Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am looking to purchase a new TV. I watch a pretty decent amount of sports, and will be debuting the new TV at my Super Bowl gathering. Question is, should I spend the extra money for a TV that has 240HZ, or is 120Hz enough?
I have read conflicting articles one stating that 240Hz is a must for motion blur, and another article stating that anything above 120Hz is a waste.
Next question. I've always owned "name brand" products such as Toshiba, Sony, Panasonic, etc.. I'm seeing a lot of Vizio and LG popping up in searches that have the required equipment for less price then the name brands. Is it time to stop being a name brand snob? Or pay a little extra?
Do not get a 4K. No offense John but it's WAY to early to start recommending those to any but the early adopters.
What surprises me about your post is that you consider LG not a name brand? LG is absolutely a top tier TV manufacturer as good as any that you mentioned. They make great TV's.
I would say "Continue to be a name brand snob". Vizio, while not a "top tier" brand is still a good one and not a bad brand at all.
Just avoid the REALLY no name brands. Any one you mentioned would be a good choice.
Yea too expensive for 4K considering cable providers dont even have the technology yet.
Samsung, LG, Vizio, sony, panasonic are all reputable when it comes to TV's. I bought a Philips for a little cheaper and it works great
I would suggest buying a smart tv with 1080P 120 Hz works fine for me so I wouldnt suggest going out of your price range for anything more
The problem with buying TV's is there are always new better TV's being made the next year so every TV loses value :/ I wish i wated a year and bought a smart TV
Great input, thank you. I guess I don't know much about LG. I assumed they were a step below Toshiba, Sony, Hitachi, etc. since when I search after putting in all my requirements, they are usually priced the lowest along with Vizio.
More input on the 120Hz vs 240Hz would be great.
My budget isn't crazy high. I'm looking to stay right around $1000 if I go with a 55"-58", below $1000 for a 50"-55" Smart TV. I suppose if I wanted the 240Hz, I'd need to stay close to 50" or need to up my budget. Some of the better choices I've found so far are the links below. The Toshiba's have a crazy high discount on them vs the LG.
I am looking to purchase a new TV. I watch a pretty decent amount of sports, and will be debuting the new TV at my Super Bowl gathering. Question is, should I spend the extra money for a TV that has 240HZ, or is 120Hz enough?
I have read conflicting articles one stating that 240Hz is a must for motion blur, and another article stating that anything above 120Hz is a waste.
Next question. I've always owned "name brand" products such as Toshiba, Sony, Panasonic, etc.. I'm seeing a lot of Vizio and LG popping up in searches that have the required equipment for less price then the name brands. Is it time to stop being a name brand snob? Or pay a little extra?
1. All TV's are 60hz because all sources that TV's are pulling from are 60hz (or less). Anything above 60hz is achieved using "tricks" in the image processing of the TV to achieve what is claimed as the higher rate. This is generally done by adding additional frames to the image, flashing the backlight, etc. or some combination of those.
2. Each manufacturer achieves the claimed rates differently and there is NO INDUSTRY STANDARD as to what is 60 vs 120 vs 240, etc. Many now claim various things like "Clear Motion Rate XXX" but that is not the same as actual refresh rate. This means you need to carefully research each set to see how it comes to it's claimed number. Of course, you have to keep in mind that regardless, they are all essentially 60hz with "tricks" employed.
3. There are two primary kinds of tricks used to achieve a higher refresh rate:
a. The first is what comprises the "true" refresh rate and that involves adding frames between the actual frames. So, a 60hz image is made up of 30 frames with each frame being shown twice. A true 120hz TV adds additional frames between those frames to create images that aren't actually in the source content. This "smooths" the image and is the reason true 120hz+ TV's have what is known as the "soap opera" effect which many people do not like.
b. The second is what is more of a "trick" and involves flashing or scanning the backlight to create additional black frames in the image to help overcome the motion blur. The side impact of this is a reduction in picture quality as it directly impacts the contrast ratio as it makes blacks more grey.
4. The whole issue exists because of the inherent way LCD's work. Ghosting and pixelation have been an issue on LCD's since they were invented. All of the various "tricks" don't actually prevent it from happening, they just cover up that it is happening. With that said, the higher quality the panel, the less of an issue it is. High quality panels from top brands like: Samsung, LG, Sharp, Sony, Panasonic and Vizio have less of an issue even on their 60hz sets than low quality panels from other manufacturers on their 120hz sets. Among those top manufacturers, Samsung and Sony have some of the best panels and base technology for handling motion.
5. Virtually all settings guides will advise you that in order to achieve the best picture quality, you should disable all of the various motion blur "tricks" the TV is using. This means that panel quality again is very important and if you are the kind of person who cares about picture quality over anything else, you will probably disable most of the features that make a TV have a higher refresh rate.
So, the conclusion is this...
240hz is simply not worth it as most people cannot tell the difference between 240hz and 120hz when watching regular content. A good number of people cannot even tell the difference between 60hz and 120hz content. 120hz is sort of the middle ground and the best all around option, especially on larger LCD TV's (50"+) and where the primary use will be watching sports or gaming.
I am looking to purchase a new TV. I watch a pretty decent amount of sports, and will be debuting the new TV at my Super Bowl gathering. Question is, should I spend the extra money for a TV that has 240HZ, or is 120Hz enough?
I have read conflicting articles one stating that 240Hz is a must for motion blur, and another article stating that anything above 120Hz is a waste.
Next question. I've always owned "name brand" products such as Toshiba, Sony, Panasonic, etc.. I'm seeing a lot of Vizio and LG popping up in searches that have the required equipment for less price then the name brands. Is it time to stop being a name brand snob? Or pay a little extra?
240 Hz is not a "must" for motion blur. 120 Hz should be fine for sports. After all, it's all sent out in 60 Hz, at the most; what this 120/240/480/600 crap is all about is interpolated motion, e.g. the TV "makes up" frames based on the one before it and the one after it. Vizio is a cheaper (but not "cheap") brand, but read the reviews on the specific models you are interested in before you buy. I believe Samsung is currently the best brand of TVs, though, but with it obviously comes a higher price.
240 Hz is not a "must" for motion blur. 120 Hz should be fine for sports. After all, it's all sent out in 60 Hz, at the most; what this 120/240/480/600 crap is all about is interpolated motion, e.g. the TV "makes up" frames based on the one before it and the one after it. Vizio is a cheaper (but not "cheap") brand, but read the reviews on the specific models you are interested in before you buy. I believe Samsung is currently the best brand of TVs, though, but with it obviously comes a higher price.
Thanks for your response. I have read tons of reviews from buyers and every time I get excited about a tv, I see a review that scares me. Like on the Sony KDL50R550A 120Hz 3D TV. Although on Best Buy it has 156 customer reviews at a 4.8/5.0 rating, and it's priced a shade under my max budget, a few people say the refresh rate is not good for sports. I wonder if that is truly the case or if they have it on the wrong setting?
I'm going to research some more and possibly wait until the week before the Super Bowl (deals?) but I think I have narrowed my choices down to 2 tvs:
The aforementioned Sony KDL50R550A 120 Hz ($948 on Best Buy), and the Toshiba 50L7300U 240 Hz ($855.51 on Amazon).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
