RIP Pioneer TVs

[Christofuh]

Pio was going to exit the business of plasma panel manufacturing regardless.
Their plan was reported to have been to partner up with Panasonic in order to source the latter's plasma which would then be married to superior Pio video circuitry.
Gotta wonder what's the status of that.
In terms of LCD supposedly producing better than plasma PQ, you oughta put the pipe down

SONY has a new, sexy looking set out retailing for $4K for a "40 screen: KLV-40ZX1M

 

[acidboy]

yeah, talked to my friend who's into CE retailing. Pioneer already informed the distributors, and it looks like they're just gonna settle into audio- specially car audio where they feel they're strong.

 

[TheFoo]

I'm not all that well-versed, but I was under the impression that the LCD/plasma debate was much less decided amongst enthusiasts than it is often made out to be on this forum. Plasma people often say they get better black levels, but the image is also arguably dimmer and compromised by the blackness between all the cells. I always understood the downside of LCDs to be blurring when there is too much fast motion on the screen because of lower refresh rates.

Also, a few years ago, it seemed LCDs were more expensive. I'm not sure if this has changed since (sounds like it has), but that doesn't indicate anything about relative image quality.

The only thing not debatable is the dominance of LCDs in the market. Places like Best Buy and P.C. Richards in NYC seem to have ten LCDS on display for every one plasma. The question is whether that's the case because LCD technology is cheaper, better, or both.

 

[Matt]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

The only thing not debatable is the dominance of LCDs in the market. Places like Best Buy and P.C. Richards in NYC seem to have ten LCDS on display for every one plasma. The question is whether that's the case because LCD technology is cheaper, better, or both.
This. Mass-market-wise people want slim, sexy-looking wall mounted TVs, and they can get this in an LCD for a few hundred. Why pop a few k on plasma?

 

[A Y]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

I'm not all that well-versed, but I was under the impression that the LCD/plasma debate was much less decided amongst enthusiasts than it is often made out to be on this forum.

It's the opposite. Enthusiasts pretty much agree that plasma is far superior to LCD in terms of absolute picture quality (ie. quality with no regards to convenience, etc.). The waters are muddier for normal people who may not care about the picture quality differences, and value other things more.

--Andre

 

[Reggs]

On the bright side, middle aged suburban men with boring lives have apparently slowed their bigger better thinner TV arms race.

 

[dkzzzz]

Originally Posted by bkk

Plasma was just a stop gap technology. Too many cons (especially weight and power consumption) for the general mass market.

Genius. That is two things that I always consider when I am shopping for a new TV: weight and power consumption instead of features and picture quality.

 

[suited]

From what I have seen with my own eyes, Plasma > LCD when all things are considered.

 

[chas]

Originally Posted by suited

From what I have seen with my own eyes, Plasma > LCD when all things are considered.

+1 Without exception when I look at a Plasma vs. LCD I can never understand how it is even close. To my eye plasma looks far superior.

 

[Ambulance Chaser]

The plasma fanboys make it seem like the difference between plasma and LCD is like the difference between Kiton and Men's Wearhouse when it's more like the difference between Kiton and Brioni. Ask yourself this question: If plasma is so superior, why does LCD dominate plasma in the marketplace even though LCD is more expensive than a comparably sized plasma?

 

[suited]

Originally Posted by Ambulance Chaser

Ask yourself this question: If plasma is so superior, why does LCD dominate plasma in the marketplace even though LCD is more expensive than a comparably sized plasma?

There are equally puzzling occurrences all over the consumer market, it doesn't mean that we are wrong. The picture is superior on Plasma, from my own experience.

 

[Piobaire]

There's little doubt, IMO, that plasma has far better blacks, due to the very nature of how LCD operates. However, at least IMO, the better LCD screens have more vivid colour, and ghosting is not an issue if you have one of the top end engines. Outside of scenes with utter blackness involved, I'm pretty happy with my two top end Sonys. I'd never say they were better than the Pio Elite, but 4k for both my Sonys vs. 10k for one Pio?

Yeah, RIP Pioneer.

 

[Tokyo Slim]

To be honest, I think DLP looks better than both plasma and LCD.

 

[A Y]

Originally Posted by Piobaire

I'd never say they were better than the Pio Elite, but 4k for both my Sonys vs. 10k for one Pio?

The most expensive Pioneer's MSRP is $7K, and getting 20 percent (or more) off that is not uncommon.

--Andre

 

[GQgeek]

Originally Posted by Ambulance Chaser

The plasma fanboys make it seem like the difference between plasma and LCD is like the difference between Kiton and Men's Wearhouse when it's more like the difference between Kiton and Brioni. Ask yourself this question: If plasma is so superior, why does LCD dominate plasma in the marketplace even though LCD is more expensive than a comparably sized plasma?

Because of the way that TVs are sold. LCDs simply look better in a big box store because they are so bright and vivid. Most people really don't do a whole lot of research before they buy. In a controlled light environment, plasma PQ destroys LCD imo. Better shadow detail, better blacks, no black crush, more accurate skin tones, etc. A well-calibrated Kuro is a beauty to behold.