new TV advice
 

Hi

I'm looking for a new TV ... any recommendations? Requirements a-

* 26" - 32" (viewing distance eight to ten feet ... is this OK?)

* Flat panel (not just flatscreen)

* Good picture quality. 90% of our viewing is off a Nokia Mediamaster;
also some use of a DVD player and and as a screen for the Mac.

* Long warranty; reputable brand

* RGB capable Scart input

* Prog. Scan capable component video input

* VGA input (unless it has DVI instead...)

Nice to have:-

* HDTV ready

* DVI or HDMI input

* Digibox built in

* PVR built in

thanks...



--
u n d e r a c h i e v e r

"u n d e r a c h i e v e r"
wrote in message
news:[email protected] ewred.gradwell.net...
Hi

I'm looking for a new TV ... any recommendations? Requirements a-

* 26" - 32" (viewing distance eight to ten feet ... is this OK?)

With that viewing distance I would consider at least 36", preferbly 42"

Nath wrote:
"u n d e r a c h i e v e r"
wrote in message
news:[email protected] ewred.gradwell.net...
Hi

I'm looking for a new TV ... any recommendations? Requirements a-

* 26" - 32" (viewing distance eight to ten feet ... is this OK?)

With that viewing distance I would consider at least 36", preferbly
42"

Why?
Not everyone wants or needs such a large screen dominating their lounge
I know plenty of people who are happy with 21" or even smaller TVs at that
distance.
My 28" is about 6ft away and is plenty large enough.
Also the costs start to increase significantly once you go above 32" meaning
that the OP would have to spend a hell of a lot more money or go for an
inferior quality product.
--
Alex

"We are now up against live, hostile targets"

"So, if Little Red Riding Hood should show up with a bazooka and a bad
attitude, I expect you to chin the bitch! "

www.drzoidberg.co.uk
www.ebayfaq.co.uk

No, it's because UK owners for some reason restrict themselves to stupidly
small sets at large viewing distances, ie 14" at 20' away. And this is
supposed to be OK. A mate that's not into HT saw my 28" widescreen TV and
said "BLOODY HELL WHAT A BIG TV!!". Quite. And not taking into account the
general public have restrictions on AV gear.

I've used a 28" at 6' and that's OK..but a 28" in a small living room with a
8'-9' distance is way too small -32" is a minimum, and with 8' or higher 32"
is just about OK but nothing brilliant.

I speak my mind, and do not sway to the general populace or other people on
this NG who prefer "lifestyle" type audio/video systems.

Why?

Unless you wish to strain whilst watching TV then get a decent sized
display.

Not everyone wants or needs such a large screen dominating their lounge
I know plenty of people who are happy with 21" or even smaller TVs at that
distance.

I know people with Sony HTIB who are "happy" too. I would not switch my
audio system on to show the difference:-D. my parents initially thought the
42" CRT RP I gave them was WAY WAY too big, with about 8' viewing distance.
But guess what? They're now using it all the time, and very much doubt
they'll got back to their smaller TV...which in your "opinion" is good
enough. And they're not into films/music/audio/HT as anywhere near like me.

No way could I see "movie buffs" accept 21" TV's (or smaller) unless you use
binoculars.

My 28" is about 6ft away and is plenty large enough.

So was mine- Panasonic 28" at 6'. OK for TV shows/news etc. -even so; for
films you need something bigger. You don't get the immersion whilst watching
a film on a small screen. There is something special when watching a Borg
cube 6' accross, you get that tingly feeling which is not there with a
crummy small TV. A 32" flat panel is a minimum for 6' (true viewable over a
CRT of course) so bigger than 32" CRT.

Also the costs start to increase significantly once you go above 32"
meaning that the OP would have to spend a hell of a lot more money or go
for an inferior quality product.
--
Alex

Cost is irrelevant, since he stated no price.

So was mine- Panasonic 28" at 6'. OK for TV shows/news etc. -even so; for
films you need something bigger. You don't get the immersion whilst
watching a film on a small screen. There is something special when
watching a Borg cube 6' accross, you get that tingly feeling which is not
there with a crummy small TV. A 32" flat panel is a minimum for 6' (true
viewable over a CRT of course) so bigger than 32" CRT.

That should be 32" minimum for films at 6'

"Nath" wrote in message
...
No, it's because UK owners for some reason restrict themselves to stupidly
small sets at large viewing distances, ie 14" at 20' away. And this is
supposed to be OK. A mate that's not into HT saw my 28" widescreen TV and
said "BLOODY HELL WHAT A BIG TV!!". Quite. And not taking into account the
general public have restrictions on AV gear.

I've used a 28" at 6' and that's OK..but a 28" in a small living room with
a 8'-9' distance is way too small


that's just an opinion though - a 28" lcd is the equivalent of a 30" CRT and
my parents are happy with a 28" crt in their decent sized living room.
they even said maybe it was too big at first.



--
Gareth.
Quote of the day.
You're disgusting! you say he is sex lupines and sweep him away.
A chinese actress suffers the indignity of bad subtitles in the film 'red to
kill'

Nath wrote:
Why?

Unless you wish to strain whilst watching TV then get a decent sized
display.

We are talking about looking at a screen , not having a dump.
A 28 or 32" screen would not give most people eye strain , far from it.

Not everyone wants or needs such a large screen dominating their
lounge I know plenty of people who are happy with 21" or even smaller TVs
at that distance.

I know people with Sony HTIB who are "happy" too. I would not switch
my audio system on to show the difference:-D. my parents initially
thought the 42" CRT RP I gave them was WAY WAY too big, with about 8'
viewing distance. But guess what? They're now using it all the time,
and very much doubt they'll got back to their smaller TV...which in
your "opinion" is good enough. And they're not into
films/music/audio/HT as anywhere near like me.

And what does that prove , other than your parents got used to a bigger
screen?

No way could I see "movie buffs" accept 21" TV's (or smaller) unless
you use binoculars.

My 28" is about 6ft away and is plenty large enough.

So was mine- Panasonic 28" at 6'. OK for TV shows/news etc. -even so;
for films you need something bigger.

No I don't.
**You** might need something bigger.
If I wanted a bigger screen I would go out and buy one.

You don't get the immersion
whilst watching a film on a small screen.

A good film will hold the attention no matter what the screen.

There is something special
when watching a Borg cube 6' accross, you get that tingly feeling
which is not there with a crummy small TV.

What defines a crummy small tv?

A 32" flat panel is a
minimum for 6' (true viewable over a CRT of course) so bigger than
32" CRT.

Minimum according to who?
It's down to the individual concerned to decide how large a screen they want
, not you.



Also the costs start to increase significantly once you go above 32"
meaning that the OP would have to spend a hell of a lot more money
or go for an inferior quality product.
--
Alex

Cost is irrelevant, since he stated no price.

Of course cost is relevant you ****ing idiot.
--
Alex

"We are now up against live, hostile targets"

"So, if Little Red Riding Hood should show up with a bazooka and a bad
attitude, I expect you to chin the bitch! "

www.drzoidberg.co.uk
www.ebayfaq.co.uk

Nath wrote:
No, it's because UK owners for some reason restrict themselves to
stupidly small sets at large viewing distances, ie 14" at 20' away.

Why are you suddenly talking about using a portable TV at the end of a long
lounge?

And this is supposed to be OK. A mate that's not into HT saw my 28"
widescreen TV and said "BLOODY HELL WHAT A BIG TV!!".

So your friend thinks that a 28" screen is quite large

And not
taking into account the general public have restrictions on AV gear.

What restrictions would those be?
Or do you mean that fact that a lot of people aren't as obsessed with you
about home cinema to the exclusion of everything else.


I've used a 28" at 6' and that's OK..but a 28" in a small living room
with a 8'-9' distance is way too small

According to what criteria?
The law of home cinema according to some ****ing retard?

-32" is a minimum, and with 8'
or higher 32" is just about OK but nothing brilliant.

Again , according to who?

I speak my mind, and do not sway to the general populace or other
people on this NG who prefer "lifestyle" type audio/video systems.

Who is talking about lifestyle systems?
The OP asked about 28" or 32" flatscreen sets as thats a size that he feels
would be fine.
He is the one that is going to watch it , not you.

--
Alex

"We are now up against live, hostile targets"

"So, if Little Red Riding Hood should show up with a bazooka and a bad
attitude, I expect you to chin the bitch! "

www.drzoidberg.co.uk
www.ebayfaq.co.uk

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 13:37:02 +0100, "Nath" wrotf:


"u n d e r a c h i e v e r"
wrote in message
news:[email protected] newred.gradwell.net...
Hi

I'm looking for a new TV ... any recommendations? Requirements a-

* 26" - 32" (viewing distance eight to ten feet ... is this OK?)

With that viewing distance I would consider at least 36", preferbly 42"

FWIW Toshiba have their own rules of thumb re TV size / Ratio and distance.

http://www.toshiba.ca/web/link?id=57

Apparently they have the following recommendations...

High Definition-Compatible 16:9 Aspect Ratio
34-inch: 4.5 feet
42-inch: 5.0 feet
50-inch: 6.0 feet
57-inch: 7.0 feet
65-inch: 8.0 feet

Of course they're a TV set manufacturer and no doubt want to push the bigger
pricier items. But they appear to have "backed" this up with statements re the
field of vision and how to optimise it.

Mal



Remove x- for correct email addy

"5605" wrote in message
...
On 2004-10-30 19:13:07 +0100, "Nath" said:

No, it's because UK owners for some reason restrict themselves to
stupidly small sets at large viewing distances, ie 14" at 20' away. And
this is supposed to be OK. A mate that's not into HT saw my 28"
widescreen TV and said "BLOODY HELL WHAT A BIG TV!!". Quite. And not
taking into account the general public have restrictions on AV gear.

But all you've done is prove my point - he said "bloody hell what a big
TV"

But once he watched a film he didn't say the TV/image was way too big. On
the contrary. He's got a 21" TV in a living room, then decided his TV is way
too small. He would never have known (stayed blissfully ignorant) if he
didn't see my TV, thinking that his 21" was good enough. It wasn't.

and he's indicative of the general public who buy 99% of all tvs and av
systems that are sold.

Again, the same thing for the audio system. "bloody hell what's all this
kit" until put on Das Boot. Gobsmacked. Couldn't go back to his TV speakers.
Again blissfully unaware, mainly because he didn't understand what each bit
does, and didn't like people with knowledge that he is has none of. btw he's
a Quantum Physicist, another with knowledge of Unix, yet I do not go all
moody that his knowledge of the subject is beyond my comprehension. But I
still take their advice/knowledge without trying to be a smart ass or say
"well that's just your opinion"

People make choices for a hundred and one different reasons -

They make choices until they've realized they've made the wrong choice. Just
would I if I compared to X I own to XY product I demo. Which I have in the
past (Yamaha AV amp v seperates, Arcam v Audiolab, Rotel v Lexicon, Rel v
SVS)

just because yours is different doesn't mean others' are wrong. At the end
of the day Nath - YOU ARE the general public. The fact that you blow your
load

whatever. Shows what you're thinking of at the moment.

dimensions doesn't make you special - except in the educationally
subnormal sense.

That I prefer higher-end kit?

Stop being such a HC fascist.

HC enthuasist.


I've used a 28" at 6' and that's OK..but a 28" in a small living room
with a 8'-9' distance is way too small -32" is a minimum, and with 8' or
higher 32" is just about OK but nothing brilliant.

Yet again you are stating an opinion, not a point of fact. This is simply
your opinion and nothing more. Nothing about your opinion makes it any
more, or less, valid than anyone else's. Wind your neck in for once.

If someone prefers shoes two sizes too small, does that make it OK? No,
they've made a wrong choice, as most people have no common sense or like to
be told why, and they need to be told otherwise. As the moron would wear
them anyway, as the majority of people have no common sense and need to be
told.

Another example is giving advice to people (ie do not buy a computer from
xxx) then they go ahead and buy it from there anyway. And start moaning the
computer crashes, found out I could have built better for cheaper, PC is a
POS and complain the PC help line staff are idiots.

Then came the "I told you so" which they do not like, thinking they're more
knowledgeable than a "expert"

You do seem to tar everyone that doesn't agree with your opnions as
"lifetstyle system" victims - why is that?

When you have to compromise on kit- for certain reasons, then obviously
you're making a compromise. Therefore from someone with less compormises &
knowledge of what happens when you do;you will not get the best kit if best
sound/picture is the desired conclusion to the purchase- it is THEIR problem
if they have to make a compromise, not mine. If they have to stick with a
Kef 2005 with Rel Quake then they have to accept that someone with Krell
poweramps and JM Lab Utopia will say what they have is a POS. If they
dislike the JM Lab owner for stating that or trying to elevate their own
gear (ie one Polk HTIB owner on avs who started attacking high end kit
owners) it is their problem and no amount of them saying "well that's just
your opinion" will change the FACT what they have is a POS compared to
person B.

Can't you just accept that one person's idea of HC is not necessarily the
same as someone else's?

Yes, but if someone has to limit themselves to small screen/shiity audio
system then they have to accept others with alternative "wiser" opinion with
past experience with the kit/image size that their's is probably wrong. It
is there decision whether to accept this or not. I state the "facts" as
facts, as that is what I know (so far), and it's upto them to them to find
out otherwise..

ie-
me : SVS subs are bloody brilliant..your Rel Quake is ****.
them: Hmm possibly...I'll check it out against my Rel Quake 40W.....right
you are.
etc.

or from my persective..
them.: SVS subs are crap...Dual Contrabasses are much better.
me: Hmm possibly...I'll check it out...(decision pending)
etc

and I would disagree with someone like this
them : SVS subs are crap.....Rel Storm is much better
me: you're talking crap- I own both.


You bang on about SVS subs and RPTVs but some of us get an equally
involving experience using kit that YOU DON'T OWN.

Equally involving experience?
A)With good quality gear?
B) With better quality gear?
B)With POS gear?

If it's A or B with other similar good quality gear then yes, or undoubtly.
If it's C then you're blissfully ignorent, or have no clue what is good nor
like others slamming your level of kit. I notice that all the time, people
like to pretend what they have is the best ever, yet do not like it when
someone else comes along with better gear (ie a Ferrari owner against a Ford
owner). There is always someone with better gear then you, if their opinion
of your **** Ford is not to your liking, grow a ****ing spine and accept
what you have IS A POS! Stop whinging with this modern PC-I'll sue you type
of modern society- and accept it.

Tell you what, go to the American forums and ask what is a good display for
a certain distance, for films and normal TV watching I'm sure they will
disagree with 21" @ 8' especially for films.

lol gotta love the people on the UK NG- most are stuck in this age..

http://www.ipct.pucrs.br/labcom/old_tv_set_rc.jpg

Nath wrote:
Tell you what, go to the American forums and ask what is a good
display for a certain distance, for films and normal TV watching I'm
sure they will disagree with 21" @ 8' especially for films.

So you snip the entire previous post and don't respond to any of the
comments and questions.
Instead your whole argument comes down to "the americans told me to do it".
Thats a country who think that you need a 5 litre engine and a car the size
of a house or you aren't a real man.

Oh , and where do you get the 21" at 8 feet from?
Thats not what anyone here was suggesting.

lol gotta love the people on the UK NG- most are stuck in this age..

you are a complete ****ing idiot
--
Alex

"We are now up against live, hostile targets"

"So, if Little Red Riding Hood should show up with a bazooka and a bad
attitude, I expect you to chin the bitch! "

www.drzoidberg.co.uk
www.ebayfaq.co.uk

Nath wrote:
snip utter drivel

You know I don't think I've seen this much bull**** since Nick LeLievre was
around
--
Alex

"We are now up against live, hostile targets"

"So, if Little Red Riding Hood should show up with a bazooka and a bad
attitude, I expect you to chin the bitch! "

www.drzoidberg.co.uk
www.ebayfaq.co.uk

At least I don't have a PC-Mame-Arcade machine in the kitchen. And wear
sleeveless t-shirts.

What a ****ing loser.

Nath wrote:
No, it's because UK owners for some reason restrict themselves to
stupidly small sets at large viewing distances, ie 14" at 20' away.
And this is supposed to be OK. A mate that's not into HT saw my 28"
widescreen TV and said "BLOODY HELL WHAT A BIG TV!!". Quite. And not
taking into account the general public have restrictions on AV gear.

I've used a 28" at 6' and that's OK..but a 28" in a small living room
with a 8'-9' distance is way too small -32" is a minimum, and with 8'
or higher 32" is just about OK but nothing brilliant.

I speak my mind, and do not sway to the general populace or other
people on this NG who prefer "lifestyle" type audio/video systems.

what about a sub for the bedroom?

i was thinking of an SVS, but that'd be overkill, surely?

Nath wrote:
At least I don't have a PC-Mame-Arcade machine in the kitchen. And
wear sleeveless t-shirts.

What a ****ing loser.

yes, you are

Dr Zoidberg wrote:
Nath wrote:
Tell you what, go to the American forums and ask what is a good
display for a certain distance, for films and normal TV watching I'm
sure they will disagree with 21" @ 8' especially for films.

So you snip the entire previous post and don't respond to any of the
comments and questions.
Instead your whole argument comes down to "the americans told me to
do it". Thats a country who think that you need a 5 litre engine and
a car the size of a house or you aren't a real man.

Oh , and where do you get the 21" at 8 feet from?
Thats not what anyone here was suggesting.

lol gotta love the people on the UK NG- most are stuck in this age..

you are a complete ****ing idiot

i bet he's never done any ****ing in his life!

he's a ****ing complete idiot, though ;-)

"Kez" wrote in message
...
Nath wrote:
At least I don't have a PC-Mame-Arcade machine in the kitchen. And
wear sleeveless t-shirts.

What a ****ing loser.

yes, you are


How appropriate. You fight like a cow. :-D

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:49:59 +0100, the dog from that film you saw
wrote:


that's just an opinion though - a 28" lcd is the equivalent of a 30" CRT and
my parents are happy with a 28" crt in their decent sized living room.
they even said maybe it was too big at first.

after discussion with partner last night we're going for 26"

any recommendations at this size?


--
u n d e r a c h i e v e r

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 14:31:08 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg"
wrotf:

Nath wrote:
"u n d e r a c h i e v e r"
wrote in message
news:[email protected] ewred.gradwell.net...
Hi

I'm looking for a new TV ... any recommendations? Requirements a-

* 26" - 32" (viewing distance eight to ten feet ... is this OK?)

With that viewing distance I would consider at least 36", preferbly
42"

Why?
Not everyone wants or needs such a large screen dominating their lounge
I know plenty of people who are happy with 21" or even smaller TVs at that
distance.
My 28" is about 6ft away and is plenty large enough.
Also the costs start to increase significantly once you go above 32" meaning
that the OP would have to spend a hell of a lot more money or go for an
inferior quality product.

As always personal preference will dictate what is ultimately "acceptable". The
original poster was apparently seeking confirmation whether 8' - 10' was OK for
a 26" to 32" TV.

This NG is not a general tv.equipment group - it is media.home-cinema. One
would expect to receive "advice" and recommendations which is appropriate to the
group; namely home-cinema.

The Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) recommends that
the screen should be of a size that you will see 30 degrees of viewing angle
side to side.

See a detailed explanation in this NG post :

http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?q=...ing.net&rnum=2

For a WS ratio of 16:9, the horizontal screen size can be calculated from the
"published" size (diagonal) divided by 1.14734
(pythagoras hypotenuse = sqrt (16*16 + 9*9) = 18.357. 18.357/16 = 1.14734...)

If you know your viewing distance:

(Recommended) Screen size (Horizontal not diagonal)(") = Viewing Distance (") /
1.8664

Otherwise, if you know your screen size

(Recommended) Viewing distance (") = Screen Size (Horizontal not diagonal) (")
* 1.8664


So, back to the post. Notwithstanding that everything is subjective and down to
budgets, available space etc, the poster was seeking advice and recommendations
based on other people's subjective experiences. On that basis everyone is
entitled to their opinions, including Nath.

However, there appears to be a professional body which publishes recommended
screen sizes for a home cinema experience and supports Nath's position. Using
their recommendations and guidelines:

viewing distance 8' (assuming WS screen ration 16:9)

(Horizontal) Screen Size = 8*12 / 1.8664 = 51"

Multiply this by 1.14734 to get the diagonal size: 59"

FWIW, I have a ' 50" ' RP LCD screen viewed from about 12' feet. IMO the screen
is too small for a true 'home cinema' experience. Nice as though it is I'd like
a bigger version! :)

'My 28" is about 6ft away and is plenty large enough.'

Plenty large enough for watching TV. Not large enough for home cinema.

In my opinion. In my experience. ;-)

Mal


Remove x- for correct email addy

"Nath" wrote in message ...
No, it's because UK owners for some reason restrict themselves to stupidly small sets at large viewing
distances, ie 14" at 20' away. And this is supposed to be OK. A mate that's not into HT saw my 28"
widescreen TV and said "BLOODY HELL WHAT A BIG TV!!". Quite. And not taking into account the general
public have restrictions on AV gear.

I've used a 28" at 6' and that's OK..but a 28" in a small living room with a 8'-9' distance is way too
small -32" is a minimum, and with 8' or higher 32" is just about OK but nothing brilliant.

I speak my mind, and do not sway to the general populace or other people on this NG who prefer
"lifestyle" type audio/video systems.


You have a 28inch TV? I thought you had a 42 inch rear pro, sorry a 19 inch PC monitor. **** off you
bull****ting snakecharming foolboy.

You have been busted yet again by your own fannytalk.

****wit.

"Nath" wrote in message ...
At least I don't have a PC-Mame-Arcade machine in the kitchen. And wear sleeveless t-shirts.

What a ****ing loser.


Sleeveless T-****????? That wouldn't be a t-shirt then would it, bilgebrain;.

"Nath" wrote in message ...
Why?

Unless you wish to strain whilst watching TV then get a decent sized display.

Not everyone wants or needs such a large screen dominating their lounge
I know plenty of people who are happy with 21" or even smaller TVs at that distance.

I know people with Sony HTIB who are "happy" too. I would not switch my audio system on to show the
difference:-D. my parents initially thought the 42" CRT RP I gave them was WAY WAY too big, with about
8' viewing distance. But guess what? They're now using it all the time, and very much doubt they'll got
back to their smaller TV...which in your "opinion" is good enough. And they're not into
films/music/audio/HT as anywhere near like me.

You talk more ******** than anyone I have ever come across. The 42inch that you ****ed up you mean? How
are they watching a broken TV, if it isn't broken, why are you not using it?

You spewforth the biggest pile of horse the world has ever known.

Become something interesting, like a fannyfart. (that is when a lady get air inside her & it parps out
you ****ing VIRGIN)

On 31 Oct 2004 09:45:50 GMT, u n d e r a c h i e v e r
wrotf:

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:49:59 +0100, the dog from that film you saw
wrote:


that's just an opinion though - a 28" lcd is the equivalent of a 30" CRT and
my parents are happy with a 28" crt in their decent sized living room.
they even said maybe it was too big at first.

after discussion with partner last night we're going for 26"

any recommendations at this size?


At 8' feet viewing distance?

For home cinema?

If the answer is yes to both.....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...1/Bins08sm.JPG

:)

Mal


Remove x- for correct email addy

Nath wrote:
"Kez" wrote in message
...
Nath wrote:
At least I don't have a PC-Mame-Arcade machine in the kitchen. And
wear sleeveless t-shirts.

What a ****ing loser.

yes, you are


How appropriate. You fight like a cow. :-D

i am rubber, you are glue. :-D

Nige wrote:
"Nath" wrote in message
...
At least I don't have a PC-Mame-Arcade machine in the kitchen. And
wear sleeveless t-shirts.

What a ****ing loser.


Sleeveless T-****????? That wouldn't be a t-shirt then would it,
bilgebrain;.

i think he means vest.

"Nige" wrote in message
...

"Nath" wrote in message
...
Why?

Unless you wish to strain whilst watching TV then get a decent sized
display.

Not everyone wants or needs such a large screen dominating their lounge
I know plenty of people who are happy with 21" or even smaller TVs at
that distance.

I know people with Sony HTIB who are "happy" too. I would not switch my
audio system on to show the difference:-D. my parents initially thought
the 42" CRT RP I gave them was WAY WAY too big, with about 8' viewing
distance. But guess what? They're now using it all the time, and very
much doubt they'll got back to their smaller TV...which in your "opinion"
is good enough. And they're not into films/music/audio/HT as anywhere
near like me.

You talk more ******** than anyone I have ever come across. The 42inch
that you ****ed up you mean? How are they watching a broken TV, if it
isn't broken, why are you not using it?

It's occasional fault that effects changing channels or occasionally when
switching on. Therefore if you keep to the same channel it's perfectly
watchable. It's not broken. Please learn English. It is faulty upon certain
conditions.

And the fault is one that is fairly well know. Please explain how I could
**** it up with convergence & installing duvatyne? Or performing optical
focus?

And by the way it didn't "**** up" as soon as I did the tweaks (if I
knackered service menu) I did them all, then after a few months the fault
appeared.

"Nige" wrote in message
...

"Nath" wrote in message
...
No, it's because UK owners for some reason restrict themselves to
stupidly small sets at large viewing distances, ie 14" at 20' away. And
this is supposed to be OK. A mate that's not into HT saw my 28"
widescreen TV and said "BLOODY HELL WHAT A BIG TV!!". Quite. And not
taking into account the general public have restrictions on AV gear.

I've used a 28" at 6' and that's OK..but a 28" in a small living room
with a 8'-9' distance is way too small -32" is a minimum, and with 8' or
higher 32" is just about OK but nothing brilliant.

I speak my mind, and do not sway to the general populace or other people
on this NG who prefer "lifestyle" type audio/video systems.


You have a 28inch TV? I thought you had a 42 inch rear pro, sorry a 19
inch PC monitor. **** off you bull****ting snakecharming foolboy.

You have been busted yet again by your own fannytalk.

****wit.

I have a Panasonic 28" that I do not use (annoying NTSC flicker) parents use
my old 42" and currently using a 19" with my Neuneo until I can buy a new
display.

viewing distance 8' (assuming WS screen ration 16:9)

(Horizontal) Screen Size = 8*12 / 1.8664 = 51"

Multiply this by 1.14734 to get the diagonal size: 59"

FWIW, I have a ' 50" ' RP LCD screen viewed from about 12' feet. IMO the
screen
is too small for a true 'home cinema' experience. Nice as though it is
I'd like
a bigger version! :)

'My 28" is about 6ft away and is plenty large enough.'

Plenty large enough for watching TV. Not large enough for home cinema.

In my opinion. In my experience. ;-)

Mal

Nice one. That'll shut up the "tiny TV" fans out there. As you said, a
21"-28" TV @ 8'-10' is NOT home cinema. I find my 19" PC monitor just about
acceptable @ 5' for TV shows, but for films it's way too small. Previous set
was 42" @ 6' so it was horrible downsizing :-(

Kez wrote:
Nige wrote:
"Nath" wrote in message
...
At least I don't have a PC-Mame-Arcade machine in the kitchen. And
wear sleeveless t-shirts.

What a ****ing loser.


Sleeveless T-****????? That wouldn't be a t-shirt then would it,
bilgebrain;.

i think he means vest.

It had sleeves originally , but one fell off at a concert , so the other was
removed to match.
--
Alex

"We are now up against live, hostile targets"

"So, if Little Red Riding Hood should show up with a bazooka and a bad
attitude, I expect you to chin the bitch! "

www.drzoidberg.co.uk
www.ebayfaq.co.uk

5605 wrote:
Of course all this will probably change
when and if you finally get laid.

Don't worry , he uses his personality as a contraceptive

--
Alex

"We are now up against live, hostile targets"

"So, if Little Red Riding Hood should show up with a bazooka and a bad
attitude, I expect you to chin the bitch! "

www.drzoidberg.co.uk
www.ebayfaq.co.uk