Killing myself trying to find a good television.

So the beginning of this year I bought a Sony TV, the KDL40R380B. It took me several months before I realized that it had major motion blurring. Fast forward to now and I decided to sell it and buy a new TV, so I shopped around and asked for good televisions that wouldn't have this problem and one of the most commonly recommended TV's at sub-500$ for gaming, was the Vizio E series tv's. So I went and bought a Vizio E48-C2, brought it home, hooked it up and voila, it's even worse than the Sony was.

So I go shopping around again, looking everywhere I can trying to find response time for ANY televisions and nobody lists it, like the only company that seems to list panel response times is RCA and they're largely considered to make shitty televisions. It's pissing me off because no-one I ask knows the response times of any of their tv's, I emailed Vizio, they responded back with "the refresh rate of our E Series tv's is 120hz" that's not the response time. I emailed Sony and asked what the response time of the W6 series televisions is and was told I need to call in to get this information, so tomorrow I'll be calling and asking and they probably won't have an answer.

Basically, I know that the problem is the response time of the screen, good PC monitors list 2ms response times. I've figured out that 4ms on a television is perfectly acceptable and has no noticeable blur, maybe even as much as 8ms is not too bad but I'm not sure about that.

I have a budget of $500, I would like at least a 40" TV. Does anyone have any idea what a good television in or at least close to this price would be, that has no motion blur issues whatsoever?

All TV's will have some degree of motion blur. You need a monitor

@klunt_bumskrint: I understand that TV's don't have the response time of Monitors, but as I said the RCA's have 4ms and 8ms response times, I've used these TV's and there's no noticeable motion blur. I'm not looking for perfect, I just want better than the Vizio and Sony ones I've used, which based on what I've seen they must be 10-15ms.

I think it's one of those things. Once you've noticed it you can't un-notice it. Get a ROG swift :D

@klunt_bumskrint: I have a 60" Sony W850B. It is highly rated for gaming, but I have trouble playing on anything other than my Swift these days. 1440p, 144hz, 1 ms, and G-Sync. There are no TVs that offer that kind of experience.

As others already said, get a bit smaller monitor and enjoy real gaming experience:

http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/monitor/#W=3000,3500&T=1,5&sort=a8&page=1&r=256001440 I've narrowed it for you - 3 monitors on 3 different brands - 1440p, 32', 4-5ms and a price tag of about 500$

If you have the room, have you considered perhaps getting a plasma display over a LCD one? If from what I understood the OP was right, motion blur practically doesn't exist on most plasmas and CRT displays. LCD's will ALWAYS have some motion blur as it is just a trait of their technology.

If you are fine with the increased power consumption, I'd check them out.

Having a good TV/Monitor is a must in every gamer. Haha.

To you and everyone else recommending a monitor, I have a BenQ model with 2ms response time and it's great and all. But I'm looking for an actual television that I can have several feet away from me, plug new and old game consoles into and not have to sit and hunch over a computer desk. Besides that, I just enjoy gaming more when I'm away from my PC and everything connected to it, if this were not the case then I wouldn't own a console to begin with and I wouldn't be asking about TV's.

I have been looking into it but it doesn't seem like Plasmas are very common these days and they seem to be quite expensive. I've not found one under $500.

You have a budget of $500 but have very strict demands. Sometimes you have to compromise if you want cheap things. You got to pay more for quality.

@BassMan: I have one specific thing I want though, is that such a strict demand? Sure if I wanted amazing picture quality, low input lag, high refresh rate, 55" tv and the whole shebang then I would agree with you. But I'm asking only for low response time in the 40" range, under half a thousand dollars.

And let's keep in mind that even larger more expensive tv's, for some reason don't bother to mention the response time either. Here is a 1500$ television from sony, click on the specifications, does it list the response time? Of course not. So it doesn't seem to matter what price range I go to, nobody mentions their response times except the cheapest brand on the market. http://store.sony.com/55-class-54.6-diag-4k-ultra-hd-tv-zid27-XBR55X850C/cat-27-catid-All-Sony-HD-TVs

There's a reason they don't list the response time, 99% of people don't care or they research A LOT in advance.

If they listed the response time, people would get confused between refresh rate and response time, people get confused now with monitors, and increasing one value doesn't mean the other value increases or decreases.

The more numbers you throw at people, the more confused they get.

@GTR12: They don't list it in the tech specs even though, and when I email to ask they tell me they don't know. So clearly it's not even a thing the techs know. I'm sitting here trying to research a LOT in advance and can't find any of the information I need.

So if people get confused by numbers they should stop throwing worthless crap like WOO 120 HZ CLEAR FLOW AQUA MOTION BLAZE IT! and start listing things that matter like the response time which actually is what causes motion blur.

@ThisIsTheMan: Rtings.com should give you a idea of what tv to buy. they go over input lag and motion blur in there reviews.

It's a shame you can't pick up a Plasma TV in your area. If you could find a Panasonic TC-P42S60 in your area (craigslist?), that would give you arguably the best screen you can get for the $. One of the reasons being is that it's the best 42" Plasma in existence. I picked a brand new one for $450 years back - amazing deal. They're still floating around, but are a lot harder to find these days. If you found one, it'd be a jackpot IMO. Response time is great and the contrast is unbeatable. The TC-P50S60 (the 50" model) is also floating around Craigslist for the same price.

I've got a good friend who was looking for an "all around" monitor like you. After researching it, he went with a Samsung UN40J6200. It's a 40" LED with little to no blur while he's gaming on it. I'm not sure of what the exact response time is, but it doesn't lag when he's gaming on his PC. He uses it to watch movies on (streaming from his PC), games on his PS4, and so on. I've seen the picture and it's pretty nice. Last I saw it was $450 on Amazon. It's one that you can take a look at and research on, read the reviews, etc.

Make sure its 120 or 144hz if it for gaming. Ive recently got a 144hz monitor and would never go back now to 60hz. If I was you I would get a 144hz monitor for gaming and TV to watch TV and movies. I got Asus vg27he and it was only £300. My other tv is too big to fit in same room on my desk so looking for a TV for Consoles and films. Just use the monitor purely for gaming as its rubbish for everything else.

TV's don't do that sort of thing. If he's console gaming, 120/140 is no benefit.

@KHAndAnime: thanks for the recommendation, I've decided to just go for a cheap RCA for now but I'm going to put some money aside for a while and buy a plasma down the line.

@locus-solus:Thanks for the link, I forgot they existed.

As far as I'm aware there are no TVs that will accept an input signal of higher than 60Hz.