![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
159.123.253.1
I would appreciate opinions on which 46" LCD or Plasma television would give me the best picture in my never too bright living room. Unfortunately 46" is the largest I can fit in this room. Thank You.
Follow Ups:
I notice no one has really given you a 46" recommendation. I'm way far from an expoert but I don't think you can go wrong with Sammys or one of the better, LED backlighted Sonys. If you prefer less pop in yer pic and more natural skin tones, I'd go with a 46" Panny.We have a 55" Sony LED backlit and a 65" Panny plasma. Love em both to death.
"I'd like to own a squadron of tanks"
Edits: 03/13/12 03/13/12
I shopped for TVs a few months ago, got a $1500 50" Panasonic Plamsa for $1000. No LED/LCD at any price was as good. No heat to speak of, and no particular increase in PGE Electricity bill. In fact , our Elec Bill is around $50/Mo. Solar ads say if you pay $150 or more, they can save you money. LED/LCD all looked stark and etched in comparison to the cheapest Plasmas. And it looks good in any amount of light in the room.
If you are after picture quality, plasma is the way to go. Todays plasmas put out very little heat, and are no more power hungry than LCD/LED types. To feel any heat at all from my 50" Panasonic plasma, I have to almost touch the screen, and even then it is just above ambient.
Well, trying to research this, I have found:
42 inch Plasma : 300 watts
42 inch LED : 100 watts
Think of how much heat a 100-watt light bulb produces. These specs are for most recent TVs, so a new plasma today may be as efficient as an older LCD/Florescent TV of yesteryear, though.
I am also torn between Panasonic Viera plasma or LG LED. I am leaning towards LED because, unless I had a nice dark cinema area, in which case I would absolutely go with plasma, I have this suspicion that I would enjoy most DVD/BluRay material just as much -- basically having shear definition compensate for the color nuance that plasma achieves -- just my guess, having never experienced much of either -- and I am open to suggestions on this as well.
Well, compare the 55" Panasonic VIERA, which is specified as consuming only 119W when on. This is typical of most of Panasonics newer sets. You can thank California's regulatory system for forcing the issues with manufacturers. I'm sure you can still find less efficient plasmas, but most today are far more power efficient than plasmas of the past. In many cases, they even consume less than the same size LCD/LED sets. Also, power specs are max, with brightness/contrast set at max levels. If you calibrate your set (and you should), you will be at much less on brightness and contrast. Also, the spec is with a totally white screen, which is not that common, at least for extended periods of time.
The figures above are only maximum values, not average or typical. What I found with measurements is that my Panny plasmas only use the max power listed above if not properly adjusted for brightness, and then only on a totally white picture (which is rare). A totally black picture goes down much lower to some value above zero.
I'm not sure whether LCDs use constant power, but suspect that they do. If a 42" plasma varies between say 50W and 150W as the brightness varies, I expect that the power consumption would be quite similar to LCD. It's possible that it's even lower, though I doubt it. I'm just saying, don't be mis-led.
I think that the only issue for the Panny plasmas as far as room light control is not brightness, but reflections or glare from other lights in the room if they reflect towards you. Meaning, in a sun-light room you will see the room reflected off of the glass. All TVs have some of that, but the glass of plasmas is probably worst.
Thanks for the info as it is so hard to compare and it makes sense. A plasma would be nice as I know all the sports bars use plasmas and they are obviously pretty good -- not being a football fan myself, though.
It seems that 1080p is the only safe way to go, not wanting to be obsoleted before the year is out!
I got one 720p on sale a while ago and it was not as good at 1080p (50").
When I got my 65" finally, I wanted 2D but only found 3D. So they seem to be trying to get rid of older ones before releasing new ones now. I would only recommend 720p if it's much less than 1080p. Some TV stations only do 720p and at 65" I can see the difference compared to 1080i TV resolution, but the p (progressive) is better for motion.
In my secondary living room system I have a large Mitsubishi rear projection that is pretty great for the money. I got that since I don't have great light control in that room.
You haven't really given enough information other than the room not being too bright.
--Do you want 3D?
--If there are going to be extreme viewing angles, stick with plasma.
I bought an inexpensive 46" Samsung LCD set and I'm thrilled with the picture quality. I also saw lots of LG LCD and LED sets that looked good as well. I didn't get plasma because my prior plasma set made so much heat that I couldn't run it in the summer without using a room A/C--and there goes the audio...
in our master bedroom that I really appreciate, because of its ambient heat I can go green in the winter as I don't need to crank up the furnace.
If a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing well
(Proverb)
... You need EXTRA heat in the bedroom eh?
I need to have the climate control on cool in the bedroom all year round!
:)
Smile
Sox
![]()
We, on the other hand need ambient heat to get us going especially in the dead of night in the middle of winter when the temperature plunges to -40.
Come to think of it, how's your winter season treating you eh? I hope that you're enjoying the usual winter activities such as tobogganing, curling, hockey, snowshoeing and such eh?....
If a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing well
(Proverb)
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: