitals. I only see what's died of course, but the average lifespan of an LCD computer monitor is 3-5 years IMHO. My own is way off the scale when it comes to reliability.

BTW, I stayed at a rental ski lodge with about 7 bedrooms in it while in Utah. They had about 6 LCD TVS in it, Sony, Vizio, Sharp, etc. Two of them were already dead. The main living room TV was an RP LCD I think, with a bulb, probably 5-6 years old. It still worked, but with horrible color, the light engine was on the way out, and there were blue specks all over the middle of the screen that stayed lit 100%. A complete POS..

garyfritz · Joined: 08 Apr 2006 Posts: 12088 Location: Fort Collins, CO

**Curt Palme** · Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:40 pm Post subject:

According to Darrell at Hammerhead, the problem isn't the large chip reliability, it's the soldering method to connect the 80 to 120 pin chip to the board. Remember the red ring of death on the Xboxes? Almost all were solder joint failures, not hardware failures.

This is rampant in the 20-32" LCD TVs I see through here, and if I'm not mistaken, it's the same issue that MacGuyver is fixing in the Pioneer receivers. Ditto for many other electronics pieces including Macbooks and Imacs, according to Darrell.

perisoft · Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 2920 Location: Ithaca, NY

It's worth pointing out that

(a) the writer of that article is an idiot and

(b) The article starts with a red herring - a breathless example of a TV that died after a year. The horrified "It was only used two hours a day" bit suggests that it was probably an infant failure as far as the components were concerned, NOT a "they're designed to fail" problem. And either way, a failure that early is an outlier. The article ITSELF says that old TVs last "between five and ten years" whereas new TVs fail around five years.

TVs now are INCREDIBLY cheap. Your TV lasts half as long but costs 1/3rd as much relative to your disposable income. In 1992 a 27" CRT TV sold for $700, which is the equivalent of $1000 now - but these people spent $400. First, that price is WAY the hell too high for a TV that was archaic when they got it.

Second, if their TV had lasted the -average- for new stuff, they'd be able to use the same $400 to buy another TV that was far better, and have it die in five years, and STILL be $200 to the good vs. a nice reliable CRT.

Essentially, they cherry-picked a bad example (you could easily do that with any given old CRT tv too), used an example of people paying way too much to make it seem worse, implied that the lifetimes are worse than they are, and ignored the fact that performance and lifetime per dollar are VASTLY better than they were twenty years ago.

Why in God's name would you prefer to pay $3000 for something that lasts 15 years, when it'll be out of date after 5 - and you can buy three things that last for five years each for $800, spend less, and have far better performance for 2/3rds of that time?!

**Curt Palme** · Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:40 pm Post subject:

No question that the writer is a bit of a goof, but frankly I'm offended by your attitude at about your 1/2 way point in your post above. Smile

Your sentiment in your last sentence is exactly what's wrong with the whole electronics industry today. NO ONE needs to buy a new TV every 3-4 years, that's crap. That's what the public has been conditioned to believe by the manufacturers that are one upping, and one-undercutting each other for the last 15 years. Hell, we don't even really need 1080p sets, never mind the 3D crap.

Bring back reliability, charge more for top of the line electronics, and make the damn things last 10-15 years as it was in the 80s.

The automotive industry for the most part is still following 'you want luxury, you pay for it' mentality. Why consumer electronics can't do the same thing is beyond me.

Make a 1080p flat screen 42" cost $3500. Make it last 15 years. It will be worth it to repair it at $3500. Can't afford it? Great, buy a 720p set for $1800 then. The 1080i sets are $1K.

You can't buy a Porsche for $15K, but you can buy a Chevy. You don't get the same performance as the Porsche, but you do get a car to get around in.

Yeah I'll get flamed now, go for it! Very Happy

**AnalogRocks** · Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:43 pm Post subject:

I agree Curt. I like the old $1000 VCR's from the 80's because there's some quality there.

virusc · Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 358 Location: Massachusetts

yeah, that article sound like consumer reports crap to me.

"To reduce weight, circuit boards are more compact, meaning computer chips that serve as the brains of a TV are smaller and closer together, leading to more frequent malfunctions. "

No, this is just plain stupid, weight? Cut cost maybe. Where is the study confirming this? Maybe for a power supply it is valid. You want smaller boards anyway as flex becomes a real issue. Look at any modern PC board and it is pretty clear this statement is wrong or has not specified Power supply or driver boards only.

Who buys a 23" TV as a main TV which the article hinted at anyway? I don't see a reason given by a repair shop with the exact issue that caused the failure. Maybe the kids broke it and lied to the parent as I would have done when I was a kid. Philips is not a good example as their entry level US products have a bad reputation.

I rarely see a article like this that did not have any data history to back up their claim. Has their been a study that proves that LCD/Plasma have worse reliability than CRT TV's ?

**Curt Palme** · Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:49 pm Post subject:

Think of the amount of energy put into making disposable electronics. Never mind the stupid paper/plastic bag scenario, the disposable mentality needs to go.

To further dispute Peri, the big things that have revolutionized TV in general are stereo TV in the 80s, the DVD in the 90s and HD in the late 90s. That to me is about one 'cool' thing per 7-8 years or so, not one every 3-4 years.

And not to take a personal shot at you Peri, as I really respect your simulator type work, but I don't think you're building those to be disposable, are you? Would you really say to a customer that paid thousands for one of your simulators 'Oh, that's an old model, we don't support that any more, buy a new one." When then take the disposable approach to other electronics?

Oh, and BTW, the commercial audio market sure has been hit with the same cheap POS mentality. It used to be that I'd install a commercial sound system, and it would last 15-20 years, sometimes even without a service call in that time. I'm now going back time after time after time to service and replace supposed quality equipment that dies in 5-7 years. Sad, really. The customer ends up losing in the end, as does the consumer that buys 3-4 $400 TVs when he could have had one $800 to $1000 one to last him 10-15 years.

perisoft · Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 2920 Location: Ithaca, NY

Curt, you're not making any sense.

If I could buy three $15,000 Porsches that lasted five years each, I'd sure as hell choose that over one $45,000 chevy that lasted fifteen. That's the thing - you seem to think it's some kind of moral issue that cool stuff ought to cost more.

You keep forgetting that the total cost of ownership is LOWER with the cheaper stuff, even if it breaks. You seem to have completely glossed over that; I don't know why - or, I do, in that you haven't got an answer for it.

We build simulators to the best price/performance we can, and we build them to a target market.

If I could make the same margins on a machine that cost a quarter as much and lasted a third as long, you're damned right I'd build it that way - we'd sell more machines and it would be cheaper for our customers in the end!

Building things like tanks when they don't need to be built that way is absurd.

All it does is raise the barrier of entry.

If cars lasted 80 years, so you only had to buy one, but cost $200,000 for a cheap one, what would happen? Only the richest people could afford cars, and the industry would be making antiquated, unsafe, slow, gas-guzzling, poor-performing, but very well assembled cars. I'll tell you what - I'd rather have my Saab now that'll last another five years, than a 1952 Chevy with water leaks, an engine that needs tuning every 10k, crap handling, tires that blow out on a monthly basis, no air conditioning or heat, a barely functional radio, and that gets 12 miles per gallon - and with no prospect of ever owning anything better.

If the arguments you're putting forth were applied to computers, we sure as hell wouldn't have HTPCs, or web browsers, or forums - we'd be using 286s with 16 color displays and less mass storage than the video memory required to display the image you're looking at right now. And we'd have paid MORE for it over the years.

Oh, but we could spend $300 to repair a board? That's not much of a positive considering I can buy an entire new computer, that's twice as fast as the broken one, for the price that a component-level repair would be!

I, too, have total respect for what you do - hell, I wouldn't have a working G70 without it - but your argument is elitist at best and incoherent at worst.