UHD TV Deals
- Thread starter dfergie
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 54
- Views 9K
Im not sure if this is the right place to post or ask this... But what do you guys think about this 4K? I saw it at Sams and it looked great, but i want to make sure it has everything I'd need.
http://www.samsclub.com/sams/65-240hz-led-smart-uhd-5-hdmi-wifi/prod17610204.ip?navAction=push
http://www.samsclub.com/sams/65-240hz-led-smart-uhd-5-hdmi-wifi/prod17610204.ip?navAction=push
My Brother & Sister in Law got one like that for Christmas, I've been impressed from what I saw of it...
Not a bad set. At least it has FALD (which is very rare in this price range).
However, it lacks 3D, HDR, and VP9 decoding (needed for 4K YouTube).
65" Sony XBR-65X850C is currently on sale at $1799 (everywhere). The 55" version, XBR-55X850C is priced at $1199. There is also a 75" model currently priced just above $3000. This sale runs until the end of this week, from what I've heard. It's a good, very reasonably priced set. Currently less expensive than similar models from competitors like Samsung or LG. The 850C supports 3D (active, glasses not included) and is HDR compatible, not only via streaming, but a recent software update has enabled HDMI 2.0a. This is a 2015 model. There is a new 2016 850D model coming out soon, but it is going to be much more expensive initially and will lack 3D support.
I am getting the 65" version for our living room. Should be here this week!
I am getting the 65" version for our living room. Should be here this week!
I've been eyeballing another 65" to replace my late burnt one ... same price locally, I loved mine and the 3D really rocked.
The prices are coming down, but I think, even though I own a 4K TV, they came out way ahead of the game and in order to sell them, the manufacturers aren't letting people know they need a 4K source in order to get the picture quality they saw in the store. A lot of consumers are under the impression the picture they saw in the showroom is what they'll have when they get home. They don't realize they're looking at a demo picture.
Frankly, I don't see many cable systems picking it up any time soon due to the bandwidth limitations on most cable systems. The quality is amazing, but I can't see spending $25,000 on a TV that will be obsolete in less than 5 years. Can you imagine the hassle of sending an 84 inch TV back to the factory for repairs? And the cost would be astronomical. Most TV repair shops, what there are left of them, have no source for parts. Most people don't even keep the box it came in. Try finding one of those.
I have a friend in the business, and he showed me prices on parts for standard HD TV's, and they are basically throwaways. It doesn't take much in the way of parts to exceed the price of a new TV. I can imagine what the parts for a 4K set would cost. Lots of things to consider when investing in a TV these days.
Yeah, it was pretty much the same situation with HDTV 10-15 years ago. It is actually a bit better now, because the streaming services, like Netflix and Amazon are offering 4k content, and that is directly receivable on the TV. DTV and DISH are also offering 4k content, and I expect the cablecos will soon, if they haven't already done so. OTA is trickier because of the need to transition to ATSC 3.0. I get flamed when I mention this, but the FCC has placed stations in a tricky spot because they want the transition, but they also in the process of removing spectrum. This means the stations are going to have issues with simulcasting and end up with a choice of offering ATSC 1 or 3 during the transition. Once they switch to ATSC3, they cut off their large base of HDTV sets.
The cost of repairing a set has been impractical for years now. Nothing new. Back in the 80s, I bought a small CRT bedroom set and opened it up to add a speaker jack. There were about 4 components inside, and each was a sealed unit.
I live 8 miles from civilization, and the only source of internet at our place is a wireless service that sucks at best. There was a small cable company here at one time, but when they were forced to go digital, the chose to shut it down rather than spend the money. It was actually an orphaned system that eventually landed the lap of Time-Warner through some sort of deal with a larger cable company in the area and wasn't of much interest to any of them. We can't get DSL here, no cable internet and the bandwidth on the wireless service isn't sufficient to handle HD much less UHD.
When we moved here, I needed 4 lines for the business, and the phone company had a hard time giving up 2 due to the condition of the phone lines in the area. I checked with the engineers at Frontier a while back and was told they would have to do at least 4 1/2 miles of new line construction just to get DSL out here and it would most likely end up being 6mbps at best. I'd be happy right now to get 3mbps. I canceled NetFlix because we just don't get enough bandwidth on wireless and it's just too unreliable.
I'd love to have 4K service, but I am almost 62 years old and I don't see it coming in my lifetime. Maybe the next inhabitant of our property will have better luck.
This is the primary reason that ATSC 3.0 will not be here for at least 10 - 15 years. Current TV sets cannot tune a ATSC 3.0 signal and as of yet there are no ATSC 3.0 tuners. There is not even a ATSC 3.0 standard yet. The new head of the FCC will put a hold on this nonsense. ATSC 3.0 is putting the cart WAY in front of the horse.
The new head of the FCC will be operating under the same federal mandate as the departing FCC chair; to implement a higher efficiency modulation scheme.
Your theories on ATSC 3.0 seem to be based a lot on not paying attention to what is going on.
What the gubmint mandates has surprisingly little to do with what the industry wants, needs or think they can pull off. All the feds want is more bandwidth for wireless broadband Internet.
ATSC 3.0, while not complete, has been submitted to the FCC for conventional broadcast use. Of course that's really a topic for an ATSC 3.0 thread.
We shouldn't wish to hold up h.265 waiting for cable and DBS to figure out how to implement some of the value-added broadcast stuff.
ATSC 3.0, while not complete, has been submitted to the FCC for conventional broadcast use. Of course that's really a topic for an ATSC 3.0 thread.
We shouldn't wish to hold up h.265 waiting for cable and DBS to figure out how to implement some of the value-added broadcast stuff.
This thread hasn't been updated in quite awhile so figured I would bump. Any deals for 4KHDR sets in the mid level? I am not interested in spending the big bucks for LG OLED and am looking around the 65" size. I see TCL is a newcomer and seems to be getting some great reviews especially taking price into account. Any opinions TCL vs Vizio vs Samsung?
For many, buying UHD HDR now is probably jumping the gun (unless you really need to replace something). Waiting for the HDR standards to settle out could avoid having to upgrade soon. Assuming that the standard that everyone arrives at can (and will) be delivered in firmware is probably folly. At my last count, I saw five different HDR standards. CES revealed very little in terms of new home TV technology or even the direction it is heading.
TCL is by no means a newcomer to televisions. The company was founded in 1985 and is reported to be the second largest producer of televisions in the world (after Samsung).
Here's a rundown on the brand names from Consumer Reports (including which are licensed):
TV Brands Aren't Always What They Seem
TCL is by no means a newcomer to televisions. The company was founded in 1985 and is reported to be the second largest producer of televisions in the world (after Samsung).
Here's a rundown on the brand names from Consumer Reports (including which are licensed):
TV Brands Aren't Always What They Seem
Which HDR format and how does one watch it?Get a set with HDR the Olympics will be in HDR 4K.
