Lt-DavidW Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Hi, I'm looking to buy my first HD TV for my new place and I'm looking to spend about ?1000. I'm looking at TVs larger than 42", as I've heard that 1080p is wasted on TVs smaller than this. Two Samsung TVs have caught my eye - LE46B650 and UE46B6000. LE46B650 is LCD while UE46B6000 uses newer LED technology. But I can't decide whether it's worth spending that bit extra? Ideas and suggestions would be much appreciated. I don't want to rush into such a big purchase! Thanks as always!:DD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt-DavidW Posted August 19, 2009 Author Share Posted August 19, 2009 BUMP. Is it worth spending an extra ?200 to get an LED TV over an LCD one? Is the increase you get in picture quality worth it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerzdawg Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 BUMP. Is it worth spending an extra ?200 to get an LED TV over an LCD one?Is the increase you get in picture quality worth it? from what I have read the LED LCD is much better.... depending on your viewing habits I think you should also consider a plasma.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deuz Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 from the ones i have seen on display, the blacks on the led-b6000 are alot better than the b650 not to mention it is so ****ing thin!!! plasma is better(if your looking at samsung, look at the b650 or b850 plasma....the b850 ****s on the b6000) but out of the two if you can get the b6000 within $150 of the b650 then get that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antaris Veteran Posted August 21, 2009 Veteran Share Posted August 21, 2009 I don't think its wasted that much on smaller TVs. I have a 32" Samsung, which looks quite crisp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rikfrombelgium Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 ok, I've been in the exact same situation. IMHO, get the B650 and here is why - the B6000 is thin, yes, carry it arround much? no. THe B650 isn't exactly big now is it. Also, because the B6000 is so thin ( or any Luxia series samsung ) there are a lot of reports on clouding and flashlighting and people loosening the screws to resolve this. You really want to do that? - the B650 will give you the same stunning PQ than the LED series, it's all about getting it at home and callibrating it, I can give you my settings - the B6000 does NOT have significantly better blacks, not one test will say that. BUT, and it's a big but, while the B650 will give you the same blacks, it will do so in a better way. You see, the B6000 is edge-lit, not full back lit, which means it gets those blacks by global dimming of the screen. This is good for blacks but also grey's out whites and other colors ( noticeable in movies like the dark knight where in some scene's the joker fades ... ) - The B650 has widgets and DLNA, and this is very very usefull. I stream stuff all of the time directly to my tv ( house, Top Gear, The daily show, ... ) and it works. Also with WMP in windows 7, you can stream a playlist very easilydirectly to your tv and when you have a yamaha receiver and a 5.1 surround set connected to that tv somewhere in you appartment, that's very very nice. You can leave the PS3 that way and ease a bit on the power bill. The B6000 doens't have that. - and the B650 is cheaper? really, no brainer if you ask me. Some final thoughts if you go led, go full back lit don't be fooled by 240hz and mega contrast numbers, all a load of ****, 120hz will do just fine. if it's the bezzel of the B6000 that draws you over the B650, get the B750. It's a B650 with 240hz. It's more expensive here than a B650, which is why I didn't take it, but it looks a bit better if that's important enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt-DavidW Posted August 21, 2009 Author Share Posted August 21, 2009 Thanks for your replies. - the B6000 does NOT have significantly better blacks, not one test will say that. BUT, and it's a big but, while the B650 will give you the same blacks, it will do so in a better way. You see, the B6000 is edge-lit, not full back lit, which means it gets those blacks by global dimming of the screen. This is good for blacks but also grey's out whites and other colors ( noticeable in movies like the dark knight where in some scene's the joker fades ... ) Hmmm, I thought the whole point of LED TVs were that LEDs illuminated the screen, making any back lighting unnecessary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deuz Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 ^true, you could probably go on avforums or avsforums and look at calibration settings for the b650 i forgot dlna... so i probably go for the b650 but look at the b650 and b850 in plasma :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_dandy_ Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 I'm looking at TVs larger than 42", as I've heard that 1080p is wasted on TVs smaller than this. Why would anyone suggest that? Is 1080p "wasted" on a 24" monitor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apple jacks48 Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 No one said anything about using it as a monitor. So yes, it a waste of money in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_dandy_ Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 No one said anything about using it as a monitor. So yes, it a waste of money in this case. Doesn't matter how it's used, if the benefits are obvious at 24", then certainly they're even more obvious going bigger. Or, there may be something that just never gets explained right whenever people try to justify that claim. So by all means, be the first to convince me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deuz Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Doesn't matter how it's used, if the benefits are obvious at 24", then certainly they're even more obvious going bigger.Or, there may be something that just never gets explained right whenever people try to justify that claim. So by all means, be the first to convince me. your kidding right? with a monitor which is generally on a table...viewing distance is say around 1/2 a metre where as for a tv in a lounge room or in a main room or something generally, viewing distance is say 2-3m back. Unless you sit right in front of your tv.... if you dont understand where i am going with this, then ill explain it more easily and detailed your you :) its a whole big thing about 720p and 1080p with viewing distance and screen size.....the bigger the screen at the same distance the more detail you see, and also the closer you are the more detail you see. So if your using it as a monitor for typing and gaming you will probably be very close(<arms length)...so 1080p is better but if it is for a tv, people generally sit further back. On a 24'', which these days for hd is small(24'' in the old days of analogue was decent but now for hd 24'' is small!!)......if your say 2-3m back the difference in quality between 720p and 1080p is negligible. SO on a 46'' TV not monitor with an average viewing distance of 2-3m it is ideal to get a full hd tv because on the bigger screen at that distance you will probably see more detail on the 1080p TV. IF you had a 24'' full hd and hd monitor watching from a 2-3m back you would have to have some eagle eyes to notice the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts