A sub-$1000 TV vs a $2000+ TV

#1

Rasputin_Vol

"Slava Ukraina"
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
70,514
Likes
38,717
#1
No reason nowadays why you should pay more than $1000 for a TV. At this point, you are not going to get a significantly better picture or sound from one TV over the other. Just been skimming some TV ads for Best Buy and HH Gregg. I really don't see a reason why one 50 in screen at $2000 is that much better than the ones that are $799.

No excuse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2
#2
People want the latest and greatest. Doesn't really matter if the picture quality isn't that much better.
 
#3
#3
No reason nowadays why you should pay more than $1000 for a TV. At this point, you are not going to get a significantly better picture or sound from one TV over the other. Just been skimming some TV ads for Best Buy and HH Gregg. I really don't see a reason why one 50 in screen at $2000 is that much better than the ones that are $799.

No excuse.
I've thought the same thing, but I'm not a home entertainment freak like some. A good picture and decent sound is all most people are after.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#6
#6
I remember getting a "great" deal on a 50 inch dlp projection tv 12 or 13 years ago to the tune of $2800. I doubt it would be picked up off the curb for free at this point. Oh how times change.
 
#7
#7
Quantum Dots and OLED sets aren't cheap but they are beautiful and better than traditional LED sets. Worth the money? Depends on your situation, needs, and preference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8
#8
Quantum Dots and OLED sets aren't cheap but they are beautiful and better than traditional LED sets. Worth the money? Depends on your situation, needs, and preference.

After LED, how much better could the picture really get? And really, after 120HZ or even dare I say 60HZ refresh speed, how much better resolution could you get? Hell, we have had movie projectors for over 100 years show movies at 24 frames/sec (24HZ), and the picture was just fine because our eyes and brains can only work but so fast. Anything above 120HZ refresh rate is overkill and not worth the extra price markup.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9
#9
No reason nowadays why you should pay more than $1000 for a TV. At this point, you are not going to get a significantly better picture or sound from one TV over the other. Just been skimming some TV ads for Best Buy and HH Gregg. I really don't see a reason why one 50 in screen at $2000 is that much better than the ones that are $799.

No excuse.

There's more gold in the $2,000 TVs.
 
#10
#10
After LED, how much better could the picture really get? And really, after 120HZ or even dare I say 60HZ refresh speed, how much better resolution could you get? Hell, we have had movie projectors for over 100 years show movies at 24 frames/sec (24HZ), and the picture was just fine because our eyes and brains can only work but so fast. Anything above 120HZ refresh rate is overkill and not worth the extra price markup.

Next time you see a full HDR quantum dot 4K set, let me know how it stacks up to your $800 Vizio or LG set. It's very clear and very obvious. And then there are other factors like ease of setup, etc. New Samsung tvs will program all inputs and the universal remote within a minute or two based on a few questions it asks. It's slick as hell.

You can watch and enjoy movies on both, but one will look noticeably better.

You also bring up movie theaters. That's interesting because they are in a big battle now days with people having better equipment at home than what they offer. That's why they keep coming up with gimmicks (RPX, DD Sound, etc) and ways to keep people in the theaters. That's why movies make it to video quicker. There's a growing trend of people that prefer watching it at home on their top of the line systems.

End of the day, if you're happy with your sub $1k Vizio, LG, Sharp, etc. that's great. But there are better sets for a premium. Some people (not me) can afford them.

BTW, The olympics are being filmed in 8K video this year.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#11
#11
BTW, The olympics are being filmed in 8K video this year.

So what? There are hardly any TV's can properly handle the higher resolution. Plus, the highest resolution/quality you can get from your cable provider, dish or local network is 4k. So even though it is filmed in 4k, it will only be broadcast (at best) in 4k.
 
Last edited:
#12
#12
Next time you see a full HDR quantum dot 4K set, let me know how it stacks up to your $800 Vizio or LG set. It's very clear and very obvious. And then there are other factors like ease of setup, etc. New Samsung tvs will program all inputs and the universal remote within a minute or two based on a few questions it asks. It's slick as hell.

They have sub-$1000 Samsungs that do just fine. At this point, it would take a lot of convincing to justify paying 2.5X more for one TV over another.
 
#13
#13
You don't get it do you? Price is subjective. You don't think it's worth it. Thats fine. It's a better picture. Plain and simple. Not worth it to you? Great. Don't buy one.

Things are being filmed in 4k+ now. Watching the Olympics in 4k is nice. It looks better than your 1080p led. Its not debatable.

How much better is a Lexus over a Kia? Both get you from A to B....
 
#14
#14
Quantum Dots and OLED sets aren't cheap but they are beautiful and better than traditional LED sets. Worth the money? Depends on your situation, needs, and preference.

This.

If you don't see the difference don't buy one. I haven't looked into the Quantum Dots but the OLED stuff is amazing. Blacks that even plasmas could never attain and huge color pop.

My 12 year old plasma is finally starting to show some age. When it finally goes I'll be springing for OLED - hopefully they'll be down in price a bit.
 
#15
#15
You don't get it do you? Price is subjective. You don't think it's worth it. Thats fine. It's a better picture. Plain and simple. Not worth it to you? Great. Don't buy one.

I think all I was saying that there isn't enough difference in the two televisions that would justify the 2.5 times mark up. Sure, if you want to pay a premium for marginally better picture, knock yourself out, man. Same goes to those that would rather pay the extra markup on a Lexus instead of a Toyota.
 
#16
#16
You don't get it do you? Price is subjective. You don't think it's worth it. Thats fine. It's a better picture. Plain and simple. Not worth it to you? Great. Don't buy one.

Things are being filmed in 4k+ now. Watching the Olympics in 4k is nice. It looks better than your 1080p led. Its not debatable.

How much better is a Lexus over a Kia? Both get you from A to B....
Being filmed in 4k and being broadcast in 4k are two separate things.
 
#17
#17
I think all I was saying that there isn't enough difference in the two televisions that would justify the 2.5 times mark up. Sure, if you want to pay a premium for marginally better picture, knock yourself out, man. Same goes to those that would rather pay the extra markup on a Lexus instead of a Toyota.

just to clarify - we aren't talking differences in markup though there may be some differences there.

the difference is in price and a major driver of that difference in price is difference in cost to produce.

It is different and superior technology. It costs more and performs better. If you want to pay for a better picture it is worth it. If you don't want to pay for a better picture it ain't. Obviously you don't. Likewise, there are plenty of people the do and will.
 
#18
#18
The difference OLED vs LED is much bigger than the difference in HD vs UltraHD. An HD OLED picture will look better than an LED UltraHD picture.
 
#19
#19
just to clarify - we aren't talking differences in markup though there may be some differences there.

the difference is in price and a major driver of that difference in price is difference in cost to produce.

It is different and superior technology. It costs more and performs better. If you want to pay for a better picture it is worth it. If you don't want to pay for a better picture it ain't. Obviously you don't. Likewise, there are plenty of people the do and will.

Oh, I want a better picture just like anyone else. But what I am saying is that right now, you simply can't justify the difference in price because the picture may be marginally better. Now 10-15 years ago, I would have agreed with everything you all are saying. But even like you've said, the technology has gotten better. And the technology in these $699-$899 TVs is not that much different than anything that cost twice as much.

But again, knock yourselves out.
 
#20
#20
The difference OLED vs LED is much bigger than the difference in HD vs UltraHD. An HD OLED picture will look better than an LED UltraHD picture.
And again, like I have been trying to point out to the Dr., you don't have much programming that is being broadcast in these higher resolutions right now anyways. Just because they are filming it in a higher resolution, that doesn't mean that the particular station is broadcasting in that resolution. So in essence, your paying a premium for something that right now has very limited broadcast programming.

That is the stuff the Geek Squad guys won't tell you. They intentionally run higher resolution programming on the sales floor to get you to try to notice a (subtle, imo) difference between two TVs. Then, when you go home, you are left with programming that is broadcast in a lower resolution.
 
#21
#21
#22
#22
This is from this past spring. Only 3 4k channels on DirectTV at the time... and I'm sure it probably hasn't gotten many more than that since then.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/directv-4k-uhd-masters-broadcast/

You are 100% accurate in this.
After exhausting research before my last purchase, I read article after article stating the same thing.

For 4K to have any effect, you would basically have to be inches in front of the television.
After a couple of feet, the human eye cannot pick up the difference.
 
#24
#24
You are 100% accurate in this.
After exhausting research before my last purchase, I read article after article stating the same thing.

For 4K to have any effect, you would basically have to be inches in front of the television.
After a couple of feet, the human eye cannot pick up the difference.

Most of the HD channels we have right now (even on DirecTV per the article I posted) are broadcast in 1080. Therefore, it only strengthens my argument even more. How can someone argue that their $2000 8k TV has a better picture than my 4k (or dare I say 1080) TV that cost a lot less when they are both showing the same 1080 broadcast?
 
#25
#25
It's being filmed in 8k. I get to watch it in 4k.

Really? I call BS. No way you paid for this service.

How to watch the 2016 Rio Olympic Games | NBC Olympics

4K ULTRA HD
NBC Olympics will distribute 4K Ultra HD (UHD) coverage to cable, satellite, telco providers, and other partners. The 83 hours of coverage will be made available on one-day delay and will include 4K UHD footage from the Opening and Closing Ceremonies, swimming, track and field, basketball, the men’s soccer final, and judo, as well as Rio scenics.

One event from the previous day’s competition will be provided daily from August 6, the day after the Opening Ceremony, through August 22, the day after the Games conclude.

NBC Olympics will distribute the 4K UHD coverage provided by Olympic Broadcasting Services (OBS) and Japan’s NHK to U.S. distribution partners, who will individually choose how they will make the content available to their customers.

4K UHD technology displays images at over eight million pixels (3,840 x 2,160), providing pictures with an ultra-high resolution that is roughly four times that of current HD (1,920 x 1,080 pixels). The 4K UHD coverage of the Opening Ceremony, which will be produced by NBC Olympics, will also include High Dynamic Range (HDR), which produces a wider and richer range of colors, and Dolby Atmos, a new sound technology that allows for a more immersive audio experience.
 

VN Store



Back
Top