Need Help Buying A New Big Screen TV

[arg30]

Hey Guys,

I'm looking to buy a big screen TV since I'm getting my basement done. My budget's $1000 taxes in. 42" is the smallest I'd be willing to go, but if I can find a bigger one without sacrificing quality, I'm all for it.

Aside from knowing that LEDs are the way to go nowadays, I don't know much else about TVs. Wi-fi & all of that doesn't really appeal to me since I'm perfectly happy with connecting my macbook and just using it as a monitor. Are there any features that I should look out for?

And do I need to get one of those HDTV boxes & pay extra monthly? 'Cause I don't plan to use it THAT much. My parents have a big screen hdtv upstairs and they had to get one of those cisco boxes

Any general recommendations and/or reviews are welcome as well. I tried doing a search, but without much luck in finding what I needed.

I found this, but I don't know if it's any good and a search for reviews doesn't turn up much: http://www.kijijideals.ca/deals/toronto/kijiji-exclusive-sharp-42-inch-aquos-tv

tl;dr = need a new big screen tv, >=42", budget's $1000

Thanks in advance,

[Mark77]

If you shop around, you can get a LG 42LV3500 for less than $500 these days. LED backlit, 3 HDMI, 42". Picture is just as good as any other TV. It has no fancy 'smart TV' features, but if you hook it up to a HTPC, no need for that junk anyways.

You'll probably want a wall mount of some sort as well; figure an extra $80-$100 for one of those. Although if you shop around, sometimes you can get wall mounts for less. Memory Express often has some pretty good deals at their sales.

[Techgeek32]

I found a deal in Kijiji Deals that maybe you are interested. It's for a 55'' LG led TV.
http://www.kijijideals.ca/deals/toronto/kijiji-exclusive-lg-55-inch-led-tv

[will888]

OP, shop for a plasma, you won't regret it. Plamsa offers the greatest bang for the buck and it offers superior performance in terms of off axis viewing, response time. If you catch a sale, you should be able to get a 60 inch for $1000. Size does matter a lot. BTW, LED TV is really LCD TV using LEDs for backlighting.

[Mark77]

Plasma will cost you big-time in terms of power consumption, weight, and reliability though. That cheap LG screen I suggested is less than an inch thick and weighs practically nothing while using under 100W of electricity in most use scenarios.

Plasmas typically will use 3X as much electricity (+ air conditioning) to remove it. Plasma is really a dead-end technology for so many reasons -- the least of which is the requirement for the big power supply.

[hdom]

^it may have been true for Plasmas a few genations ago but according to the latest Consumer Reports review, they concluded that the difference between power consumption and reliability is virturally a draw between LCD vs Plasma now.

There are some advantages with Plasmas that LCD still can't compare, especially as far as 3D viewing is concern, the Plasmas is still the prefered choice.

[Mark77]

hdom, by all means, feel free to provide a source, but "difference between power consumption and reliability is virtually a draw between [LED backlit] LCD vs Plasma" sounds pretty ridiculous. Especially since, no matter what you do, Plasma will always require a HV power supply.

Plasma is essentially a dead-end, legacy technology, and plasma TV's are only being churned out to amortize existing factories. There's a reason why they're cheap, in other words.

[jrees]

Plasma will cost you big-time in terms of power consumption, weight, and reliability though. That cheap LG screen I suggested is less than an inch thick and weighs practically nothing while using under 100W of electricity in most use scenarios.

Plasmas typically will use 3X as much electricity (+ air conditioning) to remove it. Plasma is really a dead-end technology for so many reasons -- the least of which is the requirement for the big power supply.

Plasma costing an arm and leg to power is no longer the case. For an equivalent sized tv you're look at about 3-5 times the power consumption. Panasonic's BEST 65 inch tv will cost approximately $80 a year to power. Plasmas absolutely provide a superior image to any LED/LCD. I don't mind the power premium as it's worth it for me. I chose not to settle for a lesser picture quality and I'll pay the "premium" to do so.

Yeah, it's a thicker tv, but that doesn't make it obsolete in any way. LCD/LEDs are sexier and newer tech, that's why the premium is there. I'd bet on a Panasonic plasma in any "Pepsi-challenge" any day.

http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/panasonic-tc-p65vt50/4505-6482_7-35118305-2.html (current data)

http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/tv-consumption-chart/ (a couple years old)

EDIT: Strange, but the CNET site appears to be kinda wonky right now....

[will888]

Plasma will cost you big-time in terms of power consumption, weight, and reliability though. That cheap LG screen I suggested is less than an inch thick and weighs practically nothing while using under 100W of electricity in most use scenarios.

Plasmas typically will use 3X as much electricity (+ air conditioning) to remove it. Plasma is really a dead-end technology for so many reasons -- the least of which is the requirement for the big power supply.

Thanks for perpetuating falsehoods. My latest LG plasma is as thin as an edge lit LED panel. Its weight is comparable, not that weight is a performance parameter for a TV. Needless to say the biggest thing hampering portability is size, not mass. As for power consumption, I put a watt meter to mine just to see what kind of power it uses. I found that wattage fluctuates between about 110 to 190 watts, average is around 150 watts. I have a sony 52 inch LCD panel that uses a constant 115 watts. Yeah the plasma uses more power, 3x is a slight over statement though. As you can see, I own both technologies. I recommended plasma because I find it to be superior.

[Mark77]

Thanks for perpetuating falsehoods. My latest LG plasma is as thin as an edge lit LED panel.


*sigh*, what's its model number? Just so we're clear here and can actually look at some spec sheets.. I will grant, of course, that plasmas are cheaper, but that is because it is legacy technology, much like CRTs remained cheaper than LCD panels for computers for many years until they were finally phased out.



Its weight is comparable, not that weight is a performance parameter for a TV. Needless to say the biggest thing hampering portability is size, not mass. As for power consumption, I put a watt meter to mine just to see what kind of power it uses. I found that wattage fluctuates between about 110 to 190 watts, average is around 150 watts. I have a sony 52 inch LCD panel that uses a constant 115 watts. Yeah the plasma uses more power, 3x is a slight over statement though. As you can see, I own both technologies. I recommended plasma because I find it to be superior.

52" LCD with the LED backlighting? And certainly weight is a figure of merit -- heavier = much more difficult to lift and hang on the wall.

[Mark77]

BTW, just to compare:

http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/product/lg-electronics-lg-50-1080p-600hz-plasma-hdtv-50pa6500-50pa6500/10198493.aspx?path=9ae00575c6daeefcbcda7ac38b4a20d aen02

LG 50" 1080p 50PA6500 (Plasma) -- $800 at Future Shop, "430W typical consumption", 36.4kg

versus, say:

http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/product/lg-electronics-lg-55-1080p-120hz-led-hdtv-55lv4400-55lv4400/10183018.aspx?path=8db58847b9432415433147733e94c05 7en02

LG 55" 1080p 55LV4400 (LED LCD TV) -- $1000, "170W average power consumption (* (http://answers.lg.com/answers/7676/product/MD00001347/lg-electronics-55lv4400-questions-answers/questions.htm?page=2))" , 22kg


So I stand by my approximate figures of 3X power consumption (remember the 2nd panel is 55", not 50"), and substantially more weight and bulk for the plasma. I know its not a 100% fair comparison, so, by all means, if you have a better plasma than that model I picked from Future Shop's website, please post. Unless one absolutely needs plasma because of some lighting concern (ie: lots of sunlight in a room), LED backlit LCD panels are definitely the way to go these days, even at the slight additional expense.

[Mark77]

Plasma costing an arm and leg to power is no longer the case. For an equivalent sized tv you're look at about 3-5 times the power consumption. Panasonic's BEST 65 inch tv will cost approximately $80 a year to power. Plasmas absolutely provide a superior image to any LED/LCD. I don't mind the power premium as it's worth it for me. I chose not to settle for a lesser picture quality and I'll pay the "premium" to do so.


I don't think a $2200 TV (on sale + tax, of course) is exactly in the OP's budget, ie:

http://www.redflagdeals.com/deal/computers-electronics/panasonic-viera-65-plasma-3d-full-hdtv-1080p-219999-save-60000/

And your claim of the 65" TV costing $80/year to power doesn't hold up to scrutiny either:

http://service.us.panasonic.com/OPERMANPDF/TCP60ST30.PDF


498W, 44kg

Compare to:

http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/product/lg-electronics-lg-65-1080p-120hz-3d-led-smart-tv-65lm6200-future-shop-exclusive-65lm6200/10199298.aspx?path=d02a77a4b5586d73b810d90f0db2dc5 aen02


Typical Consumption
121 W

Weight without Stand
21.9 kg


So again....roughly 3-4X the power consumption, twice the weight. Very similar price (LED backlit LCDs cost much less to transport, so this has a significant impact on the final price at the retailler). Expected poorer reliability for the plasma versus the LED backlit LCD panel. Plasma is a dying technology destined to appear only in cheap 'legacy' sets. Plasma might save you a few bucks up-front, but they burn in more easily, present significant man-handling issues to properly mount on a wall, create 3X the heat and use 3X the electricity -- that plasma picture must sure be a lot better to maintain blind (no pun intended) fanatacism towards the obsolete plasma tech.




Yeah, it's a thicker tv, but that doesn't make it obsolete in any way.

Not a reason to throw your perfectly functional existing unit out, but if you're recommending people buy plasma these days, unless they're a video freak, then I think heads need to be shaken.



LCD/LEDs are sexier and newer tech, that's why the premium is there. I'd bet on a Panasonic plasma in any "Pepsi-challenge" any day.


So if we de-badged your heavy/bulky/hot plasma TV, and put it alongside a thin/light/cool running LED backlit LCD, you think that people would still graviate to plasma??? Because that's what a "Pepsi-challenge" would entail.

[jrees]

And your claim of the 65" TV costing $80/year to power doesn't hold up to scrutiny either:


Well, CNET made the claim, not me. I'm just passing on documented information, not just my opinion.




So again....roughly 3-4X the power consumption, twice the weight. Very similar price (LED backlit LCDs cost much less to transport, so this has a significant impact on the final price at the retailler). Expected poorer reliability for the plasma versus the LED backlit LCD panel. Plasma is a dying technology destined to appear only in cheap 'legacy' sets. Plasma might save you a few bucks up-front, but they burn in more easily, present significant man-handling issues to properly mount on a wall, create 3X the heat and use 3X the electricity -- that plasma picture must sure be a lot better to maintain blind (no pun intended) fanatacism towards the obsolete plasma tech.


LED/LCDs cost much to less to transport? Really, that's one of your points? If that's the case, why does your point go against what you are trying to support? Cheaper to transport LED? Gimme a break. Expected poorer reliability? What are we talking here? 20-30 years? Burn-in is long a thing of the past. Get over it. Significant man-handling issues? Big deal. Once it's up, it's up. I haven't felt the urge to move my tv once it was mounted.




Not a reason to throw your perfectly functional existing unit out, but if you're recommending people buy plasma these days, unless they're a video freak, then I think heads need to be shaken.

So yeah, you're right. Plasma is the superior tv. I wouldn't say I'm a video freak, but I do have a large BR collection, and why wouldn't I want the best picture I can get? I watch tv from the front (or just about any angle I please)....NOT the side where I can admire how thin an LED is. Who cares how thin a tv is when what's displayed is what counts?.





So if we de-badged your heavy/bulky/hot plasma TV, and put it alongside a thin/light/cool running LED backlit LCD, you think that people would still graviate to plasma??? Because that's what a "Pepsi-challenge" would entail.

Absolutely. It provides the best picture. You admitted just above.

[rahzel]

Plasma will cost you big-time in terms of power consumption, weight, and reliability though. That cheap LG screen I suggested is less than an inch thick and weighs practically nothing while using under 100W of electricity in most use scenarios.

Plasmas typically will use 3X as much electricity (+ air conditioning) to remove it. Plasma is really a dead-end technology for so many reasons -- the least of which is the requirement for the big power supply.
I've been a member at AVS and HighDefJunkies for several years with close to 3000 posts at AVS and I know that within the videophile community, Plasma is the way to go (especially for the last few years). You get far better bang for buck with Plasma, so the extra miniscule amount you pay more on your power bill is saved in your initial purchase. You can get a Panasonic ST50 that has better performance than any LCD other than (arguably) the Sharp Elite or Sony HX929 for a fraction of what those sets cost. The VT50 beats both of them and still costs less. Go to valueelectronics.com and see the results of the flat panel shootout. Both the most respected calibrators in the industry and audience voted the VT50 as being better than the Sharp Elite, and the Panasonic ST50 doesn't perform that far from a VT50.

My 60ST50 isn't noticeably hotter than my 55LH90 LCD with local dimming. And as for Plasma being a dead-end technology, it's not going anywhere anytime soon. If anything, both LCD and Plasma will be dead once OLED becomes affordable and stable.

Plasmas are getting nearly as thin as LCDs at around 2". Give me better performance over a set that is 1" thinner any day.

And I don't know where you're getting your reliability claim from. Oh wait, I know... from your a**.

[Mark77]

And I don't know where you're getting your reliability claim from. Oh wait, I know... from your a**.

The electronics are dramatically more complicated for a plasma versus a LED LCD. Heck, LED LCD screens don't even need high voltage power supplies at all, nor the inverters of the past. It's just plain up dumb to suggest that a plasma screen, with all the heat, HV supplies, etc., stand up reliability-wise to the LED-backlit LCD systems.

If someone wants a plasma, they better really like the picture, because there's a lot of plasma downsides that are going to make the cost of and hassle of ownership greater.

[rahzel]

The electronics are dramatically more complicated for a plasma versus a LED LCD. Heck, LED LCD screens don't even need high voltage power supplies at all, nor the inverters of the past. It's just plain up dumb to suggest that a plasma screen, with all the heat, HV supplies, etc., stand up reliability-wise to the LED-backlit LCD systems.

Not really. Panasonic, which is most popular for their Plasmas rather than LCDs, was rated most reliable brand by consumer reports. Other than that, I don't know how you can come up with any conclusion that Plasma in general is less reliable than LCD, when it probably depends on the brand more so than the technology.

If someone wants a plasma, they better really like the picture, because there's a lot of plasma downsides that are going to make the cost of and hassle of ownership greater.
As an owner of both technologies, and viewing the boards for LCD and Plasma at AVSForum, I can say that both have downsides and issues.

[Mark77]

Not really. Panasonic, which is most popular for their Plasmas rather than LCDs, was rated most reliable brand by consumer reports. Other than that, I don't know how you can come up with any conclusion that Plasma in general is less reliable than LCD, when it probably depends on the brand more so than the technology.


The LED backlit LCD is intrinsically more reliable because it doesn't use the HV supplies nor has the same level of complexity. I don't know what your so-called 'consumer reports' articles say, but I suggest a more reliable source of information. As for conclusions, just take a look at the circuit boards sometime.

[rahzel]

Consumer reports is the only source of information for TV reliability AFAIK. Other than that, there's no way to conclude that one technology is more reliable than the other. I still don't see how you think LCD is less complex than Plasma, but to each their own.

[jrees]

The LED backlit LCD is intrinsically more reliable because it doesn't use the HV supplies nor has the same level of complexity. I don't know what your so-called 'consumer reports' articles say, but I suggest a more reliable source of information. As for conclusions, just take a look at the circuit boards sometime.

How about you offer up some sources for a change.

I would trust Consumer reports over your misinformed opinions any day:

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/tvs/buying-guide.htm

Page 7, under LCD or Plasma:

"Despite reports you might have read about plasma's allegedly short life span, LCD and plasma sets should last a good 10 years or more in normal use".

If you got 11 years out of your more expensive, inferior-picture LCD, and I only got 9 or 10 out of my plasma, does that make plasma a worse choice? I hardly think so. Considering the amount of use I'd get over those years, give me the better picture any day. Stop perpetuating falsehoods and doing the job of the Sharp marketing team.

[Mark77]

Consumer reports is the only source of information for TV reliability AFAIK. Other than that, there's no way to conclude that one technology is more reliable than the other. I still don't see how you think LCD is less complex than Plasma, but to each their own.

:lol:. I give up.... </me bangs head against wall.....>

[rahzel]

You're done pulling stuff out of your a**? Good.

[Mark77]

I would trust Consumer reports over your misinformed opinions any day:


And I wouldn't trust "Consumer reports" any further than the nearest garbage can... Especially on a topic like this. They're not even making a specific claim about reliability per se, but just a normative claim, "LCD and plasma sets should last a good....". Longevity != reliability.

[Mark77]

You're done pulling stuff out of your a**? Good.

No, just no point in responding to your sort of idiocy and quoting an irrelevant passage from some two-bit publication that isn't even making a specific claim about reliability, nor has presented any actual data to back such up.

[jrees]

No, just no point in responding to your sort of idiocy and quoting an irrelevant passage from some two-bit publication that isn't even making a specific claim about reliability, nor has presented any actual data to back such up.

Again, please feel free to post such data.

[masfenix]

Jeez, stop arguing. Here is a summary of what these two are talking about:

LED LCD offers a good picture but has a lesser viewing angle (LED) LCD may (probably) use less power. It may be more RELIABLE (!= longevity) as it has less "moving parts" if you wanna call it that. It is lighter and easier to move around not that you should be moving your tv constantly. It looks better as it is thinner so if you are setting up a living room, it might actually be a good factor to device lcd vs plasma

Plasma on the other hand has a much better picture. It does use more power (some models may use up to 3x more power than its counterpart in LCD while others match the avg power consumption of a LCD) but has an initial cost savings over LCD. It is heavier then LCD which may pose problems if you want to hang it and don't have proper support on your wall. It comes with baggage (ie, more things that could go wrong) such has the HV power supply, inverters and other electronics.

That should be enough to convince some people atleast. I am in the market for a TV. I will be weighing ALL options and not just picture quality. For me plasma is winning because its cheaper, has a better picture, and i have the proper wall support to hang it. It is also in the living room with mixed sunlight.

[rahzel]

No, just no point in responding to your sort of idiocy and quoting an irrelevant passage from some two-bit publication that isn't even making a specific claim about reliability, nor has presented any actual data to back such up.
Kinda like you. :lol:

Your opinion is based on absolutely nothing and anyone with a brain is smart enough not to believe the BS you're spreading, so I don't know why I'm wasting my time.

[will888]

Kinda like you. :lol:

Your opinion is based on absolutely nothing and anyone with a brain is smart enough not to believe the BS you're spreading, so I don't know why I'm wasting my time.

@rahzel, don't go crazy trying to educate @Mark77. Some people just don't want to learn. For some, it is much easier to replay the old tape, "I heard somewhere that plasma uses a ton of power and burn in is a terrible problem...". IMHO, opinions offered only have true meaning if those offering up the opinion have hands on experience. I could easily say wow my sony LCD is the cat's PJs. I won't because it is not true. My much less expensive LG and Samsung plasmas perform a lot better. Once OLED becomes affordable, hopefully all these TVs will suffer some kind of unfortunate event so that I have an excuse to replace them.

[JWL]

Consumer reports is the only source of information for TV reliability AFAIK. Other than that, there's no way to conclude that one technology is more reliable than the other. I still don't see how you think LCD is less complex than Plasma, but to each their own.


And I wouldn't trust "Consumer reports" any further than the nearest garbage can... Especially on a topic like this. They're not even making a specific claim about reliability per se, but just a normative claim, "LCD and plasma sets should last a good....". Longevity != reliability.


:lol:. I give up.... </me bangs head against wall.....>

So there you have it. Trust the comprehensive testing and independence of Consumer Reports or Mark77. Take your pick.

[Mark77]

So there you have it. Trust the comprehensive testing and independence of Consumer Reports or Mark77. Take your pick.

I appreciate you may have never designed or maintained anything electronic in your life, but if you're really going to tell me that a HV power supply, all of the associated capacitors, converters, and all the heat it generates, is going to result in a system that has reliability equal to that of a relatively simple low voltage LED backlight PSU that drives only 1/3rd the actual power -- I'll laugh at you every time.

If you believe a claim to the contrary just because it came from "Consumer Reports", without a good chunk of published data to back it up....then its pretty pointless for me to even bother arguing with you.

[googoo]

Wow, this was a fun read!

Mark, your opinion is interesting, and some of your points valid, but the problem you run into is MOST people will take a better picture, no refresh rate issues, or the problem inherent with the multiplication of said refresh rate, over a slightly smaller TV(dimensionally) with small, but noticable viewing angle issues and an inferior picture for more money!

and this legacy issue is always silly, everybody talks about the Ford Mustang using a solid beam rear axle VS a fully independent, but guess what, the "legacy" Mustang does pretty well on the track VS many other vehicle with better suspensions.

I will happily tell people that ask me what TV "type" to get, that if you're viewing in a bright room with most of the light coming from behind you, you may want LCD, but for everytring else I always say "buy Plasma", I warn them to turn down the contrast for the first 100 hours....because there is a small, outside chance that if they run it in torch mode they MIGHT get a little burn in..........how many people do you think bought LCD over the plasma after they did some of their own research???? NONE! That's enough for me.

[JWL]

If you believe a claim to the contrary just because it came from "Consumer Reports", without a good chunk of published data to back it up....then its pretty pointless for me to even bother arguing with you.

Because they don't publish 100% of the data behind their results they should not be believed, but your opinion should be? It is I who laugh at you!


I will happily tell people that ask me what TV "type" to get, that if you're viewing in a bright room with most of the light coming from behind you, you may want LCD, but for everytring else I always say "buy Plasma", I warn them to turn down the contrast for the first 100 hours....because there is a small, outside chance that if they run it in torch mode they MIGHT get a little burn in..........how many people do you think bought LCD over the plasma after they did some of their own research???? NONE! That's enough for me.

+1. Just look at the OP's post (which to his credit he is seeking advice) where he "knows" LED is the way to go.

[poorwingman]

OP... some practical comments...

1. when you're in the basement, rather than in the store, you won't have 50 other tv's to compare it to...so you'll just sit down and enjoy it.
2. if you buy it from costco, you have 90 days for price adjustment, and an extra year of warranty.
3. if you were planning to put it on a tv stand rather than mount it, what difference does the thickness make? my tv stand is about 16" for my 46" LCD and there's another inch or two behind the tv stand for the cables.
4. i know people have talked about power consumption and i dont' know anything about it, but i think you'd hope that you wouldn't watch so much tv where the power consumption really matters that much?*
5. don't pay for more features than you need.. think about your content - if you're watching downloaded shows, it's unlikely that you'll download 1080p content. and i dont' think you'll see a diff on most rogers channels bc they degrade the quality anyways. also, DLNA is worthless on a tv because the interfaces are so hideous. you'll want to set up a htpc or jailbreak or atv2 to run plex/xbmc. however, usb might be a good feature so you can hook up hard drives or usb keys...
6. don't stretch your budget - the prices on tvs have been changing so fast the last few years that you can probably get away with spending 600-700 + tax.. and this is greedy.. but then you won't feel like an idiot should you feel that you're not happy with the tv and want to upgrade in 3-4 years.. (i.e. compared to people who spend $1500-2000 on tvs and are probably a bit more emotionally tied to a big purchase).

*also - I know you mentioned living in a house, but for anybody living in a condo, usage makes a very small portion of your power bill. "delivery charges" make up a big portion of my bill and the only big changes in my bill come when i leave the ac on in the summer.

[Mark77]

Wow, this was a fun read!

Mark, your opinion is interesting, and some of your points valid, but the problem you run into is MOST people will take a better picture, no refresh rate issues, or the problem inherent with the multiplication of said refresh rate, over a slightly smaller TV(dimensionally) with small, but noticable viewing angle issues and an inferior picture for more money!


Good points -- I would tell the OP to go to Best Buy/Future Shop, look at some sets, and decide for him/herself whether the plasma TV provides a better image or not -- preferrably under lighting conditions that are similar. Keeping in mind the disadvantages of plasma (heat, weight, reliability) and the potential advantages (ie: cost mainly, screen response time, etc). IMHO, image quality isn't something that someone on an Internet forum is really going to be able to help you with as its quite subjective and based on personal taste.

Its quite easy, at least online, to get into the trap where fanaticism overtakes practicality. And the LED backlighting systems have made amazing strides in brightness, to the point where the big downside of LCD, traditionally, has been significantly overcome. Still not surface-emmitting OLED, but screen transient response time has become far less of an issue in the LCD world as well.

[Mark77]

Because they don't publish 100% of the data behind their results they should not be believed, but your opinion should be? It is I who laugh at you!

In the particular instance, the claim was that "plasma should...". How they figure that all those components would stand up better than a relatively simple low voltage system inherent in a LED backlight system, really is a mystery to me, and should be to their readers as well.

The other thing to keep in mind when reading magazines such as that, is that independance from the influence of advertiser or review money isn't fully assured.

[jrees]

In the particular instance, the claim was that "plasma should...". How they figure that all those components would stand up better than a relatively simple low voltage system inherent in a LED backlight system, really is a mystery to me, and should be to their readers as well.

The other thing to keep in mind when reading magazines such as that, is that independance from the influence of advertiser or review money isn't fully assured.

Again, please provide some data as to the reliability of plasma. I've been waiting for data rather than your opinion.

[will888]

I appreciate you may have never designed or maintained anything electronic in your life, but if you're really going to tell me that a HV power supply, all of the associated capacitors, converters, and all the heat it generates, is going to result in a system that has reliability equal to that of a relatively simple low voltage LED backlight PSU that drives only 1/3rd the actual power -- I'll laugh at you every time.

If you believe a claim to the contrary just because it came from "Consumer Reports", without a good chunk of published data to back it up....then its pretty pointless for me to even bother arguing with you.

Yeah you are 100% correct, LCD tvs last forever and a day! I have 3 large flat panels, the oldest and newest being plasmas. I bought a Sony LCD in between because I am open minded and willing to try different technologies. Of these three sets, the only one to required service was the Sony. The panel (not the light source, entire panel) failed, after 3 months. The TV was replaced on warranty. These things happen regardless of technology. If I were to use my experience to judge, I would say that plasma TVs are more reliable and LCDs are junk. But, I know better than that.

[rahzel]

I appreciate you may have never designed or maintained anything electronic in your life, but if you're really going to tell me that a HV power supply, all of the associated capacitors, converters, and all the heat it generates, is going to result in a system that has reliability equal to that of a relatively simple low voltage LED backlight PSU that drives only 1/3rd the actual power -- I'll laugh at you every time.

If you believe a claim to the contrary just because it came from "Consumer Reports", without a good chunk of published data to back it up....then its pretty pointless for me to even bother arguing with you.
Plasma technology has been around long enough that manufacturers know to use sufficient power supplies and capacitors and supply sufficient cooling to not have any issues. AFAIK, there have been no reports of Plasmas known to be unreliable due to power supplies dying or capacitors blowing caused by heat. Samsung has had a known issue for using under-sized capacitors in their LCDs where several people have had their LCDs die prematurely and Samsung will even repair it for free out of warranty because the issue affected so many people (myself included). Samsung isn't alone either... other brands have had reports of capacitors blowing in their LCDs. Again, reliability is more dependent on brand rather than the display type. If the proper parts are used and the brand behind it is good, then it should be fairly reliable.

Fact of the matter is, there is very limited data to prove that either technology is more or less reliable than the other. To say plasma is unreliable and to use it as a point against Plasma is just straight BS, especially because you basically have nothing to back it up with.

[googoo]

Whatever the OP buys, he should do a little reading aftarwards and do a quick search on the web for "tv make and model SETTINGS"

Lots of people on sites like AVforums will get you to a great picture very quickly.

[rahzel]

Small correction, but AVSForum is where you'll want to go. AVForums is the European equivalent of AVSForum. EUR models are generally different from NA models. HighDefJunkies.com is another good messageboard for info/settings.

[ppl4golf]

Disclaimer : I haven't read all the heated plasma vs LCD debate LOL
I can't believe people still does it...Mark77...you're bad cos you started it all :):)

Anyways, posting a $499 42" TV for someone's basement knowing they can go as big as budget allows is a piece of ill advice.

There is no question here going as big as possible. The price advantage of plasma is probably only 0-5" over a similar LCD. I doubt you can actually get one for $1000 all in.

My standard is pretty low these days but a few things are still MUST for me :

1. 1080p - devices are all 1080p these days. 1080p is a must even for small TVs unless you only watch SD cable, DVD, etc.
2. Go as big as possible. The sweet spots are 55" for LCD and 60" for plasma respectively...affordable for most.
3. Somewhat thin. I do agree with Mark as this is indeed a nice feature if you wall mount. Not a must on TV cabinet, table, etc. Sharp makes some really thick LCDs as of 1-2 years ago so this is not an exclusive plasma problem.
4. I rather get a branded one and LG's pricing is pretty hard to beat.

Honestly, keep an open mind and hunt for a good deal. Basement is good for either plasma or LCD. You pay $10-20 more annually for hydro if you get plasma...big F deal LOL! Calibrate and watch less or watch only dark movie and you're even or ahead.

Have I already said bigger the better ??

[ppl4golf]

I 'd also comment on choosing between plasma vs LCD.

Plasma is not as idiot proof. Some TLC is needed. You should learn the basics if you do go for plasma.

After all, it's just a d@mn TV and I can totally understand why some don't like plasma.

[oldpro]

This thread made my day :) Both: from entertainment and technical side. Who needs to buy books to read, when we have all this for free.

Cheers and keep the discussion going !

[will888]

This thread made my day :) Both: from entertainment and technical side. Who needs to buy books to read, when we have all this for free.

Cheers and keep the discussion going !

That is what keeps me coming back to rfd, cheap deals discussions and entertainment value. This site is going to delay my retirement by years, lol. I just picked up a nexus 7 on a whim yesterday. Great tablet, only drawback is the screen. There is a slight bit of bleeding on the left side and the non uniformity sticks out like a sore thumb. These remarks would have no place in a plasma display review. Too bad there is no such thing as a 7 inch plasma screen.

[oldpro]

That is what keeps me coming back to rfd, cheap deals discussions and entertainment value. This site is going to delay my retirement by years, lol. I just picked up a nexus 7 on a whim yesterday. Great tablet, only drawback is the screen. There is a slight bit of bleeding on the left side and the non uniformity sticks out like a sore thumb. These remarks would have no place in a plasma display review. Too bad there is no such thing as a 7 inch plasma screen.
The "bleeding" issue seems to affect so many devices these days - from big screen TVs to 7" tablets. Is it that:
1) It was there always, but people didn't notice it
2) It is really happening more now than before because of lower quality screens being made
3) Does LED have anything to do with it

[will888]

The "bleeding" issue seems to affect so many devices these days - from big screen TVs to 7" tablets. Is it that:
1) It was there always, but people didn't notice it
2) It is really happening more now than before because of lower quality screens being made
3) Does LED have anything to do with it

Edge lit technology has a lot to do with it. Others will disagree, that's my opinion. This format was created to make the sets thin and cheap to produce. It not about superior performance. Concentrating all the light around the edge promotes bleeding and non uniform lighting. Not to spark another battle, I wonder if my nemesis will fire back with more disagreement.

[Mark77]

Edge lit technology has a lot to do with it. Others will disagree, that's my opinion. This format was created to make the sets thin and cheap to produce. It not about superior performance. Concentrating all the light around the edge promotes bleeding and non uniform lighting. Not to spark another battle, I wonder if my nemesis will fire back with more disagreement.

Of course, edge lighting is far from ideal. No disagreement there. OLED will be the definitive replacement for both LCD and plasma technologies.

Its almost like the front-wheel drive versus rear-wheel drive versus 4-wheel drive debate that persists in the car forums from time to time. Certain folks will swear up and down that front-wheel drive sucks, that only wussies drive front wheel drive, and that the cost of a rear wheel drive car is barely greater than a front wheel drive car. Yet most of the cars produced today are front wheel drive -- and there are very good reasons for that. Just like with cars, most of this plasma versus LED backlit LCD debate 'turns' on an individuals' perception of picture, weighed against the extra cost and operational factors (ie: poorer reliability, weight, thickness, power consumption) inherent in plasma technology.

[jrees]

Of course, edge lighting is far from ideal. No disagreement there. OLED will be the definitive replacement for both LCD and plasma technologies.

Its almost like the front-wheel drive versus rear-wheel drive versus 4-wheel drive debate that persists in the car forums from time to time. Certain folks will swear up and down that front-wheel drive sucks, that only wussies drive front wheel drive, and that the cost of a rear wheel drive car is barely greater than a front wheel drive car. Yet most of the cars produced today are front wheel drive -- and there are very good reasons for that. Just like with cars, most of this plasma versus LED backlit LCD debate 'turns' on an individuals' perception of picture, weighed against the extra cost and operational factors (ie: poorer reliability, weight, thickness, power consumption) inherent in plasma technology.

Here we go again!

[Jimbobs]

(ie: poorer reliability, weight, thickness, power consumption) inherent in plasma technology.

You just can't let it go! What age are you? 15?

[Mark77]

You just can't let it go! What age are you? 15?

What age are you? Let what go? The characteristics I gave are the downsides of plasma. Are any of them really in dispute?

[will888]

you just can't let it go! What age are you? 15?

lmao!

[wilsonlam97]

Any IPS panel will do. Everything looks incredibly realistic in 1080p.

Nothing beats a IPS panel. The viewing angles are amazing (179 degrees).

[jrees]

What age are you? Let what go? The characteristics I gave are the downsides of plasma. Are any of them really in dispute?

Yes, let me begin...

1. Poorer reliabilty. You keep claiming it's worse than LCDs, yet you haven't delivered any proof other than your opinions. Please, enlighten us. We're all waiting. Something recent please. Anybody buying a tv today, is buying one today. Not one from 2004.

2. Weight. The 65" Panasonic TCP65VT50 weighs 38kg without a stand. The 60" Sharp LC60LE845U weighs 27.5kg without a stand. The Sharp 70" LC70LE845U weighs 38kg without a stand. I fail to see how you figure the weight of a plasma is a downside. Regardless, you need 2 people to hang one, so 11.5kg between the 60" LED and 65" plasma is nothing. Hell, if you go to the 90" Sharp you're looking at 64kg. Better call in a team of structural engineers!

3. Thickness. REALLY? The 60" sharp is 5.5 cm and the 70 is 5.6cm. That 65" Panasonic plasma? Brace yourself......wait for it..... it's 5 cm!!! Dude, even if it were a WHOPPING 8 or 9 cm, who really cares? Unless any of your components (receivers, tuners, centre channel) is that size or less, does that even matter? Seriously.

4. Power consumption. I'm not going to provide these numbers AGAIN (something you have yet to do at any point). Absolutely plasma is worse than LCD, there's no question about that. If I have to pay extra to power my tv (with a superior image quality), then so be it. I'm not going to go broke doing so. The difference in power consumption between the 60" Sharp and the 65" Panasonic for the year amounts to an extra-large Tim Hortons coffee every two weeks. That's how minute the difference is. $50-$60. BIG DEAL. I suppose you'll say I'll need to spend more in hydro to run the AC to cool the thing eh? Well guess what! Think of all that money I'll save in natural gas when the heating season comes. :rolleyes:

Gimme a break!

[will888]

Yes, let me begin...

1. Poorer reliabilty. You keep claiming it's worse than LCDs, yet you haven't delivered any proof other than your opinions. Please, enlighten us. We're all waiting. Something recent please. Anybody buying a tv today, is buying one today. Not one from 2004.

2. Weight. The 65" Panasonic TCP65VT50 weighs 38kg without a stand. The 60" Sharp LC60LE845U weighs 27.5kg without a stand. The Sharp 70" LC70LE845U weighs 38kg without a stand. I fail to see how you figure the weight of a plasma is a downside. Regardless, you need 2 people to hang one, so 11.5kg between the 60" LED and 65" plasma is nothing. Hell, if you go to the 90" Sharp you're looking at 64kg. Better call in a team of structural engineers!

3. Thickness. REALLY? The 60" sharp is 5.5 cm and the 70 is 5.6cm. That 65" Panasonic plasma? Brace yourself......wait for it..... it's 5 cm!!! Dude, even if it were a WHOPPING 8 or 9 cm, who really cares? Unless any of your components (receivers, tuners, centre channel) is that size or less, does that even matter? Seriously.

4. Power consumption. I'm not going to provide these numbers AGAIN (something you have yet to do at any point). Absolutely plasma is worse than LCD, there's no question about that. If I have to pay extra to power my tv (with a superior image quality), then so be it. I'm not going to go broke doing so. The difference in power consumption between the 60" Sharp and the 65" Panasonic for the year amounts to an extra-large Tim Hortons coffee every two weeks. That's how minute the difference is. $50-$60. BIG DEAL. I suppose you'll say I'll need to spend more in hydro to run the AC to cool the thing eh? Well guess what! Think of all that money I'll save in natural gas when the heating season comes. :rolleyes:

Gimme a break!

I commend you for the effort, but I don't think @Mark77 is open minded to enough to take it all in.

[Ceryx]

What age are you? Let what go? The characteristics I gave are the downsides of plasma. Are any of them really in dispute?

Mark, have you even owned a plasma? You like to make up for stuff you don't have experience with.

I owned both LED and Plasma and Plasma beats LED in Color, Image Quality, Refresh Rate. It's really obvoius when you place them side by side.

The Cons with Plasma is that it's slightly heavier/Thicker (which isn't really a big deal) and will have burn in image for long period of video gaming/desktop output (4 hours +).

I would recommend people who watched TV/Movie go for Plasma and VIdeo gaming/HTPC go for LED/LCD.

The difference of reliability and power consumption between LCD/Plasma is minimal. Plasma has higher peak power consumption but the average power consumption between Plasma/LCD is identical. LED is about 30% lower in power consumption.

[will888]

Mark, have you even owned a plasma? You like to make up for stuff you don't have experience with.

I owned both LED and Plasma and Plasma beats LED in Color, Image Quality, Refresh Rate. It's really obvoius when you place them side by side.

The Cons with Plasma is that it's slightly heavier/Thicker (which isn't really a big deal) and will have burn in image for long period of video gaming/desktop output (4 hours +).

I would recommend people who watched TV/Movie go for Plasma and VIdeo gaming/HTPC go for LED/LCD.

The difference of reliability and power consumption between LCD/Plasma is minimal. Plasma has higher peak power consumption but the average power consumption between Plasma/LCD is identical. LED is about 30% lower in power consumption.

Dude, I have to correct you on the image retention (please don't use the term burn in). It is so hard to cause image retention on modern plasmas that I don't think it is possible to do so. I have a near 4 year old Samsung plasma that had slight image retention in the first year. My kids left a wii screen frozen for an entire day. The TV was left on and they left the house for the day. It went away after about a week. As the TV gog older, it became harder and harder to produce image retention. My 1 year old LG plasma has never shown any signs of image retention. I use it as a computer monitor 50% of the time. I don't hide the windows task bar.

[Ceryx]

http://plasmatvbuyingguide.com/plasmatv/plasmatv-burnin.html

I would say burnin isn't a problem for modern plasma. It shouldn't be an issue for average users but I would not use it for video game/image output.

I have a 42inches Sony LCD for my PS3/HTPC and 50 inches LG Plasma for my Bluray/Cable.

[JWL]

In the particular instance, the claim was that "plasma should...". How they figure that all those components would stand up better than a relatively simple low voltage system inherent in a LED backlight system, really is a mystery to me, and should be to their readers as well.

The other thing to keep in mind when reading magazines such as that, is that independance from the influence of advertiser or review money isn't fully assured.

Just because it is a mystery to you doesn't mean it isn't known to others more knowledgeable in the field.

Consumer Reports has NO advertisers to ensure 100% independence without a doubt. They also buy every product they test from a store (not supplied by vendors). Time for you to give up dissing Consumer Reports vs. your opinion.

[hdom]

Yeah, as for the reliability discussion, all the recent surveys show it is a tie between Plasma and LCD, which differ than the normal assumption that LCD should be more reliability but people always forget how are LCD tvs lited ?? It is by CCFLs and they have a fixed lifespan, too.