Lifespan of current LCD models

First let me say that 3 years ago we bought a 32" Sharp Aquos TV to use as a computer monitor. The TV has been trouble-free, even though we have used it 24/7 for at least 12 hours per day. This fact is very encouraging, but 3 years is not very long in the grand scheme of things.

My wife and I are considering replacing our 20-year-old 36" Toshiba CRT ("tube") television with a modern-day LED LCD TV, so we've gone to various stores to look at what's out there and, of course, have discussed the various TVs with sales people. One of their universal claims is that one should absolutely buy a warranty with any new TV. Now we did that with our Aquos -- a 4 year warranty which runs out next year -- and if there are no problems with the TV, we can even put the cost of the warranty toward our next purchase, which is nice.

But when I tell the various sales people about our 20-year-old Toshiba TV, every single one of them says that there is no way that a new TV will last that long. To which I then say, well, how long will it last? Then they say that they don't know, but they would never warrant a TV for more than four years. So then I say, do you think it's reasonable to expect that the TV will fail within 6 years down the road? And they essentially say "it's more of a probablility than a possiblilty".

We paid $2400 for our Toshiba, but the thing has worked without a hitch for the past 20 years and the picture still looks remarkably good, but not, of course, as good as the present TVs. But I do not want to be spending 3 grand every 5 or 6 years ............ which the sales people claim is a reasonable cost for continuous TV ownership! If my math is correct, if you have a failure every 5 years, that's 4 TVs over 20 years and 4x3= 12 grand, versus $2400 for our Toshiba.

So my question to the forum is simple. What will the average lifespan be of a $1k TV versus a $4K TV?

Edit.
While I'm at it, does any particular manufacturer stand out as making the most long-lived LED LCD TVs (Sony, for example)? I think we'd take this information seriously into consideration, even if that particular manufacturer's TVs did not have the best image.
Edited by Herve - 12/8/12 at 12:34pm

Thanks very much for taking the time to post your experience with you various TVs. A TV in the bathroom, eh? You're definitely not going to miss any part of a show or movie, are you?

Anyway, I'm encouraged by what you say about longevity.

As far as a warranty goes, there are two local retailers who have non-pro-rated warranties which, if they are not used, can be put toward the purchase of anything in their stores. So if you buy even the most expensive warranty, you're in a pretty good position. If the TV fails during the warranty period, you get the TV fixed or replaced. If the TV makes it beyond the warranty period, you've got the price you paid for the warranty to buy anything else in those places. As I said previously, we bought a $270, 4-year warranty on the Aquos TV/monitor. If the TV makes it through the warranty period, we can use the price of the warranty to buy either another TV, PS3, movies, a sound bar, or whatever. IMO, this is not a bad deal. In fact, with this type of warranty, it makes the most sense to buy one that has the longest period as possible, as long as the buyer indeed shops for other things at that store.

I like your attitude.

I disagree about the "wonderful" advance in technology next year, and year after that, etc.

On occasion I connect a DIY HDTV antenna to our 32" LED full-array, back lit, but no local dimming, Aquos TV/computer monitor
( http://thetvreview.com/sharp-aquos-lc32le700un-32-inch-1080p-120-hz-led-hdtv-review/ )
to take a look at the 6, I think, OTA HD stations available locally. Most are 1080i, with a couple 720p.

Using our PC as an HTPC, we also watch the occasional BD movie on it.

The image on our Aquos is, to my eyes, very similiar to what we see on TVs in today's showrooms. In short, to my eyes, there have not been great advances in image quality over the past three years and I have no desire whatsoever to upgrade this TV/monitor.

If three years ago we had bought the same TV in a much larger screen size to repalce our Toshiba tube tv, we would not be looking around to replace it today. I doubt if the image produced by even the new OLED TVs are going to be that much better looking than the current top of the line Elite, Samsung, Sony, etc ............... to the point of wanting to spend another several thousand on the new thing, anyway.
Edited by Herve - 12/9/12 at 8:00am

To a certain point I agree with everything you say.

I forgot to mention that my wife and I have another LCD TV in front of our treadmill that we've had for about 5 years. It's a 37" Viewsonic 136?x 72?, CFL unit that cost around $900. (That amount would buy a fantastic TV today.) It's been trouble-free. By today's standards, Its image quality is marginal, but it's perfect for playing whatever when we're on the treadmill. Blacks are grey, but whnen it's on we're more concerned with keeping our breath than image quality.

About 4 or 5 years ago I remember seeing a 65" Sharp 1080p TV at a local Costco. The price was $15,995. In short, I was not impressed with the image quality, but I'm sure the set was not calibrated to the best that it could be. The calibrators on this forum would be much more able to state how much improvement there has been in LCD image potential over the past years since the inception of good 1080p sources.

I went over to our daughter and son-in-law's home yesterday evening. In August of 2010 they bought a Samsung UN65C8000, which was at that time the top-of-the-line Samsung TV. I brought over some BDs that I had burned and wanted to test for playback on their Samsung BD and Sony PS3 players.

Well, to my eyes, that "old" set looked every bit as good as what I've seen in any showroom during the past couple of weeks. Yes, blacks are not perfect, but they're somewhat-to-significantly better than our 32" Aquos. Contrary to what purists like, I like the so-called "smooth motion" effect. We watched the beginning of "Battle of the Bulge" over the PS3. Seating distance was about 7 feet. I could not believe how fantastic the image, in every respect, we saw was. The interpolation that the TV must have been doing was, as far as I could tell, spot on. I was floored.

Every review I've read about the Elite TVs says that their full array, local dimming technology brings blacks to the plasma level. Maybe Sharp's upcoming 950s will be as good at a much lower price, but you are right that these, especially for everyday TV viewing, are only marginal improvements.

At our present seating distance of 12 feet, in order to see much improvement in a 4k, 48fps, display, we'd either have to reduce our seating distance pretty dramatically or get a display much larger than 65".