Slickdeals.net

Slickdeals.net (http://slickdeals.net/forums/index.php)
-   Hot Deals (http://slickdeals.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Sceptre 32" Class LCD 720p 60Hz HDTV, X322BV-HD for $179 w/Free ship to store (http://slickdeals.net/e/5415780-sceptre-32-class-lcd-720p-60hz-hdtv-x322bv-hd-for-179-w-free-ship-to-store)

immad 11-01-2012 06:19 AM

Sceptre 32" Class LCD 720p 60Hz HDTV, X322BV-HD for $179 w/Free ship to store
 
Sceptre 32" Class LCD 720p 60Hz HDTV, X322BV-HD [walmart.com]

RagingWookiee 11-01-2012 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by immad (Post 54372182)

I see $199

lionelhuts 11-01-2012 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RagingWookiee (Post 54372418)
I see $199

Shows as $179 when you add to cart.

theothertim 11-01-2012 06:41 AM

Anyone know what the audio is like on these? I'm looking for a 32" for the office. Looking for something that has a little bit of bass.

I bought a 24" LED not too long ago, but it's pretty tinny

derekjet 11-01-2012 06:53 AM

Pic quality on Sceptre is meh. Try tcl instead for a bit more money.

slickNslider 11-01-2012 07:06 AM

Not a bad deal on a heavily reviewed tv!

I'm such a n00b. I never knew the sold pink and purple tvs! Not that I would get one but at least I could die a smiling man.

Other Wal-Mart TVs (refurbs and slims) (low to high) [walmart.com]

vinhtvu2 11-01-2012 07:33 AM

Added to cart, still showing $199...

shandy706 11-01-2012 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slickNslider (Post 54373090)
Not a bad deal on a heavily reviewed tv!

I'm such a n00b. I never knew the sold pink and purple tvs! Not that I would get one but at least I could die a smiling man.

Other Wal-Mart TVs (refurbs and slims) (low to high) [walmart.com]

I wouldn't say you were a n00b, I'm a tech junkie/lover and I didn't know there were purple and pink flat-screens.

We have flat-screens in every room in the house, minus my oldest daughters room (she's only 5). I might just have to spring for one of the purple or pink flat-screens this Xmas.

Thanks for the heads up....I'm repping you for it :nod:

imabass 11-01-2012 07:52 AM

I get 199 when added to my cart.

woomer051 11-01-2012 07:54 AM

People paying $50+/mo =$600+/yr for cable/satellite yet watch it on a $200 tv??????????????????

Unless this is solely for gaming or movies, treat yourself to a $400 720p 42" plasma for cable watching (at the very least 42"/720p/$400)
Recommend a 50" 1080p plasma for $600. Try models samsung = e530 panasonic = u50 and lg = pa5500. You'll thank me in the long run. If saving an intital $200 or so is that important while you shell out big bucks for utilities to use them, I bet you have stuff from rent a center or arrons LOL.

imabass 11-01-2012 07:57 AM

No cable no satellite no over the air reception for me. I only stream on wifi. Plus I am just looking for a TV for the workout room.

rixsaw 11-01-2012 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woomer051 (Post 54374070)
People paying $50+/mo =$600+/yr for cable/satellite yet watch it on a $200 tv??????????????????
.

It's all depends on your application. I would put a cheap TV like this in my weigh room. I'm only there 1 hr a day to workout, not to watch TV. So I wouldn't care if it has 100:1 contrast instead of 10000000000:1 contrast.

woomer051 11-01-2012 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imabass (Post 54374138)
No cable no satellite no over the air reception for me. I only stream on wifi. Plus I am just looking for a TV for the workout room.

Then this tv is perfect if you are not within 4-5 foot range to notice picture quality. Like I said, it fits niches. The cable watcher's main livingroom tv from 10ft away, this is not the tv to get. Also be mindful of reviews, they look good/above average. However, the last person I would consult on picture quality is a wally world shopper buying their first hdtv for 200 bucks lol.

wazlo21 11-01-2012 08:15 AM

As noted above, this isn't going to please most SDers who already own much nicer TVs, but for people replacing old CRT sets (yes, they do exist) having basic cable/OTA converter boxes this would be a good TV for making the jump into flat screens.

We're not big TV watchers, especially in our living room, and we replaced our 27" CRT set with a 37" Sceptre for around a couple hundred bucks not too long ago. It was a big step up from what we had and didn't cost an arm and a leg.

Not everyone's situations and needs are exactly the same (although some seem to think they are).

dimjim 11-01-2012 08:18 AM

Not a bad deal. I bet we'll be able to find a 37" or 42" (off brand like this) on BF for around $200 as well, but probably more-so as door-busters and not available online. They probably be won't be worth the effort.

I'm seriously considering this, but I hate having to spend fuel and time to go into wal-mart... carrying it out, cramming it in my car, as well as paying tax which pretty much negates the free shipping.

Maybe one of the online retailers will have a cheap 32"/37"/42" with free shipping near Cyber Monday...

woomer051 11-01-2012 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wazlo21 (Post 54374638)
As noted above, this isn't going to please most SDers who already own much nicer TVs, but for people replacing old CRT sets (yes, they do exist) having basic cable/OTA converter boxes this would be a good TV for making the jump into flat screens.

We're not big TV watchers, especially in our living room, and we replaced our 27" CRT set with a 37" Sceptre for around a couple hundred bucks not too long ago. It was a big step up from what we had and didn't cost an arm and a leg.

Not everyone's situations and needs are exactly the same (although some seem to think they are).

Already noted many dif situations to justify dif purchases (although some don't read goodish). I'm saying if you jump from CRT and at least have say a digital picture and pay $50/mo + (this is a large majority of TV buyers my friends) than this is not a good deal. Much better with plasma for cable picture, bigger size, and better quality brands. Listen, we can sit here all day and debate this, you may even want to back up that um.........hitecker tv if it drops $20 right............

I have this same debate with people on the $300 laptop (usually pentium) and the $400 laptop (usually 1st gen i3 or higher). When paying so much for internet, to have any kinda bottleneck when $100 could avoid it, you're just being silly with your money.

Big and meaningful jump for cable watching if you go from $200-300 crap brands 32-42" up to a 42" good brand $400 plasma for cable watching.

You also avoid a lot of wasted time going with a $400 laptop with an i-series processor vs a pentium and telling yourself uh well I don't use it much................If you don't use it much why even have the internet (although some people are in denial).

Anyway just food for though, its hard to talk entry level good quality with people looking at such bottom of the barrel products. But attention all walmart shoppers and RAC and Arrons people, sometimes just a little more $ can make a big difference. Money lies within your utilities today, not your hardware...................

joelhorne 11-01-2012 08:42 AM

Internet review:
Pros
Inexpensive. Good noise reduction and film video processing.
Cons
Terrible black levels. Bare-bones feature set. No 1080p support. Wobbly stand. Power hog for an LCD.
Bottom Line
The 32-inch Sceptre X322BV-HD LCD TV is a decent, inexpensive way to get HDTV into your home. Its disappointing video quality, middling build quality, and few features make it far from a recommended choice, though.

Fragster 11-01-2012 08:48 AM

I believe this is the same model that was on BF deal over at Newegg last year (same $179 price).

I bought it for my mom and it's been working totally fine to this day. Hooked up to Comcast HD box and no issues. My kids use their Wii on this too when mom babysits them.

I wouldn't compare the black levels to my own Panny plasma :-) but for $179, this makes an excellent bedroom/casual gaming TV...for the price.

lionelhuts 11-01-2012 08:48 AM

For those not seeing $179 in cart, try Walmart's mobile site.

wazlo21 11-01-2012 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woomer051 (Post 54375088)
Already noted many dif situations to justify dif purchases (although some don't read goodish). I'm saying if you jump from CRT and at least have say a digital picture and pay $50/mo + (this is a large majority of TV buyers my friends) than this is not a good deal. Much better with plasma for cable picture, bigger size, and better quality brands. Listen, we can sit here all day and debate this, you may even want to back up that um.........hitecker tv if it drops $20 right............

I have this same debate with people on the $300 laptop (usually pentium) and the $400 laptop (usually 1st gen i3 or higher). When paying so much for internet, to have any kinda bottleneck when $100 could avoid it, you're just being silly with your money.

Big and meaningful jump for cable watching if you go from $200-300 crap brands 32-42" up to a 42" good brand $400 plasma for cable watching.

You also avoid a lot of wasted time going with a $400 laptop with an i-series processor vs a pentium and telling yourself uh well I don't use it much................If you don't use it much why even have the internet (although some people are in denial).

Anyway just food for though, its hard to talk entry level good quality with people looking at such bottom of the barrel products. But attention all walmart shoppers and RAC and Arrons people, sometimes just a little more $ can make a big difference. Money lies within your utilities today, not your hardware...................

Not only are people's viewing needs different, but their financial situations are different as well. For you, it appears that $200 is not that big of a deal for a non-essential piece of technology. Some people just aren't as well off and spending an extra $200 - $250 for a better TV if they just watch the local news, some network TV, and American Pickers just doesn't make sense. The same goes for the extra $100 for a laptop. Internet browsing, Youtube watching, and light document processing aren't processor-limited tasks, so the extra $100 is wasted. Having that extra $300 in their pocket is much more important than the marginal benefits they'd realize from those pricier purchases.

Go ahead and keep looking down your nose at them though if it makes you feel better.

rixsaw 11-01-2012 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woomer051 (Post 54375088)
.......I'm saying if you jump from CRT and at least have say a digital picture and pay $50/mo + (this is a large majority of TV buyers my friends) than this is not a good deal. .....................................

What would be a good deal? I can't afford a $300 TV currently. I need cable to watch HBO, Animal Planet, House Wife of XZY on Bravo. Do you have a solution? It's silly to justify a relationship between the quality of the TV I buy to how much I pay for cable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by woomer051 (Post 54375088)
I have this same debate with people on the $300 laptop (usually pentium) and the $400 laptop (usually 1st gen i3 or higher). When paying so much for internet, to have any kinda bottleneck when $100 could avoid it, you're just being silly with your money.

All thing equal, you are saying that my core2duo on WinXP will download movie slower than your i3 laptop? Being an IT guy for 25 years, this is the first time I hear someone equate network bottleneck to the end user CPU. Btw, for some people $100 is a drop in the bucket. For others, it is 1/2 of a weekly pay check. it's silly for me to upgrade my fully functional core2duo laptop to and i3 laptop because I'm using roadrunner lightning.

woomer051 11-01-2012 09:41 AM

Recommendations if $300 for those upgrades breaks the bank, don't eat out for 3 months. Situation solved. If you can't afford $300 and you've been in IT 25yrs, I have to doubt your ability to analyze an industry where newer tech cost money...................Might be hard to comment or have credibility on devices that are keeping up with the times. You don't have to own a 60" tv to understand plasma vs lcd vs dlp and you don't have to be a snob to make the comments I make, however commenting on tech 5-10 yrs past what you have uhhhhhhhh there's being in IT and BEING in IT I guess. I understand people are struggling, my suggestion is don't have a cell phone, cable, internet, landline, hbo, starsz, netflix, smoke cigs and say you're struggling. That way you actually have quality items, which is more important depends on the person.

And if its silly to compare tv quality/price to what you pay in utilities, you're simply a person who doesn't get it.

Not looking down my nose, like I said quality is really tough to explain to walmart shoppers. They often get angry. The cpu is obviously not as relevant to bottlenecking your computer when talking network functions............however there are many things a pentium is not good for doing fast these days. Thats why so many lower cost laptops shell in the i series processor. Unless you go back 4 yrs and bought a creme of the crop pentium (in which case why are you upgrading..............). Also on top of that speed problems are commonly solved by a $80 120gb ssd now, but is that tech really advanced for this convo.........I dunno.

Overall people constantly using utilities and paying alot for them yet having such a low investment into the hardware that uses them, that basically is basically the crowd I address. Notice my agreement with muscles there in the weight room, this tv fits him. If we want to say $200 or an extra $200 breaks the bank on a $50/month cable watcher, lets maybe move the convo to whether or not we should have cable.

rawrrawrrawr 11-01-2012 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woomer051 (Post 54374070)
People paying $50+/mo =$600+/yr for cable/satellite yet watch it on a $200 tv??????????????????

Unless this is solely for gaming or movies, treat yourself to a $400 720p 42" plasma for cable watching (at the very least 42"/720p/$400)
Recommend a 50" 1080p plasma for $600. Try models samsung = e530 panasonic = u50 and lg = pa5500. You'll thank me in the long run. If saving an intital $200 or so is that important while you shell out big bucks for utilities to use them, I bet you have stuff from rent a center or arrons LOL.

What a stupid post. A 42" would be massive in most bedrooms/dorms etc. where most people are buying a tv this size for. $200 up front is over twice as much for a product. Not everyone pays $50 a month for cable or even pay for cable/utilities so I'm not sure where that assumption comes from. You paint a very specific scenario that I don't believe applies to anyone in this thread.

slip kid 11-01-2012 09:49 AM

hmmm have a 40" sammy in the bedroom that is only used to watch 6am and 10pm news broadcasts...
can put that in my family room, replacing the 27" tube sammy hdtv there.
although 32" at the foot of the bed seems like it'd be a huge difference from the 40".

maybe i hold out for a cheap 37".

woomer051 11-01-2012 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rawrrawrrawr (Post 54377002)
What a stupid post. A 42" would be massive in most bedrooms/dorms etc. where most people are buying a tv this size for. $200 up front is over twice as much for a product. Not everyone pays $50 a month for cable or even pay for cable/utilities so I'm not sure where that assumption comes from. You paint a very specific scenario that I don't believe applies to anyone in this thread.

Have to disagree. Many people pay $50/mo and are upgrading a tv for their livingroom (actually for satellite after entry price $45 is as low as you go unless you're basics only with cable, $45 is via dish). Thats a very large case scenario I'm trying to apply. People make my post out to say hey put a 50" in a 100sq ft room u never use...............genious.............

Sample test, go ask your neighbors if they have cable, next question ask if its just basic. Bet you get the same asnwer in sequence 90+ percent of the time, now apply my scenario to people who need a livingroom tv first (over bedroom or kids bedroom)if they want to upgrade.

woomer051 11-01-2012 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slip kid (Post 54377042)
hmmm have a 40" sammy in the bedroom that is only used to watch 6am and 10pm news broadcasts...
can put that in my family room, replacing the 27" tube sammy hdtv there.
although 32" at the foot of the bed seems like it'd be a huge difference from the 40".

maybe i hold out for a cheap 37".

Suggestion, niche sizes usually have higher cost/inch. You see this when you talk 32, 40, 42, 50 inchers vs 37 and 46 inchers. Usually your best value is 32, 42, 50. Early on 37" were more cost/inch because people wanted to hold onto that old entertainment center they built to house a 36" tube (common big size tube). Now its tapered off, but id still pick 32 or 40.

stegall 11-01-2012 10:07 AM

I believe this is the exact same TV I bought for the same price from Wal-mart some 5 months or so ago. No, the audio is not superb, but, for me, it's more than adequate; the video also seems fine to me. For the money, in my opinion, it's a doggone good buy, and I wouldn't hesitate to purchase another if I so needed. YMMV.

wazlo21 11-01-2012 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woomer051 (Post 54376852)
Recommendations if $300 for those upgrades breaks the bank, don't eat out for 3 months. Situation solved. If you can't afford $300 and you've been in IT 25yrs, I have to doubt your ability to analyze an industry where newer tech cost money...................Might be hard to comment or have credibility on devices that are keeping up with the times. You don't have to own a 60" tv to understand plasma vs lcd vs dlp and you don't have to be a snob to make the comments I make, however commenting on tech 5-10 yrs past what you have uhhhhhhhh there's being in IT and BEING in IT I guess. I understand people are struggling, my suggestion is don't have a cell phone, cable, internet, landline, hbo, starsz, netflix, smoke cigs and say you're struggling. That way you actually have quality items, which is more important depends on the person.

And if its silly to compare tv quality/price to what you pay in utilities, you're simply a person who doesn't get it.

Not looking down my nose, like I said quality is really tough to explain to walmart shoppers. They often get angry. The cpu is obviously not as relevant to bottlenecking your computer when talking network functions............however there are many things a pentium is not good for doing fast these days. Thats why so many lower cost laptops shell in the i series processor. Unless you go back 4 yrs and bought a creme of the crop pentium (in which case why are you upgrading..............). Also on top of that speed problems are commonly solved by a $80 120gb ssd now, but is that tech really advanced for this convo.........I dunno.

Overall people constantly using utilities and paying alot for them yet having such a low investment into the hardware that uses them, that basically is basically the crowd I address. Notice my agreement with muscles there in the weight room, this tv fits him. If we want to say $200 or an extra $200 breaks the bank on a $50/month cable watcher, lets maybe move the convo to whether or not we should have cable.

You say you get it, but you don't. People should give up things like cell phones and the internet because they're not willing to spend twice as much on the hardware even though the extra cost grants them little to no benefit? I can see that further discussion on the topic will be fairly pointless.

woomer051 11-01-2012 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wazlo21 (Post 54377722)
You say you get it, but you don't. People should give up things like cell phones and the internet because they're not willing to spend twice as much on the hardware even though the extra cost grants them little to no benefit? I can see that further discussion on the topic will be fairly pointless.

Yes discussing quality and price on a site that promotes it with someone who will not apply quality and price (seems only price), I'm speechless LOL. I may have to say start walmart forums for your discussions.

Also more words in my mouth. Said give up eating out 3 months. My cell phones etc. was related to how poor struggling people usually aren't poor struggling people.

Maybe I'll just go out on the limb and say I work for a plasma company and im tricking you. I'm on a deals forum promoting value to people in a deceiving way. That exta $100-200 will make my company flourish LOL. Its a simple suggestion. When you want to upgrade to a tv (which is more of what im suggesting, not filling a small room) then you surely bring more thant $100 or $200 to the table. Thats in many cases, but will people play $180 720p tvs with $300 1080p game systems in 2012, surely yes. Just trying to help people with decisions. If I wanted to insult the poor, I would just call them poor. Not provide opinion on deal forums...................

RowdyReptile 11-01-2012 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woomer051 (Post 54377450)
Suggestion, niche sizes usually have higher cost/inch. You see this when you talk 32, 40, 42, 50 inchers vs 37 and 46 inchers. Usually your best value is 32, 42, 50. Early on 37" were more cost/inch because people wanted to hold onto that old entertainment center they built to house a 36" tube (common big size tube). Now its tapered off, but id still pick 32 or 40.

Interesting. I have a 32" LCD in my bedroom (probably 8' viewing distance) and I wouldn't mind upgrading that to a 36-37", but 40" might be slightly too big. I see from these distance recommendations [wikipedia.org], that a 32" TV should have a max viewing distance of 6.6 ft.. or that an 8 ft distance needs a 38.4" or larger TV.

(I could use a 32" in my guest room, so it would be an excuse to get a new bigger one for my bedroom rather than just getting another 32".)

Actually.. Costco.com has a VIZIO LCDs in sizes
37" for $355
39" for $370
42" for $400

At those price differentials, it'd be hard to not just buy the biggest one that fits in your room. Compared to the 37", the
39" is 11.1% larger area for 4% more money
42" is 28.9% larger area for 13% more money

joeybean 11-01-2012 10:33 AM

WARNING! This TV is the LEAST customizable tv ever, you can't even adjust basic brightness/contrast/tone! The white levels appear grey, I bought this $180 through SD 5 months ago. TV prices have come down significantly since then. DON'T BITE!

slickNslider 11-01-2012 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shandy706 (Post 54373694)
I wouldn't say you were a n00b, I'm a tech junkie/lover and I didn't know there were purple and pink flat-screens.

We have flat-screens in every room in the house, minus my oldest daughters room (she's only 5). I might just have to spring for one of the purple or pink flat-screens this Xmas.

Thanks for the heads up....I'm repping you for it :nod:

Thanks! Yeah if it came in blue or green I'd see myself buying it even.

alternative_kid 11-01-2012 10:44 AM

tv prices coming down
 
I agree. I think we'll be seeing $99-$149 on 32" tvs for bf. Probably start seeing 42" entry level near the $199 price point. I think I have this tv and it's fine for occassional use but the sound is terrible.



Quote:

Originally Posted by joeybean (Post 54378244)
WARNING! This TV is the LEAST customizable tv ever, you can't even adjust basic brightness/contrast/tone! The white levels appear grey, I bought this $180 through SD 5 months ago. TV prices have come down significantly since then. DON'T BITE!


woomer051 11-01-2012 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RowdyReptile (Post 54378200)
Interesting. I have a 32" LCD in my bedroom (probably 8' viewing distance) and I wouldn't mind upgrading that to a 36-37", but 40" might be slightly too big. I see from these distance recommendations [wikipedia.org], that a 32" TV should have a max viewing distance of 6.6 ft.. or that an 8 ft distance needs a 38.4" or larger TV.

(I could use a 32" in my guest room, so it would be an excuse to get a new bigger one for my bedroom rather than just getting another 32".)

Actually.. Costco.com has a VIZIO LCDs in sizes
37" for $355
39" for $370
42" for $400

At those price differentials, it'd be hard to not just buy the biggest one that fits in your room. Compared to the 37", the
39" is 11.1% larger area for 4% more money
42" is 28.9% larger area for 13% more money

Eh off the top of my head those aren't that great of figures to use though, first time I went to circuitt cities website today either a 40 or 42" was starring me in the face for $350 on home page. Usually those SPECIALS come with those common sizes that are more commonly manufactured. So if your branding/quality is not as important id go with $300 at walmart if theres anything out there, dunno if you will find a 37" for $270 though.

EDIT yup, actually I did get to 2 tvs before I hit a $300 40" sceptre. That usually isn't common. One is hitecher which I've heard nothing about, must be new to walmart for $270 and a 37" jvc id feel more comfortable with for $280.

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Hiteker...3/20554015
hitcheck 37 $270

http://www.walmart.com/ip/JVC-37-...2/20750751
jv 37 $280

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Sceptre...D/19793651
sceptre 40 $300


You may be seeking better models with vizio maybe, but if you were i'd think they would be LED. Vizio has the good and the bad.

ph7 11-01-2012 10:45 AM

No-name 1080P 32" were $200 last Xmas. $250 for 40" LEDs.. We can do better 11 months later.

bail_w 11-01-2012 10:46 AM

Bought this TV last time for the same price and after 4 months it die. No pictures but has sound. RMA at this moment.

RowdyReptile 11-01-2012 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woomer051 (Post 54378574)
Eh off the top of my head those aren't that great of figures to use though, first time I went to circuitt cities website today either a 40 or 42" was starring me in the face for $350 on home page. Usually those SPECIALS come with those common sizes that are more commonly manufactured. So if your branding/quality is not as important id go with $300 at walmart if theres anything out there, dunno if you will find a 37" for $270 though.

EDIT yup, actually I did get to 2 tvs before I hit a $300 40" sceptre. That usually isn't common. One is hitecher which I've heard nothing about, must be new to walmart for $270 and a 37" jvc id feel more comfortable with for $280.

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Hiteker...3/20554015
hitcheck 37 $270

http://www.walmart.com/ip/JVC-37-...2/20750751
jv 37 $280

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Sceptre...D/19793651
sceptre 40 $300


You may be seeking better models with vizio maybe, but if you were i'd think they would be LED. Vizio has the good and the bad.

Ahh, thanks. That JVC's not a bad option, but I'll hold out until BF/CM and see what comes up.

jnads 11-01-2012 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alternative_kid (Post 54378562)
I agree. I think we'll be seeing $99-$149 on 32" tvs for bf. Probably start seeing 42" entry level near the $199 price point. I think I have this tv and it's fine for occassional use but the sound is terrible.

My bet (based on trends from years past, 42" was already $199 at BB last year):

Doorbuster 20" for something crazy like $69
32" for $119 or $129
42" for $179
50" for $299

Bad economy is great for slickdeals.

wazlo21 11-01-2012 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woomer051 (Post 54378146)
Yes discussing quality and price on a site that promotes it with someone who will not apply quality and price (seems only price), I'm speechless LOL. I may have to say start walmart forums for your discussions.

Also more words in my mouth. Said give up eating out 3 months. My cell phones etc. was related to how poor struggling people usually aren't poor struggling people.

Maybe I'll just go out on the limb and say I work for a plasma company and im tricking you. I'm on a deals forum promoting value to people in a deceiving way. That exta $100-200 will make my company flourish LOL. Its a simple suggestion. When you want to upgrade to a tv (which is more of what im suggesting, not filling a small room) then you surely bring more thant $100 or $200 to the table. Thats in many cases, but will people play $180 720p tvs with $300 1080p game systems in 2012, surely yes. Just trying to help people with decisions. If I wanted to insult the poor, I would just call them poor. Not provide opinion on deal forums...................

It seems you're being obtuse just for the sake of being obtuse or you're just trolling at this point. Your condescening tone, insistence on using the term Walmart shoppers as a deragatory term, and refusal to address the points I'm making have me leaning towards troll. :wave:

justsomeguy5 11-01-2012 11:24 AM

I bought the 40" 1080p set from Sceptre earlier this year, and I don't have any regrets about it. I realize this is a 720p set, but it's more or less the same. I never had any problems with anything, been using it every day for months. Picture quality is pretty good, and the sound is fine. I know some people complained about the sound being projected like it's inside of a tin can or whatever, but I never had any of those problems. Of course, YMMV, but I've been pretty happy with mine considering what I paid for it. This is a very good deal, imo.

woomer051 11-01-2012 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RowdyReptile (Post 54378932)
Ahh, thanks. That JVC's not a bad option, but I'll hold out until BF/CM and see what comes up.

Black friday will feature similar low brand 42" tvs for $200 I bet, they may stock a dozen or two in store, my opinion its not worth that to wait. However if they have that for $100-150 then you may camp out for that, I bet there is such a low quantity if that happens though. If you can find $250 for a 42" or 40" like I've done before, go with that. $50 for staying up all night ans risking a wreck in a parking lot are your trade offs probably.

woomer051 11-01-2012 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wazlo21 (Post 54379668)
It seems you're being obtuse just for the sake of being obtuse or you're just trolling at this point. Your condescening tone, insistence on using the term Walmart shoppers as a deragatory term, and refusal to address the points I'm making have me leaning towards troll. :wave:

Yes, I'm a troll................You should be proud to make that excellent point and feel good about it on an internet forum, you get bonus points at life LOL. My point is simple, an extra $100 sometimes makes a big difference. Taking it across all scenarios is assinine, surely it doesn't apply to everyone. Quality DOES matter, 10% off of a Macbook (which some consider admirable quality) is a deal here on SD. $20 off a $200 tv may not be, well............it wont hit FP lets say that. Not only that, its maybe not the best TV for some. That simple. In my scenarios I try to explain, I don't think you will reach absolute fact to find an ideal tv for everyone. You can use fact if you address case scenarios though. I've used easy rules of thumb, plasma for cable lcd/led for games and movies (if 120hz was good for cable, 240hz and 480hz + wouldn;t exists). Big tvs and better quality the more frequently used (given cable costs too), so your investment in utitlities is more practical(if you want quality). Small rooms or rooms you don't go into, heck throw anything in there.

I''ll address any point you got, you have to derive them from things I actually SAY.

angrysquirrel 11-01-2012 11:57 AM

I would like to find a good price on a 32" 1080p led LCD TV. I'm using a TCL as a computer monitor and it's not great for word processing. I've tried a sceper 32" 1080p and the picture quality is terrible. I'm looking at the LG 32CS560 but it's almost as expensive as the TCL 39"

RowdyReptile 11-01-2012 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woomer051 (Post 54380582)
Black friday will feature similar low brand 42" tvs for $200 I bet, they may stock a dozen or two in store, my opinion its not worth that to wait. However if they have that for $100-150 then you may camp out for that, I bet there is such a low quantity if that happens though. If you can find $250 for a 42" or 40" like I've done before, go with that. $50 for staying up all night ans risking a wreck in a parking lot are your trade offs probably.

True.. I was thinking more of online deals. I don't camp out or wait in line for door-busters.

woomer051 11-01-2012 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RowdyReptile (Post 54381838)
True.. I was thinking more of online deals. I don't camp out or wait in line for door-busters.

Definately a good call. I'd check amazon, walmart, newegg, tigerdirect, and buy.com around black friday then (obviously slickdealers will be too). Last year there was a $200 42" people camped out at bestbuy for and a 42" showed up on amazon.com for $200 or maybe it was $250. Felt so bad to see people outside bestbuy freezing (8:00 pm on wednesday) when they coulda just went with an online deal within $50-100.

woomer051 11-01-2012 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angrysquirrel (Post 54380938)
I would like to find a good price on a 32" 1080p led LCD TV. I'm using a TCL as a computer monitor and it's not great for word processing. I've tried a sceper 32" 1080p and the picture quality is terrible. I'm looking at the LG 32CS560 but it's almost as expensive as the TCL 39"

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Samsu...Mgod5U8A6Q

What did you want to spend? You're gonna be looking $300 if you want quality fit for monitor (if you didn't like sceptre), or higher. Also if you are gaming, getting these tvs as apposed to 27" monitors its possibly they wont be as good for gaming. Also a nice 1080p 32" will not have a dramatic drop down from a 42" 1080p. Most 32" tvs are 720p for cable. To go 32" for a monitor I wont say its too big (for your needs) but its too big (to get a good price/in for 1080p+).

imabass 11-01-2012 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woomer051 (Post 54374360)
... Also be mindful of reviews, they look good/above average. However, the last person I would consult on picture quality is a wally world shopper buying their first hdtv for 200 bucks lol.

Valid point. Anything looks better than older tube TV. It may look great compared to tube but look like a POS compared to quality name brand.

angrysquirrel 11-01-2012 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woomer051 (Post 54382208)
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Samsu...Mgod5U8A6Q

What did you want to spend? You're gonna be looking $300 if you want quality fit for monitor (if you didn't like sceptre), or higher. Also if you are gaming, getting these tvs as apposed to 27" monitors its possibly they wont be as good for gaming. Also a nice 1080p 32" will not have a dramatic drop down from a 42" 1080p. Most 32" tvs are 720p for cable. To go 32" for a monitor I wont say its too big (for your needs) but its too big (to get a good price/in for 1080p+).


Thanks for the info. I would probably venture around $300 since the TCL 39" was around $350. That being said, it seems like it's more expensive to get a 32" instead of a 40". Maybe 40" are more popular so they're less expensive?

woomer051 11-01-2012 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angrysquirrel (Post 54383044)
Thanks for the info. I would probably venture around $300 since the TCL 39" was around $350. That being said, it seems like it's more expensive to get a 32" instead of a 40". Maybe 40" are more popular so they're less expensive?

I dunno why a 32" 1080p is soooooo much. Like I said, many people don't make a 1080p 32 they just make 720p. The highest I see monitor go (not to say tvs cant be monitors) is like 27". Here is a 27" 1080p 5ms response integrated usb and speakers. Deals are on 24-27" 1080p, 32" 720p, and 40-42" 1080p. You simply don't find "deals" on a 32" 1080p. My recommendation is go bigger or go smaller for deals. My biggest recommendation is go 27" for more of a selection for 1080p. If you go bigger like 37"+ you will be able to pick flaws out like crazy. If you go smaller you will have more selection and hit nice models even if they aren't the best brand.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/pro...creen.html
Acer is ok

angrysquirrel 11-01-2012 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woomer051 (Post 54383242)
I dunno why a 32" 1080p is soooooo much. Like I said, many people don't make a 1080p 32 they just make 720p. The highest I see monitor go (not to say tvs cant be monitors) is like 27". Here is a 27" 1080p 5ms response integrated usb and speakers. Deals are on 24-27" 1080p, 32" 720p, and 40-42" 1080p. You simply don't find "deals" on a 32" 1080p. My recommendation is go bigger or go smaller for deals. My biggest recommendation is go 27" for more of a selection for 1080p. If you go bigger like 37"+ you will be able to pick flaws out like crazy. If you go smaller you will have more selection and hit nice models even if they aren't the best brand.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/pro...creen.html
Acer is ok


Before I got this "39 TCL I was using a 27" planar. It's not bad but I wanted something a bit bigger for gaming. That being said, I also want what I'm using to double as a work monitor for word processing. The text isn't crisp enough with the 39" TCL and also wasn't crisp enough when I tried a scepter 32" 1080p LCD.

I think my next try will be a 32" 1080p LED LCD made by a better brand like Samsung.

robwadeson 11-01-2012 06:44 PM

lol I don't know what other people are saying so negatively about this sub $200 tv. I have the led version and I must say the color is very much like my other samsung. Sometimes you pay less for what you actually get :)

krunk619 11-01-2012 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woomer051 (Post 54374070)
People paying $50+/mo =$600+/yr for cable/satellite yet watch it on a $200 tv??????????????????

Unless this is solely for gaming or movies, treat yourself to a $400 720p 42" plasma for cable watching (at the very least 42"/720p/$400)
Recommend a 50" 1080p plasma for $600. Try models samsung = e530 panasonic = u50 and lg = pa5500. You'll thank me in the long run. If saving an intital $200 or so is that important while you shell out big bucks for utilities to use them, I bet you have stuff from rent a center or arrons LOL.

Can you recommend a nice 60" 1080p plasma? I want to replace my 46" LCD. :bounce:

woomer051 11-01-2012 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krunk619 (Post 54397820)
Can you recommend a nice 60" 1080p plasma? I want to replace my 46" LCD. :bounce:

Cheap 60" plasma would be a tcp60u50 from panasonic, a 60pa5500 from lg or 60" e530 from samsung. Lg and panny models can be found around $900 for 60" lately.

krunk619 11-01-2012 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woomer051 (Post 54398132)
Cheap 60" plasma would be a tcp60u50 from panasonic, a 60pa5500 from lg or 60" e530 from samsung. Lg and panny models can be found around $900 for 60" lately.

What about a nice quality one, with inky blacks? Which one would u buy? :look:

woomer051 11-02-2012 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krunk619 (Post 54400534)
What about a nice quality one, with inky blacks? Which one would u buy? :look:

Budget quality now, you usally end up buying 3d models (whether you want 3d or not). Safe bet is the st50 series from panasonic. The larger you go though, 60" is a drastic price dif from 50". With decent quality base models like I listed, the 50" to 60" jump is $300, with the st,gt, or vt models from panasonic, 50" to 60" jumps can be $600-$800+. So if you want a "deal" on quality that big of size, you have to realize price/inch is not in your favor. People getting that big and that high of quality don't get bargains usually. Sometimes there is employee purchase price deals on say 50" but when you jump past 50" with a plasma EVERYTHING changes.

Because of both LCD and Plasma reliability ratings for panny, I usually recommend them for people looking at quality plasma. Its either them lg or sammy, they are the only 3 left manufacturing. To help you with everything panny thats out there, TCP marks off plasma, then your size, then model u,s,g, and v, the t marks off 3d. So Examples.

TCP50gt50 is my tv, its a 50 inch g series, its 3d and its the g50 series (which is farily recent).
TCP65s30 is a 65 inch s series tv that is not 3d
the best tv you can buy for cable in my opinion is a tcp65vt50 (although the g series is a better price point)
S series has really been catching up to the g series too, which is why i recommend a tcp50st50 or if there is a newer line going. I know theres a 25 series, then 30 now 50 and probably a 51 series. So maybe a tcp65vt51 exists out there.

slickNslider 11-02-2012 12:32 PM

I doubt many of the name brands are really going to dip under $200 for a 32".

$250-$270 range will be more like what a well known brand name LED TV would sell for. I am being realistic.

It's just an idea going into the 2012 BF Mania. :woot:

krunk619 11-02-2012 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woomer051 (Post 54403986)
Budget quality now, you usally end up buying 3d models (whether you want 3d or not). Safe bet is the st50 series from panasonic. The larger you go though, 60" is a drastic price dif from 50". With decent quality base models like I listed, the 50" to 60" jump is $300, with the st,gt, or vt models from panasonic, 50" to 60" jumps can be $600-$800+. So if you want a "deal" on quality that big of size, you have to realize price/inch is not in your favor. People getting that big and that high of quality don't get bargains usually. Sometimes there is employee purchase price deals on say 50" but when you jump past 50" with a plasma EVERYTHING changes.

Because of both LCD and Plasma reliability ratings for panny, I usually recommend them for people looking at quality plasma. Its either them lg or sammy, they are the only 3 left manufacturing. To help you with everything panny thats out there, TCP marks off plasma, then your size, then model u,s,g, and v, the t marks off 3d. So Examples.

TCP50gt50 is my tv, its a 50 inch g series, its 3d and its the g50 series (which is farily recent).
TCP65s30 is a 65 inch s series tv that is not 3d
the best tv you can buy for cable in my opinion is a tcp65vt50 (although the g series is a better price point)
S series has really been catching up to the g series too, which is why i recommend a tcp50st50 or if there is a newer line going. I know theres a 25 series, then 30 now 50 and probably a 51 series. So maybe a tcp65vt51 exists out there.

Thank u sir :nod:

aero 11-16-2012 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woomer051 (Post 54374070)
People paying $50+/mo =$600+/yr for cable/satellite yet watch it on a $200 tv??????????????????

That is a really silly comment, and a silly threadcap.
I have over-the-air which is better quality than top quality cable or satellite.

May as well as why people are paying $600 for cable when they can pay nothing for BETTER HD.

So please take your tread capping and trolling and leave. Almost no one is buying this as their primary TV. Bedroom, workout room, kids room etc.

aero 11-16-2012 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alternative_kid (Post 54378562)
I agree. I think we'll be seeing $99-$149 on 32" tvs for bf. Probably start seeing 42" entry level near the $199 price point. I think I have this tv and it's fine for occassional use but the sound is terrible.

Dont compare doorbusters. Waiting in line for 24 hours, at wages less than a McDonald worker, essential paying yourself $50 to be outside freezing and then pushing and shoving, is not a valid comparison for normal purchases such as this.,
I will venture on a BF purchase for something that saves me $300-$500. I can see people doing to save $200. for $50? no.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:35 PM.