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!

     

Couple Questions about TV Buying


KendrickPanther

Recommended Posts

I'm looking to buy a TV sometime before next season. I'm thinking 43" or so is ideal for the room it will go in. My budget is about $500 but I want to get the most bang for buck. I just have a few general questions hopefully someone knows the answers to:

I've heard most TVs receive a 60hz signal. Is there any advantage to buying a 120+ hz TV? I mostly watch sports but I do have a PS3.

What is the best time of year to buy TVs?

Which is better: LED or LCD?

What are the highest quality brands? I love Sony and Samsung, are there any other great brands?

What are the best stores in CLT area for TV buying (good deals)?

1080p is the best economy resolution right?

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Samsung and Sony are overrated and usually overpriced.

120 hz is great for sports, not so much for regular tv or movies. i haven't noticed much difference on video games.

i prefer LED (the screen is still LCD, but backlit by LED) as long as its not edge lit. full array is where its at (different manufacturers call it different things)

IIRC, late summer or early fall is when a lot of new models come out and last year's models are marked down considerably

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think LG's are the best. Vizio probably second. LED is definately the way to go.

As far as what size, I went by this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?ie=UTF8&docId=1000021501

It helped. The distance was about 120 inches so I got a 42". Could've gotten a 47" and it wouldn't have been a problem as well. So I'd say no more than 7-8 inches than the minimal screen size for the viewing distance that's right for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had 2 HDTV's in my life time and I have to say the one I preferred was my Samsung LED TV. I had a Sony Bravia as well and the Samsung was cheaper and just outshined the Sony.

Both were 40 inchers, one cost 900 the other was around 630 or so. The Samsung came with so much more. Sony is a good brand but they ride their name coat tails a little too much for my liking.

If you're looking for a bright display for gaming LED is the way to go. LCD TV's are awesome too and usually are cheaper than LED's.

1080p is the best resolution and the hz do matter, but it depends on what you're going to do with it. If it's just for movies and games or if you're going to watch mostly sports and such.

I'm going to try and get a new TV since I don't have my old ones anymore. I was looking at Amazon and they have some great deals on all kinds of brands. I was looking at a Vizio TV they are a newer company, they've been around but for only a couple of years and a friend of mine has a nice 42" tv, 1080p, 120hz, wifi, internet apps TV that's LED and it cost him around $498 +shipping of course. It's a very nice TV. The picture is very crisp and sharp. The sound surprised me the most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have 3 HDTVs and my 47" Vizio LED is easily the best of the bunch. Vizio doesn't have a reputation to rest on yet, but they really make some good products.

The only gripe I have about it is a textbook first world problem. It has a QWERTY keyboard on the remote, to search for movies and whatnot on the VIA screen. The keyboard connects to the TV via bluetooth. I have to unpair and pair it to the TV once a week. It randomly loses its connection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like plasmas. I sold tv's (although that was two years ago), so I used to see TV's side by side all the time. I liked the color depth of a plasma way more than what you'd get on an LCD or LED at that time. Plasmas were also considerably cheaper then, although I'm not sure what the market is like these days.

Both of mine are LG's. At the time LG upscaled non-HD content far better than any of the other brands. I bought my parents a Panasonic plasma and non-HD content on it looks far shittier than it does on my LG televisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like I can get a bigger, better picture by going plasma for the same money. The downside is they die sooner and dim as time goes by.

This is how I rank TV attributes:

1. Long Life without breaking

2. Picture Quality

3. Size

I don't watch a ton of TV most of the year but come football season I watch every game I can. I don't play video games much. My first Nintento was 8bit graphics so HD gaming is decadent to me. I have heard multiple people say Sony is not worth the sticker shock so thanks for that input.

I want to hook this TV up to a computer and watch NFL Rewind from the comfort of my man chair.

Thanks for the replies my approach to this is "measure twice, buy once"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never owned a plasma, and the store settings aren't indicative of what you'll see once you're home. Therefore I can't really comment about their overall appeal. I know they used to suffer from a lot of "burn in" problems. I've heard technology has advanced enough to stop that from happening. Maybe in a few years, I'll shoot for plasma. As for now, I'm still a little cautious about them.

I'm glad you're doing your homework about it. When I bought my first HDTV, I just went for what I thought was the best deal at the time. I didn't do much research at all. This was before 1080p was around. The TV claimed to be 1080i. I noticed that the edges of the screen were always cut off. Upon further examination, it wasn't 1080i at all. Instead of 1920x1080 resolution, it was something strange like 1746x1050. The picture quality was great - far better than I expected, but my eyes always focused on the edges when it was obvious that part of the screen was cut off. Over time, it developed a "droop" in the bottom middle portion of the screen. If I were watching football and the scores were scrolling, it would sag off the bottom of the screen as it passed that part. It was an old, rear projection HDTV, set in a huge cabinet with wheels. I still have it, but it's in the kids' playroom with rabbit ears connected to it. Since it predates a digital tuner, I have to use the digital converter box. It completely ruins the picture quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never owned a plasma, and the store settings aren't indicative of what you'll see once you're home. Therefore I can't really comment about their overall appeal. I know they used to suffer from a lot of "burn in" problems. I've heard technology has advanced enough to stop that from happening. Maybe in a few years, I'll shoot for plasma. As for now, I'm still a little cautious about them.

I'm glad you're doing your homework about it. When I bought my first HDTV, I just went for what I thought was the best deal at the time. I didn't do much research at all. This was before 1080p was around. The TV claimed to be 1080i. I noticed that the edges of the screen were always cut off. Upon further examination, it wasn't 1080i at all. Instead of 1920x1080 resolution, it was something strange like 1746x1050. The picture quality was great - far better than I expected, but my eyes always focused on the edges when it was obvious that part of the screen was cut off. Over time, it developed a "droop" in the bottom middle portion of the screen. If I were watching football and the scores were scrolling, it would sag off the bottom of the screen as it passed that part. It was an old, rear projection HDTV, set in a huge cabinet with wheels. I still have it, but it's in the kids' playroom with rabbit ears connected to it. Since it predates a digital tuner, I have to use the digital converter box. It completely ruins the picture quality.

My main concern was the burn in issue. At the time, 6 years ago, the theory was if I played to much madden I would have had the field burnt in permanently. That's why we went with LCD. Now they say it's no longer an issue so we went with the plasma to get the bigger screen.

The picture is amazing. The only drawback is the glare. Don't recall it being as bad on an LCD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Why don't we just say they can shove the late round draft picks up their ass? If they want a player they will be starting at WR in Week 1, I want a MLB in return that we can start Week 1. Starter for a Starter Not Starter for a draft pick we'll be debating whether or not they should make the final 53 man roster in 2026.
    • Why?   No. This isn't a situation of a player we want to trade because we have no use for them.  He's our starting slot WR, our leader of the young WR room, Bryce's safety option the last 2 years who he has good chemistry with. If the Vikings didn't run into WR trouble, we'd never have been even considering trading him, so why in the world should we give him up for fair market value in a vacuum for Thielen and disregard what losing him off our roster will do for us this year? A 5th round pick in 2026 is a negligible draft pick, especially with this season being so make or break for Bryce and Canales.
    • The Vikings acquiring all these late round picks has me feeling like we're about to see another CMC situation play out here. Trade a player we really like for the equivalent of what we want for them on the draft pick chart, but because of a bunch of late round picks instead of the one pick value we actually want. Which will do the same thing in the end, nothing, because 6th and 7th round picks rarely work out to begin with, or we're just going to use them to move up 10 picks in the 3rd or 4th round to take another DJ Johnson
×
×
  • Create New...