[whisky]

Hi, this topic is about the major differences between a lcd,plasma and led in the 55" to 58" screen size.
I have been trying to come up with some reasons why one is better than the other as when you start
going over the spec's. it is a little confusing i.e. 120hz versus 240hz,response time and maybe buying
a set for in the future 3d possibilities
From what i have seen they do a losy job when it comes to sound but maybe thats their way of pushing
you into their home theater sound system,also i saw on one of the other posts about screen size when
it comes using lcd for pc use this being done a 32" samsung lcd,thank's in advance.

[smax013]

whisky, on 11 January 2010 - 05:25 AM, said:

Hi, this topic is about the major differences between a lcd,plasma and led in the 55" to 58" screen size.
I have been trying to come up with some reasons why one is better than the other as when you start
going over the spec's. it is a little confusing i.e. 120hz versus 240hz,response time and maybe buying
a set for in the future 3d possibilities
From what i have seen they do a losy job when it comes to sound but maybe thats their way of pushing
you into their home theater sound system,also i saw on one of the other posts about screen size when
it comes using lcd for pc use this being done a 32" samsung lcd,thank's in advance.

Nominally, LCD and LED LCD HDTVs are mostly the same technology. As I understand it, the primary difference is the method used to light the screen...i.e. traditional LCD lighting vs. LED lighting. They are both at their heart LCD technologies. LED lighting is supposedly more energy efficient, and it certainly will result in thinner and lighter HDTVs. But, they are SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive right now than a "traditional" LCD HDTV.

Plasma is a totally different display technology.

As to the "pluses" and "minuses" of each, I will leave that up to others...for the moment. I am a bit rusty.

As to sound, in general, TVs have ALWAYS had inferior sound systems than using some sort of an audio/stereo/home theater system. This does not mean that they are always completely crappy. I tend to watch most of my TV shows just using the TV speakers. I do tend to use my home theater sound system when watching movies. You will find that some HDTVs actually have fairly decent sound systems/speakers in them. Of course, some are pretty crappy too. Whether or not you use the built-in speakers becomes a function of your tastes and how good those speakers might (or might not) be.

I am not sure what you are asking about when mentioning the 32" HDTV.

[waldojim]

ok, LCD panels are lit by a Cold Cathode Florescent tube CCFL does not have the warmers, and starters that normal Florescents do, and that is why they can last 50,000 hours. This design also does not apply the electricity at the ends of the tubes, which is why you will not get the flickering of a normal light towards EOL. LED TV's use the same panels as the standard LCD, but use LED type lighting. SOME TV's use a separate Red Green and Blue light, others a 'white' light. As a 'white' LED cannot provide a full color spectrum (something RGB LED can do), what you often see is an image with fantastic saturation, excellent contrast, but limited color palette. So, be careful and look for the RGB LED if you go that route.

Plasma is just what is sounds like, a glass tv filled with an inert gas 'plasma'. These TV's ususally sport the best color, deepest blacks, and no motion blur. These are also recommended for 3d displays (as they don't lag the way LCD does).

The thing is - LCD displays are Cooler running, suffer no chance of image burn in, do better in rooms with lots of light, and generally more common. They suffer from ghosting+blurring (caused by the time it takes the lcd panel to react to a change in the image), poor color levels (compared to Plasma/crt/DLP), very poor blacks (some sets an almost impossible to miss purple color), chance for dead pixels (typically bright white, and you cannot miss them!), and sub par contrast ratio (I am talking the ACTUAL panel ratio - not the WAY over inflated DYNAMIC ratio)

Plasma suffers no motion blur (best tv for sports, and action), typically have a slightly longer life (due to the plasma emitting light, vs using a single light source and only about 10k hours longer), no dead pixels, inky blacks, much more color depth, VERY HIGH panel contrast ratio (50,000:1 is common for the panel) These screens are made of glass though, tend to be HEAVY (some hitting 150 lbs), they reflect light (lots of glare), they don't tend to be very bright displays, they can suffer from Burn in (so no game systems, computers, etc) many of them are HOT, and use more power than LCD.

Now - what to look for when shopping. Find out what the lighting is using. If it is LED - make sure it is RGB LED.
Contrast ratio - tells you NOTHING. It is supposed to be the difference between black and white on a checkerboard pattern. The DYNAMIC number they use is the difference between ALL BLACK and ALL WHITE. What does that mean when there is an image on the screen? NOTHING. So make sure they give you the REAL number, or discount contrast entirely. Do not be surprised if the real number is very LOW. For example my Samsung Monitor claims 20,000:1 (dynamic) the actual panel is either 800 or 1000:1 (I cannot remember right now which it is, but you understand I hope)

the 60/120/240/480/600/10000000000hz bit... this is almost comical what happened here. Basically, FILM (movies) are recorded at 23.97 (just use 24) Frames per second. Broadcast TV is recorded at 29.97fps (again using 30). If you take a 24fps film and try to watch it on a 60 hz panel what you get is a 3:2 pull down (think about the math - how many times can you completely reproduce 24frams in that 60 cycle period? 2.5). Some frames have to be displayed 3 times, others just 2. This creates an odd bouncing situation when watching panning video (such as in the opening scenes from Wall-E). Though TV content will look normal. OK, so the 120hz displays were created to alleviate this problem. if you divide 120 by 24 you get 5. Each image is displayed 5 times, nice and even. You get excellent panning as a result, and all your movies look like they did at the theater. At the same time, your 30fps movies look normal as well! each of those images being displayed an even 4 times. SO 120hz is about ensuring you get the excellent image you paid VERY good money to see.

SO what about 240/480/600/etc hz? They are a gimmick. They find that people buy numbers. We all do. and 600hz sounds much more impressive than 120. BUT does it provide you anything? Nope. The image quality gain was at 120, the rest is please buy my bigger number.

As to sound... TV's have always been about basic sound. You are not going to get the surround sound experience with the little tiny speakers they include.

That said, if you are spending $1500+ on a TV, why not invest a little into surround sound? Or at least a quality stereo sound. Nothing kills an experience for me quicker than cheap, crappy sound.

So, I hope all that helps, any further questions just pop back in.

Good luck.

[whisky]

Hi, the info. that i got from the forum helps quite a bit, the bit about the 32" was there was post about screen for using a pc
on it i get a good picture and also something that samsung failed to includ in their manual was that you have set the screen
resalution to the maxiumum before hooking up to bigger screen as i was using a 19"crt,i also set my screen zoom at 125%
that way i can sit farther from screen and read whats on screen easier,thank's

[mjd420nova]

One of the things that has not really bothered me was the sound part. I use a Pioneer surround sound decoder reciever/amplifier unit that can decode surround sound from any stereo source and has full power on all four channels, unlike most units that have reduced power level on the reap of surround channel. These multichannel home systems that have center and subwoofer units, you pay way too much for what comes out as a muddy and over compensated sound. A proper surround sound system with good speakers and a clean environment does not need a subwoofer or center channel. The real effect comes from the beat notes created within the viewing/listening area. However few have the skills or the desire to spend the time and money to create the neccesary environment needed to provide the superior experience. Purchasae of a six channel home system will create the sounds that will give the desired effects with a minimum hassle.

[waldojim]

mjd420nova, on 12 January 2010 - 10:00 AM, said:

One of the things that has not really bothered me was the sound part. I use a Pioneer surround sound decoder reciever/amplifier unit that can decode surround sound from any stereo source and has full power on all four channels, unlike most units that have reduced power level on the reap of surround channel. These multichannel home systems that have center and subwoofer units, you pay way too much for what comes out as a muddy and over compensated sound. A proper surround sound system with good speakers and a clean environment does not need a subwoofer or center channel. The real effect comes from the beat notes created within the viewing/listening area. However few have the skills or the desire to spend the time and money to create the neccesary environment needed to provide the superior experience. Purchasae of a six channel home system will create the sounds that will give the desired effects with a minimum hassle.

I agree that you do not need a sub. But way too many movies are starting to encode much of the voice directly to the center channel, and without it, voices tend to be VERY hard to hear.

[smax013]

waldojim, on 14 January 2010 - 12:04 PM, said:

mjd420nova, on 12 January 2010 - 10:00 AM, said:

One of the things that has not really bothered me was the sound part. I use a Pioneer surround sound decoder reciever/amplifier unit that can decode surround sound from any stereo source and has full power on all four channels, unlike most units that have reduced power level on the reap of surround channel. These multichannel home systems that have center and subwoofer units, you pay way too much for what comes out as a muddy and over compensated sound. A proper surround sound system with good speakers and a clean environment does not need a subwoofer or center channel. The real effect comes from the beat notes created within the viewing/listening area. However few have the skills or the desire to spend the time and money to create the neccesary environment needed to provide the superior experience. Purchasae of a six channel home system will create the sounds that will give the desired effects with a minimum hassle.

I agree that you do not need a sub. But way too many movies are starting to encode much of the voice directly to the center channel, and without it, voices tend to be VERY hard to hear.

Very true. I find that many movies seriously benefit from a 5.1 system with a center channel for this reason. It allows you to "up" the voice/speaking volume levels.

[whisky]

Hi,whisky here, on the matter of hdtv's what are your thought's on DLP projection tv's are they worth looking into
or do they have some hidden cost's like tubes, as that is what have right now is a rear projection 55" tv that i think
is on the way out because in the last 2 weeks the picture is bowed in the center when you turn it on plus the picture
is getting blurlie like an out of focus camera lens,thank's

[waldojim]

yea... the bulbs will run you about $100-150, every 3-5 years or so. Depending on how you use your tv.

BUT they can deliver (near) Plasma quality picture, at incredibly low prices. Only problem is an odd little 'rainbow' effect, and a slightly lower viewing angle.

either way, not bad for the money.

[whisky]

Hi,waldojim, i got your answer, if the bulbs are like the ones in the tv we have right now which there 3 of them
after the first replacements i will be at what the led and lcd will cost to start with so it will be false economy.
The led's and lcd's are are getting down in price and features,that it will be better to spend the extra money now
and something that i should not a problem for quite awhile,thank's

[waldojim]

you got it... except the new tvs only use one bulb

[tedmathew90]

From experience, the basic idea is that the 3D display shows video following a series of alternating frames from the left eye to that of the right eye, and vice versa. In which case, the viewer requires a pair of powered shutter glasses, which block out one eye or the other on alternate frames. The glasses synchronize to the display through infrared where there's a transmitter on the bottom of the display panel and a receiver in the glasses. I got this wonderful experience when I was opportune to use LG passive 3D glasses. I believe it is similar with other brands too.

[prin400]

So what do you guys think about the problem of high cost for both the glasses and the Panasonic 3D TVs themselves “with an obvious price premium over standard HDTV 2D sets”?I believe this is one the main reason why many will not want to buy or feel reluctant to get the 3D TV at the early stage.