![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Masterpiece: Many architects also have an affinity with TV's above fireplaces.
In our new build we added dedicated room, which could double as a formal lounge...not.
So wrong. The TV's placed too high to begin with ...
dafman:
lNomNoml:
That's what she said?
Yep, she said it dominates the room.
Nearly fell off my chair, thanks for the laugh :p
"I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there." | Octopus Energy | Sharesies
- Richard Feynman
Masterpiece: Many architects also have an affinity with TV's above fireplaces.
In our new build we added dedicated room, which could double as a formal lounge...not.
architects and the home decorating/designer folks are deaf, dumb and blind when it comes to av equipment.
Behodar: Not to mention the AV companies' marketing departments. I've seen an ad for a surround sound system with all the speakers clustered around the TV!
Front heights and front wides are both completely viable speaker arrangements in a surround sound setup...
dafman:
Behodar:
Bah, 55" isn't tiny, just small. My 32" seemed huge when I got it but now it feels tiny in comparison to my 105" home theatre...
I remember spending $3.5k on my 29" CRT Panasonic in the late 80's - it was HUGE, the first movie I watched was Lost Boys, it was just like being in the cinema!
Then Philips bought out a 32" 16:9 CRT, even better than my Panny, I so wanted one. It was HUGE!
My Panasonic TH 42PV500 at a mere $5.7k replaced my 29" CRT. When it was pulled out of the box, I could't comprehend how big it was. I watched the first entire season of Sopranos on the first night. It was just like being at the cinema!
Shortly after, I auditioned a 50" NEC plamsa, my ultimate dream - but at a mere $12k (reduced in price from $17k) it was just too rich in price, so I could only dream.
And yesterday I took possession of my new Sony 55".
And it's tiny!
How times change.
I remember my Sony $3500 34" Gorgeous. But for you, the percentage difference in real estate from a 55 to 65 is huge.
joker97:
Ah women. If I can do math: 65 = huge 55 = tiny ... get her a 60"
In winter its smaller :-)
tdgeek:
dafman:
Behodar:
Bah, 55" isn't tiny, just small. My 32" seemed huge when I got it but now it feels tiny in comparison to my 105" home theatre...
I remember spending $3.5k on my 29" CRT Panasonic in the late 80's - it was HUGE, the first movie I watched was Lost Boys, it was just like being in the cinema!
Then Philips bought out a 32" 16:9 CRT, even better than my Panny, I so wanted one. It was HUGE!
My Panasonic TH 42PV500 at a mere $5.7k replaced my 29" CRT. When it was pulled out of the box, I could't comprehend how big it was. I watched the first entire season of Sopranos on the first night. It was just like being at the cinema!
Shortly after, I auditioned a 50" NEC plamsa, my ultimate dream - but at a mere $12k (reduced in price from $17k) it was just too rich in price, so I could only dream.
And yesterday I took possession of my new Sony 55".
And it's tiny!
How times change.
I remember my Sony $3500 34" Gorgeous. But for you, the percentage difference in real estate from a 55 to 65 is huge.
A guy I worked with had no Mrs... but a 40" Mitsubishi CRT....
I was blown away, especially after paying $1000 for my Samsung(IIRC?) 29" and my Yamaha amp, and a DVD player that cost me $800 (in Oz in the late 90's)
MikeB4:
I have often though our 65" VT Panasonic is a bit big. Should it pass from this world we will probably down size the screen a little.
Bigger is better IF the res is a great experience. If it was and its too big, a curtain etc might normalise the living room.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() |