LCD or Plasma

[Guest zipperzone]

Shopping for a new flat screen TV. Lookiing for about a 40 inch one.

 

Can't decide if I should go LCD or Plasma. I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts or recomendations. Thanks guys

[Louis]

I like the plasma better than the LCD for a few reasons. The LCD tv, has a bulb that will have to be replaces every 2,000 or 3,000 hours. From what I gather the bulbs are a couple of hundred dollars each.

The plasma TV's also have a higher level of contrast. About the best contrast I have seen with an LCD is 800 to 1, but it could be higher now.

Many people suggest that you go plasma, when the TV gets larger than 37"

[Epigonos]

The problem with the Plasma, however, is that when it burns out that's it. The whole damn thing must be replaced. At that point the cost of a new bulb for the LCD looks good. It is definitely true that the contrast on the Plasma is marginally better.

[jackhammer91406]

Well, I looked at both and chose the flat screen HD plasma with 1080 dpi for the clarity. I am very happy with my 42". Got it at Fry's for about $1200. It looks nice hanging on the wall in my living room and the picture is amazing on the HD channels.

[Lookin]

I’ve been going through the same analysis, and here’s what I’ve figured out so far:

 

1. In a fairly dark room, a plasma TV has a higher contrast picture, so your blacks will be blacker and your colors will be brighter than on an LCD screen. BUT, in a brighter room, one where you leave the shades up in the daytime or the lights on at night, a plasma TV picture will wash out considerably, since its screen will reflect the ambient light much more than an LCD screen will. So, in a dark room, the plasma picture will seem brighter and, in a bright room, the LCD picture will seem brighter. If you're a real purist, and like a movie theater experience, and have your TV in a darkened room, you'll probably like a plasma screen better. If you're a more casual viewer, and mend your socks or organize your porn collection while watching TV, you'll probably like an LCD screen better.

 

2. The “refresh rate” of a plasma screen is faster than that of an LCD screen. So, when a hockey puck, or a load of cum, whizzes by, there may be some trailing pixels on the LCD screen that you won’t see on the plasma screen. However, the LCD folks are improving refresh rates rapidly as the months go by, and this is becoming less of a problem. Just be sure to check out the set you’re thinking of buying, and make sure that fast moving objects don’t appear blocky or pixelated. (The knowledgeable sales folks call them "artifacts".)

 

3. Some plasma screens are subject to “burn-in”, in which the little PBS logo at the bottom of the screen may eventually become part of the picture on every channel you watch. This would happen only if you have the same channel playing many hours a day, for a long time. Again, the plasma folks are working on this problem and it shouldn’t be a major issue with the newer sets. Just make sure the plasma TV you buy has some newer technology dedicated to eliminating burn-in.

 

There are some other differences, like ease of installation and viewing angle, and here’s a website that has some relevant info.

 

http://www.flattvpeople.com/tutorials/lcd-vs-plasma.asp

 

I’ve pretty much decided to go with an LCD set, probably 46” - 52”. And I’ve definitely decided to go for a high-definition (1080 dpi) model. Even though there’s not a lot of high-definition content today, there should be more and more as the months go by. And once I’ve got that sumbitch hanging on the wall, I’m not planning on replacing it anytime soon.

 

Good luck!

[Rick Munroe]

>BUT, in a brighter room,

>one where you leave the shades up in the daytime or the lights

>on at night, a plasma TV picture will wash out considerably,

>since its screen will reflect the ambient light much more than

>an LCD screen will.

 

We have a skylight and it gets pretty bright in here so we're opting for LCD, too. I've heard that Lucy looks better on LCD anyway...the plasma tends to dull her zaniness.

[+ LIguy]

I just purchased a Sharp Aquos 37in LCD for my mom.Her den is very sunlit during the day and the picture on the set is very bright and sharp.I only have it connected to satellite right now without the HD package but I can just imagine how awesome it will be when I connect her to Verizon FIOS.If you have a 6th Ave. Electronics store near you check out their low prices.

[+ BenjaminNicholas]

Why go with either? Why not go with a the new slimline RPG's? The picture beats BOTH LCD and Plasma and will cost less for newer technology.

 

I can personally recommend JVC's flagship HD-ILA line. It's got an incredible 1080p pic and the automatic iris creates outstanding contrast and truly inky, rich black levels.

 

Email me privately if you need more info: [email protected]

 

 

BN

[Guest zipperzone]

>Why go with either? Why not go with a the new slimline

>RPG's? The picture beats BOTH LCD and Plasma and will cost

>less for newer technology.

 

What the hell is a RPG? - Never heard of it!

[Lookin]

The JVC HD-ILA sets sure sound good, but “slimline” may be a misnomer. Unless I’ve missed something, these are rear-projection TV’s and are 16” - 21” deep, rather than the 3” - 5” of a flat-panel display.

 

They’re floor-standing units, rather than wall-mounted, no?

 

Unfortunately, the only place I’ve got for a large screen TV in my living room is just above the fireplace, so I’m limited to a flat-screen wall-mounted TV. Too bad, because JVC’s prices are great for these impressive rear-projection sets.

[fedssocr1]

and most rear projectors have to be viewed from dead in front of the set to get the full effect. Get much off center and the picture becomes unwatchable. And even "slimline" sets are bigger and heavier than LCDs and Plasmas.

 

I have a 50" Panasonic plasma that I love. I hope to upgrade to their 58" model eventually. My viewing room gets fairly bright during the day, but there is no direct sunlight on the screen, and it looks great.

 

You might want to go to a store and take a look and compare the two. Pick a higher end store like Tweeter if you have one near you or even the Magnolia setup inside some Best Buy stores. They have some TVs in real life-like viewing rooms rather than just row upon row of screens.

 

The new Sony Bravia LCD's are pretty spectacular though. I saw a bunch of them when I was in Bangkok last year and I was amazed.

 

Go for the biggest screen size you can afford and have space for. The widescreen aspect ratio will make the screen seem smaller than a regular 4:3 ratio screen of the same nominal measurement.

 

I think you will find that whichever you pick, you will be pleased.

[Guest zipperzone]

>The new Sony Bravia LCD's are pretty spectacular though. I saw

>a bunch of them when I was in Bangkok last year and I was

>amazed.

 

That is the model I've been considering. It looked very good in the store, but then they only demonstrate with HD DVDs. I'm more concerned with what it will look like watching everyday shows such as CNN, Brothers & Sisters etc.

 

I'm a rather low tech guy. When buying a car and the salesman asks if I want to see the engine, my answer is usually, "no thanks, I presume it has one" So when I talk to a TV salesperson, I am immediately lost and confused with all the technical jargon he throws at me. And I suspect it is done on purpose to confuse the buyer, God forbid I find a pretty one - I'd probably buy whatever he shoves at me.

 

I know the physical appearance of the set when off (or on for that matter)shouldn't be the prime consideration. But I rather like the appearance of the Plasmas as the glass screen looks very cool and with-it. The LCD on the other hand have a dull appearance to them that is not as atractive.

 

I have been told that the latest plasmas have the same longevity as LCDs, which I understand was not the case when originally introduced. Is that true? I hate to spend 3 - 4 thousand on something that could be considered as a disposable. How many viewing hours should one expect from each type? If the LCD needs a $200 bulb replacement every now and then, does that mean they can go on for ever if you just keep replacing the bulbs?

 

Thanks for all your comments and if any of you have any more that could be helpful, pls post them.

[Lookin]

Unless you watch a LOT of TV, I wouldn’t worry too much about the set's longevity. For a plasma TV, the screen will be at half of its original brightness after 30,000 - 60,000 hours. If you watch eight hours a day, that’s 10 - 20 years. And an LCD lamp should last even longer.

 

You’re smart to ask the sales person to turn on CNN, in addition to playing an HD DVD. Some of these high definition sets do a pretty poor job of displaying low definition signals. HOWEVER, that’s usually because they haven’t been calibrated properly for displaying low definition content in the store.

 

Which brings up another point. These sets are generally not plug-and-play. They will need some calibration (adjustment) once you get them home. And you will need to hook them up to your cable box, DVD player, audio system, and/or your computer. Plus, if you’re going to hang it on the wall, you will probably need some help. Most stores offer an installation package for a few hundred dollars. You may find this very helpful, especially if the technician is buff and will work with his shirt off.

 

Since you’re looking at Sony Bravia’s, and it’s pretty you want, consider the Bravia KDL-46XBR2.

http://www.sonystyle.com/intershoproot/eCS/Store/en/imagesProducts/650x650/KDL46XBR2.jpg

It’s got a nice glass border and, for an extra $300, you can replace the silver bezel with one that’s Arctic White, Pacific Blue, Velvet Black, Scarlet Red, or Sienna Brown.

 

Here’s another link to an LCD buying guide, which can answer more questions, and which includes a list of the top-selling sets:

 

http://www.lcdtvbuyingguide.com/lcdtelevision/lcdtv.shtml

[+ deej]

>Unless you watch a LOT of TV, I wouldn’t worry too much about the set's longevity.

 

However, pay attention to the published operating environment recommendations for whatever you buy. I can't remember specifics, but I've heard that either plasma or LCD (and I can't remember which) is not recommended at high elevations.

 

(I have family in the Denver area, where it's a consideration.)

 

Just as recipes have different cooking instructions for high-altitude, so do televisions. Go figure!

[Guest n2colour]

Lookin's replies (and suggestions) are spot-on, I think. That Bravia model is probably the one I'm buying soon.

 

To me, Sony still has the best picture, but Sharp comes damn close for a lot less $$. I'd look at equivalent Sharp & Sony models side-by-side. (A close friend of mine who lives in Japan and has almost always bought Sony only purchased a Sharp about 6 months ago.)

 

Having said Sony has a better picture, I'm pretty much convinced it is like color film in the old days: a matter of taste. If you shooting landscapes or liked green/blues then Kodak Ektachrome was best. If shooting portraits or liked orange/reds then Agfa was best. And if you just wanted cheap slide film that hopefully wouldn't rip when you advanced it, Fuji was best :+ (I guess this really dates me now.)

[Louis]

When it comes to different models and makes of TV's its like choosing escorts, it all comes down to personal preference....

[+ Lucky]

I bought the Sharp Aquos 37 inch LCD HD TV two years ago for $3000, which was a big drop from what my friend paid ($3700.) Now the same TV is half the price. Moral of the story...buy next year!

[pierrot]

Interesting info. It sounds like so much trouble and money. Maybe I'll just wait some more.

[+ LIguy]

>I bought the Sharp Aquos 37 inch LCD HD TV two years ago for

>$3000, which was a big drop from what my friend paid ($3700.)

>Now the same TV is half the price. Moral of the story...buy

>next year!

 

I paid 980.00 for the sharp aquos 37 in lcd hd 4 weeks ago.