LCD TV Brands

[GMTruckGuy74]

Okay, I know this is a loaded question, because everybody will have "their" own favorite brand to recommend. A close friend of mine wanted me to go with him 42" LCD TV shopping this afternoon, mainly because he can't fit what he wants to buy in his '05 Grand Prix and needed me for my Envoy (friends with trucks ). I really didn't mind though, because I haven't spent much time with Jeff lately.

Anyway, a we started off at Best Buy to see what deals they had. He looked at LG, Samsung, Toshiba, and Sony there. Next was Cicuit City, with pretty much the same offering, but adding in Westinghouse. Last stop was at BJ's Wholesale Club, where he looked at a Philips, Olevia, and Vizio LCD TVs. Needless to say, he's confused and is not sure if he should a "brand name" over a more affordable brand. He'd like to spend less than $2,000 - so that's putting the Sony out of the question (most Sony 42" LCD TVs were over $2,500 bucks; the non-brand names <Philips, Olevia, Vizio> were between $900-$1200, and the LGs were around $1,800). A man we followed from Best Buy over to BJ's stated he ownes a Vizio and loves it; however, his sister <to whom he was there helping buy one> wants BRAND NAME recognition. Jeff was in doubt, so he held off the purchase to do some more research.

So I ask the knowledgeable here, if you were shopping for a 42" LCD TV, would you choose one of the lesser-known brands, or go with the LG or Sony ones? I'm sure he'll want to go shopping soon, and he asked me to ask around with the people I know what they have. I appreciate your input and look forward to reading your insight.

[Northstar]

One of my roommates has a Vizio, and it's decent but seems very cheap in comparison to our 52" 1080p LCD Mitsubishi at home. When we were looking at TVs, the 3 best were Mitsubishi, Sony, and Samsung. Sharp was probably next along with LG. Best Buy only has projection Mistus, I believe, and the place we got ours from only carries Sony, Mitsu, and LG along with Pioneer plasmas. The salesman there said the Mistus were better than the Sonys in his opinion, and looking at them back-to-back convinced us of this, as well. A cool feature that Mitsu has that the others don't is the ability to change the colors individually. Most companies just give you some presets and you pick between them... the Mitsu you can adjust the red, blue, green, cyan, etc (I forget how many there are) each individually, and they each have like 50 degrees of variation (50 different settings for each).

Mistu does not have 42" LCDs, they have 40" and 46". If there isn't a smaller specialty store and he's picking between what you listed, I'd say look at the LGs and Sharps (Samsung is more expensive than Sony).

[daves87rs]

Samsung.

While they are not the best, they have a good picture (720 or 1080), the they hold up very well.

Everyone I know (including my bst bud) has one, and they all love them...

[Blake Noble]

I have not had good experiences with Samsung products, so I would not recommend them.

[capriceman]

brand name is really key in quality.

I have a Westinghouse and its utter rubbish. My Sharp Aquas is the most amazing thing i have ever seen.

If he can spare the extra 1 foot depth the clear winner is Texas Instruments DLP TV's They are way better for cost effectiveness to picture ratio.

The Sharp is a 32 and put me back 1600 though but it is amazing. the white Westinghouse is a 27 i think and it put me back 490. my 42 inch toshiba DLP only cost 750. the picture isnt as crisp as the sharp but damn it is amazing for half the price. I say convince him to go with DLP. one thing with dlp you dont have to worry abut dead pixels. Samsung has some good panels but they do get panels from Chimei (sp) and those bring the the quality down a lot. compared to Samsungs own panels Toshiba and LG i think share panels if im not mistaken. Sony is just overpriced. As alwys though read reviews and stare at the tv for about 20 minutes each at the store.

[daves87rs]

I have not had good experiences with Samsung products, so I would not recommend them.

Knock on wood, both of my Samsung products have worked great...

the DVD player is 7 years old-no problems

Small TV (20) 5 years- no problems at all.....

[Blake Noble]

Knock on wood, both of my Samsung products have worked great...

the DVD player is 7 years old-no problems

Small TV (20) 5 years- no problems at all.....

I had a Samsung DVD player and two Samsung cell phones and they were just rubbish. For example, when I lightly dropped one of the cell phones in a closed position, the screen went blank and would not come back on.

I now have an RCA DVD player and a Motorola Rizr and both were well worth the money I spent to get them.

Edited April 20, 2008 by YellowJacket894

[vonVeezelsnider]

I had a rubbish Samsung phone as well... Terrible. I've had good luck with Toshiba on all levels (Laptops, Portable DVD, Televisions etc...)

[daves87rs]

Well, I lost my Samsung phone, so I can't say anything there....

[vonVeezelsnider]

Well, I lost my Samsung phone, so I can't say anything there....

Mine drops calls randomly all the time, doesn't give me voicemails until ten days after they've been sent, and doesn't give me TXT Msgs until three hours have elapsed since they were sent. So useless pretty much. My mom's on the same plan and has a Motorola, no problems. I called the phone company and ripped a strip off of them so I'm getting a free phone out of it though.

Edited April 20, 2008 by vonVeezelsnider

[Blake Noble]

Mine drops calls randomly all the time [...]

Really now? The other Samsung phone I had (replaced the one with the broken screen) did just that constantly. It even did it in places that normally have the maximum amount of service you can possibly have (this was when I was on AT&T). Interesting ...

You need a Motorola four-letter phone, my friend. I love my Rizr (see below), I could not ask for a better phone.

[daves87rs]

Mine drops calls randomly all the time, doesn't give me voicemails until ten days after they've been sent, and doesn't give me TXT Msgs until three hours have elapsed since they were sent. So useless pretty much. My mom's on the same plan and has a Motorola, no problems. I called the phone company and ripped a strip off of them so I'm getting a free phone out of it though.

Yeah-mine had an issue with voicemails...

Don't understand what is up with those phones...I don't think samsung even makes them (I think they just put their name on it).....

LG works fine for me.

[enzl]

Yeah-mine had an issue with voicemails...

Don't understand what is up with those phones...I don't think samsung even makes them (I think they just put their name on it).....

LG works fine for me.

LG.

Have a 37" I dropped $1200 on 18 months ago. Great--happy I saved $1k not getting the 1080, too.

The phones are good too, in my experience.

[Nick]

Sony Bravia XBR line.

Sharp Aquos line.

Can't go wrong with either. Personally, I prefer the XBR's.

I have a 46" XBR3. Looking to possibly pick up a 52" XBR5.

[Oracle of Delphi]

Yeah-mine had an issue with voicemails...

Don't understand what is up with those phones...I don't think samsung even makes them (I think they just put their name on it).....

LG works fine for me.

You need what I have.

http://www.humanedgetech.com/news.php?id=14951

[regfootball]

samsung absolutely has the best LCD's. best plasmas too (aside from Pioneer)

sony has good picture but sony as a company sucks.

toshiba is not bad. mitsu not bad either.

i like some features on philips tv's (I have a philips plasma). Philips LCD's are not bad, and can come with ambilight which i love having on my tv.

sharp LCD's are not as good as people think and have poor color rendition.

get the top of the line sumsung with the LED backlights, you will be blown away.

FWIW i have 4 samsung cell phones and they are all high quality pieces.....better than my old motorolas.

if you have to settle for second/third tier then LG or something like that is probably ok.

buy something like a Vizio or Olevia or westinghouse and you'll regret it.

samsung really has their &#036;h&#33; together and makes excellent consumer electronics products.

it doesn't hurt to give plasma a second consideration as well.

Edited April 20, 2008 by regfootball

[Nick]

samsung absolutely has the best LCD's. best plasmas too (aside from Pioneer)

sny has good picture but sony as a company sucks.

i like some features on philips tv's (I have a philips plasma). Philips LCD's are not bad, and can come with ambilight which i love having on my tv.

sharp LCD's are not as good as people think and have poor color rendition.

get the top of the line sumsung with the LED backlights, you will be blown away.

FWIW i have 4 samsung cell phones and they are all high quality pieces.....better than my old motorolas.

if you have to settle for third tier then LG or something like that is probably ok.

but something like a Vizio and you'll regret it.

samsung really has their &#036;h&#33; together and makes excellent consumer electronics products.

While at Best Buy earlier this evening I was eyeing a Samsung LCD placed right next to its Sony equivalent. Both provided excellent pictures. It seemed as if the settings were very closely calibrated on each (so it wasn't like the saturation and brightness and other such adjustments were clearly different on one from the other...they were obviously set up for comparison.) I stood in front of them for about 10 to 15 minutes, effectively blocking the aisle, just staring at both screens and really scrutinizing their pictures. While the Sony was a bit more expensive, it did have a better picture. The differences were somewhat obvious (granted, both looked great,) but I wouldn't say the differences between the two are things that can be evened out just with settings adjustments...the Sony just reproduced the better picture.

I think the last gen Aquos were up there closer with the competition in comparison to the newer gens which seemed to have stepped back a bit. Still decent screens though, and they are a bit more reasonable than the competition.

In regards to plasma...I'm not a fan of plasma too much, but those Pioneer Elite sets are just awesome...expensive, but awesome.

[FAPTurbo]

I'll pull for Samsung too. A few years ago, they and Sony got together to jointly work on LCD's; now, there's even cases of Sony just using Samsung panels in their own products.

I use a Samsung LCD monitor, and the picture is just great. I love it.

[ocnblu]

Seems odd to me that anyone would consider Philips-Sylvania an "off-brand".

[gmpartsgirl]

We're a Samsung family. All the phones, TV's. I have turned my back on Sony, too many failures. But everybody has the own brand and experience like you said. My father-in-laws Sony just died and he bought a Samsung. All my neighbos have Samsungs. They are priced reasonably. LG seems to make a good product. It's not going to last 30 years like an old tube TV, so if he's worried just buy an extended warranty.

[regfootball]

While at Best Buy earlier this evening I was eyeing a Samsung LCD placed right next to its Sony equivalent. Both provided excellent pictures. It seemed as if the settings were very closely calibrated on each (so it wasn't like the saturation and brightness and other such adjustments were clearly different on one from the other...they were obviously set up for comparison.) I stood in front of them for about 10 to 15 minutes, effectively blocking the aisle, just staring at both screens and really scrutinizing their pictures. While the Sony was a bit more expensive, it did have a better picture. The differences were somewhat obvious (granted, both looked great,) but I wouldn't say the differences between the two are things that can be evened out just with settings adjustments...the Sony just reproduced the better picture.

I think the last gen Aquos were up there closer with the competition in comparison to the newer gens which seemed to have stepped back a bit. Still decent screens though, and they are a bit more reasonable than the competition.

In regards to plasma...I'm not a fan of plasma too much, but those Pioneer Elite sets are just awesome...expensive, but awesome.

were you looking at the best samsung? the one with LED backlighting and glossy screen?

[scharmer05]

When I bought my 42incher I ended up going with a 720 LG. I bought it about a year ago and got it for about 1600 (1300 without it) with a 4 year service plan from BB. A decent deal for when I got it. It has been a great TV, and has the QAM tuner in it so that I can pick up free HD channels that my cable company sends out. That is nice. I have a 1080 Samsung DLP Projection and have had that for almost 2 years now. The quality of my DLP Samsung didn't seem to shine through quite as much with the LCDs. And the Samsungs didn't have the QAM tuner when I bought, they might now.

Sonys are nice but not worth the extra cash IMO. A Sharp Aquos would be worth the extra if he wanted to pony up. LGs are definately nice and if he can get a 1080 for under 2K I'd say go for it. The main thing I was told to look at was the contrast ratio. The Westinghouse type brands definately don't hold a candle to the name brands in that department and after seeing a Westinghouse up close, I can tell.

[Nick]

Yes.

That's another thing...the glossy screens are nice, but in the lighting conditions I deal with, I much prefer the matte screens. No glare.

The Sony was a KDL-52XBR5

The Samsung was a LN-T5281f I believe

Edited April 21, 2008 by Nick

[regfootball]

i have my plasma in a room with over 200 square feet of glass on the outside wall, although i put window film on the windows. I did that to control heat gain. even before i put the window film on, glare was never an issue, except in the sunniest afternoons.

i would definitely consider an LCD these days though. either way, plasma or LCD, you can't go wrong. when i bought, the LCD's weren't bright enough for my tastes and did not handle motion well for sports and movies.

the salespeople make the glare thing to be too big of an issue. 5 years ago when everyone still used tube tv's nobody bitched.

i think the picture looks better on the glossy screen. matte screens make it look like you are looking through cloudy plastic mesh or something.

Edited April 21, 2008 by regfootball

[Nick]

i have my plasma in a room with over 200 square feet of glass on the outside wall, although i put window film on the windows. I did that to control heat gain. even before i put the window film on, glare was never an issue, except in the sunniest afternoons.

i would definitely consider an LCD these days though. either way, plasma or LCD, you can't go wrong. when i bought, the LCD's weren't bright enough for my tastes and did not handle motion well for sports and movies.

the salespeople make the glare thing to be too big of an issue. 5 years ago when everyone still used tube tv's nobody bitched.

i think the picture looks better on the glossy screen. matte screens make it look like you are looking through cloudy plastic mesh or something.

I complained about glare on tubes. I absolutely couldn't stand it. I'd board up the entire room in order to watch something with no glare. Hell...I still have a problem with too much light when I'm viewing. I'd hate having a glossy screen. It looks good if you have a room with no windows or light. I hardly think it is just something hyped up by salespeople. Unlike matte screens, glossy screens don't show "true" colors...granted, I suppose that argument is better suited if you're using the TV as a computer monitor and editing with it, rather than using that argument from a media viewing standpoint in which case, one may appreciate the added contrast and saturation provided by a glossy screen. I've always been annoyed with the "double-image" that seems quite common on glossy screens...most noticeable on larger TV's from a less than dead-on viewing angle. You end up seeing the image reflected on the glossy screen (in some cases...not all...I have seen glossy screens which are executed better and don't offer up so much space to create this effect.

Either way, the argument is meaningless when you compare two TV's side by side, one with glossy, the other with matte, and it is in such an environment that the only way you can tell which is which is by the glare of a light bouncing off the glossy one. The matte TV hardly appears to be displaying images through a "cloudy plastic mesh."

In the end, I found the XBR5 to have much smoother motion, a much sharper image, and more natural, yet still vibrant color reproductions.

I wish they were on display next to each other in the Magnolia center. I may go back and look at some of the screens in there later...it is a much more controlled environment...and they have those sexy Elites.

[ChevyNovs99]

I have a 37" Olevia that I bought 2 Black Fridays ago for 700$ and it blows away my mom's 32" Aquos that she got for $1000 a year ago.

[CARBIZ]

Having had a 48" Hitachi rear projection TV that I bought new in 1994, when it came time to replace it (although it still worked fine, the years had taken their toll on the brightness of the colors), I looked at Pioneer and Panasonic but ended up with a 42" Hitachi plasma. Sony has always been too expensive, IMO. I liked the deeper blacks of the plasma, and in the end, decided to rely on my good luck with my previous Hitachi (BTW, my BF's boss still has it in her rec-room.)

18 months later, and the TV is great. I opted for the power swivel. Occasionally there is glare from one of the lights in the kitchen, but I can swivel it away. The TV is against a window, which isn't the best place, but the layout of my L-shaped living area makes the current location convenient for watching either at the table (rarely) or from the sofa.

Of course, I paid $2,400 and now the same damned thing is about $1,200 ( Canadian dollar!)

[regfootball]

hitachi plasmas are very good.