Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Looking to buy a new tv

Goosfraba21

By Goosfraba21,
in Huddle Lounge

Recommended Posts

SorthNarolina Newbie

SorthNarolina

Posted
Posted

Plasma is pretty much dead. Some the the newest plasmas have recieved the best image quality ratings ever but LCD is taking over. It is probably best to go with the dominant technology.

LCD's response times are low enough now that Sports will do just fine. 5ms is a good target. Don't get a TV with anything higher unless you want to see what it's like to watch football on shrooms. 8ms is still ok but once your approach 10-12ms it gets noticeable. NASCAR, Football, The Olympics, and Hockey all do better with low response times.

1080p should probably be your target for resolution. It's pretty much expected nowadays for a TV around that size. I wouldn't want HD cable and Blu-Ray unless I was getting the max resolution. The high resolution also helps again with hockey.

If you don't want to spend a lot of money Vizio is surprisingly good for a value brand. They still are a value brand though.

Just shop around and you should find a decent one. Sony, Pioneer, and Samsung are all Brands that I trust.

Make sure you factor in the costs for the mounting equipment and speakers. If your watching it from your bed and you have a large bedroom you might want some separate speakers so you don't have to strain the TV's speakers to hear it. Some of the better brands have great speakers on their TV's now so that may not be a problem.

Make sure not to get scammed on HDMI cables if a retail place tries to package them with your TV. All salesmen are pressured to offer you Monster cable because their profit margins are far higher than the TV they are selling you. Expensive cables are only partially worth it if you are running them through walls.

One important thing to remember though is if you aren't' a huge videophile, you probably aren't going to notice a huge difference between an expensive tv and a cheaper one. A lot of the reviews you see analyze things that the average consumer isn't going to notice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SorthNarolina Newbie

SorthNarolina

Posted
Posted

lolwut

LCD tv's have the advantage in the long run. They don't use as much power which is a huge advantage since every market in the entire universe is emphasizing sustainability and green tech.

LCD's are also used in more applications than plasma. It's cheaper for companies to just concentrate on one application.

I shouldn't have said that you shouldn't not get a TV. But the plasma market is shrinking.

Most cheaper plasmas aren't going to get you 1080p as well. Since you like sports I would go with LCD.

Plasmas have better response times but once you get so low it's hard to notice a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
charlotte49er Newbie

charlotte49er

Posted
Posted

Plasma? LCD? looking around 42" for bedroom. I watch sports 90% of the time and not sure what to get.

Check out Circuit City www.circuitcity.com

They closed their stores, but do a great business over the internet. I bought a 65" Mitsubishi DLP HDTV, 3D ready for about 1/2 price and they through in the TV stand for free and I think shipping was free!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carolina Husker Newbie

Carolina Husker

Posted
Posted

It still all comes down to a few things, one of which is how bright/dark your room is. I have a really dark living room, so my plasma works great. My power bill increase was nominal at best, and it's not overly hot. It's 1080p. If you have a dark room without much window glare, get a plasma.

The bigger issue a lot of times is what you are watching on your TV. Anyone with Cable as their provider is doing themselves a greater disservice than debating between LCD or Plasma. Why spend all that money and then get a provider that will only broadcast in 1080i?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • TD alt
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By TD alt · Posted

      In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • TD alt
      Scourton isn't signed (& apparently it's a thing)

      By TD alt · Posted

      Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
    • jfra78
      Are all veterinarians this greedy ?

      By jfra78 · Posted

      Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...