# Good LCD's for TIVO



## beastman (May 26, 2002)

I need to ditch my CRT for a space saving LCD.
I am after a 27 to 32 inch LCD for the bedroom and need one not only work will the TIVO but also show the SD picture in reasonable quality.
I already have Mode O sorted on my TIVO.
Can anyone who has a good LCD setup recommend any model they use?


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

General previous opinion on here seems to be you will be far better off with a good quality Plasma for decent showing of SD Tv.

LCDs only seem to give a decent picture if you also buy an expensive Scaler box as well.

If you hunt round with Advanced Search you should find the fairly recent thread on here that discussed this in detail.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Much as I hate to disagree with Pete , while plasma is the superior technology IMHO, at 27-inch size it's LCD all the way. 

Scalers benefit plasmas every bit as much as LCDs, but at that screen size you wouldn't bother.

LCDs (and plasmas) vary massively in how well they deal with an SD signal, and compared to a CRT screen, well let's just say don't expect it to look better than what you have already.

If you have no interest in HD, Sharp did some SD optimised LCDs which were rather good, I think they were called the P series.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> Much as I hate to disagree with Pete , while plasma is the superior technology IMHO, at 27-inch size it's LCD all the way.


So what happened to the self enforced period of purdah then.  

However you will note the OP says he is considering 27" to 32" screens and at 32" there is a throughly excellent choice of Plasma screens at much the same price as their LCD counterparts.

I agree that at 27" you are stuck on the whole with LCD. But then all the more reason to consider going up to 32"

I think in our previous discussions we concluded that the shops prefer selling LCDs largely because to the average uninformed customer they look just the same as a Plasma unit but they cost considerably less to make and to ship, thus unit for unit LCD televisions are more profitable for the shops and the manufacturers.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

I can ignore you trying to start arguments, but not giving bad advice!

Viz, there is no inherent difference between how plasma handles SD and how LCD does, they both stink at it and it's entirely down to having fixed pixels and having to scale up a 720 x 576 original to fit. 

LCD has no more need of a scaler than plasma.

Try buying a small 1920 x 1080 plasma and see how far you get.

You can't buy any kind of plasma at 27-inch or 32-inch, the smallest are 37-inch, so the point is moot anyway.

But apart from that your post was fully accurate.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> You can't buy any kind of plasma at 27-inch or 32-inch, *the smallest are 37-inch*, so the point is moot anyway.
> 
> But apart from that your post was fully accurate.


So what is this then:-

www.misco.co.uk/applications/searchtools/item-Details.asp?EdpNo=226529&sourceid=2012

and this-

www.pricerunner.co.uk/pi/2-266543/TVs/JVC-AV-35B50BUBEL-Stand-Product-Info

and this then:-

http://ecoustics-cnet.com.com/flat-.../4505-6482_7-9432550.html?part=ecoustics-cnet.

So once again you present your own personal view (that Plasma and LCD televisions are the same for SDTV) and dress it up as being the general view, whereas in the thread that discussed this in considerable detail it seemed that most people apart from you believe Plasma tv to be the superior choice to LCD for SDTV and especially Tivo SDTV viewing.

Time and again you take what are your own views and dress them up as being a universally accepted truth that only I will not accept.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete, you said:



> at 32" there is a throughly excellent choice of Plasma screens at much the same price as their LCD counterparts.


And of this "thoroughly excellent" choice you've managed to come up with... er, one. An ancient, long-discontinued ALIS Hitachi which Misco seem to have some old stock left over of.

Please just accept you're wrong Pete, and that plasma is not an option at 32-inches.

As for this often cited thread, do you mean this one?

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=328989

If so, I see no such conclusion.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> As for this often cited thread, do you mean this one?
> 
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=328989
> 
> If so, I see no such conclusion.


In Post 12 of that thread - www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=4626166&&#post4626166 - you said:-



> *LCDs * don't go well with any form of digital standard definition television


And in Post 22 - http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=4630305&&#post4630305 - blindlemon says-



> As far as PQ goes *plasma is still better than LCD in a number of ways - eg. better contrast, faster response, more natural colours etc. etc. To my eye LCDs always look like PC monitors and lack the "filmic" quality that you get from a good plasma. *


And Nebulous says in Post 27 - http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=4631623&&#post4631623 -



> Plasma screens reproduce the picture using phosphor exited by high voltage electrons in a very similar way to a CRT. So each pixel generates its own light which radiates out to the viewer
> 
> LCD screens reproduce the picture by shining the light from a florescent back light through the pixel cells whose opacity can be altered electronically. so each pixel changes the colour of the white light passing through it, rather like looking at a stained glass window picture.
> <tech mode off>
> ...


Case proven your honour. Clear the court.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Case proven your honour. Clear the court.


Er, no, not at all. The prosecuting attorney would appear to have not understood the point at issue.

It is true that LCDs don't go well with SD digital TV. The thing is, neither do plasmas, and for the exact same reasons (scaling to fixed pixel displays, deinterlacing problems).

It is true that plasmas are better than LCDs in a number of way, as blindlemon enumerates. You will notice however that "they are better at dealing with SD signals" is not one of them.

Read this next bit very carefully Pete, as it's where you have misunderstood.

There are many criteria which you can use to decide which is the better TV technology, may be 20 or so. On balance, taken over the 20, most people believe that plasma is better. However that does NOT mean that plasma beats LCD on every one of those 20 or so criteria.

On some - black levels and colour reproduction, plasma wins.

On others - lack of screen burn, availability of 1920 x 1080 resolution in practical screen sizes - LCD wins.

One of those criteria is "how does it deal with an SD signal". The result of that particular play-off is a draw. Both are equally rubbish, creating pixellation, artefacts and deinterlacing horrors galore. And as plasmas and LCDs from the same manufacturer more than like have the exact same deinterlacing and scaling chips in them, and it is those which determine how well they deal with SD, that should come as no surprise.

There is one exception, the Sharp range of LCDs with a resolution equivalent to SD which therefore require no scaling and which do give a superior result.

Anyway, as the OP was interested in 32-inch or smaller TVs, and as we've established that that means LCD since plasmas don't come that small any more (feel free to acknowledge that fact in your own time Pete) this discussion is now off topic, so I'll stop.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

But in reality many people who get a Plasma tv will intend making use of it for both SD and HD material (the latter from Sky hd or HD-DVD/Blu-RAY at present and then also from the BBC/ITVs new HD satellite boxes in due course) and since Plasma is acknowledged to give a more vibrant better picture with the HD material it appears to be the better choice.

By the way isn't a prosecuting attorney an American invention? I believe in this country, we still had barristers the last time that I checked.


----------



## Prat77 (Apr 14, 2007)

beastman said:


> Can anyone who has a good LCD setup recommend any model they use?


The Toshiba 32C3030 is a good model, and costs under £500 - I think RGB direct were selling it for under £450.


----------



## Sneals2000 (Aug 25, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> But in reality many people who get a Plasma tv will intend making use of it for both SD and HD material (the latter from Sky hd or HD-DVD/Blu-RAY at present and then also from the BBC/ITVs new HD satellite boxes in due course) and since Plasma is acknowledged to give a more vibrant better picture with the HD material it appears to be the better choice.
> 
> By the way isn't a prosecuting attorney an American invention? I believe in this country, we still had barristers the last time that I checked.


The Plasma vs LCD debate will run and run - however it is important to keep up to speed with developments on both technologies.

LCD has improved hugely in terms of colour gamut of late - with newer backlight systems widening the colour reproduction range. Response times of LCDs are improving as well, and newer refresh rates being introduced (120Hz and 100Hz for example)

Whilst a year ago I'd have definitely said Plasma had the edge over LCD in almost every regard (resolution and burn-in were the exceptions) - these days it is a more interesting debate.

At the 32" screen size and below then LCD is the only way to go - plasma manufacturers have effectively abandoned the sub-37" market, any 32" model will be an out-of-date design almost certainly. So it is LCD or nothing if you want a sub-37" flat panel display (until OLED and FED appear - SED seems stalled)

Between 37" and 42" there is a battle. Until recently LCDs had the resolution edge - with 1920x1080 panels only the domain of LCD. However there are now new 1920x1080 plasmas at the 42" size I believe - though I've not seen them on display yet. Until now LCD has definitely had the resolution edge at this size - or can have.

Over 42" screen sizes plasma pretty much delivers - and once you get to 60" + it basically has domination of commercially available displays.

When it comes to de-interlacing and scaling the issues faced by both displays are very similar (apart from the 1024i and 1080i ALiS displays) - though plasmas have issues with greyscaling still as they don't have displays that greyscale natively (a plasma cell is either illuminated 100% or 0%) and instead have to use multiple sub-fields of varying duration, and dithering, to achieve the effect of a greyscale.

With the exception of the aforementioned ALiS models both types of displays have to de-interlace and scale. At the 37" to 42" level plasmas are often lower resolution than LCDs - so less sophisticated scaling techniques can be used more effectively in some plasma designs as they don't resolve the artefacts as much, and thus can appear "better".

For info - I auditioned 37" and 42" Panasonic and Pioneer plasmas (1024x720 and 1024x768 resolution) and a 40" Sony Bravia LCD (1920x1080 resolution) - at roughly the same price point.

Plumped for the Bravia - it has taken a lot of tweaking - but the extra resolution has been well worth it on BBC HD and BluRay/HD-DVD material. The SD performance has improved with the tweaking - and is certainly better than I've ever seen in any shop. (Plasma shop defaults were more flattering to SD than the LCD defaults)

It was a very difficult decision - but the kicker was watching BluRay material on both. The Bravia revealed a lot more fine detail - and with the wide colour gamut technology didn't look noticably less vibrant when viewed side by side.

Screen burn and greyscale performance also played a part.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Sneals,

Thanks for the interesting analysis.

It still sounds to me like that at a given screen size and resolution that Plasma is the better choice for SD material and LCD probably better for HD material, all other things being equal. This is because most Plasma units don't show up the low res SD arterfacts as badly as LCD managed to do.

However below 37" there are no cutting edge Plasmas (even if there are still some Plasmas contrary to what TCM claimed) and above 47" most units are Plasma. Therefore only if you are in the market for a unit between 37" and 47" do you actually get to get to make the LCD vs Plasma decision.

Personally I find it easier to stick with CRT until a more serious volume of no subscription cost HD is available on the BBC/ITV non subscription HD service next year.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> This is because most Plasma units don't show up the low res SD arterfacts as badly as LCD managed to do.


Why do you say that Pete? Genuinely interested as I have seen no-one else claim that?



> However below 37" there are no cutting edge Plasmas (even if there are still some Plasmas contrary to what TCM claimed) .


You just can't resist, can you Pete; even when your claim that "at 32inch there is a throughly excellent choice of Plasma screens" is shown to be palpable nonsense, you still carry on believing you are right.

Find me a 32-inch plasma which is still in production and not ancient remaindered stock or second hand, and I'll happily concede that my language wasn't 100% accurate even if it was substantially true.

Your claim however is clearly simply not true - will you do the honourable thing and for once admit you were wrong?


----------



## Milhouse (Sep 15, 2001)

The Philips 32PF9731D is a good but expensive 32" LCD. Price may come down when the new range of Philips LCD TVs are announced in a month or two. TrustedReviews review of the 32PF9731D here.


----------



## iankb (Oct 9, 2000)

I suggest that you try and view any LCD TV that you are interested in.

The biggest problem that I have with LCD's is how black is black, given that they use permanent backlights. The only good black that I saw when I was looking was on pricey Sony Bravia screens. Al other screens showed black as grey. Nowadays, I think that there may be other brands that have a range with equally-good screens, but you probably still have to pay over the odds for them.

The darker the ambient light, the backlight will become more evident, and dark atmospheric pictures (such as with the 24 series) show very poor contrast. Plasmas don't appear to have the same problem.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

My colleagues on Home Cinema Choice, What Plasma & LCD and What Video seem to lean strongly towards Sony, Philips and Sharp as the manufacturers of choice in LCD.

Like this one:

http://www.tech.co.uk/home-entertainment/tv/tvs-displays/lcd/review/philips-32pf9731d-whp

Sharp seem to have stopped making their SD-optimised sets, however.


----------



## Milhouse (Sep 15, 2001)

TCM2007 said:


> My colleagues on Home Cinema Choice, What Plasma & LCD and What Video seem to lean strongly towards Sony, Philips and Sharp as the manufacturers of choice in LCD.
> 
> Like this one:
> 
> ...


That would be the 32PF9731D I posted a preference for above!  The xxPFL9732D range is due any month now and offers many an upgrade on the 9731 range, including 1080p panels/24fps/100hz. Details are a bit scarce on the internet right now though, however one benefit of the new range will be to push down the price of the existing 9731D range which are fine TVs in their own right (judging by comments from reviewers and more importantly, owners).

Ultimately though iankb is right - view before you buy. Me, I'm waiting for the 42PFL9832D to come to South London...  (The 9832D is the same as 9732D but with full 4-sided Ambilight instead of the 3-sided Ambilight available on the latter).


----------



## ColinYounger (Aug 9, 2006)

Milhouse - how does Ambilight work in practice? Does it *really* add to the viewing experience?

Sorry if this is deemed off-topic.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> Why do you say that Pete? Genuinely interested as I have seen no-one else claim that?


I refer you to blindlemon's post 22 in another thread on this topic:-

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-v...5&&#post4630305

and to iankb's post 16 above.

Having come out of your self enforced moratorium on deliberately antagonising me it seems that you are now going at it for all you are worth, even though you seem to lack almost all objectivity in your quite blatantly biased attempts to exclusively undermine and contradict only my posts.

I am not the only member of this forum who can be banned for flaming or attacking other members and if you don't stop your quite deliberatly inflammatory posts in response to mine I will feel obliged to start using the Report Post button myself in the manner previously recommended by Eric.   :down:


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> I refer you to blindlemon's post 22 in another thread on this topic:-
> 
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-v...5&&#post4630305
> 
> and to iankb's post 16 above


The link is dead, and Ian said nothing says nothing a propos of "Plasmas don't show up the low res SD arterfacts as badly as LCD managed to do".  



> Having come out of your self enforced moratorium on deliberately antagonising me it seems that you are now going at it for all you are worth, even though you seem to lack almost all objectivity in your quite blatantly biased attempts to exclusively undermine and contradict only my posts.


No one else gave bad advice based on incorrect facts ("at 32" there is a throughly excellent choice of Plasma screens at much the same price as their LCD counterparts.") Had they done so I would have pointed that out too. I've hapilly ignored you in other threads because you have been either factually correct, or your posts were not actually misleading.



> I am not the only member of this forum who can be banned for flaming or attacking other members and if you don't stop your quite deliberatly inflammatory posts in response to mine I will feel obliged to start using the Report Post button myself in the manner previously recommended by Eric.   :down:


I'll take that as "no I'm not going to admit I got it wrong" then! Saying someone is wrong is not "flaming" or attacking other members. You were *factually incorrect *in your advice to the original poster, and I called you on it. The debate has only continued because you have attempted to deny your error. Feel free to report the posts. I see no personal abuse in them.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

No actually I found three other 32" Plasma screens that I pointed you to.

The bottom line is that arguments about whether LCD or Plasma are better with SD pictures are in fact highly subjective and everyone has their own view.

But you are acting like the worst sort of pedant looking for one miniscule point of fact to try and trip me up on and then going totally overboard about it.

Quite clearly you just get some sort of perverse satisfaction in trying to put me down in a manner that I would consider to be the forum equivalent of bullying.

I think for both our sakes you should stop it and let other forum members see wheter they wish to pick me up on the miniscule points on which you find it so necessary to be utterly pedantic but no one else seems to think are significant.


----------



## Milhouse (Sep 15, 2001)

ColinYounger said:


> Milhouse - how does Ambilight work in practice? Does it *really* add to the viewing experience?
> 
> Sorry if this is deemed off-topic.


Unfortunately I don't have an Ambilight set - I still have a CRT planning to upgrade later this year - but I've seen nothing but positives from people who own an Ambilight set, even from those who were initially sceptical about the feature. I believe there is legitimate "science" to say it improves the viewing experience, and certainly there are those who now own an Ambilight set that say they will never own an non-Ambilight TV in future.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> No actually I found three other 32" Plasma screens that I pointed you to.


No, you found one retailer shifting the last of their ancient discontinued stock (that TV is from 2003); the other two links did not offer 32-inch plasmas for sale, but were outdated links about TVs which are no longer made.

No-one makes 32-inch plasmas.



> But you are acting like the worst sort of pedant looking for one miniscule point of fact to try and trip me up on and then going totally overboard about it.


Pete, best will in the world it was not a "miniscule" point of fact - _it was the entire thrust of your initial post_, the first reply to the OP, where you advised him to buy a plasma, and of your follow up where you said there was loads of choice of 32-inch plasma which he should consider.

It wasn't some little aside or semantic mis-statement, it was the *whole point *of those posts that he should buy a 32-inch plasma. Which he can't. Because no-one makes one.

As for the SD stuff, I admire your chutzpah in justifying your statements with quotes of other posts which don't even _mention _the subject under discussion. Or is is just pedantry to point that out too?


----------



## Milhouse (Sep 15, 2001)

Pete77 said:


> I think for both our sakes you should stop it and let other forum members see wheter they wish to pick me up on the miniscule points on which you find it so necessary to be utterly pedantic but no one else seems to think are significant.


Pete, your argument is getting very stale - as stale as those obsolete 32" Plasma TVs you dug out from God knows where. Few, if any, major brands are selling current 32" Plasma screens today - fact. Accept it. Move on.

Unfortunately you bring a very negative tone to this forum which used to be full of useful information, but which you now sucessfully water down into a slurry of misinformation. You seem compelled to contribute to every thread whether you have anything worthwhile to say, or not (usually the latter).


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Milhouse said:


> Unfortunately I don't have an Ambilight set - I still have a CRT planning to upgrade later this year - but I've seen nothing but positives from people who own an Ambilight set, even from those who were initially sceptical about the feature. I believe there is legitimate "science" to say it improves the viewing experience, and certainly there are those who now own an Ambilight set that say they will never own an non-Ambilight TV in future.


It's downright weird how it works, but it does seem to fool they eye somehow.

Presumably you can get something of the same effect by messing with the lighting in your house?


----------



## Milhouse (Sep 15, 2001)

TCM2007 said:


> It's downright weird how it works, but it does seem to fool they eye somehow.
> 
> Presumably you can get something of the same effect by messing with the lighting in your house?


Disco lighting perhaps... but leave out the glitter ball.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> It wasn't some little aside or semantic mis-statement, it was the *whole point *of those posts that he should buy a 32-inch plasma. Which he can't. Because no-one makes one.


But he could always look at all the 37 inch Plasmas currently available or buy one of the old stock models still available if he needs a 32".

It was the tone of your posts with which I have had issues as much as their content.

Whatever your alleged intent there is no doubt that the net effect of your posts is to be hugely inflammatory. If my comments were really so objectionable it seems strange you are the only one who has found it necessary to go to such lengths to take me to task.

I wouldn't like to be one of your employees and ever make a small mistake.  :down:


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> I wouldn't like to be one of your employees and ever make a small mistake.  :down:


I'm guessing that's as close as you'll get to admitting you're wrong!


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Milhouse said:


> Disco lighting perhaps... but leave out the glitter ball.


I have my TV in an alcove which I've painted a very dark colour, and in dim lighting it appears that the screen just hangs in mid air as a result.

Of course this is the exact opposite of the Ambilight effect. Maybe I should stick a small desk lamp behind the TV pointed at the wall and see if it improves the picture!


----------



## Milhouse (Sep 15, 2001)

Pete77 said:


> But he could always look at all the 37 inch Plasmas currently available or buy one of the old stock models still available if he needs a 32".


Why on Earth would he want to do this when he clearly stated he was only interested in 25-32" screens and was looking specifically for a "space saving" screen suggesting that space is at a premium?

And suggesting the old stock models would have been valid if you had flagged up that these were old/discontinued stock models - however you didn't do this until you were called out on it, in fact others had to point this out for you.


----------



## Milhouse (Sep 15, 2001)

TCM2007 said:


> Maybe I should stick a small desk lamp behind the TV pointed at the wall and see if it improves the picture!


Give it a try, you never know...! 

However the trick with ambilight is to get the lights to react to the intense colours being shown on the screen, which could be harder to reproduce with just a desklamp. I'm interested to see how the 42PFL972D will look with 4-sided Ambilight Full Surround - I plan to hang it on a light coloured wall, no alcove.


----------



## 6022tivo (Oct 29, 2002)

Can't be arsed reading all the posts, most of them are the same crap we are getting at this forum recently.

I will give my opinion on what I have used the last couple of years.

I have a 50" Pioneer 505 Plasma, both HD, Scart from tivo, DTV are great on the plasma, I can not tell the difference from a high quality CRT.

No blocking etc...

I have also used a 40" LCD Samsung, good on composite HD from the xbox 360, really poor from a NTL box or tivo... I mean really poor, in my opinion unwatchable, football was shocking. From all the Plasma's and LCD's I have seen together, plasma offers a much better quality picture, richer in HD and SD. 

But what I think makes the difference is the price of the set, a Sony Bravia LCD looks great, a Woolworths/Aldi cheap set looks poor. I think it is a case of you get what you pay for.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

6022tivo said:


> I have also used a 40" LCD Samsung, good on composite HD from the xbox 360, really poor from a NTL box or tivo... I mean really poor, in my opinion unwatchable, football was shocking. From all the Plasma's and LCD's I have seen together, plasma offers a much better quality picture, richer in HD and SD. .


So another forum member saying plasma appears to generally give a much better result in HD and SD.

But TCM will continue to maintain that I am the only one expressing these points of view.

Is that what they perhas call either turning a deaf ear to something or having a selective memory?


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

6022tivo said:


> But what I think makes the difference is the price of the set, a Sony Bravia LCD looks great, a Woolworths/Aldi cheap set looks poor. I think it is a case of you get what you pay for.


Yes, I agree. It's usually down to the scaling and de-interlacing technology, which is a function of price (often) and is independent of the display technology.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> So another forum member saying plasma appears to generally give a much better result in HD and SD.


Did you actually read the last line of 6022's post!


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> Did you actually read the last line of 6022's post!


So you do have a selective memory then.


----------



## Milhouse (Sep 15, 2001)

Pete77 said:


> So another forum member saying plasma appears to generally give a much better result in HD and SD.


I don't recall 6022tivo saying that Plasma is *generally* superior to LCD - you're putting words into his mouth here fella, in a desperate attempt to back your own failed argument.

What 6022tivo actually said is that having compared a 50" Pioneer Plasma with a 40" Samsung LCD, the Plasma bested the LCD. That's a very specific comparison where Plasma beat LCD, and in no way shape or form can be extrapolated to the point where "Plasma is generally better than LCD"!

Take a look at the reviews for the Philips 32PF9731D with ClearLCD which gets plaudits of "near Plasma" picture quality, for the price of an LCD.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> So you do have a selective memory then.


Pete, it's impossible to have a coherent debate with you if you won't actually read other people's posts. Not only did 6022tivo not say "plasma is better than LCD", his point was the opposite - that how good a the picture is it depends on how much you're prepared to pay, not the display technology.


----------



## Restorer (Jan 6, 2002)

FFS will you guys STOP THIS. And mods will you please do something about it? Stuart I used to have huge rerspect for your contributions to this forum. Are you really not big enough to ignore this pillock????


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Apparently not Restorer. I'd hoped having a few days off would let me re-engage with him without losing my rag, but there's just something about Pete which sets me off. Back to the ignore list I think, so I'm not tempted.


----------



## Milhouse (Sep 15, 2001)

Restorer said:


> FFS will you guys STOP THIS. And mods will you please do something about it? Stuart I used to have huge rerspect for your contributions to this forum. Are you really not big enough to ignore this pillock????


Indeed... surely the best thing to do is ignore Pete - ie. don't respond to his posts - because it's obvious he'll never concede that anyone else may have a valid opinion which differs from his own.

I only responded because I'm pig sick of seeing yet another worthwhile thread degenerate into a Pete soapbox, and having witnessed this in most threads of late it only serves to spoil the forum as a whole.


----------



## IainJH (Mar 27, 2002)

I bought a 37" PX60 Panasonic plasma, with my 'logic' being a low res panel was perhaps a better compromise for tivo. It also gave a good picture for sky HD and xbox 360, very 'smooth'.

But that went back due to a fault, and I was lent a brand new sony 32" LCD which was, imho, not much good by comparison, ie the LCD showed far more artifacts and noise than the plasma. OK, that was expected, an LCD of that res is bound to show more of those kind of issues.

BUT after a demo and recommendation, I then bought a Philips 32" ambilight LCD and its miles better than the plasma or the sony on Tivo, sky HD, freeview, 360, whatever so far. The firmware on a set makes a huge difference, and right now, philips are really good at that.

No arguments invited, thanks, just answering the original question...


----------



## Sneals2000 (Aug 25, 2002)

iankb said:


> I suggest that you try and view any LCD TV that you are interested in.
> 
> The biggest problem that I have with LCD's is how black is black, given that they use permanent backlights. The only good black that I saw when I was looking was on pricey Sony Bravia screens. Al other screens showed black as grey. Nowadays, I think that there may be other brands that have a range with equally-good screens, but you probably still have to pay over the odds for them.
> 
> The darker the ambient light, the backlight will become more evident, and dark atmospheric pictures (such as with the 24 series) show very poor contrast. Plasmas don't appear to have the same problem.


The Sony Bravias - at least some of them - have a backlight control, which isn't common to all LCDs, allowing you to reduce the level of backlight in lower light level viewing conditions.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Milhouse said:


> Take a look at the reviews for the Philips 32PF9731D with ClearLCD which gets plaudits of "near Plasma" picture quality, for the price of an LCD.


So don't those words rather imply that the reviewer actually believes a Plasma of any given size normally has superior picture quality to an LCD and is impressed with this LCD merely because it comes close (note he says "near Plasma" but not "as good as a Plasma") to being as good as a Plasma even though it isn't.

Its clear to me there is a "pro LCD" and a "pro Plasma" camp and because you guys have each invested several grand on your chosen piece of hardware you have to believe the one you went for is the very finest thing out there and that your decision is right and the other guys a load of morons.

But I sitting here with a CRT and no axe to grind for either LCD or Plasma just happen to note that the people who want to go on viewing SD material on a Tivo most often note that on average Plasmas seems to give a better result with SD material, ironically due to the probably technically inferior way they display the picture, which is less demanding on a lower resolution source.

I didn't want a big argument with Stuart on this and he is the one who has actively sought it out due to the confrontational style of his responses to my posts.


----------



## Milhouse (Sep 15, 2001)

Pete77 said:


> So don't those words rather imply that the reviewer actually believes a Plasma of any given size normally has superior picture quality to an LCD and is impressed with this LCD merely because it comes close (note he says "near Plasma" but not "as good as a Plasma") to being as good as a Plasma even though it isn't.


I don't disagree that _some_ Plasma TVs are better than LCD, but I've also seen some _really_ [email protected] Plasma sets so I really take this comparison with a pinch of salt. I believe the reviewer means the set may have better blacks/contrast than most LCDs which Plasmas are well known for, but to use this quote to bolster your argument really is clutching at straws. Again you read too much into this quote by suggesting "plasma of any given size" - does he say this? No, you're just making up the facts to suite your argument. As usual.

I'm prepared to accept that *some* Plasmas are better than LCD and also vice versa since PQ is not simply about the panel but a whole host of technologies including upscalers, backlighting and refresh rates however you doggedly stick to your flawed "Plasma is best" mantra simply because... well, I dunno - I guess you have too much time on your hands.



Pete77 said:


> Its clear to me there is a "pro LCD" and a "pro Plasma" camp and because you guys have each invested several grand on your chosen piece of hardware you have to believe the one you went for is the very finest thing out there and that your decision is right and the other guys a load of morons.


That's totally not true - most of the posters here are able to see both sides, it's YOU that is incapable of objectivity. You continually post bollox then dig in your heels in a vain attempt to prove you were correct all along by battering everyone else into submission.



Pete77 said:


> But I sitting here with a CRT and *no axe* to grind for either LCD or Plasma


Then just shut up?

@rse... I said I was going to ignore him from now on... I shall not reply to Pete again in this thread.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Milhouse said:


> @rse... said I was going to ignore him from now on... will not reply to Pete again in this thread.


Tough isn't it?

Endemol should get him on Big Brother, that would liven it up!


----------



## Milhouse (Sep 15, 2001)

TCM2007 said:


> Tough isn't it?
> 
> Endemol should get him on Big Brother, that would liven it up!


Weird people who you'd never meet in normal, every day life. A chance to happen upon surreal conversations and find out what is considered to be opinion from people who share the planet with me.

Who needs Big Brother when we have Pete and the TiVo forum?

At least a stint on BB would keep him away from this forum for a few weeks...


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> Tough isn't it?
> 
> Endemol should get him on Big Brother, that would liven it up!


I wouldn't have minded being on it back in the early days but due to its severe fascination of late with the white British underclass and with certain poseur style figures from the ethnic minorities I would have to give it a miss now. Just one day with that Jade woman would have been too much to bear.

I'm rather inclined to give up on the Plasma vs LCD tv issue as it seems to produce a remarkable amount of heat without any obvious light at the end of the process.


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> I'm rather inclined to give up on the Plasma vs LCD tv issue as it seems to produce a remarkable amount of heat


Hey! Let's not start discussing the power consumption of Plasmas now....


----------



## 6022tivo (Oct 29, 2002)

blindlemon said:


> Hey! Let's not start discussing the power consumption of Plasmas now....


I have noticed my electricity bills rise, i think this tv of mine kicks out a lot of heat, nice for the winter in the room, so it is not being wasted.


----------



## katman (Jun 4, 2002)

6022tivo said:


> I have noticed my electricity bills rise, i think this tv of mine kicks out a lot of heat, nice for the winter in the room, so it is not being wasted.


Agreed the heat is nice in the winter but trying to keep the room temperature down in the summer is a real pain

I have computer controlled heating......

..... if its too cold I fire up another computer, if its to warm I shut one down


----------



## 6022tivo (Oct 29, 2002)

katman said:


> Agreed the heat is nice in the winter but trying to keep the room temperature down in the summer is a real pain
> 
> I have computer controlled heating......
> 
> ..... if its too cold I fire up another computer, if its to warm I shut one down


It is not that much of a problem in the summer, I have a fridge that makes ICE, so I have a tray under the plasma vents, I fill the tray with ice, so as it drags the air up through it it acts as a air conditioner.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

blindlemon said:


> Hey! Let's not start discussing the power consumption of Plasmas now....


Why. Do they typically use a lot more power for the same screen size than the average LCD unit?


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> Why. Do they typically use a lot more power for the same screen size than the average LCD unit?


I have no idea  - I was hoping we weren't going to start discussing that...


----------



## Automan (Oct 29, 2000)

In my Living room I have a 40" Panasonic plasma and with no picture mode 0 from Tivo it yields an acceptable Tivo SD picture.

From Sky HD, PS3 & XBOX 360 - Ace 

In the kitchen I just got a samsung 23" LCD

It is HD ready but as yet only using scart for now and I will say with out a doubt the picture is a lot worse from Tivo than on my 40" plasma.

As the screen is smaller I would have thought it would look better than on my 40" but no.

Plus my Samsung does not seem to know about wide screen switching 

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=353969

Still as mentioned, small screen plasma seem to be no longer availble or are good old CRT's which indeed gave a better analogue picture than my new Samsung.

(Old TV was a 14" 4:3 AIWA CRT model BTW).

Automan.


----------



## Milhouse (Sep 15, 2001)

Perhaps Samsung LCD sets aren't very good? You're the second forum member to post that a Samsung doesn't favour SD material - pretty soon, someone will be spotting a trend and stating that all LCDs are rubbish!

Considering Samsung LCD panels are used in many Philips sets, the panel itself is unlikely to be the cause. What's the SD PQ enhancement technology like in Samsungs? The Philips uses ClearLCD and Pixel Plus HD (now Perfect Pixel HD in the new range, along with 100hz/120hz) which seems to make a big difference (improvement) to SD PQ.


----------



## Major dude (Oct 28, 2002)

beastman said:


> Can anyone who has a good LCD setup recommend any model they use?


As I have an Tosh 42WLT66 (LCD) with TiVo running mode 0 as a source I thought I would chip in with a recommendation. PQ between CRTs & LCDs are different and even now not necessarily better as you probably know. Whether you would be disappointed is a matter of personal preference & it depends on how much you are prepared to pay for the pq you are prepared to accept. For me the advantages of using a TiVo are beginning to outweigh the extra cost of Sky HD even on a 42" LCD. So I think the TOSH range of LCDs offer the best value particularly for the size you want particularly as the prices are now coming down even since I bought mine at the end of last year.

So go for a Tosh LCD you should not be disappointed.


----------



## Ian_m (Jan 9, 2001)

Milhouse said:


> What's the SD PQ enhancement technology like in Samsungs? The Philips uses ClearLCD and Pixel Plus HD (now Perfect Pixel HD in the new range, along with 100hz/120hz) which seems to make a big difference (improvement) to SD PQ.


Correct its the SD to HD conversion (upscaling) that makes all the difference. Its not cheap and easy to do which is why there is such great variation picture quality between various makes of LCD (and plasma).

A mate of mine has a 46" Sony LCD that is absolutely gob smackingly superb from a HiDef source (Sky HD) but he is completely embarrassed to show anyone when it is fed from an SD source, Sky being the worst. He has even tried to return it to the Sony shop twice but they found no fault and he was finally convinced when the shop relented after much nagging to disconnect their HiDef PC video source in their shop and plug in a conventional aerial and guess what completely embarrassing picture from an SD source.

He would buy a £900 Lumagen scaler to improve things but after having got £2500 for the LCD past his wife, getting further funds is a non starter.


----------



## Pugwash (May 23, 2003)

I read up on endless reviews of LCD panels. I was after a 37" display. I had my heart set on a Sharp Aquos until I found some reviews saying how it made SD video look blocky. In the end I bought a Toshiba 'X' series (37X3030D) that had more favourable words said about it, and was cheaper.

I got it for just under 800 quid delivered and am very pleased with TiVo output. It's a 1080p too, so PS3 with upscaling of DVD's is rather nice!


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Automan said:


> Still as mentioned, small screen plasma seem to be no longer availble *nor are good old CRT's which indeed gave a better analogue picture than my new Samsung*.


Try www.ebay.co.uk or www.freecycle.org if you think you would be better off reverting to one.


----------



## Automan (Oct 29, 2000)

I am hoping soon that Sky's second generation HD box will be on the market.

My old Thomson Sky HD can the be relegated to the kitchen and at which time I hope to get a good picture on my new LCD TV.

P.S. Only if they also stop charging £10.00 / month for every Sky HD box you have.

Automan.


Pete77 said:


> Try www.ebay.co.uk or www.freecycle.org if you think you would be better off reverting to one.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Automan said:


> P.S. Only if they also stop charging £10.00 / month for every Sky HD box you have.


What is their policy on Sky+ boxes for those who have to pay for the service (i.e. now just Freesatters). On the basis that they charge a sub for a Multiroom box I can't see them not charging again on a second box?

Perhaps better to wait for the new BBC/ITV Freesat HD box next year for the kitchen?

Also how much will Sky charge you to get another new HD box when you already have one the way they see things?

Also what is better about the new generation Sky HD boxes?


----------



## B33K34 (Feb 9, 2003)

Ian_m said:


> Correct its the SD to HD conversion (upscaling) that makes all the difference. Its not cheap and easy to do which is why there is such great variation picture quality between various makes of LCD (and plasma).
> 
> A mate of mine has a 46" Sony LCD that is absolutely gob smackingly superb from a HiDef source (Sky HD) but he is completely embarrassed to show anyone when it is fed from an SD source, Sky being the worst.


I'd agree with this. I'd been really impressed with Sony Bravia LCDs on Hd material but i recently saw a properly set up comparison (ie identical high quality feed to all sets, on a loop, with all sets set up to look their best by someone who knew what they were doing) of HD and SD pictures across a range of 'state of the art' lcds and plasmas. All looked great with HD but the plasmas were noticably 'better' on SD. These were panasonic/pioneer plasmas iirc.

What was odd was even comparing the lcds and plasmas on HD sources very close up the LCDs did some odd things in the background on smooth shadowed areas. We couldn't decide whether the lcds were actually showing the detail more accurately (ie coding artefacts) and the plasmas were showing less detail or if the lcds were creating noise somehow but the plasmas definitely looked better to everyone.


----------



## beastman (May 26, 2002)

I finally got a Philips 32PFL5522D from Makro for £399 plus VAT - very pleased with it - very good on SD via my TIVO. The extra £150 quid spent compared to the Hanspree I had earlier was well worth it. High Quality on Mode O very watchable in the bedroom. The Hanspree by the way was terrible - all the blacks merged together so no use for sci-fi etc.


----------



## terryeden (Nov 2, 2002)

Just got one of these
http://www.intekx.com/product_info.php?cPath=17&products_id=141

Good picture, good price, excellent service from Intekx.

Like all TVs, you need to change the default settings to make it look its best.

What I love about this TV is that colour/brightness/contrast etc are set per input source. You can have your TiVo on Scart1 much brighter than your Wii on SVideo (or whatever)


----------



## Milhouse (Sep 15, 2001)

ColinYounger said:


> Milhouse - how does Ambilight work in practice? Does it *really* add to the viewing experience?
> 
> Sorry if this is deemed off-topic.


I soooo want to buy this Ambilight TV (scroll to the bottom for a picture)! Should be released in late August.

I'll be incredibly disappointed if the reviews are anything but excellent!


----------

