# 58" Plasma vs. 55" LED



## thirsty ear

I will be buying a HDTV in the in the next few months. My last TV was a 50” Plasma Vizio. I like the picture of plasma over LCD an will not buy a LCD TV. However, I have read a few good things about LED TVs. I am looking at two TVs at Sears...

Samsung PN58B550 Plasma 58” $ 2400

Samsung UN55B6000 LED 55” $ 3100


I mostly watch movies late at night and will have full control of the light levels. Right now I have an Oppo 971 dvd player so one of the ideas was to go with the plasma and use the extra $700 on the new Oppo blue ray player when it comes out. Other wise what are the benefits the LED has to offer. 

Does anyone have some good links to reviews on the LED TVs. 

Thank you


----------



## lcaillo

These "LED" sets are actually LCDs with LED backlighting. I am not sure why you don't like LCDs but whatever it is that you dislike is very likely to be similar in these. Frankly, I find it impossible to generalize on the merits of PDP vs LCD these days, as theyre are some very fine examples of both and many lousy versions of both as well. LCD has come a long way in the last few years.


----------



## thirsty ear

I know that the new LED TVs are LCD but they are claiming better black levels and over all picture quality then before LCD models. Making the LED version of LCDs TV closer to Plasma Black levels. 

I agree that the gap between LCD and Plasma has become very small in the last few years. I still think that plasma screens have bit of a edge on regular LCDs with black levels, price at larger sizes, and fast motion. Plus Samsung does not offer a LCD (non LED) larger then 52”. 

In Samsung 550 series, plasma is a better deal but if you move into the 850 series then it could go either way in picture quality. However, the price gap increases to almost $1000 difference between a 52” LCD 850 and a 50 Plasma 850.

So if you can get a 50” plasma 550 for $1600 or a 52” LCD 550 for $2000, what advantages does a LCD have over a plasma. Because Burn-in, screen life and power consumption are no longer an issue with plasmas.


I think in the next few years as prices of LED TVs drop, the older LCD TVs will be replaced by LED versions. Computer screens are adopting LED and getting rid of the older LCD versions. 


So one could say that the LED version of LCD TVs has crossed that gap between Plasmas and LCD TVs, with a better TV then either Plasma or LCD. The LED TVs have made me reconsider my decision on getting a plasma, more so then regular LCD TVs have in the past.


----------



## mdrake

Why a tv? Why not a projector? You can get twice the screen size for the same money and the picture in my opinion is better on the projector. :R

Matt


----------



## lcaillo

thirsty ear said:


> I know that the new LED TVs are LCD but they are claiming better black levels and over all picture quality then before LCD models. Making the LED version of LCDs TV closer to Plasma Black levels.
> 
> I agree that the gap between LCD and Plasma has become very small in the last few years. I still think that plasma screens have bit of a edge on regular LCDs with black levels, price at larger sizes, and fast motion. Plus Samsung does not offer a LCD (non LED) larger then 52”.
> 
> In Samsung 550 series, plasma is a better deal but if you move into the 850 series then it could go either way in picture quality. However, the price gap increases to almost $1000 difference between a 52” LCD 850 and a 50 Plasma 850.
> 
> So if you can get a 50” plasma 550 for $1600 or a 52” LCD 550 for $2000, what advantages does a LCD have over a plasma. Because Burn-in, screen life and power consumption are no longer an issue with plasmas.
> 
> 
> I think in the next few years as prices of LED TVs drop, the older LCD TVs will be replaced by LED versions. Computer screens are adopting LED and getting rid of the older LCD versions.
> 
> 
> So one could say that the LED version of LCD TVs has crossed that gap between Plasmas and LCD TVs, with a better TV then either Plasma or LCD. The LED TVs have made me reconsider my decision on getting a plasma, more so then regular LCD TVs have in the past.



The issue of burn in with plasma is still there, just not as bad as in the past. Because it is a phosphor based display, there will always be aging. Leave the same pattern on often enough and you will get differential aging. I am not trying to scare you off PDPs, but it is a consideration. If you are careful in the first few hundred hours of use and keep your contrast significantly lower than max, while varying viewing, it is not a concern for most applications. If, however, you need maximum peak output for a brightly lit room, then it can be a factor. With an LCD you can safely run the set to max contrast and not risk damage, other than perhaps to the image quality.

I would say that the gap has been closing to the point that you can easily make a case for either technology, depending on the model and price range. Certainly, the best bang for the buck in picture qualtiy in very large sizes still goes to the PDPs. The LED sets have not made as much improvement in actual viewing as they have in theoretical specs. I find it hard to justify the cost, personally.


----------



## thirsty ear

I have always looked at 50” or larger screens for my main viewing room, so a plasma TV have always just fit me better. I was very happy with my Vizio and had no problem with burn in and I ran the thing all the time. I used it as a computer screen for gaming and internet searching as well. 

I was wondering how much the specs of the LEDs yields in a real world viewing. I just looked at the price of a 40” LCD and 40” LED and its huge difference. I wonder if the savings on electricity will make up for that. Where I live electricity prices are criminal. 



mdrake- 


I have considered a projector. I find the idea of setting it up and building a screen to sound like a lot of fun. I do plan, down the road when I have a fully dedicated area for just movies, to use a projector screen. But right now I still run the TV hours a day, so bulb life concerns me. I know that 4000 hours is being research now but as a main TV it seems a bit short. I also worry about the dimming over the short time of the bulb. Logistics of setting a projector screen up in my present room will be difficult. 

Then there is the picture type. One of the things I love most about direct view compared to the projection is the vivid colors and super shinning objects on screen. When watching Star trek, or star wars I want to see the deep black of space or the vivid red and blue light sabors or on screen glass that looks like it is real. Those aspects matter more to me then size. It just brings a smile to my face when watching a movie that pans across a room with glasses filed with liquid are on a table and look so real. At a viewing distance of 6.5 feet I can hold out my arms and measure the relative screen size and it is comparable to sitting 30 feet away at a movie theater. Sitting much closer also adds to sound quality. There is a lot of detail lost over distance in air. Only sitting closer or using headphones will decrease the loss. 

$3000 is above my budget, more below $2500 is more want to spend on video. I am more of a sound guy then video. If you have any suggestions on good projectors under $3000, I would love to look into them. I looked at one epson the other day in a home-theater setup and it was Ok.


----------



## mdrake

I am much more into audio than I am video as well. I was SURPRISED and the quality of video comping out of my Epson 6100!! I belive it to be far Superior to any LCD flat panel that I have seen. The second pleasant surprise from the Epson was the brightness of the projector. In bright mode I can watch with projector with the ambient lights on!!! I did not expect this. Everything I had heard, said that the lights needed to be off... the walls need to be black.... and on and on but this is just not the case in my experience. I am using the the Epson 6100 which was 1,650.00 and the Carada 114 BW screen which was 750.00. The projector was VERY easy to setup, as it has tons of adjustments. To say that I was blown away is an understatement! Everyone that comes over is just in SHOCK with the quality of the image. 

Matt


----------



## Andysu

mdrake said:


> Why a tv? Why not a projector? You can get twice the screen size for the same money and the picture in my opinion is better on the projector. :R
> 
> Matt


Precisely so!:clap:

My dad is into this whole LED LCD culture thingy, hasn’t got one as of yet only standard LCD flat screen.

Give it a few years and the prices will plummet down to realistic prices that everyone can afford. Plus they would have perfected them greatly to mkII III and IV model.

Also this is the new low energy LED that uses less power yet produces extremely brighter image, no?


----------

