• Hello and Welcome to HiFiVision.com - an online community for the home entertainment and tech enthusiasts!

    If you would like to ask a question, participate in a discussion and view attachments please Register yourself.

Need opinion on the new 32" LG Plasma

Wharfedale Linton Heritage Speakers

tian

New Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
18
Points
0
Location
Pune
I just checked the new LG 32" plasma TV side-by-side a Samsung 5-series 32" LCD and the Sony V-series 32" LCD. All TVs were playing Tata-Sky Neo-Sports

The LG picture had a lower contrast and seemed less bright but still looked much better than the LCD. Especially the written words seemed much clearer on the Plasma. Even the viewing distance seemed much lesser in the Plasma.

Now I am really inclined towards the Plasma, but am still not convinced since the LCD seem to be selling mre than the Plasma. Also its an LG product and I have seldom read anything nice about LG.

Can someone please let me know whether this is a good TV to go for. I have heard a lot about burning in issues with Plasma. Any help in this regard on this TV will help.
 

adder

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
2,571
Points
83
Location
bangalore
well the 32inch version of V series has a company claimed contrast of 1800:1 but in reality it will be less around 1200 to 1400:1 contrast,but the samsung on the other hand has higher contrast then the 32inch sony V series,also samsung series 5 is a FHD lcd and so for SD it wont be good,compared to plasma.
 

mridulgoel

Banned
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
744
Points
0
Location
Bangalore | Bhopal | Hyderabad | Mumbai
well the 32inch version of V series has a company claimed contrast of 1800:1 but in reality it will be less around 1200 to 1400:1 contrast,but the samsung on the other hand has higher contrast then the 32inch sony V series,also samsung series 5 is a FHD lcd and so for SD it wont be good,compared to plasma.

bro

anything that is labelled lg sucks in terms of quality..
and give it thought how did lg gt the plasma 32" in market when no other is willing to do so...
the reason is tht as per recent upgradation..plasma below 42" still sucks..in all...

so avoid tht...
 

vinod_david

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
2,292
Points
83
Location
Chennai
I just checked the new LG 32" plasma TV side-by-side a Samsung 5-series 32" LCD and the Sony V-series 32" LCD. All TVs were playing Tata-Sky Neo-Sports

The LG picture had a lower contrast and seemed less bright but still looked much better than the LCD. Especially the written words seemed much clearer on the Plasma. Even the viewing distance seemed much lesser in the Plasma.

Now I am really inclined towards the Plasma, but am still not convinced since the LCD seem to be selling mre than the Plasma. Also its an LG product and I have seldom read anything nice about LG.

Can someone please let me know whether this is a good TV to go for. I have heard a lot about burning in issues with Plasma. Any help in this regard on this TV will help.

Hi:

After a side-by-side comparison of 32" plasma and a 32" LCD of LG, my conclusion was 32" plasma from LG is totally bull:eek:. The PQ was very dull as if a a veil was put in front of the screen, not at all enjoyable. But, the 32" LCD was very enjoyable in terms of PQ. For that matter, you can take the plunge and get a Samsung 32" 5 series or a Sony LCD.:)

Having said that, if you have the money and the desire for a bigger screen, you are in a treat when you watch a 42" plasma of any brand:D
 

adder

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
2,571
Points
83
Location
bangalore
bro

anything that is labelled lg sucks in terms of quality..
and give it thought how did lg gt the plasma 32" in market when no other is willing to do so...
the reason is tht as per recent upgradation..plasma below 42" still sucks..in all...

so avoid tht...

well i do agree on that part about LG, yes it sucks.
 

psychotropic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
2,832
Points
83
Location
Chennai, India
Warning

the LG 32" Plasma is SD only....which is why Tata Sky will look better, becaues it's native resolution is 480p......and it does not have to do any scaling....but it's a total waste if you want any HD content....so please please avoid this 32" LG Plasma at all costs......the other products from LG are also slightly deficient in many ways....but this particular one is a steaming pile of shit....
 

psychotropic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
2,832
Points
83
Location
Chennai, India
yes boss, like vinod said.....put up a bit more cash......and enjoy the beauty of a 42" plasma......51k for the panasonic PV8 is the last lowest price i heard....even if you don't get that price and get a 53-55k price....it's a great deal....as is the samsung 410 I owned which i picked up for 55,500 but would probably now cost less....
 

vinod_david

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
2,292
Points
83
Location
Chennai
yes boss, like vinod said.....put up a bit more cash......and enjoy the beauty of a 42" plasma......51k for the panasonic PV8 is the last lowest price i heard....even if you don't get that price and get a 53-55k price....it's a great deal....as is the samsung 410 I owned which i picked up for 55,500 but would probably now cost less....

Hey, two days back, I had a demo of your Samsung 42" 410 plasma at T.nagar, WOW, it's a stunning tv indeed. SD content were excellent, stood very close to the screen, still the SD picture looked stunning. I loved the panel, its really beautiful, far better than Pany PV8:D, sound was excelllent too.

Now, after SD treat, the guy put me HD, 'i was floored:D'. Now, I have this feeling does it beat the PV8 in HD department??, am not sure, and am confused now, the HD pictures i was seeing in Sammy 410 was stunning, i just loved it.

The guy said its not 100 Hz, is it psyh ??

Oh, the price as of now:

Samsung 410 plasma - 53k
Pannsonic PV8 plasma - 53k

What to do :confused:
 

phantom76

New Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
88
Points
0
Location
Bangalore
yes boss, like vinod said.....put up a bit more cash......and enjoy the beauty of a 42" plasma......51k for the panasonic PV8 is the last lowest price i heard....even if you don't get that price and get a 53-55k price....it's a great deal....as is the samsung 410 I owned which i picked up for 55,500 but would probably now cost less....

Two of my friends got the PV8 for 49k yesterday!
 

psychotropic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
2,832
Points
83
Location
Chennai, India
I was trawling through some of the foreign discussion forums...including the AVS forums....and the sentiment that I was seeing throughout was that the 410 and 450 were superior to the PV8 in terms of colour reproduction and overall image quality, whereas the PV8 was better in terms of blacks. And yes the device itself looks a lot more attractive than the Panny. End of the day, if you liked the picture on the 410 better, you must go for it, unless you get a significantly better deal on the PV8H (in which case you must also hunt for a comparable deal on the 410).

No, the 410 does not have 100hz, and neither does the PV8, but that's much less of an issue on a plasma than on an LCD. It's a gem of a budget TV....so go for it :)

Hey, two days back, I had a demo of your Samsung 42" 410 plasma at T.nagar, WOW, it's a stunning tv indeed. SD content were excellent, stood very close to the screen, still the SD picture looked stunning. I loved the panel, its really beautiful, far better than Pany PV8:D, sound was excelllent too.

Now, after SD treat, the guy put me HD, 'i was floored:D'. Now, I have this feeling does it beat the PV8 in HD department??, am not sure, and am confused now, the HD pictures i was seeing in Sammy 410 was stunning, i just loved it.

The guy said its not 100 Hz, is it psyh ??

Oh, the price as of now:

Samsung 410 plasma - 53k
Pannsonic PV8 plasma - 53k

What to do :confused:
 

tian

New Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
18
Points
0
Location
Pune
bro
give it thought how did lg gt the plasma 32" in market when no other is willing to do so...
the reason is tht as per recent upgradation..plasma below 42" still sucks..

Why is it that Plasma below 42" suck? Is it because the technology is not evolved or is it some contraint that plasma's have to be above a certain size. Now that you mention it, it is worth pondering why manufacturers don't make 32" plasma?

Also my shortest viewing distance from the TV is going to be 8 feet. Is that too less for a 42" plasma?

From all that I have read I want to go for a plasma, but am skeptical on whether I am buying too big a screen for my viewing area?
 

psychotropic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
2,832
Points
83
Location
Chennai, India
it's because no one makes any decent plasma panels below 42". The LG 32" one is STANDARD DEFINITION only....which is a big con job. So don't even touch it.

8 feet is more than sufficient for 42" HD Ready plasma. I sit 7.5 feet away from mine and it's perfect. Combine a 42" plasma with a viewing distance between 7 and 8 feet...and you get a fantasticaly immersive viewing experience. Keep it farther away and you are losing the size and scale without gaining anything. So go for a 42" Plasma. If it's available for 49k, then don't even think twice.


Why is it that Plasma below 42" suck? Is it because the technology is not evolved or is it some contraint that plasma's have to be above a certain size. Now that you mention it, it is worth pondering why manufacturers don't make 32" plasma?

Also my shortest viewing distance from the TV is going to be 8 feet. Is that too less for a 42" plasma?

From all that I have read I want to go for a plasma, but am skeptical on whether I am buying too big a screen for my viewing area?
 

mridulgoel

Banned
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
744
Points
0
Location
Bangalore | Bhopal | Hyderabad | Mumbai
Why is it that Plasma below 42" suck? Is it because the technology is not evolved or is it some contraint that plasma's have to be above a certain size. Now that you mention it, it is worth pondering why manufacturers don't make 32" plasma?

Also my shortest viewing distance from the TV is going to be 8 feet. Is that too less for a 42" plasma?

From all that I have read I want to go for a plasma, but am skeptical on whether I am buying too big a screen for my viewing area?

Yes bro

8 feets is too small distance...

max to max 37"...or 32" is best recommended for that viewing distance...

Now, regarding 32" Plasma, the problem is with the technology...
the heat, the clarity, and the span life are the problems...
 

Dushie

New Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
1,676
Points
0
Location
Bangalore
Yep, i am also interested in finding out from where they bought the same for 49k as its a gr8 price for the set.

please provide the dealer name and contact details .
 

Dushie

New Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
1,676
Points
0
Location
Bangalore
Well i called the panasonic brand shop in Koramangala Bangalore and they are quoting 53k for the Pv8
 

anuragn

Active Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2008
Messages
488
Points
28
Location
Navi Mumbai
Yes bro

8 feets is too small distance...

max to max 37"...or 32" is best recommended for that viewing distance...

Now, regarding 32" Plasma, the problem is with the technology...
the heat, the clarity, and the span life are the problems...

Heat is no more a problem with plasmas. My 42" plasma becomes only as hot as my smaller 32" LCD.
And claimed life of plasma is nowadays 100,000 hours. To be conservative, assume it to be 50,000 hours, which still means 17 years of service with 8 hrs daily usage.
Viewing distance is somewhat subjective. I felt 8-9 feet too close for 42", then changed the set-up of the room so that now viewing distance is a comfortable 10-11 feet.
 
Top