Recomendations On HDTV

[willbemcse]

I am looking to get a hdtv tv on black friday and have narrowed down to these
Samsung HLT5075S (50" DLP 720p) for 800 @ CC
Sharp LC46D64U (46" LCD 1080p) for 1300 @ CC
Panasonic TH-42PE7U (42" Plasma 720p) for 900 @ BB
Samsung HPT5044 (50" Plasma 720p) for 1400 @ BB

 

[cmdrdredd]

IMO the Panasonic Plasma will give the best overall picture for TV and movies while the Samsung Plasma comes close and obviously has more screen area. The kicker for you may or may not be the 1080p Sharp. It's better for situations where you will have a constant image on screen for a long duration. Gaming or PC usage. If you hook your PC up to a plasma you risk some serious IR. The level of risk is debatable, but LCD is better for this purpose. Also 1080p would be nice for your xbox 360 or PS3 if you have it.

So again the picture quality goes Panasonic > Samsung > Sharp but the beforementioned LCD usefulness may make a difference.

FWIW the Panasonic is the best deal out of the bunch IMO.

 

[TheDrake]

I say go with the Sharp and dont look back, you future proof your TV with 1080p and well you cant go wrong with Sharp. You will get the longer life of the LCD's over the plasma's as well and not have to worry about changing bulbs in the DLP after a few years.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: TheDrake
I say go with the Sharp and dont look back, you future proof your TV with 1080p and well you cant go wrong with Sharp. You will get the longer life of the LCD's over the plasma's as well and not have to worry about changing bulbs in the DLP after a few years.

MYTH

 

[TheDrake]

IME I have seen many more plasma's die over a 5 year period of use than LCD's... well heck even in 3 years I can say that with my own experience. Besides you still have burn in issues with plasmas too so if the short life doesnt convince you then the burn in definitely will!

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: TheDrake
IME I have seen many more plasma's die over a 5 year period of use than LCD's... well heck even in 3 years I can say that with my own experience. Besides you still have burn in issues with plasmas too so if the short life doesnt convince you then the burn in definitely will!

MYTH #2 Image retention occasionally but not burn in.

As for reliability, I'd believe this over one persons experience.
TV Repair Rates

 

[TheDrake]

Put your plasma on a football channel where the ticker is in the same spot for a long period of time or even have it on ESPN for a few days, you will see it...

As far as CR, I take everything they say with a grain of salt. Often times they are either completely wrong, stretching the truth, or not taking everything into account correctly. There is a reason plasma's are significantly cheaper than LCD's.... whether you want to believe it or call it a Myth is your decision.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: TheDrake
Put your plasma on a football channel where the ticker is in the same spot for a long period of time or even have it on ESPN for a few days, you will see it...

As far as CR, I take everything they say with a grain of salt. Often times they are either completely wrong, stretching the truth, or not taking everything into account correctly. There is a reason plasma's are significantly cheaper than LCD's.... whether you want to believe it or call it a Myth is your decision.

Well, that's convincing. What motivation would CR have for stretching the truth?

What TV's do you own?

 

[TheDrake]

Well I personally own all LCD's of various brands. But the company I work for is where I get all my experience cause they used to buy all plasma and LCD's, but have swtiched just to LCD's now for obvious reasons and their brands they carry are all across the board, we are talking hundreds, not just a few here and there.

If I only owned like 4 of each then I wouldnt even make a suggestion to the OP.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: TheDrake
Well I personally own all LCD's of various brands. But the company I work for is where I get all my experience cause they used to buy all plasma and LCD's, but have swtiched just to LCD's now for obvious reasons and their brands they carry are all across the board, we are talking hundreds, not just a few here and there.

If I only owned like 4 of each then I wouldnt even make a suggestion to the OP.

How did I know?

I happen to own both a 62u series Sharp and a 700 series Panasonic plasma. Even if the price were equal (which it's not), I would never recommend the Sharp over the Panasonic. It's clearly an inferior display when setup next to each other. It's that obvious.

Plasmas last just as long. Point me to a recent credible source claiming otherwise. You are just perpetuating a commonly held misinformed belief (aka MYTH) regarding plasma displays.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: TheDrake
IME I have seen many more plasma's die over a 5 year period of use than LCD's... well heck even in 3 years I can say that with my own experience. Besides you still have burn in issues with plasmas too so if the short life doesnt convince you then the burn in definitely will!

Quit buying cheap plasmas.

 

[zinfamous]

when will this burn-in myth of plasmas finally die?

it hasn't been an issue in more than 5 years now....do people check the date on the articles they read when they learn about these things?

There is NO PROBLEM WITH BURN-IN FOR A PLASMA MADE IN THE LAST 3-5 YEARS. ....if that's what people need to believe to justify a somewhat lesser quality PQ by going LCD...then good for them. just don't spread the BS--it confuses those trying to make a decision for their first HDTV

anyhoo--any HDTV is great, I can't imagine anyone being disappointed over which type they choose. As for these choices, they are all damn good deals...but I'd honestly go for the Panasonic Plasma or the Sammy DLP (this is the best deal, IMO)-I believe this model doesn't suffer from the lamp issues that older DLPs may suffer from, iirc.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: TheDrake
IME I have seen many more plasma's die over a 5 year period of use than LCD's... well heck even in 3 years I can say that with my own experience. Besides you still have burn in issues with plasmas too so if the short life doesnt convince you then the burn in definitely will!

Quit buying cheap plasmas.

EXACTLY, and buy one made in the last 4 years. any experience with an older model plasma is completely invalid concerning those constructed over the last 4 or so generations.

and who leaves their TV on for 3 straight days anyway? You will get burn-in on any TV if you do that. I've seen it on DLPs and LCDs.

 

[willbemcse]

so get sharp instead of panasonic sharp is 1080 p panasonic is 720p

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: willbemcse
so get sharp instead of panasonic sharp is 1080 p panasonic is 720p

doesn't give the Sharp better picture. you have to look at them for yourself. contrast, color accuracy, brightness are all far more important than resolution in determining PQ.

If you're sitting more than 6 feet from that set; you will NOT notice the difference b/w 720p and 1080p.

read some more articles on HDTV picture quality this is a good start. It boils down to some people prefer LCD, some prefer Plasma...others prefer DLP. what matters is what you prefer.

just don't make the decision based on 1080 vs 720, b/c that really is the least important thing.

think about it this way: would you buy a 7 megapixel digital camera with a small CCD over a 5.5 megapixel camera with a larger CCD? I hope not...this is the EXACT same marketing ploy. trust your eyes before you trust the MBAs that write the sticker specs

IMO, 1080 is not worth $400 over the Panasonic.
and really, the best deal out of that lineup is the 50" DLP for $800

of course, if they were the same price, then by all means go for the 1080 set; why not, right?

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: TheDrake
I say go with the Sharp and dont look back, you future proof your TV with 1080p and well you cant go wrong with Sharp. You will get the longer life of the LCD's over the plasma's as well and not have to worry about changing bulbs in the DLP after a few years.

MYTH

How Long Do Plasma TVs Last?

So how do the manufacturers know how to calculate the figures? The manufacturing facilities in Japan/Korea test plasma panels at 100% white image light and measure down from that point with meter readings. A series of mathematical deductions takes place. It takes months to find that 50% mark - between 40,000 and 60,000 hours.

Not only do they still burn IN they burn OUT. It is an inherent design flaw in a plasma. You can't eliminate this effect with pixel shifting, the plasma gas is burning in the substrate it is reacting against. Just like a fluorescent bulb or neon tube will slowly burn permanent areas on the glass. You might not notice it over time, but that is only because you are watching it daily and not aware of how much it is actually degrading the picture quality. LCD and projection technologies do not have this design flaw.

Another point to add is, they are not testing the electronics in the TV when they do these general tests, they are testing the panels, usually. The electronics in most TVs will never survive that long without needing some repairs. So these 60,000 hour lifespans are kind of meaningless. Especially if your plasma is 50% burned out and IN well before that time.

This was snipped out of a response I made on a similar thread here. I can see the same plasma groupies spreading the same misleading info here that they are trying to accuse me of spreading over there.

Since I have a 46" Sharp Aquos 62U series I would personally recommend that over the plasmas, especially if you are going to game with it or use it on the PC a lot.

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: TheDrake
IME I have seen many more plasma's die over a 5 year period of use than LCD's... well heck even in 3 years I can say that with my own experience. Besides you still have burn in issues with plasmas too so if the short life doesnt convince you then the burn in definitely will!

MYTH #2 Image retention occasionally but not burn in.

As for reliability, I'd believe this over one persons experience.
TV Repair Rates

As far as that goes, that is an meaningless source for TV repair rates. Are they actually comparing the total number made to total numbers repaired, or merely lazily looking at their consumer complaints? They most likely are using consumer complaints ONLY with their survey. I have taken their meaningless surveys before, big deal. Hardly accurate. C.R. is about as useful as the B.B.B. is. They are both corporate shills pretending they aren't while supposedly looking out for the consumers.

What actually constitutes a repair in their report? Only if a consumer has it fixed or sends it back to the factory while in warranty? What about various retailers having problems with displays and customer returns and sending them back by the boat loads to the factories? Does that count in their numbers, too? I bet it don't. The retailers don't use C.R. for posting repair complaints, neither do the manufacturers. And since I won't pay C.R. one cent for their useless info, I guess I will never know what statistical hokus-pocus they are really up to.

Also, a lot of TV repairs are made outside the warranty period, or the TV is simply scraped if it is too expensive to fix. I have thrown out several TVs like that. Obviously these junked and repaired TVs are not going to be reflected in any statistics from a manufacturer, or C.R. for that matter. For these reasons C.R. obviously won't have access to any sort of statistically relevant repair records for any given type of TV, or model, much less brands. The tens of thousands of repair guys WORLD WIDE and repair companies have this info, not C.R. or even the manufacturers. If the TV is out of warranty, the manufacturer will not track if it works or not, nor are they required to. C.R. is just grasping at straws trying to even presume to post these figures. As they are on any "reliability" reporting for the same reasons listed above.

And as far as percentages go, the same 3% of complaining C.R. consumers filling out surveys who bought LCD or plasmas are still reading C.R.. DOH! Which is why I think their reported repair numbers are utter crap. Just like a lot of what they pretend to do there is.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: TheDrake
I say go with the Sharp and dont look back, you future proof your TV with 1080p and well you cant go wrong with Sharp. You will get the longer life of the LCD's over the plasma's as well and not have to worry about changing bulbs in the DLP after a few years.

MYTH

How Long Do Plasma TVs Last?

So how do the manufacturers know how to calculate the figures? The manufacturing facilities in Japan/Korea test plasma panels at 100% white image light and measure down from that point with meter readings. A series of mathematical deductions takes place. It takes months to find that 50% mark - between 40,000 and 60,000 hours.

Not only do they still burn IN they burn OUT. It is an inherent design flaw in a plasma. You can't eliminate this effect with pixel shifting, the plasma gas is burning in the substrate it is reacting against. Just like a fluorescent bulb or neon tube will slowly burn permanent areas on the glass. You might not notice it over time, but that is only because you are watching it daily and not aware of how much it is actually degrading the picture quality. LCD and projection technologies do not have this design flaw.

Another point to add is, they are not testing the electronics in the TV when they do these general tests, they are testing the panels, usually. The electronics in most TVs will never survive that long without needing some repairs. So these 60,000 hour lifespans are kind of meaningless. Especially if your plasma is 50% burned out and IN well before that time.

This was snipped out of a response I made on a similar thread here. I can see the same plasma groupies spreading the same misleading info here that they are trying to accuse me of spreading over there.

Since I have a 46" Sharp Aquos 62U series I would personally recommend that over the plasmas, especially if you are going to game with it or use it on the PC a lot.

You are so completely misinformed. You don't even understand the concept of the phosphor half-life compared with burn-in.

If it's the electronics that usually break first (which is true) , would that not make LCD and Plasma TV's essentially equally reliable (or more dependent on the actually brand), something others have been trying to point out.

You can recommend the Sharp over a good Plasma but just realize that unless there are some very specific reasons to get an LCD, you are letting your own biases dictate your recommendation. I've got a 62u series sharp (which has a very similar picture) and a Panasonic Plasma so I don't think I'm being biased when I say that the Plasma has a noticeably better picture. It's obvious to anyone who comes over.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
As far as that goes, that is an meaningless source for TV repair rates. Are they actually comparing the total number made to total numbers repaired, or merely lazily looking at their consumer complaints? They most likely are using consumer complaints ONLY with their survey. I have taken their meaningless surveys before, big deal. Hardly accurate. C.R. is about as useful as the B.B.B. is. They are both corporate shills pretending they aren't while supposedly looking out for the consumers.

What actually constitutes a repair in their report? Only if a consumer has it fixed or sends it back to the factory while in warranty? What about various retailers having problems with displays and customer returns and sending them back by the boat loads to the factories? Does that count in their numbers, too? I bet it don't. The retailers don't use C.R. for posting repair complaints, neither do the manufacturers. And since I won't pay C.R. one cent for their useless info, I guess I will never know what statistical hokus-pocus they are really up to.

Also, a lot of TV repairs are made outside the warranty period, or the TV is simply scraped if it is too expensive to fix. I have thrown out several TVs like that. Obviously these junked and repaired TVs are not going to be reflected in any statistics from a manufacturer, or C.R. for that matter. For these reasons C.R. obviously won't have access to any sort of statistically relevant repair records for any given type of TV, or model, much less brands. The tens of thousands of repair guys WORLD WIDE and repair companies have this info, not C.R. or even the manufacturers. If the TV is out of warranty, the manufacturer will not track if it works or not, nor are they required to. C.R. is just grasping at straws trying to even presume to post these figures. As they are on any "reliability" reporting for the same reasons listed above.

And as far as percentages go, the same 3% of complaining C.R. consumers filling out surveys who bought LCD or plasmas are still reading C.R.. DOH! Which is why I think their reported repair numbers are utter crap. Just like a lot of what they pretend to do there is.

CR is well respected. You are questioning their methodology w/o even understanding it. It's a shame you wrote all that down and are essentially only arguing with yourself.

What's your claim? That Plasma is less reliable than LCD? Show me some proof.