SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
So one of my three year old kids smashed my 65" LED flatscreen with a die-cast model of the Atlantis shuttle. I was fine with this and was not planning on buying a replacement in any haste but my wife keeps complaining. Would prefer at least 65"+ and absolutely not a smart tv. What suggestions do you have, companies to avoid, etc. Help me SN, you are probably my only hope of not just buying another spysung.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Ask Soylent: Best Bang for Buck Television Purchase
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 99 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
TAPPING? You POLITICIANS! Don't you realize that the END of the "Wash
Cycle" is a TREASURED MOMENT for most people?!
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Saturday January 20 2018, @07:02PM (4 children)
If 65"+ is a hard requirement, you're shooting yourself in the foot as far as bang for the buck goes.
If you downsize to 49" you can get a 4K screen for around $350: http://a.co/6ohYvuk [a.co] Adjust for quality factors that matter to you like brightness, contrast, color gamut, etc. but, the price of the ~50" screens is consistently less than half of equivalent ~65" screens.
I agree with the others that, while "smart functionality" is unfortunate, if you just don't give it network access you're not too bad off as compared to a dumb monitor, and these days dumb monitors are much more expensive than their equivalent smart tv counterparts.
We recently got a touchscreen reimbursed with "other people's money" basically cost-no-object and we opted for the 55" instead of the 65" just because of the weight difference. 55" 4K is already more screen than we need for viewing less than 15' away. In our living room with seating ~20' away, we have a "tv nook" from the 1960s that can't hold anything larger than about 42", and that's fine for normal movie viewing.
It wasn't that long ago (~2003) that anything larger than 30" (CRT) was enormous, and impractically heavy and bulky for moving into a house. We bought our 42" 1080p flatscreen in about 2007 for about $1000. You can get 65" today for about $1000, but in a few years 105" will be the new $1000 size.
To me, a quality sound system backing up the screen is more important than the extra inches, in today's market, I'd opt for the $400ish screen and spend the other $600 on good sound, which will not be integrated with any screen.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 20 2018, @07:38PM
I had a TCL Roku 49" for about 2 days. It has Smooth Motion that you can't disable. It was mostly fine because the effect was dynamic, but in certain scenes, the Soap Opera effect was quite noticeable and unwatchable to me.
I settled on a Hisense. Awesome picture and viewing angles (not much washout at the sides) for a great price. The only complaint is the slightly slow UI.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Saturday January 20 2018, @08:56PM (2 children)
Not to shoot down your excellent suggestions, but no male geeky-type's wife and children are going to go for "Hey, I know we used to have a regular, decent size TV but I love you so much, I am getting a small one instead" which is what that would amount to. I hererby shoot down your otherwise excellent suggestions.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday January 20 2018, @10:30PM (1 child)
I totally understand that perspective.... on the other hand, if they don't already have a good sound system backing up that screen with the hole in it, they would probably enjoy movies more on a smaller screen with a good 500W 5.1 sound system.
Now, if you're the regular host for sports viewing parties, then - nah, you'll never live down a downsizing, but this is a pretty geeky site and I haven't heard mention of sports yet.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Saturday January 20 2018, @11:14PM
I watch my streaming shows, movies from whatever source, and sports (mostly via vipbox.[domain-of-the-week]) on a 42" plasma TV (720p) backed by a nice powerful 5.1 sound system (sports normally end up Dolby Pro Logic = left, right,center,rear) and a subwoofer powerful enough to shake the walls/sensitive enough to shut up unless wall shaking is called for.
I agree that the sound system provides more than the size of the screen.
But I don't know any of the TV watchers in my house that would ever go for a smaller screen by a millimeter. The 42" supplanted a 40" 1080p on the strength of its ever-so-slightly larger size. Said 40" is now my main monitor, on which this conversation is now in front of me.