Click Here - Orb Audio Speaker Sale
Home audio & video: Plasma vs. LCD or is it Myths vs Lies
For me it is about which tHDTV displays the best picture
by tlh523 - 11/15/07 10:21 AM In reply to: Plasma vs. LCD or is it Myths vs Lies by gabereyesI purchased an SONY 46" LCD XBR3 a year ago. Fortunately I had the CNET buying guide to work from, as the retail stores were just trying to sell me on what they have the best margins on. For my preference it was between a Pioneer Plasma and an SONY Bravia XBR3. Fortunately I could compare the sets side by side. It was a difficult choice as both were quality sets. I felt the SONY has a crisper picture with plenty of color brilliance, while the Pioneer had bolder colors but the picture was not nearly as sharp....
It's "Horses for courses", isn't it?
by Elgeraldo - 11/15/07 11:01 AM In reply to: Plasma vs. LCD or is it Myths vs Lies by gabereyesThere certainly is a load of old cobblers written about the failings of both technologies. I firmly believe that all the current technologies are as viable as each other, and it's just down to personal taste and what kind of viewing environment you're buying for.
I own a 40" Samsung 1080p LCD, which is now 9 months old. It gets used about 3-6 hours a day; no problems so far. No defective pixels from new, and none yet.
I would have preferred a plasma because I believe, in general:
* Plasma has more natural colors - LCD colors are very bright and saturated. Plasma looks more like a traditional CRT (my opinion).
* Plasma has better black level - no light output for 'off' pixels compared to nearly no light output for each dark pixel on an LCD.
* The MTBF for both technologies being about the same, I figured that plasma pixels are more likely to fail in the 'off' state, since the pixels are light sources rather than light blockers. Brightly colored dots in a dark scene are more irritating than black dots in a bright scene.
I bought LCD because:
* Plasma displays tend to have reflective screens (despite the purple anti-glare coating), whereas LCDs have matte screen finishes. My living room has three large windows with no blinds or curtains. Fixing that would have cost the same as a TV. This was the main reason. My LCD set produces next to no glare on a sunny day. Our old CRT set was almost unwatchable in the same conditions.
* 1080 pixel high Plasmas were about 5 times the price of similar spec LCDs at the time.
I only briefly considered rear-projection and rejected it because:
* Depth of the enclosure is far larger than either LCD or plasma.
* Light output not as bright as LCD or plasma (my opinion).
* Funky 3D, grainy effect picture (my opinion).
* Side viewing angle is laughable, compared to LCD and plasma. I rarely get to sit down and watch TV from the optimal viewing position.
* Random bulb replacements at 10%-20% the cost of the set each time.
* Need a decent UPS to prevent bulb damage on power failures.
LCD vs. Plasma
by dinox64 - 11/15/07 12:37 PM In reply to: It's "Horses for courses", isn't it? by Elgeraldo5/10/2005,TH-42PWD7UY and a 4 year in home warranty for $1990 out the door from a distributor.Bought due to the forums here on CNET back then.Only component cable inputs,but everyone I know that bought LCD,even with HDMI wish they bought Panasonic plasma now.That's at a normal viewing distance of 3 times the diagonal of the screen.I've seen a lot of side by side comparisons before buying,for my eyes plasma is the way to go.
This unit is not as much a tv as it is a monitor and input cards can be changed out to others.If I wish I can put in HDMI and get 720p/1080i.I don't feel the need right now.As far as purchasing anything I research intensely.Panasonic and Pioneer have the most optional screen aspects.Full screen,just(anamorphic),normal 4:3,widescreen 16:9,zoom(I can move a square anywhere on screen and zoom in only on that item,not just make the screen bigger) and Panasonic auto.A lot of manufacturers only have two settings normal and zoom which makes the picture bigger,but then you loose some of it off the screen.
Panasonic has a screen saver mode which moves the picture so fast you can't notice it.I have hit pause on the DVR and done something else for five minutes or more with no burn in effect.Now LCD,I have a Funjai 20"HD,yes that's is make,in the bedroom.Bought for $399 back in late 06' which back then was a good price.Still is really.I don't have HD programming but I swear this little tv has better picture quality than othe LCDs i've seen.I might be a little crazy or maybe I just like watching my tv's better than other peoples.
When in the electronic stores and looking around at the setups.I find myself drawn to Plasma,even when I don't know it's Plasma.It's all personal preferance I think.I find it funny that some people buy strictly on the suggestion of sales people and what the sales guy likes instead of waht they want.Seems no matter where you go,they utter Sony like robots.Ask why,they say "because it's Sony".Who knows what my next purchase will be,but I can guarantee one thing.It will be because I read and looked at everything and bought what I thought was best.
Cnet is no better.
by Pescatarian - 11/15/07 12:08 PM In reply to: Plasma vs. LCD or is it Myths vs Lies by gabereyesAll the lies and myths that people are talking about here are repeated in articles by Cnet. Here are just two of the many pages done on plasma vs lcd on Cnet.com:
http://www.cnet.com/4520-7874_1-5108443-2.html
http://www.cnet.com.au/tvs/0,239035250,240036500,00.htm
Both of these web sites point out all these problems that lcd's and plasmas have. Gabereyes says they're all myths, then why does Cnet not call them myths on their columns?
There are problems with plasmas and lcd's like black levels, contrast, viewing angles and resolution. Come on techies, don't fall for the "Don't worry, the problems of the past are gone." or "Just pay more money for a newer model and you won't have the same problems as the old."
So I blame this confusion, not only on the sales-people not-know-it-alls, but also on a dear friends at Cnet.
Smaller plasma screen options would be nice
by Analyst7 - 11/15/07 12:45 PM In reply to: Cnet is no better. by PescatarianI prefer the plasma picture for its natural, unprocessed look. Why can't I find a screen smaller than 42" for my bedroom? LCD's have many screen sizes from 15" up. Somebody please provide a 32" or a 37" plasma option. There's likely a whole market of folks that don't like the LCD look but want a smaller size in a plasma screen.
Thanks,
Analyst7
LG is coming out with one--32" plasma
by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
- 11/15/07 2:07 PM
In reply to: Smaller plasma screen options would be nice by Analyst7
Here's the scoop:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/21/lg-announces-first-32-inch-plasma-tv-does-anyone-care/
Thank you
by Analyst7 - 11/15/07 2:27 PM In reply to: LG is coming out with one--32" plasma by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Well, maybe's there hope for a smaller plasma, but why would LG provide one with such poor resolution and a high price point, as if it is designed to fail?
Thanks for finding the option.
Analyst7
To analyst7 and Pescatarian
by dinox64 - 11/16/07 5:41 PM In reply to: Smaller plasma screen options would be nice by Analyst7Analyst;Panasonic does or did make a 37" plasma.I believe it was a monitor and not a tv.Does'nt matter though if you have cable or satalite.
Pescatarian;I did'nt buy on Cnets recomendation but on other audiophiles(if that's what they're called or like to be called)opinions of what to look at and compare to.I know you did'nt say I did but just letting you know.In these forums you learn from others what products are worth looking into and you can give your/my opinions others can use to research and shop with.
my decision
by ludedude25 - 11/15/07 2:24 PM In reply to: Plasma vs. LCD or is it Myths vs Lies by gabereyesI knew I wanted a new flat panel last year and the only main reason I decided a LCD was it's been around for quite a few years. Though not used 8hrs a day or so I have laptops from the early 90's that still have good screens, that and I wanted to be able to use it as a HTPC or monitor.
This year I may get another tv for the bedroom and again a LCD only because they don't make plasma's smaller then 42" or at least I haven't seen any. 26-32" is plenty big for a bedroom.
But I don't shun down plasma's. Who knows down the road when or if I upgrade my living room tv I may get a plasma.
I say do research and pay a little extra money to get a good brand with a good reputation and you should have a nice tv that will last you 15-20 years hopefully.
Plasma or LCD?
by mjd420nova - 11/15/07 2:51 PM In reply to: Plasma vs. LCD or is it Myths vs Lies by gabereyesHaving installed large numbers of both types and serviced an equal number, I've come to the conclusion that LCD is the way to go. I have noticed some faults in both types and will explain them here. Plasma units and I'm talking about large screen types, are much heavier than their LCD counter parts. Plasma units also creat much more heat, causing the paint on the walls around them to discolor, just like if you hung a picture on the wall in a room with a fireplace. LCD units are not as heavy and don't create as much heat but do get warm. LCD units are more liable to be damaged during shipping or moving. Most faults of earlier units of both types such as blurring during fast action screens have disappeared in the newer units and not a factor anymore. Burnin on plasma screens is not something I have encountered except in computer displays where units are often left with log on screens in place for extended periods. Most plasma screens will have a larger viewing angle unless a specific unit engineered for wide angle viewing is purchased. Warmup times for plasma screens is gratly reduced from earlier units but is istill noticable compared to LCD types which have almost no warm up times, this is due to the fact that plasma screens are actually elements placed within a vacuum and some warmup is required to achieve full cathode activity and full display brightness. Glare has never been a problem as all the units I've worked with/on have had excellent anti-glare screens. Plasma units will consime about 20% more power but will offer slightly better "black" contrasts. A smart shopper will make their right choice for them when allowed to view units in side by side comparisons in most showrooms. All in all, they are very comparable with very little to distinguish one from the other. Ambient lighting is always a factor regardless of the type chosen but premature ageing in plasma types where bright lighting is present is due to users cranking intensity and contrast levels beyond thier normal ranges but LCD types are susceptable too.
The Facts
by r1208 - 11/15/07 3:25 PM In reply to: Plasma vs. LCD or is it Myths vs Lies by gabereyesI actually work in the audio/video feild as an installer. I have noticed more people are buying LCDs over plasmas. I know there are a lot of false information concerning Plasma televisions. First off your statement about plasmas dimming over time,is partially true, your right there is no bulb, but rather the entire tv is a bulb. The way plasma televisions work is that there are millions of tiny capsuls filled with phosfurus gas wich are heated by electrodes to produce the picture and color. The result is more life like vibrant colors, wich no other television can compare. However over a period of time they will lose their vibrancy, that is a fact. The thing is over a period of time any television will show flaws. Glare is still a huge issue and a big complaint amongst plasma owners who i talked to. Companys like pioneer have produced a model this year that has improved this flaw greatly. Black level with plasma tvs, the black is only as good as the screen when its turned off. This means turn off your set, what you see when the tv is off is your black level. Plasmas do tend to produce a more true black then LCDs. Now for LCDs, they still do have motion blur problems. They have improved but you can still notice. They are a little sharper. LCDs are the brightest TV Technology out there. However sometimes they can be too bright. I know this because i own an LCD. I do not prefer LCD over Plasmas. I think they are both great, and are much better than the old CRT televisions. Consider having a proffesional mount your TV for you. I say this not because i work in this field, but because i have seen many people screw it up! I have even seen a few TVs fall off the wall. The fact is unless you know a lot about the way your house is built you may not sucessfully be able to hang your TV on the wall. I have my self tried to mount a TV to certain Walls that were just not possible, and I have hung hundreds of TVs since i have been doing this. One thing i forgot to mention was burn in. This is not so much an issue with newer plasmas. But there is still the problem of Image retention. The Difference between Burn in and Image retention is that Image retention is not permanant. Most plasmas have a feature to correct this. An easy way to avoid this is by turning the contrast on your plasma down, i would also recommend doing this with an LCD as well. The fact is TV manufacturers turn up all the settings on their Televisions so they will stand out in the store. Turning down some of the settings on your TV will cut down its power consumption and allow the set to run cooler. Finnaly as for buying TVs, do your research, read consumer reviews, like i assume most of you are doing. Dont buy anything fresh on the market, give it some time to see if other people have problems with it. Also know that you get what you pay for, so if you buy a cheap set dont expect a good picture. The prices on plasmas and lcds have came down dramatically since last year. A cheap 42" plasma will cost you $1000 an High quality set will run you $2600. With anything you buy there is High, medium, and low quatlity and you definatly get what you pay for. A Kia doesnt drive anything Like a Mercedes. Sorry for all the rambling but i think it is important as a proffesional in this feild to clear up some of this misinformation. I Have No Bias one way or the other when it comes to LCDs Vs Plasma. The best thing i can say is go to any store and just look at the two side by side and then you decide what you think looks better, and stop listing to what your friends tell you.
Real-world experience is trid and true.
by erniemink - 11/15/07 4:28 PM In reply to: Plasma vs. LCD or is it Myths vs Lies by gabereyesI remember going to Ultimate Electronics, Circuit City and Best Buy, and honestly I will have to say the best TV tried and true is that of the JVC HD-ILA models. Did you know not ever did I have to change any settings for picture? They have automated settings you can select from the remote control that adjust even to a film-like proper state. They have excellent color and the sound even from 2 speakers is very good. Also most people that I Have seen that describe some of what the reader said above I will admit do not always show they understand how a television is supposed to produce and how to set it up and what types of connections are best. First of all, all high definition broadcast, cable and satellite is 1080i, NOT 1080p. IT is still high definition. THe advantage of 1080p comes mostly from movies and media that is produced originally in that exact format and recorded and processed in digital high definition 1080p (progressive). high definition on either stil is superior to 480i, 480p and even 720p and yes, there is a difference. HDMI is the best connection and the cables you need to buy should be able to support the full bandwith of HDMI version 1.3. By the way the newest crops of DVD players, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray both produce 1080p now and upconverting. Folks this is a technological world and we are in a race of so much going on and pushed progress. If you want the benefits, understand what they are and how to get them, and remember a higher contrast ration does not always make a better television. At this point I have not seen any plasma that will outdo the longevity and the economical benefits of a good LCD like the JVC models, and for the most part LCD models look as good or best plasmas.
Re:Real world experience
by Pannylover4ever - 11/17/07 11:29 AM In reply to: Real-world experience is trid and true. by ernieminkIn response to erniemink above
Both 720P and 1080i are considered high definition. All high definition broadcasts are not 1080i, they are either 720P or 1080i depending on the network.
The trade off between 720P and 1080i is you trade frame rate for resolution. 720P is 60 frames per second, 1080i is 30 frames per second (1080i/60 is de-interlaced to produce 1080P/30) on most screens.
The JVC HD-ILA is a LCoS screen which is rear projection, not LCD.
Although LCoS looks nice, it has the same drawback as any RP screen, limited viewing angles and a bright spotlight effect in the picture.
You have to replace the lamp every 6k hours or so and at close to $300 each, you will be spending $3k on lamps when either LCD or Plasma will have reached their lifespan of 60k hours.
So you are either confusing the LCoS and LCD or are mixing the two together.
The reliability on LCoS from both Sony and JVC has been far less than stellar, with the optical engine failing on many models causing them to be rather unreliable.
Plasma vs. LCD FUDs
by rfpurgahn - 11/15/07 5:01 PM In reply to: Plasma vs. LCD or is it Myths vs Lies by gabereyesYou also get what you pay for, being a smart shopper helps.
I bought a Samsung 50" plasma three years ago after a lot of research. At the time Tweeter was wanting about $4200 for the same one I bought for $2300 including a four year maintenance plan (including re-fills, haha FUD). Haven't had a bit of trouble with it, got the HD satellite dish and receiver from Directv hooked up to it about a year and half ago. Before that it was just the regular.
Burn In FUD: Hasn't been an issue for years due to better refresh rates.
Bought a small Sony Bravia 26" LCD for the bedroom a week ago, haven't even hooked it up yet waiting for my articulating wall mount but it'll be interesting comparing the two, but when I saw it operate at Best Buy the clarity and color was just as good as my plasma. Will let you know what I think.
I agree with everything 'jcrobso' wrote. Sounds like the two of us think alike. A lot of stuff is common sense; there's no substitute.
What I'm looking for is a good HD recorder that works correctly with Directv menus. Tivo is ok but don't want recurring monthly fees, just want to buy it, use it and forget it.
One last parting FUD about how hot plasma's work. They make it sound like if you touch it that it burns you. Bull, put your hands on a receiver and its about the same. You can leave it there and it won't burn, not even close; you can leave it all day long if one wishes. Try that with a light bulb.
Good post, but...
by bigsaxman122 - 11/15/07 5:13 PM In reply to: Plasma vs. LCD or is it Myths vs Lies by gabereyesYou have written an interesting post about TV's. It's just a bit confusing that sentences run together, proper grammar is missing, spelling errors...
Yes, I've done these, too. We all do. And the thoughts are there, showing intelligent points. It would be easier to read, though, and more effective at getting your ideas across, if you would consider your readers and fix it up for them.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
