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/toro...-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/toro...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-t...5118305-2.html (current data)

http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/t...umption-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/produ...c38b4a20daen02

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

versus, say:

http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/produ...733e94c057en02

LG 55" 1080p 55LV4400 (LED LCD TV) -- $1000, "170W average power consumption (*)" , 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/com...99-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/OPER.../TCP60ST30.PDF

498W, 44kg

Compare to:

http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/produ...0f0db2dc5aen02

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.