This collaborative space allows users to contribute additional information, tips, and insights to enhance the original deal post. Feel free to share your knowledge and help fellow shoppers make informed decisions.
I bought the $188 one and it was trash. Straight-on viewing was ..ok... but anything at even a slight angle and it was awful. This is the 55S41 $188 on Nov 8 or thereabouts, that I'm micro-reviewing.
I took it back, and I'll keep using a 2010 Sony; the Sony was superior.
I have a TCL 55" 4 series since they dropped to $299… like back in 2017. Used in bedroom so it's only straight - on viewing, room isn't large enough to test wide angles. But we have been very happy with the TV at price paid.
I got the 55S21 last year and have really liked it although I think there's some minor motion smoothing turned on and no setting to turn it off (that said I watch a lot of stuff on the TV and only notice it sometimes and it usually isn't too distracting).
Is this likely the same basic TV as that just 10" bigger?
1
Like
Helpful
Funny
Not helpful
Nov 18, 2022 12:10 AM
56 Comments
Joined Jan 2017
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users.
I bought the element 58inch deal from target , should I return and buy this instead? Hmmmmm I'm conflicted
If you can get this TCL...yes.
As another has said, the 4 series are entry level. I have a 55", a 42", and my MIL has I think a 49"(?)
All still working, and at any angle I can actually test (maybe 120 degrees?) it's still watchable.
Best TV? Heck no. For this price, I'd pick one up if I didn't already have so many TVs.
Highly recommend TCL as a brand. I got this deal 2 years ago for the 65S434 and my TV had some issue android was in a bootloop and they replaced the TV. TV has been going strong ever since and is great.
That would be valid if the TV was square shaped with a length of 65" and width of 65". However, TVs are rectangular shaped with the length to width ratio of 16:9. The 65" is measured diagonally.
Pragmatically, it doesn't matter. Uses the same scale factor.
(65/55)^2 = 1.39669 = 40% increase in area
That would be valid if the TV was square shaped with a length of 65" and width of 65". However, TVs are rectangular shaped with the length to width ratio of 16:9. The 65" is measured diagonally.
Tell you what. Why don't you do the math and prove me wrong? The only thing I could have done to make it more accurate would be to use 64.5 and 54.5 instead of the nominal sizes.
When two rectangles have the same aspect ratio, you only need to square the ratio of the two screen sizes. Figuring out the area of each is an unnecessary step.
16
1
Like
Helpful
Funny
Not helpful
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank iendu
For people who own decent FHD TVs(like LG, Samsung, and Sony non-entry-level models), I don't recommend these low-priced 4k TVs for watching 4k blu-ray discs.
I bought 2 cheap 4k TVs last year and bought a Panasonic 4k blu-ray player(forgot the model number, but it was a highly recommended model here)
Then, I set up my 8-year-old LG FHD(PS4 as blu-ray player) and the new 4k TV(Panasonic as 4k blu-ray player) side by side. I was shocked I barely see any difference between them, even though I turned on all the settings like HDR. (Yes, I tried at least more than 3 movies that were recommended for the excellent 4k transfer)
There was some noticeable difference when I stream, though; it kind of makes sense due to the bitrate difference between 4k and FHD streaming.
So if you prefer playing physical copies like me, don't upgrade your TV unless it's a high-end model.
Last edited by iendu November 17, 2022 at 06:22 PM.
4
2
Like
Helpful
Funny
Not helpful
Join The Conversation
Share information with the community. Please follow our Community Guidelines and be kind!
Top Comments
I took it back, and I'll keep using a 2010 Sony; the Sony was superior.
Join The Conversation
Share information with the community. Please follow our Community Guidelines and be kind!
582 Comments
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Is this likely the same basic TV as that just 10" bigger?
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank Mr_Sadness
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
As another has said, the 4 series are entry level. I have a 55", a 42", and my MIL has I think a 49"(?)
All still working, and at any angle I can actually test (maybe 120 degrees?) it's still watchable.
Best TV? Heck no. For this price, I'd pick one up if I didn't already have so many TVs.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank Mr_Sadness
55" has a screen area of 1293 in²
1809 in² / 1293 in² = 1.399 or 39.9% larger
Source for screen area: https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews...latio
(65/55)^2 = 1.39669 = 40% increase in area
When two rectangles have the same aspect ratio, you only need to square the ratio of the two screen sizes. Figuring out the area of each is an unnecessary step.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank iendu
I bought 2 cheap 4k TVs last year and bought a Panasonic 4k blu-ray player(forgot the model number, but it was a highly recommended model here)
Then, I set up my 8-year-old LG FHD(PS4 as blu-ray player) and the new 4k TV(Panasonic as 4k blu-ray player) side by side. I was shocked I barely see any difference between them, even though I turned on all the settings like HDR. (Yes, I tried at least more than 3 movies that were recommended for the excellent 4k transfer)
There was some noticeable difference when I stream, though; it kind of makes sense due to the bitrate difference between 4k and FHD streaming.
So if you prefer playing physical copies like me, don't upgrade your TV unless it's a high-end model.
Join The Conversation
Share information with the community. Please follow our Community Guidelines and be kind!