What 60" TV is best bang for the buck?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Sep 29, 2004
18,656
67
91
OK.... plasmas. I read up on the pros/cons and I think the LED thing is not something I am locked into anymore.

I'll consider plasmas.
 

JackBurton

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
15,993
14
81
I did not say why, this is true. the answer is because I want ot use less electricity. Has nothing to do with economics. Just personal choice. I know a plasma might cost $30/year to power and a LED, $15.

The other thing is the room that this is going in has alot of widnows. Plasma have glossy screams and LEDs are matte.

That's not necessarily always the case.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
I did not say why, this is true. the answer is because I want ot use less electricity. Has nothing to do with economics. Just personal choice. I know a plasma might cost $30/year to power and a LED, $15.

The other thing is the room that this is going in has alot of widnows. Plasma have glossy screams and LEDs are matte.

Not all LED are matte and there are many LED based LCD screens that are as reflective as any Plasma. Sony had a few models that gave excellent quality but had poor reflective properties. Their newer sets especially the higher end, are better.

OK.... plasmas. I read up on the pros/cons and I think the LED thing is not something I am locked into anymore.

I'll consider plasmas.

Look into the Panasonic VT60 then. Great picture quality and it doesn't introduce a terrible amount of input lag like the ST60. If gaming isn't a primary usage or a concern, the ST60 is also worth a look. It's also about the best value you will find for TV and movies.
 
Last edited:
Sep 29, 2004
18,656
67
91
Not all LED are matte and there are many LED based LCD screens that are as reflective as any Plasma. Sony had a few models that gave excellent quality but had poor reflective properties. Their newer sets especially the higher end, are better.



Look into the Panasonic VT60 then. Great picture quality and it doesn't introduce a terrible amount of input lag like the ST60. If gaming isn't a primary usage or a concern, the ST60 is also worth a look. It's also about the best value you will find for TV and movies.

I've read good things about the VT60. Supposed to be a best bang for the buck TV. Why would the VT60 have less lag than the ST60? Aren't the electronics other than the screen itself the same? Is it the screen that is actually a bottleneck somehow?

The ST60 at Best Buy is $1500. The VT60 is $1850. $1500 is OK. $1850 is really pushing it.

What is all this about lag? Isn't that all resolved now with modern tech? Even my 7 year old plasma doesn't seem to "lag" at all.
 
Last edited:

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
What is all this about lag? Isn't that all resolved now with modern tech? Even my 7 year old plasma doesn't seem to "lag" at all.

lag is very subjective it seems. My NEC LCD2490WUXi is fine for me, but many complained about lag and the like when it was out.
 

poofyhairguy

Lifer
Nov 20, 2005
14,612
318
126
There ARE good LCD panels out there if you bother to look. No need to be elitist about Plasma which is a dead technology anyway.

Out of CNET's top 5 TVs for picture quality in 2013 it reads like:

1. Best Panny plasma
2. Second best Panny plasma
3. Best Samsung plasma
4. Third best Panny plasma (aka MID RANGE unit)
5. Sony's best LCD TV that doesn't have a 60 inch model

http://reviews.cnet.com/best-tvs-picture-quality/

So yes, if OP really wants the best 60 inch value you can buy in 2013 it will be a plasma. A midrange Panny beats the best LEDs out there for PQ.

The fact that they aren't being made anymore should be the thing to push OP to buy, as starting next year the AVS Forum will beech and beech about how "nothing out today matches that old 2013 Panny" for at least four years or however long it takes a 60+ inch sub $4k OLED to be released. Just like what happened with the Kuros.

I know I am glad I bought my 65 inch Panny before the great TV drought begins.....
 
Last edited:

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
There ARE good LCD panels out there if you bother to look. No need to be elitist about Plasma which is a dead technology anyway.

Yes they want it killed. Too much resources.

Plasma was the CRT solution. They R&D'd the shit out of it.

The jump to LCD/LED was easy.
 

Midwayman

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2000
5,723
325
126
Yes they want it killed. Too much resources.

Plasma was the CRT solution. They R&D'd the shit out of it.

The jump to LCD/LED was easy.

Not enough profit margin, and they don't do so well in showroom that are way brighter lit than any room you'll ever watch tv in.
 

Midwayman

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2000
5,723
325
126
There ARE good LCD panels out there if you bother to look. No need to be elitist about Plasma which is a dead technology anyway.

Why setting for 'good' when you can have great or fantastic. Especially when it costs less.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
Why setting for 'good' when you can have great or fantastic. Especially when it costs less.

There are other trade offs like heat generation, power savings, reflectiveness of the screen, input lag.

The point is, there are reasons someone would want a Plasma but it also isn't the end all be all. If it was, they would be moving to 4k with them.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
Out of CNET's top 5 TVs for picture quality in 2013 it reads like:

1. Best Panny plasma
2. Second best Panny plasma
3. Best Samsung plasma
4. Third best Panny plasma (aka MID RANGE unit)
5. Sony's best LCD TV that doesn't have a 60 inch model

http://reviews.cnet.com/best-tvs-picture-quality/

So yes, if OP really wants the best 60 inch value you can buy in 2013 it will be a plasma. A midrange Panny beats the best LEDs out there for PQ.

The fact that they aren't being made anymore should be the thing to push OP to buy, as starting next year the AVS Forum will beech and beech about how "nothing out today matches that old 2013 Panny" for at least four years or however long it takes a 60+ inch sub $4k OLED to be released. Just like what happened with the Kuros.

I know I am glad I bought my 65 inch Panny before the great TV drought begins.....

So when it breaks you'll never watch TV again? In a few years people will forget Plasma even existed. The move to 4k will be slow but Plasma won't bring us there. I own a Plasma but I'm not blind to the rest of the market either.
 
Sep 29, 2004
18,656
67
91
I think I am sold on the Panny VT60 or ST60. It will probably come down to whether or not I want to drop the extra $350 on the VT60. Reading on this more, seems like Plasmas are going by by soon and some suspect that TVs with such high quality output will not be around till OLEDs are cheap for joe average consumer.
 

poofyhairguy

Lifer
Nov 20, 2005
14,612
318
126
So when it breaks you'll never watch TV again? In a few years people will forget Plasma even existed.

Maybe in five-ten years when OLED is affordable.

The move to 4k will be slow but Plasma won't bring us there. I own a Plasma but I'm not blind to the rest of the market either.

4K lacks a killer app. No mainstream content delivery platform nor a powerful enough game console to really exploit the advantage.

When 4K is ready OLED will be ready.
 

Zivic

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2002
3,505
38
91
I think I am sold on the Panny VT60 or ST60. It will probably come down to whether or not I want to drop the extra $350 on the VT60. Reading on this more, seems like Plasmas are going by by soon and some suspect that TVs with such high quality output will not be around till OLEDs are cheap for joe average consumer.

for 350 get the VT.
 

Midwayman

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2000
5,723
325
126
There are other trade offs like heat generation, power savings, reflectiveness of the screen, input lag.

The point is, there are reasons someone would want a Plasma but it also isn't the end all be all. If it was, they would be moving to 4k with them.

Heat and power are minimal considerations. IE the price difference is something like 60 years of power savings. Reflectiveness is a per model issue. LCD's have some pretty glossy screens too. Aside from the st60 (for whatever reason) plasma actually has really good input lag.

Whatever reason they're not moving forward with plasma, its sure doesn't look like its a technical one.
 

Midwayman

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2000
5,723
325
126
4K lacks a killer app. No mainstream content delivery platform nor a powerful enough game console to really exploit the advantage.

When 4K is ready OLED will be ready.

4k is kinda a joke. You'll have to have a far larger screen than most people have room for to really take advantage of the resolution. We have a hard time delivering a quality signal even at 1080p. There is pretty much zero content for it. I totally agree that OLED or another tech will have stepped up by the time 4k is worthwhile. I expect the transition to be slower than HD. We don't have the digital broadcast transition to help push people along into ordering new TVs. There will always be the junkies who want it, but I think It'll be like laserdisc.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Heat and power are minimal considerations. IE the price difference is something like 60 years of power savings. Reflectiveness is a per model issue. LCD's have some pretty glossy screens too. Aside from the st60 (for whatever reason) plasma actually has really good input lag.

Whatever reason they're not moving forward with plasma, its sure doesn't look like its a technical one.

green mandates.
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
4k is kinda a joke. You'll have to have a far larger screen than most people have room for to really take advantage of the resolution. We have a hard time delivering a quality signal even at 1080p. There is pretty much zero content for it. I totally agree that OLED or another tech will have stepped up by the time 4k is worthwhile. I expect the transition to be slower than HD. We don't have the digital broadcast transition to help push people along into ordering new TVs. There will always be the junkies who want it, but I think It'll be like laserdisc.

It really is unfortunate - the market teases 4K right now, but honestly, we US consumers will be relying upon the TV's upscaler for a long time. Honestly, I expect 4K-specific Blu-ray and players before we have 4K broadcasts.

We don't have the networks for it - because the backbone providers and main ISPs have refused to develop a network that expensive to satisfy the population distribution across the entire country. We have a major setback in that detail, something most European countries and a place like Japan has not had to deal with. Businesses there have had significant financial success both expanding and supporting a massive and fast network, and offering it at cheap monthly rates to boot, at least in comparison to prices we know.


It would be a significant cash cost for these providers to expand to support the consistent data rates of high-bandwidth streams to what should be planned as every single household in the country (that will never be true, most likely, but for this network to be successful, they must plan it so). 4K, even interlaced, would be a significant stream size. We can't even get cable providers to provide 1080p, it's all 720p or 1080i. (all you 1080i vs 1080p folks - go home, you're drunk. we aren't going there. :p)

Hopefully, soon, some provider makes significant headway, or this people ditching cable to go all streaming movement seriously takes off (both cable and streams and other services get my moneys :(), because someone needs to shake things up and get the cable providers scrambling.