Connect with us

LCD or Plasma

Discussion in 'Hobby Electronics' started by Tim, Jun 19, 2007.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. Tim

    Tim Guest

    Hi I am in the market for a new TV, can someone give me the pro's and con's
    of each.
    Thanks kindly
  2. 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 <40"
    LCD is generally a more reliable technology.
    LCD are all high resolution.
    LCD is better in bright rooms.

    Power consumption is similar for both under average conditions.

    If you are after a really big screen for watching movies, save your
    money and go Plasma. If you want a small to average size TV for
    everyday use, go LCD.
    If you go Plasma, do not touch a "Standard Definition" 480 line
    screen, they are a piece of proverbial excrement.

    But as always, YMMV.

  3. Jerry G.

    Jerry G. Guest

    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.
  4. Mr.T

    Mr.T Guest

    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.

  5. 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?

    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.

  6. Mr.T

    Mr.T Guest

    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
    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.

  7. 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
    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...

  8. Ross Herbert

    Ross Herbert Guest

    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.
  9. 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 :->

  10. Mr.T

    Mr.T Guest

    Of course.

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

  11. 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

    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

  12. 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
    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.

  13. atec 77

    atec 77 Guest

    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 .
  14. Mr.T

    Mr.T Guest

    An opinion you are entitled to.
    Agreed, and I have no problem with people preferring something technically
    inferior. It's their money, and their own reasons.
    Again, so what?
    As the ad says, most people prefer plasma to LCD too. You don't appear to be
    one of them.
    Why not, they are still more expensive than CRT?
    If you truly must have a 40" screen at a reasonable price, they are the only
    option for many.
    But if price is of absolutely no consideration, then good luck to you.
    No, you are simply redefining/narrowing the context to suit your argument.
    As I said, all things are relative.
    Me too.
    This from a man who admited he hasn't even seen a HiDef CRT!!!!!!!
    Never seen one so can't say, but that must have been the price some time
    ago, a bit like comparing it with the $10K plasma's of a few years back.
    Truly awful regardless of the huge price.
    Check out the LG 32FS4D for about $1,000 now including inbuilt Hi Def tuner.
    Some shops carry them.
    Please name any LCD or Plasma that really offers a better picture for the
    same price and I will check it out.
    Again, an opinion you are welcome to. I'm not interested in an "my opinion
    is better than yours" discussion.
    Truly pointless!
    I'm betting mine will still be working by then. And with no dead pixels :)

  15. Mr.T

    Mr.T Guest

    What crap!

    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!
    Who was it that said "news of my death appears to be premature" (or
    something like that :)
    Regulations are another issue entirely. I'll bet the manufacturers simply
    choose not to bother since demand is too low.

  16. It is probably the main reason why people have ditched CRT and rear-
    pro in favour of Plasma and LCD.
    As I've said before, LCD and Plasma have there PRO's and CON's, that
    is why I have one of each, they are used for different purposes.
    I prefer either depending on the use.
    Sure, and the picture is crap of course. But some people don't mind,
    they have their big screen at the lowest price.

    I've noticed that rear-projection is getting very cheap, I think I saw
    a fairly decent looking Sony 40" for <$1000 recently. If you want a
    big screen at a budget price, they are still a reasonable option I
    think. I'd certainly have a rear-pro any day over a 480 line Plasma.
    No need to thanks, I am comparing regular def CRT's to LCD's that have
    almost replaced them.
    If I ever see one before they get discontinued and dropped from the
    range as all hi-def CRT's will, I'll let you know!

  17. Franc Zabkar

    Franc Zabkar Guest

    Surface-conduction electron-emitter display (SED):

    "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
  18. Mr.T

    Mr.T Guest

    Tha's one of the big problems IMO. What is needed is a new technology with
    the benefits of both, and better than either, because I'm not sure what your
    other use is besides watching TV?
    Agreed, if you can afford the home cinema room to go with it.
    So apples with oranges then. The only way you can make your case I guess.
    And you also refuse to compare regular def CRT's with 480 line plasma's
    because you know which one wins there too.
    Don't bother, I'll still be happily enjoying mine whatever your opinion.

  19. Mr.T

    Mr.T Guest

    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 :)

  20. Surprisingly, watching movies on DVD.
    Most of the regular TV watching gets done in the (bright) kitchen/
    living room on the LCD, but that's no place to relax and watch a movie
    for several hours. That's what the dark loungeroom, comfy leather
    couches, 5.1 surround and bigger screen plasma is for.
    No apples with apples.
    Of course I know which one wins there, 480 lines on the plasma does
    not cut the mustard. It does not even let you see Region 4 PAL DVD's
    or SD Digital TV at their full resolution (576 lines).
    The reason I don't compare them is because they are not in the same
    market, so that would be comparing apples with oranges. You can't get
    a plasma under 40" or so, and you can't get a CRT over 32" or so, they
    are two entirely different market segments.

    LCD's on the other hand are designed to replace replace CRT in the
    smaller screen market, so it is fair to compare those. And I don't
    think there are any LCD's under 768 lines (I stand to be corrected
    though), so the resolution is a whole lot better than standard def

Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day