Best 75-85" 4K TV Under $3500

[jdoggg12]

My mom has a large living room and is replacing a TV that is failing. I'm trying to help her get the best unit for the money and for her needs. There are so many TVs on the market at this point that I'm at a bit of a loss in find the heroes in the value/dollar category.

Here are the criteria that I'm setting for her:

Must haves:
- good standard-def quality/upscaling
- decent input lag for gaming when grandkids visit

Would rather avoid:
- curved screens. we tried one and saw no benefit to it
- bloated apps. it's going to be a cable/blue ray/gaming TV, not a streaming box

Nice to haves:
- HDR capability. For a room as large as the one its going in, 4k almost wont matter, however, HDR would probably help to make the image "pop"
- Available from Costco/Sams. Their warranty and replacement policies are amazing and being local helps too
- OLED. I've loved the look of every OLED display I've seen... but don't know of any in the price range we're looking at

I've looked at:

Samsung JU7100 - currently my #1 candidate, albeit the price looks to have jumped over $3500 since November. Not having HDR is what's keeping it from being a easy decision

VIZIO M75-C1 - the price savings is making this one a consideration

Thank you for any input you can offer!

 

[cmdrdredd]

Can you have HDR without 4k? I thought HDR was only available with UHD video content.

Anyway, it seems like the Vizio you mentioned is going to be the best bang for your buck. The input lag for gaming is lower than my Samsung JS9000 and it's rated well overall. It doesn't support HDR though and I believe right now only their refrence series TVs do and those are just outrageously pricey (65" for $6000). It's my opinion that you'd have to spend significantly more money than that Vizio to get a set that is that much better. The samsung would have better upscaling but it's looking to be a $4000 TV and I don't think that is worth it since you don't gain HDR and albeit minor, have some extra input lag. The 80" Vizio M series TV is nearly $400 less than the 75" Samsung JU7100 right now at $3900 (Samsung is almost $4300 currently).

You can see a pretty in depth review of the vizio M series here http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/vizio/m-series-2015

 

[BurnItDwn]

My brother is a TV salesman at the costco in Glenview, IL. I'd recommend you go to your local costco, or the one by your moms place and have a chat. Seems like they get some people that know their stuff sometimes...

 

[BarkingGhostar]

I wasn't aware of any Costco retail stores selling HDR-capable units. Heck, it took them time just getting HD material onto their HD TVs some years ago. And even then some of ther purported 1080 content was so over-compressed (either in the content or its delivery) one could easily see the artifacts on the screen.

 

[hawtdawg]

Without FALD/OLED, HDR will not really be able to do what it was meant to do. There are several edge lit HDR screens, but they will be limited in their capability.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Without FALD/OLED, HDR will not really be able to do what it was meant to do. There are several edge lit HDR screens, but they will be limited in their capability.

Have you viewed them with HDR content when properly set up? They do what they do really well.

What do you think HDR was "meant" to do? It is meant to display brighter highlights with increased contrast ratio. That works on all current HDR TVs. In January the UHD Alliance will announce official specifications for what is and is not considered an HDR TV. Basically what the minimum brightness should be for UHS Blu-Ray etc. I guarantee that every HDR TV out there now will fit into the specifications.

 

[hawtdawg]

Have you viewed them with HDR content when properly set up? They do what they do really well.

What do you think HDR was "meant" to do? It is meant to display brighter highlights with increased contrast ratio.

how is an edge-lit television going to do that exactly?

That works on all current HDR TVs. In January the UHD Alliance will announce official specifications for what is and is not considered an HDR TV. Basically what the minimum brightness should be for UHS Blu-Ray etc. I guarantee that every HDR TV out there now will fit into the specifications.

Imagine a solid black background with a lightbulb in the center of the screen pushing 1000 nits. Explain away how an edgelit display would properly accomplish this without the black approaching something like a 10% IRE patterns brightness.

1000 nit specular highlights means super washed out anything-else-near-by-it on an edge lit local dimming display. IE, with the things like this that HDR was meant for, edge lit displays are not going to do a very good job.

 

[cmdrdredd]

how is an edge-lit television going to do that exactly?

Imagine a solid black background with a lightbulb in the center of the screen pushing 1000 nits. Explain away how an edgelit display would properly accomplish this without the black approaching something like a 10% IRE patterns brightness.

1000 nit specular highlights means super washed out anything-else-near-by-it on an edge lit local dimming display. IE, with the things like this that HDR was meant for, edge lit displays are not going to do a very good job.

Go look at the TVs for yourself and see. You think you are some know-it-all. HDR works phenomenally and no, not super washed out everything else. There is some HDR content out there that is really a stunning upgrade from the SDR picture.

Go to AVS forum and tell everyone there that their edge lit TV can't do HDR properly and get laughed at.

Also no TV gets to 1000nit right now. If that is what you want then OLED is a non starter since the brighter the scene the dimmer the set becomes thanks to the variable luminance. Highlights never approach that level of brightness on any set right now. Respected sites like ratings.com never mention anything about washed out with HDR either.

 

[hawtdawg]

Go look at the TVs for yourself and see. You think you are some know-it-all. HDR works phenomenally and no, not super washed out everything else. There is some HDR content out there that is really a stunning upgrade from the SDR picture.

There are plenty of people unimpressed by HDR for this very reason. Edge lit displays have gimpy contrast, which is what HDR needs to perform properly. The actual nits don't matter, what matters is that an edgelit display wouldn't be able to do that scene with anything other than it's crappy non-locallydimmed contrast ratio. I've seen HDR in action. What you haven't seen, is an HDR display that wasn't edgelit.

Go to AVS forum and tell everyone there that their edge lit TV can't do HDR properly and get laughed at.

Also no TV gets to 1000nit right now. If that is what you want then OLED is a non starter since the brighter the scene the dimmer the set becomes thanks to the variable luminance. Highlights never approach that level of brightness on any set right now. Respected sites like ratings.com never mention anything about washed out with HDR either.

You sound butthurt more than anything. Also, if you were to actually read around on AVSforum, you would see that this has been discussed plenty of times. jackass. FALD and OLED do/will do HDR considerably better than edgelit displays for the reasons i already mentioned. I already gave you a specific scenario that an edgelit display is physically incapable of doing properly. You must not even understand what HDR is or how edgelighting works to say otherwise. You're probably just accustomed to the redactedcontrast ratio's of LCD screens.





Personal attacks and profanity are not allowed in the tech forums.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[poofyhairguy]

Edgelit is just terrible technology. No way around that.

 

[jdoggg12]

I forgot about this thread for a few days and came back to all this, like....

Haha

 

[poofyhairguy]

The TV market is a war zone right now.

Used to be how much you paid for a TV, and what the specs on the box said, could help you determine what a TV is worth.

Nowadays we have "expensive" TV brands like Samsung and Sony using crappy edge lit technology (just in SOME of the sets though) while "cheap" brands like Vizio use superior FALD technology. Some brands have great lag times, some are awful, so you can't just buy any old set and expect a good gaming experience. Then on top of that you have all this emerging technology- 4K, OLED, HDR- that hasn't really proven itself in the market yet or only comes from one source so you have to live with flaws.

It is a nightmare for those of us who like recommending what TVs to buy.

 

[Zivic]

The TV market is a war zone right now.

Used to be how much you paid for a TV, and what the specs on the box said, could help you determine what a TV is worth.

Nowadays we have "expensive" TV brands like Samsung and Sony using crappy edge lit technology (just in SOME of the sets though) while "cheap" brands like Vizio use superior FALD technology. Some brands have great lag times, some are awful, so you can't just buy any old set and expect a good gaming experience. Then on top of that you have all this emerging technology- 4K, OLED, HDR- that hasn't really proven itself in the market yet or only comes from one source so you have to live with flaws.

It is a nightmare for those of us who like recommending what TVs to buy.

The tv market is not a warezone...

you have OLED and then yo have everything else (LCD). No LCD is even in the same ball park as OLED when discussing anything to do with PQ. either you buy based on PQ and buy OLED or you buy based on price and size.... and if you buy based on price/size, PQ doesn't really matter so you buy whatever size and price point you can afford.

edit..
you keeping talking about FALD and edgelit, but all are splitting hairs. they all just refer to an LCD panel and how it's backlit. sure some are better than others, but if you care enough to buy based on PQ, you are buying OLED. if you aren't buying based on PQ, you are buying whatever fits your size and budget requirements and however that LCD is backlit doesn't really matter

 

[poofyhairguy]

Well sure if I was buying a TV, or recommending someone to buy a TV without a budget, I would say go OLED or bust. But the problem is that only one TV maker even makes OLED TVs and most people aren't buying them. Out of the over 200 million TVs that will be sold worldwide in 2015 only 1% are OLED tvs:

Hell even LG admits that they only make them as a halo device to lift the value of their much more lucrative LED tv business. I love they fact they exist but OLEDs are sideshows compared to the main event of LEDs.

Within LED TVs, it isn't as easy as "buy whatever size and price point you can afford." A cheaper FALD Vizio might actually be significantly better than the more expensive edge lit Samsung set and it isn't splitting hairs for the majority of the market that only considers OLED. There are also issues of input lag, HDR and resolution to consider.

There is a middle ground between "I don't care, the cheapest TV Wal-Mart has will work" and "my budget is unlimited to get the best picture." In that middle ground is a huge chunk of the market, and most of the manufacturers of tvs.

That is also leaving out the fact that many don't like to mention, which is that LG's quality control and image processing are both garbage. The LG OLED won many shootouts despite massive initial image uniformity problems because we hate LED technology so much. The image processing still isn't as good as many other makers, and the remote for the LG OLEDs are this weird Wii-like remotes that require extra training for the family to use. Personally I am hoping my plasma lasts me until someone else like Panasonic can get into the domestic OLED market.

 

[blackangst1]

Well sure if I was buying a TV, or recommending someone to buy a TV without a budget, I would say go OLED or bust. But the problem is that only one TV maker even makes OLED TVs and most people aren't buying them. Out of the over 200 million TVs that will be sold worldwide in 2015 only 1% are OLED tvs:

Hell even LG admits that they only make them as a halo device to lift the value of their much more lucrative LED tv business. I love they fact they exist but OLEDs are sideshows compared to the main event of LEDs.

Within LED TVs, it isn't as easy as "buy whatever size and price point you can afford." A cheaper FALD Vizio might actually be significantly better than the more expensive edge lit Samsung set and it isn't splitting hairs for the majority of the market that only considers OLED. There are also issues of input lag, HDR and resolution to consider.

There is a middle ground between "I don't care, the cheapest TV Wal-Mart has will work" and "my budget is unlimited to get the best picture." In that middle ground is a huge chunk of the market, and most of the manufacturers of tvs.

That is also leaving out the fact that many don't like to mention, which is that LG's quality control and image processing are both garbage. The LG OLED won many shootouts despite massive initial image uniformity problems because we hate LED technology so much. The image processing still isn't as good as many other makers, and the remote for the LG OLEDs are this weird Wii-like remotes that require extra training for the family to use. Personally I am hoping my plasma lasts me until someone else like Panasonic can get into the domestic OLED market.

Good post poofy. I think currently the best picture for the money is the Vizio M series. I would recommend reading the thorough analysis at AVS forum

A few highlights:

With baseline measurements in hand, I proceeded with the formal review. Throughout the process, I compared the Vizio M65 to my reference TV, a Samsung PN64F8500 plasma, and I used a Pioneer Elite SC-85 AVR to send the same HDMI signal to both TVs.

The biggest surprise with the Vizio M65 was how quickly I forgot I was watching an LCD TV. Unlike every other LCD I've had in my studio—including a few that cost far more for a 65" screen—the 2015 M65 delivered deep blacks and high contrast without exposing the FALD machinations that make it possible—that is, as long as I didn't use the 11-point calibration controls.

The most interesting thing about the Vizio is how well it performs without a calibration, which I consider a significant part of the value it brings to the table. There's literally no reason for most people to spend money on a professional calibration; the Vizio's default color in its Calibrated and Calibrated Dark modes is just that—calibrated. As long as what I reviewed is not a so-called "golden sample," Vizio has indeed pulled off a hat trick with its M65; the TV is good-to-go fresh out of the box.

In a dark room, playing movies, the M65 manages to hold its own against one of the last and greatest plasma TVs ever made. If you add any ambient light to the equation, the M65 looks better than the plasma. Adding UHD/4K resolution to the mix, the M65 pulls even farther ahead of what the plasma can offer.

If I had to choose between keeping my F8500 or trading it for the Vizio M65, it would be a difficult choice. While I appreciate the moments where the F8500 exhibits better contrast, and it's capacity for colorimetric perfection continues to impress (it'll continue to serve as my reference) the versatility of the M65 offers a sharp counterpoint to that.

 

[Zivic]

Well sure if I was buying a TV, or recommending someone to buy a TV without a budget, I would say go OLED or bust. But the problem is that only one TV maker even makes OLED TVs and most people aren't buying them. Out of the over 200 million TVs that will be sold worldwide in 2015 only 1% are OLED tvs:

Hell even LG admits that they only make them as a halo device to lift the value of their much more lucrative LED tv business. I love they fact they exist but OLEDs are sideshows compared to the main event of LEDs.

even you buy into the BS... they are LCD, not LED....

Within LED TVs, it isn't as easy as "buy whatever size and price point you can afford." A cheaper FALD Vizio might actually be significantly better than the more expensive edge lit Samsung set and it isn't splitting hairs for the majority of the market that only considers OLED. There are also issues of input lag, HDR and resolution to consider.

in terms of LCD, define "better"? it might have slightly better black levels on portions of the screen vs an edge lit, while the edge lit might have better colors.... it is a horse a piece.

There is a middle ground between "I don't care, the cheapest TV Wal-Mart has will work" and "my budget is unlimited to get the best picture." In that middle ground is a huge chunk of the market, and most of the manufacturers of tvs.

as far as I am concerned when talking about LCD's, buying the cheapest one in the size isn't going to yeild you 'that' much different of a panel in terms of PQ.... it just isn't. they are still going to have less than good blacks, still have the funky interpolation so motion will look odd, still have off axis issues, still going to have blooming.... you are talking about the same tech and FALD or edge lit, they still suffer basically the same issues at the end of the day

That is also leaving out the fact that many don't like to mention, which is that LG's quality control and image processing are both garbage. The LG OLED won many shootouts despite massive initial image uniformity problems because we hate LED technology so much. The image processing still isn't as good as many other makers, and the remote for the LG OLEDs are this weird Wii-like remotes that require extra training for the family to use. Personally I am hoping my plasma lasts me until someone else like Panasonic can get into the domestic OLED market.

LG's QC does suck. I had purchased a 65EF9500 and exchanged once and finally returned the second for a refund because of white banding and uniformity issues.... that said, they are SO FAR ahead of ANY LCD on the market it is out right comical. in terms of overall market share, sure they are going to be small there are like 6 models of oleds vs the countless LCDs on the market and the general consumer is beyond dumb and won't dish out the money for PQ when they see a comparable size LCD for a 500 bucks.... so that speaks to my you buy PQ or you buy based on size/budget.

the best LCD's on the market now can't even compete with what pioneer had out 7-8 yrs ago. Right now I would say the best LCD money can buy is the 950B sony and it is bested by plasma from 8 yrs ago... how sad and pathetic is that?

I know what you are trying to say.. that within LCDs some are better than others. I agree with that. I am repeating myself here, but at the end of the day they all kind of suck and suffer from the same limitations and issues, some just a little less than others.

 

[poofyhairguy]

even you buy into the BS... they are LCD, not LED....

It think it is important to have distinction, as some of the older "LCD" units with the traditional backlight had better black levels than many current edge lit LEDs.

in terms of LCD, define "better"? it might have slightly better black levels on portions of the screen vs an edge lit, while the edge lit might have better colors.... it is a horse a piece.

It is a huge jump from edge lit black levels to FALD black levels. Plus edge lit models often have terrible screen uniformity and often a lot of light bleed. FALDs models are the best LCDs ever made, while Edge Lit LEDs are worse than old-school LCDs unless you are obsessed with thickness (like many consumers are). I couldn't recommend an Edge Lit set if my life depended on it, and there are MANY "high-end" Edge Lit models.

e
the best LCD's on the market now can't even compete with what pioneer had out 7-8 yrs ago. Right now I would say the best LCD money can buy is the 950B sony and it is bested by plasma from 8 yrs ago... how sad and pathetic is that?

I don't think that is completely fair. The Kuros were amazing but they were expensive, dim, and they never got bigger than 60 inches (the very best ones were all 50 inches). There were dozens of models of plasmas sold after the Kuro went away that never matched one, some people say no plasma ever did. So it's not just LCD that can't keep up.

OLED is the answer but it has to prove itself in the market. Honestly without OLED on a smartphone we probably don't even get what we have. Picture quality hasn't driven the bus on TV buying in years.

 

[cmdrdredd]

There are plenty of people unimpressed by HDR for this very reason. Edge lit displays have gimpy contrast, which is what HDR needs to perform properly. The actual nits don't matter, what matters is that an edgelit display wouldn't be able to do that scene with anything other than it's crappy non-locallydimmed contrast ratio. I've seen HDR in action. What you haven't seen, is an HDR display that wasn't edgelit.

You sound butthurt more than anything. Also, if you were to actually read around on AVSforum, you would see that this has been discussed plenty of times. jackass. FALD and OLED do/will do HDR considerably better than edgelit displays for the reasons i already mentioned. I already gave you a specific scenario that an edgelit display is physically incapable of doing properly. You must not even understand what HDR is or how edgelighting works to say otherwise. You're probably just accustomed to the shit contrast ratio's of LCD screens.

Telling me to go to AVSForum where I am a member (plus I told you to go read some of the threads where people are actually using HDR right now with great results)and there is a very large thread about HDR is pretty strange. Almost like you didn't even read what I typed. I thought it obvious I had been following the threads over there.

I evaluated lots of TVs with HDR content (I brought my own videos taken from AVSForum to the store on a thumb drive). I even looked at the LG EG9600 and EF9500 and they had their own set of issues I noticed like some vignetting and banding of dark colors in some spots. No TV is perfect nor will any TV ever be perfect for every usage. What I am saying is that HDR works fine on all the TVs out there that support it regardless of whatever world you live in that says no. HDR+WCG @ 4k is a much bigger jump than anything in the past in terms of picture quality too.

 

[Zivic]

It think it is important to have distinction, as some of the older "LCD" units with the traditional backlight had better black levels than many current edge lit LEDs.

further showing how pathetic the LCD market is right now. I am fairly confident the best LCD ever was the sharp elite, from 2011/12? The panels haven't significantly improved since then



It is a huge jump from edge lit black levels to FALD black levels. Plus edge lit models often have terrible screen uniformity and often a lot of light bleed. FALDs models are the best LCDs ever made, while Edge Lit LEDs are worse than old-school LCDs unless you are obsessed with thickness (like many consumers are). I couldn't recommend an Edge Lit set if my life depended on it, and there are MANY "high-end" Edge Lit models.

huge? I'd say marginal... but even the FALD displays have serious blooming issues and the black levels still kind of suck



I don't think that is completely fair. The Kuros were amazing but they were expensive, dim, and they never got bigger than 60 inches (the very best ones were all 50 inches). There were dozens of models of plasmas sold after the Kuro went away that never matched one, some people say no plasma ever did. So it's not just LCD that can't keep up.

OLED is the answer but it has to prove itself in the market. Honestly without OLED on a smartphone we probably don't even get what we have. Picture quality hasn't driven the bus on TV buying in years.

the ZT panny plasmas were even better than the kuros and could be had in 65". My brother has a VT and it is pretty decent as well. I have 2 60" 9G kuros. one I paid 4600 (pro-141fd) for, the other 2900(KRP-600M). When you compare those prices to the top of the line displays now, they are inline. and now, the best OLED is really only available in 65". same goes for the 950B... I think most displays sold are in the 55-65" range, so to say they never got bigger than 60" in regards to the pioneer is still apples to apples when size is concerned..... again, we are talking about current displays vs ones 5-8 yrs old.

as far as the OP is concerned; going into the 75+ range, his selection is narrowed considerably. it doesn't include the top of the line panel in either technology based on size alone... and will be further limited by his budget. Once again, he will be buying first and foremost by price/size... and then by PQ. Price and size is really the determining factor in his purchase.

if one is in need of a new display there isn't any other display to consider. OLED is it when it comes to PQ.

you can get 55" 1080p oleds for under 2k and moving to under 3k for a higher res 4k 55" model or under 5k for a 65". sure they aren't defect free, but even with LG's issues they are the ONLY display worth considering right now if you care about PQ. if your main concern is price for the given size, input lag, thinness, or bezel size/color; well, then you may or may not want to consider OLED

 

[Pacfanweb]

^side note about the Panny Plasmas:

The ZT and VT have the same picture in a dark room. The only difference at all in the sets is the ZT has a better filter so in a bright room it holds up better.

But in a dark room (where any good TV watching happens anyway) they are identical.

Lots of people thought the Samsung 8500 was better than the Pannys, too. They were pretty much both the top of TV history until OLED.

 

[Bacstar]

I have both a 43" and 60" Vizio M-series TVs. Can't beat the price for what I wanted and needed. I'm quite satisfied. The 60" is what I use with my XBone, and as long as you turn on the game setting, it works great.

As someone said, go to the AVForums and check out the thread for the M-series models. Lots of useful info.

 

[hawtdawg]

Telling me to go to AVSForum where I am a member (plus I told you to go read some of the threads where people are actually using HDR right now with great results)and there is a very large thread about HDR is pretty strange. Almost like you didn't even read what I typed. I thought it obvious I had been following the threads over there.

I evaluated lots of TVs with HDR content (I brought my own videos taken from AVSForum to the store on a thumb drive). I even looked at the LG EG9600 and EF9500 and they had their own set of issues I noticed like some vignetting and banding of dark colors in some spots. No TV is perfect nor will any TV ever be perfect for every usage. What I am saying is that HDR works fine on all the TVs out there that support it regardless of whatever world you live in that says no. HDR+WCG @ 4k is a much bigger jump than anything in the past in terms of picture quality too.

HDR "works", however, edgelit HDR doesn't work near as well as it does on an FALD set. Since you're one of the rare breed of 10's of thousands of people who visit AVSforum, you should be reading this for yourself. Even having a basic understanding of the underlying technology should tell you this.

 

[hawtdawg]

Lots of people thought the Samsung 8500 was better than the Pannys, too. They were pretty much both the top of TV history until OLED.

Only in a bright room. No one thought the 8500 looked better in a dark room.