LG's first Mini LED TVs arrive this month

midian182

Posts: 7,171   +65
Staff member
Recap: Although LG waved goodbye to the mobile phone market recently, its TV division is still an industry leader. This month sees the release of the company's first consumer Mini LED TVs (QNED) that it announced back in December. The televisions offer improved peak brightness and contrast ratio compared to other LCD TVs while being cheaper than OLEDs.

Samsung is one of several TV makers to have embraced Mini LED products recently—not to be confused with the expensive MicroLED, which is similar to OLEDs in that it's self-illuminating with no backlight. Mini LED technology is also found in the most recent 12.9-inch iPad Pro and laptops such as the upcoming Acer Predator Helios 500.

LG's implementation, which it calls Quantum Nanocell Mini LED (QNED), works in the same way as rival TV makers. The Mini LED backlighting consists of "almost 30,000 tiny LEDs that produce incredible peak brightness and a contrast ratio of 1,000,000:1 when paired with up to 2,500 dimming zones and advanced local dimming technology." LG notes that those figures are for the 86-inch 8K model.

The Mini LEDs allow for "incredible" color accuracy, along with high contrast—10 times better than regular LCD TVs—deep blacks, and a wide color gamut that gives an excellent HDR image quality. But LG itself empathizes that QNED isn't on the same level as its OLED TVs, hence the lower prices, though the larger models and 8K versions get expensive.

LG's 4K QNED TVs start at $1,999 for the 65-inch model, with the 75-inch selling at $2,999 and the 86-inch version costing $3,999. Going up to 8K bumps the prices, naturally. The 65-inch 8K TV is $3,499, the 75-inch model is $4,799, and the 86-inch 8K QNED is $6,499.

Refresh rates vary from 60Hz to 120Hz, but only the 4K models have Variable Refresh Rates (VRR). Each of these new sets has HDMI 2.1 ports, making them a good option for PS5/XBSX gamers, and support HDR10, HLG, and Dolby Vision HDR, along with Dolby Atmos. The 4K models feature the a7 Gen 4 AI processor, with the premium a9 Gen 4 AI chip is reserved for the 8K TVs.

The 4K QNED90 and 8K QNED99 launch in North America this month and will arrive in other regions a few weeks later.

Permalink to story.

 

Burty117

Posts: 4,236   +2,287
So I had a quick look and you can get an OLED for less money. I thought these would be quite a bit cheaper, not pretty much the same price or more! (I'm basing this on UK pricing)

65 inch QNED - £2499 (According to WhatHiFi have reported)
65 inch OLED - CX is going for £1599 while the C1 is going for £2399.(Source:Richersounds.com)

Am I missing something?
 

Bobbydpue

Posts: 226   +147
"Each of these new sets has HDMI 2.1 ports, making them a good option for PS5/XBSX gamers" And RTX 30 Series video card owners.
 

BadThad

Posts: 662   +730
TV's in general are good enough these days that there is really no compelling reason to upgrade IMO unless it's to an OLED.
 

mctommy

Posts: 401   +135
So I had a quick look and you can get an OLED for less money. I thought these would be quite a bit cheaper, not pretty much the same price or more! (I'm basing this on UK pricing)

65 inch QNED - £2499 (According to WhatHiFi have reported)
65 inch OLED - CX is going for £1599 while the C1 is going for £2399.(Source:Richersounds.com)

Am I missing something?
Yes and No. I'm currently shopping for the 77" CX and put a pause because of this release.

In the US, currently 77" CX (2020) is $2,949 before tax, C1 (2021) going for $3,499. So technically the 75" at $2999 MSRP sits right at the 2020 model cost.

TV's in general are good enough these days that there is really no compelling reason to upgrade IMO unless it's to an OLED.
I haven't purchased a TV since 2012 :X
 

Burty117

Posts: 4,236   +2,287
Yes and No. I'm currently shopping for the 77" CX and put a pause because of this release.

In the US, currently 77" CX (2020) is $2,949 before tax, C1 (2021) going for $3,499. So technically the 75" at $2999 MSRP sits right at the 2020 model cost.
Why did you pause? The OLED's are better TV's and bigger?
 

bviktor

Posts: 499   +828
Too little too late, IPS isn't really the best choice for TVs. The Samsung counterparts with VA are a winner (QN90A/QN95A, namely).
 

Lounds

Posts: 922   +817
Too little too late, IPS isn't really the best choice for TVs. The Samsung counterparts with VA are a winner (QN90A/QN95A, namely).
I really like my 1080p IPS Panasonic TV from 2013, still a good picture. Will probably get a 4k 120Hz hmdi 2.1 set in the next few years.
 

Burty117

Posts: 4,236   +2,287
Too little too late, IPS isn't really the best choice for TVs. The Samsung counterparts with VA are a winner (QN90A/QN95A, namely).
Yeah but the truth is, if you're spending over a grand on a TV, I'm not sure why you'd pick anything than an OLED unless size is the only thing that matters.
 

Delthered

Posts: 6   +1
Totally silly money for a TV TBH. People need to get a life and get active instead of sitting in front of TV's where you can't tell the difference between 1080 and 4K anyway. Just bought a new Samsung 50" AU9000 which is good enough for what I need. An 85" TV WTF how big is your living room, mine is big but I could see that from across the road!! There's no 8K content and unless you buy 4K Blu Ray's not much decent 4K content out there. BTW I do have Netflix and Amazon Prime but 4K content is not prolific for obvious reasons.

 

Danny101

Posts: 1,865   +797
It's almost like having really good paper, but a lack of good pens.

Delthered's right. Content hasn't caught up with screen technology.
 

rmcrys

Posts: 71   +74
...I'm not sure why you'd pick anything than an OLED unless size is the only thing that matters.

OLED is fantastic but independently of the generation, you'll always have burn in issues, sooner or later. Even the refresh mechanisms aren't very efficient and the rate from refreshes are VERY disturbing. When I buy a TV I am wishing a perfect screen for at least 10 years, all my TV's work as in day one. With OLED you won't be having that, specially if you watch TV channels with logos or games.



Totally silly money for a TV TBH. People need to get a life and get active instead of sitting in front of TV's where you can't tell the difference between 1080 and 4K anyway.

1) who said that active people don't want the highest quality even when they watch TV 1h/day?

2) do you work? Have a family? Don't expect you do, because when it gets dark people play or watch TV with their families, they won't get out to drink or disco night...

3) you need glasses. 1080p to 4K is very noticeable above 46"; 4k to 8k above 65" is also very noticeable. (If you watch up to 4-5m distance).

4) no 8K content? No problem. AI makes sure that you have more detail from 4K and if you have a TV like me for +10 years, you'll be future proof.

PS: I have still an excellent TV 1080p 46" but desiring that the 65" 8K 120 Hz VRR HDMI 2.1 mini led come to good prices so I can get one. Perhaps in 2022.
 

Burty117

Posts: 4,236   +2,287
OLED is fantastic but independently of the generation, you'll always have burn in issues, sooner or later. Even the refresh mechanisms aren't very efficient and the rate from refreshes are VERY disturbing. When I buy a TV I am wishing a perfect screen for at least 10 years, all my TV's work as in day one. With OLED you won't be having that, specially if you watch TV channels with logos or games.
Burn-in was completely overblown, there's plenty of tests out there where you need to be extreme to get any kind of burn-in. 9000 hours of the exact same logo on screen? Sure, that can cause a bit of burn in.

No one uses their TV's like that. 10 years ago when I worked on a helpdesk, they had TV's dangling down from the ceiling, displaying call stats and had quite a few bits onscreen that just never moved, they got pretty severe burn-in, and they were just regular old LED screens.

I know a couple of people with OLED screens, one of them is at least 4-5 years old now and the image is as good as the day he bought it.
 

Danny101

Posts: 1,865   +797
One thing I'm hoping to see if these start being used for cell phones are higher nits. Because IPS is difficult to see outside as opposed to the brighter OLED screens.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 6,553   +4,952
Burn-in was completely overblown, there's plenty of tests out there where you need to be extreme to get any kind of burn-in. 9000 hours of the exact same logo on screen? Sure, that can cause a bit of burn in.

No one uses their TV's like that. 10 years ago when I worked on a helpdesk, they had TV's dangling down from the ceiling, displaying call stats and had quite a few bits onscreen that just never moved, they got pretty severe burn-in, and they were just regular old LED screens.

I know a couple of people with OLED screens, one of them is at least 4-5 years old now and the image is as good as the day he bought it.
Yes, burn-in sounds like competitive propaganda - like that old story of how a Hummer was supposed to be more green over its lifetime than a Prius. 🤣

Honestly, if these were micro-LED sets, I might be interested, but mini-LED. Not so much so. It sounds like OLEDs are cheaper at this point, and from the quality of the pictures that I have seen when comparing OLED with anything else in a store like Best Buy, OLED makes all the other sets look like crap.
 

Burty117

Posts: 4,236   +2,287
Honestly, if these were micro-LED sets, I might be interested, but mini-LED. Not so much so. It sounds like OLEDs are cheaper at this point, and from the quality of the pictures that I have seen when comparing OLED with anything else in a store like Best Buy, OLED makes all the other sets look like crap.
Agreed, As I said in my first post, If you're spending more than a grand on a TV, why you would go for anything other than OLED is beyond me. It literally smashes all other TV technology's out of the water.

I assume the burn-in claims were actually generated by Samsung since they never managed to actually get an OLED TV out there ;)
 
Yes and No. I'm currently shopping for the 77" CX and put a pause because of this release.

In the US, currently 77" CX (2020) is $2,949 before tax, C1 (2021) going for $3,499. So technically the 75" at $2999 MSRP sits right at the 2020 model cost.


I haven't purchased a TV since 2012 :X
My last purchase was 2011. Sorry to one up you. Its a plasma and still looks so good that I've never been remotely interested in replacing it. I'm not a gamer though, just a movie watcher.
 

rmcrys

Posts: 71   +74
Burn-in was completely overblown, there's plenty of tests out there where you need to be extreme to get any kind of burn-in. 9000 hours of the exact same logo on screen? Sure, that can cause a bit of burn in.
I disagree due to two points:
- I did see real oled LG TV'S with burn in (not very bad until you have a full monochromatic (blue, red...) background and you'll recognize the burn in perfectly. Until then you are happy, but after that day you'll just want to return our buy another TV.

- the duration from the brand is until the cells don't work out work extremely bad. Not until you get burn in
 

Burty117

Posts: 4,236   +2,287
I disagree due to two points:
- I did see real oled LG TV'S with burn in (not very bad until you have a full monochromatic (blue, red...) background and you'll recognize the burn in perfectly. Until then you are happy, but after that day you'll just want to return our buy another TV.

- the duration from the brand is until the cells don't work out work extremely bad. Not until you get burn in
As per my comment, I've seen cheapo basic LED sets get burn-in. It's not just an OLED issue, the scare mongering is unfounded, always has been.

If you're using your TV like a normal human, you won't get burn-in, so why pick a crappier TV for the same money?
 

rmcrys

Posts: 71   +74
As per my comment, I've seen cheapo basic LED sets get burn-in. It's not just an OLED issue, the scare mongering is unfounded, always has been.

If you're using your TV like a normal human, you won't get burn-in, so why pick a crappier TV for the same money?
My parents are retired and see a lot of TV (no movies, just standard channels with lots of logos and clock), they mostly had "supermarket" (white label) brands (lcd) and just in the last years a cheap led lcd from Samsung. Never ever a burn in.

Myself, never ever (cheap or middle range) burn in on my TV's. Nevertheless, I had a lot of oled Smartphones (high end) and always had high wearing zones on them.

So: why get an OLED which will have burn in and frequent refresh mechanisms when I can buy the latest tech in Neo QLED from Samsung?
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 6,553   +4,952
Agreed, As I said in my first post, If you're spending more than a grand on a TV, why you would go for anything other than OLED is beyond me. It literally smashes all other TV technology's out of the water.

I assume the burn-in claims were actually generated by Samsung since they never managed to actually get an OLED TV out there ;)
The interesting thing is that there was an unverified and unconfirmed article earlier this year that says that Samsung is finally going to produce OLED TVs - with LG panels. 😲 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/tech...e-oled-tvs-thanks-to-deal-with-lg/ar-BB1fzdgl

The tech keeps getting better all the time - https://www.oled-info.com/ When 65" sets drop under $1K, they will finally be in my price range.
 

pcnthuziast

Posts: 1,172   +897
More points of failure than an oled. Oled as a whole as a tech is great largely because of it's self contained nature, functionally. Having all these dimming zones means more parts and subsystems that can fail over time. Of course this is desired because it makes these goods consumables that will eventually need to be replaced, the sooner the better.