[Faust]

Our TV set (a twelve year old CRT) finally gave up on us.

I am planning on getting a new TV set, either a Plasma or LCD. I have done a bit of searching and it seems like many prefer a Plasma for its longevity. Others seem to prefer the LCD. I have yet to understand the Pros and Cons for either as the reviews seem very balanced. So, I thought I'd ask you what you have and why you have a chosen a Plasma over a LCD and vice versa.

As far as costs go, I do not intend on spending big bucks on a TV set as I don't find it important to have the creme de la creme of TV sets. So, 1,000 USD is the maximum I'd be willing to spend on one.

Thanks!

[highstakes]

We just got a 32" Samsung LCD, with discounts and coupons, the total came to ~$900 (includes tax) from Circuit City (picking it up tomorrow morning). I could not find a good plasma TV for my price range (the size of the TV was also an issue because limited space), thats why we went with the LCD instead of plasma.

[loki74]

For me, the biggest pros and cons of each comparatively are--

Plasmas are very heavy, and they can be killed if you tilt them beyond a certain degree. LCDs are lighterweight and do not have this issue.

However, I feel that plasma gives a better picture, especially when handling upscaled input (as is frequently the case with HDTVs, if you chose to go that route) or when viewed at a close distance.


these are just my personal observations as a layman, so take it with a grain of salt.

[analogika]

Plasmas give Vattenfall a useful excuse to keep Brunsbüttel and Krümmel up and running.

BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | Do flat-screen TVs eat more energy?

Part I: Do Flat-Screen TVs Consume More Power? : Robin Raskin : Yahoo! Tech

Part II: Which Is More Energy Efficient, Plasma or LCD? : Robin Raskin : Yahoo! Tech

[Railroader]

This is a TV I ended up buying. I paid US$1000 and it came with a free HD-DVD player. It is a rear projection LCD unit, with a very shallow cabinet. It is only 13 inches deep. It fits perfectly on a TV cabinet that we had a 27 inch TV sitting on. I bought it because the picture was superior to all of the other TVs at that price range. Normally I would shy away from anything Sony, but they do make some very good TVs for the money.

SonyStyle.com | 37" BRAVIA® H series 3LCD Rear Projection HDTV

Sony KDF-37EH1000 37'' BRAVIA rear-projection LCD HDTV at Crutchfield.com

Amazon.com: Sony Bravia KDF-37H1000 37" 720p 3LCD Rear Projection HDTV: Electronics

[Timo]

When I was deciding this issue a few years ago, we went plasma. At the time LCDs seemed to my eye to have latency issues, and less black blacks.

But now, I'm not sure what I'd do. Been happy with the plasma, tho'.

[villalobos]

DLP provides the best compromise between price, picture size and picture quality, IMHO.

[TailsToo]

I have a 2005-06 Samsung 32" 720p LCD. I got it for $1100 in Jan of 06 when street price was $1799. It's amazing how much pricing has come down since then.

[EricTheRed]

Originally Posted by Faust 

Our TV set (a twelve year old CRT) finally gave up on us.

I am planning on getting a new TV set, either a Plasma or LCD. I have done a bit of searching and it seems like many prefer a Plasma for its longevity. Others seem to prefer the LCD. I have yet to understand the Pros and Cons for either as the reviews seem very balanced. So, I thought I'd ask you what you have and why you have a chosen a Plasma over a LCD and vice versa.

As far as costs go, I do not intend on spending big bucks on a TV set as I don't find it important to have the creme de la creme of TV sets. So, 1,000 USD is the maximum I'd be willing to spend on one.

Thanks!

Nearly two years ago i picked up two Vizio 37" LCD HDTVs. I wasn't concerned that they were a new company since they are really Princeton Graphics, whose CRTS I sold into companies in the ninties when I owned a computer dealer. I learned several things from my purchase: Brightness is what matters. On the older 37" displays (Vizio now has a newer design that is much better) the blacks are crushed and detail is lost as all the "darks" become black. This isn't a problem with broadcast TV but is a problem with certain "dark" movies. The second thing I learned is that Vizio continues to have excellent customer service. I replaced one of the 37" HDTVs three times because of a what we assumed to be a fault with the TV itself but which turned out to be the cable TV box. Vizio paid for shipping both ways all three times.

Two weeks ago I purchased a Vizio 32" HDTV for my lake home and that TV is great! The crushing black problem that was a problem with the first generation panels has been addressed and the second generation HDTV's remote works even better as well. Over all I'm pleased and would purchase more vizio products in the future.

[His Dudeness]

We have a Zenith 48" DLP HDTV and a Pioneer 48" Plasma HDTV. I'd go plasma. Think of an HDTV LCD tv as a big gigantic laptop screen. Picture is better on a plams, imho.

[Art Vandelay]

Have they managed to eliminate the buzzing that plasmas from just a couple of years a go made?

One thing to consider is power usage. Plasmas use much more electricity than LCDs. Something to consider if you want to try to be more eco-friendly.

[starman]

Someone should really make these "which TV should I get?" threads a sticky.

[Faust]

Originally Posted by starman 

Someone should really make these "which TV should I get?" threads a sticky.

I wasn't aware it is a popular topic. My apologies.

[Jawbone54]

I have a 32" Westinghouse at my house, but my office just bought a 32" Vizio that is fantastic. I wasn't impressed with Vizio's before, but the picture on this TV is very, very nice. I'm impressed. We also picked it up for $699.

[ghporter]

LCD quality has jumped WAY up in the last couple of years. Darker blacks, much lower latency pixel transitions, and finer pixel spacing all go to make LCDs probably a slightly better choice over plasma screens visually. If you shop and compare carefully, of course. You can get a cheap and ugly LCD if you base your decision on what the salesdude says. You can also get a not-so-cheap and very ugly plasma if you're not careful.

Plasmas used to be hotter and use more electricity per square inch of screen space than LCDs, but this depends on a lot of things beyond whether the screen is plasma or LCD, including the "backstage" electronics. Read the specs to know which screen is better in this area.

DLP... Great idea, not so great picture in comparison to either plasma or LCD in my experience. Both plasma and LCD tend to have very wide viewing angles, which makes ANY projection technology look bad in comparison. I was looking at the three next to each other at the Fry's in Austin last weekend. DLPs looked really bad compared to even "cheap" LCDs and plasma screens, particularly if you were anywhere but dead on the main viewing axis.

I'm looking at a variety of 42" or larger LCDs at the moment. I won't have the money to buy the TV (and the new furniture to go with it-my entertainment center is based on a max 32" CRT TV) for a while...

[jebjeb]

LCD all the way for me. I don't really see the point of rear projection these days, except for anything larger than 56".

I have a 37" LG LCD. Burn in still worries me with Plasmas. They are much less susceptible to it then they once were but it still happens.

[stevesnj]

Get LCD Samsung, Sony, or Sharp Aquos series. Don't buy Plasma no matter how good the price, Plasma to me is the biggest scam in flat panel TV's IMHO. Make sure there are HDMI and optical ports a plenty and the TV does at least 1080i. Make sure the standard and Dynamic contrast ratios are high when you compare...remember that SD is gonna look like crap on any LCD or Plasma so it's worth it to get an HD box from your Cable or Satellite company.

[DakarÊ’]

Could you elaborate on why Plasmas are a scam?

[stevesnj]

Originally Posted by DakarÊ’ 

Could you elaborate on why Plasmas are a scam?

Once the screen goes bad the entire TV has to be be replaced. On LCDs the screen just uses Liquid crystal and most of the failures are due to the fluorescent bulbs or ballast going bad leading to double or tripple the life of Plasmas. Also most Plasmas still suffer from 'burn' no matter what the manufacturer says

[DakarÊ’]

Ok, thanks.

[goMac]

I've got a 40" 1080p Samsung LCD. Resolution was a big deal for me in since I use it as a computer display. Plasma's simply can't get that resolution in the same price range as my LCD. New LCD's are also more competitive with Plasma color wise.

[DakarÊ’]

Finding a true 1080p plasma is like finding a needle in a haystack.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by DakarÊ’ 

Finding a true 1080p plasma is like finding a needle in a haystack.

Not long ago, my dad got a 1080p plasma, a Panasonic Viera. Not sure exactly what size it is, but its pretty big.

I've had more trouble finding 1080p media to run on it. I actually hadn't seen the 1080p in its full glory until I played "The Darkness" last night (a PS3 game with 1080p out). Looked friggin incredible!!

[His Dudeness]

Originally Posted by stevesnj 

Once the screen goes bad the entire TV has to be be replaced. On LCDs the screen just uses Liquid crystal and most of the failures are due to the fluorescent bulbs or ballast going bad leading to double or tripple the life of Plasmas. Also most Plasmas still suffer from 'burn' no matter what the manufacturer says

I've had numerous normal tv's go bad and have had to be replaced. What a scam.

[His Dudeness]

Originally Posted by loki74 

Not long ago, my dad got a 1080p plasma, a Panasonic Viera. Not sure exactly what size it is, but its pretty big.

I've had more trouble finding 1080p media to run on it. I actually hadn't seen the 1080p in its full glory until I played "The Darkness" last night (a PS3 game with 1080p out). Looked friggin incredible!!

I'm not too sure that tv providers are giving true 1080p HDTV. I think they can only give 780, which is why it's not really all that much to sweat bullets about and get into childish arguments about who's penis, I mean tv, is bigger and better. My plasma is not 1080, and you really can't notice that much of a difference at all.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by His Dudeness 

I'm not too sure that tv providers are giving true 1080p HDTV. I think they can only give 780, which is why it's not really all that much to sweat bullets about and get into childish arguments about who's penis, I mean tv, is bigger and better. My plasma is not 1080, and you really can't notice that much of a difference at all.

They give 1080i, which is 540 lines, but can be resolved to 1080p quality. Eug can talk about that.

[mduell]

I'm currently deciding between 37" 720p for about $800 (after tax) or 42" 1080p for $1050 (ditto). They're both LCDs, since the plasmas are more expensive or lower resolution.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by stevesnj 

Once the screen goes bad the entire TV has to be be replaced. On LCDs the screen just uses Liquid crystal and most of the failures are due to the fluorescent bulbs or ballast going bad leading to double or tripple the life of Plasmas. Also most Plasmas still suffer from 'burn' no matter what the manufacturer says

Modern plasma TVs are rated for at least 60,000 hours, most even more. That's over 20 years of life if you're watching it for 8 hours a day. After 20 years I'm gonna want a new TV anyway.

And plasmas can burn in, yes. But so can CRTs. If you didn't have burn in problems with your old TV you wont have problems with a plasma either.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by His Dudeness 

I'm not too sure that tv providers are giving true 1080p HDTV. I think they can only give 780, which is why it's not really all that much to sweat bullets about and get into childish arguments about who's penis, I mean tv, is bigger and better. My plasma is not 1080, and you really can't notice that much of a difference at all.

uh, okay. I don't recall entering into any such childish argument about the size of my screen. Which really isn't mine, anyway. It would also be extremely difficult for me to do so seeing as how I can't recall the exact measurement...

I'm not interested in watching TV in HD. I care about movies and (sometimes) games (TV is great, I just don't need it in HD).

And I've never seen 1080i or 720p as they appear on a set made specifically for that, but 1080p does look far superior to either when upscaled to fit the 1080p set.

Originally Posted by goMac 

They give 1080i, which is 540 lines, but can be resolved to 1080p quality. Eug can talk about that.

I do not believe 1080p quality can be truly extracted from 1080i data. Remember, each field in an interlaced frame contain data for different points in time. That is to say, there will never be a set of odd lines that has an accompanying set of even lines that were taken at exactly the same time. That said, stationary elements in 1080i footage should appear identical to the same in 1080p, because the fields will appear to be in temporal synch.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by loki74 

I do not believe 1080p quality can be truly extracted from 1080i data. Remember, each field in an interlaced frame contain data for different points in time. That is to say, there will never be a set of odd lines that has an accompanying set of even lines that were taken at exactly the same time. That said, stationary elements in 1080i footage should appear identical to the same in 1080p, because the fields will appear to be in temporal synch.

If the feed is transmitted at 1080i 60fps, it can be resolved to 30fps 1080p, which is broadcast quality.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by goMac 

If the feed is transmitted at 1080i 60fps, it can be resolved to 30fps 1080p, which is broadcast quality.

Where could you find a 1080i 60fps signal?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Where could you find a 1080i 60fps signal?

Well, I was researching that. Eug talked about it in the HDDVD/Bluray thread (all HDDVD players can do 1080i 60fps). Sadly, according to Wikipedia, it looks like broadcast tv is 1080i/30 in America.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Where could you find a 1080i 60fps signal?

Assuming the f is for fields and not frames, aren't almost all 1080i signals 60fps?

[loki74]

Originally Posted by goMac 

If the feed is transmitted at 1080i 60fps, it can be resolved to 30fps 1080p, which is broadcast quality.

Uh, how can you convert temporal resolution into spatial resolution?

I could be wrong, but afaik, even at 60 fields/second, there are no temporally synchronized field pairs, and thus a true progressive frame cannot be constructed.

[rickey939]

Originally Posted by EricTheRed 

Nearly two years ago i picked up two Vizio 37" LCD HDTVs. I wasn't concerned that they were a new company since they are really Princeton Graphics, whose CRTS I sold into companies in the ninties when I owned a computer dealer. I learned several things from my purchase: Brightness is what matters. On the older 37" displays (Vizio now has a newer design that is much better) the blacks are crushed and detail is lost as all the "darks" become black. This isn't a problem with broadcast TV but is a problem with certain "dark" movies. The second thing I learned is that Vizio continues to have excellent customer service. I replaced one of the 37" HDTVs three times because of a what we assumed to be a fault with the TV itself but which turned out to be the cable TV box. Vizio paid for shipping both ways all three times.

Two weeks ago I purchased a Vizio 32" HDTV for my lake home and that TV is great! The crushing black problem that was a problem with the first generation panels has been addressed and the second generation HDTV's remote works even better as well. Over all I'm pleased and would purchase more vizio products in the future.

I see the "Vizio" brand all over CostCo and they do look good; however, the brand scares the crap out of me. Good to hear that you've had a good experience with them.

Anybody else?

[macintologist]

I don't get why you need such a big TV. Just get a 27inch flatscreen CRT.

[- - e r i k - -]

Why do you need a TV at all? I haven't owned one in years, and I haven't missed it a single bit.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Well, I was researching that. Eug talked about it in the HDDVD/Bluray thread (all HDDVD players can do 1080i 60fps). Sadly, according to Wikipedia, it looks like broadcast tv is 1080i/30 in America.

1080i/29.97 actually. The only place I could think of getting a 1080i/60fps signal is from a video game, but will any game even send an interlaced signal? I know the console can convert to interlaced, but I think the source by default is progressive.

Originally Posted by rickey939 

I see the "Vizio" brand all over CostCo and they do look good; however, the brand scares the crap out of me. Good to hear that you've had a good experience with them.

Anybody else?

Vizio consistently gets good reviews. Plus, buying from CostCo gets you a 2 year warranty and lifetime support. I'm getting ready to buy their 32" model for my bedroom - they're good TVs.

[stevesnj]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Why do you need a TV at all? I haven't owned one in years, and I haven't missed it a single bit.

[stevesnj]

Double Post

[DakarÊ’]

I gotta say, whoever posts a jpg with the Plaster and Torn Edges Photoshop filters is the real loser.

[MOTHERWELL]

If you plan on playing video games the LCD is a better choice. Plasma screens are susceptible to image burn.


I have a DLP in my living room. Samsung. I dig it. I am looking at an LCD for the bedroom now...Samsung. I dig it.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by MOTHERWELL 

If you plan on playing video games the LCD is a better choice. Plasma screens are susceptible to image burn.


I have a DLP in my living room. Samsung. I dig it. I am looking at an LCD for the bedroom now...Samsung. I dig it.

None of my hours-long Guitar Hero sessions burned a thing into my 42" Panny Plasma. You have to leave something on the TV for a *long* time to get it burned in, just like old tube tvs.

[quesera]

42" Panasonic Plasma. $999 at Best Buy during the holidays. My sister called and asked us if we wanted it. It was too good a deal to resist. We don't have cable or satellite, but the over the air HD stuff looks amazing, and we get the signal with the old fashioned rabbit ears antenna. Sadly, PBS is the only signal we don't get crystal clearly.

Our latest toy, the Wii, is a hell of a lot of fun with the big screen.

Still, I think we underutilize our tv. Mostly news and occasional movies, usually checked out from the library for free.

[MOTHERWELL]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

None of my hours-long Guitar Hero sessions burned a thing into my 42" Panny Plasma. You have to leave something on the TV for a *long* time to get it burned in, just like old tube tvs.

That's exactly what I said. Plasmas are susceptible to burn in.

[Eug]

I'm considering the Toshiba 42HL57 42" LCD. The 42HL57 is a Canadian model (and elsewhere) but doesn't exist in the US because it doesn't have an ATSC tuner. The ATSC is useless for me since I'll be using a cable box anyway. Otherwise I might just get the Toshiba 42HL67, not because it has the ATSC tuner (it does), but because it has more inputs.

I generally just don't like plasmas that much.

Note this is not for the main TV viewing room so 720p is OK. I have some furniture restrictions, so 42" is the absolute maximum size. In fact, getting a 37" might make more sense, but they aren't that much cheaper. The main TV viewing room will have a different TV - 1080p and bigger. However, I might not have a very large TV in there until I get some more cash...

BTW, I really like the Sony Bravia XBR line and the 40" would be the perfect size, but they cost way to fsckin' much.

[Eug]

I ended up getting the 42HL67. Future Shop just dropped the price of the 42HL67 today, to below what the 42HL57 was yesterday. They also dropped the price of the 57, as well as other TVs, but now the price of the 42HL67 is too low to pass up.

I won't get to try it out until next week unfortunately. I will say though that I already know that the SD quality from analogue cable will be worse on this TV compared to my CRT. Furthermore, while blacks on this TV are pretty good, they are not great. As long as you know what the limitations are you can make your choice wisely.

PS. This TV does accept both 1080p24 and 1080p60 inputs. However, the TV is 768p, so it will downsample them to 1366x768. The one main annoyance I have with the specs of this TV is the PC input. It accepts 1024x768 via VGA, but not 1366x768. Why, I don't know. OTOH, it does accept both 1920x1080p60 and 1280x720p60 via DVI, so maybe I can use that with reasonable text quality. I don't know yet if there is a 1:1 pixel setting on this TV with 1280x720. I guess I'll find out next week, and that's not a huge concern for me at this point, especially at this price.

[Faust]

Thanks for all the recommendations and opinions. I think I'll be settling for a LCD, eventually.

[Faust]

I have finally decided for an Acer AT4220. It seems to have everything I need and the reviews are quite okay as well. The price is what made me choose this one as I did not want to go over the € 1000 mark.

Acer AT4220


Thanks again everyone.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

I don't get why you need such a big TV. Just get a 27inch flatscreen CRT.

That is what I did. CRT still has a better over all picture quality IMHO.

I wont switch till I can get a decent LCD for a decent price. I am not going to pay more for something that looks worse just because it's thinner.