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

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • 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.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...