Why does a 40" LCD TV cost 1.75+ more than a 32" one? - GoFuckYourself.com

Quotealex · 09-12-2006, 06:41 PM

The damn thing is only 25% bigger but it cost at least 1.75 more for the same brand.

Dragar · 09-12-2006, 06:43 PM

bigger is better says Alie McBeal

tony286 · 09-12-2006, 06:43 PM

Thats a very good question I wondered that myself.

tranza · 09-12-2006, 06:44 PM

Here in Brazil a 42' plasma TV costs around $2500 and a 32' costs at least $2000

Go figure.

Quotealex · 09-12-2006, 06:46 PM

For the same brand and model?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tranza

Here in Brazil a 42' plasma TV costs around $2500 and a 32' costs at least $2000

Go figure.

notabook · 09-12-2006, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex from Montreal

The damn thing is only 25% bigger but it cost at least 1.75 more for the same brand.

LCD tech becomes more expensive to manufacture the larger the screen is. The large glass sheets are so thin in the LCD screens that the big ones are much harder to produce, and a larger sample of them have to be thrown out due to them not ?making the grade?. Plasma maintains its price fairly well the larger it goes up until a point, so you can get a much better deal on a large screen Plasma than you can a large screen LCD. Comparable large-screen LCD?s are usually at least 1/3 more expensive than Plasmas.

For the most part a good Plasma will *still* kick the shit out of a LCD, and at the same time, a good CRT will totally kick the shit out of either, though HDTV CRT's are hard to find bigger than the 30" range. The newer Samsung LCD screens which use LEDs as their backlighting source promise to help to 'narrow the gap' between CRT and LCD in terms of quality; these LCD screens should completely blow Plasma out of the water... they are 30-40% better in quality, and should be almost identical to CRT viewing. BUT I?m sure they cost an arm and a leg, or at least your balls. =(

GeorgeK · 09-12-2006, 10:22 PM

The 40" LCD is not 25% bigger. It's 56.25% bigger, in AREA. Each dimension is 25% bigger, and so (1.25*1.25)-1 = 56.25%

To see it simpler, a 40" LCD isn't 2x the size of a 20" LCD. It's 4x the size (i.e. area is the product of the length and width).

The difference between 75% and 56% can be attributed to things like lower manufacturing yields and more advanced technology required to make the bigger versions.

09-12-2006, 06:41 PM	#1
Quotealex Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: The Global Digerati Village Posts: 6,265	Why does a 40" LCD TV cost 1.75+ more than a 32" one? The damn thing is only 25% bigger but it cost at least 1.75 more for the same brand.

09-12-2006, 06:43 PM	#2
Dragar Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,079	bigger is better says Alie McBeal __________________

09-12-2006, 06:44 PM	#4
tranza ICQ: 197-556-237 Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: BRASIL !!! Posts: 57,559	Here in Brazil a 42' plasma TV costs around $2500 and a 32' costs at least $2000 Go figure. __________________ I'm just a newbie.

09-12-2006, 10:22 PM	#7
GeorgeK Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 423	The 40" LCD is not 25% bigger. It's 56.25% bigger, in AREA. Each dimension is 25% bigger, and so (1.251.25)-1 = 56.25% To see it simpler, a 40" LCD isn't 2x the size of a 20" LCD. It's 4x the size (i.e. area is the product of the length and width). The difference between 75% and 56% can be attributed to things like lower manufacturing yields and more advanced technology required to make the bigger versions. __________________ I buy good domain names. Send lists to George (at) LOFFS.com Last edited by GeorgeK; 09-12-2006 at 10:25 PM..*

09-12-2006, 06:43 PM	#3
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	Thats a very good question I wondered that myself.