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!

     

new TV advice?


cptx

Recommended Posts

So i'm looking for a new TV. I haven't decided on LCD or plasma, I just want my ps3 games and blu-ray's to look good on it. Maybe something in the 48/50 inch range at around $1200, give or take a couple hundred.

I've been using a RCA rear projection hdtv since '03, so it's starting to show a little were and tear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally can highly recommend this Samsung. According to Consumer reports nothing comes close to and the Vizio is next. I have this TV and have absolutely no complaints. You can get it for about the price you are looking for. (Just make sure you are getting the 550 and not an older version)

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0014175E8?ie=UTF8&tag=samsungln46a550p-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B0014175E8&gclid=CIWh9pCRzpgCFRadnAodqUQ41g[/ame]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Samsung has the 650 now...and beyond that I'm pretty sure, and they are 120hz. I like those but they won't fit into my entertainment center...so i'm going Sony. One day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get a Vizio unless you like a dull, washed out image.

Don't spend extra money on a 120hz because it doesn't really make much difference and many tech reviews say no difference at all. The salesman will hype it up because he's likely making money off of your sale. I do it all the time when selling TV's to people because the more they spend, the more I make. Go either with a 60hz (the 550 is a nice one, but will run you 1500 on the low end for a 52") or plasma. Panasonic Plasmas and Samsung Plasmas are both very nice as well and are generally much cheaper than LCDs. They have a much higher refresh rate (480hz compared to 120hz for the fastest LCD's) and a much greater depth of color as their contrast ratios are usually 1,000,000:1 compared to 50,000:1 for the best LCD's on the market. On LCD's people generally look pale as though they've lost a pint of blood, but on most plasma's, you get more realistic colors. That being said, you won't notice in your home as it won't be sitting next to other televisions for comparison. The lifespans are the same these days and burn in is really a thing of the past unless you seriously neglect your television.

Look into LG, they have a 2 year full parts and labor warranty. Everyone else is only a 1 year warranty with 90 days labor. I'd recommend and extended service contract on any brand other than an LG since the manufacturer warranties with the other brands suck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too am buying a TV very soon -- so I am looking at them too & doing all the research.

Tensor -- The 120hz rate I heard was vital for watching football is that not true?

Honestly... You won't notice a difference between 120hz until you get used to 120hz and then go back to 60hz. Typically 120hz is more useful for gaming than TV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly... You won't notice a difference between 120hz until you get used to 120hz and then go back to 60hz. Typically 120hz is more useful for gaming than TV.

Ok so it will not make a horrible picture watching racing or football?

Cool!

Gaming not an issue for "this" TV because the only game that it will be played is Wii stuff.

I am moving my 52" downstairs along with my Xbox360!! :thumbsup:

Man-cave about to get a whole lot better! :biggrin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plasmas honestly scare me. They look nice, but that whole IR (image retention) / burn in is def NOT a thing of the past.

I know two people that have plasmas who have suffer from burn in. That's why I stuck with a LCD again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • That is just Panthers history pain speaking.
    • From what I gather, sure it allows you more room in that you can manipulate the cap more due to smaller prorated amounts to fit salaries in, but for cap purposes, you're still on the hook for the money at the end of the day.    "ChatGPT You said: What are the advantages for NFL teams to sign larger signing bonuses? ChatGPT said: NFL teams often use large signing bonuses as a strategic tool in contracts. While they cost real cash up front, they offer several advantages, especially when it comes to salary cap management, player retention, and negotiation leverage. Here's a breakdown of the benefits: ✅ 1. Salary Cap Flexibility Signing bonuses are prorated over the life of the contract (up to 5 years) for salary cap purposes. This allows teams to spread out the cap hit, even if the player receives the money immediately. Example: A $20M signing bonus on a 4-year deal counts only $5M/year against the cap. ✅ 2. Attracting Top Talent Players love signing bonuses because they're guaranteed money paid up front. Offering a bigger signing bonus can sweeten the deal without inflating yearly salaries. ✅ 3. Front-Loading Real Cash, Not Cap Teams with strong cash flow can pay big bonuses now while minimizing the immediate cap hit. Useful for teams trying to build around rookie QB contracts or with flexible cash budgets. ✅ 4. Locking in Key Players Larger bonuses make it harder for a player to be released early due to dead cap consequences. This can create more job security for the player and roster continuity for the team. ✅ 5. Leverage in Restructures Big signing bonuses create future cap hits via proration. Teams can later restructure deals (e.g., convert salary to bonus) to create even more cap space. ✅ 6. Competitive Edge In free agency, a team offering more guaranteed cash up front often wins the bidding war, even if the total contract value is lower than another team's. ⚠️ Key Caveat: Large signing bonuses increase dead cap risk if the player is cut or traded early."   I think that roster bonuses can be a useful tool if you're trying to keep players in by manipulating numbers and spreading the hit over time, but I don't think that it's something that you want to use unless it's "necessary." I don't know that you want to get into signing rookies on roster bonuses, as the bust rate is relatively high.    
    • not even if that team in New Orleans disbands before the first game.  Saw one 2026 mock that had them drafting first next year.  
×
×
  • Create New...