Options
LED or LCD?
andybno1
Posts: 6,142
Forum Member
✭
looking to save up for a new TV mainly to get rid of an old tubed bulky tv and dunno which is the better option led or lcd? the plan is get the new tv as main and move existing tv into the room with the old tv but not sure what the main benefits of one over the other.
I'm looking to get LG mainly because they've never done me wrong when it comes to tv's.
I'm looking to get LG mainly because they've never done me wrong when it comes to tv's.
0
Comments
LED TVs are just LCD TVs in drag. They have (on average) better/more even backlighting. that's about it. BUT they tend to be thinner too, just because they can, so there's less room for decent speakers in there and the sound quality may be poorer than an equivalent (but fatter) LCD TV.
Th best brands on average these days tend to be Panasonic, Sony, Samsung, LG, own brands in that rough order (and quality differences tend to be reflected in the price). All IMHO, others may (and some WILL) vary.
also were are good places to get bargains on tv's?
OP what size screen are you looking to get ?
Absolutely. I've got two LG Cinema 3D (passive) sets, a 2011 LW and a 2012 LM. They are both excellent.
Quite the opposite, LED generally have less even back-lighting than CCFL, almost all are only edge-lit - very few are backlit as it increases cost and panel thickness.
I didn't know that! I'm pretty sure that the last time I looked at LED TVs (quite a while back) they had full panel arrays of LEDs and were supposed to provide better backlighting (at a cost). Things seem to have changed for the worse then, sadly, with cosmetics and cost winning over even illumination, probably sound quality too, GRRR. You can still get full-array LED backlighting though, can you?
Incidentally, I consider it to be mis-selling to describe these things as LED TVs, as they are still LCD. But thank goodness you can still get plasma TVs.
3d is a gimmick and a waste of money
Very few ever did - it's too expensive and two restricting, for minimal gain.
The back-lighting wasn't significantly better either.
I must say I'm amazed how even you can get edgelit panels.
If you look hard enough you can - but it's not that common.
Hardly any, and how long will the few manufacturers left (only three) bother with them?.
They will probably (hopefully) keep making plasmas until something better comes along - potentially OLED. But I much prefer plasma over lcd.
Me too, decent blacks for a start and none of this refresh problem that LCd have. yes i know things have improved, but you can still see the trails sometimes.
the problem with plasma is that they are a bit heavy on the juice and they weigh a bit more than LCD, but my next Tv will be a plasma.
How old is your TV?
It took me a good few hours of twiddling with the settings before I got them right. Manufacturers have an annoying habit of setting their TVs up to look bright under shop lighting conditions, which basically means that everything is turned up far too high. It is trial and error, I am afraid, because the quick start guide supplied with the set is pretty useless. At least there is a reset option that sets everything back to default if you get it wrong, so you can start again. I persevered, however, and the picture is now superb, in both HD and SD. In fact, some of the SD programmes (presumably those shot on HD cameras) look almost as good as their HD equivalents. Even the poorest channels are watchable. I have a TalkTalk YouView box, and that may be partly responsible for the picture quality, but on the odd occasion that I have watched via the set's own tuner, it still looked good.
Final point. LED sets tend to be very thin, which looks stylish, but doesn't leave much room inside the case to fit decent speakers. Those on the Philips are okay, but nothing special. If your budget can stretch to it, add a good sound bar. I got the Yamaha YAS 101 (£189 from Richers) and it is excellent.
5 years old now and it is a plasma, so I don't notice trails on it, but I do notice them on other peoples LCD/LED, even new ones. As I said they are not as bad as older sets but it is still there, even so the blacks are still not black and I can't see them sorting that out with LCD.
What commission? Most don't do that these days.
I got a philips Plasma, getting on now, but still works well, sound quality is amazing, even a musician/sound engineer mate was impressed with it.
SD is pretty naff anyway as they have reduced the quality over the years to fit in more crap on Freeview, so any TV even the cheapest ones will look the same as the higher spec ones on Freeview.
Another plasma for me if they still produce them by the time I need a new TV set, other wise I may just get a projector.
Which they will get paid if they sell anything or not.
Not the full story by any means. They have also improved the encoding. Bearing in mind that broadcast quality is not as high as DVD (for SD) or Bluray (for HD) - that is true regardless of platform -
[/quote]
I know all of this. they say they have improved encoding, but only to put more junk on and not improve quality
You really think the main channels hold up well? I think they are awful or they was when I watched them 12 months ago and I doubt much have changed apart from the no doubt lowering the quality again to stuff crap into a over crowded platform.
If it was my Tv as you seem to think then why is it that the quality that I get on SD content on Netflix is better than what I used to get on Freeview? some of the stuff I watch is naff in quality, but then it is old, so I expect that, but other stuff like say New Tricks is far better quality on Netfliks picture wise that I ever remember it on TV. Bearing in mind I am using the same TV, even using the Wii instead of the PS3 the quality is better.
We should not have to circumvent a lot of the shortcomings of Freeview. for goodness sake this system have replaced our analogue system and yet it is to be honest crap compared to analogue, ok there was no widescreen with analogue, but there was no real reason why it could not be done.
sorry, but Freeview as it is is trash, people just put up with it, like the ones who had a analogue Tv set up with pictures that are stretched and they did not notice. Because to be honest most people are almost blind when it comes to quality and this is coming from someone who have to wear specs. if I can notice the difference then surly people with good eye sight should be able to.
the only channel that had decent HD was Channel 4, I saw time team in HD on channel four and was pretty impressed, i have no idea what it is like now mind you. BBC HD is not that great to be honest.
Of cause you will disagree with me, but this is just my opinion on the British TV system, which is naf be it via Dsat or Freeview. If as much effort have been put in getting a decent picture than there have been in putting so much crap on the systems, then maybe things would be better.
Get rid of the naff channels and use the space to up the quality of SD and if there is space left, up the quality of HD.
Not sure when I will get one, I would have liked another Philips, but they don't make Plasmas any more. It could be next year before I decide unless mine goes belly up in the mean time.
The one thing I have noticed on mine is that I pressed a channel button yesterday and nothing came up, It should have said something about tuning in and not being about to detect a aerial. I turned it off at the mains, left it for a few mins, turned it back on and it was fine. I hope that is not the start of a problem. I am not bothered about the tuner as it is not used anyway, I just use Netflix, but normally if one thing goes something else follows..
I may have to start looking to see what is on the market
hi there..
to be honest,i have had led,lcd,plasma..
as in detail-plasma,
but in colours=lcd..
but as in brightness-led..
honest truth,i rather have lcd or plasma..
quality pictures in plsma or lcd,
led not great at all..
I have never seen your TV, so cannot comment on how it compares with mine. I simply write as I find. HD on my new TV is excellent and SD - although it varies from channel to channel - is never unwatchable. A friend of mine also has a new flatscreen. We both live within line of sight of the same transmitter, and both have good aerials and cables. His is a 32" Beko. Mine is a 39" Philips. On his, Dave is unwatchable: blurred, poor colours, dreadful. On mine, it is watchable - not brilliant, of course, but watchable. Obviously, my kit is more expensive than his, so it would be reasonable to expect it to produce better results.
The point that I made in my original post was that someone looking for a new TV should actually get out and audition a few for themselves. The shop won't show you how it handles standard definition unless you ask them to - and you should. Modern sets were designed to give of their best in HD, but it may be some time before we have more than a handful of HD channels, given the current financial climate. Consequently, it makes sense to discover how a set handles SD before parting with your cash.
Blooming heck, your a bit like Jonathan Heart from Heart to Heart, a kiss of death. In the TV show all those around them tended to end up in grief and all your chums seem to have bad TV's/telephone/mobiles/computers/broadband/electricity/gas :eek:
Any of them happy with life in general