Plasma better (IMO), but LCD closing the gap. Better blacks and better motion on plasma. LCD cheaper. YMMV.
21 responses Add your response
There is an awful lot of stuff in the archives on this. If I had to distill it down to one point for each side, I would say that colours are better on plasmas (and blacks). On the other hand, resolution is better on LCD because it has smaller pixels. Since HD has emerged since plasma hit the market, I prefer the increased resoluton of LCD in order to take advantage of the higher definition formats that are emerging. To me this outweighs the colour advantage of plasma, and the gap on even that point is narrowing with each generation of LCD. However, many others prefer the striking colours of a good plasma. Take your pick and enjoy. They'll both be gone in a couple of years as OLEDs emerge.
I think Swampwalker may have gotten the pricing reversed. In my experience plasma tends to be less expensive for a given size than LCD. LCD is less sensitive to reflections and, I believe, more energy efficient; the top end Pioneer plasma has the best black levels I've seen in flat panels. The best of either technology seems very good.
At this point in time, no LCD's can compete with plasma's superior black level (especially the Pioneer Kuros). Even the best LCD's look flat and somewhat washed out by comparison.
LCD has made great strides recently in improving refresh to reduce motion artifacts, but still doesn't come close to plasma in this regard.
The resolution advantage that LCD once had over plasma has also disappeared with so many 1080p plasmas available today. Frankly, I would take a 768p Kuro over any 1080p LCD anyway because superior black level is much more important than the slight resolution difference at reasonable viewing distances.
LCD screens do have less reflectivity than plasma screens, which can be helpful in rooms with lots of windows and lights behind the viewing position. LCDs are also brighter, which is why regular consumers are so drawn to them in the super stores.
Plasma is really heads and tails better then LCD, yes LCD is catching up but it has not yet, cheap LCD units have blurry motion when watching sports it can be very frustrating and blacks simply cant compete. If you have a bright room where it cant be easily controlled Plasma may annoying you with its hi-glare screen surface but other then that single issue there are no other serious objections to Plasma......it is simply that much better at this point in time.
For what it's worth, I live with both a 50" Panasonic Plasma and a 52" Sharp Aquos LCD and, yes there are differences but mostly of the "apples vs. oranges" variety rather than "better vs. lesser". Maybe the single issue that's become apparent to me is the presence of some amount of moire' pattern type distortion when displaying jpeg images from my digital camera on the LCD. Then again, I can't compare this to the plasma because I don't want to subject my plasma to static images so it becomes six of one and a half-dozen of the other. If I could keep only one of these sets, I'd complain bitterly about having to part with one........and then flip a coin.
I've looked and looked at both. To me LCD is too perfect. Plasma is lifelike. I think I would never tire of a Pioneer Plasma but a LCD could wear on me after a period of time. I know they are both digital but this is the way I would put it. The plazma is like tubes and the LCD is like solid state. So if you are a tube lover like me you would want the plazma and if you like solid state musical gear go for the LCD. Two types of people, two types of gear.
The 800/850 series Panasonic plasmas increase brightness to LCD levels and are right on with DCI ( digital Cinema initiative Color Specs)--when these become available, they would be great choices.
For a real whopper of a display, check out the OLED 11 inch screens from Sony. Wow. How long the half is is up for question.
As an LCD owner, I will admit that the very best plasmas are still better than the very best LCDs, BUT the best LCD's are still very, very good and provide a very satisfying viewing experience. I believe your viewing environment should be the biggest determining factor in your decision process. If you have a dedicated viewing room with no windows or table lamps behind your viewing area, then I would go plasma (Pioneer, Panasonic). However, if most of your viewing is in a well lit room with numerous windows, etc. (which is my situation), then LCD would be my recommendation (Samsung, Sony, Sharp).
I saw the Kuro 50'' ELITE KURO Plasma with a resolution of 1365 x 768 next to Sony's top of the line LCD at 1080p (1920 x 1080) and the 720p Pioneer was so much better than the Sony that I couldn't believe my eyes. In fact, I went into my audio dealer to look at audio equipment, and the Pioneer caught my eye right away. I knew right away I was looking at one of the best flat panels ever made and after I did a little research I found out that the Kuro Elite models ARE pretty much considered the best there is and as close to CRT performance as it gets.
I would take the 720p Pioneer over any 1080p on the market. I have not seen the 1080p Pioneer yet but I hear the resolution doesn't make that big of a difference unless you are very close to the screen--closer than most people would be.
From what I've seen, there is Pioneer Elite and then there is all the rest.
"From what I've seen, there is Pioneer Elite and then there is all the rest."
I completely agree, but a close runner up are the panasonic plasmas. They are much cheaper, and look almost as good.
I read an in depth article in a HT mag where a panel of people reviewed the best plasmas, LCDs and DLPs, and the results were unanimous. Pioneer is on top, with Panasonic a close 2nd. Everyone preferred a Pio 720P plasma to ANY 1080P LCD or DLP.
Resolution has become marketing. 1080p is a nice check in the box, but it is nowhere near the most important thing in a TV (projection is a dif. story IMO)
I have personally attended the launching of Pioneer Plasma Kuro and I have to admit that, this is the best TV available in the market today. You won't believe what you see because it's so obviously sticking out of the competition. The black level and the speaker they are using are far better than the competitors. The downside is, you will have to spend more for this Kuro.
Does anyone know if the picture lasts longer on a LCD tv than it does on a Plasma tv? I have heard that the picture on a Plasma dulls over the years. Is this true of LCD's?
I am considering 2 tv's:
Pioneer 42" Plasma $1599.00
Sony 46" LCD $1978.00
Don't really need the larger screen as I sit about 7 to 8 feet from the tv.
I second everything BLUUOFF said. Pioneer Kuro models are excellent TVs, they have no peers at this time. No mater what you get, budget a few extra $$$ for professional calibration - you'll find the picture vastly improved, especially when you use it quite a bit. It won't sear your eyeballs with the oversaturated color settings as they come from the factory, though the factory settings of the Kuros are better than most. The 60" will be my next display by the end of this year.