New television: LED or LCD? (Decision made!)

[BourbonCowboy]

It's time to upgrade, so I'm doing a little research. I'm thinking about a Samsung 55" HD television. The LED version is about $400 more than the LCD. So, is the LED worth the extra $$$, or should I just save my money and go with the LCD?

...and yes, I've already read a few of the threads on the subject. I'm just looking for specific reasons to choose one over the other.

 

[axle01]

Mark i've got the Samsung LED and love it except for the inbuilt speakers, you'll have to connect it to your stereo and it'll also have to have sound delay otherwise you'll hear it before the mouth moves which was a bit anoying.

 

[Thorsten]

The LCD is the same. The difference is in the back-lighting. An LED is much brighter than the traditional fluorescent light and would offer a brighter and more contrasty picture. Unfortunately, there are no TV sets yet that use LEDs directly behind the LCD display for back-lighting, but this day will come, as LED prices go down.

What Samsung offers now is a set of LEDs at the side of the screen, and that light is distributed across the back of the LCD. The result is still a bit brighter than the traditional model, but the difference is not all that big. LCDs with real LED backlights will be truly mind-blowing.

 

[9shooter]

I used to assist a local home theater company and I left right before the LED craze. IMO, there is not enough of a difference to warrant the $400 price tag. The only thing you really gain is the slimmer profile.

Traditional CCFL backlighting may be a bit less bright, but the lumens it can put out at full power will strain your eyes and give you a headache in a few minutes, so even that argument is moot.

As far as IQ and contrast vs a CCFL. It depends on the implementation of the LED array. It's too much to type, so I'll just give a link I found...

http://reviews.cnet.com/2795-6482_7-399.html

As far as power savings. That depends on the number of LED's behind the screen. Some LED's can actually suck more power than a traditional CCFL.

In short, an edge lit display will give you a slimmer profile, but in terms of actual IQ, that is pure marketing. On the other hand, full array local dimming, RGB-LED's, and OLED's are truly revolutionary in terms of IQ, but they often come at a heavy premium.

 

[Pete]

Mark,
I also have the Samsung LED. It is awesome even at extreme side angles. Tom is right about the LED lighting. My unit is about 1" thick all the way across and could be mounted flat on the wall. I am glad I spent the extra money on it.
Pete

 

[devo]

The 55inch Samsung is amazing. My friend has one, and it is spectacular. Go LED, especially at 55inches.

 

[TomP]

LED will use about 25% less power, get a SONY XBR and not have to worry about the sound.

I was going to say to think of this as an investment in Nikon gear, but it does depreciate badly, plus Mark, you trade lenses so often. Any way for me I considered it an item that would serve me 7 to 12 years, so bought accordingly. The new lower power LED came out right after I bought mine, being solar powered, I could be saving a bunch of energy.

 

[alemmo]

go to a electronics store and see for yourself which you prefer. I ended up with a 50" plasma screen last year. Televisions these days are light years beyond what we had just 5-10 years ago. You are literally just splitting hairs at this point for image quality differences. As long as you have an HD signal for your content most all of these televisions these days will blow you away.

 

[greyflash]

You will get blacker blacks and more contrast with the LED version; however, not $400 worth IMHO.

 

[AggieCJ]

Neither, go Plasma.

 

[vinman]

The point about brighter being problematic for your eyes is valid, but of course the brightness is widely adjustable. If you're into home theater, you will appreciate the slightly better shadow detail and light transitions. To me the best argument for led is longevity. It should far exceed the lifespan of ccfl and maintain it's output consistently where ccfl will grow increasingly dim.

 

[jonh68]

Neither, go Plasma.

Ditto

 

[greyflash]

Neither, go Plasma.

Hmmm, that may be true if you have a darkened room and do not go too far off axis when viewing. I have several relatives and friends who have plasma and I wouldn't trade any of them straight across for my Sony Bravia LCD.

I know that this will probably spark a debate but keep in mind I am just talking for myself and my viewing habits.

 

[jonh68]

Hmmm, that may be true if you have a darkened room and do not go too far off axis when viewing. I have several relatives and friends who have plasma and I wouldn't trade any of them straight across for my Sony Bravia LCD.

I know that this will probably spark a debate but keep in mind I am just talking for myself and my viewing habits.

They must not have a plasma if off angle viewing is a problem. I have a Panasonic and the view angle IQ is the same at every angle. LCD's have the view angle problems, but the LED-LCD's have reduced this problem.

http://www.displaymate.com/LCD_Plasma_ShootOut.htm

You really have to be in a bright bright room, like outside on a back porch for it to matter in regards to Plasma vs LCD.

 

[BobW]

The best Plasmas have the best picture, unfortunately the best Plasma is no longer made(Pioneer Elite). The top Panasonic's are the next best thing. Plasmas are a problem in rooms with bright light or windows which are in a room which will cause glare on the screen. LCD TVs normally have less of a problem with this because they have a matte screen. A lot of the new LCD TVs are beginning to use glossy screens so this is now becoming a problem with them also.

The Pioneer Elite Plasma had blacker blacks better colors and better viewing angle than any LCD on the market. It also had a big price tag. The 170deg viewing angle in the specs of an LCD is not the same as a 170deg viewing angle of a Plasma. They are not an apple to apple comparison because the LCD spec is based off of old standards from the computer industry for viewing text not a movie.

Bob W

 

[mobeious1]

new sharp quatro LED are awsome.... looks 3d without the glasses

 

[Boris Badenov]

I've spend lots of time trying to decide just that.

At the end I found a good deal on sony z series (LCD) and went for it just based on bang-for-a-buck bases... and now i am happy like a pig in a mud!

don't over analyze it.

 

[Commodorefirst]

Money no object, you can still find a pioneer elite Kuro. I have the model prior to the Kuro, just the plain Elite, and it is still superior to all LCD TVs, however, the new LCDs have closed the gap down to nearly the same level, and I now recommend a LCD to most folks. For most brighter viewing conditions the LCD is the way to go for most folks.

Those of us who use the 200VR or the 1.4 glass primes, high end audio, or view our TVs in the dark rooms most of the time, still prefer plasma or a good projection set up for the larger screens.

In fact, my even earlier plasma than my Elite, even at 720p (properly set up and color adjusted) is better than most folks HD 1080p units that aren't set up correctly.

I recommend the LCD 50", enjoy.

 

[Lurker]

No tv; get a library card instead.

 

[sizzlingbadger]

I have a Pioneer Plasma, its about 4 years old and was one of the best you could get. The latest LCD TV's have come a long way and look better than my plasma IMHO. Plasma TV's cannot display a full sRGB Red gamut, not that you would notice though. They take a lot of power also. I'm still happy with it though but will buy LCD when it dies.