• New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.

Should I get LCD or Plasma?

dupfold

Established Member
Hello

I'll soon be getting an Xbox 360 and therefore looking to replace my Sony KP-44 PX2 and purchase a HD Ready large screen tv.

At first I started to look at LCD's as I've seen the amazing quality pics these can produce, that was of course until I saw the price tags! I then started to look futher a field, mainly at the plasma screens. I've been put off of these in the past as I've heard a few horror storys with regards to screen burn, breaking down etc etc (althought this was a few years back with lesser techno).

I was very happy to see that a number of recent plasmas withing my price range having been getting rave reviews by mags and forums like this, but I have a few questions.

Q1. I will mainly be using the tv to watch films and such (haven't got sky) but sometimes I have my gaming moments and therefore worried about screen burn. Maybe three times a week I play Fifa for around 5 hours per play and wondering if there is a possibility of screen burn?

Q2. Today I went and viewed a number of tv's on my short list at curries, what a waste of time, I could get a better picture on my mobile! Although there were three philips tv's (2 LCD and 1 plasma) all of simular size setup using a HD source and the LCD's quality was so much sharper, however this still could be down to the curries cowboys. Can plama's produce images as sharpe as LCD's?

Q3. My Short list, I have picked one already but what would you go for?

TV – LCD Ratings Price Pros Cons

Philips 42PF9986 5/5 £1999 LCD No Digital & smaller screen

3LCD

Sony Bravia KDF-E50A12U 4/5 £858 Digital Pic not greatest

Plasma’s

Pioneer PDP-436SXE 4.5/5 £1788 Digital Sound not great / res only 1024x768

LG 50PX4D 4/5 £1950 Digital Pic bit flickery at times
 

scrapbook

Distinguished Member
If your worried about screen burn then I wouldn't buy either of those plasmas.

In that price range for plasmas think Panasonic or stick to one of your other technologies.

I guess I play my xbox maybe slightly less than you and have had no screen burn/retention problems on my Panny plasma.

IN respect of LCD...you might want to do a search on Philips...they are not the most reliable!
 

Badger0-0

Distinguished Member
LCD is being pumped big time by the major outlets.
There has been a major drop in price in 32-36" LCD because the manufacturers totally mis-read the market. People want big if they're going to go flat.

Plasma still rules the roost PQ-wise, IMO, but no doubt some will argue.

Re:

Q1, It's still a possibility, but very remote nowadays, do a bit of research.

Q2, What you call sharper is what I call plastic, I can't argue here, if that's what you prefer, LCD wins here.

Q3, You've answered your own question.
 

dickst3

Established Member
In that size - Plasma :)
 

wellibob

Established Member
If your pocket can afford it, go LCD. While the newer plasma tv`s look amazingly good quality, their lifespan isnt so hot. Resolution also isnt a big selling point for plasma, but price is.

I tested many large screen tv`s, and i prefer LCD, mainly because they can double up as whopping PC screens in high detail. Lifespan is far greater here, but the dead or stuck pixel syndrome is a common occurance. Good hunting.
 

scrapbook

Distinguished Member
wellibob said:
If your pocket can afford it, go LCD. While the newer plasma tv`s look amazingly good quality, their lifespan isnt so hot. Resolution also isnt a big selling point for plasma, but price is.

The quoted lifespan of plasma (Panasonic) is 60,000 hours...the same as LCD. At 60,000 hours the plasma will be at half brightness...the same as a CRT :)

The Non HD Ready (but HD compatible) Panny plasma has a resolution of 852 x 480..some would say it will give you a better more life like picture then 80% of the LCD's on the markets..there are even some that will say 99.9% of the market :D

Resolution isn't everything..unless you ar going to be using it alot for PC use. Especially as dupfold appears to want the TV for normal non sky use primarily
 

pixelated

Established Member
More pixels isn't an indication of picture quality. A 5 Megapixel Canon digital camera will give you far better pictures than a 200 Megapixel Aldi special ... ;)
 

mark800

Distinguished Member
Not a fair comparison, as the lens plays a major factor (and you're making the point that the higher Megapixel camera has a poorer lens), and who is saying that all high-res TVs are implemented badly compared to lower res displays?
If two TVs have been implemented well, a high-res TV will look sharper.
 

Monk888

Established Member
mark800 said:
Not a fair comparison, as the lens plays a major factor (and you're making the point that the higher Megapixel camera has a poorer lens), and who is saying that all high-res TVs are implemented badly compared to lower res displays?
If two TVs have been implemented well, a high-res TV will look sharper.

"IF they were similarly engineered" is never a reality in engineering, so a very accidemic point and not for the real world.

A well engineered Full HD is atleast 5 years off as even the BlueRay and HDTV are still evolving and have technical issues to overcome.

I live in the here and now ; Plasma is best for PQ.
 

andykn

Prominent Member
The consensus usually is that a good plasma will have a slight edge on a good LCD for PQ but the difference is not nearly as big as it used to be.

When I went through this process I decided that the drop in PQ was offset by the no burn element of LCD. Whilst (temporary) retention is far more common in plasmas than (permanent) burn, I wasn't prepared to take the risk of a mate falling asleep drunk one night and leaving it on something nasty. I was taking a drop in PQ from CRT anyway for the benefit of having HD (for footie and Xbox360).

One element I considered important was having a panel with 1080 lines. Almost all HD in the UK is broadcast in this format and it seemed to make sense to me to get a screen that would display this without uneccessary processing.

I got the Philips 37PF9830, despite all the posts regarding this set and am very happy with it. If I was going through it again now I'd maybe wait for a newer 37in model Philips are supposed to be bringing out that might have an ethernet input, or the new Sony X series that I think will accept a 1080p signal.
 

wellibob

Established Member
For those who want a large screen go plasma , cheapest by a long way, but i look at the usage of a screen, and LCD offers more for me than just value. Each to their own. Im sure if i wanted a 56" TV in the living room, i would go for a plasma.
 

jriihi

Standard Member
I just wonder how much PQ difference there is between sony V2000 40" LCD vs panasonic 37" or 42" plasma? I would get 37" 1024x720 res plasma but seems it has 80mm fans that are quite louds (forum reports by users) vs (120mm silent in 42" model). Sony doesnt have any fans i think.
 

dickst3

Established Member
I think a very important consideration (as I found out after buying an LCD for my kitchen) is that the viewing angle on LCD is NOWHERE near as good as a plasma. When sitting down at a table in your kitchen with an LCD hung on the wall if you are looking up at it you may not see anything! We have ours on "full tilt" so it is viewable.

Our plasma on the other hand is viewable from pretty much any angle. JMHO.
 
T

tgzone

Guest
Hi ya,

I have also been trying to make my mind up on 37" tosh WLT66 or the Panny TH37PX60 Plasma
Thing is I want to use it for TV (freeview), Sky (not HD at the mo) Consoles (xbox and PS2)
and ofcourse DVD's

* I am especially into tennis so need to see no blur / fuzziness in motion!

I need to see both side by side running identical demos, etc.

Plasma - still concenred on

a) lack of pin sharpness compared to LCD - this might be an issue on console games?
b) screen retention (via logos on channels plus scores, etc when playing games
c) over time does plasma fade? ?
d) refresh rates - none quoted? is it that good?

LCD - concerned:

a) contrast ratio - black levels (although I've seen the tosh and impressed)
b) refresh rates for games
c) tv picture quality on freeview, etc.

any further thoughts /
has anyone got a wlt37 and is ti as good as wlt32?

thanks all

TG
 

mark800

Distinguished Member
mikepaul said:
"IF they were similarly engineered" is never a reality in engineering, so a very accidemic point and not for the real world.

A well engineered Full HD is atleast 5 years off as even the BlueRay and HDTV are still evolving and have technical issues to overcome.

I live in the here and now .

I live in the here and now too. That why I have a 1080p TV now (Sony X series), fed with 1080p from my PC now. With Bluray out in November, I think we're already there, rather than 5 years in the future.
 

mark800

Distinguished Member
tgzone said:
Hi ya,

Plasma - still concenred on

a) lack of pin sharpness compared to LCD - this might be an issue on console games?
b) screen retention (via logos on channels plus scores, etc when playing games
c) over time does plasma fade? ?
d) refresh rates - none quoted? is it that good?

LCD - concerned:

a) contrast ratio - black levels (although I've seen the tosh and impressed)
b) refresh rates for games
c) tv picture quality on freeview, etc.

TG

I would add the rainbow effect to your list with Plasma, as (looking at the Plasma forum), this causes a significant problem for some people. Make sure you go and look at both types of TV closely.
 

Lin3ar

Distinguished Member
I sold my 4 month old Panny LCD to get a Panny Plasma and it is by far the better of two.
The only problem I have had is retention from the score during the world cup(my Plasma was only a week old when the WC started) from BBCHD but it was gone after a hour or so.Since it has been running for over 200 hours I have not had the slightest problem and my kids watch all the channels with big logos.

Go for the Plasma if you value picture quality, they are far better than LCDs in my opinion.
 

Musketeer

Established Member
I would just like to put a word in for the LCD's.

I just bought a Sony KDL40V2000 Bravia and I'm amazed at the quality of the picture after a few simple AV forum supplied tweaks to the settings.

I was in a similar situation for months trying to decide and kept comming back to the idea of buying a plasma simply based in on picture quality.

I don't know why I actually bought an LCD but can honestly say I'm staggered by the picture quality especially with SD DVD. Also, given that there seem to be a few more issues with plasma's unrelated to picture quality LCD's are now starting to compete on even terms with plasma's. Don't be put off or feel that LCD is a second rate technology. The picture I first got with default settings was poor (as you will probably see on the average high street) but once it's set up you can get amazing PQ on LCD.

I would recommend the Bravia's specifically those with adjustable backlight as I think this may be the most important feature.
 

Musketeer

Established Member
jriihi said:
I just wonder how much PQ difference there is between sony V2000 40" LCD vs panasonic 37" or 42" plasma? I would get 37" 1024x720 res plasma but seems it has 80mm fans that are quite louds (forum reports by users) vs (120mm silent in 42" model). Sony doesnt have any fans i think.

I can testify that the Sony is totally silent and stunning as mentioned before. Lovely looking set too (even switched off)
 

nikz06

Established Member
tgzone said:
Hi ya,

I have also been trying to make my mind up on 37" tosh WLT66 or the Panny TH37PX60 Plasma
Thing is I want to use it for TV (freeview), Sky (not HD at the mo) Consoles (xbox and PS2)
and ofcourse DVD's

* I am especially into tennis so need to see no blur / fuzziness in motion!

I need to see both side by side running identical demos, etc.

Plasma - still concenred on

a) lack of pin sharpness compared to LCD - this might be an issue on console games?
b) screen retention (via logos on channels plus scores, etc when playing games
c) over time does plasma fade? ?
d) refresh rates - none quoted? is it that good?

LCD - concerned:

a) contrast ratio - black levels (although I've seen the tosh and impressed)
b) refresh rates for games
c) tv picture quality on freeview, etc.

any further thoughts /
has anyone got a wlt37 and is ti as good as wlt32?

thanks all

TG


You are mainly going to use SD sources until you get HD, therefore the PQ on the panny plasma will be miles better than the LCD! Plasma's are great for SD, the Sony LCDs are close to them indeed! After reading through many pages on the plasma forum, there are hardly any retention and burn problems on the panny, and as for gaming many users have said that 360 looks fantastic onit with no retention or burning.

HD will look stunning on the set to, I think the LCD may show more artifacts etc on SD than the plasma, thats my 2 cents.
 

jriihi

Standard Member
Musketeer said:
I was in a similar situation for months trying to decide and kept comming back to the idea of buying a plasma simply based in on picture quality.

I don't know why I actually bought an LCD but can honestly say I'm staggered by the picture quality especially with SD DVD.

Well.. how is normal digital TV PQ on that set after settings adjusted? So you feel SD DVD pq is good enough to go for this instead of plasma? What is your viewing distance?
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 8K TV dead? Philips OLED+907, Pioneer LX505 AVR plus B&W 700 S3 Reviews & Visit + AV/HiFi News
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom