MR

I want your opinions on what the best brand and model of TV is that I could buy right now for no more than $500

I want a flat-screen high definition TV. Brand new, of course.

Is $500 the absolute highest you can go? I'm not a TV-phile, but I do know that there are plenty of GREAT, big tvs that are around the $800-900 mark.

Just go into Sams or even Best Buy and look for a 1080p TV around 42", you can easily find them for less than $500. Brand-wise, I can't help you there but you can make your own judgement on picture quality right there in the showroom.

Don't buy anything other than Samsung...

Ehwmatt wrote:Is $500 the absolute highest you can go? I'm not a TV-phile, but I do know that there are plenty of GREAT, big tvs that are around the $800-900 mark.

Yes, unfortunately, I can't go above $500.

I had already been thinking of buying a new TV sometime soon. But then, last night, my best TV died. I have other TV's, but their only 20'' screens. I had hoped to be able to get a 60 or 70 inch screen down the road. Now I think I'll have to settle for a 42'' screen so I can buy one in the next few days? Figures that right after I finally bought a Blu-Ray player, that my best TV dies.

Jeremey wrote:Just go into Sams or even Best Buy and look for a 1080p TV around 42", you can easily find them for less than $500. Brand-wise, I can't help you there but you can make your own judgement on picture quality right there in the showroom.

Thanks.

My brother and his wife have a membership at one of those Sams Club type places. I might see if I can give them the money and have them purchase one for me?

S2M wrote:Don't buy anything other than Samsung...

Samsung rocks, but so does Panasonic.

For that matter I have a Mitsubishi unison 55" with a built in surround bar that rocks.

But Samsung is great recommendation. Under $500 though as the poster requested - probably not getting 1080p unless it's a pretty small screen.

S2M wrote:Don't buy anything other than Samsung...

My brother bought a 60'' (I think) Samsung about six months ago.

Is there any particular reason that you suggest Samsung?

Journey/Survivor wrote:

S2M wrote:Don't buy anything other than Samsung...

My brother bought a 60'' (I think) Samsung about six months ago.

Is there any particular reason that you suggest Samsung?

They are simply cutting edge, and a great TV. Sony is too expensive...NEVER ever buy Vizio.

S2M wrote:

Journey/Survivor wrote:

S2M wrote:Don't buy anything other than Samsung...

My brother bought a 60'' (I think) Samsung about six months ago.

Is there any particular reason that you suggest Samsung?

They are simply cutting edge, and a great TV. Sony is too expensive...NEVER ever buy Vizio.

My TV that just died is a Sony. But yeah, I agree their too expensive, and I was not planning on getting one this time around.

If you can get LED instead of regular LCD, go for it.

+1 Samsung.

I did the research and end up with one.

S2M wrote:

Journey/Survivor wrote:

S2M wrote:Don't buy anything other than Samsung...

My brother bought a 60'' (I think) Samsung about six months ago.

Is there any particular reason that you suggest Samsung?

They are simply cutting edge, and a great TV. Sony is too expensive...NEVER ever buy Vizio.

We have a Vizio. Not the greatest TV in the world but not bad, either. We did some research before purchasing and the model we ended up buying got fairly good reviews and ratings.

Samsung is a great tv brand but a 42 inch Samsung will most likely go for more than 500 bucks(i dont know if a plasma would be that cheap, if its samsung)
I have several tvs, one is a Vizio and i wouldn't get another one(its okay but most other brands are better). You might want to look into an LG, I purchased a 32 inch 1080 p tv last yr to use as my computer monitor for $315 and I am quite impressed with it, especially for the price. You should be able to get a 42inch for less than $500 if i was able to get a 32inch for $315 shipped to my door.

S2M wrote:Don't buy anything other than Samsung...

Dopey advice. Not so much that Samsung doesn't make quality TV's, because they do. Heck, I just bought an awesome Samsung refrigerator with built in wi-fi that is awesome, but suggesting that Samsung is the only brand that should be considered is foolish. Panasonic makes the best plasmas ever made, in my opinion, and I am a bit of a home theater enthusiast and own many flat screen tv's (I have a 100 inch theater in my home and a 65 inch Panasonic 3D plasma). Incidentally, the 64 inch Samsung plasma would have cost me less money, but I believed the Pansonic had the better picture. As far as your budget, Vizio makes some really quality TV's (for their price range) and makes some of the better LCD's on the market. Again, they are a "bargain brand", but their quality is superb for their price range, and if you have a Costco membership, you can get really great prices.

Journey/Survivor wrote:Yes, unfortunately, I can't go above $500.

If $500.00 is your max budget, you can get a 42 inch Panasonic plasma at Costco for about that price and it's probably the nicest display you'll find in that price range. That said, it won't be 1080p and it's not LCD, so if those things are critical to you, it's going to be a bit more of a challenge. The one thing I'll tell you about 1080p is that telling the difference between 1080p and 720p is difficult for many. Discerning the difference between 1080p and 1080i and virtually impossible for most. There isn't a thing that I know of even broadcast in 1080p, but all blu-rays are and some video games are. Again, unless you're the biggest videophile on the planet, it's unlikely that your eyes would be able to discern the difference.

Enigma869 wrote:

Journey/Survivor wrote:Yes, unfortunately, I can't go above $500.

If $500.00 is your max budget, you can get a 42 inch Panasonic plasma at Costco for about that price and it's probably the nicest display you'll find in that price range. That said, it won't be 1080p and it's not LCD, so if those things are critical to you, it's going to be a bit more of a challenge. The one thing I'll tell you about 1080p is that telling the difference between 1080p and 720p is difficult for many. Discerning the difference between 1080p and 1080i and virtually impossible for most. There isn't a thing that I know of even broadcast in 1080p, but all blu-rays are and some video games are. Again, unless you're the biggest videophile on the planet, it's unlikely that your eyes would be able to discern the difference.

Last I read is that 1080p is not necessary for a TV under 47 inch, or something around that. There is no real difference in the quality of display on the 'smaller' TV's between 1080p and 720p. That is why so many are not 1080p.

Enigma869 wrote:

Journey/Survivor wrote:Yes, unfortunately, I can't go above $500.

If $500.00 is your max budget, you can get a 42 inch Panasonic plasma at Costco for about that price and it's probably the nicest display you'll find in that price range. That said, it won't be 1080p and it's not LCD, so if those things are critical to you, it's going to be a bit more of a challenge. The one thing I'll tell you about 1080p is that telling the difference between 1080p and 720p is difficult for many. Discerning the difference between 1080p and 1080i and virtually impossible for most. There isn't a thing that I know of even broadcast in 1080p, but all blu-rays are and some video games are. Again, unless you're the biggest videophile on the planet, it's unlikely that your eyes would be able to discern the difference.

I can really only tell the difference between 1080p and 720p when I A/B them on different TVs within minutes of each other on something that really shines in HD: a football game, cutting edge Blu-Ray movie, etc.

Ehwmatt wrote:I can really only tell the difference between 1080p and 720p when I A/B them on different TVs within minutes of each other on something that really shines in HD: a football game

As an FYI, there aren't any football games that are broadcast in 1080p. FOX broadcast their games in 720p (progressive scan), while CBS and most of the other networks broadcast in 1080i (interlaced scan).

Enigma869 wrote:

Ehwmatt wrote:I can really only tell the difference between 1080p and 720p when I A/B them on different TVs within minutes of each other on something that really shines in HD: a football game

As an FYI, there aren't any football games that are broadcast in 1080p. FOX broadcast their games in 720p (progressive scan), while CBS and most of the other networks broadcast in 1080i (interlaced scan).

True, true. I knew that. Don't know what I was thinking.

Here's another question for all of you...


Which do you think is better between Plasma and LCD? And why do you think that one is better than the other?


I read online articles on both Crutchfield's website and Cnet's website about the differences between LCD screens and Plasma screens.

After reading those articles, it appears to me that a Plasma would probably be the better choice for me.

Which do you think is better, and why?

Journey/Survivor wrote:Here's another question for all of you...


Which do you think is better between Plasma and LCD? And why do you think that one is better than the other?


I read online articles on both Crutchfield's website and Cnet's website about the differences between LCD screens and Plasma screens.

After reading those articles, it appears to me that a Plasma would probably be the better choice for me.

Which do you think is better, and why?

A friend of mine has an LED screen and it is hard to watch sometimes. The plasma has a warmer screen and doesn't seem to have blinding bright spots.
Personally, I recently bought a 51" plasma 1080p from Best Buy. It's their house brand and I'm not sure who makes it, but for $649 and a 2 year warranty,
I figured I could go throw it in the trash after that, if it doesn't work out. The performance, so far, has been stunning. As for LCD, well, I just don't feel the
technology is capable of delivering as sharp of a picture as the plasma. We own one of those too and when we compare the LCD to our plasma, well there
is just no comparison. BTW, Best Buy's house brand is Ensign. They have deals all the time. Watch your newspaper and check their website.

Journey/Survivor wrote:Here's another question for all of you...


Which do you think is better between Plasma and LCD? And why do you think that one is better than the other?


I read online articles on both Crutchfield's website and Cnet's website about the differences between LCD screens and Plasma screens.

After reading those articles, it appears to me that a Plasma would probably be the better choice for me.

Which do you think is better, and why?

This question is probably the most asked question, ever when it comes to TV's. Most who answer the question have an agenda (i.e. they own one or the other). I've owned many LCD's and plasmas and still do. In terms of picture quality, it's really not that close. Plasma is a slam-dunk winner. Uneducated people (about plasmas) claim that you have to worry about "burn-in" on plasmas. That really hasn't been much of an issue on plasmas in many, many years. I will say that if you have sunlight shining directly on your TV screen, LCD would probably be a better choice, because you get much less glare with LCD displays. That said, it's the only category LCD's win in...in my opinion. The other real issue with LCD's is that many of them suffer awful "motion blur". This is a huge issue if you watch a lot of sports and can be frustrating to watch. The only other real issue is that if you're looking for a display below 42 inches, you're forced into LCD's, because plasmas don't come any smaller than that. Panasonic used to make a 37" plasma, but I believe they discontinued that model. Plasmas also have FAR superior black levels, which is quite noticeable in many movie scenes. LCD's are brighter, but for me, it's an artificial enhancement, and throws off the natural colors that you get on a plasma display.

Enigma869 wrote:

Journey/Survivor wrote:Here's another question for all of you...


Which do you think is better between Plasma and LCD? And why do you think that one is better than the other?


I read online articles on both Crutchfield's website and Cnet's website about the differences between LCD screens and Plasma screens.

After reading those articles, it appears to me that a Plasma would probably be the better choice for me.

Which do you think is better, and why?

This question is probably the most asked question, ever when it comes to TV's. Most who answer the question have an agenda (i.e. they own one or the other). I've owned many LCD's and plasmas and still do. In terms of picture quality, it's really not that close. Plasma is a slam-dunk winner. Uneducated people (about plasmas) claim that you have to worry about "burn-in" on plasmas. That really hasn't been much of an issue on plasmas in many, many years. I will say that if you have sunlight shining directly on your TV screen, LCD would probably be a better choice, because you get much less glare with LCD displays. That said, it's the only category LCD's win in...in my opinion. The other real issue with LCD's is that many of them suffer awful "motion blur". This is a huge issue if you watch a lot of sports and can be frustrating to watch. The only other real issue is that if you're looking for a display below 42 inches, you're forced into LCD's, because plasmas don't come any smaller than that. Panasonic used to make a 37" plasma, but I believe they discontinued that model. Plasmas also have FAR superior black levels, which is quite noticeable in many movie scenes. LCD's are brighter, but for me, it's an artificial enhancement, and throws off the natural colors that you get on a plasma display.

I 100% agree. Plasma all the way. I've got both kinds, too. No problems with burn-in on my plasma in 2.5 years, and I play videogames and watch plenty of sports with fixed scoreboards and what not.

My dad just got a very nice 60" Samsung LED a month ago. It looks fantastic, but even the LEDs haven't fixed the motion blur issue. It really does bother me even though the picture is otherwise fantastic. Very distracting.

Enigma869 wrote:

S2M wrote:Don't buy anything other than Samsung...

Heck, I just bought an awesome Samsung refrigerator with built in wi-fi that is awesome, but...

Ok you gotta explain that...what in the world are you using Wifi on your fridge for? Monitoring it's temperature?

brandonx76 wrote:[Ok you gotta explain that...what in the world are you using Wifi on your fridge for? Monitoring it's temperature?

Actually, the wi-fi is for the built in apps, such as Pandora, Twitter, Epicurious (recipe book), Weather, photo album etc. I'm a bit of a gadget freak and often feel compelled to buy really cool shit. It's probably a whole lot of uneccessary stuff for a refrigerator, that said, it's 29 cubic feet with all led lighting, so beyond the touchscreen and cool apps, is a really cool (and functional) refrigerator. It also has an electronic memo pad if I feel like leaving my wife an "inappropriate" note

Hitachi plasmas can usually be had for 500 bucks, if you shop around.

I thought 'motion blur' comes from lower refresh rates, no? I've got an older JVC (that still performs great!), but it's 60hz. I've seen some 120hz, and new units are 240hz. I can certainly tell the different in motion there.


later~

Enigma869 wrote:

Journey/Survivor wrote:Here's another question for all of you...


Which do you think is better between Plasma and LCD? And why do you think that one is better than the other?


I read online articles on both Crutchfield's website and Cnet's website about the differences between LCD screens and Plasma screens.

After reading those articles, it appears to me that a Plasma would probably be the better choice for me.

Which do you think is better, and why?

This question is probably the most asked question, ever when it comes to TV's. Most who answer the question have an agenda (i.e. they own one or the other). I've owned many LCD's and plasmas and still do. In terms of picture quality, it's really not that close. Plasma is a slam-dunk winner. Uneducated people (about plasmas) claim that you have to worry about "burn-in" on plasmas. That really hasn't been much of an issue on plasmas in many, many years. I will say that if you have sunlight shining directly on your TV screen, LCD would probably be a better choice, because you get much less glare with LCD displays. That said, it's the only category LCD's win in...in my opinion. The other real issue with LCD's is that many of them suffer awful "motion blur". This is a huge issue if you watch a lot of sports and can be frustrating to watch. The only other real issue is that if you're looking for a display below 42 inches, you're forced into LCD's, because plasmas don't come any smaller than that. Panasonic used to make a 37" plasma, but I believe they discontinued that model. Plasmas also have FAR superior black levels, which is quite noticeable in many movie scenes. LCD's are brighter, but for me, it's an artificial enhancement, and throws off the natural colors that you get on a plasma display.

What you said there goes along with what I read on Crutchfield and Cnet.

I especially want a clear picture for sports and movies, and they say that the Plasma has a clearer picture for fast motion.

They also said that Plasma's that have been made in the last year or two don't have much of a problem anymore with burn-in.

Thanks!

Arkansas wrote:I thought 'motion blur' comes from lower refresh rates, no? I've got an older JVC (that still performs great!), but it's 60hz. I've seen some 120hz, and new units are 240hz. I can certainly tell the different in motion there.


later~

In my opinion, refresh rates are VASTLY overrated. I recently purchased a 60 inch Sharp LCD with a 240hz refresh rate and the motion blur on the TV was AWFUL. It was actually quite distracting to really watch anything. Heck, my wife even noticed it and she's usually oblivious to such things. Needless to say, the TV was returned for a full refund.