LCD or Plasma?
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
From: Southern Part of Heaven
LCD or Plasma?
I'm looking for a new TV for my family room and am thinking about buying either:
Choice A: http://www.bizrate.com/marketplace/product...-308910331.html, or
Choice B: http://www.bizrate.com/marketplace/product...-319437427.html.
The only thing that stands out to me is that the LCD has a higher resolution than the Plasma. I have a 23" version of the Samsung LCD in my bedroom, and I am very pleased with it. I also have a 23" Sony LCD in my kitchen, and I think the Samsung's picture is much better (the Samsung, however, doesn't fit under my cabinets), so I decided to stick with the Samsung on this next purchase. My question is, then, between LCD and Plasma, which is better? Price is virtually the same for both. Thanks.
Choice A: http://www.bizrate.com/marketplace/product...-308910331.html, or
Choice B: http://www.bizrate.com/marketplace/product...-319437427.html.
The only thing that stands out to me is that the LCD has a higher resolution than the Plasma. I have a 23" version of the Samsung LCD in my bedroom, and I am very pleased with it. I also have a 23" Sony LCD in my kitchen, and I think the Samsung's picture is much better (the Samsung, however, doesn't fit under my cabinets), so I decided to stick with the Samsung on this next purchase. My question is, then, between LCD and Plasma, which is better? Price is virtually the same for both. Thanks.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,794
Likes: 1
From: A Quiet Place
Well, there are numerous schools of thought on choices of this type, but let me see if I can lend a hand. (FYI, I do this for a living 
)
Given the choices you've listed there, I'd take the LCD for a couple of reasons. First of all, Samsung's LCDs are far better than their plasmas. When I say better, I am speaking in terms of overall picture quality. Analog TV looks much better on the LCD due to better video scaling circutry. The higher native resolution of the LCD panel with lend a hand with overall picture sharpness and clarity.
As far as which one to get, I'd say the LCD in this case. If at all possible, I'd try and seek out an LNR-409D instead of the 408. The main difference between the two is the quickened response time of the pixels on the 409. This will create less of the "tail" effect when rapid motion occurs on the screen. It might cost slightly more, but the first time you watch a sporting event, it will become readily apparent where the extra money went.
Concerning the debate between LCD and plasma, they are both essentially the same when it comes to reliability. All the phooey you've been fed by misinformed salespeople and weekend novices can go right out the window. The expected lifespan of the average plasma TV is 30,000 hours of use. The average American household watches 2,000 hours a YEAR, so you do the math. I sincerely doubt you'll care about this TV in 15 years. In contrast, an LCD is typically expected to last 50,000 hours or more, so I suppose if you were looking for an heirloom, that might be the logical choice! The only other thing to really consider is the TV's use. If you're going to play tons of video games (tons=EVERY day), I'd recommend the LCD. The only reason behind this is the potential for uneven screen wear on a plasma TV. Although I've never seen this happen in person (it is VERY unlikely you will ever encounter this), there is the potential, and rather than take the chance, I'll play it safe.
If you have any more questions regarding this, just post them up or send me a PM. I'm happy to help out a fellow S2ki'er!
)Given the choices you've listed there, I'd take the LCD for a couple of reasons. First of all, Samsung's LCDs are far better than their plasmas. When I say better, I am speaking in terms of overall picture quality. Analog TV looks much better on the LCD due to better video scaling circutry. The higher native resolution of the LCD panel with lend a hand with overall picture sharpness and clarity.
As far as which one to get, I'd say the LCD in this case. If at all possible, I'd try and seek out an LNR-409D instead of the 408. The main difference between the two is the quickened response time of the pixels on the 409. This will create less of the "tail" effect when rapid motion occurs on the screen. It might cost slightly more, but the first time you watch a sporting event, it will become readily apparent where the extra money went.
Concerning the debate between LCD and plasma, they are both essentially the same when it comes to reliability. All the phooey you've been fed by misinformed salespeople and weekend novices can go right out the window. The expected lifespan of the average plasma TV is 30,000 hours of use. The average American household watches 2,000 hours a YEAR, so you do the math. I sincerely doubt you'll care about this TV in 15 years. In contrast, an LCD is typically expected to last 50,000 hours or more, so I suppose if you were looking for an heirloom, that might be the logical choice!
The only other thing to really consider is the TV's use. If you're going to play tons of video games (tons=EVERY day), I'd recommend the LCD. The only reason behind this is the potential for uneven screen wear on a plasma TV. Although I've never seen this happen in person (it is VERY unlikely you will ever encounter this), there is the potential, and rather than take the chance, I'll play it safe.If you have any more questions regarding this, just post them up or send me a PM. I'm happy to help out a fellow S2ki'er!
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,182
Likes: 1
From: Hollywood
Originally Posted by Clayman,Feb 6 2006, 05:02 PM
Well, there are numerous schools of thought on choices of this type, but let me see if I can lend a hand. (FYI, I do this for a living )
Given the choices you've listed there, I'd take the LCD for a couple of reasons. First of all, Samsung's LCDs are far better than their plasmas. When I say better, I am speaking in terms of overall picture quality. Analog TV looks much better on the LCD due to better video scaling circutry. The higher native resolution of the LCD panel with lend a hand with overall picture sharpness and clarity.
As far as which one to get, I'd say the LCD in this case. If at all possible, I'd try and seek out an LNR-409D instead of the 408. The main difference between the two is the quickened response time of the pixels on the 409. This will create less of the "tail" effect when rapid motion occurs on the screen. It might cost slightly more, but the first time you watch a sporting event, it will become readily apparent where the extra money went.
Concerning the debate between LCD and plasma, they are both essentially the same when it comes to reliability. All the phooey you've been fed by misinformed salespeople and weekend novices can go right out the window. The expected lifespan of the average plasma TV is 30,000 hours of use. The average American household watches 2,000 hours a YEAR, so you do the math. I sincerely doubt you'll care about this TV in 15 years. In contrast, an LCD is typically expected to last 50,000 hours or more, so I suppose if you were looking for an heirloom, that might be the logical choice! The only other thing to really consider is the TV's use. If you're going to play tons of video games (tons=EVERY day), I'd recommend the LCD. The only reason behind this is the potential for uneven screen wear on a plasma TV. Although I've never seen this happen in person (it is VERY unlikely you will ever encounter this), there is the potential, and rather than take the chance, I'll play it safe.
If you have any more questions regarding this, just post them up or send me a PM. I'm happy to help out a fellow S2ki'er!
)Given the choices you've listed there, I'd take the LCD for a couple of reasons. First of all, Samsung's LCDs are far better than their plasmas. When I say better, I am speaking in terms of overall picture quality. Analog TV looks much better on the LCD due to better video scaling circutry. The higher native resolution of the LCD panel with lend a hand with overall picture sharpness and clarity.
As far as which one to get, I'd say the LCD in this case. If at all possible, I'd try and seek out an LNR-409D instead of the 408. The main difference between the two is the quickened response time of the pixels on the 409. This will create less of the "tail" effect when rapid motion occurs on the screen. It might cost slightly more, but the first time you watch a sporting event, it will become readily apparent where the extra money went.
Concerning the debate between LCD and plasma, they are both essentially the same when it comes to reliability. All the phooey you've been fed by misinformed salespeople and weekend novices can go right out the window. The expected lifespan of the average plasma TV is 30,000 hours of use. The average American household watches 2,000 hours a YEAR, so you do the math. I sincerely doubt you'll care about this TV in 15 years. In contrast, an LCD is typically expected to last 50,000 hours or more, so I suppose if you were looking for an heirloom, that might be the logical choice!
The only other thing to really consider is the TV's use. If you're going to play tons of video games (tons=EVERY day), I'd recommend the LCD. The only reason behind this is the potential for uneven screen wear on a plasma TV. Although I've never seen this happen in person (it is VERY unlikely you will ever encounter this), there is the potential, and rather than take the chance, I'll play it safe.If you have any more questions regarding this, just post them up or send me a PM. I'm happy to help out a fellow S2ki'er!
happy viewing.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,794
Likes: 1
From: A Quiet Place
Originally Posted by meth,Feb 6 2006, 07:29 PM
well said, i am an lcd man myself. i would go for the lcd of the 2 tvs you listed. actually i would go for any lcd over a plasma any day of the week for reasons stated above.
happy viewing.
happy viewing.
I didn't mean to imply I felt plasma was the inferior technology in my first post. It's actually quite the opposite most of the time. Different applications require different things. I typically favor LCD TV's for people who have families. They're just easier to maintain, and due to their increased brightness levels, can be used in brighter and more accessable environments. It's a good "no BS" TV.
In nearly every case I've personally seen, a properly adjusted plasma TV will blow the crap out of an LCD anytime. It has to do with things like black levels direclty improving contrast, shadow detail, and 3-dimensionality. Another of the important differences between the two technologies is plasma's use of heat. This allows the color palette to be more saturated and vivid. Colors have that incendiary pop when you look at them. Unfortunately, it's due to that heat plasmas have a potential for burn in, and, like CRT TV's, their pictures fade slowly over time. Bit of a catch-22, but you can see the point.
Most of the time, size becomes the deciding factor. You simply can't get an LCD larger than 46" these days, and even those are disproportionately expensive. If you're willing to buy a $5500 46" LCD, you would do wise to check out some high end 50" plasmas. On the other end, if you need something smaller than 32", you really don't have any choice but LCD.
Cheers
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
From: Southern Part of Heaven
Thanks for the feedback. Looks like, of the 2, the LCD is the better choice. Perhaps, though, I should open this up to other recommendations. I only picked the Samsungs because I like the one in my bedroom well enough. I'm not a big home theater geek. I just watch TV and the occasional DVD. No gaming here. Also, because I'd probably be pleased enough with the 40" Samsung LCD, I don't really want to spend much more than $2,000. That being said, if there are other compelling choices in this price range, I'd love to hear about them. Thanks again.
Trending Topics
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
From: Southern Part of Heaven
So this: http://www.bizrate.com/marketplace/search/...-345255993.html is the one recommended, then? Price difference isn't much. Looks good. But, the 46 inch looks very good. Though, it is hard to justify $1,200 for just a bit more viewing space...
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,794
Likes: 1
From: A Quiet Place
[QUOTE=bjohnston,Feb 6 2006, 09:28 PM]So this: http://www.bizrate.com/marketplace/search/...-345255993.html is the one recommended, then?