Do you have a flat-panel LCD or Plasma television?

I have a Phillips LCD....love it. Bought it in fall of 05' and it cost me a bundle but my XBR had just died so....LCD's are more resilient than Plasma models. You may wish to consider the energy ratings as those models that do put out more heat are not energy efficient. Choices are plenty and the prices are amazing. Costco has really good deals.

Miz point wrote:I have a Phillips LCD....love it. Bought it in fall of 05' and it cost me a bundle but my XBR had just died so....LCD's are more resilient than Plasma models. You may wish to consider the energy ratings as those models that do put out more heat are not energy efficient. Choices are plenty and the prices are amazing. Costco has really good deals.

Yeah, LCDs use less power than plasmas and whenever they come out, OLEDs will use even less power than LCDs.

One factor to consider is the positioning of your TV versus the light that enters the room. One TV does not do well with too much light.

One more thing, whatever you do get the one that has a high refresh rate (200hz???).

The picture on a TV that has lot's of motion (hockey game for instance) but not broadcast in HD is horrid. When comparing models in a showroom watch a non-HD channel. That'll give you a very good idea as to picture quality.

Don't be fooled by the old "truths" about plasma's. If you care at all about picture quality and black levels buy a plasma over lcd any day. It's not even close. For plasma picture quality I would go Panasonic first, then Samsung, then LG as a last resort only. I personally have a 50" Samsung B540 and couldn't be happier with it. I would have liked to have bought a Panny but for the price difference at the time ($500) I was willing to go with the Samsung that had 95% of the picture quality and black levels. Although recently it has come to surface that there are some issues with diminishing black levels on 09 Panny's so keep that in mind.

LCD are better on energy use,brighter, better if you can't control your light sources (less reflective screen), lighter, and have no possibility of burn in. Modern plasma's are no where near what they used to be for burn in suceptibility. As long as you don't leave a static image on your plasma for hours you'll be fine.

LCD are worse for black levels, accurate colour reproduction, motion blur, and viewing angles.

Overall, as long as you can control your reflective light sources I'd say go plasma any day. Any Panasonic or Samsung 5 series or better will blow LCD out of the water. If you have a large window without curtains etc. that's the only time I'd say go LCD.

LED TV's are as good as the plasma's for picture quality, but more than double the price. They offer almost all the best of both technologies, and are even lighter and thinner than either.

You can check out AVS forums for info from owners and proffesional calibrators.

grumpy old man wrote:One factor to consider is the positioning of your TV versus the light that enters the room. One TV does not do well with too much light.

One more thing, whatever you do get the one that has a high refresh rate (200hz???).

The picture on a TV that has lot's of motion (hockey game for instance) but not broadcast in HD is horrid. When comparing models in a showroom watch a non-HD channel. That'll give you a very good idea as to picture quality.

Yeah, there's this recent switch to 240Hz refresh rate on some new models, as they discovered 120 Hz wasn't enough. I do plan on getting the Shaw HD basic package at least, and maybe the HD Plus package,which would give me TSN, CTV and several other channels in HD.

I have a Panasonic 50" plasma. It has an excellent picture. But I also have a huge picture window and it washes out the TV when there is bright sunlight streaming in. I decided the picture quality was worth the trade off as I don't watch much TV during the daytime. Plus that's what curtains are for.

grumpyrom wrote:Don't be fooled by the old "truths" about plasma's. If you care at all about picture quality and black levels buy a plasma over lcd any day. It's not even close. For plasma picture quality I would go Panasonic first, then Samsung, then LG as a last resort only. I personally have a 50" Samsung B540 and couldn't be happier with it. I would have liked to have bought a Panny but for the price difference at the time ($500) I was willing to go with the Samsung that had 95% of the picture quality and black levels. Although recently it has come to surface that there are some issues with diminishing black levels on 09 Panny's so keep that in mind.

LCD are better on energy use,brighter, better if you can't control your light sources (less reflective screen), lighter, and have no possibility of burn in. Modern plasma's are no where near what they used to be for burn in suceptibility. As long as you don't leave a static image on your plasma for hours you'll be fine.

LCD are worse for black levels, accurate colour reproduction, motion blur, and viewing angles.

Overall, as long as you can control your reflective light sources I'd say go plasma any day. Any Panasonic or Samsung 5 series or better will blow LCD out of the water. If you have a large window without curtains etc. that's the only time I'd say go LCD.

LED TV's are as good as the plasma's for picture quality, but more than double the price. They offer almost all the best of both technologies, and are even lighter and thinner than either.

You can check out AVS forums for info from owners and professional calibrators.

LED TVs are LCDs with LEDs being used to provide the light source, instead of fluorescent lights than regular LCDs use.

I'm not sure if I can control the reflective light, but I can always turn them off. The room has two windows, but I have curtains and blinds on them and I could make the room quite dark.

If you have good lighting control then definitely go plasma. Better picture quality by a farily large margin. Take a look at the LCD's in store and you'll notice that they look great at first due to their brightness, but as you look closer you'll notice that colours tend to be over saturated, and their is almost no black detail to be found. As GOM also noted, the only time LCD hold's any advantage in picture quality is if your screen is washed out by a nearby window etc.

Most people I know have gone plasma unless they have lighting issues as mentioned above.

Check out AVS forums for tons of info from actual users and tv geeks.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/

CNET article referring to Panasonic black level changes:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10447329-1.html?tag=TOCmoreStories.0

As much as I like the Panasonics, I'd be wary at the moment as it has been proven that many of last years model have this problem. I haven't heard of any other plasma's having this issue including older Panasonics. Hopefully they release a firmware upgrade. At the moment I'd go with the Samsung set's, they're 2nd best to the Panasonics but value for money they're tought to beat especially considering the recent issue with the Panasonics.

I'd have a tough time paying $300-500 more for a comparable set that MAY degrade in a few months.

Talk about timing. I'm looking for a new TV and the Mrs and I were having the same discussion the other day. This forum is so educational. Does the CBC come in clearer on LCD or Plasma?

I've never seen the CBC on my plasma. Which means of course that liberal leaning TV is filtered from plasmas.

Personally I have an LCD...we got a bit over a year ago.

Aside from the scratches all over the screen my daughter put there a week after I bought it...it's beautiful.

When I was shopping, the only thing I was told to be wary of was the ratio...720pi vs. 1080pi.

Apparently, at the time, the Plasmas available were only at 720, but the LCDs were 1080 (or "true" HD).

The Hz plays a big factor as well...so you don't get those "shadows" during faster scenes.

If you don't already have one...I'd recommend investing in a decent BluRay player as well (sometimes they come with the TV as a package), as the picture quality is SUPREMELY better than any DVD.

The last thing to add to your investment (which I wish I had done) is to get a Speaker system of some kind. A good surround-sound will improve the quality for movies, but it also is designed for sound. The speakers on my tv are already starting to scratch, and we've never had it cranked higher than 1/2 volume.

My next "investment" will be for a good speaker system.

I have a Bose 3-2-1. Sounds great. The big difference is in the sub-woofer. The higher quality sub-woofer the better.

what is an Elsie D television?

rosen, shouldn't you go back to bed to catch up on your sleep? And what is that signature? Who is shoveling your snow? Will you be skipping work tomorrow because of it? When will you be going to America to get your cigars and Crowne Royal? Oh, and that test thingy?

My son shoveled my front walk, and it is amazing the difference. What signature are you referring to?
Hopefully the week after next, off to Minneapolis , possibly with my daughter to help me? Go Tuesday and come back Wednesday, with contraband cigarellos?? lol
I am going to have to put DeanK's name on them. What are the duty free laws? is it 48 hours for 400 cigarellos? I plan to take my old age card that harper gave me. Who on their right mind would be stupid enough to say one shitty , tiny cigarello= one cigar? 5 cigarellos may = one chep cigar, but I think 10 cigarellos = one hand rolled Honduran $22.00 cigar?
Who will come and bail me out?

grumpy old man wrote:I have a Bose 3-2-1. Sounds great. The big difference is in the sub-woofer. The higher quality sub-woofer the better.

Oh no....you mentioned Bose and sounds great in the same sentance. Sorry GOM, not picking on you even though I am a commie bastard

In audiophile circles there's a few saying regarding Bose:

"Friends don't let friends buy Bose" or "No highs, no low's must be Bose"

They're better than the sound coming from any flat panels speakers, but there are MUCH better options in the price ranges Bose competes at. For 1/3 the price of most Bose systems you can get comparable sound quality. It's not that they are horrible sounding, just horrible sounding for the money.

Sorry again, not trying to attack you personally. Just trying to warn fellow sandboxer's about the evil that is the Bose marketing machine lol.

Don't take my word on it...for instance you can check out AVS forums for their opinions on Bose. Or the appropriately named "Why Bose Suck" at http://www.firstadopter.com/fa/archives/001749.html.

There's a reason you will never, ever find Bose speakers in the same listening room as any other manufacturer, because Bose does NOT allow dealers to place them where side by side comparison is possible.

One last thing, sorry to correct you but the bass module in that 3-2-1 can only be accurately described as a woofer as it doesn't play nearly low enough to be considered a true sub-woofer regradless of what they claim. No way to get any real bass from a 6" paper cone woofer.

Yes Bose is over rated and priced

But I like it...

I guess it's all about personal preferences...

Hey more power to you thats all that matters.

A good speaker system is what I need now....something wireless and that I can integrate my turntable etc....into? That would be cool.

I guess I lucked out when I got my telly because it has none of the issues with "shadows" or anything like that but my TV room has east-facing windows so perhaps that makes a huge difference. It is also of the high HD-compatible resolution - glad I had researched that out at the time anticipating what changes were about to come.

I am curious about the next generation of screens, the even thinner and in some cases ones that can be rolled up....those look cool.

Difficult to find anything other than a seperate standalone reciever that still has a phono input Miz P. Your also going to have a tough time trying to find good wireless speaker options due to the way that wireless speakers work. Since they are not physically connected to the amplifier in any way, they have to be self powered like computer speakers. Meaning that even "wireless" speakers are not really "wireless", they still need to be plugged into an AC outlet.

There are a few HTIB (home theater in a box) systems from Sony, Panasonic etc. that have these types of wireless speaker setups for the rear speaker if you really can't find a way to run speaker cable from your reciever to your rear speakers. I find in most room setups it's not impossible to hide your speaker wires along baseboards, or under the floor with a bit of work.

I still feel strongly that buying seperate components vs. a premade kit is the way to go. For $1000 to 1500 one can put together a system that is very capable, sounds great and won't kill the bank.

For a small beginner setup I'd go with something like a Yamaha HTR6240 5.1 receiver ($400), Klipsch HD Theater 500 ($800), and any Blu-Ray player ($200-300). For $1500 you get a nice sounding system, that leave's you lots of room for future expansion. Add a better sub woofer in the future and keep the satelites. Maybe in a few years you decide you want a little more sound and decide to upgrade to some bigger bookshelf speaker or even towers...you can still do that with you existing receiver. Then maybe upgrade you receiver in a few years to match your new towers. The upgrade path remains open for you if you start with seperate components.

If you can afford a sub-woofer right away go for it. It makes a HUGE difference...

rosencrentz wrote:My son shoveled my front walk, and it is amazing the difference. What signature are you referring to?
Hopefully the week after next, off to Minneapolis , possibly with my daughter to help me? Go Tuesday and come back Wednesday, with contraband cigarellos?? lol
I am going to have to put DeanK's name on them. What are the duty free laws? is it 48 hours for 400 cigarellos? I plan to take my old age card that harper gave me. Who on their right mind would be stupid enough to say one shitty , tiny cigarello= one cigar? 5 cigarellos may = one chep cigar, but I think 10 cigarellos = one hand rolled Honduran $22.00 cigar?
Who will come and bail me out?

How about a Mr. Rosen goes to Minneapolis thread?

Subwoofers are important especially when watching films where lots of shite is getting "blowed up real good".....