I hate TV shopping

SlayerOfMead

Member
Aug 11, 2022
31
18
41
I have been looking here in the UK for a TV I have simple parameters but I am not getting any hits..

40 inch, 4K, USB for media, Freeview and most importantly a Headphone Jack so I can connect my speakers, Android based but not a deal breaker, Game Mode, nippy remote and software.

My old Samsung has this (that's the TV I have now and is so trash I will post a video of me beating it up) lol, changing TV because the panel is damaged, I wish I could swap the panel.

Why is it so bloomin hard to find this :mad:
 

Muadib

Lifer
May 30, 2000
17,965
854
126
It's hard to find because it probably doesn't exist. I'm pretty sure that the smallest Samsung is 43". The smallest LG is the C2 OLED at 42", at least here in the US. Sony also makes a 42" 4k set. It's not hard to find your answer, as every brand has a website. You just have to look. I haven't looked at other brands, so you are on your own there. Good luck!
 

SlayerOfMead

Member
Aug 11, 2022
31
18
41
No idea why 40inch isn't a thing when 32inch is, and Samsung can rot in hell, some of the worst TVs ever made
 

OlyAR15

Senior member
Oct 23, 2014
982
242
116
No idea why 40inch isn't a thing when 32inch is, and Samsung can rot in hell, some of the worst TVs ever made
Because 40" is too small for a TV. It's big for a monitor, too, so it would be a niche product, which is why most monitors stop at around 32-34". You can get larger, but they are not as popular. Just because you want that size doesn't mean a lot of other people want one.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: SlayerOfMead

SlayerOfMead

Member
Aug 11, 2022
31
18
41
Because 40" is too small for a TV. It's big for a monitor, too, so it would be a niche product, which is why most monitors stop at around 32-34". You can get larger, but they are not as popular. Just because you want that size doesn't mean a lot of other people want one.

40 inch is a good size and was very popular around 7 years ago when I bought my old TV lots of choice so not a niche product at all, but nowadays it seems that TV manufacturers thinks everyone in the UK lives in a castle so they made TVs bigger at the start off, stupid idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VirtualLarry

fralexandr

Platinum Member
Apr 26, 2007
2,249
201
106
www.flickr.com
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: SlayerOfMead

kingrobert

Member
Jul 7, 2022
28
3
16
I own a Samsung 50 "smart television and had a fantastic experience What I had done was decide to take a 40". However, a buddy advised me that if you are giving a large sum, you should invest more and obtain a wonderful experience because we do not update our televisions after every quarter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: deustroop

mindless1

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
8,212
1,506
126
Because 40" is too small for a TV. It's big for a monitor, too, so it would be a niche product
Not at all, I am quite happy being able to sit a little further back from my 43" 4K TV as monitor. Kind of ridiculous to buy smaller, paying no less, then have to be cramped up closer to it. IMO the limitation is desk space, unless you live in a van down by the river so you can't have enough direct sight distance either.

Having a larger 4K display as a monitor is a game changer. You don't even have to be sitting down in front of it to interact.
 

Oyeve

Lifer
Oct 18, 1999
21,942
839
126
I use my 75" 4k TV as my computer monitor. I use it in the comfort of my bed. I can never go back to anything smaller and sorta regret not going 85". NFL and gaming and 4k br is pretty much all I do. I too hate samsung tvs because when I first went 75" I got a Samsung and it died within one month and there was a whole fiasco trying to get it repaired which ended up in a refund which took 2 more months. I finally went LG and love it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: igor_kavinski

Fallen Kell

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,064
438
126
I think it depends more on what you are looking for and what models you have been looking at as to whether or not Samsung, or LG, or Sony, etc. makes a good TV. You can't beat Samsung for the high end LCDs, but their mid and low ends ones really are pretty bad. It is hard to beat LG's OLEDs, but their LCDs are garbage.
 

burninatortech4

Senior member
Jan 29, 2014
708
444
136
Just went to Best Buy today for an SD card and all of the TV's were either:

1) Insanely expensive
2) Too big
3) Too slow
4) Too many built in ads

Left feeling extremely unimpressed. I'll probably buy a used computer monitor for my "TV" duties.
 
Last edited:
Jul 27, 2020
18,246
11,969
116
It is hard to beat LG's OLEDs, but their LCDs are garbage.
Depends on the series. I used one of their "8" series during 2016/17. It was impressive for someone who had never used a 4K HDR TV. The colors were amazing and with 4K Blurays, it was excellent. Only reason I sold it was the really bad local dimming (edge lit, which made watching dark scenes an exercise in trying to ignore screen flashes).
 

Muadib

Lifer
May 30, 2000
17,965
854
126
Just went to Best Buy today for an SD card and all of the TV's were either:

1) Insanely expensive
2) Too big
3) Too slow
4) Too many built in ads

Left feeling extremely unimpressed. I'll probably buy a used computer monitor for my "TV" duties.
What sets were you looking at? I'll give you 1 and maybe 2, as you haven't been shopping, and I could see sticker shock. However you are probably wrong on 3 & 4. I have a Samsung from 2018, and a LG C1 from last year, and 3 & 4 doesn't fit either.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
69,610
27,961
136
Insanely expensive? Maybe for OLED models. LED models are dirt cheap right now: 43" 4K for $250, 65" 4K for $400.
 

Tech Junky

Diamond Member
Jan 27, 2022
3,568
1,204
106
Depends on use but, I've been using a 4K projector for a couple of years now and it's a small foot print compared to the TV's. About the size of a phone book. Think it was $700. The only downside is if you crank up the light output for daytime use the fans get loud. Keeping it on low though works just fine most of the time. When it's dark the image is crisp and if you move it closer/farther from the wall the size changes. I can pull it back and fill a whole wall with the image if need be. Hook up an android box to it for smart features for $40 and it's just as good as any dumb TV.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
69,610
27,961
136
Depends on use but, I've been using a 4K projector for a couple of years now and it's a small foot print compared to the TV's. About the size of a phone book. Think it was $700. The only downside is if you crank up the light output for daytime use the fans get loud. Keeping it on low though works just fine most of the time. When it's dark the image is crisp and if you move it closer/farther from the wall the size changes. I can pull it back and fill a whole wall with the image if need be. Hook up an android box to it for smart features for $40 and it's just as good as any dumb TV.
What's a phonebook? :p
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,793
1,505
126
40" ?? I just bought a 43" Sony X85K.

I finally chose it despite the lack of a 3.5mm stereo jack. You can spend about $25 to obtain a Bluetooth receiver that pairs with a BT enabled TV, and then plug your headphones into the jack on the receiver. Choose carefully, so it doesn't require "recharging", but is powered from a converter plug via USB cable that plugs into the wall socket.

It must be that many of the new TVs no longer come with 3.5mm stereo analog ports.

Ideally, you'd want to shop for a new TV like you would shop for the components of a new PC building project: taking your time to research specs, personal desires and quality with longevity. When an old TV dies unexpectedly, you are forced into a hurried search and purchase. Isn't that so? How will your life make sense in the interim without TEE-VEE?!

TEE-VEE is the wave of the future! Pretty soon, a majority of people will have those TV sets in their house, and they'll be watching all sorts of wonderful thingks!! Won't they?! And what are you going to do while you don't have a TV?!

In hindsight, I wish I'd simply counted my blessings over an old LG 43" which lasted 12+ years, turned on most of the time -- might as well have been all of the time -- because that's what it was, basically. I could've started looking for a new one last year. I'm just lucky for the results of my brother's research for his own new TV, which pointed me to the Sony.

But if you wait until your TV dies or gets damaged, well . . . . you see . . . . . NO TEE_VEE! YOU CANNOT LIVE WITHOUT TEE-VEE! Did I already say that? Yes I did.
 

Fallen Kell

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,064
438
126
Yeah, I have luckily had the luxury of waiting until what I want is actually available. My current main TV is still working just fine. The only reason I am "replacing" it is for upgrading to a larger set due to the new house (well new 4 years ago). Been holding off all this time for HDMI 2.1, and I am not going to compromise as I don't need to. While I "could" get a TV this year, I will not buy one that only has 2 HDMI 2.1 ports. That only leaves the Samsungs that use the One Connect box which while I like, they don't support Dolby Vision HDR, which is what the vast majority of the content available uses, and I don't need to compromise, so I am not. Eventually Sony or some other company will release a TV with a high quality panel, with supports 120Hz+ refresh rates with low to no input lag, 4k native screen resolution, Dolby Vision, and has 4+ HDMI 2.1 ports. Ideally it will also have decent internal speakers, but we all know that won't be the case anymore as all of the manufacturers want to sell you their external sound bar which they will cut into their own market if they put decent speakers in the TV like they use to 10+ years ago.
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,793
1,505
126
Yeah, I have luckily had the luxury of waiting until what I want is actually available. My current main TV is still working just fine. The only reason I am "replacing" it is for upgrading to a larger set due to the new house (well new 4 years ago). Been holding off all this time for HDMI 2.1, and I am not going to compromise as I don't need to. While I "could" get a TV this year, I will not buy one that only has 2 HDMI 2.1 ports. That only leaves the Samsungs that use the One Connect box which while I like, they don't support Dolby Vision HDR, which is what the vast majority of the content available uses, and I don't need to compromise, so I am not. Eventually Sony or some other company will release a TV with a high quality panel, with supports 120Hz+ refresh rates with low to no input lag, 4k native screen resolution, Dolby Vision, and has 4+ HDMI 2.1 ports. Ideally it will also have decent internal speakers, but we all know that won't be the case anymore as all of the manufacturers want to sell you their external sound bar which they will cut into their own market if they put decent speakers in the TV like they use to 10+ years ago.
As I may have said, I was "forced" to replace my 42" LG. I don't have a new house, and this room -- with the biggest TV in the house -- needs to be completely rearranged before I can find wall-space for a 65", and something larger would be just too big. My brother did the research to meet his wife's obsession for the largest TV they can find, and bought a Sony Bravia.

Therefore, I chose a Bravia -- forced to do it in a hurry -- but it was the best choice. 120hz refresh rate. Four HDMI -- two of 'em HDMI 2.1. While I have always despised built-in TV audio from the tube days forward, I am impressed with that of the X85K 43" Bravia. But you insist on four HDMI 2.1, so take your time.

For me, I won't want or need a sound bar if I can make the Sony work with my 12-year-old "smart" ONKYO HT/AVR -- awaiting a Toslink cable which is apparently required.

I've always wondered as to why people might be eager for soundbars. Maybe it's because their entertainment room isn't big enough for a 5.1 surround speaker set? Who can say? But I'm not quick to jump on the very latest craze. Those soundbars are priced at $500 or more, if they aren't the budget-line cheaper ones . . .
 
Last edited: