:confused:
I guess I need to do some more learnin' here..... I thought LCD's were not as black, and in fact really can only produce a blue-black. Not according to this site;

http://www.ausmedia.com.au/projector%20reviews.htm

Plasma vs. LCD Review

"Plasma is not as black because you’re really looking at the phosphors coating and phosphors reflect some light unless you're in a totally dark room and displaying a totally black screen."

Ugh. I'm not sure what that site is all about, but the writing is of similar quality to that of my brother's 5th grade students.

As with many things, there's a nugget of truth to what they're saying, but it's completely out of context and incorrectly presented. One could just as easily say "LCD is not as black because you’re really looking at the liquid crystals and crystals reflect some light unless you're in a totally dark room and displaying a totally black screen and even then since there's a backlight the crystals can only block some of it and that's why you get that blueish black." ;)

Any ambient light in a room will "lighten" a screen. This goes for plasma, LCD, DLP, CRT. Thus, ambient lighting will reduce the "effective" contrast ratio. Darker blacks and higher contrast ratios are generally the key advantages of a plasma TV, so ambient lighting tends to counteract these benefits. So, if you're pretty sure you'll be doing most of your watching during the day or with the lights cranked up, then those plasma advantages may not factor into your decision as much. If you have dark curtains and/or like to curl up at night with the lights off for movies, shows, and games, then the plasma benefits might be more relevant.

Ok I just looked at the site. The bullet list of LCD vs. Plasma points is laughable. Erase that site from your browser history and never go back.

jeff

OMG that page is BAD. I feel like I'm in Fry's talking to a salesman! That's about the extent of their AV knowledge, haha...

"We recommend you get the longest possible warranty (whatever the cost) on your Plasma display and check the Pixel Policy"

OMG!! Can I say tardo here??

Smells like it was written by an LCD fanboy.

Who wrote that bs..........Must someone that Clinton or Obama fired and needs something to do LOL

I guess pointing out specifically where the author is wrong is too much effort. So OMGing is all we get.

I guess pointing out specifically where the author is wrong is too much effort. So OMGing is all we get.Right...that page isn't worth the effort. I've never seen anything like that posing as a "review".:p

Well let's see. Click on any link from the place and you find that they are in the business of selling projectors and associated equipment. Hmmmmm? Any plasma PJs? Gee, no such animal. :rolleyes: But PLENTY of LCD and DLP PJs to sell.

It's always good to get the straight skinny from a trustworthy source. :p

Well let's see. Click on any link from the place and you find that they are in the business of selling projectors and associated equipment. Hmmmmm? Any plasma PJs? Gee, no such animal. :rolleyes: But PLENTY of LCD and DLP PJs to sell.

It's always good to get the straight skinny from a trustworthy source. :p


That makes the source suspect not wrong. Since you guys are too lazy to be specific I will do it for you. Here is an abridged version of the review:

1. LCD lasts up to twice as long as Plasma. Possibly true. Nobody without access to repair stats can say the claim is false.

2. LCD does not have "Burn In" issues as Plasma. True.

3. Plasma has the edge on contrast ratio. True.

4. LCD models are available in higher screen resolutions. True.

5. LCD is quieter and lighter. True.

6. Plasma can be made in larger sizes, LCD Smaller. True.

7. LCD can double as a computer monitor without "Burn-In". True.

8. Plasma can have a wider viewing angle up to 180 degree vs. 170 for the latest LCD models. True.

9. Plasma has had a faster pixel response time. True.

10. LCD's use much lower voltages internally (12V) and generate much less heat, Plasmas (300V) often need a fan to dissipate the heat. Fans = Noise, Heat = more power consumption than LCD. True.

11. More heat (Plasma) = More problems. True.

12. The easiest way to shorten components life is to heat them then cool them. True.

13. We have LCD watches because of LCD's low power consumption. Irrelevant but true.

14. LCD's use half the power of Plasmas. True if "half" is replaced with "significantly less".

15. LCD models have the blackest blacks Not true. but a lower contrast ratio than Plasma. True.

So let's see: the guy made 16 statements of which only one is not true. On top of that he made 5 statements that are positive for plasma.

Now that I did all the work for you, is still too much effort to tell this forum where he is wrong?

Ok

But id have to disagree with number 11. There seem to be much more problems with LCD's than on plasma.

Also #14 is debatable as well. I believe somebody on this forum (maybe D-nice? not sure) did a comparison and they both averaged out pretty close to using the same amount of power. Plasma's power usage ratings are used for a totally white screen its there "peak" power usage. Most of the time its much lower.

#2 it is possible to get burn-in on LCD, but that would be nit picking.

#4 unless you count dedicated LCD monitors, both techs are available in full 1080P.

Well, maybe if it's an LED-backlit LCD, then that may be probably what they were referring to. Otherwise, the only traditionally backlit LCD that I know that has the deepest blacks at the moment would probably be the Samsung ToC ones.

ramazur,

The issue isn't right or wrong. It's simply spewing the same old canards. Gee, a selective list of items, most favoring LCD and a few favoring Plasma. Who cares?

The time spent actually analyzing this screed point by point is a total waste. Your analysis is a case in point.

Plasma folks know why they like Plaz and the same goes for LCD folks.

Gee, let's see how stupid this can get.

Longevity? You use funny logic to make a supposed analytical point. The proper assessment is neither tech is favored without the repair data. Read your comment ... laughable.

I have Computer monitor LCDs with burn-in sitting in my house as I type. Huh?

Enough ... I'm bored already.

The suggestion and point of all of this is that the article is inherently misleading as it begins with what appear to be statements of fact that are designed to support the idea that LCD is supperior to Plasma. Since the the acceptable approach to analyzing this is point by point....

1. LCD lasts up to twice as long as Plasma. Possibly true. Nobody without access to repair stats can say the claim is false.

You can not prove something does not exist. But you can not find any evidence to suggest that an LCD will last twice as long to the average viewer. EXTREMELY MISLEADING.

2. LCD does not have "Burn In" issues as Plasma. True.

No arguement, but the implication is that most consumers will have burn in. Come on, anyone who has hung around here long enough knows that that this is a minor issue that is not likely to affect the average consumer. There are so many of these issues that are negated on the better, more modern sets. MISLEADING

3. Plasma has the edge on contrast ratio. True.

4. LCD models are available in higher screen resolutions. True.

But this does not equate to a better picture quality at this time as there is "general consumer" content beyond 1080P....so at best IRRELEVENT, and in my opinion, MISLEADING

5. LCD is quieter and lighter. True.

First quieter...only an issue on a small amount of sets for a small amount of people. You do not see or hear people complaining about this often. As there are those who do, I'll concede.

Now weight. 15% lighter. OK....again, so what? If you wall mount, you will still need structural support. If you stand mount, extra weight makes it more stable. Who moves their set often? Only an issue when you are alone and need to move the set. MISLEADING

6. Plasma can be made in larger sizes, LCD Smaller. True.

Who cares?

7. LCD can double as a computer monitor without "Burn-In". True.

The best point in this list.

8. Plasma can have a wider viewing angle up to 180 degree vs. 170 for the latest LCD models. True.

9. Plasma has had a faster pixel response time. True.

10. LCD's use much lower voltages internally (12V) and generate much less heat, Plasmas (300V) often need a fan to dissipate the heat. Fans = Noise, Heat = more power consumption than LCD. True.

We buy $2,500 sets, $5,000 in audio, $1,500 for a nice A/V stand, and $3 a month is a big deal? MISLEADING

11. More heat (Plasma) = More problems. True.

The quality of the components and their resistance to heat and cooling has much more to do with problems or issues than heating and cooling itself. Nobody without access to repair stats can say the claim is true, relevant, or actually results in more problems. MISLEADING

12. The easiest way to shorten components life is to heat them then cool them. True.

See 11. MISLEADING

13. We have LCD watches because of LCD's low power consumption. Irrelevant but true.

14. LCD's use half the power of Plasmas. True if "half" is replaced with "significantly less".

We have already been over this one.

15. LCD models have the blackest blacks Not true. but a lower contrast ratio than Plasma. True.

So not true, thus MISLEADING......

Just called the ABT repair department and was told that they repair more plasmas than LCDs in actual numbers. It is important to note that, on average, LCDs outsell plasmas three to one. So, smaller plasma sales result in higher number of defective plasma sets. This is not a good thing, as Martha would say.

My next call was to Best Buy's 1-888 number. The answer: we are getting a lot of more plasmas mainly with the burnt out screens. What?!! Even now with all that progress? Yes, even now, was the answer.