Hitachi 50 Inch 4K Ultra HD Smart TV £359.99 @ Argos
492°

Hitachi 50 Inch 4K Ultra HD Smart TV £359.99 @ Argos

£359.99Argos Deals
33
Found 11th Nov
Hitachi 50HK6T74U 50 Inch 4K Ultra HD Smart TV.

Looks like good spec for the normal price of £399.99, but currently an additional 10% off by entering code TV10 at checkout which brings price down to £359.99.

Collect mine today and very impressed. Plus nearly 5 stars out of 5 from 131 reviews on Argos website.

Currently £449.99 plus £14.50 delivery on Amazon.

Hope this helps someone out.

Top comments

crazygoldfish3 h, 1 m ago

My hitachi hd tv last 7 years much to my annoyance ( wanted an excuse to …My hitachi hd tv last 7 years much to my annoyance ( wanted an excuse to upgrade )


My first plasma TV (real Hitachi) purchased in early 2005 is still in daily use and leaves many modern TVs for dead with its picture quality (though it did cost £2400). As a bonus, the emitted heat is quite nice at this time of year.
By contrast, this isn't related in any way.
Edited by: "damadgeruk" 11th Nov

7 years ago I bought a 42 inch Bush TV after seeing it getting hot here and as this one some of the of the comments were "never heard", "stay away", "cheap stuff" etc.

A couple of weeks ago, it developed a problem, stuck on standby. A problem that can happen to any brand. I opened it and for my surprise the power supply board and main board were exactly the same as the ones used by Samsung. Part number exactly the same.

I fixed it at cost of 70p and it's still going strong. Everybody mentions about the quality of the pictures and when they see the logo they go oh it's a cheap brand. Lol
33 Comments

From expireience I would avoid Hitachi, cheap and nasty and don't last long. Buy cheap buy twice.

I'm the same. Brand sounds alarm bells with me.

Pure_Evil1 m ago

I'm the same. Brand sounds alarm bells with me.


That would really get on your nerves when watching TV. Fortuantely I don't watch much TV I still hear the bells though.
Edited by: "fishmaster" 11th Nov

Got 55” last year, pretty good for the price

Pure_Evil3 m ago

I'm the same. Brand sounds alarm bells with me.


Hmm? Not that I want to buy this TV, but from a Brand perspective, I always though Hitachi were actually "Known" / "half decent" ?

CEO: Toshiaki Higashihara (1 Apr 2016–)
Revenue: 9.162 trillion JPY (2017)
Number of employees: 303,887 (2017)
Did you know: Hitachi is the world's seventh-largest information technology company by revenue. wikipedia.org


I remember them from the early 80's and they were always considered pretty good?

imiskeen3 m ago

Hmm? Not that I want to buy this TV, but from a Brand perspective, I …Hmm? Not that I want to buy this TV, but from a Brand perspective, I always though Hitachi were actually "Known" / "half decent" ?Headquarters: Chiyoda, Tokyo, Tokyo, JapanCEO: Toshiaki Higashihara (1 Apr 2016–)Revenue: 9.162 trillion JPY (2017)Number of employees: 303,887 (2017)Subsidiaries: Hitachi Systems, Hitachi Data Systems, MOREDid you know: Hitachi is the world's seventh-largest information technology company by revenue. wikipedia.orgI remember them from the early 80's and they were always considered pretty good?



I believe these cheap Hitachi TVs are no longer made by Hitachi.They're Vestel sets with the name licensed from Hitachi for sale through Argos, Currys, etc.

fishmaster6 m ago

That would really get on your nerves when watching TV. Fortuantely I don't …That would really get on your nerves when watching TV. Fortuantely I don't watch much TV I still hear the bells though.




32414809-uehmV.jpg

bellboys48 s ago

[Image]


You can see why I don't watch TV now, eyes like a Chameleon.

imiskeen11 m ago

Hmm? Not that I want to buy this TV, but from a Brand perspective, I …Hmm? Not that I want to buy this TV, but from a Brand perspective, I always though Hitachi were actually "Known" / "half decent" ?Headquarters: Chiyoda, Tokyo, Tokyo, JapanCEO: Toshiaki Higashihara (1 Apr 2016–)Revenue: 9.162 trillion JPY (2017)Number of employees: 303,887 (2017)Subsidiaries: Hitachi Systems, Hitachi Data Systems, MOREDid you know: Hitachi is the world's seventh-largest information technology company by revenue. wikipedia.orgI remember them from the early 80's and they were always considered pretty good?

25 years have happened since the early 80s. Think about how much other stuff has changed within that timeframe.

McHotpoon9 m ago

Unless they licence their brand name to Argos who slap it on a Vestel TV …Unless they licence their brand name to Argos who slap it on a Vestel TV which has never been touched by any of Hitachi's 300k employees....


Hmm. The Sports Direct of TV Manufacturers. lol. Sad that, but I guess very common for sub £1000 mass market panels.

acj77445 m ago

25 years have happened since the early 80s. Think about how much other …25 years have happened since the early 80s. Think about how much other stuff has changed within that timeframe.


Kind of my point. If they've survived 25 years as a company and in some of their brand forms have an excellent reputation, they must be doing something right. Surely?

imiskeen20 m ago

Hmm? Not that I want to buy this TV, but from a Brand perspective, I …Hmm? Not that I want to buy this TV, but from a Brand perspective, I always though Hitachi were actually "Known" / "half decent" ?Headquarters: Chiyoda, Tokyo, Tokyo, JapanCEO: Toshiaki Higashihara (1 Apr 2016–)Revenue: 9.162 trillion JPY (2017)Number of employees: 303,887 (2017)Subsidiaries: Hitachi Systems, Hitachi Data Systems, MOREDid you know: Hitachi is the world's seventh-largest information technology company by revenue. wikipedia.orgI remember them from the early 80's and they were always considered pretty good?


Hitachi haven't manufactured TVs (for sale in the UK at least) for around 12 years. Hitachi is just another badge stuck on a cheap TV (typically Vestel or UMC). That's not to say this TV won't perform well, while it lasts. Build quality is terrible, buy with 5 year warranty or regret at your leisure.

fishmaster18 m ago

You can see why I don't watch TV now, eyes like a Chameleon.


One eyes going to the shop and the others coming back with the change

My hitachi hd tv last 7 years much to my annoyance ( wanted an excuse to upgrade )

Ha! I stand corrected then. Apparently their reputation for manufacturing excellent "Magic Wands" bares no relevance to their TV making abilities any more. Shame.

I bought a cheap 49" Hitachi at the start of the year because it was full HD. Unfortunately it wasn't up to the standard of my 10 year old HD ready plasma TV. It's OK and I use it daily but it's not a stand out picture, I wish I'd have saved another £100 and bought something better.

I've no problems with the brand but buy cheap, buy twice does stand true. In future I'd research/ read reviews before buying.

A TV is something you should select carefully imo even if it is a 2nd TV. It's something you use every day.

crazygoldfish3 h, 1 m ago

My hitachi hd tv last 7 years much to my annoyance ( wanted an excuse to …My hitachi hd tv last 7 years much to my annoyance ( wanted an excuse to upgrade )


My first plasma TV (real Hitachi) purchased in early 2005 is still in daily use and leaves many modern TVs for dead with its picture quality (though it did cost £2400). As a bonus, the emitted heat is quite nice at this time of year.
By contrast, this isn't related in any way.
Edited by: "damadgeruk" 11th Nov

7 years ago I bought a 42 inch Bush TV after seeing it getting hot here and as this one some of the of the comments were "never heard", "stay away", "cheap stuff" etc.

A couple of weeks ago, it developed a problem, stuck on standby. A problem that can happen to any brand. I opened it and for my surprise the power supply board and main board were exactly the same as the ones used by Samsung. Part number exactly the same.

I fixed it at cost of 70p and it's still going strong. Everybody mentions about the quality of the pictures and when they see the logo they go oh it's a cheap brand. Lol

I really like the Hitachi brand. My parents have a Hitachi LCD that is now 8 years old and still perfect, and their Hitachi fridge freezer is 35 years old and still works fine.

Hitachi love is strong

RealDash1 h, 12 m ago

I really like the Hitachi brand. My parents have a Hitachi LCD that is now …I really like the Hitachi brand. My parents have a Hitachi LCD that is now 8 years old and still perfect, and their Hitachi fridge freezer is 35 years old and still works fine.


That's probably a real Hitachi TV(Hitachi stopped TV manufacture around 2012), Argos Hitachi TVs are Vestel.

Original Poster

I agree that many brands aren’t what they used to be.

I’ve had a few LG TVs which have lasted for years but even they don’t get great reviews nowadays. I’m hoping this will last for a few years at least!

Pure_Evil12 h, 6 m ago

I'm the same. Brand sounds alarm bells with me.


*ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding*

Edited by: "no_Sunshine" 12th Nov

fishmaster12 h, 4 m ago

That would really get on your nerves when watching TV. Fortuantely I don't …That would really get on your nerves when watching TV. Fortuantely I don't watch much TV I still hear the bells though.


Are you two housemates or something?

acj774411 h, 53 m ago

25 years have happened since the early 80s. Think about how much other …25 years have happened since the early 80s. Think about how much other stuff has changed within that timeframe.


I've lost my virginity......

GlentoranMark11 h, 14 m ago

I bought a cheap 49" Hitachi at the start of the year because it was full …I bought a cheap 49" Hitachi at the start of the year because it was full HD. Unfortunately it wasn't up to the standard of my 10 year old HD ready plasma TV. It's OK and I use it daily but it's not a stand out picture, I wish I'd have saved another £100 and bought something better.I've no problems with the brand but buy cheap, buy twice does stand true. In future I'd research/ read reviews before buying. A TV is something you should select carefully imo even if it is a 2nd TV. It's something you use every day.


This one has 4.7 out of 5 stars, if you're talking about purchasing something based on reviews only....

damadgeruk10 h, 24 m ago

My first plasma TV (real Hitachi) purchased in early 2005 is still in …My first plasma TV (real Hitachi) purchased in early 2005 is still in daily use and leaves many modern TVs for dead with its picture quality (though it did cost £2400). As a bonus, the emitted heat is quite nice at this time of year. By contrast, this isn't related in any way.


Do you not watch Tele in the summers then? Or use it as a oven? #AskingForAFriend...

Scarbo7 h, 55 m ago

I agree that many brands aren’t what they used to be. I’ve had a few LG TVs …I agree that many brands aren’t what they used to be. I’ve had a few LG TVs which have lasted for years but even they don’t get great reviews nowadays. I’m hoping this will last for a few years at least!


Just returned a 43" LG 4K TV a few days back after purchasing it 4 weeks back. Picture was dark, dull & fuzzy & viewing angles were rubbish. Had an LG before this one & it was fantastic, bright & had great viewing angles...

Pure_Evil12 h, 19 m ago

I'm the same. Brand sounds alarm bells with me.


ATTENTION PLEASE: Please don't mention the brand name "HI*achi" again in this thread, or our poor friend here would have a seizure with alarm bells ringing everywhere for decades....

Just goes to show the power of brand names - so many brands do not actually make the product you're buying, this is nothing new. Always do your research before buying just on the strength of the brand name!

Think I recall reading a few years back that the issue with these cheap "rent a brand" TV's is not to do with the actual panel as such, but more the rest of (or lack of) the hardware & back lighting options and settings etc?. Have a cheap Beko LCD we've had for over 10 years and still going strong, just annoyed at the lack of processing options and settings even 10 years ago.

Refresh rate issues aside, I'm of the feeling any brand cheap or not is capable of a great picture if it has the processing (and hardware) options and settings available to the user so they can set the TV up to there own preference.

dave9946148 m ago

Think I recall reading a few years back that the issue with these cheap …Think I recall reading a few years back that the issue with these cheap "rent a brand" TV's is not to do with the actual panel as such, but more the rest of (or lack of) the hardware & back lighting options and settings etc?. Have a cheap Beko LCD we've had for over 10 years and still going strong, just annoyed at the lack of processing options and settings even 10 years ago.Refresh rate issues aside, I'm of the feeling any brand cheap or not is capable of a great picture if it has the processing (and hardware) options and settings available to the user so they can set the TV up to there own preference.



...this was all going so well until the use of "there" as the posessive...

My gf tells me they make good 'body massagers'. I'm not sure about their TV's though...
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text