Clarity - Plasma v LED

Forums › Home Theatre (including HTPC and EPG Collector) › Clarity - Plasma v LED

1 | 2 | 3

I iz your trusted friend
5877 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#517531 6-Sep-2011 14:25

Recently seen Samsung Series 6 UA55D6600 - http://www.samsung.com/nz/consumer/tv-audio-video/television/led-tv/UA55D6600WMXRD/index.idx?pagetyp... - And MAN! It's impressive.

Totally recommending it. Our next TV will be the 60" (or 65"/70" if these available in 2012).

The debacle of Plasma vs LED seems a bore nowaday, I'd go for Plasma only if I am needing >70" at an affordable pricetag, otherwise LED!

Internet is my backyard...

«Geekzone blog: Tech 'n Chips Takeaway» «Personal blog: And then...»

Please read the Geekzone's FUG

mortonman

270 posts

Ultimate Geek

Subscriber

#517604 6-Sep-2011 16:17

dukester: I have had a Panasonic TH-P50U30Z for about 3 months now and think its brilliant. When I was trying to decide what to buy I had a similar dilema to you. In the end it got down to my own personal prefernece that plasma was better for displaying tv channels that are not HD. For displaying HD all three types LCD,LED,Plasma, there wasn't much in it. When it came to sd tv pictures, the LED was brighter than LCD, but I preferred plasma. The only real advantage LED seemed to have was it would be cheaper on electricity to run. Plus LED was more expensive to buy. In the end it was the picture quality of the plasma that won me over.

I just got the same one (P50U30Z) this weekend to replace a stolen 42" panasonic plasma. I was looking at the ST series but the manager in the shop correctly pointed out that if I wasn't interested in 3d then its a high price jump to pay for a matte screen and a couple of other features.
I have always preferred plasma pictures. I have a 32" Samsung LCD in the bedroom but my other half refuses to use it as the picture always seems less realistic. The colours and motion never seems to be as good as a plasma.

I reccomend the U series and spend the spare cash on a decent entertainment unit or wall mount ( they can be the same price as cheaper TV's these days). The U is high definition, has 2 USB inputs which can play movies directly from and external hard drive (not just a Flash drive).
We sit about 2-3m away and its taking a bit of getting used to the bigger size (but so did the 42" a few years ago). One thing though- The bigger the TV the more it dominates the living room so be prepared.

Plasmas do suck the juice but on the bright side on the cold winter nights who needs a fire when you have a great big telly on the wall radiating out heat!

Noel leeming just had a 20% off sale last weekend which meant you could bargain with all the other shops to match this (or take the flybuys). This brought the U down to about $1440 (sale ends today)

bfginger

1267 posts

Uber Geek

#517836 6-Sep-2011 22:45

I would take the ST30 in preference to the U not because of 3D but because it has a different panel. I've seen them both and thought the ST30 was better but I don't think everyone else would see a difference. The U should still be alot better than the X.

The P50VT30Z is about $600 more than P50GT30Z but if you're not worried about price you may want to take the more expensive model.

ShortyNZ, I'm curious to know whether you've had HD set up with your Sony CRT? That model family would need a converter for HDMI and its 576i handling was atrocious in contrast to the high HD quality fahrenheit has noted. Sony often sent out CRTs badly set up from the factory with problems including severe overscan, crushed blacks, bad colour balance etc. Those problems could be fixed from the TV's service menu.

Dunnersfella

4086 posts

Uber Geek

#517849 6-Sep-2011 23:07

The ST is vastly better than the U30 for many, many reasons.
Sure it has 3D (inherently faster phosphors for less trailing)- and that may not matter to you, but, there's much more interesting aspects.
The black levels are faaaarrr deeper, the panel itself is black (not a grey/green), you can turn motion flow on and off, the colours are more realistic. The panel, being NeoPlasma, uses much less electricity to run and then there's the other superfluous option, 'smart TV'. But who cares about that.
Oh yeah, the louver tech in the panel helps it deal with reflections a lot better too. All in all, worth the jump up in my books.

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#517859 7-Sep-2011 00:12

Don't plasmas emit radiation through the screen like the old CRTs did? I thought that was one of the benefits with LCDs, as well as bno screen burn, lower power consumption, and possibly longer life.

Regs

4066 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Snowflake

#517860 7-Sep-2011 00:18

mattwnz: Don't plasmas emit radiation through the screen like the old CRTs did? I thought that was one of the benefits with LCDs, as well as bno screen burn, lower power consumption, and possibly longer life.

i had thought that plasma had lower power consumption - LCDs were constantly backlit, whereas plasma only lit the 'pixels' that were firing. Perhaps the LED LCDs have changed that story a little...

as for the longer life, my plasma screen (which is several years old) had a life of some 60,000 hours. thats a blinking long time - some 40 years at 4 hours viewing per day, every day....

Sales Engineer
Snowflake
www.snowflake.com

about.me/nzregs
Twitter: @nzregs

fahrenheit

757 posts

Ultimate Geek

#517894 7-Sep-2011 07:47

Regs:
i had thought that plasma had lower power consumption - LCDs were constantly backlit, whereas plasma only lit the 'pixels' that were firing. Perhaps the LED LCDs have changed that story a little...

Plasmas have greater consumption than LCD/LED and always have had. Power savings as a marketing point between plasma and LCD/LED is an erroding arguement. A Panasonic 42" ST30 plasma uses 110W and their top 42" LED uses 106W. My 2009 50" uses 308W and the 2011 models of the same size are using 155W.
Manufacturers are being squeezed to comply with increasingly tough energy savings demands.

as for the longer life, my plasma screen (which is several years old) had a life of some 60,000 hours. thats a blinking long time - some 40 years at 4 hours viewing per day, every day....

That figure is actually the half-life. Rated for when the panel reaches half brightness. The 2011 models are rated for 100,000 hours. Other parts will breakdown long before those miles are clocked.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

ShortyNZ

48 posts

Geek

#517923 7-Sep-2011 09:07

bfginger, to answer your question, no, we haven't had HD set up on our CRT - well, we certainly haven't had any sort of relationship with a converter, anyway!

We did have a few issues with the picture when we very first got it. I'm sure there's a term for it, but the edges of some of the images were "sparkly" (I think it is perhaps a contrast issue?)(you can tell I'm technically challenged, I know) Anyway, we tinkered with the screen menu until we got rid of it and we have always thought it had a really good picture since. It was just that though - tinkering, and there was no science to it.

It seems like Plasma gets the vote here for picture quality. I'm not sure if we've ever seen the high-end models referred to, so will have to follow that up.

Dunnersfella's post was indeed informative. We have been relying on the salespeople probably too much to know what they are talking about (which is part of the reason I thought I'd put a post here).

I think I am guilty of the "clarity meaning LED" thing that Jaxson referred to as well.

We missed buying at the Noel Leeming sale again (and yes, I enjoyed the instruction to stop friggin' around and go buy one)(even if I didn't follow it) but I'm sure there will be another along in a minute.

Many thanks for the tips and for making them simple enough for me to understand.

ShortyNZ

48 posts

Geek

#517927 7-Sep-2011 09:14

Oh and by the way, my husband did find a comparative break-down of power conumption for the 3 models we were looking at, at 6 hrs day/per annum:

Panasonic ST 50" $57 (kWh/annum = 562)
Panasonic ST 55" $61 (kWh/annum = 602)
Sony 55EX720 $42 (kWh/annum = 419)

wreck90

780 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#517931 7-Sep-2011 09:19

Plasmas can emit a buzzing noise.

I had a plasma and the buzzing worsened over time.

Jaxson

8041 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#517954 7-Sep-2011 09:45

Plasma power specs are a bit slanted as they use more power the more areas of the screen are used/turned on. LCD screens are basically fairly constant, with a back light turned on the whole time keeping the power used quite steady. LED's are a bit better in that they can turn off segments of the back lights now, so they vary a little bit more depending on the picture.

So yeah, it's a bit tough to put a set figure on a plasma panel as it will draw maximum power if the screen is full white. And somewhere less for normal viewing.

The buzz does warrant a mention as on some screens it can be significant. I recommend discussing with your dealer to see if you can return it if you're not happy. A few people here have done that so it's worth ensuring you can do that.

As screens get bigger, the pixels just get bigger. We don't have full HD 1080 resolutions for 42" screens, and then extra full HD 2000 or something resolutions for the 55" and above screens etc. Resolutions max out at 1080 and then don't go any higher as the TV gets bigger.

I think 50" is fine for most homes, but if you do sit really close you will get a better picture from a 42". (Too close to a big screen and you see blocks/gaps etc instead of a fluid picture). I sit 4m away from my screen for what it's worth.

chiefie

I iz your trusted friend
5877 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#517963 7-Sep-2011 09:56

The Samsung Series 8 has micro dimming which mean the contrast clarity will be much better with localised LED lights up on area it needs.

Still do check out Samsung's LED Smart TV range. Definitely well worth a look. Refresh rate is insanely realistic.

Internet is my backyard...

«Geekzone blog: Tech 'n Chips Takeaway» «Personal blog: And then...»

Please read the Geekzone's FUG

ShortyNZ

48 posts

Geek

#518044 7-Sep-2011 11:49

Thanks chiefie. I agree the Samsungs look great in the store; I have been tempted ..........
But we are sworn off Samsung, after a bad run with different products (although not TV's). The last TV-related one was a DVD recorder, which I posted on here about as well.
But I agree, they look pretty sharp ......

bfginger

1267 posts

Uber Geek

#518790 8-Sep-2011 21:53

ShortyNZ: bfginger, to answer your question, no, we haven't had HD set up on our CRT - well, we certainly haven't had any sort of relationship with a converter, anyway!

The quality would be incomparably better with 1080i going to it. The main stumbling block is the lack of HDMI. You CRT should have only YPBPR and RGBHV inputs for HD which will be marked on the back.
There has been a push from the industry to eliminate HD over non HDMI connections to supposedly eliminate piracy. Most receiver equipment in NZ like MySkyHDi won't do HD over anything but HDMI. If you're in the Freeview|HD broadcast area, you could look for a HDT HD801s receiver or Magic TV 3600TD receiver/recorder from Trademe as they do do HD over YPBPR. No word yet on whether the 3700TD will. Alternatively, you could order an HDFury3 which can convert from HDMI to RGBHV or YPBPR. As I'm sure you TV will have RCA instead of BNC plugs you may need converter pins for the VGA to RGBHV BNC breakout cable.

ShortyNZ

48 posts

Geek

#518803 8-Sep-2011 22:28

Thanks bfginger. We do have a Magic TV Myfreeview box already, so I will get my husband to have a look and see what is plugged where.

1 | 2 | 3