What TV brand?

Vic Winters · #1 06-29-2009, 02:47 PM

By the end of summer I plan on getting myself a full HD (1080P) television. Nothing huge, I figure 32" should suffice. I'm trying to stay under $600, which shouldn't be too hard at that size. From what I've seen so far Sony is nice but over priced, Insignia has tempting prices, but poor reviews. Toshibas seems to lack in picture clarity. Samsung is the current leader for my dollar. I don't need 6 HDMI inputs, doesn't matter if it's LCD or plasma and the overall thickness of a television is the least of my concerns. I just want something with a quality picture than won't crap the bed in 3 years. I plan on using it mainly for watching TV and DVD's (no Blue Ray yet), PC connectivity would be a plus, and I'm not much of a gamer.

That said, what brand(s) should I look at or avoid?

iamlowsound · #2 06-29-2009, 02:49 PM

Sounds like you have it figured out already. Samsung makes great TVs. Maybe check out Panasonic as well.

lowsound

i_got_a_mohawk · #3 06-29-2009, 02:54 PM

My folks have a few Samsungs which are great.

Even if you aren't buying from a comercial electronics shop, go in and have a wander and a view. See which ones you like the look of the best?

bongomania · #4 06-29-2009, 02:58 PM

Samsung and Panasonic get some of the most consistently good reviews. I ended up getting a Panasonic plasma that was actually bigger than I thought I was going to buy, because Panasonic had a really good mail-in rebate deal.

MJ5150 · #5 06-29-2009, 03:12 PM

I do not like the Phillips brand. We had trouble with a couple, and ended up returning it for a Panasonic.

I was going to say to avoid the Vizio brand, but my parents have had one for over a year and had no problems. Not the most vivid and crisp HD out there, but the price is right.

-Mike

TrooperFarva · #6 06-29-2009, 03:58 PM

I have a Samsung, and my parents have a Sharp. Both are very good.

popinfresh · #7 06-29-2009, 04:45 PM

Had good experiences with Samsung and our older LG is still going strong.

I've heard good things about Sharp too.

TOOL460002 · #8 06-29-2009, 05:15 PM

if you want a plasma go panasonic. however, 32 is small, and i wouldnt get a small plasma. plus, they eat up electricity like crazy (compared to cld).

if you want an lcd (and i think you do) go with samsung.

for a 32, you could be fine with a 60hz model, which is much cheaper. if youre not well-versed in refresh rate, higher is better, and the next step up is 120hz, which means less jerkiness during fast movment. if youre gaming on the 32, you may want this. as for 240hz, i dont think they make those in a 32.

i got an ln46b650 a couple months ago, and it is amazing. it is 120hz. i couldnt be happier with it. my buddy is going to buy the 240hz model within a couple weeks, so a side by side comparison will be cool.

other brands (for lcd): samsung is the best, followed by sharp, followed by a mix of other brands. sony makes a good product, but is way overpriced for what you get, and i have read that they have consistency issues.

for a 32, you could get away with a lesser brand, but i would still advise a samsung, i would go to amazon and look up "samsung LN32B," and you will a list to chose from.

if you want to know a trick that, with some patience, will save you cash on amazon. it is legal, and it works.

Spector_Ray · #9 06-29-2009, 05:42 PM

Samsung picture and quality are on par with Sony, IMHO, and at a cheaper price. I've had a couple of them and they have served me well.

I looked at a Sharp at Wal-Mart the other day and the picture was spectacular.

bwv1013 · #10 06-29-2009, 10:28 PM

i have a Sharp and it's awesome. deals to be had, keep the sales papers open.

ssbass · #11 06-30-2009, 08:45 AM

I just got a 42 inch Samsung Plasma for $650. There are a lot of good deals out there if you are paying with cash.

Papazita · #12 06-30-2009, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ5150

I was going to say to avoid the Vizio brand, but my parents have had one for over a year and had no problems. Not the most vivid and crisp HD out there, but the price is right.

-Mike

Of all the Vizio tv's that the local wallyworld sells, about half get returned within 1 to 2 weeks. They either don't work out of the box, or quickly malfunction and stop working. Big crap shoot with that brand.

MJ5150 · #13 06-30-2009, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Papazita

Of all the Vizio tv's that the local wallyworld sells, about half get returned within 1 to 2 weeks. They either don't work out of the box, or quickly malfunction and stop working. Big crap shoot with that brand.

I agree. That was one of the reasons we didn't buy one.

-Mike

Absentia · #14 06-30-2009, 10:17 AM

TOSHIBA!!!!!

DigMe · #15 06-30-2009, 11:04 AM

I like my Samsung.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Papazita

Of all the Vizio tv's that the local wallyworld sells, about half get returned within 1 to 2 weeks. They either don't work out of the box, or quickly malfunction and stop working. Big crap shoot with that brand.

Can you post some evidence for that? I don't doubt you if you've seen some actual numbers but when you post claims like that you really need to back it up.

Consumer Reports shows that 3% of Vizio LCD TVs have serious problems or need repairs. That is equal to Samsung and Toshiba and only 1% behind Sony and Panasonic. I have no bias in this since I don't have a Vizio but I don't like to see such statements thrown around with no proof.

EDIT: the more I think about this "statistic" the more implausible it sounds. Vizio simply would not survive as a company with a 50% early mortality rate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ5150

I agree.

-Mike

So you have also seen this proof? bc

xtorrak · #16 06-30-2009, 11:15 AM

I have a Samsung 32"; it's amazing in clarity and sound (cheap speakers considering).

DigMe · #17 06-30-2009, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xtorrak

I have a Samsung 32"; it's amazing in clarity and sound (cheap speakers considering).

The stock sound on my Samsung LCD and my parents' (which is a higher end model) sucks and that is often a complaint with Samsung LCDs. I knew that before buying but it's irrelevant to me since I run all TV and movie sound through my surround sound receiver 100% of the time. The general wisdom on Samsung LCDs from reading AV forums and reviews that has also proven true from my own experiences is that sound is their weak point and they are best paired with a sound system.

bc

Papazita · #18 06-30-2009, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DigMe

The stock sound on my Samsung LCD and my parents' (which is a higher end model) sucks and that is often a complaint with Samsung LCDs. I knew that before buying but it's irrelevant to me since I run all TV and movie sound through my surround sound receiver 100% of the time. The general wisdom on Samsung LCDs from reading AV forums and reviews that has also proven true from my own experiences is that sound is their weak point and they are best paired with a sound system.

bc

Can you post some evidence for that? I don't doubt you if you've seen some actual numbers but when you post claims like that you really need to back it up.

i_got_a_mohawk · #19 06-30-2009, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DigMe

The stock sound on my Samsung LCD and my parents' (which is a higher end model) sucks and that is often a complaint with Samsung LCDs. I knew that before buying but it's irrelevant to me since I run all TV and movie sound through my surround sound receiver 100% of the time. The general wisdom on Samsung LCDs from reading AV forums and reviews that has also proven true from my own experiences is that sound is their weak point and they are best paired with a sound system.

bc

That was the only downside of our Samsungs aswell. But, internal, small volume speakers in thin TVs like that will rarely stand up to a decent 5.1 (or whatever you choose to use) setup

DigMe · #20 06-30-2009, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Papazita

Can you post some evidence for that? I don't doubt you if you've seen some actual numbers but when you post claims like that you really need to back it up.

dur dur dur

I did not make any statistical claims in that post that require validating.

I assume from your worthless reply that you in fact do not have any evidence to back up your previous statement which is now appearing to be a lie. Way to contribute to the thread and to TB.

bc