• On TechRepublic: Five super-secret features in Windows 7
March 31, 2009 3:07 PM PDT

The price of thin: Samsung reveals its edge-lit LED-based LCDs

by David Katzmaier

Samsung's edge-lit LED-based LCD costs about $700 more than its non-LED counterpart. But it's really thin.

(Credit: Samsung)

Samsung announced its new lineup of "LED TVs" at CES in January, and gave CNET editors a walk-through today to preview the technology. The company also set prices, and as expected, it'll cost you a fortune to take one of these thin models home.

The name "LED TV" sounds simple enough, but it's important to remember that these inch-thin sets are actually otherwise normal LCD (liquid-crystal display) TVs that use LEDs (light-emitting diodes) instead of the standard fluorescent backlights. But it gets even more confusing. We've reviewed LED-based LCD displays before, most recently the Sony KDL-55XBR8 and Samsung LN46A950--the two best-performing LCD TVs we've ever tested. A lot of the credit for those TVs' excellent picture quality can be attributed to their local dimming technology; groups of LEDs behind the screen can be dimmed or turned off to achieve those deep, inky blacks we all love so much.

The 2009 Samsung LED TVs we're previewing here do not utilize local dimming, so we don't expect them to match the picture quality of the local dimming sets. Of course, we'll know more once we can review one. In the meantime, we'll refer to the new displays as "edge-lit LED-based LCDs." More complex, we know, but also quite a bit more accurate.

The slideshow above goes into the nitty-gritty behind, or along the edge of, the technology. The short story is that the LEDs themselves are arranged along all four edges of the screen, and a special "light guide" sends light toward the middle. The result, according to the company, is similar uniformity characteristics to standard backlit LCD displays.

Edge-lit LED-based displays are also 40 percent more energy-efficient than standard Energy Star-certified LCD sets, and measure just 1.2 inches thick.

1.2 inches thin looks great from the side.

(Credit: Samsung)

The downside is that they're extremely expensive. The cheapest model, the 32-inch UN32A6000 ($1,599), will cost more than twice as much as the company's standard 1080p 32-incher, model LN32B530 ($749) does. The 46-inch UN46B6000 ($2,799) pictured at the top commands a $700 premium over the equivalent standard 120Hz set, model LN46B650 ($2099). The step-up LED-based LCDs cost more for extra features like Yahoo widgets and a 240Hz refresh rate, but should offer similar picture quality to the entry-level 6000 series. When the question concerns the price of thin, Samsung's answer appears to be "$700 and up."

According to Samsung, a UN46B7000 is on its way to CNET for review. Until then, here are the sets' estimated street pricing and availability.

The following product mentioned is available.

On Sale Now: $1,879.95 - $2,599.99
View the latest prices for Samsung UN46B8000

David Katzmaier reviews HDTVs for CNET. E-mail David or follow him on Twitter @katzmaiercnet.
Recent posts from Crave
Ricoh goes modular for GXR camera system
Moxi cuts price on its DVR, adds step-up model with a triple tuner
2010 Tesla Roadster Sport first drive
Sneak peek: Xobni e-mail app for BlackBerry
The DIY secret-knock door lock
New BlackBerry software will make your phone cooler
The 411: Storage limits and more on data plans
Can Bheestie Bag save your soaked device?
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (12 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by peterwhite March 31, 2009 4:38 PM PDT
These are so not worth the extra $1000 or more for comparable LCDs in the same size range.
Reply to this comment
by renGek April 1, 2009 12:22 PM PDT
Once again I ask, would it really make a difference to you if the tv is 3 inches thick or 1 inch thick. Do you even notice the difference 3 months after buying the tv? The picture quality had better be spectacularly better otherwise why pay more money for a 2 inch thinner tv beyond the fact you want to be the first one to get it so you can tell your friends about it and stroke your ego.
Reply to this comment
by wiredchicken April 1, 2009 1:05 PM PDT
Samsung is not a bad brand of tv. I have a Samsung 40" tv and it is really nice. Not just on the outside but the picture as well. Great interface, fantastic picture, and sound is ok, but should have more bass to it! But remember to buy a TIVO with it or else you get that much use out of the tv. But otherwise very excellent/exceptional picture and overall, it is a great tv to have!!!!
Reply to this comment
by apollo808 April 1, 2009 8:08 PM PDT
We have these on display at the store I work at. There is a TON of what appears to be some kind of digital noise.

When viewing solid colors it appears to have all this distortion in it. We have the 6000 between a 550 and 650 and they both blow it away. I am impressed by the thin design and energy efficiency, but picture quality leaves something to be desired. "Blown away" by the price and that's about it.

If I were a consumer looking for a TV, I'd wait a generation or two before investing in this technology.
Reply to this comment
by apollo808 April 1, 2009 8:10 PM PDT
Oh yeah, the speakers are terrible. They sound cheap and really metally (is that a word???)
by SAkinin April 1, 2009 9:55 PM PDT
The new Panasonic 1" plasma looks better... it would be interesting to see a 1" thick 55" TV comparison.
Reply to this comment
by xavierwalls April 2, 2009 7:54 AM PDT
The overall look of the tv is very appealing however the picture quality is not even close to the current 950 series. My customers have told me the tv sounds like a labtop and its sound is very tinny and sounds otherwise terrible, but thats expected. It does not handle motion very well, however if you have some Hi-res static images like the Contents library pictures, the tv does look excellant. We have already sold a few of the 7100 series so picture quality doesnt seem that important to most, if it was, Pioneer wouldn't of dropped thier Plasma series.
Reply to this comment
by jrreddig April 8, 2009 10:59 PM PDT
I think that all of these thin "edge-lit" LED LCDs are just another gimmick. Ive seen the Sony edge-lit tv at a local store and they are really thin but the picture quality is horrible! I wish Samsung would devote all olf there LCD technology to LED local dimming. If companies want to make hdtvs that look better on the outside then their picture quality, they can have em. Thank god I have my Kuro!
Reply to this comment
by skygreenleopard May 10, 2009 5:25 PM PDT
What's the point of a 1" TV when your receiver, speakers, Blu-Ray player, PS3, cable box, or entertainment center aren't? The way I see it is it's only worth it is fyou're hooking up the TV alone and wall-mounting it. But then you'll have crappy stock speakers.
Reply to this comment
by windooor7 July 16, 2009 4:26 PM PDT
WAit till you see the New 42 inch apple Tv with intel inside, ATI radeion, AIRPORT extreme , 3G ,AND 120 GB HDD WITH iphone like Menu NO touch screen too bad.
its extremely touch down design.
Reply to this comment
by fullhouse42 September 21, 2009 2:14 PM PDT
Just bought the LN52B750 $1900.00 absolutely a great picture, blacks are solid black & regular HI-def is amazing never mind blue ray that's just a joke (I mean unbelievable). I have been shopping for 3 years & reading cnet & consumer reviews, informative but talk about driving yourself crazy. Some friends have the 50 inch plasma Kuro, nice but power consumption is a joke & I can't see the $1100.00 difference. I also have a full length mirror on my back wall with the TV on the opposite wall NO GLARE & my windows are 27 feet by 15 feet sun galore, no big deal...240 hz & 4ms.. This TV is the best I have seen... I hope I am not jinxing myself writing this, I bought it 3 weeks ago..
Reply to this comment
by dadvk October 13, 2009 6:41 AM PDT
The rear lit LG LED has a better picture than the Samsung edge lit models. It also has alot better sound than the Samsungs. I will still take a Panasonic plasma over any LED
that is in stores now. Next year they could blow us away. Time will tell!!!
Reply to this comment
(12 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next

About Crave

The name says it all. Crave is our blog about gorgeous gadgets and other crushworthy stuff. If you would like to contact Crave with a tip or comment, please write to: crave@cnet.com

Add this feed to your online news reader

Crave topics

After 5 years, Firefox faces new challenges

Mozilla helped reshape the Web since releasing Firefox 1.0 five years ago. Now it's got a reawakened Microsoft and Google Chrome to reckon with.

There's a map for that: GPS or smartphone?

Almost every handset comes with mapping software these days, but standalone GPS devices are becoming more affordable than ever.