LCD or LED flat screen TV?

[Becky2844]

What's the difference? (Is one of them the "plasma" TV?)

Which do you consider better?

[TBG]

LED is an LCD screen that uses Light Emitting Diodes to light the screen rather than a more traditional lamp. Plasma is a different technology.

Better is a loaded word. Some people think LED produces a better picture, others don't notice much change and would be just fine with a cheaper LCD. You really just have to look at the screens in person and judge for yourself.

[Mind's Eye, Watering]

An LED is an LCD screen. The LED designation refers to the method of lighting the display, and doesn't refer to the display itself.

Neither of these is plasma. They are both LCD.

Other folks will be explain in more detail, I'm sure.

[Michael63129]

The difference between LCD and "LED" TVs has already been explained, but there are actual LED-based TVs which use organic LEDs; they aren't that popular yet, except for smaller displays (and more expensive, a 55 inch OLED TV costs around $10,000) but may soon compete with LCDs (for example, it is possible to use a printing process to make them).

[Becky2844]

Got it. So it really just depends on how much of a difference we can tell between a regular LCD and an LED. I'll look up plasma TVs. Thanks!

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Becky2844

Got it. So it really just depends on how much of a difference we can tell between a regular LCD and an LED. I'll look up plasma TVs. Thanks!

I've decided it's finally time to buy a new TV and have been reading about the differences myself. When I read buying guides, especially the ones with handy Pro/Con summaries I'm really impressed with plasma.

From what I've been reading the only downsides mentioned is they're not suitable for smaller TVs and they consume significantly more power. Then they mention lots of upsides like better deeper blacks and, the one that sounds neat to me, a smoother more film like picture.

So I find myself wondering... why do I almost always hear about actually people buying LCD tvs and rarely about plasma?

Anyone have any thoughts?

By the way I've yet to look at any actual tvs side by side... I'm sure it's a very valuable test before buying.

[VOW]

Go to Sam's Club or Costco and see the actual types side by side. Then check power consumption.

For us, power consumption was the primary factor, since we have solar electricity. The "newest type," which is LCD-LED, has a lower power consumption than the previous LCD, which had a lower power consumption than the LED.

And the plasma was a hot little power hog.


~VOW

[Jake Jones]

Traditional LCD sets use compact florescent lamp (CFL) back-lighting while LED sets use Light Emitting Diode bulbs.

LED sets are more expensive, so CFL back-lit is still around. LED sets are lighter and thinner that their CFL brethren, use less power and have longer lifespan. It's a better technology, so it costs more. You just have to weigh your budget against benefits and decide for yourself.

[Dewey Finn]

My understanding is that there are two types of LCD TVs with LED backliights. The cheaper version has the LEDs only along the edge while the more expensive type has the LEDs behind the whole panel.

[Jake Jones]

Originally Posted by Dewey Finn

My understanding is that there are two types of LCD TVs with LED backliights. The cheaper version has the LEDs only along the edge while the more expensive type has the LEDs behind the whole panel.

I think you're correct and the difference is called "edge-lit" versus "full array" and beyond that is whether or not "local dimming" is present. Full array with local dimming is the original, and best option.

[Glory]

Man, the most beautiful TV picture was the Sony BRAVIA XBR8. Full array local dimming and triluminous (three color LEDs). Wish I'd bought one when I had the chance.

[Becky2844]

I read up on plasma TVs and what I got out of it is that they are old school good---very good technology so more expensive, but energy hogs and have a glass screen instead of plastic, so heavier. LED seems to be superior to LCD because of sharper contrast in regards to black. (Probably where the "full array" comes in, and then number of pixels?)

Since I'd be looking for a relatively small one---26"---I think LCD would be okay. All seating will be toward it so no worry about angle effect, and set will be on a wall not in direct sunlight. Found one at Walmart for $209.00 with built-in DVD player. (RCA) Will be awhile before we can get it but I've put it on my wish list.

I didn't know where to even start but knew Dopers would be more helpful than ads. Now I know to recommend LED with full array and local dimming to sons who are willing to spend more and need more capablilities (for games and laptops, etc.)

Thanks everybody for your input.

[The Second Stone]

LCD TVs can be lit with LED lights, or a specialty lamp, usually fluorescent. I have two large flat screen Sony TVs. One LED, which is cooler, thinner, lighter and uses less electricity. The other uses a flourescent lamp, which uses more electricity and will likely not last as long as the LED array, although it is three or four years older. I would definitely choose the LED version in the future. Both have excellent picture, but the LED lit one is better. The flourescent one was an XBR that was only on the market for a short while. It started retailing at $6k, and I got it half off when it was discontinued.

[TBG]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Dunlop

I've decided it's finally time to buy a new TV and have been reading about the differences myself. When I read buying guides, especially the ones with handy Pro/Con summaries I'm really impressed with plasma.

From what I've been reading the only downsides mentioned is they're not suitable for smaller TVs and they consume significantly more power. Then they mention lots of upsides like better deeper blacks and, the one that sounds neat to me, a smoother more film like picture.

So I find myself wondering... why do I almost always hear about actually people buying LCD tvs and rarely about plasma?

Anyone have any thoughts?

By the way I've yet to look at any actual tvs side by side... I'm sure it's a very valuable test before buying.

The thing about plasma is they used to have terrible burn in issues, though supposedly it's not as bad anymore, but people remember when it was. Also, it's an older technology so people assume older = worse, though that's not necessarily the case. I hear they also put out a lot more heat than LCD or LED sets, so for some people that might be an issue as well.

[jz78817]

Originally Posted by TBG

The thing about plasma is they used to have terrible burn in issues, though supposedly it's not as bad anymore, but people remember when it was. Also, it's an older technology so people assume older = worse, though that's not necessarily the case. I hear they also put out a lot more heat than LCD or LED sets, so for some people that might be an issue as well.

Plasma displays are phosphor-based, just like an old-school CRT. All phosphor displays can burn-in since phosphors dim with age and use. Earlier plasma displays were notorious for rapid burn-in because they often had the brightness cranked up and any static image would get burned in in short order. If you have reasonable picture settings it should be trivial to avoid burn-in.

[DMark]

We bought our plasma TV before LCD's were cheaper and more readily available.
It is still working just great (7 or 8 years now?) but yes, it is an energy hog and man does it get warm near that TV. If we have it on for long periods, it is like having a heater in the room. Nice for winter, but not so great for summer and our AC bill.

Ours is a 42" and I believe it weighs 100 pounds (if I recall the stats that were on the box when we bought it.)

The biggest disadvantage is that when we bought it, it wasn't "normal" to have internet connections directly to TV. This has made trying to hook up my laptop or connecting to the internet a challenge and I sort of gave up. I don't need it that badly and didn't want to invest in gizmos to attach to fix the problem.

If I were to buy a new one today, I would get the less expensive LCD. I don't see a huge difference in picture quality when I look at TV displays in stores, and I think I would appreciate the energy savings.

[Becky2844]

We looked at TVs today and couldn't tell the difference between LED and LCD. There was a difference between actual brands, tho, so I'm guessing they use different technology?

[MichaelEmouse]

Originally Posted by Becky2844

We looked at TVs today and couldn't tell the difference between LED and LCD. There was a difference between actual brands, tho, so I'm guessing they use different technology?

What were the better brands, according to what you saw?

[Dewey Finn]

Originally Posted by Becky2844

We looked at TVs today and couldn't tell the difference between LED and LCD.

Seriously? Have you not read any of the replies to your OP?

[jz78817]

Originally Posted by Becky2844

We looked at TVs today and couldn't tell the difference between LED and LCD. There was a difference between actual brands, tho, so I'm guessing they use different technology?

As has been said, "LED" TVs are just LCD sets. The difference is that they use LEDs as the backlight where conventional LCD sets use fluorescent tubes. Chances are you arent going to see much difference apart from power consumption.

[Glory]

Originally Posted by jz78817

As has been said, "LED" TVs are just LCD sets. The difference is that they use LEDs as the backlight where conventional LCD sets use fluorescent tubes. Chances are you arent going to see much difference apart from power consumption.

I think you can see a difference between CCFL sets and LED LCD sets, particularly with dynamic or local dimming. The ability to control certain areas of the backlight according to what's on the screen helps with scenes like a moon in a night sky. The night will be very black, the moon will be very bright. You can't get that kind of picture with tubes (imo).

[tomcar]

I purchased a '11 panasonic plasma at the beginning of the year and couldnt be happier. Its 42" and capable of 1080p. The picture is beautiful. I personally think the picture is better than most LEDs I see... But most LEDs I see are calibrated too brightly. I couldnt recommend plasmas enough.

[jasg]

I would avoid built-in DVD - just adds complexity and something else to fail. Also, be aware that many 'store' brands and 2nd and 3rd tier manufacturers (Sylvania, Westinghouse, Polaroid) have zero parts availability. So, if it is not a Sony, Sharp, Samsung, Panasonic etc and it breaks - consider it disposable - there is generally no way to get it fixed

[Mdcastle]

Whether a set has an CCFl backlight or an LED backlight has absolutely nothing to do with how many pixels a set has. For normal TV viewing I'm not surprised that there's no discernable difference. On a static white screen you can sometimes tell because an LED has a very slightly different color to it. I actually prefer CCFl but they're making fewer and fewer of them.

Most sets except for the smallest are full 1080P now, but not all will do 120 hertz refresh rate. A lot of sets probably look identical too because there's very few (3?) manufacturers in the world that make the actual LCD panels.

[Becky2844]

Originally Posted by Dewey Finn

Seriously? Have you not read any of the replies to your OP?

Hey! I've read every single one of them and seem to have comprehended them better than you have. Mainly, discernable difference is a subjective thing.

Thanks, jasg. Something to seriously consider.

[Becky2844]

Originally Posted by MichaelEmouse

What were the better brands, according to what you saw?

I didn't jot them down so I can't remember, but next time out I'll be taking notes.

[Dewey Finn]

Originally Posted by Becky2844

Hey! I've read every single one of them and seem to have comprehended them better than you have. Mainly, discernable difference is a subjective thing.

Thanks, jasg. Something to seriously consider.

My point was that several people pointed out that an "LED flat screen TV" is an LCD flat screen TV, except for the backlight. So you might notice that the screen is thinner, but yes, beyond that the differences are subjective.

BTW, you mentioned wanting to get a 26" set. If your current TV is a regular old 4:3 CRT television. you might be disappointed at the size. The reason is that all TVs now are 16:9 so if your current set is 26", it will be taller than the new one. For that reason, I recommend getting a 32" set or larger, if you can fit it in the room.

[Digital is the new Analog]

I'm told that LED TVs generate less heat. In a small room with a big TV, that can make a difference.

-D/a

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Dewey Finn

My point was that several people pointed out that an "LED flat screen TV" is an LCD flat screen TV, except for the backlight. So you might notice that the screen is thinner, but yes, beyond that the differences are subjective.

Several people also pointed out that with local dimming she should be able to notice deeper blacks and greater contrast between things like the moon and the night sky. I guess you missed those parts when you were whining about Becky2844 not reading the thread.

[Dewey Finn]

Well, if by "couldn't tell the difference between LED and LCD" she meant that she could not tell the difference between LCD televisions with LED backlights and those without, she should have said so.

[Becky2844]

After reading everybody's posts, I'm now leaning toward LED without a built-in DVD player. Put our money into the screen and not worry about the bells & whistles. And even tho most the pictures looked the same to us, the fact that an LED lasts longer is a good selling point.

I'm kind of stuck with getting a 26" screen. We have a 20yr old entertainment center that is really nice, solid oak, but made for an old-school TV. The "cut-out square" is 27" wide. The flat screen will be shorter; maybe we could set it on top of a DVD player or something? At any rate, I'm now convinced that LED is the way to go. Thanks all.

[Digital is the new Analog]

Originally Posted by Becky2844

After reading everybody's posts, I'm now leaning toward LED without a built-in DVD player. Put our money into the screen and not worry about the bells & whistles. And even tho most the pictures looked the same to us, the fact that an LED lasts longer is a good selling point.

That's what I did. As part of my remodel, I recently bought three new TVs. A 32" for the gym, a 46" for the game room, and a 60" to replace the old 46" in the family room. All three are LED. The old 46" non-LED is moving to the master bedroom. That's how I learned about the heat issue - a co-worker of mine told me he did that and had a problem, but since I live alone and don't tend to leave TVs on all day, it shouldn't be an issue for me.

The only one with any fancy features is the 60" - it has WiFi and built in streaming support for Netflix, Blockbuster, Pandora, and others..and is 240Hz.

The 32" is only 720p..the others are 1080p.

My theory on the built in DVD player is that technology in players moves at a different pace than technology in TVs. I want to be able to upgrade separately.

I picked up a used blue-ray player from a friend for $30.


-D/a

[Alley Dweller]

Originally Posted by Becky2844

After reading everybody's posts, I'm now leaning toward LED without a built-in DVD player. Put our money into the screen and not worry about the bells & whistles. And even tho most the pictures looked the same to us, the fact that an LED lasts longer is a good selling point.

I'm kind of stuck with getting a 26" screen. We have a 20yr old entertainment center that is really nice, solid oak, but made for an old-school TV. The "cut-out square" is 27" wide. The flat screen will be shorter; maybe we could set it on top of a DVD player or something? At any rate, I'm now convinced that LED is the way to go. Thanks all.

I understand the problem with the furniture. It's a shame since a 32 inch (diagonal) TV is about 28 inches wide (assuming no side speakers).

But you might want to consider if there is any way to work around the problem, like for example building an extension for the shelf (remember that new TVs are very thin and light). Take a look at this, just to make sure you understand what you are getting into.

[Becky2844]

Wow. Thanks, Alley Dweller. That's really something to think about.

[jasg]

Originally Posted by jasg

I would avoid built-in DVD - just adds complexity and something else to fail. Also, be aware that many 'store' brands and 2nd and 3rd tier manufacturers (Sylvania, Westinghouse, Polaroid) have zero parts availability. So, if it is not a Sony, Sharp, Samsung, Panasonic etc and it breaks - consider it disposable - there is generally no way to get it fixed

Here is the link I should have included. It is from 2007, but still worth a read even if the details have changed.

Still pays to check the fine print on possible repair and shipping charges.