I wish we'd see a larger selection of affordable LARGE TVs

[boe]

I read an article on MSN that made me laugh. It actually said you don't have to go as LARGE as 50" you could save money on a 40". 50"!!! That's fine for the guest bathroom but how about something BIG for the living room. I know they make 100+" TVs but unless you are a sports hero or Bill Gates, they can be a tad expensive for the average HT fan. I know sony is releasing a new XBR5 SXRD TV in a few months. And while $5,000 might seem like a lot to some I think that would be reasonable if the TV is good. I paid $3000 for my 65" Mits a few years ago and don't regret it. Although it is CRT it still has one of the best displays available. However, I would love to get something BIG to replace it but I don't want to exceed $7,500 for a TV. I think if Sony made an 80" XBR5 TV that looked good it would probably be reasonably priced and sell like hotcakes. I know other people with 65" TV's looking to upgrade but beyond 70" there isn't a whole lot available at a price point we can afford.

 

[Thaedium]

I read an article on MSN that made me laugh. It actually said you don't have to go as LARGE as 50" you could save money on a 40". 50"!!! That's fine for the guest bathroom but how about something BIG for the living room. I know they make 100+" TVs but unless you are a sports hero or Bill Gates, they can be a tad expensive for the average HT fan. I know sony is releasing a new XBR5 SXRD TV in a few months. And while $5,000 might seem like a lot to some I think that would be reasonable if the TV is good. I paid $3000 for my 65" Mits a few years ago and don't regret it. Although it is CRT it still has one of the best displays available. However, I would love to get something BIG to replace it but I don't want to exceed $7,500 for a TV. I think if Sony made an 80" XBR5 TV that looked good it would probably be reasonably priced and sell like hotcakes. I know other people with 65" TV's looking to upgrade but beyond 70" there isn't a whole lot available at a price point we can afford.

You think of 65" TV's as small? ...wha? Well, for most of us I'm going to assume that in their living rooms a 65" TV is plenty of screen, my 40" is good, I'd like to go to 60, but honestly anything more then that is just too much screen. I'm sitting approx 8 to 10 feet out from the screen, so anything larger is just not feasible in my mind.

My guess is that the TV companies don't feel its feasible to create such super-sized TV's for the average buyer. The weight and size start becomming serious logistical considerations once they start exceeding 70", if they haven't already at that point. By that, I mean transport, installation, etc.

Honestly though, if you want so much bigger my suggestion would be to move on to a projector. You can easily achieve over 100" at a very affordable budget, cheaper then your current beast of a TV.

This however brings up a sort of fine line between living rooms and home theatre rooms. The average consumer has living rooms, which is a space designed to be used not only for viewing movies and such entertainment, but social gatherings, drinking beer , etc... Did I mention drinking beer? Getting a TV exceeding 70" in that space, with a serious audio system redefines that living space into a home theatre space, at which point its going to lose some of that living spaciness.

Course, thats just my opinion of it.

 

[Audioholics]

Apparently this season marks a time when 60" is the new 50"... Prices have come down sufficiently such that 50-inches is becoming the new norm. Last year that number would have been 42-inches.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Someday, I might move up to a 42". It is hard to talk myself into spending that much, though (especially as my 34" tube has such an awesome picture.)

 

[Kolia]

You think of 65" TV's as small? ...wha? Well, for most of us I'm going to assume that in their living rooms a 65" TV is plenty of screen, my 40" is good, I'd like to go to 60, but honestly anything more then that is just too much screen. I'm sitting approx 8 to 10 feet out from the screen, so anything larger is just not feasible in my mind.

My guess is that the TV companies don't feel its feasible to create such super-sized TV's for the average buyer. The weight and size start becomming serious logistical considerations once they start exceeding 70", if they haven't already at that point. By that, I mean transport, installation, etc.

Honestly though, if you want so much bigger my suggestion would be to move on to a projector. You can easily achieve over 100" at a very affordable budget, cheaper then your current beast of a TV.

This however brings up a sort of fine line between living rooms and home theatre rooms. The average consumer has living rooms, which is a space designed to be used not only for viewing movies and such entertainment, but social gatherings, drinking beer , etc... Did I mention drinking beer? Getting a TV exceeding 70" in that space, with a serious audio system redefines that living space into a home theatre space, at which point its going to lose some of that living spaciness.

Course, thats just my opinion of it.

I agree! I have a 42" plasma. It would be nice to have a bigger screen while watching a movie. But when it's OFF, it takes a lot of space visually. 50" would have been too much for my taste.

I'll go with with a 1080p projector in a dedicated room eventually. But for a tv, I'll stick to sub 50" and 720p only.

 

[splatnik]

Just out of curiosity, what does a 65" CRT weigh? My 34" comes in at 188 lbs.

 

[GlocksRock]

Apparently this season marks a time when 60" is the new 50"... Prices have come down sufficiently such that 50-inches is becoming the new norm. Last year that number would have been 42-inches.

Very true... I'm looking at the new 65" 1080p Mitsubishi DLP and the 73" version of the same tv is $1000 more, so while I would like the larger tv, it's not worth an extra grand. And I think that 65" is the perfect size for viewing from 11 feet.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Just out of curiosity, what does a 65" CRT weigh? My 34" comes in at 188 lbs.

Direct-view CRTs are very heavy because of the glass. 34" is as big as they get (though I think there were 40 inchers at one time.) A 65" can only be rear-projection, so it may actually be lighter than your 34".

 

[Joe Schmoe]

I agree! I have a 42" plasma. It would be nice to have a bigger screen while watching a movie. But when it's OFF, it takes a lot of space visually. 50" would have been too much for my taste.

I'll go with with a 1080p projector in a dedicated room eventually. But for a tv, I'll stick to sub 50" and 720p only.

If I ever decide to get something bigger, a projector might be the way to go. Screen size is effectively unlimited, and prices have become reasonable lately.

 

[annunaki]

Direct-view CRTs are very heavy because of the glass. 34" is as big as they get (though I think there were 40 inchers at one time.) A 65" can only be rear-projection, so it may actually be lighter than your 34".

Highly doubtfull as 9" CRT's (assuming that is what is used) are fairly heavy in their own right probably 30 pounds each or so, maybe more (guessing). Not only that, they have to be mounted very securely to avoid shifting in shipment and installation. They are usually mounted to a 5/8" or 3/4" particle board or MDF housing. Not to mention all the electronics and the first surface mirror that go into the set. I know a 65" Sony XBR crt rear projection set I helped deliver to a customers home some years back was about 288 pounds!

I am glad to see the rear projection market shift from CRT from a delivery and install standpoint.

 

[darien87]

Apparently this season marks a time when 60" is the new 50"... Prices have come down sufficiently such that 50-inches is becoming the new norm. Last year that number would have been 42-inches.

My current TV is 48". When I get a new one, probably later this year, I'd like to go a little bigger, probably 52" or so.

 

[boe]

I believe my rear projection mits is about 200lbs or a tad more. Still has a great picture but I'd like something in the 80" range.

I've heard the argument about this would be too big - every person I know who bought at TV they thought was too big has always said afterwards I should have or could have gone bigger now that I've tried it out.

There are crazy rules of thumb that are way off for size vs. viewing distance - total rubbish. People are different - they don't all have the same peripheral vision or comprehension. You go to the doctors and he measures you for glasses because not everyone has the same peripheral vision. If you've taken any advanced testing for say a goverment exam you may have been tested on how much of your peripheral vision you really comprehended. People are different so a one size fits all chart of distance vs. screen size is about as useful as saying a bull horn is as good of a speaker as you'll ever need for your center channel.

 

[Thaedium]

People are different so a one size fits all chart of distance vs. screen size is about as useful as saying a bull horn is as good of a speaker as you'll ever need for your center channel.

True enough. Ultimately, you are right in that screen size is entirely the buyers preference. You are the one putting the money down for it, and you are the one who has to live with that purchase.

In my case, I am in a relatively small room, 14x11ft and the 40" TV is acceptable, anything smaller would be terrible. On the other hand, a TV screen with nearly or double that screen size would be absurd for me.

On the whole though, I agree with your original statement regarding price issues... The sooner the companies start thinking the 73" are the new 42" the sooner my beloved Pioneer Elite Kuro's 60" might become a lil more affordable

In the meantime, my Sony at 1080i will have to be good enough, or at least I'll up my consumption of beer so it seems as good as my memory recalls the Kuros.

 

[Kolia]

Nobody watches TV with their peripheral vision...

Visual acuity is pretty much standard for individual with 20/20 vision. So if pixel resolution vs perception is used as reference, then math can be used. A huge SD TV will suck to look at, at close range...

I agree that in the end, personal preference is a major criteria. If one doesn't mind big and blocky images, go big!

 

[boe]

I checked out the Kuros - nice job of dark on dark but the picture appeared almost as if everything had a fine powder on it. I honestly believe in some ways my 5 year old TV looks better however my TV takes up a LOT of space as it is rear projection CRT. However my screen is 65" vs the Kuro 60". I might get it or a Panasonic for the bedroom. I hear the new Panasonics should be out this Spring and should look better than the current Pioneers. Mind you I'm not putting down the Pioneers but I sure want the absolute bang for the buck. I think the Runco's and the Fujitsu's (high end -not standard Fujitsu) look better but they are about twice the price of the Pioneer.

 

[Tod]

I suppose I'd do it differently if I had a different house, but that would mainly be to get the front speakers further apart for better imaging. I have an 8' wide screen and sit about 8' from it, maybe a couple inches less. No complaints from me about the viewing experience. In response to the comment about not watching with peripheral vision, think of the IMAX experience - get the right seat and your entire field of view can be taken up by the screen, giving you total immersion in the picture. Maybe not good for everything, but cool at times.

 

[Hi Ho]

Have any of you ever moved one of those 70" Mitsubishi Diamond CRT beasts? That must be the heaviest and largest TV ever made. I swear just the bottom half of it is the weight of an entire 65".

Anyway, front projection definetely gets you the most screen size for the money. My $900 Mitsubishi DLP projector can shine a 200" image if I wanted to and the picture is superb. The main problem is that you need a dark room to make it look good. Now if only those new black projection screens didn't cost five times more than the projector... Why are they so expensive anyway?

 

[MDS]

Have any of you ever moved one of those 70" Mitsubishi Diamond CRT beasts? That must be the heaviest and largest TV ever made.

It may not be a consideration for some, but I do think about weight. A giant TV is cool and all but if you have to get a few friends to come over and help you move it, that is a problem.

My sister has a 43" CRT and wanted a different stand. I bought one and had to have her help me lift it off the old stand (her husband was at work). That TV must have weighed 250 lbs. As soon as we lifted it off the old stand, she couldn't hold her end of it and we had to quickly move it back to the old stand and wait till my brother-in-law was home so two guys could lift the thing.

 

[boe]

I certainly consider it, that is why when they delivered my TV - in addition to the 2 guys that were dropping it off, I invited 4 of my friends over to help out. We had it from the street up two and a half flights of stairs into my living room in 5 minutes flat. I had already removed my door from the hinges and I had one friend making sure the main doors were ready. It was bulk along with the weight that made moving it a challenge.

 

[videobruce]

Go back 5 or 10 years, compare the prices, then tell us they aren't affordable.

$1,000 would buy you a 25" console TV back in the 70's. $9,000 would buy you a 50" Plasma at the turn of the century.
You can buy a 46" DLP RPTV for less than $1,000. How much cheaper do you want to go?