LED vs. LCD

I am looking for a 55 in or greater replacement for my DLP [which I loved BTW]

Right now still looks like plasma is the way to go for overall picture quality but it is more expensive.

I think its dumb to buy an lesser tv to save 5 bucks a month on electricity when you are probably paying over $100/month for cable.

What are peoples thoughts on prices post Christmas? I have seen in the past that Super Bowl is actually a pretty big driver of sales after Christmas so there arent as many sales.
 
The power cost calculations are leaving out one important factor. During air conditioning season, your AC must work harder to remove the heat generated by the TV (and any other appliances which is an often overlooked reason to select efficient appliances). Since AC units are far from 100% efficient, the incremental power of one TV over another is multiplied by the inefficiency of the AC. That means a measly incremental 50 watts for a TV might mean you burn an additional equivalent of 200 watts with the AC to remove the incremental 50 watts (actually the AC is not burning more when it runs, it just has to run longer). During heating season, the incremental TV heat actually helps warm your home, but electric power is usually more costly than the NG most of us probably use so you'd be better off with the more efficient TV then, too.
 
brnt- wherz-

Interesting points. I acknowledge wherz that you assumed 100% capacity which is way more than reality. But- brtnorng is 100% correct, and added something I omitted.

If I remember to the 80's and 90's- tons of restaurants would heat their prepared food, or keep it warm, with lights (they don't do this so much anymore!) Lighting, tvs, and other appliances (like my PS3) produce tons of heat. The exact factor that your AC has to work to offset this heat is difficult to know- but certainly substantial.

I confess- I am an efficiency nut for reasons of economics but also I think as a country we are energy hogs. I don't expect others to agree with me on everything- but I would expect them to if the payback is strong and relatively fast. In this case- the LED payback is maybe 6 years on the highend, 2 years on the low end- right now. And getting stronger as prices continue to decline. In one year, the LED premium may be almost nothing.
 
I would be really interested to see someone do a study of this: take an LCD and LED of similar sizes/features, stick them in a controlled environment (possibly even at different temperatures, e.g. 70F, 75F, 80F) and see how much more energy is used by an HVAC unit to maintain the room's temperature over the span of 24 hours or so.

I still just don't see it having that significant of an effect, but I could be wrong.
 
wherz-

There's a backhanded way to do your experiment- without the experiment. Thanks to Newton, we know the relationship between mass and energy and how it is conserved in a process. A car for example, which is powered by gasoline and an internal combustion engine- wastes about 65% of its energy in the form of heat and noise.

Therefore, if two identical TVs run in a controlled environment, one LCD, one LED lit LCD, and let's say the LED one uses 40% less electricity, it would be relatively safe to say that the 40% on the other TV is wasted as heat, and maybe a slight percentage as extra/wasted light.

Thus- an AC unit would need enough power to remove that 40% of power, shown in the form of heat. I know this over-simplification has holes in it, and it's not 100% precise. It would help to know how the TVs convert electricity to heat- which I don't know. But- I think this does explain the ratio of work the HVAC unit has to deal with on a relative basis.
 
It was worth the extra $100. LED screens use less energy, have longer life, brighter colors, and higher contrast ratios than LCD screens.
 
We looked recently, was told you can't tell the difference between 60 hz and 120 in small TVs for the kitchen.
Is this true?
We were told you can definitely tell the difference between 60 hz and 120 hz in mid to large size TVs, 46" or so. Also we were told you can't tell the difference between 120 and 240, but maybe that was relative to size also, maybe you can over a certain size?
The other question I have is color-we were told the better name brands should have better, brighter colors. How can this be determined, especially since you can't tell in the store? It seems that 50 TVs are split off the same cable in the stores and they aren't always adjusted properly, so the $500 TV may look a lot better than the $5000 TV.
Is it worth it to get a name brand for better color if it is a couple of hundred more than the same size/spec store brand?
I'm only interested in LED for energy savings purposes. Maybe they should all be labeled LCD/LED for accuracy-some are labeled that way.
 
Accurate-

For specific brand comparisons, go to cnet.com or buy a Consumer Reports magazine.

Never, ever buy component HDMI cables from the tv store- buy them online for 1/3rd the price. Best Buy, according to CReports, has horrible prices.

For tvs smaller than 36" or so, 60hz and even 720 is suitable. For larger, 1080 and 120. 240hz is a waste unless you're showing sports non-stop on a 60" set- and that is still debateable.

Remember, prices on TVs in general are crashing year over year. The only way a manufacturer can keep margins higher is by upselling- offering new features and gadgets you may not need and charging a higher premium for it. There are always those who believe that if they didn't buy the most expensive set- they didn't get the best thing out there.
 
Buy your HDMI cables - and other cables, adapters, etc - at Monoprice.com. Prices are terrific and I have had no quality issues with their products.

FWIW - we bought a 55'' Samsung LED TV a few months ago and love it. I don't know about all the technical comparisons out there, but if there's a better picture available I wouldn't be able to notice it. There are diminishing returns at that level of quality.
 
currently the 60hz is above the speed (24hz) for most video material. Now you can get even a 120hz at a discount because the 240hz is out as well. Unless you like watching 3-D.

Now as a kid in the 50s I watched a bunch of movies in 3-D. So unless you need people hopping around your den.

The 720i and p are good as long as you don't start going up to diagonals over 32 inches, possibly 37. Lines of resolution are not the same thing speed (60hz plus). I have a Samsung 40 inch with 60hz with line resolution up to 1080p and it's spectacular. Unless you don't like seeing peoples' zits and nose hairs.
 
Now I just saw a TV advertised with a 480HZ rate. If you can't even tell the difference between 120 and 240, why are they making 480? This is too much to fathom. I'm going to an antique store and buy a '50's black and white with rabbit ears.
 
Love my Panasonic Plasma and will continue to buy plasma until they are no longer made...moving up to a 58" Panasonic this spring when I move into my new house.
 
Have a 42" Panasonic plasma and it is very good.

Has a definite "screendoor" effect if you get too close.

Has that sort of thing been eliminated in the larger sets over the last couple years?
 
Not trying to argue, but I have a couple of kids doing high school sports, and I often do blow up photoshopped collages of their stuff to poster-sized...that being said, my camera is a 10 mp Canon eos rebel, and it is more than adequate.
 
id like to know more about the screendoor effect, never heard of it. Im in a seat a few feet from my plasma and loving it
 
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