T
Tim
Guest
Hi I am in the market for a new TV, can someone give me the pro's and con's
of each.
Thanks kindly
of each.
Thanks kindly
D
David L. Jones
Guest
On Jun 19, 10:00 pm, "Tim" <t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Plasma generally has a better contrast ratio, better response time,
brighter, and is better for darker environments (e.g. watching movies
in a dark room).
LCD is really your only option for <40"
LCD is generally a more reliable technology.
LCD are all high resolution.
LCD is better in bright rooms.
Power consumption is similar for both under average conditions.
If you are after a really big screen for watching movies, save your
money and go Plasma. If you want a small to average size TV for
everyday use, go LCD.
If you go Plasma, do not touch a "Standard Definition" 480 line
screen, they are a piece of proverbial excrement.
But as always, YMMV.
Dave.
Plasma is cheaper if you are after 42" or larger.
Plasma generally has a better contrast ratio, better response time,
brighter, and is better for darker environments (e.g. watching movies
in a dark room).
LCD is really your only option for <40"
LCD is generally a more reliable technology.
LCD are all high resolution.
LCD is better in bright rooms.
Power consumption is similar for both under average conditions.
If you are after a really big screen for watching movies, save your
money and go Plasma. If you want a small to average size TV for
everyday use, go LCD.
If you go Plasma, do not touch a "Standard Definition" 480 line
screen, they are a piece of proverbial excrement.
But as always, YMMV.
Dave.
J
Jerry G.
Guest
My preference is for Plasma, especialy for at home. The Plasma screen
is better for viewing in a dark or poorly lit room. LCD is better for
viewing in a bright environment.
With Plasma, the contrast ratio is higher, and the details in the
black levels of the picture are better defined. Plasma is lower in
cost for the size of screen.
LCD is able to display a sharper picture, but in the native mode only.
The LCD has a limited contrast ratio.
If you have children at home, there is the danger of a toy or ball
hitting the screen. With LCD, this would be an expensive disaster. LCD
screens can be damaged from simply being touched too hard, unless
there is a safety glass in front of it. Plasma screens are a lot less
sensitive to be touched, or knocked in to.
I myself am in the market for a new HDTV. I am definately going for a
Plasma set. I am looking for something in the 50 inch size range. My
preference for a manufacture is Panasonic as a first choice.
Jerry G.
======
On Jun 19, 8:00 am, "Tim" <t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
is better for viewing in a dark or poorly lit room. LCD is better for
viewing in a bright environment.
With Plasma, the contrast ratio is higher, and the details in the
black levels of the picture are better defined. Plasma is lower in
cost for the size of screen.
LCD is able to display a sharper picture, but in the native mode only.
The LCD has a limited contrast ratio.
If you have children at home, there is the danger of a toy or ball
hitting the screen. With LCD, this would be an expensive disaster. LCD
screens can be damaged from simply being touched too hard, unless
there is a safety glass in front of it. Plasma screens are a lot less
sensitive to be touched, or knocked in to.
I myself am in the market for a new HDTV. I am definately going for a
Plasma set. I am looking for something in the 50 inch size range. My
preference for a manufacture is Panasonic as a first choice.
Jerry G.
======
On Jun 19, 8:00 am, "Tim" <t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
R
Rudolf
Guest
Yes.
Stay away from plasma. Crap technology.
Rudolf
"Tim" <tim45@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4677c582@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Stay away from plasma. Crap technology.
Rudolf
"Tim" <tim45@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4677c582@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
M
Mr.T
Guest
"Rudolf" <aus_electronics@rumatech.com> wrote in message
news:137gn33goq80h76@corp.supernews.com...
One day there will be a flat screen technology to beat CRT. There is plenty
of development work being done to that end.
MrT.
news:137gn33goq80h76@corp.supernews.com...
Agreed, so are current LCD's.
One day there will be a flat screen technology to beat CRT. There is plenty
of development work being done to that end.
MrT.
R
Rudolf
Guest
I am doing a lot of repairs, including warranty repairs.
Plasma and LCD are crap, but lasma is "crappier". Nothing beats good old
CRT.
I am keeping my Panasonic CRT Rear-pro.
Rudolf
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:46789a30$0$22415$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Plasma and LCD are crap, but lasma is "crappier". Nothing beats good old
CRT.
I am keeping my Panasonic CRT Rear-pro.
Rudolf
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:46789a30$0$22415$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
D
David L. Jones
Guest
On Jun 20, 2:52 pm, "Rudolf" <aus_electron...@rumatech.com> wrote:
in X years etc?
If you are in the TV repair business then you are obviously going to
see lots of TV's in for repair :->
What are the common failure modes?
etc...
It's easy to say Plasma and LCD are crap, but millions of people are
buying them and have been doing so for a fair while now, so they must
have something going for them.
If they were really "crap" technology then no-one would buy them and
the manufacturers would go out of business. So they obviously aren't
entirely crap.
Yes they are complicated technology and almost certainly not as robust
as some CRT sets. But if a CRT gets say an average of X years life
before service and plasma or LCD gets say half of that before service,
does that really make plasma and LCD "crap"?
Both Plasma and LCD have a lot going for them, you can't just label
them as crap. I could say CRT's are crap because they are big, heavy,
ugly, and the scan lines are more visible.
Dave.
Sure, but what are the average stats re percentage of screens returned
in X years etc?
If you are in the TV repair business then you are obviously going to
see lots of TV's in for repair :->
What are the common failure modes?
etc...
It's easy to say Plasma and LCD are crap, but millions of people are
buying them and have been doing so for a fair while now, so they must
have something going for them.
If they were really "crap" technology then no-one would buy them and
the manufacturers would go out of business. So they obviously aren't
entirely crap.
Yes they are complicated technology and almost certainly not as robust
as some CRT sets. But if a CRT gets say an average of X years life
before service and plasma or LCD gets say half of that before service,
does that really make plasma and LCD "crap"?
Both Plasma and LCD have a lot going for them, you can't just label
them as crap. I could say CRT's are crap because they are big, heavy,
ugly, and the scan lines are more visible.
Dave.
M
Mr.T
Guest
"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182319185.477702.132000@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
even been available, before any repairs.
The fact that quite a few LCD/Plasma's are needing repair, and in many cases
being written off because they can't be repaired, and considering the
selling price, you have to wonder if they are worth it IMO. I recommend an
extended warranty to those who must have one.
course everyones needs and expectations are different. For example, I'm very
happy with my new $300 66cm flat widescreen CRT in the bedroom. Most people
I know would prefer to pay far more for a worse picture, simply to reduce
the size and weight, regardless of any reliability issues.
themselves.
However technical issues can actually be measured against the required
performance criteria, just as size and weight can.
LCD and Plasma don't perform as well in those areas. You get to choose
what's important to you.
And what the hell are you on about scan lines? That is more a function of
the video system. True High Def CRT TV's are available with progressive
scan. The only reason the scan lines would be any more visible is because
the resolution was better. That's a good thing IMO.
MrT.
news:1182319185.477702.132000@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Well all of my previous CRT TV's have lasted longer than LCD/Plasma have
even been available, before any repairs.
The fact that quite a few LCD/Plasma's are needing repair, and in many cases
being written off because they can't be repaired, and considering the
selling price, you have to wonder if they are worth it IMO. I recommend an
extended warranty to those who must have one.
Isn't marketing wonderfull
Most people cannot be told, they have to find out the hard way. And of
course everyones needs and expectations are different. For example, I'm very
happy with my new $300 66cm flat widescreen CRT in the bedroom. Most people
I know would prefer to pay far more for a worse picture, simply to reduce
the size and weight, regardless of any reliability issues.
If it also costs far more, and gives an inferior picture, then IMO.... YES.
See, everyone's entitled to spend their own money in the manner they choose
themselves.
However technical issues can actually be measured against the required
performance criteria, just as size and weight can.
LCD and Plasma don't perform as well in those areas. You get to choose
what's important to you.
And what the hell are you on about scan lines? That is more a function of
the video system. True High Def CRT TV's are available with progressive
scan. The only reason the scan lines would be any more visible is because
the resolution was better. That's a good thing IMO.
MrT.
D
David L. Jones
Guest
On Jun 20, 5:07 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
generation LCD's and plasma that have lasted longer than their CRT's
have. Like I said, I'd like to see some real stats, and I suspect CRT
would win out but I don't think it's as big a problem with Plasma's
and LCD's as some people make out.
screen and the form factor advantage at a reasonable price. Yes there
are CRT rear projection sets, but they are an immature technology, the
picture is crap in a bright environment, and they don't have the same
form factor advantages as plasma.
screen that looks great, can be wall mounted, and doesn't take up much
space.
The picture on both my Plasma and LCD shit over my old (by only a few
years) top of the range european 76cm 100Hz widescreen CRT. There is
no contest in my mind.
I though my CRT was the ducks guts until I sat my LCD next to it and
did an A-B.
Most people I know also think Plasma and LCD kills CRT in picture
quality, and I think you'll find that is the general public consensus.
But it's up to the individual of course, if you think CRT looks
better, then it does, to you, no problem with that.
do, they are pixel based. This gives a sharper picture without any
visible dead space between the lines. When you have them side-by-side
it's plainly obvious. I have not seen a hi-def CRT so cannot comment
on that, but I am comparing a top-of the-line standard-def CRT with a
"standard" 768 line LCD.
BTW, who would buy a hi-def CRT? Not too many of them around, and for
how long?
Wonder what the sales figures are...
Dave.
I know people with the exact opposite experience. They have early
generation LCD's and plasma that have lasted longer than their CRT's
have. Like I said, I'd like to see some real stats, and I suspect CRT
would win out but I don't think it's as big a problem with Plasma's
and LCD's as some people make out.
They are "worth it" if they do what you want. Plasma offers large
screen and the form factor advantage at a reasonable price. Yes there
are CRT rear projection sets, but they are an immature technology, the
picture is crap in a bright environment, and they don't have the same
form factor advantages as plasma.
Yeah, but people are still getting what they want, i.e. a really bigIt's easy to say Plasma and LCD are crap, but millions of people are
buying them and have been doing so for a fair while now, so they must
have something going for them.
Isn't marketing wonderfull
screen that looks great, can be wall mounted, and doesn't take up much
space.
Worse picture?
The picture on both my Plasma and LCD shit over my old (by only a few
years) top of the range european 76cm 100Hz widescreen CRT. There is
no contest in my mind.
I though my CRT was the ducks guts until I sat my LCD next to it and
did an A-B.
Most people I know also think Plasma and LCD kills CRT in picture
quality, and I think you'll find that is the general public consensus.
But it's up to the individual of course, if you think CRT looks
better, then it does, to you, no problem with that.
See above re the "inferior" picture.
Like I said, I'd like to see some real stats.
By that I mean that LCD's don't have visible "scan lines" like CRT's
do, they are pixel based. This gives a sharper picture without any
visible dead space between the lines. When you have them side-by-side
it's plainly obvious. I have not seen a hi-def CRT so cannot comment
on that, but I am comparing a top-of the-line standard-def CRT with a
"standard" 768 line LCD.
BTW, who would buy a hi-def CRT? Not too many of them around, and for
how long?
Wonder what the sales figures are...
Dave.
R
Ross Herbert
Guest
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:00:58 +1000, "Tim" <tim45@yahoo.com> wrote:
price to AU$1999 and I find it to be an excellent LCD set. I was
tossing up whether to buy the new Sony 40" X series but after seeing
the picture difference I couldn't see where the price difference was
justified. If you have a large room you may want to go over 40" but I
am happy with the 32" in my room. Personally, if I were looking to go
to a full HT setup, and I had the room, I would put the money into a
projector and screen, and not waste time with either LCD or Plasma.
I recently bought a Sony Bravia KDL 32V-2000 when they dropped the
price to AU$1999 and I find it to be an excellent LCD set. I was
tossing up whether to buy the new Sony 40" X series but after seeing
the picture difference I couldn't see where the price difference was
justified. If you have a large room you may want to go over 40" but I
am happy with the 32" in my room. Personally, if I were looking to go
to a full HT setup, and I had the room, I would put the money into a
projector and screen, and not waste time with either LCD or Plasma.
D
David L. Jones
Guest
On Jun 20, 6:48 pm, Ross Herbert <rherb...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
it's got fairly low power consumption. The in-laws got the X-series
40" KDL40X2000 and while it looks (physically) superb, the picture
isn't much better (the greater resolution being the only real
difference), but the menu system sucks. The X-series menu system is
totally different to the S-series and is much more difficult to use.
The X-series also does not appear to have the ability to mask out
unwanted channels, and the remote keeps switching between "favourites"
and all channels. I have to fix the thing up for them every second
week, crazy.
I certainly wouldn't pay the difference.
32" is a nice size for our kitchen.
I wanted bigger than the 42" plasma in the loungeroom but the wife
wouldn't have a bar of it :-(
Fitting in with the decor was her (and hence "our") main buying
criteria :->
Dave.
I've got a 32" S-Series Sony Bravia KLV32S200 and it is supurb, and
it's got fairly low power consumption. The in-laws got the X-series
40" KDL40X2000 and while it looks (physically) superb, the picture
isn't much better (the greater resolution being the only real
difference), but the menu system sucks. The X-series menu system is
totally different to the S-series and is much more difficult to use.
The X-series also does not appear to have the ability to mask out
unwanted channels, and the remote keeps switching between "favourites"
and all channels. I have to fix the thing up for them every second
week, crazy.
I certainly wouldn't pay the difference.
32" is a nice size for our kitchen.
I wanted bigger than the 42" plasma in the loungeroom but the wife
wouldn't have a bar of it :-(
Fitting in with the decor was her (and hence "our") main buying
criteria :->
Dave.
M
Mr.T
Guest
"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182325708.673192.46050@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
That's all relative.
my mind which had the better contrast, brightness, and color gamut, not to
mention a rather large price advantage
brightness, contrast and color gamut figures equal to or better than CRT,
I'd love to see them too. LCD's are forced to use tricks like dynamic
backlighting in an attempt to pretend the contrast is adequate. I find the
dark grey blacks, and light grey whites on a single scene rather
disappointing myself.
Use a CRT with a smaller dot pitch! And yes I do realise it is possible to
have smaller dot pitch with LCD, but to do that would cost even more money.
As I said, a new technology is required that allows more pixels at less
cost, without getting more dead ones. Plus higher brightness and contrast
ratio's.
seen are far worse IMO.
LCD/plasma by the time I want another one
love to have one
You might just complain about the petrol consumption though. Each to their
own.
MrT.
news:1182325708.673192.46050@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Of course.
That's all relative.
Agreed, not much impressed by any projection TV.
And having just done an A-B between a $300 CRT and a $1000 LCD, no doubt in
my mind which had the better contrast, brightness, and color gamut, not to
mention a rather large price advantage
Maybe, but not shown in any actual measurement I have seen.
Yes, if you have any actual measurements, not marketing hype, that shows LCD
brightness, contrast and color gamut figures equal to or better than CRT,
I'd love to see them too. LCD's are forced to use tricks like dynamic
backlighting in an attempt to pretend the contrast is adequate. I find the
dark grey blacks, and light grey whites on a single scene rather
disappointing myself.
What crap, space between pixels is the same as space between phosphor dots.
Use a CRT with a smaller dot pitch! And yes I do realise it is possible to
have smaller dot pitch with LCD, but to do that would cost even more money.
As I said, a new technology is required that allows more pixels at less
cost, without getting more dead ones. Plus higher brightness and contrast
ratio's.
If you compare with a crap CRT. But then the 720*480 pixel Plasma's I've
seen are far worse IMO.
Exactly!
Me for one, but I agree most people are not after viewing performance.
No problem at the moment. Hopefully there will be something better than
LCD/plasma by the time I want another one
Who cares? Sales figures for the Bugatti Veyron are extremely small, but I'd
love to have one
You might just complain about the petrol consumption though. Each to their
own.
MrT.
D
David L. Jones
Guest
On Jun 20, 9:36 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
Bravia LCD. The Bravia won hands down, as it does against any other
CRT I've even owned or saw.
what the measurements say.
I find it better, and yes, even better than my CRT in actual image
quality.
I didn't say LCD or Plasma are technically superior to CRT's in actual
image performance, but they do *look* better to most people.
LCD or 768 line plasma. And yes, I agree, 480 line Plasma's are
horrible and always have been. I refused to buy one on principle.
If you can't notice the scan lines on a CRT (even a top quality one)
when A-B'ing CRT and LCD then I think an eye checkup is in order!
I compared my $2700 Thomson Scenium 76cm, hardly a "crap" CRT. I find
the same results can be clearly seen in any TV store where CRT and LCD
are side-by-side. LCD clearly has a more "solid" image, and as such it
makes the scan lines on the CRT really stand out.
Perhaps I haven't looked hard enough and have been overly distracted
by the vastly superior image on all those gorgeous LCD's and
Plasma's :->
I do rather like the HD video loop they show in some stores, the one
with the girl in the white bikini...
two.
Dave.
Well I did an A-B against my $2700 Thomson CRT and my new $1300 SonyWorse picture?
The picture on both my Plasma and LCD shit over my old (by only a few
years) top of the range european 76cm 100Hz widescreen CRT. There is
no contest in my mind.
I though my CRT was the ducks guts until I sat my LCD next to it and
did an A-B.
And having just done an A-B between a $300 CRT and a $1000 LCD, no doubt in
my mind which had the better contrast, brightness, and color gamut, not to
mention a rather large price advantage
Bravia LCD. The Bravia won hands down, as it does against any other
CRT I've even owned or saw.
Most people would rather watch the TV that looks best to them, not
what the measurements say.
That's why I also have a Plasma for my more discerning movie viewing,
I find it better, and yes, even better than my CRT in actual image
quality.
I didn't say LCD or Plasma are technically superior to CRT's in actual
image performance, but they do *look* better to most people.
We aren't talking about 480 pixel plasma's here, we are talking CRT vs
LCD or 768 line plasma. And yes, I agree, 480 line Plasma's are
horrible and always have been. I refused to buy one on principle.
If you can't notice the scan lines on a CRT (even a top quality one)
when A-B'ing CRT and LCD then I think an eye checkup is in order!
I compared my $2700 Thomson Scenium 76cm, hardly a "crap" CRT. I find
the same results can be clearly seen in any TV store where CRT and LCD
are side-by-side. LCD clearly has a more "solid" image, and as such it
makes the scan lines on the CRT really stand out.
Funny, I don't recall seeing one in any shop I've been into lately.
Perhaps I haven't looked hard enough and have been overly distracted
by the vastly superior image on all those gorgeous LCD's and
Plasma's :->
I do rather like the HD video loop they show in some stores, the one
with the girl in the white bikini...
I'd buy your Hi-Def CRT now, they won't be around in another a year orHopefully there will be something better than
LCD/plasma by the time I want another one
two.
Dave.
R
Rudolf
Guest
Let me give you few recent examples:
Hitachi 50" plasma. Power supply died just after warranty. New power supply
board -- $1100 trade price.
I am doing at least 1-2 plasmas a week based on LG panels. Y-boards just
die.
Actually, Y-board is a very common failure on any plasma.
You can not repair them on component level unlike CRT TVs. Firstly, no
documentation is available, secondly no parts are available.
Same stands for LCD, but you do have chance to repair them on component
level. I did few after warranty.
LCDs do not have "power electronics" like plasma. As a result, there are
less components that get stressed, so they should last longer. I say
"should" because we have another aspect to the problem -- Asian design and
manufacture, but this is another story. You get what you paid for.
None of the plasma or LCD sold today will last you for the time expected.
After warranty expired, prepare to throw it away when any fault pops up.
They not built to last, but LCD has better chance of surviving.
And for plasmas -- ask any technician. Everyone has a plasma graveyard.
picture quality. It is purely on technology used and longevity/reliability
of the unit.
Rudolf
Hitachi 50" plasma. Power supply died just after warranty. New power supply
board -- $1100 trade price.
I am doing at least 1-2 plasmas a week based on LG panels. Y-boards just
die.
Actually, Y-board is a very common failure on any plasma.
You can not repair them on component level unlike CRT TVs. Firstly, no
documentation is available, secondly no parts are available.
Same stands for LCD, but you do have chance to repair them on component
level. I did few after warranty.
LCDs do not have "power electronics" like plasma. As a result, there are
less components that get stressed, so they should last longer. I say
"should" because we have another aspect to the problem -- Asian design and
manufacture, but this is another story. You get what you paid for.
None of the plasma or LCD sold today will last you for the time expected.
After warranty expired, prepare to throw it away when any fault pops up.
They not built to last, but LCD has better chance of surviving.
And for plasmas -- ask any technician. Everyone has a plasma graveyard.
I just did! And I am not basing my opinion on the visuall appearance or
picture quality. It is purely on technology used and longevity/reliability
of the unit.
Rudolf
J
Jerry G.
Guest
That's an ignorant answer. Each have their advantages and disadvantages
depending on the application!
--
Jerry G.
======
"Rudolf" <aus_electronics@rumatech.com> wrote in message
news:137gn33goq80h76@corp.supernews.com...
Yes.
Stay away from plasma. Crap technology.
Rudolf
"Tim" <tim45@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4677c582@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
depending on the application!
--
Jerry G.
======
"Rudolf" <aus_electronics@rumatech.com> wrote in message
news:137gn33goq80h76@corp.supernews.com...
Yes.
Stay away from plasma. Crap technology.
Rudolf
"Tim" <tim45@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4677c582@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
J
Jerry G.
Guest
Since CRT sets are no longer produced, what are you going to do when you can
no longer have this type of technology.
I remember when high end solid state sound systems came out. Even a few
years later, there were people saying that solid state sound systems were
crap. At least, even today, if you want to spend a big amount of dollars,
you can have a good tube amplifier. But, with CRT's there will soon be zero
availability.
One of the big problems with the CRT technology was the disposal problem.
When disposing of CRT's there are many environmental problems. This was one
of the reason for its disappearance. The Plasma is very close to the same
problems as with CRT disposal, but there are much fewer Plasma sets being
sold in comparison to the LCD sets.
Another problem with CRT sets, is that there are some X-Ray emissions, and
heavy EMF emissions. This is a possible health hazard. The government here
in Canada and the UK have been raising their safety standards. There are no
CRT sets that can pass these new regulations.
--
Jerry G.
======
"Rudolf" <aus_electronics@rumatech.com> wrote in message
news:137hckhokq12t40@corp.supernews.com...
I am doing a lot of repairs, including warranty repairs.
Plasma and LCD are crap, but lasma is "crappier". Nothing beats good old
CRT.
I am keeping my Panasonic CRT Rear-pro.
Rudolf
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:46789a30$0$22415$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
no longer have this type of technology.
I remember when high end solid state sound systems came out. Even a few
years later, there were people saying that solid state sound systems were
crap. At least, even today, if you want to spend a big amount of dollars,
you can have a good tube amplifier. But, with CRT's there will soon be zero
availability.
One of the big problems with the CRT technology was the disposal problem.
When disposing of CRT's there are many environmental problems. This was one
of the reason for its disappearance. The Plasma is very close to the same
problems as with CRT disposal, but there are much fewer Plasma sets being
sold in comparison to the LCD sets.
Another problem with CRT sets, is that there are some X-Ray emissions, and
heavy EMF emissions. This is a possible health hazard. The government here
in Canada and the UK have been raising their safety standards. There are no
CRT sets that can pass these new regulations.
--
Jerry G.
======
"Rudolf" <aus_electronics@rumatech.com> wrote in message
news:137hckhokq12t40@corp.supernews.com...
I am doing a lot of repairs, including warranty repairs.
Plasma and LCD are crap, but lasma is "crappier". Nothing beats good old
CRT.
I am keeping my Panasonic CRT Rear-pro.
Rudolf
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:46789a30$0$22415$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
J
Jerry G.
Guest
I must agree with you. I have used HDTV in CRT, LCD, and Plasma. I found
the CRT to not come close to a good quality properly set up Plasma or LCD.
LCD sets are best viewed in a lit area, while the Plasma are better viewed
in a dark or low lit area. LCD sets are more sensitive to be used in their
native mode. Plasma sets are more forgiving when it comes to having to use
them in the native mode.
My personal preference for at home, is a good HDTV Plasma set. What is neat
about the Plasma set, is that I can mount it right on the wall. When viewing
the Plasma from off to the side there is almost zero visible contrast
fall-off, and there is no discolouration in the pictures.
--
Jerry G.
======
"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182325708.673192.46050@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 20, 5:07 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
generation LCD's and plasma that have lasted longer than their CRT's
have. Like I said, I'd like to see some real stats, and I suspect CRT
would win out but I don't think it's as big a problem with Plasma's
and LCD's as some people make out.
screen and the form factor advantage at a reasonable price. Yes there
are CRT rear projection sets, but they are an immature technology, the
picture is crap in a bright environment, and they don't have the same
form factor advantages as plasma.
screen that looks great, can be wall mounted, and doesn't take up much
space.
The picture on both my Plasma and LCD shit over my old (by only a few
years) top of the range european 76cm 100Hz widescreen CRT. There is
no contest in my mind.
I though my CRT was the ducks guts until I sat my LCD next to it and
did an A-B.
Most people I know also think Plasma and LCD kills CRT in picture
quality, and I think you'll find that is the general public consensus.
But it's up to the individual of course, if you think CRT looks
better, then it does, to you, no problem with that.
do, they are pixel based. This gives a sharper picture without any
visible dead space between the lines. When you have them side-by-side
it's plainly obvious. I have not seen a hi-def CRT so cannot comment
on that, but I am comparing a top-of the-line standard-def CRT with a
"standard" 768 line LCD.
BTW, who would buy a hi-def CRT? Not too many of them around, and for
how long?
Wonder what the sales figures are...
Dave.
the CRT to not come close to a good quality properly set up Plasma or LCD.
LCD sets are best viewed in a lit area, while the Plasma are better viewed
in a dark or low lit area. LCD sets are more sensitive to be used in their
native mode. Plasma sets are more forgiving when it comes to having to use
them in the native mode.
My personal preference for at home, is a good HDTV Plasma set. What is neat
about the Plasma set, is that I can mount it right on the wall. When viewing
the Plasma from off to the side there is almost zero visible contrast
fall-off, and there is no discolouration in the pictures.
--
Jerry G.
======
"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182325708.673192.46050@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 20, 5:07 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
I know people with the exact opposite experience. They have early
generation LCD's and plasma that have lasted longer than their CRT's
have. Like I said, I'd like to see some real stats, and I suspect CRT
would win out but I don't think it's as big a problem with Plasma's
and LCD's as some people make out.
They are "worth it" if they do what you want. Plasma offers large
screen and the form factor advantage at a reasonable price. Yes there
are CRT rear projection sets, but they are an immature technology, the
picture is crap in a bright environment, and they don't have the same
form factor advantages as plasma.
Yeah, but people are still getting what they want, i.e. a really bigIt's easy to say Plasma and LCD are crap, but millions of people are
buying them and have been doing so for a fair while now, so they must
have something going for them.
Isn't marketing wonderfull
screen that looks great, can be wall mounted, and doesn't take up much
space.
Worse picture?
The picture on both my Plasma and LCD shit over my old (by only a few
years) top of the range european 76cm 100Hz widescreen CRT. There is
no contest in my mind.
I though my CRT was the ducks guts until I sat my LCD next to it and
did an A-B.
Most people I know also think Plasma and LCD kills CRT in picture
quality, and I think you'll find that is the general public consensus.
But it's up to the individual of course, if you think CRT looks
better, then it does, to you, no problem with that.
See above re the "inferior" picture.
Like I said, I'd like to see some real stats.
By that I mean that LCD's don't have visible "scan lines" like CRT's
do, they are pixel based. This gives a sharper picture without any
visible dead space between the lines. When you have them side-by-side
it's plainly obvious. I have not seen a hi-def CRT so cannot comment
on that, but I am comparing a top-of the-line standard-def CRT with a
"standard" 768 line LCD.
BTW, who would buy a hi-def CRT? Not too many of them around, and for
how long?
Wonder what the sales figures are...
Dave.
D
David L. Jones
Guest
On Jun 21, 8:18 am, "Rudolf" <aus_electron...@rumatech.com> wrote:
"crap" technology or not.
On the contrary, I think LCD and Plasma are superb technology which is
let down by poor after sales support.
I hope the situation changes, but until then it won't stop the vast
majority from buying LCD and Plasma.
actually runs much cooler than the other sets I looked at.
LCD displays have been around for more than 15 years, and they are a
pretty mature technology. Not uncommon to have LCD still working 15
years later. None of my LCD's have ever died on me.
Plasma don't have as good a track record as LCD's to be sure.
right?
Plasma and LCD are being sold in their millions in this country alone,
would be interesting to see the % returns in the first year compared
with CRT. It would not surprise me if they are not too dissimilar.
Dave.
Sure, that sucks, but really has nothing to do with whether they are
"crap" technology or not.
On the contrary, I think LCD and Plasma are superb technology which is
let down by poor after sales support.
I hope the situation changes, but until then it won't stop the vast
majority from buying LCD and Plasma.
That's why I made sure my Plasma (a Panasonic) had cooling fans and
actually runs much cooler than the other sets I looked at.
That's a big claim.
LCD displays have been around for more than 15 years, and they are a
pretty mature technology. Not uncommon to have LCD still working 15
years later. None of my LCD's have ever died on me.
Plasma don't have as good a track record as LCD's to be sure.
Yeah, but that would be because of the parts supply and cost problem
right?
Like I said, I'd like to see some real stats...
Plasma and LCD are being sold in their millions in this country alone,
would be interesting to see the % returns in the first year compared
with CRT. It would not surprise me if they are not too dissimilar.
Dave.
R
Rudolf
Guest
Plasma is worse. Much worse. Mainly due to the fact that lifetime of plasma
is less thhen one of CRT, although I must admit that many of current CRT
models from Asia will not have a long life.
All new technology is NOT SUPPORTED by manufacturers after warranty ends.
Ask any technician. Parts are either not available or VERY expensive.
I do not want to discuss quality of picture here, merely the fact that
plasma is crap as far as reliable technology goes.
Rudolf
R
Rudolf
Guest
Yes, exactly. Manufacturers do not want people to repair stuff, they want
them to buy a new one.
Ah! When technology is being developed, it is all good. First models do
last. But remember what you paid for it?
Now, everyone is jumping on it, making things cheaper and, as a result, it
is not going to last.
BTW, older plasma TVs do fail earlier than LCD ones do.
support means your investment will go down the drain once warranty is off. I
would love to see good support and I hate throwing away stuff that can be
salvaged, but this is life.
Depends on brand. Some are more reliable than others.
But then again, one of the brands I do repair for has quite high failure
rate in almost all units they sell. When I have to repair their LCD TV,
complete board goes to landfil. When I have to fix CRT one -- just couple of
small parts goes there.
Rudolf
P.S. For picture quality I would prefer plasma. HD one.