I like LED, followed by plasma, with LCD last.
LCD, Plasma or LED
- Thread starter mjoekingz28
- Start date
- Status
I think you'll find that an LED tv is an LCD ...
it just used LED as the backlighting rather than CCFL
it just used LED as the backlighting rather than CCFL
+1
A lot of people think LED is a new "type' of TV technology - they don't get that it's actually just the backlighting technology of LCD TVs.
A lot of people think LED is a new "type' of TV technology - they don't get that it's actually just the backlighting technology of LCD TVs.
Yeah I occasionally get to work in Home Theater and get to explain the difference to people. Heck, I do everyday with monitors too. But to me anyway, the difference in picture quality is noticeable.
Patman
Staff member
Originally Posted By: hillclimber
I would recommend a 40'' if you can swing it. I have a 32'' in my living room and I now laugh at how small it is. I'm shopping for a 40'' or 42'' to replace it and will relegate the 32'' to bedroom duty. I'm 45 and having some difficulty seeing scores, etc, on it.
The price difference between the 40-42" TVs and a 50 inch one are now so small that you might as well just go straight for the 50". I've seen 50 inch plasmas for under $600 up here a lot over the past few weeks.
I would recommend a 40'' if you can swing it. I have a 32'' in my living room and I now laugh at how small it is. I'm shopping for a 40'' or 42'' to replace it and will relegate the 32'' to bedroom duty. I'm 45 and having some difficulty seeing scores, etc, on it.
The price difference between the 40-42" TVs and a 50 inch one are now so small that you might as well just go straight for the 50". I've seen 50 inch plasmas for under $600 up here a lot over the past few weeks.
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
+1
A lot of people think LED is a new "type' of TV technology - they don't get that it's actually just the backlighting technology of LCD TVs.
Sheepishly puts hand up. That was me until I read this thread. Good to know.
+1
A lot of people think LED is a new "type' of TV technology - they don't get that it's actually just the backlighting technology of LCD TVs.
Sheepishly puts hand up. That was me until I read this thread. Good to know.
You should go to www.avsforum.com and read up. AVS forum is to home theater and electronics as BITOG is to oil.
Im sure its been mentioned, but it quite subjective and depends on your viewing habits, not to mention what you were watching before and how serious/demanding you are of video.
For me, I average about 6 hrs a week, only watch at night and 95% of my viewing is DVDs. Also didnt want one that "dominated" the living room scene. Plasma won out for me.
Did my research and watched many sets, including friends sets in a controlled environment (for me, that means in the dark). I just bought and am awaiting shipment of a brand new 42" Samsung plasma set for $420 total. Only 720p, but 1080 content is lacking for the 5% of brodcast TV I watch, and DVDs dont really benefit from 1080 IMO. At a viewing distance of 13', I didnt see the limited pros of 1080 worth the extra cost (additional $180).
TV is not a priority for me and I didnt want to spend a lot, but wanted something nice. Having a 19" CRT set for the past few years, I expect to be very happy with my new set.
For me, I average about 6 hrs a week, only watch at night and 95% of my viewing is DVDs. Also didnt want one that "dominated" the living room scene. Plasma won out for me.
Did my research and watched many sets, including friends sets in a controlled environment (for me, that means in the dark). I just bought and am awaiting shipment of a brand new 42" Samsung plasma set for $420 total. Only 720p, but 1080 content is lacking for the 5% of brodcast TV I watch, and DVDs dont really benefit from 1080 IMO. At a viewing distance of 13', I didnt see the limited pros of 1080 worth the extra cost (additional $180).
TV is not a priority for me and I didnt want to spend a lot, but wanted something nice. Having a 19" CRT set for the past few years, I expect to be very happy with my new set.
Fuel for the fire:
720p vs 1080i HD
720p vs 1080i HD
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: heathenbrewing
Im sure its been mentioned, but it quite subjective and depends on your viewing habits, not to mention what you were watching before and how serious/demanding you are of video.
For me, I average about 6 hrs a week, only watch at night and 95% of my viewing is DVDs. Also didnt want one that "dominated" the living room scene. Plasma won out for me.
Did my research and watched many sets, including friends sets in a controlled environment (for me, that means in the dark). I just bought and am awaiting shipment of a brand new 42" Samsung plasma set for $420 total. Only 720p, but 1080 content is lacking for the 5% of brodcast TV I watch, and DVDs dont really benefit from 1080 IMO. At a viewing distance of 13', I didnt see the limited pros of 1080 worth the extra cost (additional $180).
TV is not a priority for me and I didnt want to spend a lot, but wanted something nice. Having a 19" CRT set for the past few years, I expect to be very happy with my new set.
seems like a logical plan; I am only wondering whether you will regret not going with 1080p in case you develop interest in Blu Rays and streaming HD content later...
Im sure its been mentioned, but it quite subjective and depends on your viewing habits, not to mention what you were watching before and how serious/demanding you are of video.
For me, I average about 6 hrs a week, only watch at night and 95% of my viewing is DVDs. Also didnt want one that "dominated" the living room scene. Plasma won out for me.
Did my research and watched many sets, including friends sets in a controlled environment (for me, that means in the dark). I just bought and am awaiting shipment of a brand new 42" Samsung plasma set for $420 total. Only 720p, but 1080 content is lacking for the 5% of brodcast TV I watch, and DVDs dont really benefit from 1080 IMO. At a viewing distance of 13', I didnt see the limited pros of 1080 worth the extra cost (additional $180).
TV is not a priority for me and I didnt want to spend a lot, but wanted something nice. Having a 19" CRT set for the past few years, I expect to be very happy with my new set.
seems like a logical plan; I am only wondering whether you will regret not going with 1080p in case you develop interest in Blu Rays and streaming HD content later...
Hermann
Site Donor 2023
Last time I was in Costco they had a Vizio 32" 1080p 120hz LED LCD. While you may never notice the extra resolution the sharpness was outstanding. By far the best 32" on the shelf. You may notice the resolution, but you will get the better componets. The GF has a top-of-the-line Vizio that is 4 years old now. We paid $519 but it so much better than my budget(2nd set) 32" I can hardly stand watching mine. Mine looks fake and hers look true to life. Don't skimp
One thing to remember when comparing TV sets in a show room environment is the factory settings that the TV was sent out with. I guarantee these are all over the place.
I went with my wife, a month or so ago, to do some appliance shopping, I strolled into the electronic section and noticed they had two 50 inch Samsungs side by side. One was a 3DTV (I think it was an LED) and another was a 50 inch "regular” LED.
They both had the same blue ray feed, but the 3DTV was much sharper and picture quality appeared to be better. I thought it was strange but thankfully there was a remote control for these TV sets so I looked at the settings and of course the 3DTV had the sharpness and VIVID color cranked up. When I changed the settings on both TV sets to be the same, guess what, they looked identical.
This is the oldest trick in the book. Manufacturers, as well, as sales man, crank up the sharpness and colors on the latest and most expansive TV sets they have, this way they can easily trick an average customer into buying the more expansive model.
There are tangible differences between sets and technologies, like black levels and color reproduction that may be appealing to one eye and not the other, but general picture quality should be about the same when the same source is used and same resolution is compared, unless these are distorted (in most cases on purpose) by internal settings, to favor one product over the other.
I went with my wife, a month or so ago, to do some appliance shopping, I strolled into the electronic section and noticed they had two 50 inch Samsungs side by side. One was a 3DTV (I think it was an LED) and another was a 50 inch "regular” LED.
They both had the same blue ray feed, but the 3DTV was much sharper and picture quality appeared to be better. I thought it was strange but thankfully there was a remote control for these TV sets so I looked at the settings and of course the 3DTV had the sharpness and VIVID color cranked up. When I changed the settings on both TV sets to be the same, guess what, they looked identical.
This is the oldest trick in the book. Manufacturers, as well, as sales man, crank up the sharpness and colors on the latest and most expansive TV sets they have, this way they can easily trick an average customer into buying the more expansive model.
There are tangible differences between sets and technologies, like black levels and color reproduction that may be appealing to one eye and not the other, but general picture quality should be about the same when the same source is used and same resolution is compared, unless these are distorted (in most cases on purpose) by internal settings, to favor one product over the other.
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Yeah I occasionally get to work in Home Theater and get to explain the difference to people. Heck, I do everyday with monitors too. But to me anyway, the difference in picture quality is noticeable.
Refer to my above post. PQ should be about the same, color reproduction and black levels can and will vary, but PQ will be about the same when you actually comparing apples to apples.
The best way is to ask the salesman to turn the sharpness to 0, set the TV mode to "movie" and color to the warmest setting available, turn off any black level enhancements and noise reductions or any of the "picture quality enhancers". This way you can compare apples to apples and you will be surprised how close these sets are.
Also if you really care about picture quality and good color reproduction, you will get your TV calibrated, or at least search the internet for the calibration setting for you model that others posted. In that case these settings will be turned off or set to the lowest setting anyway.
That's why comparing factory setting is just useless, nobody that cares and knows anything about TV sets will watch their HD blue rays on those settings anyway. These settings are always cranked up to be as sharp as possible and as vivid as possible to stand out of the crowd and catch your eye.
Yeah I occasionally get to work in Home Theater and get to explain the difference to people. Heck, I do everyday with monitors too. But to me anyway, the difference in picture quality is noticeable.
Refer to my above post. PQ should be about the same, color reproduction and black levels can and will vary, but PQ will be about the same when you actually comparing apples to apples.
The best way is to ask the salesman to turn the sharpness to 0, set the TV mode to "movie" and color to the warmest setting available, turn off any black level enhancements and noise reductions or any of the "picture quality enhancers". This way you can compare apples to apples and you will be surprised how close these sets are.
Also if you really care about picture quality and good color reproduction, you will get your TV calibrated, or at least search the internet for the calibration setting for you model that others posted. In that case these settings will be turned off or set to the lowest setting anyway.
That's why comparing factory setting is just useless, nobody that cares and knows anything about TV sets will watch their HD blue rays on those settings anyway. These settings are always cranked up to be as sharp as possible and as vivid as possible to stand out of the crowd and catch your eye.
I still have the old tube TV with a flat screen but have been looking at a new HD the last 6 months or so. I don't know if its my eyes or the way I look at thing etc but I swear I keep going back to the plasma as the best picture quality. Maybe everyone is different or thier eyes see the picture different??... my wife likes the LED and I dont agree with her so its going to be a tough choice!!
I like the pic on the plasma but I chose my Sharp LCD at the time because I didn't like the way the plasma screen reflected room light.
Perhaps they have improved that now ....
Perhaps they have improved that now ....
Just bought an LCD TV last week. I've done general research off and on for at least a year, and narrowed it down to the following:
- Had to be LCD or LED, and not plasma. Plasmas were heavier, more fragile, could fail if tilted too far off vertical and are more prone to screen burn than CRTs.
- Had to have at least a 120 Hz refresh rate
- Did not want "made in China," preferred "made in Mexico" as Tijuana has a long established TV manufacturing industry, and there isn't such thing as a "made in USA" or "made in Canada" TV anymore.
- Sony, Samsung and Panasonic seemed to consistently mentioned with good pictures and good long term reliability.
- Sony and Samsung had a better selection of sizes/models in the range I was looking in, and in fact, used the same screens as they are made in a joint-venture factory between the two companies, only differences besides cosmetics were their electronics used to drive the screens
I got a Sony KDL46EX500 for CAD $788. Could not beat the price from my searches of retailers in both Canada and the USA. It's a middle of the road model in terms of features, and is a 46" LCD with 120 Hz refresh. (The Costco version of these Sonys ending in 501 are identical, except for having a silver bottom bezel instead of a gunmetal, and were actually more expensive at the time). It's a 2010 model, and it seems Sony is among the first to be aggressively discounting their 2010 models. The kids and wife love the new TV, and how big the screen is compared to the 26" CRT we replaced.
Funny how my search for a good screen size crept up from around 40" to a 46" when we actually bought.
- Had to be LCD or LED, and not plasma. Plasmas were heavier, more fragile, could fail if tilted too far off vertical and are more prone to screen burn than CRTs.
- Had to have at least a 120 Hz refresh rate
- Did not want "made in China," preferred "made in Mexico" as Tijuana has a long established TV manufacturing industry, and there isn't such thing as a "made in USA" or "made in Canada" TV anymore.
- Sony, Samsung and Panasonic seemed to consistently mentioned with good pictures and good long term reliability.
- Sony and Samsung had a better selection of sizes/models in the range I was looking in, and in fact, used the same screens as they are made in a joint-venture factory between the two companies, only differences besides cosmetics were their electronics used to drive the screens
I got a Sony KDL46EX500 for CAD $788. Could not beat the price from my searches of retailers in both Canada and the USA. It's a middle of the road model in terms of features, and is a 46" LCD with 120 Hz refresh. (The Costco version of these Sonys ending in 501 are identical, except for having a silver bottom bezel instead of a gunmetal, and were actually more expensive at the time). It's a 2010 model, and it seems Sony is among the first to be aggressively discounting their 2010 models. The kids and wife love the new TV, and how big the screen is compared to the 26" CRT we replaced.
A couple of quibbles...
Originally Posted By: weebl
- Had to be LCD or LED, and not plasma. Plasmas were heavier, more fragile, could fail if tilted too far off vertical and are more prone to screen burn than CRTs.
Plasmas do tend to be heavier, the screen is made of glass rather than plastic. Not sure what you mean by more fragile - the heavy glass screen on a plasma is more likely to withstand an errant Wiimote or other object than the relatively soft/thin plastic screen of an LCD. The "fail if tilted far off vertical" is something I've never heard - are you referring to the recommendation to transport them vertically? If so that's again just a function of the glass - you always see glass being transported vertically to protect it from stress. But being tilted or sideways has no affect on them otherwise. They are "more prone" to screen burn that CRT or LCD, but certainly aren't "prone" to it. But it worries some people and is a valid concern for some usage patterns.
jeff
Originally Posted By: weebl
- Had to be LCD or LED, and not plasma. Plasmas were heavier, more fragile, could fail if tilted too far off vertical and are more prone to screen burn than CRTs.
Plasmas do tend to be heavier, the screen is made of glass rather than plastic. Not sure what you mean by more fragile - the heavy glass screen on a plasma is more likely to withstand an errant Wiimote or other object than the relatively soft/thin plastic screen of an LCD. The "fail if tilted far off vertical" is something I've never heard - are you referring to the recommendation to transport them vertically? If so that's again just a function of the glass - you always see glass being transported vertically to protect it from stress. But being tilted or sideways has no affect on them otherwise. They are "more prone" to screen burn that CRT or LCD, but certainly aren't "prone" to it. But it worries some people and is a valid concern for some usage patterns.
jeff
Originally Posted By: greenjp
Not sure what you mean by more fragile - the heavy glass screen on a plasma is more likely to withstand an errant Wiimote or other object than the relatively soft/thin plastic screen of an LCD.
By more fragile, meaning if you move the set around and accidentally dropped it, the glass would seem more likely to shatter than plastic. That said, I do see your point that the plastic would be less likely to withstand a hit from a flying object.
Originally Posted By: greenjp
The "fail if tilted far off vertical" is something I've never heard - are you referring to the recommendation to transport them vertically?
Not in particular, just that some friends when they went TV shopping claimed they were told not to have them horizontal ever, or that it would damage the set. I didn't bother to investigate this further, so for all I know, it could have been [censored] on the sales staff part. At this point, I had already decided against plasma for myself anyway.
Sure, for some people, plasma may make sense. In my mind, they didn't make sense for me, and it was very early in the shopping process that I weighed the pros and cons of the different technologies and decided against them. If I won a plasma in a draw or got offered one for a real steal of a price, then sure, I'd be happy with it. It wasn't that I was dead set against them, the scales were just not tipped in their favour for me.
In the end, I have a TV that I am very happy with after 2 weeks of use. Picture is good and clear, and I don't see any blurring. Like we do with oil (or anything else), everyone needs to determine what their preferences are as well as their application in choosing what's best for them.
Not sure what you mean by more fragile - the heavy glass screen on a plasma is more likely to withstand an errant Wiimote or other object than the relatively soft/thin plastic screen of an LCD.
By more fragile, meaning if you move the set around and accidentally dropped it, the glass would seem more likely to shatter than plastic. That said, I do see your point that the plastic would be less likely to withstand a hit from a flying object.
Originally Posted By: greenjp
The "fail if tilted far off vertical" is something I've never heard - are you referring to the recommendation to transport them vertically?
Not in particular, just that some friends when they went TV shopping claimed they were told not to have them horizontal ever, or that it would damage the set. I didn't bother to investigate this further, so for all I know, it could have been [censored] on the sales staff part. At this point, I had already decided against plasma for myself anyway.
Sure, for some people, plasma may make sense. In my mind, they didn't make sense for me, and it was very early in the shopping process that I weighed the pros and cons of the different technologies and decided against them. If I won a plasma in a draw or got offered one for a real steal of a price, then sure, I'd be happy with it. It wasn't that I was dead set against them, the scales were just not tipped in their favour for me.
In the end, I have a TV that I am very happy with after 2 weeks of use. Picture is good and clear, and I don't see any blurring. Like we do with oil (or anything else), everyone needs to determine what their preferences are as well as their application in choosing what's best for them.
No issue here with your decision - that you're happy with it is all anybody should be worried about. I just like to make sure misconceptions aren't perpetuated.
And yeah, the idea that you can't ever turn a plasma horizontal is 100% wrong. Right in the instruction book for my Panasonic it details that you lay it on its side to install the base stand. It can lay on it's side all day if you want. It's transporting it that they want it upright - just like you would with any piece of glass. If it's horizontal and you're going over speed bumps and whatnot there's a potential for the glass to break. Turn it upright and you have no worries.
jeff
And yeah, the idea that you can't ever turn a plasma horizontal is 100% wrong. Right in the instruction book for my Panasonic it details that you lay it on its side to install the base stand. It can lay on it's side all day if you want. It's transporting it that they want it upright - just like you would with any piece of glass. If it's horizontal and you're going over speed bumps and whatnot there's a potential for the glass to break. Turn it upright and you have no worries.
jeff
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
