LCD or Plasma - Page 2

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

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.

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.

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:59:45 -0700, "David L. Jones"



There are LG plasma, Sharp LCD, and JVC plasma TVs in the Serviceman's
Log in the latest issue of Silicon Chip mag. The JVC was deemed
uneconomical to repair due to "faulty scan and control modules", the
LG required a new Z SUS board, and the Sharp needed a kit of smt
parts. I can see that in the near future all appliance "repairs" will
be done by trained monkeys. Maybe someone should start an appliance
wrecking yard.

- Franc Zabkar

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.

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

  Crt's can still be bought in generic models , I bouthg one weeks ago .

  maybe another year or two but the tubes are still used so I expect
dropping them will be a while

  must be or they wouldn't be on sale
  there are other new and upcoming technologies so I doubt the
lcd/plasma  is the end of the line for viewing yet .

What crap!


technology.

Hope that something better than LCD/Plasma is developed.



Good example, you can pay far more money for far less performance if you
really want.



Which is what they said about valve amps 40 years ago!


one

Who was it that said "news of my death appears to be premature" (or
something like that :-)


no

Regulations are another issue entirely. I'll bet the manufacturers simply
choose not to bother since demand is too low.

MrT.

Speaking of CRT, monitors will be there for a while.
LCDs just do not have same color reproduction as CRTs do and you can not
make small high-res plasmas.

Rudolf

Interesting you should say that Rudolf. I always thought the same thing, but
have noticed most graphic designers (Well the ones I deal with anyway) are
using LCD displays, despite the colour gamut limitations. Although mybe they
have little choice with a new Mac, I don't know. And let's face it, they are
the majority of Mac users :)

James

but
they

Did you ask them how much their professional LCD monitor cost though?
Even the Apple Cinema display is not satisfactory for much professional
graphic work IMO.
Of course it is fine for some uses though.

MrT.

I was at one of the establishments today and the Apple HD Cinema display IS
what one of the graphic artists and the production manager were using. The
others were using what looked to be run of the mill 19" displays.

James

IS

Which just proves you can use *anything* that your are happy with, if you
are prepared to put your name on the work :-)

MrT.

Well, actually it shows that the people doing the design are not the
people who are most concerned with colour accuracy. For critical work,
that would usually be entrusted to a prepress agency who colour-correct
images on calibrated monitors before they go to press. Designers often
bypass prepress these days because automatic profile-based colour
matching is good enough 90% of the time. For serious work requiring high
quality, you wouldn't find the designer doing it him/herself, nor would
you find the colour correction being done on an Apple display or similar
mid-range LCD.  Or an LCD at all, most likely (with the exception of
that LED backlit thing whose manufacturer I can't recall).

      Cheers, MK.

wrote in message
.

you


It shows no such thing, just THOSE people.
There is just as much variation among professional peoples decisions,
quality of work, and cost, as the community at large. Why would you expect
anything else?



Mostly true, but still depends on each individual and their definition of
"critical work".

MrT.

keyboard and composed:



Surface-conduction electron-emitter display (SED):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-emitter_display

"A surface-conduction electron-emitter display (SED) is a flat panel
display technology that uses surface conduction electron emitters for
every individual display pixel. The surface conduction emitter emits
electrons that excite a phosphor coating on the display panel, the
same basic concept found in traditional cathode ray tube (CRT)
televisions. This means that SEDs use small cathode ray tubes behind
every single pixel (instead of one tube for the whole display) and can
combine the slim form factor of LCDs and plasma displays with the
superior viewing angles, contrast, black levels, color definition and
pixel response time of CRTs. Canon also claims that SEDs consume less
power than LCD displays."

- Franc Zabkar

plenty


Yes that's one technology I hope might be the answer, or maybe something
even better in years to come.
One thing I will bet my house on, neither LCD or Plasma will be around as
long as CRT TV's have been.
Thankfully :-)

MrT.

hi, lcd tv`s are absolute crap , ever noticed the blacks are not really
black  ???? and as soon as you go to the side a bit  it  looks crap.
plasma , only way to go .
mark k

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

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.