plasma or LED-LCD

[storl]

LED will be more responsive, brighter, and longer lasting. Along with being thinner and having lower energy consumption. The only real disadvantage is they are pricey and it's hard to find them sized >40".

Which plasmas? Panasonic makes a 600hz one that has a mighty fine image. Plasmas generally have better contrast as well, although LCDs are catching up. You are definitely correct on the lower power consumption though. On the LCD side, Panasonic has a unit that is something like 1/2" thick. It is ridiculous.

 

[dinozzo]

Plasma is definitely not dead, at my best buy, we sell more plasmas than anything else.

Personally from spending an 8 hour day looking at TVs, LED is going to a brighter image than the other two(more energy efficient too) , but the other two look a bit more natural. If your looking at at the larger TVs plasma is a good option to save some coin. Plasmas dont really come in anything less than a 42" IRRC anyway.

 

[A_Blade_Afficionado]

I think it's a good idea to start out with several widescreen DVD movies of your choosing. Coupled with a good 5 channel or 7 channel surround sound system that can be an enjoyable way to welcome your new set to the family.

Don't waste your time on 7 channel. Very, very few movies are recorded in 7 native channels of audio (plus the .1 for the sub(s)), and 7 channels is only supported by Blu Ray AFAIK.

A decent 5.1 system or even a soundbar + sub if you're looking for the minimalist approach, will do wonders for your viewing experience.

For reference, I have a cheap 19" LCD for gaming, but coupled with a 5.1 system, it makes for a good viewing experience as long as I'm within 4 feet of the TV.

I personally think that the audio is far more important than the video when enjoying a movie. A home theater system will help bring out the nuances in movies and enhance the experience more than an HD TV.

YMMV.

 

[dttomcat]

SOUND advice. I have a 5.1 system. A Harmon Kardon receiver and some Polk Audio AMR satellite speakers. If I were to crank it up the neighbors might call the police.

 

[ironmike86]

Don't waste your time on 7 channel. Very, very few movies are recorded in 7 native channels of audio (plus the .1 for the sub(s)), and 7 channels is only supported by Blu Ray AFAIK.

A decent 5.1 system or even a soundbar + sub if you're looking for the minimalist approach, will do wonders for your viewing experience.

For reference, I have a cheap 19" LCD for gaming, but coupled with a 5.1 system, it makes for a good viewing experience as long as I'm within 4 feet of the TV.

I personally think that the audio is far more important than the video when enjoying a movie. A home theater system will help bring out the nuances in movies and enhance the experience more than an HD TV.

YMMV.

I agree audio is an important role with movies and gaming. But video is as equally important imo. If you like movies. Bluray and 7.1 will make a big difference if you put audio #1. I like audio so much I have 7.2. Just for the room size. You can tell a difference with 5.1 and 7.1 if you have the room

 

[A_Blade_Afficionado]

You can only tell a difference between 5.1 and 7.1 if the Blu Ray was recorded in native 7.1, which is far and few between. 99% of the movies out there with a 7.1 track are simply processed 5.1 to create an artificial 7 channels of sound.
And when you mention 7.2 do you mean two subs? That's still a 7.1 channel system, since it's two subs on one channel of audio. I've yet to see ANYTHING recorded for multiple channels (stereo separation) of "subwoofer" notes. Why? Because you can't localize frequencies below 200hz when your sub is effectively placed. (and even then, your sub should be low passed at around 100hz or lower ideally in a HT setup so localization is nigh impossible for any human at those frequencies)

 

[ironmike86]

You can only tell a difference between 5.1 and 7.1 if the Blu Ray was recorded in native 7.1, which is far and few between. 99% of the movies out there with a 7.1 track are simply processed 5.1 to create an artificial 7 channels of sound.
And when you mention 7.2 do you mean two subs? That's still a 7.1 channel system, since it's two subs on one channel of audio. I've yet to see ANYTHING recorded for multiple channels (stereo separation) of "subwoofer" notes. Why? Because you can't localize frequencies below 200hz when your sub is effectively placed. (and even then, your sub should be low passed at around 100hz or lower ideally in a HT setup so localization is nigh impossible for any human at those frequencies)

Even if the Bluray isn't 7.1 the artificial 7 with movies and games sound better to me. I've tried both ways. Different sounds from different areas. My receiver have 2 subwoofer outputs and set crossovers to 80hz. I really don't need subwoofers with my speakers for music but movies and games I like to shake the house.I don't use more subs because they recorded for 2 subs. I use it for headroom and not distortion. Nothing better than an explosion and your table shakes. It's probably over kill but I like it.If you room is small 5.1 is good but with a larger room I would get 7.1 and easily say it's not a was of $$. My surrounds are bigger than some ppls fronts. They think it's a waste but not to me. I use PC360 headset to game ppl think I'm crazy to spend that much $$ on headphones. Which really isn't much. Espescially when they buy $200 worth of cigs every month

 

[A_Blade_Afficionado]

Nobody records for two subs, I'm telling you, there's no such thing as stereo bass in any common application.

You can't localize low frequencies, I can hook up 1, or 10 subs, it's still a mono output because your ears can't localize (you know what localization is right?) low notes.

You can localize notes that are 200hz and up, that's why you need 2 channels for stereo and 5 channels for surround sound to cover the upper frequencies and only 1 to cover the lower frequencies.

You can't localize notes played by a sub, which is why a mono sub output sounds fine, even for audiophiles.

 

[hung-solo]

arent the plasmas very expensive to fix? i keep shying away from them bc of that.

 

[awh]

plasmas are heavy so wall mounting may require some more work - like opening the wall. i have 4 lcds from 32 to 52" and a 46" plasma. LCD tvs are bright but the colors can sometimes be too bright, like those old black and white movies that have been colorized. Sometimes LCDs look artificially bright and this can cause eye strain. If its going in a room with alot of windows and glare, then LCD is the smarter choice. That said, plasmas generally have a more natural picture with deeper blacks. For us the plasma has the best picture, but we watch it in the bedroom at night so there is no glare issues.

 

[ironmike86]

Nobody records for two subs, I'm telling you, there's no such thing as stereo bass in any common application.

You can't localize low frequencies, I can hook up 1, or 10 subs, it's still a mono output because your ears can't localize (you know what localization is right?) low notes.

You can localize notes that are 200hz and up, that's why you need 2 channels for stereo and 5 channels for surround sound to cover the upper frequencies and only 1 to cover the lower frequencies.

You can't localize notes played by a sub, which is why a mono sub output sounds fine, even for audiophiles.

You don't understand. It's for headroom. If you have a large room one won't cut it for me. I know how subs work how to calibrate with Room Eq and a Spl meter with your laptop and eq them with a Velo Sms. I'm not trying to argue that. But 2 of these sound better than one
http://www.hsuresearch.com/products/uls15.html. Well actual they both sound the same but 2 are louder. It's about headroom
The knife forum isn't a place to debate Audio. Hang out a AVR.

 

[ironmike86]

plasmas are heavy so wall mounting may require some more work - like opening the wall. i have 4 lcds from 32 to 52" and a 46" plasma. LCD tvs are bright but the colors can sometimes be too bright, like those old black and white movies that have been colorized. Sometimes LCDs look artificially bright and this can cause eye strain. If its going in a room with alot of windows and glare, then LCD is the smarter choice. That said, plasmas generally have a more natural picture with deeper blacks. For us the plasma has the best picture, but we watch it in the bedroom at night so there is no glare issues.

Yup they are both pretty much par now. You can debate either way. Get which is better for your needs. You'll never notice unless comparing them side x side

 

[ironmike86]

arent the plasmas very expensive to fix? i keep shying away from them bc of that.

Why would you need to fix them? Dunno but I never had to

 

[A_Blade_Afficionado]

You don't understand. It's for headroom. If you have a large room one won't cut it for me. I know how subs work how to calibrate with Room Eq and a Spl meter with your laptop and eq them with a Velo Sms. I'm not trying to argue that. But 2 of these sound better than one
http://www.hsuresearch.com/products/uls15.html. Well actual they both sound the same but 2 are louder. It's about headroom
The knife forum isn't a place to debate Audio. Hang out a AVR.

I understand that it's for headroom, less gain on amp = less THD.

What I'm saying is:
No such thing as 7.2, or native 7.1. My point was that spending money on 7.1 is a waste because it's artificially enhanced to be 7.1, not native. (You'd be surprised how few movies are even recorded in native 5.1).

I'm trying to stop misinformation to save the OP money. I know significantly more about car audio than I do about home audio, but I know enough to save the OP some money by not pissing it away on marketing hype.

 

[65535]

Personally I'd probably go stereo L/R with nice towers and mono block amps. And get a nice plasma TV, probably the VT25, but the Samsung C8000 is no slouch.

You shouldn't need a sub with good towers. Also for anyone that thinks they need objects rattling of their furniture, better reconsider their long term hearing.

 

[Mitchell Knives]

I have two Samsung flat screens; one regular LCD and a plasma. Both have been great. When comparing the LED LCD to the plasma, I didn't see enough difference to justify the expense. IMO, plasma looks better than a regular LCD.

 

[mqqn]

Hi folks -

One thing that I have not seen mentioned here is the ambient noise.

I have a Samsung plasma (42" in the bedroom), and in very quiet times, like when the wife is sleeping and I have the tv on with the subtitles, the plasma tv makes a noticeable humming noise.

This would likely not be an issue in a larger room where there is more ambient noise, like a living room / great room.

This was not something that I had thought about.

Plasma is decent technology, but as many have said, it is more about the environment that the tv will live in than the actual technology.

I will be picking up an led/lcd unit sometime soon to replace my Hitachi 54" rear-projection, which, by the way, is 16 years old and still works like a champ.

best regards -

mqqn

 

[A_Blade_Afficionado]

Personally I'd probably go stereo L/R with nice towers and mono block amps. And get a nice plasma TV, probably the VT25, but the Samsung C8000 is no slouch.

You shouldn't need a sub with good towers. Also for anyone that thinks they need objects rattling of their furniture, better reconsider their long term hearing.

The only thing I'd add to that is a center channel, dialogue sounds much better coming from a center than being split between tower speakers.

I think the sub is more for ambience. When you watch a movie and subsonic notes come up (Jurassic park uses a lot of subsonic notes, down to 5hz! even though very few people have a sub that can drive 5hz with any authority, there's simply not enough cone area or excursion with a HTIB sub) the sub adds ambience to that sound. Even if you don't have it loud, it helps "anchor" the sound.