DLP vs Plasma/LCD


I was just about ready to plunk down $4k for a Panasonic 42" plasma. I was at my brother's tonight watching the Olympics on his 42" Pioneer plasma (HD transmission,) when he tells me that I should go with a DLP for my bedroom, rather than the plasma. He claims the picture is much better and they cost less. I wasn't even considering a DLP because I didn't think it would fit in my bedroom. (being to deep) He says they make some, now, that are only a few inches deeper/wider than a plasma. Any takers? Is the DLP the way to go? If so, can anyone recommend one with killer picture quality, and relatively thin? thanks in advance. warren
128x128warrenh
Obrown, The current new Samsung DLP RPTV's are based on the HD2+ chips. In a month or three, the HL-P6190 (aka 90 series) will be out, based on the xHD3 chips (around $6000+). Unfortuneately, Samsung is charging more money for these sets (as is their right, and I respect that).

Bruce, you are correct, viewing preferences, viewing realities and other criteria make DLP (and others) an excellent choice for many people. However, under the correct conditions (dark room, narrow viewing angle, proper calibration, good source) no current television based display technology (note that front projection is not included here) comes close to the performance of the CRT based systems. I agree that CRT systems have many issues, restrictions and limitations. But given the limited circumstances for which they are intended, they are unrivaled in peformance, and cost. True, few people are willing to tolerate their size, weight (190 lbs for a 34" 16:9), narrow viewing angle (RPTV), low light output (RPTV), calibration requirements (and cost), convergence issues ("don't bump the rptv"), and slow performance fade.

Hence the wonderful world of DLP and LCD which we are all buying at a price/performance premium. I agree with all you say, except to say that CRT displays, based purely on performance, are still the best. But they come with a whole list of gotcha's.
merge03,

Good points, thank you. I would even add one other advantage to a CRT based RPTV - a big top shelf on which you can easily put a center channel speaker.

Thanks
Bruce
Thanks to merge03 and bruce. My wonderful Mitsubishi 36' console (deep top for huge center and room for lots of cds) has died . I hate to lose the beautiful honey oak furniture.

Merge, I assume the new TI chip is supposed to be a jump from the current one in the HLP85 series . Would you elaborate ? I might can wait a month or so and even get a closeout price on the 85 if not willing to pay $6k for the new ones.

What do audiophile do with obsolete (Prologic rec. etc. and heavy tvs)equipment
The current generation of HD2, HD3, and HD2+ DLP chips are all 720p native resolution. The xHD3 is 1080p native resolution. The xHD3 includes all of the performance enhancements that went into the prior three generations. I would expect good contrast ratio, little to no rainbow effect, etc.

But, the proof is in the pudding. Few people have had the chance to see the 90 series, mostly at trade shows. We'll know in a couple months. The 6190 is rumoured to be "in production" now. I can't believe that other mfg's are too far behind samsung with rolling out xHD3 products, but I haven't heard anything juicy yet.

Center channels: Another advantage of "table top" digital sets over CRT RPTV is that even large center channels can be accomadated in the cabinet beneath them. Maybe not the matching cabinet from the mfg, but certainly in your own custom rack. The Dunlavy HRCC being the epitome of "placement concerns". Many CRT sets didn't have a flat top, and they certainly weren't going to hold up the likes of the Dunlavy center. To make it worse, the lower cabinet sections of CRT RPTV's are generally smaller than the HRCC, which would require elevating the set.
A good discussion of Samsung's plans for DLPs (new xHD3 chip) on a site called TWICE.COM