 
|
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 |
74.251.39.183
In Reply to: RE: Thinking of getting a Plasma TV posted by Ross on October 03, 2009 at 13:19:26
Thinking of getting a Plasma TV. I currently have a Sony 27in XBR and the Plasmas I have seen come closer to the Sony image than any LCD I have seen.
The reason is because plasma technology uses phosphors to create the image. Guess what other technology uses phosphors? CRT. This allows both to get truer colors than other display technologies. LCD, no matter how well it's done, is more artificial looking.
But I am also aware that Plasma had some issues that maybe LCD did not:
Image Burn In
Longevity / Reliability
Image burn-in pretty much experienced a dramatic decrease about 6 years ago with the introduction of 60,000 hour model plasmas. Even before that, there were/are simple procedures to follow and use that made this issue negligible. Nearly every plasma made in the last 3 years will not have an issue with burn-in.
Plasmas you get today are rated at 100,00 hours to half-brightness -- the same as LCD. That's about 45 years of daily viewing for 6 hours a day. Far too much TV a day for anyone with a pulse.
Are these still real world issues that I should worry about?
They are no longer issues. Matter of fact, they weren't an issue when I got my first plasma in 2004. That 50" plasma is in the livingroom, I have a 42" plasma in the bedroom and there's a 32" plasma in my oldest son's room.
Also, who makes the best Plasma TV currently?
Panasonic is and has always been the best value in plasma technology with regard to the quality:$ ratio.
Looking in the 40-47in range / 1080p / 120hz refresh rate
Be very careful with the 120/240Hz refresh models. Spend some time with them if you are serious about a purchase. What looks cool may end up not so cool if this is a main reason for an LCD purchase.
Thanks!
You're welcome.
My advice is to spend some time researching each technology from reputable sources (not Best Buy or other retail stores because they are notorious for misinformation -- on the average, they aren't the most knowlegable about the product technologies they sell -- and disinformation -- there's more store profit in LCD sales vs plasma sales, so LCD sales are pushed on prospective buyers) and base your decision on the facts. Before you make your decision, ask yourself this question: "Am I going to be satisfied with this purchase for the next few years and am I confident enough that, in the future, when I look back at this purchasing decision, will I be able to say that I made the most informed decision that I was able to at the time?".
And by the way, there's plenty of plasma info
Follow Ups:
"The reason is because plasma technology uses phosphors to create the image. Guess what other technology uses phosphors? CRT. This allows both to get truer colors than other display technologies. LCD, no matter how well it's done, is more artificial looking."A subjective opinion put forth as objective fact.
By the way, some LCD Tvs are noted for accurate color and some plamas are noted for inaccurate color. Much depends on implementation rather than the basic technology.
Personally I'm more bothered by the fine layer of noise I see in Panasonic plasmas than I am by any motion problems that may be present in the better Samsung LCDs. None of these things are perfect, as with hi-fi gear you often pick between flaws and arrive at the compromise that works best for you.
Edits: 10/04/09
...lack of shadow detail and dark blacks with LCDs. I'm not fond of the motion artifacts but they aren't necessarily deal killers for me - all of the above are deal killers, but especially the shadow detail. And the better plasmas do indeed have very good color accuracy - the Kuros are outstanding in that regard. But that's not the only basis for choosing a TV.
I think LCD displays are an excellent choice for many people, especially if they watch a lot of video based source material. Like plasmas, the LCD TVs have improved a ton in the past 5 years. There are compromises and trade-offs whichever technology one chooses - there are no perfect TV displays (although the Kuro plasmas are mighty fine).
However...
For me, who watches a lot of film based material, I prefer the look of a good plasma. By a large margin. And yes I've seen most of the latest and greatest LCD displays. I like them. I just like plasmas better overall.
Different strokes for different folks.
I shot over 1100 pictures with my dSLR during a recent family vacation in Disney World. All of the transferring was done on the computer and I watched slideshows of over 26GB of images on the 42" LCD monitor hooked up to my desktop. They were very good, but to really see the images that I captured, I viewed the images transferred to DVDs via my PS3 which is hooked up to the plasma in the livingroom. That was more like it. I felt as though I was back in Disney World reliving those moments.
How many companies in the broadcast industry or movie industry use LCD technology to do their mastering and calibration? I know of none.
"How many companies in the broadcast industry or movie industry use LCD technology to do their mastering and calibration? I know of none."
And does it therefore follow that LCDs are incapable of accuracy? I don't think so.
And because professional monitors are accurate does it follow that consumer TVs using CRT or plasma technology are also accurate? I don't think so.
Post a Followup:
| 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 ]
