Login System 
IMPORTANT: Please note that you must now log in with your email address and not your username!
ARCHIVED
 tucansam
Nothing to See Here
Team Member
Joined: Feb 2004  USA
 Posts: 2766 Feedback: 100% (49) |
Posted: 4/12/2012 8:53:29 PM
THE IMAGE ABOVE IS A PAID ADVERTISEMENT Looking to upgrade my tube TV to a flatscreen. My price range is $400-800 and I'd like 40" or more. Having said that, I have two main questions. Assuming two TVs have identical sizes and price, and are identical in virtually every other aspect except backlighting and refresh rate, would a 240Hz LCD look better than a 120Hz LED? I'm trying to decide if I want to spend the money on the new LED backlighting or a higher refresh rate. Seems if I want LED/240Hz the prices jump way out of my league, so its one or the other at this point. TV, movies, some light gaming, if it matters. I realize that there is more to shopping for a new TV than this, but it gives me a starting point, and a way to filter out search results on newegg, amazon, bestbuy etc when reading reviews. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/12/2012 11:50:25 PM
Do you watch lots of sports or action movies with very quick motion sequences? If so it may be worth it to spend the extra for the 240 Hz.
|
|
|
jerz_subbie
Acronym & abbreviation whore :-)
Team Member
Joined: Jan 2007 NC, USA
Posts: 8601 Feedback: 100% (309) Link To This Post |
Posted: 4/13/2012 4:19:43 PM
[Last Edit: 4/13/2012 4:21:20 PM by jerz_subbie]
Rather than debating a vague thing like LED/120Hz vs LCD/240Hz, let's talk about quality. Which models in particular are you looking at? A 120Hz Samsung LCD will blow away a 240Hz Westinghouse LED (yes, I'm aware that I mixed up the LCD, LED, 120, 240 in my analogy versus your dilema).
Unfortunately specs only tell you but so much and without being able to simply look at them to see what you're buying, and compare them to others, you'll think anything is great compared to your old tube. ETA: Is there a reason you haven't considered plasma? They're 600Hz and less expensive so you'll be able to get a great 42" TV in your price range! |
|
|
Skibane
Brown Marmorated Stinkbug
Team Member
Joined: Aug 2001 TX, USA
Posts: 25981 Feedback: 100% (3) Link To This Post |
Posted: 4/13/2012 8:13:43 PM
Originally Posted By jerz_subbie:
Rather than debating a vague thing like LED/120Hz vs LCD/240Hz, let's talk about quality. Which models in particular are you looking at? A 120Hz Samsung LCD will blow away a 240Hz Westinghouse LED (yes, I'm aware that I mixed up the LCD, LED, 120, 240 in my analogy versus your dilema). Unfortunately specs only tell you but so much and without being able to simply look at them to see what you're buying, and compare them to others, you'll think anything is great compared to your old tube. ETA: Is there a reason you haven't considered plasma? They're 600Hz and less expensive so you'll be able to get a great 42" TV in your price range! Yep - The best image in the world doesn't mean much if your set takes a dump 60 months after you bought it. For build quality, it's hard to beat Panasonic - They are the Noveske of the TV set world.  |
|
|
tucansam
Nothing to See Here
Team Member
Joined: Feb 2004 USA
Posts: 2767 Feedback: 100% (49) Link To This Post |
Posted: 4/13/2012 8:59:03 PM
Thanks for the replies guys.
Here's my dilemma... The last TV I bought was a 29" tube and it cost me $299. Its been working for 15 years or so. I see LCD/LED prices have dropped, but still, if we say $700-1000 is the midrange price, then I would expect such a purchase to last me at least 15 years, and preferably more. I realize this may be wishful thinking, but if a $300 TV can last 15 years, then a $1000 TV should be able to compete... Again I realize totally different technologies, but I'm not about to drop this kind of loot on a TV only to have it obsolete or broken inside a decade. Reference plasma... I'm not totally opposed to the idea, but I'm looking for something a little less power hungry. All of the plasmas I've seen like to draw the power and heat the room. And I would never buy a TV without looking at it in Bestbuy/Circuit City/etc. I just want to start reading reviews on the various electronics sites so I can start to get educated before I go face sales droids in the big stores. |
|
|
jerz_subbie
Acronym & abbreviation whore :-)
Team Member
Joined: Jan 2007 NC, USA
Posts: 8602 Feedback: 100% (309) Link To This Post |
Posted: 4/13/2012 9:32:00 PM
"They don't make 'em like they used to." Tube TVs have been around over 100yrs, I'd hope the technology and manufacturing would have progressed to the point of being reliable for 15-20+yr. Unfortunately LCD, LED, and Plasma are vastly different and much younger technologies. Before someone tries to correct me, yes LCD has been around for a long time but only in calculator-sized screens for the longest time; big screens are a different beast.
Your tube was so cheap because the manufacturing of such an old technology were really low. Every couple years a larger size flat panel enters the near universally affordable sub-$1k price range. I remember when a basic 42" plasma was $4k, a 40" was the largest LCD, and 32" LCDs were $1500. Now 42" plasmas are $400, LCDs come in 80" (soon to be 90"), and 32" LCDs are ~$225. It comes back to manufacturing costs and technology. Let me clarify what I meant about quality. Not only build quality, but what that build quality typically transfers to, picture quality. A Sharp 60" and Samsung 60" have identical specs but the Sharp is $800 less; Well the Samsung looks far better! Tough to go wrong with any Samsung, Sony, Panasonic. LG is a great step-down, good mix of quality and value. Newer plasmas don't use all that much energy. I'd be willing to bet a 42" uses less energy than your tube  . Thankfully that is one of the areas plasma has made huge progress in. In fact, I see many lesser expensive LCDs that use more energy than plasmas.
Have you narrowed it down to a couple models? Sorry for my rambling haha |
|
ARCHIVED
