which samsung is better?

I am trying to decide between these two TVs:

Samsung LN46A540
http://www.samsung.com/us/system/con...12/ln46a550p3f
xza/ln46a550_spec.pdf

Samsung LN46A550
http://www.samsung.com/us/system/con...12/ln46a550p3f
xza/ln46a550_spec.pdf

The 540 is available at Costco for $1700 and with rebate for $1500.
The 550 is at BestBuy for $1618.

I am leaning toward the 540 because of price but really can't find any
significant difference between the two per specs. The 540 is more
expensive retail for some reason.

"badgolferman" wrote in message
...
I am trying to decide between these two TVs:

Samsung LN46A540
http://www.samsung.com/us/system/con...12/ln46a550p3f
xza/ln46a550_spec.pdf

Samsung LN46A550
http://www.samsung.com/us/system/con...12/ln46a550p3f
xza/ln46a550_spec.pdf

The 540 is available at Costco for $1700 and with rebate for $1500.
The 550 is at BestBuy for $1618.

I am leaning toward the 540 because of price but really can't find any
significant difference between the two per specs. The 540 is more
expensive retail for some reason.

The 550 claims 30,000:1 dynamic contrast ratio, while the 540 claims
35,000:1 dynamic contrast ratio.

Some people have said that the higher contrast ratio of the new Samsungs
comes as the result of a more highly reflective screen, which could be a
problem if you have a window or other brightly lit areas behind you while
viewing the TV set. But I am not sure if the highly reflective screen is
characteristic of both sets, and in this case the 540 just has better
electronics or a better panel to achieve the higher contrast ratio, in
addition to the reflective screen (which always gets better contrast than an
anti-glare screen with all other things equal). Or maybe the 550 has an
anti-glare screen that slightly lowers contrast ratio (doubtful if it
actually lists for less money).

I believes that Costco automatically extends the warranty an extra year to
two years, and has a liberal return policy. So if you if won't have a
problem with reflections, and you don't watch TV in a brightly lit room,
then the 540 at Costco is probably the way to go, since it is cheaper to
boot.

I would also recommend synthetic oil for your Toyota.

On Jul 17, 5:31*pm, "Mark A" wrote:
"badgolferman" wrote in message

...



I am trying to decide between these two TVs:

Samsung LN46A540
http://www.samsung.com/us/system/con...12/ln46a550p3f
xza/ln46a550_spec.pdf

Samsung LN46A550
http://www.samsung.com/us/system/con...12/ln46a550p3f
xza/ln46a550_spec.pdf

The 540 is available at Costco for $1700 and with rebate for $1500.
The 550 is at BestBuy for $1618.

I am leaning toward the 540 because of price but really can't find any
significant difference between the two per specs. *The 540 is more
expensive retail for some reason.

The 550 claims 30,000:1 dynamic contrast ratio, while the 540 claims
35,000:1 dynamic contrast ratio.

Some people have said that the higher contrast ratio of the new Samsungs
comes as the result of a more highly reflective screen, which could be a
problem if you have a window or other brightly lit areas behind you while
viewing the TV set. But I am not sure if the highly reflective screen is
characteristic of both sets, and in this case the 540 just has better
electronics or a better panel to achieve the higher contrast ratio, in
addition to the reflective screen (which always gets better contrast than an
anti-glare screen with all other things equal). Or maybe the 550 has an
anti-glare screen *that slightly lowers contrast ratio (doubtful if it
actually lists for less money).

I believes that Costco automatically extends the warranty an extra year to
two years, and has a liberal return policy. So if you if won't have a
problem with reflections, and you don't watch TV in a brightly lit room,
then the 540 at Costco is probably the way to go, since it is cheaper to
boot.

I would also recommend synthetic oil for your Toyota.

30000 vs 35000 is a nonsense number and is just hype. The video is 10
bits - 1024 levels (and _might_ be 8 bits - 256 levels) so how does
that map to 35000? Or 30000? That is no reason in my book. What would
concern me more is the actual (?) resolution of the panel at 1366x768
as stated here.

http://www.samsung.com/us/consumer/d...LN46A540P2FXZA

OR is that a typo on Samsungs part since that is the only reference
I've found for the 540? In general the 540 seems to have more I/O
ports. For me that would be the deciding issue.

G²

"G-squared" wrote in message
...
30000 vs 35000 is a nonsense number and is just hype. The video is 10
bits - 1024 levels (and _might_ be 8 bits - 256 levels) so how does
that map to 35000? Or 30000? That is no reason in my book. What would
concern me more is the actual (?) resolution of the panel at 1366x768
as stated here.

http://www.samsung.com/us/consumer/d...LN46A540P2FXZA

OR is that a typo on Samsungs part since that is the only reference
I've found for the 540? In general the 540 seems to have more I/O
ports. For me that would be the deciding issue.

G²

I agree that the contract numbers quoted are hype, or more specifically they
called "dynamic contrast", however, it is safe to assume that the set with
35000 has more contrast than the one with 30000 even if both numbers are
inflated.

Looking at that link, it says 10,000 to 1 contrast ratio, but in smaller
print on the left it says 35,000 to 1.

But this link is slightly different, even though it is the same set:
http://www.samsung.com/us/consumer/d...LN46A540P2FXZA

On Jul 17, 10:25*pm, "Mark A" wrote:
"G-squared" wrote in message
news:25a94cd1-25c7-461d-890f-
...
30000 vs 35000 is a nonsense number and is just hype. The video is
10
bits - 1024 levels (and _might_ be 8 bits - 256 levels) so how
does
that map to 35000? Or 30000? That is no reason in my book. What
would
concern me more is the actual (?) resolution of the panel at
1366x768
as stated here.

http://www.samsung.com/us/consumer/detail/features.do?
group=televisio...

OR is that a typo on Samsungs part since that is the only
reference
I've found for the 540? In general the 540 seems to have more I/O
ports. For me that would be the deciding issue.

G²

I agree that the contract numbers quoted are hype, or more
specifically they
called "dynamic contrast", however, it is safe to assume that the
set with
35000 has more contrast than the one with 30000 even if both
numbers are
inflated.

Looking at that link, it says 10,000 to 1 contrast ratio, but in
smaller
print on the left it says 35,000 to 1.

But this link is slightly different, even though it is the same
set:http://www.samsung.com/us/consumer/detail/detail.do?
group=televisions...

It's the same set, I just went to the 'features' page where it said

"HD-grade 1366 x 768 pixels resolution
Enjoy outstanding clarity and resolution with the SAMSUNG LN46A540.
Images are crisper, sharper, with superior details."

I was a little surprised at the 1366x768 business. I thought at $2G it
was pretty much assumed to be 1920xx1080 native BUT a few weeks back I
got snookered on the Philips site about a DVD recorder so I'm not
assuming this Samsung is automatically correct.

G²

"G-squared" wrote in message
...
It's the same set, I just went to the 'features' page where it said

"HD-grade 1366 x 768 pixels resolution
Enjoy outstanding clarity and resolution with the SAMSUNG LN46A540.
Images are crisper, sharper, with superior details."

I was a little surprised at the 1366x768 business. I thought at $2G it
was pretty much assumed to be 1920xx1080 native BUT a few weeks back I
got snookered on the Philips site about a DVD recorder so I'm not
assuming this Samsung is automatically correct.

G²

The link you provided is fubar'ed. The link I provided is the correct link,
and the set does produce 1920 x 1080 resolution. The Samsung website has
some problems, but I don't know how you even found that link. If you go in
the front door, and then select the set from the drop down list box, you
will get to the correct link.

Speaking of fubar'ed, I (and everyone else) would appreciate it if you post
in plain text, and not rich text or html.

Why a Samsung? My mom bought one and the picture on my LG plasma is much
much better.

On Jul 18, 12:45*am, "Mark A" wrote:
snip

The link you provided is fubar'ed. The link I provided is the
correct link,
and the set does produce 1920 x 1080 resolution. The Samsung
website has
some problems, but I don't know how you even found that link. If
you go in
the front door, and then select the set from the drop down list
box, you
will get to the correct link.

Speaking of fubar'ed, I (and everyone else) would appreciate it if
you post
in plain text, and not rich text or html.

Well, how I got to the "fubar'ed" link was the same as the one you
posted. Just click on 'features' so it's the same place if you
bothered to look. I don't see anything in the owners manual about
native resolution being other than 1920x1080 but you might remember I
mentioned the website might be in error on that 'features' page

As for 'plain text', I'm using the google groups entry window from
Opera 9.26. I don't know how to post HTML if I wanted to. I suspect
you want more 'snippage'. OK. Was this sufficient?

G²

Christie, 7/18/2008,8:07:26 PM, wrote:

Why a Samsung? My mom bought one and the picture on my LG plasma
is much much better.

The Samsung, Sony, Toshiba looked best to me of all the LCDs I looked
at. I suspect your mother's TV needs the settings adjusted. Plasmas
have a better picture but I have settled on a LCD.

If ratings mean anything to you the Samsung and Sony rate quite high in
many reviews I've seen.

"G-squared" wrote in message
...
Well, how I got to the "fubar'ed" link was the same as the one you
posted. Just click on 'features' so it's the same place if you
bothered to look. I don't see anything in the owners manual about
native resolution being other than 1920x1080 but you might remember I
mentioned the website might be in error on that 'features' page

As for 'plain text', I'm using the google groups entry window from
Opera 9.26. I don't know how to post HTML if I wanted to. I suspect
you want more 'snippage'. OK. Was this sufficient?

G²

I said I didn't know how you got to the fubar'ed link. I didn't blame you
for the misinformation on the features page. Thank you for explaining how
you found it..

If I was wrong about you posting other than plain text, please accept my
apologies. However, it is sometimes easy to post in Rich Text or HTML
without knowing it.

I assume you know that when I mark the reply as snip I acknowledge that I
deleted part of your post that I felt was not relevant to my reply. No
offense intended.