LCD or Plasma for 40"-50"?

adfinni said:
Get the 42 kuro.

I spent 2 months comparing sets, espec the kuro and pana PZ 42. Even though the PZ was 1080p, the kuro looked better in HD up close and far away. And i mean FAR superior. THis is with blu rays (starship troopers, stealth, kingdom of heaven) and when i took my PS3 into 'named department store' to try out some games.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that the OP will hardly ever be watching HD stuff. If this is the case, do you really think that its worth paying £1500 for a Kuro over a £700 Samsung?

adfinni said:
Makes the 1080p toshiba X3030 i chose for my rents last year look positively carp. il get some pics up for ya tonight oir tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Not fair. You are comparing one of the best plasma screens ever to be released, with an LCD. You cant expect any LCD TV to compete with a good plasma, let alone the Kuro. ;)

You should never have bought an LCD for your parents, given that plasmas at the same price point, offer superior image quality, especially when it comes to SD material.

adfinni said:
But to be honest why spend £800 on something like a samsung when the 42 panasonic pz is much better and can be had for £900-999 from 'certain department store' that also offers you 5yr warranty.
Click to expand...

The Samsung that I posted at the started of this thread can be had for less than £700.

Secondly, the OP will be watching mostly SD material (I presume Sky/Freeview). In time, he may start watching more HD materal, at which point he can buy another TV that will be heaps better than anything out on the market in 2008.

People seem to recommend a lot of TVs based on their own viewing habits. They discount the fact that not everybody has access to HD material and are perfectly happy watching SD-DVDs and SD SKY/Freeview.
 
tystar said:
I've got the Samsung PS42Q96HD, and the picture quality is awsome. The best thing to do would be to have a look in your local electrical store and compare the picutres.
Click to expand...

Erm. This might not be the best way to judge a TV screen, as in most stores, the TVs are set-up horrendously badly. Its almost as if they are trying to do their best to set the TV up to offer the worst image quality possible.
 
he TVs are set-up horrendously badly. Its almost as if they are trying to do their best to set the TV up to offer the worst image quality possible.
Click to expand...

Yup CRT RP's look lousy in stores, but at home they look superb... due to amount of ambiant light, and not calibrated/converged/focused.
 
sunama said:
Don't forget that the OP will hardly ever be watching HD stuff. If this is the case, do you really think that its worth paying £1500 for a Kuro over a £700 Samsung?
Click to expand...

O i know, unfortunately i didn't mention in my post that it wasn't just HD stuff that i discounted the samsung on, i firstly did a little bit of SD viewing after fiddling with each of their settings a bit.

Not fair. You are comparing one of the best plasma screens ever to be released, with an LCD. You cant expect any LCD TV to compete with a good plasma, let alone the Kuro. ;)

You should never have bought an LCD for your parents, given that plasmas at the same price point, offer superior image quality, especially when it comes to SD material.
Click to expand...

Ye probably not my best idea, but i was just including another example, just to make sure that people don't start recommending LCD tvs.

The Samsung that I posted at the started of this thread can be had for less than £700.

Secondly, the OP will be watching mostly SD material (I presume Sky/Freeview). In time, he may start watching more HD materal, at which point he can buy another TV that will be heaps better than anything out on the market in 2008.

People seem to recommend a lot of TVs based on their own viewing habits. They discount the fact that not everybody has access to HD material and are perfectly happy watching SD-DVDs and SD SKY/Freeview.
Click to expand...

The samsung is good for the price, but the panasonic PZ was definately better. Im just susceptible to the minor differences in PQ, my own stupid fault for ever watching the pioneer. I watch about 50/50 HD/SD, but i can say for certain that of the tvs i compared the pioneer still looked better in SD, far more natural and less processed, and since ive got it back and calibrated it a little more it really has improved further.

But then if you only have £700-£800 MAX, then the samsung is a good buy, but if you can spend that little bit extra, then i always advise people to go for the best they can afford.

And with regard to viewing as ive said before, get the settings for each set off avforums owner threads and set them up instore. If the sales people arnt happy then walk out as in 'chicken madras' and 'metor' related named shops, they really don't have much idea about what they are on about, but make out they do. After setting them up and taking off 'dynamic' type settings, lowing contrast, brightness, and turning off noise reduction crap, then they should look a lot better and be ready for comparison.

Good hunting, it took me 2 months to see all the sets i wanted to see :D
 
£1500 is a lot to spend on a 42" TV.

Even my projector and screen cost less than that.

I would love to get a Pioneer Kuro, but the price tag feels far too high for what it actually is.
 
This thread is very confusing.

When I move house (soon-ish probably) I want to buy myself an HDTV for my bedroom, between 37" and 42". 40" would be best, but not all manufacturers do that size and if a 42" TV has a better picture than the same model in 37", I want the better picture.

It'll be used mostly for blu-ray films and an X360. I don't watch TV so SD image quality is not important to me. I want the best image quality I can get for about £800. I've no idea what that could get me, so I'm at the mercy of your reccomendations.

EDIT: Sorry for the thread-jack, but I'm not starting a new thread for this.
 
Last edited:
are lcd's really that bad compared to plasma ?
my sharp lcd appears better on sd content than the plasma what my bro has....my eyes must decieve me lol.

ofcourse the plasma isnt exactly the best make..its LG but they are ok (i think).
 
memory said:
are lcd's really that bad compared to plasma ?
my sharp lcd appears better on sd content than the plasma what my bro has....my eyes must decieve me lol.

ofcourse the plasma isnt exactly the best make..its LG but they are ok (i think).
Click to expand...

You have to remember to compare plasma and LCD at the same price point. Its unfair to compare say a £600 42" plasma with a £3000 Sony LCD.

Another point of note is the set-up. A badly set-up 42", £700 plasma will get beat by a properly set-up 42", £700 LCD.

A third point of note to consider is the size of the TV. A larger screen will magnify and show the artifacts in SD images a lot more than a smaller size TV. My guess is that your LCD is smaller than your brother's plasma?

At the same price point and size, if you compare the best of what plasma and LCD has to offer, as a TV, plasma should come out on top, every time. I have noticed though, that LCDs look very nice when displaying HD images. Their blacks are obviously not in the same league as plasmas. And as for SD images, plasmas are best.

LCDs tend to show a warts-and-all image, so any compression/artifacts (which are inherent in SD images), are shown up, while a CRT and plasma will "smooth" out these artifacts.

If you are going to use your TV exclusively for xbox/ps3/computer gaming use, then an LCD will almost certainly serve your needs best. In this case, I would actually buy a cheap LCD, as the expensive image processors inside the more expensive LCDs will be wasted.

If you are coming from a CRT tv, plasmas tend to offer the most CRT like (SD) image quality. For reference, if you intend to watch SD images only, then CRT is generally regarded as the best. Unfortunately, you cant buy 42" CRT TVs these days, so you have to make a choice between LCD, plasma or rear projection sets. If you have the room, I strongly recommend front projection systems. The sheer size of the screen gives you are much more cinema-like experience that a 42"/50" screen can only dream of delivering.

If I could, I would buy a CRT tv as I am interested in image quality only. My rooms have the space and I dont care too much about style, but obviously I am in the minority, so flat panels are the future.
 
Last edited:
badbob said:
adfinni what sound system do you have? ;-)
Click to expand...


IL have to get pics up to really show it off, but it is an awesome stereo setup as i don't feel the need for something like an onkyo receiver and expensive 5.1 system in this, which is my first flat (rented of course with my gorgous mrs) :D

Built another one of my silver wired stereo interconnects to connect the RCA output of the kuro to my amp. Then i just crank it up and let my little ATCs sing :D:D

And the quality even through the inbuilt digital decoder is excellent, the hits and tmf both sound very very good. l create a thread if i can this weekend with some pics and my review of the tv and comparisons to the others i looked at.
 
sunama said:
You have to remember to compare plasma and LCD at the same price point. Its unfair to compare say a £600 42" plasma with a £3000 Sony LCD.

Another point of note is the set-up. A badly set-up 42", £700 plasma will get beat by a properly set-up 42", £700 LCD.

A third point of note to consider is the size of the TV. A larger screen will magnify and show the artifacts in SD images a lot more than a smaller size TV. My guess is that your LCD is smaller than your brother's plasma?

At the same price point and size, if you compare the best of what plasma and LCD has to offer, as a TV, plasma should come out on top, every time. I have noticed though, that LCDs look very nice when displaying HD images. Their blacks are obviously not in the same league as plasmas. And as for SD images, plasmas are best.

LCDs tend to show a warts-and-all image, so any compression/artifacts (which are inherent in SD images), are shown up, while a CRT and plasma will "smooth" out these artifacts.

If you are going to use your TV exclusively for xbox/ps3/computer gaming use, then an LCD will almost certainly serve your needs best. In this case, I would actually buy a cheap LCD, as the expensive image processors inside the more expensive LCDs will be wasted.

If you are coming from a CRT tv, plasmas tend to offer the most CRT like (SD) image quality. For reference, if you intend to watch SD images only, then CRT is generally regarded as the best. Unfortunately, you cant buy 42" CRT TVs these days, so you have to make a choice between LCD, plasma or rear projection sets. If you have the room, I strongly recommend front projection systems. The sheer size of the screen gives you are much more cinema-like experience that a 42"/50" screen can only dream of delivering.

If I could, I would buy a CRT tv as I am interested in image quality only. My rooms have the space and I dont care too much about style, but obviously I am in the minority, so flat panels are the future.
Click to expand...


u made some good and clear points but as for the artifacts being amplified on lcd's sharper picture...that can be helped by turning the sharpness down to create a similar blurry effect.
the plasma im comparing it to is a 50" and my lcd is 46" so yes it is bigger.
price also yes mine cost what his cost him about 8 months ago and mine is 1 month old so mine will be worth more.
the blacks also are better by default on plasma's compared to lcd's but the sharp model i have does give very good blacks...

one more thing u didnt mention is reponse times....which are amazing on plasma's and far slower on lcd's so ghosting can be a problem.
the model i have has a 4ms reponse time so there is zero ghosting and i'll be honest...i wouldnt have bought it had it not been so good.

i do connect it to my pc so thats why i did want a lcd...HD content looks amazing as do games on the pc/ps3.
i didnt expect sd content to look very good and as it came out the box it looked seriously crap....bit of tweaking and it looks great.
 
I think people just see badly setup LCD's, the extra processing MUST be disabled, also like you said sharpness is way to high at default, and even at 40% sharpness there is still lots picture artefacts because it's still too high.
 
not in those 2 models bud :p

i spent a loong long time deciding between the px70 and my sammy. (viewed both)

i dont care what anyone says but between those 2 models NO the samsung does not finish last :D
 
I posted a review of each of the Samsung and Pansonic 42" sets, from the same review site. The Samsung came top.

I also read a comparison: Samsung Vs Panasonic, in What Hifi. It was close, but Samsung was marginally ahead.

In either case, it is close.
 
BUt the one thing which varies the most is our preferences and our eyes. Some people think sharpness and bright colours are the best, and others prefer the natural look.

No doubting the samungs are a good price, but in my eyes they are't built particularly well and always seem to be form over function. Il go back to hiding in the deep blacks in my kuro like a ninja. :D
 
adfinni said:
No doubting the samungs are a good price, but in my eyes they are't built particularly well and always seem to be form over function.
Click to expand...

I used to think exactly the same thing, until I read the reviews of the new Samsung Plasmas. I was actually shocked that for value for money, they were beating the Pannys, which traditionally rule the market. If you have more money to spend then traditionally, you bought a Pioneer. Either way, you made sure that the company you bought from started with the letter 'P'. ;)

To me the "look" of the set is unimportant. Image quality is everything. To this end, the new Samsung Plasmas seem to be offer the best overall image quality in its price bracket, which also includes the Panasonic PX70.

Speaking of 'form', the Pioneers tend to consistently outscore eveyrthing in this area. :p

One thing I have noticed though, is that the people who support LCDs, tend to emphasize the specs of the LCDs (response times, power usage, resolution, number of colours, etc). Plasma supporters tend to just compare image quality and know that plasma is currently superior to LCD, with regards to overall image quality. It wont be for long though, because LCDs outsell plasmas; to this end, it makes sense for companies to concentrate all their efforts on LCD panels, a la Sony.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom