Buying A Smart Led Tv

[whatever]

Dude, the 'more advanced' part about LED TVs are mostly marketing hype afaik. LED TVs are also LCD TVs which uses LEDs along the edge of the panel unlike the "LCD TVs" which actually use small cathode tubes. Biggest advantage would be lower thickness of the TV and a bit higher frame rate. There may be a slight difference in picture quality but mostly it is psychological. Unless getting the latest technology is the necessity I would actually go by the advice of the guy who supported LCDs.

Let me put it this way. Marketing hype would make us believe that LED vs. LCD is similar to hybrid vs. plug-in hybrid but in reality, its not.

BTW manufacturing costs of edge-lighting using LED should be lower than using CFL (or the thing they use in LCD) but right now, supply and demand seem to dictate the prices.

It is true that "LED" TVs are also LCD with different back-lighting. However there is a big difference in picture quality in terms of brightness, black level and contrast ratio.

Basic comparison of LED TV against LCD can be summarize as bellow. (There might be many other factors ) :

LED full array

* use local dimming to get good black level and contrast ratio. It can achieve plasma-like picture quality

* Less power consumption

* Good brightness

LED edge-lit with local dimming.

* slightly better black level and contrast ratio as the local dimming is not perfect.

* Less power consumption

* Good brightness

LED edge-lit without local dimming.

* Less power consumption

* Good brightness

[Crosswind]

Aren't most of the TVs we find in the market edge lit LEDs? In fact, that's what I meant in my statement above. If it's a full array LED, the technology is entirely different. Like I said earlier, the hybrid vs. plug-in hybrid argument holds true if the comparison is between LCD and Full Array LED. If you are getting a full array 32-inch LED for the price of a 42 inch LCD, then by all means buy four of them. But what I feel is edge-lit LED vs LCD choice should be determined by other factors.

Picture quality of the TV is really in the eyes of the person who watches it. Yes, power consumption would be slightly less. May be by 5-10%? or is it more? and is it enough a justification to consider the 'new technology'?

[whatever]

Aren't most of the TVs we find in the market edge lit LEDs? In fact, that's what I meant in my statement above. If it's a full array LED, the technology is entirely different. Like I said earlier, the hybrid vs. plug-in hybrid argument holds true if the comparison is between LCD and Full Array LED. If you are getting a full array 32-inch LED for the price of a 42 inch LCD, then by all means buy four of them. But what I feel is edge-lit LED vs LCD choice should be determined by other factors.

Picture quality of the TV is really in the eyes of the person who watches it. Yes, power consumption would be slightly less. May be by 5-10%? or is it more? and is it enough a justification to consider the 'new technology'?

That's why I'm not suggesting any thing here and let him decide. Knowing facts is helpful to make the selection.

Finally most important thing is see it in your own eyes and read review of that particular model in the web.

I agree that the choice is highly personal.

[Crosswind]

That's why I'm not suggesting any thing here and let him decide. Knowing facts is helpful to make the selection.

Finally most important thing is see it in your own eyes and read review of that particular model in the web.

I agree that the choice is highly personal.

Totally agreed. The decision at the end is highly personal and should be an informed decision.

[GTAm]

Dude, the 'more advanced' part about LED TVs are mostly marketing hype afaik. LED TVs are also LCD TVs which uses LEDs along the edge of the panel unlike the "LCD TVs" which actually use small cathode tubes. Biggest advantage would be lower thickness of the TV and a bit higher frame rate. There may be a slight difference in picture quality but mostly it is psychological. Unless getting the latest technology is the necessity I would actually go by the advice of the guy who supported LCDs.

Let me put it this way. Marketing hype would make us believe that LED vs. LCD is similar to hybrid vs. plug-in hybrid but in reality, its not.

BTW manufacturing costs of edge-lighting using LED should be lower than using CFL (or the thing they use in LCD) but right now, supply and demand seem to dictate the prices.

Sorry Crosswind cannot agree with you here mate. Also I'm not sure about the hybrid analogy too . It's more like the difference between conventional and common rail diesel engines to me. If it were purely psychological the world will not be embracing LED over LCD I think. For the me the differences are very visible. The biggest reason I delayed replacing my ancient TV instead of buying a Plasma or LCD was because I saw the difference in quality in the LEDs when they first came to SL and I was blown away.

Getting the latest tech is absolutely necessary because of the pace at which tech is progressing. I mean LED IS the replacement for LCD and Plasma, so why buy something that's already outdated? For some laid back people I guess it won't matter and that is fine, but I generally like to get the absolute best product I can for the money I spend especially if that means stretching a bit or waiting even two years like I did. Maybe that's a bad thing too You know what they say " what you don't know won't hurt you".

If it were just marketing hype I doubt very much it would not have lasted this long. LCD will remain a low cost option until LED production costs reduce over time. In a Sri Lankan context they have reduced drastically. When they first arrived I recall the Samsung 42" was something like 399,000/- (No Smart business then). Last year when I tried to buy it was 299,000/- (Smart) and I postponed it with the greatest difficulty. In the middle of this year it was down to 240k. And finally in December the LG is down to 207k! All this while taxes went up in the 2011 budget.

Anyway here is an excellent expert review from PC mag - http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2387377,00.asp

Plasma vs. LCD vs. LED: Which HDTV Type is Best?

For a long time, it was tough to call, but today's rapidly evolving technologies have made it easier to crown a winner in the HDTV display wars.

• 
  By Will Greenwald
  
• November 15, 2012
  
• 52 Comments
  

• Google
  128
  
  
• Share
  0
  
  
• Tweet
  0
  
  
• Submit
  135
  
  
• Share
  25
  
  
• Pin It
  -
  
  
• Email
  Print
  
  

When you're shopping for an HDTV, there are plenty of factors to consider. Chief among them is the type of display. While boxy, bulky CRTs are long dead and mammoth rear-projection HDTVs are all but extinct, the HDTV market currently offers three distinct choices in display technologies: plasma, traditional CCFL-backlit LCD, and LED-backlit LCD. For years, the question of which technology reigned supreme has remained unanswered.

In the early days of HDTVs, plasma, with its inky blacks and top-notch picture quality, was the prevalent flat-panel technology, especially among videophiles. Gradually, thinner, more energy-efficient LCDs with CCFL backlighting became less expensive and more capable and started gaining ground. The difference between plasma and LCD wavered for some time, with each offering different economic and visual benefits depending on the model, price, and time in the life cycle of HDTVs. But in the past couple of years, with the advent of increasingly sophisticated LED backlighting, we finally have a true winner. With its unmatched energy efficiency, LED-based LCD is the best flat-panel HDTV technology. Unfortunately, it's also generally the most expensive, though by less of a margin than there was a few years ago. If it's in your budget, the choice is clear: Pay the premium and get an LED-backlit HDTV.

The Basics: What's the Difference Between LCD, LED, and Plasma?

The three technologies are vastly different, particularly with respect to how each screen is lit. In plasma HDTVs, the phosphors that create the image on the screen light up themselves, and don't require backlighting. For LCD HDTVs, however, the liquid crystal screen does not illuminate, requiring a separate light source. That's where the difference between "regular" LCD screens (also known as CCFL-backlit LCD) and LED-backlit LCD screens (also known as LED-LCD, or just LED screens) come in. Traditional LCD HDTVs use cold cathode fluorescent lights (CCFLs) to illuminate the screen. CCFLs are similar to the fluorescent lights you might see in some lamps and overhead light fixtures. They use a charged gas to produce light. LED screens, like their name implies, use light emitting diodes (LEDs) to illuminate the display. LED backlighting has become much more common in the last few years, and CCFLs are now generally only seen on budget HDTVs.

Several factors can be influenced by the type of HDTV display you choose. Among them, the most prominent are screen thickness, brightness, darkness, energy efficiency, and price. Ideally, you want an HDTV that's affordable, paper-thin, can get face-of-the-sun-bright and black-hole-dark, and consumes less than a watt. That's currently impossible, but LED-backlit LCD HDTVs can come closer than the other two technologies.

For this advantage, LED HDTVs command a premium; for all major HDTV manufacturers, LED-backlit HDTVs typically cost more than CCFL-backlit HDTVs of the same size. However, LED HDTVs have become standard for both midrange and high-end models, as CCFL screens have been relegated to the budget category. Generally, plasmas tend to be less expensive than LEDs but slightly more than CCFL-backlit HDTVs. That savings means the screen will be thicker and more power-hungry, though, even if it does tend to offer as good a picture as an LED-backlit HDTV.

Image Quality

How good the picture looks, especially if you're a videophile or a cinema fanatic, is the most vital aspect of any HDTV. Specifically, peak white and black levels determine how detailed an image will appear. Poor white levels mean fine details can get washed out in bright scenes, while poor black levels mean shadows swallow up parts of the picture in dark scenes. A very wide gamut from dark to light lets the HDTV show the tiniest details, regardless of how bright or dark the movie gets. In our tests, we measure white and black levels by luminance using a Chroma Meter. A mediocre HDTV might produce black levels of 0.05 to 0.07 cd/m², while an excellent HDTV will offer levels of 0.01 to 0.03 cd/m². Historically, plasma HDTVs have produced the best black levels, specifically the discontinued Pioneer Kuro HDTV brand. The Kuro's screen got so satisfyingly dark that it remained a popular HDTV for enthusiasts long after Pioneer stopped making the sets. The domination of plasma in this field, however, is over. Our current Editors' Choice HDTV, the LED-based Sharp Elite Pro-60X5FD $4,325.00 at PowersellerNYC, puts out 0.01 cd/m², the best level we can measure. That any LED-backlit LCD can get that dark shows how far the technology has come.

White levels don't matter quite as much, because it's more difficult for screens to show fine details in shadows and easier to crank out very bright whites with backlighting, but they can still matter. At this, LED backlighting again triumphs. The Sharp Elite Pro-60X5FD reaches a very impressive 382.62 cd/m² white level, and combined with that 0.01 cd/m² black level, you get a staggering 38,262:1 contrast ratio. It completely (and literally) outshines the Panasonic TC-P55ST50 plasma$1,299.99 at Best Buy, which puts out only 85.45 cd/m² peak white while offering a 0.03 cd/m² black level for a comparatively low 2,848:1 contrast ratio. Plasma screens were once the kings of contrast and color, but the Sharp Elite series has successfully taken the crown from the Pioneer Elite Kuro plasma series of years ago, once considered the gold standard for HDTVs. Granted, less expensive LED HDTVs don't reach the Sharp Elite's performance, but they still often produce valiant showings. While plasma HDTVs don't tend to get quite as bright, the colors and black levels usually make up for it (though you probably won't notice that in the store, where all HDTVs are set to be as bright and vivid as they can be to catch your eye, with little thought for color accuracy).

Size and Power

Screen thickness isn't the most important aspect of an HDTV, but initially, it's the most noticeable. A super-thin HDTV is not only visually striking, but it's more easily mounted on a wall, and can be more readily arranged, displayed, or concealed as part of your home theater. On this point, LED screens win hands-down, with plasma close behind. The CCFLs that backlight low-end LCD screens are much thicker than LEDs. LEDs can be very thin yet extremely bright, meaning an array of LEDs along the edge of an LCD can light it up while completely removing the backlight from the equation (this configuration is termed "edge lighting"). At this point, though, array backlighting is thin enough to compete with edge lighting.

Plasma HDTVs also weigh more than LED-backlit LCD HDTVs. The 60-inch LED-based Samsung UN46ES8000F LED HDTV$2,318.00 at AllTimeTVs weighs 45 pounds without a stand, while the 55-inch Panasonic TC-P55ST50 plasma HDTV weighs 62 pounds but offers less screen area.

Energy efficiency is an important factor when choosing an HDTV, and between the three technologies LED-backlit HDTVs win again. LED HDTVs measuring 55 inches or less consistently consume around 80 watts or less, while plasma HDTVs can eat up two or three times as much. The 55-inch LG 55LW9800 LED HDTV consumed only 89 watts in our tests, while the 55-inch Panasonic TC-P55ST50 plasma HDTV used a whopping 305 watts. That's over three times the power for the same screen size.

The Verdict

If you can afford them, LED-backlit HDTVs are the way to go. They're thin, energy efficient, and can produce a great picture, but getting all three of those features costs a premium. If you're on a budget, look for a good plasma screen. They're heavy power hogs, but you can get a gorgeous cinematic experience for not nearly as much money. If your budget is limited and you can't find a plasma, CCFL is likely your only other choice, but CCFL-backlit LCDs typically can't match plasmas or LEDs on screen size or features.

[jehan80]

Dude, the 'more advanced' part about LED TVs are mostly marketing hype afaik. LED TVs are also LCD TVs which uses LEDs along the edge of the panel unlike the "LCD TVs" which actually use small cathode tubes. Biggest advantage would be lower thickness of the TV and a bit higher frame rate. There may be a slight difference in picture quality but mostly it is psychological. Unless getting the latest technology is the necessity I would actually go by the advice of the guy who supported LCDs.

Let me put it this way. Marketing hype would make us believe that LED vs. LCD is similar to hybrid vs. plug-in hybrid but in reality, its not.

BTW manufacturing costs of edge-lighting using LED should be lower than using CFL (or the thing they use in LCD) but right now, supply and demand seem to dictate the prices.

Pretty much on the ball. You'd be hard pressed to spot the difference in picture quality between a LCD and a LED TV if the same images/movie is shown side by side. That's why I opted to go for a bigger screen LCD(Samsung series 5) instead of a smaller screen LED for the same price.

[GTAm]

Pretty much on the ball. You'd be hard pressed to spot the difference in picture quality between a LCD and a LED TV if the same images/movie is shown side by side. That's why I opted to go for a bigger screen LCD(Samsung series 5) instead of a smaller screen LED for the same price.

Hmmm that is very strange indeed. For me the difference was crystal clear every time I went into a showroom.

[kalana]

Thanks everyone, I have went to show rooms and compared. to me, i could see a noticeable difference between 2 types. So I am choosing between brands and then i will go for a one. If you guys have Good/bad Experiences with a particular brand, do mention. Thanks

[jehan80]

Hmmm that is very strange indeed. For me the difference was crystal clear every time I went into a showroom.

Well. I had a similar experience at a show room, until I figured out they had the the LED hooked on a HDMI cable and the LCD playing off a analog. Once I got them to run both off HDMI, there was no discernible difference. But this was one and a half years ago, i dont know if LED picture quality has taken another bump since then.

[speeddemon200]

Thanks for sharing that link GTAm, that was really informative.

I personally go by the global reviews when buying any electronic product (eg: Cnet.com, HomeCinemaChoice.com, WhatHifi.com n' for Phones "GSM Arena" and Stuff.tv for any electronic gadget)

Been doing this since randomly read a review off HCC, prior to purchasing my first HDTV in 2005 (Pioneer PDP-435XDE), it was only later I found out that Pioneer picture quality was legendary (I did not know a thing about flat screens at the time.)

Had to unfortunately go for a lower-end Sony LCD (KLV-40BX400 @ 120K) in 2011, when my Pioneer sadly stopped working.

I'm a bit of a Videophile, so constantly keep check for the latest and best out there.

What I've found is:

1) Plasma while not having the brightest images, produces the most comfortable and Cinema like images. However, they are extremely power hungry (435w for my old Pioneer 43", compared to only 120w for my current Sony 40"). So they are suitable if your viewing environment is dim to moderately bright. (Best Plasma's at the moment Panasonic ST, GT n' VT series, the 64" VT50 on display at softlogic is absolutely heavenly). Colours are not however as bright as n' vibrant LCD's or LED's. Also not very well suited for SDTV viewing. Even larger Plasmas (above 40") generate less eye strain when watched in a moderate to dimly lit domestic environment.

2) LCD in my experience colours are more vibrant than Plasma (however Plasma Images look more natural to me when compared side by side). Much more brighter than Plasma too. However need to be used in a Moderate to Extremely bright room (I know this cos I need to switch on more lights when watching my LCD than when I used to watch my Plasma, otherwise eyes start to hurt after sometime). SDTV seems to look better than on Plasma, more clearer and sharper.

3) LED Images are extremely colourful and vibrant than LCD, and therefore best to use in a Moderately to Extremely Bright environment. Seems to me both these LCD technologies are more suited for commercial use than home use, due to their very bright images, which can be rather harsh on the eye in a domestic environment. Again however Plasma looks most natural. I supposed LED and LCD are okay for a smaller TVs when compared to the viewing area (less than 40" for an average sized room). All this said the Samsung 46ES800 is an awesome TV when viewed at the showroom (not lucky enough to buy one, at about 499k i think).

As for 3D, I dunno, personally seems a bit gimmicky to me, n' don't like the idea of having to wear special glasses to watch TV. Plain old 2D seems good enough.

Also, in an ideal world, where energy costs don't matter, I would go for a Panasonic plasma without second thought. (Even more reason to do so, cos they bought Pioneer plasma technology and factories, when Pioneer stopped making Plasmas.)

Also the new OLED's seem really exciting, if phone screens (like SII, SIII) are anything to go by, they shud be absolutely brilliant and easy on the eye as well.

Also been mulling over the idea of upgrading to an HD Projector, to get a giant picture n' a comfortable Cinema like image.

PS: Funnily enough even a 2" increase makes a big difference when selecting between 40" / 42" / 46".

[speeddemon200]

According to the reviews, seems that Sony HX853 series is currently the best LED's available, closely followed by Samsung, but LG's are getting mixed reviews. Also seems Toshiba is good.

[zeem35]

Samsung 5 series is pretty good.

[speeddemon200]

Btw kush I have an excellent JBL/Yamaha home theater system, so I have no need to think about that side of things. I invested in this first because sound is more important than vision for me. I could not do the TV then because I really wanted the best system available at that time and it was bloody expensive.

Machan, do you use your theater alot?, as in even for watching TV? I used a relative's system for a while (Onkyo / Tannoy) and found out they are very power hungry, electricity bill increased drastically.

I currently have a Sony "Home Theatre in a box" system (Power Consumption 120w), which I use for watching TV also, but wanna upgrade to a Yamaha / Boston Accoustics system. But don't wanna increase my electricity bill too much. I was thinking of the Yamaha 671 or 673, n' Some Boston Accoustics cubes n' Towers.

Really wanna upgrade my sound system, but wanna be able to use it in peace also. You think it's advisable to upgrade? or stick with my current system?

[GTAm]

Thanks for sharing that link GTAm, that was really informative.

I personally go by the global reviews when buying any electronic product (eg: Cnet.com, HomeCinemaChoice.com, WhatHifi.com n' for Phones "GSM Arena" and Stuff.tv for any electronic gadget)

Been doing this since randomly read a review off HCC, prior to purchasing my first HDTV in 2005 (Pioneer PDP-435XDE), it was only later I found out that Pioneer picture quality was legendary (I did not know a thing about flat screens at the time.)

Had to unfortunately go for a lower-end Sony LCD (KLV-40BX400 @ 120K) in 2011, when my Pioneer sadly stopped working.

I'm a bit of a Videophile, so constantly keep check for the latest and best out there.

What I've found is:

1) Plasma while not having the brightest images, produces the most comfortable and Cinema like images. However, they are extremely power hungry (435w for my old Pioneer 43", compared to only 120w for my current Sony 40"). So they are suitable if your viewing environment is dim to moderately bright. (Best Plasma's at the moment Panasonic ST, GT n' VT series, the 64" VT50 on display at softlogic is absolutely heavenly). Colours are not however as bright as n' vibrant LCD's or LED's. Also not very well suited for SDTV viewing. Even larger Plasmas (above 40") generate less eye strain when watched in a moderate to dimly lit domestic environment.

2) LCD in my experience colours are more vibrant than Plasma (however Plasma Images look more natural to me when compared side by side). Much more brighter than Plasma too. However need to be used in a Moderate to Extremely bright room (I know this cos I need to switch on more lights when watching my LCD than when I used to watch my Plasma, otherwise eyes start to hurt after sometime). SDTV seems to look better than on Plasma, more clearer and sharper.

3) LED Images are extremely colourful and vibrant than LCD, and therefore best to use in a Moderately to Extremely Bright environment. Seems to me both these LCD technologies are more suited for commercial use than home use, due to their very bright images, which can be rather harsh on the eye in a domestic environment. Again however Plasma looks most natural. I supposed LED and LCD are okay for a smaller TVs when compared to the viewing area (less than 40" for an average sized room). All this said the Samsung 46ES800 is an awesome TV when viewed at the showroom (not lucky enough to buy one, at about 499k i think).

As for 3D, I dunno, personally seems a bit gimmicky to me, n' don't like the idea of having to wear special glasses to watch TV. Plain old 2D seems good enough.

Also, in an ideal world, where energy costs don't matter, I would go for a Panasonic plasma without second thought. (Even more reason to do so, cos they bought Pioneer plasma technology and factories, when Pioneer stopped making Plasmas.)

Also the new OLED's seem really exciting, if phone screens (like SII, SIII) are anything to go by, they shud be absolutely brilliant and easy on the eye as well.

Also been mulling over the idea of upgrading to an HD Projector, to get a giant picture n' a comfortable Cinema like image.

PS: Funnily enough even a 2" increase makes a big difference when selecting between 40" / 42" / 46".

Good stuff speeddemon!

[GTAm]

Machan, do you use your theater alot?, as in even for watching TV? I used a relative's system for a while (Onkyo / Tannoy) and found out they are very power hungry, electricity bill increased drastically.

I currently have a Sony "Home Theatre in a box" system (Power Consumption 120w), which I use for watching TV also, but wanna upgrade to a Yamaha / Boston Accoustics system. But don't wanna increase my electricity bill too much. I was thinking of the Yamaha 671 or 673, n' Some Boston Accoustics cubes n' Towers.

Really wanna upgrade my sound system, but wanna be able to use it in peace also. You think it's advisable to upgrade? or stick with my current system?

Yes. TV and even radio. Everything is connected to the amp and speakers. I'm not sure about the electricity consumption mate as the wifey takes care of that. I doubt there is much to be alarmed about though, as the only time the alarm bells sound is in March and April when we are forced to use A/Cs a lot.

From your posts you strike me as someone who really appreciated quality. So definitely consider it. Once you get used to good sound, others' TVs and stereos will sound annoying I assure you. When I go to my parents place and if I sit in front of the TV I constantly fiddle with the remote trying to adjust the sound to make it better. I suddenly realize that I have taken my home system for granted.

I think you should ask a guy who is familiar with these things about the likely power consumption. I have no clue. The guys from Yamaha were quite good and very informative.

Our house is pretty small and actually my system is far too potent for the place. The volume never exceeds -25!!! I know if I go to around ZERO my windows will shatter and my neighbours will probably kill me . But I just could not resist the difference in Quality.

Edited January 3, 2013 by GTAm

[speeddemon200]

Yes. TV and even radio. Everything is connected to the amp and speakers. I'm not sure about the electricity consumption mate as the wifey takes care of that. I doubt there is much to be alarmed about though, as the only time the alarm bells sound is in March and April when we are forced to use A/Cs a lot.

From your posts you strike me as someone who really appreciated quality. So definitely consider it. Once you get used to good sound, others' TVs and stereos will sound annoying I assure you. When I go to my parents place and if I sit in front of the TV I constantly fiddle with the remote trying to adjust the sound to make it better. I suddenly realize that I have taken my home system for granted.

I think you should ask a guy who is familiar with these things about the likely power consumption. I have no clue. The guys from Yamaha were quite good and very informative.

Our house is pretty small and actually my system is far too potent for the place. The volume never exceeds -25!!! I know if I go to around ZERO my windows will shatter and my neighbours will probably kill me . But I just could not resist the difference in Quality.

Yeah your correct, I am a soundbuff I guess, n' yes most times I find myself feeling like most systems don't match upto my system. But then I'm very critical about sound n' picture quality.

I used to sumtimes use the TV sound wen I had the Pioneer, which had very gud speakers...but the sound from the new TV's are intollerable.

The sound from my HTiB is pretty ok. But since my TV room is big somehow doesnt seem powerful enuf.

Correct about the guys at Yamaha, they are really helpful. They are the ones who put me onto the B.A. speakers. 1st Had my heart set on the Yamaha NS, or the JBL ES or Studio speakers. But the sound from the B.A.'s are simply divine to me atleast, sounded powerful, but well balanced n' the sound was closer to a Live performance.

I dunno wonder if I too am taking my HTiB for granted (it was high end when i bought it 8yrs back with a Twin Driver sub, 2way 6inch wooden bookshelf fronts, n' 3 Satelites.).

Am worried abt electricity cos used to get an earful from mom when i used my Pioneer for long, n' even the Onkyo.

But yeah like you say will consult a profesional.