LED LCD HDTV?
November 22, 2010 1:23 PM Subscribe
LED LCD HDTV? I'm looking to finally replace my 1998-vintage CRT with a Samsung 40" LED LCD @120 Hz (model #UN40C6300SF). It's on sale at Best Buy and the reviews have been very positive with a few complaints of bad panels and visible corner "flashlighting" in a dark room. Anyone have experience with LED TVs? I like their sexy slimness, but are they built to last? Should I wait another year for a comparably-priced 3D version?
Best answer: Anyone have experience with LED TVs?
I've seen a few friends' LED LCD TVs. They are pretty. What you notice is that they have better contrast and brightness than CFL based LCD's.
I like their sexy slimness, but are they built to last?
Only time will really tell, but in theory they should last longer than CFL based LCDs. This is based on the fact that the individual LEDs take forever to burn out. CFLs will wear down in brightness over time, and eventually burn out. Typical burnout time for a CFL is considered to be 10,000 hours vs. 25,000 for LED. source
Should I wait another year for a comparably-priced 3D version?
Should you wait? I didn't. Most people aren't. 3D TVs might be a fad and not stick around, and we're probably a few years from 3D pentrating the market to where you have movies and TV shows that are in 3D, beyond a handful of movies and sports programming. Also, no one really knows if 3D TVs will fall in price to match in one year; if you did, you'd be rich with that knowledge.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 1:36 PM on November 22, 2010 [1 favorite]
I've seen a few friends' LED LCD TVs. They are pretty. What you notice is that they have better contrast and brightness than CFL based LCD's.
I like their sexy slimness, but are they built to last?
Only time will really tell, but in theory they should last longer than CFL based LCDs. This is based on the fact that the individual LEDs take forever to burn out. CFLs will wear down in brightness over time, and eventually burn out. Typical burnout time for a CFL is considered to be 10,000 hours vs. 25,000 for LED. source
Should I wait another year for a comparably-priced 3D version?
Should you wait? I didn't. Most people aren't. 3D TVs might be a fad and not stick around, and we're probably a few years from 3D pentrating the market to where you have movies and TV shows that are in 3D, beyond a handful of movies and sports programming. Also, no one really knows if 3D TVs will fall in price to match in one year; if you did, you'd be rich with that knowledge.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 1:36 PM on November 22, 2010 [1 favorite]
Best answer: I just posted this in another thread a week or so ago:
I bought a new flat-panel TV just under a year ago, and here are my notes on what I did wrong:posted by The Michael The at 1:37 PM on November 22, 2010 [3 favorites]I wasted a ton of time on the CNET reviews site, and elsewhere, but I'm thoroughly convinced that by sticking with a well-regarded brand and shopping for 1. price point and 2. features, you can't really go wrong. If I had to do it again, I'd buy the best 46" Samsung or Panasonic I could afford with at least a 120 hz refresh rate and be done with it.
- First, I would have bought a Panasonic plasma, which are still among the best-regarded TVs out there. Better color, better blacks, better refresh rate, generally less expensive. However, our living room is really bright and plasmas universally have glossy screens, so glare was huge concern. We bought an LCD. Honestly, the plasma probably would have been fine. Though, burn-in is a concern for gaming with plasmas (I don't know if this is current knowledge, though).
- Then, for LCDs, I had lots of recommendations to buy Samsungs, from people who handle deployment of such things to, for example, college classrooms. I bought a Sony, and while it's certainly fine, there are times when I've been disappointed in its picture quality. I should have shelled out the extra $100 for the Samsung.
- Again, if I had had more money to spend I would have gone with LED, for the reasons kindall explained (except my understanding is that the LED will eventually just go out, versus the slow fade of the standard LCD).
- I did, however, get a 120 hz model, which was a good decision, because it syncs up really nicely with the 24-fps rate of Blu-Ray discs with film sources and negates the need for 3:2 pulldown. You definitely get that "film feel." It could be confirmation bias, of course, but it works for me.
- Finally, I bought a 40". It felt huge at first, coming from a 27" CRT TV, but man, we should have gone bigger. So don't skimp on size—be sure that you only want a 46".
Great advice here so far. One additional note I'd make is that some people (including me) still like the older CCFL LCD screens over the new LEDs because of the difference between back-lighting and edge lighting.
Back lit TVs have a lighting source behind the screen, but spread out throughout the picture. Edge lit units are, obviously, lit along the edges of the screen, not throughout. This results in a change in picture color and luminosity as you move from the edge of the screen to the middle. Virtually all reasonably priced large screen LED LCDs are still edge lit (and while there are smaller back-lit LED LCDs, I'm not sure they are making 40" back-lit panels yet.) The older, thicker LCD panels are, at this point, almost all back-lit.
A few months ago, I was also choosing between LCD and LED screens for my new TV. After some viewings in different light settings at different stores, both my wife and I decided that the older LCD panel had better reproduction - almost as good as a plasma (and without the plasma's color fading or burn in issues).
If the edge lighting doesn't bother you - go for it. My dad got a LED LCD Samsung, and he loves it. Just make sure you're aware of the issue so you can take it into account.
posted by thewittyname at 2:07 PM on November 22, 2010
Back lit TVs have a lighting source behind the screen, but spread out throughout the picture. Edge lit units are, obviously, lit along the edges of the screen, not throughout. This results in a change in picture color and luminosity as you move from the edge of the screen to the middle. Virtually all reasonably priced large screen LED LCDs are still edge lit (and while there are smaller back-lit LED LCDs, I'm not sure they are making 40" back-lit panels yet.) The older, thicker LCD panels are, at this point, almost all back-lit.
A few months ago, I was also choosing between LCD and LED screens for my new TV. After some viewings in different light settings at different stores, both my wife and I decided that the older LCD panel had better reproduction - almost as good as a plasma (and without the plasma's color fading or burn in issues).
If the edge lighting doesn't bother you - go for it. My dad got a LED LCD Samsung, and he loves it. Just make sure you're aware of the issue so you can take it into account.
posted by thewittyname at 2:07 PM on November 22, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
No idea about the longevity of LEDs. And the only complaint I have about the LG is that sometime it visibly dims (mostly in low-light situations). But overall I'm happy -- nay, thrilled -- with the purchase. It's got a fantastic picture and brings me joy every time I sit down in front of it. Having Netflix and Vudu available on it has also improved my quality of life immeasurably.
As far as waiting until next year, sigh. There's always next year, and the newest, biggest, baddest, bestest ever is always yet to come. If you're ready to buy, I say go for it and enjoy the purchase.
posted by Work to Live at 1:31 PM on November 22, 2010