[LittlePhil]

Looking for a new 50" TV.
have a 50" Plasma Samsung which is to be replaced.
I fancy a 3D next time.... which is better at this size? LED or Plasma?

Happy to stay with Samsung as the Bu Ray remote works the TV too.... also, not othered about Smart TV as you get full catch up and demand feature with Sky

Any recommendations?

[Matt35]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LittlePhil

Looking for a new 50" TV.
have a 50" Plasma Samsung which is to be replaced.
I fancy a 3D next time.... which is better at this size? LED or Plasma?

Happy to stay with Samsung as the Bu Ray remote works the TV too.... also, not othered about Smart TV as you get full catch up and demand feature with Sky

Any recommendations?

I've been looking for a few months. Still saving so gonna be another few before I can get one but im looking for same as you. I have a 42 pioneer which I love but it doesn't support 1080p or 3D. Looked at a lot of tvs and reviews. Samsung, Panasonic and Sony are the only ones im looking at. Not interested in smart features like you say, sky has that covered. I have amp so sound not really an issue either. Depending on your budget. This was the sony.http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-dvd-...21320-pdt.html
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&so...wIowSu6atIanXg
http://www.amazon.co.uk/SAMSUNG-UE50...sung+ue50f6670.

[gemma-the-husky]

personally LCD (LED) rather than plasma.

we bought a bargain 46" Samsung from Argos for just over £400. Occasionally see a bit of motion blur watching football, but it isn't an issue for me. Bit light on connections (only 2 HDMI's , but fine.

I wouldn't pay over the top for features you don't really need.
Make sure you have a built in HD tuner. They don't all have them.

[emptybox]

It must be quite difficult choosing a large screen TV at the mo. I think the manufacturers are kinda treading water until they can offer 4K sets at consumer prices.

I saw a Currys ad in the paper today, with 3 Panasonic 55" sets.
All had an identical label 'Panasonic 55" Smart 3D LED TV', with nothing in the blurb to differentiate them, yet they had wildly different prices.
The WT65 was £1600
The DT65 was £1300
The ET60 was £1000

No doubt there were some differences if you looked in the spec? The more expensive ones probably had quad core processors. I think the WT65 has Freesat HD as well as Freeview HD.
But how on earth would you sell the more expensive one to the general public?

[gemma-the-husky]

Quote:

Originally Posted by emptybox

It must be quite difficult choosing a large screen TV at the mo. I think the manufacturers are kinda treading water until they can offer 4K sets at consumer prices.

I saw a Currys ad in the paper today, with 3 Panasonic 55" sets.
All had an identical label 'Panasonic 55" Smart 3D LED TV', with nothing in the blurb to differentiate them, yet they had wildly different prices.
The WT65 was £1600
The DT65 was £1300
The ET 60 was £1000

No doubt there were some differences if you looked in the spec? The more expensive ones probably had quad core processors.
But how on earth would you sell the more expensive one to the general public?

thinner, prettier screens. different stands
I think they sell them with deals like interest free four year terms etc.

[emptybox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gemma-the-husky

thinner, prettier screens. different stands
I think they sell them with deals like interest free four year terms etc.

Yeah, on further digging it seems the WT65 has a blue LED along the bottom of the bezel, plus a built in webcam.
Also it has what they call a "hexa processor", which sounds like it's going to have 6 cores, but turns out to just be dual core after all.

[Matt35]

I think if im spending 1k or more then I would want a demo of the tv if possible. I think if someone watches a lot of sport especially football then lcd might not be ideal.

[Winston_1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gemma-the-husky

Make sure you have a built in HD tuner. They don't all have them.

No such thing.
An HD decoder is good to have however.

[alan1302]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winston_1

No such thing.
An HD decoder is good to have however.

I think that's what is know as splitting hairs - most people call them HD tuners.

[White-Knight]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gemma-the-husky

personally LCD (LED) rather than plasma.

we bought a bargain 46" Samsung from Argos for just over £400. Occasionally see a bit of motion blur watching football, but it isn't an issue for me. Bit light on connections (only 2 HDMI's , but fine.

I wouldn't pay over the top for features you don't really need.
Make sure you have a built in HD tuner. They don't all have them.

Not trying to seem picky but LCD and LED are two different technologies.

LCD relies on a fluorescent tube to light the panel whilst LED uses LED as a back light source.

LED is generally considered the better technology.

Plasma is still considered the best technology but is rarely found these days due to cost, size and energy consumption.

[alan1302]

Quote:

Originally Posted by White-Knight

Not trying to seem picky but LCD and LED are two different technologies.

LCD relies on a fluorescent tube to light the panel whilst LED uses LED as a back light source.

LED is generally considered the better technology.

Plasma is still considered the best technology but is rarely found these days due to cost, size and energy consumption.

No, LCD and LED are the same screen technology. They are both called LCD

Some LCD screens now have LED lighting but they are still LED screen.

[Winston_1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by alan1302

I think that's what is know as splitting hairs - most people call them HD tuners.

Then most people are wrong in the same way that many people refer to digital aerials.

Actually most TVs have HD decoders these days, but only DVB-T HD decoders. You actually need DVB-T2 HD decoders in the UK.

[call100]

Quote:

Originally Posted by White-Knight

Not trying to seem picky but LCD and LED are two different technologies.

LCD relies on a fluorescent tube to light the panel whilst LED uses LED as a back light source.

LED is generally considered the better technology.

Plasma is still considered the best technology but is rarely found these days due to cost, size and energy consumption.

First paragraph renders any other advice a bit iffy to be honest....Where did you glean that little gem from?....

[d'@ve]

Quote:

Originally Posted by call100

First paragraph renders any other advice a bit iffy to be honest....Where did you glean that little gem from?....

For once, you and I are in full agreement! What an odd thing for him to say.

As for the O/P, if he doesn't mind the higher power consumption and (probably) cost, plasma still has the best quality picture - except perhaps for pixel peepers and garish eyeball-busting bright screen lovers - as long as it's one of the main brands (though there aren't many left!).

[roddydogs]

LCD v Plasma, welcome back old friend been a long time.

[trayhop123]

how much is your budget ?

[LittlePhil]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trayhop123

how much is your budget ?

I didn't want to spend more than £800.00... I saw this advertised in Currys.

http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-dvd-...39113-pdt.html

Is it old model?

[trayhop123]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LittlePhil

I didn't want to spend more than £800.00... I saw this advertised in Currys.

http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-dvd-...39113-pdt.html

Is it old model?

looks good to me .


alternatively richers have the lg 50ph660v for £580 ,,,,,,,, doesn't come with glasses though which could bump up the price . ,,,,,,,,, but does come with a 5yr guarantee , and 3 months sky offer ,,,,,, and its plasma.


mind you , i like the samsung too m8

up to you ,,,,,,,,, i couldn't decide if it was me ,,,,,, as personally i dont care for 3d

[White-Knight]

Quote:

Originally Posted by alan1302

No, LCD and LED are the same screen technology. They are both called LCD

Some LCD screens now have LED lighting but they are still LED screen.

As I understand it, the front of the screen tech is the same but the fact is the back lighting source makes all the difference.

With florescent cathode tubes, the light source isn't as strong so you have lower contrast than with most LED tv's.

Also fluorescent tubes are more prone to uneven lighting due to the fact they're edge lit technology and the tube doesn't necessarily light evenly all the way along, whereas most LED tv's use back lighting instead of edge lit technology and even those that still use edge lighting tend to be more evenly lit as you have more light sources from the large numbers of LED's around the screen with no difference in brightness from each. CFL lit tv's also have potentially shorter lives and produce more heat.

The panel might be the same but the difference in back lighting technology makes a difference to the contrast, lifetime, size, power consumption and heat dissipation.

A very simple summary:

http://www.diffen.com/difference/LCD_TV_vs_LED_TV

At the end of the day, it's horses for course but LED tv's are becoming more popular as they have advantages over CFL, so given the choice at any price point, I'd personally take an led screen over an lcd one any day. That said, there are good and bad screens in any technology and that's where reviews come in handy.

[Nigel Goodwin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by White-Knight

As I understand it, the front of the screen tech is the same but the fact is the back lighting source makes all the difference.

That's essentially correct.

Quote:

With florescent cathode tubes, the light source isn't as strong so you have lower contrast than with most LED tv's.

Also fluorescent tubes are more prone to uneven lighting due to the fact they're edge lit technology and the tube doesn't necessarily light evenly all the way along, whereas most LED tv's use back lighting instead of edge lit technology and even those that still use edge lighting tend to be more evenly lit as you have more light sources from the large numbers of LED's around the screen with no difference in brightness from each. CFL lit tv's also have potentially shorter lives and produce more heat.

You've got that almost entirely the wrong way round, CCFL set's are almost all back lit, giving even light coverage, whereas the vast majority of LED sets are edge lit. There are a number of back lit LED sets, but they cost more and the advantages seem insignificant.

Consumption of CCFL sets is higher though, but personally I think they give a more 'realistic' colour rendition than LED sets - though it's pretty moot now anyway as there aren't many CCFL sets available, LED has totally taken over.

Reliability of the two types isn't really known yet, as LED's haven't been around for long enough - but in theory they should last longer than CCFL's.

[LittlePhil]

Made a mistake by going to Currys to have a look at the Samsung 50" LED 3D Tv on
offer cos my wife pointed to a 55" LG set at £1099 and said " I want that one!"

http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-dvd-...98614-pdt.html

Have to admit it did look better allround than the Samsung on offer...its just that I didnt want to spend that kind of money... darn it all...

Ushered her out of the store with an "I'll think about it" and scuttled off to the car as fast as I could.

[massivejack]

I just recently ordered this one which I think is good at £570

http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/sams...eeview-1841848

The same one in currys today was £650

[LittlePhil]

Well, I found the LG TV @ £989.00 on here
http://www.electricshop.com/televisi...n=10800&lot=wg

But... I also found this at £899.00
http://www.electricshop.com/televisi...invt/55la620v/

Model number differs LG55LA620V as against 690V... trying to work out difference, although I can see refresh rate is 400hz on 690V & 200hz on 620V....apart from that, they seem the same... £899.00 sounds better that £989.00.... anybody know anything about these models?

[carnivalist]

*Sorry. Posted in wrong thread*.

[fmradiotuner1]

Just bought a 27 inch LED monitor its fine for gaming I find but viewing angel is really poor compared to my much older LG PK350 50 inch plasma so this still better for films. & TV.