Plasma vs. LCD - which is better [Archive] - Audioholics Home Theater Forums

Hi Ho

03-30-2008, 06:02 AM

If you want my opinion, plasma is still the better technology when it comes to picture quality. It is far from being "yesterdays wonder technology". I work with both types of displays from a variety of manufacturers every day and I would not by an LCD for myself. Plasma offers a better picture all around. Until something the meets or beats plasma comes around plasma is still king no matter how much the LCD fans claim it isn't. LCD has come a long way but it still has a long way to go. I'm not sure it will ever get there.

I recently had a chance to compare a Panasonic TH-50PZ700u plasma to a Sony KDL-46XBR4 LCD using the same HD source (Dish Network VIP722 HD DVR) and to put it bluntly, there was absolutely no comparison. Sure, the LCD looked pretty on bright colorful still scenes but throw in some darker areas and some motion and you have a mess compared to the plasma. The info banners and guide from the 722 looked bad on LCD too. Instead of being smooth everything was jagged. I tried every video processing option and resolution available.

That's not to say there aren't pros and cons to each. There are some situations where a plasma simply wouldn't be the best choice (extremely bright room and constant static images) but in most home settings I would choose nothing other than a good plasma display.

The Panasonic TH-42PZ77u would be a good display to look at. It has an antiglare matte finish just like LCD sets. The TH-42PZ700u has the standard glass front.

Jack Hammer

03-30-2008, 09:07 AM

IMO plasma's still offer better black levels and overall picture quality. LCDs offer less electrical draw and a better resistance to burn in (though many plasmas are pretty good too, but not all). LCDs pictures don't move as smoothly as plasmas, this is something that bothers some viewers more than others). Even though I truly believe plasma to offer the better overall picture and viewing experience, I still bought an lcd due to my viewing habits. You really need to weigh the benefits of both against your needs to decide which is best for you.

Jack

1tribeca

03-30-2008, 12:44 PM

If you like the look of CRT televisions (like we've all be staring at for 50 years) then plasma will make you happier. LCD is more useful in bright room situations as mentioned. Sony is a good place to go if you decide on LCD...for plaz, Pioneer is leagues ahead (if you can drop that kinda coin) if not, Panasonic make a nice, robust panel for moderate cash!

I think both technologies are nearing the end of their lifecycles...plasma a little sooner I think. OLED is on the horizon, but it's gonna be a while til the screens are big enough & cheap enough that the public will buy in mass quantities.

Personally, I'm holding out for 90 days until Pioneer release their 9th gen. panels. I'll snag one immediately and enjoy it for years. Will it be obsolete in a year or so, for sure...but who cares it's a spectacular piece of work!

bandphan

03-30-2008, 12:53 PM

I am going to be purchasing a HDTV in the very near future and am confused as to which is better for viewing, value, and size. My viewing room is only 22x17 or so. If anyone is able to assist me with basic information, it would be appreciated.

did you search this? this topic is / has been threaded out. What is your budget, what sources will the tv be displaying, what are the lighting conditions, is it the main tv ? These are some points that could be helpful when someone is giving you basic information. Try the search, heck just look on this page alone, im positive you will a plether of basic info.

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19905z

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41455

klh1

03-30-2008, 01:49 PM

Thanks to all of you for your information. I will continue to do research. It was mentioned what my budget would be. Well of course, I want the best for as little as possible. I am a single mom on a limited budget so below 1500.00 is ideal.

bandphan

03-30-2008, 02:04 PM

As for plasma you can pick up this http://tweeter.com/product/PRO950HD.asp for a couple hundred less than advertised. Dlp would be a tech to look into, bang for buck http://tweeter.com/product/WD57734.asp

Gatsby191

03-30-2008, 09:25 PM

---------------------------------------------------------------------------I have been to like 10 different BBs, CCs, PC Richards, Sears, etc, and I was able to do this simple side by side(well not exactly side by side)test on 3 occasions so far. Here it is: Took a certain Movie by Disney Pixar with talking CARS in it, and another certain movie with Bruce Willis in it (Live Free or Die Hard), and had them played on both a Plasma and a LCD.(both 1080P) One time with both sets playing the same movie, at the same time with the DVD signal split to both sets, and one time with seperate dvd player hooked up to each set. Not the sales person, not me, and not anyone else who happenned to catch this demo could deny that the PLASMAs had a better PQ no matter what brand set was used, and the screen sizes were all comparable too. BTW: Lighting was "normal" in every demo. The action was more on the money with plasma, the colors more vibrant, and every detail more precise. Of course this is only MHO, and everyone else's HO that witnessed these demos. I know I am going to hear about the lack of a demo on broadcasts, but in all honesty, the few Basketball games, or Soccer Games that I noticed on a few occasions, looked as sharp as ever on the Plasmas too. But the movie test told me everything that I needed to know in order to pick the winner in this LCD vs. Plasma dilema.
Take care all, Joe B.
__________________

croseiv

03-30-2008, 09:31 PM

I sure do prefer the picture quality of plasma over LCD (still).

jonnythan

03-30-2008, 09:47 PM

I just roll my eyes at anyone that says that plasma is an older technology.

LCD is a much "older" technology. LCD screens have been on digital watches, calculators, notebook computers, etc etc, for 30 years.

IMO, good plasma TVs still handily outpace even the best LCD TVs in terms of picture and motion quality. As noted, the downsides are reflective glass (which gives you a more vivid picture) and lower potential overall brightness.

Plasma is also cheaper when you get to 50" and above.

sholling

03-31-2008, 02:42 AM

The point is that plasmas still burn in I don't care what the makers claim - important if the kids are playing games. And the price of LCD is such that you can get a good consumer level 46" set for $1500-1800. Sorry folks, plasma may have the black levels but historically they haven't held up over time (durability) and in 5 years they will have gone the way of the dinosaur. If I were to buy a set today it would be a 52-60 inch LCD, but I'm also excited by the possibilities of the upcoming laser based DLP systems. I've been reading promises about them for 10 years so I'm not holding my breath.

Hi Ho

03-31-2008, 02:54 AM

And the price of LCD is such that you can get a good consumer level 46" set for $1500-1800.
The problem is that even the best LCD sets costing much more than that cannot compare to a plasma in that same price range. It's not just black levels. It's also color accuracy, viewing angles, motion, shadow detail, and image smoothness.

Yes, burn-in can happen but these days it is worried about much more than it should be. Certain manufacturers (IE: Samsung, off brands) still have problems but as far as Panasonic and Pioneer are concerned, it's a moot point.

Sorry folks, plasma may have the black levels but historically they haven't held up over time (durability) and in 5 years they will have gone the way of the dinosaur.
Plasma sets are every bit as reliable as LCD sets. The failure rate for Panasonic and Pioneer is extremely low.

MDS

03-31-2008, 04:17 AM

The problem is that even the best LCD sets costing much more than that cannot compare to a plasma in that same price range. It's not just black levels. It's also color accuracy, viewing angles, motion, shadow detail, and image smoothness.

Everyone has their preferences but I'm going to say it again. All of that is entirely subjective and the vast majority neither notice nor care. Like everyone else I've owned a CRT for a long time and I tell you the difference in black level between a CRT (and hence Plasma which is considered to be a close contender to CRT in that regard) is just not that significant.

There is a reason the entire industry is shifting towards LCD. Fight it if you want, but that is the trend. If you ask Plasma fans why they chose Plasma over LCD all they can say is 'picture quality' which is entirely non-quantifiable and subjective. If you made a list of LCD advantages vs disadvantages vis a vis Plasma, LCD wins hands down. The elusive 'picture quality' argument is lost on the vast majority of the TV buying public but the real tangible benfefits of LCD are easier to understand (I'm not going to recite them because we've discussed this crap ad nauseum). The super simple comparison is to ask a simple TV viewer if they can discern whether a 'black' image is 0 IRE like it should be or a slightly higher number and the response will be Uh...I don't know and I don't care.

But hey, pick what you like...that is all that matters.

Hi Ho

03-31-2008, 05:15 AM

I'm well aware of the trends. Trends aren't always for the better (often they aren't) and in my opinion the trend toward LCD technology is for the worse. It's a step backwards. I know that the average buyer doesn't give a damn about truely good picture quality. Picture quality is measurable. Contrast ratio and color acurracy are the two major components of good picture quality and the fact is the plasma wins those tests hands down. The primary goal of a display device is to display a picture. So, why would anyone who gives a damn about picture quality want to sacrifice that in lieu of some other percived advantage? Those who actually care about picture quality are in the minority, just like audio quality. I am simply stating my opinion. The original poster asked what was the better technology of the two. I answered.

This is an argument I will never win with some people so maybe I'll just shut up.

MDS

03-31-2008, 06:15 AM

Hey Hi Ho,
I understand that you are stating an opinion but I also believe that the masses just don't care about perceived 'picture quality'. Picture quality is subjective and although measurements can quantify some asects of it the majoirty just doesn't care - instead they look at more quantifiable aspects
such as weight, power consumption, brightness, etc.

It really is pointless to argue/discuss the perceived differences because people will choose what they feel is best for their particular cirumstance and preference...it's just that preference seems to be clearly in favor of LCD; right or wrong, it is what it is.

Pyrrho

03-31-2008, 10:34 AM

I am going to be purchasing a HDTV in the very near future and am confused as to which is better for viewing, value, and size. My viewing room is only 22x17 or so. If anyone is able to assist me with basic information, it would be appreciated.

Here is a link that lists the pros and cons of each in an easy to understand format:

http://www.crutchfieldadvisor.com/S-friCCSWpsAo/learningcenter/home/tv_flatpanel.html

As for burn-in on plasma TVs, forum rules forbid me from expressing my opinion of the intelligence of those who say it is a thing of the past. If burn-in were a thing of the past, the first brand that "solved" the problem would have given a warranty against it and bragged about it as a sales tactic. Before buying a plasma TV, download the manual for it from the manufacturers web site and read it to see what they say about burn-in. The people who say it is a thing of the past literally don't know what they are talking about. If they only read the manual to their plasma TVs they would know that it is very real.

To those who still insist it isn't real, READ YOUR DAMN MANUAL! What does the manufacturer say about it? Do you know more about it than they do? Yeah, right.

Pyrrho

03-31-2008, 10:35 AM

The point is that plasmas still burn in I don't care what the makers claim ...

The manufacturers all claim it is very real. Just look at the warnings in the owner's manuals. It is misinformed people at sites like this one who claim that burn-in on plasma isn't real, not the manufacturers, who warn against it and tell you that there is no warranty against it.

Pyrrho

03-31-2008, 10:37 AM

...

Yes, burn-in can happen but these days it is worried about much more than it should be. Certain manufacturers (IE: Samsung, off brands) still have problems but as far as Panasonic and Pioneer are concerned, it's a moot point.
...

Both Panasonic and Pioneer disagree with you. If you don't believe me, visit their web sites and download their owner's manuals for yourself. You will see that they both warn you about burn-in, which they would not need to do if it were not a real possibility with their sets.

sholling

03-31-2008, 02:27 PM

BTW I've seen one ad for a name brand 46" (SHARP AQUOS) LCD for $1400 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16889101094&CMP=AFC-C8Junction) shipped this week, and Buy.com (http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=204087675) is blowing out the 50" Samsung LED powerd DLP sets for $1000 shipped. Two excellent choices for a mom on a budget.

Midcow2

03-31-2008, 02:31 PM

Nice prices

Midcow2

03-31-2008, 02:41 PM

I just roll my eyes at anyone that says that plasma is an older technology.

LCD is a much "older" technology. LCD screens have been on digital watches, calculators, notebook computers, etc etc, for 30 years.

...

However, those LCD displays were much different; they were small, had poor illimination, low resolution, were slow switching and we basically a mono color block; i.e. black or screen color. There was a half-color gray, but thta was it!

That is akin to saying ICs are old technology because they were invented almost 60 years ago (April 1949, the German engineer Werner Jacobi).

jonnythan

03-31-2008, 02:47 PM

However, those LCD displays were much different; they were small, had poor illimination, low resolution, were slow switching and we basically a mono color block; i.e. black or screen color. There was a half-color gray, but thta was it!

That is akin to saying ICs are old technology because they were invented almost 60 years ago (April 1949, the German engineer Werner Jacobi).

Full-color active-matrix LCD screens (the things you use now as TVs) have been used for displays on laptops and other devices for far, far longer than plasma.

My only point was that calling plasma "yesterday's" technology or "old" compared to LCD simply doesn't know what they're talking about. That's not to say that plasma is necessarily better because it's "younger" technologically, of course.

sholling

03-31-2008, 03:35 PM

My only point was that calling plasma "yesterday's" technology or "old" compared to LCD simply doesn't know what they're talking about. That's not to say that plasma is necessarily better because it's "younger" technologically, of course.The point in calling plasma yesterday's technology is that it is yesterday's technology. Five years ago plasma was the only affordable large flat screen technology. They were hot energy hogs with burn in and gas leakage issues but they were relatively cheap.

Times have changed and LCD technology has caught up in size and speed (for all real world intents and purposes 4ms is instant) and the price has dropped to the point that the consumer can now buy an energy efficient high performance LCD with a great picture that will outlast a plasma for just about the same price. That's makes plasma yesterday's technology, and not who invented what when. With the exception of a couple of hold outs the manufacturers have realized this as well.

There will always be people that prefer plasma (half still watching SD TV) and I'm happy for them. But I can't recommend plasma to the average viewer.

jonnythan

03-31-2008, 03:43 PM

Well, I guess sometimes progress isn't.

I'll take a Pioneer plasma over any LCD television ever produced, thankyouverymuch :)

Duffinator

03-31-2008, 04:35 PM

Each has advantages over the other but plasma is yesterday's wonder technology and most companies are moving away from it in favor of LCD.Both technologies have been around since the 70's. :eek:

I own a LCD for my bedroom and will be buying a plasma for my main viewing room very soon. No doubt plasmas have a better picture but I still like the LCD technology better. Regardless of the back and fourth of the nuances between the two technologies look at as many sets as you can and decide which looks better for your application. Have fun shopping!

stratman

03-31-2008, 08:13 PM

I own both techs, I'll stick to plasma. I know my Panny manual inside and out, it has stern warnings about burn-in, I also own a five year old that doesn't know/care about what Panny says, my plasma is going on 5 years now (ancient as far as CE is concerned) and trust me junior has given it a workout that would have the attorneys at Panny cringing in fear of litigation. I have no problems with burn-in, ghosting, picture retention or other maladies we're warned about, sometimes manufacturers overstate or "exaggerate" to cover their collective behinds on the advice of attorneys. I'm not saying to go out and abuse your TVs, but come on where's the common sense. Now for my LCD in the master bedroom, it's never worked properly, after about 14 months the darned thing goes on when it "warms" up, quite frustrating to say the least. My 5 year old has a Sammy in his room, but he prefers mine, no doubt due to screen size, 26" vs. 42". I know MDS' logical reason for the irregularities of quantifying PQ, but to be frank both my LCDs look like crap next to my plasma. I really have no ax to grind on this, it's just my experience. I would venture to say that the majority (I know MDS, it doesn't make it valid) of flat screen owners here are plasma owners. By the way BOTH techs have basically reached their end-of-life cycle and no doubt not just plasma, but LCD will go the way of the dinosaur.

Gatsby191

03-31-2008, 08:38 PM

You know, it is so frustrating AT TIMES, to see people who keep denying obvious things. Okay, LCD is better equipped than it used to be, now that it's been out a while. Okay, BURN in does happen with Plasmas, when you, or someone else that is using it, forgets that it is an EXSPENSIVE toy. Usually turns out, that those who own these exspensive Plasmas, that do let those sets get used without issueing any rules or warnings to follow, to their young ones, or perhaps their wives, don't really give a sh#t when something bad happens to their set(burn in, fingerprints, scratches), and they just get in either their BMW or their Land Rover and go get another one. Now, on the other hand, we have the Home Theater Enthusiasts(This is called "Audioholics Home Theater Forums") who scrimp and save, go out and research, go through demos that include the viewing of an HD movie, or a Blu-Ray movie, and yes, even a regular DVD movie, in hopes of finding a PQ quality that looks as sharp and as vivid as possible. because they want the best HOME theater experience that they can possibly have without having to go to the ACTUAL theater , and they also want to be able to have that quality come from the same set(or projector)that they are going to watch regular TV on. COMPRENDE?! So the whole notion that the AVERAGE consumer doesn't care about the specifics, but rather the price, the "Burn IN", the energy efficiency, is BullSh#t! Bring one of those guys over to a plasma equipped HT the night after he watches T2 on his LCD equipped HT, and make him watch T2 again, and if he is a real HT enthusiast, he will definitely feel regret in his gut, though his pride may not allow him(or her) to admit it. So here it is: PLASMA SHOWS a BETTER PTCTURE HANDS DOWN!! And Yes,LCD will last longer, and be more energy efficient in the long run, and have no burn in, which only refers to those who don't pay attention to their beautiful new Plasma set, and yes there are a few of you out there that have a legitimate exuse for letting the TV stay paused for a day, or falling asleep while a constant image stays on for 8 hours. But, lets all be honest here. When you have been planning that Home Theater for a while, and you're buying all the great components that you have saved up for, and you start to envision that great Star Wars, or Terminator 2 Movie on opening night, if you don't have a Projector in mind, do you really want to play that Blu-Ray, HD, or even that Standard DVD, on a LCD instead of a PLASMA?!
Just My 4 cents.;) Joe B.

annunaki

04-01-2008, 12:47 AM

Both Panasonic and Pioneer disagree with you. If you don't believe me, visit their web sites and download their owner's manuals for yourself. You will see that they both warn you about burn-in, which they would not need to do if it were not a real possibility with their sets.

I have seen a still image on a Panasonic TH50px75U for over 5 hours continuously. After turning the image off, the set was completely image free in under 30 minutes.

My parents have a TH42PX600U and have had still images on it for well over 4 hours and it has no hint of burn in at all.

Panasonic's will have some image retention, but burn in on them IS a thing of the past, unless of course one were to disable the anti-burn in features.

Can one intentionally burn in a plasma, of course. Does it happen under normal instances with Panasonic and Pioneer, no. The other plasma manufacturers I cannot vouch for in that regard.

1tribeca

04-01-2008, 08:35 AM

I find it amusing that the same pro/con argument keeps popping up about the two technologies...that argument is the weight/power consumption point.

Firstly, the plasma cells are only using energy when "lit" which is about 50% of the screen, on average, at any given time. So, the power consumption argument is silly at best. Not to mention, that I'm willing to bet that a large majority of consumers who bash plasma for this reason went to pick up their LCDs in a 7-seater, 8 cyl SUV!!! Now THAT'S power consumption!!

I've seen a Sony XBR4 set up quite nicely running a Blu-ray disc...it looked great. I've also seen the plasma counterpart set up in a similiar fashion...also looked mind-blowing. I prefer the "look" of plasma, and I agree that a true film/movie watcher would prefer the look of plasma.

LCD still looks "false" to me somehow...hard to describe, but something ain't quite right.

jonnythan

04-01-2008, 09:56 AM

So, the power consumption argument is silly at best.
You just used an extremely simplified explanation of the technology to come to draw a conclusion about reality.

Problem is that it's incorrect.

Those plasma cells require a boatload of energy to be illuminated. LCDs use fluorescent backlights and a low-power panel with pixels that don't require constant excitement.

The fact is that LCD televisions use significantly less power than similar-size plasma panels. Plasmas often use many times the power of an equivalent LCD. It's true that plasma panels use more power in brighter scenes and LCDs use essentially constant power no matter what's on the screen, but even in relatively dark scenes plasmas use more energy.

Not to mention, that I'm willing to bet that a large majority of consumers who bash plasma for this reason went to pick up their LCDs in a 7-seater, 8 cyl SUV!!! Now THAT'S power consumption!!
That's an incredibly spurious argument.

I prefer the "look" of plasma, and I agree that a true film/movie watcher would prefer the look of plasma.

LCD still looks "false" to me somehow...hard to describe, but something ain't quite right.

I agree with you there.

Nuglets

04-01-2008, 11:30 AM

As somebody who hated ALL(and I mean all...Plasma, DLP, LCD, etc.) flat-screen televisions because I could see the pixels being drawn on the screen and motion always looked like crap on every single display I could possibly find at any store or at anybody's house that I know I can safely say that as of right now if you observe critically you will not find a better television than the Pioneer Pro-950. I am not a plasma fan-boy I honestly wouldn't even consider buying ANY flat screen tv up until my roommate decided we needed a new TV and I started doing a bit of research and read a bit about the Pioneer and while we were at Best-Buy(not looking for televisions) we went into the flat screen department. The didn't have the PRO model from pioneer but they did have the 42" model below it and it was obvious to me, that television looked much better than any flat-screen I had ever seen in the past. That said...we ended up at Ultimate Electronics and purchased the PRO-950 a few days later and since then we have had absolutely no issue's and I'd say that we use it far more than the average user, probably play more video games than watch TV, and sometimes my roommate will fall asleep with it on and then continue to watch it all day the next day. Wide-screen mode with 4:3 material looks normal(I don't observe any abnormal stretching) so we never have grey bars on the sides(which is what everyone i've heard of that has experienced burn has attributed it to). Basically, I'm a hater and I finally found something I consider decent and I personally can't understand how people can tolerate anything less and enjoy it.

bandphan

04-01-2008, 01:39 PM

where is the op?

stratman

04-01-2008, 02:06 PM

where is the op?

It looks like troll droppings to me.:rolleyes:

Jack Hammer

04-01-2008, 02:16 PM

It looks like troll droppings to me.:rolleyes:

Why would you say that? He posted 2 days ago thanking everyone for their replies and asking about screen size. No ones really answering his next questions, just throwing out the same tired debate over whether they feel plasma or lcd is superior.

Jack

stratman

04-01-2008, 03:04 PM

Why would you say that? He posted 2 days ago thanking everyone for their replies and asking about screen size. No ones really answering his next questions, just throwing out the same tired debate over whether they feel plasma or lcd is superior.

Jack

Well he could have been more proactive with input, not just throw a loaded question into the air and see what happens.:)

Jack Hammer

04-01-2008, 04:23 PM

Well he could have been more proactive with input, not just throw a loaded question into the air and see what happens.:)

Didn't we all ask those types of questions when we first go into HT? I don't know about you, I sure did.

As for proactive, after one reply to her saying both had advantages and disadvantages and major companies were moving toward lcd, she replied in post #3
So pretty much you are saying that LCD is the way to go? As far as size of screen for the size of room I have, would 42" be a pretty good size. I kinda think if I go any bigger, I will feel as though I am sitting right on top of the screen. Any ideas?
That was answered with some of the advantages/disadvantages of each.

Then the next day in post #8 she said,
Thanks to all of you for your information. I will continue to do research. It was mentioned what my budget would be. Well of course, I want the best for as little as possible. I am a single mom on a limited budget so below 1500.00 is ideal.
A recommendation or two was made then the thread got hijacked into the same tired, beaten to death debate about which format is superior, with few if any recommendations to help the op.

I would have left too.

Jack:)