# Key Post: LCD or Plasma



## Hansov (26 Nov 2004)

Just writing my letter to Santa and want to explain exactly what I want!!!!  (Wanting does unfortunately not mean getting!! as she who controls the purse strings continues to state).  Aldi are or were selling LCD TVs this week (1699 euros) and in the flyer were extolling the virtues of LCD.  Anybody got views on the benefits or lack thereof of Plasma or LCD.  (And perhaps she might remember my letter next year!)


----------



## ClubMan (26 Nov 2004)

*Re: LCD or Plasma*

*Aldi are or were selling LCD TVs this week (1699 euros) and in the flyer were extolling the virtues of LCD. *

I'm pretty sure that was _Lidl_ (the new store on _Moore Street_) and not _Aldi_. I presume that you've tried  for comparisons/reviews?


----------



## Hansov (26 Nov 2004)

*Re: LCD or Plasma*

Thanks Clubman.  You do know your German retailers!  Yes it was Lidl (I was in both yesterday in Lucan).  BTW there were three of the TVs left there at 3pm yesterday. Unusual but I suppose They are not something that would fly off the shelves! Googling it now but of course I was looking for real live Irish views from AAM colleagues as well!


----------



## Alan Moore (26 Nov 2004)

*Supposedly....*

LCD is the better format however you normally pay more for LCD when comparing two screens of the same size. My thoughts are to hang on til next chrimbo. Its still a relatively new product and there are still massive leaps being made in the technology. The common view is that the old CRT still gives the best picture.


----------



## sunnyday (27 Nov 2004)

*Re: Supposedly....*

One thing I hear said about Plasma screens, is that there life span is limited, at least compared to CRT. How does LCD fair in that department? And is LCD picture quality as good/better than Plasma?


----------



## ClubMan (27 Nov 2004)

*Re: Supposedly....*

The problem of burn-in with plasma which doesn't affect LCD was one of the issues mentioned in the _Lidl_ flyer.


----------



## EAMONN66 (27 Nov 2004)

*Re: Supposedly....*

plasmas are limited in lifespan, easily damages and operate at quite a low resolution.think of it this way, a plasma is a flat telly as opposed to a lcd which is a mega cumputer monitor. add a pc with wireless kb and mouse and you have the ultimate family pc. personally, im waiting until you can get a 42'' lcd for todays plasma money


----------



## Dan The Man (29 Nov 2004)

*Plasma Vs LCD*

[broken link removed]

For the copmparison of Plasma Vs LCD

Seems that LCD is the way to go


----------



## Monsieur Bond (29 Nov 2004)

*Re: Plasma Vs LCD*

I picked up one of these the other week in DID:

*LG KZ17LZ21 17" LCD Screen with Built-in DVD Player*

It was a tad expensive (a grand) but space and cable clutter is an issue for me so I was willing to pay a little more for the built-in DVD.

I am overall very happy with it. Contrast is not as good as my CRT TV but I was expecting that.

Here is a review in 
[broken link removed].

January's issue of HCC also has a LCD TV comparison.


----------



## sunnyday (30 Nov 2004)

*Re: Plasma Vs LCD*

Great link Dan, definitely LCD seems much better technology. Just to wait for prices to come down now!


----------



## Monsieur Bond (30 Nov 2004)

*Re: Plasma Vs LCD*

On Dan's link, it says:



> Typical plasma TVs have a life span of 20,000 to 30,000 hours, which equates to at least two years, three months of 24/7 usage before the TV fades to half the original brightness.



This is not true, at least not for the latest generation of Plasmas (from Pioneer, anyway), which are at 50,000 hours, same as LCD.

Bad news is that these Plasmas cost c. €5000  

Here is another useful comparison of LCD versus Plasma, for both TV and Computer usage.


----------



## Alan Moore (7 Dec 2004)

*Important if you are comtemplating.....*

.... a plasma/lcd tv.

Sky HDTV not going to compatable with some plasmas/lcd in 2006.

[broken link removed]

I assume (but could be wrong) that the same applies for CRTs.


----------



## Monsieur Bond (7 Dec 2004)

*Re: Important if you are contemplating.....*

* .... a plasma/lcd tv.
*



> Sky HDTV not going to compatable with some plasmas/lcd in 2006.



Interesting. I'm sure this is not the last word on the subject.

People will find ways around this. For example, component Video output on DVD players has only recently (in the last 2 years) been ratified for PAL, even though it was available for NTSC for quite some time. The reason was to do with copyright and copy protection. However, most DVD players could be hacked to provide PAL component output.

HDMI or DVI interfaces seem to be used on larger displays, as HDTV really works best on large displays, i.e. greater then 32".

You won't find HDMI or DVI inputs on most LCDs below 32"  and neither will you find it on many CRTs of 32" or below.


----------



## extopia (9 Dec 2004)

*Re: Important if you are contemplating.....*

The thing about HDTV is the screen resolution. It will render almost all current equipment obsolete.


----------



## Monsieur Bond (9 Dec 2004)

*Re: Important if you are contemplating.....*



> The thing about HDTV is the screen resolution. It will render almost all current equipment obsolete.



I agree, but not for _at least _5 years.

Just look at the slow takeup in the States.

There is currently little or no HDTV content in Europe (apart from  that I know of).

There is no practical way to record this content at present either (leaving aside copyright / DRM issues for the moment), until Blu-Ray of HD-DVD become affordable.

I am looking forward to HDTV and to high definition DVD, and if I buy a big-screen Plasma in the next few years I will ensure it supports all relevant standards.

I won't be junking by 32 inch CRT or my 17 inch widescreen LCD anytime soon, though, and neither, I suspect, will many Irish or UK consumers.


----------



## Alan Moore (10 Dec 2004)

*My money*

... is on every Tom, Dick & Harry buying a plasma or lcd when SSIAs start to mature ( Apr 06 )


----------



## Gordanus (15 Dec 2004)

*Re: My money*

a little off topic & wondering if you went ahead with the Lidl TV.  My elderly parents bought one and it takes half an hour of stripes before the picture kicks in... the troubleshooting guide says return to the suppliers.  The problem is getting it there (OK, me & it!) and will they replace it..... and how fast.   The prospect of being TV less seems to be alarming them.  Anyone had problems with this TV / 7/or experience of returning this type of thing to Lidl?


----------



## rainyday (15 Dec 2004)

*Re: My money*



> There is currently little or no HDTV content in Europe


You could say the same for widescreen, but that hasn't stopped it becoming the dominant format in the shops (even in there is very little content filmed in widescreen (apart from made-for-cinema movies).


----------



## Monsieur Bond (15 Dec 2004)

*Re: My money*



> You could say the same for widescreen, but that hasn't stopped it becoming the dominant format in the shops (even in there is very little content filmed in widescreen (apart from made-for-cinema movies).



I disagree. You will notice that most UK channels in particular have black bars on soaps and dramas - they have been moving over the past 2 or 3 years towards increased widescreen and eventually widescreen-only programming.

I heard the other day that one of the UK channels (can't remember which) was going to go widescreen only in 2006.

Sky Digital broadcast many widescreen films, and most DVDs you rent or buy are in widescreen.

Thus, buying a widescreen telly makes a lot of sense.

I do see TVs saying "HDTV" ready - I would buy one of these if I was buying a new TV now. If buying a Plasma / LCD model, particularly a larger one, would try to get a model with an HDCP compliant HDMI connection, if available.


----------



## rainyday (16 Dec 2004)

*Re: My money*



> I heard the other day that one of the UK channels (can't remember which) was going to go widescreen only in 2006.


I've been hearing for 3 years that 'everything' will be widescreen in 6 months time - it just never quite seems to happen. I'd love to see some statistics on the percentage of material filmed in widescreen on each channel.


----------



## Monsieur Bond (17 Dec 2004)

*Re: My money*



> I've been hearing for 3 years that 'everything' will be widescreen in 6 months time - it just never quite seems to happen. I'd love to see some statistics on the percentage of material filmed in widescreen on each channel.



Check out HDTV IS THE NEXT CONSUMER CHOICE:

*Learning from widescreen*
The current success of wide screen - in the UK at least – is due mostly to the efforts of the *major terrestrial broadcasters* – whose services together have an eyeball share of some 85% of all viewing time - and *who are originating in excess of 80% of all prime time television as wide screen*. Some services are fully wide screen and, since so-called C-Day in July 2000, all commercials distributed throughout the UK have also been originated in wide screen. As a consequence the analog services are, in fact, an aspect ratio reduced version of the original digital wide screen services. This success has prompted an EU Commission report to ask how such success could be replicated across the EU.

See also  post.


----------



## Le Meister (18 Dec 2004)

*Re: My money*



> I've been hearing for 3 years that 'everything' will be widescreen in 6 months time - it just never quite seems to happen. I'd love to see some statistics on the percentage of material filmed in widescreen on each channel.



Rainyday,

Here is todays [broken link removed] for BBC1 Northern Ireland.  By clicking the link to each programme tells whether it's broadcast in widescreen or not.  But don't worry, in the interests of converting the unconvertible, I have done the statistical slog!

Between the viewing hours 06:00am and 01:45am, a total of 18 hours 10 mins out of 19 hours 45 mins, was broadcast in widescreen format.   Only *one* programme, for the whole day is not being broadcast in widescreen.  So that's 92% of total viewing time broadcast in widescreen or put another way, 35 out of 36 programmes broadcast in widescreen - 97%.


----------



## rainyday (18 Dec 2004)

*Re: My money*



> By clicking the link to each programme tells whether it's broadcast in widescreen or not.


It really doesn't matter whether is it broadcast in widescreen. What really matters is whether it was shot in widescreen.


----------



## Le Meister (18 Dec 2004)

*Re: My money*



> It really doesn't matter whether is it broadcast in widescreen. What really matters is whether it was shot in widescreen.



Please explain your logic.

Regardless of what it was shot in, you only have the option of watching in the format the broadcaster transmits, which as above is predominantly widescreen.


----------



## rainyday (19 Dec 2004)

*Re: My money*

My logic is that if material was not shot in widescreen, then when it is either transmitted in widescreen or watched on a widescreen TV in one of the 'adjusted' modes, you are not watching the picture the director intended - you are watching a cropped or adjusted version of the picture. You can't fit a square peg in a round hole. You can't fit a 4:3 picture onto a 16:9 screen without losing something.


----------



## Le Meister (19 Dec 2004)

*Re: My money*



> My logic is that if material was not shot in widescreen, then when it is either transmitted in widescreen or watched on a widescreen TV in one of the 'adjusted' modes, you are not watching the picture the director intended - you are watching a cropped or adjusted version of the picture.


You only need to worry about how the director intended the picture to be seen in films and the vast majority of films are made for the cinema, not TV, and therefore shot in one of various widescreen aspect ratios.  The way TV stations got around this was by using a pan and scan device in the 4:3 aspect ratio which enabled them to broadcast the most relevant part of the movie - but not it all.   

Anyway, if a film is recorded in the 4:3 aspect ratio but  broadcast in the widescreen 16:9 ratio, would you prefer watch it on a 'normal' TV or a widescreen??



> You can't fit a 4:3 picture onto a 16:9 screen without losing something.


Not true.  Widescreen TV's are fully capable of displaying exactly the same picture you would see on a 4:3 TV.  A 32" widescreen would be the equivalent of a 28" normal TV


----------



## rainyday (19 Dec 2004)

*Re: My money*



> The way TV stations got around this was by using a pan and scan device in the 4:3 aspect ratio which enabled them to broadcast the most relevant part of the movie - but not it all.


That's exactly my point! As you say yourself, 'not it all'. The pan-and-scan device means you see a cropped or adjusted version of the original picture. It is not as the director intended.



> Not true. Widescreen TV's are fully capable of displaying exactly the same picture you would see on a 4:3 TV.


As we approach the panto season, I'll respond with 'Oh yes it is'. *You can't fit a 4:3 picture onto a 16:9 screen without losing something.* When a 4:3 picture is displayed on a 16:9 screen, you can either display it in 

- 'original mode' (i.e. true 4:3 ratio) and end up with black bars on either side of you screen, so you lose a chunk of your TV display
- 'stretch mode' where the 4:3 picture is stretched to fit a 16:9 screen, and all the characters seem to have put on weight and/or you lose a chunk of the top & bottom of the display.

You can't fit a square peg in a round hole (unless you chisel off the sides of the square peg). Same logic applies.



> A 32" widescreen would be the equivalent of a 28" normal TV


I'm glad we agree on something. This was one of issues for me in deciding to choose a normal TV on my last purchase. The 32" widescreen & the (much cheaper) 29" normal TV were side by side, and it was clear that the picture sizes were roughly equivalent. In fact, even when some materials were broadcast in widescreen (e.g. E.R.), the normal ratio TV shows them in widescreen mode (with bars on the top/bottom of the screen). The resulting image size was roughly the same as the 32" widescreen, so there was no good reason to choose the widescreen TV.


----------



## Monsieur Bond (20 Dec 2004)

*4:3 content on TV*



> My logic is that if material was not shot in widescreen, then when it is either transmitted in widescreen or watched on a widescreen TV in one of the 'adjusted' modes, you are not watching the picture the director intended - you are watching a cropped or adjusted version of the picture. You can't fit a square peg in a round hole. You can't fit a 4:3 picture onto a 16:9 screen without losing something.



To pick up on this point, while this is true, you will find that most drama is filmed in widescreen and showing in 14:9 as per the links I posted.

The amount of original programming filmed in 4:3 is becoming less and less. Furthermore, the content that is (for now) filmed and broadcast in 4:3, such as the news, current affairs programs etc. is arguably perfectly watchable with black bars on top and no loss of content; or stretched somewhat to fit the 16:9 or 14:9 screensize (whichever your personal preference).

I find I just leave my 32" widescreen TV on Auto mode all the time. I don't notice any stretching on the News etc. as it is fairly static content. I don't notice it on drama or films because most of these are broadcast in the half-way 14:9 mode anyway.

I suppose the bottom line is, how much 4:3 content will you watch versus 16:9 or 14:9. Do you rent DVDs? If so, are they widescreen? Do you subscribe to Sky Movies?
Do you have a lot of fullscreen videos or DVDs at home already?

If, on balance, you watch more 4:3 content and want to see this without losing anything, and are content to have black bars on rented DVDs and on films and drama on TV, then go ahead and buy a 29" TV.

If, however, you couldn't care much what format Corrie is on, but when you rent or watch a movie on Sky Movies you prefer to see it "as the director intended", then buy a widescreen TV.


----------



## setanta (21 Dec 2004)

*Re: 4:3 content on TV*

I have a sharp 28 widescreen which on certain channels - utv and channel 4 and rte during breaks,  jumps all over the shop with different picture sizes. This does not appear to happen as often on my  32 w/s panasonic, which admittedly is mostly commandeered by teenagers + pals, so I dont usually get to see the news etc on it. Also the sharp  has another annoying 'habit'. If the sound suddenly jumps it automatically lowers the sound, but this also happens if during a concert loud music is being played.


----------



## Monsieur Bond (21 Dec 2004)

*Re: 4:3 content on TV*

*I have a sharp 28 widescreen which on certain channels - utv and channel 4 and rte during breaks, jumps all over the shop with different picture sizes. This does not appear to happen as often on my 32 w/s panasonic*

My Sony used to do this, but I found an option in the manual to change the Auto Format correction from Extra (or High or Enhanced or Over-Zealous or some such thing) to Normal. On the Over-Eager setting, the TV attempted to choose the correct format almost every every minute or so, which had the effect you describe when watching ads in particular. 

On the Normal setting, if it detected a change of formar (e.g. a widescreen movie comes on when the TV is in 4:3 mode), it now waits for the format to "stabilise" for a few minutes before switching. 

I found this worked well.

On the Sony, you can change this setting on the Advanced menu, per input (AV1, AV2 etc.).

Maybe you can do something similar with the Sharp?

If not, you can always change the Picture Mode from Auto to just 14:9 and leave it there, changing it manually when you watch a widescreen TV.

*Also the sharp has another annoying 'habit'. If the sound suddenly jumps it automatically lowers the sound, but this also happens if during a concert loud music is being played.*

Sounds like a volume limiting feature to me. Have you checked the manual?

Mind you, I have another kind of automatic volume limiting feature at home which kicks in when the sound gets a bit loud during an action film... It's my wife shouting "turn that down - it's too damn loud!"


----------



## regfnotloh (24 Dec 2004)

*video senders*

so how`s the tv reception with these video sender. is it up to standard.


----------



## fatherdougalmaguire (25 Dec 2004)

*Re: video senders*

I picked one up in Aldi some time ago and it's grand. Haven't tried it with Sky/NTL digital but it works fine between my laptop and the TV.

Just FYI, there's a 26" LCD TV for €1000 in Aldi on Monday. (And a 15" LCD monitor for €200).


----------



## Alan Moore (29 Dec 2004)

*Re: video senders*

Have an argos digi sender about 2 years now. Picture is perfect.

On the TV widescreen/4:3 issue I'd recommend stick with what you have for the moment. The whole playing field will change in 2006.

See: [broken link removed]

Or 

[broken link removed]

Would be a bit disgusted if I'd forked out 5K on a Sony Plasma.


----------



## Monsieur Bond (14 Jan 2005)

*Re: Update re SKY and High Definition Copy Content*

*On the TV widescreen/4:3 issue I'd recommend stick with what you have for the moment. The whole playing field will change in 2006.*

Home Cinema Choice had an update on this on the 11th:

[broken link removed]

There is also a related article which would appear to lend support to confirm my belief that most suppliers of high-end systems will release upgrades or patches to support the copy control:

[broken link removed]. 



> By mid January a fix will be available to make the DVI jack on Sagem's Axium DLP rear projection TV HDCP compatible.


----------



## Monsieur Bond (2 Feb 2005)

*Re: Update re SKY and High Definition Copy Content*

Update on buying High Definition-ready TVs:

[broken link removed]
...and they include digital video inputs with HDCP...

[broken link removed]


----------



## fork (9 Feb 2005)

*jvc28x4 widescreen*

The ESB are selling this 100 Hz tv for 600 euro. I'd be grateful if anybody would have any opinions on this.
persumably it is not set up fot high definition as described above, is this a big disavantage. 
Thanks


----------



## Monsieur Bond (9 Feb 2005)

*Re: jvc28x4 widescreen*

*The ESB are selling this 100 Hz tv for 600 euro. I'd be grateful if anybody would have any opinions on this.
persumably it is not set up fot high definition as described above, is this a big disavantage.*

What is the resolution of the TV?

I don't see that many 28 inch widescreen TVs that are HDTV ready - it seems to be 32 inch and above mainly as far as I can see.

Mind you, the ESB are not usually price leaders - DID has a JVC 28in widescreen for €500.


[broken link removed]


----------



## Monsieur Bond (9 Feb 2005)

*Re: jvc28x4 widescreen*

Interesting article in this month's Home Cinema Choice, on sale on Jan 20th, on HDTV, HD-DVD etc.

[broken link removed]

This link opens a PDF in a frame which could take a little time:
[broken link removed]


----------



## fork (9 Feb 2005)

*jvc tv*

Hi, M. Bond.
I don't know what the resolution of the jvc set is.
With regard to prices the ESB seem to be getting competitive on tv's lately.
The set you highlighted @ DID is a 50 Hz set whereas the one in the ESB is 100 HZ.
Is it worth spending an extra 100 euro on a 100 Hz set. ?


----------



## Monsieur Bond (10 Feb 2005)

*Re: jvc tv*

*The set you highlighted @ DID is a 50 Hz set whereas the one in the ESB is 100 HZ.
Is it worth spending an extra 100 euro on a 100 Hz set. ?*


Hmmm. Depends on what you watch. 

Crudely put, 100Hz processing is a way of "cleaning up" analogue signals.

If you mostly watch analogue TV (NTL Basic, for example), then the 100Hz will give you a smoother, less flickery picture - less "rippling" or bleeding around logos etc. e.g. the Sky News graphics.

However, sometimes 100Hz processing can make action sequences "jerky" as the digital processing can be obvious. 

If you are watching digital sources e.g. Sky / NTL Nigital or DVDs, then the picture is digital anyway so the 100Hz processing doesn't come into it.

There may be other features such as Picture in Picture or Teletext caching which come with the 100Hz TV which might also swing your decision.

So, the choice is yours - if you can afford the extra ton and watch analog TV, it's probably worth it. 

Otherwise, if you don't notice the flicker or do notice the 100Hz processing in a negative way, if you watch mostly digital sources or if you simply need the cash, then the 100 squid is probably better off in your pocket or being put towards a DVD player!!


----------



## fork (10 Feb 2005)

*Re: jvc tv*

M. Bond,
Thanks for the informative explanation.
I'll have a think about it.


----------



## MonsieurBond (27 May 2005)

*Re: Update re SKY and High Definition Copy Content*



			
				Monsieur Bond said:
			
		

> Update on buying High Definition-ready TVs:
> 
> [broken link removed]
> ...and they include digital video inputs with HDCP...
> ...




More on this:

*Sky clarifies situation regarding what HD services you will and won't be able  to watch without a digital video connection on your TV*


----------



## Joe Nonety (18 Oct 2005)

*Re: >>LCD or Plasma*

There's no point doing things by halves, if you're going to buy a plasma Tv, buy this one...

http://www.mobilewhack.com/home_theater/reviews/samsung_102_inch_pdp_tv.html


----------



## MonsieurBond (19 Oct 2005)

*Re: >>LCD or Plasma*



			
				Joe Nonety said:
			
		

> There's no point doing things by halves, if you're going to buy a plasma Tv, buy this one...
> 
> http://www.mobilewhack.com/home_theater/reviews/samsung_102_inch_pdp_tv.html



At the price, it should come with a ground floor extension to put it in!!


----------



## daithi (20 Oct 2005)

*Re: >>LCD or Plasma*

as with any new technology, the technophile must have it now people will pay over the odds for it-its worth waiting until next Christmas for it, as the price will have come down.I can remember BTs advertising Plasma TVs for the sum of IR£10K-I believe that they are slighlty cheaper now..daithi

God be with the days when we got a bike, we were over the moon...


----------



## Guest127 (22 Oct 2005)

*Re: >>LCD or Plasma*

like everything I cant find it now but the new Harvey Norman brochure has a 26'' samsung lcd tv with hdmi socket and is advertised as hd ready. Cost €1099 including that €10 swizz. ( and it is a swizz, why do I have to pay for a disposal charge when I can take the old telly to the recycling centre and dispose of it for free? and yes I have heard the argument that its not the old telly you are paying the €10 for , it the new one. the brochure ( which i cant find) also has a 42'' lcd which is the biggest lcd I have seen to date.


----------



## Leo (24 Oct 2005)

*Re: >>LCD or Plasma*

Just an add from Dabs.com this morning for LCD TV, they've a 32" LG for about €1220 including shipping... They have the 26" Samsung for under €900 including shipping, not clear if it's HD ready though, says in one place it is. another it isn't.
Leo


----------



## Slim (24 Oct 2005)

*Re: >>LCD or Plasma*

Tescos advertised a 15" LCD TV at €330 in yesterday's papers.


Slim


----------



## MonsieurBond (24 Oct 2005)

*Re: >>LCD or Plasma*



			
				Slim said:
			
		

> Tescos advertised a 15" LCD TV at €330 in yesterday's papers.
> 
> 
> Slim



At this size, it is not going to be HD ready. 

Seriously, a 15" LCD is a bit small. I presume it is 4:3 and not widescreen, at this size. I would go for a 17" wide model myself, if you plan to watch movies on it...


----------



## ribena (1 Nov 2005)

*Re: >>LCD or Plasma*

I'm the proud owner of my first LCD today.  I say first because I'm techy mad so I know I'll be upgrading in the not too distant future .  Purchased a 23" Philips LCD in ESB shop in Tullamore which is closing down and always the one for a bargain, I was in like a shot!  They were marking down the TV's with a whopping 30% off.  Was 809.99, got it for 569.99.  Don't care if it has HD or DH, it's in my kitchen now and it's looking good!!


----------



## vjoc (10 Dec 2006)

*LCD Resolution?*

Argos was retailing a Mikomi 20" LCD (529/0578) for €300 last week. 

Television Picture Quality


20in (50.8cm) TV with 48cm visible screen size.
Resolution 800 x 600 pixels.
Brightness 450cd/m2.
Contrast 500:1.
 It's a great looking TV, nicam stereo, multiple inputs - 2 scarts, vga,  co-ax & audio in/out capability, dc source etc.  However I find the analogue tv picture quality poor, and digital signal only somewhat better.  My laptop input is just blurred and totally unreadable.  The current widescreen laptop setting is (1280*800).

Am I correct in thinking that I would need a TV with resolution equal to my laptop for similar quality displays on an LCD TV?


----------



## BillPoster (21 Dec 2006)

Hi, having spent the last 3 months researching LCD v Plasma I've just purchased a 42" Pioneer Plasma. Read all the mags, and reveiws on the web and upshot was that there are pros and cons for each. As technology seems to be moving quickly in this area my only concern was to buy something at the higher end of the range to ensure what I bought would remain a good spec for a few years. I've set up with PC etc through the TV... its mega. Best thing to do is buy some of the magazines; 'What LCD / Plamsma TV' is very good, rates all LCDs & Plasmsas' to date and discusses pros & cons of each. A friend has just bought a 42" Toshiba LCD and in terms of picture quality it is well below what I get but also was cheaper. Note if you are buying a 37" or above plan the installation - room layout, sitting distance from TV, where the wires will run etc. and buy the size that best suits the position in the room and room size. The pioneer website gives some good advice on this. I've seen some 42" TVs placed in a corner (where once stood a CRT TV) and it was awful to watch. Lastly Tvs seem to be expensive in ROI. I'm in the north and purchased ex england saving £500 against local superstore price delivery included. Check [broken link removed] for UK prices. Some UK companies will deliver to southern Ireland.


----------



## hansov (21 Dec 2006)

Do you know that I originally posted this question over two years ago and Santa still hasn't been good to me....... How much more of a hint do I need to give?


----------



## collieb (22 Dec 2006)

BillPoster said:


> Note if you are buying a 37" or above plan the installation - room layout, sitting distance from TV, where the wires will run etc. and buy the size that best suits the position in the room and room size. The pioneer website gives some good advice on this. I've seen some 42" TVs placed in a corner (where once stood a CRT TV) and it was awful to watch.


 
What is your advice on this? I was hopeing to buy a 32 - 40 " after xmas for my new house, it is wired for a TV over the mantlepiece but wiring doesn;t include a DVD player connection, so looks like it will be going in the corner alcove beside the fireplace. Why is the 42" 'awful to watch'?


----------



## BillPoster (22 Dec 2006)

Plan your layout well. There are recommended sitting distances from different size screens. My friend put his in the corner, due to its size it couldn't sit as far into the corner as the CRT screen so he was watching a bigger screen that was closer to him!. Also the closer you are to any TV or the bigger the screen size the more your will notice the quality of (or lack of) the picture. By placing it above the mantlepiece I would imagine that lighting the fire wouldn't be recommended.

You could possibly use a vido sender on a second TV to watch DVDs ob your LCD but would still have top plug in the video sender receiver box into the LCD which is a bit smaller than a DVD player


----------

