AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 60 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
994 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Spending so much time on these forums I'm agonizing on which to get.


63" Samsung which is nice and thin but has buzzing..


Or 65" panasonic which thicker.


More importantly all the black friday sales seem to be for smaller 50" screens.


I am redoing my fireplace to put up a TV so I still have another month, should I wait till xmas? or try to snag something friday or cyber monday?


I think I'm going to pass on 3D and save the money since I dont have a HDMI 1.4 receiver (Denon 4810) and selling that and getting another one is yet more money.


I think I'm Between the Samsung 63B590 and Panasonic 65S2 which I can't believe the price. I have some windows perpendicular to the left of where the TV will be. Should I be concerned of glare?


Thoughts between the two? and more importantly when and where to buy?


thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
638 Posts
What models are you looking at?


Why can't you use the old fashined digital audio out from source to reciever for sound and bypass the reciever with the video if you go 3D?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
994 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by psychobrew /forum/post/19543217


What models are you looking at?


Why can't you use the old fashined digital audio out from source to reciever for sound and bypass the reciever with the video if you go 3D?

I'm all over the place on the models. Samsung 63" or Panasonic 65"


I'm wiring in the wall, and really wanted to do all the video switching from the receiver. If you dont' use a 1.4 HDMI receiver I have to run an HDMi directly from the bluray player to the TV. So 2 HDMI cables behind the wall which I might do anyway for future proofing. I think the premium for 3D isn't worth it.


I was thinking I get something for $2K now, and in 2 years if/when 3D really takes off in content I can upgrade. although I'm moving from a Panasonic 50phd7uy that I bought in 2005 for $5K!


You now have me reconsidering...damn you!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
638 Posts
I'm pretty sure 3D is going to take off. There is too much force behind it not to. Even the mid range TVs are including 3D and it's starting to penetrate the low end.


I just don't see the point of spending 2 grand now just to spend 2 grand again in 2 years. You'd probably be better off spending 4 grand now. I can see waiting for glasses free 3D though (which I suspect is going to take a while yet -- especially for it to trickle down in to the more affordable models).


It's hard to give you advice on which way to go if you don't give out the models you want.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
444 Posts
I don't see 3D with glasses truly taking off. I can't imagine a whole family sitting there with special glasses every time they're going to watch a movie.


I'd say forget about 3D for now, and plan on upgrading in a few years when it's more mainstream.


Why spend 4 grand now, instead of 2 now and 2 later? Spending more now gets you an early adopter 3D TV. Spending the same amount over time gets you the following:


-You save some money now, you could potentially invest the different or do something where you earn a return on it

-You end up with two TVs instead of one, old TV goes to bedroom or whatever

-The newer TV is likely to be larger and better than the more expensive TV you're buying now


I personally prefer to buy at the sweet spot where you get the most bang for your buck on things like TVs, since I know i'll be itching to upgrade in a few years. On things like receivers or speakers where I upgrade far less often, I'm willing to shell out for the higher end models.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
638 Posts
While an entire family might not use the feature with glasses at the same time (right now, anyway), the sets they buy will have the feature within the next few years. The price of glasses will drop significantly too, which will enable families to ue it.


The weight of the entire industry is behind 3D (from movie studios to TV manufacturers). If it fails, it will be a failure of epic proportions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by intence /forum/post/19543288


I don't see 3D with glasses truly taking off. I can't imagine a whole family sitting there with special glasses every time they're going to watch a movie.


I'd say forget about 3D for now, and plan on upgrading in a few years when it's more mainstream.


Why spend 4 grand now, instead of 2 now and 2 later? Spending more now gets you an early adopter 3D TV. Spending the same amount over time gets you the following:


-You save some money now, you could potentially invest the different or do something where you earn a return on it

-You end up with two TVs instead of one, old TV goes to bedroom or whatever

-The newer TV is likely to be larger and better than the more expensive TV you're buying now


I personally prefer to buy at the sweet spot where you get the most bang for your buck on things like TVs, since I know i'll be itching to upgrade in a few years. On things like receivers or speakers where I upgrade far less often, I'm willing to shell out for the higher end models.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,406 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by psychobrew /forum/post/19543346


While an entire family might not use the feature with glasses at the same time (right now, anyway), the sets they buy will have the feature within the next few years. The price of glasses will drop significantly too, which will enable families to ue it.


The weight of the entire industry is behind 3D (from movie studios to TV manufacturers). If it fails, it will be a failure of epic proportions.

You mean fail like toshiba hd dvd player
It could happen but kidding aside I think it will be the norm very soon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
638 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by ROMAN O /forum/post/19543359


You mean fail like toshiba hd dvd player
It could happen but kidding aside I think it will be the norm very soon.

or fail like a Marantz DVD player
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by psychobrew /forum/post/19543346


The weight of the entire industry is behind 3D (from movie studios to TV manufacturers). If it fails, it will be a failure of epic proportions.

The entire weight of the industry has been behind HD for how long now? Yet the amount of people complaining that the new Apple TV dropped composite for HDMI only is surprisingly large



Heck, how many people have HDTV's and only have SD cable or Satellite?



And if I had kids 12 or under, there would be no 3D in my house until the long term effects are better understood.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
992 Posts
Have you had a TV above your fireplace before?


Unless you sit on bar stools to watch TV it's a horrible place to put one. Well, sitting on a bar stool would be horrible too, so it's just a horrible place.


Hang a picture there instead and find a new place for the TV.


The center of the TV should be near your eye height for optimal viewing of any TV. Higher can cause eye strain, and if you bought and LCD, picture distortion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 /forum/post/19543524



Heck, how many people have HDTV's and only have SD cable or Satellite?

I work with someone who does. He swears he can't see the difference between SD and HD and refuses to spend $5-10 more per month to try HD out at home. It's kind of surprising since he's techie and watches lots of sports.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by David_B /forum/post/19543822


Have you had a TV above your fireplace before?


Unless you sit on bar stools to watch TV it's a horrible place to put one. Well, sitting on a bar stool would be horrible too, so it's just a horrible place.


Hang a picture there instead and find a new place for the TV.


The center of the TV should be near your eye height for optimal viewing of any TV. Higher can cause eye strain, and if you bought and LCD, picture distortion.

We had one in our last house and will use a similar location in the house we're building. We solved the viewing issues by tilting the screen down slightly. The recliner sofa also worked well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by gadgetfreaky /forum/post/19543174


Spending so much time on these forums I'm agonizing on which to get.


63" Samsung which is nice and thin but has buzzing..


Or 65" panasonic which thicker.


More importantly all the black friday sales seem to be for smaller 50" screens.


I am redoing my fireplace to put up a TV so I still have another month, should I wait till xmas? or try to snag something friday or cyber monday?


I think I'm going to pass on 3D and save the money since I dont have a HDMI 1.4 receiver (Denon 4810) and selling that and getting another one is yet more money.


I think I'm Between the Samsung 63B590 and Panasonic 65S2 which I can't believe the price. I have some windows perpendicular to the left of where the TV will be. Should I be concerned of glare?


Thoughts between the two? and more importantly when and where to buy?


thanks!

Good timing on this thread, I'm going through a similar dilemma. Our new house will be finished in the next 2-3 weeks and we want something larger than our 4 year old Panasonic for the great room. The Panasonic has worked very well, so I'm leaning toward the same brand.


Have you looked at the two in a store to see if either has a clear picture advantage for you? Personally, buzzing is a showstopper for me, it drives me nuts.


Oh, and we're also holding off on 3D for now...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,696 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by piper_chuck /forum/post/19543924


I work with someone who does. He swears he can't see the difference between SD and HD and refuses to spend $5-10 more per month to try HD out at home. It's kind of surprising since he's techie and watches lots of sports.

Even if I didn't have HD on pay TV I'd at least grab the HD signal OTA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by piper_chuck /forum/post/19543924


I work with someone who does. He swears he can't see the difference between SD and HD and refuses to spend $5-10 more per month to try HD out at home. It's kind of surprising since he's techie and watches lots of sports.

Sounds like he's too cheap and in denial that there is a huge visual difference.



Heck, before we got an HD TV we were watching HD channels through our TiVo on our 35" SD Toshiba TV and you could tell the difference.


Scott
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,495 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by David_B /forum/post/19543822


Have you had a TV above your fireplace before?


Unless you sit on bar stools to watch TV it's a horrible place to put one. Well, sitting on a bar stool would be horrible too, so it's just a horrible place.


Hang a picture there instead and find a new place for the TV.


The center of the TV should be near your eye height for optimal viewing of any TV. Higher can cause eye strain, and if you bought and LCD, picture distortion.

We've had our plasma mounted above the fireplace for the past five years and have no complaints. No neck strain of fatigue what-so-ever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by slb /forum/post/19545321


We've had our plasma mounted above the fireplace for the past five years and have no complaints. No neck strain of fatigue what-so-ever.

There are hundreds of thousands of displays mounted above fireplaces. Fireplaces are generally the center of the family room and a way better choice than the side cabinet locations that we had to deal with in the 90s and before. There is the "right" place to put displays and speakers and then there is reality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
994 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 /forum/post/19543524


The entire weight of the industry has been behind HD for how long now? Yet the amount of people complaining that the new Apple TV dropped composite for HDMI only is surprisingly large



Heck, how many people have HDTV's and only have SD cable or Satellite?



And if I had kids 12 or under, there would be no 3D in my house until the long term effects are better understood.

Well after researching some more, it looks like the Samsung PN63C8000 is a great TV and might be able to find for under $3K. Plus there's a promo right now thru Dec. 4th to get 2 free 3D glasses and a 3D bluray player..


Also it looks like even in non-3D content the picture is a lot better than the non 3D tv's??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
994 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by David_B /forum/post/19543822


Have you had a TV above your fireplace before?


Unless you sit on bar stools to watch TV it's a horrible place to put one. Well, sitting on a bar stool would be horrible too, so it's just a horrible place.


Hang a picture there instead and find a new place for the TV.


The center of the TV should be near your eye height for optimal viewing of any TV. Higher can cause eye strain, and if you bought and LCD, picture distortion.

Unfortunately I have no choice.. WAF factor


I'm actually lowering the fireplace from a current 51" height to 41" and will be sitting 13-14' back so it shouldn't be too bad. I figure a tilt as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
350 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by slb

We've had our plasma mounted above the fireplace for the past five years and have no complaints. No neck strain of fatigue what-so-ever.


There are hundreds of thousands of displays mounted above fireplaces. Fireplaces are generally the center of the family room and a way better choice than the side cabinet locations that we had to deal with in the 90s and before. There is the "right" place to put displays and speakers and then there is reality.

My wife and I are currently building a home and we both despise looking up at a high-mounted TV. We dislike it so much that in our great room design we moved the fireplace off the easiest outside wall to put it on, went direct-vent, and have it on a perpendicular interior wall. Now we can use the wall most viewable from the kitchen for the TV
It makes for a slightly awkward furniture setup, and I can attest that the furniture and interior design people we work with were appalled at the idea of 2 room focal points. I told the lady that I watch TV every day and I watch fireplace on Christmas Eve and Christmas day, so can we get on with it?


I can't imagine why there aren't more modern architects/designers that get with the program and offer layouts that optimize placement of one of the most used appliances in the home, rather than a fireplace. Now that we have things like HVAC and thermostats, as well as insulation, do we all need to huddle around fireplaces any more?
 
1 - 20 of 60 Posts
Top