Best TV for $1000 (non-3D, 60" or greater) - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 17 Old 07-03-2013, 10:48 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
matteroffact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: The Old Pueblo
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Due to a living room reconfiguration, it's time to replace our trusty 3.5-year-old Panasonic 720p projector with a boring old TV. wink.gif I have $1000 to spend before tax, and I'd prefer to buy locally just to make returns easier in case anything goes wrong. On top of that, Costco would be even better.

It looks like our budget will get us 55-60" of TV, and I found 3 different 60" models at Costco last night that are pretty close to $1000:

Vizio E601I-A3: $979.99
Samsung UN60EH6002: $1049.99 after $100 instant rebate
Sharp LC-60C6500U: $1049.99 after $100 instant rebate

They all look to be comparable.

Is any one of those better than the rest, and why?

Or, can I do better than those three for $1000?

Matt
matteroffact is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 17 Old 07-03-2013, 11:01 AM
Member
 
Eric Navarro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Definitely would go with the sharp 650 models picture quality vs the other two. Not sure what the difference is with costcos c650 vs bestbuys le650... Probably would investigate first if there is since they're pretty much the same price.

Also if smart tv is something you'd like... The sharp and vizio is vs the samsung

http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/sharp-lc-60le650/4505-6482_7-35636058.html

http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/vizio-e601i-a3/4505-6482_7-35477662.html

http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/samsung-un60eh6000/4505-6482_7-35159625.html

Dont really care for the review itself, just go to the 2nd page and look at the Geek Box chart at the bottom where they rate the black levels, motion, gamma etc... You'll see the sharp did better picture-wise overall
Eric Navarro is offline  
post #3 of 17 Old 07-03-2013, 12:42 PM
Senior Member
 
fritzi93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 418
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 37
I'd go with the Sharp as well. Black levels and contrast are pretty good (see the review linked above). You can't do much better in that price range, IMO.

Nothing against the other two, but I have a Sharp 70LE640U and am happy with it. Note that the Sharps have a good onboard media player that can play H.264 MKVs made from ripped Blu-Rays, from external ntfs formatted, powered 2 TB drives.

Picture presets aren't that great, so if you get one, see the dedicated threads for calibration settings. It'll make a noticeable difference, I can assure you. Picture quality on my 70" Sharp beats my 65" LG 65LW6500 every day of the week and twice on Sundays. Sharp offers a good deal on extended warranties on their website.

Good luck whatever you get.
fritzi93 is offline  
post #4 of 17 Old 07-03-2013, 12:59 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
matteroffact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: The Old Pueblo
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Thanks guys. Looks like the lead is trending in favor of the Sharp.
matteroffact is offline  
post #5 of 17 Old 07-03-2013, 02:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
eric3316's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,712
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 611
I would be careful with buying a 60" LED for $1,000. There are lots of imperfections on a 60" $2,000 LED which is only enhanced on a $1,000 tv.

You would get a much better picture going with a plasma at that price.

You can go with a samsung 60f5500, a Panasonic 60S60, or even an LG 60PH6700. LG being the worse plasma maker of the bunch would still probably yield you a better picture then a 60" LED that sells for $1,000. That is course is if you are okay with a Plasma.

Also, a big factor is will you be viewing your TV at night in a dim or dark room. Low end LED's will fail miserable here. If you are going to be watching in a lit up room and do not care about night viewing then you could get away with a low end 60" LED TV.
eric3316 is offline  
post #6 of 17 Old 07-03-2013, 02:27 PM
Member
 
AVS Dad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric3316 View Post

I would be careful with buying a 60" LED for $1,000. There are lots of imperfections on a 60" $2,000 LED which is only enhanced on a $1,000 tv.

You would get a much better picture going with a plasma at that price.

You can go with a samsung 60f5500, a Panasonic 60S60, or even an LG 60PH6700. LG being the worse plasma maker of the bunch would still probably yield you a better picture then a 60" LED that sells for $1,000. That is course is if you are okay with a Plasma.

Also, a big factor is will you be viewing your TV at night in a dim or dark room. Low end LED's will fail miserable here. If you are going to be watching in a lit up room and do not care about night viewing then you could get away with a low end 60" LED TV.
Price doesn't always equate to quality in big screen LED TVs. Depends on what you are after and what they are trying to sell you on as being important. Personally, I wanted the largest LED TV that would give me the best 2d picture. Didn't care about 3d, Apps (which most Blu-Ray players have), or having it be super thin. What I didnt want is flashlighting, bleed, clouding, uniformity issues, etc.

After searching and watching the various deals, I ended up buying this http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-UN65EH6000-65-Inch-1080p-120Hz/dp/B0074FGNDC on a Frys pricematch at Walmart for $1198. Direct-Lit LED and an outsanding picture in a dark room or daylight. As always, YMMV, but do your homework, be diligent, and buy for the right reasons (Not price, either way)....
AVS Dad is offline  
post #7 of 17 Old 07-03-2013, 03:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
eric3316's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,712
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 611
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVS Dad View Post

Price doesn't always equate to quality in big screen LED TVs. Depends on what you are after and what they are trying to sell you on as being important. Personally, I wanted the largest LED TV that would give me the best 2d picture. Didn't care about 3d, Apps (which most Blu-Ray players have), or having it be super thin. What I didnt want is flashlighting, bleed, clouding, uniformity issues, etc.

After searching and watching the various deals, I ended up buying this http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-UN65EH6000-65-Inch-1080p-120Hz/dp/B0074FGNDC on a Frys pricematch at Walmart for $1198. Direct-Lit LED and an outsanding picture in a dark room or daylight. As always, YMMV, but do your homework, be diligent, and buy for the right reasons (Not price, either way)....
If you are interested in the best 60" 2d picture at that price range then a plasma will destroy any LED in that range. So yes, budget does have a lot to do with it. You will not buy a 60' LED TV that will produce a better picture then the 60f5500 from Samsung near that $1,000 price range or the Panasonic 60S60. They will destroy any 60" LED TV in pq that retails for the same price as them and you will still get smart features and possible 3d depending on the model.

So you are right, when comparing prices from a plasma to an LED, higher priced LED's does not equate to better pq then a plasma but when comparing LED to LED then yes, the more money you go up the better pq the LED should produce. As you move up the line you will get better dimming features and better blacks as well as better motion handling. You do not need to spend that much on a plasma as you would for an LED and you will get a better picture at less money.
Radsean likes this.
eric3316 is offline  
post #8 of 17 Old 07-03-2013, 04:24 PM
Senior Member
 
fritzi93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 418
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Come on now, you're not playing quite fair.tongue.gif

The OP posted in the LCD forum, stated a budget, and listed three possible choices. All LED/LCD. For whatever reasons, best known to the OP.

Although yes, possible alternative suggestions were asked for.
fritzi93 is offline  
post #9 of 17 Old 07-03-2013, 04:44 PM
Member
 
AVS Dad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric3316 View Post

If you are interested in the best 60" 2d picture at that price range then a plasma will destroy any LED in that range. So yes, budget does have a lot to do with it. You will not buy a 60' LED TV that will produce a better picture then the 60f5500 from Samsung near that $1,000 price range or the Panasonic 60S60. They will destroy any 60" LED TV in pq that retails for the same price as them and you will still get smart features and possible 3d depending on the model.

So you are right, when comparing prices from a plasma to an LED, higher priced LED's does not equate to better pq then a plasma but when comparing LED to LED then yes, the more money you go up the better pq the LED should produce. As you move up the line you will get better dimming features and better blacks as well as better motion handling. You do not need to spend that much on a plasma as you would for an LED and you will get a better picture at less money.

I like my backlit LED at 65" vs your plasmas...As far as edge -lit, which your 60es7500 is part of, I'm not a fan either for the reasons stated previously. I agree the 60" size now seems to be the sweet spot offering many options , but when I see plasma and LED side by side, I could not pull the trigger on that dim picture and grey whites of the plasma in comparison.
AVS Dad is offline  
post #10 of 17 Old 07-03-2013, 04:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
eric3316's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,712
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 611
Quote:
Originally Posted by fritzi93 View Post

Come on now, you're not playing quite fair.tongue.gif

The OP posted in the LCD forum, stated a budget, and listed three possible choices. All LED/LCD. For whatever reasons, best known to the OP.

Although yes, possible alternative suggestions were asked for.
LOL.....I just want to make him aware he can get a better picture at that price range if he chooses to go with a plasma. A lot of people don't realize that plasma's offer a better picture at lower prices and think because all these stores have so many LED's on display and they are newer that they are better. That is just not true at all and an uneducated person shopping for a TV today would not know that.

When you look at some of the 60" plasma's you could get at the price the OP is looking to spend compared to the TV's he has listed or any 60" LED at that price even, it is not really a fair game. Heck, you can go up 3 models from each brand and still not get the pq of a plasma that you can get for around $1,000.

Let it be said I am not a plasma fan boy and returned an plasma 60ST60 for an LED 60es7500 because I did not want to deal with image retention but I only made the swap because I was offered an insane deal on the LED. If I had to purchase an LED that retailed in the $1,500 price range or keep an ST60 with IR, no doubt I would have kept the ST60 with IR problems or probably ended up with the Samsung 60F5500.

The 60es7500 retailed at one point for almost $2,500 and still the ST60 produces a better picture then it. The F5500 probably produces just as good or maybe a better picture then my es7500 as well. So I just want to make sure people have their eyes open to all their options.
eric3316 is offline  
post #11 of 17 Old 07-03-2013, 05:07 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
matteroffact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: The Old Pueblo
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by fritzi93 View Post

Come on now, you're not playing quite fair.tongue.gif

The OP posted in the LCD forum, stated a budget, and listed three possible choices. All LED/LCD. For whatever reasons, best known to the OP.

Here's the reasoning, just so you know where I'm coming from. I was under the impression that LED LCDs have lower power consumption, longer lives, and no possibility of image burn-in compared to their plasma cousins. Let's go down that list from least important to most important...

Power consumption. I live in Arizona. It's 110 degrees here in the summer. The AC is running almost constantly. I really DO NOT care about how much power my TV is drawing.

Long life. We don't watch very much TV (about 550 hours over 3.5 years according to my projector bulb timer). I read that plasmas have a lifespan of 20,000 to 30,000 hours. That's at least 100 years at our current rate, so maybe I'm worrying about nothing.

Image burn-in. Supposedly "modern" plasma TVs don't suffer from this problem because of various tricks they do to keep the picture changing. Is that true?

So, I guess I'm asking for the biggest, best TV for $1000. Period.
matteroffact is offline  
post #12 of 17 Old 07-03-2013, 05:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
eric3316's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,712
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 611
Quote:
Originally Posted by MatterOfFact View Post

Here's the reasoning, just so you know where I'm coming from. I was under the impression that LED LCDs have lower power consumption, longer lives, and no possibility of image burn-in compared to their plasma cousins. Let's go down that list from least important to most important...

Power consumption. I live in Arizona. It's 110 degrees here in the summer. The AC is running almost constantly. I really DO NOT care about how much power my TV is drawing.

Long life. We don't watch very much TV (about 550 hours over 3.5 years according to my projector bulb timer). I read that plasmas have a lifespan of 20,000 to 30,000 hours. That's at least 100 years at our current rate, so maybe I'm worrying about nothing.

Image burn-in. Supposedly "modern" plasma TVs don't suffer from this problem because of various tricks they do to keep the picture changing. Is that true?

So, I guess I'm asking for the biggest, best TV for $1000. Period.
Plasma will run you about $30-$40 a year.

New plasmas are rated for 100,000 hours.

Plasmas still get IR.

Plasma will give a better picture then any of those LEDs.

Now make your decision on that.
eric3316 is offline  
post #13 of 17 Old 07-03-2013, 07:00 PM
Member
 
Eric Navarro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I take back my initial recommendation of the sharp if you would consider plasma... GET THE PANASONIC 60S60 haha.. Unless reflection/glare would be a problem
Eric Navarro is offline  
post #14 of 17 Old 07-03-2013, 07:45 PM
Senior Member
 
fritzi93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 418
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Well, both types have their drawbacks. The subject has been beaten to death though. Maybe MatterofFact should read one of the LCD vs Plasma threads. rolleyes.gif Here goes anyway:

Depends on what your usage will be, and just as importantly, which drawbacks bother you more. And I do have a plasma as well in my study.

Plasma image retention is *not* a thing of the past, although it's relatively minor now. Burn-in is nearly non-existent with basic precautions. But you wouldn't want to fall asleep with, say a browser page up or leave on a channel with a prominent logo. They're dimmer, certainly, and whites aren't as true, so if most of your viewing is in a well-lit room, plasma picture quality advantage is much reduced. I personally am sensitive to flicker and dot crawl, though not nearly as much as some people.

Edge-lit LED/LCD is prone to non-uniformity. It's most noticeable on an inactive input, and should not be noticeable viewing normal content. With the exception perhaps of dim scenes, though you'd have to be looking for it. If it *is* easily noticeable in normal viewing, I'd call that a defect. Motion is not as good as plasma, generally, and viewing angles are narrower. Blacks and contrast will not be as good as even a cheap plasma, except for the discontinued Sharp Elite ($). Again, the difference is less if most of your viewing is *not* in a darkened room.

So here it comes: Have a look at both types, if possible, and consider your viewing conditions.

I confess that if anyone made a 70" plasma, I might have gotten that instead of the Sharp. But again, I'm pleased with mine.

Good luck.
fritzi93 is offline  
post #15 of 17 Old 07-03-2013, 10:34 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
matteroffact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: The Old Pueblo
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Viewing conditions will be mostly nighttime with dim lights or lights off, although we do have 2 windows on the wall parallel to where the TV is going, so daytime viewing might be diminished unless we get some blackout shades. Costco has the Panasonic TC-65PS64 for $1299 online, which is $300 more and 5" bigger than I wanted, but it also has the anti-reflective thingy. I'm gonna head over to my Costco on Friday and see if they have that in stores.
matteroffact is offline  
post #16 of 17 Old 07-04-2013, 04:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
eric3316's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,712
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 611
Quote:
Originally Posted by MatterOfFact View Post

Viewing conditions will be mostly nighttime with dim lights or lights off, although we do have 2 windows on the wall parallel to where the TV is going, so daytime viewing might be diminished unless we get some blackout shades. Costco has the Panasonic TC-65PS64 for $1299 online, which is $300 more and 5" bigger than I wanted, but it also has the anti-reflective thingy. I'm gonna head over to my Costco on Friday and see if they have that in stores.
If you can spend the extra money that TV is a beast at that price. I did not recommend it due to price but if it is affordable to you then without a doubt the 65PS64.
eric3316 is offline  
post #17 of 17 Old 07-04-2013, 08:17 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
matteroffact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: The Old Pueblo
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I haven't decided if I want to spend the extra money yet. With shipping and tax, it would be right at $1500... 50% more than I initially wanted to spend.
matteroffact is offline  
Reply LCD Flat Panel Displays

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off