Why Thin?

Seems to be a race on, on who can make the thinnest flat panel TV.

Ok, so the things wall mountable - and could look good stuck on a wall -
but in most homes the TV is going to stand up and replace a rather
fatter box, and a bit of bulge could be easily lost in positioning.

Making an especially thin TV pushes the price up, requires smaller
special parts, has heat dissipation issues, requires stronger cabinet
materials to avoid flexing, and compromises socket choices and their
location. Make the cabinet a bit bigger, and ye could have a user
replaceable backlight, and slot in modules for tuners, media players and
other accessories.

Is the TV another victim of the 'size 0' model fad?

--
Adrian C

Adrian C wrote:
Seems to be a race on, on who can make the thinnest flat panel TV.

Ok, so the things wall mountable - and could look good stuck on a wall -
but in most homes the TV is going to stand up and replace a rather
fatter box, and a bit of bulge could be easily lost in positioning.

Making an especially thin TV pushes the price up, requires smaller
special parts, has heat dissipation issues, requires stronger cabinet
materials to avoid flexing, and compromises socket choices and their
location. Make the cabinet a bit bigger, and ye could have a user
replaceable backlight, and slot in modules for tuners, media players and
other accessories.

Is the TV another victim of the 'size 0' model fad?

I don't think so; I think it's something akin
to sexual selection in genetics.

Initially, it was hard to make a TV that was at all thin;
so thin TV's were seen as desirable.

But once you've established thin=good in the public's
mind, thinner=better is the logical, or at least inevitable
consequence.

Even though (as you point out) extreme
taking the idea to extremes is actually bad.

BugBear

On Jun 2, 12:58*pm, bugbear wrote:
Adrian C wrote:
Seems to be a race on, on who can make the thinnest flat panel TV.

Ok, so the things wall mountable - and could look good stuck on a wall -
but in most homes the TV is going to stand up and replace a rather
fatter box, and a bit of bulge could be easily lost in positioning.

Making an especially thin TV pushes the price up, requires smaller
special parts, has heat dissipation issues, requires stronger cabinet
materials to avoid flexing, and compromises socket choices and their
location. Make the cabinet a bit bigger, and ye could have a user
replaceable backlight, and slot in modules for tuners, media players and
other accessories.

Is the TV another victim of the 'size 0' model fad?

I don't think so; I think it's something akin
to sexual selection in genetics.

Initially, it was hard to make a TV that was at all thin;
so thin TV's were seen as desirable.

But once you've established thin=good in the public's
mind, thinner=better is the logical, or at least inevitable
consequence.

Even though (as you point out) extreme
taking the idea to extremes is actually bad.

* BugBear

I've seen the Samsung Smart TV and it does look good, mainly because
of the thin bezel and not the thinnness of the panel.

With much of the functionality taken out, including decent speakers,
you're just transferring all the clever bits to the shelves under the
telly.

In article ,
Adrian C wrote:
Making an especially thin TV pushes the price up, requires smaller
special parts, has heat dissipation issues, requires stronger cabinet
materials to avoid flexing, and compromises socket choices and their
location. Make the cabinet a bit bigger, and ye could have a user
replaceable backlight, and slot in modules for tuners, media players and
other accessories.

And by far the most important one - makes fitting decent speakers
impossible.

--
*Microsoft broke Volkswagen's record: They only made 21.4 million bugs.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Adrian C wrote:
Seems to be a race on, on who can make the thinnest flat panel TV.

Ok, so the things wall mountable - and could look good stuck on a wall -
but in most homes the TV is going to stand up and replace a rather
fatter box, and a bit of bulge could be easily lost in positioning.

Making an especially thin TV pushes the price up, requires smaller
special parts, has heat dissipation issues, requires stronger cabinet
materials to avoid flexing, and compromises socket choices and their
location. Make the cabinet a bit bigger, and ye could have a user
replaceable backlight, and slot in modules for tuners, media players and
other accessories.

Is the TV another victim of the 'size 0' model fad?

You don't even mention, no room for acceptable speakers.

--
Adrian

On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 14:20:45 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Adrian C wrote:
Making an especially thin TV pushes the price up, requires smaller
special parts, has heat dissipation issues, requires stronger cabinet
materials to avoid flexing, and compromises socket choices and their
location. Make the cabinet a bit bigger, and ye could have a user
replaceable backlight, and slot in modules for tuners, media players and
other accessories.

And by far the most important one - makes fitting decent speakers
impossible.

Decades ago I was introduced to electrostatic speakers. They were
flat. Flat thin screens with flat thin speakers is not likely to
happen but it's not impossible.

Steve

--
Neural network applications, help and support.

Neural Network Software. www.npsl1.com
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. www.justnn.com

Adrian wrote:

Adrian C wrote:

Seems to be a race on, on who can make the thinnest flat panel TV.

You don't even mention, no room for acceptable speakers.

Since when did TVs (CRT or LCD/plasma) have decent speakers? Much
better off using external ...

Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 14:20:45 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In ,
Adrian wrote:
Making an especially thin TV pushes the price up, requires smaller
special parts, has heat dissipation issues, requires stronger cabinet
materials to avoid flexing, and compromises socket choices and their
location. Make the cabinet a bit bigger, and ye could have a user
replaceable backlight, and slot in modules for tuners, media players and
other accessories.

And by far the most important one - makes fitting decent speakers
impossible.

Decades ago I was introduced to electrostatic speakers. They were
flat. Flat thin screens with flat thin speakers is not likely to
happen but it's not impossible.

I assume you're thinking of Quads.

Rather more recently there was NXT, which was all set to
be the Next Big Thing.

What happened to them?

BugBear

In article ,
Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
And by far the most important one - makes fitting decent speakers
impossible.

Decades ago I was introduced to electrostatic speakers. They were
flat. Flat thin screens with flat thin speakers is not likely to
happen but it's not impossible.

Snag is a speaker diaphragm has to move air. Either by having a large area
and not moving far in and out, or a smaller area with longer travel.
Electrostatics need a large area. Probably at least the size of the TV for
decent levels.

Sound is always a problem with TV sets. You canna change the laws of
physics cap'n or summut.

--
*I must always remember that I'm unique, just like everyone else. *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Andy Burns wrote:
Adrian wrote:

Adrian C wrote:

Seems to be a race on, on who can make the thinnest flat panel TV.
You don't even mention, no room for acceptable speakers.

Since when did TVs (CRT or LCD/plasma) have decent speakers? Much
better off using external ...

That's why I said, acceptable, as opposed to decent, which as you say
are as rare as hens teeth. I use external speakers on my main set.

--
Adrian