I always wanted to know why I can find a nice $42" Plasma for under $1k, but a good 40" LCD runs about $1299+. I don't believe the tech can be more expensive than Plasma, because we all know how many pq issues LCDs have over Plasma displays. Black Levels, Viewing Angles, etc.

I like the fact LCD has been a more energy efficient technology, but starting this year Plasma displays will be just as energy efficent, so that is an advantage loss for LCD.

What does LCD offer me for the extra price that I can't get from a Plasma?

I don't think the price difference is as big as you make it sound. Don't 40" LCD's from pretty good to good brands run about $750-1000?


Yeah, there are cheaper sets, but they don't compare to a 42" Panny when it comes to overall PQ.

I'm asking why can't I find a 40" LCD that has just as good PQ as a 42" Panny for just around the same price or less.

Well that Sony is still more expensive and can it compare in regards to pq?

Well first of all, comparing Plasma's to LCD is apples to oranges. You can't directly compare an LCD to a Plasma because they're completely different. Each technology is better suited for certain viewing environments. Lets not make this into a Plasma vs LCD war.

IMHO, Toshiba LCD's are comparable to Panasonic Plasma's as far as price/performance goes for their respective technologies. If you look at the high-end Plasma's vs high-end LCD's, they are similarly priced.

There are more available models when it comes to LCD's, so yeah, there may be times where there will be a comparable Plasma that's cheaper. This may be because LCD is outselling Plasma so they're generally a little more expensive.

of course you can compare plasma and lcd. would there be an avs forum if you couldn't?:p

it's a good question. my take is that plasma is an older technology further along on its r&d payback, as well as, the fact that the public fancies lcd's more, and supply and demand is a factor.

i'd like to hear from someone with a more specific, researched answer....


TVbc

of course you can compare plasma and lcd. would there be an avs forum if you couldn't?:p

it's a good question. my take is that plasma is an older technology further along on its r&d payback, as well as, the fact that the public fancies lcd's more, and supply and demand is a factor.

i'd like to hear from someone with a more specific, researched answer....


TVbc
There is an AVS forum to discuss AV equipment, but why do you think they're in separate discussion forums? Like I said, apples to oranges. Each are better suited for certain viewing environments or applications. It's very difficult to compare a Plasma to an LCD considering everyone's viewing environments or needs are different.

There is an answer to the original question, and I agree with you and that it's due to the fact that LCD is outselling Plasma, so the demand is higher.

Well first of all, comparing Plasma's to LCD is apples to oranges. You can't directly compare an LCD to a Plasma because they're completely different. Each technology is better suited for certain viewing environments. Lets not make this into a Plasma vs LCD war.

IMHO, Toshiba LCD's are comparable to Panasonic Plasma's as far as price/performance goes for their respective technologies. If you look at the high-end Plasma's vs high-end LCD's, they are similarly priced.

There are more available models when it comes to LCD's, so yeah, there may be times where there will be a comparable Plasma that's cheaper. This may be because LCD is outselling Plasma so they're generally a little more expensive.

I don't believe it's like comparing Apples and Oranges, because fruit has no flaws. You either like it, or you don't. They are both fruit and they don't have to reach a certain standard. In regards to pq there is a standard of what the movie and broadcast industry has agreed on, and the technology that can come closest to that standard is the better technology. Maybe, I'm wrong, but I wouldn't consider LCD the modern tech that has come the closest.

I just believe that most LCDs should be much cheaper than Plasma displays, because for the most part they are just a step behind Plasma when it comes to overall pq. The LED LCD's have received great reviews, but they cost a considerable amount more than a competeing Plasma with just as good, or better pq.

I just need help understanding why I would want to pay more for an LCD when the pq will not be as good? What advantage does LCD have over Plasma? I know it's not burn-in, because that flaw has been taken care of. I've never seen a post on the Plasma forum about any Plasmas from the past 2-3 years suffering from any burn-in.


Forgot to mention, one obvious advantage LCD has over Plasma is smaller screen sizes, but I'm not looking for anything smaller than 42".

I think it all depends on what size range you are comparing. Plasmas have the natural price advantage on the large side of 40" and lcd's have the natural price advantage on the small side of 40". In the middle (around and near the 40" size), there has been a lot of variation in cheaper vs. expensive, depending on feature set, brandname, and 720 vs. 1080 spec.

I don't believe it's like comparing Apples and Oranges, because fruit has no flaws. You either like it, or you don't. They are both fruit and they don't have to reach a certain standard. In regards to pq there is a standard of what the movie and broadcast industry has agreed on, and the technology that can come closest to that standard is the better technology. Maybe, I'm wrong, but I wouldn't consider LCD the modern tech that has come the closest.
First of all, not everyone likes what the "standard" looks like. Everyone has an opinion of what looks good. Plus HDTV's aren't strictly used for movie watching, and not everyone has the same viewing conditions. There are other factors when it comes to buying a TV because each technology has their positives and negatives. So to me, I don't see how anyone can make a general comparison between x Plasma vs x LCD. Sure you compare the technologies as a whole, but how can you compare brands between two different technologies? When buying a TV, you should consider what you'll be using your TV for, weigh out the positives and negatives of each technology, pick one, then pick a model.

I just believe that most LCDs should be much cheaper than Plasma displays, because for the most part they are just a step behind Plasma when it comes to overall pq. The LED LCD's have received great reviews, but they cost a considerable amount more than a competeing Plasma with just as good, or better pq.
Again, it's supply and demand. LCD is the more popular technology. If we went off overall PQ alone, it would be a different story. But again, there are other factors that people consider when buying a TV (that I won't get into because I don't want to start a big flame war).

I think it all depends on what size range you are comparing. Plasmas have the natural price advantage on the large side of 40" and lcd's have the natural price advantage on the small side of 40". In the middle (around and near the 40" size), there has been a lot of variation in cheaper vs. expensive, depending on feature set, brandname, and 720 vs. 1080 spec.


So, LCDs are more expensive because there is a high demand for them, not because it's a better technology? That is rediculous to be quite honest. Price should be determined by performance and not because so many J6Ps want there 32" Olevia LCD.

There are reasons why the demand is higher. Again, there are other factors other than overall PQ. But I won't open that can of worms. All I'll say is you can't say one technology is better based on PQ alone.

There are reasons why the demand is higher. Again, there are other factors other than overall PQ. But I won't open that can of worms.

Well if it's useful information please tell, because I'm really curious.

There are reasons why the demand is higher. Again, there are other factors other than overall PQ. But I won't open that can of worms. All I'll say is you can't say one technology is better based on PQ alone.

So, your saying it's the buyers who choose what they believe is the better tech, even though technically they are wrong? Also, why wouldn't someone like to watch a movie, or any program on T.V. the way it's meant to be seen?

Are you saying some people actually prefer the vivid settings over more accurate settings? I thought those people just didn't want to learn how to set it up, not that they actually prefer an inaccurate looking picture.

Well if it's useful information please tell, because I'm really curious.
Nu uh, I'm not going to be the one to start a big flame war. ;)

So, your saying it's the buyers who choose what they believe is the better tech, even though technically they are wrong? Also, why wouldn't someone like to watch a movie, or any program on T.V. the way it's meant to be seen?
Who said they're wrong? Buyers choose what they like, who are we to tell them they're wrong? Seems to me you prefer Plasma and you think it's the superior tech. :)
But yeah, not everyone likes what the standard looks like. You're also making it sound like LCD is vastly inferior as far as PQ goes when that's not the case (IMHO). Again, there are other factors when it comes to buying a TV, like your viewing environment/lighting conditions, or what you'll be using the TV for. Power consumption is also a concern for some people.
Are you saying some people actually prefer the vivid settings over more accurate settings? I thought those people just didn't want to learn how to set it up, not that they actually prefer an inaccurate looking picture.
Yeah, a lot of people like the vivid picture rather than "what it should look like". Again, everyone's different and everyone has an opinion on what looks good.

Nu uh, I'm not going to be the one to start a big flame war. ;)


Who said they're wrong? Buyers choose what they like, who are we to tell them they're wrong? Seems to me you prefer Plasma and you think it's the superior tech. :)
But yeah, not everyone likes what the standard looks like. You're also making it sound like LCD is vastly inferior as far as PQ goes when that's not the case (IMHO). Again, there are other factors when it comes to buying a TV, like your viewing environment/lighting conditions, or what you'll be using the TV for. Power consumption is also a concern for some people.

Yeah, a lot of people like the vivid picture rather than "what it should look like". Again, everyone's different and everyone has an opinion on what looks good.


In regards to pq, yes I believe Plasma has the edge, but that doesn't mean I believe it's vastly superior. I just wanted to know why LCDs cost more when they are a small step behind Plasma in pq. I wanted to know what advantages LCD has over Plasmas that merits that extra $$$$. You say it's supply and demand, and again that is just stupid, not your answer mind you, because I believe you, it's just sad that is the reason why.

I wished LCD was an overall better tech, because I would pay the premium, but the fact is that the only advantage I know of is that they are more energy efficient and are great in bright lit rooms. Though, both advantages are lost when the new 2009 Panny plasmas arrive, because they are just as energy efficient and will be just as good in bright lit rooms.

FWIW, I own a Sony 26" LCD and a Panny 58" Plasma.

If you think plasmas are better and you say they are cheaper then what are you complaining about? I don't even think there is much price difference as I evidenced above.

If you think plasmas are better and you say they are cheaper then what are you complaining about? I don't even think there is much price difference as I evidenced above.

I want to know why people prefer LCD at screen sizes over 40" when they cost more and don't have as good blacks, viewing angles, etc.? What am I missing? There must be some kind of advantage LCDs have over Plasmas that are having so many people preferring that tech.

Nu uh, I'm not going to be the one to start a big flame war. ;)


Who said they're wrong? Buyers choose what they like, who are we to tell them they're wrong? Seems to me you prefer Plasma and you think it's the superior tech. :)
But yeah, not everyone likes what the standard looks like. You're also making it sound like LCD is vastly inferior as far as PQ goes when that's not the case (IMHO). Again, there are other factors when it comes to buying a TV, like your viewing environment/lighting conditions, or what you'll be using the TV for. Power consumption is also a concern for some people.

Yeah, a lot of people like the vivid picture rather than "what it should look like". Again, everyone's different and everyone has an opinion on what looks good.


I agree with him... plasmas have their advantage and lcds have theirs...

Also LCD's have come a long way and don't have as much disadvantages as before when compared to plasmas especially when the tv is being used other than movie watching.

LCd's are more popular so they will be priced as so thanks to supply and demand.

Reasons how it started it could be because the LCD have that awe factor when spotting it in a store when the brightest one takes the cake regardless of picture quality in homes.

Or it could be plasmas past history of burn-in and image retention problems that many don't want to deal with and worry about.

Hey who knows really...:confused:

I want to know why people prefer LCD at screen sizes over 40" when they cost more and don't have as good blacks, viewing angles, etc.? What am I missing, because there must be some kind of advantage LCDs have over Plasmas that are having so many people preferring that tech.

Well, I personally would only get an LCD for the lower power consumption and because I would use one as a monitor. Maybe the blacks are good enough for most people, they are good enough for me. People don't always buy whats the absolute best, not everyone is going out and buying XBR8s and Pioneer Kuros just because they are better.

Taken from a MSNBC.com article.

"With little price difference, most people would choose LCD TVs because of their higher resolution, Wang said.?"

Looks like my question has been answered. This makes some sense, especially if people were to use those screens as a computer monitor. Though, are the majority of people making there buying decisions soley based on resolution???

Also, I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea, I'm not trying to bash LCD, I'm only trying to find the advantages it might have that will persuade me to buy a bigger LCD screen in the future.

How old is that article? There are a lot of 1080p Plasmas.

How old is that article? There are a lot of 1080p Plasmas.

True, maybe they were comparing 40" LCD to 42" Plasmas, because there are just a few 42" 1080p Plasmas.

I believe you are comparing 720p Plasma Displays to 1080 LCD Displays.

While plasmas have traditionally been somewhat cheaper(perhaps cheaper to make? or due to lagging sales) you always pay more for higher end features.

Though, 1080p is wasted on anything 52" or smaller :) unless you're using it as a computer monitor.

And to the person who was shocked that people would buy something because it has a "higher", ie larger, resolution. You do realize how the average consumer thinks and how marketing is geared for them right?

Also, Plasma can still get Screen Burn. I've seen it myself on a Samsung PN50A550 display that's sitting in my bedroom. It's not impossible.

.....

why do you think they're in separate discussion forums? Like I said, apples to oranges. .....


directly and specifically because of threads like this, though this is quite tame; but already it has veered from the original question, even the OP is starting to engender flames. there is in fact a separate thread specifically and only for discussing the very old plasma-led debate.

look the comparison is in the picture and how you perceive it and what you like. but the question is why is LED priced higher. the op thinks supply and demand is stupid. not much more to say to him.


TVbc

...........
but the fact is that the only advantage I know of is that they are more energy efficient and are great in bright lit rooms. Though, both advantages are lost when the new 2009 Panny plasmas arrive, because they are just as energy efficient and will be just as good in bright lit rooms.

I think the "great in bright lit rooms" reason is huge. I asked a few people I know why they got an LCD instead of a plasma and bright rooms and reflections were the 2 reasons.
It's the reason why I own a LCD.
It doesn't matter how real, natural or "better" a plasma may be if you cant see the freakin' TV.
I went out and picked out 2 TV's last year for my in-laws new house. I got a 50" plasma for the up-stairs game room and a 46" LCD for the living room. Both look great in their viewing environments. The plasma would be totally un-watchable if it were in the living room. That's probably a lot more common then you think. I don't see why that's so hard to understand.

So, if I'm using the T.V. in a dedicated home theater environment then should I just stick with Plasma?

Sunlight glare will not be a problem where the T.V. will be installed.

Used for movies, Cable and video games.

Have been playing games on my older Plasma and it has yet to produce burn-in.

yep, the Pioneer or the Panny's

Better blacks and deeper colors. LCD's are brighter generally, which makes them seem better in show rooms. I've seen the 720p Panasonic 50PX80u set to right conditions look outstanding, that is the low end of Panny plasma's and you can find for under $1k.

there's probably some Sony XBR fans that may disagree with that, but Pioneer and mainly plasma's got CNET"s "Best HDTV" awards last year.

I want to know why people prefer LCD at screen sizes over 40" when they cost more and don't have as good blacks, viewing angles, etc.? What am I missing? There must be some kind of advantage LCDs have over Plasmas that are having so many people preferring that tech.
That may have been true a few years ago but recent LCD technology has vastly improved black levels, motion blur and viewing angles. Likewise, plasma panels now consume less power than they have in the past and are now starting to offer 1080P resolution.

My sister has a 42" Panny plasma I was only briefly able to "play" with. Once I decided to make the move to HDTV, I did a ton of research and settled on a 46" Samsung series 800 LCD which I was able to get on sale for under $1800. Now that my LCD HDTV has been in operation for 3 weeks, I'm still amazed by the stunning clarity, brilliance and contrast this LCD panel offers. A leading consumer pegged the similar series 600 52" Samsung as "the best LCD TV we've ever tested".

What I really wanted was either one of the LED backlit LCD panels or a 52" OLED set. Those technologies are still a bit new to be price competitive but I'll be satisfied with my 46" LCD which is less than 2" thick for many years.

Yeah, there are cheaper sets, but they don't compare to a 42" Panny when it comes to overall PQ.

I'm asking why can't I find a 40" LCD that has just as good PQ as a 42" Panny for just around the same price or less.

Well that Sony is still more expensive and can it compare in regards to pq?

I typically prefer plasmas, but the Samsung LN40A550 that I purchased about 5 months ago was cheaper than a comparable Panasonic 40" PZ80 by a couple hundred dollars. The picture quality I would say is also comparable with each having their plus's and minus's.

.

Though, 1080p is wasted on anything 52" or smaller :) unless you're using it as a computer monitor.

.

That simply isn't true and way to general of a statement. A 42" at 4-5 feet will benefit 1080p much more than a 50-52" at 9-10'. The viewing distance, the source of the material and the eye sight of the viewer will best determine the benefit of 1080p not the size of the set. :)

To put another perspective upon it, the only real scenario where plasma really delivers to its strengths is if the room it is to be used is utterly pitch dark and the viewer demands absolutely consistent performance while viewing it at an angle. If you think about all the people who buy tv's, the ones who have to meet those specific criteria first and foremost are very few. A great number of prospective customers will be watching in varied lighting conditions and are not going to get bent out of shape if an lcd panel doesn't look perfect off-angle.

In a room with lighting, the lcd will simply be the most versatile technology to compete against that lighting to very impressive result. It doesn't need extreme or wacky torch modes to do it, either. It simply is best equipped to do the job proper in an ambient lighting scenario (and if the scenario dictates torch mode to keep up, then it can do that, too ;) ). It may not be capable of absolute black, but that will never be possible in any room with some amount of lighting, anyway. The "deep black" that an lcd can reach will be as black as black can get in such conditions, so there is no penalty.

Put simply, the lcd will come out looking the best over a wide range of typical viewing room conditions. That's why it is a popular pick, and arguably the correct pick, in the context of what the common viewing room is really like.

It's like if you consider a front projector setup. No doubt, they can achieve incredible things in an appropriate screening room. However, they are still not for everybody, even if they were on par in cost to direct-view displays. If you put such a projector in any given living room at any given time of the day, quite likely the result will be worse than even the most mediocre lcd panel in the same room. Granted, it potentially can be a very large screen size that an lcd panel could never compete against, but if it is a faded mess in a large screen, it's still not a worthwhile achievement.

To put another perspective upon it, the only real scenario where plasma really delivers to its strengths is if the room it is to be used is utterly pitch dark and the viewer demands absolutely consistent performance while viewing it at an angle. If you think about all the people who buy tv's, the ones who have to meet those specific criteria first and foremost are very few. A great number of prospective customers will be watching in varied lighting conditions and are not going to get bent out of shape if an lcd panel doesn't look perfect off-angle.

In a room with lighting, the lcd will simply be the most versatile technology to compete against that lighting to very impressive result. It doesn't need extreme or wacky torch modes to do it, either. It simply is best equipped to do the job proper in an ambient lighting scenario (and if the scenario dictates torch mode to keep up, then it can do that, too ;) ). It may not be capable of absolute black, but that will never be possible in any room with some amount of lighting, anyway. The "deep black" that an lcd can reach will be as black as black can get in such conditions, so there is no penalty.



How many times does the plasma needs utterly pitch dark myth need to be debunked? I have both a plasma and an LCD with the plasma in a room that typically gets more room light than the LCD and I still prefer the picture of my plasma.

It "needs" it, to the extent of being able to enjoy the ultimate black rendition that plasma is capable of. ;) Certainly, it can also be enjoyed in environments that fall short of that (but pitch dark is the "money shot" for this kind of device...the raison d'etre...if you aren't using it in such an environment, then it simply becomes as good as any other "mere mortal" display technology). Similarly, the black rendition of many lcd's are quite adequate in commonly occuring viewing conditions that are short of pitch dark. That was really the point I was working toward- in more typical environments that are neither pitch black or brilliantly lit, lcd's are certainly worth their popularity, despite any supposed shortcomings of getting as black as plasma. Performance at the extremes is really not the end all-be all unless the actual viewing environment will actually be in one of those extremes.

For the sake of argument lets forget that TVs smaller than 40" exist.

As far as the price/size dilemma goes, plasma only really has an advantage in the sub-$1500 range. Try getting a good 40" LCD comparable to a panny 85U for under $1k, or a 50" 1080p for $1200. Not going to happen. After that price point, it is pretty easy to get a display of similar size and similar cost for both technologies.

In the $1500-$3000 range, I would say LCD has an advantage due to marketing, though you are considering Kuros and 800U/850U Pannys at this price point which are technically better displays.

Upwards of $3k it's elites vs. LED backlit LCDs, so tech-wise it's a crapshoot, and people spending that much aren't as easily swayed by hype imho.

personally i don't get the whole washed out/reflective argument. Matte LCD panels can look just as washed out in a bright enough room; my computer monitor sure does. As far as reflectivity goes, i don't think any flat panel will ever be as reflective as a CRT is, and We've all lived with one of those for years. The little bit of glare fo my plasma isn't near as bad as it could be on my old 32" sony trinitron

personally i don't get the whole washed out/reflective argument. Matte LCD panels can look just as washed out in a bright enough room; my computer monitor sure does. As far as reflectivity goes, i don't think any flat panel will ever be as reflective as a CRT is, and We've all lived with one of those for years. The little bit of glare fo my plasma isn't near as bad as it could be on my old 32" sony trinitron

Regarding glare, I've never really made it an issue for me but one thing you have to keep in mind is that people are typically going from a 32" or smaller CRT to a display 42" to 50". The CRT may be just as much or more reflective but the smaller size minimizes the effect much more than a 42" and even more so if going to a 50" or larger TV.