TV: Size vs. quality?

Questions on how we spend our money and our time - consumer goods and services, home and vehicle, leisure and recreational activities
Topic Author
protagonist
Posts: 7389
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:47 pm

TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by protagonist »

At the same price point, which would you choose?

For example, a 75 inch TCL 4-series (entry level) smart Roku TV is a little cheaper than a 55" TCL 6-series. Which is a better purchase?

And for the price of a 50-55 inch OLED set you can get a huge entry level TV.

I always thought with TVs that size really matters, assuming you have a large enough room.

Opinions?
rockstar
Posts: 2624
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:51 pm

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by rockstar »

OLED.

It's ridiculously good.
brad.clarkston
Posts: 1244
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 8:31 pm
Location: Kansas City, MO

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by brad.clarkston »

The 'bigger the better' advice only worked to a certain point once 4k/8k with smaller back & edge panel lighting hit that changed the market completely.

OLED's are better at darker blacks but there not half as good as Samsung's upcoming QD-OLED tech that ads better color on-top of the the blacker blacks, think about how plasma had better blacks than LED but without the bad bits that's OLED/QD-OLED.

QNED will be QD-OLED rival just like plasma vs led or betamax vs. vhs. We will see who wins in 10 years.


What your looking for in a TV now is the best black levels and the best back panel & edge panel led's not size or smarts. Size of screen is important only in judging how big a room you have to throw the light levels at. The bigger the room the bigger the screen, the smaller the room the smaller the screen. Lets not even get into room lighting.

I would kill for OLED in just a dumb display that I could hook my Roku to. They make way to much money on "smart tv" apps that suck horribly and slow the cpu down but make people happy thinking that's better than a dedicated set-top box.
User avatar
Bogle7
Posts: 1425
Joined: Fri May 11, 2018 9:33 am
Location: In the Witness Protection Program

Just spend the money

Post by Bogle7 »

rockstar wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:33 pmOLED.
It's ridiculously good.
+1
Old fart who does three index funds, baby.
02nz
Posts: 7726
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:17 pm

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by 02nz »

brad.clarkston wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:53 pm The 'bigger the better' advice only worked to a certain point once 4k/8k with smaller back & edge panel lighting hit that changed the market completely.

OLED's are better at darker blacks but there not half as good as Samsung's upcoming QD-OLED tech that ads better color on-top of the the blacker blacks, think about how plasma had better blacks than LED but without the bad bits that's OLED/QD-OLED.

QNED will be QD-OLED rival just like plasma vs led or betamax vs. vhs. We will see who wins in 10 years.


What your looking for in a TV now is the best black levels and the best back panel & edge panel led's not size or smarts. Size of screen is important only in judging how big a room you have to throw the light levels at. The bigger the room the bigger the screen, the smaller the room the smaller the screen. Lets not even get into room lighting.

I would kill for OLED in just a dumb display that I could hook my Roku to. They make way to much money on "smart tv" apps that suck horribly and slow the cpu down but make people happy thinking that's better than a dedicated set-top box.
QD-OLED will be better than OLED in colors? How exactly? Have you seen it? Availability? How much will it cost relative to OLED?

You'd kill for OLED in a dumb display? Don't kill for it, buy an OLED display and connect your Roku to one of the HDMI ports. Nobody is forcing you to use any TV's smart platform (and before you say that you don't want to pay for the smart bits, the reality is that at scale this stuff adds very little in cost - actually for a manufacturer to offer a niche "dumb" TV it would probably cost more).
KFBR392
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 6:32 pm

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by KFBR392 »

If it's purely an issue of size vs. quality (where cost isn't much of a factor) I'd go with quality.

For size, the rule of thumb is viewing distance in feet divided by 1.6 multiplied by 12 gets you the "recommended" screen size.

In my living room, sitting on the couch we're 11 feet away from the TV so the formula says we need an 82" screen. But to DW and myself, that's simply a ridiculous size and would dominate our living room. We've settled on getting the 55" TCL 6-series.

Maybe one day I'll spring for an enormous OLED but honestly for that kind of experience I'd rather just go to a movie theater.
mhalley
Posts: 9242
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 6:02 am

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by mhalley »

I would look at the room size and viewing distance, then get the biggest appropriate size tv at the highest quality in your budget.
https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-si ... lationship
Otoh, TVs are much more expensive this year than they were last, so another strategy might be to get a cheap big one with plans to upgrade in 2 to 3 years when prices normalize.
Personally, I want my tv to dominate.
Last edited by mhalley on Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
csmath
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2018 11:32 am

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by csmath »

KFBR392 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:00 pm For size, the rule of thumb is viewing distance in feet divided by 1.6 multiplied by 12 gets you the "recommended" screen size.
Why would that be the formula if you can just use (distance in feet) multiplied by (7.5)?
brad.clarkston
Posts: 1244
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 8:31 pm
Location: Kansas City, MO

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by brad.clarkston »

02nz wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:59 pm
brad.clarkston wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:53 pm The 'bigger the better' advice only worked to a certain point once 4k/8k with smaller back & edge panel lighting hit that changed the market completely.

OLED's are better at darker blacks but there not half as good as Samsung's upcoming QD-OLED tech that ads better color on-top of the the blacker blacks, think about how plasma had better blacks than LED but without the bad bits that's OLED/QD-OLED.

QNED will be QD-OLED rival just like plasma vs led or betamax vs. vhs. We will see who wins in 10 years.


What your looking for in a TV now is the best black levels and the best back panel & edge panel led's not size or smarts. Size of screen is important only in judging how big a room you have to throw the light levels at. The bigger the room the bigger the screen, the smaller the room the smaller the screen. Lets not even get into room lighting.

I would kill for OLED in just a dumb display that I could hook my Roku to. They make way to much money on "smart tv" apps that suck horribly and slow the cpu down but make people happy thinking that's better than a dedicated set-top box.
QD-OLED will be better than OLED in colors? How exactly? Have you seen it? Availability? How much will it cost relative to OLED?

You'd kill for OLED in a dumb display? Don't kill for it, buy an OLED display and connect your Roku to one of the HDMI ports. Nobody is forcing you to use any TV's smart platform (and before you say that you don't want to pay for the smart bits, the reality is that at scale this stuff adds very little in cost - actually for a manufacturer to offer a niche "dumb" TV it would probably cost more).
OLED is all about deeper blacks at the cost of washed out colors, the QD Samsung tech adds the brighter colors that LED has without as much color washout. I've seen a couple at a trade show, they was slowed down by COVID like everything else but should be slatted for this coming quarter or 1st quarter next year. I'm just an Eng. I have no idea about prices but I would expect they will be in the $6k-$10k range like any new TV tech.

~

Your right of course, I don't have to use the smart apps which I do not. But just having that software overlay on the OS slows any TV set down by a margin of 15%-30% depending on quality. This isn't a computer in the classical sense, a tv is just a 10"x10" circuit board in back of the plastic turning lights on/off. While it's solid state it's no where near an ARM CPU in quality, it's an $0.80 bulk part from Samsung typically.
KFBR392
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 6:32 pm

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by KFBR392 »

csmath wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:10 pm
KFBR392 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:00 pm For size, the rule of thumb is viewing distance in feet divided by 1.6 multiplied by 12 gets you the "recommended" screen size.
Why would that be the formula if you can just use (distance in feet) multiplied by (7.5)?
That works. Although it's probably more accurate to just measure in inches and divide by 1.6.
brad.clarkston
Posts: 1244
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 8:31 pm
Location: Kansas City, MO

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by brad.clarkston »

csmath wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:10 pm
KFBR392 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:00 pm For size, the rule of thumb is viewing distance in feet divided by 1.6 multiplied by 12 gets you the "recommended" screen size.
Why would that be the formula if you can just use (distance in feet) multiplied by (7.5)?
Because it's not just about distance it's also about eyeball height from the center of the screen which is calculated based of people setting down in a dark room.

Ambient light from other rooms, the viewing room, or heaven forbid a window also plays into the calculation. Ambient light from other sources is also why you want edge or back lighting on the TV to the point that getting a cheap $12 white stick on RGB strip to run along the back of the TV when it's on can really help a cheaper TV by over saturating the ambient light.
mhalley
Posts: 9242
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 6:02 am

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by mhalley »

Im a big fan of led backlighting, (edit, bias lighting) def recommend.
Last edited by mhalley on Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Starfish
Posts: 2471
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2018 6:33 pm

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by Starfish »

Size is by far the biggest quality in a TV, assuming the quality is reasonable. I would chose a 75"vs a 55" for pretty much any combination of technologies.
Also there is almost no size limit for regular size living rooms in US.
Ihave a 55" LG OLED because that is the maximum size I can feet between doors and windows. And at 12 feet it feels pretty small.
carminered2019
Posts: 1112
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 7:06 pm

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by carminered2019 »

FYI, you pick the size of the TV based on the viewing distance.
28fe6
Posts: 633
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2018 9:01 am

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by 28fe6 »

TV size should be based on your room, not your budget.

I don't think it's a good idea to buy a too-small TV just to be able to afford a "better" one that's too small. And I also don't see the point in buying a "worse" TV just so you can have a worse TV that's also too big?

Decide what size TV you need (there will be a small range of sizes of course) and then decide how much you can spend.
Fat Tails
Posts: 361
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:47 am
Location: New Mexico

Re: Just spend the money

Post by Fat Tails »

Bogle7 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:58 pm
rockstar wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:33 pmOLED.
It's ridiculously good.
+1
+1
“Doing well with money has little to do with how smart you are and a lot to do with how you behave.” - Morgan Housel
Fat Tails
Posts: 361
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:47 am
Location: New Mexico

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by Fat Tails »

The formula for the screen size based on the viewing distance has consistently changed over the years. My advice is get the biggest size you can afford.
“Doing well with money has little to do with how smart you are and a lot to do with how you behave.” - Morgan Housel
iamlucky13
Posts: 2687
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 5:28 pm
Location: Western Washington

Re: Just spend the money

Post by iamlucky13 »

I would generally choose quality over size. I'm not interested in filling my entire field of view with dull colors, trying to compensate for a limited color range with poor saturation, and with jerky motion.

Despite all the marketing rhetoric about what the "right" size TV is, there is no absolute principle that says the optimal TV covers a specific angular field of view. Rather, a lot of resources use the ballpark of viewing distance / 1.6 because an increasing proportion of the population finds it difficult to take in the whole scene as screen size approaches and exceeds that ratio. It is also perfectly fine to go smaller if you are content with that. Other sources suggest going as large as viewing distance / 1.2. That can be more immersive, but also require more head movement to keep track of whatever is happening on-screen.
invest4
Posts: 709
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2019 2:19 am

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by invest4 »

Like most people, I try to satisfy both. Our room is suitable for a 75, but we chose a highly rated 65 OLED which was the "sweet spot" for us and we are happy.
Kagord
Posts: 971
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2018 1:28 pm

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by Kagord »

Since we're talking quality, on the larger sizes, now that ATSC 3.0 transmissions are starting to pick up, you may want at a TV that has an ATSC 3.0 tuner (these have been coming down in prices, you can now find easily less than $2K now). The advantage is a higher resolution transmission.

You can check here to see if your market has ATSC 3.0: https://www.atsc.org/nextgen-tv/deployments/

As far as ATSC 1.0, once ATSC 3.0 is fired up for a given station ID, they have to simultaneously transmit ATSC 1.0 for five years, but IMHO, based on history, it will be at least 10 years plus before ATSC 1.0 goes dark. But something to consider if you keep TVs for a long time.
02nz
Posts: 7726
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:17 pm

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by 02nz »

brad.clarkston wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:13 pm OLED is all about deeper blacks at the cost of washed out colors, the QD Samsung tech adds the brighter colors that LED has without as much color washout. I've seen a couple at a trade show, they was slowed down by COVID like everything else but should be slatted for this coming quarter or 1st quarter next year. I'm just an Eng. I have no idea about prices but I would expect they will be in the $6k-$10k range like any new TV tech.

~

Your right of course, I don't have to use the smart apps which I do not. But just having that software overlay on the OS slows any TV set down by a margin of 15%-30% depending on quality. This isn't a computer in the classical sense, a tv is just a 10"x10" circuit board in back of the plastic turning lights on/off. While it's solid state it's no where near an ARM CPU in quality, it's an $0.80 bulk part from Samsung typically.
Still false. The point of OLED's deeper blacks is not just for the blacks themselves, but so that the contrast ratio is far higher (essentially infinite), which makes colors pop more. Side by side (and assuming similar settings), there's simply no comparison, OLED has far more vibrant colors than any LCD /LED TV. Some people even find OLED's colors a bid too vivid, almost lurid. Generally, using the "cinema" setting results in a vibrant but natural picture.

As for slowing a TV down, I have no idea what you're talking about. My two OLED TVs (one older LG and one newer Sony, both with smart platforms) turn on very quickly, and the smart platforms are responsive. If I didn't use the smart features and only used Roku via HDMI, why in the world would there be a 15-30% slow down? It's just a display, how would you even measure its speed?
02nz
Posts: 7726
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:17 pm

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by 02nz »

mhalley wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:45 pm Im a big fan of led backlighting, def recommend.
Huh? Pretty much every TV on the market except OLEDs has LED backlighting. What exactly are you recommending?
02nz
Posts: 7726
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:17 pm

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by 02nz »

Worth noting that OLED prices on the larger sizes have come down quite a bit. 77-inch models are now going for $3K or less, perhaps we'll see even better deals during Black Friday.
tm3
Posts: 438
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2014 7:16 pm

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by tm3 »

Lemme see, chocolate vs. vanilla -- hmmmm?

Facetiousness aside, when I decided to enter the realm of big screen TV I read a lot of reviews and recommendations from various "experts" even though I was sure that for me quality would be the most important factor because of the high level of visual discrimination that I had trained for my profession. The majority opinion, however, was that size matters most. Not "all else being equal" -- size matters most, period.

I've been happy with the outcomes from applying that principle. My latest acquisition was a Sony 75" LED. It was about half the price of a 65" OLED, which would have had a better quality picture. After owning this set for a couple of years I'm still impressed by the outstanding picture quality every time I turn it on. If I had an OLED next to it in my living room I might be able to see some differences, but standing on its own I have no desire for anything else.

Good luck with your pick!
User avatar
TomatoTomahto
Posts: 13446
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by TomatoTomahto »

02nz wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 7:48 am
mhalley wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:45 pm Im a big fan of led backlighting, def recommend.
Huh? Pretty much every TV on the market except OLEDs has LED backlighting. What exactly are you recommending?
Mhalley probably was referring to “bias lighting,” which is a string of lights behind the TV, bounced off the wall, that enhances viewing and (allegedly) reduces eye strain. I previously used them, but have not in my new house. Hmmm. Maybe I should.
I get the FI part but not the RE part of FIRE.
hoofaman
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2020 3:39 pm

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by hoofaman »

It depends how you plan to use the TV

If you use old school cable services, satellite, or antenna quality of this content will never be great anyway due to the compression thats used. At best you get some highly compressed 1080/30 content, its going to look similar on any cheap TV or expensive TV

However, if you only watch streaming services like YouTube, Netflix, Disney, etc which have 4k HDR content libraries and/or you plan to 4k game on it, then LG OLED is the only option worth considering
dukeblue219
Posts: 2551
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2016 12:40 pm

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by dukeblue219 »

A 75" TV is massive. It will dominate your entire room and will be a challenge to move. 55" is something that can be more subtle even though it's still quite large. Personally I don't find that there's a practical difference in enjoyment above 50 inches or so unless you are very far from the screen. Hence I would go for quality (both picture and CPU quality) over raw size.
student
Posts: 6140
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:58 am

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by student »

Are you a videophile, or do you like to tinker with adjustments to get the best black, the best balance, the best contrast...? If not, then I think if you do not go for OLED, the rest are similar enough that you won't notice sufficient difference that will bother you, as long as you buy one of the major brands.
User avatar
Watty
Posts: 24087
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:55 pm

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by Watty »

One thing to watch out for is that when you watch TV there is a lot of "hedonic adaptation" that goes on and most people quickly get used to whatever picture size and quality you have. What seems like a dramatic difference in the showroom, or brand new TV, when you look at the pictures side by side will likely be forgotten and unnoticed once you have your new TV for a week unless you have a specific problem like glare.

A year or two ago I was copying some old VHS tapes I was amazed at just how bad the picture quality was when my face was near the large computer screen that I was using. One of my thoughts was "How did we ever sit and watch that?". The main thing was that we were watching it on relatively small TVs from 10+ feet away so the quality was not a noticable and that is what we were used to. I think that the last TV I have before I got a flat screen TV was something like 26 inches which would seem tiny today.

That is not to say that a very small percentage of people might be videophiles where subtle differences are important to them but if you were a videophile then you would likely be asking questions like this on videophile forums.

For someone asking on the Boglehead forum I think that size, but not too large, is the most important factor. That would also allow you to spend the money saved by not buying an OLED on something you would enjoy more.
02nz wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 7:45 am Some people even find OLED's colors a bid too vivid, almost lurid. Generally, using the "cinema" setting results in a vibrant but natural picture.
+1

I am an amature photographer and often when I see the OLED's in demo mode at a store I sometimes almost gag because the color is so oversaturated and the pictures are oversharpened and unnatural. That does really make the picture pop out but it is not something that appeals to me.

Many cell phones intentionally oversaturate the colors and over sharpen in photos by default so they will stand out on social media so maybe that is becoming the new standard that people expect to see.
lazydavid
Posts: 4065
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 1:37 pm

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by lazydavid »

hoofaman wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:39 am However, if you only watch streaming services like YouTube, Netflix, Disney, etc which have 4k HDR content libraries and/or you plan to 4k game on it, then LG OLED is the only option worth considering
I disagree--Sony OLEDs are just as good. :beer
Broken Man 1999
Posts: 6925
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:31 am
Location: West coast of Florida, near Champa Bay !

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by Broken Man 1999 »

dukeblue219 wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:45 am A 75" TV is massive. It will dominate your entire room and will be a challenge to move. 55" is something that can be more subtle even though it's still quite large. Personally I don't find that there's a practical difference in enjoyment above 50 inches or so unless you are very far from the screen. Hence I would go for quality (both picture and CPU quality) over raw size.
I have a 77" LG OLED, and while you need two people (one on each end) to move it, it is actually not very heavy at all. A DD and DW were able to move it with no issue.

Weight - (with Stand) 79.1 lb.
Weight - (without Stand) 58.9 lb.

We stream everything, no boxes at all.

All I can say about OLED picture quality is :shock: :shock: :shock: Unbelievable!

Broken Man 1999
“If I cannot drink Bourbon and smoke cigars in Heaven then I shall not go." - Mark Twain
User avatar
bertilak
Posts: 9018
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:23 pm
Location: East of the Pecos, West of the Mississippi

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by bertilak »

brad.clarkston wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:53 pm I would kill for OLED in just a dumb display that I could hook my Roku to. They make way to much money on "smart tv" apps that suck horribly and slow the cpu down but make people happy thinking that's better than a dedicated set-top box.
Yes, all this integration of expensive, second rate, extraneous, function into what should be providing the best picture for the money annoys me. I want a DUMB TV, i.e. a display/monitor. The smarts can be purchased, cheaply, elsewhere (think ROKU) -- as can better sound.
May neither drought nor rain nor blizzard disturb the joy juice in your gizzard. -- Squire Omar Barker (aka S.O.B.), the Cowboy Poet
stoptothink
Posts: 10662
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:53 am

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by stoptothink »

Watty wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:30 am One thing to watch out for is that when you watch TV there is a lot of "hedonic adaptation" that goes on and most people quickly get used to whatever picture size and quality you have. What seems like a dramatic difference in the showroom, or brand new TV, when you look at the pictures side by side will likely be forgotten and unnoticed once you have your new TV for a week unless you have a specific problem like glare.
Our 55" TCL 4k that we bought for $400 5yrs ago is fine for our needs, which is exclusively streaming. My parents and brothers have OLEDs, the difference is very minor in our millenial, better than 20/20 vision, eyes. An OLED is objectively better, but only you can decide if it is $1k+ better.
mhalley
Posts: 9242
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 6:02 am

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by mhalley »

Yes, I meant bias lighting. Here is a rundown on it.
https://www.popsci.com/better-tv-bias-lighting/
For some viewers, it might be worth some eye strain to get what they believe to be the best possible picture, but it turns out that watching a black wall with a glowing rectangle on it actually cuts into your overall image quality, thanks to perceived contrast.

TVs have come a long way in recent years when it comes to recreating the color black. Older sets had less efficient backlight that couldn’t produce dark tones as deep as modern models. Because the lights couldn’t always turn all the way off, the blacks on the screen were more like grays, and that takes some of the impact out of dark objects on screen like Batman’s suit or Batman’s car (and other non-Batman related things).

Modern OLED TVs use individual pixels that provide their own backlight and those can turn totally off, which makes their black levels more appealing and helps boost the overall contrast of the screen. However, even those pixels have a tough time looking truly black when they’re competing with a pitch dark room.

Adding a relatively dim light that directly surrounds the screen makes the dark areas of the display look blacker instead of washed out compared to the inky tones in the room. If you keep the light dim enough, it will also give the TV’s bright whites a chance to literally shine without scorching your wide-open eyeballs.
jayk238
Posts: 897
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 1:02 pm

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by jayk238 »

protagonist wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:21 pm At the same price point, which would you choose?

For example, a 75 inch TCL 4-series (entry level) smart Roku TV is a little cheaper than a 55" TCL 6-series. Which is a better purchase?

And for the price of a 50-55 inch OLED set you can get a huge entry level TV.

I always thought with TVs that size really matters, assuming you have a large enough room.

Opinions?
You get what you pay for today.

Oled is amazing. Personally a bigger deal than even 4k. I cant tell the difference between 1080 and 4k on my tv.

Cheap oleds=poor panels and greater chance of failure.

Id say go as big as you and your property can handle and get oled.

The size matters. Had an old 65. Thought it would be enough but at costco w the 77 next to it decided on that.

Also, get it from a good retailer w great return/warranty. Costco offers 5 years on our tv w purchase.
We have an lg 77 oled. No regrets.
dsmclone
Posts: 516
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 8:50 am

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by dsmclone »

Both

Upstairs=I have a 55" LG OLED. Best picture I've ever seen.
Theater Room=4k Projector 120" screen. The picture doesn't come close to anything like the OLED provides. With that said, people forget that when you go from 55 to 120" it's a huge size difference. My 120" screen is almost 9 feet wide and my 55" is only like 4 feet wide. My 120" screen could fit 4 55" screens.
User avatar
vanbogle59
Posts: 1114
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2021 8:30 pm

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by vanbogle59 »

protagonist wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:21 pm At the same price point, which would you choose?

For example, a 75 inch TCL 4-series (entry level) smart Roku TV is a little cheaper than a 55" TCL 6-series. Which is a better purchase?

And for the price of a 50-55 inch OLED set you can get a huge entry level TV.

I always thought with TVs that size really matters, assuming you have a large enough room.

Opinions?
Get a reasonably sized OLED, but don't break the bank.
Now, empty your wallet into your sound system.
The neighbors will hate you, but movie night will be AWESOME!
User avatar
TomatoTomahto
Posts: 13446
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by TomatoTomahto »

lazydavid wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:51 am
hoofaman wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:39 am However, if you only watch streaming services like YouTube, Netflix, Disney, etc which have 4k HDR content libraries and/or you plan to 4k game on it, then LG OLED is the only option worth considering
I disagree--Sony OLEDs are just as good. :beer
With the 2021 top of the line models, I think LG OLEDs are slightly better for gamers while Sony LGs are slightly better for watching videos. Very small advantages/disadvantages between them, but my son is getting a Sony (because he doesn’t game often).
I get the FI part but not the RE part of FIRE.
student
Posts: 6140
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:58 am

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by student »

lazydavid wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:51 am
hoofaman wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:39 am However, if you only watch streaming services like YouTube, Netflix, Disney, etc which have 4k HDR content libraries and/or you plan to 4k game on it, then LG OLED is the only option worth considering
I disagree--Sony OLEDs are just as good. :beer
Sony OLED should be comparable to LG OLED in terms of panels as LG is the supplier for its consumer OLED product. (I assume LG is not giving SONY inferior panels. lol.) I guess one will need to compare the software in controlling various picture settings.
student
Posts: 6140
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:58 am

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by student »

TomatoTomahto wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:28 am
lazydavid wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:51 am
hoofaman wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:39 am However, if you only watch streaming services like YouTube, Netflix, Disney, etc which have 4k HDR content libraries and/or you plan to 4k game on it, then LG OLED is the only option worth considering
I disagree--Sony OLEDs are just as good. :beer
With the 2021 top of the line models, I think LG OLEDs are slightly better for gamers while Sony LGs are slightly better for watching videos. Very small advantages/disadvantages between them, but my son is getting a Sony (because he doesn’t game often).
This is similar to what I heard. I don't have one.
User avatar
TomatoTomahto
Posts: 13446
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by TomatoTomahto »

student wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:42 am
TomatoTomahto wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:28 am
lazydavid wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:51 am
hoofaman wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:39 am However, if you only watch streaming services like YouTube, Netflix, Disney, etc which have 4k HDR content libraries and/or you plan to 4k game on it, then LG OLED is the only option worth considering
I disagree--Sony OLEDs are just as good. :beer
With the 2021 top of the line models, I think LG OLEDs are slightly better for gamers while Sony LGs are slightly better for watching videos. Very small advantages/disadvantages between them, but my son is getting a Sony (because he doesn’t game often).
This is similar to what I heard. I don't have one.
https://www.rtings.com/tv/tools/compare ... shold=0.10
I get the FI part but not the RE part of FIRE.
student
Posts: 6140
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:58 am

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by student »

TomatoTomahto wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:44 am
student wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:42 am
TomatoTomahto wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:28 am
lazydavid wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:51 am
hoofaman wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:39 am However, if you only watch streaming services like YouTube, Netflix, Disney, etc which have 4k HDR content libraries and/or you plan to 4k game on it, then LG OLED is the only option worth considering
I disagree--Sony OLEDs are just as good. :beer
With the 2021 top of the line models, I think LG OLEDs are slightly better for gamers while Sony LGs are slightly better for watching videos. Very small advantages/disadvantages between them, but my son is getting a Sony (because he doesn’t game often).
This is similar to what I heard. I don't have one.
https://www.rtings.com/tv/tools/compare ... shold=0.10
Thanks. rtings is very reputable.
apex84
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:51 am
Location: Chicago

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by apex84 »

In 2012, we bought a 65" Panasonic plasma. I didn't want to spend more on an OLED at the time knowing that 4K was coming. Having a nice picture with good black levels was always important to me.

A couple of years ago we bought a 77" LG OLED (C9?) to move to a 4K set. It's amazing. The other day, I saw a 77" LG C1 at Costco for $3k. That's what I would get if price/space permit.

If you watch mostly sports in a bright room, then maximum brightness might be more important to you. We mostly watch movies and shows in the evening, so lower black levels make for a nicer picture.
azanon
Posts: 3131
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:34 am

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by azanon »

apex84 wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:48 amIf you watch mostly sports in a bright room, then maximum brightness might be more important to you. We mostly watch movies and shows in the evening, so lower black levels make for a nicer picture.
Even in a bright room for a sports lover, its definitely not a slam dunk to optimize max brightness (I know you didn’t say that it was). For sports, an OLED is faster refresh and if you have a lot of guests over that’ll be watching off center, then OLED wins again.

IMHO the only true reason to lean LED is for either a price sensitive customer or someone who max brightness really is the be all end all trait of a TV despite all the negatives.

I never use the max brightness setting on my oled sony cause I consider it to just be….. wrong. Its like ordering a steak well done.
brad.clarkston
Posts: 1244
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 8:31 pm
Location: Kansas City, MO

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by brad.clarkston »

02nz wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 7:45 am
brad.clarkston wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:13 pm OLED is all about deeper blacks at the cost of washed out colors, the QD Samsung tech adds the brighter colors that LED has without as much color washout. I've seen a couple at a trade show, they was slowed down by COVID like everything else but should be slatted for this coming quarter or 1st quarter next year. I'm just an Eng. I have no idea about prices but I would expect they will be in the $6k-$10k range like any new TV tech.

~

Your right of course, I don't have to use the smart apps which I do not. But just having that software overlay on the OS slows any TV set down by a margin of 15%-30% depending on quality. This isn't a computer in the classical sense, a tv is just a 10"x10" circuit board in back of the plastic turning lights on/off. While it's solid state it's no where near an ARM CPU in quality, it's an $0.80 bulk part from Samsung typically.
Still false. The point of OLED's deeper blacks is not just for the blacks themselves, but so that the contrast ratio is far higher (essentially infinite), which makes colors pop more. Side by side (and assuming similar settings), there's simply no comparison, OLED has far more vibrant colors than any LCD /LED TV. Some people even find OLED's colors a bid too vivid, almost lurid. Generally, using the "cinema" setting results in a vibrant but natural picture.

As for slowing a TV down, I have no idea what you're talking about. My two OLED TVs (one older LG and one newer Sony, both with smart platforms) turn on very quickly, and the smart platforms are responsive. If I didn't use the smart features and only used Roku via HDMI, why in the world would there be a 15-30% slow down? It's just a display, how would you even measure its speed?
The smart software is an overlay on a eprom chip which boots when you turn the TV on. Disable the eprom and you will see a measurable performance increase I've done it many times with different tv's. The software is not magic it take cpu cycles and power to run.
lazydavid
Posts: 4065
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 1:37 pm

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by lazydavid »

brad.clarkston wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:51 am The smart software is an overlay on a eprom chip which boots when you turn the TV on. Disable the eprom and you will see a measurable performance increase I've done it many times with different tv's. The software is not magic it take cpu cycles and power to run.
But performance increase in what regard? Does your TV lag when displaying content from an external source?
brad.clarkston
Posts: 1244
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 8:31 pm
Location: Kansas City, MO

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by brad.clarkston »

lazydavid wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 12:49 pm
brad.clarkston wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:51 am The smart software is an overlay on a eprom chip which boots when you turn the TV on. Disable the eprom and you will see a measurable performance increase I've done it many times with different tv's. The software is not magic it take cpu cycles and power to run.
But performance increase in what regard? Does your TV lag when displaying content from an external source?
On lower end TV's there can be lag or blurred pixelation on fast motion. On mid/high range sets it shows as screen tearing at 30hz or defused pixelation at 60hz. You can see it as a slow responding menu but that's not as common.

You will see allot of posts online saying it's probably a bad hdmi cable which is usually not the case unless your buying very low end cables.
If they say it gets better on a reboot of the tv it's never going to be the cables. I find most of the time it's a pegged processor when I take it
apart and meter it.

If it's a paid gig I might even disable the eprom for the customer as long as they know they will never get the smart apps to work again.
That and a custom default setting will fix all of those problems.
randomguy
Posts: 9780
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:00 am

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by randomguy »

Watty wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:30 am One thing to watch out for is that when you watch TV there is a lot of "hedonic adaptation" that goes on and most people quickly get used to whatever picture size and quality you have. What seems like a dramatic difference in the showroom, or brand new TV, when you look at the pictures side by side will likely be forgotten and unnoticed once you have your new TV for a week unless you have a specific problem like glare.

Depends what you watch. Have a show heavy on the blacks (see GOT) and you can go from a watchable show to black screen in a hurry:)

In the end the modern 55' 600 dollar LED TV is really good compared to just about anything that existed 10 years ago much less 20. For pretty much anytype of noncritical viewing you will be fine. If you want to spend another 700 bucks to get an OLED or to go up to 75" is a pretty personal choice. As you say you start getting less and less for your money as you spend more.

And all of this is off if you are some videophile. But if you were one of those you shouldn't be posting on bogleheads. Go avforums and people can debate minor nuances in image quality like we do the difference between 3.9% and 4.0% SWR....
iamlucky13
Posts: 2687
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 5:28 pm
Location: Western Washington

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by iamlucky13 »

Summary of this thread:

OP - I'm trying to decide between two $700 TV's. I'm not sure I really care very much about screen quality.

Majority of the responses - Look how great the screen quality is on TV's that start at twice the price of the sets you're considering!
--
Personally, if I were replacing my plasma TV, I'm sure I'd be looking seriously at OLED's, but I know plenty of people who have long been satisfied with LCD screens, and LCD's have gotten a lot better over the last decade, yet there are still meaningful differences between entry level, mid, and top-end LCD screens for the OP to consider.
Nicolas
Posts: 3327
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:41 am
Location: Ashtabula, 56th and Wabasha
Contact:

Re: TV: Size vs. quality?

Post by Nicolas »

In the current market I would choose OLED over size, it’s just way better than any other technology currently available. I would pay more for it. But if you can hold out I would buy a microLED TV which promises to be even better. Don’t confuse it with miniLED, that’s something else. But it could be ten years before microLED is available and maybe even longer before they’re affordable. I don’t think you want to wait that long. Get the OLED.
Post Reply