You Asked: Best TV under $1,000; wherefore art thou, 8K?

Each week, we'll hand pick some of the most commonly asked questions and answer them as concisely and helpfully as we know how.

On a special bonus edition of You Asked, we address the following: What’s the best 65-inch TV under $1,000? What’s going on with 8K TVs right now, and why are neither of the two biggest consumer TVs in the world 8K? And why are OLED monitors so expensive compared to OLED TVs?

Best TV under $1000

I’ll start with a question that has come in many forms the past few weeks, including one from a friend (shout out to Keith Sommers). The ask is for the best 65-inch TV under $1,000

My answer is easy: While supplies last, the best 65-inch TV under $1,000 is the 2023 TCL QM8 — the full model number is 65QM850G.

If that model runs out of stock, or if you’re just looking for an alternative, the 2023 Hisense U8K — model number 65U8K — is also a very strong option at that price. The bottom line is that those TVs are going to be the best choice for anyone looking to get the best picture quality they can from a 65-inch TV under $1,000.

8K OLED TV vs. 4K OLED TV

Barry Mayhew — who you may recall wrote in previously about his 2016 OLED TV on which he racked up almost 16,000 viewing hours — has made peace with the notion that 3D TVs are probably not coming back and is looking at getting another OLED TV. With that in mind, he is wondering if he should get an 8K OLED or a 4K OLED.

Related to that idea, I got a lot of comments on my TCL 115-inch QM89 review wondering why TCL didn’t make it an 8K TV when it seems like if any TV should be 8K, it would be a really big-screen TV.

Here’s the really quick and dirty version of where we are at with 8K today: They became a thing for two key reasons — one mostly selfish on the part of TV brands and the other almost entirely selfless.

The selfish reason was that 8K was the next natural upgrade for TVs after 4K and HDR had become normalized. TV brands are constantly trying to innovate and push the edge of the technological envelope, and, frankly, have a reason to sell ultra-premium products. So 8K TVs fed those needs on the part of manufacturers. That’s the selfish reason.

The selfless reason has more to do with this chicken-or-the-egg thing that we have going on with audio and video entertainment gear. Which should come first? The content? Or the device that can play that content? Historically it’s been up to consumer electronics brands to make the devices first, so there was something to enjoy the content on once creators started making the content.

We’ve been here before. I wish I had a nickel for every time someone asked “what’s the point of an 8K TV when there’s no 8K content?” But an equally valid question is this: Why make 8K content if there’s no 8K TVs to enjoy it on? So once again, TV brands took the lead — just as they did with 4K, and HD before that — and started making TVs with capabilities that outpaced the content.

The problem is that unlike with 4K, the benefits to 8K resolution were really best seen on really big screen sizes, and even the least expensive 8K TVs were still well more expensive than the very best 4K TVs. For myriad reasons, 8K TVs didn’t (and still don’t) sell well. And so we saw TCL, Hisense, LG, and Sony take their foot off the 8K TV gas.

Today, LG makes the 88-inch Z2 OLED TV and the 77-inch Z3 OLED. Sony makes the Z9K, an 85-inch mini-LED TV that’s a couple of years old. But at trade shows and expos, neither LG nor Sony is making a big deal about these TVs. They are off to the side — looking amazing — but not the focus of attention. Samsung is the only major TV brand that comes out with at least two new 8K TV models every year. For better or worse, when Samsung commits to something, it stays committed.

Today, the only 8K content consumers can access is on YouTube, and not all of it is actually native 8K resolution. If you do want to check out legit 8K content (or higher!), visit Phil Holland’s channel. It doesn’t get better.

But that’s about it! We won’t be seeing 8K Blu-ray discs, and streaming 8K requires bandwidth that many folks don’t have. So most of what folks will watch is 720p, 1080p or 4K content that’s been upscaled to 8K.

There actually once was one very good reason to choose an 8K TV over a 4K TV from any given brand. That’s because the very best panels, processing, backlight hardware, etc. were put into the super-premium 8K TVs. But Samsung aside, that’s no longer true. The very best from LG, Sony, Hisense, and TCL this year is in 4K TVs.

Will you review TCL’s 98-inch QM8?

Vinny writes: I was just wondering when you might get to the TCL-QM851G 98 inch and if you have any suggestions on setting the best picture.

I’m not sure when or if I’ll end up getting the 98-inch QM8 this year. I need to review the 65-inch QM8 first.

As for suggestions on settings: I spoke to Classy, who is a professional calibrator, and based on what I learned from him about calibrating the 98-inch QM8, the best move is to use the Game mode and then change the color temperature setting to one of the warmer settings and, if you want, also disable motion smoothing. For now, it appears that in the Movie mode, the 98-inch QM8 with local dimming turned on isn’t very accurate. It’s pleasing enough to look at, but not accurate. That may get fixed, though, so I’d suggest checking out recommended settings once you actually have the TV. Because by the time you get it, things may have changed.

Why are 32-inch OLED monitors so expensive?

Vishesh asks: Why are 32-inch OLED monitors so expensive compared to a 55-inch OLED TV?

My initial response was going to be “are they?” And then I realized that 32-inch OLED monitors — the most premium options — are the same price as many 55-inch OLED TVs. So, inch per inch, they are more expensive.

The answer, Vinesh, is that TVs have way more going on inside them than PC monitors. Namely, image processing. Also, TVs have tuners built-in and always have speakers, while often monitors do not.

So far as I can tell, any high-end PC gear demands a premium just because. That’s it. Just ‘cuz. Yes, that’s ridiculous.

I checked with Jacob Roach, one of our resident PC experts, and he theorized that maybe licensing had something to do with it? You know, paying for AMD FreeSync Premium Pro and Nvidia G-Sync certification. But TVs do that now as well.

I was going to suggest that maybe it has to do with the yield of 32-inch monitor panels when OLED mother glass is cut up. Because 65-inch TVs are the most popular size now and that yields fewer 32-inch cuts than if your primary cut is a 55-inch panel. But you still get several of those as opposed to one TV. So, no, that still doesn’t make sense.

But if it is a 21:9 or 32:9 aspect ratio screen? Well, that changes the calculus on how you cut OLED mother glass, so I can see those being a bit more expensive.