OT: Smart TVs

[Martin Brown]

Why not go the whole hog and get another tube based analogue set?

It might but if it does who cares? You can get a Google chromecast for £40 or a DIY Raspberry Pi for less and play around to your hearts content with whatever new goodies come along. It is virtually certain that all new smarts will plug into USB for their power and HDMI for their delivery of content to the TV. Set top boxes are now dongles.

One minor catch if you are used to running TV line out through your main hifi is that you will also need a digital to line out converter.

Luddite without a shadow of a doubt.

However, when I saw the thread title I though it would be about the newly reported security vulnerablity of the smart TV targeted content:

Or in more detail

Take a look at Richer Sounds vs Amazon to see if they have one that meets your needs. Freesat is a bonus if you can get it included as well and don't consider buying one now that can't do terrestrial HD TV. I reckon you need at least a 42" set to benefit from 1080p HD resolution.

If you have the room remaindered large sets can be more heavily discounted but check reviews carefully to avoid buying a lemon.

Active 3D is a waste of time unless you enjoy headaches. I haven't tried passive 3D but expect it to be similarly gimmicky but without the peripheral vision flashing annoyingly. It was fun to watch hawkeye ball flights on Wimbledon last year in 3D but the novelty quickly wore off.

[Dave Liquorice]

You try buying a new CRT set 16:9 or 4:3 ...

Plenty in HWRC's and maybe Freegle/cycle but how much life left would a 2nd user one have? Having said that if the OP is only interested in SD then the picture on an RGB or S-Video fed CRT is a lot nicer than many LCD screens.

[tony sayer]

Ever seen one with colour difference drive?.

Just makes the pix that bit nearer the original but I rather suspect no one has them around anymore..

[Dave Plowman (News)]

The big snag is most are now used to large screen sets. A 28" 4:3 was once a large screen set - but looks tiny in 16:9 these days. As well as taking up a lot of room.

In the London area, no-one wants CRT sets at all - regardless of how good they are.

[Dave Liquorice]

milli bits per second? B-) Useless for anything. If I've got the maths right 1.5mbps is about 1 x 8 bit byte every 1 hour and 28 mins. B-)

Most iPlayer SD streams are about 1.4 to 1.5 Mbps (mega bits per second) but you need to add all the overheads to that so a 1.5 Mbps link isn't good enough for a "good user experience". iPlayer recomends 2 Mbps or above for SD.

If you are not trying to stream video the SmartTV 'net performance will be the same as you get on your PC. What you will be able to do without subsribing to services is another matter. Many of the "apps" are just hooks to get people signed up to services.

[Martin Brown]

1.5Mbps is theoretically just about enough to run a basic definition streaming video channel on demand but with nothing at all in reserve.

It really depends how good your link is in terms of timeouts. Some Orange modems by default will not stream satisfactorily and hang up after a couple of minutes. Disabling plug & play seems to fix it!!!

You need about 3.5Mbps for an HD channel and the BDUK universal service through a BT monopoly in rural areas promises a whopping 2MBps.

The BBC's iPlayer diagnostic page used to show you the various speeds and actual performance of your link before they discontinued it :(

[Adrian]

It feels like it at times...

[Huge]

It isn't just me this irritates, then? :o)

[Caecilius]

No way. I want lots of the new features like HD, HDMI input etc. And the smaller physical size is a bonus too. It's just the "smart" bit I'm not sure about.

Yes, that's what I'll probably do, as long as the built-in smart bit doesn't get in the way.

My daughter would probably agree. And the people on the railway platform in the morning: I'm about the only person not looking down at a phone.

Yes, 42" is what I'm looking at.

Yes, 3D seems to come around in cycles, and it's never really worked. And anyway, I'd need to wear TWO pairs of glasses which would look stupid.

[Timothy Murphy]

Do smart TVs actually cost any more now? Can you actually buy non-smart TVs from anyone you've ever hear of?

[John Rumm]

Some seem to be running Android these days...

Possibly, although the current crop are more upgradable than the earlier smart TVs

Yup, just look at the cheaper sets that don't boast being "smart"

Depends on how you look at it. If you have a smart TV you still have the option of using external devices - so aside from the slightly higher purchase price, there is not much downside. They also tend to include the better video processors and upscalers on the smart tvs. Having things like iPlayer and video recording built in can be quite nice.

[John Rumm]

I recently had to go through this exercise choosing a TV for an ageing relative - I was concerned that any extra complexity would make it difficult to use. In reality the one we chose (a LG) has been fine. You can drive it like a dumb TV, picture quality is very good (especially upscaled SD stuff which is well above expectations). It has a smart menu button which takes you to graphical screens to let you choose the smart bits, but you can ignore that altogether if you want.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

[Jethro_uk]

One thing to watch out for with these "smart" TVs, is how well they can cope with audio lip synching.

I got an LG660 last year. Lovely picture, cracking TV. However, on *some* of my AVI files, there is a distinct lip sync issue. Trawling the AV forums, I found this is a common issue - so much so that most TVs will have an "audio sync" adjustment somewhere.

Apparently it's because there's a lag in processing video, compared to audio.

For some reason, one particular AVI file seems to be able to "set" the sync correctly. So now I play a second or two of that file, before what I really want to watch. Can't explain that one.

[Mike Barnes]

I'm not a big TV watcher but I do get to see TVs in pubs etc and the out-of-sync sound problem is pretty widespread. I suspect that regular viewers get used to it to the extent that they don't notice it any more, but I find it a huge distraction.

Why does it happen? Getting vision and sound synchronised isn't exactly rocket science, surely? I understand that processing speeds are different, so you just build in an *automatic* delay to compensate, don't you?

[harryagain]

That's the one I've got. The power varies with the intensity and colours displayed.

[John Williamson]

I think that processing delays vary with the amount of compression applied, and this may vary from moment to moment as well as from file to file.

I avoid this by using a fixed data rate for video and audio when I'm encoding video.

[Capitol]

If you think that's bad, just try reading subtitles. It's impossible on many channels even when they are being transmitted. I always try for subtitles as the received sound on most flat screen TVs is so bad

[Dave Liquorice]

Why's that? (never played with subtitles) ...

The *received* sound is normally pretty damn good (unless it's Jamaica Inn). It's tiddly speakers sat hidden round the back of the screen that are the problem.

[Martin Brown]

There may be a few remaindered in the usual channels. Again check reviews carefully to avoid the lemons. Not all are created equal.