55" LG OLED or 65" Sony LCD?

broona

broona

broona

Soldato
Joined
28 Aug 2006
Posts
3,022
Location
Hexham
Still umming and ahhing over a new TV, and now Black Friday's here and a few that I've been looking at have been reduced, I think I've narrowed it down to either the LG OLED55B9PLA or the Sony Bravia KD65XF9005.

We sit 2.5 to 3m away, our main source will be Freeview HD, gaming on a PS4 Pro and Xbox One S, and watching 1080P movies from a PC (with the potential to watch 4k from the PC).

Not much 4k content for now, but that's easily rectified when we eventually get a 4k TV, just torn between sizes and technologies, any comments or alternative recommendations much appreciated.
 
Got a B7 oled and an XF90

The Oled has the best picture hands down. The XF90 is very good but suffers from blooming especially in HDR.
I use the Oled puerly for movies and tv (In the living room) whereas the XF90 has the consoles hooked up to it (In the bedroom) I often leave the XF90 on for game updates in the background (static screen) which I would never do on an Oled however others here game on oleds and have no issue at all.

Hope that helps
 
Thanks for the reply, I did see a 55" C9 up against an £800 65" TV in Currys recently and was blown away by the OLED in comparison, but obviously that wasn't the Sony I'm considering.

What's the chances of the 65" B9 dropping below £1500 on Friday? ;)
 
55'' is so small.

OLED has much better PQ but personally I find my 65'' TV small so 55'' just seems wayyyy too small in a lounge environment

any black barred content will look so cramped.
 
The XF90 is a good mid range TV, however put it next to an OLED and it looks noticeably worse. Personally I would just save some extra cash and buy a 65" OLED.
 
aoaaron said:
55'' is so small.

OLED has much better PQ but personally I find my 65'' TV small so 55'' just seems wayyyy too small in a lounge environment

any black barred content will look so cramped.
Click to expand...

My living room is small though, my current 51" feels perfect for normal TV, just a little small for movies and gaming, just thinking that stepping up to 55" isn't a big enough upgrade.

200sols said:
The XF90 is a good mid range TV, however put it next to an OLED and it looks noticeably worse. Personally I would just save some extra cash and buy a 65" OLED.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll see what comes up tomorrow.
 
I like my OLED a lot but would worry about gaming on especially at high brightness in a living room. I have the brightness set down as watch in pitch black cinema room and have still had temporary image retention on it from menus in applications sometimes (although not often and has happened less with use). How prone OLED are to temporary retention seems to vary. I think long term retention is less of a risk as long as you avoid games or things with fixed UI elements. I are going to do a lot of watching in a dark room it would recommend the OLED. Otherwise way up if you want a bigger screen or better image quality. I recently went from a 5 year old Samsung 55 led 1080p to 77 oled and I would say that when watching with lights on or curtains open the size has had the biggest impact for me. When watching in a dark room the perfect blacks of the OLED. Picture quality has less of an impact as the amount of 4k content is limited other than movies.
 
OLED, 5 year warranty with a company like JL or Costco (I.e. who will replace if burn in occurs). Be aware of design limitation, be cautious about it but don’t be overly so. Enjoy perfect blacks, the immense HDR experience and in 5 years, newer technologies will be around.
 
nuke_neon said:
I like my OLED a lot but would worry about gaming on especially at high brightness in a living room. I have the brightness set down as watch in pitch black cinema room and have still had temporary image retention on it from menus in applications sometimes (although not often and has happened less with use). How prone OLED are to temporary retention seems to vary. I think long term retention is less of a risk as long as you avoid games or things with fixed UI elements. I are going to do a lot of watching in a dark room it would recommend the OLED. Otherwise way up if you want a bigger screen or better image quality. I recently went from a 5 year old Samsung 55 led 1080p to 77 oled and I would say that when watching with lights on or curtains open the size has had the biggest impact for me. When watching in a dark room the perfect blacks of the OLED. Picture quality has less of an impact as the amount of 4k content is limited other than movies.
Click to expand...

I've had 2 plasma TVs, my current PS51D6900 being the second, and was told when I bought it that image retention and burn in would definitely happen, 7/8yrs of 4hrs+ use per day later, it's still going strong, no signs of any burn in at all, and very good blacks to my eye.

We mainly watch in a fairly dark environment, doors closed, blackout curtains closed, but there will be some daylight viewing.

MrRockliffe said:
OLED, 5 year warranty with a company like JL or Costco (I.e. who will replace if burn in occurs). Be aware of design limitation, be cautious about it but don’t be overly so. Enjoy perfect blacks, the immense HDR experience and in 5 years, newer technologies will be around.
Click to expand...

Is OLED more or less prone to burn in than plasma? If it's similar, and like you say, if we can get a good 5yrs out of it, it might be the sensible choice, especially if I can wangle a 65" rather than a 55"!
 
If I were gong oled it will still be a panasonic .... per other thread discussions.

Do you watch in a darker room ? as ever, the benefit of an oled would be enhanced their .... I never do.

If the 55xf9 comes up again at ~<£800 I would still consider that .. it's half the price of a 65oled;
with the new oled production lines the 65"oled's should become cheaper too, they're still a premium price, versus ubiquitous 55; as they've reiterated on the media,
good friday deals may not be the local minima.

have you stuck a piece of 65" card in the living room to see how it feels, too ?
 
I don't like my oled as with my pioneer you could hit it with a hammer and it'll take it, this oled doesn't look like it would be ok using a Sds
jpaul said:
If I were gong oled it will still be a panasonic .... per other thread discussions.

Do you watch in a darker room ? as ever, the benefit of an oled would be enhanced their .... I never do.

If the 55xf9 comes up again at ~<£800 I would still consider that .. it's half the price of a 65oled;
with the new oled production lines the 65"oled's should become cheaper too, they're still a premium price, versus ubiquitous 55; as they've reiterated on the media,
good friday deals may not be the local minima.

have you stuck a piece of 65" card in the living room to see how it feels, too ?
Click to expand...


The panasonic is £400 more
 
broona said:
Is OLED more or less prone to burn in than plasma? If it's similar, and like you say, if we can get a good 5yrs out of it, it might be the sensible choice, especially if I can wangle a 65" rather than a 55"!
Click to expand...

I couldn't categorically say whether OLED is better, or if manufacturers have a better understanding of consumer behaviour, what causes burn in and that TVs are more "intelligent" at combating it (lowering brightness of static content etc).

All I can say for sure is that it is guaranteed to happen at some point, because of the organic nature of the technology, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't buy it. With better understanding of the limitations, one can better avoid situations that would speed up the process.

I.e. not leaving the TV on a menu screen when going to the loo, watching less news etc - these aren't use breaking scenarios, and are good habits to get into in general.

That being said, if your use case is predominantly sports and news, I wouldn't recommend OLED. You won't be benefiting enough from the technology to offset of the downsides.
 
And then I see the LG OLED65B9PLA for £1700 or the OLED65C9PLA for £1920, are either of these worth the premium over the Samsung or Sony? Just finished nightshift, off to sleep and dream about buying a TV when I wake up...
 
broona said:
And then I see the LG OLED65B9PLA for £1700 or the OLED65C9PLA for £1920, are either of these worth the premium over the Samsung or Sony? Just finished nightshift, off to sleep and dream about buying a TV when I wake up...
Click to expand...

Absolutely, but I don’t think you’d notice the difference between the B9 and C9, so I’d go for whichever is cheaper, and use the spare cash for a sound bar :-)
 
The problem with the B9 is that it has gimped processing & is even dimmer than the others. Remember, the further away you sit from a TV the more brightness you lose, so the already dim tech is made even dimmer by the model (B9). Plus, 55'' at 2.5m+ just feels so small. It's okay for TV and maybe even movies because there's a lot of portrait shots but in games it feels meh. I'm about 1.4m away from my 55'' and that feels about right for gaming/pc usage. And since you're gaming on consoles it's even worse because the motion on the B9 is gonna be pretty bad at 30 fps, you'd really want to use it at 60+ fps. OLEDs suffer from motion issues at those framerates (even in 24p content), but the B9 in particular even more because, again, gimped processing. Another thing to keep in mind is that the picture quality on the XF90 in terms of colour accuracy out of the box is generally superb while B9s usually are amongst the worst out there, as is evident from reviews. Unless you have the tools to do it yourself, that's something else to consider (that's an easy extra £200? value for Sony).

Imo bigger is better, I'd say go for the XF90. Only if you are deathly allergic to blooming should you not consider it, but also blooming isn't really an issue outside of very high contrast HDR scenes, and really, how common is that sort of content? Not very, in my experience. If you're set on OLED then consider the Sony A8G or LG C9. Yes, it's more expensive by about £200-300 but what's the point in spending £1100 to get a compromised experience.
 
courtesy of avforums vincent, yesterday, has an update on b9 (macro-blocking/near black) https://youtu.be/jq5Bh2NjiBg?t=230
he uses the term not enough bit depth to fully fix the problem .... what the hell does that really mean ?
... the panel is the same as c9, is he just saying newer/c9 cpu registers have more width.

edit: I'll add biggest problem i have with my lcd is watching black scenes like you get on TWD, or other movies ... so personally issue is significant.
 
200sols said:
The B9 is hardly 'gimped' and all the review sites I have seen state barely any difference between the B9 and C9.
Click to expand...

Did you read reviews, or did you read "reviews" (aka paid ads, i.e. whatever's on the first page of google when you search for reviews)? Because if you had read the reviews, I find it hard to believe you'd think there's barely any difference. Or at least, it's hard for me to parse how compared to a C9 which is 40% brighter for HDR highlights (10% window, RTINGS) or where a B9's pre-calibration chart looks like this:
b9-pre-white-balance-small.jpg


Or the various other tests done vis-a-vis motion, or the macro-blocking issues, and everything else, how all those together constitute "barely any difference". The C9 is a fine TV, but the B9's weaknesses are much more glaring when under the spotlight that's why I can't recommend them so readily unless the person fully understands what these things all mean. The experience isn't gonna feel premium at all.
 
I guess you missed what rtings said compared to C9 then.

"The LG B9 OLED and the LG C9 OLED have very similar performance. We expect this to be true once the BFI feature is fixed on our unit. Any other differences can be attributed to panel variance, including the slightly less aggressive ABL found on the B9."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom