Plasma VS LCD - what are the major differences

you'll be happy. dont doubt yourself. burn in is not an issue unless you go crazy with tivo. gases do not leak and cause cancer. the halflife of the gases in there is 60,000 hours which means the tv will last at least quite a few years. panasonic makes some of the best plasma's out there (especially when you're looking at the px600u series). you'll get a better picture then an lcd. its $1000 less then an lcd with better picture quality (sony xbr2/3). dont worry about the resolution cause it sounds like you're not gonna be playing video games anyways.

all those reasons above in that unorganized order is why you should be happy with that panasonic plasma.

What is your learned experience, not trying to be facetious, on the Panasonic 600u series? been eyeballing the 50"

Thanks, Tom

Bravia KDL-V40XBR1

What assumptions are made about the rate of burning problem.

Since, it appears to be difficult to create Plasma TVs in the first place, who is checking to make sure that faulty plasma sets are not being dumped on to the market?

Statistics: 60,000 Hours = 6.8493 years. I want to know what assumptions were made to obtain 60,000 Hours of life, because anybody can make up a figure?

Based on What Hi-Fi? (sound and vision) November 2006, sony KDL-40W2000 is the best 40"-42" HD TV in the world, which raises the question why should you quote Sony xbr2/3 which is obsolete and last years model instead ?

Why claim don't worry about the resolution, because the person won't be playing games, which is ridiculous.

Sony KDL-40W2000 is superior than Panasonic TH-42PX600 and cheaper, and what happens when there is for example a fast car chase in a film the equivalent to playing a game?

Why should somebody buy a third rate picture quality TV when they can buy the best?

Any truth to problems (hum and burnout) at higher altitudes with plasma's?

Plasma vs. LCD
In terms of picture quality, plasmas and LCDs are becoming more and more equal, although we still generally recommend the best plasmas over the best LCDs for critical home-theater viewing. Most people will be perfectly happy with either technology, however, especially with high-def sources. For screen sizes between 37 and 42 inches, the buying decision generally boils down to price, the performance of individual models, and the perception of plasma's fragility, a perception that, again, is largely mistaken.

Based on What Hi-Fi November 2006 purchased in England:

1) Sony KDL-40W2000 LCD is the best TV in the world at the moment for the 40"-42" section.
2) Philips 42PF9831D LCD is the 2nd best
3) Panasonic TH-42PX600 is now 3rd best superior than Pioneer
4) Pioneer PDP-427XD is now in at least the fourth position instead of up until last month Pioneer being the best

Therefore, at least the top two positions are LCDs.

WOW thanks guys...I'm feeling better about my decision already. I'm actually going tonight after work so I was hoping I would hear some positive feedback, otherwise my husband and I would have to start over in our searching.

One poster mentioned video games. I do not play video games, however, my husband does...not much but he does play once in awhile. Does this mean he can't or rather should not on a plasma?

You guys are very informative...thanks so much!!!

I'm too old for games (except in Las Vegas). However, those gamers here say that games are OK if you are reasonably careful.

Plasmas don't like static images. So be careful not to leave a frozen picture or graphics on the screen for more than a few minutes at a time. There are features in the plasma that will help prevent problems (read the owner's manual).

When watching movies and we want to take a break, we put the DVD in "pause" and then into super slow motion reverse. This keeps the picture moving ever so slowly and prevents the pixels from producing the same exact color for too long.

Just some common sense here. You should have no problem.

RR6

I think I keep getting discouraged from Plasma's because I seem to get at least one person a day tell me that with the LCD you don't have to worry about the burn in and quickly fading picture problem. Although 50,000 - 60,000 hours is more than enough for me...I mean I work, I don't have 8 hours a day to watch T.V even if I wanted too.

.....so now I'm going to be the one person a day that tells you about the problems with LCD's.

First, they have what is called ''motion blur.'' That is they can't change the pixel image fast enough to keep up with fast images like sports events. Plasmas do not have this problem. So if you or your husband watch sports events or fast moving games don't buy an LCD. Yes, they are improving but not nearly as good as plasmas.

Tomorrow and the days after, the other problems with LCD's (hint, off angle viewing, not as good color accuracy, not as good black levels, higher price for same size.....need more info?).

RR6

Also think about the 100's of thousands of commercial Panasonic plasmas (same exact picture as consumer model) all over the world in airports, schools, and businesses that have been operating 24/7 for many years now with no problems. Panasonic is on their 9th generation models.

RR6

RR6 Your making me feel better about buying a Plasma!!

See my reply to RR6's message, because it is nonsense.

Plasma TVs are unreliable to manufacture, which is why they are more expensive than LCDs.

How many competent people or manufacturers have claimed that plasma TVs are more reliable than LCDs?

If Plasma TVs are so reliable than why are they so difficult to be created in the first place?

Why don't you tell the manufaturers how they should be making the plasma TVs, because it appears that they are wasting huge amounts of money in having to throw away huge amounts of defective parts.

You can tell the maufacturers that you will pay for guarantees for 7 to 21 years for all plasma TVs they sell. Since, you are claiming that they are completely reliable.

How many technicians does Panasonic have for repairing plasma Tvs and why are they necessary if they don't break down?

You can supply a detailed technical specification for each fault and defective plasma TV.

I agree with you on alot of what you say, but im sorry you are wrong on some of those views....

1. When it comes to Off angle viewing in any type of lighting LCD owns plasma.


newer LCD = no glare at all 170 degree viewing angle.

plasma = glare becuase of the multi layer glass. bad in well light area.

nuff said


2. "Newer" LCD have better accurate, popier colors than plasma excpet for blacks. I can say plasma display blacks better than LCD.


3. If you prefere a softer picture plasma is great. Soft picture is nice nothing wrong with that.
If you prefere a sharper picture LCD is the way to go.

Sharper picture = great for video games, sync cpu and DVD

Not very good for SD signal.
XBR3

I agree with most of what you have said but:-

1) Sony KDL-40W2000 LCD is probably the best picture
quality in the world at the moment see What Hi-Fi,
November 2006.

2) Philips42PF9831D LCD is probably also superior to
all Plasma 40"-42" TVs, which includes:-

3) Panasonic TH-42PX600 (3rd best)

4) Pioneer PDP-427XD (4th best)

I think the two top LCD out right now are the sony XBR3
and the sharp D62 both are 1080p.

As far as accurate colors and deep rich black levels these two tv's rival any 10,000 dollar 1080p plasma TV
+no glare

I Feel the xbr3 egdes out the D62 on pq.

I am only concerned with objective facts.

Therefore, you can tell me what causes motion blur?

Motion blur is caused when the computer cannot process information fast enough.

This means that since not only LCDs but Plasma uses computers they are both affected.

When the response time is slower than about 12ms or 16ms (I cannot rember which) then fast moving picture blurs also i (interlace) blurs for example 1080i.

Based on what you have stated it means that all the worst high definition (HD) TVs in the world are LCDs, which is complete nonsense.

At the moment, the best two 40"-42" TVs in the world are;
1) Sony KDL-40W2000 and
2) Philips 42PF9831D

You can tell me how is it possible for these LCDS to be better than the best plasma if they suffer from picture blurring, which you claim and you can provide objective proof (where did you get the information from)?

Either this person has made a mistake or can provide the proof.

See other messages, which I have posted.

LCD's have always had a better viewing angle than plasma, for example with plasma it use to be necessary to be at the correct height to watch it.

:-
1)

Newer LCD such as sony xbr3/ sharp d62 do not suffer from motion blur becuase they process the picture very well. Older models of LCD may suffer from this issue. I recent purchased xbr3 2 months ago, Still never had an issue with motion blur.

Yes older LCD may have this issue. newer LCD correct it.

I posted in the other thread you started...

http://reviews.cnet.com/5208-7596-0.html?forumID=60&threadID=211822&messageID=2263596

about LCD Image Persistance which is somewhat similar to Plasma burn-in.

The one point that put me off LCD's other than their high price was the motion blur. I just could not bear watching some of the top rated Sony and Sharp sets.

The one point I liked about some (not all) of the LCD's was that their screens were not as reflective as most plasmas. However, I find that compared to my old CRT TV, the plasma is not worse. I do most of my serious viewing with the area lighting off or dimly lit and as the panel is slightly above the height of my sofa, reflections are not an issue.

Another point in favour of Plasmas is most, and the Panasonic is said to be one of the best for this, plasmas do a better job than LCD's with SDTV (Standard Definition) channels. I'm very pleased with my 42PX60U. I was expecting a lot worse after watching demo's in stores by other brands.

I think the Panasonic TH42PX60U that FS offered this past week for $2299 $CAD is a great value. I bought mine for $2600 $CAD on sale 2 months ago.

Btw... were you aware that Panasonic offers updates to the firmware in their Plasmas?

I don't know what part of Canada you are in but if you are in Delta, BC you will be able to receive 9 HDTV channels without need for a converter box. FREE channels.

.

This is a great tv to recommend a new buyer coming to this website. Ive already heard two people come back and say that they love their new tv. Now with the price dropping so fast you can find it at a super deal.

The point is whether it is the best TV in the 40"-42" TV range and the answer is no.

Sony KDL-40W2000 at the moment appears to be the best and cheaper than the third place Panasonic TH-42PX600.

I read some where that the; TH42PX60U is virtually identical to the Panasonic TH-42PX600 apart from having no speakers I think it was.

Panasonic TH42PX600 is probably the best plasma TV compared to Pioneer's PDP-427XD but there are at least two LCDs, which are the best 40"-42" TVs in the world.

See previous messages posted to other people.

When I saw that this thread now has 41 posts I didn't realize that it was all one person forcing his point across. You really came in here like a wrecking ball, didnt you. I could only bear to read a couple of your posts fearing that the others were just as bad and repetitive.
First off, I never claimed that the panny was the best tv in the world. I was giving my opinion and input on a great choice to make based on what Diphan was asking. And as far as you stating that the point of this thread is finding the best tv in the 40"-42"- WRONG AGAIN. Thats not the point. Most of us dont have time to scour the world in search of the best deal known to man. We go shopping based on the choices we have around us. As far as plasma tvs not lasting very long, please check out RR6 post (The world is going to end on Saturday). He put it best. And last, I live in America. Where the heck am I going to find the kdl-40w2000.

In reply to Barrington Thoma's CONSTANT persistence in letting us all know that HE feels the Sony KDL-40W2000 is the best T.V. in the world....WE GET IT ALREADY!!! Thanks for your opinion and for the opinion of Hi FI!!! We understood the first out of the 5 times you posted it!!!!

Plasma Tvs appear to be too unreliable even in manufacturing.

I know enough about statistics to know that if for example if there is a lif of 60,000 that is only on average. You should always ask yourself if somebody has quoted a staistics what assumptions have they made?

Ask Panasonic what assumptions have they made?

Over the years for example when you buy light bulbs some will last much longer than others. The same thing applies to plasma Tvs.

I assume that 60,000 hours is that if your plasma TV was correctly built in the first place.

The manufaturers it appears are finding it extremely difficult to manufacturer the plasma TVs in the first place. It must be tempting to past some faulty ones through.

60,000 Hrs is quoted by Panasonic if they trusted that figure than they would give at least a 7 to 21 years guarantee.

Ask Panasonic has any plasma TVs needed placing before 21 years, because I am sure that there would be some?

What would happen if Plasma manufacturers stop selling Plasma size TVs which LCDs can compete against who will repair TV?

When I carry out a feasibility study (research) I only want to get the best value for whatever I am buying.
I wouldn't waste money on something, which is third best and cost more money etcetera than buying the best.

I have just read your message again.

Why do you want to buy the Panasonic with the burn problem when the Sony has a better picture quality and no burn problem etcetera?

Okay your taking the Hi Fi report and making it out to be the most accurate piece of reading material in the world...THERE IS NO FACT that the sony that you claim to be the best in the world, really is.

You probably know a hec of a lot more than I do about Plasma's and LCD's but your putting down Plasma's in your VERY MANY posts and that's just messed up. State your opinion and move on.

In reply to your question, I am quite concerned about the burn in issues with Plasma, however I like the picture quality on a Plasma a lot better than on the LCD...from what I saw anyway, so I was asking to get opinions on both T.V's to make sure I was not making the wrong choice....which you obviously made clear through your many posts, that I am.

I have a Sony LCD and a PS2. I don't want to shut my game system off and have to restart the system, load, wait, select the load file, wait, load, wait, etc. when I come back tomorrow. I want to sit down and pick up where I left off so I put the game on pause and turn the TV off.

Does anyone know if there are any negative consequences to either the TV or the game system, CD, etc?

Thanks,
ml