LED, OLED, QLED

[PeterJ]

Am in the market for a new tv but the choices are a bit much to keep up with. I have seen all the videos comparing the above, but none of it seems to be in language that I can understand. So has anyone here had experience with any of the new tv's and is it really noticeable to buy the $2K OLED over the $700 LED ? I will buy either a 65 or 70 inch screen if that makes any difference.

[quikdraw67]

My .02

What is your service? Cable, satellite dish, antenna, or streaming?

My understanding is that most resolutions are no higher than 1080p, so I can't see how much one would be over the other.

I

[Rolex28]

I have an LG OLED 65". Fit tight against the wall as the mount is recessed in the back of the TV. Absolutely love it. I'm 80 YO and as my neighbor told me," buy what ya want and don't worry about the cost". My Bro-in-law also said he wouldn't live next door to anyone who didn't have at least a 65" OLED. Buy as big as you want..
I also paid Best Buy extra $100 to install and after watching 2 guys do it I was very glad I did..Certainly I wouldn't wanted to try...

[bigwheelzip]

This article looks at the differences between them.

QLED vs OLED vs LED TVs: Which one is the best? - RTINGS.com

[DWalt]

I doubt it makes much difference these days. I would go more on getting the best price. For about 10 years we had a 50" Samsung plasma set with a very good picture, but I don't think plasma sets are still made. When it died about 2 years ago we bought a 55" Vizio LED from WalMart. The picture quality also seems very high, and we are very satisfied so far. If getting the very highest picture quality is a high priority, you might want to visit a high-end electronics store to see pictures on different type and make sets side by side before making a choice. You might also consider how wide the viewing angle is. I think most LED sets have narrower viewing angles than others. It may or may not make a difference depending on the layout of the room in your house you want to put it in. I would also get a Smart TV. But I believe that today, most of them available are Smart TVs.

[Tom K]

I have wondered the same thing myself. Our 60" Pioneer plasma TV cost $4000 in 2007 and was the best available at the time even though it is only 720p. Money well spent, still has a great picture and fabulous color but I am thinking of switching over to streaming and considering a "smart" TV. And they are virtually all 4K now, some with better upscaling than others.

One factor that drove me to choose the Pioneer plasma over other types available at the time is its off-axis picture quality. Far too many TVs had a very good picture if you sat right in front of it, but get off to the side any at they'd get dim and indistinct. The Pioneer stays sharp and bright even though looking at it virtually edge-on. Here it is when it was new in our old house, looking at about a 45 degree off axis. The scene shown is from the series Planet Earth.


So when looking at TV descriptions I have seen that LED and QLED recommend viewing straight on, and OLED is supposed to have a wide viewing angle. I haven't really looked at any in the flesh yet so I don't know if it's true but if so, I would pony up for the better screen of OLED.

By the way, if I do replace the 60" Pioneer it will be with a 75" set. Bigger than that and the price escalates rapidly.

[DWalt]

I do know that our Vizio LED seems to have a fairly narrow optimum viewing angle, i.e., the picture brightness falls off with greater angles and is best when viewing it straight on. But our living room is somewhat narrow, so that does not make much difference from our viewing positions. But it might be irritating if you have a wide room and chairs are located far off-center. Our old Plasma set did have a wider acceptable viewing angle, and that was the first thing I noticed when we got the LED set to replace it. But as I said, the LED is OK for our viewing room as we sit fairly close to the screen.

We thought about buying a larger screen, but for our room, 55" is just fine. If we had a larger living room, we would probably have bought a 75, even though it would have been at least twice the price of a 55.

[rockquarry]

I have no idea regarding the terminology here, but I've found the best way to buy a TV is to look at the picture in the showroom. Probably some shortcomings to doing it the simple way, but I haven't been disappointed yet.

[SMSgt]

I'll worry about it when my 19-inch, B&W CRT TV gives up the ghost.

[Jon651]

Originally Posted by quikdraw67

My .02

What is your service? Cable, satellite dish, antenna, or streaming?

My understanding is that most resolutions are no higher than 1080p, so I can't see how much one would be over the other.

I

Here's a little bit of knowledge for you before you drop some geld on a new TV...


"You Don't See In 4k"
You Don't See in 4K - YouTube

Very interesting info. Good luck!

[LittleCooner]

I shopped like crazy last year, read all the reviews etc and finally went with a 65 inch QLED, a TCL 6 series. I love the color and spend a lot of my retirement time in front of the tv. The live Football and baskeball programs are like being there in person. That is also a Roku tv. I would do it all over again after having it for a year. Price is same as about what one on give for a 29 in great shape. Good luck in your search, there is a lot on the market. Reviews said is was a better bang for the buck because of not top of the line, long standing brand, and I agree.

[pharmer]

I have a 55" Samsung LED "Smart" TV. Cost about $1200 6 years ago. Same TV is about $500 today. Since it's all basically "Far East" junk, I'm hesitant to drop $8K on that Sony 83" OLED. Once you buy it, it's yours. That's what the "Customer service" (1st was Philippines, then Bangladesh) from LG told me when our $2K refrigerator (with a 5 year platinum service plan) took a dump after 5 years and 2 months. Bought a US made (Hey, that's what the tag on it says) Whirlpool refrigerator at half the price, running longer already than the LG. But hey, YOLO so get what you want. Joe

[cmj8591]

Originally Posted by Rolex28

I have an LG OLED 65". Fit tight against the wall as the mount is recessed in the back of the TV.

It must be difficult to replace a tube when one burns out.

[johngalt]

If you are willing to spend the $$$, OLED without any doubt.

I have yet to see a modern, brand new LCD that can match the picture quality of my 2004-ish plasma TV. LCD has improved from the dismal picture quality that was available then, but still no match.

OLED is a different technology but similar principle as plasma. The individual pixels produce the light, so the picture can produce perfect blacks and excellent color accuracy.

LCD is a backlight shining through a series of filters, with all that lighting zones, heavy image processing, and other nonsense that they have to do in an attempt to produce a picture that isn't terrible.

Note: what is commonly called 'LCD' used to use a fluorescent backlight. What is called a 'LED' now uses a LED backlight, but it is still an LCD panel.

LCD has only 2 advantages:
1) it works better in a bright sunlit room.
2) it's cheaper

You may not be able to see much difference in a brightly fluorescent lit Best Buy. Go someplace where they are displayed properly.

IMHO, "features" such as all the built in smart junk is irrelevant. You can buy external boxes that give any channel you could possibly want. Put the $$$ into the best screen.

[johngalt]

Originally Posted by cmj8591

It must be difficult to replace a tube when one burns out.

there are no tubes

[johngalt]

Originally Posted by Tom K

I have wondered the same thing myself. Our 60" Pioneer plasma TV cost $4000 in 2007 and was the best available at the time even though it is only 720p. Money well spent, still has a great picture and fabulous color but I am thinking of switching over to streaming and considering a "smart" TV. And they are virtually all 4K now, some with better upscaling than others.

One factor that drove me to choose the Pioneer plasma over other types available at the time is its off-axis picture quality. Far too many TVs had a very good picture if you sat right in front of it, but get off to the side any at they'd get dim and indistinct. The Pioneer stays sharp and bright even though looking at it virtually edge-on. Here it is when it was new in our old house, looking at about a 45 degree off axis. The scene shown is from the series Planet Earth.


So when looking at TV descriptions I have seen that LED and QLED recommend viewing straight on, and OLED is supposed to have a wide viewing angle. I haven't really looked at any in the flesh yet so I don't know if it's true but if so, I would pony up for the better screen of OLED.

By the way, if I do replace the 60" Pioneer it will be with a 75" set. Bigger than that and the price escalates rapidly.

Don't replace that Pioneer just to get some 'smart' junk. Plenty of external boxes are available for whatever channels you want.

[TX-Dennis]

The bigger the screen the more noticeable the differences in quality are. That said, while I can see the difference, I'm okay with plain old LED. The picture is good enough for me. I really don't want to spend 3 times the money for the slight improvement in image quality of OLED. The term QLED is largely used to mislead people into thinking they're getting OLED at a lower price IMO.

[Onomea]

I bought a 55" Samsung last year for ~ $400. I think they're even cheaper this year. I'm astonished at how cheap good TVs are nowadays.

I don't like a big TV in the living room. The 55" TV is in a small room off from our bedroom where we watch TV at night. Living room TV is 34" and we use it for news in the morning and evening.

I like the suggestion re the screen quality differences to go to a showroom and look at some side-by-side.

In my case, I don't like TV enough to want to spend thousands.

[cmj8591]

Originally Posted by johngalt

there are no tubes

What? No tubes!!?? How do they get it to work!?

[Rustyt1953]

Originally Posted by johngalt

there are no tubes

There are no thermionic valves.

[DWalt]

Originally Posted by johngalt

Don't replace that Pioneer just to get some 'smart' junk. Plenty of external boxes are available for whatever channels you want.

Yes, there are free-standing Blu-Ray DVD players on the market which will provide much of the "Smart" capability needed if the TV set doesn't have it. We have a Smart TV, also a Smart Blu-Ray player (Sony). Mainly we use the internal Smartness in the set for streaming (like Netflix, etc.), but if something goes wrong with the TV, we have the Blu-Ray Smartness to fall back on. My wife believes that the picture is better through the Blu-Ray, but I can't see any difference. You can also synchronize the TV with your iPhone and iPad, etc., through the TV set Smart feature but I haven't tried that.

BTW, I believe the newer flat screen sets have a USB port, so you can also connect your laptop, making your TV set essentially a large screen computer monitor. Lots of free movies and programming are available at various places on the internet.

[StakeOut]

If you are a gamer and want to connect a new PS5 or Xbox Series X make sure your new TV has HDMI 2.1
Next years TV models should have Display Port 2.0 as well as computer monitors and graphics cards all in the name of better refresh rates,resolution and picture clarity.
If I were in the market for a new TV an LG OLED EVO G1 would be on my short list.

[DWalt]

Originally Posted by Onomea

I bought a 55" Samsung last year for ~ $400. I think they're even cheaper this year. I'm astonished at how cheap good TVs are nowadays.

Enjoy the price while you can. If things do heat up with China, there may not be many more imported electronics. We bought a 55" Vizio at WalMart two years ago for around $330, and that was not a sale price. So far, no reason to regret the Vizio purchase. I figure they all probably come from the same gigantic Chinese manufacturing plant anyway, just with different names on them. We have an old 32" tube type TV in our second home, it weighs a ton. But at least it still works fine after around 20 years of use.

[outta_ammo]

If I was in the market for a new TV it would be an LG 4k OLED without question. The shop I use to work in had a 65" playing 4k BluRays and it wasn't unusual for someone to stop mid-sentence, mouth agape, when they looked over at it.

But, as I use to tell folks, the real question is: A) can you tell the difference? and B) is the difference worth the difference to you?

[Muley Gil]

In the little town where my mother and grandmother were born, my great aunt and uncle had the first TV, back about 1950. IIRC, it was a 9" Sylvania. They still had it into the '60s.

[Farmer17]

Most all of the 65" TVs look great to me I bought a Samsung and I don't know any other details but the picture is perfect and it was under 500 bucks at Costco. The only thing I would do different is buy one with voice activated controls that makes searching for movies a little easier. Some tvs now have built in "Alexa" which I think can do a lot of other things by voice activation.

[llowry61]

We purchased a 75" LG NanoCell TV - bought it about 2years ago and I think it was about $1600.00. It is LCD but provides good side viewing capability up to 45 degrees. We went and looked at all of the TVs in the showroom and landed on this one because it had a great picture was large and wasn't the cost of the QLED. It is a 4k smart tv of course, but to me I have to see the picture. It's like wine, the price doesn't necessarily make it good. Taste a bunch of them and buy what you like at the price point you want to spend. Good luck in your search.

Here is a good article that covers the difference in the technologies.

What is NanoCell TV? | OLED vs QLED vs NanoCell | which is better? - Vsbytes

[swsig]

Originally Posted by SMSgt

I'll worry about it when my 19-inch, B&W CRT TV gives up the ghost.

You Early Adopters are always so smug.

[DWalt]

Our first TV was a Stromberg-Carlson, in 1949. It was the family Christmas present. I believe it was about $500 then, equivalent to $3000-$4000 (maybe more) today. I think it had a 12" tube, B&W of course. And, at that time, there was only one (1) TV station in the area, and it broadcast only a few hours in the evening. Hard to believe how far we have come.

[wood714]

I guess I'm slumming. My old Vizio 52" LED smart TV is plenty enough for me.

Don't watch that much TV anyhow. Unless I have company.

Smart TV's are most nice for Netflix, and Amazon Prime. My favorite feature is being able to plug a tiny flash drive in it with over 100 movies. I've watched less than 6 movies on my fancy Blu Ray player.

[Rolex28]

If you watch any TV long enough it will become very acceptable.. But there is no question that the picture quality is far superior in an OLED vs a LED. What most folks don't like is the $2000.00 plus price tag. But there are whistles and bells on the OLED that make it fun to have. As I stated before I am in a position in life where I should get what I want when I want it....

[Imissedagain]

Our old 50 something inch Samsung was having trouble latching on and a few days ago I heard a familiar POP.
Will have to open it up and fix the power supply, after the next few weeks of getting back to X frame grip work and Christmas gifts, as the 30 inchers are small.
Still keep a Trinitron around just because.

Early memories of a Dumont TV shooting sparks when my Dad and family were working on an external tube booster to give it more life.

[Muley Gil]

Originally Posted by DWalt

Our first TV was a Stromberg-Carlson, in 1949. It was the family Christmas present. I believe it was about $500 then, equivalent to $3000-$4000 (maybe more) today. I think it had a 12" tube, B&W of course. And, at that time, there was only one (1) TV station in the area, and it broadcast only a few hours in the evening. Hard to believe how far we have come.

Well, maybe. We have DishNet TV, with 200 channels, and wind up watching reruns from the '60s most of the time.

[03hemi]

I have a 65" 1080i 4k in my den and it is an awesome TV, but remember a TV is only as good as the format you're putting into it.

[dave1918a2]

I never saw TV until 60. Bought a Samsung smart TV from Amazon in march. Has Samsung channels ( around 100 ) and Amazon TV which has more than can be imagined. Free, rent, and buy. Just need WiFi. TV was around $500 and in My opinion Samsung has the best picture.

[bullmack]

It's my understanding that in bright rooms LED provides better viewing than does OLED. This may be worth looking into based upon your specific situation.

[mtgianni]

My wife and I got a lot of enjoyment out of a 13" B&W Panasonic with tin foil on the bunny ears. It's all perspective.

[StakeOut]

Last year I replaced the Mainboard in our Samsung 4K Curved Smart TV after a several Thunder Storm fried it.
It's not OLED but does the job for the little TV I watch.
The lady of the house watches a lot of You Tube junk and foreign language programing on Netflix.
I spend a lot of time these days building custom desktop computers and gaming on them and can't be bothered with the junk on the TV.

[johngalt]

Originally Posted by DWalt

Yes, there are free-standing Blu-Ray DVD players on the market which will provide much of the "Smart" capability needed if the TV set doesn't have it. We have a Smart TV, also a Smart Blu-Ray player (Sony). Mainly we use the internal Smartness in the set for streaming (like Netflix, etc.), but if something goes wrong with the TV, we have the Blu-Ray Smartness to fall back on. My wife believes that the picture is better through the Blu-Ray, but I can't see any difference. You can also synchronize the TV with your iPhone and iPad, etc., through the TV set Smart feature but I haven't tried that.

BTW, I believe the newer flat screen sets have a USB port, so you can also connect your laptop, making your TV set essentially a large screen computer monitor. Lots of free movies and programming are available at various places on the internet.

My plasma TV is a Pioneer Elite Pro-920HD, is old and has no smarts. I have all the streaming services I want through my PS3, TIVO, Apple TV, and Chromecast. The lack of smarts isn't an issue. I hope it doesn't die on me, but if it does I'm going OLED.

The big question is Sony or LG. Sony uses Android for its smarts, LG uses WebOS. I don't know enough about either to judge which is less terrible. My folks have an older Sony Android TV, it is a buggy mess apparently designed for nerds who like to endlessly fiddle with constantly crashing apps. Maybe good for people who thought autoexec.bat and config.sys was fun back in the MS-DOS days. I have no experience with WebOS.

Sony supposedly has better image processors, LG is supposedly cheaper. There is only 1 source for OLED panels (LG), the difference is image processing hardware and software.

[S42N8]

FWIW, CNET is an excellent resource for tech buys. After that, it’s more about the level of tech you’re comfortable with. Personally, I like keeping it simple: let one machine do what it does best vs. the machine of many talents. Get the best display you’re comfortable with, and add outboard devices for streaming apps, sound and your cable/satellite/playback boxes. The Roku 4k streamer has succeeded my Fire TV and Apple TV boxes… just a better interface for the horde of streaming services. As always, YMMV.

CNET guide at: Best TV for 2021 - CNET

[Golddollar]

Originally Posted by Rolex28

I have an LG OLED 65". Fit tight against the wall as the mount is recessed in the back of the TV. Absolutely love it. I'm 80 YO and as my neighbor told me," buy what ya want and don't worry about the cost".

This is what I have. I got it to replace a 42" Sony plasma TV that lost its picture. It turns out the new set with the 65" screen is barely bigger than the old set with the 42" screen. To me it's great.

Nobody mentioned this, so I'm going to. As to any new TV you are contemplating, check the reviews for references to "Screen Burn-in". This is something that happened on my TV from a news channel banner that was essentially static. I would let the TV stay on all night long because I wanted the sound on as I was going to sleep. I now have a ghostly image of the banner whenever the picture on the TV has a light colored image.

[Rolex28]

Originally Posted by bullmack

It's my understanding that in bright rooms LED provides better viewing than does OLED. This may be worth looking into based upon your specific situation.

I have found just the opposite.The room my OLED is in has a big window and a full glass door adjacent to where the TV is mounted and I don't ever get any reflection when the TV is on..

[LVSteve]

TVs back up the old saw about "cheap isn't always good, and good isn't always cheap". I'm currently watching a 46" Sony Bravia LCD that I know I purchased prior to 2010, and it cost about $2.5k. I still get complements on the picture quality. Mind you, I spent a couple of days getting it right. All TVs arrive in the box with all the settings at 11, I swear.

One thing to watch for with all TVs if you take OTA signals is how well they up-res the lower quality broadcasts like 480i. Some TVs make a total dog's breakfast of that process. Don't bother the folk at Best Buy with that question, it will just baffle them. The reviews on CNET and elsewhere usually discuss it.

[LVSteve]

Originally Posted by Jon651

Here's a little bit of knowledge for you before you drop some geld on a new TV...


"You Don't See In 4k"
You Don't See in 4K - YouTube

Very interesting info. Good luck!

Bothering people with science and facts? What's up with that!?

[crstrode]

Originally Posted by johngalt

there are no tubes

Most folks are led to believe there are no tubes because the tubes last so long these days they never need changing.

I've still got my tube tester just in case.

[Rustyt1953]

I still have mine from my old guitar shop.

[DWalt]

Back in the period of pre-solid state tube-type TVs, my father had a tube tester and maintained an inventory of tubes. If the TV died, or started having a rolling or jittery picture, he would pull off the back, remove all of the tubes, and test them to find the bad one(s), then replace it/them. That usually happened several times per year.

[Golddollar]

Originally Posted by DWalt

Back in the period of pre-solid state tube-type TVs, my father had a tube tester and maintained an inventory of tubes. If the TV died, or started having a rolling or jittery picture, he would pull off the back, remove all of the tubes, and test them to find the bad one(s), then replace it/them. That usually happened several times per year.

I have memories of that too, except we had to take the tubes to the drug store to test them.