AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panel General & New FP Tech › How big can TVs get?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How big can TVs get? - Page 2

post #31 of 94
2/21/11 at 8:55am
They have some giant flat panels in stadiums. I think the limit is more practical than technical..
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #32 of 94
2/21/11 at 8:59pm
Yes so it buoys down to what is your guesstimate of an average wall size that people put their displays.

Obvious though that nobody nowadays think 60" was max. This was not so obvious 6 years ago when people thought plasma guys were smoking pot when they said there will be demand for 60". I was one of them

Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

80" will not be here in the near future but the topic is max size.

I use city dwellers as proxy as I think they will be the driving force for huge size mass market adoption. You don't have that big a wall for most apartments to go above 80"
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 94
2/23/11 at 8:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by davegow View Post

I think the state of the economy has a lot to do with it right now. It's not a good time to introduce megabuck new killer consumer products like the Qualia was 5 years ago. But this is slowly changing so I'm sure that companies are working on new generations of high price (read: high profit) displays with all the mandatory goodies - 3D, multi-color LEDs, full local dimming, internet widgets, wireless etc. - in sizes up to or above 80 inches. Above that I suspect the market will be dominated by new generations of front projectors.

Right now Mitsubishi still makes 82 inch DLPs at quite reasonable prices but they sell only in tiny numbers, so I think that tells us where the dividing line will be.

As to what will qualify as "mainstream"? I'm sure the peak of the Bell curve will creep up but I suspect that 60 or 65 will remain where the tail begins for some time. Anyway, we'll see. The next few years should be interesting.

As the owner of an 82" Mits DLP... I always find these these conversations hilarious.. price, performance, design and room size dictate what people will buy. My room is large, I will buy a 92" Mits DLP if the price performance is right when the product is available later this year.

My room does not accomodate either front projection, or sticking the seating in the middle of the room. Too see the full resolution of 1080P from my seating position would require a 100" plus display. At least DLP technology scales efficiently so very big sets can be used without the power consumption browning out your whole neighborhood.
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 94
2/23/11 at 8:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtgray View Post

...My room is large, I will buy a 92" Mits DLP if the price performance is right when the product is available later this year....

All of which proves that niche markets do exist. That's why Mits has stuck with huge RPs, and good for them. But I was discussing the issue of what is "mainstream".
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 94
2/23/11 at 9:18am
Thread Starter 
RP TVs are bulky. If price was the same many more people would buy a 92" LCD than a 92" RP.
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 94
3/1/11 at 3:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoom123 View Post

.

It is the same like say cars. A Lamborghini is not mainstream. A $50K Mercedes might not be what most people will buy, but it is still a mainstream car.

I would absolutely consider Mercedes "mainstream" despite the fact they are more pricey and sold in less volume than Toyotas. I would not consider Lotus mainstream, even though they are lovely cars.

For what it's worth, there has been one purveyor of 65-inch flat panels in the U.S. the past two years: Panasonic. Everything else has been infinitesimal volume / not really available anywhere.

I'd say 60 inch might have reached the "mainstream" and that 65 will. I doubt that 70 is headed there anytime soon and I especially doubt that 80 is ever getting there. By way of perspective, "ever" in this case is the 5-7 year timeframe. I'd rather not speculate on what might happen in the latter 2010s when the world itself might look dramatically different from what it seems to be today.
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 94
10/21/11 at 3:57am
Thread Starter 
Just 8 months after I started this thread and now there is a greater selection of 65" TVs and also a 70" Sharp Aquos for $2500, a price which makes it a mainstream TV. There is also an 80" Sharp Aquos for about $5500, which if it is not considered mainstream yet it will certainly be by next year when the prices will drop and it will become more available.
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 94
10/21/11 at 7:17am
The 70" Sharp Aquos is definately "mainstream". The local Costco "big box" store is rapidly selling out of every shipment of 70" sets they receive. In fact, the 70" size is the new "big HDTV" for this SF Bay area, where small rooms in small houses are the norm.

My wife has solved the mystery of why this topic is so popular. She says men are always acting out or at least talking about "whose is bigger".
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 94
10/21/11 at 7:27am
frankly, I hope they get big enough to where you can make a real decision between RP and FP, assuming all else is equal. I would like a PJ but if I can find a flat panel that is close to the size I would get with a PJ with the same PQ, it would be a great option to explore.
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 94
10/21/11 at 7:48am
In doing some visual measurements in my house, the largest size that I feel would be acceptable in my house in around 80". Windows, doors, stairs, fireplace, etc. limit the locations in which a larger screen would or would be watchable.
Reply
Reply
post #41 of 94
10/22/11 at 9:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

IMHO I think the question of whether there is demand for large size TV ie >=60" will be known in 10 months' time

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoom123 View Post

Just 8 months after I started this thread and now there is a greater selection of 65" TVs and also a 70" Sharp Aquos for $2500, a price which makes it a mainstream TV. There is also an 80" Sharp Aquos for about $5500, which if it is not considered mainstream yet it will certainly be by next year when the prices will drop and it will become more available.

Great that someone remembers and follow up this thread. What surprised me is the 80" launch this year.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 94
10/22/11 at 11:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy; View Post

The 70" Sharp Aquos is definately "mainstream". The local Costco "big box" store is rapidly selling out of every shipment of 70" sets they receive. In fact, the 70" size is the new "big HDTV" for this SF Bay area, where small rooms in small houses are the norm.

My wife has solved the mystery of why this topic is so popular. She says men are always acting out or at least talking about "whose is bigger".

..

Reply
Reply
post #43 of 94
6/18/12 at 4:47pm
Thread Starter 
A 90" Sharp Aquos was just introduced!

It will cost $11000, so I don't know if it can count as "mainstream".

However the 80" model now sells for $4500, and I think that this is mainstream already for that size.

http://mashable.com/2012/06/18/sharp-largest-t/
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 94
6/18/12 at 5:18pm
I just want to point out that in my own definition of "mainstream", I'm not really even sure what I was writing on 3/1/11. I mean, by then it was clear the Sharp 70" would be increasingly common given the price.

For what it's worth, they sold about 200,000 of them worldwide last year, a relatively small number compared to Mercedes autos, which also have an installed based of millions on top of existing sales. M-B is clearly "mainstream".

I think the Sharp 70" is certainly getting there, although I'd be somewhat surprised if global sales reach 1 million this year given that was about what Sharp did in 60" and up last year (they did a bit more than that).

Let me say, I'm not the customer for the new 90", but I'm pretty excited about it. It's main reason for existence is not its own sales (figure on ~10,000 globally and they'd probably consider that an amazing first year) but to help sell more of the 70s -- and 80s. There is some consumer psychology that keeps people away from the largest sizes. I think Sharp is trying to move the conversation away from 60/70/80 to 70/80/90. The problem with that is a lot of homes will find even a 70" too large for serious consideration. I live, by way of example, in a home that's very much median-sized in the U.S. (I believe it's slightly over median, but very slightly) and we just got the 65", We could have gone for a 70" but there would've been wife resistance. And I'm not sure I'd love the aesthetic given what it would do to the area of the room that the 65" is in.

Essentially, by the time you reach 70", you probably lose 2/3 of possible customers immediately to space constraints and/or spouse/wife acceptance factor issues. That doesn't mean the market isn't large enough to eventually move millions per year. M-B, Audi and BMW together do that even though (a) most people can't afford them (b) a lot of people don't own cars at all (c) some people won't ever buy German for whatever reasons.

It will be interesting to see the 2012 numbers for Sharp's 70" and up production, but we might have to divine them the way the 2011s were gained, unless they break out the segment. It's also fairly clear that Sharp is slowly being bought for purposes that don't involve very-big TVs. Apple's rumored TV, for example, won't be above 60". Given the overall picture for Panasonic and Sharp -- the only people selling any meaningful unit volume over 60" -- the short-term future remains bleak. And that's why we need to enjoy a day like today.

When someone spots a 90" at retail in the SF area, please let me know.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 94
6/19/12 at 1:05am
Let's see both sides of the equation: How big a TV can get for what price? Sharp 90" is big on both sides with price @ $11K. This probably reflects the fact that Sharp created market for the 70"+ TVs but this was at the cost of economy meaning this market was rather an aberration than normal. The 90" may reflect returnign to reality and thus even if it is a real product it is on the level of wild salivating dream.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 94
6/19/12 at 11:31am
As mentioned earlier, but then, quickly forgotten...the sheer physical SIZE of a 70, 80, or 90" display is borderline ridiculous for most people in most rooms. I was in Sam's not long ago and walked up on an 80" Sharp and just about $hit my pants...and this is coming from a guy with a 60" Kuro.

Even taking several steps back, this is still a massive, massive image and "frame".

Are there some homes/spaces that will happily accept them? Absolutely. Will they "work" in most small to even moderately sized living rooms? No, but even with "maybe" you are still hard-pressed to find even a decent number of people who will: A. spend the considerable extra sum for the premium and 2. appreciate that expenditure over what can be had in the mere 55-65" arena (see waf and more guys than they'd prolly care to admit).

With these huge screens you get one extra, big player: cost, perceived benefit...AND sheer size.

Display costs will continue to decline of course- including those of the 70+ variety- but I simply do not see a time anywhere in the next 10 years where even 1 out of 50 homes will be outfitted with 70"+ screens.

Decide for yourself I guess if that's "mainstream", but that, nor $60,000+ automobiles really don't fit the definition of the word- globally or nationally- anyway. Just because thousands of people drive Mercedes in a country of 375 million or on a planet of 7 billion doesn't make them "mainstream"...ditto for 80" tv's.

We'll see.

James
Edited by mastermaybe - 6/19/12 at 11:53am
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 94
6/19/12 at 11:52am
MM, I defined "mainstream" a bit differently above in this thread as "common or frequent" rather than dominant. By that score, Mercedes is mainstream. By the score of "who owns them", clearly in the U.S. late-model MBs are owned by only the top 10-20% of the income/wealth brackets because they are pricey cars. But older models trickle down fairly low on the scale. It's a pretty mainstream vehicle, even though it's not "dominant" like a Toyota or Chevy.

By that score, the 70" has a long way to go. It's currently in less than 0.5% of U.S. homes. Even by year end, it's unlikely to reach the 1% threshold. That said, the 70" is affordable enough it's probably in the homes of people not too far from median wealth/income. In other words, I bet some people making $50,000 a year have one already.
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 94
6/19/12 at 11:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

I just want to point out that in my own definition of "mainstream", I'm not really even sure what I was writing on 3/1/11. I mean, by then it was clear the Sharp 70" would be increasingly common given the price.
For what it's worth, they sold about 200,000 of them worldwide last year, a relatively small number compared to Mercedes autos, which also have an installed based of millions on top of existing sales."


How so? Most of their vehicles are off the road within ten years (yes, that's true) and they sold barely 250,000 cars and suv's in 2011.

Mercedes is not mainstream. It is a well-known luxury brand.

Massive, massive, distinction.

There's a fundamentally incorrect definition of the word "mainstream" being applied here. Just because something is known/recognized (even widely) does not make it mainstream within a given populace.

You could argue for instance, that Mercedes are mainstream in Beverly Hills or in the Los Angeles Lakers player parking lot, but they are in no way, shape, or form mainstream nationally, or certainly, globally.

Even by your own definition (which is redefining an already accepted word with accepted definitions rolleyes.gifwink.gifbiggrin.gif) Mercedes are certainly not "common" in 99% of this country. Count the number of cars you pass before you encounter one.

They are, rather, expensive, exclusive, automobiles that only a fraction of the populace can afford and choose to drive.

Really, we likely agree on the vast majority of this anyway.

James

Edited by mastermaybe - 6/19/12 at 12:07pm
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 94
6/19/12 at 12:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

I just want to point out that in my own definition of "mainstream", I'm not really even sure what I was writing on 3/1/11. I mean, by then it was clear the Sharp 70" would be increasingly common given the price.
For what it's worth, they sold about 200,000 of them worldwide last year, a relatively small number compared to Mercedes autos, which also have an installed based of millions on top of existing sales. M-B is clearly "mainstream".
I think the Sharp 70" is certainly getting there, although I'd be somewhat surprised if global sales reach 1 million this year given that was about what Sharp did in 60" and up last year (they did a bit more than that).
Let me say, I'm not the customer for the new 90", but I'm pretty excited about it. It's main reason for existence is not its own sales (figure on ~10,000 globally and they'd probably consider that an amazing first year) but to help sell more of the 70s -- and 80s. There is some consumer psychology that keeps people away from the largest sizes. I think Sharp is trying to move the conversation away from 60/70/80 to 70/80/90. The problem with that is a lot of homes will find even a 70" too large for serious consideration. I live, by way of example, in a home that's very much median-sized in the U.S. (I believe it's slightly over median, but very slightly) and we just got the 65", We could have gone for a 70" but there would've been wife resistance. And I'm not sure I'd love the aesthetic given what it would do to the area of the room that the 65" is in.
Essentially, by the time you reach 70", you probably lose 2/3 of possible customers immediately to space constraints and/or spouse/wife acceptance factor issues. That doesn't mean the market isn't large enough to eventually move millions per year. M-B, Audi and BMW together do that even though (a) most people can't afford them (b) a lot of people don't own cars at all (c) some people won't ever buy German for whatever reasons.
It will be interesting to see the 2012 numbers for Sharp's 70" and up production, but we might have to divine them the way the 2011s were gained, unless they break out the segment. It's also fairly clear that Sharp is slowly being bought for purposes that don't involve very-big TVs. Apple's rumored TV, for example, won't be above 60". Given the overall picture for Panasonic and Sharp -- the only people selling any meaningful unit volume over 60" -- the short-term future remains bleak. And that's why we need to enjoy a day like today.
When someone spots a 90" at retail in the SF area, please let me know.



i agree that these jumbo sized displays from sharp are part of what, imho, is an astute marketing plan by sharp. they are trying to distinguish themselves from other display manufacturers by selling the largest sized displays on the market. and there is some wisdom behind this approach as i would think at the pricepoints these things are seling for, sharp probably makes some money selling these whereas no one but sammy and lg seem to make money selling smaller sized lcds.

was with the family at costco and they saw the 80". everyone stopped and said, i want to have that. when i explained that the pq of these sets was not top of the line, the response was i don't care, i just
want a set that big. so just maybe sharp is on to something. and at under 5k, i do consider the 80" models mainstream.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 94
6/19/12 at 12:58pm
From what I've gleaned from talking to prospective buyers, it seems like the size of your current TV will dictate the size of your next TV. Over the past 24 months it looks like the big market screen has been defined by a 55" display. You don't see many 52" anymore and many folks out there are probably moving to at least their 2nd main viewing display if not their 3rd. The majority of those buyers seem inclined to move up in screen size? So looking ahead to the next 24 months I think you'll see the 52"-55 crowd" going to at least a 60" and being tempted to go to a 65" if they have room. In the 12' to 15' viewing distance the options are 60", 65", and 70". I am at 17' and have been told that 70" is a reasonable size and someone told me (here) that 65" would be too small at 17'. Also for consideration, if you are going to wall mount for the first time you will be sitting 2 or 3 feet farther from your new screen. The 3D aspect of today's displays also makes a larger screen more desirable. Now for price. If you can get a 65" 3D plasma for $2,000 or a 70 LED/LCD for $2200 then you get into the, Hmmmm, why not, territory. .
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 94
6/19/12 at 3:17pm
I have been viewing a 2011 92" Mits Rear Projector in my home for nearly 8 months now. It was under $4k delivered. It is produces an outstanding image, calibrates very well. It is a 200 watt device.... There seems to be many definitions of mainstream in this thread. I have seen the 80" Sharps and they have in my opinion an inferior image to the big Mits DLP. LED motion for sports is pretty sucky even at high frame rates.

I have and do own LEDs, Plasmas and various rear projectors. Of all the sets I have owned I like my 92840 92" Mits best.. and if you are sitting 17 feet away a 90" displayyou will discoverit is not really big enough.

In the end is it will be residential door height that determines the largest practical consumer displays. I could easily accomodate a much bigger display in my living room. Wake me up when the 110" class displays are 4K pixels and and under $4k dollars. The 90" Sharp has an early adopter price. Next year it will easily be under $7k on the street.
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 94
6/19/12 at 4:15pm
City dweller here, live in Detroit. Have a 50 inch 3D plasma in my bed room, 65 inch RPTV in the play/kinect room, 2 computers with 32 inch lcd's and a 120 inch front projector. I can't imagine going any bigger then the 120 inch unless I took the projector outside I suppose.
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 94
6/19/12 at 6:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

From what I've gleaned from talking to prospective buyers, it seems like the size of your current TV will dictate the size of your next TV. Over the past 24 months it looks like the big market screen has been defined by a 55" display. You don't see many 52" anymore and many folks out there are probably moving to at least their 2nd main viewing display if not their 3rd. The majority of those buyers seem inclined to move up in screen size? So looking ahead to the next 24 months I think you'll see the 52"-55 crowd" going to at least a 60" and being tempted to go to a 65" if they have room. In the 12' to 15' viewing distance the options are 60", 65", and 70". I am at 17' and have been told that 70" is a reasonable size and someone told me (here) that 65" would be too small at 17'. Also for consideration, if you are going to wall mount for the first time you will be sitting 2 or 3 feet farther from your new screen. The 3D aspect of today's displays also makes a larger screen more desirable. Now for price. If you can get a 65" 3D plasma for $2,000 or a 70 LED/LCD for $2200 then you get into the, Hmmmm, why not, territory. .

You will be surprised how many people don't get this. This makes sense from so many different angles. 1) We anchor psychologically what we deem "huge" based on what we have currently 2) But I disagree with your 24 months replacement cycle, as TV replacement cycle though dropped from around 10 years, is hovering somewhere around 7 years. That will determine how fast these huge TV can be mainstream 3) We tend to want a larger TV than what we have now UPTO the point of logistical sensibility, or the size of our wall, size of TV cannot be increasing indefinitely, unlike say DRAM.
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 94
6/19/12 at 8:33pm
I saw the Sharp 90' display and it looked awesome. Price was jarring but if I had the money, I'd be tempted to buy it.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 94
6/19/12 at 10:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

You will be surprised how many people don't get this. This makes sense from so many different angles. 1) We anchor psychologically what we deem "huge" based on what we have currently 2) But I disagree with your 24 months replacement cycle, as TV replacement cycle though dropped from around 10 years, is hovering somewhere around 7 years. That will determine how fast these huge TV can be mainstream 3) We tend to want a larger TV than what we have now UPTO the point of logistical sensibility, or the size of our wall, size of TV cannot be increasing indefinitely, unlike say DRAM.[/quote

I disagree with me too if you thought by my saying during the next 24 months I meant a 24 month replacement cycle. I just meant that anybody looking to buy a new TV during the next 24 months will most likely go bigger than what they had and if they had a 52-55" TV they would most likely go 60-65-70. I agree with you that there is a logical limit to the desirable room size/ screen size ratio. The average sitting distance for the average viewing room is in the 8-18" range with the sweet spot being about 12" So at 12" most would migrate to the 60"-65" and a few would go 70". Few would not stay with their current 55". I think the American adage "bigger is better" really does hold true in TV's, as long as PQ does not suffer.
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 94
6/19/12 at 10:21pm
Sorry about that. I got my "and my ' mixed up.
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 94
6/19/12 at 10:33pm
I got the impression because the average person upgrading next 24 months are unlikely to have an existing 7 year old 52-55" TV smile.gif Bottomline is huge TV adoption is not as fast as people want it to be. It is actually a very slow and gradual process. So arguments about how insignificant % of market next year is probably moot. More importantly is that the trend is up significantly. Like I've been saying, the median of the bell curve is gradually shifting to larger size.

Anecdotally most people sit roughly 10-12' from the TV, for aesthetics reason, room size constraint or whatever. That will also be an indication of how big the TV can be.
Edited by specuvestor - 6/19/12 at 10:42pm
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 94
6/20/12 at 12:11am
I think we have already hit the max main stream size. Most people I know are choosing TVs to fit in a spot. Be it an entertainment center, or wall. I personally have windows that stop me from climbing much higher than my 54" withoug making the TV really off center.

So to me the question is more, as huge TVs fall in price will people start remodeling more homes to accomodate them? I think many will but I cannot guess if it will go mainstream. The average house layout in the USA has changed very much since woman went out to work. So I can see people saying I want that 80 inch TV now and we are going to make it fit. The first and easiest thing to do is simple remodels of built in entertainment centers that were mostly designed around the CRT era. But then again I also see a huge trend of people just not caring about TVs like they used to. It used to be almost everyone had to have multiple TVs, but now alot of those have been replaced by computers and a lack of interest from younger people to have TVs in the rooms.
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 94
6/20/12 at 4:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by scorrpio View Post

My vision goes something like this:


A thin-film screen put over an entire wall(or more) like wallpaper, and combines a color variety of e-ink tech found in Kindle - so it can display an image using reflected ambient light, and almost no power draw, and OLED so image can light up when light is low. Resolution high enough to see no pixellation even from 1-2ft away. Touch-sensitive, oil/dirt/water repellant. Connected into home network acting like a huge monitor. Have your wall in whatever color/design. Can be a room with a view - whatever view. Can even have live feeds from picturesque locations specifically for the purpose. Video chat like you are in the same room. Run whatever gadgets/apps anywhere on the wall. Want to watch morning news? Put up a 40" TV window in the spot closest to the breakfast table, without bothering the kids 'fingerpainting' or playing some video game in the other corner. Watching a movie? Draw up a screen as large as the wall size allows.


Ray Bradbury described the concept back in 1950 in The Veldt, and later in 451 Fahrenheit, although in a much darker setting.

I was just watching something on Modern Marvels similar to what you're describing. They showed a wall in a house that went around a corner from one room to another with an OLED TV covering the entire surface. They were saying that it may be possible to spray paint the TV on the wall and you could have screensavers running on it, different patterns of paint textures or colors, watch TV on part or all of it, they went on and on. Imagin the advertizing someone could do on the outside of a tall building with something like that. The thing that caught my attention was that all this is supposed to be possible with OLED. So in stayiing with the content of the thread, I would say that with current technology - about 80"; but with new technology, I think the sky-scraper might be the limit.
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 94
6/20/12 at 7:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtgray View Post

I have been viewing a 2011 92" Mits Rear Projector in my home for nearly 8 months now. It was under $4k delivered. It is produces an outstanding image, calibrates very well. It is a 200 watt device.... There seems to be many definitions of mainstream in this thread. I have seen the 80" Sharps and they have in my opinion an inferior image to the big Mits DLP. LED motion for sports is pretty sucky even at high frame rates.
I have and do own LEDs, Plasmas and various rear projectors. Of all the sets I have owned I like my 92840 92" Mits best.. and if you are sitting 17 feet away a 90" displayyou will discoverit is not really big enough.
In the end is it will be residential door height that determines the largest practical consumer displays. I could easily accomodate a much bigger display in my living room. Wake me up when the 110" class displays are 4K pixels and and under $4k dollars. The 90" Sharp has an early adopter price. Next year it will easily be under $7k on the street.

Sure, I concur with you...at SEVENTEEN FEET. wink.gif

How many people sit much beyond HALF that distance though? I'm at 10 feet myself...and that's with sectional against the back wall and the display mounted 10 inches off the front wall. Now at 16X17 I realize my living room isn't huge, but it's not tiny either.

I'd guess that most do not sit beyond 12'. That affords for a couch to be up against a rear wall (with your head 2-3 feet off the wall) and the tv on a stand against the wall (about a foot off) in a 16-17 wide/deep room.


James
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panel General & New FP Tech › How big can TVs get?