Replacement TV

Takmon

melbury wrote: »

After much researching, finally bit the bullet and purchased this TV from John Lewis:

Sony Bravia KDL43WF663 LED HDR Full HD 1080p Smart TV, 43" with Freeview Play & Cable Management, Black

Our broadband is not good enough for a 4K TV, so decided to go for the 1080 option.

As the TV has built in wifi does that mean I will get better performance than using the firestick (which has been misbehaving a bit lately)?

I think your going to end up regretting going for the cheap bottom range option in years to come considering that you kept your last TV for 12 years.

As another poster said you may not be able to stream 4K with your current broadband speed but you can certainly download it to watch. Also you will probably be able to get a faster connection in the future.

I just don't understand why you would go for the cheap rubbish option when you will probably spend thousands of hours looking at it over the next 10+ years. Seem a bit pointless you asking for advice on here in the first place.

EveryWhere

Takmon wrote: »

I think your going to end up regretting going for the cheap bottom range option in years to come considering that you kept your last TV for 12 years.

As another poster said you may not be able to stream 4K with your current broadband speed but you can certainly download it to watch. Also you will probably be able to get a faster connection in the future.

I just don't understand why you would go for the cheap rubbish option when you will probably spend thousands of hours looking at it over the next 10+ years. Seem a bit pointless you asking for advice on here in the first place.

I would not go as far as calling it a "cheap rubbish option". It's not bad. It was just not a forward thinking approach. Made worse by the fact that a 4k TV can be purchased for much the same price. Including her husband's favourite; https://www.johnlewis.com/panasonic-tx-43gx550b-2019-led-hdr-4k-ultra-hd-smart-tv-43-inch-with-freeview-play-black/p4287589
Unlike buying a laptop with an old tech HDD, where at least you can swap the HDD for an SSD to update it, they will be stuck with that spec for the rest of it's life.
Added to that, the request was for 47/49 inch, but they settled for 43".

Let's put it into perspective. My laptops and mobile phones now have Full HD screens; 1920 X 1080 dots/pixels on the screen. Screen sizes from 6" for phones to 12.5" for laptops.
2,457,600 dots in total.
Their TV screen is 43". So the same amount of dots as those relative tiny screens.
So the dots will be much bigger making the possible level of detail lesser.

A 4k TV has either 3840 x 2160 pixels(8,294,400) or 4096 x 2160 pixels(8,847,360).

A lot more detail available.

Whilst the OP might think that broadband speed is important, look at it another way.

Look at your old digital camera. Ten years ago you could purchase a 10 MP model. A typical pixel count from such a camera would be 3664 x 2748p.

So ten years later, you would be able to view those picture in the quality they were meant to be seen, on a 4k TV.

Internet speed was but one aspect.

custardy

Agreed. Seems a strange buying choice.

Also going 43". A 12 year old plasma will have big bezels.
We slotted a 55" 4K into the space the old 50" plasma sat in.

melbury

Takmon wrote: »

I think your going to end up regretting going for the cheap bottom range option in years to come considering that you kept your last TV for 12 years.

As another poster said you may not be able to stream 4K with your current broadband speed but you can certainly download it to watch. Also you will probably be able to get a faster connection in the future.

I just don't understand why you would go for the cheap rubbish option when you will probably spend thousands of hours looking at it over the next 10+ years. Seem a bit pointless you asking for advice on here in the first place.

Well it has got excellent reviews on the John Lewis website and to be honest as long as it has a nice clear picture and we can connect to the various apps, that is really all we are bothered about.

The screen size is six inches bigger than our existing one and I still find that fairly big.

We grew up with grainy old b&w TV's that you had to often thump on top to steady the horizontal hold, so are very easily pleased:)

melbury

Tahlullah wrote: »

I think he means plug in a cable to the router rather than relying on wifi

Trouble is the router is on the upstairs landing by my desktop computer, so plugged in upstairs.

melbury

Takmon wrote: »

I think your going to end up regretting going for the cheap bottom range option in years to come considering that you kept your last TV for 12 years.

As another poster said you may not be able to stream 4K with your current broadband speed but you can certainly download it to watch. Also you will probably be able to get a faster connection in the future.

I just don't understand why you would go for the cheap rubbish option when you will probably spend thousands of hours looking at it over the next 10+ years. Seem a bit pointless you asking for advice on here in the first place.

I can't understand why you think it is cheap rubbish; the Sony Bravia has excellent reviews and Sony is a very good make.

The reason I avoided buying a Panasonic again is because somebody posted that they are not a patch on what they used to be in terms of quality, otherwise we would have probably just got another of those:(

Neil_Jones

melbury wrote: »

The reason I avoided buying a Panasonic again is because somebody posted that they are not a patch on what they used to be in terms of quality, otherwise we would have probably just got another of those:(

Take all user reviews with a pinch of salts because anything that can be reviewed will almost always attract more negative than positive comments.

And anyway if we all based our buying decisions based on user reviews nobody would ever buy anything.

EveryWhere

melbury wrote: »

I can't understand why you think it is cheap rubbish; the Sony Bravia has excellent reviews and Sony is a very good make.

The reason I avoided buying a Panasonic again is because somebody posted that they are not a patch on what they used to be in terms of quality, otherwise we would have probably just got another of those:(

Panasonic was not your only choice. I only linked to it because you stated that it was your husband's former choice.

The Sony isn't cheap rubbish, but that isn't the point. Perhaps it just wasn't impressed upon you that 4k would be the way to go, even for viewing your holiday pics.

Takmon

melbury wrote: »

Well it has got excellent reviews on the John Lewis website and to be honest as long as it has a nice clear picture and we can connect to the various apps, that is really all we are bothered about.

The screen size is six inches bigger than our existing one and I still find that fairly big.

We grew up with grainy old b&w TV's that you had to often thump on top to steady the horizontal hold, so are very easily pleased:)

melbury wrote: »

I can't understand why you think it is cheap rubbish; the Sony Bravia has excellent reviews and Sony is a very good make.

"cheap rubbish" may have a been a bit too flippant of a comment but i meant it as it being the very bottom of the range when it comes to current TV's.

The biggest problem is that it is only 1080P (Full HD). 4K has 4 times the resolution of Full HD so right away you could have got a TV with effectively a 4 times better picture for not much more money. Your also someone who keeps a TV for an extended period plus you probably use the TV everyday so getting something that is future proofed would have been a worthwhile investment.

I just think it's a shame you ignored the advice on here and ended up getting poor value for money.

RumRat

The TV was sourced from JL, so the OP could just return it in exchange for a 4K if he wanted to. However, he seems happy with his choice and that's all that matters really.