(OT) Plasma or LCD for watching hockey?

[That Aud Smell]

i inherited an early hi-def type tee-vee from my pops several years ago -- it works well enough (it goes into a letter-boxed mode when i watch our HD channels).

 

this thread, i hafta say, makes me dread the process of replacing that unit with a new one. not that there's not a ton of super useful information here. it's just that, uhm, there's a ton of useful information here.

 

i keep hearing that technology is designed to make our lives simpler, but i keep seeing evidence to the contrary.

[buffaloaggie]

get a led/lcd 240hz and you will not be dissapointed. 120hz should be enough however more hz means faster response time. Also 1080p is critical

The refresh rate is important for hockey. I had a 1080i 60hz and went to 1080p 120hz and it made a big difference. 240 or even 600hz would be much better obviously. Panasonic Viera has the 600hz.

 

Have they broadcast any NHL games in 3D yet? I have not seen a live sporting event in 3D and I wonder how it is.

[biodork]

These points may already have been made by others (I skimmed), but two potential knocks against plasma are the concern about image burn-in and power usage -- when I was researching a few years back I read that LCD TVs use up to 30% less electricity than a similarly-sized plasma model. I have a 32" Sony LCD, and although it's "only" 720p, I must say I am very happy with the picture when watching HD channels. Chz makes good points about checking the connectors on the back -- always good to have a mix available. HDMI cables can be absurdly expensive, but don't let anyone talk you into one from Monster -- get them through www.monoprice.com.

[Ohiofan]

These points may already have been made by others (I skimmed), but two potential knocks against plasma are the concern about image burn-in and power usage -- when I was researching a few years back I read that LCD TVs use up to 30% less electricity than a similarly-sized plasma model. I have a 32" Sony LCD, and although it's "only" 720p, I must say I am very happy with the picture when watching HD channels. Chz makes good points about checking the connectors on the back -- always good to have a mix available. HDMI cables can be absurdly expensive, but don't let anyone talk you into one from Monster -- get them through www.monoprice.com.

True about the electricity...My sister says her plasma eats into her electric bill.

[spndnchz]

True about the electricity...My sister says her plasma eats into her electric bill.

 

But u will save on the heating bill in the winter. :thumbsup:

[wjag]

I've had the 42" for over a year now and I still think to myself, "wow, this is incredible." Actually, I think it even more often when watching football, for some reason. Do it; you won't regret it!

 

Like many I bought a 42". Fine for the bedroom, etc. But if you have any distance in your living room, go bigger (as long as it doesn't overwhelm the room). I'm jonesing for 60" LED for my living room. Can be had for under 2K.

 

Buy a TV, the economy depends on you...

[Chief Enabler]

I have a 26" 720p Sony LCD, a 40" 1080p Sony LCD, and a 50" 720p Samsung plasma. All of them have their good points and bad points, but they all look great compared to a CRT even ith FIOS SD for the Sabres games. The HD feeds for Versus and the NHL Network look stunning on all of them.

 

I would be more concerned with getting a good brand, and, most importantly, getting the correct screen size for the room. There is nothing worse than getting a "Big TV" and a week later you're regretting not getting the next size up.

rule of thumb I heard around is multiply the size of the tv times 6 for the appropriate tv to room ratio.

 

Switching from Comcast to Direct TV has been huge HD improvement in my world, this is the first year I have really appreciated the quality in hockey broadcasts. But, I havent bitten the bullet on the center ice package yet. If the Sabres keep looking like this....... :bag:

[Patty16]

True about the electricity...My sister says her plasma eats into her electric bill.

 

the difference in electric use between a plasma and lcd of the same size is roughly$30 per year.

 

Your sisters bill is likely affected by other things, but not her tv

[wallybarthman]

These points may already have been made by others (I skimmed), but two potential knocks against plasma are the concern about image burn-in and power usage -- when I was researching a few years back I read that LCD TVs use up to 30% less electricity than a similarly-sized plasma model. I have a 32" Sony LCD, and although it's "only" 720p, I must say I am very happy with the picture when watching HD channels. Chz makes good points about checking the connectors on the back -- always good to have a mix available. HDMI cables can be absurdly expensive, but don't let anyone talk you into one from Monster -- get them through www.monoprice.com.

 

Screen burn in with plasma isn't nearly the issue it used to be - they've improved technology and almost all plasmas have reset settings that let you white your screen out to remove any effects of burn in.

[biodork]

Screen burn in with plasma isn't nearly the issue it used to be - they've improved technology and almost all plasmas have reset settings that let you white your screen out to remove any effects of burn in.

 

Good to know - my mom has an older plasma and she used to freak out if we paused a movie and left the room. (c;

[plenzmd1]

So I have been thru several TV's over the last 8 years or so. Started with a 46in Samsung DLP, cost me close to $3500 when I bought it, and was happy to get it that cheap!!!When the color wheel, fan and lamp all started to go at the same time, was cheaper to buy new than get all that stuff repaired.

 

I have b0th plasmas and LCD's in the house now, and LCD outside on the covered porch, which is where i watch all my sports. I have no issue with artifacts etc watching hockey out there. I have an LG that is 1080P out there, but only 60mz, and still no problems at all.However, when i turn on the TV and it is under 45 degrees or so, you do get some trails on the puck etc, but that goes away once the TV warms up a bit.

 

For some reason, I have heard to get the store to put on ESPN, and watch the scrawl at the bottom closely. If that does not look right, then you will have some issues on the games.

[PASabreFan]

So I called DirecTV four times to get their best deal on high-def. Because I got upgraded less than a year ago, the most they would offer, they said, was 100 bucks off the $199 HD DVR. Nothing off the HD monthly fee. My flesh was weak and I said what the hell. When I called back to order, the rep offered me two free years of high-def service if I signed up for auto pay. Why didn't any of the first four tell me about this deal?!

 

Not a bad deal. And I was told come January, a year after my last free upgrade, I can call and get some additional discounts.

 

The tough thing is going to be getting the TV tomorrow and having to wait almost two more weeks for the installer to come.

[rickshaw]

I got a Sony Bravia 46" almost 2 years ago and I love it. Love it!

 

I bought a LCD TV because I was told if any light gets into the room, that they are better than plasma. Since plasmas are better in rooms with no light, I had to go with the LCD.

[cdexchange]

 

The tough thing is going to be getting the TV tomorrow and having to wait almost two more weeks for the installer to come.

 

 

In the meantime, there are probably many free HD signals right around your house that you can easily grab with a cheapo antenna. Plus the resolution of these channels is actually better than DirecTV because they are not compressed at all. Check out http://www.antennaweb.org/aw/welcome.aspx to see what's available at your address and how to receive them.

[PASabreFan]

Thanks for the tip, cd. No signals in my area.

 

Got the TV. No HD receiver yet. Sound is only fair. Pretty disappointing, and Eleven can't be happy either.

 

Any chance the sound will be better with the HD signal?

 

Or do I now have to go out and buy speakers?

[spndnchz]

Everything is better with digital. Period.

 

Just watched The Hurt Locker at a friends house. He's got a crazy system. TW HD, HDMI into his stereo, blue ray HDMI into his stereo and then to the TV and like 7? speakers. Sounded like the whole house was blowing up. It spooked me so many times because I kept hearing people walking behind me.

 

You should be able to adjust the bass and treble, surround or not on the TV, might help. With mine the BBE or whatever makes it sound awful, like ur inside an airplane or somethin'.

[PizzaJunction]

I'm thinking that your buddy just has a crappy TV. My Phillips 42" LCD doesn't do that at all.

 

Last week it did crap out, though. It would get stuck on the boot screen and then just go to black. I went to the Phillips website and found out that there was a firmware update for my model. I had to download the file and have it be the only thing on a DOS formatted thumb drive. Pain in the ### but it did fix the problem.

 

I really thought these here digimatized com-puters were just a fad.

 

Aside from firmware update could the blackout have been caused by the pounding of the set during the Bills online feed experiment? :blink:

[PASabreFan]

HD just installed! I'm percolating.

[shrader]

HD just installed! I'm percolating.

 

Now go watch some nature show that has a ton of water. I still love the way water looks in HD.

[Patty16]

Everything is better with digital. Period.

 

Just watched The Hurt Locker at a friends house. He's got a crazy system. TW HD, HDMI into his stereo, blue ray HDMI into his stereo and then to the TV and like 7? speakers. Sounded like the whole house was blowing up. It spooked me so many times because I kept hearing people walking behind me.

 

You should be able to adjust the bass and treble, surround or not on the TV, might help. With mine the BBE or whatever makes it sound awful, like ur inside an airplane or somethin'.

 

 

There is a lot of discussion in the home theater world that this isnt the case. HMDI offers no better picture quality than component. Look it up, engagdet cnet ecoustics etc have all written pieces on this.

 

It depends for more on the equipment you are connecting the cables to. You should really be buying both cables to see if there is a difference, there probably isnt.

 

Its the same theory behind monster cable. Sell consumer overpriced cable and they will magically believe they see the difference, wire is wire (generally) and there have been tests that show Monster is a ripoff.

[Sabre Dance]

There is a lot of discussion in the home theater world that this isnt the case. HMDI offers no better picture quality than component. Look it up, engagdet cnet ecoustics etc have all written pieces on this.

 

It depends for more on the equipment you are connecting the cables to. You should really be buying both cables to see if there is a difference, there probably isnt.

 

Its the same theory behind monster cable. Sell consumer overpriced cable and they will magically believe they see the difference, wire is wire (generally) and there have been tests that show Monster is a ripoff.

 

This is true - some of the highest-rated HDMI cables (as far as construction, etc. not picture quality) are the less expensive ones. Because it is basically transmitting 1s and 0s, you shouldn't really be seeing better or worse pictures because of the cables (one word of caution - if the connector at the end of the cable isn't attached firmly OR it doesn't fit snugly in the HDMI port, that could be an issue). It just seems that if you pay $100 for a cable, it ought to produce a picture twice as good as a $50 cable. (My HDMI cables cost about $20 - I think the picture on my plasma is awesome.)

 

Just like audio speakers - in an A/B test, people generally pick the speaker that sounds louder, not necessarily the one that sounds better. Since different speakers have different levels of efficiency, the output SPL (sound pressure level) should be checked to make sure it is the same in both sets of speakers when doing a comparison.

 

Whoops! Sorry, I slipped into geek mode there. Please, go about your normal business. Nothing to see here...move along, move along.

[Patty16]

This is true - some of the highest-rated HDMI cables (as far as construction, etc. not picture quality) are the less expensive ones. Because it is basically transmitting 1s and 0s, you shouldn't really be seeing better or worse pictures because of the cables (one word of caution - if the connector at the end of the cable isn't attached firmly OR it doesn't fit snugly in the HDMI port, that could be an issue). It just seems that if you pay $100 for a cable, it ought to produce a picture twice as good as a $50 cable. (My HDMI cables cost about $20 - I think the picture on my plasma is awesome.)

 

Just like audio speakers - in an A/B test, people generally pick the speaker that sounds louder, not necessarily the one that sounds better. Since different speakers have different levels of efficiency, the output SPL (sound pressure level) should be checked to make sure it is the same in both sets of speakers when doing a comparison.

 

Whoops! Sorry, I slipped into geek mode there. Please, go about your normal business. Nothing to see here...move along, move along.

Great post!

 

The only time it will really make a difference is if you are running a projector setup where the signal has to travel long distances. For 99% of us, HDMI is no better or worse than comp cables. No need to buy the expensive ones either, its just wire. pretty much the same goes for speaker wire as well, the correct size is more important than the $$.

[thesportsbuff]

HD just installed! I'm percolating.

 

You mean you haven't had HD ever before, or you're just upgrading or getting it back or something?? If it's your first time you are gonna LOVE tonight's game haha. I can't watch hockey in standard def anymore.

[thesportsbuff]

This is true - some of the highest-rated HDMI cables (as far as construction, etc. not picture quality) are the less expensive ones. Because it is basically transmitting 1s and 0s, you shouldn't really be seeing better or worse pictures because of the cables (one word of caution - if the connector at the end of the cable isn't attached firmly OR it doesn't fit snugly in the HDMI port, that could be an issue). It just seems that if you pay $100 for a cable, it ought to produce a picture twice as good as a $50 cable. (My HDMI cables cost about $20 - I think the picture on my plasma is awesome.)

 

Just like audio speakers - in an A/B test, people generally pick the speaker that sounds louder, not necessarily the one that sounds better. Since different speakers have different levels of efficiency, the output SPL (sound pressure level) should be checked to make sure it is the same in both sets of speakers when doing a comparison.

 

Whoops! Sorry, I slipped into geek mode there. Please, go about your normal business. Nothing to see here...move along, move along.

 

Buy.com has great deals on HDMI cords... You can usually get find short ones for $3 or $5 each. I use them and they work like any other $30 one I've used.

[Eleven]

Great post!

 

The only time it will really make a difference is if you are running a projector setup where the signal has to travel long distances. For 99% of us, HDMI is no better or worse than comp cables. No need to buy the expensive ones either, its just wire. pretty much the same goes for speaker wire as well, the correct size is more important than the $$.

 

The TV in my living room, which uses conventional RGB cables, has MUCH better HD than the upstairs TV, which is hooked up w/ an HDMI cable. That one is really jumpy/spotty. (And it's a nicer television, too.) My conclusion: the cable box upstairs is crappy, and needs to be returned to TWC. Also, I can't watch any conventional channels on that TV, because the only hookup is the HDMI hookup. I'm going to get RGB cables for it pronto (or just use a couple of stereo component cables, if I can find them lying around).