Does anyone ever talk about home theater equipment here? WTF? Please don't make me post in AVS Forum.

I'm about to buy a TV for a renovated basement. I want to get as large as possible without going front projection (yet). I have the space all wired for front projection but I don't think I want to commit to it.

I'm only interested in TVs over 60". I'm only interested in plasma. Is there a case to me made for LCD sets? From my cursory research and past experience, it seems plasmas have better pictures, better blacks, and better motion.

Does anyone here have any of the 65" sets from Panasonic or the 63" sets from Samsung? I was ready to pull the trigger on the 65" Panasonic S2 but realized for $500, I'd get so much more functionality out of a Samsung 7000. The Panasonic VT25 series is what I want but it is $2K more than an S2. They offer nothing in the middle. I never even considered Samsung until this week.

I have the 50" version of the Sammy 7000 plasma. It's a great set. 3D works well and it's a big step up from my old LCD for 2D viewing. From what I've read, the VT25 is the best out there for 3D at the moment but, as you stated, it's a fairly big jump in price. I didn't do a side-by-side in a store so I can't say if it's worth the extra money.

There's a sub-forum for that


Personally, I'd go with LED over Plasma or LCD at this point. That's my only, pretty value-less, input.

Holy shit. Nine and half years and I never even noticed that forum. Sorry. Mods, please move.

One could argue that it should be a sub-forum of THIS sub-forum... but that would make some heads explode.

i was wondering why your post was in this sub
there is constant discussion on the areas you wanted

heck.. my hd tivo question got moved to the damn tv sub.. not even the home entertainment/theatre one

Why go with LED? The black level argument is pretty persuasive to me.

Another forum to waste time in! All these wasted years.

yea.. im not a rocket surgeon
but the difference between black and white, vs all shades in between... seems pretty damn big

because I'm dumb. I just read up on LED vs Plasma and realized that I've been lied to. I thought LED was supposed to have similarly awesome black levels.

I still miss my 34" Toshiba 1080i 16x9 CRT. I love my current Samsung DLP, but it will never match the black levels of that CRT or good-quality plasmas.

i have family with an LG 47" LED TV. it's very nice and as a Mac user you will probably like it.

it's bright, super thin and the picture quality is amazing. almost real life like. the new models announced at CES are probably worth waiting for since they will be cheaper and have better CPU's in them

i've seen difference TV's over the years and never noticed any difference in black levels

I have a Panasonic 50" G-series and the blacks are very black. "Bright" is what I don't want.

The Samsung 7000 is super thin compared to the Panasonic. Another reason I'm leaning that direction. I just never bought anything from Samsung and am still skeptical.

LED alone doesn't mean anything. An LED backlit (not edge-lit) set with local dimming comes close to the black levels of Plasma. Without local dimming, all LED gives you is lower power consumption and a thinner screen.

i have a 42" Panny LCD EEFL TV and when the x-box comes on it's like the sun. but the picture quality is very good. not as good as the 47" LG though

and don't pay the premium for the internet crap in the TV. waste of money

the newer TV's with LED and 3D will have the newest CPU's inside of them for better picture quality

I use Amazon On Demand via my Panasonic TV now and it works great. The Samsung comes with everything: Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, etc. I have other devices to do the same thing but the TV seems to be the best experience, ironically.

But that has nothing to do with the fact that they're LED. Old CCFL lit LCD's would benefit the same way.

and which company is putting in the newest CPU's into CCFL TV's?

What everyone seems to be calling LED TVs here are LCDs. The backlight is LED as opposed to a fluorescent backlight that was most common up until the last year or so. Seems like a lot of people are confused by that.

^ I was guilty of that.

It seems to me that plasma is superior to LCD in picture quality (going by reviewers and AV geek opinion) but manufacturers are producing and hyping LCD. (Best Buy seems to be 75% LCD and 25% plasma.) Are they cheaper to manufacture? They use less juice so I guess that's the one negative for me regarding plasma.

i like the dumb TV and smart STB box idea. Apple, Sony, Microsoft, Boxee or whoever will support a product longer than a TV maker will do so for a TV or blu ray player.

and with the apple TV being only $99 it's cheaper to upgrade it every year than buy a TV with internet built in which was around a $200-$300 premium in 2010

look at the PS3. back when it was released all blu ray players cost around $500. but how many have been upgraded to support blu ray 3D and other features like the PS3 has?

My point was that the CPU has no bearing on the LED LCD/ Plasma debate. Any TV, regardless of screen format, would benefit from the CPU the same way. The fact is that even the newest/greatest LED set out there can't compete with what Plasma has been doing for years. Screen retention has all but been eliminated so the fears of Plasma sets in the past are no longer valid.

True. But then you have to switch inputs and fool around with another device. On the TV, you just hit the VieraCast button and you are in, no matter what input you are on.

I prefer TivoHD's as my STB but the internet stuff is slow as hell and maddening. I have an old AppleTV and despise it. My blu-ray player and Wii are ho-hum.

But really, the internet stuff comes with any mid-range TV these days. So it's just an added bonus. They gouge you for "3D" now. But like internet stuff, to get the better quality TV, you have to take the 3D.

Is that true? The burn in question? I've never seemed to get a definite answer and am totally paranoid about it.