Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Buying New 43" TV - Best one for ATV 4K

M

mogilner

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Oct 22, 2013
8
2
I am going to be buying a new 43" 4K tv. I was wondering if people have a suggestion on what is the best quality tv and what is the most compatible with AppleTV 4K.

What tv have you had experience with? Some reviews say the TCL are great and cheap, some say spend the money for either Vizio or LG.

If you were going to buy a tv today, what brand would you go with? Budget is about $350

TIA
 
  • Like
Reactions: Macalicious2011 and tonyr6
acorntoy said:
Yeah but at that size of tvs you either get a 4k or you get a really underwhelming cheap 1080p panel nowadays. Nobody makes a stunning 1080p 43’ set anymore. If you actually want a good picture in other aspects besides pixels there’s still no competition.
Click to expand...
What about 55" then? It is the new 43. Also price-wise, I reckon.
 
priitv8 said:
What about 55" then? It is the new 43. Also price-wise, I reckon.
Click to expand...

NO! Design wise, you really have to take into account the size of the room. 55" is H U G E for a TV and it's a something that I personally cannot and will not accept in my house. I think there's nothing more repulsive than a TV that is too large for a room and truly intrudes. It's an insult to a person's intelligence. Also take into consideration that the majority of the population are living in urban areas with smaller apartments etc.
Maybe it can be made to look discreet if mounted on a wall above a low level 28cm high unit but to me, they still are as ugly a hell when switched off and a black screen dominates which for me, would be 23 hours of a day in reality.

Each to their own but I truly understand why the OP wants a 43" even if that market is shrinking (heck, I enjoyed my old 28" Panasonic for 10+ years).

If you live in the US, the Vizio range are very nicely designed.
 
mogilner said:
I am going to be buying a new 43" 4K tv. I was wondering if people have a suggestion on what is the best quality tv and what is the most compatible with AppleTV 4K.

What tv have you had experience with? Some reviews say the TCL are great and cheap, some say spend the money for either Vizio or LG.

If you were going to buy a tv today, what brand would you go with? Budget is about $350

TIA
Click to expand...

I would spend some time on this site

https://www.rtings.com/tv

From a quick look, it looks like a TCL might be a good bet for your budget.
 
^^^
Also try AVS forums for the US? Probably loads of advice in there and owners that can let you know.

Last decider in all this though is the purchaser. Go look at them, try them out, try the operating systems and the remotes. I have watched some 4k on a £800 43" and it was pretty good so don't discount it until you have seen it.

Personally I would get the biggest I can afford.
 
I recently bought a Sharp 43 inch Roku TV, paid $250 for it at Best Buy. It is not 4K, but the picture quality is great. I have an antenna hooked up to it for locals, a PS4 and an Apple TV. I have not had any issues at all.
 
43" is so small it seems pointless. You won't notice 4k from that unless you sit damn close. HDR is the real benefit you will notice. And since the ATV4k does dolby vision i'd pick a TV that does that. Vizio or LG OLED are my pics.
 
BODYBUILDERPAUL said:
NO! Design wise, you really have to take into account the size of the room. 55" is H U G E for a TV and it's a something that I personally cannot and will not accept in my house. I think there's nothing more repulsive than a TV that is too large for a room and truly intrudes. It's an insult to a person's intelligence. Also take into consideration that the majority of the population are living in urban areas with smaller apartments etc.
Maybe it can be made to look discreet if mounted on a wall above a low level 28cm high unit but to me, they still are as ugly a hell when switched off and a black screen dominates which for me, would be 23 hours of a day in reality.

Each to their own but I truly understand why the OP wants a 43" even if that market is shrinking (heck, I enjoyed my old 28" Panasonic for 10+ years).

If you live in the US, the Vizio range are very nicely designed.
Click to expand...

Depends on the focal point of the room. If all the seating is facing the TV and there is plenty of wall space its hard to go too big. I have a 65" on a wall that is 10'h x 20'w and it looks so much better than the 46" TV it replace. Then again the TV is the focus of the living room, everything is setup to comfortably direct you toward it.

Its not much different then a bed in a bedroom. If you have a large master bedroom a single twin bed with little or no frame looks very odd, cheap even.

With TV's though a big factor is how much do you use it and what do you use it for. I play video games and mirror my computer screen too so larger is nice especially for reading text.

OP: Regardless of size I would consider a 4k TV that offers Dolby Vision so you can leverage what the AppleTV 4K has to offer.
 
I run Sony43kdl807c non hdr
Excellent entry level 4K screen very smart nice silver colour
I paid less than 450 Uk pounds approx 2yrs earlier.
Though think hdr is possibly that price point now.
[doublepost=1531471664][/doublepost]
archer75 said:
43" is so small it seems pointless. You won't notice 4k from that unless you sit damn close. HDR is the real benefit you will notice. And since the ATV4k does dolby vision i'd pick a TV that does that. Vizio or LG OLED are my pics.
Click to expand...

Distance from screen provides 4K effect more, not sitting closer.
Just my 43” use Experiance past 30mths
 
Most of those charts are based on generic factors like 20/20 vision which many people have much better than that.

Go with what fits the budget and what works for you. You are the one that needs to enjoy it, not us.
 
Donfor39 said:
I run Sony43kdl807c non hdr
Excellent entry level 4K screen very smart nice silver colour
I paid less than 450 Uk pounds approx 2yrs earlier.
Though think hdr is possibly that price point now.
[doublepost=1531471664][/doublepost]

Distance from screen provides 4K effect more, not sitting closer.
Just my 43” use Experiance past 30mths
Click to expand...
No.
The greater the distance the better the resolution looks. Small screen plus large distance can make low resolution look the same as 4K.
It’s the closer you get that makes the pixels more apparent. Sitting closer is where 4K is noticeable over smaller resolutions as the pixels are smaller.

A quick internet search will tell you that. Though your eyes should as well.
 
Last edited:
I ended up buying a Vizio E43-F1 television. The reason why I bought a 43 inch television is that the space where the television goes was only big enough for a 43 inch. Hopefully this will be a good television.

I don't believe a bigger television would fit in the space. I am going from a 32 inch 1080 television.

Thank you for help and suggestions!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Donfor39
  • Like
Reactions: Macalicious2011
tonyr6 said:
I don't care if I am across the room or right in front more pixels are better at any viewing distance.
Click to expand...
Why hate science?
You must then possess above average visual acuity.
It is just a simple trigonometry to find those distances. As a basis we take average human vision acuity - 1 arc minute.
You can display a test pattern - 1-pixel wide checkerboard - on your screen and step away from it to understand the distance from where you won’t be able to discern the individual pixels any more.
BTW that is the whole idea behind retina screens and attempt to make pixels smaller - so that we can view them from closer distance without seeing individual pixels.
 
Nothing wrong with science or the maths but understand it and use it as a guide to understand the issue.

I am happy seeing 4k on a 43 outside what all the charts claim. I take them with a pinch of salt. All eye brain combinations vary. Obviously there is a cut off point but it will vary person to person.

4k does not suddenly stop being visible 1 inch past the optimal distance. Many indicators for a sharper image are still there, I was expecting the 43 I saw to be a bit HD at the distance I was viewing and was pleasantly surprised.

But, If someone is happy with it, crack on and forget the science and watch the fun and enjoy the panel.
:)
 
400 said:
But, If someone is happy with it, crack on and forget the science and watch the fun and enjoy the panel.
:)
Click to expand...
The takeaway message is this - it all boils down to viewing distance.
Also 27” 5K screen has nice and detailed picture, if you watch it from iMac-distance ;)
Then try to view it from same distance you do watch your 43” telly.
 
Thing is, I have seen too many people get hung up on viewing distance as black and white. Person that is going to use it go look at it in the store, like it? Buy it. Simple as that.

I have seen various formats on various screens (pro and commercial) both compressed and uncompressed feeds and there is no hard and fast rule, just a guide.

Edit. That last sentence, my opinion and not grounded on anything just using the things.
:)

Edit. Of course, how many HD only sets are there now?
 
Last edited:
archer75 said:
43" is so small it seems pointless. You won't notice 4k from that unless you sit damn close.
Click to expand...

Here we go again.

I bet you were one of the people who said, 12 years ago, that 1080p is pointless on anything smaller than a 52' Pioneer plasma. :rolleyes:


priitv8 said:
A 43" 4K TV is only good, if you plan to sit 2.6' (0.8 m) away from it.
https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship
Click to expand...

I sit 3m from a 49' TV and the difference between 4K and 1080p is very noticeable. I've compared the same movie in 1080p and 4k.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tonyr6
Macalicious2011 said:
I sit 3m from a 49' TV and the difference between 4K and 1080p is very noticeable. I've compared the same movie in 1080p and 4k.
Click to expand...
I think this answer can also be related to 400’s post above.
IMHO the quality of content should be kept separate from resolution of screen.
You wouldn’t say much about your UHD screen’s resolution by watching 720x576 (PAL sized) SD content, right?
To see how well your combo of screen and your eyesight do, you’d need to view a 1x1px black-and-white checkerboard on your screen.

But I have said it every so often to my friends - it makes no sense to pay for a FHD (let alone UHD) screen, if all you’ll be doing is view SD content, offered by local IPTV provider, on it.

So the total resolution of the full chain is a combination of variables.
And the farther you sit, the larger screen you’d get, right?
PS why would IMAX even exist, if the screen size vs viewing distance wouldn’t matter at all?
 
priitv8 said:
I think this answer can also be related to 400’s post above.
IMHO the quality of content should be kept separate from resolution of screen.
You wouldn’t say much about your UHD screen’s resolution by watching 720x576 (PAL sized) SD content, right?
To see how well your combo of screen and your eyesight do, you’d need to view a 1x1px black-and-white checkerboard on your screen.

But I have said it every so often to my friends - it makes no sense to pay for a FHD (let alone UHD) screen, if all you’ll be doing is view SD content, offered by local IPTV provider, on it.

So the total resolution of the full chain is a combination of variables.
And the farther you sit, the larger screen you’d get, right?
PS why would IMAX even exist, if the screen size vs viewing distance wouldn’t matter at all?
Click to expand...

I never said size vs viewing distance irrelevant. It is relevant but not absolute like some of these charts are trying to make it out.

It's just ludicrous to say that 4k on a 43 inch TV only makes sense if you sit 80cm from it. Some people don't want dominant TV in their lounge. If you want a large TV then by any means go for it but it's not wholly necessary to buy 55-65' for a "ideal" 4k experience. After all how many people sit less than a meter from their TV?

IMAX isn't a good example as, the depending on the cinema, the seats in the middle and furtherest back are booked first while few book the first ten rows unless they have to.
 
Macalicious2011 said:
It's just ludicrous to say that 4k on a 43 inch TV only makes sense if you sit 80cm from it. Some people don't want dominant TV in their lounge. If you want a large TV then by any means go for it but it's not wholly necessary to buy 55-65' for a "ideal" 4k experience. After all how many people sit less than a meter from their TV?
Click to expand...
I agree. I got a 43" 4K TV which is great. I sit across the room about 3m and I can tell the difference between 720p, 1080p and 4K. Also they are cheap some like the Roku TV around $300 USD so why not instead of saving $30 USD for a cheaper 1080p set.
 
tonyr6 said:
I agree. I got a 43" 4K TV which is great. I sit across the room about 3m and I can tell the difference between 720p, 1080p and 4K.
Click to expand...
That is again about content, right?
But if you sit far enough from your 4K screen, so that 2 pixels fit within your best visual acuity (ie 1 arc degree on average, every individual can do better or worse than that), then you won’t be able to tell if your screen has 1 or 2 pixels in that spot. So, you are effectively seeing a half of resolution, that is 1920 in horizontal direction. The farther you move, the bigger the screen area gets where your eyes won’t be able to tell details apart.
So, you’d want to move close enough to see the difference between those 2 neighboring pixels.

PS I agree, to even be able to play 4K content, you need a 4K screen to begin with.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back