1. Rest in Peace Paul (Kegger) If you would like to help the family in this time of great sorrow and need, you may donate on their GoFundme page: https://www.gofundme.com/mckechnie-medical-and-funeral-fund?
    Dismiss Notice

Is OLED worth the extra money??

Discussion in 'Home Theater & Video' started by slow_jazz, Feb 27, 2017.

  1. PianotunerNJ

    PianotunerNJ Active Member

    Messages:
    121
    Location:
    Central NJ
    Last year we got a Sony X930D, 65". It was a bit pricey but at the time still 2/3 the price of similar Oled. We started with the lower end Sony and the light bleed (I'm guessing that's being referred to as dirty screen?) was unmanageable. The upgrade to the 930D was great for 2D but it moved us to active 3D which absolutely sucks compared to the passive 3D on the lower end TV. Since I'm the only person in my house who likes 3D, I took the hit. Having said that, the general overall performance of the TV is astounding. Netflix and Amazon streaming in 4K HDR is basically the pinnacle of television viewing. And, even though standard broadcasts are only in HD, this thing upscales and smooths out all motion so well that the picture looks 4K unless you're dealing with a really low grade SD signal, pretty much everything looks great. This is one significant advantage to not buying a bottom end panel. Sure, it's 4K, but without all the high end processing you really don't get the maximum benefit. Of course, every year the hardware improves so I imaging the processing on lower end units will be improving steadily.

    My understanding is that oled, like plasma, creates its own light, so no backlight. With the super thin panels and task of processing backlight so that its brightness coincides with the image, you sometimes get light bleed. My Sony X930D has nearly 0 light bleed but we paid extra for that. I'm guessing that those issues will be corrected over the next year or two but buying a 2015 or 2016 model may expose you to that problem.

    I am very happy with the new 4K experience, but only because we could afford to do it right. As good as it is, there is still a risk of getting let down by a low end 4K tv so shop carefully. If you can go oled, you probably can't go wrong. Also they have passive 3D (when they have 3D) and passive 3D on a 4K tv is the ultimate 3D experience. Full resolution for each eye and no flicker or battery issues. For 3D I still prefer my old 49" LG with passive (despite the resolution hit) over the active on my $3000 Sony. Shame, but overall, the Sony is amazing and 99% of the time 3D is no issue in my house. The LG is in my cave now so I just excuse myself for 3D viewing.
     
  2. mhedges

    mhedges AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,180
    Location:
    Greensboro NC
    Good info. But honestly I didn't realize they were even still making 3D TVs.
     
  3. PianotunerNJ

    PianotunerNJ Active Member

    Messages:
    121
    Location:
    Central NJ
    Ouch. Considering how much fun I find it, I struggle to understand how it never took off. I think the coolest audio visual experiences are surround sound and 3D. I can think of no movie or music experience that isn't improved by 3D and surround sound. My opinion I know, but still, the resistance to that stuff I find puzzling. Especially coming from a collection of audiophiles, aka audio gear heads. I would think the high octane experience would be the goal, but it seems there's a purist attitude about the stuff I just don't get.

    Funny, as a pro piano tuner, I compete against many guys who tune entirely by ear. I switched to a specialized tuning device (software) that is capable of much better and more consistent results than any strictly aural tuner I know many years ago. Yet, despite the obvious advantages for both me and my customers, there are still some purist holdouts that insist on an old school approach.

    i can understand the appeal of nostalgia based listening like to vinyl, or stereo CD, and I enjoy that stuff quite a bit, but I don't get the rejection of progress like high-res and surround formats. I guess the marketplace is speaking, but that sucks for me cause I'm way into my surround and my 3D.
     
  4. mhedges

    mhedges AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,180
    Location:
    Greensboro NC
    Sorry didn't mean to throw shade at you.

    I'm not sure you can lump 3DTV with surround sound and hi-Rez. To me Surround at least has been very sucessful, and isn't going anywhere. Hi-Rez seems to have developed a somewhat stable niche. 3D TV just never caught on. It just seemed like all the buzz on it was negative - it was fatiguing to watch, glasses were clunky, very limited software, etc. There was just nobody out there pushing it as being amazing or failing that just plain OK.
     
  5. PianotunerNJ

    PianotunerNJ Active Member

    Messages:
    121
    Location:
    Central NJ
    I didn't mean to make a false equivalence, I'm just saying I sometimes perceive a similar reluctance to surround music as I get about 3D. I'm not taking any of this personally, no problem there. I guess I'm just a little bummed out that my preferences don't take off. I hate to see 3D disappear altogether, and surround music has had ups and downs too. True enough that high resolution music is garnering more popularity lately now that computer memory has come down in price and compression is no longer needed, but surround still has some ground to make up. If it helps, I'll be buying surround music and 3D movies as long as I can!

    Just got a chance to hear the new release of Sgt. Peppers in surround. Not bad but not mind blowing. Problem is, much like Pet Sounds, the masters are mix down tracks, best case to 4 track recordings, so there's not a lot of room to separate sounds for rear channels. Still, the higher resolution and advanced processing are a general improvement, just not really a new listening experience like many later albums with better recording tech seem to offer. Nonetheless, a fun listening experience.
     
  6. mhedges

    mhedges AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,180
    Location:
    Greensboro NC
    Well you just brought up my problem with surround music - you can't get any recent releases. It's all remasters of... errr... "vintage" rock which I have no interest in. Or classical/Jazz which I have no interest in. That's why I gave up on SACD.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2017 at 9:39 AM
  7. PianotunerNJ

    PianotunerNJ Active Member

    Messages:
    121
    Location:
    Central NJ
    I get it, I do. If there was more of it out there that suited my tastes I'd buy more and I have about 50 surround albums now I think.
     

Share This Page