Expired Hot Deals

[Amazon.ca] LG OLED CX 55" 4K TV (2020) - $1997.99

  • Last Updated:
  • Nov 26th, 2020 1:56 pm
[OP]
Deal Expert
Feb 24, 2018
16212 posts
17716 upvotes
sidshock wrote: I cannot confirm this as I'm going off memory.
But, only do pixel refresh when needed or after long periods of viewing. Like 6 months ++

Every time you run it, it ages the OLED panel significantly from what I recall.

Plasma failed bc it was too finicky and costly.
Weight, altitude changes affected it, and cost to manufacture at the time

Edit:
it's for sony. But same function.
Clearly says don't perform it more than once a year.

Also read the can make banding worse the more you do it.
https://www.sony.com/electronics/suppor ... s/00173467
Noted on the pixel refresh. I'll run it once a month as my use case requires it.

Thanks for the wider explanation on plasma.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 23, 2003
4340 posts
1074 upvotes
Hamilton
1226 wrote: Power consumption too. LCD pulled a fraction of plasma's.
Very true.
Oled also uses more power. Dunno how it compares to Plasma.
Plasma also kept it's screen pop/colours while OLED fades over time.
I would have happily stayed with plasma over oled bc it would easily rival it in motion handling

So Plamsa would have been great to keep going. Just too $$ (At the time )
Deal Addict
Nov 29, 2009
2779 posts
414 upvotes
Just go OLED. You won't regret it.
Newbie
Aug 20, 2011
68 posts
17 upvotes
Waterloo
Once you go OLED you can't go back. Purchased a c9 55" last year and it's the best TV I've ever owned. Was worried about burn-in and the OLED not being bright enough since I didn't have it in a dark room. However, having owned it for a year, I've had 0 issues with that. 65" is ideal but for my living room 55" made more sense. Unless you're using this for a computer monitor, I'd pull the trigger without hesitation.
Deal Addict
Jul 8, 2005
2166 posts
825 upvotes
sidshock wrote: Very true.
Oled also uses more power. Dunno how it compares to Plasma.
Plasma also kept it's screen pop/colours while OLED fades over time.
I would have happily stayed with plasma over oled bc it would easily rival it in motion handling

So Plamsa would have been great to keep going. Just too $$ (At the time )
OLED uses more than LED but a lot less than plasma, which uses a LOT more. According to rtings.com in a 2017 article (I am not sure if the newer OLEDs use more or less electricity) it looks like it would cost you 10 bucks more a year to use a 55 inch OLED vs. a 55 inch LED TV if you use it five hours a day at 13 cents per KW/h (new fixed Ontario rate). If you can afford an OLED you can afford to pony up 10 bucks a year for the increased electricity costs I should think!

How much did your high-end plasmas cost when you bought them? What sizes are they? I remember that they were very expensive, very heavy and that they used a lot of electricity but that they were the last word in PQ etc.
Deal Addict
Jul 8, 2005
2166 posts
825 upvotes
HarisF wrote: Once you go OLED you can't go back. Purchased a c9 55" last year and it's the best TV I've ever owned. Was worried about burn-in and the OLED not being bright enough since I didn't have it in a dark room. However, having owned it for a year, I've had 0 issues with that. 65" is ideal but for my living room 55" made more sense. Unless you're using this for a computer monitor, I'd pull the trigger without hesitation.
I am using my 55 inch CX as a monitor primarily and also as a TV (I don't watch a ton of TV but I watch some) and with a black background etc. set I am not worried about burn in. I am pretty confident that it will last the five years I am planning on using it as my primary monitor as it won't be used all day every day (I am not working from home full time nor leaving the exact same screen on it for hours in a row when I do use it either).
Deal Addict
Jul 8, 2005
2166 posts
825 upvotes
w01f wrote: It depends how you're look at it.

55" = 1293 cu.in
65" = 1805 cu.in
Difference = 512 cu.in

So you could say the 65" is 39.5% larger than the 55", and th 55" is 28.4% smaller than the 65".

Math is fun! lol
Visions has the 55 inch model on sale for $1998 and the 65 inch model on sale for $2898.

The price difference is 45% and the 55 is less than 40% smaller. Math is fun isn't it but it is too bad that I am awful at advanced math . . . I remember now that I calculated the area difference both ways and that the 55 inch model was a better deal overall but that it isn't a big difference so going for the 65 is a good deal if you need it and people are getting bigger discounts on the 65 inch model so that may tip the calcuation in their favour.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 23, 2003
4340 posts
1074 upvotes
Hamilton
feminazi wrote: OLED uses more than LED but a lot less than plasma, which uses a LOT more. According to rtings.com in a 2017 article (I am not sure if the newer OLEDs use more or less electricity) it looks like it would cost you 10 bucks more a year to use a 55 inch OLED vs. a 55 inch LED TV if you use it five hours a day at 13 cents per KW/h (new fixed Ontario rate). If you can afford an OLED you can afford to pony up 10 bucks a year for the increased electricity costs I should think!

How much did your high-end plasmas cost when you bought them? What sizes are they? I remember that they were very expensive, very heavy and that they used a lot of electricity but that they were the last word in PQ etc.

I was never concerned about the plasma electricity cost.
It was more. But not like I'm running a microwave all day more. It was fine.
I had a 65" VT50 model. Second last generation of some of the finest plasma I saw.

It was about 120lbs!! Moved it a couple times. HO-LY COW. lol
I was nervous.
I bought it early on in its release off a USA retailer when our dollar was on PAR. So it was amazing. About 2K. (same as my current OLED price)
But at the time, local Canadian prices for that set were $3500 +
But hey, this is RFD.
I hunted
Deal Addict
Jul 8, 2005
2166 posts
825 upvotes
sidshock wrote: I was never concerned about the plasma electricity cost.
It was more. But not like I'm running a microwave all day more. It was fine.
I had a 65" VT50 model. Second last generation of some of the finest plasma I saw.

It was about 120lbs!! Moved it a couple times. HO-LY COW. lol
I was nervous.
I bought it early on in its release off a USA retailer when our dollar was on PAR. So it was amazing. About 2K. (same as my current OLED price)
But at the time, local Canadian prices for that set were $3500 +
But hey, this is RFD.
I hunted
Wow talk about a deal! That is the RFD spirit!

God I remember the 50 inch Samsung being 80 lbs and it wasn't the weight of it because 80 lbs is no big deal for two people to move but the bottom edges cut into your hands and the one time I carried it by myself was not fun at all. A 120 lb 65 would be awful to carry but with two people it would be OK. By yourself?! I don't see how you could do it by yourself due to the size.

Even though our dollar is weaksauce it seems like LG is giving us a break vs. the US pricing because when you convert prices there to here we aren't doing too badly.

It would hurt exporters but I would love to see our dollar strengthen some, to at least 85 cents US. As a consumer par would be awesome again but it would be ugly for exporters in some cases.

I didn't have the scratch for a nice TV back then but I am glad that I bought the CX. It is exceptional in many ways and you don't see pretty much universal acclaim for a product very often nor see guys on here praising it and saying they wouldn't go back after getting one much either.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 23, 2003
4340 posts
1074 upvotes
Hamilton
feminazi wrote: Wow talk about a deal! That is the RFD spirit!

God I remember the 50 inch Samsung being 80 lbs and it wasn't the weight of it because 80 lbs is no big deal for two people to move but the bottom edges cut into your hands and the one time I carried it by myself was not fun at all. A 120 lb 65 would be awful to carry but with two people it would be OK. By yourself?! I don't see how you could do it by yourself due to the size.

Even though our dollar is weaksauce it seems like LG is giving us a break vs. the US pricing because when you convert prices there to here we aren't doing too badly.

It would hurt exporters but I would love to see our dollar strengthen some, to at least 85 cents US. As a consumer par would be awesome again but it would be ugly for exporters in some cases.

I didn't have the scratch for a nice TV back then but I am glad that I bought the CX. It is exceptional in many ways and you don't see pretty much universal acclaim for a product very often nor see guys on here praising it and saying they wouldn't go back after getting one much either.
Couple times was by myself.
When I sold it I delivered it myself.
But couple times I needed help.
When I got oled I got 55" fearing weight issues. Had no idea it would be so light. Lol. Used to 55" now and happy with it.

If trump wins (don't think he will) one of the goals will be to lower the USD to make it more competitive with import / exports and our dollar would come closer to 85 cents for sure.
But it seems Biden might be taking this.
Deal Addict
Mar 26, 2011
1632 posts
1006 upvotes
Toronto
superchuko wrote: Well, no I can't do a side-by-side comparison since I don't currently have either, lol. I don't think many people do, which is why channels like HDTVTest are so great. You have a point about motion interpolation. It would have been nice if he'd given the number of lines for the OLED just using Black Frame Insertion, though you might be able to find the numbers somewhere online.

But I think you're missing most of my point about resolution. One of the issues is that the content you're comparing might actually have just been upscaled from 2K in the first place, ( https://4kmedia.org/real-or-fake-4k/ ). And even with video content that's truly 4K, most of the shots probably aren't constructed in a way to take advantage of the larger canvas that a 4x increase in resolution provides, which could change going forward as we're moving to higher and higher resolutions; (Think IMAX vs. 35mm film.) If you really want a good comparison, look at games running natively, (or upscaled well with something like DLSS 2.0) at 4K vs. 1080p. And yes, you're not going notice a difference if you're sitting too far back relative to the size of the display, but I think the future of TV is immersion, where it's taking up a larger area in your field of view.
I like Vincent and the work he does, so this isn't critical of him but there's nothing quite like doing your own comparison for first hand experience.

I did do side-by-side comparisons for several days. I did it with BDs of Logan, The Dark Knight, Interstellar, Braveheart, Transformers, Batman v Superman, Civil War, The Matrix, and some 4K footage from Youtube (one of which I linked in my original post). I had both the 1080p BD and UHD BD and would sync both up and play them back at the same time (note that many are "real 4K"). The resolution difference was imperceptible for the movies outside of a few select shots where a piece of fabric or something else might show some extra texture. Whenever there was a meaningful difference, it was the HDR that was contributing to it, and not so much the extra resolution.

Surprisingly enough, on the Youtube side I did see more of a difference between 1080p and 4K which I did not expect given the higher compression. Youtube was handy though because you could download full versions of any clip (to avoid bandwidth quirks) and get the 1080p 8-bit SDR and compare it to the 4K 8-bit SDR version as well as the 4K 10-bit HDR version using YoutubeDL or other programs like it. I think the reason Youtube worked nicely was because there was a lot of static content with slow panning shots which gives you more time to absorb what's on screen. But again, it was always up close around 3 ft to see the difference. At 8ft, I couldn't tell (this is on a 58" plasma and a 65C9) an appreciable difference in detail alone, despite the actual content including additional detail (so, for example, there was a shot including graffiti that on the 4K version you could see distinct separate lines on when you looked up close vs the 1080p version of the footage.... despite that detail actually being there, when viewed at 8ft, you couldn't see it as it would blend in with the rest of the image).

That was my experience after a lot of experimentation and tinkering, FWIW. Don't mistake me as saying there isn't value there or that people shouldn't upgrade. Just the benefit is not coming necessarily from where people think it is.

Not to sound like a broken record, but for movies, the selling point is HDR. Interstellar is amazing in 4K HDR and a movie I'm fond of. A lot of others were pretty much the same and I could've been just as happy watching the original BD.
Deal Addict
Mar 26, 2011
1632 posts
1006 upvotes
Toronto
Endlesscc wrote: Man I just realized the 77" is under 6000$ .. Think it will go under 5000$ for Black Friday?
orion_pax wrote: I doubt it. I was looking at the 77" last year during both Black Friday and Boxing Day, and it didn't touch that price.
Endlesscc wrote: I have a 75" Sony 900E and was thinking to upgrade to 85" Sony 900H but if OLED 77" ever touch $5000 i am sure that's a no brainer ...
I guess one can only hope
It already has, you may want to check the other thread. Someone got it from 2001 for $5000+tax and without much issue.
Sr. Member
Oct 11, 2015
556 posts
192 upvotes
Winnipeg, MB
Alexandero2 wrote: It already has, you may want to check the other thread. Someone got it from 2001 for $5000+tax and without much issue.
hmm I will thank you!!

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)