Mythbusting!

It seems like 90% of the home theater threads started on this forum end up in an argument about the pro's and con's of each display technology, and there are LOTS of false pieces of information flying around in each thread.

Below is a link to a 16 page article written by an independant company that used the ISF to test several different TV's. Note that it's independant, which means their opinion isn't swayed. It's also done by the ISF, who sets the standards on picture transmission. It's VERY informative.

Have a read, and let me know what you think!

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pi...0-%20FINAL.pdf

too much debate about displays

i did tons of research but all it took was a simple trip to the store and comparing each display. Simply put, I went with the one i liked the most that was within my budget

in the end the Sony LCD won it for me as it did not seem worth to pay extra for the Sammy DLP for the marginal increase in performance.

Buyers' remorse is very rare among the sammy, hitachi, sony, toshiba and panny tvs

Originally Posted by trippinbillies4

It seems like 90% of the home theater threads started on this forum end up in an argument about the pro's and con's of each display technology, and there are LOTS of false pieces of information flying around in each thread.

Below is a link to a 16 page article written by an independant company that used the ISF to test several different TV's. Note that it's independant, which means their opinion isn't swayed. It's also done by the ISF, who sets the standards on picture transmission. It's VERY informative.

Have a read, and let me know what you think!

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pi...0-%20FINAL.pdf

I am sorry, but it would be utterly ignorant to take what Pioneer has to say about plasma tv's as fact and to shoot down what the experienced members here have to say. Let me ask you a question. Who was it that paid ISF and that independent company to do the tests? And what kind of results would ISF want to give for further business in the future?

The entire A/V industry is very shady in general. Never take anyone's word on anything. Especially A/V magazines. All of those people reviewing products are legendary for getting paid off for good reviews. Ever seen a negative speaker review? I rest my point.

The test was conducted by the IDC, not the ISF, so it was definitely impartial. Why would Sony, who doesn't make PDP's, want to fund a research project like that?

Secondly, how can you argue with numbers? It's not like those are fictional. They were conducted by impartial industry experts that do nothing but test and calibrate TV's.

Third, I am giving my opinion here as one of the most accredited experts on the board, given that I helped start a mid-high end home theater/automation retailer that went from scratch to three stores and $19mil/year in 3 years. I've been working in the industry for 8 years now. Blown has very similar, if not more experience, so I usually listen to what he has to say, but other than that, I see nothing but biased opinions on here.

Finally, exactly what points of the article would you like to argue? I can VERY easily recreate them for you. And if you think there's a way where I could reconduct the same tests, yet come up with different results, let me know and I'll be glad to try it out for you.

Originally Posted by James330I

too much debate about displays

i did tons of research but all it took was a simple trip to the store and comparing each display. Simply put, I went with the one i liked the most that was within my budget

in the end the Sony LCD won it for me as it did not seem worth to pay extra for the Sammy DLP for the marginal increase in performance.

Buyers' remorse is very rare among the sammy, hitachi, sony, toshiba and panny tvs

I also wanted to make it clear that I wasn't saying that PDPs are the end-all be-all of TV's. If you are happier with something cheaper, and it's in your budget, by all means go out and get it.

The point I'm trying to make is that LOTS of people are shying away from TV's they truly like, and that are within their budget, because of false rumors. I have people come into my store on a daily basis that say, "Oh what kind of TV is that? It looks amazing!" "Plasma" "Oh, we don't want one of those, they don't last very long..."

Originally Posted by trippinbillies4

I have people come into my store on a daily basis that say, "Oh what kind of TV is that? It looks amazing!" "Plasma" "Oh, we don't want one of those, they don't last very long..."

I bought a nice plasma display, despite all the rumors and BS people are pushing. I love the display, it is bright and sharp and the color looks consistenly fantastic.

People are always bringing up things like burn-in and weight and power-consumption and lifespan as reasons why I should have gone LCD. Sure, some of these are legitimate arguments, ie: I wouldn't use my plasma for static images, but the reality is Plasma still delivers the better image quality than LCD. Can you say contrast ratio?

...I should say that the new Sony's LCDs are very nice though and have come a long way in price/performance to close the gap. I would seriously consider the new Sony LCDs for my next display. Still, I think it will take another two years for LCD to draw even with Plasma.

While I agree with you on some points, you definitely prove my point of people tossing around things that aren't true. Plasmas often have higher contrast ratio's than their LCD counterparts, but a huge contrast ratio does little for picture quality if the TV cannot display a pure black. Having a 10,000:1 contrast ratio where the white's are blindingly white not only crushes whites, but also makes all other colors appear washed out and bland because the black levels are not there.

Also, as stated in the article, static images WILL NOT ruin a plasma. If you leave an image on the TV for 3 days straight, it doesn't even take 1 day of cycling a DVD through the TV to get rid of the image. A little known FACT is that BURN IN IS NOT PERMANENT on plasmas under any reasonable amount of time. Sure, you could ruin a plasma by leaving an image paused on it for 3 weeks, but you could ruin a CRT tube by doing the same thing.

Originally Posted by trippinbillies4

While I agree with you on some points, you definitely prove my point of people tossing around things that aren't true. Plasmas often have higher contrast ratio's than their LCD counterparts, but a huge contrast ratio does little for picture quality if the TV cannot display a pure black. Having a 10,000:1 contrast ratio where the white's are blindingly white not only crushes whites, but also makes all other colors appear washed out and bland because the black levels are not there.

Also, as stated in the article, static images WILL NOT ruin a plasma. If you leave an image on the TV for 3 days straight, it doesn't even take 1 day of cycling a DVD through the TV to get rid of the image. A little known FACT is that BURN IN IS NOT PERMANENT on plasmas under any reasonable amount of time. Sure, you could ruin a plasma by leaving an image paused on it for 3 weeks, but you could ruin a CRT tube by doing the same thing.

Good point, but all things being equal, give me 5000:1 over 1000:1. Naturally you need to adjust the display settings, but this is probably the single greatest strength plasma has over LCD.

I think that there is a distinction between image retention and burn-in. Image retention is temporary, burn in (or should I say burn-out) is permanent. Plasmas fade over time, areas that consistently display bright patterns will fade faster effectively burning that pattern in. You can age the rest of the disply to mitigate the problem, but it's not temporary in the same sense that image retention is temporary. Still, I agree 100% that the problem is a non-issue for most users.

Werd. You'd be surprised that many LCD's have a much higher contrast ratio than even the best PDP's. What really makes the plasma better is the black levels it can produce. Most plasma's put out .1-.3 NIT's, while LCD's are usually 2-3x that amount, meaning that the blacks on plasmas are 2-3x blacker than LCDs. That is what gives the tv it's colorfulness and gives depth to the image. A great example of plasmas that had a huge contrast ratio but still looked marginal were Sony XBR900 series. They smoked the competition on contrast ratios, but it got you midnight-blue looking blacks, and whites that were so crushed that clouds looked like big pure-white squigly's.

Originally Posted by stewey

Good point, but all things being equal, give me 5000:1 over 1000:1. Naturally you need to adjust the display settings, but this is probably the single greatest strength plasma has over LCD.

I think that there is a distinction between image retention and burn-in. Image retention is temporary, burn in (or should I say burn-out) is permanent. Plasmas fade over time, areas that consistently display bright patterns will fade faster effectively burning that pattern in. You can age the rest of the disply to mitigate the problem, but it's not temporary in the same sense that image retention is temporary. Still, I agree 100% that the problem is a non-issue for most users.

Contrast ratios need to be taken with a grain of salt:

From Wikipedia and numerous other websites:

Contrast ratio indicates the difference between the brightest part of a picture and the darkest part of a picture, measured in discrete steps, at any given moment. The implication is that a higher contrast ratio means more picture detail. Contrast ratios for plasma displays are often advertised as high as 5000:1. On the surface, this is a great thing. In reality, there are no standardised tests for contrast ratio, meaning each manufacturer can publish virtually any number that they like. To illustrate, some manufacturers will measure contrast with the front glass removed, which accounts for some of the wild claims regarding their advertised ratios

Originally Posted by trippinbillies4

Werd. You'd be surprised that many LCD's have a much higher contrast ratio than even the best PDP's. What really makes the plasma better is the black levels it can produce. Most plasma's put out .1-.3 NIT's, while LCD's are usually 2-3x that amount, meaning that the blacks on plasmas are 2-3x blacker than LCDs. That is what gives the tv it's colorfulness and gives depth to the image. A great example of plasmas that had a huge contrast ratio but still looked marginal were Sony XBR900 series. They smoked the competition on contrast ratios, but it got you midnight-blue looking blacks, and whites that were so crushed that clouds looked like big pure-white squigly's.

Why is it that I hear plasma's are more prone to reflecting light compared to LCD's?

Originally Posted by trippinbillies4

Werd. You'd be surprised that many LCD's have a much higher contrast ratio than even the best PDP's.

You're right, I'd be very surprised.

What really makes the plasma better is the black levels it can produce. Most plasma's put out .1-.3 NIT's, while LCD's are usually 2-3x that amount, meaning that the blacks on plasmas are 2-3x blacker than LCDs. That is what gives the tv it's colorfulness and gives depth to the image. A great example of plasmas that had a huge contrast ratio but still looked marginal were Sony XBR900 series. They smoked the competition on contrast ratios, but it got you midnight-blue looking blacks, and whites that were so crushed that clouds looked like big pure-white squigly's.

I see what you're saying. I do like my deep blacks. Still, for me, the deciding factor was contrast and bright room performance.

Originally Posted by stewey

I see what you're saying. I do like my deep blacks. Still, for me, the deciding factor was contrast and bright room performance.

LCD's are know to have better bright room performance.

Originally Posted by JC7727

LCD's are know to have better bright room performance.

they always look dim to me? Could this have more to do with the glass fronts?

LCD's typically have a matte finish screen, which prevents reflection.

I really wish you guys would actually read that article, because it answers all these questions.

Originally Posted by trippinbillies4

LCD's typically have a matte finish screen, which prevents reflection.

I really wish you guys would actually read that article, because it answers all these questions.

...but blindly hurling our opinions at one another is so much more fun

Originally Posted by trippinbillies4

LCD's typically have a matte finish screen, which prevents reflection.

I really wish you guys would actually read that article, because it answers all these questions.

Why is the article hosted on the pioneer website from a company who doesn’t make any LCD screens?

Because they paid to have it done.

If you'd like to argue that the findings are false, let me know. I'd be glad to here your specific opinions about what's wrong in the article. However, saying the entire thing is completely false JUST because Pioneer paid someone to do it is a little quick on the trigger in my opinion.

Again, let me know you think about the article.

I browsed the article and I can not argue the fact that at this time in terms of raw numbers and picture quality, plasma is the winner. The pioneer elite is the best display in terms of plasma performance that I have seen. In a properly light home theater room I would go hands down with plasma. However in a family room with many windows and ambient light problems, LCD enters the picture. Here is another comparison between Plasma and LCD, its not an pioneer elite but it gives you a general idea.

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/art...&page_number=1