Forums Forums Enthusiast Forums A - Z Gadgets & Tech LCD/LED/TV

Whats the difference and + - between a LCD and a LED TV.
I need to be thinking of buying a new telly as my { 12 inch black and white has now seen better days}he he.

They are both the same buddy apart from a normal LCD tv has a flouresant backlight and an LED LCD is lit via lots of tiny LEDs.
This works out to be more reliable and has better power consumption.

thank you for that info.

Ste, I don't know why you think it is more reliable? In the longer term (and we're talking the very longer term) an LED TV should in theory last longer (though we all know that LED's are very rarely the everlasting, indestructible little lights they are made out to be lol.

The main reason they put LED backlights on LCD televisions was to compete with the blacks of plasma - a regualr CCFL backlit LCD will only ever show "black" parts of a television picture, as very dark grey, because the light is always on, and is just blocked out by the panel. The beauty of an LED television is that the backlight can be turned off independently on each small part of the screen, if the picture is supposed to be total black in x-part, but alight in y and z part, the screen can turn the LED off in x but leave the LED's on in y and z, thus in theory leading to better blacks - finally allowing LCD's to get near the black levels of Plasma televisions (which have no backlight at all).

In addition, it also means that an LED TV can be produced thinner (the LED's are tiny) and can be more energy efficient (the LED's can consume upto 30% less power than a CCFL).

It's not all good however, because if you buy a lower-quality LED (or even an older top-brand, such as a samsung), they can be hurrendous for having delayed blacks, and it can be quite noticeable. Ie. in fast moving scenes (even in normal scenes on some), the switching on/off of the LED's can be delayed by a split millisecond, and can be quite noticeable on occasion. Also, LED's tv's tend to use more post-processing, because the picture is stored on the DAC for slightly longer, to allow the LED's to work out what needs to be on, and what needs to be off, and we all know that manufacturers will throw processing in wherever possible in a bid to "enhance" (in their opinion) the overall result.

I guess it generally depends what you want, if you want the best LCD black levels (still not comparable to plasma imho and 99.9% of the population don't notice the "dodgy blacks" on regular CCFL TV's), then go for LED, if you want the super-slimness for flush wall-mounting, then go for LED. If you are not bothered about either of the above, there is no benefit in paying more for an LED tv over a CCFL backlit TV. Even if you are somewhat concerned, many CCFL tv's are just as good as LED tvs, if not better (very mature technology, proven and reliable), my set for instance, was the thinnest LCD TV in the world last year, is practically the same depth as an LED, but it isnt an LED, instead it is an ECCFL, which also means it gives far better black levels than a regular CCFL, again comparable to Plasma.

At the end of the day though, whatever you decide, just be sure to buy the set from Richer Sounds (if they have in what you would like), as they tend to be as cheap as you can get, will match even internet prices, and best of all, their 5 year warranty is cheap as chips!!

Lol, 2 great descriptions, best bet to head to richer sounds and see which you prefer. I like led.

Thanks all. had been browsing Richer Sounds web site as it happens.

My knowledge of electronics teeters on zilch. (Still working on Leclanche Cells !) Thank you Matt for answering Jimbob's question in detail. Your answered some questions that I've had in my swede for a while. Good man !

Glad to be of some help Pinz

Just my 2ps worth. When i did my research before buying my one I compared two almost identical models in the shop. One was led and the other lcd. The picture quality was exactly the same, the difference in power consumption was litterally about 3 or 4 watts which is nothing when the unit draws around 150w anyway. The price difference was around £150. Not worth the extra cash in my opinion. I now await to be shot down in flames by the experts.

I can believe that Ian, picture quality is more than just "extra-strong blacks", energy savings with technology are reguarly exaggerated, and as for the price... well manufacturers and retailers will do just about anything to justify adding another 50% to the price (the whole reason behind the HD-ready badge, LED, 3D tv's etc is marketing, when the sales are in skydive, they release another buzzword-technology to entice comsumers to upgrade again).

It's a real shame, imho, that SED looks like it won't make it to market, as that would signal the end of LCD for once and for all (LCD tbh, excels at nothing, had it not been for all the legal wrangling between eletronics companies, we'd have been watching SED's in our living rooms by now, and we'd all realise just how crap LCD is lol). Perhaps OLED's will make it "big" sometime this decade?

What?

I want one of these "SED" tvs you speak of!
Where do you get them?

Canon and Toshiba went their seperate ways, so the project was wound down. It was a joint collaboration, and iirc, Canon bought Toshiba out of the project, after years of legal wrangling over IP with other companies (allsorts of different companies have patents over various elements of the technology), and when Toshiba left the project, the money went with them.

Some people blame the overall problem on Toshiba's commitement to developing the HD-DVD format, which might not be too far from the truth - ultimately though, Canon announced that they were winding down the project as a commercial business last year, citing the project to be no longer economically viable as the reason. My guess is, without Toshiba, they simply struggled for funds to throw at the project, and without such a big a partner (Samsung were believed to be ready to take on the technology) in the TV market, the chances of getting it to market, and manufacturing the TV's at an acceptable price-point, was becoming more and more a distant possibility.

The economic meltdown, and the crippling effect it has had on the price of consumer goods was almost certainly the final nail in the coffin for the technology, the first SED televisions were supposed to be launched in 2005 (Canon and Toshiba actually announced them), showing them off at all the Expos etc, but due to all the legal crap, the launch was delayed, delayed and delayed lol. They finally got the (legal) go-ahead to launch the sets in 2009 after numerous court battles, but it was probably too late given the price-point they would have to launch at being so low, to get sales.

I guess they just cut their losses and placed the technology in the "almost but not quite" draw. Which is a shame, as it was leaps and bounds ahead of both PDP and LCD. It was essentially a high-definition CRT, but in the form factor of a PDP/LCD. Canon did say when they wound it down, that the technology would still see an eventual release, in the form of high-end solutions aimed at the corporate market, so people still hold onto the chance that it may get launched someday to the consumer market, maybe when the global economy picks up. The problem with that hope, is Philips did the same with their WowVX televisions during the same era, they promised 3DTV without glasses, and actually delivered, making it to market back in 2004 iirc; the problem again, was Philips ultimately wound the project down (it had inherent flaws such as the format not being compatible with other TV's etc), but they still produce corporate solutions incorporating the technology - however it's public release is about as dead an idea as a dodo now. Funnily enough, Toshiba have launched 3DTV's without glasses, to the Japanese market, since their withdrawl from the SED project.

I got 42" LG LED tv for £499 from littlewoods catalogue 12 months int free - havnt seen many that cheap before