plasma vs lcd?

N

nick filardi

CAG Veteran
which is better for both the hd gamming experience and the overall movie viewing experience. I want a well rounded set, but everyone is telling me a lot of different things.

any recomendations on a set? just plasma vs lcd? I'm looking for a decent 40 inch or above.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
To be quite honest, I don't know a lot about tv's, but I can't imagine that the picture on a plasma is so much better than on an lcd to justify the HUUUUGE price difference.
 
If you want top of the line you need plasma, but LCD will give you more bang per buck. Also not all plasmas are better than all LCDs, a shit plasma is definitely not as good as a quality LCD--but like I said if you need top of the line (and are willing to pay $3K or more), you need plasma.

If you're sticking to a budget, I'd get a 46-52" LCD 1080p from Sony, Samsung, or Sharp. And do your homework, make sure you aren't paying damn near retail for a TV that has been on the market for over 12 months.
 
Somethings to consider:

Plasma screen uses phosphor coating to emit light (like a tube TV) and therefore is subject to burn-in if a static image stays stationary on the screen for an extended period of time. So, if you are going to watch a lot of 4:3 programs with the side black bars, or play your games with those static meters, you may run a risk of burning in your screen.

LCD uses liquid crystal to transmit light emitted from a backlight and has no burn-in risk. However, if the blacklight goes out, so is your image. Also, some shitty LCD screen doesn't 100% block all light (ie., light leak) and you won't see a perfect black image.

Plasma has a shorter shelf life than LCD. Plasma will gradually lose brightness over time (years). LCD won't, as long as the blacklight is good.

Some people will swear that plasma shows more natural tone than LCD does. As a poster has mentioned above, a higher grade LCD will outshine a shitty plasma. You really have to do your research yourself.
 
I think most budget-priced LCDs that are 42" or lower would have some light leak, but that doesn't seem to have a stat on the specs sheet =P

I'm hoping to use my 32" as a back-up/bedroom TV someday not too long from now, and am planning to get a plasma unless I get a super deal on a very high rated LCD--definitely something at least 46" with 1080p =)
 
IMO, the PQ difference is pretty negligible. Obviously, LCDs would not sell at all if their was a huge difference. Plasma has a glass screen so its suspeptible to glare. Plasma can be burned in.

I would get an LCD from the top three (Sony, Sharp, Samsung). I previously had a 720p plasma Panny and 1080p Vizio LCD and my current 1080p Sharp LCD blows both of them out of the water.
 
I have a different experience. I had a 46" Sharp Aquos which looked amazing. it was 1080p etc. I ened up having to replace it and bought a 50" Pioneer plasma. I hooked both up to a PS3 and HD-DVD player. Played games and movies on the PS3 and movies only (of course) on the HD-DVD.

The plasma is significantly better. The colors are much richer and deeper. The viewing angle is better, but that is less of an issue. The model I bought was from Best Buy and was an older model that ran right under $1,800. The Aquos was $2,200. I did not think the Aquos couldbe topped, but the Pioneer did.
 
[quote name='freshzen']
I'm hoping to use my 32" as a back-up/bedroom TV someday not too long from now, and am planning to get a plasma unless I get a super deal on a very high rated LCD--definitely something at least 46" with 1080p =)[/quote]
yeah- thats what i'm thinking myself.

I started looking at 40ish and then i realized i completely stopped looking at 40 and just went up to 50. heh.

[quote name='Stryffe2004']I have a different experience. I had a 46" Sharp Aquos which looked amazing. it was 1080p etc. I ened up having to replace it and bought a 50" Pioneer plasma. I hooked both up to a PS3 and HD-DVD player. Played games and movies on the PS3 and movies only (of course) on the HD-DVD.

The plasma is significantly better. The colors are much richer and deeper. The viewing angle is better, but that is less of an issue. The model I bought was from Best Buy and was an older model that ran right under $1,800. The Aquos was $2,200. I did not think the Aquos couldbe topped, but the Pioneer did.[/quote]

from all the reviews and compairsons i've read, it seems like plasma is 'the bad guy'. Everyone pulls for lcd, but when i look at price vs what you get and the actual reviews of the tvs, plasma seems more and more like the way to go. Why does everyone pull for lcd? I've had tube tvs forever. This is my first even flat one. Did plasma have a bad rap like 3 years ago or something?
 
[quote name='nick filardi']Did plasma have a bad rap like 3 years ago or something?[/quote]
  • The older generations of plasma can get burned in easily
  • Relatively shorter half life
  • Runs hotter
 
If you are going to game, get an LCD.

I know that people selling plasmas say that they are better now (less burn in) but the tech who repaired my TV said the his repair shop has tons of burned in plasmas from gaming and that they really aren't that much better today than several years ago.

Since he was doing warranty work for Circuit City, he has no reason to plug one format over the other.

I've got two LCD's, both are great for gaming and sports. I wouldn't trade either one for a plasma. I've also got Samsung, which is a great set if you don't want to spend an extra $1000 for a Soany TV whose LCD panel is made at the same plant as the Samsung.

TBW
 
you people have no clue what the hell you are talking about

the top 3 in plasma's (in order: Pioneer, Panny, Samsung) are better PQ than even Sony's brand new XB4 40" and above line and that is hands down the best LCD out there period

almost all new LCD's are using new screens, some which are shinnier and cause more glare than plasma screens (almost all top plasma tvs have coatings for anti-glare, etc)....all plasma's from those manufacturers have built-in precautions, and once you get past the first 100 hours of viewing your chance of any IR (image rentention) is negligible


also whoever the hell said plasma's cost more has to be the biggest liar ive ever seen, plasma's are cheaper to produce, and therefore cost less...don't believe me? take a look around...Panny's 42" 1080P tv can be had for $1500 online...and you can not find a TV that size with that great of a picture for that price (closest you may find in an LCD that comes remotely close is $2000+ ONLINE)


also for gaming, LCD's are now adding in 120HZ which makes a difference, but plasma's only issue with gaming was the really early models possibly suffering burn-in, however LCD's was always lag...both are pretty taken care of at this point, however you are more likely to see lag in an LCD from a good manufacturer than you are burn-in on plasma from a good manufacturer

go to any legit review site, you will find they always say the best plasma's still beat the best lcd's in PQ and performance


FYI sharp lcd's have blown lately, they have way, way, WAY to many issues (which is why the price has dropped significantly since they weren't selling well)

personally the only LCD worth considering right now is the 40"+ (since the 32" is a completely different model) XBR4's from Sony, because no other LCD out there is close to plasma's (except that one, which is somewhat close)...jury's out on Sammy's new 81 series (but those cost a fortune and have been heard to have issues since the new dimming feature)

anyways, just check out avsforums.com

they'll have all the info you could dream of and then some
 
Ya, I'm with suppaman on this one. The average person that owns a Flat Screen went to the store and talked to the sales guy, and bought what they said to buy. Before I bought my 50" panny I did research for about a month. Head over to a avsforum, or some other forum where all guys talk about are flat screen TV's, and all they do is test them, and they will give you way more information than you can imagine. Most of the tech guru's on the other sites I looked at really give plasma the edge over LCD. Burn in is GREATLY reduced if not completely taken care of, and the shelf life of a TV now will last you at least 10 years. By that time you will have your holodeck set up in your living room and you ancient flat screen will be in your spare room.

If you are looking for a plasma I would only consider the top two. Pioneer and Panny. Pioneer will be out of most people's price range and for good reason. Next time you see a Pioneer set up, stare in awe. In august I bought a 50" panny that is only 720p. But I picked it up for 1100 bux so I really didn't care. It blows away the 42" LG LCD my g/f has, (it has so much better picture its not even funny)

The only downsides that I have noticed about the plasma over the LCD is...
More Weight, which can be an issue when wall mounting and they use more power. I honestly don't know what the deal is with the neg. stigma behind people not liking the Plasma screens. Every where you go and everyone you talk to say "oh plasma's are bad". Even my grandma said that to me after I bought mine. I was like "How do you know?" she said the salesman at the store told her that and he wouldn't even let her look at the plasmas. I don't know if there is more overhead with the LCD's or what.

I'm not telling you to buy one tv over the other, and for all I know my opinion could be worthless and it probably is,(thats why you should talk to people that own like 4 flat screens like the guys over on the av forums) but I do know if I were you I would check out some other forums, and ask as many questions as you can about different models, go to stores that have the models you want and check them out in person, etc, etc. This is an area you really want to do your homework on.

Good Luck
 
i believe there is a larger commission on LCD's also, they are backed by more companies, and in the past were much cheaper to ship (due to lighter weight and lack of glass)

still actually if you care to look up weights now of days, most comparable sized LCD's weigh almost as much as plasma's at the same size, like I said, panels on LCD's are shifting a bit to get better contrast and color performance and improve the viewing angle, but at the same time it is killing some positives they used to have (no glare, considerably less weight)


also, FYI for everyone, plasma's and lcd's are basically on par now in terms of and their half-life's are rated about the same

negative mentioned above that is true is they do use more power than LCD's, but otherwise most other aspects are on par, except for the fact plasma's still have a much better PQ over lcd's


and agreed, don't skimp out a few hundred dollars on a tv, and do actual research on such a large purchase, in store people know jack shit, look the stuff up online

a nice little review site is cnet.com

and like i said, in terms of crazy consumers who either work in the industry or are obsessively anal about picture quality, check out avsforums.com for people's thoughts on models, issues with certain models, fixes, etc, etc
 
Plasmas EAT UP electricity. They get three to four times hotter than an xbox 360 and really do add up the costs of your electric bill. I had one and my bill went up $10 a month!! LCDs remain cool and don't have this problem. Google the power usage of both sets before buying because the extra cost on your electricity will end up costing you more in the long run.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top