Are we finally over the thinness thing yet? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 24 Old 10-22-2013, 09:18 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,917
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked: 568

I'm starting to notice fewer people (in my personal circles) even mentioning it any longer.  As if now that we're around 1 to 2 inches for large screens, customers have seen it, and are no longer "wowed".

 

Seems like a good thing, but even the 4mm thick LG OLED was only 4mm because it had a stand-only design and could not be mounted.  And I found myself looking at the pictures of it after a while and thinking that perhaps that I didn't care for it.

 

Perhaps the public are over this incessant pursuit of ever thinner screens and views the current crop as "ok"?


WARNING: You have now entered a no @#$%tard zone. Please gather your anti-vaccine propaganda nonsense and slowly back out the way you came in.
tgm1024 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 24 Old 10-22-2013, 09:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,559
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 203
I have mixed feelings on this. I would never sacrifice performance for the sake of being thin.

Aesthetically, thinner displays are much better when they're on a wall though. I want a TV that hangs like a picture rather than sticking out several inches.
The edge of my TV is only 0.5" thick, and up to about 75 degrees off to the side, it looks as thin as a picture frame. Then you go a bit further and see the other 3" between it and the wall - and that's with the slimmest mount I could find. I'd much rather the whole set was 0.5" thick and flush with the wall.

But I don't know that I would want much thinner than that. I don't think that being poster-thin would be a good thing if it could be wall mounted, just as I don't agree that going for the thinnest border around the image possible is a good thing either - the image needs to be framed.

If I just had the TV sitting out on a stand, I'd be concerned about something that was only 4mm thin, and if it was going in a corner or a cabinet thickness doesn't really matter.


But I do want an OLED display that's thin and flexible enough that it can be rolled up, so I can have a motorized 100"+ OLED display as if it were a projection screen, so if ever thinner displays are the way to get there, I suppose I'm all for it.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #3 of 24 Old 10-22-2013, 11:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
greenland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,098
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 113
OLED panels will end up being very thin, for the most part. I suggest that Panasonic name their OLED displays, The Panorexia Series.wink.gif
vinnie97 likes this.
greenland is offline  
post #4 of 24 Old 10-25-2013, 08:18 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,917
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked: 568

^^^ LOL.

 

With Edge LCD's I've always wondered if they'd figure out a way to get the light guides up and around each other to have a 2D patchwork of local dimming (instead of bands).  By the time they were done it'd probably be horrendous and leak into each other.

 

And I'm surprised that a very thin full array thing isn't cheaper by now.  At first glance it seems to me to be an easier technological challenge than edge.


WARNING: You have now entered a no @#$%tard zone. Please gather your anti-vaccine propaganda nonsense and slowly back out the way you came in.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #5 of 24 Old 10-25-2013, 10:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,559
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 203
Well Edge LEDs with "local dimming" typically have 16-32 zones with a 50/50 vertical split, so it's not only bands across the display, but it's not great either.
Sony already made their fully array local dimming sets fairly thin by lighting each zone from the bottom using light guides, rather than from behind. I'm not sure it could be much thinner than that ended up being. Not that it matters now, as all LCDs seem to be edge-lit now, and the focus is on OLED.
tgm1024 likes this.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #6 of 24 Old 10-25-2013, 10:18 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,917
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked: 568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Well Edge LEDs with "local dimming" typically have 16-32 zones with a 50/50 vertical split, so it's not only bands across the display, but it's not great either.
Sony already made their fully array local dimming sets fairly thin by lighting each zone from the bottom using light guides, rather than from behind.

 

Thanks for that.  I had no idea.


WARNING: You have now entered a no @#$%tard zone. Please gather your anti-vaccine propaganda nonsense and slowly back out the way you came in.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #7 of 24 Old 10-25-2013, 11:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,559
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Thanks for that.  I had no idea.
I couldn't find it in English, but here's an illustration:
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://av.watch.impress.co.jp/img/avw/docs/353/544/html/sony2_42.jpg.html 
z5N11u9.jpg

Instead of illuminating the LED directly on the screen in HX900, toward the upward direction, leading with the light guide plate. Contrast that also improved the influence of light on the surrounding LED is no longer by the light guide plate
(Google Translated)

What I think that last part meant, is that in addition to being thinner, contrast is higher now because it's using light guides for each zone rather than just putting a diffuser layer between the LEDs and the LCD panel, so blooming is more tightly controlled.

I think the HX920/950 actually went back on this decision, and used LEDs directly behind the panel, but with diffuser caps on the LEDs rather than a separate diffuser layer. This let them put the LEDs even closer to the panel, but I think it may have had a negative effect on performance. I seem to recall blooming being worse on those models.

Edit: Yep: http://i.imgur.com/z64v00i.jpg
tgm1024 likes this.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #8 of 24 Old 10-30-2013, 10:58 AM
Member
 
EchoOne30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 70
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 24

I think the "thin" obsession is ridiculous and sacrifices quality in the name of it. Even with smartphones. I couldn't possibly care less how thin anything is. I want it to perform its absolute best.

EchoOne30 is offline  
post #9 of 24 Old 10-30-2013, 11:32 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,917
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked: 568
Quote:
Originally Posted by EchoOne30 View Post
 

I think the "thin" obsession is ridiculous and sacrifices quality in the name of it. Even with smartphones. I couldn't possibly care less how thin anything is. I want it to perform its absolute best.

 

............that probably isn't true, but even if it is, you'd be less than 1% of 1% who believe it to that extreme.  Why?  Because the thing has to go in your living room and look nice, and a 1 foot thick set does not look nice, or a set that has outstanding PQ but has a shocking pink bezel, just isn't going to cut it.

 

There is a place for thinness, I'm just wondering if we've become "thin enough" now to stop any further pursuit of it.

 

It sometimes feels to me that on a scale of 1 to 10, if they manage to get a 1" thick set to an average of 8, that they'll then push it to .75 because the resulting 7 is good enough.  And when the .75" gets to 8, they'll push the @#$%ing thing to 5/8ths, etc., etc., etc.  We should be stopping this now.

 

I do understand chron's point of a thicker speaker....mine has that as well.  But I still think we've gone far enough dimensionally.


WARNING: You have now entered a no @#$%tard zone. Please gather your anti-vaccine propaganda nonsense and slowly back out the way you came in.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #10 of 24 Old 10-30-2013, 11:36 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,917
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked: 568

On that diversionary note, someone ßĩŦċĥ-slap the Samsung knuckleheads who thought that "a touch of color" red hue to the bezel looked good.  Or the guys at Sony who thought that blue hue to the W802 was a good idea.  Or the other Sony f-tard who thought that a blu-ray player with a pyramid like top that was completely unstackable was somehow a good idea......


WARNING: You have now entered a no @#$%tard zone. Please gather your anti-vaccine propaganda nonsense and slowly back out the way you came in.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #11 of 24 Old 10-30-2013, 03:17 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,063
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 382
There is absolutely a sweet spot for thinness. In smartphones it's "somewhere near the iPhone 5" (or equivalent) for example. Any thinner and the phone actually becomes harder to hold. The edges sharpen, the device becomes harder to grip and easier to drop, etc. Please don't confuse this with me saying Apple has it perfect. I happen to have an iPhone, but the Samsung is similarly thin and is also a good thickness as a result.

In TVs, there is, similarly, a sweet spot. You want thin enough that when on a wall, the "stick out" isn't particularly offensive, but not so thin that you sacrifice rigidity or the ability to hold the components inside or decent sound. Too many LCDs choose to ignore the last of these, especially. Why do I want my TV thinner if I then need to get a sound bar to enjoy it? So much for a clean look....

When the LG was originally announced with its ridiculously thin profile, I went on an extended rant about the loss of rigidity that would be a given from the design and how this would lead to inevitable breakage in the real world. I also complained at length about the lack of ability to store the components within the screen. I didn't really experience the sound issue much until visiting my mother and getting to appreciate how abysmal TV sound has become on overly thin designs, however.

The vast, vast majority of people will use a television with built-in speakers and will desire to have no media box for cabling. That's an essential reality. The fact that wall mountable designs require some amount of framing with which to achieve the mounting is also important.

It would be nice if the trend allows for a design where the few who don't require sound can get an even smaller design by forgoing it, but this seems a fairly inessential element of OLED success. Honestly, a sound bar would be very challenging in my environment and was for my mom as well. I doubt we're the only ones. (I have 5.1 sound.)

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #12 of 24 Old 10-30-2013, 04:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
andy sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sun city west AZ
Posts: 3,117
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 142
Just come out with a ultra thin TV and have it include a decent sound bar. They'll find a place to put it.
andy sullivan is online now  
post #13 of 24 Old 10-30-2013, 09:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
olyteddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Liked: 200
I never was into the thin thing. My array LED backlit set is about 4 or 5 inches thick. Much more even backlight and the extra cabinet volume makes for useable built in sound.
olyteddy is online now  
post #14 of 24 Old 10-31-2013, 06:28 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,917
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked: 568
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

It would be nice if the trend allows for a design where the few who don't require sound can get an even smaller design by forgoing it

 

Hey, I suggested that very thing as a general solution a while ago and you thought it was too complicated or otherwise a bad solution.  :-P

 

I still think that bolt-on (or unbolt, however you want it) speakers behind a TV (as they exist now in otherwise slimmer designs like my Sony) would be a completely doable and fine option.  I'd certainly welcome it, as would many others.

 

While I'm on the subject, if using HDMI, I can't seem to configure (or even drive from an input port) my TV's built-in speakers to be the center channel only of a 5.1 setup.  That's just stupid.  If I'm using my audio system anyway, speakers the perfect size for a center channel are *right there*!


WARNING: You have now entered a no @#$%tard zone. Please gather your anti-vaccine propaganda nonsense and slowly back out the way you came in.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #15 of 24 Old 10-31-2013, 06:31 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,917
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked: 568
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

Just come out with a ultra thin TV and have it include a decent sound bar. They'll find a place to put it.

 

IMO (apparently I must be in the minority) sound bars are ugly.  Really, they are a great clinically defined case of multiple-ugliosis.  An extra rectangle mounted below your TV on the wall?  Completely ruins the point of a wall mount: a clean look.


WARNING: You have now entered a no @#$%tard zone. Please gather your anti-vaccine propaganda nonsense and slowly back out the way you came in.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #16 of 24 Old 10-31-2013, 01:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
colour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Fenton, Mo.
Posts: 1,752
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Hey, I suggested that very thing as a general solution a while ago and you thought it was too complicated or otherwise a bad solution.  :-P

I still think that bolt-on (or unbolt, however you want it) speakers behind a TV (as they exist now in otherwise slimmer designs like my Sony) would be a completely doable and fine option.  I'd certainly welcome it, as would many others.

While I'm on the subject, if using HDMI, I can't seem to configure (or even drive from an input port) my TV's built-in speakers to be the center channel only of a 5.1 setup.  That's just stupid.  If I'm using my audio system anyway, speakers the perfect size for a center channel are *right there*!

I wouldn't want bolt on speakers behind my TV and why would you want crappy small TV speakers as a center channel. Neither of those ideas make any sense.
colour is offline  
post #17 of 24 Old 10-31-2013, 02:05 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,063
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Hey, I suggested that very thing as a general solution a while ago and you thought it was too complicated or otherwise a bad solution.  :-P

It is too complicated tgm. It doesn't mean it isn't a nice idea. smile.gif
Quote:
I still think that bolt-on (or unbolt, however you want it) speakers behind a TV (as they exist now in otherwise slimmer designs like my Sony) would be a completely doable and fine option.  I'd certainly welcome it, as would many others.

Many others still = few, however.
Quote:
While I'm on the subject, if using HDMI, I can't seem to configure (or even drive from an input port) my TV's built-in speakers to be the center channel only of a 5.1 setup.  That's just stupid.  If I'm using my audio system anyway, speakers the perfect size for a center channel are *right there*!

Yes, but they are still awful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

IMO (apparently I must be in the minority) sound bars are ugly.  Really, they are a great clinically defined case of multiple-ugliosis.  An extra rectangle mounted below your TV on the wall?  Completely ruins the point of a wall mount: a clean look.
They are ugly. Of course, so is my Kinect, which I rarely use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by colour View Post

I wouldn't want bolt on speakers behind my TV and why would you want crappy small TV speakers as a center channel. Neither of those ideas make any sense.

Well, they make some sense, they aren't mass-market appealing concepts though. That's the problem.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #18 of 24 Old 10-31-2013, 02:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
andy sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sun city west AZ
Posts: 3,117
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 142
It probably would not be cost effective but once upon a time you could buy a plasma monitor that had no speakers at all. I have never ever turned on my TV's speakers and have no idea if they even work. That's been the case for at least the last 15 years. Naturally a monitor would not appeal to the majority but if the price was a bit lower I'd go for it. To me, having a nice big TV is like having a convertible and never putting the top down. It's still nice but what a waste.
andy sullivan is online now  
post #19 of 24 Old 10-31-2013, 02:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
andy sullivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sun city west AZ
Posts: 3,117
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 142
Oops. I meant having a nice big TV and using only the onboard speakers in my convertible comparison.
andy sullivan is online now  
post #20 of 24 Old 10-31-2013, 09:52 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,917
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked: 568
Quote:
Originally Posted by colour View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Hey, I suggested that very thing as a general solution a while ago and you thought it was too complicated or otherwise a bad solution.  :-P

I still think that bolt-on (or unbolt, however you want it) speakers behind a TV (as they exist now in otherwise slimmer designs like my Sony) would be a completely doable and fine option.  I'd certainly welcome it, as would many others.

While I'm on the subject, if using HDMI, I can't seem to configure (or even drive from an input port) my TV's built-in speakers to be the center channel only of a 5.1 setup.  That's just stupid.  If I'm using my audio system anyway, speakers the perfect size for a center channel are *right there*!

I wouldn't want bolt on speakers behind my TV and why would you want crappy small TV speakers as a center channel. Neither of those ideas make any sense.

 

Yes they do.

 

First, most of the current thin bezel flat panel designs that I've seen have the speakers behind the panel with the sound directed downward or backward.  But regardless of where the sound is pointed, the entirety of the apparatus is behind the panel.  If you have a slim (1" or so) bottom bezel on your TV, there's very little design flexibility for this.

 

Second, the term "bolt-on" in this case is more of an "unbolt" or "removable".  The stated goal was to make the TV slimmer for those that have no use for the sound.  There's no reason this cannot be accomplished, and yes it makes perfect sense, and I'm sure there are folks that would love a slimmer speakerless TV.  Since you view TV speakers as "crappy small speakers", why wouldn't you want to remove them?  You're not making any sense.

 

Third, my TV is slim enough but the chassis at the speaker point is over 3" deep.  The sound is really pretty good on the KDL-60R550A.  And right or wrong, I view the center channel's primary "job" is to carry dialog and other front and center MTM style sound, for which these things are perfect.  Actually, as I use it now, when the 2.1 sound (my receiver) is being used, I keep the TV speakers on but at a subdued level.  This makes it roughly a 3.1 "sort of" solution that actually sounds pretty good, even though that sound from the center driven with it's own dedicated channel.  I've never been much impressed with 5.1...sound coming from behind me annoys me and can never be properly balanced when you have several people oriented in various places.  Not in a close-quarters (home) environment anyway.


WARNING: You have now entered a no @#$%tard zone. Please gather your anti-vaccine propaganda nonsense and slowly back out the way you came in.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #21 of 24 Old 10-31-2013, 10:31 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,063
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 382
TGM, the difference in dialog intelligibility between my not-so-good earlier center channel and my much better current one makes me believe that the typical TV would satisfy few people seeking 5.1 sound. In fact, I think "phantom center" is a better solution.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #22 of 24 Old 10-31-2013, 10:54 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,917
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked: 568
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

TGM, the difference in dialog intelligibility between my not-so-good earlier center channel and my much better current one makes me believe that the typical TV would satisfy few people seeking 5.1 sound. In fact, I think "phantom center" is a better solution.

 

I could see that being true.  And obviously so for truly bad TV speakers.  When I first tried a simple 5 speaker design at home in 1995 (Pro Logic II stuff), a crappy center channel speaker was just that, crappy.  And a person going through the effort to setup a higher end DD 5.1 system these days is not going to be psyched about any TV's speakers.

 

As stated though, I'm not a 5.1 guy.  But on those days when I've engaged the main system for 2.1 (usually because the kids want the room shaking rumble of the subwoofer during a Transformers show), the dialog would be less distracting for me coming from the TV, whose sound I'm already ok with, so I'd welcome a "3.1" solution using the TV with no extra center speaker cluttering up the works.

rogo likes this.

WARNING: You have now entered a no @#$%tard zone. Please gather your anti-vaccine propaganda nonsense and slowly back out the way you came in.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #23 of 24 Old 11-01-2013, 02:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
colour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Fenton, Mo.
Posts: 1,752
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Yes they do.

First, most of the current thin bezel flat panel designs that I've seen have the speakers behind the panel with the sound directed downward or backward.  But regardless of where the sound is pointed, the entirety of the apparatus is behind the panel.  If you have a slim (1" or so) bottom bezel on your TV, there's very little design flexibility for this.

Second, the term "bolt-on" in this case is more of an "unbolt" or "removable".  The stated goal was to make the TV slimmer for those that have no use for the sound.  There's no reason this cannot be accomplished, and yes it makes perfect sense, and I'm sure there are folks that would love a slimmer speakerless TV.  Since you view TV speakers as "crappy small speakers", why wouldn't you want to remove them?  You're not making any sense.

Third, my TV is slim enough but the chassis at the speaker point is over 3" deep.  The sound is really pretty good on the KDL-60R550A.  And right or wrong, I view the center channel's primary "job" is to carry dialog and other front and center MTM style sound, for which these things are perfect.  Actually, as I use it now, when the 2.1 sound (my receiver) is being used, I keep the TV speakers on but at a subdued level.  This makes it roughly a 3.1 "sort of" solution that actually sounds pretty good, even though that sound from the center driven with it's own dedicated channel.  I've never been much impressed with 5.1...sound coming from behind me annoys me and can never be properly balanced when you have several people oriented in various places.  Not in a close-quarters (home) environment anyway.

I'll let everyone else argue with you, I can't argue with illogical thinking.
colour is offline  
post #24 of 24 Old 11-01-2013, 03:24 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,917
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked: 568
Quote:
Originally Posted by colour View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Yes they do.

First, most of the current thin bezel flat panel designs that I've seen have the speakers behind the panel with the sound directed downward or backward.  But regardless of where the sound is pointed, the entirety of the apparatus is behind the panel.  If you have a slim (1" or so) bottom bezel on your TV, there's very little design flexibility for this.

Second, the term "bolt-on" in this case is more of an "unbolt" or "removable".  The stated goal was to make the TV slimmer for those that have no use for the sound.  There's no reason this cannot be accomplished, and yes it makes perfect sense, and I'm sure there are folks that would love a slimmer speakerless TV.  Since you view TV speakers as "crappy small speakers", why wouldn't you want to remove them?  You're not making any sense.

Third, my TV is slim enough but the chassis at the speaker point is over 3" deep.  The sound is really pretty good on the KDL-60R550A.  And right or wrong, I view the center channel's primary "job" is to carry dialog and other front and center MTM style sound, for which these things are perfect.  Actually, as I use it now, when the 2.1 sound (my receiver) is being used, I keep the TV speakers on but at a subdued level.  This makes it roughly a 3.1 "sort of" solution that actually sounds pretty good, even though that sound from the center driven with it's own dedicated channel.  I've never been much impressed with 5.1...sound coming from behind me annoys me and can never be properly balanced when you have several people oriented in various places.  Not in a close-quarters (home) environment anyway.

I'll let everyone else argue with you, I can't argue with illogical thinking.

 

Why?  You seem fairly good at it yourself.

 

By the way, this is fairly childish of you saying "I'll let everyone else argue with you", as if you're somehow speaking for some number of folks in the thread and they all supported everything you said?  That's never a very good assumption to make.  Especially since half of what you said railed simultaneously against having bolt-on (removable) speakers, and also oddly that they're small and crappy.

 

How many "others" besides you and me do you think there were in this conversation about bolt-on speakers and center channel?  I'll tell you: 2.  Rogo, and Andy Sulivan.  Andy lamented on having speakers in a TV that he doesn't even use.  Rogo said it would be nice if you could get a design allowing people who didn't want speakers to forgo it.  (And that's what "bolt-on" speakers buy you).

 

So care to rephrase your usage of "everyone else", or do you want to continue to speak for "everyone else"?


WARNING: You have now entered a no @#$%tard zone. Please gather your anti-vaccine propaganda nonsense and slowly back out the way you came in.
tgm1024 is offline  
Reply Flat Panels General and OLED Technology

Tags
Sony Xbr 55hx950 Bravia Led Hdtv
Gear in this thread

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off