Should I buy a Sharp Aquos 60" LC60E69U LCD at $688? (1 Viewer)

[timbo59]

Hi there,
I was in the market for a large flat screen TV between 55" - 60" that was within our budget of around $800 - $900, and we'd more or less decided upon the Panasonic TC-P60U50 for $899. No bells and whistles, but the reviews state that it's got an excellent picture for the price, and as we're also planning on buying our first Blue Ray player we figured on getting the WiFi connectivity and associated apps through that.
So we were all set to go in that direction when I came across Sears selling the Sharp Aquos 60" LC60E69U LCD TV for $688, which is about $300 - $400 less then what the competition is selling it for. I wasn't planning on going with LCD as it's basically redundant technology more or less compared to LED screens, especially the full array versions, and I have a leaning towards the colors and clarity of plasma, but it just seems appropriate to consider whether the Sharp is worth giving serious consideration due to the price.
On the downside I realize the picture probably won't be as good as the plasma, the power consumption will undoubtedly be greater, and I read somewhere or other that the unit generates a fair bit of heat.
Any thoughts? I had considered shopping around on Craigslist for something lightly used in our price range, but either I'm not having any luck or it seems that every man and his dog is selling their back projection equipment while upgrading to the same stuff we're looking at, or are asking the earth for older TV's without realizing how much prices have come down in the last year or two.
Thanks

 

[Jim Mcc]

I would go with the Panasonic, a much better looking image.

 

[Jason Charlton]

On the downside I realize the picture probably won't be as good as the plasma, the power consumption will undoubtedly be greater, and I read somewhere or other that the unit generates a fair bit of heat.

If by "redundant" you meant "identical" then yes. "LED" displays ARE LCD displays - they are only backlit using LEDs instead of CCFL bulbs.

I share your opinion on the general image quality comparison between LCD/LED and Plasma - to me, Plasma is better in every respect. I think you are misinformed on the power consumption, though - a plasma display will draw more power than an LCD (especially an LED LCD display) - and if it's drawing more power, the plasma is going to run warmer.

If image quality is your goal, then Plasma is the way to go. If budget is tight, and you're willing to sacrifice image quality to save some money, then the LED display is your better option.

 

[Steve Schaffer]

If by "redundant" you meant "identical" then yes.  "LED" displays ARE LCD displays - they are only backlit using LEDs instead of CCFL bulbs.
I share your opinion on the general image quality comparison between LCD/LED and Plasma - to me, Plasma is better in every respect.  I think you are misinformed on the power consumption, though - a plasma display will draw more power than an LCD (especially an LED LCD display) - and if it's drawing more power, the plasma is going to run warmer.
If image quality is your goal, then Plasma is the way to go.  If budget is tight, and you're willing to sacrifice image quality to save some money, then the LED display is your better option.

The Sharp the OP's considering is a BF special model from last year. It's CCFL backlit. The remote looks like something that came with a no-name Chinese set and the onscreen menu is completely different from all other large Sharp sets. These two facts lead me to believe that there's a very strong possiblity this set was outsourced by Sharp to another mfg.
Sets these days have a yellow sticker giving an estimated yearly cost of operation based on 5 hrs a day at 11 cents per kwh. The sticker on that Sharp reads a whopping $72, vs about half to a third of that on most similarly sized plasmas you'll see in showrooms. Those plasma ratings are based on the standard picture mode which is fairly dim to save energy but even at real world settings the plasmas are probably still more efficient than that Sharp.
Sharp makes a pretty darn good 60" led/lcd in the 640 (6400 at Costco or Sam's club) series but it costs 1200ish.

 

[schan1269]

By the way, to help stop the Worst Buy shopping ignorance....
That Sharp is NOT an Aquos. It is colloquially known as "Sharp Branded".
Sharp Branded sets are (typically) no better than Vizio and Dynex. Sharp does make the Aquos themselves. Sharp Branded can be farmed out to the likes of Element.

 

[timbo59]

Thanks to all the posts. We've decided to go with the Panasonic after all - I don't see that saving $300 on the Sharp is really going to make that big a difference if I'm not really as happy with the image.
By the way, I'm not sure if the last remark is suggesting I'm in error on the subject of the Aquos name on the Sharp. I'm only going by what Sears states on its own web site, so if it's not supposed to be labelled an Aquos the fault lies there.

 

[schan1269]

Sears* is not alone in calling that particular Sharp an Aquos. If you go to Sharp's own website, that TV is clearly NOT an Aquos.
When I worked for my wholesale employer...one of my "jobs" was to police the "interwebs" when it came to Sharp products being incorrectly labeled Aquos.
There was a time when Sharp Aquos was NOT allowed to be internet sold. Which means, Amazon didn't even have them.
* a selling website is the last place you want to get "complete" information on what you are interested in buying. It is amazing how much information one corporate entity into another one will bypass. I could take an entire week in AVR alone on Amazon to find all the wrong info. Walmart is one of the worst offenders. They just plain leave stuff out.

 

[Steve Schaffer]

We have one of those Sharps at work, on display. I'll check to see if it has an Aquos logo on it tomorrow. By all indications it's not really made by Sharp in any case.
All the other Sharps we sell 52" and above/640 series and above are made by Sharp, and real Sharp sets all have panels actually made by Sharp, whereas most other mfgs (Samsung in particular) will use a variety of panels even in the same model set--commonly known as the "panel lottery".

 

[Steve Schaffer]

Well it does have the Aquos logo on it but I still am strongly of the opinion that it's not a real Sharp. Note that Sony calls all their sets Bravia even though some 32" models are obviously outsourced.

 

[chener]

So all of this hemming and hawing about whether the TV uses a Sharp panel or not, and not one comment on the PQ of the set?

 

[Jason Charlton]

Originally Posted by chener /t/325531/should-i-buy-a-sharp-aquos-60-lc60e69u-lcd-at-688#post_4009486
So all of this hemming and hawing about whether the TV uses a Sharp panel or not, and not one comment on the PQ of the set?

You must have skipped over the first two responses to this thread.

 

[chener]

They were generic replies that could have applied to many different TV sets.