Help Buying a TV

DO NOT BUY a LG. They are crap.

samsung is okay...but I would NOT buy that model. You need at least a couple of years from that tech tree to know wether it is any good or not.

Besides...at 2k that TV is highway robbery.

BUY a VIZIO.

I own a 47" 1080, 240 Hz and I bought it for $1,200.00

it is the best TV I have ever owned, and I have owned all types from all price ranges.


BUT STEP AWAY FROM THAT TV. RUN.

 

Oh..and LED backlighting is for suckers.

 

Here is an article on LED tv's
http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/whats-an-led-tv/

They dont really sound worth.

 

why is LED backlighting for suckers?
is it becuase it produces a better image?
because it makes the tv thinner? lighter? more effiicient? is it because LED's last longer then flourescecnt tubes?

no offense, but you sound like the sucker here.
and with how many changes have been going on in the tv industry, you certainly can not have owned each type of tv from each manufacturer. unless you buy a LOT of TVs. in which case it sounds like you are buying all the wrong ones and having to replace them FAR too soon.

 

Any thoughts about these?

Panasonic Viera
Sony Bravia
Sharp Aquos

 

Sounds like you got swindled by the LED BS.

I own one as well. Not worth it.

The picture quality difference between a LED 240HZ and a regular LCD 240 HZ is NOT NOTICABLE AT ALL.

the only benefit is the cabinet size, and that technology is in it's infancy. it is just DUMB to buy any electronic in it's first generation. ESPECIALLY a TV. (this is second generation, but you should wait till christmas)

 

I own a Aquos.....wouldn;t recommend it. it's "green" features take power away from the TV.

Sony Bravia has a decent track record, but price is not right.

Best TV's for Value are these:

Vizio
Toshiba
Samsung

best TV's are these (in order):

Samsung
Vizio
Sony
Toshiba
Mitsubishi
Panasonic
LG

 

That's because both use LCD panels. LED replaces CCFL backlighting, not LCD displays.

And yes, there is a difference: more consistent and even backlighting. Traditional CCFL backlighting is not uniform, so parts of the image will appear slightly brighter or dimmer at times. They also take a few minutes to warm up and eat more energy. Also, LED backlighting is "instant on" tech: when they come on, they're instantly at full brightness. CCFL takes anywhere up to 30 minutes to warm up to full brightness.

If you watch a lot of darker images, like movies, you'll probably see a difference. If you watch a lot of brighter images, like outdoor sports (*cough*), then you probably won't notice a big difference.

As for the 240Hz stuff, it's nice for movies, because the TV is digitally altering the image to insert additional frames of motion between the ones supplied by the source material. The end result is that movies look very smooth and clean, almost unnaturally so. For games or sports, however, it's a terror.

Good listing of TV brands, too. I'd bump Sony up a spot though. Expensive as hell, but worth the price, especially the XBR/Bravia stuff.

 

Does Panasonic really deserve to be that low? I have heard VERY good things about their plasma stuff. No idea on LCD's.

 

Well everyone has a different opinion on this but since you are gaming I say find you a cheap LCD 1080p TV and 60Hz should do you fine. I recently upgraded to a 40" HDTV with these specs and the TV was sub $500 and it looks as good as some of my friends' and families' TVs that cost $200-300 more (I bought a less well known brand).

Just do your research and pay close attention to reviews left by buyers...I did and I don't have one complaint about the TV I bought....except I just found a 42" for the same price.

 

I'm not sure about Panasonic (Viera's), I know Pioneer had great plasmas (kuro's) and some people often get the 2 brands confused.


With that said I generally agree with Section's list except I'd put Sony at 2 (so Vizio 3), and Mits at 4.



Perhaps not what you're looking for but recently I've seen 72"+ Mits DLPs on sale for around $800 iirc.

 

Holy crap now that would be a deal.

 

IIRC Sharp makes pretty good LCD's

Here is a 52 inch 120 hertz for just under 1k
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/...etail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=A1932284

 

check the nearest brandsmart store. every time i look at tv prices, they are the cheapest 99% of the time.

section126, i didnt get swindled by and BS. i honestly thought these LED tv's were little LED pixels instead of just the LED lighting behind the LCD screen. i never looked into it until the article donlphan117 posted. i was surprised by that and maybe even a little less impressed with these LED tvs now. however, i didnt buy an LED tv so there is no way i got swindled. i dont make enough to spend over 2,000 dollars on a tv with out literally kicking my own *** for being so stupid.

all the benefits mentioned for LED over LCD still stand, whether you believe them or not. its still more efficient, lighter weight, and produces a better image. and LED's are not new technology. so i wouldnt worry about that. as long as the manufacturer builds a good tv, the LED lights will be the LAST part of that tv anyone should ever have to worry about.

LED lighting is not new. its been around for a while. and its popping up in more and more places. cities talking about replacing street lamps with new more efficient, longer lasting LED lights. builders putting LED lighting into homes instead of incandescent or flourescent. LED's are being used more and more in cars too. you ever see cars with tail ights that are a bunch of tiny little lights. those are LED's. i think some even have LED head lights too. LED lighting is staking a claim on ANYTHING that uses lighting. its just so much more efficient and longer lasting.

 

This is now a frontpage deal on slickdeals.net, probably wont last long.

 

I own a high end 42" Panasonic and a 26"...

they have issues.

and I have replaced the 42" and the issues remain.

they have software update issues and the green features wreck havoc with the TV's power.

 

What about plasma? Is it worth considering?

I have 2 Sony Bravia's one 720 60 hz and one 1080 120 hz and a Sharp Aquos 720 60 hz. Two are 37 the older Bravia is a 46. The newer 1080 p Bravia is the best of all three with the Sharp coming in last just on my opinon of image quality. I am getting ready to get something in the 50 - 55 range and am considering a plasma. Part due to supposed improved blacks , contrast etc. and part due to they seem to a good bit cheaper.

From my experience with my newer Bravia I'd be glad to go that route again but a 50+ Bravia is a bit out of my budget.

So any opinions on plasma?

Side note: I read somewhere a while back that LG uses Samsung panels. I can't remember where I saw that though so may be untrue.

 

Worth considering, yes. Worth owning... probably not in this day and age. I feel that LCD tech has equaled and somewhat surpassed plasma, especially if you get a high-quality LCD panel with good color reproduction. Plasma probably still has better blacks, but the disadvantages (like burn in; I don't think any of us want the CBS score graphic permanently displayed on our sets) outweigh the advantages in my view.

YMMV.

Probably true. Samsung does more than just make their own TV sets, they supply panels to others. They also have a joint production plant with Sony, though I think Sony has bought out their stake; could be wrong on that, don't quote me. Of course, there's more to a TV than its panel, so keep that in mind if you suddenly think "I can buy another brand with a Samsung panel and it'll be just as good."

 

I was under the impression that there are only 2-3 panel manufacturers out there, which supplier to everyone...

 

Plus LCD isn't as prone to glare / reflections from what I've read. And after looking around this morning I'm seeing much larger contrast ratings on newer LCD models which is nice even though I'm sure some are artificially inflated a bit.

 

Whether or not the panel has a matte finish depends on whether or not a matte finish spray is applied to the panel at the factory. It has nothing to do with whether or not the TV is an LCD or plasma set. Honestly, non-matte ("glare") finishes are better, because matte coatings will ever so slightly dull and distort the image being displayed. But if your TV viewing room is bright, or you just can't stand partial reflections, then going matte is fine.

Contrast ratios are always inflated. Marketing material fudges the numbers by measuring only a specific range, rather than the full color gamut. Contrast is always going to be a weak point on LCDs, it's just the nature of the tech. That should hopefully change in 5-10 years when OLED tech matures and replaces LCD.

 

i have a samsung 52" lcd tv 120hz, a samsung 40" lcd 60hz, and an acer 24" led monitor.


some quick observations:

unless you're watching blu ray, the 120hz is a waste, so i'd imagine 240hz is too. ps3, computers, xbox360 and cable companies all output at 60hz. i've seen no difference in how my 60hz tv and my 120hz tv handle motion during sporting events. when games load on the ps3 or xbox, the tv says it's running it at 60hz.

the led monitor runs cool and is energy efficient. might save me money in the long run on my electric bill. the monitor from the side looks cool, but the picture is pretty much the same as any lcd.

oh yeah, and i'd say samsung is the top brand right now. as always, i'd check out avsforums too.

 

i ordered my tv from amazon and it came in about a week. i couldn't choose a date, but if you call the delivery company (it's seperate from amazon), you can schedule over the phone. i can't speak for the "white glove delivery" because i was so anxious that i picked up the tv at the warehouse once it got to miami.


i'd definitely go with amazon or newegg though, because they are tax free and usually alot cheaper than BB.

 

Definitely. They also have a vastly better selection than Best Buy.

And while this thread refuses to die, I'd like to add to Sec's TV brand list: Sharp is a generally better brand than Vizio.

 

In fact I had heard that Sharp was close to Samsung when it came to LCD's. Not sure I believe that though, I love Samsung.

On the Plasma debate I think the technology has pretty much advanced past burn in being any real problem. Early on it was its pretty much a none issue now from what I have read.

 

The plasma burn in is overrated. Plain and simple.

I watched the draft on a plasma straight through... I've spent Sundays with football on for 10 hours... There was no long-term effects, definitely not. I've had my plasma for nearly two years now and I have not had a problem. Richer colors and it just looks better than my roommates Samsung LCDs, IMO.

Quality-wise... I would honestly consider a plasma. There's a million things that could go wrong with a TV... thinking that burn-in is your largest issue with a plasma in today's age is magnified.

Obviously look for the best deal possibly, but if it involves a plasma, don't turn your head away because of the whole "burn-in issues".

 

It is, but it still exists. You're far more likely to encounter burn in on a plasma set than image retention on an LCD set. (Stuck or dead pixels, however...)

I just take the position that LCD has generally equaled or somewhat surpassed plasma at lower prices.

 

I think plasma will go the way of HD-DVDs. Its just that LCD has led to LED, which is leading to 3D-LED tv.

 

No it isn't. Not even close. Sharp has serious green feature power saving issues, and software issues.

I own TWO sharps, both had problems..

 

To recap...


I have had serious issues with my Panasonics in the past and my Aquos lately..

NEVER an issue with my Vizio.

I own a HP plasma as well..and that has been going strong for a LONG time now.

yeah, I have a alot of TV's in my house...6 of them.

 

I've owned two Sharps and had the pleasure of using a third when housesitting. No issues whatsoever. Pretty good color reproduction, no ghosting on the panels, etc etc.

The only thing I don't like about Sharp panels is how they display text when using them as PC displays, but no one in this thread is talking about using their TVs that way.

The E77 series makes for a particularly nice gaming TV.

 

Sharp Aquos looks great. Spectacular picture. But they have confirmed issues with their software, and like I said, the "green" features are a disaster.

 

"Green" everything is a disaster, though. Just ask East Anglia.

 

I own a Vizio and I really like it.

 

some things i want to point out that seem innaccurate in here.

contrast ratio has no industry standard measurment. comparing tv's by their advertised contrast ratio is almost pointless, especially when comparing two different manufacturers, or comparing teo different display types.

plasma can have burn in/image retention worse then an lcd because plasma runs hotter and uses more power. but i think just about all tvs now have methods to prevent this from happening. if your worried about it, make sure the set you buy has something to prevent it from happening.

burn in/ image retention is not the same as dead pixels. you will actually find more dead pixels on lcd then plasma. i believe there are zero to very few dead pixels on plasma sets. i read that 40% of manufactured lcd screens are discarded because they come out with too many dead pixels, or enough of them close together to cause a noticeable defect in the screen. this was a few years ago.

the article also mentioned that this was the leading cause as to why plasma sets are cheaper then similar sized lcd sets. especially when you get above 50 inch screens. it went on to mention that improved manfacturing techniques and facilities would lead to better production and reduced lcd prices.

 

That's not true enough to make a generalization anymore IMO. Plasmas can use less energy than LCDs of the same size.

And who the heck here confused dead pixels with burn in? I didn't see it.