My dad wants to buy a HDTV for my mom as an anniversary gift since she's been wanting one over the fireplace for a while. So the requirements are a 52 inch, LCD, 1080p, 120 Hz, $1600 neighborhood. It will mounted above the fireplace on a brick chimney with a tilting mount. They will need to have good sound (try to refrain from laughing) from the panel b/c they do not have any audio gear to hook it up to. They will be watching the news mostly but on the weekends they watch sports, football, basketball, and Nascar so I want a set that can excel at fast motion. They will be sitting off center, on either side of the chimney, maybe 6 - 10 feet away. HD gurus, your suggestions are humbly appreciated.

It will mounted above the fireplace

Two words of advice..

Eye Level
;)

My dad wants to buy a HDTV for my mom as an anniversary gift since she's been wanting one over the fireplace for a while. So the requirements are a 52 inch, LCD, 1080p, 120 Hz, $1600 neighborhood. It will mounted above the fireplace on a brick chimney with a tilting mount. They will need to have good sound (try to refrain from laughing) from the panel b/c they do not have any audio gear to hook it up to. They will be watching the news mostly but on the weekends they watch sports, football, basketball, and Nascar so I want a set that can excel at fast motion. They will be sitting off center, on either side of the chimney, maybe 6 - 10 feet away. HD gurus, your suggestions are humbly appreciated.LCDs are a poor choice for sports due to inherent motion blur even on sets costing twice what your budget is. And off-center viewing is a huge problem with all LCDs to varying degrees.

Is a 50" 1080p Plasma out of the question? If so, why? You can get a good one for less than your budget (Panasonic TC-P50G10 or G15 for instance). And burn-in is a thing of the past with the Panasonic Plasmas (has been for more than a few years now) so the news shouldn't pose a problem. I have news showing on my older 2007 Plasma every single day for 4-6 hours and the screen has no burn-in at all. I recently bought a 46G10 and i'm not the least concerned about my news watching. The Plasma has no motion blur and the image doesn't degrade at all in off-center viewing; two major advantages over even the best LCD TVs regardless of their high price.

Because they will be sitting so close? If they were sitting at the other end of the room then maybe they could put it higher up the chimney?

I'd go for a Plasma due to the placement of the set and the viewing angle needed.

The downside will be weight. These suckers are heavy and it sounds like it is to be mounted to brick. I'd have a pro do the install. LCD is a lot lighter in weight.

I agree with the previous poster that suggested reconsidering the placement of the set to eye level. Will eliminate the mounting issue and give a better picture.

LCDs are a poor choice for sports due to inherent motion blur even on sets costing twice what your budget is. And off-center viewing is a huge problem with all LCDs to varying degrees.

Is a 50" 1080p Plasma out of the question? If so, why? You can get a good one for less than your budget (Panasonic TC-P50G10 or G15 for instance). And burn-in is a thing of the past with the Panasonic Plasmas (has been for more than a few years now) so the news shouldn't pose a problem. I have news showing on my older 2007 Plasma every single day for 4-6 hours and the screen has no burn-in at all. I recently bought a 46G10 and i'm not the least concerned about my news watching. The Plasma has no motion blur and the image doesn't degrade at all in off-center viewing; two major advantages over even the best LCD TVs regardless of their high price.

Im sorry, But!. The sports LCD thing is just plain bullcrap. Now when talking about movies and panning yes you do see a smoother image from plasma. No doubt.

But I watch baseball, football, basketball, soccerf, tennis and you cant tell a dam difference between a plasma and an LCD.

Reviewers have side by sided the best plasmas and LCD and there just is no viewable difference.

If you must mount the set above eye level I recommend plasma. If not then more variables are needed such as day time night viewing direct sunlight etc.

I'd go for a Plasma due to the placement of the set and the viewing angle needed. The downside will be weight. These suckers are heavy and it sounds like it is to be mounted to brick. I'd have a pro do the install. LCD is a lot lighter in weight.LCD is not a lot lighter. A 50" Panasonic G10 weighs 70 lbs, while a 52" Sharp LCD weighs 64 lbs, a 52" Samsung LCD weighs 63 lbs, and a 52" Sony LCD weighs 66 lbs (TV only without stand, taken from BB's site). Previous Plasma and LCD TVs weighed a lot more than the current models do and people have been mounting those old TVs to brick for many years without incident and the new ones would be even less of a problem. The weight difference between current Plasma TVs and LCD TVs is inconsequential and really a non-issue.



Im sorry, But!. The sports LCD thing is just plain bullcrap......I watch baseball, football, basketball, soccerf, tennis and you cant tell a dam difference between a plasma and an LCD.

Reviewers have side by sided the best plasmas and LCD and there just is no viewable difference.Not bullcrap at all. That's great that you can't see the motion blur, but i see it on current LCD TVs and lots of other people do too. There are many many people in the various Panasonic and Samsung Plasma threads who bought a new LCD, returned them for various issues and problems and replaced it with a Plasma, and report that the Plasma does this and that better and one of the common complaints is motion blur on the LCD, while there is none on the Plasma that replaced it. These are direct experiences from people who tried both and it mirrors my own experience with LCDs. It's not as bad as it was in previous years, but still i see it, they see it, and it is still a problem.

Im sorry, But!. The sports LCD thing is just plain bullcrap. Now when talking about movies and panning yes you do see a smoother image from plasma. No doubt.

But I watch baseball, football, basketball, soccerf, tennis and you cant tell a dam difference between a plasma and an LCD.

Reviewers have side by sided the best plasmas and LCD and there just is no viewable difference.

If you must mount the set above eye level I recommend plasma. If not then more variables are needed such as day time night viewing direct sunlight etc.

I think what you're talking about more is the limitations of the source. Any compressed HD through cable or satellite is going to look relatively the same no matter which type of TV you view it on. A blu ray would be a different story however.

I see plenty of blur on my plasma with TV sports that I never wee with a movie or a sports movie on a disc just because cox compress the data so much.

I think what you're talking about more is the limitations of the source. Any compressed HD through cable or satellite is going to look relatively the same no matter which type of TV you view it on. A blu ray would be a different story however.

I see plenty of blur on my plasma with TV sports that I never wee with a movie or a sports movie on a disc just because cox compress the data so much.

The source of my discontent was that it was stated by the poster that sports look like crap on the LCD. It does not matter if its blu ray or not for sports. You watch your sports on blu ray?

Not bullcrap at all. That's great that you can't see the motion blur, but i see it on current LCD TVs and lots of other people do too. There are many many people in the various Panasonic and Samsung Plasma threads who bought a new LCD, returned them for various issues and problems and replaced it with a Plasma, and report that the Plasma does this and that better and one of the common complaints is motion blur on the LCD, while there is none on the Plasma that replaced it. These are direct experiences from people who tried both and it mirrors my own experience with LCDs. It's not as bad as it was in previous years, but still i see it, they see it, and it is still a problem.

Definitly.
LCD still falls noticably short of plasma when comes to fast moving scenes and sports.
To argue this is to argue the technology of LCD. Thats just the way it is.

ANd I (like you) think its great that serialmike doesn't see the blurring.
it just goes to show that LCD can work for some people as a big screen TV.

Usually, If someon is used to LCD then they don't usually dont have much of an issue with all the blurr.
Its only when viewing a plasma for a while and then looking at an LCD that it really stands out and looks bad.

Definitly.
LCD still falls noticably short of plasma when comes to fast moving scenes and sports.
To argue this is to argue the technology of LCD. Thats just the way it is.

ANd I (like you) think its great that serialmike doesn't see the blurring.
it just goes to show that LCD can work for some people as a big screen TV.

Usually, If someon is used to LCD then they don't usually dont have much of an issue with all the blurr.
Its only when viewing a plasma for a while and then looking at an LCD that it really stands out and looks bad.

I had plasma. It does not fit my daytime sunlight needs. It also does not fit my gaming needs as I have burned plasmas.

I am very hard to please as far as image quality goes. I completly understand the differences of the technologies.

I can guarantee you that sports is very very very hard to see any difference at all. I can tell you that plasma is smooth in motion when there are long sweeping pans.

But when you watch sports on tv nah. There are flaws on both panel types that can be seen making them equally bad. The only problem is that for TV sports neither is really bad at all.

The flaws in the different tv technologies pale in comparison to the flaws present in most TV signals.

LCD is not a lot lighter. A 50" Panasonic G10 weighs 70 lbs, while a 52" Sharp LCD weighs 64 lbs, a 52" Samsung LCD weighs 63 lbs, and a 52" Sony LCD weighs 66 lbs (TV only without stand, taken from BB's site). You gotta believe it if it comes from the BB site!

I'd suggest to the op that he take the weight into consideration when mounting to brick. Obviously, the set to be mounted is the issue and LCD sets to tend to weigh less, per screen size, than plasma. Your example showed a larger screen size LCD weighing less than the smaller plasma.

Read the reviews of some of the newer sets on Amazon - both technologies. Many comments there about how heavy plasmas are - requiring two people to set into place - vs the lightness of the LCDs.

I wouldn't wall mount a 50" display alone regardless of weight. I've moved around all sorts of big-screen televisions by myself and its incredibly awkward. When precision is needed, you'll likely need a helping hand. And at that point, unless you're enlisting the services of your great-grandmother, does an extra 5-15lbs really make a difference?

And FYI, my 50" plasma weighs 69.2lbs according to the owner's manual.

You gotta believe it if it comes from the BB site!So are you saying that the LCDs actually weigh more than what the BB site says? Or maybe the Plasmas actually weigh less than what the BB site says? I got the Panasonic 50" G10 weight from the owners manual and BB's site showed the same weight. If you think the LCDs i listed are "a lot lighter" than the 50" Panasonic then please feel free to go to the various LCD TV websites and check what they say their sets weigh and come back here, post the weights with links to their real specs, and prove me wrong. You're making the weight thing into a big issue, when in fact it's really a non-issue.

I'd suggest to the op that he take the weight into consideration when mounting to brick. Obviously, the set to be mounted is the issue and LCD sets to tend to weigh less, per screen size, than plasma. Your example showed a larger screen size LCD weighing less than the smaller plasma.But the difference is negligeable. Like i said mounting to brick is less of a problem in 2009 then it was in 2007 or 2005 when LCDs and Plasmas were all 20-30 lbs heavier than the current models. Brick-rated fasteners are plenty strong enough to mount much heavier things than a 70lb TV as long as the fastener is installed correctly. Fasteners is one of the things i sell (to electricians) and if they can mount 300 lb meter sections to brick, a sub-70 lb TV is a piece of cake. Do you really think that 5-10 lbs less will make enough of a difference to avoid getting a plasma? That's just silly.

Read the reviews of some of the newer sets on Amazon - both technologies. Many comments there about how heavy plasmas are - requiring two people to set into place - vs the lightness of the LCDs.Oh, so you don't believe Best Buy weight specs but you believe a bunch of civilians who post comments on Amazon? There's no denying that a Plasma TV is heavy but an LCD is heavy too - however 70 lbs is not a lot heavier than 65 lbs so i don't see what the big deal is. I wonder how many of those reviewers have actually compared the weight of both TVs? I've installed a number of flat panel TVs on the wall for various people and it doesn't matter if it's a 32" LCD or a 60" Plasma - the awkward size of the TV requires two people to lift it onto the wall mount. The weight isn't a problem. I can lift a 120 lb ten-foot-long bundle of rigid conduit off the floor and carry it to a customer's truck, but i had a really hard time grappling my 64 pound, 46" Plasma TV and lifting it from the floor to the TV table due to the large awkward size.

I bet a lot of those Amazon reviewers don't actually have a plasma to compare an LCD and are just parroting comments from all the LCD proponents and Best Buy salesmen who, despite evidence to the contrary, continue to assert that LCD is a lot lighter than Plasma.

Pick out some 52" LCDs from Samsung, Sharp, Sony, go to the manufacturer's websites, and post how much they weigh.

Weight difference between plasma and lcd is a non issue. I have both and they weigh about the same. as others have stated, don't worry about mounting to brick.

I think your parents would be happy with either an LCD or plasma. They both look great. Right now, I think with plasma you get more bang for the buck.

In your price range for LCD, I suggest getting one of the less expensive samsung units. If you go with plasma, you can get a 50" panasonic(s1,g10 or g15) or 50" samsung (b550 or higher) that all look good. Or you can get a 54" panasonic plasma. Samsung's next size up is 58". Probably too big.

I often wonder where LCD acquired it's "cool" factor. So many people seem to be enamored with it for some reason and there is really nothing special about it. It certainly isn't the latest tech, it's been around for years with computer monitors, and in all that time the viewing angle issue has not been resolved. The one knock against plasma that seems to be the mantra of the LCD crowd, is "burn in' which has been resolved and is a non issue. Same with power consumption. While LCDs draw a pretty much constant level of power, plasmas go up and down. If you look at total use they are very close together.

In terms of cost, performance and cost of use, plasma is the overall winner.

I'd also go with a Plasma (50") and put it on a tilt mount. Eye level would be better, but sometimes it just can't be done for every configuration.

Here's some advice, they are getting up there in age serve them well and get them a plasma. You don't want ma and pa questioning whether there eyesight is getting worse when they see the motion of LCD.

Ma: Did you see that dear?
Pa:Kinda, the guy somehow teleported from one side of the screen to the other.
Ma & Pa: We're definitely getting up there in age when you can't see motion anymore. :D

The source of my discontent was that it was stated by the poster that sports look like crap on the LCD. It does not matter if its blu ray or not for sports. You watch your sports on blu ray?

i was saying a movie with sports in it. All I was saying is that all things being equal with a good source ie blu ray, plasma should be smoother. OTOH, with a crappy source like HD cable, both technologies should look relatively the same due to source flaws

As randy mentioned, and others Plasma is where you should start, not only its less expensive but its actually better Picture quality. Also when you said "burned" image did you mean Temporarly Image reisstance? or are you the first person that can provide proof of a modern plasma being burned in?

I'm sorry its just that i have a panasonic and a pionner (2007 and 2009) in which the only purpose they do it gaming on my 360 and ps3 and i see no burn in (somtimes TIR)

Anyways here are you where you are doing wrong, 120hz (dont need it) lcd.

and fast movements will hurt as stuck with lcd technology, 120hz will make it differen or better yet worse, off axis or "viewing angles" will be an issue that varies on lcd to lcd. im not trying to hit you hard but most of us have had first hand experience. once again good luck with your purchase but i think you should get a plasma 50" panasonic or samsung and you are set.

My dad wants to buy a HDTV for my mom as an anniversary gift since she's been wanting one over the fireplace for a while. So the requirements are a 52 inch, LCD, 1080p, 120 Hz, $1600 neighborhood. It will mounted above the fireplace on a brick chimney with a tilting mount. They will need to have good sound (try to refrain from laughing) from the panel b/c they do not have any audio gear to hook it up to. They will be watching the news mostly but on the weekends they watch sports, football, basketball, and Nascar so I want a set that can excel at fast motion. They will be sitting off center, on either side of the chimney, maybe 6 - 10 feet away. HD gurus, your suggestions are humbly appreciated.

I can see motion blur on my lcd compared to a plasma. It annoys the heck of me on scrolling my computer monitor. On my tv, it does not ruin my experience, but I would rather not have it. It was not as noticeable before I spent time with a plasma. When movement is ruined by compression there is not much you can do though. Sporting events it does not happen very much.