[charlestek]

I know some people may be snobbish toward the higher end Tv's, but I was looking at Costco and their 55" Samsung and 55" LG and 60" Sharp Led edge lit models and they are all I can afford.


So basically I'm comparing the 60" Sharp 60LE633U, LG 55" 55LW6700 (3D),

and the Samsung 55" UN55D6050. All are appoximately the same price. I am biased toward the 60" Sharp just because of its larger screen size.

What I can't figure out is why the Sharp is priced so low compared to the others.

It is roughly $1000 less than a 60" Samsung model. That makes me a little suspicious.



Unfortunately the junky, rapidly changing HD content that Costco plays (no close-up high quality people's faces) on the tv's makes it next to impossible to make a comparison of the picture quality.


Any comments helping me compare would be welcome.


Thanks

 

[redwolf4k]

Here is a review on the D6000, which is the same as the D6050, except the 6050 comes with some extras like the wireless adapter.

http://www.hometheater.com/content/s...0-led-lcd-hdtv


The set got great reviews thus far. Very accurate colors in Movie mode, and the set is plenty bright. As you probably saw in the store, the Samsung has some sort of great screen/filter that makes the black levels look very inky black in high light conditions, which is still the case when you set it up in your home.


For me, I thought it was the most impressive of the edge lit LED sets.



I am not bias in any way.

 

[Otto Pylot]



Quote:
Originally Posted by charlestek /forum/post/20877778


I know some people may be snobbish toward the higher end Tv's, but I was looking at Costco and their 55" Samsung and 55" LG and 60" Sharp Led edge lit models and they are all I can afford.


So basically I'm comparing the 60" Sharp 60LE633U, LG 55" 55LW6700 (3D),

and the Samsung 55" UN55D6050. All are appoximately the same price. I am biased toward the 60" Sharp just because of its larger screen size.

What I can't figure out is why the Sharp is priced so low compared to the others.

It is roughly $1000 less than a 60" Samsung model. That makes me a little suspicious.



Unfortunately the junky, rapidly changing HD content that Costco plays (no close-up high quality people's faces) on the tv's makes it next to impossible to make a comparison of the picture quality.


Any comments helping me compare would be welcome.


Thanks

We just came back from Costco and saw the Sharp on demo. Didn't look closely at it because we're not tv shopping. It looked ok but if the price seems to good to be true.......... I'd compare the specs on the three models and see if there is any glaring differences that could account for the wide price range, like calibration options (ISF, etc) or see if there is a thread going here on any or all three models you're looking at. Maybe the Sharp was a return.

 

[charlestek]

The Sharp price actually dropped from when I looked at it a week ago.

It is $1400 now. It is not a return, there are plenty of new in a box, I saw a ton of them go when our state had a sales tax holiday for the weekend.

 

[Otto Pylot]



Quote:
Originally Posted by charlestek /forum/post/20878579


The Sharp price actually dropped from when I looked at it a week ago.

It is $1400 now. It is not a return, there are plenty of new in a box, I saw a ton of them go when our state had a sales tax holiday for the weekend.

Cool. Sounds like you have a lot of "Sharp" homework to do (sorry,

). See if there is a thread about your particular model.

 

[charlestek]

Thank you.


I found a couple of posts (urls on this site), and was going to paste it in this message, but I got this error:


The following errors occurred with your submission:

You are only allowed to post URLs once you have at least 3 posts. If you are a spammer, please go elsewhere. If not, sorry for this issue the spammers have made for



Oh well.


But the only really informative post is this:


"Don't own one but we have pretty much the same 6xx series model on display where I work. It's a non-Quatron X-gen Sharp panel edge-lit led/lcd with built in WiFi. At it's price point it is imho a bargain as it usually "streets" for about the same or a little less than entry level 55" LEDs from other mfgs. and has at least as good performance. Generally Sharp edge lit sets have better screen uniformity than Samsungs and are a lot less expensive than Sonys.

__________________

Steve S. "



So that is one guy's opinion, but there is not a lot of quantative data. I did a lot of google searching a week ago and did not find anything. The previous Sharp model LC60LE632U is rated well on Amazon by 23 people, but I'm not sure that tells me enough hard data like the hometheater.com review that redwolf4k gave me for the Samsung above.

 

[charlestek]

Found this while googling:

"Bought this tv from Costco... and returned it do to motion blur in fast moving scenes. Its a common issue with the Sharp sets if you read reviews from AVS. I tested and saw it during the airplane scene in Superman Returns where Supes at one point split into 3. "

 

[BoilerJim]

As much as I love my "older" Samsungs, I'd get the Sharp. I've lost faith in most of the newer Samsungs, especially the lower end LED/LCD models.

 

[BFJ 96]

I'd also give TOSHIBA a look if COSTCO has them available.

 

[charlestek]

Costco has the Toshiba 55S410 55". Last time I checked it was $1100, a lot cheaper than the Samsung's and LG's.


I just looked at the Sam's Club reviews for the Sharp and another person complained of blurring of a hard thrown football.


Jim, I don't know why you don't like the Samsung's given the glowing review of the earlier model on hometheater.com?


As for the Toshiba, again, no one has a comprehensive review. For that matter, I have no votes for the LG.....

 

[BFJ 96]



Quote:
Originally Posted by charlestek /forum/post/0


Costco has the Toshiba 55S410 55". Last time I checked it was $1100, a lot cheaper than the Samsung's and LG's.


I just looked at the Sam's Club reviews for the Sharp and another person complained of blurring of a hard thrown football.


Jim, I don't know why you don't like the Samsung's given the glowing review of the earlier model on hometheater.com?


As for the Toshiba, again, no one has a comprehensive review. For that matter, I have no votes for the LG.....

If motion is something you worry about, Toshiba has great motion software. No SOE (soap opera effect)


Fast motion looks good on the Toshiba.

 

[BoilerJim]



Quote:
Originally Posted by charlestek /forum/post/20880957


Costco has the Toshiba 55S410 55". Last time I checked it was $1100, a lot cheaper than the Samsung's and LG's.


I just looked at the Sam's Club reviews for the Sharp and another person complained of blurring of a hard thrown football.

Jim, I don't know why you don't like the Samsung's given the glowing review of the earlier model on hometheater.com?

As for the Toshiba, again, no one has a comprehensive review. For that matter, I have no votes for the LG.....

I guess I should qualify my answer. I love the picture quality of Samsung TVs, I love the way the colors "pop" and I love the physical appearance of most of them (except the ones with birds' feet chrome stands). However, I have read so many horror stories about Samsung's inconsistent screen uniformity with their low-end edge-lit panels that I would almost be afraid to buy one. The review you mention says the same thing in its second comment at the very beginning: "Non-uniformity clearly visible in letterbox bars and dark scenes"

And, I'm not the type who would continually return a TV until "I got a good one." I've always preached against those who return TVs to a store for little or no reason at all. However, with the panel quality of some brands, I may be softening my stance on that one. I like to think my tolerance level is pretty high, but to me, Samsung is going the way that Sharp went about four years ago. Now Sharp seems to be turning things around while Samsung is regressing.


Steve S., respected member of this Forum, sells TVs for a living in a well-known retail establishment and he has reservations about the lack of uniformity in Samsung's edge-lit panels also. He recommends Sony and Sharp as being more consistent in that regard.


In all fairness, though, the Samsungs you see in stores look as good as ever. The real uniformity problems show up when you get them home and view content in less than full screen (letterbox, etc.). However, it's your money and your choice. Good luck.

 

[hughh]



Quote:
Originally Posted by BoilerJim /forum/post/20881356


I guess I should qualify my answer. I love the picture quality of Samsung TVs, I love the way the colors "pop" and I love the physical appearance of most of them (except the ones with birds' feet chrome stands). However, I have read so many horror stories about Samsung's inconsistent screen uniformity with their low-end edge-lit panels that I would almost be afraid to buy one. The review you mention says the same thing in its second comment at the very beginning: "Non-uniformity clearly visible in letterbox bars and dark scenes"

And, I'm not the type who would continually return a TV until "I got a good one." I've always preached against those who return TVs to a store for little or no reason at all. However, with the panel quality of some brands, I may be softening my stance on that one. I like to think my tolerance level is pretty high, but to me, Samsung is going the way that Sharp went about four years ago. Now Sharp seems to be turning things around while Samsung is regressing.


Steve S., respected member of this Forum, sells TVs for a living in a well-known retail establishment and he has reservations about the lack of uniformity in Samsung's edge-lit panels also. He recommends Sony and Sharp as being more consistent in that regard.


In all fairness, though, the Samsungs you see in stores look as good as ever. The real uniformity problems show up when you get them home and view content in less than full screen (letterbox, etc.). However, it's your money and your choice. Good luck.

Excellent response!!!

 

[spyboy]



Quote:
Originally Posted by BFJ 96 /forum/post/20881191


If motion is something you worry about, Toshiba has great motion software. No SOE (soap opera effect)


Fast motion looks good on the Toshiba.

Dude, you are confused. It is motion smoothing, not motion blur reduction that causes the Soap Opera Effect.


If one finds motion blur objectionable on an LCD, a better implementation of the 120 or 240 Hz frame rate is what is needed to reduce motion blur to the lowest levels.

 

[charlestek]

I'm not worrying about Soap Opera Effect, at least right now.


I have a couple instances of reviews for the Sharp talking about scenes where an object is moving very quickly across the screen:


"One negative so far is that when watching NFL the football does get blurry on very hard throws. I'm still tweaking the settings for sports and am confident that it will be resolved. None of the players or any other action is blurred with fast movement, just the ball for a split second. "


"HOWEVER ON SPORTS IT LEAVES A GHOST PATTERN ESPECIALLY ON GOLF AND FOOTBALL....I PLAYED WITH THE SETTINGS AND DID EVERY THING I COULD TO CORRECT BUT IT DIDNT HELP...NOT THE TV FOR ME ...I AM BUYING THE SAMSUNG OR THE L G FIRST THING IN THE AM"


The Sharp is advertised as having a 240hz frame rate. I am assuming, maybe wrongly that the owner tried altering the tv settings to eliminate this and could not.


And Jim, thank you for the thoughful response.


I still am truly suspicious when the Sharp has such a low price for a 60" TV.

 

[Steve S]

An update on our display Sharp LC60LE632:


Due to a recent planogram change the set's been moved to another location in the store and connected to an HD Dish receiver. In it's former location it was running the store feed and was competitive with any of the other led sets running that feed.


With the Dish feed the set is very revealing of the overcompressed Dish signals. Our dish box is set to block any program with a rating higher than TV-G, so it's usually on The Science Channel or some other bit-starved signal. The last 3 sets connected to that dish box were plasmas, whose inherently softer picture tends to hide the overcompression artifacts.


Over in the LC70LE732 thread there was a post about a Sharp with a horrible picture on football, and the upshot was that the picture was fine when the poster ran the dvr recording of the same game.


I've had HDTV since 2001 with various technology sets ranging from crt rptv to sxrd rptv to LED/LCD (a Sony freebie due to optical block failure on the sxrd). The amount of compression given to HD signals has gradually increased over the years, and at the same time tvs have gotten less and less tolerant of overcompression artifacts.


I think what a lot of HD newcomers percieve as motion blur is actually the typical artifacting associated with too much compression of the digital signal. OTA broadcasters are allotted 19.2mbps of bandwidth. They split this up between an HD feed and usually two SD subchannels, starving the HD feed. Cable and Satellite companies in an effort to offer more and more channels are more than willing to sacrifice pq by overcompressing and/or actually downrezzing their signals.


A good test would be a BD disc with lots of fast motion. BD can run up to 40mbps so if it's well mastered there should be no visible overcompression artifacting and any motion blur seen could rightfully be attributed to the tv.

 

[BFJ 96]



Quote:
Originally Posted by spyboy /forum/post/0



Dude, you are confused. It is motion smoothing, not motion blur reduction that causes the Soap Opera Effect.


If one finds motion blur objectionable on an LCD, a better implementation of the 120 or 240 Hz frame rate is what is needed to reduce motion blur to the lowest levels.

Though true some displays still don't separate motion & judder with separate adjustable settings

 

[charlestek]

Steve and BFJ96,


Thanks for the replies. I was talking about the 60LE633U, which I think is essentially the same as the LC60LE632, except for the 240hz refresh.


I wish I could ask Costco to attach a blue ray player to each of the 3 tv's in question whereby I could play a good test dvd.

 

[BFJ 96]



Quote:
Originally Posted by charlestek /forum/post/20882120


Steve and BFJ96,


Thanks for the replies. I was talking about the 60LE633U, which I think is essentially the same as the LC60LE632, except for the 240hz refresh.


I wish I could ask Costco to attach a blue ray player to each of the 3 tv's in question whereby I could play a good test dvd.

No problem charles. The other thing to think about is SIZE. 5 inches is 5 inches. No matter what your decision good luck

 

[Otto Pylot]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve S /forum/post/20881845


I think what a lot of HD newcomers percieve as motion blur is actually the typical artifacting associated with too much compression of the digital signal. OTA broadcasters are allotted 19.2mbps of bandwidth. They split this up between an HD feed and usually two SD subchannels, starving the HD feed. Cable and Satellite companies in an effort to offer more and more channels are more than willing to sacrifice pq by overcompressing and/or actually downrezzing their signals.

We have seen Comcast broadcasting a live MLB game locally from the same production truck that feeds OTA. The Comcast was at 19.2Mbps and the OTA was at 14Mbps from the truck. However, in our neighborhood, the Comcast signal was crap due to over compression. The OTA signal, even with two sub channels was crystal clear with no pixelation or macro blocking and clean 5.1 audio. This is not to say that Comcast or any other cable provider can not provide decent HDTV but we never have a problem with OTA. The neighbors watched the game here