Vicarious_Eyes
Established Member
I am in the market for a 65" OLED, under £2k. My main options appear to be thus: Panasonic HZ980, Sony A8H, LG CX, or Phillips 805. Upgrading from a Panasonic 50GT60 plasma, which will be re-purposed elsewhere in the house.
Sources: Freeview, Netflix, Now TV, Blu Ray (1080p), Xbox Series X.
All fed through a Marantz SR6012, which I have recently acquired second hand and have no plans to replace.
Viewing wise, when not enduring CBeebies, we watch mostly Netflix and Freeview (HD where possible, though it's amazing how little HD content there is on Freeview, even after all these years). Nature docs (any Attenborough content) and sport - football, NFL, motorsport - all feature heavily in my viewing, so decent motion handling is required.
This recent bout of upgradeitis (SR6012, XSX) has come about with no real succession plan and I am only now learning of HDMI 2.1. Of course, the Series X will require this tech to fully exploit its capabilities, but none of my other sources support it and the SR6012 will not be compatible. Also, there's the minor issue of HDMI 2.0 cables in walls, which would be a PITA to replace.
So the crunch question, do I really need HDMI 2.1? I've never been an early adopter of tech, always preferring to wait for standards to settle. This Series X is probably the first console I've ever bought within about 2 years of release! I never bought a One, so this console has been an upgrade from a 360.
On the face of it, the LG seems the lowest spec TV for general viewing and motion may be a concern, but supports 2.1 for gaming, but this would require upgrades to the equipment train. The Panasonic and Sony are considered superior for movies/ TV, but lack 2.1. The Sony lacking even in terms of low latency for gaming (which the Panasonic at least has), but is well regarded for motion. The Panasonic feels like a good compromise between the two. I haven't given the Philips much attention but it's in the same price bracket so worth consideration.
As a bit of a Panasonic fanboy from the plasma days, I'm leaning that way, but any advice is more than welcome.
Sources: Freeview, Netflix, Now TV, Blu Ray (1080p), Xbox Series X.
All fed through a Marantz SR6012, which I have recently acquired second hand and have no plans to replace.
Viewing wise, when not enduring CBeebies, we watch mostly Netflix and Freeview (HD where possible, though it's amazing how little HD content there is on Freeview, even after all these years). Nature docs (any Attenborough content) and sport - football, NFL, motorsport - all feature heavily in my viewing, so decent motion handling is required.
This recent bout of upgradeitis (SR6012, XSX) has come about with no real succession plan and I am only now learning of HDMI 2.1. Of course, the Series X will require this tech to fully exploit its capabilities, but none of my other sources support it and the SR6012 will not be compatible. Also, there's the minor issue of HDMI 2.0 cables in walls, which would be a PITA to replace.
So the crunch question, do I really need HDMI 2.1? I've never been an early adopter of tech, always preferring to wait for standards to settle. This Series X is probably the first console I've ever bought within about 2 years of release! I never bought a One, so this console has been an upgrade from a 360.
On the face of it, the LG seems the lowest spec TV for general viewing and motion may be a concern, but supports 2.1 for gaming, but this would require upgrades to the equipment train. The Panasonic and Sony are considered superior for movies/ TV, but lack 2.1. The Sony lacking even in terms of low latency for gaming (which the Panasonic at least has), but is well regarded for motion. The Panasonic feels like a good compromise between the two. I haven't given the Philips much attention but it's in the same price bracket so worth consideration.
As a bit of a Panasonic fanboy from the plasma days, I'm leaning that way, but any advice is more than welcome.