Inexpensive 75" TV

[BoredSysAdmin]

r: w

Good timing on your post!
I had spent some more time looking to see what is available and have refined the list as follows:
TCL 75" 75S423 for $1000
LG 75UK6190 for $980
Vizio 70" E70-F3 for $780
Something you suggest instead!
Do nothing - wait another year, or so.

The Vizio is an "outliar" at 70" instead of 75", but for some reason, Vizio is very price competitive at 70" ($780) but extremely proud of that extra 5" (the 75" is $1380) and I am not inclined to spend 75% more for 15% more screen area.

So I'll see if I can compare the TCL to the Vizio and decide how the extra 5" (plus $220) compares to the Vizio's presumably better picture. Also, there happens to be a competent guy among the sales people at my Costco (of all places you would not expect product expertise) so I'll see what he says. Last time I spoke with him, he did a great job of summarizing pros and cons between sets (and I checked him after I got home to verify he had his stuff straight) and he was quick to look up info on-line when he wasn't sure! Of course, he might not be there any more. Being the kind of "go-getter" who decides if he is working at Costco in the electronics department, he'd rather develop expertise and offer quality assistance to customers than just "We gotta move these color TVs", he is liable to be hired-away by some "little faggot, got his own jet airplane"!

It is a shame, but TV technology really seem to be in the doldrums right now unless you are willing to pony up for OLED. I mean we still are excited about the Plasma screens of over a decade ago!
The prices have been steadily going down on plain old vanilla LED's, and I suspect there have been incremental improvements in reliability and picture quality, but nothing new and exciting for us ordinary Joe's (not willing to drop $5k on the new tech)!

fyi: Costco Pricing meaning:
https://thetakeout.com/there-s-a-secret-meaning-behind-costco-s-prices-1823076306
Two things bother me personally for TVs at this price point is 60hz (vs 120Hz) native refresh and edge backlighting.
Unfortunately, upgrading both require stepping up the price point. Oh well...
Then I was buying my current 55" 6-7 years ago, I could've bought a 60", but extra 5" was too expensive for the minor difference in size. for $780 for 70" I know where I'd go with (spoiler: with a 85" top-o-line model, j/k)

 

[KEW]

r: w
fyi: Costco Pricing meaning:
https://thetakeout.com/there-s-a-secret-meaning-behind-costco-s-prices-1823076306
Two things bother me personally for TVs at this price point is 60hz (vs 120Hz) native refresh and edge backlighting.
Unfortunately, upgrading both require stepping up the price point. Oh well...
Then I was buying my current 55" 6-7 years ago, I could've bought a 60", but extra 5" was too expensive for the minor difference in size. for $780 for 70" I know where I'd go with (spoiler: with a 85" top-o-line model, j/k)

In the specifications, it says 120Hz effective refresh rate. I assume that means it is not actually 120? I thought the decay time on led was much slower such that you would not perceive a difference between 60 and 120. Seems like (in the old days) when buying a LED monitor for the PC, refresh rate essentially became insignificant because none of them would cycle on and off faster than the eye could perceive..
Edge backlighting would be nice, but I don't know to miss it since I don't have it (yet).

The CostCo Price on the Vizio indicates it is nothing special.

 

[2channel lover]

It is a shame, but TV technology really seem to be in the doldrums right now unless you are willing to pony up for OLED. I mean we still are excited about the Plasma screens of over a decade ago!
The prices have been steadily going down on plain old vanilla LED's, and I suspect there have been incremental improvements in reliability and picture quality, but nothing new and exciting for us ordinary Joe's (not willing to drop $5k on the new tech)!

Nothing against the people with the means and moreso the desire to have the best video they can afford...that's not me. I'm never going to own a $5k, or even a $3k TV. While not perfect, I've found the Sony XBR LED TVs to be solid, with a good, natural picture that's right where it should be from a price perspective....better than the bottom shelf LEDs, and not as good as the top shelf OLED sets.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

In the specifications, it says 120Hz effective refresh rate. I assume that means it is not actually 120? I thought the decay time on led was much slower such that you would not perceive a difference between 60 and 120. Seems like (in the old days) when buying a LED monitor for the PC, refresh rate essentially became insignificant because none of them would cycle on and off faster than the eye could perceive..
Edge backlighting would be nice, but I don't know to miss it since I don't have it (yet).

The CostCo Price on the Vizio indicates it is nothing special.

Effective =! Native
https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/what-is-the-refresh-rate-60hz-vs-120hz
https://www.cnet.com/news/fake-refresh-rates-is-your-tv-really-120hz/
http://www.gadgetreview.com/120hz-vs-240hz-vs-60hz-refresh-rate

Edge is the cheaper version, Full-Array backlighting is the upgraded feature

 

[KEW]

Nothing against the people with the means and moreso the desire to have the best video they can afford...that's not me. I'm never going to own a $5k, or even a $3k TV. While not perfect, I've found the Sony XBR LED TVs to be solid, with a good, natural picture that's right where it should be from a price perspective....better than the bottom shelf LEDs, and not as good as the top shelf OLED sets.

Yeah, I think most of us had hoped that OLED would have come down in cost quicker than it has.
TV LED technology is being incrementally improved and I am sure your Sony is better than a comparable unit from 3 years ago.
For me, I look at it as 55" OLED for $1600 vs $780 70" lower priced LED.
One aspect of my rationalization to go to the smaller 70" (assuming that is what I do) is I won't have too large of a "sunk fund" when the OLED get down to a price I can tolerate. However, at this point, I'm not holding my breath!
It has been a Mantra of sorts that I usually buy "the minimum that will suffice" or "the best". That works great when buying a pocket knife, but I have had a little trouble adapting it to technology where whatever you buy has a good chance of becoming obsolete (phone is probably the most poignant example) before it has been worn out.
If I was more of a HT person (or wasn't an empty nester) I would be looking at something like the Sony, but I have watched maybe 4 movies at home last year! The other problem is, once I start looking at the Sony ($2800 for 75"),I start thinking I should just bight the bullet and get a Samsung QLED for $4500, then it seems reasonable to go all in for OLED at $7000!
So, I'll just go cheap and wait!

 

[tyhjaarpa]

Just to make sure is there any reason to avoid the 70" Vizio E series?
I assume you specified 75" because that is what I am talking about!

They should be the same. Was not aware that the extra 5" makes so big price difference.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Was not aware that the extra 5" makes so big difference.

Some may disagree with you...

 

[Verdinut]

Yeah, I think most of us had hoped that OLED would have come down in cost quicker than it has.
TV LED technology is being incrementally improved and I am sure your Sony is better than a comparable unit from 3 years ago.
For me, I look at it as 55" OLED for $1600 vs $780 70" lower priced LED.
One aspect of my rationalization to go to the smaller 70" (assuming that is what I do) is I won't have too large of a "sunk fund" when the OLED get down to a price I can tolerate. However, at this point, I'm not holding my breath!
It has been a Mantra of sorts that I usually buy "the minimum that will suffice" or "the best". That works great when buying a pocket knife, but I have had a little trouble adapting it to technology where whatever you buy has a good chance of becoming obsolete (phone is probably the most poignant example) before it has been worn out.
If I was more of a HT person (or wasn't an empty nester) I would be looking at something like the Sony, but I have watched maybe 4 movies at home last year! The other problem is, once I start looking at the Sony ($2800 for 75"),I start thinking I should just bight the bullet and get a Samsung QLED for $4500, then it seems reasonable to go all in for OLED at $7000!
So, I'll just go cheap and wait!

Why would you be interested in OLED? How about the burn-in problem with it? At present, I think that the Samsung QLED is probably the wisest quality/price option.

 

[KEW]

Rtings gave the nod to the OLED being better than the QLED.
IME, screen burn-in is not much concern with appropriate use of screen savers.
I bought a Panasonic Plasma 10 years ago and I have not noticed burn-in issues (although I have not inspected it up close), so I may be mistaken to base my decision off of that experience, but I would do more research before I let it be a deciding factor.

 

[Verdinut]

Rtings gave the nod to the OLED being better than the QLED.
IME, screen burn-in is not much concern with appropriate use of screen savers.
I bought a Panasonic Plasma 10 years ago and I have not noticed burn-in issues (although I have not inspected it up close), so I may be mistaken to base my decision off of that experience, but I would do more research before I let it be a deciding factor.

We have to be careful with outfits that publish reviews on products. As you are probably aware, some of those websites get commissions from manufacturers for writing favorable ratings.

 

[KEW]

We have to be careful with outfits that publish reviews on products. As you are probably aware, some of those websites get commissions from manufacturers for writing favorable ratings.

Agreed. I do, however, like that Rtings does not hide where its decisions come from. It certainly is possible for them to have biases, but at least they give you some pretty good detail on what aspects were involved in their judgements.
Here is their discussion of LED vs QLED vs OLED:
https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-type/qled-vs-oled-vs-led

 

[2channel lover]

Yeah, I think most of us had hoped that OLED would have come down in cost quicker than it has.
TV LED technology is being incrementally improved and I am sure your Sony is better than a comparable unit from 3 years ago.
For me, I look at it as 55" OLED for $1600 vs $780 70" lower priced LED.
One aspect of my rationalization to go to the smaller 70" (assuming that is what I do) is I won't have too large of a "sunk fund" when the OLED get down to a price I can tolerate. However, at this point, I'm not holding my breath!
It has been a Mantra of sorts that I usually buy "the minimum that will suffice" or "the best". That works great when buying a pocket knife, but I have had a little trouble adapting it to technology where whatever you buy has a good chance of becoming obsolete (phone is probably the most poignant example) before it has been worn out.
If I was more of a HT person (or wasn't an empty nester) I would be looking at something like the Sony, but I have watched maybe 4 movies at home last year! The other problem is, once I start looking at the Sony ($2800 for 75"),I start thinking I should just bight the bullet and get a Samsung QLED for $4500, then it seems reasonable to go all in for OLED at $7000!
So, I'll just go cheap and wait!

We're TV people, just not premium TV people...wife watches movies probably 3 to 4 nights a week, but surround sound is not the draw for her so most of her TV time is in the master...when the LCD finally had it's last showing, we replaced it with a Sony 850D in a 55" about a week or two before the 850E model came out...it was about 1200 iirc and the sunroom was a new TV space...similar deal...got the 900C 65" on closeout for about 1400...this was the set that had the light bleed issues...in total screen darkness you can see some light bleed in the bottom left corner if you're looking for it, but with a normal picture, I don't notice it all. This set was 2400 or 2500 and they were trying to close them out.

So I got both sets for under 3k.

The 850F in 75" I think is about 1800 right now....for me, there's not enough difference imo in the 850F and 900F to spend the 1k.

As soon as my son takes the 60" plasma off the wall...I'm looking to get the 75" 850F model.

 

[Verdinut]

Rtings gave the nod to the OLED being better than the QLED.
IME, screen burn-in is not much concern with appropriate use of screen savers.
I bought a Panasonic Plasma 10 years ago and I have not noticed burn-in issues (although I have not inspected it up close),so I may be mistaken to base my decision off of that experience, but I would do more research before I let it be a deciding factor.

Here is another comparison report:

https://www.tomsguide.com/us/qled-vs-oled-tv,review-4740.html

They still prefer the LG, but they did not compare it with the more recent Q9 Series

Another one:

https://www.whathifi.com/features/lg-c8-oled-vs-samsung-q9-qled-which-better

Here they compared both, this time with the newest Q9 technology. Both sets have strengths and weaknesses as you will notice.
The Samsung features HDR10+ but no Dolby Vision and it's the opposite situation with the LG.

IMO, both are good products but if you don't intend to use Dolby Vision, maybe the HDR10+ feature would make you opt for the Samsung. I suggest that you visit a few stores where you will be able to compare and make a final decision based on the features, picture and colors you prefer.

 

[Verdinut]

Another review which reports that Samsung is closing the gap with the Q9 Series:

https://www.smartreview.com/samsung-q6-vs-q7-q8-q9-qled-4k-tvs-2018-differences-reviews-comparison

 

[Verdinut]

Agreed. I do, however, like that Rtings does not hide where its decisions come from. It certainly is possible for them to have biases, but at least they give you some pretty good detail on what aspects were involved in their judgements.
Here is their discussion of LED vs QLED vs OLED:
https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-type/qled-vs-oled-vs-led

They didn't compare the newer Q9 Series in that review.

By the way, I notice that your Panasonic plasma set still works. I also have a 9 year old one which also works flawlessly.

 

[davidscott]

Nothing against the people with the means and moreso the desire to have the best video they can afford...that's not me. I'm never going to own a $5k, or even a $3k TV. While not perfect, I've found the Sony XBR LED TVs to be solid, with a good, natural picture that's right where it should be from a price perspective....better than the bottom shelf LEDs, and not as good as the top shelf OLED sets.

Right there with you - I've never owned even a $1000 TV. Currently running an Insignia 1080 40 inch in the main room and an Insignia 1080 32 inch in my bedroom. It's a small 1 bedroom apartment with viewing distances less than 7 feet. I do have a $2500 2 channel audio system that I brought with me from the house I was renting. Needless to say I cant really crank up the volume.
Still upgrading to a 50 or 55 in the main room might prove a nice upgrade.

 

[snakeeyes]

Here is another comparison report:

https://www.tomsguide.com/us/qled-vs-oled-tv,review-4740.html

They still prefer the LG, but they did not compare it with the more recent Q9 Series

Another one:

https://www.whathifi.com/features/lg-c8-oled-vs-samsung-q9-qled-which-better

Here they compared both, this time with the newest Q9 technology. Both sets have strengths and weaknesses as you will notice.
The Samsung features HDR10+ but no Dolby Vision and it's the opposite situation with the LG.

IMO, both are good products but if you don't intend to use Dolby Vision, maybe the HDR10+ feature would make you opt for the Samsung. I suggest that you visit a few stores where you will be able to compare and make a final decision based on the features, picture and colors you prefer.

Not sure if AVRs can pass thru HDR10+ signal yet.

I think just HDR10, Dolby Vision, and HLG are common on HDMI2.0b.

 

[Verdinut]

Compared to the new Q9 Series, the Samsung Q8 Series would be a more affordable compromise at present but it's still costly:

https://www.cnet.com/reviews/samsung-qn65q8f-review/

BB are selling the 75" model at $3400

 

[Verdinut]

Not sure if AVRs can pass thru HDR10+ signal yet.

I think just HDR10, Dolby Vision, and HLG are common on HDMI2.0b.

Not sure either how it's going to work with 4K players and blu-ray discs. Will the movie discs contain the HDR10 modified file or will the future players have to do the modification of the color and dynamics settings?

 

[tyhjaarpa]

Some may disagree with you...

Well, there is 5" difference. But besides that they should be the same.

Why would you be interested in OLED? How about the burn-in problem with it? At present, I think that the Samsung QLED is probably the wisest quality/price option.

If you don't watch a lot of static content you don't need to fear burn in. I have had Plasma for years and I haven't experienced burn in. Also happy owner of OLED and no burn in experiences. If you have long gaming sessions with static content or have long sports / news channel sessions then you should take it in consideration. I think rtings did big burn in test as well and in the results you only get burn in after huge amount of hours with static content. I think it is same with OLED as with Plasma that the first models are more sensitive but they have managed to handle it quite well with later models.