 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
65.254.9.2
Other than Panny and Pioneer, evryone else seems to have jumped on the 'LCD only' band wagon.
I have one of both (only 720p) and clearly prefer the plasma.
Are the profit margins of LCD's that much better than plasmas?
The truth hurts, lies kill
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses" [Albert Einstein]
Follow Ups:
.
Why did they stop making the CRT?
Yes, I know the CRT has problems. As I see it, the advantages of the CRT is immense. I have a 1999 Sony HD 34" CRT model, and it is a joy. GREAT picture, but, does take up a bit of real estate in back, and is heavy, just like a Plasma. I am not foolish to hope that the CRT will make a comeback though.
"The best B-3s are A-100s!"
--Old Hammond Proverb
...it weighs a TON. Well, only 175lbs, but that's more than plenty. It's a royal pain to deal with, especially if you're a single gal.
Yes, the pic is lovely, but it's not really large enough to be totally satisfying on film material.
My dad's 27" Panny is great too.
I've enjoyed bith for the past 6 years. But I sincerely hope to have a 50" flat screen in my future.
Then you can push it around even on carpet.
I wish I could find the picture of mine.
Makes life so easy.
Especially when it broke and I had to replace 2 chips to bring it back to life.
Thanks for the feedback, mine only weighs 195! LOL, but, like you said, it's heavy, and probably not quite big enough for movies.
Gene
"The best B-3s are A-100s!"
--Old Hammond Proverb
It's been replaced with a 50" Pioneer Kuro plasma, which is around 100 pounds. While I enjoyed the XBR when I had it, I find the Kuro much more satisfying (and not just because it's bigger).
Russell
Being in the business when the first flat screens appeared I was not impressed with their picture quality nor their pricing. To my surprise, the sets started moving despite these issues. In analyzing the whys, it became very evident that the sales were due to the pressure from women. They liked the styling which took up very little real estate. Even though early sets were expensive and the quality lower than a CRT they actually preferred the early plasmas for purely aesthetic reasons, often regarding it more as piece of furniture than for any functionality.
Stu
... However I also think it had to do with size irrespective of PQ.I have a really good 17” CRT computer monitor in the store room. It probably has a slightly better over-all PQ than the LCD computer monitor I’m using now. But, I much prefer the 25” monitor on my desk now. I can split the screen and do more things at once simply because it is bigger.
For me the principle is the same with HT viewing. I don’t care if the 34” CRT possibly has a better PQ because I discern far more enjoyment from watching a 55” plasma screen. Size really does matter. :o)
I think LCD panels have a far greater potential of higher returns on capital invested, compared to plasma, and as such manufacturers are following the perceived greater potential return. Economies of scale seemed to have benefited LCD technology more so than plasma technology.
I think picture quality has little to do with the LCD versus plasma debate. Issues such as heat, power consumption & screen reflections seemed to be an issue with most people. Curiously none of those issues are a consideration for me & irrespective if they were I find plasma technology superior for my use. To me, it simply looks better to my eyes.
EDIT: typo
Smile
Sox
Well, I'm speaking as an old man and remembering that Mits had a 480I 42 inch plasma for a mere $10K back in about 1990 with a relatively lousy picture. I can say that the initial flat screens did not have 1080 or even 768 resolution and the 480 sets were very expensive. Curiously these early sets did begin to move, and by the time the 768 sets came out even though prices for a 42 inch plasma were still in the $3K to $4K range they began to move and cosmetics had a lot to do with it. PQ had relatively little to do with it. Women wanted a smaller set with better furniture appeal visually.
That's been my experience.
Stu
...G'day Stu,
Well I am speaking as me and maybe I am young to some & old to others?
Back the 1991 I became aware of the first 42” plasma panels available here in Australia. They were Fujitsu. They were not readily available in shops & you needed to source then direct from Fujitsu. The recommended retail price was $18,999. However you could have one delivered for about $12,000 ~ I inquired to Fujitsu and the national or state (I forget now) sales manager phoned me back and offered me the price.
I didn’t end up buying one as I wanted to actually see it in the flesh first. By the time I saw one I did think it looked ok but not as good as the glossy pics in the magazines. I didn’t pull the trigger for several years but I have owed several since then and currently have two.
I have never noticed or heard of women being the driving force behind flat-panel sales in this area. They are still often referred to as ”boy’s toys” but just this last 12 months flat panel TVs have reduced in price to where they are just about affordable to anyone who chooses to own one.
Stu I do not doubt many women will not allow large rear-projection TVs in their lounge rooms or other items viewed as “ugly” but I am just not aware of it being a significant factor in driving plasma (any flat panel) sales in this area. Of course it may well be a factor in other areas or even here & I am simply not aware of it.
Smile
Sox
At 40" and smaller, perhaps at 46-50" and smaller these days, they are cheaper. They're better in rooms with some level of ambient light. They're cooler running and more energy efficient.
You can't buy a plasma below 40" in size so I could ask why aren't people making plasmas rather than LCDs for a large part of the market.
And their picture quality can be very good under the right conditions and it's improving over time, just as picture quality for plasmas is.
David Aiken
I like the complete lack of reflective glare on LCD when there is ambient light in the room.
I never understood why they don't use anti-glare glass on plasmas. I don't think it effects resolution, and glare really is a problem for many people.
Jack
Many of the newer sets do address the issue with a different glass front.
Stu
.
As I understand it, LCDs have gotten cheaper and easier to manufacture in the last couple years. Plasma is a funny market. The low end is increasing in quality and lowering in price while the high end is improving, but seems far less profitable. IIRC, even Pioneer is going to contract out their glass in the future. Sony got into plasma too late, abandoned LCOS (except for FP), so they are left with LCD. Hopefully, they will get better in time.
jack
IIRC Panasonic hitched their wagon to the plasma nearly 20 years ago and control many of the patents. Sony doesn't like that: they rather have others pay them for royalties, so they went to the LCD and developed some key patents, utilizing the LCOS technology. At the time Sony dominated the TV world and it is estimated that they controlled 25% of the total worldwide sales of CRT sets. They were a bit overconfident and neglected the flat screen technologies until very late in the game.
IIRC, LCDs are cheaper to manufacture particularly in the smaller sizes, hence their proliferation in sizes below 40 inch diagonals, where the plasmas face great difficulty in producing screens that small. They do require a lot less power also, do not face problems with altitude and such. That being said, I still prefer a plasma also.
What is interesting is that in the days of the CRT sets, Hitachi produced something like 80% of all CRT tubes produced in Japan. I understand Hitachi is attempting to do the same with the LCD screens. The plasmas need very careful environmental standards in order to produce a zero pixel failure rate and I believe that Panasonic has invested heavily in building the specialized factories. Actually the LCD's may also require similar standards.
I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will chime it.
Stu
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
