OK sure… but none of that changes the Math. I like KFBR392’s suggestion of just measuring in inches and using the 1.6 but as pointed out elsewhere it is a very rough rule of thumb. I was only pointing out the formula was twice as more complex than it needed to be.brad.clarkston wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:19 pmBecause it's not just about distance it's also about eyeball height from the center of the screen which is calculated based of people setting down in a dark room.
Ambient light from other rooms, the viewing room, or heaven forbid a window also plays into the calculation. Ambient light from other sources is also why you want edge or back lighting on the TV to the point that getting a cheap $12 white stick on RGB strip to run along the back of the TV when it's on can really help a cheaper TV by over saturating the ambient light.
TV: Size vs. quality?
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
- illumination
- Posts: 3160
- Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2019 6:13 pm
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
If you have a really large room and you sit a long distance away, get a really large TV. At say 25 feet away, I'd rather have an economical 75" tv than a 50" OLED if the budget is fixed. If you're like 15 feet away, I would get the 50" OLED.
That being said, I'm in the camp that thinks that most TVs are so cheap now, just buy the good stuff and buy the size you want. OLED is worth it at current price levels. TV's are a really cheap purchase in the scheme of things for how much (most) people use them.
I bought a cheap Vizio for a bedroom TV at my cabin. It's absolute junk, I should have just spent like $100 more and purchased a better brand.
That being said, I'm in the camp that thinks that most TVs are so cheap now, just buy the good stuff and buy the size you want. OLED is worth it at current price levels. TV's are a really cheap purchase in the scheme of things for how much (most) people use them.
I bought a cheap Vizio for a bedroom TV at my cabin. It's absolute junk, I should have just spent like $100 more and purchased a better brand.
Last edited by illumination on Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 3035
- Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 2:55 am
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
Size matters…a lot.
Definitely would pick bigger over better if you’re talking about a 20” difference while sitting 8-10’ away from the screen. The emotional impact and “theater-like” experience are stronger with a big screen. When Captain America’s backside is filling up 75 inches of my television’s real estate, I’m not wondering whether the gamma-correction is as accurate as it could be.
Definitely would pick bigger over better if you’re talking about a 20” difference while sitting 8-10’ away from the screen. The emotional impact and “theater-like” experience are stronger with a big screen. When Captain America’s backside is filling up 75 inches of my television’s real estate, I’m not wondering whether the gamma-correction is as accurate as it could be.
- Doom&Gloom
- Posts: 5398
- Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 3:36 pm
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
I am +1'ing both of your posts in this thread.iamlucky13 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:51 pm Summary of this thread:
OP - I'm trying to decide between two $700 TV's. I'm not sure I really care very much about screen quality.
Majority of the responses - Look how great the screen quality is on TV's that start at twice the price of the sets you're considering!
--
Personally, if I were replacing my plasma TV, I'm sure I'd be looking seriously at OLED's, but I know plenty of people who have long been satisfied with LCD screens, and LCD's have gotten a lot better over the last decade, yet there are still meaningful differences between entry level, mid, and top-end LCD screens for the OP to consider.
I hate watching a TV at friends' homes or in hotels because the quality is almost always terrible even though they may be plenty big.
If I have to replace any of my plasmas any time soon it will be with an OLED. And I won't make the mistake I made with them of not going large enough. If only I could get a do-over--or three ...
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
Not just for TV, but for virtually everything out there.
That said, up to a decade ago there were really strong polarizing binary choices in flat panel televisions whether you wanted deep blacks of plasma vs vivid colors and so on. It was easy to make a "wrong" choice.
Today the baseline quality of the product is really high -- kind of like blindly picking a $500 phone -- and the differentiation is really in the minutiae. It's hard to buy something wrong.
3 things I say to look for are: (1) sufficient HDMI ports if you plan on hooking many devices directly to the TV (2) HDMI-ARC if you need that feature like for advanced soundbars (3) clean and responsive user interface if you plan to using TV menu and apps [as opposed to separate tv box].
-
- Posts: 15368
- Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 8:53 am
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
Are there even TVs made today that don't have those things? Our TV is 5yrs old and one of the most budget TVs there is (basic TCL) and it has all of those things.hunoraut wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:50 pm3 things I say to look for are: (1) sufficient HDMI ports if you plan on hooking many devices directly to the TV (2) HDMI-ARC if you need that feature like for advanced soundbars (3) clean and responsive user interface if you plan to using TV menu and apps [as opposed to separate tv box].
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
The OP did mention OLED. A 55-inch OLED can be had for around $1K (from Vizio - using LG panels like all other OLED TVs). That's a small enough difference in price and big enough jump in picture quality that I'd give it very strong consideration even if not a videophile.iamlucky13 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:51 pm Summary of this thread:
OP - I'm trying to decide between two $700 TV's. I'm not sure I really care very much about screen quality.
Majority of the responses - Look how great the screen quality is on TV's that start at twice the price of the sets you're considering!
--
Personally, if I were replacing my plasma TV, I'm sure I'd be looking seriously at OLED's, but I know plenty of people who have long been satisfied with LCD screens, and LCD's have gotten a lot better over the last decade, yet there are still meaningful differences between entry level, mid, and top-end LCD screens for the OP to consider.
Part of the issue is that LCD TV prices have gone up quite a bit over the past several months, but (somewhat surprisingly) OLED TV prices have continued to fall, esp. on the larger sizes.
-
- Posts: 1726
- Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 7:31 pm
- Location: Kansas City, MO
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
csmath wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:12 pmOK sure… but none of that changes the Math. I like KFBR392’s suggestion of just measuring in inches and using the 1.6 but as pointed out elsewhere it is a very rough rule of thumb. I was only pointing out the formula was twice as more complex than it needed to be.brad.clarkston wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:19 pmBecause it's not just about distance it's also about eyeball height from the center of the screen which is calculated based of people setting down in a dark room.
Ambient light from other rooms, the viewing room, or heaven forbid a window also plays into the calculation. Ambient light from other sources is also why you want edge or back lighting on the TV to the point that getting a cheap $12 white stick on RGB strip to run along the back of the TV when it's on can really help a cheaper TV by over saturating the ambient light.
It's your TV have fun, but straight line division is not going to do much for you just like if your using a manufacturers preset on a $1k+ set your getting way less than your paid for out if it. There's a reason certified technicians make good money calibrating home theater setups.
Ether way I'm done with the armchair commentary.
70% AVGE | 20% FXNAX | 10% T-Bill/Muni
- jabberwockOG
- Posts: 3084
- Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 7:23 am
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
Unless you are in a really small room a 65" screen seems to be the sweet spot these days. The lighting and light sources in your room are important when choosing a TV. Every TV has a different level of screen reflectivity, and different capacity for maximum brightness. Unless you are only watching in a darkened theater style room, it might be a good idea to check screen reflectivity rating along with max brightness in the reviews. A TV with a more reflective screen in a brightly lit room, or in a room with windows, may be a problem. In a darkened room theater style room with minimal light source issues, the current OLED screens cannot be beat. In a bright room, or a room with multiple light sources (even at night), an LED screen may be a better fit because they generally get brighter than OLED, and even better if it has lower than average reflective screen. Having said that many folks can ignore screen reflections, but for some it is a major annoyance.
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
You mean an LCD screen. There aren’t any LED screens (yet). LEDs are used only as the backlight for the LCD layer.jabberwockOG wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:14 pm Unless you are in a really small room a 65" screen seems to be the sweet spot these days. The lighting and light sources in your room are important when choosing a TV. Every TV has a different level of screen reflectivity, and different capacity for maximum brightness. Unless you are only watching in a darkened theater style room, it might be a good idea to check screen reflectivity rating along with max brightness in the reviews. A TV with a more reflective screen in a brightly lit room, or in a room with windows, may be a problem. In a darkened room theater style room with minimal light source issues, the current OLED screens cannot be beat. In a bright room, or a room with multiple light sources (even at night), an LED screen may be a better fit because they generally get brighter than OLED, and even better if it has lower than average reflective screen. Having said that many folks can ignore screen reflections, but for some it is a major annoyance.
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
I'm so old, I remember when owning a 32" Sony Trinitron was a big deal.
https://www.amazon.com/Sony-KV32FS12-Tr ... B00005I9QS
I haven't owned a TV since 2000.
https://www.amazon.com/Sony-KV32FS12-Tr ... B00005I9QS
I haven't owned a TV since 2000.
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
Are you actually arguing with me about whether Size = Distance / 1.6 * 12 is the same as Size = Distance * 7.5? Because that is the only thing I was commenting on. It was a lighthearted comment about the silly rule of thumb calculation and was addressing the algorithm itself. I didn't even hint at whether I thought it was valid or not.brad.clarkston wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:27 pmcsmath wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:12 pmOK sure… but none of that changes the Math. I like KFBR392’s suggestion of just measuring in inches and using the 1.6 but as pointed out elsewhere it is a very rough rule of thumb. I was only pointing out the formula was twice as more complex than it needed to be.brad.clarkston wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:19 pmBecause it's not just about distance it's also about eyeball height from the center of the screen which is calculated based of people setting down in a dark room.
Ambient light from other rooms, the viewing room, or heaven forbid a window also plays into the calculation. Ambient light from other sources is also why you want edge or back lighting on the TV to the point that getting a cheap $12 white stick on RGB strip to run along the back of the TV when it's on can really help a cheaper TV by over saturating the ambient light.
It's your TV have fun, but straight line division is not going to do much for you just like if your using a manufacturers preset on a $1k+ set your getting way less than your paid for out if it. There's a reason certified technicians make good money calibrating home theater setups.
Ether way I'm done with the armchair commentary.
Here:
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
Devil is in the detail.stoptothink wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:57 pmAre there even TVs made today that don't have those things? Our TV is 5yrs old and one of the most budget TVs there is (basic TCL) and it has all of those things.hunoraut wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:50 pm3 things I say to look for are: (1) sufficient HDMI ports if you plan on hooking many devices directly to the TV (2) HDMI-ARC if you need that feature like for advanced soundbars (3) clean and responsive user interface if you plan to using TV menu and apps [as opposed to separate tv box].
1. Most TV count 3 ports. Some of us need 3-4
2. e-ARC is new interface supporting Atmos pass through. A 5 year old TV doesnt have it.
3. Interface quality and responsiveness is very different from manufacture to manufacture.
-
- Posts: 536
- Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 2:34 pm
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
+1vanbogle59 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:27 amGet a reasonably sized OLED, but don't break the bank.protagonist wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:21 pm At the same price point, which would you choose?
For example, a 75 inch TCL 4-series (entry level) smart Roku TV is a little cheaper than a 55" TCL 6-series. Which is a better purchase?
And for the price of a 50-55 inch OLED set you can get a huge entry level TV.
I always thought with TVs that size really matters, assuming you have a large enough room.
Opinions?
Now, empty your wallet into your sound system.
The neighbors will hate you, but movie night will be AWESOME!
The finest, albeit the most difficult, of all human achievements is being reasonable.
-
- Posts: 9242
- Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 11:47 am
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
That was my initial thought. I'm pretty much an audiophile but I am not nearly as picky about video....I have seen OLEDs and they are quite amazing, but is the overall experience of a budget 75" TV going to be better than that of a 50-55" OLED, assuming your room is large enough?randomguy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:19 pmWatty wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:30 am One thing to watch out for is that when you watch TV there is a lot of "hedonic adaptation" that goes on and most people quickly get used to whatever picture size and quality you have. What seems like a dramatic difference in the showroom, or brand new TV, when you look at the pictures side by side will likely be forgotten and unnoticed once you have your new TV for a week unless you have a specific problem like glare.
In the end the modern 55' 600 dollar LED TV is really good compared to just about anything that existed 10 years ago much less 20. For pretty much anytype of noncritical viewing you will be fine. If you want to spend another 700 bucks to get an OLED or to go up to 75" is a pretty personal choice. As you say you start getting less and less for your money as you spend more.
And all of this is off if you are some videophile. But if you were one of those you shouldn't be posting on bogleheads. Go avforums and people can debate minor nuances in image quality like we do the difference between 3.9% and 4.0% SWR....
I'm thinking of movie theaters. The wider the screen, the more immersive, the better the experience...even though a wider screen means lower resolution.
-
- Posts: 439
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:57 pm
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
This YouTube video may be something for you to take a look at regarding the tradeoffs of better screen vs larger.protagonist wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:09 pm ...I have seen OLEDs and they are quite amazing, but is the overall experience of a budget 75" TV going to be better than that of a 50-55" OLED, assuming your room is large enough?
I'm thinking of movie theaters. The wider the screen, the more immersive, the better the experience...even though a wider screen means lower resolution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daHFAn7qotQ&t=114s
It contains a chart that is a good summary of solid choices. The discussion is the tradeoffs of larger size/price/options.
FYI, this guy believes that the larger screen is often worth a decrease in overall performance of a smaller screen at similar price points.
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
I went with an OLED and wish I went for a larger TV instead. I bought into the OLED hype but in real life I barely notice the difference and paid a hefty premium for it. Down the line I will likely replace it with a larger, more reasonably priced screen. Size over quality for me.
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
The most annoying thing to me is when some manufacturers, Samsung in particular, limit their audio output to one source. We paid over 3k 2 years ago for a Samsung 75" QLED and it had one audio output port, which is optical. I get up early and don't want to wake my wife if I want to watch TV, so I use wireless headphones that have either an RCA or optical input from the TV. I also have a sound bar with an optical input. Best Buy didn't know how to get them both to work without plugging and unplugging the connections, which was their suggestion believe it or not.hunoraut wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 7:10 pmDevil is in the detail.stoptothink wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:57 pmAre there even TVs made today that don't have those things? Our TV is 5yrs old and one of the most budget TVs there is (basic TCL) and it has all of those things.hunoraut wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:50 pm3 things I say to look for are: (1) sufficient HDMI ports if you plan on hooking many devices directly to the TV (2) HDMI-ARC if you need that feature like for advanced soundbars (3) clean and responsive user interface if you plan to using TV menu and apps [as opposed to separate tv box].
1. Most TV count 3 ports. Some of us need 3-4
2. e-ARC is new interface supporting Atmos pass through. A 5 year old TV doesnt have it.
3. Interface quality and responsiveness is very different from manufacture to manufacture.
I bought an optical splitter (from them) which solved the problem, but in my experience with optical splitters, when you split the optical signal you reduce the optical power by the number of outputs available on the splitter, so I bought one with one input but only two outputs. When I asked them if splitting the signal would affect sound quality they didn't know what I was talking about. The signal was still strong enough to not affect the audio quality because of the proximity of the units to the splitter.
That TV is now $1,000 less at the same store. Next time I'll buy a OLED.
Sony, for instance, still has multiple audio outputs, or at least they did 2 years ago.
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
This is exactly why ARC and eARC are a thing. Your audio is carried over HDMI, going out the input back to your audio device. Pretty much every TV supports this, including Samsung--the one I bought in 2014 does, as do all of their newer ones. Most sound bars made in the past decade support it too, including the Samsung I bought in 2015, and the Yamaha I bought in 2019, both of which are hooked up that way to Vizio TVs.vested1 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 3:49 am The most annoying thing to me is when some manufacturers, Samsung in particular, limit their audio output to one source. We paid over 3k 2 years ago for a Samsung 75" QLED and it had one audio output port, which is optical. I get up early and don't want to wake my wife if I want to watch TV, so I use wireless headphones that have either an RCA or optical input from the TV. I also have a sound bar with an optical input. Best Buy didn't know how to get them both to work without plugging and unplugging the connections, which was their suggestion believe it or not.
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
+1000000000
When I finally broke down and got an LG my jaw dropped. I don’t even want to go to a theater anymore.
Having said that, OLED works best in a dark room for movie watching. I wouldn’t pay the premium if its a bright room or for any secondary TVs in the house such as a small set in the den or kitchen that’s just on for casual background viewing. Also there are charts to suggest the optimum set size for your room and viewing distance, the biggest you can afford is not always optimum.
Last edited by jharkin on Thu Oct 21, 2021 6:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
Thanks, I missed out on this in the past because I didn't understand ARC, and neither did Best Buy apparently. I had the Geek Squad from Best Buy come out and install the TV on the wall support I got from them because the TV was too heavy for me, and had them hook it up as well. They didn't use the ARC port, and it's still vacant now. We'll be moving soon and I'll be sure to not make the same mistakes again. I assume all devices that use audio would have to be HDMI compatible though, including the soundbar and the headphones. Or if the soundbar had HDMI I could dedicate the optical out port of the TV for the headphones which don't have an HDMI connection, right?lazydavid wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:32 amThis is exactly why ARC and eARC are a thing. Your audio is carried over HDMI, going out the input back to your audio device. Pretty much every TV supports this, including Samsung--the one I bought in 2014 does, as do all of their newer ones. Most sound bars made in the past decade support it too, including the Samsung I bought in 2015, and the Yamaha I bought in 2019, both of which are hooked up that way to Vizio TVs.vested1 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 3:49 am The most annoying thing to me is when some manufacturers, Samsung in particular, limit their audio output to one source. We paid over 3k 2 years ago for a Samsung 75" QLED and it had one audio output port, which is optical. I get up early and don't want to wake my wife if I want to watch TV, so I use wireless headphones that have either an RCA or optical input from the TV. I also have a sound bar with an optical input. Best Buy didn't know how to get them both to work without plugging and unplugging the connections, which was their suggestion believe it or not.
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
Yes, all (which usually means "both") devices in the chain have to have HDMI, and have to support ARC over the HDMI port being used. The "input" that you select on the soundbar or receiver is usually either called ARC or "TV Sound".vested1 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 6:05 am Thanks, I missed out on this in the past because I didn't understand ARC, and neither did Best Buy apparently. I had the Geek Squad from Best Buy come out and install the TV on the wall support I got from them because the TV was too heavy for me, and had them hook it up as well. They didn't use the ARC port, and it's still vacant now. We'll be moving soon and I'll be sure to not make the same mistakes again. I assume all devices that use audio would have to be HDMI compatible though, including the soundbar and the headphones. Or if the soundbar had HDMI I could dedicate the optical out port of the TV for the headphones which don't have an HDMI connection, right?
And yes, that then frees up the optical out for your bluetooth transmitter, full time.
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
"I'm so old, I remember when owning a 32" Sony Trinitron was a big deal."
I watched the first episode of Saturday Night Live on my new expensive Trinitron. Iirc it was a 13". Everyone said the picture was amazing. I eventually moved up to a highly popular, very scarce, 19" Mitsubishi.
Now we're shopping to replace an old Bravia. I'm frequently told a 55" or 65" isn't large enough for an eyeball to screen distance of 8' 5". Oh well, we could rearrange the entire den and turn the sofa 90 degrees and have a 9' by 23' wall to hang a monster on - but we don't do theater. We just watch tv. It was easier in the old days. Read Consumer Reports and go see what's on sale.
I can get all caught up in calculating which $400 or $549 freshwater fishing reel meets all my needs, but not so much with a tv. I spent enough time working on computers from 1985 to 2012 and then I retired.
I watched the first episode of Saturday Night Live on my new expensive Trinitron. Iirc it was a 13". Everyone said the picture was amazing. I eventually moved up to a highly popular, very scarce, 19" Mitsubishi.
Now we're shopping to replace an old Bravia. I'm frequently told a 55" or 65" isn't large enough for an eyeball to screen distance of 8' 5". Oh well, we could rearrange the entire den and turn the sofa 90 degrees and have a 9' by 23' wall to hang a monster on - but we don't do theater. We just watch tv. It was easier in the old days. Read Consumer Reports and go see what's on sale.
I can get all caught up in calculating which $400 or $549 freshwater fishing reel meets all my needs, but not so much with a tv. I spent enough time working on computers from 1985 to 2012 and then I retired.
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
I remember when owning a color set instead of B&W was a big deal.anoop wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:52 pm I'm so old, I remember when owning a 32" Sony Trinitron was a big deal.
https://www.amazon.com/Sony-KV32FS12-Tr ... B00005I9QS
I haven't owned a TV since 2000.
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
protagonist wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:09 pm That was my initial thought. I'm pretty much an audiophile but I am not nearly as picky about video....I have seen OLEDs and they are quite amazing, but is the overall experience of a budget 75" TV going to be better than that of a 50-55" OLED, assuming your room is large enough?
I'm thinking of movie theaters. The wider the screen, the more immersive, the better the experience...even though a wider screen means lower resolution.
Going back to the adaptive human psychology... sometimes my 65 seems huge, and sometimes it seems normal like my 40 was. It depends on what/where I was watching last. Viewed in isolation, you really get used to what you have.
That said if you want an overall good movie watching experience:
* go with larger screen. scale differences override minute quality differences
* pair it with a good audio setup. (seems you have this covered?)
* consider the ambience of environment - lighting levels, decor
another big decision beyond QLED vs OLED vs microLED vs whatever is simply how it fits in the room. do you want it to overwhelm the space or are you fine with a tv screen as the centerpiece?
on topic of resolution, the 4k and 8k panels at standard viewing distances are simply finer than the human eye can resolve. you cannot tell a difference. and further, it will depend on your media source, but most aren't at this resolution anyway.
- TomatoTomahto
- Posts: 17100
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
Two disparate points:
If you wait for a new model year, last year’s models are usually well discounted and, although some videophiles will want the latest features, OLED is pretty mature at this stage. Split the difference: buy last year’s 65” OLED rather than this year’s 75” LCD or 55” OLED.
ARC is wonderful, but I never could quite get audio and video synced to my satisfaction until eARC on TV and audio equipment. Now I barely remember the problem.
If you wait for a new model year, last year’s models are usually well discounted and, although some videophiles will want the latest features, OLED is pretty mature at this stage. Split the difference: buy last year’s 65” OLED rather than this year’s 75” LCD or 55” OLED.
ARC is wonderful, but I never could quite get audio and video synced to my satisfaction until eARC on TV and audio equipment. Now I barely remember the problem.
I get the FI part but not the RE part of FIRE.
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
Have a 1 yr old 55" TCL Roku tv. Streaming hangs maybe once a week, the set turns itself off roughly once every 2 weeks. eARC disconnects for no known reason. All tech support could tell me was to try a reset, then a factory reset. Last time I get a smart TV, if dumb ones are still an option.
Regards |
Bob
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
I plan on getting an oled this Black Friday … gonna go for a 65 inch so won’t sacrifice size either ! I have a 11 year old led and there is nothing wrong with it other than that the apps won’t update on it anymore . I paid 1100 for it , figured I got my moneys worth and time to upgrade .
- vanbogle59
- Posts: 1314
- Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2021 7:30 pm
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
I remember THINKING we had a color TV. But we didn't.Nicolas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 7:11 amI remember when owning a color set instead of B&W was a big deal.anoop wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:52 pm I'm so old, I remember when owning a 32" Sony Trinitron was a big deal.
https://www.amazon.com/Sony-KV32FS12-Tr ... B00005I9QS
I haven't owned a TV since 2000.
I had never seen one. So I figured that's just what colors look like when they are on TV.
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
Depends on a lot of factors you haven’t mentioned. For what it’s worth, I bought my 70 yo retired parents, who watch a lot of tv (news, shows, movies, YouTube), a 65” C1 oled. It’s in a bright room smallish room and works fine and doesn’t seem to big. It replaced a 60” led 2014 Samsung. My parents keep trying to get me to take the tv and give them back the old one because the remote operation is too cumbersome for them and the operating system on the new tv is too much to navigate for their tastes. Also, my Mom says the picture is too good and doesn’t really want to see that much clarity on peoples faces, especially people her age lol.
My advice would be, try to get the remote in hand and play around with the tv. Make sure the os has all the apps you like for your shows. Don’t get less than 55”. And, to me, the oleds screen quality far outweighs the cumbersome more advanced remote control which I don’t actually think is that bad.
Also, I’ve noticed that tvs are in plentiful supply for some odd reason. I’m seeing the best deals of the year at Costco for the LG C1 series now.
My advice would be, try to get the remote in hand and play around with the tv. Make sure the os has all the apps you like for your shows. Don’t get less than 55”. And, to me, the oleds screen quality far outweighs the cumbersome more advanced remote control which I don’t actually think is that bad.
Also, I’ve noticed that tvs are in plentiful supply for some odd reason. I’m seeing the best deals of the year at Costco for the LG C1 series now.
-
- Posts: 15368
- Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 8:53 am
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
That's not actually the case https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-thea ... e-so-high/. "Budget" TVs have actually gone up in price over the past year (after going down progressively the last several), it's the higher-end TVs (like the LG C1) that are still getting cheaper.
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
Your tv does not have bluetooth? If it has, it may be easier to get a bluetooth headphone.vested1 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 3:49 amThe most annoying thing to me is when some manufacturers, Samsung in particular, limit their audio output to one source. We paid over 3k 2 years ago for a Samsung 75" QLED and it had one audio output port, which is optical. I get up early and don't want to wake my wife if I want to watch TV, so I use wireless headphones that have either an RCA or optical input from the TV. I also have a sound bar with an optical input. Best Buy didn't know how to get them both to work without plugging and unplugging the connections, which was their suggestion believe it or not.hunoraut wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 7:10 pmDevil is in the detail.stoptothink wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:57 pmAre there even TVs made today that don't have those things? Our TV is 5yrs old and one of the most budget TVs there is (basic TCL) and it has all of those things.hunoraut wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:50 pm3 things I say to look for are: (1) sufficient HDMI ports if you plan on hooking many devices directly to the TV (2) HDMI-ARC if you need that feature like for advanced soundbars (3) clean and responsive user interface if you plan to using TV menu and apps [as opposed to separate tv box].
1. Most TV count 3 ports. Some of us need 3-4
2. e-ARC is new interface supporting Atmos pass through. A 5 year old TV doesnt have it.
3. Interface quality and responsiveness is very different from manufacture to manufacture.
I bought an optical splitter (from them) which solved the problem, but in my experience with optical splitters, when you split the optical signal you reduce the optical power by the number of outputs available on the splitter, so I bought one with one input but only two outputs. When I asked them if splitting the signal would affect sound quality they didn't know what I was talking about. The signal was still strong enough to not affect the audio quality because of the proximity of the units to the splitter.
That TV is now $1,000 less at the same store. Next time I'll buy a OLED.
Sony, for instance, still has multiple audio outputs, or at least they did 2 years ago.
-
- Posts: 980
- Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:03 pm
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
Does size matter? I guess it is all who you ask but I think the important thing is that it fits where you are putting it. Motion and refresh rate are also very important. I don't know if we will ever get a consensus of what is better. Do you know anyone who has one that is too big? Personally I would go for a TV that is the best quality for the right size of where I am putting it.
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
How does an OLED do with streaming live sports ?
I have Directv and live sports are fine on my 70 inch Sharp Aquos 5 years old.
I tried Hulu live tv and the picture quality was really bad, so I stayed with Directv.
I have Directv and live sports are fine on my 70 inch Sharp Aquos 5 years old.
I tried Hulu live tv and the picture quality was really bad, so I stayed with Directv.
K.I.S.S........so easy to say so difficult to do.
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
We owned one.
Paid over $2000 in 1998(?).
Took 2 hefty guys to deliver it.
And, to haul it away.
Last edited by Bogle7 on Thu Oct 21, 2021 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Old fart who does three index stock funds, baby.
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
Pretty much impossible unless you get one branded as a display monitor e.g. for commercial use.Padlin wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 3:02 pm Have a 1 yr old 55" TCL Roku tv. Streaming hangs maybe once a week, the set turns itself off roughly once every 2 weeks. eARC disconnects for no known reason. All tech support could tell me was to try a reset, then a factory reset. Last time I get a smart TV, if dumb ones are still an option.
Software piece of the TV is now a revenue stream (serving ads, pre-installations, data collection, etc) to offset the prices of the device.
- cflannagan
- Posts: 1208
- Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 11:44 am
- Location: Working Remotely
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
And that changes the math how?brad.clarkston wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:19 pmBecause it's not just about distance it's also about eyeball height from the center of the screen which is calculated based of people setting down in a dark room.
11' / 1.6 * 12 = 82.5"
11' * 7.5 = 82.5"
Math is the same both ways.
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
I agree. The quality is so much better. I have a 55 inch that I bought for my previous home. My significant other wants to upgrade to the 77 and put the 55 in the master bedroom. Given the quality I'm seriously considering it.jharkin wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:51 am+1000000000
When I finally broke down and got an LG my jaw dropped. I don’t even want to go to a theater anymore.
Having said that, OLED works best in a dark room for movie watching. I wouldn’t pay the premium if its a bright room or for any secondary TVs in the house such as a small set in the den or kitchen that’s just on for casual background viewing. Also there are charts to suggest the optimum set size for your room and viewing distance, the biggest you can afford is not always optimum.
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
rockstar wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 7:23 pmI agree. The quality is so much better. I have a 55 inch that I bought for my previous home. My significant other wants to upgrade to the 77 and put the 55 in the master bedroom. Given the quality I'm seriously considering it.jharkin wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:51 am+1000000000
When I finally broke down and got an LG my jaw dropped. I don’t even want to go to a theater anymore.
Having said that, OLED works best in a dark room for movie watching. I wouldn’t pay the premium if its a bright room or for any secondary TVs in the house such as a small set in the den or kitchen that’s just on for casual background viewing. Also there are charts to suggest the optimum set size for your room and viewing distance, the biggest you can afford is not always optimum.
C1?
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
It wont be more accurate. It would be equally accurate.
Also if I am doing the math in my head I am faster with X*7.5 than I am with Y/1.6
If you are using a calculator it wont matter.
Ram
-
- Posts: 9242
- Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 11:47 am
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
My recollection is that those vintage-late 60s color sets had such poor image quality that I felt the b+w sets were actually a better experience, despite how much cheaper b+w was. What was a much bigger game-changer for me was the invention of the remote control. No more commercials!Nicolas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 7:11 amI remember when owning a color set instead of B&W was a big deal.anoop wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:52 pm I'm so old, I remember when owning a 32" Sony Trinitron was a big deal.
https://www.amazon.com/Sony-KV32FS12-Tr ... B00005I9QS
I haven't owned a TV since 2000.
Re: Just spend the money
That's pretty much a strawman, though: the quality differences are much more subtle than that. And are often only noticeable in certain scenes.iamlucky13 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:08 am I would generally choose quality over size. I'm not interested in filling my entire field of view with dull colors, trying to compensate for a limited color range with poor saturation, and with jerky motion.
Just I doubt you'd chose a 14" OLED for your living room over a 65" LCD/LED.
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
I suggest that if you look at TVs at a store do a test by having a dish or roku menu pulled up on the screen and be sure you can read it from your normal viewing distance. Our living room TV is too small (44") in that regard. We were trying to make the TV less over-bearing for that smallish living room. I have trouble reading some of the smaller text without wearing glasses. I prefer to lounge around without my glasses on so a larger (quality) tv would help in that case.
-
- Posts: 585
- Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2020 10:09 am
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
Yeah pretty much.iamlucky13 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:51 pm Summary of this thread:
OP - I'm trying to decide between two $700 TV's. I'm not sure I really care very much about screen quality.
Majority of the responses - Look how great the screen quality is on TV's that start at twice the price of the sets you're considering!
--
Personally, if I were replacing my plasma TV, I'm sure I'd be looking seriously at OLED's, but I know plenty of people who have long been satisfied with LCD screens, and LCD's have gotten a lot better over the last decade, yet there are still meaningful differences between entry level, mid, and top-end LCD screens for the OP to consider.
I have AirBnB's and we get the TCL TV's when they are on sale. They are pretty much a disposable TV in our mind (based solely on TV technology emerging so fast) but when we can buy a 65" smart TV on sale from WalMart for $400 and get good reviews from guests I'd say it's pretty good.
(should go on sale soon)
https://www.walmart.com/ip/TCL-65-Class ... lsrc=aw.ds
-
- Posts: 3512
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 4:28 pm
- Location: Western Washington
Re: Just spend the money
I have to observe that when I said "I would generally choose..." you brought up an example of a screen size that is now extremely difficult to find, and certainly was not in or close to the range of options the original poster mentioned. A strawman was indeed raised, but it wasn't by me.LunarOpal wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:23 amThat's pretty much a strawman, though: the quality differences are much more subtle than that. And are often only noticeable in certain scenes.iamlucky13 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:08 am I would generally choose quality over size. I'm not interested in filling my entire field of view with dull colors, trying to compensate for a limited color range with poor saturation, and with jerky motion.
Just I doubt you'd chose a 14" OLED for your living room over a 65" LCD/LED.
I mentioned my preference only, but the OP did ask for the perspectives of the group for their consideration. I know what size TV I have currently, and roughly how it compares to what I see elsewhere (friends and family, restaurants and bars, vacation rentals, etc). Some of us are more apt to notice these kinds of differences than others. Admittedly, there's no objective benefit to the inclination to be more picky about screen quality. It's just that seeing more lifelike colors and contrast, and smoother motion immerses me more effectively than screen size does.
I stated in that same post there is no specific right size for everyone. I also commented in another post in this thread to the effect that a lot of users are perfectly satisfied with screens that I probably would not be. Maybe I could have worded my original post to more neutrally convey my priorities, but it was not intended to suggest my priorities are the only right ones.
I'm not in the market for a new TV, but if I were, from what I see available, I suspect I'd personally end up spending in the rough ballpark of $1500 on a 55" OLED, or a bit less on one of the top LCD models. If my budget were more limited and I were looking at the two TV's the OP mentioned, the 6 series would definitely be my preference.
- Will do good
- Posts: 1138
- Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:23 pm
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
+1, I think most OLED TV on display is over sharpen and over saturated. Look at the screen and look around you in the real world. The TV screen is too artificial for my trained eye. I art direct and and shoot for Fortune 500 clients.Watty wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:30 am One thing to watch out for is that when you watch TV there is a lot of "hedonic adaptation" that goes on and most people quickly get used to whatever picture size and quality you have. What seems like a dramatic difference in the showroom, or brand new TV, when you look at the pictures side by side will likely be forgotten and unnoticed once you have your new TV for a week unless you have a specific problem like glare.
A year or two ago I was copying some old VHS tapes I was amazed at just how bad the picture quality was when my face was near the large computer screen that I was using. One of my thoughts was "How did we ever sit and watch that?". The main thing was that we were watching it on relatively small TVs from 10+ feet away so the quality was not a noticable and that is what we were used to. I think that the last TV I have before I got a flat screen TV was something like 26 inches which would seem tiny today.
That is not to say that a very small percentage of people might be videophiles where subtle differences are important to them but if you were a videophile then you would likely be asking questions like this on videophile forums.
For someone asking on the Boglehead forum I think that size, but not too large, is the most important factor. That would also allow you to spend the money saved by not buying an OLED on something you would enjoy more.
+1
I am an amature photographer and often when I see the OLED's in demo mode at a store I sometimes almost gag because the color is so oversaturated and the pictures are oversharpened and unnatural. That does really make the picture pop out but it is not something that appeals to me.
Many cell phones intentionally oversaturate the colors and over sharpen in photos by default so they will stand out on social media so maybe that is becoming the new standard that people expect to see.
-
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:52 pm
Re: TV: Size vs. quality?
I am looking at replacing the 55" 1080p TV in our Master Bedroom and have been looking at a 4K OLED and Neo QLED (it uses mini-LED tech). I have seen OLED TV's and they look great, I have not had the chance to see the NEO LED tv's yet to compare. I read that OLED still has the truest blacks but that the NEO QLED will be brighter. My big concern with OLED is burn in on the screen as we keep out Tv's for quite a while. Has anyone had lots of issues with burn in?
As far as the size debate, like a few other have said it depends on the room and what you want. In our living room we have a 65" TV because we do not want it to dominate and be the focal point of the room. My sister and brother in-laws have an 85" TV in their living room and it just dominates the room, all you notice is the TV. I personally don't want to walk into my living room and only notice the TV. I keep the larger TV in the game room.
As far as the size debate, like a few other have said it depends on the room and what you want. In our living room we have a 65" TV because we do not want it to dominate and be the focal point of the room. My sister and brother in-laws have an 85" TV in their living room and it just dominates the room, all you notice is the TV. I personally don't want to walk into my living room and only notice the TV. I keep the larger TV in the game room.