Should I get a Plasma or LCD?

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: IGBT
..the sales don't support the rhetoric. The casual observer can't tell the difference. When you consider power consumption and overall similar performance your dollars ahead with a LCD.

What exactly are you arguing about? The OP wants a 50" display. What would you recommend?

..buy what you want. I don't care. I'm just stating a sales supported fact. The vast majority of people don't see a difference between plasma vs LCD. Despite the hair splitting the visual experience is largely similar.

 

[CorCentral]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: erwin1978
I'm ready to get a new ~50" television. I don't care for projection TVs because I don't want to be bothered replacing the bulb. Should I go with Plasma or LCD? Why is it that Plasmas only do around 720p while LCDs can go 1080p?

People complain about bulbs, but LCD/Plasmas to not last forever.

a half-lifetime of 60K hours. may as well be forever and certainly longer than a tractional CRT.

If this is true, 30k hours would be about 3.5 years. This of course is if you leave your tv on 24/7 for that length of time **LOL** So you figure an easy 7++ years for a plasma.
I don't plan on keeping my 50" Panasonic that long. Maybe 5 years, that's it. I've got another 4 years to go. By then, the HD platform war will be over and I can upgrade to a nice 80" 1080P or something

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: IGBT
..buy what you want. I don't care. I'm just stating a sales supported fact. The vast majority of people don't see a difference between plasma vs LCD. Despite the hair splitting the visual experience is largely similar.

You claim that you're dollars ahead with an LCD. This totally depends on the size of the display that you are after. At >= 50", plasma is cheaper by far. You can get a 58" Panasonic for < 2.3K right now and a 50" for ~ 1.6K. How much does an equivalent LCD run?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: IGBT

..buy what you want. I don't care. I'm just stating a sales supported fact. The vast majority of people don't see a difference between plasma vs LCD. Despite the hair splitting the visual experience is largely similar.

the vast majority of people would pick 50" VHS over 42" HD-DVD

 

[PieIsAwesome]

If you're going over 46 or 50 inches, Plasma is the way to go.

LCDs are better as a PC monitor.
Plasmas have better contrast and color accuracy.
LCDs are lighter and consume less power.
1080p LCDs seem to be more affordable than 1080p plasmas.
LCDs have no risk of burn-in.
LCDs have a punchy-looking, bright picture.
Plasmas generally scale SD material more nicely from what I've seem.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: IGBT
..buy what you want. I don't care. I'm just stating a sales supported fact. The vast majority of people don't see a difference between plasma vs LCD. Despite the hair splitting the visual experience is largely similar.

You claim that you're dollars ahead with an LCD. This totally depends on the size of the display that you are after. At >= 50", plasma is cheaper by far. You can get a 58" Panasonic for < 2.3K right now and a 50" for ~ 1.6K. How much does an equivalent LCD run?

..over time LCD has proven it's self to be the better value. It won't be long before 70" LCD's show up and dominate in the price/performance ratio just like they have on all other size categorys.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PieIsAwesome
If you're going over 46 or 50 inches, Plasma is the way to go.

LCDs are better as a PC monitor.
Plasmas have better contrast and color accuracy.
LCDs are lighter and consume less power.
1080p LCDs seem to be more affordable than 1080p plasmas.
LCDs have no risk of burn-in.
LCDs have a punchy-looking, bright picture.
Plasmas generally scale SD material more nicely from what I've seem.

Good post. I agree.


The problem with these threads is that people don't argue their opponents' arguments. Yes, plasmas are superior in most respects, especially if you're looking for a larger screen.
However, say you're like me when I was shopping for a new TV recently. I wanted 42" or smaller in order to fit the room, which also happened to get a lot of bright sun during the day, and I wanted it to be able to work perfectly with an HTPC, and I wanted to meet a particular price point (otherwise I couldn't justify the purchase to myself, "afford" has nothing to with the ability to pay but with the willingness to pay). So obviously, I couldn't go with plasma.
OTOH, I can recognize that some people have different needs, different circumstances, and different desires. If (for example) it is your desire to have the absolute biggest and baddest, and you're willing to pay for it, then by all means get the plasma. More power to you. But (to those people *ahem* Jack) please try to remember that not all of us are similarly motivated (in fact, most of us don't even give a sh!t).

 

[JackBurton]

Alright, I'm back. Ok, where do I start? Let me start with an easy one:

Originally posted by: Vic
You might have to someone else' post, but you did not reply to my thread with logic or first hand accounts, or is that just a straw man on your part?

How about this, why don't you read the entire thread instead of me repeating myself just for your sake.

I'm not knocking plasmas and never did. I just said that if the only place they can compete is at the very high-end of the market, which makes up a ridiculously tiny fraction of market share (the "lunatic fringe"), then they will not be able to compete in the long run.

And if you had a clue, you'd realize the new plasmas are CHEAPER than LCDs 50" and up (which is what the OP was asking about). And just because you are satisfied with mediocre products, that doesn't mean there isn't a market for high quality products. By that logic, Bose would have put B&W and Paradigm out of business a looong time ago. (Vic, I'll give you time to look up B&W and Paradigm on the net as I'm sure you're not familiar with those names.) The HDTV market is not just one freakin' market. You have the low, mid and high end. And Panasonic is taking the best bang for you buck in the mid range, and Pioneer is taking over the high end. Pioneer's real competition is Fujitsu and Runco. And with their new plasmas (Pioneer), they're poised to take the crown from them, easily. For low end, quite frankly, I don't give a sh!t. Wal-Mart shoppers (hey Vic, listen up, this sounds like your standards), you can pick whatever crap you'd like. I really don't care. I actually don't care if Vizio and other cheap plasma manufactures lose out to LCDs. They're battling out for the low end king which is not something I want or would recommend.

The question from the OP was quite simple, "what 50" LCD or plasma do you recommend?" Then we have goofs coming in talking about some LCD sales like that's going to make it look any better after you've spent $3000 and have it sitting in your living room. And then you have people (ahem..Vic) telling stories of themselves looking to buy a 42" plasma but deciding to go for a SMALLER LCD. WTF does this have to do with a 50" LCD or plasma? We basically have two arguments going, LCD vs plasma recommendations, and LCD vs plasma sales. WTF does sale have to do with the OP's original question? This is just an attempt to misdirect the topic because the LCD backers have pretty much run out of ammo.

Vic is another story. He has his own agenda for jumping in this thread, but that's alright. I don't mind slapping him around, as usual. Let me go on...

So yes, being cheaper doesn't make LCDs better, but it does make them just good enough for the majority of consumers who will be buying them.

Again, you obviously have no clue and again, if you bother to read my other posts you'd see that I posted Panasonic's new 50" 1080p plasma (50PZ700U) for $3499 MSRP. Now go find me a comparable LCD at a better price. Easy challenge. I'm not saying there aren't cheaper LCDs, but let's see what you come up with.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Alright, I'm back. Ok, where do I start? Let me start with an easy one:

Originally posted by: Vic
You might have to someone else' post, but you did not reply to my thread with logic or first hand accounts, or is that just a straw man on your part?

How about this, why don't you read the entire thread instead of me repeating myself just for your sake.

I'm not knocking plasmas and never did. I just said that if the only place they can compete is at the very high-end of the market, which makes up a ridiculously tiny fraction of market share (the "lunatic fringe"), then they will not be able to compete in the long run.

And if you had a clue, you'd realize the new plasmas are CHEAPER than LCDs 50" and up (which is what the OP was asking about). And just because you are satisfied with mediocre products, that doesn't mean there isn't a market for high quality products. By that logic, Bose would have put B&W and Paradigm out of business a looong time ago. (Vic, I'll give you time to look up B&W and Paradigm on the net as I'm sure you're not familiar with those names.) The HDTV market is not just one freakin' market. You have the low, mid and high end. And Panasonic is taking the best bang for you buck in the mid range, and Pioneer is taking over the high end. Pioneer's real competition is Fujitsu and Runco. And with their new plasmas (Pioneer), they're poised to take the crown from them, easily. For low end, quite frankly, I don't give a sh!t. Wal-Mart shoppers (hey Vic, listen up, this sounds like your standards), you can pick whatever crap you'd like. I really don't care. I actually don't care if Vizio and other cheap plasma manufactures lose out to LCDs. They're battling out for the low end king which is not something I want or would recommend.

The question from the OP was quite simple, "what 50" LCD or plasma do you recommend?" Then we have goofs coming in talking about some LCD sales like that's going to make it look any better after you've spent $3000 and have it sitting in your living room. And then you have people (ahem..Vic) telling stories of themselves looking to buy a 42" plasma but deciding to go for a SMALLER LCD. WTF does this have to do with a 50" LCD or plasma? We basically have two arguments going, LCD vs plasma recommendations, and LCD vs plasma sales. WTF does sale have to do with the OP's original question? This is just an attempt to misdirect the topic because the LCD backers have pretty much run out of ammo.

Vic is another story. He has his own agenda for jumping in this thread, but that's alright. I don't mind slapping him around, as usual. Let me go on...

So yes, being cheaper doesn't make LCDs better, but it does make them just good enough for the majority of consumers who will be buying them.

Again, you obviously have no clue and again, if you bother to read my other posts you'd see that I posted Panasonic's new 50" 1080p plasma (50PZ700U) for $3499 MSRP. Now go find me a comparable LCD at a better price. Easy challenge. I'm not saying there aren't cheaper LCDs, but let's see what you come up with.

Why is it that all your posts invariable lead one to believe that you have an extremely small penis?

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Vic
Why is it that all your posts invariable lead one to believe that you have an extremely small penis?

LOL, so that's all you're left with huh? So let me ask you, at what point in an LCD vs plasma debate do you start wondering about another man's penis? Do you do this often? I just find this very odd.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Vic
Why is it that all your posts invariable lead one to believe that you have an extremely small penis?

LOL, so that's all you're left with huh? So let me ask you, at what point in an LCD vs plasma debate do you start wondering about another man's penis? Do you do this often? I just find this very odd.

I'm not and never have been involved in any LCD vs. plasma debate, Jack. The fact that you insist on thinking so is what's odd.
Invariably, you seem to be incredibly insecure. About most everything, from your beliefs to your decisions to your possessions. As though you are compensating for something. So I thought it a legitimate question.

 

[Vic]

Uh, BTW, in direct response to the OP, I would recommend that he get the Pioneer 50" PDP-5070 plasma from Costco for $2499. Yeah, it's not 1080p but neither is any input he might plug into it, except for the HD-DVD/Blu-ray stupidity which won't shake itself off for about another 5 years, at which time he could buy another TV.
And if he really has a burning need to spend that extra $1k, I recommend he give it to some worthy charity.

And Jack, if you really need to prove to your friends that you could have bought the more expensive TV, I recommend that you frame the receipt from the charity and hang it next to the TV.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Vic
Uh, BTW, in direct response to the OP, I would recommend that he get the Pioneer 50" PDP-5070 plasma from Costco for $2499. Yeah, it's not 1080p but neither is any input he might plug into it, except for the HD-DVD/Blu-ray stupidity which won't shake itself off for about another 5 years, at which time he could buy another TV.
And if he really has a burning need to spend that extra $1k, I recommend he give it to some worthy charity.

And Jack, if you really need to prove to your friends that you could have bought the more expensive TV, I recommend that you frame the receipt from the charity and hang it next to the TV.

Not again.

He may not need 1080p but not for the reasons you state. Much of the current 1080i programming can be properly de-interlaced by a quality 1080p tv to display at 1080p. You do not need to watch HD-DVD or Blu-ray in order to benefit from 1080p.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: Vic
Uh, BTW, in direct response to the OP, I would recommend that he get the Pioneer 50" PDP-5070 plasma from Costco for $2499. Yeah, it's not 1080p but neither is any input he might plug into it, except for the HD-DVD/Blu-ray stupidity which won't shake itself off for about another 5 years, at which time he could buy another TV.
And if he really has a burning need to spend that extra $1k, I recommend he give it to some worthy charity.

And Jack, if you really need to prove to your friends that you could have bought the more expensive TV, I recommend that you frame the receipt from the charity and hang it next to the TV.

Not again.

He may not need 1080p but not for the reasons you state. Much of the current 1080i programming can be properly de-interlaced by a quality 1080p tv to display at 1080p. You do not need to watch HD-DVD or Blu-ray in order to benefit from 1080p.

Pal, I've spent most of my adult life successfully selling big ticket items, mostly real estate and finance. I'm really really really not interested in your logical justifications for your emotional decisions. That's just how you sold yourself into it. Like I said, if you feel the need to spend more in order to prove to your friends that you could have, give the difference to a worthy charity and then frame the receipt and hang it next to the TV. Or... if you really need to be a first adopter, at least don't be in denial as to why you're doing it.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Vic
Pal, I've spent most of my adult life successfully selling big ticket items, mostly real estate and finance. I'm really really really not interested in your logical justifications for your emotional decisions. That's just how you sold yourself into it. Like I said, if you feel the need to spend more in order to prove to your friends that you could have, give the difference to a worthy charity and then frame the receipt and hang it next to the TV. Or... if you really need to be a first adopter, at least don't be in denial as to why you're doing it.

You've got to be one of the biggest hypocrites on the site. You are the first to point out fallacies and misconceptions when it comes to mortgage or mortgage brokers but ridicule others when they do essentially the same thing with technologies you are obviously not completely familiar with.

You are spreading bad information and I felt the need to correct you. Stick to selling "big ticket items".

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DBL
You've got to be one of the biggest hypocrites on the site. You are the first to point out fallacies and misconceptions when it comes to mortgage or mortgage brokers but ridicule others when they do essentially the same thing with technologies you are obviously not completely familiar with.

You are spreading bad information and I felt the need to correct you. Stick to selling "big ticket items".

So... what you're saying is that I should pay 3 points to buy down an 1/8th in rate? Got it.

I think you missed what I'm trying to say here.
Let me explain something about "technologies" that is well-known to everyone but the "lunatic fringe" "must-have-the-latest-and-greatest crowd": they're ridiculously poor investments. Toys at best. Bragging rights really. And the closer you buy to the leading bleeding edge, the worse an investment they are. So sure, I've no doubt whatsoever that there might be some small benefit in 1080p, but given the amounts and differences we're discussing, do you seriously believe it's worth the extra you have to pay for it? If so, that's great, you've got a lifetime of making salesmen happy ahead of you.

 

[HopJokey]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: DBL
You've got to be one of the biggest hypocrites on the site. You are the first to point out fallacies and misconceptions when it comes to mortgage or mortgage brokers but ridicule others when they do essentially the same thing with technologies you are obviously not completely familiar with.

You are spreading bad information and I felt the need to correct you. Stick to selling "big ticket items".

So... what you're saying is that I should pay 3 points to buy down an 1/8th in rate? Got it.

I think you missed what I'm trying to say here.
Let me explain something about "technologies" that is well-known to everyone but the "lunatic fringe" "must-have-the-latest-and-greatest crowd": they're ridiculously poor investments. Toys at best. Bragging rights really. And the closer you buy to the leading bleeding edge, the worse an investment they are. So sure, I've no doubt whatsoever that there might be some small benefit in 1080p, but given the amounts and differences we're discussing, do you seriously believe it's worth the extra you have to pay for it? If so, that's great, you've got a lifetime of making salesmen happy ahead of you.

Actually I'm looking at 1080p LCD 37-32 inches. Is it for the extra video quality? Nope, this TV will be used as both a computer monitor and video display so the extra resolution is a must.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Vic
Uh, BTW, in direct response to the OP, I would recommend that he get the Pioneer 50" PDP-5070 plasma from Costco for $2499. Yeah, it's not 1080p but neither is any input he might plug into it, except for the HD-DVD/Blu-ray stupidity which won't shake itself off for about another 5 years, at which time he could buy another TV.
And if he really has a burning need to spend that extra $1k, I recommend he give it to some worthy charity.

And Jack, if you really need to prove to your friends that you could have bought the more expensive TV, I recommend that you frame the receipt from the charity and hang it next to the TV.

Why Costco. Stuff is overpriced there when it comes to TVs. Nothing special except for the old return policy. now the new return policy makes it less attractive.

Why not just get a Pioneer Elite. Pannys are good, but Pioneers are kickass. Just like the Westy is nice but the Sony Bravia is nicer...

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Vic
So... what you're saying is that I should pay 3 points to buy down an 1/8th in rate? Got it.

I think you missed what I'm trying to say here.
Let me explain something about "technologies" that is well-known to everyone but the "lunatic fringe" "must-have-the-latest-and-greatest crowd": they're ridiculously poor investments. Toys at best. Bragging rights really. And the closer you buy to the leading bleeding edge, the worse an investment they are. So sure, I've no doubt whatsoever that there might be some small benefit in 1080p, but given the amounts and differences we're discussing, do you seriously believe it's worth the extra you have to pay for it? If so, that's great, you've got a lifetime of making salesmen happy ahead of you.

Funny coming from a guy who recommends an expensive 720p Plasma. Is the improvement over a 720p Panasonic worth the almost 70% price premium?

I almost never buy the latest and greatest for the very reaons you state. It just so happens that I need a TV and the new 1080p Panasonic at preferred pricing is a steal relative to anything similar that is out there, be it LCD or Plasma. That's why many are recommending it. It's current technology and a good value. It will also hold its value better than a 720p TV making the "buy cheap, upgrade later" argument pretty much moot.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DBL
Funny coming from a guy who recommends an expensive 720p Plasma. Is the improvement over a 720p Panasonic worth the almost 70% price premium?

I almost never buy the latest and greatest for the very reaons you state. It just so happens that I need a TV and the new 1080p Panasonic at preferred pricing is a steal relative to anything similar that is out there, be it LCD or Plasma. That's why many are recommending it. It's current technology and a good value. It will also hold its value better than a 720p TV making the "buy cheap, upgrade later" argument pretty much moot.

That was for Jack's Pioneer fanboi sake. Going along with his argument than anything less was shopping at Wal-Mart.
Personally, I'd probably get the Panasonic TH-50PH9UK for $1699.
Costco's return policy and in-store warranty is still the best in the business. Just because they don't allow you a free upgrade every year any more doesn't change that.

Now listen carefully: it's a fsckin' TV. None of them hold their value. None of them are a good value. They are toys. A domestic car is a better investment and holds it value better than any piece of leading edge electronics on earth.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: RossMAN
Hmmn I wonder if DLP4Life.com is available?

It's the mirrors dude, it's the mirrors.

It's the rainbow effect dude, it's the rainbow effect. (YES STILL VERY PRESENT EVEN ON BRAND NEW MODELS)

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: HopJokey
Actually I'm looking at 1080p LCD 37-32 inches. Is it for the extra video quality? Nope, this TV will be used as both a computer monitor and video display so the extra resolution is a must.

Okay.... ? Did you read my post above about why I bought LCD?

 

[scootermaster]

This whole thing cracks me up.

You people either can't read, or reaaaaaaally enjoy putting thoughts/words into other people's mouths. The literal answer to "which 50" TV should I buy, LCD or Plasma" is plasma.

Now, there might be ALL SORTS OF OTHER ANSWERS to the following questions:

"What is the best 50" TV for 'the money', LCD or Plasma?"

"Where's the price/performance sweetspot for a 50" LCD or Plasma??"

"I don't want 1080p, should I buy a 50" plasna or a 50" LCD"?

"I REALLY need 1080p, which one should I get?"

"I only have $2000, can you recommend a 50" set for me?"

"I really can't tell the difference between good quality and bad quality TV. Which direction should I go?"

But allow me to quote the OP

Originally posted by: erwin1978
I'm ready to get a new ~50" television. I don't care for projection TVs because I don't want to be bothered replacing the bulb. Should I go with Plasma or LCD? Why is it that Plasmas only do around 720p while LCDs can go 1080p?

The answer to THAT QUESTION and THAT QUESTION ONLY is "plasma." One word, end of story.

Note how there is NO MENTION of money, of brightness, lack of interest in top-tier quality or ANYTHING else other than "Hey, I need a 50" TV. Which one should I get?"

Right now (not later, not when they stop making plasmas, not when 70" LCDs come out for a nickel, not when SED destroys them all, not when you wife leaves you because you can't get it up, but RIGHT EFFIN' NOW) the answer to that question, and that question ONLY is plasma.

Everything else is YOU adding more information, or your personal bias. Now, before you call me a "fanboi", allow me to tell you something: I don't own a TV. That's right. I don't care. What I care about is the American public having a huge freakin' problem with literal semantics and reading comprehension. I don't know the OP and I don't know any of you douchebags. What TV you buy matters as much to me as who wins American Idol. But if you're going to blatantly lie in answering a simple question (and that's what it is -- make no mistake) I feel the need to chime in and set people straight.

In a perfect world, the OP would have been something like this "I have EXACTLY $2000 (or less) to spend, I CARE about good picture quality, would prefer 1080p but
don't need it, have a room where I will be sitting approximately 15' away, need a 200 degree viewing angle and have a moderately bright viewing space. I mostly watch SD tv, but own a blu-ray player and many blu-ray movies. I (blah blah blah blah)"

Then, all those points everyone is bringing up might make some sense. Otherwise, it's "buy a freakin' $10,000 plasma".


This thread is over.

 

[Phokus]

I hear they're coming out with laser tv's or something. Frikking lasers man!

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: scootermaster

This thread is over.

After looking at your post, and reading your sig, I think you need to step away from the keyboard and get some fresh air.