Why Plasma TVs Are Dying

[deftonian]

I like both Plasma and LED LCD, but I choose LED LCD because they are much lighter and don't eat up the room. My first HDTV was a Samsung Plasma and it was great... but man it made my room a toaster oven... and I live in Texas so can't afford more heat being put off. That's really the only reason I opted for LED LCD this round. Plus moving the LED LCD is a breeze since it's so light. Just my personal opinion and story

 

[perpetual98]

We've had a 50" LG plasma for some time, and I love it besides two issues. There is some screen burn-in, albeit temporary. If you pause TV for a few minutes, or have the guide up and leave the room for a bit, I can still see it for a while after. It's not too terrible. The other complaint I have is more major, at least for me. We have tons of windows where ours is and during the day it's like a mirror. I can honestly tell you what kind of car is driving past because of the reflection in the glass. For that reason alone I wouldn't by ANY TV that didn't have some sort of anti-reflection on it. No issue with our 47" LCD in the kids room, but that thing is ancient.

 

[godfather666]

To me, it's just an issue of weight. Plasma TVs are just too bulky and heavy.

 

[Swordkd]

I specifically bought a plasma tv over an LED. One main benefit is that plasma comes with a glass front panel, and I have small children that love to touch it. I can get a bottle of windex, spray it, and wipe with no worries.

I also watch sports, play video games and watch higher action movies to the benefits are greater than LED for that too.

The partial reason why plasma is dropping are salespersons. I've worked at two major retailers and everyone that works in electronics is majorly down on plasma tv's. They don't bother to educate themselves as to what benefits there are for plasma over LED tv's, so when a consumer comes in that's exactly what they are sold.

 

[sykozis]

I fail to see where Plasma is cost competitive with LCD. I've never seen a 32" Plasma TV anywhere near the price of a 32" LCD. My livingroom isn't large enough to justify a TV larger than 32".

 

[sykozis]

I fail to see where Plasma is cost competitive with LCD. I've never seen a 32" Plasma TV anywhere near the price of a 32" LCD. My livingroom isn't large enough to justify a TV larger than 32".

 

[tolham]

"to CD vs. MP3"

this is false, but I'll let it slide since you're a TV guy and not an audio guy.

 

[tolham]

@guardianangel42 "But I have it hooked up to a computer, and I lost count of the number of times an image remained on the screen for hours afterward. Everything from Youtube to Windows Explorer to the taskbar and the recycle bin."

I have my PC hooked up to a plasma, and I don't have this problem.

 

[SaffronBlaze]

Funny to read the article where is clearly indicates the past issues with plasma are gone and that plasma beats LCD in every critical regard then to see people regurgitate the old information as if it was gospel today. Plasma >> LCD for those that like to have quality picture.

 

[ahnilated]

"For some reason, LCD is perceived as better. Perhaps it's because the screens tend to be brighter (though plasma is far from dim) or perhaps because they may use a bit less electricity (even though plasmas are on a par with just a few incandescent light bulbs in terms of power use). Maybe it's because LCD is perceived as newer (at least it was in the last decade.) Plasma also got a bad name because of early models that "burned in" images that were left on the screen too long, thought that's not really a problem anymore, either. "

Well the problems with the LCD being brighter also has to do with the buzzing you get from a plasma tv when you brighten the image until it becomes very annoying. I have a 2 yr old plama tv and it is showing signs of burn in and even using the ability in the tv to remove this doesn't help.

 

[DRosencraft]

We had a plasma at home years back. Was the biggest screen in the house at 60"... until it died and no one seemed to be able to figure out if they could honor the warranty, or fix it otherwise. Took an eternity to even get an answer for why it actually did die. Now, everyone has an LED-LCD TV in their room, plus one in the kitchen, not one of them over 36".

That is probably the biggest problem we and most I knew who had plasma had and the reason for the jump to LED-LCD. Plasma is plenty attractive, but in past experience you couldn't get them fixed if something went wrong, and if nothing goes wrong you weren't likely to buy more than the one you have in the living room because you don't need another screen in the 40"+ category.

It's not about which has the better basic specs - it's which one provides the better all around experience. That means not only appreciably better visuals, but price, reliability, and function (getting it in the right size). A lot of people got burned early in the plasma experience, poisoned the water about plasma, and LED-LCD came in to be the everything for everyone option. Sound like anything else in the technology or software segment over the last 5 or 10 years?

 

[lpedraja2002]

Have a Panasonic 50" a Sharp 38" and a Toshiba 40" and the Panasonic is the clear winner, the colors, brightness, contrast, response time are all unmatched. The thing I hate the most on LCD's is the low volume on its speakers and this seem to be all of them.

One thing that its a big con on Plasma TV's its the ghosting, I wouldn't call it burn-in since its not permanent but you still get residual image if you leave something static for a long time. Logos from tv channels, UI bars from games or an OS will all leave residual images. I've had this TV for years and can definitely say its no permanent as they just disappear after the TV is turned off all night or If I use the tool in the options menu. One thing Plasmas do suffer from is if you watch A LOT OF 4:3 content with both black bars on the sides and not use the 4:3 format option the TV has which replaces the black bars with grey bars you will get a slight difference in image brightness from the center of the screen compared to the sides.

I'm not defending a Plasma's shortcomings and they are real, the above mentioned are probably the only things you need to worry about. Still, I do not regret ever buying my Panasonic 50" plasma as the overall image quality I've gotten from it has been the best experience out of any TV I've owned or seen, except the 4k 80" Sony TV I saw at the mall.

I would only recommend Plasma for movies and TV watching, unless you take necessary precautions when using it as a PC monitor you'll run into the residual images mentioned above.

 

[badaxe2]

I said years ago plasma would never last. Too power hungry, heavy, expensive to fix, unnatural looking picture, etc. DLP however should've stuck around longer. My set is 8 years old and the picture is still like new. Haven't even replaced the bulb yet either, watching an average of 2 hours of TV a day.

At least they still have them in the theaters.

 

[blppt]

"unnatural looking picture, etc"

Wha? Neither LED/LCD nor plasma have a "natural" looking picture, but I dont see how anybody can say a plasma, which has inherently better black levels than LED/LCD, is unnatural compared to LED/LCD. What is obviously unnatural is the LCD/LED motion @ 60hz, especially if you use the 120/240hz soap opera effect.

 

[10tacle]

My first big screen HDTV was a plasma, a Samsung 720p 42" purchased back in 2006. The next two were a 46" LCD and 55" LED respectively from Sony and LG respectively. The colors of those two newer ones still were not as good as the old Sammy plasma, even though I do have to be careful about burn in and it produces tons of heat in the summer.

Now with this news, I may just go out and replace it with a 1080p Panny plasma for the bedroom. There's just nothing like them.

 

[amoralman]

Why is plasma dying? Customers are scared shit about the burn-in. No matter how much you try, they won't take the risk.

 

[cyan1d3]

Just another case of cost beating quality... hopefully these rumors aren't true, and if they are, I'll be buying the last model of plasmas and use it as long as possible.. Just can't beat plasma for the contrast and motion... sad day for visual enthusiasts if it's true.

 

[mjw]

I've had a 50" panasonic Plasma since 2002. Cost me over $8000! But the things that would stop me from buying another plasma are:
1) I want my next tv to be at least a 70", preferably 90" and there are no consumer level models that are cost effective at this size
2) The brightness of all plasmas with the possible exception of the Samsung f8500 is woefully inadequate for a living room with windows. With my current plasma I am forced to block out all windows with dark curtains of else the reflections ruin the picture
3) Power consumption. My plasma draws 500 watts

I also don't like the alternatives offered by LCD because of the poor motin handling, color accuracy and field of view. I guess I'll have to wait until the 70" OLEDs are around $4000.

 

[acadia11]

Pioneer elite and pioneer elite kuros made in 2007 and 2008, are still the best consumer tvs ever produced in terms if quality and that's 5 year old plasma tech, and no TV has yet to match them.

 

[shadowfamicom]

I really wanted a plasma TV but I could not find a 1080p plasma that was 40 inches or below. I cannot fit any more then that in the space I have. If someone was selling a 38 inch plasma at even double the price of a 38 LCD I would buy it in a heartbeat.