posted
So…. I was talking to Kristi and said how I needed to get a widescreen TV before we got married next year. She said "Why?" I said "Cause you won’t let me after we get married." To which she responded "Well, why do you need one of those anyway?" To which I said, "BINGO!"
So*..... I stopped over there during lunch and looked at the TV. Not to bad. The guy told me about the HD cables and the power supply you need to get. Interesting. What all do you know about all this? I guess it cleans up the TV signal and serves as a serge protector too. Plus I guess they have a kit that comes with the cables too. He showed me too the difference on two TV's right next to each other, and then they also have another set up on some sort of demo that shows the difference. Very impressive. Drastic too.
But then when I got back here to work some of the guys were saying the Plasma's get things like the ESPN logo burned into them. And to go with LCD.
Any thoughts here?
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Plasma is still cheaper than LCD the bigger you go in screen size. I wanted the 50". Also, I couldn't manage to rationalize the cost of going true 1080p either. At least a good 1080p set. I was just on the bubble of that technology upgrade...maybe not anymore. There's a trade off in cost and performance depending on how you go. Cheaper televisions = cheaper processors = less performance. So you could buy a cheaper1080p television but it could look the same as a high end 720/1080i set. I went with top of the line 720/1080i. I bought the TV over the web and saved $800 (shipped) from what was offered at Best Buy. Abe's of Maine is the bomb. $2100 was base cost.
posted
Plasmas have, in the past, had a risk of burn-in and they have also had a more limited lifetime before they would have to be replaced. I've heard that these areas have been improved, but it's been a while since I've been investigating that sort of stuff in depth so I couldn't tell you for sure what the current state of things are.
I lean towards DLP or LCD myself.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a rear projection HD, and two LCD HD TV's (21" and 32"). None are the highest price or best quality TV's out there. I am pleased with all of them.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would go with LCD. The technology has been around longer, and they tend to last better than plasma. Plasma has better picture I've heard, but I can't see the difference.
Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My vague impression is that LCD is better technology - it will last longer, probably give a better picture, etc. but it is notably more expensive. Haven't seriously looked into this ever though, so there's a decent chance I'm wrong on all or many counts.
Posts: 187 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say absolutely go to a store and look at as many as you can. Some have radical differences in color, picture quality, and so on.
A few of the TVs I looked at got strangely blurry at anything less than 3 feet, and since I don't plan to always stand on the other side of the room, I picked one which was clear at a fairly close range.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with MightyCow, but keep in mind when you do that that their TVs are generally under optimum lighting conditions.
Added: Most plasmas I've seen have glossy screens, whereas LCDs tend to be matte; if glare is an issue in your intended location then LCD might be the way to go. But the plasmas also had blacker blacks -- the blacks on my LCD are definitely greys, which is why I tend to leave the lights on when I watch movies on it.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a Westinghouse 46" 1080p LCD, which I use as a primary computer monitor and living room TV. I paid about $800, and consider it one of my best purchases ever.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The guy told me about the HD cables and the power supply you need to get. Interesting. What all do you know about all this? I guess it cleans up the TV signal and serves as a serge protector too. Plus I guess they have a kit that comes with the cables too. He showed me too the difference on two TV's right next to each other, and then they also have another set up on some sort of demo that shows the difference. Very impressive. Drastic too.
Be careful with this. When I bought my TV they tried to upsell me on fancy Monster cables, surge protectors, and a "power cleaner." Most of that stuff is worthless. The cables in particular are overpriced by a factor of 2-3. Get your cables from Monoprice or somewhere else that charges realistic prices for cables.
I'm hoping my LCD HDTV will last until OLED panels that display true blacks are available.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you intend to use DVI/HDMI (and you should), the quality of your cables is mostly irrelevant. And any standard surge protector should do.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
One fun tip, if you have good quality RCA cables (the type with audio left and right and one composite) from a previous home theatre, they are essentially the same as the explicitly labelled component cables. No need to buy the expensive latter if you already have the former on hand.
This is useful if you need to attach a Wii or (old) X-Box, etc.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's my understanding that current generation plasmas have no issues with burn in. That problem has been fixed.
Twink has the right of it re: color rendering (especially blacks). Typically LCDs are better at smaller sizes; plasma is still the standard once you get above 42" or so.
I have a DLP, which you cannot beat for the price and size (it just isn't skinny like a plasma or LCD -- can't hang it on a wall).
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "sand grain" effect on DLPs always bugged me, just like the "hatching" effect on LCD RPs. Otherwise I would probably have gone DLP.
quote:One fun tip, if you have good quality RCA cables (the type with audio left and right and one composite) from a previous home theatre, they are essentially the same as the explicitly labelled component cables. No need to buy the expensive latter if you already have the former on hand.
Essentially the same how? RCA cables won't transmit a high definition video signal; component cables will.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
DVDs aren't high definition, they're 720x480.
Anyway, I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you meant you could somehow send a high definition video stream over only the video part of the composite cable (i.e. one plug), which didn't make any sense. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, I get your confusion now. Actually, I was just answering the "essentially the same how" part, I didn't quite understand what you were saying about a high definition signal.
In any case, if you really have a high definition signal, as TomD said, you should really be using DVI or HDMI anyways.
My tip was just a money-saving tip for connecting stuff that doesn't have HDMI but uses component instead.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: If you intend to use DVI/HDMI (and you should), the quality of your cables is mostly irrelevant. And any standard surge protector should do.
Exactly - it's a digital signal. You can get 6 ft HDMI cables for $3 from a merchant on Amazon, rather than pay Best Buy the $59.95 they want.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
