LED TVs in general worth the cost?

[rockyct]

Background:
My parents are in rushed search for a new TV. They currently have a Toshiba 36" CRT HDTV from 2000 that is finally on it's last legs after more than ten years. It's had major picture problems for a year now, but over the last few days it didn't work for a day, then it worked an entire day, now it's dead again. I'm helping my dad pick out a TV as he's pretty busy with work right now. We've basically settled on a 46" TV with a budget of about $1000-1300.

Needs:
My sister is disabled and the tv is her main source of entertainment. It is on for probably 8-10 hours a day between my mom, my dad, and my sister. The image quality doesn't matter greatly as they didn't even notice the defects on the CRT. (the black background would randomly switch from deep black to a redish, dark grey. There was also a fuzzy line in the bottom third of the tv that would appear sometimes). They will have this TV for at least five years though, if not more.

Question:
Considering the time the TV is on every day (8-10 hours) and the desire for this TV to last five to ten years, does the extra cost of the LED backlight make sense in general? The brand will probably end up being an LG, Samsung, or Panasonic. Thanks.

 

[Pia]

http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/tv-consumption-chart/?tag=contentBody;nextPage

At 46" you are looking at savings of maybe $20/year from going LED instead of LCD. If it lasts five years, the LED can be $100 more expensive while breaking even. If 10 years, $200 more expensive.

Since your family doesn't see image quality differences, I suppose you should go with energy savings / calibrated mode in any case. According to the chart there are pretty good energy savings from that.

 

[electroju]

LED and CCFL for the back light has their advantages and disadvantages. Both lighting technologies can last a long time. The difference comes in when the back light is arranged in a grid like in LED back light LCD. If the LCD using LED as its back light is arranged in a grid, it gets better contrast ratios. LED back lighting is not actually more energy efficient. CCFL has a better efficiency for energy consumption. LCD using LED for back light can use a different technique for lighting such as edge lighting. Edge lighting makes an LCD look like an organic LED TV, but they are not. These are good to place the TV out in the open to brag about how thin their TV is or brag that got an LED TV. If you want a lot of control for brightness, LED are better. Both LED and CCFL flash, so buying a TV to get away from the blinking is a catch-22.

I disagree what Pia is stating. CCFL are more energy efficient for every watt. LED are not efficient. The efficiency of the TV depends on the electronics. Latest TV will include more efficient electronics, so saying the LED is more efficient and CCFL does not hold true.

LCD will not out last the back light because LCD can have imperfections. These imperfections can come up during the life of the LCD. They come up as dead pixels or pixels that just do not work.

I suggest stay away from LG because they do not care for quality. Samsung is the same. I suggest Sony and Sharp. Sharp are in the LCD business for a long time. I suggest Sharp Aquos LC-46LE700UN. This TV uses an LED for the back light.

 

[rockyct]

Interesting information electroju. The depth of the tv really doesn't matter to them. There's actually a huge recessed area in the wall that was meant for giant CRTs. I thought there was more of a significant energy difference with LED backlit.

Would this Sony seem like a decent deal?
http://www.us-appliance.com/kdl46ex700.html

Of course, $900 for that Sharp would be quite nice:
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Sharp-LC-C46700UN/14237656

 

[Synomenon]

Look at Panasonic too. They have nice TVs sporting IPS panels. If going with a LED set, look for one with an IPS panel (don't know if this combo exists) and with a higher number of local dimming zones.

 

[Pia]

Look at Panasonic too. They have nice TVs sporting IPS panels. If going with a LED set, look for one with an IPS panel (don't know if this combo exists) and with a higher number of local dimming zones.

That's the most expensive setup, and its point is better picture quality, which OP already said is not a priority?

 

[gar655]

I suggest stay away from LG because they do not care for quality. Samsung is the same. I suggest Sony and Sharp. Sharp are in the LCD business for a long time. I suggest Sharp Aquos LC-46LE700UN. This TV uses an LED for the back light.

Sony and Samsung use the same LCD panels. LG and Sharp make their own. Given your sister's needs I would just get the least expensive set that meets the size requirements and not worry about LED vs CFL.

Walmart is selling a 42" Sanyo plasma for less than $450. At that price you could afford to spend and extra $5/month on electricity.

 

[Emulex]

honestly if image quality is of any concern - plasma.

otherwise do what you want but the best LED sammy/panny is worst than a cheap viera.

LED = thin, less heat/energy, lighter.

but it just cannot compete on image quality with plasma.

Until i started playing 1080p video lcd was great, now playing alot of 1080p video - i am sad. the blacks are not black enough and the colors don't pop after looking at a 50" viera plasma ($990-1100) compared to an LED model.

 

[rockyct]

honestly if image quality is of any concern - plasma.

otherwise do what you want but the best LED sammy/panny is worst than a cheap viera.

LED = thin, less heat/energy, lighter.

but it just cannot compete on image quality with plasma.

Until i started playing 1080p video lcd was great, now playing alot of 1080p video - i am sad. the blacks are not black enough and the colors don't pop after looking at a 50" viera plasma ($990-1100) compared to an LED model.

I know plasma's are a nice deal considering they in general cost less and have a nicer picture, but the picture isn't a huge deal for them and they're willing to spend the extra for an LCD. I think I will recommend a non-LED LCD though because even with their usage, it's not going to save any money and the thin display doesn't win any points for them.

 

[kalrith]

I suggest that you look at reviews that state the energy usage of specific TVs (CNET is a good source for this). The energy consumption for LCD TVs can vary greatly between different models. If you plan on calibrating it for them (or at least using some numbers from avsforum), then just look at the power-consumption numbers for the TVs after calibration.

 

[Spicedaddy]

Interesting information electroju. The depth of the tv really doesn't matter to them. There's actually a huge recessed area in the wall that was meant for giant CRTs. I thought there was more of a significant energy difference with LED backlit.

Would this Sony seem like a decent deal?
http://www.us-appliance.com/kdl46ex700.html

Of course, $900 for that Sharp would be quite nice:
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Sharp-LC-C46700UN/14237656

The Sony KDL46EX700 is edge-lit LED if I remember correctly? When I was shopping around for my mom, I thought the KDL46EX500 looked better. (that's the CCFL model, 120Hz...) It was also a few hundred bucks cheaper...

Edge-lit LED is crappy for the price, only difference is they're thinner, but who cares if it's 2 inches or 1 inch deep?

 

[rockyct]

The Sony KDL46EX700 is edge-lit LED if I remember correctly? When I was shopping around for my mom, I thought the KDL46EX500 looked better. (that's the CCFL model, 120Hz...) It was also a few hundred bucks cheaper...

Edge-lit LED is crappy for the price, only difference is they're thinner, but who cares if it's 2 inches or 1 inch deep?

Yeah, I can see how a 1.5 inch deep tv is very nice to have, but this tv is going into a recessed area in the wall that held a 36" CRT. The thinness factor is going to be lost. Mounting it on the wall would be a different story.

I've also heard that edge lit LEDs can have a uniformity problem.

 

[ericlp]

There really isn't all that much of an advantage to go with LED. CCFL is proven technology. Where LED TV's are kinda still developing. Soon, probably in the next 2-3 years you won't have a choice but LED's. LED's do last longer, brighter, produce more lighter lumins per watt at lower heat. Less heat = GOOD! More light per watt = Efficiency. Plus LED's are INSTANT ON. No Warm up. And provide full spectrum and brightness over it's life.

Buy what's cheaper and looks good to you... Pick any flavor you want!

 

[0roo0roo]

edge lit led is efficient. high quality location based led light array is expensive...and not efficient. though i would expect led to last longer in the long run, it doesnt give inherent better quality alone though, but since your major factor is longevity, go for it. ccfl eventually go bad. i know they are rated for a buttload of hours, but i trust it less..guess its from computer monitors going out in far less than rated expected life.

 

[rockyct]

My parents got a TV. It ended up being this one: http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-LN46C5.../dp/B0036WT3QQ that was $665 at Fry's ($748 after all the taxes).

It basically was exactly the amount of TV they needed. 3D, LED, even 120 Hz is going to go unnoticed by them. I'm quite amazed at how much you can get for the dollar when buying a TV now. It even has DNLA media streaming and a couple USB ports which can be handy.

So anyway, thanks guys for talking me out of LED back lit models. I think this is going to be a very nice tv for them. Now we have to figure out how to remove the 200 pound CRT from the recessed area in the wall...

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Don't sleep on the DLPs! sounds like they are surviving fine without an LCD now so why not get an even bigger screen with an equally stunning picture? at 70lbs vs. 200lb crt they are much more mobile. I easily moved mine with a petite girlfriend helping.

 

[kalrith]

Don't sleep on the DLPs! sounds like they are surviving fine without an LCD now so why not get an even bigger screen with an equally stunning picture? at 70lbs vs. 200lb crt they are much more mobile. I easily moved mine with a petite girlfriend helping.

pics?

 

[rockyct]

Don't sleep on the DLPs! sounds like they are surviving fine without an LCD now so why not get an even bigger screen with an equally stunning picture? at 70lbs vs. 200lb crt they are much more mobile. I easily moved mine with a petite girlfriend helping.

The hole in the wall is 46.5" wide and probably about the same high. It would be deep enough for a DLP, but the width is the issue. Anything bigger than 46" tv wouldn't fit inside the hole.

Oh, and Fry's has a Toshiba 46" LCD with 120 Hz for $10 less than the tv we got, but I think this one is just fine.

 

[Blain]

I'm hungry for an full-array LED TV (around 46").
But I also need one with an anti-reflective screen, due to placement in room.
Are there any price search engines that can filter out screens with a glossy screen?

 

[Gibson486]

I'm hungry for an full-array LED TV (around 46").
But I also need one with an anti-reflective screen, due to placement in room.
Are there any price search engines that can filter out screens with a glossy screen?

I think LG is the only full array has a non reflective screen. Sony's has non reflective screen, but th are not full array anymore.