Discussion in 'Sony TVs Forum' started by Phil Hinton, May 20, 2019.
Sony's MASTER Series ZG9 8K HDR Full Array LED TVs will be available from June.
Read the news.
It would be nice yo see the 85" screen size drop in price closer to current 75" high end TV sets.
Then I will show some interest.
Why are bigger sizes so much more expensive the technology is the same just a bigger screen
It would be great if Sony also offered this in a 75” as their XG95 is not a top-end competitor, so having a top 75” led would be great (and also compete with the Samsung q950rb)... and it needs to compete on price as well!
Well I have the Sony XE9405 75" and I have not seen anything yet that I would consider an upgrade in picture quality. A lot of 75" TV sets are around the £5000 price, so I find it totally stupid that a 10" jump in screen size costs £14,000 !!!
Fully agree - Sony’s offerings have failed to impress the last two years - the XE940 and ZD9 were great, but that was when they seem to have peaked.
Would love a 75” ZG9 for £6k - including the slight 8k premium - even though there’s no 8k content yet...
All xe94 and z9d owners sit tight and wait for something worth paying for
I'm not sure it's coming. Sony seem to be deliberately dumbing down their LCDs.
Yeah, sad isn’t it?
Those were awesome TVs... they deserve worthy successors, but I agree, I don’t think it’s coming...
I would include XE93 owners in that too.
I have just gone from a 55 to a 65 in the XE93 as nothing else was justifying its price or exciting me.
Unfortunately I cannot go bigger than 65 so hopefully Sony have something to offer moving forward.
Sitting tight until micro-LED @ 80-90" can be in my room for <£10k
Why even get your pants pulled down by buying a 8K tv. There’s hardly anything in native 4k!
Yeah, but maybe in 3 or 4 years when we don’t pay a significant premium over 4K anymore - if they cost the same, there’s no harm in going 8k. I’m just not willing to pay the premium at the moment though...
£14k for an led set is bonkers but the other one is nuts
still makes a JVC NX9 and a top level screen almost sensible money
how long before the "affordable" 100" OLED or equivalent screen technology hit the market? still looking at least several years away to me
I think prices will drop rapidly when nobody buys them
Totally agree with this . You only have to look at the price of an LG 77" OLED like the E7 or E7 when they first came out !!
I don't think vendors' sales projections are going to be particularly agressive on their $100k flagships.
They all do it, and have been doing it since forever. It's more like a "funded POC"... we're going to make this mega-set because of CES, headlines, and the halo effect... and because we can.
If someone wants one we can slap a price tag on it, and it's going to cost them dealy, but who are we to say no?
Way back when, in the old old times, I remember Sony showing off a ~60" CRT. There was a price tag on it and I recall 10yo me marvelling at the "so much I can't comprehend how much it is" number on it... $250k sticks in my head for some reason.
What I know about CRTs now suggests that they never actually sold any of them because it would be what's commonly referred to as a "death trap"...
EDIT: Further research would suggest it was 51" and Mitsubishi... still a death trap though.
Because it might become the standard and you might regret not getting it down the line
Armstrong and Miller Lettuce UpgradeWatch this video on YouTube
If we talk about size...
Half a year ago I purchased 12 Sony Bravia TVs at different sizes (our family is like the Kevin's from the movie "Home alone" - we live in a big house with lot of rooms for children, parents, grandparents, etc). Sizes: 5x55" OLED, 1x65" OLED, 3x65" LED and 3x75" LED. OLED model was AF8, and LED model XF90. Got a deal from Sony - the exact pricing by agreement is confidential but Sony showed so much interest that they managed to beat Samsung pricing in the TV tender (I live in EU where Sony has representative offices in most countries, that compete for larger tenders).
I thought for the main room 75" XF90 is a temporary solution, and my dream was to purchase 98" for the main room, because 85" would be too small improvement to change from 75", and the opening in furniture was made for 100" TV. Actually 98" is just 4x50" by size, and the resolution is exactly x4, so I was naïve expecting the cost around ~10k for 4x50" TV panels glued into one screen, + 5k for 8k processor, so price up to 15k would be reasonable for 98".
What I see now is that ONE big TV has a cost several times more than all 12 TVs, including 3x75". In city suburbs here, you could buy a house for the price of this 98" TV. These prices mean there is no technology for mass manufacturing at these sizes yet. Just custom builds of a few units at enormous pricing for those who can afford to support Sony R&D in exchange for this handmade gift from Sony. For those seen in the news who recently purchased a painting for $100 million, that looks to my (unprofessional in this area) eye very similar to $100 paintings I see in hotel rooms - maybe it is a good possibility to upgrade TV in the room for 0.1% of the cost of painting in the room. But even for them, the $0.1m TV set, contrary to the $100m painting, will be a cheap $5k priced legacy after ~3-4 years, with current tech. advances. For the moment, it is clear 75" remains the practical maximum for volume models. Hopefully 85" soon will get closer with pricing, but not this year.
After 6 months of AF8 and XF90 active use, here is my advice about size:
1. Its now clear it was too early for OLED. Their picture quality is the best, but the difference is too small compared to best LED TVs, while LED have huge advantage - SIZE. If $10k is an important amount for you, then its about price/performance, not only about top performance/quality at whatever price. For the same price, you can buy +10" larger top quality LED screen instead of buying smaller OLED. The OLED gives better blacks but room must stay in complete darkness to enjoy that, which is a rare case practically. In normal rooms with windows, XF90 larger by 10" than AF8 is MUCH more exciting product and all quests I had, after comparing 55" AF8 and 65" XF90, would select XF90, because its bigger and because it has LESS GLARE. OLED is more like a mirror and you will see reflections like windows or lamps behind, eyes refocus on reflections of children moving in the room, I see the lamp reflection if wife is reading the book while I am watching TV, etc. And that disturb viewing. In contrary, XF90 has blurred reflection (closer to matte PC monitor, while blacks due to local dimming are very good). I do not see objects in the room reflected on XF90 even on sunny days. Also, XF90 is so much brighter to watch with comfort in bright rooms, and on HDR video it becomes unbelievably bright. OLED brightness is limited and screen glare is not yet fully solved problem. Even for OLED acoustic surface, 10" larger TV has larger speakers and 75" sound quality from XF90 is comparable to sound quality from 65" OLED. So, 10" larger screen should be the first priority, if budgets are limited. Add to this that burn-in risk is not yet completely eliminated for current generations of OLED screens (not a practical problem, but you just cannot keep OLED TVs for a whole day with the aquarium video or with computer game), after owning AF8 and XF90 for half a year, it is clear that +10" larger XF90 is much better price/performance choice. 75" XF90 was the best mass produced Sony TV I ever seen (my previous TVs were last generation of Panasonic plasmas).
2. Picture quality is superb on all of them. Finally not worse than on plasmas. Sony excels with that.
3. Very different situation is in Sony attention to TV SW matters. They need serious changes in how they deliver SW. Its now 05/2019 and still no update to Android 8 is offered when I check for updates on TV, while the time is right to deliver Android 9 soon. And that is for very fresh TV models. It looks like they sell and then do not care enough (they care, but the result is clearly not good enough) to keep customers on latest and greatest OS version. In general, internal TV CPUs and flash/RAM specs are too weak compared to the price of TV. This means they will soon disappoint their customers by not releasing OS updates to keep TV apps running on modern OS because of too slow CPUs. I do not understand why so weak processors are used, why they are not using something at the level of AmLogic S922 or similar very powerful Android TV chipsets. The right chipset, extra RAM and flash would cost some +$30 more than weak chipsets - that is nothing compared to the ~3000 total price of TV.... it would be even more fun to discover after purchasing $100k TV that someone saved 20 dollars for CPU speed, and 10 dollars by keeping RAM/flash at the minimum, so such a monster goes out of disk space just after loading a few TV apps.
My neighbor bought cheap Philips Android TV and this TV upgraded itself to Android 8 with nice updated menus several months ago. Some users say the way to go would be just to buy screen with HDMI and then rely on STB for TV apps. But these STB boxes, their power supplies, all the wire clutter is so ugly compared to just TV only, especially when flat TV is nicely hanging on the wall - there is no space for boxes and power supplies, extra electrical sockets, etc. behind the TV, and most people do not like two remotes near one TV. So at least first 5-7 years I expect for expensive, high quality TVs to remain good enough to run TV apps, and that is not the case currently with Sony. $300 Android phone has x2 more memory and x4 more flash and much faster CPU than $3000 Bravia TV.
It seems for me that best investment for main 4K TV now would be 75" XF90 or later top LED version with mass production, before 75" OLED will come at similar pricing and with reduced glare. If you limit yourself to small OLED size because of budget limits, then just get +10" larger TV for the same price, that is very similar in picture quality (or even better, for bright rooms or gaming). As soon as I started to watch 4K content, 75" TV looks like medium sized TV, and 65" is too small to enjoy 4K, unless the room is very small. Its now clear my mistake 6 month ago was to buy TVs 10" smaller than it was possible with same budget and similar picture quality. With 4K, 65" is not too big even for a small bedroom, and 75" is a minimum size for a family room. I am sharing the info, so you can avoid it - do not buy too small 4K TVs, putting the accents on technical things that bring too small picture difference to care about that. And also, even the worst OLED TV is expensive, and will have a good quality. Yet you can find many LED screens with absolutely terrible quality. My advice to go for +10" LED size instead of OLED is only valid for very top quality LED TVs, starting from Sony XF90 or better. As we now see, the mass production top screen size remains at 75" for 2019 models.
I'd love to know how big most people's living's rooms are because there is no way I can fit a 65" into mine, let alone a 75"! lol Good advice with the rest though.
Have you thought about writing a book that is one long post
I think if you wall mount and have a decent sized wall then size is a bit irrelevant as 65" or 75" is not much more wall space taken up - stand mounting does take up more space I accept
I don't know about you, but I can't wait to watch a native 2K DI based 4K UHD on an a brand new 8K display
My parlour is 18'2" x 14'3" x 10'6", and my kitchen is 17' x 14'3" x 7'6". Both rooms are plenty big enough for a 75", and maybe in 2020 or 2021 I'll be getting a 85" or 88" to go into the parlour. The front bedroom, by way, is 11' square. And yes, the 65" Panasonic plasma looks bigger there than the Sony 75ZD9 looks in the parlour. However, because of the low ceiling in the kitchen, the 75" television there looks quite a bit bigger than the 75" television in the parlour.
I'm not sure there's a definitive "big enough", just personal preferences... my kitchen is 30x16' and I don't think I'd ever go larger than the 55" that's in there at the moment, and even then I got a Samsung Frame TV so when it's "off" it just blends in.
I feel the 65" in my kid's 12x11' playroom/den is a bit big, but then it was a leftover from an upgrade in another room, so it made little sense to take a bath on selling it and spend twice as much on something smaller.
Big is best because you soon get used to the size and wish you bought a bigger one
Exactly, if only the 85" had come in just under the 10k price point
Rethought your happiness at it being under 16K, I see.
Separate names with a comma.