Plasma HDTVs >$1500 (6)

1 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2006-07-25 16:03 ID:vJzpJRhf

I'm looking at buying a plasma HDTV around late August. I'm not spending more than $1500 (I will pay extra for protection plans and that's not included in the $1500) so that leaves me with most no-name brands (Haier, Norcent, Maxent, etc.). Is it worth it or should I go in for a name brand and pay more?

It has to have at least 720p if not higher since I plan on going high-end for the PS3.

Any input is appreciated.

2 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2006-07-25 16:17 ID://+z46XX

LCD is superior.

3 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2006-07-25 17:27 ID:mSLH6Vdu

Unlike >>2, the idiot, I might explain why LCD is better than plasma:

  • LCD doesnt suffer burn in as quickly, if at all like plasma.
  • LCD's lifespan is not in "thousands of hours", but whenever it breaks beyond viable repair, or becoming obselete.
  • Many new LCD displays have better image quality and faster display rates than plasma.

Therefore, LCD is superior.

4 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2006-08-07 03:19 ID:arGmZImC

The only downside to LCD's are the low contrast. You get a much prettier colour response from plasma screens. So, if you don't mind replacing your TV every few years, get a plasma =)

5 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2006-08-07 17:14 ID:2b2qqrt3

>>4
Five years ago, maybe. A good, new LCD should provide colour response compareable with plasmas, and do it without leaking colours.

6 Name: 4n0n4ym0u5 h4xx0r : 2006-09-14 11:38 ID:arGmZImC

>>5
But with a $1500 limit, it would be a hard push to get an LCD TV with a contrast comparable to a plasma TV. I would (did :D) go with a LCD though. Much safer wrt burn-in.

This thread has been closed. You cannot post in this thread any longer.