Question Advice on 55" mid-range TV

[vikdean]

Hi guys,

long story short, in the past 2 months I've been looking for a good replacement for my Samsung UE40JU6400 TV. I've read and watched pretty much every review of every TV on the market today, from multiple sources, but I'm getting frustrated, so I've decided to ask for help...

Key points / requirements:
- 4K (thanks, but no 8K for me)
- 55" (I have room for even a 65" one, but non worth buying is in my budget, only the Q70T maybe)
- Darkish room
- Viewing angles are no concern to me at all
- A budget of around 800-950 €; can be a bit more if it reallllllly worth it
- 1440p @ 120Hz support is a bonus, but not a requirement as I will be playing only sim racing games (Dirt Rally, Assetto Corsa)
- I don't really watch the general broadcasts, just Netflix, YouTube and Plex
- OLED would be great, but not a requirement

These are the ones I've been looking at:

LG B9 OLED	1060€​	This is a weird one, as it cost exactly the same as the new model, but because of that fact, I'm hoping BF will cause it's price to go down more
LG BX OLED	1060€
Samsung Q80T QLED	815€	Seems decent, but no Dolby Vision
Sony X900H	730€	No 1440p @ 120Hz support, but otherwise seems OK
Philips 55OLED754	1060€	Kind of an unknown brand for me and not a lot of reviews around to really win me over
Philips 55OLED804	1120€	Same as above

Now, I know that some of these are out of my specified budget, but Black Friday is coming and there are some good deals already, so I've hopeful. (These prices where converted from Hungarian Forint to Euro, so they are not comparable to any other Country's pricing as far as I can tell.)

These are the ones I've ruled out:

LG NANO90	802€	I don't care about viewing angles, so at this price point I don't see a reason to buy an IPS TV
Samsung Q70T QLED	665€ for 55" || 726€ for 65"	I have mixed feelings about this one, because most reviews are recommending to avoid it, but not sure what to believe
Sony X950G	1340€	For some reason its more expensive then the newer model
Sony X950H	1173€	With this price its out of my budget, but I'll keep an eye on it
Sony X900H 65"	1090€	Would be great, but too expensive

My main issue is that I don't know how much extra OLED is really worth...
I don't know if I've missed a gem or not, but ANY advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

 

[tvdavid]

I have got the Sony X950H but it comes in the week.

 

[Dodgexander]

I'd be considering the BX since it will support 120hz at 4k and also has decent HDR performance. The B9 should be the same but is an older model, if it gets a good discount it might be worth it.

The Sony X950G can be forced to 1440p 120hz, but doesn't have EDID for it, so some games may not allow it to be selected as a resolution. But no HDMI 2.1 support.

Sony X950H no HDMI 2.1 support, but much the same as the X950G can be forced 1440p 120hz.

Philips OLEDs - not really any different from the LG OLEDs but without HDMI 2.1, not sure why you'd get these unless you rate motion when watching sports more important than future proof HDMI connectivity.

Samsung Q80T - pretty dim for HDR standards, but does have a single HDMI 2.1 port.

Sony X900H - same as above but even dimmer HDR, not a great TV if you want to future proof.

Q70T - probably even worse than the Sony above since its edge lit without good local dimming

LG Nano90 by far the worse TV overall.

Imo accepting a 120hz 4k input should be your priority since it will be a lot cleaner feeding the TV a 4k 120hz signal compared to 1440p 120hz even if you render at 1440p. TVs that only have v2.0 HDMI also have reduced chromaticity at 1440p too, so you won't be getting RGB 4:4:4 on those TVs.

 

[vikdean]

I've though about the HDMI 2.1 and 4K @ 120Hz, but then I realized that it wouldn't matter for a long time still, as right now I have a GTX 970 "feeding" it and the upgrade to that would be a GTX 1080Ti from my other rig. None of them support HDMI 2.1 and the 1080Ti would be good enough for a couple more years, for my purposes.

To be honest, something pulls me towards OLED, but I'm not sure if it worth it.
E.g. I could get a 65" Sony X900H or a 55" LG BX for about the same money, but I'm not sure which should be the priority; better picture quality - and some extra features - or a bigger overall TV, which would provide a greater immersion and experience.

 

[Dodgexander]

The X900H currently has some issues with blur at 120hz at 4k. Not sure if the same issue is present with a 1440p signal. It's also not a very good future proof TV because its HDR performance is so dim for an LCD TV. Perhaps if you are using a lot of SDR and only a bit of HDR its a sacrifice you'd be willing to make for the bigger TV?

Also worth considering prices on TVs fluctuate quite a bit, so the prices today may be different tomorrow and in sales round the corner etc. Buying at a better time should mean 65" TVs like the Q85T/Q90T are more affordable which include better HDR and a HDMI 2.1 port.

EDIT* I mentioned it in my last reply but TVs that accept 1440p 120hz have to reduce the chromaticity to display this signal. The same limitation may be true with your graphics cards, but different HDMI 2.0 chips can be tweaked to support different signals. Probably you'll end up wanting to use a displayport>HDMI cable if you want the best quality on a new display.

 

[vikdean]

That's kind of my issue; its hard to decide between better picture quality or a bit worse but on a bigger display. I'm leaning towards the 55" OLED for now, but it has to be seen whether the holiday discounts will hit the LG B9 or BX.

For 4K @ 120Hz you'll also need HDMI 2.1, so that's not important for me, at least for a couple of years, till I replace the 1080Ti.

 

[Dodgexander]

I'm not sure my explanation has been very clear so far, so my apologies. It's hard sometimes to put the technicalities into words.

Your current graphics cards run HDMI 2.0. Any TV without HDMI 2.1 also runs HDMI 2.0.

HDMI 2.0 will have a limited bandwidth signal at 1440p 120hz. The quality of the signal has to be dropped, because it cannot contain 1440p with full colour quality.

Your possibilities:

1. A TV that supports HDMI 2.0 and sending the TV 1440p 120hz via a HDMI cable.
2. A TV that supports HDMI 2.0 and sending the TV 1440p 120hz via a Displayport>HDMI adapter.
3. A TV that supports HDMI 2.1 and sending the TV 2160p 120hz via a Displayport>HDMI adapter.

Option 1 isn't recommended. You will have to downsample the output signal of games from RGB 4:4:4 to YCbCr 4:2:0 video may be fine, text won't be sharp. Picture quality will be reduced for your sim racing, especially if you are viewing up close.

Option 2 and 3 are recommended since you then don't have the limitation of your graphics card being HDMI 2.0. You can then send either a 1440p signal or even a 2160p signal to the TV without any bandwidth constraints and without a quality loss of conversion from RGB 4:4:4 to YCbCr 4:2:0

I hope this explanation makes more sense.

In terms of which to go for between a 55" LG BX/B9 OLED and a 65" Sony XH9005 - on current pricing the XH9005 is a good compromise to make if you aren't going to use HDR very much. It does however have a known issue accepting a 120hz signal at 4k.

If you want to avoid the known issue, go for the BX, but be aware we aren't so sure HDR will work with 120hz currently, so in the future if you want to game with 120hz and HDR, it may not work. You may need the CX or C9 for this.

 

[vikdean]

Hah, I didn't know about the limitations on HDMI 2.0 regarding 1440p, but I need to rely on HDMI still, because DP doesn't carry audio; or does it?
1440p/4K @ 60Hz will be probably my go to, at least for now.

 

[Dodgexander]

Display port does carry audio. Converter cables carry both video+audio.

 

[vikdean]

Ahh, thats great; the only question remains really is how G-Sync would handle the adapter? Would it just identify as DP and work or maybe NVIDIA specifies that this specific TV only has HDMI ports, so it only works when you hook it up like that?

I've also compared the HDR performance of some of the TVs and according to rthings.com, the Sony X900H is not that bad:

Sony X900H​	Sony X950G​	Samsung Q80T​	LG BX​
7.0 points​	8.9 points​	7.5 points​	6.0 points​
HDR Real Scene Peak Brightness 556 cd/m² HDR Peak 2% Window 307 cd/m² HDR Peak 10% Window 449 cd/m² HDR Peak 25% Window 739 cd/m² HDR Peak 50% Window 683 cd/m² HDR Peak 100% Window 552 cd/m² HDR Sustained 2% Window 304 cd/m² HDR Sustained 10% Window 445 cd/m² HDR Sustained 25% Window 727 cd/m² HDR Sustained 50% Window 680 cd/m² HDR Sustained 100% Window 551 cd/m² HDR ABL 0.050​	HDR Real Scene Peak Brightness 1133 cd/m² HDR Peak 2% Window 1194 cd/m² HDR Peak 10% Window 1232 cd/m² HDR Peak 25% Window 878 cd/m² HDR Peak 50% Window 762 cd/m² HDR Peak 100% Window 767 cd/m² HDR Sustained 2% Window 1141 cd/m² HDR Sustained 10% Window 1207 cd/m² HDR Sustained 25% Window 874 cd/m² HDR Sustained 50% Window 758 cd/m² HDR Sustained 100% Window 763 cd/m² HDR ABL 0.029	HDR Real Scene Peak Brightness 702 cd/m² HDR Peak 2% Window 528 cd/m² HDR Peak 10% Window 739 cd/m² HDR Peak 25% Window 607 cd/m² HDR Peak 50% Window 461 cd/m² HDR Peak 100% Window 438 cd/m² HDR Sustained 2% Window 522 cd/m² HDR Sustained 10% Window 717 cd/m² HDR Sustained 25% Window 603 cd/m² HDR Sustained 50% Window 460 cd/m² HDR Sustained 100% Window 436 cd/m² HDR ABL 0.029	HDR Real Scene Peak Brightness 454 cd/m² HDR Peak 2% Window 454 cd/m² HDR Peak 10% Window 542 cd/m² HDR Peak 25% Window 386 cd/m² HDR Peak 50% Window 231 cd/m² HDR Peak 100% Window 128 cd/m² HDR Sustained 2% Window 436 cd/m² HDR Sustained 10% Window 517 cd/m² HDR Sustained 25% Window 364 cd/m² HDR Sustained 50% Window 220 cd/m² HDR Sustained 100% Window 122 cd/m² HDR ABL 0.093

The Sony X950G is a lot better, but it costs a lot more. The BX would be in a lot more trouble if it weren't for the perfect blacks capability.

 

[Dodgexander]

The peak brightness for an LCD TV is very poor on the Sony. Since an OLED has perfect blacks, and increased contrast compared to an LCD TV you can't really compare an OLED to an LCD when it comes to brightness.

Sorry to say it, but the XH9005 is just too dim to use HDR, some titles will be okay if they don't require high peak brightness, but many will. The picture in these cases will be dim, and highlights will be washed out. A good baseline of what's needed for problem free HDR is mentioned in the Ultra HD Premium specs. For an LCD TV around 1000 nits, for an OLED 540 nits minimum.
You can read more about the specification here: Home

TVs must also be capable of producing more than 90 per cent of the DCI P3 color standard and meet a certain brightness level (measured in nits). 4K TVs must have either a 1000-nit peak brightness and less than 0.05 nits black level (to cater for the high brightness of LCD TVs), or a 540-nit peak brightness and less than 0.0005 nits black level (to include the generally dimmer, yet stonking black depth, of OLEDs).

Not only that, but the BX has customisable tone mapping that the XH9005 lacks. That allows you to create more shadow detail in HDR titles that have a lot of high brightness compared to those that don't, on a title-by-title basis.

With Gsync the only TVs that support it are the LGs and only over HDMI, it probably won't work over displayport because its a different standard. For a HDMI 2.0 card that means if you want Gsync you will be limited 4k 60hz or 1440p 120hz with cut down quality.

Perhaps a more logical thing to do would be to sell your 1080TI and replace it with a new 30 series card with HDMI 2.1 support. That will give you both proper 120hz 2160p/1440p Gsync support and also allow you to use 120hz HDMI Forum VRR on TVs that don't have Gsync compatibility (like the Sony XH9005).

 

[vikdean]

Okay, to be honest I'm convinced now, that my path should really to toward the LG B9 or BX, even if it will cost a bit more then I originally expected.

Thank you for the help and patient explanation of certain topics

 

[vikdean]

The peak brightness for an LCD TV is very poor on the Sony. Since an OLED has perfect blacks, and increased contrast compared to an LCD TV you can't really compare an OLED to an LCD when it comes to brightness.

Sorry to say it, but the XH9005 is just too dim to use HDR, some titles will be okay if they don't require high peak brightness, but many will. The picture in these cases will be dim, and highlights will be washed out. A good baseline of what's needed for problem free HDR is mentioned in the Ultra HD Premium specs. For an LCD TV around 1000 nits, for an OLED 540 nits minimum.
You can read more about the specification here: Home

Not only that, but the BX has customisable tone mapping that the XH9005 lacks. That allows you to create more shadow detail in HDR titles that have a lot of high brightness compared to those that don't, on a title-by-title basis.

With Gsync the only TVs that support it are the LGs and only over HDMI, it probably won't work over displayport because its a different standard. For a HDMI 2.0 card that means if you want Gsync you will be limited 4k 60hz or 1440p 120hz with cut down quality.

Perhaps a more logical thing to do would be to sell your 1080TI and replace it with a new 30 series card with HDMI 2.1 support. That will give you both proper 120hz 2160p/1440p Gsync support and also allow you to use 120hz HDMI Forum VRR on TVs that don't have Gsync compatibility (like the Sony XH9005).

Any comment on these?
LG CX OLED vs Sony X900H (XH90) It Shouldn't be THIS Close!! | OLED vs LCD -
cnet.com: "The XBR-X900H is the best-performing midpriced Sony TV I've tested in years, with excellent contrast and brightness, accurate color and plenty of punch with HDR .... The X900H is a suburb HDR performer overall."
In their test the Brightest (HDR) was 989 nits.

flatpanelshd.com: "DCI-P3 color coverage is 87% and peak brightness is maximum 700-800 nits but that it not the full story. As you can see in the measurement section, the TV is closer to 600 nits for small bright segments, which is where film and game creators will most often use the higher brightness levels possible with the HDR standard – stars, lamps, small glowing objects, reflections etc. In reality, X900H (XH90) will typically deliver lower or comparable peak brightness to OLED TVs but not with nearly the same might and finesse."

ign.com: "The Sony X900H is full of potential. Colors are excellent, HDR highlights pop well...."

 

[averagedarren]

vikdean,

I am considering the very same TVs in a very similar setup and situation to yourself. The XH9505 seems to peak my interest the most even at 49". Have you tried emailing Richer Sounds and John Lewis? I'm currently trying to negotiate a 55" BX down to my budget of £900 with RS as they are keen to do a deal. If the 55" XH9505 was closer to my budget I'd have it already. Let me know which you seem to be drawn too more as I'll ask RS what kind of deal they could do on it.

Sorry for interrupting there and thanks.

 

[vikdean]

vikdean,

I am considering the very same TVs in a very similar setup and situation to yourself. The XH9505 seems to peak my interest the most even at 49". Have you tried emailing Richer Sounds and John Lewis? I'm currently trying to negotiate a 55" BX down to my budget of £900 with RS as they are keen to do a deal. If the 55" XH9505 was closer to my budget I'd have it already. Let me know which you seem to be drawn too more as I'll ask RS what kind of deal they could do on it.

Sorry for interrupting there and thanks.

Well, I'm a Hungarian, so a discount in the UK wouldn't mean a lot to me unfortunately.

 

[averagedarren]

Apologies I didn't realize this. I'm swaylng towards the LG BX as it seems the best for my needs as the XH9505 at 49" just doesn't cut it for its size alone

 

[Dodgexander]

I've read plenty of reviews about the XH9005/X900H but its still a tier down from the OLEDs like the BX. A lot better than say entry level TVs with HDR, but still problematic in many titles. If you watch titles that have highlights of beneath the peak brightness level it will be fine, but not if you don't.
The last line from flatpanelshd explains it well, an OLED unlike an LCD TV doesn't suffer from raised black levels, so the contrast between those light bits and dark bits in the image is much greater.

With an LCD TV like the X900H/XH9005 you lose that, but it may be fine in some titles, and if you are watching in a decently lit environment.

 

[vikdean]

I understand all that, but the price difference is 30%... and that's a lot. So we are not really talking about a level playing field.

So the bottom line is, the LG BX is marginally better then the X900H in HDR, but it cost 1/3 more. Which shouldn't affect my decision, but it kind of does, because the BX is a brand new TV, so I'm not sure if I can get any discount for it at all.

If I'm realistic it all comes down to the Samsung Q80T, Sony X900H or Sony X950G.

 

[Dodgexander]

It's not marginally better, its a lot better. When comparing two display technologies you're comparing different beasts. Per pixel dimming is something that makes highlights stand out a lot more on an OLED compared to an LCD TV. There's no problem with raised black levels due to poorer screen uniformity either.

If you want an LCD TV instead of an OLED, the Sony XH9505 or XG9505 is a much better option because it can a lot brighter. Those TVs also have dedicated picture processors that the XH9005 lacks.

The XH9005 does not get bright enough for HDR for an LCD TV. You may be okay in certain titles, but that is only because those titles are broken with around 600 nits peak brightness. Titles aim to reach 1000 nits, sometimes as much as 4000 or 10000 nits in mastering.

Here's an example of a 'fake HDR' with a low peak brightness. This will look just as good on the Sony XH9005 as the higher tier XH9505 since it has low peak highlights:

And here's an example of more of a true HDR release, you can see from the highlights in this movie that a lot of detail will be lost on a TV.

And you may be thinking: but the BX OLED doesn't reach these peak bright highlights either? Very true. But on the XH9005 you also miss out a lot of detail you'd otherwise have closer to black, and something I touched on above, per pixel dimming makes a big difference to the clarity of small highlights on an OLED. Not just that, Sony in general be it OLEDs or LCD TVs do not have dynamic tone mapping like LGs models do, so there's no way to compress that detail down on content that has high average nits. The result is watching a true HDR content on an LCD TV like the XH9005 with a max peak brightness of 750 nits when the average frame nit count of 500 like the matrix is you only get to enjoy minimal contrast between the very peak bright highlights of the content compared to the average.

With an OLED these titles can also be less impressive because of limited peak brightness, but a few things get them out of jail. The first is exclusive to LG and that is Dynamic Tone Mapping. You can tune the TV to fish out extra detail it would have otherwise lost from content with high nits and compress that dynamically down to the capabilities of the display. The second is per pixel dimming, the TV doesn't have to struggle to separate those light bits from dark like an LCD TV does, so the picture is also more defined. The third is that the detail close to black is a lot better on an OLED, so the contrast you notice in a scene with dark and light parts will be greater.

At the end of the day the info is available out there if you dig deep enough. There's a lot of misinformation and a lot of people who will review online by eye, without any experience or knowledge of how to compare a TV that has more capable HDR hardware, and one that doesn't.

You should purchase what is more suited to your own budget, your viewing conditions and what you value in picture quality. Its about what you think of the TV, not what I think of your TV. However don't go thinking that a TV like the XH9005 is only marginally worse than an OLED. Its not, I'd go as far as saying a TV like the BX is much, much better and most people would choose it even against higher tier LCD TVs like the Sony XH9505.

You should first decide on which technology is more suited to you though, because otherwise you end up going down a big rabbit hole comparing apples to oranges (of which I delved into somewhat in my reply). Its quite a simple decision. A TV like the Sony XH9005 is a good TV if you are not serious about HDR and you don't mind that it will look muted in true HDR content. If you use the TV usually with ambient lighting, you also won't mind so much the poorer uniformity of the TV.

On the other hand, if this is a TV that you want to enjoy with the lights off, or in dim viewing conditions and you want it to shine no matter the kind of content you throw at it, go for the BX.

If you someone who watches TV in brighter conditions and you want a TV to stand out and impress you with HDR in this conditions, neither the BX or XH9005 will be good enough, and you need to consider instead TVs like the Samsung Q90T/Sony XH9505 or even Hisense U8Q.

And about the Samsung Q80T, in Europe the story is much the same as the XH9005, it doesn't really get bright enough for proper HDR use. I think around 100 nits more than the Sony. It does however not have issues with 120hz input being blurry like the Sony has, and also has some useful gaming specific features other TVs lack like being able to use motion interpolation in game mode. Perhaps for a gamer who is also shopping on a limited budget, the Samsung is the better overall TV, but I'd recommend saving up longer and going for the Q90T instead if this is the case.

EDIT# XH9505 is just the 2020 version of the XG9505. Both TVs perform very similar, the XG9505 can get brighter and as a result has a worse uniformity, whilst the XH9505 can't get as bright, but has better uniformity. In my comments above, the XG9505 can be treated the equal of the newer XH9505.

 

[vikdean]

Thanks again for the detailed explanation
My "environment" is fairly dark, and I like to use blinds - emulating the movie theatre I suppose - so I don't really need a TV like the Q90T; that's actually more expensive then the BX... its almost at the price of a CX.

In Hungary the Sony XH950 is about the same price as the LG CX, so that's also ruled out.
I've just taken another look the Sony XG950; its 1340 €, which is crazy, because its almost 200 more then the newer model... (I've updated my first post accordingly.)

Well... lets see what Black Friday holds, maybe I get lucky with the BX...

 

[Dodgexander]

Please don't let my views change what you personally think. The TV you buy is for you, not me. If you feel you have a tight budget and you like the Sony XH9005 because you feel its best for you, go for it.

If the Sony XH9505 is the same price as the CX locally you have very different prices from the UK. TVs are overpriced now and Black Friday tends to be the first time the first good discounts hit, but sometimes it can be later in other sales too.

The Sony XG9505 is a 2019 model so is just as likely to sell out as it is to be discounted.

Regarding the CX, it gets a little brighter than the BX, so its also the slightly better overall TV. The cost increase though usually doesn't justify the extra though.

 

[vikdean]

Ever since I've started this "hunt" I've felt a pull toward OLED and the LG BX specifically. I guess I just needed some extra convincing
I've always wanted to experience it and it fits every parameter I've set - except the price, for now - so I'm looking for alternatives really, it case BF doesn't go my way. If it does, I'll buy the BX in a heartbeat.