bluntman72

I am helping my mom buy a new TV since hers died. I am looking at the LN46C670 Samsung 46" LCD 1080p 120hz which is selling at bestbuy for $999 with a bluray player as a package and I am also looking at the Samsung un40c6300 40" LED 1080p 120hz which is selling for $749 at frys in Houston. the price seems great on the LED but I am trying to decide if its better to give up going LED and get the extra 6" or go for the smaller tv but newer technology.

thanks for any advice.

TGM

can I suggest this Dynex 46" 1080p (granted 60hz) LCD for $597? I have it, and I absolutely love it... after tinkering with some of the settings, I'm finding it more and more difficult to see the difference between this Dynex and my 56" Samsung DLP/LED in the family room.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Dynex%26...ynex&cp=1&lp=4

Sdallnct

How far is she sitting from the TV. I almost always recommend going bigger. And remember it is not the technology, it is the pq that counts.

I'd recommend the 50" 720p Panasonic Plasma. Better picture than all listed and can be found in that price range. But than, that was not your question.

I'd go with the 46".

King Felix

Go with LED, its more reliable than LCD. I got the Samsung 46 inch 6500 model a month ago, I love it.

Spiky

You do understand that the Samsung 6xxx series is still LCD, with LED backlighting instead of fluorescent.

bluntman72

I am still a bit confused on the whole LED LCD thing. I consider all LEDs LCDs but just the newer versions with the LED lighting. Is there a LED series that is not LCD. although when you shop around you hear all kinds of BS from the sales guys they were trying to sell the LED by saying it lasts 5 years longer than the LCD tvs so its hard to know what is real and what isnt. I actually called a friend to give me the tech specs on the TVs since Frys didnt have much info and I dont trust the sales guys since most places they seem



we ended up getting the Samsung LED-LCD 6500 series but once she got in the store she decided to go with the 55" so her budget got blown away but she has a great tv now. we went from around $750-999 and ended up spending $1899 but the tv looks great

Mordred

LED is just the backlight for the LCD. Normal LCDs use Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamps to supply lighting for the screen. These can burn out and fade which might be the difference in life time the sales guys are talking about, although LEDs do have lifetime issues of their own. The big advantage of LEDs over CCFLs is that if you are using RGB LEDs (which I assume the Samsungs do) you have a broader color spectrum (i.e. potentially better and more vibrant colors). LEDs can also apply local dimming, meaning only those parts of the screen that have something visible on it will be on. This can give better black levels. Lastly, LEDs should use less power than CCFLs.

Spiky

Supposedly there are LED-only TVs coming. But it seems that the difference between edge-lit LED backlighting and local LED backlighting has confused many people (except when looking at the price), I think these are the only 2 kinds right now, and both are still LCD. The edge-lit don't offer much over the traditional CCFL models except longevity, maybe a bit more even light, but CCFL is not junk. As Mordred says, the models with full, local backlighting can offer a couple more benefits like black level, and black level is huge to picture quality. So they should be a superior TV in most respects.

I'm not so sure about the power, though. That was the theory, but creating LEDs capable of putting out this level of light (needed for TV) appears to have befuddled the researchers. LEDs are nearly as hot and power-hungry as any other cool lighting type. (I'm not comparing to halogen, here) For instance, they still haven't pulled off a reasonably-priced LED light source for a standard projector, just some little ones with not much output. I'd like to see some actual electric-draw comparisons, like people have done for plasma vs LCD.