Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Need Advice on a TV...

(1/5) > >>

Stoic Joker:
Greetings
    While historically I have stayed as far away from the multimedia stuff (focused on business systems), the wife is pondering a new TV. Which means I need to ponder a new TV also. Given the amount of new technologies that are now involved in TVs, I'm ...(due to avoiding the multimedia stuff)... basically in the dumber than a box of shit category.  :)

    So... I think that the LEDs are ahead of (better than?) the LCD, but haven't a clue where Plasma fits into the mix. I'm assuming that since we buy a TV once every decade (or so...), that now would be the time to get something "Internet Enabled" which brings up the whole (media-tastic) DLNA capability/compatibility/? ... That I'm about to drop myself into the middle of.

   Can anyone give me a thumbnail sketch of what I should be looking for/avoiding/trying to make sure is/isn't there/missing, etc.

Thank you,

Spastic Joker

JavaJones:
The basic competing tech is LCD and Plasma. LED is a back lighting method for LCDs; plasmas don't use backlights as far as I know.

Of those two, LED is more common and has no screen "burn in" issues, plasma is cheaper and has better blacks and hence contrast ratios (due to no backlights), but does burn in if you leave a static image on it too long (or something like a logo in the corner of a TV station screen). Burn in is probably less an issue for newer Plasmas, but still a concern, depending on your usage (e.g. video game playing with a game's HUD). There are much fewer plasmas and the tech tends to be less "advanced" than LCD, in general, as far as fancy features supported, etc. Also I think plasma still tends to use more power. The upside of plasma is basically you can get the same screen size and resolution as an LCD, usually for cheaper, and with potentially better image quality (depending).

Go for some form of Internet capability if you want to, but basing much of your decision on it seems foolish to me as almost all of this tech is limited (not a general "You can do anything a browser can do, but on your TV!). The better solution in my view is to hook up a nice little HTPC and then you truly get all capabilities. Plus, who wants to type URLs on a TV remote? ;)

Now if you're talking about *media streaming* support (DLNA, etc.), that's different, it actually has little or nothing to do with Internet support, per se (except that they're both network-based, of course). And in that case yes it can be useful, unless you have the previously mentioned HTPC. Bottom line is I think getting a "dumb TV" with a "smart computer" attached to it is going to give you way more long-term flexibility and capability than any other option. But if you really don't want to deal with an HTPC, don't want to spend the extra money, don't have space in your AV space, etc. for one, then I guess try to get as much of that stuff built-in as possible. Just keep in mind that the industry is in flux and a lot of stuff that's supported now may not be supported in, say, 5 years, and if you're planning for a 10yr lifetime, well... then again you can always buy an HTPC and add it on to any TV you get. :D

The other thing to think about is 3D. I personally dislike almost all 3D media and technologies I've seen so I wouldn't bother and it tends to add to the price anyway. If 3D is important to you, you might want to wait for better tech if at all possible. I would basically suggest not getting 3D (and saving money), and then buy something new in 5yrs for 3D if you really want it.

I know that's not a comprehensive answer to everything you asked, but hopefully it's somewhat useful. :)

- Oshyan

4wd:
Bottom line is I think getting a "dumb TV" with a "smart computer" attached to it is going to give you way more long-term flexibility and capability than any other option.-JavaJones (November 19, 2011, 04:58 PM)
--- End quote ---

+1 here.  Maximum flexibility with potentially minimum outlay - after all, a smart HTPC/computer is likely to outlive what it's attached to simply because it can be upgraded both in software and hardware.

But if you really don't want to deal with an HTPC, don't want to spend the extra money, don't have space in your AV space, etc. for one, then I guess try to get as much of that stuff built-in as possible.
--- End quote ---

Not sure about that, having recently purchased a WDTV Live for AU$58 and with it being the size of a couple of 3.5" HDDs stacked together, can play almost anything and has an alternative firmware available, (WDLXTV) - if you can't find space for that in your system you have other problems, (eg. air flow).

A decent dumb TV plus even something like the WDTV Live will provide you with DLNA and internet media access, (YouTube, SkyNews, etc), a dedicated HTPC will give you the same access to the internet as your computer and play a lot more.

The only thing I will say about the TV is make sure you have enough inputs and then add a couple more ;)

Renegade:
As far as I can see, 3D and smart TV is still in its infancy.

For 3D, the basic competing technologies are passive (LG) and active (Samsung & everyone else). I've not really kept up much there. It all still looks pretty immature as a technology, and not really something that I'm particularly interested in. My leanings there are towards LG's passive 3D as it sounds a bit more convenient.

I remember looking at TVs about 10 years ago, and at the time LG had the best displays hands down. That's changed though. Whenever I browse TVs now, the sharpest pictures are generally Samsung -- but that's just from what I've see browsing for TVs, and purely subjective.

It makes sense though. Round about 2003 or so (not exactly sure of the year, but close enough - maybe 2005), Samsung pulled 300 engineers out of Samsung Semiconductor (a very successful division at the time) and put them in it's ailing display division. This pissed off everyone who was used to nice bonuses - they didn't want to go into the lame duck division, but were given assurances that they'd be adequately compensated as they had been before.

So with an influx of 300 engineers, Samsung's display division began development on custom chips that were specifically designed for TVs/displays. This put Samsung at an advantage because while everyone else was using generic chips, Samsung had what nobody else did - chips for displays.

The practical upshot there was that Samsung's display quality rose dramatically and that business division started to catch up in the markets as people started noticing the better pictures. CES was a big part of that, as it is for most CE manufacturers.

Anyways, just my $0.02 on the topic. Not sure if it will be useful for you or not. I don't really keep up to date on a lot of the end user features in TVs or displays -- all my knowledge is from "behind the scenes".

steeladept:
Of those two, LED is more common and has no screen "burn in" issues,
-JavaJones (November 19, 2011, 04:58 PM)
--- End quote ---
Definitely not true, no matter what the industry pundits keep saying.  I am looking at 6 different 42" Samsung LCD monitor/TV's here at work right now and 3 of them have severe burn-in.  They also have a nasty habit of burning out completely after only a year or two...Of course they are on 24/7/365 - so that may have something to do with it.  The only time they are "off" is during the PC reboot.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page