Currys (Faulty TV) - I need your help

neilmcl

PurpleGoldFish wrote: »

Yes, I now know this, I have mentioned this previously. For all it seems it is not a fault, it isn't fit for purpose in my eyes (or that of the engineer that has now spoken to Currys).

I'd argue that it is, albeit poorly but within the limitations of the current technology. I'd also argue that this information is freely available to make an informed decision prior to purchase. Did you test it's 3D capabilities in store?

What model is it btw?

ThumbRemote

JethroUK wrote: »

the 'timings' (responsibility for sale are with the retailer for 6 years) are to cover developing faults

i.e. if the TV 'developed' a fault after a few months

the OP is stating that the fault has always been there - just couldn't be bothered to report it until after 6 months (or so)

hence - credibility = ZERO

If you built a TV in your garden shed - and sold it to the OP for £1000 - and they came back after using it for 6 months and said "i want to return it because it has an inherent fault from day one" - what would you think?

rhetorical - you would tell them, if they've lived with it for 6 months, they can keep living with it

the courts will reach this same common-sense conclusion - cast iron guarantee!!!!!!!!!

You're still talking rubbish aren't you? Putting 'cast iron guarantee' and exclamation marks does not suddenly make you correct. And your rhetorical question is ridiculous. Just because you think the law doesn't apply, doesn't make it so.

The OP has already stated that they only started using the 3D capabilities in earnest this summer. At which point they reported the problem.

The OP has their rights under Section 48A of the SoGA for a repair, replacement or refund. They have 6 months within which the fault is assumed to be inherent. They are within that size months.

ThumbRemote

neilmcl wrote: »

I'd argue that it is, albeit poorly but within the limitations of the current technology. I'd also argue that this information is freely available to make an informed decision prior to purchase. Did you test it's 3D capabilities in store?

What model is it btw?

That the information is freely availably is not relevant, unless the retailer specifically drew it to the attention of the OP.

The only get-out for the retailer here is if the OP examined the goods in store, and their examination should have revealed the problem. There's no evidence for this one way or the other.

shaun_from_Africa

JethroUK wrote: »

the OP is stating that the fault has always been there - just couldn't be bothered to report it until after 6 months (or so)

Could you post a link to where the OP has stated that they were aware of the fault 6 months ago, as the only relevant info I can find is where the OP stated that they had no way to check the 3D viewing until recently.

PurpleGoldFish

neilmcl wrote: »

I'd argue that it is, albeit poorly but within the limitations of the current technology. I'd also argue that this information is freely available to make an informed decision prior to purchase. Did you test it's 3D capabilities in store?

What model is it btw?

You keep saying 'limitations of the current technology' but the LGs seem fine, I've taken my Freesat recorder (which has the 3D programmes on it) to my friends and the same content is perfect. Is it down to the different glasses technology? Mine is Active, theirs are both Passive. You also say that the ghosting information is freely available online, that maybe but how would I have known to look for it, I'd never heard of ghosting.

No, I wasn't able to test the 3D in the store as Currys didn't have any glasses for it (nor did they have the TV in stock I had to order online), but I did view the TV's 2D picture quality which is seemed good. Before I bought it I did read a couple of reviews online but having just looked now I can see there are a few 'dud' reviews posted since I bought it.

The Model number is 46TL868B

neilmcl

PurpleGoldFish wrote: »

You keep saying 'limitations of the current technology' but the LGs seem fine, I've taken my Freesat recorder (which has the 3D programmes on it) to my friends and the same content is perfect. Is it down to the different glasses technology? Mine is Active, theirs are both Passive. You also say that the ghosting information is freely available online, that maybe but how would I have known to look for it, I'd never heard of ghosting.

That would indeed make a huge difference. Ghosting/Crosstalk is caused by one of two ways, the main one being an issue with timing and synchronization of the left & right signals to the active shutter glasses, added to the lower response times of LCD TVs. Passive 3D tech doesn;t have this problem. There could also be an issue with your source material as well. What you really could with is looking at some reference 3D material, via a £D bluray for example.

PurpleGoldFish

neilmcl wrote: »

What you really could with is looking at some reference 3D material, via a £D bluray for example.

Already ahead of you. I borrowed a 3D BluRay player, Sharks 3D and Hugo 3D because I wanted to know whether it was the 3D broadcast that was crap or the TV, it ghosts on the BluRay too. Also the engineer who was testing it on behalf of Toshiba said they have a test 3D BluRay and it was doing the same for them too.

Interesting stuff regarding the Active/Passive technologies... All the ghosting finds in Google refer to Active... not a lot about passive and ghosting... I feel a little silly to be honest, when I was shopping for the TV in Currys I went on the assumption the person in the shop was well informed, they advised the active glasses over the passive as the active "give a better 3D experience over the cheap 3D of passive"... Well, I guess we live and learn.

Just out of curiosity does anyone have any suggestions on/for 3DTVs?

neilmcl

PurpleGoldFish wrote: »

Just out of curiosity does anyone have any suggestions on/for 3DTVs?

Steer clear, it's just a gimic imho

However, if you really want to watch 3D then your best bet is plasma, purely because of the better response times, any of the newer Samsung or my preference Panasonics should be OK. If you go for passive then remember you're only getting half the resolution.

Whatever you do, and I suppose it depends if you can get a refund, please, please, please, try before you buy and do as much research as you can. As I mentioned at the top of the thread a very good resource for info is avforums.com.

vyle

PurpleGoldFish wrote: »

Already ahead of you. I borrowed a 3D BluRay player, Sharks 3D and Hugo 3D because I wanted to know whether it was the 3D broadcast that was crap or the TV, it ghosts on the BluRay too. Also the engineer who was testing it on behalf of Toshiba said they have a test 3D BluRay and it was doing the same for them too.

Interesting stuff regarding the Active/Passive technologies... All the ghosting finds in Google refer to Active... not a lot about passive and ghosting... I feel a little silly to be honest, when I was shopping for the TV in Currys I went on the assumption the person in the shop was well informed, they advised the active glasses over the passive as the active "give a better 3D experience over the cheap 3D of passive"... Well, I guess we live and learn.

Just out of curiosity does anyone have any suggestions on/for 3DTVs?

In theory, active should be better. Passive 3d is affected by your position in relation to the picture (too close, too far, at too much of an angle etc and the 3d will break) and also lowers the resolution of the image, because the left and right halves alternate line by line, and are on the screen at the same time. This means that a 1080p 3d image is actually 540p by the time it's displayed as a 3d picture.

By comparison, active images flick a full HD left and right image alternately, meaning that you get a 3d image in the highest quality and it is not affected by position.

The problem arises when manufacturers put active technology in TVs that cannot handle it, because they aim to be the cheapest "high spec" tv. It's like listening to a mediocre musician trying to perform somethign way out of their league. You'd much rather they just kept it simple and did it well, rather than aiming too high and failing spectacularly.

That's your TV, basically.

PurpleGoldFish

Just thought I'd pop back with an update.

Currys took the TV away to do their own assesment of it - they found no faults nor did they see the 3D ghosting or the backlight bleed. They said as far as they're concerned it working perfectly and that the 'fit for purpose' arguement is null and void.

I know I'm not seeing things and that the first engineers appointed by Toshiba had seen it, 2 different sets of people on the home visits and their head engineer when they took it away had seen it. I contacted CAB for advise contacted Currys again and I asked for manger with info in hand they wanted to talk. They esculated my complaint and advised that if I could forward them a report by the engineers appointed by Toshiba along with a statement from them saying in their professional opinion it wasn't fit for purpose or of resonable quality then they'd give me a voucher for the cost of the TV.

The engineer sorted out a statement and a report the same day and now I have a new TV. I followed the advise given to go to AVforums and asked in there, I did the same on Digital Spy. I also went to see the TV in a demo room, read up on many review sites and increased my budget to get something better. I'd kept all the 3D recordings from the Beeb and they work perfectly, no ghosting at all.

Thank you for your help, advise and your time. It's very much appreciated.