LED, Plasma, HDTV?
So I've finally scrapped together enough money to buy me a new TV. Now the only problem is that I don't know which one to get. LED, Plasma, HD, are within the price range I've got, but each time I ask about the specifics for these types of TV's all I get are sales pitches and little info.
So folks, are there any major differences in these TV's? And if so, which would you go with and why? Thanks a bunch in advance.
Originally Posted by ozzy
LED is coming along real well from what I hear. LED and Plasma are usually set to HD quality though, just make sure it says 1920 x 1080P for future uses.
This is a good article about LED tvs: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-18438_7...rColumnArea1.2
Are LED televisions no longer limited to 1000 hours life? Wow, I've been out of the game for a while.
<edit> oh, we're not talking about oLED TVs. Back under the rock with me.
oLED tvs will be fucking rediculous
my housemate just got a lcd tv. it is pretty nice.
I would go with LED tv though.
LEDs are better with blacks. OLEDs are incredibly expensive and aren't really mass made at all.
Plasmas aren't really all that great. They are usualy cheaper then their LCD counterparts but they are heavy (if wall mounting) and they have to be upright at all times. So no tilting mounts. Theres really nothig wrong with LCDs other then there is so many to choose from and alot aren't worth half their price. If you go with LED I would wait till closer to X-mas and the prices will come down quite a bit once more manufactors start coming out with them.
The important things to look at are wether its full 1080p, contrast ratio (the higher the better), resloution, and if its important to you refresh rate.
There is no such thing as a LED TV; those TVs are LCDs with LED instead of cold cathode backlights. That said, the ability to turn off parts of the backlight when not in use make for better black levels.
Plasma/LCD will likely come down to how much you care about color accuracy and black levels. As a secondary concern, plasmas are generally better for darker rooms while LCDs are better for well lit areas. That's pretty much it.
But I'd suggest you do some research over on AVSForum and take advice here with a grain of salt.
Maybe if you ignore the superior color and black reproduction. Honestly, the only bad points I can think of are additional power use and glossy screens, but newer LCDs have the same screen issues. Also, I'm pretty sure you can wall mount with an angle (I know several people who have), it just can't lay down flat.Plasmas aren't really all that great.
Last edited by ephekt; 10-30-2009 at 02:41 PM.
I've had a 52" HD for a couple of years and I'm happy with it. Plasma's are cool but pricey..
Get an LCD TV, it's the best option unless you are made of money.
This thread could not be fuller of misinformed terminology.
HD: high definition, a flavor of signal
LCD: flavor of display, flat panel (as opposed to some sort of projection), same concept of display as what's used in handheld calculators and cell phones. Has to be shot through with a backlight for most useful color operations
CCFL LCD: the more affordable, mass market, traditional LCD. Uses something like a florescent tube used for interior lighting to light the LCD.
LED LCD: uses lots of LEDs to backlight the LCD, superior but pricier to CCFL LCDs
DLP HDTV: the HD version of the old bigass projection TVs
Plasma: flat paneled, brighter than LCDs, better contrast ratios than LCDs, generally better picture (although LED LCDs are encroaching). Drawbacks are they're heavier and they use about as much power as the same sized CRT (so they put off some nice heat). They also used to be pretty horrible about burn in (where something like a game scoreboard could be "burnt in" to the screen if it's stationary for long enough) but supposedly this has been mostly fixed. They're cheaper by size next to LCDs too.
So yeah. In terms of tech, LED LCDs are probably the nicest in principle, but you'll pay a lot. I've got a 32" Samsung CCFL LCD I bought in Fall of 07 which I like well enough, but I will probably go for something bigger (1080p capable) once I'm out of school. I'm not sure if I'd drop the money for the LED LCD, it depends on how far prices drop by graduation. I like how relatively little power LCDs use (and the corresponding lack of heat produced) so I don't see myself buying a plasma, but I recognize had I bought a plasma with my ~$1000 a few years ago I'd probably have a better display.
Prices (for comparison):
Plasma
CCFL LCD
LED LCD
ephekt stop trying to be difficult. Regardless of your pretentiousness about what "is" and "isn't" an LED TV, at the end of the day there IS such a thing because that's what they have been brought to market as. He doesn't need to understand the difference in the technology to understand how to differentiate them in the market.
You are one of those annoying people who refuses to answer questions with a 5 dollar answer if there's a 50 dollar alternative, aren't you?
There's no need to be a faggot about it.
Since there's a lot of faggotry going on ITT, I will try to give you some insight on what to look for.
My 36" tube RCA non-HD TV shit the bed a few months ago. I had to come up with a new TV quickly or I was about to be disowned by my family. I went to Walmart and saw some good prices on average-looking flat panels and then I went to Best Buy and wow... what a selection. But the price was ridiculous. As a former BBY employee, I wish I still had the 5% above cost discount.
Anyway, I looked on NewEgg and saw the perfect match.
47" (I was looking in the 42-46" range)
240Hz (I was looking at 120s - 240s were out of my price range until I saw this)
LG (I'm a fan of LG/Samsung products. I own a Samsung 24" flat panel for my PC and it kicks ass.)
16:9 (perfect)
2.4ms response time (Very fast)
80,000:1 dynamic, and I think like 5,000:1 static contrast ratio which is noticeably different when comparing to lesser quality screens
Anyway, my price rang was $1000-1300. I hit this TV up from NE for $1299 shipped. It was at Best Buy for $1699. It was a great investment. Shortly after I bought this it went back up to $1699 and then it was discontinued. The plasmas I looked at did not impress me. I would consider one in my bedroom or kitchen or something. And the "LED TV"s are big bucks compared to your average LCD technology.
Unless you are going for something smaller than 40" (where plasmas start), mid range prices are generally going to be lower on plasma. So long as you go with something decent like a Pioneer or Samsung, you will probably get a better picture from the plasma as well.
If you just hate plasma for some reason, look at older model Samsungs like the 500 or 600 A series. The 600 has a solid picture, 120Hz and is old enough to be ridiculously cheap. I used a 52" A650 as my primary TV for a few years and aside from some color banding, I loved it. It can't touch the Kuro I have now, but it's a nice panel and works quite well for my home office.
Marketing nonsense doesn't magically allow LEDs to produce a video image without the LCD substrate. Calling a LED-backlit-LCD a 'LED TV' is just as nonsensical as calling a plasma a CCFL TV.at the end of the day there IS such a thing because that's what they have been brought to market as.
Last edited by ephekt; 11-04-2009 at 04:53 PM.
Goto any retail store and tell them that. The average consumer looking for a TV doesn't care what it's called, they just want something easy to differentiate the terms with.
I definitely get the point you guys are making. Still, it's kind of silly that a tiny bit of semantics got so much attention.
To add, if you might want to look on Amazon. They usually beat brick and mortars by a few hundred, and their white glove delivery is top notch.
Last edited by ephekt; 11-04-2009 at 08:45 PM.
it only gets attention when people force attention on petty bits of semantics
I wasn't considering plasma to be an option because it's stupid to buy a plasma tv over an lcd.
http://gizmodo.com/5397893/why-you-d...-240-hz-lcd-tv
Good read. Felt it was relevant.
Sure, if you base your decision on everything but picture quality.
And, actually, you specifically said it was an issue of cost.
Last edited by ephekt; 11-05-2009 at 08:15 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks