TV pricing is just getting ridiculously good.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I've just been amazed at how cheap larger flat screens are getting anymore. You can get some 50-55" TV's for 250-300 dollars. Now I see this deal. 50" 4K TV for $449. I don't care which brand it is, that's REALLY good. FWIW, I already own 5 TCL TV's at our business and it's been a really reliable TV.

http://www.amazon.com/TCL-LE50UHDE56...64b6bc3dfee102

[Solecismic]

If only TV viewing weren't in constant decline, we might have something here. If someone offered me a cutting-edge 60-inch TV for $100, I'd probably turn him down. My 32-inch CRT works fine, bigger doesn't do much for my living room, and I watch maybe half as much as I did ten years ago.

[Edward64]

I'm hoping to pickup a good 4k TV 65"+ this November.

I bought a 40 & 42" about 4-3 years ago. Time to upgrade.

[ColtCrazy]

My living room is twice the size it was in my old house when the 42'' seemed huge. Now I'd like to upgrade, but it hasn't been a big priority.

[cougarfreak]

Originally Posted by ColtCrazy

My living room is twice the size it was in my old house when the 42'' seemed huge. Now I'd like to upgrade, but it hasn't been a big priority.

I'm in the same boat as you. Not a priority anymore.

[frnk55]

About 6 years ago I bought a 52 Inch Samsung and paid 2300 bucks.
Now I can prob get it for 400.

[sterlingice]

I've been kicking around getting a 50-55" tv and it's pretty hard to beat prices that have slipped into the $400-$500 range.

SI

[RainMaker]

Is there a huge difference in new TVs and ones from say 5 years ago? I've got a nice 47 inch that I wonder if I should upgrade but I have no issues with it at all. If the new stuff blows it out of the water I'd upgrade but I haven't seen a reason to do so.

[gstelmack]

If your 47 inch does 1080P, has all the inputs you want, and the color quality looks good, don't change a thing, stay with it until it dies.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I've been kicking around getting a 50-55" tv and it's pretty hard to beat prices that have slipped into the $400-$500 range.

SI

Damn - I paid a bunch more than that for mine like 3 years back.

[Toddzilla]

I got a pretty good deal on a 60" for my living room last year and now realize I've sat in front of it to watch TV maybe 10 times since then...maybe not such a good deal after all.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

If your 47 inch does 1080P, has all the inputs you want, and the color quality looks good, don't change a thing, stay with it until it dies.

Yeah it's 1080p and I haven't had any issues with it. Some of the internet TV stuff looks cool but as long as I have a Roku/console attached I can access everything I need just as easily.

This is the one I have. Is there anything about this that is terribly outdated?

Amazon.com: Sony Bravia S-Series KDL-46S4100 46-Inch 1080p LCD HDTV: Electronics

[ISiddiqui]

At this point in time, it's kind of a waiting pattern in between technology. 1080p is everywhere, and only Blu-rays really display at it (your streaming video doesn't have anywhere near the quality, sorry). Broadcast and cable channels max out at 1080i or 720p. 4k HDTVs are pricey, but right now not much uses it.

I think that's one of the reason you are seeing such low prices. They want to sell their 1080p before going full bore into promoting and selling 4k.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

If your 47 inch does 1080P, has all the inputs you want, and the color quality looks good, don't change a thing, stay with it until it dies.

For me, I've got a gorgeous 42" plasma Panasonic which has beautiful colors but is starting to finally bleed a little. However, I got it for $450 at the time, which was dirt cheap then, too. Now, I'm looking to move that one into the bedroom and get a new LED for the living room that's a little larger and this seems like a great time to buy.

Name brand 50-55" screens are in that $500 ballpark but you can get up to $800-$1000 for varying levels of smart-ness, 3d, etc

SI

[Fidatelo]

I have a 5+ year old 42" plasma in my basement that I turn on about a dozen times per year. Upstairs in the living room we have a 32" LCD that is on Treehouse or one of those HGTV-type networks 98.6% of the time. I can't see being in the market for a new TV anytime soon, regardless of the price.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

4k HDTVs are pricey, but right now not much uses it.

I think that's one of the reason you are seeing such low prices. They want to sell their 1080p before going full bore into promoting and selling 4k.

But we're even talking about sub-$500 4K TV's already. I'm considering it just because Netflix is starting to produce their original series at that definition.

[ISiddiqui]

Supposedly . Due to limitations of bandwidth, you really aren't getting anything like true 4k resolution.

(edit: though I guess it depends on the bandwidth you get)

[ISiddiqui]

I found a decent link (my previous one was kinda meh):

All About Why Blu-ray Is Still Better Than Streaming Today

My OPPO BDP-93 Blu-ray player allows me to view the bit rate of Blu-ray and DVD movies that I play, and a sampling of Blu-rays in my collection showed films that are encoded at an average megabit-per-second (Mbps) A/V bit rate in the high 20s to the mid 30s. (DVDs generally offer, at best, from 6 to 8 Mbps.)

A 1080p movie download on iTunes is generally under 5 or 6 GB (a fraction of the size of a Blu-ray movie). For streaming services, the provider needs to compress the file enough to send it at a bit rate that's equal to or lower than your broadband speed. Here in the United States, Internet speeds are all over the map, so these services, to some respect, have to aim for the lowest common denominator. Even Netflix's top-quality Super HD 1080p service aims for a recommended target of just 7 Mbps for the best quality, 5 Mbps for good quality.

And that's just up against Blu-Ray. Their 4k stuff probably isn't worth upgrading just yet. I mean, if you really want a new TV, I guess go ahead. But if not, then you can afford to wait.

[Buccaneer]

Like others, we have a 5 year old 42-inch. I rarely watch but everyone else still loves it. No interest in playing the keep-up-with-the-jones or envy game.

[stevew]

I have a couple 40" sets and one was like $2399 retail and the other one I got for like $239. Granted the more expensive one(granted I got it used for $500 from a friend) still looks better but the overall gap is not that significant.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Supposedly . Due to limitations of bandwidth, you really aren't getting anything like true 4k resolution.

(edit: though I guess it depends on the bandwidth you get)

I'm picking up Google Fiber service in a couple months. I'm thinking that should be able to handle it.

[cartman]

The Dirty Little Secret About 4K Streaming: Content Owners Can’t Afford The Bandwidth Costs