LCD or Plasma

Plasma is cheaper if you are after 42" or larger. Plasma generally has a better contrast ratio, better response time, brighter, and is better for darker environments (e.g. watching movies in a dark room).

LCD is really your only option for

My preference is for Plasma, especialy for at home. The Plasma screen is better for viewing in a dark or poorly lit room. LCD is better for viewing in a bright environment.

With Plasma, the contrast ratio is higher, and the details in the black levels of the picture are better defined. Plasma is lower in cost for the size of screen.

LCD is able to display a sharper picture, but in the native mode only. The LCD has a limited contrast ratio.

If you have children at home, there is the danger of a toy or ball hitting the screen. With LCD, this would be an expensive disaster. LCD screens can be damaged from simply being touched too hard, unless there is a safety glass in front of it. Plasma screens are a lot less sensitive to be touched, or knocked in to.

I myself am in the market for a new HDTV. I am definately going for a Plasma set. I am looking for something in the 50 inch size range. My preference for a manufacture is Panasonic as a first choice.

Jerry G. ======

Yes. Stay away from plasma. Crap technology.

Rudolf

Agreed, so are current LCD's. One day there will be a flat screen technology to beat CRT. There is plenty of development work being done to that end.

MrT.

I am doing a lot of repairs, including warranty repairs. Plasma and LCD are crap, but lasma is "crappier". Nothing beats good old CRT. I am keeping my Panasonic CRT Rear-pro.

Rudolf

Sure, but what are the average stats re percentage of screens returned in X years etc? If you are in the TV repair business then you are obviously going to see lots of TV's in for repair :->

What are the common failure modes? etc...

It's easy to say Plasma and LCD are crap, but millions of people are buying them and have been doing so for a fair while now, so they must have something going for them. If they were really "crap" technology then no-one would buy them and the manufacturers would go out of business. So they obviously aren't entirely crap.

Yes they are complicated technology and almost certainly not as robust as some CRT sets. But if a CRT gets say an average of X years life before service and plasma or LCD gets say half of that before service, does that really make plasma and LCD "crap"?

Both Plasma and LCD have a lot going for them, you can't just label them as crap. I could say CRT's are crap because they are big, heavy, ugly, and the scan lines are more visible.

Dave.

Well all of my previous CRT TV's have lasted longer than LCD/Plasma have even been available, before any repairs. The fact that quite a few LCD/Plasma's are needing repair, and in many cases being written off because they can't be repaired, and considering the selling price, you have to wonder if they are worth it IMO. I recommend an extended warranty to those who must have one.

Isn't marketing wonderfull :-)

Most people cannot be told, they have to find out the hard way. And of course everyones needs and expectations are different. For example, I'm very happy with my new $300 66cm flat widescreen CRT in the bedroom. Most people I know would prefer to pay far more for a worse picture, simply to reduce the size and weight, regardless of any reliability issues.

If it also costs far more, and gives an inferior picture, then IMO.... YES.

See, everyone's entitled to spend their own money in the manner they choose themselves. However technical issues can actually be measured against the required performance criteria, just as size and weight can. LCD and Plasma don't perform as well in those areas. You get to choose what's important to you.

And what the hell are you on about scan lines? That is more a function of the video system. True High Def CRT TV's are available with progressive scan. The only reason the scan lines would be any more visible is because the resolution was better. That's a good thing IMO.

MrT.

messagenews: snipped-for-privacy@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

I know people with the exact opposite experience. They have early generation LCD's and plasma that have lasted longer than their CRT's have. Like I said, I'd like to see some real stats, and I suspect CRT would win out but I don't think it's as big a problem with Plasma's and LCD's as some people make out.

They are "worth it" if they do what you want. Plasma offers large screen and the form factor advantage at a reasonable price. Yes there are CRT rear projection sets, but they are an immature technology, the picture is crap in a bright environment, and they don't have the same form factor advantages as plasma.

Yeah, but people are still getting what they want, i.e. a really big screen that looks great, can be wall mounted, and doesn't take up much space.

Worse picture? The picture on both my Plasma and LCD shit over my old (by only a few years) top of the range european 76cm 100Hz widescreen CRT. There is no contest in my mind. I though my CRT was the ducks guts until I sat my LCD next to it and did an A-B. Most people I know also think Plasma and LCD kills CRT in picture quality, and I think you'll find that is the general public consensus. But it's up to the individual of course, if you think CRT looks better, then it does, to you, no problem with that.

See above re the "inferior" picture.

Like I said, I'd like to see some real stats.

By that I mean that LCD's don't have visible "scan lines" like CRT's do, they are pixel based. This gives a sharper picture without any visible dead space between the lines. When you have them side-by-side it's plainly obvious. I have not seen a hi-def CRT so cannot comment on that, but I am comparing a top-of the-line standard-def CRT with a "standard" 768 line LCD.

BTW, who would buy a hi-def CRT? Not too many of them around, and for how long? Wonder what the sales figures are...

Dave.

con's

I recently bought a Sony Bravia KDL 32V-2000 when they dropped the price to AU$1999 and I find it to be an excellent LCD set. I was tossing up whether to buy the new Sony 40" X series but after seeing the picture difference I couldn't see where the price difference was justified. If you have a large room you may want to go over 40" but I am happy with the 32" in my room. Personally, if I were looking to go to a full HT setup, and I had the room, I would put the money into a projector and screen, and not waste time with either LCD or Plasma.

I've got a 32" S-Series Sony Bravia KLV32S200 and it is supurb, and it's got fairly low power consumption. The in-laws got the X-series

40" KDL40X2000 and while it looks (physically) superb, the picture isn't much better (the greater resolution being the only real difference), but the menu system sucks. The X-series menu system is totally different to the S-series and is much more difficult to use. The X-series also does not appear to have the ability to mask out unwanted channels, and the remote keeps switching between "favourites" and all channels. I have to fix the thing up for them every second week, crazy. I certainly wouldn't pay the difference. 32" is a nice size for our kitchen.

I wanted bigger than the 42" plasma in the loungeroom but the wife wouldn't have a bar of it :-( Fitting in with the decor was her (and hence "our") main buying criteria :->

Dave.

Of course.

price.

That's all relative.

Agreed, not much impressed by any projection TV.

And having just done an A-B between a $300 CRT and a $1000 LCD, no doubt in my mind which had the better contrast, brightness, and color gamut, not to mention a rather large price advantage :-)

Maybe, but not shown in any actual measurement I have seen.

Yes, if you have any actual measurements, not marketing hype, that shows LCD brightness, contrast and color gamut figures equal to or better than CRT, I'd love to see them too. LCD's are forced to use tricks like dynamic backlighting in an attempt to pretend the contrast is adequate. I find the dark grey blacks, and light grey whites on a single scene rather disappointing myself.

of

because

What crap, space between pixels is the same as space between phosphor dots. Use a CRT with a smaller dot pitch! And yes I do realise it is possible to have smaller dot pitch with LCD, but to do that would cost even more money. As I said, a new technology is required that allows more pixels at less cost, without getting more dead ones. Plus higher brightness and contrast ratio's.

If you compare with a crap CRT. But then the 720*480 pixel Plasma's I've seen are far worse IMO.

Exactly!

Me for one, but I agree most people are not after viewing performance.

No problem at the moment. Hopefully there will be something better than LCD/plasma by the time I want another one :-)

Who cares? Sales figures for the Bugatti Veyron are extremely small, but I'd love to have one :-) You might just complain about the petrol consumption though. Each to their own.

MrT.

Well I did an A-B against my $2700 Thomson CRT and my new $1300 Sony Bravia LCD. The Bravia won hands down, as it does against any other CRT I've even owned or saw.

Most people would rather watch the TV that looks best to them, not what the measurements say.

That's why I also have a Plasma for my more discerning movie viewing, I find it better, and yes, even better than my CRT in actual image quality.

I didn't say LCD or Plasma are technically superior to CRT's in actual image performance, but they do *look* better to most people.

We aren't talking about 480 pixel plasma's here, we are talking CRT vs LCD or 768 line plasma. And yes, I agree, 480 line Plasma's are horrible and always have been. I refused to buy one on principle.

If you can't notice the scan lines on a CRT (even a top quality one) when A-B'ing CRT and LCD then I think an eye checkup is in order! I compared my $2700 Thomson Scenium 76cm, hardly a "crap" CRT. I find the same results can be clearly seen in any TV store where CRT and LCD are side-by-side. LCD clearly has a more "solid" image, and as such it makes the scan lines on the CRT really stand out.

Funny, I don't recall seeing one in any shop I've been into lately. Perhaps I haven't looked hard enough and have been overly distracted by the vastly superior image on all those gorgeous LCD's and Plasma's :->

I do rather like the HD video loop they show in some stores, the one with the girl in the white bikini...

I'd buy your Hi-Def CRT now, they won't be around in another a year or two.

Dave.

Let me give you few recent examples: Hitachi 50" plasma. Power supply died just after warranty. New power supply board -- $1100 trade price. I am doing at least 1-2 plasmas a week based on LG panels. Y-boards just die. Actually, Y-board is a very common failure on any plasma.

You can not repair them on component level unlike CRT TVs. Firstly, no documentation is available, secondly no parts are available.

Same stands for LCD, but you do have chance to repair them on component level. I did few after warranty.

LCDs do not have "power electronics" like plasma. As a result, there are less components that get stressed, so they should last longer. I say "should" because we have another aspect to the problem -- Asian design and manufacture, but this is another story. You get what you paid for.

None of the plasma or LCD sold today will last you for the time expected. After warranty expired, prepare to throw it away when any fault pops up. They not built to last, but LCD has better chance of surviving.

And for plasmas -- ask any technician. Everyone has a plasma graveyard.

I just did! And I am not basing my opinion on the visuall appearance or picture quality. It is purely on technology used and longevity/reliability of the unit.

Rudolf

That's an ignorant answer. Each have their advantages and disadvantages depending on the application!

--

Jerry G. ======

Rudolf

Since CRT sets are no longer produced, what are you going to do when you can no longer have this type of technology.

I remember when high end solid state sound systems came out. Even a few years later, there were people saying that solid state sound systems were crap. At least, even today, if you want to spend a big amount of dollars, you can have a good tube amplifier. But, with CRT's there will soon be zero availability.

One of the big problems with the CRT technology was the disposal problem. When disposing of CRT's there are many environmental problems. This was one of the reason for its disappearance. The Plasma is very close to the same problems as with CRT disposal, but there are much fewer Plasma sets being sold in comparison to the LCD sets.

Another problem with CRT sets, is that there are some X-Ray emissions, and heavy EMF emissions. This is a possible health hazard. The government here in Canada and the UK have been raising their safety standards. There are no CRT sets that can pass these new regulations.

--

Jerry G.
======


"Rudolf"  wrote in message 
news:137hckhokq12t40@corp.supernews.com...
I am doing a lot of repairs, including warranty repairs.
Plasma and LCD are crap, but lasma is "crappier". Nothing beats good old
CRT.
I am keeping my Panasonic CRT Rear-pro.

Rudolf

"Mr.T"  wrote in message
news:46789a30$0$22415$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Rudolf"  wrote in message
> news:137gn33goq80h76@corp.supernews.com...
>> Stay away from plasma. Crap technology.
>
> Agreed, so are current LCD's.
> One day there will be a flat screen technology to beat CRT. There is
> plenty
> of development work being done to that end.
>
> MrT.
>
>

I must agree with you. I have used HDTV in CRT, LCD, and Plasma. I found the CRT to not come close to a good quality properly set up Plasma or LCD.

LCD sets are best viewed in a lit area, while the Plasma are better viewed in a dark or low lit area. LCD sets are more sensitive to be used in their native mode. Plasma sets are more forgiving when it comes to having to use them in the native mode.

My personal preference for at home, is a good HDTV Plasma set. What is neat about the Plasma set, is that I can mount it right on the wall. When viewing the Plasma from off to the side there is almost zero visible contrast fall-off, and there is no discolouration in the pictures.

--

Jerry G. ======

I know people with the exact opposite experience. They have early generation LCD's and plasma that have lasted longer than their CRT's have. Like I said, I'd like to see some real stats, and I suspect CRT would win out but I don't think it's as big a problem with Plasma's and LCD's as some people make out.

They are "worth it" if they do what you want. Plasma offers large screen and the form factor advantage at a reasonable price. Yes there are CRT rear projection sets, but they are an immature technology, the picture is crap in a bright environment, and they don't have the same form factor advantages as plasma.

Yeah, but people are still getting what they want, i.e. a really big screen that looks great, can be wall mounted, and doesn't take up much space.

Worse picture? The picture on both my Plasma and LCD shit over my old (by only a few years) top of the range european 76cm 100Hz widescreen CRT. There is no contest in my mind. I though my CRT was the ducks guts until I sat my LCD next to it and did an A-B. Most people I know also think Plasma and LCD kills CRT in picture quality, and I think you'll find that is the general public consensus. But it's up to the individual of course, if you think CRT looks better, then it does, to you, no problem with that.

See above re the "inferior" picture.

Like I said, I'd like to see some real stats.

By that I mean that LCD's don't have visible "scan lines" like CRT's do, they are pixel based. This gives a sharper picture without any visible dead space between the lines. When you have them side-by-side it's plainly obvious. I have not seen a hi-def CRT so cannot comment on that, but I am comparing a top-of the-line standard-def CRT with a "standard" 768 line LCD.

BTW, who would buy a hi-def CRT? Not too many of them around, and for how long? Wonder what the sales figures are...

Dave.

Sure, that sucks, but really has nothing to do with whether they are "crap" technology or not. On the contrary, I think LCD and Plasma are superb technology which is let down by poor after sales support. I hope the situation changes, but until then it won't stop the vast majority from buying LCD and Plasma.

That's why I made sure my Plasma (a Panasonic) had cooling fans and actually runs much cooler than the other sets I looked at.

That's a big claim. LCD displays have been around for more than 15 years, and they are a pretty mature technology. Not uncommon to have LCD still working 15 years later. None of my LCD's have ever died on me.

Plasma don't have as good a track record as LCD's to be sure.

Yeah, but that would be because of the parts supply and cost problem right?

Like I said, I'd like to see some real stats... Plasma and LCD are being sold in their millions in this country alone, would be interesting to see the % returns in the first year compared with CRT. It would not surprise me if they are not too dissimilar.

Dave.

Plasma is worse. Much worse. Mainly due to the fact that lifetime of plasma is less thhen one of CRT, although I must admit that many of current CRT models from Asia will not have a long life. All new technology is NOT SUPPORTED by manufacturers after warranty ends. Ask any technician. Parts are either not available or VERY expensive.

I do not want to discuss quality of picture here, merely the fact that plasma is crap as far as reliable technology goes.

Rudolf

Yes, exactly. Manufacturers do not want people to repair stuff, they want them to buy a new one.

Ah! When technology is being developed, it is all good. First models do last. But remember what you paid for it? Now, everyone is jumping on it, making things cheaper and, as a result, it is not going to last.

BTW, older plasma TVs do fail earlier than LCD ones do.

Yes. When you buying something you are investing your money in it. No support means your investment will go down the drain once warranty is off. I would love to see good support and I hate throwing away stuff that can be salvaged, but this is life.

Depends on brand. Some are more reliable than others. But then again, one of the brands I do repair for has quite high failure rate in almost all units they sell. When I have to repair their LCD TV, complete board goes to landfil. When I have to fix CRT one -- just couple of small parts goes there.

Rudolf P.S. For picture quality I would prefer plasma. HD one.