Help a guy out? Renovating home theater system after 10 years and have a few questions.


I am going to modernize my family's TV situation.  We have a 60 inch Pioneer 1080p plasma. My speakers are Paradigm Millennia with two MIllenia 20 Trio as towers and then Millenia 30s for center and surrounds.  The subwoofer is a Paradigm, but not sure what model.  The Receiver is a Denin AVR 2807. I have not done anything with it in a decade. 

I am getting an LG 86SJ9570 because why not.  The receiver definitely need to go, and I have settled on the Yamaha Aventage for no good reason. I was looking at Onkyo, but I get the sense the Yamaha may be easier for me to figure out.  My inclination is to look for more receiver than I need but buy something maybe a few years old. Whatever it is will be a learning process.

I have figured out that the model numbers reflect the series or the date.  When the Aventage came out in 2010, it was 60, 700, 800, 1000, etc.  Then they have the 810, the 820 and so on.  So we now have the 70 series.  I suspect that if I bought a 7 year old receiver, I would be missing some things that I really want or need, but I have no idea how far back I can go safely.  I cannot find a chart of the changes by series.  An RX-A1070 is $1,199 at Amazon, and an RX-A2060 is $929.  I can get a 1040 for $550 and a 1030 for $450. But I have no idea what a good cutoff point would be.  If anyone has an idea, I would really appreciate the help.

I also would be curious if my speakers make sense.  We sit about 18 feet from the TV, and I sometimes feel like there is not enough mass to the noise if that makes sense. For some reason, it seems to me like that might be more of an issue with a bigger screen.

Thanks, I really appreciate any help. 
vasubandu
We also have a Panasonic plasma screen but I have decided not to upgrade for the time being. I had a look at many modern 4K screens and felt that the ones that I saw were pretty gross with too bright colours. But that may be the way they were presented to impress in store. For me the clinching argument is that there is virtually no source material to watch. Broadcast TV here in the Netherlands is not even full HD, and the number of UHD disc is tiny, and even fewer of them are serious art films. I know Netflix does some (compressed) 4K streaming but I have never found anything other than commercial drivel. So on the TV side I am postponing an upgrade. My plasma screen should have at least another few years of life in it (I hope).
On the audio side I have long ago decided that I prefer a high end stereo system for my HT sound (Quad 2805 speakers with a B&W PV1d sub plus Antimode 8033 room eq). For the same budget and the same domestic space I think I get better sound that way, although admittedly I am missing some of the special effects. But that is my choice, and your preferences may be different, of course.
Makes complete sense. We get enough HD content in Seattle to make it worthwhile I hope. My problem is that I am so out of touch with developments that a likely to make a mistake.  Interesting thought for stereo with home theater. My boys love the sound of things flying overheard.
To be precise:
We get what is called HD ready i.e. 1280×720p broadcast/cable television. Full HD as in Bluray discs is 1920×1080p. UHD/4k is 3840x2160 pixels. Do you have significant UHD content, or just HD? If the latter, it is not yet worthwhile to upgrade, I would argue.
The only downside of the receiver is that it is old fashioned and does not support UHD video and some modern formats. So as long as you do not upgrade the screen to UHD it should be fine, however.
Good modern AV receivers are not particularly expensive compared to the cost of good speakers, but make sure that if you decide to get a new receiver it has plenty of power (the more the better), also with all channels driven. That puts a big demand on the receiver's power supply, which happens to be the most expensive part of the unit.
The weakest part of the audio side of your set up is not the receiver but the speakers. I can well imagine that you feel the sound is not big enough, let alone good enough. Unfortunately speakers are also by far the most expensive part of a system.
The biggest impact on the size of the sound in HT would be to replace the subwoofer with at least two modern ones. See here for why you need multiple subs: http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/20101029using-multiple-subwoofers-to-improve-bass-the-welti-devanti...
Brands to consider would be SVS or Rythmik, but there are other good ones as well, particularly at a bigger budget. One interesting option would be the Audiokinesis Swarm system: http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/audiokinesis-swarm-subwoofer-system/
In all cases I would suggest a dsp room equalization system as well, either one that is built into the receiver, or an external one such as the DSpeaker Antimode 8033.
Vasubandu I would start with a reciever from Anthem. The same company that makes your speakers. I am using a 58 inch Samsung plasma still since 2010. I was reading an article in Widescreen Review from Joe Kane about the UHD 4K displays, and the manufacturers are still using different standards. I would strongly advise you to wait a little longer on the display. The content is not there yet either. I have gone crazy on the audio end and got an Anthem P5 Statement to drive my large mains and surround rears. I built a center channel to match since the factory no longer exists. All the same drivers and crossovers. Tweeters and midrange all at ear level in the same plane. Using 2 Nikko Alpha 440s to drive smaller height speakers for Atmos. My large speakers are ADS L1290/2s and small speakers 4 of them are ADS L300s. I am using 1 HSU sub VTF-MK4. All my stuff was used and I purchased the speakers on Ebay and Craigslist. I had them all rebuilt by Rich So. The P5 I got used for half price of a new one. I bought the subwoofer online and had it shipped from the factory by UPS. I had the 2 Nikkos rebuilt as well. I bought an Anthem AVM 60 new at the dealer where I got the used P5. I have been into audio all my life since a teenager, now 61 yrs old so I know my way around setup and calibration. Even with yrs of experience when I ran the room correction ARC, that was in the preamp the sound was vastly improved. I used to use Spears and Munsil 2nd edition disc to calibrate the sound with a sound pressure level meter but the ARC system with the calibrated mic is much more accurate. Get one of Anthems recievers and you will be very happy. Get as much power as you can afford. Go slow as the budget allows but get good quality and it will last decades.
OLED is the latest screen technology and it every bit as good as plasma but has far better resolution than plasma every achieved. My TV is the LG 4K OLED 65 inch and the quality is stunning. I checked it with professional photos on a memory stick and it has superb colors without any if the horrible backlighting of LED or LCD - superbly accurate.
vasubandu,

     You have some good equipment to get started with if you want to cobble together a good ht system. 
     However,  I think you need to decide what your goal is for the final result.  Do you want a  good ht system that utilizes as much of your existing equipment as possible to save some $ or do you want a very good ht system that takes advantage of the latest technology?  No matter which route you decide on, you'll then need to give a budget estimate in order to receive useful suggestions.
     I  know I, and believe most members here, would offer different suggestions based on your goals and budget.  
     I think I can give you some useful advice no matter which method you decide on but I also need your budget to better tailor them to your expectations.

Thanks,
  Tim
     
     
For the OP, why not get separates for electronics?  Get a nice powerful multichannel amp that will really make the speakers you use sing before you decide to replace them, and add a processor that will do all the new things that your present pre amp section can’t do. Then as technology changes you can change the pre amp but leave the power amp in place
For the OP, why not get separates for electronics?  Get a nice powerful multichannel amp that will really make the speakers you use sing before you decide to replace them, and add a processor that will do all the new things that your present pre amp section can’t do. Then as technology changes you can change the pre amp but leave the power amp in place
OLED is the latest screen technology and it every bit as good as plasma but has far better resolution than plasma every achieved. My TV is the LG 4K OLED 65 inch and the quality is stunning. I checked it with professional photos on a memory stick and it has superb colors without any if the horrible backlighting of LED or LCD - superbly accurate.

Actually I believe QLED is the latest technology (in the case of Samsung, OLED in the case of LG). As to horrible backlighting of LED/LCD, this isn’t necessarily the case. For instance, consider my (pro calibrated) Samsung UN65KS9800. It features Full Array Local Dimming (FALD) and is every bit as black as any OLED I’ve seen. In fact I’m pretty sure even test/bench measurements indicate it can be a matter of splitting hairs. And, of course you realize that should you need the television in a particularly bright environment, OLED would not be your solution.
gdhal,

    Technically, I believe you're correct that Samsung's QLED is the most recent technology.  IMO, however, OLED is the much more impressive technology.  The  latest 65" LG and 65" Sony (which uses an LG panel) 4K  with active HDR models clearly offer the superior picture quality.  
     Don't get me wrong,  I think your Samsung 65" QLED offers probably the best picture quality of any 4K  LED/LCD FALD hdtv on the market and Samsung's new QLED  technology could be the reason why.  But OLED panels, especially with the 4K and HDR improvements, are definitely superior.  Just view both and compare off axis picture qualities; the OLEDs pq will remain consistently unaltered as off axis viewing angle is increased while the QLED's pq will fade in brightness and resolution as off axis viewing angle is increased. 
      OLED also offers superior color, resolution and black levels since each of the multi-million pixels on a 65" OLED panel are controlled individually and emit their own light intensity and color while also being capable of being completely turned off for ideal black levels.  Samsung's QLED uses backlighting which is less precise although the FALD technology likely helps.

     For years, Value Electronics has been conducting an annual hdtv shootout in Scarsdale, NY which consists of a panel of professional video reviewers and calibrators comparing the top hdtvs and then voting on which is best.
     The OP's  60" Pioneer plasma, if it's a Pioneer Elite Kuro model, was considered by these experts to be the finest hdtv for years in the early years of this competition.
     In 2013, the 65" Panasonic VT60 plasma (with the hiring of many former Kuro engineers and in Panasonic's final year of plasma production) became the first hdtv to top the Kuros in the shootout..  This is my current tv that I've owned for the last 4 yrs.
     LG OLED hdtvs have won the top award at this competition each of the last 4 years (2014-2017).
    The only hdtvs I've seen in person that I would consider replacing my Panasonic plasma with are the LG and Sony OLEDs.
     gdhal, my intention is not to offend you but to give the OP the most complete and accurate information as possible so he can make an informed decision. Him believing that Samsung QLED technology  provides in-home pq that is similar or even within the same class as the pq that OLED  technology provides is just not accurate.
 
 Tim
As for a good cutoff point in past models, it really depends what you want the new receiver to be able to do. Your planned new TV is 4K & has HDR so you definitely want something with 4K upscaling/passthru & HDR capabilities.

You mentioned your boys love sounds flying overhead, but do you have or intend to add atmos speakers (in-ceiling or upfiring)? That will definitely improve those effects, but isn’t an option for everyone due to room and other limitations. If you want to add atmos, even if in the next few years, then you should get a receiver that is capable of it. If additional atmos speakers aren’t ever going to be added then don’t worry about having the ability to process atmos formats.

Streaming capabilities, multi-room audio, and the dozens of other features may or may not appeal to you, but those type of features can easily be added while video and audio processing are the real bread & butter things where you get what the receiver has and have more trouble working around or adding if it’s missing. Aside from getting 4K, HDR, & atmos (if desired), get the most power output you can afford.

As for if the speakers make sense, if you don’t like the sound then they might not be for you. I haven’t heard your speakers, but bigger towers tend to have more oomph than wall-mountable...that said, your room or your significant other might require in/on-wall speakers and nothing you can do about that.
     I really wish the OP would give some feedback on budget and goals since I know of a method he can build his own system using separates that will outperform any available A/V receivers as long as Atmos is not required.

     It's similar to mahler123's suggestion but with a twist.

     vasubandu, you still out there?
Tim
Technically, I believe you’re correct that Samsung’s QLED is the most recent technology. IMO, however, OLED is the much more impressive technology. The latest 65" LG and 65" Sony (which uses an LG panel) 4K with active HDR models clearly offer the superior picture quality.

Don’t get me wrong, I think your Samsung 65" QLED offers probably the best picture quality of any 4K LED/LCD FALD hdtv on the market and Samsung’s new QLED technology could be the reason why. But OLED panels, especially with the 4K and HDR improvements, are definitely superior. Just view both and compare off axis picture qualities; the OLEDs pq will remain consistently unaltered as off axis viewing angle is increased while the QLED’s pq will fade in brightness and resolution as off axis viewing angle is increased.

OLED also offers superior color, resolution and black levels since each of the multi-million pixels on a 65" OLED panel are controlled individually and emit their own light intensity and color while also being capable of being completely turned off for ideal black levels. Samsung’s QLED uses backlighting which is less precise although the FALD technology likely helps.....

@noble100

I participate regularly in the AVS forum, have read tons of literature (before and after my purchase) and also have a rather pragmatic perspective here as well. Suffice it to say I’m well aware of the OLED pros/cons (and there are many), LCD/LED pros/cons (and there are many), and OLED vs LCD comparison pros/cons (and there are many).

That said I DISAGREE that OLED is clearly superior. I knew before hand about the off axis viewing angle and in my case this is a complete non-issue as I sit dead center (using both THX and SMPTE standards). Also, IMO the off axis viewing of LCD is better than it is typically purported to be.

By the way, OLED does NOT offer superior resolution. 4K is 4K. Also, OLED suffers (can and is more prone vs LCD) from burn-in and assumes all 8,294,400 pixels always work as intended, and they do not (necessarily).

Each technology has plus/minus.

OP can search on his/her own as there is an abundance of info available on each technology.

And I do agree with you that FALD definitely helps. It’s essentially technology if you wish to compare black level performance of OLED to an LCD. Without FALD, an LCD couldn’t perform as well.
gdhal,

     I really don't visit the AVS Forum too often (except to view their annual coverage of the hdtv shootout) so I'm not familiar with most of the discussions there.  But I have read numerous professional reviews on both OLED and QLED models, heard the comments from A/V store employees, friends and family members and many a/v store customers that are strangers to me who have all compared the Samsung QLED and LG/Sony OLED 4K HDR hdtvs in a store setting.  I've also watched the AVS coverage on approximately the last 8 Value Electronics yearly hdtv shootout videos on You Tube  and listened to the panelists (consisting of professional A/V reviewers and calibrators) discuss their rankings,test results and general comments. There's typically a Samsung hdtv in the competition; the initial shootouts had plasma contenders and more recent shootouts usually had a QLED model. 
     You've kind of caught me by surprise by your comments since, of all the feedback I've received from those listed in the paragraph above, you are literally the first person I've encountered that hasn't noticed a stark distinction between the pq of these 2 technologies and preferred the OLED sets.  The only pro comments I can recall hearing about the Samsung QLED hdtvs was that the off axis viewing angle wasn't as bad as expected and they cost less than the OLED hdtvs. These same individuals expressed many more pro comments about the OLED hdtvs, using various superlatives that  would generally translate as different forms of 'wow!".  The common cons I recall hearing were comments such as "it's too expensive" and "let's wait til the price comes down".
     My surprise stems from your response to this obvious contrast in pq between these hdtvs being so different from all these other individuals and my own reactions.  As if you're comparing a Lexus to a Chevy Malibu and claiming  the cars are so similar you're having a hard time deciding which car you like best and just ignoring the large quality and price differences. 
    Maintaining that the Samsung QLED and LG/Sony OLED 65" 4K HDR hdtvs are somewhat similar is plainly and simply a false equivalency.  You have the right to your own opinions but not to your own facts.       
     You may want to watch the 2016 and 17 Value Electronics HDTV shootouts  below to get a better understanding of the professionals viewpoints on these hdtvs and their underlying different technologies.that result in their pq differences.

     2016: www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLw0ypM4Zvo016: 
     2017: www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHdqjtuE03Y

      My main point to you in my recent posts is that you're misrepresenting the difference between QLED and OLED by minimizing the differences between them.  For example, these shootouts  entail about 100  A/V industry professionals rating each hdtv on a 1-10 point system (10 is best)in 9 important performance areas.  These scores are then averaged to determine the winner.  The LG OLED won this shootout for 2016 with the Samsung winning 2nd place.  However, the OLED outscored the QLED in each of the 9 categories, interestingly including the "High ambient light performance" category (performance in a bright room).  A Sony LED/LCD actually won this category with the OLED 2nd and the QLED 3rd.  
   Even given the above evidence that the LG/Sony OLEDs thoroughly outperform the Samsung QLED according to about 100 A/V experts, you continue to spread inaccurate information such as the difference is like splitting hairs and that the OLED hdtvs perform poorly in bright rooms.

     I have no vested interest or bias in which hdtv is proclaimed the best each year, other than staying current with the latest hdtv developments, since I don't own any of the shootout contenders in the past 2 yrs -I own a Panasonic 65" VT60 plasma that was an earlier winner of a shootout in 2013 or 2014.  You, OTOH, do have a vested interest and perhaps bias since you own one of the recent shootout contenders, the Samsung QLED.  I'll leave it up to the readers of this thread to determine if that's influencing your comments.
    As I stated previously, I believe your Samsung QLED is a very good hdtv that you seem very pleased with.  However, the OLED has been judged by A/V experts to perform better in at least 9 important areas.  Please don't pretend otherwise and continue to spread misinformation.

Thanks,
  Tim
@noble100 

Hi Tim. I don't have a QLED. I merely stated QLED is Samsung's latest technology. I further indicated that I have a UN65KS9800 (which is an SUHD with FALD). Compare an LCD with full array local dimming to OLED and whatever you prefer by all means get it. 
Depending on your budget,  I would also suggest going with Anthem Audio. They make great Hi current/Hi votage/ Hi wattage separates and receivers. ARC room correction on board many units.  

As for speakers, also depending on your budget,, I might look here on audiogon for some used Paradigm Reference speakers. Great match with Anthem gear. 
https://www.audiogon.com/listings/full-range-paradigm-studio-100-v3-2017-11-27-speakers

As asid earlier, to punch up the experience, deffinetly augment with subwoofers. 

Best of luck.
I have not checked out FALD or QLED. All I can say is that in 2016 the top of the line OLED beat everything else very very easily. It has no black lighting so blacks are excepetionally black - just like plasma. Of course a $6000 TV should be significantly better than most $1500 TVs. I understand OLED prices are coming down and my wifes new Iphone X has an OLED display and so does my Nord Keyboard. Also Sony seems to have got on board with OLED. So a lot of momentum and folks voting with their feet by marching towards OLED - this is despite the extremely high cost compared to LCD or LED.

I dont know about the overall longevity of the OLED screens (a loss of brightness over time can be expected) but after a year I have ZERO screen burn in problems and I do use the OLED TV as a computer display fairly often but NOT for gaming (where burn in can be the biggest problem if you are an addict of certain games)
I have not checked out FALD or QLED. All I can say is that in 2016 the top of the line OLED beat everything else very very easily.

Very easily?

http://4k.com/tv/samsung-ks9800-review-suhd-4k-ultra-hd-240mr-smart-led-tv-un65ks9800-un78ks9500-un8...
We are an LG dealer as well as a professional Home Theater design firm.

The 86inch Oled is quite expensive so unless the OP wants to spend $15k or such this may be the reason he is looking at the 86inch LG LCD which is a very good looking TV.

As per the idea of using an older Yamaha and his existing speakers, I would not. You can buy one fantastic sounding Cambridge Audio Receiver the CX 120 right now for $1,199 which was orginally a $2k receiver or the $3,300.00 CX 200 which is now selling for $2k. No HDR but supposed to be in a software upgrade, unbelievable sound quality for the money killed a Denon in a direct comparison.

I would also look at a new speaker package that will do the room justice.

Dave and Troy
Audio Doctor NJ
     I think the LG 86SJ9570 86" LED hdtv vasubandu is going to buy would be very impressive in any room, no matter the type.  Obviously OLED would give the highest pq compared to LED or LCD whether either is utilizing something similar to Samsung's 'QLED' technology or not. 
     I know an 86" OLED hdtv panel would be ridiculously good but would also be ridiculously expensive.  I completely understand the OP deciding to substitute hdtv panel size for panel quality and save about $10-15K. 
      The sheer visual impact of watching anything on an 86" screen of even just average quality in your home's living room would likely tend to distract from  less than optimum pq issues. Overall, I think this is a wise and frugal trade-off.

Tim
       
............Obviously OLED would give the highest pq compared to LED or LCD whether either is utilizing something similar to Samsung's 'QLED' technology or not..........

Obviously?

http://4k.com/tv/samsung-ks9800-review-suhd-4k-ultra-hd-240mr-smart-led-tv-un65ks9800-un78ks9500-un8...

Obviously?

Here's a direct quote from the 'Final Thoughts' section at the end of the Samsung ks9800 suhd review you linked to above:

" The Samsung KS9800 SUHD TV with HDR is the single best LCD 4K TV we've seen in 2016. If you can afford this model's steep price tags, then go for it. Nothing except for LG's flagship OLED TVs matches the picture quality of this TV."

Obviously?  It seems like it's obvious to just about everybody except you.

Later,
  Tim   
@noble100

Hi Tim.

So by your own admission, your LG 86SJ9570 ***MATCHES*** the picture quality of my Samsung UN65KS9800.

So again, whats so obvious?
We auditioned an LG and Samsung 4k. We settled on the Sony Bravia, XBR. 
We feel it has better blacks and better control over the fine tuning. Samsung's whites were way out of control.  IMHO/YMMV
The LG 86SJ9570 amd UN65KS9800 are both LED TVs and both Samsung and LG are competitive - so not much difference. However the 86inch would be impressive because of the size. Great choice.
Samsung’s whites were way out of control.

My unit was pro calibrated by Kevin Miller. Trust me, the whites (and all other colors) are very much under correct control for P3, REC2020, D65, HD Rec.709.

@ gdhal
(My unit was pro calibrated by Kevin Miller. Trust me, the whites (and all other colors) are very much under correct control for P3, REC2020, D65, HD Rec.709.)

I'm confident your Samsung is a very nice set with a great picture, especially with the pro calibration. No slight intended. We simply found the Sony derived a better picture and the available commands more user friendly without professional assistance-  out of tbe box. Pro calibration is just a phone call away. 

Happy Holiday's!
Hi gdhal,

You stated:
 "  Hi Tim.

So by your own admission, your LG 86SJ9570 ***MATCHES*** the picture quality of my Samsung UN65KS9800.

So again, whats so obvious?"

I think we need to straighten out a few things to keep things clear:

1. Shadorne summed it up precisely when he replied:
" The LG 86SJ9570 amd UN65KS9800 are both LED TVs and both Samsung and LG are competitive - so not much difference. However the 86inch would be impressive because of the size. Great choice." 
     The LG 86J9570 is the 86" LED hdtv that the OP, vasubandu, stated that he has already decided to buy.  It is not the hdtv that I own but I too believe it's a very good choice for the OP due to its visually impressive 86" size and the fact it can be purchased for about $10-15K less than the comparable Samsung of similar size.     
2. As I've stated several times in this thread, the Samsung UN65K9800 that you own is a very good LED/LCD hdtv that has received numerous well deserved good reviews.  But, even in one of these good reviews like the 4K review you previously linked to, there is this statement:

" Only the LG G6 Signature OLED 4K TV or perhaps it’s close cousin the E6 could beat this particular Samsung model in terms of sheer overall display quality and we are definitely impressed."

     I've owned a Panasonic  65" VT60 plasma hdtv for the last 3 years but I've continued to keep current on home video developments via the internet and frequent visits to local A/V stores.  From all I've read and personally viewed,  the very best picture quality currently available is definitely provided by the latest 4K OLED hdtvs with HDR. It's considered to be superior to every other video technology in pq not just by myself,  but also by the vast majority of  professional video reviewers and calibrators.  
     It really is that obvious to the majority of humans.
     I have no idea why you are unable to recognize OLED's obvious pq superiority.  

Tim

@noble100

Hi Tim.

I appreciate your willingness and desire to "straighten out a few things to keep things clear".

As you go on to state "It really is that obvious to the majority of humans.
I have no idea why you are unable to recognize OLED’s obvious pq superiority", can we conclude the matter then if I state that I’m proud to be in the minority?
Hi gdhal,

     " As you go on to state "It really is that obvious to the majority of humans.
I have no idea why you are unable to recognize OLED’s obvious pq superiority", can we conclude the matter then if I state that I’m proud to be in the minority?"

Yes, definitely

Thanks,
   Tim

Yes, definitely

I'm proud to be in the minority.


" I'm proud to be in the minority."

Hi gdhal,

     I suggest being in the minority isn't always something to be proud of. 
     Here is The Official Top 10 List of The Most Unreasonable Things a Minority of Individuals Actually Thinks or Thought Throughout History :

10. Appeasing Hitler was a good idea.
  9. Global warming is a hoax.
  8. The earth is flat.
  7.  Humans and dinosaurs existed on earth simultaneously. 
  6.  Evolution is not true.
  5.  Enslaving fellow humans was a good idea and going to war to defend it was noble.
  4.  Donald Trump would make a good president.
  3.  Richard Nixon was innocent.
  2.  Ginger was hotter than Mary Ann.
  1.  OLED does not deliver the best PQ of any hdtv technology to date.

        As you can see from the Official #1 most unreasonable belief in the history of mankind,  you appear to be on the wrong side of history. 

 Just thought you'd want to know,
 Tim 


@noble100

Tim, you have violated the terms of our agreement. You specifically replied "Yes, definitely" to my question that if I stated I was proud to be in the minority you would consider the matter concluded.

It has become rather obvious to me that *you are a liar*, and I’m honestly not interested in any information you offer.

Some folks look for answers, others look for fights.

Tim, people like you are precisely the reason I’m proud to be in the minority :)
Panasonic VT60 plasma - now that is a fantastic TV - pity they stopped making plasma - I guess the movement to UHD killed it as plasma was often more limited in resolution despite the most amazing PQ.
Hi gdhal,

     Okay,  you're correct, I did violate our agreement. 
      In my defense, I do admit your denial of OLED technology being an important contributor, along with HDR, to the pq of hdtv and this exact same denial being the #1 example in the history of mankind of a minority opinion being on the wrong side of history/truth did strike me as an ideal method to place your misguided minority viewpoint in the proper historical perspective. 
     Honestly, though, my impression that your #1 ranking on this list of disgraced minority opinions was also somewhat humorous was likely the main reason I actually disclosed this Official Top 10 List and violated our agreement.
     I had to weigh keeping my word to you versus speaking the truth and informing our fellow members about your #1 ranking on The Official Top 10 List of The Most Unreasonable Things a Minority of Individuals Actually Thinks or Thought Throughout History.   But it was my choice and, therefore, I must plead guilty by reason of truth telling.

I hope you can appreciate my decision given my dilemma,
  Tim  
Panasonic plasma tv’s do indeed have great picture quality - I am very happy to have one in HD, so no limitation in resolution as long as I don’t watch UHD content. For now, I think the only reason to upgrade one to an UHD TV is if you have access to significant quanitites of UHD content. Like many, I don’t, so I am not upgrading to an UHD TV.
I hope my plasma screen will live until UHD content will be readily available, and then I will upgrade, of course.
Hi willemj,

     I’m in no hurry to upgrade my Panasonic plasma, either. I believe you’re in Europe from some of your prior posts I’ve read. I’m in the states and, as you may know, there’s been more and more 4K content available and we should see some HDR content soon.
     Have you seen the LG or Sony 65" OLED hdtvs with 4K and HDR yet? I’ve seen them in person and both are extremely good with 4K and HDR recorded demo content being played.
     However, if your plasma is 1080p and you watch it from over 3ft away like I do, I don’t think either of us would discern much improvement going to 4K but I had no trouble seeing the large improvement the OLEDs have over  plasmas with HDR; they both have a wider color palette and an even more vibrant color intensity capacity than my plasma. The OLEDs also seemed to be able to get slightly brighter and run cooler than my VT 60 plasma.
     The LG and Sony 4K and HDR OLED hdtvs are the only sets that I’ve seen thus far that I consider superior to our Panasonic plasmas.
     Panasonic and Samsung stopped producing plasmas because they realized a few years ago that manufacturing 4k versions of plasma panels would cost too much and they’d need to be priced much higher than the 1080p plasmas they were then making. I would think they may be back into emissive display hdtvs in the near future.
     I’m very thankful that OLED technology was able to pick up right where plasma left off. OLED has similar independently controlled emissive pixels, almost perfect black levels, high contrast levels, extremely good motion performance and beautiful picture quality just like plasma has while also being able to economically incorporate new technology such as 4K and HDR.
     It’s comforting to know that there’s now a good replacement for our plasma sets just in case something unexpected happens to them. It’s also good to know OLED with HDR is a constant option as an upgrade to plasma that only seems destined to get more attractive as their prices continue to decrease.

Tim
Where the heck did the OP, vasubandu, go? He hasn't replied since his original post.  I think we're doing okay without him but to whose benefit?


Where the heck did the OP, vasubandu, go?

I think he/she got wise to the fact that in the case of this particular thread, certain folks simply have diarrhea of the keyboard and other dilemmas.
"I think he/she got wise to the fact that in the case of this particular thread, certain folks simply have diarrhea of the keyboard and other dilemmas."

Hi gdhal,
     You have a valid point that my posts may indicate a certain verbal case of the runs.
     When I read posts that in my opinion vary greatly from my personal experiences and knowledge,  I'm really not trying to pick a fight.  It's more that I feel an obligation to correct or balance postings that clearly run counter to what I have experienced or know to be true. 
     My main motivation is preventing readers of the thread from being misguided or misinformed by comments I consider inaccurate or at least misleading.  
     I'm not prone to allowing these types of comments, specifically your post that the picture quality provided by Samsung QLED hdtvs is somehow in the same vicinity as that provided by LG or Sony OLED hdtvs,  to just be proclaimed  as truth without being challenged.
     In an effort to be truthful and thorough in my challenging responses to these types of posts, I admittedly am a bit verbose.   I'm consciously trying to make my responses more succinct but, from the length of this response, I obviously have some work left to do.

Tim
 Report this
    
willemj. All your posts seem well informed and accurate. I guess I am more audio than video. I started the good video with a Proton  and finally got into High def with a 1080p  Plasma. Am now into the object based Dolby Atmos but waiting to pull the plug on new display.