How big is YOURS?

[Hazell B]

Was undecided about thread titles, but it could have been "You'll go blind" or "Size matters"

Anyway, what I'd like to know is how big is your TV screen?

My TV made a funny electrical buzz yesterday, so we went to have a look at new ones rather than risk it setting on fire half way through him watching Heros. Bought one in ASDA late at night, but to be honest I was far more interested in the hot cooked chickens that had just been marked down to 50p so I've no idea what size it is. The box was vast, if a bit skinny.

Does size matter? Big screens are too 'in your face' for me. Small ones are for kids.

[LeonBrooke]

At first I was going to say "Are we really supposed to know?", then I saw this was about TVs......

Ours is, I think, 17 inches. It's pretty small but it's fine. My brother keeps urging us to get a bigger one. I think it would be nice but it's just not necessary.

[Dave B]

Just 32", any bigger would be pointles given how far away we sit.

You bought a telly in Asda? Please tell me it's not a Durabrand?

[MrJan]

got a 21 inch in the lounge but got a 27 inch in my bedroom.

[Zico]

The one I keep in my drawers is quite small.. I think Siemens made it or were involved in its development in the early stages of manufacturing.. its only aprox 4" depending on where you measure from but when it gets turned on.. it seems to grow in size. Its has been working intermittently recently so I've had to spank it quite a bit.. now the colours have faded to black and blue.

[tintin]

I have a 28" widescreen one which I got 8 years ago, heavily discounted (from £1200 to less than £300) because it was end of line and the last one in the shop.

I also have a 23" HD TFT screen - it is the biggest TFT I could find - didn't want plasma or LCD because the picture quality is so poor with them.

[GridGirl]

I have a 38" Sony thing. I didn't really need one that big but my dad bought it for me as a gift as mine was broken. He bought himself one exactly the same when he got mine although he now moans that he needs a 42" one. Like it's going to make that much difference when the one he's got is only 11 months old.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I've a 42" whopper ;)

[jso1985]

14'' Samsung

It's not the size that matters it's how you use it ;)

[Daniel]

I think it's about 25" or something like that :) It's an old CRT but it's decent enough :)

We will get something better next year perhaps when the price of proper 1080p TV's goes down just that bit more :)

[Daniel]

I have a 28" widescreen one which I got 8 years ago, heavily discounted (from £1200 to less than £300) because it was end of line and the last one in the shop.

I also have a 23" HD TFT screen - it is the biggest TFT I could find - didn't want plasma or LCD because the picture quality is so poor with them.

I hate to burst your bubble but a TFT is just a name for an LCD and a good deal of LCD TV's have TFT panels in them so your monitor is just a TV screen without a tuner basically :p

To say that the picture quality of an LCD or Plasma is worse than a TFT of equal resolution is also not really correct. If you have two screens both with full HD resolution (1920*1080) they will both have the same picture quality in the sense of detail. One may be brighter or one may have different colours but unless there is something seriously wrong with the electrics behind the panel they will be just as detailed.

[Camelopard]

We're still using our CRT, which is a 86cm (I think) widescreen Metz, when it dies I'll look at replacing it with an LCD or Plasma.

[Roamy]

It is as big as my shoe Hazel !! Bigger if you measure it diagonally


Hope this helps

signed: Mr SnowShoe

[Dave B]

I hate to burst your bubble but a TFT is just a name for an LCD and a good deal of LCD TV's have TFT panels in them so your monitor is just a TV screen without a tuner basically :p

To say that the picture quality of an LCD or Plasma is worse than a TFT of equal resolution is also not really correct. If you have two screens both with full HD resolution (1920*1080) they will both have the same picture quality in the sense of detail. One may be brighter or one may have different colours but unless there is something seriously wrong with the electrics behind the panel they will be just as detailed.
Even worse, some of the cheap crappy LCD tellys on sale use computer monitor panels, which while they can claim to be HD of course aren't 16:9 and either distort the picture or leave you with undesirable lines top and bottom.

The biggest problem I've got with LCDs is that the cheap ones are frankly rubbish, but the better ones tend to show up the shortcomings of your source - especially on SD channels with a low bitrate. The effect gets worse as the screen gets larger, and it baffles me why people buy cheap 32inch+ screens to use in normal size living rooms. Surely they must realise how piss-poor the picture quality is?

I forgot to mention that my main set is a CRT. Why? Becuase I can't justify the spend necessary to get the same or better picture quality from an LCD.

As an aside, it amazes me how some of the retailers who really should know better make such a dog's dinner of setting up their display models. I won't name the worst offender, but think "Indian meals"...

My dad bought a 42" Panasonic Viera last month in a local independent. ~£50 cheaper than the multiples, free 5-year warranty, free stand, and the dealer not only installed it for free but also carted his big bulky CRT upstairs and re-installed that for him. :D

[jim mcglinchey]

[
. I won't name the worst offender, but think "Indian meals"...

OK, OK..Ill do it..."You mean theres an electrical supplier called Rogan Josh?"

[mate]

My mate got a lcd 42in tv it is a good thank you for pointing it out lcd tft daniel

[Daniel]

Even worse, some of the cheap crappy LCD tellys on sale use computer monitor panels, which while they can claim to be HD of course aren't 16:9 and either distort the picture or leave you with undesirable lines top and bottom.

The biggest problem I've got with LCDs is that the cheap ones are frankly rubbish, but the better ones tend to show up the shortcomings of your source - especially on SD channels with a low bitrate. The effect gets worse as the screen gets larger, and it baffles me why people buy cheap 32inch+ screens to use in normal size living rooms. Surely they must realise how piss-poor the picture quality is?

I forgot to mention that my main set is a CRT. Why? Becuase I can't justify the spend necessary to get the same or better picture quality from an LCD.

As an aside, it amazes me how some of the retailers who really should know better make such a dog's dinner of setting up their display models. I won't name the worst offender, but think "Indian meals"...

My dad bought a 42" Panasonic Viera last month in a local independent. ~£50 cheaper than the multiples, free 5-year warranty, free stand, and the dealer not only installed it for free but also carted his big bulky CRT upstairs and re-installed that for him. :D

I do wonder what percentage of HD tv's are running on an SD box and therefore not experiencing the advantages of being a 720p or 1080p tv :mark: People see the one or two 1080p TV's hooked up to HD boxes on display and think that when they hook it up to their sky or sky+ box that they'll get the same picture :) I'd hate to work in one of those shops. I can imagine the amount of "Something's wrong with the picture on this TV! It's ****!!!!" calls you would get must be huge.

The other thing that's crap about LCD's and in particular cheap ones is the crap blacks they display which look all washed out. CRT's and plasma's are much better in this respect.

I think part of the reason why people go out and buy these new tv's and end up screwing themselves over with bad quality picture is the confusion about the digital switchover and whether or not their TV will keep on working after the switchover. The advertising about the tick on new equipment is good but it still doesn't clear up confusion for the technophobes who don't know whether their current equipment will work or not. We have a lot of technology these days but people just don't take the time to learn about it hence there's the confusion between flat CRT's, flat screen tv's, tft's, LCD TV's and Plasma TV's. Was bored a few months ago and walked into an Argos and was flicking through a catalogue and overheard a son talking his mum into buying a TV. She was saying she "wants one of those thin ones" and he said "Yeah this one says flat screen so it's one of them" when of course the TV in the catalogue was a CRT tv with a flat tube. I considered clearly it up but though better of it.

[Daniel]

[
. I won't name the worst offender, but think "Indian meals"...

OK, OK..Ill do it..."You mean theres an electrical supplier called Rogan Josh?"

Wrong! It's Kormat you twit :p

[555-04Q2]

32 inch Sony :D

[Dave B]

People see the one or two 1080p TV's hooked up to HD boxes on display and think that when they hook it up to their sky or sky+ box that they'll get the same picture :) I'd hate to work in one of those shops. ]
Even worse are the retails which display HD sets hooked up to the store's legacy RF distribution just because they like all the screens to display the same picture. I've seen a £1500 Sony next to a £300 no-name both sharing the same source - complete with ghosting. Remember ghosting?! :eek:

There's also a massive ignorance about digital/HD which, perhaps understandably, retailers and manufacturers are reluctant to clarify. "Going digital" means buying expensive HD-ready kit to a lot of people, while much of the opposition to DSO comes from people who don't appreciate that all then need is a £20 Freeview box because they've been misled into thinking they need to replace their telly and aerial otherwise they'll be staring at a blank screen in 2012.


Was bored a few months ago and walked into an Argos and was flicking through a catalogue and overheard a son talking his mum into buying a TV. She was saying she "wants one of those thin ones" and he said "Yeah this one says flat screen so it's one of them" when of course the TV in the catalogue was a CRT tv with a flat tube. I considered clearly it up but though better of it.
Argos? Dammit man, you must have been bored! Their catalogue is one of the worst examples of misinformation and marketing jargon masquerading as fact. The Christmas brochure I just threw out was full of bull**** - I particularly liked the cheapo surround system which boasted 1000w RMS, which is more than you'd expect on the average fairground ride.

It's also strange how few 1080p tellys they stock - a cynic might think that Argos are helping manufacturers to clear their old 768-line tellys (I say "telly", of course I mean WXGA monitor ;) ) before launching a big campaign to convince their customers to upgrade yet again to 1080. Cynical, me?

Oh, and don't get me started on upscaling "HD" DVD players :angryfire :p

[Daniel]

Argos? Yes I was bored out of my mind. In a way Argos could be heaven for me. No ignorant salesman trying to sell someone something they don't want and spreading misinformation. But instead it's filled with ignorant people who think Argos are somehow cheaper (which they should be)

Upconverting DVD players. What's the point? Buy a HD DVD player (I refuse to support Sony's stupid Bluray which they claim is better but it's merely more expensive) and have proper HD!

[schmenke]

50p for a chicken?! Heck I'd buy a dozen and feed the sprogs for a week... :mark:

I'm embarassed to admit that we have three tellys in the house :s
A 34" in the family room;
A 20" in the living room, and;
A 13" in the bedroom.

Um, all CRT's :erm:

[Eki]

It is as big as my shoe Hazel !! Bigger if you measure it diagonally


Hope this helps

signed: Mr SnowShoe
I have 36" snowshoes but only 32" TV.

[Drew]

I have a 13" cheapo tv here in my room but at home we have a 32" widescreen. Anything bigger and it wouldn't fit without rearranging the whole living room..

[F1nostalgic]

32" Silver Matsui CRT Widescreen TV in living room, cheap and tacky looking.
In my bedroom I have a black Grundig 20" CRT set. I was given it brand new for my 9th birthday 8 years ago and has never failed me for my Mega Drive, N64 and PS2, and when I used to have the regular playstation.

[Azumanga Davo]

I've a 42" whopper ;)

Good grief, he has waited 3,331 posts to say that! :D

[Naburn]

Was undecided about thread titles, but it could have been "You'll go blind" or "Size matters".

Now see, knowing my mum as I do, I thought for sure she was talking about......well......you know, my pink thing. She's seen me tending to it often enough to know how big it is.

Then I realized, she's not expecting me to be reading the boards!! heehee
But she is a naughty lass with that thread title, isn't she?

Oops, gotta run, stud muffin's coming..........................

[Magnus]

32" panasonic in the living room and 28" Sony in the bedroom
Hmm... here I am at 32 comparing TV-sizes??? well well

[slinkster]

We have a tiddly one. But then our flat's tiddly too so it kinda suits. I don't like huuuge tv's... and they're far too bloody noisy too (particularly for blocks of flats!) but I have often dreamt of the days we can afford to upgrade our teeny lil 12" to a nice average sized 21". :)

[edv]

LOL at Zico!

I have a 50" plasma w/HD PVR in my cave.
Mrs has 42" plasma w/HD PVR in her den.
We share a 24" CRT in the bedroom.
Guests have a 28" CRT in the guest room.
2 of the computers have integrated TVs.
Wine room has a 16" CRT

....and a lot of remotes...

[leopard]

I've been watching a china product 29" for 5 years and it's not used up. :\

Unluckily it has better age than Panasonic and Sanyo previously I have ever had.

29inch JVC with a Sony DVD recorder and Onkyo 6.1 Home Theater System. I'd quite like a widescreen TV at some stage.

[Bezza]

42inch Plasma Panasonic Viera HD TV. Its love-er-ly! :)

[Knocker69]

I have a 57" DLP Toshiba in the living room. Watching any sporting event in HD on that thing is incredible.

Oh, there's also a 32" Sony LCD hanging on the wall in the bedroom.

I have a 57" DLP Toshiba in the living room. Watching any sporting event in HD on that thing is incredible.

Oh, there's also a 32" Sony LCD hanging on the wall in the bedroom.

Good heavens Knocker, how big is your bedroom!

[raybak]

I've got a 80cm CRT in the living room, a Projecter in the Cinema/Playstation room, a 22" LCD in my bedroom and a 68cm CRT in the shed.

I know I can only watch one at a time but a man has to have his toys :)

Ray

[Dave B]

42inch Plasma Panasonic Viera HD TV. Its love-er-ly! :)
I wouldn't go that large without an HD source. If you're watching SD it must look awful :s

[nicemms]

We have a nice 28" Sony CRT! Its a very nice tv, even though it is CRT.

In my room I have a 15" CRT, don't really need an LCD, have space for CRT and plus LCDs don't have a good viewing angle sometimes.

[Bezza]

I wouldn't go that large without an HD source. If you're watching SD it must look awful :s

I am not the most technical but all I know is that with Sky HD and Panasonic Cinema System the whole viewing experience is amazing :)

[Hazell B]

Jon Brown's 42 inch whopper wouldn't impress my horse one little bit :p :

Anyway, remembered to read the new box from our TV before burning it, so I now know it's either 23 or 32 inch (you can see how interested I'm finding size, eh? :crazy: ) and can't remember if it's LCD or whatever the alternative is.

Either way, I don't think much to it. You've got to sit directly in front of it to see a decent picture. What's that all about? :s If I sprawl on the floor to one side, it's all dark and blurry. From the front it's a great picture and all the different sound versions and picture settings are great, but what's the point if I can't watch it from anywhere but the sofa? :mark:

[markabilly]

Jon Brown's 42 inch whopper wouldn't impress my horse one little bit :p :

Anyway, remembered to read the new box from our TV before burning it, so I now know it's either 23 or 32 inch (you can see how interested I'm finding size, eh? :crazy: ) and can't remember if it's LCD or whatever the alternative is.

Either way, I don't think much to it. You've got to sit directly in front of it to see a decent picture. What's that all about? :s If I sprawl on the floor to one side, it's all dark and blurry. From the front it's a great picture and all the different sound versions and picture settings are great, but what's the point if I can't watch it from anywhere but the sofa? :mark:
Must be an LCD

Was going to buy one of the new HD when our old big screen blew up, but we just hooked up to fiber optic in USA, so we hooked our old CRT 36 inch Mitsubishi up (vintage 1995) that we had not really ever used. Picture with the SD signal from fiber optic was so excellent, blew off the idea of a new set. Amazing the quality of the old re-runs from 1950 and 1960's in Black and white when seen with a proper signal coming into the TV---and visiting brother who has one of the lastest 58 inch plasma, well the size is nice because you can catch more detail, but otherwise, not worth it over our old 200lb monster mitsi

And the color with the movies from the fiber optic cable is incredible--blows away what he gets off the his set---but he does not have fiber optic. only the "DISH", os if the signals in were the same, the view of his set might be enough to make me fork out 4,600 like he did or maybe NOT

[schmenke]

Have never heard of fibre optic video signal before. How's this done?

[LeonBrooke]

So what do people think is the ideal size?

[leopard]

36 B would be awful.

[Dave B]

Have never heard of fibre optic video signal before. How's this done?
With some cable TV companies, the signal from their distribution centre to the local network is FO. It's still converted to copper cable somewhere down the line, and obviously the closer to the customer's premises the better. It generally means you can shove a lot more bandwidth down the "cable", for faster broadband and better quality TV.

Sadly here in the UK, although Telewest and NTL have pretty good quality networks, the source signal supplied by the broadcasters is often awful. Even some of the established terrestrial broadcasters somehow manage to get away with pretty shoddy PQ both on Cable and DSat.

Hazell, which TV exactly did you get? Can you fish out the box and post the model number?

Many "supermarket" LCD tellys use computer monitor panels to save cost, which is fine except that they usually have woeful contrast and poor viewing angles - as most people sit directly in front of their PCs. I suspect yours may fall into this catagory.

Going from CRT to LCD can be a disappointment for many people, it takes an exceedingly good LCD screen to even come close to the quality of a good old-fashioned tube. Add to this that the slim packaging doesn't leave much room for speakers, meaning that often the sound quality is also a backwards step unless you route through a seperate audio system.

[Dave B]

So what do people think is the ideal size?
It's really down to the size of your room. According to the THX specification, you should sit so that the screen fills up 26 - 36% of your horizontal field of vision. In practice this means that even watching a 32" screen you should be roughly 8 feet away. I've seen some huge screens which probably cost the best part of £1000 in tiny rooms which render them nearly unwatchable and your eyes just see individual pixels.

[Camelopard]

Going from CRT to LCD can be a disappointment for many people, it takes an exceedingly good LCD screen to even come close to the quality of a good old-fashioned tube. Add to this that the slim packaging doesn't leave much room for speakers, meaning that often the sound quality is also a backwards step unless you route through a seperate audio system.

Yep, have to agree with this, I'm more than happy with my Metz CRT and Strong digital Standard Definition set top box.

I will get a High Definition set top box 'when' everything is broadcast in HD. Won't be holding my breath though :p .

[markabilly]

Have never heard of fibre optic video signal before. How's this done?
There is now just one single fiber optic line to our house, and it carries four internet conections, phone lines and the video signal, all of which is incredible quality and speed

They take the same tech that is used to transmit phone calls a long distance from central station to central station, and the same tech used in linking together some high tech internal computer systems with their servers, using fiber optics, and wire a single fiber optic line from the central location all the way to your house. In other words from the point of broadcast to the point at your house where it hits the special cable box, all done via a fiber optic cable (and some T-lines/satellite signals where CBS and a few others send their signal to the major providers over a different system-- once it gets to verizon, it is all converted to fiber optic) the quality at our house with SD tv, is so good, you can instantly tell if is a satellite signal that is being "reduced" to be sent by CBS, good ole cheap Murdoch!!.

we were stunned at the improvement in quality and sound, (produces a better image than a SD dvd on a 1995 CRT or an LCD) and better than the DISH stuff--we immediately dumped our DISH, and to sit and watch SD tv at the same quality as a $4,600 plasma, amazing (of course the widescreen aspect is not present, but otherwise-BINGO)

verizon is currently doing this in limited areas in USA as a competitor to cable TV and the usual phone companies who provide internet service. We have only had it about a year. No doubt it is only a question of time, others will be doing too and it will be world wide, I would guess.

The internet speed is incredible, even with older computers. Equal to the internal speed of the computer.

The single fiber optic line can simultaneously carry four seperate internent conections, four different phone calls to four different numbers, and I do not know how many different TV stations to different cable boxes (each TV would need its own box to watch different stations). I think if you buy or rent upgraded connection boxes at your place, it will carry even more conections

Speed TV usually looked like crud over DISH and our older local cable (we had both to get some local "free" broadcasts and watch movies over the DISH, which (before fiber optic), were much better with the DISH, weather permitting). NO more!!

:D :D

[Daniel]

Many "supermarket" LCD tellys use computer monitor panels to save cost, which is fine except that they usually have woeful contrast and poor viewing angles - as most people sit directly in front of their PCs. I suspect yours may fall into this catagory.

Then there are the manufacturers who just blatantly lie about viewing angles :)

I remember going to a Sony training evening for laptops a few years back and get told about the amazing viewing angles on their new laptops but in practice the screens were nowhere near what the specifications said.....

[schmenke]

There is now just one single fiber optic line to our house, and it carries four internet conections, phone lines and the video signal, all of which is incredible quality and speed

They take the same tech that is used to transmit phone calls a long distance from central station to central station, and the same tech used in linking together some high tech internal computer systems with their servers, using fiber optics, and wire a single fiber optic line from the central location all the way to your house. In other words from the point of broadcast to the point at your house where it hits the special cable box, all done via a fiber optic cable (and some T-lines/satellite signals where CBS and a few others send their signal to the major providers over a different system-- once it gets to verizon, it is all converted to fiber optic) the quality at our house with SD tv, is so good, you can instantly tell if is a satellite signal that is being "reduced" to be sent by CBS, good ole cheap Murdoch!!.

we were stunned at the improvement in quality and sound, (produces a better image than a SD dvd on a 1995 CRT or an LCD) and better than the DISH stuff--we immediately dumped our DISH, and to sit and watch SD tv at the same quality as a $4,600 plasma, amazing (of course the widescreen aspect is not present, but otherwise-BINGO)

verizon is currently doing this in limited areas in USA as a competitor to cable TV and the usual phone companies who provide internet service. We have only had it about a year. No doubt it is only a question of time, others will be doing too and it will be world wide, I would guess.

The internet speed is incredible, even with older computers. Equal to the internal speed of the computer.

The single fiber optic line can simultaneously carry four seperate internent conections, four different phone calls to four different numbers, and I do not know how many different TV stations to different cable boxes (each TV would need its own box to watch different stations). I think if you buy or rent upgraded connection boxes at your place, it will carry even more conections

Speed TV usually looked like crud over DISH and our older local cable (we had both to get some local "free" broadcasts and watch movies over the DISH, which (before fiber optic), were much better with the DISH, weather permitting). NO more!!

:D :D

Thanks markabilly (and Dave).

Sounds impressive, although it begs the question if all broadcasters will eventually switch over to FO, since this is a terrestrial signal. Do broadcasters have to provide additional FO lines, or do they piggyback on existing (communications) lines?

[Dave B]

It depends on the area. In the UK, for example, a huge majority of households have an ancient copper cable provided by BT (or the Post Office if it's really old!) which is good for broadband up to 8 Meg (note the words "up to" - in practice this is determined by the distance to the local exchange and many people struggle to get even 2Meg).

Services like BT Vision use these existing phone lines to deliver IPTV but for most it's a far from satisfactory solution due to the poor bandwidth available on this legacy network.

Cable companies in the late 80s and early 90s invested heavily in infrastructure but only in areas where their investment was likely to be profitable - ie towns and cities. These are mostly copper but good for speeds of up to 100 Meg in some cases. This also provides "traditional" cable TV, with Virgin (ex Telewest and NTL) along with some other minor players providing hundreds of channels and true video-on-demand.

BT are slowly investing in "the 21st Century Network (http://www.btplc.com/21CN/index.htm)" which will effectively replace traditional phone lines with a high-capacity network theoretically capable of delivering a truly converged service to the whole population.

There's quite a high penetration of digital satellite in this country, which in almost every case means Sky - although other systems are available, Sky is relatively good value and provides decent enough equipment. They do offer an HD-service but only a few channels broadcast in HD and many of them simply upscale SD content.

We also have Freeview, which does not currently support HD. Boxes are cheap (<£20 for single tuner "supermarket" boxes, ~£120 for a decent quality box with twin tuners and a hard drive). If the proposals for Freeview HD come to fruition, people will require new boxes to take advantage.

Broadcasters themselves have little to do with any of this infrastructure. Sadly in the UK very few of them seem committed to producing HD content in the first place, so the distribution system is largely irrelevant. There's some decent US imports, but only Sky Sports and the BBC have shown any real desire to make their own content.

Add to this that many consumers are wholly ignorant to what HD means - confusing it with the current digital switchover. I'll wager that the overwhelming majority of HD-ready sets sold in the UK never see a high-def signal in their entire lives!

[SEATFreak]

The one in the living room is only a 32" HD Ready Sony Bravia and the one I am getting for my study is a 19" Toshiba HD Ready digital TV which is a penny short of £300.

I was looking at the 20" ones but they are dearer where I saw the two dimension of TV's.

For instance it is £349 for a 20" from the same maker as the one I am getting.

[markabilly]

Thanks markabilly (and Dave).

Sounds impressive, although it begs the question if all broadcasters will eventually switch over to FO, since this is a terrestrial signal. Do broadcasters have to provide additional FO lines, or do they piggyback on existing (communications) lines?
It does require its own type of cable or actually "fiber" for a line, and will not work on any other type of line, because it uses some type of light pulses from laser type devices to go down the line, so it has to be a new installation.

For years all we had was the usual wires and cables to our house--copper lines and all. Each phone line required its own wire, the TV cable had its own wire, amd when we wanted internet, we ended up installing a seperate line to our house from some distant connection. Simply because it was either talk on the phone or use internent but not both- and None were all that good.

When the fiber optic thing came out around here, we decided to take advantage because of the special deal and combined rates made it all cheaper they were advertizing, so we figured what the hell. Sure enough they have since rasied fees, but like the first fix, it got us hooked like junkies.

What we got was something a million times faster, and even people on the telephone sound like they are in the same room. While that is not to say perfect, it was a quantam leap over what we had, sort of like hopping from a biplane to a first class jet.

So on a comparative basis, if you get the chance to go total fiber, I would say do it.

Not sure how long it will take before it is widely available---verizon calls their system "FIOS" or something like that--Plus to do it, they have to get permission from local cities and governement, pay the usual fees for ROW and whatever and make deals with local cable companies who should figure they are doomed, because once you have it like we got, it, for about the same price, there is no comparison.

Installation can be expensive. Those who passed on the "first deal" and waited too late, are paying around 200 dollars to have the wires laid and connections made at the house --quite a bit of work because one can not use any of the existing wires or as the man said, you might as well stick with what you got. We got our connections for free, but they spent 5 hours putting in all the new wiring in the house and running the cable to our house.

The system uses some type of decoder that does what FO seems to be famous for on long distance, to have one line carry hundreds of seperate phone calls and other information at the same time on same line at something like light speed of whatever speed that is through the cable material. Amazing, and what does the future hold, I know not. But it blows away the public type satellitte systems like DISH

[Hazell B]

Dave, just for you I've fished out the instruction book (which Mick had cannily hidden right next to the DVD player under the telly :rolleyes: ) and it's as follows.

Goodmans GTVL26W28HDF.

Cheap enough, though I forget exactly how much. I bartered with ASDA and won, obviously :p : Got a computer last week, too. Bartered with Currys for that. You cannot beat a good barter :D

[Dave B]

I can't find anything on that particular one, but most Goodmans are cheap generic screens which would explain the poor viewing angle you're experiencing.

For a few more quid, Sainsburys are doing a Sony Bravia 32" for £449, so are Richer Sounds (http://www.richersounds.com/showproduct.php?cda=showproduct&pid=SONY-KDL32P3020U). Nice telly with Freeview built in. Or if you don't want to go that big, there's the 26" for £399 (http://www.richersounds.com/showproduct.php?cda=showproduct&pid=SONY-KDL26P3020U). Personally I'd have the smaller of the two, the U series is good but not Sony's finest and the 32" won't be the sharpest picture in the world.

The golden rules are to buy from somewhere where (1) you can see the screen in "normal" lighting conditions, and (2) you can take it back if you're not happy. As you're going to be staring at your telly for 5 - 10 years, I'd be seriously consider bracing the Christmas shopping queues at Asda and asking for my money back.

im suprised FREAK is ok with his size here he sure isn't on the Lady Sonia free site where he whines every day about his two inch peepee. what a pervert

[LeonBrooke]

It's really down to the size of your room. According to the THX specification, you should sit so that the screen fills up 26 - 36% of your horizontal field of vision. In practice this means that even watching a 32" screen you should be roughly 8 feet away. I've seen some huge screens which probably cost the best part of £1000 in tiny rooms which render them nearly unwatchable and your eyes just see individual pixels.

Sounds like good advice :)

[AJP]

LCD and Plasma are still not as good as the good ol' CRT...
Until they are, I wont even bother entertaining the idea of buying LCD or Plasma.

[Camelopard]

LCD and Plasma are still not as good as the good ol' CRT...
Until they are, I wont even bother entertaining the idea of buying LCD or Plasma.

My thoughts as well.....

[leopard]

They maybe great, but feature offered is not worthed as much price they offer, the may offer more prestige I think.

[tintin]

Thanks markabilly (and Dave).

Sounds impressive, although it begs the question if all broadcasters will eventually switch over to FO, since this is a terrestrial signal. Do broadcasters have to provide additional FO lines, or do they piggyback on existing (communications) lines?

Broadcasters already do use fibre for distributing material between themselves, at bandwidth of upto 270MBits.

[Daniel]

LCD and Plasma are still not as good as the good ol' CRT...
Until they are, I wont even bother entertaining the idea of buying LCD or Plasma.
Plasma gives a fine picture. It's LCD's that can be dicey. Cheaper LCD's don't give proper blacks and can suffer from motion blur. I bought the LCD screen I'm looking at second hand and it's about 4 years old and you can just see that the blacks are not the true inky dark blacks that they should be. But Plasma's don't suffer from this problem and better LCD TV's and monitors don't have as many issues.

[Hazell B]

.... most Goodmans are cheap generic screens ....

Aye, but we've had the past two TV's for donkey's years and both were Goodman ones, so we just bought the same name without even considering it - though to be fair Mick chose it and I just said it sounded fine at the price. Which leads me to ....


For a few more quid .... £449, £399....
:rotflmao:
You honestly think I'd pay four hundred quid for something that attracts so much dust yet can't take me over a four foot hedge out Hunting? :crazy:

The Goodmans was well under £200. About £160 after I'd bickered over price, I think, though I can't remember now. You know me, I hate spending money on stuff that isn't either edible or warm and furry :p :

[gospeedracer]

i have a 52" sony projector TV and still i want to have a Samsung or Bravia wide maybe... and post it on a wall or better yet mount it in a tilt matter for viewing pleasure.....

[tmx]

My brother and sister in law wanted to get a big screen tv, and they were going to get something really cheap, but i persuaded them on the new Samsung 52" 120hz, the thing looks amazing and the speakers on it sound decent for a tv speaker. It is comparable to the Sony 120hz, but some people think the color is too saturated and not natural, but I like it for the highest contrast. They're just waiting for it to lower price.

I am thinking both the samsung and sony must have use same manufactured screen with different video processing unit.

For myself I usemy 22" computer lcd and for everything, I never understood the need for big tv, I would like to buy a bigger screen, like 28", but I wouldnt go bigger than that.