AVS Forum banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
We currently have a 36" CRT that might get replaced by a new LCD, but only if I manage to walk the fine line of what my wife finds visually pleasing vs what I want. From a price standpoint, I am looking as the Vizio SV470XVT, once the coupon is good on Monday. It seems like a good balance of price and performance and has my wife's approval so far as it is under $1300.


So this morning I was telling her I was not sure it was big enough and we spent a few moments looking at how big the screen will be vs the current, and then I pulled out the charts on the 'net that say it really should be bigger. She was less than persuaded, as she thinks the current set takes up too much room and she is even thinking that the tower speakers on each side of the existing set take up too much room and need to go. I told her that would cost more $$$ so I think they are safe for now.


However back to size, the family room is 20' long and 13' wide; the TV will be on an 7' wall on the short side of the room if that makes sense. With this postion the farthest seating would be 18' away if the TV were on the wall, and this would be almost perperndicular to the screen. Other seating would be from 8' on and at approx 15 degree off perpendicular max. Given this, is a 47" screen really big enough? I hate to get this, lug the 180 pound CRT somewhere and then have to lug it back if this is not the right size. IF the TV stays on the existing stand it will sit approx 2' into the room and bring that 18' down to 16' as the maximum distance.


Thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
I just upgraded from a 32 inch CRT to our first LCD HD, 42 inch. The 32 inch TV is stuck in our spare room, too heavy to lug it anywhere else . I was thinking about going 47 inch but settled on 42 inch based on price and Wife's preferences. I am glad I got 42 inch because , from our 9 foot away viewing point, 47 would have been just too much. I think you will find 47 good enough for your room but 50 might be optimum if 20 foot away.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
IMO, 47 will be enough because you're going from a 36" to a 47", so you'll instantly see the size difference.


However, as time goes on and you get used the 47", you'll probably want to go bigger. Wait for some Superbowl sales if you can, there are should be some really good deals out there. If it were me, I would wait until I could afford to get a 52". At that distance, I myself, wouldn't want anything smaller than 52 inches.


Good luck with the wife!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
50 inches+ you'll be wanting bigger to the point where you don't have to look upwards and strain your neck, as you get use to the size.



First buyer's remorse is always size I read from somewhere...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,754 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by dzd9fy /forum/post/15438544


We currently have a 36" CRT that might get replaced by a new LCD, but only if I manage to walk the fine line of what my wife finds visually pleasing vs what I want. ....


She was less than persuaded, as she thinks the current set takes up too much room ....!

if your current 36" is a CRT 4:3 aspect tv, which i assume is correct, then if you look at this site
http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi

for comparisons to 16:9 , the 47" 16:9 hdtv size is comparable to a 38.4" 4:3 TV.


so if your current 36 is a good size for you, then the 47" ought to be as well --FOR standard 4:3 type viewing because the height of the image is comparable! if you look further at that comparison report, even more importantly, is the size of the image when viewing hd movies. they give dimensions for two of the popular movie aspects. the width remains the same, while the height changes downward. for 1.85 movies it is about the same (

so if you start watching a lot of 2.35 movies and you will, you will be thinking the set is too small because all of a sudden the image height is smaller by almost 5 inches. and so will your wife. (on the other hand, it will be larger by some 5" than if you watch the same movie on your 36" 4:3 set.)


so play with the comparisons and use them to your best advantage in your negotions with your wife (though i think she might be better at this than you are when i read she is talking about getting rid of the speakers lol).


here's another site that gives a visual look at different hdtv sizes
http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi


good luck


TVbc



and btw, the lcd will take up less room than that humongous crt
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Dude, are you insane? wife vs the entire internet? LOL


If you take one piece of advice, from the internet this should be it:

Listen to your wife, they are always right!


But if you want our opinion...

If a bigger screen is in -your- budget go for it. Bigger is better, and once you get it home, both of you will be happy with it.


On your 36" CRT SD content currently looks awesome, but you will quickly notice how crappy it looks on a 52". 47" might be a better and more affordable choice.


As far as your wife's concern of taking too much space. LCD are much thinner, and lighter than your 200lb 36" CRT. Even buying a 52" screen might actually save you space, especially if you mount it on the wall. Also keep in mind that if you mount it on the wall, your going to need to add 2 - 4 feet of extra viewing distance.


good luck!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
I'm still confused by the subject. What does the size of your wife have to do with the internet?



Just kidding



Opinions will vary. When you see those charts online, you will often see the "minimum" distance is what they quote, which is the closest you can sit without being distracted by pixels Even this is kind of silly though because much of the content most people will be watching is not at 1080i, and you can notice MPEG artifacts / blockiness at much further distances.


I sit about 12 feet away from my new 47", which I think is just about perfect, but I don't think a 52 inch would have been overkill. For 18 feet you could definitely go larger, but it is such a step up for us (I actually came from a 19 inch) I think it is pleasing either way.


I agree with the others -- do whatever your wife wants (but still maintain veto power), but I don't think you will be disappointed either way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Thanks for all the responses so far, and I appreciate the humor laced within the advice



We went to Costco and looked at this along with some others and it looks like while we both agree this is a pretty good price for a pretty good TV, it might be better to hold off a bit and go bigger. Kind of a suprise to me, but she asked if this is really what I want or if I am going to wish I had something else 6 months down the road which I am betting I will. We even went so far as to make a model of how big the 47" at 16:9 will be vs the 35" at 4:3 and it is really only a bit larger in 'every day mode' which will be SD at 4:3 I am guessing.....


On the topic of SD, what is the real image quality of SD on the larger HDTV? The reason I ask is that we have a ton of stuff for my son on DVD as well as his normal desire to watch OTA broadcast of cartoons and such. Any idea if quality will get better with technology, or is it already there with the 'right' TV?


My heart at this point is set on 52-55" LCD..... :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
723 Posts
SD is pretty much garbage in = garbage out. With that said some SD is better than others and in my experience, OTA is noticeably better than cable.


But if you had a nice (Sony Trinitron/XBR for instance) analog CRT doing SD, digital only goes down hill from there, plus you are usually sitting closer to a bigger screen. Remember, you'd have to sit a fair ways away from an SD 50" CRT to not pick up the scan lines.


BTW... if SD is really important to you you may wish to consider an outboard video processor that is more adept at up-conversion than what you find in a typical TV or AVR. They're pricey though.


Another thought is a newer upscaling DVD player (even the cheaper ones are magical compared to an older progressive scan model of just a few years ago).
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top