[Question] T.V. advice

The smart TVs cost more and do less than a TV and separate unit. Further, the smart part will become depreciated and eventually useless. The only advantage is having one remote to track, rather than two, but that's not a big problem with today's remotes that can handle the smart devices pretty well.

If the cost differ between a smart tv and a regular is under $80 then you might as well just because. Otherwise, it's not worth the cost increase.

LED tvs are actually LCD tvs with an LED backlight, which makes them consume less power, makes them lighter, should make them last longer, and in the higher end tvs improves contrast than non LED tvs which use special fluorescent tubes for the backlight. They are more expensive, though, and for generic TV watching the difference isn't often worth the cost. I personally wouldn't buy a plasma. They have better contrast, but are much heavier, have problems with burn in, and are going out of style. But they can usually be found cheaper, so it might still be worthwhile. They also have better viewing angles than cheap LCDs. If you move all the way around a cheap LCD you'll find that past a certain point the color or brightness of the image is bad, usually at very extreme viewing angles. Good LCDs have better viewing angles but if you LAN on watching TV from nearly edge on, then a plasma might be better.

Right now, roku is top dog. It can be had inexpensively, especially if you hit a sale or refurbished unit, and has all the major online viewing platforms that have subscriptions. There are a few that aren't due to exclusivity with apple, google, Sony, or others, but nearly all support Hulu, Netflix, and the other major platforms anyway, so it's only until you want to get other channels like college TV streams, Disney, and others where roku really picks up the pace. If you find yourself using an iOS device a lot to view entertainment, then an Apple TV is useful, otherwise it's not terribly interesting.

120Hz or 240Hz frame rates are useful if you've ever noticed jitter in other people's tvs when they watch blu ray movies. If you've never noticed, then chances are it isn't ever going to bother you, and you can ignore the higher frame rate tvs. What the deal is, if you're curious, is that the display frame rate is fixed. Most a 60Hz unless otherwise advertised. For normal TV viewing that's fine, since its a multiple of broadcast TV frame rate of 30frames per second.

However movies are 24 frames per second, so you end up doubling some frames three times and others two times in order to map 24 frames per second to a 60 Hz display. This odd beat sometimes can be noticeable, particularly in panned movie scenes. By getting a 120Hz display it can properly display each frame for the exact same amount of time, leading to a much smoother presentation.

Beyond that, check out al contrast online. Many have video processors that change the video in order to give enhanced, but not real, contrast. It's better to get a display that simply has good contrast than one that fakes it by fudging with the video.

All that being said, you'll probably be happy with whatever you get, and you don't need to fret too much over your choices. Even today's bad tvs are leaps and bounds better than tvs five years ago.

I would like to offer a counterpoint on plasma TV's as they always get a bad rap based on old problems from their first generation TV's.

I have 3 plasma TV's in my house, all Panasonics and they are bloody fantastic. Much better contrast and black levels compared to LCD TV's. Also modern plasma TV's with proper panels (i.e. pretty much anything Panasonic and Samsung make now) have minimal burn in problems. Burn in was a HUGE problem with older plasma screens but it is not a big issue anymore. I play computer and console games on all three of mine and none of them have experienced any burn in whatsoever.

The one drawback is they do use more power than LED LCD TV's.

The number one reason I'm against Plasma is the glare issue and the power consumption, other than that, it does have a better picture than an LCD screen. It's going to come down a lot to what's particularly important to you. The differences aren't day/night (unless you're SUPER into AV and can tell the difference between contrast gradients... hint, most people can't), so either way you go, I think you'll be happy with having an HDTV of one or the other.

I recently bought a LG 55" LED 3D capable TV - I have it hooked up to my Acer Revo PC (it's thinner than my UVerse DVR). Awesome TV. 120Hz and I don't have to turn 3D on if I don't want to (I don't have any 3D stuff anyway - it did come with the non-battery 3D glasses)

I have tried the 3D out on some shows (it tries to upscale into 3D) and it's nothing spectacular. May be different if I have a BluRay with 3D (but my Revo doesn't have a BluRay player). It wasn't that much more to get the 3D on this TV.

He specifically doesn't want 3D.

Bowielee said:

He specifically doesn't want 3D.

Click to expand...

He doesn't want 3D, but that doesn't necessarily mean that 3D is a dealbreaker. You can use any 3D TV as a 2D TV as well, and since 3D is more demanding to display well, the display is actually better than 2D displays in some cases.

But I have yet to see a 3D display that costs the same as a 2D of similar quality, so the cost increase alone is enough to avoid it.

Panasonic's line of 3D plasma TV's have advanced features that are good for your standard 2D movies as well.

Bowielee is right about the glare though... my plasmas are kind of bad that way. I have proper shades for the rooms they are in but man the sun can make them horrible to watch during the day. My best setup is in my home theatre room which can be made nearly pitch black in the middle of the day... no glare issues there

Do decent brands even sell 2D-only TVs anymore beyond the occasional warehouse clearance? That's one thing I'm kind of annoyed about.

SpecialKO said:

Do decent brands even sell 2D-only TVs anymore beyond the occasional warehouse clearance? That's one thing I'm kind of annoyed about.

Click to expand...

I can only speak for Panasonic (a good brand IMO) as I am quite familiar with their lineup and they still have plenty of non-3D tv's (both plasma and LED) in their lineup.

Tagging wife for our next purchase Squidleybits

Would the above recommendations change if wanting to use a PS3 on the tv was factored in?

If you are using a PS3, you can take advantage of the 3D content as many games and movies are available in 3D on the PS3. Resolution-wise, most games run at 720p, with some running at 1080p. Basically, the PS3 is going to look great on any HDTV. I'd highly recommend using HDMI over composite, though.

HDMI is simply far easier than composite... but composite cables are fully capable of transmitting HD video signals. With proper HDMI setups though you don't have to fiddle with your 3 RGB cables plus audio cables as well.

The PS3 will look good on pretty much any HD capable TV out there.

Tut tut tut.

There is a BIG difference between composite and component. Composite is bad. Component is good.

The only big problem with component that hdmi takes care of is encrypted content, like blu ray movies. They will not work over component, except perhaps at a terribly reduced resolution.

Definitely skip composite.

Skip component unless you have a very good reason to avoid hdmi.

Use hdmi in all cases.

Hdmi also deals with audio, and even multi channel audio, so it's really a single connection to both y our receiver and your tv. No more messing with a variety of cables, and the encryption issue is taken care of for you so you'll never know its there.

Since this thread has turned into a cable conversation, I'm just going to leave this link here for anyone who is still unaware that they don't need to pay $6 for cables, let alone $60.

Covar said:

Since this thread has turned into a cable conversation, I'm just going to leave this link here for anyone who is still unaware that they don't need to pay $6 for cables, let alone $60.

Click to expand...

Good God those are cheap... what sorcery is this?

Those cables aren't always made to spec, but they're good enough for 99% of the uses, so it's a moot point. Also the connectors practically fall apart if any significant stress is place on them at an angle, rather than pulling them straight in or out.

But they're so cheap you can just buy more, and quite frankly I'd rather have the cable connector fall apart than damage the connector in the equipment.

stienman said:

Tut tut tut.

There is a BIG difference between composite and component. Composite is bad. Component is good.

Click to expand...

Now I feel like an idiot. I totally meant to say that component cables were capable of transmitting an HD quality signal. Not composite. I'm going to go sit in the corner now.

drawn_inward said:

So, I went out and bought a t.v. that I am happy with. It was the best deal that I could find locally. I also got the latest Roku.

I think I might be having buyers remorse on the Roku. It doesn't offer as much as I expected. If anyone has one and loves it, please share some good channels. Most of the channels seem lame or just have clips. Cheers!

Click to expand...

Well, honestly I bought mine primarily to be used with subscription services like Amazon Prime and Netflix. If you bought it as a "free content" device I suspect you might be disappointed.

However! I found that a few college channels have sports and other college programming. BYU TV is the one that one of my sons hits when he wants to watch baseball or football. Also PBS has a number of children's programs. Wish they put up more of their other stuff.

I don't recall much else being compelling though. If you don't subscribe to hulu, amazon prime, or netflix, then you might want to return it.