Flat Screen TV shopping
- Thread starter seigezunt
- Start date
Clearly your reading comprehension is lacking, or you are intentionally being dishonest.
In case its the former and not the latter, I will help you out by breaking it down for you:
What I said:
What you attributed to me:
You will notice that my actual statement is fairly precise, in that I specify what aspect of the plasma display technology is better then the LCD technology: picture fidelity.
FYI, the Oxford dictionary defines the word "fidelity" thusly:
It is the second definition that applies here, FYI.
Next, you may ask yourself why I italicized the word "technology" in my first point. It is because it was another important aspect of my original statement and why I was confused when you started talking about a Kuro being better than a Sanyo plasma. I feel kind of stupid saying this because I would have though it be self evident but clearly you didn't understand it, so here it goes: I was making a statement about the two different display technologies, plasma and lcd, in relation to their picture fidelity. There was no mentions of any brands or other factors such as cost or energy consumption.
Thus your comment about my plasma being a Kuro made no sense. What I have, or how shitty Sanyo plasmas may be, has no relation to the fact that the plasma technology is better than lcd technology when it comes to faithfully reproducing picture colours and blacks.
I hope that helps you understand.
Clearly your reading comprehension is lacking, or you are intentionally being dishonest.
In case its the former and not the latter, I will help you out by breaking it down for you:
What I said:
What you attributed to me:
You will notice that my actual statement is fairly precise, in that I specify what aspect of the plasma display technology is better then the LCD technology: picture fidelity.
FYI, the Oxford dictionary defines the word "fidelity" thusly:
It is the second definition that applies here, FYI.
Next, you may ask yourself why I italicized the word "technology" in my first point. It is because it was another important aspect of my original statement and why I was confused when you started talking about a Kuro being better than a Sanyo plasma. I feel kind of stupid saying this because I would have though it be self evident but clearly you didn't understand it, so here it goes: I was making a statement about the two different display technologies, plasma and lcd, in relation to their picture fidelity. There was no mentions of any brands or other factors such as cost or energy consumption.
Thus your comment about my plasma being a Kuro made no sense. What I have, or how shitty Sanyo plasmas may be, has no relation to the fact that the plasma technology is better than lcd technology when it comes to faithfully reproducing picture colours and blacks.
I hope that helps you understand.
You fail..... I total understand what you are trying to say. And I ill agree that in SOME cases plasma is better then LCD..
However, you also own a top of the line plasma. IT'S better then 75% of the LCD market.. But if you said you just owned a plasma i'd ask you what you had.
Think of it like this, Person A loves his Sony XBR he has HD cable. He says LCD is the king shit. Person B owns a Vizio hooked up to SH cable. He say his tv is nothing but shit..
It's all about context my friend.
Sorry, no. You clearly do not understand.
First, I provided the context in my original statement and then elaborated on it when you tried to misquote me.
The context is: display technology in terms of picture fidelity.
Second, because of the context I provided this discussion is not at all about opinion or brand names or what someone thinks is 'the shit'. It is about the two technologies and how faithfully they can reproduce real life.
In that context, it doesn't matter what you or anyone else 'likes' or 'dislikes'. It is entirely possible to, and a lot of people do, prefer a TV that displays an image that is not accurate (most people prefer images to be brighter than they should be). Just because you prefer your picture to be wrong does not mean that the TV technology is better. This has nothing to do with how much I like my Kuro or how much someone else likes their LCD, it has nothing to do with what I or anyone else owns, its about the technology, I think that is one of the key things you aren't grasping.
Bottom line is this: Plasma technology is better able to reproduce real life colours and blacks, its images are more faithful to real life, than LCD technology. As such, Plasma is the better display technology.
Which is exactly what my original statement was.
Now, if our context was power consumption, LCD is the better technology... but that is not our context and power consumption is not a key factor in how people choose the TV they buy. A TV is a display device, and one of the key factors for people when deciding on what TV to get is picture quality (along with things like cost and size).
Again, hope that helps you understand (just how wrong you are )
First, I provided the context in my original statement and then elaborated on it when you tried to misquote me.
The context is: display technology in terms of picture fidelity.
Second, because of the context I provided this discussion is not at all about opinion or brand names or what someone thinks is 'the shit'. It is about the two technologies and how faithfully they can reproduce real life.
In that context, it doesn't matter what you or anyone else 'likes' or 'dislikes'. It is entirely possible to, and a lot of people do, prefer a TV that displays an image that is not accurate (most people prefer images to be brighter than they should be). Just because you prefer your picture to be wrong does not mean that the TV technology is better. This has nothing to do with how much I like my Kuro or how much someone else likes their LCD, it has nothing to do with what I or anyone else owns, its about the technology, I think that is one of the key things you aren't grasping.
Bottom line is this: Plasma technology is better able to reproduce real life colours and blacks, its images are more faithful to real life, than LCD technology. As such, Plasma is the better display technology.
Which is exactly what my original statement was.
Now, if our context was power consumption, LCD is the better technology... but that is not our context and power consumption is not a key factor in how people choose the TV they buy. A TV is a display device, and one of the key factors for people when deciding on what TV to get is picture quality (along with things like cost and size).
Again, hope that helps you understand (just how wrong you are
)
Last edited:
Sorry, no. You clearly do not understand.
First, I provided the context in my original statement and then elaborated on it when you tried to misquote me.
The context is: display technology in terms of picture fidelity.
Second, because of the context I provided this discussion is not at all about opinion or brand names or what someone thinks is 'the shit'. It is about the two technologies and how faithfully they can reproduce real life.
In that context, it doesn't matter what you or anyone else 'likes' or 'dislikes'. It is entirely possible to, and a lot of people do, prefer a TV that displays an image that is not accurate (most people prefer images to be brighter than they should be). Just because you prefer your picture to be wrong does not mean that the TV technology is better. This has nothing to do with how much I like my Kuro or how much someone else likes their LCD, it has nothing to do with what I or anyone else owns, its about the technology, I think that is one of the key things you aren't grasping.
Bottom line is this: Plasma technology is better able to reproduce real life colours and blacks, its images are more faithful to real life, than LCD technology. As such, Plasma is the better display technology.
Which is exactly what my original statement was.
Now, if our context was power consumption, LCD is the better technology... but that is not our context and power consumption is not a key factor in how people choose the TV they buy. A TV is a display device, and one of the key factors for people when deciding on what TV to get is picture quality (along with things like cost and size).
Again, hope that helps you understand (just how wrong you are
I would agree that at one time Plasma was the way to go... However, things are very different then they were 5,3, even 2 years ago... I'll take an LED lit LCD ANYDAY over ANY plasma on the market... Hell, I used to own a plasma. I found it lacking...
Point is we can go back and forth till we puke coathangers... Lets just agree to disagree..
...did you read what I wrote? Good grief how many times do I have to repeat myself?
This has nothing to do with what you would "pick". It has nothing to do with your ownership of a substandard Plasma TV in the past.
It deals with picture fidelity, which is measurable, it can be measured and quantified, its empirical data. Plasma is better at it. Period.
You can disagree with it, just like people can disagree with the fact that the earth rotates around the sun and not vice versa... just means you are wrong. No biggie, not everyone can be right.
This has nothing to do with what you would "pick". It has nothing to do with your ownership of a substandard Plasma TV in the past.
It deals with picture fidelity, which is measurable, it can be measured and quantified, its empirical data. Plasma is better at it. Period.
You can disagree with it, just like people can disagree with the fact that the earth rotates around the sun and not vice versa... just means you are wrong. No biggie, not everyone can be right.
...did you read what I wrote? Good grief how many times do I have to repeat myself?
This has nothing to do with what you would "pick". It has nothing to do with your ownership of a substandard Plasma TV in the past.
It deals with picture fidelity, which is measurable, it can be measured and quantified, its empirical data. Plasma is better at it. Period.
You can disagree with it, just like people can disagree with the fact that the earth rotates around the sun and not vice versa... just means you are wrong. No biggie, not everyone can be right.
Saying Plasma is better period? YOU FAIL... All TV tech has their up's and down's. I could go through them all.. But really, what's the point.. You are hopelessly bias to plasma... But it's all good..
Did you miss the part where I explained the context of my statement, and where I provided another context where LCD is better? Or are you just being thick on purpose to be an @ss?
Did you miss the part where I explained the context of my statement, and where I provided another context where LCD is better? Or are you just being thick on purpose to be an @ss?
And thats what i'm telling you.. Your context is wrong..
Did you miss the part where I explained the context of my statement, and where I provided another context where LCD is better? Or are you just being thick on purpose to be an @ss?
And thats what i'm telling you.. Your context is wrong..
Really? I would think that display picture quality would be paramount for a device who's primary fuction is to... display... pictures... or did we somehow change the conversation to be about toasters without me noticing it?
But seriously... I'm making a statement and I'm providing a context for my statement... how could that context be wrong?
Sorry dude, you are grasping at straws and its showing, especially with this latest nonsense where apparently the context I provided for a statement I made... is wrong, cause you said so. :S
I have two Samsung flat screen LCDs, 40" and 26". They are amazing TVs and I recommend them highly. The 40" is in a room with a lot of daylight and it is plenty bright to see.
If you live in an area where electricity is expensive (like the EU) I wouldn't get a plasma for that reason alone.
Yeah, I think I'm leaning towards the Samsung anyway, based on the reviews. They have the 46-inch 610 series at Costco for a good price, it appears.
Similar threads
