Is LED worth it?

Massive Spanner

The Football Wrench
Joined
Aug 10, 2007
Messages
82,519
Location
Tool shed
I'm going to finally splash out on a big TV, and I'm debating between spending big or keeping it safe. I've heard LED is pretty much better in every way, and a lot less heavy on the electricity, but do folks reckon it's worth the extra 50% - 70% in price?

I mean, this sort of thing would be great, probably a bit over my price budget but if it's worth it I'd be willing to, something like this:

Powercity Electrical - LCD DVD Digital Camera Laptop Washers Fridges Cookers

Or would I be better dropping 200 quid for this:

Powercity Electrical - LCD DVD Digital Camera Laptop Washers Fridges Cookers (on the right there)

Also, they're both 50hz. Is 100hz worth paying extra for? I've never really noticed a big difference before.
 
I was in a similar position a month ago, and ended up opting for the LED. The picture's pretty much outstanding, but I cannot really say how different of an experience it'd had been had I gone for the LCD.
 
Are LED's really that much pricier? I know the emergence of them has brought LCD prises down further but I didn't think they're that expensive.

Why not something in between - £100 more than LCD but £100 less than the other LED? Like this one?
 
You notice the difference quite noticeably, the colours look more true to life than they do on an LCD. As for refresh rates, 50hz is pretty much the standard, you don't really need much more then that, also the Samsung you posted should change the refresh rate up to 63hz if you use a gaming console as this provides a better gaming picture.
 
Brwned said:
Are LED's really that much pricier? I know the emergence of them has brought LCD prises down further but I didn't think they're that expensive.

Why not something in between - £100 more than LCD but £100 less than the other LED? Like this one?
Click to expand...

LED TVs are LCD TVs, the LEDs simply provide the backlight. Just thought that I'd make that clear. LCD doesn't emit its own light, it needs a light of some form or other behind it.
 
cina said:
Also, they're both 50hz. Is 100hz worth paying extra for? I've never really noticed a big difference before.
Click to expand...

If you really want to be anal regarding refresh rates, then you should be looking at 600Hz. Why? Because it's divisible by 60, 50, 30, 25 and 24. That covers every single frequency that video is captured in without the need to interpolate any frames, 24 obviously being film.
 
WeasteDevil said:
LED TVs are LCD TVs, the LEDs simply provide the backlight. Just thought that I'd make that clear. LCD doesn't emit its own light, it needs a light of some form or other behind it.
Click to expand...

That's true of the LED edge-lit tvs but is it true of the full array tvs too?
 
I just purchased this

KDL-40CX520 : CX520 Series : BRAVIA

at around half the listed price. It works out at £300
yet to actually receive the television though.

I think the LED edge lit version is $200 more regardless of discount and didn't figure it was really worth it nor did I have the money to buy it. If i'm going to buy a wallmount and possibly the sony wifi dongle, there's already the better part of $200.
 
LED is worth it if you do have the money, but if you're on a budget then LCD is still very good if you pick the right TV. If you're cash restricted I'd recommend LCD for sure.

Saying that, LED have far lower power consumption than LCDs.
 
Correct me if I am wrong, from what I've heard LED gives the best result at sizes >= 50". Otherwise there is not much difference between LED and LCD except for a negligible power consumption difference.
 
Plasma for me is still the best until something like OLED comes out on big screens.
 
dmode said:
Correct me if I am wrong, from what I've heard LED gives the best result at sizes >= 50". Otherwise there is not much difference between LED and LCD except for a negligible power consumption difference.
Click to expand...

Nobody has been daft enough to make a real LED TV before, Sony just did it! What you think of an LED TV is simply LEDs providing the backlight for an LCD panel.
 
cina said:
LED is worth it if you do have the money, but if you're on a budget then LCD is still very good if you pick the right TV. If you're cash restricted I'd recommend LCD for sure.

Saying that, LED have far lower power consumption than LCDs.
Click to expand...

LED as you think of it is an LCD with LED backlights - LCD does not emit light, is needs a backlight. How this confuses people is beyond me!

OLED emits its own light like a CRT or a plasma, but OLED is very expensive to scale up to large sizes. The Sony TV is ~6m LEDs, 3 per pixel R, G, B, so a 1920x1080 display.
 
WeasteDevil said:
LED as you think of it is an LCD with LED backlights - LCD does not emit light, is needs a backlight. How this confuses people is beyond me!

OLED emits its own light like a CRT or a plasma, but OLED is very expensive to scale up to large sizes. The Sony TV is ~6m LEDs, 3 per pixel R, G, B, so a 1920x1080 display.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of all this.
 
I bought a Sony 46" LED 5 months ago. Very happy with it. The electricity costs are high here and not included in the rent. New TV's that aren't LED weren't any much less expensive then new that were LED. Not if the TV's were meant to be competitors.

You should get a TV with internet availability. There's innovation in that aspect of the industry. It probably won't do you much good right now but it can change a lot in one or two years.
 
WeasteDevil said:
So what are you talking about.....



Where are these LED TVs you are talking about?
Click to expand...

Seriously? You want me to fully specify it as LED-Backlit LCD instead? They're referred to as LED, I'm sure it's confusing for some who probably think that means it's full on LED, but I know the difference.
 
marchi-91 said:
I just purchased this

KDL-40CX520 : CX520 Series : BRAVIA

at around half the listed price. It works out at £300
yet to actually receive the television though.

I think the LED edge lit version is $200 more regardless of discount and didn't figure it was really worth it nor did I have the money to buy it. If i'm going to buy a wallmount and possibly the sony wifi dongle, there's already the better part of $200.
Click to expand...

I was actually checking that out at the store yesterday, except a 32 inch one. Its the only full hd lcd that fits my budget. Im now comparing it with a toshiba hd ready led tv. Not sure which to go witg. Do let me know how this performs.
 
Right Weasteman, what's the difference between a proper LED and one Cinca's going to splash out on?
 
cina said:
Full HD isn't very noticeable til you hit 40".



I bought mine months ago for €800, could've bought a same sized LCD one for around €500. Was it really worth an extra €300? feck knows.
Click to expand...


Well according to Weasteman, there's probably a noticeable difference how the bulbs emits light to the screen. Have you gone right up close to the TV and inspected the movement of the rays and how the blacks have a better contrast ratio to greyscales and panton colours?
 
Spoony Youngblood said:
Right Weasteman, what's the difference between a proper LED and one Cinca's going to splash out on?
Click to expand...

A proper LED screen as Sony just showed off has three LEDs on the surface of the panel per pixel (one red, one green, one blue), all emitting light. What Cinca is talking about is an array of LEDs of varying quanitites behind an LCD panel to light it, as it needs to be.
 
WeasteDevil said:
It depends on how close you sit to it. My computer monitor is Full HD and my face is currently around 2ft away, so yes, I can notice it. The further away you go, the larger the screen size required.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, monitors are a bit of a different story.
 
WeasteDevil said:
A proper LED screen as Sony just showed off has three LEDs on the surface of the panel per pixel (one red, one green, one blue), all emitting light. What Cinca is talking about is an array of LEDs of varying quanitites behind an LCD panel to light it, as it needs to be.
Click to expand...

A huge difference in picture quality, Weastiality?
 
WeasteDevil said:
Well, yes, because the light is being emitted by the pixels, similar to CRT, Plasma, and OLED. Response time should be almost instant also, on to off, with pure blacks.
Click to expand...

Oh aye...silly me.

I'd like you do stick up some comparison pics, man.
 
WeasteDevil said:
A proper LED screen as Sony just showed off has three LEDs on the surface of the panel per pixel (one red, one green, one blue), all emitting light. What Cinca is talking about is an array of LEDs of varying quanitites behind an LCD panel to light it, as it needs to be.
Click to expand...

Is this that technology that an Australian lab developed about six or seven years ago?
 
hungrywing said:
Is this that technology that an Australian lab developed about six or seven years ago?
Click to expand...

...

If you've ever been to a professional baseball, football, or basketball game, and seen the giant screens above the stands, you will be familiar with LED displays. That's fine for an image measured in furlongs, but this is the first time a company has been brave/stupid enough to try it on a television.
Click to expand...

No, it's not new, however in a TV it's about the pixel density/dot pitch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.