Plasma or LCD?

naes

naes

CAGiversary!
Feedback
63 (100%)
I'm finally going to get an HDTV in my room, but I'm not sure exactly what I should get. I'm planning on getting the cheap Vizios from Wal-Mart, but I don't know if I should get an LCD or Plasma. Main uses for the TV would be playing video games and watching sports.

Help me, CAG.
 
I have an ancient plasma (from 2004) and it works as well as the day I bought it. I will not hesitate buying another one when the time comes.
 
I bought a cheap 42" visio plasma last summer. It made an wretched buzzing all the time. From the AVS forums that was a pretty common problem. They're LCDs are better reviewed, as far as cheap HDTVs go. But they could have fixed their plasma buzzing problem in newer models. At any rate, I returned mine and got a 50" Sony rear projection LCD tv. Couldn't be happier, love the quality and the extra size was key as the 42" was a bit small in our large living room.

Now that's not bashing plasma, if you can afford a Panasonic or Pioneer or other top brand, it's tough to beat the picture quality on plasma tvs. I'm just skeptical of Vizio from my exeperience. You tend to get what you pay for.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Unless you get a TrueHD set for a LCD the plasmas have a better picture. The trueHD sets run at almost twice the hrz then normal. Atleast I think it is double. I know it is more and that most stores have them sets set up showing a demo of how each one looks in a split screen. Plasmas had a higher risk of burnin then others and use a gas. Them are the two things that keep me away from them. I would say go LCD. Also make sure one you get does not use a bulb. I had one and the damn thing went out every 3 months or so. that was 300 bucks every 3 months. dont think them two or newer ones use them so you should be safe on that one.
 
I'd stick with the Vizio LCD. You can compare all you want, but as long as you think it looks good when you get home, that's all that matters. Just make sure you buy from a place (Best Buy for example) that has a good return policy in case you change your mind. I had bought a Westinghouse 32" lcd from them because it was damn cheap but it wouldn't display my PS3 or Wii at full screen so I took it back and ended up with a 37" Sony Rear Projection LCD from HHGregg (highly recommend this store as well).

Unless you're going all out, Vizio should be more than good enough.
 
Also, the risk of burn in (permanent image retention is the proper term as it's not technically burn in on a plasma) on plasma TVs these days is very slim. It shouldn't really factor into your decision.

Just be careful with static images the first 100 or so hours--and you can just play a break in DVD that you can download and burn off of the AVS Forums for 100 hours or so and help get passed that period. Though with newer plasmas many say that isn't necessary.

Now I'm not saying to go buy a plasma, but just don't let the over-exaggerations of "burn in" on the net scare you away from even checking them out.
 
Do you really want one of these inside your TV?
plasma_rifle.jpg
 
if you've got the cash to replace your plasma every 3 or 4 years
go for it
otherwise, stick with the lcd

you can find a good 32" lcd for about 400 usually
 
More FUD. There's no need to replace a plasma ever 3 to 4 years. For instance, the time to half life (half brightness) on most new plasmas is 60,000 hours of use.

Again, LCD may be better for your purpose, but don't be dissuaded from checking out plasmas due to the FUD online. Too much of it comes from LCD fanboys, or people who can only afford small LCD TVs (especially on sites like this where the majority of posters are in high school or college and not making real money).

Again, I have an LCD rear projection set, so I'm not hawking plasma here. Just saying it's important to check out different types of tvs on your own and buy what you like the best after doing the research and not get swayed too much by biased misinformation on the net.
 
Last time I was pricing sets LCDs made sense up to a certain screen size and then it was a good idea to switch over to plasma.

A big thing to check IMO for any HD set is how standard def content looks. Some sets do fine, others look horrible with anything but HD content. If you watch much sporting stuff you won't be able to get in HD this is especially important.
 
I have had no issues with my 42" plasma that I purchased on Black Friday a couple of years ago. I have seen several of my friends with LCDs, and I would not trade the plasma for any of them.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']More FUD. There's no need to replace a plasma ever 3 to 4 years. For instance, the time to half life (half brightness) on most new plasmas is 60,000 hours of use.
[/quote]

very true, 4 years and my grandfathers plasma needed to be replaced.

If your a gamer that plays games for 7 hours plus, or don't want to worry how long you can play a certain games go for lcd.

If you play for shorter periods of time and want to worry about leaving your plasma on a channel to long then go plasma.

Plasmas still have image retention and it can get bad. (Cue comment: "I play games and leave them on the menu paused for days straight") Great, you got a lucky set, but I have read many posts on Avs where people get some news ticker ghosted at the bottom and spend the next 3 hours watching a full screen nature show to get the pictured refreshed.

Now I know on high end LCD's they are pretty much equivalent to plasma screens, but not the case on these cheaper vizios. Im sure the LCD will probably blur more and have a bit of input lag (5ms vs. 8ms on the lcd). The plasma model also has a better contrast ratio :30,000:1 compared to 700:1.

Even though im a LCD fan, In this case I think I would recommend Plasma, but be warned to the cons.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is one consideration, plasmas usually have glass screens, depending on the room, that can reflect light from lamps and such.
 
That article was great, like the part about burn in

I was trying to explain to someone how LCD monitors don't really have burn in issues, i was actually talking about PC monitors in particular. Was saying how screen savers don't really serve much of a purpose anymore and they disagreed with me, saying they could still get burn in. Even newer CRT monitors don't really have burn in problems like they did years ago. Screen savers are nothing but pretty videos at this point.
 
[quote name='Lice']very true, 4 years and my grandfathers plasma needed to be replaced.

If your a gamer that plays games for 7 hours plus, or don't want to worry how long you can play a certain games go for lcd.

If you play for shorter periods of time and want to worry about leaving your plasma on a channel to long then go plasma.

Plasmas still have image retention and it can get bad. (Cue comment: "I play games and leave them on the menu paused for days straight") Great, you got a lucky set, but I have read many posts on Avs where people get some news ticker ghosted at the bottom and spend the next 3 hours watching a full screen nature show to get the pictured refreshed.

Now I know on high end LCD's they are pretty much equivalent to plasma screens, but not the case on these cheaper vizios. Im sure the LCD will probably blur more and have a bit of input lag (5ms vs. 8ms on the lcd). The plasma model also has a better contrast ratio :30,000:1 compared to 700:1.

Even though im a LCD fan, In this case I think I would recommend Plasma, but be warned to the cons.[/QUOTE]

Now the temporary image retention you mention does still occur for sure. It's just almost impossible to get permanent image retention that you can't get rid off by putting it on full screen show, or better yet using the screen cleaner in the menu (displays a bright white screen) to get rid of it faster.

So if that worries someone, or they just don't want the hassle, then yes stay away from plasma.

As for your grandfather, sounds like he got a bad set. Plus, 4 years ago (or more depending on how long ago he replaced it) plasma technology wasn't as good as it is today. 60,000 hours till half life at 8 hours a day comes to 7,500 days--or about 20.5 years before it reaches half original brightness.

So other than the temporary image retention concerns there's really no reason to avoid plasmas. Again, just go check someout and see what you think. For your price range I'd probably lean LCD. I'd trust a cheap LCD more than a cheap plasma. If you're in high school or college a cheap LCD is fine. If you're out, I suggest saving up for another 6 months and buying a quality LCD or plasma.
 
I'm in the EXACT same boat and have dedicated the last week of my life to researching this subject. After thorough research on the internet and reviewing it at Best Buy, Circuit City, Wal-Mart and the god among them known as Fry's I have decided that the Plasma is the clear cut winner. The crisper lines and darker blacks is where the action is at. The LCDs, while possibly better for gaming, only trump the Plasma in the $1,500 range and ONLY the Samsungs have truly trounced the low end Plasmas. A sub $1,000 LG > $1,500 LCD Samsung and we're comparing two tiers of TV manufacturers (Samsung being better than LG). I decided on a 42" Plasma made by Panasonic because they offer the best contrast ratios and noise reduction from the display when compared to other Plasmas and LCDs. Enjoy your purchase whichever you choose but do your research first.


***So in summary the LCD is better for gaming but that's only if you drop the hard cash for a high end one otherwise Plasma wins out loud.***
 
[quote name='willardhaven']I don't know how anyone could recommend LCD anymore.

Plasma is much better for gaming in my opinion.[/quote]An LCD with LED backlighting with a high enough contrast ratio and 2-4ms refresh rate will more than give a plasma a run for its money.

Samsung A950's and Sony XBR8's being the prime sets to look at this fall though they're anything but cheap.

A950 is what I'm looking at come fall.
 
[quote name='The Mana Knight']LCD.

Plasma's become dimmer as they reach their half life. I discussed it in my LCD vs. Plasma display technology presentation once.[/QUOTE]

But again you're looking at 20.5 years to get to that half life, and getting dimmer just means you need to run Avia or DVE to adjust the picture every few years and turn up the brightness.

Point being, it's not going to get too dim before someone wants a new TV (or it breaks for other reasons). It's a non issue.
 
i think if you're buying a less expensive tv (under $1000) then plasma would be the better bet. cheap lcd's look terrible for the most part imo. thing about plasmas is they are heavy. 42" plasma weighs a lot compared to a 42" lcd

for under $1200 you can get the 40" Samsung 550 which is what i'd get
 
Get an LCD and not worry about it, your average modern LCD can give a run to just about any Plasma short of KURO, plus you dont have to have a huge space-heater and power-sucking device hanging on your wall. Check out how much a big plasma drinks in terms of power. Yikes.

The days of plasmas having a black advantage over a modern LCD are kinda behind us......
 
[quote name='HeadRusch']
The days of plasmas having a black advantage over a modern LCD are kinda behind us......[/QUOTE]

Size is still the kicker as far as flat panel LCDs go. As mentioned, I have 50" Sony LCD Rear Projection TV and love it, but it's spoiled me and I could never go back to anything under 50".
 
I prefer the PQ of plasmas, but I went LCD because of my viewing habits. I still watch a lot of unstretched 4:3 content (tv and last-gen games) so I was concerned about uneven phosphor wear. There are ways to mitigate that, and perhaps it really isn't something to worry about at all, but I was worried nonetheless. The crystals in an LCD don't age, so it's one less thing I have to think about. No regrets about my decision either, given that my tv looks fantastic.

If you do go plasma, keep in mind that cheaper brands tend to be more problematic when it comes to image retention. While it may not be permanent, when it's bad it can take a long time to "wash out."
 
[quote name='Magehart']I'm in the EXACT same boat and have dedicated the last week of my life to researching this subject. After thorough research on the internet and reviewing it at Best Buy, Circuit City, Wal-Mart and the god ae $1,500 range and ONLY the Samsungs have truly trounced the low end Plasmas. A sub $1,000 LG > $1,500 LCD Samsung and we're comparing two tiers of TV manufacturers (Samsung being better than LG). Imong them known as Fry's I have decided that the Plasma is the clear cut winner. The crisper lines and darker blacks is where the action is at. The LCDs, while possibly better for gaming, only trump the Plasma in th decided on a 42" Plasma made by Panasonic because they offer the best contrast ratios and noise reduction from the display when compared to other Plasmas and LCDs. Enjoy your purchase whichever you choose but do your research first.


***So in summary the LCD is better for gaming but that's only if you drop the hard cash for a high end one otherwise Plasma wins out loud.***[/QUOTE]

I happen to have a Panny plasma and love it. Does very well with standard def content. HD stuff is going to look fantastic on nearly any HD set really.
 
[quote name='wubb']I happen to have a Panny plasma and love it. Does very well with standard def content. HD stuff is going to look fantastic on nearly any HD set really.[/quote]

Fantastic! Which model did you have?
 
[quote name='Magehart']Fantastic! Which model did you have?[/QUOTE]

A 60U model. It's 2 years old maybe?

Went with it because it was the 2nd rated in Consumer Reports with #1 running considerably more money. IIRC.

I do wish CR would do more tvs in their round ups, but I guess it's the same with most things they review they can only do so many out of the hundreds of options.

I don't trust that any difference I see on display sets in store isn't due to how the sets were configured or other factors not intrinsic to the set so I basically went with reviews on cnet, CR, etc plus a sanity check in person and a look in person at standard def content on the set. (Guy at Circuit City thought I was a little nutty to want to see SD stuff on a HD set.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have been researching this topic a lot lately. I recently decided on a 42 inch Panasonic plasma. Both LCD and Plasma have their positives and negatives. I just felt that I was getting an excellent tv at a great price.
 
[quote name='kaptinmorgan']lcd has a longer lifespan[/quote]
The bulb life is about the same as the phosphor life of plasma. If your set has a replaceable bulb (many don't) then yes, LCDs have a longer lifespan.

[quote name='kaptinmorgan']...are cheaper[/quote]
Plasmas are generally cheaper by the inch.

[quote name='kaptinmorgan']...and have the better technology[/quote]
Subjective.

[quote name='kaptinmorgan']...plasma is garbage[/quote]
No, just different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top