LG OLED48CX

[What Hi-Fi?]

LG has produced the first sub-50in OLED of the 4K era – and it’s just as brilliant as we’d hoped.

LG OLED48CX : Read more

 

[lou garou]

"In the UK, the OLED48CX is available either as the OLED48CX6LA or OLED48CX5LB. The only difference is the finish: the 6LA comes in dark silver, while the 5LB is light silver."
Currys are advertising this as the LG OLED48CX6LB. Would that be a mid-silver?

 

[Renfrew]

I've read several times that 4K below 50" screens is a waste of money.
One just can't see a significant difference, yet when a 65" or larger screen is watched then one can appreciate the 4K. Another thing is that 8K is the next big seller and I've seen an 82" on display at a local Sam's Club. All I can say that this will be the near future with a possible resurrection of 3D down the road, a road not yet paved however. 8K programming is still far away. The manufacturers need to motivate us to buy so they are working hard to get our money.

 

[Geoff-W]

I was very surprised and disappointed to read that this TV does not support the standard suite of catch-up apps. As far as I'm concerned this would be a show stopper. I cannot comprehend any manufacturer these days, introducing a new model without this facility. The review made no mention of any intention by LG to correct this error via a future software update.

 

[NHK]

I've read several times that 4K below 50" screens is a waste of money.
One just can't see a significant difference

4K is just pixel resolution, and yes beyond a certain viewing distance a smaller screen may not yield much improvement here over HD. But HDR and dynamic metadata (which are common in 4K formats like DV etc) mean smaller sized 4k screens still produce a picture with a deeper and more realistic contrast ratio than a similarly sized HD screen. You could argue in fact that a smaller screen’s increased pixel density gives it the advantage here over biggerTVs.

 

[NHK]

In case this helps anyone considering this TV- I returned my CX48 after a couple of weeks for a refund. I seem to be highly aware of motion processing and even with it all turned off, live action motion felt artificial and ‘electronic’ rather than natural and ‘optical’.

I then tried a Sony 55” A8 in-store with all motion processing off and motion was rougher with panning shots but more natural overall. This suggests LG in their wisdom don’t let you defeat as much motion processing as Sony and What Hi Fi do give Sony the edge here. The effect for me was so bad with the LG I was ‘seeing’ the acting, the magic had gone. YMMV

Reverting to my 2005 43” Pioneer plasma was a relief and I didn’t miss the LG other than its HDR and true blacks. . However the picture is so photographic with the plasma that I soon forget and just enjoy the content.

Now awaiting Sony’s 48” A9 which drops soon.

 

[Dave Gypsum]

I was very surprised and disappointed to read that this TV does not support the standard suite of catch-up apps. As far as I'm concerned this would be a show stopper. I cannot comprehend any manufacturer these days, introducing a new model without this facility. The review made no mention of any intention by LG to correct this error via a future software update.

If you want a top quality TV below 50 inches - which I do - the necessity to buy a £50 Fire stick or a Roku to go with it is hardly a show stopper - even if I didn't have one already.

 

[allyc]

In case this helps anyone considering this TV- I returned my CX48 after a couple of weeks for a refund. I seem to be highly aware of motion processing and even with it all turned off, live action motion felt artificial and ‘electronic’ rather than natural and ‘optical’.

I then tried a Sony 55” A8 in-store with all motion processing off and motion was rougher with panning shots but more natural overall. This suggests LG in their wisdom don’t let you defeat as much motion processing as Sony and What Hi Fi do give Sony the edge here. The effect for me was so bad with the LG I was ‘seeing’ the acting, the magic had gone. YMMV

Reverting to my 2005 43” Pioneer plasma was a relief and I didn’t miss the LG other than its HDR and true blacks. . However the picture is so photographic with the plasma that I soon forget and just enjoy the content.

Now awaiting Sony’s 48” A9 which drops soon.

Thanks for this, I went to see the CX im Currys, they only had the 55" on display and while visual clarity was top notch as expected, I found the flow of movement incredibly juddery - was really surprised it was bad enough for me to notice within a few seconds, was shocking for a set at this price point. Perhaps it was just a bad demo/source. Keenly awaiting the objective comparison reviews of the LG vs Sony vs Philips 48" OLED, I've very high hopes for the Sony...

 

[Mr D]

Renfrew said " I've read several times that 4K below 50" screens is a waste of money.
One just can't see a significant difference, yet when a 65" or larger screen is watched then one can appreciate the 4K."
I bought a 28 inch 4K monitor and eventually changed it for a 40 inch 4k TV as 28 inches was just too small for 4k. I now use the 40 inch TV as a monitor (looks great) and TV. So below 55 inches is more than fine. I now want to benefit from what OLED has to offer so am upgrading to this 48 inch from LG. One thing I was surprised not to read on the review is the fact it can output at 120Hz and directly supports the latest game consoles at high refresh rates in 4K. I specifically chose the screen so I can stop using my current TV as a monitor at 4K at 30Hz and get the same resolution but at 120Hz. I now have a decent PC with the latest 3000 series of Nvidia graphics card so can output 4K at these higher refresh rates, Gamers are snapping up the CX series of OLED mainly this 48 inch one for that very purpose . No other OLED can currently output these speeds so LG have stolen a march on the gaming part of the market.

 

[Mr. C Nation]

4K is just pixel resolution, and yes beyond a certain viewing distance a smaller screen may not yield much improvement here over HD. But HDR and dynamic metadata (which are common in 4K formats like DV etc) mean smaller sized 4k screens still produce a picture with a deeper and more realistic contrast ratio than a similarly sized HD screen. You could argue in fact that a smaller screen’s increased pixel density gives it the advantage here over biggerTVs.

And you could sit closer and thus benefit from the improved image.

 

[Mr D]

Well I took the plunge and bought the 48 inch OLED. So far it is great. I am conscious some people talk of screen burn so I am changing my background pictures and the location of my minimal icons (only 5) regularly when I us it as a monitor (I also have the bottom bar disappear after you stop pointing at it)