I know this is off topic, but I bought a great vacuum when Tom D. asked about one , so I thought I would give this a shot. I am looking at buying a flat screen T.V. to go above my fireplace either a plasma or lcd. I know that a lcd will last longer but they are also more expensive. To you tech gurus out in slowtwitch land, which one would you buy?
Thanks-
Sorry, no nothing about this topic. I don’t watch enough TV or videos to make it worthwhile investing in something like this. Maybe later on. Actually pulled the plug on cable TV when my son was born 8 years ago and have really not looked back or had any regrets since.
Fleck
LCD - look at Hitachi
.
All that I know is that Sony Electronics has ceased to develop any future plasma TVs in favor of LCD. If that is any indication I would go with the LCD. On the other hand I think that you now have to spend more money on an LCD of lesser picture than on a Plasma.
You just have to ask yourself the question of when you are going ot be willing to fork over another few G’s on a new TV. You have to factor in the amount of time that you will have the TV on. If you don’t use it alot than the Plasma will last quite awhile. 10 hrs a day avg gets you 16 yrs of TV on the avg Plasma. Not too bad.
Since I am gamer: play console games, as well as PC games (which I would hook up to a sweet flat panel), I would go with LCD, just for the “burn in” issue that plasma has…or DLP.
I was just at Costco last night, and the price for a Samsung DLP was about the same as a Plasma of the same size for the largest ones…less for the smaller ones.
-bcreager
The one that matches the rest of your decor.
I’ve got a 50" plasma and love it so far. Have to be a little careful with the burn-in and there are longevity questions, but when I bought 1.5 yrs ago the price split in Plasma/LCD in the same size was way too big, not sure what the split is now.
If I had it to do over again, I’d probably consider a LCD/DLP mini-projection, although I like the off-angle viewing of the true flat screens.
Keith
I am looking at the 45 inch Sharp Aquos in lcd or possibly a 42 inch or 50 inch plasma. I have had the 15 inch Sharp Aquos in my office for the last 4 years going eight hours a day with no problems.
Interesting Big Screen TV Observation
I was walking the dog late last night after dark, and what I noticed was in a number of homes, the TV screens are so big that from the sidewalk outside, I can see/tell exactly what the people are watching. Not sure if this is a good thing or not!
Fleck
So what exectly do you do for a living?
My understanding is this: If you are a serious DVD movie watcher with a very high end DVD player, go for the Plasma. The plasma screen refresh rate is quite a bit faster. That said, LCD’s are catching up fast. LCD’s are less fragile than Plasma Screens, and suffer from less burn in. The only thing I can think of as to why plasma TV technology is being abandoned may have to do with cost of production and retail prices vs. the LCD’s. Personally, I would go for the LCD. Just buy a good one not a cheap one.
Ze Gopha,
Financial Advisor and yourself?
Honesty, you can’t go wrong with either. There are some technical aspects that differ, but bottom line is that if you watch HD with either, you will be going “wow” a lot. I went in for a 27" LCD and walked out with a 50" Pioneer HD plasma. Watching HD is unfriggenbelievable. The price is still a big difference, but I got my Pioneer brand spanking new for about $3500 (hit the right day - sale, double rebate, gift certificate), about 1/2 price.
Believe it or not, it’s also worth spending extra bucks on decent component cables - I was amazed at how big a difference it made to both the video and audio when I upgraded. It will cost you another couple hundred bucks, but worth every penny. Get a decent surge protector too!! And of course the upconverting DVD (which are now around $100) to take advantage of the resolution capabilities.
Administrative intern.
I was just curious how you squeeze the 8 hours of TV a day into your work.
I just have it on cnbc all day with out the volume turned on- I think I am going to go the LCD route, thanks for all the input…
Plasmas still have better color reproduction, contrast ratios, black levels and refresh rate. If getting something where picture quality is most important plasma is still the way to go even though LCDs are catching up. I looked closely at the 45" Sharp and its nice…and with the GX model you can actually pass a true 1080p signal to it (albeit with great difficulty)…which could be useful in the future. The picture just isn’t quite up to 50" plasma standards though (IMO).
New plasmas are rated at 60,000hrs to half brightness (~20yrs at 8hrs/day) and burn-in is almost a complete non-issue. I play xbox all the time on a plasma and haven’t seen any signs of burn-in.
ot
$3500 and half price! For a TV. Holly Cow, that’s expensive.
As for the big cable, indeed it works. Now, mid-level stereo that’s worth investing in. I use the monster cable to the speakers and it makes a huge difference. There are things that I hear, with the big cables, that get lost in the sound/mix with regular cables.
Fleck
Personal opinion…Plasma for lower cost-factor today and wide range of tweaking/picture-adjustability.
LCD for more flexibility with PC input (different screen resolutions when used as PC monitor, etc.), gaming, and reduced chance of image-retention issues.
Plasma for larger/largest sizes, and LCD for small/smaller sizes below 37-in. Expected panel-life is similar for both these days.
Go here for further research: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=40
Keith
$3500 and half price! For a TV. Holly Cow, that’s expensive.
As for the big cable, indeed it works. Now, mid-level stereo that’s worth investing in. I use the monster cable to the speakers and it makes a huge difference. There are things that I hear, with the big cables, that get lost in the sound/mix with regular cables.
Fleck
That’s why I went in for the LCD - I can decent car for $7000!! But when the price for a 50" plasma is $3500, and the high-end LCD is about $2500, I decided the $1000 was a good investment considering the color, the size, and the added resolution. I’m very happy with it.
Yes, mid-level stereo is a great upgrade. I’m saving for the high end package. The monster cables are really pretty remarkable. I still can’t believe it makes that big of a difference.
It’s all crazy to me. I have a 20" old-school TV that was a hand-me-down from my Dad. I don’t have cable, watch few movies. Maybe watch the news at night a couple days a week. If I spent that much money on a TV, I would feel compelled to be in front of it a lot more - and in my life right now there is not a “lot more” time for that.
The music though is different - that’s one of my passions. Grew up in a household with great music( My Dad had a HUGE classical music collection) and great hi-fi, so for me it’s a more natural extention. I have about 500 CD’s and the same number of LP’s - yes vinyl. I listen to music all the time. Have mid-level NAD equipment for the most part, and Mission tower speakers. Thinking of upgrading the speakers next year.
Fleck