Brain damaged BestBuy TV shopper

AntiHypocrite

Member
Dec 20, 2015
56
14
81
The Mrs. says it's high time that we got with the program and bought something to replace our 35" JVC CRT television (complete with illegible type/fonts). We're not "seniors," by any means, but the Sony hocker at the BB box store sure made us feel like we were ready for the Shady Hills Adult Community!

In short, we're looking a 55-inch TV that doesn't exceed $1,700.00. We're Comcast subscribers and -- judging by the monthly bills -- we get just about everything they offer.

After informing the BB salesman of our wants, he sauntered us over to his "favorite" TV -- a Sony XBR65X900C, which, as most of you probably know, is a 64.5-inch TV that costs around $2500.00. After reminding "Dan" that the number was 1700, not 2500, he settled us down by informing us that we could buy the same TV, in a 55-inch version, for $1700..."while it's still on sale" (of course).

So after being made delirious by all the high-tech TV jargon, we asked about a competing brand -- Samsung, namely -- and he proceeded to give us his white paper on refresh rate and, more to the point, why Samsung is "way behind" Sony in this area.

Now, my reading indicates that Samsung, LG and Panasonic are all right up there with Sony when it comes to LED television technology, so I'm left wondering where the truth lies...at the BB box store or in my research? Call me brain damaged, but I'm leaning toward what I've read.

Any productive thoughts on why Dan's favorite isn't "the best by far" would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks for your time...
 
Last edited:

Zivic

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2002
3,505
38
91
in all honesty, at that price point, it doesn't matter. Personally I would buy sony over a sammy. go look at the displays in your price range and pic the one you think looks the best to you. if you bought a sony, sammy or panny... or even a vizio at costco for that matter it will be more than fine.
 

Pacfanweb

Lifer
Jan 2, 2000
13,145
56
91
Do you have a Magnolia Best Buy?

If so, they'll have a darkened room where you can go see the TV's in a realistic watching environment.

For the most part, BB employees don't know their arse from a hole in the ground about TV technology, but sometimes you can find a fellow electronics geek working there that does....but sounds like the guy helping you was not one.

Personally I would never buy a Sony ANYTHING....but that's just me. And the model you're looking at had a lot of problems early on, but they might have been resolved by now.

I don't recall seeing them on or near the top of any "best picture quality" TV lists, either. But maybe I missed one somewhere....
 
Last edited:

cyclohexane

Platinum Member
Feb 12, 2005
2,837
19
81
Wtf? What year is this? Even $1700 is way too much! A 55 inch tv should run no more than $800. Brand new 4K led smart tvs can be had for around $800.
 

Pacfanweb

Lifer
Jan 2, 2000
13,145
56
91
Wtf? What year is this? Even $1700 is way too much! A 55 inch tv should run no more than $800. Brand new 4K led smart tvs can be had for around $800.
Better-looking TV's cost more.

Yes, you can get a 4k 50" for less than a grand, but it won't look as good as the one for $1700....of course, some people either don't care or can't tell the difference, and there's nothing wrong with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigboxes

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,038
344
126
Better-looking TV's cost more.

Yes, you can get a 4k 50" for less than a grand, but it won't look as good as the one for $1700....of course, some people either don't care or can't tell the difference, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Right, and the newer TVs have better video processing and other things as well. Many of the higher end Samsung TVs have an external box where all the electronics resides and that box can be replaced with an upgraded model that has a faster processor and better capabilities while still keeping the same screen. This might not be incredibly useful but I know some people have replaced their 2014 boxes with a newer 2015 model that supports the new HDMI standard and all that.

Honestly though for the OP $1700 can buy a lot of TV for their needs. The Vizio M65 UHD Smart TV is $1400 for example. It's a 65" screen size vs the OP's suggested 55" requirement. If you really want a 55" the M55 is $850 on Amazon. That leaves a lot of extra cash in the budget if you wanted to add a nice sound system to it with Blu-Ray player. It's a nice TV that would be more than enough for what the OP might be looking for. You might not need the latest Sony or Samsung (even though they are technically better TVs) because you might not take advantage of their capabilities like HDR. Also Samsung isn't really behind Sony in any area. In fact many Samsung TVs are rated more highly than the equivalent Sony model. There is give and take when TV shopping. One brand does one thing better but lacks in another area. Strictly speaking for someone doing such an upgrade from a CRT I believe you will be impressed with any 2015 model from basically any manufacturer. I think the Vizio with a decent sound setup would be the way to go unless you see yourself making the move to UHD Blu-Ray and want to take advantage of the extra capabilities.
 
Last edited:

bradly1101

Diamond Member
May 5, 2013
4,689
294
126
www.bradlygsmith.org
After researching TV's with an eye toward reliability, I couldn't find one of the common brands that didn't have at least a few people who said that it had died early. Then I remembered that both my partner and I had Philips CRT's that lasted well past fifteen years and were still going. Then I remembered that when I was in a hospital medical imaging department, all the monitors were Philips. So I looked into them and they had no comments like, "It died in two years," such as the more common brands had. So we got a Philips and couldn't be happier.
 

Zivic

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2002
3,505
38
91
Do you have a Magnolia Best Buy?

If so, they'll have a darkened room where you can go see the TV's in a realistic watching environment.

For the most part, BB employees don't know their arse from a hole in the ground about TV technology, but sometimes you can find a fellow electronics geek working there that does....but sounds like the guy helping you was not one.

Personally I would never buy a Sony ANYTHING....but that's just me. And the model you're looking at had a lot of problems early on, but they might have been resolved by now.

I don't recall seeing them on or near the top of any "best picture quality" TV lists, either. But maybe I missed one somewhere....
the 900C is middle of the pack in the sony lineup so why would you see it on the best picture quality list? heck, I would question why ANY LCD make that list of best PQ.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,038
344
126
the 900C is middle of the pack in the sony lineup so why would you see it on the best picture quality list? heck, I would question why ANY LCD make that list of best PQ.
Cause for UHD there's only two options OLED or LCD panels. That's why. Make a list of the best TVs for upcoming UHD content and you'll have a bunch of LED lit panels on that list.
 
Last edited:

Zivic

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2002
3,505
38
91
Cause for UHD there's only two options OLED or LCD panels. That's why. Make a list of the best TVs for upcoming UHD content and you'll have a bunch of LED lit panels on that list.

there is OLED, and then there is everything else

the PQ list would be
65" OLED
55" OLED


then there would be the everything else list

but I'm confused by your post.... so LED isn't an LCD?
 

Childs

Lifer
Jul 9, 2000
11,450
7
81
Better-looking TV's cost more.

Yes, you can get a 4k 50" for less than a grand, but it won't look as good as the one for $1700....of course, some people either don't care or can't tell the difference, and there's nothing wrong with that.
But if they are currently on a 35" CRT that has illegible fonts I dont think it matters that much. They probably just need something with relatively modern inputs and 1080p. I would think even an Insignia TV would be night and day for them.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,038
344
126
there is OLED, and then there is everything else

the PQ list would be
65" OLED
55" OLED


then there would be the everything else list

but I'm confused by your post.... so LED isn't an LCD?
You're confused when I say LED lit panel? Are you serious? You're trying too hard to sound like a snob.

LG's OLED sets have it's own issues. Lots of people are returning them and getting something else, but anyhow you're bringing us way off the topic of the original post for which OLED isn't an option.
 
Last edited:

Zivic

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2002
3,505
38
91
You're confused when I say LED lit panel? Are you serious?

you make it sounds like they are whole other category of displays... like somehow they aren't LCD panels. I was going to have run out to the store and put myself in front of one of those special LED displays and see what all the talk was about
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,038
344
126
you make it sounds like they are whole other category of displays... like somehow they aren't LCD panels. I was going to have run out to the store and put myself in front of one of those special LED displays and see what all the talk was about
There's a reason I said LED lit panel. You're just being stupid now.
 

Pacfanweb

Lifer
Jan 2, 2000
13,145
56
91
In that price range I'd be looking at the Vizio M series. You can get a 65" 4k with FALD for 1399.
Yep.

OP, is there a particular reason you want a 55"?

Because you can get a bigger one for 1700, easily.

Hell, you can get a 75" 1080P Samsung for 1900 and change. It's not top of the line, but it looks fine and it's BIG.

So s 60" or 65" should be no problem at that price level.

I always default to "get the biggest and best screen I can at whatever my budget is".
 

zerogear

Diamond Member
Jun 4, 2000
5,611
9
81
I treat TV as disposables now, so I rarely buy anything over $600. Considering the last 1500 one I got died in 3 years.
 

AntiHypocrite

Member
Dec 20, 2015
56
14
81
Yep.

OP, is there a particular reason you want a 55"?

Because you can get a bigger one for 1700, easily.

Hell, you can get a 75" 1080P Samsung for 1900 and change. It's not top of the line, but it looks fine and it's BIG.

So s 60" or 65" should be no problem at that price level.

I always default to "get the biggest and best screen I can at whatever my budget is".

Not really, we just noticed that the "best looking" -- a very subjective phrase, I know -- televisions we've looked at seem to top out at the 55-inch category at around $1,700.00 USD.

There's a lot of good input in this thread, already, but your point about screen size is well taken. In short, we are not opposed to a larger screen, if it's available in our price range.

By the way, are "dumb" televisions a bad idea for some reason? I'm asking because we value privacy and some of the posts I'm reading remind me of the other "BB" (not Best Buy), if you know what I mean. :hmm:

Once again, thanks for your time...
 

Childs

Lifer
Jul 9, 2000
11,450
7
81

By the way, are "dumb" televisions a bad idea for some reason? I'm asking because we value privacy and some of the posts I'm reading remind me of the other "BB" (not Best Buy), if you know what I mean. :hmm:

Once again, thanks for your time...
A dumb TV is better because you can get the smart stuff done better with an AppleTV, Roku, FireTV, etc.
 

AntiHypocrite

Member
Dec 20, 2015
56
14
81
A dumb TV is better because you can get the smart stuff done better with an AppleTV, Roku, FireTV, etc.
Please elaborate on your post, Childs -- I'm not familiar with AppleTV, Roku, FireTV, etc.

In other words, why is a dumb TV better? (for dummies)
 

Charmonium

Diamond Member
May 15, 2015
7,058
939
126
Please elaborate on your post, Childs -- I'm not familiar with AppleTV, Roku, FireTV, etc.

In other words, why is a dumb TV better? (for dummies)
They're streaming devices but they depend on your having a good internet connection in order use services like Amazon or Netflix.

However most of these devices also support some sort of broadcasting from other devices like a phone or computer. Miracast for example is one protocol supported by the FireTV device if I remember correctly.

So you can have videos on your phone or computer and send them wirelessly to the device. But again, your home network would have to be able to support that.
 

Childs

Lifer
Jul 9, 2000
11,450
7
81
Please elaborate on your post, Childs -- I'm not familiar with AppleTV, Roku, FireTV, etc.

In other words, why is a dumb TV better? (for dummies)
Say you bought a smart TV 3 years ago. Today those apps might not be updated or capable of doing what they originally could because of changes in the streaming services or the horsepower required to do those tasks now exceed what the old hardware can do, and you would be limited to minimal functionality. If you use a streaming box to do that stuff, the lifetime of the box is longer because the companies making them specialize in it, not just a value added feature. And if you want to get a new one just buy a new streaming box, not a new TV.

Having a smart TV isn't bad, because you don't have to use the functionality, but I wouldn't buy a TV based on it. Companies that specialize in it do it better than TV manufacturers.
 

AntiHypocrite

Member
Dec 20, 2015
56
14
81
They're streaming devices but they depend on your having a good internet connection in order use services like Amazon or Netflix.

However most of these devices also support some sort of broadcasting from other devices like a phone or computer. Miracast for example is one protocol supported by the FireTV device if I remember correctly.

So you can have videos on your phone or computer and send them wirelessly to the device. But again, your home network would have to be able to support that.
Is Comcast's Xfinity considered a "...good internet connection..." these days, Charmonium?

I don't mean this in any facetious way...I'm really interested in why a dumb TV might be a good idea.
 

AntiHypocrite

Member
Dec 20, 2015
56
14
81
Say you bought a smart TV 3 years ago. Today those apps might not be updated or capable of doing what they originally could because of changes in the streaming services or the horsepower required to do those tasks now exceed what the old hardware can do, and you would be limited to minimal functionality. If you use a streaming box to do that stuff, the lifetime of the box is longer because the companies making them specialize in it, not just a value added feature. And if you want to get a new one just buy a new streaming box, not a new TV.

Having a smart TV isn't bad, because you don't have to use the functionality, but I wouldn't buy a TV based on it. Companies that specialize in it do it better than TV manufacturers.
Do you own a dumb TV, Childs? Care to recommend one to us?
 

Childs

Lifer
Jul 9, 2000
11,450
7
81
Do you own a dumb TV, Childs? Care to recommend one to us?
Actually mine is a smart tv, but the interface was always slow and at the time even an older Roku or AppleTV was better. I haven't intentionally used that functionality in years. I sometimes accidentally hit the button that triggers it, which is frustrating because it takes awhile to load up.

I wouldn't think of it as looking for a smart or dumb TV. Just don't factor it into your decision. If if has smart functions great, you can try it out and see if its good enough. If you buy a TV without and think later you would like those functions, you can get a streaming box. Just focus on what you really want in the TV: size, resolution, picture quality, etc.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY