• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

The LED, UHD, Plasma, LCD Debate

The plasmas were sure looking nice last night at best buy... I really can't say that one is better than the other from looking at BB.... Personally still leaning towards LED (just because I'm stubborn i guess, lol) but the price point of plasma is SOOOOO tempting.

BB has a 55' LED Insignia for 950, was hoping to find a better deal but that was still the cheapest I can find around
 
  • Like
Reactions: EarlyMon
Upvote 0
I would steer clear of a cheap brand like Insignia if you are going to buy something important like a TV. They are complete crap. I would avoid most any of the cheap models at Best Buy to be honest. The quality TVs are the ones in their home theater room. They are a bit more expensive but go look at those and then walk out and look at the cheap ones on the walls, its night and day in terms of picture quality. Here is the LED Sony Bravia I bought. Same price as the 70 inch Sharp and although its smaller, its got a far superior picture and refresh rate.

http://tv.toptenreviews.com/led-tv/sony-bravia-xbr55hx929-review.html
 
Upvote 0
Insignia is the Best Buy store brand, and is better than the off brand TVs like Dynex, etc. They have gotten good ratings from Consumer Reports, which I don't take as gospel, but I think Insignia TVs are good value.

I agree, coupled with the fact that I have had a 42" Insignia LCD for over 2 years now and it is by FAR one of the best TV's I have owned. Blows my bigger, more expensive phillips out the water (it is slightly newer)

you can make 2 products EXACTLY the same, slap 'samsung/sony/etc' on one and insignia/dynex/westinhouse on the other and the only difference would be about 2 grand.... not that that is always the case.... I'm just saying
 
  • Like
Reactions: pool_shark
Upvote 0
Vizio was one of the first to overrate their update rate by strobing the backlight in synchronization, upping their 120 Hz set to market as a 240 Hz model. It's not, it's frame rate processing is 120 Hz.

Rather than attempt market education, Samsung pulled the same trick on their next releases, so they started marketing 240 Hz sets at 480 Hz.

Now we have Sony, saying, well, we interleave 2 fields for 3D, and 480 times 2 is 960 Hz, let's say that's our refresh rate.

Pure specsmanship, those are panels with 240 Hz frame rate processing, their true spec.

I suppose I could go back and dig up the CNET Asia article from years ago detailing where LCD makers agreed to call the panel update rate the refresh rate because 1) everyone was used to the refresh rate term, and 2) everything back then (for our TV standard) was all at 60 Hz. But I think that my explanation on page 1 of this thread does a better job by explaining how LCDs work.

I have little doubt at all that that Sony looks great, but its 960 Hz spec is a technical lie, but crafted by marketing to escape the law and draw people in.

The critical factor for motion smoothness is the pixel change rate, pretty much removed from spec sheets anymore. Had they left that in, people would use it to select fairly between models in the line, and they want to sell the sizzle, not the steak.
 
Upvote 0
Interesting. I just go by look for what I like. I have 3 TVs currently. A 46 inch LED Toshiba, a 55 inch LED Toshiba and the Sony. I have owned a ton of others in the past though. LG, Vizio and Sharp LCDs. The Sony is a way better picture than any of them though, by a mile. The full array LED on the Sony is a big step up over backlit LED which is what 95% of these other LED TVs are.
 
Upvote 0
The Sony, in my opinion, is a superior panel to the others you mentioned, I would expect it to look better. :)

I am just down on most marketing tactics in the TV industry. I'll bet that you would have gone with the Sony for the picture, regardless, it's quite good. But when you wanted to know what makes it better, they stepped in line with buzzwords and mumbo jumbo in their specs instead of either saying a) trade secrets, or b) actual engineering specs.

Sony engineering and picture quality, I have no issues. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: NightAngel79
Upvote 0
Vizio was one of the first to overrate their update rate by strobing the backlight in synchronization, upping their 120 Hz set to market as a 240 Hz model. It's not, it's frame rate processing is 120 Hz.

Rather than attempt market education, Samsung pulled the same trick on their next releases, so they started marketing 240 Hz sets at 480 Hz.

Now we have Sony, saying, well, we interleave 2 fields for 3D, and 480 times 2 is 960 Hz, let's say that's our refresh rate.

Pure specsmanship, those are panels with 240 Hz frame rate processing, their true spec.

I suppose I could go back and dig up the CNET Asia article from years ago detailing where LCD makers agreed to call the panel update rate the refresh rate because 1) everyone was used to the refresh rate term, and 2) everything back then (for our TV standard) was all at 60 Hz. But I think that my explanation on page 1 of this thread does a better job by explaining how LCDs work.

I have little doubt at all that that Sony looks great, but its 960 Hz spec is a technical lie, but crafted by marketing to escape the law and draw people in.

The critical factor for motion smoothness is the pixel change rate, pretty much removed from spec sheets anymore. Had they left that in, people would use it to select fairly between models in the line, and they want to sell the sizzle, not the steak.

Reviving this old (and very useful) thread.

I'm seeing the UHD TV's start to come down in price, but manufactures are still playing with the specs. Saw a Samsung UHD for 997 on Amazon, but it says 60 hertz. Tried to find a similar model and comapre... but now everything has a 'clear motion rate' or something like that. Very hard to make sense out of it.

I know I do not want to upgrade to UHD and get a subpar refresh rate...



PS: let me know if anyone thinks this needs a new thread. Perhaps copying a few posts from here to the new one. Early dropped so much great knowledge that is still completely relevant.
 
Upvote 0
The "clear motion rate" crap, you can basically divide in half to get the real number. If you are going to play video games on your TV I'd rather have a 1080@120 Hz over a 4K@60 Hz. A lot of the 4K TVs they are selling now supposedly won't be compatible with some future content because the DRM they will be using isn't compatible with the current HDMI standards. (or something like that lol) I'd wait until all the details get nailed down unless the price is really close. Samsung does have the "evolution kit" I think it's called, on some of their TVs, which is a module that can be replaced to help future proof things if standards change.

more about "refresh rates"

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2379206,00.asp
 
Upvote 0
That's a terrible article.

No differentiation between plasma subfield processing vs LCD frame rate processing, perpetuating the myth that frame rate processing is interpolation, and no idea that a lot of content is not at 24 fps anymore - not to mention the incorrect generalization of what comes off a Blu-ray.

100% for spelling though.

Please see my post earlier on the subject, it's far more accurate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NightAngel79
Upvote 0
Tried to update thread title, lol. Not sure it worked.

Have pics of a couple of the labels. Looked like good deals.

519447ed638e4f9f47fa796b27049cc3.jpg
fb707238797687b7d114344251e9438d.jpg
7a3c13df8b8e72856be54c8d4c57874a.jpg
cf5c053441ab5a4b42894aad79de809a.jpg



Some of them show refresh rate and clear motion. Other show clear motion rate and some other number (don't remember what the 900/1200 number represent)
 
Upvote 0
Quantum Dot technology sounds like it will be the next big marketing term to sell more TVs.

http://lgdnewsroom.com/products-solutions/tv/4728

It's not new, Sony had them in some sets in 2013, didn't call it that, they used their Triluminous label on them. Don't know if it a big improvement or not, but the people who have them swear by it. Sony switched their Triluminous to colored LEDs the next year, and they didn't seem to be as well received fwiw. The TV makers need something to promote until OLED is affordable, or in case it falls. I hope these quantum dots are a real improvement. With plasma going away, and OLED only being pursued by LG right now, LCD still needs work to be as good IMO.
 
Upvote 0
Yep, quantum dot shows a lot of promise!
I know I am off topic but happy holidays to everyone . I see the HD TV are jumping up to slim line no more big television that need 8people to carry . but my question I see the 3d television that has good 3d effects . but I am concerned if you need to wear the glasses all the time . I just refuse to b:mad:y one because of that . if its a option that can disable the 3d c:cool:;)l but I Dont go asking . but if someone can shed just a little light hey I wouldn't I mind getting one or two I seen a complete packages with smart and surround sound glasses for 1400.00 USD . for a 60 I was cool but the words 3d had me thinking about vision
 
Upvote 0
I know I am off topic but happy holidays to everyone . I see the HD TV are jumping up to slim line no more big television that need 8people to carry . but my question I see the 3d television that has good 3d effects . but I am concerned if you need to wear the glasses all the time . I just refuse to b:mad:y one because of that . if its a option that can disable the 3d c:cool:;)l but I Dont go asking . but if someone can shed just a little light hey I wouldn't I mind getting one or two I seen a complete packages with smart and surround sound glasses for 1400.00 USD . for a 60 I was cool but the words 3d had me thinking about vision

The only time you need glasses is if what you are watching is broadcast in 3d. Practically nothing is... You would half to buy a 3d blue ray, and even then there would be an option to watch in 3d or not
 
Upvote 0
I know I am off topic but happy holidays to everyone . I see the HD TV are jumping up to slim line no more big television that need 8people to carry . but my question I see the 3d television that has good 3d effects . but I am concerned if you need to wear the glasses all the time . I just refuse to b:mad:y one because of that . if its a option that can disable the 3d c:cool:;)l but I Dont go asking . but if someone can shed just a little light hey I wouldn't I mind getting one or two I seen a complete packages with smart and surround sound glasses for 1400.00 USD . for a 60 I was cool but the words 3d had me thinking about vision
They did have some glasses-free sets out a few years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NightAngel79
Upvote 0
The only time you need glasses is if what you are watching is broadcast in 3d. Practically nothing is... You would half to buy a 3d blue ray, and even then there would be an option to watch in 3d or not
OK so what your watching should inform you for glasses. I seen some package deals didn't get cause I assumed 3d all day everyday . and I wasn't about to be putting on some 3d glasses just to watch spongebob or tom and jerry . thanks I lost a lot on the deals I seen but will keep my eye out
 
  • Like
Reactions: NightAngel79
Upvote 0
OK so what your watching should inform you for glasses. I seen some package deals didn't get cause I assumed 3d all day everyday . and I wasn't about to be putting on some 3d glasses just to watch spongebob or tom and jerry . thanks I lost a lot on the deals I seen but will keep my eye out

There will be some good deals around the Super Bowl®. New models come out in March/April and they'll be closing out last year's models.
 
Upvote 0
It shouldn't cost $7000 (65" price) for an LCD to rival plasma quality. And the input lag is too high for video games...

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/tx55ax902b-201411073944.htm
Well, let's break that down.

Fair warning - I have often argued in favor of LCDs because before I went all Android, I was an HDTV freak and early adopter of HD. Later, I was an early adopter of LCD HD (boy did that suck) and followed it closely until it improved and then devolved some. So, please challenge anything that strikes you as fanboy sounding - my intention is only to inform about LCDs because - just like with audio and Android - I hate misinformation and hype.

Grab a tasty beverage, and let's go! :)

First, many videophiles swear by plasma. And I'm ok with that so long as it doesn't get into pixie dust. ;) :D

What does it mean to say "LCD as good as plasma?"

That's very multifaceted. Plasma has wider viewing angles. Do you care? I never watch off axis.

LCD generally does better in lighted rooms than plasma? Do you care? Some people only watch in darker rooms and / or during the evening.

But let's talk about objective picture quality. Plasma lovers cite two things - deeper blacks and smoother or crisper motion.

Now - about LCDs - what's the issues? Recall that I said that they are like a little shutter at each subpixel (and I am actually the hoser that introduced that concept and nomenclature to the internet). And we begin there.

What does it mean when we talk about 60 Hz? Despite fancy processing, that's the top speed of your input sources.

And that's 16.66666 ms per image. 60 frames per second, 1/60 second per frame. Remember that - 1/60 second.

Now - let's talk about the shutters - let's talk about the speed and what they tell you anymore (but they used to).

The earlier LCD HDTVs had a response time of over 8 ms, and many much worse, some as high as 12.

So while you were supposed to be seeing a frame for 1/60 second, 1/2 to 3/4 of that time, the shutters were in motion.

Enter the original bad motion complaints. For good reason.

By 2009, Samsung produced one panel that responded at 2 ms. That's 1/500 of a second and that's enough to rival plasma.

Plasma (actually it's the phosphors) respond well and far below 1 ms - so why is 2 ms pretty much ok?

Think about taking pictures - go to a high school or little league game - and try to stop the ball. You don't even come close until the shutter speed is better than 1/125 second. 1/500 will do the job - but 1/1000 and 1/2000 really makes it freeze.

So if 1/500th is the minimum, why is that enough? One, you only see it for an instant in a moving train of images and two, you can't get an image better than the speed of the camera operator and the broadcast.

But that wasn't sexy to market and along came the Hz Wars, ultra thins, LED back lighting and - the transition to digital TV - and market demand.

I suspect that most LCD panels today have 4 to 6 ms response times - it's cheaper.

But can LCD do it and rival plasma on that front? Yes.

Next - deep black. OK. Don't turn on a phosphor light - you got black.

LCD? Only gets as black as the shutters can close to hide the back light. And current LCD technology can only really compete on that at the top end - and never break even. The upside that they don't discuss is that LCD has the potential (based on panel quality, back light quality and yadda yadda yadda) for truer white. Remember how LCDs do better in brighter rooms and settings than a plasma? Well, that's more light - and truer white is all about more light.

That doesn't come out in contrast measurements and the Holy Grail praise for plasma blacks.

The final picture quality issue is really about the program source but LCDs get all of the blame.

Cable and satellite has lousy pictures. They over-compress and drop frames. (Netflix does too but how much depends on your network as much as anything.)

Anyway - that leads to a simple name for the phenomenon - motion artifacts. You see things made up as the TV struggles with the source.

LCD, because of its engineered nature, shows motion artifacts as harsh stuttering. Really sets your teeth on edge.
Plasma, by its engineering nature, shows motion artifacts as a big loss of details.

And because people are accustomed to lost details in TV, will praise plasma without stopping to question why most of the show is closer to SD than HD because at least it isn't harsh and stuttering.

But none of it is ok and the real blame goes to the source.

I've got a lot more to say on this but I'll stop here. If there's interest, I'll continue. :D
 
Upvote 0
I don't really disagree with any of that, LCD can be competitive, but only in the mega-buck range right now. Maybe plasma loses some detail in the background during motion, but maybe that's why motion looks more natural on plasma, it's more like what we see in real life. That and years of being conditioned to CRT sets.

Agree that LCD has the advantage in whites, but blacks are more important to me. I like to watch movies in a dim or dark room.
Also agree that the market has devolved. Race to the bottom in pricing, and emphasis on how thin the set is over picture quality. The Sharp Elites were supposed to be the plasma killers but they stopped making them.
My biggest issue with common-man LCD sets is the lack of screen uniformity. Sad that such an old technology hasn't perfected the problems with clouding, flaslighting, light bleed, dark corners, etc. I wish they would have stayed with fluorescent backlighting over LEDs as they seemed to have less of those issues.
It just seems like LCD has to mask its problems with more processing and jumping through technical hoops to do what plasma does naturally. If they can bring full-array local dimming that actually works to a lower price point, that would be a big step. Vizio had it on all their sets this year, but by all accounts it didn't work very well, mostly due to slow processing. Another year or two should work that out if they don't give up on it.
 
Upvote 0

BEST TECH IN 2023

We've been tracking upcoming products and ranking the best tech since 2007. Thanks for trusting our opinion: we get rewarded through affiliate links that earn us a commission and we invite you to learn more about us.

Smartphones