High-Definition’s Middle Ground

My television set has been a reliable friend and ally over the years--there for me, without fail, through more college football games and bad TV pilots than I care to remember.

As a result, I didn’t really blame my 27-inch Zenith several weeks ago when it sort of emitted a belch of light, then took on a strange greenish tint that I couldn’t correct. To the end, it has been a trouper, continuing to function even though the only things that look normal on it now are golf tournaments, the Boston Celtics and certain episodes of “Star Trek.”

What did annoy me, frankly, was the prospect of having to buy a new TV, and no, cheap as I am, cost was not the paramount concern. The issue, rather, has to do with the uncertainty surrounding the TV industry’s eventual switch to high-definition television. In a nutshell, I fear purchasing a TV today that could become obsolete by the time George W. Bush (who doesn’t look all that bad greenish, by the way) completes a potential second term.

For those blissfully ignorant regarding such matters, television stations currently send out programs on what is known as an analog signal, the crummy old TV we’ve been watching for years. The government, however, controversially agreed to give broadcasters free digital spectrum worth billions of dollars to gradually make the transition to a new system, with crystal-clear pictures and far more lines of visual resolution.

The expanded capacity offered by the digital spectrum can also be used to split a TV signal into multiple channels, eventually allowing a local TV station to create secondary feeds for 24-hour news, text or interactive services, such as conveniently ordering products featured during a program.

The big come-on to consumers, however, has always been the promise of high-definition TV, letting you see every bead of sweat during the Super Bowl as if the game were being played in your living room. Stores such as Best Buy, the Good Guys, Fry’s Electronics and Circuit City advertise and demonstrate this gee-whiz technology, which I’ve been seeing at industry trade shows since the early 1990s.

Many TV stations have already introduced some high-definition telecasts on a second channel, although few people have ponied up for the sets, meaning those signals are going largely unseen. Moreover, it’s not entirely clear when the government will compel broadcasters to phase out analog signals, with the expectation--especially in light of the giveaway--that deadlines will be postponed and the switch-over could ultimately take decades to achieve.

Despite those disclaimers, because of my responsibility to the public as a TV columnist (insert giggles here), I felt somewhat obligated to consider embracing the future, although I wasn’t enthusiastic about parting with more than $3,000--at least six times what a perfectly acceptable, conventional TV would set me back--to be one of the newer kids on the block watching high-definition TV.

The quest for the clearest possible picture, however, remains at best murky. So I decided to visit multiple TV-selling outlets anonymously, read Consumer Reports and try to make an informed decision on what I should buy.

Regarding my field work, either the economy is really bad or salespeople recognize a couch potato when they see one, because in most stores they descended on me almost as soon as I passed the camera section. Interestingly, many of them not only patiently explained technological differences when asked (though I’m not sure they all got it precisely right), but some were also well-versed in the twisted political road that led to this superhighway with no clear onramp.

As I began looking around, I discovered that true high-definition sets with all the bells and whistles built into them are very expensive, particularly when you realize that the content spilling out of TV is supposed to erode our minds and moral compasses. Most are tailored to the dimensions of a movie screen, with a 16:9 width-to-height ratio, as opposed to the 4:3 ratio of traditional television.

Conventional sets, meanwhile, still look pretty good to the casual viewer, especially some of the newer models. Moreover, several salesmen assured me that they are still selling quite well, and that because the government is dragging its feet, I could safely buy a good old-fashioned analog set with little fear of regretting the purchase before it too Hulked out on me.

Still, I thought, there must be some intermediate ground--something between buying a potential Edsel and blowing several grand merely to discern every mole during the “I Hate My Wife’s Sexy Clothes” episode of “Jerry Springer.”

Enter HD-ready or HD-capable sets, which generally occupy their own row somewhere between the true high-definition Goliaths and conventional models. These units, priced from about $1,200 to more than $2,000 for the top 36-inch sets, can receive high-definition signals provided you buy a decoder box (ranging from $500 to $700, and the price keeps dropping) that plugs into the set.

But hold on, even with the box you still won’t see “high definition” quality. I was told you also need to attach a high-definition antenna to your roof, for another $150 or $200, to pick up the necessary signal.

So even if you bring home your HD-ready monitor, you still require a few other devices, and enduring what sounds like a lot of grief, to capture high-definition pictures. On the plus side, even if you don’t get the clearest possible picture now, you get a good picture and have the potential to upgrade if and when the time comes. As one salesman sensibly put it, buying HD-ready was less expensive without “closing your door in any way on future developments.”

At this point, I was feeling OK about the HD-ready concept, but it wasn’t that simple. My old TV, the jolly green one, lives in a lovely cabinet that also houses the CD player, TiVo, digital cable box and VCR, with a DVD player somewhere in my future.

My initial inclination, of course, was to buy a TV that more closely approximated my waistline, feeling the TV and I should grow up and out together.

Unfortunately, that raised pragmatic concerns about where I would keep the new TV. For while the current occupant has plenty of room, I learned that even some of the 32-inch sets, especially those with HD-ready technology, would be a tight fit. Moreover, these babies are heavy--the Sony model, for example, weighs 185 pounds, which would be equivalent to stuffing my brother, holding his Lhasa apso, into the cabinet.

Several models were so big that I realized my choices included ditching the cabinet or settling for a smaller model if I wanted to squeeze the doors shut. Much as I like the idea of a TV that will make people go “Ooh” when they walk in, I object to the concept of the box overwhelming the living room. Even some salesmen assured me this was a consideration for many people who could afford larger sets but didn’t want a contraption that looked like something out of “Star Wars” strapped to the wall.

Consumer Reports’ Web site made me feel a little better about the size issue, pointing out that 36-inch sets provide about 25% more screen than the next rung down but can cost up to 50% more. It also noted that price “doesn’t track with performance”--and the kind of 27-inch analog set I was replacing is probably still the best deal. Combined with the prospect of turning my TV cabinet into a useless decoration, that sold me on a 32-inch, HD-ready model, which will run less than $1,500 and leave me the option of upgrading someday if I’m lucky enough to have the new TV make it to near-puberty.

With that decided, now I just have to go through the rigmarole of buying the TV, having it delivered, and hooking it up to the VCR, cable box, TiVo, and speakers--although I may have to assemble a committee to help with this task. (Some of the chains offer this service free on larger sets, but after seeing what the poor cable guy went through trying to get all those devices to interact, I’m not sure I trust the operation to anyone with less than a PhD in engineering.)

Despite all the time I invested in the process, I’m still not really sure if I’m doing the right thing and periodically fret that a week from Tuesday someone will unveil a fabulous new innovation that will render all my research moot.

Then I remind myself to relax, that I will have a good set, a fine set, a perfectly honorable new set, on which to watch more bad TV pilots and untold hours of sports. And even if my TV doesn’t render others green with envy, after living the last few months with my wounded old friend, that will be a nice change of pace too.

*

Brian Lowry is a Times staff writer.