OMO: which new TV?

[Littlepeahead]

I currently have an old, cube shaped TV that weighs roughly the same as a baby elephant. But it works fine. I also have my original Sky TV box, it's 10 years old but again, it works. However Mr LPH wants us to get a new smart TV and Sky+ HD box. No idea why as I only watch cricket and University Challenge and the thought of Paxman and Gower in HD is quite scary!

Sky is easy to sort but what should I be looking for in a new TV? I reckon there's room for up to a 42" screen. We don't really watch movies so 3D isn't a requirement.

And as I get a discount on LG products at work if anyone has one of theirs I'd be interested to hear how they rate against other brands.

[Specialone]

After doing plenty of research before I bought my Panasonic led tv, I can honestly say I made the right choice, I look at other peoples flat screens now and they look crap.

One of the first movies I watched after getting it was any which way but loose with clint, I couldn't believe it was a 70's film, the clarity was unbelievable, better than DVD quality IMO.

I'm a convert now on HD now too, massive difference.

[NTECUK]

have a look on the gadget show recommendations http://gadgetshow.channel5.com/gadget-show/blog/episode-5-christmas-high-end-tvs
but this is the gen kid o
http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/tv-audio-video/television/led-tv/UE55ES8000UXXU

[Littlepeahead]

Not sure I've room for 55"!

Plus voice activated? The cats will be putting Crufts on to laugh at the stupid poodles.

[tigersaw]

I've got 3 LG 42" tellies, all of different vintages, about 1,2,3 years old.
Each got cheaper thinner and better. The latest will play USB stuff, connect to the internet if thats your bag. Its not LED, but the picture is just fine, and it was under £400, probably still is. Standard tuner, but feed freeview HD into it and its superb, better than a friends sky HD, which looks more like SD and a bit to my eyes.

[Bibio]

TBH most TV's in the middle price range these days are about equal i personally have a soft spot for samsung TV's. what they are trying to sell as LED tv's is false advertising in that they are still LCD panel's but with LED back lighting. stay away from edge lit LED and spend the extra on back lit LED.

go have a look in your local telly store and pick the one you like the look off.

any output is only as good as it's source so make sure the sky box is properly connected.

[Viney]

I'm after an LG 42LM670T. The 640t US also good. I'll be inctiuch about the discount ;-)

The panels.is stunning and will do everything you want it to. It's replacing my 32 inch KG Plasma

-------
Sent from my Sony Xperia S using Tapatalk2

[Jackie_Black]

I bought a 60 inch samsung plasma for 800 quid about 6 months ago. It has no extra anything in it, just a panel. But when properly calibrated it looks superb and has better blacks than an LED lit panel me brother bought for twice the price. Wait for the sales now though. They will be even cheaper in 2 weeks time!!

[daveyrach]

Plasma is better at recreating shades if black than and led tv.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S2 using Tapatalk 2

[Bibio]

yes but plasma cost a bloody fortune to run. no i'm not knocking plasma as i have a plasma tv.

[Specialone]

Plasma is better at recreating shades if black than and led tv.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S2 using Tapatalk 2

I havent seen a single plasma tv that ive liked the picture on tbh, btw thats a very general statement you've made, id like to see proof of that as all the ones ive looked at while deciding on my Panasonic LED looked terrible in comparrison.

[chris8886]

yes but plasma cost a bloody fortune to run.

in what way/how?

[NTECUK]

Have a look at this Chris
http://www.repair.com/c/tv/buying-guide/lcd-vs.-led-vs.-plasma-comparison.html

[Bibio]

plasma will consume 300watt an hour where an LCD (led) will consume 80watt. no they are not exact figures and would depend on the tv.

ooohhhh and it's a known fact that plasma produces a lot more and deeper shads of black then LCD (led) but plasma is not as bright. most people that buy LCD tv's are looking at the vividness/brightness of colour and not the true to colour. plasma also don't suffer from as much lag.

but like everything if it looks good to you then its the right one as every single individual's eyes perceives colour differently.

personally i can't wait till OLED is in full swing and at normal prices.

[Littlepeahead]

All this technology. I get so confused! I've spent most of the weekend listening to TMS on crackly Radio 4 on Long Wave (prefer it to sky sports sometimes) and some records on my record player while reading a book made of paper.

[NTECUK]

Your so Rock n Roll LPH ;)

[Littlepeahead]

I am actually! I had the new Soundgarden album playing so loud that I didn't hear the carol singers warbling away right outside the front door on Sunday night.

[johnnyrod]

I got a 47" LG LED telly last year. It's big and shows stuff just fine and looks good (I'd argue about the blacks being blacker on plasma, LCD are crap but "LED" are not the same beast) and I'd get it again if I had to so yeah, if you get a discount, that could well be the biggest factor. Ralph will be along soon enough as the org TV expert so am off to put the asbestos underpants on after the last installment of this...

[daveyrach]

I havent seen a single plasma tv that ive liked the picture on tbh, btw thats a very general statement you've made, id like to see proof of that as all the ones ive looked at while deciding on my Panasonic LED looked terrible in comparrison.

True just quoting what I read when researching for a new TV myself. For the record I actually have a Panasonic 42" Smart Viera Backlit LED. Simple fact is I didn't like the picture on any Plasma TV I looked at last year when I got it.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S2 using Tapatalk 2

[Specialone]

True just quoting what I read when researching for a new TV myself. For the record I actually have a Panasonic 42" Smart Viera Backlit LED. Simple fact is I didn't like the picture on any Plasma TV I looked at last year when I got it.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S2 using Tapatalk 2

We agree there then mate :thumbsup:

[yorkie_chris]

plasma will consume 300watt an hour

Huh?
[/unit pedant]

[NTECUK]

Wait till the sales .
Then get one you like the best .
I got my Samsung on boxing day .
Was allot cheaper.
But that was 6 ish years ago .So the market was quite different.

[hindle8907]

Plasmas for the enthusiasts who are willing to spend time using calibration tools to achieve the superior picture.

LED/LCD for normal users that just want a set that looks good out the box and gives a nice picture just make sure that it handles SD as well as it does HD as some of the lower end sets suffer from SD pixelation and motion blur.

[Viney]

Plasmas for the enthusiasts who are willing to spend time using calibration tools to achieve the superior picture.

LED/LCD for normal users that just want a set that looks good out the box and gives a nice picture just make sure that it handles SD as well as it does HD as some of the lower end sets suffer from SD pixelation and motion blur.
How wrong can you be in one quote ;) To get the best out of any TV/Monitor, you should never leave them on out of the box settings. This will not only not show off the best of the unit, but will also shorten the life of the kit. As a rule, run the pannel on Movie mode if your pannel has such a thing, but searching for the correct calibration settings is best.

LCD units are now far superior than they were. The Plasmas when i bought mine 5 years ago had better image processing and is still great for watching movies on. Now LCD with the inclusion of LED backlighting are better in nealy all ways. Large plasmas i think still have the edge over LCD's of similar size.


My friend who does this stuff for a living calibrated my Plasma and the differnce was amazing. I also applied the same settings to my mums LCD of the same brand, and again, its far better than the out of the box settings. I will also get him to come and calibrate my new one when i get it :)

Let me also be pedantic here. There is no such thing as an LED tv (Until OLED come out) Its an LCD pannel with either edge lit or back lit LED lighting.

[hindle8907]

lol don't teach your gran how to suck eggs ;) , I own about 5 grands worth of AV equipment and its one of my main hobby's.

Yeah out the box settings are always setup for shop floors most of the time but my comment was more aimed at the people that just want to take a set home and turn on then and off they go with a half decent picture without having to mess around to much.

I was going to go in depth why I personally always go for plasma unless under 32" but i couldn't be bothered.

I've owned about 10 various flat screen panels over the last 6-7 years and have settled down now with two Panasonic plasmas
50" that's a few years old and 42" which was purchased about 3 months ago and a small 32" LCD in the bedroom.

Both plasmas have been calibrated through the engineers menus not to be confused the normal menu with contrast / brightness / colour etc etc and they both give outstanding PQ.

[NTECUK]

Tell in the bed room eh??? ;)

[tigersaw]

I doubt LPH is going to get a professional TV calibrator in, she just wants to know whats a decent telly out of the box

[Littlepeahead]

Don't get me started on calibration. New PC monitor at work, new laptop, new version of Photoshop. Aaaaggghhhh.

[hindle8907]

I doubt LPH is going to get a professional TV calibrator in, she just wants to know whats a decent telly out of the box

Hence my original post doh ! ](*,)

[johnnyrod]

My final bit of advice is go to Richer Sounds and do some window shopping.

[Biker Biggles]

Whatever you go for get it from a local shop so when it turns out to be faulty you just take it straight back and get it changed.
Its worth a few quid extra to avoid the hassle of trying to return stuff to some internet dealer in the grim north and then trying to be available to receive said goods back again a week or two later.Then finding it still doesnt work-------You get the idea?

[454697819]

Hi

I will weigh in here

I bought on thursday last week the following

http://www.johnlewis.com/Shopping/Product.aspx?Type=SKU&Id=231560690

It was £20 cheaper on line but I didn't get a 5 year warranty if I went on line so I bought from JL.

I went in, played with the 32" version filled messed and compared it to the others (it outstripped the LG & sony's in the same price range), deemed it value for money and bought it, I am very happy I like the on-line features, the HDMI quality is outstanding and I am a happy customer providing it lasts 5 years like my last cheaper set did.

I am no expert, I am a pleb, so I give you pleb advice.

But I would recommend this TV to anyone.

[tigersaw]

Hi


I bought on thursday last week the following

.


That looks nice

[AndyBrad]

Hi

I will weigh in here

I bought on thursday last week the following

http://www.johnlewis.com/Shopping/Product.aspx?Type=SKU&Id=231560690

It was £20 cheaper on line but I didn't get a 5 year warranty if I went on line so I bought from JL.

I went in, played with the 32" version filled messed and compared it to the others (it outstripped the LG & sony's in the same price range), deemed it value for money and bought it, I am very happy I like the on-line features, the HDMI quality is outstanding and I am a happy customer providing it lasts 5 years like my last cheaper set did.

I am no expert, I am a pleb, so I give you pleb advice.

But I would recommend this TV to anyone.

Hi

Looking at buying this too. But also seen the 6030 which is older but it's got a slightly better refresh rate (don't care that it's 3d) can't decide between the two can anyone offer some advice?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[454697819]

That looks nice

without bragging it is lovely,

I normally buy as cheap as I can hence my old one being a hansspree but I am please I spent the extra £150.

[454697819]

Hi

Looking at buying this too. But also seen the 6030 which is older but it's got a slightly better refresh rate (don't care that it's 3d) can't decide between the two can anyone offer some advice?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

if you don't care about the 3d and you dont do extreme gaming, go with whichever is cheaper :-)

Oh I don't think the wireless keyboard works with the 5500 series.

[AndyBrad]

There both the same price ....

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[454697819]

There both the same price ....

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

then flip a coin :)

[AndyBrad]

Ah bugger was hoping someone would say ones better.

Do you notice any blurring on yours that people keep telling me about LCD screens ?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[daveyrach]

Faster refresh rate will reduce any blur. I have a 100Hz LED Viera and blur isn't an issue at all.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S2 using Tapatalk 2

[Bibio]

Faster refresh rate will reduce any blur. I have a 100Hz LED Viera and blur isn't an issue at all.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S2 using Tapatalk 2

excuse my ignorance but i always thought the the refresh rate was dictated by the source...

[daveyrach]

excuse my ignorance but i always thought the the refresh rate was dictated by the source...

True with 99% of source material being no more than 60Hz higher refresh rates interpolate data between each frame to produce additional frames. But the data in those combined frames can only be based on the source frames and whatever mathematical magic the HDTV is employing to figure out the middle ground. This technique can help reduce judder, or the jerkiness that manifests when displaying footage on a display that doesn't share its native frame rate.

*These are not my own words just those from a site I looked at when researching refresh rates, here is the exact article: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2379206,00.asp

[Bibio]

exactly. a good TV wont need 100+hz to produce a decent picture so it's a way of cheating to make crap panels look better. if it's a new TV turn the 'motion blur' off and be marvelled in the picture quality.

buzz words in shops to entice punters '100hz' 'LED' with 'LED' being one of my pet hates as its not LED its LCD and the reason the tv's look better these days is because the LCD panels are that much better quality and the circuitry (drivers) are way more advanced, it's not as though the LED's are turning on and off and changing different colours to give you the picture all they are doing is producing the light at the edge or behind the panel.

TV are like soap powder they are always 'new improved' and need gimmicky names to sell them :-)

[johnnyrod]

While widnow shoppping, plenty of technogeeks said if you leave it on 100+Hz all the time it's like watching an American soap i.e. slightly funny picture. As said, usual high street shop thing of selling bigger numbers.

[AndyBrad]

Ahhh you see my reasoning for the 3d tv was it had 100hz native resolution where the smart one shown previously was 50. (100 and 200 with motion thingy turned on) is it not worth it then ?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[Bibio]

for what i know and it's not a lot 3d is different as it has to cycle between two pictures so double the refresh rate. take a blu-ray 3d film it will be 1080p 48hz but the same non blu-ray will be 1080p 24hz (both are dependent on source player and panel capability).

on a side note: i went to see the hobbit on sunday and it was shot in 4k the cinema that i was at had the capability to show the 4k and my lordy lord what a difference. bright and crisp is an understatement.

[Littlepeahead]

I'm so confused.

[AndyBrad]

Ok so a 100hz 3d is actually 50hz standard ?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[metalmonkey]

for what i know and it's not a lot 3d is different as it has to cycle between two pictures so double the refresh rate. take a blu-ray 3d film it will be 1080p 48hz but the same non blu-ray will be 1080p 24hz (both are dependent on source player and panel capability).

on a side note: i went to see the hobbit on sunday and it was shot in 4k the cinema that i was at had the capability to show the 4k and my lordy lord what a difference. bright and crisp is an understatement.

Was that in 3D? Would be interested to know what camera thay was as Alexa wasn't shooting at 4k, but with the right lens the picture looks amazing. Unless it was shot on an Epic, which is used more on 3D rigs right now.

There will be 2K TV coming out (or are they on sale already, not sure not checked) It doesn't really matter becasue the broadcast standard shooting is 50mps, however actual HD transmission is a lot lower, not sure on the figure. You will get more motion blur, on fast moving images like sport ect. So you couldn't spend a lot of money on a expensive TV, however if the TX rate is at a low mps, second you haven't got the display device setup correctly then it make a massive difference.

Also 3D Tvs aren't worth buying becasue the technology will change in the next few years totally.

[metalmonkey]

I'm so confused.

How much do you want to spend?

Also for Sky HD, that will cost more money per month too.

[Bibio]

never watched in 3d :-)

the new hobbit film was shot using the latest cameras and 3d cameras were used to shoot the entire film so no studio upscailing.

in 2-3 years i'll get another TV :-)

[metalmonkey]

never watched in 3d :-)

the new hobbit film was shot using the latest cameras and 3d cameras were used to shoot the entire film so no studio upscailing.

in 2-3 years i'll get another TV :-)

The Alexia and the Red Cameras are main current cameras in film production, to shoot 3D two cameras are used to create the image it isn't a "3D camera" most images are shot flat RAW, (you can mess about with this but you need, vecotrscopes, waveforms and hisotgrams to check it) then colour graded. The codec I'm not that sure about something else to learn.

If your buying a TV or anything, you need to set a budget then stick to it. Technology is changing some quickly its hard to stay on top of new kit and devlopments, just be aware it will go out of date quick. Its a night mare for filmmakers, one of mates said a lot of his kit is ready for the skip two years ago it was top spec.

[Bibio]

it wouldn't be a nightmare if all the film houses would decide on one bloody format and be done with it.

[chris8886]

it wouldn't be a nightmare if all the film houses would decide on one bloody format and be done with it.

but they won't on purpose so they can make more money out of people!

[johnnyrod]

Poor LPH, this isn't helping is it!

If you want a telly to watch and aren't fussed about wading into geekery then I'd suggest getting a 1080 pixel one ("full HD" or something like that) instead of "HD ready" (720 pixel - not worth it for future-proofing), whatever smart TV stuff you want (you can buy these as an add-on box or are built in to some). Don't worry about how many Hz or 3D it's got (you'd need a 3D source anyway). If you get a discount on LG then that could be the big factor, if not then pick a size, look at a few, and just get one, any of the main brands are much of a muchness (Samsung, Panasonic etc.). Once you've got it home and are watching stuff you won't be fretting over whether the other model coming out in 6 months time is going to be better. Try these:
normal telly:
http://www.richersounds.com/product/tv---all/lg/42lm3400/lg-42lm3400 (http://www.richersounds.com/product/tv---all/lg/42lm3400/lg-42lm3400)
not smart, yes does have 3D (cinema style), just came up as cheapest non-smart TV over 40"
http://www.richersounds.com/product/tv---all/lg/42ls570t/lg-42ls570t (http://www.richersounds.com/product/tv---all/lg/42ls570t/lg-42ls570t)
Smart telly but £100 more

[Littlepeahead]

I might just stick with my 17 year old TV and 10 year old Sky box and just spend the money I've saved on getting a cleaner once a week instead.

[johnnyrod]

Sorry kiddo was trying to help. If you have a budget then you could look at it the other way and let the uber-geeks on here suggest the best thing for your money.

[Littlepeahead]

I do appreciate all the info, but it's scrambled my tiny mind. I suppose one of the reasons I haven't felt the need to replace it before now is I never really watch anything that I consider unmissable. If I want to see a movie I go to the cinema. And with cricket I tend to have it on in the background but with the sound off and radio commentary. I've just spent over £700 on Ashes tickets, my Essex membership and my MCC associate Membership. Could have bought a decent TV for that money.

[chris8886]

I do appreciate all the info, but it's scrambled my tiny mind. I suppose one of the reasons I haven't felt the need to replace it before now is I never really watch anything that I consider unmissable. If I want to see a movie I go to the cinema. And with cricket I tend to have it on in the background but with the sound off and radio commentary. I've just spent over £700 on Ashes tickets, my Essex membership and my MCC associate Membership. Could have bought a decent TV for that money.

why you buying tickets?! surely you'll be working at lords during the game!

[metalmonkey]

I might just stick with my 17 year old TV and 10 year old Sky box and just spend the money I've saved on getting a cleaner once a week instead.

Do you want an old Sky plus box, none HD but does record, it should work its not being used...

Otherwise, I'd just a get new Sky box, ingore the HD and don't pay for it then it will work with your TV. Then you get catch up ect, sounds like that might work for you. Otherwise a Samsung or Pansoinc are a good brand, spend about £4-500 that will get you something reasonable. You don't need to spend loads, from what you said its not required.

[Littlepeahead]

why you buying tickets?! surely you'll be working at lords during the game!

Not all for Lord's, sometimes I venture to other grounds.

[Littlepeahead]

I've just watched Lord of the Rings on my new 40" Samsung backlit LED smart TV which I bought from John Lewis. They price matched it to Richer Sounds who were £20 cheaper.

Picture is good considering I'm not HD yet and using a £5 scart lead.

I'm upgrading my Sky to HD+ next week.

The only real issue so far is that I can't seem to get the sound to play through the Mission speakers and sub woofer. On my old TV I'd play out sound via the amp if I had a movie on. Don't want to buy a sound bar. But sound from the TV is better than I expected.

[AndyBrad]

Snap. Picked yo the es5500 for just over 400 notes. Well happy.

I've now entered the world of pimps and drug dealers.... :-(

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[metalmonkey]

I've just watched Lord of the Rings on my new 40" Samsung backlit LED smart TV which I bought from John Lewis. They price matched it to Richer Sounds who were £20 cheaper.

Picture is good considering I'm not HD yet and using a £5 scart lead.

I'm upgrading my Sky to HD+ next week.

The only real issue so far is that I can't seem to get the sound to play through the Mission speakers and sub woofer. On my old TV I'd play out sound via the amp if I had a movie on. Don't want to buy a sound bar. But sound from the TV is better than I expected.

Does your amp have a digital optical in? If so there will be a similar plug which will be an out on the tv, I'm not sure of the sound quality but it shouldn't be bad. That way you can can connect the tv, other option is through the phono/RCA plugs which will be on the rear of your new box, not sure if your current box has that as an output. You should beable to buy those cables online or at retail shop. hope that helps, enjoy your new TV:D

[Luckypants]

Snap. Picked yo the es5500 for just over 400 notes. Well happy.

I've now entered the world of pimps and drug dealers.... :-(

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

Hey Andy, what size did you get and where from?

Sent from my phone.

[454697819]

I've just watched Lord of the Rings on my new 40" Samsung backlit LED smart TV which I bought from John Lewis. They price matched it to Richer Sounds who were £20 cheaper.

Picture is good considering I'm not HD yet and using a £5 scart lead.

I'm upgrading my Sky to HD+ next week.

The only real issue so far is that I can't seem to get the sound to play through the Mission speakers and sub woofer. On my old TV I'd play out sound via the amp if I had a movie on. Don't want to buy a sound bar. But sound from the TV is better than I expected.

glad you plumped for one afterall,

I bought the skype camera today which was expensive but worth it,

You may need to upgrade the surround system (i do) but that will be a while, I am using the headphone out cable into the surround.. works well enough till I upgrade to a new AV amp...

[AndyBrad]

Lucky.
40" from currys all n for 440 quid. Tis alright tbh.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[NTECUK]

My Samsung is a bit old now .(5 years ) But the sound out options were in the menus .
My cinema systhem Is Samsung too so you select a net . Discovers the av amp and sorts its self out.

[Viney]

glad you plumped for one afterall,

I bought the skype camera today which was expensive but worth it,

You may need to upgrade the surround system (i do) but that will be a while, I am using the headphone out cable into the surround.. works well enough till I upgrade to a new AV amp...The good thing about using the headphone out option is that you control the volume form the original remote. Ok, the quality is a litte degraded from using optical, but saves having another remote.

So what you need LPH, is a 3.5mm to twin RCA(phono) y adapter. Plug the 3.5 into your tv and the RCA's into an AUX input on your hifi and roberts ya dads brother.

I got my LG 42LM670T at the weekend and its well good init.

[Littlepeahead]

Righto, I shall give that a try.

[ClunkintheUK]

:| ok, I am reasonably tech savvy, but my god that whole thing confused me.

Can I ask one thing of the AV literate amongst us? Do tv manufacturers give the difference between refresh rate and refresh speed? Rate being the number of frames per second (number of Hz), which is essentially set by source, from what I understand. Speed being how quickly the picture will change, i.e. from one frame to the next. (number of ms). It is the speed which determines the blur or not, because of the old picture lingering. Most flat screen will have some kind of interpolation between frames on TV and movies because there is no fade when compared to CRT screen, to meld one picture to the next.

I could be re-hashing very old problems (in the AV world) from when I first got a flat panel screen for my computer and watched TV shows on it which gave me a headache from the judderyness.

[Littlepeahead]

Please don't confuse me any further! Viggo Mortensen looks hot on my screen, that's all I need to worry about. Well apart from when the HD arrives next week and I have to watch Ian Botham in HD which I'm not looking forward to.

[NTECUK]

:| ok, I am reasonably tech savvy, but my god that whole thing confused me.

Can I ask one thing of the AV literate amongst us? Do tv manufacturers give the difference between refresh rate and refresh speed? Rate being the number of frames per second (number of Hz), which is essentially set by source, from what I understand. Speed being how quickly the picture will change, i.e. from one frame to the next. (number of ms). It is the speed which determines the blur or not, because of the old picture lingering. Most flat screen will have some kind of interpolation between frames on TV and movies because there is no fade when compared to CRT screen, to meld one picture to the next.

I could be re-hashing very old problems (in the AV world) from when I first got a flat panel screen for my computer and watched TV shows on it which gave me a headache from the judderyness.

Does this help
http://m.cnet.com/news/what-is-refresh-rate/57524894?ds=1

[Viney]

Righto, I shall give that a try.
Clare, if you need a hand let.me know. I'll come and set it up


-------
Sent from my Sony Xperia S using Tapatalk2

[Viney]

:| ok, I am reasonably tech savvy, but my god that whole thing confused me.

Can I ask one thing of the AV literate amongst us? Do tv manufacturers give the difference between refresh rate and refresh speed? Rate being the number of frames per second (number of Hz), which is essentially set by source, from what I understand. Speed being how quickly the picture will change, i.e. from one frame to the next. (number of ms). It is the speed which determines the blur or not, because of the old picture lingering. Most flat screen will have some kind of interpolation between frames on TV and movies because there is no fade when compared to CRT screen, to meld one picture to the next.

I could be re-hashing very old problems (in the AV world) from when I first got a flat panel screen for my computer and watched TV shows on it which gave me a headache from the judderyness.

Most decent units now have 100Hz+ refresh rate. My current is 400Hz. Refresh rate is mostly applied ti computer monitors. I have to find it on a LED LCD panel. The older panels did not used to have good motion engines hence the blur or juddering of the image

-------
Sent from my Sony Xperia S using Tapatalk2

[Luckypants]

Just got me a new Samsung 46" led from Currys to match the blu-ray player I was given for Xmas. Tomorrow will be a telly day :)

Sent from my phone.

[Bibio]

:| ok, I am reasonably tech savvy, but my god that whole thing confused me.

Can I ask one thing of the AV literate amongst us? Do tv manufacturers give the difference between refresh rate and refresh speed? Rate being the number of frames per second (number of Hz), which is essentially set by source, from what I understand. Speed being how quickly the picture will change, i.e. from one frame to the next. (number of ms). It is the speed which determines the blur or not, because of the old picture lingering. Most flat screen will have some kind of interpolation between frames on TV and movies because there is no fade when compared to CRT screen, to meld one picture to the next.

I could be re-hashing very old problems (in the AV world) from when I first got a flat panel screen for my computer and watched TV shows on it which gave me a headache from the judderyness.

refresh rate and response time are two different things. what you are on about is response time which is how fast can the pixels turn on and off and is measured in milliseconds the faster you can go the more stable the image as there is no 'ghosting' left for the next pixel on time.

[Bluefish]

And i just got a LG 47inch led smart 3d tv, with built in wifi from currys 649 quid, it's the dogs danglies, got to figue out how to connect the surround sound though, 5x speakers with twin flex, they used to go into the back of the dvd player, but we don't use that anymore, just stream from the pc or lovefilm from the tele, any ideas?

[ClunkintheUK]

refresh rate and response time are two different things. what you are on about is response time which is how fast can the pixels turn on and off and is measured in milliseconds the faster you can go the more stable the image as there is no 'ghosting' left for the next pixel on time.

Yes i understand that refresh rate and response time (sorry incorectly called in refresh speed forgot the correct term) are two separate things. It was previously my understandings that response time was responsible for motion blur due to ghosting. When this was reduced down to <10ms or so the problem was the picture would appear to snap from one frame to the next when watching films, causing judderyness. It wasn't such a problem on a computer even when playing games, as you could have considerably higher FPS assuming your computer was fast enough.

Thanks to the link from NTec I see how the judderyness is reduced by the higher refresh rate even with the same source rate, and I guess it reduces motion blur because you are not relying on ghosting to reduce judderyness.

[Viney]

And i just got a LG 47inch led smart 3d tv, with built in wifi from currys 649 quid, it's the dogs danglies, got to figue out how to connect the surround sound though, 5x speakers with twin flex, they used to go into the back of the dvd player, but we don't use that anymore, just stream from the pc or lovefilm from the tele, any ideas?Without an Amp, no. You need something to power the speakers. If you buy an AV amp that has an optical In, then connect the output from your TV into the amp and job done.

[Bibio]

When this was reduced down to <10ms or so the problem was the picture would appear to snap from one frame to the next when watching films, causing judderyness.

was this from computer to TV or computer to monitor or dvd player to TV or what?

[ClunkintheUK]

Was more a general thing.

Personally I noticed it when my first flat panel packed in on my computer. Went from a 22ms screen to a 7ms screen (or some such). Computer games were awesome, But watching a DVD on my computer, or a DVD rip, was a little odd. Plus you really noticed poor compression on a LCD from an CRT, mostly in block colours.

[Bibio]

dvd rip could be due to a bad rip. dvd will be hardware issue and things not configured properly.

one of the biggest drawbacks to any digital entertainment is noise and artifacts. it's getting better but still no where near analogue. high end entertainment playback equipment is a different league to most consumer stuff and you pays your money.

[Bluefish]

Cheers Viney, there not bleedin cheap are they lol.

[Teejayexc]

Without an Amp, no. You need something to power the speakers. If you buy an AV amp that has an optical In, then connect the output from your TV into the amp and job done.

Why do they call it an optical lead when it carries sound :confused:

[Bibio]

it doesn't carry sound it carries a digital signal transmitted by light that is decoded at the other end.

[Teejayexc]

it doesn't carry sound it carries a digital signal transmitted by light that is decoded at the other end.

Ahhh, then why not call it a digital signal transmitter, instead then:confused:

[Dave20046]

Ahhh, then why not call it a digital signal transmitter, instead then:confused:

Because it's a fibre optic lead. .. optical technology.
It doesn't transmit signal, it carries it.