# Next 32" TV/Monitor - Tough Decision



## siqueirah (Aug 30, 2011)

Hi,
my main goal with this thread is to obtain the highest amount of information possible about different series. I'd like you to discuss about the best unit for my purpose, so that I can finally reach a conclusion. There are plenty of LCD/LED models in the market nowadays. I've been trying to find one that suits my needs but there's always a problem with every model. What is EXTREMELY important is the users opinion. I'm looking for people that have info about these models or have already had contact with them, because they can tell me which of the features/problems are true.
So, let's go to what I wanted:
-I was looking for a 32" TV I could use mainly as a PC Monitor. It will be mounted in the wall, 1m far from me. It should be, obviously, 1080p
- My objetive would be MOVIES and GAMES. What I want is the best picture possible under $1200
-What really matters to my is the picture quality (BLACK LEVEL, CONTRAST, COLORS)
- A low input lag value is necessary (provided that it will be used as a monitor)
- Sound quality is not really important

What I have researched: My initial idea was a 32" LED-LCD TV with IPS panel. There are no full-led-array-32 TVs in the market so I was interested on LG's LED PLUS (EDGE but with SMART DIMMING). I had decided for the 32LV5500 which has all these features, but it seems that it has poor black levels, imprecise dimming and backlit leakage. So the black is lighter, almost grey, what would certainly bother me a lot.
I'd like to hear your opinions and suggestions about which TV should I buy.
I'm sorry for my English mistakes; I'm clearly not a native-speaker.
Thank you for reading.

Att,

Gabriel Siqueira (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)


----------



## Kreij (Aug 31, 2011)

Why not get a 30" IPS Monitor that will do 2560x1600.
Both gaming and movies look fantastic.


----------



## MN12BIRD (Aug 31, 2011)

Panasonic Plasma?  You could get like a 42" 1080p model for like $700.  Don't have to worry about shitty black levels, backlight bleeding, bad viewing angles or any of that crap!

I mean as far as I'm concerned all those dynamic contrast ratios and so called "grid LED backlight dimming" stuff is a bunch of shit.  Experts always say it adds strange distortions to the image quality and the full screen DC dimming stuff is just annoying!  Really fucking annoying!  I don't see why anyone in their right mind would even want to turn that feature on!


----------



## siqueirah (Aug 31, 2011)

Kreij said:


> Why not get a 30" IPS Monitor that will do 2560x1600.
> Both gaming and movies look fantastic.


I've also considered buying it but I've come to the conclusion that it won't be worth ($$)
This kind of high-end monitor is very close to my budget ($1200-1300) but here in Brazil it will be extremely overpriced, provided that it's not as common as LCD TVs. The second aspect is that I ACTUALLY need a TV to use as a TV. I forgot to mention that. It should be more like secondary use, as I don't watch much TV, but I needed it to work as a TV too.
Anyway, thank you very much for reading and posting =)



MN12BIRD said:


> Panasonic Plasma?  You could get like a 42" 1080p model for like $700.  Don't have to worry about shitty black levels, backlight bleeding, bad viewing angles or any of that crap!
> 
> I mean as far as I'm concerned all those dynamic contrast ratios and so called "grid LED backlight dimming" stuff is a bunch of shit.  Experts always say it adds strange distortions to the image quality and the full screen DC dimming stuff is just annoying!  Really fucking annoying!  I don't see why anyone in their right mind would even want to turn that feature on!


I hadn't considered plasmas yet. It might be a good idea, I'll start thinking about it. What would be the best 32" plasma available? Could you tell me why do some people prefer LCD/LED-LCD TVs over plasmas nowadays? I've read a lot about LCDs but not much about Plasma =P


----------



## MN12BIRD (Aug 31, 2011)

Plasmas still offer better picture IMHO but they draw more wattage.  They also got a bad rep because of the burn in and short life spans the early models had.  They've really improved in the past several years and Panasonic is still running with them.  Panasonic said a few years ago that they would push Plasmas and build them using all their own parts (not the cheapest parts they could get their hands on like everyone else does) 

These days it's the LCD's that have short life spans because of the shitty capacitors the manufactures are using in the Power Supply boards and Inverter boards.  My mom has a 3 year old Samsung 32" that's been replaced 3 times!  Three times in three years and Samsung "should" be a good brand of LCD should it not?  I see them every day.  LG, Samsung, Acer doesn't matter 5 years old and no good.  Seriously they would probably last forever if they spent an extra $5 on good Caps.

I also like Plasmas because they tend to look better when you feed them SD content like say 240i or 480i signals.  That's important to me because I play a lot of old school video games and most of the time they look like shit on an LCD.  Maybe they do draw more wattage than an equivalent LED-LCD but I don't care when they cost less to begin with.


----------



## siqueirah (Aug 31, 2011)

It is indeed a great idea so I went to Panasonic's website. It seems that the smallest model they have is the 42"one. It's still way too big. =(


----------



## heky (Aug 31, 2011)

Plasmas are obsolete, buy a high-end lcd, with a good panel and local dimming instead.


----------



## BeepBeep2 (Aug 31, 2011)

heky said:


> Plasmas are obsolete, buy a high-end lcd, with a good panel and local dimming instead.


Quoted for lie?
Plasmas are not obsolete, they still offer a better picture than LCD TV's and with pixel shift/rotate they do not burn in like they used to...


----------



## mrw1986 (Aug 31, 2011)

BeepBeep2 said:


> Quoted for lie?
> Plasmas are not obsolete, they still offer a better picture than LCD TV's and with pixel shift/rotate they do not burn in like they used to...



As somebody who works in the industry this is wrong. Even the newest, latest, and greatest plasmas suffer from burn-in. Pixel orbiters are gimmicky. They almost NEVER work. Most medium-high end LCD's offer a better picture. My 40" Sony XBR2 offers a better picture than any plasma I've owned (I've had several medium-high end plasmas). The only upside I can give plasmas is cost. They are much cheaper to purchase.


----------



## cheesy999 (Aug 31, 2011)

mrw1986 said:


> As somebody who works in the industry this is wrong. Even the newest, latest, and greatest plasmas suffer from burn-in. Pixel orbiters are gimmicky. They almost NEVER work. Most medium-high end LCD's offer a better picture. My 40" Sony XBR2 offers a better picture than any plasma I've owned (I've had several medium-high end plasmas). The only upside I can give plasmas is cost. They are much cheaper to purchase.



never suffered from burn in on my plasma, and that's a few years old now

all in all the quality of the individual TV matters far more then the type


----------



## mrw1986 (Aug 31, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> never suffered from burn in on my plasma, and that's a few years old now
> 
> all in all the quality of the individual TV matters far more then the type



Like I said, it's gimmicky and almost NEVER works. Sometimes people get lucky. I've seen plasmas have permanent burn-in from just watching CNN for an hour. Normally burn-in won't occur, but image retention will. Image retention is far less worse than burn-in and can normally be fixed by white washing the TV. I find it terribly inconvenient to do that. I know people with plasmas who have to white wash their TV 2-3 times a week. I also know people who never have too. What it comes down to is less maintenance with an LCD. You never have to worry about burn-in. Is it possible? Absolutely. The odds of it happening? You have a better shot of getting struck by lightning.


----------



## BumbleBee (Aug 31, 2011)

mrw1986 said:


> As somebody who works in the industry this is wrong. Even the newest, latest, and greatest plasmas suffer from burn-in. Pixel orbiters are gimmicky. They almost NEVER work. Most medium-high end LCD's offer a better picture. My 40" Sony XBR2 offers a better picture than any plasma I've owned (I've had several medium-high end plasmas). The only upside I can give plasmas is cost. They are much cheaper to purchase.



http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004M8SBPW/?tag=tec06d-20

this entry level 2011 model has a black level of 0.06 ftl.

image retention will usually go away on it's own, if not you can manually remove it. instead of breaking in a Plasma some people will spend 200 hours playing Call of Duty and never experience image retention or burn in.

to burn in a Plasma it would probably have to be deliberate.


----------



## mrw1986 (Aug 31, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004M8SBPW/?tag=tec06d-20
> 
> this entry level 2011 model has a black level of 0.06 ftl.
> 
> ...



Deliberate? That couldn't be any further from the truth. Go read any A/V forum and then comment on what you find.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Aug 31, 2011)

I'm not sure why this thread derailed so fast. You can't get a 32" 1080p plasma set, and the OP wants a 32" TV. 

As far as plasmas go, who wants a 400w PC monitor that will likely burn in or have image retention, as well as pixels that constantly spin around to prevent that? Don't forget the horizontal/vertical sustain boards that like to pop and potential flickering later in the set's life that many screens get. LCDs are power efficient (IPS displays are even more power efficient because they let more light through and thus need less backlighting) and if you're unlucky enough to have a few caps blow, those are just a few bucks versus sustain boards and the amount of power you need to run the TV in the first place.


----------



## mrw1986 (Aug 31, 2011)

Jstn7477 said:


> I'm not sure why this thread derailed so fast. You can't get a 32" 1080p plasma set, and the OP wants a 32" TV.
> 
> As far as plasmas go, who wants a 400w PC monitor that will likely burn in or have image retention, as well as pixels that constantly spin around to prevent that? Don't forget the horizontal/vertical sustain boards that like to pop and potential flickering later in the set's life that many screens get. LCDs are power efficient (IPS displays are even more power efficient because they let more light through and thus need less backlighting) and if you're unlucky enough to have a few caps blow, those are just a few bucks versus sustain boards and the amount of power you need to run the TV in the first place.



Sums it up perfectly.


----------



## BumbleBee (Aug 31, 2011)

I own a Panasonic 42" S2 and 7 consoles connected to a scaler. I put it through it's paces on a weekly basis and never experience image retention.

some LCD require almost the same amount of power



















good luck trying to reproduce this on a LCD


----------



## mrw1986 (Aug 31, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> good luck trying to reproduce this on a LCD



Guess you've never seen a Sony XBR series. My XBR2 looks absolutely flawless. The newer series are even better. I also own a 2010 Samsung 50" plasma which is much newer than my 2006 XBR and was their highest end plasma and my XBR puts it to shame.


----------



## BumbleBee (Aug 31, 2011)

my television cost significantly less than yours and it has the same black levels with much better video processing, motion resolution and it can display 1920x1080.

is it really hard to sell that picture quality to people who operate high end desktops? so Plasmas have one problem you may or may never experience. LCD struggles with black levels, flash lighting, motion resolution, color accuracy, blooming, clouding, crosstalk, viewing angles, artifacts and cost.


----------



## mrw1986 (Aug 31, 2011)

BumbleBee said:


> my television cost significantly less than yours and it has the same black levels with much better video processing, motion resolution and it can display 1920x1080.
> 
> is it really hard to sell that picture quality to people who operate high end desktops? so Plasmas have one problem you may or may never experience. LCD struggles with black levels, flash lighting, motion resolution, color accuracy, blooming, clouding, crosstalk, viewing angles, artifacts and cost.



How does my TV not display 1920x1080? That is the native resolution, it is not upscaling the image like some cheap sets do. Sony has among the best video processing in the industry and I have ZERO clouding, ghosting, blooming, banding, viewing angle, or any other issues with my set. You get what you pay for.  all you want, at the end of the day LCD is superior to plasma with a much longer lifespan, worry-free gaming, and worry free use as a PC monitor. 

Do I enjoy my plasma set? Absolutely. Is my LCD clearly superior in every way? No, it cost more, but that's it. Cheap LCD TV's give ALL LCD's a bad name. Do yourself a favor and buy a high-end LCD and do research. Don't listen to people who spout off about how plasma is better because of x, y, and z. LCD is a much more established and researched technology.

EDIT: Also, at the time of when I purchased my TV, equivalent sets in plasma were the same price if not more. Your argument is invalid.


----------



## BumbleBee (Aug 31, 2011)

your television can't do 1920x1080p. Plasma and LCD have the same 100,000 hour MTBF. all the money you save buying a Plasma over an LCD should cover 3-5 years of electric bills


----------



## MilkyWay (Aug 31, 2011)

For a TV go for a 1080p Panasonic Plasma but for a monitor avoid Plasma, you have issues with burn in and response times so id go with a fast IPS display. IPS is at the point where response times and ghosting are only an issue on some crappy displays now.

In the UK at least i find Plasma to still be a bit more expensive than LED LCD.

Newer backlit LED LCDs look great have lower power draw and have bright whites and bright colours although i still recommend Plasma for its blacks and colour reproduction if your into movies.


----------



## siqueirah (Aug 31, 2011)

Hi guys,
I don't intend to sound rude or to interrupt your very informational discussion ( learn a lot about plasmas and LCDs with your discussion) but most of it is pointless to the thread since there are no 32" Plasmas in the market and I really CAN'T buy anything bigger due to my room size/distance to use as a monitor.
I appreciate your willingness to help.


----------



## BumbleBee (Aug 31, 2011)

mrw1986 said:


> How does my TV not display 1920x1080? That is the native resolution, it is not upscaling the image like some cheap sets do. Sony has among the best video processing in the industry and I have ZERO clouding, ghosting, blooming, banding, viewing angle, or any other issues with my set. You get what you pay for.  all you want, at the end of the day LCD is superior to plasma with a much longer lifespan, worry-free gaming, and worry free use as a PC monitor.
> 
> Do I enjoy my plasma set? Absolutely. Is my LCD clearly superior in every way? No, it cost more, but that's it. Cheap LCD TV's give ALL LCD's a bad name. Do yourself a favor and buy a high-end LCD and do research. Don't listen to people who spout off about how plasma is better because of x, y, and z. LCD is a much more established and researched technology.
> 
> EDIT: Also, at the time of when I purchased my TV, equivalent sets in plasma were the same price if not more. Your argument is invalid.



I think you need to read this because your information about Plasmas sounds pretty dated.

http://plasmatvbuyingguide.com/plasmatv/plasmatv-misconceptions.html


----------



## Sasqui (Aug 31, 2011)

Aside from a plasma vs. LCD debate... for a brand, I'd stick with Samsung.  Features, connection logic and interface are down pat.  Model?  look at LN32D550K1F


----------



## MilkyWay (Aug 31, 2011)

32" is the smallest you can get for a plasma but ive never personally seen one although i know they exist. In the case you cant go bigger get a Sony Bravia LED LCD with the Ethernet connection or something like a good Sammy or LG. Depends on the model of LG as some are shit some are great...

EDIT: People will reccomend probably Samsung but i dont really rate them i think they are good but there are other great brands its best to look around and check the contrast and brightness other specs and do youtube and google searches thats basically how i found my tv. Id lastly look at the tv in a store or something to get an idea of how it performs but order it maybe online which would probably be cheaper.


----------



## BumbleBee (Aug 31, 2011)

siqueirah said:


> Hi guys,
> I don't intend to sound rude or to interrupt your very informational discussion ( learn a lot about plasmas and LCDs with your discussion) but most of it is pointless to the thread since there are no 32" Plasmas in the market and I really CAN'T buy anything bigger due to my room size/distance to use as a monitor.
> I appreciate your willingness to help.



http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004N85YEW/?tag=tec06d-20

it's not LED but they do make one (D5500) the problem with this one is you can't disable the dynamic contrast micro dimming so you will see some flash lighting but it has a good black level.


----------



## siqueirah (Sep 1, 2011)

Right now I'm thinking of the Sony Bravia 32EX525. It seems pretty good in this review, with a great black level, acceptable white and nice colors. The only problem is the uniformity that is pretty bad, since it is edge-lit led, so it can be noticed that the edges are significantly brighter than the rest of the screen, so says this review:
http://www.televisioninfo.com/content/Sony-KDL-32EX520-LED-LCD-HDTV-Review/Blacks-and-Whites.htm


----------

