Customer Reviews

Sharp Aquos LC42D62U 42-Inch 1080p LCD HDTV

5 star:		(52)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

I just purchased mine a few days ago and so far its all been rosy.. :-)

I normally dont write reviews (ok, so I'm lazy, big deal, sue me.. :-)), but when I was researching for this model I found VERY little information about this TV (almost all reveiews were about the 46" D62U model), so finally making this purchase was almost like a leap of faith. So to make it a little better for other people who might be researching this model, I decided I would give my two cents worth. If you're reading this, then hopefully you will be better informed than I was when I made my purchase.

Note : These are all MY impressions, based on MY preferences, which might be quite different from yours. Also, I am no expert in the field of HDTV's, and I have not tested ALL the features of this TV yet.

So here goes...

Appearance :
Yes, it looks beautiful. The "fingerprint friendly" glossy black bezel gives it a subtle classy look without becoming too garish. The downside to that... you'd have to put in some effort to keep it clean, not that big of a deal though.. just like if you have shiny black car. Even the smallest bit of dirt/dust gets accentuated because of the shiny black background. Also, since the LCD screen is anti-glare, the reflections from the bezel COULD get distracting if you're sitting in a well-lit room with multiple light sources. This hasnt been a problem for me since the lamp for my living room is on top BEHIND the TV, but if your light source is behind the viewer, you might want to give this some consideration. All in all, nothing particualary flashy/different about the looks of this model versus the multitude of other LCD TV's out there. The speakers are mounted at the bottom (as with most TV's this size), and are not detachable.
The remote is the standard Sharp remote, nothing fancy about it. The clicker can also be programmed to command your cable box, VCR and DVD player

Features :
1080 p (isnt that the reason you are looking at this review?.. LOL)
ATSC-NTSC tuners to catch over the air HD/SD broadcasts
2 HDMI input ports
No PIP mode, (though in my opnion, PIP is highly overrated)
No cable card slot (until the time bi-directional cable-cards become the norm, cable card slots are really not that useful)
No DVI input. If you want to hook up your PC, you'd need to use a DVI-to-HDMI converter and use one of the HDMI input slots on the TV. Its not that big of a deal to me, but it might be to some. Of course, it would have been NICE to have a DVI input slot, other manufacturers have it, so why cant Sharp? I attribute it to cost-cutting measures.

Performance (HD) :
Out of the box, the HD picture was stunning. Watching the Rutgers-Louisville game last night on HD, I could see clearly the individual faces of spectators sitting many rows back in the background. Very nice. But.. moving closer to the TV (about 3 feet. Yeah, I know its too close, but I HAD to check), I could see quite a bit of pixelization in the lighter areas of the image. This pixelization affected even the NON-moving parts of the image. Furthermore, the pixelization blocks were not constant, which give the image a grainy, shimmering look (the kind you get on your PC games if you set Anisotrpic filtering too high, and Anti-aliasing too low). Of course, moving further away from 3 ft, this effect wasnt noticable, and pictures looked great. Anyway, since I was in the "critique" mode, I took my TV to my neighbor's who has Dish Network (I have Time Warner Cable), navigated to the same HD channel, and Bingo, the pixelization is gone..!!! This leads me to belive that the problem lies with the quality of HD signal provided by Time Warner. I think, to carry as many channels as possible, TWC might be compressing their signals too much, and when the time comes for my cable settop box/HDTV to de-compress the image, it has to do too much guesswork to fill in too many blanks left due to data rejection (not data loss... but data rejection, the data that is INTENTIONALLY left out to compress the signals). To read more of my ramblings on compression, see the "HDMI - Is it really that big a deal?" section at the bottom of this review.

Performance (SD) :
Out of the box, not so great. Significant artifacting and pixelization. Rather disappointing, in fact. A few tweaks later (Noise reduction turned off, Sharpness reduced, backlight intensity reduced, Cable box configured to output 4:3 channels in 480p instead of 480i), a much better picture. Still SOME artifacting and pixelization, and of course not as good as the HD channels (naturally.. lol), but definitely watchable. Hardly any artifacting/pixelization visible from our normal seating distance of 8-10 ft. This finally got my wife's seal of approval ... "OK, we will keep this TV" ... ;-)

Performance (DVD) :
Well here, I was pleasantly surprised. I KNEW beforehand that DVD's look rather good on HDTV's, but my DVD player is a 4 yr old, no-name, el-cheapo, only 480i output model which I got for free for signing up for a Bank of America chekcing account. YET, the picture quality was only mariginally less than what I saw on my HD channels. I have no plans of buying an HD-DVD or a Blu-Ray DVD players, but I WAS contemplating buying an upconverting DVD player. But looking at what my current DVD player is giving, I think I'll hold off on that purchase.. :-)

Performance (Sound):
Oh well, I really do not have THAT discerning an ear. For what its worth, the sound was clear and adequate enough for me.. I'll admit I haven't even play around with any of the sound settings yet.. :-P

Comparison with other brands :
I spent many an hour in Circuit City looking at this and other models, and harassing their sales staff into cycling thru a myriad of input signals, and settings on these TV's. In my opnion this model is best compared to Sony 40V2500 and Samsung S4095D (or S4096D.. they're identical for all practical purposes, and circuit City had the 4095D), both 40 inch, and both 1080p.
Sharp v/s Sony - I felt the Sony had a slightly better picture quality. The image was sharper, and the colors looked more natural. However, the Sharp showed slightly more details on close-ups of people's faces (perhaps due to the fact that the Sharp has 2 inches more of real estate). Also the Sony was about $250 more expensive (for a size 2 inches less), but hey, its a Sony.. :-)
Sharp v/s Samsung - Virtually identical picture quality. Yet Samsung was priced about 300 more than Sharp (for a size 2 inches less).
Out of the three, Sony seemed to have the best picture quality (both HD and SD) and most natural colors, but only marginally. I believe the extra $250 would be justified if it was the same size as the 42" Sharp. The Samsung is just plain over-priced. It should actually be cheaper than the Sharp.
Of course, if you're looking for absolute best, then look at Sony XBR2 40", but that one is WAY over-priced.. lol. You buy that one, your wife might make you sleep on the couch for the next 2 weeks. But considering that the couch would normally be in front of your new XBR2, that might not be such a bad deal... ;-)

About banding :
I looked and I looked and I looked.. till the cows came home to party. No banding on my unit.. :-). I have read quite a few reports of banding on the Sharp D62U series (even CNET mentions it), but most all of them are about the 46" (and 52") models. The 42" model has slightly different specs from 46 and 52" models (even though they are a part of the same series), so its possible that this model is not affected by the banding issue. But thats pure guesswork and I cant be sure about that. So if you plan to purchase this (42D62U) model, my advice would be to buy it from a local store, which have more generous return/exchange policies. [...]

Summin Up :
This is definitely not THE BEST LCD TV out there (I belive the Sony XBR takes that honor), but its pretty darn good. And for a price of [...], it is a VERY smart purchase to make


On another note.....

HDMI - Is it really that big a deal? :
Makes you wonder why they harp on about the HDMI connection, when the main benefit of HDMI is that it can carry uncompressed signals at a very fast rate? Yeah, uncompressed from your cable/satellite box to your TV, but what about all the compression/decompression already done beforehand by your cable/dish service provider? To carry more and more channels, our service providers are finding newer and newer ways of compressing their signals, often sacrificing the quality in this process.
Did you know, that if a brodcasting station films their program in hi-def (720p or 1080i), you're lucky if you get 20% of the original data to your cable/satellite box? Granted, that out of that 80% data that is "rejected" (I refuse to call it transmission loss), quite a bit of it is redundant (eg for a non-moving background, every progressive frame would contain the same info as far as the background images are concerned), but then then quite a bit of it is NOT. It is this missing data, that our cable/satellite box then has to "fill-in", based on different image processing algorithms.
Uncompressed...? Yeah Right..!!! The only thing uncompressed is the greed of these service providers.

In my mind HDMI makes sense only if you have a high def DVD player churning out 1080p signals, and then you use HDMI for that. Otherwise a component video cable would do just fine. I have both HDMI and component video cables connecting my cable box and my TV, and I see absolutely no difference. And they want me to pay [...] for a Monster HDMI cable? yeah sure.. LOL

I am a video technician for large scale shows and events. The company I work for owns about 30 Sharp LCD monitors, and with good reason. I did a lot of foot work and price comparison, and this LCD is the BEST purchase you can make if you do not want to break the bank. From my research, this is the only model in its price range that is 42" AND 1080p. All of the other models in the two thousand price range were mostly 40" 720p, which isn't bad but why settle for less? To keep it brief, here is a quick rundown:

PROS:
+Great size. Looks humongous in my moderately sized room. (Yes, like the ladies will tell you that 2 inches DOES make a difference)
+1080p hdmi (which is better than DVI because it carries both audio AND video) A MUST if you're a gamer (ps3/xbox 360 games are 1080p) But even my ps2 looks amazing pushing 480i on this monitor.
+Great looks, in fact the "piano black" design was the most attractive in the store in my opinion.
+Great over all picture. Brilliant colors, and not bad contrast for such a low ratio (1200:1). And this sucker is BRIGHT! Thank goodness for the automatic brightness correction feature which is quite nice.
+HD channels look absolutly stunning! As well as slideshows from my laptop, and DVDs on this 42" beauty
+Lots of inputs including multiple component connections and two hdmi inputs, perfect for a cable box plus a ps3
+Clear menu functions with lots of options to tweak it to your desired picture.
+Not terribly heavy at 66.2 pounds. (I carried it up to my second story apartment by myself)
+Nice sturdy stand for table/countertop. (Many I have dealt with have cheap stands)
+Sounds good but I must confess I only listen to it on my Sony dolby digital surround sound. (is there any other way?)
+Good price. (Especially if you can find it on sale such as I did.)

And now the BAD:
(Which isn't much)

-No PC input. This is a little dissapointing because I have to use up one HDMI slot to use my Mac on it via DVI to HDMI cable ten bucks on that famous auction website. (Plus I knew this when I bought it so I can't really complain)
-I must warn you that standard cable straight out of the wall into your monitor will look like crap. Definatly need a digital cable box with HD or Satellite to view this monitors full potential, however this is the case with most LCDs.
-At a close distance pixelation is very noticable and somewhat distracting. (Again, the case with most LCDs but who watches tv from within a few feet anyways? Otherwise not much of a problem.)
-Picture tends to lighten at more intense viewing angles. Faces look whiter etc. (Also common in most LCDs)
-Stand doesn't pivot. Not a biggie, but it would be nice. I guess they sacrificed stability for functionality in this case.
-Remote is HUGE, but this seems to be a trend among newer electronics. You can program it to most other devices such as VHS, DVD, Cable box but won't program to other audio recievers besides Sharp and there is no "guide" button for cable box control. 2 or more remotes is certainly unavoidable.

So in summery...BUY IT!!! Best BANG for your hard earned BUCK!!!!!!

I've now had both the 42" Sharp 4206DU and a Samsung 40" S4095D (both 1080p) for nearly a year and I definitely prefer the Sharp. I'm not a total techno-geek nor someone who has to have the biggest, most awesome home theater setup so this review is for your average couch potato who is, nevertheless, able to hear and see small differences in television video and audio quality.

First of all, let me say that the difference between high definition and standard definition television viewing is huge. With a high definition broadcast and television, you can see details that are simply amazing. I find myself watching cake decorating challenges on food network's high def channel just to look at the light shining off tiny little drops of sugar sculpture or frosting. Watching a poker tournament is a whole different experience -- you can see every pore on a player's nose and every bead of sweat on his forehead. My mother's first comment on seeing a broadcast in high definition on the Sharp was that she would never want to be filmed in high definition. You can see every wrinkle.

On the down side, high-definition set standard broadcasts look worse than they do on a CRT, although not by much. You can see the difference, by switching between a network news program's high and standard definition broadcasts. The difference is staggering. If, however, you're not going to get a high-definition signal right away or play games on a current game module or watch a lot of DVDs on a high definition DVD player, then there is no sense spending your money now on a high definition television. If you know you want a high-definition set, then the question is which one to buy. Of all the sets that I looked at (and I checked out a LOT of them), in the 37-42" range, the Sharp was the best buy. The Sony XBrite was the best looking set, no question, but not worth the substantially higher price one would have to pay for it. If money is really no object, by all means go for the Sony. Otherwise, the Sharp is the one I'd choose.

The Sharp was the first high def t.v. I got and then when I wanted a second television I got the Samsung. Watching these sets with a DISH network satellite signal and a good, but non-high def DVD player, here's why I like the Sharp better:

SIZE:

I initially had the Sharp in a small bedroom, about 8 1/2 feet from where it would be viewed. Quite honestly, a 46 inch or even 50 inch picture would have looked better from that distance. However, as a piece of furniture, a 42 inch television was too big for the room. A 2 inch difference may not seem like a lot, but it does make a difference both in terms of viewing quality and at how much space it takes up in the room. If you don't want your television to overwhelm a small space go with a slightly smaller set. Otherwise, get the biggest set you can afford that has a picture that really isn't too big for the viewing distance. There are lots of online calculators to help you figure out the best size for your viewing distance. Keep in mind that a high-definition picture is less stressful to look at and should be bigger than a standard set at the same distance. In addition a standard broadcast is not going to take up the entire screen (assuming you don't stretch the picture to fit the screen, although personally I think stretching makes things look strange).

ATTRACTIVENESS:

Both the sharp and the Samsung are beautiful models. The sharp has a wavy curve to the bottom that some people will no doubt find appealing. To me, however, the curve at the bottom is distracting as it tends to pull the eye down. It took me a long time to learn to ignore it. Other than that the sharp is the more attractive unit. The Samsung has one serious downside in that it has a bright blue light that glows when it is off. Unfortunately the Samsung is the unit that I have in my bedroom and I have to cover the light with a DVD box when I go to sleep otherwise I find the light interferes with sleeping. If I were buying a second set again, I would probably get another Sharp. Even though it looks a little big in the room the extra size is helpful if your viewing distance is more than 7 feet, plus it doesn't glow in the dark.

PICTURE QUALITY:

Both sets have good picture quality although both take a serious amount of adjusting from the factory settings. Oddly, the Samsung requires that contrast be set almost to the maximum. It took me a very long time to get both sets adjusted. Different settings are required to get the maximum best viewing a high-definition broadcasts, standard definition broadcasts and ancillary input. The sharp, in particular, lets you save different settings for each one and you can toggle between them. I went to the online AVS Forum and looked up discussion threads for each of my televisions to see what settings other people found were optimal and used used the most common ones as my starting point, which made it much easier to adjust both televisions. In general, the Sharp is, well, sharper, although the flesh tones tend to be washed out. Colors are brighter and warmer on the Samsung, which also has better skin tones. Picture quality is definitely best on each with an HDMI cable, however, do not spend more than $30 on one. The picture quality won't be any different. I know this, I learned the hard way. If you want to know why a cheap cable works as well as a monster cable, there are plenty of online explanations and I can verify this from personal experience as well. I started watching DVDs from a standard player with an S-video cable and the picture and sound were garbage. Component cables (blue, green, red) took care of the problem and the picture quality is comparable to a high-definition broadcast.

SOUND QUALITY:

If you're going to hook up your television to a stereo system ignore this section. I don't have room or the outlets to add home theater sound to my television, so I just use the speakers in the television itself. Neither set has particularly impressive sound, although the sound on the sharp is acceptable. The sound on the Samsung is really tinny and on some programs makes dialogue very difficult to understand as the difference in the frequency between dialogue and background is not what it should be. I'm not someone who cares that much about the sound on my television so I ingored other people's bad reviews on sound for the Samsung. Big mistake. If you're planning on using the television as is without hooking it up to a stereo then you should not get the Samsung. I've kind of gotten used to the sound, but I still have to hit rewind on my DVR far too frequently because of missed dialogue.

REMOTE, RESPONSIVENESS, COMPATIBILITY:

The sharp remote is really big and has a kind of strange pointy bulky bottom end. The Samsung remote is definitely a more user friendly size, but doesn't work as well as the sharp one. The Samsung remote must be pointed directly at the television and it doesn't work too well from a distance. Both remotes are fairly easy to use once you learn them. Both televisions are completely compatible with dish network remotes, although I find I need to have the television remotes around for picture adjustments when switching between inputs. Screen menus are fine on both sets once you get used to them. The real problem with the Samsung is that the response time from pressing anything on the remote is really long. It takes a long time for the television to come on and it takes a frustratingly long time to switch between inputs. The sharp does not have this problem.

VALUE:

Both sets cost about the same amount of money and I'd say both are pretty good buys compared to other televisions on the market. If you don't play on a 1080p console and don't think you're going to keep this television for more than a few years you can buy a less expensive 1080i television instead of spending the extra money for 1080p since right now the best signal you can receive is 1080i. Otherwise, since the broadcasters have a mandate to improve their signals to 1080p within the next few years you do well with either of these sets. There are other reviews on here that explain some of the input limitations on these sets, so I won't repeat them here. For viewing with a satellite or cable receiver with an attached DVD and VCR, the inputs on both sets are fine. You can't go wrong with either of these television sets, however, given the larger picture, better sound and slightly better picture, the Sharp is a better value than the Samsung. If I had it to do over, I'd have two of them.

*Edited 3/7/07
Just checked Consumer Reports latest LCD reviews. The Aquos line scored 2 of the top 3 slots in the 40" and larger category. The 46" came out on top, the 42" in 3rd, with a JVC unit that only upscales 1080i to 1080p (it can't take raw 1080p) came in 2nd. This is all over the Sony XBR's, which are supposedly the best and certainly cost the most. Why pay $1000 more for a TV ranked lower?

I had an LG LCD tv, but that one had some issues. Generally I thought it looked pretty nice, but it wasn't to my satisfaction. After some quibbling with the store I purchased the LG at, I exchanged it for this Sharp Aquos 42" LCD. I have no idea why I didn't just get this one first. Everything about it is higher quality.

Full 1080p HD. That alone isn't all that impressive, since there are few things available to watch in that definition, but the overall picture quality of this set is awesome. I compared it to the newer Sony XBR in the store, and thought they were about equal as far as picture quality goes, but the Sharp was a full grand less expensive.

One thing people should know about the 42" is that the specs online *(Amazon is no exception; they corrected some stuff but still start the description with the wrong specs, and then in the 42" specific specs they get the refresh rate wrong at 8ms) aren't correct. They list the specs that apply to the 46 and 52" sets. The contrast ratio is 1200:1 native, 6000:1 dynamic on the 42 (as opposed to 2000 and 10000:1), and the refresh rate is 6ms, not 4ms. I'm mentioning this as an FYI, not because I think it detracts from the quality of the TV or picture, but because I know if I hadn't found that out before my purchase I'd be annoyed with the misleading advertising.

There is some necessary tinkering with the picture settings that need to be done upon first use because it's default is set at almost maximum brightness for demo purposes. I've heard some reviews saying this is a negative thing, but picture quality is in the eye of the beholder and should be adjusted to your liking anyway. I personally don't need a calibration disk for this, but several people have mentioned that it comes in handy. I find tinkering with the picture settings myself is just as effective and I don't get a result that is someone else's idea of what a good picture is supposed to look like. Just use your own judgement.

The remote is pretty basic and over-sized. It could be half the size it is, but I don't use it anyway. Universal remote was easily programmed to the Sharp. The on-screen menu is straight forward and easy enough to follow. There is a picture setting called OPC that automatically adjusts the brightness of the screen to changing ambient lighting. In theory, this is a good idea. In reality, I find it more annoying then useful. Again, it's a personal preference, and is easily disabled.

There are many adjustments that you can choose to have the TV do automatically or not at all, mostly involving digitally enhancing the picture. I only noticed small differences whether they were on or off. It seems like it's mostly hype, but they are on every TV these days. Film vs. Video mode...really couldn't tell a difference.

All in all, this has as flawless a picture as I've seen. Standard defintion tv is iffy in quality, but much better then it was on the old LG. SD will never look great on a HDTV, so it works fine and will become a thing of the past in the next few years as new HD standards go into effect. XBox 360 looks awesome. DVD's on a standard progressive scan player look pretty amazing to me. I haven't gotten an up-converting DVD player yet, and frankly I'm not sure if I will.

*Added 3/7/07: Bought Up-Converting DVD player. Oppo 981, per many reviews saying it's awesome AND affordable. I have to say, it does look a little nicer. The key thing to remember though is that it will never be true HD, just an enhanced DVD. It looks good, but tends to only look as good as the original production quality allows. All in all, I'd say it's not really necessary, but if you need a new DVD player this one is a good deal for an up-converter.


I watched King Kong in HD on one of the premium channels the other night, and it was AWESOME. Completely stunning visually.

The sound isn't bad, but could be better. Doesn't make that much difference to me since most of the time I've got it running through the receiver and surround sound anyway.

Oh, yeah...even VHS looks amazingly good on this. I'm using all but one input, so that might be the only short-coming on this TV. I may, sometime in the future, need to re-wire my entire system through my receiver because I only have one HDMI input left.

Save $1000 and don't get the Sony or Pioneer. Spend an extra couple hundred and don't get the Westinghouse or LG. Get the Sharp. It's an excellent TV at an excellent price.

I've owned this set for approx 3 weeks. I work in the electronics field and would classify myself as " geek ". When the time came that I wanted a tv and saw 1080p sets come down to a affordable price I started my hunt.

First off let me educate those out there who don't know the deal with DPI.Most tv we watch is in 480i that's standard analog tv in 4.3 aspect ratio. 4.3 In laymans terms means a square picture where 16.9 is rectangler. 480i on most flat screens will always look grainy and fuzzy some more than others. This sharp and the Sony xbr2 series in my opinion has the best 480i viewing. 480p is really not much better then 480i. Now we get to digital 720p or as tv's were being sold until recently 1080i. There is no real 1080i but is really 720p. 720p is what we watch and think is HI-Def nowadays through our cable and satalite companies. It does look like H-Def because it's such an improvment over our 480i that we're use to that we believe it is Hi-Def. True Hi-Def is 1080p and the only way you'll see that now is through a blueray or Hi-Def dvd. No station yet transmits in 1080p yet. They will by Febuary 2009 when the goverment rule goes into effect.

Having tried to educate those who didn't understand we'll get back to the tv. You could buy the Panasonic Plasma px60u in most stores for around 1,200. It's a 1080i set or should be called a 720p set and it will play anything out today and look great.But it's a old technology and since TV's last an average of 8-10 years it will be with you awhile.The jury is out on how much better 1080p will look over 720p since those who have seen 1080p say it's only marginally better.

This is where the sharp LC-42D62U comes into play. It's ready for the future whether we will se the difference or not and it's priced where the 1080i sets where just a few months back. The picture quality is as good as I've seen on any set. I have NO BANDING as some others have mentioned and don't see any viewing angle issues either. The set is a work of art and has the classiest design of any falt screen made today. It doesn't have all the bells and whistes some have but who really uses them anyway. I had Picture in picture on my old set and never used it. Why pay for something you'll never use.

I highly recommend this set to anyone in the market for a 42 inch tv. It's an LCD and even though some will disagree plasma tv's days are numbered. LCD is the future of all tv's.

Best set for the best price.

FYI I paid 1,799 for this set. Very Happy in every way.

My Sharp LC-42D62U is about 6 weeks old as I write this. It's a great set, with a great picture, and very decent sound. I spent time standing between this and the newest Sony XBR in the store and the Sharp was clearly the better picture, but you should look and judge for yourself.

What largely determines the extent to which you will enjoy the benefits of this set is the availability of HD content. After I got the set I immediately purchased a Samsung progressive scan DVD player with HDMI connection; this generates a 1080i signal. I also upgraded from standard to digital cable with a basic HD package. There are limited "HD" channels on my cable (I don't pay for any of the premium channels) including the major networks and a few others. There is a fair amount of HD programming, but a lot more low res stuff, even on the HD channels. I found that many things I assumed would be in HD, such as many sports broadcasts, were not.

The picture can be stunning. I have no problems with pixellation, banding, or viewing angle concerns. It is amazing how bright the screen can be. DVDs are clearly superior to broadcast. I watched the animated "Howl's Moving Castle" with my kids and was amazed at the clarity and the richness of colors. "Master and Commander" was a joy to watch. Older videos don't seem to sample up as well for some reason, but nevertheless, if you are a movie fan you will be very pleased.

Broadcast has been a bit less than perfect. For some reason the cable company didn't bother to set up the new digital box to output full HD at installation, nor did it bother to provide any documentation as to how to set it up -- so at first cable was limited to 480i. After emails to the hapless customer support department and more research on the web I got the signal to 1080i.

Sound is also excellent, especially on 5.1 DVDs, but if you are really looking for the home theatre experience you'll want to add an external sound system.

I highly recommend the set. Just be sure that the content you want to watch is available in HD. The only reason not to invest in an HD set is the lack of sufficient HD content. I can't wait for affordable HD DVD players and more content on cable. The availability of quality content may be limited, but when the HD content you want is available this set will deliver a very satisfying experience that's well worth the investment.

Reality check: if you look around the Internet for other vendors, you'll notice several, including this Amazon page, mix the 42" set in with specs intended ONLY for the 46" and 52" models.

The 2000:1 contrast and 4ms response time are NOT for the 42D62U. As best I can tell, it's 1200:1 and maybe 6ms. Sharp's email to me says 4-6ms, but since there's no Fine Motion mode on the 42" to activate the 4ms speed, I doubt 4 is actually applicable. Check out Sharp's Aquos PDF from their website, where only the 46" and 52" have this option mentioned.

So far, the set is great for HDTV off cable. If I hadn't been told that a 6ms response led to smearing while playing Xbox 360 games, I wouldn't worry. But I spent WEEKS researching the Aquos line, and am annoyed that only after getting one do I find out that it's not exactly like all the websites said (or like here, implied) it was...

I considered getting the Sony 40" Bravia XBR instead of this because it was the best LCD out there, but decided instead to save my self over $1000. The Sony is priced at around $3000; I found the Sharp at Circuit City for $1950, and then used a 10% off coupon (you get them from the post office when you change addresses), so I ended up paying $1755 for it.

Like one of the previous reviewers, I do not see any banding at all (the one problem that most reviews point out). Like most reviews point out, the blacks on this set is one of the deepest you will get out of an LCD. The viewing angle is also larger than most. While the screen does begin to get washed out at the far viewing angles, it does so uniformly, and does not distort the colors drastically.

And of course you need to feed it HD content in order to get the most out of it. Otherwise you are just enlarging fuzzy, noisy analog signals. My X-Box 360 games look amazing outputting at 1080p, and so do HD cable channels.

We bought a Sharp Aquos LC-42D62U on May 9, 2007. By May 15 an opaque brown shadow had taken up most of the screen. By May 16, the picture was gone, and in spite of many calls to Sharp "customer service," the TV has sat unfixed, unreplaced and unwatched for over a month. We are out nearly $2,000, and Sharp barely bats an eye. The opaque shadow is a defect that appears in the form of a dark brown or black flickering band that spans the entire width of the screen. What's most troubling is that Sharp is not customer-centric. Sharp makes it easy to purchase the Aquos, but excessively difficult to arrange for repair or a replacement. We continue to spend extraordinary lengths of time on the (800) BE SHARP "customer service" line, only to be asked again and again to submit photos of the problem the television is having, then have those photos reviewed by Sharp's technical committees who then dispatch technicians to our house to review the problem and take pictures of the television again and wait for parts to be mailed so that the technician can return to install them. If the replacement parts do not resolve the problem, arrangements are made for additional replacement parts to be sent out, all in a time-consuming trial-and-error approach that disregards the customer's interest in having what was paid for in the first place -- a functioning television. Sharp Aquos ... Nothing is Lost (except your desire to be hosed again).

I did many searches & read 100's of reviews before making my upgrade to this Sharp Aquos. I owned a 32" Protron which in itself was a descent 720p
LCD. It did however lack the connectivity I needed as my system became more sophisticated. (I will relegate it to the bedroom). The Sharp has more than adequate connectivity with 2 HDMI inputs. I am connected through a Motorola model DCT via an HDMI cable which I also purchased through Amazon Impact Velocity HDMI 6.5ft. Cable (40315) at a very reasonable price.
I must mention Amazon's amazing delivery service. I placed my order on March 26th & on the 31st Eagle was at my door. They unpacked it & cleaned up all the packing material. I was connected & watching this awesome set within a 1/2 hour after they left. Setup was simple when I first turned it on & set the language option the picture was absolutely beautiful right out of the box. Switching the input was no problem & by pressing the flashback on the remote you could go between 2 inputs effortlessly.
I also benefited by Amazon's guaranteed lowest price policy. The price dropped $138.00 from the time I ordered it & the time it was delivered.
I received an email this morning stating my Amazon account had already been credited.I saved many $$$$$$$$$$$$$$by ordering this from Amazon with no taxes & free delivery.
I have it connected to a Sony upscaling DVD played via the 2nd HDMI input. The colors & contrast seen while viewing a movie are fantastic.

About the "piano finish". At first I wasn't too crazy about it but after viewing it for a few days you get used to it.

This HDTV will bring many hours of enjoyment & when 1080p becomes the broadcasting norm we who have this set will be ready.

After watching this TV for over a month I would like to add this comment:

If your viewing angle while watching this set goes beyond 45 degrees from straight on the screen becomes "washed out". This is not a problem for me as I view is straight on.