LN46B550 vs LN46B630 Is 120hz worth the extra money? Wha-da-ya think?
197181
Actually, I disagree. I've had this tv for about a year now and every channel/input displays 60Hz. I have yet to see 120 Hz displayed as the frequency. Perhaps its only displaying 60 but utilizing 120? Just my two cents, sir.
1876459
I have found two other differences - 6350 comes with quad stand and WiFi ready; 5500 - square stand and WiFi capable. Coming to difference in refresh rate, as long as you buy the TV less than 39" 60Hz is absolutely fine, 120 is just a hype for 32" version. 5500 is VFM. 6350 is bit of luxury. Hope that answers your question.
166048
Poof is dead-on correct. There is absolutely no merit to the claim that monster cables are necessary for 120Hz refresh rate. It's like claiming that 93 octane gas makes your windshield wipers work more efficiently - there's absolutely no connection. Anyone trying to sell you "mega monstrosity super-duper" cables is either deluded themselves, or trying to sell you a high profit margin product.
1920897
I am looking at these two tvs as well, and the 650 apparently has a swivel stand, while the 750 does not. I need the swivel, so not I'm hesitating. Might just go for the b750 with the 240hz refresh rate instead.
1334498
I was told by a sales person at a "big box" store that they are the same, that different retailers use slightly different model numbers. My advice is to write down the the tech specs such as dpi, hz, etc., (and watch for different wording like "Clear Motion Rate" is not the same as "refresh rate") and then compare the different models that way.
2121251
It depends on how you feel about 120 Hz refresh rate. There may be other minor details (connectivity, for example), but the main difference is the 60 to 120 Hz upgrade. For cable TV this doesn't matter, since video is shot in 30 fps (which divides evenly into 60 Hz); it may look smoother, but that's just the software interpolation effect. HOWEVER, if you are a movie buff with lots of Blu-Ray discs, it may be worth it. That's because movies are shot in 24 fps. Since 24 doesn't divide evenly into 60 Hz, the movie has to be converted by what's called 3:2 pull down, where frames are displayed for uneven times. This makes movies look less smooth on TVs and is likely what you are completely used to in your home (as opposed to the theater). By contrast, 24 fps divides evenly into 120 Hz, so movies display on the LN40B630 in the true frame-for-frame as they would appear in a movie theater (well, sort of; reality is much more complex but that's beyond what you need to know for TV purchasing). Many people are so unused to seeing movies "correctly" on a television that they find the effect almost disturbingly smooth, like a soap opera. But for A/V purists the resulting lack of judder, blur, etc. is what it's all about-crystal clear picture, the way it was originally shot and meant to be seen, like in the theater. NOTE that this means turning OFF Samsung's Auto Motion Plus ("AMP") setting, which uses software to blend frames together; most reviews seem to indicate that that goes *too* far in making things weirdly smooth. I personally opted to buy the 630 over the 530 just a few hours ago. It was a tough decision but I decided I didn't want to compromise on my primary (and only) TV. Good luck deciding! PS-you may want to go to a store with demo TVs and ask to see a 60Hz vs 120Hz demonstration; if so, emphasize that you want to see the difference with both 24p source material and with normal broadcast 30 fps material. And with AMP turned off. That's the best way to decide, see for yourself.
187897
i can't speak for the 46", as my TV is the 22"...that being said, you are correct, my set actually has a 60hz refresh, not the 120 that is hinted at in the "marketing" material...this is technical malarkey for "sort-of"...well it's not...for a little set in the kitchen where we use ours no big deal at all...we watch all sorts of stuff on it, including Blu-Ray movies...for a "main" set where you are watching a lot of "action-stuff" like sports this would be a consideration...blurring as an example...Samsung makes a great product, however my personal recommendation for something that large i.e., would be a Sony...they do cost more, and the picture is worth it...and the re-fresh will more likely be an actual 240hz or better depending on the model...good-luck...jo'c
668174
The refresh rate is actually (probably, hard to get a definitive answer) 120hz; Samsung uses a technology they call "clear motion" to provide what they consider the equivalent of a 240hz refresh rate. Some other manufacturers do likewise (using either the same or different technology) to claim a larger refresh rate; for example LG calls theirs "TruMotion". The technology is beyond me, but if you'd like more details do a search for "refresh rate", or ask (in a search engine) a question like "what is Clear Motion refresh rate". I know CNET.com does a fairly detailed explanation. Both they and Consumer Reports cautions on taking these claims at face value as in their reviews they say they commonly see some tv's w/lower claimed refresh rates having a better pic (less fast action blur) than other tv's w/higher claimed refresh rates. It sucks, but we're stuck with this goofy arrangement and at the mercy of the manufacturers claims.
2079708
5 vs. 4 wavelength backlight means better color reproduction. 120hz refresh rate means less judder/smoother motion on fast moving action scenes. 15,000 vs. 10,000 Dynamic contrast ratio means deeper blacks (ie, see more picture detail in dark areas of image). I think those are the main differences and justify the higher selling price (but perhaps not to the tune of $1,000-$2,000....$500 difference would be more realistic)
687699
If that's all than it's not worth the extra price. The LN37A550 costs less than the LN32A65. I might just look at the 37A550 instead.
1600978
Yes. just this listing appears a bit more honest. Looked this up a while bk and the 6700 models have 60hz panels, and only allow for 60hz input. it's just the software (perhaps thas the trumotion part) that creates a 120hz effect. so yes I'd say its the same tv you saw before. Even though that listing says 60hz, lg still sticks to their 120hz claim though on these ('Trumotion 120hz, that is) http://www.lg.com/us/tvs/lg-47LM6700-led-tvI'm happy with my purchase though, 60hz, or fake 120hz, it still looks great to me. (grabbed the 55lm6700 a few mos. ago)
390137
I was soo close to getting the 4081, but then the 750 series came around, and had the usb & lan inputs, plus the 750 has a better viewing angle 178* as opposed to 4081's 170* hdmi ports didn't make any difference to me. I saw the lan input as a possible upgrading futureproofing option (downloading new firmware and such).
457965
I'm perfectly happy with my 120hz for sporting events and action movies. I suppose that if you're really into graphic intensive games and slo-mo playback, the 240hz may be worth the extra bucks.
750285
This TV has a 60Hz refresh rate. I compared this Samsung LN32B550 with the LG model you mention and I found both are good. However, the colors were more vibrant in the Samsung and there was a 'pop' in the colors. The LG was a little more subdued and not as vivid. Also, I don't recall if the LG swivels or not like the Samsung. If you need more dynamic colors, a punch in the Picture quality, go with the samsung. For me, the 120Hz did nothing to convince me its better than the 60Hz. I really could not tell any difference. People swear there is one, but I cannot tell. They had a demo signal going to all TV's with the 120Hz benefits and you cannot even tell any difference there. Theoretically, the 120Hz should be more cleaner/sharper in fast moving images. But fast moving images are well....fast so you only see them for split seconds. Not much of a difference then since how much can you absorb in that split second ? Video gaming should benefit but again, I don't see any significant improvement here. The 2ms response time is useful for video gaming as it will eliminate ghosting ( i.e. trailing images ) but Samsung's 6ms is good enough. Ideally, anything less than 15-20ms and you're good for video gaming from my experience with LCD refresh rates. Go to your local Best Buy and check it out first. Buy from Amazon if the price is lower, else buy from BestBuy with warranty and all. As is, BB now has no restocking fee when you return a product.
198943
Not to be rude but Hank really doesn't know what he is talking about. First point: " Both LED and LCD televisions can have 120 hz, 240hz, and even 480 hz and in this case both tv's are 120 hz. Refresh rates are the same so "clarity" from refresh rates will be identical. Second: He says he will never buy a "straight up lcd tv." that's ok but he says he will buy one with LED or LED/LCD. Unless he is looking at a 4inch screen, they will all be LCD backlit withe LEDs. oLED technology in TV's is years away. My thoughts: Both these TV's have their ups and downs. The 630 is thicker and more power hungry but will have a more uniform picture (which if you are in low light situations is better). The 6300 LED/LCD is slim, "cool", better contrast ratio, green, (more expensive) BUT (and a big but) will be brighter around the edges than the center. This is the problem with "budget" LED/LCDs. Most edge lit LED/LCD TVs have this problem. To avoid it and get the best of both worlds one would need to buy one with Local Dimming. This is where the LEDs are placed behind the entire screen, not just the edges. It is a true difference maker. Not that the prices for TV's with Local Dimming are substantially higher (unless you buy the new outstanding Vizio models). Either way, if you don't mind spending a little more and getting a little less with picture uniformity, go with the 6300.
871743
120Hz is a different picture, some like it, some don't. You can always turn it off though. Contrast, however, EVERYONE likes better contrast. Go with the 55" Samsung. I own a 5271F Samsung and I love it. I am waiting for Samsung to pump out a 60 incher before I upgrade.
1934848
BTW...yesterday I was in BB and Sony has just released a 32" XBR9 1080p with 120hz Motionflow technology... and it is up on the Sony Style website.. so much for what the salesman tell you that Sony is not going to produce..But compared to the Sony 32" 1080p 60 hz.. I thought the higher priced model with 120hz looked grainy to me. I really didn't see the $200 difference in the (retail price). Perhaps on Blu Ray disc viewing there is a difference.. GLTA