Suggestions for 40/42" LCD/Plasma TV

spitzoid · 4 May 2009 at 22:00

[DOD]Asprilla;14009486 said:
Multiple quotes

Look, anyone who does the whole multi quote thing without actually stating their opinion is not worth arguing with tbh.

Are you actually trying to dispute that Plasmas are less robust than LCDs. That will be a short discussion.

spitzoid · 4 May 2009 at 22:04

Nymins said:
Spitzoid you are posting garbage and totally giving the wrong advice to a new tv buyer which is the worst part.

You are obviously still trying to justify to yourself that you were right to pay £1250 for a then mid range set. Check the reviews of your TV on HDTVTest and then look at something like the PX80 which is the closest thing to the X10 and then you'll see how wrong you are.

BAHHAHAHAHAAH. So anyone who recommends an LCD over a plasma is wrong? I am VERY happy with my "mid-range TV" thanks very much, plus the Blu-Ray player and 5 yr warranty that it came with.

Alexrose1uk · 4 May 2009 at 22:05

More like LCD fanboy, they're telling the truth. There's no opinion there, the Plasmas mentioned can produce a more accurate image for movies and are better for freeview which is what the OP wants. LCDs have benefits elsewhere, you're the one coming across as a little silly, we're not debating if you're happy with your TV, or if all people buying LCDs are foolish.

spitzoid · 4 May 2009 at 22:06

Alexrose1uk said:
you're the one coming across as a little silly.

Silly how? In the sense that if you don't agree with someone you call them names?

-Ad- · 4 May 2009 at 22:09

spitzoid said:
BAHHAHAHAHAAH. So anyone who recommends an LCD over a plasma is wrong? I am VERY happy with my "mid-range TV" thanks very much, plus the Blu-Ray player and 5 yr warranty that it came with.

Good for you, and enjoy it, just stop pushing your poor recommendation on someone looking for reasoned advice, and please grow up a little:

blah blah blah plasma fanboys

Alexrose1uk · 4 May 2009 at 22:10

No nothing about that, but you're picking arguments or thats the way it comes across when we should be talking about the merits to the OP.
LCDs are brighter, sometimes cheaper and in general use a little less electricity, Plasmas produce a more cinematic picture, a better colour range and movement, and typically are better with low res feed, which is what is important the the OP, which is why these guys are recommending a Plasma.

Beansprout · 4 May 2009 at 22:12

Almost everyone who sees my 42PZ80 playing anything, be it normal TV or, especially, a blu ray, comments on how fantastic the picture is. Even my non-geeky female friends who I'd never expect to say that

spitzoid · 4 May 2009 at 22:13

Alexrose1uk said:
No nothing about that, but you're picking arguments or thats the way it comes across when we should be talking about the merits to the OP.
LCDs are brighter, sometimes cheaper and in general use a little less electricity, Plasmas produce a more cinematic picture, a better colour range and movement, and typically are better with low res feed, which is what is important the the OP, which is why these guys are recommending a Plasma.

Even at 40"? I disagree. Plasmas may pull ahead over 42" but anything equal or smaller, to the human eye, there is not that much of a difference. It comes down to personal preference.

Factor in the delicate nature of Plasmas, (and other things as you have mentioned) I believe that LCDs are superior. Simples.

-Ad- · 4 May 2009 at 22:16

spitzoid said:
Even at 40"?

Size makes no difference, especially at 40 inch. You should see the picture from a 37 PX80 or even an LG 32 inch plasma

Beansprout · 4 May 2009 at 22:17

It's not until you really get into a film in low light and realise how good a plasma is :cool:

spitzoid · 4 May 2009 at 22:17

-Ad- said:
Size makes no difference, especially at 40 inch. You should see the picture from a 37 PX80 or even an LG 32 inch plasma

Rubbish.

Beansprout · 4 May 2009 at 22:19

spitzoid said:
Rubbish.

Ad is one of the most well-balanced folk in this here subforum, he speaks from experience as do I and most other plasma owners....heck I had an LCD before a plasma and the difference is mental.

Putting my 26" Samsung next to a Kuro just showed up the poor thing even more

spitzoid · 4 May 2009 at 22:25

Beansprout said:
Ad is one of the most well-balanced folk in this here subforum, he speaks from experience as do I and most other plasma owners....heck I had an LCD before a plasma and the difference is mental.

Putting my 26" Samsung next to a Kuro just showed up the poor thing even more

OK whatever.

Rather than have this argument go on forever. I'll just say that there are good LCDs and good Plasmas, both of which will give an excellent viewing experience.

Each has benefits over the other, and ultimately it comes down to personal preference - some people like the way Plasmas look, others prefer LCDs. No-one on this site has experienced every TV out there, and as such thier opions are very objective i.e. based on the few that they have owned (decent settings) or seen in-store (poor settings), so cannot be held as gospel (even if they are "well-balanced" - I assume that means that they have 2 little toes and excellent inner-ears).

For someone to say "x technology is ABSOLUTELY better than y" is moronic. Both technologies have been around for awhile now and sales of both are fairly similar as far as I know. It's not like a Blu-Ray-HDDVD war, there is no winner, because they are so closely matched.

Like I said before, it is only going to be a year or 2 until the next gen TVs come out (OLED, Laser, SED) and then the argument can start all over again.

-Ad- · 4 May 2009 at 22:40

spitzoid said:
Rubbish.

None of us have harped on abuot one tech being superior than the other, the only person doing that has actually been you.

please go and read up on the technolgoies in depth and and go and demo the sets many times over whilst calibrating them in various showrooms and trying different types footage with them. It's called experience

Then come back and actually be constructive, rather than throwing your toys out of your pram because you have no idea about what you are on about.

Beansprout said:
Ad is one of the most well-balanced folk in this here subforum, he speaks from experience as do I and most other plasma owners....heck I had an LCD before a plasma and the difference is mental.

Putting my 26" Samsung next to a Kuro just showed up the poor thing even more

e-love for you

There are x2 LCDs in my parents house and both do their job pretty well. They arn't nearly as good as my kuro, but hey, a ford fiesta isn't as good as an M5 either.

Jonnycoupe · 4 May 2009 at 22:43

spitzoid said:
Factor in the delicate nature of Plasmas, (and other things as you have mentioned) I believe that LCDs are superior. Simples.

What magntitude is this factor of delicate? 1?

I dont know how anyone can come into a thread like this and recommend a Sony over an 'overpriced' Panasonic. I have a 40" sammy, I would deffo go plasma next time, preferably a NeoPDP though. The input lag on that new sammy B700 looks intolerable to me for LCD gaming crown anyway.

-Ad- · 4 May 2009 at 22:47

Jonnycoupe said:
What magntitude is this factor of delicate? 1?

I dont know how anyone can come into a thread like this and recommend a Sony over an 'overpriced' Panasonic. I have a 40" sammy, I would deffo go plasma next time, preferably a NeoPDP though. The input lag on that new sammy B700 looks intolerable to me for LCD gaming crown anyway.

The factor is more like divide by 0

spitzoid · 4 May 2009 at 22:49

-Ad- said:
None of us have harped on abuot one tech being superior than the other, the only person doing that has actually been you.

Prove it? I think you'll find I've been saying I prefer LCDs to Plasmas, nothing about which tech is better (in fact if you had read all of my posts you would have known this - which kind of negates any of your views - proving you as ignorant/dismissive to other's opinions?). It has been the Plasma fanboys who have been harping on about Plasma superiority without clarifying that it is their own opinion and not based on anything other than personal preference, get it right!

-Ad- said:
please go and read up on the technolgoies in depth and and go and demo the sets many times over whilst calibrating them in various showrooms and trying different types footage with them. It's called experience

I assume from this that you are some sort of TV salesman/work in a showroom, well done you!! Suffice to say, the best LCD that I have seen beats the best Plasma, it's called opinion

-Ad- said:
Then come back and actually be constructive, rather than throwing your toys out of your pram because you have no idea about what you are on about.

This doesn't really deserve a response but seeing as you are so "well-balanced", and give e-love (gay points) out so easily, I thought I'd better write a few words.

james.miller · 4 May 2009 at 22:53

spitzoid said:
James.miller - size isn't everything you know. I will concede that at that size a plasma is a good choice, but anything at approx 40"ish (which is what the OP is asking about) plasmas just doesn't cut the mustard for me. I don't think the colours and blacks are FAR better, but if it makes you feel better to say it in order to justify your purchase then fair enough.

size has nothing to do with it. unless you think the image quality is worse on the 42pz80 - it isnt.

Both - Yes the W2000 is 3 years old but I suspect it will be working in another 3 years whereas your plasmas, which are not robust enough and can be easily damaged, will not.

prove that. show me some figures or quoted half lifes.

remember, i owned the same model 40w2000 as you. now i own a tv thats better at everything thats important to me - better blacks, more accurate colours. blacks being one of the biggest shortfalls of the w2000 and something which i commented on more than a few times prior to selling my 40w2000. The fact it happens to be a plasma is irrelivant, but that is the sole reason its so much better. You cant accuse people here of being fanboy, or spouting rubbish or anything like that when you are the worst offender in this thread. at the end of the day, ive had both in the same room mounted on the same bracket.

That makes me far more qualified to give a review and 'opinion' than you.

I assume you are some sort of TV salesman/work in a showroom, well done you. Suffice to say, the best LCD that I have seen beats the best Plasma, it's called opinion

one that is completely incorrect.

Alexrose1uk · 4 May 2009 at 22:56

spitzoid said:
Even at 40"? I disagree. Plasmas may pull ahead over that size but 40" and under, to the human eye, there is not that much of a difference. It comes down to personal preference.

Factor in the delicate nature of Plasmas, (and other things as you have mentioned) I believe that LCDs are superior. Simples.

Plasmas are no less delicate than an LCD, Im not sure where you come up with that from, neither LCDs nor Plasmas are recommended for transport on thier backs for example. Watch Panasonic lob things at some of thier Plasmas and it'll soon take away the fragile impression.

(Ignore the audio, I didnt even listen to that)

Size as mentioned doesn't make a huge difference, the improved colour capabilities still result in a better picture, regardless of size, and the OP was after a 40 or a 42 anyway.

And for the record I actually did use to be a salesman, the fact I was meant to, and had more opportunity to push LCDs, surely makes that a pointless comment, as ideally you sell the one most suited to the user, thier usage and thier environment... no Plasma recommendations for use in a conservatory/very bright room for example, LCDs shine (literally) there.

Jonnycoupe · 4 May 2009 at 23:05

-Ad- said:
The factor is more like divide by 0

Mine hinted at them being no different, not plasmas being indestructable