SD and HD TV viewing advice

edited 8 March 2013 at 4:51PM in TV MoneySaving
62 replies 9.1K views
12467

Replies

  • coolagarrycoolagarry Forumite
    1.3K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭
    'Which' Report Continued

    Power consumption

    Plasma TVs use more power than LCD TVs
    Based on our test results, a 42-inch plasma TV typically uses 277 watts when switched on, compared to an 180 watt average for the 40-46-inch LCD TV category. That's 50% less energy than plasma televisions.
    However, some TV manufacturers point out that the power use of a plasma television is directly dependent on picture brightness, while an LCD TV picture requires a constant source of illumination. The theory goes that a plasma TV should use less power over time.
    But, in reality, plasma TVs require significantly more power to achieve the same brightness level as an LCD TV, putting something of a 42-inch widescreen hole in the theory. See 'How to use less electricity' for some energy saving tips, or check out our guide to energy saving appliances.
    VERDICT LCD TV wins hands down
    Versatility

    Both LCD and plasma TVs can be wall-mounted. However, wall-mounting kits usually cost extra and cost more the bigger the TV. Plasmas weigh a lot more than LCDs (even those of comparable screen-size), so setting them up or moving around could prove problematical.
    VERDICT LCD TV
    Cost of LCD and plasma TVs

    Prices have plummeted for LCD and plasma TVs in general, and cost is now much less of an issue than it was. LCD TVs tend to be cheaper, purely because of a smaller average screen size.
    However, 42-inch plasma TVs for under £1,000 are now easy to come by. Prices for comparable screen sizes are now pretty similar.
    VERDICT It's a draw
    I'm Glad to be here... At my age I'm glad to be anywhere!!
    I'm not losing my hair... I'm getting more head!!
  • aliEnRIKaliEnRIK Forumite
    17.7K Posts
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I wouldnt trust 'which' to make me a cup of coffee
    :idea:
  • spud17spud17 Forumite
    4.4K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭
    Also, what date is/was the Which report?

    I'm not much into TV, but even to me, some of the findings appear fairly out of date.
    Move along, nothing to see.
  • InactiveInactive Forumite
    14.5K Posts
    aliEnRIK wrote: »
    I wouldnt trust 'which' to make me a cup of coffee


    Nor would I.
  • edited 6 April 2009 at 12:30AM
    Marty_JMarty_J Forumite
    6.6K Posts
    edited 6 April 2009 at 12:30AM
    coolagarry wrote: »
    Based on our test results, a 42-inch plasma TV typically uses 277 watts when switched on, compared to an 180 watt average for the 40-46-inch LCD TV category. That's 50% less energy than plasma televisions

    Good grief, they can't even do basic maths.

    Since when does 50% of 277 equal 180?

    It used about a third less energy, not half as much.
  • Thanks for all these comments / advice / opinions - it is all really uesful and enables me to understand the complexities and background to the TV issue
  • aliEnRIKaliEnRIK Forumite
    17.7K Posts
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Marty_J wrote: »
    Good grief, they can't even do basic maths.

    Since when does 50% of 277 equal 180?

    It used about a third less energy, not half as much.

    The other problem with that is that when theyre CALIBRATED the results are much closer together (In fact some plasmas are cheaper to run than LCDs once calibrated)

    Thats the old ~ LETS TURN UP THE CONTRAST AND SWITCH 'EVERYTHING' ON setup :p
    :idea:
  • Marty_J wrote: »

    Good grief, they can't even do basic maths.

    Since when does 50% of 277 equal 180?

    It used about a third less energy, not half as much.

    They slid on the usual banana skin of the innumerate.

    From a number to which 50% has been added, only 33% needs to be subtracted to restore it to its original value.


    Actually, though, I agree with its ultimate conclusion - personally. After much research and viewing at specialist Pioneer/Panasonic dealers and at Sony dealers, I chose to buy a Sony 52" rather than a Pioneer 50". The price was not a factor. I prefer the image rendered by a Sony LCD to the image rendered by a Pioneer or Panasonic plasma.

    And that's irrespective of the fact that the Sony has a nice matte screen and the Pioneer and the Panasonic (and both species of Samsung) have a glossy, reflective screen which (as with computer displays) I find extremely annoying and distracting. If I wanted a 50" (or a 24", a 17", a 15.4" or a 13.3") mirror I'd buy one specifically.

    Don't laugh at banana republics. :rotfl:

    As a result of how you voted in the last three General Elections,
    you'd now be better off living in one.

  • InactiveInactive Forumite
    14.5K Posts
    At the end of the day, it all boils down to personal preference, one mans meat etc.

    I prefer Plasma, for it's deep blacks, which I have yet to see replicated on any LCD, but that may not be the optimum requirement for all.
  • aliEnRIKaliEnRIK Forumite
    17.7K Posts
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    To be fair. Sony screens (At least 1k plus) are very VERY good. Theyve recently released an LED screen. Costs a lot but they reckon its quite comparable to a Pioneer Plasma 50" which is considered to be the best in the world (Measureably the best too). Not AS good but given a few years the LED screens are REALLY going to hold their own

    When I eventually upgrade the Pioneer I have now I may very well buy a Sony (Especially as Pioneer have ceased production, if only for the time being)

    On top of that theres at least 3 other very different types of tvs going to be released on the market at some point so Plasmas and LCDs will probably very quickly become a thing of the past
    :idea:
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides