Topic: 4k TV Recommendations

@Octane I nearly did the same, but I'll wait for the higher spec ones to come down in price.

@JimbobLink I was actually looking for a second (perhaps used) HD TV, just something cheap. But I came across this one, and the price is very reasonable. It doesn't have all the bits ans bobs like PVR I believe, but I can live without that as I rarely watch TV anyway.

How far has TV tech come since I got my KS7000 then? I got it in October 16 (time flies) and I like it, but I'm thinking about upgrading next year.

Has there been significant developments?

@kyleforrester87 Apart from tangible holograms and instant pizza delivery, not a whole lot.

@Octane good to know, although you've no idea how awesome instant pizza delivery through my TV would have been on Saturday night. Long story, but in the end we had to walk to Nando's.

But, as far as upgrading goes, I would prefer to do it while my current set is still worth something, so I'm hoping by year 3 there is a tangible reason to upgrade again.

@kyleforrester87 I'm certain @BAMozzy can tell you more! I can only make attempts at silly jokes

@Octane silly jokes are what I come here for, really.

To be honest - not that far!! Next year is looking like it will be the 'big' year for TV's - mostly because of the potential of HDMI 2.1. OLEDs aren't looking any brighter but in 2017 they fixed the near black crushing and LEDs are not much brighter either. The biggest change really is coming from features like HLG and HDR10+ (Dynamic Metadata HDR10 - but only Amazon has any content). The big feature this year looks to be the inter-connected devices - like linking your TV to your Washing Machine, Fridge, Alexa/Google etc.

Samsung still look to have the widest colour range and colour volume but whether they can be the brightest (Currently the ZD9) or not - certainly look to have greatly improved the viewing angle but whether that's just on the Q9 or whether that extends down through the range, its too early to tell. LG look to have the most widespread HDR features as they have mode that will basically turn all HDR10 into HDR10+ so with HLG and DV, they have the best HDR format coverage but the 2018 range don't look that much of a leap above the 2017 range - same with all those others who are offering OLEDs - not surprising as the panels are all LG anyway. LG's OLED models will accept HFR but only via streaming (as they don't have HDMI 2.1) and Samsung look to be bringing the first 8k TV to market but, like LG, the lack of HDMI2.1 will limit 8K to streaming only. Samsung though also look to be supporting Game VRR and which will give the lowest gaming Input Lag of any 4K TV. Game VRR is a big deal (or will be) as I expect the PS5 to support it and the X already does - its basically FreeSync for consoles - completely removes screen tear, judder and means devs don't have to be limited to just 30 or 60fps. Its also possible that games 'could' offer more than 60fps too but the console market is more weighted to ensure a great visual experience and so I expect that they will still look to hit 4k first but the potential is their with HDMI 2.1 to offer upto 4k/120fps.

This year seems more consolidation with the odd 'bonus' feature to tempt those looking but I expect next year to be more of a step up just because of what HDMI 2.1 can offer. That being said, the 2018 TVs are just releasing so we will know how much, if anything, they have improved on the PQ in more detail. As someone with a KS myself, I am tempted by the Q9 from Samsung as it has FALD and greater colour volume - but mostly for Game VRR but I am also aware that 2019 is looking to be a bigger innovative year for TV's.

@BAMozzy cool thanks! One to watch for now then....

@kyleforrester87 Unless you own an XB1X or PC, want HLG as I can't see HDR10+ making a 'big' difference with a lot of the HDR content - especially not with the TV's with 'high' (compared to the rest) colour volume and Peak Brightness - the lower the colour volume and peak brightness, the more that Dynamic metadata makes a difference and a TV that offers the 'full' colour volume would display HDR10 and HDR10+ exactly the same anyway as it wont need to tone-map at all, then these TV's won't offer a lot more than your KS. Maybe a slightly improved PQ but whether that's worth the money or not for just that, will depend on you and your own personal opinion.

Of course there is the inter-connected smart hub these TV's are becoming too - if you want to get a message that your Washing Machine has finished or be able to see inside your fridge without actually getting up - assuming you have 'smart' appliances to connect. That seems the 'biggest' thing in this years range but in general, most are more minor tweaks.

Samsung are still at least a year away from the true 'QLED' and MicroLED's could be upto 9yrs away from the 'commercial' TV. There MicroLED Wall they showed at CES seems more for business (or very rich) and as its 'tiles' with each tile having a fixed pixel density, the resolution will depend on the size. The bigger, the greater the resolution. As I said HDMI 2.1 is expected in next years TV's. The current TV's arrived to soon - especially as most TV's have 3-4 HDMI ports - to make enough 2.1 ports. However that would allow for 4k/120, 8k/60, Dynamic HDR, eARC (lossless Atmos/DTS-X Audio pass through and auto sync), Game VRR, HFR etc due to the significantly higher bandwidth. As such, next years TV's are more likely to be more 'future' proof and certainly benefit the PS5/X better....

Hi @BAMozzy,

I hope you're not fed up with being the go to person for TV advice?

I'm now very close to clicking the buy button on the LG 49SK8500PLA TV

https://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-and-home-entertainment/telev...

It's a bit above my budget at £999, but it's on an interest free deal which makes the price much easier to swallow.

My criteria for choosing a TV has been honed down to the following:-

No larger than 49" - it has to fit in the space I have. Wall mounting is not really a good option for me.

Built in Freeview HD (I note that Samsung don't seem to do Freeview any more - it's either FreeSat or TVPLUS)

4 x HDMI 2.0 (or higher) ports

A good horizontal viewing angle - at least 150 degrees

Good from all seating distances ranging from 1.5m to 3m

720p/1080p SDR content from my Freeview set-top box (broadcast and streaming content) has to look at least as good as on my current 6 year old 1080p 43" SDR TV, if not better

720p/1080p HDR content from my original PS4 has to look significantly better than the 720p/1080p SDR content currently being sent to my 6 year old 1080p 43" SDR TV.

Decent response time for gaming. Doesn't have to be the absolute best, I don't do online FPS gaming.

A dedicated "Game mode", or the ability to turn off all unnecessary picture processing while retaining PS4 HDR and a good response time.

Decent sound output. Doesn't need to be really high end.

DVD and Blu-Ray (standard, not 4K blu) playback looks at least as good as on my current 6 year old 1080p 43" SDR TV, if not better

If I upgrade to a PS4 Pro, I will be able to take advantage of all the extra display/performance options this offers.

Original Xbox One, Wii U and Nintendo Switch will still look at least as good as on my current 6 year old 1080p 43" SDR TV, if not better

Will support Netflix 4K and BBC iPlayer 4K content

Does the LG 49SK8500PLA look like a good option to meet all those criteria?

Thanks in advance

@JimbobLink For £1000, you can't beat https://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-and-home-entertainment/telev... for a 49" TV with 4k HDR, 4 FULL HDMI ports and superb gaming performance.

This is a Premium HDR TV - unlike the LG but the LG will have better viewing angles. The problem with LED HDR TV's is that they either give great HDR performance or sacrifice PQ for viewing angles. The IPS panels can't cope with delivering the Black quality and more apt to show bleed etc but are more consistent at wide angles.VA Panels are able to deliver much darker blacks and handle brighter backlights but do deteriorate off angle.

Personally I would prefer to with the Samsung because its by far a better TV for the money - better image, better colours, better contrast etc but its not my money so its best if you check them out yourself. The LG maybe better if you need a wide angle but you will lose some of the benefits of HDR and its SDR isn't quite as good either as it can't deliver the same 'black' level which makes images pop a lot more.

@BAMozzy As always, your TV technical knowledge and advice is outstanding.

As much as I would love to go for a Premium HDR Samsung, I don't have the upfront cash for it and I have an aversion to paying interest, be it to Currys Finance or a credit card company. The only way I can justify spending £1000 is on an interest free deal. If I had to pay up front, I couldn't go beyond £700.

I also find it a bit weird that Samsung don't include Freeview in their TV's any more. Although I don't usually use the inbuilt tuner in a TV, it's a handy backup if my BT YouView+ box dies. This happens about once a year, and usually takes BT a week to come out and replace it. I don't really want to have to buy a separate Freeview HD box to cover those times.

I also have to consider that a TV I buy has to be a good all rounder, as it has to meet the requirements for the whole family, hence my big list of criteria above.

So, my core question is do you think I will be impressed with the results from the LG in comparison to a 6 year old 43" 1080p SDR TV?
Is there any device that I listed out above that might actually look worse on the LG compared to what I currently have?
Do you think the LG is future proof enough to last around 6 years?

Thanks

@JimbobLink I am sure the Samsung does have freeview - it just makes a lot more of the Smart TV apps. Its certainly worth the 'extra' money and the LG you linked was £1000 too - hence I recommended the Q7 instead. It fits EVERYTHING you want apart from the viewing angles BUT the viewing angles doesn't mean that the TV is 'unwatchable' at wider angles - just that the colour/blacks are a bit more muted compared to the optimum viewing angles. Its improved over my 2016 KS8000 which is also a Samsung and I can watch the TV at oblique angles BUT its at its best when viewed from the front. This is why I suggested you try it out.

NO TV you buy today is 'future' proof. NO TV has HDMI2.1 for example and with the next gen console coming in a year or 2, you would expect these to offer HDMI2.1 so you could get VRR, Atmos and possibly up to 120fps - maybe not in every game but if a PS4 Pro can offer Fifa at 4k/60 now, a PS5 may offer 4k/120 (or even 80-100fps with VRR). The ONLY TV's to offer VRR at the moment are the 2018 Samsung Q series and the LG OLEDs do offer HFR (4k at over 60fps) but only via streaming. EVERY TV also has to tone map HDR down to its ability - even the 'Premium' TV's but Premium means that the HDR is at least above the 'minimum' standard that content should be made to. There will be improvements and these could come within 6yrs, new tech that blows OLEDs away. You also have to look at the Smart platform too. TV's are no longer 'just' a screen anymore and no current TV offers both HDR10+ and Dolby Vision. If you buy LG for example but use Amazon Prime, you won't get HDR10+ - just HDR10 and if you have Netflix but buy Samsung, you won't get DV - just HDR10. I don't know if in a few years, you want DV/HDR10+ for example but didn't buy the 'right' TV. Whichever you buy though, the content will default to HDR10 if you can't watch the DV/HDR+ enhanced version. The point is, no TV is future proof and the OS may limit it too. Its not that different from HD TV's either as they started out with HDMI 1.3, no smart/freeview, no 3D etc and if you wanted apps to run better, not crash, or 3D when that came out, you had to upgrade. The first Smart TV's weren't great and you had single, then dual, then quad and even octocore processors. There was usually something better coming but in general, the TV was still more of a screen and we used it for external devices. Now its becoming more of a hub, linking up to those google home things, being used to stream and play games etc. Therefore, I can't say that any TV is future proof because your needs could change in a year and the TV could be out-dated.

Anyway, just by upgrading from 43 to 49" will be a big improvement. Even the LG will look like an upgrade in that respect. Whether it can handle HDR without showing LCD limitations (bright backlights to show highlights on dark backgrounds are a BIG problem for LCD's) or not, you will have to see if you can live with that. That's one of the issues with buying a 'cheap' TV - I say cheap but I mean in relation to the 'best' HDR TV's. I don't know what TV you have now either so it maybe that the SDR image isn't any worse, maybe even better so combined with the bigger image, it could be a big jump up for you. If you are used to 900p for example, 1440p will seem like a big upgrade even though its not as good as full 4k will be - if that makes sense. Point I am trying to make is that the LG maybe a bit like buying a 1440p TV which is an improvement over your current set and you may well be very happy with that. Its bound to have better processing, better OS etc as its a lot newer so its going to be an upgrade in that area too. You could even make do with that for 6yrs+ as I am sure the consoles will 'work' even if you can't use all the features. The fact that you are able to use 4k and HDR will also be a benefit over your current set too so that again is an upgrade. There is always the case of do you buy now or wait until next year, then next year, wait for the prices to drop but then you find you wait to see what he next year brings. You can make do with these TV's, miss out on some 'feature' that a newer TV or device offers but still use it. I have an Xbox X but currently can't use VRR or Dolby Vision when that comes to everyone (currently in Beta) because my 2yr old TV doesn't offer these - and that is a 'Premium' TV.

I don't really want to tell you what to buy, its your money and you are the one that will be living with it. I will suggest though that you check them out in store but remember the store lighting is not the best and that they won't be calibrated either - but you can at least get a reasonable idea of the viewing angles, how much the deteriorate etc but for the money, you cannot buy a better 'new' TV for under £1k than the Samsung - other than that, the LG may well suit you and your situation better but both are similar spec apart from the TV panel quality and HDR performance.

@BAMozzy Thanks for that. You've given me a bit to think about there.

It's likely that the Samsung does have Freeview, but it just seems to be really difficult to confirm that from looking at various spec documents and the manual online.

One thing that definitely took me aback with the Samsung is the need for two power sockets due to all the connections being moved out to an external box (which needs it's own power supply) which is linked to the TV by a single optical cable. Whilst this might be great if you are going to wall mount, I don't really like the idea for a few reasons.

@JimbobLink The 2plug thing is just on the 2017 models but the OCB should be done by ALL Manufacturers. Its obviously excellent for wall mounters but its also advantageous for those that don't too. Having all your connections on a separate box us so much easier and safer than trying to reach behind a TV every time you want to plug a USB or new device. The less you have to touch the TV, the better. It means you can position your TV where you want and not necessarily above all the devices that you plug in to it. All you have is one, nearly invisible cable into the TV and all the thick HDMI's can be shorter and easier to 'hide' - think of it more as Hub. If you had the money for a newer model, you wouldn't need 2 plugs either but this is still one thing that Samsung does that all other manufacturers should copy in my opinion - and not just for those that wall mount either. Every manufacturer are trying to hide the mass of cables but that also makes it more difficult to add/swap devices, connect up USB's etc

@BAMozzy I do get the benefits, and it certainly would be a nice solution if it didn't need a second power socket. However it would be yet another box I would have to locate somewhere along with my 5 port HDMI switch and my 8 port network switch.

I would also be concerned about the "single point of failure" aspect. If either the box or the cable failed, then all inputs/outputs to/from the TV would be down. I'm betting that neither box or cable are cheap to replace, although in theory covered under a 5 year manufacturer's warranty.

@JimbobLink It is covered under the warranty but its also a LOT easier to replace a box or the cable to the TV than have an engineer come out and take the TV apart to replace one of the boards in the TV. I have the OCB on my 2016 Samsung and its so much easier in so many ways. Most TV's have side mounted and rear facing ports, which can be a pain to keep tidy, keep the screen close to the wall, swap or even use 'some' USB sticks because they are too fat to fit - not all are 'slim' in design. Believe it or not, I do use USB's more than I thought as you can download HDR demo's to show off your TV for example and its much easier to plug these into a external box than to pull the TV out and/or try to reach behind to plug these in. I wouldn't dismiss the TV just because of this, its far more useful - especially moving forward where you may upgrade devices and be swapping HDMI 1.4 cables to HDMI 2.0 cables.

The fact that these have all the connections of the others - better than Sony and Panasonic as they only have 2 'full bandwidth' HDMI ports and fantastic PQ with some of the best LCD HDR image quality should be much more important. The OCB itself though is a great idea - whether you wall mount or not.

At the end of the day though, the money is yours so its entirely up to you which TV you buy. You asked for my opinion and my opinion is that the Samsung is the best TV you can buy 'new' for under £1k that I know of right now. The LG isn't going to give you the best blacks which is 'important' in HDR as there is also more 'black' detail in the content. Better blacks also make the colours pop more - one of the big selling points of OLEDs is that the 'perfect' blacks make the colours seem brighter, richer etc. You can see this yourself by putting a white circle on a black background and then on a dark grey background - the white on black looks brighter and purer! The Samsung is better for HDR too having a better colour gamut and better contrast so not only will SDR look better, its also going to be better for any HDR content because its offering a 'bigger' step up from the SDR image. Some HDR TV's are more 'SDR+' than HDR - offering a 'bit' brighter images which don't always impress much because they aren't that different from SDR. The better the HDR TV, the less the TV has to compress the HDR down to fit the specs of the TV which can actually make some HDR look darker/dimmer because its can't fit the brighter parts in so compresses it down to fit.

As I said no TV is future proof, but it looks like HDR is here to stay so compromising on that area is like buying a 1440p UHD TV because you don't have much 4k content and the TV will compress 4k down anyway to fit the 1440p screen...

Anyway, its your choice, your money and I am sure that by buying virtually any 'bigger' (49" from 43") will be an 'upgrade' and be better for you. Seems you have your heart set on the LG regardless so maybe you ought to spend your money on that. Its not a 'bad' TV for the money and, like I said is an upgrade too but in my opinion, the Samsung is a better TV overall in that price range for PQ and HDR performance.

@BAMozzy I did have my heart set on the LG, and to be honest I was hoping that you would say it was amazing and an absolute steal for the price. However, if I hadn't wanted your expert and honest opinion I wouldn't have asked, and the LG would likely already be on my TV stand (it isn't, by the way). I don't want something that's "not a 'bad'" TV, I want a very good TV.

I do have a big fondness for Samsung. My first flat screen TV was the Samsung 26" 720p/1080i HD Ready TV from back in 2005 (LE26R74BD from memory). It was a slightly smaller version than the model Microsoft used to demo Xbox 360 when that first appeared. It was about £670 at the time, I totally loved it and kept it in service until 2012 (it suffered an accidental light saber attack shortly afterwards!)

My next (and current) TV is a Celcus 43" 1080p 3D TV which was a Sainsbury's special for £300 back in 2012. Whilst it's a "no name" brand, it has an LG panel and Toshiba processing (I think). I've been very happy with this for a number of years, but it's now really starting to show it's limitations in some areas.

It's a big shame that Toshiba don't seem to be a viable contender for really good all round 4K HDR TV's. I always loved their 1080p SDR Regza range - my son uses a 32" one currently as a gaming screen and PC monitor, and I'm often startled by how good it looks.

So, I guess I'll sit back for a couple of months and keep my eye on prices. It won't be too long before the Black Friday two weeks are upon us, so perhaps I'll be able to snag a really good TV for a really good price then.

Thanks for all your advice and patience, it is appreciated.

@JimbobLink The problem is that there is a big variation in the quality and pricing of 4k HDR TV's. Its like buying a gaming PC in essence that you will not get a gaming PC for £700 that can offer the same performance as a £3000 rig. Some concessions will have to be made - whether its dropping down the resolution, dropping down the visual settings so the 'image' isn't as good or sacrificing frame-rates and playability. That £700 PC can do 4k on Ultra but not at 60fps because it doesn't have the power to render 60 4k Ultra images every second. It can still be a big upgrade over a 6yr Old PC and maybe even do 1440p at medium/high settings and 30-60fps so playable but you still have to compromise on the 'best' the game can look/play.

The current TV's are still not able to deliver HDR as it was mastered let alone the maximum. A game like GTSport has been built to deliver the 'maximum' level HDR despite no commercially available TV yet being built that can offer that level of HDR. Its like building a game that no PC can currently run at 4k Ultra settings and 60fps. I am trying to use gaming as a way to illustrate the situation.

A LOTB of movies are mastered to 4000nits yet most TV's can't reach 1000nits - the minimum standard that HDR is mastered to. That means that TV's have to tone-map down to fit the capability of the screen. That's like taking a 4k image and 'super-sampling' it down to fit the TV's resolution. If you have a 1080p TV, that is reducing the image down to 25% - using 1 pixel for every 4 that the original image has. If you have a 720p screen it has to be reduced further and if you have a 1440p screen then a lot less. HDR is 'similar' in that some HDR screens are only 350nits where as others are 1500nits so you can see how much more you have to 'reduce' the impact of HDR on some TV's. What 'Premium' TV's offer is at least the 'minimum' standards but will still have to tone map down. That's like saying 1440p is the minimum resolution for Premium UHD (or 720p as the 'minimum' to be classified as HD) but most films etc are 1800p currently but they hope to get to the full 4k in a few years or so. What most 'cheap' HDR TV's are like buying a 1200p TV - still better and higher than 1080p but not at the minimum level for Premium UHD.

LG have their 'Premium' TV's in their OLED range. 4k OLEDs are very difficult to make at less than 55" because the pixels are so small and densely packed - especially as they are self emitting (don't require a back light) but give the 'best' PQ because each individual pixel can be switched on or off for perfect blacks. Compared to those, you will not buy an LED TV that can 'compete' - especially with SDR content. Because of the perfect blacks, they also don't have to be as bright because the contrast against 'perfect' blacks makes them appear 'brighter' than they are. That being said, their OLEDs are still brighter than their LED TV's. LG opted to go with IPS panels because they offer the best viewing angles but are not great for delivering the black level or the contrast to do HDR justice. Its not that important for LG as they are targeting a different audience as those that want the best HDR will buy their OLED range. As such these are built to a 'budget'

Samsung though don't have OLEDs in their range and their concern is more about image quality - which can be attributed to having the best 'blacks' they can offer with this technology. The better the blacks, the more the colours pop, the more impact that HDR has etc. The more you spend, the better the quality of the filters to block out unwanted back-light bleed and even having more dimming zones by having full array LEDs. The advantage that LCD displays have though is that they can get much brighter which means that you don't have to compress HDR down so much but because you are not illuminating the exact pixel you want, it can be difficult to stop that light affecting the colours, especially the blacks around the bright areas which is where a lot of the expense goes on those filters and and electronic solutions to the problems. It can make HDR look far more spectacular - especially during the daytime or in brightly lit rooms.

Anyway, to bring this back round to the point, you cannot get a TV for under £1k that can offer the 'best' in 4k HDR viewing, just like you won't buy a gaming PC that can compete with the 'high-end' rigs so you will be compromising regardless. These can still be a big upgrade - like buying a new PC to replace your 6yr old PC but unless you put more money into it, then it won't compete with a high-end PC. That LG is OK for the money but because its using an IPS panel to give viewing angles, its not got the black quality which is going to make SDR and HDR look worse than it will do on a VA panel that offers better blacks and so the colours pop more and looks more vibrant with more depth. Whether it looks 'worse' than what you are used too, I don't know - probably not but its still not going to be the 'best' in its price point either. That's the 'sacrifice' for having wider viewing angles with an LCD screen. Like I said, it may be the 'best' for you in your 'budget' but in my opinion, where PQ is more important to me, then the Samsung is the better TV. At £1500, the 2017 55" LG OLED B7 is the best you can buy but whether that suits everyone is a different matter. I can't answer whether or not the LG is the 'better' TV for 'you' - all I can tell you is the reasons why other TV's are better in terms of PQ etc.

Waiting until Black Friday may well be a good idea, January sales too as retailers clear out for the 2019 range but 'popular' models won't be as discounted as much. The way I looked at my TV purchase, although expensive, was to look at how much it costs per year over a 5yr (or in your case 6yr) period, then look at how much use it gets a day. If its on for 10hrs a day and brings you and your family so much use and enjoyment, is 10p an hour 'expensive' for that? That's a £1 a day (how much does it cost to go to the cinema to watch a film?), £365 a yr or £1825 for 5yrs of use. The initial outlay is high, I know but when broken down to what it brings you over the time you have it, is it that expensive? My first HD TV - a 46" Samsung with no freeview, no 3D, no smart TV services etc cost the same as my 55" 4k UHD Premium HDR TV with Smart TV and Freeview...