Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater LCD or PLASMA....model????

Okay, I have been looking at equipment reviews, and consumer reviews for quite some time. I seem to be getting nowhere. Every tv regardless of manufacturer seems to have issues. Are they bad, don't know? If you go with plasma, you might get good contrast and possibly no motion blur. If you go with LCD your colors may be good but your blacks may not, and to avoid motion blur you need to get one that is 120hz.

I have narrowed to these models mainly because of price, and hopefully because of features in this range. Does anyone have any input on these models?
Samsung:
LN52A650
PN50A650
Panasonic:
TH50PZ85U
Sharp:
LC52D65U

I've got the Panasonic 46" 1080p Plasma from Costco, it is the same model you get at Best Buy, Sears, etc... and they extend the warranty to 2 years automatically. For $949 it has a killer picture. Motion blurr is not an issue. You can't go wrong with a Panasonic.

I would steer clear of LCD's just because of the fact that if you move a little bit off axis the picture quality will degrade. How bad this is depends on the tv. No LCD manufacters have been able to fix this. Some manufacturers have been implementing local dimming technology so that black levels, shadow detail and contrast ratio are near and in some cases better than that of plasma. I have never found motion blur of LCD's to be that drastic to make it distracting. The only real problem with plasma is the possibility of image retention. If you are careful to prevent this then it is a non-issue. This is why I went with a plasma.

- Nick

I have the Panasonic TH50PZ85 and am very happy with the PQ.Myself and two friends went into the Audiotronics Store in Kamloops BC and bought the same packages,TH50PZ85 Plasma,DMP-BD35 Blu-ray Player, Harmony 550 Remote, and 2 Monster HDMI Cables for CDN$2000 +Taxes. It pays to shop in numbers if possible.We basically got the Blu-ray players free at that price.

I watch it on the Cinema setting and have adjusted picture, brightness and color settings down some.

As you stated if you buy LCD you should buy 120hz to get the blur free picture.

Good Luck on your shopping

What are you using the TV for? Just movies and TV, Gaming (casual, heavy), computer monitor? Do you really need a super flat screen or do you have room for an RPTV?

All the technologies deliver a good image at this point, so use determines type more than anything else (IMO). For example, I ended up going with an RPTV because I use my display as a computer monitor as well and my son does a lot of gaming. That puts me at the highest risk of burn in. Burn in on plasmas is not a particularly high risk, but it does still exist.

Black levels on LCDs are almost as good as plasma these days. LCD backlit with local dimming probably puts them on par with Plasma, but I havn't looked closely at these models

I would narrow it down like this:

If you are a casual gamer or do no gaming and won't use the display as a computer monitor, go for plasma. No blurring issues and plasmas give the nicest overall image and colour.

If you are a heavy gamer and/or are using the display as a computer monitor look at LCD or RP.

The reason I put RP in there, is that it delivers the dual advantage of no blurring and good colour and black levels. In the past rp was also the best bang for the buck. In my case over 1K less than a similarly sized lcd.

Samsung seems to be the leader in LCD (unless you go to a super expensive sony) and RP and Panasonic for plasma (unless you go for the super expensive Kurio).

I would comment BUT it looks like Fred already covered it.

I got the Sharp Aquos 52" but the model above the one you mention (the 85u I think is has a great picture and very little off axis degrading. Not as good a pic the $2700 52" Samsung and not as good as my nephew's 42" Plasma.
I paid $1699 plus tax which included a FREE Sharp Blu-ray player. ( I chewed them down to that price. they wanted $1899 plus tax with the blu-ray player) I love this TV. Just got a great stand for it from Costco. The Samsung was better but not $1000 better.

I didn't consider plasma because of the daytime glare I had on my last tv. Plasma has a glare problem with reflection off the glass.

not the panny's

Sounds like you're (your, yore, please insert 'your' favourite) HT is going to be similar to mine. I recently picked up a 52 Sammy LCD, Denon receiver/BD, and of course Axioms.

Fanboy

I speak the facts, not hearsay.

I speak the speak, but don't tweak the tweak.

Oh wait, I do that too.

Both are very good these days, I believe the newer plasmas have no issues with burn in. I still prefer plasma over LCD, might just be a personal choice but I feel the plasma are a bit sharper with PQ.

I think LCD's initially were pricey, and seemed to be limited to about 37" up until 2-3 years ago. Since then, the prices have become much more competitive and also screen sizes are now on par with Plasmas. Recently, plasmas seem to be making a bit of a comeback as some of the issues are being addressed such as burn in, power consumption, heat ect. It's all about individual preference, in the end. Both are good in slightly different ways.

First picture on your link is mine...LN52A650

They seem to have come down in price.

A dealer (the one I purchased from) told me that the manufacturers drop prices gradually (as we see) but only to a point, then they replace it with something with a couple of new features that may or may not be all that important to most people...just to hike the price back up and restart the 'game'. I actually paid slightly less than the price that came up on that link about 3months ago (converted to C$). Best deals were just before Christmas I think.

For the record there's still a lot of good deals now, but newer lineups are resetting some of the pricing.

But; have you done any blind testing to prove it

Just before x-mas I picked up a Sony LCD 52XBR6 from shortCircuit City that came with a Sony Blue Ray S550 for $2060. It took some work to find the deal, but they will show up after the SuperBowl so be patient. Shortly after I picked up a Denon 2309 so I could take advantage of the Doblby True HD. Somebody mentioned issues with LCDs not as sharp as plasma or side viewing sucks and that is BS. Picture is unbeleivably clear. Also, user interface is very easy to use. About the same time I got the new TV, I upgraded to the Comcast HD package. I have been watching a lot of Palladia lately and my system and Axiom rocks. Denon 2309 and Blue Ray setup sucks, but I finally figured it out.

Our system:
M60s
EP350
Vp 150
QS8s
Denon 2309
Sony BR S550
Axiom owner since 2003

I love that channel.

Welcome to the forum.

thank goodness you got it before the circuit city meltdown.

Got another question. Most manufactures claim to have some many hours before half life, say like 60,000 hours. If you watched 10 hours a day that would come out over 16 years. If this the case then they have been keeping this technology from us, otherwise how do they know this info? I haven't seen plasmas or lcds on the market this long. So whats up?

Hey audiodreamer, they are videodreamers.

I would guess it is a theoretical claim based on formulas to derive the needed life spans.

What happens if he has warranty issues? Does he simply contact Sony and arrange to bring it somewhere?

I have another question about the sound leveler, that some displays have. If I were to run HDMI from cable box to display and then optical out to receiver would this sound leveler be in effect? I just hate the fact that commercials come in sometimes so much louder.

If you have the option to run HDMI to your receiver and then out to your TV, this would be the best option. The only benefit I can see of running HDMI directly to your TV to utilize "sound leveler" is if you were using your display primarily as your audio source. Unless I'm missing something.

Cam, what did you end up with re. TV stand?

I pretty much run everything thru the receiver right now. My issue is that thru the receiver all broadcast audio has too much fluctuation. Audio from dvd is obviously better and does not have this issue. Plus receivers onboard video upscaler does not seem to do any justice for my cable source. I was just curious if anyone has tried this or knows if it is possible.(HDMI directly to your TV to utilize "sound leveler)

Personally, i can only talk about my 52" XBR. (see gallery family man 2nd try)i bought it last year from the Sony Store. the picture is incredible. the Sony give's me options no other LCD or Plasma gave me. I have seen the sony 120hz models and don't see much differance for now. sony have what they call motion enhancer on their video stuff which really helps with smoothing fast motion. I know that their 240 hz stuff will be out soon. I also use the motion enhancer on my sony BDP 5000ES. that combanation for the money is incredible. my only regret is that i didn't get the Anthem D2. I have the Sony 5300 ES. Very an ok reciever but i am sure that i could get more from my Axioms with a better Pre/Pro than a reciever. Many would argue that its close but it isn't. so for myself, LCD gave a bright picture and the blacks are very good. Plasma just looked dull.

this is just my opinion. I would suggest you look at them and try not to look at the specs. forget the name brands and go with what you like. chances are you will keep this set for at least 7-10 years. a few bucks more is worth the investment for all that enjoyment.

one last thing, if you can wait a little longer, the economy is crashing. they will be giving them away. haggle haggle haggle with the price. they won't let you walk out of the store. its a buyers market.

Hey Adrian,

I'm going to wall mount my plasma screen and store all of my components in a cabinet below it. Right now my screen is sitting on a table that is at least 3" high, and I couldn't find any TV stand that high. I did check out the website and they do have excellent prices; I recommended them to my friend.

Check the thread on TV height. I just moved my response to there.

As much as i love plasma over LCD, i care too much that it sucks power more than {fill in blank...now}

The high power usage of plasma screens is my only regret from purchasing one. I am extremely energy conscious, I've started re-insulating my house, purchased an on-demand water heater, HRV, whole home HEPA filtration system, Trane's most efficient furnace, had many energy audits including thermal imaging, and I've recently converted my electricity provider to a "green electricity" provider which uses wind, solar, and water generated power; it's called Bullfrog power for anyone in Alberta or Ontario.

Long story short, my plasma screen is my downfall.

I've seen their advertisements in local magazines, is the cost of their service competitive with standard power suppliers?

Hey Adrian, Bullfrog power works out to be approximately $1 a day more than standard emission intensive suppliers. On an yearly average I use around 650 kWh (the amount that I used last month) which is very low, so my bill isn't very high.

Here's a website that will give you an idea of what your bill would be. I'm pretty sure it's not affiliated with bullfrog power but it's what I used for reference before signing up.


link
Click on "put a little green power in your meter"

Bullfrog powers website
link

Hey, Mountain Equip Co-op and Vaughan Mills are using Bullfrog power! I guess as more people sign on to this, the cost will drop. Man oh man...when you look how far behind North America is to Europe (esp Germany) when it comes to "Green Power", it's sad.

Hey, everything's sad if you actually look at it.

With all the actions you've undertaken, you should have enough energy left over to spoil yourself just a little without feeling too guilty.

I won't have much time to open links so I'll ask quickly. Are you actually receiving the green power (seperate grid) or paying a premium on the regular service and the extra dollar (or percentage) goes to the green power producer (sometimes the same utility company.)

Curious. That's how it works here. I could buy green power but I'm paying the same utility company a premium to receive exactly the same power but which would be fine if I was sure that the extra money goes into their green initiatives.

However, I haven't signed up yet because their current plan is to produce wind energy and sell it to the US market because it is more profitable. If that becomes the case, I'd be paying more to subsidies wind energy that will never reach our homes and whose sole purpose is to create an increased profit.

I am actually receiving "green electricity". Basically what happens is I switched to Bullfrog as my provider, so any electricity that I use (generated via wind, solar etc.) is sent into the grid. Instead of my previous supplier (emission intensive) receiving my money, now Bullfrog power receive my money.

Does that make sense?

Yup, makes sense.
If I understand it correctly, the actual electrons from the green sources don't necessarily hit your doorstep but at least they are being dumped into the shared grid and the green utility is getting the funds.

I’ve always been a Samsung Plasma fan myself. That is until this past weekend. I was wondering around Costco and they had a bunch of new Sony LCD TV’s on display, along with others too. They all had the Blu Ray version of Walle’ playing on them. One of the Sony’s looked freaking amazing. Even my girlfriend, who rarely notices image quality, was entranced. I’ve seen how others refer to an image as looking “3-D”, but never really understood what in the heck they were talking about unless it was a 3-D movie and you had to wear those stupid glasses. Well now I know. The image on that Sony looked as if I could reach into the TV and grab the robot. It was beyond doubt, the sharpest, clearest, best damn image I’ve ever seen. They had two models, both 52” and both 1080P with 120HZ motion-flow. One was clearly better, and also more expensive. One was $1800 and the other was $2400. I did not write down the exact model numbers, sorry. At any rate, if anyone is looking for a TV, they need to check out one of these Sony’s. I think I’m going to pick one up myself next week, and I already have a HT room with a JVC RS-20 projector – I was that impressed. If I can’t figure out how to calibrate my Projector to look like that Sony, I’ll most likely spend the majority of my time watching the TV.

I wanted to love plasma, I really did. All of the stuff written about plasma tv's make them sound like they're better than sex (unless you're a pro-gamer). But as someone else mentioned on here, when I view a plasma next to an LCD down at HH Greggs, the plasma just looks dull... and not in a good way.

I'm sure if I got one into my livingroom I would probably be very happy with it, but when they cost as much more than an LCD as they do, I just have to ask myself 'why'??? I had a Toshiba 65 inch rear projection 1080i television that I thought was 'tits' when I was watching an HD program on it. Sure it had problems when you moved off center from it, but my seat sat directly in front of it, so I wasn't concerned much about it. Then my roommate got a Sharp Aquos 42 inch LCD and my whole world was turned upside down! Crisp, clean, clear picture with vivid color, and AMAZING clarity... check, check, check, check and double CHECK!!! I remember telling him that the HD picture on his tv looked better than real life! My ancient rear projection tv suddenly seemed like a real piece of crap!!!

And that was just the 60 hz model. Now they have 120 hz, and will soon have 240? This is getting crazy! But to be honest, I've watched a football game at the store on a Sharp Aquos 65 inch 60 hz model right next to the 120 hz model and the difference was there, but minimal. I'm sure once I get the 60 hz model into my livingroom I won't miss the extra refreshing a whole lot. Maybe in 5 years when they're up to 9000 hz I'll think about upgrading, but until then $2800 bucks for a 65 inch Sharp LCD is just peachy for me when the 120 hz model runs $5500... DEFINATELY not worth twice the price. And now they have an even newer 65 inch LCD that costs $10,000. I'm sure it's nice, but like I said I'm still in love with the original Aquos.

I got a 52" Sharp Aquos the weekend before Christmas. Has to be one of the best purchases I have made. I truly enjoy this TV every day. I got the LC-52D85U with a Sharp Aquos Blu-ray plater for $1699. I think I got a great deal at the time (probably cheaper now) Very Happy!

I had a 37" Sharp Aquos lcd that lasted less than two years. The repair shop couldn't even get the parts to fix it. Bob, I hope you have better luck than I did.

Now it's a 50" Samsung plasma, much happier with this set. No more Sharp anything for me.

Rick, what went on the Sharp?

Speaking of Plasmas, just today I surprised the little missus and hung our 42" Panny on the bedroom wall, ran all wires in-wall and it came very nice and tidy looking.

That's about it regarding my contribution to this thread.

From what I understand, the 240Hz doesn't refer to the same thing as the 60 or 120Hz.

Are you sure, Ken? I thought they were going to 240Hz to work better with the film rate of 24 pics per second or something like that. Where the 60 and 120 hz were not divisable by 24 frames equally and had to "fill in the blanks", moving up to 240hz meant a nice easily divisable 240/24.

First they said it was the main circuit board and when that didn't work they said it was the lcd inverters. I have no idea as to why they couldn't get the parts but they couldn't.

No, I'm not sure, but I thought I read something along those lines.

Just so you know, 120 is evenly divisible by 24.

Oh, sure...NOW the math major shows up!

C'mon Charles, don't leave us hanging like that; give us the actual answer!

Okay, I'll have to figure it out myself. I did take a quick look at 240Hz processing and it appears from this article that the 240Hz sets beginning to appear use two different ways to get to 240Hz: "true 240Hz" sets in the article's terminology calculate and then interpolate three extra frames between each original one; others interpolate one frame to get to 120Hz and then cycle the backlight very rapidly to insert two dark frames to total 240. Both types are for the purpose of reducing rapid motion blur, e.g. in sports. Either 120 or 240 is of course evenly divisible by the 24 frames per second motion picture rate for the separate question of showing that properly on TV.

Charles, you might also enjoy Ken Pohlmann's(who apparently, in contrast with Dan Rather, does know the frequency)philosophical/technological take on the subject.

Rick, I'm sorry to hear that you had a problem with your Sharp television. But to be fair, every manufacturer has a horror story of some sort, nobody is immune to these kinds of things.

Not that I blame you for not wanting to ever buy another Sharp product mind you, when this sort of thing happens, it generally leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

My own personal horror story goes with a Sony 36 inch flat screen I bought back in 2000. It was the center piece of my very 1st attempt at a home theater. Accompaning it was.a Sony rack system I paid a whopping $600 bucks for (you know, one of those package deals that comes with a reciever, a CD player, a dual tape deck & two speakers). Yeah is was barbarack, but I was happy with it at the time.

So the Sony was one of 3 TV's in the house (& the only one plugged into a surge protector btw), and after owning it for a year the tube went out apparently during an electrical storm, even though the other two TV's were not harmed. That failure turned me completely off of Sony. I got rid of the cheap rack system, upgraded to Denon/Cerwin Vega/Cambidge Soundworks & a Toshiba television and won't ever buy another Sony product.

That's not to say I don't think anyone else should either. I'm sure there are plenty of Sony fans out there who are extremely happy with their products. I'm just not one of them.

Correct, of course. I believe the article I read must have come from one of our local papers, I can't find it on the 'net. It basically stated that 240hz worked best with modern filming frame rates (not just because 240>120>60). There's many articles however that claim no noticeable difference between 120hz and 240 hz refresh ratios although I definitely noticed the difference between 60 and 120. You're right though, I don't remember exactly how they stated it in the article I read, but they implied the processor would fill in the "missing" info on 60 and 120 hz models but wouldn't need to on the 240hz. I'm sure once a few more 240 hz models come out we should here something on this.