65" 4K Visio or 55" LG OLED?

Sonny · « **on:** 28 Feb 2016, 12:13 am »

What would you guys pick?

$1600 4K Vizio 65" tv or a 55" LG OLED tv for $2k.
http://www.crutchfield.com/p_68955E9100/LG-55EG9100.html
http://www.costco.com/.product.996501.html
Space above fire place is 46" wide about 50" high.

I want the OLED, but feel it is too small for the space above the fireplace. The 65" will fill the space almost perfectly.

Sitting will be about 11 ft back.

JoshK · « **Reply #1 on:** 28 Feb 2016, 12:52 am »

Can you do FPJ? 11' back is ok, I'm 12' back for 109". If you can do it it will tide you over until super big OLEDs become cheaper. At least that is my strategy. I know, probably not what you were wanting to hear.

srb · « **Reply #2 on:** 28 Feb 2016, 01:03 am »

Quote from: Sonny on 28 Feb 2016, 12:13 am

Space above fire place is 46" wide about 50" high. I want the OLED, but feel it is too small for the space above the fireplace. The 65" will fill the space almost perfectly.

Did you mean to say the space is 64" wide, as the 65" TV is 57.39" wide?

Steve

kingdeezie · « **Reply #3 on:** 28 Feb 2016, 01:09 am »

Depends on what your priority is.

I had a 100 inch projector setup with a JVC projector, and quickly sold it after seeing the LG 4K 9500 series OLEDs properly calibrated.

For me PQ is paramount to size, and the OLED TVs reign supreme. The black levels are insane, and contrast is breathtaking.

My son has the 42 inch version of that Vizio in his room, and the PQ is no comparison, the OLED will eat it alive.

screener · « **Reply #4 on:** 28 Feb 2016, 01:09 am »

Get what you what and don't look back. If your not sure then you'll start doubting yourself every time. Compromise in this scenario is obviously tainted with either cost or other factors. I'd go for the 55". Is this your primary viewing area?

RPM123 · « **Reply #5 on:** 28 Feb 2016, 01:12 am »

According to a review of the LG65EF9500 Ultra HDTV in the current issue of "Sound and Vision": "As I (and others) have said repeatedly, a 65-inch picture at a normal viewing distance (8.5 feet here) just isn't big enough to clearly show 4K's increased resolution. Today's limited Ultra HD material, including that available for the Sony server, doesn't (yet) include either advanced color HDR (apart from some questionable streamed titles). Both of these features delivered by UHD Blu-Ray will likely produce more eye-popping Ultra HD than plain-vanilla 4K."

rif · « **Reply #6 on:** 28 Feb 2016, 01:16 am »

Well, according to Crutchfield

Quote

That's because we occasionally hear people wishing their TV's screen was bigger, but rarely hear them wishing their screen was smaller.

Sonny · « **Reply #7 on:** 28 Feb 2016, 01:30 am »

Quote from: srb on 28 Feb 2016, 01:03 am

Did you mean to say the space is 64" wide, as the 65" TV is 57.39" wide?

Steve

Yes, correct? The 55" would only 48" wide....
Tuan

Sonny · « **Reply #8 on:** 28 Feb 2016, 01:33 am »

Quote from: screener on 28 Feb 2016, 01:09 am

Get what you what and don't look back. If your not sure then you'll start doubting yourself every time. Compromise in this scenario is obviously tainted with either cost or other factors. I'd go for the 55". Is this your primary viewing area?

Yes, it's primary...I no doubt agree that OLED picture quality is a lot better..just afraid that the size and fit of the TV in the space will look weird and too small for viewing distance, which I can move a foot closer to 10', but looking up at an angle, it's back to 11ft.

I can't afford or want to spend $5k on a 65" OLED>

Sonny · « **Reply #9 on:** 28 Feb 2016, 01:33 am »

Quote from: RPM123 on 28 Feb 2016, 01:12 am

According to a review of the LG65EF9500 Ultra HDTV in the current issue of "Sound and Vision": "As I (and others) have said repeatedly, a 65-inch picture at a normal viewing distance (8.5 feet here) just isn't big enough to clearly show 4K's increased resolution. Today's limited Ultra HD material, including that available for the Sony server, doesn't (yet) include either advanced color HDR (apart from some questionable streamed titles). Both of these features delivered by UHD Blu-Ray will likely produce more eye-popping Ultra HD than plain-vanilla 4K."

So, are you saying get the smaller OLED?

Norman Tracy · « **Reply #10 on:** 28 Feb 2016, 02:17 am »

What do you like to watch?

Sports go with the larger screen 65" and bright picture of LED. Also good if it will be used for gaming, computer, or other content with fixed images that might burn in on the OLED.

Movies and you will never regret the added black detail and contrast of the OLED.

srb · « **Reply #11 on:** 28 Feb 2016, 02:33 am »

Used only for yourself or for family too?

Audiophiles, Videophiles and Techno Nerds will appreciate the better color rendition and black levels of OLED. 9 out of 10 typical family members will prefer a larger screen size even if other picture quality attributes are slightly inferior.

Size matters!

Steve

Sonny · « **Reply #12 on:** 28 Feb 2016, 02:51 am »

Quote from: Norman Tracy on 28 Feb 2016, 02:17 am

What do you like to watch?

Sports go with the larger screen 65" and bright picture of LED. Also good if it will be used for gaming, computer, or other content with fixed images that might burn in on the OLED.

Movies and you will never regret the added black detail and contrast of the OLED.

Mostly Netflix, Sports, Shows and some movies...not a lot of 4k materials.

For family...

kingdeezie · « **Reply #13 on:** 28 Feb 2016, 03:48 am »

Quote from: Norman Tracy on 28 Feb 2016, 02:17 am

What do you like to watch?

Sports go with the larger screen 65" and bright picture of LED. Also good if it will be used for gaming, computer, or other content with fixed images that might burn in on the OLED.

Movies and you will never regret the added black detail and contrast of the OLED.

OLEDs don't suffer from burn-in per say like a plasma, they "stain." From what I know it has something to do with the voltages running each individual pixel not compensating properly when static images remain for too long.

Its largely a thing of the past, as long as you aren't running the TV on torch mode.

I play video games on mine for extended periods of time, use it as a computer monitor, and watch static content with zero staining after 5 months. But I have it properly calibrated.

Most examples you hear of are show room models running on dynamic mode 24/7, or older phone models that were using older OLED tech. The first year LGs had some issues, but it was resolved with the 2014 models and beyond.

kingdeezie · « **Reply #14 on:** 28 Feb 2016, 03:55 am »

Quote from: Sonny on 28 Feb 2016, 01:33 am

Yes, it's primary...I no doubt agree that OLED picture quality is a lot better..just afraid that the size and fit of the TV in the space will look weird and too small for viewing distance, which I can move a foot closer to 10', but looking up at an angle, it's back to 11ft.

I can't afford or want to spend $5k on a 65" OLED>

If you are looking up at an angle, you almost have no choice but to go OLED, or find a used plasma somewhere.

Regular LCD/LED's image quality drops significantly as you go off axis. If you aren't looking at it directly on, or have it tilting directly down on axis, the PQ goes down pretty quickly.

RPM123 · « **Reply #15 on:** 28 Feb 2016, 03:56 am »

Quote from: Sonny on 28 Feb 2016, 01:33 am

So, are you saying get the smaller OLED?

Hard to say, since I have not compared them, however I have seen LG OLED sets and I was quite impressed. The blacks are second to none. On the other hand, if you watch in a brightly lit room, you may prefer the other set.

jqp · « **Reply #16 on:** 28 Feb 2016, 04:06 am »

Would your family notice? Would you really care after a week or two from 11 feet away?. I would probably get the $1600 65" TV now and save the $400 for a future bigger, less expensive OLED.

Also 4K TV is now possible, though limited, with the Amazon Fire TV box (8GB storage, ethernet and wireless), etc. Since Netflix and Amazon Prime are producing some pretty good content, that type of streaming is probably going to be as good a source as any for 4K.

Sonny · « **Reply #17 on:** 28 Feb 2016, 04:24 am »

Yes, its will be high...and so would have to tilt down. The room will be bright, so maybe save and get the bigger 4k TV? All great comments and feedback!

Phil A · « **Reply #18 on:** 28 Feb 2016, 02:51 pm »

I just debated the size thing for a secondary system where I sit 7 feet away. For the secondary system, I wanted to do two things. Get my feet wet with 4k and have a back-up system that does 3D (my main system is an Epson 5030 PJ on a 100 inch screen). Size does matter, especially to get benefit eventually from 4k. I started off in the room with my old Salamander Synergy furniture an old 55 inch Vizio LED I had in my old master bedroom hanging on the wall. I have 40 inch Salamander Synergy towers connected by a shelf (first pic below). I had to tilt the TV down and it was about 5 inches from the bottom of the stand to the screen. I just didn't like it. So I bought a bit wider shelf (and used on of the old bridges as a center channel stand) and moved a cheapo 50 inch Insignia I got for the bonus/guest room a few years back (2nd pic). The height of the screen definitely was better. When I decided to try a 4k and back-up 3D TV, I went back and forth between looking at a 50 inch set to sit on the shelf, a 55 or a 65. Since it is a secondary system, I did not want to break the bank as I have other (audio) things I want to do to the main system. So I eventually settled on a 55 and angled it down slightly and it works fine and looks good (3rd pic).

Sonny · « **Reply #19 on:** 28 Feb 2016, 11:41 pm »

Thanks Phil for the comment! This one will have to be wall mounted and is a bit higher, probably about 50" high.