Brain damaged BestBuy TV shopper

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,038
344
126
I think that if you can find them on display somewhere the LG OLED 55" 55EG9100 which can be had for less than $1700 will be the best you can find. Although it's user interface is somewhat different from "classic" style it is easy to use.



"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."



They aren't returned anymore than any other set in that price range. We have sold scores of them and none have been returned. If the "OLED isn't an option" refers to price, the 55" LG 55EG9100 can be had for around $1549 with a little looking around. At Amazon they are also less than $1700. "Best" is a relatively subjective term ... just let your own eyes decide.

There are many people on AVS forums who have had nothing but bad LG OLED sets and gave up trying to find a good one. Could be that some people don't notice and end up happy with it. Other people got good sets and are quite pleased. With anything there is a chance to get a bad batch somewhere in the manufacturing process.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,038
344
126
I have to say, I am quite a bit baffled at a guy going from a standard definition CRT television to a $1700 55". I guess I lie more on the thrifty side however, and my last big TV was a $900 60" LG. For me, most of the quality is derived from the device pushing the content (once you get to HD anyway). There are somethings some devices do better than others, but I find it hard to believe you can get that much more out of a 1700 dollar TV vs a 900 one.

For me, I simply look at TVs both on Amazon and in store where possible. Try to look for ones that are rated highly among the masses, and available locally. Then check them out in person and if the price is right and quality is good, buy.

Heck one of the last TVs I purchased was a 48" 1080P Sony 60hz from Walmart for 348 that I found via dealnews.com. Love that TV and it is hooked to a FireTV for content. I am sure there are some very good TVs out there, but I just don't see much past the 1080 and 4k bits. Quality on some devices is definitely lacking, but that's not every device sitting in those lower price points. I guess I must not have the eye that some folks do.

If you go from 1080p to 4K alone you might not see the difference but throw HDR and wide color gamut in there and the difference is striking.

It also depends on usage. Gaming for example requires different things than just watching tv. Right now there is no best tv for every usage, there is some give and take.
 
Last edited:

giantpandaman2

Senior member
Oct 17, 2005
580
11
81
OLED is the best TV technology on the market. Many discount it due to cost and the fact that it only comes from one TV maker, but nothing beats them right now.
For pure picture quality this is true, but the price premium may or may not be worth it. I kind of liken it to buying A/V Receivers nowadays. It used to be people would buy the top of the line receiver that would last them decades. With the rapidly changing technology, though, that became a fools game. It's sort of the same way with TV's. I don't mind paying a premium if a TV is going to be good for decades...but with the pace of technology, it's more of a toss up as to whether it's worth it to pay top dollar for something that will be obsolete in five years. I mean parallels can easily be drawn from

Receiver: Composite-SVHS-Component-HDMI 1.0-HDMI2.0-HDMI 2.1-HDMI 2.2...
TV: SD-720p-1080p-3d-4k-4k 60fps-4k 60fps HDR...

Getting something mid-tier seems like the better way to go for most. A lot of people just don't really need to see the deep blacks of yet another evening date in The Bachelor or a bonfire challenge in Survivor.

OLED TV's sure are pretty though...

I wonder how long I'll be hugging my venerable plasma.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,038
344
126
For pure picture quality this is true, but the price premium may or may not be worth it. I kind of liken it to buying A/V Receivers nowadays. It used to be people would buy the top of the line receiver that would last them decades. With the rapidly changing technology, though, that became a fools game. It's sort of the same way with TV's. I don't mind paying a premium if a TV is going to be good for decades...but with the pace of technology, it's more of a toss up as to whether it's worth it to pay top dollar for something that will be obsolete in five years. I mean parallels can easily be drawn from



Receiver: Composite-SVHS-Component-HDMI 1.0-HDMI2.0-HDMI 2.1-HDMI 2.2...

TV: SD-720p-1080p-3d-4k-4k 60fps-4k 60fps HDR...



Getting something mid-tier seems like the better way to go for most. A lot of people just don't really need to see the deep blacks of yet another evening date in The Bachelor or a bonfire challenge in Survivor.



OLED TV's sure are pretty though...



I wonder how long I'll be hugging my venerable plasma.

You got it there. For most people buying the biggest set for the lowest price is the way to go. People researching HDR and black levels and all color range support is a small percentage of the consumer base.
 

AntiHypocrite

Member
Dec 20, 2015
56
14
81
If you go from 1080p to 4K alone you might not see the difference but throw HDR and wide color gamut in there and the difference is striking.

It also depends on usage. Gaming for example requires different things than just watching tv. Right now there is no best tv for every usage, there is some give and take.
Another good post, Cmdr. Having been stationed overseas for a number of years, I became a European Football (aka, soccer) fan. I've read some "expert" reviews stating that football fields, be they in the US or in Europe, send a lot of LED TV sets running home to Momma. I'm also a big movie fan, but not the kind that requires Dolby Atmos to enjoy a good film. In fact, I got more than enough of a shiver down my spine when I first heard the Bell UH-1s' rotors coming up from behind me, via the Dolby 5.1 rear channels, when I watched Apocalypse Now, thank you. Scared the man-doo out of me, in fact.

Having written that, the OLED TV suggested earlier in the thread -- the LG 55EG9100 -- is highly rated for both sports and movies and, as an added bonus, it does well in terms of viewing angle. Yeah, it isn't highly rated in all aspects of the rtings.com testing system, but I trust that our CRT scarred-over eyeballs won't notice most of the so-called "flaws." Hey, sometimes ignorance really is bliss.
:)
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,038
344
126
Another good post, Cmdr. Having been stationed overseas for a number of years, I became a European Football (aka, soccer) fan. I've read some "expert" reviews stating that football fields, be they in the US or in Europe, send a lot of LED TV sets running home to Momma. I'm also a big movie fan, but not the kind that requires Dolby Atmos to enjoy a good film. In fact, I got more than enough of a shiver down my spine when I first heard the Bell UH-1s' rotors coming up from behind me, via the Dolby 5.1 rear channels, when I watched Apocalypse Now, thank you. Scared the man-doo out of me, in fact.

Having written that, the OLED TV suggested earlier in the thread -- the LG 55EG9100 -- is highly rated for both sports and movies and, as an added bonus, it does well in terms of viewing angle. Yeah, it isn't highly rated in all aspects of the rtings.com testing system, but I trust that our CRT scarred-over eyeballs won't notice most of the so-called "flaws." Hey, sometimes ignorance really is bliss.
:)

I watched the World Cup on an lcd set with led lighting and didn't notice anything weird. Though I had nothing to compare to.
 

Mike64

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2011
2,108
101
91
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.
:thumbsup:

Mostly because I don't watch a whole lot of TV to begin with and I'm cheap (and got what I consider a great deal on sale), I recently bought a "dumb" TV myself, but I will note that since smart TVs are more popular, the latest/greatest/snazziest TVs do generally tend to be "smart." So in general it's probably a good idea just to ignore the feature's presence when looking at different sets, rather than actively avoid it.

As for tracking, I don't like the idea of my viewing habits, etc. being tracked either (especially not for free - at least retailer loyalty cards give you discounts in exchange for prying into your purchasing habits), but I'm not so concerned (ie, paranoid) about it that I worry about even wifi-enabled TVs somehow logging themselves onto the 'net in "stealth mode" and will also note just because one's set-of-choice has smart capability, doesn't mean you actually have to use it if you prefer not to...
 
Last edited:

AntiHypocrite

Member
Dec 20, 2015
56
14
81
Okay, so the Mrs. and I went back to (salesman) Dan the Man's lair, Best Buy, to look at the aforementioned LG 55EG9100. After watching the gorgeous colors for a while, I began noticing the pixels coming into view and, much to his credit, Dan the Man quickly pulled out a credit card with 1/2-inch hole in it and placed it over a 4K TV screen. He called me over to take a look and I couldn't see anything unusual through the hole. When we returned to the LG 55EG9100 OLED TV, on the other hand, I could clearly see pixel lines. If anything, the posts in this thread have proved that we're far from modern TV experts, but seeing those pixel lines immediately turned me off, nevertheless.

It came as no surprise to either one of us, but Dan steered us back to the Sony section of the store and renewed his high-tech sermon about the brand's wonderful strengths over its competitors...in short, more grey matter loss.

Eventually, however, he did something that surprised me a bit. He opened up a cabinet below some of the Sony TVs and changed a few cables around until two of the Sonys in front of us were displaying DirecTV...and, man, what a difference that made! No more art gallery quality colors and textures, just plain old cable. He claimed that Sony encouraged them to do this because one of Sony's [many] strengths was their "upscaling" technology. At first, this sounded like nothing more than more mind-numbing jargon, but, in the end, I started to see the benefit of watching the Sony 4K LED TVs with a relatively low-resolution signal connected to them...and when I asked him if he would attach the DirecTV signal to a Samsung or an LG, he quickly told me that he could only demo Sonys in this manner.

Although we ended up turning our backs on a TV that we were both very interested in, the LG 55EG9100, we found Dan's latest Sony demo to be very informative and oh, yes, I almost forgot...we started gravitating toward larger screen sizes because the 55s started looking "too small" ( a phrase I thought I'd never employ in relation to a television ).

So that's the latest from our local Best Buy TV maze. Any productive thoughts on any of the nonsense that Dan the Man planted into my psyche would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks for your time...
 

Zivic

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2002
3,505
38
91
the LG is a better display than the sony's you are seeing in store even if it is lower resolution. The content you are displaying is going to be a big factor in how you perceive a given display... further, calibration/settings as well. the credit card thing is a not relevant to overall PQ... it's just a way to show you a given resolution in relation to pixal size. at home, it's likely your viewing distance in relation to the screen size could negate any benefit the higher resolution offers. Your focus should be blacks and contrast.

I agree that size matters, but given your budget the Oled LG is easily the best display you could buy if your focus is on PQ. It sounds like size is more important to you than having the best PQ.

again, given your budget and having size being potentially the most important factor, you could buy just about an display given it meets your $ and size requirements and it will be just fine.

IMHO you are WAY over thinking this decision.
 

AntiHypocrite

Member
Dec 20, 2015
56
14
81
I really appreciate your thoughts on televisions, Zivic. It's exactly the type of thing we're looking for.

As for the "overthinking" part...a television like the ones we've been corresponding about are an extravagant luxury, to say the very least, but it's something we've waited many, many years to decide on. It may take a week or two longer to gather opinions, but, given the time we've already waited, it's a very small price to pay...and, besides, we're in the position to spend -- what most of our posters seem to think is -- too much money because we think about our expenses.

We're simply not into spending this much, be it a thousand or two thousand, for something we're not confident about.

Thanks very much for your post...
 
Last edited:

Zivic

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2002
3,505
38
91
I really appreciate your thoughts on televisions, Zivic. It's exactly the type of thing we're looking for.

As for the "overthinking" part...a television like the ones we've been corresponding about are an extravagant luxury, to say the very least, but it's something we've waited many, many years to decide on. It may take a week or two longer to gather opinions, but, given the time we've already waited, it's a very small price to pay...and, besides, we're in the position to spend -- what most of our posters seem to think is -- too much money because we think about our expenses.

We're simply not into spending this much, be it a thousand or two thousand, for something we're not confident about.

Thanks very much for your post...
I think the vizio M series is an OK recommendation. I also think the sony is a fine recommendation.

If I were in your position I'd wait it out till 1/8 and see what happens with CES. also, the few weeks before the superbowl will give you some decent discounts
 

Bacstar

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2006
1,272
22
81
You may want to check if you have the HD package and cable box with your cable provider. If you don't, you'll probably have to upgrade your service as well as get a new HD cable box.

Nothing worse than getting a HD tv, getting it working and wonder why the picture looks all out-of-whack and crappy looking.

I personally own two vizio M-series TV's at the moment.
 
Last edited:

AntiHypocrite

Member
Dec 20, 2015
56
14
81
You may want to check if you have the HD package and cable box with your cable provider. If you don't, you'll probably have to upgrade your service as well as get a new HD cable box.

Nothing worse than getting a HD tv, getting it working and wonder why the picture looks all out-of-whack and crappy looking.

I personally own two vizio M-series TV's at the moment.
This is very good advice, Bacstar. Fortunately we already have what Comcast calls the "Xfinity X1 Platform." We called about this very thing earlier today (to confirm our signal), and they told us that we have exactly what all their "4K TV customers have."

Thanks for the great post...
 

Raduque

Lifer
Aug 22, 2004
13,141
138
106
I have a Vizio E550i-B2 55" TV. It's a 1080p smarttv, but I don't have it online. I use a Roku stick for streaming video.

This TV is great, I haven't had any issues with it, and it was previously used 12 hours a day, 365 days a year for 14 months at a restaurant.

I'm sure it didn't cost anywhere near $1700 new.

Personally, I wouldn't spend the extra on a 4k right now. Nobody is broadcasting in 4k and 4k streaming will have you hitting your cap in hours to days depending on how much you watch.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,038
344
126
I have a Vizio E550i-B2 55" TV. It's a 1080p smarttv, but I don't have it online. I use a Roku stick for streaming video.

This TV is great, I haven't had any issues with it, and it was previously used 12 hours a day, 365 days a year for 14 months at a restaurant.

I'm sure it didn't cost anywhere near $1700 new.

Personally, I wouldn't spend the extra on a 4k right now. Nobody is broadcasting in 4k and 4k streaming will have you hitting your cap in hours to days depending on how much you watch.

Here is why I disagree a bit. The OP is someone who obviously does not upgrade the tv often. 4K is the future with 4K Bly-Ray around the corner and studios already readying 4K broadcasting. Starting in January you will be able to watch 4K hockey in the Ontario Canada area for example. So a tv that can display 4K content will be a bit better in the long run in my opinion. If the price was a bigger jump I may change my recommendations but as of right now a 4K Tv can be had well under the proposed budget.
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,077
126
AntiHypocrite: Just an observation. Going from CRT to LCD is a jarring experience. They are really far from superior to CRT in the grand scheme of things. They have many shortcomings that to this day have yet to be fixed. The only thing they are really better at is well..higher resolutions and brighter color capabilities. This is an age old argument but the reality is, you will probably not think overall they are better. You will find things you don't like about them (no matter how much you spend). Eventually you will get 'used' to them and it will be less annoying, but not completely.

How far you plan on sitting from it will make a big difference in what you see as pixels. Remember that in the store you are probably standing right on top of it. If you are sitting 10-12 foot from a 55" in home, you aren't going to be as aware of those pixels. 1080p content on a 4k screen is not going to look as clear but it might not make much difference on a 55 or smaller.

Given what you've described so far, as mentioned, you probably aren't TOO concerned about quality, but nonetheless you WILL notice the differences which can be annoying.
 
Last edited:

Zivic

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2002
3,505
38
91
Here is why I disagree a bit. The OP is someone who obviously does not upgrade the tv often. 4K is the future with 4K Bly-Ray around the corner and studios already readying 4K broadcasting. Starting in January you will be able to watch 4K hockey in the Ontario Canada area for example. So a tv that can display 4K content will be a bit better in the long run in my opinion. If the price was a bigger jump I may change my recommendations but as of right now a 4K Tv can be had well under the proposed budget.
you are opening a whole new can of worms if you are assuming 4K is a requirement for the OP.... at that point, you are basically saying hdmi 2.0a is a requirement as well. severely limiting displays to the higher end.

the best option is to wait for CES and see what is actually coming out
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
346
126
I almost had one of those big CRT TV's - the 40" Sony. I actually bought it but cancelled before delivery, I think it was $1600, just before CRT was obsolete. 300 pounds.
 

Raduque

Lifer
Aug 22, 2004
13,141
138
106
Here is why I disagree a bit. The OP is someone who obviously does not upgrade the tv often. 4K is the future with 4K Bly-Ray around the corner and studios already readying 4K broadcasting. Starting in January you will be able to watch 4K hockey in the Ontario Canada area for example. So a tv that can display 4K content will be a bit better in the long run in my opinion. If the price was a bigger jump I may change my recommendations but as of right now a 4K Tv can be had well under the proposed budget.
I don't think 4k is as big a thing as everybody makes it out to be. Most people can't even tell the difference between SD and 1080p. 4k may be the future, but right now, I'd rather have a higher quality 1080p display with more features over a bare-bones 4k display, just because "It's 4k".

I think most people would too.
 

Zivic

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2002
3,505
38
91
I don't think 4k is as big a thing as everybody makes it out to be. Most people can't even tell the difference between SD and 1080p. 4k may be the future, but right now, I'd rather have a higher quality 1080p display with more features over a bare-bones 4k display, just because "It's 4k".

I think most people would too.
blacks and contrast matter more than resolution
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,038
344
126
you are opening a whole new can of worms if you are assuming 4K is a requirement for the OP.... at that point, you are basically saying hdmi 2.0a is a requirement as well. severely limiting displays to the higher end.

the best option is to wait for CES and see what is actually coming out
I didn't say requirement anywhere. He was already looking at 4k sets to begin with and 4k comes in well under the budget with room to spare. I'm saying the OP hasn't bought a TV in this long, he may as well get something that will handle 4k content as it will become the standard moving forward since I expect the OP to keep this TV two or three times longer than I keep mine.

I don't think 4k is as big a thing as everybody makes it out to be. Most people can't even tell the difference between SD and 1080p. 4k may be the future, but right now, I'd rather have a higher quality 1080p display with more features over a bare-bones 4k display, just because "It's 4k".

I think most people would too.
The 4k sets within budget are not bare bones 4k, that disappeared a year ago. Current displays support HDMI2.0a etc. Many current 1080p sets are using much cheaper parts and the quality suffers. I know what you're saying but I'm going to stick to the notion that someone who doesn't upgrade their TV often will definitely benefit from not being left behind when broadcast 4k moves to the forefront.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY