Looking for a 55" TV but completely baffled - help!

[RichB]

I'm looking for a 55" tv but the choice is baffling to me! Looking at Richer Sounds there are Samsungs at £560 through to over £1000. They all seem to be Ultra HD but then there's QLED and LG have OLED and I haven't a clue about the difference is. INcidentally because I have SkyQ I don't need TV+

I don't play games and I'm not interested in internet connectivity, all I want to do is watch TV and films with a good quality image. I won't be adding a sound-bar as I already have an excellent Denon/KEF amp/speaker setup.

Is there stuff on the £1k+ screens that I won't need?

e.g. https://www.richersounds.com/tv-projectors/all-tvs...

https://www.richersounds.com/tv-projectors/all-tvs...

[legzr1]

UHD from SkyQ on an LG OLED looks great (and should be even better when HDR is added).

UHD from disc can vary from excellent to absolutely stunning.

If price isn’t a problem I’d always recommend LG OLED screens. The later 7-series are almost impossible to fault.

[B17NNS]

LG B7 OLED is what you want.

[RichB]

Lots of love for the LG then. I've had Samsung and Panasonic in the past so are LG head and shoulders above the rest now?

[B17NNS]

The B7 (and C7 - Currys version) is actually the bottom of the range of LG OLED's. However the entire range uses exactly the same panel and processing. If you're handling the sound side of things with an AV amp the B7 is the pick of the bunch.

https://www.whathifi.com/lg/oled55b7v/review

[jmorgan]

RichB said:

Lots of love for the LG then. I've had Samsung and Panasonic in the past so are LG head and shoulders above the rest now?

Only firm making OLED panels. They flog a few to Sony and Panasonic I think. Blacks are so good you cannot tell if the set is off or not on a black screen.

[tenohfive]

The answer involves a few more questions:

What's your viewing distance?
How much (if any) HDR content will you be watching?
Is the room particularly bright or a sun trap?
Do you watch much sports?
And what are your budgets (everyone's got two - 'what I'm saying I'll spend, and 'if a tiny bit extra gets me a lot more, I'll stretch.'

From what I've seen you've got three basic categories. But different screens are better or worse at different scenarios, so a bit part depends on your content:

1. OLED. The LG B7 mentioned above is hands down the most popular in this category for being VFM (about £1500 for a 55".) Good picture quality, good brightness levels, screen uniformity, contrast, colour, HDR support etc. Stories of screen burn with OLED if that might be an issue for consideration.

2. The higher end LED's that can do decent HDR. Sony XE93 and XE90 series, Samsung Q7. The XE90 is considered an introductory level HDR screen and the XE93 is considered very, very good for HDR and a good example of how well LED can handle HDR. The Samsung Q7 is apparently in the same ball park as the XE93, but is priced higher. But Easter Bank Holiday is coming, so there may be some sales to be had. The XE93 is about £1400, the XE90 a bit less.

3. The good quality 4K sets. HiSense N8700/Panasonic EX750B/Samsung MU7000 etc. None really bright enough in HDR to really be a shining example - they'll support HDR, but you're unlikely to get much from it. But very good picture quality from all of them, and for a chunk less cash than the tier above (they're about £750.)

If you're not going to be close enough to the TV to truly appreciate the benefits of 4K, don't stream (or watch on UHD Bluray) much HDR content and are looking for something for the living room that'll look good, have decent PQ and will no doubt put a smile on your face any of the above will do that. They're all decent TV's.
If you've got the extra, will be viewing the content to make the extra expense worthwhile then for me the XE90 or XE93 are cracking deals right now, although with the LG B7 only £100 more I'd be tempted.

One thing I will say - don't let the love for LG OLED's trick you into thinking their LED range are any good. LG do good OLED's, but for the most part their LED sets aren't very good value.

Edited by tenohfive on Sunday 25th March 20:15

[RichB]

tenohfive said:

The answer involves a few more questions:

What's your viewing distance?
How much (if any) HDR content will you be watching?
Is the room particularly bright or a sun trap?
Do you watch much sports?
And what are your budgets

Thanks. Chatting to my SIL today and we reckon I'd be better with a 49/50" screen. We view from 9'-10' (3m) distance.
Room is not bright (the screen faces north east)
We watch lots of sport (Sometimes tennis is the worst on out current tv)
Budget say £1k - £1.2k

I believe 40" rules out OLED and am considering the Samsung 49" Q7F but AV Foums suggests the Sony 49" XE90

Thoughts?

[tenohfive]

I'll add this much so that some don't jump down my throat: viewing distance isn't everything. But if you're going to go for a 4K TV, this chart is worth keeping in mind - and the long and short of it, is that if you're going to get any benefit from 4K you'll probably want to be closer or go bigger:


https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-...

I only draw your attention to this because your viewing size is going downwards, not up. For me if it works in other regards (room space etc) I'd be looking at 65" TV - the Hisense N8700 is currently selling for £1099 and is very well featured for the money.

But if you're decided on the smaller size, bang for buck the XE90 is consistently well reviewed. I suspect you'd probably be able to drop a price bracket and not notice much difference from 3m away though.

[RichB]

Thanks, I always take those sort of charts with a pinch of salt because the thought of someone sitting 2 feet away from a 60" screen is laughable. I think it may be the difference between avid teenage gamers who sit up close and people who relax with a glass of wine to watch a film or some sport. Good point about the Sony, it does get good feedback.

[jmorgan]

Use the charts to understand there is a limitation but as always, the final test is yourself. Best if you can get some material on a data stick and the shop will oblige.

Edit. Sat close to one 4k set (sweet spot according to the chart), big brand LED, and the picture was terrible for my money but it would have been an early 4k, not one of the more recent ones, closer can be worse if the picture the set produces is naff.

Edited by jmorgan on Monday 26th March 09:48

[tenohfive]

Those charts are actually built upon the limitations of the human eye, not teenage gamers. Our eye is a camera at the end of the day. My point - and the reason for posting - is there's sod all point spending a lot of money on resolution, sharpness and picture quality that you won't benefit because of the viewing distances involved.

Not that I'd be saving that money. I'd be sinking it into other elements of the AV setup such as sound (although it sounds like you've got that point covered.) From your description above of sitting back with a glass of wine, it doesn't sound like the sort of home cinema lover who'll get excited by the quality of the HDR on the latest 4K UHD disc release, whilst sitting close enough to replicate that cinema, immersed experience. So I do think you could save yourself a few quid and not notice any difference in day to day use - mid range TV's still do very good PQ, motion handling etc.

jmorgan said:

Use the charts to understand there is a limitation but as always, the final test is yourself. Best if you can get some material on a data stick and the shop will oblige.

Not the worst idea, but keep in mind that most shops won't have the TV setup in a way that will be anything like what you're doing at home. Most people won't bother paying for calibration, but most reviews will recommend a viewing mode that will give you the best results. If you can control both the content and the modes then yes, it makes sense. But otherwise you'll still need to take what you see with a pinch of salt. Just like with everything else (as you've also pointed out.)

[RichB]

tenohfive said:

Not that I'd be saving that money. I'd be sinking it into other elements of the AV setup such as sound (although it sounds like you've got that point covered.)

Yep, the Denon amp and Kef Q Series speakers are mighty. Great for watching a DVD of the Who at high volume!

tenohfive said:

From your description above of sitting back with a glass of wine, it doesn't sound like the sort of home cinema lover who'll get excited by the quality of the HDR on the latest 4K UHD disc release, whilst sitting close enough to replicate that cinema, immersed experience. So I do think you could save yourself a few quid and not notice any difference in day to day use - mid range TV's still do very good PQ, motion handling etc.

Probably true.

Edited by RichB on Monday 26th March 11:25

[jmorgan]

tenohfive said:

Not the worst idea, but keep in mind that most shops won't have the TV setup in a way that will be anything like what you're doing at home. Most people won't bother paying for calibration, but most reviews will recommend a viewing mode that will give you the best results. If you can control both the content and the modes then yes, it makes sense. But otherwise you'll still need to take what you see with a pinch of salt. Just like with everything else (as you've also pointed out.)

It is tricky. I took some time and took a few months, the clincher really was seeing the HD version of the UHD version side by side and comparing the upscaling. I was already sold on the 4K but knowing a larger portion of watching was going to be HD upscaled. Wish they would turn off the SD channels for good, wasted space on my EPG now.

[Basil Brush]

RichB said:

Thanks. Chatting to my SIL today and we reckon I'd be better with a 49/50" screen. We view from 9'-10' (3m) distance.
Room is not bright (the screen faces north east)
We watch lots of sport (Sometimes tennis is the worst on out current tv)
Budget say £1k - £1.2k

I believe 40" rules out OLED and am considering the Samsung 49" Q7F but AV Foums suggests the Sony 49" XE90

Thoughts?

The Sony XF90 is out now but a bit above your price range.

[Miocene]

If you work for an employer who does 'perks' you might be able to get 8% off Currys at the moment on an instant evoucher. There's also a £70 off tvs over £1000 on TopCashBack at the mo, which will bring an LG OLED in at around £1,330.

[tenohfive]

jmorgan said:

It is tricky. I took some time and took a few months, the clincher really was seeing the HD version of the UHD version side by side and comparing the upscaling. I was already sold on the 4K but knowing a larger portion of watching was going to be HD upscaled. Wish they would turn off the SD channels for good, wasted space on my EPG now.

I've ditched my TV subscription completely. The missus still watches some SD stuff through catchup apps (currently on a Fire TV, although a nVidia Shield is on the horizon) but I'm pretty much exclusively a Netflix guy now. The quality of which does help, and makes life a little simpler when it comes to my next TV choice. Although I do hear that some of the benefits of the higher end TV processors (for example the X1 Extreme in the XE93 vs the X1 in the XE90) come from their upscaling performance. That's usually referenced in the context of HD to 4K mind, rather than SD.

[B17NNS]

SD really does just need to die with dignity now. Pretty much unwatchable on any reasonably sized modern TV.

[wiggy001]

B17NNS said:

SD really does just need to die with dignity now. Pretty much unwatchable on any reasonably sized modern TV.

It's annoying that Sky still charge a monthly fee for HD and fill the planner with SD versions of HD channels. I'd be interested to know what percentage of their customers actually use an SD set.

[jmorgan]

I wonder how many watch SD and do not realise there is a difference or appreciate the difference. Walk into many shops and there are more DVD's for sale than Blurays. Suggest that many people are still using it.

Most source now is HD at least I would have thought.