Considering upgrading our primary family room TV (surround sound AV receiver setup) to either a Sony 930E model or LG OLED55B7P 55inch TV. My A/V receiver is an Onkyo 737 and it fortunately was one of the first to start offering 4K connectivity so that should not be a problem, but I'm also interested in how the TV upconverts lower resolution content. I have been a Samsung fan for some time now but I have to say when comparing the TVs side by side, the LG and the Sony seemed noticeably better to me. The LG OLED really blew me away when viewing it on display but not sure if the Sony is the better choice and almost as good (very close) due to the integrated software and conversion chipset it has. They both seem to support all the latest standards. Anyone buy a 2017 model 4k TV recently and/or have some insights to share?

OLED technology is superior to plain ol' "LED" technology (read: LCD with an LED backlight). The blacks on OLED are far better, and you'll hear this over and over again as a differentiation point between TVs. So what are you really buying in a TV? Here are a few terms:

1) Value-Add (garbage) -- think integrated YouTube, Netflix, etc. Your receiver already does most of this. It's all terrible and requires your TV -- which is a notoriously insecure piece of tech -- to be hooked up to the internet. You can buy an Apple TV that does the same thing for $100.

2) HDR - High Dynamic Range -- think wider, more accurate colors. A good thing. It's sometimes called "UHD Premium" or 10-bit color. Plenty of articles out there about HDR but if you're buying a new TV, you want it.

3) Compression -- Without going into detail, look for something called 4:4:4 Chroma. It's all about how much colors are compressed down and particularly important if you are using a HTPC.

4) Refresh rate and input rate -- important for HTPCs and gaming. Not so much for movies.

5) Curved vs. flat -- obvious here. I never did see the appeal of curved TVs.

Oh, and be careful how much bandwidth throughput your receiver can handle. HDMI 2.1 has an incredible amount of data (48 Gbit/s) compared to 18 for HDMI 2.0 and 10.2 for 1.4 (the last of the pre-4K specs). You may also want to look into HDCP 2.2 specs if you are watching a lot of UHD Blu-Rays.

Good luck on getting much content in 4k.

It's not quite there yet, but getting better.

You can buy a 4K player or stream some content. Amazon, Netflix, all the players offer 'some' shows/series in 4K.

Remember, your picture quality is only as good as the source from which it originates.

Once you narrow down your model go check AVSforum to see what the geeks are saying about it.

Cheers~

Just got this one a few weeks ago. Haven't really stretched its legs, it's just hanging on the wall using internal speakers in den for now. The picture is pretty awesome on C-Spire fiber! I've been using Pana plasmas in media room(s) the last few years and this looks like it may be nearly as good as the "old-school" tech that us nuts like.

Sony XBR-55X900

I just picked up a Samsung 55" Class 4K (2160P) Smart LED TV (UN55KU6290F) for $449 at Walmart last Thursday.
The price on the box was $598 but when the salesman scanned it, it came up as $449.
Best Buy had it for $798.
It is priced higher on Walmart's site so it might be worth your while to go in an have someone scan it at the store.
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Sam...-UN55KU6290/52859178

Sony!!!!!
In laws have the 85" Sony and it is awesome.

I'm not trying to sway you from LG or Sony, but have you seen the new Samsung QLED TV's. Supposedly the QLED picture has brighter colors than the OLED TV's, but the OLED TV's have a much deeper black. You might want to check them out for the fun of it. When I go to Best Buy I always check out the latest and greatest.

quote:

Originally posted by dedguy:
I'm not trying to sway you from LG or Sony, but have you seen the new Samsung QLED TV's. Supposedly the QLED picture has brighter colors than the OLED TV's, but the OLED TV's have a much deeper black. You might want to check them out for the fun of it. When I go to Best Buy I always check out the latest and greatest.

OLED vs Quantum Dot of Samsung is an ongoing battle.
Both are good just different technologies.

Are you planning to buy a 90+ inch TV? Or planning to sit closer than 5 feet to your TV?

If not, don't shell out extra for 4K. Your eyes physically can't distinguish the difference between regular 1080p HD and 4K at most normal viewing distances on most TVs.

For the average TV viewer, who has a ~50" TV at ~10 feet away, 4K is a total waste of money.

(In fact, most folks would be hard pressed to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on their home TVs.)

We have a 60" Samsung ks8000 series.

quote:

Are you planning to buy a 90+ inch TV? Or planning to sit closer than 5 feet to your TV?

Sitting so close certainly takes some getting used to but watching true 4K HDR content is flat amazing.

I have an Vizio 4k and it is amazing.. I gave my son my Samsung LEd... it is a 55 inch and worth it.

I was going to comment that I didn't know Harley-Davidson had branched out into the TV market, but I see I was off the track....

flashguy

My response to my friends for the last 20 years was always...Did you get home and wish you had a SMALLER TV?

So yes, I am a big advocate of GET THE BIGGER SIZE.

Nowadays I am lost - you can get 55 inch Smart Set for under $500.

Shit, just go for it I guess. I mean, $500? Just do it.

We bought a 65" Samsung 4K, smart TV last year and it is without a doubt the best TV I have ever owned. Give her another look.

If you're buying a TV that is an OLED,it is made by LG, including the Sony Bravia OLED that cost $1000. Besides the Sony software, the only difference is Sony turned the TV into a big speaker. Might as well buy the LG.

As far as viewing distance vs resolution is concerned, I think some people have focused too much on being overly mathematical about what the "ideal" viewing distance is. That graph posted above and others I've seen have been rebuffed by people with actual visual engineering experience and scientific evidence (indicating the actual math would be at least twice the distance in those graphs), but at the end of the day the ideal viewing distance is going to be whatever YOU determine it to be. Some people say the ideal viewing distance is right at the point where you can no longer see the individual pixels for any given TV and resolution. Forgive the pun but that is quite a narrow and short sighted determination. Some say you get more immersion by sitting really close to a large screen. Sorry, if I want to feel like I'm inside the picture I'll put on a virtual reality helmet for that experience.

A good example is when you go to the theater. Where do most people prefer to sit and fill up first? Usually somewhere in the middle to the upper third of the theater as far as distance away from the screen and relatively centered to the picture. This allows you to appreciate the sharper details of the picture, while still being able to take in and appreciate the background, separate elements across the screen, and the picture as a whole. This is how I approach my TV viewing experience and setup.

Another good way to look at it is to compare two TVs of the same size but in 1080p and 4K. The 4K pixels will indeed become unnoticeable and provide maximum detail sooner than a 1080p TV because the pixels are physically smaller, but that doesn't mean stop and watch from right there. There is more to it than just peripheral angles and immersion level. I absolutely can tell the difference in the viewing experience of a 4K TV and a 1080p at say 6 or 7 feet viewing distance. It likely has a lot to do with different individuals' eyesight and visual acuity, not to mention how they interpret colors.

So why would there be support and promotion of larger and larger TVs for a given space or distance? I believe it has much more to do with marketing larger TVs they can charge significantly more for due to their larger size. 4K does help larger TVs somewhat more than smaller TVs though because of the fact that the pixels do disappear into the picture detail at a closer distance than with a lower resolution. I'll never forget when 1080p was only starting to become prominent and my brother's brother-in-law bought a TV in the 65 to 75" range and it looked terrible at the view distance it was limited to because you could easily make out the pixels and grain of the image. Again, 4K makes getting a larger TV for a closer, smaller space better due to the smaller pixels, but not absolutely necessary to get the most out of 4K, color technologies, and image processing. With my average viewing distance of 7 feet, and the setup of my family room viewing area, a 55" is pretty ideal for our viewing preferences and you can absolutely tell the difference at that distance between native 1080p and 1080p / 4K upconversion and native 4K content.

I seem to be happy with any flat screen that has no obvious "issues". My current TV is an older 40" Toshiba that is old enough that it has a CCFL backlight. It's working fine, so I didn't retire it or move it to reserve status when I recently moved. I have other things to spend money on right now than a TV. But when it dies, a 55" one will probably take it's place.

I'm always amazed at how high people keep putting their TVs when they hang them on the wall. Then they complain about their neck hurting, etc. As someone with a bad neck, I want the center of my TV where I look at sitting normally. I've hung three TVs on walls so far, and every single time, I get arguments from the people helping me do it that it's "too low". They always admit that I'm right after they sit and watch it.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
I was going to comment that I didn't know Harley-Davidson had branched out into the TV market, but I see I was off the track....

I was thinking "$4,000 TV? Get outta here!"