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

#26
#26
Rasputin_Vol said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are missing the point I was making. OLED with current HD signal is better than that Samsung UltraHD LED is with an UltraHD signal.

So OLED is superior now with existing programing and will continue to be.

It is quite future proof; at least for 10 years.
 
#27
#27
chargervol said:
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.
Click to expand...

Which is why I said OLED is superior to LED because the difference is large and noticeable with regular HD (1080p) feeds.

The marketing hype is LED with UltraHD; not OLED.
 
#28
#28
Rasputin_Vol said:
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.
Click to expand...

You can't speak for anyone but yourself so the use of "you" should be "I".

The picture is more than "marginally" better.

You reference 10 - 15 years - that OLED you buy today will be still looking great in 10 - 15 years while that LED you by today will be showing it's technological performance age.
 
#29
#29
volinbham said:
You are missing the point I was making. OLED with current HD signal is better than that Samsung UltraHD LED is with an UltraHD signal.

So OLED is superior now with existing programing and will continue to be.

It is quite future proof; at least for 10 years.
Click to expand...

Maybe so. Just not worth the 2.5 times mark up is all I'm saying.

Put it like this, the Average Joe isn't going to complain about the resolution or picture on a $799 TV nowadays.
 
#30
#30
Rasputin_Vol said:
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?
Click to expand...

It's clear you don't understand the difference in picture reproduction.

The picture quality difference between OLED and LED is not about 4k vs 1080p; it is the manner in which the picture is created.

Just as plasma creates a different picture than LED with the same feed so to does OLED. You get real blacks - watch a dark scene in a movie on both and you'll see a world of difference. You get clearer and cleaner demarcation between colors. Again, it is a noticeable difference and this is all with the same 1080p feed.

Since you want to complain about marketing hype and marginal differences that is HD vs UltraHD on any set.
 
#31
#31
volinbham said:
You can't speak for anyone but yourself so the use of "you" should be "I".

The picture is more than "marginally" better.

You reference 10 - 15 years - that OLED you buy today will be still looking great in 10 - 15 years while that LED you by today will be showing it's technological performance age.
Click to expand...

I would only have $799 invested in my TV 10 years from now. And by that same time, at the rate it is taking 4k TV broadcasts to spread, you may finally have 4-5 channels that broadcast in 8k on your 10 year old $2000 TV set.
 
#32
#32
Rasputin_Vol said:
Maybe so. Just not worth the 2.5 times mark up is all I'm saying.

Put it like this, the Average Joe isn't going to complain about the resolution or picture on a $799 TV nowadays.
Click to expand...

It's not worth it to you.

Besides, you can get an OLED 50 inch for around 1500 so that's less than 2x.

If the average Joe had an OLED TV he wouldn't be complaining but his buddies would when they had to go home and what the game on their 799 LED.
 
#34
#34
Rasputin_Vol said:
I would only have $799 invested in my TV 10 years from now. And by that same time, at the rate it is taking 4k TV broadcasts to spread, you may finally have 4-5 channels that broadcast in 8k on your 10 year old $2000 TV set.
Click to expand...

It's not about 4k - OLED is superior with 1080p. It will remain superior with 4k if that becomes widespread.

It's superior with SD, 720p, 1080i, 1080p, UltraHD, etc.
 
#35
#35
volinbham said:
It's clear you don't understand the difference in picture reproduction.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying regarding that. And again, my point is even if we are talking apples to apples as far as broadcast resolution, the average person, once you get them out of the showroom floor and into a living room, will be just as happy with a sub-$1000 TV. There really isn't much justification to spend twice as much to get a slightly better picture.
 
#36
#36
Rasputin_Vol said:
I understand what you are saying regarding that. And again, my point is even if we are talking apples to apples as far as broadcast resolution, the average person, once you get them out of the showroom floor and into a living room, will be just as happy with a sub-$1000 TV. There really isn't much justification to spend twice as much to get a slightly better picture.
Click to expand...

No one is arguing whether YOU will be just as happy with the sub1000. We are rejecting your need to speak for everyone else.

You are channeling LG again speaking for Joe Sixpack.

Better yet, you are channeling UTGibbs telling us the tradeoffs people should make and how we don't need all these different potato chips since Pringles exist and they are the greatest potato chip ever.
 
#38
#38
volinbham said:
No one is arguing whether YOU will be just as happy with the sub1000. We are rejecting your need to speak for everyone else.

You are channeling LG again speaking for Joe Sixpack.

Better yet, you are channeling UTGibbs telling us the tradeoffs people should make and how we don't need all these different potato chips since Pringles exist and they are the greatest potato chip ever.
Click to expand...

If you want to overpay for a marginally better TV, have at it, brother. I'll lose a lot less sleep about your purchase than you would about what I've said in this thread.

Again, 15 years ago, they technology would have justified going from a regular TV to a DLP HD TV. Most people could wrap their minds around paying double for that obviously noticeable difference in picture quality. But today, even a low end HD TV at that magical $799-$899 price point is only marginally inferior to a OLED. And again, lets not trust our lying eyes... or at least what we see on the showroom floors, because again, they selectively choose what they will display on those screens to make a sale. Yet, when Joe Sixpack takes that TV home, the picture he sees may be marginally better between OLED and regular LED, and if he's expecting 8k or even 4k resolution, he will be disappointed to find out that his resolution is only as good as the signal being broadcast.
 
#40
#40
Rasputin_Vol said:
If you want to overpay for a marginally better TV, have at it, brother. I'll lose a lot less sleep about your purchase than you would about what I've said in this thread.

Again, 15 years ago, they technology would have justified going from a regular TV to a DLP HD TV. Most people could wrap their minds around paying double for that obviously noticeable difference in picture quality. But today, even a low end HD TV at that magical $799-$899 price point is only marginally inferior to a OLED. And again, lets not trust our lying eyes... or at least what we see on the showroom floors, because again, they selectively choose what they will display on those screens to make a sale. Yet, when Joe Sixpack takes that TV home, the picture he sees may be marginally better between OLED and regular LED, and if he's expecting 8k or even 4k resolution, he will be disappointed to find out that his resolution is only as good as the signal being broadcast.
Click to expand...

Settle down chief - sure seems like you are trying to justify your purchase plans.

The consumer you described above is a moron; fooled by the store display, too dumb to understand 4k and unable to trust his own eyes.

Thank goodness you are here to save shoppers from their moronic decisions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#41
#41
Another thing you are missing is that not everyone is watching broadcast tv. Lots of other cases where broadcast tv isn't the primary source of content people watch. Not a ton of 4K material out now, but there's a good bit between Netflix, youtube, 4K blu rays, etc.

You don't want to pay twice as much for a tv. You think it's too expensive. We all follow you there.

Saying new sets are not better or not worth the price, that's just silly. It's just your opinion.

Next time you're in an electronics store, check out the new quantum dot and oled sets that are crazy prices. No way you can look at them and not see the difference. The color range, the blacks, etc. We understand you aren't willing to pay the difference, but saying it's not better is just your opinion. The SD to HD jump is similar to the jump from LED HD to a QD 4K full HDR set in my opinion.
 
#43
#43
volinbham said:
No one is arguing whether YOU will be just as happy with the sub1000. We are rejecting your need to speak for everyone else.

You are channeling LG again speaking for Joe Sixpack.

Better yet, you are channeling UTGibbs telling us the tradeoffs people should make and how we don't need all these different potato chips since Pringles exist and they are the greatest potato chip ever.
Click to expand...

Rasputin_Vol said:
If you want to overpay for a marginally better TV, have at it, brother. I'll lose a lot less sleep about your purchase than you would about what I've said in this thread.

Again, 15 years ago, they technology would have justified going from a regular TV to a DLP HD TV. Most people could wrap their minds around paying double for that obviously noticeable difference in picture quality. But today, even a low end HD TV at that magical $799-$899 price point is only marginally inferior to a OLED. And again, lets not trust our lying eyes... or at least what we see on the showroom floors, because again, they selectively choose what they will display on those screens to make a sale. Yet, when Joe Sixpack takes that TV home, the picture he sees may be marginally better between OLED and regular LED, and if he's expecting 8k or even 4k resolution, he will be disappointed to find out that his resolution is only as good as the signal being broadcast.
Click to expand...

Your message, which I completely agree with, just doesn't seem to be registering with Ras. And one other point he doesn't seem to be considering regarding HD and 4K, is that 4K is not limited to streaming. There's also gaming and 4K DVD's available for your enjoyment.
 
#44
#44
DrRosenRosen said:
Another thing you are missing is that not everyone is watching broadcast tv. Lots of other cases where broadcast tv isn't the primary source of content people watch. Not a ton of 4K material out now, but there's a good bit between Netflix, youtube, 4K blu rays, etc.

You don't want to pay twice as much for a tv. You think it's too expensive. We all follow you there.

Saying new sets are not better or not worth the price, that's just silly. It's just your opinion.

Next time you're in an electronics store, check out the new quantum dot and oled sets that are crazy prices. No way you can look at them and not see the difference. The color range, the blacks, etc. We understand you aren't willing to pay the difference, but saying it's not better is just your opinion. The SD to HD jump is similar to the jump from LED HD to a QD 4K full HDR set in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Again, I didn't say they weren't better. I just said marginally better. To the average person, is it worth the added mark up to have a slightly better picture? To some it would be. But to the vast majority of people, once they educate themselves and weigh everything out, they will come to the same conclusion as I have.
 
#45
#45
Rasputin_Vol said:
Again, I didn't say they weren't better. I just said marginally better. To the average person, is it worth the added mark up to have a slightly better picture? To some it would be. But to the vast majority of people, once they educate themselves and weigh everything out, they will come to the same conclusion as I have.
Click to expand...

I would argue that the highest end TVs aren't for the average person. Different people have different interests and hobbies. You could make your same flawed argument for any consumer product, and it makes just as little sense.
 
#46
#46
jjay2518 said:
I would argue that the highest end TVs aren't for the average person. Different people have different interests and hobbies. You could make your same flawed argument for any consumer product, and it makes just as little sense.
Click to expand...

I made an the comment earlier about the person choosing a Lexus over a Toyota. I don't have ill feelings on the Lexus owner or the $2000 TV buyer. I'm just saying that the price difference isn't as justifiable today as maybe it was 15 years ago.

I don't think I've come in here telling people to not spend whatever amount of money they want to spend on a TV. I just said that for what you get, it doesn't quite make much sense for most people.
 
#48
#48
if you cant tell the difference between a $800 tv vs a $2000 tv, you need to have your eyes checked. I will gladly pay the extra $$ for the superior picture.
 
#49
#49
My two cents:

Even my decade-old LCD has a great picture for most purposes. It's worlds different from an old low-fi signal on big screen on wheels when you couldn't even make out the numbers on a uniform. For watching routine TV or sports, most any modern LED is more than adequate. An $800 Samsung looks incredible.

Now, if you are an A/V enthusiast looking to watch HD or Blu-Ray in a media room with controlled lighting, there is definitely a difference with the high-end stuff. My projector in the basement has incredible contrast and looks 10x better than the last one I owned in my last house. But, the gap has narrowed.

The same can be said for audio. I can tell a difference in my reference speakers, but there are modestly priced options that still work really well for most applications.

It's a lot like really good wine: you can have a nice Cabernet or Pinot worthy of pairing with a steak for under $20. Some people have disposable income to justify the exponential increase in price to jump into the cellar-worthy class, but it comes down to value for me.

I certainly won't chastise anyone for dropping the cash for a 4k or OLED, but I can't imagine not enjoying a good flick on most any of the widely available affordable televisions.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top