LED vs. LCD

S

Seamus McBundy

Guest
Question, bought a LED 42" with some basic essentials (3 HDMI ports, s cable..etc.) for $499. Its also a 1080p with 60hz..was it worth it? Or should I return and go for a 40" LCD 1080p at 60hz with same options I believe but for $399.

Was the LED worth the extra $100?
 
Yes, LED is better.

I don't remember all the technical reasons but you can easily look it up online. I did this research a few months ago before buying a Samsung LED and everything I read indicated LED is superior LCD.
 
So the Element is the better deal simply cause its an LED?

Here are the details. I know this has prob been discussed alot but the info helps!!

40" Apex LCD HDTV 1080p 60Hz flat panel TV, LD4086:
16:9 LCD panel
With 1920 x 1080 full-HD resolution
Wide 176-degree vertical and 176-degree horizontal angles
See a clear picture from anywhere in the room
Built in ATSC/QAM digital/NTSC analog tuner
Watch conventional and digital broadcasts, including HDTV programs where available
High brightness of 500cd/m2
Place your Apex 40" 1080p LCD HDTV anywhere
20,000:1 dynamic contrast ratio
HDMI Inputs: 3
Enjoy a superior HD experience with the HDMI one-cable solution
SRS TruSurroundXT
The Apex 40" 1080p LCD HDTV improves sound quality, bass response and sound clarity while adding a dimension of surround sound
40"screen measured diagonally from corner to corner

______________________________________________


Element 42" 1080p 60Hz LED HDTV:
16:9 LCD panel
With a 1920 x 1080 Full HD resolution
Wide vertical and horizontal angles
See a clear picture from anywhere in the room
Built-in NTSC tuner
Watch conventional and digital broadcasts, including HDTV programs where available
High brightness of 400cd/m2 with 6.5 ms response time
Place your Element 42" LED HDTV anywhere
5000:1 dynamic contrast ratio
HDMI Inputs: 3
Enjoy a superior HD experience with HDMI one cable solution
42"screen measured diagonally from corner to corner
 
I'll put it this way: all else being equal, LED is superior.

As for specific model comparisons and other features being added into the mix, your call.
 
Thanks for the advice. Id love to get one with a faster refresh rate but an alternative funding source is yet to be found.
flag.gif
 
Is 1080P important to you? I can't imagine it would be, especially at this screen size. You can do much better than either of these two tv's for under $500, especially if you go Plasma.
 
I would have considered plasma but i hear they dont last as long as lcds/leds?
 
I think plasma is a better pic anyway...especially in that price range. LEDs are very nice but you have to spend a lot more for the better one with 5,000,000 to 1 contrast and 240hz.

Panasonic has a 42" 1080p plasma with 600 hz offered at many retailers for about 500, and if you enjoy a live sporting event a 60hz will get annoying quick.

But if you are used to an old CRT or rear projection then those 2 TVs will be nice upgrades.
 
I picked up a 46" Panasonic Plasma for 549 on Amazon by being patient and catching a deal. I got free delivery too. It was not rush delivery but it was free and only took about 5 days from order to being on the doorstep. The life expectancy is about 100,000 hours or something absurd like that. If I get 1/5 of that I will be stoked.

Burn in, not a problem. Plasmas have come a long way.
 
We've got a 46" plasma that is 720p in our bedroom. I honestly can't tell the difference between it and the 46" LED that is 1080p with 240HZ refresh rate that we have in the game room upstairs...
 
No one here has mentioned one of the major advantages of LED- they use 40-50% less electricity than comparable LCDs.

This makes up for much of the cost differences- exactly how much depends on how much your electricity costs and how much you use the tv.

We could get into a similar LED vs. CFL vs. incandescant conversation- LEDs cost more, CFLs a little more w different characteristics- but the more you run them the more the CFLs/LEDs pay for themselves with less energy usage. Starbucks and Chipotle now outfit all of their stores with LED lighting. That technology is really rolling..also- look out for OLEDs in the near future.

Oh, and if you enjoy the idea of using less energy to emit less pollution, that is a bonus too. I realize not everyone shares those ideas
smile.gif
Anyways- LED is relatively new, the economics are strong- and only getting better to justify the energy factor.
 
Ok well for both a net profit on the energy costs and a debateable difference on the refresh rate- I'd prefer to have the latest technology.

A lot of consumer electronics, like buying a car or home, are misleading to people in that they initially purchase based on the belief that 100% of the costs are up front. In reality it may be 20-70% depending on what we're talking about- with the balance being maintenance and energy. Spending a little more money up front on efficient products that need either less maintenance or energy pays dividends over time. The challenge is for the consumer to treat a cash saving equally to a cash payment.
 
Unless you have money to burn, I would be hesitant to spend too much as it looks like T.V.'s are evolving at a rapid rate.

You can see the OLED's on the horizon with Plasma's only around because they are cheap but beyond that you see 3D taking shape and you'll need a T.V. that can handle that. Not to mention a lot of T.V.'s have been sold with only a few apps, when they should be able to upload as many as you like.

so to keep it shorter.....I'm holding out till it stabilizes more. and i would like one bad, i still have a huge 32"
smile.gif
CRT sitting in my living room that cuts off the edges of most broadcasts Ha
biggrin.gif
 
wherz-

I appreciate your comparison- and I think your math is correct on the calculation.

However- as an FYI- your assumption for elec costs is low for much of the country. In the NorthEast, and California where together almost half of the country lives- typical prices are 15- 16 cents/kwh. So, if that is about $35/year difference- yeah, it's not a whole lot. As a side note- I lived in an apartment for a year in Manhattan where my elec. costs were .32 cents/kwH. Luckily I didn't use too much.

What amazes me is that the two sets you're comparing had a $400 difference! I trust your numbers but find it shocking that the only difference is LED vs LCD. I think I have heard other differences around $100-$200. Yesterday I saw an LED 32" set for $449 at BBuy.. I think the difference must be shrinking quickly- like all price aspects of tvs.

Anyways, if it takes 3-4 years to get a positive ROI, or even 7 years, it is still an ROI. What else can you say- early adapters always pave the road for the rest of us. LED will continue to cost less and less. EIA Retail Elec Pricing
 
You do realize that LED is an LCD, its the evolution of the same technology. THe only advantage the LED LCD has over the regular LCD is potentially better reproduction of dark images and minimal energy savings. Any other perceived or real advantage of a new LED screen has nothing to do with the LCD being a LED.

There is no reason to think that all LCD will use LED backlighting in the next few years. Its simialr to how back in the day hi fi VCR's cost twice as much as regular ones, then a few years later all VCR's were hi fi. Showing my age with that I guess.
 
We like our LED simply because it's so thin and looks like a piece of art on the wall. Still prefer the picture on the Plasma in our media room though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top