Topic: Advise on 47 inch HD TV's???

[Johnie]

Been looking at getting the large screen. Not interested in the plasma, 3D or LED. Checked 46" Sony Bravia LCD, 47" LG LCD. Both 1080 / 120. Any pros and cons guys? Thanks

[Damfino]

All I can tell you Johnie is, we have a 46' Sony Bravia we bought two years ago and we love it! I believe it is the XBR series and cost us quite a bit more than they sell for now. Super picture!

[xfactor]

Any particular reason you aren't interested in plasmas?

[Johnie]

Any particular reason you aren't interested in plasmas?

I was told that I don't need plasma if I stay under 50 inches. Don't want to pay for what I don't think I need.

[Bob Wessner]

They say Plasma TV's give better viewing angle, but we've had a 42" Sony Bravia for several years and we love it also. You have to view it from and extreme angle to get any fall-off.

[Johnie]

They say Plasma TV's give better viewing angle, but we've had a 42" Sony Bravia for several years and we love it also. You have to view it from and extreme angle to get any fall-off.

Plus, I believe the plasma is very costly to operate.

[Bob Wessner]

John,

Check your eMail.

[domer]

I picked up a 55" Sony EX710 a couple moths ago. LCD/LED. Love everything about it. Little to no glare, excellent viewing angles.  I chose to steer clear of the 3D fad. $200 for the glasses??? My dog already ate my $150 logitech remote... That and the 3D doesn't seem to be as refined as the price suggests. A few more years and I'm sure it'll be better but right now I think it sucks. I personally had 2 bad experiences with plasmas and will never buy another. Burn in on one samsung, really bad color issues with another ( red would stop working period. Nobody could figure it out) never had an issue with LCD's... Yet.

[xfactor]

Any particular reason you aren't interested in plasmas?

I was told that I don't need plasma if I stay under 50 inches. Don't want to pay for what I don't think I need.

Good enough reason, there are a lot of rumors going saying plasma isn't good for blah blah blah reasons, but its not true.


But yeah if you are looking to keep it under 50 go with a LCD, although I did get my 50 plasma for 600 bucks.


But to anwser your original question, Sony is just about the best you can go for LCD the others are nice too but Sony is great.

[BeSeeingYou]

One is not better than another.  It is a personal choice as to what you think looks better.  We all perceive things differently and some prefer the brightness of the LCD or the better contrast of the plasma or the....on and on.  Me I actually prefer the look of my 36 inch Sony Wega HD tube TV.

Just came back form a job in Puerto Rico where we installed 4 65 inch Panasonic Plasmas as part of two video conference systems. Now they were sweet.  And then there was a 100 inch one sitting in the warehouse back in Minneapolis.

[Johnie]

So what is a 47' LED - LCD going to give me vs just 47" LCD?

[Roach]

higher price for led but have a brighter picture. and i think the refesh rate is a bit faster

i have a 42" Sony bravia LCD love it. only other company that i see even comparing to Sony is Sharp.

[JohnnyB]

I have a 46" Sharp Aquos.  Comparing them side by side in the store I felt that it had the best picture quality for the price. 

[techy5025]

Normal LCD displays use two fluorescent tubes along the edges of the screen to backlight the screen via diffusers. An LED/LCD set uses LEDs to replace the fluorescent tubes. They use a lot less power and I think they make the screen closer to natural white....6500 degree kelvin. The display electronics are generally the same for both although I think that LG modulates the LED's in theirs to improve the contrast ratio. Refresh rate is not related to whether a set is LED or not.

Fluorescent tubes have backlit desktop and laptop screens also...new ones use LEDs.

All the next gen LCD sets will be backlit with LEDs.  Big plasmas generate a lot of heat. I really think they are being phased out...at least for home use....as prices have plummeted. 

[Really?]

Happy with my Samsung LCD I think 46" on the bedroom wall.  I have had no luck with any Sony product in the last 10+ years accept the big tube one I have.  It is still going.  Lately the Samsung products have had good quality.  Samsung LCD 32" downstairs.  61" DLP in the media room.  Two Samsung blue ray players.  Samsung 3 door stainless fridge.  And other Samsung products.  None of them have failed me.

I have owned a Panasonic rear projection and Sony rear projection.  Both were complete junk.  The Sony died before it was even paid off.  The guns would go out of adjustment about every three months, then every week until I ran out of adjustments.  I had someone pick it up for free just to get it out of my house.  Most of the Sony products I have had died before their time accept for the tube TV and the DVD in a BOX surround system.  The surround system is garbage though.  Max volume number is 70.  It must be set at about 58 to hear DVD's and 48 for Blue Rays.  You have to be a scientist to make the settings in it work and it still does not do much.

Two Sony headsets lasted less than a day.

I will never own another Sony product.  As much as I dislike Windows, I have an XBOX and an XBOX 360.  No Sony game console in my house.

Sorry for the Rant.  Sony does that to me.

[Johnie]

Excellent info from all. I seem to be narrowing it down. Today we looked at the 47" LG LED Model #5500 that I can get for $1,100. It is 1080p / 240hz. More hz than I need as we are not gamers, but for the price I think it sounds good. Supposedly fast sports will look very clear with the higher hz per the salesman. Great picture. Could see the difference in the whites as mentioned with the LED to the LCD and colors seemed brighter.

[MRieck]

Excellent info from all. I seem to be narrowing it down. Today we looked at the 47" LG LED Model #5500 that I can get for $1,100. It is 1080p / 240hz. More hz than I need as we are not gamers, but for the price I think it sounds good. Supposedly fast sports will look very clear with the higher hz per the salesman. Great picture. Could see the difference in the whites as mentioned with the LED to the LCD and colors seemed brighter.

That's good. i have a Samsung 65" LED bought because my son got a Best Buy discount. It is awesome. less power etc. No more talk of a TV upgrade for 10 years.

[mick750F]

   As interesting as a lot of the newer technology might be, CRT's still give a great if not better picture. Yeah, you're limited to 42" I think?, but with people dumping their CRT's in order to go for the new technology I'm sitting on a stockpile of $50 TV's that nobody wants. Just check CL for what people are willing to let their "outdated" TV's go for. I've watched a bunch of HD programs and for the most part they really bother my eyes. Kind of like a cheap CD player bothering my ears. You guys remember CD's...right?  The first time I watched a baseball game on a HD TV my first thought was...why am I seeing the inside of David Ortiz's pores? My second thought was...I couldn't see this if I was standing right next to the guy, so what's the point?
   
   Back to the OP's question...The next time I spend real money on something like this I'm going with a projector. The price of bulbs has come down and you can pretty much dictate the size of the screen by placement of the projector. Great picture too...

Mike

[Anti-Johnny]

I believe this is still correct, but LG makes the screens in the upper end Samsung and Sony televisions. LG has some really nice sets out right now. I saw one at Frys a couple weeks ago that couldnt have been more than 3/4in thick. Something that small makes me wonder how durable and long lasting it would be though. Theyre really nice and expensive. I have a vizio that is bare bones and basic but looks great and was only around $600. No extras though.

[BeSeeingYou]

   As interesting as a lot of the newer technology might be, CRT's still give a great if not better picture. Yeah, you're limited to 42" I think?, but with people dumping their CRT's in order to go for the new technology I'm sitting on a stockpile of $50 TV's that nobody wants. Just check CL for what people are willing to let their "outdated" TV's go for. I've watched a bunch of HD programs and for the most part they really bother my eyes. Kind of like a cheap CD player bothering my ears. You guys remember CD's...right?   The first time I watched a baseball game on a HD TV my first thought was...why am I seeing the inside of David Ortiz's pores? My second thought was...I couldn't see this if I was standing right next to the guy, so what's the point?
  
   Back to the OP's question...The next time I spend real money on something like this I'm going with a projector. The price of bulbs has come down and you can pretty much dictate the size of the screen by placement of the projector. Great picture too...

Mike

Like you I think the CRT's still give the best picture.  It is just the space they take up and the weight. I have a separate room that is just the TV room so the size is not an issue but if I had to have it out in the living room I would have gone with a flat screen by now. My 36 inch is 200 lbs.  I have never liked the way fast motion looks on LCD's so I have stuck with the old technology.  Kind of like motorcycles in a way.  I don't think any of the flat screens will have the lifespan of a CRT but for many who replace their entertainment gear often it is not really an issue.
As far as the projector goes think carefully.  These flat screen TV's are getting larger and lighter and are now nearing the typical home theater screen size.  I think projectors for home theaters will soon be a thing of the past.  Though they are portable if you want that.

[domer]

I believe this is still correct, but LG makes the screens in the upper end Samsung and Sony televisions. LG has some really nice sets out right now. I saw one at Frys a couple weeks ago that couldnt have been more than 3/4in thick. Something that small makes me wonder how durable and long lasting it would be though. Theyre really nice and expensive. I have a vizio that is bare bones and basic but looks great and was only around $600. No extras though.

As i understand it (i've been wrong before!) LG used to make sony's screens, now i believe its samsung... there are only a handful of screen manufactures vs. tons of tv manufactures... but LG and Samsung are the biggest.

[Really?]

I believe this is still correct, but LG makes the screens in the upper end Samsung and Sony televisions. LG has some really nice sets out right now. I saw one at Frys a couple weeks ago that couldnt have been more than 3/4in thick. Something that small makes me wonder how durable and long lasting it would be though. Theyre really nice and expensive. I have a vizio that is bare bones and basic but looks great and was only around $600. No extras though.

As i understand it (i've been wrong before!) LG used to make sony's screens, now i believe its samsung... there are only a handful of screen manufactures vs. tons of tv manufactures... but LG and Samsung are the biggest.

Could that be why Sony went straight downhill and Samsung got so good?

[flybox1]

Yeah....its too small (47") 
got the  BB house brand, Insignia, 55" LCD/120hz, $899  last NOV(not black fri price)
4year no-fault warranty  (just in case my kid puts a toy thru it - $150)
(we have another HD set for gaming)
this one's just for hi def TV broadcasts and movies.
couldnt be happier.  

[kck3]

I am happy with my 46" samsung.  Would def buy another.

[plug1]

LED's are also thinner-1" vs. 3"-4" for a florescent LCD.

[Johnie]

Correct, this LG LED 47 inch is 1 inch thick. Pretty easy to carry too. This should make the Super Bowl look pretty nice Sunday. GO PACKERS!!! Thanks for all the help guys.

[Damfino]

Looks good Johnie!! I like your beer stein collection too, I have many of the same ones but my wife isn't too happy about me keeping them in her china cabinet.

Oh and, GO STEELERS!!!