Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Best Non-Smart TV Sets? (slashdot.org)
williamyf writes: I have always been of the idea that my TV shall be non-smart, leaving the smarts to connected equipment (in my case my Synology NAS running Plex and a combination of Chromecasts and laptops do the trick). I think that most of my Slashdot brethren are of a similar persuasion. But, over the years finding decent non-smart TVs is becoming harder and harder, unless your are prepared to pay much higher prices for industrial/signage equipment, or are prepared to deal with slightly inferior specs and quality, or get an old (possibly second hand) set, or are prepared to do long, hard internet searches for that needle in the haystack (all slashdot readers can google, but here at least we can hear firsthand experiences from technically-minded people, and not fake-ish reviews).
In view of the recent story about Samsung TVs being bricked by a firmware update, I ask the Slashdot crowd to amass our collective knowledge and see: What TV makers make decent non-smart TV sets? Which are these sets?
Requirements: non-smart, no apps on the TV, no app on the smartphone, no nothing -- the dumber the better. OTA tuner optional. 1080p50/60 or higher (1333x768 was barely adequate in 2008, but KRAP in 2017). 16:9 or 21:9. From 35 inches (for the master bedroom) to 70 inches (for the middle class living room in an apartment complex). Real remote (not app in a phone) with at least volume up/down, input change and sleep function, plus all needed to configure the set. Lots of HDMI 2.0 (or higher) ports. A decent assortment of legacy ports (including component, composite, S-Video). HDR capable. Good build quality. Good price (Ideally slightly lower than similar smart TVs, since we are forgoing the hardware needed for the smart part, as well as the ongoing support cost for firmware updates). Good image quality. Decent warranties. Reputable manufacturers. Reputable sellers.
In view of the recent story about Samsung TVs being bricked by a firmware update, I ask the Slashdot crowd to amass our collective knowledge and see: What TV makers make decent non-smart TV sets? Which are these sets?
Requirements: non-smart, no apps on the TV, no app on the smartphone, no nothing -- the dumber the better. OTA tuner optional. 1080p50/60 or higher (1333x768 was barely adequate in 2008, but KRAP in 2017). 16:9 or 21:9. From 35 inches (for the master bedroom) to 70 inches (for the middle class living room in an apartment complex). Real remote (not app in a phone) with at least volume up/down, input change and sleep function, plus all needed to configure the set. Lots of HDMI 2.0 (or higher) ports. A decent assortment of legacy ports (including component, composite, S-Video). HDR capable. Good build quality. Good price (Ideally slightly lower than similar smart TVs, since we are forgoing the hardware needed for the smart part, as well as the ongoing support cost for firmware updates). Good image quality. Decent warranties. Reputable manufacturers. Reputable sellers.
let me know if there is a bundle with one of those with a unicorn. I would be interested as well.
Look for a monitor instead. You won't get a handy remote, but if it's any better than 'crap' it'll go into standby after a minute or two without an input signal, and whatever you're using to drive the image will have its own remote anyway.
Buy any TV, do not connect it to your network and do not use any of the smart functionality. Boom instant regular old tv!
You're asking for everything in the world and asking for it cheap, and that's just not going to happen. Non-smart TVs yes have less hardware, but because they're made in much smaller quantities, they demand a premium.
That said, look at the Vizio E-Series. the only "Smarts" it has is app controls and a built-in ChromeCast. The E-series comes with a regular remote with volume and input options (don't know about sleep, never bothered with sleeping a TV manually). 4k 60Hz refresh, HDR-capable. That's probably as close as you're going to get to what you want in 2017.
You thought that this sig was what you think that I thought you wanted me to think. I think.
At that point, specially for the smaller TV screen sizes, you should also consider getting a huge PC Monitor.
Which can give you a very high quality display at a decent size (but might be a bit over priced).
But only llimited connectivity (usually 2 or 3 out of the list of usual suspects : Display Port, HDMI, DVI either pure digital or with combined analog and eventually legacy analog VGA)
Then you can separately tack on everything you need.
- multiple HDMI can be obtained by connecting a separate HDMI switch box. Some even have remote controls
- OTA receiver (DVB-T or whatever it is called elsewhere out of europe) can be found as separate stand alone boxes.
- tiny flat speakers built in the monitor (available usually as an extra option on most PC -monitors) will never beat the quality of a mid-to-high range PC multispeaker set, specially those which feature a decoding box (analog + SPDIF + Optical inputs)
Then you can use either an IR-blaster on your favorite box (NAS, Chromecast, whatever) or even if your smartphone (or some old repurposed PDA) happens to have one with an appropriate app. Or get a complex programmable universal remote. So you can centralize the control of all these dozen of gadgets. Thus :
- the remote is the only complex device.
- if the remote is fried, you can still use all the other non-firmware-brickable devices by pushing their buttons (or trying to find where you put the dozen of specific remotes and find corresponding battery cells).
- absolutely non of the above relies on any cloud stupidity. (nobody is going to hack you "over the air").
The only drawback is the absolutely huge mess of cables of connecting all this disparate devices, and trying to fit everything nicely in cabinet.
For bigger surfaces than largest PC monitors, consider projectors in your choice, with a similar "dump display + separate accessories" approach (so avoid the "professional" projectors geared toward meeting rooms, which tend to have wifi support and even an embed android able to display presentation directly from an USB stick. Just go for the dumb consumer projectors that only have DVI/HDMI).
But the draw back is that projector currently don't support resolutions as high as monitors.
The best long term advantage :
when some function breaks or you want to upgrade, you only have 1 single accessory to upgrade (e.g.: by a new HDMI switch with even more ports) rather than changing the whole smarttv
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
The need is simple:
1. The display panel and its HDMI ports will be the de-facto standard for the next 10+ years, much the same way televisions still have composite/component/s-video inputs despite no component built in the last 15 years using them
2. The 'smart' feature will quickly become outdated and will lack long term support. A smart component based on the AndroidOS, for example, is unlikely to have security support or functionality many years down the road on the useful life of the television
3. While once can replace/upgrade a $50 component connected to a HDMI port, few will seek to upgrade their television.
4. Once such security support is gone, this network-connected television will see the real possibility of what's been going on (enabling cameras and microphones, privacy issues, etc)
5. Not connecting the television to the network often sees the 'smart' feature interfere with normal operation including messages about not being able to check for updates, it being in the list of inputs, etc.
6. As features evolve, you will now have two 'smart' devices (one in the TV and one that does what you want, such as adding H.264 decoders, etc) and this is unnecessary for (a) power consumption, (b) security, (c) user confusion, (d) user experience.
In general, the 'smart' feature should always have been a module that, while it comes with the television and could be proprietary, should be upgradable and replaceable.
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
It is a bit different than what you are asking but...
A few years ago you could find cheap IPS 2560x1440 27" monitors from Korea. The Yamakasi Catleap was one of them. I don't know if you can find them anymore but they are certainly available used.
These monitors were as dumb as a display can be. Single video input (DVI-D dual), a connector for the PSU, and 3 buttons : brightness up, down and power. That's all. No OSD, no scaler nor any kind of image processing, the graphics card has to take care of everything (which it does very well). A good thing is that because of the lack of complex processing on the monitor side, latency is very low.
I have a 55in Sceptre 4k TV I got for $430 about 2 years ago shipped to my local walmart.. it has like 4 HDMI 2.0 ports... at least 1 more than other TVs probably as it isn't abusing an input for smart functionality.
I do have motion compensation and whatever else they do I play PS4 games on it so the response time isn't horrible with that off.... and it's cheap. Thier 39in is about 225 and 55in is 309 (same model I have). they even have a 75in for $120 now which is just crazy.
Making TVs smarter has other drawbacks, that won't be alleviated by simply unplugging from the network.
For one, when you turn them on, they have to "boot up", and this takes longer than whatever warm-up period is required. And once they've started, they're in a multitasking OS, so they have better things to do than respond immediately to your remote control presses. This is especially frustrating when you switch inputs; you can't just tap "input" three times. You have to tap "input", and wait for the box to move before pressing "input" again. If it takes too long to move, you might try pressing "input" an extra time, but this time it gets buffered and you end up going too far.
Unfortunately, I expect smart TVs are here to stay, because the presence of those "Netflix" and "Amazon Prime" buttons on your remote are subsidizing the low cost of the TV. And there aren't enough of us nerds that would pay more for a TV that does less.
Some have suggested monitors, but if size is an issue and you having the lighting conditions for it, may I suggest a projector? Head over to Projector Central to check out what may work for you. With 30k hour lamp life, I like the LG PF1000U or PF1500.
You could also drop Robert Heron a line and ask him. He's probably forgotten more about TVs than most of us could ever hope to know.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
"without the "smart" features."
And presumably without the "smart" klunkiness. Really guys. There is no reason in this day and age that it should take 10 or 20 seconds for a solid state device to turn on and present one with an image.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
As others have stated, either get a monitor, or get a Smart TV and just don't use the smart parts. In other words, don't connect it to your network.
Personally, the TCL 55P607 ( https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06Y... ) will likely be my next TV:
- it is 4K
- it has HDR (both HDR10 and Dolby Vision
- it has local dimming for better contrast
- it has built-in Roku (which you can just not use)
All for $650. It has pretty favorable reviews as well:
http://www.rtings.com/tv/revie...
https://www.cnet.com/products/...
https://www.theverge.com/2017/...
While I'd love to get an OLED from LG, they are just too expensive at the moment. Save for OLED, this TV checks off all of the boxes on my wishlist, and has a nice price to boot.
do not enable wifi, do not connect cat-5, do not collect internet. it's that simple. if it worked out of the box, and can't get to the bad things, it should not become corrupted.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?