I know it's been a while, but this video was not uploaded at 16:9 4K. The source file is 2:1 4096:2048. However, we had to do an edit at some point to remove a piece of content within the video and it's caused it to be reprocessed by the RU-vid Editor at 16:9. We've reported the issue to our rep.
@@JarielJimenez What's your point? i have a 1080p monitor, and NO TV. Should I pack a small case for my trip to the concentration camp? SHould I have my gold inlays removed before I go?
Only 4 years? ( _my memories of playing Midtown Madness 2 on my mum's Windows 98 PC are probably oversaturated with rose tint, but they're in any case glorious_ )
i haven't seen the point of going above 1080p. if you play to win ( iknow that sounds douche but that's not what i mean ) you in most cases turn everything down to low or a mix between medium low. foliage, grass etc etc on ultra settings makes the enemy invisible where as medium or low makes him visible ( in grass and some things ). ive played bf4 since its release on low with both cpu and gpu to easily crank it all the way to the max. you simply don't give a shit at about "ooh pretty". unless you play singleplayer games ofc
@AlienGamer2k at least Microsoft know its shit and have made it like a secondary assistant recently. On the other hand, Samsung keeps shoving Bixby down user's throat.
@@bkingk8 if you would have said commodore i would have understood. Looked it up and nope. I know what a c64 is but this just looks like an older model.
I'm watching this on that exact tv! Decent panel you just have to tweak it a bit. You can press menu then 1-1-4-7 quickly without a delay (unlocks hidden factory controls) access the advanced functions and adjust the gamma or PQ for your viewing environment. It can be fully calibrated from there as well if needed. Also graphic mode is like game mode with most image processing off.
@@SidneyCritic @SidneyCritic ComedyHound I'm using only the audio output via a separate surround sound unit but yes its bad. An anemic 5 watts rms (maybe) of cheap paper cone mid range ear cancer. Sounds like two tiny dinosaurs fawkin in a tin can behind a brick wall.
I actually have that one . My complaint is I can't seem to find the color settings. By default they're pretty off ---edit Sound is fine. Not super impressive but everything is clear
I actually just talked a random guy out of one of these cheap smaller tvs and instead got him to buy a bigger better model about a month back. And by that I mean he approached me while I was standing by the tvs on my phone and asked me if he should get it (I am not an Employee which is obvious.) His wife wanted something for their bedroom apparently. A little confused but willing to help I get less than a few words in trying to explain that it really depends and he should make a decision based on a multitude of factors... Price, use case, latency, resolution, sound, longevity... Before he tells me "You know you're right I think I'll go with the bigger one (Much Bigger, Big Brand Name about 3x the price...) Man my wife is going to kill me... Thanks for your help..." With a smile he grabs the bigger tv, throws it in his cart and rides off with a wave... It was obvious this guy just really wanted an excuse for the bigger tv... Probably going to tell the MRS about how this other guy talked him into it at the store XD
I literally have this exact display. As someone who uses it as a PC monitor, let me give my 2 cents: If you are broke, this will do just fine. Don't pull a linus and knock sharpness to 0 , just keep it at a value just above it where edges don't look fuzzy (I use 10), otherwise keep all other settings the same as dynamic. Point to point and graphic under advanced. Don't bother with built in speakers, that point was already well made and fairly so, even for a budget TV. It does 1080p60 smoothly, but don't try to overclock it. it can go up to 75Hz, but anything above 60 is a stutterfest, and it ISN'T the GPU. Viewing angles are also not too bad. Not the best, but certainly have seen more expensive displays do a worse job. If you are not going budget? Don't buy this display. Production work? Don't buy this display. Game development? Depends on if you code, model, animate, or level design, but if you do texture work, don't buy this display. If you just want to chill and game but aren't trying to go 4K 144Hz or some shit, this is fine. Personally, the display industry seems to lack one point that has me feeling stuck for upgrading: 1440p 120Hz (144Hz still nerfs colors from what I have seen, especially on budget) at 42" or higher at a REASONABLE price. Sorry, $600 is not reasonable just for size, and 4K isn't quite there yet. So until I see something worth the upgrade, this display is still going strong. I leave it on 24/7 and have had no burn in or color loss. At it's core, it makes a nice cheap 1080p60 gaming display for those who feel monitors are over priced and under sized, but falls short of anything better for consuming other content. SOME people *cough*LTT*cough* are spoiled to where they can no longer remember the struggles of being minimum wage peasants in the wrong industry to be enthusiasts, where a R3 1200, a GTX 1060, and this TV makes a "good" gaming experience when you catch super extreme deals to get them at really low costs. I certainly feel like I could have a better experience without going the ultra enthusiast route, but I also don't feel like I am getting some last gen console experience either. Feel free to "loan" me better hardware to prove me wrong though ;) This display makes a good pairing with something like a PS4 or XB1, as the cost to begin gaming is absolutely competitive.
yeah i dont know how people can treat something you should have for MANY years so poorly i made 12.50 a hour when i got my 70 inch high spec tv wasn't hard to do.. but i know poor people who go to theaters 12+ times a year so its just bad money management
afxinfinitee Onn is just a cheap brand. I mean they make decent stuff for like cheap when you need it. I have this mouse by them and it’s pretty good just to use the Internet.
@@aschraub9897 eye damage or not, TVs are not computer monitors, supposed to stand on your desk at arms reach, more like you view them at a dinners table length or whatever. For that reason in general TVs are larger than monitors of the same resolution, at all price ranges, and it's no wonder one can see the pixels when watching it from a foot away.
@@aschraub9897 Yeah. If it wasn't for the fact that you don't watch a screen from that close because you want to have all of the screen in your field of view and not because it damages your eyes. You need to be able to see all of the screen at once. Staring at screens for long peiods of time in general isn't good for your eyes.
There really is no such thing as "not supposed to watch from that distance", its entirely personal preference. As pointed out, staring at ANYTHING from a fixed distance for a long period is bad for you, simply because your eyes will stop being able to focus properly through lack of use. Brightness is irrelevant as a good HDR TV from a distance is still likely to be far far brighter than a cheapo TV from as close as you can possibly sit and retain focus. A high end monitor would shove way more light into your eyes than this, plus you can always turn down the backlight if its a problem.
i've owned this tv for 8 months now and i have it in my back yard. its a great tv for the price don't think i would have it in my living room . and i paid $109 for it
@@itIsI988 its still used across Europe a lot as well. Pretty sad, shitty, prone to breaking ( jiggle it for better signal). yeah its old. fuck it!!! hdmi tyvm
I feel like you should mention, that a bunch of people probably use these as digital signs and really couldn't care less about any sort of quality marks. Our school uses these to get dates and room changes out to the pupils and they just get the absolute cheapest stuff with HDMI input...
Fabian He did mention that he understands the concept of a "target demographic", but he's giving a review so that people thinking it might be the best deal they ever got aren't extremely disappointed
At my workplace they have a junker in our cafeteria for the same purpose. It's mounted to the wall and they actually had our Facilities dept. construct a really clever "secret" panel behind that wall for easy access to the PC and DVD players they have hooked up to it. Anyway, yeah, it's the cheapest TV they could find but it's just for displaying slideshows of photos from company events, announcements and schedules & upcoming holiday notices. Yes, everything looks like pixelated ass on it but that's part of a cheap TV's charm, isn't it? ...as long as it's not your main set.
@@enigma4633 Yes. They condescendingly hinted at anyone happy with this set is an old feeb. That wasn't missed by the generations that created the tech that they use every day.
Well said sir we all dont get 65 inch 4k lg samsung tvs given to us free i used to like linus vids he was very helpful about computing back in the day but now hes all about oh we put 3 top end graphics cards and 4 tb ssd in this pc aint i good yes its all free and most of you cant afford one graphics card but aint i good hes surrounded himself with sickafantics this guy with the beards kiss his ass so bad to impress him and whats this vid about i think hes showed his true colors for the money its a good tv
catsdgs if I do that,I can only get 1 or 2 channels since I live in a rural area far away from the transmitters. So that's why I have to use a large antenna to get any number of channels.
The Randomchannel it is called a coax port and it was designed as a standard connection for antennas, but the cable and satellite industry adopted the cable as it is compatible with all TVs.
@5:35 I know people who leave the "peeling peel" on their products and it DRIVES ME INSANE. I had a friend who had a Maytag washer with blue colored surface protection film on it. I was fixing something silly with the washer and so I decided to clean it, which necessitated removing the blue protection film which had started getting stuck under the control and peeling at the edges. This person was MAD that I turned their "blue washer" in to a "white one!" I explained that it was merely surface protection film--but they insisted they liked the blue color and wanted to keep it that way. Well--OK! Go buy a roll off Amazon or eBay and make it blue again, then!
The idea is to see if it IS worth the 150$. Because often we have a 300$ product that is good and worth the 300, and for half the price we have total garbage that is NOT worth the 150$, hence money wasted. Sometimes you can struck a good deal though, and buy something really good for cheap - like on Aliexpress for example. So you can buy something after, say, gatherhing cash for 1 month, instead waiting half a year to be able to afford it.
Grabbed this tv for 74.00 at my local Walmart. Installed Firestick and it wasn't bad. Ran a vizio sound bar to it and couldn't be happier. 74 bucks!!! Not the best quality but will work just fine in our Den!!
TBH, yeah. That was a steal to be quite honest. IDK, when it's 150 though, it's a tough sell since there are a lot of good offerings used in my area, at the very least.
I used to have a fiend that used to say "mint" like you'd use the word cool. Had another friend in school that used the word "mammoth" in the same way, they both still crack me up.
@@FrostyKal Classic funny, how about "Elephant" hey dude that shit was Elephant! Hells yeah man, that shit was Elephant, you know I don't like Elephant, can we just go with Mammoth? Yes that's much better.
I feel like curved monitors (except for ultrawides) are just a gimmick. Any good monitor at up to 32" shouldn't have uneven color or brightness issues.
TBH I pretty much always prefer just saving my money a year or two more and buying a much better product when there is such a large disparity in quality between the low and high end.
I like to wait at least 10-20 years before upgrading any sort of tech. That way I get the biggest upgrade-bang for the buck. I'm looking forward to upgrading my DX4 in the next year or two.
Good for cheap people :) TVs have gotten cheap and bigger lately. I used to be cheap, when you are poor, can't afford a TV, this is the tv for ya. And cause walmart..
I really loved the shitty voice output of the TV. It made me laugh so hard, that my face hurted like hell. Does anybody know, where i can get a sound chip like that? I would love to integrate it in one of my electronic projects.
1. It's a 43" 1080p TV for US$150 - fine for a spare room or bedroom for casual viewing as you mentioned later in the video. 2. It's unfair to compare the pixels on your laptop screen to the TV when the same distance from it. I'm not sure what anyone else would expect for $150. 3. I don't believe everyone in North America has $600 to spend on a reasonable TV (I may be wrong, I don't live there). For most people, this will probably suffice for the price.
You can get a decent 4K TV for equal or less than $600. Also I believe that people did spent around $600 on a TV before. So I doubt that people would actually wanted cheap TVs over a decent one.
@@masonmyers1198 According to the UN and studies from various universities in the US, anywhere from 30 million to 120 million residents in the US live just above or on the poverty line. That doesn't leave $600 for a TV. I couldn't find reliable statistics for Canada.
I've had a 55'inch 1080p Hisense flat screen that i got for $500 10 years ago and have had zero issues..just beacuse it's cheap doesn't mean it will break
ONN makes some alright stuff for the money, and would be fine in a kids room, if you are just broke, and need a basic TV, and throw in an Antenna for a few bucks for local OTA. the only problem I see buying this or any TV at any price right now is none of them support the new upcoming ATSC 3.0 standard, so you will need to buy a converter box/stick when it gets rolled out in the next couple of years.
@@L4r5man He's not reviewing it for them but for people like us. Literally all he's been doing is mocking cheap products so the autistic people can have some cheap laughs. It's really stupid the direction of his channel is taking.
Since the technology inside this TV did not even exist back then... Ya. 20 Years ago if you wanted anything over 30 inches you likely had a... I forget the names of those TVs, they had big bulbs inside and weighed like 300+ lbs.
I think people are missing, intentionally or not, that he said "it's been a while since I've seen a 1080p display FROM THIS CLOSE" and are immediately going after him from that. A 1080p TV or large scale display with that resolution is going to look terrible when viewed from that distance so he was commenting on that experience
@@CiceroFMYT I mean, it really depends upon the purpose of the TV. And the monitor. For example, my monitor is great for traveling and has a high enough resolution (1600p) to work well. When I did have a television, a 22 inch was fine for my dorm, but a 32 would be better.
I guess Walmart is a shop, then? When I bought my 29" JVC TV, it nearly cost me more for the taxi (had to be a people carrier) to take it home. I watched it a few times -- a prog called "Monk" - then I decided that I didn't like TV. It sends me to sleep. So I bought a new bed and some books. Much better.
@mharris1270 Now that's a surprise reply! I think we were talking about TVs/monitors. My taxi comment was meant to point out how stupidly big CRTs can get.Still, good luck in the world of transport.
I'd like to see Linus review a more modern 4k version of the Onn TV just to see how it is,, Not a lot of reviews on it because it's an el cheapo TV but Tons of people buy them and not many review them because they expect it to an inferior TV and it probably is but I'd still like to know how it stacks up in the budget category....
I mean, I have a cheap tv that advertised as 720p on it's box, but when plugged into HDMI went straight to 1080p. That's a special kind of derp, especially considering it doesn't have any of the hallmarks of scaling.
The video is fun once again, but I don't really get how the product "failed". It failed in what? Is there a similarly priced TV that's an obviously better choice? Not a $250 one, that's almost 100% up in price.
Compared to the specter or whatever it failed, having worse colors, worse audio, worse design, and worse resolution for what? A larger screen? Shouldn't it be the opposite since pixel density, and a large area for speakers and other design factors? Plus the default settings on the TV were horrible as well, and required change to even make it decent?
considering @holes on my local kijiji want $150-$200 for their 5 year old 42 inch 1080p tvs, I'd say a brand new in box offbrand walmart tv with a warranty and someone to actually hold accountable if it breaks is worth the $120 plus $30 for a basic soundbar/computer speakers or whatever you wanna use to get it to sound better
@@Myke_thehuman billions of people still watch terrestrial broadcasts, i dont personally watch them myself but to mock someone for it is just arrogant.
I mean He still has to be able to critique it at face value, and also in-consideration of it's purpose obviously, it's for someone who doesn't want to spend much for a large TV. And then base it off there, He isn't complaining about the quality in disregards to the price, He still has to be able to deliver a proper judgement on whether it is or is not a good deal because there could be much better deals out there for a similar price or lower price.
I am rocking a similar walmart TV for my PC monitor right now. Monitor died hard and needed a replacement that night. It was there, it was cheap, it works. Mine is an Element, but the speakers are not great (but sound better than yours). I wanted large and cheap for text reading (getting old). I added a cheap pair of Logitec speakers (Z150 for like 15 bucks at office max) and they sound much better and you can actually adjust their aim. No idea why you NEED to spend $70 on a sound bar.
I happened across this same model at Walmart for $100, so I decided to take a chance, as I wanted a TV for my rarely used basement area. Overall, I'd say that I was surprised by the TV, as it seemed to perform well for how cheap it was. Video needed a ton of tweaking, as did the sound, but it's really not bad. The thing that almost made me return it, however, is that, while audio through HDMI, composite, etc. was fine, I couldn't, for the life of me, seem to get audio through the coaxial (from my antenna) to work. After several days of searching, I found a post for an unrelated brand of TV suggest that the problem is that some newer TVs are dropping some compatibility with certain digital signals, and some broadcast digital channels (or all of them in my area), will no longer decode properly, resulting in no sound. This lead me to hook up my old digital converter box that I used with my old CRT TV, and lo and behold, I had sound. So there nothing "wrong" with the TV, per se. The quality of the digital converter I had was terrible, so I went out to buy a new one (like $20 or so), but I now have everything working. I hope that helps anyone else that has a similar experience.
That's cool that you found a workaround for that, IMO a 43" TV for $100 is a bargain if the thing even works, I'm shocked they can build one that cheap. Of course it's not going to have a great picture or be ideal for gaming, but if you want a cheap netflix device in the bedroom or you're some old person who's tube TV or ancient 720p LCD finally took a shit this thing could be an upgrade, I'd be fine with everything but the internal speakers, but even on expensive TVs those are often junk, and it's pretty easy to score a
"Volume: Seventy. Five. By the way, federal regulations require me to warn you that my color accuracy is absolutely abysmal. Apparently the engineers put about as much effort into that as your parents did into loving you. Welllllll. Maybe a _little_ more than that. It's pretty terrible, though."
at 11:07 i can say that on two separate $300-400 monitors (both 8-bit panels) and my OLED phone screen, those artifacts in your eyes in that video are likely a part of the video and not a display issue
I detest the ONN brand as every product I've ever purchased from them only lasted a few weeks tops. However, this TV is honestly pretty standard for around $130-170. But if you're a cord cutter, you'd be better off spending an extra $30-60 on a TCL 40S325 because you're going to need some sort of streaming device and TCL is a reliable brand itself.
What about Westinghouse? I've never heard of Bauhn or ONN before this video. The "good" TCL tvs aren't even available for purchase in Canada, they're too busy dumping their crappy stock that won't sell first.
Hey the companys who make those super expensive high-end tvs had to do something once other companys started driving down the prices with their reasonably priced tvs so they said hey look 4k bla bla bla. and linus and buddy say you need to buy a decent sound bar thus driving the tv price up to 200 dollars you dont a need a 70 dollar sound bar any old speakers with the same ohms will be fine if you don't like the speakers it came with these guys convinced me to go buy one of these once my old plasma lg dies ill have something laying around to watch for a few more years lmfao expensive doesnt mean better and who needs better when something less than a tenth of the price of the latest and greatest works just fine and lasts probably just as long ??
@@aceboogie8986 A present for you: .......,,,,,,,'''''''. Maybe you could send me that superfluous second question mark by way of thanks. You're welcome, Ms Boogie!
I got a 1 year old mint condition Insignia 42" LED TV at a thrift shop for about $14 just last month. Support your local thrift and consignment stores and reduce, reuse and recycle. Walmart can keep their units ONN the shelf.
im poor fucking trailer trash from the hollar. i bought another of these tvs for my mom for christmas after her garbage rca price equivalent she just bought was painful to operate
@Adam R I have this exact tv. Yes. Still works fine. Have had it for over a year and a half. Walmart was trying to get rid of the last of these a couple months ago. Saw em for 70 bucks!
@mrmichaelmw Warranties are borderline worthless, a lot of products these days designed to be functional for only a year or two after the warranty expires, they're really only useful for defeats but since you're buying something known to have worked for over a year already chances are it'll be fine for another few years, as for shipping if you're worried about something getting damaged in the mail, that's exactly why they offer an insurance option for like $2 extra... Probably worth it when you're paying $100+ on a TV or well anything of value that won't be covered by the seller/manufacturer.
@Moritz Schmidt man I remember playing halo 2, 4 player split screen on a 13" TV at a friend's house since his mom was watching a movie on their main TV.
"You've gotta factor in another $70 for a sound bar." But do you really though? Couldn't it suffice with, oh, idk, an old set of PC speakers with a subwoofer you can get for much cheaper? You said it yourself, ideal situation for this TV is for grandpa, or a den as an alternative to your main display system. I still wouldn't buy it for the price, TV prices have come a long way, just saying.
Absolutely. I know people who have resorted to that when all they had was a PC monitor, or the speakers broke in their TV and they can't afford a new one. I would however have liked them to actually test the line out connectors, as it may be they only work for certain inputs. There are no guarantees it supports analog output from a HDMI signal.
