spaceguy said: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Samsung+-+55%22+Class+-+LED+-+1080p+-+240Hz+-+Smart+-+3D+-+HDTV/2135045.p?id=1218310760434&skuId=2135045&st=Samsung D7000&cp=1&lp=1 LED by far is better. I Heard some talking about lag. Well where you using a high speed HDMI that cost about hundred bucks or did you cheap out because this well make all the difference. I own this tv and have not seen any tv look or play better. Plasma is junk and if you want to buy a product that dies rather quick, then I would go that route. I would say you pay for what you get. If you don't use the right cords with what you buy, your tv will look like sh-t. I have had no lag issues Accept when I forgot to change over the HDMI to the better I had bought. This is a great tv and I would stick with 240Hz. |
I'm going to ignore what you said in regards to LED vs Plasma, I have a few more pages of comments to read through and I'm sure people have already torn you to shreds for saying something so stupid. I just want to say that cable quality does not matter, some make break easier than others and may not fit the port as well, but it's a digital signal, it either looks as good as it will get or you have a blank screen.
EDIT: Just read your last comment, I don't know what to say. I can't believe that you are being so rude and telling people that they have no idea what they are talking about when in fact YOU are the one who is wrong. A digital signal is a digital signal, that is "FACT". Why do you always have to bring up price as well and brag about how expensive your TV is? How old are you?
Baalzamon said: *Awaits incoming rage*
I personally think my $350 40" Dynex TV looks pretty amazing (I was blown away with Star Wars in Blu Ray). Maybe it is just because I'm a college kid, but I cannot justify spending incredibly more than that for TV's that look a tiny bit better.
You should really make sure spending a ton is really even the option you want to take. If you spend $500 on a TV that goes out in 2 years, just remember that rather than the original $1,000 TV, you could probably buy another $500 TV that looks better than the original $1,000 one. |
Not rage, just a word of warning. Cheap and unbranded TV's are very risky, some of my friends have had TV's like that and they have been awful. Blacks appear more like grey, the gamma is all over the place, they have terrible backlight bleed, colours are all over the place and there aren't even options in the menu to change the colour temperature or white balance. One of my friends had the worst TV I had ever seen, it was just as expensive as an entry level Samsung LCD of the same size, it was advertised as 1080p when it was actually 1024 x 768 in a 16:9 aspect ratio and the worst thing was he bought it in Comet and one of the shop assistants actually recommended it. He eventually sold the TV to me for a cheap price and I sold the TV soon after even cheaper.
In the end you got what you pay for, I will always go for a popular TV with a well known brand and I will look up reviews online first. I agree about not spending a ton though, my Samsung LCD was very cheap and its picture quality is perfect, almost indistinguishable to my friends high end plasma. You definitely shouldn't be buying a decent TV if you aren't going to calibrate it and buy a sound system to match the picture quality, why buy a high end TV and leave it at basic settings when you can buy another TV for half the price, do a basic calibration and get a far better image.