Recommend me a smart TV

neilmcl

EveryWhere wrote: »

I still don't know why you are still writing to me about 32" TVs....and further dulling my senses with "normal TV". What has 'normal TV' to do with anything??

I wrote specifically about 4k and superior media. From their digital cameras, phones, downloaded material, NetFlix etc There is a lot of it out there and it will continue to increase. it's not going to go backwards.

So just like mobile phones have increasingly high resolution screens to get the best out of the aforementioned, it makes sense to try to do the same with your TV if it is within budget.

So now please, stop bothering me with your totally out of date opinions.

I wont any further as you clearly don't get the point.

EveryWhere

neilmcl wrote: »

Because you're the one suggesting getting a 4K TV, when the OP has specifically stated they're looking for a 32" TV. I merely pointed out that for the OP's stated requirement a 4K would be wasted on a 32" screen for TV use, so I don't see why you seem to have taken an affront. He hasn't said what he had before or where and how they intend using it. For example, a 32" sits perfectly as my bedroom TV, anything else would be overbearing, and not everyone wants a large screen TV dominating what could be a smaller sized living room.

Completely different argument and in the same way I wouldn't argue against using a 4K monitor for computer use. The scientific evidence is quite clear and unequivocal, for normal TV use the human eye will simply not be able to resolve the extra detail on a 32" screen showing 4K content, not unless you're sitting right in front of it. There's a very good reason why there are no 4K 32" TV's manufactured today (apart from one rare example Rumrat has linked to above).

I still don't know why you are still writing to me about 32" TVs....and further dulling my senses with "normal TV". What has 'normal TV' to do with anything??

I wrote specifically about 4k and superior media. From their digital cameras, phones, downloaded material, NetFlix etc There is a lot of it out there and it will continue to increase. It's not going to go backwards.

So just like mobile phones have increasingly high resolution screens to get the best out of the aforementioned, it makes sense to try to do the same with your TV if it is within budget.

So now please, stop bothering me with your totally out of date opinions. It's not a completely different argument. It is exactly the same thing. People use their phones in much the same way they use their TV these days.
In the past, it was quite different. Now no one wants to cast high quality media from their phone, only to see it much degraded on their TV.
Do you really imagine that I don't get your point? I just wholly disagree with it.

coffeehound

EveryWhere wrote: »

That makes no sense, in this case. Since the OP is willing to pay £240 for a 32" Full HD TV, when in fact you can get a 43" 4k TV at the same price.

It was the general statement you made that I was commenting on.

With regards to the OP's question: if indeed a *good* 43" 4k can be got for the same price as a 32" HD of the same quality, then yes I agree with you that it's worth letting the OP know, in case they want to consider a larger screen. Otherwise, suggesting to him the best deals that meet his stated criteria makes sense.

EveryWhere wrote: »

Really helps to engage brain before pressing that Submit Reply button.

Cheap ad-hominems? Really? Can you not just be civil?

EveryWhere wrote: »

So no, it doesn't make sense to pay the same price for old tech.

No it doesn't usually make sense to pay the same for older products if there's a better newer equivalent. There can be instances where the older version has something going for it that the newer one doesn't though, of course: Better build, features, simplicity, reliability, what have you.

EveryWhere wrote: »

That argument only holds true if the old tech is much cheaper.

As indeed older technology almost always is.

EveryWhere

coffeehound wrote: »

It was the general statement you made that I was commenting on.

With regards to the OP's question: if indeed a *good* 43" 4k can be got for the same price as a 32" HD of the same quality, then yes I agree with you that it's worth letting the OP know, in case they want to consider a larger screen. Otherwise, suggesting to him the best deals that meet his stated criteria makes sense.


Cheap ad-hominems? Really? Can you not just be civil?



No it doesn't usually make sense to pay the same for older products if there's a better newer equivalent. There can be instances where the older version has something going for it that the newer one doesn't though, of course: Better build, features, simplicity, reliability, what have you.

As indeed older technology almost always is.

So recommend a model to the OP. I'm not interested in any off topic rambling. So haven't read, nor will respond to anything else..

almillar

To distill the good advice that everyone is arguing over even without any more input from OP.


OP has asked for 32 inch. This is small, these days. Maybe OP doesn't want, or can't fit any bigger. But we don't know. And as has been pointed out, the frame (bezel) around modern TVs is smaller, and you can fit a bigger screen into the same space. Measure the space to see if you can go bigger.
32" TVs are at the cheap end, you'll be getting old tech (possibly out of date Smart kit), and certainly not 4K, not that you'll need it.
EveryWhere puts it well, if not that politely, that OP can do better than a £230 32 inch TV, for the same money.

EveryWhere

almillar wrote: »

To distill the good advice that everyone is arguing over even without any more input from OP.


OP has asked for 32 inch. This is small, these days. Maybe OP doesn't want, or can't fit any bigger. But we don't know. And as has been pointed out, the frame (bezel) around modern TVs is smaller, and you can fit a bigger screen into the same space. Measure the space to see if you can go bigger.
32" TVs are at the cheap end, you'll be getting old tech (possibly out of date Smart kit), and certainly not 4K, not that you'll need it.
EveryWhere puts it well, if not that politely, that OP can do better than a £230 32 inch TV, for the same money.

The only thing with which I disagree.:) I did put it politely, to the OP. I just have no interest in arguing the point, uselessly, with others.
I made my point and that's it. OP can read and decide for himself.

assassin87

it's rather hard to find true 1080p in a 32" smart tv. i think samsung is the only brand i know of that offers true 1080 in that range. the best bet is to go for a 40 incher. Sharp LC-40LB601U, Sony W650D 1080p and TCL 40S325 1080p are some of the better options

letsbehonest

My Choice is Panasonic because we have one, It's a 40 inch smart tv with a 1080 Pi panel the picture quality is superb, no need for 4K. It's got all the bells and whistles, but we don't use many of them. It also has built in Free Sat just connect up to your existing dish if you have one.

longwalks1

Hi all


quick update, we were after a smart TV so we could watch a couple of steaming websites we use, but was suggested Google Chromecast so gave it a try and can watch what we want on our older TV streamed from our iphone ot tablet


Thanks all though, will keep your recommendations in mind should we need a new TV in the future

sal_III

My personal issue with Chromecast is that it only supports limited amount of apps and you always have to control it from phone/tablet/PC. At it's introduction this downside was offset by the low price, but that's no longer the case, when you can get Amazon fire stick or Roku for the same price if not cheaper with dedicated apps and you can drive them from the TV remote or their dedicated one.