LCD vs Plasma

[Craig]

We may have a winner in the HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray format war but Flat Screen has the better picture these days; Plasma or LCD?

Has LCD caught up to Plasma in picture quality yet? I was looking at the two types in the store today and the Pioneer Elite Plasma was looking pretty good and better than the 120Hz LCDs. Both are better than my 4 year old 1080i DLP.

I've consistently heard that the Pioneer Elite are some of the best consumer models going right now. Plasmas are still more expensive than LCDs but the price difference is much closer than it used to be.

 

[Hauger92]

If you're looking for raw performance plasma is the way to go, especially for movies, sports, and television broadcasts. LCDs are looking better but image blurring and color saturation is still an issue. I work at a Pioneer Elite dealer and they are the best flat panels out there. If you go LCD, go with Sony XBR or Samsung 71 or 81 series. If you don't want to dish out the cash for those few, buy Panasonic plasma. They're the best for the money.

If you analyze the picture like you do listening to high fidelity audio, nothing looks better than a CRT (Realistic or looking through a window). Plasma is the the closest thing. A lot of people like LCD because it's colorful and bright but unfortunately not very realistic.

 

[Cherian]

LCD looks better if you have a bright room (a room with many windows). If you have a dark room go with Plasma or even better CRT. The only issue with CRT is I think the biggest you can get is 40".

 

[amey01]

If you are wary of LCD models, have a look at the absolutely stunning offerings from Metz and Loewe. Yes, the Pioneer plasmas are very very good, and (like audio) do some things better than anything else, but the Metz LCDs and Loewes will blow you off your feet!

 

[Hauger92]

The Pioneers are made in the U.S.A. too....if that helps? Some of us in the Motor City think buying American is important.

 

[amey01]

The Pioneers are made in the U.S.A. too....if that helps? Some of us in the Motor City think buying American is important.

Yes, but it doesn't really matter where the bits are put together - it's still a Japanese giant!

 

[risabet]

Plasma is better for motion, fewer artifacts, trails, etc. Black levels are better than LCD and viewing angle is mostly larger. CRT is dead, they are ridiculously heavy and take up way, way too much space.

 

[amey01]

CRT is dead, they are ridiculously heavy and take up way, way too much space.

That's like saying vinyl is dead because it is too much effort. Unfortunately plasma OR LCD has not come close to the performance of CRT - yet. Same applies for computer monitors - just look in any graphic design studio (or anywhere where accuracy is paramount) and there won't be a flat panel in sight!

 

[Audiophiliac]

Plasma over LCD. Runco and Pioneer Elite plasmas. For LCDs, Runco, Mitsubishi, Sony Bravia, and higher end Samsung or LG.....

But....for me, I find myself watching most of my material in my bedroom on my Loewe Aconda 38" widescreen CRT.....still the best image I have seen on ANY display device....period. But the above mentioned plasmas would get my pick if I were in the market for a replacement.

The rule, "you get what you pay for" applies here for sure.

 

[Veritas]

Plasma FTW! The Elites are fantastic.

 

[sleepysurf]

Bottom line... Plasma's have darker blacks, arguably (slightly) better overall picture and motion-handling. However, Plasmas can still suffer from image "burn-in" and the screens are quite reflective (though their anti-reflective coatings are getting better each year). Thus, in a brighter room, or one (like mine) with lights BEHIND the seating location, LCD's still provide an OVERALL superior picture. Lots more discussion/arguments pro/con at AVSForum.com

I'm very happy with my 52" Sony XBR4, but the forthcoming newest models will no doubt be even better. (Feel free to call me and bring over some test DVD's!)

 

[risabet]

That's like saying vinyl is dead because it is too much effort. Unfortunately plasma OR LCD has not come close to the performance of CRT - yet. Same applies for computer monitors - just look in any graphic design studio (or anywhere where accuracy is paramount) and there won't be a flat panel in sight!

In a HT setting a CRT is simply too big to not interfere with the sonics, imaging in particular, and they do take up valuable floor space that a flat panel doesn't.

In absolute terms I agree that CRTs have the best picture, ATC, but that doesn't ameliorate the drawbacks they have in a home environment.

Agreed on graphic spaces using CRTs but they have the space for them and the flexibility of setting color space is much better on a CRT.

 

[jk319]

For movies in the dark, plasma all the way. Runco, Kuro, then Panasonic the order would be my guess. Hauger and sleepysurf already know, if you LCD, get the XBR-4. Just a bit pricey. Samsung's best are nice, but Sony still has the edge. I heard the best Aquos are decent, but every Aquos I've seen looked terrible.

 

[twich54]

I find myself watching most of my material in my bedroom on my Loewe Aconda 38" widescreen CRT.....still the best image I have seen on ANY display device..

I tend to agree, I own the lower priced RCA version, they do share the same picture tube, made by Thompson I believe, as well as the 220+ lbs of weight !!

 

[Diamonds]

I have a Kuro and I love it.

 

[HsvToolFool]

I'm a Panny plasma man. Can't beat the picture for the price.

 

[Dreamer]

I got a Toshiba Regza 42" LCD for Christmas, and I love it. It had great contrast, it's 1080p, it has 120Hz refresh, and this whole issue of "motion blur" is virtualy non-existant on this TV. Feeding it HD signals from cable or up-converted signals from my OPPO DV-981HD, it looks astounding. Our media room has a whole wall of south-facing windows, and even during the daytime, with a lot of ambient sunlight coming in, it looks clear, vibrant, and sharp.

I'm currently working part-time in a major retailer selling home electronics, and I look at flat-screen TVs all day long. I'm not that impressed with plasmas. If you have a totally dark media room, they look a little better, but for the average person, I think plasmas are over-rated. They are about 20% heaver. use about 50% more electricity, have a slightly shorter service-life, and generally cost more in the sub-48" models than LCDs, and I just don't see any substantial benefits as far as cost-vs-performance.

The new 120Hz LCD TVs are astounding--Samsung, Sony and Toshiba are making some fantastic LCDs in this category. The only category where I think Plasma TVs are a clear winner in terms of cost/performance is in sizes over 48"--the 52" Plasmas are almost always better-looking than the LCDs of the same size, and at that size there is almost no difference in price...

--Richard

 

[zatoichi]

If you're looking for raw performance plasma is the way to go, especially for movies, sports, and television broadcasts. LCDs are looking better but image blurring and color saturation is still an issue...A lot of people like LCD because it's colorful and bright but unfortunately not very realistic.

I have to agree with Hauger92. Plasma is tops when it comes to picture quality. It destroys LCD with respect to color, contrast, and blurring. LCD is terrible with shades of black. LCD is at its best when viewing static pictures or travel programs; Plasma is much better for sports and movies. If you want to see what plasma can do check out Pioneer Elite, Fujitsu, or Runco. Nothing comes close.

 

[Hauger92]

Dreamer-Congrats on the Regza! I'm glad you're happy with it. I also work at a major electronics retailer and do the same as you. Sorry but it's just a matter of time before you start respecting the plasmas more than the lcd panels. The first year or so of selling flat panels I was attracted to the brightest picture but I grew attached to the soft, easy, realistic image of a plasma.

 

[David Matz]

Does the Source matter for the CRT/ Plasma/ LCD choice?

Do any of the comments change depending on whether the source is Dish, DirecTV, cable, blue ray, Oppo, etc? Also is the satellite picture better than cable?

Thanks