So, should I get the:
LN52A750Or 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.
Comments
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. ;^)
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.
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.
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.
My television. It works, and cost about $15. I don't see why everybody pays >$100 for a tv.
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.
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!
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."