Anyone Know TV's?? LCD or Plasma??

[NeverTheMachine]

I'm set on buying a 46" something. I am partial to Sony, as just a brand I can trust. The exact model really isn't the issue, I just want to know whether I should go for LCD or Plasma etc..

I heard there were lifetime issues before with Plasmas but they've been sorted out. I want to know for sure from someone who knows.

[Jon Hiller]

There are advantages and disadvantages to both. A great place to search around and learn is www.avsforum.com. They have info on just about everything HDTV and then some.

[denvertrakker]

A few thoughts:

At the 46" size you'll find both types at about the same price. Don't spend more for 1080p, at that size it doesn't really make a difference. Most sets will be 720p, which is perfectly OK at that size. There are some plasmas in that size that are 1080i, which may look marginally better. If you watch a lot of sports, plasma does better with fast motion than LCD. The lifetime issues with plasma are pretty much done with. The one caveat with plasma is burn-in, although that's been addressed well by most manufacturers. How you watch could affect your choice; most plasmas have a shiny face that reflects windows in daytime - LCDs usually have a matte finish.

As far as brand is concerned, nothing wrong with Sony but I don't think they're the best value, and no longer have the technological edge they used to. Brands to consider would include Samsung, LG, Toshiba, Hitachi, JVC and other majors. Up-and-coming brands that seem to be good include Vizio and Olevia. Brands to stay away from would include RCA, GE and Magnavox.

Feel free to ask more questions.

[Abnorm]

Consumer Reports says the best picture they have ever seen is on the new Panasonic TH series of plasma TVs. If you buy a set around 46" like you say, plasma is about the same price as LCD.

[NeverTheMachine]

A few thoughts:

At the 46" size you'll find both types at about the same price. Don't spend more for 1080p, at that size it doesn't really make a difference. Most sets will be 720p, which is perfectly OK at that size. There are some plasmas in that size that are 1080i, which may look marginally better. If you watch a lot of sports, plasma does better with fast motion than LCD. The lifetime issues with plasma are pretty much done with. The one caveat with plasma is burn-in, although that's been addressed well by most manufacturers. How you watch could affect your choice; most plasmas have a shiny face that reflects windows in daytime - LCDs usually have a matte finish.

As far as brand is concerned, nothing wrong with Sony but I don't think they're the best value, and no longer have the technological edge they used to. Brands to consider would include Samsung, LG, Toshiba, Hitachi, JVC and other majors. Up-and-coming brands that seem to be good include Vizio and Olevia. Brands to stay away from would include RCA, GE and Magnavox.

Feel free to ask more questions.

Thanks very much, that helps a lot. :thu:

I guess the burn in problem, if any, can be avoided by simply turning the TV off regularly? This tv will be in a basement with no windows, so reflection isn't an issue.

It seems plasma would be the best bet, I do watch a lot of sports.

What's the difference in price usually between comparable lcd's and plasmas?

You suggest a plasma with 1080i or did you mean 1080p?

[NeverTheMachine]

Consumer Reports says the best picture they have ever seen is on the new Panasonic TH series of plasma TVs. If you buy a set around 46" like you say, plasma is about the same price as LCD.

Thanks I'll look into it. Panasonic is quite trustworthy as well.

[denvertrakker]

I guess the burn in problem, if any, can be avoided by simply turning the TV off regularly?

No, that has nothing to do with it. Burn-in happens when you watch a lot of 4:3 material with the bars on either side, or if you watch CNN all day with the crawl at the bottom. It really isn't as bad a problem as it used to be, anyway, and most manufacturers now have circuitry builit-in to overcome it.

It seems plasma would be the best bet, I do watch a lot of sports.

What's the difference in price usually between comparable lcd's and plasmas?

In that size they're virtually the same - $1200 to $1600 depending on model.

You suggest a plasma with 1080i or did you mean 1080p?

No, I meant 1080i. I don't know why, but you see that often with 42"-46" plasmas. 1080p in that size is a waste of money. Even 720p is fine in a set that small....not that 46" is that small - it's what I have myself.

[NeverTheMachine]

No, I meant 1080i. I don't know why, but you see that often with 42"-46" plasmas. 1080p in that size is a waste of money. Even 720p is fine in a set that small....not that 46" is that small - it's what I have myself.

THanks once again. I'm having trouble finding a specific model online that is 1080i, they seem to all be 1080p. Could you perhaps point me towards specific models or the one you have (720p is fine as well)?

[denvertrakker]

THanks once again. I'm having trouble finding a specific model online that is 1080i, they seem to all be 1080p. Could you perhaps point me towards specific models or the one you have (720p is fine as well)?

Actually, I don't have a plasma at all. I have a 46" Samsung DLP that's about 2-1/2 years old, cost about $1600 back then, and I still love it. It's 720p.

There are several current 42"-46"-50" plasmas that are 1080i, but I can't give you exact model numbers. Look at Hitachi or LG, the brands I'm most familiar with in that genre. All should be in the neighborhood of $1300-$1600 and are excellent sets.

[moogerfooger]

I have had great success with viewsonic LCD TVs -- at work I have purchased several 42" and a couple 37" LCDs replacing LCD projectors in classrooms -- at home I have a 42" and a 32" VS LCD and 30" dell LCD -- the viewsonics give great bang for the buck --- the 32" was a gift from my wife for christmas
full 1080p for just over 600 bucks

[Jimbroni]

Don't dismiss DLP as an option. They are cheaper because they are bulkier, but you get more TV and a better picture for the price point.

They do require a bulb replacement after 3 years. Which is much cheaper than a plasma recharge. At this point LCD seems the way to go, but compared to DLP they are way more money.

[wmcjhi]

I assume the plasma recharge comment is a joke :freak: ???

Other than that, good info in this thread.

[denvertrakker]

I assume the plasma recharge comment is a joke :freak: ???



Possibly not. I have had arguments with more than one person convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the plasma "leaks out" over time. Or that it will explode over 5000 feet.

BTW, regarding DLP: Some sets are now available that use LEDs as the light source rather than a bulb that needs replacement, but they're more expensive and have some other concerns. Also, almost every manufacturer other than Samsung has discontinued or drastically shortened their DLP model lines, concentrating on plasma and LCD. Even Sony's and JVC's LCOS designs seem to be going away.

[Jimbroni]

Well I've been told by more than one store salesmen that the plasma sets need to be recharged. Of course I did some looking after your comment and it appears thats a bit of a myth. I still think plasma and lcd are overpriced compared to DLP sets, but it really depends on your usage. I chose DLP because I primarily use it for my computer for music, internet, games and DLP screens are better due to response time and no burn in issues and you get a better price/performance ratio. Its true they are being phased out, but thats why you get a better deal.

LCD's seem to be the most robust for long term, but have the black, view angle issue and cost issues.

Plasmas have the best picture but have the burn in issues and are expensive.

[denvertrakker]

Well I've been told by more than one store salesmen that the plasma sets need to be recharged. Of course I did some looking after your comment and it appears thats a bit of a myth.

It's not "a bit of a myth", it's total bullsh*t. Let's put this nonsense to rest once and for all. Read this:

http://www.plasmatvbuyingguide.com/plasmatvreviews/plasmatvpixel.html

BTW, burn-in is much less of a problem than it used to be, too. But, I still don't think plasmas have the "best" picture. It's kind of like the best guitar, the best synth, the best car....good for conversation, but totally unrealistic.

You want to know what has the best picture? Your old conventional picture-tube TV. Still.

[Jimbroni]

I have to disagree. HD is worlds better than conventional television, and 16:9 is so much better for film.

And I do think plasma have the edge on picture quality, mainly in respect to color and view angle.

I understand the burn in thing is getting better, but when you plan have a computer desktop on your screen for periods of time, I didn't wanna take the risk.

[The Chinese]

I have to disagree. HD is worlds better than conventional television, and 16:9 is so much better for film.

And I do think plasma have the edge on picture quality, mainly in respect to color and view angle.

I understand the burn in thing is getting better, but when you plan have a computer desktop on your screen for periods of time, I didn't wanna take the risk.

Actually, He's Totally Correct in a sense; a Glass Tube 16x9 Hidef TV will have a superior picture to a plasma, LCD, DLP, or SED tv... but they generally cost aaround 30k!!! They're used in Post production rooms to do very high level QC of color and picture...

My opinion is go Panasonic Plasma. We compared the screen at the last NAB show and the Panasonic was clearly superior to the competition... One thing I disagree on here is the need for 1080p... Even at 46" I think it's worth it, also there is a distinct possibility that 1080p may become a serious standard (Right now there isn't a standard...its up in the air...Different studios are doing different things...). These screens look best in their native resolution, so it's something to take into consideration. Also progressive scanning reduces screen door effect and other eye-tiring things from happening.

My .02

Todd A.

[coyote-1]

If you're OK with black levels that are not optimal, the rear-projection sets are the best value right now. Because they are awesome in every other respect, and as they are discontinued their prices will drop like a stone.

[NeverTheMachine]

Well .. I finally settled on a TV and picked it up today and connected everything straight out of the box.

I got the Sony XBR-4 52". Now I know there are a host of things I need to do to get optimum picture quality and I plan on doing it right, since I paid all this money already for the damn thing.

1) I need to get HD. Tomorrow I will call my C.S.P. Is there anything else I would need?

2) I was speaking some Best Buy people and they said that there is this special calibration that only they can do with some factory password. Can anyone shed some light on this.

3) Is there anything else I should look into or general comments on my choice?

Thanks.

[denvertrakker]

Well .. I finally settled on a TV and picked it up today and connected everything straight out of the box.

I got the Sony XBR-4 52". Now I know there are a host of things I need to do to get optimum picture quality and I plan on doing it right, since I paid all this money already for the damn thing.

1) I need to get HD. Tomorrow I will call my C.S.P. Is there anything else I would need?

2) I was speaking some Best Buy people and they said that there is this special calibration that only they can do with some factory password. Can anyone shed some light on this.

3) Is there anything else I should look into or general comments on my choice?

Thanks.

You got a fine TV. Ignore the Best Buy folks and pick up a copy of "Video Essentials", either on regular DVD, or HD DVD - which has the conventional program on the flip side. At the consumer level this will do a good job for you with a minimum of hassle. Getting into the service menu, as Best Buy seems to be suggesting, can cause a big mess if you don't know exactly what you're doing.

Actually, you don't even need Video Essentials. Any recent DVD movie with THX mastering comes with the "THX Optimizer" which is sort of Video Essentials Lite.

[Jon Hiller]

You got a fine TV. Ignore the Best Buy folks and pick up a copy of "Video Essentials", either on regular DVD, or HD DVD - which has the conventional program on the flip side. At the consumer level this will do a good job for you with a minimum of hassle. Getting into the service menu, as Best Buy seems to be suggesting, can cause a big mess if you don't know exactly what you're doing.

Actually, you don't even need Video Essentials. Any recent DVD movie with THX mastering comes with the "THX Optimizer" which is sort of Video Essentials Lite.

Yep. I know "Cars" has the THX optimizer on it. Also, wouldn't getting into the service menu void your warranty if you aren't a service center? I would think that it would. Definitely agree this is not a good idea.

[buckethead99]

I have just bought a Panasonic - 56" 1080p Rear-Projection LCD HDTV.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8396032&type=product&id=1179876928639

http://images.bestbuy.com/BestBuy_US/images/products/8396/8396032_sb.jpg

A Great TV,5 Year warranty on the Lamp,Very good sound and less than a Grand...Of course having a dark room to put it in is Important with Rear-Projection LCD HDTV's...

[NeverTheMachine]

Oh man!! I was using the HD cables that my C.S.P gave me. The HD was okay, then I bought these HDMI monster cables today and the difference is remarkable. I really don't know how much better it can get, but I'm going to look into the optimizer dvd. :)

Thanks for all your help, seriously. I can't wait till the Giants game!!

Do you know anything about blue ray? I think I'm going to eventually wait and get a player when the price drops, and just watch regular dvd's for now. I hear blue ray is better than HD-dvd, but they don't make any blue ray dvd recorders, like from tv to dvd. :confused:

[denvertrakker]

Do you know anything about blue ray? I think I'm going to eventually wait and get a player when the price drops, and just watch regular dvd's for now. I hear blue ray is better than HD-dvd, but they don't make any blue ray dvd recorders, like from tv to dvd. :confused:

IMHO, BluRay and HD DVD are quite similar. Each has some features that the other doesn't. It really looks - as of right now - that BluRay is winning the battle, with Warner Pictures announcement that they will only release on BluRay. The HD DVD camp is getting smaller and smaller. It's kind of like the VHS/Beta wars, and the DVD-A/SACD one also. Another year - or less - will tell the story.

It may be quite a while before you see a BluRay recorder. Not to say they won't be available eventually, but don't sit around waiting for one just yet.

[buckethead99]

Oh man!! I was using the HD cables that my C.S.P gave me. The HD was okay, then I bought these HDMI monster cables today and the difference is remarkable. I really don't know how much better it can get, but I'm going to look into the optimizer dvd. :)

Thanks for all your help, seriously. I can't wait till the Giants game!!

Do you know anything about blue ray? I think I'm going to eventually wait and get a player when the price drops, and just watch regular dvd's for now. I hear blue ray is better than HD-dvd, but they don't make any blue ray dvd recorders, like from tv to dvd. :confused:

On a side note I got tickets to that Game but sold them,I am staying home to watch it ..Game time Temp will be Zero with light winds.....bbrrrrrrrrrrrr...Should be a good one though:thu:

[NeverTheMachine]

I think I'm going to get a playstation 3 in the meantime, because even when they come out with better blue ray players, it will still be useful for other things. Are you familiar with the PS3? They say that it's the best blue ray out there on "cnet.com".

Now that I know the quality I can get with a proper HDMI cable I want to make sure that the HDMI connection I'm using with my TV will give the same quality on blue ray. These are the exact words from the review of the PS3 "HDMI output with 1080p support". What exactly does that mean, is there a different type of HDMI connection needed?

Another quote from that review: "The other disadvantage compared with standalone Blu-ray players is the lack of multichannel analog outputs, which means you'll need to have an HDMI-capable receiver to take advantage of high-resolution audio."

[NeverTheMachine]

On a side note I got tickets to that Game but sold them,I am staying home to watch it ..Game time Temp will be Zero with light winds.....bbrrrrrrrrrrrr...Should be a good one though:thu:

Smart choice .. What time is the game exactly?

[buckethead99]

I think kick off is 5:30,So it will be under the lights,Below Zero and some wind..Giants should be used to those conditions.Going to be a close game I think,or a blowout.

[denvertrakker]

Now that I know the quality I can get with a proper HDMI cable I want to make sure that the HDMI connection I'm using with my TV will give the same quality on blue ray. These are the exact words from the review of the PS3 "HDMI output with 1080p support". What exactly does that mean, is there a different type of HDMI connection needed?

Another quote from that review: "The other disadvantage compared with standalone Blu-ray players is the lack of multichannel analog outputs, which means you'll need to have an HDMI-capable receiver to take advantage of high-resolution audio."

HDMI essentially packages the audio and video in one cable with a single unified connector. As far as I'm aware, an HDMI cable won't give you any better video than a component (RGB) connector. Audio is a different story. The newer surround sound formats are only available via HDMI, assuming your receiver can decode them.

There are also several different levels of HDMI, the newest, IIRC, being 1.3. This may or may not make any difference to you. The "1080p support" mentioned is a function of the PS3 - it has nothing to do with the cable.

If I were going to buy an HDMI cable at this point, I'd look for one that meets the 1.3 standard. It's not necessary to go nuts, however (such as Monster Cable). There are many many reasonably priced, perfectly adequate cables out there from companies such as Belkin, UltraLink and Blue Jeans.

[Jimbroni]

HDMI allows 1080P bandwidth, component doesn't. I'm not exactly sure what components max bandwidth 780P maybe. Its only advantage was the separation of colors on individual throughputs, buts its an analog signal so it goes through conversion which depending on your device will deliver mixed results. HDMI is higher bandwidth with separated colors and no analog convertors. The proof is in the pudding though, things just look better coming through HDMI even SD, IMO. This is most likely because I have digital cable and it is removing one DAC out of the picture. Out of the cable box the difference between component and HDMI is huge, but not so much with my standard DVD player.

[denvertrakker]

HDMI allows 1080P bandwidth, component doesn't. I'm not exactly sure what components max bandwidth 780P maybe. Its only advantage was the separation of colors on individual throughputs, buts its an analog signal so it goes through conversion which depending on your device will deliver mixed results. HDMI is higher bandwidth with separated colors and no analog convertors. The proof is in the pudding though, things just look better coming through HDMI even SD, IMO. This is most likely because I have digital cable and it is removing one DAC out of the picture. Out of the cable box the difference between component and HDMI is huge, but not so much with my standard DVD player.

Actually, component will support up to 1080i. And, as far as the video goes, yes, the signal is transmitted as "digital" - which can reduce interference - but at the display end ALL signals, analog or digital, must be converted to video baseband. So, you still have a conversion stage regardless.

Bottom line - HDMI may do a better job, it may not.

And, BTW, "digital cable" is really just digitally compressed analog. You can look it up.

[Def_Pearl_Pilot]

Not many people consider this but Plasma TVs use 2-3 times as much power as an LCD. Also, LCDs are making many improvements in terms of adjusting backlighting for better blacks and image "guessing" technology to improve performance when watch a football game for example.

I'd go with LCD.

[moogerfooger]

Not many people consider this but Plasma TVs use 2-3 times as much power as an LCD. Also, LCDs are making many improvements in terms of adjusting backlighting for better blacks and image "guessing" technology to improve performance when watch a football game for example.

I'd go with LCD.

:thu:

[Jimbroni]

Actually, component will support up to 1080i. And, as far as the video goes, yes, the signal is transmitted as "digital" - which can reduce interference - but at the display end ALL signals, analog or digital, must be converted to video baseband. So, you still have a conversion stage regardless.

Bottom line - HDMI may do a better job, it may not.

And, BTW, "digital cable" is really just digitally compressed analog. You can look it up.

Interesting, you seem to know your stuff. Somewhere along the line I was given the impression Component was analog signal apparently not as you say. Either way HDMI signal at the end result look better to my eyes. It could be the TV convertors, just have better HDMI than component.

[NeverTheMachine]

Interesting, you seem to know your stuff. Somewhere along the line I was given the impression Component was analog signal apparently not as you say. Either way HDMI signal at the end result look better to my eyes. It could be the TV convertors, just have better HDMI than component.

For me, HDMI is in a whole other level compared to component, [video wise]. It's also a lot less cumbersome. The only issue is compatibility with some cable boxes, but there are updates for that once everyone inevitably switches to HDMI.

[arracado]

If you're OK with black levels that are not optimal, the rear-projection sets are the best value right now. Because they are awesome in every other respect, and as they are discontinued their prices will drop like a stone.

Yup, that's why I'll be getting one of these in the near future:
http://www.circuitcity.com/ccd/productDetail.do?oid=177533&linkid=j13459594k1971&affiliateid=k1971&mid=sduidp0t729403

[realtrance]

I just decided to skip LCD and Plasma entirely, after seeing this!

http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&categoryId=8198552921644539854


:eek::eek::eek:

:love::love::love:

[denvertrakker]

I just decided to skip LCD and Plasma entirely, after seeing this!

http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&categoryId=8198552921644539854


:eek::eek::eek:

:love::love::love:

Um, that's an ELEVEN INCH $2500 TV.

OLED is about four-five years away from being a competitive technology.

[sahlomonic]

Just to clarify . . . there are some components that will allow 1080p transfer via component cables, but very rare. And whoever bought the Monster HDMI cables, probably should take it back and go to monoprice.com for HDMI cables, and pretty much all the cabling/wiring you need. Monster is roughly an 80% markup and severly overpriced (unless you get them off the 'bay like I do, so they're cheap). Also, most HDMI cables are pretty much the same. It is a digital transfer, meaning you get all or nothing. Unlike component cables, which are analog, so quality does count with those. Now having said that, there are different ratings/certifications for HDMI cables, like said earlier, with 1.1 up to 1.3a. You can get 1080p transfer with most HDMI cables, but I have found that some simply just can't do it. Ignore the Monster "Speed Ratings" unless you have HDMI 1.3 on your TV set, your source (BD player, etc), AND your AV receiver. And if you're using x.v.color, lip sync correction, etc. Your output is only as good as its source, and every connection after that. For instance, my TV has 1.3 (Sony 60A3000), PS3 has 1.3, but my Denon 4306 is only 1.2 (or 1.1, can't remember), so I can either get a generic pair of HDMI cables, or spend a little more on a 1.3 certified cable and bypass the receiver and go straight to the TV, then output audio from the source via optical to the receiver.

Also, the 65" Toshiba DLP . . . cheap for a reason. I was tempted to buy that as well, but went with my A3000 instead. I will say they have a decent picture, but motion is another story. Motion on a TV is often overlooked - most people just look at the bright saturated colors and think that is what makes a good TV, when in reality that's just the start. You'll see a lot of "judder" on the Toshiba because it cannot do the 3:2 pulldown for a smooth frame rate. My Sony TV even struggles with that, and it has a 120hz refresh rate.

[odo]

I have to disagree. HD is worlds better than conventional television, and 16:9 is so much better for film.

And I do think plasma have the edge on picture quality, mainly in respect to color and view angle.

I understand the burn in thing is getting better, but when you plan have a computer desktop on your screen for periods of time, I didn't wanna take the risk.


Plasma's burn REALLY easly.

[vitod]

LCD all the way. They look just as good as Plasma.

[arracado]

Yup, that's why I'll be getting one of these in the near future:
http://www.circuitcity.com/ccd/productDetail.do?oid=177533&linkid=j13459594k1971&affiliateid=k1971&mid=sduidp0t729403

Ended up getting the 62" version of this TV from Costco, with the stand, for $1200. It's fantastic!

[sahlomonic]

A few years ago LCD couldn't touch Plasma in terms of performance- now LCD's are almost identical in terms of what they can reproduce vs. Plasmas. Also, plasmas are on the way out. Pioneer just announced last month they're gonna stop making plasmas and switch to LCD and buy their panels from Panasonic's supplier. Sony did the same a few years ago. LCD's use much less power, and give off much less heat than PDP's (Plasma Display Panels) do.

[sahlomonic]

I, however, opted for a 60" Sony SXRD (KDS-60A3000). I didn't care much for a flat panel or something to mount to a wall, so that opened up a lot of choices. Mine's having a little trouble with handling motion, as its very choppy and juddery, so its going in the shop Tuesday to get looked at. It also had slight convergence problems, but it was easy adjusting that in the service menu.

[Akcar]

Nice article from http://www.testfreaks.com/televisions/ "Which TV should I buy. I think it will help a bit before you buy new TV:

Your first thought should not be what TV set, but how – and to what – you are going to use your new TV. TVs have gone through a rapid development the last decade, and today we have flat, widescreen TVs HD-capable or even Full-HD picture quality, often combined with a movie theater sound system. This rapid evolution has resulted in a variety of different standards and connection possibilities - that of course create a lot of confusion for the normal consumer. And to add on to that confusion one could also choose between projector and back projection sets - which we won’t cover in this article.

Plasma or LCD and HD or Full-HD?
Regarding Plasma or LCD you don’t need to worry too much: the LCD screens have improved rapidly and have excellent picture quality. There are still some differences; unarguably have plasmas higher contrast ratio, but today’s LCD panels have almost always ratios over 1000:1 which is enough to satisfy the human eye. Response time is normally better for plasmas, but also here have the LCDs improved rapidly. Regarding colors finally, plasma are better for moving pictures whereas LCD are better for static pictures. Another benefit of the LCD is the higher resolution. There are also price differences, so if you are thinking of a really large screen, above 40 inches or so, you will probably go for plasma. And be sure that there are new and better interesting technologies just around the corner.

Also regarding HD or Full-HD, screen size is one of the deciding factors together with distance from the viewing point. If you buy a screen around 50 inches or larger and sit only a few meters away (2-3m) you will unarguably need a Full-HD. In other cases, the visible difference is insignificant. If you are going to connect it to a game console, a computer or a blue-ray player, the best choice might be a Full-HD set for maximum quality.

An important issue for all sets is how well they perform in daylight. Many TV sets show excellent picture quality when the room is dark, but not always in daylight. Some TVs have solutions that automatically adjust the picture according to the lighting of the room – an important feature, for example, in a summer house.

The range of TV-sets is wide, there still exists CRT-TVs, but they are often older models that are still being manufactured. The majority of all TV-sets today are flat-screens. The lower price range means a flat screen set with basic functions, often but not always HD-ready and with few connection possibilities. These TV sets usually deliver good value for money, but are often based on older technologies and therefore not compatible with all of the latest features. Next step are models with more features and the latest technology. They might come with built-in digital tuners and/or DVD-players. Finally, there are advanced TV-sets, for those who want to build their own system. They are often based on a separate media center with possibility to drive more than one screen, for example, one flat screen and one projector. It is important in all cases that you check the set you buy has the possibility to connect the equipment you are going to use, such as a computer or more than one video source.

So when you have decided how and to what you are going to use your TV set, look for tests of the interesting models – and remember that picture quality is more important than technology.

TIP:
A flat screen TV set is often mounted directly to the wall, but look at a somewhat more flexible solution. There are many manufacturers of wall mounts with possibility to rotate the TV set; some of them also have brackets for center speakers and set top boxes.