b_have Posted December 28, 2007 Share Posted December 28, 2007 Anyone here in the trade can beat £695? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl0s Posted December 28, 2007 Share Posted December 28, 2007 Where can it be had for £695? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_have Posted December 28, 2007 Author Share Posted December 28, 2007 Currys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pabs Posted December 28, 2007 Share Posted December 28, 2007 really? You sure? Currys do the N87 at £699, not the M87..... And the DSG group only have the M86, not M87...... Cheapest I've found is £740 @ Dabs and AJ Electronics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steviekid Posted December 28, 2007 Share Posted December 28, 2007 really? You sure? Currys do the N87 at £699, not the M87 I've been looking into TV's recently but am still not really up to speed. Is the only difference between these two the contrast ratio? Does 10k:1 and 15k:1 really make much difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pabs Posted December 28, 2007 Share Posted December 28, 2007 well, from research, it would appear that the M87 panel in the TV is better than the panel in the N87. From avforums.com, the N87 is an older model with (i think) an 8-bit panel rather than the M87's 10bit panel. This equates to some silly figure with regards to colour reproduction. I think everywhere has the deals on the N87 now to clear stock - everyone seems to be doing it for £699. The only difference between the M86 and M87 is cosmetic - I've seen the two tv's side by side and the M86 is much squarer - the edges are not rounded like the M87. Overall, I prefer the cosmetics of the latter. EDIT: plus of course, what you mentioned - contrast ratio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mk47 Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 seen this today aswell i think we are going to go for it cant seem to think wether its a huge difference going for the newer model which is £799 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 Meh. Judging on this review : http://www.hdtvorg.co.uk/reviews/lcd/samsung_le40m87bdx.htm I think I'd still go for a plasma, especially if you watch sports TV - which is my main thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pabs Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 seen this today aswell i think we are going to go for it cant seem to think wether its a huge difference going for the newer model which is £799 you've seen what today? The N87? or a cheap source of the M86? Where? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pabs Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 Meh. Judging on this review : http://www.hdtvorg.co.uk/reviews/lcd/samsung_le40m87bdx.htm I think I'd still go for a plasma, especially if you watch sports TV - which is my main thing. Another review here: http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/Samsung-LE40M86BD/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pabs Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 For those that are interested in this TV - I've just picked up the M87 from Costco for £751, which is a little more expensive than Dabs (739.99) but Costco give a 3 year Guarantee - which I think is fantastic for the extra £11 - and it's at home now, being used! Just got to get it wall mounted now - I don't have the tools to do that so going to get an installer to do it for me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl0s Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 I am committed to buying a new 42-ish inch TV within the next two weeks and I had initially told myself it had to be 1080p, simply from a geeky "never can have enough resolution" perspective, but I'm starting to think otherwise now. We don't have Sky HD, or an Xbox 360 or PS3, just Cable/Freeview & DVD. I might also play the R/C heli simulator on it. Is a 1920x1080 panel going to do a rougher job of upscaling a standard-definition PAL picture than a 1366x768 panel, or are they both just wrong and it totally depends on the resizing/anti-aliasing methods they use within their digital circuitry? Computer will not run the heli sim at 1920x1080 that's for sure, so the heli sim will be scaled some way or other anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pabs Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 I don't think I can answer your questions, but what I can say is this: After using the Samsung LCD for a good few hours now - I am actually VERY happy with the SD picture. So many people were ranting on about how aweful the picture on LCD's for SD were, and initially I agreed - the standard settings out-of-the-box WERE aweful. But a short trip to avforums.com for the correct settings (and hdtvtest calibrations) and I was 100% happier. It's no where near as bad as I thought it would be, and I'm only running Sky+ on SD via RGB Scart. Still not as good as CRT - but I've reclaimed about 6sq foot of my front room!!! On the other hand - I purchased a Samsung HD1080P7 DVD player - upscales to 1080p which the TV can accept. Old DVD's definately look better than they did before - so that's a good thing too! I can't wait to try a new ish DVD and see what the upscaling image is like, but today I'm off out sofa shopping again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl0s Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 Hmmm interesting, thanks You say people were ranting about SD picture on HD LCDs.. what about Plasma? They have the same fixed-pixel setup as LCDs don't they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl0s Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 I really would go for Plasma, but I worry about long term reliability. These chaps seem to think that LCDs are outselling Plasmas because of size/price. Surely it's not just me who's put off by the idea of screen burn, fade etc. ? Or is it really no worse than CRT? I might reconsider plasma. I do like the glass fronted screens more. Anyway, in answer to my last question, Plasma/LCD doesn't matter, they're still fixed resolution displays so it mostly comes down to the scaling/anti-aliasing methods they use, but there must also be an element of panel resolution being more PAL SD friendly, i.e. a 576 line PAL source must scale more easily/favourably to one of the following resolutions than the others: 1024 x 768 (HD plasma) 1366 x 768 (HD LCD) 1920 x 1080 (1080p HD LCD or Plasma) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pabs Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 Plasmas have a "softer" picture, so generally Plasma's are MUCH better for SD picture. If I could have afforded it, I would have purchased a Pioneer plasma - they are fantastic. Unfortunately their price reflects this. I've only had my Sony 32" 100Hz CRT TV for around 4years, so the fact I've bought another tv now means I'll probably upgrade again in 4 years. In the meantime, this TV will do wonders for my Xbox, DVD's etc. Obviously this is all down to personal preference - as said before many people will not be happy with LCD for SD, but I suppose it depends on what you're used to or how picky you are with the picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pabs Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 Plasma screenburn used to be a big problem, but I think these days it's not so bad. I seem to remember some form of internal "screen wipe" that is 1-use that would remove most of the screen burn if it was present. If you can afford it then definately look at Plasmas - but within my budget the Samsung at £750 was a bargain - Plus it has a very nice glossy finish to it, making it look like a glass-fronted plasma! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl0s Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 I think I'll look at 1024x768 plasmas then. At least it's a proper computer-friendly resolution too, although it'd be a stretched XGA, wouldn't it. Hmmm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pabs Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 I'm by no means the best person to talk to about this really - so I highly recommend you speak to some of the folk over on http://www.avforums.com and find out what they suggest? Alternatively find some people on here in similar situation to you and see what they opted for... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl0s Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 Now I'm even more confused. Empire direct lists some of the 42" Plasma's as having these resolutions: 1024x 720 (!?) 1365 x 768 (!?) are these mistakes ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_have Posted December 31, 2007 Author Share Posted December 31, 2007 After using the Samsung LCD for a good few hours now - I am actually VERY happy with the SD picture. So many people were ranting on about how aweful the picture on LCD's for SD were, and initially I agreed - the standard settings out-of-the-box WERE aweful. But a short trip to avforums.com for the correct settings (and hdtvtest calibrations) and I was 100% happier. It's no where near as bad as I thought it would be, and I'm only running Sky+ on SD via RGB Scart. Still not as good as CRT I'm confused now. Buying this for my Mums birthday, she only needs it for normal Sky tv (maybe SkyHD later). Are you saying its not great? I have an old LG 42 plasma which she thinks is great, I would assume that the Samsung should be way better being 2 years younger? What did you change the settings to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiten55 Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 i just bought a LE40M87BDX for £765, and a PS42Q97HDX for £650. both from the samsung shop on Tottenham court road. spent ages comparing all the tv's and decided to get the lcd for my room and the plasma for downstairs. lcd's are better for gaming. according to the AVforums anyway. both tv's are amazing. the m range is better than the mn range, contrast ratio makes a big difference, and the 87 is the newwer model to the 86 (obviously). hope that helps. well pleased with both tv's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pabs Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 b'have - I am saying that I think the Samsung M87 is fantastic The image is definately not in the realms of CRT quality, but much better than 99% of LCD's I've seen. The default settings out of the box are really quite poor - and I'm also told (don't know if it's true) but the LCD's take a bit of time to "settle-down" or "bed in". The settings I have now got for Sky SD image via RGB Scart are as follows: Picture Mode: Movie Contrast: 70 Brightness: 44 Sharpness: 26 Colour: 52 Colour Tone: Normal Backlight: 4 Size: 16:9 Digital NR: Off Movie Plus: Off Detailed Settings Black Adjust: Off Dynamic Contrast: Off Gamma: 0 Edge Enhancement: Off Colour Space: Wide White Balance: R-Offset: 17 G-Offset: 15 B-Offset: 11 R-Gain: 4 G-Gain: 14 B-Gain: 30 My Colour Control: All Set to 15 ------------------------------ Setup Energy Saving: Medium Everything else off in this section ********************************* These and the settings thread are found here: http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=509999 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imi Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 What about power consumption....plasma's are super power hungry compared to LCDs.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_have Posted December 31, 2007 Author Share Posted December 31, 2007 b'have - I am saying that I think the Samsung M87 is fantastic The image is definately not in the realms of CRT quality, but much better than 99% of LCD's I've seen. The default settings out of the box are really quite poor - and I'm also told (don't know if it's true) but the LCD's take a bit of time to "settle-down" or "bed in". The settings I have now got for Sky SD image via RGB Scart are as follows: Picture Mode: Movie Contrast: 70 Brightness: 44 Sharpness: 26 Colour: 52 Colour Tone: Normal Backlight: 4 Size: 16:9 Digital NR: Off Movie Plus: Off Detailed Settings Black Adjust: Off Dynamic Contrast: Off Gamma: 0 Edge Enhancement: Off Colour Space: Wide White Balance: R-Offset: 17 G-Offset: 15 B-Offset: 11 R-Gain: 4 G-Gain: 14 B-Gain: 30 My Colour Control: All Set to 15 ------------------------------ Setup Energy Saving: Medium Everything else off in this section ********************************* These and the settings thread are found here: http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=509999 Many thanks Pabs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.