Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Looking to buy a new tv


Goosfraba21

Recommended Posts

Plasma is pretty much dead. Some the the newest plasmas have recieved the best image quality ratings ever but LCD is taking over. It is probably best to go with the dominant technology.

LCD's response times are low enough now that Sports will do just fine. 5ms is a good target. Don't get a TV with anything higher unless you want to see what it's like to watch football on shrooms. 8ms is still ok but once your approach 10-12ms it gets noticeable. NASCAR, Football, The Olympics, and Hockey all do better with low response times.

1080p should probably be your target for resolution. It's pretty much expected nowadays for a TV around that size. I wouldn't want HD cable and Blu-Ray unless I was getting the max resolution. The high resolution also helps again with hockey.

If you don't want to spend a lot of money Vizio is surprisingly good for a value brand. They still are a value brand though.

Just shop around and you should find a decent one. Sony, Pioneer, and Samsung are all Brands that I trust.

Make sure you factor in the costs for the mounting equipment and speakers. If your watching it from your bed and you have a large bedroom you might want some separate speakers so you don't have to strain the TV's speakers to hear it. Some of the better brands have great speakers on their TV's now so that may not be a problem.

Make sure not to get scammed on HDMI cables if a retail place tries to package them with your TV. All salesmen are pressured to offer you Monster cable because their profit margins are far higher than the TV they are selling you. Expensive cables are only partially worth it if you are running them through walls.

One important thing to remember though is if you aren't' a huge videophile, you probably aren't going to notice a huge difference between an expensive tv and a cheaper one. A lot of the reviews you see analyze things that the average consumer isn't going to notice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lolwut

LCD tv's have the advantage in the long run. They don't use as much power which is a huge advantage since every market in the entire universe is emphasizing sustainability and green tech.

LCD's are also used in more applications than plasma. It's cheaper for companies to just concentrate on one application.

I shouldn't have said that you shouldn't not get a TV. But the plasma market is shrinking.

Most cheaper plasmas aren't going to get you 1080p as well. Since you like sports I would go with LCD.

Plasmas have better response times but once you get so low it's hard to notice a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plasma? LCD? looking around 42" for bedroom. I watch sports 90% of the time and not sure what to get.

Check out Circuit City www.circuitcity.com

They closed their stores, but do a great business over the internet. I bought a 65" Mitsubishi DLP HDTV, 3D ready for about 1/2 price and they through in the TV stand for free and I think shipping was free!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It still all comes down to a few things, one of which is how bright/dark your room is. I have a really dark living room, so my plasma works great. My power bill increase was nominal at best, and it's not overly hot. It's 1080p. If you have a dark room without much window glare, get a plasma.

The bigger issue a lot of times is what you are watching on your TV. Anyone with Cable as their provider is doing themselves a greater disservice than debating between LCD or Plasma. Why spend all that money and then get a provider that will only broadcast in 1080i?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Jeremy Fowler draft intel on the Panthers: “Carolina was high on Proctor. If he somehow slipped to 19, he was a viable option.” “Caleb Lomu was on the Panthers short list too.” “Panthers weren’t totally comfortable with Stowers there at 49.”   https://x.com/panthersontap/status/2049827264972353727?s=46&t=xeIgh_-Vr2aKxBkBJdfnKA
    • No saying he mostly sucks is saying that he doesn’t suck the minority of the time.   Like if he took 17 tests and had a couple of really good showings and a handful of pretty good scores sprinkled in among the typical sub par results.   Like a golfer who went out and shot an 89.  There will be some real nice shots sprinkled in there but at the end of the day it is still 89.    
    • It's worth mentioning... Game 1: Oct 11 in Raleigh. 4-3 OT win with a complete starting lineup. Game 2: Dec 13 in Philly. 4-3 SO win without Jaccob Slavin. Game 3: Dec 14 in Raleigh. 3-2 SO win with a complete starting lineup. Game 4: Apr 13 in Philly. 3-2 SO loss with the AHL roster.  Those early season games were no indication of the Canes team that finished the season. Miller and Ehlers were still trying to figure things out, Nikishin was still a work in progress and the Stankoven line was just another line. Make no mistake, the Canes team Philly will see is nothing close to what they saw at any point in the season. If the top line starts producing, Freddie stays hot and the blue line does what it does, this could be a sweep as well.   
×
×
  • Create New...