New TV

[Mafai]

So my work has a reward system, and I've earned enough to get a TV for free (or I could save more, and get a bigger TV). I'm looking to replace my TV in my room (which I think these sizes are perfect), and these are my options at this point:

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-BRAVIA-KD.../dp/B001TKJ7XQ

http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-LN37B5.../dp/B0021L9HN2

http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-PN42A4.../dp/B0015AR7AK

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Bravia-KD.../dp/B001T9N0D0

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...ZC87FAX5M7AZEP

Anyone have any recommendations?

[BerenTebogo]

Get the $1100 one -> sell it -> buy the $600 one and keep the difference?

[Mafai]

Added a couple more to OP. I personally like the LG I just added.

As far as what Sath said, that takes work, you should know I'm lazy.

[BerenTebogo]

True

[orson]

Samsung LN37B550 37-Inch 1080p LCD HDTV with Red Touch of Color

Samsung TVs have pretty much the top ratings right now when it comes to consumer reports. Getting anything smaller than a 37" is a waste of time, imo. Also 1080p isn't really that necessary with a smaller TV like that but it can make a visible difference and everything's coming out 1080p anyways so whatever. That's the main thing though from what I've seen and read you have the least likelihood of Samsung TVs breaking really the picture quality isn't much difference on most the TVs you've mentioned.

Also for reference LCD better power economy, better for videogames (impossible to burn in,) and should have a longer life than plasma. The advantage to plasma is slightly better viewing angles and has a far higher refresh rate so action scenes or sports tend to look less blurry on plasma.

[Mafai]

Thanks, I think one of the 37s will be what I take, anything bigger will be too big for my bedroom.

[kareface]

If you plan to play games try and get a panny. I also think they have better TV's, but might be a bit out of your price range depending on where you're looking at. Samsung is your next best option. Don't bother with a sony, you really aren't getting what you pay for. I wouldn't go LG either, at that point I'd just save a little and get a better TV.

[Mafai]

If you plan to play games try and get a panny. I also think they have better TV's, but might be a bit out of your price range depending on where you're looking at. Samsung is your next best option. Don't bother with a sony, you really aren't getting what you pay for. I wouldn't go LG either, at that point I'd just save a little and get a better TV.

The TV is free, its from a rewards program at work.

[Darus Grey]

Get the most expensive one, sell it, get a better TV than any of those options(for less).

[Xfaustx]

I have a serious question to add to this thread... Is the refresh rate from an LCD TV noticeably worse than that of a Plasma? I'm wanting to buy a new 40inch TV soon in the $700 price range, and I've been debating between an LCD and Plasma. The plasmas have been looking nicer in picture quality with a refresh rate that blows LCD out of the water (albeit they are thicker). This is the one thing confusing me most. So BG I ask, which do you prefer? LCD or Plasma.

*edit* I'll be using this TV to play PS3 and watch BluRays on if it makes a difference.

[Caiyuo]

I have a serious question to add to this thread... Is the refresh rate from an LCD TV noticeably worse than that of a Plasma? I'm wanting to buy a new 40inch TV soon in the $700 price range, and I've been debating between an LCD and Plasma. The plasmas have been looking nicer in picture quality with a refresh rate that blows LCD out of the water (albeit they are thicker). This is the one thing confusing me most. So BG I ask, which do you prefer? LCD or Plasma.

*edit* I'll be using this TV to play PS3 and watch BluRays on if it makes a difference.

for that price range I'd think you'd probably find something a bit bigger in a plasma, but I don't recall what the big gripes against plasma were. Burn-in and energy consumption? A Samsung ToC LCD for that price will likely have a "gaming mode" to enhance the refresh rate at the cost of some quality, but I really can't say whether something like that is noticeable or not. I've never seen what the blur looks like, but I guess it was a big deal since there are 120hz and 240hz models out now. D:

[Darus Grey]

I have a serious question to add to this thread... Is the refresh rate from an LCD TV noticeably worse than that of a Plasma? I'm wanting to buy a new 40inch TV soon in the $700 price range, and I've been debating between an LCD and Plasma. The plasmas have been looking nicer in picture quality with a refresh rate that blows LCD out of the water (albeit they are thicker). This is the one thing confusing me most. So BG I ask, which do you prefer? LCD or Plasma.

*edit* I'll be using this TV to play PS3 and watch BluRays on if it makes a difference.

Yes, Plasmas run at 400 or 600hz for the common models, as opposed to 60-120-240 that LCDs market.

Performance per dollar? Plasma, no contest.

[ghostfaced]

Ive been told that if your buying anything 32 or under dont get 1080p as your eye cant tell the difference between 1080p and 720p

[Darus Grey]

Kareface may disagree with me, since I've seen him say that before, but I personally think it's a load of bull.

It's like saying you can't tell the difference between gaming on a 1900x1200 monitor and 1200x800 when they're both "only" 24 inches, granted you tend to sit farther away from a TV in general, but that's a personal choice.

Frankly I think 720p should be dismissed out of hand simply because current-gen consoles are going to be the last devices that ever really use that standard. Bluray is 1080p, Next gen consoles will be 1080p, even Youtube is going to 1080p. I just think it'd a bad idea to invest in a dead standard unless you have the specific intent to upgrade within the next three years, of course you wouldn't have to if you just bought one now.

[kareface]

You can get 1080 for 32" TVs, it's just not really needed. The difference between the TV and a computer LCD is how they are used. If you plan to put the TV on a desk and use it like a computer monitor, then get 1080, no doubt about it. However if you plan to use it like a TV & you sit more then ~4' away from the TV your eyes can't see that many lines of detail on a screen that small. If you plan to sit 5 or more feet away from a 32" TV you might as well save the money and pick up a 720 because your eyes will be unable to distinguish the detail added by the extra resolution. Also, if you plan on sitting 5 or more feet away and plan to use a 32" tv with an HTPC, you'll be unable to even consider reading things like text in windows with 1080. Those figures are based on a 32" TV, it'll scale up and down based on the size of the display.

[Caiyuo]

Here's some more raw numbers and measurements to support what kareface is saying so that you can make an informed decision based on your exact situation.

http://hdguru.com/hdtv-seating-distance-chart/6/

It would be really hard to pass on 1080 in general, even if you were just planning to sit really fucking close in a chair randomly, but it also helps to possibly change a room's arrangement to really get the most out of a new TV.

[Rowe]

I have a serious question to add to this thread... Is the refresh rate from an LCD TV noticeably worse than that of a Plasma? I'm wanting to buy a new 40inch TV soon in the $700 price range, and I've been debating between an LCD and Plasma. The plasmas have been looking nicer in picture quality with a refresh rate that blows LCD out of the water (albeit they are thicker). This is the one thing confusing me most. So BG I ask, which do you prefer? LCD or Plasma.

*edit* I'll be using this TV to play PS3 and watch BluRays on if it makes a difference.

Samsung makes a 42" Plasma that I believe is about $600-800, it would be your best bang for the buck and this is coming from a guy who spent $1,100 on a 40" Samsung LCD.

Plasma has superior color. Blacker black and richer color. Plasma also doesn't get the motion ghosting that LCDs get. Even with 240Hz refresh some LCDs still get some stutter with motion. Plasmas have higher power consumption so plug it into a power-strip and when you turn the TV off at night or leaving for work turn the strip off too.

[kareface]

Oops, totally missed this question. Sorry about that, didn't mean to gloss you over.

I have a serious question to add to this thread... Is the refresh rate from an LCD TV noticeably worse than that of a Plasma? I'm wanting to buy a new 40inch TV soon in the $700 price range, and I've been debating between an LCD and Plasma. The plasmas have been looking nicer in picture quality with a refresh rate that blows LCD out of the water (albeit they are thicker). This is the one thing confusing me most. So BG I ask, which do you prefer? LCD or Plasma.

*edit* I'll be using this TV to play PS3 and watch BluRays on if it makes a difference.

Refresh rates don't really matter for plasmas. The difference isn't just huge, it's impossible for an LCD to currently (likely ever) refresh the images displayed on it's screen faster then a plasma. The hrz ratings on plasmas are misleading, they have nothing to do with LCD hrz. Motion blur and screen tearing is caused by a delay in the time it takes a LCD pixel to change from one state to another. Manufacturers try an compensate for this by refreshing the whole image more frequently (hrz), which does help reduce the perceived problem but doesn't fix the real problem. Hrz is the number of times per second the image on the screen is updated. The problem is the source material doesn't change hrz, so it's simply the TV taking the same image and displaying twice as often (120hz), 4 times as often (240hz), 8 times as often (480) ect. ect. Some sources are also slightly lower hrz, but it's irrelevant to the current discussion.

Plasmas take less then .001% of the time needed by LCDs for pixel switching, they just don't have the problem that LCDs have. The hrz rating on the plasmas just means how often the image is updated, and it's fairly arbitrary. A 60hz plasma will still process an image change faster then a 600hrz LCD. The LCD will update the image more frequently, but the down side is it can produce very strange effects with motion (like the triple puck effect) and it doesn't improve the quality over a 60hz plasma. At the same time, newer plasmas do refresh at a nativity high rate.

A standard video signal is actually a series of still images, flashed on screen so quickly that we believe we are watching a moving image. The typical frame rate used in North America is 60 frames per second (60Hz) meaning that a TV would display 60 individual still images every second. Sub-field drive is the method used to flash the individual image elements (dots) on a plasma panel. For each frame displayed on the TV the Sub-field drive flashes the dots 10 times or more, meaning that the dots are flashing 600 times per second (600Hz) or more. (Example: 60 frames per second x 10 sub-fields = 600 flashes per second).

Edit:
I'd also like to add that hrz alone isn't a good indication of a better viewing experience. The dejudder and motion systems in place have more to do with the quality of the image produced then the hrz will at times. If they are poorly implemented you'll likely have a worse image then getting a lower hrz TV with a better motion system. Hrz just became something that made it easy to quantify a complex system so that the uninformed can feel like there is a basis for comparison.

[Xfaustx]

Samsung makes a 42" Plasma that I believe is about $600-800, it would be your best bang for the buck and this is coming from a guy who spent $1,100 on a 40" Samsung LCD.

Plasma has superior color. Blacker black and richer color. Plasma also doesn't get the motion ghosting that LCDs get. Even with 240Hz refresh some LCDs still get some stutter with motion. Plasmas have higher power consumption so plug it into a power-strip and when you turn the TV off at night or leaving for work turn the strip off too.

I believe I was actually looking at a Samsung 42 Plasma! So I might just go ahead and get it.

And to Kareface, thanks for elaborating a bit on refresh rate info, that was the part I was most worried about, especially for gaming I wasn't sure if the refresh rate would really be a huge impact, if it WASN'T I was going to go with LCD for the slimmer case and brighter screen, but it seems plasma is definitely the way to go now, especially since I view in a dark room and burn in is a non issue now a days.

Thanks for all the replies!

[kareface]

Burn in isn't a non-issue, but less of one then it used to be. I still suggest waiting for your TV to break in before playing anything that will leave an image on the screen for a longer period. Also, for game consideration you also have to look at input delay, or the time it takes for a signal to be processed and displayed. This is also a good reason to get a plasma as they have solid input delays. The panny's have by far the best in their price range and are a great for gaming because of this fact.