Spec me a small (by modern standards) and dumb (not smart) TV.

divuk83

divuk83

divuk83

Associate
Joined
8 Mar 2006
Posts
1,402
Location
York
I'm considering replacing my old 2010 Sony 32" TV (KDL-32EX401). It's still working and does 1080p, but is pre led backlighting (its CRT backlit) and it's looking a bit chunky and dated. I have a new chromecast and a Nuc with Kodi, so I really don't need any smart features what so ever. Built in Freesat would be nice, but I have a freesat box so that's not essential either. I don't have a TV aerial so don't want to go freeview. It needs to be between 40-43 inches (no bigger) as it's not the biggest of rooms. Sound quality isn't that important as I have separate speakers. Essentially I need a TV with a good quality panel and not much else. I'm not even really sure I need 4k, I would rather go good quality 1080p than a cheap 4k panel. Budget of around £400. I like the look of the Sony 1080p models and there are a few LG ones with build in freesat that look OK.

Thanks in advance.

Dave
 
I recently had a 5 year old, 32" Samsung develop an issue with the panel but luckily John Lewis refunded it. Off I went back to John Lewis and purchased another 32" Samsung for £250.
Two hours later, I was back in the store asking to change it for something else. The picture quality was worse than the previous unit as was the sound. The sales chap spent quite a bit of time with me looking at the two other 32" options (2 Sony units) despite the fact that I wasn't really spending a great deal but in the end, I wasn't impressed with any of them and left with a Panasonic TX-40GX800B for £599.

A lot more expensive yes, but the difference in quality was quite something and whilst 43" isn't that big by today's standards, it was just too big for the bedroom. The 40" pushes the limit of where the TV sits but I'm really pleased with it.

I know £599 is over your budget, but if anything I'd say don't bother with another 32".
 
You'll struggle to not get a smart one,but this would be a good option I reckon -

KDL43WF663
 
Yeah, I'm thinking I can go from a 32" to a 40/43" as the newer TV will have a much, much smaller bezel compared to what I have now. Also I would like a slightly bigger screen and have little space to play with on the TV stand.

I know that all TV's have smart features and that is unavoidable, I just don't need to be paying extra for Android TV etc that I won't use. The TV needs to have working speakers, but for films etc I will be using my hifi so it doesn't need to be amazing.

That Sony is one of the ones I looked at and is deffo a contender. I have always been drawn to Sony TV's since the Trinitron days.

Thanks

Dave
 
Your two options are a TV or a computer monitor. I don't think the computer monitor is all that practical of a choice. Most don't like the sort of scaling duties that a TV does, and they won't be all that happy with any 50Hz content either.

A TV is the more pragmatic choice. However, the TV market is shaped by volume. Although there are commercial video display products - you see them in Estate Agent windows and other Point-of-Sale applications - they're a niche product compared to TV, and so there's no price saving or quality advantage. This leaves us with TVs.

To get a quality panel you'll have to look at a quality product. This won't be the bog standard 32"-43" TV. They're made for purchasers who are only interested in price, so the products get the cheapest parts and that means the lowest cost parts. That's not where you find quality.

What this boils down to is the cost of production. It's far cheaper for a factory to produce and market say 100,000 fully featured TVs than it is to tool up and train staff to make two or three versions of the same set but with some having no tuner or no smart features. There's not sufficient demand for such products that would generate the economies of scale to get the cost down to the price of the fully-featured sets. This means ending-up with the daft situation of the TV with fewer features costing more than its fully-featured counterpart.
 
Yeah, I had a similar conversation when getting my mum a TV a few years ago. She wanted a 24-28" one, where as I had to convince her the 32" was the better option as there were more of them out there making them cheaper and better. Sub 32" TVs usually have weedy speakers too.

As you say computer monitors will have to many issues and the speakers would be much worse than TV ones. Whilst I don't need to be blow away by the amazing sound, most TV's will be able to do a much better job for normal volume TV watching.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom