Best flat screen TV

MrsE_2

Pioneers are generally considered the best plasmas.

We got ours in Currys.

suavekc

Lynsey wrote: »

Look at Sony, Sony and Sony. You do generally pay a premium, but I've never ever been disappointed with a Sony lcd tv.

Lynsey

Agree with this - I have a Sony Bravia 40" lcd and the quality is great (no problems watching sport on it at all). Yes you will have to pay a little more but quality comes with a price.

As for lcd v plasma, plasma tv's a generally better quality but they don't last as long as lcd's - something to do with the pixels gradually degrading over time.

As mentioned by others you have to narrow your field down by budget, screen size, what it will be used for (watching sports, gaming etc) and also appropriate size for your room.

And make sure where ever you get the tv from to try and get discounts on it - I managed to get £110 off mine from Currys using discount codes/vouchers online!

Inactive

suavekc wrote: »

As for lcd v plasma, plasma tv's a generally better quality but they don't last as long as lcd's - something to do with the pixels gradually degrading over time.

:rotfl:
Who told you that?

suavekc

Inactive wrote: »

:rotfl:
Who told you that?

Relative who works for a electronics manufacturer in the states but if it's wrong then I apologise

I always thought anyway that plasma's were more susceptible of burning out quicker than lcd's but that could just be a silly myth

almillar

Don't believe anything a salesman told you about Plasma TVs. He probably has a shop full of LCDs to try to sell you! As above, I've had a Panasonic 50" G10 (Richer Sounds, £969, Amazon have them for £949) for about a month, and coming from a 40" Samsung LCD, the black levels, and motion, are amazing.
If the 'plasmas don't last as long' thing was ever true, it's about 15 years out of date. As are screen burn, image retention, re-gassing, using far more energy, etc.

Boozer

I have a relative who fixes TVs and he says the same about plasmas, he has absolutly nothing to gain by telling me this info, as an example, he gets quite a few from bars in the area, and you know the little pint mug in the corner of the screen, which tells you it is in licensed premesis??? well after a short while this is almost burned onto the screen permanently, even when it should not be there it can still be seen.

devilchef

just www.cheap-lcd-tv.co.uk sells plasmas as well at the best prices i have found

Locknut

I would say stick to the big names I have a samsung LED I know its only backlit but the added contrast ratio makes the picture a lot better. IMHO

samba

almillar wrote: »

If the 'plasmas don't last as long' thing was ever true, it's about 15 years out of date. As are screen burn, image retention, re-gassing, using far more energy, etc.

There's nothing wrong with LCD TVs, except in the eyes of AV enthusiasts/snobs, who blindly worship at the altar of the Pioneer Kuro. Imho, most of them just repeat the sales BS they are fed without ever understanding it.

As for screen burn and image retention, well they should be a thing of the past but they're not I'm afraid. I've seem some really badly burned LG plasmas recently, and there was a guy on another forum just the other day who reported screen burn/bad IR on his 'IR resistant' Panasonic G10, from using a PC with it just a couple of times. LGs and Samsungs are still troubled by IR, even from their own menus.

As for using more energy, well that is also still true. Most reviews who test the energy usage do so using the out-of-box settings, where the backlight is on full . This results in only slightly higher energy usage by the plasmas. However, if they calibrate the screens first, then the energy usage of LCDs drops significantly, whereas the plasmas generally stay the same. I saw one review where the yearly energy usage of the plasma was around $85 and $75 out-of-box and calibrated respectively, whereas the LCD came in at $75 and $25!

I would also like to mention that the 600Hz figures quoted for plasma screens have nothing to do with framerates, and are to do with how the images are shown on the screen. There is no frame interpolation involved, and they cannot be compared with the 100Hz and 200Hz motion smoothing technology found on LCD TVs, whatever Panasonic's marketing team may lead you to believe.

almillar

Let's not start yet another LCD vs Plasma debate on the internet, I'm sure there are enough. I never said there's anything wrong with LCDs. I've got a G10 and have used a computer on it more than a couple of times, and I've had no image retention so let's get that out of the way. Just don't leave static images on the screen for ages, not that difficult I think.
I (personally, but I do see what you mean about AV snobs, hope I don't sound like one) do see the difference in picture from a plasma and LCD, without having to be trained by salesmen, and I definately prefer it. LCDs (especially when sitting in Currys etc) tend to be brighter, badly so, whereas plasmas are not. This makes plasmas look dull beside the LCD and people generally like bright pictures better, buy the LCD, take it home to their much darker living room and it will look awful. I reckon in normal use plasmas do use slightly (up to 20% say) more (quoting dollars per year is pretty useless where our currency and electricity supply and cost is completely different btw) but that it's worth it for the better picture.
Oh, and yes, I've got a 600hz TV and it's a complete marketing gimmick.