The fall buying season must be in full swing because three friends in three days have asked for a recommendation on a new TV. They all seem to be looking for the same thing: a fairly large flat-panel TV that they can mount on a wall. LCD seems to be gaining mind share because all three have expressed a preference for it over plasma technology, which they perceive as flawed. "I hear plasmas can die," one friend wrote in an e-mail. And then there was the proverbial, "I hear they have burn-in issues."

Being the patient guy I am, I spent a few moments educating them on the positives and negatives of the two types of TVs, but in the end, they remained steadfastly committed to LCD.

What about this one? It's the same size and costs almost $1,000 less. Won't it be good enough?

So I've been steering them toward Sharp's Aquos sets, partially because they're among the better LCD TVs we've reviewed and partially because my friends are aware of the brand and are comfortable with it. But there's a little problem. They somehow think they're going to get a 42-inch LCD panel for $3,000. When I suggest that the closest they'll get for that money is a 30- or 32-inch Aquos (the latter retails for closer to $3,500 at Best Buy), the hedging begins. They all feel that's quite a bit of dough for not so big a TV, even if the set's capable of displaying the full resolution of HDTV.

Sharp Aquos LC30HV6U

"What about this one?" my friend Brad said, pointing to an Insignia-branded LCD TV in Best Buy's weekend circular. "It's the same size and costs almost $1,000 less. Won't it be good enough?"

Ah, there's the technology question for our times. What's good enough? And it's the question a lot of people are going to be asking as no-name, "budget" brands such as Insignia, Norcent, Sceptre, and SVA start to take up more space on the shelves of Best Buy, Circuit City, Wal-Mart, and Costco (and their various online equivalents). Sure, some of them may have ho-hum styling or even look a little cheap, but there will be plenty that offer acceptable or even pretty slick aesthetics, with nice, understated black or silver bezels. Heck, even Dell--the king of beige-box conformity--has put together a good-looking 26-inch LCD TV. So what's the difference whether you go with Sharp or the unknown brand that costs significantly less?

It's our reviewers' job to point out these nuances, but the fact is that less picky viewers aren't going to care all that much.

Well, a lot of it comes down to picture nuances--some more subtle than others. You can get a good idea of what I mean when you compare our review of the Westinghouse 30-inch W33001 to that of the Sharp 30-inch Aquos LC30HV6U. While both sets match up fairly evenly in the features department (both have HDTV-worthy 1,280x768 resolution and a DVI connection), the Sharp's black levels--which determine its critical ability to display details in darker scenes--are better, its picture is less noisy, and it displays colors more accurately. In some lesser displays, you may also notice that there isn't an even intensity of brightness across the display--you can make out lighter patches on the edges.

Westinghouse W33001: Good enough?

It's our reviewers' job to point out these nuances, but the fact is that less picky viewers aren't going to care all that much. Also, if you're using the TV to watch standard-definition television--analog and digital--the signal you're viewing is noisy or "dirty" to begin with, so it's not going to look all that good on even the best sets. And as for HDTV (and even DVD), they're going to look good--which is to say, noticeably better than standard-definition television--on almost any small to moderate-size screen. True, better panels will offer a better picture (so long as the set is calibrated correctly), but--for untrained eyes--is that extra quality is worth an extra $800 to $1,000? Probably not.

The long and short of it is that if you like the cosmetics of certain a budget LCD TV in the 20- to 32-inch range and are using it only for casual viewing (in other words, not as a home-theater setup), then it may very well be good enough. I suspect that over time, as no-name LCDs flood the market and continue to improve both aesthetically and performance-wise, the likes of Sony, Sharp, and others will be forced to bring their prices down and the market will shake itself out. Of course, by then there will probably be some sort of new television technology that makes LCD panels look downright clunky.

Would you pay hundreds of dollars more for better picture quality, or would you be happy with something that's "good enough?" Or would your money be better spent on a lower-resolution plasma with a larger screen size? Click the TalkBack Now button to get your two cents in.