AVS Forum banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
138 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I know I must be missing something, but after looking over the news from CES, it seems that everyone is vying for the "thinnest" HDTV title.


My question is, all other things being equal, why? I thought about thinner HDTV = lighter weight = easier to hang on the wall, but it seems that the vast majority of flat screen HDTVs are placed on a stand or other piece of furniture, so thinner doesn't help you there.


What am I missing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,088 Posts
Thinner means components have to be miniaturized. When that happens then I'm always concerned about reliability especially on first gen products. Cram more stuff into less space and there are potential issues. Also, it's easier to accidentally knock things over just by having much less mass. Children and clumsy adults like me should be a concern
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
Don't know why the huge fad over thinness is about. I, for one, want them to improve picture quality any day over this overblown issue. Once it is below a certain thinness, like 4", who cares.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
442 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by pclement /forum/post/15532862


Who wants to look at a fat model?


Maybe not fat ones , but I can't stand looking at , nor do I find attractive, the ones so thin that they look like crack whores
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,822 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilburpan /forum/post/15532291


I thought about thinner HDTV = lighter weight = easier to hang on the wall, but it seems that the vast majority of flat screen HDTVs are placed on a stand or other piece of furniture, so thinner doesn't help you there.


What am I missing?

Nothing, there is such a thing as "too thin". They are for wall hanging.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pclement /forum/post/15532862


Who wants to look at a fat model?

Models 3-4 inches deep still look thin, but not wafer thin. Old projector and back-breaking CRT TV's are fat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
121 Posts
I was thinking about this the other day. From what I've read, the consensus is that the last generation CRT HDTV's have the best picture, deepest black, little to no game lag, no motion blur, no judder, little chance of IR or burn-in, and are basically superior to today's LCDs, Plasmas, and DLPs in virtually every way.....unfortunately they topped out at 40"-42", were bulky, and weighed 300+ pounds.


The size and weight issues don't make them ideal for apartment living (I had a hell of time moving my old 36" CRT last time), but if I owned a home, had the room, and was looking for something in the 40" range, I'd go for a CRT, thinness be damned (I've seen some very cheap prices for XBR960's on craigslist).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,088 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsh1998 /forum/post/15533309


I was thinking about this the other day. From what I've read, the consensus is that the last generation CRT HDTV's have the best picture, deepest black, little to no game lag, no motion blur, no judder, little chance of IR or burn-in, and are basically superior to today's LCDs, Plasmas, and DLPs in virtually every way.....unfortunately they topped out at 40"-42", were bulky, and weighed 300+ pounds.


The size and weight issues don't make them ideal for apartment living (I had a hell of time moving my old 36" CRT last time), but if I owned a home, had the room, and was looking for something in the 40" range, I'd go for a CRT, thinness be damned (I've seen some very cheap prices for XBR960's on craigslist).

I have a xbr960 and a Samsung 950 LCD. While the 960 is a great set the blacks don't look better to me than the 950 LCD. Plus there is the size issue. Now that I'm at 55" the 34" crt looks minature. I would never use it as my prime tv now
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
119 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilburpan /forum/post/15532291


I know I must be missing something, but after looking over the news from CES, it seems that everyone is vying for the "thinnest" HDTV title.


My question is, all other things being equal, why? I thought about thinner HDTV = lighter weight = easier to hang on the wall, but it seems that the vast majority of flat screen HDTVs are placed on a stand or other piece of furniture, so thinner doesn't help you there.


What am I missing?

well maybe the reason the vast majority of the time HDTVs are on a stand or on a piece of furniture is because they're not thin and lightweight enough to hang on a wall easily? imagine if an HDTV weighed as much as a comparably sized picture frame. You wouldnt need heavy duty wall mounts with huge bolts that leave big holes in the wall anymore. You could possibly do suspended ceiling mounts too. how cool would that be?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,185 Posts
thin is only good when it comes to oled, maybe plasma too, other than that its totally counterproductive to make lcd's thin since the physics involved just don't make sense to make lcd tech thin, it just makes the Picture and viewing angles worst off.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
866 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by meh :-| /forum/post/15533457


well maybe the reason the vast majority of the time HDTVs are on a stand or on a piece of furniture is because they're not thin and lightweight enough to hang on a wall easily? imagine if an HDTV weighed as much as a comparably sized picture frame. You wouldnt need heavy duty wall mounts with huge bolts that leave big holes in the wall anymore. You could possibly do suspended ceiling mounts too. how cool would that be?

Any mass marketed lcd tv is lightweight enough to hang easily. The average 52" lcd is probably 80lbs. Obviously plasma is more. The big reason more are not hung is expense of buying the needed materials to do it properly. Some people dont have the ability or aptitude that it takes and dont want to pay a professional. To hang a tv no matter what size with no wires showing requires cl-2 rated cables, a clock outlet behind the tv and an in the wall surge protector. There are kits on the market for surge protection other in the wall but there still is an expense. To most people it is much easier to just set the tv on the stand that is already there holding their components.


It is no different hanging a thin model on the wall then it is a 4" thick average size one. You still have to screw a mount into your studs and hang the tv on the mount. It is just that the thinner one may be a little lighter but at any size over 32" - 37" you will still need 2 people to do it safely. Lifting the tv onto the mount is the easiest part of the installation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,666 Posts
I look forward to the day when the wall itself is powered and you can slap on a TV like it was a Fathead and get all your connectivity wireless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,057 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul416 /forum/post/15532898


Maybe not fat [women] , but I can't stand looking at , nor do I find attractive, the ones so thin that they look like crack whores

+1


In-shape, athletic-looking women are great, but ones that have the figure of a 12-year old boy are not.


Those Paris fashion designers should be b*tch-slapped for making all the teenage girls want to be a size zero. Ugh. Scrawns-ville.



But I digress.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,057 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilburpan /forum/post/15532291


I know I must be missing something, but after looking over the news from CES, it seems that everyone is vying for the "thinnest" HDTV title.


My question is, all other things being equal, why? I thought about thinner HDTV = lighter weight = easier to hang on the wall, but it seems that the vast majority of flat screen HDTVs are placed on a stand or other piece of furniture, so thinner doesn't help you there.


What am I missing?

For HDTVs, it's just a 'sexay' thing, I think.


Motorola made a killing by making cellphones thin, Apple's made a killing by making laptops thin. The TV makers are just hoping lightning strikes thrice, and it might.


It's a competitive edge to them... i.e., "We've got everything they've got, AND we're sleeker and sexier."


Now, one can make counter-arguments against thin, saying why it's actually a disadvantage, but Joe Average is not well-acquainted with the drawbacks of going thin. He just sees thin, and goes, "Ooh, cool." For a salesguy on the floor of a big-box store, it's probably easier to sell a thin set then to sell against it.


For better or worse.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top