[quote]RSGZ wrote:
How much are you willing to spend?
Anyone who thinks a plasma looks better than an LED TV is insane IMO. LED/LCD TV’s have come a long way, and there is no advantage of a plasma.
I had a Bravia 40" LCD before, and bought a decidedly low-mid range Samsung LED TV ( http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B004TB4W4Q/ ) which comes with Samsung Smart TV - YouTube, music, movies, etc. It plugs into your router and you can stream everything wireless.
I setup a NAS drive and don’t even need my computer on anymore to watch movies or listen to music.
[/quote]
Anywhere from 800 to 1200, obviously if some incredible deal comes along that is more then I probably wouldn’t pass it up, but itd have to be pretty incredible.
Idealy Id like to stay at 1,000$.
[/quote]
I’m still in the LCD/LED camp.
Less glare/reflection on the screen, lower power consumption, much thinner panels (mine measures at 1.2 inches) and IMO a better picture when you hook up a PC to the TV. I find the higher the Hz rate on a LCD, the more “fake” the picture looks - almost too real. My Bravia never suffered ghosting and neither does the Samsung.
Other than those, it comes down to personal preference. You should really consider a surround sound system too, you could pickup a 46" TV and speakers + amp for $1200.
[quote]carbiduis wrote:
After 2-5 years you will have to refill the plasma gas. [/quote]
Please don’t give out anymore TV advice. kthnxbye.
[/quote]
And Dr. Pangloss zips in there for the win!
Seriously, you have to genuinely abuse a newer generation plasma TV to get that burn in image, if you can even do it at all. Many of the newer sets flicker (totally unnoticed) to avoid the burn in. If it doesn’t you can purchase a unit to hook inbetween input and tv to do this automatically to avoid a burn.
I have a a Samsung 55" 1080p in both LED and plasma. Honestly, I prefer the plasma, not sure why, the screen just looks more normal to me. The LED just makes things look a bit fake. Just my opinion though. The main reason to look at plasma over LED is the price, my plasma was 950, the led was around 2500. The main reason to look at LED over plasma is the heat it pumps out and the electricity it saves. Which picture is better is entirely up to you.[/quote]
I have a 40 inch LED Sanyo and a 50 inch Plasma Toshiba that I have had for 5-6 years now. To me the Plasma just looks better, also only time I have see some burn is if we leave the PS3 up and walk away for 25-20 minutes. Which is hardly ever. And it goes right away when we turn on the game.
I think the brand is a little more important than the Plasma vs LED debate.
[/quote]
With plasmas I heard there was a lot of glear coming off of the screen in different lighting situations. Have you had any problems with this or experienced this with your plasma compared to your led?[/quote]
Nope. Now I have it in a media room, before in my old house was in a very lighted living room and had no glare or vision issues.
Hey guys does anyone have any experience with vizio’s? They have them reasonably priced at wal-mart
47" vizio led 1080p 240hz for 1,000. Just wondering peoples thoughts
I’ve got a three year old 1080 50" Samsung Plasma.
It’s a very good piece of equipment. As for burn in, if I’m taking too long to find a channel on the cable menu there might be a little bit, but it fades quicker than I can get annoyed at it. Same goes for a paused video game.
One thing that made me nervous was that I moved recently and had to pay special attention to make sure it didn’t tip over or lay on it’s side. I hear the gasses would leak out if that happened and I’d have to get it re-filled.
[quote]carbiduis wrote:
After 2-5 years you will have to refill the plasma gas. [/quote]
Please don’t give out anymore TV advice. kthnxbye.
[/quote]
And Dr. Pangloss zips in there for the win!
Seriously, you have to genuinely abuse a newer generation plasma TV to get that burn in image, if you can even do it at all. Many of the newer sets flicker (totally unnoticed) to avoid the burn in. If it doesn’t you can purchase a unit to hook inbetween input and tv to do this automatically to avoid a burn.
I have a a Samsung 55" 1080p in both LED and plasma. Honestly, I prefer the plasma, not sure why, the screen just looks more normal to me. The LED just makes things look a bit fake. Just my opinion though. The main reason to look at plasma over LED is the price, my plasma was 950, the led was around 2500. The main reason to look at LED over plasma is the heat it pumps out and the electricity it saves. Which picture is better is entirely up to you.[/quote]
They both have advantages. One does better in a darker viewing room, the other better in a lighter room. The only reason plasma is priced lower is b/c it’s older technology not bc it’s inferior. I think plasma at almost half the cost of some of the newer technology is actually the better bang for your buck depending on how long you keep a TV. I have a 50" sitting in my bedroom and love it. No complaints.
[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
I’ve got a three year old 1080 50" Samsung Plasma.
It’s a very good piece of equipment. As for burn in, if I’m taking too long to find a channel on the cable menu there might be a little bit, but it fades quicker than I can get annoyed at it. Same goes for a paused video game.
One thing that made me nervous was that I moved recently and had to pay special attention to make sure it didn’t tip over or lay on it’s side. I hear the gasses would leak out if that happened and I’d have to get it re-filled.
Plasma is cheaper per inch at the larger sizes (48+ inches) and generally handles motion better that the cheaper (i.e. low and mid-range) LED and backlit LCD’s.
An LCD or LED TV will generally present a better picture in a room with lots of light, are generally the same price at the smaller sizes, and arguably the LED TV’s present a better picture. They will also be smaller and use less power/ generate less heat.
I’d be going between a LED or a Plasma, and my own personal recommendation would be:
Simply look at the size of the room, where you’re gonna sit, and figure out the size that will work best. If it’s 46" or less, get an LED. If it’s more, get a Plasma.
Samsung and Panasonic make great plasmas, and I’d be inclined to look hard at Samsungs if you’re leaning towards LED.
Cliff notes:
Plasma Pros:
Cheaper to get a BIG screen
Cheaper to get really good motion handling
Among the best picture quality for all TV’s in darker rooms with no external light (i.e. curtains drawn, dim lights)
Plasma Cons:
Size and weight
Power consumption and heat
Not as good picture in well lit (particularly natural light), busy rooms
LED Pros:
Size and Weight
Price gets more competitive from 46" down
Power consumption and heat
Good picture reproduction in all conditions
Depending on preference, produces the best picture if you spend the money
LED Cons:
Price
Colour reproduction with cheaper models (becoming less of an issue these days)
Need to get 100Hz/120Hz for good motion handling
Take home points for both:
Get a Full HD screen (1080p)
Get a plasma with a 480-600Hz subfield drive, or an LED with 120Hz refresh
Make sure you’re happy with the way the TV shows colours and motion. Cheap TV’s in particular can have “smoothing” technology that makes slow and fast motion seem unnatural.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Also, I’m not much of a “brand whore” anymore. I believe the “guts” (component parts) of these TV’s are pretty much the same. [/quote]
Pretty true. Main difference with a lot of them is the support stuff, like power regulation components etc, where they cut corners to make more money. You can’t necessarily be sure that more expensive means top tier components, either. A good warranty is your friend.
I got this one open boxed for $650… Yeah, it’s DLP and about 16" thick, but what’s the point of a wall mount TV when you still need all this shit below it (ps3, cable box, etc)
[quote]carbiduis wrote:
I’m suprised that they even still have plasmas, I thought they quit making them. After 2-5 years you will have to refill the plasma gas. Also, if you are using it for video games, or watching porn through your computer as you mentioned you may be left with “burnt-in” images that stay there. (like the startup bar at the bottom of you computer screen that is always there, if it sits there for a while it won’t go away even when you change the input, since it will be “burnt-in”). They may be trying to get rid of the lasts ones.
I would suggest going for 120Hz. I suggest that since I actually noticed* it on my friends tv without knowing that it had the increased frequency, this tells me that it would be worth a few extra bucks as you can really notice the smoother movements, especially during sports, but still noticeable otherwise.
LED may not be neccessary though, but of course YOU should determine that for yourself. I’ve heard that Samsung and I think* sony are the 2 best brands, I have a samsung (lower-end model) 32" that I got for $330 last thanksgiving and I like it a lot, very vibrant.
Cliff notes:
Don’t get a plasma
consider at least a 120hz tv
look at samsung[/quote]
what? LOL, our gym has plasmas that operate 20 hrs/day and they are going on 2 yrs old. And are fine.
and the price of plasmas is insanely cheap compared to LED, which yes is a better picture IMO, but not worth 3x the price at this point.
you can get a 40" plasma for like $400, $500 probably if you need 1080.
or like I said, go with DLP and get a 65" 1080 for a few hundred bucks more. not enough? they make 73" and 82" ones as well
I should add take into account your room. Lots of bright light, wide viewing angle needed? take these 2 into consideration.
DLP works best straight on, but doesn’t have a bad angle, but don’t expect a great picture directly to the side.
don’t expect a great pic with a brightly lit room that could have some reflections. With the blinds closed on a bay window it’s not bad, but best at night
If you get 1080, you can get away with a bigger tv in a smaller room.
google it and there are equations to find the size range best for your room.
We have a long room, and TV is about 12 ft from couch, even with 65" , the 73" would have worked well too.
don’t be afraid to go too big (just be sure to get 1080p). I didn’t think it was a big deal when I was shopping, but I don’t want to watch movies anymore, less than 1080
[quote]smokotime wrote:
Plasma is cheaper per inch at the larger sizes (48+ inches) and generally handles motion better that the cheaper (i.e. low and mid-range) LED and backlit LCD’s.
An LCD or LED TV will generally present a better picture in a room with lots of light, are generally the same price at the smaller sizes, and arguably the LED TV’s present a better picture. They will also be smaller and use less power/ generate less heat.
I’d be going between a LED or a Plasma, and my own personal recommendation would be:
Simply look at the size of the room, where you’re gonna sit, and figure out the size that will work best. If it’s 46" or less, get an LED. If it’s more, get a Plasma.
Samsung and Panasonic make great plasmas, and I’d be inclined to look hard at Samsungs if you’re leaning towards LED.
Cliff notes:
Plasma Pros:
Cheaper to get a BIG screen
Cheaper to get really good motion handling
Among the best picture quality for all TV’s in darker rooms with no external light (i.e. curtains drawn, dim lights)
Plasma Cons:
Size and weight
Power consumption and heat
Not as good picture in well lit (particularly natural light), busy rooms
LED Pros:
Size and Weight
Price gets more competitive from 46" down
Power consumption and heat
Good picture reproduction in all conditions
Depending on preference, produces the best picture if you spend the money
LED Cons:
Price
Colour reproduction with cheaper models (becoming less of an issue these days)
Need to get 100Hz/120Hz for good motion handling
Take home points for both:
Get a Full HD screen (1080p)
Get a plasma with a 480-600Hz subfield drive, or an LED with 120Hz refresh
Make sure you’re happy with the way the TV shows colours and motion. Cheap TV’s in particular can have “smoothing” technology that makes slow and fast motion seem unnatural.
[/quote]
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Also, I’m not much of a “brand whore” anymore. I believe the “guts” (component parts) of these TV’s are pretty much the same. [/quote]
Pretty true. Main difference with a lot of them is the support stuff, like power regulation components etc, where they cut corners to make more money. You can’t necessarily be sure that more expensive means top tier components, either. A good warranty is your friend.
[/quote]
the warranties do not make economic sense. from an “insurance” perspective, if you look at the life of the TV, consider the small percentage something will go wrong and compare that to the “premium” (cost of warranty), it’s not a good buy. those type of warranties are never a good buy. they are not priced correctly and there is too much “vig” built into the price for commissions.
I think I got my samsung 50" plasma for about $600. Warranty was north of $100. Think about it…does that make economic sense to you knowing what you know of TV’s?
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
I got this one open boxed for $650… Yeah, it’s DLP and about 16" thick, but what’s the point of a wall mount TV when you still need all this shit below it (ps3, cable box, etc)
and the picture is amazing
I got the internet model, which I haven’t really tested yet[/quote]
I had a mitsubishi DLP and it had a GREAT picture…but the “flashing green light of death” hit me many years later and we retired that fucker I like DLP. And you’re right…if you’re not mounting and space isn’t an issue, wtf.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Also, I’m not much of a “brand whore” anymore. I believe the “guts” (component parts) of these TV’s are pretty much the same. [/quote]
Pretty true. Main difference with a lot of them is the support stuff, like power regulation components etc, where they cut corners to make more money. You can’t necessarily be sure that more expensive means top tier components, either. A good warranty is your friend.
[/quote]
the warranties do not make economic sense. from an “insurance” perspective, if you look at the life of the TV, consider the small percentage something will go wrong and compare that to the “premium” (cost of warranty), it’s not a good buy. those type of warranties are never a good buy. they are not priced correctly and there is too much “vig” built into the price for commissions.
I think I got my samsung 50" plasma for about $600. Warranty was north of $100. Think about it…does that make economic sense to you knowing what you know of TV’s?[/quote]
Oh yeah, I wouldn’t shell out for the extended warranty. By a good warranty I just meant the term of the standard warranty, and being able to return the TV to the store instead a back to base.
Sorry, should’ve been clearer!
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Also, I’m not much of a “brand whore” anymore. I believe the “guts” (component parts) of these TV’s are pretty much the same. [/quote]
Pretty true. Main difference with a lot of them is the support stuff, like power regulation components etc, where they cut corners to make more money. You can’t necessarily be sure that more expensive means top tier components, either. A good warranty is your friend.
[/quote]
This I had a cheap LED with power regulator went out to replace was going to be as much as what I paid for the TV.
Not so much brand whore as quality whore, buying something cheap is not always the best option.
I like DLP. And you’re right…if you’re not mounting and space isn’t an issue, wtf.