Home / TVs & Audio / TV / Samsung Series 7 UE55B7020 55in LED LCD TV

Samsung Series 7 UE55B7020 55in LED LCD TV review

John Archer



1 of 8

Samsung Series 7 UE55B7020 55in LED LCD TV
  • Samsung Series 7 UE55B7020 55in LED LCD TV
  • Samsung Series 7 UE55B7020 55in LED LCD TV
  • Samsung Series 7 UE55B7020 55in LED LCD TV
  • Samsung Series 7 UE55B7020 55in LED LCD TV
  • Samsung Series 7 UE55B7020 55in LED LCD TV
  • Samsung Series 7 UE55B7020 55in LED LCD TV
  • Samsung Series 7 UE55B7020 55in LED LCD TV
  • Series 7 UE55B7020WW 55" LCD TV (Widescreen, 1920x1080, Freeview, HDTV)


Our Score:


Although I do actually like my job, it's not often that I can honestly say I'm actively looking forward to spending some quality reviewing time with a new TV. But the Samsung UE55B7020 is an honourable exception.

With its combination of a 55in screen, Samsung's awe-inspiring ultra-thin edge LED design concept and, hopefully, the same outstanding picture quality noted previously on the set's smaller UE40B7020 sibling, I really was prepared for the UE55B7020 to show me a thoroughly good time. Especially as its arrival coincided with the arrival of the latest Star Trek movie on Blu-ray, and most excitingly of all, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 on my Xbox 360…

Not surprisingly, the UE55B7020 doesn't disappoint in the slightest aesthetically. In fact, seeing the same 29.9mm depth I saw on the UE40B7020 applied to the rear of a screen as large as 55in across is an even more mind-blowing experience. Plus the sleekness of the bezel together with the see-through centimetre or so of ‘crystal' that extends beyond the main black frame all looks somehow even better when delivered in such generous proportions. I should add, too, that I prefer the no-nonsense black colour scheme of the UE55B7020 to the red-tinged approach of the also-available 550B7000.

The UE55B7020 obviously sports the same connectivity as the UE40B7020. And it's prodigious, with the stand-out options being four HDMIs, not one but two USB ports, and a LAN socket.

Looking at some of these in more detail, the USBs cater for direct playback of MP3 and JPEG files from USB storage devices, as well as enabling a wireless connection with your router if you cough up £40 or so for the necessary optional USB dongle. As for the LAN, it can be used for a hard-wired connection to the Internet, or for accessing files on a DLNA PC.


November 24, 2009, 3:45 pm

As a review site that also covers games consoles, I think it's high time you started to include input lag figures in your TV reviews. It doesn't even have to be done that scientifically - just use the lag calibration tool in one of the Guitar Hero games. Run the test with the various processing features switched off (100Hz etc.), then with them switched on, then give us an idea if the TV's game mode improves matters.

Considering the popularity of console gaming, there aren't enough TV reviews that include input lag figures. This is a highly important consideration for a serious gamer when considering a TV, but it is so often overlooked in reviews.


November 24, 2009, 7:54 pm

For as much as I appreciate the reviews your organisation produces, I would be grateful if they were more grounded in the real world where us, the great unwashed, live.

For example, how many of us really have the need or space for a 55" television, when our modest abode would more realistically host a 32".

I understand the need to dream of "aspirational" stuff, but living in dreams only is a condition best left to the specialists at the Faculty of Medecine.

Keep on the good job, by making it more grounded...


November 24, 2009, 9:10 pm

Kerwood, maybe it's time to have a bath and move somewhere with a bigger bedroom, I bet in ten years time you'll be staring at a 60 inch at least, assuming of course that the programme providers haven't drowned us all in soaps and celeb programmes; nurse, quick, I need more plasma ...


November 24, 2009, 10:18 pm

I'm with Fleabane in spirit. The thing about these reviews of expensive TV sets is that you're not likely to be able to afford them, but it's a glimpse into the future, and what features are likely to make it into the cheaper sets in a couple of years time.

Plus, it's interesting to see how the high-end stuff fares, in much the same way that it's interesting to see supercars reviewed on Top-Gear. Although, it's always good to have more affordable stuff reviewed, but I believe reviews like this are the exception rather then the norm.


November 24, 2009, 10:41 pm

Dear Fleabane,

Moving somewhere with a bigger bedroom would not help as, contrary to you, I watch television in the study or the drawing room. You are probably right that in ten years time you will be watching 60" TVs as there is little chance that by then you'll have reconciled yourself with the size of your manhood.


November 24, 2009, 10:59 pm

Dear Pbryanw,

I beg to disagree when you state "I believe reviews like this are the exception rather then the norm". If you care to look at the TVs section of this website, you will notice that the latest reviewed TVs are 40" up to 58" in size, and none at the 26" to 37" bracket most people are actually considering for the forseable future.

Are you prone too to the shower room syndrome?


November 25, 2009, 1:19 am

What country are you guys in? I don't think I know a single person with a TV under 42" as their main entertainment source. Sure...I know people who have 28-32" for a second TV in the bedroom or something, but a 26" TV in my living room would be like watching a digital photo frame. I actually downsized a couple of inches when I purchased my last plasma and I'm still at 50". Walk into a Costco and 95% of the televisions they sell are 42" or larger.


November 25, 2009, 1:26 am


I'm not sure that's true. Anyone here thinking of buying a 26" in the forseable future?

If you take a look at the average high street TV department these days, the majority of TVs that they display are 40 inches or above. If this didn't reflect buyers' preferences then these shops wouldn't make much money. I tried to buy a small TV for the kitchen not long ago, and I really had to search for one. Large TV's just don't cost as much as they used to, so that's what most people seem to buy.


November 25, 2009, 2:16 am

Just bought a 46" Panasonic TX-P46G10 last week for £750 after reading about it in TR (great review John!). I thought it might be too big for the living room (I live in a bog standard 3 bed semi) but it's pretty much perfectly sized.

And I have a 32" Toshiba 32AV615D in my bedroom (thanks again John). It was only £299 which is definitely within most people's reach and definitely doesn't overwhelm the room.

Fair enough this Samsung is a bit expensive but you can buy a hell of a lot of telly (price and size) for not too much if you shop about.


November 25, 2009, 4:22 am

@Kerwood - Hehe, no I just have a normal(?) sized 32" LCD - no big TV's for me. If I had a big enough room I would get a 40-55" but I don't like it when the TV is out of proportion to the room, and my living room is small.

Having had a second look at the recent TV reviews, there does seem to be a lack of 26-32" reviews. You have to go back to September when there were a couple. So, I'd second that vote for reviews of more affordable, smaller, TVs. I especially wouldn't mind a review of the 32" LED TV (UE32B6000) from Samsung - as it's one of the first at that size to have LED backlighting.

The real Wibble

December 26, 2010, 5:47 am

Looks like this is now discontinued. It's been out of stock with DSG (Currys, Dixons, PCWorld) for the last two months.

Recommendations for the best alternative with LED backlighting, not sidelighting?

(BTW, need 47" as have a decent sized lounge to put it in)

comments powered by Disqus