Tod Daniel:

I totally agree with John on this. I've alays thought large screen TVs were inredibly chavvy and rather council estate as statistics and trends have shown.

If you have a huge room, good luck trying to view sport on your 32". Big rooms justify a big TV. It's all in scale. It's only chavvy if you have a small council house and a huge Panasonic stuck to your wall (and you don't live in Salcombe, clearly).

I'd love to see some of the homes where people call others chavvy. Some people have no taste for example. They buy a modern B&O and plonk it next to some incredibly poor furniture.

Tod Daniel:

if i walk into someone's house with a large TV, i tend to thinkt that they are rather uneducated

Incredible!

moxxey:

If you have a huge room, good luck trying to view sport on your 32". 

The not-so-subtle implication being you have big rooms for your big tellies?

Either way, some people who buy large TVs from ASDA probably have good taste in interior decor, in the same way that some people who buy large TVs from B&O may prefer fleur-de-lys wallpaper as a background to hang them on. The one common factor uniting them, however, is that they have poor taste in TVs. Large TVs are vulgar, unless they are in a pub or some commercial setting such as a conferencing facility.

The big TV in the little room always looks odd to me as well, as it seems place the emphasis not on the people but on the screen. Meanwhile, one of the couples that was visiting our home yesterday called to ask my help in finding an Avant. What's really funny is that they never seemed very interested in the Avant compared to two of the other couples, but when they went home to their big box flat screen they really didnt like the sound or the depth of color. 

 

 

Well, the broadcasts and gaming consoles are increasing the need for bigger screens. As I only have a 28'' LX I notice this. Watching a soccer game, they show half the field. On a big screen it's OK, but I'm having problems with small players and even smaller ball. This has made me watch much less sports. Its also hard to read some of the info text playing XBOX 360, it's so small. On a 42" screen it would be no problem.

Daniel:

Well, the broadcasts and gaming consoles are increasing the need for bigger screens. As I only have a 28'' LX I notice this. Watching a soccer game, they show half the field. On a big screen it's OK, but I'm having problems with small players and even smaller ball. This has made me watch much less sports. Its also hard to read some of the info text playing XBOX 360, it's so small. On a 42" screen it would be no problem.

I think the problem you describe is probably more due to the fact that you are watching on a 4:3 aspect ratio on your LX. I have similar experiences with my 4:3 Beovision 1, but no problems at all on the 16:9 Avant. Perhaps you need an Avant, not a big screen?

 

Tod Daniel:

Personally, i'd rather be at the gym, out surfing or biking but maybe that's just me :)

 

That's why the word 'personal' is so apposite in your reply!

 

j0hnbarker:

Daniel:

Well, the broadcasts and gaming consoles are increasing the need for bigger screens. As I only have a 28'' LX I notice this. Watching a soccer game, they show half the field. On a big screen it's OK, but I'm having problems with small players and even smaller ball. This has made me watch much less sports. Its also hard to read some of the info text playing XBOX 360, it's so small. On a 42" screen it would be no problem.

I think the problem you describe is probably more due to the fact that you are watching on a 4:3 aspect ratio on your LX. I have similar experiences with my 4:3 Beovision 1, but no problems at all on the 16:9 Avant. Perhaps you need an Avant, not a big screen?

 

IIRC the vertical dimension of a 28" 4:3 screen is greater than that of a 32" 16:9 screen - if so, watching on an Avant would make only make Daniel's problem worse!

Puncher:

IIRC the vertical dimension of a 28" 4:3 screen is greater than that of a 32" 16:9 screen - if so, watching on an Avant would make only make Daniel's problem worse!

Yes, but if the material is 16:9 as the vast majority nowadays is, the problem is the other way round. The horizontal physical size of the display is what decides the size of the visible picture. This, however, doesn't change the fundamental problem: if you want a bigger picture, you ultimately need a bigger screen! Simple as that!

As my "main" TVs still haven't agreed to carry themselves up to my new apartment, I've been watching a couple of smaller MXs. Something like ice hockey can be a bit like guesswork on them, what it wasn't in the 4:3 days.

Of course, there are some silly people who want to watch wrong aspect ratio material either zoomed or cropped, because they like to lose parts of the picture instead of having some dark glass surface

This may look a bit different in the UK, where at least the Beeb apparently likes to use some odd aspect ratios like 14:9 as a compromise (worse for everybody).

This is all true -but so many things that we buy are devalued/replaced quickly - its partly in the nature of big retail driven econmies to need to re-sell products sooner than actually required, partly genuine innovation.

 

Aside from vinyl, CD, analogue TV  and FM broadcasts which all had stability over some decades, the last 25 years have seen a kind of arms race by big entertainment companies - Sony, Phillips etc changing ( or introducing)  formats almost annually in the 90's, and in many ways it was an attempt to resell content.  Did the market really need DCC, SACD or DAT (domestically)... ?

There are many examples - from films first seen at the cinema, then on TV (bought by the station), then sold on VHS (maybe betamax too) then laser disc, then DVD, then DVD special edition directors remake, then blu-ray, then bluray3D, then streamed through subscription/pay per view.  To call it money for old rope hardly covers it.

Albums first heard on vinyl, then 8track, then cassette, then CD, minidisc, DCC, DAT, SACD, CD remaster, CD Legacy Edition with out-takes, MP3...and now streamed via subscription service.

Some titles will have been sold to some people maybe 6 times or more!!  Remember hardware companies often have a stake in film/music production companies, so they have a vested interest in rteselling you the same stuff time and again.

Plus, the hardware makers keep sort of re-inventing the wheel just to sell more kit - bigger, better, smaller, quiter, louder, etc etc.

Most cars are worth a fraction of their original sale price with 5 years - many are literally scrap after less than 10 - and they cost more than a TV, on the whole.

We have two avants - one with SKY HD one with BT vision - both are superb sound & picture.... only limited by physical bulk and being 28" and 32" ....but as neither of those is an issue for us,  they are perfect.

In fact, an HD signal into an avant - via RgB scart - is really quite superb.

 

 

Even though it is placed in a normal sized room,I considered my large screen TV not only made the viewing experience far more enjoyable,but subtitles far easier to read,but apparently all the time I have been an uneducated chav placing more emphasis on the TV than people.

Still,things could be worse.

I might be judgmental,and patronising.

tournedos:

Of course, there are some silly people who want to watch wrong aspect ratio material either zoomed or cropped, because they like to lose parts of the picture instead of having some dark glass surface

I have recently bought a BV7.

My local dealer having set up the TV,I asked why it was not automatically switching to the correct aspect ratio,eg 4:3.

I was told that they had never been asked this before as their customers,having bought a 16:9 TV,wanted the whole screen filled.

It took them some time to find the setting to enable automatic aspect ratio switching.

TerryM:

I might be judgmental,and patronising.

 

Head over to the outsourcing thread..... there is a mastercass in patronising & judgemental going on there....with breakout sessions on elitistism, zenophobia and smugness !!  

TerryM:

Even though it is placed in a normal sized room,I considered my large screen TV not only made the viewing experience far more enjoyable,but subtitles far easier to read,but apparently all the time I have been an uneducated chav placing more emphasis on the TV than people.

Still,things could be worse.

I might be judgmental,and patronising.

You've conflated two different points of view as to why large screen TVs are gauche there Terry. I'd suggest that supports at least one of those perspectives. You don't have fleur-de-lys wallpaper, do you?

 

 

 

 

I have just been looking at the new Samsung screens and interestingly the gent i was talking to said the new range of TV's will have a picture engine that could be easily removed and replaced, so as to keep the processing software as up to date as possibe. Quite literaly unboxing the say "Beosystem 3" and replacing it at a reasoanble cost.

moxxey:

When I bought my BV7-40 and it broke (twice!), the dealer lent me an old BV7-32. It was incredible how small it seemed in the room. Just couldn't get used it it - but there again, perhaps I'm uneducated and need to get out jogging with Tod.

I lived in a similar property in Sheffield a few years ago. The living room was >30'x20' and I had a 28" Avant a few feet away from the sofa. I suppose I could have hung a 70" screen at one end and still be able to view teletex at the other, but I simply didn't see the point. The same room was filled with mid-century furniture and various ecclectic design pieces and I was very proud of how it looked. In this case the TV complemented the decor, but it wasn't the focal point. There's a subtlety to that distinction that, in my mind at least, is generally lost on purchasers of enormous screens.

Can everybody who posts please include a picture of there wallpaper so they can be evaluated , size of room and TV size would also be valuable information to assess there class .

tournedos:

Puncher:

IIRC the vertical dimension of a 28" 4:3 screen is greater than that of a 32" 16:9 screen - if so, watching on an Avant would make only make Daniel's problem worse!

Yes, but if the material is 16:9 as the vast majority nowadays is, the problem is the other way round. The horizontal physical size of the display is what decides the size of the visible picture. This, however, doesn't change the fundamental problem: if you want a bigger picture, you ultimately need a bigger screen! Simple as that!

As my "main" TVs still haven't agreed to carry themselves up to my new apartment, I've been watching a couple of smaller MXs. Something like ice hockey can be a bit like guesswork on them, what it wasn't in the 4:3 days.

Of course, there are some silly people who want to watch wrong aspect ratio material either zoomed or cropped, because they like to lose parts of the picture instead of having some dark glass surface

This may look a bit different in the UK, where at least the Beeb apparently likes to use some odd aspect ratios like 14:9 as a compromise (worse for everybody).

In the UK, the aspect ratio of choice for widescreen material broadcast from analogue transmitters is 14:9. This has been the case for many years and is meant to be a compromise solution for viewers of both 4:3 and 16:9 televisions. I think this is a very sensible solution to  an unsolvable problem. When analogue transmissions ceased in my part of England I spent a long time trying to source a digital "set top box" which allowed switching between 4:3, 14:9 and 16:9 ratios directly from the remote to use with my MX. That way I can choose the ratio that best suits the programme, but in fact it is mainly 14:9 that I choose!

Neil.

moxxey:

When I bought my BV7-40 and it broke (twice!), the dealer lent me an old BV7-32. It was incredible how small it seemed in the room. Just couldn't get used it it

So true! It's hard to watch a smaller screen if you're used to a bigger one.

Besides that, imo an AVANT 32 is a lot bigger/bulky than a BV10-40 hanging on the wall. 

I stopped trying to keep up and buy the latest many years ago while I was still young. I saw my friends spend a fortune on electronics. They too realised that it was a waste in the end. There will always be something newer around the corner.

How does it work if you use Sony PS3 games on an 32" Avant today? Lets say Gran Tourismo 5 as an example. Technology force us to upgrade in the end. That is the sad truth. I don´t really need a flatscreen. There is no wall behind my tv to hang it on. I don´t want my home centered around a tv. The manufactures seems to think so.

j0hnbarker:

moxxey:

When I bought my BV7-40 and it broke (twice!), the dealer lent me an old BV7-32. It was incredible how small it seemed in the room. Just couldn't get used it it - but there again, perhaps I'm uneducated and need to get out jogging with Tod.

I lived in a similar property in Sheffield a few years ago. The living room was >30'x20' and I had a 28" Avant a few feet away from the sofa. I suppose I could have hung a 70" screen at one end and still be able to view teletex at the other, but I simply didn't see the point. The same room was filled with mid-century furniture and various ecclectic design pieces and I was very proud of how it looked. In this case the TV complemented the decor, but it wasn't the focal point. There's a subtlety to that distinction that, in my mind at least, is generally lost on purchasers of enormous screens.

"-and why couldn't we just stay with the old B/W tv's -and why do we need mobile phones when the old wired ones worked well...and, and, and..."

Maybe it's hard for you living in the modern world -but stop judging other people for their choice of screen-size. I've never heard anything as ridiculous...Get a life.

I'd agree that the rapidly changing world of technology as regards TV's makes the potential B&O purchase a contentious one - take for instance the just discontinued Beovision 8-40 at A$8,000.00 when one can get the likes of a HX929 Sony Bravia, or Panasonic VT30 for around the A$3k mark or less depending upon screen size and retail discounts.

I would far prefer to buy a B&O TV as an all round AV solution in the context of active B&O speakers, than an competing TV for which I will need to place a large centre channel box either underneath or above the TV, as well as left and right matching passive main speakers and the AV processor amplifier/receiver to drive them, and it's attendant 'rack' to hold it, from both a performance and especially aesthetic point of view.

However, when LG and Samsung are to introduce OLED sets on to the market later this year, which technology will obviate the various shortfalls of both LCD and plasma on a picture performance basis, one really does need something special in the B&O appeal beyond just design and aesthetics, to justify the price.

Simply put, the days when one kept a TV for a decade or more are gone, and with the advances in technology, my concern is that the expensive and lovely looking B&O TV will be outclassed in short order in sheer performance terms by the advances in screen technology from the mainstream manufactureres.

I accept there is no simple answer to this, as B&O are a small specialist company and cannot adapt to the changes in technology as fast as other manufacturers, and due production volumes and economies of scale, not to their pricing structures either.

As to the size of the screen, surely one would use the resource that B&O themselves provide as regards a chart for working out the optimum viewing distance, as regards resolution, or the similar chart found on FlatpanelsHD, or other home theatre sites.  

The optimum in picture viewing is after all, a result of the viewer to screen distance, and the eyes effective field of view, and not the size of the screen per se.  

If the picture appears small, then sit closer to the set....conversly sitting to close to a large LCD screen showing SD resolution will reveal the pixel structure, giving a less sharp, grainy result to the eyes, with commensurate eye strain and discomfort....

I dare not comment upon wallpaper... or chavs, having no experience of either....

Best Regards

John...

 

a2bur:

Can everybody who posts please include a picture of there wallpaper so they can be evaluated , size of room and TV size would also be valuable information to assess there class .

No thank you I once posted a picture of my BV8 against a messy bookcase with its cables on display and was criticised - valid criticism I will admit, but still !! that's why I so admire other Beoworlders who managed to keep their environments so neat and tidy !!