How Do You Choose a TV

LtheHMASfriendship on 19/01/2016 - 10:23

Hi Team,

Looking for advice on TV selection and how the average Ozbargainer goes about choosing one. The last time I bought a TV was 5 years ago, a 40 inch Sony number which has served me well, however looks tiny and in the current lounge configuration I need glasses to play ps4 or watch sport. There wasn't any particular science applied, it was within budget and in the store seemed decent enough.

Generally I select brands or models of appliances and electronics on 1) budget; 2) online reviews of brand or model, and 3) previous experiences with said brand. I find that TVs however tend to have less reviews, have a wider range of models I can't easily follow, and/or are called different things in different regions. So essentially that leaves me to compare endless tables of specifications, of which I'm not sure which ones are beneficial to me or not.

I'm skeptical about comparing TVs in store as well, as perceived performance would be largely dependent on the content shown, the picture settings they have it on, and even the lighting in the store.

A friend of mine gave the advice to stick to the big 4 TV brands (LG, Panasonic, Samsung and Sony) and I'll be fine. Beyond this statement (whether it be true or not), what are the key features that makes a TV better than the others at a given price point? What do you guys look for, whether it be on a spec table or in store? If this question is too vague and open, given say a $1500 price point, what's the features I can look for that will give me the best bang for buck?

One example, one spec that can be considered; refresh rate: 50Hz vs 100Hz vs 200Hz etc, is there perceptible benefit in a higher refresh rate, and whether it's a true refresh rate or not?

Cheers in advance

Electrical & Electronics

Comments

  • inherentchoice on 19/01/2016 - 10:55
    +3

    I just wait for a super deal. My $300 39" Hisense has been great and I don't plan to get rid of it any time soon.

    IMO most of the specs are overrated. You don't need 4K and you don't need a Smart TV either. Just get a Chromecast. Refresh rates may be applicable for games, but I'm pretty sure DVB-T only broadcasts in 50Hz anyway.

    Maybe keep an eye on this search and you can even create an alert for it:

    https://www.ozbargain.com.au/search/node/tv?s=t&t=b

    • ESEMCE on 19/01/2016 - 11:40
      +2

      You don't need 4K

      Agreed, 4K is a marketing gimmick for most Australians who sit more than 3m from their TV. Even more so if your eyesight isn't great to begin with.
      If you're presented with a choice between 4K and 1080p for what appears to be otherwise comparable sets at comparable prices, the chances are that the 1080p set has better internal components, because fewer dollars have been spent on the screen tech, therefore leaving more dollars in the manufacturer's "budget" to spend on the other components.

      Ask to have a play with the menus in the smart TV section to see how responsive they are, check out the Program Guide to see if you like it and check out the channel changing speed.
      All these features you'll use regularly and if they're slow, or difficult to use, it'll annoy you.

      • inherentchoice on 19/01/2016 - 11:54

        The other problem with 4K is that there isn't much content in 4K right now. Not even the latest console games or blurays are in 4K. I think Netflix may be an exception but you need to pay for it I think.

        • ESEMCE on 19/01/2016 - 11:56
          +1

          And you need an "NBN grade" connection with a decent quota.

        • SlickMick on 19/01/2016 - 23:13
          +1

          I was shopping for a blu-ray the other day, saw that it was available in 4K, and realised that in a very short space of time we'll be embarrassed for bagging 4K. The upgrade in definition is more than VHS to FHD. TVs are over 75' now - it's big enough to benefit.
          I won't being buying another tv that's not 4K.

        • inherentchoice on 20/01/2016 - 04:01

          @SlickMick:

          Well they did real-world tests with 65" TVs and found that differences are were visible only when viewed less than 2 feet from the screen, and even then only on certain scenes.

          http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/10/ultra-hd-vs-…

        • SlickMick on 20/01/2016 - 23:23

          @inherentchoice:
          65" is so 2015

  • lupiter on 19/01/2016 - 11:32
    +1

    I assume you know the size of the space you have for the TV. Double check that in the store if it might be a tight fit, and don't forget to allow space for cables.

    Check the ports. For some reason lots of newer TVs are coming with fewer HDMI ports. I have a receiver box and I'm still running low on HDMI ports.

    Check the remote. Some fancy "smart" TVs come with stupid touch remotes which suck. If you have a universal remote, check it supports the TV (Logitech generally do, others might not if you buy a Kogan or similar).

    If it is a "smart" TV and you want to use the native "smarts" (I do for SBS Catchup only) make sure it has wifi or ethernet suitable for the location.

    If you plan on using the built-in speakers, check them in store. My old TV had the worst speakers I have ever heard, worse than cheap earphones or an old telephone line.

    • theHMASfriendship on 19/01/2016 - 14:46

      I have an old sony blu ray home theater system I use which is decent enough. May upgrade, it has an annoying 30 or so second warm up time before it makes sound.

      Good point on the remotes. I dislike the point and click style remotes of the recent LGs (my parents have one), and there's not much scope for controlling attached devices.

  • Mr BoMBAStiG on 19/01/2016 - 11:44
    +1

    I would agree that the 4 brands are the way to go, especially if you want another 5 years from it. They also have a much better ability to help in a warranty issue as they have a premium brand to be worried about and want people to think their TVs are quality.

    Size should be determined by your room and viewing distance, plenty of graphs on this online; and your budget.

    Smart TV is useful for people who don't have a media centre and want to get into streaming media (Netflix, Stan, Presto, YouTube etc). It's almost standard these days so trying to avoid it is probably not worth it.

    3D? lol, no.

    4K/UHD is not worth it imo. Yes 4k content will "flood in" over the next 2-3 years but for the average user, FHD is enough for the next 5 years. Again viewing distance is an important factor here as UHD/FHD is not discernable past a certain distance for the average human.

    100Hz capability is enough for most content. It would be rare that a source puts out more than 60Hz on a regular basis, or that you would notice the difference between 100-200Hz.

  • [Deactivated] on 19/01/2016 - 11:55

    I wouldn't listen to the so called experts in this thread. Ever since I got my smart tv, it has changed the way I watch tv, I now watch far less free to air and primarily watch smart services like YouTube and Netflix. My over all tv watching hours have dropped because of this, which is a good thing. A chrome cast is not a substitute for a smart tv. It is far less convenient and does not store apps but merely acts as a wireless hdmi cable from your laptop/tablet. The lack of convenience and fact that you need a laptop to use it means you won't use it in the same way. It's like buying a car and getting those cheap after market leather car seat covers. It's just not the same. As for 4K, if you can afford it, get it. On anything below about 55 inches, it is hard to see the difference between 4K and HD, but the TVs are certainly more modern and better overall, with much more up to date features. Over 55 inch and 4K becomes discernible, even on a regular HD broadcast a 4K tv looks much better thanks to clever up scaling. Watching an HD David Attenborough documentary will blow you away on a 4K tv. 4K content is available via smart functions like YouTube and Netflix and it is amazing. The single problem with 4K TVs is that when you get used to 4K, looking at HD will never be the same, you start to see the pixels that were invisible to you before, it's like losing your iPhone and going back to your old 3GS, back when you owned it you never realised the screen was so shit.

    I would personally wait for a deal in here, and get the biggest television you can afford, from one of the major manufacturers. No one has ever said 'I wish I bought a smaller tv' and even if it looks big in the space on the first day, by the second day you will be used to it. My personal preference would be to shoot for a minimum 65inxh 4K television. Whatever comes on special next.

    • inherentchoice on 19/01/2016 - 12:02
      -2

      I now watch far less free to air and primarily watch smart services like YouTube and Netflix

      Could've done that with a $33 Chromecast.

      • [Deactivated] on 19/01/2016 - 12:41
        -2

        Re read. I own a Chromecast, Apple TV, several smart tvs, 4k and 1080p, this is coming from the user experience, not a tight arse ozbargainer who thinks that a crappy chromecast on a 10 year old lcd is a reliable and equivalent substitute. The user experience and interface is extremely important. I (and most people) don't want to get their ipad out to watch tv, I just want to use the remote to sit down and relax. It needs to be seamless and easy.

    • ESEMCE on 19/01/2016 - 12:03
      +1

      You're completely misusing your Chromecast if you think it's merely "a wireless HDMI cable".
      I think navigating on Smart TV with a remote is far less user friendly than navigating on a tablet/phone or even computer and then you just direct the Chromecast to play the content and you can shut down the device if you wish, the CC will happily continue to play.
      I can type to search for a title or director way faster on my phone than you can pecking out letters from an on-screen keyboard with your remote's arrow keys!

      • [Deactivated] on 19/01/2016 - 12:44
        -1

        A good interface on a smart tv doesn't require much typing apart from setting up accounts initially. A smart tv can be linked to an ipad/phone if you really want to type things also. Really a chrome cast just isn't very good, an Apple tv is much better, but again, I don't want to need another remote, I don't want to have to go to HDMI inputs and wait. I just want the TV to work out of the box, and use the same remote.

        And a chromecast is literally just that, a wireless HDMI cable. Nothing more, nothing less.

        • ESEMCE on 19/01/2016 - 13:14
          +1

          A good interface on a Smart TV doesn't require much typing

          So you don't search for content?

          A smart tv can be linked to an ipad/phone if you really want to type things

          So TV's are building in "Chromecast-like" features

          a chromecast is literally just that, a wireless HDMI cable.

          It is if you're screencasting, but otherwise it's not a wireless HDMI cable at all.
          I've used screencasting twice in the 2+ years that I've owned a (US model) Chromecast and we use it pretty much daily cause the "Smart TV" functionality in our 2011 model TV and 2014 model BluRay are both rubbish.
          Predominantly Netflix and Youtube, some BBC iPlayer and very little iView (Partly cause iView's Chromecast implementation is a buggy piece of crap, partly cause most of the content on iView is available earlier on Netflix or BBC).
          All of these services allow you to push a "link" from the phone app to the Chromecast and the Chromecast pulls the content from the net and displays it completely independent of the phone that sent the "link".

          I'm not even confident that AppleTV is better.. it has the same "relying on a remote" issues as a Smart TV.

        • [Deactivated] on 19/01/2016 - 13:26
          +1

          @scubacoles: No, a good user interface gives me the content I want without having to type anything.

          So you've got a crappy old smart tv and are basing your judgement of all smart tvs on this?

          So you think 'pushing' is any different from using a HDMI cable? I understand the process is different, but the result it the same. The chromecast is literally a wireless cable, but instead of getting the content directly from the device, it looks it up itself. Pretty much every smart tv has this built into it anyway, as well as an easier to use and navigate user interface, that doesn't require another device.

          You think that requiring a tablet/phone to use your tv is an advantage, I think its a flaw. Lets leave it at that.

        • ESEMCE on 19/01/2016 - 14:00

          @thorton82:

          a good user interface gives me the content I want without having to type anything

          By magic, or are you just happy to watch what is suggested to you?

          basing your judgement of all smart tvs on this

          No, not at all. I've also used the "fancy" 2015 model Samsung Air mouse/Wiimote remote interface and that's rubbish too.
          The Smart App interfaces are all pretty similar, even to the interface on a phone/tablet.. they show you suggested content and you have to click through to another screen to see a precis.
          It's just a hell of a lot easier to select with a finger rather than with a directional arrow moving a highlight box or gyroscopically controlled on-screen cursor.

          Sure, it's a disadvantage losing an HDMI port, if you're short on them (I'm not).

          SmartTV is built into anything remotely decent anyway. If you can live with it, then use it…
          I haven't seen one that's better than the solution that Chromecast provides and the only way I could imagine one better than CC is if the TV was able to screencast to a phone/tablet and you could control the Smart TV functionality with touch.
          Still requires a touch capable device and that might as well be my phone, cause I don't want to pay extra for a touch remote.

        • theHMASfriendship on 19/01/2016 - 14:42

          @scubacoles:

          I have a chromecast, much easier to navigate through an old nexus 7 tablet I've got sitting in the lounge room… although I find abc iview particularly buggy sometimes. Generally I cast from the DLNA server I've set up.

          A intuitive smart tv interface is nice to have but by no means a deal breaker.

        • [Deactivated] on 19/01/2016 - 14:55
          +2

          @scubacoles: ok you can keep talking but 'let's leave it at that' means we need to agree to disagree. I understand that you can't help it if you are wrong. :)

    • SlickMick on 19/01/2016 - 23:15

      I didn't go looking for a smart tv, nor 3D for that matter, but that stuff seems to be included in the big quality tvs…. and it turns out to be quite handy.

  • CyberMurning on 19/01/2016 - 12:00
    +2

    big brands only! as they are cheap during sales anyway.
    get the biggest your wallet allows, no need 3D features or curve or 4K or motion sensor etc etc but just FHD.
    smart tv is necessary if you have fast internet i think or get chromecast.
    HZ, get at least 100 not less but no need 200 - i cant tell the difference.
    make sure you ask the sales person : is this between july 2015 to 2016 model? if he say yes move along, they are still too expensive!

  • THICKnSLOW on 19/01/2016 - 12:17

    CRT TV's lasted 10+ years for my parents, so the expectation is there for the replacement tv to last just as long. When they needed to upgrade to a digital TV I started them off with a 32" noname analog tuner tv with external set top box, and waited a couple years for technology to mature and the gimmicky features like motioncontrol and voice control to slowly fetter out as being a 'must have'. Upgraded to a 42" LG smart tv after a couple years, then a 55" Samsung a couple years after that. Retired the 32" and moved the 42" as a secondary tv.

    I recommend go in-store at HN, DSE, JBHIFI, TGG etc and look at the TV's side by side comparison, compare viewing angles, brightness, light bleed.
    The only time I ordered online a tv unsighted was one of the deals on here for a viano 32" fullhd tv for $199 at DSE. I will never do that again, you get what you pay for. Terrible menu system, one stuck pixel, non-linear volume control. But still has HDMI input and FULLHD resolution.

    No plans to upgrade to 4K or curved TV at present either. Why pay good money so you can consume more electricity to do everyday things like watch FTA news.

    Give us the content in 4K, then I'll consider it.

  • dissin on 19/01/2016 - 12:53
    -1

    Great time to buy is now

    Some big brands clearing stock to make way for 2016 models coming out approx March timeframe

    And because of this i would get some great technology and innovation at heavily reduced pricing

    So for me, a large curved UHD or SUHD from Samsung would be great.

  • donnot on 19/01/2016 - 20:55

    Sticking to the 4 brands is a good idea. I always download some good quality 1080p content and bring it into the store on a USB drive-most cases, you'll be allowed to play it on the TVs, and possibly even change the picture settings (i.e. motion, colour etc…). Also, a TV with a true 100Hz panel will look smoother than a 50Hz panel, especially for fast paced sports (tennis is a good example).

    Rtings is probably the best site to go to for TV reviews.

  • kryptoz on 19/01/2016 - 22:34
    +1

    BRANDS: Given that you have a Sony Home Theatre system, you may find it works better with a Sony TV — pairing a PVR/BD/PS4/Xperia phone or tablet/Sony camera/etc typically gives you more functionality than using with any other brand, especially if they are newer models with smart functions, and many features like pairing or casting from your phone to your TV work exclusively between Sony devices. The same priniciple is true for many other brands like Samsung or Apple, if you keep within that brands' ecosystem, functionality and ease of use will be at their best.
    Of course, you can connect anything nowadays with HDMI/USB cables or a network-media-player, but it is easier to setup using the proprietary ecosystem, works OOTB and remote controls share most buttons.

    SIZE: The rule of thumb for HDTVs is 'viewing distance 1.5 - 2.5 times the screen diagonal', while for 4K the rule is '1.0 - 1.5 times' in order to appreciate the extra detail. It is all too easy to fall in love with an 80 inch screen in the store, but you will be comparing it's size with so many other large TVs they begin to look comparitively small — realistically you should have 4-5metres from that 80in TV to your seated position on the couch, while a 55in TV is perfectly suited to a typical 3m living space.

    FEATURES: Unless you are looking for a specific function, it's probably just a sales gimmick you will never use, eg. 4K, 3D, cuvred screen.

    SMARTS: Most 'smart' TVs aren't worth a cent — aside from Sony and Samsung which are fair to average, the interfaces from other manufacturers vary from poor to unusable. If you plan on using internet-based content, streaming media, apps, media sharing, or the like you should look carefully at the usability of the menus and smart functions. Unfortunately, you still may risk getting the TV home and discover it's smart-connection or other setup wizards don't work properly if at all — we had those issues with both Panasonic and Kogan TVs, and ultimately ended up buying AppleTV and Android box to give them that functionality.

    QUALITY: Sony is hard to beat for image quality, Samsung and LG are also excellent, however not everyone is so fussy on this aspect, since you can buy a lot more TV for less money by going with a Korean/Tawainese/Chinese/store brand, and get >90% of the image quality as a Sony. That said, Sony is rather tricky with it's refresh rate nomenclature, Sony's 200Hz is equivalent to other manufacturers 100Hz, Sony 100Hz = 50Hz other brands — I won't try to explain it here, there are countless tech articles covering this. Sound quality varies wildly, but since you use a home theatre system, that's not a concern.

    Lastly, if you are looking into media players, they are not all equal — AppleTV $130 works brilliantly and is snappy, but the available apps are astoundingly poor in Australia, so much use if you want much more than Netflix. Chromecast $45 works quite well with Android 5.0-6.0 (esp. Samsung phones), less brilliantly with other Android models and barely at all with Apple devices. Android boxes are the best all-round option for Android phones, and much more flexible than Smart TVs, especially for streaming content, ~$100 for quality units.

  • SlickMick on 19/01/2016 - 23:23
    +1

    I ignore anything not latest technology, ignored the premium models 10x the average price, and bought the biggest I could find at the best price when I was looking.
    My last 2 tvs were FHD. 1st a Panasonic when 55' was the biggest affordable size. Then Samsung won at 65'.
    My next tv will be the biggest 4K tv whose price is in ballpark of average. (I'm out of touch, not sure what I'll have to pay.)

  • HeWhoKnows on 20/01/2016 - 09:10
    -1

    Why not apply the same science? Perhaps move up to a 47" or 50" TV. Upgrading to a smart TV at little extra cost is a good idea. These days you can work them with your smart phone. UHD is a waste of money unless you have a heap UHD blu-ray movies. The SD TV picture actually looks worse on a UHD.
    BTW. ChangHong seem to be excellent budget TVs and offer 3 year warranty. Much better value than the big brand names who only offer 1 year warranty with similar quality picture.

    • [Deactivated] on 20/01/2016 - 11:24

      Yeah don't listen to this guy, just making shit up.

  • [Deactivated] on 20/01/2016 - 11:24

    https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/231050

  • EdAus on 20/01/2016 - 16:35

    My 2 cents worth. Another viewpoint. If your into color adjustment to get the best out of it.
    Previous TV Samsung 1080 65". Plasma
    ….allowed full color control including RGB individual color balance. First TV that I actually got the color balance spot on.
    ….power supply failed twice 2nd time out of warranty, but with a bit of pushing, Samsung replaced power unit for free.
    …great wide viewing area

    Current TV. SONY 75" 4K. LED
    ……Brilliant upscaling even from standard TV Sig. Some USA shows a bit grainy especially older shows.but still impressed. I for one would not go back to 1080 now.
    … Color adjustment control, ok but no control over individual RGB components. Not even in the hidden service menu. Leaving GREEN way out, which is no better than my earlier TEAC TV.
    … SONY said that would pass my comments to their engineers… I think that means email deleted.
    …3D, nice gimmick, don't use it anymore. Though am trying a PS3 3D game.
    …. Blotchy screen on the black screen (between scene changes). Known issue , which I minimised by adjusting white settings, but still annoying.
    .. Wide angle viewing not up to claimed standard. The further you are off centre the slightly milky effect occurs.

    Summary:
    ….take your own test video with a screen blank section.
    …..check how far off centre you can sit and verify pic quality
    ….If smart TV options important, can you add your own links or are they fixed to what manufacturer has embedded.

  • Terryible on 20/01/2016 - 16:41

    I'm in the market for a new TV, and have decided not to get UHD TV, for a couple of reasons, 1) lack of content 2) My eyesight is not the greatest so UHD probably no benefit to me 3) Price, generally I can get a bigger FHD TV for my money.
    So what FHD tv 55-60inch for around $1500 would people recommend

  • jatcave on 20/01/2016 - 16:56

    I game on my TV, so my choice came down to mainly the size to fit our cabinet, refresh rate (100Hz), ability to adjust colour, contrast backlight etc. It's a 46" Samsung and when I got the XB1, thanks to recent OzB deals, I noticed it also had the ability to make all the adjustments suggested. That made a very noticeable difference.

  • theHMASfriendship on 21/01/2016 - 10:25

    Ok so looking into the refresh rate thing, it seems that most manufactures advertise their tv's as double the native refresh rate… I.e. an LG "200Hz" TV is actually 100Hz. Sony go a step further and advertise varying refresh rates for TVs that are 100Hz (up to 800 it seems).

    Agreed with all on the UHD vs FHD; rarely I will view content that's 4K, and I'll be viewing from 3m+ away. 4K looks great standing 1m away from it in store though.

    So parameters have reduced my TV selection to;
    1) FHD
    2) 55 inch-ish
    3) Actual 100Hz (many sports will be viewed)

    Given I punch out far too many hours on the PS4, I'd imagine input lag would be a consideration as well. Is there any brands/models known for, or specifications I can look at that suggest a lower input lag?

    Thanks again.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join