LCD TV Help

[aeroclone]

I did a lot of research and came to exactly the opposite conclusion. Plasma is a dying technology. I'm not going to get into the reasons why it's dying, but it is. Fewer manufacturers are making plasma units and the ones who are still making them are making fewer.

The reason you are seeing fewer and fewer of these things made is because the technology has matured and as such, prices have fallen and the margins aren't that great. These companies are in the business to make money first and foremost, not necessarily to get you the best bang for your buck. As such, you don't see many plasmas on the shelf anymore.

Any plasma you find on the shelf today will provide you as good or better colors and black levels, and a faster refresh rate than even the most top of the line 240Hz LED LCD. It will also look fantastic from every angle, where an LCD fades if you are sitting off center. And it will do all this at a fraction of the cost of a similar LCD. All these new LCD bells and whistles they keep coming out with and charging an arm and a leg for still haven't caught up to the abilities a plasma had years and years ago.

The disadvantages of the plasma such as heat, power consumption, and image burn in have been resolved over the last few years, and are now on par with an LCD. Keep in mind, an LCD will also burn out after a time and while it doesn't have burn in so to say, you can have a similar problem known as "image retention".

The only issue that plasma really falls down on is screen glare. If you have a lot of natural light in the room that you can't block out, this could cause you some issues. But if this thing is going in your man cave in the basement, plasma all the way.

If you decide plasma is the right thing for you, Panasonic and look no further. For LCD I would look at Samsung and Sony. I used to hear lots of good things about Sharp Aquos (stay away from the cheap Sharp line), but it sounds like Sharp build quality has fallen off the last couple years.

[aeroclone]

I will let others comment, but do yourself a huge favor and consider a plasma. LCD, even with LED non-edge lighting, is an inferior technology to plasma. Unless you are in a bright room, concerned about heat (not a big issue), or power usage (also not that big of deal anymore), get plasma. Also, anyone who mentions burn-in has not looked at a plasma since 2004-05. Doesn't matter anymore, unless you put the espn logo dead center for 100+ consecutive hours.

Once you look at plasma, go panasonic first, and samsung second. In my experience, (haven't looked at this year's models) LG's a cheaply made and lack quality processing. A $1200 Panasonic plasma will blow out a $2000 Sony LCD (except in the instances listed above).

This may sound pompous, but do some independent research and you will likely agree. Note I said likely.

QFT

[dmclone]

I did a lot of research and came to exactly the opposite conclusion. Plasma is a dying technology. I'm not going to get into the reasons why it's dying, but it is. Fewer manufacturers are making plasma units and the ones who are still making them are making fewer.

This is the same argument that you used in another post. All technology is dying. LCD is being replaced by LCD/LED, which is being replaced by OLED, which will be replaced by some 3D technology, and so on.

If you want the best picture today then you'll go with plasma.

[cydsho]

I have an older HP 720p 37inch LCD and love it. I think basically it is a Sharp unit. But my parents got a 50 inch 720p Panasonic plasma and it blows my tv out of the water. Not just size but pic quality, blacks, everything. The plasma just pops out.
If you are in VERY brightly lit room, LCD might be the way to got. But for your money the plasma will get you the bigger screen and excellent picture. A Panny or Samsung 50 can be bought for $800 or so pretty easily.
Assuming price on LEDs don't drop in the next 6-12 months, I will buy a 50 inch plasma for our new house.

[Cydkar]

I probably have the same 50" plasma that your parents have. I've had it about a year and have no regrets. If a baseball hit it today I'd go get another one tomorrow and not bat an eye. The newer tecnologies are overpriced and frankly, still a work in progress.

[bstegs]

QFT

Up until 5 minutes ago, I thought this meant "quit F*ing talking". I was offended, but soon realized what it meant. Thanks to everyone for rebuttling for me.

[Bipolarcy]

The reason you are seeing fewer and fewer of these things made is because the technology has matured and as such, prices have fallen and the margins aren't that great. These companies are in the business to make money first and foremost, not necessarily to get you the best bang for your buck. As such, you don't see many plasmas on the shelf anymore.

Any plasma you find on the shelf today will provide you as good or better colors and black levels, and a faster refresh rate than even the most top of the line 240Hz LED LCD. It will also look fantastic from every angle, where an LCD fades if you are sitting off center. And it will do all this at a fraction of the cost of a similar LCD. All these new LCD bells and whistles they keep coming out with and charging an arm and a leg for still haven't caught up to the abilities a plasma had years and years ago.

The disadvantages of the plasma such as heat, power consumption, and image burn in have been resolved over the last few years, and are now on par with an LCD. Keep in mind, an LCD will also burn out after a time and while it doesn't have burn in so to say, you can have a similar problem known as "image retention".

The only issue that plasma really falls down on is screen glare. If you have a lot of natural light in the room that you can't block out, this could cause you some issues. But if this thing is going in your man cave in the basement, plasma all the way.

If you decide plasma is the right thing for you, Panasonic and look no further. For LCD I would look at Samsung and Sony. I used to hear lots of good things about Sharp Aquos (stay away from the cheap Sharp line), but it sounds like Sharp build quality has fallen off the last couple years.

If they are as good as you say they are, the demand would be high and it wouldn't matter to the manufacturers what the margins on them were, they'd still make their money. The demand is not high, despite the lower prices, so that should tell you something. But apparently not.

[ubuntuCAT]

I bought a 1080p LCD and 720P Plasma in the last year and I think the plasma is BY FAR a superior picture.

I think part of the problem is the stores like best buy usually have lighting that is better for LCDs in their store. Not the case at home especially if its a low light media room.

[dmclone]

If they are as good as you say they are, the demand would be high and it wouldn't matter to the manufacturers what the margins on them were, they'd still make their money. The demand is not high, despite the lower prices, so that should tell you something. But apparently not.

I hope you don't own a business.

Car owner

Honda Civic-Dealer makes $500 on everyone sold
Dodge Colt-Dealer makes $800 on everyone sold

Lets now assume that roughly 90% of car buyers have no clue the difference between these two cars. Keep in mind that places like Best Buy are the same places that tell you to buy Monster Cable, I assume you trust them.

Which one of these cars are you going to promote? Which one are you going to carry the most of?


I seriously doubt you've ever actually compared the 2 technologies. I own 1 LCD 1080p projector, 1 Samsung LCD 1080p TV, and 1 Panasonic Plasma. I have no reason to stick up for one technology over the other.

[bstegs]

If they are as good as you say they are, the demand would be high and it wouldn't matter to the manufacturers what the margins on them were, they'd still make their money. The demand is not high, despite the lower prices, so that should tell you something. But apparently not.

This is a flawed premise. The companies are pushing lcd because of profit potential. Most people do not buy because they are knowledgable, but rather because the guy at best buy said it was good.

You have yet to state a reason why you think lcd is better. Go to any knowledgable site, cnet, consumer reports, avs foreum, and see what they say.

I am not trying to target you but plasma is a clear winner. That is why my $2k 720p pioneer beat the equivalent $4k sony lcd hands down.

[Bipolarcy]

This is a flawed premise. The companies are pushing lcd because of profit potential. Most people do not buy because they are knowledgable, but rather because the guy at best buy said it was good.

You have yet to state a reason why you think lcd is better. Go to any knowledgable site, cnet, consumer reports, avs foreum, and see what they say.

I am not trying to target you but plasma is a clear winner. That is why my $2k 720p pioneer beat the equivalent $4k sony lcd hands down.

I've stated many reasons. You ignore them. The best reason I can think of is it's a dying technology, for whatever reason. Companies are slowly phasing them out. One of the most knowledgeable guys I know on this subject just happens to be a friend of mine. I'm going to trust my friend over some geek website, which for all I know, is used exclusively by plasma lovers. The other problems are well known. High energy consumption chief among them. PC or Mac? This is virtually the same argument, except there are no dying technologies involved in the PC/Mac question. But it's the same argument in that there are no winners.

[cstrunk]

Went and did a bunch of online research today and went to Best Buy to look at the picture on a bunch of TV's myself.

My conclusion? I am going to save myself hundreds of dollars by choosing a plasma TV. I was ready to buy a 50" 720p Samsung from Best Buy (Only because of 36 months at 0% interest) today but they were out of them. Also out of the 50" 720p Panasonics and Insignia's. Couldn't believe the stock was so low for those things.

The miniscule difference that I would gain by going to 1080p was not worth $3-400+ to me. My eyes couldn't convince me that any LCD 1080p's or Plasma 1080p's were really any better. Sure, the LED-LCD's were neat and looked brighter... but still not a huge difference. Except for price. The Samsung 50" 720p was $699. A 1080p plasma was at least a grand or more for the same size. 1080p LCD's were $11-1200+. The high end LED-LCD TV's were $2-3000.

If you just want to enjoy your TV and not feel like you got burned, don't feel like you need to buy the greatest and newest offered in the store. Go look for yourself at the difference, it will be hard to see much.

FWIW - Someone posted a link to the Dell site from Slickdeals offering the Panasonic 42" Plasma TV... Dell also has a great deal for the Panasonic 50" Plasma TV. I would've bought the 50" but there is a 6 week delay for shipping... but the 42" deal still look solid for less than $500.

[Bipolarcy]

Went and did a bunch of online research today and went to Best Buy to look at the picture on a bunch of TV's myself.

My conclusion? I am going to save myself hundreds of dollars by choosing a plasma TV. I was ready to buy a 50" 720p Samsung from Best Buy (Only because of 36 months at 0% interest) today but they were out of them. Also out of the 50" 720p Panasonics and Insignia's. Couldn't believe the stock was so low for those things.

The miniscule difference that I would gain by going to 1080p was not worth $3-400+ to me. My eyes couldn't convince me that any LCD 1080p's or Plasma 1080p's were really any better. Sure, the LED-LCD's were neat and looked brighter... but still not a huge difference. Except for price. The Samsung 50" 720p was $699. A 1080p plasma was at least a grand or more for the same size. 1080p LCD's were $11-1200+. The high end LED-LCD TV's were $2-3000.

If you just want to enjoy your TV and not feel like you got burned, don't feel like you need to buy the greatest and newest offered in the store. Go look for yourself at the difference, it will be hard to see much.

FWIW - Someone posted a link to the Dell site from Slickdeals offering the Panasonic 42" Plasma TV... Dell also has a great deal for the Panasonic 50" Plasma TV. I would've bought the 50" but there is a 6 week delay for shipping... but the 42" deal still look solid for less than $500.

I've got a 720p and a 1080p. I don't know if this even makes sense technologically speaking, but where I seem to notice the biggest difference is in non-HD broadcasts. Whenever I run into an SD broadcast, the picture is light years better on the 1080p set. Like I said, I don't know if that is even a possibility, or if that's just a difference in the quality of the sets, most likely the latter. I've noticed my larger set also has a better picture, but I probably sit too close to the smaller set too, which makes a difference in picture quality.

[bstegs]

Dell also has a great deal for the Panasonic 50" Plasma TV. I would've bought the 50" but there is a 6 week delay for shipping

Six weeks? That is nuts. I have had trouble with Dell taking a long *** time before to ship stuff. I had a laptop take 2 months to ship. I did get a free $75 coupon from them though for the delay. I got a nice blue tooth mouse and 100 zip ties.

I've stated many reasons. You ignore them. The best reason I can think of is it's a dying technology, for whatever reason. Companies are slowly phasing them out. One of the most knowledgeable guys I know on this subject just happens to be a friend of mine. I'm going to trust my friend over some geek website, which for all I know, is used exclusively by plasma lovers. The other problems are well known. High energy consumption chief among them. PC or Mac? This is virtually the same argument, except there are no dying technologies involved in the PC/Mac question. But it's the sadme argument in that there are no winners.

I have not ignored any of your reasons. I just did not feel like typing up a response as they have all ready been refuted by others, which i acknowledged earlier.

Your premise is that it is a dying technology, thus it is inferior. This does not imply inferiority. (thank you CPRE 310 for your rules about implications). This merely implies that the companies can't make money off them, as someone said earlier. They can't make money because the margins are narrow on such an established technology (of note, panasonic now owns pioneer's patents and thus, own some of the best television technology out there).

You claimed (paraphrasing) that if they are cheaper and superior, more should be sold, thus the companies can make money. This holds true to a point, and that point is what someone mentioned earlier, marketing. Most people don't really know the difference between plasma or LCD. They don't care. If it looks better than their Sylvania 26 inch CRT tube TV, then it must be great. If Best Buy (not the definition of knowledge or quality) is pushing LCD, it is for monetary purposes (monster cables). Most people regard the store clerks as knowledgeable. Thus, they will buy what the clerks and commercials (Vizio) suggest.

You trust your friend over some geek website? Really, Seth? Really. I listed for you potentially the 3 best resources for easy information on this topic. Consumer Reports is probably the worst of the 3 and ironically, they charge for their information. My point is that these are not just "geek websites", but acknowledged authorities on this topic. Explain to me what your friend's background is. If he is truly interested in or knowledgeable of this topic, he has seen or visited the aforementioned sites, and either can't read or has poor reading interpretation. (Sounds mean but I cannot come to another conclusion) That or he is an electrical engineer who works on these technologies, and has some insight into what's coming down the pipeline that I don't know of. For the record, I believe that I am speaking for the consensus. You can find websites that praise LCD's (even LED LCD's) as the king, but the majority (of knowledgeable review sites) will rule in favor of plasma. I recognize the broad generality and presumptuous nature of that statement, but I stand behind it.

Your comment about heat generation and electricity use is a valid concern, but the gap has narrowed and most plasmas now are very close to LCD's in these categories. I have already said that if the room is very bright, LCD is better. They tend to be brighter, but this does not mean the picture is better (What happens when the sun sets). Motion is still an issue with LCD's, good plasma's settled this years ago (LG did not). If you watch sports (you are reading on a college sports fan site), plasma will look better. The jerseys may not pop with the post processing effect of a dynamic or vivid mode, but they are not natural anyway. LCD has really improved as far as viewing angle, but still is not as good as plasma.

I know you want to defend your argument. This is something that I have read a lot (and I mean a lot) about over the last 3 years. I have seen the proof. I bought a Pioneer plasma (the KING) for this reason. Unless you are in a bright room, or are concerned about your carbon footprint, I would go plasma. Do you watch TV for good (best) picture, or for it's heat dissipation qualities? On a side note, I do really like Samsung LCD's. Their color reproduction seems very nice.

Also check out hi-def forum.

[bstegs]

I've got a 720p and a 1080p. I don't know if this even makes sense technologically speaking, but where I seem to notice the biggest difference is in non-HD broadcasts. Whenever I run into an SD broadcast, the picture is light years better on the 1080p set. Like I said, I don't know if that is even a possibility, or if that's just a difference in the quality of the sets, most likely the latter. I've noticed my larger set also has a better picture, but I probably sit too close to the smaller set too, which makes a difference in picture quality.

Your assumptions here are probably correct. Whichever television is higher quality (not just 720p vs 1080p, but really higher quality), will likely handle your SD content better. SD stuff is very difficult to handle. How do you improve quality where the original information no longer exists? It's tuff as rain.

For the record, I am not Roger Sprague.