I'm in the UK, and I'm looking to buy a new TV, as my old 28" CRT SDTV is on its last legs. But I do have a rather limited budget of around £400-£450. This is what I'm looking for:

LED v LCD - Having looked online for comparisons between the two, there seem to be quite a few differences. So I just wonder if maybe the best thing would be to go into a high street store and look at both, and decide which I like best?

Screen size - I'd like to go for 37-40", ideally 40". But of course at my budget, the 40" TV's tend to be "budget" TV's. So I'd be interested in knowing what that actually means.

Video specs - Definitely HD. Ideally 1080p HD, as I would really like to be able to connect my PC to my TV, so that I could stream the internet program Eurosport Player to my TV. So that would also mean it would need a decent video input for connecting my PC.

Sound - Sound isn't really a problem, anything reasonable through the TV speakers would do. I have a surround-sound system setup, so for DVD's and games I wouldn't have the sound coming from the TV speakers anyway.

Usage - The TV will be used a lot, for general TV programmes (I have an HD Freeview box), but I also watch a fair few programmes and films on DVD, and I also play a lot of games. So whatever the screen size is, I would really like the TV to be able to handle games, including high-action stuff etc. Does this mean I need a high Hz level? this Richer Sounds TV has "Tur Motion" 100Hz:

http://www.richersounds.com/product/...30t/lg-42lk530

I don't know if there's anything else I can think of, feature-wise.

The only two retailers I would look at are John Lewis (excellent service, and a 5-year guarantee), and Richer Sounds (very low prices), with John Lewis being the preference.

Richer Sounds have quite a few 37" / 40" TV's (ten) ranging from £300-£450, so there's a lot of choice there. But a 5-year guarantee costs extra.

John Lewis' prices do seem to be higher - all of their cheapest 40" 1080p HDTV's (£369-£499) seem to include Freeview, which is a shame because I don't really need it. They do have a price promise, although when talking about matching competitor's prices they do say "as long as their service conditions are comparable, such as delivery charges and guarantee terms". Richer have free delivery, but no 5-year garuantee without paying extra, so I don't know if John Lewis would consider those terms comparable or not.

LED is LCD, the LED refers to how the display is backlit.

All displays are HD, meaning, all displays will display a HD signal, resolutions range from 720-1080. But you seem to know what resolution you are after, just make sure the set has 1920x1080 resolution and accepts a progressive signal, some advertising can be misleading.

Don't think you will find a display that does not include Freeview.

For the screen size you want you have two technologies to choose from, LCD or plasma. Have look at both, personally for me I would have a look at plasma, basically because you will be playing games, IMO plasma handles fast motion better than LCD.

Sound wise the audio is pretty poor so you'll be glad you invested in an external sound system.

Both retailers you have mentioned get mentioned here a lot, rarely do they get bad things said about them.

Can only recommend you view the displays in person, take a demo disc with you, any store who is interested in the customer will spend time hooking up equipment so you can evaluate the ones you are interested in.

If you can up your budget by a few quid I would seriously look at the Panasonic 42" plasma, also from Richer Sounds.

http://www.richersounds.com/product/.../pana-txp42g30

i would urge you to test the sound before you buy. if you do intend to use the tv speakers at all. some of them are truly awful. you wont believe me until you hear them but i have a modern samsung where the sound is noticeably worse than the 14" portable i had in the kitchen.

be wary of large discounts. don't assume it means better value. they will often be older technology. last year's £600 tv down to £400 is probably no better than this years £400 tv.

the other thing i would say is don't get too hung up on it. there are subtle differences in the picture but they are more similar than they are different. and you can only watch the tv you have. you're not going to go around you friends house and remember what something looked like on your tv and think you wish you'd bought a different one at the same price point.

As far as brands go, Panasonic is generally excellent, as too is Sony. You pay a bit more but get the best picture quality per £ and the best reliability too. You might think that reliability isn't so important if you have the backup of an extended warranty. But when you're looking at an empty space where the TV should be..... you get the idea.

Panasonic TX-P42ST30 is £549 at JLP with their 5 year warranty. The TV has just won Best Buy awards from What Hi-Fi Sound & Vision's group test against the other major brands, and a Recommended from HDTV Test which is a very good testament to the quality. If you can stretch to it then it makes a very good choice.

Samsung and LG are cheaper and/or have more toys but the trade off is in picture quality and reliability. Samsungs aren't too expensive to repair but LGs can be very costly. In other words you'll make a small saving at purchase, but end up buying new again much sooner or giving a repair man a lot more than you saved to fix the TV. I know this because I arrange for TVs to be repaired. Depending on the fault the average Samsung out-of-warranty repair is £100~£150 plus transport. Factor something in too for your own inconvenience being without the main TV. LG you'd rarely get change from £200 because the parts are that much more expensive.

Picture quality - the difference is not subtle. Part of your extra money on Sony or Panasonic goes in to far far better video processing. This makes a huge difference. Cheaper brands might be bright and colourful, but the pictures don't look real. That's the acid test.

As for not wanting/needing a Freeview tuner it's an unrealistic request. All TVs sold in the UK must have a way of receiving terrestrial TV signals otherwise they can't be sold as TVs. Anyway, it would cost more to buy a monitor because of the economies of scale.

Sound: LED rubbish, LCD better. Thicker chassis mean slightly more room for beefier speakers. Once again Sony and Pana show the way it should be done.

Thanks for the advice everyone.

So I'm looking at a Richer LG TV (£400), a Richer Panasonic TV (£480), and a JLP Panasonic TV (£550):

http://www.richersounds.com/product/...30t/lg-42lk530

http://www.richersounds.com/product/.../pana-txp42g30

http://www.johnlewis.com/231263086/P...ce=63258&tid=1

I've gone through all the specs of both the Richer Sounds offerings, and I can see very little difference between them in terms of specs. Although I've just noticed that the LG is 100Hz, and the Panasonics are both 600Hz, which sounds like a big difference.

Also, the Richer Sounds LG says it has a "PC input", but no DLNA (whatever that is), and the Richer sounds Panasonic has no PC input, but does have DLNA, and the JLP Panasonic has no DLNA. I don't know how that would work out for me wanting to stream live internet to the TV? Could I use PC-to-HDMI if I went for the JLP Panasonic?

I definitely agree with you on brands. Sony is the holy grail for electricals as far as I'm concerned, but obviously that quality comes at a price. And I've always been happy with Panasonic. As it happens, I have LG DVD recorder (bought from Richer Sounds with an extended guarantee), and it's given me so much trouble, having to be replaced a few times, and it still isn't in ideal condition. So I am wary of LG.

I'm not actually too bothered about 3D (which the JLP Panasonic seems to have), but then I suppose it could be fun with future DVD releases. And even if I did get the Richer Panasonic, I really would want to get the extended warranty, which would mean £520 total, which is only £30 short of the JLP TV anyway.

Do you think if I showed them a link showing it slightly cheaper elsewhere e.g. Dixons:

http://www.dixons.co.uk/gbuk/panason...ltpwx&istBid=t

that they might match it? The only problem is Dixons only offer a 1-year guarantee, so no doubt JLP would say that that wouldn't match their service. Which it wouldn't to be fair!

The Panasonic is just 100Hz the same as the LG, the 600Hz is an advertising scam and refers to something completely different.


There's little to chose between the two, Sony are usually rated as number one, and Panasonic as number two - but I'd say there's no appreciable difference either way.

I'm just looking at a review for the JLP TV, and it says:

"Sadly, though, despite the presence of the Ethernet port, this model doesn’t support any network streaming, so you can’t stream files from PCs or DLNA servers across a network. "

Does this mean that I wouldn't be able to stream the Eurosport Player from my PC to the TV? It seems strange that I wouldn't be able to do that. After all, like the quote says, it have an Ethernet port, and it also has HDMI inputs, so couldn't it be used as a monitor while the PC was playing the Eurosport Player?

If I'm going as far as £550, then I could get the £500 Sony one from Richer (plus £50 extended warranty), which seems to have more features than the Panasonic, and definitely has DLNA and PC input too.

If I was going to spend the same amount at either store, I would prefer JLP, but it would all depend on this HDMI thing with the JLP Panasonic.

If your PC has HDMI output then yes, just connect the PC to one of the TV's HDMI inputs.

You can also use VGA and component, providing both devices carry these connections.

Ok, fair enough. So could someone please tell me what the difference is between streaming your PC to the TV via DLNA, and using your TV as a PC monitor through HDMI? Is there a difference?

Meanwhile, I'm off into to town to look at these various TV's, so I can hopefully form some kind of opinion.

I wouldn't think there is a difference in respect of viewing streamed content, though there could be content that won't be playable over DNLA/TV where it would on a PC/TV. I suppose the main difference is you can access all the PC's software/hardware when using the TV as a monitor.

ethernet (RJ45/LAN) socket on a tv is for that tv's own built in Online services - cut down software (more like mobile phone app technology on a product specific processsor like the Intel Atom) to provide specific Online services like LoveFilm or BBC iPlayer. Handy though for firmware updates and fixes too. Some tv's have the connection but not onboard software to make use of it.

HDMI.
Just connect the PC and use the tv as a monitor. The PC is making the connection to the internet and services on it via its own connection to the router etc (just as normal operation), but with the video and audio sent via HDMI to the tv. Anything you can display on the PC can also been seen on the tv. Many tv's have various menu settings to adjust their pictures to suit the kind of thing the PC is sending to the tv, for example, my tv has "VIDEO" and "TEXT" mode. One being better for Youtube video etc while the other is better for MS Word type stuff. You might find though that like my tv, these settings are not on the menu until you connect the PC to the HDMI (settings are device sensitive).

So I went to Richer.

I've decided that I definitely want LCD over Plasma (I don't like the sound of images being temporarily burned in), and I'm not bothered about LED backlighting, because the main advantage seems to be a thinner set, and I'm coming down from a CRT, so that's not exactly a problem.

I'm not bothered about DLNA - I would much rather just use the TV as a monitor through HDMI.

100Hz is really important, for high-motion stuff.

42" would be great. I even saw 47", but my flat is fairly small anyway, so I'm not sure if 47" would be sensible, as good as it looks in the store.

There are also 3D sets of course, in the same price range, and passive 3D (cheaper glasses) has been recommended ahead of active (more expensive glasses, flickering can cause headaches etc). Does anyone know what the 3D situation is in terms of emerging technology (I know nothing about it)? Will there be/are there 3D DVD/Blu Ray discs? And would I need a special 3D player? And does anyone know what the future of 3D gaming is? I'm guessing the next generation of Xbox 360 might incorporate 3D? Whatever happens, all of this kit would be expensive, and I don't normally have hundreds of pounds to spend, which makes me wonder if I should avoid 3D.

there are special Blue ray discs for 3D and you also need a 3D Blue ray player to play them. Look for blue ray players with the 3D logo on them - they dont cost the earth, and can still be used to play regular 2D blue ray and dvd discs.

As for screen size, you are right to be concerned.....reproduction of SD manterial on large screens is ify at best. SD pictures were never intended to be shown on displays that are 40in or above. I do know of some people who have a 62in LCD, but only have a small house with a small sitting room. SD pictures on it are quite poor - way below what you used to get on even the biggest CRT (32in), due to them sitting so close to the screen - problem is they cant sit any further away! And HD reception be it via internal freeviewHD or external HD box (freeviewHD, FreesatHD, CableHD, SkyHD) only provides selctive channels in HD.....most things are still broadcast in SD.
...........DVD is also SD, but the picture is usually far better than SD tv channels as with broadcast the channel owners have to "rent" space on the service, so by using more and more compression they save space which can either mean they can simply rent less space (cost saving) or use that space for extra channels at no extra rental cost. DVD doesnt suffer from this, so works quite well even on big LCDs.

If you want to watch Sports Tonight on Freeview Channel Number 112 then you need to check this list to see if the TV you are buying is compatible

www.visiontvnetwork.co.uk/home/devices

The Panasonic TV mentioned in Post 2 is compatible, but you cannot plug your PC into it

I tend to only have the TV on in the background anyway for everyday TV programmes. Usually when I give the TV my full attention it will be when I'm watching a DVD boxset or a film, or playing an Xbox 360 game. And I'm sure that all of those would look great on a 42" screen, even in a smallish room. So I'm sure that'll be ok.

I'm not too bothered about the Sports Tonight thing. I think it's more important to have the HDMI so I can use it as a PC monitor.

At the moment I do seem to be leaning towards the 42" LG:

http://www.richersounds.com/product/...30t/lg-42lk530

I would have loved to have gone for a Sony equivalent, but it's only available in a few stores now:

http://www.richersounds.com/product/...ony-kdl40ex503

The Sony's and Panasonics really do seem to add an extra couple of hundred pounds, and I also need to buy a new PC with my limited budget, so I really couldn't justify spending that much extra for a "better" brand name, and then spending quite a lot less on the PC.

I had a look at the other websites of the various stores I don't like (PC World, Currys etc), and it was no surprise that the equivalent TV's are more expensive there. There is one exception, but it seems a bit too cheap to me, and it's a Logik, who's reputation in TV's I have no idea about:

http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/logik-...74077-pdt.html

It's also 50Hz, and that £400 Richer Sounds LG is 100Hz. Not that I really have a way of comparing 50Hz with 100Hz, but I'm assuming it would be noticeable during fast motion?

I would suggest you actually try comparing them, you'll probably find the better quality 50Hz is better on fast action (and everything else) then the cheaper 100Hz.

It really makes far less difference than the manufacturers would try and make you believe.

I'm not too keen on the Logik TV now, having read this:

"Unfortunately the Logik L423ED11 is a heck of a lot less comfortable with any other sort of footage - as in, anything that's standard definition and/or mostly dark. With standard definition the TV set's upscaling processing doesn't do a great job of either adding sharpness to the source or suppressing any noise it might contain. It's also notable that colours tend to suffer with more 'offish' tones than you get during HD viewing.

The Logik L423ED11's biggest single problem, though, is without doubt its total inability to produce anything approaching a convincing black colour. Dark scenes instead look like they're appearing through a grey fog, making it hard to see what's going on at times, and making dark colours look routinely unnatural.

There's practically no shadow detail to be seen either, making dark scenes feel flat and empty and thus startlingly different to any bright scenes that might appear either side of them."

Which leaves me with the LG42LK530T for £450, which includes the Richer sounds extended warranty. It seems to get generally good reviews.

Thanks for the advice everyone

All TVs have at least one HDMI Socket, Panasonic TVs have FOUR plus the Sports Tonight TV Channel

So you do not need to worry about HDMI Sockets on the newer type HD TVs

You need to make sure that there is at least one HDMI socket on the PC to be able to connect it to your TV

Entirely agree there is no comparison with speakers on a CRT set and an LED set (the better an old CRT set the worse things are when moving up). Having just upgraded from Sony to Sony I feel that a soundbar is near to the top of an optional extra unless you have an external system. The days of relying on the TV to do a decent job are pretty much over

As it's Dixons Groups own brand name put on cheap crap (along with Matsui) you shouldn't be too keen

Yeah too true! I really don't like the likes of PC World, Dixons etc. And it was always going to be too good to be true.

I'm actually now considering next LG model down, which is £50 cheaper, but which doesn't have a built-in Freeview box (I have my own HD Freeview box that I'm really happy with anyway):

http://www.richersounds.com/product/...50u/lg-42lk450

The only other difference, which I was concernered about, is that it's 50Hz instead of 100Hz on the other model. But this review seems to think that it's not really a problem:

http://www.whichelectronics.co.uk/lg...50u-tv-review/

"The only major downside to the 42LK450U is a below average refresh rate, which may make the picture blurry during intense motion scenes. However, unless you plan on spending a lot of time on sports or intense action games, you will probably find the affect of the 50Hz refresh to be barely noticeable."

I suppose I would have to take an intense-action DVD film into Richer and try it out on both TV's.

Personal I now - but after having a 42" LG Plasma, a Panny 42" plasma and a Panny 32" LCD (and spending a LOT of time A/Bing in store and checking reviews( I would take Panosonic every time over LG - and twice on Sundays.

Id also take Palsma over LCD for picture quality. forget about "picture burn". Its an old problem from first Generation sets. Pretty much all plasmas have technology to prevent burn now. Your MUCH more likely to get a dead LCD pixel than screen burn on a plasma.

Basic rule (for quality/relism of picture) - anything under 40" get LCD/LED - andthing 40" and over go plasma. Thats basically cos plasmas arnt available under 40" - and while SOME LCD sets are getting close to Plasma p[icture quality, its pretty much confined to Sont and Pannosonics "A" list of sets at present - which means £1k ish and over.

It's nearly two years since I read a load of reviews before buying an LCD TV.

One thing I remember was that Samsung tended to generally come out just below the top rated models (always Panasonic and Sony).

However, when you read the text report, they usually said something along the lines of: the picture quality is very good, but it's let down by sound quality.

Obviously, things might have changed in the last two years, but it might be worth looking at reviews of current Samsung models. Then add on the cost of speakers or sound bar. Or dropping to 32inch, since you refer to a 'smallish' room.

In my case, I settled on a Sony 32inch Bravia model. The sound isn't perfect - I often have to go to subtitles during american films.

Sound is pretty terrible on ALL modern flat screen TVs - even the most expensive.

You really need to consider the TV for picture and get a seperate sound system - even if you spend less on the TV to compensate, the overall experience is much much better.

If its only for background, or "prime time family" TV then a set with half decent (for flat pannel) sound would be OK I guess.