The issues I typically see with sub-$1k LCDs are ghosting, relatively inaccurate colors, and unacceptable black levels. A few of the high-end 32" LCDs (the Sharp Aquos displays, the Sony Bravia KDL-V32XBR1, and a few others) seem to have overcome some of these issues, but the Sony's MSRP is $2700--nearly three times as expensive.
Unless you're a heavy gamer or plan to use the panel as a computer display (which might discourage you from buying a plasma), I think plasmas offer the better value at the moment.
But if you're set on an LCD and can't wait for the price/performance ratio to improve, I'd lean towards the cheaper models at this point. Given how rapidly LCD prices are falling, the performance gains of an Aquos or Sony Bravia XBR just doesn't justify the additional investment.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Those are all valid points, James.
The issues I typically see with sub-$1k LCDs are ghosting, relatively inaccurate colors, and unacceptable black levels. A few of the high-end 32" LCDs (the Sharp Aquos displays, the Sony Bravia KDL-V32XBR1, and a few others) seem to have overcome some of these issues, but the Sony's MSRP is $2700--nearly three times as expensive.
Unless you're a heavy gamer or plan to use the panel as a computer display (which might discourage you from buying a plasma), I think plasmas offer the better value at the moment.
But if you're set on an LCD and can't wait for the price/performance ratio to improve, I'd lean towards the cheaper models at this point. Given how rapidly LCD prices are falling, the performance gains of an Aquos or Sony Bravia XBR just doesn't justify the additional investment.