New T.V., DLP, LCoS, Plasma, etc?
Feb 23, 2006 at 12:53 AM Post #31 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by nysulli
something else to add about the mitsu, from what i've read, mitsu is one of only a handful of manufactures that make their own glass for the screen, i also noticed that sound and vision put the mitsu on their top 50 list of 2005 for all A/V gear, there is a sony on that list as well, not sure if its the same set your looking at

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/art...&page_number=1



Thanks for posting that link. Great write up on the 50" Sony he's looking at.
 
Feb 23, 2006 at 4:34 AM Post #32 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox
I don't want to derail this thread, but if I could ask a quick question: Which of the newer formats have no issues doubling as a computer monitor? I would want the best quality I could get for movies/etc, but it would be cool to hook my computer up to it for gaming every once and a while. I know that older TV's had issues being used for gaming because they had a different kind of pixels... something like that anyways.



DLP. Particulary 720p models, since they have 1280x720 native resolution. Samsung models (most of them) even have a VGA input as well.

-Ed
 
Feb 27, 2006 at 1:27 AM Post #33 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by drewski
Jon,

You are the reason I stay away from this place... everytime I peek in, I see that the Mrs. has either given you the OK to buy some big ticket item, or even worse, she's gone and bought you something! Where do I trade my wife in for an upgrade???



Drewski, where have you been old man? Good to see that you are still around. Keep in mind, 23 years of marriage, and two almost 20 year old boys later, I am finally able to look at upgrading my 27" Sony. I kept waiting for the old horse (the TV, not the wife) to break down so I would have an excuse to buy a new television but no such luck. The sucker is over 20 years old and still going strong.
Quote:


Sorry, I have nothing of any use to add right now. I have to wait 3 more years before plunking down some money on a new TV- my son destroys everything and I know that he'd destroy any new TV that we would get.

Drew (who is still alive and kicking)
k1000smile.gif


My two sons are 20 and 17 and I still fear they will destroy something.....like their cars.

For anyone who cares, I have narrowed down to two front runners:

The Mitsubishi WD-52628
getfile.asp


Or the Sony 50" Grand WEGA™ SXRD (KDS-R50XBR1)
KDSR50XBR1.jpg


The cabinet I have been seriously looking at for both my home theatre and my two channel set up is made by Salamander Designs:

popgall_247ma.jpg


I would want one in all black though.
 
Feb 27, 2006 at 4:19 PM Post #35 of 45
I would buy a Dell 3007WFP

Dell's flagship tft monitor boasts 4 million pixels and measures 30 inches in size

Native resolution of 2560x1600

11ms response time = good for gaming

This is definately a videophile buy
icon10.gif



i think it lacks a tv tuner because its a computer monitor but im not sure

it rocks anyways!
 
Feb 27, 2006 at 8:33 PM Post #36 of 45
This is kind of a side note and inspired by JMT's note that the 42" widescreen TV's at the store felt roughly the same size as his "normal" (ie. 4:3 ratio) TV at home.

I'm tackling this as a math problem where we want to maximize surface area (big screen baby!) but still want to get a new HD screen (ie. 16:9 ratio).

Hypothetically, let's consider any rectangle with a fixed diagonal because that's how we measure TV's... by their diagonal size. To maximize the surface area of a rectangle with a fixed diagonal size, you've gotta make the 2 sides as equal as possible (ie. a square). But HD, though it uses a ratio that is more comfortable to watch (at least for me), makes TVs more "rectangular", making the 2 sides significantly different lengths compared to our old, normal TVs where the sides are close to the same size. Therefore, when comparing 2 televisions, an HD TV (16:9 ratio) and an old, normal TV (4:3 ratio) with the same diagonal size, the HD TV will actually have signficantly LESS surface area (ie. the HDTV will be smaller).

I'd been thinking about this problem for a while so I thought I'd tackle it with some numbers. I've done some calculations to try and back this up for the more mathematically inclined of you:

Comparing JMT's 27" TV to 42" Widescreen

a=unit length of TV
c=diagonal of TV in inches
d=surface area of TV in inches^2

(4a)^2 + (3a)^2=c^2 (using your normal 27" screen which has 4:3 ratio and using pythagoras)
16a^2 + 9a^2=c^2
25a^2=c^2

c^2=27^2=729 (sub in 729 for c^2)
25a^2=729 (divide both sides by 25)
a^2=29.16 (square root both sides)
a=5.4

So each side of 27" TV is 4a and 3a
4a=4(5.4)=21.6
3a=3(5.4)=16.2

Surface area of 27" normal 4:3 ratio TV
4a(3a)=21.6(16.2)=349.92 inches^2 of surface area

Using 42" Widescreen Television with 16:9 ratio and using pythagoras

(16a)^2 + (9a)^2=c^2
256a^2 + 81a^2=c^2
337a^2=c^2

c^2=42^2=1764 (sub in 1764 for c^2)
337a^2=1764 (divide both sides by 337)
a^2=5.23 (square root both sides)
a=2.29

So each side of 42" TV is 16a and 9a
16a=16(2.29)=36.61
9a= 9(2.29)=20.61

Surface Area of 42" widescreen 16:9 ratio TV
16a(9a)=36.61(20.61)=753.76 inches^2 of surface area

Conclusion

Nope, turns out 42" widescreen has more than double the surface area of a normal 27" TV!

Comparing 42" Widescreen to 42" normal TV

(calculating a^2)
25a^2=c^2 (regular screen)
337a^2=c^2 (widescreen)

(calculating surface area)
12a^2=d^2 (regular screen)
144a^2=d^2 (widescreen)

Using 42" Normal 4:3 ratio TV

c^2=42^2=1764
25a^2=1764
a^2=70.56

12a^2=d^2
12(70.56)=846.72 inches^2 of surface area

753.76/846.72=0.89=89%

Conclusion

Turns out at 42", the HD TV will be only 89% as big as the normal TV of the same diagonal size. And the problem will only get worse as you get bigger TVs!
 
Mar 11, 2006 at 9:43 PM Post #38 of 45
Finally made a decision, pulled the trigger, had everything delivered, and set it all up:

HT5.jpg


HT4.jpg


HT2.jpg


This is what it looked like yesterday:

system1.jpg


To think that this all started because my wife was tired of the "bachelor" look of my rig. I'm glad I could make her happy.
 
Mar 11, 2006 at 11:50 PM Post #40 of 45
That looks neat, I bet it rated high on your WAF
biggrin.gif
, this thread should be a sticky for any head-fiers who want to upgrade their HT setup, "Honey, looks the before and after picture, do you think we can do better than that?"
very_evil_smiley.gif
 
Mar 12, 2006 at 12:26 AM Post #41 of 45
Looks nice, hope you enjoy it!

Observations:
*It looks like you have the Salamander Synergy Quad cabinet which if I recall is just over 7 ft wide. Taking this into account, it would mean your speakers are roughly 8 feet apart from each other at the tweeters in your current setup.

*You don't want your front speakers to be different distances from the monitor.

*Your monitor is 50", which means you should ideally be seated roughly 12 ft away at the sweet spot. (50"x2.5) recommended. However, in my setup with a 53" monitor I find that I need to be seated slightly further away about +2-3 ft--especially for non HD broadcasts.

Suggestions:
*If possible place each of your front speakers roughly 6.25 ft away from the center channel on either side and move them slightly forward from monitor/center channel (about 1-2 ft). Try towing them in as well.
 
Mar 12, 2006 at 8:31 PM Post #43 of 45
I'm currently in the market for an HDTV. In fact, with a little luck I'll be buying it tomorrow. I'm pretty much set on a 42" plasma but I have to wonder if I should get a 50" instead. My viewing distance is 8' so I think a 42" inch should suffice. I'm just worried I'll buy it and then regret not getting a 50". At $1000 more than the 42", the 50" is much more than I wanted to spend. I also think a 50" would overwhelm my living room. I figure though that with new and improved technologies down the road, I can always upgrade to somthing bigger and better about 5 years from now.
 
Mar 12, 2006 at 11:37 PM Post #44 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by zotjen
I'm currently in the market for an HDTV. In fact, with a little luck I'll be buying it tomorrow. I'm pretty much set on a 42" plasma but I have to wonder if I should get a 50" instead. My viewing distance is 8' so I think a 42" inch should suffice. I'm just worried I'll buy it and then regret not getting a 50". At $1000 more than the 42", the 50" is much more than I wanted to spend. I also think a 50" would overwhelm my living room. I figure though that with new and improved technologies down the road, I can always upgrade to somthing bigger and better about 5 years from now.


I know how you feel. After placing my initial order (originally it was for a Mitsubishi WD-52628), I did some more research and changed it to the Sony 50". I then started thinking that perhaps I should bite the proverbial bullet and shell out the extra grand for the 60". I went as far as going to the store where I bought it from, and sat in front of both the 50" and the 60" for a while to get a "feel" for what I would bring home. In the end, I decided that I did not want to pay an additional $100 per diagonal inch and stayed with the 50". After unpacking and setting up the 50", I was glad I did. The 50 looks much larger in my family room than it did in the showroom. The 60 would have been humongous. My primary seating area is about 9.5' from the TV, and even at that I could use another foot or so.
 
Mar 13, 2006 at 4:16 AM Post #45 of 45
yeah..i agree..originally i wanted the mitsubishi diamond 73incher but the wife said no because the built in cabinets only had a opening for 52inch so dissappointed i got a panasonic 52inch lcd hdtv...it is big enough.....and i am glad that she made me get the one that fit.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top