which is the best value lcd tv

Paulinuk

best buy a led tv others are out of date

donnajunkie

paulinuk wrote: »

best buy a led tv others are out of date

yes but can you get a good led tv for their budget of 5 to 6 hundred pounds?

Fifer

paulinuk wrote: »

best buy a led tv others are out of date

Not really. The only LED TVs are actually LCDs with LED backlights and most are edge backlit which provides little advantage other than a thinner TV. And the budget precludes any LED backlit models I'm aware of.

Jake'sGran

sebastianj wrote: »

Thanks for the links, I am checking up on these, Sony looks the best not sure if it is 100 or 200 refresh rate.
seb

I have always rated Sony highly and if AlienRik recommends one of theirs I'd go with that as he is very knowledgeable. But, this laptop is Sony and it's too clever by far, same as my digital camera. Sony are not good with instructions I've found but these are minor issues to many people I assume. I too am after a new modern TV but will miss being able to record on tape which is something I do a lot. I didn't want to finish up with two new pieces of equipment.

aliEnRIK

paulinuk wrote: »

best buy a led tv others are out of date

oh well, id better sell my Pioneer Plasma then.................

MX5huggy

I've got the 32" version of this http://www.richersounds.com/product/lcd-tv/hitachi/ut42mx70/hita-ut42mx70

And it is brill, its a screen not a TV so you have to have a source I have a HUMAX freesat HDR.

But as all TV come with free view tuners that won't do HD when it is launched on freeview I don't really think it is a problem.

crampo_2

donnajunkie wrote: »

they did a hd camcorder comparison and all 3 camcorders were rubbish and yet they were describing them as good. surely most people realise that you have to pay at least £400 to get a decent hd camcorder at the moment.
so basically this tv show stinks.

Although Yes this is true that you would have to spend £400 or more to get a least a decent camera , what they were doing , was comparing the cheapest HD cameras ones £200 and less. basically getting as much as possible for a little as possible. As the statement goes "you get what you pay for" and you will get something that will last 6 months and you'll have problems. Where as if you go all out and pay for a half decent one, it will last you alot longer etc. As the economic climate is at the moment it would be short sighted of a show to do comparison of HD cameras that were £600+ ,they feature items that are £500 and under to entice the public to go out and buy it because its "affordable", when they say you can have this HD camcorder for £200, people think "Only £200 for all that , thats a bargin". Although i didnt agree really with the time and money wasted in testing the camcorders , why they couldn't do the first scene and use all three camcorders , i don't know.

donnajunkie

crampo wrote: »

Although Yes this is true that you would have to spend £400 or more to get a least a decent camera , what they were doing , was comparing the cheapest HD cameras ones £200 and less. basically getting as much as possible for a little as possible. As the statement goes "you get what you pay for" and you will get something that will last 6 months and you'll have problems. Where as if you go all out and pay for a half decent one, it will last you alot longer etc. As the economic climate is at the moment it would be short sighted of a show to do comparison of HD cameras that were £600+ ,they feature items that are £500 and under to entice the public to go out and buy it because its "affordable", when they say you can have this HD camcorder for £200, people think "Only £200 for all that , thats a bargin". Although i didnt agree really with the time and money wasted in testing the camcorders , why they couldn't do the first scene and use all three camcorders , i don't know.

while they did say we are testing cheap hd camcorders overall it did potentially give the impression to some people that they were good hd camcorders. i dont just mean in terms of how long they last but also performance and features. what they really should have been saying is dont touch a cheap hd camcorder with a barge pole as they arent upto standard and if you are on a budget buy a mini dv camcorder instead. as they didnt do that there will be people going out and buying one of those featured getting it home and thinking what a waste of money.

sebastianj

MX5huggy wrote: »

I've got the 32" version of this http://www.richersounds.com/product/lcd-tv/hitachi/ut42mx70/hita-ut42mx70

And it is brill, its a screen not a TV so you have to have a source I have a HUMAX freesat HDR.

But as all TV come with free view tuners that won't do HD when it is launched on freeview I don't really think it is a problem.

Sounds interesting, why should any one buy a TV? We have to use sources such
as Sky, Cable and other free view boxes, so can one just do with a screen? Is
it cheaper?
seb

MX5huggy

That was my buying process, I was not going use freeview so why pay for a TV that does freeview, if I want freeview in the future it would cost about £30 for a box.

The best thing is how thin this screen is 35mm.

the limiting factor is only 1 hdmi in and one RGB in but hdmi spliters are cheep or you could get an av reciver. There is no scart, the only current device that I can think this would be a problem for is a wii but you can get SCART to hdmi converters.

When I asked on here about the 32" version there was some miss information, it does have speakers (they are fine but as always external speakers would be better). And a remote but as it is not a TV it only does on and off volume and screen control options, and I was able to programme the humax remote to do all that.

Richersound have one other 42" thats £10 cheeper but not in stock. You can find cheepeer but as always its about value, not just price.

A bigger debate of this here