BentRod
ZZZZzzzzZZZZzzzzzzzz
- Joined
- 16 December 2005
- Posts
- 694
- Reactions
- 0
Don't like either!
Doc Smith....are you the same Doc Smith from the DBA forums??
IE..the sxrd thread.
LCD or Plasma - Quick survey
- Thread starter rustyheela
- Start date
Don't like either!
Doc Smith....are you the same Doc Smith from the DBA forums??
IE..the sxrd thread.
- Joined
- 23 November 2005
- Posts
- 265
- Reactions
- 0
Didn't plasma get a reputation for using a lot more energy to operate ?
A larger carbon footprint...or whatever the jargon is.
A larger carbon footprint...or whatever the jargon is.
- Joined
- 23 March 2005
- Posts
- 1,943
- Reactions
- 1
it scientifically proven that owners of plasmas pull more chicks than those that have lcds
- Joined
- 25 September 2007
- Posts
- 1,712
- Reactions
- 13
Plasmas use more power,
otherwise personal choice
based on price I guess
some info attached
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-2.html
http://www.cnet.com.au/tvs/0,239035250,240036500,00.htm
otherwise personal choice
based on price I guess
some info attached
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-2.html
http://www.cnet.com.au/tvs/0,239035250,240036500,00.htm
- Joined
- 28 October 2008
- Posts
- 8,609
- Reactions
- 39
Yes.
I bought a large plasma mainly because I think the picture quality was more natural at the time, and the price of the set (compared to the equivalent sized LCD) was much cheaper... Running costs would be higher, but I only have it on a couple of hours a day.
If it's for a family environment where the TV may be on half the day with kids, etc using it, the power savings for LCD could be worthwhile.
Really depends on what you are going to be using it mainly for - movies, sports, general television, HTPC or game use. If it's the later, LCD definitely has some advantages there due to sharpness.
Really in the end, it's probably more brand and how good the set is rather than anything else. Buy a cheapie, and it doesn't really matter whether it's plasma or LCD, as no doubt either won't be too crash hot.
Spend a bit of time calibrating it properly .. makes a big difference. Out of the factory, often the default settings aren't optimal.
If it's for a family environment where the TV may be on half the day with kids, etc using it, the power savings for LCD could be worthwhile.
Really depends on what you are going to be using it mainly for - movies, sports, general television, HTPC or game use. If it's the later, LCD definitely has some advantages there due to sharpness.
Really in the end, it's probably more brand and how good the set is rather than anything else. Buy a cheapie, and it doesn't really matter whether it's plasma or LCD, as no doubt either won't be too crash hot.
Spend a bit of time calibrating it properly .. makes a big difference. Out of the factory, often the default settings aren't optimal.
Glen48
Money can't buy Poverty
- Joined
- 4 September 2008
- Posts
- 2,444
- Reactions
- 3
1,500 Euro that's a lot of Hertz.
- Joined
- 19 January 2009
- Posts
- 6
- Reactions
- 0
LCD appears to be more slim-lined and energy efficient. I think it is the better choice.
- Joined
- 28 March 2006
- Posts
- 3,566
- Reactions
- 1,309
Looks like the plasma will be cheap in Aus for a while until we catch up to Europe.
Article is from the UK Daily Mail online.
-----------------------------------------------------
Energy-guzzling plasma TVs will be banned in Brussels eco blitz
By Fiona Macrae
Last updated at 12:49 PM on 12th January 2009
The plasma screen television is poised to become the next victim of the battle to curb energy use.
Giant energy-guzzling flatscreens are expected to be banned under legislation due to be agreed by the EU this spring.
Plasma screens have been nicknamed the '4x4s' of the living room because they use up to four times as much electricity and are responsible for up to four times as much carbon dioxide as traditional cathode ray tube sets.
The most energy intensive will be phased out under the new EU standards for minimum energy performance, which will follow the voluntary withdrawal of the traditional 100watt light bulb.
The remaining TVs of all types will have to carry energy rating labels designed to make it easy to distinguish between the best and worst performers.
LCD flat screen TVs are much more energy efficient than their plasma cousins so are unlikely to be banned.
A 42in LCD TV uses similar amounts of energy to a much smaller traditional set.
A spokesman for the Department-for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said the plasma TV would not be banned completely, with eco-friendly sets remaining on the market.
The moves are part of an effort to tackle climate change by stemming the spiralling electricity consumption in households.
It involves phasing out wasteful devices and introducing low-energy alternatives.
Families have nearly three times as many electrical appliances and gadgets as a generation ago and the amount of electricity used to power them has doubled.
Today Britain has 60million television sets - one for every person in the country.
Plasma screens, which are common in pubs and supermarkets, as well as in homes, are among the most popular buys.
A Defra spokesman said that in the past five years the main TV in many households has changed from being a 24-32in cathode ray model to a 32-42 flatscreen TV.
Article is from the UK Daily Mail online.
-----------------------------------------------------
Energy-guzzling plasma TVs will be banned in Brussels eco blitz
By Fiona Macrae
Last updated at 12:49 PM on 12th January 2009
The plasma screen television is poised to become the next victim of the battle to curb energy use.
Giant energy-guzzling flatscreens are expected to be banned under legislation due to be agreed by the EU this spring.
Plasma screens have been nicknamed the '4x4s' of the living room because they use up to four times as much electricity and are responsible for up to four times as much carbon dioxide as traditional cathode ray tube sets.
The most energy intensive will be phased out under the new EU standards for minimum energy performance, which will follow the voluntary withdrawal of the traditional 100watt light bulb.
The remaining TVs of all types will have to carry energy rating labels designed to make it easy to distinguish between the best and worst performers.
LCD flat screen TVs are much more energy efficient than their plasma cousins so are unlikely to be banned.
A 42in LCD TV uses similar amounts of energy to a much smaller traditional set.
A spokesman for the Department-for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said the plasma TV would not be banned completely, with eco-friendly sets remaining on the market.
The moves are part of an effort to tackle climate change by stemming the spiralling electricity consumption in households.
It involves phasing out wasteful devices and introducing low-energy alternatives.
Families have nearly three times as many electrical appliances and gadgets as a generation ago and the amount of electricity used to power them has doubled.
Today Britain has 60million television sets - one for every person in the country.
Plasma screens, which are common in pubs and supermarkets, as well as in homes, are among the most popular buys.
A Defra spokesman said that in the past five years the main TV in many households has changed from being a 24-32in cathode ray model to a 32-42 flatscreen TV.
nulla nulla
Positive Expectancy
- Joined
- 24 September 2008
- Posts
- 3,588
- Reactions
- 133
Baricade the doors, chain myself to the plasma. Never in the next 5 years (extended warranty) would I even consider giving it up.
LCD or plasma? A matter of exchange of views(by forums,personal discussion,manufacturers' web site information,store salespersons,technology information sites)or simple personal preference(dictated by appearance,price,ergonomics).I have recently purchased a Samsung LA46A950
LCD and cannot be happier.I visited forums,technology information sites and the manufacturer's website to make my decision along with the ergonomic aspect.
From a price of $5500 quoted from the manufacturer's site,I purchased it at Joyce Mayne for $4150.Some of the factory default settings were changed to suit my viewing.
LCD and cannot be happier.I visited forums,technology information sites and the manufacturer's website to make my decision along with the ergonomic aspect.
From a price of $5500 quoted from the manufacturer's site,I purchased it at Joyce Mayne for $4150.Some of the factory default settings were changed to suit my viewing.
- Joined
- 18 June 2008
- Posts
- 1,071
- Reactions
- 2
Be sure to read different reviews on the net first before you goto a shop. That way you will get advice from other users that are no where near a biased as the slick salesman.
Going into a shop not really knowing what you want makes salesman lick-their-lips imo
Going into a shop not really knowing what you want makes salesman lick-their-lips imo
man you should have done more research, we did a samsung group buy few months ago
http://samsungseries6groupbuy.pbwiki.com/
I could not disclose price due to the rules of group buy but say around another 15%-20% cheaper than your $4150
Plasma has better contrast and it's true but the fact is most people just
copy what other are saying and repeat the same crab why Plasma is better than LCD ...
I did a comparison with my own eye and my own eyes cant tell too much apart, there is a slight difference I can see and I assume most people eyes will fit into that category as human eyes are pretty poor... but when you watching movies and sport that move screen many times over you be hard press to pick it out.
Arm with that LCD is much better technology
Last longer, easier to transport (Plasma u have to transport it upright)
Lighter, use less power and with Samsung series 9 OLCD technology, Plasma are as good as dead.
copy what other are saying and repeat the same crab why Plasma is better than LCD ...
I did a comparison with my own eye and my own eyes cant tell too much apart, there is a slight difference I can see and I assume most people eyes will fit into that category as human eyes are pretty poor... but when you watching movies and sport that move screen many times over you be hard press to pick it out.
Arm with that LCD is much better technology
Last longer, easier to transport (Plasma u have to transport it upright)
Lighter, use less power and with Samsung series 9 OLCD technology, Plasma are as good as dead.
nulla nulla
Positive Expectancy
- Joined
- 24 September 2008
- Posts
- 3,588
- Reactions
- 133
This is always going to be a matter of personal opinions and personal preferences. When we did our research two years ago, we checked out the better manufacturers, relying on discussions with sales reps in the larger distribution outlets, research on manufacturer websites to compare product specifications and internet searching of independent forums for customer feedback. With plasma the biggest issue was heat (power consumption?) and with LCD the problem was loss of picture quality as the screens got bigger. Hi Definition was establishing itself and the difference in picture quality in the larger screens between Plasma & LCD was noticable. Plasma, at that time, was winning. Pioneer and Panosonic where the clear market leaders in Plasma and Sony was (is) the clear leader in LCD with their different levels of picture quality dependent on which level of screen you were prepared to pay for.
We consider that the best plasma was a pioneer but opted for a panosonic only because we did an excellent deal at Bing Lee and the difference in picture quality was not worth the financial difference. Quality has improved even more since then and LCD (Sony) are moving into larger screens and getting closer to plasma quality. The real issue in the future will be the power ratings, as in refrigerators and other large domestic appliances.
You have to treat your plasma with care to avoid screen burn. Also if no-one is watching the tele, switch it off, don't leave it running in the background, you'll save on your power bill.
We consider that the best plasma was a pioneer but opted for a panosonic only because we did an excellent deal at Bing Lee and the difference in picture quality was not worth the financial difference. Quality has improved even more since then and LCD (Sony) are moving into larger screens and getting closer to plasma quality. The real issue in the future will be the power ratings, as in refrigerators and other large domestic appliances.
You have to treat your plasma with care to avoid screen burn. Also if no-one is watching the tele, switch it off, don't leave it running in the background, you'll save on your power bill.
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,310
- Reactions
- 17,561
If you do the math then you'll find that most of the difference between CRT and plasma is due to screen size. If you built a 50" CRT then that too would use quite a bit of power.
LCD's are more energy efficient however. But as a means of CO2 reduction they were hopelessly uneconomic when I was buying a TV a bit over 12 months ago. Much cheaper to just generate cleaner power but that could well change in the future if LCD prices fall.
- Joined
- 8 October 2006
- Posts
- 230
- Reactions
- 3
I luuurve my 50" Panasonic full HD plasma !! (cant believe I don't have a blu ray player yet tho)
Don't really notice the difference between plasma and lcd,
plasma was much cheaper when I bought,
even tho the running costs might be a bit more, hey it can double as a heater too
Don't really notice the difference between plasma and lcd,
plasma was much cheaper when I bought,
even tho the running costs might be a bit more, hey it can double as a heater too
man you should have done more research, we did a samsung group buy few months ago
http://samsungseries6groupbuy.pbwiki.com/
I could not disclose price due to the rules of group buy but say around another 15%-20% cheaper than your $4150
Noticed not many LA46A950s' ordered.Most of those who did were waiting for pricing.If customers picked that particular model up for $3320-$3528,they have achieved a great deal.That is a saving of around 40% on the manufacturer's website price.And the model has only been released for a short time.
- Joined
- 3 March 2007
- Posts
- 274
- Reactions
- 2
I just bought the LA46A650 (yesterday) which is the Series 6 46" Samsung LCD, they have newer models, Series 7, Series 8 & Series 9 but you pay big bucks the newer you go and i reckeon Series 6 gives best bang for buck.
I paid $2600.00 and they have a free blue ray player redemption offer until 31st of January 2009. See Samsung site for details.
I spent days researching and looking at TV's.
My advice is that if your room is dark, no back ground lights or windows and is specially set up for cinema or viewing TV, then consider Plasma. But, any windows or backfground light and you will see it reflecting in the glass on the Plasma screen. This is unacceptable to me, go to almost any shop and you will see the difference side by side, the reflection is noticeabe and distracting.
That was what ultimately made the decision for me.
Check out any of the Samsung series 6-9 above, they are brilliant TV's.
JW
I paid $2600.00 and they have a free blue ray player redemption offer until 31st of January 2009. See Samsung site for details.
I spent days researching and looking at TV's.
My advice is that if your room is dark, no back ground lights or windows and is specially set up for cinema or viewing TV, then consider Plasma. But, any windows or backfground light and you will see it reflecting in the glass on the Plasma screen. This is unacceptable to me, go to almost any shop and you will see the difference side by side, the reflection is noticeabe and distracting.
That was what ultimately made the decision for me.
Check out any of the Samsung series 6-9 above, they are brilliant TV's.
JW
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,310
- Reactions
- 17,561
With any TV some background lighting is important for ergonomic reasons and generally speaking 40 - 50 lux will be about right.
As for the reflection isse, that is a function of the screen surface (matte versus gloss) rather than plasma versys LCD technology per se. There are LCD monitors around that have reflection issues far worse than any CRT or plasma due to their highly reflective gloss plastic screen. Likewise, in theory at least, it's not impossible to manufacture a CRT or plasma that doesn't reflect - that was commonly done with CRT computer monitors for a while.
Long term, I do think the whole argument is fairly obvious. I just can't see plasma being the way of the future - it's a viable option now only because of a lower purchase price and some (ever decreasing) technical advantages over LCD. But LCD is closing the gap and has plenty of advantages in terms of transport, energy consumption etc.
In theory, CRT does still have the advantage in terms of picture quality. But as far as TV's you can actually buy are concerned, put all 3 technologies side by side and you'll find that the CRT is inferior to the point of appearing to be faulty if it's a large screen size.
Similar threads
