Home / TVs & Audio / TV / Sony Bravia KDL-60LX903 / 3D Performance and Verdict

Sony Bravia KDL-60LX903 - 3D Performance and Verdict

John Archer

By John Archer



Our Score:


Now to what we guess is probably the 60LX903’s main event given its price: its 3D playback. And tragically, it’s hugely disappointing.

There’s one solitary reason for this, and regular readers will be able to predict what it is: the dreaded crosstalk noise. All too often objects appear in the 60LX903‘s 3D images - be they on Sky’s 3D channel or a 3D Blu-ray - with ghosting around them, distracting you from what you’re watching and generally making the image look imprecise and even confusing.

In fact, the ghosting on the 60LX903 looks worse than we’ve seen it on any other 3D TV to date. This may just be because the screen’s huge size reinforces a general problem with crosstalk on Sony TVs, but remembering our rather more enjoyable 3D experience with Sony’s KDL-40HX803, it feels like something else is going wrong too. The bottom line is that the ghosting is so consistent and severe that it reminds us of our early distinctly underwhelming impressions of Sony 3D TVs at industry shows in 2009.

As if to rub our noses in it, the 3D images behind this ghosting are actually pretty spectacular if you bother to look. Detail levels in particular are outstanding, even with Sky’s not-quite-Full-HD 3D broadcasts. Colours are vivid too, and the image is extremely bright by 3D standards, without leaving black levels feeling too compromised. You can even adjust the brightness of the image in relation to the glasses to suit you via the 3D options menu - a really nice touch.

But no matter how much the 60LX903 gets right where 3D is concerned, the only thing we found ourselves able to really focus on was that irritating crosstalk problem. Sigh.

Turning finally to the 60LX903’s audio, it’s slightly better than we’d expected given the set’s slim profile. You can certainly get quite a bit of volume without the speakers succumbing to distortion, and dialogue is pretty believable for the most part, as well as never being overwhelmed by background noise. The predictable biggest flaw is that bass doesn’t go deep enough to prevent the soundstage sounding muddy and constricted during action scenes.


As a 2D TV, the 60LX903 is at times mind-bogglingly good, using its enormity to ram home the fact that it might just be the finest 2D edge LED performer we’ve seen to date. Especially thanks to the superb motion processing. It makes mostly good use of some genuinely innovative features, too.

Unfortunately, though, its 3D performance is a completely different kettle of fish, falling prey severely to the dreaded crosstalk problem that’s blighted to some extent every LCD sequential frame 3D TV we’ve seen to date. And for us, the pretty severe 3D problems also make its £4,500 price look much too high for comfort.

ronesh amin

August 3, 2010, 2:41 pm

hmm, £4500 for a great 2D TV just doesn't cut it anymore. Its surprising Sony are struggling so much with its 3D tech, seeing as they were the main company pushing it from all fronts, such as gaming, and blu-ray. 3D TV should become a standard feature in all TV's now; even if it doesn't fully take off for years to come; atleast consumers are reassured they have a future proof TV.

Really happy TR have decided to differentiate between 2D & 3D picture quality in their reviews now. Would like to see the comparison of this TV against Samsung's 63inch offering which retails for as little as £2700, or its 50ich plasma variant, to go against Sony's 50inch optional 3D offering.

But going back to a point John Archer made in the his previous Sony 3D TV review- ".....3D continues to be very much a premium technology."; I disagree with this- there are TV's out there which offer reasonable prices for 3D technology. As mentioned previously Samsung have their 3D Plasma range, and LG their LED range; both selling their 3D TV's for as little as £1500.


August 3, 2010, 4:50 pm

There'll be sweeter price deals than this, I'm sure, but even so, this set is way overpriced. I take it from a comment in the review that the notorious Sony problem of backlight inconsistency is still there, too.

Unlike ronesh–amin, I have no desire to see 3D become standard. I want to have the choice rather than have a technology I don't care for, let alone want, foisted on me.


August 3, 2010, 5:10 pm

At last!! You mentioned input lag.

It's a start, but the best reviews give a figure in milliseconds. Susceptibility to input lag is a very personal thing. 30ms might be fine for a casual gamer, but be a nightmare for serious gamers playing online against others.

Simply saying that no input lag could be detected doesn't really cut it. I've read people claiming they can't detect input lag on TVs that have been measured in reviews to have 60ms of input lag. I personally find 60ms unplayable.

Tim Sutton

August 3, 2010, 5:27 pm


I'd think £1500 is a premium price for any TV in most peoples eyes.

There are 3D TVs available for a lot less than that, to be fair. But it's not a technology that's certain (I'd say not even likely) to be around for very long so there's not much incentive to buy.

I doubt 3D via glasses will ever be mainstream. It's an expensive, annoying and inelegant solution that as repeated Sony 3D TV reviews have shown doesn't really work very well.

Someone somewhere, probably Sharp, will be working on a glassless 3D display and that'll be when I consider buying in.


August 3, 2010, 6:48 pm

I have alreasy seen test systems from Philips that were native 3D without the need for glasses and that was 4 years ago at least. So this is all a method of increasing sales before the release of full 3D screens without glasses.....


August 3, 2010, 7:03 pm

I'm just annoyed that some of the very best designs (that I want) are now only being supplied on expensive 3D TV's (that I don't want). Case in point, the LG 9900.

I can only hope that in the next iteration of this technology they stop this practice. I'm certainly not shelling out hundreds of £'s so I can sit at home in the dark wearing sunglasses !


August 3, 2010, 8:15 pm

I'll take a modern television that's perfected the basics one used to expect as standard, like solid speaker quality, adequate consistent brightness and an image that keeps up with your inputs, over all these extra bells and whistles like internet connectivity and 3D. We're getting into iPod Touch territory now, where instead of earning its place as a quality media player, it just *does more stuff*. I'm not sure I want that model applied to £2000+ pieces of kit that suffer from backlight bleed, and crosstalk and input lag and crap sound, just so their marketing team have more to put on the features page.


August 3, 2010, 8:33 pm


Serious gamers don't play with TVs. They use only 0-20ms in.lag monitors.

TVs are only for console gamers. We all know?? only PC gamers are serious.


August 3, 2010, 10:03 pm

@metalex - still using my Sony CRT Trintron monitor for gaming - timed it as 34 ms quicker than my TFT. Even as I'm getting old, combined with my G9x mouse, func pad and CRT, I'm able to out react the younger players consistently in "twitch" shooters"

I wish input lag was a standard review criteria here


August 3, 2010, 10:21 pm

there is a point that is usually forgotten with 3D: its almost totally impractical for people who wear glasses


August 4, 2010, 3:51 am

{quote}there is a point that is usually forgotten with 3D: its almost totally impractical for people who wear glasses{/quote}

Maybe the the laser corrective eye surgery was missed in the feature list.


August 4, 2010, 10:12 am

Some 1 in 20 UK children suffer from some form of squint where the brain ignores the signals from one eye. Although treatments are available, many continue to see monocularly and are therefore unable to see 3DTV or 3D films. Squints in adulthood cannot normally be corrected even if the appearance of the squint can be improved.

If 3D TV's are likely to be mainstream, a significant proportion of the population will be unable to watch them.

I've yet to hear any reflection of this issue from the industry which is potentially creating a two-tier society.


August 4, 2010, 1:27 pm


Obviously, people with these conditions can still enjoy 2D but they should have the choice of buying a 2D set and not be forced to pay extra for a feature they cannot use. And there are other health issues involved with 3D TV, especially where young children are concerned. This is something the manufacturers are aware of and include such warnings in the user manual.

Garry 1

August 6, 2010, 8:10 pm

Which TV in the 60 inch range without 3D will come close to the Sony LX900?


August 7, 2010, 1:41 am


IMO Panasonic V20

Garry 1

August 7, 2010, 7:26 am

I am interested in something that is not Plasma. I know it has a great picture but the RFI it puts off is a real problem. Looking at LED/LCD only.

comments powered by Disqus