made a purchase tonight...

[GriffWoody]

New TV.  65" LG replacing the 9 year old 60" LG.  I figure 9 years is a good run for a TV these days.  Enough so that I purchased the same brand.  I hope to get 9 years out of this one.  I've had two samsung televisions and they both crapped out @5.5 yrs.  Never again.

[Top Row Dawg]

Loving my Big ass Samsung 65 inch. I watch enough TV might as well get it bigger. Still have to pause the screen and get up to see the text messages on the Hall Mark channel.

Really like the Zorro series on Grit had not noticed it being around before.

[Jettdog]

Did the 60 inch break?

[gulfportdawg]

New TV.  65" LG replacing the 9 year old 60" LG.  I figure 9 years is a good run for a TV these days.  Enough so that I purchased the same brand.  I hope to get 9 years out of this one.  I've had two samsung televisions and they both crapped out @5.5 yrs.  Never again.

We bought a Sharp Aquos 65" back in April of 2009. Just replaced it about 6 weeks ago with a Samsung 65". The Aquos was still working when we gave it away.

[ugafan49]

still have my 55 Samsung LED, 13 yrs old, so far so good. I have thought about getting a 65 but shoot, this old 55 is still going strong. Right ON!!!!!

[GriffWoody]

Did the 60 inch break?

Screen is beginning to glitch.  Cheaper to buy new than fix.

[Rogasingingdawg]

Loving my Big ass Samsung 65 inch. I watch enough TV might as well get it bigger. Still have to pause the screen and get up to see the text messages on the Hall Mark channel.

Really like the Zorro series on Grit had not noticed it being around before.

I enjoy the Western movies on Grit, especially those from the ‘60s and earlier.  Watched several I haven’t seen before.

TCM was great Sunday evening with 2 of my favorite ensemble movies, “The Magnificent Seven” followed by “The Dirty Dozen”.

[Walnut River]

New TV.  65" LG replacing the 9 year old 60" LG.  I figure 9 years is a good run for a TV these days.  Enough so that I purchased the same brand.  I hope to get 9 years out of this one.  I've had two samsung televisions and they both crapped out @5.5 yrs.  Never again.

Interesting to me because I just bought 4 LG's to replace my TV's, two of which were 65" Samsungs that gave out after 6 years.  One of those was understandable because I had it outside and it's not an outdoor TV.  The cost of a good outdoor tv is such that it's cheaper to just get a few years out of them and then replace as needed.  I also ditched DirectTV for youtube tv and so far so good.  Saving enough on the youtube to pay for all 4 tvs in about 18 months.  That's how I justified it all anyway.

[dncdawg]

I bought a new 65" LG OLED to replace a 55" Sony as a black Friday deal. The sony had one dead pixel after 10 years, but the new OLED tech is so good, I couldn't resist.

[viper2369]

New TV.  65" LG replacing the 9 year old 60" LG.  I figure 9 years is a good run for a TV these days.  Enough so that I purchased the same brand.  I hope to get 9 years out of this one.  I've had two samsung televisions and they both crapped out @5.5 yrs.  Never again.

Have been an LG user for a while now, think them and Samsung TVs are the best quality. 

First LCD TV was a 42" LG.  Think I got 12 years out of it before it wouldn't turn on.  Even survived a lightning strike that took out 2 other TVs in the house.  Got a 55" 4K to replace one of those and gave it to my buddy last year.  He's still using it and it's about 8-9 years old now.  My ex took 2 others that are that old, still working as far as I know. 

And got a 75" LG about 4 years ago.  It's been great so far.

[JC-DAWG83]

Question for all knowing HOTD. What is the difference in a "good" tv and a cheap Walmart tv? The cheap ones seem to have all the same specs as the more expensive tvs. What makes the more expensive tvs worth the extra money.

Walmart has a 55" tv for something like $240. It is a smart tv with Roku and other things already installed. I don't know the brand but it isn't one I've ever heard of. I know price differences aren't generally 100% ripoff so there has to be some difference in the tvs.

[dncdawg]

Question for all knowing HOTD.  What is the difference in a "good" tv and a cheap Walmart tv?  The cheap ones seem to have all the same specs as the more expensive tvs.  What makes the more expensive tvs worth the extra money.

Walmart has a 55" tv for something like $240.  It is a smart tv with Roku and other things already installed.  I don't know the brand but it isn't one I've ever heard of.  I know price differences aren't generally 100% ripoff so there has to be some difference in the tvs.

Just the quality of the display, really.  The walmart tv is probably a UHD LED, and the pixels are effectively always on, even when they are black, which gives them a backlit effect, leaving light shadows on blacks and dark colors and colors aren't as deep and defined.  The OLED displays actually shut off black pixels and have deeper, more defined colors.  If you're not a hardcore tv watcher and have great eyesite, then a the cheaper models are fine, but if you want a cinematic effect with and maybe watch movies, many of which have ridiculously dark scenes these days, the newer OLED technology is the way to go.  They also have smoother frame rates and are less likely to pixelate images when watching older shows or movies.

All this sounds like a bunch of technical bullshit until you actually look at the two tvs next to each other displaying the same thing.

[JC-DAWG83]

Question for all knowing HOTD.  What is the difference in a "good" tv and a cheap Walmart tv?  The cheap ones seem to have all the same specs as the more expensive tvs.  What makes the more expensive tvs worth the extra money.

Walmart has a 55" tv for something like $240.  It is a smart tv with Roku and other things already installed.  I don't know the brand but it isn't one I've ever heard of.  I know price differences aren't generally 100% ripoff so there has to be some difference in the tvs.

Just the quality of the display, really.  The walmart tv is probably a UHD LED, and the pixels are effectively always on, even when they are black, which gives them a backlit effect, leaving light shadows on blacks and dark colors and colors aren't as deep and defined.  The OLED displays actually shut off black pixels and have deeper, more defined colors.  If you're not a hardcore tv watcher and have great eyesite, then a the cheaper models are fine, but if you want a cinematic effect with and maybe watch movies, many of which have ridiculously dark scenes these days, the newer OLED technology is the way to go.  They also have smoother frame rates and are less likely to pixelate images when watching older shows or movies.

All this sounds like a bunch of technical bullshit until you actually look at the two tvs next to each other displaying the same thing.

Thanks, that actually makes sense.  There is an actual technology difference.  I have noticed the expensive tvs in Costco have stupid clear pictures.  I know some of that is due to the images on them being very pure digital streams that are used for display purposes and the pictures when the tvs get hooked to actual broadcast or streaming won't be as good.  

That said, I am amazed at how cheap you can buy a tv now.  Walmart has a 43" HD tv for $148 and a 32" tv for $88.  At those prices, if the tvs last 5 years they are a pretty good value.  I have a friend who is an early adapter type when it comes to entertainment.  He bought one of the first plasma HD tvs about 20 or more years ago.  I think it was 40 or 48 inches, we thought it was humongous.  I remember the picture was really clear but that thing would heat the room with the heat coming off of the screen.  I think he paid something like $5000 for that tv and it lasted about 5 or 6 years before the screen burned out.  He didn't like it when I told him he had spent $1000 a year or about $90 a month on that tv.

Electronics are probably the thing that has become more affordable over time than anything else we buy.

[dncdawg]

Question for all knowing HOTD.  What is the difference in a "good" tv and a cheap Walmart tv?  The cheap ones seem to have all the same specs as the more expensive tvs.  What makes the more expensive tvs worth the extra money.

Walmart has a 55" tv for something like $240.  It is a smart tv with Roku and other things already installed.  I don't know the brand but it isn't one I've ever heard of.  I know price differences aren't generally 100% ripoff so there has to be some difference in the tvs.

Just the quality of the display, really.  The walmart tv is probably a UHD LED, and the pixels are effectively always on, even when they are black, which gives them a backlit effect, leaving light shadows on blacks and dark colors and colors aren't as deep and defined.  The OLED displays actually shut off black pixels and have deeper, more defined colors.  If you're not a hardcore tv watcher and have great eyesite, then a the cheaper models are fine, but if you want a cinematic effect with and maybe watch movies, many of which have ridiculously dark scenes these days, the newer OLED technology is the way to go.  They also have smoother frame rates and are less likely to pixelate images when watching older shows or movies.

All this sounds like a bunch of technical bullshit until you actually look at the two tvs next to each other displaying the same thing.

Thanks, that actually makes sense.  There is an actual technology difference.  I have noticed the expensive tvs in Costco have stupid clear pictures.  I know some of that is due to the images on them being very pure digital streams that are used for display purposes and the pictures when the tvs get hooked to actual broadcast or streaming won't be as good.  

That said, I am amazed at how cheap you can buy a tv now.  Walmart has a 43" HD tv for $148 and a 32" tv for $88.  At those prices, if the tvs last 5 years they are a pretty good value.  I have a friend who is an early adapter type when it comes to entertainment.  He bought one of the first plasma HD tvs about 20 or more years ago.  I think it was 40 or 48 inches, we thought it was humongous.  I remember the picture was really clear but that thing would heat the room with the heat coming off of the screen.  I think he paid something like $5000 for that tv and it lasted about 5 or 6 years before the screen burned out.  He didn't like it when I told him he had spent $1000 a year or about $90 a month on that tv.

Electronics are probably the thing that has become more affordable over time than anything else we buy.

I remember seeing my first plasma screen in a Circuit City.  It was about 40 inches and I didn't think the picture was great, but the most impressive thing was the thickness of the unit, and it was still 4-5" thick.  It was just unlike any television we had seen to date.  The price tag was $9,999.99.  Stupid.

I bought my first plasma several years later.  Got a 60" for about $3500, as I recall.  Sumbitch was heavy as hell with its glass front.  It lasted me a little less than 15 years.  Couldn't get the part I needed to fix it, so I just bought a new  UHD LED from Costco for about $300.

[Rogasingingdawg]

Question for all knowing HOTD.  What is the difference in a "good" tv and a cheap Walmart tv?  The cheap ones seem to have all the same specs as the more expensive tvs.  What makes the more expensive tvs worth the extra money.

Walmart has a 55" tv for something like $240.  It is a smart tv with Roku and other things already installed.  I don't know the brand but it isn't one I've ever heard of.  I know price differences aren't generally 100% ripoff so there has to be some difference in the tvs.

I have gotten 4 years of good service so far from a cheap 60" TCL TV from Walmart that cost about $250.

[McDonoughDawg]

DNC nailed it above...I have been eyeballing an OLED, but at this point, have not pulled the trigger...the 75" ones aren't cheap.

[GriffWoody]

Question for all knowing HOTD.  What is the difference in a "good" tv and a cheap Walmart tv?  The cheap ones seem to have all the same specs as the more expensive tvs.  What makes the more expensive tvs worth the extra money.

Walmart has a 55" tv for something like $240.  It is a smart tv with Roku and other things already installed.  I don't know the brand but it isn't one I've ever heard of.  I know price differences aren't generally 100% ripoff so there has to be some difference in the tvs.

Just the quality of the display, really.  The walmart tv is probably a UHD LED, and the pixels are effectively always on, even when they are black, which gives them a backlit effect, leaving light shadows on blacks and dark colors and colors aren't as deep and defined.  The OLED displays actually shut off black pixels and have deeper, more defined colors.  If you're not a hardcore tv watcher and have great eyesite, then a the cheaper models are fine, but if you want a cinematic effect with and maybe watch movies, many of which have ridiculously dark scenes these days, the newer OLED technology is the way to go.  They also have smoother frame rates and are less likely to pixelate images when watching older shows or movies.

All this sounds like a bunch of technical bullshit until you actually look at the two tvs next to each other displaying the same thing.

Thanks, that actually makes sense.  There is an actual technology difference.  I have noticed the expensive tvs in Costco have stupid clear pictures.  I know some of that is due to the images on them being very pure digital streams that are used for display purposes and the pictures when the tvs get hooked to actual broadcast or streaming won't be as good.  

That said, I am amazed at how cheap you can buy a tv now.  Walmart has a 43" HD tv for $148 and a 32" tv for $88.  At those prices, if the tvs last 5 years they are a pretty good value.  I have a friend who is an early adapter type when it comes to entertainment.  He bought one of the first plasma HD tvs about 20 or more years ago.  I think it was 40 or 48 inches, we thought it was humongous.  I remember the picture was really clear but that thing would heat the room with the heat coming off of the screen.  I think he paid something like $5000 for that tv and it lasted about 5 or 6 years before the screen burned out.  He didn't like it when I told him he had spent $1000 a year or about $90 a month on that tv.

Electronics are probably the thing that has become more affordable over time than anything else we buy.

I remember seeing my first plasma screen in a Circuit City.  It was about 40 inches and I didn't think the picture was great, but the most impressive thing was the thickness of the unit, and it was still 4-5" thick.  It was just unlike any television we had seen to date.  The price tag was $9,999.99.  Stupid.

I bought my first plasma several years later.  Got a 60" for about $3500, as I recall.  Sumbitch was heavy as hell with its glass front.  It lasted me a little less than 15 years.  Couldn't get the part I needed to fix it, so I just bought a new  UHD LED from Costco for about $300.

This TV is 1.8” thick.  Almost paper thin compared to my first “big screen.”

[Punkin14]

Bought a 55” LG in 2011 for my girls playroom, it even had 3D capability.  Comcast’s had about 5 channels for 3D shows and movies.  Anywhoo, ex got all the new Samsungs in the house after the divorce.  That 14yr old LG is now above the fireplace with still a perfect picture.  I do like to go to Costco occasionally to look at replacing it.

[viper2369]

Question for all knowing HOTD.  What is the difference in a "good" tv and a cheap Walmart tv?  The cheap ones seem to have all the same specs as the more expensive tvs.  What makes the more expensive tvs worth the extra money.

Walmart has a 55" tv for something like $240.  It is a smart tv with Roku and other things already installed.  I don't know the brand but it isn't one I've ever heard of.  I know price differences aren't generally 100% ripoff so there has to be some difference in the tvs.

Just the quality of the display, really.  The walmart tv is probably a UHD LED, and the pixels are effectively always on, even when they are black, which gives them a backlit effect, leaving light shadows on blacks and dark colors and colors aren't as deep and defined.  The OLED displays actually shut off black pixels and have deeper, more defined colors.  If you're not a hardcore tv watcher and have great eyesite, then a the cheaper models are fine, but if you want a cinematic effect with and maybe watch movies, many of which have ridiculously dark scenes these days, the newer OLED technology is the way to go.  They also have smoother frame rates and are less likely to pixelate images when watching older shows or movies.

All this sounds like a bunch of technical bullshit until you actually look at the two tvs next to each other displaying the same thing.

Thanks, that actually makes sense.  There is an actual technology difference.  I have noticed the expensive tvs in Costco have stupid clear pictures.  I know some of that is due to the images on them being very pure digital streams that are used for display purposes and the pictures when the tvs get hooked to actual broadcast or streaming won't be as good.  

That said, I am amazed at how cheap you can buy a tv now.  Walmart has a 43" HD tv for $148 and a 32" tv for $88.  At those prices, if the tvs last 5 years they are a pretty good value.  I have a friend who is an early adapter type when it comes to entertainment.  He bought one of the first plasma HD tvs about 20 or more years ago.  I think it was 40 or 48 inches, we thought it was humongous.  I remember the picture was really clear but that thing would heat the room with the heat coming off of the screen.  I think he paid something like $5000 for that tv and it lasted about 5 or 6 years before the screen burned out.  He didn't like it when I told him he had spent $1000 a year or about $90 a month on that tv.

Electronics are probably the thing that has become more affordable over time than anything else we buy.

As DNC said, more about technology.  Think of it like PCs back in the late 90s and early 2000s.  You could get one with an Intel processor or a Celeron processor.  Both worked just fine for most, but the Celeron was much cheaper.  It was all about processing power, how much they can process at once, same with TVs. 

That said, there's so much that goes into image quality that most users aren't going to get the full effect of the higher end TVs.  For example, most stream content these days.  The compression used to format the data is going to effect the image quality.  I think most are familiar with HD for years on TV broadcasts was 720P, and then things like Blu-ray discs were 1080P.  There was a noticeable difference.  And now with 4K, it's not really 4K.  The data file size for 4K is so much bigger than standard HD that streaming services will compress and remove a lot of the raw data to be able to transfer it, thus effecting the quality. 

So getting something like 4K images still is only truly achieved with a 4K disc, player, and quality cables that are local.  That or you setup a media server to stream from at your home.  A 4K movie is generally more than twice the data size as Blue-Ray.

[JC-DAWG83]

Question for all knowing HOTD.  What is the difference in a "good" tv and a cheap Walmart tv?  The cheap ones seem to have all the same specs as the more expensive tvs.  What makes the more expensive tvs worth the extra money.

Walmart has a 55" tv for something like $240.  It is a smart tv with Roku and other things already installed.  I don't know the brand but it isn't one I've ever heard of.  I know price differences aren't generally 100% ripoff so there has to be some difference in the tvs.

Just the quality of the display, really.  The walmart tv is probably a UHD LED, and the pixels are effectively always on, even when they are black, which gives them a backlit effect, leaving light shadows on blacks and dark colors and colors aren't as deep and defined.  The OLED displays actually shut off black pixels and have deeper, more defined colors.  If you're not a hardcore tv watcher and have great eyesite, then a the cheaper models are fine, but if you want a cinematic effect with and maybe watch movies, many of which have ridiculously dark scenes these days, the newer OLED technology is the way to go.  They also have smoother frame rates and are less likely to pixelate images when watching older shows or movies.

All this sounds like a bunch of technical bullshit until you actually look at the two tvs next to each other displaying the same thing.

Thanks, that actually makes sense.  There is an actual technology difference.  I have noticed the expensive tvs in Costco have stupid clear pictures.  I know some of that is due to the images on them being very pure digital streams that are used for display purposes and the pictures when the tvs get hooked to actual broadcast or streaming won't be as good.  

That said, I am amazed at how cheap you can buy a tv now.  Walmart has a 43" HD tv for $148 and a 32" tv for $88.  At those prices, if the tvs last 5 years they are a pretty good value.  I have a friend who is an early adapter type when it comes to entertainment.  He bought one of the first plasma HD tvs about 20 or more years ago.  I think it was 40 or 48 inches, we thought it was humongous.  I remember the picture was really clear but that thing would heat the room with the heat coming off of the screen.  I think he paid something like $5000 for that tv and it lasted about 5 or 6 years before the screen burned out.  He didn't like it when I told him he had spent $1000 a year or about $90 a month on that tv.

Electronics are probably the thing that has become more affordable over time than anything else we buy.

As DNC said, more about technology.  Think of it like PCs back in the late 90s and early 2000s.  You could get one with an Intel processor or a Celeron processor.  Both worked just fine for most, but the Celeron was much cheaper.  It was all about processing power, how much they can process at once, same with TVs. 

That said, there's so much that goes into image quality that most users aren't going to get the full effect of the higher end TVs.  For example, most stream content these days.  The compression used to format the data is going to effect the image quality.  I think most are familiar with HD for years on TV broadcasts was 720P, and then things like Blu-ray discs were 1080P.  There was a noticeable difference.  And now with 4K, it's not really 4K.  The data file size for 4K is so much bigger than standard HD that streaming services will compress and remove a lot of the raw data to be able to transfer it, thus effecting the quality. 

So getting something like 4K images still is only truly achieved with a 4K disc, player, and quality cables that are local.  That or you setup a media server to stream from at your home.  A 4K movie is generally more than twice the data size as Blue-Ray.

I think the super high quality pictures you see in Costco are a result of Costco putting a local product on the screens.  You never see them have a game or tv show on the tvs in the store.  It is always some beautiful nature scene or drone footage of dramatic landscapes.  

I'm OK with "good enough" when it comes to picture quality.  As long as I can see the ball and read the numbers in a football game I'm fine with the picture.  With movies and shows, as long as I can recognize the actors and the scenery looks right, I'm fine with that.