Samsung 40" LNT4071F 1080p 120Hz for $1,769 Shipped

[mcmilljb]

I think this one of the best premium LCD deals. You get Samsung's best non-LED LCD plus you get the 120Hz refresh rate. If you go into BB or CC, you will honestly believe it is the best LCD in the store. It made the Sharp Aquos(LC-42D64U) beside look very bad. This model costs $2,300-$2,500 if you buy it in a B&M.

Link

Product Features
120Hz LCD panel for clear motion and fluid frame transitions
25000:1 dynamic contrast ratio
HD-grade 1920(H) x 1080(V) pixel resolution (1080p)
Wide Color Gamut CCFL backlight
Fast 8ms response time; 3 HDMI inputs
Connector Type : 3 x HDMI ( 19 pin HDMI Type A ) ; Hi-Speed USB ; 2 x S-Video input ( 4 pin mini-DIN ) ; 2 x component video input ( RCA phono x 3 ) ; Audio line-in ( RCA phono x 2 ) ; VGA input ( 15 pin HD D-Sub (HD-15) )



It seems like Amazon and an e-retailer selling through Amazon have decided on a price war over this model.

Updated November 4 - The price will continue to change. I am not going to update it everyday just so it's correct for that day.

P.S. This is a 40" LCD not a 46". There is a 46" 71 series Samsung at a decent price. And yes, 120Hz will make movies look better because we all know 24 * 5 = 120.

 

[VooDooAddict]

Nice find. This is exactly what I was looking for. A nice 40"-42" 1080p set.

I checked it out at best buy and they wanted 2200+ for it. And you are right in the 40" range this is the best looking set my local BB had.



I'm now struggling between this or the HP MediaSmart 42" both for about the same $$.

I think the Samsung is the better picture, but the versatility of the MediaSmart seems very useful to me.

 

[dealmaster00]

Wow, that's a great price on the 4071F!

 

[RossMAN]

How does this compare to the Sharp AQUOS® LC-42D64U which was selling for $1,079?

Specifications
Screen Size Class 42"
Diagonal Measurement 42-1/64"
Panel Type Advanced Super View / Black TFT LCD Panel
Pixel Resolution 1920 x 1080
Brightness 450cd/m2
Viewing Angle 176º H x 176º V
Lamp Life 60,000 hours2
Audio System 15W + 15W
Tuning System ATSC / QAM / NTSC
Dynamic Contrast with
Enhanced Picture Contrast Technology 10,000:1
Native Contrast Ratio 2000:1
Aspect Ratio 16:9
Response Time 4ms1
HDMI? Input 3 (1 side, 2 rear)
HD Component Input 2 (1 side, 1 rear)
PC Input 15-pin RBG x 1
S-Video Input 1
Composite Video Input 3 (1 side, 2 rear)
RS-232C Input 9-pin x 1
Audio Inputs (L/R) 4
Backlight System 4-wavelength
Limited Warranty 1 year parts and labor
Cabinet Color High Gloss Black
Table Stand Included
Optional Wall Mount Bracket AN-52AG4
Power Consumption AC 215W
Power Source 120 V, 60 Hz

TV Dimensions (w x h x d)
TV with Stand and Speakers 39-17/32" x 27-7/8" x 12-13/16"
TV with Speakers only 39-17/32" x 25-7/16" x 3-3/4"

Net Weight
TV with Stand and Speakers 60.6 lbs.
TV with Speakers only 48.5 lbs.
UPC 074000370456

 

[mcmilljb]

Originally posted by: RossMAN
How does this compare to the Sharp AQUOS® LC-42D64U which was selling for $1,079?

Specifications
Screen Size Class 42"
Diagonal Measurement 42-1/64"
Panel Type Advanced Super View / Black TFT LCD Panel
Pixel Resolution 1920 x 1080
Brightness 450cd/m2
Viewing Angle 176º H x 176º V
Lamp Life 60,000 hours2
Audio System 15W + 15W
Tuning System ATSC / QAM / NTSC
Dynamic Contrast with
Enhanced Picture Contrast Technology 10,000:1
Native Contrast Ratio 2000:1
Aspect Ratio 16:9
Response Time 4ms1
HDMI? Input 3 (1 side, 2 rear)
HD Component Input 2 (1 side, 1 rear)
PC Input 15-pin RBG x 1
S-Video Input 1
Composite Video Input 3 (1 side, 2 rear)
RS-232C Input 9-pin x 1
Audio Inputs (L/R) 4
Backlight System 4-wavelength
Limited Warranty 1 year parts and labor
Cabinet Color High Gloss Black
Table Stand Included
Optional Wall Mount Bracket AN-52AG4
Power Consumption AC 215W
Power Source 120 V, 60 Hz

TV Dimensions (w x h x d)
TV with Stand and Speakers 39-17/32" x 27-7/8" x 12-13/16"
TV with Speakers only 39-17/32" x 25-7/16" x 3-3/4"

Net Weight
TV with Stand and Speakers 60.6 lbs.
TV with Speakers only 48.5 lbs.
UPC 074000370456

Well according to Best Buy:
It is lighter: Product Weight 52.2 lbs. with stand (43.7 lbs. without)
Better Dynamic Contrast Ratio: Contrast Ratio 25000:1 dynamic
Screen is Brighter: 550 cd/m²
Screen Refresh is faster: Auto Motion Plus 120Hz technology reduces motion blur for crisp, precise action (Watch it in store, the 120Hz makes a big difference)

Samsung is really just pushing the 120Hz right now. Their 81 series uses an LED backlight, so they might be willing to discount this model to create some room between all their models while pushing the lower end to early shoppers.

 

[chinkgai]

omg! only 7 posts! he's teh spammar!!!

jk

informative post!

 

[Trike]

:thumbsup: for a bad ass set. I got the 5271 on friday from fry's, they have it listed as 2799 on their website. it looks good

if anybody is on the fence about the the 71 series samsungs, get it. they're nice.

 

[jodhas]

I'm on my 5th Plasma TV and always opted for the budget "vizio, etc..." brand... But I did see this Samsung lineup and next to the Sharp Aquos (which I always envied) but boy does the Samsung make Aquos look pitiful... This Samsung is a nice nice nice television....

 

[chinkgai]

omg, 1750 otd for ca residents, no tax free ship ftw.

 

[Capt Caveman]

$1,859 right now.

 

[chinkgai]

says 1739.88 for me

 

[Lurknomore]

The lower price is from the e-retailer, the higher one from Amazon.
Dunno bout shipping costs though, anyone know?
Really good price for this tv- have seen it several times with a good feed, most crt-like colors and depth I've seen so far on an lcd.
Pigskin fans however...may want to hold off on this set for Pats-Colts, unless you like seeing 3 footballs in flight.

 

[chinkgai]

ahh i see, you're right.

 

[thegimp03]

I picked one of these up a month ago. I paid $1,792 including tax for it, but I had a $200 gift card and paid $1,592 of my own cash.

I have it sitting on my desk in my room. It is one hell of a sweet LCD. Definitely a top of the line set and is pretty even with the Sony XBR4. I did a ton of research on this before I bought it and am happy that I got it in the end...

Fry's had this thing on sale for $1,699 recently ($1,000 off), so the price has gone down significantly.

 

[Satchm0]

This seems like a great quality tv. A shame I'm set on buying a 46". I'll have to keep me eyes open.

 

[SlickSnake]

Product Features
120Hz LCD panel for clear motion and fluid frame transitions
25000:1 dynamic contrast ratio
HD-grade 1920(H) x 1080(V) pixel resolution (1080p)
Wide Color Gamut CCFL backlight
Fast 8ms response time; 3 HDMI inputs

Don't 120hz and a "fast 8ms response time" in the same specs seem kind of odd to you? On the Sharps I looked at in the 46 inch range, the panel speeds are 4 ms on the 120hz and the 60hz models, however, my manual states the panel does up to 75hz at some resolutions on my 60hz one.

Now, the 25000:1 dynamic contrast ratio is nice, but black is black, and mine looked as black at 10000:1 as any 46 inch Samsungs it was next to in the store. And that figure is a dynamic range ONLY. Makes me wonder what the real testing on these panels would actually reveal. But I bet the actual usable contrast ratio is closer on them than you might be led to believe by the marketing department.

And I have to strongly disagree that the Sammy makes the Aquos look pitiful next to it. Maybe they had the contrast or something turned down on the Aquos. Most brands the Aquos was next to looked washed out on the contrast and color levels, even after adjustments were made.

And the difference between the 120hz and 60hz Aquos panels was not noticeable, motion wise. Both panels do 4 ms natively. And I do not feel it is worth paying about $2799.99 at BB for the LC-46D82U for this limited feature.

Now, the 5 wave length 120hz Aquos LC-46D92U does 15000:1 contrast and does have a bit better of a picture with a bit more added color definition. But most retailers do not seem to stock it for comparison purposes, either. And it is $2499.99!!! at BB currently!!! And free shipping!!! That would be a HOT deal on that set, if you ever saw one. Most BBs don't have a Magnolia Home Theater store in them to compare them in.

I considered also the LC-46D64U which adds HDMI 1.3 and an extra port for PC, but the price was $2249.99 at BB and is still about $650 more than what I paid for mine, and the same 60hz speed.

And there is no banding or clouding what so ever on my LC-46D62U which is contrary to a popular problem with Aquos models. Mine was only $1671.99 price matched at Compusa, but bought at Sears, and minus 10% of the difference.

 

[mcmilljb]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
Product Features
120Hz LCD panel for clear motion and fluid frame transitions
25000:1 dynamic contrast ratio
HD-grade 1920(H) x 1080(V) pixel resolution (1080p)
Wide Color Gamut CCFL backlight
Fast 8ms response time; 3 HDMI inputs

Don't 120hz and a "fast 8ms response time" in the same specs seem kind of odd to you? On the Sharps I looked at in the 46 inch range, the panel speeds are 4 ms on the 120hz and the 60hz models, however, my manual states the panel does up to 75hz at some resolutions on my 60hz one.

Now, the 25000:1 dynamic contrast ratio is nice, but black is black, and mine looked as black at 10000:1 as any 46 inch Samsungs it was next to in the store. And that figure is a dynamic range ONLY. Makes me wonder what the real testing on these panels would actually reveal. But I bet the actual usable contrast ratio is closer on them than you might be led to believe by the marketing department.

And I have to strongly disagree that the Sammy makes the Aquos look pitiful next to it. Maybe they had the contrast or something turned down on the Aquos. Most brands the Aquos was next to looked washed out on the contrast and color levels, even after adjustments were made.

And the difference between the 120hz and 60hz Aquos panels was not noticeable, motion wise. Both panels do 4 ms natively. And I do not feel it is worth paying about $2799.99 at BB for the LC-46D82U for this limited feature.

Now, the 5 wave length 120hz Aquos LC-46D92U does 15000:1 contrast and does have a bit better of a picture with a bit more added color definition. But most retailers do not seem to stock it for comparison purposes, either. And it is $2499.99!!! at BB currently!!! And free shipping!!! That would be a HOT deal on that set, if you ever saw one. Most BBs don't have a Magnolia Home Theater store in them to compare them in.

I considered also the LC-46D64U which adds HDMI 1.3 and an extra port for PC, but the price was $2249.99 at BB and is still about $650 more than what I paid for mine, and the same 60hz speed.

And there is no banding or clouding what so ever on my LC-46D62U which is contrary to a popular problem with Aquos models. Mine was only $1671.99 price matched at Compusa, but bought at Sears, and minus 10% of the difference.

Dude, opinions will vary on which TV looks best. 1s/120hz * 1000ms = ~8.333ms. The 8ms seems like enough. Also some of Sharp's TV's say 4ms but are not 4ms native (They use "Fine Motion"). I think you are just a Sharp Fanboy that is upset some people like a Samsung over a Sharp. If BB wants to put a lesser Sharp beside a Samsung to sell more of the Samsung, that is their business. As always, it does not matter how the TV looks on paper but how it looks when you see it. Your LC-46D92U has a native contrast ratio of only 3,000:1.

 

[SlickSnake]

mcmilljb said:

Dude, opinions will vary on which TV looks best. 1s/120hz * 1000ms = ~8.333ms. The 8ms seems like enough. Also some of Sharp's TV's say 4ms but are not 4ms native (They use "Fine Motion"). I think you are just a Sharp Fanboy that is upset some people like a Samsung over a Sharp. If BB wants to put a lesser Sharp beside a Samsung to sell more of the Samsung, that is their business. As always, it does not matter how the TV looks on paper but how it looks when you see it. Your LC-46D92U has a native contrast ratio of only 3,000:1.

"DUDE", I am no fan boy of any brand in particular. I just saw you mindlessly bashing the Sharps like you pretended to know what you were talking about and stepped in with a little constructive criticism. Don't be fooled by those impressive specs that can only be validated by the maker of a said product. And I also use 21 inch Samsung HD monitors on both my PC work stations at home. So you clearly do not know what you are talking about.

And as you just pointed out, if they stocked, say, a 720p Sharp panel next the the same size 1080p Samsung panel, you would see the difference in details and image quality up close, 2 feet away, like most people are when they are shopping and looking at a TV. Keep in mind, too, those narrow isles at BB are barely 6 feet wide. That is not at all like you would be using it when you are sitting 10 feet away or more, at home. Also the lighting in those big retail stores is atrocious, and can cast massive glare on one tv, while leaving the TV next to it virtually unaffected. The native contrast ratio is really the main spec to look at, not the spikes or peaks it can theoretically reach.

Similarly, they also do not measure a stereo or amp based on what its possible peak output can reach, they measure a supposed maximum continuous power output to all speakers driven simutaneously, which is also another good example of a specification that many manufacturers outright lie about achieving. Most budget receivers can only maintain their rated wattages briefly to one or 2 speakers at a time during a peak load.

 

[blanketyblank]

apples to oranges comparison.
If you are comparing this to a sharp it has to be one of the super high end 120 Hz sharps like the lc-42d92. The 64 is the cheap model comparable to the samsung 61.

 

[mcmilljb]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

mcmilljb said:

Dude, opinions will vary on which TV looks best. 1s/120hz * 1000ms = ~8.333ms. The 8ms seems like enough. Also some of Sharp's TV's say 4ms but are not 4ms native (They use "Fine Motion"). I think you are just a Sharp Fanboy that is upset some people like a Samsung over a Sharp. If BB wants to put a lesser Sharp beside a Samsung to sell more of the Samsung, that is their business. As always, it does not matter how the TV looks on paper but how it looks when you see it. Your LC-46D92U has a native contrast ratio of only 3,000:1.

"DUDE", I am no fan boy of any brand in particular. I just saw you mindlessly bashing the Sharps like you pretended to know what you were talking about and stepped in with a little constructive criticism. Don't be fooled by those impressive specs that can only be validated by the maker of a said product. And I also use 21 inch Samsung HD monitors on both my PC work stations at home. So you clearly do not know what you are talking about.

And as you just pointed out, if they stocked, say, a 720p Sharp panel next the the same size 1080p Samsung panel, you would see the difference in details and image quality up close, 2 feet away, like most people are when they are shopping and looking at a TV. Keep in mind, too, those narrow isles at BB are barely 6 feet wide. That is not at all like you would be using it when you are sitting 10 feet away or more, at home. Also the lighting in those big retail stores is atrocious, and can cast massive glare on one tv, while leaving the TV next to it virtually unaffected. The native contrast ratio is really the main spec to look at, not the spikes or peaks it can theoretically reach.

Similarly, they also do not measure a stereo or amp based on what its possible peak output can reach, they measure a supposed maximum continuous power output to all speakers driven simutaneously, which is also another good example of a specification that many manufacturers outright lie about achieving. Most budget receivers can only maintain their rated wattages briefly to one or 2 speakers at a time during a peak load.

I did not mindlessly bash the Sharps. There is no Sharp 42" higher than the LC-42D64U. Therefore the LNT4071F is superior to it easily. It's an easy win for Samsung on the 40-42" range. Compare the specs between the 2 and it's clear. Plus the Sharp they had on display beside it was the LC-42D64U.

I have not argued anything about the 46" models in this post. You come in here and start saying I'm trashing Sharp. The truth is Sharp is not competing with Samsung at the 120Hz 40-42" model. Go to Sharp's website and see for yourself.

You actually tried to confused people in your post.

Aquos LC-46D92U does 15000:1 contrast and does have a bit better of a picture with a bit more added color definition.

Truth is that you left out that the 15,000:1 is dynamic and the native is 3,000:1(according to Sharp's website). Samsung 71 series has a native contrast ratio of 5,000:1. Everybody else has posted they liked the Samsung 71 series LCD's. It's a good price on a good LCD. I know what I am clearly talking about, but you obviously want to hide by the fact you do not read everything. If Sharp does not want to produce a 120 Hz 42" LCD than the Samsung 120Hz 40" LCD is going to get more sells period. Even Sony is pushing 120Hz on their 40" range.

I do not think many people care about the speakers on their TV. If you are buying a 1080P LCD, they should be considering at least a 5.1 setup. As long as the speakers work, I doubt people care if the speakers were 5, 10 or 15 watts. Frankly I do not care about the specs, the key is trying the TV out. You are right about the lighting might be bad, but no retailer is going to come bring a couple TV's to your house to do test for the best TV. You have to go by what you can see in the store.

Feel free to quote what I was mindlessly bashing. I just gave a brief overview of specs people are most interested in, if they cannot understand them that is their problem. Sometimes the truth hurts, and it should hurt Sharp that Samsung has a better 40" LCD than their best 42" LCD. Plus Samsung's 81 series models are using LED for the backlighting which will put them ahead of any of Sharp's models that are not using LED.

 

[blanketyblank]

btw since you seem to pretty knowledgable about sammy's what's the difference between the 71 series and the 69 series? They both seem to have almost identical specs and both do 120 hz.

 

[uwannawhat]

Showing $1,719.98 shipping for me ($43.34 -$43.34 = 0) with waived shipping for me .

Hmmm....

 

[SickBeast]

I'll just chime in that I also have a 46" Sharp LCD HDTV (1080P).

According to Consumer Reports, it's the best 46" HDTV on the market.

According to my eyes, it has more vivid color and deeper blacks than anything I've seen on a Samsung screen.

I also have no issues with banding.

To say that the 120hz sets make the 60hz sets look bad is silly. Movies are filmed at 24FPS. Why do we need something that updates 120 times per second?

For $1750 you could probably find a 1080P 50" Plasma or LCD.

 

[mcmilljb]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I'll just chime in that I also have a 46" Sharp LCD HDTV (1080P).

According to Consumer Reports, it's the best 46" HDTV on the market.

According to my eyes, it has more vivid color and deeper blacks than anything I've seen on a Samsung screen.

I also have no issues with banding.

To say that the 120hz sets make the 60hz sets look bad is silly. Movies are filmed at 24FPS. Why do we need something that updates 120 times per second?

For $1750 you could probably find a 1080P 50" Plasma or LCD.

First off 24Hz * 5 = 120Hz. This eliminates the need for 3:2 pull down since it's basically able to do 24fps natively (although refreshing each frame 5 times is overkill to achieve this). Which 46" Sharp are you talking about? Unless it's a high end 82 or 92, you are not really comparing similar models to the 71 series. The model I compared to the 71 is a LC-42D64U. The LC-42D64U is Sharp's best 42" LCD. The model I presented is a 40". When I compare the model I mention and the LC-42D64U, the Samsung looks better and lot of people agree. If you want to compare a 46" 71 series to a Sharp 46", just tell me which one you want to compare. Do not just chime "I also have a 46" Sharp and Consumer Reports says it's the best." If Consumer Reports tell you that Sony is selling the best dog sh*t in the world, it's still smelly dog sh*t! I feel like you are taking this personal. Do not do that. If you want my original post to reflect it in more detail of what I was viewing, I sure well adjust. Just remember, at the end of the day you have to look at the TV when you get home so make sure the TV you buy looks good to you and not CR(They aren't the ones watching YOUR TV!).

P.S.
If you like Samsung, buy Samsung!
If you like Sharp, buy Sharp!
But I do not give a d*mn which one you own/buy! IT'S YOUR TV!

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: mcmilljb

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I'll just chime in that I also have a 46" Sharp LCD HDTV (1080P).

According to Consumer Reports, it's the best 46" HDTV on the market.

According to my eyes, it has more vivid color and deeper blacks than anything I've seen on a Samsung screen.

I also have no issues with banding.

To say that the 120hz sets make the 60hz sets look bad is silly. Movies are filmed at 24FPS. Why do we need something that updates 120 times per second?

For $1750 you could probably find a 1080P 50" Plasma or LCD.

First off 24Hz * 5 = 120Hz. This eliminates the need for 3:2 pull down since it's basically able to do 24fps natively (although refreshing each frame 5 times is overkill to achieve this). Which 46" Sharp are you talking about? Unless it's a high end 82 or 92, you are not really comparing similar models to the 71 series. The model I compared to the 71 is a LC-42D64U. The LC-42D64U is Sharp's best 42" LCD. The model I presented is a 40". When I compare the model I mention and the LC-42D64U, the Samsung looks better and lot of people agree. If you want to compare a 46" 71 series to a Sharp 46", just tell me which one you want to compare. Do not just chime "I also have a 46" Sharp and Consumer Reports says it's the best." If Consumer Reports tell you that Sony is selling the best dog sh*t in the world, it's still smelly dog sh*t! I feel like you are taking this personal. Do not do that. If you want my original post to reflect it in more detail of what I was viewing, I sure well adjust. Just remember, at the end of the day you have to look at the TV when you get home so make sure the TV you buy looks good to you and not CR(They aren't the ones watching YOUR TV!).

P.S.
If you like Samsung, buy Samsung!
If you like Sharp, buy Sharp!
But I do not give a d*mn which one you own/buy! IT'S YOUR TV!

I'm talking about the Sharp 46D64U, and it *is* a valid comparison seeing as the panel in it is pretty much identical to the panel in the 42D64U (albeit bigger).

I'm also not taking this personally. I don't understand your hostile tone; I was simply stating my opinion. If you don't agree with Consumer Reports, perhaps you should read the Cnet review where they said it had the best black level they've ever seen aside from a plasma.

I agree that the Samsungs are good screens. When I bought my set a few months ago, a 42" Samsung was around $1600-$1700. The 46" Sharp was $2200 and to me had a considerably better picture. The Samsung looked washed out in comparison, to my eyes anyway.