Home / TVs & Audio / TV / LG 32PG6000 32in Plasma TV

LG 32PG6000 32in Plasma TV review

John Archer




  • Recommended by TR

1 of 7

LG 32PG6000 32in Plasma TV
  • LG 32PG6000 32in Plasma TV
  • LG 32PG6000 32in Plasma TV
  • LG 32PG6000 32in Plasma TV
  • LG 32PG6000 32in Plasma TV
  • LG 32PG6000 32in Plasma TV
  • LG 32PG6000 32in Plasma TV
  • LG 32PG6000 32in Plasma TV


Our Score:


I know what you’re thinking: we made a mistake in our headline. After all, we said that the 32PG6000 is a plasma TV when everybody knows that plasma TVs don’t come smaller than 37in these days.

But actually, we’re not wrong at all. For in a striking move that frankly none of us saw coming, LG has decided to fly in the face of established ‘wisdom’ by expanding its plasma TV range to include a 32in model. The question is, is this decision completely bonkers or totally inspired?!

Aside from the fact that it’s pretty heavy compared with most 32in flat TVs we see these days, there’s nothing particularly obvious about the 32PG6000’s exterior that provides proof of its plasma heart. It just appears to be another attractive glossy black rectangle given added panache by a neat half moon power light in the bottom right corner.

However, look a little closer and you’ll notice that the TV’s front comprises a single-layer, rather than a bezel that stands proud from the screen as you’d normally see. This distinctive – and very attractive – design trait is familiar from the 42in 42PG6000 and 50in 50PG6000 LG models we’ve tested previously, so here, I guess, lies at least a small exterior hint of the set’s plasma rather than LCD core.

Connectivity is excellent for such a small and, at just £452, extremely affordable 32in TV. The provision of four HDMIs – all built to the v1.3 standard - where even many premium TVs only give you three is particularly welcome, as is a USB 2.0 port able to play JPEG and MP3 files. There’s a D-Sub port for PC connection too, so you can double the TV up as a computer monitor – a feature one or two other budget models skip in their cost-cutting exploits.

Given plasma technology’s well-documented problems with making its cells small enough to fit 1920x1080 of them into even a 42in screen, it should come as little surprise that the 32PG6000 does not feature a Full HD resolution. Rather it carries an HD Ready pixel count of 1024x768. But we don’t see this as a massive problem, particularly if the 32PG6000 counters its slight loss of resolution versus some of today’s 32in LCD models by delivering such traditional plasma strengths as deep black levels and crisper motion handling.

Regarding black levels, the 32PG6000’s quoted contrast ratio of 30,000:1 looks very promising – especially since this is a ‘native’ figure not dependent on the vagaries of dynamic backlight systems like those employed by the vast majority of LCD TVs.


October 7, 2008, 8:27 am

Oh oh. Panny, better get on it!


October 7, 2008, 11:07 am

having a nice little play about with photoshop, now are we? ;)


October 7, 2008, 12:53 pm

Could you lot PLEASE just show us photos of the telly without all those tired Photoshop effects? They're incredibly distracting and only serve to remove detail from the pictures. Give it a rest, please.


October 7, 2008, 1:09 pm

Gees you guys are hard to please sometimes. The reason they're all fancy is because we didn't take them; they're stock shots. You need to complain to LG.

prag fest

October 7, 2008, 1:38 pm

lol, told.


October 7, 2008, 4:46 pm

No chance of me fitting anything much larger than a 32" set in my living room, so the introduction of a plasma at this size is great news for me. The viewing angle benefits are good for me too.

Do LG make their own panels? Do they sell the panels to anyone else? A bit of competition would be welcome, though the price seems pretty keen already.

Andy Vandervell

October 7, 2008, 4:49 pm

All I can say is my 37in LCD for 𧹺 is looking less of a bargain now. :(

Martin Daler

October 7, 2008, 6:47 pm

hmmm, you wouldn't let the manufacturer write the text, so why do you let them do the illustrations - are they not part of the review also, or maybe just not the "trusted" part? Yup, we are hard to please, the easy ones read other sites!

Geoff Richards

October 7, 2008, 8:22 pm

I always find it curious when people say "I can't fit any larger than X inches in my living room". Sure, a wall is only so large but usually the limitation is psychological ie user perception.

I'm not having a go, but I've got a 50" in my lounge and I'd happily have a 65in or even 80+ if anyone made one. Bigger is better in my book and there isn't anything "too big" in my book :)

That said, there are many people in the same situation as Kingsley here so the 40-or-less market is pretty busy!

Andy Vandervell

October 7, 2008, 8:23 pm

It's not really a case of "letting them do it", it's simply the case that TV's are written by a freelancer who doesn't have the capacity or equipment to take decent photos, so it necessitates using company stock shots. Some are better than others, unfortunately, but I don't quite see the correlation between the photos and the text. Photos, after all, have absolutely no bearing on the verdict of the review.


October 7, 2008, 10:37 pm

Yay, like the earlier poster, I can't get away with anything much larger than 32". I have a 32" plasma, a Hitachi which is now approaching 6 years old and it would have been a problem to replace as I find the picture on LCD tv's too poor to be useable.

What the poster who doesn't seem to understand the largest tv size issue misses is that if you get too close to the tv, the pixels become visible. The minimum viewing distance increases with tv size. I am at the limit with the 32" panel in SD, anything bigger and the pixels would be visible. If everything was HD then a bigger tv would of course be possible, but I don't have any HD sources at present.

Martin Daler

October 8, 2008, 12:45 am

Andy, they say a picture tells a thousand words. The pictures are there for a reason, and contribute to the (reader's) verdict, since they have a lot to say about the product. After all, most of the time the telly isn't going to be switched on, but its still going to be there in your sitting room, so what it looks like is of more than passing interest.

There is a reason why the stock shots are photoshopped out of all recognition - the manufacturer thinks they look better than the original. A bit like the manufacturer's own prose, its all dressed up. TR doesn't feed us the manufacturer's dressed up prose, I feel it would be better if they took editorial control of the illustrations also.


October 8, 2008, 1:04 am

Hi, anyone that wants to see the TV should go to their nearest Empiredirect. Guttingly (is that a word!?) I missed out on their offer which ended on Sunday (𧹇!!!). Back up to 𧺫 now doh!

The TV looks smart! If you haven't got an empiredirect near you then take a look at the 42pg6000 in a currys and imagine that shrunk down to 32in as its exactly the same.

Jay Werfalli

October 8, 2008, 5:22 am

@Martin Daler. Indeed, a 'good' photo can be worth a thousand words, which is why we shoot a large proportion of the products we review ourselves - including TVs if they are to be reviewed in-house by one of our full-time employees. But as Andy says, we pay a specialist freelancer to write most of our TV reviews and, like the majority of freelancers, they aren't equipped to take good, informative photos especially of large products. Plus, you have to bear in mind that it's not within a freelancer's remit to take photos of products, nor is it practical or time/cost-effective to be shipping heavy TVs from freelancer to TrustedReviews to manufacturer (or vice-versa).

That said, we do take your point, and always do our utmost to source informative and realistic product shots for our reviews. (If you think these were photoshopped beyond all recognition, you should see some of the 'artistic creations' some manufacturers send over to us!) ;)


October 8, 2008, 2:12 pm

@Jay - any chance you could pass these comments about the photos on to LG's marketing department? Maybe they can ask the Photoshop jockey to tone down his "creativity".


October 12, 2008, 11:58 am

Geoff: I take no offence to your comments and - to resolve your curiosity - my house was built around 1870 when fireplaces were a stronger design feature than audio-visual electronics :) My (main) sofa faces the fireplace so the TV "has" to be located in the return to its right. This gives a physical limit to the set which will fit. Plus, typical viewing distance is just three metres. The other sofa's on another wall at right angles, hence the viewing angle comment I made.

Plenty of very happy users on AVForums, the LG is looking good. If my fantastic Sony CRT dies today, I know what I'll replace it with.

Geoff Richards

October 12, 2008, 12:02 pm

That's a fair comment - I can understand the limitation now. Bit of a shame really - you'd be stuck for positional audio as well :(


October 14, 2008, 1:22 pm

We were told yesterday by John Lewis that Panny will be bringing out a 32" plasma before Xmas - in case people don't already know.


January 23, 2009, 11:50 am

The author has been too "gentle" in his approach to the evaluation of the TV's black level responce. It is incomparable at all with my old CRT TV or PC monitor, and is not better than you can see at budget LCDs. In the service center they told me that the set is working normally and declined to make any adjustments. I *wanted* a 32'' HD plasma, but now taking it back to the store...

richard 12

February 9, 2009, 2:59 am

I've had one since before Christmas and I thought the Blacks are fairly good, Not up to pioneer standards, but better than most LCD's. There is a 32" Lcd LG (LG 32LG6000) around which is a bit grim, I sometimes wonder if this has been bought by mistake?


February 14, 2009, 6:03 am

Hi has anybody tried plugging in a standard laptop using the standard blue 15 hole VGA on the laptop to the LG TV? Did it work without having to do anything major with the settings? Got mine on order from Tesco Direct at 𧸳.


May 23, 2010, 5:36 am

So... it's nearly half-way through 2010 and I'm looking for a plasma TV, not too big... and LG aren't doing anything under 42". I wonder what went wrong?


November 18, 2016, 7:01 pm

We bought this LG unit almost 8 years ago, largely on the positive review here. It has been entirely satisfactory in use, and we appreciate the quality of guidance posted here.

comments powered by Disqus