I am looking for a new tv but i am torn between which one to get. I have been reading reviews on the internet and have decided to opt for a panasonic. what i cannot decide is plasma or LCD and which model. Can i have everyones advice as to which tv is best out of these.

32-TXLZD85
TH37PX80B
TX32LXD85

cheers

chris

Find a shop and view them all.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Then buy the TH37PX80B, you won't be disappointed.

If you've got room for a 37" then definitely get that, you'll always wish you had later if you get a 32" now. And plasma is still superior for picture quality, especially with SD material

This might help, paraphrased from Which? magazine ...

LCD TVs have the edge over plasmas in the Which? testing regime. If you take screen-size into account this is hardly surprising. A 26 to 32-inch screen is the best size for watching standard-definition material. Bigger screens make digital processing side-effects more obvious. Bigger screens are more suited to high-definition.

(15 of the Which Top 20 TVs are Panasonic, including the entire Top 7. The only other brand in their Top 20 is Sony. All the TVs you mention score highly).

Sorry, but that's complete nonsense!.

Screen size as such makes no difference, it's the ratio of viewing distance and screen size that makes the difference. A 32 inch TV at 10 feet looks exactly the same as a 64 inch at 20 feet. It's having too large a screen too close that allows you to see defects and artifacts.

I would presume any testing regime would take account of the size? - otherwise it would be pointless.

No, they are saying the SD signal contains enough information to produce a crisp and clear picture at 32". Simply getting further away from a fuzzy larger picture doesn't sharpen it up, it just makes the flaws less obvious. Your theory implies that watching a giant pub screen from the other side of the pub is "the same" as watching a perfect picture a couple of feet away from a 15" screen. i.e. "nonsense"?

Its not nonsense. If you are too far away to see the flaws then the picture quality is perferct. You can never get a perfect picture displayed anyway, if you look close enough to the worlds most perfect 15" screen there will still be flaws. If you can't noticably see flaws in the image there is sufficient quality and it can be called a 'perfect picture'

Plasma or LCD

I went from a KDL40W4000 to a 42PZ81, (LCD to Plasma)

The difference in picture quality is instantly noticeable, but when you get some high quality material its even better, SD on my tv is perfect at a distance of around 5 feet, obviously older sd material looks bad but the current tv looks great

I don't know how old you are but did you not do geometry at school?

How big the TV is to your eyes depends on both it's size and the viewing distance, a 50" at 12' is the same as a 17" at 4' if everything else is equal. The Which report is nonsense if you've paraphrased it accurately.

I can see what you mean bobcar. I can also see what Which? means when they say that a screen bigger than 32" is not going to look great until you are far enough away from it. In their view 32" is best suited to typical viewing distances for SD.

Saying it's all "the same" once distance is taken into account is like saying a 48 sheet poster might just as well be low-res because you're not going to see it close up. When in real life people see it from all sorts of different non-optimum distances. Just like people get too close to big TVs and are disappointed by the quality of the picture.

I'm not sure your point is incompatible with theirs, as you say it may be my account which is confusing.

My 'fact', it's not theory, does mean that a large set further away gives the same quality of picture as a smaller one close up. Bear in mind that the resolution of the set doesn't vary much depending on it's size, and are basically one of two options regradless of the screen size.

So a 32 inch Full HD set has EXACTLY the same number of pixels on screen as a 50 inch Full HD set - the only difference been that the larger set has larger pixels.

Thanks Nigel, that's clarified it for me.

I guess a more accurate paraphrase of the Which conclusion would be that (in their opinion) "at a typical likely viewing distance SD on a screen any bigger than 32" may begin to look poor, unless you can get further away from it". You may argue with the 32" figure, but logically there is going to be some size of screen which is "optimum" in the context of a typical room. In their view it's 32" for SD.

Nothing new or controversial, if you sit too close to an enormous old CRT that looks worse than a smaller screen with the same number of lines of picture.

Exactly - CRT was just the same - viewing distance is dependent on screen size.

I don't know where they decided typical rooms can only take a 32 inch TV set? - I've installed many where 50 inch sets aren't big enough for the room

For SD you should view from at least 2.5 times the screen size away, and for HD closer than that.

So for a 50 inch set, 11 feet away would be fine.

However, Which have never made any sense in the past, so why should they start now!

Pardon my ignorance but what is a TH37PX80B? and CRT?

TH37PX80B = 37" tv made by Panasonic

CRT = CRT is an abbreviation that stands for "Cathode Ray Tube", and has been the main form of television technology for many years. A CRT is a heated filament, the cathode, inside a vacuum glass tube. The stream of electrons, the ray, is poured off into the tube and then is "steered", so to speak, by the steering coils. They are directed at a screen that is coated with phosphors. The phosphors then become excited, which causes them to light up. This gives you the TV picture display. (taken from laser-tvs.net)

Personally, I wouldnt have anything but plasma, but thats just my choice based on looking at hundreds of different tv's every week.

My problem with plasma is that they have a glass screen. Most (all?) are highly reflective. So in my situation the TV would reflect a lot of light from windows in the room. In this case the LCD was a huge improvement over its CRT predecessor as its non-reflective screen is watchable from a much wider range of angles.

Yes, Plasma is very bad for reflection, I have the same problem - I can't watch TV during the day unless the curtains are closed.

Dont forget Christmas time, all those lovely light s reflecting from the Plasma screen!

I have a plasma and an LCD and vastly prefer the plasma. The overall picture quality is better. As others have said, plamsa does suffer from reflections but no more than CRT sets. LCD has a sheen on the screen surface which I dislike and which can be worse than reflections when daylight is facing the screen.

Get the PX80 if you haven't already.

if its under 37 go for lcd
37 and over plasma

and as for reflection on the plasma...pull a curtain or close the blinds a bit, or easier still sit in a different position...cant do that with lcd though, viewing angle is poor

Viewing angle on most Sony LCD's is extremely wide, certainly wider than you would want to watch a TV from.

The only one I've noticed been at all narrow, is the 15 inch portable.

Erm, hes going for a panasonic though? Not a sony...

I've got a Sony Bravia 32D3000 LCD (which is roughly equivalent to TX32LXD85 ) and a Panasonic Viera 37PX80 plasma and would definitely recommend the plasma over the LCD for most things.

If you want a pin sharp, retention free image for hooking upto PC or are going to have the set in a well lit room then go for the brighter, non reflecting LCD. Otherwise if you watch a lot of SD and want a cinematic viewing experience go for the plasma imho.

The plasma screen has an anti-reflective coating so it's not quite as bad as an old fashioned CRT at least plus the viewing angle is also slightly better than LCD which comes in handy as both my TVs are in room corners.