Comments on: Some salespeople still think flat-panel LCDs beat plasmas?

We have to wonder why a salesperson would recommend flat-screen LCD HDTVs at the rate that J.D. Power and Associates claims in a recent report.

[ksaifullah]

I have a 50" plasma TV that I bought about 4 years ago (7th series Panasonic). I was careful for the first couple of months, but after that, I have watched moves and shows with sidebars and haven't had any problems. I love the black/white levels and the fact that the picture has a depth to it that is visible, even from the steep angles. I did a lot of comparisons with LCDs (Sharp, Samsung) when I was shopping but the LCD picture always looked washed out in comparison. It is the best electronic purchase I have made over the last 5 years.
It is funny that people tend to think that whatever technology they have is better. I am sure the LCD technology has come a long way in the last 4 years, but I am always intrigued by people's claims that they know LCD TVs are better because they work with them every day etc. Are they really experts in picture quality? I can honestly say that it is not worth anyone's while getting suggestions from a salesperson in Best Buy, Circuit City etc. You need to do your own home work and research from sites such as CNet.

[Michael0724]

I have a 4 month old Samsung PN50A550 which does experience varying degrees of Image Retention in just a few minutes after viewing the PVR / console menu, on-screen TV guide, CNN new channel, DVDs (most of which don't fill the top and bottom of the screen), any video games with a score / status panel or static background (which is everything). It goes away after 20 to 120 minutes of watching other channels. I knew this would be an issue and can live with it because I "manage" the time I spend viewing video that contains "static" content. Not everyone wants to worry about managing their viewing. Especially if they (or their kids) play lots of video games in which case the "safe" bet is often LCD. Samsung's Plasma FAQ (see link below) recommends that you don't spend more than 5% of you total time viewing images with static content.

http://www.samsung.com/ca/support/faqs/supportFaqList.do?group=tv&group_cd=&type=tv&type_cd=02010000&subtype=plasma&subtype_cd=02010200&model_nm=PN50A550S1F&dType=D&vType=R&mType=&page=&prd_ia_cd=02010200&disp_nm=PN50A550&model_cd=&erms_ctgry_typ_cd=03&prod_id=155&erms_prd_ctgry_id=155&faq_site_cd=24&faqSearchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fars.samsung.com%2Fcustomer%2Fnlp%2Fjsp%2Ffaqs%2Ffaqs_ars.jsp&faqViewUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fars.samsung.com%2Fcustomer%2Fctry%2Fjsp%2Ffaqs%2Ffaqs_ars_input.jsp&menu=&contfaq=Type+your+question+here...&prdCate=155

Both technologies have issues and you have to decide what compromises you can live with. Except for the slightly choppy motion (i.e. judder, tearing, etc..) that I notice on LCDs I prefer them to plasmas for their bright sharp "poppy" images even tough the blacks and color range can be a bit worse. I selected a plasma not because of image quality but because at the time in Canada for the 50" size the plasma was about $1000 less than the equivalent LCD from Samsung (i.e. the 650 LCD series) and around $1000 to $2500 less than the equal sized 71 and 81 series Samsung LCDs. To this day I find the Image Retention annoying and worry about turning on the TV 5 years from now to find burn-in so I can fully understand why people choose LCD... its safe.

[zillady]

Mat, your price on plasma is on 720p not 1080p which still more expensive than LCD 1080p. You can get a 1080p LCD for less than $2k but you can't get a 1080p plasm less than $3k.

chill.

[stepyourgameup]

Are you serious? You can get the Panny 800U, editor's choice winner for around $2300.

[danoleary55]

I think Laser TV might solve all these mentioned problems for both Plasma and LCD

[GODSG1FT]

I work at Best Buy... and as for recommending an LCD over a Plasma simply depends soley on what each customer is using their television for and what type of lighting is in the room and what components are being hooked up to the television itself. And yes plasma is still a better technology as some of the facst are stated above. The black levels are there on the lcds, the still have plenty of problems handling motion such as sports and action movies, even with 120hz, although it helps its still doesnt perform as well as a plasma with motion. Glare is a downside and yeah power consumption but do you really think consumers care about $30 MORE A YEAR. doubt it so i dont recommend one or the other it just depends on the customers needs for their home theater set up. Id say 80% of the customers that do come in say they dont want a plasma based on all the jargon they hear about burn in and life expectancy, so thats probably one reason why some sales people recommend the lcds because they assume its what they want when the customer isnt fully informed. Both are excellent but PLASMA still holds the #1 spot and thats why Pioneer is still the ****.

[markdoiron]

1. Plasma burn-in is like the ni-cad battery memory issue. For years we were told it was resolved, but it wasn't. Now we've even being told that the battery memory is a figment of our imagination. They won't convince me that plasmas don't burn in until I stop seeing them at airports, banks, etc, where the same image is burned into the devices because the picture doesn't change much.

2. The number one reason to not get a plasma is because of the reflective screen. I don't care how great the black-levels are, most of us watch a TV in our living rooms, not our home theaters. Stray reflections totally negate those great black levels. There are a couple plasmas that have an anti-reflective coating, and those are the only ones that should be considered. If an LCD manufacture is foolish enough to make a reflective screen, it should also be avoided.

--mark d.

[budmancon]

Your comments on plasma TVs are, once again, total baloney. LCDs have much better smoothness of image without the built-in pixelation of Plasma (the Clearly seen little dots). The Glare from Plasmas is horrible. The film-like quality of LCDs and far better resolution blows plasma out of the water and has for at at least 4 years.
Hire a new TV reviewer. This baloney about Plasma TVs has got to be buried once and for all.

[bigmc6000]

My number one concern is glare. I've got a 42" DLP right now and I can't watch dark movies during the day because of the amount of light in my living room. Combine that with horrible off-angle viewing of the DLP I can with 100% certainty say I will never buy another DLP. Having got that out of the way I'd certainly lean more towards LCD as I live in Texas and generating ANY excess heat comes back on me two fold as the TV uses more power and then I have to run the AC to keep it cool. Also, electricity prices are pretty bad in Texas so that $30 difference is probably higher. I'd say the $500 difference between a Plasma and an LCD in my situation would end up being the same after 3-4 years and then the LCD would be the better purchase. And having seen my sisters Sony XBR I've got to say I have no idea how Plasma could be better...

[sugarhillgang]

Okay most of this talk about burn-in and glare with plasmas is crazy. I bought a Panasonic TH-50PZ85U and I had no problem with glare or burn-ins. I do not live in a cave, I have a huge window that shines into the living room and movies and sports do not glare with that television. So what I will say is go to the store change the settings and just look at the tv in different angles and everything. Always look at reviews before you buy it helped me a lot. But plasmas do not burn in or have glare well at least mine did not.

[dano_48]

Sales people will always push models that bring the most commission. It has nothing to do with offering sound advice.

My university uses a lot of plasmas (most are Panasonics) and we have for several years. They simply do a better job with video and MS PPT and cost less. We never have had problems with burn-in.

[albertsoler]

I think the article is giving far too much credit to the sales force in general -- good or bad. The idea that *any* advice given by a sales person is based on mindful analysis or knowledge of unbiased studies is laughable. (I'll concede that a small minority actually do have some semblance of expertise.)

If corporate says they need to clear last year's plasmas for new inventory -- guess what? Plasmas are suddenly better than LCDs! If LCDs have a better mark up -- then "Yes! Absolutely! We recommend LCDs."

It's always caveat emptor when we go shopping. One should not assume that any advice -- whether it's from a store sales person or online gadget blog -- is gospel. Get as much information as possible, then take the plunge and hope you don't drown.

[Ashtonian]

"In a time when CNET's two top-rated HDTVs of the year are Panasonic's TH-50PZ800U and Pioneer's PDP-5020FD, we have to wonder why a salesperson would recommend flat-panel LCD HDTVs at the rate that J.D. Power and Associates claims in a recent report. " - Maybe that is a reflection on the fact that people in the industry don't take credence in what CNET has to say. When a place like CNET starts losing it's objectivity in ratings (as they have been for years), it is to be expected that people value their opinion less.

[jeffcre]

Having both a Hitachi 42" plasma and a 37" samsung lcd I can say the plasma wins the picture battle. Both are great but color saturation, black level, and off axis viewing all tip the scales to plasma. As far as burn in goes I have accidentally left my xbox360 up for 4-5 hours and had no issues with burned in images. The next tv I buy, 50" or bigger, will definitely be a plasma.

[Tec Consumer]

Everyone knows you can't trust electronics store salesmen, but I suspect that there are two reasons they recommend LCD over plasma. One, the problems in early plasmas gave all plasmas a bad name--even the new ones that don't share the original problems. This leads consumers to bombard the salespeople with doubtful questions when they recommend a plasma. So its easier for the salesperson to just recommend an LCD, avoid that altogether and make the sale. Two, people want that 'wow factor' when they buy a new top dollar technology. An oversaturated waaaaay too bright LCD provides that extra something the old tube never could. When the typical consumer, who could care less about black levels, buys a plasma and then goes to his friend's house and sees the superbright oversaturated LCD he feels like he got beat, goes back to the store and returns the plasma claiming it doesn't work right. Plasmas look more 'cinematic' -- but most people watch 'movies.'

I hapen to have both an LCD display and a 6th generation Panasonic plasma display at home. Even though my Plasma display is not as advanced as some of the latest models (no HDMI), it still trumps the LCD. I have had zero issues with burn in, both with extensive XBox play and regular tv use.

While I do like both, when it comes to large screen displays, LCD's are not worth the money IMO. I'm currently looking to buy a 50" and It certainly will not be LCD.

[bob.mcclenahan]

The general public (not the band) prefer the bright, vivid pictures LCDs produce over the natural picture quality of plasmas. People are dumb and don't know what a TV should look like.

[badlarry12]

guys, LCD's burn in too!!!!!...pls stop saying they do not, I only saw one comment that mentioned this, so props to him, but he was using a computer monitor as an example...I had a sony 50in LCD for about 3.5yrs when I started noticing burn in...the difference is that the image would fade after the set was off and cooled down, unlike true burn in where it is permanently present, but still it does occur, allbeit maybe not as often...

[t26l]

It' all about the screen. Shiny screen looks nice, but shows a lot of reflection. Matte screen which is on most LCD's do not show these reflections or they are minimized. I would recommend Plasma if you watch TV in a room where you can completely eliminate light sources from the screen.

[stepyourgameup]

Ok. Time to respond to some of your comments. Hopefully I can set you people straight.

to zillady:
Are you serious? You can get the Panny 800U, editor's choice winner for around $2300.

to budmancon:
I can only assume you are kidding. Maybe you should have your eyes checked.

to badlarry12:
Thanks for the props.

to markdoiron:
No one is saying that plasmas don't burn in. Of course they will if they display a static image for a long period of time as in an airport. In my experience, if you get burn in on a plasma then you probably deserved it as you were not being smart with your viewing habits. Watching MSNBC all day is not a good idea.

[skimmilk99]

I have to respond as a DLP owner... I've owned one for several years now and I love it. There is 0% chance of burning in a DLP. Its got incredible color accuracy, no motion blur, and the lowest SDE of the 3 techs. Plus its by far the cheapest per inch. Blacks are definitely mediocre but not all that dissimilar to LCD. Too bad it looks like DLP is going the way of the laserdisc.