 |
 |
LCD Fanatics
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2008
Status:
Offline
|
|
Consider price of no issue:
which of the three HD LCDs would you choose?
1.) Samsung LN52A650 52 inch 1080p Flat Panel 120Hz LCD HDTV
2.) Sharp AQUOS LC52D92U 52 inch 1080p Flat Panel 120Hz LCD HDTV
3.) LG 52LG70 52 inch 1080p Flat Panel 120Hz LCD HDTV
***ALSO.
List your 2nd choice pick, along with whether it's "about equivalent" or "by far 2nd choice"
because Price may eventually come into play. 
Thanks in advance...
P.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status:
Offline
|
|
When it comes to display purchases, I think there's no substitute for seeing the displays in-store. I have seen some expensive, name brand displays that look like crap in person. Perhaps they weren't setup properly, but you really can't tell by brand. Reviews can help, but I still want to see the quality for myself.
|
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status:
Offline
|
|
Samsung, hands down, don't even bother to do an eyeball comparison.
That's what you do to duke it out between the Sharp and the LG if the Samsung is too expensive. 
greg
|
|
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Status:
Offline
|
|
LG does not have a stellar record for displays and their customer support (at least in Canada) is piss poor. Definitely Samsung first, but don't rule out Sony. The Sharps have had a long standing banding issue.
If you want more info about any LCD display than anybody needs to know, try the AVS Forum.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status:
Offline
|
|
LG over Samsung?! Good god. 
greg
|
|
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Status:
Offline
|
|
My thoughts exactly 
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hayesk
|
|
Sharp always looked best to me for HD and SD content. Do an eyeball comparison, people like different characteristics of displays. Some like saturated colours, some like more "realistic" colours, some like the scaling algorithm in one TV vs another, etc. It's subjective.
For build quality, I'd be happy with any of the three.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Status:
Offline
|
|
I agree about Sharp looking good, but with their persistent colour banding issues, I cannot consider them.
IMO, Sony probably has the best LCDs going right now with Samsung a close second.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status:
Offline
|
|
It's funny that I've always been disappointed by Sony display quality.
|
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Status:
Offline
|
|
The early Sony LCDs were junk. The later ones, especially the XBR9 series are very good.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Status:
Offline
|
|
Funny that the cheaper Samsung is rated higher than the more expensive one... I'd take Consumers Reports' reviews with a grain of salt. Do you own research first.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top