TVs & Home Theaters forum

General discussion

Plasma vs. LCD

by scottiedg / February 20, 2008 12:30 AM PST

I have researched this to death. I understand that LCD is probably best and that burn-in really isn't a concern with newer plasmas, and pretty much every other difference between the two.

I think I have decided on a 50" Panasonic plasma TH-50PX75U which was recently rated a Consumer Report best buy. My only concern is the longevity of a plasma screen. I would be interested in hearing opinions from those of you who have had your screens for a while. Have you had many problems? How long are they expected to last?


Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Plasma vs. LCD
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Plasma vs. LCD
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Strictly limited experience only;
by ahtoi / February 20, 2008 2:13 AM PST
In reply to: Plasma vs. LCD

I had a Vizio plasma for about 3 years with no problem which is more than I can say about a Samsung DLP awhile back (lasted about 6 months).

I have also just bought the Panasonics you mentioned just recently (so far so good); I just couldn't resist the price.

Collapse -
Why only 3 years?
by scottiedg / February 20, 2008 4:28 AM PST

Just wondering why you said you HAD the Vizio for only 3 years. What happened to it?

Also I looked at the Panasonic at lunch and was not happy with the glare . Now it was up high on the wall and tilted but I looked at another plasma at eye level and there was a lot of glare. Is this something I should worry about in a room that does not get a lot of light, especially natural light?

Collapse -
Oh the Vizio is still going strong.
by ahtoi / February 20, 2008 2:43 PM PST
In reply to: Why only 3 years?

As for glare, I suppose that could be a problem if there are no ways of controlling it. In my case, my window shade does the job.

Collapse -
Plasma Lifespan
by ns387241 / February 20, 2008 11:53 AM PST
In reply to: Plasma vs. LCD

The lifespan of a plasmascreen is about the same or better than LCD screens. LCD screens are rated at 60,000 hours if their CCFL backlights don't die first. Plasma screens are rated at the same lifespan, save the Panasonic 700 and 750 series along with the Pioneer KURO panels.

The TH-50PX75U is an excellent choice for the price. I would pick that over everything but a higher-end Panasonic or the Pioneer line. I would not trust Consumer Reports though, as they think Pioneer, the maker of the first and the best plasmas, doesn't make a good enough product (at least not one to review. The fact that the Panasonic is an excellent plasma is pure coincidence. Next time go to places like Sound and Vision, the Absolute Sound, Cnet. You'll get more accurate information.

Burn in is not an issue for the Panasonic and Pioeer models. Plasmas consume less energy than LCD's, dispite teir higher listed wattage rating, which is why they run so much cooler today than previous generations did.

I would be curious as to why you think LCD is better than plasma. Or perhaps you've made a typo, as it seems you have your crosshairs set to the Panasonic, which is indeed a plasma.

One way or another, you seem to be heading in the right direction. Make sure to get all of the appropriate things necessary to run a flat panel, like a power conditioner, UPS (battery backup), ground loop isolator, and appropriate cables. Provided you break it in properly and get it ISF calibrated, you're in for one hell of an experience.

Good luck.

Collapse -
by Riverledge / February 20, 2008 12:48 PM PST
In reply to: Plasma Lifespan


BYPASS THE PX75 MODEL altogether. Look for great sales on the FOLLOWING:

TH-50PZ700U* my choice.

NEW MODELS BEGIN WITH AN "8"; i.e.; 85,88,800, 850.
You get my drift.


Collapse -
by dinox64 / February 20, 2008 1:09 PM PST
In reply to: Plasma Lifespan

Plasma is perfect for low light rooms as you describe you have. Panasonic now offers anti glare screens on some of it's newer models if not all. Alot of wall mounts tilt the display down and this also happens to help glare. I have had my Panasonic(EDTV) for about three and half years now and no problems thus far. I hit pause on DVR constantly to get something,and then get distracted doing something other leaving a freeze frame for 10's of minutes and have no cases of burn in. It is not the screen that deteriates over time as it is the plasma gas as is it's the LCD's on LCD's. Everything winds down over time,except for some wines and a few cars. Well the cars don't get better just more valuable. Plasma has a glass screen for protection as LCD has plastic. Hence the glare factor which is now being addressed by plasma manufacturers. LCD's can't have a glass screen because there would be no fix for the glare they would give off. The anti glare is a coating,it's not in the glass. So with LCD this would further the glare problem than fix it if they were to try glass.
I know nothing about the battery back up or power conditioner. That is something i'll have to look into to. First time i've heard of those and i'm in for almost four years with no problems.

Collapse -
by Riverledge / February 20, 2008 1:22 PM PST
In reply to: Plasma



(just kidding)

Collapse -
by tim jg / February 22, 2008 8:06 PM PST

u should try to get out of the house more often

Collapse -
UPS and Power conditioner
by ns387241 / February 21, 2008 2:08 AM PST
In reply to: Plasma

These are essential parts of a home entertainment system to keep everything protected and in check.

The power conditioner will isolate your system from the effects of the outside world, provide surge protection and noise removal, Noise removal being the big thing. The less noise there is entering a system, the more efficient it will run, and thus produce less noise itself. This increases lifespan and improves on picture and sound significantly.

I would recommend Monster Power (although overpriced), as their HTS-series makes a real difference. Also, for those with more financial resources, RGPC (Richard Grays' Power Company) makes power conditioners from $750 and up. These are reference grade.

UPS (Uninterruptable Power Supply) is essential to the Northeast or anywhere that loses power for that matter. The more common application is with computer-based systems, but let's face it: most HT components are getting more and more to be like a computer. Combine that with the media center PC market and you've got a purpose. Furthermore, you can catch the tail-end of a game when the power goes out when nobody else could. This also prevents the loss of any settings. I would not buy an HDTV flat panel without one.

APC is excellent for battery backups. They never seem to overload with reasonable loads and have shown excellent reliability. Monster Power is good also, but not only is it overpriced, but it is nothing like an APC for 1/3 the price. RGPC comes in again as my top-end recommendation.

As for the comments on glare: Glare happens to every panel, glass, plastic or in between. It is simply the kind of glare one receives. Plasmas give reflections. Matte finish LCD's undergo the bleaching effect, where the picture washes out into an oblivion of pastellized color. As light exposure on a matte finish LCD increases, visibility decreases, not because of reflections, rather because blacks turn to grey, reds to pink, until finally one ends up looking at a bright grey screen. This matte finish is not desirable for 4-season rooms, for example (which explains why plasma is the top choice for rooms of that nature). Samsung LCD's use a glare-finish, which induce more reflections than a traditional round-tube TV, but do not bleach.

Sony and Sharp have been smart enough to implement a semi-gloss finish, which incorporates the advantages of a matte-finish screen and a glare screen (glossy). This combines the resistivity to reflections with less tendancy to bleach. For LCD's anyway, this is ideal for most conditions.

Plasma displays incorporate anti-glare coatings (many manufacturers, from Pioneer to LG, etc.) as well as screen filters (Pioneer). some plasmas (Panasonic TH-42PZ77U and others) seem to have a full-matte finish . These have been shown to have silkscreen effect, a glittery appearence, still with reflections. Also, loss in contrast in high lighting is huge. Only the Pioneer amoung plasmas has seemed to get it done right. They incorporate an 80% screen filter with a glossy anti-reflective chemical coating (no silkscreen!) to provide 100% available contrast in almost all lighting conditions.

Collapse -
pioneer plasmas
by smudgeadub / February 22, 2008 1:14 AM PST
In reply to: Plasma Lifespan

pioneer not rated well by consumer reports??? they have the best rated 42" plasma,third best 58" but just average 50". that seems to me like they like their sets to me. cr's best buys are for the average consumer not the videophiles that can tell the difference between a 3000.00 cable and a 4000.00 cable

Collapse -
Panasonic Plasma
by ldonal / February 21, 2008 8:57 AM PST
In reply to: Plasma vs. LCD

I have had my panasonic 42 inch plasma over two years now. Even though it is considered "old technology" it has been a great addition to my living room. I like watching TV and I am a casual gamer. There is a Directv Hd dvr and a PS3 connected to the tv. My only complaint is that it has 1 hdmi input. As soon as I find some extra cash, I am going to purchase a 50 inch panasonic plasma. I do not know alot about LCD tv's. I hope this helps

Collapse -
by dinox64 / February 21, 2008 9:17 AM PST
In reply to: Panasonic Plasma

For me it's Two Buck Chuck a 2002 Ford Ranger and an old Panasonic EDTV.

Collapse -
How much do you game at a time?
by davgel2 / February 22, 2008 12:12 AM PST
In reply to: Panasonic Plasma

How many hours at a time do you game? Do you experience much IR or any burn in?

In general, what is the maximum amount of time you can play a game with static health/ammo bars on a Plasma?

Collapse -
gaming on tv
by ldonal / February 22, 2008 6:26 AM PST

I have played games over 1 to 2 hrs maybe even three. As of lately, I have not had alot of time to play. As far as health and ammo bars, the tv performs well. I like stealth and action games, such as Splinter Cell and Assassins Creed. If you play splinter cell, then you know their are static/health bars. I have not had any problems with those features, 2 years and some change to be exact. And if I did see some type of "burn in" it went away quickly. Also if a plasma should have burn in, you should be able to put in a dvd and revive the dead pixels by fastforwarding or playing the dvd, but I have not had to do this. My plasma does have a slight glare, but that is not an issue. I purchase the model before the antiglare screen models. I am not expert, I am just telling you what I have experienced and what I have read. Connected to my tv I have a sony receiver, ps3, hd dvr, and klipsch speakers; which I recommend. Reply back if you have any more questions or comments. Happy shopping!

Collapse -
LCD, Plasma, and DLP
by galvang / February 22, 2008 3:35 PM PST
In reply to: Panasonic Plasma

In realestate it's always location, location location. For flat screen displays it's all about size. But let say we eliminate size, which is the best all around panel?? The hiearchy is that LCD is the best, then DLP, then plasma.

LCD is the best for any sizes from 7" thru about 57". LCD has the best resolution (1920 x1080), color performance, the best response times, and the best reliability. Down side is that extreme viewing angles from the sides are average. LCD has phenomenon known as "image sticking" its analogous to a burn-in for plasma except it's not permanent problem. Sizes above 50" in a LCD you will start feeling it in your pocket book.

DLP TV or projection have come along way from the old days. Depending on the manufacturer with the newer high resolutions of 1080P the pictures are sharp and crisp and may rival or even surpass that of an LCD. Colors are deep especially in HD. Reliability are not as good as in a LCD or Plasma but the part that fails (bulb) can be replaced readily. DLP is an excellent choice for sizes from 52" to 80" and are relatively inexpensive. Wide angle views are probably the worst out of the three but not that bad especially for the newer models.

Plasma is my least favorite. They are power hogs. Plasmas offer excellent color performance, the best wide view angles, though the picture resolutions aren't as crisp or sharp as an LCD or a newer DLP. Images tend to be jittery at times with picture response times being slow. They are not as reliable as a LCD. Life is about 4-5 years. Some older models can be prone to burn-in which can permanently damage the screen. The way the pixels are constructed altitude may affect the performance of the plasma display. Sizes from 42" and up are relatively inexpensive.

I have both a 52" DLP and a 40" LCD and both models offer excellent viewing at all times.

Collapse -
by coreybaines / February 22, 2008 10:23 PM PST
In reply to: LCD, Plasma, and DLP

....haven't replied before to anything but had to when I saw that this guy said that the plasma response times were slower.....NOTHING COMES CLOSE (NEWER TECHNOLOGYS) TO THE RESPONSE TIMES OF A PLASMA.....EVERYONE WHO KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT TV'S SHOULD KNOW THAT...

Collapse -
Panasonic plasma
by ldonal / February 23, 2008 7:04 AM PST

I have had my plasma for over two years now, and the response time has been great, just as you stated. As far as picture quality, my dad has the latest DLP 120 hrz/second, and I prefer my plasma.

Collapse -
Slower Response times for Plasma
by galvang / February 24, 2008 3:53 PM PST

There are different methods to measuring response times. The measurement that I am talking about is from gray to gray. Do you know what other method is used to measure response times?? The newer LCDs manufactured in generation 7 plants and after are achieving close to sub-ms response times. To the human eye you can not see that. If screens are to get larger the response have to improve to insure video images are clear during fast motion sequences.

As for Power for a plasma, each RGB pixel is a essentally picture tube filled with gas and coated with phospher. In order for the gas in the pixel to light up you need an extemely high voltage source. A voltage source in the order 10k volts similar to a Regular TV CRT picture tube. With millions of pixels to light up in plasma TV this takes tremendous amounts of energy. In a LCD most of the power dissapated is in the DC/AC inverter along with backlights which run at a fraction of the voltage of a plasma. Hence the LCD operates with a lower power disapation.

As for reliabilty once the plasma TV fails you cannot replace it. There are no parts to replace in a plasma. You essentialy throw the plasma away after 25-45k hours of use. With the LCD the back lights slowly looses its brightness and after about 40K to 60K hours they can be replaced. The LCD panel itself can operate for 100K hours and beyond without replacement or degradation. Yes there are pixel defects in a LCD but those are more due to process defects than a design defect. If you buy a good quality panel you shouldn't see any.

LCDs are no comparison to Plasma when it comes to performnce vs size vs cost and relaibility. LCD win hands down over plasma.

Collapse -
by ns387241 / February 23, 2008 7:02 AM PST
In reply to: LCD, Plasma, and DLP

You seem to be rather misinformed about th plasma technology.

1. Plasmas consume less energy than LCD's. The rated power on the back of the television expresses maximun power consumption. Plasmas are variable in power consumption, LCD's are not. LCD's consume maximum rated power all the time. Plasmas, on the other hand, are variable in power consumption, dark scenes require less power while bright scenes require more power. On average, plasmas consume far less than LCD's.

2. Plasmas have 1080p resolution, equivilantly sharp to that of an LCD or 3-chip DLP (single-chip DLP's often suffer from lower resolutions).

3. Plasmas have no response time, making them the most fluid television technology available to the public. LCD's suffer from the worst of response times, up to 8ms on average sets (I have seen as worse as 16ms).

4. My version of reliability is simplicity. Less moving parts equals less chance of breaking. LCD's (1080p) have over 6 million moving parts (2million pixels times three twisting crystals per pixel). Plasmas do not have moving parts inside their pixels, which equals greater reliability. It also helps that I have a 1986 Pioneer PRO-1000HD HD monitor that works perfectly.

5. Image retention on plasmas is equal to image persistance on LCD's (which is LCD burn-in). Also, lets not forget dead pixels, which cannot occur on plasma.

6. Lifespan on the average plasma display is 60,000 hrs (23.54 years viewed 7hrs per day). Hardly short and definitely not 4-5 yrs. Pioneer and Pansonic sets are rated at 100,000 hrs, roughly 40yrs at 7hrs per day.

I would request you get your facts straight before presumptively posting on forums.


Collapse -
common misconceptions
by bobodilligaf / February 23, 2008 11:43 AM PST
In reply to: galvang:

"...Also, lets not forget dead pixels, which cannot occur on plasma."

-Ok true story. I have actually seen a dead pixel effect on a plasma.. it was on a hitachi (2006 model). I didn't believe it either, but it was there.. That solid burning green spot. No I am not making this up, or just trying to start an argument. I work for Sears selling electronics, and it was on one of our displays.

As a side note part of the reason that plasma's have the misconception of using more electricity is the heat generated by them, and this in and of itself is a misconception. Most consumers will walk into the store stand next to the "glass" screen of a plasma (which helps retain the heat) and assume that it's hotter than it's LCD counterpart. Truthfully they both run at around the same temperature. One of our associates has an IR temperature gauge (like the type used on motors), he traveled to various TV's within the dept. and they were, on average, within a few degrees. the screen difference and the way the heat is vented makes the difference.

Personally, I am in love with LCD, specifically the Samsung LN-T4671F

Collapse -
by Riverledge / February 23, 2008 12:12 PM PST
In reply to: galvang:











Collapse -
by ns387241 / February 24, 2008 6:45 AM PST

I would like you to prove that LCD's do not have moving parts. Twisting crystals count as moving parts, which is why there is such a thing as dead pixels on an LCD in the first place (the twisting crystal has decided to no longer twist and remain stagnant, thus "dead").

I have used a power meter to determine power consumption on plasma versus LCD TV's. It is Richard Grey's Power Company Power Vault, which I wold consider rather accurate. I compared aseveral televisions, of which the plasmas just about always consumed less. A particular test that stood out was the KDL-52XBR4 versus the PDP-5010FD. The XBR4 consumed just about exactly what it was rated to: 293W, whereas the PDP-5010FD consumed roughly 173W. This is significantly less. I was running these televisions on WMHT-DT for 6 hours to get an average consumption.

Panasonic TH-PZ700U, 1080p. 2007 model. I realize this is only one model, but who can see the difference until they're about 4ft from the screen anyway? Does one really need a 1080p 32"?

My advice/research is not based on one model or style of televsion. I have tested and owned every current technology of television and base my advice on the results of my own research along with that of professional sources, such as Sound and Vision, etc. And how dare you make a comment like that full well knowing what I have posted on other threads, and how those posts are based off other sets. The PRO-1000HD was a testiment to lifespan, and nothing else.

Image persistance. It happens. Simply walk into an airport (or anywhere else that uses still-frame LCD monitors) and look at the flight-cancellation monitor. It will have image persistance. It is an LCD monitor (most airports). Thus LCD's suffer from image persistance. By your reaction to my #5, I would say you have not researched the topic well enough.

#3. you say it is untrue that plasmas have no response time. Prove it. Because ther are no moving parts within the pixels of a plasma display, ther wouldn't be any problem there. I suppose you could say there is a slight lag when the video processor is in use, but that is not really part of the technology. I don't see where plasmas could have a response time. And they are smoother than any existing TV technology, so the point I was really making is intact.

For #6, I am correct. There are conditions as to the exact lifespan, just as there would be for gas milage on a car, but 100,000hrs is do-able. If I can get better-than-rated milage out of my car, you'd better bet I can get better-than-rated life out of my television!

I have thourroughly researched this topic and do have my facts straight, thanks to years of hands-on experience, including the development of these technologies.

Collapse -
Laser TV is the best
by kcfvegas / February 24, 2008 12:19 PM PST
In reply to: RIVERLEDGE:

Forget plasma or LCD, nothing will compare to Laser TV! It has the best picture, plasma and LCD can only reproduce 40% of the colors that the human eye can see, Laser reproduces 80%, that's a 100% better color reproduction. Laser will have a much brighter picture than any RP or plasma, and at the same time, they will have very dark blacks and very high contrast ratios. And they will come in 70" size. All this for less money than plasma or LCD! And if you want, you can hang it on your wall. And since there is no bulb to burn out, they will have a 100,000 hour lifespan. Long live Laser!

Collapse -
I believe you are forgetting
by ns387241 / February 24, 2008 12:31 PM PST
In reply to: Laser TV is the best

about Pioneer's Extreme Contrast Concept (which will become reality, as shown from their 9th gen plasmas, another 80% increase in contrast over the current 8th gen).

Also, lifespan on PIoneer's has been claimed for 100,000hrs.

Laser TV is still an RPTV DLP, which means it has more depth than plasma or LCD or OLED. An inconvenience for wall hanging. Which brings me to PIoneer's Design concept. At 9mm thick, it is the thinnest 50" TV in the world. Pioneer plans to merge the Extreme Contrast Concept with the Design concept over time, meaning a TV that is slimmer and higher performing than any laser DLP.

Also, by being a RPTV it comes with all of the disadvantages of RPTV; sensitvity to lighting environments, poor viewing angles, and an open-construction. This sounds good for a value/budget basement TV, but not as a high performance TV.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see the capabilities of laser, but there are simply better technologies out there.

Collapse -
I couldn't resist....
by kcfvegas / February 24, 2008 2:23 PM PST

ns, just to let you know my posting was a bit tongue-in-cheek. With you and River going at it, I couldn't resist stirring the pot a little. I do love my Pioneer 5080, but I am also looking very seriously at the new Laser TVs as I am going to be turning my loft into a home theater, and I want a 65" to 70" screen. I do think that you are letting the fact that laser is technically a RP prejudice your opinion of it. From what I've been able to read about it so far, it will have as much in common with the current RPs as flat panels do today. At CES Mitsubishi did have them hanging on the wall and the reviews on their picture quality were very good. All that being said, seeing will be believing, and I am looking forward to actually being able to see if they stand up to their hype.

Collapse -
Anyone own a Laser TV or LED TV? Advice please?
by megsy111 / September 2, 2009 5:07 AM PDT
In reply to: Laser TV is the best

I need some help, I am planning to buy either the Mitsubishi Laser TV or the Samsung LED TV but need to know what owners of these tvs actually think of them. Can anyone let me know if they actually own these.


Collapse -
Hope this helps
by Gilore / September 7, 2009 10:37 PM PDT

First off, you really need to suggest what models you are interested in, obviously the Laser TV has one model at the moment (laservue L65A90) but regarding the led tv there are a number of different screen sizes and there can be a slight difference in the picture you view.

The second point is that these are still quite pricey televisions so you might find it a little difficult to get a debate going between two owners. My suggestion is to keep trawling the net for info, theres so much info out there, to help you make your mind up, then go into your local tv store and spend a good amount of time viewing image quality you prefer. I've included some links which I've found useful in the past, in my quest to understand it all.;lst

Good luck!

Collapse -
Not Misinformed on Plasmas..... .
by galvang / February 24, 2008 4:24 PM PST
In reply to: galvang:

"You seem to be rather misinformed about th plasma technology."

No, I am well versed and very familiar with the technology and understand it very well. As soon as you turn on a plasma TV, degradation starts with the brightness. Yes the plasma may still operate after 40k Hours at a continous use but at a 50% loss of brightness. After 100K hours yes they still may operate but at 20% percent brightness, too dark. With that you cannot replace a part to remedy the brightness as with an LCD. That's why they are inferior.

Plasmas are accetable for TV applications but for industrial use they are not acceptable. Remember the argument here is which is better an LCD or a plasma. The LCD wins hands down. In fact some of the major manufactures are slowly steering away from plasma and utilizing more LCDs in their product portfolios. You are the one who is misinformed.

Collapse -
by jostenmeat / February 24, 2008 4:32 PM PST

If it goes down in brightness, you can simply turn up the brightness. Duh. Thats what people do with high end projectors already. The reason why manufacturers utilize LCDs more and more is due to better profit margins. Just look at Sony, the arguable leader in LCDs, and their iscontinued SXRD RPTV's. And it doesn't hurt that the tremendous amount of misinformed consumers fear plasma.

For movie watching with the desired low ambient light, plasma is the best for the money, when considering flat panels only.

Outside of the best Sony and Samsung, all LCDs I have seen look like POS's. Awful awful color accuracy, oversaturation, lack of depth, overpriced, bad video processing.

Collapse -
Plasma LOL
by galvang / February 25, 2008 2:40 PM PST
In reply to: lol

"If it goes down in brightness, you can simply turn up the brightness. Duh. Thats what people do with high end projectors already. "

That's the problem, after a few years you can't adjust to full brightness anymore. Additionally if you adjust to full brightness on a plasma chances are you will get a "burn-in" on the phospher which is permanent damage. Ever notice why airports are moving away from plasmas and using just LCDs. There's a good reason for that. I suggest for you to google "burn-in in plasma" read all about it.

Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?