TV Recommendations

[gettysburgfreak]

Best 70" TV under 2k? Any recommendations? Finally got the go ahead from the old lady. I don't need a "smart tv" or 3-D tv. I just want a big ass screen that looks good.

[hotreds]

checking reviews on Amazon should point you in the right direction, anyway.

[icehog3]

I like Panasonic.

[kelmac07]

I'm partial to Vizio. Have three of them and never an issue.

But the best picture out there is the Samsung 120HZ. Gorgeous picture!!!

[stearns]

It's nowhere near that size, but I love my samsung, it's not the fancy smart TV kind but it works excellent. I know many others with bigger samsungs and they are also very happy

[dave]

I have a 70" LG that I love.
I don't think it was under 2K, but that was close to a year ago. Probably is now.

If I was doing it over today, I'd probably downsize a little if I could get Ultra in sufficient size. I don't think you're going to get there at 2K, but the difference is pretty stunning. Save up.

[dave]

BTW, I also have smaller versions: 1 Sony, 1 Vizio, 1 Samsung. The Sony is easily the best picture, sound, menu, etc. The others have nearly as good a picture.....close enough that I might not be able to tell in side by side test..even if I think I can

[equetefue]

remember Plasma has better blacks for movies and LCD/LED better for everyday viewing and bright rooms

[jjirons69]

I'm a Panny fan. And I'm a plasma fan. Probably not going to get a 70"+ under 2k using that combo. If I weren't a fan, I'd go with a reputable LED and forgo the LCD.

http://lcdtvbuyingguide.com/70-lcd-tv.html

http://www.cnet.com/topics/tvs/best-...hes-and-above/

[Dave128]

I have a Panasonic 42" Plasma that I really dig. I'm guessing a 70" would give me the same feelings.

[357]

Originally Posted by equetefue

remember Plasma has better blacks for movies and LCD/LED better for everyday viewing and bright rooms

Plasma is a dying breed. I would steer clear of it. They also falsly advertize plasma screens as 600Hz. They aren't. That's not the refresh rate as advertized on LCD TVs (60, 120, 240 Hz). 600Hz is the processor's CPU rate. It's a lame misleading tactic they've been using for years. Very shady IMO. It's painfully obvious to someone with an eye sensitive to slow refresh rates, like 60 Hz, that every plasma TV I've ever seen runs at 60 Hz.


On a seperate note, the larger the screen, the larger the room its designed for. If you buy a 70" HDTV, it's not going to look as good as a 60" if you're sitting 8 feet away from it. There are formulas for how big of a TV you should buy for a given size room or the primary viewing distance. You can overshoot a bit but don't go crazy with a 70" TV when your couch is 6-8 ft away from it. You may regret that costly investment.

[gettysburgfreak]

Originally Posted by 357

Plasma is a dying breed. I would steer clear of it. They also falsly advertize plasma screens as 600Hz. They aren't. That's not the refresh rate as advertized on LCD TVs (60, 120, 240 Hz). 600Hz is the processor's CPU rate. It's a lame misleading tactic they've been using for years. Very shady IMO. It's painfully obvious to someone with an eye sensitive to slow refresh rates, like 60 Hz, that every plasma TV I've ever seen runs at 60 Hz.


On a seperate note, the larger the screen, the larger the room its designed for. If you buy a 70" HDTV, it's not going to look as good as a 60" if you're sitting 8 feet away from it. There are formulas for how big of a TV you should buy for a given size room or the primary viewing distance. You can overshoot a bit but don't go crazy with a 70" TV when your couch is 6-8 ft away from it. You may regret that costly investment.

Never really considered this. My couch is about 8 feet from the TV. A 60 or 65 would probably be the better option? I'm upgrading from a 42"

[pnoon]

Originally Posted by gettysburgfreak

Never really considered this. My couch is about 8 feet from the TV. A 60 or 65 would probably be the better option? I'm upgrading from a 42"

At 8 feet, 60-65 would be the maximum size you should consider. Anything else would to too big from 8 feet away.

My . Worth half that.

[dave]

For about a month I (secretly) thought that the 70 was too big. Kinda like sitting in the front row at the theater --especially weird for closeups when a guy's ears are six feet apart....but, you know...I haven't thought that for many, many months. I went all the way to 70 partly because of the cool and wow factors. It is no longer the least bit awkward to watch. But it is still pretty fn cool.

[357]

Samsung's Tool:
http://www.samsung.com/us/television...VSelector.html

Recommends 51" for a wall 10' wide, 8' tall, and 8' viewing distance (assuming it's on a wall mount).

Wiki's charts from different retailers/manuf:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum...ewing_distance

That said, they show 8' is too close for 70". Peter's recommendationn of 60-65 is probably a better target size.

[mjdx88]

At 8Ft I wouldn't recommend going any larger than 60". Maybe a 65" if the room will allow for it, from there you get into the range of having more screen than you can see.

Also if you have a large wall take that into consideration, going to small on the wall will feel underwhelming and vice versa if the wall is small

As a pro in the industry, I would recommend LG all the way. For the price their quality is better than Samsung now. We have had zero issues with them since switching to them a year ago. As a consumer and hobbyist, you wont go wrong with a vizio (at least there top of the line from my experience). They have come a long way in quality, and I would not be recommending them 2 years ago.

Make sure to have:
- 240Hz
- High contrast ratio
- More than 1 HDMI (Some new models do not have more than one input)
-Dont worry about the apps although it doesnt sound like you are looking for them, (Get the Roku, Amazon Player, Apple these are way better options
-3D is dead, dont worry about it (again doesnt sound like a priority)
-The Blu-ray player will make a huge difference in picture quality.

[357]

I agree with most of that but 240 Hz is unnecessary.

Human eyes can't perceive flicker above 85 Hz or so. Meaning, your eye can't see the difference between two screens that redraws themselves more than 85 times/sec. Those with a sensitive eye, which I unfortunately have, can see screens flicker between 60 and 80 Hz but not above 85 Hz or so. That means if there is a difference in price between 120 Hz and 240 Hz, you're likely wasting your money; especially when you consider MOST content is delivered at 60 Hz. Some is delivered at higher rates like 120 but very little if any is delievered at 240 Hz. So, even if your eye COULD see the difference between 120/240, the content isn't there to take advantage of it anyway. Point is 60 is standard unless stated otherwise (excluding plasma), 120 is better, 240 is overkill unless the price is the same as 120.

[mjdx88]

I have still seen some ghosting on 120 Hz sets. I have never seen ghosting on any set with 240 Hz, it does have a slight effect on the image, the best way to describe it would be the picture has a cleaner feel to it.

357 is correct though we cannot see past 85 Hz.

I should add that Sharp has been a leader in large format sets but there image quality has been very poor. Somewhat is caused by not having a fast enough refresh rate.

[The Poet]

Nobody has yet mentioned WiFi, though you can get that function plus smart apps with a BluRay deck for under $100.

[357]

I figure you're going to want a BluRay player so get that with WiFi and any apps you want, and you're all set. The streaming apps do change with time and it's easier to replace your $80 BR player than your $2,000 TV.