Samsung, Panasonic, or LG?

I'm considering upgrading my 42" Panasonic smart LED TV to a 47" or 48" smart TV (depending on what is available for a particular brand) and wanted to solicit some opinions. I like the picture on the Panasonic, but the smart TV interface is kind of wonky. I've been using a Roku box instead, which is so much nicer. However, that's just one more remote that I have to worry about, so I'd prefer to use the television's smart interface. Which brand(s) have the best smart TV interface as far as being user-friendly, flexible, upgradeable, etc? My Panasonic TV is only a few years old and the software doesn't appear to be upgradeable, so I can't get the apps I want (e.g. Amazon). It's also important that the wireless card is decent. The one in my Panasonic TV is flaky and sometimes takes six or seven tries to connect to my network. Oh, and I'd like to stay under $500, but will pay slightly more if I know it's really worth it.

What is this TCL brand? I've never heard of them. They use Roku.

 

Some years ago, my mother wanted a new TV. At the time I recommended Visio. They cost under $300. She said that she never heard of them & wouldn't buy it. She sent my brother, who has a photography background. $600 dollars later, she had a TV with a nice picture but the sound was terrible. If you don't plan to run the sound through your home stereo which is what I do, consider the sound quality.

 

My system is set up so I can listen through the TV speakers or through my audio system, so the TV speakers aren't too much of a concern. The picture quality, wifi, and smart interface are most important.

 

I have an LG that I really like, good pic and all. My son recently got a Vizio 4K UH and it was really inexpensive compared to other brands. He really likes it too.
As far as the smart tv functions, and with both, some things are easier and some not, depending on what you're wanting to do. I think it just takes some getting used to and the more you use, the easier it gets.
Personally, I think you should just get the one you like, with the best pic for you, and the learning will follow.

 

Samsungs use smart hub technology and aren't too hard to set-up. I usually set up a TV when I install it for a customer.

Smart TV's..... they ALL have a learning curve to setup and operate.

 

I'm not concerned with setting up and learning to use the smart TV interface, I'm concerned about buying a TV that can't be upgraded to accept new apps. The four year old Panasonic smart TV I have can't be upgraded so I can't even add Amazon Instant, HBO Now, or other popular apps whereas my ten year old Samsung TV can. The options are Netflix, Vudu, Hulu, YouTube, and a few others. A good reliable wifi connection is also important. My wireless router is only 20 feet away with no obstructions and I often have problems connecting on the first attempt. It either connects immediately or takes ten retries. I'm assuming this is due to an inferior wifi radio. I don't have issues with any of my other wireless devices, including my Roku, which is farther away and has walls and floors between it and the router.

 

You might want to head over to a Bestbuy so a sales person can better answer your questions about the different TV's. Actually, you can go to their website, click on TV's in your price range and click on the "Specifications" tab. Should answer your questions about what it offers and upgradeability.

 

I don't mean to be rude, but the purpose of my post was to solicit feedback on TVs that the audience owns and to get recommendations, not advice on how to select a TV.

 

So many mixed reviews on TVs. Driving me ***. I'm now considering the Samsung un50js7000fxza. It's a little more than what I want to pay at $799, but it sounds like it's worth it. One review I read said it rivals OLED. However, there are several negative reviews about watching in a dark room and seeing clouding on the corners of the screen.

 

There is a site that does spec comparisons. I've used it in the past to review tech gadgets and found it quite helpful. I don't think we're allowed to post URLs on here so just do a google search for "shop retrovo com".

 

How can you separate those two things? What we own is based on how we selected it.

 

...because researching TVs is exhausting and I want to skip over the vetting process. Being lazy basically

 

I bought my Samsung based on the look of my computer monitor and by walking through the displays at Sam's Club. Samsung looked to have the best picture. I then looked on line at the reviews of the different manufacturers (not individual models) and from there the cost of the sets in the same screen sizes.

Not a very scientific method but I'm happy with the Samsung. I wish I could have gotten a separate composite video input but...

 

Consider adding a same-brand BluRay player instead of scrapping a TV you like. One remote will control both and the player has connectivity and apps.

 

Don't pick based on wifi over anything else. 20 ft in what kind of environment? If possible you might want to use ethernet cable instead, remembering it can be up to 100 meters long so it could be routed along walls, tucked under the edge of carpeting, under the floor, up through a wall, across and back down, or whatever gets the cable out of sight enough to be tolerable - and then you have all wifi bandwidth remaining for other devices which means more when it's a TV because streaming video is such a continual high bitrate activity.

If it must be wifi then try a different wifi channel, OR there are many wireless bridge products, even regular wifi routers you can flash with alternative firmware like DD-WRT to turn them into bridges, then you just plug that, once configured over a computer lan, into the TV set. ethernet port. It's less tidy than having it integrated but that also tends to open up options for better performance.

There are much more discriminating reviews of wifi router signal quality than for TVs, including sites that benchmark them head to head. The performance difference can be quite important when streaming HD content... as I'm sure you already know.

 

I've been installing TV's and home theater systems for about 25 years. It varies from time to time as manufacturers come out with new TV sets to try and beat the present top contender. However, over all, I've found that the most steadfast innovator is Samsung. LG is coming on strong now but usually in the higher priced larger screen TV's OLED is the next level of technology to attain along with high dynamic color range that is required to experience the full color range of what 4K TV's can provide. Don't be fooled by what is being promoted now as 4K It's not. It just a play on words to keep the public buying new TV's until the "real" 4K can be attained. Besides, there's no 4K media to speak of and it'll take some time for it to be available. Up till now, even after about 2 years of 4K TV advertising they've just recently begun manufacturing 4K blue ray players but there's only about 8 or so movies available ..... so I don't know what they thought people were going to watch on their 4K TV's that they were paying extra money for. And even now, the so called 4K TV's can't produce the full color spectrum of true 4K. So, don't set your heart on anything because it's 4K .... just yet.

Stick with Samsung and you can't go wrong at this point. We'll see what LG is going to do with the OLED technology in the near future. Right now, they're the forerunner in OLED. I think that technology is where the full color spectrum will begin to be able to be provided. And by that time there'll be more media to watch and choices of players. But ..... OLED TV's are definitely more expensive. Me? I'd wait a few years until the technology is better perfected and taken up by a few more manufacturers.

And .... by the way, they're already working on 8K. They keep talking about these TV's being closer to reality, but sometimes when I look at these pictures I think it's getting to the point that they're are getting to look artificial. Reality doesn't look THAT good. You see an outdoor scene and the foreground of the picture you'd expect to be sharp and detailed but then you see the mountains 100 miles in the background and they're just a sharp as can be..... too. That's not how reality is. Foreground is sharp. Mountains a hundred miles off are hazy.
Or..... maybe I just need new glasses.