Which LCD to buy? (not samsung!)

[stickmonster]

hi

I am returning a Samsung LE26R41B. I seem to be in a minority but I just wasn't happy with the picture quality, skin tones especially poor. It was nowhere near as good as the old CRT it was replacing...

can anyone advise on a better (non-CRT) alternative? £800 is my top limit.

many thanks

 

[Vallyboy]

hi

I am returning a Samsung LE26R41B. I seem to be in a minority but I just wasn't happy with the picture quality, skin tones especially poor. It was nowhere near as good as the old CRT it was replacing...

can anyone advise on a better (non-CRT) alternative? £800 is my top limit.

many thanks

I have recently had the 32" Sammy and for the first few days had my doubts, but as time has gone on it looks better and better to me. Not sure if it is my brain or the LCD that has bedded in.

For the first couple of days I kept fiddling with the (too many ? ) adjustments that can be made and I was not watching TV, I was watching the image all the time. It would swap to a scene and I would think "that looks crap, perhaps if I alter this or that".... I now just watch the damn thing, I hate the skin tones on BBC breakfast but when they go to an outside broadcast the picture is wonderful, some you win some you lose.

As it stands now I am very happy with it, I feel it as good as it gets for the money, and my guess if you want a LCD that compares on picture quality with a CRT you will have to pay a lot more than £800, and then in certain regards it will not be as good.

 

[CYMRAES]

I have had my Toshiba 32WLT58 for just over a week, (I know it's over your budget but I got it through freemans 25% off plus I get 10% cashback as well) and just as it had tuned in I was amazed with the picture DTV and sky. I too was fiddling about with settings, trying to get the skintoes right and the backlight, contrast etc Just like Valleyboy, I wasn't really watching the tv for first few days.

The strange thing is the picture quality has got even better - I don't know if LCD's take time to settle and improve as time goes on. At first I thought I was imagining it, but I am certain that there is a difference.

I am very happy with it, I can't even tell whether I am watching sky or DTV as the quality of both are excellent.

 

[blakey1]

If SD is more important to you than HD I would consider the Sharp P50e. This set gives a SD picture which is superior than the vast majority of HD ready sets. Its HD picture will also compare to the majority of HD sets at the size you are considering even though it is not hd ready. Most who have seen it running HD have confirmed this. You can pick one up for about £550. You can also pick up the 32inch version for £699

In my opinion the Sharp has the best positive to negative feedback of any LCD on the forum.

 

[mhifoe]

For the first couple of days I kept fiddling with the (too many ? ) adjustments that can be made and I was not watching TV, I was watching the image all the time. It would swap to a scene and I would think "that looks crap, perhaps if I alter this or that".... I now just watch the damn thing, I hate the skin tones on BBC breakfast but when they go to an outside broadcast the picture is wonderful, some you win some you lose.

It's interesting that you mention BBC Breakfast, as I thought the same thing about the picture on my new LCD.

However, yesterday I decided to take a critical look at BBC breakfast on the CRT in the bedroom. It looked absolutely shocking, Dermot looked like he had been tangoed and the whole picture was washed out and lacking in contrast.

I think it comes down to LCD's showing up poor pictures. By contrast, most other channels look excellent, Five in particular.

 

[msephton]

Interesting to read this thread as I've just posted a thread about the upscaling problems on the Samsung.

I'll look into the Sharp

matt

 

[stickmonster]

thanks to all for the comments.

Its been a similar path for me - sometimes I think wow it looks great, others it's just awful, and it does to some extent depend on the channel being viewed.

this theory about LCD's needing to 'bed in' - does anyone have a technical opinion on this?

thanks again

 

[David Mackenzie]

can anyone advise on a better (non-CRT) alternative? £800 is my top limit.

You're going to have to spend more money if you want Standard Definition TV to look good. I recommend the Sony BRAVIA V-series stuff myself.

skin tones especially poor.

Everything looked too green and had a sort of sickly/greyish look, right? One of the reasons I returned mine.

I don't have an opinion on "bedding in" myself yet. But, I'm getting a new Sony Bravia soon so I'll keep an eye out.

 

[TEVEZ032]

if you've got 800 quid, get an LE26M51B, I wouldn't bother with the R series personally. I've got the 'M' series and the picture is superb.

I also spent a week fiddling with the Picture settings and couldn't get it looking how I wanted it. I then went to the menu and set it to 'Standard' and voila! I am 100% totally happy with the PQ on all sources. The freeview via RGB is particularly good.

g

 

[Vallyboy]

thanks to all for the comments.

this theory about LCD's needing to 'bed in' - does anyone have a technical opinion on this?

thanks again

I tend to the opinion that it is a load of sphericals myself, sorry to be so technical.

My set undoubtedly looks better than the day I had it, I have altered things to suite me after all. I am not so critical as I said I now watch the damn thing, and I have has a good look at a CRT picture and some of them are not so hot, so I think that it is I that has bedded in. .
Who doesn't unpack their first expensive LCD and spend the next few days being as critical as hell ?


I think it is vital to get the viewing distance right, for me with a 32", 2 metres is the closest, get close and yep, the picture is crap, and it ain't that clever with CRT either.

I have no doubt that sets a few hundred pound more can be better but on the performance of mine I cannot believe it would be more than a marginal improvement in picture quality, maybe they can make crap feeds look better but I know when mine has a good feed it compares well with my old CRT.

 

[WillBowling]

i speak to people all day who have similar issues to you. lcd tv's do not look the same as crt's. the response time will not approach that of a crt for a long time and the image is a very good representation of what is being fed into the tv (if you're using analogue aerial or sky/cable then not very good). if your tv can give you a good image from a dvd (which i'm sure yours can) then the tv is probably working well. analogue tv, which is the model you have, is not a good signal source and without a good signal strength and no interferance (ie. good quality rf cable from roof aerial all the way to the tv, not splitting signal to other devices/tv's and ensuring rf is not interfered with by seperating aerial cable in room from other wires etc) you will not get a good pic on an lcd. dtv is a better option if you get a decent digital Set Top Box, have good signal strength with low bit error level, use a half decent scart cable and set output to rgb. the image from a digital stb or anologue source on an LCD will not match the sharpness you see on a crt until the technology has improved quite a lot but the vibrancy and warmth of the pic will be better. this is how they are. LCD and plasma technology is getting better and if you were able to connect your tv to a hd source then you would see the quality of pic attainable with this tv. your problem is not the tv, it is what you are feeding it. some advice - if you have a good signal quality then turn off digital noise reduction (DNR) and make sure colour weekness is off unless you have deficient sight which requires it.

In the end a lot of viewing product satisfaction comes down to personal preferance and only you can choose what you want.

 

[WillBowling]

oh and as regards the "bedding in period" i agree 100% with valleyboy

I tend to the opinion that it is a load of sphericals myself, sorry to be so technical.

My set undoubtedly looks better than the day I had it, I have altered things to suite me after all. I am not so critical as I said I now watch the damn thing, and I have has a good look at a CRT picture and some of them are not so hot, so I think that it is I that has bedded in. .
Who doesn't unpack their first expensive LCD and spend the next few days being as critical as hell ?


I think it is vital to get the viewing distance right, for me with a 32", 2 metres is the closest, get close and yep, the picture is crap, and it ain't that clever with CRT either.

I have no doubt that sets a few hundred pound more can be better but on the performance of mine I cannot believe it would be more than a marginal improvement in picture quality, maybe they can make crap feeds look better but I know when mine has a good feed it compares well with my old CRT.

this is the absolute truth of it!

 

[David Mackenzie]

Who doesn't unpack their first expensive LCD and spend the next few days being as critical as hell ?

Me, I unpack the expensive LCD and spend the next few decades being as critical as hell