Is it worth upgrading from a 32" to a 40" TV?

[Open Minded]

12 minutes ago, xendrome said:

Then why are you even posting this topic?

I think he needs positive reinforcement to save his money.

[FiB3R]

3 hours ago, adrynalyne said:

I've considered that

 

We had a house built and it has a large blank white 9 foot wall in the great room.

Consider it? What the hell are you waiting for man? That would be right at the top of my "Things I need to do, right ####ing now!" list.

*Funds for a 4K projector permitting.

OP... Go as big as you can (within reason). But I'd also suggest going for quality over size (I wish that's what she said) if you can't afford both.

 

Then sit back and bask in it's glory.

[adrynalyne]

21 minutes ago, FiB3R said:

Consider it? What the hell are you waiting for man? That would be right at the top of my "Things I need to do, right ####ing now!" list.

*Funds for a 4K projector permitting.

OP... Go as big as you can (within reason). But I'd also suggest going for quality over size (I wish that's what she said) if you can't afford both.

 

Then sit back and bask in it's glory.

Happy wife = happy life? LOL.

 

I have to sell her on it first. Buying and installing is the easy part  and we just picked up a 4K HDR TV prior to building the house.

 

[+Random Stranger Subscriber¹]

6 hours ago, DaDude said:

It's like wearing two articles of clothing that don't match

You are too funny. I often wear clothing that don't match, breaking the expectations, making the things that don't typically work together, work together.

 

But, then again, there was his thread here about flip-flops. So I don't have high expectations.

[The Evil Overlord]

17 hours ago, adrynalyne said:

Ever had one? They are terrible. 

There's good and bad in all brands, I've got 3 polaroid TV's in my house they're 3 years old this Christmas, one in the kitchen, the other 2 in my kids rooms, never missed a beat

Would I recommend one? Nope, but that's not because they're unreliable, they're just nothing fancy (Unlike my Panasonic)

[adrynalyne]

5 minutes ago, The Evil Overlord said:

There's good and bad in all brands, I've got 3 polaroid TV's in my house they're 3 years old this Christmas, one in the kitchen, the other 2 in my kids rooms, never missed a beat

Would I recommend one? Nope, but that's not because they're unreliable, they're just nothing fancy (Unlike my Panasonic)

Even the worst TVs will last 3-5 years. After the time is when you see how terrible they are. 

 

My latest TV is a Sony. My last one was a Sony and it went 13 years before the HDMI port broke on it. 

[The Evil Overlord]

1 minute ago, adrynalyne said:

Even the worst TVs will last 3-5 years. After the time is when you see how terrible they are. 

 

My latest TV is a Sony. My last one was a Sony and it went 13 years before the HDMI port broke on it. 

Don't disagree with me, I'll report you  

[adrynalyne]

7 minutes ago, The Evil Overlord said:

Don't disagree with me, I'll report you  

 

[DaDude]

6 hours ago, xendrome said:

Then why are you even posting this topic?

I want to hear from people whether upgrading 8 inches is a massive difference that's worth investing in. Obviously, 32" to 50" is. But since I mentioned that my living room layout only allows up to 40", I want to know if it's worth spending the money for just a slight upgrade in size. It's Black Friday and I wanted an answer now and don't have time to really think about it, so I needed some advice asap. Based on the responses here, it looks like the answer is no.

6 hours ago, Open Minded said:

I think he needs positive reinforcement to save his money.

Actually, I was expecting quite the opposite. In a home theater forum, I was expecting a lot of people to say, "Yes. Go for it and upgrade." But since I didn't get one response like that, it definitely does put a whole new light on things.

[LUTZIFER]

For how cheap TVs are these days, 55 inch should be minimal, unless you live in a little travel trailer or tent.

My bedroom TV is 55 inch and it's the smallest in the house by far.

[inactive]

i went from a old 25-27" TV (the old heavy ones) to a LG 43" 1080p (mfg date Jan 2016) in May of this year for $222.59 (normally that TV costs i think $350+(but only catch is it's refurbished but works like new)) and it was a big upgrade, obviously.

 

but since the OP is already on 32", and it's a modern type of TV at that with a good brand name, i would probably wait a while and go bigger as prices will likely drop even further. but then again 32" is fairly small for today's standards as that's kinda why i waited as i did not want to go under a 40 something inch. i plan on having my current TV for i would imagine at least 10 years or so (probably an EASY 5+ years) simply because i doubt something is going to be better enough to justify the costs of getting another TV. but if you got money to burn i would upgrade otherwise if you are trying to be a bit wiser with your $$$ i would wait a little while and go with as big of a TV you can get for a decent cost while sticking to the name brands as i can't really see spending more than around $500 for a TV nowadays and a good brand one at that as personally i would rather get a good brand TV than get a bigger screen but with a lesser brand simply because i want my TV to last and i heard the name brands tend to use better quality components in their TV's so they will probably last longer (i even turn my brightness etc settings down to help extend LED life). but if you are one of those people who upgrades their TV every 5 years or so then getting a cheaper/no name/larger TV might not be a bad option.

 

For how cheap TVs are these days, 55 inch should be minimal

 

it probably depends on how you view the situation as opinions vary. but i figure when it comes to TV size it's pretty much like this nowadays...

 

20 something inch (or smaller) = tiny

30 something inch = small

40 something inch = typical/decent size (these are probably the sweet spot for cost/size/quality ratio, give or take, as you get respectable size/name brand/good price)

50 something inch = large

60" or larger = huge (i imagine those beyond 60 something inch are massive but i don't really think many people have TV's beyond 60" or so. so i did not bother listing them)

 

i sorta came to that conclusion simply because, while i can't say for sure, i would imagine most people's TV's are smaller than 50" as i would guess the typical home with a decent TV is probably in the 40 something inch range, give or take a little.

 

so basically... anything around 50" should be more than good enough for the average person in my opinion as that's no where near small and i guess it just depends on how much someones wants to spend. but in my opinion... lately, it's probably not worth spending more than around $500 for a TV (maybe $1000 or so on the high end) because TV's have been good for years now. like good quality (the brand names) at a respectable size (say 40 something inch) at a cheap enough price. i know if you go with the more generic names in TV's you can increase size quite a bit while still keeping price fairly low. but personally i would rather sacrifice screen size for a TV that will last (i.e. i prefer the name brands).

[HawkMan]

13 hours ago, adrynalyne said:

I've considered that

 

We had a house built and it has a large blank white 9 foot wall in the great room.

The thing with projectors is that using a wall may not be the best option. for good blacks and contrast at least with a high lumen projector, you need a cinema gray screen, and optimally proper screen, though there are paints that work well as well, but you need a perfectly flat wall. any imperfection will affect the picture, and just white paint won't reflect properly, a proper screen/screen paint is made to reflect the light properly.  The best option is a frame screen, not a pulldown as they get V folds/waves from the weight, with a black flocked or matte cloth clad frame to frame the picture and add contrast, it also allows you to slightly overscale the image and get a properly square picture. 

 

Also I wouldn't reccomend a projector for regular TV viewing. to much use on the bulb for most people. and the picture quality isn't even close to get with a cheap TV in day time unless you plan to permantly black out the living room. in other words, unless you have a special TV/media/gaming room, get a big TV. 120 inch picture is nice for movies and games, but that's about it. 

[DaDude]

8 hours ago, LUTZIFER said:

For how cheap TVs are these days, 55 inch should be minimal, unless you live in a little travel trailer or tent.

My bedroom TV is 55 inch and it's the smallest in the house by far.

Well, I can easily fit 55 inch if there were nothing else on that side of the living room. But I have a drawer and a desk table on that side of the living room as well. Adding a 55" inch TV would require me to move or throw away the drawer and desk and dedicate that entire wall space to a TV. Not sure I really want to do that....

[Hum]

55 inch 4K UHD TV on sale at Wal-Mart .... $428

[DaDude]

8 hours ago, ThaCrip said:

but if you got money to burn i would upgrade otherwise if you are trying to be a bit wiser with your $$$ i would wait a little while and go with as big of a TV you can get for a decent cost while sticking to the name brands as i can't really see spending more than around $500 for a TV nowadays and a good brand one at that as personally i would rather get a good brand TV than get a bigger screen but with a lesser brand simply because i want my TV to last and i heard the name brands tend to use better quality components in their TV's so they will probably last longer (i even turn my brightness etc settings down to help extend LED life). but if you are one of those people who upgrades their TV every 5 years or so then getting a cheaper/no name/larger TV might not be a bad option.

I don't think TVs today last very long. I bought a 720p Samsung TV back in late 2008 during Black Friday and it broke in mid 2014. That's just a little under 6 years. I even sacrificed a 1080p TV in the hopes of getting a good quality, name brand 720p TV. But it took less than 6 years for the TV to finally stop turning on. And it was working great until one day, it just suddenly started having issues powering on. I don't feel confident that TVs are built to last anymore. If my current TV is anything like my old one, then it has only about 3 more years of life left....

[inactive]

20 hours ago, DaDude said:

I don't think TVs today last very long. I bought a 720p Samsung TV back in late 2008 during Black Friday and it broke in mid 2014. That's just a little under 6 years. I even sacrificed a 1080p TV in the hopes of getting a good quality, name brand 720p TV. But it took less than 6 years for the TV to finally stop turning on. And it was working great until one day, it just suddenly started having issues powering on. I don't feel confident that TVs are built to last anymore. If my current TV is anything like my old one, then it has only about 3 more years of life left....

Thanks for the info.

 

but i wonder if what you experienced is typical or a bit of a fluke? ; i hope it's more of a fluke because i would expect a good brand TV like that (Samsung/LG etc) to make it at least around 10 years minimum otherwise it's pretty much crap, especially when you pay good money for it which TV's are not really cheap enough to be disposable. but i guess with any kind of stuff like this there are going to be cases where they die earlier than expected but i would hope a high percentage of good brand TV's would make it at least around 10 years before dying because if anything around 5 years is happening fairly often the TV manufacturers should either raise TV quality or lower prices.

 

also, did that TV see a lot of use? ; like was it powered on a good portion of the day, day after day etc?

 

but being that was 2008 and it's now 2016... i am hoping TV tech is matured (i.e. reliability is about as good as it can get) as i figure with technology in general the earlier days tend to be a bit more unreliable than after it's been around for many years and more refined. but i guess even if i do get screwed a bit and mine only lasts around 5 years (if it don't get at least this much the TV is just crap) at least i did not pay a fortune for mine. but still, it's the thought of it.

[DaDude]

I researched the issue afterwards and it looks like Samsung was using bad capacitors for their tv and that's what caused my tv to crap out so soon. A lot of people did complain about it and hopefully their current TVs don't have that issue anymore, but only time will tell.

 

With that said, I still will always buy Samsung TVs as I personally think their TVs have the best picture quality.

[Shiranui]

On 2016/11/25 at 8:22 PM, adrynalyne said:

Ever had one? They are terrible. 

Oh really? For decades I had been laboring under the misapprehension that the Polaroid name was synonymous with large-screen, high-definition electric televisions of the finest quality.

Thank you so much for setting me straight.

[inactive]

12 hours ago, DaDude said:

I researched the issue afterwards and it looks like Samsung was using bad capacitors for their tv and that's what caused my tv to crap out so soon. A lot of people did complain about it and hopefully their current TVs don't have that issue anymore, but only time will tell.

 

With that said, I still will always buy Samsung TVs as I personally think their TVs have the best picture quality.

Yeah, Samsung is definitely one of the best brands for TV's i would assume and it probably has been that way for many years now (probably 10+ years?). but it's surprising they would use crap capacitors for their TV's as that's usually what you would think the lesser brands would do to cut costs, but not the higher quality companies like Samsung etc. but it makes me wonder if fixing that TV was something the average person could do as if you could simply solder in a capacitor or two it might be worth attempting a fix since it would be cheap enough. but if plenty of crap needed fixing then it's probably not worth it at that point.

[PGHammer]

The issue with 32" TVs is that the TV itself is more suitable for 720p than 1080p or in fact 1080-anything; 32" is a 720 design - and it takes only math to drop THAT hammer on you - what is the height and width needed to produce a 32" screen size (compared to 40" or even 42")?  Naturally, I'm talking visual usable screen, leaving bezel or unusable screen out of the picture.  In the early days of HD, 720p was the most commonplace formfactor (especially when all there was was broadcast HDTV).  Nowadays, both cable and other forms of HDTV have driven 1080i and 1080p to the forefront, especially compared to 720p (while FOX broadcast has kept 720p, their FX counterpart has moved north to 1080i and 1080p), and upscaling has moved the option even further north - 4K looks "wrong" on a 32" screen, while it is at least passable on screens of 40" and 42".

[DaDude]

I am resurrecting this thread because I'm strongly considering upgrading my TV. TVs are so cheap now and plus I got a good raise and bonus at work, so I can very well afford to upgrade right now.

 

I was thinking of upgrading my 32" Samsung TV to a bigger size 43" TV, not so much because of the higher resolution (I don't foresee myself watching any 4K content anytime soon), but but mostly because I want a bigger size TV. I was debating about getting this Sony TV, but it was $650 at the time when I was looking to buy it. Now that it dropped to $550 and is available at my nearby Best Buy, I was thinking of picking it up this weekend.

This is the TV I am looking to buy:
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/sony-43-class-led-x800e-series-2160p-smart-4k-uhd-tv-with-hdr/5748210.p?skuId=5748210

I want this TV because I want something with a center stand and also, it has plenty of ports, especially HDMI. And I saw this TV on display at Best Buy and I, personally, think it has such a great picture.

Anyone here feel this TV is worth picking up this weekend for $550? Or are there any caveats that anyone here feels I should be aware of?