VIZIO 50" PLASMA vs. EVERYOTHER PLASMA
|
New member Username: Angelsfann02San bernardino, Ca Usa Post Number: 1 Registered: Mar-06 | Does anyone own the Vizio 50" plasma. I saw the display model at Costco and it looked great. The styling was clean, and the picture great. I would have bought it, but they were out of stock. "The demand for them is incredible", was what the customer service lady said. Please post user comments. |
|
New member Username: Hank22Post Number: 1 Registered: Mar-06 | The thing that concerns me is 550 watts for operation. I know that most people don't care about wasting power and that's why it's never a topic. But it could get costly with utilities and it could even make me consider upgrading the electrical in my house, if I were to buy it. It's the equivalent of a refrigerator, which requires a separate circuit. Does anyone have an easy way of figuring how much 550 watts will end up costing per hour? |
|
Silver Member Username: Rysa4Post Number: 431 Registered: Jul-05 | Woa. First off the 550 figure is almost never achieved during normal use. This stuff has been measured. This occurs only if the picture/brightness setting is all the way up on light scenes like snow for instance. A caibrated set uses VERY little power. <easure ments are posted on avsforum.com in several threads several months ago. The plasma watt numbers are max numbers. The vizio 50 inch is popular becuase it is so cheap, not becuase it is good. At 2500 retail for a 50 inch, it deleivers avaregae PQ with problems but is clearly a good value at 2500. It was reviewed in this months sound and vision I believe. Read the review for details. |
|
New member Username: Hank22Post Number: 2 Registered: Mar-06 | Good point, but it will still use more than most Plasma competition and much more obviously than rear proj. |
|
New member Username: Angelsfann02San bernardino, Ca Usa Post Number: 2 Registered: Mar-06 | Yes- For instance, most Pioneer Plasmas only use between 285-300 some watts. They are supposedly energy efficient. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rysa4Post Number: 438 Registered: Jul-05 | Sorry Lou. The actual usage has been measured and is much lower than your stated amount. The results for a variety of displays during differing material viewing types is posted at avsforum.com. Your post is both false and misleading. |
|
New member Username: Angelsfann02San bernardino, Ca Usa Post Number: 4 Registered: Mar-06 | For which brand? Pioneer or Vizio? I was basing my info on both websites. The Pioneer site did not give exact specifics for every size screen, The Vinc site posted theirs at 485. I didnt mean to mislead anyone. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rysa4Post Number: 446 Registered: Jul-05 | What I am saying is that WE- consumers interested in video- have done the measurements and posted them- they are in a thread on plasma energy consumption at avsforum.com. Manufacturers give maximum numbers, not real use numbers. We measured actual energy use in KWHs for many displays and the numbers vary with the brightness of the video signal during any given DVD. I'll see if I can find the exact post ( there is more than one actually). |
|
Silver Member Username: Rysa4Post Number: 447 Registered: Jul-05 | Here is some information for a Panasonic 42 inch display; Code: kWH* kWH/Day Cost per hour at these energy rates Program (6hrs) (24hrs**) WH/Hr*** @5¢/kWH @10¢/kWH @15¢/kWH --------------------- ----- --------- --------- -------- --------- -------- CSI(6hr test) 0.57 2.28 95 0.47¢ 0.95¢ 1.42¢ ($0.005) ($0.01) ($0.014) Fox Pregame (1hr) 0.11 2.64 110 0.55¢ 1.10¢ 1.65¢ ($0.0055) ($0.011) ($0.0165) NFL Football(6hr test)0.72 2.88 120 0.60¢ 1.20¢ 1.80¢ ($0.006) ($0.012) ($0.018) * total kWH measured for 6 hour test (pregame exception) ** amount projected if you ran the TV around the clock (24 hrs/day) *** although this is a calculated value (kWH(1st column)/6hr) this is effectively the avg. watt power level exhibited during the test. Another way to look at this - if you're watching CSI it's equivalent to watching a 100 W incandescent bulb - and that's about a penny an hour if you are charged 10¢ a kWH. (Personally I'm at an incremental 5.1¢/kWH for nighttime viewing) As you can see watching a considerably brighter daylight program (although the screen for a football game is mostly a medium shade of green - not close to all white) does not suck many more kWH's - only about 25% more. Standby measured: 0.08amp, 9.6W Momentary Black raster screen: 0.56amp, 67W Momentary all white screen 1.54amp, 185W Power factor measured, 0.95 (approx.) CSI was viewed off of DVD's (16x9) - thus no commercial breaks NFL Football was OTA HD (16x9), with (4:3) commercials All measurements taken using a Kill A Watt device. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rysa4Post Number: 448 Registered: Jul-05 | The above data got squished but this is how data was recorded and compared to a CRT display for the same material. The CRT data is not present above. Te bottom line is the CRT was about 109 watts per hour and the Panny 42 Plasma was 120 watts per hour. The Panny plasma specs out at 390 watts per hour max by the manufacturer. Thats the point. The actual wattage used is much less becuase the printed specs are for bright white screens-- max energy use and that never really happens. |
|
Silver Member Username: GmanMt. Pleasant, SC Post Number: 885 Registered: Dec-03 | The main downside of plasma's is the heat coming off of them, not the electricity cost. Heck, the cost of the plasma sets are far more than any electricity costs you will incur. It is like saying that you are worried about the gas mileage on a $100,000 car. One would have to be watching an awful lot of television for the electricity costs to be that extreme. If one presumed (hower fallaciously) that the Vizio was being watched 10 hours a day at 10 cents a kwh, then you would be spending 55 cents a day on electricity. Or roughly, $17 a month. Now that is a lot of television viewing and it presumes watching the tv every day of the month. If you get satellite or cable, that bill is considerably higher. |
|
Bronze Member Username: YiottaBremerton, WA US Post Number: 21 Registered: Sep-05 | The reviews for this Vizio are a resounding very good, many are already calling for it to be the their product of the year... It is that good for a great price, so you price snobs (and you know who you are) can continue to pay car prices, but this Vizio 50 is the way to go for plasma today, read this review, or do a vizio 50 review search and they all say the same thing: http://www.avrev.com/equip/vizio_plasma50/ I think I am going to buy one to go with my new home theater setup  |
|
Silver Member Username: Rysa4Post Number: 452 Registered: Jul-05 | The reviews I have read are far from resoundingly good and reveal some real PQ difficulties. It does have a great price, but the Panny 50 inch commercial at 3000 really is a better deal IMHO. PS- Snobs are the ones who buy the Runcos, where the prices are sky high with no improvement in PQ. |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics