Need advice please. I am looking to replace my 65" tv

HSanders

disgusted and pissed
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
39,534
Reaction score
27,893
Points
113
Location
Football purgatory
It's been getting shittier over time but i'm suffering from "paralysis by not wanting to do the analysis" if that's a thing. So, help please! not a wall mount, i have a stand. can't go bigger than 65" due to space. don't need a lot of bells and whistles, just best picture and sound for the money.
 
Depends on budget.

The best picture is OLED from LG and Sony. But they will cost significantly more than most of all the LCDs (and all their gimmicky names like Quantum Dot).

I have a 2 year old LG OLED in a 65" in disclosure. But I did all the research knowing I wanted the best picture I could get.

Every single damn TV, even the Walmart specials, will have all kinds of stupid bells and whistles you don't want. There is no avoiding the Smart TVs.

I can't comment on sound as I use an external amplifyer and speakers.
 
thanks ut.
not sure on price. what's a good range to get a nice tv? i wanted to wait until the oleds came down a bit.
 
It's been getting shittier over time but i'm suffering from "paralysis by not wanting to do the analysis" if that's a thing. So, help please! not a wall mount, i have a stand. can't go bigger than 65" due to space. don't need a lot of bells and whistles, just best picture and sound for the money.
Make a Youtube channel and go full ninja on it. Upload the video. You'll go viral. TV companies might hire you as a "karate-kick-consultant". Decent money there. Negotiate for a lifetime of free TV's. Go from there... :coffee:
 
thanks ut.
not sure on price. what's a good range to get a nice tv? i wanted to wait until the oleds came down a bit.
I don't know much about this year's sets. And if you don't want OLED, I can not be much help and will defer to others.

But it does look like LG has a new cheaper model range. This new A series 65" is $1349. I have done no research on this model line though, so I don't know what it's lacking compared to the C line.

The previous main model range was the 'C' and that goes for $1749.

But I am sure there are some great non-OLED choices under a thousand.
 
Last edited:
It's been getting shittier over time but i'm suffering from "paralysis by not wanting to do the analysis" if that's a thing. So, help please! not a wall mount, i have a stand. can't go bigger than 65" due to space. don't need a lot of bells and whistles, just best picture and sound for the money.

I'm with UT as we have almost the same model LG OLED TV.

Picture is stunning and the sound is very good for a TV although I, like him, have a sound system I use.

The price for this level TV at the moment appears to be around 1500 bucks. If you can swing it I can just say it's the best TV I've ever owned and I have spent a lifetime searching for audio and video nirvana.
 
My experience is similar and UT and JL are giving you good advice, HS. The big names in TV are big for a reason.
Don't know how you feel about Consumer Reports but this info is from them pertaining to 65" sets.

Best grades go to LG C series. Their grades range from 83 to 87. All 3 of these sets have picture quality 5/5 and refresh rates of 4/5)
  • LG OLED65CXPUA $2k; 87
  • LG OLED65C1PUB $1.8; 84
  • LG OLED65C1AUB $1.8; 83

Best value goes to LG A series with a caveat. They have great picture quality but the difference between LG's C and A series is their refresh rate, the A series being a little slower to refresh. (fast motion may look jittery but TVs are so good now it's not like 10 years ago jittery) I'd rec you see the difference in a store and compare before buying the A series.
- LG OLED65A1AUA $1.4k; 81 (Picture 5/5; refresh 3/5)

Sprinkled in between is a set by Samsung. Samsung generally has the fastest refresh rates (great for sports) if you're willing to go to $1.7k.
- Samsung QN65QN85A $1.7K; 82 (picture quality and refresh 5/5) I found this set at Walmart and Amazon for $1600 with fast delivery.


Bottom line: All the sets above have a 5/5 picture quality but the Samsung has the highest refresh rate for fast action accuracy and costs a bit less than the C series LG.

Hope this helps.
 
One thing I think is interesting, and it's mostly opinion based on fact, is how the various technologies perform with action shots like sports.

The best for this was actually old CRT tube TVs that have gone the way of the dodo. It's a good thing though. Flat panels are much easier to work with. The last CRT I bought was in 1999. It was a Panasonic Panablack 32" I bought at Sears for $1000. It weighed 180 lbs.

Anyway, the next best technology for action was plasma. It still is. There was no need for the so called soap opera effect that you see on LCDs for motion smoothing. I have the last great plasma model made, a 55" Panasonic Viera VT series. It was my living room TV for years and is now in the bedroom.

OLED and LCD are both worse for action. LCD had no right to win the format war over plasma in my opinion. But they could pump them out at ever decreasing prices.

But the stunning picture of the OLED makes up for it for me as the spiritual successor to the plasma. It does have some settings that help to smooth out the action without going all the way to soap opera effect. And I am sure modern LCDs do too.

Except on my computers over the years, I have never owned an LCD. For me it was CRT to plasma to OLED, where I will stay for the foreseeable future.

Some people like the soap opera effect. There is no wrong way to enjoy what you like.
 
what's the "soap opera effect"?
Unlike old CRT and plasma TVs, LCD displays have problems with motion blurring. Some are more sensitive to it than others, but when an LCD TV has to display fast motion — quick-moving sports or video games, for example — the blur can be excessive, obscuring image detail. To help combat this problem, TV manufacturers started using displays with higher refresh rates, moving from the native 60Hz refresh rate used in older TVs to more modern 120Hz panels.

Since most sources of video — including broadcast and streaming — don’t stream at this frame rate, however, motion smoothing came along to “fake” a higher frame rate by inserting images in between the actual 30 or 60 frames per second that come from your cable box, game console, or antenna. It creates these new images when your TV analyzes the picture and digitally guesses at what new images it could insert. They even use this frame guessing game on some OLED TVs.

Motion smoothing works fine for sports programming and video games because of their methods of content recording and/or producing, but we’re used to seeing lower frame rates in many TV shows and movies, most of which are recorded at 24 frames per second.

So it's called the soap opera effect because soap operas are shot on video, not on film. So they kind of look more lifelike. There are more frames per second. But for other content, we've become so used to film being 24fps, that it looks really odd to our eyes to see so many more frames.

It's kind of ironic too. 24fps originally was not an artistic choice for how to make a film appear. It was a technical limitation of cameras. And was deemed good enough.

Peter Jackson filmed and originally released The Hobbit in 48fps and people absolutely hated it. I would love to transition to higher fps like that eventually.
 
is there any thoughts/concerns about how well it will "up-convert" HD content to 4K ?
about a year ago we got our first 4K TV and one of the variables was the processor in the TV and how well it would do that.
I decided I wasn't that concerned about that for the extra $
I was also buying this for a room in the house that isn't "the main" tv, so I was ok going a little less $ and got a Samsung (but not their highest end model)
if/when it is our main TV to be replaced, I'll go more $ for the best at that time ( well, reasonably "best", seems like they also have ridonkulous ultra-high end models as well)
 
is there any thoughts/concerns about how well it will "up-convert" HD content to 4K ?
about a year ago we got our first 4K TV and one of the variables was the processor in the TV and how well it would do that.
I decided I wasn't that concerned about that for the extra $
I was also buying this for a room in the house that isn't "the main" tv, so I was ok going a little less $ and got a Samsung (but not their highest end model)
if/when it is our main TV to be replaced, I'll go more $ for the best at that time ( well, reasonably "best", seems like they also have ridonkulous ultra-high end models as well)
My opinion:

Factually it makes a difference. Subjectively, it might not.

Everything you watch on a 4k TV will be displayed in 4k. The TV is only capable of showing things in its native resolution.

But there are a lot of variables to how important it is. The room you are putting it in like you mentioned. The size of the TV. The viewing distance. And how sensitive you are to noticing how good the upscale is.

No real wrong choice. It's something you need to test and see. The larger the TV and the closer you are to it will be the biggest factors I think.
 
is there any thoughts/concerns about how well it will "up-convert" HD content to 4K ?
about a year ago we got our first 4K TV and one of the variables was the processor in the TV and how well it would do that.
I decided I wasn't that concerned about that for the extra $
I was also buying this for a room in the house that isn't "the main" tv, so I was ok going a little less $ and got a Samsung (but not their highest end model)
if/when it is our main TV to be replaced, I'll go more $ for the best at that time ( well, reasonably "best", seems like they also have ridonkulous ultra-high end models as well)

I have a great deal of lower definition content such as all Pat's games since 2001 and they display extremely well on the OLED model I own.
 
Back
Top