I have bought in the main cheap, but also have inherited expensive, it seems even cheap today have internet and can record onto and read off an external hard drive, but in the main my TV is no more than a monitor, one does have both terrestrial and satellite inputs, but the satellite is rubbish and not many terrestrial programs available in this area.
Be it a satellite box or a TV except for the rubbish tuner on that one TV, the main difference seems to be the electronic program guide. Some give a full 7 day guide on all channels, others have a problem getting now and next, with one box I find the guide depends on which channel I am watching.
Sky works seamlessly, however the cheap TV's and boxes vary, Panasonic was good with electronic guide, LC was useless in comparison, the Polaroid was useless to start with then it improved, clearly it auto down loaded some software update. Also some internet functions have disappeared, as BBC has changed iplayer the TV has lost the ability to connect, and in some cases you need a computer to register the TV, so unless you have a computer the service can't be used.
I use to say no point in HDR or HD as I have not got HDR or HD eyes, and with a 24 inch TV that is likely true, but as we get bigger and bigger TV's the HDR does help as does HDMI or Scart leads, with a 43" screen sitting just 6 foot away you can see the difference. However in my living room I am so far away from TV I have to stand up and walk closer to read the program guide, so for me HDR or HD is not required.
We as a human focus on some thing and record the info then focus on something else, and our brain builds up a picture, so what we think we are seeing is a range of different images stitched together by our brain, when I take a photo however in the main it is just one 14 bit image, and software in the camera can convert it into a 8 bit image, so to capture the dynamic range it has to select which bits to keep, so to capture a high dynamic range one can use better software than what is standard in the camera and also use more than one image and combine them, however as the range is increased so the picture becomes wishy washy and it looses its punch, so with HD we also use local mapping to try to return the punch into the picture, and so we display a picture more like what our brain would do with our own eyes. But the range of the display has to match the range of the image, so the printed photo has a far higher range to the same photo displayed on a monitor, and the monitors also vary as to what they can display, when using a monitor to view a picture for printing then you need to calibrate the monitor to give some where near what it shows on the printed page, however with video our eyes and brain are still combining still pictures to give the impression of movement and I am not convinced that we need HD in the same way, I use a program that turns stills into a moving display, zooming in and out and across the still (Picturestoexe) and pictures I would bin as a still can be shown as a moving picture OK as we simply don't have the time for our eyes to see the imperfections.
Also it depends on what you watch, National Geographic show some really good films on nature which would benefit from HDR and HD, however even if the Good the bad and the ugly has some wonderful scenery I am now worried about that, it's more who will shoot who and how, so don't need HDR or HD, and watched it enough times, as long as sound is OK can still watch even a very poor image. I am often playing on tablet while watching TV so in the main only the sound matters, I glance up to see the exciting parts.
So one mans meat etc. It depends on what you want from the TV.
