60hz vs. 120hz vs. 240hz vs...

[caseymcq]

We have a 32" Sony Bravia flat screen and looking ahead to the Black Friday deals / holiday deals are considering getting a bigger TV. Our Sony is a 60hz refresh rate. I was doing some research online about the differences in refresh rate. I got the "text book" answers as to image lag yadda yadda yadda. It seemed like going from 60hz to 120hz was the most noticable improvement from the techie articles I read and while 240hz etc. were improvements they weren't as noticable at the first I mentioned.

What I like to hear is some actual opinions from people especially from those who have experience viewing the various types. Does that refresh rate really make a difference is the quality? Is there that much of an improvement going from 60 to 120 to 240 to ....

I have already seen some smokin' deals on some larger TVs that are 60hz and it seems like the prices start to climb a decent amount going to 120 and then up?

Also how about various brands? I am partial to Sony but I have been looking at Vizio and they seem to be pretty good. Any other brands anyone has been really happy with? Any not so happy with?

Thanks for the feedback.

[LMITOUT]

I see no blur or lag with my LCD running at 120Hz and if you can save money by purchasing a 120 instead of a 240, I would have no problem doing so.

I have two Samsungs that I am pleased with (LCD) and they seem to be near the top of the list as far as popular brands goes.

I was disappointed with the Mitsubishi I had previously (DLP) which failed after just a few years. A co-worker had a similar set but larger and his failed as well which tells me it was more than just an isolated incident. I'll be avoiding them until I see more positive reviews or a reason to switch from Samsung.

I've been browsing the leaked Black Friday ads this past week or so and there are some good deals at Sears. A 55" Samsung LED TV for $1500, reg $2500.

[Jim Almquist]

Happy Birthday Casey

Were you will see the most difference with the refresh rate is watching anything that is moving fast like hockey or nascar. If things move slow the LEDs will have enough time to change colors. When they don't have enough time to change color is when you will see motion blur or a slight trail behind the fast moving object. If it were me I would at least get a 120hz. When I picked up my HD unit the 120hz were still new so I went with a Panasonic Plasma and still love it today. They draw more juice and give off more heat then LCDs but they never have motion blur.

[spearchucker]

I have 2 Samsung 46" LCDs. One is 120Hz and the other 240Hz. The 240Hz is a notch up in picture quality, but not because of the 240Hz. It is just a little higher end TV. I don't see blur on the 120Hz one, so I wouldn't be afraid to get 120Hz. You will tell a difference between the 60Hz and 120Hz though. Right now most of the 60Hz models are the cheaper low end models, 120Hz is the mid to high end, and 240Hz is in the high end models.

[CJH]

I wouldn't go below 120hz, especially on a bigger screen TV where blur would be more noticeable. Not as much of a problem on the smaller screens.

I wouldn't have a problem buying a Samsung, Sony, Panasonic or LG. (I have a 120hz 42" LG that looks great and has worked flawlessly for 3 years) Sony used to be the leader in picture quality (more so in tube TV's), but they are all about the same now, just minor differences. The technology levels make more difference than the brands mentioned.

Vizio is probably the best of the "value" brands.

[LightningBG]

I have a big 60hz and my parents have a 120hz. Truthfully I like my 60 better. As weird as it seems, their TV is freakishly clear. Creeps me out every time I watch it. It doesn't look real, or maybe it looks too real, not sure. My dad says ya get used to it, so who knows.

[mamohr686]

I'd say the simplest answer to your question is the bigger the TV your going to buy the more important the refresh rate is going to be. On a flatscreen 42" and under your not going to notice a difference with a slower refresh rate. If you go any bigger then spend the extra money on the 240HZ. I have LCD 46" TV with a 60hz refresh rate. When I'm watching HDTV via satelite, the picture on the screen gets clearer if sceen stays motionless. Fast moving sceens can get blurry. This doesn't happen when I watch a blu-ray movie. The picture is super crisp even with a fast moving picture and my slow refresh rate.

[JimBuck]

I own a 46" LCD 240Hz. and was juggling between this one and a comparable model at 120Hz. before I purchased. Dynamic content like Racing, action movies, nature shows and certain sports were fairly noticeable for me when comparing side by side. My thought is go at least 120Hz. if you can. As it's been said earlier, the bigger you go the more noticeable and annoying a low refresh rate is going to be.

As for Brands, I own a Sony Bravia and really like there TV's. Vizio I've heard mixed reviews on but they are also more reasonably priced. If possible, bring in a disk of your own content to play on each unit for a controlled experiment. Big box stores have been known to manipulate lighting, content and tv settings to make the more expensive models look far superior. Good luck on your hunt.

[caseymcq]

Thank you to everyone. That was exactly the type of feedback I was looking for. I think we are going to look at getting a 42 or 46 incher, Black Friday at the soonest.

[Jim Almquist]

Casey

From what is being leaked out there should be a number of deals out there on LCDs.

Put on your warm cloths and be prepared to stand in line with temps in the single digits

[caseymcq]

Finally pulled the trigger on a new TV. Went with a 46" JVC that has a 120hz refresh rate. So far so good. A Sony Blu-ray player was under $100 too, so I bought one of those too.

The price on the TV was good and it has a iPod docking feature that allows us to watch videos from our iPods on the TV. The picture is actually better than I expected it would be from the iPod.

We had HD DirectTV and it definitely notice it more with the 46" TV than I did with the 32".

So far I only have one Blu-ray movie, Gone in Sixty Seconds (for some odd reason I can watch that movie over and over, maybe I am wishing one of these times they won't trash the car). I thought that was pretty impressive. I am anxious to watch a few movies with more special effects.

For both the HD DirectTV and the Blu-ray I like the HDMI conection. Having one cable that does picture and sound in high quality is nice. The TV has multiple HDMI inputs and only one composite so that was also a bonus to go with the Blu-ray and be able to use DVDs with the player and keep the composites open for the Wii.

[LMITOUT]

Glad you found something that works for you.

I'd love to take a drive in Memphis' "unicorn" just once, but thinking the 2012 Camaro ZL1 would be a suitable substitute.

[EBass]

Excellent - I got a 55" LCD Sony Bravia 1080P 120Htz and I love it. It's hard to turn the power off Now the LED's are the same price as the LCD. Oh well I really like what I have now.

I want some surround sound, but that will need to wait a bit.

[spearchucker]

LED doesn't always mean a better picture than LCD. The only difference is the backlighting.

[NKLCOLT1911]

i have a 50" samsung plasma 1080 p 600hz and i could not be happier, just keep in mind that not even the best led will produse a picture as good as a plasma cause a led is the same as a lcd with the exception of led back lighting it all about the refresh rate thats what makes the big difference when gaming and watching fast pased action movies.

[spearchucker]

The newer high end LCD have just as good a picture as a plasma. LCD can be better in bright rooms because they don't reflect light.

[NKLCOLT1911]

i agree with that but i was suprised at how good my anti glare is on my plasma compared to my rear projection the plasma is way better but lcd is the best at anit glare

[pureinsanity]

The newer high end LCD have just as good a picture as a plasma. LCD can be better in bright rooms because they don't reflect light.

agreed