This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

New Television

RymRym
edited January 2010 in Technology
So, should I get the:

LN52A750

Or the:

LN52B750

?

They're about $200 different. ^_~

I really don't want or need a TV larger than 52". It's basically just a matter of what specific 52" TV I get. It also seems very silly to spend $2k+ on a television: even the cheapo ones are pretty damn good at this point.
«1

Comments

  • Get the cheaper one, if only because it seems to be that you'd be paying $200 for a very marginal difference.
  • Hmph. The difference now appears to be $100.
  • Then the decision is very arbitrary.
  • Then the decision is very arbitrary.
    Yeah. I'm trying to read up on exactly what the difference between the A and B lines is.
  • Looks like A is a 120Hz and B is 240Hz. Refresh rates are just silly these days, oh how far we've come.
  • Yea, I'm in the market for a new TV as well.
  • Looks like A is a 120Hz and B is 240Hz
    I've determined that, but I see indications that the two lines use different backlights.

    What interests me is that, in every other line, the 240Hz (which I don't need or care about) costs a $700-$1000 extra, but that isn't the case here.

    I'm sure that I'm probably just going to fairly arbitrarily buy a TV soon, but crowdsourcing is a decent sanity check. ;^)
  • One is gray, the other red.

    The more expensive one has a better response time for smoother actions scenes and games. Also one seems to have a fixed contrast ratio, the other has dynamic contrast ratio, so the second one probably has blacker blacks but that is all marketing bullshit, 50,000:1 static is about the same as 150,000:1 dynamic. The only real difference is that one has composite the other one doesn't.
  • This is what I got:
    http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-LN37B530-37-Inch-1080p-HDTV/dp/B001U3Y8NQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1263216748&sr=1-1
    I'm still waiting for it to be delivered. I did a little research, it's basically the cheapest Full HD tv with digital converter I can get here in Brazil. It has no such extras
    as 120Hz refresh rate but I read a couple of reviews that didn't have any complaints about that.
  • Draw from a hat.
  • Work out two numbers. A = how much is the cheapest option. B = the difference in price between the two options. Now imagine, in the future, which one will you regret spending the most? A or B?

    If you buy the cheaper option, and then in a year you realize you need the component in? Will you regret spend 1800 on a TV that isn't good enough? Or for a TV which doesn't have a fast enough refresh rate for 3D viewing?

    And now imagine, in three years, that you've not used the extra features at all. Will you regret spending the extra 200 dollars? Probably not, as you make that back in less than a day, and spread over three years, it works out at pennies per day for the possibility of using those extra features.


    As an example, I wanted a zoom lens for my DSLR. The cheapest option was 170. The option that would have been the most perfect was 400. I bought the cheaper option as I might not have used the lens much, so would really have regretted the more costly version. Now, because I bought the cheap version, the autofocus is broken, but it cost so little that I got my money's worth out of it. The A cost was the easiest not to regret compared to the B cost. That said, now I'm going to buy a much nicer lens than before as a replacement.
  • This is what I got:
    http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-LN37B530-37-Inch-1080p-HDTV/dp/B001U3Y8NQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s;=electronics&qid;=1263216748&sr;=1-1
    I'm still waiting for it to be delivered. I did a little research, it's basically the cheapest Full HD tv with digital converter I can get here in Brazil. It has no such extras
    as 120Hz refresh rate but I read a couple of reviews that didn't have any complaints about that.
    I just bought this exact same TV from amazon. No complaints. Not the best picture in the world, but damn good.
  • I checked the specs on this TV. A very good chose for a TV. If you are watching standard definition programs the picture will not look great, almost fuzzy if you know what I mean when you are watching it. But once you get High definition channels it is like looking out your window the picture is so sharp and clear. I hope you enjoy your new TV.
  • Good call on picking Samsung. When I bought mine I went with a Sharp and it had bad banding issues so I brought it back and got a Samsung instead, and I love it. It's my gaming TV/monitor.
  • image
    My television. It works, and cost about $15. I don't see why everybody pays >$100 for a tv.
  • Size, mostly.
  • Compensating for something.
  • My television. It works, and cost about $15. I don't see why everybody pays >$100 for a tv.
    1) So we can read subtitles from a greater distance.
    2) So we can sit or lay more comfortably while watching.
    3) We have devices with HDMI outputs, and thus we need a TV with HDMI inputs.
    4) We have a lot of devices, so we need a lot of inputs.
    5) The US has turned of all analog television, so you need a modern TV with a digital tuner, or you need a monstrous converter box.
    6) If you watch the sports, or play the vidja games, HD is actually a huge benefit. Watching any sport with a large playing area, like hockey, soccer, or football, in HD is a totally different experience.

    So yes, there is a great deal of people compensating for things, and trying to achieve status by purchasing TVs that are much too large. That doesn't mean that having a TV which is the proper size for your room is bad. Some rooms justify 60" TVs, some don't.
  • So yes, there is a great deal of people compensating for things, and trying to achieve status by purchasing TVs that are much too large. That doesn't mean that having a TV which is the proper size for your room is bad. Some rooms justify 60" TVs, some don't.
    Which is what you just told Rym. Was that a subtle dig at the co-host?
  • So yes, there is a great deal of people compensating for things, and trying to achieve status by purchasing TVs that are much too large. That doesn't mean that having a TV which is the proper size for your room is bad. Some rooms justify 60" TVs, some don't.
    Which is what you just told Rym. Was that a subtle dig at the co-host?
    Apparently it wasn't that subtle...
  • Apparently it wasn't that subtle...
    I suppose it's subtle for Scott.
  • GeoGeo
    edited January 2010
    Apparently it wasn't that subtle...
    I suppose it's subtle for Scott.
    Subtle for Scott is just bluntness that is still harsh, but toned down quite a bit.
    Post edited by Geo on
  • So yes, there is a great deal of people compensating for things, and trying to achieve status by purchasing TVs that are much too large. That doesn't mean that having a TV which is the proper size for your room is bad. Some rooms justify 60" TVs, some don't.
    Which is what you just told Rym. Was that a subtle dig at the co-host?
    He hadn't said it on the forum and other people might benefit from the information, maybe?
  • Sometimes I feel like I am the only adult with discretionary income that still has an old fashioned television with a tube. I'm patiently waiting for it to break. Ever so patiently... Any day now...

    But then I'll want to wait for 3D TV. Damn you, technological progress! Why must everything I buy be immediately outdated? Damn you to hell!
  • edited January 2010
    Sometimes I feel like I am the only adult with discretionary income that still has an old fashioned television with a tube. I'm patiently waiting for it to break. Ever so patiently... Any day now...

    But then I'll want to wait for 3D TV. Damn you, technological progress! Why must everything I buy be immediately outdated? Damn you to hell!
    Same here, but I just don't watch TV so I really can't be bothered with the investment. I also have a 21 inch CRT Dell Monitor and I'm also waiting for it to break.
    Post edited by MrRoboto on
  • Same here, but I just don't watch TV so I really can't be bothered with the investment.
    I also don't watch TV, but I still have one for video games, movies, etc.
  • I don't have a TV, just a 21" 1080P capable monitor with an HDMI input.
  • edited January 2010
    What does it matter. If someone wants to spend a lot of money or little money on a given item, regardless of their intended use for the item, how is that a good or bad thing? It is simply neutral.
    If one wanted to split hairs one person could argue that a new, expensive TV stimulates the economy and has a nicer display. Another could argue that buying/keeping an old TV is less wasteful.
    "Let's call the whole thing off."
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • Same here, but I just don't watch TV so I really can't be bothered with the investment.
    I also don't watch TV, but I still have one for video games, movies, etc.
    Videogames = DS + PC.
Sign In or Register to comment.