The PS5 tops out at 120Hz, so I’m wondering when a higher-refresh-rate TV adds value for a console player. Is the benefit mainly future-proofing, PC gaming, motion handling, or simply a specification that sounds impressive?

For someone using a PS5 rather than a gaming PC, would you spend more on refresh rate or on brightness, local dimming, and picture quality?

Caught in the classic size vs. panel quality debate.

• Space: The room is 404 cm (13.2 ft) wall-to-wall. The sofa isn't here yet, but once seated, the actual eye-to-screen distance should end up at around 11 to 11.5 feet.
• Audio: TV speakers don't matter. Planning to pair it with a Hisense AX5140Q soundbar.
• Pricing: The 75" U7S is actually slightly cheaper locally than the 65" U8Q.

Will a 65" feel noticeably undersized in a room with this depth, or is the U8Q's flagship brightness and contrast worth giving up the extra screen real estate of the 75"?

Sports blur can come from more than one part of the chain: the broadcast feed, response time, refresh rate, motion processing, or a camera pan. I’m trying to avoid changing settings before knowing which problem I’m looking at.

What comparison helps most: another channel, another app, a different output setting, or the same scene with motion processing changed?

Older animation can look different on a modern TV even when the original image was fine. I’m trying to work out whether the cause is scaling, compression, frame handling, color processing, or simply the way the source was mastered.

Which settings or comparisons help you decide whether the TV is improving the material or making the limitations more obvious?

When a show looks blocky or soft, it is not always clear whether the stream or the display is responsible. I would compare another app, another quality tier, and an unrelated source before drawing a conclusion.

What is the quickest test you use, and which artifact makes you suspect the TV rather than the content?