This was posted 9 years 2 months 6 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Bauhn 65" 4K TV Is Back for $1199 at ALDI

660
Bauhn 65" 4K TV Is Back for $1199 at ALDI
Go to Deal
goingDHfast on 16/09/2015 - 07:50 bauhn.com.au (3665 clicks)
Last edited 18/09/2015 - 02:29 by 1 other user

From their FB page:

We heard that some of you missed out on our Bauhn 65” Ultra HD Smart TVs on Saturday, they were so popular we found more just for you! Come in store by 5pm Saturday 19/09 or call 13 25 34 and order one now! Stock will be available by 30/10.

1 Year Warranty.

Model Number: ATVS55-815
Resolution: 3840 x 2160
Panels Native Refresh Rate: 120Hz (60Hz at full resolution)
Luminance: 270 cd/m2
Contrast Ratio: 4000:1
Viewing Angle: H:176 / V:176
Aspect Ratio: 16:9
Audio Output Power: 2 x 10W
HDMI Version: 2.0

Dimensions
With Stand: 1459 (w) x 310 (d) x 894 (h) mm
Without Stand: 1459 (w) x 74 (d) x 839 (h) mm

Weight
With Stand: 23.5 kg
Without Stand: 23.07 kg

Product link

Electrical & Electronics Bauhn LCD TV TV

Related Stores

ALDI
ALDI
BAUHN
BAUHN

closed Comments

  • pw2002au on 16/09/2015 - 08:10

    Was also listed in the main thread https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/209684#comment. Probably worthwhile linking to the above for reviews.

    • tyler.durden on 17/09/2015 - 07:22

      Seen bauhn TVs getting thrown out whenever they have garbage/dump collection week.

      I took one home to see if it was usuable or fixable
      and most of them has issue with the panels not displaying picture properly..

      So I wouldn't trust paying any money for this brand.

      • Steptoe on 17/09/2015 - 21:58

        Return them for a refund under ACL ;)

  • lovepub on 16/09/2015 - 08:19
    +2

    Any fresh hot reviews by the ones who got their hands on one?

    • foxpro on 16/09/2015 - 09:55
      +4

      The WP thread has some first hand feedback on the last few pages.
      http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=2446216

      From what I gather: Rather laggy interface via upscaler, poor sound, picture quality ok but not great. You get what you pay for.

      • ItsMeAgro on 16/09/2015 - 15:24
        +6

        99% of people would be better off spending this amount on a better quality 1080p TV or projector, but average joe doesn't really know/care about facts when buying a TV…

        • Elijah on 16/09/2015 - 20:21
          +1

          Sad part is I give it 12mths, after which you've got yourself a souvenir from all of this Bauhn saga………….

        • samfisher5986 on 16/09/2015 - 20:32

          I must be the 1%. I have started collecting 4k content in anticipation of my new 4K Aldi TV.

        • Elijah on 16/09/2015 - 20:45

          Seems the more I read about 4K on it, I feel for that 1%….. :P

        • ItsMeAgro on 17/09/2015 - 00:02

          @samfisher5986:

          I'm excited about 4K too, honestly, but colour accuracy/reproduction, image size, contrast, etc can be just as important as a higher resolution.

          If 95% of what you watch looks worse on this 4K TV than it would on a $1200 TV or projector (and make no mistake, there are some real stunners in that price range these days) will you be happy with your investment? There's a serious opportunity cost here.

        • Charity on 17/09/2015 - 00:07
          +1

          Realise that 99% of average joes buying these are buying them to watch their 480p DVD's and piss poor 720p TV channels.

        • ItsMeAgro on 17/09/2015 - 00:09
          +1

          @Son ofa Zombie:

          Are some of them finally 720p, all the time, now?

        • Charity on 17/09/2015 - 00:53
          +1

          @mgowen: haha, I was being generous. Your reply did make me do some quick research though… it is worse than we joke about… some free to air channels have literally reduced their bitrate in recent years. haha. http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1945059

        • winterseed on 17/09/2015 - 06:43
          +2

          Unless you have above average eyes, at normal TV viewing distance of 9' apparently you would need at least an 85" screen to see any difference between 4K and 1080p.

          http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/
          (scroll down for the chart)

          If you're sitting closer to your screen, that changes things. My next TV will probably be 1080p and around 70". (Funny how I wanted 4K years ago but now I don't.)

  • ToTheDollar on 16/09/2015 - 08:24
    +3

    My neighbor returned it next day!

    • Ametric on 16/09/2015 - 08:26
      +1

      what was wrong with it?

    • Monger on 16/09/2015 - 08:30
      +36

      That's probably where they 'found' these additional TVs to unload

    • cornbeef on 16/09/2015 - 12:50
      +8

      Why is your neighbour returning your TV?

      • ozy on 17/09/2015 - 08:56
        +4

        Stupid flanders

  • ToTheDollar on 16/09/2015 - 08:29
    +14

    Nothing was wrong apart from
    Slow interface
    Poor sound quality
    Average Picture quality
    Remote did not work at times

    • Ry009 on 16/09/2015 - 08:31
      +7

      So is that a 'yes' to buy? :P

    • sparkles on 16/09/2015 - 08:50
      +5

      Wow, now you've made me want one!

    • dosada on 16/09/2015 - 09:56
      +9

      Seriously how many flatscreens are there with decent, let alone good sound quality? A hdmi Android stick makes a beast of a TV and is under 100.

      • sachz on 16/09/2015 - 10:55
        +10

        EXACTLY,

        1. usb android stick for smarts
        2. external amp w/ speakers is a must for all tv's these days
        3. universal remote is used by all these days, no?

        the only thing is the picture quality on the screen OK, if so.. it's a buy!

        • ItsMeAgro on 17/09/2015 - 00:08
          +2

          external amp w/ speakers is a must for all tv's these days

          Drives me nuts. Millions of households have a massive, $2,000 TV with no proper sound system.

          You could have a real home theatre - full mid-range Yamaha surround system AND a stunning 100" 1080p 3D projector for less than that.

          (It's almost as dumb as the fact that they only watch SD content on it, and of course the DVD player is connected with an old-school analog yellow RCA cable.)

      • killergreely on 16/09/2015 - 11:00
        +2

        The sound out of both our Panasonic and Toshiba is very good.

        Have you heard the sound out of these Bauhns? I have, it's sub-par compared even to a Soniq.

        • Jackson on 16/09/2015 - 14:25
          +1

          The sound of my made in Japan Sharp used to be crap at my old place, but at the new place I mounted it lower and flat against the wall and it made a significant difference. I still have a 2.1 set up but really only use it for music and occasionally for movies.

          Having said that you would think in such a large TV they could achieve some resonance in the chassis, however I hope the people reporting made sure they at least installed it properly and didn't leave it in the middle of the room

    • tashtashtash2011 on 16/09/2015 - 16:28
      +1

      I bought the first batch on Saturday. My partner and I are really happy with the TV. HD Channels are brilliant, the picture quality is pretty darn good for the price of the TV.
      The only reason I can give to your 'remote did not work at times' is that you can't be trigger happy when you want to change channels. You need to press the remote once, wait for the change and then press the remote again. This is the only problem I've come across so far.
      I agree with -dosada- I haven't come across a flatscreen with a decent sound to-date.

      • furythree on 16/09/2015 - 21:04
        +1

        would you use it as a pc monitor or would i go blind

        • Charity on 17/09/2015 - 00:58

          blind

    • Schezwon on 16/09/2015 - 18:33
      +1

      That's one too many reasons to not buy it. Laggy tv would drive me nuts.

  • Pobman on 16/09/2015 - 08:38
    +5

    So are they re-boxing the many returns and selling them as new again, or it will be genuine new stock?

    • JimmyF on 16/09/2015 - 09:29
      +1

      based on the dates, it sounds like new stock.

  • [Deactivated] on 16/09/2015 - 09:20
    -4

    will buy ten

  • JohnnyP on 16/09/2015 - 09:22
    +1

    Tough decision. On one hand its a 65" Ultra HD panel. You cant even get a FHD 65" big brand TV for anywhere near that price.

    On the other hand its likely going to have a laggy interface, poor TV picture quality, bad speakers etc

    • woomba on 16/09/2015 - 09:32
      +5

      Sounds like a very easy decision to me.

      • macrocephalic on 16/09/2015 - 09:49
        +3

        Depends on what you want it for. When you're using it with a htpc or similar very few of those concerns matter.

        • SBOB on 16/09/2015 - 10:14
          +10

          When you're using it with a htpc or similar very few of those concerns matter.

          I think "poor TV picture quality" would be pretty high on the list of 'concerns' when buying a tv

        • macrocephalic on 16/09/2015 - 11:29
          +4

          @SBOB: Do they mean poor picture quality, or poor TV quality? ie: is the picture always poor, or does it just do a poor job of decoding the DTB signal - because I for one couldn't care less about the DTB signal. My TV is basically just huge computer monitor.

        • SBOB on 16/09/2015 - 11:35
          +1

          @macrocephalic:

          Do they mean poor picture quality, or poor TV quality

          Same, my screen is used simply as a display from chromecast and htpc (the tv tuner and speakers are just unnecessary weight hanging from the wall mount)

          I would be hedging my bets on poor picture quality… its a sad reality that you get what you pay for with display panels (generally speaking)
          But in saying that, many people would be happy with the screen.

          'Back in the day' when I use to sell tv's I was amazed at some peoples inability to differentiate between poor and good quality image reproductions on screens sitting next to each other. Give Joe Average a 'brightly' coloured display and most of the time they will think its a good image (which, I sometimes wish I could handle as it would make buying/upgrading a tv cheaper)

        • Jackson on 16/09/2015 - 14:26

          @SBOB: the word used was "average" by at least one person

  • Clear on 16/09/2015 - 09:25
    +4

    Makes me wish my state had Aldi.

    • denishdens on 16/09/2015 - 09:34
      +1

      NT? or Tassie?

      • Clear on 16/09/2015 - 09:36
        +1

        Tassie of course.

        • denishdens on 16/09/2015 - 14:53
          +7

          Since Tony is gone, you can come by boat to Victoria lol

        • Clear on 16/09/2015 - 16:22
          +1

          @denishdens: No thanks. We're all still getting Labor's FTTP :P

      • frbargain on 16/09/2015 - 09:53
        +7

        NT is not a state (yet!)

        • sachz on 16/09/2015 - 10:56
          +1

          NT will never be a real state, just like Pluto will never be a real planet.

        • Forfiet on 16/09/2015 - 12:46
          +1

          @sachz: So many books now useless…..thanks guys

        • sachz on 16/09/2015 - 13:30
          +1

          @Forfiet:

          what next, please welcome the "State of the Australian Capital of Canberra".

          !??

        • Forfiet on 16/09/2015 - 14:38

          @sachz: ikr, such arrogance :p

  • srr on 16/09/2015 - 09:33

    Never again electronics or electric tools from Aldi. My soldering iron died after 5 uses - very poor quality.

    • Pobman on 16/09/2015 - 09:35
      +36

      If only you had a soldering iron to fix it with!

      • kfuerza on 16/09/2015 - 09:46
        +7

        Why do you need scissors to open a new set of scissors….

        • muncan on 16/09/2015 - 10:10
          +23

          Reminds me of when I downloaded pkunzip.zip in the early 90's.

        • Charity on 17/09/2015 - 01:07

          @muncan: most folks had Winzip so it would have been easy.

          Kind of like using Internet Explorer to download Chrome … not really perplexing… just sayin'

  • dealspider on 16/09/2015 - 09:49
    +4

    This "4K TV" thing is kind of a gimmick.

    More pixel is better but, if you are after picture quality, you might want to look at the contrast ratio.

    Most of these low-end "4K" TVs got really low contrast ratio. some even less than a desktop monitor.

    This one in particular has got only 4000:1 compared to a Panasonic VT50 (1080p) it is 6000000:1 [dynamic]

    • dosada on 16/09/2015 - 09:54
      +8

      Dynamic is another word for Chinese lumen. Means absolutely nothing

      • sachz on 16/09/2015 - 10:57
        +3

        600000 chinamen would disagree..

    • Raynes on 16/09/2015 - 11:19

      If anything the contrast ratios are usually completely arbitrary numbers

      • dealspider on 16/09/2015 - 11:26

        What is contrast ratio

        How to Pick a Flat Screen TV

        *Compare contrast ratios.

        Contrast ratio describes your TV’s ability to display bright and dark images at the same time. The higher the contrast ratio, the better the picture quality will appear. If your TV has a poor contrast ratio, you'll lose detail in extremely bright and extremely dark scenes. While this isn't usually a huge deal, it can be a factor in making your decision. Generally, plasma televisions have the best contrast ratios. Backlit LED televisions come in close second. Edge-lit LED televisions and LCD televisions will have slightly lower contrast ratios.

        Most LCD screens start at a contrast ratio of about 600:1, while plasma screens start at 1,000:1. Both types can reach up to 10,000:1. However, because there is no standard measure for contrast ratio exists at this time, manufacturers tend to exaggerate the actual output of their TV models. Consult product reviews for additional assessments.
In addition to higher contrast ratios, look for good image quality on black colors. While brightness can be adjusted, many LCD screens have difficulty creating deep blacks, which can result in a picture that appears faded.
        • Raynes on 16/09/2015 - 13:01
          +2

          Most of the time the quoted values are simply marketing speak.

          Dynamic and Mega Contrast Ratios: You'll often see displays advertised with contrast ratios from 20,000 up into the millions. Unless it's an OLED display (which can easily do that) it's a phony dynamic contrast ratio. The word dynamic may or may not appear. This contrast ratio is calculated by using the maximum peak brightness from one image with the minimum brightness from a different image that has a darkened Backlight - so it doesn't apply to any actual single image, which makes it very misleading, especially when the word dynamic is left out. The true contrast ratio is what you actually see on any single image. The best LCDs have true contrast ratios of around 2,000 and the best Plasmas around 5,000, so ignore values much larger than that as marketing puffery. OLEDs deliver true contrast Rratios from 50,000 up to almost infinity.

        • dealspider on 16/09/2015 - 13:29

          @BTRaynes: You could be right about the advertised contrast ratio that manufacturers put whatever the number that they want. In that case, still the TV with higher Contrast Ratio would give you the best pictures (assuming everyone put a higher number) :) . It is all relative.

          I agree that you need to test TVs side-by-side to properly compare. Not by looking at the spec on the paper. But the paper would still give you some kind of idea about the quality you are going to get.

    • ITveteran on 16/09/2015 - 15:13

      Agree. 4k resolution on TV is more futile than 3D. Sitting 2.5 meters away I bet no one can discern between FHD and 4K. Let alone there is little 4k content to watch. Maybe just pay for boasting "I have a 4k TV"?

      • furythree on 16/09/2015 - 21:09
        +1

        dumbest comment ever

      • ozy on 17/09/2015 - 09:18

        "ITveteran" , Analogue colour CRT with corded remotes were the 4K's of your time (and mine)
        The content will come, when the tech expands the markets. ie 4k Aldi TV's for the poor, looking to join the "new age" expands consumers willing to demand more content, it then becomes viable to supply vs demand.

        But dont buy this TV anyway, it cant display 8k content!

  • theone4u on 16/09/2015 - 09:55
    +8

    looks ok to me,
    you gotta ask you're self the question, 'does anyone actually spend more than 2-10hours a day watching tv?' does it actually need to be the best tv in the world for your eyes to be able to see it perfectly fine?
    everyone is complaining about how average the picture quality is and slow interface? like seriously this is a tv that is used for watching tv not to use to surf the internet and do stuff what you would on a computer… i'm pretty sure we all have either or two or more of; a Smartphone, a Computer of some sort laptop or Desktop, and a Tablet/iPad etc.

    Do you really need a tv that cost nearly 10K just to be used less than 2-3hours a day for the sake of it to sit in your lounge to be admired every-time you walk pass or to show off to your neighbours how big your TV is?…lol.. i don't know about some but i tend to spend more time outside or with the family rather sitting on my arse watching tv all day…

    Stop setting super high standard for general purpose stuff where you would bareley use, i have a Thorn 55" TV smart tv with Andriod operating system and it works just fine for its purpose, which i have never used the smart tv capabilities as there is no need. My smartphone does the job well.

    In terms of bargain, isn't that why we are all lurking on Ozbargain?

    The Tv is extremely good Value for money! give or take it's not perfect, but what is?

    • dealspider on 16/09/2015 - 10:28
      +5

      It is highly personal. Some people prefer quality over functionality. You might just appreciate the "TV" functionality but another might want the crisp/sharp, natural colours and the best refresh rates to enjoy more realistic experience. It is like Toyota vs BMW. You could say it is the same, someone else would disagree.

      • elektron on 16/09/2015 - 14:20
        +3

        You do realise that Toyotas is actually much more reliable than BMWs? They also have more standard functionality - for example, the RAV4 Cruiser comes standard with a lane departure warning and a blind spot monitor, while my friend's BMW 435i costing almost 3 times more doesn't have these.

        I definitely get the point you are trying to make, but probably not the best example :)

        • dealspider on 16/09/2015 - 14:30

          Yeah, you could be right, that might not be a good example but, you don't get the looks of a BMW from a Toyota…do you :)

        • elektron on 16/09/2015 - 14:40

          @dealspider:
          Perhaps, but you were talking about quality and functionality :) Besides, looks are in the eye of the beholder - personally, I think the current BMWs are quite bland to be honest.

        • dealspider on 16/09/2015 - 14:46

          @elektron: Yes, I was talking about the picture quality of TVs. But when it comes to Cars, it is a different story, isn't it? most people go for the design/look. So I guess "Design" is one of the key features of a car.

          Yes, I would agree with you one the design of the new BMWs. Mercedes got better design than BMWs in their new range of cars in my opinion.

        • elektron on 16/09/2015 - 15:28

          @dealspider:
          If people bought cars mostly on looks there'd be no ugly cars on the road :)
          I think people also consider things like power, handling, ride quality, and yes…reliability :)
          Agreed on Mercedes-Benz doing more interesting things of late than BMW, and not just design-wise. I also like the aggressive look of the recent Lexus models (check out the RC350) and their cabins are still best in class IMHO.

          Anyway, I think we're well an truly OT here :)

        • Charity on 17/09/2015 - 01:16

          @dealspider:
          Your analogy, as others have said, needs a little work.

          It should be McLaren vs Kia

          Incidently Kia buyers would likely be the target market for this TV, buy McLaren owners would likely not be.

      • Jackson on 16/09/2015 - 14:30

        Highly personal often= highly wankerish

        • dealspider on 16/09/2015 - 14:31

          hahaha…different perspectives :)

  • congo on 16/09/2015 - 10:00

    What is the verdict on the quality of this TV?

    • awaiko on 16/09/2015 - 10:30
      +2

      Some reviews in https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/209684#comment

      Reviews in this thread fall into:
      Nothing was wrong apart from
      Slow interface
      Poor sound quality
      Average Picture quality
      Remote did not work at times
      (courtesy of ToTheDollar and others)

      I suspect “you get what you pay for'' applies….

      • killergreely on 16/09/2015 - 11:02

        You forgot dead pixels…

        And a fairly high failure rate, which is what the main concern on Whirlpool was.

        • awaiko on 16/09/2015 - 11:42
          +1

          Ouch!

          I think this one is definitely a pass, unless the buyer can live with some really big compromises!

  • damion on 16/09/2015 - 10:05
    +11

    Oh good! Another chance to go loiter in Aldi car parks and laugh at people who purchase and can't fit these in their vehicles.

  • montorola on 16/09/2015 - 10:07
    -1

    Lol @ found more

  • NathanO on 16/09/2015 - 10:08

    Does anyone have photo or video of the TV on? Haven't seen any in the threads so far.

    • leoleakey on 16/09/2015 - 10:32
      +3

      http://imgur.com/RAN4opo

      • sachz on 16/09/2015 - 11:22

        awesome!

    • ozy on 17/09/2015 - 09:22
      +1

      I love ads on tv where they compare LCD/LED/ULD to show you the clarity (while watching it on your free to air LCD DTV

  • centrelink on 16/09/2015 - 10:32

    How do these compare to the tcl TV at Costco?

  • umyob on 16/09/2015 - 10:45
    +1

    i think the issue of sound quality is that it's easy and cheap to add speakers for high fidelity if desired. but without them the pwer consumption and cost is traded off to get the technology.

  • Unrvl on 16/09/2015 - 10:49
    +1

    I think people don't realise how good of a buy this is. Poor picture quality comments are probably from people looking at a 1080p video/image on a 4k display stretched.

    Speakers/sound is crap, what do you expect? most people who purchase a TV like this would surely pair it up with an AV receiver and some good speakers. Same with the app store/interface, who cares if its laggy? don't use it for the apps, stick a roku on it, or an android tv, or the new apple tv coming out…

    i think this is perfect, they had to skimp out on components somewhere, and tbh they have skimped out on the least important components.

    • [Deactivated] on 16/09/2015 - 10:59

      all 3 dont support 4K though.

      • Unrvl on 16/09/2015 - 11:00

        i know that, 4k smart tv boxes are still not mainstream, but they will be soon.

        • [Deactivated] on 16/09/2015 - 11:04
          +1

          Poor picture quality comments will flood through untill they are….

  • Duram on 16/09/2015 - 11:08

    Can you mount this?

    • samfisher5986 on 16/09/2015 - 11:11

      Yes

      • Duram on 16/09/2015 - 11:11
        +5

        yolo buying one for the bedroom.

        • McFly on 16/09/2015 - 11:18
          +8

          Please post a photo of you mounting it in the bedroom…

        • MadMaxBargainRoad on 16/09/2015 - 11:34
          +2

          @McFly: That's the kind of freaky

  • samfisher5986 on 16/09/2015 - 11:11

    Just preordered it, Thanks OP!

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join