|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.71.192.246
In Reply to: A Query. posted by AudioHead on February 14, 2006 at 10:50:48:
Personally I'd take that $368 and buy the biggest decent quality TV I could find. But then I'm an audiophile, not a videophile. To me a TV should be as big as possible and of decent quality. We have a bottom of the line 35" Sony in our bedroom and I think it's a perfect size for that room.
Upgrading to largest TV set possible wouldn't be a viable option in my case, but I am considering buying a larger-than-20
I didn't mean to a smart-ass in my previous reply.
No problem, didn't take it that way. Due your and Johns responses, I realize that a 20" just isn't big enough , considering what I want in 'home theater'. In my setting, 26" would be OK, 32" probably max., considering my viewing distance and available room space. 32", I think, would give me a good 'big screen' effect, seems I've been thinking too small in this regard. Horizontal bars of widescreen doesn't bother me, although this can be modified to some degree via 'zoom' and 'stretch' functions from what I've read. I also view straight on, not at angles, according to Consumer Reports Team, LCD TVs are inferior to some other types when viewing off center. Plus,their ability to reproduce
deepest blacks, which I presume affect contrast (and I watch a number of B&W films). Then there are reliability factors: LCDs and Plasmas have not been around long enough for CR Team to assess long-term reliability, although some of the major brands have done well after one year. At any rate, you were on-the-mark about upsizing past 20", thanks again. ~AH
~AH
Question: Do you think it advisable to upgrade to a 20" LCD Flat-Panel TV. My answer: No.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: