My final word on the LCD vs Plasma issue

Status
Not open for further replies.

jah

Active Member
Well you will, even if it doesn't show up now. It will.

I'm not aware of LCDs spontaeously developing clouding or backlight bleed. Do you have evidence of this? I'll keep a watch out for it though. So long as it doesn't happen before I trade it in for an OLED set in around 5 years time I could care less.

Cheers,

jah
 

Schtefe

Standard Member
Well you will, even if it doesn't show up now. It will.

Can i borrow your crystal ball? Seems like you can predict the future fairly well...
I may be new but reading this thread all i see is a couple of Plasma fanboy's trying to say that plasma is better than LCD. Ad and JDM you to both need to do the new people a favour and quit posting as you are just misleading them with comments that lack any empircal evidence whatsoever.
Have either of you actually viewed a correctly set-up Samsung 656? I dont own any of these so dont think i am biased one way or another, i am simply pointing out that you both are just making wild assumptions based on flaws of previous models. I could say that your plasma will eventually suffer burn-in effects like "all plasmas do" which simply isnt true with current generation plasmas (unless you leave images static for extreme periods of time). You are making assumptions based on LCD panels of past generations with no understanding of how the technology has improved quite drastically because you are stuck in the "plasma is better than anything zone".
LCD has improved drastically compared to plasma who's technology is now reaching its limit with what engineers can do both within their engineering capacity and what is financially viable. Plasma technology is having very little money invested on it compared to LCD as market trends confirm that LCD TV's are becoming the panel of choice for most households.
LED backlighting is improving and will eventually be introduced on entry level panels and Sony's tech demo of their LED backlighting has shown that the black levels are superior than any other flat panel technology currently available (the new Sony XBR8 panels coming).
Both technologies have advantages and disadvantages, they both have improved since their conception to solve these problems.

For other new people who are fed up with this debate work out what you are going to use the TV for, what your budget is and what environment you will use the TV in. Then make your decision, dont listen to the forum trolls who are biased because they own a particular type of panel or a particular brand.

:)
 
Last edited:
J

JDM121

Guest
No, but you do get purple snakes, dirty screen effect, buzzing, and a great fat electricity bill !!!.

Plasma's are far from perfect dude.

Well I don't know what your talking about. you say it uses much more power infact the th42px80 watts uses 235 and the tx37lzd85 uses 197 watts, so only 20% more power but 10x better image! so no fat electricty bill. Unless you leave your tv on 24/7

oh and explain to me what purple snakes and dirty screen effect means? Seem like you're talking out of your ass.
 
J

JDM121

Guest
Can i borrow your crystal ball? Seems like you can predict the future fairly well...
I may be new but reading this thread all i see is a couple of Plasma fanboy's trying to say that plasma is better than LCD. Ad and JDM you to both need to do the new people a favour and quit posting as you are just misleading them with comments that lack any empircal evidence whatsoever.
Have either of you actually viewed a correctly set-up Samsung 656? I dont own any of these so dont think i am biased one way or another, i am simply pointing out that you both are just making wild assumptions based on flaws of previous models. I could say that your plasma will eventually suffer burn-in effects like "all plasmas do" which simply isnt true with current generation plasmas (unless you leave images static for extreme periods of time). You are making assumptions based on LCD panels of past generations with no understanding of how the technology has improved quite drastically because you are stuck in the "plasma is better than anything zone".
LCD has improved drastically compared to plasma who's technology is now reaching its limit with what engineers can do both within their engineering capacity and what is financially viable. Plasma technology is having very little money invested on it compared to LCD as market trends confirm that LCD TV's are becoming the panel of choice for most households.
LED backlighting is improving and will eventually be introduced on entry level panels and Sony's tech demo of their LED backlighting has shown that the black levels are superior than any other flat panel technology currently available (the new Sony XBR8 panels coming).
Both technologies have advantages and disadvantages, they both have improved since their conception to solve these problems.

For other new people who are fed up with this debate work out what you are going to use the TV for, what your budget is and what environment you will use the TV in. Then make your decision, dont listen to the forum trolls who are biased because they own a particular type of panel or a particular brand.

:)

All I can say is plasma is better, I can see, my eyes never decieve me. I am not biased, I have an LCD, seens many of the new LCDs and its clear plasma is better. If no one believes me buy an LCD and a plasma set them up probably and you will understand what I'm talking about.
 

McPhee

Well-known Member
In all fairness there isn't really a 'better' and 'worse' person in this thread. Jah, -Ad-, JDM and others have all said some pretty daft things.

That said though, Jah is pretty much just trolling the thread now. I think everybody gets what you are saying, you got the one single Samsung A656 that came out of the factory better than perfect ;)

My personal take on things? On a set by set basis i was quite impressed by the A656, but put off by Samsung's track record with technical faults developing in previous sets. A great set, but to me it didn't look as good with HD material as the Sony W4000 and Panasonic PZ85.

As for standard definition, i found the Panasonic PX80 to be the best. The 1080p LCDs just failed in comparrison, and the PZ85 was even worse (until i fed video through an external video processor, the set has a crappy deinterlacer).

Overall, LCD or Plasma? It's too general a question to answer. Both have plus points and negatives, but at the end of the day both are pretty close to equal now. At £500 - £700 and mainly SD useage the PX80 is, in my opinion, the clear winner. Moving up towards the £1k mark and my money would be on either the Sony or one of the 1080p Pannys, comparing both in store. The Panny looks a little better to my eyes, but only if all sources are outputting a progressive signal (so if an upscaling DVD player is being used and Sky HD, V+, Freesat or a good freeview box then it's not an issue). Going over the £1k mark and it's Pioneer hands down. Is it because they use Plasma technology, or because they are just damned good at making TVs? Who knows, they are still the best regardless.
 
Last edited:

jah

Active Member
Have either of you actually viewed a correctly set-up Samsung 656?

Nope, I don't believe either of them have, which is why it's been interesting watching them digging a hole for themselves despite my warning them they don't know what they're talking about.

The A656 is a great set and tremendous value for money providing you get a good one. I wouldn't try to defend Samsung's reputation as regards quality control for one minute.

Most people just want something to watch telly on: Top Gear for the blokes, and Eastenders and Corrie for the girls. For that an £800 LCD is more than adequate over a plasma at three times the price.

The diehard plasma lovers will never back down though until OLEDs are available and it's clear that it's a superior technology to everything else. I just wish they'd leave the LCD forum alone or post in a LCD vs Plasma Rant forum somewhere else which requires you to leave your sanity behind before entering;).

Cheers,

jah
 

jah

Active Member
In all fairness there isn't really a 'better' and 'worse' person in this thread. Jah, -Ad-, JDM and others have all said some pretty daft things.

I'm always open to fair criticism. What have I said that's daft? Please list these daft statements with evidence for why they qualify as daft. Thanks in advance.

That said though, Jah is pretty much just trolling the thread now. I think everybody gets what you are saying, you got the one single Samsung A656 that came out of the factory better than perfect ;)

It's my thread so I fail to see how I can be a troll. There are some trolls in here that's for sure but I'm not one of them.

I don't appear to have any of the issues reported by others. I may have been lucky and I certainly thank my lucky stars I don't have any problems. I installed the patch for the out-of-focus effect which I had noticed and now have no complaints at all. It makes a more than acceptable SD TV, fantastic pic for blu-ray from my PS3 and even makes a great monitor for my laptop. What's not to like?

I humbly apologise for getting a good A656 when many others are suffering televisual frustration but, hey, guess what? They can take theirs back for a refund or replacement and keep doing so until they're either happy or decide to buy something else. At the end of the day, this set can be had for < £800which is a great deal and it can only get cheaper.

The lesson for AD, JDM, etc. should be that if you admit that you've never even seen something you shouldn't start spouting generalisations with no evidence(not that we can see evidence here in any case). It's not big and it's not clever. AVForums has many options open to it to avoid these threads and I wish they'd take them but, hell, I enjoy a good argument as much as, if not more than, the next person because I'm always right;).

Cheers,

jah

------------------------
Samsung Silver Nano Washing Machine
 

Schtefe

Standard Member
All I can say is plasma is better, I can see, my eyes never decieve me. I am not biased, I have an LCD, seens many of the new LCDs and its clear plasma is better. If no one believes me buy an LCD and a plasma set them up probably and you will understand what I'm talking about.

Plasma is better based on your subjective view of how many different CRT, Plasma, LCD and Projector technologies? Your eyes may not be accurate, and considering the image you see is essentially formed based on how you "perceive" an image not how you "see" it also fuels the argument that viewing TV's is a subjective experience.
The fact of the matter is yourself and Ad and possibly others in this thread "appear" to have very little experience viewing a wide range of different sizes, technologies and manufacturers and you are basing your conclusions on in reality a very small sample size which isnt reliable or indicative in representing any of the technologies fairly. What i mean is you may have seen a couple great plasmas and a couple not so good LCD's, while another person may have seen a couple of not so good plasmas and a couple of great LCD's. Your conclusions are entirely uselss in the broader context...no offence :)
When OLED or Laser TV technologies are released will you continue to say that Plasma is better because your eyes never deceive you? Will you continue to say that Plasma is better than LCD when the new Sony XBR8 comes out which "apparently" has better black levels and PQ than Pioneer's Elite series of plasmas?
My advice is dont be a fanboy of a technology, check out the new stuff coming out instead of just saying that one thing is better than another when in reality you have a very limited and subjective experience which doesnt reflect at all how good the current technologies are.
 

YellowSphere

Well-known Member
The assertion that plasma is better than LCD for SD has been given a shot in the foot thanks to the awful SD quality on the new Panasonic PZ80. I think that the SD on the W4000 is okay, but there appears to be undefeatable edge enhancement rearing its ugly head. If Sony get rid of that with the new X...then it should be an awesome television.

I don't think that it'll beat the new 9th generation Pioneers, but I wouldn't be surprised if it knocked Panasonic into a cocked hat.

Also, dynamic contrast can be engaged on any of the picture modes of the 656. The Dynamic picture mode itself is The Worst Thing Ever.
 

kedge

Banned
Don't agree to all this what is better but for my 2¢ Worth I have had quite a few sets over the last year and the Sony lcd W4000 beats the Panasonic plasma 42PZ85 I have for picture quality hands down in sd/hd.

I had a few bad lcd's and heard all of this get a plasma they are the best ect so I did expecting big things but it never has delivered anything great.

The only plasma I have seen that is very good is a Pioneer lx508d but still nothing out of this world to make me run out and buy one.

Each to there own, enjoy what you have because there is always something better coming up around the corner..
 
J

JDM121

Guest
I have seen many many many TVs, oh and you said my eyes aren't accurate, well I guess I must be partially blind or something then. Plasma is clearly better, you can have fun with your LCDs but there will always be problems, like uneven backlighting, motion blur, inaccurate colours, clouding/light bleed; which plasma doesn't simply suffer from. Plasma has its problems too, but overall the viewing experience will be better with plasma!

I can't prove it to you, I don't have any evidence, the only way would be to buy both technologies and see for yourself.

I even thought LCD was as good as plasma, I was amazed by the x3500 once. But then comparing it with a even the older generation panasonic plasma,the plasma was better.
 
Since I've moved from a Samsung LCD to Samsung Plasma probably have a more valid opinion. Which is most people will be happy with either, however Plasma does seem to do a better job of compressed low quality sources better. But does mean it's because it's applying some kind of guassian filter?

Plasma motion is more fluid, and seems to keep the detail when movement happens. But I think for most people will be happy with a quality LCD setup right. I'm pretty anal about image quality, looking back at LCD I'd still recommend them. Black levels isn't a problem, also for a living room going to be well let so LCD makes sense- I find my plasma far too dark unless I ramp up contrast & brightness and that's asking for trouble. The problem now is I have freesat and those have dogs, white boxes and paranoid knacker the TV. I saw a after image of the Oppo logo, and that was only on for 20 seconds whilst changing discs. With kids now watching CBBEEBIES and playing xbox then I think LCD is a sensible option. Saying Plasma=always better is just daft.

My plasma also has the left/right side ghosting of objects, noticeable if using it as a PC monitor but also during films.

If I were to choose, then it'll be a LCD for normal everyday TV, and a projector for movies. Plasma for movies if you can't sort out a PJ.
 

McPhee

Well-known Member
I'm always open to fair criticism. What have I said that's daft? Please list these daft statements with evidence for why they qualify as daft. Thanks in advance.

Lets start with the whole Plasma "is more expensive" thing.

Comparing a Pioneer Plasma to a Samsung LCD is not very fair. You were basically saying this yourself, it's gonna trounce the Samsung in pretty much every area. That's because it's a premium brand.

Calling Plasmas expensive based on the price of a Pioneer is unfair, it's like saying that LCDs are expensive because Loewe and Bang & Olufsen charge thousands for their sets.

Coming down to more sensible priced sets i've no idea how you can call Plasma screens expensive.

The Panasonic PX8 can be had at the same price as 37/42 720p LCDs (37" for £475, 42" for £525).

The PX80 is one of the best 720p TVs you can buy, and it retails for the same price as similar LCD sets. Admittedly these are thin on the ground these days, but that's because most LCD manufacturers are releasing budget 1080p sets in that price bracket instead.

The Panasonic PZ80 retails for cheaper than the Sony W4000, and yet both are widely rated as being equals (both having good and bad points).

Then we move in to other manufacturers. LG's 50" PG6000 can be had for £900, Samsung's A456 at £520 for the 42" and under £750 for the 50". Speaking of 50" sets, Currys have been selling the 50" Panasonic PX70 for under £800!

Plasma isn't more expensive. That is cold, hard fact.

The assertion that plasma is better than LCD for SD has been given a shot in the foot thanks to the awful SD quality on the new Panasonic PZ80.

Hardly, it's not Plasma technology's fault that the PZ sucks with standard definition content. The problem lies in the de-interlacing chip being cheap and crappy.

The solution? Set all the devices you use to output in 480p/720p/1080p etc. The PZ80 can scale content fine, it's just the deinterlacing that throws it.

Plasma is better based on your subjective view of how many different CRT, Plasma, LCD and Projector technologies? Your eyes may not be accurate, and considering the image you see is essentially formed based on how you "perceive" an image not how you "see" it also fuels the argument that viewing TV's is a subjective experience.
The fact of the matter is yourself and Ad and possibly others in this thread "appear" to have very little experience viewing a wide range of different sizes, technologies and manufacturers and you are basing your conclusions on in reality a very small sample size which isnt reliable or indicative in representing any of the technologies fairly. What i mean is you may have seen a couple great plasmas and a couple not so good LCD's, while another person may have seen a couple of not so good plasmas and a couple of great LCD's. Your conclusions are entirely uselss in the broader context...no offence :)
When OLED or Laser TV technologies are released will you continue to say that Plasma is better because your eyes never deceive you? Will you continue to say that Plasma is better than LCD when the new Sony XBR8 comes out which "apparently" has better black levels and PQ than Pioneer's Elite series of plasmas?
My advice is dont be a fanboy of a technology, check out the new stuff coming out instead of just saying that one thing is better than another when in reality you have a very limited and subjective experience which doesnt reflect at all how good the current technologies are.

In all honesty the same can be said for Jah as well. You have taken a very sensible post and directed in to undermine the pro-Plasma argument when the post pretty much applies globaly.

The whole argument is pretty subjective, it's all about what suits people's needs best. This forum forgets that WAY too much when people are asking for help :(
Rather than consider which technology is better isn't it more constructive to look at a specific range of sets? Declaring a single technology or a single TV the best doesn't help the person asking for help, we are here to whittle down the crap and allow people to choose for themselves, not to guide people towards the TVs with the most noisey fanboys ;)

/Rant
 
Last edited:

SyStemDeMoN

Well-known Member
i think some LCDs are as good as plasmas, like the sonys and such, and vice versa, just not the samsungs. i have 2 family members with samsungs, mother in law has a 42inch LCD and my mother has a 50inch plasma.

now the plasma does suffer with image retention, but not nearly as bad as the LG 60pf95 i had previously. after experinceing such an appalling performance from that set, i decided i was going with LCD, a sony. but whilst i was trying to get one, which i just couldn't without waiting about a month for it, i was finally convinced to try another plasma, the panny PZ70.

i was really worried about this set as soon as i got it, after experincing the image retention on the LG. but after 2 days of viewing (i had the LG for 3 weeks) i tried as hard as i could to pick faults with it but failed apart from 1 point, which has been pointed out a few times on this forum which is motion judder. not a major problem to me as the set only cost £1200 for a 50inch. my point is i know its not the best set in the world, but by god it has an awsome picture, in HD or SD. the sammys ive seen just dont have a hope in hell of comparing to it, LCD or PLASMA. this isn't cause they make crap screens or anythind, its because their image processors just wont comapre to sonys or toshys.

by the way jah, if u actually like the picture ur getting with dynamic on, then thats great, just dont say it looked better than the pannys or pios in the same shop, when they too were prolly set to dynamic, which i think most agree, is a terrible setting to have any set on. if by some miracle u have the one TV in the world that does look good in dynamic, then bully for u!! also i am quite jealous that u have a projector, and on that point u have ur head screwed on, i would love one for movies, as i belive they are prolly the only proper way to see a movie, however dont u need an almost completeley dark room to get the most out of blacks ? not that it should matter, but i see this as the only downside to a projector.
 
Last edited:

YellowSphere

Well-known Member
uneven backlighting, motion blur, inaccurate colours, clouding/light bleed; which plasma doesn't simply suffer from.
W4000 doesn't suffer from any of those to a dramatic extent. Backlighting is uniform at proper backlight levels (i.e. low), motion blur I've only ever seen on dark scenes in poor freeview broadcasts, colours are more or less completely accurate out of the box, clouding is the same as uneven backlighting, isn't it?

Pioneer are infamed for screen uniformity issues, lest we forget, though it got a lot better in the eighth gen.

Also, McPhee, what I meant was that it was always a stock response: plasmas are better for SD. Doesn't seem to be that way any more when judging on TV received via the built in freeview tuner. To be fair, I've never had the chance to compare the W4000 and PZ80/85 side by side. I would love to compare the two with a 576p DVD signal from something dark and dingy like Sweeney Todd (which also has some great bright scenes in). Then again, isn't the W4000s deinterlacing almost as bad as the Panny's?
 

jah

Active Member
I'm afraid I consider your criticisms totally disingenuous and a blatant attempt to put words into my mouth.

Lets start with the whole Plasma "is more expensive" thing.

I have not brought this up, at all, anywhere in this thread or the other one.

Comparing a Pioneer Plasma to a Samsung LCD is not very fair. You were basically saying this yourself, it's gonna trounce the Samsung in pretty much every area. That's because it's a premium brand.

It was the plasma fanboys saying that plasma is better simply because a plasma is recognised to be the best TV available in many categories. They were effectively making the comparison between it and my A656 which is a fraction of the cost. My argument is that, on at least the black level question, the A656 can display a black which is comparable to probably even the best plasma now although I haven't seen them side by side. I saw the A656 next to a Panasonic plasma and the A656 beat the pants off it, calibration aside.

Calling Plasmas expensive based on the price of a Pioneer is unfair, it's like saying that LCDs are expensive because Loewe and Bang & Olufsen charge thousands for their sets.

As I said, I haven't.

Coming down to more sensible priced sets i've no idea how you can call Plasma screens expensive.

But then they're not Full HD are they apart from the Panasonics and they're still more expensive than the A656 and, as far as I'm concerned, not as good.

The Panasonic PX8 can be had at the same price as 37/42 720p LCDs (37" for £475, 42" for £525).

T'riffic, but I don't care. I wanted a Full HD LCD so these were never on my radar.

The PX80 is one of the best 720p TVs you can buy, and it retails for the same price as similar LCD sets. Admittedly these are thin on the ground these days, but that's because most LCD manufacturers are releasing budget 1080p sets in that price bracket instead.

There you go. I'd rather have the budget Full HD screen then I can use it with my PC.

The Panasonic PZ80 retails for cheaper than the Sony W4000, and yet both are widely rated as being equals (both having good and bad points).

Don't know if this is true and don't care.

Then we move in to other manufacturers. LG's 50" PG6000 can be had for £900, Samsung's A456 at £520 for the 42" and under £750 for the 50". Speaking of 50" sets, Currys have been selling the 50" Panasonic PX70 for under £800!

Yes, so what?

Plasma isn't more expensive. That is cold, hard fact.

But at the budget end you get more bang for you buck from a LCD.

Hardly, it's not Plasma technology's fault that the PZ sucks with standard definition content. The problem lies in the de-interlacing chip being cheap and crappy.


The solution? Set all the devices you use to output in 480p/720p/1080p etc. The PZ80 can scale content fine, it's just the deinterlacing that throws it.


In all honesty the same can be said for Jah as well. You have taken a very sensible post and directed in to undermine the pro-Plasma argument when the post pretty much applies globaly.


The whole argument is pretty subjective, it's all about what suits people's needs best. This forum forgets that WAY too much when people are asking for help :(
Rather than consider which technology is better isn't it more constructive to look at a specific range of sets? Declaring a single technology or a single TV the best doesn't help the person asking for help, we are here to whittle down the crap and allow people to choose for themselves, not to guide people towards the TVs with the most noisey fanboys ;)

/Rant

I'm afraid your rant was wasted on me. I didn't say what you've accused me of and I consider that your points are irrelevant to me and my requirements.

Cheers,

jah
 

McPhee

Well-known Member
Also, McPhee, what I meant was that it was always a stock response: plasmas are better for SD. Doesn't seem to be that way any more when judging on TV received via the built in freeview tuner. To be fair, I've never had the chance to compare the W4000 and PZ80/85 side by side. I would love to compare the two with a 576p DVD signal from something dark and dingy like Sweeney Todd (which also has some great bright scenes in). Then again, isn't the W4000s deinterlacing almost as bad as the Panny's?

The PZ85 was particularly poor, last time i had a chance to configure one was in my local Panasonic dealership. It was sat next to the PX80, which showed it up completely. The PZ looked like a cheap £400 LCD (not as bad as a Sony U-Series, maybe a Philips?).

As soon as i fed the PZ a decent signal though it sorted itself out and produced a really good picture. Not had a chance to compare directly to the W4000 either, hence why i've avoided much of a conclusion as to which of the 2 is better. I've seen them both next to the same sets (Samsungs, Toshibas etc.) and found it impossible to draw any conclusion that way.
 

Pontiac

Active Member
Okay, it turns out I was right in the first place and this thread has ended up like all the other "versus" threads dominated by fanboys and their arguments, insults and bickering with only a few sensible posts throughout the whole thread. For this reason, this thread is closed and jah if you want to start another pointless "which is better" thread do it somewhere else or you will get banned. Enough is enough on this subject.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

The latest video from AVForums

AVForums Movies Podcast: We review Dune and ask which is the best decade for horror movies?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom