getting LED tv anybody have experience?

[Anonymous]

For christmas, my GF and I are buying each other an LED tv.  I'm worried the technology is too new and it would be better to wait a year, but at the same time, theres always a new technology to say that about, so if you keep waiting you're just stuck without a tv

Anywho, we have a 40" LCD that is sony bravia, which will be moving to the bedroom ya i know, I'm thrilled

So my sony has been really good to me, and I know Sony and Samsung are pretty much the only two players in the LED market as of right now.  Actually they're the only two I know of that even produce an LED.  Maybe Pioneer does, but I never see Pioneers because they're way out of the typical consumers price range.  Back on topic, my cousin works at HHGregg, so we'll be getting it at cost, which is the only way to afford one, lol!  I'm set that if we go LED it has to be 240Hz.  Hey, if you're gonna pay out the wazoo for the latest, you gotta make sure you get the latest AND greatest.  Also, it must be 50" or larger, as I'm not going to upgrade my tv unless it's bigger, because the 40" is 1080p as it is, and it's still gorgeous.

Other than that, does anybody have any input on the LED tvs?  They're so gorgeous, though I haven't ruled out getting the same size plasma at 1/3 the cost.

[Anonymous]

Cleaner picture, brighter images. They tend to run cooler than Plasma but hotter than LCD. Relatively more expensive than both of the other options. Otherwise, I have heard they are awesome. If you get one, have fun.

[Lel]

I've been thinking about an LED TV ever since someone in our neighborhood starting driving a Scion with "Samsung LED TV" emblazoned on its sides.

In my limited research, I get the sense that it's important to determine whether an LED TV is a "full" LED or an "edge-lit" LED.  The latter, which the first Samsungs offered, may not be substantially better than the standard LCD TVs.  I believe that the contrast ratio offered by an edge-lit LED might not be much better than LCDs.  Full LED backlighting, on the other hand, is supposed to produce outstanding contrast.

But regardless if whether it's full or edge-lit LED, the TVs are all much thinner, lighter, and energy-efficient than LCDs.

I found an online article a while back about this, but I can't find it right now.  If I find the link, I'll post it.  In the meantime, if I have got all of this completely wrong, then somebody please correct me.

[Anonymous]

Well, I'm pretty sure this tv is edge-lit, not local dimming LED, because it's about 1" thick, which is just not possible with local dimming LED technology.  Plus it's about $2500, whereas I believes the local dimming models are more expensive than that.  But, as I'm pretty satisfied with the look of my current Bravia LCD, I'd rather have a much thinner edge-lit LED that still looks beautiful than a much more expensive and much thicker local dimming LED.  The refresh rate is going to be the most noticeable difference, as the contrast ratio difference between an edge-lit and local dimming LED is not going to be too substantial.

Message Edited by thrasher865 on 11-15-2009 01:44 AM

[haulingthescoreup]

Cheer up, on down the road it won't be so big an issue. There's no discernible difference in refresh rates to 55-year-old post-Lasik eyes with residual astigmatism and now needing reading glasses!

[Anonymous]

Decided to go with the Samsung 50" 860 series plasma, as it's equally as thin (1.2") and has, of course, comparable contrast, but is nearly $1000 cheaper.  Of course I was looking forward to the energy savings of the LED, but it will take a long time to use up that $1000 in energy

[fishbjc]

• I have a lovely Sony 60" in the basement.  DH won it along with a bose home theater system, which I gave away.  Not into tv all that much.  We've watched it twice.
• I watch a small 14" in my bedroom.  I'm quite happy with for now.
• Our main tv in our family room is now making crackling noises, what's up with that?
• I may need to save these recommendations.

[marty56]

---

@haulingthescoreup wrote:
Cheer up, on down the road it won't be so big an issue. There's no discernible difference in refresh rates to 55-year-old post-Lasik eyes with residual astigmatism and now needing reading glasses!

---

LOL I can smell flicker on a montior and TV and  have the same eye background you do except you are 2 years older then me.  Dang by the time DW will okay the new TV, I wont be able to enjoy it and will have to buy the 120 HZ.  Unless of course something happens to the old one.

Vizio has a nice 55inch LED set for under 2k.

[Anonymous]

Vizios are "nice" tvs "for the money" but for true videophiles nothing compares to a samsung or panasonic plasma or a sony/samsung LCD.  All the other brands are light years behind, although I haven't really kept up with the TV market the past couple years and this generation a couple have made advancements (LG) but there is still no comparison.

This is all just talk now, though, as I have come close to the conclusion that I just don't need a TV enough right now since I already have the 40" Sony LCD.  Unfortunately, HHGregg just got a Samsung 58" of the 860 series that is "open box" but never taken out says my family connection hookup, so that is making this decision especially difficult to come to.

Message Edited by thrasher865 on 11-20-2009 04:09 PM

[Anonymous]

I love my Sharp Aquos 45" LCD...3 years old and can watch in any light!  Great contrast and blacks, true 1080 HD and connects to anything from HDMI on down.