Plasma or LCD TV? I vote for plasma

“No one would buy a plasma TV anymore, would they?” Financial journalist Joe Kernen posed that question to a tech-stock analyst on CNBC’s Squawk Box program Monday morning. The analyst didn’t answer Joe directly, but instead started touting LED TVs—a marketing term for LCD sets that use LED backlighting—as the wave of the future. (The exchange happens around minute 3:30 of the CNBC video clip, embedded below.)

Well, I’d like to answer Joe’s question about plasmas directly, with a resounding YES! Many consumers (including me and a number of the experts who test TVs for Consumer Reports) have bought plasma TVs. I, for one, will vote with my pocketbook once again. I plan to buy a second plasma TV with a bigger screen (my current set is 42 inches, and my room is big enough for a 50-incher). As our tests show month in and out, the best plasma TVs have excellent picture quality, certainly as good as any LCD set’s and perhaps even better. In our judgment, and that of other experts in the field, plasma TVs can display depth and richness that result in a more dimensional, cinematic look than on most LCD TVs, including those pricey new LED-backlit models.

Plasma TVs also have advantages that no LCD can match. Perhaps the most significant is their unlimited viewing angle, which means everyone in the room can enjoy the same great picture quality from any viewing position. With almost all LCD TVs, the picture quality can be great from head on, but it deteriorates as you move away from dead center, so the screen can look washed out or dim, or colors can shift, sometimes dramatically. (For more, see "Viewing angle still the Achilles heel for most LCD TVs."

What about those new LCD technologies? They're not advances, but solutions to problems inherent in LCD technology. LED backlighting with local dimming address LCD’s difficulty displaying deep black levels, and 120Hz and 240Hz refresh rates are designed to minimize blur in fast motion. In both cases, LCDs are trying to catch up with plasma technology (which, in itself, is trying to match good old CRT technology, still the gold standard in both areas). The fixes to LCDs work to some extent, but they can introduce undesirable side effects. Local dimming, for example, can cause halos around objects, and faster refresh rates that are coupled with motion smoothing can give film programming an odd, unnaturally video-like look.

Oh, and let's dispel some lingering misconceptions about plasma. You don’t have to worry about a plasma set’s short life, high energy costs, or permanent burn-in. Those problems no longer exist. One caveat: It is true that plasma sets don’t look their best in very bright rooms where you can’t close blinds or dim the lights. In such settings, LCDs tend to hold their picture quality better and suffer from less glare, though some screens are quite reflective.

All things considered, it’s obvious (to me, at least, as a user and someone who looks at dozens of TVs every month) that you shouldn’t automatically think LCD when you’re shopping for your next set. But I’m sure plenty of LCD fans would disagree. Let’s hear it! —Eileen McCooey

The ad at the beginning of the video is CNBC's, not ours. TVs aren’t mentioned until minute 3:30, so you’ll have to fast-forward to hear the comments we refer to.

Comments

[Peter]

@Brett...you have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about.

"First off, she is dead wrong that plasma tvs have an unlimited viewing angle, they actually have a much more narrow viewing field than LCD and LED tvs. Go to any electronics store and look, plasma tvs mirror the image on screen if you are off to the side too far where an LCD or LED does not, it's a fact, go look."

WRONG WRONG WRONG. You have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about. Now go away.

[Pat]

If you disagree with Ms. McCooey's statements (which I do not), you should do more research. I've been looking for over a week, and everyone agrees with everything she says. Especially about plasmas being better. That's kind of basic to all technical sites.

[Eileen McCooey, Deputy Editor]

Brett--The info in my original blog has been vetted by our expert testers, all engineers with many years of testing TVs of all types, so we stand by our original posting. Our engineers (and countless other experts) confirm that plasma TVs do have an almost unlimited viewing angle, unlike LCD TVs, which almost all look washed out or dim as you move off to the side. A plasma's glass screen does tend to be reflective, which is why we recommend you dim lights or close blinds for optimal viewing. As for LED TVs--don't buy into the hype. Manufacturers would like you to believe they're a new, improved breed of TVs, but they are not. These are simply LCD TVs that use LEDs instead of fluorescent backlights. LEDs don't inherently improve black levels, but the use of full-array LEDs allows techniques that can help somewhat, such as local dimming. This can improve the darkness of certain parts of a scene IF it's implemented well, but it doesn't always do a good job so effectiveness varies by model. And edge-lit LEDs don't improve black level at all. LCDs with fluorescent backlights are sometimes capable of displaying deep black as well. But the problem with all LCDs, regardless of backlighting, is that you rarely see optimal black levels because of the viewing angle issue. And it's almost impossible to make accurate judgments in a retail showroom, with the harsh overhead lighting and super-pumped settings typically used on display models. As for plasmas and burn-in--the combination of new features and common-sense practice minimizes the risk of permanent burn-in tremendously. You've have to consistently leave something displayed for a very long time to run into trouble. The worst we've seen in our labs is temporary image retention which rapidly disappears in normal use. So burn-in is technically possible, but you'd have to work hard to achieve it. I detailed the power usage in a previous comment on this page. The short answer is--plasma TVs are now generally comparable to LCDs in energy consumed. As for CRTs, they still are among the best display types for viewing angle, lack of motion blur and black levels. They can't match the resolution of flat panels, so the overall picture quality doesn't look as impressive, but they still stand out in those specific areas. In a nutshell, we at Consumer Reports stand by our comments, which are based on years of in-depth testing. Thanks for taking the time to reply.

[Brett]

The writer of this article is very misinformed and the fact that she is giving out advice under the Consumer Reports name just lowers the credibility of Consumer Reports. First off, she is dead wrong that plasma tvs have an unlimited viewing angle, they actually have a much more narrow viewing field than LCD and LED tvs. Go to any electronics store and look, plasma tvs mirror the image on screen if you are off to the side too far where an LCD or LED does not, it's a fact, go look. Second, not all LED tvs are the same, so lumping them together is wrong. The Samsung LED tvs are very different than an LG, Vizio or Sharp LED tv. But most of the LED tvs have great black levels consistent with plasma tvs. Plasmas are great tvs, but they are not hands down better than either the LCD or LED formats. For the most part, LED tvs are the best of both worlds, the black levels of a plasma and the brightness of an LCD, but with better clarity. Also, don't buy into the whole contrast ratio number, there is no industry standard for contrast ratio. Manufacturers can slap any number they want on a tv to claim a high contrast. The best way to truly tell is to go look at the them and watch the blacks in the tvs, darker is always better. She was also wrong about about burn-in. If it was no longer an issue, the manufacturers would list and cover burn-in in their warranties, but they don't because they cannot and will not 100% guarantee it won't happen. The chances of it happening are slim, but it still can happen. Plasmas still use more power than an LCD, but not nearly what they used to. Last, the CRT tv is the gold standard??? What planet is this writer on? After reading this article, it's no wonder people are completely confused when it comes to purchasing televisions these days.

[Eileen McCooey, Deputy Editor]

Over years of testing hundreds of sets, our engineers recalled only one instance in which a plasma TV emitted a buzzing sound loud enough to be a problem. That turned out to be a defect in a particular set we bought. When we bought another of that same model, there was no buzz.

However, they have noted that a few new plasma sets emitted a very slight buzz they could hear if they put their ears right next to the back of the set, with the sound muted. It appeared to be coming from the power supply. In normal use, with audio playing, the buzz was inaudible and they concluded that it shouldn't be noticed or problematic in most settings. It should be no more of an issue than it was with old picture-tube TVs, which also emitted a very low buzzing sound.

Buzzing can be a problem with plasma TVs at high altitudes, above 5,000 feet. While new plasma TVs are designed specifically to work in high altitudes, an older model might not have been.

Regardless of where you live, if you have a problem with your TV, ask the store where you bought it for a replacement. If you can't get a replacement for some reason, ask to have it repaired under the warranty.

One thing to check before seeking service is whether the buzzing could be coming from the speakers. See if the buzz varies with the volume setting, and listen carefully, all around the TV chassis. If it IS coming from the speakers, make sure any devices connected to the TV (a cable or satellite box or digital receiver) are properly grounded. A bad cable or patch cord could be the problem.

I hope this advice helps.

[Eileen McCooey, Deputy Editor]

We do recommend many plasma TVs. When you click on the Recommended tab, you'll see LCD recs first (that was designated as the default by our Web architect), but if you then click on the plasma link in the left-hand nav bar, it will take you to plasma recommendations. You can also find recommended models in the Ratings--those with the check mark are recommended, and you click on the model name for more detail. So anytime you're on our web site and click on a new tab, make sure you click on the product type in the lefthand nav bar to get to the category of your choice. Sorry for any confusion.

[Gary]

I recently purchased a new Samsung plasma PN58B650 after reading Consumer Reports' consistently high ratings on this TV. After making my purchase and prior to delivery, I began reading about the dreaded plasma "buzz". I had never read any mention in your magazine of what seems to be a "genetic" problem associated with plasma tv's. My new tv also has this buzz, which varies in intensity as different colors are displayed on the tv. The buzz also varies according to your seating position. Unfortunately it is worst in the ideal dead center seating position. I have to try to tune out the buzz, turn up the audio volume or sit off to the side of the tv to lessen the effect. I do love everything else about the tv, but would love to see something written up in your magazine or in this blog about the plasma buzz effect. I also feel it should be included in your ratings if the buzz effect is inherent with plasma technology but varies from manufacturer to manufacturer and model to model.

[LCD TV Comparison]

I prefer the LCD I looked at everything when I purchased my 52 Inch Samsung and even with only 60 hz I have not noticed any problems with motion blur and the Plasmas I looked at where a lot darker and some may like that but I prefer a brighter screen.

[wewelsh39]

When I click on "Recommended" models in either LCD OR Plasma on CRs web site I get only LCD models. I would think that when I click on "Recommended" in the Plasma section I would get recommended Plasma TVs but that is NOT the case. Can this please be fixed or do you really not "Recommend" any Plasma TVs???

[snakyjake]

I've wanted Consumer Reports to quit comparing TV's by their technology. I don't care if it is plasma, LED, rear projection, etc. I want the reviews to compare TV's by their qualities, efficiencies, reliability, and price. When I sit in front of the TV watching my movie, I'm not going to care what the technology is.

As for energy consumption...unless my monthly electric bill is going to jump, then I don't care.

Right now I have a 56 inch rear projection TV that I think is superior to a 42 inch flat screen. For me, I value the huge picture. I can't watch a movie on anything smaller.

Bottom line: What TV is going to give me the best picture for the size and money?

Jake

My #1 priority is picture quality and size (and of course reliability and price).

[Dave Pace]

I pointed out a 3:1 ratio of power consumed between the best of LED/LCD and plasma. The difference is real and consumers are urged to put their hand near the screen while shopping to see just how hot some get!

Frame or motion interpolation is important as it compensates for the very low film capture rate of 24Hz, which is a throwback to 1920's technology. Fast motion is clearer and without jerks.
This is a true advance.

Finally plasma's clip the whites when a large portion of the screen is white. Whites become grey... Why not mention this truth?
Consumer Reports also needs to mention Samsung plasma buzzing and the Cinema Smooth black-level bug. It is a huge problem which has frustrated many Consumers Union members.

[Eileen McCooey, Deputy Editor]

Our latest test data show that there's little difference in the energy used by LCD and plasma TVs of comparable size, though there's variation by brand and model within each size and type--in other words, some 40-inch LCDs use more energy than others. Here's a ballpark figure based on our tests: Many 40- to 42-inch LCDs and 42-inch plasmas use $45 to $50 a year of energy, while many 46- to 47-inch LCDs and 50-inch plasmas use $50 to $55. Some LCDs with LED backlighting, but not all we've seen, are at the bottom of those ranges or a little lower. We now publish estimated annual energy costs for each model in our Ratings, so you can get specifics for a given TV there.

[donnie]

Informative story.

PS: What happened to listening to people who know things? That reporter gentleman doesn't seem intelligent to me. Maybe we'd all be smarter if the free market demanded smart people instead of controversial talking heads to host TV shows.

[PE]

Like any major appliance, TVs are required to carry a UL Underwriter Labs rating that states maximum wattage based on peak performance. The number is usually higher for plasma and almost always lower for real world usage since plasma TVs rarely operates at peak performance. When plasma TVs show a dark area in a scene, say from Batman Begins, the pixels require less power. LCD TVs are a back lit technology that are almost always operating at peak performance. The new LED lit LCD TVs are very energy efficient with trade off of picture quality when properly evaluated.

[David Pace]

I owna 60" Pioneer Kuro Elite Signature. It consumes 440 watts which heats up the room.
2009 Samsung plasmas have a weird audible buzzing and poor black levels, but look great during the day. The 650 series heats up the room, while the 860 series uses 40% less energy.
My Samsung 55" LED A950 uses 130 watts and does little to heat up the room.
For warm climates the air conditioning must remove this heat, so power consumption effectively doubles.
Plasma does look more 3-dimensional as the contrast between pixels is greater.

[Paul]

What's the story with power consumption? I recall that plasma's are/were power-hogs while LCD's tended to sip a little more. Is that still the case?