New 70” TV Shopping - LED vs “QLED”

FastEddieB

FastEddieB

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Oct 14, 2013
Messages
11,542
Location
Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Display Name
Display name:
Fast Eddie B
Karen and I are ready to splurge on a new TV to replace an aging 47” Vizio that will be shuffled to our guest room.

An entry level 70” Samsung LED goes for about $699. Step up to “QLED” and they jump quickly to $1,099 to $1,349 and up. Of course above that level are OLED models that can run up to several thousand dollars, but with our aging eyes I don’t think we can justify that sort of craziness for a small difference in color gamut, blacker blacks or whatever they advertise as improvements.

Any thoughts? Wondering what others here have decided upon. Since we keep TV’s a long time, a few hundred dollars more initially is not a huge hurdle.

Notes:

1) We are pretty committed to Samsung - we’ve had excellent service from their electronics over the years.

2) We measured our viewing distance as about 11’, and various online guides suggest 70” - or even larger - would not be too large.

3) Our convenient local shopping options are Best Buy, Costco and Walmart.

4) Most of our content is via an Apple TV, which we’ll be upgrading to a 4k model so our existing Apple TV can migrate with our old TV to our guest room. So “Smart TV” features are relatively unimportant.
 
Last edited:
When we upgraded to a 65" a year ago, I spent a lot of time comparing the displays of the two Samsung contenders at Costco. It didn't help that they weren't displaying the same demo video, but I did eventually opt for the QLED. However the price delta then was only $200, and I do still wonder if they put the most impressive demo videos up only on the higher-end hardware to increase the perceived difference.

Sticking with one brand if you have multiple TVs makes a lot of sense, so you only have to learn one remote and one menu system. We're up to 4 Samsungs in various rooms now, and I'm barely comfortable navigating to what I need to get to. If they were all different brands, I'd be watching a lot less TV and be back to reading a lot more books...which would actually be a good thing, I know.
 
QLED is Samsung's answer to OLED, even though it's not really on-par (which is partly why they come in at lower cost than most OLED panels). Nothing wrong with any of the choices as long as you make sure it's at least 120Hz refresh rate or better to help avoid the motion judder, but reportedly even some of the flagship sets from Samsung suffer from it from time-to-time. Of note, Samsung is supposed to be entering the OLED market in 2022, which probably spells the end for QLED sets at some point, but I wouldn't allow that to weigh your current decision too much, it's just a product of OLED getting cheaper and difficulty scaling up the QLED tech.

I recommend looking at the LED and OLED forums on AVSForum.com if you want to really dig into the details as well as likely find the threads on the model of panels you are considering purchasing. They typically have a thread reserved for most of the major models from each manufacturer and you can learn the pros/cons/reviews as well as potential problems people are having.

As far as I know there are only a couple of manufacturers of OLED panels, but the majority are manufactured by LG. So even if you buy a Sony or Panasonic, etc. the panel itself will be an LG product.
 
I’ve got a Samsung 4K 65” curved LED. I was impressed with the QLEDs but not enough to justify the extra cost. Really not impressed with 4K. Everything I’ve read said that you won’t see a difference over HD unless you’re extremely close to the set. Typical eyesight can’t tell the difference. I agree. I’ve looked at several movies comparing Blu-ray to 4K and unless I was like 3 ft away, I couldn’t see a difference. Even then, it was a marginal improvement.
 
Last edited:
I would suggest not falling for the wow factor that the stores impress with. Unless you have some pretty high quality inputs most of the content you watch will not be that good. Also, you will eventually get used to what ever you are watching and want really notice that big of a difference. You'd have to be a pretty serious tech geek to stay impressed with a TV that cost 1k more than another. That's my experience anyway.
 
Velocity173 said:
I’ve got a Samsung 4K 65” curved LED. I was impressed with the QLEDs but not enough to justify the extra cost. Really not impressed with 4K. Everything I’ve read said that you won’t see a difference over HD unless you’re extremely close to the set. Typical eyesight can’t tell the difference. I agree. I’ve looked at several movies comparing Blu-ray to 4K and unless I was like 3 ft away, I couldn’t see a difference. Even then, it was a marginal improvement.
Click to expand...

Works on the same premise of the 720 vs 1080p push years ago. The 4K only shows its dominance when on increasingly larger screen sizes and when watching actual 4K content (which most cable/satellite content is not). With the newer 77" HDR Dolby Vision-certified screens will be perceptible over a 1080 display, but it's still hard to tell unless you're looking for it. Incremental gains. 8K is worthless until you get into the 90"-100" territory, not to mention 8K source material is practically non-existent. 4K is more of a future-proofing item so that you see it in full-clarity when it's available. No reason not to get 4K these days as eventually the bandwidth will support it.
 
When I bought my 50" 4K Samsung, I just compared what I saw on the various screens on display. I liked the way the LED screen looked, and couldn't see the difference with the OLED screens. (IIRC the store I went to had the same video on all screens.)

My eyes are old, but my acuity and vividness of colors have been good since the cataract surgery (which I got before I bought the TV.)
 
Palmpilot said:
When I bought my 50" 4K Samsung, I just compared what I saw on the various screens on display. I liked the way the LED screen looked, and couldn't see the difference with the OLED screens. (IIRC the store I went to had the same video on all screens.)

My eyes are old, but my acuity and vividness of colors have been good since the cataract surgery (which I got before I bought the TV.)
Click to expand...
The one thing that is tough to do in the big box stores is compare A/V equipment. Screens have vastly different settings, often optimized for bright colors on the most expensive models to help sway buyers toward paying more for them. Same goes for listening to speakers when audio equipment hasn't been adjusted for each pair of speakers or even using different amps to drive different pairs of speakers so you end up with something that may look or sound completely different when you get it home.

The smaller AV stores are usually a lot better about adjusting everything to a reference standard. However, they usually have a higher price on their stuff as well.
 
There comes a point in resolution and refresh rate at which the human eye and brain can no longer perceive the difference. I wonder what tv manufacturers will do after that.
 
midwestpa24 said:
There comes a point in resolution and refresh rate at which the human eye and brain can no longer perceive the difference. I wonder what tv manufacturers will do after that.
Click to expand...

They'll keep right on going, and leave it to their marketing departments to convince everyone that the new 64K sets are the only ones worth owning.
 
midwestpa24 said:
There comes a point in resolution and refresh rate at which the human eye and brain can no longer perceive the difference. I wonder what tv manufacturers will do after that.
Click to expand...

Probably the advent of 3D and other immersive technologies. Part of what makes the 4K/8K content a bit more desirable is that 3D can then be displayed in high resolution. Holographic displays that look flawless/identical from any viewing angle, etc. could be a potential direction taken. Audio tech kind of follows the same "resolution" issue, where 5.1 was a big standard in home audio, then came 7.1, then 7.2, then 9.2, and now 13.2. How many speakers is immersive-enough? Always going to be something better.
 
midwestpa24 said:
There comes a point in resolution and refresh rate at which the human eye and brain can no longer perceive the difference. I wonder what tv manufacturers will do after that.
Click to expand...

With laptop and tablets, Apple’s conceit was to call their displays “Retina” when they reached the point where any further increase in pixel density would be beyond the eye’s ability discern the difference.
 
I have a 75” Samsung QLED and I can’t say enough good things about it. I have it paired with a Yamaha receiver and Bose speakers/subwoofer and it makes a decent home theater. Not really a fan of Apple, but I moved from a 4kHD Firestick to a 4KHD Apple TV and was shocked at the difference in viewing quality. We’ve been cord cutters for the last 8 years and this combination seems to work very well.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Probably the advent of 3D and other immersive technologies.
Click to expand...
3D has already been tried and failed, multiple times in both theaters and in the living room. I'm guessing that manufacturers are gun-shy right now so my bet would be on "other immersive technologies".
 
asicer said:
3D has already been tried and failed, multiple times in both theaters and in the living room. I'm guessing that manufacturers are gun-shy right now so my bet would be on "other immersive technologies".
Click to expand...
3D failed prior because #1 people didn't want to have to wear special glasses to observe the effects, #2 there was almost no native-3D content, and #3 it wasn't in ultra high definition as the most a 1080p monitor could render it at was 720i. A few movies were "converted" to 3D after the fact, but it was more of a parlor trick than true medium. If screens can display high def 3D which was recorded in 3D, it would likely go a long way toward adoption.

In any case, I was just mentioning it because there are more advances to be made beyond the whole 4K/8K stuff. We're still limited by bandwidth in most of the country for streaming as it is, so we still don't see 4K programming most of the time.
 
We went to Best Buy and Costco today.

Best Buy was disappointing. Not many shoppers, but still unable to get any help from sales people. Not a great selection. Store was getting kind of dingy, which kind of surprised us.

Costco had a much wider selection, and we didn’t feel a need to seek out a salesperson. Several nice Samsungs, but I think this one may be in our “sweet spot”:

51353825618_7dcdda24be_z.jpg


LED, not QLED or OLED, but the picture quality, brightness and black levels looked really nice in the store. 75” seems huge, but online charts say it’s appropriate to our 11’ viewing distance. 2 HDMI ports seems chintzy, but we can live with that for the Apple TV and our DVD player as our main inputs. Moving to QLED ups the ante at least several hundred dollars, and we’re in agreement it’s not necessary.

We’re ordering a 4k Apple TV, but very little of our content is likely to be 4k any time soon. We’re using a cellular modem for wifi, and our speeds are rarely more than 10 to 40 mbps. We’re eagerly awaiting StarLink, which will hopefully get us up to 100 mbps and make 4k feasible. Even then 4k isn’t going to do much for Jeopardy or NYPD Blue!

Probably pull the trigger in the next few days, and will report back how it goes.
 
SoonerAviator said:
3D failed prior because #1 people didn't want to have to wear special glasses to observe the effects, #2 there was almost no native-3D content, and #3 it wasn't in ultra high definition as the most a 1080p monitor could render it at was 720i. A few movies were "converted" to 3D after the fact, but it was more of a parlor trick than true medium. If screens can display high def 3D which was recorded in 3D, it would likely go a long way toward adoption.

In any case, I was just mentioning it because there are more advances to be made beyond the whole 4K/8K stuff. We're still limited by bandwidth in most of the country for streaming as it is, so we still don't see 4K programming most of the time.
Click to expand...

Every iteration of 3d has just been annoying and given me headaches. I just don't think 3d is a necessary option for immersion. If anything it becomes a distraction. The movies that were marketed as 3d were just gimmicky, ex. random objects "flying" at the screen.
 
I can’t help you with your TV selection, but I’ll echo your comments about Best Buy. I went there a few weeks ago and they didn’t have any of the three things I was looking for in stock.
 
Dave Theisen said:
I can’t help you with your TV selection, but I’ll echo your comments about Best Buy. I went there a few weeks ago and they didn’t have any of the three things I was looking for in stock.
Click to expand...

Best Buy has been struggling for the last several years. Our local one went out of business a couple of years ago. Too much competition, both from other big box stores and the internet.
 
Got it home Friday, unboxed with the help of the grandkids and got it basically set up:

51365807105_c4b11ee0e1_z.jpg


Some of the setup was quite straightforward, with some aggravations which I’ll follow up with when done. Son-in-law is coming over later to help lift it onto our existing mount which is rated to 77lbs. We’ll have to see if the height is about right or if I’ll have to raise or lower the wall mount, which is not a huge deal.
 
Looks like a nice piece of kit. Even when I was 6 I knew my family's 13" Admiral B & W was a piece of junk. But this, this I could not have imagined.
 
Got it up just now with the help of my son-in-law & Karen:

51366526784_c72a15f541_z.jpg


Prior to his arrival, I raised my wall mount by 4 1/2”, the space between mounting holes, by drilling just one new hole. You can see that just clears the sound bar while not blocking our A/C vent. Whew.

It sure is big, but from our recliner about 11’ away it’s not TOO big IMHO.

Comments on pluses and minuses to follow…
 
Arnold said:
Even when I was 6 I knew my family's 13" Admiral B & W was a piece of junk.
Click to expand...

My age is showing as I remember my parents having a Dumont B&W. Dad taught me how to set the vertical hold because it would want to do a slow roll quite a bit.

BTW ... FastEddieB, that sure looks like a comfortable spot you got going on there!
 
Daleandee said:
My age is showing as I remember my parents having a Dumont B&W. Dad taught me how to set the vertical hold because it would want to do a slow roll quite a bit.
Click to expand...

The first TV I could call my own was this marvel of miniaturization back in the 1960’s:

51367973135_ac4bcff071.jpg


(Image grabbed from an eBay ad)

5" B&W screen. I called it my “Tummy TV” since lying in bed with it resting on my tummy was my SOP.


BTW ... FastEddieB, that sure looks like a comfortable spot you got going on there!
Click to expand...

Aww shucks…it’s just a pole barn!

Seriously, our 1,350’ of living space with our “attached garage” is working out quite well. We were “Wingin’ It” through the construction, as many here will recall, and my daughter just gave us a nice remembrance of that for my birthday!

51367982130_3c2cb496cb_z.jpg
 
Last edited:
FastEddieB said:
Got it up just now with the help of my son-in-law & Karen:

51366526784_c72a15f541_z.jpg


Prior to his arrival, I raised my wall mount by 4 1/2”, the space between mounting holes, by drilling just one new hole. You can see that just clears the sound bar while not blocking our A/C vent. Whew.

It sure is big, but from our recliner about 11’ away it’s not TOO big IMHO.

Comments on pluses and minuses to follow…
Click to expand...

Nice tv... by chance did you read the instructions about keeping it away from direct heat... Highly recommend a wall register deflector for your vent that is behind the TV... Or just seal it... TV that big is going to be able to heat the room..:p
 
Ventucky Red said:
Nice tv... by chance did you read the instructions about keeping it away from direct heat... Highly recommend a wall register deflector for your vent that is behind the TV... Or just seal it... TV that big is going to be able to heat the room..:p
Click to expand...

Good idea on the deflector - in the summer it blows only cool air, but I could see it being a problem in the winter. Specs say the TV draws between 75 and 400 (!) watts, so it could certainly augment our heating!
 
GaryM said:
Pluses: Great sound quality for viewers on the couch
Minuses: Difficult viewing angle for those same viewers
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the couch has a label on it some where that says, "reserved for napping only" or something to that effect! :D
 
FastEddieB said:
Good idea on the deflector - in the summer it blows only cool air, but I could see it being a problem in the winter. Specs say the TV draws between 75 and 400 (!) watts, so it could certainly augment our heating!
Click to expand...

I also recommend SPF 70 when watching for more than 30 minutes.... :):p:D
 
Van Johnston said:
Please tell me you did not do all that just to watch video feeds of radio broadcasts.
Click to expand...

Video podcasts and YouTube videos are often what we have playing in the background while going about other tasks, as in the images.

An hour or two of “regular” TV shows are most often consumed in the evening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top